accreditation liaison officer survey · important to note that many left the category “accjc...

Accreditation Liaison Officer Survey

10 Commercial Blvd., Suite 204 Novato, CA 94949

Tel: 415-506-0234 Fax: 415-506-0238

[email protected] accjc.org SPRING 2019

TableofContents

ACCJC MISSION STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 3

ACCREDITATION LIAISON OFFICER SURVEY ........................................................................................... 3

SPECIAL THANKS .................................................................................................................................. 3

SECTION I: INFORMATION ABOUT YOU IN YOUR ROLE AS ACCREDITATION LIAISON OFFICER (ALO) ..... 4

SECTION II: INSTITUTION AND ALO TRAINING NEEDS .......................................................................... 9

SECTION III: ACCJC STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOMES ............................................................................... 17

10 Commercial Boulevard, Suite 204 | Novato, CA 94949

P: (415) 506-0234 | F: (415) 506-0238 | E: [email protected]

ACCJC ALO 2019 Survey Report 3

ACCJCMISSIONSTATEMENT

The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges works with its member

institutions to advance educational quality and student learning and achievement. This

collaboration fosters institutional excellence and continuous improvement through innovation,

self-analysis, peer review, and application of standards.

ACCREDITATIONLIAISONOFFICERSURVEY

In a process of continuous quality improvement, the Accrediting Commission for Community and

Junior Colleges (ACCJC) solicits input from the field. To that end, ACCJC sent an electronic

survey to current Accreditation Liaison Officers (ALOs) in early 2019. This survey included

questions about their role as ALO, training needs, and other input to inform ACCJC’s

improvement efforts. Of the 134 ALOs at member institutions, 75 replied (56% response rate).

The results of this survey are displayed below.

SPECIALTHANKS

ACCJC staff and Commissioners would like to extend our appreciation for the work of the

following Integrated Planning Consultants, RP Group for IEPI:

KC Greaney, Ph.D., Director of Institutional Research, Santa Rosa Junior College

Barbara McNeice-Stallard, Director of Research and Institutional Effectiveness, Mt. San Antonio College

Aimée Myers, Ph.D., Professor of History, Sierra College, Guided Pathways Regional Coordinator North/Far North, California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office

Maria Narvaez, M.A., Director, Institutional Planning & Research, Mount Saint Mary’s University

L. Jane Saldana-Talley, Ed.D., Interim Vice President, Academic Affairs/Asst. Superintendent, Santa Rosa Junior College

Additional thanks to Commissioner Danika Bowen, Ed.D., Vice President, Accreditation and Professional Regulation, Carrington College


SECTIONI:INFORMATION ABOUT YOU IN YOUR ROLE AS ACCREDITATION LIAISON OFFICER (ALO)

The first section of the survey covered demographic information regarding Accreditation Liaisons Officer’s roles and experiences attending ACCJC training and workshops.

As over one-third of ALOs have only been in the role for less than one year, it is fair to assume they have not engaged as much with the accreditation process as longer term ALOs. For this reason, where appropriate, results in other parts of the survey have been cross-tabulated by “Time as an ALO” to better interpret the results.

Over one-third (35%) of ALOs have been in that role for less than one year.

a) Of the Chief Instructional Officers who serve as ALO (n=32), 25% have been in that role for less than one year

b) Of the Chief Institutional Research Officers who serve as ALO (n=22), 41% have been in that role for less than one year.

c) Of the Chief Student Services Officers and Faculty who serve as ALO (n=6), 75% have been in that role for less than one year.

d) Of the “other” roles who serve as ALO (n=13), 23% have been in that role for less than one year.

This shows a general trend of newer ALOs coming from the ranks of Institutional Research and, to a lesser extent, Student Services and faculty.

Less than 1 year34%

1 to <3 years28%

3 to <5 years11%

5 to 7 years12%

7 years or longer15%

How long have you been an ALO?


The majority of ALOs (72%) are either Chief Instructional Officers (43%) or Chief Institutional Research Officers (29%).

Twenty-six percent are “other,” including 5% CSSOs and 5% Faculty. The other titles, filled in the blank after “other,” include:

• Dean, Academic Affairs

• Dean, Institutional Effectiveness

• Director of Institutional Relations

• Director of Planning and Program Evaluation

• Executive Assistant to the Chancellor (Chief of Staff position)

• Former Dean, now newly appointed Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs

• Institutional Effectiveness

• Instructional Dean

• President – acting ALO in absence of Vice President

• Quality Assurance Officer

• Senior Dean of Instruction

• Vice President, Planning & Development

• Vice President of Accreditation

43%

29%

5% 5%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Chief InstructionalOfficer

Dean/DirectorInstitutional

Research andPlanning

Chief StudentServices Officer

Faculty Other

What is your position at your institution?


