Reaching Beyond Boundaries
How Anchor Universities Can Rebuild
Cities and Revitalize Neighborhoods
Remarks by
Nancy Zimpher
President, University of Cincinnati
May 11, 2007
at the
University Park Alliance Awards Luncheon
The University of Akron
INTRODUCTION
Good afternoon. Thank you for taking time from your
busy schedules to be here. And Luis, thank you for your
most generous introduction … and for your invitation to
be part of this important conversation.
When I agreed to be here … and when Luis and I signed
on to co-author a white paper on the relationship between
urban research universities and their communities for The
Brookings Institution … I did not know that my time in
Ohio would soon be ending, and that I would be preparing
for a new, exciting challenge in New York.
Ohio is my home. I was born and raised in Gallipolis. I
was educated at The Ohio State University. And much of
my professional work has been here in my native state.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 1
So sometimes I have difficulty accepting the fact that my
time here is rapidly coming to a close. But then, I said that
when I left Ohio State eleven years ago and moved to
Milwaukee.
As I prepare for the challenges that await me in Albany, I
feel a satisfying flood of emotions rising from the many
enriching experiences I’ve had in Ohio. I will always
value the professional associations and friendships that I
have had here. And I will always look with pride to what
we have accomplished at the University of Cincinnati
during my tenure.
Only time will tell what I’ve left behind. But I know that
I’m leaving with a refreshed and renewed sense of the
value of higher education – for both learners and
communities. And I’m leaving with a conviction that
Gary Hamel, one of the world’s most influential business
thinkers, was right when he wrote that “the gap between
what can be imagined and what can be accomplished
has never been smaller.”
UNIVERSITIES AND THE REBULDING
OF AMERICA’S CITIES
Hamel’s confidence is a fitting place to launch today’s
conversation about how urban research universities can
help address the challenges facing America’s cities …
their once-proud neighborhoods and metropolitan regions.
It offers a compelling context for confronting three 21st
century realities.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 2
One … our nation’s future is ultimately connected to the
future of its cities.
Two … urban universities play a key role in shaping the
direction of their communities.
And three … these universities have a far better chance of
working effectively if they collaborate with the
communities of which they are a part.
The idea is simple. By harnessing the collective power of
our public urban research universities, we will rebuild
America’s cities and once again make them places for
opportunity, innovation and vitality.
The idea is evolutionary. By forging a new compact
between our public urban research universities and their
communities, we will bring to full fruition the land-grant
spirit of the Morrill Act of 1862, with new ambitious
levels of relevance, resilience and reciprocal value.
And the idea is profound. By compelling our public
urban research universities to choose engagement with
their communities and neighborhoods over retrenchment
inside the “ivory tower,” we will transform lives, society
and the world.
The underlying vision here is as much a mandate as it is
an aspiration. Powerful drivers of relentless change –
globalization, technology, demographic shifts and
economic restructuring – demand that we scrutinize and
redefine the role of research universities in the 21st
century.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 3
They confirm that it is not enough for our great urban
universities to be aware of how the world is changing –
that we must also embrace game-changing innovations
that build strong communities, create a competitive
workforce by strengthening cities’ education pipelines,
and improve the health and well-being of our diverse
urban populations.
At its core, this is a mandate for greater relevance in our
research universities, and for heightened levels of
engagement with their communities. As such, might we
not also regard this as an opportunity to fully implement
what America began in 1862 with the Morrill Act?
Land-grant universities created by that landmark
legislation were asked to focus on agriculture and the
mechanical arts … and so they have to this day. Surely a
strong case can be made for expecting our 21st century
urban research universities to disseminate and apply – for
the public good – existing and emerging knowledge in
every area of discovery … not just agriculture and the
mechanical arts.
Surely our “people’s universities” can be challenged to
provide educational value for ordinary people – and to
stimulate economic growth, revitalize urban communities
and advance social justice.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 4
This is not a new idea. Educators from Thomas Jefferson
to John Dewey and Ernest Boyer, one of my predecessors
at SUNY, have argued that universities ought to engage in
the world, and that knowledge exists to be used.
