HANDBOOK FOR
THE CREATION OF CSU/UC JOINT DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
approved by the CSU/UC Joint Graduate Board on June 21, 2001

[pdf version, word version]


This Handbook sets forth the information needed to plan and implement a joint CSU/UC doctoral degree.  The administrative elements that need to be decided, the criteria for granting permission to negotiate, and the steps required for program reviews are outlined.

Some special conditions apply to establishment of joint Ed.D. degrees and these are set forth in the Addendum to this Handbook. 

By mutual agreement, program proposals use the forms and criteria developed by the UC Coordinating Council on Graduate Affairs (CCGA), which conducts a phase of the academic review. Therefore, the relevant appendices from the CCGA Handbook are attached.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

Introduction

2.

Getting Started

3.

Permission to Negotiate

4.

Planning

5.

Program Proposal

6.

Program Review Criteria

7.

Program Review Process

8.

Financial Support
Addendum for Ed.D. Degree
Attachments from the CCGA Handbook:
  I. Appendix G: Criteria for Reviewing Proposed Joint UC/CSU Doctoral Programs
  II. Appendix B: Format for the Graduate Degree Program Proposal
  III. Appendix D: Academic Degree Program Proposals: Information Required by CPEC

HANDBOOK FOR
THE CREATION OF CSU/UC JOINT DOCTORAL PROGRAMS

1.  INTRODUCTION
The Master Plan for Higher Education in California, major portions of which were enacted into statute as the Donahoe Act in 1960, defines the functions of the segments of higher education and states that:
The University [of California] shall have the sole authority in public higher education to award the doctor’s degree in all fields of learning except that it may agree with the state [university] to award joint doctoral degrees in selected fields.
Joint doctoral programs are partnerships between UC and CSU that build on the strengths of the participating campuses to generate specialized programs that could not otherwise be realized. Joint Doctoral programs benefit both systems, the students, and the State.  The program strengths and research interests of the proposing UC and CSU departments complement and reinforce each other to create programs of high quality. The combination broadens the base upon which the program is being developed and provides a wider range of curricula options. The first joint doctoral degree was established in 1965, a doctoral program in Chemistry between San Diego State University and UC San Diego.  As of June 2001, a total of 14 are in operation, and more are in the planning stages.

Joint doctoral programs necessarily involve institutions with different organizational cultures, perspectives, and priorities.  These differences can yield a program richer in academic opportunities than any single institution could create, but they require program developers to be especially ingenious, persistent, and respectful.  Certain basic principles underlie all joint doctoral programs:
2.  GETTING STARTED
Joint Programs often begin with informal conversations between faculty members in complementary disciplines at UC and CSU.  In some cases, there may already be some  cooperative activities between the two campuses and/or departments.  One or both departments may recognize a need that cannot be met internally without an infusion of new resources but that might be met with less resource enhancement through joint effort.  When conversations progress to a point where a preliminary plan outline can be written, the partners seek approval for that outline from the appropriate campus administrative and/or academic offices.  The campus administrations then take the next step -- seeking permission to negotiate.


3.  PERMISSION TO NEGOTIATE
When the joint degree program has been approved in principle by the campus administrations, each participating campus makes a formal request to its system office for “permission to negotiate.”   An expression of interest in and the rationale for a joint doctoral program is submitted by the CSU campus to the Office of Program Planning at the CSU Office of the Chancellor, and by the UC campus to the Academic Affairs Department at the UC Office of the President. The initial expression of interest contains an indication of program need and supporting evidence of the requesting department’s ability to offer the appropriate instruction.    In granting permission to negotiate, the systems may use a number of criteria, some of which are spelled out in Appendix G of the Handbook of UC’s Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs (CCGA) [ Attachment I contains the full text of the CCGA Handbook - Appendix G, "Criteria for Reviewing Joint UC/CSU Doctoral programs" which sets forth the criteria for evaluating the request for permission to negotiate and for review of the proposal itself.] and some of which are internal to the CSU system. Criteria for granting permission to negotiate may include:
Receipt of the preliminary proposal is acknowledged, and comments on the initial proposal with respect to desirability, appropriateness, evidence of need, and feasibility may be sent back to the campuses by the system offices. When all queries have been satisfactorily answered, permission to negotiate is granted. 

