Background:

This subcommittee first examined the responses to Form 1461 for academic year 1994­95 to determine if these forms were a viable way to document current service and outreach. We readily recognized the problems with these forms: the uneven reporting by faculty, the lack of comparable data by staff, lack of clarity about categories, and the mixed purposes of the form (for "letter of the law" reporting purposes to the Provosts Office versus providing a full picture of public service activities). The Provosts Office also indicated that they did not see any need to change Form 1461. We therefore concluded that data from form 1461 would not be used as a primary means to present information about the University's public service activities. Instead, we identified the need to gather unit­level data from deans, directors and chairs, beyond that of particular individuals.

Unit­level activities were defined as those that utilize expertise unique to the University through its research and teaching missions to address issues in the community, and that represent an institutional commitment that would continue even if the individuals involved change. Types of activities and outreach identified by the subcommittee were: 1). generation of knowledge (applied research to the benefit of the community); 2). transmission of knowledge; 3) application of knowledge (technical assistance, tutoring, consulting, and 4). preservation of knowledge (data base information, home page, etc.). Deans and chairs were asked to identify the three examples of which they are most proud or which they view as most significant. The survey focused on the kind of service provided, by whom (students, faculty, staff, administrators), the types of beneficiaries of the service, and the location of the service (We were specifically interested in attempting to document activities outside King County). Phone interviews were coordinated with the Internal Subcommittee to gather data about perceived barriers and incentives to desired public service efforts and to inform respondents about the planned focus groups.

A letter from President McCormick was mailed in early June to approximately 126 deans/directors/chairs, urging their participation in our survey of pubic service and outreach activities. Of these, 38 or 30% responded to be interviewed. Reasons for not being interviewed included: the lack of public service activities or lack of importance attached to such outreach by the unit; respondents' unavailability; and the difficulty of finding an acceptable interview time at the beginning of summer.

Findings:

The overall finding is the identification of a wide rang of public service and outreach activities, which are often not visible throughout the University or to the general public. The greatest number of activities appear to be with the public schools systems. Activities cross disciplinary boundaries, occurring within professional schools and colleges, departments across Arts and Sciences, and the Health Sciences. They involve faculty, students and staff, with student's frequently completing internships/clinical rotations or meeting class requirements. through their public service and outreach activities. The School of Nursing, for example, provides all their undergraduate community health care clinical sections in southeast Seattle while the Business Economic Development Program involves teams of students and faulty working with owners of inner city businesses to provide assistance on accounting, financial analysis and other areas of business management. The Law School has clinics in criminal law, employment law, child advocacy, refugee advocacy, affordable housing immigration law and mediation. Dental students, in an elective class, provide services to low­income children and families through the dental clinic in Yakima. Other professional schools, such as Social Work and Public Affairs, have students involved in nearly 300 different human service and health care settings statewide. There are also a wide range of continuing education programs, largely through the professional schools and colleges. An increasing number of units provide resources through internet communication, especially through the WEB. The Medical School, for example, has a medical hot line on the Internet which provides information to physicians statewide. Among the departments in Arts and Sciences, the sciences appear to be the most involved in the community, bringing their expertise to community groups and organizations to address natural science and environmental issues. The level of public service activity among the Tacoma and Bothell campuses is striking, especially in light of the heavy loads that these faculty are already carrying in implementing new programs.

Given the number of linkages to K­12, the following are provided as examples of the range and diversity of such activities: education of high school science teachers on latest developments and teaching strategies; tours for grade school children in the wind tunnel, making data from UW research projects available to students and teachers; special projects in science for girls from rural areas; design of a school playground; earthquake preparedness computer literary projects, mentoring and tutoring and special summer programs through the Office of Minority Affairs

Most public service and outreach activities identified through this survey were not pro bono, however. Instead, they were funded through research, training or demonstration grants, or integrated with the unit's educational mission through class/clinical/practice requirements for students. For project­level activities, a staff person was typically funded to coordinate the effort. In one sense, this illustrates that units have found ways to effectively integrate their research, teaching, and service missions. On the other hand, if the funding base or educational requirements were to shift for some units, their level of public service and outreach might decline accordingly.

