1991
Proposal for the CYF Consortium
Children, Youth, and Family Consortium
University of Minnesota
University Gateway, 270A, 200 Oak Street SE
Minneapolis MN 55455
Phone: (612) 625-7849 email:cyfc@tc.umn.edu
A Proposal for an All-University Consortium on Children, Youth,
and Families at the University of Minnesota. (January, 1991)
Prepared by a steering committee appointed by President Nils Hasselmo,
Vice Presidents Leonard Kuhi and Eugene Allen, and Interim Vice
President Cherie Perlmutter Shirley Baugher
Robert Blum
Gayle Grika, staff
Jan Hively
Richard Weinberg, chair
A Year in the Life of Minnesota's Children, Youth, & Families
3,416 pregnant women receive no prenatal care at all or none before
the third trimester.
3,328 children are born weighing 4 pounds or less. 316 infants
die in the first 28 days of life. 3,700 children are born to single
teenagers. 115,039 families are headed by a signal parent. 148,000
children live at or below poverty level. 16,449 children 3-5 years
old are unable to be served by Head Start.
3,022 teenagers are arrested for drunk driving. 55 children from
10-19 kill themselves.
A
WINDOW IS OPEN
Right now we have an unprecedented chance to take advantage of
heightened public interest and available external funding in the
area of children, youth, and families. But the window will not
be open forever. As Anthony Downs warns, public attention rarely
focuses on one domestic issue for very long, even if it involves
a problem of crucial importance to society. Typically, problems
leap into prominence, remain there for a short time, then - even
though unresolved - fade from the center of attention. Because
that kind of focused public scrutiny and the political pressure
it can engender are essential to the implementation of change,
the current climate of concern about children, youth, and families
makes the timing for a University-community consortium ideal.
This moment of opportunity, coupled with the magnitude and urgency
of the problems bearing down on us - problems as familiar and
as desperate as the Minnesota statistics on the cover of this
proposal - explain "Why now?" These problems simply won't wait.
The price of delay is too heavy by any measure, from the unforgivable
loss of human potential to the staggering costs of future remediation.
In light of such radical need, we are not proposing that the University
and community simply do a better job at what they've already undertaken
- we are proposing that they try a new and different strategy.
The next question might be, "Why the University?" Because, like
the rest of the nation, despite our awareness of increasing threats
to the welfare of children, youth, and families - we have done
little. It is easy to point to federal indifference and ask: Where
are the parental leave bills or the child protection and child
abuse laws? Where is the long overdue national policy on children
and youth? Where is the visible commitment to the health, education,
and welfare of America's new generation - many of whom live in
poverty on the curbs of "home street home?" But those failures
are paralleled by our own. As a fundamental example, the University
has no inventory of its own personnel and research and outreach
activities in the area of children, youth, and families - a serious
obstacle to internal and external synergism. We know the problems,
we even know how to solve them, but we are not aggressively modeling
real-world interventions. Collectively, we know much more than
we use or apply; we must begin to translate that interdisciplinary
knowledge into action that has true impact in Minnesota.
At the same time, the University can do little in isolation. The
best hope for impact is through partnership with individuals and
agencies in the community who know the crises first-hand and who
may be piloting innovation. Collaborative effort is no longer
a choice, it is a necessity. This consortium, unlike some past
efforts, will be neither paternalistic or unilateral. A clear
acknowledgment of the authority of both the University and the
community has been integral to planning so far and will continue
to guide development. It is imperative that both parties are fully
invested in this effort to ensure its success.
Two final questions, "What needs to be done?" and "How should
we do it?" can only be answered in full as the consortium is established
and begins operation. Background and suggestions included in the
following paragraphs piece together one scenario, but a detailed
structure and agenda for the consortium should rightly be left
to its membership and executive committee.
