The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units

April 18 & 20, 2006JoLynn Noe,

Assistant Director Office of Assessment

http://www.uky.edu/Assessment/

UK’s Administrative Regulations (AR II-1.0-6)

• Strategic Planning– UK’s Strategic Plan establishes the

framework for all institutional planning – Unit-level planning sets strategic goals for

instruction, research, and service

• Program Review– Improves quality by reviewing mission,

goals, activities, outcomes every 5 to 7 years

– Suggests possible objectives to be assessed in future Annual Reports

• Annual Report– Assesses annual progress toward selected

goals– Indicates needed changes in a unit’s

priorities and feeds into program reviews

Highlights of SACS Institutional Effectiveness Criteria• Establish mission and goals

• Engage in systematic, broad-based planning and evaluation

• Assess the quality of: – Student learning at all levels

– Research and service functions

– Administrative processes and educational support services

• Describe methods for analyzing results

• Use results to improve

Components of a Program Review

• Review of the unit strategic plan

• Preparation of self-study report: an in-depth analysis of strengths and weaknesses

• Review by an external committee to assess the unit’s effectiveness in meeting its goals

• Prepare a Program Implementation Plan

• Draft an Assessment Plan (recommended); reflected in Annual Progress Reports

• Revise the unit strategic plan

The Strategic Plan• Identify and prioritize actions to help

unit best accomplish goals, fulfill its mission, and realize its vision– Revised periodically to calibrate the course

of the unit towards the achievement of the mission and vision

• Mission statement takes into account the external environment and internal strengths and weaknesses

• Goals/objectives for research, service, and administrative support

• Strategies for achieving goals/objectives

• Measures of progress and evaluation methods

The Self-Study

• Prepared internally by unit committee

• Covers time period since prior review, usually 5-7 years

• Process and report used internally to review current status and trajectory of unit to make internal recommendations for quality enhancements

• Final report used by External Committee for review

The Self-Study

• Program Documents: - strategic plan - organizational chart- annual progress reports

• Resources: - adequacy of budget, facilities, equipment, and

human resources- Staff numbers and demographics

• Adherence to Policies and Procedures:- grievances, promotions, staff personnel actions

- leave policies- budget request preparation

The Self-Study

• Evaluation of Quality and Productivity: - climate for equity and diversity- quality and productivity in research,

public service, or operations, - including, as appropriate, the quality of:

staff employeescustomer/client satisfactionbusiness and operating procedures

• Analysis of Strengths and Recommendations for Quality Enhancement: - synthesis of self-study findings - results in a summary of strengths and

recommendations for quality enhancement

The External Committee Review

• External perspective of the quality and effectiveness of the unit’s programs, services, resources, processes, and operations

• Objective, unbiased assessment of the unit

• Comprised of 6 to 8 members, recommended

by unit head, charged by head administrator

- includes members external to unit

- may also include students, staff, alumni, practicing

professionals - 1 to 2 self study committee

members in ex-officio capacity

The External Committee Review

• Examines the self study report

• Engages in additional information-seeking, as necessary

• Assesses the validity of the conclusions reached in the self-study

• Identifies additional strengths and recommendations for quality enhancement

• Prepares a final report

The External Review Committee

Develops recommendations that focus on the quality of:

• Service provided and unit productivity

• Management practices

• Recruitment and retention of a diverse staff

• Planning, evaluation, and resources – efforts to maximize cost-effectiveness of programs

Program Implementation Plan

• Consider recommendations from all sources in the review

• Develop program objectives related to accepted recommendations

• Formulate action steps and identify resources needed to implement objectives

• Establish a timeline for accomplishing unit objectives

Program Implementation Plan FormDue: June 30

Program Review Implementation Plan

College/Unit: Date:

Recommendation/

Suggestion

Source I/E/H*

Accept/ Reject**

Unit Response (resulting goal or objective)

Actions (including needed resources)

Time Line

* Source of Recommendation (I = Internal recommendation; E = External Review Committee recommendation; H = Unit Head recommendation) ** Accept/Reject Recommendation (A=Accept; R=Reject)

This required form is described as Appendix A in AR II-I.0.6.

