DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 076 863 AC 014 375 TITLE National Advisory Council on Extension and Continuing. Education, Pursuant to Public Law 89-329. Sixth Annual

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 076 863 AC 014 375

TITLE National Advisory Council on Extension and ContinuingEducation, Pursuant to Public Law 89-329. SixthAnnual Report. Message from the President of theUnited States Transmitting the Sixth Annual Report ofthe National Advisory Council on Extension andContinuing Education; Ninety-Second Cbngress, SecondSession.

INSTITUTION National Advisory Council on Extension and ContinuingEducation.

REPORT .NO H-Doc-92-335PUB DATE 3 Aug 72NOTE 119p.; Message and accompanying paper referzed to the

Committee on Education and Labor

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58DESCRIPTORS *Adult Education;,*Community Service Programs;

Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; FederalPrograms; *Higher Education; Post SecondaryEducation; Program Administration; ProgramEffectiveness; *Program Evaluation

ABSTRACTThis repoit presents the results of a comprehensive

study of federally supported programs of extension, continuingeducation, and community service..The scope of the Council'sactivities was broadened to include, in addition to Title 1activities, 142 other relevant Federal programs.. Majorrecommendctions include: (1) the establishment of knowledge receivingand transferring networks at State, national, and local levels toform a cohesive system for the identification of problems and for theorganization of research and transfer of knowledge; (2) theestablishment of a divisioh of continuing education into whichcurrent community service and continuing education programs can beplaced (3) the use of the proposed division as a liaison betweeninstitutions and agencies and person within the government; (4)appropriations for the support of the State-grant program ofcommunity service and continuing education under Title 1; (5) thateach agency assume responsibility for the development of evaluationstandards and procedures for higher continuing education programs andfor the dissemination pf evaluation results; (6) that the Office ofManagement and Budget study program fund matching ratios, programoverhead rates, program accounting, and other related regulations anddeveldp appropriate remedies; and (7) the enactment of a HigherContinuing Education Act of 1972 and the amendment of Title 1 of. theHigher Education Act. (KM)

92d Congress, 2d Session

U S. DFPARTIRENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICt OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO -'DUCED EXAC- Y AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON UR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINI

IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION CR P0' ICY

House Document No. 92-335

SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY- COUNCIL ON EXTENSION AND CONTINUING EDUCA-

TION, PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 89-329

MESSAGEFROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE WITED STATESTRANSMITTING

THE SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON EXTENSION AND CONTINUING

EDUCATION, PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 89-329

SCOPE OF INTEREST NIITICE

The zRIC Facility has assignedthis document I pro tog

to.

In our lodgement, this document. is also Of Interest to the cleluluthouses noted to the MIA. Index-ing should reflect their specialpoets of stave,

AUGUST 3, 1972.Message and accompanying papers referredto the Committee on Education and Labor and ordered to be

printed

U.S. GOVERNME f PRINTING OFFICEWASHI1V-TON : 1972

81-64% 0

...

I

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

To the Congress of the United States:The Sixth Annual Report of the National Advisory Council

on Extension and Continuing Education is submitted here-with. The Council is authorized by Public Law 89-329.

I congratulate the Council on its comprehensive study of theFederal role in community service, extension and continuingeducation for adults through the resources of colleges and uni-versities. The study points up the need for increased coordina-tion of the support the Federal government lends to theseefforts.

Several of the Council's proposals are receiving thoroughconsideration by the Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, including those relating to improved coordination ofFederal assistance to extension, community service, and con-tinuing education programs.

The Council also recommen at additio al funds be pro-vided for the rogram autho zed y Title I the Higher Ed-ucation Act o 5. I contin to h asic principle thatgreater emphasis s Id be p aced on broad funding approachesfor Federal grant-in-al grams, and that narrow categoricalgrant programs such as Title I should be relied on less as ameans of channeling Federal funds to individual 'institutions.

THE WHITE HOUSE;Augtot 3,1972 RICHARD NIXON.

Vl

THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

ON

EXTENSION AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

ROBERT RAYciumigui

EDWARD A. IaELOCHEzmwnmpincrom

The PresidentThe White HouseWashington, D. C.

Dear Mr. President:

March 31, 1972

1325 G STREET, N.W.ROOM 710

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005(202) 382-7885

In our Annual Report to you last year, we indicated

that our Council had begun a comprehensive study of

Federally-supported programs of extension, continuing

education and community service. I am pleased; on behalf

of our Council, to submit this study to you in company

with our Sixth Annual Report which conveys the Council's

further recommendations.

Respectfully yours,

Robert F. Ray

Chairman

*JOSEPH ALIOTOCalifornia

CHARLES T. ANDREWSNebraska

DOROTHY J. BEWLEYNe w York

ALBERT H. BOWKERCalifornia

NEWTON 0. CATTELLPennsylvania

RUTH CRASSWELLERMinnesota

MARK GUERRACalifornia

N. P. RALSTONDepartment of Agriculture

ROGER A. PRIORDepartment of Commerce

NATHAN BRODSKYDepartment of Defense

ANDREW T. BULLISDepartment of Housing and

Urban Development

RICHARD C. CURRYDepartment of Interior

EDWARD A. KIELOCHExecutive Director

THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILON EXTENSION AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

PUBLIC MEMBERS

ROBERT F. RAY, ChairmanIowa

HOWARD WALKERKansas

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS

MARIE Y. MARTINOffice of Education

STAFF

RICHARD F. McCARTHYAssociate Director

*Public Members whose terms have expired during this reporting year

*CYRIL 0. HOULEIllinois

*JESSE C. KELLAMTexas

KENNETH T. LYONSMassachusetts

JULIUS J. MASTRONew Jersey

EARL NUNNNew Mexico

*FRANCISCO D. SANCHEZ, JR.New Mexico

FRANK J. VAN DYKEOregon

-

GARLAND S. WOLLADDepartment of Justice

ROLAND G. ROSSDepartment of Labor

GILBERT ANDERSONDepartment of State

MARY E. ROBINSONOffice of Economic Opportunity

ARTHUR J. HARVITHSmall Business Administration

KATHRYN L. MULLIGANStaff Associate

HARRIET M. CHADAYAMMURYAdministrative Assistant

P

THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965SECTION 109

The National Advisory Council on,Extension and Continuing Education ". . .

shall review the administration and effectiveness of all federally supportedextension and continuing education programs, including community serviceprograms, make recommendations with respect thereto, and make annualreports. . . of its findings and recommendations to the Secretary (of Health,Education and Welfare) and to the President."

.

,,TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Summary of current and proposed Council activities

RECOMMENDATIONS 3Listing of recommendations, each followed by supporting text

COMMENTS ON TITLE I, FISCAL YEAR 1971 9Sununary of Title I activities and future prospects

APPENDIX A

Part I

A QUESTION OF STEWARDSHIP: A Study of the Federal Role in Higher Continuing Education

Introduction.Study approach and methodolology, together with a summary of rederal and university activity inextension, continuing education and community service

Summary of Major FindingsProgram legislation, program administration, program characteristics and institutions of highereducation

12

18

A Focus on Issues 20

Coordination: Some Basic Problems in Public Administration 20Problems in achieving a coordinated Federal effort in extension, continuing education andcommunity service

The Legislative Base 22The origin and nature of legislation which created the programs reviewed

The Administration of Educational Grant Programs: A New Feudalism 24Problems in administering relevant Federal grant programs

Urban Extension: The Need for Structure 32Need for a better organized effort and a description of the present basis on which communitiyservices programs operate

The Federal Government and Student Financial tissistance . 35. A review of Federal support for .iigher education which basically neglects the part-time student

Independent Study 38The present configuration and future prospects for home study

Data Analysis and Program Clusters 40Analysis of programs supporting instructional service;

Analysis of programs supporting research application

A

Part II

Examination of Specific Programs and Areas of Program Concentration

Introduction 53

Cooperative Extension SS

National Sea Grant Program: Two Approaches to Extension Services 60

The Federal Government and the Training of Teachers and Educational Personnel 65

Regional Medical Programs: A Test of Local Initiative 73

Veterans Administration: The GI Bill: Education and Training 78,

Legal Services: University as Advocate sa

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration: An Intergovernmental Challenge 88',-Government Conducted Programs of Continuing Education 92

High Expectations and Modest Successes: Title I of The Higher Education Act of 1965 94Y

APPENDIX B

A REPORT ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAM (TITLE I, 97HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965)

"Community service" is as ambiguous and inconclu-sive a term as is "continuing education." Neither lends itselfto a brisk definition and yet each is a term heardincreasingly in the deliberations of educators and com-munity leaders who are concerned about the directionseducation and community life are taking.

We on this Council believe with conviction that thequality c f American education and the tone of communitylife are inseparable, and that strengthening the continuingeducation and community service activities at our publicand private colleges and universities is indispensible to anamelioration of some of our most critical communityproblems.

It is this Council's responsibility to advise theCommissioner of Education on the preparation of regula-tions and policies affecting the administration of Title I ofthe Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. ThisCouncil is also mandated to report to the President and theCongress on the administration and effectiveness of allFederally supported programs of extension, continuingeducation and community service.

In previous years, we have focused primary attentionon the operation of Title I activities. During the past year,this Council has undertaken systematically the task ofreviewing all Federally supported programs for which it hasan over-sight responsibility.

As a result, we have now broadened the scope of ouractivities to the extent required by our statutory charter.While continuing to maintain familiarity with Title Iactivities, we have identified 142 other Federal programswhich in whole or in part fund extension, continuingeducation and community services activities. We haveformed some basic judgments about the administration andoperation of these programs which represent a total outlayof over four billion dollars, with over one-half of thisamount specifically allocated to activities involving exten-sion, higher continuing education and community service.These judgments are reflected in our recommendations.

The study on which our recommendations are basedproceeded in three stages. First, an identification was madeand a description written of all those Federal programs that

INTRODUCTION

have a community service, extension or continuing educa-tion component that involves institutions of higher educa-tion. Second, a series of case studies was prepared onparticular Federal programs which represented major areasof Federal support. And third, drawing on facts andinformation developed in the first two stages, we sought topresent a broad assessment of the Federal effort inextension, continuing education and community service.This study "A Question of Stewardship" is attached asAppendix A.

Our efforts during the past year provide a base whichwill enable us to serve with increasing effectiveness thepurposes for which this Council,was established.

This Advisory Council is the only entity within theGovernment with a statutory charge to oversee the massiveand scattered Federal effort in extension, continuingeducation and community service. Our expanded activitiesover the past year have given us a greater degree of visibilitywithin and beyond the Federal structure. Individuals,institutions and associations concerned with higher con-tinuing education have welcomed the Council's heightenedactivity and have warmly supported our efforts to gatherand assess information.

Inc the coming year we propose, among otheractivities, to undertake the following:

1. As a first priority, to keep current the informa-tion we have assembled on the 143 Federal programsalready identified, and to record new program activities, sothat we can provide a solid factual basis on which to fonnjudgments and render advice.

2. While continuing our close relationships withTitle I, to establish more systematic liaison with otheradministrators of Office of Education programs, and withappropriate Federal agencies other than the Office ofEducation. There are many programs of high priority andsubstantial importance that should command a larger shareof our attention.

3. To study:(a) State plans submitted under Title I guide-

lines, so that we can develop more meaningful insights onwhich to assess shifts in emphasis and priorities.

1

(b) Representative projects funded by Title I,in order to experiment with more sophisticated evaluation

techniques and to provide us with an independent basis onwhich to form judgments about the relative successes of

these IN9jects.(c) The continuing education needs of par-

ticular clientele such as women, prisoner:,, and the ;Gucatedunemployed.

(d) Activities not included in tue presentstudy, such as programs funded under contracts andprograms of higher continuing education for militarypersonnel and Federal employees.

(e) Effects of Federal programs on intra- andinter-university relationships.

(f) Programs of higher continuing educationdesigned to prepare teachers who serve vocational educa-`ion and adult basic education activities.

(g) Quality control and consumer protectionin higher continuing education, particularly with respect to

2

programs of individual study where long-standing problems

in this regard exist.(h) The accreditation of higher continuing

education activities, with emphasis on accreditation of

work toward external degrees.4. In addition, during the course of the next year,

we plan to initiate a series of regional conferences to bringtogether Federal administrators and representatives frominstitutions of higher education to discuss mutual problemsand program concerns in higher continuing education. We

believe that such conferences will help universities and theFederal Government to develop better forms of interactionand achieve more effective results.

Our activities during the past year as well as ourhopes for the future are both reflected in our recommenda-

tions. In the course of further deliberation on the manyprograms identified in our study, and the many issues raised

by it, we plan to formulate and submit additionalrecommendations prior to our next annual report.

,

1. WE RECOMMEND THE ESTABLISHMENT OFKNOWLEDGE RECEIVING AND TR \NSFER-RING NETWORKS AT STATE, NATIONALAND LOCAL LEVELS TO FORM A COHESIVESYSTEM FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OFPROBLEMS ON WHICH ACTION IS NEEDED,AND FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF RE-SEARCH EFFORTS AND THE TRANSFER OFKNOWLEDGE TO ITS ULTIMATE USERS.

TO THIS END, WE RECOMMEND THATFIVE DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION PRO-GRAMS BE ESTABLISHED IN EACH OF FIVESTATES, AT UNIVERSITIES HAVING APROVEN COMPETENCE IN EXTENSION AC-TIVITIES. A DIFFERENT EXTENSION FOCUSWILL BE GIVEN AT EACH UNIVERSITY. THEFIVE AREAS OF FOCUS WE PROPOSE ARE:(1) UNIVERSITY EXTENSION ASSISTANCETO VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS, SMALLAND MEDIUM-SCALE BUSINESSES AND IN-DUSTRIES IN MATTERS SUCH AS SCIEN-TIFIC RESEARCH, :vIANAGEMENT PRAC-TICES AND PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT; ,(2)UNIVERSITY EXTENSION ASSISTANCE TOMUNICIPAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ONTHE TECHNICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE ANDSOCIAL PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THESELOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE CONCERNED;(3) EXTENSION ASSISTANCE TO STATE ANDLOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS, DE-SIGNED TO INCORPORATE THE LATESTRESEARCH AND MEDICAL PRACTICES INTOTHE ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC HEALTH; (4)EXTENSION ASSISTANCE TO PUBLIC EDU-CATIONAL SYSTEMS TO IMPROVE THEQUALITY OF TEACHING AND LEARNINGAND (5) EXTENSION ASSISTANCETHROUGH A CONSORTIUM OF COLLEGESAND UNIVERSITIES WITHIN A GIVEN STATEIN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOUR FUNC-

RECOMMENDATIONS

TIONAL AREAS CITED ABOVE. WE ASK THEPRESIDENT TO CALL UPON THE DEPART-MENTS OF COMMERCE, HOUSING ANDURBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH, EDU-CATION AND WELFARE TO DEVELOP WAYSOF MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION OP-ERATIONAL THROUGH EXISTING AUTHOR-ITIES OR BY THE PROPOSAL OF NEWLEGISLATION.

Many proposals have been made to reproduce inother functional areas an extension system comparable insize and composition to that established for agriculturewithin the land grant universities. For one or raiotherreason, all these proposals have failed to gain acceptance,although small-scale extension activities, Federally funded,have been established" for specific, limited-purpose pro-grams. The reasons for failure appear to be: (1) the need forheavy fund outlays and long-term fund commitments ifsomething on the scale of agricultural extension is to bedone; (2) lack of agreement on what specific purposes anynew extension s_ stem should fulfill and what clientele itshould serve; (3) a lack of conviction that universities couldbe as successful in other program areas as they are inagriculture; (4) the political difficulties which would arise ifa single institution in each State were selected for heavyFederal and State support, as in the case of agriculturalextension, and (5) a recognition that if more than oneinstitution per State were to be selected as an extensionbase, difficult coordination problems would arise and thetotal State grant might be dismembered, distributed insmall amounts, and thereby lose the critical mass needed togive successful effect to a major extension effort.

These obstacles impeding major new extension effortsare real and based on reasonable grounds; yet a preoccupa-tion with them has stifled action and progress. What isneeded now is a limited breakthrough which can test, atmodest cost and with minimum disruption, the broaderapplication of the extension concept.

3

2. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE CONGRESSAPPROPRIATE $20 MILLION IN FISCALYEAR 1973, AND ADDITIONAL SUMS INSUBSEQUENT YEARS TO ACHIEVE ANORDERLY PROGRESSION TO THE AUTHOR-IZED LEVEL OF $60 MILLION BY FISCALYEAR 1977, FOR THE SUPPORT OF THEEFFECTIVE STATE-GRANT PROGRAM OFCOMMUNITY SERVICE AND CONTINUINGEDUCATION, UNDER TITLE I OF THE HIGH-ER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED.

The Community Service and Coniiroliqg EducationProgram (Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965) hasdemonstrated its merit and is worthy of enlarged Federalsupport. Among all Federal programs surveyed, thisprogram most specifically serves to focus the full range ofuniversity resources on community problem-solvingthroufih continuing education of individuals, groups andwhole communities.

A setter dated February 11, 1972, addressed to theDirector of the Office of Management and Budget, conveysour views with respect to funding of Title I. In part, thisletter states:

This Council is at complete odds with thedecision to budget the Community Services Programat the $5.7 million -level for Fiscal Year 1973.Established under Title I of the Higher EducationAct, this program has successfully, pioneered coop-erative university-community efforts to cope withlocal problems of significant national importance.The record shows that activities begun under Title Iauspices in drug abuse education, environmentaldegradation, training of local govmment officialsand urban renewal have resulted in concrete ac-complishments which laid a solid foundation for newlegislation and expanded program activities in each ofthese functional areas.

Title I has never been funded at its authorizedlevel of $60,000,000. Even with the comparativelymodest funds available, however, the program hasmade an impact which ;weds to be reinforced andexpanded. Any final action to reduce appropriationsbelow the present level would be a retrograde stepinconsistent with our need to exert expanded effortsto mitigate serious social problems.In spite of serious-financial restraints, the number of

qualified institutions participating :n the program hasgrown at a steady pace and, to a lesser extent, planning forStatewide programs has been accomplished in a significantnumber of States. State agencies, encouraged by programmanagers, have aided the development of cooperativearrangements among institutions of higher education. Suchconsortia-type arrangements are proving to be usefulvehicles for applying a broad range of higher educationresources to shared problems within a specific geographicarea.

The recommended level of appropriation for FY1973 lire., $20 million) can be used effectively to (1)

ensure the continuation and refinement of significantprogram accomplishments, (2) strengthen existing networksfor Statewide planning and administrative processes, and(3) implement a new program emphasis on meeting thecontinuing education needs of neglected groups of adultssuch as women, senior citizens, prisoners, minority entre-preneurs and the economically disadvantaged.

The States have employed Title I to address many ofthe most serious and intractable problems of communitiesat the community level. It is highly unrealistic to expect thelimited resources made available to them to have had aconclusive or even measurable national impact on theseproblems. Although such problems may defy solution,credible paths toward solutions have been proved. Using thesmall projects that couldbe funded, people have beenhelped. Institutions of higher education have developed thetools and the base for achieving solutions when accordedresources commensurate with the scale of the task.

3. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE OFFICE OFEDUCATION ESTABLISH A DIVISION OFCONTINUING EDUCATION INTO WHICHCURRENT COMMUNITY SERVICE AND CON-TINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS CAN BEPLACED RATIONALLY AND ADMINISTEREDEFFECTIVELY. SUCH A STRUCTURE WOULDPERMIT A COORLINATED AND TIMELYOFFICE OF EDUCATION RESPONSE TOCRITICAL NEEDS FOR HIGHER CON-TINUING EDUCATION SERVICES.

There is currently in operation a variety of Federalprograms which include virtually every category of highercontinuing education. It is also evident that the specializedscope of many discrete programs has fed to fragmented anduncoordinated administration. As the Council continues itsstudy of Federally supported continuing education, furtherrecommendations will be made about more rationaladministration of existing, programs that have large con-tinuing education components.

We are convinced that a start in this direction can bemade in the Office of Education through an organizationalarrangement that reflects the growing importance oL.continuing education for adults. at

4. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE OFFICE OFEDUCATION USE THE PROPOSED DIVISIONOF CONTINUING EDUCATION TO PROVIDEA LIAISON FUNCTION BETWEEN INSTITU-TIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION SEEKINGINFORMATION, PROPOSAL ASSISTANCE ORGRANTS AND THE AGENCIES AND PERSONSWITHIN THE GOVERNMENT WHO CAN ACTON SUCH REQUESTS. SUCH A LIAISONFUNCTION IS CLEARLY NEEDED FOR ALLPROGRAMS OF EXTENSION, CONTINUINGEDUCATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE.

In many cases, university in iolvement in Federalprograms is obtained through the project grant mechanism.Further, many agencies fund projects which are similar inpurpose, design and objective to projects funded by otheragencies.

The processes through which universities seek andeventually find the appropriate person in the proper agencywilling to fund their projects are wasteful, ineffective andsubject to various abuses. The primary fault is lack of acentral point within the Federal government to whichcolleges and universities can turn in order to determinewhich person in what agency they should contact to obtainconsideration of their project proposals. Vv'hat is lacking, inshort, is a liaison office to which universities can addressinquiries and send project proposals, with the assurancethat they will come to the attention of the right people inthe appropriate place.

5. WE RECOMMEND THAT EACH AGENCY BERFQUIRED TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITYFOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EVALUATIONSTANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FORHIGHER CONTINUING EDUCATION PRO-GRAMS AND FOR THE DISSEMINATION OFEVALUATION RESULTS. AGENCIES SHOULDCOOPERATE WITH THIS COUNCIL IN DE-VELOPING EVALUATION STANDARDS ANDIN MAKING EVALUATION RESULTS AVAIL-ABLE WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE FEDERALGOVERNMENT:

The pattern of evaluation of higher continuingeducation is inconsistent throughout the government interms of standards, purpose and depth. Most frequentlywhat passes for evaluation is either a budgetary reviewdesigned to justify the stewardship of Federal administra-tors or to provide justification for their a priori decisions onprogram continuation or termination. The results ofsubstantive evaluations which do occur are often neitherused internally for program improvement, nor are theydisseminated in a systematic way to the academic com-munity and other agencies having relevant interest. Thislack of systematic evaluation simply precludes the :rinds ofintra- and inter-agency comparisons of similar programswhich would result in shared learning, sound planning andeffective decision-making.

6. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE OFFICE OFMANAGEMENT AND BUDGET STUDY (1)PROGRAM FUND MATCHING RATIOS; (2)PROGRAM OVERHEAD RATES; (3) PRO-GRAM ACCOUNTING, AND (4) OTHER REGU-LATIONS GOVERNING HIGHER CON-TINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS, ANDDEVELOP APPROPRIATE REMEDIES THATWILL PROVIDE CONSISTENCY REGARDINGHIGHER CONTINUING EDUCATION PRO-GRAMS WHICH USE SIMILAR EDUCATIONALRESOURCES.

Many of the programs reviewed in this study requiresome kind of matching support by the grantee undervarious formula. devised by the Congress and/or Federalagencies. These matching requirements are intended ioestablish a program commitment on the part of the granteeby requiring the grantee to contribute to the total programcosts. In theory, two worthwhile purposes are thereforeserved: there is some assurance that the grantee has aserious interest in the program, and the impact of Federaldollars is increased by contributions in dollars or in kindfrom the grantee.

In many instances such matching requirements workwell and achir r the two primary purposes they aredesigne vever, it is also evident that there isno con. Aionale for requiring matching contributionsby the grantee, whether it be a State, community oracademic institution. Similar kinds of programs hive verydifferent matching arrangements. A high match may berequired in one instance and a low match or no provisionfor matching in another.

Similarly, many different administrative formulas aredevised to fix the amount of overhead which a universitywill receive in connection with work on Federally fundedprojects. These overhead costs often constitge a significantpercentage of total Federal funds allotted to highereducation and are a source of much misunderstanding andacrimony.

7: WE RECOMMEND ENACTMENT OF A

HIGHER CONTINUING EDUCATION ACT OF1972. WE PROPOSE THAT TITLE I OF THEHIGHER EDUCATION ACT BE AMENDEDAND TO THAT END AN OUTLINE OF SUCHPROPOSED LEGISLATION FOLLOWS, TO-GETHER WITH OUR SUPPORTING REASONS.

Federal support today funds a vast variety ofuniversity public service activities ranging from providinglegal assistance to the poor to studying the effects ofenvironmental changes on biological systems and humanhealth. These university-based activities reflect a growingcooperation between universities and the Federal govern-ment in wholly new areas of concern. Although these newpatterns of cooperation have not yet taken optimal shape,it is clear that they are proving mutually advantageous tothe university and the Federal government.

The Federal government has had substantial experi-ence in providing funds to universities to engage in researchin space, defense, agriculture and, medicine. In theseprograms, ample funds are typically made available touniversities to strengthen their research capacity andinstitutional base. The rationale for strengthening institu-tional and research capacity was simple, direct and based onthe common sense notion that an improved capability to doresearch resulted in the delivery of a better researchproduct to the Federal government. However, when duringthe past decade the Federal government massively involveduniversities in Federally supported social programs, relative-

5

ly little attention was given to strengthening the un ersity'scapacity to deliver an effective product. The probablereason for this is that much social legislation was enacted inresponse to immediate problems which threatened to reachcrisis proportions; therefore, an immediate product to meeta short-term goal was desired of universities. The im-mediacy of response became more important than thequality of -,.sponee, and the short-term nature of manysocial .iiitated against the notion that universi-ties she; _ of a stable and improved capacity to servethe needs of these Federal programs over the long run.

Concurrent with this greater use of the university toameliorate social problems has been a growing trend toprolong the educational process for the individual. Threemajor social forces have created an environment in whicheducation is beginning to be viewed as a life-long process.This society is increasingly leisure-oriented and individualsare searching for opportunities for personal growth andenrichment through education. The complexity of nationaland community issues makes the task of developing aninformed citizenry more difficult than even a decade agowhen many of these issue's- were ignored. Finally, thegrowth of knowledge and of-technological change quicklyoutdates professional skills and produces rapid shifts inlabor market needs.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Amend-ments of 1966 and the Vocational Education Act of 1963have contributed substantially to the provision of con-tinuing education opportunities, primarily for individuals atthe secondary level of education. Universities have assistedin these efforts by training personnel in relevant fields andby designing and evaluating effective programs. A furtheremphasis on financial support by the Federal governmentto institutions and individuals which facilitates the expan-sion and improvement of higher continuing educationopportunities is urgently needed.

This legislative proposal would strengthen universitycapacity to contribute more effectively to the variouspublic service programs in which universities participate. Inaddition, it would create the institutional strength neededto expand continuing education efforts in other ways whichwould broadly serve the national interest. A number ofspecific areas of need have been identified.

Fellowships in Higher Continuing Education Thefield of higher continuing education has traditionally beenperipheral to the major purposes of the university. As suchit has drawn its st, 'I' from other departments of theuniversity and outsiue agencies or organizations. Financialrewards and opportunities for career advancement havebeen nominal in comparison with those available to facultyinvolved in the more traditional roles of the university.Although dramatically new and varied demands are being.made of higher continuing education, there has been littlerecognition of the importance of developing a cadre ofskilled practitioners in this field.

Fellowships for Counselors Counseling is one of themost critical areas within the larger higher continuingeducation field. While counseling services are readily

6

available to students following a traditional academicpattern, adults who return to higher education often havehad to cope alone with vastly more difficult financial andacademic problems. There is great need for counselors whounderstand the labyrinth of accreditation arrangements andthe personal hardships of those returning to highereducation.

Individual Student Assistance The difficulties inmaking a commitment to change a life-style and return tohigher education are compounded when financial assistanceis unavailable.

Rapid changes in technology and shifting labormarket needs quickly outdate skills learned a decidebefore. During the same time than an individual's skills arebecoming obsolete, however, he is accumulating responsi-bilities which make it impossible for him to return to highereducation without financial assistance. A woman whowants to return to higher education after her early years ofchild-rearing responsibilities has the additional problem ofadding to the family's financial burdens at the time whenfamily expenses are most severe.

Business men are encouraged to improve theircompanies by allowing tax credits for the cost of thatimprovement. A similar model should be developed toencourage the improvement of human talent. Investment ineducation should be regarded as a capital investment withappropriate compensation for subsequent depreciation. Anindividual who wants to return to higher education shouldbe encouraged to borrow the necessary funds, both fortuition and living expenses, and then be allowed to chargethis expense as a tax credit on his earnings after theeducational experience is over.

Individual Instruction

A major challenge to higher continuing education isto develop ways of reaching all people with programs ofself-study and individualized instruction. External Degreeprograms, with their emphasis on learning packages andaccreditation of various forms of learning experiences, are abeginning step in this, direction. Greater use must be madeof existing educational technology. Major obstacles to areturn to higher education, cost and inconvenience, couldbe surmounted by the development of educational pro-grams which draw upon existing technological develop-ments which range from television, to cat.ette recordings.Opportunities to enhance learning and education have beenneglected because the organized, large-scale effort neededto provide the "software" components of mass educationhas not yet been made.

Extension of Research Results

The National Association of State Universities andLand Grant Colleges estimates that a national investment inresearch and development of $2 billion has been matched

by an investment of perhaps $25 million for application.When, during_ the past several decades, universities wereextensively involved in research for the national defense,emphasis on extension was unnecessary and, in fact,undesirable since many of the research results werenecessarily classified. Now, however, universities arefocusing on social and community problems. Results ofresearch in these areas must be widely disseminated in orderto reach decision makers in appropriate agencies and localcommunities and to inform the general public about policyalternatives. The development of research proposals byuniversities and their review by Federal officials have not,however, been accompanied by a focus on researchapplication and implementation.

Program Development Assistance

Certain groups within society have special needs forhigher education opportunities. We call special attention to:

(1) Women who want to attend universities on apart-time basis while rearing their children or to return tohigher education after their child-rearing responsibilities areover have unique educational needs.

(2) Ways need to be found to reach communityleaders with appropriate educational programs focusing onnational goals and priorities. If our society is to besuccessful in improving the quality of life, persons inleadership roles will need better access to knowledge aboutthe challenges and opportunities we face. There is a need toforge strong links between the intellectual community andthose public and private leaders whose advice and actionshape the structure and direction of community life.Communication between thinkers nd doers is essential tothem both, and creative steps to promote this- dialogue arevitally necessary.

(3) Recent unemployment problems among highlytrained scientists and engineers point up the need forprograms of higher continuing education which can provide

new specialties to professional workers whose currentspecialties offer few immediate prospects for employment.The tragic inability of our universities to respond quicklyand imaginatively to this problem has resulted in a waste ofhuman talent, a loss of productivity and severe personalhardships.

Outline of Proposal

Title: The Higher Continuing Education Act of 1972.Policy: It is in the national interest of the United

States that higher education resources be developed andaugmented to the end that lifelong learning opportunitiesfor all citizens, regardless of previous education or training,be widely available to promote the continued vitality of ourfree society.

Purpose: (1) To strengthen the capacity of collegesand universities to perform effectively within the broad

range of Federally supported "community services" pro-grams, and (2) to enable colleges and universities to: (a)generally make available higher continuing educationopportunities to the people; (b) develop programs designedto serve those who exercise leadership in our society; (c)foster continuing education programs which provide lateraland vertical occupati, nal mobility; and (d) supply suppor-tive service to other institutions and organizations whichprovide the people continuing education opportunities.

Justification: Nrmerous Federal programs involveuniversities in the development and transfer of knowledgerelevant to various national needs. The transfer ofknowledge to the ultimate users through programs ofextension and continuing education is the vital :inkbetween the university's reservoir of knowledge and thosewho must apply this knowledge in community and nationalproblems. Unless this transfer is accomplished effectively,the contributions which universities can make towardmeeting social needs are seyerely impaired.

Historically, the Federal government has helpedstrengthen the extension and continuing education activ-ities of institutions responsible for agricultural extensionprograms. Through these programs, university extensionresources have been brought to bear on improvingagricultural production, farm income and rural livingstandards. The demonstrated success of agricultural exten-sion efforts must be replicated in other functional areas ofnational concern. Apart from agricultural extension, noother major Federal efforts to develop the capacity ofuniversities to provide similar public services have beenattempted; rather, through a series of ad hoc Federalprograms universities have increasingly become involved inpublic service activities which they are often ill-prepared tocarry out because they lack sufficient capacity to extendknowledge beyond the campus. In view of the Federalgovernment's expenditure of several billion dollars per yearin applying university resources to national needs, thisstatute intends to make the necessary investment inimproving the university's ability to transfer knowledge tothe ultimate user. This transfer of knowledge is the task ofextension and continuing education.

Specific Provisions: To help higher education becomea more effective resource in the solution of nationalproblems and to foster expanded and improved oppor-tunities for life-long learning. Without indicating an orderof priority, the following provisions should be enacted:

1. Financial Support: Adults involved in post-secondary education on a full- or part-time basis will beeligible for financial assistance according to personal need.There are many statutes that could be amended to allowneed-based support for higher continuing education tuitiongrants and loans for part-time or full-time adult studentsinvolved in college and university programs for credit andnot for credit. Among these are the Social Security Act, theEconomic Opportunity Act, the student aid provisions ofthe Higher Education Act of 1965 (as amended) and theInternal Revenue Code.

2. Improved Resources for Individualized Instruc-

7

Lion: The potential for individualized instruction or remoteet:acation will be researched in depth in order to providethe most effective development of "learning packages"which use the new technology of audio-cassettes, video taperecordings and broadcasting in concert with correspondenceand other forms of self learning. The objective is to fosterindependent instruction and to make learning opportunitiesmore readily availableat a reasonable costfor thoseindividuals in society who are .-,..t being served by the more"traditional" systems of instruction. Federal support isneeded for the design of educational programs, materials..nd mechanisms to serve the continuing education needs ofadults as these relate to home and family life, civicparticipation, and job responsibility.

3. Fellowships to Expand the Faculty Base: Up tothree hundred graduate fellowships will be awarded eachyear for five years to persons who now pursue or plan topursue. a Crater in extension and higher continuingeducation. These fellowships will bear stipends of up to$5,000 for each academic year of work, will be available forgraduate work at both the masters and doctoral levels, andwill be tenable only at accredited institutions offering aspecialization in higher continuing education. Each fellow-ship may be for up to two academic years of graduatetraining, or the equivalent in part-time academic work.

4. Counseling: The educational counseling servicesneeded by adult students continuing their education differmarkedly from those required by regular on-campusstudents. To increase the number of skilled counselors foradults to advise on educational programs, each institutionconferring advanced degrees in educational counseling willbe eligible for fellowships which it can award t raduatestudents at that institution. There will be o.... nundredfellowships available each year for five years, bearingstipends of.up to $5,000 each.

8

5. Disseminating Results of Federally-Funded Re-search Programs: Except when inconsistent with otherrequirements of law, preference in awarding research grantswill be given to those projects or institutions whichcombine research with well-developed plans and capabilitiesfor best emending the results of research to the appropriateclientele. In awarding research grants to institutions ofhigher education, in any field related to "communityse.vice" as defined by the Secretary of Health, Educationand Welfare, each awarding Federal agency will firstdetermine what continuing education and extension activ-ities are appropriate to the specific grant involved.

6. Program Development Assistance: Institutionsand. consortia may apply for project grants designed to helpmeet the, costs of developing and delivering new programsand program concepts for educational efforts designed to:meet the continuing: education needs of women; meet thecontinuing education needs of community leaders; andmeet the continuing education needs of scientists, en-gineers, and other professionals whose skills have becomeobsolete or surplus as a result of structural changes in theeconomy.

7. Advisory Functions: The National AdvisoryCouncil on Extension and Continuing Education will berenamed the National Advisory Council on LifelongLearning and its legislative charter will be revised accord-ingly. A sum of $250,000 will be made available to theNational Advisory Council on Lifelong Laming from fundsappropriated under this Act for the purpse of making orcooperating in making relevant studies, investigations andreports and for the purpose of paying the salaries of theofficers, the assistants and other necessary administrativeexpenses.

8. Administration: This statute will be administeredby the Office of Education.

r.1

COMMENTS ON TITLE I, FISCAL YEAR 1971

Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (asamended) is a classic example of a concept initially wellconceived, enacted into law, and then allowed to atrophyfor want of adequate funding.

As originally conceived, Title I was intended tocouple the resources of the nation's universities with theneeds of local communities in a common effort to test anddemonstrate workable solutions to urban and communityproblems. The example of the Cooperative ExtensionService, where a similar effort was designed to alleviate theproblems of rural America, served as an historicallysuccessful precedent for the Title I experiment.

The Congress authorized $60 million for this pro-gram, yet the program has never been allocated more than$10 million. It was necessary to distribute this small sum toall fifty States, the District of Columbia, Guam, PuertoRico and the Virgin Islands. Under these circumstances, it isnot surprising that Title I has heti only a limited impact onthe wide range of urban and suburban problems it seeks toaddress. What is surprising is that in State after State. Title Ifunds have produced important successes and that despitedemonstrations of success, the program remains under anannual threat of a reduced budget or complete termination.

The Office of Education has shown little inclinationto accord Title I a high priority or to seek vigorously todevelop the program to its full potential. In part this mayresult from the fact that the kinds of projects funded byTitle I dealwith crime, delinquency, urban renewal,municipal management and other areas of concern whichdo not mesh well with the basic functional responsibilitiesof the Office of Education. As a result, Title I is viewed asan activity of fringe, rather than central, concern.

Because Title I is a cooperative effort, commitmentsto it by the States, by universities and by local communitiesare essential. The extent of these commitments, however, iscontingent upon a clearly expressed and convincingcommitment by the Office of Education. Because Title Ihas never been able to receive such a commitmentitsfunding history is dramatic proof of this.-:universities andState and local governments are annually confronted with

81.668 0 - 72 - 2

uncertainties about what level of funds will be available orwhether their plans for the coming year will in fact befunded at all.

There is no doubt Title I has suffered as a result. It isout conviction that long-term and stable funding arenecessary if sound planning and more effective implemen-tation of the program are to occur. States simply cannotplan very well or very far in advance irthCflow of Title Ifunds continues to experience the same degree of last-minute uncertainty as in the past.

Over the past five years, this Council has repeatedlyrecommended that Title I be funded, tested and imple-mented at a realistic level. We have consistently believedthat the operating format of Title I provides an idealapproach for uniting State planning, community-initiativeand university resources. In effect, Title I represents aunique model for revenue sharing which combines State-wide planning, local action and Federal dollars for purposesimportant both locally and nationally. We believe that TitleI is too rarely perceived in this light. Rather than seen as atested example of revenue sharing, it is often regarded assimply a source of funds for a variety of disjointed projects.This may be another reason for the low priority itcommands within the Office of Education and the low levelof funding it receives through the appropriations processes.

Title I is snared in a cyclical argument: low fundingencourages support of small projects which leads tocriticisms that Title I is not serving well its larger objectives.This in turn reinforces a continuation of low funding levels.Title I, if it is to prove itself, must be freed from the effectsof such circular reasoning and, with expanded funding,given an opportunity to prove its worth.

Since Title I was first implemented, Congress hasenacted additional statutes designed to help Stases andcommunities alleviate many of their specific social prob-lems with the assistance of institutions r'f higher education.Such laws as the Comprehensive Ds ug Abuse Preventionand Control Act, the Inter-Governmental Personnel Act,the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan DevelopmentAct (Model Cities) and the "Safe Streets" Act all have

9

objectives which clearly overlap those of Title I, becausethe range of Title I activities was purposely made broad.

The frequency with which Congress is passing suchcategorical programs leads to speculation about what it isTitle I has left to do. Certainly, Title I priorities andactivities must be reconsidered in light of what othermassive Federal programs are designed to accomplish.

It is our belief that Title I should increasingly providethe means through which effective coordination can beachieved among all urban programs having a communityservice and higher continuing education component. At thepresent time, these programs exist and operate inde-pendently of each other. They may serve a commonpurpose or a common clientele, and yet there is noinstrumentality within the Federal government or at Statelevel to orchestrate their independent activities. If Title Iactivities at both national and State levels, and withincolleges and universities, could be redirected toward servingsuch a coordinating role, the effectiveness of a wide rangeof extension, continuing education and community serviceprograms would be enhanced.

We propose that planning for specific steps necessaryto accomplish this purpose should begin in the Office ofEducation in consultation with other agencies concerned.To the extent it feels competent to do so, this Council willwillingly assist and enthusiastically support such an effort.

In these tim,s of dynamic change, knowledge andskill are more important than ever before for both

10

individual success and societal achievement. Traditionalapproaches are no longer adequate to deal with theeducational needs of a society characterized by changingoccupational structures, increased leisure time and shiftingsocial values.

In the effort to alleviate pressing community problems,the Title I program views the total community as theclassroom and knowledge as a process of inquiry and actionon the part of adult citizens. In this context, the Title Iprogram through hundreds of specially designed educational projects concentrates on recognized communityconcerns and the people who can influence the necessarychanges.

In Fiscal Year 1972, of the 478 "completed"projects, 310 (64.8%) were programs of direct instructioninnovative courses, skill workshops and policy-relatedconferences. Men and women in all age categories and withvaried educational backgrounds came together to learntogether in the interest of their communities. To makecontinuing educational opportunities more relevant to theneeds of individuals and communities, colleges and univer-sities provide specially designed instructional programs forthose adults who have the greatest need. Attached asAppendix B is the 1971 Annual Report of the CommunityService and Continuing Education Program of the Office ofEducation. It is replete with examples and illustrates thethrust of this program. (See page 97.) 0

.-,

to

APPENDIX A

PART I

A QUESTION OF STEWARDSHIP:

A Study of The Federal Role in Higher Continuing Education

11

INTRODUCTION

Section 109 of the Higher Education Act of 1965provides that The National Advisory Council on Extensionand Continuing Education

. . .shall review the administration and effectivenessof all Federally supported extension and continuingeducation programs, including community serviceprograms, make recommendations with respect there.to, and make annual reports. . . of its findings andrec9mmendations to the Secretary I of Health, Educa-tion and Welfare] and to the Pfresident.

This study constitutes the annual review required ofthe Council: an examination of the Federal involement inextension, continuing-=education and community serviceprograms.

This Federal involvement is massive, unorganize6 andmulti-purposed.* It has grown rapidly over the past decadewithout having been given a conscious sense of direction. Itis the result of many different laws, administered indifferent ways by many different departments and agenciesof the Federal government. Yet there are some commonstrands which help explain what exists and which helpreveal both strengths and deficiencies.

PROGRAMS FOR DISA;WANTAGED

One such strand is the pronounced legislative concernwith disadvantaged elements in our society. In a deliberateeffort to promote social mobility, Congress has enacted abroad band of extension and continuing education pro-grams addressed to those less able to compete for economicstanding and educational attainments This legislativeemphasis has been reinforced by Federal administrativepolicy and paralleled by changes in practice and policy onthe part of many institutions of higher education_

HEALTH AND EDUCATION PROFESSIONALS

Another major strand results from Federal concernwith public education and public health. Forty p3rcent of*See Tables 1 and 2

12

Table 1. Program Purpose

ProgramAddressed to:

No. ofPrograms

FederalExpenditures

Educational PersonnelDevelopment 36 $ 281,113,000Public Health (Per-sonnel Developmentand CommunityServices) 22 330,136,000

Vocational Education 8 48,848,000

Miscellaneous Educa-tion for the GeneralPublic 9 12,168,000

Veterans Education 3 1,032,753,000

Agricultural Productionand Rural Life 13 134,543,000

Community Problems:(a) Environmental

Problems(b) Problems of

the Disadvan-taged

(c) Crime and

15

10

52,530,000

1,517,846,000

Delinquency 9 248,487,000(d) Multi-Purpose 18 433,173,000

TOTALS 143 $4,091,597,000

the programs included in this study provide funds for thecontinuing education of teachers and persons in the field ofmedicine and public health. In seeking to improve thequality of education and health care, the Federal govern-ment has created numerous programs designed to advancethe professional competence of persons employed inteaching and medicine.

Table 2. Elements in Public Directly Served

Program No. orClientele Programs Total

EducationProfessionals 31 $ 211,478,000

Health Professionals 23 252,932,000

The Disadvantaged 23 1,985,110,000

Professionals in variousfields (social welfare,environmental sciencepublic employees, etc.) 22 308,249,000

State and LocalGovernments 16 165,041,000

Colleges andUniversities* 14 45,323,000

Veterans 3 1,032,753,000

Miscellanebus Categories 11 90,711,000

TOTALS 143 $4,091,597,000

*For this purpose, colleges and universities are con-sidered as a clientele grouping when they are thedirect recipients of Federal funds and the mainthrust of the program (in the opinion of the admin-istering Federal agency) is designed to benefitthem.

