abhe evaluation visit report - kingdom think · a. biblical knowledge b. biblical worldview c....

ABHE Evaluation Visit Report For Pacific Bible College

Medford, Oregon October 21 – 24, 2014

ABHE Evaluation Visit Report October 21-24, 2014

Pacific Bible College of 36

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

Conditions of Eligibility ................................................................................................................ 6

Comprehensive Integrated Standards

1. Mission, Goals, and Objectives .......................................................................................... 7

2. Student Learning, Institutional Effectiveness, and Planning .............................................. 8 2a. Assessment of Student Learning and Planning 2b. Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness and Planning

3. Institutional Integrity ........................................................................................................ 12

4. Authority and Governance ................................................................................................ 14

5. Administration .................................................................................................................. 17

6. Institutional Resources ...................................................................................................... 19 6a. Personnel Resources 6b. Financial Resources 6c. Physical Resources 6d. Technological Resources

7. Enrollment Management .................................................................................................. 23 7a. Recruitment 7b. Admissions 7c. Student Financial Services 7d. Retention

8. Student Services ................................................................................................................ 26

9. Faculty .............................................................................................................................. 27 9a. Faculty Qualifications, Development, and Welfare 9b. Faculty Decision Making

10. Library and Other Learning Resources ............................................................................. 30

11. Academic Programs .......................................................................................................... 31 11a. Curriculum 11b. Ministry Formation 11c. Academic Patterns and Procedures 11d. Alternative Academic Patterns

Summary of Actions

Commendations ..................................................................................................................... 33

Suggestions ............................................................................................................................ 33

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 35



Introduction

The Commission on Accreditation of the ABHE dispatched a site visit team to Pacific

Bible College in Medford, Oregon from October 21-23. The Team consisted of M. Shane Wood

(Chair), Richard Miller, Teresa Martinez, and Beverly Lucas on the ground in Oregon and Roger

Fung off-site. The Team was accompanied by ABHE Commission Staff Representative, Randall

Bell. Pacific Bible College was granted Applicant status in 2011 and this visit occurred to

determine whether the status of Candidate should be extended by the Commission on

Accreditation to the Institution.

Purpose of the Visit

The purpose of the Team visit is to assess the readiness and qualification for Pacific Bible

College to receive CANDIDACY status from the ABHE Commission on Accreditation.

Membership of the Evaluation Team

The following persons served on the Evaluation Team: Richard Miller Academic Bridges Christian College (NC) M. Shane Wood Administration Lincoln Christian University (IL) Teresa Martinez Library Baptist University of the Americas (TX) Roger Fung Finance The Principled Group (TX) Beverly Lucas Student Retired Educator (TX) The Evaluation Team was accompanied by Randall Bell ABHE Commission Staff Representative Evaluation of Self-Study Materials

The self-study documents are noteworthy. Multiple members of the Team commented on

the excellence of the format, clarity, transparency, and ease of processing in preparation for the

site visit, and commented that it exceeds materials submitted from more established institutions



in the ABHE. The supporting documents provided before and during the visit were

comprehensive and clear.

Report Conventions

The following Evaluation Team Report is organized according to the ABHE Standards in

the 2013 Commission on Accreditation Manual. The use of “Team,” with a capital “T” refers to

the visiting evaluation team, “Institution” with a capital “I” refers to the school visited, and

“Report,” with a capital “R” refers to the Institution’s compliance document. Commendations,

Suggestions, and Recommendations are found in bold and are summarized at the end of the

Team report.

The Institution’s History

The Institution was granted Applicant status by the Commission on Accreditation of the

ABHE in 2011, with specified concerns regarding the Conditions of Eligibility. The Institution

has been submitting progress reports (2012, 2013, and 2014) regarding its addressing of issues

cited by the COA and the Commission has approved the submissions. In 2014 February, a

special report was requested by the Commission addressing its low financial stability composite

score, limited assets, and methodology for making public its outcomes data (report approved by

the Commission in 2014 June). . The Institution was granted permission to have a Site Team

dispatched to consider Candidacy.

ABHE Actions

The Commission on Accreditation of the ABHE granted Applicant status to the

Institution in 2011. The Institution is authorized to offer both Certificate and Associate degrees.



The Institution’s Organization

The Institution maintains a leadership structure that consists of a Board of Trustees, a

President/Chief Executive Officer, Administrative Officers, Faculty, and Support Staff.

Currently, all members of the Administration operate in a part-time or volunteer manner.

Likewise, all faculty members are either part-time or adjunct in nature. It is noteworthy that the

President functions as both the Chief Executive Officer and the Academic Dean of the

Institution.

Initial Comments

The Institution, while stretched in both fiscal and human resources, is served by a

committed group of personnel. There is a strong sense of “team,” and it appears that various

stakeholder groups (e.g., Board, Administration, Faculty, Students) are committed to fulfilling

the Institution’s mission in their geographical/cultural milieu. The mission informs the vision,

decision-making, and actions of the Institution, and there seems to be a commitment to seeing

that mission through to its conclusion.



Conditions of Eligibility

As a general rule, the Institution possesses all the elements pertinent to the Conditions of

Eligibility. The Team expressed concerns regarding a lack of a grievance policy. Likewise, there

was some confusion regarding the number of General Studies hours required for the non-

transferable Associate Degrees.



