What Are Institutions Doing (or Not Doing) about State Authorization - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

What Are Institutions Doing (or Not Doing) about State Authorization -- Revisited

February 27, 2013

• The webcast will begin at the top of the hour.
• There is no audio being broadcast at this

time. time.

• If you need assistance, contact Blackboard

Collaborate: 866-388-8674.

• An archive of this webcast will be available on

the WCET website next week.

What Institutions are Doing (or Not What Institutions are Doing (or Not Doing) about State Authorization

February 2013

What Are Institutions Doing (or Not Doing) about State Authorization -- Revisited

• Welcome.
• Thank you Blackboard

Collaborate! If you have technical issues:

Megan Raymond, WCET

• If you have technical issues:
• Call 866-388-8674
• Use the chat box for

questions.

• Archive, PowerPoint, and

Resources available next week.

What institutions are Doing (or Not Doing) about State Authorization?

Jim Fong UPCEA Center for Research and Consulting Bruce Chaloux Executive Director and CEO Sloan-C Russ Poulin Deputy Director, Research and Analysis, WCET

Estimated number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students

Private for- Other 3%

Type of Institution

Most of the respondents represent public and private non-profit four-year institutions. The 19% of respondents from private for-profit institutions, community colleges, and other institutions have been combined in a single group for the remainder

• f this report.

The survey respondents are evenly distributed among enrollment sizes. The institutions, based on the type of institution and number of FTEs, is similar to 2011 and allows for reasonable comparisons.

Demographics

Under 5,000 27% 5,001 to 10,000 20% 10,001 to 20,000 25% More than 20,000 28%

n = 179

Public 4-year 54% Private non- profit 4-year 27% Private for- profit 4-year 4% Community college 12%

Number of other states/territories/protectorates in which online or correspondence courses are offered

Average Median Public 4-year, n=86 35 34 Private non-profit 4-year, n=41 34 30 On average, the institutions surveyed said that they serve 32 states, territories

• r protectorates with online courses. There are differences based on the size

and type of institution. Smaller schools tend to

• perate in fewer number of

Private non-profit 4-year, n=41 34 30 Other, n=30 26 21 <5,000, n=37 25 11 5,001 to 10,000, n=32 26 21 10,001 to 20,000, n=40 34 30 >20,000, n=46 43 49 Overall, n=176 32 36

• perate in fewer number of

states, with an approximate median of 11 states (excluding its own). Institutions with more than 20,000 enrollments operate in a median 49 states. The

• verall median is 36.

Applied/received approval from all states of interest 15% Initial steps, no formal contact or application to any states 18% No action taken 5%

Progress in addressing the state authorization regulation

Institutions have made steady progress since 2011

• Just over half have applied to one or more states (52%), as

compared with 28% in 2011

• 15% are finished with the application process in all states in

which they plan to serve students, as compared with 5% in 2011

• Five percent have yet to take action

2012

Applied to all states of interest 5% Applied to one

• r more states

28% Contacted states, no application 26% Initial steps 38% No Action 3% Applied to one or more states 52% Contacted States, no applications 9%

n=206

2011

n=215

60% 62% 37% 18% 17% 12% 15% 17% 8% 5% 6% 36% 29% 15% 10% 0% 19% 13%

Waiting for more clarification In the process/Collecting info We have no staff available to file applications The cost is too high We believe we are exempt from having to comply Waiting for states to ask us We believe the regulation will be repealed State or school system handling issue We have only a few students from out-of-state enrolled

2012, n=60 2011, n=145

Reasons for not applying for state authorization

5% 3% 3% 1%

Operating only in the states … not triggering physical presence We are offering very few online courses Other/Don't know

• For those who responded, the majority have not applied for a state authorization because they are still awaiting clarification, or

are in the process of applying. However, it should be noted that fewer, compared to last year, are not apply at all, which suggests institutions are less likely to completely wait.

• In 2011 a greater proportion believed that the regulation would be repealed (19% in 2011, 15% in 2012).
• The biggest reasons in 2012 are awaiting clarification, in the process/collecting info, and lack of staff.
• Another reason includes awaiting licensure from a school’s own state.

15%0% 38% 28% 18%

A private non-profit 4-year institution, n=39

The chart shows the expected compliance costs and that approximately one in five expect to pay nothing. It is likely that these institutions are applying to states that require no fees. Larger institutions are less likely to pay nothing. These compliance costs do not include staff costs.

