As recommended by Senate Council at its meeting on October 9, 1995, Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg approved these guidelines governing the University review of Academic Planning Proposals.
If you would like further guidance for submitting a graduate academic program proposal, please visit Graduate Academic Program Proposals.
Effective November 1, 1995
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Academic Planning Proposals and University Planning: An Overview
Academic Proposals Arising from the Long-Range Planning Process
Academic Proposals Arising from Outside the Planning Process
Review Beyond the Academic Responsibility Centers
Authority for Approving Academic Planning Proposals
Proposals Requiring Approval by the Secretary of Education
Proposals Requiring Approval by the Board of Trustees
Proposals Requiring Approval by the Chancellor
Proposals Requiring Approval of the Provost
PREPARATION OF ACADEMIC PLANNING PROPOSALS
Proposals for New or Substantially Modified Majors, Degree Programs, Academic Departments, or Schools
Proposals for Termination of Majors, Degree Programs, Academic Departments, or Schools
Proposals for New Certificate Programs, Areas of Concentration, or Minors
Proposals for Termination of Certificate Programs, Areas of Concentration, or Minors
APPENDIX
Financial Analysis Guidelines for New Proposals
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Academic Planning Proposals and University Planning: An Overview
The primary purpose of this document is to describe the processes for the review and evaluation of academic planning proposals within the context of the current planning and budgeting system. In 1992, the Planning and Budgeting System (PBS) was established to combine within a single process all:
- long-range planning and budgeting;
- operational plan and budget creation;
- budget modifications and augmentations;
- facilities management and development; and
- evaluation of University programs.
PBS provides collegial structures for appropriate participation by administrators, faculty, staff, and students at each level of decision making. The PBS process facilitates the instructional, research, and service activities of the University by ensuring full access to relevant information and providing a rational, clear, and consistent framework for planning and budgeting decisions.
The PBS process recognizes that changes in academic programs must occur in one of two ways. First, units can identify new academic programs by altering their specific mission and manage change through their long-range planning process. Second, a unit can change in response to unforeseen external or internal environmental conditions in a way that is consistent with the established mission and long-range planning goals of the University and the unit.
Academic Proposals Arising from the Long-Range Planning Process
Whenever possible, proposals for new academic programs should arise within the context of long-range planning discussions. The foundation of long-range planning is the unit's mission. The mission provides a point of reference for all planning and budgeting activities and ensures a consistent and clear purpose throughout the unit. The mission communicates the self-concept of the unit and promotes commitment and support.
When a unit alters its mission, the need to alter the unit's programs may arise. The planning proposals arising from such a discussion must carefully articulate how such changes are necessary to support the new mission. These discussions and ensuing program proposal development must take place in open, participatory forums within the unit. Academic program proposals must also be consistent with the goals articulated in the unit's long-range plan. Goals provide the context for setting operational objectives by establishing priorities relative to performance, personnel, capital, and financial measures. Proposals must reflect and be consistent with the stated priorities of a unit, recognizing that a unit's goals are fully integrated and that pursuit of any specific goal may have implications for others.
All planning proposals must be reviewed by the appropriate academic unit(s) and academic responsibility center(s) as well as by the responsibility center Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC) and relevant departmental PBC. A recommendation from these bodies for approving the planning proposal should accompany any submission to the Provost for review.
Academic Proposals Arising from Outside the Planning Process
Unavoidable or expected events may require or make desirable programmatic changes that require budget augmentation or reallocation. Changes in the external or internal operating environment may mandate program changes or create special program opportunities that long-range planning efforts could not predict. Often, the nature of the change, apparent time constraints, or the overall impact of resource utilization require that such proposals be acted upon outside the planning and budgeting discussions detailed above. While it is not the intent of the Planning and Budgeting System to inhibit necessary change, planning proposals arising out of unforeseen circumstances must still be justified relative to the stated mission and goals of the University, the responsibility center, and affected departments.
Proposals arising from outside the normal planning process must still undergo review by the appropriate academic unit(s) and academic responsibility center(s) as well as by unit and responsibility center PBCs. Budget modifications within a department or responsibility center not requiring augmentation or significant reallocation of resources are an expected occurrence throughout the year. Unit heads will regularly account for such modifications to the appropriate PBC. Proposals requiring budget augmentation or significant reallocation of resources, however, will proceed through the same review process as those arising directly from the long-range planning process.
