1. SACS and The Accreditation Process Faculty Convocation Southern University Monday, January 12, 2009 Presented By Emma Bradford Perry Dean of Libraries

2. SACS - The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools includes: Over 800 colleges and universities 11 states in the Southeastern part of the U.S. The 77 members of the Commission on Colleges consist mostly of Presidents, Chancellors, Vice Presidents, and Vice Chancellors. The Commission makes the final decision on accreditation.

3. My Experience with SACS Under the old standards served on over a dozen teams. Two SACS visits under the new standards On Site Reaffirmation Committee, College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA - 2007 On Site Substantive Change Committee, University of Mary Hardin Baylor in Texas - 2008 ( My sister was the first African –American faculty at MHB.) Elected to the Commission in 2008 Member of the Commission on Colleges Compliance and Reports Committee Have made 2 presentations at the SACS Annual Conference

4. Reaffirmation for Southern University is scheduled for 2010 Off Site Review November 2009 On Site Review Between January and April 2010 Decision of the Commission – December 2010

5. 12 Core Requirements (2.1 through 2.12) which are the basic broad based foundational requirements that all institutions must meet to be accredited such as degree granting authority, a governing board, etc. 53 Comprehensive Standards (3.1 through 3.14.1) which are more specific to the operation of the institution such as polices and procedures which are documented and published. 8 Federal Requirements (4.1 through 4.7) which establish the eligibility of an institution to participate in programs authorized by the U.S. Department of Education. There are:

6. Characteristics of a Successful Compliance Certification Candid, forthright, and convincing Sufficient evidence/documentation Easily accessible Comprehensive Well organized Well written User Friendly

7. Documents which must be submitted by the Institution to SACS Compliance Certification Document Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Institutional Profiles The Focused Report

8. There are two review committees Off Site Review Committee is charged with determining whether each institution is in compliance with all: Core Requirements, except Core Requirement 2:12 which deals with the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Comprehensive Standards Federal regulations

9. The Evaluation of the Off Site Review Committee is conducted in two phases. 1. The Preliminary Review is completed by individual committee members prior to the full meeting.  Each member is assigned a group of institutions similar in degrees and governance, which is called a cluster.  Each member writes a brief draft analysis for each institution indicating whether the institution appears to be in compliance and the reason for his/her decision. 2. The full Off Site Committee meets in Atlanta to reach consensus about its finding and develop a report.

10. The Off Site Committee will make an assessment as follows: In compliance – the Committee determined that the institution has presented a convincing and appropriately documented case and meets the requirement Non –Compliance - the institution has not presented a convincing documented case of compliance.

11. Upon reaching a consensus, the Off Site Committee prepares “The Report of the Reaffirmation Committee”. When this report has been completed, the responsibilities of the Off-Site Review Committee will have concluded.

12. The Charge of the On Site Review Committee is to: 1.Evaluate the QEP to determine compliance with 2.12 (QEP). 2.Review Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards which are not in compliance. 3. Make final determination of compliance with all Standards. 4.Present the committee’s finding and recommendations to the leadership of the institution at the conclusion of the meeting. 5.Write a report for the Commission which includes the committee’s recommendations and observations.

13. A minimum of 7 members and one SACS Staff member will serve on the On Site Committee including: 1.The Chair 2.Evaluators in the areas of faculty 3.Educational programs 4.Learning or Student Support Services 5.Institutional Effectiveness 6.Two additional evaluators for the QEP

14. Since the primary task of the On-Site Committee is to conduct an assessment of the institution’s QEP and to write the Reaffirmation Report for the Commission, the Committee must resolve compliance issues very early in the on-site visit, usually the first day.

15. The Acceptability of the QEP will be based on the following: 1.It is FOCUSED - a significant issue related to student learning is identified and justifies it’s use for the QEP 2.INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY is clear –provides evidence that it has sufficient resources to implement, sustain and complete the QEP 3.ASSESSMENT of the PLAN - the institution must show that it has the means of determining the success of the QEP 4.BROAD BASED INVOLVEMENT of the COMMUNITY – the institution must show that all aspects of the community (faculty, students, staff administrators, etc) were involved in the development of the plan.

16. The Reaffirmation Report The On Site Review Committee will write a report for submission to the Commission. If the Committee judges that the QEP is unacceptable and therefore not in compliance, it will write a recommendation for Core Requirement 2.12.

17. There are two exit conferences at the conclusion of the on site visit President, Chair and Commission Staff will discuss the Committee’s report privately Commission staff, the Chair, the Institution Leadership Team and Members of the On Site Committee will discuss the committee’s report.

18. Shortly after the on site visit, the Chair will send a draft report to the Committee members. Within 3 to 5 weeks after the On-Site Review Committee visit, the Chair will send the Institution a draft of the committee report.

19. The Institution is required to respond to all recommendations cited in the Report of the Reaffirmation Committee and this is called the Focused Report.

20. The Commission on Colleges The Commission’s Compliance and Reports Committee (C&R) will receive and review 1. Report of the Reaffirmation Committee 2.Response of the institution to the committee’s report 3.Institution compliance certification 4.QEP

21. The Executive Council and the full Commission receives the C&R and will make a decision regarding the reaffirmation of the institution’s accreditation and any follow-up activities required of the institution. The Commission makes decisions regarding accreditation status twice each year – in June and December.

22. Finally, the top 5 non-compliance standards for the last 2 years: Off Site Team 1.Faculty Competence ( 3.7.1) 2.Financial Resources (2.11.1) 3.Academic Program Approval ( 3.4.1) 4.Institutional Effectiveness (3.3.1) 5.College level Competencies (3.5.1)

23. Top 5 non-compliance standards for the last 2 years: On Site Team QEP (2.12) College Level Competencies (3.5.1) Faculty Competency (3.7.1) Institutional Effectiveness (3.3.1) Academic Program Approval (3.4.1)

24. http://www.lib.subr.edu Questions ??? Emma Bradford Perry Dean of Libraries and First Librarian to serve as a Commissioner on the Commission of Colleges. Elected for a 3 year term.