Formal permission to negotiate is granted by the system offices.  Each system office also notifies the other when permission to negotiate has been granted, and this information too is passed on to the partnering campuses.  Every effort is made to ensure that the systems work in tandem and that permission to negotiate is granted by each at approximately the same time so as not to delay the planning process.  At this time, campuses may include the proposed program in their the five-year academic plans.  At CSU, the five-year plans are subject to Trustee approval.


4.  PLANNING
Once permission to negotiate is granted by both systems, the planning phase begins in earnest and the campuses involved must then work out the specific details of the program. The academic plan is, of course, fundamental, and must include the program objectives, the admissions requirements, curriculum, examinations, and dissertation or thesis requirements.  An implementation timeline, enrollment projections, and resource needs are also required.  But joint doctorates have special needs, above and beyond those of graduate programs on a single campus.  Given the complexities of working within two systems, such matters as division of labor and appropriate procedures cannot simply be taken for granted.  Careful attention must be paid to these issues if a successful and effective program is to be created.  While all details do not need to be worked out at the time the formal proposal is submitted, at some point in the planning process, the partners need to consider, and reach agreement on, the issues described below.
Decision-Making:  An agreement should make clear which entities have responsibility for making what types of decisions for the program and should indicate how differences may be resolved.  Committees that make decisions for the program as a whole (e.g., admissions, curricular coordination and modification, administrative coordination, and procedural modification) should include representation from at least one CSU partner institution and at least one UC partner institution.

Co-Directors: Ordinarily, there will be one co-director whose primary affiliation is with the CSU and one co-director whose primary affiliation is with UC.  If more than two institutions are in partnership, the program may have additional co-directors or a small group advising the co-directors on administration of the program.  It is desirable for each co-director to have extensive knowledge of his or her own institution’s policies and procedures and critical for the co-directors to be in frequent communication.

Faculty Participation:  The program needs to have a jointly developed set of criteria for faculty members to participate in the program, and the process of applying the criteria should be conducted jointly.  The criteria may differ for different levels of participation (e.g., teaching a required or elective course in the program, providing academic support, participating in the development of qualifying examinations, serving as a member of a dissertation committee, chairing a dissertation committee).  The program may wish to consider faculty members participating only at certain levels to be the “joint doctoral program faculty.”   The criteria apply equally to faculty members at all participating institutions.  (A CSU or UC faculty member who has an appropriate specialization and meets the applicable criteria is understood to be qualified to teach a particular course in the program or chair a particular dissertation committee.)  Provisions may be made for some degree of participation by faculty members in institutions other than the partner institutions.

Deans and Chairs: The roles of deans and chairs in joint doctoral programs should be delineated explicitly.

Admissions:  Just as the criteria for admission are to be established jointly by the partner institutions, the admission decisions should be made jointly.  From the student’s perspective, there should be a single, unitary process for admission to the joint doctoral program.  The student should apply just once to the joint doctoral programthe application should include all the information needed by any partner institutionand receive just one confirmation of admission decision (e.g., admission, conditional admission, wait-listing, or rejection).  Any faculty admissions committee should include representation from the CSU and from UC.  The partnering institutions should establish a procedure for deciding how many students are to be admitted annually and the target “rolling average” of students in the program at any particular time.  Once admitted, the student should be considered to be matriculated at a minimum of one CSU partner institution and a minimum of one UC partner institution.

Program Advisement:  At least one person at each partnering institution who is thoroughly familiar with all operational aspects of the joint doctoral program (academic and logistic) should be designated as a person from whom any student in the program can seek advice.  The individuals serving in this capacity at the different institutions should maintain regular communication.

Residency: Joint doctoral programs usually have agreements on minimum “residency” at CSU or UC.  Being “in residence” or earning “residence credit” needs to be defined carefully.  The definition may or may not involve physical presence at a partnering institution.  It must be coordinated with the fee payment and enrollment policies.