SETTING
THE STAGE
In spring 1990, President Hasselmo, Provost Kuhi, Vice President
Allen, and Acting Vice President Perlmutter invited a four-member
steering committee to discuss the University's strong interest
in initiating a cross-disciplinary, community-linked program to
serve the needs of Minnesota's children, youth, and families.
Past efforts to connect related activities within the University
and to forge links with the community that might be instructive
were discussed, including:
-
Centers and Institutes: cross-departmental structures with
particular goals and constituents in mind that have been funded
through a wide range of internal and external sources
-
Professional training programs with multidisciplinary foci
-
Collaboratives of faculty and community people for the pursuit
of research, teaching, and service-outreach
-
Communication networks: formal and informal, between University
and community groups
-
Institution-wide cooperative ventures: e.g., 1986 Prospectus
for a Consortium on Children, Youth, and Families
Determined to build on the legacy of cooperation established over
time among many faculty and staff working on issues related to
children, youth, and families, the steering committee conducted
a 1 1/2 day planning retreat in November 1990. Thirty-nine faculty
and 11 community representatives participated. In early fall,
Twin Cities campus deans and chancellors on other campuses were
asked to nominate University candidates; steering committee members
nominated community candidates. Participants were selected by
the steering committee on the basis of fair and balanced representation
of gender, area of expertise, and ethnicity.
At the retreat, summarized in Appendix A, participants worked
in plenary sessions and small group discussions facilitated by
steering committee members and documented by recorder/observers.
Participants were asked to set aside their professional bias and
defenses in order to be receptive to the diverse perspectives
represented within each group. They were challenged to be visionary,
but realistic. The need for parsimony at this point in the University's
history was noted. The two bottom-line questions were "What can
be done now with limited resources?" and "What can be done later
once the consortium's credibility has been established?"
Judging from documentation and personal feedback, the retreat
was a highly productive experience - reflected in the enthusiasm,
judicious optimism, and personal commitment demonstrated throughout
the meetings. Observations and conclusions from the retreat, which
under gird this proposal, were extremely useful to the steering
committee in crafting a collective vision of the consortium.
To gain further insight into the University's past cooperative
efforts in the area of children, youth, and families, the steering
committee has also consulted with three prominent emeriti faculty
members: Gisela Knopka, former director of the Center for Youth
Development; Shirley G. Moore, former director of the Center for
Early Education and Development; and Maynard Reynolds, chair of
the
1986 planning group for a Consortium on Children, Youth, and Families.
THE
PROPOSAL
Our proposal has four parts: a list of questions that emerged
from the retreat and from steering committee meetings; a list
of guiding principles that underpin our recommendations; a mission
statement; and suggested short- and long-range consortium activities.
Questions:
-
Have the University's research, teaching, and service activities
to date really made a difference in the lives of Minnesota's
children, youth and families?
-
Are we effectively marshaling the considerable expertise and
resources of the University and community in setting agendas
for meeting the needs of those populations?
-
Have we been proactive as well as reactive in guiding the
course of our efforts?
-
Do we even know the key players within the University and
community, and do we create sufficient opportunities for them
to share perspectives and to participated in joint ventures?
Guiding Principles
-
The press for an all-University/community collaboration to
improve the lives of Minnesota's children, youth, and families
originates in a social/economic/political zeitgeist that has
raised our collective consciousness, irrespective of our individual
disciplines.
-
There is great need for a forum that links University and
community personnel interested in children, youth, and families.
Such a forum would create a much needed symbiosis, nourishing
the work of community practitioners and enriching the work
of academic researchers.
-
The current state of tension between the University and community
agencies cannot be ignored. Problems seen to stem from the
two parties' diverging missions and culture types: the University
is a deliberative culture where knowledge is generated and
disseminated, while community agencies are action-oriented
providers of direct service. To be effective, this consortium
must be grounded in the principle of reciprocity and mutual
respect between the community and University.