Review Beyond the Academic Responsibility Centers
All proposals involving fundamental changes in academic programs will be reviewed by the University Council on Graduate Studies and the Provost's Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Programs, as deemed appropriate by the Provost. The University Planning and Budgeting Committee (UPBC), as advisor to the Chancellor in all planning and budgeting matters, will also review and make recommendations on any proposal involving fundamental changes in a unit—including the establishment, merging or termination of departments or centers, or significant alteration of the unit mission—or significant additional expenditures from University funds. Other proposals shall be reported to the UPBC, but will ordinarily be viewed as routine management adjustments within the current fiscal year.
Regardless of the origin of an academic planning proposal, a formal document typically need not be submitted for review and approval through this procedure for sponsored research programs. Proposal review and approval is required if the proposal requires the establishment of a new University center or institute at the responsibility center level or requires the commitment of University resources (funds, personnel, equipment, space) beyond those currently assigned to the requesting unit.
Authority for Approving Academic Planning Proposals
Wherever a planning change originates, the responsibility center head is generally responsible for developing and submitting the formal planning proposal for review. The proposal must be reviewed by the responsibility center Planning and Budgeting Committee before being submitted to the Provost for review. The following are the general policy guidelines for review and approval of planning proposals.
Proposals Requiring Approval by the Secretary of Education
The University operates under a universal charter granted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a state-related university and a member of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education, the University operates with an understanding of the role it is expected to play in serving the needs of the state. Therefore, while the University is independent with respect to its mission and programs, the State Board of Education is authorized to adopt policies under which the Secretary of Education shall approve or disapprove any proposals establishing or terminating campuses, or changing the fundamental level of education offered by an existing campus.
Proposals Requiring Approval by the Board of Trustees
Approval by the University's Board of Trustees is required for any proposal requiring the approval of the Secretary of Education, as well as any proposal establishing, merging, or terminating an existing school, University center, or regional campus, or establishing or terminating a broad degree type within an academic responsibility center.
Proposals Requiring Approval by the Chancellor
Approval by the Chancellor is required for proposals requiring approval by the Board of Trustees, as well as any proposal which:
- significantly changes the mission of a school, center or regional campus;
- establishes, merges, or terminates an academic department, institute, or center;
- establishes, reorganizes, or terminates an administrative unit at the Director level;
- or significantly alters resource allocations among responsibility centers.
Proposals Requiring Approval of the Provost
Approval by the Provost is required for any proposal which:
- establishes or terminates a degree program within a degree type, an academic major, a certificate program, a minor, or area of concentration;
- modifies significantly the established goals or reorganizes a school, center, or regional campus;
- alters significantly the distribution of resources of a school, center, or regional campus, or among departments;
- modifies the objectives or programs of a school, center, or regional campus, particularly when the modification requires additional expenditure of University funds or reallocation of current resources among established objectives; or
- alters the name of a unit or degree program.
PREPARATION OF ACADEMIC PLANNING PROPOSALS
Academic planning proposals must include information sufficient to permit a thorough review and analysis of the proposed change(s). In general, planning proposals fall into two distinct categories: (A) proposals for new or expanded programs and (B) proposals for program termination. The following guidelines represent the minimal information requirements for the review and analysis. Initiators of planning proposals are encouraged to provide any additional information which would facilitate decision-making. If a program termination proposal includes termination of faculty, Policy (02-02-09) and Procedure (02-02-09), Termination Due to Reorganization or Termination of Academic Programs, must be followed.
1A. Proposals for New or Substantially Modified Majors, Degree Programs, Academic Departments, or Schools
Must include as a minimum:
(1) The names of:
(a) the individual initiating the proposal;
(b) the responsibility center wherein the change is to occur;
(c) the program to be developed or expanded;
(d) the department affected by the proposed change(s); and
(e) the date of the proposal.
(2) The rationale for the proposed new or expanded program, specifically explaining either the relation of the proposed change(s) to the current mission and goals articulated in the long-range plans of the University, the responsibility center, and/or the department, or the external and internal environmental influences or trends justifying the proposed change(s) if the change is not a specific part of current long-range plan.
