COMMITTEE ON RECOGNITION

APPLICATION FOR CHEA RECOGNITION

ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES (ACCJC)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (PLEASE USE THE HYPERLINKS TO NAVIGATE THE DOCUMENT)

RECOGNITION HISTORY

ACTION LETTERS

APPLICATION FORM

NARRATIVE

CHEA OBSERVATION REPORT

ACCJC RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION REPORT

ACCREDITOR DIRECTORY INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT HTTPS://ACCJC.ORG/FIND-AN-INSTITUTION/

JUNE 15, 2020 COR MEETING

Review using the 2019 CHEA

Policy & Procedures

COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ACCREDITATION

COMMITTEE ON RECOGNITION

RECOGNITION HISTORY

ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR

COLLEGES1 WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

(ACCJC)

I. Nongovernmental Recognition

Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA) awards recognition (1975, 1991)

CHEA Committee on Recognition recommends eligibility (November 2001)

CHEA Board of Directors deems ACCJC eligible for CHEA recognition review (January 2002)

CHEA Committee on Recognition recommends recognition and approves CHEA scope of accreditation (November 2002)

CHEA Board of Directors awards recognition and approves CHEA scope of accreditation

(January 2003)

CHEA Committee on Recognition acknowledges receipt of Five-Year Interim Report (November 2008)

CHEA Committee on Recognition recommends eligibility (June 2012)

CHEA Board of Directors deems ACCJC eligible for CHEA recognition review (September 2012)

CHEA Committee on Recognition informs Board of Directors that the application from ACCJC is continuing to be reviewed (June 2013)

CHEA Committee on Recognition recommends deferral of action on recognition (June 2014)

CHEA Board of Directors defers action on recognition (September 2014)

CHEA Committee on Recognition recommends recognition (June 2015)

CHEA Board of Directors returns the matter to the Committee on Recognition for further consideration (September 2015)

CHEA Committee on Recognition recommends recognition with progress report (July 2016)

CHEA Board of Directors awards recognition with progress report and with the proviso of recognition for four years (September 2016)

CHEA Committee on Recognition acknowledges receipt of progress report and recommends approval of change of scope and requests second progress report (June 2017)

CHEA Board of Directors approves change of the CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation (September 2017)

CHEA Committee on Recognition accepts progress report (June 2018)

II. Governmental Recognition

First recognized in 1952; most recent recognition granted by the U.S. Department of Education in 2015.

1 Formerly the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (WASC-ACCJC). Name change effective November 2012.

Updated March 2020

Serves as Title IV gatekeeper.

III. CHEA-Recognized Scope of Accreditation

Associate degree-granting institutions, with authorization to approve career or technically oriented

baccalaureate degrees, in colleges in California, Hawaii, the Territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of

Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. (2019)

IV. Other Information

Number of institutions accredited: 134 degree-granting; 3 pre-accreditation

Current accrediting unit operating budget (FY19): $4,752,491

V. Type of Last Review

Recognition review and change of scope.

VI. Action Letters

November 29, 2001 CHEA Committee on Recognition letter recommending eligibility

February 4, 2002 CHEA Board of Directors letter granting eligibility

December 12, 2002 CHEA Committee on Recognition letter recommending recognition and approving scope

February 7, 2003 CHEA Board of Directors letter granting recognition and approving scope

December 16, 2008 CHEA Committee on Recognition letter acknowledging Five-Year Interim Report

July 9, 2012 CHEA Committee on Recognition letter recommending eligibility

October 1, 2012 CHEA Board of Directors letter deems ACCJC eligible for recognition review

June 21, 2013 CHEA Committee on Recognition letter informing the Board of Directors that the application from ACCJC is continuing to be reviewed

July 8, 2014 CHEA Committee on Recognition letter recommending deferral of action on recognition

October 21, 2014, CHEA Board of Directors letter deferring action on recognition

June 29, 2015 CHEA Committee on Recognition recommends recognition

September 29, 2015 CHEA Board of Directors letter returning the matter to the Committee on Recognition for further consideration

August 12, 2016 CHEA Committee on Recognition letter recommending recognition with progress report

September 29, 2016 CHEA Board of Directors letter granting recognition with progress report and with the proviso of recognition for four years

June 26, 2017 CHEA Committee on Recognition letter acknowledging receipt of progress report and recommending approval of change of scope and requesting second progress report

October 2, 2017 CHEA Board of Directors letter approving change of the CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation

June 15, 2018 CHEA Committee on Recognition letter accepting report

Additional historical documents can be made available to the COR upon request.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation/CHEA International Quality Group One Dupont Circle NW, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20036

(TEL) 202-955-6126 (FAX) 202-955-6129 www.chea.org

Application Form for CHEA Recognition

2019 Recognition of Accrediting

Organizations Policy and Procedures

Application Form for CHEA Recognition As of January 2019

Council for Higher Education Accreditation Application Form for CHEA Recognition

Accrediting organizations seeking recognition by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) are to submit the CHEA Application Form for Recognition. This Application is to be submitted only following an initial CHEA staff consultation regarding the CHEA recognition process. Application Forms that are incomplete or that do not include the information identified in the Guidelines for Preparation of the

Application Narrative may be returned to the accrediting organization.

CHEA will work with the accrediting organization throughout the recognition process, including the development of a specific timetable for its recognition review.

The CHEA recognition fee of $10,000 is due upon submission of the Application Form. The fee is non-

refundable.

Name of Organization AcronymName of Accrediting Unit

(if different)Acronym

Address (including suite number) City State Zip

Telephone Fax Website

Head of the Accrediting Organization or

Accreditation Unit Title

Email

Direct Telephone Number

Currently CHEA-

recognized

Yes No Date of award of most recent CHEA recognition

Current CHEA-recognized Scope of Accreditation

Requested Change in

Scope (Only if currently

CHEA-recognized)

Yes No Description of Change (Please

include requested revised scope)

Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges ACCJC

10 Commercial Blvd. Ste. 204 Novato CA 94949

415-506-0234 accjc.org

Stephanie Droker, Ed.D President

sdroker@accjc.org 415-506-0234 ext. 106

2016

Associate degree-granting institutions, with authorization to approve career or technically oriented baccalaureate degrees, in colleges in California, Hawaii, the Territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.(2019)

■

■

Application Form for CHEA Recognition As of January 2019

Email all Materials to: Council for Higher Education Accreditation

Attention: Recognition Services Recognition@chea.org

For questions, please contact the CHEA offices at: One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 510

Washington, DC 20036-1135 P:202-955-6126

Number of Accredited Institutions

(Institutional Accreditors only)

Number of Accredited Programs

(Programmatic Accreditors Only)

Degree-Granting Non-Degree Granting Total Degree-Granting Non-Degree Granting Total

Number of Accredited Institutions and Programs

(Institutional and Programmatic Accreditors only)

Institutional Degree

Granting Non-Degree Granting Total

Programmatic Degree

Granting Non-Degree Granting Total

Chief Executive of a Free-standing Accrediting Organization or

Head of an Accreditation Unit in a Larger Organization The organization or accrediting unit of which I am the chief executive or head is seeking recognition by the Council for Higher Education

Accreditation (CHEA) and to be the subject of a CHEA review of the organization’s qualifications for recognition. This certifies that the free-

standing accrediting organization or an accreditation unit’s decision-making body has authorized this application. In addition, this certifies

that the information about the accrediting organization provided to CHEA in this application, including all documents submitted to CHEA by

the organization in connection with the application, is accurate, responsive and not misleading. I understand that an incomplete application or

missing documentation may result in the return of this application by CHEA.

Name Title

Signature Date

134 134 134

134 134

Stephanie Droker President

5/1/2020

134

Council for Higher Education Accreditation CHEA International Quality Group One Dupont Circle NW • Suite 510

Washington, DC 20036-1135

tel: (202) 955-6126 • fax: (202) 955-6129

e-mail: chea@chea.org • web: www.chea.org

Application Narrative Coversheet

Please complete this coversheet and include with the final Application Narrative document.

I. Introduction

A. Name: Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)B. Address: 10 Commercial Blvd., Suite 204, Novato, CA 94949

C. Web page: https://accjc.org

D. CEO: Richard Winn, PresidentE. Most recent CHEA recognition: September 2016F. Number of accredited institutions or programs:

a. at last review by CHEA: 132 degree, 0 non-degreeb. currently: 134 degree, 0 non-degree

II. CHEA Recognized Scope of Accreditation (Recognition Policy, Paragraphs 7 and 8):

A. Provide the organization’s current CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation as last approvedby CHEA.

B. If applicable, identify and describe any accreditation activity conducted by the organizationthat is not part of its current CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation, e.g., institutions orprograms outside the United States, consortia of providers, professional or continuingeducation, internships, residency programs, post-doctoral certification.

C. If applicable, describe any accreditation activity authorized by the accrediting organization'scharter, bylaws or mission statement, but wherein the organization is not currently active.

Associate degree-granting institutions, with authorization to approve a career or technically oriented baccalaureate degree, in colleges in California, Hawaii, the Territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Not applicable

Not applicable

2

D. Describe any plans, initiatives or pilot projects that may result in the submission of a formal

request for a change to the CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation and an approximate time frame for making the request. (Recognition Policy, Paragraphs 7 and 8)

Note: If the accrediting organization is seeking a change of scope as part of the CHEA Recognition process, please respond to Paragraph 8 (Recognition Policy) in its entirety, in addition to A-D above.

No current related plans.

No request for Change of Scope

3

CHEA APPLICATION NARRATIVE

December 2019 for 2020 Recognition

Standard 10. PROMOTES ACADEMIC QUALITY AND ADVANCES STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. Advancement of

academic quality is at the core of accreditation. To be recognized, the accrediting organization provides

evidence that it implements and enforces standards, policies or procedures which:

A. Articulate the accrediting organization’s expectations for academic quality and results associated

with institutional or program performance, including student achievement, consistent with institution

or program mission.

10. A: ACCJC embeds its expectations for academic quality throughout many of its Standards, addressing both the process and the outcomes of this focus. For example, Standard I.B.1 describes our requirement for ongoing, data-supported, and productive dialogue throughout the institution about how to improve student learning and achievement. The use of data to improve learning is addressed again in I.B.4. And I.B.7 integrates this focus into program review for all units of the college. Processes in support of continuous quality improvement are addressed in at least eight other Standards.

