STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

BALTIMORE INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE
17 Commerce Street
Baltimore, MD 21202-3230
Phone: (410) 752-4710; Fax: (410) 752-0278
www.bic.edu

Chief Executive Officer: Dr. Edgar B. Schick, President
INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION
Enrollment (Headcount): 474 Undergraduate; 19 Graduate
Control: Private (Non-Profit)
Affiliation: None
Carnegie Classification: Special Focus - Other Special-Focus Institutions
Approved Degree Levels: Postsecondary Certificate (< 1 year), Associate's, Bachelor's, Master's (Master of Science in Hospitality Management);
Distance Education Programs: Approved (Master of Science in Hospitality Management )
Accreditors Recognized by U.S. Secretary of Education: n/a
Other Accreditors: American Culinary Federation Foundation Accrediting Commission
Instructional Locations
Branch Campuses: None
Additional Locations: None
Other Instructional Sites: Virginia Park Center, Virginia, Ireland
ACCREDITATION INFORMATION
Status: Member since 1996
Last Reaffirmed: November 15, 2007

Most Recent Commission Action:
December 16, 2011: To note receipt of documentation of necessary approvals by the Maryland Higher Education Commission and by the American Council of Independent Colleges and Schools, and to approve the teach-out plan and agreement submitted by the institution. To remind the institution that its accreditation will cease as of December 31, 2011, in accordance with the Commission's decision of June 23, 2011 as modified by court order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on September 8, 2011.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:
November 15, 2007: To accept the Periodic Review Report, to reaffirm accreditation, and to request a monitoring report, due by October 1, 2008, documenting: (1) further development and implementation of an organized and sustainable assessment process with evidence that results are being used to improve teaching, learning, and institutional effectiveness (Standards 14 and 7); (2) steps taken to strengthen the Board of Trustees, including clarification of its roles and responsibilities (Standard 4); (3) Steps taken to strengthen shared governance (Standard 4); and (4) completion and dissemination of the faculty handbook (Standard 10). To direct an early staff visit to discuss the Commission's expectations for reporting. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011-2012.
June 26, 2008: To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representative and to remind the institution of the monitoring report, due by October 1, 2008, documenting: (1) further development and implementation of an organized and sustainable assessment process with evidence that results are being used to improve teaching, learning, and institutional effectiveness (Standards 14 and 7); (2) steps taken to strengthen the Board of Trustees, including clarification of its roles and responsibilities (Standard 4); (3) steps taken to strengthen shared governance (Standard 4); and (4) completion and dissemination of the faculty handbook (Standard 10). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011-2012.
November 20, 2008: To document receipt of the monitoring report, noting that the report was of insufficient quality, and did not present evidence and analysis in a manner conducive to Commission review. To direct a prompt staff visit to discuss the Commission's expectations for reporting. To request a monitoring report by March 1, 2009 documenting (1) further implementation of an organized and sustainable assessment process with evidence that results are being used to improve teaching, learning, and institutional effectiveness (Standards 14 and 7); (2) further steps taken to strengthen the Board of Trustees, including clarification of its roles and responsibilities (Standard 4); and (3) steps taken to further strengthen collegial governance (Standard 4). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011-2012.
December 17, 2008: To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request and to include the online Master of Science in Hospitality Management program within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To remind the institution that the Commission will be directing a staff visit to discuss the Commission's expectations for reporting. To further remind the institution of the monitoring report due March 1, 2009 documenting (1) further implementation of an organized and sustainable assessment process with evidence that results are being used to improve teaching, learning, and institutional effectiveness (Standards 14 and 7); (2) further steps taken to strengthen the Board of Trustees, including clarification of its roles and responsibilities (Standard 4); and (3) steps taken to further strengthen collegial governance (Standard 4). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011-2012.
March 5, 2009: To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representative and to note that the Commission will act at its June 2009 meeting on the monitoring report due March 1, 2009. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011-2012.
