IN THE CARPATHIAN REGION OF EAST CENTRAL EUROPE

AND THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

FIRST PHASE REPORT

Sponsored with USAID, Cooperative Agreement PCE-5055-A-00-2012-00

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive summary
2. Background
3. US Visit
4. Participants
5. Additional Collaborators
6. Program Emphasis
7. Outcomes
8. Conclusions
9. Appendix
   • Financial Information
   • Participants
   • Evaluation
   • Schedule
   • ACRU WWW Homepage
   • Crossen's Keynote Address

In December of 1995, the Association Liaison Office for University Cooperation and Development (ALO) entered into an agreement with the Associated Colleges of the South (ACS) to manage an initiative entitled "Building Bridges Between Institutions of Higher Education in the Carpathian Region of East Central Europe and the Southeastern United States." This initiative sought to introduce universities from the Carpathian region (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine and Romania) to various methods by which American institutions of higher education fulfill their public service missions. Another goal of the activity was to build a foundation for future cooperation between U.S. institutions of higher education and universities in the Carpathian region.

This initiative was unique in that it brought together many institutions of higher education both in the U.S. and East Central Europe, which were not traditionally included in international development activities. The focus on public service provided an opportunity to include community colleges, private liberal arts institutions and regional universities. The initiative also involved individuals new to discussions concerning the reform of higher education in another part of the world. Auxiliary service personnel, library directors, and public service program managers all served as experts for this initiative. Institutions of higher education were included, not for their academic reputations, but for their contributions to the economic and social development of their communities.

A major portion of this effort involved interaction between Carpathian administrators interested in learning about public service with U.S. counterparts active in public service in the Southeastern United States. For example, eighteen senior academic leaders, from 13 universities in the Carpathian region traveled to the United States in April of 1996. Participating U.S. institutions included community colleges, private colleges and universities, regional universities, and land grant universities. During four days of workshops at Georgia Southern University (GSU) in Statesboro, Georgia, Carpathian participants received information concerning various models of public service. Methods for financing public service activities were discussed as well as the organization and structure of American higher education. In addition, presentations highlighted public service programs. The Carpathian participants departed the four-day workshop with a basic understanding of the public mission and the diversity of the American higher education system.

After the four-day workshop, Carpathian participants traveled to one of 17 American institutions of higher education where they were hosted for an additional four days. During this time they were able to witness first-hand the public service activities of their host institution. In addition, participants were able to develop strong personal contacts with their host. This aspect of the program also gave both parties the opportunity to explore additional areas for future cooperation. At the end of the visit, Carpathian participants and their hosts convened in Atlanta for a series of social events and meetings. The final meeting provided an opportunity for the Carpathian participants to share their experiences and develop action plans for the future.

As the initiative moved into the second phase, in which American counterpart leaders visited the Carpathian region, there was strong evidence that the goals of the initiative were being met. Carpathian participants indicated after their visits to the U.S. that they had a clearer understanding of the concept of public service. They returned home committed to incorporating public service into the strategic plans and current missions of their own universities. Several participants hoped to expand current efforts to market the resources of their universities to the general public, while others planned to involve students more fully in public service activities of their home institutions.

Unforeseen benefits have also arisen as a result of this initiative. Many of the institutions involved in 'Building Bridges' had not previously had the opportunity to participate in such far-reaching initiatives. Their association with this initiative, and the opportunity it has afforded for collaborative work and discussion, has resulted in stronger cooperation between the Carpathian participants. Better communications between the Carpathian universities and institutions in the United States has also occurred. In fact, several cooperative projects and exchanges are now in process as a result of the initiative.

'Building Bridges' also proved itself to be a viable low-cost model for university cooperation and development. Because of its low-cost nature, the model developed by this initiative will be replicable in other areas of the world. In addition, funds for this initiative were successfully leveraged into additional support. This leveraging made it possible to expand the number of Carpathian participants beyond the original number planned for in this initiative. As a result, the initiative reached both more decision makers and more universities then otherwise would have been possible.

Top

When agreement was reached with ALO and ACS to manage "Building Bridges," Mr. Robert N. Thomas was appointed as director of the initiative. Mr. Thomas and Dr. Wayne Anderson, president of ACS, then solicited U.S. institutions of higher education for participation in the program. American participants, chosen to represent the diversity of the U.S. higher education system, included public and private institutions, community colleges, research universities and land-grant institutions. Eight members of ACS elected to participate in the initiative. (ACS is a consortium of 13 private liberal arts institutions in the Southeastern United States.) Public institutions from the Southeast were selected based on their commitment to public service and interest in the activities of East and Central Europe. In addition to the 8 private liberal arts colleges of ACS, the American participants included community colleges(3), public senior colleges (2), public regional universities (2), a land-grant university and a private research university.

In February of 1996 a U.S. steering committee comprised of representatives from the American institutions participating in the initiative met in Atlanta. During this meeting the steering committee agreed on the dates for the visit of the Carpathian guests. the content of the workshops, the activities for the institutional visits, and criteria for selection of the Carpathian participants. Each American institution was required to submit a prospectus detailing its commitment to the goals of the initiative, the person responsible for hosting the Carpathian guest, and proposed activities planned for the Carpathian visitor to its campus.

Mr. Thomas traveled to the Carpathian region in March of 1996 to meet with the Carpathian steering committee where the dates of the visit to the U.S. were confirmed, criteria for selection were finalized and travel arrangements were discussed. In addition, the steering committee identified the Carpathian universities' program objectives and provided suggestions on program content. Input from these discussions was incorporated into the final program.

The Carpathian steering committee agreed to take responsibility for selecting and recruiting participants based on the following criteria: all Carpathian participants should be fluent in English, be members of the Association of Carpathian Region Universities (ACRU), be committed to public service, and hold a senior administrative position in a participating university. It was also agreed that there would be at least one representative from each of the five countries of the Carpathian region. Each participating university was required to submit a prospectus detailing it's commitment to public service, the expected outcomes of involvement in the initiative and the identity of it's representative.