-
The consortium idea reflects the need for an organizing/coordinating
mechanism among the many University units active in the area
of children, youth, and families. It does not imply the need
for another such unit. The consortium is best thought of as
a process, not a structure. A consortium should create a culture,
and environment that empowers faculty and community professionals
to work more effectively on behalf of children, youth, and
families.
-
This consortium should attempt to develop a matrix of concern
about children, youth, and families throughout the state.
Information sharing and synergism should be encouraged not
only at the intra-University level, but at community and state
levels so that all those working for improvements understand
each other's programs and are supportive whenever possible.
(At the University level, for example, this would mean connecting
the child health activities of the pediatrics department with
research and policy initiatives in the Institute of Child
Development, the family social science department, the Institute
of Community Integration, and Institute for Developmental
Disabilities, and linking all those units to the dissemination
efforts of others such as the Minnesota Extension Service
and the Center for Early Education and Development.)
-
The intent of this consortium is to be inclusive rather than
exclusive. Membership should be open to all individuals and
agencies with interest in the well-being of children, youth,
and families. The strength of this network will depend on
the multi-disciplinary, intersectional (community, University),
ethnically diverse character of its membership.
-
This effort to launch a cooperative, multi-disciplinary attack
on a range of critical societal problems is congruent with
the University's growing emphases on maximizing efficiency,
cross-departmental planning, and responsiveness to state needs.
Our proposal seeks to better coordinate existing resources
for optimal effectiveness.
Mission
The mission of an All-University Consortium on Children, Youth,
and Families is to bring the varied competencies of the University
of Minnesota together with the vital resources of Minnesota communities
to address critical health, education, and social policy concerns
in ways that improve the well being of all Minnesota children,
youth, and families.
First Steps: An Initial Response to the Consortium's Structure
and Functions.
-
Expand the existing steering committee to nine members, including
representation from the Twin Cities and greater Minnesota.
This committee, along with the developing membership, should
begin to determine the consortium's long-range goals. This
committee should report to the president of the University.
-
Establish a consortium office, separate from any existing
University unit, to serve as a clearinghouse for collection
and exchange of information among consortium members. If possible,
this office should be housed in a location that offers easy
accessibility to individuals from the community.
-
Hire a coordinator (at least .5 FTE) and a full-time secretary
and/or staff to oversee and coordinate consortium activities
and to staff the steering committee.
-
Announce and promote consortium membership to University and
community people interested in the well-being of children,
youth, and families.
-
Begin monthly consortium meetings hosted by various University
departments and by the steering committee. Presentations can
be made by individuals or groups from the University or the
community.
-
Compile and widely publish a directory of University and community
resources and programs relating to children, youth, and families.
-
Produce and distribute a monthly calendar of events (including
grant application deadlines) related to children, youth, and
families.
Looking Ahead
-
Organize forums and colloquia
-
Develop and disseminate informational publications
-
Develop an all-University undergraduate proseminar
-
Develop a mechanism to encourage and help prepare grant proposals
-
Establish a "living laboratory" in the community where University
faculty and students and community professionals work together,
researching a few targeted problems, e.g., infant mortality.
-
Establish a center for advanced study
-
Target one or two project thrusts to focus on
-
Develop a quarter or semester professional exchange program
between University faculty and community professionals
-
Monitor research projects on children, youth, and families
to insure responsible, valid, and useful research is being
funded
-
Provide a highly visible political arena in which a strong
advocacy voice for Minnesota's children can be heard
In conclusion, we believe the University, a major land-grant institution
with perhaps the world's pre-eminent faculty in the area of children,
youth, and families, in partnership with a community renown for
excellence and innovation in human services, can provide state
and national leadership in serving the needs of children, youth,
and families.
APPENDIX
A PLANNING RETREAT SUMMARY
November 7-8, 1990 The retreat consisted of four, sequential small-group
discussion sessions over two days.
