Small Group Discussion - Group 2
Recorder: Francisco Rodriguez

• The University of California as a research entity is a clear strength; opportunities for collaborative endeavors with community service agencies, not-for-profits, business, and public entities should be identified and strengthened.

• Faculty, staff, students, and alumni can be the Universityís best ambassadors in the community.

• Students, both undergraduates and graduates, should be viewed as key informational resources and they should be rewarded for their efforts to support the Universityís mission of public service.

• Cooperative Extension faculty, staff, programs and services should continue to be utilized as key resources in the region.

• The UC Davis Library system as a primary information source in the region is a clear strength.

• A Universitywide conference for faculty is needed to discuss, debate, and dialogue on the merits and liabilities of public service and outreach. We need to identify incentives, rewards, and promote ìbuy-in,î and ownership. This activity should be followed by a faculty summit where conclusions, strategies, and direction can be drawn.

• Conversely, a conference, hosted by the University, should be planned where community leaders come to the campus to learn of the various services, programs, and outreach efforts of the University.

• Linkages could be strengthened with alumni to support the Universityís efforts in outreach, recruitment, and public service, particularly with alumni and women of color.

• The ethnic and cultural diversity of the region should be viewed as an opportunity for scholarly and public service engagement.

• Opportunities for collaboration with other institutions of higher education, including the California State Universities and the California Community Colleges in our region, should continue to be fostered and augmented.

• There is not a common definition of ìcommunity development;î a more appropriate, more inclusive term is needed. The term ìdevelopmentî has some historically negative connotations. A term is needed that would embrace the notions of ìenhancing collaboration, helpful partnerships, inter-linkages, etc.î

• The changing demographics of California is perceived as a threat as opposed to an opportunity for scholarly and public service engagement, particularly with disadvantaged, underserved communities.

• The University can be perceived as exploiting communities for their own parochial, self-centered research interests. If the University is viewed solely as the ìexpert,î where nothing can be learned and reciprocated from the community, attempts for collaboration will be short-lived, frustrating, and ultimately, futile.

• There is a perception and real concern by communities that once the research work and/or proposed intervention is completed, the University abandons the community.

• The reward system is not currently set up to entice and encourage faculty to be engaged and involved in community outreach; the public service component of the Universityís mission needs to be valued. We also need to explore what we mean by research.

• The absence of an abundance of senior-level scholars of color on campus makes it difficult to identify and develop a cadre of professionals that would be willing to work more closely with underserved communities.

• The lack of understanding and proficiency in ìcultural competenceî by the University is a weakness when working with diverse communities.

• The lack of a visible, central clearinghouse that coordinates and disseminates information on outreach efforts of the University; there exists a need to bolster the visibility, influence, and budget of the current University Outreach office.

• The resources of the Associate Vice Provost for Outreach should be commensurate with the charge, tasks, responsibilities, and expectations of that office.