RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND THE PROVOST’S COMPETITION

These archived pages present the Academic Plan adopted by the Board of Trustees in August 2003.

A new academic plan is being formulated. Please check the Academic Plan homepage for updates.

The Academic Plan aims at achieving a more focused allocation of resources within the University. To that end, the allocation of new academic resources within the institution should have two sources: the existing budgetary process (for both capital and operating monies, including matching funds for external grants) and allocation though a new Provost’s Competition, described below. Resource allocation will continue to be pursued chiefly through the standard budgetary process through which the Provost and Deans allocate funds for hiring, operations, and matching funds, and the Research Foundation maintains its existing grant programs. The Provost and the Deans will continue to have their annual budget hearings for overall budgetary allocations. As part of the budgeting and financial expenditure process, however, the Task Force urges the Provost to require a statement by the Deans (or other academic administrators) as to how any particular hire or commitment of new monies will reinforce the Areas of Emphasis and/or the University of Connecticut’s overall strategic mission.

The Provost’s Competition is an additional mechanism for focusing our efforts. Here faculty will be invited to compete for additional moneys so as to advance the University to higher levels of recognition, and to enhance its capacity to compete for external resources. The Competition will evaluate proposals and recommend funding for new strategic initiatives that enhance the six identified Areas of Emphasis.The Competition will be funded by the Provost who will allocate university resources of up to one percent of the academic affairs budget.

Competition Procedures and Guidelines

1. The selection criteria are widely published.
2. Preliminary conversations by the applicants with the Provost’s Office are held regarding the scope and design of strategic initiative proposals.
3. Each completed strategic initiativeproposal is routed to a five-person “specialized” committee (including three or four external members) with expertise in the specific Area of Emphasis.*
4. Each specialized committee, chaired by a University of Connecticut faculty member, meets to rate proposals based on external references and their own assessments.
5. Specialized committees draft up to a 600-word evaluation of each proposal including: scholarly or artistic importance, relation to existing and future University research activities, external funding prospects, long-term significance, and the way the proposal will strengthen an area of emphasis.
6. Rated proposals go to a five-person General Committee of senior faculty (appointed by the Provost) for further evaluation within the University context in order to assign a priority ranking. The General Committee will prepare a written report with recommendations to the Provost.
7. The Provost assesses ranked proposals with their budgets, and makes awards.
   
   *Applicants are required to supply a list of six external scholars or artists who would be suitable evaluators. Ideally, they should come from high profile institutions and programs in the northeast and include members of the national academies or equivalents. They must not include previous mentors or co-authors with faculty included in the application. The chairs of the specialized committees willalso usually select external scholars or artists not on the applicants’ list to participate in the evaluations.

Principles for Grant Competition

1. Promotion of (generally) a small number of large grants, rather than the reverse.
2. Recognition of existing external grants, especially those that include scholarly evaluation.
3. Encouragement of applications that cross departmental or school boundaries, though awards may be made within a particular department or school.
4. Identification of specific goals by applicants so as to allow evaluation of performance during and after the grant period.
5. Establishment of a feedback mechanism to promote re-application, including providing the written report of the Specialized and General committees to applicants.
6. Ideally, awards will be made in all six Areas of Emphasis.

Schedule

1. The Competition is held biennially (every two years).
2. Applications are due in January.
3. Decisions are announced in April with the funds to be spent over 1-4 years.

Evaluation

1. Prior to the beginning of the second and third rounds of the Competition, the Provost and a group of advisors appointed by him or her and including members of the Provost’s staff, the deans, and the academic department heads, will evaluate the operation of the Competition in supporting development of the Areas of Emphasis.
2. At the end of the fifth year from the inception of the Provost’s Competition, the Provost will commission a special advisory group to evaluate the efficacy of the Competition in fostering achievement of the overall goals of the Academic Plan and to make such recommendations for change as it deems appropriate.

Next: Facilities Planning Recommendations: Operating Principles