The Higher Learning Commission: Building a culture of awareness regarding federal compliance

1. 37th Annual Meeting July 17-19th Marriott Hotel and Conference Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Higher Learning Commission: Building a culture of awareness regarding federal compliance Presented by: Charlie Couch, PhD University Registrar University of Northern Colorado

2. The University of Northern Colorado Profile: • Doctorate Granting/Research University • 10,000+ Undergraduate Students • 2,000+ Graduate Students • Six Colleges • Education and Behavioral Sciences • Monfort College of Business • Humanities and Social Sciences • Natural and Health Sciences • Performing and Visual Arts • University College • Graduate School • Extended Studies (ESO) programs in Loveland, Denver, Colorado Springs

3. Explaining Compliance: “Compliance programs ultimately serve a self-defensive purpose. They are good for an institution in the way that paying protection money is good for a business squeezed by the mob. If have them we must, let us at least recognize that the value of such programs lies less in instilling law-abiding behavior than in keeping the barbarians outside the gate.” Source: Kevin R. Davis university counsel and senior lecturer in philosophy at Vanderbilt University. The Chronicle Review Volume 53, Issue 20, Page B11

4. Introduction • The Higher Learning Commission • The Higher Education Act was reauthorized and amended in August of 2008 and renamed the Higher Education Opportunity Act. • Within this reauthorization, new compliance elements were subsequently issued in 2009 requiring as part of reaccreditation efforts, institutions must demonstrate through various means their compliance with Title IV requirements for the disbursement of federal financial aid. • Represents a “broad set of rules to strengthen federal student aid programs at for-profit, nonprofit and public institutions by protecting students from aggressive or misleading recruiting practices, providing consumers with better information about the effectiveness of career college and training programs, and ensuring that only eligible students or programs receive aid.”

5. Introduction • The HEOA of 1965 named accreditors as gatekeepers for institutional access to federal funding • As gatekeepers, institutions had to be accredited in order to receive Title IV funds – accreditation guidelines were developed by the accreditor • HEOA of 2008 puts accreditors in the role of safeguarding federal funds • Now the accreditors must demonstrate to the DOE that institutions are following every federal legislation (to the letter of the law) – or the accreditors lose their authority

6. Introduction • The Higher Learning Commission • Emphasis on • Transparency • Accountability • Easy access to information • Failure to comply can (and does) result in the loss of Title IV funds

7. Introduction • Within the context of the DOE regulations : Regulations/rules with the greatest significance for the higher education community: • Credit hour • Gainful employment • Incentive compensation • Misrepresentation • State authorization Source: The National Association of College and University Attorneys

8. Introduction • Misrepresentation • Misrepresentation “is any false, erroneous or misleading statement made directly or indirectly to a student, prospective student, member of the public, accrediting agency, state agency, or DoE” • “A misrepresentation may be made in writing, visually, orally, or through other means.” • “…a misrepresentation does not require a specific intent to deceive” • Source: Navigating the regulatory highway: A practical guide to interpreting, implementing, and complying with the DOE’s program integrity rules. June 26-29, 2011. National Association of College and University Attorneys.

9. Introduction • The University of Northern Colorado is scheduled for it’s Higher Learning Commission visit in Spring 2015. • The University has been diligently planning and preparing for this visit, which now requires a review of an institution’s compliance with federal regulations as a recipient of Title IV funding. • There are a myriad of federal compliance issues that can be discussed, but I will limit it to the academic items that came up for discussion in our meetings.

10. Introduction • Requirements include items such as: • Assignment of Credits, Program Length, and Tuition • Institutional records of student complaints • Publication of transfer policies • Practices for verification of student identity • Student consumer information • SAP and attendance policies • Advertising and recruitment materials and other public information

11. Learning outcomes of this session • A. Building awareness of the accreditation changes/expectations for UNC with respect to federal compliance • B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • C. What UNC has learned thus far during this process and what, if any changes have been made

12. A. Building awareness of the accreditation changes/expectations for UNC with respect to federal compliance • With institutional scheduling decentralized across all colleges and OES, review of processes was needed. • Comparing Instructional Method, Instructional Time, and # of Meetings. • Institutions must create credit hour/instructional time grid. • This exercise highlighted discrepancies in our data within in certain academic units and a need to review operational processes within these units. • Reviewing with schedulers across campus how they input this information

14. A. Building awareness of the accreditation changes/expectations for institutions with respect to federal compliance • This project took some time given the various Instructional Method codes already built into our system and having to do a crosswalk into the definitions provided by HLC. • Questions surfaced: What do you do with Student Teaching, Study Abroad, Seminar, Thesis, etc. • What about courses that could have multiple instructional methods?

20. A. Building awareness of the accreditation changes/expectations for UNC with respect to federal compliance • Communication is key: • Coordination with campus schedulers to explain the new IM logic and work towards consistency and compliance with course section creation. • Campus meetings were held with each of the 6 colleges on campus, inviting faculty/academic staff to become aware of changes that were coming from HLC. • Distributing new guidelines to key stakeholders across campus and communicating adherence to them. • Communication will be ongoing as adjusting to new compliance realities impacts the “way we used to do things.”

21. A. Building awareness of the accreditation changes/expectations for UNC with respect to federal compliance • Specific examples: course section information • Process revealed areas that needed attention in some academic units; course delivery entered into system versus what was actually occurring in a given course. • Follow up training and reminders to academic units about expectations are ongoing . • Multiple meetings have been necessary in some units to continually explain compliance expectations. • Making College Deans aware of what federal expectations are will be ongoing to assist in a top/down approach to compliance.