ACCJC’s Commission has given extended attention how to foster institutional results as they relate to student achievement. (The will be described in greater detail under CHEA Standard 10.B, below.) Strategies include requiring disaggregation of student achievement data and using results to close any achievement gaps. (See I.B.6, 7.) Given the distinctive character of each member institution, the clear focus in on the accrediting organization’s expectation that the institution should own accountability for its own expectations.

The framing statement for ACCJC’s Standard II states the expectation that the “institution’s programs are conducted at levels of rigor and quality appropriate for higher education.” The 16 elements of Standard II.A describe in greater detail how this expectation is to be implemented at the instructional level.

Regarding the enforcement of Standards, ACCJC’s policy on its institutional actions stipulates that the award of accredited status is clearly conditioned on compliance with Commission Standards, Eligibility Requirements, and Policies (referred to collectively as Standards). Each subsequent engagement with member institutions is framed by these explicit compliance expectations, as described below.

ACCJC’s practice is for each institution’s assigned Vice President liaison to conduct on-campus training for a comprehensive review approximately two years prior to its scheduled visit. This training provides for optimal communication of ACCJC’s expectation for institutional compliance with each Standard and for describing how it is doing so. The institution is provided with a report template that structures its Institutional Self-Evaluation Report (ISER) in careful alignment with ACCJC’s Eligibility Requirements (Nos. 1 – 5), its 127 Standards, and its core institutional Policies. This training explains in detail how to find and link relevant evidence in support of its narrative about compliance with each Standard. One semester prior to the visit, the Vice President returns to the campus for advanced ISER training to address any issues that have surfaced in the previous 18 months of preparation.

Team Chairs are selected more than a year in advance and are brought together for face-to-face training by staff and a Commissioner, with input from experienced chairs. The team Chair Manual together with the training presentation guides them in how to guide a team to make evidence-based judgments on the institution’s ISER. Chairs then make Assignment 1 for each team member to review the entire ISER and draft preliminary findings prior to arrival at the team’s in-person mandatory Team Training. The Chair then makes Assignment 2, giving primary responsibility for each team member to address a specific set of Standards aligned with the reviewer’s area of expertise.

Peer reviewers are selected at least a semester prior to the site visit. A team roster is typically comprised of ten members, including both administrative and academic members. Reviewers receive the institution’s ISER approximately six weeks prior to the visit. They come together at the institution with their preliminary report drafts, ready to verify and clarify what is in the ISER.

4

As the team conducts its site visit and prepares its report, its work is structured by a team report template that requires the team to draw specific conclusions about the institution’s compliance with each of ACCJC’s 127 Standard. The Chair’s training ensures that the team remains focused on the specific requirements of the Standards, leaving none of them to be ignored, and inhibiting the team from drawing judgments on matters not under ACCJC’s jurisdiction. A typical team report can be 35 to 65 pages in length and includes findings about both individual Standards and major clusters of Standards.

When the team’s report is complete, a draft is sent first to the assigned staff liaison to review for compliance with formatting and content protocols, and then to the institution for Correction of Errors of Fact. The final version, approved by the Chair, is sent to the ACCJC office for forwarding to the Commission. While the report is available to all Commissioners, a First and Second Reader are assigned to dig deeply into the case. They analyze both the ISER and the team report and, using a Reader Report Form, verify and substantiate the team’s findings with regard to each Standard. At a convening prior to deliberations, both Readers agree on a proposed action, as framed in keeping with the Policy on Actions (noted above), which becomes a motion to open floor consideration of the action.

This process creates and ensures a “continuity of evidence” along each step of the review. The institution tells its story and is then reviewed, evaluated, and finally appraised – all as framed by ACCJC Standards.

Within 30 days (and now, often much earlier) the Commission’s actions on the accredited status of the institutions it has reviewed are addressed as follows: (1) A formal letter, over the President’s signature, is sent to the CEO of the institution, copied to the District leadership (if applicable), to the Accreditation Liaison Officer, and to the team Chair; (2) A summary announcement of all the actions taken at the session affecting the accredited status of the institutions is sent to the US Department of Education, to other accrediting agencies, and to other interested parties; (3) The ACCJC website directory to show the current accredited status of the institution and other relevant information. (See on 11.A.1 and 12.D.3, following.)

10. B: Require institutions or programs to establish and make public their expectations for achievement of

academic quality and indicators of student success, to implement processes to determine whether students and

graduates meet the stated expectations and to make public, in aggregate form, evidence of student success.

10. B: As further developed in 11. A. 1, below, member institutions are required to post their self-study (the ISER), the resulting report prepared by the peer reviewers, and the Commission’s action letter on their website. A key element of these posting is the institution’s statement about its Institution-Set Standards (Standard I.B.3) and the team’s appraisal of the process and conclusions presented by the institution. By positioning these requirements directly within the institution’s domain, the goals and achievements are linked to each institution’s mission and context. The institution submits an Annual Report providing three-year trend data for each performance indicator. Each report includes a notation as to whether there are gaps between the institution’s aspirational goals and its actual performance in each category.

10. C: As a central part of the accrediting organization’s decision-making about accreditation status, address

how well institutions or programs meet the accrediting organization’s performance expectations, including, at

a minimum, performance expectations consistent with institution or program mission and type. Performance

expectations may emanate from the accrediting organization working with its institutions or programs, or

from an institution or program or from both.

10. C: [Additional narrative] ACCJC’s first standard, IA, is focused on institutional mission. Peer review teams evaluate colleges within the context of the institutional mission. Standards IB, IC, IIA, IIB, and IIC require colleges to set standards on student achievement and student learning, and to evaluate how well they are meeting those goals. This includes developing improvement plans when the college falls short of those goals. Specifically, colleges are required, through ACCJC standard I.B.3, to set goals for student performance (both floor and aspirational goals), assess progress towards meeting those goals, and to develop improvement plans if goals are not met. Institutions must meet standard I.B.3. If an institution is determined to be out of compliance with the standard, it must come into compliance in order to be fully reaffirmed. Guidance regarding compliance with the standards is provided to the Commission and institutions in ACCJC’s Guide to Institutional Self Evaluation, Improvement, and Peer Review. Further, as documented in its Annual Report template, institutions may use the federal College Scorecard data or other recognized sources (SAMS, Clearing House, California Community College Chancellor’s Office data, etc.) as best reflective of its mission and student population. The assigned staff liaisons review the annual reports from institutions in their portfolios and note any serious deficiencies. Colleges must reflect annually on their performance standards and provide narrative to the ACCJC on this reflection. As it happens, the member institutions are currently performing at very positive levels, with no staff-required follow-up in terms of poor student outcomes.

5

10. D: Refer to institutional or programmatic resources only to the extent required for students to emerge

adequately prepared or to address health and safety in the delivery of programs.

10. D: ACCJC reviews an institution’s resources through two lenses. The ACCJC’s Policy on Monitoring Institutional Performance, describes how the Commission reviews institutional resources, which is based upon the federal expectation that accreditors ensure the fiscal strength and stability of member institutions, each institution submits an Annual Financial Report. Given the diverse types of institutions, the reviews use evaluative criteria for three categories of members: California Public; Hawaii and Pacific Island Public; and Private. Based on its most recent audit, the institution depicts a summary of its standing. These reports are reviewed by staff and the Commission’s Advisory Committee on Fiscal Reviews. Should staff determine there are concerning trends, they can require a comprehensive plan to address the identified concerns. Secondly, at the time of a comprehensive review, and in keeping with Standard III.D, “Financial Resources,” peer evaluators ensure that resources are both sufficient and appropriately allocated to support student learning, safety, and personal and academic support.

10. E. Apply its quality standards and policies in ways that respect the institution’s or program’s mission and

prerogative to set priorities and to control how the institution or program is structured and operates.

10. E: In keeping with Standard I.A.1-4, all evaluations begin with a clear respect for the institution’s mission. Each institution is expected to have a formal, board-approved mission statement that shapes its purposes and priorities. This mission statement, then, is the beginning point for creating the institution’s ISER as it undertakes to demonstrate the degree to which it is in fact fulfilling this mission. At team training, a central focus is on the importance of the peer reviewers grounding their appraisals within the context of that mission. In addition to its large public institutions, ACCJC also accredits several very unique institutions, such as Deep Springs (18 students), the Defense Language Institute (a federal military school), and several faith-based colleges. Standard I.C.10 relates to these institutions by stipulating that they give prior notice to students and faculty of their particular world view in their publications. There have been no reported difficulties in recent memory of either team reports or Commission actions that were insensitive to each institution’s mission.

The Commission is very clear that, when it issues a compliance recommendation requiring the institution to address an area of concern, the stated action will not specify how the institution will solve its issue. Stated recommendations are not prescriptive; they entrust to the institution the full prerogative about how to address the concerning issue. The team’s report will provide details and context for the concern but will not chart a path to resolution. This is also a specific area of focus in our frequent trustee training: The Board will only be alerted by the Commission that there is a compliance issue; it will not be told how to solve it.

10. F: Encourage and assist institutions and programs in ongoing improvement of academic quality and

performance, including a commitment to flexibility and appropriate innovation in promoting academic

quality.

10. F: ACCJC has always framed its mission around the dual role of quality assurance and quality improvement. This is best deployed by how teams are trained to craft their reports at the conclusion of a comprehensive visit. Following a detailed analysis of each section of the ISER, and backed by on-site queries, the team can craft two types of recommendations: “In order to improve effectiveness . . .” leads into the team’s peer advice on how to foster improved institutional practices in the interest of better student outcomes. The team may also express, “In order to meet the Standard . . .” This is a compliance requirement, indicating that work needs to be done in order for the Commission fully to provide quality assurance to external stakeholders.

[Additional narrative] Through the self-evaluation process, institutions are required to submit a Quality

Focused Essay (QFE). The focus on the narrative is to describe new and innovative interventions the

institution is undertaking to improve student learning and achievement. Peer Review Teams provide feedback

on the projects in order to help the institution to determine appropriate goals and measures for the new

innovations. The Commission reviews QFE projects as part of their decision making. Institutions report on

the outcomes of their QFE projects in their midterm reports.