June 25, 2009: To accept the monitoring report and to thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representatives. To warn the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of lack of evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance) and Standard 7 (Institutional Assessment). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To request a monitoring report, due March 1, 2010, documenting (1) evidence of steps taken to further strengthen the faculty role in collegial governance; (2) Board bylaws which stipulate that the governing body is not chaired by the chief executive officer; is of an appropriate size and with sufficient independence and expertise to assure academic quality and fiscal integrity; approves degree programs, reviews institutional assessment results, and participates in strategic planning; provides for the orientation of new members and undertakes periodic self-assessment in meeting its stated objectives; undertakes periodic assessment of the effectiveness of institutional leadership and governance; and plans appropriately for transitions in institutional leadership (Standard 4). The monitoring report must also document (3) the development and implementation of a comprehensive, organized and sustainable process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness with evidence that assessment information is used to improve budgeting, planning, and resource allocation, and (4) steps taken to strengthen institutional research capability in support of institutional assessment activities and decision-making (Standard 7). In addition, to request (5) evidence that assessment results are being used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). A visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The next evaluation visit remains scheduled for 2011-2012, pending Commission acceptance of the monitoring report.
June 24, 2010: To accept the monitoring report and to note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To place the institution on probation because of a lack of evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), Standard 7 (Institutional Assessment), and Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To note that the institution remains accredited while on probation. To request a monitoring report, due September 1, 2010, documenting that the institution has achieved and can sustain compliance with Standards 4, 7, and 14 including (1) evidence of further steps taken to strengthen the faculty role in collegial governance (Standard 4); (2) evidence that the governing body is (a) of an appropriate size and with sufficient independence and expertise to assure academic quality and fiscal integrity, and (b) fulfilling its responsibilities to approve degree programs, to review institutional assessment results, to participate in strategic planning, to provide for the orientation of new members, to undertake periodic objective self-assessment in meeting its stated objectives, to undertake periodic assessment of the effectiveness of institutional leadership and governance, and to plan appropriately for transitions in institutional leadership and the stability of institutional leadership and administration (Standard 4); (3) implementation of a comprehensive, organized, and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness with evidence that assessment information is used in budgeting, planning, decision-making, and the allocation of resources (Standard 7); and (4) the development and implementation of a documented, organized, and sustained process to assess the achievement of institutional, program, and core curriculum student learning goals, including (a) direct methods of assessment, and (b) evidence that student learning assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning and inform planning and resource allocation (Standard 14). In addition, to request that the monitoring report provide (5) evidence of the implementation of a comprehensive institutional strategic plan and related plans, whose goals and objectives or strategies (a) are clearly stated, (b) have measurable outcomes, (c) are linked to decision-making, and (d) reflect conclusions drawn from assessment results (Standard 2); (6) the clear documentation of the lines of organization and authority and evidence that administrative leaders and key staff members have appropriate skills, degrees, and training to carry out their responsibilities and functions (Standard 5); (7) evidence that statements of expected student learning outcomes and information on institution-wide assessment results are available to prospective students (Standard 8); (8) evidence of published and implemented standards and procedures for all faculty and other professionals for actions such as appointment, promotion, grievance and dismissal, based on principles of fairness with due regard for the rights of all persons (Standard 10); and (9) evidence that the academic rigor of degrees and programs offered is appropriate to instructional level (Standard 11). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The Commission will set the date for the next self study and evaluation visit after accreditation is reaffirmed.
November 18, 2010: To accept the monitoring report and to note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To require the institution to show cause, by March 1, 2011, as to why its accreditation should not be removed. The institution is required to present its case for continued accreditation by means of a substantive report documenting evidence that the institution has achieved and can sustain ongoing compliance with two of the Commission's fourteen standards: Standard 7 (Institutional Assessment) and Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). In addition the institution is required to provide evidence of compliance with five additional standards: Standard 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), Standard 8 (Student Admissions and Retention), Standard 10 (Faculty), and Standard 11 (Educational Offerings). An on-site evaluation will follow submission of the report. The purpose of the on-site evaluation