In how many ALO trainings have you participated?

Time (years) in the role of ALO highly correlates with the number of ACCJC trainings attended (r=.59, significant at .000). Statistically, this means the two variables overlap greatly and can be considered to be measuring the same thing (the more years one has served as ALO, the more ACCJC trainings attended – both measure exposure to the role).

The vast majority of ALOs have participated in the Institutional Self Evaluation Process. Even though one-third of ALOs are new to their role, almost all have participated in the Institutional Self Evaluation Process.

None25%

One15%

Two-three33%

Four-five12%

Five or more15%

No5%

Yes, once68%

Yes, more than once

Have you participated in an Institutional Self‐Evaluation?


Two-thirds of ALOs have served on a Peer Review Team; one-third of ALOs have not. Of those who have not served on a Team, 3% are scheduled.

Yes, have served

66%

No, have not served

31%

No, but scheduled to3%

Have you served as a peer review team member?

88%

86%

59%

71%

51%

65%

73%

60%

59%

61%

59%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Accreditation Standards

Eligibility Requirements

Policy on Substantive Change

Policy on ALO Role

Institutional Degrees and Credit

Distance & Correspondence Education

Commission Actions on Institutions

Advertising, Recruitment & Accredited Status

Policy on Title IV

Policy on Good Practice

Policy on Rights & Responsibilities

Please indicate your confidence level in understanding the following: (% "Very Confident" or "Confident")


Even though one-third of ALOs have been in their role for less than one year, most indicated confidence in their position. The table above shows those who rated themselves as either “Very Confident” or “Confident” in their understanding of the various ACCJC requirements and policies.

In each category, 5% or fewer of respondents chose “N/A – I am not aware of this” which shows general awareness of these ACCJC requirements and policies.

Overall, ALOs who have been in their position longer, have served as a peer review member, and/or have attended more ACCJC Trainings and Workshops rated higher confidence levels. Position of ALO (CIO, CIRO, faculty, etc.) showed no noticeable pattern.

Respondents generally found usefulness in the above ACCJC resources; however, it is important to note that many left the category “ACCJC Conferences” blank, which likely means they have not attended and therefore could not rate usefulness.

There was a slight trend of respondents with less exposure to ACCJC (less time in role, fewer trainings attended, not having served on a peer review team) showing slightly lower ratings of usefulness in the above ACCJC resources.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Website Emails Phone CallsCollegeLiaison

Webinars TrainingsACCJC

Conferences

% 67% 76% 73% 83% 31% 53% 44%

How useful have you found the following ACCJC resources? (% rating "Very Useful")


SECTIONII:INSTITUTION AND ALO TRAINING NEEDS

Section two of the survey queried opinions on ACCJC trainings. The following table lists the rates of those ALOs in agreement with following statements:

Percentage of Strongly Agree and Agree

93% There is a culture of ongoing accreditation activities at my institution that

demonstrates our commitment to continuous quality improvement.

93% My institution has well‐defined institution‐set standards.

79% My institution has well‐established processes to communicate data collected from

institution‐set standards to the college community.

85% My institution uses data collected on institution‐set standards to make improvements.

77% My institution disaggregates student learning outcomes data.

87% My institution uses data collected from student learning outcomes to make

improvements.

57% My institution has well‐established processes to communicate student learning results

to the college‐wide community.

In general, there was a correlation between length of time as an ALO and a higher level of agreement that their institution participated in the above practices. The same general trend appeared for those who had served on a peer review team. Also, ALOs who are CIROs tended to have higher levels of agreement with the practices involving data.

The following charts represent rating of trainings needs by topic or theme:


Of the training topics listed, respondents identified training on the Midterm Report and the Substantive Change Process, and the Institutional Self-Evaluation as the most pressing immediate and future needs. More than half of the respondents indicated that training was not needed on Baccalaureate Degrees or on the Annual Report.

21%

20%

27%

27%

9%

24%

27%

29%

48%

49%

28%

51%

52%

45%

25%

24%

52%

23%

5%

11%

3%

0% 50% 100%

ACCJC Annual Report

ACCJC Fiscal Report

ACCJC Midterm Report

Substantive Change Process& Report Submission

Baccalaureate degree

Institutional Self-Evaluation(Report, QFE, Data)

Which training topics do you need?

