Annual Planning Report (APR) Guidelines

Preface for 2017-18 APR Request

While the main elements of the Annual Planning Report (APR) guidelines remain the same as last year, there are a few areas in which the Deans would appreciate your particular attention:

  • Diversity remains an important priority in Arts and Science and the University and we look forward to updates on the efforts of departments in this area. The request for this information appears in section 6.0.
  • Faculty mentoring is a new area of focus for the APR. The section requesting information on current practices and plans for development appears in section 7.0.
  • In its continuing efforts on affordability, the University is examining ways to reduce costs (by consolidating or re-negotiating contracts, etc.) which will result in reduced operating budgets. This in turn gives rise to a level of uncertainty in FAS for the current fiscal year. To responsibly address this uncertainty, increased funding for on-going operating support (including administrative staffing) or major capital requests will not be considered this year. Departments should instead focus their APR on the core priorities of faculty staffing and curricular coverage, examine ways to reallocate existing budgets, and if necessary, consider one-time requests.


The APR is required of all Arts & Science departments, programs, institutes, and centers each year unless an exception is made by the Dean's Office. It serves as both a progress report and an opportunity to provide strategic input in planning for the development of units over the next 3-5 year horizon by the Deans.

Preparation of the APR is a collaboration between the unit administrator and the chair or director of the unit.

For your reference, a collection of reports are available within OASIS, known as your Departmental Profile. These reports now also include a recent history of undergraduate counts across all CAS majors. Data are compiled from a variety of sources now including University census data, SISAlbert, Workday, UDW+, student surveys, and information provided by the department. Please contact the head of Institutional Research, David Vintinner, if you have any questions regarding these reports.

The deadline for APR submission is Friday, April 21, 2017. An electronic copy (Word document) should be sent as an email attachment to Randall Say in the Deans' Office. Please use the following naming convention: 18APR[unitname].doc.

Additionally, we ask that you adhere to the following formatting guidelines:

  • Title APR at the top left corner of the first page as such: Department Name Annual Planning Report 2017-2018
  • Follow the numbering system provided in the guidelines
  • Use Times New Roman, 12 point, black only
  • Set 1" margins (left and right) and justify paragraphs

The timing of responses to the APR depends in part on when the FAS budget is finalized with the University Administration, but our intention is to have responses released by June 30, 2017.

1.0 Executive Summary

Provide a brief synopsis (no more than 500 words or one to two pages) highlighting the strategic plans for the department or program in achieving its academic goals [e.g. snapshot of where the department stands (research profile), areas of strength/weakness and recent relevant rankings (primary peer competitors), description of efforts to increase diversity in the department (at all levels), directions of where the department wants to go, etc.].

1.1 Rank and Priority of APR Requests

Provide a short bulleted summary of the department’s highest priority requests (including relevant cost information).  Please rank your requests in order of the highest importance first. Note whether they will improve diversity and if internal resources can be redeployed to fund (all or in part) these needs. Given the reduced funding available, departments should refrain from proposing permanent on-going items (except for faculty recruitment proposals). Requests will only be considered if they are prioritized in this section.


2.0 Faculty Staffing

2.1 Provide a brief commentary on the results of any faculty searches conducted in the previous year indicating reasons for success or failure and any changes in recruitment strategies that may be suggested by the prior year experience.

2.2 Request faculty lines for the next recruitment cycle (including pre-approved lines) indicating rank and sub-field for each line and whether positions are replacements/conversions or incremental. Provide a brief justification for each position as well as an explanation on how it contributes to the distinct excellence of a department, potential to address diversity needs, how it is synergistic with other schools and units throughout the GNU and how it contributes to the University achieving world class status. Please include any proposals for joint hires involving the Abu Dhabi and Shanghai portal campuses or the Global study away sites. If necessary as part of a particular recruitment, provide an estimate of startup funds and identify contributions of departmental funding sources that can be made.

2.3 Provide information on potential departures and describe any significant impacts on the department's curriculum, administration, and research profile. As with all faculty hiring, replacements for faculty departures are not automatic and must be proposed and approved as part of the APR process.

3.0 Curriculum & Enrollment Planning (Fall & Spring)

Course Enrollments

[Data entry in OASIS is required as the basis in supporting the adjunct budget request of a unit. FAS Fiscal Affairs will be in contact later in the Spring term with the deadlines to establish adjunct budgets. Information should be kept up to date as enrollment projections and course offerings change throughout the spring and summer terms. As a best practice, please be careful to compare course staffing budgets and expenses from prior years to ensure OASIS represents the full course staffing need for the next academic year (adjuncts, graders, class assistants, etc.). Also, please add to OASIS any appointments for ‘other-duties’ such as thesis advising and tutoring so budgets may be established for these expenses.]