(3) A detailed description of the proposed new or expanded program, its specific components, and a detailed chronology of steps to be taken to implement the change over time. Items listed under #10 should be included for a new major, expanded degree program, or a new degree program.
(4) A statement of availability of required and elective courses to allow students to graduate within the published program length.
(5) The short- and long-term effects that the proposed change(s) will have on other University programs. This should include an analysis of the impact that the proposed change(s) will have on programs and services such as increased or decreased demands for courses, loss or addition of students, the need for additional student aid, Library, or computing resources, etc. An analysis of the impact on space resources, including office, laboratory, and classroom space, must be included.
(6) A description of a quantitative and qualitative evaluation procedure to assess the attainment of the objectives of the proposed change(s) including outcome criteria and a time frame for completion.
(7) A detailed analysis of the impact of the proposed change(s) on staff and faculty personnel for the first three years of its operation, including information about the hiring of new staff and faculty and/or reassignments of existing personnel.
(8) A three-year budget showing the impact of the proposed change(s) on the budget of the units affected by the change, including:
(a) A budget for each of the affected budget units.
(b) Sources of funding available to support proposed expanded or new programs.
(c) A summary of financial increases, savings, or reallocations anticipated as a result of the proposed change(s).
(d) Non-financial requirements or savings in areas such as space, facilities, or equipment that are anticipated as a result of the proposed change(s).
(9) A list of the faculty groups and relevant administrators who were consulted, and a summary of their comments on the proposed change(s), including a statement from the Planning and Budgeting committees of the relevant department (if applicable) and responsibility center.
(10) Additional information which should be included in item #3 when dealing with new or expanded educational programs.
(a) Requirements for admission to the program, and a projection of the availability of qualified students for the program.
(b) Rationale for and description of the proposed curriculum, including special characteristics of the program, type and level of instruction, new courses to be developed or syllabi of existing courses, sequencing of courses, areas of specialization, comprehensive examination sample questions, likely thesis/dissertation topics, multi-disciplinary aspects if any, and other requirements for completing a degree or certificate in the program.
(c) Availability and qualification of faculty to support the program. Additionally, for a new or expanded research master's or Ph.D. degree program the following should be supplied: examples of ongoing research and mentoring, evidence of investigators/co-investigators on grants or non-grant research proposals, faculty resumes including citations of articles by faculty in peer-reviewed/competitive journals over the last five years, and when relevant, evidence of interdisciplinary research/teaching collaboration.
(d) Impact on students enrolled in existing programs. If students will be transferred to new programs, how will their prior work be credited?
(e) Tuition and student support.
(f) Projected enrollments, student credit hours, and degrees to be granted over each of the first five years of the program.
(g) Documented employment opportunities for graduates of the program.
(h) Student and faculty affirmative action plans for the new or expanded programs.
(i) The aspirations of excellence for the program, and a discussion of how this would be achieved and measured.
1B. Proposals for Termination of Majors, Degree Programs, Academic Departments, or Schools
When the proposed termination involves programs or departments within a given responsibility center, the head of that center is to prepare the planning proposal. If this termination proposal includes termination of faculty, Policy (02-02-09) and Procedure (02-02-09), Termination Due to Reorganization or Termination of Academic Programs, must be followed. As a minimum, the planning proposal for terminating programs must include:
(1) The names of:
(a) the individual initiating the proposal;
(b) the responsibility center wherein the change is to occur;
(c) the program or unit to be terminated;
(d) the department affected by the change; and
(e) the date of the proposal.
(2) The rationale for the proposed change(s), specifically explaining either its relation to the current mission and goals articulated in the long-range plans of the University, the responsibility center, and/or the department, or the external and internal environmental influences or trends justifying the change if not a specific part of current long-range plans.
(3) A detailed description of the proposed change(s), its specific components, and a detailed chronology of steps to be taken to implement the change over time. For termination of educational programs, items listed under #8 below should be included, when appropriate.
(4) The effects that the proposed change(s) will have on other University programs in both the short- and long-term. This should include an analysis of the impact that the proposed change(s) will have on other academic programs or service units of the University, such as increased or decreased demand for courses, loss or addition of students, and effect on student aid. An analysis of the impact on space resources, including office laboratory and classroom space, must be included.
(5) A detailed analysis of the impact of the proposed change(s) on staff and faculty personnel over the period required to implement the change including information about affirmative action, reassignments, retirements, or terminations of existing faculty and staff.
