1st discussion By Melvina Procedural Framework for a Program Evaluation             Evaluation methods vary depending on the aims of the specific program being evaluated. San Joaquin Delta College assessment process is aimed at reviewing department missions, core functions, and its relationship to the College’s mission, and providing data for College planning and resource allocation. The College has identified the process as a continuous improvement process that ties the mission, goals, and outcomes to the strategic planning and resource allocation. It involves six key steps defining or redefining department mission, identifying the department goals and objectives, measuring outcomes, analyzing results, developing, and allocating resources. (Administrative Unit Review Toolkit)              I believe that the institution process is justified bearing in mind that the administrative department purpose is to ensure institutional improvement and renewal and also the College’s accreditation.   As per the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) Standards, the administrative and support unit ought to facilitate the continuous improvement of academic and student support programs and the achievement of learning outcomes (Administrative Unit Review Toolkit). Hence with the above process, San Joaquin Delta College is undoubtedly committed to continuous quality improvement for each department, program, and services in the institution.             However, based on comparison to the procedural steps in the readings and overview, I would revise the San Joaquin’s steps to include stakeholder involvement in the initial stages. Stakeholder involvement is an essential step in program evaluation because it forms the basis for knowledge exchange point of view, and it is vital in decision-making and improvement. This step will help in gathering multiple perspectives about the salient issues and making sure that the need for all is addressed.             The administrative unit review as discussed in the toolkit is different from academic program review. Administrative Unit Review (AUR) is more concerned about administrative departments. These reviews are concerned with making recommendations to improve the effectiveness of student support and administrative service units on campus. (Nichols, 2008) Academic program review, on the other hand, is more concerned with the College’s programs; it is about ensuring that the college programs and curriculums are effective and responsive to the community within the limits of the available resources. (Academic Program Review) Academic program review is a faculty-driven process and is initiated at the academic level with the lead role generally in the hands of the academic supervisors. 2nd discussion by Katie According to the San Joaquin Delta College Administrative Unit Review Toolkit “assessment involves the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data in order to determine if institutional.

1. 1st discussion By Melvina
Procedural Framework for a Program Evaluation
Evaluation methods vary depending on the aims of the
specific program being evaluated. San Joaquin Delta College
assessment process is aimed at reviewing department missions,
core functions, and its relationship to the College’s mission,
and providing data for College planning and resource allocation.
The College has identified the process as a continuous
improvement process that ties the mission, goals, and outcomes
to the strategic planning and resource allocation. It involves six
key steps defining or redefining department mission, identifying
the department goals and objectives, measuring outcomes,
analyzing results, developing, and allocating resources.
(Administrative Unit Review Toolkit)
I believe that the institution process is justified bearing
in mind that the administrative department purpose is to ensure
institutional improvement and renewal and also the College’s
accreditation. As per the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) Standards, the
administrative and support unit ought to facilitate the
continuous improvement of academic and student support
programs and the achievement of learning outcomes
(Administrative Unit Review Toolkit). Hence with the above
process, San Joaquin Delta College is undoubtedly committed to
continuous quality improvement for each department, program,
and services in the institution.
However, based on comparison to the procedural steps
in the readings and overview, I would revise the San Joaquin’s
steps to include stakeholder involvement in the initial stages.
Stakeholder involvement is an essential step in program
evaluation because it forms the basis for knowledge exchange
point of view, and it is vital in decision-making and
improvement. This step will help in gathering multiple

