UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS
MEETING OF THE
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
STRATEGIC PLANNING
SEPTEMBER 14, 2012
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING
Friday, September 14, 2012
10:00 – 10:30 a.m.
Small Auditorium, Harrison Institute
Committee Members:
Frank B. Atkinson, Chair
The Hon. Alan A. Diamonstein
Victoria D. Harker
Bobbie G. Kilberg
Randal J. Kirk
Linwood H. Rose, Co-Chair
Stephen P. Long, M.D.
Vincent J. Mastracco Jr.
Edward D. Miller, M.D.
Helen E. Dragas, Ex-officio
AGENDA
I.
Review of Retreat, Charge to the President, and
Progress to Date (Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Rose)
II.
Planning Activity On-Grounds (Ms. Sullivan to
introduce Mr. John D. Simon and Mr. J. Milton
Adams; Ms. Sullivan and Messrs. Simon and Adams
to report)
A. Scope of the Plan and Assumptions Concerning
the Plan
B. Timeline for Two Phases of Planning:
Assessment Phase and Planning Phase
C. External Consultants
D. Outreach to Stakeholder Groups
E. Touchpoints for Interaction with Board of Visitors
III.
Written Reports

Commission of the Future of the University – Final
Report on Activities

Virginia 2020 Report (click on the title for the
report)
IV.
Attachment

Letter to President Sullivan from Co-chairs of the
Special Committee on Strategic Planning, dated
September 3, 2012
CONFIDENTIAL – PRESIDENT’S WORKING PAPERS
August 25, 2012
COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY
FINAL REPORT ON ACTIVITIES
August 25, 2012
Table of Contents
Background ......................................................................................................... 3
Launching the Commission on the Future .......................................................... 4
Board Review ...................................................................................................... 5
Implementation .................................................................................................. 6
The Future of Commission Activities ................................................................. 8
Appendices.......................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A: Overall Commission Expenditures..................................... 9
Appendix B: Jefferson Public Citizens .................................................... 10
Appendix C: Institute for Faculty Advancement .................................... 11
Appendix D: Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education (CASTL-HE) ..................... 12
Appendix E: Computationally-Intense Research and Scholarship ........ 13
Appendix F: Research and Technology Transfer ................................... 14
Appendix G: International Programs ..................................................... 15
2
At the request of the Board of Visitors, University of Virginia President John T. Casteen III, in March
2007, convened the Commission on the Future of the University, a University-wide planning body that
was charged to propose strategic academic directions. As stated in the Commission’s guiding document
“Strategies for the Future of the University,” public colleges and universities in Commonwealth had
endured an extended period of reduced state support, and the University’s private and public peers had
outpaced our investments in faculty compensation, teaching and research facilities, and international
programs. Coincident with the Commission’s planning phase, the University experienced substantial
turnover of academic leaders.1
The planning body engaged hundreds of University community members in a highly visible planning
process for twenty months (March 2007 to November 2008). The Board of Visitors approved the plan,
funded numerous initiatives and received progress reports from Commission leaders. Up to $8M per
year were made available to “seed” Commission initiatives, and $4M in on-going support to maintain
infrastructure built with Commission funds.2 At the conclusion of the seed funding period (June 2011),
initiative leaders were expected to shift initiative budgets to other University sources and retire portions
of initiatives that had not met expectations or that were determined to no longer meet the original
goals and needs of the University. The following final report highlights accomplishments of the
Commission on the Future of the University, as well as discusses those investments that need to be
continued.
Background
In spring 2005, at the Board of Visitors; annual retreat, Rector Thomas F. Farrell II appointed a Special
Committee on Planning and charged committee chair John “Dubby” Wynne to develop a framework for
a financial and strategic plan. The special committee worked in two phases. The first phase comprised
external analyses of peer universities, an enterprise risk analysis, a preliminary ten-year financial plan, a
situation analysis, a study of the U.Va. student experience, and an analysis of the gap between our
aspirations and our current rankings. In December 2006, after working intensely with Provost Gene
Block, Chief Operating Officer Leonard Sandridge, Vice President for Research Ariel Gomez and members
of their staffs, the committee produced a Ten-Year Academic Plan that stated three fundamental goals:
(1) renew and increase our tenure-track faculty to enhance both instruction and research, (2) develop
and renew the classroom and research infrastructure, and (3) provide increased and consistent revenue
streams for the future to enhance the quality of the graduate programs.
The second phase of the special committee’s work – the development of an academic plan and
complementary fundraising plan – reached draft stage, but was interrupted when Provost Block
announced that he had been recruited to serve as Chancellor of the UCLA. Following Mr. Block’s
departure, President Casteen empanelled a broad and diverse set of stakeholders to finish the work that
the Special Committee on Planning had begun two years earlier.