Top

The Carpathian participants met in Kosice, Slovakia on Monday, April 22, 1996. From Kosice they traveled to Prague where the Institute for EastWest Studies organized a symposium on the role of the university in community development. On Tuesday, April 23rd. the group traveled to Atlanta via Delta Airlines. On Wednesday, April 24th, the group traveled to Statesboro.

Georgia, home of Georgia Southern University (GSU) where Dr. Nicholas Henry, President of GSU, hosted a reception and dinner in honor of the guests. Dr. Patricia Crosson, Provost of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and a leading scholar on public service, delivered the keynote address (see appendix).

Presentations regarding the concept of public service and the various methods employed by U.S. institutions in meeting their stated public service goals were delivered on Thursday, April 25th and Friday, April 26th. Emphasis was on the economic impact of public service activities and the role that institutions can play in community development. A special session was devoted to auxiliary services of American universities and the financial benefits of these types of services. Each evening social activities were planned for all Carpathian participants, speakers and others involved in the initiative. This provided participants with the opportunity to discuss the concepts introduced that day and to build personal contacts and relationships.

The workshop concluded with a half-day presentation on Saturday, April 27th. In the afternoon the participants were driven to Savannah for lunch, sightseeing and a private reception and dinner at Fort Jackson, a historical civil war fortress. The group was joined by political leaders from Savannah, academic leaders from the region and special guests from Atlanta.

On Sunday, April 28th the group separated and departed for institutional visits. Seventeen U.S. academic institutions in ten states hosted one or more Carpathian guests for four days. Activities during the visits varied, but included observations of the public service activities of the host institution, visits with faculty and administrators interested in the guest's academic discipline, and opportunities to explore areas for future cooperation. The visits allowed the Carpathian participants to witness an institutional commitment to public service first-hand, and to gain insight into the organization, philosophy and challenges involved with public service.

Carpathian participants and U.S. hosts reconvened in Atlanta on Thursday, May 2nd after the site visits for a reception hosted by The Coca-Cola Company. Several regional academic and business leaders attended this event at the world headquarters of the Coca-Cola Company. It became an opportunity for expanding personal contacts.

On Friday, May 3rd the Carpathian guests, many of the American hosts, and several invited guests attended a half day wrap-up session on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology. Each participant reflected upon their experience and the lessons gained from this initiative. Vasil Hudak of the Institute of EastWest Studies then guided the group through the process of designing action plans. The impressions of the group and the action plans are outlined in the appendix.

After lunch, participants were presented with certificates reflecting their involvement in the initiative. Olympic officials then provided the group with an overview of the upcoming 1996 Atlanta Games. To conclude the program, the Associate Director of Georgia Tech's Research Institute conducted a tour of the Economic Development Laboratory.

Delta Airlines generously hosted the participants and invited guests to an Atlanta Braves baseball game that evening. On Saturday, May 4th goodbyes were exchanged and the group departed for Prague. Upon arrival in Kosice, the participant held a news conference in which representatives from newspaper and Slovak TV learned of the initiative and the participants' experiences.

A meeting of all participants and rectors from the member institutions of ACRU was held in Debrecen, Hungary, May 21-22, 1996. Mr. Thomas attended this meeting to collect the evaluations from the participants, learn of new developments, and plan the reciprocal visits by the Americans. Fifteen of the eighteen participants attended this meeting, as well as representatives of several partner ACRU universities which had not been actively involved in the initiative. American higher education leaders traveled to the region October 11-20, 1996.

Top

As mentioned in the Executive Summary, "Building Bridges" has brought together many institutions of higher education, both in the U.S. and in East Central Europe, which are not traditionally included in international development activities. The universities from the five countries in the Carpathian region are located in areas often neglected by international efforts. While many of the universities are located in cities which rank second or third in population in their respective countries, they rarely receive the same level of attention directed to the capital cities.

The Carpathian region is generally lacking in both political and economic capital; yet it is rich in history and human capital. The Carpathian universities' development reflects the citizens' desire for knowledge, enlightenment and autonomy. A lack of attention from the power structure has allowed these universities to develop a strong will for innovation and create an environment of creativity. The creation of the ACRU, the expansion of technology, and the determination of the academic leaders to survive in this period of transition were all indicative of the creativity flourishing in this environment.

The level of commitment showned by these Carpathian universities to "Building Bridges" was further evidence of their desire to take responsibility for the future of their institutions. Representatives for each of the five countries agreed to impose strict criteria for selection of participants in the initiative. These representatives then recruited a strong group for the program, including 8 rectors and 7 vice-rectors. These additional vice-rectors joined the program with financial assistance from their institutions. All participants remained with the program for the entire 14 days, and attendance at the workshops and meeting was 100%. Fifteen of the eighteen participants completed the evaluation forms.

Because non-traditional institutions were included in this initiative, there is evidence that strong personal and institutional relationships have developed. The descriptions of experiences reflect a mutual trust and genuine desire to further relationships developed during this initiative. There also appeared to be special attention paid to the goals and objectives of the initiative. Many of the smaller U.S. institutions were represented by their presidents, and they made clear their commitment to the initiative. This was particularly evident during the institutional visits.

Top

As mentioned in the Executive Summary, initial funds for "Building Bridges" had been successfully leveraged into additional support for the initiative. For example, the Coca-Cola Company and Delta Airlines provided financial support and services. Delta Airlines granted special airfares and waived restrictions which made it possible to expand the number of Carpathian participants. Both corporations expressed interest in continuing their support and cooperation with the initiative and participants.

Several non-governmental organizations became actively involved in the initiative as well. Their contributions enhanced the ability of the participants to achieve their goals. For example, the Institute of Human Sciences in Vienna was actively engaged in the structural reformation of Central European higher education. They adopted the concept of public service and agreed to incorporate this mission into their efforts.

The Institute of EastWest Studies (IEWS) was an original sponsor of this effort. IEWS had a major initiative in the Carpathian region and was also active in community development Their continued support of this initiative insured that the role of the university in community and regional development was given attention. IEWS's reputation within Europe (East and West) provided the Carpathian participants with prestige and access to constituents which may not have been otherwise available.

