Governance of School-Wide Centers

I. Overview

The Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, together with the Office of the Provost, has establish policies to govern school-wide centers to advance interdisciplinary scholarship. School-wide centers focus on a thematic area of strategic importance and generally have dedicated physical space where a critical mass of interdisciplinary faculty have their offices, laboratory, or other mission-related space.  School-Wide Centers must be approved by the Dean, the Dean and Executive Vice President for the Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC), and the Provost, President, and Trustees of the University.   Given the level of rigor involved in obtaining University-level approval, MSPH has created the following guidelines to assure that School-Wide Centers are aligned with School and University expectations. The objectives, criteria and governance of such centers are described below. 

II. Background Rationale for 21st Century Interdisciplinary Centers and Their Relationship to Columbia Mailman and its Departments.

A. The Evolving Organizational Structure of Academia:

Historically, schools have been organized by discipline-specific departments. Each department exercises a degree of autonomy in the hiring of faculty and staff and the development and execution of curricula. Columbia Mailman School of Public Health has six departments that serve as the basis for disciplinary expertise and excellence and the base for disciplinary research and education.  This disciplinary grounding and the faculty with this expertise are essential contributors to interdisciplinary endeavors.   These departments are also the source of academic appointments of officers of instruction and for tenure at the university.  

As the field of public health advances, many critical research questions require concentrated efforts across multiple disciplines. In recognition of this need, centers that span the research of multiple departments have become an important component of the research within the school. Centers advance knowledge in a focused area and are organized primarily to conduct research, while departmental programs maintain core responsibility for instruction.  School-Wide Centers may contribute to the educational mission of the School by providing instruction in their unique areas of focus and expertise, although the scope, target audience, and delivery methods may differ.  In MSPH, the rationale for School-Wide Centers is the compelling need for  concentrated interdisciplinary expertise in a specific area of importance in public health. They enable a sustained base for interdisciplinary science and translation that engages multiple departments and schools in an area of import to the public’s health and aligned with the School’s strategic goals.  Knowledge will often be translated by the School-Wide Center into innovative policy and service on the thematic area.  Such interdisciplinary science would involve faculty from multiple Departments of the School.  It may also extend to faculty in the larger CUIMC and university communities. The School-Wide Center would catalyze interdisciplinary scholarship through its resources, engaging its faculty and faculty across the school and beyond around its thematic area.  It would also offer the opportunity to inform school-and university-wide research, practice and training/education as relates to its focused area. Interdepartmental programs of education can be amplified in effectiveness, in certain circumstances, if located or anchored in the School-Wide Center with this focused thematic and interdisciplinary expertise. 

B.   Potential Synergies:

Both Departments & School-Wide Centers:

• • Must have a commitment and capability to support innovation in science, service, and education to serve the public’s health.

  • The goals and facilitating structures of the School-Wide Center may need to be modified over time as needs and capabilities evolve to maximize opportunity for synergy.

Benefits to Departments of having cutting-edge thematic, interdisciplinary Centers:

Renowned thematic, interdisciplinary centers should enhance the ability to create cutting edge research, programs and education in areas of great import to the public good and advance the work of Departmental faculty beyond what a uniquely disciplinary focus can accomplish. This enhances our school’s ability to recruit and retain top scientists  and students.  School-Wide Centers thus increase the competitive stature of the affiliated departments and school.  School-Wide Centers should increase the competitive success of grants in key interdisciplinary areas, thus increasing the indirect costs to the school.  School-Wide Center faculty can play a critical role in mentoring and training of Departmental students, as well as enhance extramural funding for all faculty at the School. As all of the faculty hold appointments within the academic departments, the departments benefit from the world-class activities occurring within the centers

Benefits to School-Wide Centers of synergies with Departments:

Interdisciplinary centers can be most successful in a university with their inclusion of a critical mass of faculty with strong scholarly  expertise, as well as collaborating affiliate faculty, for the asking and answering of relevant, and cutting edge, interdisciplinary questions, and impactful translation of research on this topic area.   Faculty with departmental academic appointments can reside in, or be affiliated with, School-Wide Center, in relationships that are synergistic for faculty and departments and serve the mission of the School. Centers are most successful when they and the Departments can attract outstanding faculty and students and, together, support effective faculty development and research infrastructure and a greater ability to address interdisciplinary problems could happen in a single department. Partnership with department on appointments, career development, and tenure of center faculty.

