Creating Sustainable University Community Partnerships in Research Intensive Universities

1. Creating Sustainable University Community Partnerships in Research Intensive Universities Section II

2. Section II Case Example:Building Capacity in Communities of Immigrant and Refugee Background through Campus-Community Partnerships Rosemarie Hunter, PhD University Neighborhood Partners Nancy Basinger, PhD Lowell Bennion Community Service Center University of Utah

3. History and Context • US - University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah • Research Intensive University – 30,000 students • In 2001, institutional data showed that the University was not serving the west side of Salt Lake City • 2 zip code areas, 7 neighborhoods, rapidly changing demographics • 60% of the Latino population and 80% of the refugee populations

4. Ask the Community • Year-long conversations – over 200 interviews with community partners • Major Themes • You must be located in the neighborhoods, you can not come and go • We have our own leaders! Help us to build their capacity to lead these communities. • Start early – Importance of Early Childhood Education and Lifelong Learning • Issues are complex – affordable housing, health care, employment….

5. University Neighborhood Partners • University Neighborhood Partners (UNP) brings together University and west side resources for reciprocal learning, action, and benefit… a community coming together. • Organizationally under the President’s Office, geographically located on the west side of SLC • Assets-based approach to community development that focuses on existing strengths as well as placing the highest priority on needs-assessment by the community itself.

6. Case Example Think Tank on New American Communities • In recent decades, populations seeking refuge have underscored the limitations of what have been standard approaches to resettlement. Since the 1970’s, Salt Lake City has been a U.S refugee resettlement site and a destination for economic migrants. • As newcomers in the community many individuals lack the necessary language skills &the social and cultural capital necessary to navigate new social service systems. At the same time, these new communities bring rich histories, diverse perspective and multicultural knowledge and skills.

7. Context of Resettlement • The US State Department resources cover the first month of arrival, however resettlement agencies are responsible for outcomes for up to six months. The resettlement agencies are dependent on securing other resources to fulfill their mission under State Department guidelines. • During the first 30 days, resettlement agencies are connecting families to programs. Once the initial benefit from the State Department’s reception and placement has expired, the refugee family is responsible for their own rent, food, health, and transportation needs.  

8. Emergence of Micro Nonprofits • Partnership managers received many requests from residents they worked with for additional assistance in building organizations to support their communities who were not adequately supported by existing governmental and non-profit sector programs. • Utah Refugee Services Office offered small start up grants and management trainings (MAA, CBO’s) • Through community-based assessments, partners identified a set of common needs among many small community organizations serving populations of immigrant and refugee backgrounds.

9. Issues of Capacity & Sustainability • Mainstream service systems (social, educational, health) are difficult navigate • Often one or a few individuals in the community were doing everything (who had the language and the experience). • Community members were often in dual roles • In Fall 2010, members from the University of Utah and Salt Lake Community College and community partners began meeting to discuss the emerging needs in the community’s micro-nonprofit sectorserving communities of immigrant and refugee experiences.

10. Phase 1: Qualitative Research • Think Tank students met with key stakeholders and leaders of immigrant and refugee backgrounds to better understand their experiences with community engagement in their countries of origin and their experiences with recruiting volunteers post migration. • Students presented the preliminary findings of interviews at the annual 2012 Utah State Refugee Conference to groups of service providers, community-based organizations and the community members.

11. Utah • Today over 46,000 people of refugee status are living in UT; 99% in the Salt Lake Valley. • Annually between 1,000 and 1,100 new refugees arrive in Utah. • The largest refugee communities are Somali, Sudanese, Bhutanese, and Iraqi (about 5000 people each). • Approximately 20 smaller refugee populations are represented in the Valley, including: Karen, Karenni, Chin, Mon, all from Burma; Togo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Liberia, Sierre Leone, Congo, Burundi, Ghana, Rwanda; (and from the former Soviet Union) Bhutan, Cuba, Columbia, Afghanistan; and Iran. • Over 100 languages are spoken in the homes that support the Salt Lake School District.

12. Opportunities/Challenges • Training and empowering community leaders from each population • “The main goal for (myself) is to work ourselves out of a job. So that the community will be self-sufficient, that they don’t need a community center to help.” • At the same time, many leaders are overwhelmed working full time while at the same time helping their community members to connect to services and find resources.

13. Why Volunteerism? • In working with these community leaders we are finding that a small group (sometimes really one) leader is doing the bulk of the work of the organization supporting their community. • For these organizations to be sustainable, volunteers are needed to meet demand for direct services and fill additional leadership roles in the organization.

14. Research Process • Three guest speakers visited our class (from Iraq, Sudan, and Sierra Leone) • Student teams conducted nine interviews (ten individuals) • Communities represented: Karen, Somali Bantu, Somali (4), Peruvian, Kurdish Iraqi, Bhutanese (2) • Interview questions (examples) • What strategies does your community use to increase volunteer involvement? • What motivates you to volunteer? • What are the difference you see between US and your home country in terms of how people help each other?