Fees:  Partnering institutions must have a clear understanding of how to determine to which institution(s) the students should pay tuition/fees and what charges apply.  If for the duration of a single academic term a joint doctoral student will be enrolled in courses at just one partner institution, it is usually expected that the student will register and pay tuition/fees at the institution in which he or she is enrolled that term.  The understanding, however, should also cover the case in which a student is enrolled in courses at more than one partner institution simultaneously for all or part of an academic term.  The inter-institutional agreement needs to be consistent with all applicable laws and policies, including policies on minimum “residence credit” at partner institutions. (Special conditions apply to joint Ed.D. degrees.  See Addendum.)

Courses and Course Requirements:  Curricular requirements need to be established jointly, and the partners should attend to the patterns of course offerings (which institution offers which courses; when courses are offeredwhat time of year, which days of the week, what time of day, how frequently; what modes of instructionpossibly including synchronous or asynchronous technology-mediated distance learningare appropriate for which courses).  CSU and UC partner institutions will offer post-master’s-level courses in the joint doctoral program.  Procedures for adding courses or changing requirements need to be specified.

Examinations: The partners should spell out the nature and consequences of qualifying examinations, including how their development is shared and what happens to students who fail all or part of an examination.

Dissertations: Dissertation standards and procedures should be jointly established and administered.  They should be specific enough to indicate the types of research deemed acceptable (e.g., quantitative, laboratory-based, ethnographic).  Dissertation committees (or other student-specific committees) will ordinarily include at least two faculty member from a CSU partner institution and at least two faculty member from UC.  Exceptions should be approved by a group that includes representation from both CSU and UC.
Experience has shown that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) covering the agreed-upon elements is helpful in guiding the administration of joint doctoral programs.  The MOU may be different for newly established programs and mature programs, and the agreement should be reviewed and updated periodically.


5.  PROGRAM PROPOSAL
An ad hoc joint committee of the cooperating units prepares a final proposal.  The formal proposal, by mutual agreement, follows the guidelines set forth in the CCGA Handbook - Appendix B. [Attachment II contains the full text of the CCGA Handbook - Appendix B, "Format for the Graduate Degree Program Proposal."] (This is the same information that is requested by CCGA for a graduate degree program proposal from a single UC campus.)  A joint degree proposal should include the additional information needed to demonstrate that the proposed program meets all the criteria for approval of a joint degree as outlined in the CCGA Handbook - Appendix G (see Section 6. below and Attachment I).  The proposal must indicate that the program has support from the faculty and departments involved.  It need not contain all of the information contained in the MOU as long as clear understandings have been reached.  There is some overlap, however, and information on e.g. examinations, registration, fees, etc. should be included in the proposal.
 
The CCGA Handbook - Appendix B requires that the proposal include the following information:
Introduction: The aims and objectives of the program; historical development of the field; timetable for development of the program; relation of proposed program to existing programs on the campuses.

Program: Requirements, including undergraduate preparation; program of study - required courses, course sequence, etc.; examinations; thesis or dissertation; normative time to graduation.

Projected Need: Student demand; opportunities for employment; relation to societal need; distinguishing characteristics.

Faculty: Present and potential new faculty to support the program; their qualifications.

Courses: Present and proposed courses.

Resource Requirements: Additional costs for the program in the first 5 years for faculty FTE, library acquisitions, computing costs, equipment, space, other operating costs.

Graduate Student Support:  Plans for provision of graduate student support; sources of such support, etc.

The completed proposal is submitted through local university administrative channels to the President of the University of California and the Chancellor of the California State University. [For submission to the CSU Chancellor's office, four copies of the proposal are required.]


6.  PROGRAM REVIEW CRITERIA

Criteria used by the CCGA in reviewing proposals, as outlined in the Handbook - Appendix G, include the following:
When approved at the campus level, the proposal is submitted to UC Office of the President for transmittal to CCGA.  The submission must be accompanied by an outline which will be reviewed by the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC).  The summary prepared for CPEC should include basic information about the program: name, campuses, degree, date of initiation, purposes, type of students to be served, all new courses and other required courses, and special features such as internships, lab requirements, etc.  CPEC also asks for estimates of enrollments for the first 5 years, and of additional costs. The CPEC requirements are spelled out in the CCGA Handbook, Appendix D.   [Attachment III contains the full text of CCGA Handbook - Appendix D "Academic Degree Program Proposals - Information Required by CPEC."]