Incentives and Barriers:

The most frequently mentioned barriers were 1). lack of infrastructure support (e.g., computers, part­time staff to coordinate activities), 2). Iack of recognition/rewards, especially for junior faculty, and 3). time more than funding. Several respondents mentioned that the University culture discourages collaboration across units, with the K12 system and with the larger community.

There appears to be support for a centralized electronic data base about University public service and outreach (for example, similar to the Public Library Help Line), but not a centralized office. In fact, there is considerable resistance to such a centralized office. Recognition/rewards for public service and outreach and infrastructure support were also frequently mentioned as incentives.

Conclusion:

Documenting and adequately communicating unit­level public service and outreach will remain an ongoing challenge for the University, since the level and types of activities are constantly changing and there are no centralized reporting mechanisms. In addition, despite our efforts to define unit­level activity, there remains a tendency to confuse individual activity (such as faculty lectures to the public schools) with unit­level efforts that involve more than one individual. Identifying ways to better document the range and level of activity by professional staff must also be addressed. In many instances, professional staff are playing crucial coordinating and linking roles, which are less visible and recognized than the activities of faculty and students. The primary issues requiring attention by appropriate units within the University appear to be the development of a central electronic data base available to the public and rewards and recognition for public service and outreach.

Current Activities: List of Respondents

Steve Malone, Geophysics

Steve Ellis, Physics

Fred Cheney, Anesthesiology

David Irby, Medical Education

Morton Stenchever, Obstetrics and Gynecology

Tim DeRouen, Dentistry

Walter Christensen, Aeronautics and Astronautics

Nancy Robinson, Halbert Robinson Center for the Study of Capable Youth

Norm Rose, UW­Bothell

Ann Harris, UW­Tacoma

Ernest Morris, Office of Student Affairs

Kenneth Walsh, Biochemistry

Pat Kuhl, Speech and Hearing Sciences

Gerald Van Belle, Environmental Health

K.K. Tung, Applied Mathematics

Robert Paine, Zoology

Joan Shaver, Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Systems

Linda Norkook, Scandinavian Languages and Literature

Michael McCann, Society and Justice

Ken Sirotnik, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

Rene Levy, Pharmaceutics

Louie Echols, OMERP­Washington Sea Grant Program

John Harlett, Applied Physics Laboratory

Mark Ghiorso, Geological Science

John Ferguson, Civil Engineering

Edward Bassett, Communications

Arthur Nowell, Oceanography

Mike Wallace, Joint Institute for Study of Atmosphere & Ocean

David Streetfield, Landscape Architecture

Al Jonsen, Medical History and Ethics

Karl Kramer, Slavic Languages and Literature

Dale Cole, College of Forest Resources

Marsha Landolt, School of Fisheries

William Catterall, Pharmacology

Myron Apilado, Office of Minority Affairs

David Hodge, Geography

Roland Hjorth, School of Law

Dale Johnson, The Graduate School

The External Consultation Subcommittee completed telephone interviews of twenty­eight people outside the University. The goals of the Subcommittee were to gather opinions about the roles the University should play in the community while at the same time initiating and testing one method of opinion­gathering which could be recommended for on­going use after the Task Force disbands. This approach was chosen after much discussion of the ways in which the University currently receives feedback about public service and outreach activities. There was general agreement that community opinion should be solicited regularly and systematically and that telephone interviews are just one possible method for obtaining this feedback.

The telephone interviews were carried out by seven subcommittee members. Each interview followed a similar format, although the questions were deliberately designed to be as simple and open­ended as possible. The resulting interviews varied considerably in their length, detail, and focus. The subcommittee used these interviews primarily to gather opinions, rather than to educate the interviewees about existing public service and outreach activities of the University.

The individuals interviewed represent a rough cross­section of opinion leaders in the state. They tended to cluster in some fields, and important regions and components of the state received very limited attention. This was not due to any deliberate intent, but resulted from the tight timeline and the fact that a number of subcommittee members were not available during the summer. Twenty­eight people were interviewed, 12 from business and labor, 2 from the media, 5 from government, 5 from health­related fields, and 4 from community organizations. The comments received from the interviews tend to fall into consistent patterns, but the preliminary nature of these results should not be overlooked.

