Eligibility Requirements for Candidates for Accreditation
and Accredited Postsecondary Institutions
Eligibility Requirements for Candidates for Accreditation
and Accredited Postsecondary Institutions
The Commission on Colleges, as a postsecondary institutional accrediting body, accepts applications from institutions that:
The principal programs of eligible institutions will be degree related, or two-year certificate programs if degrees are not offered, and will be built upon knowledge and competencies normally obtained by students through a completed high school program. Such programs will be based on verifiable knowledge which has been subjected to examination by competent academic persons and by established practitioners of the arts, sciences, crafts, and professions. Although diversity of requirements is expected among candidate and member institutions, the course and degree, diploma, or certificate requirements of an applicant institution must also be congruent with those of the broad higher education community which the Commission on Colleges represents.
Eligible institutions may properly offer programs that the Commission would not define as higher learning (e.g., introductory courses in subjects that some students may have missed in high school and courses and certificate programs specifically constructed for non-degree seeking students), but these are offered in addition to the courses and programs relevant to their mission.
Again, the Commission on Colleges accredits institutions of higher education rather than specific programs. The characteristics of an institution and the conditions required by the Commission for consideration as a Candidate for Accreditation, for initial accreditation, and for continued membership follow below. Another section of the Accreditation Handbook (pages 25-97) contains nine detailed standards by which quality, accreditation, and candidacy are evaluated. These should not be confused with the following essential eligibility requirements:
1. It has formal authority from the appropriate governmental agency to grant degrees. If the institution is located in a state which has only minimal requirements for chartering but also a higher level of authorization to operate and grant degrees, this higher level is required.
2. It has a governing board which has the authority to carry out the mission of the institution. The board has at least five voting members, a majority of whom have no contractual, employment, or personal financial interest in the institution.
3. Although it is understood that an educational institution would be in reasonable harmony with its founding and sustaining organizations, a high degree of intellectual independence of its faculty and students is expected. An institution owned by or related to an outside agency, such as a church, a business organization, or a labor union, should ensure that it maintains an atmosphere in which intellectual freedom and independence exist.
4. It has a chief executive officer whose full-time or major responsibility is to the institution.
5. It has a statement of mission and goals adopted by the administration and governing board which demonstrates that its purposes are appropriate to higher education.
6. It serves the interests of its students rather than those of its owners or its board or its faculty and staff. It devotes all, or substantially all, of its gross income to support its mission and educational objectives.
7. It is so organized that faculty, students, administrators, and board members are involved in the formulation of institutional policies.
8. Its principal programs lead to formal degrees, or two-year certificates if the institution does not grant degrees, entitled so as to be understandable within the larger educational community.
9. The majority of its programs normally require at least two academic years for completion. Its baccalaureate or higher degree programs require at least one academic year of credits earned in enrollment at the institution. Associate degree programs, and two-year certificates if the institution does not award degrees, require at least a majority of one academic year of credits earned in enrollment at the institution.
10. All baccalaureate degree programs and all academic or transfer associate degree programs require a substantial and coherent component of general education; all other associate degree programs (e.g., applied, specialized, etc.) and all certificate programs of one academic year or more in length require a core of related instruction. Bachelors and advanced degree programs also require a planned program of specialization. (See Policy 2.1 - General Education/Related Instruction Requirements, page 36.)
11. Educational objectives, and the means for achieving them, which are appropriate to higher education in level, quality, and standards, have been clearly defined and published for each of its programs.
12. The majority of its courses require an appropriate foundation of learning skills taught in a preparatory program of a high school. They examine the conceptual foundations of the subject matter as well as the information growing out of these foundations and require students to do independent work, to analyze what they learn, to deal with the abstract as well as the concrete. They foster the ability to make distinctions among ethical, intellectual, social and perhaps religious values, and they encourage the pursuit of lifelong learning.*
* (It is appropriate for an institution to include distinctions among religious values in accordance with its mission and sponsorship. Refer to Policy 9.1 - Institutional Integrity, page 96.)
13. Its faculty and students are free to examine and to test all knowledge appropriate to their discipline as judged by the academic community in general.*
* (This item should be read in context with item c.2 of Policy A-8 - Principles and Practices Regarding Institutional Mission and Goals, Policies and Administration on page 120 which allows "reasonable limitations on freedom of inquiry or expression which are dictated by institutional mission and goals, as long as they are "published candidly.")
14. It has a faculty adequate for the educational level offered, including a full-time core faculty representing every discipline in which it offers major work.
15. It provides a locus or environment in which the learning experience can be enriched through faculty and student discussions.
