Filtering by
- Member of: Ehlenz, Meagan
- Member of: Collegiate Recovery Program Resources
- Member of: Arizona Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) Project
Quae cum dixisset, finem ille. Quamquam non negatis nos intellegere quid sit voluptas, sed quid ille dicat. Progredientibus autem aetatibus sensim tardeve potius quasi nosmet ipsos cognoscimus. Gloriosa ostentatio in constituendo summo bono. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Comprehensum, quod cognitum non habet? Qui enim existimabit posse se miserum esse beatus non erit. Causa autem fuit huc veniendi ut quosdam hinc libros promerem. Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur.
A needs assessment based on students in recovery to build a Collegiate Recovery Program.
Qualitative research on student employees of a Collegiate Recovery Program.
PPT lecture and notes for Recovery 101 training.
This report summarizes the proceedings of the workshop focusing primarily on two sessions: the first related to social vulnerability mapping and the second related to the identification and prioritization of interventions necessary to address the impacts of climate-sensitive hazards.
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.