Accreditation

WASC Self Study Results - (DSA)

Worksheet for Preliminary Self-Review Under the Standards (Pilot, Updated 4.9.12)

Purpose of the Worksheet

This worksheet is designed to assist planning groups preparing for a WASC review to undertake a preliminary, systematic institutional self-analysis under the WASC Standards. The use of the worksheet is recommended; the institution may choose some other means of reviewing itself under the Standards. The worksheet leads planning groups to identify strengths and areas of good practice as well as areas that may need attention under each Standard and Criteria for Review. The process may also surface themes or topics for further exploration in the accreditation review.

Table of Contents:

The WASC Standards and CFRs:

The WASC Standards are designed to guide institutions in self-review, to provide a framework for institutional presentations to the Commission and review teams, and to serve as the basis for judgments by evaluation teams and the Commission. Each standard is set forth in broad holistic terms that are applicable to all institutions. Under each of the four Standards are two or more major categories under which the standard is more specifically defined. Within each sub-section are Criteria for Review (CFRs), intended to identify and define key elements of the standard. Guidelines identify expected forms or methods for demonstrating performance related to certain Criteria for Review. By design, the Commission has not developed a Guideline for each Criterion for Review. This worksheet contains all the CFRs and Guidelines, where applicable. For more detailed information on application of the Standards, see the Handbook of Accreditation.

This worksheet is designed to assist planning groups preparing for a WASC review to undertake a preliminary, systematic institutional self-analysis under the WASC Standards. The use of the worksheet is recommended; the institution may choose some other means of reviewing itself under the Standards. The worksheet leads planning groups to identify strengths and areas of good practice as well as areas that may need attention under each Standard and Criteria for Review. The process may also surface themes or topics for further exploration in the accreditation review.

Strategies for Using this Worksheet The worksheet is meant to be a heuristic tool for stimulating discussion and exploration rather than a definitive grading scheme ora mechanical checklist for compliance. Through its use, key areas may be identified where more evidence is needed or more development is required. The planning group may modify the worksheet in any way that suits its purposes. One approach is to have members of the planning group complete the worksheet individually with responses reviewed by the group. Another approach is to divide the worksheet by Standards with different groups completing each Standard. Once the institution has completed this self-review process, priorities that are identified using this form should be integrated into the report as appropriate. Summary questions are provided in the worksheet as a means of assisting institutions in determining areas of greatest concern or areas of good practice to be addressed in your review.

Suggested Rating for Columns in the Worksheet:

Self Review Rating Importance to address at this time
1 = We do this well; area of strength for us A= High priority
2= Aspects of this need our attention B= Lower priority
3= This item needs significant development C= Does not need to be addressed at this time
0= Does not apply or not enough evidence to address

Standard 1. Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives.

The institution defines its purposes and establishes educational objectives aligned with its purposes and character. I t has a clear and conscious sense of its essential values and character, its distinctive elements, its place in the higher educational community and its relationship to society at large. Through its purposes and educational objectives, the institution dedicates itself to higher learning, the search for truth, and the dissemination of knowledge. The institution functions with integrity and autonomy.

Institutional Purposes

Section 1.1

Criteria for Review: The institution’s formally approved statements of purpose and operational practices are appropriate for an institution of higher education and clearly define its essential values and character.

Guidelines: The institution has a published mission statement that clearly describes its purposes. The institution’s purposes fall within recognized academic areas and/or disciplines, or are subject to peer review within the framework of generally recognized academic disciplines or areas of practice.

Self-Review Rating: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 1.2

Criteria for Review: Educational objectives are clearly recognized throughout the institution and are consistent with stated purposes. The institution develops indicators for the achievement of its purposes and educational objectives at the institutional, program, and course levels. The institution has a system of measuring student achievement, in terms of retention, completion, and student learning. The institution makes public data on student achievement at the institutional and degree level, in a manner determined by the institution.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review Rating: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 1.3

Criteria for Review: The institution’s leadership creates and sustains a leadership system at all levels that is marked by high performance, appropriate responsibility, and accountability.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review Rating: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A

Integrity

Section 1.4

Criteria for Review: The institution publicly states its commitment to academic freedom for faculty, staff, and students, and acts accordingly. This commitment affirms that those in the academy are free to share their convictions and responsible conclusions with their colleagues and students in their teaching and in their writing.

Guidelines: The institution has published or has readily available policies on academic freedom. For those institutions that strive to instill specific beliefs and world-views, policies clearly state how these views are implemented and ensure these conditions are consistent with academic freedom. Due process procedures are disseminated, demonstrating that faculty and students are protected in their quest for truth.

