Senate Doc #4489S Approved 4/13/89 Executive Document #3 Recommendation for UNCA Distinctives As charged by the 1987-88 Faculty Senate, the Ad Hoc Committee for Review of UNCA Distinctive Programs and Procedures met during the fall of 1988 and, after discussion and reflection recommends the following to the Senate for its consideration. [The following represents the recommendations of the Committee as amended and adopted by the Faculty Senate.] (1) We recommend that the UNCA policy of identifying and funding Distinctive programs be continued. (2) We recommend that the number of projects funded by Distinctive monies, and that the cycling of such projects, be altered. Beginning in 1990, we recommend that not more than two major "thrust" projects should -- at any given time -- be fully funded (currently $150,000 for four years), and that thereafter, new projects should be added on an every-other year cycle. (3) The above recommendation would, if carried out, mean that approximately $75,000 currently in the Distinctive budget would be available every year for other uses. We recommend that this money continue to be used in the original spirit of the Distinctive Program, but that it be used in ways that create flexibility for the program. Specifically, we recommend that the money be designated for: (a) funding of mini-grants or seed money for smaller projects that meet the same criteria of selection as the major projects, but which may not justify a full $150,000 over four years; (b) continuation of a current major Distinctive project beyond the end of its normal 4-year cycle, or of a particular aspect of a major Distinctive project which may deserve continued funding for an additional but limited period of time; (c) special, but limited one-time-only additional funding for a major Distinctive project at any point in its normal cycle as an "extra thrust" to that program based upon review of annual reports. (4) We recommend that to enable faculty to write better and more effective proposals, a standard application form be designed and made available. (Several application forms from state and national grant agencies are attached as possible models.) The UNCA standard form should replace the current one-page "Call for Proposals", but like the current circular, it should begin with a clear statement of goals for the Distinctive Program, the amounts of funding that can be applied for, to Page 2 whom proposals should be submitted, and the appropriate deadlines. In addition, the form should provide a clear statement describing the process by which decisions on the proposal will be made (i.e., who will review proposals, who will decide and by what authority, and when an announcement of the decision can be expected). The form should provide clear instructions to the proposer for (a) how and where in the form to describe the proposed project, first with a conceptual overview, and then in detail; (b) how and where to name the proposed director and any other faculty who will assist in the project, and what type of vitaes to attach for all involved; (c) how and where to designate who will serve as fiscal agent (see recommendation #6); (d) how and where to identify potential resources and funding outside the university; (e) how to identify the faculty, students, programs or other areas of the university that would be impacted; (f) how and where to name organizations or faculty who have been involved in designing the proposal, and who will serve as advisors to the project if funded; (g) how and where to provide the desired budgetary projections. The standard form should also notify faculty that (a) all proposals should be prepared with the same professionalism required in preparing a grant proposal from an off-campus agency or organization; (b) that the designated selection body will make its decision based on professional and appropriate criteria, emphasizing that selection will be based on individual merit and not to ensure balance among academic divisions or for other extraneous reasons and that the success or failure of previous proposals will not influence current decisions; (c) that the proposer should, prior to the appropriate deadline for submission, discuss his or her proposed project with the appropriate selection committee or with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and that the purpose of the consultation is to enable the Page 3 faculty member to review guidelines, clarify any points of confusion, seek advice, and otherwise receive assistance in preparing an effective proposal. Finally, the standard application form, like the current "Call for Proposals" should list the "Criteria for Selection." (See Recommendation 5A) (5A) We recommend that the current "Criteria for Selection" be revised for both clarity and to create more flexibility in decision making. In addition to the changes listed below, we also recommend that a statement precede the "Criteria for Selection" notifying proposers that with the exception of Criteria a and b, it will not be assumed that a proposal must meet all criteria in order to be given serious consideration for funding. The following criteria are listed in order of importance. (a) Proposals must be consistent with the mission and guiding concepts of UNCA. (b) Primary consideration will be given to proposals whose project leaders demonstrate a commitment to the achievement of excellence in the designated area or who have demonstrated success in previous grant projects. (c) Proposed projects with a narrow focus will not be excluded from consideration, especially for mini- funding, but projects that demonstrate how students and faculty from several disciplines will be affected, and how the project has the potential for creating an impact on a wide segment of the campus community, will receive higher consideration for major awards. (d) Efforts to identify specific potential sources of outside funding -- to ensure the survival of the Distinctive project after the termination of UNCA support -- will be considered especially important. (e) Proposals that demonstrate how UNCA's comparative advantage will be enhanced or established, and/or how the project will be one that other institutions cannot easily imitate, will be favored. (f) Preference will be given to proposals that build upon programs already underway at UNCA, however consideration may also be given to new projects or programs with no previous history at UNCA. (5B) Add: A program or project that has previously received a mini-grant may apply for either further mini-funding in the succeeding year, or for a major grant at full funding. Such projects will Page 4 be evaluated on their own merit in competition with all other proposals submitted, however a history of demonstrated success in the project may be influential. (6) Each proposal must designate a project director who will be fully responsible for both programmatic and fiscal aspects of the program. Prior to initiation of the project a detailed budget must be submitted to and approved by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Annually at a date and in a format specified by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the project director will submit a detailed fiscal and programmatic report with a summary which will be distributed to the faculty. (7) We recommend that for all major (fully funded) Distinctive projects that an Advisory Committee be established by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in consultation with the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee of the Senate. The charge for the Advisory Committee shall be developed by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. (8) We