BEFORE
THE RETREAT
Each participant received the following description of the four
sessions:
The Problems
What are the important problems and issues in the areas of health,
education, and welfare affecting the well-being of children, youth,
and families? How are these problems and issues shaped and challenged
by state and national cultural, political, social, and economic
factors? How does your own disciplinary perspective and experience
influence your identification and analysis of the problem? Can
you project to the near and middle future the consequences of
ignoring the issues and failing to solve the problems? Consider
more than an analysis of what exists--what new solutions, alternative
directions, and future developments can we project from our individual
perspectives?
Community-University Linkages
What is the current climate of exchange between the "community"
and the University in the areas of children, youth, and families?
How do differing missions of community organizations and agencies,
governmental units, the business sector, and the University affect
their respective responsibilities toward children, youth, and
families? Can these institutions interact as agents of change?
Is there easy communication among these various institutions?
How can cooperation among institutions be improved? What mechanisms
might enhance communication between the University and Minnesota's
citizens.
The Mission
What should be the mission for a consortium? Its goals might include:
identifying and communicating information, coordinating and facilitating
activities, initiating research, teaching, service and policy
agendas, or even aggressive advocacy. Consider the problems and
issues made explicit in the first discussion in relation to a
potential mission and goals for a consortium.
How can priorities be set for goals, both short-term and long-term?
For example, how do urgency and magnitude of problems affect priorities?
What accomplishments toward problem solution can be sought in
one year? In five years?
Getting It Done
In light of the mission and goals already considered, how should
the consortium be organized? What resources will it require: What
are possible sources of support? How should membership categories
and responsibilities be established? What community, University,
and disciplinary representation should be assured? How should
coordination among constituents be managed?
AT
THE RETREAT
Summaries of the four discussion sessions follow.
The Problems
The fundamental obstacle in improving the lives of children, youth,
and families is cultural, and therefore the most difficult to
address. We see the problems, we even know how to solve them,
but we lack the collective will to commit energy and resources
to those solutions. Reluctance to get involved is evident not
only on the personal level, but on the governmental and commercial
levels as well. There is no governmental leadership in developing
policies on children, youth, and families, and there is little
support from business and industry in assuring the welfare of
those populations. Without governmental mandates or moral imperatives,
society exhibits no sense of responsibility in this area until
crises arise. One of the chief dilemmas faced by activists in
these areas is how to divide resources between short-term crises
and long-term prevention.
Problems (not in order of priority) are: -Poverty
-Family dysfunction
-Breakdown of nuclear family
-Lack of parenting skill
-Racism/class discrimination
-Drugs and other environmental contaminants -Sexual and physical
violence
-Lack of quality child care
-No governmental policy on children, youth, and families -Unclear
assignment of responsibilities between community and family for
welfare of children
Consequences of inaction include:
-Future labor force shortage
-Higher crime and incarceration rates
-Increased mental health problems
-Increased chemical dependency
-Widening gap between haves and have-nots -Increase in population
of developmentally disabled -Disaster in the educational system
-Increased health problems and resultant loss of human potential
-Economic breakdown and progressive social deterioration -Loss
of international status
Prerequisites for the success of any remedial or preventative
strategies:
-Public awareness
-Adequate data
-Multi-cultural, cross-class, and cross-discipline involvement
-Commitment of business sector
-Spirit of cooperation, not competition, must prevail -Cultural
sensitivity in implementation
The ultimate goal of all efforts has to be the reinstatement of
children as this country's number one resource. Responsibility
of the welfare of the child has to be expanded beyond the nuclear
family to the community.
COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY
LINKAGES
A climate of tension currently exists between the community and
the University. The University often feels unwelcome in the community,
and the community looks on the University with considerable distrust.