ACCJC envisions its members as a true “learning community,” based on the premise that enduring change happens as the membership become more informed about, and insightfully committed to, the core principles embedded in the Standards. Toward this end, ACCJC facilitates the selection, training, and deployment of (often) more than a hundred peer reviewers each semester who become deeply engaged with the Standards as they are implemented at another institution. This raises the collective understanding around the region about academic quality, leading to improvements that are, in turn, diffused throughout each member’s home institution.

6

In addition, ACCJC has launched a hugely successful biennial conference, bringing together some 500 people in 2019 to share best practices with each other. More than 80 proposals were received for concurrent sessions, with 60 of them being placed on the program. Survey results reported 96% satisfaction among the participants. The Commission sees these events as concrete occasions to stimulate and inform continuous improvement.

Furthermore, ACCJC staff collaborate with several other organizations providing professional development within the sector. These include the California Community Colleges’ state-wide Academic Senate, the Community College League of California, the RP Groups for institutional researchers, and convenings for chief academic officers, student affairs officers, and others. Through these shared training events, ACCJC’s philosophy and values become more pervasive within the membership. Since the work of accreditation is largely mediated through the relationships between the staff and the members, these interactions have proven valuable to ACCJC’s mission.

In this context, it is worth mentioning that ACCJC does not see itself as the sole driver of improved quality. The California Community Chancellor’s Office for example, has allocated millions of dollars per year to initiatives in support of improved student outcomes. Similar support is provided by the Hawaii system, and for the Pacific Island members through the Pacific Postsecondary Educational Council (PPEC). ACCJC acknowledges the enormous impact of these resources as parallel to its own efforts.

11. DEMONSTRATES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PERFORMANCE AND TRANSPARENCY.

Public accountability for performance and transparency includes expectations related to the following three

elements: (A) performance of accrediting organizations, (B) performance of accredited institutions or

programs, and, if applicable, (C) performance of accrediting organizations engaged in international activity.

A. The accrediting organization implements and enforces standards, policies or procedures that:

1. Inform the public of the reason(s) for the accrediting organization’s accreditation actions

(i.e., decision made by the accrediting organization, as the result of an institution or program

review to grant, reaffirm, deny, withdraw or defer accreditation, or award candidacy or pre-

accreditation, or to impose notice, warning, show cause or probation status) in a timely and

readily accessible manner, including the institutional or program comments if any. (Also see

Standard 12D3. This information also needs to be included in a directory.)

11. A. 1: Each member’s SAS (Statement of Accredited Status) is posted on our Directory and provides summary accreditation information. It lists current accredited status; dates of first accreditation; most recent visit and Commission action; next scheduled visit; any statement explaining a sanction imposed by the Commission (if applicable); link to each institution’s own website; and the most recent Commission Action Letter. The Commission Action Letter lists the names and numbers of each accreditation standard that the college was found to exceed (commendations), found to be in noncompliance of (compliance requirements), and those where the college could improve upon (recommendations for improvement). Commendations, compliance requirements, and improvement recommendations describe the areas for the notations of excellence, noncompliance, and/or improvement as related to the peer review team’s findings. In addition, ACCJC’s practice is to require the institution to post current accreditation-related information on its own website. This includes, at minimum, its ISER, the team’s report, and the Commission’s action letter, which provides information about the Commission’s action and any related conditions, such as required follow-up reports or visits. In the interest of transparency, the Commission’s letter also stipulates that it be posted on the institution’s website no more than one click from the home page. Follow-on activities, such as additional reports or visits, are also detailed in the letter. The purpose of requiring an institution to host this information on its website is to keep the relevant reports current and located where it will most likely to be found by persons interested in the specific institution.

As seen in the provided example letter, any compliance findings are noted as expressed in the findings of the team and linked to the related Standard. Some institutions create elaborate websites related to their accreditation efforts, listing committees, timelines, ACCJC Standards, and other information to keep their constituents informed and engaged.

In keeping with its policy on Public Disclosure, when the Commission issues the sanction or either Probation or Show Cause:

The Commission also posts a Public Disclosure Notice to the Directory of Member Institutions for every institution that is on Probation or Show Cause status, and a link to the Institution’s response, if any, to a

7

Public Disclosure Notice. The Public Disclosure Notice describes the reasons the institution has been judged to be deficient.

A recent example of an institution placed on Probation was for Monterey Peninsula College (MPC). MPC’s Public Disclosure Notice, as approved by the college, was linked to the college’s listing on the ACCJC Member Directory. This Notice described each of the compliance issues the College needed to address. Though the list was extensive, by the time of the subsequent site visit, each of them had been successfully addressed – an endorsement of the effectiveness of the ACCJC process for helping struggling institutions thrive. Further, the ACCJC now links all institutions’ most recent Commission action letter on its directory to ensure public transparency in accrediting decisions.

11. A. 2: Provide for substantive and timely response by the accrediting organization to legitimate public

concerns and complaints about an institution, program or the accrediting organization.

11. A. 2: ACCJC’s website provides a link by which the public (which includes students and other members of the academic community) can express complaints or concerns about a member institution. The form stipulates that such concerns must relate to ACCJC Standards and to matters under the agency’s jurisdiction. Once received in the office, the complaint policy governs how staff respond to complaints or concerns. Valid complaints are forwarded to the institution’s accreditation officer with a required response as to how the institution is addressing the matter. The institutional response is reviewed by staff to determine if any Standards-related issues remain.

Persons may also register concerns or complaints about ACCJC by using a form adjacent to the form for an institutional complaint. It will be handled in keeping with the policy that is also posted on the website.

11. A. 3: Provide a procedure for the accrediting organization to take timely action to prevent substantially

underperforming institutions or programs from achieving or maintaining accredited status. The procedure

includes application of indicators to determine institution or program performance weakness, procedure for

intervention and options for action by the accrediting organization in such cases.

11. A. 3: ACCJC is committed to using multiple resources and strategies to foster institutional strength and improvement. Withdrawing accreditation from an institution is seen by the Commission as a precipitous, often cataclysmic, event – a last resort when an institution is unwilling or unable to respond to previous interventions. That said, ACCJC is well known for its readiness to withdraw accreditation, even from a large public institution, when required by continued non-compliance with Standards. It the last two decades, ACCJC has acted to withdraw accreditation from Compton College (2006) and from City College of San Francisco (2012). Currently, the ACCJC has placed four colleges, within a college district, on sanction for failing to meet the Commission’s standards and policies on fiscal stability, including the timelines set-forth by the Commission for those colleges to come into compliance. - Berkeley City College (November 2018, January 2019, June 2019, January 2020) - College of Alameda (November 2018, January 2019, June 2019, January 2020) - Laney College (November 2018, January 2019, June 2019, January 2020) - Merritt College (November 2018, January 2019, June 2019, January 2020) ACCJC policy is sufficient to support taking an adverse action on an institution when such becomes ultimately necessary.

11. A. 4: Include ongoing attention to appropriate innovation in demonstrating public accountability.

11. A. 4: [Additional narrative] Since the most recent renewal of CHEA recognition in September 2016, ACCJC has significantly modified its website. In addition to an updated aesthetic, the current site [https://accjc.org ] now features a searchable directory that lists key information for each institution, including its current accredited status and history with the agency. A key feature, reflecting a significant change in ACCJC’s relationship with each institution, is that the name of the assigned liaison is provided. This references what we call the “portfolio model” in which each vice president is assigned a portfolio of institutions with which they form a close and continuing relationship. (See Criterion 10.A, above)

The website includes current information about a monthly cycle of ACCJC webinars on key aspects of accreditation, with archives of prior presentations. A monthly essay by the President is featured; prior essays are archived. All polices, publications, and training resources are searchable and can be downloaded.

8

For plans to more completely respond to the expectations in this area, particularly related to information responsive to public accountability, see additional notes under 11.B.1, below.

11. B. 1: Institutions and programs accredited by the recognized accrediting organization:

1. Provide timely, readily accessible, accurate and consistent aggregate information to the public

about institutional or programmatic performance and student achievement, as such information is

determined by the institution or program, based on quantitative or qualitative information with

external verification as appropriate;

11. B. 1: As noted in the narrative for 10.B (above), member institutions are expected to obtain and post key performance information on their institutional websites, in keeping with Standard I.C.3. Given that these performance indicators are set by each institution in keeping with its program mix, there is some variability in the actual postings. At the time of a comprehensive review, team members verify that the required information has been posted. In addition to information about student achievement and institutional performance, colleges are also required to provide information about the total costs for attendance (I.C.6) and other information in support of an informed decision about attending.

Additional Narrative: To more fully respond to these expectations, ACCJC has engaged with its Web designer to modify the Directory listing for each institution’s entry in order to display the following three elements:

1. A link to the exact page on each institution’s website that displays its most recent listing of student achievement data. This link will be obtained from ACCJC’s required Annual Report, the template for which is being modified to request this link during the spring 2020 report cycle (completed May 2020). The reported link will be tested before being posted by ACCJC to ensure that it is both active and leads to the required information. The link will be periodically tested by ACCJC staff to ensure it remains live and relevant to ACCJC requirements.

2. A link to the institution’s federal College Scorecard posting, reflecting student performance data as obtained through IPEDS reports.

3. A copy of the institution’s most recent ACCJC Commission Action Letter. This letter will document the Commission’s findings in support of its decision about the institution’s accredited status. If all Standards have been found as met, this will be stated in support a full-term reaffirmation action. Any compliance requirements resulting in a required follow-up report or visit, or a sanction, will also be identified by each ACCJC Standard with a brief supporting statement in the Action Letter. This will provide for the public the Commission’s basis for taking its action. (Example Listing 1, Example Letter 1; Example Listing 2, Example Letter 2; Example Listing 3, Example Letter 3)

11. B. 2: Distinguish accurately between programs that are accredited and those that are not.

11. B. 2: Not applicable to ACCJC.

11. B. 3: Provide evidence of ongoing attention to appropriate innovation.

11. B. 3: [Previously posted under 11.A.4] The primary place where support for innovation is exemplified is in ACCJC’s Substantive Change process. This is where an institution’s new, non-traditional, or adaptive changes are brought to the attention of the Commission. The Substantive Change Committee of the Commission seeks to strike the balance between being responsive to the rapidly changing ecosystem of higher education while also recognizing that not all new ideas are good ideas – at least in their first iteration. When needed, staff will provide essential feedback on draft submissions to help an application become more successful

In the last two years, ACCJC has simplified and streamlined the Substantive Change process. Fewer proposed changes require Committee action; more are approved following a staff review, using a protocol approved by the Committee. The Committee most often meets in a Zoom conference room rather than in person. Many proposals are turned around by staff in hours that previously may have taken weeks.