16. It has at least a core library and learning resources appropriate to its mission, and it provides access to specialized library and learning resources needed for independent work in the fields and at the levels represented by its offerings. If it depends in part on other institutions for specialized library and learning resources, it can demonstrate that they are adequate, easily accessible, and used.
17. It follows humane and nondiscriminatory* policies in dealing with students, staff, and faculty.
* (The Commission will not serve as a social agency to monitor and enforce state or federal laws to which postsecondary educational institutions are subject.)
18. It has adopted a student admission policy specifying the characteristics and qualifications appropriate for its programs, and it adheres to that policy in its admission practices.
19. It has a current and accurate catalog and other appropriate official publications available to students and the public setting forth the following: mission and goals; admission requirements and procedures; rules and regulations for conduct; academic regulations; degree-completion requirements; programs and courses with specific indications of when they are offered; tuition, fees and other costs; refund policies, and other items relative to attending the institution or withdrawing from it. (See Policy 3.1 - Institutional Advertising, Student Recruitment and Representation of Accredited Status. Specifically, see page 58, item A.3, which contains a helpful list of matters that should be included in a catalog.)
20. It can document a funding base, financial resources, and plans for financial development adequate to carry out its stated mission and goals within a balanced budget and a safe level of debt.
21. Its financial records are externally audited annually by a certified public accountant or a state audit agency. The audit must include an opinion on the financial statement.
22. It has completed at least one year of its principal educational programs and has students actively pursuing these programs at the time of the Commission evaluation.
23. It accepts the policies and standards of the Commission on Colleges and the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges and agrees to comply with these standards and policies as currently stated or as modified in accordance with due process.
24. It discloses to the Commission on Colleges any and all such information as the Commission may require to carry out its evaluation and accreditation function.
25. It understands and agrees that the Commission on Colleges may, at its discretion, make known to any agency or members of the public that may request such information, the nature of any action, positive or negative, regarding its status with the Commission.*
* (The Commission treats institutional self-studies and evaluation committee reports as confidential. The institution may choose to release the documents.)
The purpose of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges is to accredit whole institutions rather than programs. In light of this purpose and to avoid confusing institutional with specialized accreditation, the Commission on Colleges does not accept applications from professional or vocational institutions whose range of programs is so highly specialized that a narrow professional or vocational specialty wholly defines the identity of the institution, unless the institution:
In the case of a joint or coordinated evaluation with a specialized accrediting body, positive decisions by both the Commission on Colleges and the specialized body are essential for the Commission to grant or reaffirm candidacy or accreditation. Commission action resulting in the loss of candidacy or accreditation would be taken in accordance with due process procedures of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges.
Necessarily, the Commission will have to make judgments, without prejudice to the applicant otherwise, as to whether the institution's programs are sufficiently broad, comprehensive, and discrete in their curricula as to be appropriate to the role of the Commission without the involvement of a specialized accrediting body. An institution that prepares students in a single field, such as dentistry, chiropractic, business, engineering, or law, would need to apply for or have status with the appropriate specialized agency in order to be eligible to submit an application to the Commission on Colleges. An institution that offers a program or programs closely related to its principal purpose of preparing students in a single field would not be considered multi-purpose by the Commission. Because it accredits institutions and not programs, the Commission cannot be responsible for validating an institution which lacks the diversity of educational programs required for objective internal self-study and evaluation. Also, the Commission is unable to provide assurance to the public of the ongoing credibility of an educational institution that lacks the resources and organizational arrangements necessary to maintain the stability of its purposes, programs, and standards for a minimum of five years.
Candidate for Accreditation
Introduction. The Candidate for Accreditation status offers developing postsecondary institutions the opportunity to establish a formal, publicly recognized relationship with the Commission on Colleges. Operating nonaccredited higher institutions that meet the basic eligibility requirements for the Commission may apply.
Candidate for Accreditation is an affiliated, nonaccredited relationship with the Commission. Only accredited institutions are members of the Association. Candidacy indicates that an institution is progressing toward accreditation. Attainment of the affiliate status does not ensure accreditation.
Attainment of candidacy status is the outcome of approval by the Commission on Colleges at two separate, sequential stages. These are: 1) Application for Consideration and 2) Self-Study and Evaluation Committee Visit for Candidacy.
Application for Consideration. If the chief administrative officer and governing board of the institution believe the eligibility requirements are met (see pages 5-8), a letter of application signed by the chief administrator is submitted to the Commission on Colleges at least 60 days before the June or December meeting with a filing fee of $1000 and three copies of appropriate documents, including the following:
1. a thorough written response to each of the eligibility requirements;
2. plans for institutional development;
3. a current catalog;
4. a current budget and audited financial statement; and
5. articles of incorporation and bylaws, or charter if the institution is independent, and when appropriate, proof of state authority to grant degrees.
