STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

RICHMOND, THE AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY IN LONDON
Queens Road
Richmond, Surrey TW10 6JP
United Kingdom
Phone: 0044-(208) 332-8286; Fax: 0044-(208) 332-1297
www.richmond.ac.uk

Chief Executive Officer: Dr. John Annette, President
INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION
Enrollment (Headcount): 1051 Undergraduate; 37 Graduate
Control: Private (Non-Profit)
Affiliation: None
Carnegie Classification: Not Classified
Degrees Offered: Associate's, Bachelor's, Master's;
Distance Education Programs: Not Approved
Accreditors Recognized by U.S. Secretary of Education: n/a
Other Accreditors: The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK; The Quality Assurance Agency, UK:
Instructional Locations
Branch Campuses: None
Additional Locations: Kensington Campus, England; Leeds Metropolitan University, Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Campus, United Kingdom
Other Instructional Sites: Richmond Study Center, Via Maggio 11, 50125 Florence, Italy; Richmond Study Center, Piazza Sant' Andrea Della Valle, 6, 00186 Rome, Italy
ACCREDITATION INFORMATION
Status: Member since 1981
Last Reaffirmed: June 28, 2012

Most Recent Commission Action:
June 28, 2012: To note the visit by the Commission's representative and to include the location at Leeds Metropolitan University, Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Campus, Headingley, Leeds LS6 3QS, United Kingdom within the scope of the institution's accreditation.
June 28, 2012: To accept the monitoring report and note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To remove the probation status because the institution is now in compliance with Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a Monitoring Report, due March 1, 2014, documenting the implementation of the Strategic Plan 2012-2017, including evidence of (1) a clear set of measurable outcomes with intermediate benchmarks and companion strategies designed to meet the strategic priorities set forth by the institution (Standard 2), and (2) sustained implementation of the institution's revised recruitment and retention strategies (Standard 8). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2015-2016.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:
June 22, 2006: To reaffirm accreditation and to request a monitoring report, due October 1, 2007, documenting: (1) development of a sustainable assessment process and plan that focuses on the mission, goals and objectives of the institution, demonstrates that sufficient resources are devoted to assessment, and demonstrates that assessment encompasses student learning within the curriculum as well as learning that occurs as part of the total student experience at the institution; and, (2) development of a written plan to increase the role of faculty and staff in recruitment of degree-seeking students from the United States. To request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1, 2011, document: (1) resolution of the question of implementation of the strategic plan goals related to the Richmond-AIFS relationship and annual assessment of progress toward goals related to the AIFS relationship in the five-year strategic plan; (2) annual review of the AIFS services contract against the approved five-year strategic goals; (3) multi-year budget projections modeling enrollment revenues and institutional expenses, (4) development of a comprehensive enrollment management plan and data that would support retention and attrition research and decision-making; and, (5) expanded oversight of the Richmond International Summer Schools pre-college and traveling programs offered by AIFS.
November 15, 2007: To accept the monitoring report, and to request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1, 2011, document further development and implementation of an organized and sustainable assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning and institutional effectiveness (Standards 7 and 14). To remind the institution that the Commission previously requested that the Periodic Review Report document: (1) resolution of the question of implementation of the strategic plan goals related to the Richmond-AIFS relationship and annual assessment of progress toward goals related to the AIFS relationship in the five-year strategic plan; (2) annual review of the AIFS services contract against the approved five-year strategic goals; (3) multi-year budget projections modeling enrollment revenues and institutional expenses (Standards 3 and 8); (4) development of a comprehensive enrollment management plan and data that would support retention and attrition research and decision-making (Standard 8); and, (5) expanded oversight of the Richmond International Summer Schools pre-college and traveling programs offered by AIFS.
