With Community Partners:

In an era of national uneasiness and widespread public distrust, civic and legislative leaders around the nation are turning to universities for t heir help, renewing calls reminiscent of the 1960's for information and solutions to pressing societal problems. The same leaders, however, also are concerned about what they see as mismatches between university missions and the needs of communities. They are questioning universitiesespecially publicly-supported universitiesabout ever-increasing costs at a time when many other agencies and institutions are being forced to downsize. They also are asking for meaningful measures of accountability an d evidence of both willingness and determination to focus on and become involved with local constituencies.

University of Washington President Richard L. McCormick's establishment of the Task Force on University Public Service and Outreach signa led his intention to focus UW's attention on these issues. His charge letter and discussions with the Task Force directed it to consider:

1) how public service and outreach activities relate to the University's Mission; and

2) how they might enable th e University to engage its public throughout the State more strategically, communicate UW's particular role as an institutional citizen more effectively, and demonstrate its accountability to the State's residents more directly.

While the University of Washington has only recently become engaged in the evolving "national conversation" on this topic, our Task Force's examination of the University's public service and outreach activities has led to:

1. A broader and deeper, but still incomplete, understanding of the:
   • a) nature and amount of public service and outreach activity currently being engaged in by UW faculty, staff and students;
   • b) the relationship of these activities to teaching and researc h in different units;
   • c) the costs and benefits of the activities to the UW and to our
   • constituencies;
   • d) sources of funding (e.g., grants, fees, volunteered); and
   • e) the relation of these activities to performance evaluations at the individual, unit, and university-wide levels.
2. Evidence that these current activities are the result of faculty, staff, and student interests and commitment s and/or external funding requirements. Whatever the origin, they provide many key linkages to diverse constituencies and there is a Task Force belief that many can be strengthened and extended in ways which will improve the effectiveness and benefit s for all parties;
3. Evidence that these activities are highly valued by students for enhancing the quality of their educations, especially when they are integrated with the teaching and research of faculty. Further, students believe their participation in these activities serves "to make the University smaller," and to make their general college experience more personally meaningful;
4. An understanding of the need for improved communication among campus units and between the campus and its constituencies about the value and role of public service and outreach. This understanding is coupled with our constituencies' uniformly high expectations of leadership from the University and desires for increased access to the faculty, staff and students for assistance and partnership, as well as to UW research findings;
5. An awareness of some structural, procedural, and attitudinal barriers to increased, effective public service and outreachsom e simple and others more complex and requiring cultural change;
6. An awareness that, relative to perceived needs, University resources are limited, but can be enhanced through strengthened partnerships with our constituencies;
7. A belief that participation in partnerships is simultaneously responsive to our constituencies and offers the University opportunities to establish important dimensions of accountability to the public;

8. Keen awareness that there i s and will continue to be significant variation across units of the University, and across careers of individual faculty, staff and students in the degree to which they find community partnerships, public service and/or outreach central or useful to their University work; and
9. Keen sensitivity to the complexity of the issues involved in a careful analysis of public service and outreach activities. Currently there is a paucity of structures and committees for facilitating the development and evaluation of the public service and outreach. Tradition and some official documents cause faculty to expect to be evaluated in terms of their "research, teaching and service." However, the definitions, structures and evaluation procedures for assessing both research and teaching are much better developed and understood than those for the service dimension. In his initial meeting with the Task Force, President McCormick suggested that faculty should become in volved in the definition and assessment of service as well.

To facilitate our work, the Task Force adopted the following five definitions. However, the history of specific service and outreach activities, changes in the sources of support over time, and a number of other issues make it extremely difficult to classify activities neatly into one category or another. Many activities can be viewed as public service and outreach, or as public service in the initial stages and later as outreach, or they might be one or the other depending on the mission of the unit providing them. The Task Force recognizes that the campus community's use of service-rela ted terms is evolving but still inconsistent, and we expect that subsequent discussions will lead to more broadly shared, more consistent usage. The Task Force has agreed:

Public service:

Is related to an individual's or unit's intellectual and/or academic specialty and position at the University. It draws on the unique capabilities and/or resources of the University by integrating service with teaching and research activities, and may be compensated or uncompensated. Individuals and units are identified as representing the UW.