2. perspectives about the salient issues and making sure that the
need for all is addressed.
The administrative unit review as discussed in the
toolkit is different from academic program review.
Administrative Unit Review (AUR) is more concerned about
administrative departments. These reviews are concerned with
making recommendations to improve the effectiveness of
student support and administrative service units on campus.
(Nichols, 2008) Academic program review, on the other hand, is
more concerned with the College’s programs; it is about
ensuring that the college programs and curriculums are effective
and responsive to the community within the limits of the
available resources. (Academic Program Review) Academic
program review is a faculty-driven process and is initiated at
the academic level with the lead role generally in the hands of
the academic supervisors.
2nd discussion by Katie
According to the San Joaquin Delta College Administrative Unit
Review Toolkit “assessment involves the collection, analysis,
and interpretation of data in order to determine if institutional
performance is meeting expectations” (San Joaquin Delta, n.d.).
Program evaluations are not only designed for academic
programs, but also programs that service students (San Joaquin
Delta, n.d.).San Joaquin Delta College assessment model can be
applied to several divisions at the institution. The primary steps
in their assessment tool kit are as follows (San Joaquin Delta,
n.d.):
1. Define/Redefine Department Mission Identify
Goals/Objectives
2. Measure Outcomes
3. Analyze Results

3. 4. Develop an Action Plan
5. Allocate Resources
San Joaquin Delta College developed Institutional Learning
Outcomes and Student Learning Outcomes that help identify the
essential to the Institution and the programs commitment to the
students served (Grayson, 2012, p. 463). In further exploration
of Delta College’s tool kit they introduce annual administrative
unit reviews that consist of an overview of the unit,
administrative outcomes, key performance indicators, resource
allocation analysis and summary and recommendation (San
Joaquin Delta, n.d.). Delta College’s AUR allows for readers to
understand how to “describing a program [with regard to its]
resources . . . activities, [components, outputs, participants,]
outcomes, and impact [defines] a program's logic [or purpose]”
(Grayson, 2012, p. 465).
San Joaquin Delta College provides visuals on resource
allocation, SWOT analysis and also recommendations of
assistance with conducting program assessments (San Joaquin
Delta, n.d.). San Joaquin Delta College example Administrative
Unit Review Report not only collected relevant data, but
presented clear analysis and narrative of the data.
I believe that the San Joaquin Delta College Administrative
Unit Review Toolkit has a wealth of information but in
comparison to the procedural framework for a program
evaluation in the readings there is one step that I would revise.
First where San Joaquin identify the goals and objectives of the
program, as the reading suggested I would briefly identify and
outline how to involve the stakeholders. As stated in the earlier
readings getting stakeholders “involved early on will help you
get different perspectives on the program and establish common
expectations” (NWCPHP, 2014).

4. Running head: DISCUSSION 3
1
DISCUSSION 3
3
Discussion 3
Student’s name
University affiliation
Discussion 3
Procedural framework for program evaluation
The procedural framework for program evaluation is an
important toolkit used by the institution to assess the quality
and level of educational services offered to the students and the
community in general. This toolkit helps different departments
to contribute to improving the learners' experience and
outcomes and plays a big role in budgetary planning for the
whole institution. The program evaluation framework involves
six steps which include defining or redefining the department’s
mission, identifying goals and objectives, measuring outcomes,

5. analyzing results, developing an action plan, and allocating
resources (San Joaquin Delta College). Each of the steps
included in the evaluation process is well justified since they tie
the departments' objectives with that of the entire institution.
This makes it easier to achieve uniform achievements since the
executives can only approve resources which are in line with
the institutional missions and goals.
This framework is effective since it provides the departments
with the opportunity to impact the external and internal factors
which affect learning outcomes. Externally, the department can
assess the access to technology in the community and ensure
that the institution provides the best quality education
concerning technological tools and their use. Internally, the
framework shows a high level of collaboration between
departments and the Executive Cabinet, which has led to overall
effectiveness and performance of the entire administrative
function (Spillane, 2015). I have learned that academic program
review is concerned with providing the students with the best
learning experience throughout the course period; whereas
administrative unit review is concerned with how different
departments or units interact to provide all the necessary
resources needed for the smooth running of the institution.
Reference
San Joaquin Delta College. Administrative Unit Review Tool
Kit.
Spillane, J. (2015). Leadership and learning: Conceptualizing
relations between school administrative practice and
instructional practice. Societies, 5(2), 277-294.