Comprehensive Integrated Standards

Standard 1 Mission, Goals, and Objectives

The Institution possesses and presents a mission statement that is generally well-defined,

appropriate to biblical higher education, developed and periodically reviewed by the Board of

Trustees (Catalog, p. 18, Recruitment Brochure, PBC Website). Likewise, the mission statement

of the Institution is published widely to internal and external stakeholders (Catalog, p. 18, PBC

Website, Recruitment Brochure, Community Outreach Folder). Evidence suggests that the

mission statement guides the decision-making process of the Board of Trustees, Administration,

Faculty and Staff (Presidential Interview; Board of Trustee Interview; Faculty Interview).

The Institution has designed a mission statement, vision statement, core values, and

institutional goals (Catalog, p. 6; Institutional Report, p. 25). The institutional goals, however,

are more readily identified by the Institution as “Kingdom Thinking values” and are not

publicized with the mission and vision statements (Catalog, p. 9-10). While it appears these

values accomplish the purpose of institutional goals, the Team suggests that the Institution

recast and publicize the Kingdom Thinking values as the Institutional goals that support

the mission. The Institution is progressively reviewing and publicizing the objectives for its

academic programs, and those objectives support the mission statement and institutional goals

(President Interview; Artifact Review). Some of the programs, specifically the foundational and

certificate degrees, have introductory paragraphs, but do not have clearly articulated objectives

(Catalog, pp. 18-20). The Team suggests that the Institution create and publicize specific

objectives for all academic programs.

Overall, the Team finds that the Institution is in compliance with Standard 1.



Standard 2a Assessment of Student Learning and Planning

The Institution executed a plan of assessment to comply with Standard 2a. This plan

attempted to emulate an approach presented to the Institution which relied on the assessment of

the following areas:

1. Learning across the curriculum. a. Biblical Knowledge b. Biblical Worldview c. Spiritual Formation d. Kingdom Thinking e. General Knowledge f. Interpersonal Skills g. Communication Skills h. Problem Solving

2. Program Specific Learning. a. Biblical Studies Program Outcomes b. Christian Counseling Program Outcomes c. Foundational Program Outcomes d. Christian Ministries Program Outcomes

The assessment completed by the Administration and Faculty relied heavily upon grades

as outcome evidence and did not identify specific academic learning outcomes accomplished by

the students. The data used typically relied upon the faculty’s efforts and did not measure the

student’s outcome achievements. No evidence was found that demonstrated student

achievements other than grade point averages. This methodology fails to meet established

practices of ABHE and the U.S. Department of Education. Since the foundation of the

Institution’s assessment paradigm was flawed, academic learning outcomes are non-existent with

the exception of job placement statistics published on the Institution’s website.

The Team did find a document developed by the administration and faculty, which could

have provided a foundation for the Institution’s outcome assessment plan. This document,



entitled “Kingdom Thinking,” had five objectives that were listed on the syllabi templates;

however, only one faculty member attached specific assignments to these five objectives, but this

faculty member did not collect the outcomes data in a manner which would allow statistical

analysis.

The Institution indicated a desire to use ABHE Bible Knowledge Entry and Exit exams,

but it has yet to achieve this goal. The Institution indicated that a “Capstone Project” was being

considered by the administration and faculty, but no evidence was provided to demonstrate a

plan had been created. The Assessment Planning Document lacked the ability to track academic

learning outcomes.

The institution has a graduate who was accepted and currently enrolled into Multnomah

University’s graduate program. Likewise, the Institution has graduates who are working in

vocational ministry, but no employer survey was taken to determine the employer’s perception of

the Institution’s student outcomes.

The most critical element missing from the assessment plan was the implementation of

improvements based on assessment data. The institution did not demonstrate the cycle of

Assessment, Assessment Planning and Strategic Planning based on meaningful data analysis.

Consequently, the Team recommends that the Institution strengthen the assessment process

by focusing on student learning outcomes and using assessment findings to improve its

academic programs. (Standard 2a, Essential Elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).



Standard 2b Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness and Planning

While a written assessment document exists for the Institution, the document does not

describe, and the evidence does not demonstrate, a continuous, structured process involving the

total institution. Furthermore, the written assessment does not show meaningful analysis of data,

and the assessment, evaluation, planning, and implementation are not connected in a cohesive

process. The Institution did not demonstrate how all the activities of the institution have led to

the fulfillment of its mission, goals, and objectives. The Team did not find an assessment

program that was systematic, on-going, and one that informed and guided institutional decision

making. The Team is concerned that there is a failure by the Institution, in practice, to fully grasp

how the assessment process is used to foster institutional progress in achieving planning goals.

Furthermore, the Institution lacked evidence that goals connected to the Institution’s vision or

that the assessment process was informing the budgetary process, to ensure the proper allocation

of resources, in a realistic manner.

As acknowledged in the Institutional Report, the Institution has only recently begun to

collect various data; and these assessment data have not been used to measure its mission

success. With a team of volunteer and part-time personnel, the culture of an ongoing system of

assessment and planning is absent. The Team senses that the Institution cannot wait until the

formation of the Office of Institutional Effectiveness to begin its assessment and planning effort.

The Team believes that if the Institution will consistently apply a simplified assessment and

planning system, it will know better whether it is fulfilling its stated mission, where

improvements are needed, and how to assign appropriate human and financial resources.



