Skip to main content

Annual Academic Unit Reporting Process

Annual Reporting for Academic Units

Beginning fall 2024, the Provost’s Office will change its pervious annual program reporting process to an annual academic unit reporting process for all academic departments / divisions / schools (whatever the appropriate sub-college unit may be).

This annual academic unit reporting is related to the Board of Governors (BOG) program review process and will help the Provost’s Office support dean's offices and their academic units and their faculty working towards unit and program viability, efficiency, and improvement. 

The goals of this exercise are two-fold. First, the process aims to empower department chairs and similar unit-level leaders to use data to inform changes to faculty staffing, program offerings, course scheduling, curricular change and improve student success. Second, the process will ensure that the Provost's Office, college dean's offices, and academic units are proactively collaborating to address areas of potential enrollment and revenue growth as well as areas that are experiencing enrollment and revenue decline through resource allocation and reallocation.

Plans are reviewed by the relevant college dean's office, and the Provost's Office. The Provost's Office reviews the submission of the annual reports to determine if any plans presented are untenable, identify top performing programs for recommendations for further institutional investment, as well as identify any units whose data and response to the data are concerning enough to warrant a full, off-cycle program review.

A preview link for this reporting process is available to those who wish to see what they will be asked to provide.


Department chairs or similar academic leaders will use WVU's public Tableau dashboards to report how their unit metrics compare to an institutional benchmark range for each of the following metrics:

  • Enrollment: Five-year trend in the total headcount enrollment of all primary majors across all of the unit's programs and majors at all degree levels. 
    • The institutional benchmark range will be five percent above and below the five-year enrollment trend university baseline.
  • Student-to-faculty FTE ratio: A ratio of the unit's enrollment (see above) to its faculty FTE.
    • The institutional benchmark range will be two above and below the institution's overall student-to-FTE faculty ratio as reported in IPEDS.
  • SCH Production: Five-year trend in the unit's total SCH production across all course levels for all subject codes offered within the unit.
    • The institutional benchmark range will be five percent above and below the five-year SCH production trend university baseline.

Units that are underperforming a benchmark are expected to provide a concise action plan to present their plans to improve their standing relative to that benchmark. These plans should address both ways to improve the unit's enrollment and SCH production as well as plans to address the unit's staffing levels (i.e., through attrition planning).

Units that are severely underperforming several benchmarks may be asked to have several of their academic degree programs submit full program review self-studies to better determine what the cause of the underperformance is as well as to determine what institutional actions will be taken, if any.

Institutional Contacts

Questions about the annual program reporting process can be directed to Associate Provost for Curriculum and Assessment at

Support for completing the report can be requested from Robynn Shannon, Director of Curriculum Development, or Darius Heffernan.

Questions about the data and data dashboards should be directed to Lisa Castellino-Gergich, Associate Vice President for Institutional Data and Analytics.