C.  The Balance of Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Structures:

A mature school of public health creates a balance of disciplinary and interdisciplinary organizational structures within and across departments, structures that interact and synergize, in a matrix organization.  For the Mailman School of Public Health, in which cutting-edge science must include interdisciplinary loci, this is critical for competitiveness as well as scientific advances needed in key areas.   In education, the office of the Vice Dean for Education can oversee many interdepartmental educational programs. In selected cases, this will require educational programs being based, anchored or coordinated in a School-Wide Center; in others it will warrant an identified cross-departmental consortium of faculty not organized into a “center” but with named responsibility for an interdepartmental program of instruction, such as in a certificate program. Such programs will require approval at the Dean level and these criteria are currently being developed.

Back to top

III. Criteria for Creation and Continuation of a School-Wide Center

These criteria have been developed by the leadership of the school including the Dean, Vice Deans, Department Chairs, and Center Directors. The Office of the Vice Dean for Research Strategy and Innovation will oversee the development of new School-wide Centers and the oversight of existing School-wide Centers.

A. The topic area is of critical importance to the public’s health and of central importance to the school and its mission, and demanding innovative interdisciplinary science of a sustained nature.   

B. The objectives of the School-Wide Center can be addressed more effectively in an interdisciplinary matrix organization than in a Department or Department-based Center, and require physical co-location of faculty, staff and, sometimes, students, over a sustained period to meet these goals.  The scientific and programmatic potential resulting from the formation of the Center must be of sufficient value to warrant the investment. The Center must contribute to the research, should support the educational and service missions of the School, and will significantly amplify leadership and accomplishments in the Center’s content area. 

C. The achievement of  the objectives of the Center requires active collaboration with faculty from multiple Departments of the School and other entities at the University.

D. Effective approaches to fostering synergies between the Center and Departments and other entities at the University are provided, thus encouraging engagement of many disciplines that builds on the Center’s area of focus. 

See full expectations below under contents of proposal for creation or renewal of a center, XI.

Back to top

IV. Administrative Status of School-Wide Centers with a Unique Physical Location

A. School-wide centers are created by the Dean, with the approval of the Executive Vice President of CUIMC and the Provost

B. Directors of School-Wide Centers are appointed by the Dean and report directly to the Dean or his/her designee in their role as School-Wide Center Directors.   School-Wide Center Directors also have a reporting relationship to their academic appointing Department Chair on departmental academic matters. 

C. School-Wide Centers are operating units of the school and, as such, are administratively independent of the School’s Departments and have budgetary and management authority and responsibility for their work. 

C. Directors of School-Wide Centers have the responsibility for ensuring that their Centers meet their strategic, programmatic, and financial objectives, create strong and enduring mutually beneficial synergies across departments at the School and with other schools at the University, are financially self-supporting over the long term, and comply with regulatory requirements and leadership and management responsibilities. This may include the development of appropriate interdisciplinary educational programs whose area of focus align with the objectives of the SWC. Such programs can reside in and be administered by the SWC if the appropriate agreements are in place. 

E. School-Wide Centers can appoint officers of research.   These individuals do not have teaching responsibilities, but they may contribute to departmental or School-Wide Centers-related teaching activities.

F. School-Wide Center directors and center faculty with appropriate goals and qualifications, and with the concurrence of the Department Chair, will hold faculty appointments in one of the School’s Departments.

G. School-Wide Centers can appoint officers of administration.  The Center Administrator has a dual reporting relationship to the Center Director and to the School’s Vice Dean for Finance and Administration.

Back to top

V. Financial Relationship of School-Wide Centers with Departments and the School

A. Centers are responsible for having a balanced budget without annual deficit. Directors should work with the Vice Dean for Finance and Administration to assure the financial plan is sound.

B. Due to the dual reporting relationships of Center faculty to both their Center director and Department Chairs, and the responsibilities of each leader to the faculty member based in a specific School-Wide Center (SWC), there needs to be a priori discussion of: career goals, salary guarantee, responsibilities to Center and Department and these should be articulated in the MOU between the SWC Director and the Department Chair and approved by the Dean. For core SWC faculty, grants are to be submitted through the SWC, their administrative home, as per established MSPH guidance. For affiliate faculty in a SWC, grants are to be submitted through the administrative departmental home of the faculty member. Any alternative arrangement must be specified in the MOU.