While a comprehensive assessment and planning system may seem overwhelming at

times, the Team suggests that the Institution focus its efforts on the most important goals

and issues and create a culture of assessment and planning throughout the Institution. It is

critical that the assessment system provides for a logical flow from how an area is assessed, data

is evaluated, change decisions are set, plans are implemented, results are monitored, processes

are reviewed, and adjustments or recovery plans. These steps are necessary to achieve

determination that either the issue has been solved, needs continual monitoring, or should be

eliminated. Assessment tools and measures should include qualitative and quantitative means.

The assessment and planning systems can only be improved by having multiple completed

cycles. Multiple completed cycles will allow for continual improvement.

Based on this evaluation, the Team finds that the Institution is not in compliance with

Standard 2a or Standard 2b. Consequently, the Team recommends that the Institution

demonstrate that it is accomplishing and can continue to accomplish its mission, goals, and

programs objectives and improve performance through a regular and comprehensive

system of assessment and planning (Standard 2b. Essential Elements 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7).



Standard 3 Institutional Integrity

The Institution has publications, statements and advertising that accurately describe the

Institution (Recruitment brochure, College Website, Catalog). There are some discrepancies

between the Catalog and Website, but these occurrences deal with minor issues. As a matter of

integrity and consistency, however, the Team suggests that the Institution conduct periodic

reviews of its public statements so as to ensure that reliably consistent information is

disseminated to various constituencies. The Website provides effectiveness claims concerning

the Institution by presenting data on issues such as transfer-of-credit success, graduation

numbers, and graduate employment status (Website review).

The Institution has developed handbooks for students, administration, faculty, and

employees that describe and govern its relationships with those constituencies. These handbooks

do not, however, provide a policy regarding appropriate grievance procedures for each respective

group (e.g, students within the Institution)(President Interview). Likewise, the Institution

recognizes that it lacks policies and practices for the resolution of internal conflicts within its

constituencies (Institutional Report, p. 33). Consequently, the Team recommends that the

Institution develop, integrate and operationalize grievance and conflict resolution policies

for each appropriate constituency and include them in its respective governing documents

(Standard 3, Essential Element 2; Standard 8, Essential Element 8). The Institution seems to

foster respect for the background and perspectives of the community. This is illustrated by its

periodic attempt to reach out and assess the community’s knowledge about, and perceived need

for, its programs (Community Outreach Folder) (President Interview). The Institution is



progressing in its development and implementation of expected performance review and salary

schedule procedures (President Interview).

The Institution communicates in an open and honest manner with accrediting and

governmental agencies, including the awareness demonstrated in its compliance documents

(Self-study Appendix, p. 124; 2013 Institutional Report; 2014 Institutional Report). The Team

commends the Institution and its personnel for the quality of its Institutional Report

documents as they were clear, concise, transparent, and forthright in nature. The awareness

communicated in the compliance documents involves the ongoing attempt to operate within the

expectations of the Conditions of Eligibility for accreditation, although a select number of

conditions still need greater attention (e.g., grievance policies, student grievance file) (Artifact

Review). The Institution demonstrates integrity in all financial matters, demonstrated by audits

and yearly reports (Self-study Appendix—Financial Statements). The Team determines that the

Institution is in partial compliance with Standard 3.



Standard 4 Authority and Governance

The Institution is registered as a legal non-profit organization and possesses a new

constitution, by-laws, and articles of incorporation that were ratified and filed with the State in

2011 (Catalog, p. 16; Self-study Appendix—Oregon Office of Degree Authorization,

Constitution). The Institution currently has approval from the State of offer one degree, but

anticipates program approval for all degrees, as well as for the Institution as a whole, in

November 2014 (President Interview). For those alumni who have graduated with degrees that

have not had State approval that was current and in good standing, an email paper-trail exists that

provide approval from the State regarding those individuals (President Interview, Artifact

observation). The newly revised constitution and bylaws clearly and comprehensively provide a

basis for the administration and governance of the Institution (Self-study Appendix—By-Laws,

p. 96). Likewise, the governing board possesses and exercises the legal power to establish and

review the policies of the Institution (Board of Trustees minutes; Board of Trustees Handbook, p.

3; Self-study Appendix, pp. 96, 122, 127).

Policies and publications reveal that membership on the Board of Trustees excludes all

employees except the chief executive officer (Catalog, p. 8; Self-study Appendix—Constitution,

p. 116). Although the intent of the governing documents allows for a governing board to operate

with elected officers that does not include the chief executive officer, greater clarity is required.

For example, institutional by-laws identify the nature of the elected officers of the Board, but it

does not expressly disqualify the President from filling one of these roles (Self-study

Appendix—By-Laws, p. 97). Furthermore, the Compliance document did reveal that recent

Board member turnover has resulted in a potential lack of the State-required officers needed to



operate legally (2014 Institutional Report, p. 67). An interview with the Board of Trustees,

however, clarified this issue to the satisfaction of the Team.

The Institution promotes the contribution of a governing board that assists in generating

resources for the sustaining and improvement of the Institution (Board of Trustee Handbook, p.