The subcommittee agreed to begin each interview with the following introduction: "President McCormick of the University of Washington has appointed a Task Force on Public Service and Outreach to examine the role of the University in the city, region, and state. As part of its work the Task Force is contacting a large number of community leaders to solicit their opinions on key issues and the role of the UW in these areas. I would appreciate your candid answers to the following questions and I will keep your responses confidential by using them in an aggregate, non-attributable form." At some point in the interview, each caller also made some statement to the following effect: "This informal interview is the first part of our ongoing process to solicit community input. If you are willing, we may contact you or someone else from your organization later in the process to seek further comments. We will issue a final report in November containing our findings and recommendations."

The questions and a summary of the responses follow.

Question #1:

The responses covered a wide range of key issues. It was clear from the responses that some people chose to describe broad social issues while others focused on issues more specific to the field in which they worked. The major issues identified were:

1. tax issues, including the effects of initiative 601 and the changing mix of federal, state, and local funding for various social services. Several social service and health care systems were described as being in crisis.

2. K­12 education, including reform, teacher training, and access to and articulation with higher education. "The Seattle Public Schools are near the top of everybody's list," according to one respondent. Related issues were preparing students for jobs, citizenship, and higher education, and offering an education which will enable students and the region to compete in the global economy.

3. many economic issues, including the growing gap between rich and poor, the lack of economic security, the problems of the working poor, the shortage of jobs which can support a family, international trade, and the need for economic development strategies for the state.

4. issues related to #3, specifically defined in terms of children, including children growing up in poverty, their access to health care and dental care, pressures on the structure of families, and the impact on children of crime and substance abuse.

5. growth planning, growth management, and environmental balance concerns, urban issues, non­specified suburban issues, and individual property rights.

6. transportation planning, the need for renewal and improvement of the infrastructure.

7. impacts of technology, preparation for jobs using technology.

8. diversity issues, a retreat from affirmative action gains, racial tension.

9. a need for leadership, for a new generation of leaders, and for a new way of leading, and a hope that we might generate a common vision for the future.

Question #2:

What role could the UW play in these areas?

Many people answered this question by citing examples of the roles the university already plays and stating that they should be expanded, systematized, publicized, or made more accessible. By far the most frequent response was a statement that the university should "be a partner," "be at the table," "be a good neighbor," or "be connected with the larger community." These remarks are expanded below. The types of UW public service and outreach roles which were identified were:

1. being a organizational role model, being a leader, and "modeling best practices."

2. conducting research which meets community needs, or which "develops compromise solutions between research and the real world." One example was determining protocols for prevention activities in and out of clinics. Helping the state in specific areas such as infrastructure, through research and technology transfer, was another example.

3. training students in new ways which incorporate internships, community service, and training in working in a diverse environment. Specific suggestions included preparing students for careers in changing social and health care delivery systems, and involving them as interviewers or researchers in community projects.

4. working collaboratively with state agencies and community organizations to generate solutions to targeted social problems.

5. training professionals in many different fields, including education. This comment was sometimes coupled with remarks that UW was not currently training professionals in the way the respondent would prefer.

6. convening forums which would bring people together to think through major problems the state must solve.

Question #3:

Are you aware of a role the University currently plays in these areas? What is this role?

Most respondents cited specific examples, often directly related to the organization for which they worked. Some also remarked on the breadth of University activities and the fact that no one would be aware of the whole range of public service and outreach. One person commented, "Is there an expectation that the UW knows everything Boeing contributes to the community?" Several commented, in various ways, that specific academic units do a great deal but that the central administration should do more or be more supportive. Positive examples were drawn from many academic units and special projects, and were often referred to as being personal initiatives resulting from the work of individuals.

Question #4:

How important is this effort to your organization's (or the community's) overall efforts?

This question was confusing to some respondents, and many referred back to projects mentioned in the previous question. In general, respondents thought it extremely important that UW be involved in public service and outreach, although they conceived of public service and outreach in many different ways.

Question #5:

Are there any other comments or concerns you have about the University's public service and outreach activities?

Many of the telephone interviews elicited extensive comments and statements of concern. Often, the remarks amplified responses to previous questions. They are clustered here under general headings.