For example, Professor William Beyers of the Department of Geography, was asked by a group of local public, private and non-profit agencies to advise them on de veloping a survey to assess the public's current use of certain spaces and potential future use under certain conditions. He was asked because of his academic expertise; his time was uncompensated. However, if the group secures funding to conduct th e survey, they may hire him as a paid consultant to design it, collect and analyze the data, and interpret it for them. In both instances, Beyers is providing public service.

Outreach:

Is targeted at and based on the needs of outside constituencies. It is tied to the mission, goals, and plans of the University and/or units, and should be strategically targeted to rely on the unique capabilities of the University in conjunction with the concerns of external constituencies. It is often externally funded and provided by persons hired specifically for that purpose.
For example, the Jackson School of International Studies has competed nationally and been awarded several Title VI "centers"; a Middle East Center, a European Center, a Southeast Asia Center, etc. To be successful in the competitions, the Jackson School was required to propose plans for specific outreach activities. The Jackson School Outreach Centers have full- time, professional staff who engage in the outreach activities, many of which are carried out for the benefit of teachers and students in the Seattle public schools, as well as world wide on multiple web sites.

Numerous clinics of the six schools and colleges comprising the Health Sciences at UW (Medicine, Nursing, Public Health, Pharmacy, Dentistry and Social Work) provide examples of how public service and outreach often are intertwined with one another, and with teaching and research. For example, the Hand Clinic, the Anger Management Clinic, the Sports Medicine Clinic, and the Pediatric Aids Clinic (which all have significant external funding) at the three University hospitals reach out to provide services (often for a reduced fee) to area residents. At the same time, the clinics are important for the teaching of medical students, and for new research on treatment therapies and development of biotech prosthetics wh ich may result in new companies.

The Task Force agreed that the following two types of service and outreach, institutional and professional, are very important to careers of faculty and staff, should be encouraged and rewarded, and are considered in performance evaluations. However, we agreed that for the purposes of this Task Force, they are outside of our charge.

Institutional service:

Is provided by faculty, students, and staff directly to a depart ment, a unit, or the University. For example, it is institutional service when a faculty member serves on his/her department's admissions committee, or on a University Task Force. There is wide variation within and across units in the amount of time devoted to such service with some individuals providing extraordinary amounts; whatever the amount, there is usually no additional compensation or released time.

Professional service:

Is provided by faculty or staff to professional associations and organizations, journals, national committees and panels. For example, when a faculty member reviews articles which have been submitted to a journal for publication, serves as an officer of his/her national professional association, or is elected to the National Academy of Sciences and attends meetings, it is service to his or her profession. These activities are usually not compensated, but may be partially funded under certain circumstances, e.g., when one is editor of a professional journal.

The fifth category of community service is personal, and is not considered in University performance evaluations, and also is outside the charge of the Task Force.

Community service:

Is individual and personal. It does not draw on the unique capabilities or resources of the University. The work involved is not related to the providers' roles at the University, and those engaged in it generally do not present themselves as representatives of t he University. Community service may or may not be for compensation and usually consists of such personal service as serving as a Girl Scout leader, Little League coach, etc., or of such unit activities as "Christmas in April" projects or food drives. David Russell, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, provides an extraordinary example. While working as a full professor, he served as Mayor of Kirkland and continues serving on a number of city commissions. Neither he nor the Task Force defines this as public service since it is unrelated to his profession, but rather as personal, quite special community service.