Immediate Need Future Need Not Needed I'm Not Sure


When asked about training needs for the themes within the standards, Assessment/ Learning Outcomes and Institutional Effectiveness received the highest responses as immediate needs. More than half of the respondents indicated that training on the Mission was not needed, while training on Leadership was rated as the highest future need.

11%

21%

33%

41%

24%

16%

16%

13%

15%

9%

16%

8%

20%

31%

32%

27%

29%

37%

43%

45%

36%

43%

40%

44%

55%

47%

56%

43%

37%

27%

36%

37%

35%

44%

39%

47%

35%

35%

31%

3%

4%

3%

3%

3%

4%

4%

7%

4%

4%

5%

3%

3%

0% 50% 100%

Mission

Academic Quality

Institutional Effectiveness

Assessment/Learning Outcomes

Planning

Instructional Programs

Support Services

Human Resources

Technology

Facilities

Finances

Leadership

Governance

Which trainings do you need in the following common themes within the Standards?

Immediate Need Future Need Not Needed I'm Not Sure


While there were nuanced differences in the cross-tabulations for some specific training needs, the overall trend is that those who are newer ALOs and those who have attended fewer trainings identify immediate need for trainings at higher rates.

ALOs were asked what formats for training they preferred. As the results below indicate, the majority preferred in person trainings, followed by webinars at a distant second. Additional suggestions for training formats are included in the comments section.

77% in person 44% webinar 32% online self-paced 31% online with instructor

57%

41%

56%

64%

68%

25%

41%

37%

31%

23%

11%

12%

4%

3%

4%

7%

5%

3%

3%

5%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

New ALO training

Accreditation team building

Successful practices to build a cultureof ongoing accreditation activitiesthat demonstrate our commitmentto continuous quality improvement

A “Community of Practice” among ALOs

An ALO listserv

Which training topics do you need?

Immediate Need Future Need Not Needed I'm Not Sure/ Blank


Section II Comments

Please write in your suggestions for other training needs if not listed in the above questions.

Note: The comments below are grouped by the number of years of experience as an ALO that respondents had previously indicated.

Less than one-year experience as an ALO:

For question 8 above you need an N/A or Not Sure category. I was just made the ALO, I have never used any of the noted resources, so I picked Not Useful because I had no better option.

How to write concise self-study report, project management, and the accreditation process (self-studies).

I indicated that ACCJC trainings and conference were very useful, but the truth is that I haven't attended either...but I believe I would find them very useful. I think a little training on setting up a timeline for preparing the self evaluation report, the visit and then the follow on reports would be helpful (when should you establish your teams (to avoid premature fatigue with all things accreditation); how should you plan for the preparation of the midterm report, etc.

One to less than five years experience as an ALO:

"How to engage more faculty, staff, administrators, and students in the process." facilitating technology solutions for evidence collection -governance structure and

continuance improvement I think having training focused specifically on Substantive Change would be very helpful.

While I was very familiar with the standards and eligibility requirements coming into this role, I was completely unfamiliar with substantive change and I think a lot of ALOs, even those who have been in the role for a while could benefit from a training on this.

It would be good to have 2 types of ALO training. One for the new ALOs and the other for more experienced ALOs where half of the time can be spent informing the ALOs on the new or changing policies and procedures at ACCJC and the other half an open Q&A with ACCJC staff. It would be great to hear the questions from other ALOs. As there is one ALO for each college, it would be good to share best practices with ALO colleagues.

Need topical training on areas of frequent concern. For instance, if the Commission is going to focus on Total Cost of Ownership, then there should be clear expectations laid out in training sessions for colleges and for visiting teams so everyone gets on the same page.

We have several new CIOs in our region. Writing succinct ISERs


Five years or longer experience as an ALO:

An ongoing need for training relates to the changing landscape of the CA community colleges. For example, how will the new Distance Education initiatives (OEI/CVC) affect how we interpret the standards?

On question 11, I answered for my college, but I if this is for all colleges in the region I would have indicated high need for governance, planning, assessment/learning and effectiveness. We also need training on the new annual report, when to submit a subchange, new format for the ISER and stretch goals.

Ongoing changes to ACCJC processes and perspectives would be helpful.

Our college is intensively preparing our ISER; therefore, we would like to make sure we address all aspects of the standards. We would like to have any support we can get.

Student learning outcomes (SLO), Student Services Learning Outcomes, Administrative Learning Outcomes development, assessment, reporting, and use for improvement.

