Contents Page Steering Committee Executive Summary Preface Fulbright at Fifty Recommendations Appendices

Fulbright today faces a dramatically changing world. The international geopolitical situation has become more complex.

The international economy is more competitive. American society and higher education have been reshaped-with much wider participation and broader sources of potential leadership. The Fulbright program has been joined by many other exchange and training programs. Understanding these broad trends and internal challenges will help point to a better understanding of the role--and future--of Fulbright.

A Changing World

The world--and the world view--in which most adult Americans grew to maturity no longer exist. It used to be easy to separate our news into categories easily understood as "domestic" and "foreign." Today, however, events in the far corners of the world are likely to resonate within our own communities.

In many ways, the end of the Cold War has made our world more complex. Easily understood rivalries between superpowers have given way to more obscure regional, ethnic, and religious disputes. Anxiety about nuclear annihilation has been replaced by concern about global terrorism and international traffic in narcotics and the crime allied with it. The effects of a variety of bewildering new developments-rapid global population growth, demographic shifts, continuing violations of human rights including the rights of women, the impact of technology and environmental change on societies and international relations, and the potential for global health epidemics-play themselves out in our daily lives. Because these developments challenge national and international understanding, they challenge Fulbright, too.

In this new world, economic competition appears to play a more and more dominant role. Knowledge, skill, and training are the raw materials of today's global economy. In this new economy with its worldwide markets, products can be designed in one country, engineered in another, produced in yet a third, and marketed around the globe. Capital, labor, and finance acknowledge no national boundaries. Potentially, this new kind of global commerce creates greater unity and greater fragmentation. On one hand, it develops worldwide markets and supports the spread of internationally-branded products; on the other, it confers competitive advantage on the technologically swift, while exacting a competitive toll on the technologically slow. Faster means of transportation and instantaneous telecommunications have not reduced competition among nations, but they have certainly changed the players and the rules.

Although its ultimate shape and nature are unclear, this more complex and dynamic age presents many challenges to international stability. In this situation, Fulbright especially offers a forum in which students and scholars from different cultures and societies can "bring a little more knowledge and a little more reason" to the tasks of maintaining peace and advancing freedom and democracy.

The Transformation of Higher Education. Higher education in the United States has changed dramatically. Amid the several major social changes of the past 50 years, increasing numbers of Americans have gained access to higher education--first through the G.I. Bill, and progressively through the growing nationwide network of four-year state colleges and universities and two-year community colleges. In recent years higher education has become more internationally oriented in many ways, from course offerings and new initiatives to outreach abroad. These changes point to opportunities, through the Fulbright program, to build on the strengths of U.S. higher education and to better fulfill opportunities and needs of international education.

Internal Challenges

As these external developments pose challenges and opportunities for Fulbright, the program faces internal issues. Fulbright is under-funded, leaving the program stretched to its limits. Administratively, the program is complex and difficult to manage, and would benefit from streamlining. The balance and relation between the student and scholar grant programs needs clarification. Many partner nations contribute little or no funds or facilities. The merger of USIA into the Department of State raises concerns about Fulbright's operational independence, but also presents important opportunities for strengthening Fulbright and other U.S. international educational exchanges.

A Program Stretched Too Thin. Because the number of nations and potential participants has grown enormously since its inception, Fulbright has tried to do too much with too little.

At the beginning of this decade, Charles W. Dunn, then-Chairman of the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, declared that, "Strangled by too few resources and subverted by too many demands, the Fulbright Program is in jeopardy, its historic mission and hard-earned reputation endangered."

The evidence on program growth and participation supports Dunn's concern. The program started with ten countries, mainly in Western Europe, but now serves some 140; yet support in constant dollars from the U.S. government peaked in the 1960s. (See Figure 1.)

Traditionally under-funded, orientation and enrichment activities that assure successful experiences and follow-up have been significantly reduced in recent years. Certain types of evaluation and outreach are slighted.

In 1996, as part of a larger effort to reduce the federal budget, Congress imposed heavy cuts on Fulbright activities in USIA. Fulbright-Hays programs funded and administered by the U.S. Department of Education were reduced the year before. For Fulbright, Congressional appropriations which had totaled $126 million in 1994, and $123 million in 1995, suddenly dropped in 1996 to $105 million, a cut of about 20 percent. In 1996 alone, 130 fewer grants were funded.

