Upload
earl-garrett
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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