7.  PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS
The following steps comprise the review process for joint doctoral degrees:

Step 1 - Transmittal to UC and CSU system offices
The final proposal is sent to the Provost and Senior Vice President--Academic Affairs at the UC Office of the President and to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer at the
CSU Office of the Chancellor.  UC Office of the President--Academic Affairs Division is responsible for making sure the proposal is complete and for forwarding it to CCGA for review. 

Step 2 - Review by CCGA and CPEC
CCGA conducts a preliminary review to determine whether or not to move forward with a full review of the proposal, or whether the Committee wishes to obtain additional information.  
If CCGA or the CSU Office of the Chancellor requires more information, the proposal is sent back to the campuses for revision.  If CCGA agrees to move forward with a full review and the CSU Office of the Chancellor concurs, the UC Office of the President sends the proposal summary to CPEC. 

In the interest of moving the proposal along as expeditiously as possible, the reviews by these two bodies take place simultaneously.  During this process either CCGA or CPEC may request additional information or answers to specific questions.  Such requests are transmitted through the system offices to the program participants, and the responses are transmitted through the same channels.  CPEC has agreed to complete its review of program proposals within 60 days of receipt of the document. 

CSU partners (except San Diego State University) will also need to request approval for a new program at the doctoral level from the regional accrediting agency, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).  The campus Accreditation Liaison Office should submit a one-page application to the Substantive Change Committee of WASC as soon as the program proposal is submitted to CCGA and CPEC.  After approval by CCGA and CPEC, the full proposal can be sent to WASC for review by the Substantive Change Committee.  The WASC Commission generally acts on substantive change proposals at its February and June meetings.

Step 3 - Review by Joint Graduate Board
Once CCGA, CSU, and CPEC have completed their reviews and approved the program, they notify the system offices and the proposal is then forwarded to the CSU/UC Joint Graduate Board for review. 

Step 4 - Final Approval
After approval by the Joint Graduate Board, the recommendation to implement the program goes to the Chancellor of the CSU and the President of UC who, in turn, notify the campuses.


8.  FINANCIAL SUPPORT
It has long been recognized that joint programs generate expenses over and above those associated with single campus programs.  The system offices may provide some addition support to assist joint programs.  This may be support during the planning phase to cover costs of travel, materials, mailings, or staff release-time in order to facilitate meetings between the participants and move the planning process forward.  Support may be offered during the start-up of the program, after approval, in recognition of the fact that it takes time before enrollments can generate sufficient support dollars.  In some instances, on-going support, in the form of funds or FTE, may be provided.  Joint programs continue to generate additional costs, even when enrollments have reached target levels, because of the need for coordination between two or more campuses.

ADDENDUM for Ed.D. DEGREE


In November 2001, CSU and UC entered into an agreement to establish a new Joint Ed.D. Board specifically for the purpose of encouraging and expediting development of new joint Doctor of Education degrees.  Each system agreed to contribute $2 million over a two-year period to assist in this process.  The Joint Ed.D. Board, co-chaired by the chief academic officers of each system, is charged to “solicit, develop, fund, and expedite proposals for joint Ed.D. programs that build on the mutual strengths of CSU and UC campuses.”

