SECTION IV – PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONS

INTRODUCTION – AN EFFECTIVE REVIEW PROCESS

Peer review is a relational method of evaluating, designed to assess quality and allow for meaningful interaction. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of assessment by filtering out invalid biases and general opinions. The peer reviews of schools, colleges, universities, and theological schools related to The United Methodist Church have two essential purposes. First, they fulfill the Discipline’s mandate that the Senate “provide an effective review process” of all institutions, including the institutions providing theological education related to The United Methodist Church (BOD, ¶ 1410.3). 

Second, peer reviews are necessary to ensure that institutions meet the Discipline’s four criteria for United Methodist affiliation: 

• Institutional integrity 
• Well-structured programs
• Sound management
• Clearly defined relationships with The United Methodist Church. 

Another purpose of institutional reviews is to assist United Methodist-related institutions in clarifying their mission and in evaluating their quality and effectiveness as they live into their United Methodist identity as a top-tier institution. Peer reviews can be significant instruments for reflection, insight, and institutional change.

GBHEM staff monitor the timing for each institution’s accreditation process and notify the office of the institution’s president regarding timing for scheduling the upcoming Senate reviews and the requirements of those reviews. 

In all Senate reviews for the purpose of formal listing as a United Methodist-related institution, prior institutional membership and accreditation by an approved organization is required (Appendix A). The review committees shall focus on issues related to the criteria established by the Discipline and the Senate for evaluating United Methodist-related institutions.

PHILOSOPHY GOVERNING INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS

The Senate strives to be a resource for strengthening the connection between The United Methodist Church and its United Methodist-related institutions, and for supporting the development of the distinctive mission of United Methodist-related institutions. The Senate is an outward and visible sign of an inward and inherent commitment to the relationship between a denomination that was birthed on a college campus and United Methodist-related schools, colleges, and universities. As one of the earliest accrediting bodies in the United States, the Senate began modeling peer review processes before the regional accreditation system was established. In that regard, the Senate was instrumental in shaping the current accreditation system in the United States. While not a federally recognized accrediting body, the Senate continues to be charged with the responsibility of reviewing United Methodist-related educational institutions to affirm a high level of excellence in the Church-academy relationship, which encompasses Church-relatedness and institutional integrity (stewardship, governance, and program quality). Reviews shall always be predicated by relational support and consultation that can help institutions improve and create a stronger relationship between the Church and the academy. 

SCHEDULING INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS

Reviews of schools, colleges, and universities related to The United Methodist Church are by visits of Senate review committees to the institutions, arranged through its executive secretary. A review committee organized by the Senate shall visit each institution related to The United Methodist Church closely following the visit and resulting decision of the approved accrediting body to which the institution is associated. The president/CEO is contacted to schedule the visit with the institution following its reaffirmation of accreditation by its approved accrediting agency.

Because of the nature of the United Methodist relationship and the Disciplinary mandate that the Senate “provide an effective review process,” the executive secretary may also establish a special Senate review committee to visit a campus should the circumstances at an institution merit such a review. The decision to establish a special review committee shall be made by consultation between the executive secretary and president of the Senate. In the case of a special review, the executive secretary shall contact the institution’s president/CEO to inform them of the reasons for the special review. The special review committee may be composed of a smaller or larger number of members than the regular review committee and can be charged to review a general or a specific area of the institution. A senator shall chair the special review committee.

GBHEM executive staff serving in education or in ordained ministry may also be a member of the review committee. This special visit may differ in scope, in specific purpose, in the arrangement of time, and in the interviews requested. However, the review committee shall be guided in the reporting of their findings by policies and procedures outlined in Section VI: Policies and Procedures for Senate Actions, including making a recommendation to the Senate concerning listing. See Appendix G, Special Visits.

THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

As discussed above, the Senate’s review is distinctive from that of institutional accreditation. The review committee’s visit will focus primarily on those matters in which The United Methodist Church is interested. The review committee will make many judgments, especially relating to programs and finances, whenever possible, based on the findings of the institution’s accreditors. 

