STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY
Bldg 62 - Marshall Hall
Fort McNair, DC 20319-5066
Phone: (202) 685-4700; Fax: (202) 685-3935
www.ndu.edu

Chief Executive Officer: Maj. Gen. Gregg F. Martin, President
INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION
Enrollment (Headcount): 1811 Graduate
Control: Public
Affiliation: Government-Federal- Department of Defense
Carnegie Classification: Not Classified
Degrees Offered: Postbaccalaureate Certificate, Master's;
Distance Education Programs: Approved (Master of Science in Government Information Leader)
Accreditors Recognized by U.S. Secretary of Education: n/a
Other Accreditors: Process of Accreditation for Joint Education (PAJE) ; Information Assurance programs are accredited as Centers of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education by the National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security;
Instructional Locations
Branch Campuses: Joint Forces Staff College, Norfolk, VA
Additional Locations: John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School Bank Hall, Fort Bragg, NC; Joint Forces Staff College, Tampa, FL
Other Instructional Sites: None
ACCREDITATION INFORMATION
Status: Member since 1997
Last Reaffirmed: November 21, 2013

Most Recent Commission Action:
November 21, 2013: To accept the monitoring report and to note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To remove the warning and reaffirm accreditation because the institution is now in compliance with Standard 3 (Institutional Resources) and Standard 5 (Administration). To request a progress report, due April 1, 2015, providing further evidence that (1) due consideration is granted to the role of the chief information officer in making decisions about the allocation of institutional resources (Standard 3); (2) administrative leaders in the area of information technology are selected with appropriate consideration to continuity of service, and have the skills, degrees and training to carry out their responsibilities and functions (Standard 5); (3) adequate resources are allocated to the institutional research office so that data are collected, managed, archived and used to ensure effective decision-making (Standard 7); and (4) institutional assessment results are used to renew strategic planning, to support resource allocation, and to achieve documented improvements in programs, services, and processes (Standard 7). The Periodic Review Report is now due June 1, 2018.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:
November 15, 2007: To accept the Periodic Review Report and reaffirm accreditation. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011-12.
September 1, 2010: To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request. To include the following additional location provisionally within the scope of the institution's accreditation, pending a site visit to the location within six months of commencing operations: John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School Bank Hall, 2175 Reilly Road Stop A, Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000. The Commission requires written notification within 30 days of the commencement of operations at each additional location. The Commission notes that approval extends for one calendar year from the date of this action. In the event that operations at the additional location do not commence within this time frame, approval will lapse. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011-12.
September 1, 2010: To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request. To include the online Government Information Leaser Master of Science degree program within the scope of the institution's accreditation. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011-12.
March 3, 2011: To note the visit by the Commission's representative and to affirm inclusion of the additional location at John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School Bank Hall, 2175 Reilly Road Stop A, Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000 within the scope of the institution's accreditation. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2011-2012.
June 28, 2012: To warn the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 3 (Institutional Resources) and Standard 5 (Administration). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To request a monitoring report, due September 1, 2013, documenting (1) a comprehensive technology acquisition, replacement, and operations plan, including provision for current and future technology needs and with qualified staffing for the office of technology, as appropriate to the institution's complexity, educational programs, and support services (Standards 3 and 5). To further request that the monitoring report provide evidence of the implementation of (2) goals and objectives that are clearly linked to the institution's new mission (Standard 2); (3) a multi-year budgeting process aligned with the institution's new goals and objectives (Standard 3); and (4) the use of assessment results to inform planning and resource allocation (Standard 7). To direct a prompt liaison guidance visit to discuss the Commission's expectations. A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The due date for the next Periodic Review Report will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.
November 15, 2012: To note the visit by the Commission's representative. To remind the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 3 (Institutional Resources) and Standard 5 (Administration). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To remind the institution of the monitoring report, due September 1, 2013, documenting (1) a comprehensive technology acquisition, replacement, and operations plan, including provision for current and future technology needs and with qualified staffing for the office of technology, as appropriate to the institution's complexity, educational programs, and support services (Standards 3 and 5). To further request that the monitoring report provide evidence of the implementation of (2) goals and objectives that are clearly linked to the institution's new mission (Standard 2); (3) a multi-year budgeting process aligned with the institution's new goals and objectives (Standard 3); and (4) the use of assessment results to inform planning and resource allocation (Standard 7). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The due date for the next Periodic Review Report will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.
January 2, 2013: To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request. To include the additional location at Joint Forces Staff College, 6701 South Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa FL 33621, provisionally within the scope of the institution's accreditation pending a site visit within six months of commencing operations. The Commission requires written notification within thirty days of the commencement of operations at the additional location. In the event that operations at this site do not commence within one calendar year from the approval of this action, approval will lapse. To remind the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 3 (Institutional Resources) and Standard 5 (Administration). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To remind the institution of the monitoring report, due September 1, 2013, documenting (1) a comprehensive technology acquisition, replacement, and operations plan, including provision for current and future technology needs and with qualified staffing for the office of technology, as appropriate to the institution's complexity, educational programs, and support services (Standards 3 and 5). To further request that the monitoring report provide evidence of the implementation of (2) goals and objectives that are clearly linked to the institution's new mission (Standard 2); (3) a multi-year budgeting process aligned with the institution's new goals and objectives (Standard 3); and (4) the use of assessment results to inform planning and resource allocation (Standard 7). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The due date for the next Periodic Review Report will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.
June 27, 2013: To note the visit by the Commission's representative and to affirm inclusion of the additional location at the Joint Forces Staff College, 6701 South Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa FL 33621 within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To remind the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 3 (Institutional Resources) and Standard 5 (Administration). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To remind the institution of the monitoring report, due September 1, 2013, documenting (1) a comprehensive technology acquisition, replacement, and operations plan, including provision for current and future technology needs and with qualified staffing for the office of technology, as appropriate to the institution's complexity, educational programs, and support services (Standards 3 and 5). To further request that the monitoring report provide evidence of the implementation of (2) goals and objectives that are clearly linked to the institution's new mission (Standard 2); (3) a multi-year budgeting process aligned with the institution's new goals and objectives (Standard 3); and (4) the use of assessment results to inform planning and resource allocation (Standard 7). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The due date for the next Periodic Review Report will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2022 - 2023