The process for submission, review, and approval of Ed.D. degree programs follows the procedures set forth in this Handbook, with the following exceptions and additions:
ATTACHMENT I

CCGA Handbook:  Appendix G
Criteria for Reviewing Proposed Joint UC/CSU Doctoral Programs

Since the inception of the joint doctoral programs agreement, a basic philosophy for the programs has emerged within the University. Joint doctoral programs are designed to combine intellectual and physical resources in a discipline where a program is being proposed, to be mutually beneficial to both UC and CSU, and to meet a need not now being met by UC. It is expected that the research interests and program strengths of the proposing UC and CSU departments complement and reinforce each other, rather than duplicate an existing program. Such a logical combination, therefore, broadens the base upon which the program is being developed and provides a wider breadth and depth of faculty and curricula. The following criteria, most of which derive from the basic reasons for engaging in joint doctoral programs, are suggested to guide the University's review and approval of these programs:

1. Criteria for Granting Permission to Negotiate: When permission to negotiate is requested, the proposing UC campus should demonstrate:
a. in writing the interest of faculty members from the proposing department or group to participate in the program and the potential benefits to be derived from the program by UC;

b. adequacy of existing staff and facilities by showing that faculty, courses, equipment, and library and other facilities are already in place, and only minimal resources will be required;

c. that there is an existing or closely related Ph.D. program in the discipline in which the joint doctoral program is being proposed; and if there is no existing Ph.D., show that the Ph.D. degree is an appropriate degree for the field in which the joint doctoral program is being proposed; e.g., a Ph.D. in Food Science that was proposed several years ago was not considered an appropriate degree for the field; and

d. that if the proposing campus has a closely related Ph.D. (rather than an existing Ph.D.) in the discipline in which the joint doctoral program is being proposed, there is an existing group of faculty whose expertise is in the discipline of the proposed joint doctoral program and who can and will exercise the same quality control over the proposed program that the campus applies to its own free-standing doctoral programs.

2. Proposal. The proposal for a joint UC/CSU doctoral program should contain the information requested for a graduate degree program proposal from a single UC campus (see Appendix B), whatever additional information is needed to demonstrate that the proposed program meets all the criteria for approval listed below in point 3, and a resume of all other joint programs in existence between the UC proposing campus and the CSU system with a brief history and current status of each program. The CPEC form (see Appendix C) should also be appended. The proposal should include the rationale for a joint program, e.g. its uniqueness; that the combined faculty provides needed expertise and can meet societal demand; that the program provides opportunities for equipment sharing and research collaboration. The proposal should indicate that the program has support from the faculty and departments involved.


3. Criteria for Approval. Before the final proposal for a joint doctoral program is approved, the criteria for granting permission to negotiate (above) should be addressed satisfactorily by the proposing campus and the proposing campus should further demonstrate:
a. that the proposed program has clear and valuable benefits for the UC department or program making the proposal, e.g., because of special facilities or program strengths that CSU has or because of unique expertise that CSU faculty possess in the discipline in which the joint doctoral program is being proposed which, when combined with UC facilities and faculty expertise, would enhance the academic quality of the program;

b. that there is adequate student demand for the program by estimating student demand and providing related data and considering enrollment in relation to available spaces for similar programs, at its own campus and at other campuses, as the one being proposed;

c. that there is a favorable job market for the program's graduates by assessing the academic and/or non-academic employment prospects in the field of the proposed program and by substantiating employment trends with data from surveys or employment studies;

d. that the existing or closely related Ph.D. program has the capacity to accommodate the additional students or such capacity is planned for; the additional burden of the proposed joint program should readily be accommodated on the UC campus without substantial additional resources being required; if there is no capacity to expand in the existing Ph.D. program or closely related Ph.D. programs, then the proposed joint doctoral program will not be approved since the UC campus could not accommodate the students; and

e. that, when there is a closely related Ph.D. program rather than an existing Ph.D., an interdepartmental graduate group will be appointed or a department designated at the proposing UC campus and formally charged by the Senate and the administration with responsibility for giving the joint degree program the same attention a department or graduate group would give its free-standing Ph.D. programs.
4. Administration. A joint doctoral degree is granted by both UC and CSU. Therefore, the responsibility for the administration of the doctoral program should be equally divided between the two systems.
a. UC and CSU are jointly responsible for admission of students.

b. Each participating segment should have a faculty member (graduate advisor) responsible for and knowledgeable about the program and a staff member to support the faculty member and assist students.

c. A student’s examination and doctoral committees must have at least four members of which at least two must come from each of the cooperating segments.

d. The proposal should be explicit about the location of registration and payment of fees throughout the program, and the location of student support services, including assistance in securing financial support.

e. Joint programs may require additional resources, beyond those required by any new program at start-up because of their joint activities. This should be included in the budget submitted with the proposal.
ATTACHMENT II

CCGA Handbook:  Appendix B
Format for the Graduate Degree Program Proposal

Title
A proposal for a program of graduate studies in (e.g., English) for the (e.g., M.A., Ph.D.) degree(s).