0ther Central European organizations committed to higher education provided valuable support and resources as the Carpathian universities attempted to adjust to a changing environment. The Higher Education Support Program and the Civic Education Project were part of the Soros Foundation's work in Central and Eastern Europe. These organizations were committed to working with ACRU on various aspects of restructuring, including management training and faculty exchanges.

Public policy was key to the successful development of a public service mission in the universities of East and Central Europe. The World Bank, The Council of Europe and the ministries of higher education in the five countries of the Carpathian region were introduced to the philosophies and activities of this initiative. While their contributions in the future were uncertain, this initiative provided an opportunity to demonstrate the impact of public service and articulate justification for supportive public policy.

While 13 of the 22 members of ACRU participated in this initiative, other universities in the region were aware of the activities. Three non-participating universities attended the Debrecen meeting and expressed interest in becoming involved in future activities. ACRU has committed to sharing knowledge and experiences with those institutions which were not able to participate.

In the U.S. several colleges and universities became aware of the activities of this initiative and expressed interest in active involvement in the future.

Top

Several key themes were incorporated over the course of the program via workshop presentations, institutional visits, written materials and social activities. Emphasis was placed on:

• The role of the University in the economic development of its community.

This message was conveyed in workshops in which community college presidents described their personal and institutional engagement in the economic activities of their communities. Many participants commented on the fact that during their visits to the institutions, they met with Chamber of Commerce representatives, local political leaders, and members of the business establishment. The close relationship between the college and these constituents impressed the Carpathian visitors.

The message was further enhanced as participants were exposed to the various programs designed to meet the needs of the community. Such programs ranged from courses on the business climate for exporting, to training programs for specific business needs. Participants gained an appreciation for the marketing skills of the American institutions and the need to strengthen those skills within their own universities.

• Partnerships with community organizations.

Several Carpathian guests marveled at the involvement of the U.S. colleges and universities with primary and secondary schools in their community. Carpathian participants realized that their own institutions could also play an active role in assisting schools in their home communities and saw the long term benefit of such efforts.

Participants pointed to the partnerships with community social organizations and the activities of students. One rector expressed amazement at the fact that 50% of the students at an expensive liberal art college were active in homeless shelters for Hispanic persons in the community. He related this to the needs of his community, and dedicated to replicating this concept at his university.

• The organization of public service activities.

During the workshops a great deal of emphasis was placed on describing the various approaches to public service existing within the American academic community. Participants learned of the massive organizational structure of the land-grant university, as well as the one-person structure which is common in many community colleges. This background provided them with the ability to explore strategies for enhancing their own public organizations and creating the structure appropriate for their environment.

• Diversifying the funding for universities and the financing of public service activities.

Because the greatest obstacle to the creation of an effective public service function within the universities of the Carpathian region is financing, the program placed strong emphasis on this area. Workshop sessions described the public resources devoted to public service activities and the philosophy and efforts critical to obtaining this funding. Another source of funding came from users of public service and relationships with businesses and other community organizations. Factors crucial to identifying possible funding sources and securing these opportunities were highlighted in several sessions. Finally, the role of auxiliary services and the potential to expand these activities and utilize the profits from these activities were explored. Many participants found this approach to be innovative and exciting. Shortly upon returning home, several participants were actively engaged in expanding the auxiliary services of their institutions.

• The concept of public service.

The experiences of American higher education with public service provided many models and examples. While some were exported to developing countries, their value was limited if the cultural, social and economic environment of the target country was ignored. This initiative sought to portray the models as examples, rather than solutions. What has succeeded in the United States may or may not work in East and Central Europe. The key to success is the adoption of the concept of the moral, economic and social justification for a public service mission within the university. Without a strong belief that it is in the best long term interest of the university to engage in public service, prospects for success are limited. This theme was repeatedly stressed in presentations, luncheon speeches and private conversations. The comment of a vice-rector from Poland suggested that theses efforts succeeded. "While we have been performing some public service activities at our university, we have never institutionalized the concept ... our challenge is to integrate it into the fabric of the institution."

Top

Several sources were utilized to assess outcomes of the initiative. These included notes from the final wrap-up session in Atlanta, discussions and reports from the meeting of participants and ACRU rectors in Debrecen, Hungary, an evaluation completed by fifteen of the eighteen Carpathian participants, and communications with American and Carpathian participants.

Wrap-Up Session

The final wrap-up session in Atlanta provided an opportunity for participants to share experiences and perceptions gained during the program. Participants emphasized their increased understanding of the public service mission and its impact on the economic and social development of the community. The critical need for marketing and actively pursuing areas for service within the local community was stressed. Participants expressed a new understanding of the role of public policy to support the public service mission, as well as the relationship between financing and the perception of value to society. Many pointed to the role of students in the service activities of American higher education.

Action steps were discussed and adopted by the group. The first area for action was identified as the need to institutionalize the service function. Steps to accomplish this objective involved supportive public policy at the national level. Such policies would provide the financial resources and incentives necessary for universities to expand their public service function and integrate the service mission into current teaching and research activities. Mr. Thomas continued previous efforts to address these public policy needs and created a proposal for future action.

To effectively institutionalize the service function universities had to adapt their organizational structure and management philosophy to emphasize their commitment to service. ACRU encouraged its members to take action and engage in activities which supported institutional development.

The second major theme for action involved the need for training. The European Center of Atlanta of the University of Georgia agreed to take responsibility for developing training programs focused on improving marketing skills and the ability of university personnel to build community relationships. Georgia Southern University and the Associated Colleges of the South promised to explore funding for training programs and technical assistance addressing the expansion of continuing education and distant learning. Bob Thomas pursued funding and organizational support for leadership development and management training. Morehouse College, University of the South, Lajos Kossuth University coordinated plans to expand the use of students in service activities. These plans included creating the necessary management's skills and organizational structure to operate such programs.

Five joint projects were planned to build on the relationship between U.S. institutions and Carpathian universities. The first involved student and faculty exchanges. Georgia Southern University and ACS assumed overall responsibility for these efforts, however all institutions were encouraged to pursue exchanges. Several institutions exchanged students and faculty and others made arrangements for exchanges.