Expected Compliance Costs

By Enrollment Size

32% 12% 3% 7% 29% 29% 21% 24% 15% 27%

10,001-20,000, n=34 >20,000, n=41

By Institution Type

38% 18% 17% 9% 29% 34% 8% 24% 8% 16%

Other, n=24 A public 4-year institution, n=80

$0 $1-1,000 $1,001-10,000 $10,001-50,000 $50,001+ 15% 26% 5% 15% 48% 30% 25% 19% 8% 11%

<5,000, n=40 5,001-10,000, n=27

$0 $1-1,000 $1,001-10,000 $10,001-50,000 $50,001+

Type* Average* Median* If institutions are applying to states with fees, most institutions still expect to spend $10,000 or less on compliance costs, with private non-profit 4-year institutions spending the most. In general, the larger the enrollment size, the greater spending expected for compliance costs.

Expected Compliance Costs (zeros removed)

Type* Average* Median* <5,000, n=34 $32,708 $15,000

By Enrollment Size By Institution Type

A private non-profit 4- year institution, n=33 $52,623 $12,500 A public 4-year institution, n=66 $48,034 $10,000 Other, n=15 $37,990 $10,000

* The values in this table have been calculated from the stated costs excluding $0

<5,000, n=34 $32,708 $15,000 5,001-10,000, n=20 $57,430 $10,000 10,001-20,000, n=23 $46,148 $10,000 >20,000, n=36 $59,822 $25,000

27% 17% 8% 20% 36% 50% 23% 28% 28% 30% 19% 14%

Other, n=30 A public 4-year institution, n=83 A private non-profit 4-year institution, n=36

Compared to last year, some institutions have assigned staff to work on compliance. The majority of institutions have fewer than 0.5 FTE staff working

• n state authorizations.

Private and public non- profit 4-year institutions are similar in their

By Institution Type

Expected FTE compliance staffing

By Enrollment Size

14% 29% 14% 38% 26% 32% 38% 26% 27% 10% 20% 27%

5,001-10,000, n=29 10,001-20,000, n=35 >20,000, n=44

27% 20% 23% 30%

Other, n=30

0-.10 .11-.50 .51-1.0 1.1+

Type Average Median A private non-profit 4- year institution, n=36 .83 .50 A public 4-year institution, n=83 .82 .50 Other, n=30 1.54 .88

are similar in their staffing, but other types of institutions have the greatest personnel commitments. In general, the distribution

• f FTE staffing for state

authorizations is similar across enrollment size.

Type Average Median <5,000, n=39 .75 .35 5,001-10,000, n=29 1.34 .50 10,001-20,000, n=35 .81 .50 >20,000, n=44 1.05 .88

13% 51% 18%18%

<5,000, n=39

0-.10 .11-.50 .51-1.0 1.1+

Leadership Involvement, Overall

Distance and Continuing Education Directors drive the approval process, with 85% being somewhat or very involved. Chief Academic Affairs Officers and Legal Counsel also have relatively high

• involvement. The Faculty Senate is the least likely to be involved or informed.

18% 3% 23% 61% 37% 51% 13% 38% 19% 8% 22% 7% President, n=173 Chief Academic Affairs Officer, n=178 Chief Business Officer, n=174 23% 19% 8% 18% 51% 23% 7% 44% 19% 35% 15% 28% 7% 23% 70% 11% Chief Business Officer, n=174 Legal Counsel, n=170 Distance/Continuing Education Director(s), n=169 Academic Deans, n=169 Not at all involved Informed, but not actively involved Somewhat involved Very involved

n=181

Seeking Authorization in all States

12% 30% 33% 27% Other, n=34 A public 4-year institution, n=96 A private non-profit 4-year institution, n=49 Overall, n=179

Percentage that will be seeking authorization from all 59 states, territories, and protectorates Yes 44% No 56% 2011: Will you be seeking approval from all states, territories, and protectorates? About 27% of respondents expect their institution to seek authorizations from all states, a decrease from 2011 (44%). The larger the enrollment size, the more likely they will seek authorization from all states.

41% 27% 20% 19% More than 20,000, n=51 10,001 to 20,000, n=45 5,001 to 10,000, n=35 Under 5,000, n=48

56% n = 211

Are there states from which you now believe you will not seek authorization (due to requirements and/or costs) or can no longer accept students? Which states?

Not Seeking Authorization

Yes 59% No 41%

2011, n = 119

Yes 75% No 25%

2011, n = 122

• Of those not seeking authorization in all 59 states, protectorates and territories, about ¾ said that

they will be bypassing some states. These institutions named 45 states/territories.