20; Board of Trustee minutes). An interview with the select members of the Board suggests that

this is an ongoing and increasing conviction of this leadership group. A conflict of interest policy

exists for board members that address issues pertaining to finances, contracts, employment,

family, and other personal interests in the institution (Board of Trustee Handbook, pp. 22-26;

Self-study Appendix—By-Laws, pp. 111- 112). Each board member is required by policy to

annually sign a form regarding this issue, and signed documents are placed in their personnel file

retained by the Institution (File review). Although recent turnover has reduced the size of the

Board, it still operates within its constitutional requirements. While select members of this

governing body believe that the Board is presently undersized for the current institutional needs

(Board of Trustee Interview), the Board is sufficiently diverse in its gender and professional

competencies to represent related constituencies (Board of Trustees interview). Organizational

documents and the interview process reveal a governing board that is sufficiently autonomous to

protect the integrity of the Institution (Board of Trustee Handbook, pp. 2-3; Board Interview).

The Chief Executive is appointed by the board and is charged with providing administrative

leadership for the Institution (Board of Trustees Handbook, pp. 14-15; Self-study Appendix—

By-Laws, pp. 100-101). While organizational documents suggest that members of the governing

board will be assessed for effectiveness (Board of Trustees Handbook, p. 9), it is not clear

whether the intent of these documents has been implemented. While a review of the Board

personnel files reveal a recent collection of self-assessment data, the Institution acknowledges



that evaluations are not utilized for all trustees each year (Compliance document, p. 43) and that,

in at least one instance, the President reviewed assessments that were completed, but not the

Board itself. Likewise, the Board of Trustees Handbook provides a structure for quality

orientation of new board members and ongoing training for current members (pp. 32-33). The

Institutional Report (p. 44) and the interview process (Board of Trustee interview; President

Interview) acknowledged, however, that this structure is not consistently operationalized and that

the general practice of Board orientation conducted by the Institution is informal in nature.

Furthermore, Board policies exist that restrain the board from individual or collective

involvement in institutional administration (Self-study Appendix—By-laws, p. 102). Equally, the

Board has a system of policies for Board rotation that encourages new membership (Board of

Trustee Handbook, pp. 29-32; Board of Trustee Interview; President Interview). Although Board

turnover has occurred in recent months, it appears that this turnover is more a result of

unexpected attrition as compared to the rotating system (President Interview; Board of Trustee

Interview).

Generally speaking, the Team finds the Institution to be well-prepared in

documentation, but substantially weak in actually executing its stated policies. As a result of this

fact, the Team believes the Institution is out of compliance with Standard 4. Consequently, the

Team recommends that the Institution more fully align the actual practices of its

organizational stakeholders with the policies articulated in its governing handbooks/

documents so as to provide better institutional integrity, resource development, student

service, and ongoing operations (Standard 4, Essential Elements 10, 11, 12, 14; Standard 5,

Essential Elements 5, 6, 7).



Standard 5 Administration

The Institution has a chief executive officer who is responsible to the Board of Trustees

and leads it towards the accomplishment of its mission (Board of Trustees Handbook, pp. 14-15;

Self-study Appendix—By-Laws, pp. 100-101). A review of artifacts reveals that the President

has the appropriate background and professional training to lead the Institution to fulfill its

mission (Personnel file review). It is noteworthy, however, that the President, who also currently

serves as the institutional academic dean, provides his services as a volunteer while also running

his own business as a Chief Executive Officer. This is provided, in part, so as not to be a

financial burden to the Institution (Institutional Report, p. 47; President Interview; Board of

Trustee Interview). This is also the case for the balance of the administrative officers. In light of

this significant sacrifice, the Team commends the President and the Administrative Officers

for their substantial and sacrificial commitment to the Institution by serving on a volunteer

basis. Unfortunately, this sacrifice complicates the ability of the Administrative Team (e.g.,

President, Vice-Presidents, Dean, Librarian, and Student Support) to provide full, undivided

attention to the ongoing needs of the Institution, especially as it seeks growth and accreditation.

Likewise, due to competing work schedules and an unforeseen complication, the Team was

extremely limited in its capacity to interview two of the Administrative Vice-Presidents.

Consequently, the Team strongly suggests that the Institution, as quickly as is reasonable,

determine its priority, and acquire full-time personnel, to meet the administrative functions

necessary to benefit the Institution.

The administrative officers consist of leaders that possess the adequate education, skills

and resources necessary to discharge their duties (Personnel files review). The Institution



currently operates according to an organizational structure that is outlined in the Administrative

Handbook. While this organizational structure is adequate for the size and scope of Institution’s

mission, greater clarity is needed to appropriately define the interactive responsibilities between

the Administration and the Executive Committee (Catalog, pp. 8-9; Administrative Handbook, p.

4; President Interview). Furthermore, while the Administrative Handbook provides guidance and

expectations for Administrators of various types, the current expectations provide direction for

several administrative personnel (in the form of job descriptions) who have not yet been hired

(Administrative Handbook review). The Institution also acknowledges that there is no current

practice for the review and enhancement of Administrator performance (2014 Institutional

Report, p. 76; President Interview). Administrative records are securely maintained. Likewise,

the Institution acknowledged that there is no current standard operating policy for ensuring that

these records are secured and maintained (Institutional Report, p. 48). The Team believes the

Institution is in partial compliance with Standard 5.