A regional economic study of the Carpathian region was seen as a good stop to determine the needs and opportunities for university service activities. Kossuth University worked with Appalachian State University on this project. The University of Georgia was involved in designing the methodology for this study and made efforts to attract financial support.

It was clear to the group that effective communications would help facilitate cooperation. The Technical University of Kosice agreed to work with the University of Georgia in developing an Internet link and expanding the existing discussion group on the World Wide Web. These efforts resulted in a home page on the World Wide Web for ACRU, additional subscribers for the ACRU discussion group and active communications between U.S. and Carpathian faculty and administrators.

Financing was seen as one of the greatest obstacles to development of the service function. There was interest in exploring the use of auxiliary services to address some of the financial needs. Bob Thomas agreed to pursue with The Coca-Cola Company the possibility of a pilot project with a Carpathian university. This project would focus on the development and expansion of auxiliary services and serve as an example for other universities in the region. Several universities in the region individually approached the local Cola-Cola distributor and were engaged in activities thatl enhanced the auxiliary services of the institution.

Participants were impressed with the progress of the University System of Georgia and the goals of ACS in linking the libraries of their institutions. In Georgia all 34 units of the University System are connected via an electronic network known as Galileo. ACS received a grant from the Mellon Foundation to link the Libraries of its member institutions. Carpathian rectors and vice-rectors felt that this technology would be beneficial in addressing the acute shortage of library resources. The University of P.J. Safarik, Lajos Kossuth University worked with the University of Georgia and ACS in exploring funding and technical support which led to the development of a system similar to those in the U.S. linking libraries. The first stage of this effort, determining the status and capabilities of the existing technology within the libraries of ACRU, was completed. The University of Georgia continued a parallel project to electronically link the veterinarian libraries in the Carpathian region to those in the United States.

Debrecen Meeting

The meeting of the ACRU rectors and initiative participants in Debrecen, Hungary, May 21-22, 1996 provided further evidence of outcome. The need for management training and leadership development was a topic for discussion. Plans were made to approach the Higher Education Support Program of the Soros Foundation in an effort to gain their support for management training for higher education in Central Europe.

Much of the Debrecen meeting focused on community development and regional cooperation.

There appeared to be enthusiasm for greater university involvement in the social and economic challenges of the region. Rather than concentrating on the needs of individual countries or institutions, proposed projects reflected the desire to view problems and opportunities in the context of the entire Carpathian region. An unexpected outcome of this initiative has been the development of mutual respect and friendship between the members of the ACRU. In past meeting, members would tend to keep to themselves or with those from their own country. It was rewarding to see the camaraderie and interactions which took place at the Debrecen meeting. The future of ACRU will surely be stronger based on the personal relationships which developed during the initiative.

Evaluations

The evaluations completed by the Carpathian participants upon their return home provide further evidence to the impact of this initiative. Overall response to meeting the objectives of the initiative was favorable. A clear understanding of the concept of public service, and the various means utilized by American higher education to accomplish this mission, was achieved. Participants also indicated that they now understand the need to "institutionalize" the service function and the importance of actively engaging in the needs of their communities.

When asked what steps would be taken to incorporate lessons learned from this experience, many stated that they would seek to incorporate the concept of public service into the strategic plans and current mission of their university. Several committed to expanding efforts to market the resources of the university to organizations and businesses in their community. A few mentioned their desire to involve students in the service activities of their institutions. The following responses support the impact of this initiative in changing attitudes and behavior.

Question: Describe the most valuable lesson learned from your involvement in this initiative.

"Our imagination about public service has been changed: we were surprised how many different services are underway at U.S. universities and how important (both social and economical) this kind of university activity is…"

"Recognition of the importance of the public service mission at American universities, it's comparative analysis with respect to the similar, but not so well organized, activities at Polish universities."

"Experiences, know-how and contacts that will help to develop a service function in my university and establish cooperation between ACRU and U.S. higher education institutions."

"The experiences I gained can be utilized as a model of national and regional integration."

"The most profitable result for me was the knowledge I gained in learning about the inner workings of Centenary College. Because it is a small, albeit excellent school, it was possible for me to become familiar with the entire college."

Question: How has this initiative been relevant to your institution?

"Although my institution already has some public services in place, this initiative will help to strengthen it and to develop further services."

"With the changing role of our universities in the changing society (democratic society, market economy) urgent actions are needed to improve our activity in these fields."

"This program is especially useful for Godollo University. Our university was among the first to recognize that the university and the connected college and institute system should practice a threefold function:

• to create science (research)
• to convey science (education)
• to distribute knowledge in the service of the public (extension)

"The initiative, I hope, will help to fulfill some duties our university formulated 5 years ago as 'the role of the university in society'."

"You have to be dedicated to the surrounding community."

"In our university, as in other Polish institutions of higher education, 'the third mission of university' (public service) is realized as a rule but weakly organized. There exists no theory of this activity. It would be a serious advantage to cooperate with college and universities in Southeast region of USA, where the principles and organization of public service are much more developed."

"It supports developing activities in the field of public service; it strengthens cooperation within ACRU; it showed the possibility of bilateral cooperation as well as multilateral cooperation with ACRU and U.S. higher education institutions and associations."

"Our imagination about public service was too narrow and our continuing education is too degree oriented; this initiative allows us to find new partner universities (colleges) and to develop our international cooperation."

"The first impact of this initiative is rather spiritual; it is about motivation, about feeling responsibility towards local or larger community. It reinforced speaking not only in financial or academic terms, but in terms of service as well. The second thing we could and still have to learn is marketing: to try and live on what you have, i.e. your knowledge. Service is still service, even if you are paid for it. Thirdly it is the requirement to be open-minded and sensitive to the demands of your local society. You have to find your place and role where you are."

