Using Program Review to Facilitate
Change
Mississippi Association for Institutional Research
March 31, 2005
Terri M. Manning, EdD
Central Piedmont Community College
Some history….
 CPCC is the largest community college in
both the Carolinas with approximately 60,000
students.
 We have over 100 instructional program
areas including for-credit, continuing
education and literacy
 We have almost 50 administrative and
student affairs units
Some history….
 When we started this process (1998), the College
had done nothing truly “IE related” since the last
SACS visit in 1992 when they received a
recommendation for every must statement in section
III.
 The IR office staff had rolled over and all institutional
memory was gone.
 We had less than 5 years to put every program and
unit through a review process.
Under the New Core Requirements
and Comprehensive Standards
 Core Requirement 2.5 states “The institution engages
in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide researchbased planning and evaluation processes that
incorporate a systematic review of programs and
services that (a) results in continuing improvement, and
(b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively
accomplishing its mission.”
 Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 states “The institution
identifies expected outcomes for its educational
programs and its administrative and educational support
services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes;
and provides evidence of improvement based on
analysis of those results.”
IE at Central Piedmont
 CPCC established an IE committee in 1998
and an IE website in 2000
(http://inside.cpcc.edu/IE)
 Committee members were from various
instructional departments, student services
and administrative/business offices
 The committee established an IE plan for the
college
Visual of the IE Plan
Four Major Overlapping Pieces of the
IE Plan
 Annual goal setting and
General
Education
Assessment
Program/
Unit Review
Annual Goal
Setting Cycle
College
Assessment
Process
follow-up required by all units
 Program/unit review on a 3-5
year cycle
 College assessment plan
involving surveys,
assessment and data
analysis
 The evaluation of general
education
Developing the Process
 We wanted to create a meaningful
program/unit review process
 We wanted programs to complete the
process having learned something valuable
(not a document to set on a shelf)
 We wanted the process to be “outcomebased” to stand the test of time
Developing the Process
 The first review process was created for
instructional programs (main focus at most
institutions)
 During the 1998-99 year, 18 programs were
reviewed (approximately 100 programs over
five years)
 The perception at the beginning was that “this
is just another academic exercise”
 But the results were very different than any
review process previously completed
Organizational Stages of
Outcome Evaluation
Stage 4
Stage 5
Acceptance & adaptation
Challenge & competition
Catalyst - Proactive
Depression - exhaustion
Compliance - Passive reactive
Stage 3
Bargaining - no time/no money
Seek outside sources
Stage 2
Anger and antagonism
Resistant & Reactive
Stage 1
Disbelief & Denial
Paralysis - Passive resistance
Instructional Program Review
 The review process contained five sections:





I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
The Program Profile
Program Content
Student Learning Outcomes
Need for Change
Future Issues
Instructional Program Review
 Tasks accomplished through review:
Defined their program
 Detailed faculty and staff (credentials, prof. dev,
accomplishments)
 Unit mission or purpose
 Link unit mission to the college mission
 Defined the content of their program
 Defined the population served
 Determined student learning outcomes specific to their program
 Set outcome objectives
 Performed some means of assessment
 Analyzed results
 Determined strengths and weaknesses
 Created strategies for improvement
 Determined future needs (including curricular change, needed
resources, staff and space)
 All units had to complete a one-year follow-up

Identifying Outcomes
 We focused on two types of measures:

Instructional Outcomes



Program Outcomes
Student Learning Outcomes
Administrative Outcomes (outcomes for
administrative programs)
Administrative Outcomes
 Many units do not directly serve students or they
want results within their units that are not truly
student outcomes.
 They want to improve services or approach an
old problem in a new way.
 They want to become more efficient and effective.
 They will set administrative outcomes.
My Administrative Outcome Objectives
1. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the faculty/staff survey
will perceive that Planning and Research responds
quickly to their requests for data.
2. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the survey will perceive
that Planning and Research makes a significant
contribution to the College.
3. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the survey will perceive
that Planning and Research contributes to the
effectiveness of CPCC.
4. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the survey will indicate
that Planning and Research produces enough reports to
meet the planning and information needs of faculty and
staff.
Administrative Outcomes for
Instruction
 Objectives set for the program (has nothing to
do with students outcomes)

