STATEMENT OF ACCREDITATION STATUS

CARIBBEAN UNIVERSITY
Box 493, Road 167 Km. 21.2
Bayamon, PR 00960-0493
Phone: (787) 780-0070; Fax: (787) 785-0101
www.caribbean.edu

Chief Executive Officer: Dr. Ana E. Cucurella Adorno, President
INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION
Enrollment (Headcount): 3931 Undergraduate; 904 Graduate
Control: Private (Non-Profit)
Affiliation: None
Carnegie Classification: Master's - Medium Programs
Degrees Offered: Postsecondary Certificate (>=1 year, < 2 years), Associate's, Bachelor's, Master's, Doctor's - Other (Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction);
Distance Education Programs: Not Approved
Accreditors Recognized by U.S. Secretary of Education: n/a
Instructional Locations
Branch Campuses: None
Additional Locations: Carolina, Carolina, PR; Ponce, Ponce, PR; Vega Baja, Vega Baja, PR
Other Instructional Sites: None
ACCREDITATION INFORMATION
Status: Member since 1977
Last Reaffirmed: June 28, 2012

Most Recent Commission Action:
April 29, 2013: To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request and to include the Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction within the scope of the institution's accreditation. To remind the institution of the Commission request for a monitoring report, due April 1 2014, documenting (1) progress in strengthening institutional research capability to support institutional assessment and evidence that assessment results are shared and discussed with appropriate constituents and used to inform planning and resource allocation (Standards 2, 7); (2) progress in strengthening the documentation of the process for assessment of student learning outcomes at the institutional and program levels, and evidence that assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). The monitoring report should also document progress to date on (3) the development of specific, detailed implementation plans that address the key priorities of the institution and the assignment of responsibility with specific timelines and resources (Standard 2); (4) increasing the number of full-time faculty as it becomes economically viable (Standard 10); (5) the evaluation of faculty recruitment by academic program and discipline (Standard 10); and (6) the dissemination and integration of information related to the assessment of student learning within the university community and among its constituents (Standard 14). The Periodic Review Report is due June 1, 2016.

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation:
June 28, 2012: To document receipt of the monitoring report, noting that the report necessitated extraordinary effort by the Commission's representatives performing the review, and to note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To remove probation because the institution is now in compliance with Standards 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), 4 (Leadership and Governance), 7 (Institutional Assessment), 10 (Faculty) and 14 (Assessment of Student Learning), and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a monitoring report, due April 1 2014, documenting (1) progress in strengthening institutional research capability to support institutional assessment and evidence that assessment results are shared and discussed with appropriate constituents and used to inform planning and resource allocation (Standards 2, 7); (2) progress in strengthening the documentation of the process for assessment of student learning outcomes at the institutional and program levels, and evidence that assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14). To also request that the monitoring report document progress to date on (3) the development of specific, detailed implementation plans that address the key priorities of the institution and the assignment of responsibility with specific timelines and resources (Standard 2); (4) increasing the number of full-time faculty as it becomes economically viable (Standard 10); (5) the evaluation of faculty recruitment by academic program and discipline (Standard 10); and (6) the dissemination and integration of information related to the assessment of student learning within the university community and among its constituents (Standard 14). The Periodic Review Report is due June 1, 2016.

Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2020 - 2021

Next Periodic Review Report: 2016

Date Printed: April 18, 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."