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Still a third major strand of effort results fromgrowing Federal awareness that communities beset withcomplex social problems require support and assistance indeveloping appropriate solutions. Increasingly, the re-sources of colleges and universities are brought to bear onthe amelioration of local and regional problems rangingfrom environmental degradation to the reduction of crimeand delinquency. This growing community service functionis- one of the most significant developments in highereducation and in local government.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION

While emphasis on the disadvantaged, on continuingeducation for teachers and medical personnel and on thecommunity service role of higher education is of relativelyrecent origin, a solid block of programs included in thisstudy has a long and remarkable history. Agriculturalextension was an American innovation which today hasbeen transplanted to many developing countries. Under thetitle of Cooperative Extension, a unique partnership amongcounties, States, the Federal government and the landgrant colleges and universities has been developed and

today continues to serve important and expanding pur-poses. Unlike most of the newer.extension and continuingeducation programs, cooperative extension was a part of awell-conceived strategy for transforming agriculturethrough the application of science and knowledge tofarming and to the problems of rural life.

Finally, much program effort centers around educa-tional opportunities for veterans. The "G.I. Bill" continuesto be a major factor in enabling veterans to continue theireducation after military service. Although the veteran maybe enrolled in the same curriculum and under the samerequirements as any other "regular" student, he does sounder a unique entitlement which makes available to him awide choice of opportunities for reentering the educationalprocess.

Among the continuing education programs examinedin this study, none has as its primary focus a concentrationon broad public issues and a clientele of persons who aremost influential in shaping or resolving these issues. Inshort, there is a lack of effort to improve our society byimproving its leadership. Scattered efforls to develop"educational leaders" or to improve the understanding oflocal government officials about environmental degrada-tion, crime or management do exist, and some of theFederal government's own training: activities do reachtop-level administrators through programs addressed towardnational issues and priorities. But these efforts do notattack the central problem directly nor on the broad scalerequired.

Never has so much been known about man and hisworld and the worlds about him. At the same time, we lackthe structure- which enables a broad span of local andnational leaders and the people themselves to consider theimpact of masses of information in ways which bringknowledge to bear on the problems of our time. Theessential links be `.veen the development of knowledge andits comprehension and practical use by those who chart andinfluence the direction of our society are largely missing.Formation of these links is a basic task of continuingeducation and its most crucial responsibility.

The Federal government has fostered deep involve-ment by colleges and universities in continuing educationand in a wide variety of services to communities. This studyis an attempt to describe the characteristics and.dimensionsof this multi-billion dollar involvement and to assess someof its implications and results.

13

Essentially, our study embraces those Federallyfunded programs which provide higher education, usuallyon a part-time basis, for adults; or which through researchapplication, instructional activities and technical assistanceuse the resources of higher education in support ofcommunity efforts to mitigate societal problems. Includedare those Federal programs which support higher educa-tional opportunities for adults who are returning forfull-time study after a substantial break in the normaleducational process. We will refer to all such activities asprograms of higher continuing education.

The vast range of training and professional educatioractivity conducted in government institutions or bygovernment agencies for military personnel and civilianemployees is not included in this study.* Similarly, variousgovernment-operated continuing education programsdirectly serving the public have primarily a backgrouadimportance in providing a more complete picture of Federalactivity. By selecting as a primary focus those programsoperated in, by or through collages and universities, wehave excluded detailed treatment of much importantFederal activity. But concurrently this has enabled us togive sharper attention to our central concern with highercontinuing education.

In obtaining relevant data and in seeking to drawmeaning from it we have contacted hundreds of Federaladministrators in Washington and in regional offices. Theirknowledge, insight and willing cooperation have been ofcardinal importance. Through field visits to campuses,communities and State offices. we have had some oppor-tunity to obtain perspectives from State and localgovernment officials and from university administrators andkey faculty about the Federal progiams included in ourstudy. Officials of many educational associations have beenhelpful in providing information and guidance which wefreely used in identifying problems and selecting programsfor more intensive scrutiny. Our attempt throughout was togather facts, impressions and points of view which we couldsubject internally to analytical scrutiny and arrive atfindings which reflect our objective judgments.

Secondary sources were consulted primarily forbackground reference, since there was no currently validstudy of the precise mix of programs which matched ourstudy definitions. The most pertinent source was a 1966

survey conducted by Greenleigh Associates on behalf ofthis Council. That survey identified some 115 Federallyfunded university-level programs of extension, continuingeducation and community service. By 1971, this informa-tion was largely dated and from its inception was intendedprimarily to identify and describe Federal activity in otherthan analytical terms. The well-known and massive surveyconducted by. Dr. Charles Quattlebaum of the Library ofCongress (Federal Education Policies And Proposals) dealsheavily with identification of Federal training of Govern-

Haver, information obtained shows that much effective andlittle publicized activity is carried on by the Defense Department,the Civil Service Commission, and the training offices of majoragencies.

14

ment employees, and only incidentally with the kinds ofprograms with which this Council is concerned.

For purposes of identifying current Federal activities,neither the Greenleigh nor Quattlebaum surveys offered asound beginning point for inquiry. As a result, we beganwith the Federal government's budgetary documents andthe Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance issued by theOffice of -Management and Budget. This latter publicationwas of particular value and proved to be an accurate andexhaustive base from which to identify programs, agenciesand persons.

In terms of background data on higher education andadult education, we reviewed pertinent literature identifiedfrom an excellent bibliography obtained from the ERIC(Educational Resources Information Center) ClearingHouse on Adult Education at Syracuse University. Par-ticularly useful were Alexander Liveright's 1965 Study ofAdult Education; Frank Newman's Report On HigherEducation; the report of the Carnegie Commission onHigher Education, Less Time, More Options; Alice Rivlin'sThe Role Of The Federal Government In Financing HigherEducation; the 1970 Handbook of Adult Education; andscores of Government reports and publications.

During the course of this study, we have identified143 discrete Federal programs which in whole or in partinvolve the resources of higher education in extension,community service and continuing education.* Theseprograms deal with a wide variety. of Assues: crime,environmental protection, employment, urban affairs, drugabuse and numerous others. Typically, each of theseprograms operates in relative isolation from the others,insulated by its own legislative charter, its own funds andits own staff whose career rewards are tied to the survivaland expansion of their particular program. There is noFederal policy statement to give coherence and unity tothese programs and no single agency of governmentresponsible for giving leadership to Federal-universityrelationships. Instead, there are many programs, many lawsand many agencies which dravi upon the resources of highereducation.

GRANT SEEKING

In many Federally supported programs there is noclear-cut route through which a university seeking Federalsupport for a continuing education effort can come intodirect contact with the persons who can' provide thatsupport. On the one hand we have Federal administratorswith funds and on the other university people seekingsupport for new projects or program efforts; if they comeinto successful contact with each other, it is often througha process of mutual groping and much floundering.

There is great need for the creation of a centralinformation source which can channel university proposalsand requests for funds to the agency and the person whocan best act on these requests and proposals. No such

nee Table 3.

Table 3. Programs with Extension, ContinuingEducation and Community Services Features

Administering No. ofAgency Programs

FederalExpenditures

Department of Health,Education & Welfare 70 $1,991,077,000National ScienceFoundation 12 48,804,000

Department ofAgriculture 10 131,341,000

Environmental ProtectionAgency 8 31,614,000Atomic EnergyCommission 7 2,015,000Department of Housingand Urban Development 6 371,000,000Department of Justice 6 238,487,000Office of EconomicOpportunity 6 113,752,000

Department of Interior 4 10,648,000

Veterans Administration 3 1,032,753,000

National Foundation onthe Arts and theHumanities 3 3,357,000

Department of Commerce 2 8,974,000Department of Labor 2 105,000,000

Tennessee ValleyAuthority 2 987,000Department ofTransportation 1 19,000

Department of Defense* 1 1,769,000

TOTALS 143 $4,091,597,000

'Department of Defense programs for military per-sonnel and civilian employees are not included.The one program shown here is a Civil Defenseprogram for the public.

"switchboard" organization which can put fund seekers intouch with the appropriate fund grantors now exists.

LACK OF CENTRAL GUIDANCE

No single agency of the Federal government todayhas central responsibility for the interaction between theFederal government and institutions of higher education,yet all major departments and agencies have a continuingrelationship with colleges and universities. As a result, atany given time several agencies may be engaged in

important forms of collaboration with the same educationalinstitutions. While these agencies are pursuing their ownlegitimate program purposes they often remain oblivious tothe programi- and objectives of other agencies whichroutinely interact with these institutions. This makes for ahaphazard and sometimes inchoate partnership betweenuniversities and the Federal government.

It is not uncommon for different agencies (or evendifferent parts- of the same agency) to pursue commonobjectives through the same institution without being awarethat this is occurrinvr-In such instances, the university (ineffect) assumes the task of coordinating the activities of theFederal government.

UNIVERSITY-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIPS

Constant interaction with universities is an importantelement in the functional responsibility of many agencies.Much of this interaction is closely tied to the mission of anagency; consequently, responsibility for dealing withcolleges and universities cannot be conveniently assigned tosome central agency of government. What is required is nota monolithic Federal presence on the university campus/buta coordinated one. Today there is no "Federal" presence,merely the presence of Federal agencies acting inde-pendently of each other.

All signs indicate that university-Federal agencyinteraction will continue to increase. Although this inter-action has produced abrasions and mutual frustration, it hasalso proved mutually advantageous. Universities needFederal funds and the opportunity for scholarly involve-ment in Federal programs relevant to institutional purposes.In turn, colleges and universities are an invaluable resourcein support of objectives sought by Federal agencies.

This mutual inter-dependence sometimes gives rise tofear of Federal control or to° the possibilities thatinvolvement with Federal programs will warp and damagethe university's purposes and strengths. Concurrently, manyFederal administrators are critical of university per-formance and contend that universities are essentiallyinefficient: their faculties and &dillies are under-utilizedand they are reluctant to meet deadlines or to completeagreed-upon tasks. There are legitimate grievances on bothsides, but there is no forum through which these grievancescan be aired and through .which better solutions can bedevised.

UNIVERSITY ROLESAND FUNCTIONS

We are now in a period during which Social purposesand priorities are being questioned and rearranged; thesocial relevance and importance of knowledge are also beingsubjected to scrutiny and change. This interaction betweenknowledge and society is an ancient phenomenon, but itbecomes of cardinal importance today when acceleratedsocial change and rapid discovery of knowledge interactwith each other.

15

Universities develop and transmit knowledge; butintrinsically, they have always served multiple purposes andthe historical development of American higher educationshows this clearly.

As with other major institutions in our society, theuniversity reflects an elaborate mixture of Europeantraditions and American values. Dr. Nathan Cohen, in anarticle entitled "The University and The Urban Condition,"suggests that the American university is the product of fourmajor strands. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,the original university pattern was created in Italy andtransmitted to other parts of Europe. The firstwere designed to train theologians, doctors, lawyersandincreasinglystudents of philosophy who would servesociety outside these three professions. Quality educationfor a select group of undergraduates was stressed by thesecond strand, which is part of the early British tradition.The university was to be concerned with education and notwith professional training. In liberal education the choice ofsubject was less important than the way in which onepursued it. The goal of education was the development ofintellectual powers, a disciplining of the mind andcharacter. The German tradition emphasized research,specialized graduate training and the advancement ofknowledge. Rather than the transmission of knowledge andculture, the German university was more concerned withthe development of new knowledge. These three Europeaninfluences combined with a fourth strand which wasuniquely Americanthe values of populist democracy. TheMorrill Act of 1862 gave birth to the land grant collegesand universities, and democratized the opportunities forhigher education. Class and economics status began to yieldto interest and capacity as the major criteria for admittanceto the university. This strand therefore represented aconscious effort to make the university more directlyresponsive to the needs of a society Wiling egalitarianvalues.

The complexity of this pattern of values, aims andfunctions has enabled the university simultaneously to playmany and sometimes contradictory roles. It producessophisticated research, offers remedial education, trainsstudents for a multitude of social and professional positionsand, to some extent, offers an alternative life style to thatwhich characterizes American society. Pleas from manyquarters calling for the university to return to its originaltradition are beside the point, because there has never beenone controlling tradition in American higher education. Thepurposes of American higher education have alwayschanged with the changing needs and values of our society,and even among different universities the degree anddirection of change have varied greatly.

Another way of describing the particular nature of theAmerican university is to say that there has never been aclear resolution of the question of the university'srelationship to the larger society. A series of anomaliesexpress the contradictory and incongruous effects theuniversity has had on our society. By providing low-costpublic education,' the university has' been a vehicle for

16

upward mobility at the same time that its emphasis onmerit and lengthy training has led to the reign of the"expert." University-based research and university facultyprovide much of the intellectual basis which undergirds ournational policy, but the university also serves as a sanctuaryfor many of the government's most vocal and radicalcritics. As they expand, urban universities displace localresidents and disrupt community patterns, while theirfaculties develop programs to analyze and ease urbantensions.

OPEN UNIVERSITIES

Of particular significance to continuing higher educa-tion and to a changing social role for universities aremovements toward External Degrees and the Open Univer-sity. The Open University is a term encompassinga varietyof educational experiments which attempt to relateeducation closely to the student's experience. The educa-tional emphases range from communal living arrangementswhich stress learning through group living and involvementin the community, to sub-colleges of larger universitieswhich have developed rather formal and elaborate methodsof accrediting "non-formal learning." This concept ori-ginated in the United Kingdom. In this country it has takena particularly American form. Its purpose is to attractstudents who reject the close relationship between univer-sity education and preparation for a vocational role in the'larger society. Rather than valuing a college education as ameans to vocational end, the Open University's interest isin the educational process itself and the development ofhuman talent.

A major issue facing Open University is survival. Aswith the development of many new and experimentalinstitutions, there has been a pattern of heady excitement,followed by disillusionment and disintegration. A some-what larger issue is the relevance of such institutions toAmerican society as a whole. Open Universities so far havehad little to offer to the middle or lower middle class whoview and value education as a means to upward mobility.Whether the kinds of experiments and values representedby the Open University movement have relevance to morethan a minority of college students who seem to prefer notto meet the demands of traditional educational processes isstill an unresolved question.

EXTERNAL DEGREES

External Degree programs contrast sharply with thoseoffered by Open Universities in several important ways.While the rationale of Open Universities is that the processof learning is more important than the accumulation ofcredits, External Degree programs are an attempt to findimaginative ways of accrediting learning which has alreadyoccurred. They develop ways of validating non-traditionalforms of educational activity such as job experience,

independent study or community service. Upon this basethey provide (through both traditional and non-traditionallearning experiences) a body of additional knowledgepatterned to meet the requirements of traditional degreeprograms.

Most External Degree programs involve one or more ofthe following models: (1) taking instruction to the studentwhere he is or must be because of his work or familycommitments; (2) arranging to give transfer credit on a lessstringent basis than in the past; and (3) arranging to givecredit by examination of learning acquired independentlyor in unconventional programs.

While the Open University movement is revolutionaryin the sense that 4 negates one of the historically mostimportant functions of the university the channeling ofstudents into roles in the larger societyExternal Degreeprograms are a modern version of one of the four majorstrands in American higher education. They offer oppor-tunities for upward mobility to those who cannot otherwiseattend ollege. By broadening the base of the kinds oflearning which can be accredited, they provide access tocareers which would otherwise be unattainable.

These two programs illustrate the versatility andadaptability of the American university in meeting verydifferent social needs. Numerous other challenges andunresolved questions remain. At the same time thatdemands for services from the university are increasing, anunparalleled financial crisis exists in higher education. Smallcolleges, which traditionally have offered diversity in termsof educational programming, are in the most acute financialstraits, but State universities have also had to curtailactivities as a result of reductions in funds or escalatingexpenses. Finding appropriate ways of assisting universitiesfinancially will be a major challenge to the Federalgovernment, and Federal support for higher continuingeducation is an important part of this challenge.

LENGTHENED EDUCATION vs.CONTINUING EDUCATION

Finally, it is apparent that two contrasting forces areat work in higher education. In one direction, morestudents are remaining in school for longer periods. Bylengthening the educational process, we apparently seek tocram into the early years of life sufficient information andknowledge to last a lifetime. Concurrently, we recognizethat regardless of the length of an initial educationalexposure, the knowledge gained is subject to rapidobsolescence as new technologies and new knowledge arespawned. The successful resolution of this tension betweenthe trend toward an extended period of education and theneed for continuing education will depend on our ability, asa society, to provide the opportunities and the means forpersons to continue their education at various stages of life.The knowledge an engineer needs at agt; forty is not thesame he needed at age twenty-five, and indeed thisknowledge might not have existed fifteen years ago.

Yet as a society, we have basically failed to provide

the same opportunities for continuing education as weprovide for an initial, extended education. Colleges anduniversities have traditionally provided such opportunitiesonly on a self-supporting basis. While subsidizing theon-campus student very greatly, the part-time student hasvery often been required to bear the full costs or nearly so.The mature individual with heavy financial responsibilityneeds to maintain his income; he cannot simply stopworking to obtain educational refreshment for a prolongedperiod. Some employers, including the Federal govern-ment, do provide salary support and funds for educationalexpenses when an individual pursues career-related studyfor a full academic year or longer. But for most persons,higher continuing education for concentrated, long periodsis ruled out by the obstacle of economics.

QUALITY AND OPPORTUNITY

Instead, principal reliance has been on the short-termor after-hours educational program which does not undulyinterfere with work requirements. Even so, continuingeducation opportunities have largely been available to thosewho can best afford them, while the needs of those whomost may require such opportunities have often had to beignored. Often these evening courses do not proportion-ately attract the best faculty nor take into account thematurity and subject-matter-related knowledge of thestudents. Sometimes the courses are merely carbon copiesof those taught to regular, full-time students, when theneeds of mature students may be very different. Effectiveguidance and counselling needed to point the studenttoward the curriculum which will best serve his needs isoften lacking.

Fortunately, many institutions and many educatorsrecognize these problems, and active efforts are being madeto upgrade the quality of part-time, continuing education.Even in the face of serious financial stringencies, or perhapsbecause of them, we have found repeated evidence that thequality of continuing education is being strengthened andthat increasingly universities without a tradition of large-rale involvement hi continuing education are giving newemphases to enlarging and improving their commitment.Some of the intellectual snobbery which relegated "eveningdivision" courses to second-rate status is dying and many"traditionalist" educators have found an excitement and.challenge in teaching after-hours courses in which theknowledge and motivation of their students surpass that oftheir full-time students. Further improvements in faculty,in course design and in better use of non-traditionalapproaches to learning are necessary to give continuingeducation the degree of excellence its tasks require.

Against this background, and within this context,operate the various Federally funded programs of highercontinuing education. These programs are vitally importantwithin the whole range of tasks and problems confrontingthe university, and in turn are affected by them. Whilethese programs do not touch all of higher education, all ofthe strengths and limitations of higher education playstrongly upon them. 0

17

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS

Findings of varying importance which emerge fromthis study are interspersed throughout the text. Some ofthe ni basic ones are summarized below. They identify,in schematic fashion, many of the basic characteristics andshortcomings of Federally supported programs of exten-sion, continuing education and community service.

PROGRAM LEGISLATION

The initiative for establishing most of the programsreviewed in this study came from Congress and from publicinterest groups. Relatively little successful initiative camefrom the administrative levels at which these programs areoperated and monitored.

Congress has shown a pronounced tendency tolegislate and fund new programs as discrete entities. Thishas led to creation of many programs with similar or relatedpurposes, administered by different departments andagencies. Such a multiplication of programs which arespread across many agencies makes coordination, planningand effective use of university resources more difficult.

Much of the existing legislation has a set life span offive years or less. While there are valid reasons for this,long-range planning, effective administration and achieve-ment of long-term goals are hampered within the govern-ment and within the university because of uncertaintyabout the continued existence of these programs.

In enacting programs of extension, continuing educa-tion and community services, Congress has often sought toserve important social purposes by deliberately involvinghigher education in social problems such as poverty, crime,drug abuse, unemployment, and environmental degrada-tion. Such involvement is fundamentally changing tradi-tional concepts of the university's self-image and its role insociety.

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

There is no common policy governing use of universityresources by the Federal agencies, no central agency with

18

primary responsibility for relating to higher education, andfew coordinating mechanisms designed to assure that themany programs of the Federal government constitute acoherent whole. Under such conditions, duplication ofeffort and contradiction of purpose are difficult to avoid,and effective coordination becomes an impossibility.

The Office of Education is not internally organized togive concerted attention and a precise focus to its concernwith higher continuing education. The growing importanceof this field seems to justify an organizational structureresponsive to it.

Efforts by the Office of Management and Budget tocoordinate Federal programs have centered on fiscalconcerns. Program substance, purpose and administrationhave received little attention. When program reviews aremade, they are typically of the "quick and duty" variety,because OMB does not have the staff resources required forthorough reviews.

Relatively few examples of effective efforts toevaluate program activities were encountered. Most often,agency administrators candidly reported that evaluationswere non-existent, were pro forma statements prepared tofulfill legal or administrative requirements and thereforehad little value as guides to planning and decision making,or were self-serving declarations. Since improvement inprogram performance depends on objective assessments ofprogram strengths and weaknesses, the widespread lack ofeffective evaluation is a factor of crucial significance.

A plethora of fund-matching ratios, overhead-costformulas, grant approval procedures and reporting require-ments exists. This complicates and exacerbates university.Federal agency interaction, and diverts time, effort andattention from program purposes and objectives.

PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS

Broadly stated, there are two major categories ofprograms for which this Council has oversight: (1) programswhich fund courses of post-secondary level instruction foradults continuing their education, and (2) programs which

link educational resources to specific local or national needsand in which institutions of higher education (includingcommunity colleges) provide communities with researchfindings, technical assistance, demonstration projects andadvisory services.

Programs of the first categoryeducational services foradultsconcentrate heavily on continuing education forpersons in the health fields, teachers and school administra-tors, and social welfare workers. In addition, the "G.I.Bill"remains the single largest program, in both fiscal and humanterms, under which persons can continue an interruptededucation on either a full- or part-time basis.

Programs of the second categorythose which applyand transfer knowledge by means other than classroominstruction or independent studyessentially Concentrateon the whole gamut of social problems present in ourcommunity life. These programs involve universities in suchactivities as providing legal services to the poor, advice onpublic school desegregration and environmental research.

With some exceptions, such as agricultural extensionefforts, most programs of extension, continuing educationand community services are of recent origin and mirror theheightened Federal support for both higher education andsocial programs.

INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

In the fmal analysis, the success or failure of Federallysupported programs of extension, continuing education andcommunity service depends on quality of performance bycolleges and universities. For the most part, highercontinuing education still commands a low institutionalpriority and .nost institutions are not internally organizedin ways which can bring their unified resources to bear oncommunity problems.

Even in large public universities which avow theirpurposes to be teaching, research and extension services (or,more recently, continuing education), the reward systemand opportunities for faculty career advancement areconditioned very largelyand in some cases almostexclusivelyon evaluation of services in teaching andresearch.

The academic reward system is archaic in the face ofthe realities of societal demands as reflected in the 143

programs studied here. Colleges and universities need toreexamine with candor the myth that excellence incommunity services and continuing education is assured byexcellence in teaching full-time on-campus students andexcellence in research. If the Federal government expectsexcellence in the programs which involve communityservice and continuing education resources of highereducation, it should with equal candor assess what it hasdone to assure the capacity of higher education to respondwith excellence.

Despite these handicaps, higher education in generalshows an increased willingness to depart from tradition andto undertake new forms, of community service activity.External Degree programs, the Open University andgrowing involvement in community affairs all testify to thepace of change and the departure from tradition.

In providing educational services to adults, collegesand universities have experienced shortages in qualifiedadult educators and counsellors who can guide adultstudents. Generally, academic institutions have not as yetused to significant advantage new technologies for reachingstudents conveniently and inexpensively.

With the exception of extension personnelculture, colleges and universities have been slow to developa network of faculty equipped to extend knowledge tothose in society who can apply it constructively. Theextension network in1griculture came into being as a resultof Federal support; similar forms of support will probablybe required .to enable academic institutions to extendeffectively knowledge in other fields. Some steps in thisdirection under the Sea Grant and RAM programs havebeen taken, but these have been comparatively modest andspecialized efforts.

Despite increasingly heavy reliance on colleges anduniversities to assist in the solution of communityproblems, and despite increasingly heavy fund outlays forthis purpose, little has been done directly by the Federalgovernment to strengthen the capacities of institutions toserve Federal program purpo(es?The Federal governmenthas typically used the existing quality of institutionalresources and the existing structures for their delivery. Thisapproach differs markedly from Federal programs ofdefense and space'reiearch which emphasized upgrading ofinstitutional capabilities. 0

19

A FOCUS ON ISSUES

COORDINATION: SOME BASIC PROBLEMS IN PUBLICADMINISTRATION

A Federal system, by its nature, divides responsibilityand disperses broadly the powers of decision and action.When further coupled with the concept of a division ofresponsibility among independent executive, judicial andlegislative branches, the American system of governancegives vitality, protection and expression to democraticideals; but it creates monumental problems of administra-tion. When our government, at all levels, accepted onlyminimal involvement in the socio-economic problems ofour society, the tasks of administration were relativelyuncomplicated. Under conditions existing today, the vastlyexpanded scope of governmental action has strained ouradministrative capacity to cope with fresh responsibilitiesand new challenges.

INCREASING COMPLEXITY OFADMINISTRATION

As administrators are required to do more, they aresubjected to more concerted pressures from politicalleaders, the courts, the public and their own adniinistrativehierarchies. As government programs increase in volumeand scope, the administrators experience greater difficultyin relating their functions to numerous oth.irs whichimpinge on their particular responsibilities. When increas-ingly the needs of local and State governments requireunderstanding and support from the Federal level, theexisting finals of interaction evidence more sharplylong-present inadequacies. And the present organization ofthe Federal executive branch reveals serious shortcomingsresulting from the enlarged and changing demands madeupon it.

In essence, the problems of coordination among thecontinuing education programs within the ambit of thisstudy.reflect the larger problems of public administration.Their optimal remedies are often dependent on Majorsurgery for the administrative system as a whole, and in alsmall way they reflect the inadequacies of the entiresystem.

20

LACK OF COMMON POLICY

Coordination of these programs is complicated by thelegal and organizational dispersion of responsibility. These143 programs are established by over 100 discrete laws andnearly every major Federal department and agency isresponsible for one or more of them. While it is whollyreasonable to administer through each department thosehigher education programs which are related to thatdepartment's mission, this cannot be 'done effectivelywithout a policy framework applicable to all departments.No such policy structure exists.

ROLE OF CENTRAL AGENCIES

Instead, we encounter a collection of laws whichauthorize and fund a large number of programs admin-istered in relative isolation from each other by manyofficials and organizations without a common expression ofpurpose or a unifying concept of administration. The Officeof Education, as currently organized and chartered, doesnot exercise the kind of government-wide leadership in thearea of university-government relations which can insureeffective coordination. Even within HEW, the Office ofEducation has no influence on vast blacks of "educationmonies" expended by the Health Services and MentalHealth Administration and by the Social and RehabilitationService. Through the Federal Inter-Agency Committee onEducation (FICE), OE has attempted to provide amechanism for information-sharing and a forum fordiscussion; but like most inter-agency committees, FICEhas no executive authority and no command over resources.As a result, its efforts at coordination, while valuable, fallfar short of what is required. And in the final analysis, themajor responsibility for finding appropriate solutionscannot be shouldered by the Office of Education alonebecause the solutions needed lie outside OE's jurisdictionand within the purview of the Office of Management andBudget.

OMB is charged with a government-wide coordinationrole as a staff arm of the President. Yet for reasons basicallybeyond its control, OMB is responsible for coordinating anexecutive branch structure which in its current configura-tion simply defies coordination. With specific regard to theprograms included in this study, OMB's efforts have largelycentered on improving administrative arrangements andreviewing the fiscal implications of these programs. Inanother dimension, OMB has made substantial progress inseeking to improve the entire Federal grant-making process.In themselves, these efforts are necessary and important butthey merely nibble at the root problems caused by anunwieldly executive branch structure.

NEED FOR REORGANIZATION

Most of these coordination difficulties are due toexisting patterns of urganization which blur agencyresponsibility so that similar programs are conductedindependently by several agencies. Hence, many depart-ments and agencies pursue pieces of the same set of broadobjectives or serve the same clientele. For example, majoreducational programs which serve the urban- poor areoperated by 0E0, HUD and HEW under their separatelegislative charters.

The problem is further complicated because funds aremade available to these agencies through a Congressionalcommittee structure which parallels the existing anddeficient structure of the executive branch. Appropriationssub-committees are organized and equipped to set fiscallevels and internal priorities for departments and agencies.These sub-committees are not organized or equipped to setfunding levels and priorities for common programs and

functions regardless of which agency conducts them.Instead of financing broad programs and functions,Congress finances agencies and those bits and pieces ofprogram efforts which each agency contains.

What is required is an executive branch reorganizationwhich unites structure with function, along lines of currentAdministration proposals. Such a reorganization wouldfacilitate a better realignment of Congressional committees,and formation of program priorities by both Congress andthe Administration would become more readily possible.Although reorganization would not solve now and foreverall problems of internal coordination, inter-governmentalrelationships or executive - legislative frictions, many prob-lems now existing would. not arise and others would besusceptible to better 'Iolutions. Without a sweeping re-organization, the prospects for multiplying andexacerbating present coordination difficulties cannot beescaped.

In a major respect, therefore, the future success ofprograms for which this Council bears advisory responsi-bilities depends on a thorough and well-conceived execu-tive branch reorganization. This applies equally to presentprograms and to those which may be created in the future.So long asthe functional boundaries among agencies remainmurky; as long as responsibilities for action continue to beill-defined; and until char policy concepts state the goalsand purposes for applying the resources of higher educationtoward sece to communities and the nation, Federalsupport for extension, continuingeducation and commun-ity services will operate under heavy handicaps. States,communities and institutions of higher education will allcontinue to feel the effects of these handicaps. Accomplish-ments will be weakened and prospects for achieving theintended results will be impaired. 0

21

THE LEGISLATIVE BASE

A review of the statutes which brought into being thevarious programs included in this study supports a fewgeneralizations about the Federal role in extension andcontinuing education.

PROBLEM ORIENTATION

Most of the programs studied were created in therecent past; typically they represent a response to a majorsocial problem or national challenge. Sputnik stimulatedgreat legislative activity in higher education. Anti-povertylegislation has relied heavily upon education as the vehiclefor economic betterment and social mobility. Legislativeefforts to deal with environmental degradation, crime, drugabuse and alcoholism all include educational components.Racial tensions, urban decay and unemployment producedlegislative activity affecting higher continuing education. Inone essential respect, therefore, there is a thread of unityamong these many disparate statutes: they are problem-centered. The need :o "make education relevant" has beenthe touchstone of legislative activity for continuingeducation.

LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE

The initiative for most of this legislation came fromCongress and from a few educational interest groups able toobtain Congressional attention and support. White Houseinitiative has also been important, but little successfullegislation has worked its way up through thglower rungsof the bureaucracy. The administrator! who are eventuallyresponsible for operating major educational programs rarelyhelped conceive or shape these programs, and in some casesadministrators who testified against a proposed piece oflegislation were ultimately responsible for carrying Wout.

22

TEMPORARY LEGISLATION

Many of the programs studied are temporary: theywere established through legislation which has a pre-setexpiration date. This makes their continued existencesubject to uncertainty from their very beginning andimpairs the ability of the administering agency to establisha stable and effective administrative base. Similarly, thiscreates problems for the educational institutions, which ineffect are repeatedly required to redirect their own plans,resources and activities in response to transitory Federalprograms.

RESEARCH AND EXTENSION

In the rewards system of universities, there is a highpremium on research, on pushing back the frontiers ofknowledge. Professional reputations are made throughresearch and the publication of-researeh findings. Academicrank and tenure are closely related to success in researchand publication. Conversely, there are fewer rewards forthose who transmit knowledge, yet this function oftransmitting knowledgeof extending it within a professionor to the community at largeis the crucial link betweenresearch and the ability to derive value from it.

With rare exceptions, legislative emphasis also hasbeen placed on the heady tasks of research, rather than onthe equally important job of extension. Tkis emphasis, incombination with the primacy accorded research within theuniversity, has created substantial gaps between thedevelopment of knowledge and its constructive use andapplication in society.

EDUCATIONAL LOBBIES

Legislation does not just happen; it occurs in responseto felt needs and often as A result of the energetic effortsof individuals and groups Who-lobby for it. To say that a

powerful education lobby exists implies monolithic conno-tations which do not square with reality. Instead there aremany education lobbies which have competing interests andcompetitive demands on Federal funds. It is rare indeed tofind consensus among educational associations on specificlegislative items or even general agreement on priorities. Yetthe influence of education lobbies on legislation is

apparent, and for the most part it is an influence stemmingfrom broad public support, from the support of educationalleaders whose views deserve respect, or from the productionof convincing staff work.

Within the groups and associations comprising the"education lobby," few have as a primary interest programsof extension and higher continuing education. Within theuniversity structure itself, with rare exceptions, theextension and continuing education functions are allotted agenerally low priority. The "traditional" activities of theuniversity are still given preference in allocation of funds,faculty and facilities.

Consequently, it would appear that the recentexpansion in programs of extension, continuing educationand community services do not result primarily fromlobbying activities or prIssures from university heads.Rather they appear to result from an awareness by thepolitical leadership that higher education can and shouldtake active part in helping to solve the problems of ourtimes.

NEW PRIORITIES

The Federal government has used universities toconduct defense-related research and to solve the researchand engineering problems of space exploration. As nationalpriorities turn towards the problems of the environment,crime, health, urban affairs and poverty, colleges anduniversities are again being used to help support nationalefforts at finding solutions. With this shift in priorities, thepublic service orientation of university schools of extensionand continuing education and the community collegescomes into more effective demand. They have theexperience and the mission of providing direct services topeople and communities. And they have the skills and theresponsibilities for reaching, through programs of con-tinuing education and extension, the persons roponsiblenow for decision and action on the problems of our society.

The legislative trends in this direction still seem lessthe result of conscious choices than of movement promptedby events and shaped by intelligent intuition. However, thetrends are pronounced and evident in the steady ofunsystematic) growth of community services programs. In amajor way, these new uses of university resources havealready given the extension and continuing education armsof higher education unprecedented opportunities for publicservice and the full potential has barely been tapped.

S.

23

THE ADMINISTRATION OF EDUCATIONAL GRANTPROGRAMS: A NEW FEUDALISM

There are approximately 1100 discrete Federal grantprograms. This total is administered by sixty-one differentFederal departments, independent agencies, commissionsand councils. In the course of our review of these programs,143 have been identified as relevant to the statutory charrto this Council to review the "administration and effecefe-ness of all Federally supported extension and continuingeducation programs, including community services."

The number of different administrative concepts,policies and practices which affect the administration ofthese programs is staggering. Some of these policies andpractices have evolved .over a number Of years and have theadvantages of experience behind them. They work. Manyothers have a life span which is short, either because theyrecently replaced practices proved ineffective or becausethey were developed in conjunction with new programs.Others seem to continue through sheer inertia or becausethey have origins and official sanctions which defy attemptsat reform.

What follows is a tabulation of administrativepolicies, problems and practices which have been identifiedin the course of our review of extension, continuingeducation, and community service programs. It is difficult,perhaps impossible, to provide this tabulation with anyacceptable order and sequence. Where items relate to eachother, they appear together. Other items seem to have anindependence of their own and may not, consequently, bedirectly related to either what precedes or follows.

APPLICATION PROCEDURES

One of the first difficulties a prospective granteeconfronts is the question of application procedures.* TheFederal Government has a standard application form forprospective Government employees; it does not have astandard application form for prospective grantees forcontinuing education programs. There are a great numberof Federal guidelines, requirements, policies and definitions

*See Table 4.

24

Table 4. Grant Application Procedure

No. ofPrograms

Academic Institutions to AgencyHeadquarters 73

Individuals to Agency Headquarters 17

States to Agency Headquarters 15

Academic Institutions to the State 15

Academic Institutions to the AgencyRegional Office 9

Communities to the State or FederalGovernment 8

States to the Agency Regional Office 3

Academic Institutions and Individuals tothe Federal Government 3

TOTAL 143

Review Processes for Approval of Grants

No. ofPrograms

No review 15

Internal review 47

Outside experts review<7

Staff and outside experts review 71

Staff and other Federal agency staffreview 3

TOTAL 143

that must be adhered to by individuals and institutionsseeking funds. As a consequence, grant applicants, par-ticularly colleges and universities, may be required to file

twenty applications to twenty agencies on twenty separateforms, most of which require identical information. Thisprocess is often repeated annually of more frequently.

In some instances, the formal application process issupplemented by the use of pre-proposals. These pre-proposals are brief statements of intent submitted bypotential grantees to determine whether or not a formalapplication is eligible for consideration. An increasingnumber of agencies and programs, like the NationalFoundation on the Arts and the Humanities and suchOffice of Education programs as the Teacher Corps, areusing this time-saving technique. This system is particularlyhelpful to developing institutions which have not had theexperience of grantsmanship and, because of that, areunable to compete effectively for program funding.

Several agencies like HEW and the EnvironmentalProtection Agency have adopted standard application formsdeveloped and used by the National Institutes of Health. Ineffect, this constitutes a kind of consolidation and is aworking model of efforts to standardize and simplify thegrant-making process.

GRANT REVIEW PROCEDURES

Just as there is an innumerable variety of applicationprocedures, so also is there a variety of review proceduresthrough which these applications must be channelled.*Eighty-six percent of the programs reviewed require somekind of internal review by staff or review by staff with thehelp of consultants. There are many agencies that allowmajor decisions regarding application approval to be madeat the local level, others at the regional level. There areinstances when applications are reviewed substantively atboth these levelsonly to be reviewed again at the nationallevel. It is not uncommon to find, for example, anAssociate Commissioner of Education getting routinelyinvolved in this review process, as is frequently the case inthe Office of Education's Bureau of Education PersonnelDevelopment. Some agencies, like the Social and Rehabili-tation Service, and some programs, like theOffice ofEducation's Civil Rights Technical Assistance:and Training

iProgram, have given the agencies' regional! officers fullauthority to make final decisions on applications.

Non-government consultants are systematically usedby all Federal agencies to assist in measuring the merits ofindividual applications. The use of these consultants hasproved to be an effective shield against Congressionalinquiries into the quality and priorities of certain programs.At the same time, these consulting services are transitoryand both bring and quickly lose the knowledge andcompetence relevant to the particular program.

PROGRAM FUNDING

Once applications have been reviewed and approved,there is the next question of the actual funding of the*See Table 4.

...,

81-66S 0 - 72 - 3

program or project. The Federal funding process operateson an annual basis, beginning each fiscal year on July 1 andending the following June 30. Budgeting and planningcomplications arise among institutions which operate on anacademic-year basis or on a calendar-year basis. Regardlessof whichever twelve-month period is being used, heavyreliance on short-term funding arrangements encouragesemphasis on short-term objectives and, consequently, onshort-term achievements. Within this cycle, long-termobjectives and goals are hampered, discouraged andsometimes wholly obviated.

In over 50% of the programs reviewed, academicinstitutions were the primary recipient of Federal funds. Inonly three programs are Federal funds distributed 0 theseinstitutions on a multi-year, formula grant basis. Whenemphasis is put on annual funding rather than multi-yearfunding, the extent to which institutions of higher learningcan make a commitment to a Federal program isdiminished, particularly when they can not be assured thatFederal funds will extend for the length of their commit-ment.

R.ZPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Given this heavy emphasis on annual funding, it is notsurprising that there exists an equally heavy emphasis onannual reporting. Virtually every Federal grant requires thesubmission of an annual fiscal report. Many grants alsorequire substantial narrative reports as well, in addition toterminal reports. It is generally conceded that it isimpossible to give each of these reports thorough andthoughtful consideration. The Federal government simplydoes not have the manpower assigned for this purpose. Thecrisis of this situation is most obvious in those programswhich are appropriated increased funds for programmingbut no additional funds for salaries and expenses. Theprogram expands, the projects increase, and reports flow inwith greater frequency to a staff that remains the same insize.

The anomaly in the situation is this: the submissionof annual reports by grantees is the most routine expressionof the actual performance by a grantee, and it is upon thisreporting system that agencies often satisfy themselves thata project is worth continuing from year to year. There areother ways an agency might do this. Outside evaluation isone way, but outside evaluation of programs and projectshas long been inadequate within the Federal government.Site visits by staff and others is another way. This way, too,has been generally inadequate, not because of staffcompetence but because of the limitations placed upon

aff size and time.

MATCHING REQUIREMENTS

Ne one has ever estimated the number of matchingformulas that have been devised by the government, nor

25

has there ever been put forward a comprehensive rationalefor their existence. In our list of programs, fifty-five requiresome kind of matching of the Federal contribution by thegrant recipient.* These may vary from a voluntary or five

percent match, or, as in the case with the CooperativeExtension Service programs, a 100% match. Even though

Table 5. Matching Fund Requirements

Matching Fund Level

No. ofPrograms

No Match required

Varied Matching requirements

Voluntary Match

5% Match required

10% Match required

20% Match required

25% Match required

33% Match required

50% Match required

75% Match required

100% Match required

TOTAL

88

24

2

3

6

1

2

5

1

1

10

143

Matching Fund Composition

_

Match RequiredNo. of

Programs

No Match required

Dollar Match required

Combination Match of Dollars, Services,Facilities, etc.

TOTAL

88

40

15

143

Source of Matching Funds

Who Matches

No. ofPrograms

No Match

Academic Institution Matches

State Matches

Community Matches

Individual Matches

Combmation Source for Match

TOTAL

88

17

15

S

2

16

143

*See Table 5.

26

the Federal dollar may be available, and the objectives ofthe programs to which they are directed highly beneficial,the matching process may unwittingly compel State andlocal governments to commit sorely needed funds to areasfor which they were not originally intended. There is afurther question as to how appropriate matching require-ments are when a project involves a developing institutionor a grantee that is dealing with underprivileged socio-economic groups. There are many instances of otherwisedeserving applications which are denied funding simplybecause of their inability to provide the matching dollars.Further, when matching funds are to be provided throughfees collected from enrolled program participants, theproblem of the pressure to provide programs only for thosewho can afford them (as opposed to those who may needthem most and can least afford them) is intensified ateducational institutions.

Matching requirements should not be confused withcost sharing. The latter is generally a contribution by thegrantee in. support of a project which is agreed upon by thesponsoring agency and the grantee in the course ofnegotiating an agreement. A matching requirement is

specifically mandated by legislation, is of a fixed amount orpercentage, and is beyond the control of the sponsoringagency to change.

FORMULA GRANTS

The Federal Government has designed an elaborateand efficient system for collecting revenues; it has notestablished an eially efficient system for dispensing them.A common method of dispensing funds is the formulagrant. Twenty-four of the programs reviewed involveformula funding, with States as recipients in twenty-one ofthese -.:14 academic institutions as recipients in only three.*

Formula funding is essentially a form of multi-yearfunding, with Federal dollars being distributed to Statesand institutions in accordance with a carefully wordedformula. For example, HEW's Grants for State andCommunity Programs for Aging specifies that each Stateshall receive 1% of the available funds, with the remainingfunds distributed according to the number of aged livingwithin each State.

The formula grants have two considerable advantagesover project grants. First, they provide to the States oreducational institutions the assurance that Federal fundswill be forthcoming not for one year but for a prolongedperiod of time. Second, formula grants often require thatthe States or institutions submit comprehensive plans whichspecify how funds will be utilized. These State andinstitutional plans are assembled within general Federalguidelines, and insofar as Federal priorities are articulated,the plans must reflect them. Because of the number ofFederal programs which are funded in this manner, Statesand institutions have developed a considerable number ofdetailed plans which sometimes bear little .relationship to

*See Table 6.

Table 6. Methods of Fund Disbursement

No. ofPrograms

Project Grants Unsolicited 84Project Grants Solicited 10

Formula Grants to States 21

Formula Grants to AcademicInstitutions 3

Fellowships to Individuals 8

Fellowships to Academic Institutions 3

Federally Sponsored Projects(no direct disbursement) 14

TOTAL 143

plans prepared for other formula programs. In one unusualcase (the Social and Rehabilitation Services' JuvenileDelinquency Planning, Prevention and Rehabilitation pro-gram), the program was originally set up as a formula grantprogram with $100,000 to be distributed to each State toplan Statewide activities. Because funds were not madeavailable to help States assemble such plans, program fundswere ultimately distributed on a project grant basis.

Both the formula grant process and the CooperativeExtension Service of the Department of Agriculture provideproven and demonstrated methods ef the effectiveness ofthe revenue sharing concept. There are others. By requiringStates to apply routinely and annually for funds, theFederal government may unintentionally coerce the States,and colleges and universities as well, into unquestioningreliance upon Federal directives. It may also prevent themfrom developing the kind of long-term planning apparatusthat is necessary for State and. institutional development.The guarantee of Federal funds over a long-term period forparticular purposes is conducive to sound institutionalplanning, stability and effectiveness. This capability is anobvious prerequisite to effective revenue-sharing.

CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS

In addition to formula grants and projects grants,there exists within the Federal structure two other commonfiscal arrangements between it and academic institutions:contracts and purchase orders. A contract between aFederal agency and either an individual or institution is adirect and easily recorded transaction. Sub-contracts forservices by Federal grant recipients is another matterentirely.

At the present time, the Federal Government has noworkable system to identify those individuals-and institu-tions whose services are being contracted by directrecipients of Federal grants. In some programs, suchcontracts are specifically ptohibited. In others, like 'the

nutrition program of the Health Services and Mental HealthAdministration's Center for Disease Control, it is antici-pated that the entire program will eventually be on acontract basis. More representative of the actual situation asit now stands within the Federal structure are programswhich allow substantial sub-contracting negotiations, suchas the Office of Education's Pre-School Elementary andSecondary Personnel Development (grants to States) pro-gram, and the Vocational Education Personnel Develop-ment program.

A purchase order is a fiscal agreement between aFederal agency and a college or university. It may involvethe purchase by the agency of classroom or dormitoryspace at the university or a particular course to instructgovernment personnel. The agreement is generally not afinancially large one and often involves little more than aninstitution's taking the opportunity to increase its income,and the agency using the university to baptize one of itsactivities or to conduct a meeting at a prestige location. Thenumber of such arrangements is large and they, like theprevailing use of subcontracts, have not been systematically4udied.

There is one other fiscal arrangement which might bementioned here, but which involves only Federal agencies.There are provisions that allow one agency to transfer, or,"assign," funds to another agency in support of a programto be administered by the latter. This procedure hasgenerally worked well but is little used. An effectiveexample of its use is the Educational Personnel Develop-mentMedia Specialists Program. Since the Federal Govern-ment encourages States to cooperate on a regional basis,universities on a "consortia" basis, and local communitieson an area basis, perhaps it would be appropriate forFederal agencies to act similarly. If Federal programs cannot always be effectively coordinated, perhaps at least moreprogram objectives may be achieved if greater use weremade of the "assignment" method of funding.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

A favorite piece of legislative phrasing is "... andthere shall be created...." Through this phrase wereestablished some of the most formidible agencies andbureaus of the American government. The nature of somelegislation compels Congress to establish major, newexecutive departments. More commonly, however, Congressdoes one of three things: (1) establishes new administrativeunits within existing departments (the Omnibus CrimeControl and Safe Streets Act of 1970 established a LawEnforcement Assistance Administration within the De-partment of Justice); (2) states that new legislation beadministered by an existing administrative unit (NationalSea Grant College and Program Act of 1966); or (3) leavesto the discretion of the department how legislation will beadministered (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of1965). This pattern also holds true for Federal legislationaffecting grants to the States: (1) Congress may provide

27

funds' for new State agencies; (2) allow funds to beadministered by existing agencies; or (3) leave to thediscretion of the State how such legislation shall beimplemented. (It should be noted here that althoughCongressional legislation routinely affects administrativeunits within States, it seldom affects interstate arrange-ments.)

When legislation is passed which establishes a newadministrative unit within an agency, the unit is often setup without careful consideration of its interaction with thecurrent administrative structure of that agency. The agencymust simply absorb the new arm to its body, regardless ofhow unnatural it may appear. Somewhat similarly, whenCongress does not indicate how Federal legislation shall beimplemented by an agency, bureaus within the agency mayclaim certain parts of the legislation, and in the process,perhaps, dismantle the original legislation into parts notwholly coordinated with each other. Such was the fate ofthe Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to whichboth the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Educationand the Bureau of Higher Education had some claim. Whatonce appeared as a comprehensive and unified program andwhich reflected the "intent of the Congress" thus risksbecoming fragmented and dissembled.

STATE AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATION

Many Federal programs have included in theirbudgets the provisions to staff program units at the Statelevel. This is common, for instance, in many of theprograms administered by the Bureau of EducationPersonnel Development in the Office of Education. Manyagencies have set up programs to reach the same clientele inthe same geographic areas; for example, the disadvantagedyouth of urban areas: HUD's Model Cities program;Agriculture's;School Lunch Program; Labor; and manyprograms in 0E0 and HEW. (The Office of Education alonehas nearly forty programs directed toward, the disad-vantaged.) In many States there are State officials .

responsible for coordinating within that State a variety ofFederal programs. Our review indicates that many. of these:positions remain vacant for prolonged periods and that insome cases this coordination function is merely a part-timeactivity.

The increasing number of Federal executive ageiciesconcerned with domestic problems, particularly in 'the areasof education and social welfare, has brought the Federalgovernment closer to local Communities, including clustersof communities within large metropolitan areas,.than at anytime in the past. At the national level, Federal programsappear mammouth and sprawling; but at the local leveltheir size may take on more manageable dimensions.Control and "ownership" of these programs, consequently,become volatile issues, and they become exceptionally sowhen these programs touch closely on basic social issues,expectations and frustrations. The dangers of politicizingthese programs at the local level are real, and what once

28

may have been conceived as a "community" is transformedinto a "constituency."

In general, the history of how Federal programsoperate within the States remains an undocumented one.An exception to this is the Department of Agriculture'sCooperative Extension Service, which has one of the mosthistorically workable systems of implementing programswithin the States. (See page 55). Primary planning evolvesfrom the county agents and county policy planningcommittees, who work closely and simultaneously witharea agents, State extension directors and State policyplanning committees. All cooperate with the FederalExtension Service and other State agencies in implementingCooperative Extension programs. Yet the Extension Servicemodel remains relatively unique and rarely emulated, Otherprograms appear to suffer from inadequate structureswithin the States which can relate well both to Stateagencies and to Federal organizations on programs of jointconcern and common interest.

FEDERAL REGIONAL OFFICES

These issues are related to the increased interest ingovernment circles of the roles the regional offices of thevarious agencies are to play in the future administration ofFederal programs. There are approximately ten regionaloffices operated by these agencies. The geographicboundaries for these regions are not always the same fromagency to agency, but efforts are underway to make themcongruent. It is difficult to establish any consistent patternas to how these offices are used and how they can be usedin better ways. in theory, the regional offices are intendedto provide on-site support to Federal programs and tocooperate with State and local agencies in implementingthese programs. Some agencies such as the Social andRehabilitation Service, Office of Economic Opportunity,and the Department of Housing and Urban Developmenthave expressed a determination to involve these officesmore convincingly in program decision matters, and touse them to implement this Administration's convictionthat the Federal government should respond more directlyand relevantly to the concerns of States and communities.

Along with revenue sharing, the concept of "region-alization" is a major component of the New Federalism.:Thrissmption behind this concept is that governmentunits regionally located can more effectively and quicklyrespond to local and regional needs. There are many whoquestion this assumption and doubt that there is anyevidence to indicate that regional offices are betterequipped to do this than national offices. These critics feelthat officials at regional offices are no better informedabout national programs and local priorities than State andlocal officials and college apd university officials located atthe sites of program implementation.

FISCAL MANAGEMENT Table 7. Primary Channels ofFund Disbursement

One of the most consistently strident notes in theFederal government-grantee relationship, be it at theregional offices or elsewhere, is the question of a grantee'sprogram budget: It is a traditional rule of the Federalgovernment that the people who manage the budgets arenot the same as those who manage the programs whichthose budgets are intended to support. The fiscal managersare concerned with economy and cost accountability; theprogram managers with program objectives and effective-ness. The interests of one often conflict with the interestsof the other, even though attempts at new budgetarytechniques have tried to narrow this gap of antagonism.

Grant recipients have routine contact with programmanagers, but are often mystified by the guidelines andpractices of the fiscal managers. It is also true that manyprogram managers in the Federal government are oftenuneasy about many of these guidelines and practices. Thereare given times of the year when grantees urgently needfiscal information or program commitments and areobstructed from getting them because of the clashes builtinto this system.

UNIVERSITY-FEDERAL RELATIONS

The need for more meaningful communicationbetween Federal agencies and, in particular, institutions ofhigher education is evident in another area as well. Thereare occasions when a Federal agency is either compelled orvoluntarily decides to curtail a program. This may be doneas a result of the termination of legislative authority, or itmay result from administrative decisions. In either case,many such decisions are made without formal dialogue withthe State and local agencies, colleges and universities, whichwill be profoundly affected by the decision:" A goodexample of this practice is the current trend within Federalagencies to cut back on their graduate fellowship programs,especially in fields where it is felt that professionals arebeing over-produced.

There are few channels existing within the govern.ment whereby institutions may appeal such unilateraldecisions. Typically, therefore, such an appeal may occuroutside the usual channels of communication between thegovernment and educational institutions: resort to politicalsupporters and intense lobbying efforts replace the normalforms of dialogue. Even when it is recognized that adecision to phase out a program may be a wise one, thereare those who argue that the Federal agency should adopt apractice of "gradualism" for such phasing out, to avoid thetrauma of sudden and complete fund withdrawal.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

'As desirable as this practice would be for academicinstitutions, these 'institutions must also be aware of the*See Table 7.

Federal Government To:No. of

Programs

Academic Institutions

States

Individuals

Academic Institutions, States &Communities

Academic Institutions and States

Communities

Academic Institutions and Individuals

Academic Institutions, States andIndividuals

Communities and Individuals

Federally Sponsored Projects(no direct disbursement)

69

25

12

11

6

7

5

1

1

6

TOTAL 143

increasing requests for "accountability." There is noquestion that any institution of higher learningor anyState or local governmentwhich elects to receive Federalfunds must be subjected to a variety of reports andaudits.A pro forma report, however, is no substitute for soundmonitoring of the grant's effectiveness, nor is a fiscal audita substitute for a substantive evaluation. Many in academicinstitutions feel there is too much pressure on them toachieve strictly government- defined objectives. At the sametime, many in government feel that there is little thegovernment can or wants to do that risks intruding into theacademic freedom of universities.

This raises several basic and important questions.Should- universities and colleges be subject to the samedemands for quality performance and adherence totimetables that are required of commercial organizations? Isthe decision to provide funds solely to prestigiousuniversities a sufficient enough reason to believe thatquality performance is taking place? If so, what is tohappen when funds are provided to less prestigiousinstitutions, and especially to developing'institutions?

PROGRAM INFORMATION

There is still no adequate central information systemto make available the results of educational activities of theFederal Government. The need is most direly felt for thevast number of past and current education programssponsored by the various agencies. When one considers thatthousands of pilot projects were funded and terminated,and that many of them were research and demonstrationprojects of high scholarly interest or functional utility, it is

29

unfortunate that the history of these projects and their

effects has never been documented.How many of these projects deserve to be forgotten

and how many remembered no one will ever know. Itprobably would not be too risky to guess that a projectwhich is presently being hailed as bold and innovative may

be identical to one that wp abolished several years ago for

reasons now forgotten or {o longer relevant.Perhaps this is one reason why academic institutions

Are disposed to look upon some Federal agencies primarily

as sources for funds, rather than as sources of intellectualstrength, technical assistance and tested information. This

condition is particularly true of the Office of Education,

where despite long-standing efforts to establish dependableinformation' retrieval and delivery systems for educational

activities, results to date fall below expectations and needs.

On a lesser scale, however, the Office of Education

has succeeded in establishing an effective informationcollection and retrieval system. The Office has recentlyestablished a National Student Transfer Record Center in

Little Rock, Arkansas, to keep current academic and health

information on each child benefitting from its program in

support of educationally deprived migrant children.

PROGRAM MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Depending upon the agency and the program con-cerned, monitoring of a Federally funded program varies

from an oppressively detailed and demanding reportingleading to charges of smothering bureaucratic interven-

tionto a simple inability of a small central staff tounderstand what is happening in a program that may have

ballooned into hundreds of projects involving thousands of

individuals. This latter case is particularly true when the

Congress or an administration allocates new funds to an old

program without providing additional funds to administer

the enlarged program.

There is little sound evaluation within the Federal

Government on past or current programs. Despite the

continuity of their funding, most Federal agencies can not

give the Congress assurances that these programs are

performing well or badly, and whether they are achieving

the purposes Congress intended them to achieve.

Program and staffing funds for many agency activitiestend to increase substantially over the years. What seldom

increases are funds and staff efforts to evaluate theseactivities. Even when the initiative to evaluate a particular

program exists, evaluation funds are frequently lacking.And too often, an honest evaluation poses too many threats

to the careers of individuals or the reputations ofinstitutions to obtain wholehearted support and coop-

eration.When an effort is made to determine how and why

programs are initiated and terminated, the effort leadspredictably to decisions once made by individuals whose

names alone are remembered and whose functions have

30

long ago been reorganized or terminated. The search one

might make for the continuity and rationale for majordecisions is repeatedly undermined by the turnover ofpersonnel, the expiration of administrations, the lack ofprecedents, and the paucity of relevant data and ofintelligent critiques which are systematically recorded and

made accessible for the future.

PLANNING

If, because of faulty documentation, there is doubtabout what has happened in the past in a program area; and

if, because of a faulty monitoring system, there is further

doubt about what is happening, the compounded problem

makes it even more doubtful that responsible individuals

will be able to determine what should be happening.Planning is therefore too often an exercise in intellectual

ingenuity which begins from no concrete base and leads to

a preconceived set of objectives divorced from the present

and unrelated to the past.Programs must have a focus. There must be some-

thing in them that is considered worth achieving inproportion to the time, effort and money expended.

However, when a monitoring system works only in spasms,

and when an evaluation system works hardly at all, theodds against a planning unit achieving what it hopes toachievean identifiable list of priorities and a feasiblemethod of implementing thembecome increasingly great.

This situation is further complicated by the fact that 60%

of all programs reviewed in our study involved thesubmission and receipt of unsolicited project proposals.

Only ten programs (7%) involved solicited proposals.*

PRIORITIES

In large measure, the basic priorities in education

have been articulated through legislation, and reflect thecompromises and the realities of the political process.

Changes in these priorities are evident, particularly during

the past decade of social ferment and increasing Federal

responsibility for social programs of far-reaching dimen-

sions. Yet this explains priority formulation only at the

macro level. At the micro levels, where the actual business

of making laws vital or inert, by numerous small decisions

made daily by thousands of government employees takes

place, there are few standards for testing small decisions

against large priorities. Indeed, many of those making thesmall decisionswhich in sum comprise the major thrust ofnational prioritiesare either oblivious or unsympathetic to

the priorities set by the legislative process. Their own value

systems, their organizational goals and their own intel-lectual bents tend to shape, eventually, national policy.

'What is needed most, and what exists least, areagency policies and guidelines which successfully bridge the

*See Table 6, page 27.

gap between law and practice, and which give common feudal system wherein each baron prescribes for his owneffect to decision-making at all administrative levels. domain, and neither Congress nor the President is in fullWithout such policies, administration of law becomes a control. 0

31

URBAN EXTENSION: THE NEED FOR STRUCTURE

Institutional change is as urgent a requirement for thenation's universities as it is for the nation's cities. For a longtime, many universities have had a standing and sometimesextraordinarily productive relationship with both theFederal government and the various State governments.Only recently have universities begun to have a similarrelationship with municipal governments. Often the twohave been at bitter odds.

Fears linger in academia that to make closer contactwith municipal governments risks politicizing the univer-sities. Many believe that education is too important to beconcerned about politics. Others believe that politics is tooimportant for education not to be concerned.

Bitterness lingers at City Hall. It is a bitterness thatstems from the isolation with which the universities haveseparated themselves from their largely urban surroundings,not only in New York and Chicago, but in Columbus, Ohio,as well. This bitterness stems also from a conviction thatmuch of what the universities do is irrelevant to the highlycombustible problems of the urban areas, and the beliefthat universities themselves contribute to these problems.

There are some indications that this pattern ofantagonism is changing. Many municipal governments areexperiencing the rise of a new kind of politicianand a newkind of public servantwho is less concerned aboutmaintaining his political powerbase and defending theadministrative structures of the past, then he is aboutfinding new ways to solve urgent problems. At theuniversities, too, there is appearing a new generation ofscholars who see the urban environment as their legitimateconcern and who are developing new disciplines andenlarging old ones in response to that concern.

When institutional change comes, either at City Hallor Old Main, it comes slowly. Institutions take time tobuild; they take time to change, even when the press ofevents demands speed. To get political decision-makers andacademic researchers and scholars to join in common effortis itself often a slow process. The fact that Federallysupported programs have often speeded up this process isitself important and encouraging.

32

For decades, the leadership in municipal governmentshas been compelled to make decisions about the future ofthe cities without access to the kinds of substantial researchthat such decisions require. Too often the decisions haveresulted simply from political savvy about what can getdone at a given time, or from the highly refined antennae ofa politician, which periodically signal him when somethingis right for the times.

The unexpected thing about this history of"savviness" is that it has sometimes worked. The expectedthing, however, is that it also has routinely failed to work:as a consequence American cities are in deep trouble.Universities, too, are in trouble, but perhaps not sofundamentally. And they are not so much in trouble thatthey are not capable of helping the cities, even when thereare risks involved.

UNI VERSITY-BASSO URBAN PROGRAMS

Over the past two decades, universities have increas-ingly sought to serve cities both in institutionalized waysand as the result of individual research and inquiry. Manyuniversities have developed substantial departments andcourses focussed on the nature and problems of urban life.Some have developed urban centers and institutes. TheProgram of Urban and Policy Sciences at the Stony Brookcampus of the State University of New York goes evenfurther and combines multi-disciplinary teaching, researchand extension within a single administrative unit. As a rule,however, much of what happens at the university, andwhich is designed to turn the attention of the universitytowards the cities, happens disjointly and independently ofother efforts within the university.

Schools of extension and continuing education arenever the sole administrative units at a university throughwhich its urban activities are operated. In many instances,they are not even among the major units, despite the logicsuggesting that they play the lead role in involving variousparts of the university in community service. Instead, the

university typically reacts to demands on its servicessporadically and in pieces and parts. The university'scontributions to the solution of urban problems remainlargely unplanned, unorganized and uncontrolled fromwithin. The School of Public Health, the Department ofSociology and the School of Public Administration are allact to be simultaneously involved without any interchangeof ideas or even the mutual knowledge that theseinvolvements exist.

FEDERAL FRAGMENTATION

This same disjointedness characterizes Federal pro-grams aimed at involving universities in the solution ofurban problems. The Office of Economic Opportunitysponsors programs aimed at urban problems; so does theDepartment of Health, Education and Welfare, the Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development, the Departmentof Interior, the National Science Foundation, the Depart.ment of Transportation and even the National Foundationon the Arts and the Humanities. Furthermore, the concernof the Justice Department with crime inevitably leads to aconcern with urban life, just as the Department ofAgriculture's concern with nutrition cannot end at the cityline.

Because urban affairs constitute a large slice of ournational life, there are few central tendencies among thevarious programs which deal with the problems of the city:poverty, crime, drug addiction, mass transportation, landuse, employment, sanitation, architecture, housing, healthand environment are among the program fields whichinteract with urban life. Each of these fields seeks to drawupon university resources and to involve the university inthe kinds of programs typical of each field. For the mostpart, these fragmented demands upon the universityreinforce and complicate the patterns of fragmentationalready ex:sting in the university structure.

If the university is to meet these demands in somesystematic and comprehensive way, structures within theuniversity are needed to organize and apply the resourcesof the university, just as a structure was developed in theland grant universities to serve the diverse needs of rurallife.

URBAN PROBLEMS ANDEXTENSION NEEDS

Persons concerned about the lack of focus andconcentrated effort in urban extension frequently point tothe Cooperative Extension Service of the Department ofAgriculture as a model to be emulated for the cities. In fact,an initial concept behind the enactment of Title I of theHigher Education Act of 1965 was to provide a workingsystem for urban extension which would provide cohesionand direction to a university's involvement with urbanproblems. However, this concept does not clearly emerge

from the final statutory language, and the level of Title Ifunding in itself precludes giving tke concept operationallife.

The problems of urban America are different in scopeand kind from the problems of rural America on which theCooperative Extension Service has had a large andsuccessful impact. The sheer magnitude of urban problemsis what weakens the will of those who would most want tomove and change the world. Seven out of every tenAmericans live in urban America. Half the population ofthe United States lives on one percent of the nation's land.

It is this intense concentration of people andproblems in urban areas that represents the first greatbarrier to a solution of urban problems. Where there is thisconcentration, walls and barricades go up out of necessity;territories are marked off; responsibilities are assigned;authority is delegated; neighborhoods zoned and politicaldistricts gerrymandered. Urban problems are institution-alized in a way that rural problems never were.

Most urban problems are linked with most otherurban problems. To solve one, seemingly, commits you tosolving all. To begin an inquiry into one problem leads youdown dark and endless corridors to an indeterminate point.The dilemma: how to make urban problems morevulnerable to inquiry and solutic and how to deal from afragmented university base with problems which areinescapably intertwined.

One current approach is to attack these problems ona neighborhood basis. At that level, it is thought, theproblems that exist on a city-wide basis can be better seenand confronted as an entity. This experii.tental approachhas been adopted in a number of Federal program efforts.Yet the evidence to date indicates that while the magnitudeof urban problems is reduced by this approach, theirsolution becomes no less elusive.

Frustration with the intractibility of urban problemshas led to disappointment with current approaches and asearch for better solutions. At the root of this search is theneed to develop within universities an organized capacityfor urban extension. Until this is done, the value ofuniversity involvement is diminished because the cruciallink between the scholar and the community does not exist.Yet providing this link will entail a massive joint effort onthe part of universities,_ cities and the Federal government,an effort far beyond that foreseen by any current Federalurban program of continuing education.

MANPOWER AND ORGANIZATIONFOR EDUCATION

Many of the research and public service responsi-bilities of universities are operated by the "outer"university, whose functions separate it from the traditionalteaching activities of the "inner" university. Most extensionand community service activities have been centered atthese outer universities, and it is assumed that urbanextension too should be centered in the outer university. It

33

is at the outer university where agricultural extension

activities, including the field stations, have been located.

Here too are housed most of the subject-matter specialists

who provide the research that is essential to agricultural

extension. These specialists, as well as the generalists (the

county agents), represent the manpower that has madeagricultural extension effective.

What kind of manpower universities would need for

urban extension is a critical question. What proportion

would need to be specialists in health, housing and other

fields and what proportion should be generalists in urban

life; how would they be financed and what would be their

status within a university?

The caliber, kind and number of people engaged in

Urban extension are the keys to providing the "delivery

system" needed to convey research findings to an urban

clientele and in turn to relay to researchers the problems

which require investigation. Unless some form of urbanextension framework is created, universities will i 'e toolittle opportunity to affect one of the great tragedies ofAmerican life: the inability to control the growth and

quality of American cities. Concurrently, although manyFederal programs address themselves to this problem and

involve universities in support of Federal and municipal

activity, they have rarely resulted in formation of stable,broad structures through which universities can mosteffectively provide assistance to city officials and urbanresidents. Rather, these Federal programs tend to use what

34

the university has available in terms of existing talent andpresent organizational capabilities. This has led to muchactivity but to less progress.

By often funding programs which reinforce theseparation of academic disciplines, and the separation ofresearch from extension, the Federal government bears

considerable responsibility for the current inability ofuniversities to respond to urban problems more effectively.

Conversely, the government has great opportunities toeffect needed change. A recent indication of an improved

approach toward university involvement in urban affairs is

the Research Applied to National Needs Program (HANN)

funded by the National Science Foundation. By specifically

requiring that research be oriented to the solution of social

problems, and that the university accept a responsibility for

providing extension services, RANN has generated anumber of multi-disciplinary programs which have already

had significant impact on urban areas and on theorganization of universities.

The success of the agricultural extension effortdepended on both a national commitment to the improve.

ment of rural life and the development of universitystructures appropriate to this purpose. In diverse andscattered ways, universities are groping towards the creation

of new administrative structures which will be appropriateto urban extension. What is needed now is the same kind ofFederal commitment to the improvement of the quality ofurban life which was once devoted to the development of a

backward rural society. 0

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAND STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

In the Panel's view, as acceptance grows of theresponsibility of Government to provide access toeducational opportunity for its citizens commen-surate with their ability, motivation; and the needs ofsociety, so will acceptance grow of changes requiredto make the discharge of that responsibility a reality.These changes are most likely to include a shift togreater governmental and student financing of educa-tional opportunity, a relative decrease in parentalresponsibility for the increased number of studentsfrom low-income families, and increased student orparental contribution expectations where there is acapacity to pay higher charges.

This is a conclusion reached by the Panel on StudentFinancial Need Analysis and stated in a 1971 studypublished by the College Entrance Examination Boardcalled New Approaches to Student Financial Aid. Under-lying this statement is the Panel's conviction that thepresent system of providing financial assistance to studentsis inadequate. The Panel uses such terms as "irregular" and"inequitable" to describe that system.

The present system rests primarily on the extent towhich students and their parents can meet the educationalexpenses of higher education. It is clear that the Paneladvocates a stronger contribution by the Federal and Stategovernments to student financial assistance if the systemitself is to become more stable and equitable.

The Federal government is already involved inproviding assistance to students through a variety ofsubstantial and beneficial ways, although there continues tobe a major controversy over whether such assistance shouldgo directly to the students or directly to educationalinstitutions.

The Federal government has traditionally providedfinancial assistance to students at the post-secondary level'through one of three channels: direct grants, work-studyprograms and loans. Increasingly this assistance is beingprovided, or "packaged," through a combination of thesethree, with additional Federal assistance being made

available through such long-standing government benefitprogram as the GI Bill and Social Security. Thesecombinations are taking place out of necessitysufficientfunds are simply not available in any one formandbecause it is believed that the kind of assistance madeavailable to students affects considerably the kind ofeducation they receive.

For reasons which should be obvious, the mostpopular form of government assistance among bothstudents and institutions is the direct grant (fellowships,scholarships, etc.). These grants have generally beenawarded on the basis of academic merit, and involve nofuture indebtedness on'the part of the recipient. Grants arepopular because they allow students to devote themselvesfull-time to their academic careers. In addition, it isconceded that direct grants are the least cumbersome formof Federal assistance to administer.

Work-study programs are less popular than grants, butamong many students are more acceptable than loans.Work-study programs help students support themselveswithout incurring any debt, but, at the same time, requirethat they spend less time pursuing their academic studies.

Loans appear the least sought-after form of financialassistance from the student standpoint. Many students shyaway from loans for the simple reason that they hesitate toincur debts that will obligate them for many years to come.Students are also reluctant to negotiate loans with privateand unfamiliar lending institutions, even when those loansare guaranteed by the Federal and State governments and,in effect, provide them with interest subsidization. To theextent that government loans are available through astudent's own academic institution, most students appar-ently prefer this source to any other.

Students from low-income families and minoritygroups have given some indication that they preferwork-study programs to loans. There is evidence that somecommercial lending institutions are reluctant to provideloans to such individuals because of what they claim to bethe excessive risks involvedpoor credit rating, less assur-ance of future earning power, employment instability,geographic mobility, etc.

35

GI BILL

The earliest and classic form of Federal assistance tostudents at the post-secondary level is the GI Bill, whichwent into effect in 1944. Since that year, the GI Bill hasprovided over $22 billion to veterans to support theireducational activities. What is unique :-..bout the Bill is thatit is based neither on merit nor need nor any otherdiscriminating criteria: it is a benefit to which virtuallyevery veteran is entitled. This lack of discriminating criteriais a major reason why the GI Bill is so enviably simple toadminister.

As originally conceived, the GI Bill comisted of twopayments: one payment to the veteran as a subsisterczallowance, and one payment tr. his institution to cover, inpart, his educational expenses. The Bill eventually evolvedinto a single payment to the individual in partial support of.both his subsistence and educational expenses.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Another important form of Federal assistance tostudents are the benefits available to them through SocialSecurity. Since 1935, the year social security benefits wereestablished, payments to children of deceased or disabledparents were restricted to dependents under eighteen yearsof age. As a result of the Social Security Amendments of1965, however, payments were extended to dependentsbetween the ages of eighteen and twenty-two, but only ifduring those years the dependents continued their educa-tion on a full-time basis.

In FY 1971, over 580,000 dependents between theages of eighteen and twenty-tWo received benefits totalling$624,000,000. Like the GI Bill, these social securitybenefits are simply and effectively administered and involvea routine monthly check sent directly to the dependent orto his surviving parent. Payments are made immediatelyafter an application is filed with the Social SecurityAdministration and after both the individual and institutionhave confirmed that the dependent had been admitted andenrolled at the institution for a full-time course of study.

Both the GI Bill and the social security benefits attestto the incomparable taxing power of the Federal govern-ment to provide such benefits and guarantee their deliveryover an extended length of time. There are other majorFederal assistance programs for students currently inoperation, but none of them approachei these twoprograms in size or longevity. Recognition of these facts ledthe Panel on Student Financial Need Analysis to state thefollowing:

A cherished myth of educators and the general publicis that student financial aid today is primarily based-on relative need. However, when the source andapplication of all aid funds (including the GI Bill,Social Security, athletic grants, and scholarships fromrestricted funds) are considered, the greater amountof student aid appears to be beyond institutional

36

control and is commonly awarded on the basis ofcriteria other than need

(New Approaches, p. 9)

Traditionally, most Federal grant programs have beenbased on academic merit. In the 1960s, however, majorchanges took place in Federal assistance programs whichresulted in emphasis on programs fo. the disadvantaged.This emphasis brought about a substantial change in howfinancial assistance programs were administered by bothFederal agencies and academic institutietr.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Three major peice:, of Federal legislation have had abroad and overwhelming impact of Federal financialassistance to students: The National Defense Education Actof 1958; the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964; and theHigher Education Act of 1965. The Economic OpportunityAct (Title I, Part C) was later amended so that thework-study provisions of that title could be incorporatedinto the Higher Education Act (Title N,, Part C).

The Higher Education Act provided two notablestudent assistance programs. Title N, Part A, providedEducational Opportunity Grants to students of exceptionalneed; and Title IV, Part B, established a system oflow-interest insured loans to students in institutions ofhigher education.

LOANS

Both the National Defense Education Act and theHigher Education Act have provisions for student loans.Both programs grant eligibility to students who areregistered on at least a half-time basis, with decisionsregarding what constitutes half-time enrollment left to theinstitutions. There are, however, important differencesbetween the two programs.

NDEA student loans are specifically designed to aidneedy students at the undergraduate and graduate levels.The program is institutionally based, with the result thatapplicants apply directly to their institutions for loans. As aconsequence, institutions have considerable discretionarypower to decide who is or who is not a "needy" student,and who is or who is not enrolled "half-time" or"full-time."

The HEA student loan program does not have aninstitutional base. This guaranteed student loan program isoperated through such private lenders as banks, creditunions, savings and loan associations, pension funds,insurance companies and academic institutions. It is theresponsibility of the student to locate a lending institutionwhich will offer him a loan.

A more important distinction between NDEA andHEA loan services is that HEA was established to assist amuch broader segment of the population. NDEA loans arerestricted to the needy; HEA loans are not. In addition,

NDEA has a forgiveness clause for those who enter theteaching profession, as well as a matching formula thatrequires an institution to match at a one to nine ratio theFederal contribution.

During FY 70, it is estimated that $287,147,000 wasloaned through NDEA to approximately 455,800 studentsat nearly 2,000 colleges and universities. In that sameperiod, it is estimated that through HEA approximately$839,666,000 was loaned to 921,000 students at over7,500 institutions of higher education and vocationaleducation in this country and abroad.

WORK STUDY

The Federal government's support of work-studyprograms was first expressed in the Higher Education Act,and later reinforced in the Vocational Education ActAmendments of 1968. Title IV, Part C, of HEA wasdesigned to promote the part-time employment of students,with particular emphasis on students from low-incomefamilies, who need assistance to pursue courses of study athigher education institutions. Only full-time students areeligible in this program, with part-time students specificallybarred from eligibility.

The Vocational Education Act Amendments, Title I,Part H, provide grant support to States via State boards ofvocational education for work-study programs to assisteconomically disadvantaged full-time vocational educationstudents, ages 15-20, to remain in school by providingpart-time employment with local education agencies andother public agencies.

Students involved in this program are primarily at thesecondary level. In FY 70, for instance, 82.4% of thestunts were enrolled at the secondary level, with 17.6%enrolled at the post-secondary level, primarily at two-yearcolleges.

In FY 70, the HEA work-study program provided8154,650,000 to 2,177 post-secondary institutions whichemployed about 400,000 students. In that same period, the

Vocational Education work-study program provided$4,250,000 to assist 21,000 needy students.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ANTS

The Educational Opportunity Grants program en-acted by the Higher Education Act provides project grantsto institutions of higher learning. The program is designedto enable students of exceptional financial need to pursuehigher education by providing direct grant assistance foreducational expenses. Institutions must match the Federalcontribution on a dollar-to-dollar basis. Grants are re-stricted to full-time students whose "exceptional" needs areto be determined by the institution itself.

In FY 70, the EOG program enabled 280,000students to begin or pursue their education at nearly 2,000institutions at a cost to the Federal government of$164,000,000.

The magnitude of Federal fmancial assistance tostudents indicates beyond a doubt that the demands forassistance are great. The variety of ways in which thisassistance is provided indicates that no single formula forstudent assistance is adequate to meet the need.

Two of the most substantial programs providingeducation benefits to studentsthe GI Bill and 'ocialSecurityare being effectively administered through two ofthe oldest and best-tested mechanisms the government hasthus far established to disburse funds. Other programs thathave significant dimensions are confined primarily tostudent assistance through loans. These are popular withthe current Administration, but noticeably less popularwith students.

Of particular significance to those who are concernedwith the fate of higher continuing education, is thegovernment's reluctance to provide support to part-timestudents. Except for veterans and military and civilianpersonnel of the U.S. government, few work-studyprograms or direct grant programs exist within the entireFederal structure to benefit part-time students.

37

INDEPENDENT STUDY

There are nearly 1,000 correspondence schools in theUnited States. They have an enrollment estimated at overfive million persons. In addition to the traditional lessonplans and written materials, some experimenting isoccurring with various forms of recorded, broadcast,televised and programmed instruction. The principal formof independent study, however, is still the traditional"correspondence course."

Independent study (or "home study") usually meansenrollment with an educational institution which provides aseries of lessons the student can complete at his own paceand at a time and place of his own choosing. As a result,independent study is suited to the needs of the adult whenrime, distance or cost interfere with enrollment in standard"classroom" programs.

QUALITY AND KINDSOF INSTITUTIONS

Educational institutions offering independent studyCourses vary widely in kind and quality. Most of them areproprietary schools, some of which have developed reputa-tions for taking money from the credulous and offeringlittle educational substance in return. The activities ofunscrupulous entrepreneurs have undoubtedly tarnished theimage of independent study, and despite Federal TradeCommission oversight and attempts at accreditation by theOffice of Education, fly-by-night institutions do exist.When exposed, some simply change their names andaddresses and continue to operate until again forced out ofbusiness.

In an attempt to bring greater integrity to this field, anumber of the more stable and influential proprietaryinstitutions have formed the National Home Study Council,headquartered in Washington, D.C. and charged withdeveloping and enforcing a code of ethics. The Council hasestablished an Accrediting Commission, recognized by theOffice of Education, which passes judgments on the qualityof educational services and the advertising practices ofproprietary institutions.

Many colleges and universities offer correspondencecourses and other approaches to independent study. Mostof them are affiliated with the Correspondence StudyDivision of the National University Extension Association,and many of their courses can be applied to credit toward adegree. In addition, a number of degree programs whichfeature a combination of independent study and shortperiods of resident instruction have been created. Themodel for many of these programs has been the pioneeringeffort at the University of Oklahoma in its Bachelor ofLiberal Studies program. Using its B.L.S. model, and acurriculum developed in consultation with the U.S. CivilService Commission, the University of Oklahoma subse-quently added a highly successful program leading to themasters degree in Public Administration.

FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

There is little direct Federal support for independentstudy; however, through the G.I. Bill and correspondencestudy programs for military personnel on active duty,Federal funds are indirectly channeled toward independentstudy programs. Estimates vary, but probably more thanone-half of all correspondence study enrollments comefrom veterans and military personnel. Through USAFIalone, there were Learly 400,000 enrollments amongmilitary personnel in FY 1970, and similar correspondencetraining is available through arrangements made within eachof the three services. In addition, the guaranteed loanprogram, established under the Higher Education Act,permits students to borrow up to $1,500 for independentstudy through an accredited institution, provided that theycarry a sufficient course load.

COMPLETION AND MOTIVATION

Independent study requires a highly motivatedstudent; the drop-out factor is high. For example, msearchconducted at the University of Iowa by J. William Pfeiffer

0

and Darrell Sabers for correspondence study with thatinstitution indicates that for one-semester hour corre-spondence study courses, 13% of the enrollees do notsubmit even one lesson; for four-semester hour courses,32% do not complete the first lesson. However, for thosewho get by the hurdle of the first lesson, the completionrate is quite.good. This same research shows that while thecompletion rate for a four-semester hour course is only23.6%, the drop-out rate for those who have completed thefirst one-fourth of the course is sharply reduced.

TECHNOLOGY

Independent ztudy programs, despite successful be-ginnings, have been slew to use portable projectors andcassettes as well as the more sophisticated technologies topersonalize, improve or expand their course offerings.Written lessons and written instructional materials stilldominate. The technology by which to offer alternativemodes of learning has long been in existence, but thecapacity to package learning in ways which can advanta-geously use technology has lagged behind.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Advocates of independent study believe that itspotential has barely been tapped. They view two major

audienceshousewives and prisonersas a primary clientelefor vastly expanded independent study programs. Certainly,if independent study is to progress, it must expand itsclientele base beyond dominant reliance on the servicemanand the veteran pursuing work under the G.I. Bill. Thedirection of such an expansion, particularly for courses atpost-secondary levels, appears however to depend on severalrelated factors.

One of these factors is the rate of progress towardexpanded external degree efforts. If the external degreeconcept develops a firm foundation and obtains increasedacceptance, programs of independent study will experienceaccelerated demand. Another influencing factor lies in theability to use educational technology effectively to reachpeople with educational offerings which have a broadappeal. Much more needs to be done in this regard. Inaddition, if forms of direct Federal support can be obtainedto provide tuition assistance for the needy part-timestudent and tQ unde write the development of educationalmaterials geared to new educational technology forindependent study, the prospects for substantial improve-ment and expansion are high. Finally, better forms ofquality control, whether from within or without, could domuch to insure that institutions and course offerings haveeducational integrity and validity. If by this means the taintof phony certificates, false claims and inferior educationalofferings could be removed, the acceptance of, andparticipation in, independent study would be stronglybenefitted. 0

..,

39

DATA ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM CLUSTERS

ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS SUPPORTINGINSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES

Teaching is the central purpose of the university.Recent attention to the development of ways universities

can more effectively become involved in assisting commun-

ities to ameliorate social problems obscures the majorcontribution made by institutions of higher education intraining a wide variety of personnel in numerous fields and

specialties. Ninety-five of the 143 programs reviewed in this

study support instructional services.* Total Federal expen-

ditures on these protraits were $2,062,024,000, ofwhich $1,082,329,000 went to.colleges and universities. In

addition the total Federal expenditures on programssupporting research application vas $2,029,573,000, ofwhich only $357,341,000 went tv colleges and universities.

In effect, therefore, of the total Federal expenditure of$4,091,597,000 on programs which, in whole or in part,support activities of extension, continuing education andcommunity services, a total of $1,439,670,000 goes to

colleges and universities.

Two priorities in terms of Federal expenditures are

the training of educational personnel and the provision ofeducational opportunities for veterans. A separate casestudy in this report, "The Federal Government and the

Training of T6tchers and Educational Personnel" (see page

65), discusses how the nature of Federal support has been

shaped by an unresolved debate about the proper role of

the Federal government in terms of education. An analysis

of educational benefits available to veterans is contained in

another case study in this report, "Veterans Administra-

tion: The G.I. Bill Education and Training" (see page 78).

hat study suggests that there is minimal cooperationbetween institutions of higher education and the Federal

government in terms of the development of programs

addressed to the needs of veterans.

*See Table 8 for program breakdown by title and administering

agency.

40

PROGRAM PURPOSE

A beginning step to understanding the nature ofFederal support for instructional services is to consider the

purpose for which the programs were intended.

Program Puipose

Program Addressed toNumber ofPrograms

FederalExpenditures

Educational PersonnelDevelopment 36 $ 281,113,000

Public Health (PersonnelDevelopment andCommunity Services) 19 248,841,000

Vocational Education 7 23,848,000

Misc. Education for theGeneral Public 9 12,168,000

Veteran's Education 3 1,032,753,000

Community Problemsa. Environmental

Problemsb. Problems of the*

5 9,395,000

Disadvantagedc. Crime and

5 215,730,000

Delinquency 4 202,501,000

d. Multi-purpose 7 35,676,000

95 $2,062,025,000*=MI

The provision of educational benefits for veterans is

the single largest effort in the area of instructional services.

The second largest area is professional development forhealth and educational personnel; 55 of the 95 programs

are directed to one of those two purposes.

*All figures are rounded to the nearest $1,000, which results inslight differences in totals.

PROGRAM CLIENTELE

A chart showing a distribution of programs byprogram clientele confirms the emphasis on benefits forveterans and professional development.

Program Clientez

ClienteleNumber of

ProgramsFederal

Expenditures

Education Professions 31 $ 211,478,000Disadvantaged 12 290,214,000Health Professions 21 175,809,000Universities and Colleges 3 8,561,000Miscellaneous Categories 9 89,724,000State and Local

Governments 2 9,535,000Veterans 3 1,032,753,000Qualified Professionals 14 243,949,000

95 $2,062,023,000

A thorough analysis of each of these 95 programs isbeyond the scope of this study. The case studies previouslymentioned trace the historical development of Federalsupport for instructional services serving two major groupsof clientele and analyze some of the most significant issuesconcerning Federal-university involvement. What is possibleare some general observations on the characteristics ofprograms supported by those Federal agencies most directlyinvolved in this field.

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

The majority of the programs (59) are fundedthrough the Department of Health, Education and Welfare;27 of these programs are administered by the -Office ofEducation. The primary focus of most of these programs isthe training or retraining of educational personnel in termsof a predefined national need or occupational shortage. Forexample, there are discrete programs for each of thefollowing categories: media specialists, teacher trainers,librarians, and recreation personnel who work with thehandicapped. The typical pattern is to award funds to acollege or university which in turn selects recipients offellowships.

Another common characteristic of these programs isthe involvement of State education agencies. Ten of theprograms provide opportunities for funding of theseagencies for the operation of programs; in most cases,funding is competitive, with other State agencies andinstitutions of higher education also eligible for funds. Forfive of the programs, funds are granted directly to the Stateagency 'for disbursement or program operation. Twoprograms grant funds to the State Boards of VocationalEducation, and one program allows each State Board ofVocational Education to submit the name of a candidate

81-668 0 - 72 - 4

who will then be trained. at a university in vocationaleducation. This heavy involvement of State educationagencies confirms the importance of developing compe-tence in educational planning at the State level.

A review of these programs also reveals the de-pendence on colleges and universities for help in solvingcurrent social problems. The Education Professions De-velopment Act provides funds to State education agenciesto train teams of drug educators to use available curriculaand materials and to stimulate the development ofpreventive programs at the local school level. Colleges anduniversities have provided in-service training and othertechnical assistance services to support these programpurposes. The Civil Rights Act of 1-964 and the EducationProfessions Development Act both provide funds fortraining of school personnel in ways which will alleviatestresses resulting from school desegregation.

Conspicuous by their absence are programs which areaddressed to reform or innovation in the school system.One notable exception is the Teacher Corps program, whichstresses community involvement in education and providesfunds for the improvement of university curricula. Anotherexception is the Career Opportunities Program, fundedthrough the Education Professions Development Act, whichprovides training for low-income community residents andVietnam veterans so that they may work as educationauxiliaries in poverty areas. (A substantial part of the casestudy "The Federal Government and the Training ofTeacher and Educational Personnel" is devoted to ananalysis of this program. See page 65.)

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

By agency, the second largest group of programs (17)is funded through the National Institutes of Health.Primarily directed to increasing the competence of profes-sionals in medical research, these programs differ fromthose funded through the Office of Education in theirgreater emphasis on providing fellowships to individuals,rather than granting support to institutions. The .pattern offunding for fellowships in General Medical Sciences istypical of several of the programs funded through NIH.Three categories of awards are available: Post-doctoral,Special, and Career Development; the difference among theawards is the degree of professional experience of therecipient. (Awards supporting predoctoral candidates arecurrently being phased out, and Career Awards are beingcontinued only at the current level.)

Four NIH programs are focused on the developmentof new teaching curricula for the retraining of healthprofessionals and/or experimental continuing educationprograms. Two programs supporting training at Schools ofPublic Health have been included in the study becausethose Schools often require work experience prior toacceptance for an academic program.

41

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation funds 11 programswhich support continuing education at universities. Themajor contribution of the Foundation to continuingeducation is the development of institutes which providesecondary and college teachers an opportunity to learnabout recent scientific developments. Focused more onconveying scientific information than on changing teachingpractices, these institutes operate both during the summerand on an academic-year basis. The reluctance of theNational Science Foundation to become involved in teachertraining and the mixed pattern of success of these institutesare discussed in the case study cited previously.

