General Policy B-5, Interagency Cooperation in Accreditation

Interagency Cooperation in Accreditation

Basic principles. Cooperation among accrediting agencies may occur in many areas and may take a variety of forms. The programmatic specialized accrediting agencies provide the institutional accrediting agencies with standards of excellence in the specialized fields and assistance in evaluating them. The institutional accrediting agencies, in turn, provide the specialized accrediting agencies with assistance in the appraisal of supporting and related areas of institutional control and management. Institutional accrediting agencies, specialized accrediting agencies, and institutions should work closely together in the total accrediting process.

It is the intent of the policy to identify a range of opportunities for cooperative endeavors, rather than to propose a single structure for cooperation. Cooperation not only is a desirable goal, but sincere, continuing efforts toward its achievement are essential if accreditation is to remain a positive force in advancing quality education. Toward this end, the following principles are set forth:

a.	Facilitating cooperation between and among institutional and specialized accrediting agencies should be an objective of CHEA, the accrediting agencies, and the institutions served by them.
b.	Consistent with the concept of voluntary accreditation, each institution of higher education should decide for itself whether to seek accreditation by an appropriate agency or combination of agencies.
c.	Institutions desiring coordinated accrediting activities, particularly among agencies accrediting programs located within the same academic administrative unit (e.g., a School of Professional Studies), should be offered every possible assistance and cooperation.
d.	Coordination begins with the designation of responsibility within the institution for liaison with the various accrediting agencies.
e.	To be successful, coordination requires advance planning by both the institution and the accrediting agency or agencies involved.
f.	Representatives of each accrediting agency will be responsible to their parent agency for investigating and reporting activities carried out as part of the accrediting cycle.

Definitions and cooperative arrangements:

An institutional (general) agency accredits an institution as a whole and therefore includes all areas, activities, and programs of the institution. Normally, institutional accreditation testifies to: (1) the appropriateness of the mission and goals of the institution; (2) the adequacy of its organization, program, and resources, both material and human, when viewed against its objectives and generally accepted accrediting standards; and (3) evidence of the accomplishment of institutional objectives in reasonable measure.

Specialized accrediting agencies accredit program(s). The focus of specialized accreditation is on the effectiveness with which the program meets its objectives and those of the institution, and the accrediting standards for quality education. Normally, specialized accreditation reviews the relationship of the program to the larger unit, the adequacy of the organization and resources for program maintenance and development, and evidence of accomplishment of programmatic objectives. However, specialized accreditation does not purport to make judgments on the institution as a whole (except in the case of single-purpose institutions).

The following cooperative relationships have been developed:

a.	Institutional and institutional accreditation agencies, including:

	1)	Regional and regional;
	2)	Regional and national;
	3)	National and national; and
	4)	Regional or national and specialized (functioning as an institutional).

b.	Institutional and specialized.
c.	Specialized and specialized.

Each accrediting agency should function in accordance with its own purpose and recognized scope of activity. The unique contribution of both institutional and specialized accrediting to the total evaluative process, and the benefits accruing to the institution, the program, and the agencies from the coordinated effort, have been recognized.

Return to Top of Page

Guidelines for Cooperation:

a.	Institutional role. The institution should assume a leadership role in suggesting how cooperating accrediting agencies can best work together to provide optimum service to the institution.
b.	Need for written agreements. Written agreements should be established among accrediting agencies that propose to cooperate. In initial form, these may be relatively simple and deal primarily with matters of principle, becoming more specific as the cooperating agencies resolve procedural differences through experience. Sharing of the written agreement with all participants in the accrediting process will reduce potential misunderstandings and conflicts.
c.	Designation of accrediting responsibility.

Between two or more institutional accrediting agencies:

		a)	An institution with operations that cross regional boundaries must be prepared to deal with all of the regional accrediting agencies involved; however, the regional accrediting agency for the parent campus normally will serve as the coordinating agency.
		b)	A specialized institution for which there is a national specialized institutional accrediting agency (e.g., American Association of Bible Colleges, Association of Independent Colleges and Schools, Distance Education and Training Council) is encouraged to deal with the appropriate specialized agency. If the institution desires to seek only regional accreditation, the institution should so inform the specialized agency.
		c)	A specialized institution seeking accreditation from two or more national, specialized accrediting agencies must determine what constitutes its predominant emphasis (specialization), and that determination will identify the appropriate coordinating agency.
		d)	A specialized institution for which there is a specialized accrediting agency that accredits free-standing specialized institutions (e.g., American Bar Association, Association of Theological Schools, National Association of Schools of Music) is encouraged to deal with the appropriate specialized agency. If the institution desires to seek accreditation from an institutional accrediting agency as well, the specialized agency would serve as the coordinating agency. If the institution desires to seek only institutional accreditation, the institution should so inform the programmatic agency.

