2021 In-Person Graduation Details

Learn More

HLC Accreditation 2021

Logan University is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (hlcommission.org), a regional accreditation agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

HLC Accreditation 2021

Logan University is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (hlcommission.org), a regional accreditation agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

About Accreditation

“The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions and/or programs of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, which are private educational associations of regional or national scope, develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. Institutions and/or programs that request an agency’s evaluation and that meet an agency’s criteria are then “accredited” by that agency.” – U.S. Department of Education

Value of Accreditation

While many academic agencies accredit particular programs of study, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) is responsible for assuring that colleges and universities meet certain standards regarding their mission, educational operation, scholarly and creative activities, community service, and ethics.

The HLC ensures that the educational institution meets the requirements of the U.S. Department of education and the Criterion of Accreditation to authorize said institution to grant degrees at the level requested or evaluated.

  • Accreditation is an assurance to the public that an institution is properly prepared to do its job.
  • Accreditation is required in order to receive federal funds in higher education, including student financial aid.
  • Accreditation assists with transfer of credits among institutions.
Drone view of Logan campus
Quad on Logan campus.

Reaffirmation Process

Logan University is preparing for its Comprehensive Evaluation with the Higher Learning Commission (HLC). This review leads to an action regarding the reaffirmation of the institution’s accreditation. Logan has been accredited by the HLC since 1987; with its last reaffirmation of accreditation occurring in 2011.

Comprehensive evaluations occur at different points along each pathway as set by the HCL; Logan University is on the Open Pathway. For the Open Pathway, the HLC requires:

  • A Comprehensive Evaluation in year 10
  • An Assurance Review in Year 4, and
  • A Quality Initiative in years 5-9

Evaluations are conducted by teams of peer reviewers. The evaluation occurs in the final year of each pathway cycle and includes an action regarding the institution’s reaffirmation of accreditation.

HLC Criterion for Accreditation

       1 Mission

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

  1. The institution’s mission is articulated publicly and operationalized throughout the institution.
  2. The institution’s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good.
  3. 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.
       2 Integrity:  Ethical and Responsible Conduct

The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible.

  1. The institution establishes and follows policies and processes to ensure fair and ethical behavior on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty and staff.
  2. The institution presents itself clearly and completely to its students and to the public.
  3. The governing board of the institution is autonomous to make decisions in the best interest of the institution in compliance with board policies and to ensure the institution’s integrity.
  4. The institution is committed to academic freedom and freedom of expression in the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning.
  5. The institution’s policies and procedures call for responsible acquisition, discovery and application of knowledge by its faculty, staff and students.
       3 Teaching and Learning:  Quality, Resources, and Support

The institution provides quality education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered.

  1. The rigor of the institution’s academic offerings is appropriate to higher education.
  2. The institution offers programs that engage students in collecting, analyzing and communicating information; in mastering modes of intellectual inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments.
  3. The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services.
  4. The institution provides support for student learning and resources for effective teaching.
       4 Teaching and Learning:  Evaluation and Improvement

The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.

  1. The institution ensures the quality of its educational offerings.
  2. The institution engages in ongoing assessment of student learning as part of its commitment to the educational outcomes of its students.
  3. The institution pursues educational improvement through goals and strategies that improve retention, persistence and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs.
       5 Institutional Effectiveness, Resources and Planning

The institution’s resources, structures, processes and planning are sufficient to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its educational offerings, and respond to future challenges and opportunities.

  1. Through its administrative structures and collaborative processes, the institution’s leadership demonstrates that it is effective and enables the institution to fulfill its mission.
  2. The institution’s resource base supports its educational offerings and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.
  3. The institution engages in systematic and integrated planning and improvement.

Comprehensive Evaluations During COVID-19 Pandemic

To help institutions and peer reviewers address the COVID-19 pandemic in their comprehensive evaluations and Assurance Reviews, HLC has published new guidance on evaluating the Criteria for Accreditation during the pandemic.

An institution should prepare for an evaluation as it would under normal circumstances. In order to inform peer review teams of how an institution has responded to and been affected by the pandemic, institutions will be asked to complete a COVID-19 Response Form.

FAQs Regarding Comprehensive Evaluations During the Pandemic

Health and Safety: Peer Review Visits to Campus

Please visit HLC’s information regarding the coronavirus (COVID-19) for more information.

Components of a Comprehensive Evaluation

For all institutions, a comprehensive evaluation includes the following components:

Submission and review of an Assurance Filing demonstrating compliance with HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation
Federal Compliance Review
Student Opinion Survey
On-site peer review visit

As part of the Assurance Review, the institution submits an Assurance Argument, along with materials of evidence (called an Evidence File), to demonstrate that it is in compliance with HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation. The team of peer reviewers conducting the comprehensive evaluation reviews these materials in preparation for an on-site visit. Institutions on the Open Pathway demonstrate their institutional improvement efforts through the Quality Initiative process.