SUMMARY

A discussion in this study of Federal support for the,.training of educational personnel claims that the role ofFederal administrators has become one of money-givingrather than leadership, because our national traditionasserts strongly that government should only supporteducation and not seek to guide or con;rol.it. The casestudy on Regional Medical Programs describes a similarkind of uneasy relationship between the Federal govern.ment and the medical establishment. The enabling legis-lation gives the program a mandate to "improve generallythe quality and enhance the capacity of the healthmanpower and facilities available to the Nation," butspecifies that this improvement is to be accomplishedwithout "interferring with the patterns, or the methods offinancing, of patient care or professional practice, or withthe administration of hospitals ...." Windows to theBureaucracy, the 1971 annual report of the NationalAdvisory Council on Education Professions Development,discusses the lack of a policy framework which couldgovern the relationships of the National Science Founda.tion and universities in terms of higher continuingeducation programs.

If there is a common element among these 95programs, perhaps it is this inability of the Federalgovernment to articulate and implement the long-rangegoals which instructional services are to accomplish. Rather,the government funds a wide variety of programs withshort-term objectives and shuns attempts at institutionalchange in either the educational or medical establishments.

ANAL ISIS OF PROGRAMS SUPPORTINGRESEARCH APPLICATION

The recent interest in the term "technology transfer"reflects a concern that the ability of universities to produce

42

new knowledge far exceeds their ability to develop ways ofimplementing this new knowledge. Reasons for thisproblem come readily to mind. The skills required to doresearch differ from those required to persuade practi-tioners to accept and implement research results. Anyimplementation of research concerning community prob-lems necessarily involves political activity, and universitystaff are not always persuaded that this is a proper role forthem. In addition, until recently, Federal officials have notstressed the importance of conveying research results tousers. Only recently is there a realization that greateremphasis on the "transfer" of knowledge is urgentlyneeded.

Several case studies in this report are relevant to thisissue. The discussion of the Cooperative Extension Service(see page 55) suggests that new research developments aremore likely to be accepted when the potential user has avoice in determining research priorities and can communi-cate directly with an agent attached to the research source.Analysis of the experience of the Sea Grant Program (seepage 60) confirms this assumption and suggests further thatnational programs must be sufficiently flexible to meetlocal needs. The current difficulties of the Regional MedicalProgram (see page 73) reflect the problems of affectingchange. in a rigid and highly traditional system and thenecessity of relating research priorities to long-range goalsfor institutional change. Finally, the Institute for CriminalJustice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration(see page 88) neither consults potential users about theirneeds for research nor disseminates those research resultswhich are available in ,a systematic fashion. Not unex-pectedly, practitioners in the field of criminal justice reportthat their activities, plans, and operations are unaffected bythe Federally funded research in their area.

Clear distinctions cannot be made between thoseFederally funded programs which focus on instructionalservices and those which focus on technology transfer orresearch application.* Instructional programs at universitiesassume a research or knowledge base, and programs ofresearch application often use various forms of instructionalservices to convey research results. Forty-eight of the 143programs reviewed in this study, however, focus moreclearly on research application or extension than oninstructional services by traditional means. (See Table 9.)Some of these programs have multi-purposes whichcombine standard training programs and research.

Total Federal expenditures in FY 1970 for theseprograms were $2,029,573,000. Out of this, an estimated$357,341,000 went to colleges and universities for activitiesdiscussed in this section.

The term research application, rather than technology transfer, willbe used in this paper since it encompasses research in the socialsciences.

1

1

DISTRIBUTION BY AGENCY

By agency, programs were distributed as follows:

Agency Number

Department of Health, Education andWelfare 13

Social and Rehabilitation Service (6)Office of Education (4)Health Services and Mental Health

Administration (2)Environmental Health Service (1)

Department of Agriculture 10Environmental Protection Agency 5

Department of Interior 4Department of Housing and Urban Development 3

Department of Justice 3

Office of Economic Opportunity 3

Department of Commerce 2

Tennessee Valley Authority 2

Department of Labor 1

National Foundation on the Arts and theHumanities

National Science Foundation

48

DISTRIBUTION BY PROGRAM PURPOSE

An analysis of the purposes of these programs issomewhat more revealing than a listing of Federal agenciesinvolved. Not surprisingly, the greatest single effort, both interms of number of programs and funds, was in the area ofagriculture extension. In terms of dollars expended bycolleges and universities, the second largest area of concernwas the disadvantaged, followed by multi-purpose pro-grams, a category which overlaps considerably with thedisadvantaged. The entire distribution.is as follows:

PROGRAM CLIENTELE

The term "program clientele" applies to the person,institution or group, identified in each of the 143 programdescriptions. This term is related to but not synonomouswith program purpose. For example, the purpose of twoprograms may be to serve public health needs. In oneprogram this might be done through fellowships for medicalpersonnel, in which case the clientele would be "healthprofessionals." In the second program, public healthpurposes might be served through university researchapplication to community needs. In the case of the latter,the clientele would be "universities and colleges."

More than two-thirds of the total funds expended aredirected to two groups of clientele, State and localgovernments and the disadvantaged. Although a largenumber of programs is intended to benefit colleges anduniversities, the actual expenditure of funds directlysupporting academic institutions is less than 10% of thetotal.

Since research application encompasses a wide rangeof activity, the 48 programs were sub-divided into four

. categories in an attempt to convey more concretely thenature of Federal support: cooperative extension, demon-stration programs, primary focus on research and advisoryservices.

THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICEMODEL

The Cooperative Extension method is the oldest andmost successful means of conveying research result3 tousers. Seventeen of the 48 programs are either fundedthrough the Cooperative Extension structure or one whichis similar. Those programs account for a total expenditureof $151,617,000 for extension purposes.

Purpose NumberTotal FederalExpenditure

Funds Expendedby Colleges

and Universities

Educational Personnel Development 0 0 0

Public Health 3 $ 81,296,000 $ 43,985,000

Vocational Education 1 25,000,000 5,000,000

Miscellaneous Education for the General Public 0 0 0

Veterans Education 0 0 0

Agricultural Production and Rural Life 13 134,543,000 134,543,000

Community Problems:

a. Environmental Problems 10 43,135,000 24,642,000b. Problems of the Disadvantaged 5 1,302,116,000 82,669,000c. Critneilhd Delinquency 5 45,987,000 12,896,000d. Multi-Purpose 11 397,496,000 53,606,000

48 $2,029,573,000 $357,341,000

43

Fromm Clientele Number Total FederalExpenditure

Funds Expendedby Colleges

and Universities

State ancl Local Governments 14 $ 155,506,000 $139,254,000Disadvantaged 11 1,694,895,000 133,995,000Universities and Colleges 11 36,762,000 20,951,000Qualified Professionals 8 64,300,000 18,702,000Health Professionals 2 77,123,000 43,453,000Miscellaneous Categories 2 987,000 987,000

48 $2,029,573,000 $357,342,000.

Distribution of programs by purpose, clientele andagency is predictable. Four of the 17 extension programsare directed to the improvement of the environment, andthe remainder are concerned with agricultural extension. Byprogram clientele, 11 of the programs are directed to Stateand local governments, four to colleges and universities, andtwo to the general public. The Department of Agriculturehas the largest group of programs, 10, while the Depart-ment of Commerce and the Tennessee Valley Authorityeach has two, and three are funded through the Departmentof the Interior. Only two of these programs are of recentorigin, Sea Grant Project and Sea Grant InstitutionalSupport, and those programs account for less than$9,000,000 in expenditures.

DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS ANDCOMBINED ACTIVITIES

Thirteen programs stressed university involvement indemonstration projects, experimental efforts, or in pro-grams which combined training and research efforts. Thegreat majority of these programs permitted competitionbetween universities and other non-profit institutions forreceipt of funds. An example is the Emergency Food andMedical Services Program, funded through the Office ofEconomic Opportunity. Five grants and contracts out of 42were made to universities and colleges for projects rangingfrom a Statewide nutrition education advertising campaignin New Mexico to a vegetable production* co-op inMississippi. Total Federal expenditures for the 13 programswere $509,311,000; an estimated figure for college anduniversity-based programs was $114,640,000, or slightlymore than 20%.

The table on Purpose and Clientele suggests the heavydependence on universities and colleges to develop solu-tions for community problems and the disadvantaged.However, in contrast to those programs discussed in theprevious section, there seems to be no clear policygoverning university involvement and no attempts todevelop institutional capability in appropriate areas.Rather, a number of different Federal agencies are involved,and the involvement of colleges and universities isperipheral to the major program purposes in terms ofdollars expended.

44

Distribution by Agency

Agency Number


Otfice of Economic Opportunity 3Environmental Protection Agency 2Department of Housing and Urban

Development 1

Department of JusticeNational Science Foundation 1

13

Distribution by Purpose and Clientele

Purpose Number

Community Problems

a. Multi-Purpose 5b. Problems of the Disadvantaged 1

c. Environmental Problems 2d. Crime and Delinquency 2

Public Health 3

13

Clientele Number

The Disadvantaged 7

Qualified Professionals 3

Health Professionals 1

State and Local Governments 1

Universities and Colleges 1

FOCUS ON RESEARCH

This category of programs is similar to the categorypreviously discussed in that universities and colleges are notthe primary recipients of funds dispersed. Total Federalexpenditures of the 13 programs in this section were $73,536,000, with an estimated $22,380,000 supporting re-

Distribution by Agency

Agency Number


Department of Housing and Urban. Development 3

Department of Justice 2Environmental Protection Agency 2

Department of Agriculture 1

Department of Labor 1

National Foundation on the Arts andthe Humanities 1

13

Distribution byTrogram Purpose and Clientele

Purpose Number

Community Problems

a. Multi-Purpose 5

b. Disadvantaged 2

c. Environmental Problems 3

d. Crime and Delinquency 2

Vocational Education 1

13

Clientele Number

Universities and Colleges 6

Qualified Professionals 5

The Disadvantaged I

Health Professionals 1

13

search in higher education institutions. Programs in thiscategory have some extension components or they relatetheir research activities to specific community problems.

ADVISORY SERI/IVES

Finally, there are a number of programs which makeonly minimal use of the resources of colleges anduniversities. In these cases, universities are used primarilyfor evaluation of larger programs or to perform otherlimited advisory services. Total Federal expenditures onthese five programs were $1,295,109,000, with an esti-mated $68,705,000 supporting activities carried on bycolleges and universities. By agency, four of these programswere funded through the Department of Health, Educationand Welfare and one was funded through the Environ-mental Protection Agency. By purpose, all were concernedwith community problems. The clientele of three of theprograms was the disadvantaged, and two served State andlocal governments.

SUMMARY

A recurrent theme of this study has been the lack ofoverall policy governing the relationships between theFederal Government and the university. This lack of policyis most clearly evident in an analysis of programs concernedwith research application. Slightly less than half of the totalfigure for research application is spent on programs whichoperate through the Cooperating Extension structure, themost successful American method developed for conveyingresearch results to users. However, only two of theprograms of that total are of recent origin and none isoriented toward the disadvantaged or urban problems, twoareas of immediate concern.

Instead there is a proliferation of pro4(operatedthrough a wide variety of Government agencies, many ofwhich grant funds for demonstration projects which haveno sequels or which fund research efforts which have onlyminimal impact on potential users. Few of these programsexhibit a commitment to developing institutional capacityto transmit research results or a focus on the specialproblems of extension. 0

45

Table 8. Analysis of Instructional Service Programs (95) by Program Purpose

ROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT (36)

AGENCY: Department of Health, Education and Welfare(23)

Office of Education (22)

PROGRAM: Adult Basic EducationCivil Rights Technical Assistance and

TrainingEducational Classroom Personnel Training

3asic StudiesEducational Classroom Personnel Training

Special Education (Handicapped)Educational Personnel Training Grants

Career OpportunitiesEducational Personnel Training Drug

Abuse EducationEducational Classroom Personnel Training:

Early ChildhoodEducational Personnel Development

Media Specialists ProgramEducational Personnel Development Pupil

Personnel SpecialistsEducational Staff Training School

Personnel UtilizationEducational Staff Training Teacher

Leadership DevelopmentEducational Classroom Personnel Training

Teacher Development for DesegregatingSchools

Educationally Deprived Children Handi-capped

Educationally Deprived Children in Institu-tions for Neglected or DelinquentChildren

Handicapped Physical Education andRecreation Training

Handicapped Teacher EducationHigher Education Personnel Development

Institutes, Short-term Training Programs

Pre-School Elementary and SecondaryPersonnel Development Grants toStates

Teacher Corps Operations and TrainingTraining of Teacher TrainersVocational Education Personnel Develop-

ment Awards

Vocational Education Personnel Develop-ment Professional PersonnelDevelopment for States

Social and Rehabilitation Service (1)

Child Welfare Training

AGENCY: Atomic Energy Commission (4)PROGRAM: Nuclear Education and Training Faculty

Research ParticipationNuclear Education and Training Faculty

Student ConferencesNuclear Education and Training Faculty

Training institutesNuclear Education and Training Faculty

Workshops

AGENCY: National Science Foundation (9)PROGRAM: Academic Year Institutes for Secondary

School TeachersAdvanced Training Projects (Advanced

Science Education Program)Cooperative College School Science

ProgramCoope:ative Projects for Two-Year CollegesIn-Service Institute for Secondary School

TeachersResearch Participation for College TeachersShort Courses for College TeachersSummer Institutes for College TeachersSummer Institutes and Short Courses for

Secondary School Teachers

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: PUBLIC HEALTH (PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT ANDCOMMUNITY SERVICES) (19)

AGENCY: Department of Health, Education andWelfare (18)

Health Services and Mental Health Admin-istration (4)

PROGRAM: Comprehensive Health Planning Training,Studies and Demonstration

Mental Health FellowshipsHealth Services Research and Development

Fellowships and Training .

Mental Health Training Grants

National Institutes of Health (14)

Allied Health Professions DevelopmentGrants

Child Health and Human DevelopmentFellowships

Communicable Diseases Training PublicHealth Workers

Dental Health Continuing EducationTraining Grants

Dental Health FellowshipsDental Health Research GrantsGeneral Medical Sciences FellowshipsNurse TraineeshipsNurse Training Special Project GrantsOccupational Safety and Health Training

Grants

Project Grants for Public Health TrainingPublic Health Traineeship Grants3pecia' r ellowships in Nursing ResearchNursing Research Training Grants

AGENCY: Office of Economic Opportunity (1)PROGRAM: Comprehensive Health Services

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION (7)

AGE: ICY: Department of Heal!!! Education andWelfare (5)National Institutes of Health (1)

PROGRAM: Physician and Allied Health ManpowerResearch Grants


Library Training GrantsVocational Education Consumer and

Homemaking


New Career Opportunities for the Handi-capped

New Career Opportunities in VocationalRehabilitation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (1)PROGRAM: Radiological Health Training Grants

AGENCY: Office of Economic Opportunity (1)PROGRAM: Alcoholism Counseling and Recovery

(Training and Technical Assistance)

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: MISCELLANEOUS EDUCATION FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC (9)

AGENCY: Department of Defense ( 1)PROGRAM: Civil Defense Training and Education

AGENCY: Department of Health Education andWelfare (2)


PROGRAM: Educational Broadcasting Facilities

Health Services and Mental Health Ad-ministration (1)

Emergency Health Community Prepared-ness

AGENCY: Atomic Energy Commission (3)PROGRAM: Nuclear Education and Training Operation

AGENCY:PROGRAM:

AGENC.PROGRAL.:

AGENCY:PROGRAM:

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: VETERAN'S EDUCATION (3)

AGENCY: Veterans Administration (3)PROGRAM: Dependents' Educational Assistance

Veterans Educational Assistance

of Courses, Oak Ridge AssociatedUniversities

Nuclear Materials Safeguards TrainingUranium Industry Workshops

National Endowment for the Arts (1)Promotion of the Arts State and

Community Operations

National Endowment for the Humanities ( 1 )Promotion of the Humanities Public

Programs

National Science Foundation ( 1)Public Understanding of Science

Vocational Rehabilitation for DisabledVeterans

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: COMMUNITY PROBLEMS ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS (5)


Environmental Health Service (1)

PROGRAM: Community Environmental ManagementTraining Grants

National Institutes of Health (2)

Environmental Health Sciences Fellow-

AGENCY:PROGRAM:

ships and Research Career DevelopmentAwards

Environmental Health Sciences TrainingGrants

Environmental Protection Agency (2)Water Pollution Control Research Fellow-

shipsWater Pollution Control Training ,;rants

47

PROGRAM A

AGENCY:

PROGRAM:

PROGR

AGENC

PRO

DRESSED TO: COMMUNITY PROBLEMS PROBLEMS OF THEDISADVANTAGED (5)

Department of Health, Education andWelfare (3)


Follow Through


Public Assistance Staff DevelopmentFormula Grants to States

Rehabilitation Training

AGENCY: Department of Labor (1)PROGRAM: Public Service Careers

AGENCY: Office of Economic Opportunity (1)PROGRAM: Legal Services

AM ADDRESSED TO: COMMUNITY PROBLEMS CRIME AND DELINQUENCY (4)

Y: Department of Health, Education andWelfare (3)


'KAM: Juvenile Delinquency Prevention andControl Model Programs and TechnicalAssistance

Juvenile Delinquency Prevention andControl Training

Juvenile Delinquency Planning, Preventionand Rehabilitation

AGENCY: Department of Justice (1)

Law Enf"tc.sinent Assistance Administra-tion (, )

PROGRAM: 'Law Enforcement Education ProgramStudent Financial Aid

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: COMMUNITY PROBLEMS MULTI-PURPOSE (7)



PROGRAM: Community Service and ContinuingEducation


Aging Grants for State and CommunityPrograms on Aging

AGENCY: Depanment-of Housing and Urban Develop-ment j3)

48

PROGRAM: COmprehensiv,.: Planning AssistanceCommunity Development Training GrantsCity Planning and Urban Studies Fellowships

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (1)PROGRAM: Urban Mass Transportation Managerial

Training Grants

AGENCY: National Science Foundation ()PROGRAM: Post-doctoral and Senior Post-doctoral

Felloviships

Table 9. Analysis of Research Application Programs (48) by Program Purpose

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: PUBLIC HEALTH (PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT ANDCOMMUNITY SERVICES) (3)

AGENCY: Department of Health, Education andWelfare (1 )


PROGRAM: Regional Medical Programs Operational

and Planning Grants

AGENCY: Office of Economic Opportunity (2)PROGRAM: Emergency Food and Medical Services

Family Planning

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ( I)

AGENCY: Department of Labor (1) PROGRAM: Research and Development Program

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND RURAL 'LIFE (13)

AGENCY: Department of Agriculture (10)PROGRAM: Expanded Food and Nutrition Program

Extension Programs for Assisting in Com-munity Development

Extension Programs for Forestry Productionand Marketing

Extension Programs for Improved FamilyLiving

Extension Programs for Improved FarmIncome

Extension Programs for Marketing andDistribution

Extension Programs for Pesticides Safetyand Rural Civil Defense

Extension Programs for Recreation, Wildlifeand Natural Beauty

Extension Programs for Soil and Water Con-servation

Four-H Youth Development

AGENCY: Department of Interior (1)PROGRAM: Agricultural Extension Services

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (2)PROGRAM: Agricultural Development in the Tennessee

Valley--Fertilizer Introduction Farm Test

Demonstration

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: COMMUNITY PROBLEMS ENVIRONMENTALPROBLEMS (10)

AGENCY:PROGRAM:

Department of Commerce (2)Sea Grant Institutional SupportSea Grant Project Support

AGENCY: Department of Health, Education andWelfare (1

PROGRAM: Community Environmental ManagementResearch Grants

AGENCY: Department of Interior (2)PROGRAM: Water Resources Research Assistance

to States for Institutes

Water Resources Research MatchingGrants to State Institutes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (5)PROGRAM: Air Pollution Research Grants

Air Pollution Survey and DemonstrationGrants

Solid Waste Demonstration GrantsSolid Waste Research GrantsWater Pollution Control, State and Interstate

Program Grants

49

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: COMMUNITY PROBLEMS THE DISADVANTAGED (5)



PROGRAM: Adult Basic Education Special ProjectsEducationally Deprived Children Local

Educational 4gencies

Educationally Deprived Children MigrantsHandicapped Physical Education and

Recreation Research

Social and Rehabilitation Services (1)

Rehabilitation Research and DemonstrationGrants

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: COMMUNITY PROBLEMS CRIME AND DELINQUENCY (5)

AGENCY: Department of Justice (5)

PROGRAM: Law Enforcement Assistance DiscretionaryGrants

Law Enforcement Assistance Improvingand Strengthening Law Enforcement

Law Enforcement Research and Develop-ment Pilot Grants

Law Enforcement Research and Develop-ment Project Grants

Law Enforcement Research and Develop-ment Visiting Fellowships

PROGRAM ADDRESSED TO: COMMUNITY PROBLEMS MUITI-PURPOSE (11)



PROGRAM: Nutrition


Aging Research and DemonstrationGrants

Child Welfare Research and DemonstrationGrants

Rehabilitation Research and TrainingGrants

AGENCY: Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (3)

PROGRAM: Comprehensive Planning Research andDemonstration

50

Model Cities Supplementary GrantsUrban Renewal Demonstration Programs

AGENCY: Department of Interior (1)PROGRAM: Cooperative Research Program

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts (1)PROGRAM: Promotion of the Arts Architecture,

Planning and Design1

4

AGENCY: National Science Foundation (1)PROGRAM: Intergovernmental Science Program

AGENCY: Office of Economic Opportunity (1 )PROGRAM: Planning, Research, Evaluation and

Program Development

4

,.....gAt.,20,4.......e.4A4:4e.-.11." (^44.614166740;4W W.,.,..14 414,iIlela,.404[1,-.0

With the staff and financial resources available, athorough review of each of the 143 programs on which datawere gathered was beyond our means. Consequently,reviews in depth were made only on a selective basis,through a series of case studies.

The approach-and methodology in these case studiesvary. Some cases present concrete and explicit detail aboutthe operation of a particular program at a given university;others trace the historical development of the govern-ment's support of a social goal; and some consider broadissues of program formulation and administration.

In choosing programs and program areas for moredetailed inquiry, we were guided by several criteria: (I) thesize of the program or program area within the totalFederal effort in extension and continuing education;(2) the extent to which a program represents an importantattempt to use higher continuing education resources toserve national objectives; (3) the need to select programsaddressed to a variety of different societal purposes, and(4) the need to examine differing forms of funding,organization and program administration.

In line with these criteria, we selected for moredetailed examination nine programs or program areas whichare representative of most of the 143 programs included inour review.

For example, 36 programs deal with the program areaof professional development of teachers. Here we sought totreat continuing education for teachers as a single objective,comprised of multiple programs established at differenttimes for-varying purposes.

Educational programs for veterans are of bothhistoric and current importance; therefore the operation bythe Veterans Administration of the three programs whichcomprise the "G.I.Bill" was selected for intensive examina-tion.

Similarly, Agricultural Extension was the forerunnerof Federally funded continuing edtication activity and hasshaped the development of the American university inunique and significant ways; hence a study of the tenprograms of the Cooperative Extension Service is included.

INTRODUCTION

This case study seeks to convey the magnitude, diversityand coordination of effort involved in Cooperative Exten-sion and its relevance to American society today.

Twenty-three individual programs concentrate oncontinuing education and training for persons in medicineand public health. The range and variety of these programsare such that they do not lend themselves to a consolidatedscheme of analysis. Consequently, we selected one major,representative program within the health field (RegionalMedical Program) for thorough review and analysis.

Similarly, we were interested in new programs whichseek to develop workable models which i,,:mbine asophisticated scientific research effort with the means forextending this research to the public at large or to a specialclientele. As a result, a case study of the Sea Grant Programwas made.

Ten programs serve the disadvantaged directly orindirectly. Among these we selected for detailed study theagal Services Program which uses universities in anoperational role as agents of social change. The difficultiesinvolved in such use of university resources apply also to avariety of other programs in which political sensitivity andthe value-laden nature of the university's involvementcreate special problems and raise important questions.

Among the various programs included in this studyare nine which deal with crime and delinquency. The largestand most important of theta is the Law EnforcementAssistance Act which seeks to draw upon universityresources in important, supportive mays; hence a study ofthe operation of this Act, focusing on university involve-ment, is included.

In view of this Council's explicit statutory relation-ship to the Community Services Program established underTitle I of the Higher Education Act, and also because thisprogram exemplifies the kinds of university involvementwith which our whole study deals, we haye given separatefocus and treatment to this key program. And finally,'wehave given some specific attention and focus to those eleven

53

Federally supported continuing education programs op-timed directly by Federal agencies, rather than throughuniversities.

Throughout the text, we have concentrated ondescribing what exists and on identifying major issues and

54

problems in ways which might provide a basis from whichto draw conclusions and upon which to make recommenda-tions. For the most part, however, we have consciouslyrefrained from including within the narrative specificrecommendations for changes in law, policy or practice. 0

The Cooperative Extension Service of the Depart-ment of Agriculture was founded in 1914. Thecircumstances which made its beginning possible, however,might be traced further back to 1862, when the Congressenacted into law two bills which were to affect profoundlyAmerican education and American life. Despite theimmediacy of the Civil War, Congress assured the long-termneeds of the nation, first, by the passage of the Morrill Act,and second, by passage of a bill which established theDepartment of Agriculture.

The Morrill Act and what it set in motion is a familiar_story to American educators. To this day the A.t isconsidered a seminal effort on the part of the Fedeialgovernment to establish a policy toward higher education.By releasing to the States large tracts of the public domainfor the establishment of agricultural and mechanicalschools, the Morrill Act underscored the central role thatthe States would play in the administration of educationalactivities, and the Federal government's obligation tosupport such a role.

Provisions were made for at least one such institutionin each State. In 1890 the Act was amended to providefunds for each of these institutions, and to provide fundsalso to the so-called 1890 collegessixteen predominantlyblack colleges plus Tuskegee Institute. (Federal CityCollege in Washington, D. C. was subsequently added tothis list.)

These "land grant" colleges are a unique Americanexpression of a determination to use knowledge forpractical ends. From the beginning, it was understood by allthat these colleges would not be like the largely private,sectarian and traditionally oriented schools that thendominated American higher education. These collegeswould be technically and vocationally oriented, and wouldaddress themselves to the problems of the present. Theywould seek to provide basic occupational services to theStates and communities and, in so doing, open the doors ofhigher education for the first time to the sons anddaughters of the working classes.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION

The land grant colleges offered a service. That servicewas an attempt to apply the "useful and pract' 1

information" developed at the State experimental static asto problems which werT of concern to individuals andcommunities. At the . iime these developments wereoccurring, America was e entially an agricultural and ruralsociety, and Americans a argely farm-oriented people. It isnot surprising, therefore, that when a major breakthroughoccurred involving a sound method of extension education,the method involved the coupling of resources by theFederal Department of Agriculture, the States and the landgrant colleges.

The Extension Service of the Department of Agri-culture evolved in the Smith-Lever Act as a response to theurgent problems created by an inefficient and under-productive agricultural industry and an underdevelopedrural life. It responded also to the legitimate needs of thenation's single largest group of under-privileged citizens: thefarmers, their families and their communities.

A key to the success of this experiment is thevoluntary cooperation of those who participate in it. Littleeffort is made to pressure the farmer or the ruralcommunities into accepting this or that agriculturalpractice. In keeping with a history of voluntary coop-eration, propagation is by practical instruction, persuasionand demonstration. If it can be demonstrated to the farmerthat one means of cultivation is superior and moreprofitable than another, that, it is felt, is all that canreasonably be done to convince him that it is in his ownbest interests to adopt such a practice. This assumptionapplies also to homemakers, youth programs, communityactivities and the rural industries and consumers.

Money, privilege and prestige are not used as

inducements in the Cooperative Extension Service. Practicalknowledge is. Because the effectiveness of the informationthe farmers and others sought could be demonstrated tothem, and because also there was a relatively minimal gapbetween the time the educational process began and whenit paid toff, the Extension Services' "delivery system" was

quick to establish a wide credibility among rural individualsand communities.

The Service has another considerable advantageworking to its benefit. It is apolitical. The Service hastraditionally been successful in removing itself from politicsand partisanship. This is possible for two reasons: first,Congress identified the land grant universities and notpolitical units of the State governments as the centers forextension activities; and, second, a highly effective methodwas chosen to channel funds to these institutions.

3y tying the Extension Service to the university, theCongress wisely separated it from the uncertainties ofpartisan politics, and guaranteed to it the stability of theuniversity environment and the proximity the Serviceneeded to the resources upon which its entire effortdepended.

Of equal importance to the choice of location for theCooperative Extension Service was the means established tofund it. The means selected is called "formula granting," apopular method of funding by which many ongoingprograms of the Federal government are supported. In thecase of the Extension Service, the formula is based on thefollowing: the base amount of what is available, pluswhatever increases are allocated in a given year, distributedas follows: 4% reserved for the adminiitration of theprogram and the provision of technical assistance to theStates; 20% distributed to each _State in equal amounts;40% to each State accoruing to its farm population; and theremaining amounts to each State according to its maipopulation (i.e., communities with less than 2,500 popula-tion).

'The Congress may occasionally stipulate that certaindollar contributions to the program initiated by the Federalgovernment should be matched in dollars or services by theStates. As a consequence, it has been estimated that inrecent years the annual Federal contribution to the regularongoing programs has been averaging approximately 40%,with an additional 40% contributed by the State govern-ments, and the remaining 20% contributed primarily bycountry governments.

In FY 1970, for instance, the Federal contribution tothe program amounted to $112,720,000, or 39% of thetotal expenditure. Dollars contributed from within-Statesources amounted to $178,000,000, of which$119,115,000, or 41%, was appropriated by the Stategovernments.

The formula grant process has many advantages overthe more common "project grant" method of fundingprograms. The major advantage of the formula grantprocess is the guarantee it provides for funding on along-term basis. In the case of the Extension Service, fundsare released to the States upon annual submission andapproval of State Plans. With the exception of occasionswhere there are major changes in State Plans, these Plans donot have to be approved again in order for any State toreceive funds during any subsequent fiscal year.

Because a certain level of funding is assured over anextended period of time, both long- and short-term

56

objectives can be identified; planning activities can takeplace accordingly; extension and university staffing candevelop on a more stable basis; and, in general, the Servicecan operate with the assurance that there stands behind itthe dollar support of the Federal, State and localgovernments.

Another key to the effectiveness of The ExtensionService is the mechanism which was developed to admin-ister it. On paper this mechanism, or "delivery system,"appears well-structured and Simple. In real terms, however,the system involves a massive effort to educate millions ofAmericans outside the traditional confines of the univer-sity. It combines the resources of Federal and Stategovernments and the land grant universities in a compre-hensive approach to a solution of local and regionalproblems. The undertaking itself rests on the cooperationof all those who participate in it. Without the cooperationof these thousands of unpaid volunteers, it is inconceivablethat the Cooperative Extension Service could ever havesucceeded in rallying the resources it has to solve individualand community problems.

The Federal contribution to the Service is large interms of dollars and small in terms of staff. In FY 1970 thenational office consisted of about one hundred professionalemployees. This staff has two main functions: first, toprovide the only coordinating unit to the nationwideextension effort; and, second, to provide to those indi-viduals cooperating in the program technical and manage-ment information that will assist them in the administrationof State and local programs.

The staff is divided into the four basic program unitsof the Extension Service: Agriculture and Natural Re-sources; Community (Rural) Resources Development; 4-HYouth programs; and Home Economics. A fifth unit is theOffice of International Extension, funded by the Agencyfor International Development, which carries out theUnited States' assistance to extension services in othercountries.

The national office staff does not provide subjectmatter information to the field. This information is

available 'More readily at the local and regional level, wherecounty and area agents have direct access to the university-based research centers. What the national office doesprovide is the kind of current information that results fromhaving an overview of State programs and projects, andfrom the unit's visibility and recognition as a central sourceand distributor of information about extension activities.Together these allow the national office to initiate thekinds of national programs that are essential in helping theStates to establish flexible program-building efforts in avariety of circumstances.

The full dimensions of extension activity, hbwever,are more clearly evident at the local and regional levels.There, 16,000 professional workers, 10,000 support staff,11,000 program aides (for the new nutrition program), andover one million' unpaid volunteers cooperate in imple-menting the objectives of the Extension Service.

f

a

The historical key to this network of manpower is thecounty agent. In FY 1970 there were approximately16,000 of these agents operating in virtually every countyin the nation. These agents work in three-man units, witheach unit consisting generally of an agriculturist, a homeeconomist and a youth worker. In the past, the agent'sprimary role was that of teacher and catalyst. In this wayhe carried out the function of the Extension Service as theeducational arm of the Department of Agriculture. His taskwas to bring to the farmer, related industries, or theindividual living in the rural area, the information needed tooperate more efficiently and profitably. In turn, theaccumulation of information that the agent received wasinstrumental in helping the agent define his educationalrole, identify and clarify new problem areas, and relay thisinformation to other agents and State extension directorsand to State-wide, university-based, subject-matterspecialists.

The role of the county agent has changed substan-tially in recent years. The change has occurred for severalreasons, but mainly because the agents no longer have thetraining and ability to handle the increasingly complexinformation that is available to them. In addition,agricultural practices are becoming more sophisticated andmulti-disciplinary; agricultural and community problemsare more regional in nature; and solutions to these problemsless easily demonstrated. The sheer bulk of this informationraises the question, consequently, of not only the educationof the county agent but more importantly the question ofhis reeducation.

Because the county agent no longer has readily athand the kinds of special information needed to servicelocal needs, adjustments have been made within thestructure of the Extension Service to put the county agentin touch with those individuals who do. Consequently, asthe county agent becomes more of a generalist in hisdistribution of information, he is joined in his efforts by asecond group of individuals who are specialists.

These subject matter specialists are individuals asso-ciated with the State extension services and the land grantuniversities. Together, these individuals comprise a relative-ly new group-of men on the Cooperative Extension Servicecalled "area agents." In effect, what these new area agentsare doing is cooperating with the county agents in providingmore immediate assistance to the solution of relevantproblems.

To adjust to this fact, the county agent's role hasaltered appreciably. He remains central to the effectiveoperation of the Extension Service, but central to it in anew way. Whereas he was once identified as the primaryteacher, he is now also identified as the "contact" mantheprogram leader who establishes initial contact with indi-viduals and groups, identifies critical areas of concern, andwho then provides the occasion whereby the knowledge ofthe area agents and specialists can be applied to partial orwhole solution of those areas of concern.

The county agent is changing in another way as well.In the past, the typical county agent would likely have had

81-668 0 - 72 - 5

a background in home economics or agriculture. Today,however, the newer breed of county agent has a strongerbackground in management, economics, public administra-tion and the political and social sciences. These disciplinesreflect both the shifting priorities of the Extension Serviceand the constant need to retrain agents and specialists andprovide them with more current information. The pressurefor retraining is constant and results in more advancedacademic degrees and broader educational backgrounds.

Salaries for the county agents are established by theindividual States. In FY 1970, the range of salariesextended from a high in California of $19,300 to lows of$7,690 in Puerto Rico and $10,190 in Montana respec-tively. In addition to the disparity of salaries (much ofwhich is justified by geographic considerations) and thecomparatively low level of financial rewards, a considerablenumber of agents are additionally subject to low profes-sional regard among full-time academic personnel at theuniversity, among whom it is common to- disregard otherthan clearly academic achievements.

Professional recognition is one concern; professionaladvancement is another. "Upward mobility" is as much aconcern among agents and others working in extension as itis among those outside the field. Unfortunately for theagent, the two institutions with which he works mostcloselythe university and the State governmentdo nothave the kinds and numbirof vacancies that would allowfor his systematic promotion. Emphasis, therefore, is onretraining the agent for the same responsibilities rather thanretraining him for new responsibilities. Some professionaladvancement is available, however, through the oppor-tunities provided to extension staff in industry, bUsinessand organizations related to agriculture and naturalresources.

Regardless of the professional abrasions which mayaffect them, the county and area agents remain thefoundation upon which so much in the Extension Servicedepends. The series of contacts, of personal exchanges,which characterize their roles contributes to extensionwork the same_ elements of personal trust and confidencethat characterize other more esteemed professions.

It is this strain of "personalism" that offers theprogram a degree of credibility among its users that isdifficult to replace, either by machines, computers or themass media. In addition to knowing what information isneeded or shared, the individual cooperating in the programhas the advantage of knowing from whom he is receiving it.

An indication of the success of this basic approach isevident in the nutrition program which has been initiatedwithin the Extension Service. The Expanded Food andNutrition Education Program is designed to improve thedietary habits of low-income families, with a particularemphasis on reaching the low-income minority groups livingin urban (but non-metropolitan) areas.

There are several unique aspects of this programwhich should be noted. First, the program moves theExtension Service systematically into the urban centers ofthe nation. Although it is true that the Extension Service

57

has always had some ongoing activities in urban areas, as a

rule these activities were limited. Second, the program for

the first time involves agents in a substantial way in the

training and use of sub-professionals. And third, the

program represents still another opportunity to explore and

to stimulate the use of adults and youth volunteers in all

phases of the program.The use of indigenous populations in the urban areas

as aides in the program _ is a major factor in its

implementation. It is unlikely that university staff would

ever receive the same kind of reception by inner-cityfamilies that these aides do. The aides, of whom there are

about 10,000, usually have had a minimal education

themselves. They are recruited through schools, churches,

community centers and community leaders. Each aide

receives an initial three-week training course in food

preparation, cooking, nutrition and teaching, and is then

assigned a list of families with whom he or she will work.

The county agent works closely with local health depart-

ments, social welfare agencies and Social Security offices in

identifying these families.As is true in all other extension activities of the

Service, participation in the program is voluntary. It was

started at the Federal level in November of 1969 with an

appropriation of $28,000,000, since increased to

$50,000,000. It evolved from an earlier 1960 Presidential

Task Force on Nutrition and was tested and demonstrated

for five years in Alabama.In a way, this nutrition effort can be seen as a major

new thrust of the Extension Service. It can also be seen as a

throwback to the way the Service has been operating for

years: the use of individuals operating on a cooperative and

person-to-person basis in the distribution and voluntary

acceptance of needed information. In short, the program is

a convincing indication that the Extension Service is still

able to respond to new challenges with tested methods.

Specialization is not as much of an issue with theExpanded Food and Nutrition Program as it is with other

programs. One consequence of this trend toward specializa-

tion, however, is the increased use it requires of university-

based extension specialists and researchers who are fre-

quently on split appointments. This specialization is already

evident in the evolution of the area agents. It is also evident

in the more extensive use made of other colleges anddepartments of the universities, and in the more complex

research these universities are called upon to provide.The university's major role in the Extension Service is

to provide a research base for it. Most of this research is

carried on at the one or more experimental field stations

which are attached to each land grant university and

operate in cooperation with the U. S. Department ofAgriculture. These field stations are physically detached

from the university and are conveniently located among the

communities of the State. In addition, the researchlaboratories of the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural

Research Service, the Forest Service and other U.S.D.A.

research efforts are located throughout the States andcooperate closely with State research activities.

58

The question which these field stations mustroutinely confront is: Is the research carried on by the

university the same research that is needed by thecommunity? And, how are research priorities established?

There are those who charge that, since the field

stations belong to the universities, first consideration

should be given to the research needs of the university.

Others insist that these field stations are engaged in too

much basic research and too little applied research. There

are those who say that it takes too long to transmit the

by-products of this research to the potential users, and that

when the transmittal occurs, -it occurs in language which is

too technical. And, finally, there are those who charge that

the research priorities reflect less and less the needs of the

small farmer and more and more the requirements of

agrobusiness industries and the commercial farmers.

The question of research priorities is a critical one for

the Cooperative Extension Service. Fortunately there exist

several methods for the exchange of information leading to

the formulation of such priorities. First, of course, is the

routine contacts the county and area agents have with

individuals and communities. Both of these agents work

closely with the local advisory and planning councils. These

councils are comprised of local small and commercialfarmers, agricultural business leaders, community leaders,

homemakers and others. A smiliar advisory and policy

council exists at the State level.Through formal and informal exchanges between

them and also through exchanges between the agents and

the State extension director, these councils are an effective

way of relaying from the local to the State level those

problem areas which are of current concern. In addition,

the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy

(ECOP) has been established to provide means by which

representatives of the State extension directors (three

directors from each of four geographic regions) can ct...

periodically with the Administrator of the ExtensionService and his staff. Recently the composition of this

twelve-man committee has been changed to allow broader

representation of State personnel other than State exten-

sion directors.In keeping with the Service's history of objectivity

and voluntary cooperation, there exists no strict means

other than Congressional ear-marking of funds to imple-

ment national priorities. Emphasis is placed upon per-

suasion and demonstration. The decision is left to the

States and communities as to whether it v.ould be to their

advantage to adopt and implement national priorities.

The universities respond to these priorities primarily

through their agricultural colleges and, on frequent .oc-

casions, through their colleges of forestry and homeeconomics. More important to the universities at the

present time is the increasing involvement of academic

resources outside these colleges, a tendency which reflectsthe expanding. nature of extension programs. There is

increasing demand for information concerning sound

management practices, better economic and business

policies, and an increasing use of social and political

scientists in the solution' of rural and farm problems. Inshort, the extension staff at the university now has lessdirect access to the desired academic resources than it hashad in the past.

The question, therefore, is whether the agriculturaland home economics colleges, as they are presentlycomposed, can continue to respond effectively to theshifting priorities of the Extension Service.

Another consequence of these shifting priorities is therole that individual decision- making has played in theService. Programs are being regionalized; the commercialfarmer is replacing the small farmer; recommended prac-tices are increasingly multi-purpose and multi-disciplinary;and community problems are becoming even more difficultto resolve. As a result, individual decision making, eventhough basic to all activities, is of less consequence than itonce was. More so than ever before, the decisions which arevital to communities are being made by larger and largergroups of individuals.

The Extension Service has the advantage of exper-ience in adjusting to these realities. There is no doubt it hasconsiderable grass roots support for its activities. It also hasaccess to local and State advisory councils and thecooperation of Federal, State and university staff. Togetherthese represent a formidable network of communicationand cooperation.

But there are many grave questions facing theCooperative Extension Service which will tax it and testhow far it can bend in adjusting to new responsibilities.Should it continue to assist the commercial farmer orshould it continue to assist the small farmer? Should it doless for both by concentrating on making greater efforts tocooperate with agricultural industrial interests in bringingabout sweeping changes to benefit all? Do the agriculturalcolleges still have sufficient resources to respond to ruralproblems? Are national priorities consistent with State andlocal priorities? Does the Extension Service have aresponsibility to the huge number of farmers who are"out-migrating" from the farm and rural areas? To theextent that such families are moving to the urban areas, arethese the people in the urban areas to whom the ExtensionService should address itself rather than to the low-incomeminority families? And insofar as the Service engagessubstantially in urban work for the first time, can itconvincingly divorce the nutrition program from all thoseother turbulent problems that affect and destroy thequality of our urban life?

The Extension Service has a history of practice. Itdoes not have a history of activism. Indeed, it has oftenindicated that it only responds to local and State needs.

Because the core of its program is safely protected by thesanctuaries provided by the universities, the Service exultsin its objectivity and neutrality toward the problems itseeks to confront.

Despite this neutral approach, critics maintain thatthe Service itself is basically an Establishment-orientedinstitution. It represents the middle-class virtures of amiddle-class rural population. It abhors controversy.

In the past, the information the Extension Service hasdisseminated to the public has been highly technical innaturethe appropriate product of scientific laboratoriesand field stations. As the Service becomes increasinglycomplex, however, and as it moves toward a moresubstantial involvement with urban affairs, do the problemsof the past remain as technical as they once were, or dothey too change? The service has a laudable history ofservice to individuals. Can it respond likewise to groups andcommunities in the same fashion, or does it run the risk ofcontinuing to provide largely technical responses toproblems which cut closely to the edges of humanemotions, expectations, apprehensions and suspicions?

If these are legitimate questions to ask, and if thesequestions give rise to various problems, the past record ofthe Cooperative Extension Service would indicate that thequestions can be answered and the problems solved.Cooperative Extension has unparalleled resources. It has thefull support of Federal, State and local government agenciesand of the land grant universities. What is more important,it has attracted the support of millions of individuals whohave voluntarily cooperated with the Service and who havebenefitted from it.

Cooperative Extension has established a unique andunduplicated system to relay and expand "useful knowl-edge." It is a system that has worked historically and hasgiven convincing evidence that it can adjust to con-temporary needs. Despite the immense size of the program,Cooperative Extension has also shown that a governmentwhich collects revenues efficiently can efficiently dispersethem as well. It is difficult to believe that the programwould have had the success it has had if Congress hadchosen anything other that the "formula grants" method tofund it.