Between institutional and specialized accrediting agencies:

		a)	When a multipurpose institution seeks a coordinated accreditation involving both an institutional accrediting agency and one or more specialized accrediting agencies, the institutional accrediting agency will serve as the coordinating agency.
		b)	When external coordination is not possible, an institution should seek accreditation for an academic administrative unit or subunit within the institution after it has achieved appropriate accreditation of the more inclusive entity (total institution, college/school, division, department, program - in that order).

Between specialized accrediting agencies:

When an institution seeks accreditation involving two or more specialized accrediting agencies (located within the same or in different academic administrative units), the chief executive officer of the institution, with mutual agreement and consent of the involved accrediting agencies, shall designate the coordinating agency, with responsibility normally going to the agency representing the program with the largest enrollment. This agency will coordinate the accrediting activities (joint and/or autonomous) consistent with the established guidelines.

d.	Accreditation standards. The accreditation standards of the participating accrediting agencies (institutional and specialized) shall apply during the review. Committee members should be aware of the range of standards being utilized. Procedures followed during the visit and the subsequent reporting phase must reflect the standards as required by each agency. In instances in which standards may overlap or vary, the visit and report must incorporate data relevant to the specific agencies.
e.	Contacts with institution. Accrediting agencies which utilize staff primarily should arrange a joint institutional visit to negotiate details of the cooperative accrediting process. When all parties are not involved in a pre-visit, participating agencies will contact the institution individually regarding the self-study, the visit, and other expectations. However, these contacts must be carefully coordinated to eliminate conflicting instructions regarding the joint accrediting process. Participating institutions should be flexible in establishing visitation dates.
f.	Self-study alternatives. When an institution, or an administrative unit within an institution, is seeking accreditation from more than one agency, the self-study may take a variety of forms, including the following: (1) common self-study, (2) core self-study, with varying supplemental analysis, (3) separate studies, with certain common elements, and (4) a nontraditional alternative.
	Institutions may wish to prepare a single self-study report designed to meet all requirements of each agency. The nature and format of the self-study document should be negotiated at the time a joint accrediting cycle is initiated. When the committee will function as a unit (such as an institutional agency and a specialized agency visiting a single-purpose institution), a common self-study is indicated. In multi-purpose institutions, joint visits may be concurrent rather than coordinated. In the consultative stages establishing the accrediting process, a procedure for responding adequately to the data needs of all the accrediting agencies should be negotiated.
g.	Visiting evaluation committee and on-site visit. Written agreements should include: the composition of the committee; the complementary skills required and the responsibility for the selection of the members of the committee; designation of the chair (who will normally be from the coordinating agency); procedures to be followed during the visit; the format of the written report; the process for the development of the committee’s report; the nature of recommendations; and the committee’s reporting to the institution.
	Cooperating agencies are encouraged to share data about potential site visitors, forming common pools of names when possible or exchanging information in specific situations. All site visitors may be selected from the common pool by the coordinating agency, or the cooperating agencies may determine criteria (size of evaluation committee, areas of competency desired, backgrond experience related to institution to be visited, etc.) and specify the number of committee members to be selected by each cooperating agency. When there are more than two cooperating agencies, the chair should be designated by the coordinating agency. When there are only two cooperating agencies, co-chairs may be designated by each agency. The chair (co-chairs) is responsible for making logistical arrangements.
	A specialized accrediting agency can add a valuable dimension by working cooperatively with an appropriate institutional accrediting agency in the selection of a generalist to serve on the evaluation committee. When an institutional accrediting agency needs certain expertise on an evaluation committee, the appropriate specialized accrediting agency can provide assistance. In developing cooperative committee arrangements, however, the integrity of the review process must be preserved. Generalists cannot effectively replace specialists, or vice versa, and a large committee representing several accrediting agencies may not be as effective as coordinated multiple committees.
h.	Commission action. Accrediting decisions on reports are made in accordance with the policies established by the participating agencies. When a common committee report is filed, each accrediting commission should receive a copy. When no common report is feasible, each accrediting commission takes action on the report prepared by its committee representatives. Each commission should take such action as its standards require and as supported by the report data. Accrediting actions by any commission (institutional or programmatic) should be shared with participating accrediting agencies.
i.	Fees and costs. Because the costs of an accrediting cycle should be reduced through virtue of cooperation among accrediting agencies, fees and costs should be determined between and among accrediting agencies prior to the accrediting process. The institution is responsible for paying the usual or reduced fees to each agency to cover any cost of general agency services related to the accreditation cycle. Direct costs of a site visit can be reduced through such cooperative arrangements as a joint committee, and therefore the fee to the institution can be proportionately reduced. In instances when a cooperating agency does not assess a fee to the institution, its proportionate costs will have to be determined and that agency will honor its share. Each agency should handle its own billing.
	It should be noted that one of the most significant reductions in the cost burden to the institution can result from a combined self-study.

Adopted 1982

Return to Top of Page