1
Woo hired April 2008, DeKosky hired August 2008, Fontaine hired August 2008, Cannaday hired July 2008,
Mahoney hired February 2008, Tanzer hired May 2009, Pianta hired April 2007, Skalak hired 2008, Rizvi hired 2008
2
The term infrastructure was used by Provost Garson in his Fall 2009 report to the Board in which he explained the
need for on-going support for international programs and other areas in which the University had been
underfunded before Commission funds were received. Before the Virginia 2020 and Commission on the Future
plans, no substantial dedicated fund was assigned to international programs.
3
Launching the Commission on the Future
In March 2007, President Casteen tasked Chief Operating Officer Leonard W. Sandridge and Provost Tim
Garson with leadership of the Commission on the Future of the University. Mr. Sandridge and Dr.
Garson, in turn, enlisted fourteen academic and administrative leaders3 to conduct the Commission’s
work through four committees—Committee on Schools and the Medical Center, Committee on
Programmatic Initiatives, Committee on Student and Faculty Life (subcommittees on students and
faculty), and Committee on Funding and Other Resources (subcommittees on academic infrastructure,
physical plant and fiscal resources). More than 100 students, staff, faculty, administrators, community
members and alumni served as members of the Commission. Hundreds of alumni, parents and other
members of the University Community read and commented on draft versions of the Commission’s
reports.
Cognizant of complexities of modern research universities, and the attendant risks they pose to planners
who might divide their attention too broadly, President Casteen posed specific questions to the
Commission. These questions were divided among the committees and were used to structure the
committees’ work. Unlike planning efforts that begin with a broad charge and a clean slate, this plan
tasked committee members to respond directly to Mr. Casteen’s request. Examples posed to
committees include:

What strategies can the Medical Center, schools, and University employ over two, five, and ten
years to address emerging and predicted areas of excellence and challenge in both the sciences and
non-science disciplines?

Will new initiatives distinguish the University from competitors while also meeting demonstrated
national/regional needs and providing superior remedies to these needs?

What measures should the University take to identify, recruit, and retain the most capable, diverse
faculty members available in the market supply, including non-tenure track teaching faculty,
professional, and research faculty?

Are library computing systems, and other systems such as those used for distance learning,
adequate to support the University over the next ten years?

How will the University fund its aspirations as identified in the committee plans over two-, six-, and
ten-year increments?
Committees worked intensely through the spring and summer of 2007 to analyze previous planning
reports and gather the data needed to draft an initial response to Mr. Casteen’s questions. A partial list
of reports reviewed by the respective committees include: Virginia 2020; a Faculty Senate study of
graduate students and programs; the President’s Commission on Diversity and Equity; the draft of the
Ten-Year Academic Plan; drafts of SACS accreditation materials; the University’s Six-Year Plan; and
3
Bill Harvey (Vice President and CODE), Bob Sweeney and Milton Adams (Chairs of the Programmatic Initiatives
Committee), Carl Zeithaml and Jim Aylor (Chairs of the Committee on Schools and Medical Center), Colette Sheehy
and Karin Wittenborg (Chairs of the Committee on Funding and Other Resources), Gertrude Fraser and Rachel
Most (Chairs of the Committee on Student and Faculty Life), Justin Thompson (Supporting Mr. Sandridge and Dr.
Garson), Ricardo Padron (Faculty Senate Chair), Lauren Tilton (Student Council President), Leonard Sandridge
(EVP/COO; Commission Co-chair), Marcia Childress (Faculty Senate), Nancy Rivers (Chief of Staff for the President),
Tim Garson, M.D (EVP/Provost; Commission Co-chair)
4
reports by two higher education consultants—The Washington Advisory Group and The Pappas
Consulting Group.
Alumni and parents were invited to review the Commission’s charge and questions, and they were
encouraged to submit advice. In drafting the initial reports, committees combined input from their
respective deliberations, from previous plans and reports, and from community input. Commission
leaders granted full public access to these drafts by posting them to a website that was linked to the
University’s web page. Webpage statistics revealed that alumni, friends, students, faculty, staff and
curious on-lookers from around the world visited the Commission website.
Throughout the Commission’s planning phase, Mr. Casteen emphasized the primacy of “faculty as
thought leaders.” Faculty Senate leaders and approximately 40 other members of the faculty met with
Commission committee chairs in the fall semester of 2007 for an in-depth work session. Faculty were
invited to probe the assumptions and findings of each of the Commission’s committees, and they were
encouraged to suggest improvements to committee draft reports. After revising all drafts, Commission
leaders conducted two days of town hall meetings on main Grounds and the Health System. Commission
leaders were lauded by Faculty Senate leaders and others for their commitment to transparency and
broad engagement of University stakeholders.
Board Review
Building on periodic updates made to Mr. Wynne as chair of the Board’s Special Committee on Planning,
co-chairs Mr. Sandridge and Dr. Garson presented a synthesis of Commission committee reports at the
February 2008 Board of Visitors’ meeting. The co-chairs presented five core values and three strategic
priorities that they derived from committee reports. The core values of honor and ethics, faculty
excellence, innovation and collaboration in pursuit of knowledge, diversity, and leadership for the public
good and education for freedom were intended to “guide the discussions, actions, and funding of the
University of Virginia’s community of teachers and learners.”4 These five values informed commission
leaders’ selection of three priorities for the future: the student experience, science and technology, and
global education. The Board of Visitors passed a resolution in support of the Commission’s report, and
requested Commission leaders to draft a budget, plans for implementation, and measures of success to
be reviewed at the October 2008 Board of Visitors meeting.