Standard 6 Institutional Resources

The Institution has a committed base of administrators, faculty, and staff to carry out the

mission of the Institution. The campus provides adequate classrooms, offices, and technological

services to meet needs. However, the financial instability and the need for a comprehensive plan

to achieve financial stability must be addressed.

6a. Human Resources

In spite of its limited resources, the mostly volunteer staff of the Institution has provided

for its basic needs. The staff and faculty demonstrate high levels of commitment and energy.

There is a strong desire to improve and do their best to fulfill the Institution’s stated mission. The

work environment is comfortable, and a “family atmosphere” is highlighted by students and staff

on campus. As stated in the Institutional Report, however, the part-time and volunteer staff is not

adequate for the future growth of the Institution. In fact, it is possible that the Institution will

have a hard time continuing to service its current student load without increasing its staffing

level.

Given the lack of full-time staffers, the existing part-time staff performs multiple roles,

further dividing their attention and focus. For example, the current President also functions as a

regularly assigned instructor as well as the Institution’s Academic Dean. Recently, fundraising

responsibility, which had previously been assigned to the Board of Trustees, was reassigned to

the President (President Interview). This multiple approach to human resource allocation inhibits

members of the Institution from focusing on needed priorities and developing expertise in critical

areas. Connected to this issue, it appears that the Institution, due to a lack of financial resource, is

unable to provide adequate resources for employee welfare, including but not limited to,



professional growth and development. The Team believes the Institution would benefit from

prioritizing spending on professional growth and development, and not only when “funds are

available.”

6b. Financial Resources

Since entering Applicant Status in FY2011, the Institution’s ratio for financial stability

has deteriorated greatly. Its ratio has dropped from 0.03 in FY11 to (0.67) in FY14 (a financial

healthy institution should have a ratio of 1.50 or above). This instability has resulted in

insufficient staffing levels, minimal employee welfare, and a lack of professional growth and

development. As enrollment grows, it will only add more stress to the current personnel.

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

0.03 (0.22) (0.54) (0.67)

The Institution’s budgeting process is handled by the President. The implementation of

its budget is also done by the President. As acknowledged in the Institutional Report and on-

campus interviews, the approved budget is not an effective instrument of financial control.

The Institution lacks multiple revenue streams sufficient to enable the realization of

institutional goals. The Institution relies heavily on contribution as a source of income (67% of

total income). Contribution and tuition income combined to 89% of total income. The Team

asserts that the Institution must cultivate more sources of revenue.

The Institution does not currently have a risk management policy. While the Institution

currently does not have any investments or reserves, the Team believes such a policy needs to be

in place before funds become available. This will allow for safeguarding of assets that extends



beyond minimizing risk in its current portfolio, such as safeguarding of vehicles, buildings, and

other assets.

From FY11 to FY14, the Institution’s cash position has decreased 85% (from $19k to

$3k). Its total net asset has decreased by 166% (from $16k to negative $11k). A negative net

asset means that if the Institution liquidates all of its assets for book value, it still does not have

enough resources to repay its creditors. The Institution keeps a very tight budget, and is already

being run by volunteers and part-time staff. Consequently, the lack of reserves doesn’t allow the

Institution to withstand any unforeseen crisis.

The Institution does not have adequate internal controls, policies and procedures to

safeguard assets and protect personnel from accusations of wrongdoing. As stated earlier, the

President creates the budget, approves spending, and is a check signatory. This creates a lack of

separation of duties, which belies an inadequate system of internal controls.

The Institution’s assessment process was not connected to its planning process. As such,

the Institution’s assessment, planning, budgeting, and actual expenses incurred were not

connected cohesively. The Institution lacks evidence that its planning informs the budgeting

process.

6c. Physical Resources

The current facility, equipment and supplies are adequate to support the institution’s

educational goals at the current enrollment level. There are adequate numbers of classrooms.

However, the Institution should diligently monitor and assesses its facility needs, including, but

not limited to, classroom space, parking space, and health and safety issues.



6d. Technological Resources

While the technological resources are adequate for the current needs of the Institution, it

relies heavily on institutional personnel’s technological expertise to solve issues as they arise.

The Institution lacks a systematic allocation of resources to maintain and expand technology as

well as the technological expertise of its personnel. This condition prevents the Institution from

providing stable technological capacities to support its mission, goals, and objectives. As a result

of this conclusion, the Team suggests that the Institution systematically allocate resources to

maintain and expand technology, provide ongoing training for staff, and formalize its

policies and procedures regarding the usage of technological resources, services, and

security.

Likewise, based on its findings concerning the components of Standard 6, the Team finds

the Institution out of compliance with Standard 6. Consequently, the Team recommends that

the Institution demonstrate that it has the necessary human and financial resources needed

to achieve its mission and has implemented policies and procedures to manage these

resources effectively (Standard 6a, Essential Elements 1 & 3; Standard 6b, Essential

Elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 9).



Standard7 Enrollment Management

7a. Recruitment

The Institution expresses commitment to recruiting students whose spiritual commitment,

goals and interests are consistent with its mission. Equally, the Institution is recruiting students

consistent with its current constituency, and its current student demographics reflect the ethnic,

cultural and gender patterns of the local community. The Institution has an attractive,

informative website with sufficient information for prospective students and it includes the

academic calendar and the Academic Catalog/Student Handbook, providing information related

to admissions information and grading policies. The Institution does not actively participate in

advertising and promotion. The Institution uses a software management system that adequately

serves their enrollment management needs; however, there is no perceived allocation of

resources for, and authority to, support effective recruitment efforts other than for underwriting

software fees.