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 NH AK LA NM OK DC GA PR WA RI

States Counts for those Not Seeking Authorization

• Most named states are:

Minnesota, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Maryland, Alabama, Kansas, and Wisconsin, in that order

• Comments included not

seeking authorization because of high fees and low student demand from those states

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NY MS HI CT VA IN IL Others*

Number of Times Mentioned

46 40 37 30 29 14 14 10 8 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 MN MA AR MD AL KS WI KY OR PA TN WY FL NC UT NH

45 States/territories named in total

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 TX WV OH NV MI AZ NE ND MT ID NY

*Included in “Others” and each mentioned once: Commonwealth

• f the Northern Mariana Islands,

Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, Guam

Estimates of Turned-Away Students

14% 11% 7% 14% 33% 20% 23% 28% 19% 32% 22% 34% 18% 6% 20%

Other, n=22 A private non-profit 4-year institution, n=18 A public 4-year institution, n=59

1 to 10 11 to 25 26 to 100 101+

Private, non-profit 4-year institutions are the most likely to turn away fewer than 25

• ut-of-state students (72%). On the other

hand, public 4-year and other institutions are about 20% likely to turn away more than 100 students, with some turning away thousands. Larger institutions are less likely than smaller ones to turn away more than 25 students, but turning away potential students is more detrimental to smaller

By Institution Type

4% 27% 19% 38% 12%

>20,000, n=26

By Enrollment Size

students is more detrimental to smaller institutions. Overall, 13% of institutions turn away more than 100 students, some turning away thousands. Just 10% of respondents indicate that they expect to turn away no students.

11% 21% 5% 4% 22% 26% 14% 27% 30% 11% 27% 19% 22% 37% 36% 38% 15% 5% 18% 12%

<5,000, n=27 5,001-10,000, n=19 10,001-20,000, n=22 >20,000, n=26

1 to 10 11 to 25 26 to 100 101+ 10% 22% 22% 33% 13%

Overall, n = 94

1 to 10 11 to 25 26 to 100 101+

Overall

44% 46% 34% 7%

Notifications on website or recruitment … Notify students if they apply or register Do not notify students. Other

Student Notification of State Authorization n = 152

48% 31%

Notifications on website or recruitment …

46% 37% 38%

Notifications on website or

By Institution Enrollment Size By Institution Type Most institutions (66%) notify their students in some way of state authorization issues. The most common way institutions notify students is when they register or apply.

55% 24% 10% 43% 40% 5% 48% 43% 34% 8%

recruitment … Notify students if they apply or register Do not notify students. Other Other, n=29 A private non-proft 4-year institution, n=42 A public 4-year institution, n=79

65% 27% 0% 33% 37% 10% 38% 41% 41% 15% 50% 41% 32% 5%

website or recruitment material Notify students if they apply or register Do not notify students. Other <5,000, n=37 5,001-10,000, n=30 10,001-20,000, n=39 >20,000, n=44

Collaboration for State Authorization Regulations 2012

Percentage of institutions participating in any statewide, system-wide, or consortial approach in sharing information or addressing state authorization regulations

76% 57% 74% 57% 56% 76% 55% 66% More than 20,000, n=51 10,001 to 20,000, n=44 5,001 to 10,000, n=35 Under 5,000, n=47 Other, n=34 A public 4-year institution, n=98 A private non-profit 4-year institution, n=47 Overall, n=180

Collaboration remains important, with minor variations from 2011. Schools with fewer than 5,000 enrollments seem to have started participating more in the past year.

2011

70% 56% 63% 68% 74% 72% 55% 64% More than 20,000 10,001 to 20,000 5,001 to 10,000 Under 5,000 Other A public 4-year institution A private non-profit 4-year institution Overall, n=208

Reciprocal Agreements

9% 19% 4% 13% Other, n=34 A public 4-year institution, n=93 A private non-profit 4-year institution, n=45 Overall, n=173

Percentage of institutions participating in a reciprocal agreement with another state Overall, about 13% of institutions participate in reciprocal agreements, with the greatest participation by public 4-year institutions (19%).

16% 9% 15% 11% More than 20,000, n=49 10,001 to 20,000, n=43 5,001 to 10,000, n=33 Under 5,000, n=46

Presidents’ Forum/Council of State Governments

• Developed model “compact.”

Regional Compacts (led by WICHE) Built on model compact with regional flavor

Background on ‘SARA’ State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement

• Built on model compact with regional flavor

The Commission on Regulation of Postsecondary Distance Education:

• APLU (land-grants) & SHEEO (state offices).
• ‘Adopted’ SARA--draft report earlier this week.