Top

The "Building Bridges" initiative demonstrated the effectiveness of using non-traditional institutions and concepts in international development. American institutions of higher education contributed energy, personnel and financial resources to this initiative based on their commitment to the philosophy of public service and their interest in East and Central Europe. Many of the U.S. participants were honored to be invited to contribute to the goals of this initiative and generously gave of their time and expertise. Because they were strong advocates of public service, many saw this as an opportunity to extend their sphere of influence beyond their traditional boundaries.

Selection of American institutions and participants was based on a desire to identify excellent examples in which American higher education contributed to the social and economic development of the community. Critical to the initiative was the involvement of persons dedicated to the concept of public service and capable of articulating that message. The success of the initiative was reflective of the caliber and quality of the participants, speakers and American colleges and universities.

Those from the Carpathian universities are similarly often neglected in respect to international development. Located in the secondary regions of their countries, they must be proactive in their attempts to attract international attention. This initiative sought to promote their importance to the region and utilized their willingness to be innovative as a case study in the reform of higher education throughout Central and Eastern Europe. These universities can now lay claim to leadership positions in the development of a public service mission in Central and Eastern Europe.

By placing emphasis on time for social activities and encouraging home stays during the institutional visits, a foundation for personal relationships was established. There is evidence that friendships were developed both between Americans and Carpathians as well as between members of ACRU. These friendships will help facilitate future cooperation and provide support in facing the difficult challenges inherent in the transition of higher education.

Plans for this initiative also focused on the visit of 20 senior American higher education leaders to the Carpathian region. This trip took place October 11-20, 1996. As cooperative initiatives and opportunities continue to unfold, there appears to be an opportunity for the creation of a stronger organizational structure which would promote higher education's role in economic and community development. Serious discussions on this possibility are now occurring and there is optimism that such an organization will be developed.

Top

The first phase budget for this initiative was $68,911. Total expenses associated with the activities of this phase was $68,810 creating a surplus of $101. The generous contributions of additional sponsors and original partners provided an opportunity to extend the length of the program, expand the number of participants and enhance the quality of the activities. Three additional participants from the Carpathian region were able to join the group and three American institutions of higher education became were added.

The Coca-Cola Company provided resources for a reception in Atlanta. The monetary value of this contribution is valued at $2,000. There is clearly a much greater value than this in the prestige of the Coca-Cola sponsorship and the potential opportunities for cooperation in the future.

Delta Airlines hosted the Carpathian guests at the Atlanta Braves baseball game. The estimated cost of these activities would be over $1,500. Delta also waived restrictions and lowered airfares for the group. Their efforts equated to savings of at least $3,000.

The European Center of Atlanta at the University of Georgia donated $2,000 for the activities in Savannah, Georgia. This contribution allowed the participants to enjoy a much needed day off while sharing time with each other and new acquaintances.

The three activities listed above were pointed out by each participant as the most enjoyable social aspect of the initiative.

The Institute of EastWest Studies financed much of the activities of the Carpathian group while in Prague. They also contributed the administrative assistance in making many of the arrangements critical to the success of the initiative. The efforts of Vasil Hudak of IEWS were of great value in facilitating the final wrap-up session in Atlanta. His knowledge of the region and ability to accurately assess the true feelings of the Carpathian participants were invaluable in determining the future objectives of this initiative. It is impractical to estimate the value of his efforts and that of IEWS.

Personnel - Total budgeted amount was $20,925 and actual expenditures amounted to $20,415, producing a surplus of $510.

Travel - All travel associated with the first phase equaled $24,473 versus a budgeted $26,196. This savings of $1,723 was due primarily to the contributions of Delta Airlines and the use of the Friendship Force as booking agent. The Friendship Force has a strong relationship with Delta and was willing to pass on these savings to this initiative. Another element in the surplus is the fact that many of the participants did not request reimbursements for travel expenses.

Per Diem - $19,040 was budgeted for per-diem expenses. Total expenses under this category amounted to $17,453 creating a surplus of $1,587.

Communications and Supplies - An amount of $3,750 was estimated for these two areas($1,250 and $1,500 respectively). The total expenses equaled $4,818. The $1,068 deficit was due to increased costs associated with long distant phone call and faxes (minimizing the need for travel and contributing to the surplus in the travel category) and supplies for the conference. The current deficit reduces the amount available for the next two phases to $1,182. While every effort will be made to keep expenditures within this range, it appears that the original estimate did not reflect the full cost of communications necessary for this program. A revised estimate will be submitted during the second phase of the program, requesting that some of the surplus in other categories be transferred to communications and supplies.

Unanticipated Expenses - Health insurance was purchased for all Carpathian participants while they were in the United States. The cost of this converge was $1,151. This action was taken based on the assumed liability to the initiative and host colleges and universities. Given the potential expenses associated with serious illness or accident of the visitors, the decision was made to purchase short term health insurance.

Dr. Pat Crosson, the keynote speaker, was paid an honorarium of $500. This was the only fee paid to any of the speakers or presenters.

These expenses were not anticipated in the original proposal and fell outside of the existing budgetary categories.

The original proposal called for sponsor's contributions in the amount of $200,000. With the addition of other sponsors and expanded support of original sponsors the total contributions will exceed $225,000. While there is a deficit in two of the five budget categories and $1,651 of unanticipated expenses, the overall budget for the first phase is $101 under budget.

Top

Top

Please take time to complete this form. If it is possible please type your answers. Bring the completed evaluation to the May 21 meeting in Debrecen. If you are unable to attend this meeting, please fax your comments to Bob Thomas (770) 980-9319.

1. Describe your expectations and objectives of this phase of the project (your visit to the US).
   
   
2. Did the project address those objectives? Please be specific.
   
   
3. Describe the most valuable results / information / contacts gained from this project.
   
   
4. Identify at least one area in which the project could have been approved.
   
   
5. Indicate the value of the following experiences (4 being very valuable, 1 being little or no value)
   
   

   Workshops	4	3	2	1
   Institutional visit	4	3	2	1
   Social Functions (Savannah, Coca-Cola)	4	3	2	1

   
   
6. Indicate the value of the following workshop sessions (4 being very valuable, 1 indicating little or no value)
   
   

   Keynote address by Pat Crosson	4	3	2	1
   Community College Panel	4	3	2	1
   Private College Panel	4	3	2	1
   Distant Learning Session	4	3	2	1
   Georgia Southern's Public Service	4	3	2	1
   Auxiliary Services	4	3	2	1
   Land-Grant University	4	3	2	1
   Dr. Don Puchala	4	3	2	1
   Attracting Clients	4	3	2	1
   University System of Georgia	4	3	2	1
   Tour of Georgia Southern	4	3	2	1

   
   
7. What were the high points of this project?
   
   
8. Describe the areas of public service about which you would like more information.
   
   
9. Describe the action steps you will pursue at your institution to incorporate the information gained from this project.
   