If the Commission judges that the institution appears to meet the conditions of eligibility, the chief administrator of the institution is advised subsequently to proceed with the institutional self-study for candidacy, and tentative dates for an evaluation committee on-site visit are set. If the Commission instead determines that additional information is needed, it may request the institution to host a visit by a Commission representative. Typically, the results of the preliminary visit will be considered at the next Commission meeting.
Self-Study and Evaluation Committee Visit for Candidacy. The institution is to prepare a comprehensive self-study appropriate to the stage of institutional development. Attention is directed to the "Standards and Guide for Self-Study" section of this Handbook, pages 25-97. Although a Candidate institution will not be expected to have the maturity and stability of an accredited institution, the Standards and Guide for Self-Study provides a good basis for the institution to show how it is organized, staffed, and supported to accomplish its purposes and to demonstrate its potential for becoming accredited within five years.
Evaluation Committee Visit. After the self-study is completed, which is generally a year after the authorization to proceed is given, the evaluation visit is made. The self-study is to be completed at least 30 days prior to the visit. Copies of the self-study are to be mailed from the institution to the members of the Commission and the evaluation committee. The size of the evaluation committee will usually be three to five members depending on the size of the institution and the number and location of the programs offered. Normally, the charge for a candidate evaluation is $900 per evaluator. In case of special circumstances, when an institution is located in a remote area or operates programs in distant locations, the Commission reserves the right to adjust the evaluation fee to fit the circumstances.
The Commission receives copies of the institutional self-study and the report of the evaluation committee. The reports are discussed with the evaluation committee chair and the chief administrator of the institution during the Commission meeting.
Commission Procedures. The Commission relies heavily upon the report of the evaluation committee in determining whether or not the institution:
1. appears organized, staffed, and supported to offer the educational programs and services as announced in the catalog in order to meet its stated purposes; and
2. appears to have the potential for meeting enrollment projections and for achieving institutional stability in order to qualify for accreditation within five years.
In arriving at a decision on candidacy, the Commission at a regular meeting in June or December, or at a special meeting:
1. reviews the self-study and other institutional documents;
2. reviews the report of the evaluation committee;
3. interviews the chair of the evaluation committee and receives the recommendation regarding candidacy; and
4. interviews the chief administrator of the institution and permits him or her to make a statement on the institution and the evaluation.
It should be understood that the recommendation of the evaluation committee concerning candidacy is not final. After considering all the relevant information available and consulting with the chair of the committee, the Commission may modify the recommendation. Notification of the Commission's action is by mail to the chief administrator of the institution following the meeting. The effective date of candidacy is the date of the Commission action. In case of denial, the reasons will be stated.
Withdrawal. The Commission permits the withdrawal of a request for recognition as a Candidate for Accreditation at any time (even after evaluation) prior to final action.
Reconsideration. The applicant institution that does not receive candidacy after evaluation may reapply as soon as it has corrected the major deficiencies. The institution also has the option of appealing the Commission decision. Policy A-15 - Appeals Policy and Procedure may be found on pages 130-133.
Terms of Agreement. The institution recognized as a Candidate for Accreditation must agree to the following terms:
1. Use the prescribed official definition for Candidate for Accreditation in all official publications and correspondence: (Name of Institution) has been granted Candidate for Accreditation status by the Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges. Candidacy is not accreditation nor does it ensure eventual accreditation. Candidate for Accreditation is a status of affiliation with the Commission which indicates that the institution has achieved initial recognition and is progressing toward accreditation.
2. Ensure that candidacy covers only those programs, degrees, and geographic locations of the institution at the time recognition was granted. Program, degree, and geographic location changes must be approved in advance by the Commission through a prospectus and usually an on-site visit by a representative of the Commission. Refer to Policy A-2 - Substantive Change on pages 100-105.
3. File an annual report with the executive director of the Commission on Colleges. Annual report forms are mailed to member and candidate institutions in January.
4. Submit 34 copies of a two-year progress report in advance of the two-year on-site visit which explains:
a. changes in the mission and goals of the institution;
b. changes in the general education or related instruction requirements;
c. changes in locations where the institution is operating;
d. changes in educational programs offered;
e. changes in admissions, grading, and/or student services and programs;
f. changes in policies affecting the faculty, changes in faculty salaries and other benefits, the extent to which the faculty has been strengthened;
g. faculty headcount and F.T.E. for each degree and certificate program this term and the same term two years earlier;
h. headcount and F.T.E. student enrollment for each degree and certificate program this term and the same term two years earlier; number of students awarded degrees or certificates for each program this year and last year;
i. changes made in the physical plant, library, and laboratories to better serve the educational program and students;
j. changes in the financial structure and condition of the institution, noting budgetary increases and/or decreases, operating surpluses or deficits, copy of current budget, and copy of last year's audited financial statement;
k. completed Tables #1 and #2 (Revenues and Expenditures) found on pages 80 and 81.
l. changes in administrative structure and personnel;
m. old plans for the future that have been realized and new ones that have been formulated; and
n. contractual relationships with any nonregionally accredited organizations.