In response to the Board’s request for additional information, Dr. Garson and Mr. Sandridge presented
strategic initiatives for the board’s consideration at the October meeting. They also presented one-year
process goals and three-year metrics that were intended to measure the Commission’s progress.5 The
student and faculty initiatives were:
(1) Jefferson Public Citizens, a program intended to engage students in performing service with
community partners, preparing students for effective service, and publishing the results of
research-oriented community engagement projects;
(2) Institute for Faculty Advancement, a series of programs intended to improve the University’s
hiring outcomes, retain top faculty, and improve the quality of faculty leadership among deans,
chairs and other faculty who hold substantial leadership responsibilities;
4
5
February 2008 Special Committee on Planning materials as posted to the BOV website.
October 2008 full presentation to the Board
5
(3) Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, a center designed to
create objective assessments of student competencies, teacher effectiveness, and evidencebased evaluation; and
(4) Center for Computation-Intense Research and Scholarship, a center with a humanities and
social sciences wing and a computer sciences wing that would provide opportunities for faculty,
students and technically-oriented staff who are fluent in the methods of computationallyintense inquiry to collaborate with one another so that they may engage in new methods of
discovery.
Commission leaders also allocated resources to support priorities in the area of (5) globalization and (6)
research (with an emphasis on STEM-H disciplines) and technology transfer/commercialization.
Among the many global initiatives proposed were: funding faculty to develop new curricula that
increase global perspectives, creating a global center on Grounds that would provide University-wide
focus for new and extant global activities, broadening study abroad programs, developing joint degrees
with reputable universities, and assessing the personal and academic outcomes of study abroad.
The science and technology initiatives included: developing a science and engineering strategy within
and across disciplines, increasing the size of our science faculties in directions that distinguish U.Va.,
constructing new laboratory space, creating a culture of collaboration, awarding grants for research
across schools, and improving infrastructure for multi-investigator proposals.
Board members approved funding for the four initiatives numbered above, and requested additional
detail about the global and science initiatives. Mr. Gowher Rizvi and Mr. Thomas Skalak presented more
extensive plans for Commission funding to the Rector and Vice Rector in advance of the February 2009
Board meeting and funding was allocated to these initiatives.
Implementation
Commission funds were conceived as “seeding” new initiatives for three years, beginning in November
2008 and ending spring 2011. University leaders anticipated some initiatives would flourish and, as a
result, gain on-going University budget support, while other initiatives would prove to be less
strategically or operationally viable than originally envisioned and would be ended.
A progress report presented at the November 2009 Board of Visitors meeting demonstrated that
Commission leaders had accomplished 23 of 28 one-year progress goals. Of the five goals that were not
accomplished, two had been rendered unattainable by the tragic death of a key hire in the Center for
Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, and the remaining three were accomplished after the oneyear mark.
After the end of second year of implementation, Provost Garson presented a written report of progress
to the Educational Policy Committee at the February 2011 Board meeting. Reports exemplified
substantial progress toward three-year metrics, even though some of the initiatives had been funded for
less than two years, and were still in formative stages.
At the conclusion of the third year of activity, initiative leaders reported their accomplishments in
writing to the Provost. The 70-page document combined assessments of the efficacy of the initiatives
with proposals for continued funding of the most successful portions of each initiative. With the
6
exception of the CASTL-HE initiative, which had only been fully staffed for six months prior to the faculty
member’s untimely death, all initiatives reported substantial progress toward their goals. Faculty and
administrators who received Commission support presented samples of their work at recent meetings of
the Board’s Educational Policy Committee (e.g., Science and Tech Transfer, November 2011; CASTL-HE,
November 2011; Global Humanities, February 2012).
Samples of metrics used to evaluate Commission initiatives include:






Jefferson Public Citizens: numbers of students enrolled in JPC courses and projects; instances of
students who received prestigious fellowships or awards for their service and research; and
increase in visibility and reputation of the University as measured by publications, citations,
funding and peer inquiry.
Institute for Faculty Advancement: faculty offers reflecting the increasing diversity of the
academic workplace; improvement in yield rates on faculty offers; robust opportunities for
faculty development are informed and valued by faculty, as indicated through program
evaluation.
Computationally-intense research and scholarship: increased visibility and reputation as
measured by publications, citations, funding, peer inquiry and other measures of faculty
productivity in respective disciplines; increased membership by humanities and science faculty
in the initiative; increased time on national high-performance computing infrastructure.
CASTL-HE: pilot studies of the assessment model developed in two-to-four UVA Schools or
Colleges; pilot studies of the assessment model developed in two-to-four UVA Schools or
Colleges; and success in winning extramural funding with grant proposal partnerships.