Creates Potential Nationwide Agreement

• Students
• More assurance on complaint handling.

States

SARA Advantages

• States
• Focusing on local institutions; Cutting costs.
• Institutions
• One review (home state) rather than dealing with

each state; Cutting costs.

• Voluntary.
• Includes only degree-granting institutions.
• Accredited by a US DOE recognized agency.

Uses “home state” model.

SARA Key Elements

• Uses “home state” model.
• Authorized in home state.
• Other participating states recognize.
• Does not address “state licensure” issues.
• Nursing, Social Work, Education.

Criteria for states to join:

• Academics – based on accreditation.
• Financial integrity – uses federal measure or

SARA Criteria for Implementation

Financial integrity – uses federal measure or surrogate.

• Consumer protection – recruiting, tuition,

refunds, admissions.

• Complaints – process and documentation.

Institutions CAN DO in partner states:

• Serve military personnel, dependents, and

employees on military installations.

SARA Physical Presence

• Have faculty or employees in the state.
• Required proctored exams.
• Contract in the state.
• Server in the state.

Institutions CAN NOT DO in partner states:

• Establishing a physical location.
• Requiring students to meet in a physical

SARA Physical Presence

Requiring students to meet in a physical location for more than ¼ of course.

• Establishing an administrative office in the

state.

63% 63%

Reciprocity can’t come fast enough. It’s the law and we need figure out how to comply.

SARA outlook & opinion of state authorization matter

Institutions are optimistic about a SARA-like arrangement with 98% believing that might work

• r that it makes sense. Institutions also accept the need to comply with state authorization

regulations (68%), but also believe that reciprocity is a viable option for easing the process (63%).

46% 2% It won’t work

Outlook on SARA Opinion on State Authorization

18% 15% 11% 8% 3% 26%

This has been blown way out of proportion. It’s the cost of operating online outside our home state States have no right to regulate out-of-state institutions. It’s the law, but it will never be enforced. Let’s ignore it until it goes away (and it will). Other

n = 179

52% 46%

Overall

It might work depending on the details about the process, costs, etc. It makes sense

n = 180

For more information about the survey and the results, please contact:

Russell Poulin Deputy Director Research and Analysis Jim Fong Director Center for Research and Bruce Chaloux Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Research and Analysis WCET - WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies rpoulin@wiche.edu wcet.wiche.edu (303) 541-0305 Center for Research and Consulting University Professional & Continuing Education Association jfong@upcea.edu www.upcea.edu (814) 308-8424 and Chief Executive Officer The Sloan Consortium, Inc. bchaloux@sloanconsortium.org www.Sloan-C.org (678) 653-9399

Questions from the Audience

If you have a question during the presentation, please add your questions to the chat box. We will monitor the chat box and have time for Q&A at the end. have time for Q&A at the end.

28

Learn More and Stay Connected

Visit the WCET’s Connect, Learn, Advance services on our website: http://wcet.wiche.edu/ Become a WCET member: benefits extend to your ENTIRE institution: News digests- academic, technology, and policy. News digests- academic, technology, and policy. Listservs. Free webcasts. Exclusive member only resources. Attend WCET’s 25th Annual Meeting in Denver, CO, November 13-15, 2013.

29

Join WCET’s State Authorization Network (SAN)

SAN gives you an early warning on upcoming bumps in the road to compliance. April 1, 2013 to March 30, 2014. The network assist institutions who are trying to comply with state regulations. state regulations. Stay up to date with state and federal regulations. Working collaboratively, institutions can navigate the state regulatory processes more efficiently than working on their

• wn.

http://wcet.wiche.edu/advance/state-authorization- network

30

Learn More and Stay Connected

Join WCET today!

http://wcet.wiche.edu/contact-us/join-wcet

Participate in our next webcast: Participate in our next webcast: Does Your Institution Suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder? March 12, 2013

31

Additional Information and Resources

Access to the resources discussed during this webcast, including the archive, will be available next week.

http://wcet.wiche.edu/connect/webcasts http://wcet.wiche.edu/connect/webcasts

32

Thank you Blackboard Collaborate

33

Thank you Supporting Members for your commitment to WCET and e-Learning

Boise State University Colorado Technical University Dow Lohnes, LLC Lone Star College System Lone Star College System Michigan State University University of Missouri/Mizzou Online University of North Texas University of West Georgia

34