Commission Action:  Approved for Candidacy Status

The institution was approved for Candidate for Accreditation status because, based on the institution’s self-study, the report of the evaluation team, and the response of the institution, the Commission determined that the institution is in compliance with the Requirements of Affiliation, it meets the Criteria for Candidacy, and it can be in substantial compliance with the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation within five-years as outlined in the Commission’s Policy on The Meaning of Candidacy. The judgment of “substantial compliance” is a qualitative judgment made by the Commission consisting of peers and members of the public; in making this judgment the Commission gives principal attention to the statement of the standards for each of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation.  Institutions gaining candidacy status will undergo a comprehensive evaluation within five years.

Commission Action:  Approved for Initial Accreditation

The institution was approved for Initial Accreditation because, based on the institution’s self-study, the report of the evaluation team, and the response of the institution, the Commission determined that the institution is in substantial compliance with the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation.  The judgment of “substantial compliance” is a qualitative judgment made by the Commission, consisting of peers and members of the public; in making this judgment the Commission gives principal attention to the statement of the standards for each of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation. Institutions gaining initial accreditation will undergo a comprehensive evaluation within five years.

Commission Action:  Continued in Accreditation

The institution was continued in accreditation as the result of a comprehensive evaluation based on the institution’s self-study, the report of the evaluation team, and the response of the institution, it remains in substantial compliance with the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation.  The judgment of ‘substantial compliance’ is a qualitative judgment made by the Commission, consisting of peers and members of the public; in making this judgment the Commission gives principal attention to the statement of the standards for each of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation.

Commission Action:  Notation

The institution was issued a Notation because the Commission determined the public should be notified that the conditions at the institution with respect to the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation are such that its candidacy or accreditation may be in jeopardy if current conditions continue or worsen. The Commission will closely monitor the institution and conduct a focused evaluation within two years to assess the institution’s success in addressing the identified concerns. Issuing a notation is a qualitative judgment made by the Commission, consisting of peers and members of the public; in making this judgment the Commission gives principal attention to the statement of the standard for each of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation. A public statement about the institution’s notation status can be found here.

Commission Action:  Placed on Probation

The institution was placed on probation because, based on a show-cause hearing that included the report of the institution, material evidence applicable to the circumstances, and a face-to-face interview, the Commission determined that it is out of compliance with one or more of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation. The judgment of “being out of compliance” is a qualitative judgment made by the Commission, consisting of peers and members of the public; in making this judgment the Commission gives principal attention to the statement of the standards for each of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation. A public statement about the institution’s probation status can be found here.

Commission Action:  Withdrawal of Accreditation after Being Placed on Probation

The institution’s accreditation was withdrawn based on a show-cause hearing that included the report of the institution, the report of the evaluation team, and a face-to-face interview with the Commission. The Commission determined that, at the conclusion of the two-year period of probation, the institution had not brought itself into compliance with one or more of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation. A public statement about the institution’s withdrawal status can be found here.

Commission Action:  Withdrawal of Accreditation for Non-Compliance with the Standards for Accreditation

The institution’s accreditation was withdrawn based on a show-cause hearing that included the report of the institution, material evidence applicable to the circumstances, and a face-to-face interview with the Commission. After carefully reviewing the relevant materials, the Commission determined that the institution failed to meet one or more of its Standards for Accreditation. A public statement about the institution’s withdrawal status can be found here.