Research Administration Office

University of California

Memo Operating Guidance

No. 93-4

March 12, 1993

Subject: University Policy and Procedures Concerning Organized Research Units--Reissuance


University policy on organized research units was adopted by The Regents on September 17, 1971. The policy called for the President of the University to issue rules governing the establishment, approval, funding, operation, and review of ORUs.

Such rules were duly issued in 1971, and a revision was put out by President Saxon on March 8, 1982. The original Regents Item and 1971 rules were published in the orange-covered Directory of Organized Research Units, University of California (April 1981). The 1981 rules have now been appended to the new Directory of Organized Research Units 1992-1993.

When the rules were published in 1981, there was appended a document titled "UCEP Review of Universitywide Organized Research Units," as additional guidance under the heading "Procedure for Five-Year Review" (para. 10 of the rules). This document has not been reprinted in the new ORU Directory.


The purpose of this Contract and Grant Memo is to collect in one place for future reference all current guidance on the subject of Organized Research Units. Accordingly, you will find enclosed:

Regents Item dated September 17, 1971, "Policy on Organized Research Units"

Letter dated March 8, 1982, from President Saxon to Chancellors with attachments

1. Administrative Policies and Procedures Concerning ORUs

2. List of Current ORUs that Would be Categorized as MRUs Under Paragraph 4 of the Revised Administrative Policies and Procedures Concerning ORUs

3. UCEP Review of Universitywide ORUs

The next Contract and Grant Manual Circular will contain a revised Section 10-140 of the Contract and Grant Manual, updating information on where the Regents policy on ORUs can be found.

Refer: William Sellers (510) 987-9847

Subject Index: 10

Organization Index: U-115

David F. Mears


Research Administration Office


POLICY ON ORGANIZED RESEARCH UNITS Amended through September 17, 1971


DEFINITION. An organized research unit shall consist primarily of an interdepartmental group of faculty members and students engaged in research with them. The unit's activities may be supported by additional personnel and facilities.

AUTHORITY. Organized research units shall be established and disestablished as approved by The Regents, acting upon the recommendation of the President, who shall seek the advice of Chancellors and the Academic Senate.

The President shall report to The Regents all major reorganizations affecting organized research units. No unit may be established until review as prescribed by the President has been completed, nor may a unit be continued without periodic review.

ADMINISTRATION. The chief academic officer of an organized research unit shall be a tenure member of the faculty, unless some other arrangement is specifically authorized by the President. Directors of units serving a single campus are appointed by the Chancellor of the campus. Directors of University-wide units are appointed by The Regents, acting upon the recommendation of the President. Rules governing the establishment, approval, funding, operation, and review of the units; appointment and review of directors; personnel matters; and all other policies and procedures relating to organized research units shall be issued by the President in consultation with the Chancellors and appropriate bodies of the Academic Senate.

PURPOSE. Organized research units may be established within the University to contribute to the general goals of the University, and in particular to strengthen interdisciplinary programs of research and teaching conducted by the faculty, as well as to provide graduate and postdoctoral students with added research opportunities, facilities, and assistance. Facilitation of public services related to the University's research programs may be an associated objective of some organized research units, particularly those whose activities include the pursuit of applied or problem-oriented research directed toward the solution of complex contemporary problems.

SCOPE. An organized research unit shall be interdisciplinary in scope, involving the faculty and students of two or more departments of instruction and research. An organized research unit shall not be established if its research objectives are essentially the same as those of an existing department. Unnecessary duplication among campuses shall be discouraged. An organized research unit is expected to provide opportunities for the participation of students in its activities. Each unit shall seek to make its facilities available to qualified staff members from other campuses; budgetary provision for intercampus travel will be made to the extent possible. Some units may be. designated as University-wide organized research units, either because their facilities are for joint use by several or all campuses, or because facilities are located in several places on or adjacent to more than one campus.

