Contents Leadership Message.......................................... 3 Member Institutions ........................................ 12 Financial Audit Report ...................................... 24 Leadership Message from Chair Dr. Lawrence Leak It has been an honor to serve as the chair of the Council and the ACICS Board of Directors this year. As a public member of the Council, I view taking the reins as chair as a signal to the greater higher education community that the ACICS leadership is an independent and diverse body of thinkers. As for my background, I am a lifelong educator with a professional career that spans the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary continuum. In retirement since 2008, I dedicate my service time as an independent public board member to the Historic St. Mary’s City Commission, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, and to ACICS. Without a doubt, 2016 has been challenging year for ACICS. It has been satisfying to work and serve with so many who are committed to strengthening ACICS. Very early in 2016, the ACICS Council began adopting sweeping changes to our organizational structure, culture, accreditation guidelines, and accreditation practices. All these efforts are done to improve ACICS's effectiveness as an accreditor, enhance the quality of our member institutions, and to protect the students who enroll at the institutions that earn ACICS accreditation. Below, I provide a recap of the major accreditation criteria changes adopted by the ACICS Council and the significant material events/activities that took place in 2016. Major Accreditation Criteria Changes Adopted by the ACICS Council in 2016 The following accreditation criteria changes are effective July 1, 2016, unless otherwise noted: Definition of Academic Quality. The Council determined that it was important to provide a clear definition of academic quality within the Accreditation Criteria. The definition provides guidance on the measures of academic quality and how an institution and ACICS will assess these measures. The Council also determined that it was important to place the ACICS statement of mission (currently placed under Title I, Chapter 2, Introduction) under Title I, Chapter I of the Accreditation Criteria. Data Integrity Standard. The Council included a new standard in order to provide explicit requirements for its expectations as it relates to the truthfulness, reliability, and accuracy of data collected and submitted by institutions to the Council in fulfillment of its accountability requirements. Following the comments from the field, the Council clarified the expectation that all data reported to ACICS must reflect accurate information and is subject to review. Recruitment Activities Review. The Council maintains its requirement that each institution must ensure that any person or entity engaged in admissions or recruitment practices is communicating current and accurate information about the institution and its operations. The Council added the explicit requirement that the institution must ensure that student achievement disclosures (as described in Section 3-1- 704) are accurate. Following comments from the field, the Council clarified the language which states that the institution must maintain documentation that it systematically monitors its recruitments activities. Institutional Performance Disclosures. The Council has fortified its policy regarding public disclosure of student achievement data. The language requires that information related to student achievement must be disclosed at the campus- and program-level (and not at the institution-wide level if a multi- campus institution) and that, at a minimum, each campus and each program (at each campus) provides its retention, placement, and licensure exam pass rates (where applicable). Following comments from the field, the Council also clarified that this data should be the information that is reported on its most recent Campus Accountability Report. Placement Definition- Glossary. The Council has guidelines in which institutions must comply regarding the calculation of placement rates. The Council has included a succinct definition of placement within the Glossary of the Accreditation Criteria. Debarment Policy. The Council revised its current procedures for appealing a debarment action. The procedures clarify that an individual or entity that receives an intent to bar notice will have one opportunity, either in writing or in person, to appeal that notice, which may include additional information for Council consideration. If the individual or entity chooses to appeal the notice, the Council will make a final decision on whether to issue a debarment order and determine the terms and length of that debarment following the appeal. Admissions Requirements for Professional Master’s Degree Programs. The Council clarified language related to the admissions requirements for professional master’s degree programs that lead to certification or licensure required for employment in the field. The Council has clarified the standard that, if a baccalaureate degree is not required for a professional master’s degree by the appropriate specialized accrediting agencies and is common practice among accredited institutions, then the Council will accept such evidence as meeting the alternate admissions standards. The following accreditation criteria changes are effective January 1, 2017, unless otherwise noted: CAR Procedures and Guidelines- Appendix L. The Council finalized a number of changes to the standards related to student achievement and the Campus Accountability Report (CAR), which are all outlined in “Appendix L” of the Accreditation Criteria. The new Appendix includes the current student achievement rates and the applicable monitoring status and actions for campuses and programs that are not meeting acceptable student achievement indicators. The approved language more clearly defines the point at which a particular action will be taken, at the campus and program levels, including the issuance of an adverse action, a show-cause directive, a compliance warning, or reporting with restrictions against a campus or program. The Council also approved language in corresponding sections of the Criteria, such as student achievement review and Council actions at the program-level. As communicated in the September 2016 Memorandum to the Field, if the proposed language was approved, it would be used by the Council to evaluate the data submitted in the 2016 Campus Accountability Report (effective December 6, 2016). Council Action Standards. The Council finalized changes that would streamline its current Council action procedures. A number of changes have been approved and include the following: The addition of an introduction to the Accreditation Deferred or Conditioned section to clarify the Council’s ability to take any of the actions so outlined, at any point in time, to include a final adverse action. The removal of “admonition” as a formal Council action. The combining of “show-cause directive” and “probation order” into one action; that of a show-cause directive. This enhanced language will require notification to the U.S. Department of Education, the students, and the public. Having been accepted, all applicable sections of the Accreditation Criteria that describe a “probation order” have been revised to a “show-cause directive”. The determination that all hearings before the Council will be in writing unless an in- person hearing is specifically directed by the Council. Requirement for Title IV Compliance Audit. The Council approved language that requires all institutions that participate in Title IV programs to now submit their compliance audit along with the submission of the Annual Financial Report (AFR). ACICS will review these audits and incorporate this information, as appropriate, into its current procedures for possible action or further at-risk review. Mission Statement. The Council finalized language that clarified the requirement that the institution’s mission must include a mission statement and specific set of objectives that are devoted substantially to career-related education. Campus Effectiveness Plans. The Council has finalized and approved a series of revisions to the criteria sections focused on Campus Effectiveness (CEP). These changes include the addition of “Appendix K,” which details the guidelines and requirements for the development, implementation, and monitoring of the CEP, including all evaluation elements and monitoring processes. In addition, the Council approved the addition of program-and campus-level graduation rates to the list of required elements as this rate significantly impacts the campus’s assessment of effectiveness. Learning Site Definition. The Council finalized a definitive requirement for the distance from which a learning site may be geographically separated from its managing (main or branch) campus. This distance is a radius of five miles. Any learning site application that proposes to be further than five miles from its oversight campus will be reviewed by the Council on a case-by- case basis for appropriateness of the arrangement. Those campuses that currently have active learning sites farther than 5 miles away from its oversight must comply with the new criterion language by January 1, 2018. ACICS will send separate communication to these campuses with additional information on the necessary actions to be taken. All learning sites are subject to an on-site evaluation visit. Workshop Attendance Timeframe. The Council