recommend that the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs or his designate as the responsible individual for administering the Distinctive program. (9) UPC would continue to select and recommend to the Chancellor those distinctive proposals it deemed appropriate for full funding and those it deemed suitable for mini-grants. Rationale Recommendation 1: Distinctive funding has to date produced a number of dramatic and positive developments at UNCA. (a) The introduction of an Undergraduate Research Program has stimulated faculty and students, attracted both new and higher caliber students, and drawn national attention through the formulation of a National Undergraduate Research Conference. (b) The UNCA Humanities Program has been re-invigorated through stimulating faculty seminars and through bringing nationally known guest speakers and consultants to campus; faculty development and participation in the program has been promoted through paid internships; a major grant from NEH has boosted support and morale. (c) The Health Promotion Program has been formally adopted as part of UNCA's general education requirements and has provided the opportunity to reorganize and revitalize the Physical Education Department. In other words, the Distinctive Program has energized faculty across campus, united them in common goals and projects, provided direct and indirect faculty development, stimulated new approaches to teaching undergraduates, involved students in research, brought nationally known figures on campus for lectures and consulting, and attracted attention locally, regionally, and -- in the case of Undergraduate Research -- nationally. Page 5 Recommendation 2: The current cycling of three on-going major "thrust" programs overburdens a small campus. Each program has proven so demanding in time, energy, and resources, that although the faculty has been clearly invigorated, it has also reached a saturation point. Distinctive projects have been selected in part because they draw in as many faculty and students as possible, but a significant number of faculty have been simultaneously involved in at least two on-going "Thrust" projects, and a few in all three. The result is that some of our best faculty are seriously over-worked. By scheduling new Distinctive projects to begin every other year, several other advantages accrue. First, the every-other-year start up allows more time and reflection for faculty to develop new proposals, and more time for the appropriate selection body to both assist faculty in developing proposals and to deliberate in choosing those worthy of funding. Second, on the cycle we're proposing, one Distinctive would be in the initial building phase of its process -- under full funding of $50,000 per year and requiring broad faculty participation, while the other Distinctive would be well-established and in the second phase of its funding and energy cycle. Faculty efforts would therefore be more focused. The number of programs would be fewer, but the targeting of energy and resources would be more manageable. Recommendation 3: The current Distinctive Program is rigid and inflexible, yet it is clear from problems that have arisen in selecting proposals over the last two years that flexibility is desirable. Some projects which seem worthy -- but risky, experimental or limited in scope -- may clearly be deserving of university support, yet not seem to justify a full grant of $150,000. Seed money may be enough to enable an imaginative and energetic faculty member to begin a new project that enriches curriculum, develops an interdisciplinary connection to other programs, encourages new kinds of research or faculty development, promotes minority leadership, or reaches out to the community, and which, if allowed to begin or to be more fully supported, might attract outside grant funding while fostering limited local, regional or national recognition. After having time to demonstrate their success, such projects might prove worthy of being funded at the full $150,000 level. At times the appropriate determining body might recognize that a currently funded major Distinctive project, for any number of important reasons, deserves an extra year or two of continued university funding. Such funding should not be expected by Page 6 directors of projects. Faculty should assume that extra-ordinary funding would occur rarely, but that the Distinctive Program itself has enough flexibility to provide it if special circumstances warrant. Finally, occasions might arise when a major Distinctive project could justify an additional boost of funding for a one-time-only special project, purchase of special equipment, or other extra thrust that would enrich the program or enable it to accomplish more on a regional or national level. Again such extra-ordinary funding should not be considered likely. Most fully-funded major projects should be expected to find any additional funding from outside agencies and not from the university. But flexibility might prevent important opportunities from escaping, and the program should have that overall flexibility. Recommendation 4: The current "Call for Proposals" has led to misunderstanding because it provides inadequate guidelines. We should not ask faculty to submit proposal of professional quality when we do not provide clear assistance as all other granting agencies do. A proposal for a major $150,000 grant must be approached seriously. Instructions should be full and unambiguous; the proposer should possess all necessary information; and the proposal itself should be developed with the assistance of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and/or with the designated selection committee to ensure the greatest possible opportunity for a successful review. Recommendation 5A: Previous "Criteria for Selection" Rationale were as follows: (a) Proposals must be consistent with the mission and guiding concepts of UNCA. (b) Identified project leader committed to the achievement of excellence in the designated area. (c) Involvement of students and faculty from several disciplines and potential impact on wide segment of the campus (d) Identified potential funding sources . . . likelihood of funding to ensure the survival of the thrust beyond campus funding (e) Establish or enhance UNCA's comparative advantage, other institutions cannot easily imitate the distinctive (f) UNCA has a head start in the distinctive already Recommondation 6: It was felt by the UPC that the project director is typically the person responsible for a grant and that we should Page 7 be consistent with that practice. UPC believed that the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs was in a better position to determine how to convey the status of thrust programs to the faculty. Recommendation 9: Although we recognize that the University Planning Council is already over burdened, we also feel that -- at the present time -- UPC is the only campus body which brings together a broad representation of faculty and administration with the express purpose of giving coherence to university budgeting and planning. Because distinctive programs must fit into the overall mission of the university, and because each program represents such a major expenditure of academic funds, we can identify no other group which can provide a more balanced perspective to the selection process. We do recommend that a sub-committee of the whole be established to give guidance to proposers, to review and screen proposals, and to recommend finalists to the committee of the whole. The entire committee need not involve itself until the final stages of the selection process.