FUNDING. The activities of an organized research unit may be funded by budgetary allocations, or from extramural funds sought for the purpose, or both. The Regents appreciate the importance of extramurally funded research in graduate education and recognize the desirability of providing University support from State funds of at least part of the cost of administering research programs.

FACULTY PARTICIPATION. Organized research units shall receive no budgeted provisions for faculty positions and shall confer no professorial titles, but persons holding such titles by virtue of their appointment in an academic department may be compensated for the portion of their time devoted to work in an organized research unit by appointment to the appropriate title in the professional research series or to an appropriate academic-administrative title. Any exceptions to the foregoing rule must be specifically authorized by the President.

EXCEPTIONS. Certain organized research units are, for historical reasons, exempt from some aspects of policies and procedures that apply to organized research units generally. These units are enumerated in the President's Administrative Policies and Procedures Concerning Organized Research Units; the nature of the exemptions is set forth in separate documents to be developed for each unit.


Office of the President

March 8, 1982


Dear Colleagues:

I have approved the attached revision of the Administrative

Policies and Procedures Concerning Organized Research Units, to

be effective immediately.

This document supersedes the 1971 Administrative Policies and Procedures and is the product of a lengthy series of reviews, beginning with the Report of the Committee to Study Organized Research (McElroy Committee) and including review and comment by the campuses, the Academic Senate, Laboratory Directors, and the Academic Planning and Program Review Board. The Policy of The Regents of the University of California on Organized Research Units (adopted by The Regents in September 1971) will continue in effect.

Briefly, the revised Administrative Policies and Procedures incorporate four principal changes that were recommended by the McElroy Committee and subsequently endorsed by reviewers. First, existing Organized Research Units will be regrouped into two categories, MRUs (Multicampus Research Units) and ORUs (Organized Research Units). The MRU category includes all current Universitywide ORUs, all current exceptions to policy as listed in Paragraph 15 of the revised policy, and all major research facilities. A list of units included in this category is attached (Attachment 2). The ORU category includes all single-campus ORUs. A change in policy and procedures, included in Paragraph 4 of the revised policy, directs that these units will henceforth be administered by the appropriate Chancellors without review or approval by the President.

Second, as outlined in Paragraph 14 of the revised policy, .after each existing or proposed MRU or ORU has been reviewed by the appropriate campus, and in any case beginning not later than June 30, 1986, it will have a maximum life span of fifteen years, at which time it must submit to the President a formal proposal

for continued MRU or ORU status, support funds, and space in the context of the University's needs and resources at the time. This restriction does not apply to some of the units listed as exceptions, as approved by the President, in paragraph 15 of the revised policy.

Third, Directorships of all MRUs and ORUs shall be changed periodically, with ten years being the maximum term of continuous tenure in all but extraordinary circumstances.

Finally, I have included for your reference, as Attachment 3, a copy of the Academic Senate Guidelines for the Review of University wide Organized Research Units issued by the 1976 University Committee on Educational Policy. In accordance with Paragraph 10 of the revised policy, these guidelines should be used henceforth by ad hoc committees reviewing MRUs or ORUs.

Please take the necessary steps to implement these changes on your respective campuses.


David S. Saxon President



Laboratory Directors

Members, President's Administrative Council

Principal Officers of The Regents

Chair, Academic Council




An Organized Research Unit (ORU) is an academic agency within the University established for a purpose that is in accord with the policy of The Regents concerning such units. The purpose of an ORU is above all educational and complementary to the academic goals of departments of instruction and research. An ORU may not have jurisdiction over courses or curricula and cannot offer formal courses for credit unless it has been specifically empowered to do so by the President after consultation with the Academic Senate and the appropriate Chancellors; but even with campus approval, such an exception will be considered only when the course cannot be appropriately offered by a department of instruction and research. However, an ORU may perform other academic functions ordinarily carried on by departments of instruction and research in fields not served by ORUs, e.g., organize research conferences and meetings, advise on graduate curricula, help professors provide guidance for graduate students, and manage training programs; but educational programs intended for the public and for which fees are charged shall be administered through University Extension.

