SACS Reaffirmation Project
Compliance Certification
Team Leaders Meeting
Friday, August 27, 2010
107 Main Building
10 – 11:00AM
Jennifer Skaggs, Ph.D.
SACS Reaffirmation Project Director
University of Kentucky
Major Components in the SACS
Reaffirmation Process
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Preparation of Compliance Certification
Report
Off-site Review & Report
Focused Report for On-site visit (if
prepared)
On-site Visit
Response to the On-Site Visit Report
Commission Action
Changes in SACS Reaccreditation
Process

Previous reaccreditation in 2002 involved:
◦ Institutional Self Study
◦ Over 400 “must” and “should” statements

New 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 compliance
 Emphasis 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 Committees
Sufficiency of documentation
2. Analysis
3. Quality of writing
4. Accessibility of documentation
5. Relevance of documentation
6. Organization of report
7. Report addressed the requirement
8. Verification needed
9. Implementation
1.
(Carter, Johnson, & Gibbs, 2007)
Compliance Certification Report

The 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
7
Off-Site Review
Peer 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 nonrelevant 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 start
Begin 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 Manual
 Take sufficient time to deconstruct each
standard and requirement and interpret
them in the context of UK
 Plan for document control

Planning for Document Version
Control
For 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 & CLEAR
 Appropriate
documentation
No Data Dumps
Be sure documentation is applicable,
appropriate, and easy to access
Timeline for Compliance
Certification Report


Draft of Compliance Certification Report
due by September 2011
Draft 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 Manuals
Teams
 Team Assignments (Responsibility Matrix)
 Timeline
 Resource Manual
 Principles of Accreditation

CC Team Leader Meetings


Schedule regular meeting time
Continued 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
Meeting


Friday, September 30, 2010
Lexmark 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 Meeting
December 4-7, 2010
 Louisville, KY
 Website video


UK SACS website