5. Host an on-site visit by representatives of the Commission for reaffirmation of Candidate status every two years, or earlier if requested by the Commission.
6. Apply for accreditation only after consultation with the Commission.
Loss of Candidate Status. Candidacy lapses when an institution fails to achieve accredited status within five years. An institution may not reapply until major deficiencies have been corrected and in no event within less than two years after the lapse of its candidacy status.
Further, the Commission reserves the right during the candidacy period to remove an institution from the list of Candidates for Accreditation, after due notice, if evidence of progress is lacking or if the conditions on which the institution was admitted to candidacy are radically altered.
If the Commission judges that candidacy status should be removed, a show-cause order will be issued requesting that the institution respond to the expressed concerns of the Commission within a specified period of time. The burden of proof rests on the institution to demonstrate why its candidacy should be continued. The circumstances may vary in each case, but among the matters to be taken into account are:
1. general lack of comprehensive planning;
2. political or other interference with institutional integrity;
3. failure to meet enrollment projections;
4. inadequate financial control and support;
5. inadequate physical facilities and equipment;
6. weakness of library and supportive educational resources;
7. inadequacies of numbers and professional competence of faculty, administrative, and supportive staff; and
8. insufficient development of programs and curricula in relation to the institution's catalog and other publications.
Receipt of the response to the show-cause order may be followed by a visit from a Commission representative or representatives. The institution is charged for the cost of the visit.
If the Commission acts to remove the institution from Candidate status, the action may be appealed. Pending action on appeal, the Candidate status remains in effect. An institution removed from Candidate status before the maximum five-year period allowed for remaining as a Candidate, may apply for reinstatement as soon as its deficiencies have been corrected. The reinstatement process requires an institutional self-study, visit by an evaluation committee, and approval by the Commission.
Institutional Commitment and Responsibilities in the Accreditation Process
The effectiveness of self-regulatory accreditation depends upon an institution's acceptance of certain responsibilities, including involvement in and commitment to the accreditation process. An institution is expected to conduct a self-study at the interval specified by the Commission and, at the conclusion of the self-study, accept an honest and forthright peer assessment of institutional strengths and weaknesses. The self-study is to assess every aspect of the institution; involve personnel from all segments of the institution, including faculty, staff, students, administration, and the governing board; and, provide a comprehensive analysis of the institution, identifying strengths and weaknesses.
An institution must be committed to participation in the activities and decisions of the Commission. This commitment includes a willingness to participate in the decision-making processes of the Commission and adherence to all policies and procedures, including those for reporting changes within the institution. Only if institutions accept seriously the responsibilities of membership will the validity and vitality of the accreditation process be ensured.
An institution of higher education is committed to the search for knowledge and its dissemination. Integrity in the pursuit of knowledge is expected to govern the total environment of an institution. Each member institution is responsible for ensuring integrity in all operations dealing with its constituencies, in its relations with other member institutions, and in its accreditation activities with the Commission on Colleges. Each institution is expected to provide the Commission access to all parts of its operation and to provide accurate information about the institution's affairs, including reports of other accrediting, licensing, and auditing agencies. In the spirit of collegiality, institutions are expected to cooperate fully during all aspects of the process of evaluation: the preliminary visit in preparations for an evaluation visit, the evaluation itself, and any follow-up to the evaluation visit. Institutions are also expected to provide the Commission, or its representatives, with information requested during evaluations, enabling evaluators to perform their duties with efficiency and effectiveness.
Each participating institution is to be in compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV of the 1992 Higher Education Amendments. Failure to comply with Title IV responsibilities will be considered when an institution is reviewed for initial accreditation or continued accreditation. In reviewing an institution's compliance with these program responsibilities, the Commission will rely on documentation forwarded to it by the U.S. Secretary of Education.
Institutional Compliance with the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. The Commission expects that its candidate and member institutions comply with the Title IV requirements of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act as amended. Therefore, institutions will provide to evaluation committees for review and consideration the most recent default rates (and any default reduction plans approved by the U.S. Department of Education) and any other documents concerning the institution's program responsibilities under Title IV of the Act, including any results of financial or compliance audits and program reviews.