Date of Preparation

Section 1. Introduction

A statement setting forth the following:

1. Aims and objectives of the program. Any distinctive features.

2. Historical development of the field and historical development of departmental strength in the field.

3. Timetable for development of the program, including enrollment projects. Consistency of these projections with the campus enrollment plan. If the campus has enrollment quotas for its programs, state which program(s) will have their enrollments reduced in order to accommodate the proposed program.

4. Relation of the proposed program to existing programs on campus and to the Campus Academic Plan. If the program is not in the Campus Academic Plan, why is it important that it be begun now? Evidence of high campus priority. Effect of the proposed program on undergraduate programs offered by the sponsoring department(s).

5. Interrelationship of the program with other University of California institutions, if applicable. The possibility of cooperation or competition with other programs within the University should be discussed. Proposers should send copies of their proposal to all departments on other campuses offering similar degrees. Review letters should be obtained from chairs of such departments and these letters should be attached to the proposal.

6. Department or group which will administer the program.

7. Plan for evaluation of the program within the offering departments(s) and campuswide.


Section 2. Program

A detailed statement of the requirements for the program including the following:

1. Undergraduate preparation for admission.

2. Foreign language. "The CCGA recognizes that foreign language competence may be an important element of graduate education of doctoral programs. It is the responsibility of the Divisional Graduate Councils to insure that the proponents of new doctoral programs have carefully considered the value of a foreign language requirement. We shall assume that when a proposal for a new doctoral degree has been forwarded to CCGA, this issue has been addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the Division. Divisional Graduate Councils should apply the same standard adopted for new programs in reviewing existing doctoral programs" (CCGA Minutes, 5/14/85, p.6)

3. Program of study:
a. Specific fields of emphasis
b. Plan(s): Masters I and/or II; Doctors A or B
c. Unit requirements
d. Required and recommended courses, including teaching requirement
e. When a degree program must have licensing or certification, the requirements of the agency
or agencies involved should be listed in the proposal, especially the courses needed to satisfy
such requirements (CCGA Minutes, 1/17/78, p.5)
4. Field examinations--written and/or oral.

5. Qualifying examinations--written and/or oral.

6. Thesis and/or dissertation.

7. Final examination.

8. Explanation of special requirements over and above Graduate Division minimum requirements.

9. Relationship of master's and doctor's programs.

10. Special preparation for careers in teaching.

11. Sample program.

12. Normative time from matriculation to degree. (Assume student has no deficiencies and is full-time.)

Also specify the normative lengths of time for pre-candidacy and for candidacy periods. (If normative time is subsequently lengthened to more that six years, prior approval of CCGA is required.) Other incentives to support expeditious times-to-degree: what policies or other incentives will assure that students make timely progress toward degree completion in the proposed program?


Section 3. Projected need

A statement setting forth the following:

1. Student demand for the program.

2. Opportunities for placement of graduates. UC anticipates that CPEC in particular will expect detailed and convincing evidence of job market needs. This will be especially true for programs in graduate fields now well represented among UC campuses and California independent universities, as well as programs in the same field proposed by more than one campus. IF UC already offers programs in the field, what are their placement records in recent years? What recent job listings, employer surveys, assessments of future job growth, etc. can be provided to demonstrate a strong market for graduates of this program, or for graduates of specialty areas that will be the focus of the program?

3. Importance to the discipline.

4. Ways in which the program will meet the needs of society.

5. Relationship of the program to research and/or professional interests of the faculty.


6. Program Differentiation. How will the proposed program distinguish itself from existing UC and California independent university programs, from similar programs proposed by other UC campuses? Statistics or other detailed documentation of need should be provided.