Science, technology, and research: number of new cross-school or pan-university programs;;
graduate program rankings; publications, citations, funding; and undergraduate program rated
by peer survey as in top 10% of research-based undergraduate programs.
International programs: number of new cross-school or pan-university programs; establishment
of a U.Va. Center for International Studies; joint degree programs and partnerships with
prestigious international institutions; student satisfaction with international preparation; and
rank among peer universities for percentage of students who study abroad.
When Commission leaders began their work a little more than five years ago, Board and administrative
leaders insisted on funding a small number of initiatives so that funds were not spread too thin, and
they insisted also in assigning those efforts to vice provosts, vice presidents and others who were
directly accountable to senior leaders. In addition, initiative leaders were required to submit annual
reports and to keep University priorities squarely in their vision.
As the Commission on the Future of the University now concludes, many of the themes supported by
the Commission remain central to our future: engaging students in meaningful service and research;
attracting and retaining top faculty; applying computationally-intense methods to a larger share of
scholarship; careful study of teaching and learning; engagement in learning around the globe; and
advancing our standing in science, research and technology.
The Future of Commission Activities
7
Several of the funded Commission activities support the current strategic aims of the university. The
financial and administrative support for these activities has not transitioned from the central
administration to the schools; the current financial structure of the university makes such a transition
difficult and inconsistent with past practices that provided central, on-going support for any new
initiatives. In addition, while Commission funds were not intended to support personnel, there are cases
in which they have been used to do so; transitioning support of these positions to unit budgets is part of
the ongoing budget redesign process.
The original implementation of the Commission initiatives did not include a plan for transitioning
support for successful programs to school budgets. As a result, support for these activities has never
been considered by the schools as part of their annual financial planning. Starting in the current fiscal
year, the Provost’s Office has presented a plan for “phasing-out” the central support for Commission
activities; the “phasing-in” of these program costs into school and unit budgets is also part of the budget
redesign design process.
Currently, Commission activities are supported by an annual revenue stream of $4M; approximately
$1.5M is provided from state research funds, while $2.5M is provided from income from unrestricted
endowment. Until the details of the new budget system are worked out and implemented, the following
is proposed for the use of the commission funding.
The strategic research initiatives of the VPR are supported by the state research funds, supplemented by
an additional commitment of $400K to support the efforts to increase capacity in technology transfer
and commercialization. The 5-year commitment of the $400K for technology transfer expires at the end
of the current academic year; the costs associated with the support of technology transfer will be
assumed by the Vice President for Research from existing revenue streams that support the activities of
the VPR Office. It is important to continue strategic investments in research, which is a central
responsibility of the VPR. To support these strategic investments, the $1.5M in state research funds
could continue to be allocated to the VPR, under the oversight of the President. These funds should be
focused on strategic priorities and fewer initiatives (only 1-2) so that the limited funding has sufficient
impact to make a difference. The priorities for investment of these funds should be aligned with the
evolving strategic planning activities that will begin this fall.
The remaining $2.5M of annual support will be assigned to the Provost to use as a strategic investment
pool. The Provost will report annually to the President on the use of these resources. It is clear that
support must continue for the Jefferson Public Citizen’s Program, Faculty Leadership Development,
CASTL-Higher Education, Globalization Efforts, and Computational Infrastructure (especially if we are to
excel in research, education, and scholarship in the general field of “knowledge from big data”). During
the 2012-2013 academic year, these efforts will require almost the entire available pool of strategic
funds, but these efforts are clearly in support of the current strategic directions of the University. As the
University strategy becomes defined and responsibility-centered management is implemented, support
for these activities will become part of school budgets or shared between the central administration and
the schools, where appropriate. This will release strategic “seed” funding for not yet identified
opportunities.
8
Appendix A: Commission Expenditures
Table 1 shows the gradual investment in Commission initiatives over the first three years. Funding
received in the middle of 2008-2009 allowed leaders to launch their programs. Programs expanded in
2009-2010; many of the programs reached maturity in 2010-2011.
Table 1: Commissions Funds Expended by Academic Year
Initiatives
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
CASTL-Higher Education
$32,210
$174,888
$304,868
Centers for CIR&S
$197,949
$609,342
$656,520
International Programs
$103,285
$501,912 $1,099,144
Human Resources
$43,602
$16,289
Inst. for Faculty Advancement
$30,988
$224,591
$441,213
Jefferson Public Citizens
$271,362
$761,839
$813,473
Science, Technology, Research
$563,821 $1,438,317 $3,294,592
Student Affairs
$146,486
$239,675
$266,211
Grand Total
$1,389,704 $3,966,855 $6,876,022
Grand Total
$511,966
$1,463,812
$1,704,341
$59,891
$696,792
$1,846,674
$5,296,731
$652,373
$12,232,581
Based on review of Commission reports and proposals for future funding, past-Provost Garson/Interim
Provost Adams/Provost Simon approved and confirmed two additional year of funding for Commission
initiatives. Provost Simon requested a gradual tapering of support to ensure that personnel and
programs would be transferred to unit budgets, if appropriate. Table 2 shows funds expended and
budgeted for the final two years of the Commission on the Future of the University, as well as the grand
total expended.