Evaluation Committees evaluate the information and its relationship to the Eligibility Requirements and the Standards and Policies for Candidacy and Accreditation.
The Commission reserves the right to review an institution's accreditation status when the U.S. Department of Education findings have proven significant noncompliance with the Reauthorization Act.
Overview of Evaluation Process
The evaluation process periodically and jointly conducted by the institution and the Commission on Colleges may take a number of forms. Regardless of the particular form employed, it includes the following steps:
1. A representative of the Commission conducts a preliminary visit on campus 18 to 24 months before an evaluation committee visit.
2. The institution analyzes itself through a self-study. Copies are mailed to the evaluation committee and to Commission members four to six weeks before committee visit.
3. Professional colleagues from other campuses and appropriate agencies study the institutional self-study report, visit the campus as an evaluation committee, and prepare a written report.
4. A draft report of the evaluation committee is prepared and sent to the president. The president is given an opportunity to respond to the evaluation committee's written report before the final report is prepared.
5. The committee's final report is mailed to the president and to Commission members four to six weeks before Commission meeting.
6. The Commission on Colleges reviews the institutional self-study and the evaluation committee's report, interviews the evaluation committee chair and the president of the institution at either the June or December meeting, and takes action on the basis of information gained.
7. The institution continues to consider and act on the results of its own self-study and the advice received.
The evaluating process is a major enterprise. If well done, it is abundantly rewarding, but it is not worth the effort if it has to be rushed. It is an educational program, and there is a point beyond which education cannot be hurried. A full academic year is the minimum working time needed. Preparation should normally begin more than a year before the date of the visit. Two years give a better opportunity for organization, staff involvement, and appraisal.
The following is a time line of the typical evaluation process:
Preliminary Draft Final Committee Committee Commission Action
Visit à Report à Report à Visit à Report Notify Institution
Self-Study < At least Institutional Review Follow-up
of Draft Report Requirements
< 1 to 1½ years > 1 month > < 2 weeks > < Ongoing >
The Commission permits the withdrawal of a request for accreditation at any time (even after evaluation) prior to final action.
Institutional Self-Study
General Discussion. Institutional self-study is regarded as the most significant part of the accreditation process. The benefits to the institution will be proportional to the incisiveness of the inquiry. The aim of the self-study is to understand, evaluate, and improve--not merely to defend what already exists. A well-conducted self-study should result in a renewed common effort within the institution to consolidate and improve the whole.
Self-study should be viewed as an ongoing process to:
It is important that the institutional self-study assess educational outcomes or results as well as address structure and process. The institutional self-study should assess student achievement with respect to programs and services offered to accomplish educational purposes. Prime consideration is to be placed on performance or the achievement of institutional goals.
Nature and Organization. The concept of self-study as a continuing process does not mean that an institution is to be continuously involved in intensive, comprehensive self-analysis. The intensity of ongoing self-study will vary greatly from time to time and from one institution to another, but the self-study presented to the Commission in preparation for a full evaluation committee visit must be of a comprehensive type, must evaluate the entire institution, and must address each of the Commission's standards.
The objectives of the self-study effort should be clearly and specifically stated, the methodology worked out in advance, and a time schedule set. It is imperative that those involved in the study have ready access to all relevant data and materials. There must be frequent and widely disseminated reports of progress during the course of the ongoing self-study if a high level of interest is to be maintained.
Once the methodologies to be employed in the self-study have been drawn up and agreed upon, a survey should be made to discover relevant data which may be available. Frequently, institutions gather data which are not put to any constructive use.
The Commission on Colleges, while requiring the submission of a self-study report in connection with an evaluation for candidacy or accreditation, recognizes that the self-study process is more beneficial to the institution when it is undertaken in response to significant needs felt by the campus community. Accordingly, a variety of approaches to self-study is acceptable. An institution is permitted to propose some variation in the design of the self-study which it considers to be of intrinsic value as long as the overarching purposes of a comprehensive self-study are met and all Commission standards are addressed. Representatives of the institution and the Commission should come to a clear agreement, well ahead of the initiation of the self-study process, concerning any particular institutional needs which the institution hopes to have the self-study address. These understandings should be confirmed, in writing, by the executive director of the Commission.
The question of cost of continuing self-study is frequently raised. Even though educational institutions are faced with many demands and limited resources, their quest for excellence mandates that they support a mechanism for ongoing self-analysis. This does not mean that a simply organized, limited-purpose institution must maintain a staff exclusively assigned to this function. Many significant data are, or easily could be, assembled by any institution in the course of its daily work. An overall design for continuing self-analysis, once it has been set up, provides a framework for data-gathering and analysis. This need not be costly in a small, simply organized institution. Large complex institutions often find it feasible and desirable to maintain a bureau of institutional research for this particular purpose. The nature of the organizational set-up for self-study will vary according to the scope, nature, and emphasis of the self-study.