Over the past two years, administrative budgets for Fulbright's five principal cooperating agencies have been substantially reduced (25 percent for the Scholar and Student Programs; 33 percent for the Teacher Exchange Program). At the same time, the majority of Fulbright Commissions appear to have brought their administrative costs under 20 percent of total operating budget. This decade also brought significant personnel reductions in the cooperating organizations as well as cuts in USIA overseas and headquarters personnel.

Specific program cuts included: elimination of regional scholar programs in the Far East, Latin America, and the Caribbean; drastic reductions in the number of grant renewals and/or extensions for all programs; reduction in grantee benefits including dependent tuition allowances and allowances for attendance at professional conferences; reduction in orientation programs for outbound U.S. grantees; reduction in pre-academic preparation for foreign students; and fewer countries participating in the Teacher Exchange Program.

Administrative Complexity. Fulbright is a global enterprise with many different components, each with its own focus. Fulbright involves the United States Information Agency, the U.S. Department of Education, the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, some 50 binational commissions, USIA posts in more than 100 countries, academic institutions around the world, and several cooperating not-for-profit organizations that help recruit and place successful Fulbright candidates.

Managers and friends of the program worry about the complexity of recruitment, selection, and placement, and that changing family and career patterns inhibit applications for scholar grants. Stipends do not adequately cover family costs including education for children for a year, and more incentives and support are needed for younger scholars from their colleges and universities. In addition, the pressures of meeting the "tenure clock" inhibit applications for a Fulbright grant.

Students and Faculty--a Shifting and Uncertain Balance. The number of foreign student grants has generally exceeded foreign faculty grants; however, U.S. faculty participation outstripped that of U.S. students from the late 1960's. Capping a trend back in recent years, the number of grants to U.S. students exceeded the number of scholars' grants in 1996. Virtually every major study of Fulbright has called for a larger proportion of Fulbright resources to be allocated to student grants, in the belief that an experience abroad early in one's career can be a lifelong influence. Some also ask if there are ways to relate better these two major components to strengthen the program overall. (See Figure 2.)

The Need for Full Reciprocity. Despite the cooperation and mutual support that exist between and among many Fulbright nations, some of the United States' international partners invest little in the program. By its nature, Fulbright has always been a shared endeavor. However, some nations with rapidly expanding economies contribute minimally, if at all; even some nations with active binational commissions contribute very few financial resources to the Fulbright effort. (See Figure 3.)

Consolidation within the Department of State. The recent decision to merge USIA with the Department of State will bring the Fulbright program back to its original base, and offers a strong institutional home for the program. There is a strong need for rationalizing U.S. government international exchange and training activities in which the Department can play a leading role. In addition, the Fulbright Program has several unique characteristics which make it a high-quality international endeavor. Departmental support for open communications systems, partnerships with myriad non-governmental organizations, fund-raising authorities, and the full support of USIA civil and foreign service and foreign national employees will ensure a continued high-caliber program. The Fulbright budget, already too thin, will require protection; the program's long-term strategic nature necessitates consistent backing.

Conclusions

From its study and observations, the steering committee draws several conclusions.

• The Fulbright program remains a vital and successful means to address the current issues facing established and emerging nations in the post-Cold War era. Its hallmark qualities-merit-based competition, open inquiry, shared responsibilities, and the engagement of other nations-stand the program in good stead for the future.

• The Fulbright program is tangible proof of the U.S. government's willingness to provide leadership in the international community and its commitment to providing a forum for the discussion and study of the processes and values that support democratic institutions.

• U.S. funding encourages other nations to participate in the exchange program. Should U.S. funding falter, decreases in support from other governments will follow.

• Binationalism must continue to be central to the Fulbright program. Greater reciprocity from other governments should be sought.

• While colleges, universities, and corporations make a highly valuable contribution to the Fulbright program, they cannot assume the government's responsibilities.

• Sustained support of the development of experts in modern language and area studies will contribute to U.S. leadership in international affairs. The programs called Fulbright-Hays under 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 help build individual Americans' competence and overall U.S. educational capacity in these vital fields.

• Greater participation should be actively sought by individuals from the expanding state and community college networks and institutions traditionally serving minorities, as well as the nation's flagship public and private institutions.

• The Fulbright program should include ongoing steps to streamline and improve its administration and to bring its constituent parts together in positive coordination and communication in order to achieve its mission.