Expectations Versus Reality in a University–Community Partnership: A Case Study

Abstract

To add to the growing body of literature on university–community engagement, this case study describes a 2-year partnership between a University and 11 nonprofit organizations that was formed as part of a grant funded Nonprofit Capacity Building Program. The article describes and analyzes a significant challenge that emerged between the parties involved in this particular relationship, respectively, the clear disconnect between the expectations of the partnership versus the reality. We argue that these differences were created by and often led to power imbalances. In addition, the formal structures of the grant acted as a sensemaking device for some of the nonprofits but were challenged by others. Negotiation over aspects to the program occurred continuously throughout the program. Despite the disconnect observed between expectations and realities, the expected capacity building outcomes were, for the most part, realized in the end. Specific examples of the expectations versus realities are analyzed and discussed.

Résumé

Pour contribuer au volume croissant de littérature portant sur l’engagement université-communauté, cette étude de cas décrit un partenariat de deux ans entre une université et 11 organisations à but non lucratif, formé dans le cadre d’un programme subventionné de renforcement des capacités des organisations à but non lucratif. Cet article décrit et analyse un obstacle important survenu entre les parties impliquées dans cette relation particulière : le net décalage entre les attentes associées au partenariat et la réalité. Nous soutenons que ces problèmes trouvent leur source dans un déséquilibre des pouvoirs, qu’ils ont souvent entretenu. De plus, alors que les structures formelles de la subvention jouaient le rôle de dispositif créateur de sens pour certaines organisations, elles étaient remises en question par d’autres. Les négociations sur les différents aspects du programme ont été incessantes sur toute sa durée, mais malgré le décalage observé entre les attentes et la réalité, le renforcement de capacité attendu a finalement été globalement obtenu. Cet article propose des exemples précis de ce décalage, que nous analysons.

Zusammenfassung

Die vorliegende Fallstudie ist ein Beitrag zu der zunehmenden Literatur zum Thema gesellschaftliches Engagement von Universitäten. Sie beschreibt eine zweijährige Partnerschaft zwischen einer Universität und 11 Nonprofit-Organisationen, die im Rahmen eines subventionierten Programms zur Bildung der gemeinnützigen Kapazität gegründet wurde. Der Beitrag beschreibt und analysiert ein wesentliches Problem, das sich zwischen den Parteien dieser speziellen Beziehung entwickelte, nämlich die deutliche Kluft zwischen den Erwartungen der Partnerschaft und der Realität. Wir behaupten, dass diese Differenzen häufig durch ein Machtungleichgewicht ausgelöst wurden bzw. zu einem Ungleichgewicht führten. Darüber hinaus dienten die formalen Strukturen des finanziellen Zuschusses für einige Nonprofit-Organisationen als ein Instrument zur Nachvollziehbarkeit, während andere diese Strukturen hinterfragten. Während des gesamten Programms hielten die Verhandlungen über die Programmaspekte an. Trotz der Kluft zwischen den Erwartungen und der Realität wurde die erhoffte Kapazitätsbildung am Ende größtenteils erzielt. Es werden spezifische Beispiele für die Erwartungen gegenüber der Realität untersucht und diskutiert.

Resumen

Para contribuir al creciente corpus de material publicado sobre el compromiso comunidad-universidad, el presente estudio de caso describe una asociación de dos años entre una Universidad y 11 organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro que se formó como parte de un programa de Creación de Capacidad para las Organiza-ciones sin Ánimo de lucro financiado mediante una subvención. El artículo describe y analiza un reto significativo que surgió entre las partes implicadas en esta relación particular, respectivamente la clara desconexión entre las expectativas de la asociación frente a la realidad. Argumentamos que estas diferencias fueron creadas por desequilibrios de poder y a menudo llevaron a los mismos. Asimismo, las estructuras formales de la subvención actuaron como un dispositivo que daba sentido para algunas de las organiza-ciones sin ánimo de lucro pero que eran cuestionadas por otras. Se produjo negociación sobre aspectos del programa de manera continua a lo largo del programa. A pesar de la desconexión observada entre las expectativas y las realidades, finalmente se alcanzaron los resultados de creación de capacidad esperados, en la mayoría de los casos. Se analizan y tratan ejemplos específicos de las expectativas frente a las realidades.

摘要

本文为日益增多的关于大学与社区接洽互动的文献添砖加瓦。本案例研究介绍了一所大学与11个非营利性组织间的2年合作计划,该计划是受补助金资助的“非营利性能力构建”项目的组成部分。本文介绍并分析了出现在参与本合作关系的各方之间的一项颇具意义的挑战,也即对合作关系的预期与现实之间的显著脱节。我们认为,这些差异是由于权力失衡所致,并且通常也会导致权力的失衡。此外,对于一些非营利组织而言,补助金的形式结构可作为意义构建的工具;但这一形式,却受到另一些非营利组织的质疑与挑战。在整个项目过程中,关于该项目的各个方面的谈判磋商持续地发生。虽然在预期与现实之间出现脱节,但是所预期的能力构建结果最终还是大部分实现了。我们对有关“预期VS现实”的具体例子进行了分析和讨论。

