The Commission deferred action on continuing the institution’s accreditation 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, it determined that it had insufficient information on which to base a final decision. The action was tabled for a period of time not to exceed two meetings from the date of the Commission action. In the interim, the institution is continued in accreditation and it is required to submit a report and/or host a visit by Commission representatives. Based on the subsequent evaluation of the institution’s report and other relevant materials, the Commission will determine the extent to which the institution meets the Standards for Accreditation. While the institution may be in substantial compliance with one or more of the Standards for Accreditation, if the Commission determines it is also out of compliance with one or more Standards for Accreditation, it may ask the institution to show-cause as to why it should not be put on probation or have its accreditation withdrawn. The judgment of “being in substantial compliance” or “being out of compliance” with the Standards for Accreditation 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.