The objective of the Focused Review is to address specific areas of interest, concern, or strategic importance identified through the previous review, ongoing assessment, or emerging departmental needs.

Step 1: Preparation and Orientation

  • Initial Meeting: AIR staff meets with the department director to:
    • Discuss the scope and focus of the review
    • Identify the program review coordinator (who oversees the review process)
    • Schedule orientation and planning meetings
  • Orientation Meeting: AIR staff and department leadership:
    • Review the guidelines and expectations
    • Discuss the scope and focus of the review
    • Set a deadline for completing the program review charge

The objective of the Focused Review is to address specific areas of interest, concern, or strategic importance identified through the previous review, ongoing assessment, or emerging departmental needs.

Focused Review Timeline

This document provides a fillable version of the Focused Review timeline to assist departments in outlining their targeted review process.

Step 2: Focused Self-Assessment

Programs will conduct a focused self-assessment based on whether they are conducting an Improvement Review or a Problem-Solving Review.

Improvement Review

  • Scope Definition: The department identifies the specific area(s) for improvement based on prior review findings, assessment data, strategic priorities, or stakeholder feedback.
  • Assessment Framework: The department selects appropriate standards or criteria (e.g., CAS sub-standards, institutional benchmarks, or internal metrics) to guide the evaluation of the targeted area.
  • Data Collection: Relevant quantitative and qualitative data are gathered, including:
    • Student learning outcomes
    • Satisfaction surveys
    • Usage statistics
    • Budget and resource allocation
    • Staff feedback
    • Peer benchmarking
  • Narrative Analysis: A concise report is developed that:
    • Describes the targeted area and its role within the department
    • Summarizes strengths, challenges, and gaps
    • Highlights trends and patterns in the data
    • Identifies root causes of performance issues or missed opportunities
  • Stakeholder Engagement: Input is solicited from key stakeholders (e.g., students, staff, campus partners) through interviews, focus groups, or surveys to enrich the analysis.

Problem-Solving Review

  • Problem Definition: The department identifies a specific challenge that is impeding effectiveness, efficiency, or alignment with strategic goals. Examples may include:
    • Persistent student dissatisfaction
    • Operational inefficiencies
    • Staff retention issues
    • Gaps in service delivery
  • Contextualization: The problem is described in detail, including:
    • Historical background
    • Impact on students, staff, or operations
    • Previous attempts to address the issue
  • Root Cause Analysis: The department uses structured methods to explore underlying causes, such as a SWOT analysis.
  • Data Collection: Quantitative and qualitative data are gathered to support the analysis, including:
    • Performance metrics
    • Survey results
    • Incident reports
    • Budget and staffing data
  • Stakeholder Engagement: Input is solicited from key stakeholders (e.g., students, staff, campus partners) through interviews, focus groups, or surveys to enrich the analysis.

Step 3: External Reviewer Feedback (Optional but recommended)

External reviewers may be invited to provide feedback and recommendations.

  • Reviewer Selection: External reviewers with expertise in the improvement/problem area are identified in collaboration with the AIR staff. Reviewers may be from peer or aspirational institutions.
  • Review Materials: Reviewers receive the focused self-assessment report, relevant data, and contextual information about the department and improvement/problem area.
  • Engagement Format: Reviewers may participate via:
    • Virtual or in-person site visits
    • Structured interviews with department staff and stakeholders
    • Review of documents and artifacts
  • Feedback Report: Reviewers provide a written summary of:
    • Observations and recommendations
    • Recommendations for improvement or resolution
    • Best practices or successful approaches from other institutions
    • Considerations for implementation

Step 4: Departmental Findings Report

The program will synthesize insights from the self-assessment and external reviewer feedback into a cohesive internal report.

  • Contents:
    • Summary of the improvement/problem area and rationale for selection
    • Key findings from the self-assessment
    • Highlights from external reviewer feedback
    • Identified themes, challenges, and opportunities
    • Preliminary recommendations for departmental consideration
  • Audience: Shared with departmental leadership and staff, division leadership, and AIR staff to inform collaborative planning and decision-making.
  • Format: Typically 3–5 pages, structured to support transparency and alignment with strategic goals.

Step 5: Development of an Action Plan

An action plan will be developed to address the targeted unit, process, or function.

  • Plan Components: See the Creating an Action Plan section.
  • Integration: The action plan is incorporated into departmental strategic planning and annual reporting processes.
  • Follow-Up:
    • The action plan will be posted on the Division of Student Life website.
    • To ensure the successful implementation of the action plan, departments will engage in regular check-ins with staff from the office of Assessment, Improvement, and Research. These meetings will focus on monitoring the progress of the action plan and addressing any challenges that may arise.
    • Additionally, departments are required to provide updates on their action plan at the end of each academic year. These updates will help track the progress made towards achieving the recommendations outlined in the plan and ensure continuous improvement. Updates will be added to the action plan posted on the Division of Student Life website.