3.1 Provide relevant information related to proposed changes to the historically funded adjunct budget:

  • Changes in course offerings (i.e., new courses being offered because of a new MA program)
  • Changes in enrollment/student interest (i.e., increases in majors, fewer enrollments because of increased offerings at Global Study Away sites)
  • Justification of instructor pay rates above the minimum

3.2 Provide information on the use of technology in the curriculum. As a reminder, the FAS Office of Education Technology (Armanda Lewis) is a helpful point of contact.

  • Provide a current assessment of the curriculum and technology use
  • Provide information on the future direction the faculty envisions for technology use
  • Submit proposals for courses (changes in modality for groups of courses, etc.)

3.3 Please indicate here (yes/no) whether your department or program has completed and uploaded to ASIS the GSAS Academic Excellence Checklist. The FAS Office of Institutional Research uses the data to calculate time-to-degree averages and compile other important information about your graduate program(s).

4.0 Operating Budget

4.1 The Operating Budget section provides the opportunity to request funding that will support the priorities of the department. As noted in the preface, while there will be limited one-time funding available for curricular and program needs, any requests for capital or increases in administrative staffing, or on-going operating support are not possible given budgetary constraints this year. It is recommended that requests be reviewed in advance with the relevant administrative directors to determine the appropriateness of requests and how it will support the academic goals of the unit.

4.2 Departments and programs that have accumulated large balances (in excess of $250,000) in NYU Abu Dhabi and NYU Shanghai funds are requested to provide a detailed 3-year plan on use of these funds in this section of the APR. A minimum spend rate of 20% per year must be proposed.

4.3 Graduate summer study abroad program budgets were separated from the main summer budget. In order to review these needs, departments are asked to provide (1) information on the prior summer costs (including students enrolled, basis for costs and other relevant program information) and (2) proposals for any changes in future summer sessions.

5.0 Global Network University

Please provide a brief commentary on the department or program's current participation as part of the Global Network University (GNU).

In order to ensure a coordinated effort and communication among offices, please provide information on:

  • Faculty circulation in the GNU.  List all teaching assignments in Abu Dhabi, Shanghai or any of the Global study away sites. Include all planned assignments for 2017-18 and all proposals for 2018-19 and beyond.  Describe any budgetary impact and possible funding sources.
  • Curricular initiatives/offerings that your department may be involved with in the integration with the GNU
  • Graduate student circulation in the GNU

Be advised that all staffing and curricular changes must first be approved by the FAS Deans, including circulation to portal campuses in Abu Dhabi, Shanghai or any of the Global study away sites.

6.0 Diversity

The engagement of the many departments, faculty, staff and students in the Diversity Initiative is very much appreciated. We look forward to hearing about the activities departments have instituted to enhance the student experience and ensure faculty have the tools needed to foster inclusive classrooms. Please provide in this section (i) a brief update of the department's ongoing efforts to foster and increase diversity at the faculty, graduate, and undergraduate levels, and (ii) plans for programs, academic initiatives, or other ideas from the department that will address those same areas. Should you have any questions, please reach out to Carly Rose DiGiovanni in the FAS Deans Office.

7.0 Faculty Mentoring

In February, the Dean’s Advisory Committee on Policy and Planning submitted a report on best practices and recommendations for faculty mentoring (see below). In this section, please provide (i) a brief report on current practices for faculty mentoring (at all levels), and (ii) plans to institute other “Recommendations for Departments” identified in the report that are not already happening and a timeline for their implementation. The Office of the Associate Dean for Faculty Advancement will (separately) send you a list of faculty in the various groups (Junior, Mid-Career, and Continuing Contract Faculty) as you consider your plans. Should you have any questions, please contact your Divisional Dean.

8.0 Summer and Special Sessions

8.1 Planning and Budgets for Summer and January Terms

Arts and Science summer offerings are comprised of individual courses at Washington Square, programs both in New York and away, and the special pre-college sections for the NYU Precollege program (NYC). Please keep in mind summer is the only term where graduate students are given the opportunity to teach standalone courses.

At this time, Arts and Science January offerings are comprised of individual courses on Washington Square only. Please note that salary for January term courses is paid through the department's operational budget. Requests to cover this additional compensation and the associated fringe expenses should be noted here and added to section 3.0 Curriculum & Enrollment Planning and section 4.0 Operating Budget of the APR.

