UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GUIDELINES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND REVIEW OF ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH-BASED CENTERS AND INSTITUTES 
(Approved by the President April 27, 2021) 
 
I. Introduction  

The University of Maryland Policy and Procedures for the Establishment and Review of Academic & Research-Based Centers and Institutes (IV-1.00[A]) (“the Policy”) defines and provides for the development of entities meant to facilitate research, foster collaboration, and enhance the academic experience. These Guidelines were created to support the implementation of the Policy, in the interest of enhancing consistency while recognizing that these entities vary widely across the University.   



II. Proposal and Review Process for New Centers & Institutes  

A. New Centers and Institutes are established through a formal proposal process, as indicated in the Policy.  

1. Proposals should typically include the following elements:  

a. A description of the purpose and mission of the proposed entity;  

b. A description of whether and how the proposed entity addresses the teaching, research, and service missions of the University of Maryland;  

c. A description of the value the proposed entity provides to the University;  

d. A description of whether and how the proposed entity intends to incorporate graduate students and undergraduate students;  

e. An explanation of how the proposed entity differs from existing Centers, Institutes, or departments at the University that focus on similar or related topics;  

f. An overview of expected interdisciplinary connections and collaborations, if appropriate;  

g. Details regarding the proposed administrative and organizational structure, as well as any planned advisory or governance structures;  

h. A description of new and/or specialized space, infrastructural, technological, and information assets or services needed for the entity;   

i. An overview of the financial model of the proposed entity;  

j. Benchmarks and metrics to be used in measuring the proposed entity’s progress and success; and  

k. A research and/or budget plan for the first five years of operations.  

2. Proposals should include additional information specific to the entity being proposed, including any information relevant to external funding agencies, if applicable.   

3. Centers and Institutes that are initiated in response to an external funding opportunity may substitute the proposal associated with that process for the formal proposal. 
  

B. Proposals for Centers and Institutes should be routed through the appropriate Unit Head, Approval Authority, and the Office of Research Administration, if the proposal involves external funding.


C. The proposal review process for establishing new Centers and Institutes should be overseen by the proposed Unit Head and conducted in alignment with the Policy.   

1. Proposal review processes should be based on the level of the entity.   

a. Reviews of proposals to establish new Centers within an Institute should include consideration at the level of the Institute.  

i. The Institute Director should review the proposal, and may submit it to the appropriate faculty advisory committee for review.  

ii. The Institute Director should consider the recommendation from any faculty advisory committee, if appropriate, and the merits of the proposal, and should make a recommendation to the Approval Authority.  

b. Reviews of proposals to establish new Department Level Centers should include consideration at the level of the department.   

i. The Unit Head should review the proposal, and may submit it to the appropriate departmental faculty advisory committee for review.   

ii. The Unit Head should consider the recommendation from any faculty advisory committee, if appropriate, and the merits of the proposal, and should make a recommendation to the Dean.  

c. Review of proposals for College Level Centers, Intercollegiate Level Centers, and Institutes may need consideration at the level of the College or the University.   

i. The Unit Head(s) may submit the proposal to the relevant College faculty advisory committee(s) for review.   

ii. In reviewing the proposal, the Unit Head(s) should consider the merits of the proposal and the feasibility of the request(s) for space and funding necessary to create and maintain the Center.   

(a) Funding sources may include, but are not limited to College funds, short-term commitments from the University, and/or external funds.   

(b) The Unit Head(s) should work in consultation with the Approval Authority on assessing the space and funding aspects of the proposal.   

(i) The Senior Vice President and Provost may request that proposals that capitalize on special funding opportunities where the College cannot supply all necessary resources, or those that involve large or long-term commitments from University funds, be reviewed by the University’s Academic Planning Advisory Committee (APAC).    

(ii) The Senior Vice President and Provost may ask APAC to review other proposals for College Level Centers, Intercollegiate Level Centers, and Institutes, as appropriate.  

2. Proposals initiated in response to external funding opportunities should be routed through the pathway appropriate to the funding process.
  


III. Governance Structure & Policies  

A. Centers and Institutes should establish a Plan of Organization that aligns with the principles of shared governance within the Unit(s) to which it reports.  

1. The Plan should identify the entity’s administrative and governance structures and define titles recognized within the entity.  

2. The Plan must be approved by the Unit(s) to which the entity reports. 
 

B. Centers and Institutes should establish policies, guidelines, and procedures for professional track (PTK) faculty in alignment with similar University policies and procedures (e.g., Appointment, Evaluation, Promotion (AEP) policies and merit pay policies, title series, and promotion ladders relevant to the PTK faculty within the specific entity) that must be approved by the appropriate Approval Authority or approval body.  


IV. Periodic Reviews of Centers & Institutes  

A. All existing and new Centers and Institutes are subject to periodic reviews as specified in the Policy.
  

B. Periodic reviews of Centers and Institutes should include consideration of the following elements:  

1. Continued alignment with the goals, mission, and purpose of the University and the Unit(s) affiliated with the entity;  

2. An assessment of activities and trend data since the establishment of the entity or since the last review;  

3. An evaluation of challenges and opportunities since the last review;  

4. An assessment of financial viability;  

5. An assessment of the efficacy of organizational and administrative structures;  

6. Quality of any related instruction, advising, mentorship, or professional development activities;   

7. Research activities including peer-reviewed publications, scholarship, and creative activities performed by the Center or Institute since the last review;  

8. Information on whether the entity has had an impact on recruiting and retaining outstanding faculty;   

9. Information on how the entity plays a positive role in community engagement, community service, and outreach activities;  

10. Stakeholder feedback;  

11. A reevaluation of the benchmarks and metrics for success; and   

12. An assessment of whether changes are needed to enable future success.  


C. As indicated in the Policy, reviews for Department Level Centers, College Level Centers, and Intercollegiate Level Centers may include an external review.    

1. The Senior Vice President and Provost and the Vice President for Research, if appropriate, should determine whether an external review should be conducted.   

a. For Department Level Centers, the Approval Authority in consultation with the Unit Head should make a recommendation to the Senior Vice President and Provost and the Vice President for Research, if appropriate, on whether an external review should be conducted for a specific Center. For College Level Centers and Intercollegiate Level Centers, the Unit Head should make a recommendation to the Senior Vice President and Provost and the Vice President for Research, if appropriate, on whether an external review should be conducted for a specific Center.   

b. If an external review is not recommended by the Unit Head and/or the Approval Authority, the Director of a Center may make a request for an external review to the Senior Vice President and Provost and the Vice President for Research, if appropriate, if they feel it is warranted.  


V. Implementation of the Policy  

A. The Division of Research should maintain a centralized database and public-facing information on all Centers and Institutes at the University.  


B. The Division of Research should be notified at the conclusion of the proposal and periodic review processes and in other instances when modifications are implemented, so that the public-facing information and internal tracking mechanisms can be updated as appropriate. At a minimum, the Division of Research should be notified of:  

1. Approved proposals for new Centers and Institutes;  

2. Approved name changes or reorganizations of existing entities;   

3. Any outcomes following periodic review processes, including probation and sunsetting plans; and  

4. Termination of Centers and Institutes.
  

VI. Review & Revision of the Guidelines  

A. The Guidelines should be updated periodically to provide additional guidance associated with the Policy, as needed.
  

B. The Guidelines are subject to a comprehensive review and revision at times when the Policy is reviewed and revised.