1. SACS Reaffirmation Project Compliance Certification Team Leaders Meeting Friday, August 27, 201010 – 11:00AM 107 Main Building Jennifer Skaggs, Ph.D. SACS Reaffirmation Project Director University of Kentucky

2. Major Components in the SACS Reaffirmation Process 1. Preparation of Compliance Certification Report 2. Off-site Review & Report 3. Focused Report for On-site visit (if prepared) 4. On-site Visit 5. Response to the On-Site Visit Report 6. Commission Action

3. Changes in SACS Reaccreditation Process Previous reaccreditation in 2002 involved: ◦ Institutional Self Study ◦ Over 400 “must” and “should” statements New Process (effective 2004) ◦ 16 Core Requirements ◦ 59 Comprehensive Standards ◦ 7 Federal requirements ◦ QEP Plan (biggest change)

4. What this means Onus is on institution to “make its case” with regard to compliance Emphasis in Principles of Accreditation is placed on more subjective analysis of best practices Determination of compliance is frequently more subjective with the Principles of Accreditation.

5. Examples of Non-Compliance Findings (Class of 2008) Off-site ◦ 88% had non-compliance with faculty competence (CS 3.7.1) ◦ 69% had non-compliance with institutional effectiveness (CR 2.5) On-Site ◦ 43% had non-compliance with faculty competence (CS 3.7.1) ◦ 56% had non-compliance with institutional effectiveness (CR 2.5) Commission Stage ◦ 36% had monitoring requirement for institutional effectiveness (CR 2.5) ◦ 26% had monitoring requirement for college-level competencies (CS 3.5.1)

6. Recurring Reasons for Compliance Decisions by Off-Site Committees 1. Sufficiency of documentation 2. Analysis 3. Quality of writing 4. Accessibility of documentation 5. Relevance of documentation 6. Organization of report 7. Report addressed the requirement 8. Verification needed 9. Implementation (Carter, Johnson, & Gibbs, 2007)

7. Compliance Certification Report The Compliance Certification Report involves: ◦ Narratives ◦ Documentation It is a document completed by the institution that demonstrates its judgment of the extent of its compliance with each of the Core Requirements (CR), Comprehensive Standards (CS), and Federal Requirements (FR). This report is submitted to the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee 8/27/10 CC Team Leader Meeting7

8. Off-Site Review Peer reviewers & SACS staff members have limited knowledge of the institutional context Have limited time to search for information to fill in what was left out Will not be able to seek clarification Be vigilant regarding giving too much non- relevant institutional information

9. In other words… The Compliance Certification Report must be able to speak for itself and must explicitly address all components of the requirements and standards Narrative must be crisp and clear Appropriate and relevant documentation must be easily accessible for each standard/requirement.

10. Questions to be asked by Compliance Certification Teams What are the focal points of your assigned requirements/standards? What might be the concerns of off- and on-site reviewers regarding your assigned requirements/standards? What UK policies and/or official procedures apply to these requirements/standards? What is the common practice at UK concerning these requirements/standards? Have recent reviews been conducted concerning these requirements/standards? Are there other policies and procedures needed to document compliance with this topic? Is there other evidence such as records, survey results, reports, etc. needed to document compliance with this topic?

11. Where to start Begin analysis by careful interpretation of the standards and requirements to understand each aspect and what information and data must be assembled to document compliance Consult the SACS Resource Manual Take sufficient time to deconstruct each standard and requirement and interpret them in the context of UK Plan for document control

12. Planning for Document Version Control For teams larger than two members, one person must be assigned lead responsibility (point person) for each core requirement and comprehensive standard Critical to keep track of which version is the most current SharePoint Site should be used to maintain one official version

13. Desired Results: Well-structured narrative designs  CRISP & CLEAR Appropriate documentation  No Data Dumps  Be sure documentation is applicable, appropriate, and easy to access

14. Timeline for Compliance Certification Report Draft of Compliance Certification Report due by September 2011 Draft allows for  Self-review and “buys time” to make necessary corrections  Finding evidence weaknesses  Preparation of Compliance Certification narratives to be “one voice”  Effective use and development of electronic resources Final Compliance Certification Report turned into SACS September 2012

15. CC Team Leader Manuals Teams Team Assignments (Responsibility Matrix) Timeline Resource Manual Principles of Accreditation

16. CC Team Leader Meetings Schedule regular meeting time Continued discussion of the issues  Compliance issues to be resolved  Actions to be taken  Supporting evidence to be located Clarification of who should be involved  Who has ultimate responsibility?  Who is coordinating the team write-up?  Who else should be involved? Preparation of rough narratives and identification of supporting documents

17. Compliance Certification Team Meeting Friday, September 30, 2010 Lexmark Public Room – 209 Main Bldg. Working Agenda: ◦ Overview of SACS Reaffirmation Process with a focus on Compliance Certification ◦ Review Responsibility Matrix ◦ Review assigned standards & requirements and issues ◦ Training in deconstruction and interpretation of standards ◦ Review of Compliance Certification documents from other institutions – best practices ◦ Copies of Principles of Accreditation Handbooks ◦ Discuss Resource Manuals, websites, etc.

18. SACS-COC Annual Meeting December 4-7, 2010 Louisville, KY Website video UK SACS website