1. Keeping Up-to-Date with SACSCOC MAC Meeting Fall 2013

2. Presenters Dr. Debbie Norris, SACS Liaison Mississippi College VP for Planning & Assessment SACSCOC Reviewer and C&R Committee Dr. Mitzi Norris, SACS Liaison University of Mississippi Medical Center Director of Accreditation

3. SACS Review Process: What’s new?

4. “Normal” On-Site Review Any CR or CS not deemed compliant by the Off-Site Review All Federal Requirements

5. What’s NOT new? Off-Site Review Core Requirements (#2) Comprehensive Standards (#3) Federal Requirements (#4)

6. “Updated” On-Site Review Any CR or CS not deemed compliant by the Off- Site Review All Federal Requirements CR 2.7.3 General Education CR 2.8 Faculty CR 2.10 Student Support Services

7. “Updated” On-Site Review CS 3.2.8 Qualified administrative/academic officers CS 3.3.1 Institutional Effectiveness CS 3.4.3 Admissions Policies CS 3.4.11 Academic Program Coordination CS 3.10.2 Financial Aid Audits CS 3.11.3 Physical Facilities CS 3.13 Policy Compliance

8. What is in CS 3.13? CS 3.13.1 Accrediting Decisions of Other Agencies CS 3.13.2 Agreements Involving Joint & Dual Academic Awards CS 3.13.3 Complaint Procedures CS 3.13.4 Reaffirmation of Accreditation and Subsequent Reports CS 3.13.5 Separate Accreditation for Units of a Member Institution

9. Most-Cited Issues What are the problem areas?

10. Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Principles from Off-Site Review 2011 & 2012 Classes (n=157) #1CS 3.7.1 Faculty Competence 93.0% #2CS 3.3.1.1 IE (Educational Programs) 65.6% #3CR 2.11.1 Financial Resources 55.4% #4CS 3.3.1.3 IE (Educational Support) 54.8% #5CS 3.3.1.2 IE (Administrative Units) 54.6% #6CS 3.3.1.5 IE (Community/Public Service) 53.5% #7CS 3.5.1 College-Level Competencies 52.9% #8CR 2.8 Faculty 47.8% #9CS 3.4.11 Academic Program Coordination 47.8% #10CS 3.7.2 Faculty Evaluation 44.6%

11. Top 10 Most Frequently Cited Principles from On-Site Review 2011 & 2012 Classes (n=156) #1CS 3.3.2 Quality Enhancement Plan 66.7% #2CS 3.3.1.1 IE (Educational Programs) 42.9% #3CS 3.7.1 Faculty Competence 41.0% #4CS 3.5.1 College-Level Competencies 27.6% #5CS 3.3.1.3 IE (Educational Support) 23.1% #6CS 3.3.1.5 IE (Community/Public Service) 22.4% #7CS 3.3.1.2 IE (Administrative Units) 21.8% #8CS 3.5.4 Terminal Degrees of Faculty 10.9% #9CS 3.10.4 Control of Finances 10.3% #10CS 3.10.1 Financial Stability 9.6%

12. Between Off-site and On-site Remaining in the Top 10 1.CS 3.7.1 (Goes from #1 to #3) Faculty Competence 2.CS 3.3.1.1, 2, 3, & 5 Institutional Effectiveness 3.CS 3.5.1 College-Level Competencies Satisfied and no longer in the Top 10 1.CS 3.7.2 Faculty Evaluation 2.CS 3.4.11 Academic Program Coordination 3.CR 2.8 Faculty 4.CR 2.11.1 Financial Resources

13. The 5 th -Year Report What is required most recently?

14. Why a Fifth-Year Interim Review Process? Regional accrediting bodies are representatives of the Department of Education Regional accrediting bodies provide accountability for federal funds Financial Aid Research Grants

15. Why a Fifth-Year Interim Review Process? Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) Reg 602.19(b) Speaks to accrediting agencies monitoring their accredited institutions to ensure ongoing compliance. Reg 602.22(c)(2) Calls for accrediting agencies having an effective mechanism for conducting, at reasonable intervals, visits to additional locations of institutions that operate more than three additional locations. There are variances in review cycles among accrediting bodies. Dr. Crystal Baird, SACS-COC November 14, 2012

16. Components of the Report Part I: Signatures Attesting to Integrity Part II: Abbreviated Institutional Summary Form Prepared for Commission Reviews Part III: Fifth-Year Compliance Certification Part IV: Additional Report (applicable only to select institutions) Part V: Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan

17. SACS-COC Fifth Year Report Process Notification from SACS-COC Submission of Report Review of Report: Reviewed by Fifth Year Interim Review Committee in June. Results: A letter sent in July will inform the institution of the results of the review. Follow Up: If there are no issues – the process ends here. If there are issues, an institution would be asked to provide an additional report that will go to the Compliance& Report Committee. Dr. Crystal Baird, SACS-COC November 14, 2012

20. Referrals for 2014 Institutions (39 institutions Track A & 35 institutions Track B) Standard 2014 Track A (39)2014 Track B (35) CR 2.8 Number of Full-Time Faculty 2359%1954% CR 2.10 Student Support Programs 513%26% CS 3.2.8 Qualified Administrators 38%13% CS 3.3.1.1 IE 2051%2160% CS 3.4.3 Admissions Policies 13%00% CS 3.4.11 Qualified Academic Coordinators 1128%1851% CS 3.11.3 Physical Facilities 923%39% FR 4.1 Student Achievement 38%00% FR 4.2 Program Curriculum 25%13% FR 4.3 Publication of Policies 13%1 FR 4.4 Program Length 13%26% FR 4.5 Student Complaints 1128%1029% FR 4.6 Recruitment Materials 25%00% CS 3.10.2/FR 4.7 Financial Aid Audits/Title IV Responsibilities 38%39% QEP Impact Report 2 of 1118%4 of 2119% Dr. Crystal Baird, SACS-COC November 14, 2012

21. Referrals for 2015 Institutions (39 institutions per track) Standard2015 Track A (39)2015 Track B (39) CR 2.8 Number of Full-Time Faculty 1949%1333% CR 2.10 Student Support Programs 38%3 CS 3.2.8 Qualified Administrators 513%25% CS 3.3.1.1 IE 2872%1846% CS 3.4.3 Admissions Policies 00%13% CS 3.4.11 Qualified Academic Coordinators 1231%1333% CS 3.11.3 Physical Facilities 00%1436% FR 4.1 Student Achievement 25%38% FR 4.2 Program Curriculum 13%00% FR 4.3 Publication of Policies 410%00% FR 4.4 Program Length 1641%513% FR 4.5 Student Complaints 718%7 FR 4.6 Recruitment Materials 410%00% CS 3.10.2/FR 4.7 Financial Aid Audits/Title IV Responsibilities 923%9 QEP Impact Report1333%00%

22. Referrals for 2016 Institutions (41 institutions Track A & 34 institutions Track B) Standard 2016 Track A (41)2016 Track B (34) CR 2.8 Number of Full-Time Faculty 1844%1235% CR 2.10 Student Support Programs 12%39% CS 3.2.8 Qualified Administrators 37%26% CS 3.3.1.1 IE 1741%1338% CS 3.4.3 Admissions Policies 12%00% CS 3.4.11 Qualified Academic Coordinators 1024%1132% CS 3.11.3 Physical Facilities 410%618% FR 4.1 Student Achievement 615%824% FR 4.2 Program Curriculum 12%00% FR 4.3 Publication of Policies 12%26% FR 4.4 Program Length 1024%39% FR 4.5 Student Complaints 615%412% FR 4.6 Recruitment Materials 00%0 CS 3.10.2/FR 4.7 Financial Aid Audits/Title IV Responsibilities 2254%39% QEP Impact Report 410%26%

23. Referrals for 2016 Institutions (34 institutions Track B) Additional Standards 2016 Track B (34) CS 3.13.1 Accrediting Decisions 514% CR 3.13.3 Complaint Record 824% CS 3.13.4 Review of DE 13% FR 4.8.1 Student Verification 13% FR 4.8.2 Protecting Student Privacy 412% FR 4.8.3 Additional Student Charges 13% FR 4.9 Credit Hours 618% Dr. Crystal Baird, SACS-COC November 14, 2012

24. 5 Most Cited Standards for the Fifth-Year Over the Past 4 Years 1.CS 3.3.1.1 Institutional Effectiveness: Educational Programs, to include Student Learning Outcomes—49% 2.CR 2.8 Number of Full-time Faculty—41% 3.CS 3.4.11 Qualified Academic Coordinators—31% 4.FR 4.5 Student Complaints—26% 5.CS 3.13.3 Complaint Record—24% 6.CS 3.10.2/FR 4.7 Financial Aid/Title IV—22% Dr. Crystal Baird, SACS-COC November 14, 2012

25. SAM SACS COC Association for Mississippi Mutual interest Share information 2-4 conference calls per year Web site to collect information Open membership