is to verify the information provided in the substantive report and the institution's ongoing and sustainable compliance with the Commission's accreditation standards. To request that the substantive report document evidence that the institution has achieved and can sustain ongoing compliance with Commission standards including, but not limited, to documented evidence of the following: (1) implementation of a comprehensive, organized, and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness with evidence that assessment information is used in budgeting, planning, decision-making, and the allocation of resources (Standard 7); and (2) the development and implementation of a documented, organized, and sustained process to assess the achievement of institutional, program, and core curriculum student learning goals, including (a) the use of direct methods of assessment, and (b) evidence that student learning assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning and to inform planning and resource allocation (Standard 14). In addition, to request that the substantive report provide (3) evidence of the implementation of a comprehensive institutional strategic plan and related plans, whose goals and objectives or strategies (a) are clearly stated, (b) have measurable outcomes, (c) are linked to decision-making, and (d) reflect conclusions drawn from assessment results (Standard 2); (4) evidence that the governing body is fulfilling its responsibilities to approve degree programs, to review institutional assessment results, to participate in strategic planning, to provide for the orientation of new members, to undertake periodic objective self-assessment in meeting its stated objectives, and to undertake periodic assessment of the effectiveness of institutional leadership and governance (Standard 4); (5) evidence that statements of expected student learning outcomes and information on institution-wide assessment results are available to prospective students (Standard 8); (6) evidence of published and implemented standards and procedures for all faculty and other professionals for actions including promotion and grievance, based on principles of fairness with due regard for the rights of all persons (Standard 10); and (7) evidence that the academic rigor of degrees and programs offered is appropriate to instructional level (Standard 11). To direct a prompt liaison guidance visit to discuss Commission expectations as set forth in this action. To note that the institution remains accredited while on show cause.
March 3, 2011: To note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To remind the institution that it was required to show cause as to why its accreditation should not be removed in a substantive report due March 1, 2011. The institution was to present its case for continued accreditation by documenting evidence that the institution has achieved and can sustain ongoing compliance with two of the Commission's fourteen standards: Standard 7 (Institutional Assessment) and Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). In addition the institution was required to provide evidence of compliance with five additional standards: Standard 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), Standard 8 (Student Admissions and Retention), Standard 10 (Faculty), and Standard 11 (Educational Offerings). To note that the substantive report, due March 1, 2011, and the findings from the on-site evaluation that follows will be acted upon by the Commission at its June 2011 meeting. The institution remains accredited while on show cause.
June 23, 2011: To remove the accreditation of Baltimore International College effective August 31, 2011. This decision is based on the institution's March 1, 2009 monitoring report, the report of a subsequent visit by Commission representatives on April 6 – 7, 2009, and the institution's response to the representatives' report; the institution's March 1, 2010 monitoring report, the report of a subsequent visit by Commission representatives on April 4 – 6, 2010, and the institution's response to the representatives' report; the institution's September 1, 2010 monitoring report, the report of a subsequent visit by Commission representatives on September 21– 22, 2010, and the institution's response to the representatives' report; and the institution's March 1, 2011 substantive report, the report of a subsequent visit by Commission representatives on April 26 – 27, 2011, and the institution's response to the representatives' report. These and prior institutional reports and responses have not adequately addressed the Commission's ongoing and longstanding concerns with the general quality of the institution, and they have failed to document that the institution has achieved and can sustain ongoing compliance with the Commission's Requirement of Affiliation #5., and with Commission Standards 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), 7 (Institutional Assessment), 8 (Student Admissions and Retention), 11 (Educational Offerings), 12 (General Education), and 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To require Baltimore International College to submit a plan within 30 days of the date of this letter that (a) facilitates the transfer of remaining students who are unable to continue their studies at Baltimore International College after August 31, 2011, (b) completes and issues transcripts for any students seeking to transfer or move to another institution, and (c) makes arrangements for the permanent disposition of student records so that students and alumni will be able to obtain accurate and complete transcripts in the future, in the event