IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
REVIEW OF NON-ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Preamble
In both public and private enterprise, it is considered wise for organizational units to go through
periodic reviews. Typically, the motivations for such reviews include:
 Resource allocation
 Planning
 Restructuring or reengineering of operations
 Reorganization
These motivations are essentially driven by question concerning quality and scope of programs
and services provided vis-a`-vis resources utilized, unmet needs or underserved clients, and
demonstrable operational effectiveness and efficiency.
Purpose
At Iowa State University, reviews of non-academic programs and services provide a mechanism
for systematic assessment of:
 Appropriateness
 Quality
 Effectiveness
 Efficiency
The assessment of a unit’s contribution to the overall mission and strategic plan of the university
is central to the review. Most importantly, comprehensive reviews provide the impetus for
planning and appropriate change involving strategies that are systematic, thoughtful, long-range,
and collaborative.
Policy
Iowa State University periodically reviews all non-academic programs and service. The
appropriate university administrator (President, Provost, or Vice President) responsible for the
programs and services will initiate and supervise the review process, and report the results and
associated recommendations to the President. Following the President’s conclusions, the
responsibility for actions for improvement and/or change will be assigned to the appropriate
administrator(s).
In the interest of efficiency, comprehensiveness, and effectiveness of the review, programs and
services that are interdependent of have strong affinity with each other may be combined for a
review.
Each program or service will be reviewed at least every 5-7 years based on self-study. All
reviews should involve a team of reviewers external to the institution selected by the
administrator of the unit supervising the program or service in consultation with the respective
university administrator. The reviewers will provide a written evaluative report including
recommendations. Any exceptions to the time cycle or the involvement of the external reviewers
will require approval by the President.
Guidelines for Self-Study
The following guidelines suggest the nature and scope of the self-study. Attention should be
given to specific or unique characteristics of the program or service so that the information
categories and their scope can be appropriately adjusted.
I. Executive Summary
 Overview that summarizes the salient aspects of the programs and services
 Analysis and assessment of strengths, weaknesses, and unique features
 Concisely describe the mission and goals
 Articulate the relationship to the university strategic plan.
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
II. Context
 Historical context and the purpose of review
 Include any recommendations that emerged from previous reviews and
corresponding progress made
 Comment on progress toward meeting strategic planning goals
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
III. Description of Programs and Services
Describe the programs and services being reviewed including:
 Operational aspects
 Administrative structure
 Reporting relationships
 Clients
 Describe how expectations are met for assessment and accountability
 Evaluate the effectiveness of the organizational structure.
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
a) Review of Resources
 Provide overview of human resources supporting the programs and
services
 Provide overview of financial resources supporting the programs and
services.
 Assess the quality of the staff
 Assess quality of work environment
 Assess quality of physical resources
 Describe the resource characteristics for the past 5-7 years (or since the
last review) and other major support costs. Provide trend data for 5-7
years, if possible. Include the following information:
o Staff qualifications and salary levels (for market
competitiveness)
o Various sources of funding (state, grants, private, student fees,
auxiliary, etc.) and sufficiency
o
o
o
Examples of significant reallocation of resources (e.g., shifts in
responsibilities of staff or funds in response to changing needs
of clients)
Self-assessment of cost effectiveness including examples of
achieved efficiency and effectiveness
Significant financial need, if any, should be outlined vis-a`-vis
impact on programs and services delivered, along with
proposals for possible solutions.
b) Relationships with Other Units (University, Community, Professional)
 Assess the need, appropriateness, effectiveness, and benefits of such
relationships with regard to the mission of the program or service.
c) Client Satisfaction
 Describe the constituencies served by the program or service
 Identify trends and provide evidence of client satisfaction.
d) Peer Comparison
 To the extent possible, provide comparisons with similar services and
programs in peer institutions.
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
IV. Summary Analysis and Conclusions
 Summarize significant conclusions resulting from the self-study
 Include analyses and reflective commentary on the major issues
surrounding the programs and services and the affecting question.
 Indicate ways in which improvements can be made.
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
V. Appendices
Listed below are several classes of suggested appended material. Other items may be
included as appropriate to support the narrative.






Person(s) Responsible
Published materials for the program or services provided
Strategic planning documents, and benchmark indicators or progress,
as applicable
Client assessments or evaluations of specific programs and services
National, regional, or local awards for program or service
accomplishments
Leadership provided by staff accomplishments recognized by national,
regional, or local awards
Relevant documents describing similar programs or services at peer
institutions
Date Completed
EXTERNAL REVIEW TEAM REPORT
The following questions are suggested to provide guidance to the external review team for its
report. The program or service unit under review may consider additional questions based on
specific and/or unique characteristics, as appropriate.


NEED TO IDENTIFY EXTERNAL REVIEW TEAM AND SCHEDULE VISIT
HOW DO WE INCLUDE STUDENTS IN THE REVIEW PROCESS?
1.Overall, how well is the unit meeting its stated mission in the context of the university’s
strategic plan goals and priorities?
2. How effective is the unit in delivering its services and programs?
3. How efficient is the unit in delivering its services and programs?
4. Are the unit’s current consumers/clients appropriate, how well are they served, and are there
potential audiences who may be considered for future services and programs?
5. How effectively is the unit structured and administered, and how well does the unit benefit
from cooperation and collaboration with other units?
6. Is the unit’s programming professionally current and of high quality?
7. Does the unit have adequate processes in place to evaluate the effectiveness of its programs
and services, and to respond to change?
8. What are the major limiting factors in the quality, future growth and development of the
programs and services in the unit?
9. What changes or improvements are needed to elevate the programs or services to the next
higher level?
10. If the programs or services in the unit have accreditation standards, how central or important
is it to meet those standards? If the standards are not currently being met, what is needed to bring
the programs or services into conformity with accreditations standards?
STEPS IN THE REVIEW OF NON-ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
The following steps are envisioned in the process of conduction reviews for non-academic
programs and services. Modifications to these steps will be subject to unique considerations, if
any, as approved by appropriate administrators.
1. Notification of review—program or service unit administrator notified by the appropriate
university administrator (President, Provost, or Vice President)
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
2. Appointment of self-study committee by the unit administrator in consultation with the
appropriate university administrator, and development of a time-line for conducting the review
(note: finalization will require review and acceptance by the appropriate university administrator)
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
3. Selection of external review team by the unit administrator in consultation with the appropriate
university administrator (note: it is wise to identify reviewers while the self-study is being
prepared, and they must receive the self-study at least three weeks before the visit)
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
4. External review team site visit coordinated by the unit administrator (including meetings with
appropriate constituencies, entrance and exit meetings with appropriate administrators, and time
for the team to reflect and prepare its draft report)
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
5. External review team report submissions to the appropriate university administrator (no later
than 30 days following the visit)
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
6. Appropriate university administrator’s review of report with unit administrator, followed by
unit administrator’s review of report with unit staff and submission of written response to
appropriate university administrator.
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
7. Appropriate university administrator’s review of unit administrator’s response with a view to
reaching agreement and/or reconciliation of differences, and preparation of appropriate university
administrator’s written response
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
8. Submission of final report (external review team report, unit administrator’s response, and
appropriate university administrator’s response) to President (no later than 90 days following the
receipt of the external review team report)
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
9. President’s review of final report, discussion with appropriate university administrator, and
actions as determined by the President
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed
10. Periodic follow-up review by the appropriate university administrator, as needed to assess
progress on recommended actions
Person(s) Responsible
Date Completed