I. Information for the general public about the accredited status of individual institutions.

A. Commission Actions

Institutions applying for candidacy or initial accreditation and accredited institutions undergoing periodic evaluation will be reviewed by the Accrediting Commission. The Commission will examine institutional documents, the institutional self study report, the evaluation team report, and documents from previous evaluations. The Commission makes a determination about the accredited status of the institution, using its Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions.

In accordance with the requirements of the Higher Education Act §602.27(c), the Commission also discloses in its Accreditation Reference Handbook, the Eligibility, Candidacy and Initial Accreditation Manual, Directory or other appropriate publications, each type of accreditation and candidacy granted by the Commission, the procedures for applying for accreditation or candidacy, the criteria and procedures used by the Commission determining whether to grant, reaffirm, deny, or take any other action related to the accredited status of institutions; the names, academic and professional qualifications, and relevant employment and organizational affiliations of the Commission and principal staff; the institutions the Commission currently accredits or recognizes in candidacy status; and the date when the Commission will next review or consider the accreditation or candidacy of each institution. Other matters of public interest are the domain of the institution.

Under the provisions of the U.S. Secretary's Procedures and Criteria for the Recognition of Accrediting Agencies (§602.2), only denial, or termination of accreditation or candidacy are defined as adverse actions by the Commission. Appeals of denial or termination are governed by the provisions of the WASC Constitution.

B. WASC Directory Information

The WASC Directory information is published on the ACCJC website and includes the name of the institution and location, the chief executive officer, the form of control, each type of accreditation or pre-accreditation held by the institution, the date of initial accreditation, and the date of the next comprehensive review.

C. Statement of Accredited Status.

The Commission has adopted a set of basic information elements that will be made available in Commission publications, or on request, about the accredited status of individual institutions. This information will be recorded and disseminated in a common format. A Statement of Accredited Status will be prepared for each member institution. A Statement of Accredited Status will also be available to the public on request. The Statement includes information about the nature of the institution and its scope, its accredited status, the nature of Commission actions regarding the institution, a definition of the meaning of the accredited status, and a discussion of any terms that might require explanation.

D. Commission Responsibilities to the Institution.

The Commission will prepare information for the institution which outlines the reasons for the action, the follow-up and the monitoring activities which will be required, and the time frame within which the institution must remedy the conditions which led to the action.

If an institution cannot document that it is in compliance with the standards, eligibility requirements, and policies within a maximum of two years after the initial action, the Commission will take an adverse action. In keeping with the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, the Commission defines adverse action as denial, or termination of accreditation or candidacy. If the Commission determines that there is good cause, the Commission may extend the time allowed for the institution to demonstrate that it meets or exceeds the standards, eligibility requirements, and policies. Progress Reports, Midterm Reports, Deferral of a Decision, Warning, Probation, and Show Cause are not adverse actions in the context of federal regulations.

E. Disclosure of Commission Actions on the Accredited Status of Institutions.

Actions of the Commission regarding the accredited status of institutions as described in the Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions are public actions. The Commission publishes the status of each institution in appropriate publications such as Commission Newsletters, the WASC Directory, and the ACCJC web site. The Commission also provides written notification to the Secretary of Education, appropriate state licensing or authorizing agencies and accrediting bodies, and the public no later than 30 days after it makes a decision on the accreditation status of an institution, as required by the Higher Education Act. In cases where the Commission has taken final action to terminate, deny or accept the withdrawal of accreditation or to terminate, deny or accept the withdrawal of candidacy or to place an institution on probation or show cause, the Commission provides written notification to the Secretary of Education, appropriate state licensing or authorizing agencies and accrediting bodies at the same time the institution is notified of such a final action.

If a specific inquiry is made about an institution which has been warned, placed on probation, or issued a show cause order, the President shall inform the inquirer that such action has been taken and the reasons therefore.

If an institution so conducts its affairs that it becomes a matter of public concern, misrepresents a Commission action, or uses the public forum to take issue with an action of the Commission relating to that institution, the Commission may announce, through the President, the action taken and the basis for that action, making public any pertinent information available to it.