The Task Force's review of the University's forms on which faculty report public service, outreach, professional service, and consulting; interviews with unit leaders; and hearings and focus groups indicate that faculty, staff, and students a t the University of Washington are intensively and extensively engaged in a wide range of public service and outreach activities which are integral to the teaching and research missions of the institution.¹ 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 students frequently completing internships/clinical rotations, or meeting class requirements through their public service and outreach activities.²

The School of Nursing, for example, provides all its undergraduates with community health care clinical experience in southe ast Seattle while the Business Economic Development Program involves teams of students and faculty working with owners of inner city businesses to provide assistance on accounting, financial analysis and other areas of business management. The Law Sc hool has seven clinics in criminal law, employment law, child advocacy, refugee advocacy, affordable housing, immigration, and mediation, in which students are required to donate 50 hours of work before graduation. Each of the other professional schools and colleges also has faculty, staff and students involved in community settings. For example, Social Work has students involved in nearly 300 different human service and health care settings statewide, and Public Affairs through the training for Interprofessional Collaboration project (TIC) fields "interprofessional" teams in a number of collaborative settings throughout the Puget Sound region. College of Education faculty and many other University faculty are engaged in extensive collaborations with Seattle Public Schools. For example, faculty are working with Seattle Public Schools (and districts in four other states) to give more power and discretion over budgetary decisions to individual principals and site-based community groups in return for higher performance levels. Architecture and Urban Planning partners with community-based groups to create "environmental learning centers" and rehabilitate parks and public buildings. The Institute for Public Policy and Management offers public forums to educate the public and facilitate broad public debate on significant policy issues.

There is also a wide range of continuing education courses enrolling over 100,000 students annually. An increasing number of units provide resources through Internet communication, especially through award-winning Web sites. 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 most involved in the community, bringing their expertise to schools and community groups on such topics as the Human Genome Project, chemistry and math. The University Library serves many thousands of non student residents every year. University theatrical, dramatic, and sporting events are open to the public. University relations, UWTV and KUOW reach many thousands through their publications, broadcasts, and speakers bureaus.

While extremely difficult to quantify precisely³, UW public service and outreach activities are valued in excess of $10-$20 million. (Some estimate as high as $100 million if UW hospitals are included in services to the public.) Many of these services and activities are supported by funds awarded through federal and foundation grants and contracts, bringing significant additional resources to the state benefiting the local economy⁴, as well as enhancing UW research efforts and financial aid for students. (President McCormick recently noted that on a biennial basis, the University generates approximately $3 billion of economic activity to the region.)

At the same time, traditionally most of the public service and outreach efforts at the University are not well known even within the University, and have not served strategic purposes for the entire institution. They tend to have been initiated by individuals or units for the benefit of specific external groups, with their aggregate impact not necessarily visible on campus, let alone beyond the campus. For example, the children's dental clinic in Yakima and Toppenish facilities, the Seismology Lab or the Marine Labs at Friday Harbor, and the activities associated with the million-dollar-a-year outreach program of this Washington Sea Grant, such as the revitalization of two communities' waterfronts (Raymond and South Fork), all provide valuable services to people and communities at a considerable distance from the ca mpus, and much of the campus community is unaware of them. Further, the level and nature of UW involvement with the community has depended primarily on individual or administrative leadership within the various units and rarely has been initiated or rewarded by the central leadership of the University.

Both the University of Washington and the State can benefit significantly more from the investments in public service and outreach if they are strategic, focused, and communicated more effectively.

While emphasizing continued high quality education and research, the Task Force believes a more proactive, strategic institutional position on integrating public service and outreach with teaching and research, far from being a distraction, can enhance their excellence and bring substantial additional benefits to the University, including added leveraging of University's resources, and better public understanding and appreciation for the institution as a whole.

Thus, the overall goal of the recommendations contained in this report is to increase the accountability of the University by enabling it to facilitate public service and outreach in a manner which is more re sponsive to diverse communities of the State of Washington. The Task Force believes that implementing its recommendations will achieve this goal and will contribute to more fully realizing the value of the entire University to the society of which it is a part. We expect that this will create new roles for faculty, staff, student research and service-learning, representing enormous scholarly opportunities for the University of Washington of the 21st Century. At the same time, engaging in these op portunities can enable UW to model institutional civic behavior; to support a habit of civic responsibility already well developed among some faculty, staff and students; and to encourage it among others.

