Template Image

DSR Logo

University of Florida Policy for Establishing and Reviewing Centers, Institutes and Bureaus

Introduction

The University of Florida has approximately 160 approved Centers, Institutes and Bureaus that have been established for the purposes of research and/or education, coordinating international relationships, advancing public policy, and providing research/instrumentation facilities and services.

Centers, Institutes, and Bureaus (hereafter referred to as ``centers'') focus on domains of knowledge that reside within a discipline or are cross-disciplinary in scope. These are organizational mechanisms that can be used to provide greater depth in teaching and/or research to a narrower band of problems within a discipline, or to apply a broader vision to problem sets that cross traditional knowledge boundaries. Centers may help to develop new areas of research that are interesting to the faculty and relevant to external constituencies, encourage cross-disciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to teaching and research, provide more relevant focus for service to external and internal constituencies, and promote the sharing of resources (e.g., equipment, labs, etc.) and collaboration across departmental and college boundaries. These structures may also provide an additional mechanism to enhance recruitment of exceptional faculty into departments, provide opportunities that bring graduate students into contact with new fields of research and teaching, and provide funding agencies and corporate sponsors with access to faculty, specialized facilities, equipment, expertise and support personnel. Center status provides visibility for, and tangible evidence of, a formalized structure for an activity that strengthens its credibility to funding agencies as well as to other external sponsors.

Center Authorization

It is appropriate and desirable to create centers when the resources are available and when the establishment of a center is consistent with the long range plans of a college and the University. The departments, colleges and the University should be selective in creating new centers. To this end, a review and approval process has been established by the University that will assure full knowledge of and concurrence in establishing the activity. The reasons for this process are as follows:

  1. A University sanctioned Center is an extension of the University. This representation requires some degree of oversight to maintain mission concurrence within the organization.

  2. The designation of a center with a descriptive title gives the franchise to a specific group for an activity. In a university as large and complex as the University of Florida, it is conceivable that more than one group would wish to develop a certain center; such potentially competing and/or complementary activities need to be coordinated.

  3. Centers typically require resources - faculty effort, space and budget. Thus there needs to be an approval process to identify the appropriate external and/or internal resources as well as to avoid competition for the same resources.

Center Approval

All University of Florida Centers must be approved as either a Type I, II, III or IV Center. Proposals for Centers submitted to the BOR require approval by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs after initial review and approval of the respective chairs, deans, vice president (where appropriate) and the Vice President for Research.

Once the department and college reviews have occurred, signified by the signatures of the chair and dean (and vice president where appropriate), the proposal should be forwarded to the Office of Research for review by the Vice President (VP) for Research. In general, the primary critical review should occur at the College and Departmental level; the VP may solicit constructive suggestions from the Research Advisory Board (RAB) for integrating the Center's objectives with existing University programs. Proposals that are approved by the VP will then be forwarded to the Office of the Provost. The Provost or his designee will provide the final approval.

  1. Intradepartmental centers should be established according to policy set within the department and signed off by the chair and respective dean before transmittal to the VP for Research. Chairs should follow the procedure for development of a center proposal outlined below.

  2. Intracollege centers should be established according to policy set within the college and have the signature approval of the chairs of the participating faculty and the dean before transmittal to the VP for Research. The chairs and deans should follow the procedure for development of a center proposal outlined below.

  3. Intercollege centers should be reviewed according to policies set within all colleges and departments of participating faculty and according to the procedure set forth in this document. Signature approval by the deans and chairs for each of these units must be obtained before transmittal to the VP for Research. The primary critical review will occur at the VP for Research level in consultation with the Research Advisory Board.

Center Proposals

The proposal should be no more than 10 pages in length. Appendix material may be provided as specified. The following information should be included in the text of the proposal:

  1. Mission Statement and Goals: The mission of the center should be defined and the goals for research, teaching and public service explained. All three elements are not required for a center to be established but should be identified when they are anticipated to be part of the mission.

  2. Proposed Activities: Describe the activities that are planned for the center (e.g., collaborative research on the topic of (X); the intent to generate interdisciplinary resources, to design courses, to develop an interdisciplinary graduate program, attract postdoctoral fellows, create a lecture series; to establish a core service facility, provide greater focus and depth to a research area, etc.). Explain the plans to apply for external funding and identify the relationship of the center's activities with those of departments and/or other centers. Describe the advantages of the center over current structure (what unmet needs will be satisfied by having the center?) and the value of the center to the University and to the reporting unit. The proposers should show, where possible, that there already exists a significant element of informal synergism and a demonstrated track record of the proposers in terms of external support for their current research and related activities.

  3. Administrative Structure: The position of the center within the University/college/department must be explained with the lines of accountability and responsibility clearly indicated. Each center should design its own administrative structure in consultation with the cognizant department chair(s) and dean, but at minimum there should be a director and an advisory committee.

    1. The director must provide leadership and guidance for the direction of the research and facilitate interaction among faculty, staff and students. He/she should seek effective means of communication and collaboration, create an efficient organizational structure, and work to identify funds to sustain and expand upon the center's activities. The director is expected to be the primary contact between the center and the reporting authority. The director for a new center will be considered acting until officially appointed by the reporting official (dean or vice president).