Some innovation, however, presents itself in terms of new (sometimes, novel) institutions as they seek membership through the Eligibility Review process. One current instance is of an entity with a solid history of offering Associate

9

degrees inside San Quentin Prison. Looking far ahead, ACCJC is being supportive of two Native American institutions that are beginning in an “incubation relationship” with existing accredited institutions. As integrated units within these colleges, they are in the process of developing components such as a distinctive curriculum, governing bodies, supportive constituencies, and business plans, toward the day when they might qualify to pursue ACCJC accreditation on their own. At that point, they would conclude their incubation relationship with the parent institution and become independently accredited. Staff members are in regular contact with these emerging institutions in support of their long-term goals.

In anticipation of a growing trend in higher education, ACCJC has recently updated its policy on Competency-Based Education (CBE). In a related action, the Commission invited a nationally recognized CBE expert to present an extended training session at its fall 2019 retreat, the Commission Development Workshop. ACCJC’s purpose in this regard is to be ready to support its members as they adopt best practices in this innovative area.

11. C: Recognized accrediting organizations, with respect to institutions or programs located outside the

United States.

11. C: Not applicable to ACCJC

12. A: SUSTAINS AN EFFECTIVE ACCREDITATION STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION. A

recognized accrediting organization provides evidence that it implements standards, policies and practices and

sustains organizational characteristics consistent with CHEA requirements. To be recognized, the accrediting

organization demonstrates that it:

A. Has legal authority to operate.

12. A: ACCJC has been in continuous operation as a qualified non-profit corporation since 1962. It’s most recent renewal of recognition as a 510(c)(3) organization was received in October 2014. The most recent corporate filings were submitted in 2012. Both of these legal authorizations were secured upon completion of the agency’s separation from the former WASC holding entity.

12. B: Accredits institutions or programs that have legal authority to operate as higher education institutions

or programs and to confer higher education degrees at the associate level or above.

12. B: Membership with the agency begins with an Eligibility review in which the applicant must document its compliance with each requirement. Eligibility Requirement number 1, “Authority,” requires the applicant to document their license to operate within the relevant jurisdiction. Private institutions must also present articles of incorporation. These documents are reviewed and validated by the Eligibility Review Committee before the institution can prepare for a review for Candidacy and Initial Accreditation. By these means, ACCJC is assured that it accredits only legally authorized entities.

12. C: Accredits institutions or programs, a majority of which grant degrees at the associate level or above.

12. C: ACCJC has been careful to define in its Bylaws the core identity of its members as Associate degree-granting “community colleges.” This is defined in terms of the minimum percentage of associate degrees offered (75%) and the minimum percentage of degree-seeking students enrolled in those programs (60%). These requirements are verified by the Eligibility Review Committee when an institution seeks accreditation. ACCJC has also been authorized by CHEA and the US Department of Education to review and approve baccalaureate degrees offered by community colleges, with the provision that the institution retains its fundamental self-understanding as a community college – such as through open-access admissions practices.

12. D: Has written bylaws, policies, procedures and standards readily accessible to the public that describe

officially:

1. The scope of accreditation that may be granted, evaluative standards used and levels of

accreditation status conferred;

12. D. 1: ACCJC has Bylaws that are regularly reviewed, updated (as needed), and approved by the Commission. In addition, it has a slate of policies that define its work with institutions. It also has adopted policies that govern its operations as an agency. In collaboration with its membership, ACCJC has promulgated statements of good practice in higher education referred to as ACCJC’s Standards. These are reviewed for relevance and clarity on a ten-year cycle through extensive stakeholder interaction, with the next cycle of review scheduled to begin in 2022. The Commission supports an active Policy Committee that responds to changes and emerging needs by creating new policies, updating existing policies, or retiring outdated or no longer relevant policies.

12. D. 2: The organization’s operating and decision-making processes, policies and procedures.

12. D. 2: ACCJC’s searchable website lists the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, Policies, Publications, Handbooks, Guides, and notices of decision-making events that are available to the public. These

10

documents are updated following either formal Commission action or the creation of new or updated resources by staff. All documents can be downloaded for local use.

12. D. 3: In a readily accessible directory, all currently accredited institutions or programs and the

corresponding levels of accreditation and accreditation status, including any accreditation status conditions

imposed by the accrediting organization (i.e., restrictions or other specifications affecting an accreditation

status, including but not limited to, the length of a term of accreditation, warning, show cause, suspension or

other conditions defined in the accrediting organization’s policy.

12. D. 3: ACCJC’s institutional Directory contains the information required by both CHEA and ACCJC policy, including current accreditation status. It is updated following any Commission action affecting a member institution. The Directory is searchable by institutional name and also lists all members in alphabetical order on a pull-down function. Under each institution, ACCJC lists current accredited status; dates of first accreditation; most recent visit and Commission action; next scheduled visit; any statement explaining a sanction imposed by the Commission (if applicable); link to each institution’s own website; and the most recent Commission Action Letter. The Commission Action Letter lists the names and numbers of each accreditation standard that the college was found to exceed (commendations), found to be in noncompliance of (compliance requirements), and those where the college could improve upon (recommendations for improvement). Commendations, compliance requirements, and improvement recommendations describe the areas for the notations of excellence, noncompliance, and/or improvement as related to the peer review team’s findings. While the listings always include notices of a Probation or Show Cause sanction, those notices are taken down from the website when the Commission acts to remove the sanction. At this time (fall 2019), there are no members under a sanction, so no current examples can be provided.

Additional Narrative: As noted under Criterion 11.B.1 (above), ACCJC now displays in its institutional Directory the specific reasons in support of the Commission’s actions on a member institution, by posting the most recent Commission Action Letter for each institution. (Fully Reaffirmed; Probation)

12. E: Requires that all accreditation standards be met for an institution or program to obtain and maintain

accredited status.

12. E: The process by which ACCJC ensures that all accreditation standards must be met for an institution to obtain and retain accreditation is described in greater detail in the response to Criterion 10.A, above. The Commission does not make determinations of partial compliance or speak of institutions being “fully accredited,” as there is no partial accreditation.

At the same time, the Commission recognizes that not all 127 Standards carry the same weight of consequentiality. It also recognizes that a binary judgment of “met / not met” is sometimes not adequate to describe an institution when some processes are ongoing or evolving. Therefore, both peer review teams and the Commission exercise a degree of professional judgment to determine an appropriate action. As noted in the Policy on Commission Actions, and depending on these variables, the Commission has the option of reaffirming accreditation for a shorter period of time, requiring the institution to come into compliance within that shortened period. Verifying its compliance may require a focused report, with or without a site visit. The Commission does not reaffirm for the remaining portion of the seven-year cycle until satisfactory compliance findings are documented. An institution is not given a seven-year term when any compliance issues remain pending.

12. F: Maintains clearly described and published operational separation from any parent or sponsoring

organizations, including independence with respect to accreditation standards, policies and procedures, in the

conduct of all accreditation reviews, functions, operations and all accreditation actions.

12. F: Not applicable to ACCJC

12. G: Is operational and has conducted more than one accreditation review for each type of institution or

program identified in the proposed statement of CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation.

12. G: Since its founding in 1962, ACCJC has likely conducted several thousand comprehensive institutional reviews – though no historic record has been surveyed to determine the exact number. Similarly, since the agency was authorized by the US Department of Education to review baccalaureate degrees through its Substantive Change process, it has reviewed and approved these degrees at 15 of the California public institutions and at 5 of the private and Pacific Island colleges. As such, it has demonstrated the competencies and capacity to review each type of institution and each degree program covered in its CHEA Statement of Scope.

12. H: Has adequate financial, staff and operational resources to perform its accreditation functions efficiently

and effectively.

11

12. H: As supported by the attached CHEA Budget Summary document, ACCJC continues to operate on a very sound financial platform. Our financial report shows significant surplus revenues at the conclusion of operations for the past three years. In two of the last three years, the agency has increased its member dues assessments only by an amount approximating the federal COLA percentage; in the third year, no increase was assessed. The agency assesses no additional charges for costs associated with the vice presidents visiting their assigned institutions, accompanying teams on the site visits, or responding to special requests. Through the exceptional work of the Vice President for Operations, the agency has received clean audit reports for each of the last five years. The office is located in a spacious rented facility with a comfortable rent basis. The agency can acquire any needed technology any time it is needed. Retirement accounts are fully funded. The agency has invested its ample reserves in interest-bearing broker accounts.

While the number of staff is relatively small at this time, extensive internal conversations have concluded that that the combination of skills and experience is adequate to meet the agency’s obligations to its members. The resources are available for staff expansion upon determination of need.

12.I: Makes clear distinctions between actions required of institutions or programs necessary for accreditation

and actions that are suggestions for institutional or program improvement.

12. I: As described in greater detail in10. F (above), the Commission makes a very clear distinction between improvement recommendations and compliance requirements. A recommendation for improvement, which was brought forward from the team report, asks the institution to respond to it at the time of its Midterm Report, typically about four years later. As a recommendation, the institution has latitude to determine how – indeed, if at all – it wishes to address the recommendation. Most Midterm Reports reveal that the institutions take these recommendations quite seriously and take actions based on the advice of their peers.

By contrast, responding to a compliance finding is not optional. It is always accompanied by a required follow-up report, with or without a visit, to verify compliance. The institution’s response is brought back before the Commission for evaluation; a formal Commission action verifies whether the institution has now been found in full compliance.

The team report template guides the team to make only those two kinds of recommendations.

12. J: Assures procedural due process in accreditation activities, including, without limitation, (1) publication

of an appeals policy that informs the institution or program of the process to be used and actions that may be

taken (i.e., the grounds for appeal, the process by which the appeal will be conducted and heard by individuals

independent of the body that made the decision to deny or remove accreditation and any costs associated with

an appeal) and (2) an effectively administered conflict of interest policy that covers all accrediting

organization staff, site visitors and members of accreditation-recommending and decision-making bodies.

