12/02/2010

1

2010 SACS-COC Annual Meeting

December 6, 2010

CS-69

Administrative Program ReviewAssuring Quality in Administrative and Academic Support Units

Who we are

• Dr. Melissa Canady WargoAssistant Vice Chancellor, Institutional Planning and Effectiveness

• David OnderAssessment Coordinator, Institutional Planning and Effectiveness

• Mardy AsheDirector, Career Services

2

Objectives for session

3

Describe the development and implementation of administrative program review at WCU

Outline the process and standards

Discuss example: Career Services

12/02/2010

2

Why administrative program review?

• Catalysts– Shrinking Budgets– Demands for Accountability – internal and external– UNC Tomorrow

• Buy-in– Campus leadership– Staff input

4

How was the process developed?

• Administrative Council– Charged by Provost– Membership – directors of all academic support units

• Vetting the criteria

• Outlining the process

5

What are the goals of the process?

6

Alignment with core mission, vision, values

of the University

Ensure efficient and effective use of

University resources

Promote excellence and quality

Enhance services to all University constituents

Reduce/Eliminate unnecessary

duplication and redundancy

12/02/2010

3

What is the structure of the process?

7

Notification & Planning

Selection of Review Team

Preparation of self-study

Campus Visit

Review Team Report

Program Development

Plan

What are the review standards?

8

Unit History & Description

Alignment with mission/values

Program Demand

Program Quality

Cost Effectiveness

Opportunity Analysis

Unit history and description

• Purpose and key functions

• Unit goals/priorities

• Brief history of unit on campus

• Organizational structure of the unit/staff bios (including student workers)

9

Unit History & Description

12/02/2010

4

Mission Alignment

• Unit mission alignment with the university mission -QEP, UNC Tomorrow and the academic colleges/schools

• Past changes in unit purpose

• Anticipated changes to unit purpose

10

Alignment with mission/values

Program Demand

• Key users/participants

• Means for identifying and measuring demand

• Nature of interactions with other campus units

• Related programs and services provided by other units

• Unique contributions of this unit

11

Program Demand

Program Quality

• Means for identifying and measuring quality of programs or services (including top benchmarks used to assess quality)

• Description of how results are used for improvement (with examples)

• Major accomplishments of past 5 years related to unit functions AND/OR other contributions related to University goals.

12

Program Quality

12/02/2010

5

Cost Effectiveness

• Means for identifying and measuring cost effectiveness (include top benchmarks used to assess cost effectiveness)

• Itemized revenues and expenses for last 3 years (including salaries)

13

Cost Effectiveness

Opportunity Analysis

• Possible enhancements to programs or services (including automation of processes, collaboration opportunities, outsourcing, etc.)

• Activities of other units that advance or hinder the effectiveness of your unit

• Redundant or secondary programs and services

• Comparison to peer or aspirant units

• Possibilities for cost savings

14

Opportunity Analysis

WCU Career Services/Cooperative Education

• Why we volunteered……

– Had data

– Had a positive sense about the outcome

– CAS summary from 2006

– Wanted to be first

15

12/02/2010

6

Timeline Pre-Visit

Site Visit

December 9-11, 2009

16

August 6, 2009

• Volunteered to be 1st

August 28, 2009

• GET ORGANIZED; who’s doing what

September 2, 2009

• Selected Review Team

Mid October, 2009

• Documentation to OIPE

Documents Submitted

17

Response to Criteria(15 pages)

Executive Summary(1 ½ pages)

Appendices

• Budget (3 years) (Cost Effective)

• Org Chart• Resumes• Staff University Activities

(Value, Alignment, Opportunity Analysis, Cost Effective)

• CAS study (2006)(Demand, Quality, Cost Effective)

• Student usage (5 years)(Demand, Quality, Opportunity Analysis)

• Student and employer participation in career events (5 years)(Demand, Quality)

• Staff involvement in university activities (Value, Alignment, Opportunity Analysis, Cost Effective)

• Graphs of Evaluations of Events (Demand, Quality)

• Senior survey –responses to Career Services (Demand, Quality)

• Benchmark survey of Peer institutions (Cost Effective, Quality, Demand)

18

Timeline Site Visit

November 2009• Planned group meetings, scheduled rooms –

who, where and when

December 4, 2009• Met with CS staff for last minute

preparations

December 9, 2009• Met

external reviewer

12/02/2010

7

19

Timeline Post-Visit

January 30-31, 2010

• Reviewers report received

January 2010 -present

• Implementing changes

March 2010 • PDP

Outcomes

• Recognition– word spreads fast

• Opportunity to get “needs” noticed….• Larger space, Add staff, Associate Director, Budget, Salaries,

Travel

• Some Suggestions/recommendations for us..+ Visibility - Peer Career Mentors; Faculty Liaisons

+ On – line Services; Maximize Software

+ Expand Services - Collaborate with other offices; Service Learning, OIPE, etc.

