"Community and Academic Partnerships: Realities and Possibilities" by Dr. So'Nia Gilkey


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

"Community and Academic Partnerships: Realities and Possibilities" by Dr. So'Nia Gilkey

  1. 1. COMMUNITY AND ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIPS: REALITIES AND POSSIBILITIES<br />Presenter: So`Nia L. Gilkey, PhD, LCSW, Cmdr<br />Conference Title: Best Practices Disaster Mental Health and Resilience<br />Tulane University School of Social Work<br />March 20, 2009<br />
  2. 2. General Overview<br />Community and Academic Partnerships Defined<br />General Characteristics of Successful Partnerships<br />Truths and Myths of Partnerships<br />Using Strengths-based approach<br />Forging Partnerships in Post-Disaster Era<br />Two Case Examples<br />Disaster Mental Health Recovery Program<br />Homeless Services Programs<br />Conclusion<br />
  3. 3. Traditional - partnerships between community-based programs and academic institutions to address needs of targeted populations and/or issues of community<br />Partnerships viewed as collaborative and supportive<br />Both parties bring various expertise on issue/problem<br />Research and/or evaluation activities major part of partnership<br />Community and Academic Partnerships<br />
  4. 4. Partnerships Continued<br />Post-Disaster – partnerships can be defined as having mutually collaborative interests, but where disaster-related impact is included as significant component of the partnership<br />Partnerships based in cooperative, problem-solving framework where benefits of the relationship are balanced and activities of the partnership designed to promote resilience and well-being of the community-based program<br />Practice-based activities in addition to research and evaluation are key components of partnership<br />
  5. 5. General interest in partnering<br />General desire to improve client services<br />Goals and products mutually negotiated<br />Activities focused on strengths <br />Challenges and barriers considered and solutions sought<br />Commitment to partnering viewed as valuable and relevant<br />General Characteristics of Successful Partnerships<br />
  6. 6. Truths and Myths of Partnerships<br />Truths<br />Relationships between community and universities encouraged<br />Community-based programs have access to university expertise<br />Universities have access to practice expertise<br />Partnership commitments responsibility of both parties<br />Improved understanding of systems impact<br />Increased opportunities to demonstrate program-related outcomes <br />Increased opportunities to improve client services<br />
  7. 7. Truths and Myths Continued<br /><ul><li>Myths
  8. 8. Relationship between community and universities are problematic
  9. 9. Community-based programs viewed as less capable of responding to community needs
  10. 10. Universities viewed as disconnected and unresponsive, and with self-promoting interests
  11. 11. Universities viewed as interested only in data collection
  12. 12. Distrust of partnerships is general stance
  13. 13. Systems with different interests can’t work together effective
  14. 14. Community programs only benefit on limited scale
  15. 15. No real commitment to improve client services or solve problems</li></li></ul><li>Strengths-based Approach<br />Partnerships viewed as source of “Empowerment”<br />Strengths of both parties identified and utilized<br />Inventory of assets collected and put to use<br />Strengths not viewed as mutually exclusive <br />Strengths viewed as complimentary<br />Commitment to partnership negotiated to satisfaction of both parties<br />Goals of partnership are ongoing<br />Outcomes of partnerships are defined but flexible<br />Partnership viewed as win-win! <br />
  16. 16. <ul><li>Disaster Recovery Mental Health Program
  17. 17. Overcoming distrust
  18. 18. Hesitant of university interest
  19. 19. Establishing commitment to partnership
  20. 20. Negotiating goals of relationship
  21. 21. Terms of partnership pre-determined
  22. 22. Value of expertise initially challenged
  23. 23. Desired outcomes non-negotiable at onset
  24. 24. Focus of partnership – Improved Client Services in Post-Disaster Context</li></ul>Case Example #1<br />
  25. 25. Case Example #2<br />Homeless Service Provider<br />Overcoming Distrust<br />Welcomed university partnership<br />Mutually agreed upon parameters of partnership<br />Terms of Partnership flexible<br />Goals of partnership negotiable and regularly evaluated<br />Desired outcomes evolved based on success of partnership<br />Value of expertise of both parties emphasized and viewed as foundation of partnership<br />Focus of partnership – Improved Client Services in Post-Disaster Context<br />
  26. 26. Strategies to Improve University-Community Partnerships<br />Be proactive – reach out<br />Consider context – pre vs. post-disaster<br />Recognize value – them vs. us<br />Be willing to contribute “something for nothing”<br />Recognize that partnerships are ongoing and require consistent nurturing<br />Understand that successful partnerships develop over time<br />Determine motivation and commitment and be honest about it<br />Enlist the support and commitment of all interested parties<br />
  27. 27. Be clear about goals of relationship<br />Be committed to collaborative and cooperative relationship<br />Consider barriers to successful partnership and strategies to address barriers<br />Identify a plan for the partnership and be willing to negotiate/revise the plan<br />View partnership as win-win<br />Strategies to Improve University-Community Partnerships Con’t<br />
  28. 28. University-community partnerships can work<br />Commitment is key<br />Strengths-based approach is desirable<br />Everyone contributes to success or failure<br />Disaster impact can help or hinder partnership<br />Individuals, families, groups, communities and systems benefit when partnerships are supported and successfully implemented<br />Conclusion<br />
  29. 29. Question and Answer<br />