Transcript Reporting Standards in Performance Auditing

Managing to Uncertainty
“Where Do We Go From Here?”
Paper Presentation
Southern University at Shreveport
Faculty/Staff Institute Fall ‘06
August 21, 2006
Mr Martin B. Fortner, Jr.
Director/SACS Laision
Planning, Assessment & Research
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
1
SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“Self Regulation”
Philosophy
(1) Self-Regulation through Accreditation Embodies a Traditional U.S.
Philosophy That a Free People Can and Ought to Govern Themselves
Through a Representative, Flexible, and Responsive System.
(2) Emphasizing Processes and Resulting Outcomes, Accreditation
Relies on Integrity, Thoughtful and Principled Judgment, Rigorous
Application of Requirements, and a Context of Trust.
2
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“Self Regulation”
Philosophy
(3) Based on Reasoned Judgment, the Process Stimulates Evaluation and
Improvement, While Providing a Means of Continuing Accountability to
Constituents and the Public.
(4) The COC Expects Institutions to Dedicate Themselves to Enhancing the
Quality of the Programs & Services Within The Context of Their Mission,
Resources, and Capacities, and to Create an Environment in Which
Teaching, Public Service, Research and Learning Occur.
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
3
Principles of Accreditation
“Foundations for Quality Enhancement”
Criteria for Accreditation
Principles & Philosophy of Accreditation
Core Requirements (12)
Comprehensive Standards (53)
Federal Mandates (8)
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
4
Principles of Accreditation
“Foundations for Quality Enhancement”
Criteria for Accreditation
Core Requirements: Establishes “Entry” Level Requirements For an
Institution Seeking Continued Accreditation. Institutions Must Demonstrate
Compliance With all Twelve Requirements.
Core Requirement 12: The Institution Has Developed an Acceptable
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) and Demonstrates The Plan Is Part of
An Ongoing Planning and Evaluation Process.
5
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
Principles of Accreditation
“Foundations for Quality Enhancement”
The Quality Enhancement Plan
The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is a Carefully designed and
Focused Course of Action Designed to Improve Student Learning
Quality and Institutional Credibility. The Plan Must be Implemented
Over a Time Period and Demonstrating The Following:
- Planning
- Implementation
- Evaluation
- Recommendations
- Reporting
- Communication
- Inclusiveness
- Collaborations
6
FORTNER/LITTLE/ AIR/ 02
Principles of Accreditation
“Foundations for Quality Enhancement”
SACS Deliverables
Compliance Certification – Documents Our Response to
- Core Requirements (11)
- Comprehensive Standards (53)
- Federal Mandates (8)
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) – Documents SUSLA’s Response
to Core Requirement 12
7
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
Principles of Accreditation
“Foundations for Quality Enhancement”

Paradigm For SUSLA QEP Development
• Environmental Scan
• Assessment of Student Learning
• Definition of Product
• Core Values
• Value Added
• Action for Change (Quality Emphasis)
8
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“Institutional Effectiveness”

Strategic Planning / Vision 2020: Vibrant Balanced Economy
With a Well-Educated Workforce & Improved Life Quality.

Institutional Operational Plans: Establish Annual
Performance Targets and Reporting Strategic Goal Attainment
Activities.

Institutional Effectiveness Plans: Establish Annual
Performance Targets For Organizational Units

SACS/QEP(s): Linking Institutional Units Into the Strategic
Planning/Reporting & Reaffirmation Process.

Performance Budgeting: Cost Maximization & Resource
Utilization. Emphasis: Cost Avoidance, Cost Liabilities & Cost
Effectiveness.
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
9
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“Establishing Accountability”

Five Levels of Accountability
1. Policy Accountability
Selection of policies pursued/rejected.
2. Program Accountability *
Goal achievement.
3. Performance Accountability * Efficient operations.
4. Process Accountability *
Using adequate process, procedures,
or measures in performing actions
required.
5. Probity/Legal Accountability * Spending funds in accordance
with approved budget and
legal requirements.
10
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“Data Driven Assessments”









Core Data Systems
Statewide Student Profile System /Explorer
IPEDS
Performance Based Budget Planning & Reporting
Enhanced University Assessment Capability
Perception Based Surveys
Knowledge, Skills & Abilities ( Pedagogy)
Development of Core Indicators/SEIS
Outcome Assessment (Under Construction)
Quality of Academic Experience
Post Baccalaureate Specialization
Employment Earnings Evaluations
11
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“Performance Reporting”

QEP Reporting: Performance/Process Accountability
Criteria:
Measure of service accomplishments
(output and outcome indicators)
Measures relating service efforts to service accomplishments
(efficiency and cost-outcome indicators)



Explanatory Information (Data Quality Measurements)
Relevance
Understandability
Comparability *
Timeliness
Consistency
Reliability
12
PAR ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“Quality Enhancement Framework”
Student Learning Outcomes
Student Learning Outcomes Reflect Changes in Knowledge,
Skills, Attitudes, and/or Values Attributed to the Collegiate
Experience.
13
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“ QEP Topic Selection”

Core Requirements
• SLO Originating From IE Process
• Inclusiveness
• Topic Selection-Data Driven
• Organizational Buy In (Faculty/Stakeholders)
• Within Institutional Resource Capability
• Measurable Impact On Student Learning
14
PAR ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“ QEP Topic Selection”

Performance/Process Variables Affecting SLO
• Increase Licensure Pass Rates
• Improve Student Writing
• Enhance Course Relevancy
• Improve Parking
• Increase Salaries
• Shorten Registration Process
15
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“ QEP Topic Selection”

Indirect Relationship to SLO
• Improve Technology Access
• Enhance Library Holdings
• Enhance Faculty Advisement
• Increase Student Retention
• Increase Graduation Rates
• Increase Completer Earnings
16
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“ QEP Topic Selection”

Demonstrate Evidence
• Development of Enhancement Process
• Inclusiveness
• Topic Selection & Related Issues
• Generated Results
• Measurable Process Improvements
17
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“ QE Collaborative Model”
Review Area: Student Registration
1. Strategic Goal: Student Access/Enrollment
2. Review Context: Reporting Integrity
3. Program Area: Enrollment Mgt./Ac. Affairs
4. Benchmarks: Statewide Student Profile Sys.
5. Govt. Oversight: BOR,OPB,OLA & Federal
6. SACS Standards: 2.5, 2.11.1/3.10.1-3.10.5
18
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“ QE Collaborative Model”
Organizational Units: Problem Resolution
Assessment of Process Variables
Pre-Enrollment Trends
- Inter-organization Coordination
- Class Enrollment Trends
Financial Aid Eligibility
- Class Withdrawal/Acquisition
Optimal Class Purging
- Payment Verification Status
Advisor Certification
Mandated Student Census Lockdown
-14/7 Post SSPS Adjustments
Enrollment Management Policies/Procedures
-
19
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
SUSLA/SACS Paradigm for Accreditation
“ QE Collaborative Model”
Develop Quality Initiatives
1. Proactive Pre-Registration Initiatives
2. Strengthening IE Planning Process
3. Involvement of Internal Auditor
4. Enhancing Policies/Procedures
5. Continued Process Improvement
20
Planning, Assessment & Research ‘06
Can We Achieve Reaffirmation ?
“Davidian Fineness”

Communication

Cooperation

Trust

Mutual Respect
“A Willingness to Change”
21
PAR ‘06