Cooperative Extension has credibility at a time whenother Federally supported programs leave people in-credulous. Its voluntary, apolitical and objective approachto the solution of problems, and the very personal mannerin which this approach occurs, has won for the Serviceconsiderable individual and community support. It is, afterall, unusual to have the Federal, State and local govern-ments and the universities represented to the public by asingle personan agentwhose name is known. 0

59

NATIONAL SEA GRANT PROGRAM:TWO APPROACHES TO EXTENSION SERVICES

The product of universities is knowledge. How tobring this knowledge to the community in a form which isresponsive and relevant is the basic pio)lem of communityservice programs. Numerous and complicated questionsconfront the university which attempts to use its resourcesto explore national issues and to provide communities withthe means of solving local problems. What administrativestructures best promote the flow of knowledge fromresearchers to users and encourage inter-disciplinary re-search? What techniques are most effective in marketingknowledge? How can the three functions of a universityteaching, research, and community servicesbe effectivelycoordinated? What special assets does the university have inter as of providing community services?

With a nominal budget of slightly less than$9,000,000 in FY 1970, the National Sea Grant Programhas attempted to deal with these questions by promotinginter-disciplinary researchonmarine affairs; combiningresearch, teaching and .acivisory services in each 'universityprogram; and experimenting with new ways of bringingresearch results to users. The successes and problems of thisprogram provide valuable data for an analysis of the mosteffective ways universities can provide community services.

Sea Grant Pi oject and Institutional Support Programsreprr :ent two of 15 Federal programs which fundcontinuing and extension education activities relevant toenvironm'ntal problems. During FY 70, these 15 programsaccounted for a total Federal expenditure of $52,530,000.Of the 143 programs reviewed in this study, only these twoare funded tlrough the Department of Commerce.

The National Sea Grant Program Act,signed by thePresident in 0,tober 1966, contains both old and newelements. The name was intended to suggest a parallel withthe Morrill Act of 1862 which involved universities in thedevelopment of the land and established the concept ofpublic service as a role of the American university. SeaGrant differs from the agricultural extension model in itsemphasis on the development of marine resources, thecombination of formula and project funding, and the widevariety in advisory service pragrams.

00

Institutions are eligible for four different kinds of SeaGrant support: Sea Grant Project Support, Coherent AreaProject Support, Seadesignation as a Seadesignated as Sea Co

rant Institutional Support, andCollege. Four universities wereleges in September 1971. Ten

universities were receiving over $6,900,000 in institutionalsupport; 10 Coherent Area Projects were funded at$2,600,000, and 33 universities have project grants totaling$3,300,000 in FY 1971. Designation as a Sea Collegerequires a major commitment by the institution to marineaffairs and demonstrated excellence as a recipient ofinstitutional support. Project support and Coherent AreaProject support often precede institutional support and canbe used as criteria for recipient of Sea Grant institutionalfunds. The net result is a program which combines theinstitutional flexibility characteristic of formula grants withthe Federal control over program direction which projectgrants provide.

The initiation of the Sea Grant program preceded byapproximately two years the publication of Our Nation andthe Sea, the report of the Commission on Marine Science,Engineering and Resources. Charged with the responsibilityof formulating a comprehensive, long-term national pro-gram for marine affairs, the Commission made a number ofrecommendations which were important iii shaping thefuture direction of the Sea Grant Program. Primary amongthese recommendations was the suggestion that a majornew civilian agency be established, the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Agency, which would be the principalinstrumentality within the Federal government for theAdministration of civil marine and atmospheric programs.In 1970, NOAA was established, although as an administra-tion within the Department of Commerce. The Sea GrantProgram was subsequently transferred to NOAA from theNational Science Foundation. Equally important was thecitation of the Sea Grant Program as a vehicle for supportof broad-based multi-disciplinary programs and for trainingfrom the technician to the post-doctoral level in all areasrelated to marine activities.

The program has three major components: research,graduate education arid technician training, and advisoryservices. Research money can more quickly be absorbedinto the current structure of most non-land grant univer-sities than can funds for advisory services which mayrequire new administrative structures and a reorientation inuniversity goals. In addition, it is necessary to develop abody of knowledge before effective extension activities canbe undertaken.

An analysis of the Sea Grant Program through April1, 1971 confirms this university focus on research; about69 percent of the Sea Grant funds are currently going intoresearch projects, about 18 percent into education andtechnician training and about 9 percent into extensionservices. A total of 72 projects funded at $1,425,721account for the extension services total. Plans call for theadvisory services percentage to rise from 9 percent toapproximately 20 percent in the next fiscal year.

Sea Grant Program legislation stresses that research isto be mission-oriented; program guidelines and the Federaland local officials all emphasize the importance of thepractical application of research results. In a ver; real sense,the success of the entire program depends on the strengthof the advisory services component, for it is by thattechnique that research results are conveyed to users.

Advisory services activities vary. Program staff havebeen involved in helping State agencies and industry s :.ivedifficult questions of power plant location and the use ofState-owned offshore lands. Specialists give advice toaqua-culturists and fishermen and work directly with theGovernor's office and legislature when appropriate. Aprogram funded through the University of Rhode Islandcoordinates all New England marine advisory programs, andthe staff of the Rhode Island program works directly with alocal fisherman's cooperative. See Grant 70's, a monthlydescription of advisory service activities, is published byTexas A. and M. University under a grant from the NationalScience Foundation. Nationally, over ninety separatebusinesses or corporations are involved with the Sea Grantprogram.

Size of staff and administrative sturctures foradvisory services also vary. Oregon State University has astaff of eleven, and the University of Michigan currently hasan advisory staff of one. Those two programs illustrate thevariety of ways the advisory service function can beinterpreted and operated and provide information on thediffering ways research results can be made available tousers.

Each advisory service program must be understood inthe context of the particular problems and needs of themarine personnel of that area. Nationally recognized as theleader in advisory services programs, the Marine AdvisoryProgram (MAP) at Oregon State University in Corvallisserves a State made up of small towns and small businesses.'The fishing industry, which comprises both fishermen andfish processing plants, consists primarily of small family-owned operations. There is a dependence on ttadition, alack of sophistication concerning new fishing techniques,

fiscal matters and modern management, and skepticism thatthere is much to be learned from "experts." Preliminaryresearch by Oregon State University suggests that manyfishermen would like to get out of the industry but they aretrapped by their indebtedness ind inability to planeffectively. A recurrent problem it ne conflict betweensports and commercial fishermen oncerning fishing rightsand entry to the harbors. And, fmally, Oregon is a Statewith strong sentiments against "newcomers" who will bringthe kind of development which produces urban, industrialproblems.

Prior to his new appointment, the Director of theMarine Advisory Program had many years experience withthe Cooperative Extension Service, and the AdvisoryProgram still operates administratively under.the Extension

. Service. The experience of Cooperative Extension has beencrucial in shaping this program. The Director and his staffspent the first year of operation focusing on the lengthyand tedious job of earning the trust of the fishermen andprocessors. Great emphasis is placed by all the staff on theimportance of meeting the needs which the users feel areimportant, rather than imposing research results uponthem. One staff member had great success persuading theprocessors of the potential value of the program bydemonstrating to them a simple device which tested theacidity of the water used in fish processing.

The staff follows the Cooperative Extension model ofinvolving users in program planning, and advisory commit-tees of fishermen will be or are active in each port or areaon the coast. A series of "Town Hall Meetings" has beenheld at various locations on the coast to acquaint fishermerwith new techniques and equipment and to hear theirproblems. During 1970, the third year of programoperation, over 500 fishermen were involved in educationalprograms in financial management. One member of thestaff concentrates on the development of new fishing gear;he claims that the success of his projects depends upon thedegree of involvement by fishermen in the planning stage.

Their role as university personnel rather than govern-ment officials and the confidence they have been able togenerate among fishermen and processors have enabled theMarine Advisory Program staff to play an important role interms of the enforcement of Federal regulations. Over adozen Federal and State agencies currently provideassistance to the fishing industry and/or enforce Federaland State regulations, and there is a great deal of distrusttowards employees, of these agencies. The Rivers andHarbors Act of 1898 requires that industry receive adischarge permit from the Army Corps of Engineers beforedischarging potentially harmful waste material into thewaters. When environmentalists began to use this Act toforce industry to lessen pollution, instructions were issuedto fish processors by the Army Corps of Engineers, workingjointly with the Environmental Protection Agency, on howto apply for a discharge permit. The instructions werehastily prepared; application forms were lengthy andcomplicated and revised at least once, and, little concernseemed to be given to the range in size and sophistication of

61

businesses in the fishing industry. The staff of the MAP,because they were not viewed as Federal officials, were ableto assist numerous owners of small processing plants tointerpret and comply with Federal regulations. No otheragency was available which had the same combination ofexpertise and acceptance by the fishing industry.

A second example of this role as an intermediarybetween the Federal government and the industry concernsa "Good Manufacturing Practice" issued by the Food andDrug Administration on "Hot Process Smoked Fish". Thispractice may eventually require a number of smallcompanies engaged in fish smoking to revise their practices,considerably. Although the regulation does not apply to themajority of smoking plants because those plants do not shipinter-state, it is expected that State regulatory agencies willeventually adopt a similar regulation. MAP staff currentlyare involved in planning workshops which will demonstrateto the owners of plants that a revision in smoking practiceswill produce a superior fish product. In this case, the MAPstaff will be able to promote the spirit of Federalregulations without actual statutory authority, complicatedenforcement procedures, and the inevitable attendanthostility between the government and the industry.

Oregon State University has also been active inencouraging cooperative relationships with other univer-sities and Federal agencies. The staff, working cooperativelywith the National vine Fisheries Service and NationalAeronautics and Space, Administration, implemented newways of predicting where Albacore tuna mild be caughtand initiated daily broadcasts to tuna fishermen. TheNational Marine Fisheries Service, which initially hadresponsibility for this activity, will now operate theprogram with modifications resulting, from their jointeffort.

A grant of $36,500 in Federal funds has beenreceived for Pacific Area Sea Grant Advisory Program(PASGAP), an organization which will develop extensioneducational projects that can 'best be handled on a regionalbasis. The director of the MAP at Oregon initiated thisprogram and will serve ai its director. Six universities,including one in Canada, will be involved as will theNational Marine Fisheries Service. An important-part of theporject is a talent-sharing arrangement whereby expertsfrom one university can be "borrowed" by anotheruniversity member of PASGAP.

Overall responsibility for the Sea Grant Program lieswith the Coordinator of Marine Science and TechnologyPrograms; his title suggests Oregon State University hasadopted coordination, rather than centralization, as amodel for governing the Sea Grant Program. The Coordi-nator reports to the Vice President for Research andGraduate Studies of the university and a Sea GrantCoordinating Committee, which is composed of twomembers each of the Schools, of Engineering, Agriculture,and Marine Science and a representative of the MAP. ThatCommittee reviews budget proposals from the three majorcomponents of the program, research, advisory services, andgraduate education and training. The MAP is actually

62

located administrttively within the Cooperative ExtensionService, and several staff members have joint appointmentswith the Service.

Several problems have resulted from this dependenceupon coordination as a means of operating a unified SeaGrant Program. There are complaints that research is notfocused on the direct needs of the fishing industry. Someconflicts between researchers, who generally are concernedwith long-term results and basic causes, and extensionpersonnel, who are eager to meet immediate needs, may beinevitable in any program. The' lack of a director with clearauthority, however, may exacerbate the problem by forcingboth groups to spend unnecessary time "lobbying" for theirparticular interests and may create a situation where fundsflow to the most persuasive spokesman or that section ofthe university which is best organized. At any rate,although the MAP has been able to draw on the talents ofseveral departments within the university, there has notbeen marked success in inter-disciplinary research, and, inparti4lar,) there has been little involvement of socialscientists:

More specifically, there is a problem of staffresponsibility. If revision of a Sea Grant project is desirable,there are no clear ways of making necessary staffre-assignments. In the Marine Advisory Program, theproblem of tenure for non-Cooperative Extension staff hasnot been resolved, and there seem to be no satisfactorypolicies for employees who are not directly responsibile toa university department. It should be noted that the SeaGrant Coordinating Committee at the university has itselfasked for an evaluation of the administration of theprogram and there have been recommendations that a moreunified, systems approach be developed for the programand more responsibility be granted to the director.

The experidae of the Marine Advisory Program atOregon State University does not provide simple orclear-cut answers for many of the major questionsconcerning community services. What their record doesconfirm, however, is the basic assumption that a nationalprogram must be flexible enough to respond to the uniqueneeds of a particular geographic area. In Oregon, the sizeand constituency of the fishing industry reqUire a Coop-erative Extension operation which stlesses recipient involve-ment and the,netessity for convincing users of the value ofthe program. Their experience also suggests that ifuniversity advisory service staff gain the confidence of usergroups, they can play a major role as mediator between thecommunity and the government and can also serve as avehicle for coordinating activities of Federal agencies anduniversities.

One tentative conclusion concerns administrativestructure. Although the close achniigetrative ties betweenthe Marine Advisory Program and the Cooperative Exten-sion Service may have been beneficial to MAP, the SeaGrant Program at Oregon does not have an administrativestructure which permits long-range, goal-oriented programplanning. Perhaps, to some extent, the high de2,10e of userparticipation and the flexibility and creativity of th. M .4P

require administrative independence and an ability torespond to immediate needs. If so, the experience of thisprogram suggests that large-scale mass participation in aprogram may be antithetical to progress towards a specificand prior defined goal.

In direct contrast to the experience at Oregon, thecommercial fishing industry in the Great Lakes area isneither large nor a major user group of advisory programservices. The Sea Grant Program located at the Universityof Michigan series a more densely populated area with agreater variety in industry and a more urban population.The program goal is described as "the definition ofconseauences of various alternatives in long-term develop-ment of water and land resources of the Great Lakes andthe presentation of the knowledge to society as a basis forrational choice".

Size of staff and activities performed by the MarineAdvisory Program also contrast sharply with those of theOregon program. Currently there is only one full-timemember of the Advisory Program staff; there are plans tohire an additional employee to serve as editor ofpublications. The Advisory Services Program has workedcooperatively with ENACT, a university-based environ-mental group and jointly sponsored a symposium on the"Future of the Great Lakes" as part of a university-wideteach-in on the environmental crisis. This program, how-eVer, has not stressed the wide-spread public contact of theOregon staff or the range in user groups served.

It may be said that MAP at Oregon is successful interms of outreach and-is now attempting to develop a moreunified program, and-the University of Michigan programhas stressed a systems analysis approach to Sea Grant fromits inception, perhaps to the detriment of out-reach. Eightfunctions of research in the program were explicitlydefined: 1) data acquisition; 2) system modeling; 3)definition of environmental tolerance; 4) definition of newconcept; 5) optimization on basis of multiple costs andbenefits; 6) evaluation of future social and economicbenefits; 7) evaluation of future technological inputs; and8) application of current knowledge and predictions todecision-making. Each proposed project is evaluated interms of its relationship to one or more of these functions.

Also in contrast to the program at Oregon StateUniversity is the administrative structure. Rather thanserving as Coordinator, the director has administrativecontrol over the program; he operates with the guidance ofthe Sea Grant Program Advisory Committee which consistsof 12 faculty members from participating departments andis chaired by the director. A Policy Committee, consistingof deans and vice-presidents of participating school: of theuniversity provides ciunsel on the proper relation of SeaGrant to the entire university. It should be noted, however,that the authority of this director does nr,1 extend tocontrol over tenure an,' promotions of Sea Grant personnel.A recurrent problem in the funding of new programs atuniversities is the inflexibility of faculty personnel policies.

The decision to do a pilot project of research onGrand Traverse Bay in Lake Michigan is an example of the

extent to which program direction is determined by explicitanalysis of progress towards stated goals. There had beendifficulty in deciding what were the most promising andnecessary topics to research in terms of the over-all goal ofproviding alteinatives for the development of the GreatLakes. It was felt that a study which encompassed on amicrocosmic scale the kinds of information necessary forthe total project would help clarify research direction.Typical of the approach at the University of Michigan wasthe clear delineation of goals of the pilot project: 1) obtainconcrete experience in coupling field research and systemsanalysis; 2) obtain experience in multi-disciplinary research;3) develop a methodology for working with state and localofficials; and 4) have a guide for further work.

Also, in contrast to the experience at Oregon State isthe considerable emphasis of the program on generatingmulti-disciplinary research. Over seven departments ofschools of the university are involved in the program; theyrange from the Department of Business Administration tothe Department of Zoology. This program has been able touse the talents of social scientists, and over half of theresearch budget is allocated to those areas.

Several factors seem to have been important inproducing this inter-disciplinary cooperation. The first isthe clear articulation of the goal of building a multi-disciplinary team for problem solving and the focusing ofresearch around functions, rather than subject matter areas.Secondly, is the development of a structure whichencourages communication among specialists in differentfields. Monthly meetings are held at which presentations aremade by researchers in each of the three major areas:socio-economic and political processes; chemical, biologicaland physical processes; and systems modeling. The Directorof the Sea Grant Program at NOAA also stresses theimportance of clear and evident support for the Sea GrantDirector, both from the university and the Washingtonoffice.

Since the ultimate result of this program will involvedecision - making by State and Federal officials, there havebeen numerous consultations with relevant officials in thearea. The director has discussed the program with thefollowing State agencies: Department of Natural Resources,Water Resources Commission, Water Development Service,the Attorney General cf Michigan, and the MichtanDepartment of Commerce. Ten Federal agencies have alsobeen consulted or involved in project planning.

Although a much greater quantity of informationflows to users from the MAP at Oregon State Universitythan from the one-man advisory staff at the University ofMichigan, in one sense the entire Michigan Sea GrantProgram is focussed on advisory services. It is significantthat one of the research projects at the University ofMichigan concerns the impact of scientific information onmiddle management in State agencies; research concerningthe most effective ways to provide advisory services is asbasic to this program as is research on marine affairs.

Certain obvious lessons are easily avavilable from theexperience of the Sea Grant Program. The techniques of the

63

Cooperative Extension Service in involving users in program

development are applicable in other fields. Universitypersonnel, if they gain the trust of the community, canfunction as valuable intermediaries between that com-munity and the government. Programs must have sufficient

flexibility to relate to local needs. The character of the usergroup must be considered in developing out-reach tech-niques. Program directors should have control of the rewardsystem which affects their staffs.

A number of other observations are, however, moreproblematical, inconclusive, and perhaps, more important.

No administrative structures have been developed whichsuccessfully combine a high degree of user participation andstrong, centralized control which is oriented towards aspecific goal. The Sea Grant Program does not suggestwhether such a combination is possible. A successfulmulti-disciplinary program is difficult to accomplish andmay require a degree of centralization which results in aloss of program flexibility. Perhaps the most valuable

lessons of the Sea Grant Program 7imply confirm the cliche

that administrative structures imply choices about programgoals. 0

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE TRAINING

OF TEACHERS AND EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL

In one form or another, the Federal government'scommitment to education goes back at least one hundredand eighty years. The government's commitment t a thetraining and retraining of teachers and educational per-sonnel, however, is a much more recent commitment andseriously evident only within the past two decades. Thehistory of legislation favorable to such actions as thedistribution of Federal lands in support of the establish-ment of educational institutions, particularly the agri-culturally and mechanically-oriented land grant colleges;school lunch and nutrition programs; vocational educationprograms; the educatio'n of veterans; and, more recently,school and library construction.

The concentration of Federal funds for such puiposeshas been a major factor in the advancement of education inthis country, This concentration, however, is noticeable forits relative lack of interest in either educational manpowerneeds or educational curricula reform. As a consequence,the Federal government has played no consistently signifi-cant role in educational reform. (School desegregationadecision of the courts and not of the legislative or executivebranches of governmentand the curricular changes insti-gated by the NSF institutes in various subject hatterdisciplines are major exceptions.)

This Federal inertia reinforces the strong convictionsof many, both in and outside of government, that such arole is inappropriate for the Federal government, and thateducational reform is essentially an inhouse matter foreducational institutions themselves. Others are equallyconvinced that the acceptance of Federal monies implierthe acceptance of some "accountability" for performancerendered. Occasionally, to resolve these two arguments, arationale is offered which states that the Federal govern-ment itself does not initiate educational reforms, but thatinstitutions which are recipients of Federal grants do.

This question has been debated for generations. It isonly recently that the consequences of the debate arebecoming more real and evident, now that tne Federalgovernment has made a decision to provide support to thetraining' and retraining of teachers and educational per-

sonnet. In large part, this decision evolved from years ofunchecked and unplanned expansion at all levels ofeducational activity. This expansion coincided with anequally impressive expansion of scientific and technologicalknowledgea knowledge*that increasingly has moved to thecenter of our national life and has been instrumental inaffecting national priorities and decisions.

Education, in short, is now a matter of nationalconcern. Teachers are now the largest single professionalgroup in the country. An individual living in the UnitedStates spends more time exposed to the educationalenvironment than he does to any other, with the singleexception of his family environment. Each year, thecombined total figure of the funds expended on educationat all levels by Federal, State and local governments movescloser to the figure spent by the Federal government ondefense. In FY 1970, the Department of Defense spent$77.7 billion on defense. In the same year, Federal, Stateand local governments spent $51.9 billion on schoolexpenditures, with an additional $17.6 billion spent byother sources. Of this $51.9 billion, the Federal governmentprovided $7.8 billion, most of it for elementary andsecondary education; the State governments $20.7 billion;and the local governments $23.4 billion.

Despite the relatively small sum contributed by theFederal government, what has developed over the past twodecades represents a major turning point in the Federalgovernment's relationship to American education. TheFederal goiiernmert is now actively engaged in supportingthe training and retraining of teachers and educationalpersonnel. It rn'ains less actively engaged in systematiccurricular innovation and planning, and is still reluctant toadmit to any consistent reform mission in education.

A movemer in that direction may be inevitable andunavoidable. To help improve the quality of education inthis country, the Congress first focussed its support on thephysical needs of the schools and the universities andcolleges. It later broadened that support to includeassistance to students, particularly veterans. Finding thisinsufficient, the Congress still further broadened its interest

65

to include support for teachers and, later, other educationalpersonnel. It is now moving toward enacting not onlylegislation which will affect the student, the teacher, andthe administrator, but also legislation which will providecomprehensive institutional aid to higher education as well.Developing simultaneously with this interest in compre-hensive aid is a complementary interest within the Office ofEducation toward problem-oriented, as opposed toprogram-oriented, Education Renewal Centers. It is ex-pected that these centers will also be comprehensive innature, and that they will be located in sites with highconcentrations of low-income and minority families.

There is a sequence to these events, but there is notalways, a consistent rationale for them. There arefour major and representative pieces of legislation whichhave involved the Federal government specifically in thetraining and retraining of teachers and educational per-sonnel. There are other Federal programs to support"educational leadership," but what the government identi-fies as educational leadership is not always clear. Leader.ship, in other words, may or may not include teachers.Regardless of this ambiguity, each of these four pieces oflegislation has appeared at a certain period of time in thepast twenty years, but information on how one piece oflegislation either resulted from previous legislation, orhelped to modify successive legislation, has never beenadequately documented.

The four pieces of legislation are as follows: theNational Science Foundation Act of 1950, and subsequentamendments; the National Defense Education Act of 1958,and subsequent amendments; the Higher Education Act of1965, and subsequent amendments; and, finally, theEducation Professions Development Act of 1967, anamendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965.

The passage of the Education Professions Develop-ment Act is by far the most far-reaching and all-inclusive ofthe four Acts, and the one which most seriously addressesitself to the task of educational personnel training andretraining. According to Public Law 90-35, the purpose ofthis Act is "... to coordinate, broaden, and strengthenprograms for the training and improvement of thequalifications of teachers and other educational personnelfor all levels of the American eudcational system so as toprovide a better foundation for meeting the critical needsof the Nation for personnel in these areas."

Before focussing on one program of this Act as anexample of a Federal effort for the continuing education ofteachers, (the Career Opportunities Program), it is appro-priate that a quick review be given here of some of themajor breakthroughs bad failures of the previous legislation.All these, in one way or another, affected the EducationProfessions Development- Act, the most recent piece oflegislation affecting the education of teachers. (Many of theEPDA programs are currently being reorganized or termi-nated, to be replaced eventually by as yet undefined newprograms.)

66

THP NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACT OF 1950

From the beginning, the programs begun at theNational Science Foundation were reseprch-oriented. Basicresearch was at the core of NSF activities in the same waythat applied research was at the core of the experimentalfield stations of the Department of Agriculture's ExtensionService, although in both cases each agency has beensubjected to substantial pressures to move it away from itsoriginal focus. Because the Foundation's emphasis was onresearch in the subject matter disciplines, and because onlya limited number of institutions had the facEities to carryout advanced research, the NSF programs early establisheda reputation for supporting activities at only a select groupof colleges and universities. This "elitest" trend has beenmodified in recent years as the Foundation has madeconscious efforts to broaden its support to include other,less affluent, institutions.

Teacher training was not an early priority of NSF. Ininstances when NSF officials had to make a choice betweenresearch and teacher training as a priority, teacher traininginvariably took second place. Nonetheless, NSF has alwaysrecognized that teacher training is a major area of concerff.',,,This concern was expressed first by the establishment oftraining programs for college teachers. These programs weresoon bypassed in size and number by similar programsestablished foi. the training and retraining of science andmathematics teachers at the secondary. level. In the firstyears of the National Science Foundation only a smallamount Of its funds Were earmarked for such purposes; butafter the Russian space achievements in the late fifties,NSF's entire budget increased substantially, with sizeableamounts of funds appropriated for teacher training. In1958-59, about $30 million was set aside for the training of..econdary school teachers and about $2.4 million forc...11ege teachers. This ratio of the distribution of fundscontinued throughout the next decade, so that in fiscal year1970, $33 million and $4.5 million were being spentrespectively on such programs.

One fact was unmistakably clear to NSF programstaff at the outset: the quality of teaching in the sciencesand mathematics at the secondary level was even lower thanhad been anticipated. Consequently, it was understood thatwhen time and resources became available, some means hadto be found to change this pattern of performance if theover-all quality of teaching in science and mathematics wasto be increased.

The solution adapted by NSF officials was one whichproved to be a major innovation in American education.The creation of "institutes" to transfer knowledge frommajor research centers to the classroom practitioners was anapproach which departed from the established educationalnorms. The institute., proved to be infinitely adaptable to avariety of institutions for a wide range of purposes.

These institutes began first as short-term summerinstitutes, and were later expanded to academic-yearinstitutes and in-service institutes. This format reqiiired thepresence of a handful of generally superior faculty and a

limited number of teachers, brought together for a certainamount of time to learn a specific amount of subject-matterinformation. Initially, little consideration was given to thepedagogical problems of teachers (this was though to be thespecial concern of the schools of education.)

The establishment of summer institutes was afortuitous decision. Teachers were free over the summermonths. University facilities were generally free as well, aswere the senior professors. Conflicts in schedules wereminimal. Both teacher and professor were given a chance toimprove their income (stipends and salaries were provided

respectively), and teachers were enabled to advanceprofessionally at the same time. A major advantage of thesummer institutes was that they were developed at a time

when there was a critical shortage of teachers. The fact thatthese institutes were held during the summer meant thatbadly needed teachers did not have .o be absent from their

classrooms during the academic year.These advantages would be considerably less apparent

had the NSF decided to restrict its teacher training and

retraining efforts to full-year fellowship programs. Such a

decision would also have meant that fellowship recipientswould then have had to be absorbed into the existingacademic structure of the university (i.e., regular coursework, prerequisities, degree requirements), and would nothave been able to follow a course of study specifically

designed to assist their development as better qualifiedteachers.

T same principle of designing courses specifically

for the cial needs of groups of teachers was expandedinto acs emir -year institutes, and, later, in a more modified

way, into service institutes as well These latter institutesare generally looked upon as the least expensive programsto design .and mount. The in-service institutes are also

7.considerepby many the least successful type of institutebecause of the limited and fragmented amount of time ateacher is exposed to them. The in-service institutes did,however, provide a link between the problems of theclassroom and the vast changes that were then 'taking placein course content, like the "new math." Teachers nevertrained in "new math" were nonetheless required to teachit. In their cases, the in-service institutes provided assistancein helping them implement new course material.

The academic-year institutes were a much moresignificant investment. Because the Congress saw them as aneffective way of improving the quality of teachersthroughout the country, the academic-year institutesreceived substantial Congressional support. The Congressdemonstrated this popularity by periodically expressing awillingness to provide NSF with more funds if only NSFwould give greater priority to implementing the academic-year institutes on a systematically broader scale. NSFofficials, apparently, were willing to do this, but never atthe expense of their more research oriented programs.

In retrospect, the teacher training programs of NSFwere more popular with the Congress than they ever werewith the National Science Foundation. Because of thispopularity, these and other institutes received sufficient

funds to expand nationwide. Whereas in the past suchinstitutes were generally confined to elite institutions andfaculties, greater consideration was given to a moreequitable distribution of Federal funds among a wider arrayof colleges and universities.

Another development which had great consequenceswas the establishment for the first time of "sequential"institutes. A sequential institute, as opposed to a unitaryinstitute, is one that continues over several summers for thesame group of individuals and which usually ends with amaster's degres. The earlier unitary institutes were summercourses repeated over several years for different groups ofteachers. Although these sequential institutes did notinitially benefit from multi-year funding, such fundingpractices were soon adopted by NSF for ft th theseprograms and other programs as well, thus providing moreflexibility for long-term program planning and programstability.

What the institutes also achieved was an alternativeapproach to the training and retraining of individualsalready embarked upon careers. To the extent that theseteachers were secondary school teachers, the institutes alsoeffectively brought to the attention of the colleges. anduniversities the urgent and special needs of the publicschools, and provided these colleges and universities aconvenient mechanism to demonstrate that concern.

In the beginning, the institutes were looked uponuniformly as experimental programs. Unlike manysomewould say mostother Federal pilot projects, the NSF

institutes were implem2.7ed on a national basis. Un-fortunately, evidence is lacking to indicate that institutionsof higher learning recognized the institutes as majorbreakthroughs in the teacher training process. Universitiesdid not absorb the institutes into their systems as part of.

the core curriculum and, as a result, the institutes remained"uninstitutionalized." Perhaps the threat of a loss ofFederal funds prevented the universities from absorbing theinstitutes into the structure, perhaps not. In any case, the

range of institutes developed by NSF proved to be abreakthrough in the Federal government's assistance in thetraining and retraining of teachers. The only question thatlingersand it is a major questionis whether or not theinstitutes did indeed improve the quality of teacherperformance in the classroom. This is a question whichmust be raised and answered independently of the questionwhether or not a teacher knew more as a result of theinstitute programs.

THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958

Although NDEA Programs are not major programs ofconcern to higher continuing education, an understandingof their development is essential to an understanding ofmany of Eae legislative actions which were later to affecthigher continuing education activities. The opening para-graph of the general provisions for this Act refers to"securiV," "emergency," and "defense." It was in the

67

environment suggested by such language that the NationalDefense Education Act came into being. The Act was the

cumulative product of what one person estimated to have

been 1,500 separate bills dealing directly or indirectly with

education, and which reflected the 85th Congress' anxiety

about Russia's Sputnik and the educational system which

made that feat possible.There is a considerable question about the amount of

planning which went into NDEA. There was universal

consensus that the quality of teaching should be upgraded,

particularly at the higher levels. Many also agreed that there

was a shortage of teachers. Voices of dissent, however, were

beginning to be expressed, if not heard, that the shortage

was overstated and that an oversupply was actually possible

if doctorates for college teachers were produced at the rate

anticipated by the NDEA legislation. In its peak years,

1966-6T and 1967-68, NDEA, Title N, was providing6,000 new fellowships a year at an estimated cost per year

of about $80 million. Between 1959 and 1969, about27,000 fellowships were awarded at an estimated cost of

$350 million.Regardless of both foresight and hindsight, NDEA

represents another major Federal effort in support ofelementary and secondary education and, more particu-

larly, higher education. Through this legislation, theCongress deliberately attempted to correct the imbalance

created in the nation's graduate training centers by theFederal government's selective supportof science andengineering. NDEA corrected this imbalance by providing

graduate support for doctoral study in all disciplines, with

favor shown to the humanities and social sciences.

Title IV of NDEA came to be known as the NDEA

fellowship program. In addition, both Title V and Title VI

of the Act imitated the National Science Foundation by

establishing, first, short-term and regular-session institutes

for teachers engaged in counseling and guidance in the

secondary schools; and second, both centers and short-term

and regular session institutes at institutions of higherlearning for training in foreign languages and in such related

fields as history, political science, linguistics, economics,

sociology, geography and anthropology where current

training was thought to be inadequate.

Like the NSF programs, the NDEA programs werecategorical. Congress specified the number of fellowships,

the subject-matter areas and indicated the kinds ofinstitutions eligible for support. Congress also chose to go

the way of previous legislation by restricting the distribu-

tion of funds to "new and expanded programs" atinstitutions of higher learning. Therefore, the Congress did

not question the practice of channeling Federal funds solelythrough the university bureaucracy, nor did it question that

such a practice inevitably, if inadvertently, reinforced the

disciplinary and departmental nature of that bureaucracy.Congress supplied the funds. It gave limited thought to how

thine funds were to be administered.Grants, in other words, went to institutions and not

to individuals. Individuals applied to these institutions and

not to the Office of Education. (Later programs did allow

68

grants directly to individuals.) This formula had theadvantage of bypassing the bureaucracy of the Office ofEducation. It also bypassed any temptation the Feder0government might have to intervene by asserting any"direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum,

program of instruction, administration, or personnel on anyeducational institution or school system."

The NDEA fellowships were research oriented, butonly to the extent that this research was coupled todoctoral programs specifically designed to provide more

teachers for universities and colleges. A significant de-

parture in the NDEA legislation was the clear intent of theCongress to concentrate NDEA programs in small andmedium-sized institutions, thus reversing the elitist trend in

NSF to concentrate on universities with established

reputations.A major curiosity of the NDEA legislation was the

reference in it to the actual "teaching" requirements for

those who, through NDEA fellowships, were being trained

for the teaching profession. No serious concern wasexpressed that potential teachers actually be provided with

teaching experiences while being trained. The Congressionalapproach to this concern was to say+ simply that such

experiences were not disallowed.

THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

ntle V, Part B, of the Higher Education Actestablished the Teacher Corps. As originally planned, the

Corps was to attract and train both experienced teachers

and inexperienced teacher-interns with.bactalaureate de-

grees to work at the elementary and secondary levels in

areas with a concentration of low-income families. Inactuality, however, the experienced teacher component of

the program was never implemented, and the onlysubstantial retraining that was carried out under this part of

the Title was the short-course. training provided for theleaders assigned to work with teams of teacher-interns.

These team leaders were invariably qualified and exper-

ienced teachers.Of interest in this portion of the Act was the

consideration given to offering concrete teaching exper-

iences to the interns _engaged in the program. Thisconsideration enabled the universities and colleges par-

ticipating in Teacher Corps training to design and expand

improvod methods for preparing teachers for classroom

work. It also gave interns the opportunity to gain actualteacher experience while assigned to local educational

agencies, and to offer interns the opportunity to begin and

continue their work for a master's degree.Part C of Title V funds were used to implement an

Experienced Teacher Fellowship Program designed to

provide graduate fellowships leading to a master's degreefor persons interested in a career in elementary andsecondary school teaching. It is unclear why this provision

was made in the Higher Education Act, since at the time ofthis Act's passage, the Congress was also considering the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, wherethe provision's inclusion would have seemed more appro-priate.

A final authorization in HEA was made for theestablishment of short-term workshops and short-term andregular session institutes at institutions of higher learningfor educational media specialists.

EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT ACTOF 1967

EDPA evolved in two ways: as an amendment to TitleV of the Higher Education Act, which resulted in extendingthe life of the Congressionally popular Teacher Corps; andas a major effort to bring together existing and newprograms into a unified statute that would, for the rusttime, give the Office of Education the authority to train allkinds of education personnel for all levels of education.

It is commonly noted that EDPA represents a turnaway from the doctoral-level, subject-matter specialists whowere supported and trained by NDEA funds, and towardmore generalist personnel to be trained for a variety ofeducational responsibilities. Unlike NDEA,.EDPA.does-ngtconcentrate on the Ph.D. degree, nor does it concentrate onthe upper instructional levels. More so than past legislation,EPDA reflected a growing concern for the manpower needsof the elementary and secondary schools; a consequentiallydecreasing emphasis on the doctorate; and a reevaluation ofthe training of educational para-professionals.

In the past, the significant manpower training billsadministered by the Office of Education were categoricalbills. As such, Congress exercised its authority andindicated its intent to the Office by enumerating programs,amounts of dollars, levels of education, numbers offellowships and kinds of institutions to be affected byvarious legislation. The Education Professions DevelopmentAct departed from this pattern substantially. One of thechief architects of the bill has described it as "the mostdiscretionary legislation in the education field."

In theory, at least, the discretionary nature of thelegislation would seem to decrease Congressional controlover it. By leaving the implementation of the bill to theOffice of Education, the executive branch of the govern-ment achieves greater control over the directions such a billwill take. The discretionary nature of the bill would alsoseem to provide the Office with the opportunity toimplement its own priorities and to tie the bill to educationreform measures.

In practice, however, the discretionary nature of thebill is limited. Because EPDA, like so many previous piecesof legislation, was intended by the Congress to continueand expand earlier authorized programs, like the TeacherCorps, the amount of discretionary funds that remain to beused discretely is substantially decreased. What funds toremain are generally put aside to be used by theCommissioner of Education and the Secretary of Health,Education ar4 Welfare to implement their own priorities,where they exist.

A.

In the case of EPDA, what evolved was a series ofprograms that attempted to improve and increase theeducation personnel (teachers, administrators, counselors,etc.) at all levels r)f educational activity. Past programs werecarried forth from HEA and NDEA and new programs weredesigned to increase personnel for such priority areas asdrug abuse, career opportunities, black colleges, earlychildhood development, teacher leadership, education forthe handicapped, media specialists, teacher training per-sonnel and, of course, the Teacher Corps. These programswere carried out through a variety of short-term and regularsession institutes and through in-service and pre-serviceprojects. A policy recently initiated by the Bureau ofEducation Professions Development, however, has led to asystematic curtailment of many of these institutes.

As alreaey stated, EPDA was intended to collect andcoordinate a variety of existing and new educationmanpower programs] and to provide a comprehensivereLponse to educaticiln manpower needs. A fact of thislegislation and previous pieces of legislation is that Congressclearly articulated injeach of them the need for improvededucation manpower], research and planning. The irony isthat there is very little evidence to indicate that eithersubstantial research Was available to the Congress, when itsaid this, or that systematic planning took place prior to theenactment of not only the Education Professions Develop-ment Act but of 1 any previous legislation affectingeducation manpower:requirements.

EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT ACT,PART D: CAREER OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM (COP)

Of the 143 programs examined in this review ofFederal programs for extension and continuing educationand community services, approximately 36 of them areinvolved significantly with the training and retraining ofteachers. Of these thirty-six, 23 are located within theDepartment of Health, Education and Welfare, with 21 ofthese 23 administered by the Office of Education. Fourteenof the 21 are administered by the Office of Education'sBureau of Educational Personnel Development. Only oneprogram is administered by the Bureau of Higher Educa-tion.

The Career Opportunities Program (COP) was firstfunded in FY 1969 at $10,800,000 and increased in FY1970 to $24,300,q00. Like most of the other teachertraining programs vfithin the Office of Education, COP isadministered by te Bureau of Educational PersonnelDevelopment. .CO Pt is representative of most of theobjectives and policies of this Bureau and of the EducationProfessions Develop-nent Act which funds it.

The Career Opportunities Program is a nationwideeffort to improve the learning ability of low-incomechildren, particularly in urban areas. The key to this effortis the recruitment of low-income community residents andVietnam-era veterims to wofk as education para-professionals in -area school systems. About 28% of

69

those now participating in the program are veterans,although an original goal had been set at 40%. A smallpercentage of handicapped individuis are also recruitedinto the program as aides, with the remaining participantsrepresenting low-income community residents.

These para-prof or auxiliaries, are employedin minimal groups of six by local elementary and secondaryschools (minimal groups of twenty -eight are standard formulti-school projects). These auxiliaries work beside theregular classroom teachers and assist them in teaching,counseling and administering. The auxiliaries are consideredf911-time professionals and are- absorbed into the staff asvacancies occur. The presence in the classroom of theseaides, most of whom are men, is a stark departure from theusual staffing patterns that exist at these schools, and is amajor ingredient in what COP offers as a partial solution tothe problems of teaching low-income youths.

COP is a work-study program. While the auxiliariesare working in the schools, they are provided with releasedtime to allow them to continue training toward eventualteacher certification. The local educational agencies, whichare the major recipients of COP grants, negotiate inde-pendently with local colleges and universities and cooperatewith them in developing feasible projects. Both the localeducational agency 4nd the college or university areco-signers of the grant application. A Model Citiesrepresentative must also sign the grant application to assure,first, that those cities designated as Model Cities have been

sufficiently covered by COP funds; and second, that thenon-Model City area COP proposes to support falls withinthe poverty guidelines established for the program.

The desired academic load for an auxiliary, isgenerally thirty creditstwelve credits during the summerand nine credits during each of the two academic semesters.In some instances, the cooperating college will grant threeof these nine credits per semester in recognition of thesupervised teaching that auxiliaries do in the schools.Although the program staff would like to see a total oftwenty-four credits awarded for such teaching, mostcolleges are reluctant to do so.

The Education Professions Development Act gen-erally prohibits the payment of salaries and stipends. COP isan exception to this rule. When funding is not availablefrom other sources, COP may pay up to $90 per week, plustuition, to veterans participating in the program. Thispayment does not affect the veterans GI Bill benefits. Fornonveterans, COP may pay the cost of tuition. In all cases,however, cooperative funding is strongly encouraged, withlocal school systems and other Federal, State and localprograms assisting in sharing the cost of the program.

There are cuiriuitly about 130 COP projects through-out the country. Nearly 10,000 auxiliaries are employed bythe local schools, with over half of the auxiliaries workingin the area of early childhood education (kindergartenthrough third grade); another quarter in grades fourthrough six; and the remaining auxiliaries in grades seventhrough twelve.

70

About 12% of all auxiliaries have less than a highschool diploma, and the remainder have up to three yearsof college. The lack of education, therefore, is not animpediment to participating in a program that seekseventually to provide a new kind of teacher to theelementary and secondary schools. The program is verymuch of a "risk" program, particularly because it addi-tionally focuses on recruiting individuals who are in-digenous to the low-income areas being served.

To attract veterans and community residents into theprogram, two elements are essential: motivation andincentive. It is difficult to conceive that individuals whothemselves lack the necessary formal education ordinarilywould consider themselves likely candidates for theteaching profession. It is equally difficult to conceive thatindividuals in low-income areas have the time and fmancialindependence to continue their education without somekind of financial assistance.

These realities are taken into account in several ways.The key is the opportunity provided by the program forcareer development through what COP describes as a"career lattice." This lattice is further described as beinghorizontal, vertical and diagonal. Horizontal career transfermeans going from one field of work to another, frominstruction to guidance, for example, at the same level ofresponsibility; vertical transfer from one level of responsi-bility to the next; and diagonal transfer from one field toanother at the next level, such as going from instructionalaide to guidance assistant.

In addition to these career incentives, there are otherincentives which offer to those in the program theopportunity to continue and complete their educationwhile establishing a career. There are also, of course, thefinancial benefits that are provided, including both salariesand stipends. A fmal incentive which may rank first in theminds of many in the program, and which may often beonly awkwardly expressed, is the desir to help low-incomeyouths break out of the cycle of poverty that surroundsthem,

The projectsprojects hinge ell close c, top' ration between thelocal schools, the participating colleges and universities andthe community itself. Local school; are required to committhemselves to the career lattice program worked out forCOP. Since there is no guarantee that ail. itself willcontinue as a permanent program, however,.there is some

question of how deep and permanent a commitment theseschools can make to the program.

The unversities assist the sch.mls in developing thevarious projects. This association is crucial. Although thelocal school systems initiate project applications, a four-year institution must be clearly designated in the applica-tion as cosponsor. Through this association, institutions arefurther and more directly involved in the problems andpriority needs of the lower-level schools. This relationship isparticularly helpful in getting rniversities to relax admis-sions requirements for COP auxiliaries; to grant credit forsupervised teaching in the classrooms; and to work with theschools and State educational agencies in altering the

r.teaching certification requirements that might impedeplacing personnel into the low-income schools who canrelate and teach more effectively.

Each COP project has an advisory committee workingwith its director and staff in helping to develop all facets o;project activities. As a rule, such committees are comprisedof community parents, with local officials, leaders, teachersand administrators also represented. There exists also aLeadership Training Institute composed of leading educa-tors whose advice is available to any COP project whichrequests assistance.