   
10. What action will you recommend to the ACRU, based on your experiences with this project?
    
    
11. Please list some of the public services activities of your university.
    
    
12. What are the obstacles you face in developing or expanding upon the public service mission at your institution?
    
    
13. What assistance can US institutions provide in addressing these obstacles?
    
    
14. Describe at least three areas for future cooperation between US institutions of higher education and the universities of the Carpathian Region.
    
    
15. The second phase of this project will involve the visit of 18 American higher education leaders to the Carpathian Region. Please provide suggestions which can be used in planning this visit. Include the outcomes/objectives which you feel will be important during the Americans visit to your region.
    
    
16. How has this project been relevant to your institution?
    
    
17. Please feel free to share other comments suggestions or requests about your experiences with this project.

Top

April 21, 1996 - 16 members of Association of Carpathian Region Universities(ACRU) gather in Kosice, Slovakia and travel to Prague (2 members will fly directly from Budapest to Atlanta).

April 22, 1996 - Prague - Roundtable discussion on the University's role in Community and Economic Development - Institute of EastWest Studies - European Studies Center - 16 ACRU members, academic leaders, foundation representatives, public policy officials.

April 23, 1996 - 18 Senior administrators from Universities in the Carpathian Region arrive in Atlanta from Prague and Budapest on Delta flight at 5:25PM.

No Activities Planned.

April 24 - Free morning

April 25 - Workshop

April 26 - Workshop

April 27 - Workshop

Top

Over the years since its embodiment in the Land Grant Act, the Wisconsin Idea and the community college movement, public service in higher education has come to mean direct programmatic relationships between institutions of higher education and external groups for the purpose of bringing knowledge and expertise more directly and effectively to bear on the identification, understanding and resolution of public problems and public needs. Public problems include political social and economic policy problems. Public needs include economic development, access to specialty education and training, technology transfer, and help with state and local service delivery.

As problems and needs change over time and place, the scope and content of public service changes. It changes as well with the type of institution. Service in a research university, a private college and a community college are somewhat different. But the underlying constant is the concept of relationship to the larger society.

In the United State, service has been described as a mission of higher education for a very long time. Initially (from the colonial period into the 2lst century of the United States) service provided the rationale for societal involvement in, and support of higher education. It was - and is - a rhetorical device used to argue for and justify public support for the local college whether that college be public or independent in terms of formal control.

With the land grant movement beginning in the 1860's, service came to mean much more. It came to mean a specific (not a rhetorical) mission and a variety of activities planned and executed on behalf of a special group or constituency external to the campus. The 1862 Morrill Act, a federal government act, provided grants of land to the states, that when matched by the states, enabled the creation of new universities with a specific purpose: to serve directly the people and society's most fundamental social and economic needs. This meant: 1) access to the sons & daughters of the middle and working class 2) direct relationships between university faculty and agricultural communities to improve food production and 3) direct relationships between university faculty and the emerging industries to improve technology and engineering.

The land grant philosophy was the important thing-universities were to be charted by the representatives; of the people, for the people, to serve the people.

It took more than half a century to build these land grant universities to maturity. The philosophy itself has undergone expansion. On the access dimension, it included predominantly black institutions in the 1890's and, more recently, some 27 Indian tribal colleges. There are now some 75 colleges and universities in the land grant system.

The original commitment to agriculture and industry has been expanded to include family issues, consumer issues and a number of other professional applications. And, as research became an ever more important mission in higher, education beginning in the late 1800's, to include applied research as well

The core philosophical premise of the land grant movement - that higher education institutions should be focused on students and service, and their work applied and made available and responsive to what citizens, consumers and clients need - became an important premise for other types of institutions as well. It began to define the service mission on in higher education - a mission distinct from, but interdependent with, the missions of teaching and research. This is different from the rhetorical use of the concept of service, but both are used almost interchangeably at present.

A second critically defining moment in the evolution of the service mission in higher education results from what is popularly known as the Wisconsin Idea. As each of the state governments in the United States formed state universities (in part with federal grants of land) these institutions formed a special relationship with their states, acknowledging an obligation to serve the needs of the state and its citizens. Especially true of the state universities of the West the philosophy was most forcefully enunciated by Charles Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin from 1904 until 1918, who declared that the boundaries of the university would be coterminous with those of the State. He also said that the primary purpose of the university would be to serve the needs of the state and its citizens. The means used for such service were many but especially extension (courses of study on all kinds of subjects which were made available throughout the state to people from all walks of life) and direct service to state government through legislative services and service to state agencies. To give some concrete examples of direct service to state government and agencies, the University of Wisconsin:

• tested soil and water and ores for citizens and agencies.

• advised state agencies of education, transportation, health, etc. on policy and implementation problems.

• sponsored debates and workshops on every conceivable topic.

• organized library and instructional materials and delivered them throughout the state via bookmobiles.

• organized workshops and training programs for legislators.

These are just a few examples.

Other state universities followed suit declaring a mission of state service and organizing similar services. These are the same kinds of activities we would describe as service today.

Other types of institutions of higher education municipal colleges, community colleges, even privately supported colleges independent of state control, adopted the concept of service, adapting it to their own unique locations and purposes. For municipal colleges, this meant service to the urban area and its special needs. For community colleges, it meant a special attention to access as well as vocational and technical training programs for area businesses and industry. For private colleges, it involved relationships to public schools and civic and cultural organizations. In this way, what started in one sector had come to infuse all of higher education in the United States and service had become a distinct mission.