An organizational unit shall be recognized as an ORU when it has been approved as such by The Regents. A Directory of Organized Research Units in the University of California is maintained and periodically issued by the President. Other criteria, such as designations or administrative arrangements do not in themselves suffice to define an ORU; units ranging from special libraries, hospitals, clinics, art galleries, and museums to departmental laboratories are not necessarily ORUs, although each of them may resemble an existing ORU in some respects. It is important to distinguish between formally established ORUs and research projects of a less formal character. in the solicitation of extramural funds for a research project that has not been proposed and reviewed for ORU status, care should be taken not to use terminology nor make representations which suggest that the project is in fact a university-approved ORU or is about to become one. The designations enumerated in the next paragraph shall not be used as formal labels on research projects that are not ORUs. If a project is likely to evolve into an ORU after a trial period of operation, the possibility should be mentioned at a suitable stage in the planning; in such a case, the designation Project is suitable and will serve to initiate such academic and administrative review as may be deemed appropriate at any stage, e.g., on submission of a major proposal for extramural support.


Units included in the Directory of Approved Organized Research Units normally carry one of the designations enumerated and defined below.

Institute, Laboratory, and Center are used most often, but other titles may be employed in particular situations. An ORU that covers a broad research area may in turn contain other more specialized units; for instance, an Institute may comprise several Centers, or a Station several facilities. It is recognized that the designation of some long-established units may not always conform to the definitions that follow (some Centers are rather like Institutes in their activities) and that some have widely known names such as Bureau, Division, Foundation or Organization that are not listed below but that cannot be conveniently changed. However, insofar as possible, designations of now units shall be taken from those defined below.

Institute: a major unit that coordinates and promotes faculty-student research on a continuing basis of an area so wide that it extends across department, school or college, and perhaps even campus boundaries. The unit may also engage in public-service activities stemming from its research program, within the limits of its stated objectives.

Laboratory: a nondepartmental organization that establishes and maintains facilities for research in several departments, sometimes with the help of a sizable full-time research staff appointed in accordance with the guidelines of Paragraph 6 below. (A laboratory in which substantially all participating faculty members are from the same academic department is a departmental laboratory and is not considered to be an ORU.)

Center: a small unit, sometimes one of several forming an Institute, that furthers research in a designated field; or, a unit engaged primarily in providing research facilities for other units and departments.

Station: a unit that provides physical facilities for interdepartmental research in a broad area (e.g., agriculture); sometimes housing other units and serving several campuses. Designations of units similar in function but of more


All ORUs are aggregated into two categories for purposes of administration and review.

a. MRU (Multi-campus or Major Research Unit: This category includes (a) all units with facilities and personnel on two or more campuses or locations associated with them, (b) all units with facilities at a single location on or near one of the campuses if the participation of staff members from other campuses is so extensive as to give such a unit a Universitywide character, (c) all major research facilities, and (d) all exceptions to these policies and procedures as approved by the President and listed in Paragraph 15.

MRUs shall be responsible to the President and report through a Chancellor to whom the President has delegated responsibility and authority to act in a Universitywide capacity; however, the President retains ultimate responsibility for matters of general policy and intercampus coordination. For the Agricultural Experiment Station, the Water Resources Center, the Kearney Foundation for Soil Science, and the Giannini Foundation for Agricultural Economics, the Vice President-Agriculture and Natural Resources shall be the officer to whom the Director reports, and the Director shall insure that the Chancellors are kept informed of all impending substantial changes in these units and that effective administrative liaison with the Chancellors is maintained.