12. J: ACCJC follows Due Process and Conflict of Interest procedures in its operations, as described below. The Policy on Institutional Appeals specifies that adverse actions are appealable. An Adverse Action is defined in the policy, in keeping with federal definitions, as the denial or withdrawal of Candidacy or Initial Accreditation, or the withdrawal of Accreditation. The policy specifies the grounds, nature, and process of the appeal. The policy also confirms that the accredited status of the institution remains the same as it was prior to the appeal until the outcome of the appeal is determined. An updated version of the policy was approved by the Commission in June 2019. The Commission has not issued an adverse action since 2013. The Commission’s Policy on Good Practice in Relations with Member Institutions lists 18 specific commitments the Commission makes about how it will relate to its members in relation to ensure effectiveness and adherence to due process. It addresses such issues as peer reviewers’ commitments to confidentiality; opportunities to review and correct errors of fact in team reports and to appear before the Commission; and to submit comments to review teams. The Commission also publishes the Policy on the Rights and Responsibilities of the Commission and Member Institutions. This policy delineates at a higher level certain mutual agreements between the Commission and each member institution that are essential for the effective conduct of the agency’s work. The Commission publishes and implements its Policy on Conflict of Interest for Commissioners, Evaluation Team Members, Consultants, Administrative Staff, and Other Commission Representatives, which defines the multiple

12

procedures it follows to ensure avoidance of conflicts of interest in all its operations. The policy defines the various ways in which there may be an actual or a perceived conflict of interest. As noted in its title, the Policy applies to both paid staff and volunteers. When the Commission convenes in closed session to consider institutional actions, the list of institutions on the agenda is read aloud by the president. As each institution is named, any Commissioner with a conflict of interest as defined by the Policy identifies her/himself by name to be recused when that institution’s case comes before the Commission. The names are recorded and the list of recusals becomes part of the permanent record of that session. When staff create a draft list of peer reviewers prior to a site visit, the list is sent to the CEO of the member institution together with a notice that the list should be reviewed for any potential conflict of interest from the institution’s perspective. Should any proposed reviewer be deemed by the CEO to pose an actual or perceived conflict of interest, that person is replaced. The CEO then approves the final roster of reviewers.

12. K: Requires participation by higher education professionals, practitioners where appropriate, and the

public in accreditation reviews, decision-making, and policy setting, including review, revision and adoption of

accreditation standards.

12. K: ACCJC maintains an active database of some 3,000 names of peer reviewers, matched with their qualifications, who have expressed readiness to serve as peer reviewers. For each semester’s slate of site visits, staff prepare a draft roster, typically of ten reviewers, aligned with the character of the institution they will review. A minimum of four members hold academic positions at their home institutions; the others bring a variety of administrative experience in keeping with the focus of core standards, such as student affairs or business operations. As noted previously, these teams, once approved by the institution, receive day-long in-person training before conducting their onsite reviews.

The ACCJC Commission is comprised of 20 actively engaged professionals. As defined by the ACCJC Bylaws, the majority of these have applied to serve, have been vetted by the Nominating Committee, and have stood for election by the CEOs of the member institutions. These represent both administrators and academics and come from the varied types of institutions and geographical regions of the ACCJC membership. Per federal policy, at least one in seven members represents the public. Some members are appointed by related entities; these include the California Community College Chancellors Office, the WASC Schools Commission, the WASC Senior College and University Commission, the Hawaii Higher Education System, and the Pacific Postsecondary Education Council.

Upon election or appointment, Commissioners are provided with an extensive orientation and are assigned a mentor from among experienced Commissioners. All members serve on at least one of the Commission’s several active committees. Each committee has at least one public member.

Commissioners conduct their work in two broad categories: Actions on the accredited status of member institutions; and conducting the business of the agency. As a convention of ACCJC, when convened to do institution work, they are the “Commission.” When convened to do the work of the agency, they are the “Board of Directors.” A typical meeting agenda is divided accordingly. The Commission clearly owns its responsibilities to set policy, review and approve the Standards, oversee the review process, and hold the agency accountable to the various stakeholders who rely on its work.

12. L: Fosters reasonable consistency in accreditation reviews of, and accreditation actions about, institutions

or programs, while allowing for varying institution or program mission, purpose and operation.

12. L: When applying the concept of consistency in decision-making, especially in the context of member variability in terms of mission, ACCJC’s focus is on the process of decision-making. This underscores the awareness that no two institutions can be regarded as directly comparable in regard to circumstance and performance, thus deserving of the same (or consistent) Commission actions.

ACCJC is intentional about being consistent in decision-making processes through several strategies. As described under Criterion 10.A, above, each stage of the review process is tightly structured around the ACCJC Standards. The ISER is written to address each Standard; the peer reviewers examine evidence under each Standard and frame their findings by that Standard. The Commission makes its judgements about the institution’s accredited status based its compliance with the Standards. When combined with a careful implementation of the agency’s Conflict of Interest

13

protocols, each decision is shielded as far as possible from extraneous influences that could lead to an uneven or biased decision outcome.

As the Commission begins its considerations of a number of comprehensive reviews during its closed session, it selects the first case to use for “norming” the decision process. The Commission gives specific attention to how it conducts that case – the thoroughness of the conversation, the appropriate use of data, the care with which it has followed decision protocols, etc. Then, at the conclusion of the agenda of the full list of institutional cases, the Commission returns to how it handled that first case and inquires as to whether it has deviated from that protocol with any of the subsequent cases. Commissioners are able to ask for any case to be reviewed if there is a perception its consideration has deviated from consistent practice. Only following that item do all of the actions become official.

12. M. 1: For purposes of promoting effective practice in the future, engages in regular critical self-evaluation

of its performance, standards, policies and impact by the:

1. Review of aggregate information regarding the extent to which the accredited institutions or

programs are achieving their expectations for student learning.

12.M. 1: On an annual basis, ACCJC collects key indicators of student achievement, licensure exam pass rates, and employment rates. The Annual Report, along with the Annual Fiscal Report, is the primary reporting tool for annual monitoring of student achievement during the review cycle. During the Commission’s June meeting each year, staff provides an Annual Report Summary which provides the Commission opportunity to review aggregate date regarding the extent to which accredited institutions are achieving their expectations for student success. Institutions provide 3-year trend data in their Annual Reports. The key indicators include actual performance data measured against institution set standards (floor and stretch goals) for course completion, certificate completion, degree completion, transfer to 4-year colleges and universities, and licensure pass rates. The report notes the number of member institutions that have raised or lowered their institution set standards, as well as percentage changes in achievement rates of ACCJC’s member institutions. For example, based on the 2019 Annual Report Summary, 28 members raised their institution set standards for course completion compared to the previous year; 48 institutions raised their standards in certificate completion; and 49 institutions raised their standards in degree completion. 103 institutions reported increases in the number of degrees awarded with an average increase by 16% over the prior year. 86% of programs reported by colleges leading to licensure examination had pass rates over 70% and more than 50% of those programs had pass rates over 90%.

12. M 2: Collection and review of evidence that the accrediting organization’s own performance promotes

academic quality and student success and serves both higher education and the public.

12. M. 2: As an organization, ACCJC is dedicated to improvement in all of its programs and operations. The organization has developed many tools designed to evaluate the effectiveness of its educational programs, training activities, and operations. Evaluation input helps identify effective areas of Commission functioning and assists the Commission in setting priorities to focus on specific directions and activities which can lead to the improvement and strengthening of Commission organization and operations.

Thoughtful evaluation enables the Commission to build better communication and understanding with its members, leading to a stronger, more cohesive working community in support of the peer system of accreditation. When coupled with the Commission’s own regular self-evaluation and reflection, input from the field clarifies what ACCJC members need and offers a better understanding of what Commission members expect from themselves and from each other. Results are used internally to improve activities and processes. The following are a few examples of the kinds of surveys ACCJC regularly uses to measure its own performance: ACCJC Team Training Surveys ISER Training Survey ALO Survey Chair Training Evaluation CEO Evaluations of Peer Review Process and Team Visits ACCJC Commission Self-Evaluation ACCJC Post Conference Survey Commission Meeting Evaluations Webinar Surveys Additional Narrative: The Commission also holds an annual Commissioner Development Workshop (CDW) in order to further investigate areas to improve its own performance and quality. The Commission’s Evaluation and Planning

14

Committee (E&P Committee) works with the ACCJC President and Commission Chair to develop the CDW agenda. The E&P Committee solicits input from all Commissioners to ensure relevant topics of interest are explored. The ACCJC President and Commission Chair invite speakers with national perspectives on academic quality and assurance to present at CDW.

Observation Visit Form Revised 2019 1

COMMITTEE ON RECOGNITION

OBSERVATION VISIT REPORT FORM

2019 CHEA Recognition Policy and Procedures

October 2019

Name of Accrediting Organization or Unit: Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges

Numbers in Attendance for Observation Visit: 19 Commissioners and 5 AACJC staff members

Location: San Diego, CA

Date of Observation Visit: January 14-16, 2020

Name of CHEA Visitor: Karen W. Kershenstein

I. INTRODUCTION: DESCRIPTION OF VISIT (i.e., brief overview of the context of the observationvisit, description of the accrediting organization and summary of major events that occurred).

The Bylaws of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC orCommission), Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), which were revised inJanuary 2019, stipulate that “the purposes of ACCJC include improving and validating the qualityof postsecondary education at public and private educational institutions. ACCJC’s scope ofjurisdiction is primarily Associate degree-granting institutions that identify as community colleges,career and technical colleges, and junior colleges.” ACCJC’s Articles of Incorporation, dated Nov6, 2012, state that the agency is incorporated in the State of California as a nonprofit, publicbenefit corporation whose “purposes include improving and validating the quality of postsecondaryeducation at public and private institutions, with a focus on community colleges, through thecreation and application of standards of accreditation and related policies, and through a processof review by higher education professionals and public members.”

ACCJC accredits institutions in California, Hawaii, the territories of Guam and American Samoa,the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated Statesof Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands that have as their primary mission thegranting of associate degrees but which may also award certificates and other credentials,including a limited number of baccalaureate degrees.

At the time it submitted its application to CHEA, ACCJC accredited 134 institutions.

