2010 SACSCOC Administrative Program Review - with handouts

12/02/2010
1
2010 SACS-COC Annual Meeting
December 6, 2010
CS-69
Administrative Program Review
Assuring Quality in Administrative and Academic Support Units
Who we are
• Dr. Melissa Canady Wargo
Assistant Vice Chancellor, Institutional Planning and Effectiveness
• David Onder
Assessment Coordinator, Institutional Planning and Effectiveness
• Mardy Ashe
Director, 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
Academic
Program
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 meetings
o 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
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.
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

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.
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
College of Health & Human
Sciences
College of Fine & Performing Arts http://www.wcu.edu/3918.asp
Kimmel School of Construction
Management & Technology
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

2010 SACSCOC Administrative Program Review - with handouts

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 2010 SACSCOC Administrative Program Review - with handouts

Similar to 2010 SACSCOC Administrative Program Review - with handouts (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2010 SACSCOC Administrative Program Review - with handouts