© Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 17, Number 3, p. 47, (2013) Copyright © 2013 by the University of Georgia. All rights reserved. ISSN 1534-6104 From Gates to Engagement: A Ten-Year Retrospective of Widener University’s Journey to Reclaim Its Soul and Fulfill Its Mission as a Leading Metropolitan University James T. Harris, III and Marcine Pickron-Davis Abstract In this reflective essay, we describe Widener University’s 10-year transformation from a disengaged institution to an institution that has a metropolitan-focused mission vested in civic leader- ship, community engagement, and service-learning. We describe our journey to embed an expansive civic frame that includes concrete practices of pedagogy, institutional engagement, and community partnerships. We discuss the rewards and chal- lenges of engaging in long-term, democratic, collaborative work, offering a unique insight about the role of a private, mid- size university in anchor-based engagement. We conclude that Widener’s strategy for achieving comprehensive community and economic development is responsible for sustaining multi- anchor regional and local partnerships. Introduction I n this reflective essay, we reflect on Widener University (Widener) as a metropolitan university and on our compre- hensive strategy for engagement—public education, community engagement, economic development, and leadership—which adds value and contributes to our sustainable partnerships. Widener is an anchor institution situated in an urban community. Therefore, cultivating and sustaining reciprocal partnerships is a priority we strive to embed in the scholarly work of our service-learning faculty, in our senior leadership, and in faculty members’ com- munity-based teaching. Our university-community partnerships are dynamic and complex; here we offer examples of institutional practices and outreach efforts that helped Widener become mis- sion-driven, enhanced democratic partnerships inside and outside the university, and strengthened the human, physical, economic, and organizational capacity of a distressed city. The literature on anchor-based institutions has examined the contributions of public and research-intensive universities; how- ever, we offer a unique perspective showing the role a private, 48 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement mid-size, doctorate-granting university can play in a distressed and underserved community. This reflective essay examines the innova- tive ways Widener has assumed its role as an “agent of democracy” through partnerships in the regional community with parents, stakeholders (e.g., Salvation Army, United Way, Chester Boys and Girls Club), other anchor institutions, agencies, K–12 schools, and the local government since 2002 (Sirianni & Friedland, 2005, p. 58). We also deconstruct the three general roles or patterns—facilitator, leader, and convener—that evolve from anchor-based engagement and a metropolitan-focused mission, which were cited in a case study of 10 anchor institutions (Axelroth & Dubb, 2010). A Citadel Mentality In summer 2002, when I, James T. Harris, III, began my duties as the new president of Widener University, I was astonished by the attitude of the university regarding the City of Chester, the com- munity where Widener’s main campus resides. During my first week on the job, two encounters with senior administrators at the university convinced me that Widener University not only needed to develop a better relationship with the local community, but also needed to rethink its mission, vision, and values. On my first day, I was invited to a meeting with senior uni- versity administrators to discuss the feasibility of creating a gated community around the freshman quad with fencing and a single entrance to give the impression that Widener was a safe place for resident students. During the meeting, I was shown an architec- tural rendering of the fencing and gate. It was explained to me that although the university had a strong safety record, it was felt that the City of Chester had such a bad reputation for crime that Widener needed to make it appear it was taking action. At the end of the meeting, I tried to explain my position, which was that the university should not be using its resources to become a citadel from the local community and that we should seek ways to engage more fully the City of Chester. In response to that remark, one of the vice presidents replied, “Chester is a place that will suck Widener dry and is not worth wasting the university’s precious resources on.” At the end of my first week, I was asked to visit a local news- paper office to meet the editor and publisher of the paper. I agreed to the meeting through our public relations office. When the day of the interview arrived, I was informed that a campus safety officer would drive me to the newspaper office and escort me into the building. When I mentioned that the newspaper building was less From Gates to Engagement 49 than five blocks from my office and I could easily handle my own transportation, one senior administrator told me that she could not be held responsible for anything that happened to me that morning. I drove myself to the meeting and returned safely back to my office wondering what had happened to create such a hostile reaction to Chester among certain members of the university community. Widener History Widener University was founded in Wilmington, Delaware, in 1821. Originally named the Bullock School, it would later move to Chester, Pennsylvania, and become known as Pennsylvania Military College. In 1972, when the corps of cadets was retired, the school was renamed for a long-serving board member and became known as Widener College. In 1979 it earned university status, and by 2002 it had developed into an independent, multi-campus, doctorate- granting institution with three campuses serving approximately 6,500 students in two states. The main campus in Chester had always attracted most of its student population from the greater Philadelphia metropolitan region. The undergraduate full-time students were, and continue to be, predominantly majority students, mainly from middle-class families. However, in recent years the university has changed its profile. Today, 26% of Widener undergraduates are considered minority students, and approximately 40% are Pell Grant eligible. Over the years, Widener’s predecessor institution, Pennsylvania