And Luis, perhaps you said it best when you wrote,
“Quite simply, urban universities are a major force in,
of and for our cities. They are key anchors for urban
revitalization and regional economic development.”
What we contemplate today are exacting new standards
for relevance and engagement … standards that respond
to the economic and social decline of so many oncevibrant urban population centers.
Our urban research universities have not always been
eager to embrace tests of relevance, expectations for
engagement or, for that matter, measures of
accountability. The battle between the pursuit of
knowledge for its own sake and the application of
knowledge to provide public benefit has survived
generations … and it continues strong today.
Yet, today, we find solid evidence on many of our
campuses that a transformation is underway … and that
new standards for relevance and engagement are
emerging. We also find a growing understanding that we
are not talking about an either/or choice – that universities
can be engaged in the pursuit and explanation of
knowledge while at the same time demonstrating
sensitivity to the needs of a global society and providing
leadership in solving the problems that preoccupy it.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 5
We should not be surprised.
Up to World War II, there was little recognition of the
potential impact of universities’ research enterprise. Yet,
during the past 60 years, our great research universities
have evolved into vital drivers of local, regional and
national economies. They have become dominating
sources of scientific talent and basic research.
Great cities and great universities thrive reciprocally on
each other’s strengths.
Great universities contribute in major ways to their urban
context. At the same time, they draw from the great
resources that are inherent in their surrounding
metropolitan areas. More than ever before, they are linked
to the vitality of their surrounding neighborhoods and
communities.
Universities are recognizing that helping to improve the
health, safety, quality of life and economic vitality of their
communities and neighborhoods – and responding to their
educational and service needs – serves universities’ own
institutional objectives by enhancing their ability to attract
the brightest young students and world-class teachers,
scholars and researchers.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 6
Similarly, major metropolitan areas across America are
looking to their urban universities to provide future
community leaders and an educated and engaged citizenry
… to conduct research and develop innovations that will
create future economic opportunity … and to play a
critical role through leadership and investment in
revitalizing and redeveloping their communities and
neighborhoods.
The symbiotic nature of this relationship is driving the
pulse of a new energy we find in our cities as we update
our notion of urban research universities as places where
40,000-foot thinking meets ground-level doing – and
where the benefits of higher education are extended to a
much wider circle of beneficiaries.
Perhaps above all else, what enables our research
universities to help create this dynamic intersection of
idea and action is the fact that they are both literally and
figuratively grounded in their cities.
HARNESSING THE POWER OF
ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS
America’s universities and colleges, in and of themselves,
are longstanding members of their communities. Very
simply, they are “community-based” organizations. Yet,
their role as anchor institutions remains a relatively new
concept.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 7
But what exactly is meant by “anchor institutions”?
They are not just universities – they can be museums,
libraries, performing arts venues, municipal enterprises,
hospitals, parks, sports arenas or any institutions with a
vested interest in their communities. They all have a
significant infrastructure investment in a specific
community.
These organizations cannot pick up and move easily, and
therefore represent what CEOs for Cities calls “sticky
capital.” Because they are so place-bound, anchor
institutions hold “special importance to the re-making of
a city and its future, and they have special reason to
want to be instrumental in shaping their cities’ future
(although all will not choose to do so).”
While the concept of anchor institutions is relatively new,
the practice of urban universities attempting to improve
social conditions in their cities and surrounding
neighborhoods first surfaced at the beginning of the
twentieth century. John Hopkins, Columbia, The
University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania
were among the early adopters of this model, which most
American universities shunned until the 1980s.
Twenty-years ago, a growing number of universities and
colleges took a second look at this unconventional model.
Faced with mounting poverty and distressed housing
stock outside their gates, these “anchor universities” saw
their responsibility to help their surrounding
neighborhoods.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 8
There is something else that connects anchor institutions.
They tend to be hubs of employment, often attracting a
highly educated and well-paid workforce. They pay
wages, purchase goods and services, generate tax revenue
and invest in their cities.
The white paper that Luis and I are preparing for The
Brookings Institution will delve into the research
documenting universities’ economic importance for the
revitalization of their neighborhoods and communities.
Let me share two findings.
