Community-University Partnership Agreements: What to Put in a Memorandum of Understanding

Ethics & partnerships · By the Common Inquiry editorial team · Published 2026-10-26

A hand holding a black marker over a large sheet of brown paper, with coloured pens and a ruler nearby — Drafting together. Photo: Kelly Sikkema, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Research partnerships between universities and community organisations often begin with goodwill and a shared idea. They come under strain later, when money is tight, data are ready to publish or a key person leaves. A written agreement, drafted together at the start, does not guarantee a good partnership, but it makes expectations visible and gives partners something to return to when problems arise.

Why put it in writing?

Community organisations frequently report the same frustrations with academic partners: late payments, decisions taken without consultation, results published without review, and projects ending abruptly when the grant runs out. Universities, for their part, may worry about data protection, contractual obligations to funders and academic freedom. A written agreement brings these concerns into the open early, when relationships are good and positions flexible.

Principles of partnership developed by organisations such as Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, a North American network founded in 1996, stress shared values, mutual trust, balance of power, clear communication and continuous evaluation. An agreement is a way to turn such principles into commitments. The ethical principles for community research point in the same direction.

What to include: a checklist

1. Purpose and values

The shared aims of the partnership and of the specific project.
What each partner hopes to gain, stated honestly (publications, evidence for advocacy, services, training).
Shared values, such as respect, transparency and equity.

2. Partners and roles

Named organisations and lead contacts, with responsibilities for each.
Roles of community researchers, students and staff.
What happens if a lead contact leaves.

3. Governance and decision-making

Membership of the steering group, frequency of meetings, how minutes are shared.
Which decisions require consensus, which a majority vote, and which can be taken by one partner.
Whether the community partner has a veto over specific matters, such as publications about the community.

4. Money

The budget, and each partner's share, including overheads or indirect costs for the community organisation.
Payment schedules: community organisations often cannot wait months to be paid in arrears.
Rates and methods for paying community researchers and contributors (see paying community researchers).
Who controls underspends and how budget changes are agreed.

5. Data

Who owns raw data, who stores them, where, and with what security.
Who may access and use data during and after the project, and for what purposes.
Rules for archiving, sharing or destroying data, consistent with what participants were told.
Responsibilities under data protection law, such as who acts as data controller.

6. Intellectual property

Ownership of materials created: reports, toolkits, photographs, software, training materials.
Licensing, for example whether outputs will be released under an open licence.
Recognition of community and traditional knowledge, which may not fit conventional IP categories.

7. Publication and authorship

How outputs will be reviewed by partners before release, and the timetable for review.
Criteria for authorship. Medical journals commonly follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria, which require substantial contribution, drafting or critical revision, final approval and accountability; community partners who meet them should be offered authorship, and those who do not should be acknowledged.
Formats for community audiences, not only academic papers.

8. Communication

Who speaks to the media and on what topics.
Use of logos and names.
Language and accessibility of project materials.

9. Conflict resolution

Steps for resolving disagreements, starting with a conversation between leads and moving to the steering group or an agreed mediator.
A named person outside the project whom any partner can contact.

10. Review and ending

When the agreement will be reviewed.
How a partner can withdraw, and what happens to data and funds if they do.
Plans for the end of the project: returning results, handing over materials, sustaining the relationship.

How to draft it

Start with conversation, not a template. Discuss each topic in a meeting before anyone writes anything.
Use plain language. Everyone who signs should understand every clause. Keep legal contracts separate if needed.
Involve the people doing the work. Community researchers and frontline staff often foresee practical problems that directors miss.
Check institutional requirements. University research offices may need to approve subcontracts and data agreements; ask early, because approval can take weeks.
Revisit regularly. Projects change. An annual review keeps the agreement alive.

An example in practice

Consider a residents' association that wants to study housing conditions on its estate with a university's public health department. Its agreement might specify that the association chooses the research questions with the university's help, that residents trained as interviewers are employed on casual contracts, that raw survey data are held by the university on behalf of the association and are not shared with the landlord without the association's consent, and that the association approves any public report naming the estate. Our guide to how residents research housing in their own neighbourhood describes how such projects work in more detail.

Common mistakes

Signing a university template drafted for commercial collaborations, with clauses irrelevant or hostile to small organisations.
Agreeing values but leaving money and data vague.
Writing the agreement after the grant is awarded, when budgets are already fixed.
Filing it away and never looking at it again.

Agreements are only part of the picture. Consent and confidentiality also need clear procedures, which we cover in informed consent in community research.

Sources

Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, Principles of Partnership.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, section on defining the role of authors and contributors.
Centre for Social Justice and Community Action, Durham University, and NCCPE, Community-based participatory research: a guide to ethical principles and practice, 2nd edition, 2022.
Barbara A. Israel et al., "Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health", Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 19, 1998.