The institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution’s operations.

1.A. Mission Alignment

The institution’s educational programs, enrollment profile and scope of operations align with its publicly articulated mission.

1.B. Mission and Public Good

The institution’s operation of the academic enterprise demonstrates its commitment to serving the public good.

1.C. Mission and Diversity of Society

The institution provides opportunities for civic engagement in a diverse, multicultural society and globally connected world, as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.

In fulfilling its mission, the institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible.

2.A. Integrity

Actions taken by the institution’s governing board, administration, faculty and staff demonstrate adherence to established policies and procedures.

2.B. Transparency

The institution presents itself accurately and completely to students and the public with respect to its educational programs and any claims it makes related to the educational experience.

2.C. Board Governance

In discharging its fiduciary duties, the institution’s governing board is free from undue external influence and empowered to act in the best interests of the institution, including the students it serves.

2.D. Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression

The institution supports academic freedom and freedom of expression in the pursuit of knowledge as integral to high-quality teaching, learning and research.

2.E. Knowledge Acquisition, Discovery and Application

The institution adheres to policies and procedures that ensure responsible acquisition, discovery and application of knowledge.

The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness in fulfilling its mission. The rigor and quality of each educational program is consistent regardless of modality, location or other differentiating factors.

3.A. Educational Programs

The institution maintains learning goals and outcomes that reflect a level of rigor commensurate with college-level work, including by program level and the content of each of its educational programs.

3.B. Exercise of Intellectual Inquiry

The institution’s educational programs engage students in collecting, analyzing and communicating information; in practicing modes of intellectual inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments.

3.C. Sufficiency of Faculty and Staff

The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services.

3.D. Support for Student Learning and Resources for Teaching

The institution provides student support services that address the needs of its student populations, as well as the teaching resources and infrastructure necessary for student success.

3.E. Assessment of Student Learning

The institution improves the quality of educational programs based on its assessment of student learning.

3.F. Program Review

The institution improves its curriculum based on periodic program review.

3.G. Student Success Outcomes

The institution’s student success outcomes demonstrate continuous improvement, taking into account the student populations it serves and benchmarks that reference peer institutions.

The institution’s resources, structures, policies, procedures and planning enable it to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its educational programs, and respond to future challenges and opportunities.

4.A. Effective Administrative Structures

The institution’s administrative structures are effective and facilitate collaborative processes such as shared governance; data-informed decision making; and engagement with internal and external constituencies as appropriate.

4.B. Resource Base and Sustainability

The institution’s financial and personnel resources effectively support its current operations. The institution’s financial management balances short-term needs with long-term commitments and ensures its ongoing sustainability.

4.C. Planning for Quality Improvement

The institution engages in systematic strategic planning for quality improvement. It relies on data, integrating its insights from enrollment forecasts, financial capacity, student learning assessment, institutional operations and the external environment.

The Executive Committee provides strategic direction, consultation, accountability, and support to the steering committee; shares a charter and expectation with all committees; and, conducts a high-level review of the previous assurance argument to identify gaps recommends strategies for improvement.

Members

• Janet Gooch, Vice President and UIS Chancellor
• Brandon Schwab, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost
• Vickie Cook, Vice Chancellor of Enrollment and Retention Management
• Travis Bland, Dean, College of Health, Science, and Technology
• Miriam Wallace, Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
• Lan Dong, Professor, English and Modern Language (Steering Committee Chair)
• Michele Gribbins, Associate Provost for Institutional Research and Effectivness (HLC Accreditation Liaison Officer)
• Kelsea Gurski, Associate Chancellor of Strategic Communications/Chief of Staff (Engagement Subcommittee Chair)

The Steering Committee serves as the central coordinating body for the reaffirmation process, ensuring adherence to the timeline; reviews progress, identifies gaps, and develops action plans for subcommittees; and each member either leads a subcommittee or fulfills a designated role.

Members

• Lan Dong, Professor, English and Modern Language (Steering Committee Chair)
• Michele Gribbins, Associate Provost for Institutional Research and Effectivness (HLC Accreditation Liaison Officer)
• Stephanie Hedge, Associate Professor, English and Modern Languages (Lead Writer)
• Brian Clevenger, Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment and Retention Management (Criterion 1 Chair)
• VACANT (Criterion 2 Chair)
• Anne-Marie Hanson, Associate Dean, College of Health, Science and Technology (Criterion 3 Chair)
• Jill Wilberg, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration (Criterion 4 Chair)
• Sally LaJoie, Clinical Assistant Prof./Instructional Services Librarian (Evidence Chair)
• VACANT (Student Government Association Representative)

The Criterion 1 Subcommittee develops the assurance argument for the Mission criterion by identifying and documenting evidence, collaborating with the university community, and writing the narrative. The subcommittee will submit monthly progress reports to the steering committee.