Section 4. Faculty

A statement on present faculty and immediately pending appointments. This should include a list of faculty members, their ranks, their highest degree and other professional qualifications, and a citation of relevant publications; data concerning faculty should be limited to only that information pertinent to the Committee's evaluation of faculty qualifications. (For group programs only, one copy of letters from participating faculty indicating their interest in the program should be included. In addition, comments from chairmen of departments with graduate programs closely related to or affected by the proposed program should be included.)


Section 5. Courses

A list of present and proposed courses including instructors and supporting courses in related fields. The catalog description of all proposed courses should be appended. The relationship of these courses to specific fields of emphasis and future plans. How will the courses be staffed given existing course loads?


Section 6. Resource requirements

Estimated for the first 5 years the additional cost of the program, by year, for each of the following categories:

1. FTE faculty

2. Library acquisition

3. Computing costs

4. Equipment

5. Space and other capital facilities

6. Other operating costs

Indicate the intended method of funding these additional costs.  If applicable, state that no new resources will be required and explain how the program will be funded. If it is to be funded by internal reallocation, explain how internal resources will be generated. 

State Resources to Support New Programs. The resource plan to support the proposed program should be clearly related to campus enrollment plans and resource plans. Campuses should provide detailed information on how resources will be provided to support the proposed program: from resources for approved graduate enrollment growth, reallocation, and other sources. What will the effects of reallocation be on existing programs? For interdisciplinary programs and programs growing out of tracks within existing graduate programs: What will the impact of the new program be on the contributing program(s)? When the proposed program is fully implemented, how will faculty FTE be distributed among contributing and new programs?



Section 7. Graduate Student Support
It is recommended that all new proposals include detailed plans for providing sufficient graduate student support. In fields that have depended on federal research grants, these plans should also discuss current availability of faculty grants that can support graduate students and funding trends in agencies expected to provide future research or training grants. Are other extramural resources likely to provide graduate student support, or will internal fellowship and other institutional support be made available to the program? Describe any campus fund-raising initiatives that will contribute to support of graduate students in the proposed program. How many teaching assistantships will be available to the program? Will resources for them be provided through approved enrollment growth, reallocation, or a combination? How will reallocation affect support in existing programs?


Section 8. Changes in Senate regulations
The proposal should state clearly whether or not any changes in Senate Regulations at the Divisional level or in the Academic Assembly will be required. If changes are necessary (e.g., for all proposals for new degrees), the complete text of the proposed amendments or new regulations should be provided.
ATTACHMENT III

CCGA Handbook:  Appendix D
Academic Degree Program Proposals: Information Required by CPEC

This questionnaire is to be completed by sponsoring faculty (department or group). It will be used by Systemwide Administration to prepare a report to the California Postsecondary Education Commission. If more space is required, please attach as many additional sheets as necessary. Attach to full proposal.

1. Name of Program:

2. Campus:

3. Degree/Certificate:

4. CIP Classification (to be completed by Office of the President):

5. Date to be started:

6. If modification of existing program, identify that program and explain changes.

7. Purpose (academic or professional training) and distinctive features (how does this program differ from others, if any, offered in California?):

8. Type(s) of students to be served:

9. If program is not in current campus academic plan give reason for proposing program now:

10. If program requires approval of a licensure board, what is the status of such approval?

11. Please list special features of the program (credit for experience, internships, lab requirements,
unit requirements, etc.)

12. List all new courses required:
Department, Course Number, Title, Hours/Week Lecture Lab.

13. List all other required courses:
Department, Course Number, Title, Hours/Week Lecture Lab.

14. List UC campuses and other California institutions, public or private, which now offer or plan to offer this program or closely related programs:

15. List any related program offered by the proposing institution and explain relationship.

16. Summarize employment prospects for graduates of the proposed program. Give results of job market survey if such have been made.

17. Give estimated enrollment for the first 5 years and state basis for estimate.

18. Give estimates of the additional cost of the program by year for 5 years in each of the following categories: FTE Faculty, Library Acquisitions, Computing, Other Facilities, Equipment. Provide brief explanation of any of the costs where necessary.

19. How and by what agencies will the program be evaluated.