that Baltimore International College does not continue to operate after August 31, 2011. To require Baltimore International College to provide evidence of, within 30 days of the date of this letter, (a) the dissemination of this action letter to the Baltimore International College community, including all governing board members, students, full-time faculty and staff, and other faculty and staff members with significant roles, (b) notification to current and prospective students of the termination of Middle States accreditation effective August 31, 2011, and (c) accurate information regarding the institution's Middle States accreditation status provided wherever the institution's web pages, publications, and announcements make reference to Middle States accreditation and in all other appropriate places and venues, such as wherever information is provided to prospective students.
August 18, 2011: To acknowledge receipt of the institution's request for an extension of accreditation. To dismiss the request because it does not constitute a Request for Reconsideration of an Adverse Accrediting Action as detailed in the Commission's policy, Procedures for Appeals from Adverse Accrediting Actions. As stipulated in that policy, to note that no further opportunity for reconsideration is available to the institution and the Commission's decision to remove accreditation, effective August 31, 2011, remains effective. To remind the institution of the Commission's decision to remove the accreditation of Baltimore International College effective August 31, 2011. This decision is based on the institution's March 1, 2009 monitoring report, the report of a subsequent visit by Commission representatives on April 6 – 7, 2009, and the institution's response to the representatives' report; the institution's March 1, 2010 monitoring report, the report of a subsequent visit by Commission representatives on April 4 – 6, 2010, and the institution's response to the representatives' report; the institution's September 1, 2010 monitoring report, the report of a subsequent visit by Commission representatives on September 21– 22, 2010, and the institution's response to the representatives' report; and the institution's March 1, 2011 substantive report, the report of a subsequent visit by Commission representatives on April 26 – 27, 2011, and the institution's response to the representatives' report. These and prior institutional reports and responses have not adequately addressed the Commission's ongoing and longstanding concerns with the general quality of the institution, and they have failed to document that the institution has achieved and can sustain ongoing compliance with the Commission's Requirement of Affiliation #5., and with Commission Standards 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), 7 (Institutional Assessment), 8 (Student Admissions and Retention), 11 (Educational Offerings), 12 (General Education), and 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To further remind Baltimore International College that the institution is required to submit a plan within 30 days of the date of the Commission's June 24, 2011 letter that (a) facilitates the transfer of remaining students who are unable to continue their studies at Baltimore International College after August 31, 2011, (b) completes and issues transcripts for any students seeking to transfer or move to another institution, and (c) makes arrangements for the permanent disposition of student records so that students and alumni will be able to obtain accurate and complete transcripts in the future, in the event that Baltimore International College does not continue to operate after August 31, 2011. To further remind Baltimore International College that the institution is required to provide evidence of, within 30 days of the date of the Commission's June 24 letter, (a) the dissemination of this action letter to the Baltimore International College community, including all governing board members, students, full-time faculty and staff, and other faculty and staff members with significant roles, (b) notification to current and prospective students of the termination of Middle States accreditation effective August 31, 2011, and (c) accurate information regarding the institution's Middle States accreditation status provided wherever the institution's web pages, publications, and announcements make reference to Middle States accreditation and in all other appropriate places and venues, such as wherever information is provided to prospective students.
September 1, 2011: On August 31, 2011, a court order was entered by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland temporarily restraining the removal of accreditation before September 12, 2011, unless the date is advanced or deferred by further order. (The Temporary Restraining Order can be viewed at http://www.msche.org/documents/BIC-TRO.pdf.)
October 18, 2011: To provisionally approve the teach-out plan and agreement submitted by the institution pending receipt of documentation of necessary approvals by the Maryland Higher Education Commission and by the Accrediting Council of Independent Colleges and Schools. In the event that such documentation is not submitted by December 1, 2011, the institution must submit by that same date an alternative teach-out plan (a) that satisfies all federal and MSCHE teach-out requirements and (b) that provides for educational program completion, using locally available educational resources, by all BIC students enrolled in Fall 2011 who will not complete a degree or certificate by December 31, 2011.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: n/a

