Policy on Unit/Area Program Reviews

Leeward Community College

I. Introduction

1. The overall purpose of the unit/area review process is to provide the College with a formal and systematic method for conducting ongoing assessment and the collection of data that provides valuable feedback to the campus community. The feedback or assessment process is instrumental to the decision-making for all units/areas and at all levels throughout the Campus and is an integral part of the College’s planning, implementation, and budgeting process.

2. The main focus of the unit/area review process is to provide evidence that each unit/area of the College is providing quality support of student learning and related student outcomes. Each individual unit/area has the integral responsibility for establishing this evidence.

3. This policy was developed to supplement the guidance provided by the University of Hawaii, Executive Policy – Administration, E5.202 Review of Established Programs, June 1987. The purpose of this document is to clarify and further define the existing UH program review policy to better fit the organizational structure, culture, and institutional programs of Leeward Community College.

4. For the purposes of this unit/area review process, a unit/area is defined as any one, or set of degree/certificate programs or areas of instruction, and/or administrative support activities that are deemed by the Campus to be sufficiently related in terms of objectives, clients served, resources used, or other common identification for the purposes of evaluating performance, determining accountability, and improving quality.

5. A list of review units, modeled after the approved organizational structure (Appendix A), is provided below.

Units/Areas

a. Office of the Provost (Provost responsible)

i. Marketing

ii. Fund Development

iii. Institutional Research

b. Academic Support (Asst. Dean of Academic Support responsible)

i. Educational Media Center

ii. Grants Writing

iii. Information Technology Group

iv. International Education

v. Learning Resource Center

vi. Library

vii. Staff Development

c. Student Services (Dean of Student Services responsible)

i. Admissions & Records

ii. Counseling

iii. Financial Aid

iv. Job Placement

v. Student Health Center

vi. Student Life

vii. Student Publications

d. Community Services (Director of OCET responsible)

i. Contract Training

ii. Facilities Use

iii. Non-Credit Instruction

iv. Theatre

e. Administrative Services (Director of Administrative Services responsible)

i. Business Office

ii. Human Resource Office

iii. Operations & Maintenance

iv. Security

f. Instruction (Dean of Instruction responsible)

Note: The approved organizational structure divides instruction into divisions, but the complexity of this unit/area may require other subdivisions according to location (Pearl City and Waianae), method of instruction (distance education and face-to-face), and degrees and certificates (AA & Gen Ed/AS/AAS). The subdivisions of this unit/area will be determined by the Faculty Senate and Dean of Instruction.

6. Several units may be included in one area. For example, the Business Office, Human Resources Office, and Operations and Maintenance are units in the Administrative Services area. These units will be reviewed at the same time and the Director of Administrative Services will be ultimately responsible. What happens in this area is determined by the units, the Director of Administrative Services, and the Provost.

7. A subcommittee of the Faculty Senate will oversee the review process for the

instruction area because of its complexity. What happens in this area is determined

by the units, the Faculty Senate, the Dean of Instruction, and the Provost.

8. Excluded from the purview of this policy are the programs or activities that receive special funding through grants. Examples of these are: Title III, Ka Hanauna Project (Native Hawaiian Program); the Carl Perkin’s Vocational and Technical Education Act; and the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Waianae Coast Telecommunications Institute. These grants/projects are unique in that they have different reporting/evaluation timetables, different reporting format requirements, and have mandated outcome measures. In effect, the assessment processes for these unique programs are mandated by the granting agency. This significantly hampers the College from modifying the review process in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the assessment vehicle. While assessment of these programs is important, these reviews are viewed as separate initiatives and do not come under this policy.

II. Policy Objectives

1. To provide Program Managers, Administrators, Faculty, and Staff with important information that is used for “internal” control and assessment within units/areas and for the Campus’s integrated planning, implementation, and assessment process.

2. To establish a model or method for conducting unit/area reviews that facilitates the efficient evaluation of all units/areas (instructional programs and administrative support activities).

3. To identify key positions and specific responsibilities that are essential to the unit/area review assessment process.

4. To identify the organizational units/areas to be assessed and a time frame for conducting the reviews.

5. To prescribe an administrative reporting format that is prescriptive, yet generic enough, to accommodate the different organizational units/areas and the variety of data that will be collected.

6. To help assure that each functional unit/area of the College is providing quality support of student learning and related student outcomes.

III. Review Procedures: At a minimum, annual reviews will include the following

information utilizing the template (Appendix B).

1. Develop a list of unit/area goals and/or objectives as they relate to the College’s mission statement and strategic plan.

2. Develop outcome measures based on unit/area goals and/or objectives.

A. Each unit/area will have the option of selecting outcome measures that provide quantitative/qualitative data useful for managing the unit/area and evaluating student learning or related student learning outcomes. Appendix C is a list of potential outcome measures that may serve as a starting point from which to choose. However, each unit/area is not restricted to this list but rather should select outcome measures that provide meaningful feedback.

B. The selection of outcome measures requires a joint perspective of all affected persons within the unit (in addition, including student input where appropriate) and the immediate supervisor as well as upper level supervisors of units/areas who should be involved in the selection of outcome measures. Additionally, each level of the College hierarchy (Division Chairs, Deans, Directors, Provost) may select other quantitative measures that present them with valuable information relative to their perspectives.

3. Review data annually. Data (based on outcome measures) will be collected and provided to Administrators, Division Chairs, Program Managers, and the unit/area so that frequent, on-going feedback to and management of these units/areas can proceed efficiently. Data may be centrally collected by an Institutional Researcher or others depending on the specific outcome measures selected.

4. Assess whether or not the unit/area is meeting its goals and/or objectives.

5. Identify any present or potential problems plus a description of any action plans that may lead to unit/area improvement.

6. Follow up on results.

IV. Policy Change: In the event that a review unit/area requests a change or adjustment

to this review policy, the Provost and the administrative team will become the

Program Review Oversight Committee. Units/areas should contact their immediate

supervisors through the College hierarchy until the request reaches the Dean/Director

of the unit/area. The request for policy change would become an agenda item on the regularly scheduled meeting of the administrative team.