Policies

Preparing For Visit

Timeline

October 25 – 26, 2021 HLC Site Visit
September 24, 2021 Final Assurance Argument and Federal Compliance filing due to HLC. System locked.
September 17, 2021 Submit final HLC Assurance Argument and Fed Compliance document
August 6, 2021 Vet final Assurance Argument and Fed Compliance with University leadership and other key stakeholders
July 2, 2021 Draft #3 of Assurance Argument completed, edited and submitted to Provost
June 22, 2021 Draft #3 of Assurance Argument completed, edited and submitted to HLC Coordinator
April, 2021 Distribute HLC’s student opinion survey
April 12, 2021 Draft #2 of Assurance Argument completed, edited and submitted to Provost
April 5, 2021 Draft #2 of Assurance Argument completed, edited and submitted to HLC Coordinator
March 24, 2021 HLC activates Federal Compliance access in assurance system. Begin drafting submission.
February, 2021 Status report made to Cabinet
February 8, 2021 Website/Landing page created to keep all stakeholders informed
February 1, 2021 Review Federal Compliance filing requirements. Identify key campus contacts.
February 1, 2021 Evidence database portal created
January 3, 2021 Develop communication plan
December 7, 2020 Draft #1 of Assurance Argument completed, edited and submitted to Provost
December 1, 2020 Submit Quality Initiative Report to HLC for review -Graduated with HLC approval
November 26, 2020 Draft #1 of Assurance Argument completed, edited and submitted to HLC Coordinator
June 1, 2020 General meeting with Steering Committee and all of Writing and Reading Team Members
Spring 2020 Stay at home orders occur across country, higher education organizations take on-campus courses online. (Global: Total cases 6.0 million+ Deaths 369,203 by the end of May 2020. Includes confirmed and probable cases where available.)
Fall 2019 Establish self-study exploration and teams and draft timeline for key processes and training

Possible Questions from Review Team

Why did you choose to enroll at Logan? Have your expectations been met?
What do you think is special or what stands  out to you about a Logan education?
Would you recommend Logan to other students?
What do you like best about Logan? What would you change if you could?
Have you experienced any problems getting the courses you need in a timely manner?
Are facilities appropriately maintained at Logan?
Describe your experiences with academic advising.
Do you know where to go for help with the following? (a) academic support; (b) career planning; (c) personal counseling; (e) making a complaint; (f) technology support.
Do you use any of the following: library, tutoring services, dining services, the health center, recreational facilities? If yes, what has been your experience?
Are you able to estimate your bill each semester or are you surprised when you receive it?
How is the relationship between students and faculty?
What opportunities do you have to conduct research?
Tell us about programming that happens outside of academic departments where you have learned something.
What opportunities do you have to interact with people and cultures different from your own?
What opportunities do you have to gain real world experience related to your educational and career goals?
If you transferred in credits, what was the esperience like for you?
What do you like best about Logan University?
Does Logan have sufficient and appropriate classrooms to instruct students?
Describe the role of the Logan Student Government Association.
How are students given the opportunity to provide input into important initiatives?
How are students given the opportunity to provide input into proposed tuition increases?
Are academic programs relevant and current?
Are the computer software systems helpful in assisting students with registration? With advising? With knowledge of campus events?
What do you know about accreditation and have you seen or read the Assurance Argument?
How would you describe Logan’s mission? Do you know where you would find the official statement?
What are Logan’s greatest strengths?
What are the biggest challenges facing Logan?
How about challenges specific to your department?
Do you know where to find information about academic integrity and policies regarding academic misconduct?
Describe any campus processes that could be improved or made more efficient.
What kind of changes are taking place at Logan? Do you see these as positive or not?
How does your department contribute to Logan’s mission?
How is morale on campus?
Can you describe the rank and promotion process? What is your impression of the process?
Talk about shared governance and how you participate in decision-making at different levels of the university (department, college, institution).
How would you describe the relationship between faculty and administration? What works and what needs improvement?
What resources are available to support faculty (e.g., library, internal or external grant support, faculty development, travel, etc.)? Are these sufficient in meeting faculty needs?
Is your department actively involved in assessing student learning? How has your department used its assessment findings?
How do you ensure that all classes – online, blended, off-campus, dual credit – have the same student learning outcomes and equivalent assessments?
Are you involved in research? How does the university’s focus on research further Logan’s mission?
How does Logan support students who are underprepared or struggling?
What do you believe have been the major accomplishments of Logan over the last ten years?
How does Logan support the community at large?
For some common faculty issues (workload, salary, sabbatical leaves, etc.), what works well and what needs to be improved?
Have Logan administrators established a culture of trust within the university?
What is the process for making curriculum changes in your academic programs?
Who is responsible for academic policy creation/modification?
Are you familiar with the institutional learning outcomes?
Does your department offer courses or programs via distance education? If so, how does your department ensure the quality of the curriculum?
Does Logan provide sufficient technology support?
Are facilities appropriately maintained at Logan?
What challenges do you believe Logan will need to deal with in the next 10 years?
How does your department support the mission of the university? How would you describe Logan’s mission?
What do you know about the Higher Learning Commission?
What is it like working at Logan? What are Logan’s greatest strengths?
How is morale on campus?
How about challenges specific to your department?
What opportunities do you have for professional development? Are staff members treated equitably in their access to these opportunities?
How are staff involved in campus decision-making processes? Do you think that staff have sufficient input into decisions that affect them?
How would you describe the relationship between staff and administration? What works and what needs improvement?
How are staff evaluated at Logan? What is your impression of the evaluation process?
What kind of changes are taking place at Logan? Do you see these as positive or not?
Describe any campus processes that could be improved or made more efficient.
Do you understand the FERPA policy?
Does Logan have academic and financial requirements which are presented clearly and completely to students and the public?
Does Logan provide sufficient technology support?
Are facilities appropriately maintained at Logan?
How do departments across campuses work collaborately? What works well and what could be improved?
Do you feel that the work you do is valued by administration? Faculty? Other staff members? Students?
What are the biggest resource challenges at Logan?
What challenges do you believe Logan will need to deal with in the next 10 years?