Table 2: Commission Funds Expended in 2011-2012 and Budgeted in 2012-2013
2011-12
2012-13
Initiatives
(spent)
(budgeted) Grand Total
Chemistry, Astronomy ALMA
$50,000
$50,000
CASTL-Higher Education
$320,602
$400,000
$720,602
Centers for CIR&S
$543,513
$450,000
$993,513
6
International Programs
$1,307,779
$600,000
$1,907,779
Center for Global Health
$100,000
$100,000
Global Affairs
$250,000
$250,000
Institute for Faculty Advance
$374,767
$300,000
$674,767
Jefferson Public Citizens
$876,673
$825,000
$1,701,673
Learning Assessment
$68,500
$68,500
Student Affairs
$208,419
$280,000
$488,419
Initiatives in the Arts
$77,547
$77,547
Science, Technology, Research
$2,467,958
$1,500,000 $3,967,958
Grand Total
$6,227,258
$4,773,500 $11,000,758
6
In 2012-13, the $600,000 allocated for International Programs is entirely for the support of the Center for
International Studies.
9
Appendix B: Jefferson Public Citizens
Building on U.Va. students’ strong extracurricular commitment to public service, the University sought
to integrate service with academic classes, increase student participation in research, and deepen
learning. We developed the Jefferson Public Citizen (JPC) program for undergraduates, graduate
student mentors, and faculty members. The program offers grants to interdisciplinary teams of three to
five undergraduate students to conduct research-service projects with communities locally and globally.
After projects are completed, JPC students present their results for feedback and input from the
university community through an annual presentation competition and publication in the JPC journal
Public. 101 undergraduates and graduate student mentors engaged in JPC team projects this past year.
The program also supports development of new classes through grants to faculty members. Over 1,000
students enrolled in JPC related courses last year. In total 3,615 U.Va. students from various schools
and majors have enrolled in JPC courses in the past four years.
Impact: We believe that the program deepens learning by: connecting student perceptions of public
issues to classroom learning; teaching students how to apply research, ask new questions, gather data
and draw conclusions; enabling students to develop project management experience, make mistakes
and analyze “failures”; presenting findings to a critical audience, and; by learning to collaborate with
people from different backgrounds.
JPC students receive prestigious national fellowships, awards and scholarships including Udall
Scholarships (2010 and 2012), Davis Projects for Peace awards (2011 and 2012), The Laura Bush
Traveling Fellowship, and a $20,000 grand prize at the Walmart Better Living Business Plan Challenge.
UVA overall scores involving student work with faculty outside of class on the National Survey of Student
Engagement increased significantly. Students and faculty are jointly publishing their JPC work in national
and international peer-reviewed journals. Formal assessment of student learning outcomes is well
underway. Preliminary results show JPC’s measureable impact on academic and personal growth and
ethical engagement. From early analysis of over 1,500 student written responses, JPC students gain
confidence in their self-efficacy, improve their ability to apply knowledge, develop a deeper sense of
team work and value multiple perspectives.
Investment: Since initiation in 2009, COFU invested approximately $1.8M into JPC and budget for this
current year is approximately $877,000. This investment has produced new classes which enrolled over
3,600 students and funded 70 teams of 293 undergraduates and 53 graduate student mentors
conducting research – service projects here in Virginia as well as globally. By reallocating existing
resources in the Provost’s office and not hiring additional staff, COFU funds have gone directly to
supporting faculty and students.
Plan recommendations: Based on data from assessment of JPC student learning outcomes, we strongly
support continuing the program as it is budgeted this year, including support for student teams,
graduate mentors, workshops, small courses, presentations and publishing. We recommend
discontinuation of funding for large scale JPC Common Courses, which comprised the largest line item in
the original JPC budget. After supporting these courses for three years, we found that they had not
reached the desired scale (i.e. enrolling 300 or more students) The investment of time and resources
into the JPC Common Courses has been disproportionate to return on investment; the courses did not
gain JPC traction with school deans nor did they dramatically improve program visibility. JPC can achieve
the same student learning outcomes by supporting the smaller Academic Community Engagement
courses, which need significantly less funding, are easier to manage fiscally, and more likely to scale up.
10
Appendix C: Institute for Faculty Advancement
The COFU Subcommittee on Faculty identified three broad challenges to which the Provost Office was
asked to respond: 1) Faculty Recruitment, 2) Faculty Development, and 3) Academic Leadership
Development. Working collaboratively, building on existing programs and creating new ones, the
Provost’s office has responded to these challenges by creating and implementing a repertoire of
innovative faculty development programs that span the course of the academic career, and specifically
include leadership development. For each program, we gathered data on program implementation,
participation, and modification of attitudes/perceptions and/or knowledge/skills in order to thoroughly
evaluate our programming outcomes (summarized below).