Appointed by President Richard M cCormick in March 1996, (see Appendix 1 for Charge Letter and membership) the Task Force has addressed the issues stated above in its full report: With Community Partners: Building Washington's Future. On the basis of our findings , the Task Force makes three action recommendations to the President and his staff, and outlines a set of strategic implementation steps and structures.

1. Articulate Public Service and Outreach as University priorities inside and outside the University.

In order to clarify for the University community and for the public the role, meaning and priority of public service and outreach, the University leadershipregents, president, provost and their staffs should articulate and widely disseminate a new University policy.

This policy should:

• a) outline the administration's commitment to public service and outreach, especially when it is integrated with teaching and re search;
• b) ensure the policy is consistent with the University Mission and with the University Handbook, especially those portions related to appointment, review for tenure, promotion or merit, standards of conduct and scholarly and professiona l qualifications of faculty members;
• c) remove barriers perceived to undercut incentives to carry out public service and outreach; and
• d) recognize and reward public service and outreach; and incorporate public service and outreach consi derations into long-term planning and evaluations of deans, directors, and chairs.

The articulation, dissemination and discussions of such a policy are expected to lead to cultural change in the University community with respect to public servi ce and outreach. (See Recommendation 1, detailed discussion and implementation steps on pages 15-18 in the full report.)

Develop mechanisms for effective, on-going, two-way communic ations with internal and external audiences.

Develop effective, on-going means to inform the University community and external audiences about the University's public service, outreach, research and service-learning activities.

Within the UW campus, this includes University-wide and unit-level discussions which should include, at a minimum:

• a) the relationship of the unit's mission to the University's Mission;
• b) the nature of public service and outreach appro priate to the unit's mission, and integration with teaching and research;
• c) the role and balance of public service and outreach in the unit's tenure, promotion and merit pay decisions; and
• d) the nature of experiential learning opportun ities for students in the unit and their relation to public service and outreach opportunities.

In terms of its external audiences, the Task Force believes it is essential for the UW to develop mechanisms to facilitate two-way communication that allow the broader community to inform the University of critical issues and perspectives that are key to improving our understanding and responsiveness to these constituencies. (See Recommendation 2, detailed discussion and implementation ste ps on pages 18-23 in the report.)

3. Establish community partnerships as the basis for public service and outreach activities; strengthen and increase community partnerships.

Establish community partnerships as the basis for pub lic service and outreach activities. Develop systematic mechanisms and facilitate members of the University community and units within the institution as they work to strengthen, build and sustain partnerships with communities in order to address societal problems. The University can enhance these partnerships through interdisciplinary service-learning experiences for students. (See Recommendation 3, detailed discussion and implementation steps on pages 24-30 in the report.)

The Task Force understands that many University units, faculty, staff, and students are engaged in public service and outreach benefiting constituencies regionally, nationally, and internationally. We urge the University leadership actively to acknowledge, encourage and reward them. Further, we know that most in the University serve their departments and the UW on committees, and many also serve their professional associations. We believe that this work also must continue and that it should be officially recognized and rewarded.

However, the Task Force was asked to make recommendations about how the University could strategically focus its public service and outreach activities to more effectively fulfill its role as an institutional citizen and demonstrate its accountability. We have concluded that going beyond the status quo requires a different focus. Our recommendation is for a strategic focus on public service and outreach activities which highlight, strengthen, and expand partnerships within the State. Further, we recommend packaging several implementation steps into an identifiable, thematic, easily communicated, ongoing program of activity.

Therefore, we urge the following strategic implementation steps and structures.

1. Highlight University-Community partnerships serving Washington institutions and citizens with the theme: "With Community Partners: Building Washington's Future."

