Center Review Guidelines
The University of Missouri-requires that all established Centers be reviewed once every five years. Center reviews are conducted with the goal of identifying realistic means to improve the quality of services offered by the Center and the University.
Section 50.010 of the Collected Rules states, "The review of Centers every five years will address specifically the question of whether the Center should be continued or discontinued." A formal report of the review and the decision to continue or discontinue each Center shall be forwarded to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, who shall transmit it to the General Officers.
For Centers with an ongoing mission that contributes to the campus goals, the primary consumers of the review should be the faculty members and other individuals of the center who are charged with the leadership of the Center.
The Provost Office will also engage in all Center reviews to increase administrative knowledge about the Center's mission, to assess campus initiatives that may relate to the Center, to provide feedback and assistance to the Center in building stronger programs, and to further the attainment of the goals stated in the MU Strategic Plan.
The purposes of the review are to:
- provide analysis that will foster program improvement;
- assist in long-range and strategic planning with respect to campus improvement;
- determine if the Center's activities are sufficient to warrant continuation.
It is intended that faculty members and other personnel participating in the Center's operations should be engaged in the development of the report as well as meeting with review team members. The process should be helpful to them in introspective thinking on Center strategies and outcomes as well as in developing plans and priorities for the future. The perspectives of customers, stakeholders, and other users of the Center are important to the review process.
The Provost Office will be engaged throughout the Center review process, participating in the review team's activities, and reviewing the final report. A Provost Office liaison will be designated to work with the Center review, answering questions about report preparation, serving as a liaison to the review team during the site visit, providing campus perspective, and sharing the final report with the provost's staff.
The goal is to increase knowledge among the provost's staff about program strengths and needs, to assess campus initiatives that may relate to multiple departments, to provide feedback and assistance to departments in building stronger programs, and to foster the attainment of the goals stated in the MU Strategic Plan.
Back to Top
(Review cycles are posted on the web site and sent to divisional deans.)
In advance of the scheduled review year:
- Divisional deans may request modifications in the schedule if the change will make the process stronger and more meaningful by delaying it to respond to a major structural, staffing or curricular change, or similar compelling reasons. Such requests should be submitted to the Provost or individual in the Provost Office who is coordinating the review process.
- If the unit believes that space problems are a major constraint to quality, a Space Programming Study should be requested from the Space Planning Office. This need should be addressed in the year preceding the self-study or earlier to assure that the space study can be completed in time to provide input to the review process.
- Programs should review the previous self study and recommendations to assure that new study addresses concerns and changes.
On or near July 1:
- The Provost Office will affirm the review list for the upcoming academic year.
By September 15:
- Centers on the list will respond with a list of suggested review team members, citing the credentials that would lend credibility to their participation and report. (See Review Team Membership below.) The Provost must approve the list before invitations to participate are extended.
- Letters will be sent to prospective team members over the signatures of the chair/director and dean (See Letter of Invitation to Team Members).
- Dates for the on-campus review are established.
By November 1:
- Prepare a self study that:
- What is the relationship of the center to MU's priorities and strategic plan?
- Response to findings in previous reviews, including a description of progress or lack of progress made since the last review.
- Data/information summary and description of center activity for the previous 5 year period.
- Five-year budget profile to include all revenue, expenses, and funding sources (G.O. and external).
- What resources has this center provided for campus, community, region and state? What courses, conferences, programs, or other benefits have been shared by the center and with whom?
- Describe the outreach efforts and the contribution to translational research.
- Describe the current strengths of the center and aspects of the center that need improvement.
- How does the division plan to address any center weaknesses?
- How does the division plan to build on center strengths?
- Response to the question: Should the center be continued?
By March 1:
- The self-study will be completed.
- File copies will be sent to the divisional dean and all team members, including the provost's liaison. The self-study should be compiled with the convenience of the readers in mind. Hard copy information will be important that provides useful background information.
- The Center should confer with its Provost Office liaison on the proposed final schedule before sending it to team members.
By February-May:
- The review team will conduct the 2-3 day on-site review. The team will evaluate the self-study materials, conduct interviews with stakeholders, and prepare a draft report. The team will specifically address the Center's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and provide recommendations for improvement as well as a recommendation whether the Center should continue. (SEE Reviewer Questions.)
Four weeks after site visit:
- Team's written draft report is due to divisional dean.
Eight weeks after site visit:
- Divisional/departmental corrections are due to team leader. All follow-up correspondence with the review team will be included in the final report, including the response of the Center to both the dean and the review team.
- The dean will submit the final report including the Center's response to the Provost and Provost liaison with his/her comments.
By May-June:
- The provost's staff will discuss all reviews in a staff meeting panel format with the liaisons assigned the task of summarizing each review to the Provost and Provost staff. Specific recommendations from this meeting will be communicated to the dean and Center director.
Back to Top
The size and composition of a review team may vary slightly, depending upon the complexity of the unit being reviewed and any special areas that warrant attention. It is suggested that all review teams should include at least two individuals from other institutions.
If resources preclude external reviewers, individuals from strong related programs at MU should be included. At least one Graduate Faculty member from a related MU unit should be included for units with major research programs. One Provost staff member will be assigned as liaison. This composition may be modified, in consultation with the provost, if the review team is prescribed by an accreditation organization.
Letter of Invitation to Review Team
The letter of invitation should be issued by the Center director and/or the dean. It should explain the purposes of the review, expected analysis and report, and timeframe.
The self-study and the final report do not have a specific prescribed format. They should include:
- A cover page.
- A description of the review process, including paragraphs establishing the credentials of each of the reviewers.
- A summary of the unit's strategic plan that includes a summary of efforts and success in meeting both unit and campus goals and objectives, including enrollment and retention goals. Describe unit's mission as related to University mission.
- Evaluation of the extent to which the unit is achieving its mission: strengths and areas needing improvement.
- Activity data annually for the last five years, showing the services provided or other outputs of the Center.
- National awards, grants, patents or other indicators of productivity.
- Interrelationships with other programs, including other UM campuses.
- A summary the budget, revenues, expenses and other financial information for the last 5 years.
- Stakeholder information and evaluation of Center activity.
Back to Top
The self-study should be concluded with a section of introspection from the Center administrative staff and faculty responding to the information assembled. Relationship of program to institution's priorities (1-2 paragraphs), strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations for future.
The review team should develop a report that details the strengths and weaknesses of the Center and makes specific recommendations about programs, resource commitment, curriculum, and stakeholder observations.
The draft report will be sent to the dean and provost. The unit will have an opportunity to review the draft for factual accuracy. Following receipt of the final report, the unit will have an opportunity to prepare a reaction that will be sent to the dean and provost. The dean will send his/her own comments to the provost.
The report of the review team should be responsive to these questions:
- What is the relationship of the Center to MU's priorities and strategic plan? Is this Center consistent with MU's mission?
- How adequate was the response to findings in previous reviews, including a description of progress or lack of progress made since the last review?
- How well does data/information summarize and describe the Center activity for the previous 5 year period? Is the data provided sufficient to judge the contribution of the Center? Does this data show appropriate activity level?
- Does the five-year budget profile include all revenue, expenses, and funding sources (G.O. and external)? Is the budget justifiable? Could these resources be better deployed in other uses?
- What are the current strengths of the Center?
- Are there aspects of the Center that need improvement?
- How does the division plan to address Center weaknesses?
- How does the division plan to build on Center strengths?
- Should the Center be continued?
Back to Top
|