About 75% of the schools participating in COP are inthe nation's inner cities, with abOut half of these citiesdesignated as Model Cities. The remaining cities are in ruralareas. COP projects are linked with a variety of otherFederal, State and local programs, including Model Cities,Head Start, Upward Bound, Follow Through, VISTA andprojects funded under several titles of the Elementary andSecondary Act. Most of these Federally funded programsprovide to COP either community liaison, staff or traininginformation. Other Federal programs may also providefunds. Under most plans, however, COP itself paysadministrative costs and university training for the auxil-iaries, while the cooperating Federally supported projectsprovide salaries or stipends. The latter is particularly true offunds from Title I of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (grants to local educational agencies to assistchildren of low-income families).

COP's future is in doubt. So is the future of manyother teacher-training activities within the Office ofEducation. It is assumed that many of these activities willbe absorbed into the still-undetermined format of theEducation Renewal Centers currently being considered.Regardless of this uncertainty, several observations involving broad issues can be made as a result of this briefreview of major and representative teacher training activ-ities of the Federal government.

The fact that COP funds are being coupled with otherOffice of Education and Federal agency funds, reflects adetermination to deploy Federal funds in such a way as tohave the broadest possible impact at the local and Statelevels. This practice also underscores the fact that, like somany other pilot project and demonstration programsinitiated by the Education Professions Development Act,COP was never adequately or fully funded. Despite thislimitation of funds, COP managed, wisely or unwisely, toestablish over 130 projects nationwide among a variety ofinstitutions and for a variety of purposes and clientele.

COP is not unusual in this respect. Many Offices ofEducation programs are conducted in this manner. TheOffice functions with many Congressional restraints andmandates. The directive to make programs truly "national"is certainly one of these. The policy of scattering projects,particularly when funds are restricted, may reflect otherconsiderations as wellfor instance, the uncertainty of thedirection certain programs are to take, and the prioritiesand issues with which they are to be concerned.

This pattern of activity raises many crucial questions.When clearly expressed priorities exist, are those prioritiesadequately implemented when their implementation issubject solely to the receipt of unsolicited proposals? Can aprogram be said to exist which is occasionally little morethan a collection of largely unrelated projects? At whatpoint does a program cease to function on a pilot projectbasis and begin to function as a fully-funded program withlong-term objectives? At what point does a programdemonstrate that it is ready to be implemented on a largerscale? If a program is allowed simply..-to survive thevicissitudes or disinterest of its sponsoring agency, whatcredibility does it have both within and outside thatagency?

These questions are not isolat-d ones, nor shouldthey be addressed only to COP, to the Bureau ofEducational Personnel Development or to the Office ofEducation. These are questions which may be raised aboutmany similar Federal programs. They are inextricablylinked to the other questions of program planning andevaluation.

Short-term funding-means short-term objectives. Notevery program, to be sure, requires long-term planning andobjectives: there are many programs whose activities andpurposes are clearly intended to achieve only short-termobjectives. But the fact that we are talking about"institutions" implies a permanent investment for whichlong-term objectives would be highly desirable.

What has characterized many Bureau of, Education'Personnel Development programs has been their transitory

nature. Perhaps because of this transitory nature there isless pressure to articulate long-term objectives. Or perhapsthe failure to state convincingly what those objectives are isthe reason the future of these programs is left in doubt.

This transient state of affairs is generally recognizedby staff and personnel in the Office of Education. It mustalso be sensed by individuals outside the Office who speakon behalf of those institutions which are intended tobenefit from Federal largess. Do these individuals, conse-quently, limit the degree to which institutional commit-ments will be made to Federal programs and nationalpriorities? Indeed, why should any institution make anylong-term commitment to a Federal program if it canreceive no assurance that Federal funds will extend to thelength of that commitment?

One result of this half-heartedness is to furtherentrench colleges and universities in their belief that theFederal government is simply an intermittant source offunds and not a source of technical knowledge, stablefinancial support and program leadership.

This is a tragedy, largely due to the instability andtransitory nature of many Federally funded programs andthe lack of evaluation and follow-through. It would beimpossible to estimate the number of pilot projects fundedby the Office of Educaiion (and other agencies) which havehad no sequels. No systematic attempt is made to evaluatethese projectseven those where there is prima faciaevidence that they should continue on a permanent basis.

71

Federal funds specifically earmarked for planning andevaluation are typically inadequate, and the commonpractice is to deploy funds for this purpose from programsalaries and expenses, in competition with many otherdemands on this same fund category.

One last observation should be made. There are twosets of individuals affecting all of the teacher trainingprograms of the Office of Education: the program managersand the fiscal managers. The individuals in charge ofprogram matters are not the same individuals who controland monitor program funds. Cost accountability andprogram effectiveness are judged by different staffs. Thedangers of this practice are real: should cost accountabilitybe relaxed for more program effectiveness? Or shouldprogram effectiveness be determined by program cost?

This conflict is pervasive and disruptive. It createsproblems for individuals within the government and -forthose outside the government, particularly at institutions ofhigher learning. This administrative conflict between themoney managers and the program managers is a major

*The present relationship is succinctly stated -in the followingsection of the Higher Education Act iff 196 5;

Sec. 804.(a) Nothing contained in this Act-Shall be construedto authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee ofthe United States to exercise any direction, supervision, orcontrol over the curriculum, program of instruction, adminis-tration, or personnel of any educational institution, or overthe selection of library! _resources,. by any educationalinstitution.

72

element in the broader questions raised earlier aboutfunding and objectives. To what extent is each afffected bythe other?

A still broader questionand one that is an overridingfactor in all Congressional legislation for educationis thesupreme question of the relationship between private andpublic American education and the Federal dollar.* Ournational tradition asserts strongly that government shouldonly support education and not seek to guide or control it.Under this tradition, there is little scope for the exercise ofleadership by Federal administrators, whose role insteadbecomes one of money-giving. While its tradition and thereasons behind it remain basically valid, there remains theneed to develop a partnership between Federal programadministrators and educational leaders in place of thedonor-recipient relationship which now dominates. De-velopment of such a new role in the face of legislativeenjoiners and internal budgetary controls by personsoutside the program present a difficult challenge for thoseresponsibile for operating and overseeing Federallysupported programs of continuing higher education. 0'

1

1

REGIONAL MEDICAL PROGRAMS: A TEST OF LOCAL INITIATIVE

The development of tieducation programs in the fiechallenges and problems to ucommunity. Health is the onStates has a serious manpparticular nature of the chaprograms which both tincrepractitioners and train persoin a more efficient use ofaffect the current crisis in hare programs which would esee their roles in the health sy

This challenge must beparadoxical situation that aon health by both privategovernment has been paralleabout the quality and availExpenditures have grown frobillion in 1969, with a projeTotal Federal expenditures ifor 22 programs of confirm'community services designThree of these programs, ostudy, are primarily concernresearch results and 19 are fAll but two of these proDepartment of Health, Educ

The unique problemstional programs result frohealth network is largely inof the $60 billion expenditlack of authority over the hgovernment is serious intinnary process which haswhich is unable to responddifficulties of affecting andof health services can :,otconsideration of that proces

Dr. Basil J. F. Mott a member of the faculty ofHarvard University School f Public Health and a specialist

ly and relevant continuingd of health presents uniqueversities and the educationaly area in which the Unitedwer shortage; that is theenge. Continuing educatione the medical expertise ofel in new roles which resultanpower could significantlyalth care. Equally importantcourage health personnel totem as a whole.considered in the light of theapid increase in expendituresconsumers and the Federald by a growth in complaintsility of health care services.$17.1 billion in 1955 to $60

ted $100 billion level in 1975.FY 1970 were $330,136,000and extension education andto improve public health.

of which is discussed in thisd with application of meuicalused on instructional services.

ams are administered by thetion and Welfare.or the development of educa-the fact that control of the

rivate hands: the Federal sharee in 1969 was about 30%. Thelth care system by the Federalght of a complicated evolu-d to the creation of a systemto changing social needs. Theimproving the current patternbe understood without some

81.668 0 - 72 6

in health activities and health politics, comments that "...fragmentatirm of services is not the result of poor planning;it is the product of an historical process in whichprofessional practices and organized forms of service havedeveloped from many separate and largely private begin-nings that were not perceived as interdependent, and thusrequiring coordination."1 He stresses the wide variety andautonomy of organizations, agencies, and professionalgroups involved in the health effort and concludes that theway services are structured make it unlikely that sufficientchange can come from within the field.

More specifically, -0'iott notes that the pluralism ofthe health world mediates against concerted action byhealth professionals and health agencies and that even thenewest planning councils, which were established withFederal encouragement, have had little or no impact uponthe major issues confronting our health institutions. "Themain problem with health planning councils is their lack ofauthority and their lack of control over resources, such asfunds and manpower, needed to bring about changes in thebehavior of health practitioneers and health agencies."2

From the vantage point of the university, an entirelydifferent set of historical factors has led to on analogouskind of inflexibility and unresponsiveness to changint. needswhich characterize's the health world itself. Modern medicaleducation was greatly influenced by the medical reformer,Abraham Flexner, who in 1910 drew on the experience ofGerman medical education and recommended that curricu-lum be standardized in order to raise the quality of medicalschools. A standard medical curriculum was adopted by allaccredited American medical schools that has not changedsubstantially in 50 years. Science and research were to be atthe base of medical education, and the massive influx offinancing for research in the biomedical fields led togrowing specialization. Little attention was p...c1 to the

1Basil 1. F. Mott, "The Crisis in Health Care: Problems of Policyand Administration," PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW,VOL XXXI (September/October 1971), p. 502.

2Ibid., p. 503.

73

institutional framework of the health care delivery systemas a whole.

An influential report of the Carnegie Commission onHigher Education, Higher Education and the Nation'sHealth, describes the effect of the Flexner model in thisway. "... . It is a self-contained approach. Consequently, ithas two weaknesses in modern times: (1) it largely ignoreshealth care delivery outside the medical school and its ownhospital, and (2) it sets science in the medical school apartfrom science on the general campus with resultingduplication of effort. This second weakness is now being

_highlighted by the extension of medical Concerns beyondscience into economics, sociology, engineering, and manyother fields. Medical schools have had their own depart.ments of biochemistry, but to add their own departmentsof economics and sociology and engineering would accentu-ate the problem of duplication of faculty and equipment."3

The difficulties of developing relevant continuingeducation programs must be understood then in light ofthese two factorsa health care network made up ofseparate, specialized, and independent agencies each jeal-ously guarding its own territory and a medical educationsystem which encourages compartmentalization of researchspecialities and has not been able to incorporate disciplineswhich could provide insights on the delivery of healthservices as a whole.

All of these characteristics of the health care systemhave a bearing on the initial concept of Regional Medical -Programs and subsequent modification of the legislation.The impetus for the legislation was the report of thePresident's Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer andStroke, issued in December 1964, which called attention toa number of needs and problems. SoMe of these wereexpressed as follows: .

. A program is needed to focus the nation's healthresources for research, teaching and 'patient care on heartdisease, cancer, stroke and related diseases. because togetherthey cause 70 percent of the deaths in the United States.

. A significant number of Americans with thesediseases die or are disabled beacuse the benefits of presentknowledge in the medical sciences are not uniformlyavailable throughout the country.

. There is not enough trained manpower to meet thehealth needs of the American people within the presentsystem for the delivery of health services.

. Pressures threatening the nation's health resourcesare building because demands for health services are rapidlyincreasing at a time when increasing costs are posingobstacles for many Who require these preventative, diag-nostic, therapeutic and rehabilitative services.

. A creative partnership must be forged among thenation's medical scientists, practicing physicians, and all ofthe nation's other health resources so that new knowledgecan be translated more rapidly into better patient care.

"Higher Education and the Nation's Health," report of theCarnegie Commission on Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970), p. 4.

74

During hearings on the developing legislation, asignificant change was made from recommendations of thePresident's Commission. Rather than the network of"regional centers," which had been suggested, spokesmenfor practicing physicians and community hospitals ex-pressed support for "regional cooperative arrangements"among existing health resources. The Act established asystem of grants to enable representatives of healthresources to exercise initiative to identify and meet localneeds within the area of the categorical diseases through abroadly defined process. According to Federal officials,recognition of geographic and societal diversities within theUnited States was the main reason for this approach, andspokesmen for the nation's health resources who testifiedduring the hearings strengthened the case for localinitiative. Guidelines issued by the Regional MedicalProgram phrase the issue very clearly. "Thus the degree towhich the various Regional Medical Programs meet theobjectives of the Act will provide a measure of how welllocal resources can take the initiative and work together toimprove patient care for heart diseases, cancer, stroke andrelated diseases at the local level."

Although the primary purpose of the Act was totransfer a body of research in the areas of heart disease,cancer and stroke to appropriate practitioners it should benoted that even the early development of the programrelated practice in those areas to a series of largerissuesthe coordination of services, health manpowerneeds, and increasing costs of medical care. As the programevolved, a very significant shift in national prioritiesoccurred. The three stages' of development were describedby one local program official as: (1) focus on updatingskills related to three areas of disease listed in thelegislation; (2) addition of programs concerning otherdiseases; (3) focus on improvements in the health caredelivery system as a whole.

This shift was confirmed by the passage of PublicLaw 91-515 in 1970 which extended the Regional MedicalProgram legislation and included amendments which addedkidney and other related diseases to those included in theprogram. More importantly, the amendments gave theprogram a specific mandate to "improve generally thequality and enhance the capacity of the health manpowerand facilities available to the nation, and to improve healthservices for persons residing in areas with limited healthservices." It should be noted that the improvement was tobe accomplished without "interfering with the patterns, orthe methods of financing, of patient care or professionalpractice, or with the administration of hospitals. ..."

Currently, there are 56 Regional Medical Progiamswhich together serve the entire United States. (Total FY1970 expenditures were $75,500,000.) Each RMP serves ageographically unified area which may be a State, acombination of States, or a sub-section within a State.Eligible grantees include public or private non-profitinstitutions, agencies or corporations. Policy for eachprogram is determined by a Regional Advisory Group(RAG) which includes practicing physicians, hospital

administrators, medical center officials, and representativesof voluntary agencies, public health agencies, other healthworkers, and the general public. Programs for each regionare developed both by the staff of the RMP andCommittees of the RMP with collaboration of otherrelevant agencies, but they must have the approval of thelocal RAG before submission to Washington.

Data concerning the budgets of RMPs, the kinds ofgrantee agencies, the participation in RAGs and TaskForces are somewhat more expressive of the nature of theprogram and of changing priorities. Each RMP initiallyreceived a planning grant; by the end of FY 1967, 48 of thecurrent 56 RMPs had received planning funds. By the endof FY 1969, most (41) regions had received operationalfunds. Current funding levels range from $8.3 million forCalifornia to $309,000 for North Dakota, with a medianfunding level of $1.2 million.

More RMPs are funded at universities than at anyother kind of institution; of the 56 grantees, 34 areuniversities, 15 are new agencies or corporations, 3 areexisting corporations, and 4 are medical societies. Nodefinitive statement can be made about the advantages anddisadvantages of university sponsorship. There are indica-tions that RMPs funded at universities were able to developprograms more quickly because university staff werefamiliar with Federal requirements for proposals, but thisearly advantage may be outweighed by problems resultingfrom the degree of influence university officials continue toexert over the program. Current policy in Washingtonemphasizes the importance of control over the program bythe RAG and views the university as a conduit, b,representatives of medical schools are still able to exert agreat deal of informal control.

Each RAG has a number of different Task Forceswhich are responsible for program development in subjectmatter areas and for soliciting the views of appropriatehealth care personnel through the region. In 1969, therewere 492 such Task Forces; -those concerning Heart,Cancer, and Stroke were most prevalent, with percentagesof 13%, 12%, and 11% respectively. Nine percent of allTask Forces were concerned with the area of ContinuingEducation and Training. By 1971, the changing prioritieshad led to a decrease in Task Forces devoted to categoricaldiseases and an increase in those dealing with ContinuingEducation and Training. In 1971, the greatest number ofTask Forces were in that area.

Before considering some of the activities sponsoredby RMPs, it is necessary to consider again the nature of thehealth care system and make some assumptions about thekinds of continuing education programs which could leadto significant improvements. The first observation is asimple one. A massive continuing education effort is neededwhich must encompass both the transfer of new techniquesand research findings to medical practitioners and trainadministrators and allied health professionals in new roleswhich result in a more efficient use of present manpowerresources. Secondly, training programs will have to incor-porate the insights and knowledge of social scientists;

effective use of manpower is a management and conceptualproblem. And, finally, the development of new rolesimplies a transfer of power. The success of the program willdepend upon the extent to which the health careestablishment can view itself critically and yield thoseduties which can be performed by para-professionals andothers witheui formal credentials.

It is relatively easy to find examples of successfultraining efforts in many of the areas of critical need. TheRMP in Wisconsin -, been successful in bringing the skillsof social scientists to bear upon problems of patient care. Apatient care systems project was developed at St. Mary'sHospital in Milwaukee, with the cooperation of theUniversity School of Nursing. A 39-bed conventionalpatient care unit was converted into a demonstration unitfor optimal care of patients.

The strategy is to use patient care requirements as themajor focus for change. In recognition of the complexinterrelationships of personnel and resources in the deliveryof patient care, a systems approach is used which willchange personnel utilization environmental factors, com-munication methods, equipment and resources.

The project staff consisting of a team of two nurses, asystems engineer, a sociologist and a hospital administratorwork closely with all relevant hospital departments in thedesign and implementation of the changes within thedemonstration unit. The project is now in the implementa-tion and testing phase and will be followed by a programof instruction for health teams from other hospitals to helpthem develop more effective patient care systems.

In North Carolina, the Duke University School ofMedicine has developed a program for physician's assistantswhich will permit graduates to assume some of the dutiesformerly performed only by doctors. A program in theWatts-Willowbrook section of Los Angeles addresses anumber of different critical issues of health care. TheCalifornia Regional Medical Program is funding a Depart-ment of Community Medicine as part of the medical schoolin the Martin Luther King Jr. General Hospital. TheDepartment will develop a system of medical care to servethe community's 400,000 medically indigent blacks andMexican-Americans.

The hospital will be the first in Los Angeles Countyto make an effort to recruit and place local privatepractitioners on the staff. Local general practitioners havebeen encouraged to enroll in an intensive course in familypractice at the Drew Medical School which will make themeligible to pass the Family Practice Board. The Departmentof Community Medicine will also have a privately fundedhealth careers program to provide financial assistance tolocal residents interested in health careers. Also included inthe department will be a MEDEX program to train militaryex-corpsmen, a school of allied health professions, acommunity mental health center, and a clinical researchfacility.

A proposal with the potential for significantlyaffecting the nature of continuing education efforts hasbeen -developed with the help of the staff of the

75

Connecticut RMP. The proposal calls for the establishmentof the New Haven Institute of Allied Health Careers whichwould enlist the cooperation of institutions ranging fromthe New Haven public schools to the Yale University

School of Medicine. A key element in the program is the

concept of building blocks or modules that are additive.

The major innovation is that students could shift to tracks

that generally are not available: to students within schools

of allied health. Thus, further education would permit ashift from a "dead-end" career to another career pattern.

These activities suggest what could be accomplishedin the area of continuing education. The pattern of success

throughout the country, however, is not uniform. Tele.

phone conversations with program officials reveal that inmost areas of the country, continuing education effortshave revolved around transfer of knowledge about those

diseases categorically listed in the legislation. Where

innovation has occurred, it has focused on imaginativemethods of conveying such knowledge to users. Programshave also been successful in coordinating existing trainingprograms and persuading institutions of the importance ofestablishing new programs. There has been relatively littleimpact on the continuing education activities of medical

schools, nor have the RMPs been involved in the basic issueof professional certification. Training programs for the

disadvantaged suffer from the weakness of similar programsfunded by the Office of Economic Opportunity and theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development. Wayshave been developed to use para-professionals in the health

field, but no career ladders have been established which

would allow them to progress.The health care system is a multi-billion dollar

industry characterized by rigidity, fragmentation, andelitismall of which have contributed to the currentparadoxical situation in which rising expenditures accom-pany a crisis in availability of a ,..s. It is a system largelyexempt from Federal control with few. point!: at which

pressure can be exerted for change. In light of the extreno.difficulties of reforming the iystem, S.te Regional MedicalPrograms have accomplished some significant changes.

Most o'uviously RMPs have succeeded in their initialpurpose of transferring a lart_ body of knowledge from

clinical research about major diseases to practitioners.Techniques have ranged from the Dial-a-Tape program inArizona which provides a physician immediate access toover 300 five-to-ten-minute taped medical lecl tares, to aprogram in North Carolina which offers weekly planeflights for physicians to a nearby university.

Regiomd Medical Programs have also succeeded incoordinating services which previously have been duplica-tive and fragmented. The structure of the RAGs requiresthe cooperation of many agencies anti .......Autions which insome instances have had a history of conflict andprofessional jealousy. Just one such example of suchcooperation is the establishment of the Cream CityCommunity Health Center in Wisconsin which provides aprepaid health insurance program for the black community.Grant funds were obtained from the Office of Economic

76 S

Opportunity, and the Center is working with Medicaid,Blue Cross-Blue Shield and the Milwaukee County MedicalSociety to develop a completely self-supporting experi-mental health maintenance organization.

A notable accomplishment of RMPs in the area ofcontinuing education and trainingls the simple increase ofinterest in the field and the recognition that training andcontinuing education must be available in convenient andrelevant forms. The greatest percentage of RMP TaskForces and Committees are now concerned with that area,while in 1969 continuing education and training rankedfourth. Virtually 411 of the Regions named education ortraining as a major regidfial need.

Goals of RMPs are now larger than they were whenthe original legislation was passed; it could be said that theexperience of this program in attempting to improve healthcare in selected areas has revealed the necessity of viewing

the hc..1..th care delivery system as a whole. The restraints ofthe legislation and the original concept of the programsuggest three possible areas of difficulty in the future:(1) reliance on coordination; (2) lack of a research baseappropriate for analyzing health care as a system; and (3)

control of funds.When the community action agencies (CAAs), funded

thrcingh the Office of Economic Opportunity, beganoperating programs which involved that agency in contro-versy and plolitical opposition, a subtle shift in prioritiesoccurred. 'khe operational role of CAAs was minimized;their role as a coordinator of existing resources wasemphasized. At about the same time, City DemonstrationAgencies were funded through the Department of Housingand Urban Development, also to coordinate resources. Nowboth sets of local agencies have the additional problem ofcoordinating their activities with each other. Rather thandealing directly with the issues of institutional change, theFederal government has a tendency to set up new agencieswhich will coordinate existing services.

Similar problems are developing with Regional Medi-cal Programs. Comprehensive health planning agencies havealso been established to ider.:ify needs and collect data onhealth resources. Cooperative relationships have beandeveloped between the two sets of agencies, and theirfunctions have been distinguished from each other bysaying that RMPs are more expressive of the views of healthservices providers, while CHP agencies reflect the views of

consumers. It is difficult, however, --to understand why- theFederal goVernment should institutionalize the alreadyexisting dichotomy between the views of providers andconsumers.

Another way of looking at the potential of RMPs isby comparing their structure and resources to those of theCooperative r gension Service. Extension agents canidentify the needs of farmers and then turn to university-based research stations for solutions. One of the primaryinitial purposes of RMPs was to transfer a large body ofalready existing research concerning major diseases tohealth personnel. Now, however, the program is concernedwith need for reform of the ne:;:h care syr+em as a whole.

Research findings which could help in this process areentirely different from those relevant tc heart, cancer andstroke; the field requires a multi-disciplinary approach, andis relatively underdeveloped. The Federal governmentsupports major biomedical research efforts at medicalschools which, according to the report of an HEW TaskForce, may actually be counter-productive in terms ofmedical education,4 but there is little research moneyavailable for the exploration of issues related to theeffective management of the system or even for thedevelopment of new ways t ) implement biomedicalresearch.

Perhaps the most important issue, however, is that ofcontrol of funds. It was mentioned earlier that the originalconcept of RMPs was modified during legislative hearings toplace initiative for program development at the local level.This approach may have been successful when the problemwas a relatively simple one of developing techniques whichwould meet Inca! training need... If a genuine and majorreform of tl e health care system is intended, however, itmay be r ecessary to develop and implement a nationalstrategy. It is difficult to understand how major improve-ments can be made without "inter ferring with A:le patterns,or the methods of financing, of patient care or professionalpractice, or with the administration of hospitals."

A report of the National Academy of Sciences onAllied Health Personnel has bearing of this issue. TheAcademy was concerned with expanding the use of medicalcorpsmen who had been trained by the military to performa wide variety of functions usually reserved for doctors.

Some of their conclusions are as follows:1. A belief that the military makes more effective

use of supporting health personnel than does civilian

4lbid., p. 63.

5"Allied Health Personnel," report of the Ad Hoc Committee onAllied Health Personnel of National Academy of Sciences(Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 1969), p. 11.

medicine in the delivery of medical care is probably wellfounded.

2. The following characteristics of the militarymedical systeman authoritarian, centrally-managed sys-temare pertinent. (1) It can assign from enlisted personnelthose to be trained in selected skills; (2) it can develop itsown training programs and standards of skill to suit its ownneeds; (3) it can assign the personnel it trains for servicewhen and where it needs them; and (4) it can provideincentives and rewards in terms of advancement in rate onthe basis of the quality of leadership shown by the enlistedman, and not merely on the range of service he has beentrained and assigned to give.

3. Civilian medical care cannot be described as a"system," but is rather a series of intalacini systemsindependently managed and unified only by the fact thatits practices are molded by the customs and traditions ofthe profession of medicine. The training, certification, andlicensing of supporting personnel are determined by aconfusing array of professional, craft and governmentalregulations and restrictions that tend to make dead-endstreets of many areas of supporting medical service andlimit the opportunity for advancement in skills, leadership,and economic rewards. This reduces the attractiveness ofthese types of service to alert and ambitious young people.s

In short, the conclusions of this Committee suggest that theissue of who manages the health care system or if there is,in fact, any management at all has direct bearing on theefficient use of manpower and, therefore, on the purposesand natuAe of training and continuing education programs.All continuing education programs must relate to a largersystem of values and roles; programs in the area of healthseem to be inordinately strangled by the restrictions andrigidity of their particular system.

=m1m.MW'

77

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION: THE GI BILL:

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

There are currently 28 million veterans in the UnitedStates. Together with their dependents, they comprise 48%

of the American population. These are men and women

who have served their country in both war and peace;individuals whose lives and careers have been interrupted by

government service; whose husbands have been killed or

disabled by hostility.For two hundred years the government has been

providing benefits of one sort or another to those who servein its armed forces. The first major attempts, however, to

consolidate and coordinate those Federal agencies, created

especially for or concerned with the administration of laws

providing these benefits, dates to 1930the year President

Hoover established the Veterans Administration by Execu-

tive Order as an independent agency.To this day, Veterans Administration remains the

largest single independent agency of the Federal govern-

ment in terms of annual expenditures (FY 70: $8.8 billion),exceeded only by the tnree cabinet-level DepartmentsDefense, HEW and Treasury; and it is the largestindependent agency in terms of Federal employment (FY'70: 169,000), exceeded only by Defense and the Post

Office.The size of Veterans Administration is impressive.

One estimate indicates 'hat VA has spent over

$150,000,000,000 in support of veterans' benefits from1944 to the present, with $21 billion of this provided foreducation and training. It was in 1944 that the 78thCongress passed the first Servicemen's Readjustment Assist-ance Act, commonly known as the GI Bill. The Act was aturning point in the history of the Veterans Administration,in Congressional legislation, and in the impact suchlegislation was eventually to have on American education in

general and higher education in particular.The Act was controversial from the start. Critics

contended it was the greatest give-away program in history.

Its supporters insisted that it was the right law at the right

time for the right purpose. In retrospect, it appears that thetiming of the bill's passage was the "lightest" thing aboutit, for within two years literally millions of men and women

78

were to be separated from the armed services at a release

rate that was never again to be.exceeded.The great anxiety of the Congress was to determine

Flow these men and women could be returned abruptly tos6ciety without radically upsetting society and creatingwidespread disorientation. The solution: education and

training. By providing education benefits to veterans, and

redirecting many of them to universities, colleges and other

post-secondary institutions, a way was found to better train

individuals for a job market that at the time wasill-prepared to absorb them, and a way alio to postpone and

scatter the full effects of the termination of the war.Eventually, 7,800,000 veterans were to be educated ani.trained under the original GI Bill, with a peak being reachel

in 1947 when 2,546,000 veterans were enrolled at irario is

institutions.If the GI Bill lessened for society the consequences of

the war's end, it did so largely at the expense of theinstitutions which had to enroll so many veterans. The war

itself gravely depleted the number of students who; were

studying at institutions of higher learning. Some of these

institutions dosed as a result; most others were seriouslythreatened financially. Suddenly, and with minimal prepar-

ation, these same institutions were overwhelmed byapplications and demands for education. A faculty that

once was threatened with reduction now could not beincreased fast enough. Dormitory space was at a premium,

classes overloaded, and facilities and equipment pressed tothe maximum. Quonset huts went up with regularity.

The GI Bill was enacted out of necessity and as areward for those services provided to the nation at a critical

hour. The irony is, however, that its passage forced the

Federal government to assume a position vis-a-vis higher

education that it was reluctant to asume in less urgentcircumstances. The GI BD was enacted at a time when the

Federal government was determined not to have a Federal

policy toward education, particularly higher education.This determination was made evident by the government'sreluctance to consider or administer the educational

benefits of the Bill as a "scholarship," which might more

directly involve the goternment with institutions of higherlearning, and is insistence that the benefits were only aneducational assistance allowance which could be used tomeet, "in part, the expenses of his [the veteran's]subsistence, tuition, fees, supplies, books, equipment, andother educational costs."

Federal policies toward higher education would notevolve until later, in the 1950s, when the Congressestablished the National Science Fc'Indation and enactedinto law the National Defense Education Actboth ofwhich were also set up out of necessity, 'rd in response towhat Congress clearly perceived as national emergencies:the Cold War and Soviet technological acivances.

The GI Bill, it should be remembered, was not solelycontented with education and training. The concept ofFederal ass:stance for education and training was firstbroached when President Roosevelt was confronted withthe necessity of drafting eighteen-year olds. In its finalform, the legislation went beyond education and trainingand included home, farm and business loans; unemploy-ment compensation; job placement assistance, and separa-tion pay. It is this entire package of benefits that is moreaccurately called "the GI Bill." The original bill ultimatelyinvolved the expenditure of over $20 billion, withapproximately $14.8 billion of that sum spent foreducation and training benefits.

Because of the unusual speed with which theServicemen's Readjustment Assistant, Act had to beimplemented, a number of serious inadequacies appeared inthe program from the start. Of particular seriousness wasthe system established for benefits payments. The originalGI Bill called for two payments: a subsistence allowancepaid directly to the veteran; and an indepndent contractwith educational institutions which profrided up to $500per year for tuition, books and other educational expenses.The dual payments led in many instances to questionable oreven fraudulent practices and to frequent over-payments toinstitutions.

A .good deal of confusion also developed over thedefinitions of what rightly constituted a "course," "enroll-ment," "attendance," etc. But the greatest scandal of theday, perhaps, was the inestimable number of unaccreditedvocational and trade schools that catered exclusively toveterans and which appeared and disappeared withnotoriety.

To resolve these outstanding issues, a select commit-tee was formed in 1950-51 to correct the abuses andinadequacies of the World War II pr gram. As thiscommittee was deliberating its recommendations, however,the Korean conflict erupted and altered considerably thesituation in which these recommendations were to be made:

These recommendations were incorporated into theServicemen's Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952. It isgenerally thought that most of the weaknesses of the WorldWar II program were corrected by this Act, and that theKorean veterans benefits program that resulted was moreefficient and effective. The basic service period this actcovered was June, 1950 to January 31, 1955, or the date of

first discharge after January 31, 1955. Benefits could befiled for any time within the first three years of dischargeand had to terminate eight years from the date of discharge.

For the World Waillprogram, the service periodcovered extended from September 16, 1940 to July 25,1947. Benefits could commence within four years from thedate of discharge and had to terminate aft, r nine yearsfrom date of discharge. It should be noted that servicemenin the armed forces between 1947 and 1950 were notcovered by any benefits program.= In 1956, the war orphans, wives and widows programwas created to extend education and training benefits tothem. It was coordinated with the Korean program so thatinstitutions training both veterans and dependents could doso without being confronted with two programs withvarying procedures and guidelines. In 1964, the warorphans' program was enlarged to include the children of100-percent-disabled veterans. In 1968 another amendmentto the law provided benefits for widows of veterans whosedeaths were service connected and wives of veterans whowere permanently or totally disabled by service-connectedinjuries.

The final major piece of legislation affecting veteransbenefits was the Servicemen's Readjustment Benefits Act of1966, plus later amendments to it. This was basically acontinuation of the Korean program designed to includeand benefit the Vietnam-era veteran. The service periodcovered by it begins on February 1, 1955 and has no endingdate. Benefits may be filed for at any time but mustterminate eight years from the date of discharge.

The magnitude of the GI Bill reflects accurately thedimensions of the social disturbances and institutionalcrises created by war. We now khow that these samedisturbances and crises can be initiated by an apprehensivepeace. For the first time in our history, the encroachmentsof a Cold War and an interminable number of undeclaredwars have left us with an extended compulsory militaryservice and a guarantee that society will be required toabsorb veterans for a number of years to come.

Institutions of higher learning may be spared todaythe high release rates with which they were confronted inthe mid-forties. The existence of returning veterans intenton getting an education and securing a job, however, is asreal an issue today as it ever was: in 1971 nearly a millionservicemen were separated from the armed forces. In 1972,that figure is expected by Veterans Administration toincrease.

P. .1nty-one percent of the Vietnam-era veterans havecompleted at least four years of high school. To the extentthat they are interested in additional education, this makesthem prime candidates for post-secondary 'continuingeducation. (Of the 953.000 Vietnam-era veterans whoenrolled in college-level programs, 340,000, or 36%,enrolled part-time.) In contrast, only 38% of the World WarII veterans had completed .four -years of high school, and44% of the Korean veterans. Of the 15,182,000 veterans ofWorld War II, about 40% elected to participate in the GIBill's educational benefits. Of the 5,171,000 Korean

79

conflict veterans, 37% participated. Of the 5,138,000Vietnam-era veterans, as of September of 1971, only about

35% participated.This lack of growth of interest among veterans in

seeking more education, and the implications this has for a

job market which is already severely restricted, is a major

reason why the VA has embarked upon a new policyembodied in its "Operation Outreach" program.

Project Outreach was initiated by VA-in 1968 and is

strongly supported by the current VA administration. Its

purpose is to inform servicemen of the benefits to whichthey are entitled as veterans, particularly the education and

training benefits. Although this information has always

been available in the past to servicemen, Project Outreachreflects a determined effort to assure that all servicement

are provided with guidance and counseling. This informa-tion is disseminated by teams located at major Vietnamese

installations, at major separation points, at military

hospitals and at newly created U.S. Veterans Assistance

Centers (USVACS).USVACS are one and two-man service centers set up

as satellites to the fifty-seven regional offices operated by

VA in the United States, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.As originally conceived, these centers were to be staffed by

representatives from VA and the Civil Service Commission.Another more modest program, and of even more

recent creation, is called SEEC, the Servicemen's EarlyEducational Counseling program. SEEC is a cooperativeeffort by VA, the Department of Labor and the Office ofEducation. The focus of this activity is on.counseling andadvising the servicemen of their education entitlementsprior to their separation from the services. Approximatelythirty-five trained education and guidance specialists arenow serving in various foreign posts.

The professional qualifications required of SEEC staffare atypical of VA and rep-;sent a departure from thequalifications required of the VA staff administering theeducation and training benefit activities. VA staff hastraditionally been composed of lawyers and quasi-legalprofessionals ("adjudicators"). Individuals with actual pro-

fessional experience in the education field have beenweakly represented on the staff.

Many of the decisions which had to be mad,1

originally in interpreting the GI Bill were highly legal andtechnical in nature. To some extent, this continues to be

characteristic of current decisions. It would see reasonable

to assume, however, that most of the legal "bugs" havebeen shaken out of the system, and that VA's adminis-

trative guidelines are now more clearly stated and under-

stood. Nonetheless, adjudicators continue to handle

questions affecting the ddininistration of education and

training benefits.The absence of enough individuals with education

experience who have either routine or periodic input intothe administration of the education benefits program is aserious problem. This problem is aggravated by the fact thatfew educational associations are involved in the planningand policy apparatus of VAto the extent that such an

80

apparatus exists. VA has established minimal contacts with

the education profession societiesand vice versaand has

an Advisory Council mandated by law, on which theCommissioner of Education ex officio, that appears tobe more inactive than active.

The statutory council is called the Administrator'sVocational Rehabilitation Advisory Committee. Its mem-bership is not specified by law, nor is its size. It presentlyhas eleven members, although it periodically has had moreor fewer members. Vacancies, therefore, can never be saidto exist. Members are selected by the Administrator, who is

not an official member of the Committee. The Committeemembers in turn elect a chairman from among their ownranks.

In theory, at least, the Committee's responsibility is

to aid the Administrator in the formulation of vocationalrehabilitation and education priorities and policies. This

responsibility is difficult to -implement, however, when theCommittee meets as infrequently as it does (about twice ayear), with no on-going working agenda, no stated mission,

and at the discretion of the Administrator or Chairman.There appears to be minimal input into the formu-

lation of VA education and training policies and practicesby individuals and groups outside of VAa situation whichwould be less lamentable if there were more people within

VA with educational experiences and information. Those

individuals in VA who do have substantial educationalinformation operate primarily at mid-level; individuals

operating at the most senior level do not have backgrounds

in the education field.The American Association of Junior Colleges is one

of the few professional associations actively workingwithVeterans Administration. With support from the Carnegie

Foundation, AAJC is assisting junior colleges to respond tothe heavy demands being made upon them by returning

veterans. New programs are being devised, admissionsprocedures simplified, and information banks being estab-

lished to help community colleges locate veterans withinreach who might be motivated to take advantage of their

educational benefits.In addition to AMC, the American Asscciation of

College Registrars and Admissions Officers is assisting VA

to revise and reform its benefits application and reportingforms. The National Association of College AdmissionsCounsellors is also cooperating with VA in locating thosetwo- and four-year institutions that will enroll veterans,preferably on an open admissions basis. Somewhat relatedto this, the Commission on Accrediting- of ServiceExperiences, which is sponsor...I by the American Couricilon Education, continues to evaluate all military proemsand courses to enable veterans togain credit \fromuniversities for program-related military training, su as

electronics or languages.These activities, as welcome as they are, should not

cloud,the fact that most of the educational associations and

institutions are in no way, involved with VA's education and

training activities, either on a formal or informal basis.

What is puzzling about this lack of cooperation is that in

other areas of VA activities, strenuous efforts are made toestablish close ties with the appropriate outside agenciesand institutions. This is particularly true of the intimateassociation which has developed between VA hospitals anduniversity medical schools.

The VA central office has a core staff of about 130professionals dealing with educational benefits, althoughnot all of these people deal only with educational benefits;most deal with compensation and pension benefits as well.However, the size of the staff has not always reflected theamount of work the staff was required to do. In 1964, forinstance, a combined staff of over two hundred individualswas on hand at a time when only 6,0_00 veterans were beingtrained. The staff is part of the Compensation, Pension andEducation Service, which is headed by a Director whoreports to the Chief Benefits Director of the Department ofVeterans Benefits. The Chief Benefits Director reportsdirectly to the Administrator.

Education benefits, in other words, are not adminis-tered as an autonomous unit within VA. The Service whichadministers education benefits deals also with compensa-tion and pensions benefits. A separate VdcationalRehabilitation and Education Benefits Service (the namestill carried by the Advisory Council) once existed as anindependent unit but was coupled with the Compensationand Pension Service in 1964 to form what now appears asthe Compensation, Pension and Education Service.

The rationale provided for this union was theexpectation that the two separate services might be moreefficiently operated as a single administrative unit. It wasknown that the peak work loads for the education benefitsstaff came in September-October, while the peak workloads for the compensation and pension staff came inJanuan, February and March. VA also felt that thecross-training of professional staff was desirable, and thatthe ci;:ation of a new service incorporating all compen-sation, pension and education benefits would be moreconducive to such cross-training.

The staffing and administrative pattern which appearsin the central office is largely repeated at the fifty-sevenregional offices. In these offices, also, adjudicators prcladethe main administrative support for the education andtraining activities. The background of these adjudicators issimilar to that of the adjudicators in the central office.Unlike the central office, the regional offices do not haveadvisory committees working with them on a State-widebasis, even though such committees could provide theregional offices with substantive information and guidanceaii) would, consequently, seem highly desirable. Thispossibility, however, would have to be considered withinthe context of the degree to which regional offices exerciseindependence from the central office. As a regulatoryagency, Veterans Administration must operate with seriousregulatory restraints. These restraints nave been carefullyelaborated by the Congress and restrict not only whatevertendencies that might appear in the regional offices toexercise independence, but whatever similar tendencieswhich might also appear in the central office.

It is to these regional offices that veterans actuallyfile for education benefits. Once the application is filed,and assuming the veteran has been honorably dischargedand has been in the service for 181 days, he will receivefrom the regional office a certificate of eligibility. Thiscertificate entitles him to his benefits, and it is left to theveteran's discretion where and when he will take advantageof them. Although the veteran is entitled to other kinds oftraining, like flight training, on -the job training and farmcooperative training, the great majority of veterans ap-proach two- and four-year institutions for their training.

Each regional office keeps a list of institutions withinthe State whose programs aid courses have been approved.These institutions earlier had approached VA with requeststo participate in the VA education benefit activities.However, the actual approval of their programs is left notto VA but to whichever agency or agencies are designatedthat responsibility by the Governors of the States. For mostStates, the designee is the State education agency.

The State provides this service to VA as a result of acontract negotiated between the State and the regional VAoffice. State agencies are reimbursed for these services, andpayment is made to the State to cover the salaries, traveland other administrative expenses of the State staff. Stateagency personnel providing only part-time services to VAare compensated accordingly. This exchange of services isthe major r nt to which the regional offices and the Stateagencies have routine contact.

Once a veteran has been accepted by an institutionand enrolls in an approved program or course, theinstitution returns to the regional office a certificate ofenrollment. As soon as this certificate is received by theregional office and is processed by the central VA office,the veteran is sent his first check by the TreasuryDepartment. In the original GI Bill, two separate paymentswere made: one directly to the veteran as a subsistenceallowance, and one directly to the institution to help defrayeducational costs. This system resulted in a mammothvoucher system that proved ineffective and has since beendiscontinued.

The prictice now is to send one check directly to theindividual, which he can use either as a subsistenceallowance or an education-al allowance. For those enrolledin full-time study, the check is usually for $175, withincrements provided for dependents.

In effect, today's veteran is receiving less from thegovernment than his predecessors and is expected to domore with it. Few veterans can subsist and pay the expensesof their education, either in whole or in part, with theirmonthly payments. A major result of this dilemma is thatmost veterans gravitate toward less expensive publicinstitutions, have spouses who work, or work themselvespart-time.

The seriousness of this problem is partly amelioratedby a recent-- action taken by the Department of Health,Education and Welfare. Amendments have been made to avariety of HEW programs to allow increased payments ofEconomic Opportunity Grants and work-study grants to

b I

veterans as a means to supplement their income while intraining. In addition, several Office of Education programs,like the Career Opportunities Program and other teacher-training programs, give priority consideration to veterans.(The House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee currently hasbefore it recommendations supported by the President thatVA education and training allowances be increased.)

Among other innovations which have appeared in thecurrent GI Bill is an allowance provided to the educa-tionally disadvantaged. This special assistance is intended tohelp veterans who have academic deficiencies attain a highschool 'diploma which will then enable them to pursuecourses in higher education. It is also intended to helpveterans pursue post-secondary education through tutorialassistance at the secondary level.

To assist these educationally disadvantaged veterans,Congress has enacted a program called PREP (PredischargeEducation Program). PREP's purpose is to provide ill-

qualified servicemen with an opportunity to receive a highschool diploma or remedial training to better prepare themfor higher and vocational education after separation. Thisprogram does not affect the other educational benefits towhich these veterans are entitled.

Once separated from the service, these disadvantagedveterans and other veterans are affected by a p:oblemwhich persists in the administration of VA educationbenefits. It is the problem of the kind of language whichwas used in past legislation and is used in currentlegislation. The statutes refer repeatedly to "credit hours,""courses," "semesters," "attendance," "absences," "enroll-ment" and other terms that reflect only a very traditionaland narrow view of what comprises an educationalprogram. The language is an impediment to a recognition ofother legitimate educational experiences, and fails to takeinto consideration the variety of special educationalopportunities for which this language has no meaning. Musta veteran be enrolled in a "course" for a specific number of"credit hours" and actually "attend" a course in order toqualify for benefits?

