Accreditation Process Policies & Procedures
Effective December 15, 2006
Copyright 2006 by the American Library Association. All rights reserved except those which may be granted by Section 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976.
The ALA Committee on Accreditation is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and is a member of the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors (ASPA).
Additional copies of Accreditation Process, Policies & Procedures may be ordered from:
Office for Accreditation
American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611
(800) 545-2433, ext. 2432
Fax: (312) 280-2433
Email: accred@ala.org
Web site: http://www.ala.org/accreditation
Contents
Preface
I Overview
I.1 The Role of Accreditation
I.2 Accreditation Terms Used in This Document
I.3 The American Library Association’s Committee on Accreditation
I.3.1 Scope of the Committee on Accreditation
I.3.2 External Recognition of the ALA COA I.4 The Committee on Accreditation’s Structure and Organization I.4.1 Terms of Appointment
I.4.2 Conflicts of Interest Policy
I.4.3 Voting by the COA
I.5.1 Directory of Accredited Programs I.5.2 Schedule of Reviews I.6 Standards for Accreditation
I.7 Accreditation Status
I.7.1 Categories of Accreditation I.7.2 Precandidacy and Candidacy Procedures
I.7.3 Precandidacy Status
I.7.3 (a) Eligibility Requirements I.7.3 (b) Application Requirements
I.7.3 (c) Review by the COA I.7.3 (d) Length of Precandidacy Status
I.7.3 (e) Reporting to the COA I.7.3 (f) Fees I.7.4 Candidacy Status
I.7.4 (a) Eligibility Requirements I.7.4 (b) Application Requirements
I.7.4 (c) Review by the COA I.7.4 (d) Length of Candidacy Status
I.7.4 (e) Reporting to the COA I.7.4 (f) Fees I.7.5 Candidacy Status and Initial Accreditation of Additional Programs
I.7.5 (a) Requirements for Candidacy Status for an Additional Program I.7.5 (b) Review by the COA
I.7.5 (c) Length of Candidacy Status I.7.5 (d) Reporting to the COA
I.7.5 (e) Fees
I.7.6 Initial Accreditation
I.7.6 (a) Initial Accreditation of Candidate Programs I.7.6 (b)Retroactive Period of Initial Accreditation I.7.7 Continued Accreditation I.7.8 Conditional Accreditation
I.7.9 Progress Review
I.7.10 Withdrawal of Accreditation
I.7.10 (a) Voluntary Withdrawal of Accreditation
I.7.10 (b) Date of Withdrawal
I.7.10 (c) Student Status Following Withdrawal
I.8 Accreditation Decisions
I.9 Notice of Concern
I.9.1 Procedures
I.9.2 COA Actions Following a Notice of Concern
I.10 Appeal Process
I.11 Reports and Reviews
I.11.1 Statistical Reports
I.11.2 Biennial Narrative Reports
I.11.3 Special Reports
I.11.4 Comprehensive Reviews
I.12 Confidentiality and Ownership
I.13 Complaints
I.13.1 Complaints against an Accredited Program
I.13.2 Complaints against the COA
I.14 Institutional or Programmatic Changes
I.15 Fees
I.15.1 Other Expenses
I.16 The Comprehensive Review Process
I.16.1 Conflicts of Interest
I.16.2 Change in Review Dates
II Guidelines for the Program Presentation [TOP]
III Guidelines for the External Review Panel [TOP]
IV Appeal Process [TOP]
IV.1 Introduction
IV.2 Rationale and Grounds for Appeal
IV.3 Appeal Procedure Overview
IV.4 Program Status during Appeal and Confidentiality
IV.5 Withdrawal of Appeal
IV.6 Appeal Review Committee
IV.7 Appeal Process Details
IV.8 Meeting of the ARC
IV.9 Decisions of the ARC and Executive Board
IV.10 The Role of the ALA Executive Board
IV.11 Review of the Appeal Deadlines
IV.12 Review of the Effective Dates
Preface
In 1992 the Council of the American Library Association approved the Standards for Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Library and Information Studies as developed by ALA’s Committee on Accreditation (COA) in cooperation with allied professional associations. Policies, procedures, and documents used in conducting the accreditation process were subsequently revised and published in 1995. Since then, the COA has continued to review the Standards and revise the policies and procedures of the accreditation process. This manual reflects the changes to the accreditation process that have been implemented since 1995.