FAQs

The Higher Learning Commission is a regional accreditation agency that accredits degree-granting colleges and universities in a 19-state region of the United States. Regional accreditation agencies are recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

HLC accreditation assures quality by verifying that an institution meets standards and is engaged in continuous improvement. HLC’s institutional accreditation includes all degree levels as well as on-site and online offerings.

While many academic agencies accredit programs of study (i.e., chiropractic, nutrition, nursing, social work, etc.), the Higher Learning Commission (as a regional accreditor) is responsible for assuring that colleges and universities meet certain standards regarding their missions, educational operations, scholarly and creative activities, community service, and ethics. Accreditation is an assurance to the public that an institution is properly prepared to do its job. Accreditation also is required in order to receive federal funds in higher education, including student financial aid, allow reciprocity in transferring credits with other accredited programs, and assure the quality of education of the organization to its community.

An assurance argument is a periodic, rigorous, comprehensive review and analysis of an institution’s strengths and weaknesses. Its purposes are vital to both the institution’s external and internal constituencies. Accreditation is merit-based on an institution’s ability to meet the criteria and established standards.

Overall, accrediting agencies serve two purposes: one is to gauge the performance of an institution in relation to its overarching mission; the other is to promote improvement in the quality of the institution.
Within the two overarching purposes, the HLC will assess the institution’s educational processes and activities. The assessment process is further extended to the institution’s governance and administration; faculty teaching and professional development; financial stability; admissions; student services; institutional resources; continuous improvement; student learning and institutional effectiveness.

Year 4 Assurance Review

On the Open Pathway, the Assurance Review is conducted in Year 4 and is a part of the comprehensive evaluation that occurs in Year 10.

The Quality Initiative

The institution submits a proposal for a Quality Initiative project to be completed in Years 5-9. Logan’s Quality Initiative was submitted and approved: we were accepted into the HLC’s Assessment Academy to build a Culture of Learning and a foundation of program and institutional assessment through learning outcome identification, measurement, collection, analysis, sharing, and continuous improvement. Logan graduated Fall 2020 with HLC approval of our intent to move forward acknowledged. The QI report will be part of the Comprehensive Review.

The Student Opinion Survey

The HLC will be surveying Logan Students at the beginning of April 2021. The purpose of the survey is to inform the peer reviewers visiting the institution with results that may help them to form questions for its meetings with faculty, staff, and students during the visit.

The results will be aggregated and provided to the institution prior to the visit. The survey is only meant to provide students with an opportunity to participate in the accreditation process and to inform the peer review team.

The institution demonstrates that it meets the Criteria for Accreditation by preparing an Assurance Filing, comprised of an Assurance Argument and an Evidence File, using HLC’s Assurance System.

A team of peer reviewers evaluates the institution’s Assurance Filing. The outcome of this review is a recommendation as to whether the institution meets the Criteria for Accreditation. If the Assurance Review is part of a comprehensive evaluation, this review will also include an on-site visit by the peer review team. The Assurance Review conducted in Year 4 of the Open Pathway does not include an on-site visit unless the team determines one is necessary to explore uncertainties in evidence that cannot be resolved at a distance or if a sanction is being considered.

A decision-making body reviews the institution’s documentation and the recommendation from the peer review team and takes an official action.