Distrust of the University is the result of:
-
perceptions of University arrogance, egocentrism, paternalism:
"The U takes, but it doesn't give back." It uses community
sources for research, but seldom shares the results of that
research with those sources
-
difficult access: structure of U is confusing to outsiders,
need one clear point of entry for community; physical barriers
to visitors, foremost is parking
-
the University punishes faculty who excel in service and outreach
areas by not weighting those activities equally with research
and teaching in promotion and tenure decisions; there is no
real, internal incentive for community involvement
-
poor communication: U's goals and purposes in research are
not clearly explained to community collaborators; need for
better internal communication and cooperation among U people
should precede expansion of collaborative efforts with community
-
lack of acknowledgment that U and community are different
cultures with different missions: U - generate and disseminate
knowledge, address long-term problems -- community - provide
direct services, address short-term problems
New Cooperative Links might include:
-U-community forums around a real-world issue
-Faculty-community professional exchanges
-Documentation of successful models for U-community cooperation
and an attempt to replicate those models
-Improve user-friendliness of U
-U offers genuine rewards to faculty for community involvement
and service
-U-community advisory boards; involve the community in setting
the U's research agenda
The University and the community feel strongly that it is critical
to work toward a more productive and reciprocal relationship -
especially in exploring the issues related to children, youth,
and families - while recognizing that goal demands sensitivity
to each other's mission.
THE
MISSION
The fundamental mission of the consortium should be to empower
individuals and groups in the community to better do their work.
Three components of this mission (research, political action,
service) are interrelated and all crucial to success. A 5-year
consortium plan with specific goals would be useful. The consortium
should be proactive and bold, yet cognizant of the structural
barriers among institutions and agencies that impede cooperation.
Careful consideration should be given to the definition of a realistic
scope of activities and services in light of this consortium's
limited resources and University base. The consortium should focus
on a very few projects in the beginning, then build on its success.
Secondary Missions would be to:
-Support and protect its members and the work they produce
-Provide a peace zone where ideas could be freely debated in a
neutral space
-Promote effective interaction between U staff and community leaders
-Provide a highly visible political arena in which a strong advocacy
voice for children could be heard
-Monitor research projects to help assure that responsible, valid,
and useful research was being funded in the area of children,
youth, and families
Activities/Services could include:
-Technical assistance
-Information
-Dissemination
-Evaluation
-Active collaboration
-Course work
-Professional development opportunities -Brokerage for funding
opportunities
GETTING
IT DONE
Structure for the consortium should be as simple and clean as
possible, more bureaucracy is that last thing needed. Several
structural models for a consortium exist, e.g., U. of Arizona
or U. of Washington's "town meetings;" Atlanta University Center
(helped community make civil rights changes); VISTA; and the University's
own Minnesota Building Research Center and advanced study centers.
It could also take the form of a "consortium of consortia" - setting
the model and subcontracting to assist other universities.
The consortium should probably have:
-an executive committee with statewide representation (the basis
could be the steering committee) that reports to the president
or vice president
-
a constellation of interest groups made up of University and
community people who share common interests and expertise,
e.g., identify 10 problems and form U-community groups around
those ten problems
-
staff, including a coordinator (e.g., marketing/public relations,
data, community liaison, event development)
-
inclusive rather than exclusive membership (open to anyone
who is interested)
Problems:
-
Lack of money; funds given to the consortium would likely
have to be drawn away from the very groups it hopes to bring
together
-
Faculty and community experts already very busy
-
U reward system penalizes public service and discourages interdepartmental
collaboration
-Lack of education about these problems on part of faculty and
community
-Lack of experience and expertise in "synergism" both among U
units and U and community
Activities:
-One-semester exchange program between University faculty and
community/corporate experts
-An aggressive U speaker's bureau on the topics related to children,
youth, and families
-Three-day meeting to determine which problems to tackle and what
goals to set
-Meetings with Governor and U.S. Senators to ask what the consortium
could do for them and for the state
-Focus on a single problem (e.g., child mortality) and set a measurable
goal (to reduce child mortality in Minnesota to x by 199_)
-Develop a cross-departmental course at the 1000-level
-Monthly lecture series
-Summer Institutes
-U/community breakfast meetings
-Fellowships for community people to get them involved
-Regular newsletter