Self-Review Rating: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 1.5

Criteria for Review: Consistent with its purposes and character, the institution demonstrates an appropriate response to the increasing diversity in society through its policies, its educational and co- curricular programs, and its administrative and organizational practices.

Guidelines: The institution has published or has readily available policies on academic freedom. For those institutions that strive to instill specific beliefs and world-views, policies clearly state how these views are implemented and ensure these conditions are consistent with academic freedom. Due process procedures are disseminated, demonstrating that faculty and students are protected in their quest for truth.

Self-Review Rating: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 1.6

Criteria for Review: Even when supported by or affiliated with political, corporate, or religious organizations, the institution has education as its primary purpose and operates as an academic institution with appropriate autonomy.

Guidelines: The institution has no history of interference in substantive decisions or educational functions by political, religious, corporate or other external bodies outside the institution’s own governance arrangements.

Self-Review Rating: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 1.7

Criteria for Review: The institution truthfully represents its academic goals, programs, and services to students and to the larger public; demonstrates that its academic programs can be completed in a timely fashion and treats students fairly and equitably through established policies and procedures addressing student conduct, grievances, and human subjects in research and refunds.

Guidelines: The institution has published or readily- available policies on student grievances and complaints, refunds, etc. and has no history of adverse findings against it with respect to violation of these policies. Records of student complaints are maintained for a six-year period. The institution clearly defines and distinguishes between the different types of credits it offers and between degree and non- degree credit, and accurately identifies the type and meaning of the credit awarded in its transcripts. The institution has published or readily-available grievance procedures for faculty and staff. The institution’s policy on grading and student evaluation is clearly stated, and provides opportunity for appeal as needed.

Self-Review Rating: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 1.8

Criteria for Review: The institution exhibits integrity in its operations as demonstrated by the implementation of appropriate policies, sound business practices, timely and fair responses to complaints and grievances, and regular evaluation of its performance in these areas.

Guidelines: The institution’s finances are regularly audited by external agencies.

Self-Review Rating: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 1.9

Criteria for Review: The institution is committed to honest and open communication with the Accrediting Commission, to undertaking the accreditation review process with seriousness and candor, to informing the Commission promptly of any matter that could materially affect the accreditation status of the institution, and to abiding by Commission policies and procedures, including all substantive change policies.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review Rating: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A



Synthesis/Reflections on Standard One (Questions)

  1. After completing this analysis, what are the most important issues, if any, that should be emphasized in the accreditation review under this Standard?
  2. Looking overall at the quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems to support the review process, what are institutional strengths?
  3. Looking again at the overall quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems, what are areas to be addressed or improved?


Standard 2. Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions

The institution achieves its institutional purposes and attains its educational objectives through the core functions of teaching and learning, scholarship and creative activity, and support for student learning. I t demonstrates that these core functions are performed effectively and that they support one another in the institution’s efforts to attain educational effectiveness.

Teaching and Learning

Section 2.1

Criteria for Review: The institution’s educational programs are appropriate in content, standards, and nomenclature for the degree level awarded, regardless of mode of delivery, and are staffed by sufficient numbers of faculty qualified for the type and level of curriculum offered.

Guidelines: The content, length, and standards of the institution’s academic programs conform to recognized disciplinary or professional standards and are subject to peer review.

Self-Review: 3*

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 2.2

Criteria for Review: All degrees—undergraduate and graduate—awarded by the institution are clearly defined in terms of entry-level requirements and in terms of levels of student achievement necessary for graduation that represent more than simply an accumulation of courses or credits.

Guidelines: Competencies required for graduation are reflected in course syllabi for both General Education and the major.

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 2.2a

Criteria for Review: Baccalaureate programs engage students in an integrated course of study of sufficient breadth and depth to prepare them for work, citizenship, and a fulfilling life. These programs also ensure the development of core learning abilities and competencies including, but not limited to, college-level written and oral communication; college-level quantitative skills; information literacy; and the habit of critical analysis of data and argument. In addition, baccalaureate programs actively foster an understanding of diversity; civic responsibility; the ability to work with others; and the capability to engage in lifelong learning.Baccalaureate programs also ensure breadth for all students in the areas of cultural and aesthetic, social and political, as well as scientific and technical knowledge expected of educated persons in this society. Finally, students are required to engage in an in-depth, focused, and sustained program of study as part of their baccalaureate programs.

