Student Affairs and University Planning (SAUP)
Program Review Guidelines

Program Review Guidelines

·         The primary purpose of the program review process in SAUP is to evaluate the department’s performance and provide findings that can be utilized to bring about improvements.

·         The division’s senior vice president and associate vice presidents (AVPs) will establish a schedule outlining the sequence of the departments to be reviewed and the corresponding director who will serve as Program Review Coordinator.

·         Program reviews will be conducted on a four-year cycle and scheduled at least a year in advance. A program review must be completed by the end of the semester for which it is scheduled.

·        The three main components of the SAUP program review are:

• Self-assessment. The department’s operations must be compared with national standards for the department’s functions.

• Evaluation from key stakeholders. Key campus stakeholders must be given the opportunity to evaluate the department’s programs and services. Additionally, the departmental director and AVP should identify one or two targeted topics of interest or concern for study by the program review committee (see attached examples).

• Program review report. A final report including major findings, recommendations, and action plans must be completed by the program review committee and the departmental director and presented to the senior vice president and the department’s AVP.

Program Review Intended Outcomes

·         To provide the department being reviewed with the opportunity to evaluate its operation and identify ways in which the department is functioning well and to identify areas in which functions may be improved.

·         To compare the department’s status and performance with national standards established by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) or by the department’s professional organization.

·         To seek perspectives on the department’s performance from campus constituents (staff, faculty, and students).

·         To provide the senior vice president and the department’s AVP with evaluative feedback about the department, suggestions for improvement, and a plan of action.

Program Review Roles

·         The director of the department being reviewed has the primary responsibility for making sure that the program review is conducted efficiently and effectively and should serve as the driving force for the process. The director conducts the self-assessment, identifies topics for further study, organizes staff participation in the process, and develops and implements the action plan.

·         The AVP of the department being reviewed provides support and feedback to the director throughout the process, suggests review topics, and assists in the development and implementation of the action plan.

·         The program review coordinator chairs the program review committee and guides the preparation of the final report.

·         The program review committee (a) assists in the identification of stakeholders, topics for review, and assessment methods; (b) participates in the analysis of collected data; (c) generates recommendations for improvements, and (d) contributes to the program review report.

·         Staff members from Institutional Research will be available for consultation, training, and support for any aspect of the program review process (e.g., data collection and analysis, research methods, etc.).

·         Staff members in the department being reviewed provide information and feedback to the director for the self-assessment, contribute as appropriate to data collection, and contribute to the development and implementation of the action plan.

·         When appropriate, an external consultant may assist with a portion of the review. The consultant provides external perspectives on the program, strengths and weaknesses of the program, best practices related to the program, and ideas for program improvements drawn from the consultant’s expertise.

Program Review Process

Step 1: Planning. 
For the year in which a program review is scheduled, an objective to conduct and complete the program review will be added to the departmental director’s performance plan by the AVP. The departmental director, the AVP, and the program review coordinator meet to determine the guidelines, outcomes, process, and committee[1] for the program review. Planning should occur in the semester prior to the program review.

Step 2: Self-assessment. 
The departmental director completes a self-assessment (e.g., CAS) to compare the department’s operations with national standards. The completed self-assessment is shared with the department’s staff to garner additional feedback. This self-assessment should be conducted in the semester prior to the program review. The self-assessment should also include examples of assessment and evaluation conducted by the department since its last review, the measurement methods used, and what actions were taken in response to the measurement.

Step 3: Evaluation from Key Stakeholders. 
The departmental director and AVP meet with the program review committee to (a) review the self-assessment data, (b) identify themes for both the evaluation from key stakeholders and targeted topics reviews, (c) determine stakeholders from whom to gather evaluation feedback, (d) determine if an external consultant will be utilized, and (e) determine how to most effectively gather the data. The evaluation by key stakeholders should be conducted early in the semester of the program review.

Step 4: Analysis. 
The program review committee meets with the department being reviewed to discuss findings and recommendations generated through the evaluation from key stakeholders and targeted topics review (and external consultant, if applicable). The analysis should occur prior to the end of the semester of the program review.

Step 5: Action Plan. 
The departmental director and staff develop an action plan to address the findings and recommendations from Step 4. The action plan should include (a) specific objectives, (b) action items, (c) the method of measurement, (d) the timeframe for completion, and (e) rationale for recommendations that cannot be pursued. The action plan should be developed prior to the end of the semester of the program review.

Step 6: Program Review Report. 
The program review committee prepares the first three sections of the program review report: (a) methodology of the study, (b), findings, and (c) recommendations. The director of the department, with assistance from departmental staff, prepares the fourth section of the report: (d) action plan. The program review report should be completed prior to the end of the semester of the program review.

Step 7: Final Review. 
The program review coordinator, the departmental director, and the AVP present the results of the program review process to the senior vice president. Additional recommendations may be fostered in the final review. The final review should take place prior to the end of the semester of the program review.

*The size and make-up of the program review committee are at the discretion of the departmental director, AVP, and program review coordinator. While staff members from Institutional Research are available to assist with any step in the program review process, it is generally most effective to include someone from IR on the program review committee.

Examples of Stakeholder Evaluation Topics

Evaluation from key stakeholders is used to gather information about the department’s performance as experienced by various constituents. Some types of questions may be universally applicable, while others may be dictated by the unique circumstances of the department itself. Examples might include but are not limited to:

·         Satisfaction with programs, services, and resources

·         Questions drawn from the self-assessment

·         Programs/services timeliness, quality, availability

·         SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)

·         Level of collaboration with other university units

·         What’s working well / what isn’t (open-ended)

·         Other?

Examples of Topics for Targeted Review

The program review provides the departmental director and staff with the opportunity to focus on one or two key topics of interest or concern. These topics may have come to light in the self-assessment or they may be issues and ideas for which the department has not had the opportunity to previously pursue. Examples might include but are not limited to:

·         Demographic analysis of those using and those not using programs and services

·         Marketing of programs and services

·         Campus awareness of trends and issues

·         Ideas for increasing diversity, equity, and access

·         Continuing, discontinuing, or modifying programs or services

·         Examining programs, services, or a section of the department in greater depth

·         Professional development needs

·         Identification of potential learning outcomes

·         Peer education/leadership opportunities

·         Job satisfaction of staff

·         Best practices

·         Other?

 

Revised October 2010