Example





to recruit one new faculty member
to seek and gain accreditation
to increase retention by 10%
to send each faculty member to at least once
professional conference per year
to gain funding for an innovative program through
a grant proposal
Outcomes
 "Outcomes" are benefits for people: changes in
knowledge, values, position, skills, behavior or status.
More simply stated, outcomes are typically what service
providers hope recipients achieve once they complete a
program or receive services. This is not the “what” but the
“why” of education.
Types of Outcomes
 Student learning outcomes are outcomes
related to the learning that takes place in the
classroom. We measure improvements in
writing, speaking, understanding the scientific
method, etc.
 Program outcomes are the benefits to a
student who receives an associate degree in
Nursing or completes a certificate in Network
Administration? Typical outcomes might be
licensure exam scores, job placement, etc.
 Outcome objectives are just objectives that
relate to the identified outcomes.
Program Outcome Model
INPUTS
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
Resources
Services
Products or Results of
Activities
Staff
Buildings
Facilities
State funds
FTE
Education (classes)
Services
Counseling
Student activities
Numbers served
FTE (input next year)
Classes taught
Students recruited
Constraints
Laws
State regulations
Program Outcomes Model
INPUTS
> ACTIVITIES > OUTPUTS
> OUTCOMES
Benefits for People
*New knowledge
*Increased skills
*Changes in values
*Modified behavior
*Improved condition
*Altered status
Instructional Program Review
 Rules for the process included:
 Involvement on the part of all faculty in the
department under review (not just one person). It is
recommended that the program begin with a brief
faculty retreat to discuss and divide tasks.
 All programs must use at least one external
committee (advisory groups are fine) to provide
feedback to programs.
 All programs must utilize feedback from students.
During the first few years…
 Planning and Research conducted training on
“how to conduct program review” with each
unit scheduled to go up for review that year.
 A staff member from Planning and Research
served as a liaison to each program being
reviewed to help them with the process.
What We Learned….
 The first group was dragged kicking and
screaming through the process
 Faculty had very little time for the details
 Faculty had trouble identifying “student
learning outcomes”
 The results produced great marketing
materials
 Once they saw the results, faculty embraced
the process
What Happened
 Deans used the results to make a case for
resources
 The administration became interested in what
was learned through the review process
 Instruction created a position to deal mainly
with program review and IE issues within
instruction
 Faculty knew their programs were working
IE Committee Decision
 The instructional program review process was
successful
 The review of instructional units was important –
but administrative/student services units helped
create an environment conducive to learning at
the college and supported the learning process
 Administrative units should go through a similar
process
IE Committee Decision, cont.
 Create a committee to draft a similar process for
the administrative and students services areas of
the college
 Administrative units were spread across three VP
areas
 Two representative from each VP area
participated in drafting the new review process
 We spent approximately six months creating a
workable process
The Administrative Unit Review Design
I. The Unit/Program Profile
A. The Mission/Purpose
1.
Role unit plays in the college mission
2.
Unit/program goals as they relate to the
college’s mission
B. The Staff
1.
Professional and administrative staff (b-e
since the last review)
a.
Position description/duties
b.
Credentials (full and part-time, if any)
c.
Accomplishments (if applicable)
d.
Service to college, community and
nation
The Administrative Unit Review
(continued)
B. The Staff (continued)
e.
Professional development activities
2.
Classified Staff
a.
List of names and positions
b.
List of required credentials (if any)
C. The Customer/Client Served
1.
Breakdown of students/faculty or staff by
type or demographic information
(thorough explanation of who is served)
The Administrative Unit Review
(continued)
II.
Definition of Services or Program
A.
Definition of day-to-day duties of the unit
B.
Innovations, new projects, new initiatives,
local, state-wide or national efforts
C.
Required functions of unit (description and
status of compliance)
1.
SACS requirements
2.
State mandates
3.
Federal mandates
4.
Other
The Administrative Unit Review
(continued)
III.Administrative Objectives and Student Outcomes
(where appropriate)
A.
Administrative objectives (2-3 objectives)
B.
Outcomes (or status if incomplete) of
innovations, new projects, new initiatives,
local, state or national efforts
C.
Assessment explanation (what was
assessed, who, when, how many)
D.
Results of administrative objectives
based on assessment
Assessment of Administrative Units
 During the year of program review, the
“Annual Faculty/Staff Survey” contained
questions from those units being reviewed.
 Results were given to each unit and broken
out by campus and job type
http://www.cpcc.edu/planning
Click on “survey results”
The Administrative Unit Review
(continued)
IV.
Need for Change
A.
Strengths identified by external sources,
faculty, staff and students
B.
Weaknesses identified by external
sources, faculty, staff and students
C.
Recommendations by faculty, staff,
external sources and students to improve
the unit's services and programs
D.
Strategies for change (based on input
from A, B & C above) - closing the loop
E.
A one-year follow-up brief report to the
Unit VP reporting on the progress of D
above (due April 15, the year following
review)
The Administrative Unit Review
(continued)
V.
Future Issues - Resources needed for future efforts
A.
Market trends within the broad service unit or
program area (based on best-practices, the
literature or training received)
B.
Anticipated future changes and needs
(based on market trends)
C.
Resources, equipment, space, staffing and
work load changes needs for future growth or
continuation
D.
Future plans of unit
Assistance from the Website
 The IE website:
 http://inside.cpcc.edu/IE