Guidelines: The institution has a program of General Education that is integrated throughout the curriculum, including at the upper division level, consisting of a minimum of 45 semester units (or the equivalent), together with significant study in depth in a given area of knowledge (typically described in terms of a major).

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A

Section 2.2b

Criteria for Review: Graduate programs are consistent with the purpose and character of their institutions; are in keeping with the expectations of their respective disciplines and professions; and are described through nomenclature that is appropriate to the several levels of graduate and professional degrees offered. Graduate curricula are visibly structured to include active involvement with the literature of the field and ongoing student engagement in research and/or appropriate high-level professional practice and training experiences. Additionally, admission criteria to graduate programs normally include a baccalaureate degree in anappropriate undergraduate program.

Guidelines: Institutions offering graduate-level programs employ at least one full-time faculty member for each graduate degree program offered, and demonstrate sufficient resources and structures to sustain these programs and create a graduate-level academic culture.

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 2.3

Criteria for Review: The institution’s student learning outcomes and expectations for student attainment are clearly stated at the course, program and, as appropriate, institutional level. These outcomes and expectations are reflected in academic programs and policies; curriculum; advisement; library and information resources; and learning environment.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 2.4

Criteria for Review: The institution’s expectations for learning and student attainment are developed and widely shared among its members (including faculty, students, staff, and where appropriate, external stakeholders). The institution’s faculty takes collective responsibility for establishing, reviewing, fostering, and demonstrating the attainment of these expectations.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A

Teaching and Learning

Section 2.5

Criteria for Review: The institution’s academic programs actively involve students in learning, challenge them to meet high expectations, and provide them with appropriate and ongoing feedback about their performance and how it can be improved.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 2.6

Criteria for Review: The institution demonstrates that its graduates consistently achieve its stated levels of attainment and ensures that its expectations for student learning are embedded in the standards faculty use to evaluate student work.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 2.7

Criteria for Review:

All programs offered by the institution are subject to systematic program review. The program review process includes analyses of the achievement of the program’s learning objectives and outcomes, program retention and completion, and, where appropriate, results of licensing examination and placement and evidence from external constituencies such as employers and professional organizations.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?:

While the units of the Division of Student Affairs are not subject to regular program review, they have moved towards a greater emphasis on purposeful impacting student learning and encourages units to identify student learning outcomes associated with their programs and activities, as well as develop and implement a plan for assessing student learning. For example, these are incorporated as part of the annual report for DSA units. However, due to notably increased student enrollment over the last decade, without a commensurate increase in personnel (coupled with personnel departures), insufficient resources exist to engage in sustained, comprehensive, assessment efforts. The appointment of a DSA Assessment/Accreditation coordinator in FY 2012- 13 is an attempt to begin institutionalizing Divisional effort in this regard.

Scholarship and Creative Activity

Section 2.8

Criteria for Review: All programs offered by the institution are subject to systematic program review. The program review process includes analyses of the achievement of the program’s learning objectives and outcomes, program retention and completion, and, where appropriate, results of licensing examination and placement and evidence from external constituencies such as employers and professional organizations.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 2.9

Criteria for Review: The institution recognizes and promotes appropriate linkages among scholarship, teaching, student learning and service.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A

Support for Student Learning

Section 2.10

Criteria for Review: The institution collects and analyzes student data disaggregated by demographic categories and areas of study. It tracks achievement, satisfaction, and campus climate to support student success. The institution regularly identifies the characteristics of its students and assesses their preparation, needs, and experiences.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 2.11

Criteria for Review: Consistent with its purposes, the institution develops and assesses its co- curricular programs.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?:

The Division of Student Affairs engages in assessment on both a unit and divisional level. Several units have engaged in assessment at the unit level. First, the Office of Intercollegiate Athletics (OIA) has undergone intensive self- study, utilizing a guide prepared and disseminated by the NCAA; the study uncovered a few areas for improvement, and afforded the opportunity to make important changes to benefit our student- athletes’ safety/welfare and academic performance, as well strengthen the OIA’s business practices and gender equity policies.

Second, the Division’s newest operational unit, Student Health & Wellness Programs (SHWP), has undergone self-assessment in an effort to benchmarks its services and offerings relative to other US campuses. The unit combines what were formerly autonomous units in Medical Services and Counseling Services, and added a new unit: Health Promotion. In addition, as part of SHWP’s efforts to prioritize, plan, deliver and evaluation student health services, it has administered the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment survey twice thus far, first in Fall 2010 and again in Fall 2012.