7b. Admissions

The Admissions process seems relatively open, is clearly communicated, and is applied

consistently. Appropriate emphasis is placed on the ability of students to communicate, benefit,

and successfully achieve their educational goals. The catalog and website clearly explain the

Institution’s policy on transfer of credit as well as identifying the programs and educational

entities with whom it has articulation agreements. The Institution has a provision for awarding

credit for experiential learning, but lacks written criteria for judging whether such credit should

be extended. Consequently, the Team suggests that the Institution develop a written policy

stating the criteria for awarding credit for experiential learning.



The President, who also fills the role as Academic Dean, conducts a personal interview

with every applicant thereby contributing to the process for identifying students who are not

adequately prepared for their desired level of study.

7c. Financial Aid

The Institution currently offers no federal financial aid, but may desire to do so should

the school become eligible to provide it. At this time, the Institution does not have the staff to

provide support for Title IV funding. It would seem that the Institution will need to adequately

prepare to award student aid and make sure that required policies and procedures are timely and

equitable. The Institution has received approval from the State of Oregon to accept Veteran

benefits. The Veteran’s Refund Policy is clearly stated and in compliance with CFR 21.4255. At

present, one student meets the criteria and is receiving benefits.

Included in the 2014-2015 Budget is an amount for dispersal as institutional scholarships.

These scholarships are underwritten by designated giving by donors. The Institution provides

accurate financial aid information and counseling in regard to scholarships, grants, loans and

refunds. Financial aid practices meet regulatory requirements for dispersal to Veterans, and

Financial Aid decision-making procedures are timely and equitable.

7d. Retention

There is a provision for tutoring of students that need learning assistance, but no evidence

was presented indicating there was currently a need for this service. A paid staff member

oversees tutoring and other student services.

According to the Report, the Institution will participate in the IPEDS system and will

supply and receive data related to its retention and completion rates. The Institution presents a

limited amount of consumer information related to these data, but the quality of the reported data



requires improvement. The campus management software provides a functioning assessment

process that measures student retention, attrition, and completion rates, but the Institution does

not adequately utilize this function. The Institution has policies in its publications regarding

satisfactory academic progress, fees and other charges, refund policies, graduation requirements,

and accreditation status. While the expression of their current accreditation status is accurate

overall, some rewording of its public statements could communicate even more clearly its

present status of accreditation with the appropriate agencies.

Based on its findings, the Team believes that the Institution currently is not in compliance

with Standard 7, and this is a result of lacking a written Enrollment Management Plan..

Consequently, the Team Recommends that the Institution commit to a written enrollment

management plan and resources that provide for Recruitment, Admissions, Retention, and

Financial Aid (Standard 7, Sub-points a, b, c & d).



Standard 8 Student Services

The Institution expresses a commitment to the spiritual, physical, intellectual, emotional,

and social development of students that is consistent with biblical higher education. Likewise, all

student conduct requirements are founded upon Christian principles. While there is a process

stated in the catalog/handbook that relates to student conduct and disciplinary actions (including

an appeal process), and the Faculty recognizes its responsibility in participating in this process,

there is no evidence that the Institution possesses a policy and procedure that addresses student

complaints and grievances.

The Institution provides services that appropriately align with its mission and culture, and

those services meet the needs of students. The Institution is staffed by volunteers and a limited

number of remunerated employees, of which one is functioning as a student service professional.

The Institution operates a work study program that requires Field Ministry and

Vocational Ministry Training for graduation. Both programs contribute to leadership

development. Conversely, there is no student government at this point, but one is in the process

of formation. Additionally, the Institution lacks policies that address and/or responds to diverse

student needs, abilities, and cultures, but it has established a committee to address this concern.

Presently, the Institution assesses student satisfaction in an informal manner, but it is in

the process of developing a Student Satisfaction survey. Due to its size, actions related to student

satisfaction can occur in an appropriate and timely manner. Likewise, students are able to

provide input into the formation of new programs.

Upon review, the team finds the Institution in partial compliance with Standard 8.



Standard 9 Faculty

9a. Faculty Qualifications, Development, and Welfare

The Institution possesses a Faculty that is committed to its mission while demonstrating

care for the student’s spiritual and academic life (Institutional Report, Faculty files, Student

interviews, Faculty interview). Student testimonies reveal that Faculty are available outside of

the classroom setting and provide care in real and tangible ways. Likewise, faculty members are

available to mentor students during and after class, but, since a significant portion of the Faculty

are adjunct in nature, there is a lack of regular office hours for these personnel. The Team

suggests that Institution encourage faculty to adopt and maintain scheduled office hours to

“engage in modeling and mentoring relationships with students.” While the Institution

maintains faculty files, not all files contained the appropriate documentation necessary to

communicate proper credentialing, experience, training, review, and scholarship. Consequently,

the Team suggests that the Institution ensure that all faculty files include appropriate

documentation (i.e. Curriculum Vitae, performance evaluation, publications, and scholarly

activities). The Institution possesses a Faculty Handbook that includes grievance procedures, but

lacks “criteria for the recruitment, appointment, teaching load, promotion, and termination of

faculty.” Equally, it is unclear as to the level of faculty involvement in advice and consent as it

regards its own Handbook as there appeared to be certain discrepancies between stated policy

and actual practice in the Faculty; therefore, the Team suggests that the Institution ensure

alignment of actual Faculty practices and procedures with the policies of the Handbook.