June 29, 2010: To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request and to include the additional location at the Thomas Danby Campus of Leeds City College, 5 Roundhay Road, Leeds LS7 3BG, United Kingdom provisionally within the scope of the institution's accreditation, pending a site visit within six months of commencing operations at the site. The Commission requires written notification within thirty days of the commencement of operations at the additional location. In the event that operations at the additional location do not commence within one calendar year from the approval of this action, approval will lapse. To remind the institution that the Commission previously requested that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1, 2011 document: (1) resolution of the question of implementation of the strategic plan goals related to the Richmond-AIFS relationship and annual assessment of progress toward goals related to the AIFS relationship in the five-year strategic plan; (2) annual review of the AIFS services contract against the approved five-year strategic goals; (3) multi-year budget projections modeling enrollment revenues and institutional expenses (Standards 3 and 8); (4) development of a comprehensive enrollment management plan and data that would support retention and attrition research and decision-making (Standard 8); and, (5) expanded oversight of the Richmond International Summer Schools pre-college and traveling programs offered by AIFS. The PRR should also document further development and implementation of an organized and sustainable assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning and institutional effectiveness (Standards 7 and 14).
November 18, 2010: To thank the institution for receiving the Commission's representative and to affirm inclusion of the additional location at the Thomas Danby Campus of Leeds City College, 5 Roundhay Road, Leeds LS7 3BG, United Kingdom within the scope of the institution's accreditation.
November 18, 2010: To request a monitoring report, due by January 1, 2011, documenting: (1) the board's current structure as related to development and maintenance of expected institutional autonomy (Standard 4); (2) details about the Boston recruiting office, including but not limited to the relationship of this office to the University, information about the qualifications and success of students recruited through this office, and information about the basis for salaries and other payments made to personnel (Standard 8); and, (3) information about current and any proposed service agreements with AIFS, including the basis of and rationale for board approval of these agreements (Standard 3). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. The Periodic Review Report remains scheduled for submission on June 1, 2011, and the Commission reminds the institution of its previous request that the Periodic Review Report document: (1) resolution of the question of implementation of the strategic plan goals related to the Richmond-AIFS relationship and annual assessment of progress toward goals related to the AIFS relationship in the five-year strategic plan; (2) annual review of the AIFS services contract against the approved five-year strategic goals; (3) multi-year budget projections modeling enrollment revenues and institutional expenses (Standards 3 and 8); (4) development of a comprehensive enrollment management plan and data that would support retention and attrition research and decision-making (Standard 8); and, (5) expanded oversight of the Richmond International Summer Schools pre-college and traveling programs offered by AIFS. The PRR should also document further development and implementation of an organized and sustainable assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning and institutional effectiveness (Standards 7 and 14).
March 3, 2011: To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request and to postpone a decision concerning inclusion within the scope of the institution's accreditation of the contractual relationship and the additional locations at ERC Institute River Valley Campus, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; ERC Institute North Bridge Commercial Complex, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; and, ERC Institute Ho Chi Minh Campus, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam pending Commission action following consideration of a monitoring report and small team visit. To note that the Commission has received the monitoring report that was due by January 1, 2011, that a small team visit has been scheduled, and that the Commission will act on the monitoring report and visit as well as the substantive change request at its June 2011 meeting. To remind the institution that the Periodic Review Report remains scheduled for submission on June 1, 2011, and that the Commission previously requested that this report document: (1) resolution of the question of implementation of the strategic plan goals related to the Richmond-AIFS relationship and annual assessment of progress toward goals related to the AIFS relationship in the five-year strategic plan; (2) annual review of the AIFS services contract against the five-year strategic goals; (3) multi-year budget projections modeling enrollment revenues and institutional expenses (Standards 3 and 8); (4) development of a comprehensive enrollment management plan and data that would support retention and attrition research and decision-making (Standard 8); and, (5) expanded oversight of the Richmond International Summer Schools pre-college and traveling programs offered by AIFS. The Commission also requested that the PRR document further development and implementation of an organized and sustainable assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning and institutional effectiveness (Standards 7 and 14).
