Departmental Program Reviews

Departmental Program Review Committee

The charge of the program review committee is to evaluate and provide recommendations to improve the quality of a department’s programs and services. Recommendations will be used to inform short and long-term departmental decision-making. The program review committee will include national or regional experts in the field of the department under review and an Ohio University staff/faculty member who is a stakeholder of the department. The program review committee will:

• Respond to the departmental self-study and on-campus interviews and observations
• Write a report of their findings within 30 days (4 to 5 weeks) of the on-campus visit

The department will suggest up to three external reviewers and internal reviewer(s), depending on the size and scope of the department, to serve on the program review committee. External reviewers should be experts in the field of the department under review and should be from aspirational institutions (i.e. from departments at other institutions the department aspires to emulate). The internal reviewer should be a key stakeholder of the department but should not be current or past departmental employees. The internal reviewer will provide context on Ohio University and the department under review for the external reviewers.

The departmental director and program review coordinator will submit a list of potential reviewers to the Vice President for Student Affairs for review. Upon final confirmation of reviewers, the departmental director will formally invite the reviewers to participate in the review process.

Development of the Self-Study

Each program review should begin with self-study. Data and artifacts help tell the story of the department’s work. Data may include learning outcomes data, satisfaction data, usage numbers, fiscal data, historical trends, or other sources. Artifacts may include relevant printed publications, reports, departmental strategic or annual plans, awards, etc. Any professional standards associated with the department in review should be incorporated. These should be integrated into the self-study, shared with the program review committee before the site visit.

Self-Study Submission

The departmental director will submit the self-study to the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs no later than one month prior to the site visit. The program review coordinator(s) will share the self-study with program review committee members before the site visit. By reviewing the self-study in advance, the committee members can come prepared with relevant questions and insights, making their on-site visit more productive and effective. This preparatory step ensures that the site visit is focused and that the reviewers can provide informed feedback and recommendations.

The reviewers will conduct at least a two-day on-site review. A reviewer’s role is to provide expert, unbiased, and professionally informed opinions regarding the performance of a particular department. In advance, determine how the department will coordinate funding for committee member travel needs with the planning unit leader. Ensure that funding needs are anticipated and allocated accordingly (e.g., potential honorariums, stipends, reimbursements, etc.).

Site Visit

The site visit should provide opportunities for the program review committee to speak to key stakeholders including:

• Department staff members
• Student Employees
• Campus partners
• Departmental and Division leadership
• Community partners
• Students
• Customers
• Alumni

The site visit should also include time for the committee to meet individually with the director, appropriate associate vice president, and Vice President for Student Affairs, begin summary conversations to support report writing, and participate in wrap up meeting with the director, appropriate associate vice president, and the Vice President for Student Affairs.

Program Review Committee Report

Within 30 days of the review committee’s campus visit, the reviewers will provide a written assessment of the department including areas of excellence and improvement, recommendations for future practice, and any other relevant observations. Issues related to personnel are not within the purview of the program review process. A report outline is included in the appendix.

The report will be submitted to the department director and the Vice President for Student Affairs. They will meet to discuss the report within a week of receipt. The director will share the final report with departmental staff members and stakeholders, as well. 

The department director will submit an action plan within 30 days responding to Review Committee recommendations to the Vice President for Student Affairs. The plan should include:

• Proposed goals based on reviewer recommendations – goals should be planned out within 1 year
• Potential rejected reviewer recommendations and rationale for rejection
• Timeline for completion
• Responsible parties
• Implementation strategy
• Metrics to measure progress
• Assessment and evaluation process based on established metrics

Follow up processes will include:

• A summary of the program review with department’s Action Plan shared to stakeholders who participated in review process
• Director(s) will report updates on the Action Plan and metrics observed during annual budget meetings with planning unit leader
• Changes made based on review committee recommendations to be highlighted in the Division of Student Affairs Annual Report(s)

The program review self-study protocol is selected by the director/manager of the department. The following are the three primary choices to choose from with respect to the self-study format:

1. Any mandated or optional professional accreditation processes:

Program review is intended to provide student affairs departments with an opportunity to evaluate their programs and services to ensure that they are ready and able to meet the needs of an ever-changing student body. However, certain departments are required or encouraged to participate in accreditation procedures specific to their functional area. To reduce unnecessary duplication of effort and help ease the overall workload of preparing for agency accreditation, the self-study or department profile component of an accreditation process may be used to fulfill some or all of the Ohio University Division of Student Affairs Departmental Program Review self-study expectations.

2. Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS):

CAS “has been the pre-eminent force for promoting standards in student affairs, student services, and student development programs since its inception in 1979. For the ultimate purpose of fostering and enhancing student learning, development, and achievement and in general to promote good citizenship,” CAS provides a set of industry-approved standards and self-assessment guidelines for 34 functional areas. Those student affairs departments for which CAS standards and guidelines exist may choose to utilize the CAS Self-Assessment Guide as the frame for the self-study review process and report.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education: http://www.cas.edu . Student Affairs Program Review Guidelines 7 2.

It is important to note that although the CAS Self-Assessment Guides include worksheets and overview questions intended to facilitate the compilation of reviewer ratings for each of the CAS criterion measures, these completed worksheets and short answer responses do not fulfill the Division of Student Affairs Program Review self-study report expectations. Rather the information and insights gleaned from the CAS self-assessment process should inform the development of a comprehensive and coherent self-study narrative that addresses the thirteen organizational domains outlined in the CAS Standards and Guidelines.

3. Industry Standards and Guidelines for Self-Study (see Appendix):

If there is a set of standards and/or guidelines that are published by a representative, governing body, or professional association for the department’s area of student affairs or for the types of services that the office provides, the department may propose them as the protocol for the self-study portion of the department’s program review process. Please submit the complete description of standards and guidelines for self-study to the appropriate liaison to the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs for consideration.

Report Format

Each department will prepare an in-depth self-study prior to the site visit by the program review committee. The self-study will contain the following:

1. Table of Contents
2. Executive Summary – one-page document highlighting the contents of the self-study. Key data points/strengths/challenges should be addressed in this portion.
3. An introduction to the department – departmental history and organizational framework (org charts), departmental strategic plan, constituents served, key data points, learning outcomes, assessment plan and results, etc.
4. Summary of relevant data – data related to learning outcomes, program outcomes, usage, access, certifications, memberships, retention, etc.
5. Overview of the CAS standards (if applicable):
   1. Departmental Mission
   2. Departmental Programs
   3. Organization & Leadership
   4. Human Resources
   5. Ethics
   6. Law, Policy & Governance
   7. Diversity, Equity & Access
   8. Institutional & External Relations
   9. Financial Resources
   10. Technology
   11. Facilities & Equipment
   12. Assessment & Evaluation
6. Key issues – any internal or external challenges/concerns facing the department, staff, etc. that the review team should examine further.
7. Each of these standards is explained in detail within each department’s Self-Assessment Guide (SAG). Members of the review team will receive the SAG to inform them of their practice. Please utilize the SAG to provide information regarding each of the standards above in the self-study.

Based on the findings from the self-study and the site visit, the program review committee is asked to assess the department’s performance and offer suggestions for future improvement through a written report. The suggested outline for the report is located below; however, the review team members are encouraged to include any issues or topics they deem necessary. Review Committee members are encouraged to submit completed Self-Assessment Guides for each standard.

Step One: Executive Summary

Please provide narrative addressing the following:

1. Areas of Excellence: Describe what the department does well, how the department supports the division’s mission and priorities, and how the department could be seen as pioneers/leaders in the field (if applicable).
2. Areas for Improvement: Describe the areas that the department should improve on and the reasons that these areas need improvement.

Step Two: Assessment of Significant Items (CAS Standards used in this example table)

Step Three: Recommended follow up actions

Step Four: Concluding Comments

Please share any additional comments for the good of the department, division, or university. Please note that this written report will be distributed to members of the department.

Write a brief action plan statement for each standard for which action is required. Example Action Plan template below based on CAS Standards. 

Address the following in narrative form:

• Proposed goals
• Timeline for completion
• Responsible parties
• Implementation strategy
• Metrics to measure progress and evaluation process