Review Procedures
All accreditors follow procedures that take institutions and programs through several stages of review, documentation and analysis. Depending on the outcome of a review, accreditors may require additional reports. Review cycles vary, with some accreditors requiring comprehensive reviews every three years, others requiring five-year reviews and still others requiring comprehensive reviews every 10 years, plus mid-cycle reviews.
Stages of Accreditation
The accreditation review and decision-making process typically involves six stages.
1. Establishment of Institutional or Program Eligibility
Every accrediting organization has certain basic requirements that institutions or programs must meet before they can apply for a review. Not all accrediting organizations have eligibility requirements, but all accreditors do require that an institution has authority to operate from the state in which it is located and has education as its primary purpose. For example, in the case of "regional" accreditation, there is a good deal of consistency among the eligibility requirements of the seven commissions. Most institutions seeking accreditation from these commissions must be degree-granting; they must have a governance structure that is sufficiently autonomous from the administration to assure academic integrity; and they must maintain a faculty with appropriate credentials for the educational program. The "regional" commissions all require evidence that the institution’s undergraduate curriculum is coherent and, where appropriate, includes some general education components consistent with the institutional mission.
Institutional or program eligibility requirements serve as a pre-screening for quality before an institution or program undertakes the more detailed self-study required by the accreditation process.
2. Institutional or Program Self-Study
Upon acceptance for review, each institution or program must engage in a comprehensive evaluation of its performance based on the accrediting organization's established standards or criteria. Each institution or program prepares a self-study document involving preparation of a detailed written report demonstrating how the institution or program meets or exceeds the standards, as well as how it plans to improve in the future. This report may be prepared as a confidential document, although many institutions publish theirs after the accreditation review cycle has been completed.
3. On-Site Team Visit
The self-study document becomes the basis for scrutiny by an accrediting organization's review team during a visit to the campus. Team members have an opportunity to talk to faculty, students, staff and administrators about issues and questions arising from the self-study. The typical review team is composed largely of peers who have some prior experience in accreditation review and some knowledge of the particular type of program or institution being reviewed. Depending on the accrediting organization, review teams may include members of the general public, representatives of comparable institutions or programs located in another region or representatives from an altogether different sector of higher education. The team usually conducts an exit interview with the president or dean at the conclusion of the visit.
4. Written Team Report
The visiting team prepares a comprehensive accreditation report that includes judgments about the institution’s or program’s strengths, weaknesses and potential for improvement. Staff of the accrediting organization may meet with the visiting review team to discuss the draft report. The draft report is usually shared with the campus or program leadership before it is made final. The final report is then submitted to the accrediting organization, with recommendations on action to be taken. Often a representative from the institution or program appears before a commission of the accrediting organization when the report is discussed and accreditation decisions are made.
5. Final Decisions/Appeals
After a rigorous review of the self-study document, team report and data provided by the institution or program, accrediting decisions can take several forms, from granting accreditation to revoking accreditation. If accreditation is granted, an institution or program will be assigned to the accrediting organization's standard review cycle, whatever that may be. An appeal is available to institutions or programs that are not deemed to have fully met accreditation standards.
6. Monitoring
Accrediting organizations also monitor institutions and programs between reviews and may require annual reporting, interim reviews or substantive change reports from the institutions and programs they accredit. Annual reporting could include financial statements and updated curricular or planning information and student data. Interim reviews are required when issues are left unresolved from a comprehensive evaluation. Substantive change reports are typically required to document important changes in the scope, standards or practices of an institution or program.
During 2020-2021, the accrediting organizations:
- Granted initial accreditation to 1,428 colleges, universities, programs and freestanding institutions;
- Denied initial accreditation to 38 colleges, universities, programs and freestanding institutions;
- Continued the accreditation of 4,659 colleges, universities, programs and freestanding institutions; and
- Gave warning, placed on probation, or “show cause,” terminated, removed or considered appeals of 1,017 colleges, universities, programs and freestanding institutions.
Summary of Accreditation Actions, 2021
Accrediting organizations take a range of formal actions when reviewing an institution or program for initial or continuing accreditation. This chart indicates the types and frequency of actions reported by accrediting organizations arrayed by type of organization. Please contact individual accreditors for additional information about use of these terms.
Figure 28:
Summary of Accreditation Actions, 2021
| Accreditation Action | Regional | National Faith-Related | National Career-Related | Programmatic | Totals |
| Grant Accreditation | 11 | 12 | 63 | 734 | 820 |
| Reaffirm Accreditation | 268 | 36 | 503 | 2,169 | 2,976 |
| Deny Accreditation | 0 | 0 | 8 | 9 | 17 |
| Withdrew Accreditation | 2 | 1 | 91 | 160 | 254 |
| Defer Accreditation | 15 | 2 | 103 | 248 | 368 |
| Notice/Warning | 18 | 1 | 31 | 42 | 92 |
| Show Cause | 2 | 1 | 67 | 10 | 80 |
| Probation | 16 | 1 | 35 | 66 | 118 |
| Appeals | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 7 |
| Total | 332 | 54 | 906 | 3,440 | 4,732 |
Figure 29:
Summary of Accreditation Actions, 2018-2021
| Accreditation Action | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 |
| Grant Accreditation | 1,068 | 880 | 619 | 809 |
| Reaffirm Accreditation | 2,946 | 2,908 | 1,951 | 2,708 |
| Deny Accreditation | 28 | 20 | 21 | 17 |
| Withdrew Accreditation | 279 | 344 | 259 | 252 |
| Defer Accreditation | 501 | 326 | 367 | 353 |
| Notice/Warning | 276 | 186 | 67 | 74 |
| Show Cause | 218 | 102 | 102 | 78 |
| Probation | 212 | 204 | 132 | 102 |
| Appeals | 2 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Totals | 5,530 | 4,973 | 3,522 | 4,400 |