The institution’s application for initial accreditation was deferred because, based on an evaluation of the institution’s self-study, the report of the evaluation team, and the response of the institution to the team report, the Commission determined that it had insufficient information on which to base a final decision, and/or the Commission has reason to believe that the institution may not be in substantial compliance with one or more of the Standards for Accreditation. The judgment of “being in substantial compliance” or “being out of compliance” is a qualitative judgment made by the Commission, consisting of peers and members of the public that the institution meets the underlying purpose of the standard. In making this judgment the Commission gives principal attention to the statement of the standard for each of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation.
The Commission’s action is tabled until a specified time, normally until the next Commission meeting, but in no case to exceed two Commission meetings from the time of the Commission action, the institution being required in the interim to submit a report and/or host a visit by Commission representatives. If the Commission has reason to believe that the institution may fail to meet one or more Standards for Accreditation, it will ask the institution to show-cause why it should not be denied accreditation. If the Commission determines the institution has provided sufficient information, it can grant initial accreditation to the institution.