As part of the evaluation of ACCJC’s application for continued recognition, a CHEA visitorobserved a decision meeting of the Commission in San Diego, CA January 14-16, 2020. During

Observation Visit Report Form 2

the open portion of the meeting, the Commission granted final approval to four revised policy documents that had previously gone out for comment and approved another three to go out for comment. In addition, the Commission received updates on a number of topics with implications for accreditation, such as Reauthorization and USDE’s final regulations, as well as reports from various Commission committees. In the closed portion of the meeting, the Commission took action on ten institutions up for reaffirmation of accreditation as a result of a comprehensive site visit, three institutions seeking Candidacy status, three institutions on the agenda for their mid-term reports, and six institutions on the agenda for follow-up reports. The Commission also took action on a special report submitted by a community college district.

II. EVIDENCE THAT CHEA RECOGNITION STANDARDS ARE MET: Describe whether the organization

(a) showed evidence of meeting the standard, (b) showed evidence it is not meeting the standard, or (c) there was no opportunity to observe the organization implementing the standard. Please use the space below each standard. This can be expanded as needed. Standard 10. Promotes Academic Quality and Advances Student Achievement. Advancement of academic quality is at the core of accreditation. To be recognized, the accrediting organization provides evidence that it implements and enforces standards, policies or procedures which: A. Articulate the accrediting organization’s expectations for academic quality and results

associated with institutional or program performance, including student achievement, consistent with institution or program mission.

Comments: ACCJC’s Guide to Institutional Self-Evaluation, Improvement, and Peer Review defines academic quality as “a way of describing how well the learning opportunities, instruction, support, services, environment, resource utilization and operations of a college result in student learning and student achievement of their educational goals. The Accreditation Standards, collectively, are factors in determining academic quality in the context of institutional mission.” The Guide also defines “student learning” as competencies in skill and knowledge gained by students at the institution and states that “The knowledge and competencies are expressed for segments of study or activity through measurable learning outcomes at the institutional, program, degree, and course levels.” Finally, the Guide defines student achievement as “student attainment that can be measured at defined points of completion, including successful course, certificate and degree completion, licensure examination passage, post-program employment, and other similar elements.” During the January Commission meeting, Commissioners’ discussions routinely focused on student learning and achievement in the context of mission. This was particularly evident in the case of the three institutions that were on the agenda for Candidacy status, each of which had a rather unusual mission.

B. Require institutions or programs to establish and make public their expectations for

achievement of academic quality and indicators of student success, to implement processes to determine whether students and graduates meet the stated expectations and to make public, in aggregate form, evidence of student success. (Also see Standard 11B1)

Comments: Standard I.B3 of ACCJC’s Accreditation Standards requires its institutions to establish institution-set standards for student achievement appropriate to mission, to assess how well they are achieving them in pursuit of continuous improvement, and to publish this information. Institutions must set numerical standards for student achievement in the following areas: course completion rates, certificates, degrees (associate and, if applicable, baccalaureate), transfer, licensure examination passage, and employment rates for career and technical education students. In their annual report, institutions must provide not just their institution-set standard (floor) for each category for the current and two preceding years, but also their

Observation Visit Report Form 3

stretch (aspirational) goal for each category as well as the actual numbers for the category. Finally, ACCJC requires institutions to disaggregate and analyze outcomes data and to implement strategies to address any performance gaps identified as a result of the analysis. During the January Commission meeting, there were numerous discussions on the standards each institution set for student achievement, on whether the institution met those standards, and on what the institution was doing if it failed to meet any institution-set standard. In one discussion in particular, Commissioners debated whether the gap in meeting an institution-set standard warranted a recommendation for compliance or a recommendation for improvement.

C. As a central part of the accrediting organization’s decision-making about accreditation

status, address how well institutions or programs meet the accrediting organization’s performance expectations, including, at a minimum, performance expectations consistent with institution or program mission and type. Performance expectations may emanate from the accrediting organization working with its institutions or programs, or from an institution or program or from both.

Comments: The introduction to the ACCJC Accreditation standards states that the “primary purpose of an ACCJC-accredited institution is to foster student learning and student achievement.” ACCJC gives institutions flexibility to define academic quality in the context of their mission, but requires evaluation teams to assess not just the appropriateness of institution-set standards for student achievement and student learning outcomes (SLOs) but also how well the institution meets its own standards. The Commission in turn reviews the team’s assessment of an institution performance with respect to its own standards/SLOs before reaching an accreditation decision. During the January Commission meeting, the principal reader for each of the institutions being reviewed for reaffirmation of accreditation referenced the institution’s SLOs and, in some instances, the PLOs (program learning objectives) as well.

D. Refer to institutional or programmatic resources only to the extent required for students to

emerge adequately prepared or to address health and safety in the delivery of programs.

Comments: Standard I.A3 of ACCJC’s Accreditation Standards states “The [institution’s] mission guides institutional decision-making, planning, and resource allocation…” The introduction to Standard III: Resources includes the following statement: “The institution effectively uses its human, physical, technology, and financial resources to achieve its mission and to improve academic quality and institutional effectiveness.” Standard III.D1 requires financial resources to be “sufficient to support and sustain student learning programs and improve institutional effectiveness.” Standard III.D2 states that the “institution’s mission and goals are the foundation for financial planning…” One case on the agenda for the January Commission meeting dealt with institutional finances, specifically the financial support institutions in a particular district were receiving from the district. During the Commission’s discussion of the case, multiple Commissioners raised questions about the impact of the district’s financial support on student learning at the individual campuses.

E. Apply its quality standards and policies in ways that respect the institution’s or program’s

mission and prerogative to set priorities and to control how the institution or program is structured and operates.

Comments: The introduction to ACCJC’s Accreditation Standards emphasizes the centrality of mission to the accreditation process: “The mission provides the framework for all institutional goals and

Observation Visit Report Form 4

activities.” The introduction to Standard I: Mission, Academic Quality and Institutional Effectiveness, and Integrity expands of this: “The institution demonstrates strong commitment to a mission that emphasizes student learning and student achievement.” The PowerPoint presentation that ACCJC uses for team training includes a slide headed “Mission is the Framework of the Review.” ACCJC’s Standard IV: Leadership and Governance makes clear the institution’s prerogative to structure itself as it deems best while acknowledging the need for a structure that “facilitates decisions that support student learning programs and services and improve institutional effectiveness.” During the January Commission meeting, Commissioners considered the applications of three institutions for Candidacy, each of which had a somewhat unusual mission. Commission discussion of each of these cases demonstrated the Commission’s respect for the uniqueness of each institution’s mission.

F. Encourage and assist institutions and programs in ongoing improvement of academic quality

and performance, including a commitment to flexibility and appropriate innovation in promoting academic quality.

Comments: ACCJC sees its primary mission as focused on the dual role of quality assurance and quality improvement. Its emphasis on quality improvement is evident in the introduction to its Accreditation Standards: “The effective institution ensures academic quality and continuous improvement through ongoing assessment of learning and achievement and pursues institutional excellence and improvement through ongoing, integrated planning and evaluation.” A unique feature of ACCJC’s accreditation system is its requirement to have institutions submit a “Quality Focus Essay” (QFE) in conjunction with their application for reaffirmation of accreditation. The QFE must describe 2-3 projects the institution has identified to improve its student learning and/or student achievement, and institutions must report of these projects in their mid-term report. During the January Commission meeting, there was extensive discussion of the QFE’s of institutions seeking reaffirmation of accreditation, in particular whether the projects an institution had chosen would achieve the intended purpose of improving student learning. There was also discussion of the QFEs of institutions on the agenda for review of their mid-term report. ACCJC also engages in other activities directed toward improving quality and performance. For example, it uses its biennial conference to facilitate the sharing of best practices among member institutions, as evidenced by its most recent conference, which was entitled “What the Future Holds: Innovative Conversations to improve academic quality. At the conclusion of the January Commission meeting, the chair took note of some common areas of noncompliance noted in team reports this cycle and suggested that those areas be considered for some type of Commission-directed activity to assist institutions in improving their compliance with the standards in question.

Standard 11. Demonstrates Public Accountability for Performance and Transparency. Public accountability for performance and transparency includes expectations related to the following three elements: (A) performance of accrediting organizations, (B) performance of accredited institutions or programs, and, if applicable, (C) performance of accrediting organizations engaged in international activity.

Observation Visit Report Form 5

A. The accrediting organization implements and enforces standards, policies or procedures that:

1. Inform the public of the reason(s) for the accrediting organization’s accreditation actions (i.e., decision made by the accrediting organization, as the result of an institution or program review to grant, reaffirm, deny, withdraw or defer accreditation, or award candidacy or pre-accreditation, or to impose notice, warning, show cause or probation status) in a timely and readily accessible manner, including the institutional or program comments if any. (Also see Standard 12D3. This information also needs to be included in a directory.)

Comments: For each accredited institution, ACCJC publishes on its website a Statement of Accredited Status, which includes the current accredited status, as well as the dates of the first accreditation, the last comprehensive review, and the next comprehensive review. ACCJC does not currently provide the specific reasons for the action(s) the Commission has taken with respect to an institution unless the Commission has placed the institution on Probation or Show Cause, in which case the Commission posts a Public Disclosure Notice under the Directory listing for the institution. ACCJC is in the process of upgrading its website to provide the reasons for all Commission actions; the upgrade is expected to be completed in the summer of 2020. It should be noted that ACCJC requires institutions to post current accreditation-related information on their own websites. This includes, at a minimum, the institution’s self-study, the team report, and the Commission action letter.

2. Provide for substantive and timely response by the accrediting organization to legitimate

public concerns and complaints about an institution, program or the accrediting organization.

Comments: ACCJC publishes its Policy on Student and Public Complaints against Institutions on its website, and provides a link to the complaint form to be used in filing a complaint. The policy requires staff to review the complaint within 10 days of receipt. If the complaint appears to be within the scope of the Commission’s policies and jurisdiction, it is forwarded to the institution, which is given 30 days to respond. Commission staff then reviews the institution’s response and any supporting evidence, and determines if the complaint has sufficient substance to warrant further investigation. The time necessary to complete the investigation will vary depending on the circumstances. However, once the investigation is complete, a report of the findings is sent to the Commission for review and action and also to the institution. Prior to the Commission action, the institution is given 30 days to respond to the report. No complaints were reviewed at the January Commission meeting. According to the ACCJC President, the Commission typically investigates about 2-3 complaints a year that suggest an institution may not be in compliance with the Commission’s standards, policies, or procedures.