I. Virtually everyone thanked us for asking for their opinions, and commented on the novelty of being approached by the University in this way. Many specifically cited President McCormick's leadership in reaching out to the community.

2. Comments about partnerships appeared in the majority of interviews, partnerships "with allied service organizations," the need for being more aggressive in developing partnerships and "becoming a player in the community," the importance of "being at the table," and the need to be consistent and reliable in partnerships rather than available only when it suits UW needs.

3. Related to the comments about partnerships were remarks, often negative, about the perceived collective behavior of the UW, such as the statement that we should be concerned with the community, not just with ourselves. UW was described as self-absorbed, elitist, and unwilling to "truly collaborate at every step of the process." Many encouraged UW to think beyond its borders, beyond Seattle, or beyond western Washington. Strong feelings were expressed that UW participates in the community only for self­benefit, and does not view public service and outreach as a major part of its mission.

4. Respondents asked for a greater sense of openness and connectedness, and a number commented that at the UW, "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing," or that they could not figure out points of access to the University. Often people stated that they asked for participation or collaboration only from individuals at the University whom they already knew personally. Regarding leadership of civic task forces or commissions, UW was described as "sitting back waiting to be asked, though most UW folks are not sufficiently well known in the community to be selected for these things." Another person stated that "there is a sense of a wall around the University and we need to remove that."

5. A number of comments concerned lack of visibility or potential for great visibility, such as one person who said the UW could play a much greater role in both rural health and improving dental access for high­risk, low­income families, and another who said that Minority Affairs at UW used to have a more public presence. Many of these comments acknowledged a special place for the UW, and one respondent said that "UW is the Boeing of our educational system," referring to our pivotal role as a major player in this state.

6. Many continents referred to access issues, and people's desire to better utilize UW resources. Some of these remarks concerned flexible scheduling, internships, certificate programs, and parking.

7. Implicit in many interviews was the idea that UW has expertise of great value to the community, including data which could and should shape public thinking in many fields, but which is not being adequately shared.

8. Many of the positive examples cited by interviewees were, not surprisingly, grant-funded projects, institutes, or other special entities that are designed to bring together theory and practice, or apply research and make use of new technology.

9. Many comments could be grouped under what might be called "moral leadership." As one person pointed out, "The University has a special mission to set the tone for the community."

Jeanne Ward, Washington State Oral Health Coalition

Donna Oberg, Washington Association of Local WIC Agencies

Cassie Sauer, Children's Alliance

Mark Koday, Yakima Valley Farm Worker's Clinic

Carver Gayton, The Boeing Company

Roberto Maestas, El Centro de la Raza

Mary Moore, US West

Bernie Whitebear, United Tribes of All Nations

Randy Hodgins, Senate Ways and Means

Mike Fancher, Seattle Times

Sam Sperry, Seattle Post­Intelligencer

Jim Cavoretto, Fluke Corporation

Kathy Spencer, Immunex

Richard Martin, Physio Control

Doug McKenna, Microsoft

Phil Bussey, Washington Roundtable

Steve Mullin, Washington Roundtable

Margaret Pageler, Seattle City Council

Rick Bender, Washington State Labor Council

Jill Ryan, Safeco

Eileen Quigley, Municipal League of King County

Mic Dinsmore, Port of Seattle

The Internal Consultation subcommittee gathered the results of 42 phone interviews, four focus group meetings and two public hearings. The phone interviews, conducted by the Current Activities subcommittee, included a question that addressed the perceived barriers to PS&O at the University of Washington, and suggestions for incentives to overcome those barriers; The focus group meetings were attended by a total of 19 individuals from many parts of the university, from a list of 25+ persons chosen because of their interest in PS&O and/or interesting feedback received during phone interviews. The focus group participants were asked to elaborate on barriers and incentives to PS&O and to provide additional richness to the stories on PS&O being gathered by the Task Force. Two public hearings were held in May 1996 and were attended 10­ 15 people.

Specific outcomes of the phone interviews, focus group meetings and public hearings are available. In addition, the following findings have been gleaned:

There is a great deal of PS&O going on at UW, with many good examples of PS&O being well integrated into the central mission of the units (i.e. teaching, research).

