Statement of Accreditation Status

United States Merchant Marine Academy

  • CEO: Ms. Joanna Nunan, Superintendent
  • Accreditation Liaison Officer: Dr. Lori Townsend
  • Commission Staff Liaison: Dr. Anne Wahl, Vice President
  • Carnegie Classification: Baccalaureate Colleges: Diverse Fields » Four-year, small, highly residential
  • Control: Public
  • Phase: Accredited
  • Status: Accreditation Reaffirmed
  • Accreditation Granted: 1949
  • Last Reaffirmation: 2017
  • Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2024-2025

Contact Information

300 Steamboat Road
Kings Point, NY 11024-1699

(516) 726-5800

www.usmma.edu

  • April 16, 2020
    To acknowledge receipt of formal written notice from the institution in response to the Commission's request of March 9, 2020. To temporarily waive Substantive Change Policy and Procedures and allow the use of distance education to accommodate students impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19) interruptions, in accordance with United States Department of Education (USDE) guidelines published March 5, 2020. Continued use of distance education beyond the limitations of USDE guidelines will require substantive change approval in accordance with Substantive Change Policy and Procedures. This flexibility is not available for clock-hour courses that lead to licensure if the licensing body will not accept distance learning courses or hours or give credit for them toward the number of hours a student must complete. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • November 21, 2019
    To note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To request that, beginning in 2020 and in conjunction with each Annual Institutional Update prior to the Mid-Point Peer Review in 2021, the institution provide further evidence of (1) the development and implementation of organized and systematic assessments that evaluate the extent of student achievement (Standard V); (2) demonstrated and documented use of assessment results to improve educational effectiveness (Standard V); (3) comprehensive long-range planning processes (Standard VI); (4) the development and implementation of organized and systematic assessments that evaluate institutional effectiveness (Standard VI); and (5) periodic assessment of the effectiveness of planning, resource allocation, institutional renewal, and availability of resources (Standard VI). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • November 21, 2019
    To acknowledge receipt of the monitoring report.
  • March 14, 2019
    To note that a follow-up visit was postponed due to federal government shutdown. To note that the visit will be conducted at a later date. To request a supplemental information report due September 1, 2019, documenting further development and implementation of (1) sustainability of institutional and unit level goals that are clearly stated, assessed appropriately, linked to mission and goal achievement, and further development of organized and systematic assessments which evaluate the extent of student achievement of institutional and program level goals (Standard V); and (2) documentation of existing and future assessment practices and the use the assessment results in the planning and resource allocation processes (Standard VI). To direct a follow-up team visit following submission of the supplemental information report. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • November 15, 2018
    To acknowledge receipt of the monitoring report.  To note that a follow-up visit will be conducted. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • November 16, 2017
    To accept the monitoring report and to note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To remove the warning because the institution is now in compliance with Standard 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal) and Requirement of Affiliation 7 (Institutional Planning), and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a monitoring report due September 1, 2018 demonstrating (1) sustainability of institutional and unit level goals that are clearly stated, assessed appropriately, linked to mission and goal achievement, and further development of organized and systematic assessments which evaluate the extent of student achievement of institutional and program level goals (Standard V); and (2) documentation of existing and future assessment practices and the use the assessment results in the planning and resource allocation processes (Standard VI). A small team visit may follow submission of the monitoring report. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024–2025.
  • June 22, 2017
    To accept the monitoring report and to note the visit by the Commission's representatives. To note that the institution is now in compliance with Standard 3 (Institutional Resources), Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), Standard 5 (Administration), and Standard 9 (Student Support Services). To continue to warn the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that it is in compliance with Requirement of Affiliation 7 (Institutional Planning) and Standard 2 (Planning, Resources, and Institutional Renewal). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To request a monitoring report, due September 1, 2017, documenting evidence that the institution has achieved and can sustain compliance with Standard 2 and Requirement of Affiliation 7, including but not limited to evidence of resource allocation decisions that are directly linked to mission and goal achievement at the institutional and unit level, and further development and implementation of an organized and sustained institutional assessment process, including evidence that assessment results are used to inform decision-making (Standard 2; Requirement of Affiliation 7). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. Upon reaffirmation of accreditation, the next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • November 17, 2016
    To note the visit by the Commission's representative. To remind the institution of the Commission's action of June 23, 2016, warning the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that it is currently in compliance with Requirement of Affiliation 7 (Institutional Planning), Standard 2 (Planning, Resources, and Institutional Renewal), Standard 3 (Institutional Resources), Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), Standard 5 (Administration), and Standard 9 (Student Support Services). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To remind the institution of the monitoring report due March 1, 2017. Upon reaffirmation of accreditation, the institution will return to its established evaluation schedule.
  • June 23, 2016
    To warn the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy because of insufficient evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Requirement of Affiliation 7 (Institutional Planning), Standard 2 (Planning, Resources, and Institutional Renewal), Standard 3 (Institutional Resources), Standard 4 (Leadership and Governance), Standard 5 (Administration), and Standard 9 (Student Support Services). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To request a monitoring report, due March 1, 2017, documenting evidence that the institution has achieved and can sustain compliance with Requirement of Affiliation 7 and Standards 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9, including but not limited to evidence of (1) institutional planning that (a) integrates plans for academic, personnel, information resources and technologies, learning resources, and financial development; (b) includes goals and objectives, both institution-wide and for all individual units, that are clearly stated, reflect conclusions drawn from assessment results, are linked to mission and goal achievement, and are used for planning and resource allocation at the institutional and unit levels; and (c) includes planning and improvement processes that are clearly communicated, provide for constituent participation, and incorporate the use of assessment results; (Requirement of Affiliation 7 and Standard 2); (2) resource allocation procedures that include (a) strategies to measure and assess the level of, and efficient utilization of, institutional resources required to support the institution's mission and goals; (b) rational and consistent policies and procedures in place to determine allocation of assets; (c) a financial planning and budgeting process that provides for an annual budget and multi-year budget projections, both institution-wide and among departments; utilizes planning and assessment documents; and addresses resource acquisition and allocation for the institution; and (d) adequate institutional controls to deal with financial, administrative and auxiliary operations (Standard 3); (3) a governance structure that includes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy to assure institutional integrity and to fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development, consistent with the mission of the institution (Standard 4); (4) an administration characterized by (a) a chief executive whose primary responsibility is to lead the institution toward the achievement of its goals and with responsibility for administration of the institution; (b) administrative leaders with appropriate skills, degrees and training to carry out their responsibilities and functions; (c) qualified staffing appropriate to the goals, type, size, and complexity of the institution; and (d) adequate information and decision-making systems to support the work of administrative leaders (Standard 5); and (5) steps taken to build a climate of mutual trust and respect on campus and during the Sea Year (Standard 9). To further request that the monitoring report also document (6) further development and implementation of an organized and sustained institutional assessment process, including evidence that assessment results are shared and discussed with appropriate constituents and used in planning, resource allocation, and renewal at all levels (Standard 7). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. To direct a prompt Commission liaison guidance visit to discuss the Commission's expectations. The date of the next accreditation review will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.
  • November 17, 2011
    To accept the Periodic Review Report and to reaffirm accreditation. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2015-2016.
  • Distance Education
    Approved to offer programs by this delivery method
  • Correspondence Education
    Not approved for this delivery method

Approved Credential Levels

The following represents credential levels included in the scope of the institution’s accreditation:

  • Bachelor's Degree or Equivalent Included within the scope
  • Master's Degree or Equivalent Included within the scope

The following are links to sites that are not maintained by the MSCHE. These are provided as additional external resources about each institution that the MSCHE accredits.