Purpose and Process

The Value of Accreditation with ACCJC

An accredited status from an institutional accreditor enables an institution to qualify for federal grants and contracts, to distribute federal financial aid to its students, and for students’ credits to be more easily transferred to other accredited institutions.

ACCJC prides itself on Accreditation Standards that focus on an institution’s continuous quality improvement efforts around the critical elements of student learning, student achievement, and the closure of institutional equity gaps. These standards provide a framework for best practices that will lead to achievement of the institution’s mission, promote student success, academic quality, institutional integrity, and excellence.

In implementing these standards, ACCJC values the peer review process as a rich and diverse resource for quality improvement, by using inquiry from peers to gain a deep understanding of an institution and to provide useful feedback for the institution’s ongoing improvement. This process of peer review ensures that institutions of higher education meet established standards of quality and provide degrees, certificates, and credits that students and the community can trust.

ACCJC’s accreditation processes and reporting cycles for its member institutions are supported by a dedicated team of professionals, including assigned staff liaisons, who work closely with and support institutions in all their accreditation efforts.

ACCJC member institutions undergo a comprehensive review for reaffirmation of accreditation every seven years to determine whether they continue to meet ACCJC’s expectations and are engaged in sustainable efforts to improve educational quality and institutional effectiveness.

Institutional Self-Evaluation and Comprehensive Review (every 7 years)

Institutions begin the seven-year evaluation cycle by conducting a thorough self-evaluation against the Standards, in order to assess sustained alignment with Standards. In an Institutional Self-Evaluation Report (ISER), the institution documents the quality and effectiveness of its programs, services, and practices, as well as the degree to which it is meeting its stated institutional mission and goals for student learning and achievement. The Guide to Institutional Self-Evaluation, Improvement, and Peer Review contains suggestions for organizing the self-evaluation process and preparing for peer review. It also includes a description of each section that should be included in the ISER, suggestions for what might constitute evidence of meeting Accreditation Standards, and review criteria to help institutions and peer review teams during the evaluation process.

During the comprehensive peer review, peer review teams use the ISER to validate and affirm the institution’s findings and as a basis for identifying additional areas of weakness or strength with respect to the Standards. The Commission reviews the ISER alongside the peer review team’s report as it makes a decision on the institution’s accredited status.

Follow-Up Reports (when required through comprehensive review)

The Commission may require a Follow-Up Report when it identifies continued noncompliance with Standards through the comprehensive review process. In a Follow-Up Report, the institution provides narrative analysis and evidence that describes the resolution of deficiencies and demonstrates that it meets Standards. The Commission may also instruct a Follow-Up Peer Review Team to visit the institution as part of the verification process.

Midterm Reporting (4 years after the comprehensive review)

Each institution must submit a Midterm Report four years after the reaffirmation of accreditation. The Midterm Report keeps the Commission apprised of an institution’s continuous improvement activities. In the Midterm Report, the institution provides an update on how it has integrated improvement plans arising from the self-evaluation and addresses work accomplished in response to the improvement recommendations affirmed by the Commission in its Action Letter. The institution must also reflect on actions it has taken to improve institutional performance related to student learning outcomes and institution-set standards, as well as reflect on fiscal health indicators (if applicable). Finally, the Midterm Report will include progress on the outcomes from the action projects identified in its most recent Quality Focus Essay (described in the ISER).

Annual Reporting (every year)

In accordance with the ACCJC Policy on Monitoring Institutional Performance, the Commission applies a set of annual monitoring and evaluation approaches that assess an institution’s continued compliance with the Commission’s Standards and take into account institutional strengths and stability.

The Annual Report collects institutions’ self-reported data to monitor headcount growth or decline (including growth or decline in distance and correspondence education) and institutions’ performance against their self-set standards and stretch goals for key indicators of student achievement over a rolling three-year period. These key indicators include course completion, degree/certificate completion, licensing examination pass rates, job placement rates, and transfers to four-year institutions.

The Annual Fiscal Report collects institution’s self-reported data to monitor key indicators of fiscal health. As with the Annual Report, the Annual Fiscal Report considers a rolling three-year period; institutions provide data for the most recently concluded fiscal year and two prior fiscal years. ACCJC works with a Fiscal Advisory Team that includes CBOs drawn from its membership to review and score each institution’s annual fiscal report. Scores are based on a Composite Financial Index (CFI) that was developed in partnership with representatives from member institutions. Indicators in the CFI include the primary reserve ratio (i.e., unrestricted fund balance reserve), net operating revenue ratio, surpluses or deficits, salary and benefit percentages, enrollment declines, audit findings, and other financial assessments. Using the CFI, institutions are scored within one of three categories: fiscally healthy, moderate risk, or at-risk.

Ongoing Reporting on Substantive Changes

The U.S. Department of Education requires accrediting agencies to have adequate policies and procedures to ensure substantive changes to the educational mission or programs of a member institution do not compromise the capacity of the institution to continue to meet ACCJC’s Standards. Guided by ACCJC’s Substantive Change Policy, and further detailed in the Substantive Change Manual, the Commission must approve certain institutional changes before they are implemented such as changes in location, programs, and degrees offered.

Academic Quality and Student Achievement Information

The Commission requires each accredited institution to make public its Reports to the Commission, Peer Review Team Reports, and Commission Action letters, by placing the documents on the institution’s website as well as other locations accessible to students and the public.

Information about accreditation status and student achievement data at any of ACCJC Member Institutions can be found in the ACCJC Directory of Accredited Institutions.