Next Periodic Review Report: n/a

Date Printed: July 24, 2014

DEFINITIONS

Branch Campus - A location of an institution that is geographically apart and independent of the main campus of the institution. The location is independent if the location: offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential; has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization; and has its own budgetary and hiring authority.

Additional Location - A location, other than a branch campus, that is geographically apart from the main campus and at which the institution offers at least 50 percent of an educational program. ANYA ("Approved but Not Yet Active") indicates that the location is included within the scope of accreditation but has not yet begun to offer courses. This designation is removed after the Commission receives notification that courses have begun at this location.

Other Instructional Sites - A location, other than a branch campus or additional location, at which the institution offers one or more courses for credit.

Distance Education Programs - Fully Approved, Approved (one program approved) or Not Approved indicates whether or not the institution has been approved to offer diploma/certificate/degree programs via distance education (programs for which students could meet 50% or more of the requirements of the program by taking distance education courses). Per the Commission's Substantive Change policy, Commission approval of the first two Distance Education programs is required to be "Fully Approved." If only one program is approved by the Commission, the specific name of the program will be listed in parentheses after "Approved."

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION ACTIONS

An institution's accreditation continues unless it is explicitly withdrawn or the institution voluntarily allows its accreditation to lapse. In addition to reviewing the institution's accreditation status at least every 5 years, the Commission takes actions to approve substantive changes (such as a new degree or certificate level, opening or closing of a geographical site, or a change of ownership) or when other events occur that require review for continued compliance.

Any type of report or visit required by the Commission is reviewed and voted on by the Commission. Reports submitted for candidacy, self-study evaluation, periodic review or follow-up may be accepted, acknowledged, or rejected.

The Commission “Accepts” a report when its quality, thoroughness, and clarity are sufficient to respond to all of the Commission’s concerns, without requiring additional information in order to assess the institution’s status.

The Commission “Documents receipt of” a letter or report when it addresses the Commission’s concerns only partially because the letter or report had limited institutional responses to requested information, did not present evidence and analysis conducive to Commission review, were of insufficient quality, or necessitated extraordinary effort by the Commission’s representatives and staff performing the review. Relevant reasons for not accepting the letter or report are noted in the action. The Commission may or may not require additional information in order to assess the institution’s status.

The Commission “Rejects” a letter or report when its quality or substance are insufficient to respond appropriately to the Commission’s concerns. The Commission requires the institution to resubmit the report and may request a visit at its discretion. These terms may be used for any action (reaffirm, postpone, warn, etc.).

Types of Follow-Up Reports:

Accreditation Readiness Report (ARR): The institution prepares an initial Accreditation Readiness Report during the application phase and continually updates it throughout the candidacy process. It is for use both by the institution and the Commission to present and summarize documented evidence and analysis of the institution’s current or potential compliance with the Commission’s accreditation standards.

Progress Report: The Commission needs assurance that the institution is carrying out activities that were planned or were being implemented at the time of a report or on-site visit.

Monitoring Report: There is a potential for the institution to become non-compliant with MSCHE standards; issues are more complex or more numerous; or issues require a substantive, detailed report. A visit may or may not be required. Monitoring reports are required for non-compliance actions.

Supplemental Information Report: This report is intended only to allow the institution to provide further information, not to give the institution time to formulate plans or initiate remedial action. This report is required when a decision is postponed. The Commission may request a supplemental information report at any time during the accreditation cycle.

Commendations:

Periodically, the Commission may include commendations to the institution within the action language. There are three commendations. More than one commendation may be given at the same time:

To commend the institution for the quality of the [Self-Study or PRR] report. The document itself was notably well-written, honest, insightful, and/or useful.

To commend the institution for the quality of its [Self-Study or PRR] process. The Self-Study process was notably inclusive.

To recognize the institution's progress to date. This is recognition for institutions that had serious challenges or problems but have made significant progress.

Affirming Actions

Grant Candidate for Accreditation Status: This is a pre-accreditation status following a specified process for application and institutional self-study. For details about the application process, see the MSCHE publication, Becoming Accredited. The U.S. Department of Education labels Candidacy as “Pre-accreditation” and defines it as the status of public recognition that an accrediting agency grants to an institution or program for a limited period of time that signifies the agency has determined that the institution or program is progressing toward accreditation but is not assured of accreditation) before the expiration of that limited period of time. Upon a grant of candidate for accreditation status, the institution may be asked to submit additional Accreditation Readiness Reports until it is ready to initiate self study.

Grant Accreditation: The Commission has acted to grant accreditation to a Candidate institution and does not require the submission of a written report prior to the next scheduled accreditation review in five years.

