RESEARCH QUESTION: Does Online "Working Out Work" as a Treatment and Prevention for Depression in Older Adults? An Analysis of a Prescribed and Monitored Exercise Program Administered via the Internet for Senior Adults with Depression.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate and access the effectiveness of an online prescribed and monitored exercise program for the treatment of depression in Older Adults. The Dependent Variable for the study is Depression. The Independent Variable for the study is the Effects of Exercise administered via the Internet and the population is geriatric adults defined as senior adults aged 50 and older. Depression is defined by Princeton University Scholars (Wordnet, 2006) as a mental state characterized by a pessimistic sense of inadequacy and a despondent lack of activity.
METHODS: The presence and severity of depression will be assessed by using The Merck Manual of Geriatrics (GDS-15) Geriatric Depression Scale. Assessments will be performed at baseline, before and after the treatment is concluded. The subjects will complete the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) prior to participating in an exercise program three times per week.
LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH: The limitations of this study are: 1) There is a small sample size limited to Senior Adults aged 50 - 80, and 2) there is no control group with structured activity or placebo, therefore researcher is unable to evaluate if the marked improvement was due to a non-specific therapeutic effect associated with taking part in a social activity (group online exercise program). Further research could compare and analyze the positive effects of a muscular strength training exercise program verses a cardiovascular training exercise program.

Academic libraries seek to engage people with information resources and maximize use of library spaces. When users increasingly rely on digital rather than print resources, libraries respond by shifting space usage from stacks to user working and reading spaces. How then do we, as academic library professionals, best keep print collections on public view and maximize user engagement?

In this whitepaper, we focus on fostering engagement with print resources among\nlibrary users, particularly with open stack print collections and users within the local community. We advocate moving toward a more flexible, more user-focused service that makes library collections easier to understand and to use. Libraries need to work with their surrounding communities in the further development and presentation of their collections. We offer a flexible, a la carte approach to transforming open stack academic library print collection management. We have developed a three-tiered system of potential approaches and actions for academic libraries to foster engagement with their collections. We also include materials and tools to help guide individual libraries towards a data-driven approach to print curation that may be tailored to their local context. We hope that these approaches and tools aid academic libraries in helping users engage in meaningful dialogues with print resources.

As part of a $50,000 planning grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the analysis is aimed at fostering engagement with print resources among library users, particularly with open stack print collections and users within the local community. "The Future of the Academic Library Print Collection: A Space for Engagement" explores a three-tiered system of potential approaches and actions for academic libraries to foster engagement with their collections, and includes materials and tools to help guide individual libraries towards a data-driven approach to print curation that may be tailored to their local context.

As Durham’s economy collapsed in the mid-1990s, Duke established a plan to intervene. Its actions aligned with anchor institution models at many universities; its approach, however, was unique: In a city where Duke was a fixture, university leadership understood a top-down approach was not viable. Instead, administrators launched a community-led model intended to change the “story [from] look at what Duke did,” to “can you imagine what’s happened in Durham?”. I use a longitudinal case study to examine Duke’s anchor institution model in 12 Durham neighborhoods. The research considers Duke’s approach from the mid-1990s to present, drawing from: interviews with Duke administrators, community organizations, and neighborhood representatives; newspaper articles and reports; and a descriptive analysis of neighborhood change. This case explores an anchor model that engages non-profit partners and community development strategies. Findings show the potential for a multi-partner anchor model that cultivates neighborhood improvement and minimizes (to an extent) gentrification pressures that can arise from anchor investment. Duke’s anchor model offers a unique perspective on university-community engagement, partnerships and neighborhood investment.

Duke’s case offers insights for how major institutions—from university anchors to local government—can recast their roles in communities; it also offers a roadmap for how institutions can engage (and benefit) neighborhoods in meaningful ways. Informed by a collaborative anchor model, Duke empowered residents to identify their own neighborhood priorities and partnered with local community organizations to meet those aims. This anchor model reveals a powerful role for intermediaries, including planners and community organizers, to connect institutional resources with neighborhood priorities. Supported by a participatory planning process, there are opportunities to realign anchor institution strategies and tools with neighborhood priorities to move towards mutually beneficial outcomes.

This article reviews the concept of shared equity homeownership (SEH) in the United States. The review examines the origins of the SEH model and its historic precedents. It considers the impetus for SEH, setting the discourse within the context of US housing policy and, specifically, low-income homeownership research. Subsequently, the review assesses the current state of SEH research, including the evidence associated with SEH as an affordable housing strategy, its application and challenges in the field, and gaps in the scholarly discourse.