In preparing for review committee visits, institutions should focus on the marks of an institution’s United Methodist identity contained in Section IV, Report on United Methodist Relatedness. Review committees should use those marks as a means of adding emphasis to that area in its interviews and its report. The review committee keeps its work confidential and reports its findings and recommendations only to the institution and to the Senate.

Purpose

The purposes of the review committee are to:

1. Serve as an extension of the Senate in making assessments, judgments, and recommendations. The reported findings of fact and recommendations of the review committee form the basis for action by the Senate regarding the relationship of an institution to The United Methodist Church. The chair of the review committee should consult with the executive secretary as to administrative and operational procedures.
2. Ascertain the level of performance of an institution regarding compliance with the mandates of the Book of Discipline and the criteria of the Senate in the areas of United Methodist Church-relatedness, institutional integrity, program quality, and sound management and financial health.

Composition and Work

Procedures for the institutional review process are designed to permit maximum flexibility. Ordinarily, the review committee visiting the institution shall be chaired by a member of the Senate. Each review committee chair, in consultation with the executive secretary as needed, is responsible for coordination of the review process. The review committee shall include members with competence, experience, and expertise in financial health and administrative effectiveness, program quality, United Methodist Church-relatedness, and institutional integrity. The membership of the review committee should reflect gender and racial inclusivity, if possible. The names of the committee members are made known to the chief executive officer of the institution to be visited. Prior to a final assignment, adjustments may be necessary and are allowed.

On-site visits by the Senate are expected to produce objective and comprehensive assessments of institutions. It is important, therefore, that members of the review committee exercise the demeanor concomitant with the highest professional standards. To assure this expectation, the following suggestions and instructions are offered.

1. Persons with a conflict of interest will not normally be assigned to a review committee for the institution(s) in question, but in all cases, full disclosure is required. It is the responsibility of each person assigned to a review committee to inform the GBHEM staff of such a conflict (Appendix H).
2. Review committee members should understand their areas of expertise and be prepared to structure the responsibilities of the review team accordingly. 
3. Review committee members may discover programs or personnel suitable for their own institutions. Committee members must not take advantage of an on-site visit to recruit staff or spend time during the visit to probe ideas for the members’ own institutions.
4. Review committee members shall not offer their individual expertise to the institution, either for remuneration or otherwise, or suggest a desire to be related to the institution following the visit and report.
5. Review committee members shall refrain from comparisons with other institutions.
6. Review committee members may share their findings in confidence with the president before leaving the campus.
7. The review committee as a whole may serve as a consulting body and offer specific suggestions for improvement to the institution through discussions with the president. Such suggestions must address specific issues and may guide future monitoring of the institution by the Senate.
8. Expenses of the review, including travel and hospitality, are to be borne by the institution up to a limit. Every attempt should be made to keep costs at a minimum. The review committee members shall submit an expense voucher to the designated GBHEM staff person. Consulting fees or similar charges shall not be a part of the review committee visit.
9. For institutions undergoing a visit to both the school of theology and the general university, the following procedures shall apply in addition to the regular procedures:
   1. There shall be one site review committee with membership determined by the appropriate GBHEM staff in consultation with the designated chair of the review committee.
   2. Reviews shall be conducted of both the school of theology and the university as a whole.
   3. The final reports of the two reviews shall be merged, with specific attention given to the place of the school of theology in the mission of the university.
   4. The dean of the school of theology should be included in the exit interview.

VISIT OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

Preparation for the Visit 

Prior to the visit, the review committee shall review the following materials received from the chief executive officer no fewer than six (6) weeks before the scheduled review visit:

1. Report on United Methodist Church-relatedness
2. Institutional Profile for a Committee Visit (form provided by GBHEM)
3. The report of the approved accrediting agency
4. The institutional response to the accrediting committee’s report
5. The action letter of the approved accrediting agency and any subsequent reports required
6. The financial audits and management letters from the two most recent years
7. Evaluation Criteria Checklist (Section V, checklist provided by GBHEM prior to the visit)

The institution shall provide the requested materials in appropriate electronic form.

