2025 Comprehensive Evaluation

• July 2023
  Re-Accreditation Preparation Memo to University leaders
• September 2023
  Steering Committee convened
• December 2023
  Leadership Advisory Committee convened,  Meeting #1
• February 2024
  Presentation to Board of Regents Mission Fulfillment Committee
  Docket Materials and Presentation (pages 3-35)
• Spring 2024
  Assurance Argument meetings/assignments to criteria contacts and unit authors
• May 2024
  First draft content due to Steering Committee
• June-September 2024
  Develop first draft of assurance argument and evidence file
  Convene UMR team
• October 2024
  Leadership Advisory Committee meeting #2
• February 2025
  Leadership Advisory Committee Meeting #3
• Spring 2025
  Finalize assurance argument and evidence library, begin site visit preparation
  HLC Student Survey
• June-July, 2025
  Finalize assurance argument and UMR Report
• August-September 2025
  Campus preparations for site visit, development of schedule
• Sept 1, 2025
  Assurance Argument, Federal Compliance Report, and UMR Report due to HLC
• Sept 29-30, 2025
  HLC Peer Review Team Site Visit
• December 2025 (approximate)
  Official notice of outcome from HLC

University Leader/Owner: Rachel Croson, Executive Vice President and Provost
Manager/Staff Lead: Erin Slattengren, Director of Academic Planning and Accreditation, HLC Accreditation Liaison Officer

Steering Committee Membership - Twin Cities Campus

• Erin Slattengren (Chair), Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost
• Katie Russell, Office of Undergraduate Education
• Sue Chu, College of Design, Office of Undergraduate Education
• Stacey Tidball (Federal Compliance Lead), Academic Support Resources
• Ole Gram, Office of Faculty and Academic Affairs
• Lincoln Kallsen, Office of Institutional Analysis
• Char Voight, Graduate School
• Peter Radcliffe, Office of Undergraduate Education
• Caroline Hilk, Director, Center for Education Innovation
• Abby Corts, Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost

Steering Committee Responsibilities

• Provide project management, staff leadership, and accountability
• Steer direction and define process of preparation for comprehensive review
• Identify and work with units and individuals for assignments
• Develop and reinforce timeline and deadlines
• Liaison with University groups and standing committees, etc.
• Finalize assurance argument
• Prepare plan and logistics for Peer Review Team Site Visit

Criteria/Evidence Contacts

Criteria/Evidence Contacts are University colleagues who will author draft content and provide evidence for preparation of the assurance argument. Contacts will be assigned by the Steering Committee.

Leadership Advisory Committee Membership

• Rachel Croson (Chair), Executive Vice President and Provost
• Erin Slattengren, Director of Academic Planning and Accreditation
• Raj Singh, Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education
• Scott Lanyon, Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Education
• Beth Lewis, Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs
• Eric Watkins, Vice Provost for Distributed Learning
• Brian Sick, Interim Associate Vice President for Academic Health Sciences
• Laurie Ven Egeran, Vice Provost for Public Engagement
• Amanda Sharp, Associate Vice Provost for Professional Education
• Mercedes Ramirez Fernandez, Vice President for Equity and Diversity
• Calvin Philips, Vice President for Student Affairs
• Sue Chu, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Assessment (OUE)
• Mark Bee, University Senate, Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) Chair
• Katherine Scheil, Senate Committee on Education Policy (SCEP) Chair
• Phil Miller, Assistant Dean-CSOM, Professional Education Council
• Sara Davis, Student Governance Representative
• Michael Rodriguez, Dean of CEHD, Twin Cities Dean's Council
• David Blank, Associate Dean, CSE

Leadership Advisory Committee Responsibilities

• Provide a bridge to the wider campus community and update and engage their respective units on the re-accreditation process
• Provide high level guidance and feedback on the Criteria for Accreditation assurance argument
• Meet with the Higher Learning Commission Peer Review Team during the site visit
• Facilitate meetings with the Peer review Team during the site visit (as needed)

Rochester Committee 

(Branch Campus report and site visit preparation)

• Lori Carrell, Chancellor, Rochester Campus
• Paul Hanstedt, Vice Chancellor/UMR Accreditation Lead, Rochester Campus
• Norman Clark, Senior Director of Academic Affairs, Rochester Campus
• Rochester Accreditation Faculty Committee
   

How often does a comprehensive evaluation from HLC take place?

The University takes part in the Open Pathway review cycle. This pathway follows a 10-year cycle, which includes regular monitoring by HLC, a virtual Assurance Review in year 4, a Quality Initiative effort in years 5-9,  and a Comprehensive Review with a Site Visit in year 10. 

The last comprehensive review took place in the fall of 2015 and our upcoming Site Visit is scheduled for September 29–October 1, 2025. 

The Rochester campus is also reviewed as part of this process and will submit a separate report to HLC highlighting quality assurance activities on their campus. One member of the HLC peer review team will visit the Rochester campus during this same time.

What are the elements of the comprehensive review?

A Comprehensive Review is the process used to determine whether an institution meets HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation. The process includes peer review of the University's Quality Assurance (assurance argument narrative report and evidence file) and Federal Compliance documentation, culminating in a site visit by the peer review team. 

What is in the Assurance Argument and Evidence File?

Prior to the accreditation site visit, the institution prepares a narrative Assurance Argument describing how it meets each of the four Accreditation Criteria. The text of the Assurance Argument is limited to 35,000 words.