Self-Study Steering Committee. Selection of the right persons to serve on the self-study steering committee is very important and sometimes difficult. Institutional groups characterized by lack of bias, by objectivity, and by the ability to work cooperatively and to forge compromises can be organized to mount a self-study. Strong, skillful, and committed leadership is essential and the selection of the coordinator of the study is therefore of paramount importance. It is important to have a steering committee broadly representative of the institution in order that objectivity may be promoted. Also, those whose interests might be affected by the results of the study should in some way be involved.
How the leadership and the participating personnel are selected, whether by election, appointment, or some combination of both, must be resolved in accordance with the tradition and climate of the institution. Whatever the method of selection, it is imperative that sufficient time for effective participation be cleared and that adequate staff support be provided.
Most institutions have multiple constituencies who have somewhat differing interests and values. The faculty, staff, administrators, and students may group themselves around such issues as the relative importance of general, as contrasted with specialized, education or the broader outcomes of a liberating education as contrasted with skill acquisition. The relative importance of research productivity on the one hand, and teaching effectiveness on the other, is a commonly encountered basis for alignment, especially in the large, complex institutions. Another common division groups those who would expand the institution's range of activities and broaden its constituency against those who would advocate a more limited role. An institution organizing for self-study should have these groupings in mind as it makes its plans and staffs its committees. The role of the governing board in the self-study process should be carefully considered. The institution should keep board members informed of policy matters addressed in the self-study.
It is true that a self-study can founder on issues involving basic disagreement among groups. Alternatively, self-study could be used to bring them into sharper focus and provide a basis for their resolution. Indeed, a well-designed self-study might be a catalyst for such resolution.
Development of the Report. Each committee or sub-group responsible for the various aspects of the study shall prepare a report in which it sets forth the problem or problems addressed, the questions to which it sought answers, the data gathered and the means by which it gathered them, the techniques employed in analyzing the data (noting both successes and failures), and a statement indicating how the results have been used to increase institutional effectiveness.
The separate reports shall be brought together by the steering committee, which has the responsibility for preparing a single, unified report. The final editing should usually be done by one person.
The "Standards and Guide for Self-Study," pages 25-97, provides a suggested framework of essential considerations for the self-study and for the evaluation committee. An institution is encouraged to design a narrative report best suited to its mission and supported by the necessary data presented in a concise and readable form. A summary chapter of findings and recommendations evolving from the self-study process should be prepared.
Finally, though the experience of carrying on a self-study is, in itself, usually found to be salutary, a self-study which does not eventuate in action is of limited usefulness. Some means to ensure implementation of the recommendations of the self-study should be specified and included as part of the summary chapter.
Supporting Documents. At the end of each section of the self-study, list on a separate page the supporting documents that will be available in the campus room assigned for the use of the visiting evaluation committee.
Joint or Concurrent Visit. If the institution holds or desires accreditation by specialized agencies, a joint or concurrent visit can often be arranged. A single self-study sometimes can serve more than one accrediting body.
Process Summary. Recommendations for organizing and conducting a comprehensive self-study:
1. Highlight the role of the chief executive officer, which is to keep maximum emphasis on the project, to stimulate without dominating, and to see that the results are translated into immediate action and/or long-range plans.
2. Appoint a steering committee of a size appropriate to the complexity of the institution, with an active and interested coordinator to plan the work, hold it in balance, suggest new approaches, and monitor the editing of the final report.
The task of the coordinator is a major assignment. If at all possible, the coordinator and one or two other members of the steering committee should attend one of the self-study workshops sponsored annually by the Commission.
3. Provide members of the steering committee and key officials with copies of the Accreditation Handbook, or pertinent sections thereof.
4. Set up whatever task forces and committees the steering committee decides are needed (consider existing standing committees). Their first assignment is to become thoroughly familiar with the Accreditation Handbook and other documents or materials selected by the steering committee.
5. Determine specifically what factual and statistical data are required and request appropriate officials or committees to prepare them. The steering committee should supply ideas and format and inform the campus community about the self-study.
6. Emphasize relationships among, as well as performance within, units; encourage healthy cross-fertilization of ideas. The study needs to present the entire institution.
7. Avoid the temptation of asking outside consultants to provide answers to the institution's concerns. If consultants are used, draw upon their experience for suggestions to the institution as to ways in which it might address the problems.