Members

• Brian Clevenger, Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment and Retention Management (Subcommittee Chair)
• Stephanie Hedge, Associate Professor, English and Modern Languages (Lead Writer/Criterion 1 Writer)
• Ken Kriz, Distinguished Professor, School of Public Management and Policy
• Joan Sestak, Director of Community and Government Relations 
• Jorge Villegas, Associate Dean, College of Business and Management 
• VACANT (Members)

The Criterion 2 Subcommittee develops the assurance argument for the Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct criterion by identifying and documenting evidence, collaborating with the university community, and writing the narrative. The subcommittee will submit monthly progress reports to the steering committee.

Members

• VACANT (Subcommittee Chair)
• VACANT (Criterion Writer)
• Kathryn Kleeman, Director of Admissions
• Ray Rodriguez, Director for Access and Equity and Title IX Coordinator
• Drew Schlosser, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Human Resources 
• Lucia Vazquez, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation 
• VACANT (Members)

The Criterion 3 Subcommittee develops the assurance argument for the Teaching and Learning for Student Success criterion by identifying and documenting evidence, collaborating with the university community, and writing the narrative. The subcommittee will submit monthly progress reports to the steering committee.

Members

• Anne-Marie Hanson, Associate Dean, College of Health, Science and Technology (Subcommittee Chair)
• Sarah Collins, Writing Coordinator (Criterion Writer)
• Emily Boles, Director, Center for Online Learning, Research and Service
• Ryan Bye, Executive Director of Strategy and Partnerships
• Layne Morsch, Associate Provost, Faculty Affairs
• Pattie Piotrowski, Dean, Brookens Library 
• Michael Roth, Associate Provost for Student Success and Undergraduate Education
• Tom Rothfus, Clinical Assistant Professor, School of Integrated Sciences, Sustainability, and Public Health
• Neetu Singh, Associate Professor, Management Information Systems
• Tarah Sweeting-Trotter, Director for Academic Success and Advising
• Junfeng Wang, Associate Professor, School of Public Management and Policy 
• VACANT (Members)

The Criterion 4 Subcommittee develops the assurance argument for the Sustainability: Institutional Effectiveness, Resources and Planning criterion by identifying and documenting evidence, collaborating with the university community, and writing the narrative. The subcommittee will submit monthly progress reports to the steering committee.

Members

• Jill Wilberg, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration (Subcommittee Chair)
• Allison Decker, Assistant Provost, Faculty Affairs (Criterion Writer)
• Jamarco Clark, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
• Tulio Llosa, Associate Provost for IT and CIO 
• Aaron Stewart, Associate Director, Business and Finance Operations 
• Matt Suda, Director of Institutional Research
• VACANT (Members)

The Writers Subcommittee reviews and suggests revisions to criterion drafts; edits and proofreads for correctness, conciseness, consistency, and readability; and, ensures final draft complies with word limits.

Members

• Stephanie Hedge, Associate Professor, English and Modern Languages (Lead Writer/Criterion 1 Writer)
• VACANT (Criterion 2 Writer)
• Sarah Collins, Writing Coordinator (Criterion 3 Writer)
• Allison Decker, Assistant Provost, Faculty Affairs (Criterion 4 Writer)

The Evidence Subcommittee collects, organizes, catalogs and maintains evidence submitted by criterion subcommittees; evaluates evidence to ensure clarity and corroboration, aiming to elevate circumstantial evidence to clear evidence; develops and disseminates standard naming and format conventions; and creates cover pages and links evidence files in self-study document.

Members

• Sally LaJoie, Clinical Assistant Prof./Instructional Services Librarian (Subcommittee Chair)
• Mallory Jallas, Clinical Associate Prof/Dept. Head
• James Nickras, Collections and Scholarly Communications Librarian

The Engagement Subcommittee develops communication plans, professional development, and engagement activities to inform and educate the UIS community about the HLC comprehensive visit; provides regular updates via the websites, campus announcements, and meetings; and, promotes student participation in the student opinion survey by communicating its value and timing.

Members

• Kelsea Gurski, Associate Chancellor of Strategic Communications/Chief of Staff (Engagement Subcommittee Chair)
• VACANT (Members)

The Federal Compliance Subcommittee completes the Federal Compliance Filing Report to demonstrate adherence to federal regulations.

Members

• Michele Gribbins, Associate Provost for Institutional Research and Effectivness (HLC Accreditation Liaison Officer/Federal Compliance Subcommittee Chair)
• Jantzen Eddington, Dean of Students
• Laci Englebrecht, Director of Financial Aid
• Rhyann Morris, Director, Admissions Processing
• Lea Smith, Director of Records & Registration/Registrar 
• VACANT (Members)

The Critical Reviewer is a trained HLC peer reviewer not involved in the drafting process. They conduct an objective review of our assurance arguments; provide feedback to the steering committee on consistency, coherence, usability, and clarity; and, identify weaknesses for improvement prior to final submission.

• VACANT