Center Resources

Cover Page:

• Center Name
• Director
• Administrator
• Administrative Level
• Mission Lines (instruction, research, outreach)

Charter Body:

• Vision and Mission 
• Description: Overview of the purpose of the center and the unique benefit it brings to the university, identification of which mission areas (research, education, outreach) the center engages with and description of mechanisms for that engagement; 
• Governance: Director, administrator, members of the stakeholders’ committee advisory committee (as appropriate), and mechanisms for faculty and student involvement; 
• Financial plan: the budget for the center, including sources and uses of funds, to sustain the center over its first five years;
• Metrics and goals: concrete metrics and goals, including methodology for acquiring data, for a five year period of center operation.

Cover Page:

• Center Name
• Center Director
• Center Administrator
• Reporting Period

Report Body:

1. Accomplishments 
   • Bullets or narrative of significant accomplishments, new or improved strategies, or programs the Center achieved in the prior reporting period;
   • Tables of significant metrics and description of data collection methodology. Metrics should include, at minimum, those described in the unit’s description.
   • Result of periodic review(s) conducted, if applicable, or declaration of next planned review.
2. Changes to the Center 
   • Changes to the center’s mission, vision, purpose, key metrics, or governance structure made in the prior year. 
   • Provide description and reason for change, and revised charter, budget, or center description, as appropriate.
   • Confirm that notification and/or approval was performed, per requirements of policy 13005. 
3. Report of Financial Condition
   • Use Excel financial report format or web-based Banner reports.
4. Major Issues of the Center
   • Identify any major issues facing the center as it looks to the future.

The administrator is responsible for appointing the review committee, and its chair. The review committee should be composed of individuals with personal knowledge and experience of the director’s leadership, but should not include direct reports of the director. 

Best Practices:

• Reviews should include at least three members;
• The director may be consulted in identifying appropriate and knowledgeable reviewers, but the administrator should include others;
• Reviewers should hold a variety of positions in the university, with at least one in an administrative or leadership role such as center director, department head, or associate dean.

The review should assess both the director’s operational management and their programmatic leadership of the center’s activities and personnel. 

Key questions to answer include:

• Is the director able to gain engagement and participation from faculty in all relevant departments?
• Is the director working with participating faculty to set appropriate strategic priorities and focus areas to meet the center’s mission?
• Has the director established a productive culture among its participants?
• Does the director effectively manage the resources of the center, and plan for future resource needs?
• Does the financial audit and overall professional evaluation demonstrate that the center or university institute is being managed properly? Did the review process reveal any serious issues that warrant special attention and remediation?
• Is the director spending an appropriate amount of time on center business?

Appropriate sections of the review report include:

• Leadership
• Operational Management
• Intrapersonal Skills
• Interpersonal Skills
• Strengths/Areas for Improvement/Accomplishments

Input should be solicited from faculty, staff, and students (as appropriate) who have substantial engagement with the director. This input can be gathered via surveys or interviews. Standard survey instruments can be provided. The director may be asked to provide a list of appropriate individuals to participate in this survey. The administrator may modify this list, as appropriate.

Dean/Vice President Survey Instrument

1. External reviewers are not typically involved in the review of the director.  
2. The report of the committee is confidential. 

The administrator is responsible for appointing the review committee, and its chair. The review committee should be composed of representatives of organizations involved in the center, but should not include employees of the center. Review committees for institutes and university centers should always have at least five members, and must include a representative of the appropriate university commission(s), and a director for another institute or university center.

Best Practices:

• Reviews should include at least five members;
• The director may be consulted in identifying appropriate and knowledgeable reviewers, but the administrator should include others;
• Reviewers should hold a variety of positions in the University, with at least one in an administrative or leadership role such as center director, department head, or associate dean.

The review should assess the center against its established purpose and goals. For the center’s first 5-year review, these should be taken from the materials in the proposal to establish the center. In subsequent reviews, goals may be stated in center strategic plans, response to reviews, or other materials.

Key questions to answer include:

• Is the center’s mission clear and unique? Is the center’s mission and objectives still necessary?
• Do current operations reflect the most recent charter, goals and objectives of the center or university institute?
• Is the center successful in attaining the goals and objectives in its center description or strategic plan? If not, is it because of a lack of financial or infrastructural resources, inadequate faculty participation, or lack of sponsor interest?
• Are the center’s resources sufficient to meet the needs of the center? Are they being appropriately allocated to meet the center’s mission?
• Is faculty participation sufficient to continue the center operations?
• Is the scholarly activity by faculty, professional staff, and students at a high quality?
• Do the financial resources of the center or university institute appear sustainable and able to appropriately support the unit over the next five-year period? Are center participants able to secure external grants and contracts to support the mission areas of the unit?
• Are clients being well served? The clients may include students, faculty, university administration, practicing professionals, the general public, funding agencies, etc.

Appropriate sections of the review report should include:

• Mission, vision, and strategic objectives - assessment of the continued uniqueness and benefits of the center 
• Scholarly and Programmatic Outputs - assessment of the quality and quantity of programmatic outputs of the center
• Financial Outlook - assessment of the financial performance (including diversity and sufficiency of financial resources), assessment of return on investment of the center
• Benefits to Stakeholders - assessment of how well the center serves its stakeholders; how well it engages and supports faculty and students; how well it serves the university’s reputation and profile
• Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations

The review’s assessment should include the adequacy and efficacy of the center’s resources (including financial, personnel, and facilities); and reaffirm that the center is not duplicative of other units at the university.

The director should supply the center’s annual reports from the prior five years, and deliver a summary presentation regarding the accomplishments, current status, and concerns of the center. 

Input should be solicited from faculty, staff, and students (as appropriate) who have substantial engagement with the center. This input can be gathered via surveys or interviews. Standard survey instruments can be provided by []. The director may be asked to provide a list of appropriate individuals to participate in this survey. The administrator may modify this list, as appropriate.

Reviews for university centers and Institutes should be designed to solicit substantial input from external parties.