3. Provide a procedure for the accrediting organization to take timely action to prevent

substantially underperforming institutions or programs from achieving or maintaining accredited status. The procedure includes application of indicators to determine institution or program performance weakness, procedure for intervention and options for action by the accrediting organization in such cases.

Comments: ACCJC has a series of actions available to it if an institution should be underperforming. If the underperformance is revealed during a review for reaffirmation of accreditation, for example, the Commission may take any of the following actions in order of increased severity: (1) require a follow-up report on the institution’s efforts to correct the deficiencies,

Observation Visit Report Form 6

(2) accredit for a shortened period (18 months) and require a follow-up report and possibly a site visit, (3) place the institution on Warning or Probation, or (4) issue Show Cause. During the January Commission meeting, the Commission reaffirmed the accreditation of three institutions for a period of 18 months, one with a follow-up report and two with a follow-up report and a site visit. The Commission also placed four institutions on Probation after review of a special report.

4. Include ongoing attention to appropriate innovation in demonstrating public accountability.

Comment: To enhance its transparency and public accountability, ACCJC is in the midst of a major upgrade to its website. When completed, its Directory of Institutions will provide the public with much more information about each of its accredited institutions, including (1) the Commission’s most recent action regarding the institution and the specific reasons for that action, (2) a link to the institution’s most recent student achievement data, as reported to ACCJC on the Annual Report, and (3) a link to the institution’s Federal College Scorecard, which includes student performance data collected through IPEDS reports.

B. Institutions and programs accredited by the recognized accrediting organization:

1. Provide timely, readily accessible, accurate and consistent aggregate information to the public about institutional or programmatic performance and student achievement, as such information is determined by the institution or program, based on quantitative or qualitative information with external verification as appropriate;

Comment: Standard I.B3 of ACCJC’s Accreditation Standards requires institutions to post key performance indicators on their institutional websites. These include student achievement and institutional performance, as well as the cost of attendance. A review of randomly selected institutional websites verified that institutions are posting the required performance indicators.

2. Distinguish accurately between programs that are accredited and those that are not;

and

Comments: ACCJC accredits entire institutions. It requires all parts of the institution to comply with ACCJC Eligibility requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies.

3. Provide evidence of ongoing attention to appropriate innovation.

Comment: ACCJC’s Eligibility Requirement 19 and Accreditation Standards B9 require institutions to document that they have established and implemented a comprehensive process of program review, planning, and resource allocation and use the results of that process to improve institutional effectiveness and academic quality. ACCJC allows institutions to utilize appropriate innovation as they seek to improve effectiveness and achieve, and in some cases, expand their mission. An example of such innovation is an associate degree program offered at San Quentin Prison, which achieved Candidacy at the January Commission meeting. Another is a partnership some institutions have entered into with two Native American institutions that allows the latter an “incubation relationship” with the accredited institutions while they develop various components such as curriculum and governing boards in preparation for seeking accreditation in their own right at some point in the future.

Observation Visit Report Form 7

ACCJC anticipates that more and more of its accredited institutions will move into competency-based education, so it developed a new CBE policy, which received final approval at the January Commission meeting. It also used one of its annual Commission Development Workshops (CDW) to train Commissioners and staff on CBE. As the number of requests from institutions to engage in CBE and other educational innovations has increased, ACCJC has simplified and streamlined its Substantive Change process so that institutions can be granted approval of their applications for substantive change in an expedited manner. A report from the Committee on Substantive Change at the January Commission meeting documented that since June 2019, 12 institutions have been approved to add new programs at the baccalaureate level using the new process, and 150 administrative approvals have been granted based on the preliminary reviews of substantive change requests by Commission staff.

C. Recognized accrediting organizations, with respect to institutions or programs located outside

the United States:

1. Communicate and consult with appropriate in-country governmental and non-governmental accreditation or quality assurance entities regarding the accrediting organization’s current and proposed activities;

2. Provide evidence of the accrediting organization’s capacity and competence to engage in international accreditation activities, including language and cultural differences, consideration of ongoing quality assurance activities in the country, national and local factors that would affect the accreditation process and attention to the safety of all those involved;

3. Provide evidence of substantially comparable application of standards, practices, capacity and expectations of results to U.S. and non-U.S. institutions and programs alike; and

4. When describing the accreditation status of international institutions and programs, provide notice to the public of the nature and content of the accommodations that were made for local conditions and alternative evaluation standards or practices that were used as part of the accreditation process and decision-making.

Comment: ACCJC does not accredit any institutions outside of the United States or the American Affiliated Pacific Islands. Therefore, standards C1, C2, C3, and C4 do not apply.

Standard 12. Sustains an Effective Accreditation Structure and Organization. A recognized accrediting organization provides evidence that it implements standards, policies and practices and sustains organizational characteristics consistent with CHEA requirements. To be recognized, the accrediting organization demonstrates that it:

A. Has legal authority to operate.

Comment: As stated in its Articles of Incorporation dated Nov 6, 2012, ACCJC is incorporated in the State of California as a nonprofit, public benefit corporation whose “purposes include improving and validating the quality of postsecondary education at public and private institutions, with a focus on community colleges, through the creation and application of standards of accreditation and related policies, and through a process of review by higher education professionals and public members.”

B. Accredits institutions or programs that have legal authority to operate as higher education

institutions or programs and to confer higher education degrees at the associate level or

Observation Visit Report Form 8

above. For non-U.S. institutions or programs in countries in which legal authority to award degrees is not available, the U.S. accrediting organization meets this requirement if it demonstrates that it accredits only those institutions or programs that have standing and significant support in the local community or other communities of interest, e.g., well-known professional organizations and other respected entities that support the institution program.

Comment: ACCJC’s Eligibility Requirement 1 requires institutions seeking its accreditation to be “authorized or licensed to operate as a post-secondary institution and to award degrees by an appropriate governmental organization or agency as required by each of the jurisdictions or regions in which it operates.” During the January Commission meeting, the three institutions granted Candidacy all demonstrated compliance with Eligibility Requirement 1.

C. Accredits institutions or programs, a majority of which grant degrees at the associate level or

above.

Comment: According to the ACCJC Bylaws, ACCJC is authorized to accredit institutions that have as their primary mission the granting of associate degrees, but which may also offer certificates or credentials, including bachelor’s degrees. ACCJC’s operational definition of having as a primary mission the granting of associate degrees includes the following: “75% of the programs offered by the institution must be at the associate degree or pre-associate college level, and 60% of students at the institution must be in the associate degree or pre-associate level programs. A primarily tw0-year higher education institution may offer baccalaureate degrees without regard to these percentages.” At the time of the January Commission meeting, ACCJS accredited 134 institutions with a primary mission of granting the associate degree, about 20 of which also offered the baccalaureate degree.

D. Has written bylaws, policies, procedures and standards readily accessible to the public that

describe officially:

1. The scope of accreditation that may be granted, evaluative standards used and levels of accreditation status conferred;

Comment: ACCJC’s website lists its Bylaws as well as its Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission Policies, as well as a variety of other documents and publications.

2. The organization’s operating and decision-making processes, policies and

procedures; and

Comment: ACCJC’s website lists its Bylaws as well as its Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission Policies, as well as a variety of other documents and publications.

3. In a readily accessible directory, all currently accredited institutions or programs and

the corresponding levels of accreditation and accreditation status, including any accreditation status conditions imposed by the accrediting organization (i.e., restrictions or other specifications affecting an accreditation status, including but not limited to, the length of a term of accreditation, warning, show cause, suspension or other conditions defined in the accrediting organization’s policy).

Observation Visit Report Form 9

ACCJC’s website contains a directory of all currently accredited institutions. Prior to the CHEA observation visit, no accredited institution was subject to sanctions (Warning, Probation, Show Cause). However, four institutions were placed on Probation at the January meeting. As noted above under 11A.1, ACCJC does not currently display in its Directory the specific reasons for the action(s) the Commission has taken with respect to an institution. However, it plans to incorporate this information in a redesigned directory that is anticipated to be uploaded to the website in the summer of 2020.

E. Requires that all accreditation standards be met for an institution or program to obtain and

maintain accredited status.

Comment: If ACCJC determines that an institution is in compliance with the Eligibility Requirements, the Accreditation Standards, and the Commission’s policies, it will grant/reaffirm accreditation for a period of 7 years. If ACCJC determines that an accredited institution is in compliance but has some minor deficiencies, it will reaffirm accreditation for a period of seven years but require the institution to submit a follow-up report demonstrating that it has resolved the deficiencies. If ACCJC determines that an accredited institution has significant deficiencies, it will reaffirm accreditation for a period of 18 months and require the institution to submit a follow-up report demonstrating that it has resolved all deficiencies. Depending on the nature of the deficiencies, ACCJC may also require a follow-up site visit. If the institution satisfies the Commission that it has resolved all deficiencies within the 18-month period, it is eligible to have its accreditation reaffirmed for the remainder of the 7-year cycle. At the January Commission meeting, 7 institutions were reaffirmed for the full 7 years; none required a follow-up report. Additionally, 3 institutions were reaffirmed for the shortened 18-month period, with 1 of them required to submit a follow-up report and 2 required to submit a follow-up report and host a follow-up visit. In the case of the 6 institutions on the agenda for review of a previously requested follow-up report, 5 had their accreditation reaffirmed for the remainder of the 7-year cycle, while the sixth was given an extension of the time to come into compliance for good cause. Commissioners carefully reviewed the latter’s report and documentation and also questioned the institution’s representatives who were present at the meeting before granting the extension.

F. Maintains clearly described and published operational separation from any parent or

sponsoring organizations, including independence with respect to accreditation standards, policies and procedures, in the conduct of all accreditation reviews, functions, operations and all accreditation actions.

Comment: There is no parent or sponsoring organization. WASC, the former parent holding company, ceased to exist in 2016.

G. Is operational and has conducted more than one accreditation review for each type of

institution or program identified in the proposed statement of CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation.