Please provide relevant information related to proposed changes to the historically funded activities for these programs:

  • Changes in course offerings or scheduling
  • Changes in enrollment/student interest
  • Changes in instructor types/assignment
  • Changes for any co-curricular programming activities

8.2 Proposals for New Washington Square Courses and Programs

If your department is planning to offer any new summer or special sessions courses or programs at Washington Square, please provide the following information:

  • Existing or proposed Course Number (new course proposals must be vetted by the UCC)
  • Existing or proposed course description
  • Justification for why you think this course will generate interest and minimum enrollments
  • Anticipated Costs involved in running the course (include instructor's salary and information on faculty staffing for the course)
  • For new program proposals, suggested list of co-curricular activities and anticipated costs

We encourage you to think about offering courses with a potential for high enrollment in the summer, May intensive and January terms. Proposals for new courses on campus for 2017-2018 must be included in the APR in order to be considered.

8.3 Proposals for New Study Away Programs

Study away programs require more extensive planning and additional administrative responsibility on the part of the program or department.  In addition, the viability of any proposals for new study abroad summer programs will be evaluated in the context of University plans for the global study away sites.

If a faculty member in your department wishes to propose a new undergraduate study away program, please contact Noelle Marchetta to discuss requirements for a program proposal that must be submitted along with the APR.




Faculty Mentoring in Arts & Sciences: Best Practices
Dean’s Advisory Committee on Policy & Planning, December 2016

Ada Ferrer & Carol Sternhell, co-chairs; Oliver Buhler, Patrick Eichenberger, Phillip Harper, Jill Lane, Fred Myers, Carol Reiss, Ben Stewart, Jim Uleman

Over the last ten years, more and more research universities have established formal mentorship programs for faculty. The reasons for this are obvious. First, studies have found that individuals who are mentored have greater success across many areas, from compensation and promotions to job satisfaction and career commitment. (Allen, et al., 2004, quoted in Columbia University, Best Practices for Mentoring). While mentoring does happen at NYU, there is no formal program or statement of best practices; a survey of department chairs indicated that mentoring is uneven across departments and divisions, often informal, and not consistently evaluated or sustained.

The FAS Policy and Planning Committee has studied best practices for mentoring across a range of universities, including Bryn Mawr College, UC-Berkeley, UCLA, Columbia University, Florida State University, Harvard University, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and SUNY Stony Brook. Based on our reading of policies in place at those institutions and our own experiences as NYU faculty members, we recommend that FAS institute a formal program for mentoring faculty, including new faculty, junior faculty, associate professors, and continuing contract faculty. Specifically, we recommend a mentoring system that combines the efforts (and resources) of the dean’s office and individual departments and divisions. At all levels, it is important that whatever program is instituted have some mechanism for oversight, evaluation, and sustainability.

Many of the policies and practices we recommend are in fact already in place within FAS—but in many cases, we were not aware of them ourselves. That lack of communication and coordination reflects a longstanding complaint at NYU. One recommendation, thus, is a greatly improved web presence on the topic of mentoring throughout the university. We found excellent examples at other schools, with everything from statements of philosophy to long lists of resources.1 By contrast, on NYU’s website a search for “mentoring” or “faculty mentoring” yields information about mentoring for diverse faculty from the vice provost’s office and a junior faculty mentoring program at Steinhardt, but nothing university wide or specifically within FAS. We recommend that once a robust program is developed, the Faculty of Arts and Science create a web page on mentoring, including philosophy, practical recommendations, and resources.

Mentoring Junior Faculty
Most discussions of mentoring focus on junior tenure-track faculty, and for obvious reasons. We also considered—and will discuss below—mid-career mentoring of associate professors and mentoring of continuing contract faculty, but begin with the crucial years between hiring and tenure. Mentoring new faculty is a key responsibility both of the dean’s office and of the faculty member’s department.

