Defining University Anchor Institution Strategies: Comparing Theory to Practice

Abstract

Since the 1990s, some urban universities have served as neighborhood anchors with an interest in revitalization. Current theory suggests anchors adopt ‘shared value’ approaches, leveraging resources for mutually beneficial improvement in the community. This study explores assumptions in contemporary anchor frameworks and uses a survey to examine how 22 U.S. universities approach their roles as anchor institutions. The study finds that the universities tend to prioritize place-based initiatives, while contemporary frameworks are more normative and highlight socioeconomic practices. Based on reported strategies, the author proposes an alternate typology that accounts for the ways universities most commonly describe anchor approaches, complementing contemporary theory.

Keywords:

• University-community engagement
• urban revitalization
• theory-practice gap
• university anchor revitalization
• anchor institution

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and Planning Theory and Practice editors for their insightful comments. Also, thank you to Akheil Singla for his feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Notes

1. The Carnegie Classification of Institution of Higher Education is a standardized framework for stratifying institutions. In 2006, the Carnegie Foundation expanded its database to include an indicator for an “engaged university” (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2015). Unlike its other classifications, the “engaged university” classification was voluntary. As of 2015, 359 institutions received an “engaged” designation. I cross-referenced eligible universities with the Community Engagement classification, but did not use it as a primary indicator of a neighborhood revitalization activity due to its opt-in requirement and its broad definition of engagement (local, national, and global).

2. The Coalition of Urban Serving (USU) is an organization of public urban research universities with an interest in anchor institutions. USU has conducted two national surveys of its members (Friedman, Perry, & Menendez, 2014; Perry & Menendez, 2010). The results offer valuable information about the types of institutions pursuing anchor strategies, however, there is one principal limitation: USU is a member-only organization and is restricted to public research universities in metropolitan areas with populations of 450,000 or more (http://usucoalition.org/membership/members). I validated the list of public universities with USU’s published survey results, as well as the list of members; however, due to the exclusion of private universities and public universities in smaller metropolitan areas, I did not use it as a primary resource.

3. The Anchor Institution Task Force (AITF) is an international membership organization, convened in 2008 to advise the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and, subsequently, solidified into a task force with more than 700 institutional and individual members (https://www.margainc.com/aitf/). As part of the university anchor scan, I attended AITF conferences and met with founding AITF members in an effort to generate new leads on universities and validate my existing list.

4. There are 4665 universities included in the Carnegie Classification summary tables, including Associate’s Colleges and Special Focus Two- and Four-Year schools. For the purposes of comparison, I only considered those categories with all four-year institutions (Baccalaureate Colleges, Master’s Colleges & Universities, and Doctoral Universities), equal to 1669 institutions. This number includes universities that would not have met my sampling criteria, including institutions in rural or small city settings.