20

Other Units

AcademicProgram

Lessons Learned Process

• Very different audiences– Greater number and variety

Unit

Administrative

21

12/02/2010

8

Lessons Learned Process 2

• Time Management

o More meetingso More review team time

✓ Added pre-meeting✓ Meetings on class schedule

22

Lessons Learned Process 3

• Costs More

• More people involved• Needs more time

23

Lessons Learned Site Visit

• Response to Criteria and/or Executive Summary should be available for group members to review if requested

• Center director needs to meet with the review team early in the schedule

24

12/02/2010

9

Lessons Learned For the Unit

25

• Be thoughtful in the choosing of the review team, especially the external reviewer

• Meeting room clean, water/snacks available for participants

See our website for the presentation slides and handouts

http://www.wcu.edu/27729.asp

26

Division of Academic Affairs

Guidelines and Procedures for

Administrative Program Review

Revised Fall 2009

ii

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Purpose ....................................................................................1

II. Goals of Administrative Program Review ..........................................................1

III. Structure of Review Process ..............................................................................2

IV. Procedures..........................................................................................................2

V. Calendar .............................................................................................................5

VI. Appendices

Appendix A. Program Review Criteria .......................................................7

Appendix B. Program Development Plan Template ..................................11

Appendix C. Selection of External Reviewers ..........................................12

Appendix D. Budget Template Spreadsheet ..............................................14

1

Administrative Program Review1

I. Introduction & Purpose

Administrative Program Review in the Division of Academic Affairs is a

component of the University‟s strategic planning and institutional effectiveness

process. The primary purpose of program review is to advance the quality of student

academic and administrative support services. Each unit will assess its mission,

operations, and resources relative to the same core effectiveness criteria (see

Appendix A), understanding that these criteria will have varying degrees of relevance

and applicability across administrative programs.

It is the intent of the program review process that each administrative program2

will have the opportunity to articulate their aspirations and goals and to explain how

the program‟s current activities support the mission and priorities of the University.

As the primary record of this process, the administrative program will work

incrementally toward developing a Program Self-Study to help capture the thoughtful,

detailed analysis of the program‟s key issues and challenges as informed by the

feedback from external experts, students, institutional effectiveness activities and

other program assessments. It is expected that the program‟s ongoing assessment and

strategic planning activities will be critical to the review process.

II. Goals of Administrative Program Review

1. Alignment of all WCU administrative or academic support units with core mission,

vision, and values of the University.

2. Ensure efficient and effective use of University resources.

3. Promote excellence and quality in all administrative and academic support units.

4. Improve and enhance services to academic programs, students, and other University

constituents.

5. Reduce/eliminate unnecessary duplication and redundancy.

1 Elements of this review process are adapted from Drake University Administrative Program Review process.

2 For purposes of this document, „program‟ refers to a discrete administrative or support function or unit with a

definable budget.

2

III. Structure of Review Process

Academic Program Review will occur on a regular 7 year cycle and is a three stage

process:

1. Internal Program Evaluation is conducted by the program staff utilizing data

provided by institutional sources such as the Office Institutional Planning &

Effectiveness, Office of the Provost, Administration and Finance, etc. as well as

data generated by the program itself. The Internal Program Evaluation consists of

a program‟s initial response to the Review Criteria (outlined in Appendix A) and

a subsequent opportunity to reflect on the review process and to offer a rationale

to support a plan for program development (see Section V for outline of

Executive Summary).

2. The External Program Evaluation consists of an off-site review of the program‟s

Response to the Review Criteria, a site visit by the review team, and a written

report summarizing the team‟s findings and recommendations. External Program

Evaluation is provided by a team of one non-WCU reviewer and two WCU

reviewers, one from the faculty and one from a separate administrative program.

3. The Program Development Plan (PDP) addresses the substantive findings and

recommendations from both the internal and external evaluations.

IV. Procedures

1. Administrative Program Review Criteria are included in Appendix A of this

document.

