Our Expertise

Reviewers rely upon their substantive and relevant experience to guide the inquiry process through examining campus background materials, leading interviews and meetings, and acting as trusted advisors to senior leadership. Our subject matter experts serve as primary contributors to data-informed and experience-rich analyses and recommendations.

Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers are current members of one of the Program Review Collaborative associations (ACUHO-I, ACUI, NASPA, or NIRSA) who have at least seven (7) or more years of relevant, progressive leadership experience with a minimum equivalent service as a dean, director, or above. Reviewers bring significant student affairs leadership experience and subject matter expertise to reviews of departments/functional units typically housed within student affairs at colleges and universities.

We typically seek individuals who:

  • hold a master’s degree, with a preference for a doctorate;

  • are active listeners and effective communicators;

  • possess skills in analyzing complex information and extracting key insights;

  • act with diplomacy, impartially, and with an unbiased lens;

  • demonstrate the ability to provide thoughtful and considerate criticism; and

  • primarily reside in the United States.

Reviewer compensation:

The Program Review Collaborative provides reviewers with an honorarium plus agreed upon travel and hotel expenses, if applicable. All reviewers are compensated upon the completion of a project.

Reviewer Activities

Though reviewer activities vary based on the scope and type of review, generally reviewers:

  • participate in web/telephone planning calls with the project’s department/functional area lead,

  • co-lead web/telephone interviews with campus members prior to and during a campus visit (typically 1 to 1.5 days),

  • co-author draft and final review reports, in partnership with NASPA staff, with emphasis on expert analysis and recommendations, and

  • remotely co-present final reports.

My role was focused on serving as the content expert. Staff took care of all the planning, ensuring the department completed the self-study, scheduling of meetings, creating a template for interviews, and supporting the drafting of the report. Since the staff coordinate reviews on a regular basis, I did not have to worry about details to ensure a smooth process. In other reviews, I, along with other reviewers, would need to tend to all aspects of planning and implementation of the review. I would recommend colleagues consider the opportunity to participate in a review.

Stacey L. Hall, Ph.D.
Assistant Vice Provost for Student Life
University of New Hampshire

Want to join the reviewer pool?

Submission of an application does not guarantee that you will be engaged in a review project.