While the Institution assesses faculty effectiveness through course evaluations of

students, there is limited evidence of a comprehensive system that evaluates the teaching



effectiveness of faculty. Consequently, the Team suggests that the Institution, in conjunction

with the faculty, implement a peer and supervisor review system for evaluating teaching

effectiveness. Of importance, the Institution should provide increased professional development

opportunities for its instructors (again, of whom most are adjunct in nature). Since the training

that is provided seems valued by the Faculty as a unit (Faculty interview), the Team suggests

that the Institution provide discipline-specific professional development for the faculty to

keep them current in their respective fields.

The Institution appears to lack published policies and procedures on several faculty

related matters (e.g., hiring procedures, academic freedom, approval of graduates, approval of

requirements for graduation, etcetera), thus undermining adherence to its principles within the

context of the institutional mission; therefore, the Team recommends that the Institution

establish and implement policies and procedures that address faculty-related matters (i.e.

hiring, academic freedom, and approval of candidates for graduation) (Standard 9a,

Essential Elements 3, 4, 5, 10). The Team found that the Faculty is representative of the

constituency it serves.

9b. Faculty Decision Making

While the Institution maintains a committed Faculty, many of whom are adjunct in

nature, there is need for greater clarity to identify those members that comprise the core of its

group (Faculty interview). Consequently, the Team recommends that the Institution identify

the members that comprise its core faculty (Standard 9b, Essential Element 1). Likewise,

the Team suggests that the Institution continue to develop a well-defined structure for the

faculty.



The level of the faculty’s contribution to the academic related decision-making processes

is unclear, especially as it relates to admissions criteria, curriculum development, student life

activities, and approval of graduation requirements (Faculty File review, Faculty interview);

therefore, the Team suggests that the Institution take prompt action to more appropriately

involve the faculty in its decision-making processes.

Based upon its findings, the Team believes the Institution is not in compliance with

Standard 9.



Standard 10 Library and Other Learning Resources

While the Institution provides an accessible library, it appears that certain constituencies

find instructions related to its use confusing (Interviews, Artifact review). Likewise, there seems

to be a growing desire for a more readily accessible reference service and improved instruction

regarding the usage of the library (Student interviews); therefore, the Team suggests that the

Institution collaborate with the Librarian to offer virtual reference services via available

technological media.

There is some evidence to suggest that constituent usage of the library occurs on a limited

basis. Since library personnel do not live near the Institution, the Team suggests that the

Institution devise a plan to promote the library resources through unique and innovative

methodologies. While the Library attempts to secure its value assets in user-needed resources,

the Team suggests that the Institution enhance its library security and procedures.

The new librarian has extensive library experience and training, and the Institution can

benefit from the knowledge and insight of this individual. Due to that volunteer nature of many

personnel functioning within the Institution, the Team commends the Institution for

recruiting a qualified, experienced leader to oversee the library. There does seem to be

concern about librarian involvement in critical academic activities within the Institution;

consequently, the Team suggests that the Institution involve the librarian in the curriculum

planning and development of student learning outcomes.

Based on its findings, the Team believes the Institution is in compliance with Standard 10.



Standard 11 Academic Programs

11a. Curriculum; 11b. Ministry Formation; 11c. Academic Patterns and Procedures

The Institution has achieved significant compliance of Standard #11 with the exception of

essential elements which connect directly to Standard 2a (i.e. Standard 11a, Essential Element 2

and Standard 11b, Essential Element 6). The administration and the faculty demonstrated a

commitment to the accreditation process; therefore, the Institution should be able to correct

Standard 2a, which in turn will enable personnel to correct the deficiencies associated with

Standard 11; therefore, the Team suggests that the Institution, once the academic learning

outcomes are developed or identified in Standard 2a, replace and integrate the new

outcomes into its academic programs.

For example, the Institution’s cloud based software enables them to properly track a

student’s progress and enable them to document a student’s progress toward, and completion of,

graduation requirements. The Team did express concern over the manner in which student

records were secured, especially as it relates to fire-proof cabinets; therefore, the Team strongly

suggests that the institution strengthen the security of student records consistent with state

and federal regulations.

Also, the Institution has instruments in place which demonstrate compliance with the

following items: recruiting and admissions practices, academic calendars, catalogs, publications,

grading, and advertising. The Team found evidence that the faculty had rubrics in place to assure

that the faculty’s syllabi were at the appropriate level of academic rigor concerning classroom

contact time and external workload, which resulted in 37.5 hours of work per credit hour earned.



The Team found the following items within the college catalog and or the website: resources,

admissions policies and standards, transfer of credit policy, academic offerings, policies

regarding satisfactory academic progress, fees and other charges, refund policies, and graduation

requirements.