Finally, the Division of Student Affairs is the administrative home for a variety of US Department of Education federal grants, specifically through the Title III and TRiO programs. These grant programs are incorporated into the Division’s operational offerings, but the units are required to comply with all mandated self-evaluation efforts and submit those reports in a timely manner.

With regard to division-wide efforts, the Division of Student Affairs makes demonstrable contributions to implementation of the campus’ strategic plan; we have developed a DSA-specific plan of implementation, and efforts are assessed on a continual basis to ensure that performance indicators are being met. Campus-wide initiatives of the Enrollment Management Implementation Team (or EMIT, a group comprised of both academic affairs and student affairs colleagues) - for example Freshmen Guaranteed Academic Schedules - are assessed and monitored with the assistance of the Institutional Research Analyst. Further, it should be noted that UH Hilo’s Division of Student Affairs has elected to use the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) self-evaluation guidelines, which are distributed to all unit managers. Their use is encouraged to maintain and enhance program quality, effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, some professional associations to which UH Hilo DSA units belong offer also offer benchmarks, self-study guides, etc., specific to various functional areas. Overall, efforts in this regard are inconsistent and sporadic. Again, due to notably increased student enrollment over the last decade, without a commensurate increase in personnel (coupled with personnel departures), insufficient resources exist to engage in sustained, comprehensive, assessment efforts. Because the Division also lacks adequate expertise in assessment/evaluation, we are in the process of researching possible 3rd party vendors who can provide evaluation solutions on an institutional basis, e.g., EBI MAP-Works.


Section 2.12

Criteria for Review: The institution ensures that all students understand the requirements of their academic programs and receive timely, useful, and regular information and advising about relevant academic requirements.

Guidelines: Recruiting and admission practices, academic calendars, publications, and advertising are accurate, current, complete, and are readily available to support student needs.

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?:

There are two key positions in the Division of Student Affairs that directly addresses the institution’s responsibility in providing tools needed for students to understand the academic requirements of their chosen program. The first is the STAR Degree Audit Coordinator in the Office of the Registrar. With the STAR Degree Audit being the primary advising tool for students and faculty in the UH System, having a campus-based coordinator allows for timely dissemination of UH Hilo-specific academic information. The Coordinator provides regular trainings to faculty advisers and also provides direct access to students who have questions concerning their reports. The Coordinator also serves as liaison to the UH System STAR team in ensuring that this important tool is up-to-date and provides narrowly-tailored specific to UH Hilo.

The second position is the Coordinator of Undergraduate Advising in the Advising Center. The Coordinator provides assistance and training to each of the six colleges’ faculty advisers throughout the semester while also maintaining on-line resources to assist in the advising process. An Advising Matters Professional Council has also been created and managed by this Coordinator. Along with the Advising Center, six additional units within the division provide direct academic advising to students. These include the Kipuka Native Hawaiian Student Center, The Pacific Island Student Center, Student Support Services (TRIO), the Minority Access and Achievement Program, The office of International Education and Intercultural Education, as well as the Office of Intercollegiate Athletics. Each provides students with timely information in areas such as Academic calendars and policy, general education, and graduation. The Office of Financial Aid also provides key information on a regular and timely basis that is related to academic progress and financial aid eligibility. Formalized “front door” activities such as Orientation, Early Advising Week, Na Ka ‘Eleu Transfer Student workshops, and timely Transfer Credit Evaluations from the Admissions office all work to ensure understanding of academic policies upon initial entrance to the university – be it for first time freshmen, returning or transfer students.


Section 2.13

Criteria for Review: Student support services—including financial aid, registration, advising, career counseling, computer labs, and library and information services—are designed to meet the needs of the specific types of students the institution serves and the curricula it offers.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?:

UH Hilo’s Division of Student Affairs has long recognized and embraced the unique student population we serve; a significant proportion of our students report being the first to attend college in their family, and many come from low- income families. The campus has been cited as one of the most diverse in the US, and there is no true ethnic majority. Native Hawaiians, Filipinos, and Pacific Islander students constitute our historically underserved communities and attend UH Hilo in critical mass. In the Fall 2012 census, such students accounted for 37 percent of the total population. In response to our student population makeup, a variety of targeted services have been developed to be responsive to the specific needs of each of these groups, among them Kipuka Native Hawaiian Student Center, Minority Access & Achievement Program, and the Pacific Islander Student Center. Further, our financial aid policies exceed minimum standards set by Board of Regents policies for how much need-based financial aid must be awarded from UH Hilo’s tuition assistance funds; of the 17% of tuition dollars that are set aside to support grants- in-aid, UH Hilo allocated 70% to support need- based aid (BOR only requires 60%).


