EAPR – Reviewers, Reviews, and Reporting Requirements

[1] Reviewers

Reviewers for accredited programs are selected or assigned using the procedures established by the accreditor.

For review of non-accredited programs, two external reviewers are selected as follows:

  1. Program faculty, in consultation with the college dean, prepare a list of five potential reviewers for the program. The list of potential reviewers includes only professionals from programs outside the state of Arkansas with mission and scope similar to the program under review. Reviewers must be well qualified by education and experience and without bias toward UCA and/or the program under review. To assist the provost in selecting reviewers, the list includes summary information about the qualifications and the programs of each potential reviewer. The program faculty and the college dean may indicate which of the five reviewers they prefer and why.
  2. The list is transmitted by the college dean to the provost for consideration. The provost selects two reviewers from the list; the provost may request additional names for the list if she/he believes more choices are required. Once the provost has selected the consultants, the faculty in the program determine which external consultant will perform the on-site review and which will act as reader-consultant, subject to agreement by the college dean and the provost.

Reasonable travel costs for reviewers, including lodging and meals, are paid by the Office of the Provost; reimbursement for lodging and meal expenses is based on state rates and assumes that the on-site reviewer will have meal expenses covering at least parts of two days. The program area (college/department) is responsible for consultant honoraria. Check with the Office of the Provost for current approved honorarium amounts for on-site visitors and readers.

[2] Reviews

The review of an accredited program follows the procedures and format established by the accreditor. For all non-accredited programs, reviews are developed as indicated in the following paragraphs.

The reviewers carry out their separate reviews – one with an on-site visit, the other through a paper review. They then consult with each other to produce a single review for the program. This is the review that is transmitted to the program and submitted by the university to ADHE. Two separate reviews will not be accepted by UCA or by ADHE.

The review must include, as relevant to the program, the information required by ADHE’s External Reviewers Report Template. It may provide additional information if deemed appropriate by the reviewers. To be of most use to the program under review, the report should distinguish as must as possible between program actions/changes that are deemed by the reviewers to be essential to the health of the program and actions/changes that are collegial suggestions but are not deemed essential to the health of the program.

As indicated in Timing and Processes, the reviewers’ report must be received by the program’s department no later than six weeks after the review. A response to the review, prepared by program faculty and approved by the dean of the college, must address the findings of the reviewers’ report specifically, with a plan of action – including a timeline – for addressing concerns/essential changes.

[3] Reporting Requirements

For accredited programs, the visiting team’s report, an institutional response, and the report of official action by the accreditor must be submitted to ADHE within six weeks of receipt of notification by the accreditor of action.

For non-accredited programs, the university submits to ADHE, within six weeks of its receipt of the reviewers’ report, a copy of that report and the institutional response noted in the previous section.

All programs report internally in annual reports on progress in responding to actions/changes required by their reviews, and accredited programs will report as required by their accreditors. If ADHE recommends discontinuation of funding for a program based on the findings of the external review, the institution will be granted a two-year improvement period and will submit a progress report at the end of that period. ADHE will then make a recommendation to AHECB regarding continued funding – or not – of the program. See ADHE’s Program Review Flowchart.