Statement of Accreditation Status

Richmond, The American International University In London

  • CEO: Mr. Phil Deans, President
  • Accreditation Liaison Officer: Ms. Pragya Rai
  • Commission Staff Liaison: Dr. Kushnood Haq, Vice President
  • Carnegie Classification: Not classified
  • Control: Private (Non-Profit)
  • Phase: Accredited
  • Status: Accreditation Reaffirmed
  • Accreditation Granted: 1981
  • Last Reaffirmation: 2017
  • Next Self-Study Evaluation: 2024-2025

Contact Information

Queens Road Richmond, Surrey TW10 6JP
United Kingdom

(004) 420-8332

www.richmond.ac.uk

  • February 17, 2022
    To acknowledge receipt of the substantive change request. To include the relocation of the main campus to Ground Floor and Part of First Floor, Building 12, Chiswick Park, W4 5AN within the institution's scope of accreditation. To direct a substantive change site visit as soon as practicable but no later than six months after the commencement of instruction at the new main campus. To require immediate notification when the change is implemented. To note that the Commission reserves the right to rescind approval of this substantive change if any developments reveal additional information that might have affected the Commission's decision and/or the requested substantive change is not implemented within one calendar year from the date of this action. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • December 2, 2021
    To acknowledge receipt of the supplemental information report. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • March 4, 2021
    To acknowledge receipt of the teach-out plan. To approve the teach-out plan.
  • March 4, 2021
    To acknowledge receipt of the supplemental information report. To request a supplemental information report, due September 1, 2021, providing further evidence of adequate fiscal and human resources, including physical and technical infrastructure, to support operations (Standard VI). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • November 19, 2020
    To acknowledge receipt of the supplemental information report. To note that the report provided limited responses to requested information and did not present evidence and analysis in a manner conducive to Commission review. To request a supplemental information report due January 4, 2021, addressing (1) adequate and appropriate review and approval of student support services designed, delivered, or assessed by third-party vendors (Standard IV); (2) enrollment management planning linked to budget development (Standard VI); (3) current and future compliance with Requirement of Affiliation 11 and Standard VI, including further explanation and a copy of the finance agreement referenced in the narrative of the supplemental information report submitted August 1, 2020; and (4) a legally constituted governing body that has sufficient independence and expertise and is responsible and accountable for the academic quality, planning and fiscal well-being of the institution (Standard VII). To direct a prompt Commission liaison guidance visit to discuss the Commission's expectations. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • November 19, 2020
    To acknowledge receipt of the teach-out plan. To reject the teach-out plan because the orderly exit plan does not meet the criteria delineated in the Teach-Out Plans and Agreements Policy and Procedures. To require resubmission of a comprehensive, implementable teach-out plan (Teach-Out Plans and Agreements Policy and Procedures) due January 4, 2021. In accordance with Commission policy and federal regulations, the teach-out plan must provide for the equitable treatment of students to complete their education, if the Commission were to withdraw accreditation, and include any teach-out agreements that the institution has entered into or intends to enter into with another institution, with signed copies of teach-out agreements, including any documentation supporting the agreements.
  • June 25, 2020
    To acknowledge receipt of the supplemental information report. To request a supplemental information report due August 1, 2020, documenting further clarification of the institution's membership status. To further request that the institution complete and submit for approval, by August 1, 2020, a comprehensive, implementable teach-out plan (Teach-Out Plans and Agreements Policy and Procedures). In accordance with Commission policy and procedures and federal regulations, the teach-out plan must provide for the equitable treatment of students to complete their education and include any teach-out agreements that the institution has entered into or intends to enter into with another institution. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • May 7, 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 April 3, 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. The institution is responsible for adhering to all applicable regulations of the country in which the institution and its students are located. The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2024-2025.
  • January 16, 2020
    Staff acted on behalf of the Commission to request a supplemental information report, due February 18, 2020, addressing recent developments at the institution which may have implications for current and future compliance with Standard VI: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement, Requirement of Affiliation 11, and the Substantive Change Policy and Procedures.
  • June 21, 2018
    To accept the progress 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 remove the warning because the institution is now in compliance with Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning) and to reaffirm accreditation. To request a progress report, due April 1, 2018, further documenting an organized, systematic, and sustained assessment process that demonstrates the achievement of student learning outcomes in all academic programs, including the Liberal Arts Core, uses multiple measures of sufficient quality to provide direct evidence of student achievement, and uses assessment results to improve teaching and learning and inform institutional effectiveness (Standard 14). 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 Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). 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 Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To note 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 Standard 14, including but not limited to, documentation of an organized, systematic, and sustained assessment process that demonstrates the achievement of student learning outcomes in all academic programs, including the Liberal Arts Core, uses multiple measures of sufficient quality to provide direct evidence of student achievement, and uses assessment results to improve teaching and learning and inform institutional effectiveness (Standard 14). To note the institution's responsibility to inform the Commission about any and all significant developments related to the partnership with Open University. A small team visit will follow submission of the monitoring report. To direct a prompt Commission liaison guidance visit to discuss Commission expectations. The date of the next accreditation review will be established when accreditation is reaffirmed.
  • June 26, 2014
    To accept the monitoring report. To request that the self-study, in preparation for the evaluation visit, document (1) continued implementation of a comprehensive institutional strategic plan that includes clearly stated institution and unit-level goals and objectives that are stated in terms of outcomes, linked to mission, and used for planning and resource allocation (Standard 2); and (2) implementation of enrollment management strategies to improve student retention (Standard 8). The next evaluation visit is scheduled for 2015-2016.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • 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).
  • Distance Education
    Not approved for 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:

  • Associate's Degree or Equivalent Included within the scope:
  • Bachelor's Degree or Equivalent Included within the scope:
  • Master's Degree or Equivalent Included within the scope:
  • Additional Location
    Kensington Campus
    London, United Kingdom
  • Additional Location
    Leeds Metropolitan University, Carnegie Hall
    Carnegie Campus Headlington Leeds LS6 3QS
    United Kingdom
    Opened: 08/30/2011

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.