Statement of Accreditation Status

    The Statement of Accreditation Status (SAS) is the official statement of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) about each institution’s current accreditation status and scope of accreditation. The SAS also provides a brief history of the actions taken by the Commission.

  • Institution:
    Caribbean University
    Bayamon, PR
  • Chief Executive Officer:
    Dr. Ana Cucurella Adorno, President
  • Carnegie Classification:
    Master's Colleges & Universities: Small Programs » Four-year, small, primarily nonresidential
  • Control:
    Private (Non-Profit)
  • Former Name(s):
    Caribbean Junior College (4/1/1978)
  • Address:
    Box 493, Road 167 Km. 21.2
    Bayamon, PR 00960-0493
  • Phone:
    (787) 780-0070
  • URL:
  • Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO):
    Prof. Lillian Matos
  • Commission Staff Liaison:
    Dr. Hilda Colon Plumey, Vice President

Accreditation Summary

For more information, see the Commission’s Accreditation Actions Policy and Procedures.

  • Phase: Accredited
  • Status: Accredited
  • Accreditation Granted: 1977
  • Last Reaffirmation: 2016
  • Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2020-2021
  • Next Mid-Point Peer Review: 2025

Alternative Delivery Methods

The following represents approved alternative delivery methods included in the scope of the institution’s accreditation:

Distance Education
Not approved to offer programs by this delivery method

Correspondence Education
Not approved for this delivery method

Credential Levels

Approved Credential Levels

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

  • Postsecondary award (1-2 yrs)
  • Associate's Degree or Equivalent
  • Bachelor's Degree or Equivalent
  • Master's Degree or Equivalent
  • Doctor's Degree - Other Approved to offer ONE program at this credential level:

Locations

The following represents branch campuses, additional locations, and other instructional sites that are included within the scope of the institution’s accreditation:

Location Type
Carolina
PO Box 4760
Carolina, PR 00984
Additional Location
Ponce
PO Box 7733
Ponce, PR 00960
Additional Location
Vega Baja
PO Box 4258
Vega Baja, PR 00964-0452
Additional Location

Definitions: For definitions of branch campus, additional locations, or other instructional sites, see the Commission’s Substantive Change Policy and Procedures.

Accreditation Actions

The following represents the MSCHE accreditation actions taken in the last ten (10) years. For more information, see the Commission’s Accreditation Actions Policy and Procedures and the Substantive Change Policy and Procedures.

  • November 15, 2018
     To acknowledge receipt of the supplemental information report. To note that a follow-up visit will not be conducted. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2020-2021.
  • March 15, 2018
    To accept the Supplemental Information report. To request a Supplemental Information report, due August 1, 2018, regarding the status of the institution. A small team visit may follow submission of the report. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2020-2021.
  • October 19, 2017
    To request a supplemental information report due December 1, 2017, regarding the status of the institution.
  • November 17, 2016
    To accept the Periodic Review Report and to reaffirm accreditation. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2020-2021.
  • June 26, 2014
    To accept the monitoring report. The Periodic Review Report is due June 1, 2016.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • November 17, 2011
    To note the visit by the Commission's representative. To remind the institution that it has been placed on probation because of insufficient evidence that the institution is in compliance with Standards 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), 7 (Institutional Effectiveness), 10 (Faculty), and 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To note that the institution remains accredited while on probation. To further remind the institution of the monitoring report, due by March 1, 2012, documenting evidence that the institution has achieved and can sustain ongoing compliance with Standards 2, 7, 10, and 14. To request that the monitoring report include, but not be limited to, documentation of (1) the development and implementation of a comprehensive institutional strategic plan that links long-range planning to decision-making, budgeting and resource allocation processes (Standard 2); (2) the development and implementation of a comprehensive, organized and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness, with evidence that assessment information is used in budgeting, planning and allocating resources (Standard 7); (3) steps taken to ensure that there is a sufficient number of appropriately qualified faculty to deliver academic programs and fulfill other responsibilities (Standard 10); and (4) the development and implementation of an organized and sustained assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning (Standard 14). To further request that the monitoring report document evidence of steps taken to clarify the role of the governing board and ensure on-going assessment of the board (Standard 4). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. No substantive change requests will be considered until accreditation is reaffirmed. To further note that the Periodic Review Report submission date will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.
  • June 23, 2011
    To place the institution on probation due to insufficient evidence that the institution is in compliance with Standards 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal), 7 (Institutional Effectiveness), 10 (Faculty), and 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To note that the institution remains accredited while on probation. To request a monitoring report, due by March 1, 2012, documenting evidence that the institution has achieved and can sustain ongoing compliance with Standards 2, 7, 10, and 14. To request that the monitoring report include, but not be limited to, documentation of (1) the development and implementation of a comprehensive institutional strategic plan that links long-range planning to decision-making, budgeting and resource allocation processes (Standard 2); (2) the development and implementation of a comprehensive, organized and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness, with evidence that assessment information is used in budgeting, planning and allocating resources (Standard 7); (3) steps taken to ensure that there is a sufficient number of appropriately qualified faculty to deliver academic programs and fulfill other responsibilities (Standard 10); and (4) the development and implementation of an organized and sustained assessment process to evaluate and improve student learning (Standard 14). To further request that the monitoring report document evidence of steps taken to clarify the role of the governing board and ensure on-going assessment of the board (Standard 4). A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. No substantive change requests will be considered until accreditation is reaffirmed. To direct a prompt Commission liaison guidance visit to discuss the Commission's expectations for reporting. To further note that the Periodic Review Report submission date will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.

Information about the Middle States Commission on Higher Education

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) is one of seven regional accrediting organizations in the United States and is recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). MSCHE is an institutional accreditor. Therefore, MSCHE examines and reaffirms accreditation for each of its member institutions as a whole rather than the specific programs within the institution. MSCHE does not approve individual programs. MSCHE accreditation does not expire but is reevaluated and monitored on a regular and consistent basis in accordance with the institution’s assigned accreditation review cycle.