REPORT OF A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION VISIT TO Antioch University Yellow Springs, OH April 22-24, 2013 FOR The Higher Learning Commission A commission of the North Central Association EVALUATION TEAM Dr. William J. Carroll, President, Benedictine University, Lisle, IL 60532 Dr. Connie J Gores, President, Southwest Minnesota State University, Marshall, Minnesota 56258 Dr. Richard S. Hansen, Provost Emeritus, Union Institute & University, Cincinnati, OH 45206 Dr. Duane Kilty, Vice President for Business Affairs and Interim Co-President, Indiana Wesleyan University, Marion, IN 46953 Dr. James B. Martin, Associate Dean of Academics and Quality Assurance, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027, Dr. Mary Moore, VP for Research, Planning & International Partnerships, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46227 Dr. Carey M. Roberts, Associate Dean and Chair, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA 24502 (formerly Coordinator of University Assessment, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR 72801), Dr. Roberta C. Teahen, Associate Provost, Ferris State University, Big Rapids, MI 49307 (Chair) PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527 Contents I. Context and Nature of Visit ......................................................................................... 2 II. Commitment to Peer Review ...................................................................................... 3 III. Compliance with Federal Requirements ..................................................................... 4 IV. Fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation ................................................................. 4 a. Criterion One ................................................................................................... 4 b. Criterion Two ................................................................................................... 8 c. Criterion Three .............................................................................................. 13 d. Criterion Four ................................................................................................ 18 e. Criterion Five ................................................................................................. 21 V. Team Recommendation .......................................................................................... 26 VI. Embedded Changes in Affiliation Status ................................................................. 28 VII. Additional Comments and Explanations .................................................................. 28 Attachments a. Interactions with Constituencies .................................................................... 29 b. Documents Reviewed ................................................................................... 30 c. Federal Compliance Worksheet .................................................................... 31 d. Multi-Campus Report(s) ............................................................... Follows FCW Version 2.0 2013 2 September 22, 2013 PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527 I. CONTEXT AND NATURE OF VISIT A. Purpose of Visit The team conducted a comprehensive visit for continuing accreditation for Antioch University. B. Institutional Context Antioch University has been accredited since 1978 as Antioch University. Prior to this time, the entity was known as Antioch College and initial accreditation is dated 1927, representing 86 years of accredited status with the Higher Learning Commission. In a high-profile case in 2008, the University board separated and disposed of the assets of Antioch College, largely because of the College’s lack of financial sustainability. Creating much media and alumni attention, the separation challenged the university with public speculation about whether the University was still in operation or whether both the University and the College had closed. Considerable leadership turnover through this period produced a difficult environment for the institution to establish its new identity without Antioch College and move forward to assure its viability. Additional complexity is added by the fact that Antioch College has reopened under different leadership and legal structure, so there is now both an Antioch College and Antioch University in the same small Ohio community. Antioch University is dominantly a graduate institution with three times as many students enrolled in graduate programs as enroll in undergraduate offerings. Undergraduate options are typically degree-completion programs. The 2011-12 update reports that there were 9 baccalaureate degrees, 32 masters’ degrees, and 4 doctorate degrees offered. A distinguishing characteristic is that different degrees are offered at different branches, giving a distinctively local flavor to each campus. The total Antioch University headcount reported in 2011-12 was approximately 3,700. C. Unique Aspects or Additions to the Visit What seemed unique to the team was the recent history of the University and its public separation from Antioch College, which had been a foundation of the University’s reputation for its social justice mission, an experiential approach, and serving adult students. That separation and renewal of the University’s identity, however, had been sufficiently resolved ahead of the team’s visit, and the team focused its energies on evaluating the University. An additional unique aspect was that the team visited each of five branch campuses, including one located next to the main university offices, as well as making a return visit to the system office in Yellow Springs, OH, to further explore university operations and alignment with Commission criteria. D. Additional Locations or Branch Campuses Visited (if applicable) In addition to the Midwest Campus, which is based across the street from the system headquarters in Yellow