Metropolitan State University Foundation CI Report – Interim

What has been most instrumental to your progress?

The key to our progress in both fundraising and generating community and university support for the GROW-IT Center lies in the trust and depth of partnership between university departments and the lead GROW-IT Center community partner, Urban Roots. Engaged University departments include: the Institute for Community Engagement and Scholarship, project management and lead liaison to academic departments; Campus Operations, for building design/development; Advancement, fund development; academic departments, for faculty and deans’ participation in program planning; Cabinet-level administrators concerning financial/contract decisions. Urban Roots’ staff and youth interns helped usher financial commitments to the project and have guided, in partnership with ICES, outreach to other prospective community partners to surface whose interests align with each other and/or the capacities of the Center. Every role, and clear, coordinated communication among them, is critical to deepening a shared understanding of what can and cannot be realized at the Center, once constructed; this is the foundation for engagement in cooperative work over time.

On March 18, 2018, the GROW-IT Center planning team hosted a community forum at Metropolitan State to kick-off the community re-engagement process. Dayton’s Bluff neighbors and organizations were the target audience for this event. In addition to general publicity via email lists, websites, a neighborhood publication, etc., invitations featuring a schematic rendering of the Center were mailed to every household in the Dayton’s Bluff community. This was important in and of itself because the information reached renters as well as homeowners, and the announcement provided the planned construction timeline, invited input and gave contact information. At the forum, following a basic update, over 30 people representing a broad range of interests, engaged in a robust exchange regarding the types of activity that neighbors and local organizations would like to see at the Center. The creativity in the room and eagerness to collaborate was inspiring. At least one new partnership, wherein a faculty member and his students helped build raised-bed community gardens for seniors and people with disabilities who live in a local supportive housing complex, emerged from that dialogue already.

Urban Roots and ICES staff have been conducting one-on-one meetings with about a dozen community members/organizational representatives and five faculty (respectively, and occasionally, together) to explore in greater depth their ideas about how to maximize the potential of the Center. We are documenting key take-aways and especially noting opportunities for community-academic alignment. These conversations have proven important only for surfacing ideas but for building new relationships where the potential for connection isn’t already in place, and as a way to update various constituents on progress toward Center construction, which has shifted somewhat from the initial timeline. The ‘division of labor’ on community engagement has enabled community members to openly convey to Urban Roots staff what they might not as freely communicate to university staff about their expectations of the university as an anchor institution as well as for university staff to put in context for faculty/administrators the perspectives that are shared with community engagement staff. We need solid, transparent relationships in order to manage multiple interests!

Key lessons learned

As implied above, clear communication, honest relationships and flexibility are essential to negotiating multiple interests, particularly in the midst of unexpected changes in a collaborative project. In fall 2018, we confronted a significant project setback when construction bids for our initial project design came in at nearly twice the estimated renovation cost. This surprising development was a reflection of timing and market forces beyond our control rather than a failure per se on the part of the planning partners. And yet, that situation required, literally, that we ‘go back to the drawing board’ to quickly determine a lower-cost design (without sacrificing the over-riding goals/functionality of the facility that constituents helped shape), an expanded list of donor prospects, and new internal agreements about expectations and decision-making processes as we move forward. It’s been challenging to balance the importance of communication and engagement with the value of expediency which, in light of increasing costs in the construction market, is a very real factor in this particular collaboration.

Reflections on inclusive, collaborative or resourceful problem-solving

Inclusive: The engagement of neighbors and organizations who address our key topics have been essential in surfacing priorities for the types of activities that can occur at the Center–e.g. workshops on soil health, backyard gardening, etc.; partnerships with K-12 schools that ties school gardens to curricula; cultural exchange, etc.–all knowledge that will inform our operational plans.

Collaborative: Although the university is ultimately responsible for the GROW-IT Center facility itself, Urban Roots’ role this past year in its design helped ensured that its functionality is responsive to community uses. This was essential in weighing costs and benefits of design options. Similarly, the role of Urban Roots’ staff in community engagement, and joint coordination of that process with ICES staff, further reinforced joint community-university decision-making as a modus operandi for ongoing operations.

Resourceful: Constituents identified not only ways they could benefit from the Center but what they could contribute. For example, Hmong American Farmers Association and East Side Elders Lodge envisioned their elders sharing cultural knowledge about food production and health.

Other key elements of Community Innovation

Not yet, although we suspect that bringing in 3rd parties at some point will strengthen the process of developing operational plans and communication.

Understanding the problem

As indicated throughout this report, the conversations we’re having–one-to-one, in various community forums (such as the East Side Health and Wellness Collaborative and Urban Roots’ participation in the East Side Table project) and university meetings (such as a recent project update to the College of Nursing and Health Sciences)–inevitably generate more ideas and a clearer sense of what is emerging among constituents as a possibility for GROW-IT Center work. There is no lack of ideas; our challenge will lie in how to prioritize and phase in a range of innovations affecting one or more of the MANY dimensions of urban food production, healthy food access and ecological restoration. We have not yet moved into the phase of re-engagement that will involve various constituencies in shaping clear priorities for use of the shared demonstration space (Phase II-building expansion), although we have clarified and communicated consistently that use of the growing space (Phase I-renovation) will be devoted to Urban Roots and two academic departments (Natural Science and Psychology.)

If you could do it all over again…

Prepare for the unexpected! Community engagement is, by itself, far from a linear process in the first place. Add to that an unexpected variable or more (staff changes, financial challenges, etc.) that could significantly affect a group process, it’s important to regularly communicate with all parties who have indicated interest or stand to be affected by changes–be they changes in substance or timing. We may have benefited from building in greater communications capacity earlier on in our process.

One last thought

We remain optimistic that our project will take shape as envisioned, despite setbacks this year in terms of our construction process and timeline. We sincerely appreciate the Bush Foundation’s offer to extend the terms of our grant contract, an option we will choose to exercise. Thank you!