Section 2.14

Criteria for Review: Institutions that serve transfer students assume an obligation to provide clear and accurate information about transfer requirements, ensure equitable treatment for such students with respect to academic policies, and ensure that such students are not unduly disadvantaged by transfer requirements.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?:

UH Hilo, in partnership with Hawaii Community College, recently was awarded a Title III grant whose primary purpose is to institute a variety of new initiatives based on best practices that are designed to increase the pipeline of transfer students from the two-year to four-year campus. In addition, UH Hilo is collaborating with the other nine campus in the University of Hawaii System to address issues such as a unified course articulation database and common course numbering to minimize some of the barriers to transfer across the System. Lastly, through Access2Success, we are participating in capacity- building efforts at a System-wide level, with the Education Trust and Educational Delivery Institute serving as our technical assistance partners, to identify, implement and assess “best practices” in promoting successful transfer.



Synthesis/Reflections on Standard Two (Questions)

  1. After completing this analysis, what are the most important issues, if any, that should be emphasized in the accreditation review under this Standard?
  2. Looking overall at the quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems to support the review process, what are institutional strengths?
  3. Looking again at the overall quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems, what are areas to be addressed or improved?

Standard 3. Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives.

The institution sustains its operations and supports the achievement of its educational objectives through its investment in human, physical, fiscal and information resources and through an appropriate and effective set of organizational and decision-making structures. These key resources and organizational structures promote the achievement of institutional purposes and educational objectives and create a high quality environment for learning.

Faculty and Staff

Section 3.1

Criteria for Review: The institution employs personnel sufficient in number and professional qualifications to maintain its operations and to support its academic programs, consistent with its institutional and educational objectives.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 3.2

Criteria for Review: The institution demonstrates that it employs a faculty with substantial and continuing commitment to the institution sufficient in number, professional qualifications, and diversity to achieve its educational objectives, to establish and oversee academic policies, and to ensure the integrity and continuity of its academic programs wherever and however delivered.

Guidelines: The institution has an instructional staffing plan that includes a sufficient number of full- time faculty with appropriate backgrounds, by discipline and degree levels. The institution systematically engages full-time non-tenure track, adjunct, and part-time faculty in such processes as assessment, program review, and faculty development.

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 3.3

Criteria for Review: Faculty and staff recruitment, orientation, workload, incentive, and evaluation practices are aligned with institutional purposes and educational objectives. Evaluation processes are systematic, include appropriate peer review, and, for instructional faculty and other teaching staff, involve consideration of evidence of teaching effectiveness, including student evaluations of instruction.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 3.4

Criteria for Review: The institution maintains appropriate and sufficiently supported faculty and staff development activities designed to improve teaching and learning consistent with its institutional objectives.

Guidelines: The institution provides training and support for faculty members’ teaching by means of technology-mediated instruction.

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A

Fiscal, Physical, and Information Resources

Section 3.5

Criteria for Review: The institution has a history of financial stability, unqualified independent financial audits and has resources sufficient to ensure long- term viability. Resources are aligned with educational purposes and objectives. If an institution has an accumulated deficit, it has realistic plans to eliminate the deficit. Resource planning and development include realistic budgeting, enrollment management, and diversification of revenue sources.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 3.6

Criteria for Review: The institution holds, or provides access to, information resources sufficient in scope, quality, currency, and kind to support its academic offerings and the scholarship of its members. These information sources, services, and facilities are consistent with the institution’s educational objectives and are aligned with student learning outcomes. For on-campus students and students enrolled at a distance, physical and information resources, services, and information technology facilities are sufficient in scope and kinds to support and maintain the level and kind of education offered.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 3.7

Criteria for Review: The institution’s information technology resources are sufficiently coordinated and supported to fulfill its educational purposes and to provide key academic and administrative functions.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A

Organizational Structures and Decision - Making Processes.

Section 3.8

Criteria for Review: The institution’s organizational structures and decision-making processes are clear, consistent with its purposes, support effective decision making, and place priority on sustaining effective academic programs.

Guidelines: The institution establishes clear roles, responsibilities, and lines of authority which are reflected in an organization chart.

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 3.9

Criteria for Review: The institution has an independent governing board or similar authority that, consistent with its legal and fiduciary authority, exercises appropriate oversight over institutional integrity, policies, and ongoing operations, including hiring and evaluating the chief executive officer.