If an MRU has facilities and personnel on two or more campuses or locations associated with them, the Director may be aided by an Associate Director on each campus or location on which the unit is active. The portion of such an MRU on a particular campus has some of the attributes of an ORU, and the chief administrator of that part of the MRU (i.e., the Director or Associate Director) is responsible to the Chancellor in such matters as personnel, services, and space. Each Associate Director is responsible to the Director for fulfillment of that portion of the MRU's mission that is carded out by the local branch. The policies and functioning of such units require careful coordination by the Director, who is responsible to the President through a Chancellor. Care and coordination are also required of the Associate Directors and the Chancellors of the other campuses on which the MRU has branches, or each Associate Director is responsible to the Chancellor in ways that cannot be entirely separated from similar responsibilities to the MRU as a whole. An MRU with facilities at a single location on or near one of the campuses is responsible for administrative purposes to the Chancellor of a designated "caretaker" campus.

b. ORU (Single-campus Organized Research Unit): An Organized Research Unit serving a single campus is responsible to the Chancellor or designee in terms of administration, budget, space, personnel, and quality..


Each MRU and ORU shall be headed by a Director (called a chair in some Centers) who shall be a tenure member of the faculty and may receive an administrative stipend in addition to the faculty salary, except that a faculty member who already earns such a stipend through another appointment (e.g., as associate dean) shall not receive a second stipend. Such dual administrative responsibilities should be avoided. The Director shall be aided by a standing Advisory Committee, chaired by a faculty member other than the Director, which is expected to meet regularly and to participation actively in setting the unit's goals and in critically evaluating its effectiveness on a continuing basis. The Advisory Committee shall be made up predominantly of faculty members, but may have some members from outside the University. The Advisory Committee of an ORU shall be appointed by the Chancellor; that of an MRU, by the President after consultation with the appropriate Chancellors. The charge to the committee and its functions, membership, and reporting requirements are determined by the appointing officer but should include active participation in the planning and evaluation of the unit's programs and activities.

In recognition of the role played by MRUs and ORUs in the educational process, provision for the core administrative support of an MRU or ORU is normally made in the University budget in the form of the Director's stipend and part-time salary, and allocations for supplies and expenses, equipment and facilities, and general assistance. The University budgets of some units, notably those primarily serving other academic units (e.g., survey centers) and those engaged in professional activities of specific interest to the State of California (e.g., agriculture, industry, public administration, transportation), also contain provisions for Professional Research (or Agronomist or Astronomer) positions of a more permanent nature than is ordinarily associated with a research project. But all permanent positions-professional, technical, administrative, or clerical-may be established and filled, regardless of the availability of funds, only after specific review and authorization of the proposed position and of the candidate for it in accordance with University policies and procedures. As a general guideline, appointees in the professional research series should not out-number the faculty members in the group of those actively involved in the work of an MRU or ORU.


To establish a new MRU or ORU, the faculty members concerned submit a proposal stating goals and objectives and explaining why they cannot be achieved within the existing campus and University structure. The proposal shall contain statements about the existence of similar units elsewhere (and describe the relation of the proposed unit to similar units at other campuses of the University of California) and about the original knowledge that the proposed unit may be anticipated to add to the field. Actual or potential availability of extramural funds shall not serve as a basis for proposing, approving, or continuing an MRU or ORU. The proposal shall also contain:

Names of faculty members who have agreed in writing to participate in the unit's activities.

Budget estimates for the first year of operation, projections for the five years following, and anticipated sources of funding.

Projections of numbers of faculty members and students, Professional Research appointees, and other personnel for the specified periods.

Statement about immediate space needs and realistic projections of future space needs.

Statement of other needs, such as capital equipment and library resources.

Statement about anticipated effects of the proposed unit on the teaching programs of the participating faculty members' department(s).

The proposal is submitted for review to the Dean of the school or college most directly affected by the proposed unit's personnel, space, and equipment demands before being forwarded to the Chancellor, who shall seek the advice of the appropriate Divisional Academic Senate committees. All proposals are to be reviewed by the appropriate committee concerned with buildings and campus development. After completion of the campus review, the proposal is forwarded to the President by the Chancellor, or jointly by the appropriate Chancellors if more than one campus is involved. The President reviews the proposal and refers it to the appropriate University Academic Senate committee(s) and, if necessary, to the California Postsecondary Education Commission for comment. If the President approves the unit's establishment he recommends them to The Regents. Establishment of an ORU or MRU carries with it a commitment of space and funding adequate to the mission of the unit.