C. For cross-School projects, formulas have been developed, with a goal of standardization, for sharing of research support provided by the Dean.  These formulas, are applicable to School-wide Centers and to Departments.

Back to top

VI. Financial Expectations of School-Wide Centers

A. The expectation is that School-Wide Centers will cover all direct and allocated overhead costs.  The annual budgets of School-wide Centers and Departments will be determined by the School’s budget model.

B. It is recognized that School-Wide Centers might require an investment of School resources during the first 1-3 years of operation.  After that, the goal is for them to be self-supporting through external funding sources, philanthropic support, and other sources. 

C. As the research landscape in public health evolves and funding streams change, it may be necessary to close a School-Wide Center, or create a new School-Wide Center. The opening or closing of a School-Wide Center could have sudden negative financial consequences for Departments and the School, including loss of indirect costs, changes in responsibilities for faculty salaries, teaching commitments, and space disruptions.   In deciding to create a new Center – especially one growing out of a Department, or to close an existing Center, the Dean’s office, in concert with the affected Department Chair(s) and the Center Director, will identify a transition strategy; this would include a continuing, multi-year allocation  of research support, financial responsibilities and space between the Center and the Department – and the School if appropriate, and would recognize the role of Departmental efforts in the creation and maintenance of Centers.

Back to top

VII. Leadership Responsibilities of Directors of School-Wide Centers

A. School-Wide Center Directors are senior leaders in the Mailman School and share with other School leaders the responsibility to serve as internal and external representatives of both their SWC and the School, to work in the best interests of both the SWC and the School, to enhance their appointing Departments, and to participate in the development and implementation of School objectives and policies.   In these regards,

1.  The Dean will convene periodic meetings of the School-Wide Center Directors for discussions of matters of mutual interest and concern.

2. The Dean will include Center directors in meetings of the Dean’s Advisory Group and the Policy Advisory Committee where issues of importance to all operating units are discussed.

B. Center directors are expected to have leadership and management expertise and will receive formal evaluation by the Dean and the advisory committee of their performance in these arenas.  

C. Center directors share with the other School leaders the responsibility to create a diverse and inclusive workforce and an environment that is characterized by respect and collegiality, and to adhere to human resources requirements and expectations.

D. School-Wide Center Directors are responsible for setting a high standard of excellence for all aspects of the Center’s work.

E. School-Wide Center directors are responsible for the successful career development of Center faculty, staff and students.  This responsibility includes the provision of high caliber mentorship, annual feedback to faculty, staff and students, as well as provision of sufficient opportunities for professional development to support career success.   For SWC faculty with Departmental appointments, this responsibility is shared with the appointing Department Chair.   School-Wide Center Directors are responsible to work collaboratively with the appropriate Department Chair(s) on recruiting faculty to Centers who are seeking positions as officers of instruction.  Once faculty are appointed, Center Director and Department Chair should work collaboratively on faculty development goals, and on defining faculty responsibilities to Center and to Department, for Center faculty with appointments in a Department.

F. Center directors are responsible for identifying and creating significant and enduring opportunities for synergies with Departments and the School, and working with Chairs and Dean to implement them. 

G. If the Director of a School-Wide Center sees the need to modify the mission of the Center, the Dean should be formally notified in advance and a formal evaluation of the appropriate institutional positioning of the new mission will be implemented by the Dean.

Back to top

VIII. Academic Appointments for Center Faculty, and Their Educational Responsibilities

A. Research scientists may be appointed in a School-Wide Center, without a Departmental appointment; under these circumstances, Research Scientists would have no Departmental responsibilities.   Research scientists are officers of research, and may only take on instructional assignments under special circumstances.

B. Professors are officers of instruction and must be appointed in one of the Departments of the School. 

1. Professors recruited as Center faculty will be selected jointly with the appointing Department, recognizing that such faculty appointments require a commitment by the Department, and the faculty member has responsibilities to their Departments as well as Centers. The terms of the respective responsibilities must be delineated in an MOU.
2. The promotion authority for professors is under the purview of the appointing Department Chair.  In appointment and promotion issues involving SWC faculty, the Department Chair will seek the recommendation of the Center Director.