Establish a unifying theme for a set of University public service and outreach activities, tentatively entitled "With Community Partners: Building Washington's Future" that would focus and integrate a cohesive approach to UW public service and outreach in the State, and which would reflect discussions with diverse constituencies. This conceptual theme would make clear the University's commitment to accountability by effectively focusing current resources and leveraging additional ones through public service and outreach activities which are integrated with research and teaching. At the same time, it would demonstrate the University's intent to participate as a full partner with other Washington stakeholders in defining and shaping the issues that will determine the future of our State.

The Building Washington's Future concept can serve as an organizing mechanism for several of the specifically recommended activities found in the body of the Task Force report, including:

• a) An Internet-based Public Service Directory of UW faculty, staff, and student public service and outreach activities. The Directory would serve both as a tool for informing the University and the broader communities of current and new public service and outreach activities that incorporate the concept of community partnerships, and as a way for those outside the University to identify appropriate access points to the University. At a minimum, this Directory should be organized according to substantive program areas, cross-cut by unit, allow for identification of projects in different areas of the State, identify various internal and external funding sources, and illustrate the beneficiaries of the activities. (See Recommendation 2 on pages 18-23 in the report);
• b) An interactive Communications Web effectively linking sources of information within the institution, and allowing the public to access the University and the University to reach out to community constituencies at a number of different points rather than through one single place. Included would be a Public Service Brokerage House that would facilitate appropriate partnerships between communities and UW faculty, staff, students. (See Recommendation 2 on pages 18-23 in the report);
• c) A Reflective Leadership Forum convened by the President and supported by faculty and staff efforts to bring together thoughtful leaders from the private, public and not-for-profit sectors to identify critical issues facing the State and to consider appropriate options for addres sing them. The results of such forums could help to determine priorities for funding of proposed (see below) public service and outreach activities. (See Recommendation 2 on pages 18-23 in the report and pages 26-29 for a list of key issues defined by external constituents);
• d) A Community Partnership Pool with resources to fund two levels of public service and outreach projects emphasizing community partnerships seed grants of $1,000 to $8,000 to facilitate the development and support of partnerships, and project grants at the $30,000-$50,000 level. (See Recommendation 3 on pages 24-30 in the report); and
• e) A Fund for Research on Community Partnerships that would provide scholarly research on such topics as the development and maintenance of partnerships, facilitating the integration of research, teaching and service in different fields, impacts of varying reward structures, and the effectiveness of the delivery of service and outreach activities under varying conditions. Especially in the initial years, a major emphasis of this research should include development of measures and tools which in the future can provide persuasive, valid data on the amount, nature, costs, benefits and sources of support for public service and outreach activities in the future. (See Recommendation 3 on pages 24-30 in the report).

2. If it is to be effective, Building Washington's Future requires the establishment of a small, proactive, permanent Public Service and Outreach Advisory Council to be appointed by the President for staggered and limited terms of service. Initially, it should include representation from the Task Force and other faculty members. This Council, because of the importance of integrating public service and outreach into teaching and research, and because of new priority in faculty and administrative evaluations, should report to the Provost. The Council should represent the diversity of the University community and should be responsible for:

• a) supporting unit-level and university-wide discussions of missions, the nature, role, and potential for integration of public service and outreach activities;
• b) identifying and creating strategic opportuni ties for the University to reach out to the broader community and seeking input from those constituencies;
• c) developing guidelines, designing and implementing processes for soliciting, reviewing, and recommending funding for: 1) Community Par tnership Pool seed and project awards, and 2) grants for Research on Community Partnerships;
• d) designing and implementing processes for identifying and rewarding outstanding public service and outreach by members of the University community;
• e) strengthening relations and maximizing learning about public service and outreach among involved campus groups;
• f) designing and executing a fundraising campaign to support Building Washington's Future activities; and
• g) overseeing the implementation of recommendations made by the Task Force.

The Advisory Council should be led by its Chair (a senior faculty member who is appointed by the Provost and has course reductions similar to University Senate officers) and supported by a permanent, senior professional staff Director and student assistants, with the necessary budgetary support to ensure that the Council functions both efficiently and effectively. The Director should be able to command the respect and cooperation of senior faculty. In light of the University's public service and outreach priority, these varied tasks will require resources which we believe are minimal in comparison to the magnitude of the expected benefits gained from a strong and pro-active Council that will support faculty and administrative unit-level activities.