The Director or Chairman of an ORU is appointed by the Chancellor after consultation with an ad hoc committee of the Academic Senate appointed by the Chancellor from a panel nominated by the Committee on Committees, or by any other nomination procedure on which the Chancellor and the appropriate Academic Senate division have agreed. For MRUs, the Director or Chair is appointed by The Regents on the recommendation of the President after consultation with the appropriate Chancellors and with the advice of an ad hoc committee appointed by the President from a panel nominated by the Universitywide Committee on Committees. When a unit reports to a Dean, the Dean's advice is also sought before an appointment is made. When the appointment of a new Director is for an .existing unit, the Advisory Committee is also solicited for nominations. An Associate or Assistant Director is appointed by the Chancellor on whose campus the appointee will serve after appropriate campus consultation.


Each MRU and ORU shall be reviewed at intervals of five years or less by an ad hoc review committee, appointed from a slate nominated by the Academic Senate, with regard to its original purpose, present functioning, future plans, and continuing development to meet the needs of the field. The review shall look to the unit's success in meeting previously established objectives, planned changes in program objectives, and planned steps to achieve new objectives. Whenever possible, the five-year review of an MRU or ORU should take place concurrently with the regular campus review of the academic department(s) most closely related to the research areas of the Guidelines for the Review of Universitywide Organized Research Units issued by the 1976 University Committee on Educational Policy, unless these are superseded by other guidelines. The unit's Advisory Committee shall be formally asked to supply a report to the ad hoc committee.

The Chancellor appoints the review committee for ORUs; for MRUs, the appointment is made by the President or designee. The membership of the committee may be held confidential. (Review committees for MRUs should have extramural and intramural membership when appropriate.) The review report is usually held confidential, but a copy is given to the Director for information. [The foregoing has been interpreted as meaning that the Chancellor may give the gist of the comments and recommendations to the Director, not necessarily the verbatim report.] The report shall take annual reports described in Paragraph 13 into account. Justification for continuation of an MRU or ORU must be documented carefully in its reviews. Each ad hoc review committee should consider and make specific recommendations on the following range of alternatives to the status quo: a change in State funding; a change in other resources (such as FTE, space, etc.); a change in the mission of the unit; a merger of the unit with one or more units on the same or another campus; discontinuance of the unit.

In the case of an ORU, the report is reviewed by the appropriate Divisional Academic Senate committee(s) and a decision concerning continuation of the unit and any needed changes is made by the Chancellor upon consideration of the .ad hoc and Senate committees' recommendations. Review reports for ORUs are forwarded by the Chancellor to the President for information. Reports for MRUs are forwarded by the President to the Chancellor and the appropriate University Academic Senate Committee(s) for review and comment before the President approves any needed changes and continuation of the unit. If, in the President's or the Chancellor's judgment, for MRUs or ORUs, respectively, circumstances warrant discontinuance of the unit, the President recommends such discontinuance to The Regents for final action, subject to the phase-out period provisions in the next paragraph.

The phase-out period for an MRU or ORU which is to be discontinued shall be sufficient to permit an orderly termination or transfer of contractual obligations. Normally, the phase-out period shall be at most one full year after the end of the academic year in which the decision is made to discontinue the unit.

The effectiveness of each Director or Chair shall be likewise reviewed at intervals of five years or less, preferably at the time the unit is being reviewed, following the same procedure as for the unit review. If the unit is to be continued, the decision whether to continue the appointment of the Director is made by the President for an MRU and by the Chancellor for ORUs. Directorships of all MRUs and ORUs are limited to ten years of continuous tenure in all but extraordinary circumstances.