C. The expectation is that a School-Wide Center will have core faculty who each have appointments in one (or more) of the School’s Departments, and collaborate across multiple departments at the School and/or with other schools at Columbia University.   This core School-Wide Center faculty must both advance the mission of the Center as well as develop close working relationships with the chair and faculty in their academic Departments. These relationships will help to ensure that the Center remains truly interdisciplinary and school-wide, and that the scientific work is the richest and most competitive possible, and that synergies with Departments are strong.

D. All faculty members holding departmental instructional appointments retain departmental responsibilities including attending Departmental faculty meetings, mentoring, and contributing to the teaching mission where appropriate; this includes center-based officers of instruction who are primarily funded through grants based at a Center.  Unless other arrangements are negotiated and specified in writing at the time a faculty member initially joins a Center, or in subsequent renegotiation, financial support for the time required to meet non-teaching departmental obligations will be provided by the Center.  

E. Compensation for teaching. Although Centers are primarily research focused, there are times when Center faculty participate in the educational mission of the School through classroom teaching. Center faculty should be compensated in a manner consistent with School and department practices. Typically, teaching is compensated by the home department of the faculty member. It is also possible that a Center may develop its own educational offerings. If the Center receives tuition for such offerings then the Center is responsible for compensating the faculty for teaching.

Back to top

IX. Fostering Synergies

Each School-wide Center will meet periodically with an internal faculty advisory committee comprised of 2 or more Department Chairs, School-Wide Center directors, and deans as appropriate, all appointed by the Dean.  The Committee will serve as a resource to School-Wide Center Directors and will work to enhance interaction between each Center and other units of the School.  The committee will prepare a report to the Dean at 2.5- and 5-year points on the needs of the SWC and on performance in regards to creating and realizing opportunities for synergies.

Back to top

X. Proposing, Reviewing and Decision-Making to Create or Renew a School-Wide Center

The Dean determines the decision to create a School-Wide Center, or to renew it.  This is done with the advice of an ad hoc committee advisory to the Dean (see below for composition), which will review the proposal to initiate the center, conduct a mid-point review (at 2.5 years between initiation and first 5 year review), and a review every 5 years after the creation of the center to evaluate its success and sustainability. 5-year reviews will include external reviewers in addition to the internal members. The committee will review the documentation and conduct in-person reviews of the School-Wide Center, including criteria for a School-Wide Center, below, and advise the Dean on appropriateness and success by various criteria, and how to strengthen success.

As a result of the review, Centers which have a compelling interdisciplinary mission for the next 5 years which is aligned with the strategic goals of the school will be initiated by the Dean, with approval from the Executive Vice President of CUIMC and the Provost, or receive permission at 5-year review to continue with the evolved mission that is proposed.  Those that no longer meet criteria for a School-Wide Center will be transitioned into a more appropriate structure. 

Back to top

XI. Criteria for a School-Wide Center

The proposer(s) should develop a document for the Dean that details the following criteria for a School-wide Center:

• A vision statement, long-term mission and strategic objectives and short-term (5-year) goals for the proposed School-Wide Center, with explanation of rationale and alignment with school’s strategic vision and the needs of public health, and added value that the SWC would confer to the school, departments and the university;
• Analysis of the needs, as well as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis) that the SWC is addressing (or current status of center and its accomplishments presently and for the future if under review for renewal),
• The proposal will identify metrics of success and outcomes by which the center should be evaluated.  The output of the SWC will be key, especially scientific, educational, transnational, and leadership; other metrics of success include financial resources, administrative capabilities, leadership and management effectiveness, strong staff and infrastructure, morale, diversity and human resources.
• Organizational chart, governance structure and business plan, including projected financial plans for funding and balanced budget over the long-term; the latter would include projected staffing, recruitment needs and space requirements, and approaches to accomplishing a diverse and inclusive environment.  
• The plan would identify the center and faculty needed as core faculty of the Center to be recruited faculty already residing in a department, and departments in which they would be appointed
• Center training objectives, if any, and educational opportunities envisioned need to be clearly defined; roles for students, departments in which they would be appointed; rationale for training and education must be clearly specified, especially why educational programs should be delivered in center rather than department, along with synergies with departmentally-based education. These interdisciplinary programs must be developed and reviewed by the Vice Dean for Education and approved by DAG and the Dean’s office.