The review committee shall also review:

• The charter
• The corporate bylaws
• Any other governing document that describes United Methodist Church-relatedness
• Reports of previous conversation conducted by the Senate and other United Methodist judicatories

GBHEM staff shall provide the review committee pertinent information and materials.

The review committee shall review the materials sent by the institution, allowing enough time to seek additional information that may be needed from the institution, its accrediting association, and listing in college guides. The chair shall assign responsibilities to various members of the committee and maintain contact with them before the visit.

The schedule for the visit is the responsibility of the chair of the committee. A tentative schedule shall be sent to the chief executive officer prior to the scheduled visit, allowing adequate time to schedule interviews by the institution.

The prearranged schedule shall allow for the possibility of last-minute changes and needed additions after the committee arrives on campus. The schedule shall provide time to walk around the campus and solicit responses spontaneously as one way to learn more about the ethos of the institution.

Selected on-site interviews shall be arranged with the chief executive officer of the institution and a cross section of the institution’s constituencies, including representatives of The United Methodist Church, to assess the institution’s mission and the effectiveness of its achievements. Interviews conducted by member(s) of the review committee with representatives of the institution’s constituencies shall not include the participation of members of the administration unless specifically requested by the review committee. It is appropriate to include a GBHEM staff member on the review committee when possible.

The evaluation criteria for United Methodist Church-relatedness, Institutional Integrity, Program Quality, and Sound Management and Financial Health (Section V) will be provided in checklist form to the members of the review committee and to the institution before the visit. The institution should provide its answers to the checklist questions using the documents submitted to the institution’s academic accreditation agency, and the agency’s response to those documents. For example, in response to a checklist item such as “Conflict of Interest Policies,” the institution is encouraged to “cut-and-paste” from both sets of documents its response to a similar “Conflict of Interest” query by the accreditor and any response the accreditor might have offered about the adequacy of those policies. A similar “cut-and-paste” process would apply to all other aspects of the evaluation criteria.

If a component of the evaluation criteria cannot be addressed by referring to the accreditation documents, the institution should provide that information as brief narrative responses to the individual checklist questions. In addition, the form “Institutional Profile for a Committee Visit” provides an opportunity to provide more current information than would be contained in the accreditation documents. Examples might include revised enrollment data, diversity of campus constituencies, and any recent information impacting public perception of the institution.

With these areas of review managed efficiently in advance of the visit, the review committee and the institution would have little need to discuss “accreditation issues” during the campus visit. This would allow the Senate to conduct “an effective review” within the spirit of the Discipline and the Guidelines. The goal is to be focused and direct with the documentation provided in advance, allowing the review committee and the institution to use their time together primarily on matters of United Methodist Church-relatedness.

The On-site Campus Visit

Review committees should rely on the reports prepared for and the findings of the accrediting bodies whenever possible, applying the Note under the Program Quality section of the evaluation criteria to any area – program quality, financial health, sound management, or others. 

Thus, if an institution has no conditions or unusual circumstances related to its accreditation, the campus visit could be modified or shortened from the three-day (or parts of three days) standard. 

Of course, issues could have arisen in the time following accreditation that require further inquiry during the campus visit, especially financial ones. The review committee should always be mindful of the need to conduct all appropriate interviews while on-site.

In general, however, the campus visit should focus most intentionally on the elements of the Guidelines relating to institutional integrity and United Methodist Church-relatedness, including how this issue affects the programs, management, and finances of the institution. 

Instead of a committee member talking with the Vice President for Enrollment Services about enrollment in general, the focus should be on what scholarships are available for United Methodist students, how United Methodist-relatedness impacts enrollment strategies, and how effective these strategies are. Discussions with the Vice President for Advancement could (for example) revolve around plans to increase support for those scholarships, to build an endowment to support the Chaplain and the Chaplain’s work, or to leverage the support of United Methodist donors for the institution’s programs. 

