2 - Accreditation History

Regional and Specialized Accreditation

The University of Minnesota – Twin Cities has been continuously accredited by the North Central Association (NCA) since 1913.  The campus is accredited to offer the bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, and first-professional degrees.  Its last comprehensive evaluation was conducted in 1996, with a focused visit in 2000.  In addition to this institutional accreditation, the campus holds professional and specialized accreditation in nearly 200 programs.  Agencies that currently accredit University of Minnesota – Twin Cities programs are shown in the table below.

Specialized and Professional Accreditation

The balance of this section summarizes the key findings and conclusions of the NCA’s comprehensive evaluation of the University’s Twin Cities campus in 1996 and the follow-up focused visit conducted in 2000.  These findings and conclusions were part of the more than 700 pages of self-study reports and appendices prepared by the University and the reports filed by the NCA’s 1996 and 2000 site visit teams. 

Also provided are brief updates on the status of areas of concern and references that guide the reader to related information in this self-study and on the Web.

return to section menu

1995-1996 Comprehensive Evaluation

The NCA’s 14-member evaluation team (faculty and administrators from Case Western Reserve University, University of Illinois, Indiana University, University of Iowa, Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland, Purdue University, University of California-Davis, Wayne State University, and University of Wisconsin) visited the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities campus in May 1996.

Team members met with more than 100 people, including senior administrators, faculty, staff, students, Regents, community representatives, legislators, and the self-study committee.  (see 1995-96 evaluation documents)

Following these meetings and a review of print and electronic documents provided by the self-study committee, the team determined that the Twin Cities campus met the NCA’s 24 general institutional requirements and five criteria for accreditation. 

The team also met its responsibilities to identify the campus’s strengths, note issues of concern, offer non-binding suggestions for improvement, and make final recommendations to NCA.  A summary of these items and excerpts from the team’s report are presented below.

Strengths The visiting team, in characterizing the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities as “unarguably a great land-grant research university, one of the nation’s best and most distinguished,” identified these particular institutional strengths:

• a long history of attracting “exceptional people to its faculty, staff, and administrative leadership”;

• the “historical commitment of the citizens of Minnesota to education in general and the University in particular,” although noting “a strong [campus] perception that the state's traditional generosity to the University has flagged and that the University has fallen on hard times”;

• its location in an “education-friendly state” and major metropolitan area with “a business community characterized by economic diversity, growth, and a disproportionate number of Fortune 500 company headquarters”;

• its position as the state’s only major public or private research university;

• its large alumni base, with many living in the immediate metropolitan area, offering the University potential “to enhance its already strong private giving performance…exploit a huge market for continuing education of adult professionals…[and] substitute new revenue streams for faltering state support while maintaining relatively low tuition”;

• the prospect of  “a more cosmopolitan and academically richer academic environment” offered by an increasingly diverse metropolitan area population;

• the University’s orientation to “the future and planning for it,” citing former President Keller’s “Commitment to Focus” plan and then-President Hasselmo’s “University 2000:  Mission, Vision, and Strategic Directions” plan, with specific praise for the development of institutional critical measures to assess the University’s progress toward the plan’s objectives;

• the University’s aggressive plans to substantially rethink and adjust its approach to health care education, clinical practice plans, and hospital and medical practice operations;

• the “numerous improvements in the undergraduate education environment”;

• the University’s state constitutional autonomy;

• its strong financial position, including men’s and women’s athletic programs, and the “exceptional” management of current and endowment funds; and

• the Bush Faculty Development Program on Excellence and Diversity in Teaching.

Concerns  The visiting team identified a number of concerns, many of which, as they noted, were the obverse of the strengths listed above.  The concerns included the following:

Organization, Administration, Personnel, and Communication: HLC 1d  The team commented that while the “high level of local autonomy has contributed materially to the University’s strengths by fostering academic and administrative entrepreneurship” it also seemed to be accompanied by “relatively weak functional coupling and communication among organizational units” and “an organizational structure that appears extremely complex and fragmented.” 

The team observed that “this clearly has contributed to some of the University’s current difficulties [in] detect[ing] problems early and…impeding the development of coherent and effective responses at the institutional level.” 

Exacerbating these problems were an administrative structure (including the untested three-provost system) and leadership team that “seem to have been rather consistently in a state of flux.”  The team observed that “there is not a little skepticism, cynicism, and confusion about the University’s goals and directions in evidence below the senior levels of administration.”

