Page 25

The essence of program development as one of our “chief functions” (Styles, 1985) was discussed in the Student Personnel Point of View (1937) and directly in the 1949 document. “The principal responsibility of all personnel workers lies in the area of progressive program development,” (1949, p. 33). It is no coincidence that these same foundational documents advocate the inclusion of assessment and evaluation in the delivery of programs. Through this article, we will explore the import of assessment in the process of program development process. Brief History of Program Development The sentiment that student affairs practitioners “spend a significant portion of their working day planning, implementing, and evaluating” (Styles, 1985 p. 181) programs is corroborated by many authors over time. In Learning Reconsidered, (2004) we find programs/programming referred to 70 times within those 43 pages. Additionally, Learning Reconsidered 2 (2006) triples in numbers (to 267 mentions in 100 pages) program/ programming highlighting the prominence of this topic in our work (Barr & Keating, 1985; Styles, 1985, Cooper & Saunders, 2000, Saunders & Cooper, 2001). The CAS (2009) standards provide tremendous resources for implementing programs (e.g., Student Leadership Programs) and they help highlight important considerations for campus programming. CAS does not present a particular program development model; which does not minimize or dismiss the use of CAS. The standards are operational used to as a formative evaluation tool to improve or expand (in some cases to begin) divisional/departmental programs (Bryan

& Mullendore, 1991; CAS, 2009). Program development models first appeared in the literature in 1974 with the Cube model. Over the last 39 years there have been 21 different models introduced throughout the student affairs literature. Some of these have been presented in the two handbooks used within the field of student affairs. However, there is currently no one repository containing all of these models in one place. Assessment and evaluation is directly addressed in half of these historical models as one or two steps in the process. The other half address assessment indirectly. The best use of assessment is a two-part process – the first is in the beginning as we define the program to determine need and viability. The second is at the end to analyze the data collected during the assessment process throughout the duration of the program; which really means we have to do our work at the beginning to be successful (Cooper & Saunders, 2000). Failure to plan a viable process and incorporate viable data early on in the process will inhibit the usefulness of your data. A few program development models relate directly to leadership programs. The Student leadership program model (Roberts & Ullom, 1989) is a six-step model that includes: the planning team, institutional appropriateness, resources, program design and finally assessment and evaluation. Notice a two-step assessment approach (i.e., early stages and the final stages) is used. The two editions of the Handbook for Student Leadership Programs present a variation of the same Leadership program model. Both seem to be modeled after the original cube models of program development, although the references do not seem to connect

Profile for NASPA SLPKC