2. a). Non-accredited Programs

Non-accredited programs will conduct a program review every seven years.

b). Accredited or Grant/Supported Programs

Accredited programs on a cycle of seven years or less will complete the program

review in conjunction with the timeline established by their external accrediting

agency. If the accreditation cycle is more than every seven years, the program

will be subject to the seven year review process. Documentation used in the

accreditation study may also be used for the program review; however, the

Provost, in consultation with the supervising vice chancellor or

associate/assistant vice chancellor (hereafter referred to as „unit supervisor‟) will

3

determine the need for an external review team evaluation based on a

comparison of accreditation guidelines and the program review criteria. When

using an accreditation report in the program review process, a Table of Contents

will need to be developed indicating the page of the report providing the

requested information in WCU‟s review. If information is not included in the

accreditation report the program will need to supplement the Table of Contents

with the requested information.

3. External Program Evaluation:

The external review team consists of 3 persons, one non-WCU reviewer and two

WCU reviewers, one from the faculty and one from a separate administrative

program. The non-WCU reviewer will be selected by the Provost or his designee,

from a list of two to three nominees provided by the unit director, after consulting

with the unit staff and the unit supervisor. The WCU faculty reviewer will be

selected by the Provost or his designee from a list of two to three full-time nominees

provided by the unit director and unit staff, following consultation with the Chair of

the University Faculty and college dean. The WCU reviewer from a different

administrative program will be selected by the Provost or his designee from a list of

two to three nominees provided by the unit director and unit staff, following

consultation with the nominee‟s unit director and unit supervisor. This person must

be from a unit not under concurrent review.

4. Under certain extenuating circumstances programs may be subject to review outside

of the regular seven year cycle. Expedited review may be triggered by:

issues related to students or faculty/staff that impact the ability of the program

to meet its educational mission;

financial exigency; or

other extenuating circumstances.

Programs selected for expedited review will be determined by the Chancellor and/or

Provost. Unit Directors or Unit Supervisors also may request an expedited review of

the administrative program(s) under their supervision. Such requests should be

made to the Provost and offer a compelling reason for expediting a scheduled

4

review. All requests for expediting a program review should be made at the

beginning of the calendar year and are subject to availability of resources.

5. The Office of Institutional Planning & Effectiveness will be responsible for

notifying Unit Directors about the cycle of program review and will provide

oversight to the review process in conjunction with the Unit Supervisor.

6. The Office of Institutional Planning & Effectiveness, in consultation with the staff

of the program under review, will provide administrative programs with supporting

data, as identified in Section V below, to include in the Program Self-Study.

5

V. Calendar3 for conducting the Administrative Program Review and Outline of Contents

for the Program Review Self-Study.

Calendar:

Year 1 Task Responsible Party Date

● Notification sent to administrative program undergoing

review

OIPE By January 15

Meet to review/confirm calendar and criteria OIPE, Unit Director, Provost/AVC

By February 15

● Submit nominees for external review team to Provost/AVC Unit Director 150 days prior to

visit

● Identify selected reviewers for External Review Team Provost 120 days priort to

visit

● Standardized data sent to programs under review

(Highlighted items in Appendix A will be provided by OIPE)

OIPE 120 days prior to

visit

● Invite external reviewers and make appropriate travel

arrangements

AVC 120 days prior to

visit

● Submit Response to Standards (see Appendix A) to Unit

Supervisor, AVC, and OIPE

Unit Director 60 days prior to

visit

● Submit Response to Standards to External Review Team OIPE 30 days prior to

site visit

● Develop schedule for site visit Unit Supervisor, Unit

Director, OIPE

30 days prior to

site visit

● Submit External Review Team Report to Unit Director, Unit

Supervisor, and Provost

Chair of External

Review Team

Within 30 days of

visit.

● Arrange meeting with Provost, Unit Supervisor, Unit Director,

and OIPE to develop Program Development Plan (see

Appendix B).

Provost Within 60 days

of visit

● Finalize Program Development Plan Unit Supervisor, Unit

Director, OIPE

Within 90 days of

visit

Years

2-7

Task Responsible Party Date

● Implementation of PDP and on-going annual program of

assessment.

Unit Director On-going

3 This calendar will not apply to programs participating in a review during 2009 pilot year, but will apply to all

programs undergoing review beginning in 2010.