First, Harkavy and Zuckerman’s research for The
Brookings Institution in 1999 concluded that institutions
of higher learning “(called “eds”) and medical facilities
(called “meds”) are among the largest employers in
America’s biggest cities. In a survey of the top 10 private
employers in the 20 largest American cities, they found
that “eds” and “meds” account for more than half of the
jobs generated in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, San
Diego and Baltimore.
And second, summarizing the findings of a 2007
conference sponsored by CEOs for Cities, David
Maurasse has written that universities, colleges and other
anchors can have a tremendous economic importance on
communities by stimulating the development of industries
and industry clusters … increasing the desirability of
neighborhoods through real estate investments …
contributing a global perspective on local competitive
conditions ... and much more.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 9
HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE
GREATER GOOD
Ohio has a wealth of large cities with seven of the
nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas – Akron,
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and
Youngstown. Each has challenges as our nation’s
economy has shifted from an industrial to a
knowledge/service base. Yet, each remains a vital
contributor to the state’s prosperity and well-being.
According to The Brookings Institution, Ohio’s large
urban areas account for 71 percent of the state’s
population, 76 percent of the state’s jobs, and 80 percent
of the state’s gross domestic product.
While their economic and social challenges will no doubt
worsen with the nation’s current economic downturn,
these communities host a rich array of anchors to help
weather the storm and position the state for greater
strength as the economy improves. These anchors range
from the Cleveland Clinic, Akron Art Museum and
Toledo Zoo in the northern part of the state, to
Cincinnati’s Great American Ball Park and Music Hall in
the south, and to state government and The Ohio State
University in the middle.
In all, more than 205 universities and colleges call Ohio
home, many of them located in urban areas where they
are uniquely positioned as vital drivers for the economy
through student, faculty and staff impact.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 10
And as anchor institutions, a number of these universities
and colleges have taken on new roles in revitalizing
neighborhoods and spawning community development.
And it’s these roles that I want to examine this afternoon.
In 2000, syndicated columnist Neal Peirce issued a
“wake-up call for academia.” He wrote, “There is an
appetite out there for attuned universities, truly engaged
with their communities. Call it a market, if you like. It’s
new, it’s different and my bet is it can only grow.”
And Pierce concluded, “For years, I’ve suspected that
universities could and should be a resource, a secret
asset, for the health and growth of great cities.”
Nearly a decade later, it is clear that Pierce’s “wake-up
call” was heard … at least by some anchor universities.
And how they responded is the story I want to explore
with you.
TWO SUCCESS STORIES: THE CASE OF OHIO
When you read the white paper that Luis and I are
preparing for The Brookings Institution – and we know
that all of you will – you will see detailed summaries of
exciting partnerships and promising collaborations. You
will read documented accounts of how our anchor
universities are revitalizing neighborhoods and building
strong communities … creating a competitive workforce
… and improving the health and well-being of diverse
populations.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 11
Let me highlight a few of these stories … and we can
begin right here in Akron, where the university and the
community have been virtually inseparable for nearly
140 years.
The university’s rare, prolonged high level of engagement
with the Greater Akron area and its surrounding
neighborhoods has included the nation’s first universitysponsored urban renewal project. Using loans provided by
the Federal Housing Act of 1959, the university bought 23
acres of property adjacent to its campus and created
athletic fields for intercollegiate and intramural
competition as well as physical education classes and
recreational use.
Reflecting on this community partnership, Luis told the
Akron Roundtable 40 years later, “The university …
served as a stabilizing and energizing force for Akron …
a growing and vital enterprise that would not be moving
out of state or sold to absentee owners. The University of
Akron provided a sense of permanence, while
simultaneously helping to reinvent our region.”
Still, the university’s formal involvement in community
development activities did not begin until 2000, when it
launched – with the community – an aggressive
revitalization program that had a profound impact. The
University Park Alliance was formed in the first days of a
new century, and the University of Akron Research
Foundation – a nationally top-ranked technology transfer
operation – was created in 2001.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 12
All of you are familiar with this story. University Park
was a 50-block area immediately surrounding the
university. It exhibited many of the problems that plague
perimeter neighborhoods at other urban-sited universities.