Back to top

XII. Procedures for Proposing the Creation of a School-Wide Center

The proposer(s) will create a written proposal for the new School-Wide Center and detail how it would meet the criteria above.  The proposer(s) will then review this with the Dean.  If the Dean considers the proposal appropriate for consideration in terms of the criteria above, it will then undergo school-wide review by an Advisory committee appointed by the Dean.   The advisory committee will make a recommendation to the Dean. 

Back to top

XIII. Approval of a School-Wide Center is Conferred by the Dean and the Executive Vice President of CUIMC

A. If approved by the Dean, the Dean will inform the Dean’s Advisory Group, the School’s Policy Advisory Committee and then seek approval for the new Center by the Executive Vice President of CUIMC and the Provost.

B. Approval by the Executive Vice President for CUIMC and Provost for CU is required for the formation of a new Center.  It may be requested for a maximum of 5 years.  Centers must be renewed and such renewal must be requested 6 months prior to the end of the 5-year term.

C. The outcome, of either approval for an additional 5-year term or decision to transition the school-wide center to a different status, is dependent on formal review, and is a decision of the Dean, with approval by the Executive Vice President of CUIMC.

Back to top

XIV. Procedures for School-Wide Center Reviews

A. Overview: 

Each School-Wide Center will be evaluated at the time of the proposal to initiate a Center, as above, and then re-reviewed every 5 years.   In the first 5-year cycle there will also be an interim, briefer, review at 2.5 years.  The review committee for the 5-year review will be selected by the Dean, and will consist of at least 3 Department Chairs, a School-Wide Center Director, relevant Deans, others as appointed by the Dean, and reviewer(s) external to Columbia with content expertise relevant to the Center. The Dean will be an Ex officio member.

B. Reviews to be conducted:

• Initial review – described above
• 2.5 year, mid-term, interim review – in the first 5-year cycle of a center to advise both the Center Director and Dean on midpoint success towards meeting originally established goals, concerns and correctives needed. Financial metrics will also be reviewed.
• The 5-year review – metrics for evaluation will include: address success in meeting goals for the School-Wide Center established originally, understand its evolution over time, and assess the proposed vision, mission, leadership and goals for the next 5 years.  Attention will be directed to assessing whether goals for the next 5 years meet criteria for an interdisciplinary school-wide center, the conditions for future success, and alignment with the school’s vision and strategic goals.  

C.The review committee will forward assessment and recommendations to the Dean. 

If the Dean’s determination is that the assessment warrants continuation of the School-wide Center, she/he will seek CUIMC and Provost approval for continuation of the School-Wide Center. If the metrics of success are not met, or the utility of the Center as a School-wide unit has diminished, or the mission is no longer a priority, a Center could be transitioned to a new operating structure as appropriate.

Assessment of success to date:

(1) Success in meeting outcomes and metrics for School-Wide Center and meeting vision and goals of center as originally established, and other criteria detailed above;
(2) Significance of contributions to the public’s health;
(3)  Alignments and synergies of the SWC’s activities with the Departments and School: Contributions of the School to the Center and of the Center to the School and Departments in the prior 5 years and what is proposed for the renewal period;
(4)  Effectiveness of Center leadership and management;
(5) Career development and diversity of Center staff and faculty;
(6)  If teaching is involved in the SWC’s activities, the import of the educational program and the excellence of the teaching, and rationale for Center-led education.  Evidence of synergies with Departmentally-led education;
(7)  Financial success and long-term sustainability.

D. Future goals: 

This will be based on vision and plans articulated in the proposal and in-person review by committee, and will include attention to:

(1) Significance for public health of next stage goals;

(2) Alignment with goals of School;

(3) Whether the goals, activities and outcomes proposed for the School-Wide Center’s next 5 years are significant and appropriate next-stage goals for progression of this Center, are necessitated by need for interdisciplinary, cross-departmental science and co-location of scientists, and are truly interdisciplinary.

(4) Whether the proposed Center will create win-wins for the school, multiple departments and schools, and the public’s health;

(5) Financial rationale, effective business plan, and sustainability.

Back to top