6

Contents of Program Self-Study:

I. Cover Page

a. Program Title

b. Year of Review

c. Name and Contact Information for Program Director

II. Executive Summary – maximum length 2 pages, minimum font size 11pt., minimum

line spacing 1.5- will accompany Response to Criteria

a. Reflections from the process

b. Summary of key findings from Response to Review Criteria

III. Response to Criteria – maximum length 15 pages not including appendices, minimum

font size 11 pt., minimum line spacing 1.5 (see Appendix A for a complete outline of

Review Criteria)

a. Program‟s response to each Review Criterion

b. Appendices of all supporting data/materials

IV. External Review Team Report

a. Program Strengths

b. Areas for Improvement

c. Summary of Recommendations

V. Program Development Plan (see Appendix B for PDP template)

7

Appendix A

Program Review Criteria

Response to Program Review Criteria:

The program should provide a brief, but comprehensive response to each criterion4 outlined

below. The maximum length for the entire narrative is 15 pages. The minimum font size is 11

pt., using either Times New Roman or Arial style. The minimum line spacing is 1.5. The

standards are arranged thematically in order to contextualize the review in the larger planning

and effectiveness framework of the institution. Required documentation and other supporting

materials should be included as appendices and only referenced in the body of the report.

History and description of unit

1. State the primary purpose and key functions of the unit.

2. List the top 3-5 goals/priorities of the unit.

3. Summarize the history of this unit on campus.

4. Describe the structure of the unit and how it is situated organizationally within the institution.

5. Provide an organizational chart of the unit with every employee identified by title and name.

Attach a brief (3-4 bullets) list of the primary duties carried out by each employee on the

chart. Also, for each full-time staff member provide a full curriculum vitae or 2-page

vitae/résumé summary.

6. If applicable, describe the number and contribution of student employees or graduate

assistants to the unit‟s programs and services.

4 Academic Centers/Institutes must include a response to additional questions/criteria that are outlined in University

Policy #105 and are also included at the end of Appendix A.

8

Alignment with WCU Mission, Vision, Values

1. How does the unit mission align with the university mission with specific reference to

support of the QEP, UNC Tomorrow and the academic colleges/schools?

2. How has the purpose of the unit changed in the past 5 years?

3. How do you expect the purpose to change in the next 5 years?

Demand for the program

1. Who are the key users/participants of the unit‟s programs or services?

2. How do you identify and measure demand for the unit‟s programs or services?

3. List those other units on campus that interact most with this unit. Briefly describe the nature

of those interactions.

4. List other units on campus that provide related programs and services.

5. Describe the unique contributions of this unit.

Quality

1. How do you identify and measure quality of the unit’s programs or services? List the top

benchmarks used to assess quality.

2. How do you use the results of quality assessments to improve programs and/or services?

Provide specific examples.

9

3. What were the major accomplishments of the unit in the past 5 years? Include those directly

related to unit functions AND/OR other contributions related to University goals.

Cost Effectiveness

1. How do you identify and measure cost effectiveness of this unit? List the top benchmarks

used to assess cost effectiveness.

2. Attach an itemized spreadsheet (see template) outlining ALL revenues/resources generated

and expenses incurred (including salaries) for the unit for the past 3 years.

Opportunity Analysis

1. How can programs or services offered by the unit be enhanced? Examples might include:

o Automation of processes

o Collaboration with other units on campus

o Outsourcing to a independent contractor

2. How do the activities of other units advance or hinder the effectiveness of your unit? Focus

should be on those units that were identified in item #3 in the section on “Demand for the

Program”.

3. What programs and services offered by the unit are redundant or outside the scope of the

unit‟s primary purpose?

4. What are similar units at peer or aspirant institutions doing that this unit would like to do or

should be doing?

5. What additional cost-savings could be achieved in this unit?

10

6. What external funding opportunities (grants, contracts, etc.) exist that could be pursued by

this unit? If applicable, describe any efforts to pursue such funding to date?

7. What would it take to make the program exemplary?

11

Appendix B

Program Development Plan Template

Program Development Plan Program: Division: Date:

Strengths:

Recommendations:

Recommendation Strategic Action Resources needed

C=current

R= reallocation

N=new

Costs Person(s) Responsible Date of

Review

Update #1 Date:____________________

Comments:

Further Action Needed: (add to strategic actions)

Update #2 Date:____________________

Comments:

Further Action Needed: (add to strategic actions)

12

Appendix C

Selection Process and Qualifications for External Reviewers5 Selection Process:

Non-WCU Reviewers. The Unit Director should submit 2-3 names of potential reviewers

and a brief summary of their academic and/or professional background to their Unit Supervisor.

