SPEC Kit 330: Library Contribution to Accreditation · 49
Compliance Assist 1 7%
IQuest 1 7%
LiveText 1 7%
Nuventive 1 7%
Taskstream 1 7%
20. Please enter any additional information regarding the accreditation process at your institution that
may assist the authors in accurately analyzing the results of the survey. N=13
2004 was our last regional accreditation review; we are currently preparing reports for the 2014 review (due to SACS in
September 2013). The SACS process involves an offsite review team that identiﬁes issues for more intensive scrutiny by
a visiting team. If library standards are determined to be in compliance by the offsite team, they will not receive further
review by the visiting team.
Institutional accreditation occurs through the MSCHE while the college-speciﬁc accreditation and processes are
maintained by each unit. The University Libraries does not have an accrediting body, but does provide documentation
for the institutional accreditation.
Our most recent SACS review was using the 2009 version of the standards. The newly released version has changes
to the number and deﬁnitions that would not match the standards listed in Question 8. Our AUL not only participates
in accreditation activities in his role as AUL but he also has for the past three years been serving as the co-chair of an
institutional assessment oversight group for administrative and educational support.
Participation in accreditation processes is not centralized at the Libraries. Each library (we have 19) is responsible for
requests related to their subject areas. Therefore it is very difﬁcult to have a broad overview of this participation over the
years. Perhaps we’ll try in the future to collect centrally and share this precious information!
Some accrediting agencies, such as SACS, have discrete sections about library resources, facilities and services, and in
those instances, we prepare documents that are included in the report. In some instances, we also participate in the
site visit. In most instances, however, we are contacted by someone in the program under review and are asked for data
that they incorporate into a report that we do not necessarily see.
The information provided by the library was made available to the visiting evaluation team in a resource room, rather
than incorporated into the self-study report or the appendices to that report.
The library staff have been asked to assist with past regional and programmatic accreditation visits, but these fell
outside the ﬁve-year window. We also are helping to prepare for upcoming programmatic site visits in fall 2012 and
2013, and would be happy to answer questions about these visits on request.
The library’s involvement in supporting a program accreditation process varies quite a bit and generally is dependent
on to what extent the library is asked to participate in the process. Library staff do not always know how library-
contributed data is summarized for inclusion in ﬁnal report to the agency. Library staff have also noted that often