Springs, OH, the team visited four additional sites: New England in New Hampshire; Seattle; Santa Barbara; and Los Angeles. These additional campus visits were conducted by two members each in May and June 2013 and followed similar agendas. E. Distance Delivery Reviewed The University presently offers mostly hybrid or what they refer to as “low-residency” options. Approximately eight graduate programs are classified as distance education. Because the programs that will soon be offered online are in major redevelopment, the team minimally reviewed portions of online existing offerings. However, multiple meetings were held with individuals responsible for distance education that addressed their development, delivery, and evaluation processes for distance education. Further, as referenced later, the University has contracted with a national company to assist it with the development of its emerging online offerings; thus, an entirely different and more advanced product is anticipated as early as January 2014 with a scheduled roll-out of multiple current programs in an online delivery mode. Version 2.0 2013 3 September 22, 2013 PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527 II. COMMITMENT TO PEER REVIEW A. Comprehensiveness of the Self-Study Process University personnel were extensively engaged with the development of the self-study document. A complex committee structure was devised that assured representation from each of the campuses and the corporate headquarters in all key areas. Individuals interviewed were very knowledgeable about the self-study process and its findings. The report is thorough and utilizes extensive data and links to a wide array of documents that support the study. The web-based resource room was easy to navigate, well organized, and complete. In fact, it was one of the most attractive and functional sites team members had experienced. B. Integrity of the Self-Study Report The team concluded that this was one of the most candid self-studies we have read. The institution identified the challenges it faces and laid out plans to address them. In the parlance of peer review, this was an evaluative report, not just a descriptive one. At the same time, the team found some challenges that they concluded may have been more significant than the self-study concluded, but great detail about these challenges was certainly noted in the self-study. In addition to identification of the issues, the institution implemented improvements immediately in many important areas so that by the time of the first visit, many improvements were underway. By the time of the return visit to Yellow Springs, OH, many planned activities were being implemented and considerable progress had been made in areas such as the planning for expansion of online learning and university-wide policy development. C. Adequacy of Progress in Addressing Previously Identified Challenges In the 2003 comprehensive evaluation, there was a request for a monitoring report concerning the University’s authority to operate in states where it offers programs. That monitoring report was filed and accepted by the Commission. This challenge has been appropriately addressed. The 2003 visit also included a recommendation for a focused visit on the topics of resources, planning, budgeting, development, enrollments, and assessments. The University’s History with the HLC reports that this focused visit was completed in 2006, although the team did not have this team’s report to identify any lingering issues at that time. However, there have been many changes at the university subsequent to this 2006 visit. Although following this visit there were required follow-up reports, and the University still has work to complete, the team concludes that these areas have been adequately addressed, but many of these topics are areas for continued improvement that will be identified later in this report. In 2009, a mandated focused visit prompted by the sale of Antioch College called for a contingency report within 30 days to address the possible recall of bonds and a progress report regarding completion of the sale. A sequential mandated visit was required before action was taken on the 2009 report, due to problems with graduate education and sufficiency of oversight at the Santa Barbara campus. That report concluded that the University was sufficiently developing systems of oversight at the university level. No follow-up action resulted from this visit. And, the sale of Antioch College was completed as planned. These concerns have been adequately addressed. Version 2.0 2013 4 September 22, 2013 PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527 In summary, the team concluded that the University has made adequate progress on issues raised over the past several years, but some areas of concern continue to demand the attention of what is now a new university leadership team and structure. D. Notification of Evaluation Visit and Solicitation of Third-Party Comment The university provided notice to all constituencies and maintained notices on its website concerning the ability for others to provide comment. The expectations have been met. III. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS The team reviewed the required Title IV compliance areas and the student complaint information. The required worksheets documenting compliance are attached. The team concludes that the University is in compliance with federal requirements. IV. FULFILLMENT OF THE CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION CRITERION ONE: MISSION. The institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution’s operations. Core Component 1A: The institution’s mission is broadly understood within the institution and guides its operations Evidence: The mission is pervasive and widely understood by faculty, staff, students, boards, and the larger community. There is an institutional pride in the mission and a sense that it is a major differentiator between the institution and others. This finding is based on the following evidence as a result of the visit and the self-study materials provided. • Faculty surveys conducted in summer and fall 2011 demonstrated an exceptional familiarity with the mission • A similar survey of “non-faculty” employees demonstrated a high level of familiarity and support of the mission. • A survey of students in 2011 also suggests that students are knowledgeable of the mission. • In 2012, all University Resource Groups (URG) discussed how the mission informed and guided the operations of the various units. • The physical evidence of the mission being widely disseminated is impressive. From bookmarks, banners on the walls, and the webpage, there is a clear and constant effort to keep the mission in front of all. • Throughout the site visit by the HLC team, mission was frequently referenced and used as a warrant for how the institution operates. (1A) While the mission is considered historical, it periodically undergoes reviews that involve the entire community. Accordingly, while historical, it is a living and evolving instrument used to guide the institution. Evidence for this includes: • An extensive period (November 2010-February 2012) in which a broad group of stakeholders provided input into the mission framework. Version 2.0 2013 5 September 22, 2013 PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527 • Preliminary versions of the reiteration were met with concerns by some stakeholders so the Board extended the period for review. • Extensive on-campus meetings with faculty, staff and students, town hall forums, and surveys led to an exhaustive and expansive input into the reiteration of the mission culminating in Board of Governors approval in February 2012. The success of an institution is measured by the fulfillment of its mission. While the institution’s mission is historical, it is also recently revised and awaits the test of time. The institution is also challenged in that it is composed of one in-state and four out-of-state campuses that implement the single institutional mission differently because of the unique communities within which each resides. Preliminary developments since the reiteration and reformulation of the mission indicate the institution is on the right track. The following so indicate: • Academic programs, as outlined in the self-study, show a striking parallel between mission, integration, and responsiveness to the communities in which the institution resides. From a MA and PhD in Environmental Studies at the New England campus, an MA in Urban Sustainability at the Los Angeles campus, to an MA in Environment and Community at the Seattle campus, these programs are a result of the warrant provided by the mission and demonstrate a unique sensitivity to the community in which the campuses are located. • In annual reviews, every academic program must demonstrate how each is furthering the mission (Self-Study, Resource Room for examples). • There is a strong focus on serving underrepresented and marginalized members of society. For example, there is a concentration on LGBT studies in the Clinical Psychology MA Program at the Los Angeles campus. • Student populations are reflective of institutional mission and the communities in which the institution resides. While it is clear that the institution’s planning priorities align with the mission, the budgeting priorities are not as clear. • A concise analysis of the alignment of mission and planning is provided in the self- study. • In a 2011 survey of faculty, forty-six percent disagreed with the statement “Budget planning process is aligned with our mission and enhances our capacity to fulfill our mission.” • Throughout the HLC April visit, the team was concerned about ongoing budget shortfalls, but at that time the University had the expectation of millions of dollars coming from a settlement with Antioch College. • In the August return visit, a new sense of urgency existed for increasing enrollments resulting from the recent appointment of a Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management, reorganization of recruiting efforts, and reassignments and new appointments of other personnel throughout the University to support enrollment initiatives, leading to a higher level of confidence that enrollments will be improved. • By August, the Antioch Connected plans for online learning expansion had been much more fully developed, and the University had contracted with Deltak, an established national service provider, to assist with the development and Version 2.0 2013 6 September 22, 2013 PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527 redevelopment of Antioch programs. It is the team’s belief that this contract will not require Commission approval, but the University is advised to consult with its HLC liaison about the specifics of the agreement and determine if any actions are required. Plans and responsibilities have been detailed, and projections confirmed by Deltak suggest that additional enrollments will be realized through these new offerings. Team Determination: Core Component 1A is met. Core Component 1B: The mission is articulated publicly. The mission is pervasive throughout the institution and the community. This is gleaned from the following: Wall postings, banners, catalog and marketing vehicles, website, select “handouts” given to visitors, and conversations and meetings throughout the HLC visit. The mission is current, having gone through an extended period of review and culminating in approval in 2012. Through the renewal process, four areas of emphasis were delineated: instruction and student learning, scholarship and application, public service and social engagement, and building and serving inclusive communities. The Board of Governors approved the most recent mission statement in February 2012. In December 2012, Institutional Emphases in Antioch University Mission Framework was