From that list, the Unit Supervisor and Provost (or his designee) will select one individual to

serve on the external review team. Invitations to serve on a program review team will be issued

jointly by the Unit Supervisor and the Provost. Additionally, all offers regarding travel and

honoraria will be negotiated by the Office of the Provost. Although not a requirement, every

effort should be made to submit nominees from southeastern regional institutions to minimize

travel costs. If you would like a list of comparable institutions contact the Office of Institutional

Planning & Effectiveness at extension 7239.

If you have difficulty identifying potential reviewers, check resources offered by your

professional organizations. Professional organizations often maintain databases of members

willing to serve as program reviewers or listservs on which you can post a query. Potential

reviewers can also be identified by querying peers at other institutions. If your administrative

program is unique or is of a multidisciplinary nature, reviewers from similar programs can be

considered

WCU Administrative Program and Faculty Reviewers. The Unit Director should submit

2-3 names of potential reviewers from another WCU administrative program and 2-3 names

from the WCU faculty. From those lists, the Unit Supervisor and Provost (or his designee) will

select one individual from each area to serve on the external review team following consultation

with staff person’s Unit Supervisor or the Chair of the University Faculty. Invitations to serve on

a program review team will be issued jointly by the Unit Supervisor and the Provost. The WCU

reviewers must not be affiliated in any formal manner with the program under review.

5 All expenses related to travel and honoraria for the External Review Team will be paid by the Office of the

Provost.

13

Expected Qualifications of External Reviewers

Required Credentials

1. Extensive experience in or knowledge of the primary functions of the program under

review

2. Regional or national reputation as an expert in the area of the program under review.

3. Familiarity with current trends, theories, and standards in the area of the program under

review.

4. Not be actively involved in any current or recent (within past 5 years) collaborative

activity with staff in the program under review.

5. Ability to participate in a site visit within specified timeframe.

Preferred Credentials:

1. Knowledge of or experience in a SACS accredited institution

2. Knowledge of or experience in a North Carolina public institution of higher education

14

Appendix D

Budget Spreadsheet

COSTS Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Budgeted Expended Budgeted Expended Budgeted Expended

Salaries -Total

Benefits

Equipment purchases maintenance

(contracts/repairs)

Travel costs

Supplies costs Printing costs Entertainment Memberships Accreditation costs Other program costs

(specify):

Total Cost 0 0 0

REVENUES Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Tuition Other Student Fees Restricted Gifts Endowment Earnings Grants* Tickets

Outside Contracts Other (specify):

Total Revenue 0 0 0

*Please provide details regarding the grant term and possibility of renewal

Note: If there is an unusual, nonrecurring cost or revenue item in any particular year, you

may provide a written explanation (not to exceed 1/2 page in length) and attach it to the

Cost Effectiveness Template.

15

Anticipated Future Budget Needs: Item Estimated Cost Year Needed

Administrative Program Review

Handbook for the External Reviewer

Office of Institutional Planning & Effectiveness

Revised October 2010

i

Table of Contents

Section 1: WCU Campus Profile .......................................................................................1

Section 2: Your Roles and Responsibilities as a Reviewer ................................................3

Section 3: Travel and Honoraria .........................................................................................5

Section 4: Goals of Academic Program Review at WCU ..................................................6

Section 5: Academic Program Review Standards at WCU ...............................................7

Appendices:

Appendix A: Suggested Format/Outline for External Report .........................................14

Appendix B: Additional Resources on WCU ..................................................................15

Appendix C: Tentative Schedule for Campus Visit .........................................................16

Appendix D: UNC System Guidelines for Academic Program Productivity ..................18

1

WCU Campus Profile

Western Carolina University is a premier regional university with nationally and internationally

recognized teacher-scholars dedicated to student learning. A constituent member of the

University of North Carolina, WCU deploys its resources statewide either singly or

collaboratively with other institutions to address state needs. The university offers courses in the

arts, sciences, technologies, humanities, and professions through degree programs at the

bachelor’s, master’s, educational specialist levels and a doctorate in Educational Leadership.

Western offers the advantages of a large university while maintaining its small college

atmosphere.

The Regional University

As a regional university, WCU is committed to serving constituents within its geographic domain

by offering services and appropriate educational programs that serve bona fide needs. Wedded to

its region, WCU strives to take advantage of its locational advantage by capitalizing on assets

unique to the region. As a result, WCU’s educational portfolio and services will be strongly

influenced by its location and the opportunities within it. Although WCU has a defined region as

specified below, it will utilize venues outside of the region including national and international

sites for educational purposes and training.