June 23, 2011: To accept the monitoring report and to note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To place the institution on probation because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 1 (Mission and Goals), Standard 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), Standard 3 (Institutional Resources), Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), Standard 5 (Administration), and Standard 6 (Integrity). To note that the institution remains accredited while on probation. To request a monitoring report, due September 1, 2011, documenting compliance with Standards 2, 4, and 6, including but not limited to documented evidence of: (1) a strategic planning process that includes faculty and other constituents' participation (Standard 2); (2) a rationale and process for selecting board members, including the specific expertise they bring to the board as well as their independence from internal and external influences and other conflicts of interest that may interfere with their impartiality or outweigh their duty to ensure the academic and fiscal integrity of the institution (Standard 4); (3) appropriate actions to ensure that the institution will not provide any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial aid to any persons or entities engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions regarding the award of student financial assistance, consistent with federal regulations (Standard 6); and (4) the development and implementation of policies to ensure that the institution's compensation practices demonstrate adherence to ethical standards and are consistent with MSCHE policy (Standard 6). A small team visit will follow submission of the report. To request a second monitoring report, due March 1, 2012, documenting that the institution has achieved and can sustain compliance with Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, including but not limited to documented evidence of: (1) the development and implementation of a strategic plan that includes institutional goals, objectives and strategies; reflects conclusions drawn from assessment results; and is the result of constituent participation (Standards 1, 2); (2) short- and long-range financial projections that are tied to the strategic plan and demonstrate resource allocation at the institutional and unit levels (Standard 3); (3) a documented procedure in place for the periodic objective assessment of the board in meeting governing body expectations (Standard 4); (4) rigorous adherence to the established lines of organization and authority, with no interference from individual board members (Standards 4, 5); (5) steps taken to demonstrate that the CEO is responsible for the administration of the institution, empowered to lead, and accountable for leading the institution toward the achievement of its goals (Standard 5); and (6) a documented procedure in place for the periodic objective assessment of the CEO in alignment with periodic assessment of the effectiveness of institutional leadership and governance (Standard 5). A small team visit will follow submission of the report. To note that the Commission will not consider substantive change requests until accreditation is reaffirmed, including the institution's previous request to include within the scope of its accreditation the contractual relationship and the additional locations at ERC Institute River Valley Campus, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; ERC Institute North Bridge Commercial Complex, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; and ERC Institute Ho Chi Minh Campus, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. To note that the Periodic Review Report due June 1, 2011 has been received. To direct a prompt Commission liaison guidance visit to discuss the Commission's expectations. The next evaluation visit date will be set when accreditation is reaffirmed.
August 30, 2011: To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request and to grant the following exception to the Commission's previous decision not to consider substantive change requests from the institution until accreditation is reaffirmed: to note the institution's decision to close its additional location at the Thomas Danby Campus of Leeds City College, 5 Roundhay Road, Leeds LS7 3BG, United Kingdom, and to include the additional location at Leeds Metropolitan University, Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Campus, Headlingley, Leeds LS6 3QS, United Kingdom, 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 the additional location do not commence within one calendar year from the approval of this action, approval will lapse. To note that this approval is not retroactive. To remind the institution of the Commission's action to place the institution on probation because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 1 (Mission and Goals), Standard 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), Standard 3 (Institutional Resources), Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), Standard 5 (Administration), and Standard 6 (Integrity). To note that the institution remains accredited while on probation. To further remind the institution of the request for a monitoring report, due September 1, 2011, documenting compliance with Standards 2, 4, and 6, including but not limited to documented evidence of: (1) a strategic planning process that includes faculty and other constituents' participation (Standard 2); (2) a rationale and process for selecting board members, including the specific expertise they bring to the board as well as their independence from internal and external influences and other conflicts of interest that may interfere with their impartiality or outweigh their duty to ensure the academic and fiscal integrity of the institution (Standard 4); (3) appropriate actions to ensure that the institution will not provide any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial aid to any persons or entities engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions regarding the award of student financial assistance, consistent with federal regulations (Standard 6); and (4) the development and implementation of policies to ensure that the institution's compensation practices demonstrate adherence to ethical standards and are consistent with MSCHE policy (Standard 6). A small team visit will follow submission of the report. To further remind the institution of the request for a second monitoring report, due March 1, 2012, documenting that the institution has achieved and can sustain compliance with Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, including but not limited to documented evidence of: (1) the development and implementation of a strategic plan that includes institutional goals, objectives and strategies; reflects conclusions drawn from assessment results; and is the result of constituent participation (Standards 1, 2); (2) short- and long-range financial projections that are tied to the strategic plan and demonstrate resource allocation at the institutional and unit levels (Standard 3); (3) a documented procedure in place for the periodic objective assessment of the board in meeting governing body expectations (Standard 4); (4) rigorous adherence to the established lines of organization and authority, with no interference from individual board members (Standards 4, 5); (5) steps taken to demonstrate that the CEO is responsible for the administration of the institution, empowered to lead, and accountable for leading the institution toward the achievement of its goals (Standard 5); and (6) a documented procedure in place for the periodic objective assessment of the CEO in alignment with periodic assessment of the effectiveness of institutional leadership and governance (Standard 5). A small team visit will follow submission of the report. To remind the institution that the Commission will not consider additional substantive change requests until accreditation is reaffirmed, including the institution's previous request to include within the scope of its accreditation the contractual relationship and the additional locations at ERC Institute River Valley Campus, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; ERC Institute North Bridge Commercial Complex, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; and ERC Institute Ho Chi Minh Campus, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. To note that the Periodic Review Report due June 1, 2011 has been received and will be acted on at the Commission's November meeting. To note the visit by the Commission's representatives. The next evaluation visit date will be set when accreditation is reaffirmed.
