Program Review Procedures and timeline

Program Review Cycles

Review Cycles for Accredited and Non-Accredited Programs

Every NON-ACCREDITED degree major (including concentrations and certificates) is scheduled for Program Review every five years.

Every ACCREDITED degree program major (including concentrations and certificates) is scheduled for Program Review once every accreditation cycle following the initial or re-affirmation of accreditation peer review visit.  

Program Review Education Session

Please click the link below:

Program Review Education Session

Program Review Template

Please click the link below:

Combined (Accredited/Non-Accredited) Program Review Template

Program Review Annual Timeline

  • May-June: Notification of programs under review to Dean's Offices and Department Chairs by the AVP for Assessment & Accreditation or Director of Institutional Effectiveness.
  • July/August: Common institutional Data Source administrators are notified of programs to be evaluated. Sources for common institutional datasets are identified on the program review template.
  • Summer: Programs may request individual consultation with Director of Institutional Effectiveness.
  • Early September: Program Review Education Session(s) occur.
  • Completed program reviews submitted to college/school dean by December 31st.

Note: all requested support documents should be copied in appropriate program review appendices for the submission of ONE complete program review document.

  • January – April 15: College and school councils review reports and make recommendations to college/school deans.  
  • College/school deans recommend an action (options table below) including a rationale.   
  • April-16 – May 16: Dean discusses recommended actions with department chairs for review and potential appeal to the associate provost for assessment and accreditation. 
  • May 17-June 1st: Dean forwards final council recommendations, follow-up actions, and suggestions to the Provost/Senior VP for Academic Affairs and AVP for Assessment & Accreditation. 
  • June 1st -July 31st: Provost reviews and discusses recommendations with the President. President or designee makes the final decision and action (Options Table Below)
  • July 31: Associate Provost, Deans and Department Chairs receive final program review decision institutional recommendation, follow-up actions, and suggestions. 
  • August 15: President or designee submits each academic program review and final decision to the State System Office of Academic and Student Affairs.

Program Review Graduate & Undergraduate Council Procedure

  • Every program major (accredited and non-accredited) is scheduled for review once notified and must complete a program review template by December 31st of the review year.
  • Program review reports are reviewed by the Graduate or Undergraduate School/College Councils over the period of January through April 15th.
  • One member of the reviewing council is assigned to each program as a primary reviewer with at least an additional secondary reviewer as well; reviewers may not serve on reviews for programs within their own departments.
  • Both reviewers are responsible for reviewing and evaluating the program review reports.  Reviewers may contact the program for additional information or clarification as needed.
  • The primary reviewer completes a review summary with focus on trend-data analyses. The secondary reviewer makes any necessary edits to the review summary and the two reviewers propose an initial recommendation concerning the program (options table below).  


Program Review Recommendation Options

No changes.  Program meeting mission & goals of university and State System as currently offered.

Modifications/Recommendations that may enhance program sustainability or excellence.

Collaborative approach with similar programs across multiple universities.   

Program has indicated growth potential. Consider for increased funding.

Program should be placed in moratorium.


  • Recommendations should be:

    • Based on data related to Program Review Performance Criteria,
    • Aligned with goals of the University Strategic Plan,
    • Predicated on trend-data analyses from the annual assessment process and action plan results from previous program reviews,
    • Aligned with the university Sustainability Plan, and
    • In the best interest of our students and university.
  • The primary reviewer presents the review summary to the relevant Council with the initial recommendation.
  • The relevant Council discusses the summary and initial recommendation. The reviewers answer questions about the program based upon their program review report. If Council members are present from the program, they may provide factual information about the program but are expected to refrain from comments that are intended to influence the Council's decision.
  • The relevant Council votes on its recommendation and reports results of each vote to the college/school dean and associate provost for assessment and accreditation concerning the program. Council members who are associated with a program under review are expected to abstain from the vote.
  • The secondary reviewer edits and finalizes the review summary, including the final recommendation of the college/school council and its follow-up actions and suggestions.
  • The college/school dean collates the final review summaries, makes his/her recommendation and submits them to the provost for review and recommendation to the president.
  • The president or designee makes the final decision and forwards a copy of the summary review, requested follow-up actions and suggestions to the associate provost for assessment and accreditation, dean and department.    
  • By August 15, the university president or designee submits each complete academic program review to the State System Office of Academic and Student Affairs.