WCU’s Region

WCU’s core geographical region is defined as the 17 western most counties of North Carolina.

As such, it is obligated to work most closely with educational, governmental, and business

entities in this area. Historically, WCU has provided educational programs and services to an

extended region as far east as the I-77 corridor when invited to do so. WCU will continue to

serve its extended region selectively when called upon and when it fits within the university’s

resources and programming. Further, WCU has multiple programs that will interact with its

larger economic region extending from Atlanta in the west, Raleigh in the east, Knoxville in the

north, and Greenville/Spartanburg in the south.

Promise

Western Carolina University helps those who aspire to make a difference in their world.

Mission

Western Carolina University creates engaged learning opportunities that incorporate research and

service through residential, distance education, and international experiences. The university

focuses its academic programs, educational outreach, research and creative activities, and cultural

opportunities to improve individual lives and enhance economic and community development in

the region, state, and nation. (Approved Mission, June 2, 2006)

Vision

Western Carolina University will be a national model for student learning and engagement that

embraces its responsibilities as a regionally engaged university.

Website: www.wcu.edu

Founded: 1889

2

Location: Cullowhee, North Carolina, near the Great Smoky and Blue Ridge mountains,

fifty-two miles west of Asheville.

Character: A coeducational residential public university within the University of North

Carolina system.

Enrollment: Approximately 9,400 students from the United States and from Europe,

Asia, Africa, and South America. Student body is 56% female and 44% male.

Academic programs: More than 220 majors and concentrations for undergraduates in

addition to over 42 graduate-level programs of study.

Campus: 600-acre campus (approximately).

Calendar: Two semesters (August to December and January to May) and multiple

summer sessions.

Faculty: Almost 500 full-time faculty members; 76% hold doctoral or terminal degrees.

Class size: More than 75% of classes have fewer than 30 students; the average freshman

class size is 23; the student/faculty ratio is 13 to 1.

Accreditations: Western Carolina University is accredited by the Commission on

Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern Lane,

Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097; telephone number 404-679-4501; www.sacscoc.org) to

award bachelor's, master's, education specialist, and doctor's degrees. Also, the university

holds 21 special program accreditations and is a member of more than 30 state and

national associations and organizations to which its professional programs are related.

3

Roles and Responsibilities of the External Reviewer

The centerpiece of any meaningful review of adminstative programs or academic

support units is the evaluation of program strengths and weaknesses by qualified experts

in the field. At WCU, we assume that external reviewers have the breadth of knowledge

and expertise necessary to assist staff in advancing the quality of their unit’s

programming and services. To that end, WCU solicits the service of three external

reviewers to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of each administative program and

academic support unit every seven years. At least one of the selected reviewers will be

external to the University and one to two will be a WCU faculty member or staff member

not affiliated with the program under review.

Your role as a part of the external review team is critical to the ultimate success of

this endeavor. The duties and tasks expected of you include:

conducting an on-site visit to the campus where you will meet with key

program constituents including faculty, staff, administrators, students, and,

when possible, program participants;

evaluating all program materials provided to you prior to and during the

campus visit for consistency and quality; and

producing, in consultation with other selected reviewers, a report summarizing

the strengths and weaknesses of the program under review as well as making

suggestions for improvement no later than 30 days following the campus visit.

See Appendix A for a suggested format/outline.

Determination of the quality of an administrative program or academic support

unit is a complex undertaking and must be considered not only in terms of national or

professional standards but also in light of the institutional context and program-specific

mission and goals. To assist you in your evaluation, we will provide you as much

information as possible on WCU, the UNC System, and the program under review. See

Appendix B for a list of additional resources. In this handbook, you will find the WCU

Criteria for Administrative Program Review and a list of numerous web links to key

institutional and program documents. In addition, you can expect to receive the

following documents 30 days prior to the scheduled campus visit.

4

A copy of the program’s internal self-study document.

A copy of the required documentation outlined in the WCU Program Review

Criteria.

Your visit to campus will be designed to accommodate several key activities

including interviews with selected University administrators, meetings with important

program constituents, and a private work meeting between the external reviewers. A

typical visit schedule can be found in Appendix C. The final itinerary and schedule for

your campus visit will be sent to you prior to your arrival on campus.

