Here's an ideaapproach which might work (I'm not sure about the technical details).
Assume $M$ is closed. Choose a self-indexing Morse function $f\: M \to \Bbb R$. This will give a handlebody structure on $M$. If the support of $c$ is contained inside the $p$-skeletoncorrectness of this handlebody, then we take $U$ to be the $p$-skeleton. This will do the job in this case.)
Assume $M$ is closed. Choose a triangulation $T$ of $M$. If the support of $c$ is contained inside the $p$-skeleton of this triangulation, then we take $U$ to be a small regular neighborhood of $p$-skeleton. This will do the job in this case.
If not, let's consider the dual triangulation $T^\ast$. We can ask whether or not $c$ meets the $(n-p-1)$-skeleton of $T^\ast$. If it doesn't we can let $U$ be the effect of deleting the $(n-p-1)$-skeleton of $T^\ast$ from $M$. Then it seems to me that $U$ has the correct property in this case.
If not3 ) More generally, we may still consider the problem of intersectingcan ask whether there exists a triangulation $T$ satisfying the (image of each of2) the simplices of $c$ with the co-cores. It seems to the handles of indexme that it should be possible to slightly modify $> p$. If this intersection is transversal$T$, then $c$ will miss these co-cores. We can then cut out small tubular neighborhoods of the co-coressay by general position, and what's left will be an open setso that $U$ which satisfies your condition(2) holds.
In the general caseRemark: I originally conceived of a version of this using Morse theory, we can ask whetherbut then realized that I had to retract it because I got confused. Perhaps it's possible to make a slight perturbation the Morse function $f$ tofind a new self-indexing Morse function $g\: M \to \Bbb R$ in$f\: M \to \Bbb R$ such a way that $c$ misses the co$(n-p-1)$-cores of the handles ofskeleton of the new handlebody of indexdefined by $> p$. It seems to me that some version of transversality will enable one to arrange this condition. However$-f$? If so, we can define $U$ to be $M$ with this is where I don't see the detailsskeleton removed.