While the Institution provides valuable information as it relates to its educational intent

and means of achieving success, the Institution should add completion and/or graduation rates

for full time certificate or degree-seeking undergraduate students. Likewise, the Institution

makes statements regarding its status regarding accreditation (Catalog; Website’s “PCB at a

Glance”). The Institution should ensure that such statements agree (regardless of location of

statement) and comply with the agency’s expectations as it relates to public pronouncements.

Consequently, the Team suggests that the Institution remove or modify references to

accreditation status, which are not in conformity with Commission guidelines, so that it is

not misleading to the public.

11d. Alternative Academic Patterns

The Institution does not currently utilize alternative academic patterns.

Based on these findings, the Team believes the Institution is in compliance with Standard 11.



COMMENDATIONS

1. The Team commends the Institution and its personnel for the quality of its Institutional

Report documents as they were clear, concise, transparent, and forthright in nature.

2. The Team commends the President and the Administrative Officers for their substantial and

sacrificial commitment to the Institution by serving on a volunteer basis.

3. The Team commends the Institution for recruiting a qualified, experienced leader to oversee

the library.

SUGGESTIONS

1. The Team suggests that the Institution recast and publicize the Kingdom Think values as the

Institutional goals that support the mission.

2. The Team suggests that the Institution create and publicize specific objectives for all

academic programs.

3. The Team suggests that the Institution focus its efforts on the most important goals and

issues and create a culture of assessment and planning throughout the Institution.

4. The Team suggests that the Institution conduct periodic review of its public statements so as

to ensure that reliably consistent information is disseminated to various constituencies.

5. The Team strongly suggests that the Institution, as quickly as is reasonable, determine its

priority, and acquire full-time personnel, to meet the administrative functions necessary to

benefit the Institution.

6. The Team suggests that the Institution systematically allocate resources to maintain and

expand technology, provide ongoing training for staff, and formalize its policies and

procedures regarding the usage of technological resources, services, and security.



7. The Team suggests that the Institution develop a written policy stating the criteria for

awarding credit for experiential learning.

8. The Team suggests that Institution encourage faculty to adopt and maintain scheduled office

hours to “engage in modeling and mentoring relationships with students.”

9. The Team suggests that the Institution ensure that all faculty files include appropriate

documentation (i.e. Curriculum Vitae, performance evaluation, publications, and scholarly

activities).

10. The Team suggests that the Institution ensure alignment of actual practices and procedures of

the Faculty with the policies of the Faculty Handbook.

11. The Team suggests that the Institution, in conjunction with the faculty, implement a peer and

supervisor review system for evaluating teaching effectiveness.

12. The Team suggests that the Institution provide discipline-specific professional development

for the faculty to keep them current in their respective fields.

13. The Team suggests that the Institution continue to develop a well-defined structure for the

faculty.

14. The Team suggests that the Institution take prompt action to more appropriately involve the

faculty in its decision-making processes.

15. The Team suggests that the Institution collaborate with the Librarian to offer virtual

reference services via available technological media.

16. The Team suggests that the Institution devise a plan to promote the library resources through

unique and innovative methodologies.

17. The Team suggests that the Institution enhance its library security and procedures.



18. The Team suggests that the Institution involve the librarian in the curriculum planning and

development of student learning outcomes.

19. The Team suggests that the Institution, once the academic learning outcomes are developed

or identified in Standard 2a, replace and integrate the new outcomes into its academic

programs.

20. The Team strongly suggests that the Institution strengthen the security of student records

consistent with state and federal regulations.

21. The Team suggests that the Institution remove or modify references to accreditation status,

which are not in conformity with Commission guidelines, so that it is not misleading to the

public.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Team recommends that the Institution strengthen the assessment process by focusing on

student learning outcomes and use assessment findings to improve its academic programs.

(Standard 2a, Essential Elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

2. The Team recommends that the Institution demonstrate that it is accomplishing and can

continue to accomplish its mission, goals, and programs objectives and improve performance

through a regular and comprehensive system of assessment and planning (Standard 2b.

Essential Elements 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7).

3. The Team recommends that the Institution develop, integrate and operationalize grievance

and conflict resolution policies for each appropriate constituency and include them in its

respective governing documents (Standard 3, Essential Element 2; Standard 8, Essential

Element 8).



4. The Team recommends that the Institution more fully align the actual practices of its

organizational stakeholders with the policies articulated in its governing handbooks/

documents so as to provide better institutional integrity, resource development, student

service, and ongoing operations (Standard 4, Essential Elements 10, 11, 12, 14; Standard 5,

Essential Elements 5, 6, 7).

5. The Team recommends that the Institution demonstrate that it has the necessary human and

financial resources needed to achieve its mission and has implemented policies and

procedures to manage these resources effectively (Standard 6a, Essential Elements 1 & 3;

Standard 6b, Essential Elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 9).

6. The Team Recommends that the Institution commit to a written enrollment management plan

and resources that provide for Recruitment, Admissions, Retention, and Financial Aid

(Standard 7, Sub-points a, b, c & d).

7. Team recommends that the Institution establish and implement policies and procedures that

address faculty-related matters (i.e. hiring, academic freedom, and approval of candidates for

graduation) (Standard 9a, Essential Elements 3, 4, 5, 10).

8. Team recommends that the Institution identify the members that comprise its core faculty

(Standard 9b, Essential Element 1).

abhe evaluation visit report - kingdom think · a. biblical knowledge b. biblical worldview c....

Documents