5

Travel and Honoraria1

Travel Arrangements

Staff from the Office of Institutional Planning & Effectiveness (OIPE) in the

Academic Affairs Division will work with you to make travel arrangements to and

from Cullowhee. Lodging on or near campus will be arranged for you in advance of

your visit. OIPE office staff will assist you in making flight arrangements. Program

faculty or other University staff will provide ground transportation during your visit.

Travel Expenses

WCU will reimburse documented travel costs per The State of North Carolina and

UNC travel policies. Typical expenses include airline fare or mileage and meals not

provided by WCU for the duration of the campus visit2. All travel expenses must be

submitted through the Office of Institutional Effectiveness & Planning.

Reimbursement typically takes 2-3 weeks once all completed forms are submitted to

WCU Accounts Payable.

Stipend

Each non-WCU reviewer will be paid a stipend for his or her services. The

stipend will vary based on the size of the unit and the extent of review. The stipend

will be submitted for payment following receipt of the External Review Report,

which is due no later than 30 days following the campus visit.

1 Travel and honoraria guidelines are applicable only to reviewers not employed by WCU.

2 Meals’ reimbursement cannot exceed the $32/day.

6

Goals of Administrative Program Review at WCU

1. Maintain high-quality programs and services that are competitive and consistent

with the University’s mission.

2. Encourage and support unit self-improvement by:

highlighting strengths of programs,

identifying opportunities for strategic change,

validating that units are meeting the changing needs of stakeholders,

identifying areas for improvements and supporting improvement changes, and

providing data necessary in the process of allocating resources.

3. Advance the mission of Western Carolina University by:

reaffirming the relationship between the mission of the unit and the mission of

the University,

fostering cooperation and collaboration between units, and

meeting the needs of the University students, faculty, and/or staff.

4. Provide a formative and summative review of unit effectiveness.

7

WCU Program Review Standards

The standards outlined below are used by unit staff as a template to complete the internal

self-study. Units are asked to limit their narrative to 15 pages and to provide the required

documentation in appendices. These documents will be provided to you at least 30 days

prior to the campus visit.

History and description of unit

1. State the primary purpose and key functions of the unit.

2. List the top 3-5 goals/priorities of the unit.

3. Summarize the history of this unit on campus.

4. Describe the structure of the unit and how it is situated organizationally within the

institution.

5. Provide an organizational chart of the unit with every employee identified by title and

name. Attach a brief (3-4 bullets) list of the primary duties carried out by each

employee on the chart. Also, for each full-time staff member provide a full

curriculum vitae or 2-page vitae/résumé summary.

6. If applicable, describe the number and contribution of student employees or graduate

assistants to the unit’s programs and services.

8

Alignment with WCU Mission, Vision, Values

1. How does the unit mission align with the University mission with specific reference

to support of the University’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), UNC Tomorrow and

the academic colleges/schools? (see links to QEP and UNC Tomorrow in Appendix

A)

2. How has the purpose of the unit changed in the past 5 years?

3. How do you expect the purpose to change in the next 5 years?

Demand for the program

1. Who are the key users/participants of the unit’s programs or services?

2. How do you identify and measure demand for the unit’s programs or services?

3. List those other units on campus that interact most with this unit. Briefly describe the

nature of those interactions.

4. List other units on campus that provide related programs and services.

5. Describe the unique contributions of this unit.

Quality

1. How do you identify and measure quality of the unit’s programs or services? List the top

benchmarks used to assess quality.

2. How do you use the results of quality assessments to improve programs and/or services?

Provide specific examples.

9

3. What were the major accomplishments of the unit in the past 5 years? Include those

directly related to unit functions AND/OR other contributions related to University

goals.

Cost Effectiveness

1. How do you identify and measure cost effectiveness of this unit? List the top

benchmarks used to assess cost effectiveness.

2. Attach an itemized spreadsheet outlining ALL revenues/resources generated and

expenses incurred (including salaries) for the unit for the past 3 years.

Opportunity Analysis

1. How can programs or services offered by the unit be enhanced? Examples might

include:

o Automation of processes

o Collaboration with other units on campus

o Outsourcing to a independent contractor

2. How do the activities of other units advance or hinder the effectiveness of your unit?

Focus should be on those units that were identified in item #3 in the section on

“Demand for the Program”.

3. What programs and services offered by the unit are redundant or outside the scope of

the unit’s primary purpose?

10

4. What are similar units at peer or aspirant institutions doing that this unit would like to

do or should be doing?

5. What additional cost-savings could be achieved in this unit?

6. What external funding opportunities (grants, contracts, etc.) exist that could be

pursued by this unit? If applicable, describe any efforts to pursue such funding to

date?

