Purpose and Process

Institutions begin the eight-year evaluation cycle by conducting a thorough self-evaluation to assess sustained alignment with the ACCJC Accreditation 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 Accreditation Handbook provides an overview of ACCJC’s comprehensive system of resources and collaborative practices that promote continuous quality improvement and advance successful outcomes for all students. The Handbook is intended to serve as the primary reference for guiding institutions and review teams through the institutional evaluation process and to assist accreditation review teams and the Commission to fairly and consistently evaluate institutions.

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.

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 require a visit the institution as part of the verification process.

Each institution must submit a Midterm Report four years after the reaffirmation of accreditation. The Midterm Report provides an update on major improvements since the time of the comprehensive peer review, including actions taken in response to any formal improvement recommendations from the peer review team. The report also reflects student learning and achievement data (including institution-set standards), with a specific focus on actions that have led to measurable gains in outcomes for all students. Additionally, the Midterm Report allows colleges to conduct an initial reflection on potential opportunities and/or other changes relevant to the institutional context in advance of the next self-evaluation.

In accordance with the ACCJC Policy on Monitoring Institutional Performance, and federal regulations, the Commission applies a set of annual monitoring and evaluation approaches to assess an institution’s health, stability, and continued alignment with Standards throughout the accreditation cycle. The Annual Report and Annual Fiscal Report are the primary data collection tools for this process.

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. ACCJC staff analyze the data in the Annual Report and provide a summary report to the Commission highlighting trends across ACCJC’s membership. In the fourth year of the accreditation cycle, institutions also provide a narrative analysis of the student outcomes data submitted in the Annual Reports as part of the Midterm Report. Together, the Annual Report and Midterm Report provide a framework for ACCJC to ensure institutions are holding themselves accountable for continuous improvement with respect to student achievement in the context of their unique mission and goals.

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 college business officers 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. Institutions will fall into one of three categories based on their scores against the CFI: fiscally healthy, moderate risk, or at-risk. Institutions that score within the at-risk category may be placed on enhanced fiscal monitoring by ACCJC.

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.

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.