SACS Reaffirmation Project Compliance Certification Team Leaders Meeting Friday, August 27, 2010 10 – 11:00AM107 Main Building

Jennifer Skaggs, Ph.D.SACS Reaffirmation Project DirectorUniversity of Kentucky

Major Components in the SACS Reaffirmation Process1. Preparation of Compliance

Certification Report2. Off-site Review & Report3. Focused Report for On-site visit

(if prepared)4. On-site Visit5. Response to the On-Site Visit

Report6. Commission Action

Changes in SACS Reaccreditation ProcessPrevious reaccreditation in 2002

involved:◦Institutional Self Study◦Over 400 “must” and “should”

statementsNew Process (effective 2004)

◦16 Core Requirements◦59 Comprehensive Standards◦7 Federal requirements◦QEP Plan (biggest change)

What this means Onus is on institution to “make its

case” with regard to complianceEmphasis 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.

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)

Recurring Reasons for Compliance Decisions by Off-Site Committees1. Sufficiency of documentation2. Analysis3. Quality of writing4. Accessibility of documentation5. Relevance of documentation6. Organization of report 7. Report addressed the requirement8. Verification needed9. Implementation

(Carter, Johnson, & Gibbs, 2007)

7

Compliance Certification ReportThe 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 Meeting

Off-Site ReviewPeer 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

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.

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?

Where to startBegin 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 ManualTake sufficient time to deconstruct

each standard and requirement and interpret them in the context of UK

Plan for document control

Planning for Document Version ControlFor 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

Desired Results:Well-structured narrative designs

CRISP & CLEARAppropriate documentation

No Data DumpsBe sure documentation is applicable, appropriate, and easy to access

Timeline for Compliance Certification ReportDraft of Compliance Certification

Report due by September 2011Draft 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

CC Team Leader ManualsTeamsTeam Assignments

(Responsibility Matrix)TimelineResource ManualPrinciples of Accreditation

CC Team Leader MeetingsSchedule regular meeting timeContinued 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

Compliance Certification Team MeetingFriday, September 30, 2010Lexmark 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.

SACS-COC Annual MeetingDecember 4-7, 2010Louisville, KYWebsite video

UK SACS website