Recommendations for the Dean’s Office (some of this is already happening)

  • Hold an orientation for new faculty. This orientation should be held as early as possible in the semester, or even before the start of term. (Several people told us that the current orientations happen too late in the semester to be as useful as they can be.)
  • Continue dean-level mentoring meetings beyond Year 1 (as is currently done in Humanities).
  • Hold workshops specifically about third-year review and tenure.
  • Offer comprehensive teaching workshops and/or opportunities to discuss pedagogy with colleagues from other departments. These need not be limited to junior faculty and should be open to both tenure-track and continuing faculty.
  • Offer additional workshops about such topics as work-life balance or managing service.2
  • Update and improve the FAS mentoring website.
  • Offer new faculty at least one meeting with Jonathan Lipman during the first year to discuss the tenure process.
  • Consider assigning both a departmental mentor and a mentor from a different department, someone who won’t be involved on the junior faculty member’s tenure committee (something the FAS Women’s Faculty Caucus did in the past).
  • Hold a meeting for chairs and mentors to discuss successful mentoring practices, and make mentoring resources available to them.
  • Pay particular attention to the mentoring of diverse faculty and women (in departments where women faculty are less than 25%), and make sure they’re aware of FAS-wide and university-wide resources (like the Faculty of Color Caucus or the Provost’s “Diversity Dinners”).
  • Make it clear to department chairs that mentoring of faculty is an FAS priority.

Recommendations for Departments

  • Assign formal mentors to all incoming junior faculty. (In some departments it might work best if the mentor is in the junior faculty member’s field, but other departments might prefer to choose a mentor who won’t be as directly involved in the faculty member’s eventual tenure decision.)
  • Offer an orientation session for new faculty that includes a meeting with departmental staff and a general introduction to NYU procedures (even simple tasks like ordering books, IT support, and facilities-related matters). This should happen as early as possible.
  • Make sure chairs meet with junior faculty at least once a semester.
  • Offer clear guidelines about third-year review and tenure. This can be done in individual meetings with the chair or—if a department has several junior faculty members in a cohort—in a group meeting.
  • Chairs should meet with both mentors and mentees to make sure mentoring is actually taking place and is serving its purpose.

Mentoring Mid-Career (and sometimes more Senior) Faculty
Recommendations for the Dean’s Office

  • Keep in touch with chairs about the progress of mid-career faculty.
  • Monitor department compliance with new guidelines that ask chairs to assess whether faculty who have been at the associate level for seven years or more are suitable candidates for promotion to full.

Recommendations for Departments

  • Offer new associate professors clear guidelines about expectations for promotion to full professor.
  • If a faculty member has spent seven years as an associate professor without applying for promotion, chairs should evaluate the faculty member to determine if s/he would be an appropriate candidate for promotion. If not, chairs should meet with the associate professor and offer guidance.
  • In some departments it might make sense to offer new associate professors a more senior mentor.

Mentoring Continuing Contract Faculty
Recommendations for the Dean's Office

  • Hold an orientation for new contract faculty at the beginning of the academic year.
  • Offer comprehensive teaching workshops and/or opportunities to discuss pedagogy with colleagues from other departments. Contract faculty can be included in the same workshops offered to junior tenure-track faculty.
  • Consider that many of our recommendations concerning tenure-track faculty—out-of-department mentoring, workshops for mentors, mentoring of diverse faculty, improving the website—also apply to continuing faculty.

Recommendations for Departments

  • Newly hired contract faculty members should be provided with a mentor, perhaps a more senior member of the contract faculty. In some departments, with few contract faculty members, it might make more sense to provide the new colleague with a tenured faculty mentor.
  • Like tenure-track faculty, contract faculty should be offered clear guidelines about promotion. This can be done in individual meetings with the chair, in meetings with the mentor, or—if a department has several junior contract faculty members in a cohort—in a group meeting. For Language Lecturers, in the penultimate year of their contract prior to promotion to Senior Language Lecturer, they should be provided with a mentor who has been through the promotion process.
  • Responsibilities should be spelled out. Tenure-track faculty understand that they’re expected to conduct research and to publish, but the requirements for contract faculty are less clear and tend to vary by department.
  • Offer an orientation session for new faculty that includes a meeting with departmental staff and a general introduction to NYU procedures (even simple tasks like ordering books, IT support, and facilities-related matters).
  • Make sure chairs meet with continuing faculty members at least once each semester.
  • Provide contract faculty members with professional development opportunities, including (when appropriate) research funds and the funds to attend professional meetings.


1For instance, see Stanford (, the University of Michigan (, Columbia (, or Harvard (

2Service demands on junior faculty is a complicated issue, as we found in our own discussions on P&P. Many feel junior faculty shouldn’t be burdened with any work beyond their own research and teaching, and we noted the extra demands that often fall on female faculty and faculty of color. On the other hand, performing service is an important way new faculty can be integrated into the departmental community. Similarly, some feel that junior faculty should only be asked to perform relatively non-demanding service and should not be placed on key, time-consuming committees—but others feel that participating in the most important work of a department is an excellent way for a new faculty member to become visible. We recommend that deans discuss this issue with department chairs