II. Information about the application of the accreditation processes at a particular institution.

• The Commission publishes the names of institutions scheduled for comprehensive review annually in the Commission newsletter. This notice also includes an invitation for third-party comment and information regarding how, and to whom, that comment should be delivered. The institutional evaluation schedule is available to the public on request.
• The Commission provides each institution under review with a roster of the team members, including their positions and institutional affiliations. Institutions may object to a proposed team member for cause. These rosters are updated regularly as team membership is adjusted.
• The Commission requires the college to make public the institutional self study report, the team report, and the Commission action letter. The Commission itself does not make public the self study report, the team report and the Commission action letter, unless the institution has misrepresented the findings of the team report, or failed to make the team report, Commission action letter or self study report public. Should the institution or others issue selective and biased releases or use the public forum to take issue with Commission actions, the Commission and its staff will be free to make all the documents public. In the event of such misrepresentation, or failure to disclose, the Commission is free to disclose the reports and provide accurate statements about the institution's accredited status.
• The Commission does not disclose any information about an institution's potential accredited status before a Commission action is taken. Information about actions under review or appeal (denial of candidacy or initial accreditation, or termination of accreditation) will not be disclosed until a final decision is rendered, unless required by federal regulation. Review and Appeal procedures are found in the Policy on Review of Commission Actions.
• The institutional file in the Commission office is part of the private relationship with the institution and is therefore not available to the public. Upon request, the Commission will disclose the number of complaints received about the institution since the last comprehensive evaluation, the general nature of those complaints, and their resolution or status. In accordance with its policy on Student and Public Complaints against Institutions (Accreditation Reference Handbook), the Commission will only include in that disclosure formal, signed complaints that are within the Commission's jurisdiction and which have been referred to the institution. Multiple complaints about a single issue will be assessed to determine how those complaints should be recorded. The Commission informs the institution when such an inquiry is received.
• In order to assure the accuracy and appropriateness of institutional information which is made public, the Commission expects team members to keep confidential all institutional information read or heard before, during, and after the team visit. Except in the context of Commission work, team members are limited in their discussion to information contained in the public reports. Sources of information that should remain confidential include previous college and team reports; the current self study report; interviews and written communication with campus personnel, students, trustees, and community members; and team discussions.

III. Information about the Commission and its processes.

• The Commission publishes updates on the status of higher education in the region from the experiences of accreditors in the newsletter. Typically, the updates include a review of major issues in the region, an analysis of actions taken during the year, summaries of the focus of team findings and recommendations, changes in Commission policies and practices, and summaries of staff activities.
• The Commission newsletter is published quarterly to provide timely information about accreditation. The newsletter is distributed to all member institutions, other accreditors, and appropriate higher education and government associations and agencies. The newsletter is available to the public on request.
• The Commission publishes handbooks, manuals, and other materials which describe the Commission and its processes which are distributed to all member institutions and to the public on request. These materials are free to members and other accreditors and are available for a nominal charge to others.
• The Commission maintains a website which informs members and the public about the Commission and its activities.
• The Commission and Commission staff make presentations before organizations within higher education, government, and the public at large. The Commission and its staff participate in regional and national forums on subjects related to quality assurance and institutional improvement.
• The Commission regularly renews its commitment to the principles expressed in its policies through a process of review by the Commission. When new issues in the field of higher education or changes in the United States Department of Education emerge, policies may be created, revised or eliminated. First reading policies are sent to the field for review and comment, followed by submission to the Commission for second reading and adoption.

I. Institutional Self Study and other Accreditation Reports

• Self Studies
  The Commission relies on the strong sense of collegiality, mutual respect, and trust in its relations with member institutions. The privilege of self- regulation requires openness with the public as well.
  
  The self study report is the property of the institution which developed it, but the self study report should receive wide distribution within the institution. The Commission recognizes that some institutions may be governed by public disclosure statutes and expects that institutions will conduct themselves in accord with those laws and regulations.
• Team Reports
  The Commission requires that institutions share the findings and recommendations that result from the accreditation process widely throughout the institution, especially with those that contributed to the self study. Once an on-site evaluation is complete, institutions are required to make the report public and readily available through a wide distribution system. The institution is required to publicize the location of the team reports. Any excerpting of team reports for use by those outside the institution must be accompanied by explanatory information which discusses the complete context of accreditation. Any use of the team reports which misquotes, misleads, or misrepresents findings or recommendations is grounds for Commission release of the complete team report.

II. On-Site Evaluation

The Commission requires that the chief executive officer notify the campus community of the date and purpose of each comprehensive evaluation and any follow-up activity or reports requested by the Commission. Key elements in that notification to the campus community should include the following:

• Notice of the opportunity for submission of third-party comments by the public and the process for doing so.
• Information regarding where and how the Commission's Standards of Accreditation may be accessed at the institution.
• Information regarding the implementation of the institutional self study, and the development of the self study report, and a call for widespread participation.
• Information regarding the team visit, team composition, dates of the visit, team schedule and activities. Institutions are expected to publicize times and locations during the visit when team members will be available to meet informally with any member of the campus community on any accreditation issue.

III. Dissemination of information within individual institutions regarding Commission actions

The Commission delegates the primary responsibility for communicating information about its status to the institution. However, the Commission action letter to the chief executive officer requires that there be broad and timely dissemination of the team report and the Commission action letter within the institution, especially to those who were signatories to the self study report. The Chair of the institutional Board and system or district Chancellor (where applicable) also receive a copy of the action letter and the team report.

IV. Representation of Eligibility, Candidacy, or Accredited Status

• The institution is expected to describe its accredited status using the language prescribed in the Commission Policy on Representation of Accredited Status, and to avoid expanding that representation to include other matters such as transfer of credit. The address and telephone number of the Commission office should be included when the college references its accredited status, including catalogs and recruiting materials. Institutions must send a copy of the institutional catalog to the Commission office as each iteration is published.
• The chief executive officer of the institution is responsible for informing the campus community of the accreditation action taken by the Commission and the reasons for the action. This communication should be coordinated with district or system officers as appropriate. If the accreditation action includes any special status, the institution is obligated to provide that information to all current and prospective students and staff in a timely manner.
• When the institution refers to its accredited status in any publications or advertisements during a period in which its accreditation may be subject to special scrutiny, the institution must disclose that information.