Oddly enough, there is no clear cut and commonly accepted definition of service in higher education. It is a loose term which tends to denote the orientation to external groups, and the relationship with others through certain kinds of activities. Over the years different terms have gone in and out of fashion.

Twenty years ago the most common term was public service and most people still use that term today. A decade ago, many switched to professional service in an effort to emphasize the fact that what was contributed to society through service resulted from the professional expertise of the faculty. More recently, the term outreach has become popular as a way of stressing the external relationship component. Another reason for the switch is to help with the problem of "service" losing its clear meaning since it has also become commonplace to talk about service to the institution in committee work and governance and service to the profession, meaning the discipline or field based professional society or association. Many believe that outreach clears up the confusions between institutional, on-campus service, professional society service and public service.

Outreach also emphasizes the interconnections between the various missions of higher education. Through outreach, colleges and universities disseminate knowledge, teaching in different formats to diverse clienteles. Technology advances have finally caught up and it is possible to teach from a studio on the home campus to various sites; conference rooms at an industrial plant; a high school auditorium; or another campus located very far away. This profoundly changes the student body and even ideas about who is the appropriate clientele for higher education. Outreach teaching often means changes in the content of the curriculum as well to be more responsive to wants of the clientele.

So, too, with research. Through outreach, colleges and Universities take the knowledge gained in the laboratory and study and apply it directly and immediately to political, social, and economic settings where it can change products or technologies, or improve service delivery. Over time, this can lead to changes in the research as well, making it more attentive to immediate problem and issues. I will quote as examples two definitions of outreach:

"Outreach is a form of scholarship that cuts across teaching, research, and service. It involves generating, transmitting, applying, and preserving knowledge for the direct benefit of external audiences in ways that are consistent with university and unit missions."

"The Ohio State University is committed to teaching, research, and service that meets society's needs. Therefore, as we function, we achieve our outreach objectives through our three-fold mission:

• Outreach is that aspect of teaching that enables learning beyond the campus walls.

• Outreach is that aspect of research that makes what we discover useful beyond the academic community.

• Outreach is that aspect of service that directly benefits the public.

This definition identifies the aspects of teaching, research and service that comprise outreach. The term 'outreach' cannot be used interchangeably with 'service.' Not all service is outreach, nor is all teaching or research. By contrast, all outreach may be determined by who is using it, where it takes place, and/or how it is used by society. Outreach is a scholarly activity that must meet the same quality standards expected of on-campus teaching, research and service. It is a valuable endeavor to be undertaken by faculty and staff."

I use the Ohio State definition to point out the claim that public service and outreach are not synonymous. In practice, however they are frequently used interchangeably.

There are some who do not like the word outreach, believing it implies one-way relationships from the institution outward to the community; as if all knowledge, wisdom, and expertise were in the hands of those in the college or university. They use partnership instead to imply joint efforts--a working together on common problems. In this view the local college or university is one member of a partnership, along with government, civic organizations and local business leaders. Together, the partners address local needs and concerns.

I suspect that we will continue to struggle for just the right terminology, but even as we do so, it is clear that the list of activities that are engaged in under the rubric of public; service grows longer and longer. Let me list only some of the most common ones:

• agricultural extension services, experiment stations and extension activities in areas other than agriculture

• credit and non-credit correspondence programs and courses for study at home;

• training and educational programs delivered on site at the workplace

• educational programs delivered through video or satellite technology

• on campus credit and non-credit continuing education programs for those who would not normally pursue degree studies on a college campus

• technical assistance programs in which university professionals provide information and advice to business, government, or neighborhood groups to help solve specific problems

• research partnerships or consortia which are designed to support economic development by allowing more focused research programs and technology transfer

• cultural and arts programming made available to audiences beyond the local campus community

• research toward the solution of public policy problems undertaken by individuals or groups of faculty members

• health and medical services provided to the general population from campus-run hospitals and clinics

• conferences, institutes, seminars and workshops offered on special topics

• use of campus facilities for special events sponsored by outside organizations

• professional assistance in organizing workshops and other activities

The list could be longer and continues to grow as new forms of public service are developed and added. Again, however, there is considerable variation across types of institutions.

College and University public service in support of economic development has been especially important in recent years as more and more state governments and local communities have turned to colleges and universities for help. This has taken a variety of forms:

• Basic job training for workers offered at the work site by community colleges.

• Advanced training and degree programs offered, also on site, by colleges and universities. Professional Master's Degree in Business Administration is the most popular but there are Engineering and other programs offered as well.

• Displaced worker training programs and other specialized programs for those left out of normal economies, i.e., single parents on welfare and disabled workers, etc.

• Small business development centers offering research and consulting services to those contemplating new businesses or facing special problems because of size.

• Research partnerships focusing on new product design or new processes.

• Incubator programs and specialized facilities to help nurture high risk but high profit new businesses.

Among the most ambitious economic development undertakings have been the creation in many states of formal partnerships involving state governments, business and industry and universities (sometimes even the federal government). The partnerships help encourage economic development and job creation in specific states and are often funded in multimillions of dollars. They are quite ambitious undertakings.

The list of activities called public service becomes quite long, but I hope this conveys a sense of the many possibilities. While most citizens, political leaders, and college/university leaders applaud and encourage, (in fact increasingly expect) these kinds of service relationships, there are many critics as well. There are those who believe that the traditional mission of undergraduate teaching, traditional notions of unfettered, "pure" scholarship, and the role of "social criticism" are jeopardized by excessive attention to, and expectations for public service.

I do not believe, however, that the clock will be turned back. Colleges and universities have grown bigger and bigger and the number of students has increased. They educate an ever increasing proportion of the population. They have become ever more dependent on both government and communities for revenue and financial support. They simply cannot afford to disengage from the larger society of which they are apart. They cannot afford not to promise and deliver service.

So, I believe we will see more public service in the future. Service and or outreach will become a more important part of the mission.

It would be wrong to claim that there are no difficulties in the implementation of the public service mission, however, even in the U.S. context, where the fundamental premise has been accepted for so long.