Military College, was viewed as an important, if not particularly active, organization in the community. As a military college, it con- fined its involvement in the community to special events, such as when cadets would march through town to participate in a holiday parade or some local celebration. During the tumultuous times of the 1960s in Chester, crime rates grew and the tax base narrowed as the middle class migrated to the suburbs. Pennsylvania Military College was caught in a difficult situation. As a struggling insti- tution with limited funding and no endowment, Pennsylvania Military College and then Widener needed to be careful how it invested its resources. As things began to deteriorate in Chester and concern over violence in the city grew, the university developed a citadel mentality, closing itself off from the troubles that lurked beyond its campus boundary. Increasing violence in the city and a decline in quality of the public schools led to an exodus of the middle-class population. Faced with enormous problems, the city raised property taxes, 50 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement which caused more citizens to leave, exacerbating the situation. As part of that migration, more and more Widener faculty and staff members were choosing to live outside the city, driving an addi- tional wedge between the university and the community. During Chester’s more prosperous days, the majority of Pennsylvania Military College employees lived in the city; however, by 2002, less than 5% of Widener employees lived in the city limits. These factors, as well as other decisions made by the university, such as discouraging Widener faculty and students from volunteering in the public schools or crossing Interstate 95, which provided a buffer to the downtown, led local citizens to view Widener as an institu- tion that was unconcerned about the issues facing the city. When I asked the mayor in 2002 how Chester citizens viewed the uni- versity, he stated: “Widener is viewed by most citizens as a dragon that eats up land that otherwise would be generating tax dollars for the city.” By the turn of the 21st century, Widener was viewed as nei- ther engaged nor concerned with the problems facing Chester and had no plan in place to strategically engage the local community, with a few exceptions. Widener had created a partnership with the Crozer-Chester Medical Center to create a nonprofit corporation designed to attract high technology firms to the neighborhood between the two anchor institutions. Unfortunately, within a few years, that project failed. In 2000, the Widener Center for Social Work Education part- nered with the Chester Education Foundation to establish the Social Work Consultation Services. The Social Work Consultation Services articulated a dual mission: to improve the lives of low- income citizens in Chester, and to train competent and caring social work leaders (Poulin, Silver, & Kauffman, 2007). This new entity was well-received in the community, but the university administra- tion did not support its creation, leaving the faculty to their own devices to raise money for the project. By 2002, Widener was viewed as a university located in a bad neighborhood within one of the nation’s most distressed cities, and Widener had no strategy in place for systematically addressing the significant issues facing Chester or engaging the community in any meaningful way to form democratic partnerships. City of Chester The City of Chester is located southwest of Philadelphia in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. It has a proud history dating back From Gates to Engagement 51 to 1682, when William Penn renamed the small Swedish settlement in the new world “Chester.” Chester played a prominent role in the early colonies, and by the 20th century it had emerged as one of the nation’s leading industrial cities. By the 1950s, the city’s population had swelled to 66,000, mostly due to the significant manufacturing that prospered in the area in the middle of the 20th century. During this time Martin Luther King, Jr. attended Crozer Theological Seminary, earning his degree in divinity and serving as an associate pastor in a local church. By the end of the first half of the century, Chester proudly proclaimed its slogan: “What Chester makes, makes Chester.” However, over the next five decades, the city experienced signif- icant economic difficulties as manufacturing and other industries moved away. By the time of the new millennium, the city faced the challenges of an urban environment in decline. As of 2010, the city population had dropped to 35,000, with 32.3% of all individuals categorized as living in poverty and 46.8% of the adults listed as outside the labor force (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). From 2007-2011, the median family income in Chester was $27,661, representing the lowest in the five-county area, including Philadelphia, and less than half that ($63,677) of Delaware County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). As problematic as economic growth and community develop- ment were in the City of Chester, the challenges facing the public schools were equally daunting. The Chester-Upland School District became one of the most troubled school districts in the nation. Out of 501 school districts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Chester-Upland School District has been ranked at or near the bottom for more than three decades. The ability of Widener or any other university to work with the school district in meaningful ways over the years was always compromised by the lack of con- sistency in district leadership. For example, from 2000 to 2010, at least eight different people served as superintendent. Creating a Shared Vision for the Future The educational philosopher John Dewey promoted the idea that theory and practice were not merely compatible, but that combining them was highly desirable, and that the greater aims of society could be accomplished only through participatory democ- racy. He emphasized that the major advancements in knowledge occurred primarily when the focus was on solving significant soci- etal issues. These advancements most often occurred, according to 52 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement Dewey, when the learning in the classroom was continuous with the learning outside the school in the real world (Dewey, 1916). Unfortunately, the real world both inside Widener and outside in Chester was in Dewey’s time, and remains to this day compli- cated, unpredictable, and difficult to control. The past was filled with politics, corruption, shifting economic realities, and changing societal mores, all of which influenced how Widener interacted with or related to the Chester community. Developing democratic partnerships (as suggested by Dewey) with constituents outside Widener to advance knowledge and enhance student learning would be mutually beneficial to everyone involved. Forming such partnerships would prove to be challenging but was paramount if the university was to thrive in the 21st century. Equally challenging was developing democratic partnerships within a university culture that was unaccustomed to strategic plan- ning and meaningful dialogues about future directions, especially regarding greater interaction with the local community. Widener needed to rethink its relationship with Chester and develop a pur- poseful vision that would direct our work as a university. For years, Widener functioned on an annual operating plan that drove the budgeting process. According to the records, by 2002 Widener had never engaged in a sustainable strategic planning pro- cess, and there were no long-term university plans in place. The mission statement was common and uninspiring. It essentially gave the university wide latitude to meet the demands of the market- place and in no way included a focus on working in collaboration with the communities the university served. In fall 2002, Widener established a university strategic planning committee made up mostly of faculty members who represented the myriad constituencies at the university. Prior to the kickoff of the planning work, I had met one-on-one with more than 100 trustees and faculty and staff members, as well as dozens of community and alumni leaders. In each meeting with internal constituents, I asked who they thought should serve on a strategic planning committee to direct the future of the university. Based on that feedback, 12 people were asked to serve. During those meetings, a clear con- sensus regarding the future developed. Although every person had his or her own ideas about the direction the university should take, almost everyone believed that Widener needed to engage the Chester community in a more meaningful and sustainable way. One thing was crystal clear from the early discussions: Widener needed to rethink its core mission. From Gates to Engagement 53 The process of affirming or expanding an institutional mission should never be taken lightly, and, in the higher education tradition of democratic participation in decision making, changes in mission require input from all of the affected stakeholders. Many colleges and universities have successfully navigated these conversations by developing a discernment process in which representatives from various stakeholder groups are brought together to discuss and reflect on the mission of the institution and its relevance moving forward. An example of including key stakeholders in a discussion about an institution’s mission occurred at Widener in fall 2003. Widener held a “visioning” summit on its main campus and included board members, faculty members, administrators, students, commu- nity members, alumni, benefactors, and local elected officials to discuss what should be included in the university’s mission and vision statements (Harris, 2011). The summit was one component of a 2-year process to incorporate feedback from key constituents regarding the core values of the university into a long-term plan that would chart the university’s direction for the next decade. The Strategic Planning Committee took the feedback from the summit and decided to create a dynamic new vision for Widener, starting with a new mission statement. The mission statement was written by a small group of faculty leaders, trustees (skillfully led by former chairman David Oskin), and key senior staff mem- bers. The mission, adopted by the Board of Trustees in December 2003, boldly stated that Widener would create “a learning envi- ronment where curricula are connected to societal issues through civic engagement,” and would “contribute to the vitality and well- being of the communities we serve.” The strategic plan had several goals, including one specifically stating that the university should address the metropolitan region’s most pressing problems. The mis- sion, strategic goals, and vision statement, titled Vision 2015, were approved by the board at its May 2004 meeting (Widener University Strategic Plan, 2004). When the planning process was completed, more than 1,200 people had participated, representing all university constituent groups and including several local citizens. Dozens of meetings had taken place with elected officials, business leaders, clergy, com- munity activists, members of the Chester-Upland School Board, and local neighbors. What is most interesting is that prior to this effort, the majority of the faculty had not been asked to participate in planning efforts or to offer opinions regarding the direction of the university. When we made efforts to engage a broader group 54 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement of faculty in part of the planning process, there was significant resistance from the faculty members elected to establish gover- nance committees, primarily because they felt their authority was being undermined. In addition, some faculty members considered planning sessions that fully involved community members to be inappropriate and unnecessary. The university planning process has evolved and now includes an annual planning day meeting at which faculty members elected to standing faculty committees are invited to an all-day budgeting workshop to decide which priorities identified in the strategic plan should be funded. The Board of Trustees also participates in its own assessment of the progress made on the plan at its annual fall retreat and receives strategic plan updates at every board meeting. Local community members provide input about the university’s direction at least twice a year through a community advisory board that meets directly with me. As part of the final planning document, the mission statement proclaims that Widener is a “leading metropolitan university” (Widener University Strategic Plan, 2004). It is important to