Program Review Process

1. Program Review Process AICUP Assessment Workshop Swarthmore College August 7, 2006

2. Vision 2010Linking Planning & Program Review

3. Overview • Context for program review at Wilkes • Importance of program review • Wilkes Process • Link to Performance Management System • Questions/challenges/lessons learned

4. Context for Program Review • Arrival of new President, June 2001 • Campus-Wide Visioning/Planning Process • Created VISION 2010 • Program review process created to link depts. and all individuals to VISION 2010

5. VISION 2010 • Excellence and Growth in Educational Programs • Develop World Class Support Network • Valuing Our People

6. Program Review Conceptual Framework

7. Program Review Defined • Program review closes the loop between assessment and improvement. (Pomerantz, 2003) • Ans and Poland (1980) see program review as an essential tool of a total planning process that goes beyond assessment to “ a searching comprehensive evaluation of an existing coherent set of academic activities. (p. 269) • “…… is not assessment; rather assessment is an indispensable tool that is used within the frame of program review.” (Pomerantz, 2003)

8. Purpose of Program Review • Assure unit mission and vision alignment with University’s • Assess effectiveness of unit—emphasis on contributions to University outcome goals • Celebrate accomplishments • Correct deficiencies

9. Goals of the Review Process • Demonstrate how effectively departments/units are achieving their stated aims • Celebrate accomplishments- want this to be a positive/affirming and not a defensive exercise. • Think proactively about department/unit future

10. Requirements For the Annual Review • Each department/unit will conduct an annual or a more comprehensive five-year review • Provide for an annual conversation with the cabinet member regarding the department • Report in-depth on unit strategy and performance every five years to the President and Board of Trustees

11. The five-year review process will give us answers to the following questions…

12. Are Our Programs and Services of High Quality? • Quality as a concept can be illusory, subject to many definitions, depending on who is doing the defining. • High quality requires that we compare our work against some predetermined standard (unit goals, professional standards, comparable institutions). • We need to be able to answer the question, “Are we providing high quality programs, services and facilities?” • Review process is an important way for us to link goals to outcomes.

13. Are Our Programs Operating Cost-effectively? • In a period of limited resources we need to continuously evaluate cost and benefit of what we are doing. • We would look for this process to demonstrate the effectiveness and worth of our departments/units to the quality of student life and learning.

14. How are departments contributing to Vision 2010? • Our strategic planning process looks at the big issues: mission; vision; relationships with external environment; share of the market; and interactions with other organizations. • Annual review contributes to the strategic planning process by helping define unit goals and objectives and pointing to critical issues that must be resolved successfully for Wilkes to achieve its long-term goals. • Reviews are critical at early stages of planning for identification of strengths, challenges and opportunities. They are critical later on when we want to evaluate progress toward goals.

15. Is there evidence to support our decision-making and policy? • Policies and decisions, if they are to be developed in a systematic and cogent way, must be driven by accurate information and data “The true obstacle to our progress is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge.” — Daniel Boorstin

16. Program Review Process

17. Process • Develop/Revise Department Mission • Develop Department Vision • Identify/Document Core Processes • Create Department Performance Measures • Compile & Analyze Historical Data • Establish Performance Targets • Compile Report

18. Department Mission • Purpose of the department/unit • If your department didn’t exist, why would you create it? • “Customers” you serve • How does your department help to support the University mission?

19. Department Vision • Where do you see the department in the future? • Should contribute to University Vision

20. Core Processes • The main functions of your department

21. Performance Measures • How you will determine success • Should link to University dashboards

22. Contextual Framework • Historical Trends • Where Have We Been? • Goals • Where Are We Going? • Goals from Strategic Vision • Comparative Data (where available) • Where Are Our Peers/Competitors?

23. Performance Indicators • Gauge Institutional Effectiveness • Systematic approach • Together present overall picture • Monitor Performance with Strategic Plan • Is our strategy working? • Link planning, evaluation & improvement • Institutional Alignment • Focus on what’s important • Alignment with changing environment

24. Performance Management System

25. Performance Management System • Stimulate more dynamic and collaborative goal-setting throughout the University • Ensure alignment of individual goals with department goals and University strategic initiatives • Reinforce behaviors that support achievement of University strategic initiatives • Enhance communication between supervisors and employees

26. Managing Performance Managing Phase • Day to day, the manager or supervisor observes, coaches, and reinforces performance • The manager and the employee initiates informal discussions throughout the year • The manager schedules and conducts the mid-year feedback session with the employee.

27. Appraising Performance Appraising Phase • The University, division, department and unit – level performance is appraised • Individual performance is appraised. • The manager schedules the end-of- year meeting • The manager prepares; the employee prepares • The manager and employee compares the actual performance to the planned expectations in the meeting • The manager completes the performance management worksheet

28. Planning Performance Planning Phase • President, Provost and Vice-Presidents communicate the University and division goals to the Deans, Department heads, and other direct reports • Deans, Department heads, direct reports develop department or unit goals that are linked to the division goals • Department or unit goals are communicated to employees • Employees and their supervisors draft performance expectations that are linked to the department or unit goals

29. Questions/challenges/lessons learned • Get champions to go first • Had some starts/stops first two years when we need much reorganization • Create structure and feedback up and down the organization at end of cycle- need consistency across University • Maintain momentum – mid-month check-ins with facilitators would be helpful

30. Questions/challenges/lessons learned • Challenge of doing too much all at once. • Annual updates

31. Reference Notes Arns, R. G. & Poland, W. (1980). Changing the university through program review. Journal of Higher Education, 51 (3), 268-284. Pomerantz, N. K. (2003). Closing the loop: Program review in student affairs. NASPA Net Results. February 25, 2003. http://www.naspa.org/netresults/

32. Contact Information Paul S. Adams Vice President, Student Affairs Wilkes University Wilkes-Barre, PA 18766 paul.adams@wilkes.edu (570) 408-4114