Explanation of IE process
Templates and forms for review
“Solid” examples for clarification
Schedule for review
Unit Review – Lessons Learned

To do this well you need several critical pieces:
1. Support from the top (President or Chancellor,
Vice Presidents or Vice Chancellors)
2. Buy in from the grassroots level (participation in
the development of the process)
3. Across-the-college participation (no one is
exempt)
4. Technology to make it easy (web page and
review templates)
5. Technical support from institutional research
Administrative Response
 Units spend a lot of time working on the
program review.
 If we want them to take it seriously, we have
to take it seriously.
 Once reviews are reported at the end of the
year, their Dean or Vice President/Chancellor
need to:


1. Read them
2. Respond to them
Appropriate Administrative Response





Sit down with the unit (group meeting)
Give them your attention
Discuss what was learned
Discuss their major issues
Discuss what they need to make
improvements
 Actually attempt to direct resources to them to
make those improvements
 Then they do not see it as an academic
exercise
Overall Benefits
 #1 No recommendations in the area of Institutional
Effectiveness from SACS during the October 2002 reaccreditation visit
 The college became change-oriented





Units had to define strategies for change
Didn’t have to be perfect but rather making continuous
progress
Strategies for change helped identify needed resources for
units
Units had to “close the loop” with the one-year follow-up
(couldn’t promise and not deliver)
Once they started, we couldn’t get them to stop doing it.
Overall Benefits
 Units became empowered to perform their
functions in an optimal manner and to ask for
what they needed (no one noticed them before,
now they do)


Created data to support needs
Accomplishments were reported to major
administrative groups across the college
(President’s Cabinet, Planning Council, IE
Committee, etc.)
Overall Benefits
 The college community understood the
purpose and function of every unit
 Senior administration realized the benefits and
became strong supporters


Data are reported annually from program/unit
review
VPs became stronger advocates for their units
making changes to improve services
Administrative Units Reviewed
Security
Human Resources
Resource Development
EEO Office
Facilities Management
Facilities Design/Construction
Financial Services
Budgeting
Purchasing
Cashiering
Basic Skills Reporting
Bookstore
Vending
Admin. Computing Services
Health and Safety Office
Professional Development
The Foundation
President’s Office
Distribution Services
Planning and Research
Payroll
Financial Reporting
Accounts Payable
Audit and Compliance
Inventory Control
Campus Printing
Information Technology
Marketing and Community
Relations
Students Affairs Units Reviewed