note that its designation as a “metropolitan university” was a bold new direc- tion for Widener. Most people had not heard of the term, and some saw it as possibly limiting the scope of the university’s potential. However, most saw the potential for the university to make its mark nationally by focusing locally on important issues. Likewise, as the national higher education dialogue started focusing on “anchor institutions,” it was easy for the Widener community to understand and adopt this new nomenclature. Over the past decade, the stra- tegic plan’s focus on the metropolitan region could be summarized as concerning three critical areas: community development, eco- nomic development, and public schools. Everyone that participated in the planning process shared a common belief that Widener had the potential to achieve new levels of distinction academically, but it is important to note that, at the time of the initial plan, the prevailing attitude about the univer- sity among most Chester community leaders and many within the Widener academic community was skepticism. Most were skep- tical that Widener had the ability to lead or even participate in a meaningful way in a renaissance in Chester, as well as the fortitude to take on some of the toughest issues, especially those dealing with the public schools, violence, and poverty. From Gates to Engagement 55 The University as a Facilitator, Leader, and Convener During the past few decades, many institutions across the country have become increasingly involved in local community issues that could broadly be placed in three categories: economic development, community development, and public education ini- tiatives. Economic development generally refers to the work of universities in partnering with local municipalities, businesses, financial institutions, and federal and state agencies to encourage and promote the economic well-being of a region or city. These efforts may take many forms, including workforce develop- ment, purchasing, capital investments, neighborhood revitalization, technology transfer, and the creation of business incubators to encourage and support entrepreneurial ventures. Community development typically refers to the efforts of a university to work with local, state, and federal agencies, as well as other community-based organizations, to address community problems that affect the living conditions (e.g., housing, violence, unemployment) of the community where the anchor is located. Likewise, public education initiatives often focus on how a univer- sity can partner with the local public school district(s) and other organizations to improve the quality of and access to education from kindergarten through high school (K–12). The ultimate aim of this work is to improve student learning outcomes in K–12 education, and to increase the percentage of students from under- represented groups prepared for college-level study. To help articulate the commitment to advancing these three broad issues as part of the mission of a university, the idea of being categorized as “metropolitan,” or “anchored” to a particular loca- tion, has gained momentum, especially among urban institutions. According to a recent report on university engagement published by the Democracy Collaborative, anchor institutions that wish to better the long-term viability of the communities where they reside can play many roles, but their work typically falls into three pat- terns: that of facilitator, leader, or convener (Axelroth & Dubb, 2010). When a university acts as a facilitator, the institution works with local community organizations by connecting faculty mem- bers and students through academic service-learning opportunities and by facilitating conversations between various organizations, including the university, to build capacity to address societal issues (Axelroth & Dubb, 2010). Usually these institutions have supportive administrative and academic leadership but limited resources to 56 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement contribute as major investors in significant community develop- ment projects. According to the Democracy Collaborative, a university is con- sidered a leader when it attempts to address a specific societal issue, such as crime or failing schools, by taking a leadership role in the discussions and by making a significant financial commitment to the efforts (Axelroth & Dubb, 2010). In this situation, the university administration may take an active and visible role in addressing a particular issue, and use the university’s influence to attract addi- tional partners and resources. A university is considered a convener when it builds alliances with local organizations, government agencies, or other partners to set an agenda focused on a long-term strategy to improve the living conditions in particular neighborhoods, establish commu- nity health goals, or encourage economic development (Axelroth & Dubb, 2010). In this scenario, the university views its role as a co-partner; it may invest its own resources to advance the initia- tive, but usually does so only if others are willing to work with the institution to solve the particular issue. Typically, universities who are conveners view their role in the community as part of the institution’s mission, and they expect to play a major role in the agenda-setting of the local community. Building Capacity: Widener as a “Facilitator” Universities as facilitators focus their efforts on building capacity for community organizations and residents. By partnering with city and community organizations, these institutions are able to facilitate broader, collab- orative efforts for community development. (Axelroth & Dubb, 2010, p. 7) As is true for the other institutions highlighted in this issue of the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, com- munity engagement is an institutional priority of the president (Axelroth & Dubb, 2010). I established the Office for Community Engagement and Diversity Initiatives after my first year at Widener to reinforce my commitment to breaking down a fortress men- tality and to signal the importance of community partnerships to my administration (Wilhite & Silver, 2004). Reporting directly to me, this office functions as a “facilitator” and assumes leadership to foster university and community partnerships with schools, busi- ness and civic leaders, and faith-based organizations; collaborates