HLC Overview
Institutions undergo a comprehensive evaluation to ensure they are meeting the Criteria for Accreditation and pursuing institutional improvement. A Year 4 evaluation may include a determination that interim monitoring is necessary.
Institutions undergoing a first comprehensive evaluation following granting of initial accreditation or removal of Probation will be considered for Reaffirmation of Accreditation as part of the Year 4 comprehensive evaluation. If reaffirmation is granted, the institution moves to Year 5 of the Standard Pathway cycle.
The second comprehensive evaluation conducted in the Standard Pathway cycle follows the same process as the evaluation conducted in Year 4, with the addition of a Federal Compliance Review. The Year 10 evaluation leads to an action regarding the reaffirmation of the institution’s accreditation.
The Core Components
The institution meets the Core Component if
- the Core Component is met without concerns, that is the institution meets or exceeds the expectations embodied in the Component; or to the extent opportunities for improvement exist, peer review or a decision-making body has determined that monitoring is not required; or
- the Core Component is met with concerns, that is the institution demonstrates the characteristics expected by the Component, but performance in relation to some aspect of the Component must be improved, and peer review or a decision-making body has determined that monitoring is required to assure that the institution ameliorates the concerns.
The institution does not meet the Core Component if the institution fails to meet the Component in its entirety or is so deficient in one or more aspects of the Component that the Component is judged not to be met.
The Criteria for Accreditation
The institution meets the Criterion if the Criterion
- is met without concerns, that is the institution meets or exceeds the expectations embodied in the Criterion; or to the extent opportunities for improvement exist, peer review or a decision-making body has determined that monitoring is not required; or
- is met with concerns, that is the institution demonstrates the characteristics expected by the Criterion, but performance in relation to some Core Components of the Criterion must be improved, and peer review or a decision-making body has determined that monitoring is required to assure that the institution ameliorates the concerns.
The institution does not meet the Criterion if the institution fails to meet the Criterion in its entirety or is so deficient in one or more Core Components of the Criterion that the Criterion is judged not to be met.
The institution meets the Criterion only if all Core Components are met. The institution must be judged to meet all five Criteria for Accreditation to merit accreditation. For purposes of compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation, findings of “met” and “met with concerns” both constitute compliance.
The Commission will grant or reaffirm accreditation (with or without conditions or sanctions), deny accreditation, or withdraw accreditation based on the outcome of its review.
Criteria