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 to the team report, the Commission determined that the institution is in compliance with the Requirements of Affiliation (overseas institutions demonstrate their compliance with the Requirements of Affiliation for Free-Standing Institutions Abroad), it meets the Criteria for Candidacy, and it can be in compliance with the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation within five years as outlined in the Commission’s Policy on The Meaning of Candidacy. In making this judgment the Commission gives principal attention to the statement of the standard for each of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation. Institutions granted candidacy status will undergo a comprehensive evaluation within five years. 

Action on the institution’s application was deferred because, based on 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 data on which to base a final decision. In such cases, action is tabled until a specified time, but in no case longer than two meetings from the date of the Commission action. In the interim, the institution is required to submit a report and/or host a visit by Commission representatives.

The institution was denied candidacy status because, based on 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 the institution does not meet the Requirements of Affiliation and/or the evaluative Criteria for Candidacy. Overseas institutions demonstrate their compliance with the Requirements of Affiliation for Free-Standing Institutions Abroad. Prior to taking the action to deny Candidacy status, the Commission provided the institution an opportunity to show-cause why the decision to deny candidacy status should not be made. The burden of proof rested with the institution. The institution may appeal this action under the relevant policies and procedures.  

The institution was continued in candidacy status 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 continues to meet the Requirements of Affiliation and the evaluative Criteria for Candidacy, and demonstrates that it is making satisfactory progress toward accreditation. Overseas institutions demonstrate their compliance with the Requirements of Affiliation for Free-Standing Institutions Abroad.

The institution was withdrawn from Candidacy status because, based on an evaluation of the institution’s self-study, the report of the evaluation team, the response of the institution to the team report, and/or other evidence submitted by the institution, the Commission determined that the candidate institution no longer meets the Requirements of Affiliation and/or the evaluative Criteria for Candidacy. Overseas institutions demonstrate their compliance with the Requirements of Affiliation for Free-Standing Institutions Abroad. Prior to withdrawing candidacy status, the Commission provided an opportunity for the institution to show-cause why the action should not be taken. The burden of proof rested with the institution. The institution may appeal the withdrawal of candidacy under the relevant policies and procedures. Until final action is taken on the appeal, the institution’s candidate status is unaffected. Institutions that lose candidacy status and subsequently seek affiliation must complete the entire process required of any applying institution as prescribed by the policies and procedures of the Commission.

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 to the team report, the Commission determined that the institution is in compliance with the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation. In making this judgment the Commission gives principal attention to the statement of the standard for each of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation. Institutions granting initial accreditation will undergo a comprehensive evaluation within five years.

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 compliance with one or more of the Standards for Accreditation. 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.

The Commission denied the institution initial accreditation because, based on the institution’s self-study, the report of the evaluation team and the response of the institution to the team report, it determined that the institution is not in compliance with the Standards for Accreditation. In making this judgment the Commission gives principal attention to the statement of the standard for each of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation. So long as the institution is otherwise in good standing as a candidate, it will be continued in that status up to the maximum allowable time as a candidate. Institutions denied accreditation and continued in candidacy must subsequently seek accreditation in keeping with the policies and procedures of the Commission. If the institution’s candidacy is withdrawn and it subsequently seeks affiliation, it must complete the entire process required of applying institutions as prescribed by the policies and procedures of the Commission.

The Commission determined that the institution remains in compliance with the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation as a result of its review of the institution’s self-study, the report of the evaluation team, and the response of the institution to the team report. The institution was continued in accreditation as the result of this comprehensive evaluation. 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 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 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. 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 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. In making this determination the Commission. gives principal attention to the statement of the standard for each of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation. 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.  A public statement about the institution’s notation status can be found here.

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 the institution is out of compliance with one or more of the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation while remaining in compliance with all the other standards. 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 probation status can be found here.

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. Although the Commission may have determined that the institution was in compliance with one of more of the Standards for Accreditation, it also determined that, at the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution had not brought itself into compliance with the standards for which it had been placed on probation. 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 withdrawal status can be found here.

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. Although the Commission may have determined that the institution was in compliance with one of more of the Standards for Accreditation, after carefully reviewing the relevant materials, the Commission determined that the institution was out of compliance with one or more of its Standards for Accreditation. 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 withdrawal status can be found here.