At the level of the specific institution, whether college or university, there are many thorny issues Public service has been difficult to build into the daily lives of colleges and universities, into institutional policies and procedures, and into regular roles and responsibilities of faculty members. It has been more difficult to enact than teaching, research and scholarship. I will talk about four areas as illustrations.

1. The most important, is that of finances. How to pay for it. This is a thorny issue and made complex by the complexity of types of institutions of higher education and different patterns of relationships to state and local government.

   As a general rule, service is not separately budgeted or appropriated by state government. [There are some exceptions--I believe the University of Georgia is one which has a separate line for service in the appropriation that provides the basic operating funds for the university.] In most other institutions, there is no such targeted appropriation. This means that service activities are undertaken by faculty and staff members as a regular part of their duties. They vie with on-campus teaching, research, and committee work for time and attention.

   Also as a general rule - service is expected to generate revenue. This can be accomplished through consulting arrangements for faculty, through contract for departments or institutions, through technical service agreements, through research agreements, through course and program fees and various other mechanisms.

   The complicated part is that there is no clear set of rules or agreements about what should be free and what paid; what you performed as regular duties and what revenue generating. Public institutions lean a bit toward the former and private ones the latter but there is a healthy mix. Each college or university somehow works this out and the result is tremendous variety.

   I am now oversimplifying. There are a variety of financing arrangements - consulting policies, technical service agreements, practice plans, program fee structures and other pricing policies - that work well for specific type of service activities, these are shared across institutions. They could serve as models for other countries. They are too complex for me to cover here but I hope they will discussed in your workshops and visits.

   As a generalization, over time in the U.S. we have increasingly shifted to view public service as a source of revenue, or at least as a means of offsetting costs, even as we have used service more and more rhetorically in making our claim for public support.

2. A second thorny, current institutional issue, is that of personnel policies. The roles and expectations we have for faculty work. What is commonly called "the reward system" in American higher education.

   Put most simply, colleges and universities face the common daily problem. If we expert faculty members to do service, how do we build that expectation into appointment contracts and how do we reward it in re-appointment, the award of tenure and promotion, and in financial remuneration?

   It is the failure to find good answers to these questions that has led many to claim that while service may be one of the missions of higher education in the U.S., it occupies a distinctly third place behind research and teaching in the hierarchy of missions, at least from the perspective of the individual faculty member.

   Here, too there is little common practice but there are some useful models that may prove helpful to you.

   Some institutions assign formal percentages for distribution of faculty effort - 40% for teaching, 40% for research, 20% for service and then use the same distribution, whatever they are, as weighting factors in the reward system. Others are less precise but still weight the service effort in some fashion in personnel decisions. There is considerable within institution variance as well. Professional schools expect service from the faculty more than do the humanities, arts and sciences divisions.

   There has been much discussion on how to assess the quality of service contributions (not just the quantity) so that this assessment can be used in promotion and tenure decisions. Judgments of clients as well as peers have become increasingly important, as have formal assessments of the impact and. significance of the service activity.

   (It is here that the newer definitions of outreach become most helpful. It is easier to judge the quality and significance of teaching for external groups and of applied research than it is some other activities.)

   Although we have debated for decade, we have not yet figured out what to do about faculty consulting activity. Is it public service or personal gain? Since it is already paid, should it also be rewarded by internal decisions about promotion and tenure and salary? Most institutions do include consulting as service and reward it because to do otherwise would sharply curtail the amount of service activity, but, in doing so, they try to focus on the individual contribution, impact and significance. A few institutions specifically omit consulting from the service calculation for reward systems. I see no discernible trend. Group consulting arrangements in which gains comes to the institution are increasingly popular and do offer a partial solution to the dilemma.
   

3. A third practical institutional issue has to do with management and organizational structure. How do you manage the service activity?

   Most colleges and universities have tried to manage it through the existing academic structures of department, school and college, with an occasional small center or institute for specialized activity. This means that faculty are expected to do service as part of their work and department heads and Deans are expected to organize it where necessary and recognize it in rewards. A few institutions have developed separate organizational structures for service--special bureaus, extension agencies and continuing education divisions with their own faculty and staff. Most large universities have mixed patterns which include reliance on the academic structure plus several specialized units.

   There are many problems with almost any structural arrangement you choose:

   • reliance on academic departments and schools means that public service won't be as high a priority as the leadership might wish.
     
     
   • separate structures cause difficulties of coordination of faculty work.
     
     
   • for large institutions external groups are often totally mystified by the number of schools, colleges, offices, institutes, deans, directors, chairs, clinics, programs. They need help to make the connection and our organizational structure needs to account for this.

   Structure is indeed a serious challenge. Technology may help. Worldwide web pages have the potential to lead inquirers to the right place and can be kept current if we start by trying to view ourselves the way external individuals view us.

4. Leadership is another question. At what level should you place the senior "service" coordinator or manager? Vice President? Vice Provost? Dean or Director? There are many different answers in U.S. higher education.

   Let me turn here from the general to the specific. I have been interested in the subject of service as a faculty member for many years but only two years ago did I come to a university administrative position with an opportunity to do something about it. Very briefly, here is how I proceeded.

   1. I placed topic on the agenda for the faculty to pay attention to it by creating a Task Force on Public Service and a Task Force on Economic Development. These groups articulated a new vision of outreach.
      
      
   2. I began to organize new structure for public service (which we now call outreach) by creating a Council of Outreach Coordinators with representatives from each school and college.
      
      
   3. I began to search for senior-level administrator to provide the needed leadership. We will call this person a Vice Provost for Outreach.
      
      
   4. I began the slow process of changing personnel processes and reward systems by working with faculty committees.
      
      
   5. I am beginning to work on pricing policies, contractual provisions and the dilemma of consulting.

Most importantly, I have tried to unleash energy, enthusiasm and creativity, to give permission to do these things to the faculty. I believe that if we can get the faculty to accept that public service is valued and worthwhile, then we will be able to fulfill the public service mission and enhance it appropriately in the future.

Top