The Chief Financial Officer should be well-versed in how The United Methodist Church supports the institution and how much funding the institution, in turn, allocates to its religious life programming. Designing a visit around discussions like this should enable the review committee to verify and affirm its preliminary conclusions based on the accreditation review while gaining insight into how the institution’s relationship with The United Methodist Church guides its work and mission.

Changes like this might necessitate other adjustments in the site visit, including the possibility of modifying the suggested schedule template sent in advance. Matters of cost to the institution should be relevant. Every member of the review committee should participate in the review of United Methodist Church-relatedness.

As a practical matter, each team member of the team should have primary responsibility for one or two areas, both for the purposes of advance review and for drafting the committee’s report. While on campus, however, one, or two, focused meetings in the areas of Finance and Program Quality should be sufficient. While those meetings are in session, the United Methodist-relatedness team member could talk to the chaplain or the chair of the Religion Department. Unless the pre-visit review indicates some concern, individual meetings with other administrators would be minimized, allowing all team members to be involved in the review of United Methodist-relatedness, including meetings with trustees, staff, and faculty. The goal is not to shorten the visit but, rather, to use the time wisely. If a compressed schedule allows for a full and thorough conversation, however, and for a determination that the initial perceptions of the committee were accurate, then completing the visit at the end of the second day could be possible.

All members of the review committee should be involved in the review of the institution’s relationship with The United Methodist Church. They have much to offer, and they frequently learn from and are inspired by their experiences on campus. Indeed, conversations between review committee members and institutional personnel during visits often include advice and assistance, regardless of whether the advice is included in the committee’s formal written report.

The Schedule for the On-site Visit

The chair of the review committee should contact the chief executive officer of the institution to arrange the details of the visit, logistical support, interview appointments, overall schedule, and so forth. Review committee visits typically take parts of three days, but this is entirely flexible, depending on the areas of inquiry, the institution’s level of preparedness, and the quality and thoroughness of the materials submitted in advance. The chair of the review committee will determine the schedule in consultation with the institutional CEO, considering these and other factors. Alternatives might be developed, depending on the situation; thus, the following outline is only a suggestion and is subject to appropriate adjustments:

Afternoon of the Day of Arrival

• Orientation meeting of the review committee
• Confirmation of the individual areas of exploration
• Review of the assignments and preliminary findings of individual members of the review committee
• Chair outlines procedures for on-site activity, including the interview schedule, documents to be perused, and expectations of each member regarding individual assignments, assessments, and findings

Evening of the Day of Arrival

• Recommended dinner and/or meeting of the review committee with the chief executive officer and representatives of the institution whom the chief executive officer invites
  • Make introductions
  • Answer questions about the review process
  • Review the schedule
  • Discuss general conditions related to the institution’s health and vitality.

Second Day, Morning and Afternoon

• Interview students, faculty, administrative personnel staff, trustees, alumni, United Methodist Church officials, including, where possible, pastor(s), district superintendent(s), the chair of the annual conference board of higher education and campus ministry, the chair of the annual conference board of ordained ministry (for seminaries), and the bishop. 
• Committee members shall conduct interviews expeditiously; that is, in a short period of time and with predetermined questions.
• In all cases, a conversation should be held between the resident bishop(s) and at least one member of the committee, either on campus during the review visit or virtually, before or shortly after the review visit. 
• Committee members shall confer for brief periods during the day to confirm data, verify impressions, avoid duplication, and determine progress and further steps.
• The chair of the committee shall consult regularly and keep the president informed during the visit.
• Committee members shall put in writing, periodically, impressions and names as close to the time of the events as possible, to assure accuracy.

Second Day, Evening

• A private dinner should be arranged for committee members only for them to discuss findings, determine areas of further exploration, and determine final findings and recommendations.

Third Day, Morning

• An exit interview with the chief executive officer shall clearly disclose the findings of the review committee. Candor and clarity help eliminate subsequent surprises. 
• Committee members shall not make recommendations, offer their personal expertise, or anticipate the Senate’s action.
• Review committee members should avoid the impression that they are reporting actions of the Senate.

