---

Concluding Observations

---

Mission designation is the responsibility of the chancellor's office, and under a strong chancellor the system has been able to keep mission creep and duplication of programs to a minimum. The system has been particularly effective at keeping down duplication at the graduate level. There have been problems in the past, however, with mission creep. When there is weak leadership in the chancellor's office, institutional interests can tend to overtake statewide interests. Constitutional status prevents the Assembly from stepping in on such occasions.

The Georgia structure has been effective in getting institutions to collaborate with one another and to speak with one voice, particularly in their relationships with the General Assembly. As one campus president said, "The system helps to increase the likelihood that we will share a vision among institutions." The structure has mechanisms for establishing one tuition policy and one transfer policy with relative ease. However, there is some belief that the consolidated structure has underutilized its two-year institutions. This may be one reason that overall costs per student in Georgia are higher than the national average.

There is not complete agreement about the extent to which a consolidated structure allows for more collegiality on the one hand or creates an atmosphere of turf and competition on the other. Several individuals said that there is less turf orientation in this state than in most, and the emphasis and priority on collaborative activities helps to keep this at bay. Others suggest that there is always some unhappiness when it comes to resource allocation, since this is where the major policy decisions are made. Conflicts over whether one type of institutions is favored over another may be magnified under a centralized board with resource allocation responsibilities.

Under strong leadership, the Georgia structure is able to use a centralized planning process to address statewide priorities, as evidenced by the current strategic planning process initiated by the chancellor's office. Weak faculty organizations contribute to the system's ability to plan on a statewide basis. The centralized planning and decision-making process has enabled the system to act quickly on its many initiatives, though this often means forgoing the deliberative process that higher education typically uses. Several respondents argued that the kinds of changes that are being implemented in Georgia are instituted much more effectively with a strong, top-down chancellor than under legislative controls, which is what they see as the alternative.

Most respondents said that constitutional status removes the system from political interference and keeps it free to focus on the mission of higher education. Some of the individuals we spoke with noted, however, that since Governors can now succeed themselves, a Governor could potentially appoint the entire Board of Regents over the course of two terms, which could lead to greater political influence.

It is difficult for private institutions to play a key policy role in a system like Georgia's since higher education is generally viewed as the University System. HOPE scholarships, though they are available to students attending private colleges and universities, provide such an incentive to attend public institutions that some privates may lose in-state enrollments.

The unitary structure is very dependent upon leadership. "This is the ideal structure for true leadership people in higher education to function effectively" noted a former president, who also said, "It can also go in a negative direction, depending on the leaders." Under weak leadership, the system has failed to act like a system, and has been more characterized by mission creep than by collaboration and effective strategic planning.

The Georgia system had a great deal of momentum and energy at the time of this study-with an interested Governor, a supportive General Assembly and a visionary chancellor who is widely admired and respected. The state economy has also been strong. When the "stars" are aligned like this, the structure has been able to plan effectively, move forward quickly and keep everyone fairly satisfied with the performance of higher education.