Due to projected faculty retirements, projected growth in student enrollment, and lack of growth in the
tenured and tenure-track (TTT) ranks over the past decade, U.Va. must remain as competitive as
possible in recruiting new faculty members and, at the same time, retaining and advancing current
faculty. Continuing to offer and build on the robust array of faculty development programs we have
created will protect our investments in the faculty by supporting their professional growth and
increasing their sense of connection and loyalty to U.Va. In addition, continuing to invest in the internal
identification, development and support of academic leaders will enhance U.Va.’s capacity to capitalize
on our strengths while adapting to the rapid pace of change in higher education.
Leadership in Academic Matters: LAM has been offered seven times;208 individuals from 10 schools as
well as the Library and nine other units from across Grounds have participated. LAM participants
reported increased ability across all four Emotional Intelligence (EI) competencies: Self-awareness, selfmanagement, social awareness, and relationship management. In addition to the EI competencies, LAM
participants reported increased willingness and self-efficacy to cross disciplinary and institutional
boundaries, increased in-cohort connectivity, increased institutional connectivity (shared goals),
increased respect for and appreciation of differences, and specific examples of cross-disciplinary, crossinstitutional research, education, and administrative collaborations and mentoring.
Getting Started @ U.Va.: Each year since AY2008-2009, GS has hosted 9-10 workshops and 2-3 social
events per year. Each year 200 to 300 faculty members from all 11 schools and the library participate in
Getting Started, with at least 50% of them coming to more than one workshop. Participants consistently
report increased knowledge and skills in relation to the topics presented.
Support and Resources for Department Chairs & Academic Leaders: Each year since AY 2008-2009, we
have hosted 8-9 workshops aimed at department chairs and LAM alumni. On average 50% of the
department chairs from across Grounds (all 6 schools with department chairs) participate. Participants
consistently report increased knowledge and skills in relation to the topics presented. In the verbatim
comments, department chairs specifically identified the opportunity to meet, speak and share strategies
with other chairs outside of their own school as one of the most positive aspects of these workshops.
Faculty Mentoring Initiative (FMI): In AY 2011-2012, 12 session/events were offered with 10 faculty
members from four schools (Arts and Sciences, Engineering, Medicine, and Nursing), participating.
Although only 8 individuals ended up coming to all of the sessions, they all reported concrete gains from
the experience. Every participant indicated that they were better able to think and act strategically in
regards to managing their career and/or work-life balance, and that the program successfully created a
sense of community. Participants also reported making changes to the way they mentored graduate
students, initiating discussions on performance evaluations within their department, and developing
research collaborations across schools with other members of the cohort.
In addition to these initiatives, the COFU funds enabled us to re-start Women’s Work in FY 2010-2011,
to reinvigorate the annual women faculty dinner, to hold annual conferences celebrating and supporting
the professional development of women faculty, and to start a unique initiative, the Women Faculty
Portraiture Project to raise the visibility of women faculty at U.Va.
11
Appendix D: Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
CASTL-HE is supported to develop, conduct, and disseminate evidence-based evaluations of the impacts
of college teaching and pedagogy on student learning outcomes.
What has gone well: Director Karen Inkelas and colleagues has engaged a community of faculty from
nearly every academic unit in a) planning university-wide R&D efforts and b) launching cross-unit
collaborations, several of which are the focus of sponsored project proposals.
Visibility and connections. President Sullivan established the science of teaching and learning as a
primary strategic theme; evident by her inaugural day-long conference with faculty and students from
all units presenting research evidence, assessments, and plans. This event was described by many as the
most cross-grounds, interdisciplinary effort in which they had been engaged. CASTL-HE provided all
organizational and substantive support. Inkelas and Associate Directors Roksa and Feldon now lead a a
19 member facilitation group, with representation from each academic unit, the Office of Institutional
Assessment and Studies, the Teaching Resource Center, and the Provost’s Office. The group is an
extraordinary commitment on the part of the academic units to contribute to a Grounds-wide effort on
the scientific study of teacher and learning..
The Future. CASTL-HE plans to develop an observational tool to assess teaching at UVA. This collective
agreement on a common measure is a sign of remarkable collaboration on what could be a signature
element of UVA academic leadership. This protocol will focus on instructional methods, skills and
behaviors, and student engagement. It will be piloted this year in up to 6 courses of varying disciplines.
Project-specific collaborations include projects on service learning, engineering teamwork, impacts of IB
experiences, research and teaching skills of grad students, women in STEM, course design in STEM, and
diversity. CASTL-HE provides organizational and seed funding support.
CASTL-HE has emerging partnerships with the VP for Student Affairs, the Library, and Darden. In three
years CASTL-HE has secured more than $100,000 of external support and submitted over $1 million in
proposals.