University Park is a very different place today, in large
part because …
 The university’s leaders have invested $500 million
in the New Landscape for Living project.
 In partnership with the city and Mayor
Don Plusequellic (plus-QUELL-ik) – and with
myriad community organizations such as Akron
Children’s Hospital, Summa Health System, Akron
General Medical System, Akron Public Schools,
Greater Akron Chamber, Akron Metropolitan
Housing Authority, Akron Beacon Journal and the
newborn University Park Development Corporation,
the University Park Alliance has begun revitalizing
the area.
 And with major funding from The John S. and
James L. Knight Foundation, the Alliance has made
significant investments in housing, private realestate and business development.
Even more impressive, the University Park Alliance
agreed in 2006 to work toward several transformational
goals during a five-year period:
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 13
 1,000 new jobs. Through 2008, 900 jobs had been
created or attracted to the area.
 500 new housing units. Through 2008, more than
80 units were approved, under construction or
completed.
 $500 million in private investment. Through 2008,
more than $300 million had been secured and it is
anticipated that another $500 million to $1 billion
will be invested in the urban center by 2011.
 $80 million in civic investment. Through 2008,
approximately $52 million had been confirmed.
The success of the University of Akron Research
Foundation is no less remarkable.
In 2000, even though it had a portfolio of 350 patents, the
university had no significant licensing income and just
one spin-out company. So it formed a not-for-profit
research foundation to serve as a catalyst for enhanced
regional collaboration around innovation and technology
transfer, and to provide a legal mechanism through which
the university and its researchers could participate more
effectively in technology transfer … and to provide a
legal mechanism through which the university and its
researchers could participate more effectively in
technology transfer.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 14
Less than a decade later …
 The research foundation’s Akron Innovation
Campus has been opened in University Park,
housing the ARCH Angels venture-capital program
and new start-up companies arising from innovative
university research.
 Industry-driven research activity in the area has
been expanded through 115 active industrysponsored research agreements with the university.
 The research foundation is providing technologytransfer and innovation services to other regional
institutions, including Cleveland State University,
Youngstown State University and Lorain County
Community College.
The results of all of this activity are striking.
 The University of Akron’s annual sponsored
research funding has grown by 70 percent during the
past decade.
 University licensing revenue has spiked from a few
hundred thousand dollars in the 1990s to more than
$12 million since the research foundation’s
formation.
 And the research foundation has spawned
28 start-up companies.
#
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
#
#
Page 15
Now, let’s shift our thinking 230 miles to the southwest
… to a community that has been my home for the past
five-and-a-half years.
The story of Cincinnati’s anchor university has a 190-year
history embedded in its community. But in the 1990s, the
university began to look beyond its own boundaries in
new ways to the six neighborhoods that encircled its
campus: Clifton, Clifton Heights, Corryville, Fairview,
Mt. Auburn and University Heights.
Together, these neighborhoods were home for 51,000
people, or about 15 percent of Cincinnati’s population.
Compared to the city as a whole, these “Uptown”
communities were suffering with higher unemployment,
higher poverty rates, lower median income and lower
homeownership.
The university’s leaders did not like what they saw. In
fact, they discovered that while the words “college town”
may have a nostalgic appeal to many, they often mean
something very different to those who find themselves
living on the borders of a major college or university.
For them, their powerful institutional neighbor can mean
traffic congestion, trampled lawns, rowdy parties and
more. And their neighborhoods can be characterized by
substandard housing, high crime rates and low incomes.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 16
The university’s leaders quickly recognized a
responsibility to help change this landscape … to act as
stewards of place. So in partnership with the community,
they launched a house-by-house rehabilitation effort.
But they did more. They developed an internationallyacclaimed master plan and campus renaissance for the
hilltop community. That plan has evolved into a “360Degree Strategy” for neighborhood revival.
This comprehensive strategy didn’t just spring out of the
ground. In 1993, the university took a more formal
direction by establishing a new set of relationships with
the community, by setting concrete goals for improving
the economic conditions of the adjacent communities, and
by providing the kind of leadership, administrative
support, development expertise and financial resources
that any such effort demands.