Program Review Flowchart & Timeline

Program Review Process Flowchart & Timeline

Date March- Oct. 1 Oct. 1 Oct. 31 October

October - March March 31 March-May April-J une J une 30

Unit Type

DRAFT

Self Study

submitted to

FINAL

Self Study submitted

to

External Review

Committee appointed

and charged by

External Review Report

submitted to

Report

reviewed for factual

content and clarification

by

Implementation

Plan developed by

Implementatio

n Plan to

Academic Dept./ School

Dean

Dean, VP IRPE

Dean

Dean, and VP IRPE

Department Chair & Dean

Department Chair & Dean (with input from unit members)

Provost, VP IRPE

College

Provost

Provost, VP IRPE

Provost

Provost, and VP IRPE

Dean & Provost

Dean & Provost (with input from unit members)

Provost, VP IRPE

Admin/ Academic Support Unit

Admin. agent to which this unit head reports

Admin. agent to which this unit head reports, VP IRPE

Admin. agent to which this unit head reports

Administrative agent to which this unit head reports, and VP IRPE

Unit Head and administrative agent to which unit head reports

Unit Head & administrative agent to which unit head reports (with input from unit members)

Provost, EVP, VP, or VP (as appropriate), VP IRPE

Centers & Institutes (educational units)

Admin. agent to which this unit head reports

Admin. agent to which this unit head reports, VP IRPE

Admin. agent to which this unit head reports

Admin. agent to which this unit head reports, and VP IRPE

Center Director & Admin. agent to which this unit head reports

Center Director & Admin. agent to which this unit head reports (with input from unit members)

Provost, VP IRPE

Centers & Institutes (not educational units)

Unit

Members

Conduct

Self

Study

And

Complete

Report

Admin. agent to which this unit head reports

Admin. agent to which this unit head reports, VP IRPE

Admin. agent to which this unit head reports

External

Review

Committee

Conducts

Review

And

Writes

Report Administrative agent to which this unit head reports, and VP IRPE

Center Director & administrative agent to which this director reports

Center Director & administrative agent to which this director reports (with input from unit members)

Provost or EVP for Research (as appropriate), VP IRPE

* Full report includes: (1) Self-Study, (2) External Review Team Report, and (3) Implementation Plan.

This figure is described as Appendix C in AR II-I.0.6

Program Review 2006-07 CalendarMarch 1, 2006 Program Review Notification Letters Sent to Provost, Deans,

and Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report

March 1 - September 30, 2006 Self Study Review Process Underway

March 27 - 31, 2006 Accreditation Subsitution Meetings with VP Institutional Research, Planning & Effectiveness and Office of Assessment

April 18 - 20, 2006 Program Review Workshops, Room 318 POT

October 1, 2006 Draft Self Study Report DUE to Provost, Deans, and/or Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report, As Applicable

October 1, 2006 External Review Committees Appointed by Provost, Deans, and/or Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report, As Applicable

October 1 - March 31, 2006 External Review Committee Process Underway

October 31, 2006 Final Self Study Report DUE to Provost, Deans, and/or Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report, As Applicable, and VP Institutional Research, Planning & Effectiveness

November 13 - 17, 2006 External Review Committee Workshops, Room 318 POT

March 31, 2007 External Review Committee Reports DUE to Provost, Deans, and/or Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report, As Applicable and VP Institutional Research, Planning & Effectiveness

April 1 - May 15, 2007 Program Review Implementation Planning Process Underway

April 16 - 20, 2007 (tentative) QEP Workshops, Room 318 POT

May 15, 2007 External Review Committee Report and Program Review Implementation Plan Should Have Been Reviewed By Faculty/Department Staff

June 30, 2007 Program Review Implemenation Plans DUE to Provost, Deans, and/or Administrative Agents to Which Unit Heads Report, As Applicable, and VP Institutional Research, Planning & Effectiveness

July 15, 2007 Program Review Completion Notification Letters Sent to Unit Heads

July 15, 2007 QEP Eligibility Notification Letters Sent To All Eligible Units

September 15, 2007 QEP Proposals Due to Office of Assessment

November 1, 2007 QEP Award Letters Sent

Completion of the Program Review Phase of the Planning Cycle

• Revise and refine unit strategic plan based on recommendations of unit review committee and self-study

• Prepare assessment plan:– Systematic, comprehensive evaluation

featuring:Clear, concise objectivesCriteria for determining successCommitment to continuous improvement

The Annual Review Report

• Records the unit’s progress toward achieving goals and objectives during the year

• Consists of a concise report that summarizes accomplishments, adjustments to plans, and goals and priorities for next year

• Provides data to be used in future self-studies

 Annual Review Report Form

Planning & Assessment Activities and Budget Requests

• Program reviews and annual progress reports support Operating Budget decisions

• Responsibility of VP’s, Associate VP’s, or directors to use results in preparing budget requests

• Use of assessment results should be demonstrated to facilitate resource allocation and budgeting decisions in support of strategic plans and to ensure quality enhancement

Where to go for help• Deborah Moore

Director of Assessment

• JoLynn NoeAssistant Director of Assessment

• Connie RayVP for Institutional Research, Planning, & Effectiveness

• Roger SugarmanDirector of Institutional Research

• Assessment Website http://www.uky.edu/Assessment/

The University of Kentucky Program Review Process for Administrative Units

April 18 & 20, 2006JoLynn Noe,

Assistant Director Office of Assessment

http://www.uky.edu/Assessment/