What has not gone well: Progress on goals was delayed for a number of reasons. The initial funding was
made available at a time in the year when it was difficult to hire in a director. Once we searched and
hired a director (internationally recognized scholar Eric Dey), his tragic death at the time of his move
forced a second search. CASTL-HE has now had dedicated leadership (Karen Inkelas) for less than 2
years. Another area of challenge is establishing partnerships between CASTL-HE and the Teaching
Resource Center. It is important to focus the TRC mission on helping individual or groups of faculty
improve teaching and the CASTL-HE mission to advance the science of teaching and learning.
Going forward: There must be a concerted and organized effort within the Provost’s office to bring
together accreditation, institutional studies, TRC, and CASTL-HE and design an efficient, multi-use,
strategic approach for data systems, measurement, and use (on teaching and learning) and empower
stronger and more visible focus on R&D. Such an effort could really leverage our leadership and our
capacity for innovation. As we think about online and other innovations to come, it is important to
establish such coordinaion both for substantive and brand purposes. CASTL-HE is primed to facilitate
the next phase of strategic academic innovation.
12
Appendix E: Computationally-Intense Research and Scholarship
Recent advances in technology are disrupting traditional scholarly and scientific methods and enabling
new ways to approach both venerable and emerging questions. Research and scholarship in the 21st
century takes place on the network against a backdrop of massive data, global collaborations, and with
new and rapidly changing tools and methods. The Center for Computation Intensive Research and
Digital Scholarship was funded on the premise that universities that figure out how best to support their
faculty and students in these endeavors will be the winners. The ones that don't will be quaint relics of
the pre-networked world—remembered fondly but having little impact on the future.
What has worked well: Three years ago the University lacked a culture around computation intense
inquiry and digital scholarship. The digital infrastructure was controlled by the central IT organization,
with no clear governance structure, and with no clear strategy for aligning this infrastructure with the
faculty’s needs and direction. Today UVa is experiencing a transformation. To date, more than 90
research projects have received direct technical support, we have tripled the research compute
capacity, and we have increased storage capacity 10-fold. In 2009 the University had no content
management system for creating Web sites, no way to manage photographical or audio-visual
collections, no good way to create rapid and complex text. Today, the University has a robust content
management system (WordPress/Drupal), a photographic management tool (Shared Shelf), a set of rich
media tools (Kaltura/MediaBase), and a professional text system (Confluence). These new digital tools
are being used by hundreds of faculty and students—big payoffs for a modest investment in an area that
typically consumes millions of institutional dollars. More importantly, while these tools are necessary,
what is critical is the commitment that the faculty leading this effort have to transforming the culture—
to creating a community that is deeply versed in computation and digital expression. Perhaps the
clearest indicator of progress on this dimension is the fact that, while the Center was started with a
handful of people, in May 2012 the Center co-sponsored a Big Data Summit with the Vice President for
Research that drew 169 participants from 35 different UVa schools/departments.
What has not worked well: Two of the original goals were to demonstrate: 1) a direct relationship
between investments in supporting computation intense research and increased grant funding; and 2)
enhanced reputation across academic disciplines. When we started, we lacked mechanisms to track
funding for computation intense research. We now have those mechanisms in place, but they have not
been there long enough to demonstrate long-term trends. We do know that in 2011-12 there were 260
externally funded projects compared with 154 in 2010-11. But we do not know how much variability
there is from year to year. Similarly, we have not found mechanisms to track changes in reputation.
Publications and rankings, the gold standards of reputation, tend to change very slowly and to be
multiply determined.
Overall: The broad forces that are reshaping science and scholarship that were the original justification
for investing in the Center have only intensified over the last three years. Given that the Center met or
exceeded its key metrics, we should continue to invest in it. To that end, the VP CIO will begin shifting
discretionary funds from one-time commitments to other projects to harden support for the Center at
its current operating level. Any growth will need additional revenue. In taking this action, the VP CIO will
have less flexibility to respond to new opportunities and challenges. From a strategic perspective,
however, supporting the changing environment for research and scholarship is the highest priority
within the VP CIO office.
13
Appendix F: Research and Technology Transfer
Creative innovators imagine and create the future of society. CoFU provided support to
multidisciplinary research initiatives across the University, including pan-university programs, innovation
initiatives, faculty recruitments, research infrastructure, and faculty-led conferences that distinguished
the institution.
What has worked well: CoFU funding supported nine multidisciplinary initiatives all now in varying
stages of development, which have enhanced the University’s research reputation and impact. The
initiatives met or exceeded all key metrics. What is most important to UVa excellence? These role
models have inspired integrative teams across UVa to compete and succeed on a national scale.
Elements to be Continued: We recommend continuing central executive support for the following
seven strategic multidisciplinary programs.
Sustainability: UVa has distinctive strengths in environmental sustainability. Projects include the UVa
Bay Game: a large-scale participatory computer simulation of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It has
been described by federal agencies and corporate leaders as "the first of its kind" and “simply the best
watershed management tool that exists”. UVa can become the global leader in shallow water coastal
ecosystem research.