Comment: ACCJC has been accrediting community colleges that offer associate degrees and certificates since 1962, and those that offer baccalaureate degrees since 2014. Currently, of the 134 institutions accredited by ACCJC, about 15 public California institutions and 4 private and Pacific Island colleges offer the baccalaureate degree. At the January Commission meeting, 3 more community colleges were approved for Candidacy status.

Observation Visit Report Form 10

H. Has adequate financial, staff and operational resources to perform its accreditation functions efficiently and effectively.

Comment: ACCJC is in a strong position financially, as evidenced by its budget submission to CHEA, which shows significant operating surpluses for both 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 ($1.46M and $1.69M, respectively). ACCJC’s Budget Committee met just prior to the January Commission meeting to review the year-end financial report for 2018-2019, the financial report for the first half of 2019-2020, and a report on the Commission’s investments. Based on expenditures to date in 2019-2020, ACCJC is likely to end the year with a surplus of at least $0.5M. The Budget Committee will meet in March 2020 to review a preliminary budget for 2020-2021, including revenue and expense projections, personnel costs, and COLA recommendations. At that time, it will also review the current dues and fees schedules and make recommendations to the full Commission for any increases. The final budget for 2020-2021 will be voted on by the Commission at its June 2020 meeting. ACCJC currently has 8 staff members: a President, a Senior Vice President (named President-Elect during the January Commission meeting), a Vice President, a Vice President of Operations, an Information Technology/Administrative Support person, an Events and Services Manager, an Accreditation Process Manager, and an Events and Services Coordinator. The latter is part-time; all the others are full-time. In addition to the staff, ACCJC utilizes the services of some contract personnel, e.g., in the areas of IT and some accounting functions. According to ACCJC, internal discussions have determined that the current staffing is adequate to meet its obligations to its members and that the resources are available to expand the staff and/or make improvements to operations, should the need arise. During the January Commission meeting, there was some discussion at both the Budget Committee meeting and the full Commission meeting of hiring additional staff in the next fiscal year.

I. Makes clear distinctions between actions required of institutions or programs necessary for

accreditation and actions that are suggestions for institution or program improvement.

Comment: ACCJC distinguishes between “improvement recommendations” and “compliance recommendations.” Responding to the former is optional, to the latter mandatory and accompanied by a requirement to submit a follow-up report (with or without a site visit) to document compliance. During the January Commission meeting, Commissioners carefully reviewed each team’s improvement and compliance recommendations. In some instances they changed improvement recommendations to compliance recommendations (or vice versa); in others they eliminated some recommendations and/or changed the wording of a recommendation.

J. Assures procedural due process in accreditation activities, including, without limitation, (1)

publication of an appeals policy that informs the institution or program of the process to be used and actions that may be taken (i.e., the grounds for appeal, the process by which the appeal will be conducted and heard by individuals independent of the body that made the decision to deny or remove accreditation and any costs associated with an appeal) and (2) an effectively administered conflict of interest policy that covers all accrediting organization staff, site visitors and members of accreditation-recommending and decision-making bodies.

Comment:

Observation Visit Report Form 11

ACCJC’s Policy on Institutional Appeals is available on the ACCJC website, as is its Policy on Conflict of Interest for Commissioners, Evaluation Team Members, Consultants, Administrative Staff, and Other Commission Representatives. According to the ACCJC President, there have been no appeals in recent years, nor have there been any complaints regarding conflict of interest. At the beginning of the closed session of the January Commission meeting, the ACCJC President reviewed the Commission’s Policy on Conflict of Interest for Commissioners, and the Commission Chair requested Commissioners to identify for the record all institutions on the agenda for which they had a conflict or there existed the possibility of a perception of conflict of interest. Commissioners then routinely recused themselves from the discussion and vote on any institution for which they had a conflict and left the room during the discussion.

K. Requires participation by higher education professionals, practitioners where appropriate and

the public in accreditation reviews, decision-making, and policy setting, including review, revision and adoption of accreditation standards.

Comment: ACCJC’s Bylaws require the Commission to be comprised of two categories of members: those selected to be members (called Category 1 members) and those appointed to be members (Category 2 members). The mix of Category 1 members must be as follows: (a) at least 5 Commissioners with faculty experience as a current faculty member, dean, student service staff, librarian, or other academic and at least 3 of whom must be current faculty members at the time of their election to the Commission (called academic members); (b) at least 3 Commissioners who are representatives of the public, the exact number of whom shall always be 1/7 of the total membership of the Commission; (c) at least 3 Commissioners who have administrative experience and are current CEOs in a two-year college or district at the time of the election to the Commission (called administrative members); (d) At least 1 Commissioner who has expertise in higher education finance; (e) at least 1 Commissioner who has expertise as a chief instructional officer; and (f) at least 1 Commissioner who is from an independent (not-state) institution. The mix of Category 2 members must be as follows: (g) at least 1 Commissioner from a secondary educational institution accredited by the WASC Accrediting Commission for Schools (ACS) and appointed by that Commission; (h) at least 1 Commissioner from a four-year college or university accredited by the WASC Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities [now the WASC Senior College and University Commission or WSCUC] and appointed by that Commission; (i) at least 1 Commissioner from an institution in the American Affiliated Pacific Islands and appointed by the Pacific Postsecondary Education Council (PPEC); (j) one Commissioner appointed by the California Community Colleges (CCC) Chancellor’s Office; and (k) one Commissioner appointed by the system office of the University of Hawaii Community Colleges. Currently, ACCJC consists of 20 Commissioners, distributed as follows: 5 academic members, 5 public members, 4 administrative members, 1 independent institution member, 1 ACS appointee, 1 WSCUC member, 1 PPEC member, 1 CCC Chancellor’s Office member, and 1 University of Hawaii Community Colleges member. One of the administrative members and the PPEC member have expertise in higher education finance. Due to the recent resignation of one Commissioner, no one on the current Commission has expertise as a chief instructional officer, but ACCJC will be looking to fill that slot when it seeks nominations for Commissioners later this year. Of the 20 current Commissioners, 19 were present for the January Commission meeting, and all actively participated in the review of institutions on the agenda, including serving as primary or secondary reader for a case.

Observation Visit Report Form 12

L. Fosters reasonable consistency in accreditation reviews of, and accreditation actions about,

institutions or programs, while allowing for varying institution or program mission, purpose and operation.

Comment: ACCJC takes several steps to ensure consistency in its accreditation decisions. First, it routinely conducts “norming” or “calibration” exercises as part of its team training and also as part of its team chair training. Periodically, it conducts similar norming exercises during a Commission meeting. Second, at the end of each Commission meeting, the Commission reviews all of the cases it considered during the meeting to ensure both that there is consistency in decision-making and also that the Commission has followed protocol in reaching those decisions. If there is a perception that any of its considerations have deviated from consistent practice, then the Commission will review the case(s). This practice of reviewing all decisions for consistency was in evidence at the January Commission meeting. Another activity that ACCJC engages in to ensure consistency is the review of both Commission policies on decision-making and also the specific actions the Commission may take with respect to institutions at the beginning of the closed portion of a Commission meeting. This practice was also in evidence at the January Commission meeting.

M. For purposes of promoting effective practice in the future, engages in regular critical self-

evaluation of its performance, standards, policies and impact by the:

1. Review of aggregate information regarding the extent to which the accredited institutions or programs are achieving their expectations for student learning; and

Comment: Annually, ACCJC requires its institutions to submit data on key indicators of student achievement, including licensing exam pass rates and job placement. Each June, Commission staff prepare an “Annual Report Summary” for the Commission that summarizes information on headcount enrollment, course completion, certificates and degrees awarded, transfers, and licensure pass rates. This report is presented to the Commission in open session so it is available to institution.

2. Collection and review of evidence that the accrediting organization’s own performance promotes academic quality and student success and serves both higher education and the public.

Comment: ACCJC uses a number of tools to assess its own performance with respect to academic quality and student success, including surveys of its various constituencies to assess its effectiveness and improve processes. A number of these surveys were submitted with its application to CHEA. Based on its reviews of these survey results and also on its review of current trends in higher education and accreditation, it holds an annual Commission Development Workshop (CDW) on relevant topics. As previously mentioned, a recent CDW focused on CBE. During the January Commission meeting, the Evaluation and Planning Committee chair indicated that the committee is beginning to work on the agenda for the fall 2020 CDW, and encouraged any Commissioner who had suggestions for topics to be considered at the meeting to let her know.

III. OTHER ISSUES OR OBSERVATIONS, INCLUDING ANY ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN A PRIOR RECOGNITION REVIEW:

Observation Visit Report Form 13

None

Signature: ____________________________________ Date: 2/10/2020

Stephanie Droker, President Ian Walton, Chair

10 Commercial Boulevard, Suite 204 Novato, CA 94949

Tel: 415-506-0234 Fax: 415-506-0238

accjc@accjc.org accjc.org

March 3, 2020

Ms. Lori Schroder

Vice President for Recognition Services

Council for Higher Education Accreditation One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 510

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ms. Schroeder,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a response to ACCJC’s CHEA Observation Visit Report. We

appreciated the collegial nature in which Dr. Kershenstein conducted her work and the thoroughness of

her report. We found the report to be an accurate reflection of ACCJC’s policies and processes. We did

find a couple of minor corrections that I will address in this letter. Additionally, we would like to amend our CHEA scope of recognition. In the coming days, I will be sending you an update of our CHEA

application narrative addressing the requested change of scope and the improvements we have made to

align with CHEA standards, along with the appropriate evidence of our improvement efforts.

Minor Corrections

Introduction

Paragraph 3 – 134 institutions, with 3 institutions in preaccreditation.

Standard 11.B.3

The ACCJC standard referenced in the first sentence should read Standard I.B.9. Please delete the sentence regarding the second example on “incubation relationship.” ACCJC does not have an incubation

policy or practice. The partnership between the tribal colleges and the CA Community Colleges was

developed between those institutions. ACCJC provides support and resources to all institutions seeking accreditation.

Standard 12.I

On the Commission’s action letter to the institution, the ACCJC distinguishes between compliance requirements (those that are mandatory to come into compliance) and improvement recommendations.

On behalf of the Commission and ACCJC staff, thank you for your continued support as we complete the CHEA renewal of recognition process.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Droker, Ed.D

President