Keys to Compliance

Today is our last blog about citations issued for Standards A1.02a and A1.07. We’ve already covered the requirements and the nuances of compliance for these two Standards. Now let’s discuss how to approach your sponsoring institution about its role in your program’s successful compliance, how to carefully document the interactions that do take place, and finally, my recommended strategies for compliance with these standards.

Getting Support

If you take nothing else from this blog series, remember that your senior administration should be coached before a site visit. Make them aware that their clarity on your program's operation is important and that active involvement and oversight are expected from them.

I have worked with programs that achieve compliance through developing an institutional ARC-PA Standard QI committee. There were institutional officials appointed to review standard-related and assessment-related issues on a regular basis throughout the year. They appointed someone from the Institutional Research Division as part of program’s assessment committee. That’s worked well in a number of cases because getting institutional officials involved is key. 

Educate senior administration that this issue needs to be resolved before your site visit.

During a site visit, both your faculty and the sponsoring institution’s administration should avoid making emotionally-based statements. Site visitors are never your confidantes! Rash words have a way of making it verbatim into the ARC-PA’s comments and can have long-reaching effects leading to embarrassment or, far worse, the Committee’s belief that your program and its institution cannot work together productively.

Strategies for Compliance: A1.02a

To ensure that your SSR reflects a sufficient level of administrative involvement, I recommend the following:

1. To demonstrate ongoing interaction, meticulously document any meetings between the program director and senior administration, even if the interaction is small. Always include the date! I’ve found emails of confirmation and understanding to be effective. (“Thank you for meeting with me today. We talked about the following information and standards…” If the matter is important, arrange for minutes to be taken.)

2. Educate senior administration about the seriousness of institutional support citations. When the Commission views programs as unsupported by their institutions, their evaluations are much tougher.

3. Leverage recent trends in Commission actions as an opportunity to receive additional institutional support for assessment. Bring data and evidence to your senior administration; show them the statistics that confirm a lack of institutional support leads to bad results. The solution is often a simple modification of processes within the administration to meet requirements.

4. If possible, have an institutional official on your assessment committee. 

Strategies for Compliance: A1.07

Workload: Conduct an internal analysis of program operations. Does the program have sufficient manpower to handle activities such as maintaining records and processing admission applications. This starts with an analysis of workload. Faculty must have release time for administrative activities; in my opinion, this is the best place to start. The program will flounder if you do not have enough staff to help you with assessment or enough relief time.

Evidence: Ensure there is tangible evidence at the site visit of ongoing recruitment and hiring of open positions. Include budgetary evidence and meeting minutes approving new positions. Without this evidence the site visitors will not perceive that the institution is taking action. 

Triangulate Data. Gather multiple data points that measure human resource sufficiency (such as an annual sufficiency survey, exit survey, faculty surveys, or declining outcomes) to provide evidence. Don’t just use the benchmarks by themselves; gather multiple data points. 

Annually measure all aspects of appendix 14B -14G from the faculty and student perspectives. These results must be used to educate senior administration about your need for additional manpower. Look at trends and benchmarks to provide data for your senior administration, and let them know they will be accountable if the data is actionable. 

In my next blog…

We’ll begin our discussion of Standard A2.09d, which states that program directors “must be knowledgeable about and responsible for continuous programmatic review and analysis.” This Standard is particularly important because program directors should understand that a Standard's nuances depend on perceived knowledge of the assessment process. This naturally goes hand in hand with the 5th Edition Standard’s increasing emphasis on continuous, well-documented assessment, so you won’t want to miss this blog series!

Readers, don’t forget that if you need clarification on any of these matters, you can find more information at my website: https://drscottmassey.com/. The website includes information on my free webinars, as well as how to contact our consultants with questions.