R411, Review of Existing Programs

R411-1. Purpose

To provide policy and procedures for the review of existing programs in the Utah System of Higher Education.

2.2. Policy and Procedures R220, Delegation of Responsibilities to the President and Board of Trustees

2.3. Policy and Procedures R401, Program Approval

3.2. Responsibility - The responsibility for improving quality must be institution based. It is through the combined efforts of presidents, vice presidents, provosts, deans, department chairs, and individual faculty that meaningful change occurs. Consequently, the primary responsibility for reviewing existing programs is assigned to faculty and administrators at the institution, and to institutional Boards of Trustees with accompanying Regent oversight.

3.3. Timing – A cyclical process is recommended in which all programs at doctoral research institutions are reviewed once every seven years.  All programs at the remaining institutions are reviewed every five years, thus assuring a thoughtful and careful examination in a timely fashion.  It is also recommended timing of these reviews be coordinated with regional and/or specialized accreditation review schedules whenever possible to avoid duplication of effort and expense.

3.4. Institutional Review Procedures - Program reviews will be conducted in accordance with procedures developed by each institution consistent with its respective faculty governance system. Review committees for each program are established that include independent membership external to the program being reviewed.  Knowledgeable consultants external to the institution are highly recommended.  Program Advisory Committee members or others from industry, business, or labor should be included in the review of applied technology programs.  Departments whose programs are under review shall prepare detailed written materials for review committees based on system and institutional criteria.

3.5.  Evaluation Factors – Evaluation factors, both qualitative and quantitative, include:  program outcomes and assessment criteria, curricula, students, faculty, staff, equipment, facilities, and other resources.  Additionally, reviews shall include an evaluation of the need for and the cost-effectiveness of the program.  Results of former institutional reviews and accreditation findings and recommendations should also be included.

4.1. Internal and External Reviewers

4.1.1. Names and affiliations.

4.2. Program Description

4.2.1. Degrees, certificates, and/other credentials.

4.2.2. Support function or interaction with other programs.

4.2.3. Outreach efforts.

4.3. Faculty

4.3.1. Tenure-track faculty.

4.3.2. Contract faculty headcount and FTE.

4.3.3. Adjunct faculty and graduate assistants FTE.

4.3.4. Faculty-student ratios.

4.3.5. Faculty credentials, rank, and diversity information.

4.3.6. Student credit hours produced per full-time equivalent faculty.

4.4. Staff

4.4.1. Headcount and FTE.

4.5. Students

4.5.1. Student credit hours generated.

4.5.2. Number of majors in program for review period.

4.5.3. Enrollment and attrition trends.

4.5.4. Graduation and retention rates.

4.5.5. Student placement rates and salary data if available.

4.5.6. Transfer data.

4.6. Program Costs

4.6.1. Instructional costs.

4.6.2. Support costs.

4.7. Program Assessment

4.7.1. Examples of goals, measurements, impact.

4.7.2. Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations.

4.7.3. Responses to review committee findings and recommendations.

5.1.1. Institutional CAOs shall provide summaries of the annual results of program reviews to the Office of Academic Affairs. The summaries should include institutional procedures, major findings, five year enrollment and budget data, all recommendations, and significant issues.

5.1.2. Program review summaries should be reviewed by the Office of Academic Affairs.  These summaries will be brought to the Regents as information items.  Any serious issues will be identified and may be subject to possible subsequent action.

5.1.3. In addition to review summaries, institutional Chief Academic Officers shall provide to the Office of Academic Affairs copies of regional and specialized accreditation reports, including focused and interim reports, and other reports as requested.