Faculty Policies


UMB Policy on the Comprehensive Review of Tenured Faculty

Faculty   |   Approved November 1, 1999

Responsible VP/AVP

Roger Ward, EdD, JD, MSL, MPA

Revision History

Approved by the President, November 1, 1999; approved by the Chancellor, November 15, 1999


The purpose of the comprehensive review of tenured faculty is to promote the continuing professional development of the faculty, to improve academic programs, and to formally recognize long-term superior performance. The fundamental premise of this policy is that tenured members of the faculty are productive professionals who are committed to teaching, scholarship, and service to local, state, national, and international communities. Comprehensive review of tenured faculty shall be part of larger faculty development programs designed to enhance the professional abilities of faculty as teachers, scholars, and members of the academic community.

Each tenured faculty member shall have a comprehensive review, at least once every five years, that shall assess performance in teaching, research/scholarship, service, and clinical activities (as applicable) over the preceding five years or period since the last comprehensive review. The specific policies and procedures for comprehensive review of tenured faculty members shall be consistent with the preservation of academic freedom. The review shall be based upon the performance expectations previously established for the individual faculty member in accordance with USM and UMB policies on faculty workload and responsibilities and shall be conducted in light of the mission of the department, school, and institution. The comprehensive review shall be a collegial assessment consistent with the principles of peer review and shall comply fully with Board of Regents Policy II-1.19, "University System of Maryland Policy on the Comprehensive Review of Tenured Faculty." The results of the comprehensive review shall be conveyed to the faculty member and, as applicable, may be considered in making employment-related decisions, e.g., promotion and merit pay increases.

Each dean is delegated the responsibility for monitoring the comprehensive review of the tenured faculty process in the dean's School and for ensuring that the reviews conducted are in compliance with the Board of Regents requirements and the procedures contained in this policy. The dean may delegate the responsibility for implementation of the review process to an appropriate senior academic administrator. Each School shall develop written procedures for the comprehensive review of faculty, which must be approved by the dean and the Provost, who will keep a copy of the current procedures on file. Each School's written procedures shall be forwarded to the Chancellor for formal review and approval.

Policy Statement


A. Each tenured faculty member shall be reviewed during the 12-month period following each anniversary that is a multiple of five of the receipt of tenure or subsequent promotion at the University of Maryland.

B. Separate reviews with fully defined processes for consideration for promotion in rank or for review of academic administrators may be substituted for this review at appropriate times in a faculty member's career. In those cases, the applicable review policies shall take precedence.

C. In cases where a tenured faculty member receives two consecutive annual reviews (see UMB II-1.25, section VI) indicating material deficiency in meeting expectations, the faculty member shall undergo a comprehensive review during the following year. This review shall be in addition to the reviews otherwise required by this policy.


A. Each School shall develop specific criteria to be used in the review. The criteria should reflect the mission of the School and be sufficiently flexible to accommodate faculty with different responsibilities.

B. Each School shall develop its peer review process in conformity with USM and UMB policies for comprehensive review.

1. Peer review committees shall consist of a minimum of three tenured faculty members. If there are insufficient qualified tenured faculty members to constitute a committee, members may be drawn from tenured faculty members in relevant disciplines in other departments or other Schools.

2. The department chair may not serve as part of the peer review group, but shall make an independent evaluation of the faculty member.

3. A faculty member may not participate in the comprehensive review of any tenured faculty member in the year in which he/she is subject to review.

4. Reviewers external to the School will not normally be a part of the review process. Each School's procedures shall indicate whether external reviewers will be part of the process and how they will be selected.

C. Each School shall specify the sources of information upon which the review will be based. At a minimum, these sources will include:

1. A written report prepared by the faculty member under review which includes a curriculum vitae and which addresses for the period under review the faculty member's:

a. teaching, advising, and other educational activities;
b. scholarly research or creative activities
c. documented service activities to the university, government, and professional community;
d. where applicable, clinical practice activities.

2. A statement by the appropriate School official of the performance expectations for the faculty member for the period of review.

3. An evaluation of the faculty member's performance by the department chair in Schools where faculty are organized in departments. In Schools without departments, the School procedures shall identify an academic official designated by the dean to perform this function. The evaluation should include a summary of the annual reviews conducted during the period for which the faculty member is being evaluated and an assessment of the faculty member's written report.

D. The peer review committee shall prepare a written evaluation report based on the documentation submitted. The performance of the faculty member shall be evaluated as either meeting expectations or not meeting expectations.

E. A copy of the evaluation report shall be provided to the faculty member, who shall have an opportunity to submit a written response.

F. The documentation of the review, consisting, at a minimum, of the faculty member's report, the statement of expectations, the department chair's evaluation (in Schools where faculty are organized in departments), the peer review committee's report, and the faculty member's response, if any, shall be forwarded to the dean. If the review committee and the faculty member agree in their evaluation, the dean shall report the findings as specified in section IV.A. If a faculty member does not agree with the evaluation, the dean shall make the final decision, based on the record, about whether the faculty member has met expectations. The faculty member shall be provided with a copy of the dean's report and may submit a written response to be included in the file.

G. The evaluation report, any written response by the faculty member, and the development plan, if required, shall be placed in the faculty member's personnel file in the Dean's Office in the School together with the documents that played a substantive role in the review (other than documents such as publications that are readily accessible elsewhere) and a record of any action taken as a result of the review.

H. This comprehensive review process may not be substituted for the USM and UMB policies and procedures relating to the termination of tenured appointments, which are in no way amended by this policy. Unsatisfactory comprehensive reviews do not, of themselves, constitute grounds for termination of tenured appointments.


A. If the faculty member's performance is evaluated as not meeting expectations, a specific development plan shall be prepared by the department chair or, in Schools where faculty are not organized in departments, by the dean or designee, in consultation with the faculty member. This plan shall include a procedure for evaluation of progress. The plan shall be signed by the faculty member, the department chair (if applicable), and the dean.

B. Progress in meeting the goals of the development plan shall be assessed during a follow-up review beginning one year after the implementation of the development plan. The follow-up review may be deferred for one year if the dean determines that there has been insufficient time for significant progress under the plan.


A. The dean shall report to the Provost, by July 31 of each year, the names of all faculty members for whom a comprehensive review was conducted during the preceding year, indicating whether the faculty member's performance was considered to meet expectations. For each faculty member whose performance was considered not to meet expectations, the dean shall indicate that a development plan has been instituted as required by Section III.A of this policy.

B. If, as a consequence of the follow-up review, a faculty member is found not to be making sufficient improvement in performance in accordance with the development plan, a copy of the comprehensive review and the report of the follow-up review shall be forwarded to the Provost.

Fill out my online form.