Assurance Review

HLC conducts an Assurance Review to determine whether an institution is in compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation and other HLC requirements. On the Standard Pathway, Assurance Reviews are conducted in Years 4 and 10 as part of broader comprehensive evaluations. On the Open Pathway, the Assurance Review is conducted by itself in Year 4 and is a part of the comprehensive evaluation that occurs in Year 10. Assurance Reviews also take place as part of comprehensive evaluations of institutions seeking accreditation with HLC and institutions on Probation or under a Show-Cause Order.

The following steps make up the Assurance Review:

  1. The institution prepares an Assurance Filing that demonstrates it is in compliance with HLC requirements. The filing is comprised of an Assurance Argument, Evidence File and other materials, as applicable.
  2. A team of peer reviewers evaluates the institution’s Assurance Filing. The outcome of this review is a recommendation as to whether the institution is in compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation and other HLC requirements.
  3. If the Assurance Review is part of a comprehensive evaluation, this review will also include an on-site visit by the peer review team. The Assurance Review conducted in Year 4 of the Open Pathway does not include an on-site visit unless the team determines one is necessary to explore uncertainties in evidence that cannot be resolved at a distance or if a sanction is being considered.
  4. A decision-making body reviews the institution’s documentation and the recommendation from the peer review team and takes an official action.

Assurance System

HLC’s Assurance System is a web-based technology that institutions use to prepare their Assurance Filing and peer reviewers use to conduct the review and write their analysis and recommendation

Log In Training & System Details Assurance System Manual

Assurance Filing

The institution prepares an Assurance Argument and Evidence File as part of its Assurance Filing. Depending on the type of evaluation being conducted, the institution may also be required to submit a Federal Compliance Filing or other materials in its Assurance Filing. All pieces must be completed in the online Assurance System before the review is scheduled to begin. 

In the Assurance Argument, the institution demonstrates how it meets each Criterion and Core Component. For each Criterion, the institution offers:

  • An articulation of how each Core Component within the Criterion is met.
  • A summary statement regarding any additional ways in which the institution fulfills the Criterion that are not otherwise covered in the statements on the Core Components.
  • Links to materials in the institution’s Evidence File for each claim or argument made.

Sample Assurance Arguments

Embedded Monitoring

If an institution was assigned embedded monitoring from a previous evaluation, it should address the issues subject to monitoring in the applicable Core Component sections of the Assurance Argument.

The Assurance Argument will link to materials the institution uploads to its Evidence File to further support its narrative for each Criterion and Core Component. See Providing Evidence for the Criteria for Accreditation for guidance on identifying evidence and a list of possible sources of evidence for each Core Component. Examples of such evidence include:

  • Existing mission statements.
  • Budget documents.
  • Assessment and curriculum reports.
  • Minutes from meetings of governing boards and other prominent committees.
  • Materials submitted to and received from specialized accreditation organizations and state agencies.

Most materials in the Evidence File must be uploaded directly into the system as PDF files. HLC allows institutions to provide URLs for the following specific resources:

  • Course catalog.
  • Class schedules.
  • Faculty roster.
  • Faculty, staff and student handbooks.

Every item uploaded to the Evidence File must be specifically linked to at least one Core Component in the Assurance Argument.

HLC automatically includes materials related to the institution’s accreditation history in its Evidence File. These may include:

  • Team reports from comprehensive evaluations and other accreditation reviews.
  • Analysis of interim reports.
  • A trend summary from the institution’s most recent Institutional Update submissions.
  • Copies of official actions and correspondence.
  • Public comments.

An institution may be required to submit additional materials in its Assurance Filing for a comprehensive evaluation. These may include:

The institution should carefully consider whether documents containing personally identifiable information (PII) must be included in its Evidence File or other Assurance Filing materials. If the documents must be included for evaluative purposes, the institution must redact the PII where possible. If redaction of the PII will interfere with the evaluative value of the document, the institution is expected to clearly identify the document as containing PII (for example, through a cover page or prominent notation on the document). Institutions are not expected to redact or identify information or documents where the only PII included is employee or Board member names and work contact information.

PII is any information about an individual that allows the individual to be specifically identified. This includes, but is not limited to: name, address, telephone number, birthday, email, social security number, bank information, etc. A document does not include PII if personal information is de-identified (for example, student financial receivables without student names or bank routing information) or is provided in the aggregate (for example, data on faculty qualifications). See HLC’s PII Guidelines for more information.

Peer Review

A team of peer reviewers evaluates the institution’s Assurance Filing and writes its report in the Assurance System. If the review is being conducted as part of a comprehensive evaluation, the peer review team will write its report after completing its on-site visit and will take into account all of the additional materials involved in the evaluation. The team drafts its report four to six weeks following the start of the review or on-site visit.

In judging whether the institution is in compliance with the Criteria, the team evaluates each Core Component individually. The team determines whether the Core Component is met, met with concerns or not met using the guidelines provided in HLC’s policy on the Evaluative Framework for the HLC Criteria. The institution meets the Criterion only if all Core Components are met or met with concerns. The institution does not meet the Criterion if one or more Core Components is judged not to be met.

Determinations about compliance with other HLC requirements are made according to the applicable evaluative frameworks.

The peer review team may recommend monitoring, a sanction, a Show-Cause Order or an adverse action. When conducting a Year 10 comprehensive evaluation, or as otherwise applicable, the team includes a recommendation regarding the institution’s Reaffirmation of Accreditation and pathway eligibility.

The institution will have an opportunity to review the draft report for corrections to errors of fact. Errors of fact are statements in the report that are factually incorrect and can be demonstrated as such by evidence available to the team. Examples of this are typographical errors or other mistakes, such as incorrect enrollment numbers, job titles, etc. The team may accept or decline any corrections provided by the institution before submitting the final report to HLC.

Institutional Response

HLC will share the final team report with the institution and invite the institution to submit a response to the team’s findings and recommendations. The institution will have 14 days from the date HLC provides the final team report to submit its response.

Decision Making

For Comprehensive Evaluations

The team report and institutional response are sent to an HLC decision-making body for review and action. For details about this process, see Decision-Making Bodies and Processes.

For Open Pathway Year 4 Assurance Reviews

If the peer review team finds that all Criteria are met and does not recommend monitoring, the final report is shared with the institution and HLC. In such cases, no institutional response is solicited from the institution, and the team report is shared with the Institutional Actions Council (IAC), along with the institution’s Assurance Filing, as an “item of information.” Because an official action is not taken in these cases, the institution will receive a letter of acknowledgement rather than an action letter.

If the peer review team does recommend monitoring, a sanction, a Show-Cause Order or an adverse action, the institution is invited to submit an institutional response. The team report and institutional response are sent to an HLC decision-making body for review and action. The decision-making body will also determine the institution’s eligibility to remain on the Open Pathway. Per HLC policy, an institution that is assigned interim monitoring in the form of a focused visit will be removed from the Open Pathway. For details about the decision-making process, see HLC Decision-Making Bodies and Processes.

Questions?

[email protected]