Practice Overview
| Practice Name | Criteria-Guided Department Chair Review Process |
| Description | The University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine (DGSOM) department chair review process is a criteria guided, committee based evaluation process designed to promote transparency and leadership accountability through the use of validated data and diverse stakeholder perspectives. Conducted annually and structured around a five year cycle, the program provides formative feedback to department chairs, supports leadership development, and informs reappointment decisions while incorporating continuous quality improvement. |
| Participants | Department chairs, school leadership, and members of the Chair Review Committee, which includes faculty, staff, and administrators representing different career stages, roles, and perspectives. |
| Frequency | The process operates on a five-year cycle, with each annual review cycle beginning in September and spanning approximately nine months, concluding in time for the dean to make chair reappointment decisions for the upcoming academic year. |
| Modality | In-person attendance is encouraged for committee meetings, but a hybrid option is available as needed. |
| Resources | A dedicated staff member whose primary responsibility is to lead the process. Other resources include the time of participants involved in the chair review process and the collection of data required for the evaluation. |
Introduction
In 2021, the DGSOM launched a criteria-guided department chair review process to strengthen the evaluation of department chairs, improve transparency, and increase leadership accountability and development. The process utilizes a committee-based approach, intentionally incorporating a range of individual roles and perspectives into the review. The program was developed in response to decentralization of the department chair review process at UCLA, which granted professional schools, including the DGSOM, more autonomy. The medical school saw this shift as an opportunity to design a more robust, inclusive, and locally responsive review process grounded in shared governance principles. The process was developed by Steven Dubinett, MD, dean; Joaquín (Quim) Madrenas, MD, PhD, vice dean for faculty; and Sheleana Varvaro-Toney, MPH, academic affairs special projects manager, with additional input and feedback from other members of the school’s leadership team.
The department chair review process was informed by a review of practices at 17 peer institutions nationwide, as well as by established peer-review standards, including study sessions models used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other review agencies. The process utilizes validated institutional metrics, as well as chair self-assessments, stakeholder surveys, external evaluations, and structured interviews. The Chair Review Committee (CRC) evaluates these data using a set of minimum core review criteria and synthesizes findings into a comprehensive report. The report provides formative feedback to chairs and serves as a critical resource to inform the final decision made by the dean, the vice chancellor for health sciences, and, for clinical department chairs, the president of the UCLA Health System, about chair reappointments. To date, the DGSOM has completed three full cycles of the chair review process, with the fourth cycle proceeding through spring of 2026.
Goals and Objectives
The new chair review process was designed to:
- Strengthen shared governance by promoting accountability and transparency.
- Assess leadership through a structured and efficient process using institutional data.
- Enhance the quality and utility of feedback provided to chairs to support leadership development.
- Incorporate ongoing evaluation of the process to support continuous quality improvement.
“It's been really encouraging to see the participation of the Chair Review Committee across the board. They've been very cohesive [and] collegial, and they really look at this as a way to provide constructive, but also supportive, feedback.”
— Sheleana Varvaro-Toney, MPH
Promising Practice Overview
The department chair review process operates annually within a five-year cycle that accommodates the DGSOM’s 25 departments, completing five reviews per year. The annual cycle begins in September each year and spans approximately nine months, concluding in time for the dean to make chair reappointment decisions for the upcoming academic year. Each annual cycle consists of the following steps:
- Notify chairs. Each September, department chairs scheduled for review are formally notified that they will be undergoing the process.
- Convene the Chair Review Committees. In September, the dean and vice dean of faculty identify and invite potential committee members with the breadth of experience needed to assess the full range of leadership responsibilities. Committees are intentionally composed to reflect a wide range of perspectives, including variation in career stage, expertise, administrative roles, and leadership experience. Chairs who will undergo review in an upcoming cycle are also invited to serve on the committee to help them better understand and prepare for the process. Invitations are sent during September and October. Each cycle utilizes one to two committees, and the final committees typically consist of seven to ten members. The committees meet approximately five to seven times over a three‑month period, totaling seven to 12 hours of committee meetings.
- Compile the review packet. Beginning in the fall, the project manager coordinates the collection of data to be included in the review packet:
- Data from various institutional systems, including information related to financials, health systems, innovations (e.g., patents, invention disclosures, licensing agreements), and human resources.
- Data from surveys administered to internal stakeholders in the department including faculty, staff, and trainees.
- Evaluations from reviewers that are outside the department, both from within UCLA and outside UCLA. The chair undergoing review provides a list of 10-15 external stakeholders to be contacted, including colleagues from national organizations and chairs of similar departments. In addition, the Dean’s Office independently identifies 10-15 reviewers to ensure a broad and balanced perspective. The Dean’s Office finalizes the combined list and manages all outreach for soliciting letters and questionnaire responses.
- Develop chair self-statement. The compiled data (excluding survey results and evaluations) is shared with the chair under review, so they can verify the accuracy of the information and use it to inform their development of a self-statement. This document provides the chair with an opportunity to comment on their accomplishments and challenges over the past five years, as well as to articulate their strategic vision and goals for the future.
- Hold CRC meetings. Beginning in the winter, the CRC convenes to evaluate the chair review packet in relation to the DGSOM’s minimum core review criteria, which span areas such as leadership, academic excellence, departmental climate, and fiscal stewardship. During the initial phase, the committee determines whether additional information is needed and identifies appropriate methods for obtaining it.
- Conduct stakeholder interviews. Additional information is collected through interviews with individuals who can provide further context for the data in the review packet. Typically, the review committee completes approximately 8-12 interviews with variety of stakeholders with a goal of including a range of perspectives such as senior faculty and staff who were in the department prior to the chair being appointed, junior faculty hired by the chair, clinicians, and researchers.