Training for Assistant ALOs for succession planning purposes

You've developed questions that may not get at the real issues. Asking about a standard is too broad. I think you should have some focus groups with ALOs with a range of experience. I also think you could focus by area. For example, I'm probably one of the longest serving ALOs in Hawaii. Having a discussion with the Hawaii ALOs might bring out different training needs than those in California. Might also be helpful to include the Pacific Islands. There is definitely a need for training and support. I'm just not sure this survey is getting out the specific needs.

Please write in suggestions for other training formats.

An in-person training followed up by online discussion would be helpful.

Funding for travel is always an issue. Online training or courses are always preferred.

I like the idea of the online self-paced because it sounds like it could be accessed at any time (to refresh memories which flag).

I personally prefer in-person, interactive trainings on the big issues and tricky topics. More direct, process-oriented training can be done via online training. That is, when you're training on the "why", I like it face to face so we can push back and discern the true intent and gauge what we need to change at our colleges. But when you're training on "how to", you can put that online and save us a lot of time.

I would like to see a combination of on-line self-paced and in person off-campus training

My top choice are regional drive in workshops/training. Secondarily, I like live online sessions/webinars.

Opportunities for us to hear from other colleges of similar sizes about lessons learned, promising practices, best practices, etc...related to accreditation.

Regional training


Serving on a team helped me so much. I wish all ALOs would participate in a team. Additionally, I wish it was highly encouraged for colleges to send a team of faculty, administrators, and staff to serve on different teams.

Use of scenarios for various kinds of accreditation contexts and situations that range from governance to fiscal issues

While in-person is more difficult to do with everyone's schedules, I believe the in-person interaction with the commission and fellow ALOs is critical. It allows the ALO to build relationships and networks to support the ISER development and ongoing accreditation activities. The other formats do not.

Please provide us with any other information regarding your needs as an ALO.

Note: The comments below are grouped by the number of years of experience as an ALO that respondents had previously indicated.

Less than one-year experience as an ALO:

Community of practice for those on the same accreditation timeline/schedule

I really don't know what I don't know, if you get my meaning. I need to understand the fundamentals of what an ALO's duties and responsibilities are and what makes an effective ALO. Also, I'm quite concerned with what's happening in Washington under Devos' and "45's" uh...let's say "new policy implementation." I think some sessions on that might be helpful if you have anything to share.

One to less than five years experience as an ALO:

I like the liaison approach a lot.

I love talking to [the Vice Presidents]. My college’s midterm report is coming up and I wish there were more information on expectations of how to respond to Plans Arisen from ISER and how to rethink QFE. My college's QFE was developed prior to the focus on student achievement.

I think all newer ALOs should be put on a peer review team early on so that they can truly learn the process. I have been an assistant on a team so I have experience but I feel that experience would be strengthened by being assigned to serve as an official team member.

I would enjoy an update on the idea of a web-based ISER and evidence database. Also, I'd like to see some examples of the new, shorter ISERs that meet the 250 page expectation. I also need additional clarity on the sub change process regarding DE programs. Everything has been in flux. I need to learn where it all landed.

The ACCJC staff has been very responsive; they are able to answer questions when I have them.


Five years or longer experience as an ALO:

A tailored training for Asst. ALOs in the region

Having a liaison from the ACCJC has been incredibly helpful. Training on connection with action plans and stretch goals from the ISER to the mid year and annual report.

I am leaving the college soon, and we will have a new ALO. She will need support at a basic level, so it would be great to have some training sessions in Hawaii in the next year or two.

I think the hardest thing to balance as an ALO, is changing requirements or documents that change during the time of a college's self study report. Once you are in that phase it is important to have consistency from the ACCJC so that you do not need to change course during the writing process. Further, even with team trainings, there is still inconsistency on the team chair, the recommendations you receive are a roll of the dice based on the team chair. Two colleges in the same district with similar processes will have varying recommendations just because there were two different chairs. That can be challenging for an ALO.

It would be useful if we had occasional training sessions with ALOs from colleges in similar situations - e.g. large multi-college districts in urban settings.

The ALO ACCJC Liaison has been extremely helpful.

We need to build a sense of community between ALOs in Hawaii and the Pacific region. This has started, but it needs to be stepped up as many of the "old time" ALOs will be retiring in the next few years and their replacements will need to rely on others in the region for support.


SECTIONIII:ACCJC STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOMES

The third section of the survey asked ALOs to rate how well ACCJC has met its strategic plan goals. The following graph represents ALOs rating on ACCJC’s success in carrying out each outcome.

There were no strong observable trends by ALO role, or having served on a peer review team (with a notable exception: those who have served on a peer review team post higher levels of significant improvement for Outcome 4, Reconstruction of Peer Review Training). There was some tendency for those with more time in their role, and those who had attended more trainings, to indicate lower levels of “N/A or I’m not sure” and higher levels of significant improvement ratings.

