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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The questions and a summary of the responses follow.
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
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
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.
What role could the UW play in these areas?
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
4. working collaboratively with state agencies and
community organizations to generate solutions to targeted social
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.
Are you aware of a role the University currently plays in these areas? What is this role?
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
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.
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
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
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
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 University of Washington Home Page