HLC has established five Criteria statements, as outlined below, each including its Core Components. An institution must present reasonable and representative evidence of meeting each Criterion.

Criterion One: Mission
Criterion Two: Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct
Criterion Three: Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support
Criterion Four: Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement
Criterion Five: Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness

The HLC site visit team drafts its report within four to six weeks following the visit. Logan’s HLC visit is scheduled for October 25-26th, 2021. Logan may review the report and respond if the HLC team has recommendations for errors of fact before the team submits its final report to the HLC Institutional Actions Council (IAC). After the IAC meets and reviews the final report, Logan will receive the final determination and status of re-accreditation.

Steering Committee and Contributors

Accreditation Liaison Officer
Dr. Kimberly O’Reilly, Provost

Coordinator
Dr. Sherri Cole, Associate Provost, Academic Effectiveness & Accreditation Management

Steering Committee
Dr. Sherri Cole, Associate Provost, Academic Effectiveness & Accreditation Management
(Chair)

Criterion 1 Team Co-chairs
Theresa Fleck, Vice President for Institutional Advancement
Dr. Brad Hough, VP of Information Technology

Criterion 1 Team
Kathleen DeBord, Marketing Coordinator
Natacha Douglas, Vice President of Admissions and Financial Aid
Dr. Allison Harvey, Senior Clinician and Assistant Professor
Dr. Patrick Montgomery, Professor
Dr. Shelley Sawalich, Associate Provost & Dean of Students

Criterion 2 Team Co-chairs
Herbert Caldwell, Chief of Compliance and Engagement
Dr. Stephen Nickell, Sports and Exercise Science Department Chair & Athletic Training Program Director

Criterion 2 Team
Dr. Kelly Brinkman, Associate Professor
Victoria Lyons, Cataloguer Librarian & Archivist
Robert Powell, Director of Sports and Activities – Instructional Staff
Dr. Brian Snyder, Professor
Jennifer Starks, Student Care Manager

Criterion 3 Team Co-chairs
Mike Chappell, Director of Academic Technology Services
Dr. Karen Dishauzi, Associate Dean of Students for Care Access & Community Standards

Criterion 3 Team
Dr. Cheryl Burtle, Assistant Professor
Barbara Nutt, Registrar & Associate Provost of Academic Administration
Dr. Daryl Ridgeway, Professor
Dr. Dana Wehrli, Assistant Dean of Experiential Learning
Casey Woodson, Instructional Designer

Criterion 4 Team Co-chairs
Dr. Vincent DeBono, Vice Provost, Innovation and New Ventures
Dr. Jeffrey Kamper, Assistant Provost, Assessment & Simulated Learning

Criterion 4 Team
Dr. Katharine Conable, Professor
Helen Halley, Clinical Coordinator – Nutrition and Human Performance, Dietetics
Marianne Peacock, Instructional Designer
Dr. Kristina Petrocco-Napuli, Assistant Dean College of Chiropractic
Stacia Rosen, Academic Success Coach
Laurinda Smith, Director of Strategic Performance

Criterion 5 Team Co-chairs
Dr. Deshae Redden, Continuous Improvement Coach
Dr. Lee Van Dusen, VP of Strategic Performance & Continuous Improvement

Criterion 5 Team
Bob Holzschuh, Maintenance & Grounds Supervisor
Dr. Atanas Ignatov, Program Director, Basic Sciences
Dr. Amy Koch, Clinician
Kate Smith, Controller
Melissa Warren, Assistant Director Strategic Performance

Contributors
Brittany Bailey, Faculty Records Coordinator
Kimberly Clanahan, Data Coordinator
Dr. Frank Diaz, Associate Provost of Curriculum and Dean of Distance Learning
Erica Ehrhard, Admissions Operations Supervisor
Wendy LaBenne, Professional Development Coordinator
Nichole Nichols, Vice President of Human Resources
Dr. Joseph Pfeifer, Associate Provost, Dean of the College of Chiropractic
Angela Poletti, Office Manager, Academic Affairs
Sarah Spencer, Director of General Education and Assistant Director of Health Informatics

Communications Committee
Debbie White, Copy Room Coordinator
Emily Ratliff, Director of Events
Holly Davis, Web Content Editor
John Woike, Help Desk Consultant
Julie Emmerich, Assessment Center Coordinator
Kathleen DeBord, Marketing Coordinator
Kim Clanahan, Data Coordinator
Nina Kult, Director of Marketing & Communications
Robert Powell, Director of Sports & Activities
Sarah Spencer, Director of General Education and Assistant Director of Health Informatics
Sherri Cole, Associate Provost, Academic Effectiveness & Accreditation Management
Tim Williams, Community Standards Coordinator
Wendy LaBenne, Professional Development Coordinator