VOLUME XI, NUMBER 16

#& INNOVATION ABSTRACTS

 

Bio Wiel mn hee epi

EN ell 4A tS

 

Formal Program Review:
A Critical Imperative for
Student Services

The concept of institutional effectiveness has engen-
dered much concern in institutions of higher education,
particularly in the community college. Of primary
concern to community colleges is finding a way in
which to make judgments objectively on the efficacy of
educational programs. Today, educators want to know
how to measure the quality of educational outcomes, in-
structional effectiveness, services rendered, and operat-
ing procedures. Currently, some colleges have begun to
look seriously at measurements resulting from formal
review.

During the past decade of dwindling resources, chief
executive officers, local governing boards, state agen-
cies, and regional accreditation agencies have become
hard pressed to assure quality educational programs at
a minimum cost to students and taxpayers. The onus of
responsibility for developing a set of “proofs” that will
demonstrate educational effectiveness and efficiency
lies with personnel throughout the institution. One
sure means of providing evaluative information on
student services programs is via formal program
review. However, one major challenge in student
services program review is the identification of meas-
ures that will prevent the formal review process from
being discounted by any constituencies.

Dimensions of Formal Review

The three major dimensions under scrutiny in formal
program review are the quality of educational out-
comes, the appropriateness of services determined by
student need, and the accountability of institutional
resources. The process of formal program review acts
as a catalyst to strengthen and support a number of
functions within the institution, such as budgeting,
program planning, strategic planning, and other
educational developments. Far too often, available data

_ are not used within a systems framework. In some

colleges where there is an abundance of data, there
appears to be an overemphasis on data collection at the
expense of data analysis. Therefore, a formal review

process serves an essential function in contemporary
educational systems.
Basic Purposes of Formal Review

The six basic purposes of program review are easily
identified: (1) to establish a procedure that will system-
atically ensure quality programs; (2) to identify specific
program deficiencies in order to modify services as
necessary for improvement and productivity; (3) to
assist service units in planning professional develop-
ment programs and activities; (4) to provide an equi-
table method for institutional resource allocation based
on identified need; (5) to maximize utilization of
resources in support of service unit goals and objec-
tives; (6) to synthesize and collate data from program
review into a priority planning document.

Scope of Formal Review

The full scope of program review in student services
encompasses every independent service unit. Typically,
in community colleges the major divisions are Admis-
sions and Records, Counscling, Financial Aid, Student
Activities, Campus Police, and the College Bookstore.
However, there are usually a number of smaller pro-
grams and service units contained in each division, such
as Assessment and Research, Veterans’ Affairs,
Women’s Center, Tutoring Services, International
Students’ Office, Intramural and Extramural Programs,
Health Clinic, Disabled Student Services, and Job
Placement. This array of programs and service units
dictates an extended period of time for program review
to be accomplished. Therefore, it is recommended that
the review for student services be scheduled for either a
three- or five-year cycle, depending on the institution's
position regarding the intent of the evaluation.

Review Process

Critical to the success of the program review is the
implementation of a process that mirrors, to a large
extent, the evaluation of elements in the PPBS model.
The review process should be accomplished in six to ten
stages with corresponding timelines. The actual
number of stages and timelines are dependent upon the
administrative structure of the college. Four supervi-
sory levels are assumed: service unit supervisor,
division director, vice president of student services, and
president. The number of levels will vary from one
institution to the next, depending on reporting relation-
ships.

 

EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712

 

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOD)
Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin