SECTION B

Policies Relating to Institutional Accreditation

B-1 Role and Value of Accreditation

Accreditation is a status granted to an educational institution or a program that has been found to meet or exceed stated criteria of educational quality. In the United States, accreditation is voluntarily sought by institutions and programs and is conferred by non-governmental bodies.

Accreditation has two fundamental purposes: to certify the quality of the institution or program and to assist in the improvement of the institution or program.

The bodies conducting institutional accreditation are national or regional in scope and comprise the institutions that have achieved and continue to maintain accreditation. A specialized (or program) body conducting accreditation of a program preparing students for a profession or occupation is often closely associated with professional associations in the field.

Both institutional and specialized bodies conduct the accreditation process by using a common pattern. The pattern requires integral self-study of the institution or program, followed by an on-site visit by an evaluation committee and a subsequent review and decision by a central governing group. Within this general pattern, the various accrediting bodies have developed a variety of individual procedures adapted to their own circumstances.

Members of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) have been found by CHEA to meet specific criteria of procedure and organization regarded as necessary for the effective conduct of the accrediting process. A CHEA-recognized accrediting body can be regarded as qualified to conduct evaluations of institutions and/or programs seeking accreditation, and accreditation by such bodies is generally recognized and accepted in higher education.

Institutional or specialized accreditation cannot guarantee the quality of individual graduates or of individual courses within an institution or program, but can give reasonable assurance of the context and quality of the education offered. Both institutional and specialized accreditation speak to the conditions of the institution or program and not to specific details of educational outcome.

Institutional Accreditation. An institutional accrediting body considers the characteristics of whole institutions. For this reason, an institutional accrediting body gives attention not only to the educational programs of the institutions it accredits, but also to other such institutional characteristics as the student personnel services, financial conditions, and administrative strength.

The criteria of an institutional accrediting body are broad, as is demanded by the attention to an entire institution and by the presence in the United States of postsecondary institutions of widely different purposes and scopes. Such breadth of criteria also provide encouragement to institutions to try innovative curricula and procedures and to adopt them when they prove successful. Accreditation of an institution by an institutional accrediting body certifies to the general public that the institution:

a. has appropriate purposes;

b. has the resources needed to accomplish its purposes;

c. can demonstrate that it is accomplishing its purposes; and

d. gives reason to believe that it will continue to accomplish its purposes.

Institutional improvement is encouraged by an institutional accrediting body through the requirement that the accredited institution conduct periodic self-evaluations seeking to identify what the institution does well, determining the areas in which improvement is needed, and developing plans to address needed improvements. While the certification of accreditation indicates an acceptable level of institutional quality, any institution, however excellent, is capable of improvement, which must come from its own clear identification and understanding of its strengths and weaknesses.

Institutional improvement is also encouraged by the institutional accrediting body through the advice and counsel provided by the visiting evaluation committee, which comprises experienced educators drawn from accredited institutions, and by the publications of the accrediting body.

Specialized Accreditation. A specialized accrediting body focuses its attention on a particular program within an institution of higher education. The close relationship of the specialized accrediting body with the professional association for the field helps ensure that the requirements for accreditation are related to the current requirements for professional practice.

In a number of fields (e.g., medicine, law, dentistry), graduation from an accredited program in the field is a requirement for receiving a license to practice in the field. Thus, specialized accreditation is recognized as providing a basic assurance of the scope and quality of professional or occupational preparation. This focus of specialized accreditation leads to accreditation requirements that are sharply directed to the nature of the program, including specific requirements for resources needed to provide a program satisfactory for professional preparation. Because of this limitation of focus to a single program, many specialized accrediting bodies require that the institution offering the program be institutionally accredited before consideration can be given to program accreditation.

Improvement of a program is encouraged through specialized accreditation by the use of the specific accreditation requirements as objective characteristics that must be attained for a program; thus, for a non-accredited program, the accreditation requirements serve as specific goals to be achieved. In addition to accrediting standards, assistance for program improvement is provided through the counsel of the visiting accreditation evaluation committee, which includes practitioners of the profession and experienced and successful faculty members and administrators in other institutions.

Institutional and Specialized Accreditation. Institutional and specialized accreditation are complementary. The focus of an institutional accrediting body on an institution, as a total operating unit, provides assurance that the general characteristics of the institution have been examined and found to be satisfactory. The focus of a specialized accrediting body on a specific program provides assurance that the details of that particular program meet the external accreditation standards. Institutional accreditation, concerned with evaluating the institution as a whole, does not seek to deal with any particular program in great detail, although programs are reviewed as a part of the consideration of the entire institution. Specialized accreditation, speaking to a specific program, does not seek to deal significantly with the general conditions of the institution, although certain general conditions are considered in the context in which accredited programs are offered.

In fulfilling its two purposes, public certification and institutional and program improvement, accreditation provides service of value to several constituencies:

To the public, the values of accreditation include:

a. an assurance of external evaluation of the institution or program and a finding that there is conformity to general expectations in higher education or the professional field;

b. an identification of institutions which have voluntarily undertaken explicit activities directed at improving the quality of the institution and its professional programs, and are carrying them out successfully;

c. an improvement in the professional services available to the public as accredited programs modify their requirements to reflect changes in knowledge and practice generally accepted in the field; and

d. a decreased need for intervention by public agencies in the operations of educational institutions, since the institutions, through accreditation, are providing privately for the maintenance and enhancement of educational quality.

To students, accreditation provides:

a. an assurance that the educational activities of an accredited institution or program have been found to be satisfactory and, therefore, meet the needs of the students;

b. assistance in the transfer of credits between institutions or in the admission of students to advanced degree programs through the general acceptance of credits among accredited institutions when the performance of the student has been satisfactory and the credits to be transferred are appropriate to the receiving institution;

c. a prerequisite in many cases for undertaking licensure for a profession.

Institutions of higher education benefit from accreditation through:

a. the (external) stimulus for self-evaluation and self-directed institutional improvement;

b. the strengthening of institutional and program self-evaluation by the (external) review and counsel provided through the accrediting body;

c. the application of criteria of accrediting bodies, generally accepted throughout higher education, which help guard against external encroachments harmful to institutional or program quality by providing benchmarks independent of forces that impinge on individual institutions;

d. the enhancing of the reputation of an accredited institution because of public regard for accreditation;

e. the use of accreditation as one means by which an institution can gain eligibility for the participation of itself and its students in certain programs of governmental aid to postsecondary education; accreditation is also usually relied upon by private foundations as a highly desirable indicator of institutional and program quality.

Accreditation serves the professions by:

a. providing a means for the participation of practitioners in setting the requirements for preparation to enter the professions;

b. contributing to the unity of the professions by bringing together practitioners, teachers, and students in an activity directed at improving professional preparation and professional practices.

Adopted 1982

B-2 Periodic Review of Member Institutions

A responsible accrediting program necessarily includes periodic review of accredited institutions, both for their benefit and to ensure fulfillment of the accrediting Commission's accountability function. Such review should be geared primarily to institutional circumstances and the sophistication of continuing self-study on a given campus. The normal intervals for review should be five years following initial accreditation and ten years thereafter. Every accredited and candidate institution is required to submit to its accrediting commission an annual data summary. In the fifth year of the ten year cycle, institutions are required to submit an interim report reflecting their responses to the recommendations of the previous evaluation committee, the rationale for their responses, a description of the major changes effected since the last evaluation, and a summary of significant changes contemplated for the future. When an institution undergoes substantive change as defined by Policy A-2 - Substantive Change, or if its educational effectiveness is questioned at any time, the related accrediting commission will be expected to take appropriate action. Each commission reserves the right to review an institution at any time that circumstances require.

Financial Audits - Title IV of the 1992 Higher Education Amendments

In instances when the Secretary of Education has notified the Commission on Colleges of an institution's noncompliance with regard to its responsibilities under Title IV of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, including any results of financial or compliance audits, program reviews, and any other information, the Commission, in addition to its already existing policies and procedures, shall take the following actions: (1) the Commission shall notify the institution requesting that it develop a special interim report responding to the issues identified by the Secretary of Education to be submitted to the Commission office within 45 days; (2) Commission staff will determine whether the institution's quality of education or ability to meet the Commission's standards is affected by the institution's failure to comply with the Title IV program responsibilities under Title IV of the Act; (3) after thorough review of the institution's report, if the Commission staff determines that the institution's quality of education is affected or the institution is not in compliance with its accreditation standards, a focused evaluation committee will conduct an on-site evaluation to the institution to evaluate in what ways educational quality is being affected and the scope of noncompliance with the Commission's accreditation standards and policies; (4) following the on-site evaluation visit, a report will be written by the committee chair and submitted to the Commission on Colleges for its review and action at its next scheduled meeting; (5) the institution will be notified of the Commission's action(s) with respect to the institution's report and evaluation visit in a timely manner; and (6) the Commission will notify the Secretary of Education within 45 days of its findings and subsequent action(s) with regard to the institution's compliance with its accreditation standards and policies and how educational quality is being affected at the institution.

It is the intent of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges to extend and intensify the value of self-study as an instrument for promoting institutional improvement and educational effectiveness. Ideally, institutional self-study should be an integral and ongoing activity on every campus, only indirectly related to calendars and accreditation but strongly emphasizing the natural relationship between self-study and educational planning.

The more self-study and evaluation are seen as directly related to institutional viability and quality, the more productive the self-study and evaluation process will be. At its best, the periodic review of accredited institutions provides a creative means of assisting institutions in assessing their educational mission and goals and their success in fulfilling them.

In order to facilitate these principles, the regional accrediting commissions will consult with accredited institutions with respect to the kind of institutional reports which may be submitted in connection with the evaluation process, as well as to determine the nature and timing of evaluation visits.

Adopted 1973/Revised 1997

B-3 Code of Good Practice in Accrediting in Higher Education

It is the policy of the Commission on Colleges to follow the guidelines of the Code of Good Practice. Under the Code, the Commission agrees:

a. to evaluate or visit an institution or program of study only on the express invitation of the president or, when the action is initiated by the organization with respect to an institution already accredited by the organization, with the specific authorization of the president of the institution or the president's officially designated representative;

b. to permit the withdrawal of a request for initial accreditation at any time (even after evaluation) prior to final action;

c. to recognize the right of an institution or program to be appraised in the light of its own stated purposes, so long as those purposes demonstrably fall within the definitions of general purpose as established by the Commission

d. to rely upon regional accreditation for evaluations of general quality of an institution;

e. to state criteria for accreditation in terms that are manifestly relevant to the quality of an institution or program, respecting institutional freedom in other matters;

f. to use relevant qualitative and quantitative information in its evaluation process;

g. to consider a program or programs of study at an institution, including its administration and financing, not on the basis of a single predetermined pattern, but rather in relationship to the operation and goals of the entire institution;

h. to assist and stimulate improvement of the educational effectiveness of an institution and, to this end, to be prepared to provide consultative assistance;

i. to encourage sound, educational experimentation and to permit innovations;

j. to design questionnaires and forms so as not only to obtain information for the visiting examiners, but also to stimulate an institution to evaluate itself;

k. to conduct any evaluation visit to an institution, by experienced and qualified examiners, under conditions that ensure impartial and objective judgment;

l. to follow the principle that there shall be adequate representation in an evaluation from the staffs of other institutions offering programs of study in the fields to be accredited;

m. to avoid appointment of visitors who may not be acceptable to an institution;

n. to cooperate with other accrediting agencies in scheduling joint visits when an institution so requests;

o. to provide for adequate consultation during the visit between the evaluation committee and the faculty and staff of an institution, including the president or the president's designated representative;

p. to provide the president of an institution being evaluated an opportunity to read the factual part of the report prepared by the visiting evaluation committee and to comment on the accuracy before the agency takes action on it;

q. to provide adequate opportunity for inclusion of students in the interviewing process during accrediting visits;

r. to regard the text of the evaluation report as confidential between an institution and the accrediting agency, with the exception that it may be made available to other recognized accrediting agencies by which the institution has been accredited or whose accreditation it is seeking;

s. except as provided in (r), to permit an institution to make such disposition of evaluation reports as it desires;

t. to consider decisions relative to accreditation only after receipt of the comments of the president as provided in (p), and when the chair of the evaluation committee is present or the views of the evaluation committee are otherwise adequately represented;

u. to refrain from conditioning accreditation upon payment of fees for purposes other than membership dues or actual evaluation costs;

v. to notify an institution as quickly as possible regarding any accreditation decision;

w. to revoke accreditation only after advance notice has been given to the president of an institution that such action is contemplated, and the reasons therefore, sufficient to permit timely rejoinder; and

x. to provide the means for an institution to appeal or request a reconsideration of a decision regarding accredited status.

Adopted 1972

B-4 Relationship Between General and Specialized Accrediting Agencies

It is the policy of the Commission on Colleges, in cooperation with other recognized accrediting bodies, to be guided by the following principles regarding the relationship between general and specialized accrediting agencies.

Basic Principles. The following principles are assumed as axiomatic:

a. Each institution of higher education must be free to decide for itself whether or not to seek accreditation by any particular agency.

b. A general (regional) accrediting agency, in granting accreditation, accredits an institution as a whole and, therefore, cannot omit from its evaluation any area of the program of the institution. However, the general accreditation of the institution as a whole is not, and should not be, interpreted as being equivalent to specialized accreditation of each of the several parts or programs of the institution.

c. The general accrediting agencies draw upon the experience of specialized accrediting agencies in establishing standards of excellence in the specialized fields and for assistance in evaluating them, and, in turn, aid those agencies in the appraisal of supporting and related areas and of institutional control and management. Appropriate assistance on the part of specialized agencies might include suggesting evaluators for the general agency to serve it and to report to it alone; providing a panel of nominees from which the general agency might chose its evaluators; providing information concerning its standards and criteria; and the like; and, on the part of the general agency, providing information concerning the organization, overall governance, and administration of the institution, the quality of supporting programs, and the like.

d. A general and a specialized accrediting agency collaborate in evaluating a specialized program whenever the program or the institution is accredited by both, or desires accreditation by both, or invites both to participate in the evaluation.

In the contrary case, the general accrediting agency may, nevertheless, receive unofficially appropriate assistance (see c. above) from the specialized agency, but the latter is not officially involved.

Institutional Freedom. An institution is free to determine the accrediting agencies with which it will deal, whether general or specialized. The existence of a specialized accrediting agency recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) implies that a determination has been made on behalf of the institutions of higher education that a social need exists for accreditation in that particular field.

Nevertheless, an institution may choose not to avail itself of such accreditation. It may disagree with the conclusion of CHEA, may have reservations concerning the standards or the nature of the evaluation of the accrediting agency, or may not accept the appropriateness of the agency's standards, point of view, or emphasis for it, or may feel that the cost is disproportionate to the value of accreditation, or may just want to be independent.

What the institution must not do, however, is to interpret its general accreditation as validating a specialized program in the same manner and to the same extent as specialized accreditation.

If in such a case the specialized agency wishes to attempt to convince the institution that it should seek specialized accreditation, it is, of course, free to do so, but the general agency should take no position whatsoever on this point.

Adopted 1972

B-5 Interagency Cooperation in Accreditation

Basic principles. Cooperation among accrediting agencies may occur in many areas and may take a variety of forms. The programmatic specialized accrediting agencies provide the institutional accrediting agencies with standards of excellence in the specialized fields and assistance in evaluating them. The institutional accrediting agencies, in turn, provide the specialized accrediting agencies with assistance in the appraisal of supporting and related areas of institutional control and management. Institutional accrediting agencies, specialized accrediting agencies, and institutions should work closely together in the total accrediting process.

It is the intent of the policy to identify a range of opportunities for cooperative endeavors, rather than to propose a single structure for cooperation. Cooperation not only is a desirable goal, but sincere, continuing efforts toward its achievement are essential if accreditation is to remain a positive force in advancing quality education. Toward this end, the following principles are set forth:

a. Facilitating cooperation between and among institutional and specialized accrediting agencies should be an objective of CHEA, the accrediting agencies, and the institutions served by them.

b. Consistent with the concept of voluntary accreditation, each institution of postsecondary education should decide for itself whether to seek accreditation by an appropriate agency or combination of agencies.

c. Institutions desiring coordinated accrediting activities, particularly among agencies accrediting programs located within the same academic administrative unit (e.g., a School of Professional Studies), should be offered every possible assistance and cooperation.

d. Coordination begins with the designation of responsibility within the institution for liaison with the various accrediting agencies.

e. To be successful, coordination requires advance planning by both the institution and the accrediting agency or agencies involved.

f. Representatives of each accrediting agency will be responsible to their parent agency for investigating and reporting activities carried out as part of the accrediting cycle.

Definitions and cooperative arrangements:

a. An institutional (general) agency accredits an institution as a whole and therefore includes all areas, activities, and programs of the institution. Normally, institutional accreditation testifies to: (1) the appropriateness of the mission and goals of the institution; (2) the adequacy of its organization, program, and resources, both material and human, when viewed against its objectives and generally accepted accrediting standards; and (3) evidence of the accomplishment of institutional objectives in reasonable measure.

b. Specialized accrediting agencies accredit program(s). The focus of specialized accreditation is on the effectiveness with which the program meets its objectives and those of the institution, and the accrediting standards for quality education. Normally, specialized accreditation reviews the relationship of the program to the larger unit, the adequacy of the organization and resources for program maintenance and development, and evidence of accomplishment of programmatic objectives. However, specialized accreditation does not purport to make judgments on the institution as a whole (except in the case of single-purpose institutions).

The following cooperative relationships have been developed:

a. Institutional and institutional accreditation agencies, including:

1) Regional and regional;

2) Regional and national;

3) National and national; and

4) Regional or national and specialized (functioning as an institutional).

b. Institutional and specialized.

c. Specialized and specialized.

Each accrediting agency should function in accordance with its own purpose and recognized scope of activity. The unique contribution of both institutional and specialized accrediting to the total evaluative process, and the benefits accruing to the institution, the program, and the agencies from the coordinated effort, have been recognized.

Guidelines for Cooperation:

a. Institutional role. The institution should assume a leadership role in suggesting how cooperating accrediting agencies can best work together to provide optimum service to the institution.

b. Need for written agreements. Written agreements should be established among accrediting agencies that propose to cooperate. In initial form, these may be relatively simple and deal primarily with matters of principle, becoming more specific as the cooperating agencies resolve procedural differences through experience. Sharing of the written agreement with all participants in the accrediting process will reduce potential misunderstandings and conflicts.

c. Designation of accrediting responsibility.

1) Between two or more institutional accrediting agencies:

a) An institution with operations that cross regional boundaries must be prepared to deal with all of the regional accrediting agencies involved; however, the regional accrediting agency for the parent campus normally will serve as the coordinating agency.

b) A specialized institution for which there is a national specialized institutional accrediting agency (e.g., American Association of Bible Colleges, Association of Independent Colleges and Schools, Distance Education and Training Council) is encouraged to deal with the appropriate specialized agency. If the institution desires to seek only regional accreditation, the institution should so inform the specialized agency.

c) A specialized institution seeking accreditation from two or more national, specialized accrediting agencies must determine what constitutes its predominant emphasis (specialization), and that determination will identify the appropriate coordinating agency.

d) A specialized institution for which there is a specialized accrediting agency that accredits free-standing specialized institutions (e.g., American Bar Association, Association of Theological Schools, National Association of Schools of Music) is encouraged to deal with the appropriate specialized agency. If the institution desires to seek accreditation from an institutional accrediting agency as well, the specialized agency would serve as the coordinating agency. If the institution desires to seek only institutional accreditation, the institution should so inform the programmatic agency.

2) Between institutional and specialized accrediting agencies:

a) When a multipurpose institution seeks a coordinated accreditation involving both an institutional accrediting agency and one or more specialized accrediting agencies, the institutional accrediting agency will serve as the coordinating agency.

b) When external coordination is not possible, an institution should seek accreditation for an academic administrative unit or subunit within the institution after it has achieved appropriate accreditation of the more inclusive entity (total institution, college/school, division, department, program - in that order).

3) Between specialized accrediting agencies:

When an institution seeks accreditation involving two or more specialized accrediting agencies (located within the same or in different academic administrative units), the chief administrative officer of the institution, with mutual agreement and consent of the involved accrediting agencies, shall designate the coordinating agency, with responsibility normally going to the agency representing the program with the largest enrollment. This agency will coordinate the accrediting activities (joint and/or autonomous) consistent with the established guidelines.

d. Accreditation standards. The accreditation standards of the participating accrediting agencies (institutional and specialized) shall apply during the review. Committee members should be aware of the range of standards being utilized. Procedures followed during the visit and the subsequent reporting phase must reflect the standards as required by each agency. In instances in which standards may overlap or vary, the visit and report must incorporate data relevant to the specific agencies.

e. Contacts with institution. Accrediting agencies which utilize staff primarily should arrange a joint institutional visit to negotiate details of the cooperative accrediting process. When all parties are not involved in a pre-visit, participating agencies will contact the institution individually regarding the self-study, the visit, and other expectations. However, these contacts must be carefully coordinated to eliminate conflicting instructions regarding the joint accrediting process. Participating institutions should be flexible in establishing visitation dates.

f. Self-study alternatives. When an institution, or an administrative unit within an institution, is seeking accreditation from more than one agency, the self-study may take a variety of forms, including the following: (1) common self-study, (2) core self-study, with varying supplemental analysis, (3) separate studies, with certain common elements, and (4) a nontraditional alternative.

Institutions may wish to prepare a single self-study report designed to meet all requirements of each agency. The nature and format of the self-study document should be negotiated at the time a joint accrediting cycle is initiated. When the committee will function as a unit (such as an institutional agency and a specialized agency visiting a single-purpose institution), a common self-study is indicated. In multi-purpose institutions, joint visits may be concurrent rather than coordinated. In the consultative stages establishing the accrediting process, a procedure for responding adequately to the data needs of all the accrediting agencies should be negotiated.

g. Visiting evaluation committee and on-site visit. Written agreements should include: the composition of the committee; the complementary skills required and the responsibility for the selection of the members of the committee; designation of the chair (who will normally be from the coordinating agency); procedures to be followed during the visit; the format of the written report; the process for the development of the committee's report; the nature of recommendations; and the committee's reporting to the institution.

Cooperating agencies are encouraged to share data about potential site visitors, forming common pools of names when possible or exchanging information in specific situations. All site visitors may be selected from the common pool by the coordinating agency, or the cooperating agencies may determine criteria (size of evaluation committee, areas of competency desired, background experience related to institution to be visited, etc.) and specify the number of committee members to be selected by each cooperating agency. When there are more than two cooperating agencies, the chair should be designated by the coordinating agency. When there are only two cooperating agencies, co-chairs may be designated by each agency. The chair (co-chairs) is responsible for making logistical arrangements.

A specialized accrediting agency can add a valuable dimension by working cooperatively with an appropriate institutional accrediting agency in the selection of a generalist to serve on the evaluation committee. When an institutional accrediting agency needs certain expertise on an evaluation committee, the appropriate specialized accrediting agency can provide assistance. In developing cooperative committee arrangements, however, the integrity of the review process must be preserved. Generalists cannot effectively replace specialists, or vice versa, and a large committee representing several accrediting agencies may not be as effective as coordinated multiple committees.

h. Commission action. Accrediting decisions on reports are made in accordance with the policies established by the participating agencies. When a common committee report is filed, each accrediting commission should receive a copy. When no common report is feasible, each accrediting commission takes action on the report prepared by its committee representatives. Each commission should take such action as its standards require and as supported by the report data. Accrediting actions by any commission (institutional or programmatic) should be shared with participating accrediting agencies.

i. Fees and costs. Because the costs of an accrediting cycle should be reduced through virtue of cooperation among accrediting agencies, fees and costs should be determined between and among accrediting agencies prior to the accrediting process. The institution is responsible for paying the usual or reduced fees to each agency to cover any cost of general agency services related to the accreditation cycle. Direct costs of a site visit can be reduced through such cooperative arrangements as a joint committee, and therefore the fee to the institution can be proportionately reduced. In instances when a cooperating agency does not assess a fee to the institution, its proportionate costs will have to be determined and that agency will honor its share. Each agency should handle its own billing.

It should be noted that one of the most significant reductions in the cost burden to the institution can result from a combined self-study.

Adopted 1982

B-6 Evaluation of Institutions Operating Interregionally

The Commission on Colleges has adopted the following policy and procedures for the evaluation of institutions operating interregionally.

Procedures:

a. The responsibility for the accreditation of an institution operating at locations lying within the geographical boundaries of more than one regional commission lies with the regional commission having jurisdiction over the home location of the institution ("home regional") except:

If the home regional determines that an activity located within another regional commission's jurisdiction is separately accreditable, that separately accreditable activity is the responsibility of the regional commission serving that location.

b. Whenever the home regional makes an on-site evaluation visit to an institution's activity within another region, the regional commission serving that region ("visited regional") will be asked to suggest one or more evaluators from the visited region to serve on the evaluation committee of the home regional.

c. Evaluators suggested by the visited regional will be placed on the visiting evaluation committee either as full members of the committee or as persons to be used for special assignments during the visit, at the option of the home regional. These evaluators will act as evaluators for the home regional, and the visited regional will have no responsibility for them. In composing the visiting committee, the home regional will follow its usual procedures. The presence on the visiting committee of evaluators suggested by the visited regional is intended to provide the home regional with a base of information appropriate to the geographically extended nature of the institution under evaluation, and does not imply approval by the visited regional of the institution under evaluation, nor approval by the visited regional of the home region's actions.

d. In any case, the evaluators suggested by the visited regional will visit activities within the area of the visited regional, possibly in addition to other responsibilities as evaluation committee members.

e. The home regional will provide to the visited regional a full copy of the visiting evaluation committee report, which the visited regional will hold in agreement with the policies and practices of the home regional regarding confidentiality of visiting evaluation committee reports. In addition, the home regional will inform the visited regional of all accrediting actions affecting the institution under evaluation.

Adopted 1982

B-7 Accreditation of Operationally Separate Units

The Commission on Colleges will follow the interagency policy for dealing with operationally separate units.

Institutions are classified as operationally separate if they:

a. are under the general control of a parent institution or a central administration in a multi-unit system;

b. have a core of full-time faculty, a separate student body, and a resident administration; and

c. offer programs comprising a totality of educational experience as defined by the appropriate regional accrediting commission.

Responsibility for decisions concerning the accreditation of operationally separate units located within its region rests with each institutional accrediting commission.

Units granted separate accreditation will be so listed in the regional and national directories.

Units classified as operationally separate which currently share the accreditation of a parent institution or system continue in that status until they can be examined. The appropriate commission will schedule evaluations as soon as practicable. New operationally separate units are expected to seek separate affiliation or accreditation.

Newly founded units in multiple-campus systems and institutions not previously accredited, which merge or affiliate with an accredited institution, are not considered accredited if they are operationally separate as defined above. These institutions are expected to seek affiliation or accreditation through the usual procedures.

Programs not classified as operationally separate by the responsible accrediting commission are included in that commission's evaluation of the parent institution, regardless of location. Commissions in other regions where such programs are located may be invited to send representatives.

The above policies for the accreditation of operationally separate units apply to locations within the United States and in foreign countries. Unusual variations should be submitted to the Commission for review.

Adopted 1974

B-8 Dual Accreditation and Institutional Description

Any institution seeking or holding accreditation from more than one institutional accrediting body recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) or the United States Department of Education must describe itself in identical terms to each recognized institutional accrediting body with regard to purpose, governance, programs, degrees, diplomas, certificates, personnel, finances, and constituents, and must keep each accrediting body apprised of any change in its status with one or another accrediting body.

In accordance with CFR 602.30 (1)(ii), if another accrediting body takes an adverse action against the institution, including probation or show-cause, the Commission will review the rationale for that action and determine whether the institution's candidacy or accreditation status should be reviewed. If the Commission takes an adverse action against the institution, it will notify the other agency within 30 working days.

B-9 Training for New Commissioners

In an effort to ensure that Commissioners are qualified by training as well as experience, the Commission on Colleges shall require that all new Commissioners undergo appropriate training to enable them to effectively fulfill their responsibilities as members of the Commission. Accordingly, all new Commissioners will attend, prior to their first Commission meeting, an orientation session that addresses the responsibilities of a new Commissioner, the practices and procedures of the Commission on Colleges, and the standards and policies for accreditation.

In addition, all new Commissioners will attend an evaluators' training workshop and will accompany a committee chair and the evaluation committee as an observer on an on-site visit to an institution prior to serving as the chair of an accreditation visit.

Adopted 1997

B-10 Selection and Representation of Commissioners and of Evaluation Committees

The Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges shall include representation of both administrative and academic personnel. Procedures will be followed that are designed to achieve a balance of both institutional type and institutional role.

The Commission endeavors to achieve an appropriate balance of both administrative and academic personnel through a periodic, systematic review of its selection procedures in an effort to ensure the representation of both administrators and academicians.

In addition, the Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges shall include representation of both administrative and academic personnel on its evaluation committees.

Adopted 1997

B-11 Notification to the United States Department of Education

The Commission on Colleges shall notify the Department of Education, the appropriate State postsecondary review entity, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public of these types of decisions within thirty (30) days of any action taken.

Providing Information to the Department of Education Regarding an Institution's Failure to Comply with its Title IV Responsibilities or Engagement in Fraud or Abuse

The Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges shall provide to the Department of Education the name of any institution accredited by the Commission on Colleges that it has reason to believe is failing to meet its Title IV, HEA program responsibilities or is engaged in fraud or abuse.

Providing Department of Education Information on an Institution's Compliance with Title IV

The Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association shall provide, upon the request of the Secretary of the Department of Education, information it possesses regarding an accredited or preaccredited institution's compliance with its Title IV, HEA program responsibilities, including its eligibility to participate in Title IV, HEA programs, for the purpose of assisting the Secretary in resolving problems with the institution's participation in these programs.

Notification to U. S. Department of Education of Commission Action on Institutions Under Negative Sanction by Other Recognized Accrediting Agencies

Under no circumstances shall the Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges take an accrediting action on an institution that is under an interim action by its respective state or has been notified that its licensure is threatened. If the Commission did grant initial or continued accreditation under the conditions outlined in (a) (1)(ii) or (a) (1) (iii) of section 602.30, it would provide the Secretary of the U. S. Department of Education with a thorough explanation, consistent with its accreditation standards, as to why the previous action by a recognized institutional accrediting agency or the State does not preclude the agency's granting of accreditation or preaccreditation.

Providing Information to the Department of Education Regarding Changes in Its Policies, Procedures or Accreditation Standards

The Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges shall provide the Department of Education information regarding any proposed changes in its policies, procedures, or accreditation standards that might alter its scope of recognition or its compliance with recognition requirements.

Notification of Commission on Colleges' Accreditation Decisions

The Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges shall notify the U. S. Secretary of Education, the appropriate State postsecondary review entity, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public of the following types of decisions:

(1) A decision by the Commission to award initial accreditation or preaccreditation to an institution.

(2) A final decision by the Commission to:

(a) Deny, withdraw, suspend, or terminate the accreditation or preaccreditation of an institution; or

(b) Take other adverse action against an institution or issue a show-cause action.

(3) A decision by the Commission to place an institution on probation or issue a show-cause order.

In addition, the Commission on Colleges shall notify the abovementioned parties of these other types of decisions:

(4) A decision by an accredited institution to withdraw voluntarily from accreditation or from preaccreditation status.

(5) A decision by an accredited institution to let its accreditation or preaccreditation lapse.

The Commission on Colleges shall notify the Department of Education, the appropriate State postsecondary review entity, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public of these types of decisions within thirty (30) days of any action taken.

Adopted 1997

B-12 Program Length and Tuition and Fees

The Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges shall compile and maintain a list of all member, accredited and candidate, institutions indicating both their tuition and fee structure for in-state as well as out-of-state students, and the length of the program offered. This list shall be available to be mailed out to any student, institution, or member of the public upon request.

In addition, the Commission on Colleges requires that institutions indicate on their Annual Report submitted yearly to the Commission on Colleges any change in their institution's fees or tuition rates. If there is a change, the institution is required to state the amount of that change. Further, the Commission requires that the institution shall make that information about tuition charges available to students and the public by publishing it in the college's or university's catalog and other publications. Institutions should inform their students that they may obtain information about tuition charges at comparable institutions accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges by directly contacting the Commission office in Bellevue, Washington.

Adopted 1997

B-13 Reviewing Accreditation Standards to Ascertain Their Validity and Reliability

The Commission on Colleges shall undertake a systematic review of its accreditation standards to ensure their validity and reliability on a periodic basis. The Commission will conduct a systematic, comprehensive evaluation process at least once every five years. As part of the review process the Commission will seek to ascertain whether the established time frame of five years is adequate to achieve the desired ends or whether the review process should be undertaken during more or less frequent intervals.

Adopted 1998

B-14 Policy on Providing Advanced Public Notice of Proposed Accreditation Criteria to Member Institutions and Other Interested Parties

The Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges shall provide its member institutions and other identified communities of interest advanced public notice of proposed new or revised accreditation standards as well as an opportunity for these parties to comment on the proposed changes.

Adopted 1997

B-15 Policy on Dissemination of Commission's Directory of Accredited Institutions

The Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges publishes a directory of its affiliated, member and candidate, institutions on an annual basis. This directory, updated annually, is mailed to member institutions, state departments of education, other regional accrediting agencies, specialized accrediting agencies, and the U. S. Department of Education as well as other interested individuals and organizations.

Adopted 1997