- Conduct department chair interviews. The CRC conducts a dedicated interview with the department chair to discuss the information contained in the review packet, explore the chair’s reflections on departmental progress, and clarify any questions that arise from the review packet and stakeholder interviews. This interview also provides an opportunity for the chair to elaborate on accomplishments, challenges, priorities, and their vision for the department’s future.
- Draft committee report. The CRC synthesizes its findings into a written report intended to be constructive and formative in nature. The report provides clear feedback to the chair and serves as a critical resource to inform the final decision-making by the dean, the vice chancellor for health sciences, and, for clinical department chairs, the president of the UCLA Health System. It does not include a formal recommendation regarding continuation of leadership.
- Distribute report to the chair and leadership. By early May, the finalized report is shared with the chair, dean, vice dean for faculty, the vice chancellor for health sciences, and, for clinical department chairs, the president of the UCLA Health System, in advance of the department chair’s meeting with school leadership. Providing the report ahead of time allows the chair an opportunity to review the findings, reflect on the feedback, and prepare for discussion.
- Hold chair meeting with the dean and vice dean for faculty. The chair meets with the dean and vice dean for faculty to discuss the CRC’s findings, review strengths and areas for development, and consider next steps.
- Make chair reappointment decisions. The process concludes in time for a decision regarding the reappointment of the chair for the upcoming academic year. Chairs can be reappointed for the full five-year term or a shortened term with targeted development.
- Conduct process evaluation. Upon the completion of a review cycle, the project manager conducts a process evaluation by gathering feedback from the CRC members to understand what worked well and identify opportunities for improvement, supporting the continuous refinement of the review process.
“That review process and the results of it gives us a chance to talk about where we're going strategically in a way that we don't often have time to address because we're really, you know, putting out fires of the day. And this really gives us an opportunity to look at the big picture.
— Steven Dubinett, MD
Results and Impact
The department chair review process was intentionally designed to incorporate program evaluation and continuous quality improvement. To assess the effectiveness of the process, post‑review surveys are administered to members of each CRC at the conclusion of each review cycle. These surveys evaluate the clarity, utility, and overall effectiveness of the process. Evaluation data from the first three review cycles resulted in mean scores ranging from 4.38 to 4.81 on 5-point Likert scale survey items. The highest ratings were associated with the perceived value of the core data sources, the clarity of meeting goals and organization, and the overall planning and management of the process. In post‑review debrief discussions, committee members also reported personal and professional benefits from participation, noting that the experience provided valuable insight into diverse leadership approaches and departmental contexts.
In addition, anecdotal data from conversations with department chairs suggest that they have found the process affirming, actionable, and more nuanced than prior evaluations. To more systematically assess the chairs’ perceptions of the program’s value and impact on their leadership development, the team also plans to implement a formal post-review survey with department chairs.
From a broader leadership perspective, the process has also contributed to a culture of transparency and accountability across the school. It has enabled central administration to better understand the unique departmental circumstances and environments that may benefit from additional support or resources. It has also helped committee members deepen their understanding of their department and the school’s leadership and to think about their own development as a leader.
Resources Needed
The primary resource need for the chair review process is a dedicated staff member whose primary responsibility is to lead the process. Other resources include the time of participants involved in the chair review process and the data required for the evaluation.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
The systematic approach that the DGSOM has applied to evaluating the chair review process over the past three years of implementation has allowed program leadership to learn from and refine the process. Lessons learned include:
- It is beneficial to focus on not just what the chair can improve upon, but what central leadership can do to help the chair be more successful (e.g., what resources do they need to implement change? What can central administration do to make improvements?)
- It is valuable to apply a structured, scientific process to evaluate faculty affairs, such as the department chair review process. Doing so has allowed for fine tuning the review process to make it more successful and has opened opportunities to share the results of the program more broadly.
Moving Forward
As the DGSOM prepares to enter its second five-year cycle of the chair review process, program leaders are reflecting on how to meaningfully incorporate insights from the first cycle into the next, enabling a more longitudinal and developmental approach to evaluation. In addition, they plan to explore the use of artificial intelligence to support the collection and analysis of review data, while being careful to ensure that this does not diminish the value of the individual interactions that have made the current process a success. Finally, the school is also considering expanding the scope of the review to include additional dimensions of chair effectiveness, such as how chairs foster and sustain a positive professional environment, as well as how they are working to diversify revenue through engagement with donors and foundations and by facilitating the translation of discovery into products.
Acknowledgements
This case study is based on an interview conducted with Steven Dubinett, MD, dean, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine; Joaquín (Quim) Madrenas, MD, PhD, vice dean for faculty, and Sheleana Varvaro-Toney, MPH, Academic Affairs special projects manager on March 13, 2026.
Medical School Statistics
| Name of Institution | University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine |
| Location | Los Angeles, California |
| School Size as of 2024: Number of medical students: Number of full-time faculty: |
8491 3,2272 |
| Public/Private | Public |
1Source: 2024 AAMC Student Record System. Enrollment includes the number of students in medical school, including students on a leave of absence, on Oct. 31 of each year shown. Enrollment does not include students with graduated, dismissed, withdrawn, deceased, never enrolled, completed fifth pathway, did not complete fifth pathway, or degree revoked statuses.
2Source: AAMC. Faculty Roster: U.S. Medical School Faculty, 2025; https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/faculty-institutions/report/faculty-roster-us-medical-school-facu…. Accessed March 31, 2026.