Guidelines: The governing body regularly engages in self- review and training to enhance its effectiveness.

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 3.10

Criteria for Review: The institution has a full time chief executive officer whose primary or full- time responsibility is to the institution. In addition, the institution has a sufficient number of other qualified administrators to provide effective educational leadership and management.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 3.11

Criteria for Review: The institution’s faculty exercises effective academic leadership and acts consistently to ensure both academic quality and the appropriate maintenance of the institution’s educational purposes and character.

Guidelines: The institution clearly defines the governance roles, rights, and responsibilities of the faculty.

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A



Synthesis/Reflections on Standard Three (Questions)

  1. After completing this analysis, what are the most important issues, if any, that should be emphasized in the accreditation review under this Standard?
  2. Looking overall at the quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems to support the review process, what are institutional strengths?
  3. Looking again at the overall quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems, what are areas to be addressed or improved?

Standard 4. Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement

The institution conducts sustained, evidence-based, and participatory discussions about how effectively it is accomplishing its purposes and achieving its educational objectives. These activities inform both institutional planning and systematic evaluations of educational effectiveness. The results of institutional inquiry, research, and data collection are used to establish priorities at different levels of the institution, and to revise institutional purposes, structures, and approaches to teaching, learning, and scholarly work.

Strategic Thinking and Planning

Section 4.1

Criteria for Review: The institution periodically engages its multiple constituencies, including faculty, in institutional reflection and planning processes which assess it strategic position; articulate priorities; examine the alignment of its purposes, core functions and resources; and define the future direction of the institution. The institution monitors the effectiveness of its plans and planning processes

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 4.2

Criteria for Review: Planning processes at the institution define and, to the extent possible, align academic, personnel, fiscal, physical, and technological needs with the strategic objectives and priorities of the institution.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 4.3

Criteria for Review: Planning processes are informed by appropriately defined and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data, and include consideration of evidence of educational effectiveness, including student learning.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 4.4

Criteria for Review: The institution employs a deliberate set of quality assurance processes at each level of institutional functioning, including new curriculum and program approval processes, periodic program review, ongoing evaluation, and data collection. These processes include assessing effectiveness, tracking results over time, and using comparative data from external sources and improving structures, processes, curricula, and pedagogy.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Commitment to Learning and Improvement

Section 4.5

Criteria for Review: The institution has institutional research capacity consistent with its purpose and objectives. Institutional research addresses strategic data needs, is disseminated in a timely manner, and is incorporated in institutional review and decision-making processes. Included in the institutional research function is the collection of appropriate data to support the assessment of student learning. Periodic reviews are conducted to ensure the effectiveness of the research function and the suitability and usefulness of data.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 4.6

Criteria for Review: Leadership at all levels is committed to improvement based on the results of the processes of inquiry, evaluation and assessment used throughout the institution. The faculty take responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process and use the results for improvement. Assessments of the campus environment in support of academic and co-curricular objectives are also undertaken and used, and are incorporated into institutional planning.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 4.7

Criteria for Review: The institution, with significant faculty involvement, engages in ongoing inquiry into the processes of teaching and learning, as well as into the conditions and practices that promote the kinds and levels of learning intended by the institution. The outcomes of such inquiries are applied to the design of curricula, the design and practice of pedagogy, and to the improvement of evaluation means and methodology.

Guidelines: Periodic analyses of grades and evaluation procedures are conducted to assess the rigor and effectiveness of grading policies and practice.

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A


Section 4.8

Criteria for Review: Appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners, and others defined by the institution, are regularly involved in the assessment of the effectiveness of the educational programs.

Guidelines: N/A

Self-Review: N/A

Importance to address at this time: N/A

Evidence: What is there? (Or needed?) Who interprets it? How is it used?: N/A



Synthesis/Reflections on Standard Four (Questions)

  1. After completing this analysis, what are the most important issues, if any, that should be emphasized in the accreditation review under this Standard?
  2. Looking overall at the quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems to support the review process, what are institutional strengths?
  3. Looking again at the overall quality and effectiveness of the institution’s data gathering and systems, what are areas to be addressed or improved?




Summative Questions (Questions)

  1. Who participated in preparing this self-inventory? What approach was used in completing the worksheet?
  2. What areas were identified as issues or concerns to be addressed before the review?
  3. What areas emerged as either institutional strengths or topics for further exploration that might be targeted as themes or topics to be explored in the review?