8. Adopt a definite timetable; make it realistic and insist on maintaining it.
Plan backward. Set a publication date for the self-study report at least eight weeks before the evaluation committee is due to arrive so that it can be in the hands of the visitors four to six weeks before the visit. Having determined the finish date, allow a month preceding that for final editing and duplicating. Then work back toward the beginning, allowing the necessary intervals for each stage.
Estimate time allowances. In doing so, remember in estimating time allowances what a major undertaking this is and how many people will be involved. It must deal with the separate phases of the institution's life, but it must go beyond them in its concern with their relationships, with the focusing or directing of the institution's total effort, with its overall educational impact, as well as with the efficiency of each of its units.
9. Carry the results of the study through to action. New thinking, new patterns, new proposals, and very likely new unity behind them will emerge during the process. The institution should see that each proposal is channeled in the proper direction and is consistently followed up. Perhaps the steering committee can remain helpful in the post-evaluation stage, too, but clearly the president, the deans, and the faculty standing committees have continuing responsibilities.
Evaluation Committee
Function. Members of an evaluation committee function as colleagues as well as critics. The purpose is to produce a committee report which will be useful to the institution and to the Commission which must make a decision on accreditation.
Committee Make-Up. An evaluation committee usually has five to fifteen members, the number depending on the nature of the institution and its programs. Every principal instructional area must be examined. The evaluators are assigned from accredited higher institutions of the Northwest, appropriate agencies, and possibly other regions. Some of the evaluators come from institutions like the one to be visited. A majority of the members are from outside the state of the college to be evaluated. Evaluators, before being assigned by the Commission office to an evaluation committee, must have attended the Evaluator Training Conference sponsored annually by the Commission on Colleges. Only experienced evaluators from other regions or from other recognized accrediting bodies are assigned to evaluation committees by the Commission office.
The committee chair is assigned by the Commission more than a year prior to the evaluation. Normally the chair is a present or former member of the Commission. Committee members are assigned through the office of the executive director. In selecting evaluators, care is taken to avoid potential conflict of interest, such as an evaluator who is a former employee of the institution. The evaluation committee roster is sent to the institution at least one month in advance of the visit, and the chief executive officer is requested to notify the Commission office if there is any question about the composition of the evaluation committee.
Dates. Committee evaluation dates are arranged by the office of the executive director through the institutional presidents, normally two years or more in advance, and are confirmed by the Commission. A concerted effort is made to arrange dates most suitable to the institution; however, compromises are sometimes necessary. Evaluations of two or more institutions are not usually scheduled concurrently. Also, the dates must allow sufficient time for the committee report to be prepared for the June or December meetings of the Commission. Evaluations in May and November will usually have to be considered by the Commission in December and June, respectively, and Commission action will be reported in writing to the president of the institution within one month following the Commission meeting.
Report. At the conclusion of the on-campus evaluation, each evaluator provides the committee chair with a report for the evaluator's area of responsibility. The report follows the outline of the institution's self-study. The committee chair is responsible for editing the individual reports and publishing a confidential committee report for the Commission. The chair finishes the first draft of the committee report and sends a copy to the chief administrator of the institution for factual correction and other suggestions. The committee chair, of course, has final authority for the content of the report.
Prior to the June or December meetings, depending on the time of the evaluation, the report is duplicated and distributed to the chief administrator, to committee members, and to members of the Commission. The report does not contain a recommendation on accreditation. When appearing before the Commission, the committee chair reports the committee's confidential recommendation on accreditation.
The committee report is considered confidential. No outsider is given access to it through the committee members, the Commission, or the office of the executive director. The chief administrator of the institution is provided fifteen to thirty copies of the report and is given an opportunity to respond to the report when appearing before the Commission.
Although there may be some disagreement with parts of the report, it should be used to improve the institution. In order to achieve this goal, the trustees, administrators, and faculty members must study and seriously consider the report. The report is not a mandate to the institution but advisory. It is understood and accepted that the institution has the right and obligation to plan its own course of action, and that action may or may not be in full agreement with the suggestions and recommendations of the evaluation committee.
The Commission on Colleges expects the institution to use the report objectively. In preparing public announcements, the college should avoid quoting the report out of context or reporting only the favorable or unfavorable passages.
Accreditation of New Members. New members are not accredited for a specific number of years. Normally, a new member is to conduct a self-study and be re-evaluated by a full committee during the fifth year and is to submit a progress report during the third year. If, in the Commission's judgment, a new institution is not ready for membership, it might defer a decision pending further reports on specific matters and/or a visit by a small committee, or it might deny accreditation for the present.
When accreditation is initially granted by the Commission on Colleges, the effective date is September 1 of the academic year in which the Commission took action. For example, if the Commission granted accreditation in June 1999, the effective date would be September 1, 1998.
