Commission Updates

1. Commission Updates Barbara J. Johnson July 18, 2014

2. Role of Liaison • 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

3. Institution Touch Points Pathways Substantive Change Multi-Campus Multi-Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Institutional Update (Indicator reviews)

4. Institutional Update • 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

5. Prior to Visit • 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

6. Transparency Project • Action letters posted on Commission’s Directory of Institutions (July 2013) • Occurs after granting or reaffirmation of candidacy or accreditation • http://www.hlcommission.org/

7. Substantive Change Requests • 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: http://www.hlcommission.org/document_upload/

8. hlcommission.org • Always check website for latest version! Information may have been updated. • Criteria for Accreditation • Revisions may occur annually at summer Board meeting • Video on Criteria for Accreditation • http://www.hlcommission.org/

9. Former HLC Thresholds

10. HLC Stipulations (NEW!) • Not approved for distance education. • Approval for distance education is limited to courses. • Approval for distance education is limited to courses and one program. • Approved for distance education courses and programs. PRG

11. HLC Guidance • Dual Credit Guidelines • Effective September 2014 • https://www.ncahlc.org/Pathways/dual-credit-programs-and-courses.html • Third-Party Request Form • Regulatory agency requests information • http://www.hlcommission.org/Monitoring/institutional-change.html

12. HLC Guidance • Guidelines for Determining Qualified Faculty • ‘Credentialed’ changed to ‘Qualified’ • Demonstrate consistent procedures and careful consideration of qualifications for all instructional faculty • https://www.ncahlc.org/Criteria-Eligibility-and-Candidacy/criteria-and-core-components.html

13. Federal Requirements • Contractual Screening Form • 1st Reading – Public information shall include information regarding student achievement • Student Achievement includes student retention rate, completion rates or other information appropriate for the institutional mission and goals for students • http://www.hlcommission.org/

14. Other HLC News! • New President, Barbara Gellman-Danley • http://www.hlcommission.org/About-the-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

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

16. Pathway Goals • 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

17. Open Pathway • 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

18. Year 4 Assurance Review • 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

19. Year 10 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

20. The Visit: Activities & Process • 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

21. Improvement in the Open Pathway • 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

22. Open Pathway Campus Visit • 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

23. Post-Visit: Activities & Process • 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

24. Assurance System Basics • 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

25. Contact Information Barbara J. Johnson, Ph.D. bjohnson@hlcommission.org 800.621.7440 x 129

26. Relationship and Evaluation • 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

27. 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

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

29. Accreditation Process • 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

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

31. Role of Liaison • 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

32. Role of Institutional Actions Council (IAC) • 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)