Commission Updates Barbara J. Johnson July 18, 2014

Interpret Commission criteria Analyze and route institutional change requests (new programs, locations, certificates, etc.) Help understand monitoring expectations Prepare for comprehensive evaluation and reaffirmation Assist with identifying team members Review visit reports and approve documents for decision-making Role of Liaison

Institution Touch Points PathwaysSubstantive Change Multi-Location Multi-Campus Institutional Update (Indicator reviews)

Shifting to Fall to align with IPEDS reporting period Open September 2 - October 10, 2014 Data is analyzed and institutions are identified for further review (if necessary): Financial Indicators Non-Financial Indicators Institutional Update

Student Satisfaction Survey Mandatory Fall 2014 Link sent to institution 3 months in advance of visit Aggregated data collected Report sent to institution and team one month before visit Federal Compliance Initiative Online, advance review Potential issues identified for team to follow-up during visit Prior to Visit

Transparency Project

Applications revised in past year –New programs, direct assessment, distance delivery, locations and branches, contractual and consortial relationships, etc. Multiple review processes – desk review, change panels, change visits Submit to document submission website: Substantive Change Requests

hlcommission.org

Former HLC Thresholds

HLC Stipulations (NEW!) a.Not approved for distance education. b.Approval for distance education is limited to courses. c.Approval for distance education is limited to courses and one program. d.Approved for distance education courses and programs. PRG

Dual Credit Guidelines –Effective September 2014 – programs-and-courses.htmlhttps:// programs-and-courses.html Third-Party Request Form –Regulatory agency requests information – tional-change.htmlhttp:// tional-change.html HLC Guidance

Guidelines for Determining Qualified Faculty –‘Credentialed’ changed to ‘Qualified’ –Demonstrate consistent procedures and careful consideration of qualifications for all instructional faculty – Candidacy/criteria-and-core-components.htmlhttps:// Candidacy/criteria-and-core-components.html HLC Guidance

Federal Requirements

New President, Barbara Gellman-Danley – Commission/president.htmlhttp:// Commission/president.html North Central Dissolution –HLC was independently incorporated in 2001 –No effect on institutional accreditation –No effect on HLC recognition as a Title IV gatekeeper Other HLC News!

SAS Stipulation Change –Prior Commission approval is required for substantive change as stated in Commission Policy Hot off the Press!

Enhance value and flexibility for institutions Reduce reporting burden Enhance rigor Integrate other HLC processes & data collection Make process as cost efficient as possible Increase credibility, value, relevance, and transparency of accreditation Pathway Goals

Ten-year cycle Year 4: Assurance Review (at a distance) Year 10: Comprehensive (and reaffirmation) Years 5-9: Quality Improvement Project –Improvement separated from assurance Reduced Monitoring (reports, no focused visits) Uses Online Assurance System Open Pathway

Uses online Assurance System No Visit Unless Team Determines it is Necessary May Result in an Interim Report Conclusion signals start of Quality Initiative Does not result in reaffirmation or reaccreditation Year 4 Assurance Review

Uses Online Assurance System Includes a Visit May Result in an Interim Report or Movement to Standard Pathway Occurs After the Quality Initiative Leads to HLC Decision Process and reaffirmation of reaccreditation Year 10 Assurance Review

Team arrives Sunday afternoon & meets Sunday evening Visit focused on areas for further inquiry identified during online review Visit emphasizes additional data collection, verification, and triangulation The Visit: Activities & Process

Addressed separately through Quality Initiative Must meet expectation of genuine effort Joined with the outcome from the Comprehensive Review for Reaffirmation of Accreditation in Year 10 Improvement in the Open Pathway

Customary Meetings & Reviews –Institutional leadership, board, key individuals & groups, federal compliance, etc. Areas of Focus Meetings & Interviews –Determined by team as needing validation, exploration Open Forum Discussions w/ Stakeholders –Five Criteria Other Activities as Needed Open Pathway Campus Visit

Team leaves campus at noon –Works at hotel Review of completed draft by liaison Institution reviews draft for errors of fact Final report sent to HLC Institution provides response IAC takes action Post-Visit: Activities & Process

Web-based system maintained over entire life of HLC affiliation Structured by Criteria & Core Components 35,000 words maximum Provides access to designated institutional representatives, peer reviewers & HLC staff –Locks 4 weeks prior to visit –Peer reviewers lose access after final report Assurance System Basics

Contact Information Barbara J. Johnson, Ph.D x 129

Criteria –Broad statements –Must be explicitly addressed Core Components –Specific areas of focus, define criterion –Must be explicitly addressed Sub-Components –Not comprehensive –Must be explicitly addressed, as applicable Relationship and Evaluation

Criteria evaluated through Core Components Every Criterion and Core Component evaluated as follows: –Met –Met with Concerns –Not Met Sub-components integrated into the review of Core Components –Not noted as Met or Not Met Relationship and Evaluation

If Core Component (and thus criterion) is not met, some Assumed Practices may also not be met Assumed Practices

Verifies institution meets standards established by peer; is evaluated by peers Promotes institutional self-knowledge and advancement Provides assurance to public about quality Builds and maintains confidence in higher education Accreditation Process

Effective January 2013 Criteria –Core Components –Sub-components Assumed Practices Guiding Values Obligations of Affiliation Revised HLC Criteria for Accreditation

Interpret Commission criteria Analyze and route institutional change requests (new programs, locations, certificates, etc.) Help understand monitoring expectations Prepare for comprehensive evaluation and reaffirmation Assist with identifying team members Review visit reports and approve documents for decision-making Role of Liaison

Peer-Based model; checks and balances Board delegates certain decision-making authority Composed of 100+ institutional and public members Meet via webinars (council) or in-person (hearings) Role of Institutional Actions Council (IAC)