endorsed by the Self-Study Steering Committee and distributed to key constituencies outlining areas of emphasis and the associated parts of the mission and core values from which they emanate. The institution clearly sees and identifies itself with the adult learner and seeks to provide these students with a student-centered learning environment that prides itself in innovation and social action. This statement is based on the following evidence: • A plethora of materials that describe the curriculum as student centered and social action oriented, including confirmation of these experiences at each of the campuses. • A long history of “experiential” learning. • The ability to adapt programs to special constituencies as evidenced through the variety of programs offered at different sites. There is no single template, but the university reflects responsiveness to each community’s needs. • Programs in place that define social, economic, and environmental justice. Team Determination: Core Component 1B is met. Core Component 1C: The institution understands the relationship between its mission and the diversity of society. Evidence: Historically, the institution has been at the forefront in leading the charge for inclusion, diversity, and multiculturalism. In the wake of the approval of the new mission in 2012, it continues this history and boldly proclaims that it will continue to push the inclusionary envelope. Attesting to this are the following: • In May 2012, the Board of Governors approves “The Statement of Commitment— Inclusion and Diversity.” • Significant emphasis demonstrated throughout the HLC visit on welcoming LGBT members into the institution’s community, including high visibility in Pride initiatives at the LA Campus. Version 2.0 2013 7 September 22, 2013 PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527 • Inclusive participatory processes that allow individuals a voice at the institution are evidenced. Examples of these venues include town hall meetings and webinars, such as those evidenced at the Santa Barbara Campus. • Because of the nature and locations of the institution’s various campuses, a one-size- fits-all approach is not appropriate and the campus representatives are eloquent in articulating the importance of this distinctiveness. Each campus is charged with developing inclusionary programs and strategies that serve the needs of the local community. Many have diversity task forces to oversee programs and services being developed. • Many of the regional campuses’ trustees are populated by a diversity of individuals reflective of the community. The institution has clearly articulated its openness and desire for inclusion at all levels. Processes and policies are in place to make this happen. • Relying on the Mission Framework, the Policy on Student Organizations, Speech and Publications (6.127) clearly delineates a policy of inclusion and acceptance throughout the institution. • Institutional employment policies as outlined in the Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity Policy (4.005) confirm institutional commitment to foster an environment in which all are treated equally and with respect. • The Hiring and Search Committee Policy (4.103) reaffirms a commitment to inclusion and respect while hiring the best possible candidates. • Many campus activities from meetings to webinars to town hall meetings engage themes of openness and inclusion and invite disparate voices to come forward. Team Determination: Core Component 1C is met. Core Component 1D: The institution’s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good. The institution understands its role for the public and has acted accordingly. This is attested to by the following: • Included in the President’s Higher Education Service Community Honor Roll twice (2010 and 2012). • The Corporation for National and Community Service has recognized the institution as a leader for its support of volunteering, service learning, and civic engagement. • In 2006 the New England campus was awarded the “Community Engaged Colleges and Universities” classification from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching for “Curricular Engagement” and “Outreach and Partnerships.” • The Los Angeles campus offers free classes to low-income individuals. • The Santa Barbara campus provides a free social justice film series. • The Midwest campus provides free lectures on issues of environmental concern. Serving the public good is a distinguishing positive attribute of Antioch University. As a 501 c(3) organization, the institution has no shareholders, parent organizations, or investors to which it is in service. It has a self-perpetuating Board of Governors dedicated to the preservation and prosperity of the institution in the service of the public good. The 501 c(3) status is under the oversight of the U.S. Government. Version 2.0 2013 8 September 22, 2013 PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527 The institution has a robust history of interacting with its constituencies and responding to their needs. Prior to the implementation of new programs, a market analysis including an assessment of community needs is conducted. The New Degree Program Approval Policy (5.209) requires that any new proposal needs to demonstrate that the program is “responsive to regional and/or national needs and appropriate student markets.” Additional examples include: • Adult accelerated degree programs were developed in response to the special needs of the adult learner. • Individual campuses have developed specific programs in response to specific community needs. • The socially engaged experiential learning program (also known as cooperative education) requires virtually some form of engagement by every student in the community. This engagement is accomplished through internships, traineeships in community health agencies, graduate field study projects, creative writing internships in community-based