(6) A budget presenting the anticipated effects of the proposed change(s) on the budget(s) of the unit(s) affected by the change. This should include:
(a) A projected budget for each of the affected units during the phase-out period.
(b) A summary of financial savings anticipated as a result of the proposed change(s).
(c) Non-financial savings in areas such as space, facilities, or equipment that are anticipated as a result of the proposed change(s).
(7) A list of the faculty groups and relevant administrators who were consulted, and a summary of their comments on the proposed change(s), including a statement from the Planning and Budgeting committees of the relevant department (if applicable) and responsibility center.
(8) Additional information which should be included in item #3 above when dealing with termination of an educational program.
(a) Projected changes in enrollments, student credit hour production, and number of degrees or certificates to be granted over the period required to implement the termination.
(b) Description of how students and applicants for admission have been informed of the proposed termination.
(c) If students will be transferred to existing programs, a detailed statement of how their work in the program will be credited and how they will be informed of this.
(d) If students are expected to complete their degrees in the terminated department, an inventory of the academic needs of each student and a plan for meeting these needs. Academic needs include, but are not limited to, courses, advisors, and financial aid.
2A. Proposals for New Certificate Programs, Areas of Concentration, or Minors
Must include at least the following:
(1) The names of:
(a) the individual initiating the proposal;
(b) the responsibility center wherein the change is to occur;
(c) the programs to be developed;
(d) the department affected by the change; and
(e) the date of the proposal.
(2) A description of the academic requirements of the new program, a comparison with requirements of similar programs offered by the unit, and a discussion of new courses, internships, research experiences, etc., which must be introduced to offer the program.
(3) The effects, if any, that the proposed program will have on other units of the University.
(4) A discussion of the budget impact of the program, including both new income and new costs.
(5) A list of faculty groups and administrators that have been consulted and a summary of their comments on the proposed certificate program.
In addition, proposals for new certificate programs must include:
(6) The rationale for the proposed new certificate program, specifically explaining either the relation of the proposed change(s) to the current mission and goals articulated in the long-range plans of the University, the responsibility center, and/or the department, or the external and internal environmental influences or trends justifying the proposed change(s), if the change is not a specific part of the current long-range plan.
(7) Projected enrollments, student credit hours, and certificates awarded.
(8) A description of an evaluation procedure to assess attainment of the objectives of the proposed certificate program.
2B. Proposals for Termination of Certificate Programs, Areas of Concentration, or Minors
As a minimum, the planning proposal for termination must include:
(1) The names of:
(a) the individual initiating the proposal;
(b) the responsibility center wherein the change is to occur;
(c) the program or unit to be terminated;
(d) the department affected by the change; and
(e) the date of the proposal.
(2) The rationale for the proposed termination of the program, specifically explaining either the relation of the proposed change(s) to the current mission and goals articulated in the long-range plans of the University, the responsibility center, and/or the department, or the external and internal environmental influences or trends justifying the proposed change(s) if not a specific part of current long-range plan of the University.
(3) Description of how students and applicants for admission will be informed of the termination.
(4) A list of faculty groups and administrators who have been consulted, and a summary of their comments on the termination.
(5) A plan for enabling students enrolled in certificate programs to complete their programs.
Academic Program Evaluation
Program evaluation is a critical and essential aspect of the planning process; it assesses the quality and effectiveness of academic programs, the extent to which planned activities have contributed to the achievement of specified objectives, goals, mission, and the cost effectiveness of those activates. Evaluation provides guidance for the continuous review, adjustment, coordination, and prioritization of institutional plans and budgets.
Three different formal processes of academic program evaluation may be distinguished: annual assessment of program performance; progress evaluation of newly instituted programs; and long-term evaluation of academic programs. The first is described in Planning and Budgeting System, issued October, 1992. The last is described in Guidelines for Conducting the Evaluation of Academic Programs, last issued December, 1992. The second, which involves the review of newly initiated programs, is described below.
Normally, from three to five years after a new major or a new degree program has been approved, the program will be reviewed by either the University Council on Graduate Study or the Provost's Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Programs to determine whether or not the program is meeting the objectives described in the proposal for its initiation, particularly, whether it is of the quality intended and whether it is adhering to the proposed budget in terms of expenditures and income. These procedures apply to any new graduate degree or any new undergraduate major. The Provost may exempt programs from this review process.