22. A. Building awareness of the accreditation changes/expectations for UNC with respect to federal compliance • Specific examples: last date of attendance • Needed to strengthen catalog policy language. • Improve processes within Registrar and Financial Aid Office; contacting faculty regarding “F”, “W”, and “U” grades • Communicating to faculty at the beginning of each term the guidelines/expectations for LDA • Making College Deans aware of what federal expectations are will be ongoing to assist in a top/down approach to compliance.

23. B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • Stories continue to surface on how institutions are effected by new levels of compliance, specifically in areas of course delivery and course attendance.

24. B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • Stories continue to surface on how institutions are effected by new levels of compliance • Saint Mary-of-the-Woods, IN • During 2009 HLC visit , Woods External Degree Program (WED) requested change of it’s delivery of correspondence course offerings to web delivery. • Disagreements between the DOE and Saint Mary-of-the-Woods regarding instructional/delivery method highlighted the scrutiny by the DOE in making sure institutions comply with federal guidelines/definitions.

25. B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • Saint Mary-of-the-Woods, IN (con’t) • Retroactive review - of institutional data on enrollment in correspondence program to determine % participation back to 2004/2005. • Interviews with faculty, staff, and students were conducted to ascertain delivery methodology. • Institution had been receiving/disbursing Federal Financial Aid for the program; DOE required the institution to return over $42 million in aid to the DOE between 2005/2006-2010/2011.

26. B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • Saint Mary-of-the-Woods, IN (con’t) • Office of the Registrar sited: • Withdrawal processing; Registrar’s Office used date in which form was processed, not the actual date of last attendance/academic engagement. • Registrar was untimely in it’s notification to the FA Office of non-attendance. • Withdraw notices were not being sent to the FA Office in a timely manner so that funds could be returned in appropriate time frame. • Full report available at http://wcetblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/correspondence-definition/

27. B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • University of Missouri • Lack of adequate procedures for documenting whether or not a student begins attendance • Lack of systematic or timely process for ensuring faculty members accurately report the names of students who fail to begin attendance in a course

28. B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • University of Missouri • DOE – School must substantiate the eligibility of students receiving Title IV funds: • “Academic Attendance” or “academically-related activity” includes, but is not limited to— • Physically attending the class • Submitting an academic assignment • Taking an exam, an interactive tutorial, or computer-assisted instruction • Attending a study group that is assigned by the institution • Participating in an online discussion about academic matters • Initiating contact with a faculty member to ask a question about the academic subject studied in the course

29. B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • University of Missouri • Required to submit • Student account cards • Academic transcripts • Copies of attendance records to support determination of student’s enrollment status • Screen shots Common Origination and Disbursement System (COD) indicating amounts of aid disbursed and when • Historical records of students who failed at least one course during any semester of enrollment for the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 academic years. • Review attendance records for the 2012/2013 academic year who failed to begin attendance and adjust aid accordingly

30. B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • Western Oklahoma State College • Review of course delivery/Instructional Method • Condensed course format came under scrutiny • HLC placed WOSC on probation, not allowing them to offer 10 day courses until they return in Spring 2015 for follow up. • Highlights how HLC will look at course delivery, format, credits, etc. in order to ascertain quality and rigor of these courses as compared to regular semester offerings of the same course.

31. B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • Chancellor University, Ohio • One of Northeast Ohio’s oldest institutions closed • The Higher Learning Commission “in 2012 raised concerns regarding financial self-sufficiency, enrollment, strategic planning and student retention.”http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/07/chancellor_university_is_closi.html

32. B. Examples of how other institutions have been impacted • Mountain State University, West Virginia • Lost HLC accreditation in December 2012 and closed immediately after. • Of the many issues, “The Board concluded that the University: has not conducted itself with the integrity expected of an accredited institution with regard to ensuring that its students have accurate and timely information about the status of their academic programs and consistent quality across all academic programs (Criterion One)” http://ncahlc.org/download/_PublicDisclosureNotices/PDN_1944.pdf

33. C. What UNC has learned thus far during this process and what, changes have been made in light of compliance expectations? • Closer review of course offerings that includes checking instructional method against meeting types, campus location, building/rooms, etc. • Improved process of monitoring student attendance and communication between FA and the Office of the Registrar • Office of the Registrar contacts students when grades of “UW” are issued. • Office of Financial Aid runs weekly reports to monitor “F” and “U” to assure that the grades were legitimately earned grades and not due to non-attendance.

34. C. What UNC has learned thus far during this process and what, changes have been made in light of compliance expectations? • Creation of standing institutional compliance committee to monitor ongoing expectations of institutions with respect to state and federal requirements. • Expanded development of Student Consumer Information website; needed to include the dissemination of completion and graduation rates by Pell Grant recipients; Subsidized loan recipients who do not receive Pell Grant ; and Recipients of neither Pell Grant or subsidized loan. • Increasing communication /education efforts across campus community to build awareness.

35. Big Picture….. • Federal compliance will remain an important element in the continued accreditation of institutions across the US. • The Office of the Registrar, Office of Financial Aid, and the Admissions Office will continue to play a significant role in the years ahead in building an awareness on campus about federal compliance and accountability, as well as play key roles in its enforcement.

36. Resource sites: • The Higher Learning Commission/Federal Compliance • http://ncahlc.org/Information-for-Institutions/federal-compliance-program.html • The Higher Learning Commission/Public Disclosures • http://ncahlc.org/Information-for-the-Public/public-disclosure-notices.html • Higher Education Compliance Alliance • http://www.higheredcompliance.org/ • Navigating the regulatory highway: A practical guide to interpreting, implementing, and complying with the DOE’s program of integrity rules. • http://www.higheredcompliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/i-11-06-1_updated.pdf • Federal Student Aid Handbook • http://ifap.ed.gov/ifap/byAwardYear.jsp?type=fsahandbook&awardyear=2013-2014

37. QUESTIONS?