programs, student teaching placement, environmental sustainability internships in public and private agencies, and real-world change projects by students in the Leadership and Change program. • A thorough list of community engagement is found in the Selected Examples of University Community Engagement found in the Exhibition Hall Resource Room. Team Determination: Core Component 1D is met. Team Determination on Criterion One: X☐ Criterion is met ☐ Criterion is met with concerns ☐ Criterion is not met Summary Statement on Criterion One: The team has determined that Criterion One and all core components have been met. The mission is well distributed, known, and acknowledged as a driver for the institution. Policies, procedures, curricular development, and the RoadMap that all drive institutional activities revolve around the mission. However, there is an interesting juxtaposition between the “old” mission and the newly approved mission and the distinctiveness of the University going forward. The “old” mission is spoken of quite proudly and as a driver that through the decades distinguished the institution from all others. The new mission has yet to be tested. The pride in the old mission is palpable and transferred to the new mission. With the approval of the new mission in 2012, the institution is poised to roll out how the “new mission” impacts the various parts and life of the institution. However, the team suggests that the new mission does not stand out from the missions of hundreds of liberal arts colleges and universities around the country. Most institutions are “student learning centered” and proclaim a social justice emphasis. The focus on adult learners is repeated throughout higher education. Factors that once distinguished and differentiated the institution are commonplace in our institutions. What was innovative and distinctive in the last quarter of the twentieth century is more commonplace today. The team notes that this “tradition” is associated with the former Antioch College but is carried over into the fabric of the culture of Antioch University. The test of the “new Mission” will be to see if the faculty and staff can regain their entrepreneurial leadership and focus on changing the face of higher education that the institution has been known for Version 2.0 2013 9 September 22, 2013 PEAQ Comprehensive Evaluation Report Antioch University - 1527 Whereas the institution is to be commended on its policies and procedures for inclusion, more needs to be done to make some aspects of inclusion a reality. It is one thing to discuss inclusion and have its theme manifested throughout the institution; however, this talk needs to be put into clear and precise action steps that result in a more diversified faculty and staff—a faculty and staff that is representative of the students enrolled in the institution. The institution has acknowledged this problem and knows it needs improvement. CRITERION TWO: Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct. The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible. Core Component 2A: The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows fair and ethical policies and processes for its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff. Evidence: AU has expended great effort to ensure that the appropriate ethical policies and procedures are institutionalized. By-laws of the Board and faculty and staff handbooks contain policies dealing with conflict of interest, obligations and responsibilities, and designate areas requiring compliance like HIPAA and FERPA. The institution has an Affirmative Action Policy and has an identified process for addressing sexual harassment. Close to 75 HR policies and 100 policies in total have been reviewed, revised, or created for posting in the recent past (Self Study, pp. 81, 84). For example, AU has defined spending policies outlining appropriate vendor behavior and interactions. As further evidence of good fiscal practice, AU has received audits with unqualified opinions, and it maintains an acceptable credit rating (Moody’s Baa rating, p. 7). The Office of General Counsel is “charged with the stewardship of policy development process and of the official policy template, guiding policies through the development process and maintaining a central repository.” This institution’s digital repository of policies is accessible through the University portal and website (p. 83). AU has a designated office with responsibilities for the updating of policy and the archiving of polices. While some leadership believe that the virtual room established for the Self-Study could be one tool for communication, and the leadership reports that they have conducted a number of webinars and published newsletters, it appears that additional communication to constituents about the structural and policy changes needs to continue to occur on a consistent basis. The extensiveness of the changes underway at the University demand great focus on communications strategies to assure that key stakeholders are both informed and involved. As structures change, and policies and procedures are updated to reflect these changes, it is the ability to communicate and train employees on the changes that protects the perception of the institution as transparent, inclusive, and fair. The development of new policies and the establishment of new procedures are facilitated by university resource groups (URG’s). URGs were established to create cross-functional teams around issues and planned changes as these followed from the direction established in the Strategic Plan and the RoadMap of creating a national AU with five campuses. For example, the URG that guides academic affairs contributed to the establishment of the University Academic Council (UAC) and acted upon recommendations that also grew out of five years of earlier work by the Blue and Red Book Committees addressing faculty governance. Version 2.0 2013 10 September 22, 2013