CIP Process

​​​​​​​​​​The CIP process will be as follows:

1. Units have significant control over their external reviews. They may choose from existing standards, such as those defined by professional or disciplinary organizations, or develop their own standards against which they will be evaluated. It is also possible that “specialized” rather than comprehensive reviews will be approved, especially for administrative programs/offices (e.g., Financial Aid wants to review its aid packaging strategy; Enrollment Services wants to review its Web-based course registration process; etc).

2. Units are required to submit two forms/reports related to the review:

  • justification and plan for the review (“Statement of Intent” form), including confirmation of unit support for the review, standards that will form the basis for the review, and expectations the unit has of the reviewer(s)
  • description of proposed reviewers’ credentials (“Nomination for External Reviewers” form), including any potential conflicts of interest between the reviewer and any member of the unit; the “Nomination” form should be submitted with enough lead time (approximately six months) in order to properly review and schedule the potential visitor(s)

3. Units are required to conduct a self-study related to the standards (or specialized area) chosen. This self-study will be provided to all external reviewers and to the VPAA and/or his/her designee(s) (“Self-Study Analysis” guide). Self-studies should also include analysis of the following (note that for some specialized reviews, these items may not be applicable or may need to be modified):

  • alignment of unit goals/standards to unit mission and of unit mission to College mission (note: units must articulate mission statements if they have not already done so)
  • description and appraisal of how goals/standards are being met/not being met, including related evidence; e.g., assessment data
  • description of unit’s ongoing assessment plan, including outcomes and related measures
  • description/analysis of the governance and decision-making process in the unit
  • description/analysis of the working relationships between and among unit administrators, faculty, and/or staff within the unit, within the school (if relevant), within the division (Academic Affairs), and within the College
  • ​description/analysis of how unit supports, counsels, mentors, and/or reviews “junior” faculty and/or staff

4. The VPAA’s Office will provide data relevant to the review, when available and appropriate (e.g., for academic departments/programs: student headcounts, graduates, credit hours generated, course sections, budget details, faculty/staff headcounts, etc).

5. Units may recommend external reviewers to their respective school dean and to the VPAA’s Office(“Nomination for External Reviewers” form); 1-3 reviewers will conduct each unit’s visit (note: there will be only one visit per unit). The vetting process will include an independent review of credentials conducted by the VPAA’s Office and a “conflict of interest” disclosure from the unit and school dean (identifying what relationships, if any, exist between a member of the unit and the proposed reviewer). The VPAA’s Office will approve all external reviewers. Approved reviewers will be sent a letter of agreement which details visit logistics (as available), compensation, and expectations for the review.

6. External reviewers are expected to meet with relevant campus constituents to verify, clarify, and/or expand upon the unit’s self-study. Reviewers are required to meet with unit leaders and the VPAA and/or his/her designee. Unit leaders are expected to provide a briefing folder to all campus interviewees; the folder should include justification/plan for the review, the self-study, and the reviewers’ brief biographies. When there is more than one reviewer scheduled, one of them must be named the “lead” reviewer; this will be the person charged with coordinating the visiting team and with managing communications between the team and the unit.

7. The compensation for external reviewers is $1,000, plus expenses, unless otherwise approved by the VPAA’s Office. Visits are expected to last 2 days/1 night. External reviewers are expected to review the unit’s self-study prior to their visit, meet with all relevant personnel/constituents during their visit, submit a draft report to the unit for factual accuracy review, and submit a final report to the unit, to the respective school dean (or, for administrative units, the appropriate associate/assistant vice president), and to the VPAA’s Office in a timely manner following the visit (“Evaluator Report” guide).

8. Following the visit and resulting report, the unit, the respective school dean (or, for administrative units, the appropriate associate/assistant vice president), and the VPAA’s Office will meet to discuss recommendations/conclusions and begin the negotiated process of creating an implementation agreement. The implementation agreement will be finalized and signed by the VPAA, the respective school dean (or, for administrative units, the appropriate associate/assistant vice president), and the respective unit leader (“Implementation Agreement” form).

9. While the College will not create a standing CIP committee to participate in the process, an ad hoc committee may be empanelled if either the unit or the VPAA’s Office feels the committee is necessary to assist in the interpretation of the evaluator report and/or in the creation of an implementation agreement.

10. Units will be required to submit an interim, “mid-cycle” report which details their progress in meeting the goals of the implementation agreement 36-48 months following the visit.​

11. While not required, units outside the Academic Affairs division may petition to participate in CIP. Such units will need the support of their respective divisional vice president and will be required to follow the same policies and procedures as outlined herein.​