The Online/Virtual Review Visit

While onsite review visits are the norm and are preferred, in certain circumstances online/virtual visits may be allowed. The review committee chair and GBHEM staff will work with the institution’s officials to determine the feasibility of an online/virtual review.

If it is determined that an online/virtual visit can or should be arranged, the review committee chair and GBHEM staff will provide options for the schedule and materials to facilitate the visit. GBHEM staff and the review committee chair will communicate protocols for these visits. In most cases, the review would be scheduled over one full day, but exceptions may occur, and creativity may be implemented to achieve an effective online/virtual review process.

REPORT OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

1. The report shall reflect the findings of members of the review committee regarding clearly defined United Methodist Church relationships, sound management (finance and stewardship), institutional integrity, and review of any findings of an accreditor that were reviewed by the committee. Minimal documentation shall substantiate conclusions. The review committee may recommend areas where the institution needs specific assistance and services. These findings shall be conveyed to the Senate and, where appropriate, directly to GBHEM for implementation.
2. Assessments shall be made by each member and given to the chair. Preparation of the final report to the Senate is the chair’s responsibility.
3. The chair shall secure a consensus of the committee regarding the recommendation for listing to be made to the Senate.
4. The initial report shall be restricted to findings of fact and shall be circulated to committee members and then to the institution’s chief executive officer (with the committee’s recommendation) for correction of factual errors only. The report shall be shared with the institution’s CEO as soon as possible and usually no later than four (4) weeks following the visit. A report is normally five (5) to seven (7) pages in length (Appendix D, Format for Institutional Review Reports). This report may be shared with appropriate persons from the reviewed institution at the discretion of the chief executive officer with the understanding that the report will be presented to the appropriate Senate commission and then to the Senate for a final decision.
5. In addition to the findings of fact, the report of the review committee should also recognize the institution if it demonstrates its relationship with The United Methodist Church in creative, compelling, or inspiring ways. Others can benefit from learning about these exemplary practices. It is important to applaud the work of our institutions, and the Senate will find ways to celebrate these successes publicly. Similarly, the report should also find tactful ways to address sensitive issues that arise during a Senate review but might not fall neatly within the purview of the Guidelines. These issues might be very real to the institution and might be significant to its ethos, its relationship to The United Methodist Church, or, indeed, to its very survival. In these cases, the report should include the review committee’s suggestions concerning how the Senate can help the institution.
6. The committee’s final report and its recommendation shall be forwarded to the executive secretary of the Senate. The report shall be presented for appropriate action at the Senate’s next regular meeting. At that meeting, the review committee’s report shall be considered by the appropriate Senate commission and shall be reviewed for consistency with other reviews. Each commission has the discretion to modify the recommendation of a review committee and the responsibility to report its final recommendation to the Senate.
7. In cases in which public listing is necessary, the institution will be sent a copy of the committee’s report, and representatives from the institution will be invited to appear before the commission as outlined in Section VI.
8. The Senate shall make the final decision concerning any institution.
9. Following Senate action, the institution’s chief executive officer, the chair of the board of trustees, and the resident bishop of the area in which the institution is located shall each receive a copy of the Senate’s action letter and a final copy of the review committee’s report.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

The Senate and its commissions act only in concert when they are in session. A recommendation concerning an institution’s listing status expresses the opinions of individual senators on the review team who are not authorized to act for the Senate independently. Their opinions and recommendations may be rejected or amended by the commission or the Senate.

A review committee must include a specific recommendation to the Senate with respect to continued approval for listing of the institution as United Methodist-related by the Senate. If there are additional reports and/or other conditions that would pertain to the institution prior to the next scheduled visit, the committee should specify these. The review committee’s recommendation for listing shall be included as a part of the report to the institution. However, it is to be conveyed to the institution that the committee’s recommendation is addressed to the Senate and that, after review by a Senate commission and the full Senate, the recommendation could be modified.