Town-gown engagement has evolved over several eras, most recently embodying the anchor institution model. The post-1990 scholarship suggests a distinct shift, describing a new framework for the ways universities engage with neighborhood space. This paper tests this approach, using a survey of universities to question several assumptions about town-gown engagement in the 21st century. While the conceptual definition and stylistic approach to engagement has changed, there appears to be less differentiation from earlier models than one might expect. The study offers a typology of university revitalization strategies and contributes a new perspective to the anchor institution discourse.

Problem:
Universities are pursuing place-making beyond the campus. In the 21st century, many universities have invested in revitalization, reconceiving of urban neighborhoods as assets, rather than detriments. But what does this mean for the neighborhood?

Research Strategy:
This study uses Census data and a survey of universities, pursuing neighborhood revitalization in nineteen cities, to examine place-based outcomes. I rely on median home values and rents to evaluate market change (1990 to 2010), testing how the rate of change in target tracts compares to areas without university investments. To account for contextual variation, I employ a multi-dimensional typology to analyze changes by city markets and revitalization approach.

Findings:
The findings illustrate how extending the university brand into neighborhoods, achieved through bricks-and-mortar projects, is an effective strategy for revitalization. University initiatives, regardless of their intensity or place-based focus, meaningfully impacted neighborhood housing markets. However, market appreciation was substantially greater for target areas located in strong-market cities and/or with high-intensity investment from a university.

Takeaway for Practice:
The findings contribute to an understanding of university revitalization outcomes and offer insight into the importance of context. For instance, strong market cities, on their own, are an indicator of success. University investment, in any form, appears to close gaps and boost lower-value neighborhoods back into an otherwise strong marketplace. For moderate and weak cities, the university’s approach is the defining characteristic—investment in place-based projects is critical for an improved market. Thus, the key to revitalization “success” is two-fold. Either the city is strong, enabling the university invest at any level of intensity, or the university pursues a place-based approach that increases the likelihood of growth regardless of city context. These outcomes highlight the potential for market-boosting effects, but also demonstrate the unique opportunity for planners to moderate housing market pressures alongside anchor institution investments.

University investments are expanding to incorporate neighborhood revitalization. Yet, there is an inadequate understanding of how “town” is impacted by “gown” initiatives. This study combines institutional data with 1990 and 2010 Census metrics to assess outcomes of university-led revitalization in twenty-two neighborhoods. It explores market and socioeconomic change for target tracts relative to others. While the literature hypothesizes that anchor institution initiatives improve communities, the findings complication that notion. Median home values increased substantially and were no longer statistically different from other tracts; median rents nearly closed the gap as well. However, socioeconomic indicators did not suggest fundamental change.

Since 2008, many have questioned the efficacy of conventional homeownership, particularly for low-income households. Advocates champion shared equity homeownership as an alternative, including community land trusts (CLTs) and limited equity cooperatives (LECs); yet, they too have limitations. CLTs offer ongoing homeownership support, but require conventionally “bankable” households. LECs can offer low-income households autonomy and limited asset building, but often require fiscal and organizational support to succeed. This paper explores an innovation in shared equity—the merger of CLTs and LECs to address challenges and maximize collective strengths. Set within the context of the benefits and limits of CLTs and LECs as independent organizations, the paper examines five CLTs with LEC projects. It considers the CLTs’ motivations for pursuing LECs and appraises the characteristics of hybrid projects. While CLT-LEC projects are small in number, they illustrate an emergent practice in the field and speak to the organizational adaptability of the broader shared equity model.

This paper describes how Arizona State University Library used creativity and novel approaches to collections design and implementation processes to select open stack print books for a newly renovated academic research library. Using results from a workshop focused on rethinking the future of print within educational learning and research environments, the Collections Services and Analysis unit within Arizona State University Library performed a series of experiments to better understand the purpose and use of print collections within 21st century library design. The authors describe the creative processes used in collections design and three types of selection approaches that invited engagement with open stacks. These three types were: small browsing collections co-curated with community members, a medium-sized print collection selected for student engagement, and a large research collection selected using a novel data analysis of four factors affecting the likelihood of potential use. Using more than one million volumes as the basis for selection, approximately 185,000 volumes were installed in the renovated library through a complex implementation across four library locations. The authors discuss the key role that creativity played in the approaches, methods, and results of these efforts and offer recommendations for collection management teams seeking to maximize their pursuit of community engagement with print collections within contemporary academic library spaces.