November 17, 2011: To accept the June 1, 2011 Periodic Review Report and the September 1, 2011 monitoring report. To note that the institution is in compliance with Standard 6 (Integrity). To continue the institution's probation because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 1 (Mission and Goals), Standard 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), Standard 3 (Institutional Resources), Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), Standard 5 (Administration), and Standard 8 (Student Admissions and Retention). To note that the institution remains accredited while on probation. To remind the institution of the request for a monitoring report, due March 1, 2012, documenting that the institution has achieved and can sustain compliance with Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and to request that this monitoring report further document that the institution has achieved and can sustain compliance with Standard 8, including but not limited to documented evidence of: (1) the development and implementation of a strategic plan that includes institutional goals, objectives and strategies; reflects conclusions drawn from assessment results; and is the result of constituent participation (Standards 1, 2); (2) short- and long-range financial projections and analysis that are tied to the strategic plan and demonstrate resource allocation at the institutional and unit levels (Standard 3); (3) a documented procedure in place for the periodic objective assessment of the board in meeting governing body expectations, including financial policies that will allow the institution's critical resource needs to be met (Standard 4); (4) rigorous adherence to the established lines of organization and authority, with no interference from individual board members (Standards 4, 5); (5) steps taken to demonstrate that the CEO is responsible for the administration of the institution, empowered to lead, and accountable for leading the institution toward the achievement of its goals (Standard 5); (6) a documented procedure in place for the periodic objective assessment of the CEO in alignment with periodic assessment of the effectiveness of institutional leadership and governance (Standard 5); (7) ongoing assessment of student success, including but not necessarily limited to retention, that evaluates the match between the attributes of admitted students and the institution's mission and programs and reflects its findings in its admissions, remediation, and other related policies (Standard 8); and (8) document that the recruitment process for first-time degree-seeking students from the US seeks to admit students whose interests, goals, and abilities are congruent with the Richmond mission and strategic plan (Standard 8). To further request that the report document evidence of the institution's academic control of the Richmond Study Centers in Florence and Rome, Italy and the role of the American Institute for Foreign Study in the operation of those instructional sites (Standard 13). A small team visit will follow submission of the report. To remind the institution of the Commission's policy on international travel. To remind the institution that the Commission will not consider additional substantive change requests until accreditation is reaffirmed, including the institution's previous request to include within the scope of its accreditation the contractual relationship and the additional locations at ERC Institute River Valley Campus, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; ERC Institute North Bridge Commercial Complex, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; and ERC Institute Ho Chi Minh Campus, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. To note that the site visit to the additional location at Leeds Metropolitan University, Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Campus, Headlingley, Leeds LS6 3QS, United Kingdom, which was included provisionally within the scope of the institution's accreditation pending a site visit within six months of commencing operations, will be conducted in March 2012. The next evaluation visit date will be set when accreditation is reaffirmed.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2015 - 2016

Next Periodic Review Report: 2021

Date Printed: April 16, 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."