The categories used to define the listing status for each institution reviewed are 

1. Approved for listing
      a.Without qualification (public information)
      b. With monitoring (not public information)
      c. With alert (not public information)
2. Approved for listing with public warning (public information)
3. Not approved for listing (public information)

Approved for Listing

In general, an institution should be Approved for Listing Without Qualification if (a) the institution has been found in compliance by its approved accrediting body; (b) the review committee determines that no significant concerns have arisen since the action by the accrediting body; and (c) the Senate finds, on recommendation of the review committee, that the institution has demonstrated a meaningful relationship to The United Methodist Church. If any conditions have been imposed on the institution by its accrediting body, the Senate typically will incorporate those conditions in its own decision, through either the monitoring, alert, or public warning process (depending on the severity of the conditions). When the appropriate accrediting body finds compliance, the Senate should conclude its monitoring and should not continue requesting monitoring reports.

New Developments After Accreditation

Similarly, if new developments have occurred after the time of accreditation, the Senate will address those recent concerns through monitoring, alert, public warning, or removal from the list of approved institutions. The Senate typically will be cautious in imposing conditions when no corresponding action by an accrediting body has occurred. Requiring an institution to send representatives to Senate meetings for interviews (or imposing other conditions that create additional financial burdens on an institution) should be reserved for instances where threats to the institution’s health and viability are apparent. The Senate will continue to contact an institution in an attempt to help. Likewise, GBHEM staff members who provide administrative support to the Senate may also assist institutions. 

Public Warning

Under normal circumstances, the process for listing an institution on public warning is outlined below. However, under certain circumstances (e.g., sufficient financial or enrollment concerns), the Senate may place an institution on public warning without an interview and prior to a campus site visit, with the institution invited for an interview to the first Senate meeting following the visit.

Process Following Recommendation for Public Warning or Decision Not to List

• If the review committee’s recommendation for listing is to be approved for listing with public warning or not approved for listing, the executive secretary of the Senate shall notify the institution of the gravity of the circumstances, delineating the issues precipitating the action.
• If there is adequate time between the submission of the review committee’s report and the next scheduled Senate meeting, the institution shall be given the opportunity to respond to the appropriate commission in writing, and the chief executive officer, the chair of the board of trustees, and the resident bishop of the episcopal area, or their designees, shall be invited for personal appearances and discussions before the appropriate commission prior to the presentation of the commission’s recommendation to the full Senate.
• During any review of institutional reports by commissions or the Senate, any representatives of the institution under review shall be absent while the report is presented, discussed, and acted upon, unless they have been invited to be present. In such a case, they shall make a statement and answer questions and then be asked to leave during the discussion and vote.
• If there is not adequate time for a written response or to schedule personal appearances before the commission, or if the commission decides at the time of its meeting to recommend approval with listing with public warning or not approved for listing that was not recommended by the review committee, the commission shall not submit its recommendation to the Senate at that meeting. 
• Under these circumstances, the institution shall be given the opportunity to respond to the appropriate commission in writing, and the chief executive officer, the chair of the board of trustees, and the resident bishop of the episcopal area, or their designees, shall be invited for personal appearances and discussions before the appropriate commission prior to the presentation of the commission’s recommendation to the full Senate. 
• The Senate reserves the right to direct any document of the review committee to the chair of the board of trustees, the resident bishop, and other members of the board of trustees to whom the findings and recommendations are deemed by the Senate to be appropriate. In addition, the Senate may request that the president of the Senate, or one designated by the president, present the findings of the review committee directly to the board of trustees.
• Any written response from the chief executive officer and/or the chair of the board of trustees and/or the resident bishop shall become a part of the commission’s report to the Senate. 
• The appropriate commission shall recommend to the Senate one of the following: approval, approval for listing with monitoring, approval for listing with alert (not public), approval for listing with public warning (public), or not approved for listing (public). 
• The Senate and its commissions conduct discussions and make decisions regarding affiliation status in executive session.