Counseling and Advising
Financial Aid/Veteran’s Affairs
Career Services
Disability Services
“Campus-based” student services (6 campuses)
Admissions and Records
Registration Services
The Library
The Academic Learning Center (tutoring)
Testing Center
Graduation Office
Student Life
Five Units
Some Brief Results
An Instructional Program
 Workplace Basic Skills

This program is a literacy initiative that goes
directly into the worksite and teaches ESL
classes, GED prep and GED classes.
 During their review, they surveyed both
employers and students.
 This was the first time they had ever done
this.
What They Learned
 Employers said:





43.8% of employers reported increases in
employee performance as a result of
participation in the program.
31.3% reported a reduction in absenteeism by
participants.
87.5% said classes improved the morale of
their employees
37.5% said participants received raises
50% said communication had improved.
What Students Said
 70.2% reported being able to fill out job forms better
 35.5% said they could now help their children with
their homework
 91.1% said they felt better about themselves
 44.4% said they had received a raise, promotion or
opportunity as a result of the courses
 86.3% said their ability to communicate in the
workplace had improved
What Has Happened Since
 Their assessment data has shown up in their
marketing brochures to employers.
 Their enrollment has grown dramatically.
 They have received funding and marketing
support from Charlotte Reads (considered a
model adult literacy program).
Planning and Research
 Weaknesses Identified:
Data/information needs to be disseminated to the grass roots
level of the College (not just administration)
 Data needs to be made more accessible and easier to
understand
 Strategy for Change:
 Make improvements in the department’s webpage
 Place more information on the webpage
 Result:
 Units are using data to make decisions
 Planning and Research has a heavily used website with userfriendly spreadsheets, tables and an online Fact Book. Inperson requests for data have dramatically declined because
faculty/staff are using the webpage

Professional Development
 Weaknesses Identified:
 Instructors could not attend training sessions due to the
times they were scheduled (top of the hour when
classes were scheduled on the half hour)
 Strategy for Change:
 Starting times for all training sessions will be adjusted
to begin on the half hour rather than the hour
 Results:
 More faculty were able to attend trainings and numbers
increased in some areas
The Bookstore
 Weaknesses Identified:
Communication between faculty and staff and the
bookstore management needs improvement
 Strategies for Change:
 A bookstore advisory committee has been formed. Action
items identified will be followed up to insure that the
bookstore is meeting the needs of faculty/staff
 Results:
 Decided to outsource the bookstore
 Worked with faculty to ensure an adequate number of
books were available at the beginning of the term
 Created a process to move books from campus to campus
to accommodate student needs
 Created more buy-back centers on the campuses to
improve services

Information Technology Services
 Weaknesses Identified:
 Better follow-up is needed on Help Desk requests
 Requests need to be answered faster
 Have knowledgeable people at the Help Desk
 Strategies for Change:
 Employ students with pertinent certification to man the Help
Desk
 Empower Help Desk staff with decision-making ability that
helps provide the required level of service
 Results:
 Help Desk created a tracking system that has radically
improved time from request to completion
Major Benefits for IR Office
 We created work for ourselves with great payoff.
 Each unit being reviewed had a liaison from IR to
help them with surveys, objectives, etc.
 Now, everyone knows us.
 They think we are very helpful and a great asset to
the institution.
 They call us for information and then listen to what
we say.
“Best” Results of “Best” Practice
 Better use of data across the college
 We have become more student/customer focused
 Review gives direction for goals and needed changes
 Departments are empowered to do their jobs (can’t slip
through the cracks and be unnoticed)
 Problems must be resolved (there is no hiding and no
excuses)
 Surveys provide needs assessment data as well as
evaluation which gives departments direction
For a copy of this presentation
 Contact Terri Manning
 terri.manning@cpcc.edu
 Download or print presentation:
 http://www.cpcc.edu/planning


Click on “studies and reports”
Listed as MAIR Program Review Presentation