    2. The functions of the advisory committee will vary according to the needs and style of the director and the requirements of the unit to which the center reports.

    Large centers that involve several colleges and departments should form an executive committee of the involved chairmen and/or deans; in certain cases, outside advisory groups are desirable. The roles that these committees will play should be clearly specified in the proposal.

  4. Reporting Relationships Centers whose faculty are entirely within one college will report to the dean of the college or his/her designated official (e.g., associate/assistant dean, or chairman). The oversight of centers which involve two or more colleges will rest with either a vice president (e.g., Vice President for Health Affairs, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Research, or Academic Affairs) or the dean of the college which has the predominant activity. All type I centers will report to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

  5. Center Membership All members of the center, their academic affiliations, and area(s) of expertise, should be listed in an appendix document.

  6. Resources - Space and Budget The success of centers depends upon adequate resources to support their activities. New centers, therefore, should have an identified source(s) of financial support and utilize existing space or have newly identified space to meet their needs. The resources available to the center should be identified specifically in the text or provided as appendix material.

  7. IDC Return Centers designated as official University and SUS centers are eligible to receive 7.5% of the indirect cost dollars earned from grants and contracts awarded for faculty activity conducted under the auspices of the center. The return mechanism will be in accord with established University of Florida policy and the policies of IFAS and EIES where appropriate. Centers that have been approved by Deans of the participating colleges, the VP for Research, and the Provost, but are awaiting final approval, are also eligible to receive 7.5% of the indirect cost dollars as described above, for a period not to exceed 2 years.

  8. Procedure for Sign-Off of a Center Proposal Chairs and deans of the departments and colleges of participating faculty must sign off on the proposal. Proposals involving the Health Center and IFAS must also have the signature of the Vice President for Health Affairs or the Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources or their designees.

Center Reviews

Centers should be discontinued when they no longer serve the mission for which they were created. Every center should be reviewed at the time a new director is appointed or no less than every five years. The review process should be determined by the official to whom the center reports. The attached outlines for Center Self-Study and Center Review are provided as suggested guidelines only. The reporting authority may use these guidelines or develop other procedures as desired. However, a review plan, including specified evaluation procedures, must be filed with the Vice President for Research at the beginning of the review year. The purpose of the review is to assess the success of the center on the basis of the programmatic goals set forth in the original proposal. The completed review and recommendation for continuance will be forwarded to the VP for Research and the Provost for final action.

As noted, the form of the review and the process to be followed should be determined by the official to whom the center reports.

  1. The Chancellor will conduct five-year reviews of Type 1 centers; and

  2. The University discontinues or recommends for discontinuing to the Chancellor any center within its jurisdiction for which the need no longer exists.

The office of the VP for Research will maintain the roster of University sanctioned centers and will monitor the application and review process to guide compliance with these policies.

Center Review Guidelines

Purpose: To provide the Deans, Director and affiliated faculty members with an objective assessment of the Center effectiveness in fulfilling its mission and goals. The review should lead to a determination of the strengths and weaknesses of the Center and the adequacy of its resources. The results of the review may lead to 1) a reaffirmation of the appropriateness of the Center, 2) modification of the mission and goals of the Center, 3) an assessment of the effectiveness of the stewardship of the Center, 4) reallocation of resources to the Center, and/or 5) discontinuance of the Center.

Frequency of Review: Every five years, at the time a Center director is replaced, or more frequently, at the discretion of the official(s) to whom the Center reports.

Review Procedures:

Review Committees: The official(s) to whom the Center reports, after consultation with the Director, affiliated faculty and department chairpersons, if appropriate, will appoint three external reviewers from appropriate academic, government and/or private sector institutions. The committee will provide the reporting official and the Center director with a written comprehensive evaluation and make specific recommendations for continuing, improving or discontinuing the Center.

Content of the Review:

The specific directions to the Committee, pertinent to assessing the effectiveness of the particular Center's mission and goals, should be developed by the appropriate reporting officials. Examples of areas to be reviewed are overall quality and appropriateness of direction of educational efforts, service efforts, and research efforts. Particular attention should be paid to determining the uniqueness or value added to these efforts by the existence of the particular Center. The ability of a Center to attract appropriate faculty affiliates and the ability, leadership and effectiveness of the Center director with respect to setting and achieving the Center's goals should also be assessed.

Sources of Information:

These could include, but are not limited to:

  1. A report prepared by the Director of the Center.

  2. Interviews with the director, affiliated faculty, reporting officials, and members of any external constituency the Center serves.

  3. Inspection of publications, grant and contract history, educational materials, public service materials, and any other product relative to the Center's mission and goals.

  4. A self-study conducted by the members of the Center.

Review Committee Recommendations:

The Committee recommendations should include an assessment of the effectiveness of the Center in meeting its mission and goals, an assessment of the leadership of the Center, and any specific changes in mission and goals or activities that would be beneficial to improving the Center.

Centers

Type I Transcends the University; involves more than one of the Schools in the State system
Type II Generally a center within one University; has a state budget; is a University priority
Type III A Center that is legislatively approved or mandated. There is only one of these - the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Type IV A Center without a state budget; e.g., an NIH-funded Center

 

There is no state budget that can be considered a given on any of these Centers.