At the end of each academic year, each MRU and ORU shall submit a report to the officer to whom it is responsible, with copies for the Chancellor, and for the chair of the Advisory Committee, which contains the following:

Numbers of graduate and postdoctoral students directly contributing to the unit who (a) are on the unit's payroll, (b) participate through assistantships, fellowships, or traineeships, or are otherwise involved in the unit's work.

Number of faculty members actively engaged in the unit's research or its supervision.

Extent of student and faculty participation from other campuses.

Numbers and FTE of professional, technical, administrative, and clerical personnel employed.

List of publications issued by the unit, including reports and reprints issued in its own covers, and showing author, title, press run, and production costs.

Sources and amounts (on an annual basis) of support funds, including income from the sale of publications and from other services.

Expenditures, distinguishing use of funds for administrative support, matching funds, direct research, and other specified uses.

Description and amount of space currently occupied.

Any other information deemed relevant to the evaluation of a unit's effectiveness, including updated five-year projections of plans and requirements where feasible.

Annual reports for ORUs shall be forwarded to the Systemwide Administration only on request; annual reports for MRUs are submitted routinely to the President.


Beginning with its regular review during the five-year period ending June 30, 1986, and in no case beginning later than June 30, 1986, each approved MRU or ORU will have a maximum life span of fifteen years after which it must submit to the President a formal proposal for continued MRU or ORU status, support funds, and space in the context of the University's needs and resources at the time. In no case may an MRU or ORU be continued beyond these fifteen-year periods without approval of the President. This restriction does not apply to some of the units listed in Paragraph 15 as exceptions, as approved by the President.


All exceptions to the above policies and procedures must be approved by the President. It is recognized that exceptions to specific provisions of these policies and procedures exist in the case of the Agricultural Experiment Station, the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, the Lick Observatory, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratory, the Laboratory of Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and the Water Resources Center.

Attachment 2



Agricultural Experiment Station

Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics

Lick Observatory

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Los Alamos Scientific National Laboratory

Laboratory of Biomedical and Environmental Sciences

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Water Resources Center

International Center for Integrated and Biological Control

Institute of Transportation Studies

White Mountain Research Station

Bodega Marine Laboratory *

Institute of Marine Resources

Intercampus Institute for Research at Particle Accelerators

Statewide Air Pollution Research Center

California Space Institute

This laboratory is currently designated as a single-campus ORU under the administrative authority of the Chancellor at Davis. Bodega is used heavily by faculty at Davis in addition to Berkeley researchers, making it a candidate for MRU status as a Major Research Facility.

Attachment 3

UCEP Review of Universitywide Organized Research Units

The UCEP recognizes the inherent difficulties involved in the standardization of the review process of Universitywide ORU's by ad hoc committees. Each ORU presents problems and issues peculiar to that unit under review. It believes that, while most ad hoc committees have approached their assignments in a conscientious and objective manner, they have not been provided with specific instructions relating to the scope of their review and the style and format of their report. The result has been that there has been great variation in the thoroughness with which ORU's have been evaluated, and, more specifically, related to the position of UCEP, in the quality of the ad hoc committee reports.

The purpose of the review is to ascertain the extent to which a unit has succeeded in achieving its goals and the general goals of the University. The purpose of UCEP's participation in this process is to provide the Academic Senate with an opportunity to comment on how well this has been done. We believe that adherence to the following recommendations will facilitate the achievement of these goals.


The Regents' Policy on Universitywide Organized Research Units requires that each unit be reviewed by a special ad hoc review committee at intervals of 5 years or less and that the report of the committee be forwarded to the University Committee on Educational Policy for its review.

The review of ad hoc committee reports on ORU's by the UCEP is aimed at ensuring uniformity and completeness of the review procedure. We define our role in the review process as being

(i) to ensure that sufficient and appropriate information was available to the ad hoc committee,

(2) to determine whether an adequate job of review was done, and

(3) to state the extent to which UCEP agrees with the logic and conclusions of the report.