Much of what we have accomplished during the past 15
years can be seen in the shape of bricks-and-mortar
projects. The university has loaned more than $146
million from its endowment to Uptown community
development corporations … and this investment has
been leveraged by attracting more than $250 million from
other financing sources into the area.
In addition the university has, for the past decade,
funneled an average of $800,000 to $1 million a year in
operating funds to a range of neighborhood development
groups, with another $800,000 expected during 2009 and
$600,000 expected in 2010.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 17
From the beginning, UC was convinced that any
rehabilitation plans, to be successful, would have to be
driven by community interests – not by the university
itself. So we formed neighborhood-based redevelopment
corporations before committing to any project or putting
shovel to ground. And to ensure that the university would
not be seen as a “1000-pound gorilla” trying to impose its
will on neighbors, UC insisted that it hold only a single
seat on the Board of Trustees of each of the corporations.
In 2003, UC’s expanding relationship with Uptown
communities led to the formation of the Uptown
Consortium, a five-way partnership that includes UC and
four other large employers on the hilltop – Cincinnati
Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati Zoo &
Botanical Garden, the Health Alliance of Greater
Cincinnati and TriHealth. As Gerald Siegert, the
university’s associate vice president for community
development, likes to say, “UC was the chicken and
Uptown Consortium was the egg.”
With few peers across the country, the consortium works
to improve the quality of life in Uptown neighborhoods
and to provide the best possible working environment for
its partners’ employees. And the results of all this work
are just as impressive as are those to which many of you
have contributed here in Akron.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 18
In recent years, more than a dozen projects have breathed
new life into the Uptown Cincinnati neighborhoods to the
north, south, east and west of the UC campus. For
example, there’s …
 The Corryville Community Recreation Center,
which was designed by UC architecture faculty.
 An Urban Outfitters store that occupies a historic
church renovated in response to local demand.
 University Park – a 756-unit complex of miniapartments for students – which uses space leased to
a private corporation.
 And the list of projects goes on and on.
While most of the visible signs of the Uptown
Consortium and UC’s neighborhood work take the form
of large-scale construction projects, many do not.
 UC is partnering with the Cincinnati Public Schools
and many others to create Strive, which is a
Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky birth to career
collaborative focused on improving the education
pipeline throughout the region, including Uptown.
 In recent years, UC public safety and the Cincinnati
police have stepped up their cooperative efforts.
And while a direct cause and effect relationship
cannot be proven, we are pleased that crime in our
surrounding neighborhoods decreased 22 percent
from 2003 to 2007.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 19
 And UC is talking with the city’s leaders about
developing a streetcar line between downtown and
Uptown Cincinnati.
The university’s efforts in Uptown Cincinnati have placed
the community in excellent position for further growth.
And at a critical moment for the region’s future health and
prosperity, I am pleased to report that UC is playing a
prominent role in regional planning and Agenda 360
implementation.
THE EXPERIENCES OF OTHER
OHIO COMMUNITIES
For Luis and me, Akron and Cincinnati have been ground
zero. Yet, there are other stories … in other Ohio
communities … that document the capacity of anchor
institutions to be agents of change. Each of these stories
documents how urban research universities are going
beyond the “ivory tower” and into the streets to make a
positive difference in people’s lives.
In Cleveland, for example, Case Western Reserve
University is a principal player in The Greater University
Circle Initiative, through which a number of world-class
cultural, educational and medical institutions are working
together to revitalize neighborhoods that for too long have
been ignored by isolated development projects focused on
a single institution or destination.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 20
In Dayton, the University of Dayton is actively engaged
in a number of neighborhood revitalization efforts, all of
which feature town-gown interaction and collaboration.
For example, the Genesis Project is demolishing substandard houses, replacing them with new or rebuilt
homes targeted to people with annual incomes of $24,000
to $40,000. And in collaboration with the Dayton
Foundation and Dayton Public Schools, the University's
Fitz Center for Leadership in Community is designing and
building partnerships for five Neighborhood School
Centers.