It is not clear how aware VA authorities are of theincreasing number ancracceptance of non-traditional formsof education. Considering the quasi-legal backgrounds ofthe adjudicators who must actually pass judgment on caseswhere such questions arise, the situation would seem torequire a revision of the wording of the GI Bill, or at leas:the establishment of guidelines to make specific allowancesfor such non-traditional educational activities.

Despite the overwhelming impact that the GI Bill hashad upon institutions of higitea learning, Veterans Adminis-tration has had minimal direct and routine contact withcolleges and universities. This relationship seems to beconceived as a monumental administrative detail, to behandled at VA's end by adjudicators, and at the university'send by a veterans' representative. This latter individual isgenerally a HI- or part-time clerk in the registrar's office.With payments now being made directly to veterans andnot-to institutions, the relationship between VA and the

82

universities is even more. limited than at any time in thepast.

The only statement which VA routinely requiresfrom institutions participating in VA education activities isa certificate of attendance. This certificate is sent to VA atthe termination of a particular program and is intended toconfirm the fact that the veteran actually attended theprogram in which he earlier had stated that he was enrolled.Between the receipt of the veteran's certificate of enroll-ment and the institution's certificate of attendance,therefore, VA must operate on an "honor system" of sortsand assume that the veteran is telling the truth. Over theyears, billions of dollars have floated freely on thisreporting system.

This practice of direct payment to individuals, andthe reporting system which accompanies it, is a practiceentirely out of keeping with the Federal government's usualelaborate attention to fiscal monitoring and responsibility.What this suggests is that at a given point in time, VAcannot give assurances to the Congress or to the public atlarge that VA benefits are actually accomplishing what theywere originally intended to accomplish. Infractions of thissystem are probably minor, but a minor percentage of solarge a fiscal program may appear to some individuals to bea sizeable amount of money.

Veterans Administration has stewardship over a vastbudget serving a vast number of American citizens.Although VA itself is a highly visible and structuredinstitution, the clientele it servesthe veterandefies easycategorizatiOn. Veterans fall into an endless variety ofcategories, each category requiring special benefits andspecial services. Veterans are represented in significantnumbers at every level and in every kind of post-secondaryeducational activity. .

How institutions of higher learning respond toveterans' educational needs is one question; how theVeterans Administration responds to these needs is anotherquestion entirely and is an appropriate subject for reviewand scrutiny. Unfortunately, systematic and substantialreviews of educational activities, other than in-house staffreviews, do not appear to have taken place over the years.The concerns routinely expressed by VA staff are generallyrestricted to administrative matters like improved certifi-cate forms and individual and institutional reporting.Expressions of concern about substantive program mattersinvolving, educational theory and practice are few. Theseprogram 'matters seem genuinely to be beyond the scopeand capacity of many VA decision makers.

The present staffing pattern that appears both in thecentral VA office and in the regional offices, 4.nd at everylevel of administrative responsibility, is simply not con-ducive; to pr viding sufficient credibility to VA's totalcommitment o the educational needs, of veterans. Thatcommitment is only partiallike the VA allowances whichareintended by the Congress to help veterans "in part" tomeet the expenses of their educational programs.

VA does not appear to be sufficiently interested inabsorbing educational prefessionals into its structure. It

does not appear interested in going outside of its structureto gain access to vital resources which might, for instance,have helped call into question the terminology of much ofthe statutory language affecting VA operations.

The GI Bill is one of the great innovative programs ofthe Federal government in this century. The Bill's impacton American education and institutions of higher learninghas been profound. It is doubtful if the magnitude of thatimpact can ever be soundly evaluated. But considering thismagnitude, it is incomprehensible that there does not existanywhere in the entire VA administrative structure a singleautonomous unit dealing clearly, primarily and sub-stantively with educational activities.

The absence of such a unit is a significant indicationof VA's tenuous relationship with the academic world. VAlagged behind other Federal agencies in responding to thelegitimate needs of the educationally disadvantaged. Thereis still some question as to how far it has progressed inorganizing itself in such a way that other equally urgenteducational needs can be identified and resolved system-atically. An encouraging recent development has been thecreation of a National Task Force on Education and theVietnam-Era Veteran. This Task Force will bring togetherrepresentatives of the academic community and VeteransAdministration to discuss the special educational needs ofthe newer generation of veterans.*

One of the immediate problems the Task Force mayhave to confront is the effect VA's statutory language hason the administration of Vs education benefits. VA'sstatutory language is elaborate and somewhat inconsistentwith Much of what is occurring in higher education today.The precision of the definitions 4/hid' appear in thislanguage parallels the strict attention VA has had to pay tothe legal nature of its operations and to the existence en

'Since this study was written, the Tusk Force has completed itsinitial agenda and has made a number of recommendations to theAdministrator of Veterans Administration which, if adopted byVA, may resolve many of the issues raised in this study.

masse of "adjudicators." In contrast to the concisenessand detail of the legislative language, there exists a fiscalreporting syStem that is unique within the Federalgovernment for its relative simplicitya simplicity whichmight startle other Federal agencies and private corpora-tions by its vulnerability to abuse and its resistence to fiscalmonitoring.

Apparently, Veterans Administration feels that boththe language 'thich appears in. the statutes, and the fiscaldisbursement and reporting system which it administers, arepreferable to alternatives. If the-VA had established a morepermanent link to the educational community, and hadencouraged the regional offices to do likewise; had a morecredible advisory committee; and had gone more routinelyto non-government educational associations for professionalassistance, then it might at least have realized theinadequacies of the law it has been mandated by Congressto regulate.

The educational community itself has been lethargicin awakening to the help it might offer to VA inadministering " one of the largest Federal programs ofgducational assistance. Cooperation between VA and theeducational community on matters relating to veteransbenefits woul4 enlarge greatly the ability of each to design

.1more responsive programs for one of the most significantmanpower resources of the nation. The improvement ofeducational benefits to veterans, and the desirable effectsthis would have on the educational institutions themselves,are sufficient reasons to encourage this cooperation. Afurther reason:is the stimulation such cooperation wouldbring to Veteran Administration in helping it extend itsservices and benefits even further, thus, enhancing thepossibilitin that the quality of life among so large apercentage of our population will be increased, and that VAwill account with even more surly for its stewardship. 0

--,83

LEGAL SERVICES: UNIVERSITY AS ADVOCATE

Most community service programs serve only aselected segment of society. The Cooperative ExtensionServicethe forerunner of all university extension ac-tivityprovides assistance for those concerned with thedevelopment of the land, and the Sea Grant Program, itsmost recent off-spring, funds programs related

to marine affairs. "Backup centers" at universities, fundedby the Legal Services Division of the Office of EconomicOpportunity, also serve specialized clientele. These centersare intended to provide research, training, and technicalassistance services to Neighborhood Legal Services -LawOffices which, in turn, provide legal aid to the poor Theirstaf£ is also involved in the identification of legal issues and"test cases" which affect the rights of the poor and withthe development of appropriate legislation.

What the constituents of the Cooperative ExtensionService hive in common is that the way they make theirliving involves development of the land; what the consti-tuents of Legal Services have in common is their povertyand vulnerability. The nature of this clientele and purposeof the program raise a series of questions concerning thekinds of community service programs a university caneffectively operate. Should a university become involved inan effort which is intended to change the alignment ofpower within American society? What problems resultwhen a university program assumes an advocate role for agroup whose needs require changes in other majorinstitutions of the society?

The answers to these questions are important formany reasons including whether universities should under-take operational roles in poverty programs. There isincreased concern within the Federal government aboutthe importance of the implementation of research resultsand a recognition that reports and studies alone will notsolve community problems. Implementation of socialresearch, however, involves value judgments, controversy,and a kind of politicization of the university which may beunacceptable to the larger society. This program, in somesense, tests whether and in what ways the university canserve the disadvantaged.

84

A consideration of the kinds of services the universitycan provide the disadvantaged relates to another currentissue. There 's increasing pressure on universities to become"relevant," both in terms of the responsiveness ofcumculae to changing social patterns and the degree ofinvolvement in community life and national issues. At-tempts to become relevant vary; they range from advocacy

of political positions by university officials to experimenta-tion with new ways of governing campus life. One of themajor challenges to the university is to develop appropriateinteraction, between its teaching and community servicefunctions. How can the experience gained from communityinvolvement be used to develop and modify courseofferings so that they will provide students more relevanteducation?

Consideration of ways universities can become. ef-fectively involved in serving the disadvantaged is par-ticularly crucial in light cf the heavy Federal involvement inthis area. Of the 143 programs reviewed in this study, 10are designed to serve the disadvantaged. Total Federalexpenditures on these programs were $1,517,846,000 inFY 1970. Ciltis total may be misleading since it includesone program funded at $1,219,145,000, of which only anestimated $65,975,000 went to colleges and universities.)

The Neighborhood Legal Services Center Program is

one of the major efforts of the Office of EconomicOpportunity and one which has grow significantly.Funded at $61,000,01,0, it is the second largest specializedprogram funded by the agency. It provides legal-aid forpoor people, encourages the development of a cadre oflawyers with expertise in poverty law, and promotes lawreform which will protect and make explicit the 'rights of

the poor.During the initial period of program operation, two

nujor problems were identified by Legal Services staff.Since legal services for the poor was an under - financed andretively neglected field, there was a great dearth oflawyers with the appropriate expertise; research in the fieldof poverty law was similarly under-developed. Secondly,although it primary aim of the program was to institute law

reform through a selective use of "test cases," lawyers inNeighborhood Centers were inundated by requests forstandard services which merely met immediate needs. Therewas a clear need for a resource center which couldundertake basic research, identify important legal issues anddevelop training programs and materials" for use by thepracticing attorneys.

At the same time that the Office of EconomicOpportunity was initiating-its legal services program, theNational Welfare Rights Organization was gaining con-siderable strength and calling attention to some similarissues. At that time, it was one of the few nationalorganizations which united poor people around a specificissue and challenged Federal and local regulations by legalprocess. The Stern Family Fund gave a small grant to fundthe Center for Social Welfare Law and Policy at theColumbia School of Social Work for a program which wasto bring "test cases" tocourt concerning welfare law. Thisprogram was subsequently funded by OEO and became theprototype for other backup centers.

Universities were chosen as the grantees for thecenters primarily because of their resources in terms offaculty, students and library materials. In addition, OEOlegislation provides the opportunity for a Governor to"veto" programs operating in his State; programs funded atuniversities are not subject to this veto. Currently there areback-up centers in eleven subject matter areas: consumerlaw, economic development, education, employment, aging,health, housing, Indians, juveniles, migrants, and socialwelfare. Budgets for the centers during FY 1971 range fromapproximately $65,000 to $373,000. All but two of theprograms are funded at universities.

Statements issued by OEO suggest the range ofactivities in which backup centers are engaged. Publicationsby the centers added considerably to the base of legalknowledge concerning the following areas of the law.

Handbooks on the Federal Truth in Leading Actand the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act were publishedand distributed to local programs along with handbooks onFederal educational programs for Indians and model Statestatutes on the needs of the elderly. t.

Litigation packets.were prepared for juvenile courtpractice and for litigation arising from violations of Title VIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discriminationby private employers.

The Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law atColumbia University successfully assisted Lcal Legal Servicesattorneys in reversing a State of Nevada decision to raisewelfare eligibility standards which would have deniedbenefits to 25% of the families then receiving them.

The National Consumer Law Center was invited bythe Department of Labor to assist in the examination ofapplications submittei by States requesting exemption fromFederal wage garnishment restrictions contained in theFederal Consumer Credit Protection Act.

The National Housing Center, in conjunction with theNational Tenants Organization, negotiated with the Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Developnwnt on proposed

public housing regulations. As a result, new requirementsthat all public housing authorities provide certain lease andgrievance procedures to tenants were adopted. Theseprovisions further protect the rights and interests of thepublic housing tenant and were primarily based on modelagreements developed by the Center.

The Joint Commission for the Accreditation ofHospitals recently adopted new standards with respect tohealth care for the poor which it will require hospitalsapplying for accreditation to meet. The standards tedby the Commission were substantially those s este bythe Nationaltegal Program on Health Problems o the Poorat the University of California at Los Angeles. Mu 'h of theconcern directed toward providing better care for t e poor,as expiessed in the Preamble to the statement of st dards,can be directly attributed to the Center's participa 'n inthe development of that document.

In an attempt to increase the participation of thepoor in the private sector, the National EconomicDevelopment Center has provided specialized legal as-sistance to community based economic developmentprojects throughOilt the country. Through its efforts, thefirst Minority Enterprise Small Business Investment Cor-poration was established, in a small rural Georgia com-munity. Many of the newly developing enterprises assistedare agricultural and marketing supply cooperatives.

A particularly strong feature of this program in termsof administration from the Washington Office, is the systemof evaluation. In other Federal programs, evaluation hassuffered from both a lack of understanding of local needsand program purposes and little or no follow-up byWashington on recommendations of the evaluators. Eval-uation of this program would appear particularly difficultbecause it Is dealing with a relatively undevelopedfieldpoverty lawand because its advocacy approach isnew.

Annually, a team of evaluators-consisting of expertsin poverty law and administrative staff of other similarprograms makes an on-site visit to each center. Conver-sations are held with program staff and there are telephoneinterviews with people who have used the services of theprogram. Evaluation findings are discussed with theprogram director, and occasionally the Washington staff.will add a "Special Condition" to the grant if they want toensure that particular changes are made. Program directorsconfirm scat evaluations are helpful to them and haveresulted in substantive changes in their programs.

Backup centers appear to be accomplishing theirmajor putposes of developing training materials, providingresearch services and encouraging law reform. There is lessevidence of success, however, in the pattern of program-university relations. Perhaps the problems can best bedivided into two categoriesthe impact of the university onthe program and the impact of the program on theuniversity.

In conversations with program and Washington staff,invariably there were complaints about the percentage ofindirect costs the university charged for operation of the

85

program. Indirect costs are a percentage of salaries for thegrant; they range from 20% of salaries to 34% of total

'direct costs. This expense is felt particularly acutelybecause budgets for backup centers are smallnone exceeds$400,000 annuallyand the demands on the program areimmense.

The general method for determining indirect costs isto rely upon the indirect cost rate negotiated by theDepartment of Health, Education and Welfare. That rate isnegotiated annually by HEW auditors; the assumptionsbehind this method are that valuable time would be wastedby both Federal and university officials if an indirect costrate had to be negotiated for each grant to a university andthat any individual inequities which may result in applyingthe same rate to different programs will average out whenall programs at the university are ccasidered.

The limited overall budget for this program resultedin a decision by OEO officials to attempt to negotiate -withuniversities for a reduction in the indirect cost rate fromthose figures negotiated by HEW. Some universities haveaccepted lower figures, In.', they have become increasinglyreluctant to negotiate.

A precedent does exist for an agency to pay indirectcosts at a rate lower than the HEW negotiated rate. Policyfor funding training grants by HEW stipulates that indirectcosts will not be paid in 'excess of 8%. The Office ofManagement and Budget has also indicated that agenciesmay negotiate if they feel elements-of cost included in thecomputation of the various university overhead rates arenot associated with the performance of the project to befunded.

The effects of the struggle over indirect costs havebeen severe in terms of university-program relationships. Insome cases, the indirect cost rate may result in disaffiliationof individual universities with the program. Almost withoutexception, much time and energy has been spend byprogram- and university officials .-on tht. issue, and resent-ments and misunderstandings have occurred which haveprevented the development of a good working relationship.Advocates of the p' gram in the university are forced tospend time defending the indirect cost rate negotiated by:0E0 to other officials within the university, rather thanpromoting the program itself.

Problems resulting from the inflexibility of facultypersonnel policies were mentioned by program staff almostas frequently as those concerning indirect costs. Legalsecretaries command particularly high salaries in relation toothers in the secretarial field; secretaries at universitiestraditionally receive low salaries. In some programs,program directors have, however; been restricted to theuniversity pay schedule in hiring secretaries. Some, of theprogram directors do not have control-over-raises for theirstaff, and university freezes on hiring and raises haveoccasionally been applied to backup center programs. Ingeneral, program staff seem to have few of the advantagesof faculty position and most of the disadvantages.

The assumption behind placing the centers atuniversities was that progr..n staff would have access to the

86

resources of the university such as the faculty, students andthe library. When questioned about the advantages ofuniversity affiliation, most program directors mentionedaccess to legal experts on the faculty. Involvement offaculty seems, however, to have been on an erratic basis. Insome cases program staff have consulted members of thefaculty with appropriate legal specialties, and facultymembers have initiated involvement with the program, butthere is little formal involvement of law faculty. Adminis-trative structures have not been developed, either byuniversity officials or program staff, which would en-courage regular sharing of information.

A basic tenet of OEO policy is that constituents of aprogram should be involved in program development andthe formulation of policy. Backup centers could be said tohave two groups of constituents: lawyers in NeighborhoodLegal Services Offices and the recipients of legal services.The general pattern of OEO programs has been to includeconstituents on a policy-making board; with one exception,this approach has not been applied at the university-basedbackup centers. Agreement has been reached with the Deanof the Law School at University of Pennsylvania to allow apolicy-making board of representatives from the healthservices field to advise the program staff of the Health LawProject on issues for curriculum development and on staffappointments. (That program is funded through the HealthServices Division of OEO rathethan Legal Services.)

Two backup centers have no university affiliation.The Migrant Legal Action Program, . 'iich developed froman earlier OEO- funded research l rogram on migrants, is a-non-profit corporation. It has a board of directorscomposed of members of prominent law firms in the area,lawyers concerned with the legal rights of migrants, andrepresentatives of organizations and program: which deal inthe migrants. The backup center concerned with the rightsof the elderly is similarly operated by a non-profitcorporation. Plans call for the Center on Social WelfarePolicy and Law at Columbia University Law School to beoperated by a private non-profit corporation with represen-tativ' welfare rights organizations on the board, and forthe N :.:anal Consumer Law Center to be transferred to anon-profit corporation. One major disadvantage of op-eration of these centers at universities is the difficulty ofdeveloping structures which permit necessary input fromprogram constituents.

The Office of Ecoromic Opportunity describes one(0, the accomplishments of the Legal-Services Program inthis way. "Through making available basic legal researchand materials appropriate for teaching purposes, they (theprograms) aid in the reori.ntation of law school curriculatoward a greater coverage of poverty law issues."

Although there is no consistent pattern of successconcerning the revision of curriculae, new courses havebeen developed at some law schools. With the exception ofthe program at Columbia, staff members teach creditcourses in all the programs. Several university officialsmentioned that one asset of the program was that it paidsalaries for experts who would not otherwise be available to

the law faculty. A considerable body of published researchhas been generated in the previously under-developed areaof poverty law.

Neatly all the programs have involved students intheir work, either on a paid basis or by assigning themresearch projects which earn them credit in the law school.It should be noted, however, that university sponsorship isnot necessary for this kind of involvement to occur. TheDirector of the Migrant Legal Action Program has anirrangement with three Washington area law schools to usestudents in similar ways.

It was mentioned earlier that the backup centerprogram contrasted with the Cooperative Extension Serviceand Sea Grant Program because of the nature of itsconstituency. Another major difference is that universityinvolvement was a crucial part of the original conception ofthose programs. Legislation for both Cooperative Extensionand Sea Grant specified that universities were to be thevehicle of program implementation. Backup centers, how-ever, developed as a result of program needs identified byLegal Services staff, and university involvement wastangential to the purpose of the Program. Little thoughtseems to have been given to the development of administra-tive structures which would allow the university andprogram mutually to benefit from their association. Theexperience of this program suggests that a university willnot function at its maximum potential as a resource centerfoi community service programs unless mechanisms arecreated to make this happen. Similarly, if impact on theuniversity curriculum is intended, thought must be given tothe kinds of activities which will make this occur.

The experience and approach of the Health LawProject at the University of Pennsylvania contrast sharplywith the backup centers funded through Legal Services andprovide further illumination about their difficulties. Theprimary program purpose is of direct concern to theuniversity"to create a set of health 1.1.v teaching materialsfor not only in Pennsylvania, but in law schoolsthroughout the country .... The theory of the grant is thatthe methods ordinarily utilized by law teachers for thepurpose of bringing together teaching 'materials are in-appropriate with regard to such problems. One ,cannotsimply cull existing cases, articles and legal writings; editthem; and set up "notes and questions," because asufficient base of legal activity and scholarship in the healtharea does not exist." Clearly, the focus of the project is thedevelopment of a product of-value to universitiesnew andmore relevant teaching materials and the rationale behindthe "activist" orientation of the staff relates to education.Action is required to develolta body of knowledge whichcan be taught.

Program staff, in turn, have made use cf universityresources. The Faculty Director feels that the insights andperspective of students have been invaluable in shaping thedirection of the program. He leads a Health Law Seminarwhich enrolls students in several different disciplines, andwhich solicits student opinion on major policy issues of theproject.

A second issue concerns the purpose of the program.Program staff very justifiably feel that their energy andtalent should be spent meeting the needs of the lawyers inthe Neighborhood Legal Service offices and of the poor.Although backup center staff are keenly interested ininstitutional change, change in universities is not a majorpriority. The Cooperative Extension and Sea Grant Pro-gram both provide funds for activities which are part ofthe university's normal functions; there is questionablebenefit to the university, however, from a program whoseprimary focus is completely in the community. And, fromthe perspective of the program staff, the university settingtends to prevent the close involvement of its constituents inprogram planning. Although the issue of" indirect costs is0,e ostensible source of friction between the university andtne progiam, in one sense that issue is symbolicand onlysuggests that neither university nor the Office of EconomicOpportunity is getting what it wants from their association.

From its inception, the Office of Economic Oppor-tunity has been characterized by controversy, recurrentchanges in funding patterns, and rapid turno--er of staff.The Division of Legal Serv.ces reflects this instability.During the past year, the Director of the Division was firedamid much newspaper publicity and there has beenconsiderable discussion about funding all the Legal Servicesprograms through a separate corporation. One tangiblebenefit of university sponsorship has been the insulation ithas provided the program against political opposition andthe prestige university affiliation offers. More directly,backup centers, since they are operated at universities, arenot subject to the veto of the Governor.

Although there is a short-term benefit to theprogram in university affiliation, the issue is larger than thesuccess of backup centers. It is significant that universitieswere exempted from the provision that governors have vetopower over programs; they are assumed to be "value-free"and not subject to political pressures. The job of theuniversity is not to provide political or administrativesanctuary for a program which is primarily community-oriented. If a pattern develops of controversial programs"borrowing" the prestige of the university, rather thaneffectively using its resources, that prestige will become ofquestionable value.

87

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION:

AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL CHALLENGE

The Advisory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations calls the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe StreetsAct "an intergovernmental challenge," and notes that"most of the controversy has been over the desirability ofblock grantschanneling Federal funds through the States.on a broad program basisversus direct Federal grants toState agencies-and localities on a project-by-project basis."Since block grants are close in philosophy and administra-tive structure to revenue sharing and that method of.funding educational programs has been endorsed by theAdministration and widely discussed, the experience of thisagency may be useful in developing revenue sharingapproaches.

The programs funded through this Act relate toeducational issues in other more specific ways. The subjectmatter of crime and delinquency has not produced thesame kind of rigorous scientific analysis as have othercommunity problems, and there is little communicationbetween practitioners in this :ield and university faculty.Experience of the Law Enfudement Assistance Admin-istration (LEAA), the agency administering this Act, hasbearing on the problem of applying the resources of theuniversity to problems which traditionally have had littleappeal for the higher education community. In the case ofmany community service programs, university involvementis either mandated or strongly encouraged by Washington;in this program, funding decisions are made at the State andlocal levels. The pattern of funding suggests what help Stateand local officials feel the university can provide and ifthey, in fact, view the university as a resource at all.

A recurrent theme of this study has been consider-ation of ways research results can be made most effective inmeeting the needs of users in the community. Researchawards are made by a separate unit within LEAA, theNational Institutes of Law Enforcement and CriminalJustice. Although priorities for funding are determined atthe national level, research results are assumed to beapplicable at the level of program operation in States andlocalities. The clear dichotomy between the determinationof research priornies and the use of research results.poses

88

special problems for LEAA and the educational com-munity.

The Omnibus Crime Bill was preceeded by the LawEnforcement Assistance Act of 1965, which was intcndedto "generate new approaches and techniques and toupgrade existing practices, resources, and capacities fordealing with the problem of crime." Under the Act, theAttorney General was empowered to make grants orcontracts with public and private non-profit agencies forprojects with the same general purposes as those nowfunded by LEAA. No formula was established fordetermining the allocation of these funds. The programremained relatively small, and its activities were importantprimarily car their emphasis on the importance ofup- gracing the criminal justice system.

A Prsidential Commission on Law Enforcement andAdministration of Justice was appointed to evaluate thenation's criminal justice system and make recommenda-tions; the report of this group documented the existence ofa badly trained, understaffed and poorly financed system.In partial response to this report the Johnson administra-tion developed the Safe Streets and Control Act of 1967which stipulated that States, as well as each localjurisdiction or combination of localities over 50,000population, would be required to prepare law enforcementand criminal justice plans as a condition for receivingFederal funds. Controversy developed over the degree ofinvolvement of the States, with the Johnson Administrationtaking the position that the States lacked the necessaryexpertise to assume a leadership roie in planning.

Much of the controversy surrounding the bill involvedthe level of government where fund allocations would bemade. The final result, after a series of amendments bySenator Dirksen, was that 85% of the animal appropriationwould go to the States according to their popula ion, withthe remaining 15% to be allocated by LEAA. Foicy percentof all planning funds would be funnelled through the Statesto units of local government, and 75% of each State'sallocation would be available PI action programs at thelocal level.

The report of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations draws attention to the moststriking aspect of the program. "Safe Streets Act is amarked departure in substance and style from most othergrant programs enacted by Congress during the 1960's. Themost striking change is the Act's heavy reliance on Stategovernments as planners, administrators, coordinators andinnovators ...." Currently, funds are allocated on the basisof population to State planning agencies (SPA's) whichupon consultation with local and regional units ofgovernment, develop a State plan for approval by LEAA.Each SPA is responsible to a board made up ofrepresentatives of law enforcement agencies and units oflocal government within the State and of public agenciesmaintaining programs to control and reduce crime.

The great bulk of LEAA funds are block grantsawarded to SPA's for use in State programs or fordistribution to local units of government; in FY 1971,$365,000,000 of a total LEAA budget of $529,000,000was distributed through the block grant program. TheNational Institute of Law Enforcement and CriminalJustice had a FY 1971 budget of $7,500,000. In additionto making grants for research projects, the Institute isresponsible for developing techniques for evaluating all ofthe activities of LEAA. The Institute also funds GraduateResearch Fellowships, Pilot Cities Programs, which test newtechniques in criminal justice in laboratory communities,the Law Enforcement Education Program, which involvesuniversities in upgrading criminal justice personnel, and theNational Library Reference Service.

Total Federal expenditures on nine higher continuingeducation programs designed to ameliorate pibblems ofcrime and delinquency were $248,487,000 in FY 1970. Sixof these programs, totaling $238,487,000, are administeredby the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

It is indicative of the status of education and trainingprograms at LEAA that for most of the agency's history noone person has been responsible for relations withuniversities or for the development of educational andtraining programs. Similarly, it is extremely difficult todiscover how much of LEAA's funds are going to collegesand universities. Only State and local units of governmentare eligible for direct funding through the block grantprogram; therefore, State university systems, but notprivate colleges and universities, may receive direct grants.Universities may contract with units of State or localgovernment to perform a specific service or receive asub-grant from them.

In an attempt to define the issues concerninguniversity involvement, telephone conversations were heldw it staff members of ten of the State Planning Agencies,and there were two on-site visits. Since direction from theFederal level concerning the degree of kind of universityinvolvement was not clear, the services provided byuniversities varied considerably from State to State. Anumber of SPA's had supplemented university budgets forLEEP, the Law Enforcement Education Program. Smallresearch projects, in the area of $1,000 to $10,000 have

81-668 0 - 72 -

been supported, and universities love operated trainingprograms for criminal justice personnel in various states.Involvement ranges from the awarding of one or two smallresearch grants to extensive use of all the various resourcesof the university. The Governor's Commission on CrimePrevention and Control in Minnesota has awarded over$575,000 in action nds to colleges and universities forprograms ranging from "Education on Legal Procedures forSocial Workers" to a "Rural Crime and Justice Institute".

Activities of the State Law Enforcement PlanningAgency in New Jersey resulted(in the formation of the NewJersey Council of Educational Institutions for Law Enforce-ment which developed a master plan for the State includingguidelines which would insure quality law enforcementeducation programs.

Responses to a questionnaire sent to 21 of theremaining SPA's confirmed responses of the initial tele-phone conversations. Directors of the agencies were asked ifthey had a full-time staff member responsible for planningin the area of education and training and what roles thelocal universities had played in their prr.gam developmentand implementation. An open-ended question solicitedreactions to the special problems and advantages involved ingranting funds to universities.

All agencies had involved universities to some extentin their programs. Of the 15 respondents, the great majorityindicated that universities had received contracts orsub-grants to operate training programs for personnel in thecrimiial justice agencies; a total of 22 programs weredescribed. In addition, a number of small research grantshad been awarded for topics ranging from a study whichwill lead to recommendations concerning the total revisionof the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure to datacollection analysis of the Probation Department in NewHampshire. There has been relatively little use of lawschools and of the university as a vehicle to evaluate andplan programs operated by other agencies.

Although many respondents did not comment on thespecial problems and advantages of university involvement,one remark in particular is striking. The Deputy Director ofthe Governor's Commission on Crime and Delinquency inNew Hampshire commented, "I fmd little value, to date-,in --university contact. Too expensive, too esoteric, far toomuch interest in theory, far too little interest in reality(action). In terms of social change, I'm afraid thecommunity passed them by some time ago. Too bad, thereis so much that could be done with such resources." Hisviews have been echoed, both in other responses to thequestionnaires and in conversations. The director of oneLF 4A-funded program remarked that, although he hadaccess to the resources of the entire University of Crliforniasystem, he had not involved any colleges or universities inhis operations because he found that private consultantfirms were much more capable of meeting deadlines andgetting to the heart of a problem. He also felt thatuniversity faculty were extremely capable of criticizingcriminal justice systems, but were unable to suggest I.owalternative systems could be implemented.

89

Conclusions concerning the involvement of SPA'swere predictable. Since there was no clear directive fromthe Federal government concerning the role universitiesshould play'in program operation, there was a wide range inthe extent and ways universities were involved by StatePlanning Agencies. Interestingly enough, universities wereprimarily called upon for their traditional role of teaching;training courses were mentioned most frequently in termsof sub-contracts awarded. In addition, there was askepticism about whether universities had knowledge andappropriate techniques for immediate problem-solvingsituations.

The National Institute for Law Enforcement andCriminal Justice has an extensive and crucial role in theoverall functioning of LEAA. Operating with an FY 70budget of $7,500,000, the Institute is authorized to (1)"Sponsor and conduct research, development, testing andevaluation of new or improved systems, equipment anddevices to improve and strengthen law enforcement; (2)study the causes of crime and effectiveness of crimeprevention, law enforcement and correctional programs; (3)recommend actions to be taken by governments, privatePersons, and organizations to improve and strengthen lawenforcement; (4) conduct an active program of dissemina-tion of technical informatior, on law enforcement; and (5)provide instructional assistance through fellowships andspecial workshops".

The Project Grant Program, by which the Institutefunds research projects in the criminal justice field, is itslargest undertaking. In FY 70 this program accounted for$5,456,000 of the total Institute budget; universitiesreceived grants totalling $1,110,000. (By grantee, univer-sities received 23.9% of National Institute funds and wereexceeded only by private firms which received 24.4%.)These percentages are based on the entire Institute budgetof $7,500,000. The great extent of involvement byconsultant firms in research was unexpected. One explana-tion made by Institute staff was that they were attemptingto build resources other than the university for researchwork. Comments from staff on the level of Programoperation suggest that consultant firms have a reputationfor being bettel able to complete projects on time andaccomplish the purposes of the granting agency. Inaddition, consultant firms often spend considerable timeestablishing contacts with potential grantees and keepcurrent about changing priorities and needs.

The kinds of projects funded show some indication ofthe priorities at the Institute. More than one third (37.4%)of the National Institute funds in FY 70 were spent onprojects related .to poliCe equipment, techniques andsystems. This program area was followed by courts andprosecution at 20% and erime prevention at 16.1%. Beyondthat categorization, it is difficult to generalize about thekinds of research projects which were funded. They range

from broad topics such as "A Study of Organized Crime inan Urban Area" to such specific studies as "ComparativeStudy of Court Calendaring Results".

90

An analysis of the method of setting researchpriorities and disseminating project results is more revealingthan a simple listing of the kinds of projects funded. Intialtelephone conversations with State Planning Agenciesrevealed that the results of research projects funded by theInstitute had not been used in program planning at the Stateand local levels and that there had been little attempt tosolicit the views of planners concerning what problemsshould be studied. These observations were later confirmedin replies to the questionnaire sent to State PlanningAgencies. (Two respondents did mention that there hadbeen an attempt .which failed in late 1969, to form anadvisory group of State Planning Agencies to communicateresearch needs)

Earlier in this report, an official of the Governor'sCommission on Crime and Delinquency in New Himpshirewas quoted to the effect that the university she "fartoo much interest in theory, far too little interest ii. .tlity(action) ". The particular problems of the informationsystem of this agency would not be of concern to this studyexcept for their bearing on the university's ability to solvecommunity problems. If administrative procedures are notestablished' which permit the research needs of thecommunity to be known and if proposed projects areevaluated only in terms of the priorities of Washingtonstaff, the university is hampered in its ability to serve thecommunity. There was no evidence that the staff of theInstitute even consulted-staff members in other programs ofLEAA.

Information dissemination is as crucial to a viableresearch effort as is the development of relevant priorities.The problems concerning dissemination of resear.;h resultsare suggested by the response of one SPA to thequestionnaire. "News of this kind (concerniag studies) isgenerally received indirectly, through other state criminaljustice agency newsletters". Numerous complaints werevoiced, both by staffs of SPA's and of other LEAAprograms, about the difficulties of locating informationsources within the Institute.

The Institute has developed two techniques topromote information dissemination. Of most relevance tothis study is an innovative program which developed from ademonstration project originally funded to the AmericanCriminal Justice Institute in San Jose, California. The "PilotCities Program", as described in LEAA, is intended "todemonstrate the impoitance and practicality of compre-hensive changes in law enforcement..." In one city of eachof the LEAA regions, the Institute establishes a team thatworks in close cooperation with police, court and cor-rectional agencies to identify crime problems, assesses theeffectiveness of agency activities, and suggests on the basisof the best technology, programs that address critical localcrime problems. Cities are chosen for the Pilot CitiesProgram on the basis of several criteria; including size,support of city and criminal justice leadership, theseriousness of crajoroblems and the receptiv;ty totechnology transfer.

Currently, there are projects operating in the forlowing cities: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Chapel Hill,North Carolina; Dayton, Ohio; San Jose, California; DesMoines, Iowa; Williamsburg:1i Virginia; and Omaha,Nebraska. All but two of thesgprogramsthose at Daytonand San Joseare funded at universities. Each program hasa budget of approximately $200,000 to pay salaries for acentral staff of experts in the criminal justice field. Inaddition, each participating city is allocated $500,000 indiscretionary funds beyond its block grant monies with theassumption that the consultants will help relevant cityagencies in planning the use of the funds.

Programs at universities operate in a variety ofadministrative arrangements. At the University of NewAmdco, the program is in the Institute for Social Researchand Development; at the University of North Carolina, it isin the Institute for Government; at Nebraska, in theDepartment of Law Enforcement and Corrections; in othereases; programs are the direct responsibility of AssistantVice Presiden .

The programs at universities are more recent thanthose funded through non-profit corporations, and it is tooearly to evaluate their success. Experience at the Universityof New Mexico, however, does suggest what some of theadvantages and disadvantages are of university involvementin this kind of activity. An important initial step for PilotCities Program staff is to gain the confidence of thecriminal justice community since the influence of that staffis dependent on the extent to which relevant local agencieswill accept their advice. The Program Director atAlbuquerque commented that the image of the universityas being too radical and theoretically oriented was anobstacle in enlisting the support of criminal justice agencies.This problem was compounded by a clash between the localpolice and the students over the use of a park located nearthe University. It is indicative of the confidence the staffhad already been able to generate that they were invited bythe police to observe activity in the Command Head-quarters where strategy- was planned to quell the dis-turbance.

This problem of image has been important in terms ofprogram-universi," relations in two other ways. Before theprogram actually began operation, several members of theSociology Department complained about the proposedgrant because they felt LEAA was -- a "paramilitary"agency and the University would become involved inactivities leading to repression. On the other hand, theAssistant Director of ISRAD commented that this par-ticular program' had been useful because ISRAD generallyhad a reputation of serving only the disadvantaged.

There have been considerable attempts to use theresources of the University of New Mexico in programdevelopment and implementation. The staff of the CriminalJustice Program has submitted applications to LEAA.for 14

different projects which involve c:ther departmental orfaculty member participation. Involvement ranges from asimple contractual arrangement with one member of theDepartment of Psychiatry to the operation of a Diug AbuseEducation and Coordination Center.

It is too early to measure accurately the effects ofthis program on the community. What does seem apparentis that the ability of the staff to function is impaired by theoverall administrative problems of LEAA. Directors of PilotCities Programs have had no more success than Directors ofState Planning Agendies in obtaining research results fromthe Institute, nor have they been asked to help determineresearch priorities. More important, perhaps, is the fact thatadministrative sturctyres have not been developed whichpermit the sharing of the experiences of the staffs of PilotCities Programs with criminal justice planning units at theState and local levels.

It should be noted that the Institute is concernedabout the problem of information dissemination and hasawarded a contract of over $700,000 to General Electricfor the development of a National Criminal JusticeReference Service. This contract was preceded by aplanning grant to George Washington Uniersity in 1970 fora study which would identify the users to be served, definetheir needs, establish information resources, and determinethe types of reference services to to built into the system.The Reference Service will be used by LEAA RegionalOffices, State Planning Agencies, loci law enforcementplanning agencies, and legislators and legislative bodies.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act hasbeen called an "intergovernmental challenge". One of themajor challenges to a program which places responsibilityfor planning at the State and hical leiels is the developmentof ways whereby the national pool of knowledge, in termsof research results and expertise, can be made available atthe State' and local levels. It is ironic that this programwhich stresses` determination of program priorities atthe local level has concentrated the determination of

-research priorities in Washington. The effect of this on theuniversity, which is one of the major repositories ofknowledge, is to impair its ability to respond to communityproblems with relevant information.

The experience of this program also suggests thatuniversities have developed a reputation for being able tosolve some community problems, but not others. The staffsof State Planning Agencies have requested universityinvolve nt where teaching and training functions werenecessaiy, but there is considerable skepticism about theability of university faculty to provide guidance onimmediate, practical problems and to work effectively withthe criminal justice community. The Pilot Cities Programwill provide a link between the academic community andthe "real wsrld", and will test whether university resourcesare approplite to the problems in the criminal justice field.0

91

GOVERNMENT CONDUCTED PROGRAMS

OF CONTINUING EDUCATION

A major responsibility of the Federal government isthe dissemination of information and knowledge to thegeneral public and to specialized clienteles. This is oftendone directly, without reliance upon universities as inter-mediaries. Consequently, many continuing education pro-grams are conducted by Federal-employees, rather thanunder project or formula grants. These programs differfrom the vast array of Civil Service Commission and Federalagency training programs in that they are intendedprimarily for the public rather than for governmentemployees.

A broad spectrum of topics is included in thisgrouping. Subject areas range from a Uranium Workshop,sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission at GrantJunction, Colorado, to Agriculture Development in theTennessee Valley, to Civil Defense Training and Education.

Of the 143 programs included in this study, elevencan be termed " government -conducted" programs. Inaddition to these, many workshops and training coursesexist which are not included in this study because they dealwith subject matter or a level of address below usualdefinitions of higher education. Within this broader listingwould be such programs as Tax Information and Education,sponsored by the Internal Revenue Service; Weights andMeasures Service, offered by the National Bureau ofStandards of the Department of Commerce; and manyothers which relate to the basic responsibilities of Federalagencies.

Funds to organize and conduct these programs areprovided directly by the sponsoring agency and aretypically used primarily to defray the government'sadministrative and salary costs. Only in a very limitednumber of programs are funds provided for stipends or fortravel expenses and living costs of participants. Howevervariations in practice do occur. In the Model CitiesSupplementary Grants Program, funds are transferred to aCity Demonstration Agency (CDA) in a city which has beenselected as a Model City. The CDA, therefore, acts asHUD's training agent in carrying out the program for thatcity. For the Civil Defense Training and Education

92

Program, funds are assigned to the Regional CivilDefenseDirectors who then work with participating States incarrying out Civil Defense Education programs.

Typical of government-conducted continuing educa-tion programs are the Nuclear Education and Trainingactivities of the Atomic Energy Commission. The clierteleserved through these programs is highly specialized;participants come primarily from the scientific community.The main purpose is to communicate current findings andtechniques to an audience who will applyithem in industryand education.

These courses are usually conducted at one of theA.E.C. laboratories. Many of the workshops and institutesare concentrated at the Argonne National Laboratory andat the Oak Ridge facility of the Atomic Energy Commis-sion. Interested participants apply directly to the sponsor-ing laboratory. This procedure helps keep the administra-tive costs low and paper work is minima:.

None of the A.E.C,programs requires matching fundsby the participant or his employer. For some programs, feesare paid by participants on a set scale, but two of the sixA.E.C. programs offer financial assistance to the par-ticipant. For example, the Faculty Research Participationprogram provides a monthly stipend fOr periods of fromtwo months to a full year (not to exceed $1,200 permonth) based, on the academic level of the facultyparticipant.

One advantage of placing the responsibility for theedutational programs at the laboratory level is the resultingflexibility. Workshops on be arranged as the need arises;communication is simplified between participant andsponsor. In FY 1970, $1A18,000 was assigned directly forthese A.E.C. continuing education programs and over 1,100persons participated.

Another area in which the government-sponsoredprogram concept is being used successfully is in the trainingof public health workers. The Center for Disease Control(DHEW) in Atlanta was allotted $1,481,000 for FY 1970to assist States in developing and strengthening their owntraining programs in this field. Most of the training was

6

i

done at the Center, but other institutions or regional officeswere eligible co-sponsors. As in the A.E.C. programs, fundswere used primarily for administrative costs. The partici-pating State is required to provide training space, equip-ment and fees for any local speakers.

Coordination and cooperation with land grant col-leges is an important factor in the operation of theTennessee Valley Authority's programs. Here, farmers arethe direct recipients of research sponsored by the TVA inconjunction with State Extension Services. Programs arefocusul on the immediate dissemination of relevantresearch findings to the farmers. Approximately$1,000,000 was provided for these programs in FY 1970.

While government-conducted continuing educationefforts vary widely in subject matter, the kinds of clienteleserved and in the administrative arrangements throughwhich they operate, they have several common character-istics. Where a Federal agency is a "producer" ofknowledge, it has a responsibility to share that knowledgemore broadly. When primary expertise (such as in CivilDefense) is concentrated within, rather than outside, theFederal government, it is reasonable for government toconduct educational programs directly. And in situationswhere specialized facilities and equipment of the highestorder exist within government (nuclear equipment, forexample), it is logical and often necessary to bring traineesto thy government facility. 0

,

93

HIGH EXPECTATIONS AND MODEST SUCCESS:

TITLE I OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

In late 1965, Title I of the Higher Education Act wasenthusiastically welcomed by colleges and universities eagerto expand their continuing education programs to serveimportant public goals. During the intervening years muchof this enthusiasm has waned for reasons which warrantcareful scrutiny. Instead of becoming the central andseminal statute undergirding continuing education andgeneral extension programs, Title I has been permitted tolanguish at a low plateau of funding while subsequentlyenacted programs of lesser scope and narrow purpose haveencroached on its objectives, warped its impact andattracted higher budgets. Although Title t is a single andrelatively small program among the many Federal programsreviewed in this study, its potential for the future is stillpowerful and attainable. It remains a legislative model ofhigh promise: the neglect and the misunderstandings whichhave marked its history in no way diminish this fact. To thecontrary, the essential structure and purpose of Title I aremore vital and important today than when it was conceivedand created.

Essentially, Title I is a formula grant program whichpermits and encourages States to develop plans for theapplication of the resources of higher education in wayswhich serve critical community needs. Once these plans areprepared by State agencies in collaboration with institu-tions of higher education and approved by the Office ofEducation, a series of project grants, consistent with StatepIns, are made to those colleges and universities whichconduct the specific community service programs underfunds distributed by the States. Thus, Title I has created anoperative system within each State which brings educa-tional institutions into a dialogue with the responsible Stateagency and with each other, for the purpose of seekingagreement on a State Plan and an acceptable division offunds and responsibility for meeting Plan objectives. Inessence, this operative model offers an existing and testedformat for revenue sharing within a specific and manageablesphere of activity. The:broad program purposes are set byFederal legislation; the 'Specific decisions on fund disburse-

94

ment are made within the States and geared to the priorityneeds of each State.

