Annual Faculty Review.

Faculty with primary appointments at SPH complete a self-assessment form each January and meet with their department chairs each February. Primary faculty may access the Annual Faculty Review form at https://facdev.bumc.bu.edu/.

The AFR is designed to incorporate the above principles and the expectations described in Section V.2, providing the basis for a productive annual meeting between each faculty member and his or her department chair. The process focuses on faculty activities as summarized on the CV and has three sections:

1. Data required for CEPH accreditation and for continuous quality improvement.
2. Looking back. A reflection on the past year as highlighted on an updated CV.
3. Looking ahead. A plan for the year ahead, which serves as the basis for the annual letter.

The collection of data for CEPH accreditation and for the school’s continuous quality improvement efforts are not a formal component of the AFR; however, these data are collected here for convenience so that data collection from faculty only happens once per year. The annual meeting with the department chair focuses on a discussion of Part II (Looking back) and Part III (Looking ahead).

Annual Performance:
Faculty performance is evaluated during the Annual Faculty Review based on the success with which each faculty member completed their particular mix of activities as agreed at the previous year’s meeting and in accordance with faculty expectations described in Section V.2. With the flexibility to customize a mix of activities and the support of a robust portfolio of faculty development resources, the goal is to ensure that every faculty member at SPH is put in the best possible position to meet expectations, to advance their career, and in turn advance the mission of the School. Typically, the vast majority of the faculty will receive an overall rating of Meets Expectations, with Exceptional reserved for faculty who should be recognized for extraordinary performance during the year and Below Expectations reserved for faculty who are underperforming.

During the year, a faculty member who is concerned that they may not be on track to meet expectations should be in communication with their department chair to discuss the situation and strategize together about best next steps. Similarly, if a department chair is concerned that a faculty member may not be on track to meet expectations, then they should be in communication with the faculty member to discuss the situation and strategize together about best next steps. The earlier such concerns are raised, the sooner steps can be taken to ensure the faculty member receives the necessary support.

At the end of the year, if a faculty member receives an overall assessment of below expectations at their annual review, the department chair will provide specific feedback in writing and work with the faculty member to develop a plan to meet expectations the following year. The plan should include intermediate deadlines/milestones as well as quarterly meetings with the department chair with the goal to help the faculty member get back on track.

It is worth noting that one scenario that can unnecessarily lead to unmet expectations is when a faculty member does not communicate their plans to reduce their activities as part of a transition to retirement. To avoid such situations and provide flexibility for faculty, SPH has developed the SPH Faculty Phased Retirement Program (see Section VII.10). This program provides an opportunity to propose a customized mix of professional activities outside of the standard salary coverage expectations during the years preceding retirement.

Written Warnings:
As the academic environment becomes increasingly complex and competitive, it can be challenging for faculty to have excellent metrics every year. A single “down year” should not be cause for alarm, recognizing that circumstances can vary considerably. Importantly, receiving an overall assessment of below expectations is not the same as receiving a written warning, which is issued in cases where underperformance continues for two years or longer. Additionally, the details surrounding a single down year must be considered. For example:

• For a faculty member focused on research activities, a year in which the faculty member made a great effort to obtain grants is much different than one in which the faculty member submitted no grants and therefore enters the next year with limited prospects for funding.
• If a faculty member has a difficult year teaching because they are teaching a course for the first time or had difficulty integrating an innovative new approach, it is not as concerning as a faculty member who receives poor evaluations year after year.
• If a faculty member with a record of consistently engaging in citizenship and service has a year of limited activity, it is less of a concern than a faculty member who rarely engages.

Such nuance is part of any consideration when determining whether a faculty member met expectations in any given year and when determining whether a written warning may be necessary, always with the goal of developing a plan that will position the faculty member to be successful moving forward.

Continuance of Appointment:
The appointment and continuance policies for faculty on the Medical Campus are described in the Boston University Faculty Handbook. The criteria for continuance are described as follows:

• Although faculty members holding rolling or term appointments are eligible for continuance (unless otherwise specified in writing at the time of the appointment), continuance is neither inevitable nor routine. The decision not to continue an appointment shall be made by the department chair with the approval of the dean. Subject to institutional needs and goals, recommendations for non-continuance of appointments shall be based on merit as determined through evaluation of faculty performance.
• Institutional needs and goals involve consideration of such factors as academic needs of the program; availability of resources to support the program or position – financial as well as physical; and other institutional and programmatic considerations not directly related to the merit of the individual under consideration for continuance of the appointment.

At SPH, a non-continuance of appointment based on underperformance is only issued if a faculty member has received a written warning at least one year prior. A non-continuance will be issued if a faculty member who has received a written warning is unwilling or unable to address the underperformance. The goal is for the faculty member to return to good standing, but a non-continuance reflects cases where the department chair, and the school, are uncertain whether that is possible. A notice of non-continuance should clearly describe the grounds on which it is issued. The department chair must consult with, and secure approval from, the SPH Dean before a non-continuance notice is issued.

A non-continuance letter is a termination notice such that once the specified term is complete, the faculty member will no longer be employed by the University. Follow-up letters will be sent to the faculty member annually to ensure they are aware of the relevant details. However, if circumstances change following the issuance of a non-continuance notice, the department chair may make a recommendation to the Dean to consider offering a new faculty contract.

Depending on the interests of the faculty member and the needs of the School, the new faculty contract may be full-time, part-time, or variable engagement (in which the level engagement may increase or decrease during the year depending on available salary coverage). A rolling appointment may also be considered as part of the new contract. The Dean must approve the terms of all such offer letters.

Faculty who receive a non-continuance notice at SPH are still eligible to obtain a faculty position elsewhere within Boston University. Such an offer would be made by the Dean of the other school or college and is not within the control of SPH. However, if such a position is obtained, SPH will facilitate the transfer of the faculty member’s primary appointment.

Faculty with secondary or adjunct appointments at SPH meet with their department chair annually to discuss their engagement with SPH during the past year as well as their planned activities during the upcoming year. By itself, collaboration on a research project is not typically considered a sufficient justification for maintaining a secondary or adjunct faculty appointment at SPH. These faculty appointments are renewable on an annual basis.

All members of the SPH faculty, including primary, secondary, and adjunct faculty, receive an annual letter that summarizes the discussion with the department chair at the annual meeting. As such, the letter includes a summary of the performance review for the past year, a summary of the agreed upon plan for the coming year, and confirms the details of the faculty appointment (i.e., either a continuation or a renewal). The annual letter is intended to provide clarity for faculty and is consistent with administrative best practices. As the final step in the AFR process, the annual letter is signed by the chair, the Dean (or Dean’s designee), and the faculty member.

The AFR process is based on the calendar year (i.e., January 1 – December 31 of each year). Though the specific timeline is communicated each year, the following provides a general overview of the schedule:

• December/January: primary faculty complete the AFR form
• February/March: primary faculty have individual meetings with chair
• April: primary faculty receive annual letters
• May: secondary and adjunct faculty have individual meetings with chair
• June: secondary and adjunct faculty receive annual letters

Faculty and department chairs are encouraged to see the AFR as but one tool in a mutual and ongoing effort in faculty development at SPH. Faculty wishing to learn more about the AFR process or appeal their review may contact the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Advancement.