The current UCEP and those in the past have had considerable difficulty in fulfilling this responsibility. The reports of ad hoc review committees have sometimes failed to provide sufficient information on which to make decisions. Two major deficiencies seem to characterize many of the reports:

(i) Their failure to incorporate documentation of the findings and opinions of the committee by specific reference to the material provided to them about activities and accomplishments of the ORU.

(2) The lack of a standard format which assures UCEP and subsequent reviewing agencies that all relevant aspects of the material presented to the ad hoc committee have been considered.

It is the opinion of UCEP that correction of these deficiencies requires the development of more specific instructions to ad hoc review committees relating to their charge, the criteria which they should use as the basis of their evaluation, and the style of their written report. To achieve this end, UCEP makes the following recommendations.


That specific instructions be given to each ad hoc review committee which clearly define the nature and scope of its report.

Generally the report should:

Include an appraisal of all significant operational evidence, favorable and unfavorable.

(2) Be adequately documented by specific reference to the supporting material.

(3) Be specific and analytical and include the review committee's evaluation of the ORU with respect to the following categories:

(a) Research

(b) Teaching

(c) Impact on the Campuses of the University

(d) Public Services

(4) Include -- preferably as an introduction -- a brief, concise statement detailing the history of the ORU, its mission, its scope, and its relationship with academic departments on the various campuses.

(5) Provide a comment about the director which includes an evaluation of his leadership and the source and type of information upon which that evaluation was based.

(6) Describe the resources of the ORU in terms of a 5 year summary of the amounts of extramural and intramural support, physical facilities and space allocation, and staff funded from extramural sources.

That the following minimal criteria be used as a guide to the ad hoc committee's deliberation and comments.

(1) Research

(a) The quality of research accomplished and in progress.

(b) The accomplishment of the objectives as stated in the research mission of the ORU, the evaluation of changes in direction of research and their impact, the effect of the unit's research on the campuses of the University and the public.

(c) The benefit of the unit's research to other departments of instruction and research, including faculty and student personnel engaged in research within the ORU.

(d) The quality of the professional staff as evidenced by such things as awards, honors, presentations at national and international scholarly conferences.

(e) The comparison with similar units at other institutions.

(f) Publications issued by the unit, including reports and reprints in its own covers as well as published material. Publications in progress and in the developmental stages should be considered as well as doctoral dissertations of graduate students.

The interdisciplinary nature of the unit's research efforts, if appropriate.

(2) Teaching

(a) Administrative support to graduate studies, to include that provided for both doctoral and postdoctoral training.

(b) The degree to which graduate and postdoctoral students participate through assistantships, fellowships, traineeships, or otherwise are involved in ORU work, including paid employment and graduate student research statistics.

(c) The sponsorship of internships with or without credit of graduate and undergraduate students.

(d) Direct or indirect contributions of the ORU to graduate and undergraduate teaching programs of academic departments of the University.

(e) Staffing of the unit, including number of full-time academic staff with fractional appointments in academic departments, faculty with part-time appointments in ORU, and degree to which each category participates in teaching programs of academic departments. This would include participation in regular courses and seminars of academic departments, supervision of independent research and group study (etc.)

(3) Impact on Campuses of the University

(a) Evidence that existence of ORU was a factor in attracting faculty or students to the University.

(b) Effect of program or unit on campus programs, including statements as to why the goals and objectives could not be accomplished within some existing departmental structure, or by a campus ORU.

(c) Advantages and disadvantages to the University which might reasonably be expected to occur in the future if the unit is continued.

(d) Possible effect on University from discontinuance of unit.

(4) Public Service

(a) Contributions in the form of lectures, tours, visiting groups, conferences (etc.) within the community,

State, and nation, as well as services to the University community.

(b) Interaction with other similar units or research in other places. Other services to the community, State, and nation, such as distribution of research information, recognition by non-University groups or governmental agencies.

(c) Evidence of the direct, tangible impact of the activities of the ORU on the public at large.