Legitimate controversy exists on the broad conceptof revenue sharing, and cogent reasons for this controversyhave been adduced and debated. At the same time, ifserious attempts are to be made to resolve this controversy,Title I offers an experimental and pragmatic way of testingone revenue sharing approach: use of Federal funds byStates in support of continuing education for communityservice. An expanded infusion of Federal funds into Title Iprograms, followed by objective evaluation in depth ofresults achieved, could do much to produce learnings andprecedents applicable in other functic.al areas. Some of theuncertainties of revenue sharing which now producepolemics based on assumptions rather than experiencecould well be resolved through a decision to use Title I as atesting ground for revenue sharing concepts.

The success of Title I to date has been marred bymany factors; hence its substantial achievements have beenobscured and diminished. , The principal limitation hasalways been a funding level wholly inadequate for attainingthe objectives prescribed by law. In sweeping statutoryterms, Title I programs were designed to cope withproblems of poverty, housing, government, health and manyothers which demand attention at local and national levels.An allotment of 9.5 million dollars, distributed among 50States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam andthe Virgin Islands obviously results in dollar fragmentationwhich precludes funding and operation of large-scaleprograms. Unlike other formula grant programs,Cooperative Extension and the Sea Grant Program forexampleTitle I funds are not allotted to a limited numberof specifically designated institutions. For example, in fiscalyear 1970, a total of 501 colleges and universities operatedprograms under Title I funds, which indicates both thebroad involvement of higher education and the furtherfragmentation of funds into small sums adequate only forprojects of short duration or limited objectives. While thesum total of these scattered projects reveals manysuccessful efforts which bring returns far exceeding the

modest expenditures, the vast number of project activitiesand of institutions and communities involved makes asystematic evaluation of Title I activities virtually impos-sible, unless a major effort for this purpose is organized andfunded.

In addition, the objective of creating an 'extensiveState-wide system for community service through use ofhigher educational resources is inhibited because the fundsavailable do not permit involvement of many additionalinstitutions which express interest and propose relevantprojects. The anamoly is this: the extensive institutionalparticipation which already exists results in excessivefragmentaVon of funds; at the same time, low fundinglevels prevent formulation of State plans which can involveal: institutions having a capacity to contribute.

Related also to the low funding level for Title I is itslack of organizational visibility within the Office ofEducation. In the competition for attention from thepower centers of OE, the billion dollar programs obviouslycommand choice staff resources, locations well up in theorganizational hierarchy and the personal involvement ofsenior-most decision-Makers. By OE standards, Title I is a"small change" program, and unless such programs areexceptionally popular with Congress or the White Housethey tend to lose their identity and their internal support.On the other hand, the experience of this Council in gainingnecessary access to the Commissioner and his Deputies onthe operation of Title I has been an entirely wholesome oneand the resultant dialogues have been constructive andconcrete.

In another vein, the very operation of Title 1 throughthe Office of Education poses inherent problems. Thesubstantive programs resulting from Title I funds deal withurban affairs, poverty, environmental protection and othermatters outside the functional scope and jurisdiction of theOffice of Education and well within the areas of concern ofother major departments and agencies. The Office ofEducation lacks staff expertise in these program areas: itsfunctions are education and the educational system. Tosome extent, OE has made efforts to lessen this difficultyby seeking program cooperation with other departments,such as Housing and Urban Development, where jointfinancial and staff resources can be brought to bear on agiven area of functional concern. More such arrangementsneed, to be developed and given practical effect. Yet in thefinal analysis, it is unlikely that OE staffing patterns andbasic missions can attract to that agency persons knowl-edgeable in the functional outputs of universities, ratherthan in the educational process per se.

For this reason, Title I is among only a handful of OEprograms dealing with socio-economic or scientific subjects.Most such educational programs are located in thoseagencies where a close functional kinship exists between themission of the agency and the purpose of the program.However, even among those functional programs currentlylocated within OE, little has been done to coordinate or

consolidate them with Title I activities. For example, twoprograms enacted recently, the Drug Abuse Education Act

and the Environmental Education Act, could effectivelyoperate through the extensive structure established by TitleI in each State. Instead, this existing structure has beenby-passed and entirely new and duplicative arrangementshave been made to channel these program funds to Statesand educational institutions. The administrative reasons fordoing this seem more related to bureaucratic "ownership"of programs, rather than to cost efficiency or effectivenessof service to the public and to higher education.

A frequently-voiced criticism of Title I operations isthat because State universities often serve as the Stateagencies through which program funds are disbursed withinthe State, other private or publicly supported institutionsare consequently disadvantaged. No concerted attempt inthis study has been made to explore this criticism, sinceunder Section 107 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 theCommissioner of Education has ample powers to overseethe operation of State plans and their equitable administra-tion. Our general impression, however, is that participationof 501 institutions in the program offers some testimonythat funds are being shared broadly and that legitimate aswell as irresponsible charges are typically levied againstwhatever mechanism for fund disbursement is established.In addition, most State Title I Advisory Councils arebroadly representative of educational institutions and theyinfluence and oversee the decisions of the State agency sothat internal safeguards are built into the fund disturse-ment process.

As a result, our opinion is that criticisms along theselines, if valid, should be made to the Commissioner ofEducation, whose final decision is, by law, contestable inthe Federal courts. These legal guarantees of equitableoperation of Title I programs appear to us both reasonable '"-)and sufficient. They provide clear avenues for resolvinggenuine grievances and broader knowledge of their ex-istence might do much to avert capricious grievances.

Basic Institutional involvement in Title I programactivities most frequently occurs through UniversitySchools of Extension and Continuing Education or theEvening Divisions of colleges. The Higher Education Actitself specifies that: "Where course offerings are involved,such courses must be university extension fir continuingeducation courses....' This legal stipulation resulted froma legislative history In which a basic and original intent wasthe strengthening of the continuing education function ofcolleges and universities. To this basic purpose was added acommunity service role as .he focal point of programactivity. These two cardinal purposes for the most partblend well, since community service has typically been amain charge and a central responsibility of the continuingeducation activities of colleges,and universities.

The legal assignment of Title I program activities tothe extension and continuing education arms of collegesand universities has many natural advantages and someinherent disadvantages in achieving most effectively theobjectives of community service. Where the Schools ofExtension and Continuing Education are large and well-

-staffed, they are able to satisfy program requirements

95

through their own faculties and resources. In otherinstances, these schools are able to draw successfully uponexcellent faculty resources from other schools and depart-ments within their university to conduct continuingeducation programs requiring special forms of expertise andknowledge. In many instarces, the extension divisions ofcolleges and universities have formed consortia to pool theirresources for joint efforts which might otherwise be beyondthe capacity of a single institution. This healthy trendtoward formation of consortia has many beneficial sideeffects and has created new institutional strengths andcapacities used for purposes other than Title I activities.

However, soi.'e 'nstitutions with limited extensionresources and fac ulty strengths either cannot or do notdraw upon intra- or inter-institutional support. They tendto reflect an "ownership" of Title I monies which precludessharing these funds outside the extension and continuingeducation orbit of their institution, with the result thatquality of project performance may tend to suffer. Weregard such situations as common enough to warrantcomment, but by no means typical nor wholly unjustified.In many-institutions the total funds available for extensionand continuing education activities are at such minimallevels that even the small sums available through Title I areof vital importance to the survival and development ofextension activities; hence sharing these funds more broadlywould result in a severe weakening of extension functions.Such weakening might be a greater loss in both immediateand long-range terms than the dilution in the "quality ofprograms which results from a more narrow involvement offaculty resources.

96

Finally, Title I is often subjected to criticism becauseits broad legislative language denies its programs a sharpfocus or a unifying set of functional objectives. Partly thisresults from low funding levels which make it impossible toserve well all the objectives set by the statutehenceperceptive selection of program priorities becomes moreessential. While still providing States the essential ability toselect and define their own priority needs, the Office ofEducation has wisely begun efforts to provide moreguidance and focus for development of State plans. TheseOE efforts are still in early stages of implementation, butpromise to help significantly in imparting the kinds ofcommon denominators needed to focus resources on themore critical problems and thereby give Title I programs abetter sense of unity and cohesion.

In sum, Title I has created a working network forinvolving States, communities and higher education incommon efforts directed toward community problem-solving. This network is a valuable asset, not only for TitleI, but as a vehicle through which other community-orientedprograms of education, research and extension can bechanneled. The major needs for the future are to use thisnetwork more broadly by channeling other related pro-grams through it; to tund these programs at levels whichwill permit a substantial in pact on oti ctives; and to giveparticipating institutions assurances of rong-term fundingwhich will enable them to commit re ources and developprograms having stability, permanence and long-rangeobjectives. 0

APPENDIX B

A REPORTON THE COMMUNITY SERVICE

AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAM(TITLE 1, HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965)

FISCAL YEAR 1971

TO

THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON. EXTENSION AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

97

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The People Served

The National Purpose

Administration of the Program

The Continuing Education Process

Community Education and Community Problems

Gent al Developments Fiscal Year 1971

Colleges and Universities Participating

Financing the Program

Conclusion

LIST OF TABLES

I. Distribution of CSCE Projects Completed, In Progress, and Planned in FY 1970 and FY 1971

2. Disposition of Institutional Proposals for CSCE Projects in FY 1971

3. Number of Projects by Geographic Area Served

4. Distribution of Federal Funds by Geographic Area Served

5. Number of State Approved Projects by Problem Area

6. Distribution of Federal and Local Program Funds for State Approved Projects by Problem Area

7. Number and Type of Participating Institutions

8. Distribution of Federal Program Funds by Type of Participating Institution

9. Source of Matching Funds for CSCE Projects Completed in FY 1971

10. Federal Allotments by State for FisCal Year 1971

Page

101

101

102

102

103

105

106

106

107

108

108

108

109

109

110

110

1 1 1

1 1 1

112 .

99

itI,

4

rr

A Report onCommunity Service and Continuing

Education Programs(Under Title I, HEA of 1965)

Fiscal Year 1971

. The basic mission of the Community Service andContinuing Education Program is to implement the conceptof education as a continuing, life-long and dynamic processthrough which adults can lead more meaningful and usefullives and through which concerned communities canimprove their functioning.

THE PEOPLE SERVED

Carl, who has spent the past 15 years in and out ofprison in West Virginia, wants to go back as a civiliancounselor. He "got his head together" and finished tnreeyears of high school and started college courses all in twoyears. Carl is now enrolled at Bethany College which gavehim the chance to continue his education and set a careergoal.

Alicia and Rene with their two children spend threeand sometimes four nights a week learning English in acrowded store-front center in Chicago name .4qui Estoy("Here I am"). Most of the other parents in the program,like the Maldonados, are between 20 and 30 years old andrecently arrived from Puerto Rico, Mexico, or CentralAmerica. They give up three or four nights a week afterworking eight to 10 hours a day in a factory to come to thecenter becp..ce they must learn new mores, new languages"... for t.. .r future, for their jobs, and to better theirfamilies."

Home television viewers, adult education classes andother students have voted, by a narrow marg!n, to allowAtlantic Canning, Inc. to build a plant near tie fictitioustown of Freeboro, Maine. The voters numbering more than6,000 were participants in a five-part TV series entitled"North of the Namaskiag." Now that a decision has beenreached, a Maine Town Meeting of the Air will ;ivolveparticipants in a continuing discussion of environmentaland community problems.

John has recently received a loan from the SmallBusiness Administration to enter the retail clothingbusiness. The course work and consultation provided by

Washington University's special program for black entre-preneurs will help Mr. A. succeed. Some 50 minoritybusinessmen are being served and they will play animportant part in maintaining the economy of thecommunity.

These individuals were among the 305,289 bene-ficiaries of higher continuing education in 584 projectssupported in 48 states through community service andcontinuing education grants under Title I of the HigherEducation Act of 1965. In addition, it is estimated thatmore than one-half million people were served through theuse of mass media-radio, television and publications.

The majority of projects focused on a well definedtarget population. In Texas, for example, the programconcentrated on state and local government officials andemployees. The small businessman was the prime par-ticipant in Birmingham, Mobile and Montgomery. In adozen California cities disadvantaged adults mostfrequently minority group members were The majorbeneficiaries of the program.

In New York, a consortium of four colleges con-ducted two, ten-week leadership development workshopsfor board members of inner city community organizations.One hundred sixty nine men and women participated in thesessions. The majority of participants were between theages of 21 and 35. They were generally junior and seniorhigh school graduates and most were semi-skilled workers.In this project, the need was evident and the objectiveswere appropriate to the defined target audience.

Thus, the Community Service andContinuing Educa-tion Program is aiding the process of community problemsolving through continuing education of individuals, groups,and whole communities.

THE NATIONAL PURPOSE

The Congress set forth the goal of the Program, TitleI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Public Law89-329), as:

101

Assisting the people of the United States in thesolution of community problems. . . by makinggrants to strengthen the community service pro-grams 1 colleges and universities.

In other words,' this Federal program supportscolleges and communities m the development of educa-tional activities for adults that contribute to theamelioration of national problems, be they social, economicor political, as these problems are manifest in Americancommunities.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM

The CSCE Prograni (Title I, Higher Education Act of1965) is administered at three levels. The Office ofEducation is responsible for overall administration. Thedesignated State agencies determine State priorities, stlectprojects to be supported and oversee State program plansfor community service and continuing education. Andinstitutions of higher education carry out the educationalprojects.

Federal funds are distributed to the States on aformula basis after annual plans are approved by the U.S.Commissioner of Education. Federal funds are doted witha basic amount of $100,000 to the 50 States and theDistrict of Columbia, and $25,000 each to AmericanSamoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Thebalance of each year's appropriation is distributed on thebasis of total resident population within each jurisdiction.One-third of the annual program costs must be met withnon-Federal funds. The program is operative in all 50States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico andthe Virgin Islands.

THE CONTINUING EDUCATION PROCESS

The figures presented in later sections of this reporton dollars expended and institutions participating in theCSCE program reflect the absolute increases in State andinstitutional efforts, but do not present a picture of thecontinuing educational processes at work. ,

Dynamic changes in career patterns, the increasingrate at which vocational and professional skills becomeobsolete, new problems created by the accelerating processof urbanization; major shifts in social values and the crisisof confidence in most social institutions make it mandatorythat our colleges and universities find the best ways tofocus their unique resources upon the educational needsand interests of today's decision makers and a wide varietyof adult citizens.

The following examples serve as illustrations ofinnovative continuing education projects which are beingsupported under Title I of the Higher Education. Act.

102

PARAPROFESSIONAL PERSONNELIN COMMUNITY AGENCIES

New York City Community College has recentlygraduated 1 1 1 adults from a 60-hour program for 26poverty and community agencies in the borough ofBrooklyn. This continuing education program was speciallydesigned to upgrade the skills of paraprofessional coun-selors and support personnel. The program included fieldsupervision and classroom instruction.

This group of adults, 49 men and 62 women, weregenerally high school graduates, with only 11 individualsindicating any college level experience.

In the view of agency supervisors, these maturestudents have improve:' tneir ability to work with clientsand are better able to provide quality case recording. Withnew knowledge and skill, these individuals are moreself-confident as well as more productive. One evidence ofimproved job performance is the fact that one-quarter ofthe group received promotions after successfully com-pleting the training program. The interest in continuing toIran was also fostered and several participants are nowenrolled part-time at the City University of New York.

In Fiscal Year 1971, fifteen similar projects werebegun in twelve states. These projects are directed toparaprofessionals in a variety of community-servingagencies. The States anticipate the enrollment of 7,000paraprofessiorals in these programs.

CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR WOMEN

Through a counseling and guidance center for maturewomen, 431 women in the Piedmont region of NorthCarolina have developed specific plans for personal groveland future activity. A comprehensive series of educationaland vocational counseling services have been developed bythe University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and arebeing provided to 125 women who wish to re-enter" full orpart-time employment.

The Center's program includes a I 2-week seminar, astudy skills clinic and an employment skills clinic.Employment surveys and information workshops areconducted on a regular schedule. The exploration ofvolunteer opportunities has been extensive and the Centerworks with a variety of agencies and organizations in the --utilization of the well trained volunteer.

Equally inventive programs for women are beingconducted in Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Pennsylvania,South Carolina and Wisconsin. Some 5,000 women, youngand mature, black and white, will be iiaiticipating. Theseprograms reflect the mounting interest in the problems ofwomen and concern for the role that education.plays in aconstantly changing society.

In addition, numerous projects in the several Statesare directed to nurses, teachers, medical secretaries and toother occupational groups which are largely composed ofwomen at the present time.

MINORITY BUSINESSMEN

Georgetown University in the District of Ce!umbiadeveloped new courses and new approaches to instructoperating and prospective small business managers. Suchentrepreneurs frequently lack basic managerial skills inaccounting, inventory control, merchandising and salespromotion. Forty-one men and six women attended atwo-hour class once a week for six months and hadindividual sessions with faculty members from American,Georgetown and Howard Universities. Established business-men in the local area have also served as advisors to aspiringblack businessmen engaged in this continuing education

A' project.

In addition to upgrading knowledge and skills of theparticipants, the project produced significant alterations at

. the institutions or higher education. Two new courses wereinitiated at Georgetown: "Marketing in the Inner-City" and"The City in Fact and Fiction." Howard Universityestablished a new course entitled "Black Economic De-velopment."

As a result of this pioneering effort, a similar projectis being conducted, with other Federal funding, for theRedevelopment Land Agency. Discussions are underwaywith the Federal Aviation Administration for the extensionof the program to smallsontractors.

Projects of this nature are being conducted in thirteenadditional States: Alabama, Connecticut, Michigan, Kansas,Missouri, Nebraska, Tennessee, New Jersey, Illinois,Indiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and Ohio. More than2,300 -minority businessmen are engaged in these programs.

THE AGING POPULATION

A "Senior Citizen Program" at Quinnipiac College inConnecticut was aimed at two related but distinct problemsfor the older American: the need to know and the need toserve. The two-part niaject involved almost 400 men andwomen in the communities of Cheshire, Hamden and NorthHaven. In addition to lecture-discussions on such areas asSocial Security, wills and the psychology of aging, thesessions dealt with the programs and functions of SeniorCitizen Centers in the three communities. A smaller groupentered into consultatio_with the Volunteer ServiceBureau and is finding ways and means of putting newlygained knowledge and skills to mor; effective use incommunity-serving organizations.

Eleven projects in eight other States are currentlyserving the educational needs of more than 3,000 oldercitizens. The "Senior Citizen Resource Center" at theUniversity of Nevada and a pilot "Life EnrichmentProgram" from the University of South Carolina are buttwo examples of innovative approaches to the wide-spreadconcern for the aging population.

INMATES OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS

Other segments of the population are being servedwhere the need is great and when resources are available.Not the least of these is the State prison population whichhas recently received national attention. The CSCE Programprovides the only Federal assistance now available to meetthe higher continuing education needs of thi. group in oursociety.

An experimental project in West Virginia wasconducted at Moundsville State Prison by Bethany College.Of the 133 inmates participating in the educationalprogram, 79 have-been released. Eight of these men are nowenrolled in college. Only eight (10%) of the 79 personsreleased have been returned to prison for parole violations.This recidivism rate is far below the national average of 25percent.

From the documented evidence it is clear that highercontinuing education supported under Title I is making asignificant contribution to both individual success andsocietal achievement. A few of the overlooked continuingeducation needs of neglected adults are being served, and asa result, the quality of life for individuals and societies isbeing enhanced.

COMMUNITY EDUCATION ANDCOMMUNITY PROBLEMS

The Community Service and Continuing EducationProgram springs from the imperative to use highereducation as a national resource in developing a soundurban society. Communities social, political andgeographicare faced with a vast array of physical - andhuman conditions that require college-community coop-eration in the task of ameliorating community problems.The overall process is one referred to as communityeducation.

Community education means developing communityawareness about community problems, enhancing the skillsof problem analysis, identifying 'alternative methods ofattack and selecting the most promising educationalstrategies for alleviating the problem. The development ofsuch educational strategies is being accomplished bycolleges and universities in concert with State and localgovernments, volunteer organizations and new combina-tions of community members.

From this perspective the CSCE Program represents acontinuing concern on the part of the Federal governmentfor supporting community-wide education related to themost pressing public problems. Within tie broad frameworkof problem areas listed in the enabling legislation, specialattention was given in 1971 to environmental quality,Model Cities efforts, drug abuse, crime and youth op-portunities.

The following projects illustrate the viability of jointcollege-community endeavors in these areas:

103

THE 8TH DAY

The Puget Sound Coalition, a voluntary association ofcolleges, universities* and conununity organizations, hasdeveloped a workable discussion/action model for citizeninvolvement in environmental issues.

The Coalition, in cooperation with KING Broad-casting Company of Seattle, produced eight films focusingon the environmental quality of the Puget Sound region.The television-film series covered population, land andspace, institutions and values, social welfare, economy,ecology, and public pokey.

More than 400 learning groups, involving some 5,000individuals, were organized to participate actively in theproject. These listening-learning groups were developed incooperation with the Washington League of Women Voters,the Washington Council of PTA's and various churchorganizations.

The university coalition employed Title I, HEA fundsfor general coordination of the project, organization of thediscussion/action groups, research, and preparation ofdiscussion materials including the basic text entitledQuality of Life. This learning manual provided an overviewof the subject areas, assignments and reality quizzes. Groupassignments were designed to give participants first-handknowledge of local conditions and to develop a conunit-ment to the solution of common problems.

KING Broadcasting Company won national awardsfrom the Saturday Review for the best use of television in alocal community and from Sigma Delta Chi for the bestcommunity documentary presented as a public service.

This community education project continues tocreate an impact with revised materials, a larger number ofparticipants, the rebroadcast of video tapes by stationKING and educational television stations in the southernpart of the State, and the. organization of new groups ofactive citizens.

Program costs were provided by Title I, HEA($87,000), colleges and universities ($67,000), and stationKING ($50,000).

The successful design and implementation of thisbroadcast/discussion/action model commends its refine-ment and replication in other regions of the country.

DRUG ABUSE YOUR COMMUNITY PROBLEM

In Maryland a community-oriented drug educationproject employed similar techniques, i.e. the broadcast/discussion/action model.

The Maryland Council for Community Services,composed of eleven community colleges and the Universityof Maryland, initiated a long-range project in cooperationwith the State Drug Abuse Authority to present factualdrug information as a step toward community action on

*Seattle University, Western Washington State College, PacificLutheran University, University of Puget Sound, and TacomaCommunity College.

104

this critical social ;slue.The three-phased project included:1. A series of seminars on the campuses of eleven

community colleges.2. A three-hour audience-participation broadcav

entitled "If Drugs are the Answer, What's the Question?"on TV station WMPB and simultaneous broadcast on 13radio stations.

3. Eleven 30-minute films developed by the StateDepartment of Education for further public education viathree television stations, for in-school programs, and forspecially organized adult groups throughout the State.

As a result of the 'f'',^11pment of this model publiceducation progr' .1. ups of drug abusers, parents,students apd a, 2rsonnel have been identified astargets for more narrowly focused continuing educationactivities.

PICO-UNION NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL

The Pico-Union neighborhood of Los Angeles is amixed residential /commercial area with a population ofabout 11,000 persons. Sixty percent of the residents areSpanish-speaking and 30 percent are Black. This povertypocket was designated by the Department of Housing andUrban Development as an urban renewal area. Thecollective judgment was that the area's residents had littlecivic awareness and possessed no viable organizationalstructure to deal effectively with community developmentand physical renewal.

With the assistance of a Title I grant, The Universityof California at Los Agneles negotiated a teaching/consultation agreement with the neighborhood council toaid in (1) improving the organizational strength of thecouncil, (2) initiating a broad conununity educationprogram, and (3) providing technical assistance in com-munity organization, economic development, housing,planning and education. The project helped to generateresponsible community involvement and was instrumentalin securing non-government funding for the council. More.than 900 citizens of the area learned how to defineproblems, identify resources, analyze alternative courses ofaction and implement plans. University faculty acted asresource persons for citizen task forces and helped to builda more sophisticated community leadership group. Basic tothe educational endeavor was the University's decision notto become a social service agency nor to duplicate thefunctions of existing agencies. With the faculty in ateacher-consultant role, the citizens acquired new knowl-edge for better decision making and developed the skillsnecessary for maintaining a valid community organization.

The project was a success. Urban renewal is pro-gressing with the active participation of the community'sresidents. The results also indicate that in-depth educationof a community helps public and private agencies to-viewsuch a low-income minority as less threatening than in caseswhere higher continuing education, resources are not

4

employed. The project has demonstrated the ability of acommunitythrough educationto responsibly assumecontrol of many aspects of its governance. AlthoughFederal support for this 30-month project has ended,university resources will continue to be employed to assist anon-profit community corporation in sponsoring low tomoderate income housing and in designing vest-pocketparks.

t TI" 1, hing reached the specific objective of thisproje Jved to apply the experience gained inPico-L, .,n t_ ne community of Venice.

THE TEXAS ASSEMBLY

To improve the problem-solving ability of State andlocal governments, the University of Texas in partnershipwith the Texas Urban Development Commission, andsupported by a Title I grant, developed a two-year research,education and action project. About 250 community andbusiness leaders were the target group of learners.

Six faculty members worked full-time to collect andanalyze data on the State's urban areas in relation to traffic,pollution, housing, crime and central city decay. The staffprovided support to the Commission's twelve workingcommittees in translating proposals into substantive legis-lation and in devising sirategies for informing the electoral'of the State.

The Commission's Report entitled Toward UrbanProgress was favorably presented to the Governor and thelegislature in early December, 1970. Later that month theTexas Assembly, composed, of 80 opinion leaders, met toassess the actions that might be taken. The Assembly'sreport entitled Urban Texas Tomorrow was given widecirculation and formed the basis for public discussion innearly all the cities of the State.

With the convening of the 62nd legislature in Texas,substantive legislative action was taken on recommenda-tions of the Commission and the Assembly. Among theseactions were:

1. Establishment of an official State policy towardurban development.

2. Creation of a new State Department of Com-munity Affairs.

3. Authorization for a broad range of intergovern-mental contracting among all local governments.

4. Establishment of new procedures for setting andenforcing s' andvds governing the manufactureand sale of mobile homes.

5. Creation of an interim House Committee to studyhigher minimum training requirements for peaceofficers.

6. Amendmer:s of the State's voter registrationprocedures.

7. Authorization for the formation of a StateDevelopment Credit Corporation.

Many more college-community projects were con-ducted to focus the resources of higher education on groups

81-868 0 - 72 8

of citizens who have a critical role to play in thecommunity problem-solving process and on the generalpublic whose awareness of problems is necessary if changesare to occur. Men and women in all age categories and withvaried educational backgrounds came together to learntogether and to act together in the interest of theircommunities.

GENERAL DEVELOPMEA TS

State Programs of Community Service and Con-tinuing Education when viewed as an entity, i.e., a nationalprogram, have made significant progress toward the goals ofthe enabling legislation.

The fifty-four State agencies provide an importantdemonstration of the viability of State planning and Stateadministration of continuing education in relation topriority problems of national concern.

Data presented in this section were obtained fromAnnual Program Reports and Financial State:nents sub-

,'flitted by the States for Fiscal Year 1971.

A total of 1,566 educational projects in 48* Statesconstituted current community education operations dur-ing Fiscal Year 1971. A total of 815 projects were "inprogress" at the end of the Fiscal Year and 143 (comparedwith 184 in FY 1970) were "planned" with implementa-tion scheduled within the next year. Tikenty-four projectswere cancelled, most as a result of the loss of the projectdirector. The status of current Federally supported projectsis shown in Table 1.

The 584 projects reported as "completed" during FY1971 accounted for 37.8% of all project activity. Slightlymore than 40% are being continued in FY 1972 withFederal funds while 16% are being refunded from non-Federal sources. Some examples of information gaine.1from these projects follows.

Direct instruction, i.e., courses, seminars, workshops,and conferences, contituted 64.8% of all educationalactivity. Technical assistance and consultation accountedfor 15.9%. The remainder of the activity consisted ofresearch, information dissemination, and multi-mediapresentations.

Forty-six States reported that 252 of their completedprojects were directed at areas of special concern: 183projects were involved in a wide variety of "inner-city"problems; 26 were environmental edu .:ation; 27 wereconnected with Model Cities programs; and 16 were drugabuse education projects.

The same States reported 154 projects designed tocontinue the education of members of minority groups.Eighty-six projects had black Americans as participants, andthey constituted more than 61% of the total 39,190minority group participants. Spanish-surnamed Americansand American Indians took part in 10 and 9 projects,

*Annual reports were not received in sufficient time for inclusion inthis report from: Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico,North Dakota, and Vermont.

105

respectively. Forty-nine projects involved a cross-section ofminority participants.

Two hundred and twenty-five projects utilized 9,799students as resource personnel. Research and data col-lection were the most frequently reported student activitywith technical assistance/consultation a close second.

Thk Iy-nine States reported that 3,306 faculty mem-bers had been involved, for varying amounts of time, incommunity service and continuing education activities thatranged in length from one day to eighteen months. Few(7%) spent more than half their time on the projects. Most(69%) devoted less than a quarter of their time.

In addition to monitoring and assessing on-going andcompleted projects, the State agencies in FY 1971,continued to refine State plans and increased programdevelopment efforts in reviewing and approving projectproposals.

The forty eight States that reported received 1,093proposals. Six hundred were not funded: 76 because theydid not fall within state priorities; 186 because of variousinadequacies; and 338 because of insufficient funds. Thevolume of institutional proposals for continuing educationis shown in Table 2.

Forty-two of the 48 States reported continuingconsultation with institutions about alternate sources ofFederal funds for projects that could not be funded underTitle I. The States provided specific information on Stateand Federal programs, referred proposals to other sourcesand assisted institutions of higher education in thedevelopment of complementary pi )jects to be submitted toprivate funding sources.

State agencies, with assistance from the U.S. Office ofEducation, made progrep toward the development ofState-wide programs of continuing education. In thedistribution of FY 1971 funds the States report thecontinued emphasis on urban areas with an increase in"comprehensive" projects that encompass larger areas andinclude suburban and rural areas as well as the inner city.the distribution of projects by geographic area served isshown in Table 3.

The amount of Federal funds for proposed projectscorrelated positively with the geographic area served. In1971, 56 percent of the funds were for projects in urbanand suburban areas, 10 percent for rural projects and theremainder (35 percent) were for comprehensive projectsfrequently on a state-wide basis. The distribution of Federalfunds for Fiscal Years 1968-1971 is shown in Table 4.

The enabling legislation sets forth nine broad areas ofcommunity concern. To these the States have added theareas of community development, human relations, educa-tion, economic development and personal development.While community problems seldom fit neatly into any ofthe categories mentioned, the categories serve to identifythe central or primary concern of each project. Thusprojects are reported in the several categories in terms ofthe major area of concern. The distribution of projectsapproved and funded in FY 1971 by problem area is shownin Tables 5 and 6.

106

Of the projects reported as "completed" in FY 1971,46 percent were directed to areas of special concern:environmental quality, drug abuse, Model Cities and otherinner city problems.

In the conduct of projects during the year, there wasa significant growth in the number and type of inter-institutional arrangements; i.e., multi-institutional resourcesfocused on a clearly defined problem area.

Higher education institutions continued to bringeducational resources closer to the people through theestablishment of off-campus learning centers. The total ofsuch centers reached 64 in Fiscal Year 1971.

In summary, the national program has continued todevelop the community-servicing capability of colleges anduniversities. More institutional resourcesfaculty andstudenthave been applied to the continuing educationneeds of adult citizens.

Even in a period of severe financial restraints, collegesr.and communities have secured funds to supplement theirTitle I grants in order to carry out a number of projectsthat are having and will have significant impact on theprocess of community problem - solving.

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIESPARTICIPATING

In Fiscal Year 1971, some 30 percent of the eligibleinstitutions of higher education in the several statesprovided continuing educational services to their communi-ties with Title I support. Increased inter-institutionalceopefation tinigh consortium arrangements among pub-11..; and private colleges added thirty-five institutions to thelist of those activey involved.

A total oc 536 institutions were productively engagedin the development and conduct of community service andcontinuing education programs. Public colleges and univer-sities (66%) continue to provide the greater proportion ofinstitutional resources and expend the major share offederal funds (75%).

Over time there has been a steady increase in-thenumber of 4-year private institutions in the program.Private institutions account for 34% of the institutionsparticipating in Fiscal Year 1971.

During the year, two-year college participationincreased from 9.3 percent to 9.9 percent of totalinstitutional involvement. Tables 7 and 8 show the numberof institutions and the distribution of Federal funds bytype of institution for Fiscal Years 1968-1971.

FINANCING THE PROGRAM

Institutions of higher education continue to providethe major share of local dollars to inaLch the Federalinvestment in the CSCE program. In Fiscal Year 1971, thestates, local communities, colleges and universities provided$6.3 million to match $8.4 million in Federal funds to

finance 545 projects. The States also provided $460,000 tomatch $990,000 in Federal funds for administration of theprogram. In sum, the States and institutions of highereducation invested $2.1 million beyond the required matchof one local dollar for every two federal dollars. (Federalallotments by State for Fiscal Year 1971 are shown inTable 10).

For the projects reported as "completed" in FiscalYear 1971, matching funds were provided in 79.6% of theprojects by institutions of higher education. Funds suppliedby State and local governments were the main source ofmatching dollar; in 11.5% of the projects. (Sources ofmatching funds are showniinlfable 9).

The data presented' above reflect only projects thathave been funded with Federal support. Of equal or greaterconcern are those university and college proposals whichcould not be supported for lack of funds. The States reportreceipt of an additional 338 viable projects requiring anadditional $7 million in Federal funds that would havemade significant contributions to the attainment of Stateprogram goals. Further, the States could have used $4.94million more to provide adequate support of the 493approved projects.

CONCLUSION

The national program of Community Service andContinuing Education made measured progress toward thegoal of community problem-solving through continuingeducation. The number of institutions of higher educationparticipating in the program increased from 501 in FY1970 to 531 in FY. 1971. The contributions of newinstitutions were made possible by the continued growth ofconsortia type arrangements. In such arrangements severalcolleges share human and physical resources to meet amutual educational objective.

Furthermore, State administrative structures havebeen established that now constitute a reservoir ofeducational expertise that could be employed to coordinatethe planning and administration of a number of Federalprograms that have related goals and objectives. To theextent that such coordination is possible under existingstatutes, it is being tested in a large number of States.

During Fiscal Year 1971, data collection methodswere improved and early estimates have been replaced withmore accurate State and institutional records on adultparticipants in the Program. Thus, the Office of Educationhas embarked on a course to improve program reportingand to provide more assistance to the States in programdevelopment and evaluation.

The number of institutional projects funded in 1971was reduced from 610 to 545, a reduction which providedmodest increases in the support given to selected projectsthat focus on national priorities. The short-term informa-tion sessions are decreasing in frequency and are beingreplaced by more comprehensive multi-media instructionalprograms for specific target groups.

From the plans, proposals and projects that have beendeveloped under Title I of the Higher Education Act, it isclear that no other program provides comparable supportfor the college-level continuing education needs ofsignificant segments of the adult population. This programhas, within available resources, demonstrated the efficacyof tany new approaches to continuing education for suchdiverse groups as local government officials, the aging,minority group members, prison inmates and women. Theseactivities have served to indicate the serious need forincreased Federal support of expanded continuing educa-tion opportunities for a wide variety of adult citizens.

Further analysis of the CSCE Program over a five-yearspan reveals that continuing education for communityproblem-solving i3 best achieved by involving particulargroups of individuals who can influence change. The severalstates have identified specific target groups whose contin-uing education needs relate to such priority problems asenvironmental quality, drug abuse, Model Cities, and theimprovement of State and local governmental services.Increasing numbers of projects are being proposed bycolleges and universities to educate these groups and thus toassist in the process of community problem-solving.

These assuring signs of steady maturation of theCommunity Service and Continuing Education Programhold great hope for the eventual recognition by most of ourt.olleges and universities that the continuing education oftoday's adult decision-makers is as important to a healthysociety as the sound academic preparation of tomorrow'sleaders. 0

107

?.

Table 1. Distribution of Community Service and Continuing Education ProjectsCompleted, in Progress, and Planned in FY 1970 and 1971

(By Fiscal Year of Funding)

Reporting YearCompleted

(fiscal years)Total

In Progress(fiscal years)

TotalPlanned

(fiscal years)Total

TotalProjects

66 67 68 69 70 71 66 67 68 69 70 71 69 70 71

FY 1970(51 States1)

FY 1971(48 States')

16 66 175

6 37 109

170

186

29

223 23

456

584

10 33 108

5 10 56

238

118

330

291 335

719

815

4 180

1 1 141

184

143

1,359

1,5423

'States not reportmg: Alaska, New Jersey, and Guam.'States not reporting: Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota and Vermont.'This total does not include 24 projects that were cancelled during FY 1971 (5 FY 1968 projects, 9 FY 1969 projects, 6 FY 1970 projects, and4 FY 1971 projects).

Table 2. Disposition of Institutional Proposalsfor CSCE Projects in FY 1971

Number

Federal FundsRequested

(in millions ofdollars)

Proposals received1 1,093 $20.23

Proposals approved andfunded 493 13.34

Proposals approved andnot funded 338 6.89

Proposals not approved 262 N.A.

148 states reporting.20f the sums requested only $8.40 million wereavailable.

Table 3. Number of Projects by Geographic Area Served

Area ServedFY 1968

Number PercentageFY 1969



Number Percentage

Urban 378 52 364 56 284 47 198 36

Urban/Suburban 95 14 50 7 61 10 75 14

Rural 59 8 58 9 66 11 68 13

Comprehensive 187 26 181 28 199 32 204 37

TOTALS 719 100 653 100 610 100 S45 100

108

4

64

3

Table 4. Distribution of Federal Funds by Geographic Area Served(In Millions of Dollars)

Area Served

FY 1968FederalFunds Percentage




Urban $4.8 55 $5.1 60 $4.27 51 $3.47 41

Urban/Suburban 1.1 12 .1 6 .83 10 1.14 14

Rural .7 8 .6 7 .85 10 .88 10

Comprehensive 2.2 25 2.3 27 2.53 29 2.91 35

TOTALS $8.8 100 $8.5 100 $8.48 100 $8.40 100

Table 5. Number of State Approved Projects. (By Problem Area and Fiscal Year of Funding)

ProblemArea

FY1968

FY1969

FY1970

FY1971

CommunityDevelopment 173 177 152 138

Education* 42 39

Employment 16 22 10 17

EconomicDevelopment 17 22 27 22

Government 227 152 90 71

Health 60 45 .44 36

Housing 5 4 7 6Human Relations 31 42 47. 44Land Use 43 23 35 47

Poverty 25 33 36 32

PersonalDevelopment 35 58 73 65

Recreation 37 33 17 10

Transportation 7 2 3 1

Youth,

Opportunities 43 40 27 17

TOTALS

.1.719 653 610

0.1111=

545

*Separate category started in FY 1970 for projectsrelated to the education system, most of whichwere previously included in the "Government"categOry.

109

Table 6. Distribution of Federal and Local Program Funds for State Approved Projects(By Problem Area and Fiscal Year of Funding)

(In Thousands of Dollars)

Problem Areas

FY 1968Federal LocalFunds Funds



FY 1971Federal . LocalFunds Funds

CommunityI

,Development $2,763.1 $2,943.5 $3,063.1 $2,162.6 $2,741.3 $1,934.9 $2,688.8 $!,969.2

Educatior * 510.5 360.7 525.5 381.8Employment 226.7 303.1 264.4 188.9 100.8 51.9 224.5 166.4

EconomicDevelopment 221.6 221.7 206.7 180.0 316.3 266.1 284.0 162.7

Government 2,462.4 2,505.5 1,698.7 1,356.8 1,397.1 864.8 1,133.9 736.7

Health 516.7 527.0 417.0 379.7 345.4 192.8 426.1 607.6Housing 65.4 65.4 13.0 10.1 70.5 72.8 65.2 63.5

Human Relations 297.3 314.3 694.9 566.4 614.5 379.3 551.5 431.6

Land Use 417.8 523.3 203.3 122.5 397.2 266.7 637.3 527.0

Poverty 390.3 409.2 421.5 269.6 5603 335.7 594.9 378.3

Personal ,--

Development 481.1 515.5 762.3 578.9 774.3 691.5 919.9 623.5

Recreation 329.3 353.7 326.0 229.3 191.9 136.9 94.7 75.9Transpoitation 68.7 145.6 4.6 2.8 46.8 42.5 12.0 12.0

YouthOpportunities 483.7 515.9 428.5 383.9 420.7 307.0 241.8 133.8

TOTALS $8,778.1 $9,343.7 $8,504.0 $6,431.5 $8,487.5 $5,903.6 $8,400.1 $6,270.0

*Separate category started in FY 1970 for programs related to the education system most of which were previously includedin the "Government" category.

Table 7. Number and Type of Participating Institutions(By Fiscal Year of Funding)

Type ofInstitution

FY 1968*Number Percentage

FY 1969*Number Percentage

FY 1973Number Percentage

FY 1971Number Percentage

Land Grant andState Univs. 85 21 79 22 90 18 87 17

Four YearPublic Insts. 138 34 108 31 134 27 161 30

Four YearPrivateInsts. 120 30 105 30 169 34 169 32

Two yearPublic Insts. 53 13 46 14 96 19 102 19

Two YearPrivate Insts. 8 2 13 3 12 2 12 2

TOTALS 404 100 351 100 501 100 531 100

*Distributions for FY 196869 include only those institutions receiving Federal funds while the FY 1970 and FY 1971distributions include all primary and cooperating institutions. Comparable figures for FY 1968 and FY 1969 were 447 and

--:454 institutions respectively.

110

Table 8. Distribution of Federal Program Funds by Type of Participating Institution(By Fiscal Year of Funding)

(In Thousands of Dollars)

Type ofInstitution




FY 1971FederalFuads Percentage

Land Grant andState Univs. $4,526.6 51.7 $4,226.4 49.7 $4,047.2 47.7 $3,522.7 41.9Four YearPublic Inst... 1,935.8 22.1 1,717.8 20.2 1,824.3 21.5 2,016.7 24.0Four YearPrivate Insts. 1,711.1 19.5 1,777.3 20.9 1,82,;.5 21.5 2.027.4 24.2Two YearPrivate Insts. 538.9 6.1 663.3 7.8 752.2 8.8 790.5 9.4Two YearPrivate Insts. 48.4 .6 119.1 1.4 39.3 .5 42.8 .5

TOTALS $8,760.8 100 $8,503.9 100 $8,487.5 100 $8,400.1 100

Table 9. Source of Matching Funds For Community Service and Continuing EducationProjects Completed in Fiscal Year 1971

Source of Matching Funds No. of Projects ( %)*

Institutional Funds 396 (79.6)State/Local GovernmentFunds 57 (11.5)Fees 15 (3.1)Private Funds 14 (2.8)Misc. Combinations 15 (3.0)

TOTALS 497 (100.0)

*Based on responses from 43 states.

is-

111

Table 10. Distribution of funds under P.L. 89-329, Higher Education Act, as amended Title I,Community Services and Continuing Education

FY 1971

National Advisory Council on Extension and Continuing Education $ 100,000

50 States, D.C., and Outlying Areas $9,400,0001

Alabama 172,970 New Mexico 120,594Alaska 105,718 New York 476,782Arizona 134,537 North Carolina 206,305Arkansas 141,084 North Dakota 112,928California 497,355 Ohio 319,821

Colorado 142,825 Oklahoma 152,666Connecticut 161,347 Oregon 141,519Delaware 111,043. Pennsylvania 343,439Florida 228,660 Rhode Island 118,812Georgia 194,869 South Carolina 155,297

Hawaii 116,057 South Dakota 113,778Idaho 114,689 Tennessee 181,879Illinois 327,030 Texas 328,170Indiana 204,938 Utah 121,361Iowa 157,493 Vermont 108,888

Kansas 147,466 Virginia 195,387Kentucky 166,796 Washington 168,287Louisiana 176,865 West Virginia 137,687MaineMaryland

120,262176,989

WisconsinWyoniing

187,245106,671

Massachusetts 212,666 District of Columbia 116,616Michigan 279,689Minnesota 175,891Mississippi 148,667Missouri 195,511 Outlying Areas:'

Montana 114,420 American Samoa 25,597Nebraska 130,104 Canal Zone 00Nevada 109,302 Guam 26,948New Hampshire 114,565 Puerto Rico 80,877New Jersey 246,478 Virgin Islands 26,160

1 Distribution of $9,400,000 with a basic amount of $100,000 to the 50 States and D.C.; $25,000 to American Samoa,Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and the balance distributed on the basis of estimated total residentpopulation.

112

0

Documents

DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 076 863 AC 014 375 TITLE National Advisory Council on Extension and Continuing. Education, Pursuant to Public Law 89-329. Sixth Annual