There is enormous variability in the awareness of, and belief in, the importance of PS&O. This variability can frequently be traced to the location and mission of the unit within the University (professional school, academic unit), the position of the individual (faculty, professional staff, junior, senior level), and the familiarity of the individual with PS&O activities.

A great deal of focused PS&O is funded by outside (generally federal) funds and is carried out by professional staff or junior faculty hired for that purpose. Senior faculty in some units choose to carry out PS&O, generally out of a strong personal desire to do so.

Units that have dedicated state funding for outreach generally have legislative charters or mandates (such as the Burke Museum or Harborview Hospital).

There is a fairly wide­spread feeling that an increased level of PS&O may be essential to advance teaching, one of the University's primary missions. This stems from the need to compete successfully with peer institutions for top students, and also to maintain an appropriate mix of minority and underserved students. The underserved and minority students feel the UW is an inhospitable place and prefer to go elsewhere (mainly out of state).

If the university intends to pursue a more active role in the community, there is a need for strategic focus that can guide campus units in PS&O activities. This focus should not, however, inhibit present PS&O efforts, stifle creativity or initiative, nor impose unnecessary burdens on PS&O practitioners.

Faculty, especially from smaller units, feel so stretched already that they cannot take on more PS&O. Some question whether the Legislature should be asked to fund PS&O; they are concerned that PS&O funding not take away from funding for teaching and research.

Barriers to PS&O that were reported frequently include:

-Lack of time for faculty to carry out PS&O;

-Lack of reward structure and recognition for faculty (in particular), and for professional staff who carry out PS&O;

-Disincentives to bring in additional funds for PS&O (overhead structure; gross revenue tax structure; professional staff not able to be PIs in some colleges);

-Lack of clear leadership from the University Administration that PS&O is important;

Lack of a clear vision of the importance of PS&O and lack of a strategic vision for University efforts; and

-Mixed and confused messages about the University going out to the public (and therefore there is a lack of understanding of what the University is trying to do, coupled frequently about the UW's motives in outside involvement).

In addition, other barriers mentioned were:

- Inadequate connections with outside audiences (e.g. K­12, higher education)

- University culture that discourages collaboration across units

Incentives for strategic PS&O frequently mentioned include:

-Getting a clear message from the University Administration that PS&O is important;

-Providing a strategic vision and focus for PS&O at the university that could act as guidance for units and individuals;

-Making seed money available for a variety of uses such as: expenses incurred while making ties to the community; buying down faculty time to develop service learning course components and research; starting small outreach projects;

-Providing a mechanism to facilitate individuals and units who wish to increase level of PS&O. This mechanism could be located centrally or within units, and might include a PS&O databases, and coordinator positions); and

-Providing clear messages and simple means of communicating the University's capabilities to the public.

In addition, other ideas for incentives mentioned were:

-"Team Scholarship" ­> the idea that each unit has a set of goals that they want to achieve, to include a certain level of teaching, research and service. The goals could be achieved by a mix of faculty, some of whom will focus heavily on PS&O. Faculty who do not wish to do PS&O will focus on other things;

-Revamp the faculty time analysis forms to reflect reality that faculty (and staff) actually work more than 40 hours per week; and

-Expand the Carlson Center model for coordination of PS&O to the Health Sciences.

Andrea Copping, Co­chair

Kim Bogart­Johnson, Co­chair

Betty Bengtson

Bill Dowling

Margot Ray

aec 9/11/96

Internal Consultation: List of Participants

Charlotte Albright, Middle East Center, Jackson School of International Studies

Steve Ellis, Physics

Sandra Madrid, School of Law

Deborah Wiegand, Chemistry

David Russell, Aeronautics and Astronautics

Thad Spratlin, Marketing and International Business

Vicky Carwein, UW­Tacoma

Sarah Nash Gates, Drama

Mike Sprangler, Washington Sea Grant Program

Robin McCabe, Music

Elizabeth O'Shea, Center for International Business Education & Research

Myron Apilado, Office of Minority Affairs

Karl Hutterer, Burke Museum

Tina Mankowski, Harborview Medical Center

Sarena Seifer, Medical Education

Arthur Nowell, Oceanography

Rebecca Kang, Nursing

Dorothy Reed, Engineering

Return to the TOC

Return to the University of Washington Home Page