Compliance Committee

1
Compliance Committee

• Chairs SACS office
• Lynn Grinnell, Ph.D. Deborah Boyle
• Accreditation Liaison for SACS Staff
  Specialist
• 727-341-3110 727-341-3321
• Deb Montalvo
• Operations Manager
• Corporate Training Service
• 727-341-4453

2
Agenda

• Background
• Compliance Committee process
• Timeline
• Training
• Resources
• Task assignment process

3
Background

• Changes since last visit
• No 450 must statements
• Replaced with Integrity Compelling Evidence
• Prior SACS visit is baseline expect that as
  minimum
• Responsibility is with institution to make its
  case regarding compliance more subjective
• Documents SACS prefers web-based
• Compliance Certification
• Quality Enhancement Plan (instead of self
  study/Project Edge)

4
Philosophical Basis

• Commitment to Compliance
• Commitment to Quality Enhancement
• Integrity
• Peer Review

5
Core Requirements

• Twelve basic requirements which all institutions
  must meet to remain accredited
• Core Requirements 1-11 are reviewed by an
  off-site team
• Example 2.7.1 Program Length
• The institution offers one or more degree
  programs based on at least 60 semester credit
  hours or the equivalent at the associate level
  at least 120 semester credit hours or the
  equivalent at the baccalaureate level The
  institution provides a written justification and
  rationale for program equivalency.
• Core Requirement 12 (QEP) is reviewed by an
  on-site committee
• The institution has developed an acceptable
  Quality Enhancement Plan and demonstrates that
  the plan is part of an ongoing planning and
  evaluation process.

6
Comprehensive Standards

• Represent good practices in institutions of
  higher learning
• Establish a level of competence expected of all
  members
• Cover three areas
• Institutional mission, governance, and
  institutional effectiveness
• Programs
• Resources
• Examples
• Section 3.4.1
• The institution demonstrates that each
  educational program for which academic credit is
  awarded establishes and evaluates program and
  learning outcomes.
• Section 3.5.1
• The institution identifies college-level
  competencies within the general education core
  and provides evidence that graduates have
  attained those competencies.

7
Federal Regulations

• US Government recognizes accreditation by SACS in
  determining eligibility for Title IV programs
• Institutions are required to document compliance
  with criteria outlined by USDOE
• Example Section 4.1
• When evaluating success with respect to student
  achievement in relation to the institutions
  mission, the institution includes, as
  appropriate, consideration of course completion,
  state licensing examinations, and job placement
  rates.

8
Documenting compliance

• Description of process (as brief as possible)
• Timeline by which it functions
• Who is responsible for the process
• Compelling evidence that the process functions
  (and has been functioning)
• Addresses all elements in the requirement

9
Compelling evidence

• Guidance
• Board Policy
• Plans
• Procedures
• Implementation/Communication
• Publications (manuals, newsletters, SOPs)
• Website
• Meetings (agendas, minutes)
• Results
• PeopleSoft reports
• Accountability measures
• Surveys
• Assessments and evaluations
• Feedback loop
• Effect on strategic plans
• Unit plans
• Changes to procedures

• Example 3.4.10 General Education Requirements
• BOT policy Mission and goals
• SOPs (?)
• Implementation/Communication
• College catalog
• How else? Course outlines?
• Data
• Graduating student survey
• Critical thinking test in Speech
• Etc. (some missing/need revision)
• Feedback Documentation of changes
• E.g., Ethics unit plan

In addition to our compliance document, guidance,
implementation/communication, results, and
changes must be on-line
10
Review Process Overview

• Review of compliance certification by off-site
  review committee
• Report of off-site review committee shared orally
  or in writing with institution
• Opportunity to respond/clarify issues from the
  off-site review (optional)
• Review by on-site review committee of QEP and
  compliance issues identified by off-site
  committee (or which arise during on-site visit)
• Report of on-site review committee sent to
  institution and Commission as basis for
  accreditation

11
Compliance Committee Process
12
Timeline
Document due Mar 15, 2006
13
Training

• Basics - Today
• Writing Next meeting
• Notes from SACS
• Last SACS visit documents
• Current document from similar university
• Sample (Corporate Training)
• Website updates October
• Discussion board
• Committee members
• Posting documents
• Differences from Word, inserting Hyperlinks
• Send whoever will be doing the typing

14
Resources

• SACS resources
• Last SACS document and supporting evidence
• Cross-references to current evaluation standards
• SACS document using current evaluation standards
• People
• Leadership team
• Administrative assistants?
• Content experts
• SACS co-chairs
• Project specialist
• Website
• Document posting
• Linking to SPC website documents
• Discussion boards

15
(No Transcript)
16
Team approach or individual assignments?

• Individual
• Mission
• Governance
• Administration
• Institutional effectiveness
• All educational programs
• Campus
• Distance
• Outreach/partnerships
• Undergraduate programs
• Faculty
• Library
• Student affairs and services
• Resources
• Financial
• Physical
• QEP

• Teams
• Mission, governance, and administration
• Institutional effectiveness
• Educational programs
• Faculty
• Student services
• Resources

• Policies
• Quality
• Support
• Technology

Individual written assignments and Team reviews?