3. Establish a Public Service and Outreach Roundtable that would serve as a forum for discussions among faculty, staff, and students engaged in public service and outreach activities. This voluntary organization should be open to any member of the University community willing to participate, and should serve as a venue to address topics such as "best practices," the University's role as a partner with the broader community, and opportunities to integrate research, service-learning, and public service. It should further act as a resource for the Advisory Councilon the implementation of these recommendations.

Budget Summary

Because Building Washington's Future calls for a change in the status quo and for shifts in the University culture with respect to public service and outreach, the Task Force believes a strategic approach will require an investment of administrative leadership, time and money, especially in the initial stages. However, we also believe that what we are proposing will be attractive to the State Legislature and that local corporations and foundations will be willing to co-sponsor many of the activities. Evidence from other states suggests that this will be the case.

Specifically, the Task Force recommends the Advisory Council be established first to oversee implementation of the recommendations.

During the first year, the Advisory Council should:

• a) initiate, facilitate, and coordinate the unit-level and university-wide discussions about the role and valu e of public service and outreach in relation to the University's Mission;
• b) plan and hold the first Reflective Leadership Forum;
• c) compile and publish the first Directory;
• d) establish specific processes for regularly identifying and rewarding model public service and outreach activities;
• e) plan and develop effective two-way communications mechanisms;
• f) plan and develop the process for generating, reviewing, and funding partnership grants and research grants. Because of their incentive value for faculty and staff, it would be advantageous to award some partnership grants during the first year;
• g) establish the Roundtable; and
• h) plan and execute a fundraising strategy, including matching funds from corporations and foundations.

During the second year, the project should continue first year activities and add remaining elements of the program, e.g., the Partnership Pool and the Fund for Research on Community Partnerships. This staggered implementation plan will provide important visibility for initial activities while delaying full implementation costs.

The Task Force wishes to note that other successful, focused public service and outreach programs are more expensive, and with visible, sustained University support have quickly attracted external funds. For example, the Great Cities project at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was initially guaranteed support from internal University funds, but word of the project was so welcomed by the Illinois Legislature, that it received partial temporary funding from the State the first year, and full permanent funding the second year. In addition, after 5 year s, it has attracted significant external funding. See the Budget Outline below and the Budget Discussion on pages 32-35 in the report.

The University of Washington is strategically poised to move strongly, swiftly, and elegantly into the 21st Century as a national leader in higher education as well as an effective partner with the communities state, local, regional, and beyond of which it is a member. The Task Force looks forward and stands ready to work with the University leadership to make this vision a reality.

¹ Examples are scattered throughout the full report, and detailed in the appendices. (return to text.)

² Many of the UW's public service and outr each activities directly benefit the Seattle Public Schools and other school districts in the State. See the 1996 directory of such services. (return to text.)

³ Several previous attempts to assess the monetary value of public service and outreach have not been successful, including a recent one in when the University contracted with a well-known accounting firm to make such and assessment. The only measures available currently are judged by the Task Force to be dramatic underestimates, incomplete and unreliable. About 30% of the faculty do not complete 1461 forms, including many faculty who perform significant public service, many citing confusion over the directions. Further, information on significant public service and outreach performed by professional and classified staff is not collected. Student service, as volunteers or as part of class assignments is not reported or aggregated unless it is arranged by the Carlson Office. A chart of "funds spent on public service and outreach" by the AAU Universities grossly underestimates UW expenditures because it includes only the sum of amounts in funded research budgets designated in an "outreach" category. (return to text.)

⁴ State support for the University represents 18% of the total budget. It is estimated that external funding and activities of the UW generates approximately $3 billion of economic activity per biennium. (President's luncheon address to the University's Visiting Committees on Jan. 31, 1997.) (return to text.)

Biennial

Return to the TOC

Return to the University of Washington Home Page