Large-scale Data Analysis (Big Data): The relatively new “Big Data” initiative brings together the
computational, analytic, and big data research communities at UVa as well as the Library and ITS and
external partners. Over 170 faculty and UVa’s executive leadership have been involved in the planning
stages.
OpenGrounds connects faculty, students, and external partners across disciplines to collaborate in new
ways. A new studio space on the Corner was launched in March, 2012 and has hosted over 50 events in
5 months with diverse groups. The initiative has secured significant private funding (2012 Vonage
corporate challenge on designing the future of mobile communications).
Biosciences: The biosciences comprise about two-thirds of the currently funded research at UVa. Our
broad research capabilities afford opportunities for distinction in areas including cancer, cardiovascular
disease, systems biology and bioengineering, quantitative cognitive sciences, psychology, and
translational medicine.
Energy Systems (ESPRIT): Energy is an overarching challenge facing society worldwide. The objective of
the UVa ESPRIT program is to distinguish UVa through energy systems leadership, innovation, and
societal impact. Faculty involved in ESPRIT seed projects totaling $165,000 in central UVa funds have
received a total of $5.5 million in external funding, representing a return on investment of over 30 to 1.
Latin America Initiative: This is an early-stage initiative in interdisciplinary STEM and Innovation, with
initial focus upon Brazil. There is a major opportunity for UVa to be a leader in Latin America, where
U.S. universities have not yet created the major partnerships currently seen today in the Pacific Rim and
Middle East.
UVa Innovation: UVa Innovation is a permanent service unit of UVa led by Associate VP for Research,
Mark Crowell, managing a set of growing programs designed to enhance UVa’s ability to disseminate
knowledge and know-how via commercialization and corporate partnerships.
Elements to be Discontinued: We recommend discontinuing central support for - and recently decided
to sunset central funding for - two pan-university initiatives: 1) the NanoStar (nanotechnology) program
and 2) Aging program. Second, we recommend discontinuing central support for individual departments
and schools not aligned with strategic initiatives. In assessing the value of past central support to
individual units, it has not worked well nor made a distinguishing difference for UVa when the programs
were not aligned with strategy.
Overall: We believe that central executive resources are needed to maintain UVa momentum for the
major distinguishing collaborative initiatives underway, and to identify new ones on a continuous basis.
14
Appendix G: International Programs and Global Engagement
COFU International Programs aimed to enhance the internationalization of the university by “bringing
the world to Grounds” and “UVa to the world” with more specific goals listed below. The university has
lagged its aspirations and peers in the global realm for decades and the COFU effort was a reasonable
start on making progress. Some initiatives were more successful than others. Funds invested in Center
for International Studies, most of the Vice Provost for International Programs infrastructure, study
abroad, and numerous curricular and research grants had good results. Other efforts (though ones with
little money involved) did not get off the ground. The more significant investments that had mixed or
unclear results include some of the global education block grants to schools and some of the seed
grants. The uncertainty in Vice Provostial leadership was a real hindrance in 2010-1012. With the
retirement of Mr. Rizvi in 2012, the office was re-envisioned as one to be focused broadly on Global
Affairs, and Mr. Jeff Legro began as Vice Provost for Global Affairs this part July.
UVA still has much work to do in its global effort. Efforts that should be continued going forward include
international curriculum development; study abroad and foreign partner improvements; developing CIS
research, programs, and space; and key needs not listed in COFU – i.e., outreach, communications, and
development. Different criteria and requirements are needed for future internal grants in support of our
glopbal activities. In many ways, we have hit “reset” on aspirations and strategies for global engagement
going forward. The Provost office is engaged in developing such a strategy and those efforts will also
inform and be informed by the university planning to be done during the 2012-2013 academic year.
Stated Goals (2009)
0 2009-2012: An Assessment
Funding
Results
Comments
1. Build global curriculum
2. Create a major and minor in
global studies.
3. Create an umbrella
organization for global education
and research (see #15).
4. Increase international students
and scholars at UVA.
49,000
10,200
Good
Partial
GDS Major, curriculum grants.
Plans developed but not finished.
683,000
Good
185,000
Good
5. Strengthen, broaden, and
deepen study abroad programs.
19,000
Mixed
6. Develop international public
service opportunities.
7. Work with VPR to seed
collaborative international
research.
8. Establish study abroad
outcomes and pilot an outcomes
assessment measure.
9. Develop global education
programs within and across the
Schools.
10. Launch the Center for
International Studies (CIS).
55,000
Good
VPIP Office developed, Int. Studies
Office expanded. Travel, visitors, some
salary.
International Student Enrollment
increased 8% and international
scholars 23%
Expanded programs and % enrolled
but students opt for short-term
programs.
Yes, in conjunction with JPS program.
672,900
Some
Good
13,000
Good
971,000
Mixed
514,000
Good
15
Allen Lynch made grants (though not
with VPR) and many produced
publications.
Survey and writing assessment
instruments established. Data
encouraging.
Large grants to schools, many thought
crucial. Not clear model was right
defining goals and outcome metrics.
In operation and active. Salaries,
expenses.
16
ATTACHMENT