Reaffirmation of Accreditation. Continuing members are not accredited permanently or for a definite number of years. Accreditation must be reaffirmed periodically. Every institution is to conduct a self-study and be visited by a full evaluation committee at least every ten years; every five years each institution is to prepare an interim report and be visited by one or more representatives of the Commission. At the time of reaffirmation, the Commission may request an institution to submit additional reports at specified times or to submit additional reports and receive a visit by a small evaluation committee. The Commission may also request that an institution conduct a complete self-study and be visited by a full evaluation committee.
Commission Decisions on Institutions
Once the Commission has made a decision regarding candidacy or accreditation of an institution, it will notify the institution, in writing, as promptly as possible. The forms of possible Commission action with regard to institutions are to:
1. Defer action on the institution's application for candidacy or accreditation.
2. Deny the institution's application for candidacy or accreditation.
3. Grant Candidacy or Initial Accreditation.
4. Extend Candidacy or reaffirm Accreditation.
5. Request a Progress Report or a Focused Interim Visit.
6. Issue a Warning.
7. Impose Probation or continue Probation for a specific period of time.
8. Issue a Show-Cause order with accreditation to terminate unless the institution has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Commission, that it has satisfied the Commission's concerns or responded to its directives prior to a specified date.
9. Terminate Candidacy or Accreditation.
All of the Commission actions set forth above, except number six, are published in the annual Directory and in the minutes of the Commission meeting at which the action took place. In addition, in taking any of the above actions, the Commission may impose conditions on continued accreditation or candidacy status or request additional reporting or site visits. (See Policy A-3 - Disclosure of Accrediting Documents and Commission Actions, pages 105-108.)
Reapplication for Accreditation. A postsecondary institution not granted initial accreditation may reapply when it has corrected the deficiencies noted by the Commission on Colleges. An institution whose membership has been discontinued may reapply for reinstatement or may apply for candidate status after consultation with the Commission on Colleges.
Membership Dues
The Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges determines the annual dues for candidate and member institutions based upon total educational and general expenditures and mandatory transfers (exclusive of medical school and hospital budgets) for the previous college year as reported to IPEDS.
Total E & G Expenditures
and Mandatory Transfers Annual Dues
Under $2.5 M $1500
2.5 - 4 1800
4 - 6 2100
6 - 8 2550
8 - 10 3000
10 - 12 3450
12 - 14 3900
14 - 16 4500
16 - 18 4950
18 - 20 5400
20 - 22 5850
22 - 24 6300
24 - 30 6750
30 - 42 7200
42 - 66 7650
66 - 114 8250
114 - 210 8700
Over 210 9300
Invoices for annual dues are mailed at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Annual Report. The Commission on Colleges requires that each member and candidate institution complete and file an annual report with the executive director of the Commission on Colleges. Annual report forms are mailed to member and candidate institutions in January. Information provided on the forms is reviewed carefully and enables the Commission to be aware of significant institutional changes and trends.
Costs of Evaluation
Full-Scale Evaluation Expenses. The program of committee evaluations is self-supporting. The fee paid by the institution to the Commission covers a number of essential expenses. These include costs of a preliminary visit to the institution by a Commission representative; travel, board, and lodging of committee members; the cost of printing and distributing the report of the committee; and some operating expenses of the Commission.
Fee Schedule. Institutions being evaluated by a full committee are charged $900 per evaluator. In case of special circumstances, where the institution operates off-campus programs, the Commission reserves the right to adjust a committee evaluation fee to fit the circumstances. In addition, for evaluations in Alaska or at locations outside the region of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, institutions are charged for actual costs of the evaluation plus 15%.
Billing. An institution is billed and is expected to pay the evaluation fee in advance of the evaluation. For evaluations in Alaska or outside the region, institutions will be billed after the site visit.
Interim Evaluation Expenses. A fee of $800 per evaluator is charged for interim evaluations lasting one or one-and-one-half days, with evaluations in Alaska or outside the region being charged actual costs plus 15%. The fee for an interim evaluation lasting more than one-and-one-half days or which requires a visit to one or more additional sites may also be charged actual costs plus 15%.
Costs listed for full-scale and interim evaluations are as of 1991-92 and are subject to change.
Communications with the Commission on Colleges
The Commission's full-time administrator is the executive director, whose office is at 11130 N.E. 33rd Place, Suite 120, Bellevue, Washington, 98004. Communications regarding committee evaluations and accreditation should be addressed to the executive director. Invoices for committee evaluations and annual dues are submitted and collected by the executive director.
Provost Home | Accreditation Handbook | UAF Home | Computing | Search | Feedback
Send comments to the Dana
Thomas or call 907-474-6103.
Last modified May 15, 2001