Maria is a United States citizen whose parents just recently obtained legal status in the US due to Maria having turned 21. Maria has been around the undocumented population her entire life due to a large part of her family being undocumented. She became very involved with the undocumented movement back in 2010 with the passing of SB1070 in Arizona. She states that the reason she became so involved at this time was because she realized how these anti-immigrant laws were affecting her family and her community. She has worked on many campaigns at the local level such as the recall of Russell Pierce, the Adios Arpaio Campaign among other things. She is set to graduate from ASU this May 2015 with a degree in Political Science and Transborder Studies, and hopes to study law one day. She currently works with Unite Here a labor union and continues to be involved with varies campaigns some being DACA/DAPA information sessions among other things

In her interview, Monica discusses her association with the Grassroots Leadership Organization and her involvement with DreamZone. She talks about why DreamZone is important and why she is politically inclined. She talks about DreamZone’s Clinton Global Initiative campaign and her involvement at the White House breakout sessions after DACA was signed. She has been involved in sit-ins and letter writing campaigns

Jonathan was born in a small farming town in Maryland. He talks about racism, segregation and the homophobic climate that prevailed in his hometown, and how that informed his activism and that of his parents. During middle school, he got involved in activism around queer youth of color. In the beginning, he was mostly involved in LGBT issues. Later, he also organized around economic injustice in peasant and working class communities.

Dulce attended school in Mexico up until junior high before coming to the United States on a visa. While in high school she became involved with the robotics team at Carl Hayden and thanks to the encouragement by her two teacher she decided to pursue a STEM education at ASU. She was enrolled at ASU already when the law passed and was unaware of any other undocumented student at the ASU campus at the time. It was through the scholarship(s) that were made available to these undocumented student who were already enrolled at ASU that these undocumented students connected. What originally started off as students discussing various topics through blackboard, then google drive, led to the founding of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition (ADAC). She is co-founder for the ADAC and was the acting president for 2 years, now she just volunteers whenever she can, currently running for a position in the upcoming Executive board. She graduated from ASU with a degree in mechanical engineering, but is currently has her own business as a real estate agent for the past 10 years. She is in the process of applying for citizenship.

In his interview, Seth discusses his hometown as well as his study abroad experiences. He describes how he has come to learn about the undocumented youth movement and his role in the DreamZone workshop. He talks about current political reform and his involvement in political discussion in person and on social media. He describes his experience with AZ Quip and how he feels it is included.

Jesus went to Gadsden High School in Anthony, New Mexico. He studied engineering at Texas A&M University, but ended up changing his major to journalism and mass communication with an emphasis in pubic relations. He worked in housing residential education for about a year in Florida, but later moved to Arizona State University to pursue a PHD in education policy and evaluation. Through his work with students and the community, he became aware of the political and social issues in Arizona. This awareness eventually led him and a friend to create DREAMzone.

Jesus is involved with DREAMzone, the Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project (Q.U.I.P.), Arcoíris Liberation Team, and Familia: Trans Queer Liberation Movement (California). He was president of the Latino Graduate Student Alliance and is currently the vice-president of the Graduate & Professional Student Association.

As Durham’s economy collapsed in the mid-1990s, Duke established a plan to intervene. Its actions aligned with anchor institution models at many universities; its approach, however, was unique: In a city where Duke was a fixture, university leadership understood a top-down approach was not viable. Instead, administrators launched a community-led model intended to change the “story [from] look at what Duke did,” to “can you imagine what’s happened in Durham?”. I use a longitudinal case study to examine Duke’s anchor institution model in 12 Durham neighborhoods. The research considers Duke’s approach from the mid-1990s to present, drawing from: interviews with Duke administrators, community organizations, and neighborhood representatives; newspaper articles and reports; and a descriptive analysis of neighborhood change. This case explores an anchor model that engages non-profit partners and community development strategies. Findings show the potential for a multi-partner anchor model that cultivates neighborhood improvement and minimizes (to an extent) gentrification pressures that can arise from anchor investment. Duke’s anchor model offers a unique perspective on university-community engagement, partnerships and neighborhood investment.

Duke’s case offers insights for how major institutions—from university anchors to local government—can recast their roles in communities; it also offers a roadmap for how institutions can engage (and benefit) neighborhoods in meaningful ways. Informed by a collaborative anchor model, Duke empowered residents to identify their own neighborhood priorities and partnered with local community organizations to meet those aims. This anchor model reveals a powerful role for intermediaries, including planners and community organizers, to connect institutional resources with neighborhood priorities. Supported by a participatory planning process, there are opportunities to realign anchor institution strategies and tools with neighborhood priorities to move towards mutually beneficial outcomes.

This article reviews the concept of shared equity homeownership (SEH) in the United States. The review examines the origins of the SEH model and its historic precedents. It considers the impetus for SEH, setting the discourse within the context of US housing policy and, specifically, low-income homeownership research. Subsequently, the review assesses the current state of SEH research, including the evidence associated with SEH as an affordable housing strategy, its application and challenges in the field, and gaps in the scholarly discourse.

Town-gown engagement has evolved over several eras, most recently embodying the anchor institution model. The post-1990 scholarship suggests a distinct shift, describing a new framework for the ways universities engage with neighborhood space. This paper tests this approach, using a survey of universities to question several assumptions about town-gown engagement in the 21st century. While the conceptual definition and stylistic approach to engagement has changed, there appears to be less differentiation from earlier models than one might expect. The study offers a typology of university revitalization strategies and contributes a new perspective to the anchor institution discourse.

Problem:
Universities are pursuing place-making beyond the campus. In the 21st century, many universities have invested in revitalization, reconceiving of urban neighborhoods as assets, rather than detriments. But what does this mean for the neighborhood?

Research Strategy:
This study uses Census data and a survey of universities, pursuing neighborhood revitalization in nineteen cities, to examine place-based outcomes. I rely on median home values and rents to evaluate market change (1990 to 2010), testing how the rate of change in target tracts compares to areas without university investments. To account for contextual variation, I employ a multi-dimensional typology to analyze changes by city markets and revitalization approach.

Findings:
The findings illustrate how extending the university brand into neighborhoods, achieved through bricks-and-mortar projects, is an effective strategy for revitalization. University initiatives, regardless of their intensity or place-based focus, meaningfully impacted neighborhood housing markets. However, market appreciation was substantially greater for target areas located in strong-market cities and/or with high-intensity investment from a university.

Takeaway for Practice:
The findings contribute to an understanding of university revitalization outcomes and offer insight into the importance of context. For instance, strong market cities, on their own, are an indicator of success. University investment, in any form, appears to close gaps and boost lower-value neighborhoods back into an otherwise strong marketplace. For moderate and weak cities, the university’s approach is the defining characteristic—investment in place-based projects is critical for an improved market. Thus, the key to revitalization “success” is two-fold. Either the city is strong, enabling the university invest at any level of intensity, or the university pursues a place-based approach that increases the likelihood of growth regardless of city context. These outcomes highlight the potential for market-boosting effects, but also demonstrate the unique opportunity for planners to moderate housing market pressures alongside anchor institution investments.