7. What would it take to make the program exemplary?

11

Appendix A:

Additional WCU Resources

Home Page http://www.wcu.edu

Undergraduate Catalog http://catalog.wcu.edu/

Graduate Catalog http://catalog.wcu.edu/ (select Graduate Catalog at top of page)

WCU Quality Enhancement Plan http://www.wcu.edu/12284.asp

UNC Tomorrow http://www.wcu.edu/6264.asp

College of Arts & Sciences http://www.wcu.edu/607.asp

College of Business http://www.wcu.edu/2517.asp

College of Education & Allied

Programs

http://www.wcu.edu/3030.asp

College of Health & Human

Sciences

http://www.wcu.edu/2215.asp

College of Fine & Performing Arts http://www.wcu.edu/3918.asp

Kimmel School of Construction

Management & Technology

http://www.wcu.edu/3624.asp

Hunter Library http://www.wcu.edu/library/

The Honors College http://www.wcu.edu/honorscollege/

Office of the Provost http://www.wcu.edu/provost/

Coulter Faculty Commons http://facctr.wcu.edu/

Office of Institutional Planning &

Effectiveness

http://oipe.wcu.edu

International Programs and Services http://www.wcu.edu/9237.asp

Education Outreach http://edoutreach.wcu.edu/

Academic Policies and Procedures http://www.wcu.edu/provost/resources/AcademicProcandReg.htm

Faculty Handbook (General) http://www.wcu.edu/fachandbook/

University Policies http://www.wcu.edu/chancellor/policies/index.html

12

Appendix B:

Tentative Schedule for Campus Visit

One week prior Conference call with External Review Team

Day One

5:00pm Arrival in Cullowhee

6:00pm Dinner with External Review Team

Day Two

7:30 – 8:30am Breakfast with Provost

8:45 – 9:45am Meet with Unit Director

10:00 – 10:45am Meet with Dean or Associate/Assistance Vice

Chancellor

11:00 – 11:45am Meet with selected faculty or staff

12:00 – 1:00pm Lunch with Students and/or program participants

1:15 – 2:45pm Meet with Unit Staff

3:00 – 3:30pm Open

3:45 – 5:30pm Private Work Meeting for External Review Team

6:00pm Dinner with selected unit staff

Day Three

7:30am Breakfast

8:30am – 11:30am Reserved for additional meetings as necessary

12:00pm – 2:00pm Private Work Meeting for External Review Team

~2:00pm Depart from Cullowhee

13

Appendix C:

Suggested Format/Outline3 for External Review Report

I. Introduction

a. A description of visit length

b. A summary and description of meetings conducted by the review team

II. Analysis of Program

a. Provide a brief synopsis of:

i. the primary unit functions (Are they appropriate for WCU’s student body?

Are they consistent with professional norms or standards?);

ii. the unit’s programming activities and/or services (Are the programming

activities and services appropriate to stated mission and objectives of the

units? Are the programming and services adequate to meet the expressed

needs of the unit’s constituent groups?)

iii. the planning and assessment strategies (Can the unit document that its

programming activities and services are having the intended effect? Are the

programming activities and services routinely evaluated and the results used

to make improvements? Do all staff have an opportunity to participate in

planning and assessment activities?)

III. Analysis of Staff

a. Qualifications – Provide a brief analysis of staff qualifications (i.e., Do the unit

staff have the requisite degrees/credentials and skills appropriate to the

program?)

b. Resources and Support – Provide a brief analysis of unit and institutional support

for staff (i.e., Does the unit have adequate and appropriate processes and

procedures for performance evaluation and promotion decisions? Is staff

compensation appropriate and adequate? Do staff have access to adequate

technological resources?)

c. Professional Activity, and Service – Provide a brief analysis of staff

participation in professional development and university service (i.e., Does the

3 Review teams are encouraged to address issues that arise during the review that fall outside of this

suggested template.

14

staff have adequate opportunities for professional development? Is the staff

recognized by their peers for professional contributions to the field? Does the

staff engage in an appropriate level of University service?)

IV. Analysis of Operational Facilities and Budget

a. Does the unit have adequate facilities to fulfill its mission?

b. Does the unit have adequate budget to fulfill its mission?

V. Summary of unit strengths and areas for improvement

a. What is your general impression of the unit?

b. Overall, what are the areas of strength?

c. Overall, in what areas could the unit make improvements?

VI. Summary of Recommendations