After notification by the chair of PACUP or UCGS that the program should be reviewed, the following information is to be submitted in a succinct report not exceeding twenty pages in length:
1. A discussion of whether the goals and expectations of the department and school as set out in the original proposal have been attained. This should include as much factual information as possible.
2. A description of issues raised during the approval process of the program.
3. Data on enrollments, student credit hours and degrees granted in each year, comparing with projections made in proposal.
4. An assessment of the curriculum, particularly new courses if changes in the curriculum were described in the proposal.
5. A description of any new faculty or administrators recruited or assigned to the program.
6. A statement about the success at placement of graduates, success at meeting affirmative action goals, quality of admitted students.
7. An analysis of the cost of the program and of additional income generated by the program.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS GUIDELINES FOR NEW ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
An Addendum to the Guidelines for the Review of Academic Planning Proposals
I. General
A. Revenue and expenditure projections should be provided for at least three years. These projections should not include increases in revenue due to planned increases in tuition or increases in expenditures resulting from inflation or planned salary increases.
B. Include the cost of any resources directed from other programs (e.g., the salary of a faculty member who is teaching in an existing program but whose time will now be allocated to the proposed program).
C. When calculating projections, distinguish between regular operating costs and one-time start-up costs.
II. Direct Revenues
A. Tuition-based upon a responsibility center's expected tuition rate times the projected number of net new students enrolled at the university. Projected FTE should take into account any expected decline in FTE from other programs resulting from students "shifting" into the new program. (Student enrollment is categorized according to full-time versus part-time status and in-state versus out-of-state residency.)
B. Program Specific Fees – exclude general student fees
C. Other Revenue Sources
1. Endowment funds
a. Discretionary
b. Program specific
2. Sponsored Research (government or private)
3. UPMC Funds
4. Gift Funds – include only gifts specifically designated for the new program
III. Direct Expenditures
A. Accreditation Costs
B. Additional Faculty
1. Projected salary (salaries) is (are) based upon:
a. full-time versus part-time position(s)
b. required academic credentials
c. current market conditions
2. Review the impact of the new program on other programs and/or schools (i.e., will additional faculty be required to teach core classes?)
C. Additional Staff Members – (secretaries, etc.)
D. New Graduate Student Employees
E. Fringe Benefits – based on the appropriate rate for each employee's classification
F. Association Fees/Dues
G. Travel Costs
H. Development Costs (e.g., workshops, seminars, continuing education)
I. Library Requirements
J. Computer Hardware/Software Requirements
K. Furniture
L. Equipment/Laboratory Supplies
M. Miscellaneous Supplies (e.g., postage, photocopying)
N. Other Operational Costs - (e.g., laundry)
1. Consider whether costs will increase proportionally as enrollment increases.
O. Financial Aid
1. Will additional University funds be required?
2. For financial aid pertaining to graduate students only:
a. Although the fringe benefit rate charged for graduate students is 34% of stipends, the actual cost of benefits for these students is about 118.76% of stipends. The actual cost of the benefits should be considered in the analysis.
P. Services for employment and graduate study opportunities
Q. Additional costs for recruiting students
R. Costs associated with internships or fieldwork sites
S. Costs associated with sponsored research – the indirect cost rate and its ability to cover actual indirect costs should be discussed in the commentary to the financial analysis.
IV. Other Resource Requirements
A. Capital Requirements
1. Renovations
a. Time period for completion
2. Additional classroom space
3. Capital equipment
4. Available revenues to fund the capital requirements (e.g., discretionary endowment funds)
B. General Administration
1. Although general University overhead cannot be specifically calculated for a new program, any foreseen incremental administrative costs should be identified (i.e., any significant increase in demand for central services, such as computing and information services, library, or academic affairs).
2. The general administrative rate allocable to Instructional programs is 7–8% of Modified Total Direct Cost.
C. Facilities Related Costs
1. Contact the Office of Space Accounting to obtain costs for the square footage proposed by the new program.
D. UPMC Cross Allocations
1. Usage of such facilities as the WPIC Library, Scaife Hall Space, Creative Services, etc., should be noted as this will change the annual cross allocation fee.