And in Columbus, since 1995, The Ohio State
University’s Campus Partners for Community Urban
Redevelopment project has been leading the effort to
revitalize the neighborhood around the campus, seeking to
address crime and disinvestment and improve the quality
of life off campus. Employing both academic and
institutional resources, the university has elevated
neighborhood planning and consensus-building, and has
leveraged significant investment by the public, private
and non-profit sectors
IDENTIFYING THE KEYS TO SUCCESS
Similar stories could be told about the efforts of other
anchor universities to revitalize their neighborhoods and
to create new economic opportunities in their
communities. The University of Pennsylvania’s effort to
revitalize West Philadelphia is probably the best known.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 21
It is a powerful statement about the capacity of urban
research universities – stable places of employment,
cultural centers, civic partners and concentrated
populations of consumers for local business and services
– to make a difference in their communities. It also offers
compelling evidence that competitive universities benefit
from vibrant neighborhoods with the assets required to
meet the needs of faculty, staff and students.
Yet, instead of identifying more effective partnerships, I
think our time will be better spent by talking about what
makes these collaborations successful … and about what
makes some of them “best practices.”
So, let me address three specific questions:
1. How should we grade universities’ collaborations
with their communities?
2. What has allowed urban communities’ anchor
universities to achieve their objectives … and to be
sustained over time?
3. And what public policy changes are needed to
ensure that these partnerships thrive – and succeed –
in the years to come?
These are not easy questions to answer … in part because
of the complexity of these partnerships and the protracted
nature of the issues they are trying to address. But it also
reflects the diversity of the collaborations in which anchor
institutions are engaged.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 22
Let me start with the first question.
“Grading” these collaborations is both an art and a
science. Two years ago, three UC planning faculty were
asked to conduct the first broad assessment of these
collaborations in the United States and Canada. Based on
studies of 21 university-community partnerships, 16
assessment criteria were identified and detailed report
cards were developed. Here are some of the things they
tried to measure:
1. The level of community participation in planning,
decision making and implementation;
2. The economic impact of a partnership’s activities;
3. The initiative’s impact on public safety, the
environment and sustainable development;
4. The increased supply of housing;
5. Historic preservation;
6. The university’s relationship with other groups and
organizations, including other anchor institutions;
7. The role of leadership (that is, are top-level players
actively involved in the real work that is being
done?);
8. The success in meeting defined targets or goals; and
9. The frequency with which municipal eminent
domain powers are used.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 23
In Cincinnati, the results of this study were most helpful
and generated some valuable insights. They were used as
benchmarks for the evaluation of our work. Yet, I think
it’s fair to say that our initial efforts probably merit a
grade of “Incomplete.”
Let’s go to the second question: What has allowed anchor
universities to achieve their objectives?
Reflecting on our case studies – and on our experiences in
Cincinnati – I have several answers, some of which reflect
the level of trust … the balance of power … the degree of
commitment and the sense of satisfaction.
Interestingly, some of these answers take me back to John
Kotter’s notion of “leading change.” A business professor
at Harvard University, Kotter has written extensively
about why organizations fail in their efforts to transform
themselves and to achieve more. In that context – and
borrowing a bit from Kotter – here’s my initial “Top Ten”
list of key contributors to the success of anchor
universities’ efforts to rebuild cities and revitalize
neighborhoods.
 Number 1 … success is grounded in key
stakeholders … on and off campus … understanding
that urban research universities are powerful
economic assets. There must be a broad consensus
around the expectations for higher education’s role
in promoting economic growth and urban revival.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 24
 Number 2 … successful partnerships start with a
sense of urgency … an agreement that the mission
is too important for complacency to be allowed.
In Professor Kotter’s words, “When people have a
true sense of urgency, they think that action on
critical issues is needed now, not eventually, not
when it fits easily into a schedule. Now means
making real progress every single day.”
 Number 3 … successful partnerships have what
Kotter calls a sufficiently powerful guiding
coalition. They are supported by a broadly
representative group of people who are willing to
take the engagement story to the rest of community
… and to others in their own institutions. In
Cincinnati, the coming together of the hilltop’s five
largest employers has been the key to the
effectiveness of the Uptown Consortium. Similarly,
the engagement of the “right” players – both
individuals and institutions – has been critically
important here in Akron.
