Process Requirements Leading to HLC Actions Following Reviews of the Criteria for Accreditation

Recommendations for HLC Action Based on Reviews of the Criteria for Accreditation

The team of HLC peer reviewers conducting a review of the Criteria for Accreditation, whether in the Standard Pathway or the Open Pathway shall, in its written report make a recommendation for HLC action, except after a mid-cycle Assurance Review in the Open Pathway wherein all Criteria for Accreditation have been satisfied without any need for monitoring.

In all other cases, the team shall recommend whether to continue the institution’s accreditation and may, based on its evaluation of the evidence, indicate whether routine interim monitoring is warranted under HLC policy. The team may also recommend that evidence warrants the imposition of a sanction, the issuance of a Show-Cause Order, or withdrawal of accreditation.

In exceptional circumstances, a team may extend the mid-cycle Assurance Review in Year 4 to require a visit to explore uncertainties in the evidence that cannot be resolved at a distance. If the Year 4 review team calls for such a visit, the team conveys to the institution the reasons for the required visit, including any additional evidence required, and identifies any individuals or groups with which the team will meet during the visit.

The resulting recommendations, along with each team’s written report and the institution’s responses, shall be forwarded to an HLC decision-making body for review and action.

Recommendations for HLC Action for Reaffirmation of Accreditation

Similarly, the team conducting a comprehensive evaluation for reaffirmation of accreditation shall in its written report make a recommendation for HLC action. The team shall recommend whether to reaffirm the institution’s accreditation and, based on its evaluation of the evidence, may indicate whether routine interim monitoring is warranted under HLC policy. The team may also determine that, while the institution’s accreditation should be reaffirmed based on a determination that the institution should retain its accreditation and will have legal authority to operate as an institution of higher education, the imposition of a sanction or issuance of a Show-Cause Order is warranted. Finally, the team may recommend that an institution’s accreditation not be reaffirmed but rather, that probation be imposed, a Show-Cause Order be issued or that accreditation be withdrawn.

Policy History

Last Revised: February 2022
First Adopted: June 2012
Revision History: June 2014, November 2018, June 2020, February 2022
Notes: Policies combined November 2012 – 1A.3.1, 1A.3.2. In February 2021, references to the Higher Learning Commission as “the Commission” were replaced with the term “HLC.”