ملخص

للإضافة إلى مجموعة متزايدة من الأدبيات حول مشاركة الجامعة- المجتمع ، تصف هذه الدراسة لحالة شراكة لمدة عامين بين جامعة و 11من المنظمات الغير ربحية التي تشكلت كجزء من منحة ممولة لبرنامج بناء القدرات الذي لا يهدف للربح. يصف المقال و يحلل التحدي الكبير الذي ظهر بين الأطراف المشاركة في هذه العلاقة على وجه الخصوص، على التوالي قطع الإتصال الواضح بين توقعات الشراكة مقابل الواقع. نحن نناقش أن هذه الإختلافات تم إنشاؤها عن طريق و غالبا˝ ما تؤدي إلى اختلال توازن القوى. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، عملت الهياكل الرسمية للمنحة كجهاز لإعطاء معنى لتجربة لبعض المنظمات الغير ربحية لكن كان هناك تحديات عن طريق آخرين. التفاوض على جوانب لبرنامج يحدث بإستمرار في جميع أنحاء البرنامج. على الرغم من قطع الإتصال الذي لوحظ بين التوقعات والحقائق ، نتائج بناء القدرات و المتوقع ، بالنسبة للجزء الاكبر، أدركت في النهاية. يتم تحليل أمثلة محددة من التوقعات مقابل الحقائق وتم مناقشتها.

Appendices

Appendix A: Interview Questions—Capacity Building Program Team Members

Stage 1: Pre-planning of the Capacity Building program, distribution of the RFP, informational meetings, and review of applications. During this stage (Stage 1), what about the process (communication, interaction, relationship development) worked well? What were the challenges to the process (communication, interaction, relationship development)? Please use examples from your interactions with any of the organizations in your responses.

Stage 2: Acceptance of organizations into the Capacity Building Program, organizational assessments, and initial planning. During this stage (Stage 2), what about the process (communication, interaction, relationship development) worked well? What were the challenges to the process (communication, interaction, relationship development)? Please use examples from your interactions with any of the organizations in your responses.

Stage 3: Plan finalization and implementation. During this stage (Stage 3), what about the process (communication, interaction, relationship development) worked well? What were the challenges to the process (communication, interaction, relationship development)? Please use examples from your interactions with any of the organizations in your responses.

• 1. The first area we would like to hear about is any change you’ve seen occur in [organization] as a result of the project. Would you talk a little about that?

• 2. Here is a copy of your project goals and objectives. Can you talk a little bit about how you feel about the progress you have made so far on the objectives?

• 3. Here is a diagram of the program’s structure. Can you tell us how well this structure worked for you?

• 4. Would you talk a little bit about what you think the long-term impact of the project will be for [organization]? How has the project helped [organization] build capacity?

• 5. Tell us how the project helped you expand your connections with the community.

• 6. Would you talk a little bit about what it was like to work with the university team?

• 7. Can you talk about your overall level of satisfaction with this project?

• 8. Is there anything else you would like to add that would be helpful for us to know?

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this interview. It is so helpful for us. We really appreciate it.

Appendix B: Strengthening Communities: Nonprofit Capacity Building Program

Proposals will undergo a staff screening for compliance with application guidelines. Eligible proposals will be forwarded to a community review committee for scoring. The selection process is open and non-discriminatory: organizations will not be discriminated on the basis of religious character or affiliation.

The Review Committee will be made up of individuals representing community stakeholders including (but not limited to) local United Ways, local Community Foundations, a local nonprofit organization, a representative of faith-based organizations and Michigan Department of Human Services county offices and senior project staff. The program staff will provide the committee with selection criteria and ensure that the selection procedures follow the federal regulations. The Review Committee will be responsible for selection of nonprofit program participants.

Application Preference Points (15): Application Preference Points will be awarded to eligible nonprofit applicants. Required proposal elements total 100 points (detailed below), and organizations who meet preferred criteria can increase their score in three areas. These points should be considered “extra credit” and may increase a proposal’s final score beyond 100.

• TANF Service Providers—5 points.

• Annual operating budget between $250,000 and $500,000—5 points.

• Collaborative Application (two to four nonprofit organizations)—5 points.

Proposal Scoring (100 Points total):

• Application Cover Sheet (required, no point value).

• Proposal Narrative (100 points available; component weight indicated below).

  Please provide the following information in a narrative format. The proposal should be double-spaced with 1″ margins, not to exceed 15 pages (page limit does not include appendices), in no less than an 11-point font, Times New Roman or Arial. You must follow this outline for your proposal: reviewer score sheets will be formatted appropriately for these headings, with scoring criteria as outlined in this RFP.

• A. Introduction (10 points).

• B. Service Overview (15 points).

  • 1. Geographic service area (5):

  • 2. Primary programs.

  • 3. a. Economic recovery-related services (5).

    b. Other key programs and services (5).

• C. Projected Impact on Program and Management Capacity (50 points).

  • 1. Discuss the anticipated impact this Capacity Building Program will have on your ability to deliver services (15):

  • 2. Discuss the anticipated impact this Capacity Building Program will have on the management capacity of your organization (20):

  • 3. Describe the impact a capacity building sub-award investment would have on your organization’s long-term sustainability. Specify how the funds might be spent. (Any final plan for use of the sub-award is pursuant and subject to the formal organizational assessment and work with the faculty consultant) (15).

• D. Past Capacity Building and Sustainability Activities (10 points).

  • 1. Describe your previous participation in focused educational and Capacity Building Programs. List the programs and the benefit received from participation. (10)

• E. Collaborative Engagement—answer the set of questions that relates to your applicant status and correlates with your Application Cover Sheet. (15 points)

• F. Additional Supporting Documentation no point value—not to exceed 10 pages.