 Number 4 … success demands the formation of an
authentic partnership – one that is “owned” by all
participants and engages everyone in decision
making and execution … and in the discussion that
leads to both.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 25
Gone are the days where the university deigned to
stoop to the community’s level … to scatter some
pearls of wisdom for the community to catch … and
to do things that benefit those who live in the
neighborhood. Engagement must be about mutual
respect, mutual expertise and mutual benefit.
 Number 5 … successful partnerships are formed
around a clear, well-articulated vision … and a
strategy designed to achieve it. Well-intentioned
efforts without an aligning strategy most likely will
not get the job done. But I should add that my
friends in the business community are quick to say
that when groups fail to achieve their objectives, it
is often due to inadequate execution, not bad
strategy.
 Number 6 … successful collaborations recognize
the need for short-term wins – victories that are
communicated and celebrated. Economic
development and urban revival can take a long time,
massive resources and a lot of work. The “promise”
of economic prosperity, better housing, greater
safety or more jobs can be compelling. But shortterm wins – tomorrow, not in five years – can show
people that their efforts are paying off.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 26
 Number 7 … every transformational partnership
runs into obstacles along the way. Research and
experience tell us that successful partnerships
typically find a way to deal with these issues.
 Number 8 … partnerships succeed where the
funding is sufficient to provide an infrastructure …
and where dollars and other resources are available
to turn ideas and dreams into reality.
 Number 9 … success often is the result of
integrating the partnership’s values and objectives
into the core culture of all stakeholder
organizations. The revival of neighborhoods and
communities must be reflected in institutions’
allocation of resources … and in the incentives that
shape individuals’ behavior. It is one thing to have a
“front door” that welcomes community engagement.
It is another to embed collaboration into the work
that gets done close to the heart of anchor
institutions and the communities they serve.
 And Number 10 … success often is the product of
effective leadership – of people “at the top” who are
fully engaged and personally committed. Anyone
who knows about President Judith Roden’s role in
the West Philadelphia story understands the value of
effective leadership for both the city and its anchor
university.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 27
ACCELERATING THE PACE OF CHANGE:
A POLICY AGENDA FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Responsibility for the success and sustainability of
university-community partnerships rests with their key
stakeholders – the civic and business leaders,
neighborhood groups and anchor universities that develop
and drive these ground-breaking “town-gown”
collaboratives. Yet, having acknowledged this, we must
recognize that there is another stakeholder in these
partnerships … and that’s the public sector.
Historically, federal policies – and to some extent,
policies at the state and local levels – have reinforced and
enhanced the role of higher education’s anchor
institutions. Officials have relied on the unique
capabilities of universities and colleges to spearhead
neighborhood revival and development.
Yet, in recent years, the housing, community development
and education programs that depend on anchor
universities have seen a decrease in funding, or are no
longer in operation. That is why all of us are keenly
interested in how the Obama Administration deals with
these issues at the federal level.
Already, President Obama has created the Office of
Urban Affairs by executive order, laying the foundation
for continued and perhaps expanded federal funding for
the collaboration of urban communities and their anchor
universities.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 28
The President’s executive order acknowledged that “about
80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, and the
economic health and social vitality of our urban
communities are critically important to the prosperity and
quality of life for Americans.” And it continued, “Vibrant
cities spawn innovation, economic growth and cultural
enrichment through the business, [university], civic,
cultural, religious and nonprofit institutions they attract.”
As the parameters of a new urban agenda are being
drawn, we need to ensure that our anchor universities play
a central role in the President’s “New Choice
Neighborhoods” initiative. Likewise, anchor universities
need to embrace the President’s “Promise
Neighborhoods” initiative, which seeks to test innovative
strategies to improve academic achievement and life
outcomes in high-poverty areas.
Who better than forward-looking urban research
universities to turn this promise into performance? Not
only can anchor universities be the source of innovative
thinking about neighborhood revival, but with our
business and community partners we have the capacity to
get the work done – to revitalize regions for innovationdriven prosperity.
