This document summarizes a presentation about community and academic partnerships, particularly in post-disaster contexts. It defines partnerships as collaborative relationships where both community programs and academic institutions bring expertise. Successful partnerships are characterized by mutual goals and benefits, a strengths-based approach, and a commitment to improving client services. The presentation provides strategies for developing partnerships, overcome myths and distrust, and gives two case examples of post-disaster mental health and homeless services programs partnering successfully with universities.

1. COMMUNITY AND ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIPS: REALITIES AND POSSIBILITIESPresenter: So`Nia L. Gilkey, PhD, LCSW, CmdrConference Title: Best Practices Disaster Mental Health and ResilienceTulane University School of Social WorkMarch 20, 2009

2. General OverviewCommunity and Academic Partnerships DefinedGeneral Characteristics of Successful PartnershipsTruths and Myths of PartnershipsUsing Strengths-based approachForging Partnerships in Post-Disaster EraTwo Case ExamplesDisaster Mental Health Recovery ProgramHomeless Services ProgramsConclusion

3. Traditional - partnerships between community-based programs and academic institutions to address needs of targeted populations and/or issues of communityPartnerships viewed as collaborative and supportiveBoth parties bring various expertise on issue/problemResearch and/or evaluation activities major part of partnershipCommunity and Academic Partnerships

4. Partnerships ContinuedPost-Disaster – partnerships can be defined as having mutually collaborative interests, but where disaster-related impact is included as significant component of the partnershipPartnerships 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 programPractice-based activities in addition to research and evaluation are key components of partnership

5. General interest in partneringGeneral desire to improve client servicesGoals and products mutually negotiatedActivities focused on strengths Challenges and barriers considered and solutions soughtCommitment to partnering viewed as valuable and relevantGeneral Characteristics of Successful Partnerships

6. Truths and Myths of PartnershipsTruthsRelationships between community and universities encouragedCommunity-based programs have access to university expertiseUniversities have access to practice expertisePartnership commitments responsibility of both partiesImproved understanding of systems impactIncreased opportunities to demonstrate program-related outcomes Increased opportunities to improve client services

7. Truths and Myths ContinuedMyths

8. Relationship between community and universities are problematic

9. Community-based programs viewed as less capable of responding to community needs

10. Universities viewed as disconnected and unresponsive, and with self-promoting interests

11. Universities viewed as interested only in data collection

12. Distrust of partnerships is general stance

13. Systems with different interests can’t work together effective

14. Community programs only benefit on limited scale