To demonstrate or further support the claims made in the Assurance Argument, the institution uploads supporting documents to an online Evidence File. Examples of evidence might include:

• Mission statements and strategic plan implementation
• Assessment reports and program review documents
• Minutes from meetings of governing boards and decision-making groups
• Financial records

The Assurance Argument and Evidence File are completed online in the HLC Assurance System, and made available to the Peer Review team one month prior to the site visit (September 1). The Rochester campus report will also be submitted on September 1 as part of this process. 

What is the Federal Compliance Review?

As a federally recognized accrediting agency, HLC is required to assure that all its member institutions are meeting their Title IV program requirements. Compliance with these is necessary to ensure that the University is eligible to receive and administer federal financial aid.

The Federal Compliance Review, which takes place in conjunction with the Comprehensive Review and Site Visit, requires the institution to provide documentation of:

• Assignment of credits, program length, and tuition
• Institutional records of student complaints
• Publication of transfer policies
• Practices for verification of student identity
• Title IV program responsibilities
• Required information for students and the public
• Advertising and recruiting materials and other public information
• Review of student outcome data
• Standing with state and other accrediting agencies

HLC may ask institutions to provide additional supporting information on Federal Compliance during the Comprehensive Review and Site Visit.

What takes place during the Site Visit? 

The HLC Comprehensive Review includes a site visit by a team of peer reviewers to verify the claims made in the Assurance Argument. The site visit team will consist of eight reviewers, who will meet with University leaders, faculty, staff, and students.

The purpose of the Site Visit is for a team of peer reviewers to verify the claims made in the Assurance Argument, explore how well the Assurance Argument aligns with information gained through face-to-face meetings on campus, and ask for elaboration or clarification in cases where reviewers think additional information is needed.

A typical site visit includes:

• Meetings with institutional leadership, representatives of shared governance, and members of the University community
• Open meetings with various campus constituency groups such as faculty, staff, and undergraduate and graduate students
• One or more areas of focus determined by the team as needing additional attention

Reviewers are faculty and administrators at peer institutions that are also accredited by HLC. Their role is to review the Assurance Argument, confirm that information and evidence presented in the Assurance Argument accurately reflect the institution, and request additional information or evidence if needed to support the argument.

After the site visit, reviewers submit a report of their visit to HLC, which becomes an additional source of evidence (along with the Assurance Argument and Federal Compliance Review) for HLC to use in determining the University’s accreditation status.

How does the University prepare for the comprehensive review?

University accreditation is a campus-wide effort. The Provost’s Office leads and coordinates institutional accreditation processes in partnership with academic leaders and units, collecting and compiling information in preparation for the Review. The Provost’s Office convened an Administrative Steering Committee and Leadership Advisory Committee in 2023 to begin preparation for the comprehensive review (see timeline). 

In the years and months leading up to the Comprehensive Review, academic leaders, faculty, staff, and students throughout the University were identified and compiled documentation demonstrating ways that the University meets each of the HLC Criteria for Accreditation. The compiled documentation is being assembled to form the Assurance Argument, Evidence File, and Federal Compliance report. The Administrative Steering Committee and Leadership Advisory Committee provide content, guidance, and direction in the development of these materials. A team at the Rochester campus has also been convened to draft their report and prepare for the site visit. 

What opportunities are available for the campus community to participate in this process? 

In addition to their contributions to the Assurance Argument, Evidence File, and Federal Compliance documentation, many University leaders, faculty, staff, and students will be invited to meet with peer reviewers during the site visit, and will be invited to attend Open Forum sessions with members of the peer review team.

Hundreds of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students responded to a Student Opinion Survey that went out in April, and members of the community on and off campus will be given the opportunity to attend info sessions and/or review materials prior to the site visit in order to prepare for meetings and discussions. 

What can we do to prepare for the Site Visit? 

Individuals, colleges, departments, and units can prepare for the Site Visit in a number of ways:

• Become informed and familiar with the process by reviewing the materials and resources available on the comprehensive review website and/or by attending an info session via Zoom.
• Make sure the information on public-facing websites representing your college/program/unit are clear and up to date. Peer team members will be doing their own research prior to the visit.
• Once the site visit schedule becomes available, consider attending an open session with the peer review team relevant to your role and work. If you attend a session:
  • Review the preparatory materials provided on the website relevant to your role and the topic of the session.
  • Think about how your unit (and your individual role) supports and contributes to the teaching, research and outreach elements of our institutional mission.
  • Think about the ways in which you are involved in planning, review, and improvement at the University, whether it be by serving on a curricular or policy-related committee(s), participating in a strategic planning or program review process, taking part in student support efforts, etc. Consider how you might highlight these examples in a discussion with the peer review team if asked. 

What happens after the site visit?

The peer review team will prepare a site visit report and submit it to HLC, along with their recommendations. HLC decision-making bodies will then review these recommendations, along with other materials provided by the institution, and make the final decision about the reaffirmation of accreditation.

When will decisions be made?

The decision-making process begins once the site visit concludes. After the visit, the peer review team submits a report that includes a recommendation to an HLC decision-making body that meets approximately every six weeks to review cases.

How will results be made available to the campus community?

HLC will send an official correspondence (Action Letter) to the University detailing an action taken regarding our institution. HLC’s decision will be publicly announced on the Comprehensive Review website and communicated through campus communication channels.