37%

19%

24%

63%

73%

40%

32%

24%

16%

35%

19%

13%

28%

32%

8%

5%

11%

1%

4%

4%

5%

4%

29%

59%

25%

16%

8%

27%

28%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

0% 50% 100%

Outcome 1: Support member institutions’ efforts to increase student achievement and address low

performance as identified by the US Department of …

Outcome 2: Create and implement strategies to supportinstitutions assessed to be in financial risk

Outcome 3: Develop a new taxonomy of standards toenable a more holistic institutional review

Outcome 4: Reconstruct all aspects of peer review teamtraining, including updates to manuals to reflect current

ACCJC principles and approaches to peer review,…

Outcome 5: Provide greater support to memberinstitutions through transparent, collegial and open

communication

Outcome 6: Cultivate relationships with organizations infield to leverage partnerships in support of improving

educational quality

Outcome 7: Improve evaluation instruments and developregular procedures to ensure that the results of evaluation

are used in improvement of all activities

How much improvement have you observed from ACCJC in the following outcome areas?

Significant Progress Moderate Progress Slight Progress No Progress N/A or I'm not sure Blank


Additional Feedback

Requests and Suggestions:

I was not the ALO under the previous ACCJC leadership team. I do very much believe in [the president’s] vision of what ACCJC should be. I wish there could be more trainings for colleges on the standards. Further, I wish all academic senates received ACCJC training. It would help with communication.

Obtain a platform for ISER development that has an evidence linking tool and limits document words.

Outcomes 3, 4, 5, and 6 should be emphasized and done slowly over time.

I am concerned that the influence of the CCC CEO workgroups has led to a pendulum swing in the opposite direction of the more severe compliance driven results of the past. I feel that the reviews wind up being a method for the visiting team chair to help their colleague get a result that they want and that is not always a result that will help the institution improve.

I appreciate all the efforts to improve ACCJC. They have had a huge effect on reducing the level of fear. The remaining fear is of the unknown. Are there expectations we are not meeting that we don't even know about? Will we be caught by this gap? This is particularly important if there are critical nuances within standards. The example at my college was Total Cost of Ownership. If that's really a key expectation of the Commission, then as the ALO I should not have learned about it from the visiting team but rather in the written guides and ACCJC trainings. Maybe it was there and I missed it. But it felt like we got blindsided. The Commission should strive to avoid these surprises. By and large, I think you DO. One thing would help: a checklist of expected plans and a guide to what you expect for integration of those plans. At the colleges, we have different ideas about what might be needed, but no external mandate for clarity on what is needed and how current it should be. You could survey institutions to see what their planning structure looks like and build an agreed-upon master document with member input. This would REALLY help my college know what we have to do.

Please share the result of this ALO survey to survey respondents prior to the ACCJC conference in April 2019, if feasible. I appreciate ACCJC's effort to determine the needs of ALOs across institutions in the region.

Comments regarding the recent changes in the accreditation process and at ACCJC:

I appreciate having an ACCJC contact for each college, but I haven't noticed much outreach from the ACCJC; I expected a little more personal contact, but I understand that may be a capacity issue, and we aren't going through an accreditation process right now so we may be low on the list.

I can't really comment on improvement as I have not participated in accreditation activities since 2014. I am just now returning, but have observed a different mindset from the commission

Excellent move on appointing VPs to assist institutions.


I am pleased with the assigning of ACCJC (VP) staff as liaisons to all colleges. This significantly helps institutions to focus on its specific needs in comparison to other colleges under the purview of ACCJC. Also, the guidance provided by ACCJC staff and communications are very helpful.

I appreciate all of the recent changes. Thank you for the great work.

I appreciate your efforts to improve!

I have greatly appreciated the improvements in many areas over the past few years.

I love having a college liaison at ACCJC [ours] is amazing! and your website is so much better and more useful! Thank you for both of those improvements!

I really appreciate the new "gentler and kinder" approach.

Thank you for the support, resources, training, and responsiveness from ACCJC staff. The team has been amazing in answering any questions I have. Accreditation in our region has truly transformed into a meaningful, collegial process focused on authentic improvement. Our college appreciates all the work happening at ACCJC, the increased communication with member institutions, and the strong leadership that is in place at the Commission.

The changes that are happening are great. Streamlining reports and having the liaisons has been a great change.

The shift in support from a compliance to continuous improvement culture is very noticeable and so much more beneficial to institutions. Thank you.

accreditation liaison officer survey · important to note that many left the category “accjc...

Documents