15. Preliminary Results – Volunteerism and Utah Refugees • What did our data tell us about volunteerism in refugee organizations and refugee communities? What matters? • Leadership • Generational issues • Balancing assimilation, acculturation vs. integration approaches • Systems in US act as barriers (need to “bridge the gap)

16. We are Engaged! • Leadership "Everybody (who can) in the community volunteers and helps each other out. If you volunteer a lot, you will probably be chosen as a leader.” • Resources • Lack of resources to support community members who volunteer • Lack of organization, how to recruit and manage volunteers • Need an increase in individuals from the community • Other Utahns • Need More Help! • When there’s no organization the same people have to do it all

17. Theme 2: Shifting Roles & Power: Generational Challenges • Conflict • New family relationship challenges prevent communities from getting involved(generational, integration, language, role and power shifts) • They are focused on internal issues, family and generational conflicts. • Dependence • Children depend on parents…. but the parents also now depend on the children, especially in the area of language (power shifts) • Involvement • Involving the 2nd generation is easier, but the first generation is a challenge

18. Theme 3: Assimilation vs. Integration • 1st generation fear assimilation of self and their children. A sense of loss of identity, home and culture. • On the other hand, full assimilation is sometimes promoted as “being successful”(this is changing). • How can we be successful – achieve the “American Dream” and still retain our identity and culture? • Striving for self success and self sufficiency vs. helping the community (individualism vs. collectivism).

19. Theme 4: Bridging the gap between the Old and New Countries • Systemic Issues: • US systems are different – need Utahns to help fill gaps • difficulty to acquire certification for professions • economic disparities, East SLC so different from West SLC • language barriers/cultural differences discourage people with refugee/immigrant status from seeking the help they need • Solutions: • the strengths of the young people lies in their ability to be open-minded and open to see the problems as they are.

20. Theme 5: Bridging:Education of Utahns • Teach them about new communities and the need/strengths. • Build trust & respect • US volunteers must NOT come in like an authority with an agenda • Come to understand - learn and serve • “I would say first it’s awareness, making people aware that there are so many more than, yeah, maybe more than that, than 40,000 individuals came from different countries all over the world.”

21. Theme 5: Education • Formal (Youth) • Grasp of the English language and exposure to resources through school • Addresses community concerns about youth dropping out, engaging in illicit activities etc.. • Informal (Parents) • Teach the first generation the US systems. They are not familiar with school hours, absence policies, and after school activities • Promotes capacity building – interviewees stressed the importance of education for all community members about the language, system, employment resources etc..

22. Findings • Volunteerism may occur formally (within specific roles in organizations) or informally (as with neighbors helping neighbors). • Within New American communities – our research surfaced that “formal volunteering” may be most important to encourage among the youth • While it may be more important to build the capacity of their parents to reinforce the “informal volunteering.”

23. Findings Continued • Both youth and adults from these emergent communities who are able to access some form of education (language, etc..) are at the best candidates for volunteerism because they will be cognizant of the obstacles faced by the community, and will be able to help others connect to the said education/resources like they did. Conversely, they are also best placed to share their communities with the native SLC community at large and perhaps bring assets and ideas into the systems.

24. Phase 2: Engagement • Spring Semester - Think Tank Students (11) partner with 3 community partners (who also participated in the research phase) on projects that community partners identified. Community Partners Utah Autism Project Hartland Partnership Center Resident Committee South Sudanese Community Association

25. Phase 2: Outcomes - Capacity Building & Education • Capacity Building with New American Communities • Community Partners gain access to University Library and online course materials and discussions • Membership to Utah Nonprofits Association • Dialogue with Donors Event (both CB & E) • Brochures, Workshops and Speakers, Resource Mapping, Data Analysis (both CB & E) • Access to small grant for participating partners. • Education with Local Communities • Conference Presentations • Two Documentary Film Screening and Dialogue Events

26. Sustaining Partnerships in Research Intensive Settings • Leadership - needs to be at the highest level • Integrated with the academic mission of the institution (teaching and research – i.e. Community engaged learning, research, think tank model, needs and strengths assessments, community-based research) • Valued and recognized at the institution – Do it and they will see it - Critical Mass, Positive Press for higher partners, donors who are interested in community, RPT • Push for institutional support at upper levels of administration- funding that provides incentives, higher education awards (Carnegie, President’s Honor Roll)

27. Faculty • Course buy out or other supports • Service Learning coordinators, Graduate Assistants • Group Support Mechanisms – Engaged Faculty Institute, Faculty Fellow, CBR research groups • Faculty Awards – Community Scholar in Residence, Hartland Scholar • CBR Grants

28. Community Partners • Formal roles for community partners – (teaching and research assistants, co-instructors, community faculty, Community Resident in Action) • Location, Timing and Equity - Credit-bearing community located courses – credit and resources available to partners. • Support Mechanisms - Service Learning Coordinators • Bringing partners into higher education spaces – physically located in departments • Community Partner Stipends

29. Student Supports • Engagement as an Institutional Culture (MUSE, Office of Engagement, Block U) • Community Engagement and CBR embedded in curricular areas • Engaged Groups ( Service Learning Scholars, Social Justice Scholars, Community Engaged Think Tanks) • Community Focused Internships (partnership and/or CBR)

30. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of the members of the community who helped us with this research!

31. Questions • What would it look like if community was centered at your institution of higher education ..think both on campus and in community spaces? • If resources and institutional barriers were not an issue (or perhaps, if you were guaranteed success)  what bold innovative programs would you propose ?