But let’s be clear. This does not mean that Washington,
D.C. will be the sole or even the major source of
solutions. To the contrary, bold, risking-taking actions are
needed here at home within our own zones of immediate
influence.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 29
Historically, universities’ impact on communities has not
been driven solely by the federal government, even
though the effects of the Morrill Act of 1862 and
the federal Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 have been significant.
Urban research universities are largely creatures of their
regions and communities and it is there that action can be
most effectively taken.
So in this context, let me share with you some of the state
and regional policy recommendations that Luis and I are
considering for inclusion in our Brookings white paper.
 First, the state of Ohio should create a statewide
innovation strategy team with a sharp focus on the
rebuilding of cities and the revitalization of
neighborhoods. This team would be made up of
high-level professionals from a cross-section of
appropriate state agencies and the leadership of
anchor universities and private-sector partners.
 Second, the state should commit public dollars –
leveraged by private funds – to support anchor
universities’ efforts to rebuild cities and revitalize
neighborhoods. Such funds could come from urbanbenefiting revenue sources and consideration should
be given to the use of incentive-driven tax policies.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 30
 Third, the state should eliminate barriers to publicprivate partnerships and consider creating an Ohio
Partnerships Agency with authority to acquire, own,
dispose of and manage assets, including real,
personal and intellectual property, through publicprivate partnerships for public benefit.
 Fourth, Ohio’s anchor universities should be
encouraged to facilitate investment capital
development and other investor networks to the
extent not presently provided by the public and
private sectors.
 Fifth, new incentives should be created for anchor
universities that are willing to be more creative –
and more collaborative – in sharing their facilities
and resources.
 Finally, university leaders should work with the
state’s political leadership to mitigate or remove
impediments – whether they are legal, cultural,
operational or political – that stand in the way
authentic town-gown collaboration and innovation
capacity development.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 31
PARTNERSHIPS WITHOUT LIMITS
Ohio has a remarkable history of innovation. And today,
Ohio’s leaders – in business, government and education –
are facing challenges no less serious than those
encountered by the settlers who populated the Ohio
Valley in the 18th century… the 19th and 20th century
industrialists and innovators who created a new economy
and built modern cities … and now, the scientists,
researchers and educators who are preparing Ohioans to
compete in an increasingly global economy.
And none of the challenges confronting our leaders today
is more difficult – or more critical to our state’s future –
than neighborhood transformation. In President Rodin’s
words, the challenge is to build capacity back into deeply
distressed neighborhoods and communities – educational
capacity, retail capacity, quality-of-life capacity and
especially economic capacity.
About her own experiences at the University of
Pennsylvania, Roden said: “We demolished literal and
figurative walls that kept Penn and its neighbors from
forging nourishing connections with one another. We
restructured buildings and open spaces to make the
campus ‘more like seams and less like barriers’ to the
community, as Jacobs had advocated. And we worked to
unite ‘town and gown’ as one richly diverse community
that could learn, grow, socialize, and live together in a
safe, flourishing and economically sustainable urban
environment.”
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 32
Ohio’s university anchors could take on no greater
mission. And no entity in our society is better positioned
to do it more successfully – not alone, but in collaboration
with corporations, foundations, neighborhoods and
governments.
Building partnerships without limits … partnerships that
are capable of changing shape, transcending geographic
boundaries, redefining their purposes, and striving to do
what’s never been done before. That is the way – the only
way – that innovation occurs. And it’s the only way that
innovation can be sustained.
#
#
#
It is told that Princeton professor Albert Einstein … many
years ago now … handed an exam to his secretary and
instructed her to distribute it to his physics graduate
students.
A short time later, his secretary returned … obviously
upset. She said: “Professor, there is a problem. These
are the same questions you asked in last year’s exam.
These students have seen them before.”
Einstein thought for a moment … acknowledged her
concerns … and then said: “It’s all right. The questions
may be the same, but the answers are different.”
Today, we must look for answers that are different.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
Page 33
And we must look for solutions that are sufficiently
compelling to get businesses, governments, foundations
and anchor universities to reach beyond their boundaries
… and to give them reasons to invest their time, energy
and dollars in the rebuilding of their cities and the
revitalization of their neighborhoods.
Thank you.
#
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009
#
#
Page 34