As set forth in the Administrative Policies and Procedures Concerning Organized Research Units approved by the council of Vice Chancellors for Research, all ORUs and MRUs must establish a rationale for continuance at fifteen-year intervals. This fifteen-year review requires MRUs to submit a proposal to be reviewed by an ad hoc review committee established by the Vice Provost for Research and drawn from the membership of the Universitywide Council on Research (COR), the University Committee on Research Policy (UCORP), and additional scholars from within and outside the University of California. ORU policy stipulates that MRU fifteen-year reviews may be of single units or they may compare two or more units.

The Review Committee's report is expected to provide an objective and balanced critical evaluation of the MRU under review and answer two key questions. One, does the unit provide a unique service to UC in research, graduate education, or public service that would not otherwise be accomplished in its absence? Two, should the unit be continued for another fifteen years? If the review encompasses two or more MRUs, it should comment on the existing relationship between the units, if any, and make recommendations about whether and how the units might interact in the future. The information needed to complete the review will be gathered from the MRU Director's Report and by additional means as appropriate, for example, a site visit to the MRU's administrative headquarters or a meeting with the MRU Director. Where appropriate, the Review Committee's Report may simply refer to the Director's Report rather than duplicate information already provided in the Director's Report. The Review Committee's report will be circulated for comment by Chancellors and appropriate Universitywide Senate Committees.

The Review Committee's report is the most important product of the fifteen-year review process and its recommendations will be pivotal to decisions about the future of the unit or units being reviewed. The report should address each of the areas identified below and emphasize strengths and weaknesses of the unit or units under review. A report from the Director(s) of the MRU(s) detailing information on the same areas will be provided to the Review Committee to assist it in carrying out the review. The body of the Review Committee's Report should not exceed 20 single-spaced pages, not including appendices.

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

a. Mission. A concise statement should be included here detailing any projected changes to the mission of the MRU if it is continued.

II. Evidence of Accomplishment. What are the MRU's major accomplishments over the preceding five year period in the following areas?

a. Research. Describe the quality and productivity of research accomplished and in progress. What are the major achievements of the professional academic staff (publications, awards, honors, presentations) and administrative support staff? Is there compelling evidence that the MRU has contributed to outstanding research in the disciplinary and interdisciplinary areas in which it specializes?

b. Undergraduate and graduate education. What are the direct and indirect contributions of the MRU to graduate and undergraduate teaching programs of academic departments of the University?

c. Recognition for excellence beyond UC. Does the unit have a national or international reputation for excellence beyond UC?

d. Public service and outreach. Has the MRU made significant contributions to the public and the community external to UC? Does the MRU contribute to policy discussions and development at the State and national levels in areas encompassed by its special research interests?

III. Budget. Does the MRU make cost-effective uses of UC funds (for example, is there an appropriate balance of expenditures for administrative versus research support)? Has the unit been successful in garnering extramural support to augment UC funding? Should additional UC funding be provided, and if so, what needs do you regard as most critical?

IV. Administration and Governance. Does the administrative structure optimally meet the needs of the MRU? Are resources for administration appropriate and adequate? The report should separately address the following administrative issues:

a. Director. Is the Director an effective leader of the MRU? What are the Director's strengths and weaknesses? Are there areas in which the Director should place additional or fewer resources?

b. Space and resources. Is the space assigned to the unit adequate or reasonable from an overall campus perspective, in terms of footage and location? What specific changes would you recommend, if any? Does the Director have adequate control of space assigned to the unit, and has it been well utilized? Are necessary resources available to the unit and are they adequate.

c. Personnel. Is there adequate participation of faculty in the unit, both at the host campuses and on other campuses? Is the support staff adequate at the administrative headquarters?

d. Contract and grant administration. If the MRU administers faculty-generated grants and contracts, are the arrangements adequate and do the research projects receive appropriate levels of infrastructure support?

V. Advisory Committee(s). How effective is the Advisory Committee or committees in providing guidance to the Director? Does the Committee have a role in the MRU's faculty research competition(s) and in the graduate student dissertation competition, if one exists? If so, are potential conflicts of interest appropriately managed?

VI. Problems and needs. Are there significant problems or needs that prevent the MRU from fulfilling its mission effectively and what actions should be taken to address them?

VII. Comparison with other units. What are the MRU's unique contributions to the University that distinguish it from other apparently similar research or academic entities at UC? Is the unit's continuance as a separate entity justified and what would be lost if the unit did not exist?

VIII. Projections for next five years. Provide critical commentary on the Director's research and budget plan for the next five years.

IX. Conclusion and recommendations. The committee should summarize its recommendations for the future of the MRU, including but not limited to whether it should be continued and changes that might be needed in its structure and/or budget if it is continued. The committee should particularly consider whether the University would be best served by continuing with the MRU structure or whether some other structure would allow for achievement of the unit's goals and allow for more effective use of the MRU's funds.

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

A. Mission

II. Evidence of Accomplishment

A. Research

B. Undergraduate and Graduate Education

C. Recognition Beyond UC

D. Public Service and Outreach

III. Budget

IV. Governance and Administration

A. Director

B. Space and Resources

C. Personnel

D. Contract and Grant Administration

V. Advisory Committee

VI. Problems and Needs

VII. Comparison with other Units

VIII. Projections for Next Five Years

IX. Conclusions and Recommendations