General Policy B–4
Relationship Between General and Specialized Accrediting Agencies

It is the policy of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, 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