Next Periodic Review Report: 2018

Date Printed: April 23, 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 suspended or removed. In addition to reviewing the institution's accreditation status at least every 5 years, actions are taken for substantive changes (such as a new degree or geographic 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 after it is completed.

In increasing order of seriousness, a report by an institution to the Commission may be accepted, acknowledged, or rejected.

Levels of Actions:

Grant or Re-Affirm Accreditation without follow-up

Defer a decision on initial accreditation: The 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.

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.

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.)

Recommendations to be addressed in the next Periodic Review Report: Suggestions for improvement are given, but no follow-up is needed for compliance.

Supplemental Information Report: This is required when a decision is postponed and are intended only to allow the institution to provide further information, not to give the institution time to formulate plans or initiate remedial action.

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.

Warning: The Commission acts to Warn an institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy when the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and a follow-up report, called a monitoring report, is required to demonstrate that the institution has made appropriate improvements to bring itself into compliance. Warning indicates that the Commission believes that, although the institution is out of compliance, the institution has the capacity to make appropriate improvements within a reasonable period of time and the institution has the capacity to sustain itself in the long term.

Probation: The Commission places an institution on Probation when, in the Commission’s judgment, the institution is not in compliance with one or more Commission standards and that the non-compliance is sufficiently serious, extensive, or acute that it raises concern 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.

Suspend accreditation: Accreditation has been Continued for one year and an appropriate evaluation is not possible. This is a procedural action that would result in Removal of Accreditation if accreditation cannot be reaffirmed within the period of suspension.

Show cause why the institution's accreditation should not be removed: The institution is required to present its case for accreditation by means of a substantive report and/or an on-site evaluation. A "Public Disclosure Statement" is issued by the Commission.

Remove accreditation. If the institution appeals this action, its accreditation remains in effect until the appeal is completed.

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