Based on our meeting with Morgan State I think there is agreement that the substantive focus of our joint center falls broadly under the banner of “sustainable development” and that there is sufficient latitude within this broad concept for us to define several specific initiatives that align with the interests and expertise within the two schools and that meet concrete needs within the targeted areas.
In terms of target areas we might think of two tiers of involvement. The first tier would be state-wide and based on our evolving work with MEDA. The courses we will offer through the summer institute will respond to identified needs among MEDA members (and others) throughout the state and I suspect they can be framed under the “sustainable development” banner. The second tier would involve targeted technical assistance in specific geographic areas, for example the Morgan neighborhood; and specific areas in Prince George’s county, most of which will meet the criteria for economic distress. We may also identify specific projects with individual MEDA members in communities that may or may not meet the criteria for distress. I don’t think we need to have an exclusive focus on distressed areas as long as we address distressed areas in a significant way.
The partnership between UM and Morgan probably represent a third focus area insofar as Morgan’s program is comparatively small and lacking in resources. The framing (and the delivery) will be delicate, but to the extent that we can augment their program and resources with ours through the use of networks and technology I think it adds an extra dimension and a compelling story to our application.
The projects we might propose include the following:
1. Working with Prince George’s County on sustainable development in some of their industrial / technology parks. These will be multi-dimensional in terms of their “sustainability” focus and we will need much more work to figure out exactly what we are doing and how it fits. This would be a focus if we secure that contract with MNPPC.
2. Working with Prince George’s County on transitioning portions of their construction and building materials cluster into “green” products and methods. The sustainability connection is pretty clear here but we still need a lot of work to figure out the specifics. Again, this would be a focus if we secure the contract with MNPPC.
3. Energy efficiency and weatherization in the Morgan State neighborhood and other areas in Baltimore City identified through Morgan. Per our discussion with Sid this may involve working with / through community development corporations on several types of related projects including home weatherization; job training for community residents to perform weatherization activities; support and business development activities for local entrepreneurs who want to start weatherization and or related businesses. Match / Partnership for this could come from several sources including the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) and DHCD, both of which are actively working in this area and have funding and program infrastructure in place. Match may be simply a matter of getting them to target or “set aside” a portion of their funding / activity for use in conjunction with our UC project.
4. The professional development institute represents a fourth project with MEDA as one of the main partners. I think this may be one area where DBED support / partnership may be uniquely helpful, especially if we are aiming for a high-end product as Margaret suggested. We need to talk through / think through this in greater detail but I think we could design the institute in such a way that it creates value for the state in a way that would be interesting to DBED. They might provide funding for this in the form of a seed rant to get it started and / or through a scholarship fund that would support a number of students at our higher per course / daily rate. Some of the scholarships could be targeted to people / organizations from distressed areas. DBED funding would obviously count as a match, but I think the program income from the institute would also count.
5. A fifth project focus would involve specific technical assistance engagements identified in partnership with MEDA and / or our other partners. This too would present a good opportunity to partner with DBED and seek matching funds from them. One of the attractive features of this focus area and the professional development institute from the DBED perspective is that while they are supporting our efforts they are also delivering services and leveraging other funding sources for the benefit of multiple communities around the state. This may also be a good area to involve the smart growth center.
6. Finally, we might seek funding from the University, from Morgan State, and/or the University System (and perhaps some foundations) to facilitate our partnership with Morgan. We would explore new collaborative approaches to education, outreach and research in ways that meet present day challenges consistent with our land grant new technologies and network organization.
Each of these projects may require funding beyond the University Center grant and the identified match. My view is that the UC grant essentially covers the costs to organize and administer these projects however implementation funds must come from matching and other sources. Part of the administrative responsibility will be to identify and secure additional sources of project funding on an ongoing basis. I think the matching funds we identify in the grant application should be sufficient to launch each project and provide sufficient time to secure ongoing / additional sources of funding.
In terms of writing the application and coordinating with partners, the class can explore and expand each of these projects plus any others that may be identified. This will be the assignment between week 2 and 3, due on February 8th. We should be ready for an initial discussion with DBED shortly after that. Same goes for other potential partners.
Some thoughts on these proposed UC ideas:
ReplyDelete3. Energy Efficiency and Weatherization: This idea seems extremely feasible as well as beneficial to those in the community which have experienced job loss in the recent recession. It also has the community focus which many of us want to experience with this project.
I also think this would be an ideal place not only to incorporate the local CDCs but also the community colleges, which could further create more sources for funding/support/resources.
Just a thought: Could we maybe incorporate 2 and 3 together under the umbrella of “green jobs”? The two ideas seem very similar in concept, except one focuses on products and methods while the other on job training and business development. Perhaps it would be a lot to put into one project, but I think it may be worth exploring the possibility.
4. Professional Development Institute: I am a little confused as what you mean by “professional development institute”. I can think of this project in two ways.
a) An institute that provides free or cheap classes/workshops for community members. These workshops would teach computer skills, trade skills, practical office/professional skills, resume assistance, mock interviews, and job search assistance. This seems like a a valuable project, but I also think it may be replicated by many other local organizations (I know that Our Daily Bread in Baltimore has a project similar to this). If this is common, we may think of how we can incorporate those local players into our project. Another question to ask ourselves is: Does this project have a sustainable aspect? We may be teaching practical job skills, but are we creating jobs for these people to apply for?
b) The other way we could approach a Professional Development Institute is by creating a place for investors/inventors /entrepreneurs to come together. Classes could be offered on starting a business or offer legal advice and resources. I am thinking of this institute as a catch-all for all the state- and local-level players we discussed last class. These organizations/programs offer many valuable services, but it seems that some of them are under utilized. Perhaps the institute could act as an a larger umbrella for connecting all of these resources.
6. New collaborative approaches to research: Just a thought, but could this include feasibility research for company startups. If we were to provide services that would lower the costs of such research, it may speed up the investor process and allow startup companies to enter the market sooner.