Grant Accreditation and request a Progress Report or Monitoring Report: The Commission has acted to grant accreditation to a Candidate institution but requires the submission of a written report prior to the next scheduled accreditation review to ensure that the institution is carrying out activities that were planned or were being implemented at the time of the report or on-site visit.

Reaffirm Accreditation via Self Study or Periodic Review Report: The Commission has acted to reaffirm accreditation and does not require the submission of a written report prior to the next scheduled accreditation review in five years. The action language may include recommendations to be addressed in the next Periodic Review Report or Self Study. Suggestions for improvement are given, but no written follow-up reporting is needed for compliance.

Reaffirm Accreditation via Self Study or Periodic Review Report and request a Progress Report or Monitoring Report: The Commission has acted to reaffirm accreditation but requires the submission of a written report prior to the next scheduled accreditation review to ensure that the institution is carrying out activities that were planned or were being implemented at the time of the report or on-site visit.

Administrative Actions

Continue Accreditation: A delay of up to one year may be granted to ensure a current and accurate representation of the institution or in the event of circumstances beyond the institution’s control (natural disaster, U.S. State Department travel warnings, etc.). The institution maintains its status with the Commission during this period.

Procedural Actions

Defer a decision on initial accreditation: The Candidate institution shows promise but the evaluation team has identified issues of concern and recommends that the institution be given a specified time period to address those concerns. Institutions may not stay in candidacy more than 5 years.

Postpone a decision on (reaffirmation of) accreditation: The Commission has determined that there is insufficient information to substantiate institutional compliance with one or more standards. The Commission requests a supplemental information report.

Voluntary Lapse of Accreditation: The institution has allowed its accreditation to lapse by not completing required obligations. The institution is no longer a member of the Commission upon the determined date that accreditation will cease.

Non-Compliance Actions

Warning: A Warning indicates that an institution has been determined by the Commission not to meet one or more standards for accreditation. A follow-up report, called a monitoring report, is required to demonstrate that the institution has made appropriate improvements to bring itself into compliance.

Probation: Probation indicates that an institution has been determined by the Commission not to meet one or more standards for accreditation and is an indication of a serious concern on the part of the Commission regarding the level and/or scope of non-compliance issues related to the standards. The Commission will place an institution on Probation if the Commission is concerned about one or more of the following:

  1. the adequacy of the education provided by the institution;
  2. the institution’s capacity to make appropriate improvements in a timely fashion; or
  3. the institution’s capacity to sustain itself in the long term.

Probation is often, but need not always be, preceded by an action of Warning or Postponement. If the Commission had previously postponed a decision or placed the institution on Warning, the Commission may place the institution on Probation if it determines that the institution has failed to address satisfactorily the Commission’s concerns in the prior action of postponement or warning regarding compliance with Commission standards. This action is accompanied by a request for a monitoring report, and a special visit follows. Probation may, but need not always, precede an action of Show Cause.

By federal regulation, the Commission must take immediate action to withdraw accreditation if an institution is out of compliance with accreditation standards for two years, unless the time is extended for good cause.

Show Cause: An institution is asked to demonstrate why its accreditation should not be withdrawn. A written report from the institution (including a teach out plan) and a follow-up team visit are required. The institution has the opportunity to appear before the Commission when the Commission meets to consider the institution's Show Cause status. Show Cause may occur during or at the end of the two-year Probation period, or at any time the Commission determines that an institution must demonstrate why its accreditation should not be withdrawn (i.e. Probation is not a necessary precursor to Show Cause).

Adverse Actions

Withdrawal of Accreditation: An institution’s candidate or accredited status is withdrawn and with it, membership in the association. If the institution appeals this action, its accreditation remains in effect until the appeal is completed.

Denial of Accreditation: An institution is denied initial accreditation because it does not meet the Commission’s requirements of affiliation or accreditation standards during the period allowed for candidacy. If the institution appeals this action, its candidacy remains in effect until the appeal is completed.

Appeal: The withdrawal or denial of candidacy or accreditation may be appealed. Institutions remain accredited (or candidates for accreditation) during the period of the appeal.

Other actions are described in the Commission policy, "Range of Commission Actions on Accreditation."