A case study in program review and evaluation at East Coast Community College

The purpose of this study was to determine if a program/unit evaluation model (Program Unit Review and Resource Reallocation, PURRR) employed by East Coast Community College was successful in its first year; if the method of using key-indicators data was viable for both academic and administrative units; and to determine if similar review procedures were being employed at cohort Maryland Community Colleges. Interviews were conducted with eleven (11) faculty and staff which consisted of six (6) members of the college's PURRR Committee, and five (5) program or unit heads who submitted reviews on their units in the inaugural year of the process. In addition, senior administrators at three cohort Maryland Community Colleges were queried as to methods of assessing productivity at their home institutions. Community colleges across the country are reporting declining enrollments and reduced funding through the states and political subdivisions. College administrators and governing boards are concerned with the possibility of reduced access to a higher education experience as an outcome of increased student tuition. Increased productivity and efficiency in the use of existing resources is of critical interest to the entire public higher education establishment. The study confirmed that the use of a "key-indicator" method of assessing productivity of college programs and administrative units was a viable institutional method to assess efficiency. Faculty and administrators alike were convinced that the process was fair and the data collected would be of vital importance for East Coast Community College in its pursuit of operating efficiency. Among the recommendations advanced by the researcher was the continuation of a formal process of review, conducted on a routine basis by all of the college's academic programs and administrative units. It was also recommended that college faculty and staff on the PURRR committee be chosen from senior membership of each represented affinity group. A final recommendation noted that it appeared possible to "streamline" the process of key-indicator assessments with improved indicator criterion and enhanced computerized databases.