A related concern was the “relatively weak… commitment to and engagement in strategic planning efforts…at levels below the University’s central administration….[Faculty] seem bewildered by what they perceive as multiplying problems and massive changes…addressed and instituted without much warning or opportunity for input.”

Current Status:  The NCA’s subsequent focused visit in 2000 noted substantial improvements in the intervening four years (see section below).  Since 2000, Presidents Yudof and Bruininks further refined the administrative structure, including a substantial restructuring of positions (download PDF) and responsibilities by President Bruininks in February 2004.

Other significant improvements are being made as a result of the recommendations emerging from the administrative and academic strategic planning task forces, which the President and the Board of Regents endorsed and approved. Also, improved information systems have helped identify potential problems sooner. 

Finally, refinements to the compact process and Incentives for Managed Growth budgeting system  – both under continuing review and improvement – have helped deans to focus on their own goals and how those goals align with those of other units and the University.

Like most higher education institutions, however, the University continues to be challenged in effectively communicating and coordinating institutional strategy within academic departments and centers.  Faculty members leading and managing local units do so in addition to their teaching, research, and public engagement work and, frequently, with little or no training in leadership or management skills. This, plus their typically short terms of service can make local implementation of institutional goals and priorities uneven. These challenges are being addressed by the professional development and administrative structure task forces as part of the implementation of the University’s strategic plan.

Academic Health Center. HLC 1d, HLC 2a, HLC 2b, HLC 2c, HLC 2d  Consistent with the University’s own viewpoint, the team voiced its concern about “the continued viability of the University’s Academic Health Center (AHC) in today's rapidly changing health care environment.”  The NCA visit occurred during the University’s negotiations with Fairview Health Systems regarding the ownership and operation of the University Hospital and Clinics and the re-engineering of AHC’s research and health professions education model and structure.

Current Status:  The successful sale of the University Hospital and Clinics, the creation of the Fairview University Medical Center (now named the University of Minnesota Medical Center), and the Academic Health Center’s implementation of its 2000 strategic plan have contributed to major strides in focusing and strengthening the AHC’s current effectiveness and future viability. 

In addition, President Bruininks’s 2004 re-organization of senior management (see Appendix B) emphasized the importance of improving academic and administrative integration and coordination between the Academic Health Center and the rest of the University.  This integration and coordination goal has been further underscored in the way that the strategic plan implementation task forces have been structured (see Challenges)

(See also the comments below under 2000 Focused Visit)

Governance:  The NCA team’s visit coincided with the shared governance controversy that had frayed relationships among and between not only faculty, administrators, and the Board of Regents but also between the University and the Legislature and Governor’s Office. 

While centered on proposed changes to the University’s academic tenure policy – which had gained national attention well beyond the higher education community – other issues, as the NCA visiting team noted, included claims of “political meddling” by the state, “micromanagement” by the Board of Regents, lack of understanding and appreciation of “the many academic and administrative challenges the University faces” by both the state and the governing board, and pervasive “faculty suspicion and distrust.”

Current Status: Repairing and strengthening relationships between and among the Board of Regents, administration, and faculty has been a shared, high priority within the University.  The NCA’s 2000 focused visit noted significant improvement in this area, which has continued and advanced in the intervening years.  (see section below on the 2000 visit as well as Challenge 4 for detailed descriptions) 

The most recent example of this improvement is the close cooperation and consultation among the Faculty Consultative Committee, the administration, and the Board of Regents and the shared leadership they have provided to the strategic planning effort now under way.  The planning process has been designed to provide multiple opportunities for faculty committees and members to contribute their ideas and help shape and lead the debate, although the adequacy of such consultation is often challenging given the ambitious planning timetable, the complexity of the institution, and the pressing demands on people’s time and attention. Many of the strategic planning task forces will be led by faculty, and virtually all will have faculty representation on them.

As an indication of faculty support and this effective working relationship, the University Senate endorsed the academic strategic planning task force’s recommendations by a vote of 120-3.

Other Faculty Concerns.  Other faculty concerns briefly cited by the visiting team included the impact of the Academic Health Center’s financial challenges on the rest of the University, faculty salaries, and faculty morale.

Assessment of Student Academic Achievement.  HLC 3a, HLC 3b, HLC 3c, HLC 3d   Shortly before the site team’s 1996 visit, NCA approved the University’s assessment plan.   The team found that “while the assessment plan…appears to be well integrated into the University’s larger planning environment” and closely linked to institutional-level critical measures, it was not widely known, well understood, or broadly implemented across the campus. 

The visiting team thought this was “another example of the internal communication problems that seem to be endemic in the University.”

Current Status:  The work of the Provost’s Council for Enhancing Student Learning has resulted in a reformulation of the University’s approach to assessment, given the campus’s highly decentralized academic and administrative structure.  The proposed lock-step strategy of the 1990s was found to be unworkable, and a more dynamic, flexible approach that highlights and rewards success has yielded substantially better results.  (see full discussion in Challenge 3)

General College. HLC 2b, HLC 5a   The future of General College was another hot-button issue the NCA team commented upon in its final report.  Prior to the team’s 1996 visit, the University had considered a plan to close the college and find other ways to provide educational opportunities for under-prepared students it served. 

Two alternatives under consideration were the development of a partnership with the Minnesota State College and University System (MnSCU) as well as modest increases in special freshman admissions into the College of Liberal Arts. 

The NCA visiting team deemed the Regents’ ultimate rejection of these plans as “unfortunate” and hoped that the University would reconsider the issue in a broader context of mission differentiation among Minnesota higher education institutions as well as internally clarify its responsibilities to developmental education and the effective use of scarce resources.  

The team did “not doubt the University’s commitment to providing access and opportunity to a racially, ethnically, and economically diverse student body.  [But] it does share the concern expressed by some faculty about the willingness of the University’s governance structure to support the tough decisions that are necessary to pursue that and other important goals in an environment of severely constrained resources.”

Current Status:  The University’s Board of Regents approved in June 2005 the President’s recommendation that the General College become a new department within the College of Education and Human Development and that the University’s commitment to developmental education and a diverse student body is reflected throughout the University’s academic and support units.  Plans for this transition are under way.  (see Challenge One for complete discussion.) In addition, the University has a national search under way for a new position — vice president for access, equity, and multicultural affairs — to lead these efforts.

Priority Setting. HLC 2a, HLC 2b, HLC 2c, HLC 2d   The team characterized as its “overriding concern…the overwhelming array of issues and problems with which the University is currently contending.”  It found “the complex of issues and projects…a bit dizzying” and it wondered, “Has not the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities perhaps bitten off more than even it can chew?  The team fears that it has.” 

Citing a list of about two dozen issues, “each of [which] is a major undertaking…the team feels strongly that unless the University can prioritize and schedule these issues so that they can be addressed a few at a time, it runs the risk of failing to resolve any of them successfully.”

Current Status:  This concern was fully resolved by the subsequent focused visit in 2000 (see discussion below).  Since then, while the pace of change has, if anything, accelerated, the University – with a more streamlined administrative structure and a set of priorities identified through the strategic planning process – has addressed a broad range of issues and challenges, as documented in the current self-study report.

NIH “Exceptional” Status: HLC 1e, HLC 2c, HLC 4d  Although not listed as an official concern, the team did comment on the National Institutes of Health’s placing the University in the “exceptional organization” category due to concerns about the University’s grants management process.  The team commended the University for its openness in addressing the need to provide “closer scrutiny and tighter financial accounting procedures to insure that public funds are allocated according to existing state and federal guidelines.”  

The NCA visiting team concluded that “the University appears to be responding in a responsible and effective manner. There is no indication that this problem compromises the University’s financial viability.”

Current Status:  In February 2001, the NIH removed the exceptional status designation and declared the University in “good standing.”  The NIH director for external research commended the University for its corrective actions.  She added “we also laud the university's candor in publicly acknowledging its deficiencies in this area; the university's willingness to share lessons learned has been a significant benefit to the biomedical research community at large.” 

In fact, the University has become a recognized leader in developing educational programs for faculty and principal investigators in this arena.  In addition, in the past five years, the University has developed electronic, integrated compliance systems for managing faculty and institutional conflict of interest, IRB (Institutional Review Board) for human and animal subjects, grants management, and patents and technology marketing that make the University a national leader.      

Reflecting these advances, the University is now accredited by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Program (AAHRPP) in April 2004.  The University is one of only 20 institutions worldwide to receive this distinction.

Suggestions for Improvement HLC 2c The NCA evaluation process permits visiting teams to offer observations and suggestions for institutional improvement that are advisory and not required for implementation.  The 1996 site team suggested these high-priority action items:

• Resolve the future of the University Hospital and Clinic.

Current Status:  Accomplished – see 2000 Focused Visit section below.

• Address the deferred renewal of the University’s physical facilities.

Current Status:  Presidents Yudof and Bruininks have made deferred maintenance and new construction of needed facilities a high priority, earning the University improved student satisfaction ratings on the quality of campus facilities.  In addition, the University’s Facilities Condition Needs Index now helps the University prioritize projects and assess its progress relative to other institutions. (see Challenge Five for additional details)

• Aggressively develop the University’s information infrastructure.

Current Status:  The University has become an acknowledged national leader in this area.  (see Challenge Seven for additional details)

• Review and revise the undergraduate curriculum and implement the student assessment plan in concert with the switch from the quarter to semester system.

Current Status:  The changeover to the semester system was accomplished in 1999 with a broad range of curriculum modifications made concurrently.  Continued curriculum review and revision has occurred in the intervening years and is accelerating with the implementation of the new online Program Curriculum Approval System (PCAS) and Graduation Planner.  (see Challenge Seven for additional details)

• Make enhancing cooperation and articulation with the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System (MnSCU) a continuing objective.

Current Status:  The University and MnSCU have fully implemented the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum to facilitate program articulation between the two systems, worked jointly to avoid program duplication, collaborated on college readiness programs and programs for under-prepared students, and used technology to improve communication with current and potential students on program offerings.  (For more details, see 2005 Post-Secondary Planning Report to the Minnesota Legislature.)

• Develop a clear focus for the role of distributed and distance education at the University and in cooperation with MnSCU.

Current Status:  The University now has a vice provost for distributed and distance education, and, with the Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) Council, has brought more focus to this important role.

• Enhance the operational effectiveness of administrative and governance structures.

Current Status:  Increasing operational effectiveness has been among the highest priorities of President Bruininks’s administration, and the strategic plan approved by the Board of Regents mandates continued progress throughout the University.

Visiting Team Final Recommendations 

In its final report the visiting team, while recommending the continuation of NCA accreditation of the Twin Cities campus, called for a focused visit in 1999-2000 to assess progress in three areas:  1) the status of the Academic Health Center; 2) the status of management and governance structures and relationships, including the Board of Regents; and 3) re-engineering of major management systems.

The team's reasons for recommending the continuation of the University’s accreditation were: 

The University of Minnesota – Twin Cities is one of the nation's finest land-grant research universities. It has a long history of academic distinction based on an outstanding faculty supported by dedicated and skilled administrative leaders, strong alumni and citizen communities, and a state with high expectations and regard for its University.

Like all institutions of higher education today, the University faces difficult challenges and strong internal and external motivations toward substantial – even radical – change. 

The University is responding vigorously to these challenges and motivations and is understandably encountering various difficulties. Contrary to the feeling of some within the University community that it has become a fragile institution, the Team believes that it is fundamentally robust and will surely surmount its difficulties if it receives the continued support of its internal and external communities.

In recommending a focused visit for 2000, the visiting team said:

Among the most salient features of the University’s current situation are: 1) its urgent efforts to ensure a viable future for its Academic Health Center; 2) recent changes in its administrative structure; 3) imminent changes in its senior leadership; and 4) its planned comprehensive re-engineering of its management systems. 

If successful, these efforts seem likely to lead to dramatic changes in the University.  If they are unsuccessful, the changes are likely to be even more dramatic – and less desirable. The team feels that a focused visit to review the status of these important changes is warranted.

return to section menu

2000 Focused Visit

A four-member NCA evaluation team of senior administrators from the University of Colorado, University of Iowa, University of Nebraska, and Syracuse University visited the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities campus in March 2000 to review progress on the issues cited in the 1995-96 comprehensive evaluation:  governance, management information systems, and the Academic Health Center. 

In addition, following the 1996 site visit, NCA requested that the University’s international degree programs be evaluated. 

The 2000 evaluation team said it “found a remarkably different institution from that described by the comprehensive evaluation team [in 1996].”

Governance: HLC 1d  The focused visit team reported that “the governance structure of the University…is now in excellent condition.”  It cited several factors contributing to the turnaround:

• the “open, visionary leadership of its new president [Mark Yudof]” and the “superb efforts of the [new] leadership of the Board of Regents,”

• the building of “an excellent central administrative team” and the abolishment of the three-provost system,

• the development of the compact planning and integrated budgeting process, and

• improved communication between the Board and faculty and between central administration and faculty governance groups, and the implementation of a post-tenure review process.

Management Information Systems: HLC 2b, HLC 4d  At the time of the 1996 visit, the University was in the initial stages of introducing three management information systems initiatives:  the Enterprise System, the Incentives for Managed Growth (IMG) budget system, and the grants management system.  These initiatives coincided with the switch from quarters to semesters and efforts to make current systems Y2K-compliant.  

The focused visit team found that implementation of all these changes, while not without challenges, was proceeding successfully. 

Academic Health Center: HLC 1d, HLC 2a, HLC 2b, HLC 2c, HLC 2d  The focused visit team acknowledged the University’s substantial progress on issues of concern raised in 1996.  Chief among these were the successful sale of the University Hospital and Clinics to the Fairview Hospital and Health System and the creation of the Fairview University Medical Center public-private partnership (recently renamed the University of Minnesota Medical Center). 

The team also noted several ongoing challenges:  the Medical School’s significant financial problems, the cultural integration of the Fairview University Medical Center and the mixed response of the Academic Health Center’s academic units to it, and the cost structure of AHC units. (See “Current Status” below.)

International Degree Programs: HLC 1e  Following the 1996 comprehensive evaluation, NCA and the University realized that a new international degree programs had not been subjected to the NCA’s regular review process.  The 2000 focused visit team completed an initial review of these programs, followed by site visits in 2001, leading to NCA approval later in 2001. 

By 2005, the University had Higher Learning Commission approval for M.B.A. and M.P.A. programs in Poland, Austria, and China and the M.Ed. in Human Resource Development in Saudi Arabia.

A Regents-approved proposal by the University’s Law School to offer the LL.M. degree in China is currently slated to be submitted to the Commission in late 2005, follow-ing approval by the Chinese Ministry of Education.

Strengths and Concerns:  The team summarized its visit with these findings of strength:

• “The Board of Regents is knowledgeable about and fully supportive of the University and its leadership.”

• “The University is fortunate to have selected a strong, popular leader in its President, who has assembled an outstanding leadership team.”

• “Privatization of University Hospitals and Clinics will serve the AHC well in the future as managed care continues.”

• “Implementation of the new grants management system should ensure that the University will be able to continue its research growth.”

The team listed two concerns:

• “The $20 million structural financial problem in the Medical School must be managed one way or another.”

Current Status:  In its May 2005 report to the Board of Regents, the Academic Health Center noted, “The Medical School has improved its financial status through rigorous budgeting and targeting efforts to ensure growth in selected areas of research, while University of Minnesota Physicians has become a highly productive, integrated multi-specialty practice aligned with the Medical School’s plans.” link to PDF

• “Installation of the PeopleSoft systems has not gone as smoothly as imagined.  It is imperative to continue working with the company to successfully complete the installation of this expensive management system.” 

Current Status:  PeopleSoft’s student administration and human resources modules are now fully implemented and supported by a development and maintenance group within the Office of Information Technology.  With these systems in place, the University is in the early stages of planning and implementing an enterprise financial system as well. (see Challenge Seven for additional details) The University continues to work to make all of these systems functional for academic and administrative units throughout the institution.

Suggestions for Improvement:  The visiting team offered two non-binding suggestions for improvement:

• Continued monitoring of the effectiveness of the IMG program.

Current Status:   See Incentives for Managed Growth.

• Continued efforts to “foster greater cultural integration within Fairview University Medical Center.”

Current Status:   See Academic Health Center strategic plan.

Final Recommendations:  The focused visit team made these recommendations to NCA:

• Remove the focused visit from the NCA’s Statement of Affiliation Status.

• Add a sequential focused visit to Poland and Austria addressing the University’s M.B.A. and M.P.A. degrees.

• Add no additional stipulations or reports, leaving only the stipulations on the international degree programs.

Final Action by NCA:  The NCA accepted the team’s recommendations and, following successful visits to the international degree program sites, removed the remaining stipulations to the University’s Statement of Affiliation Status.

Institutional Profile  |  Key Challenges

Return to top of page