Accreditation Process Policies and Procedures manual combines content previously published in An Overview, Guidelines for the Program Presentation, Guidelines for the External Review Panel , and Guidelines for Appeals . The Outcomes Assessment for Library and Information Studies Resource Manual is published separately and is available upon request from the Office for Accreditation.
Questions about the accreditation process as administered by the American Library Association’s Committee on Accreditation should be directed to:
Office for Accreditation
American Library Association
50 East Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611
(800) 545-2433, ext. 2432
Web site: http://www.ala.org/accreditation
[Back to Table of Contents]
I Overview
I.1 The Role of Accreditation
Accreditation is a voluntary, nongovernmental, and collegial process of self-review and peer review. In higher education, accreditation has two goals: 1) to ensure that post-secondary educational institutions and their units, schools, or programs meet appropriate standards of quality and integrity, and 2) to improve the quality of education these institutions offer.
The two (2) types of postsecondary education accreditation are institutional and specialized. Institutional accreditors evaluate and accredit an institution as a whole. There are a number of institutional accrediting agencies throughout the nation. Each accrediting agency is responsible for accrediting institutions within its region. For this reason, institutional accreditation is sometimes referred to as regional accreditation.
Specialized accreditors evaluate and accredit professional and occupational education at the unit or program level. Each accrediting agency is responsible for the units or programs in its specialty. As a specialized accreditor, the American Library Association’s (ALA) Committee on Accreditation (COA) accredits programs leading to the first professional degree in library and information studies, which is the master’s degree.
Accreditation has several benefits. It assures the public that individuals who have graduated from accredited schools or programs have received a quality education. It assures students that accredited programs meet the standards of the profession that they seek to enter. Institutions of higher education benefit through self- and peer evaluation and through the opportunity for continuous improvement. Accreditation does not, however, result in ranking of programs. Rather, it respects the uniqueness of each program while ensuring that all accredited programs meet the same standards.
The accreditation process involves the continuous assessment and evaluation of a program and the enhancement of the program’s operations using standards. This process, through self-evaluation and peer review, is designed to foster collegial relations among educators and members of the profession. Accreditation indicates that a program demonstrates a commitment to quality and that the program seeks to continue that commitment.
The accreditation process and activities of the ALA’s COA are founded on principles of accreditation (see Section 1.3 for the principles). In the spirit of continuous improvement, the standards, procedures, and documents for ALA accreditation are periodically revised and updated as part of the effort to ensure optimal benefit to the profession and the public.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.2 Accreditation Terms Used in This Document
The following key terms are used throughout this document.
Institution refers to the university or college to which the school belongs.
School refers to the administrative unit offering one (1) or more programs in library and information studies.
Program refers only to the program(s) of study leading to an accredited LIS master’s degree. A school may offer degree programs not accredited by the ALA, such as undergraduate, other master’s, post-master’s, or doctoral programs. It should be noted that the ALA Committee on Accreditation accredits programs, not schools.
Dean refers to the chief academic officer (dean, director, or chair) of a school.
Director refers to the Director of the Office for Accreditation.
Chair refers to the Chairperson of the External Review Panel (ERP).
Visit or site visit refers to the part of a comprehensive review in which members of an ERP visit the school and institution to validate and augment the information contained in the Program Presentation. Most visits are conducted as on-site visits in which several of the ERP members travel to the program location. This document is written from that perspective. However, alternative approaches such as virtual visits may also be used, following consultation with the COA and the ERP Chair.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.3 The American Library Association’s Committee on Accreditation
In 1924 the ALA created the Board of Education for Librarianship to carry on the accreditation of programs of education for librarianship. The Board became the Committee on Accreditation in 1956.
The Committee on Accreditation is a standing committee of the ALA. Its charge is "to be responsible for the execution of the accreditation program of the ALA, and to develop and formulate standards of education for library and information studies for the approval of Council (ALA Handbook of Organization)." In meeting this charge, the COA is guided by the following principles:
• The accreditation of library and information studies (LIS) educational programs is coordinated through a single agency that represents the interests of the members of the profession.
• Accreditation enhances the quality of library and information services through the improvement of the professional education available for librarians and related information professionals.
• The spirit of accreditation lies in its constructive and continual evaluation and assessment of LIS educational programs.
The Committee on Accreditation has developed an accreditation process that seeks to achieve the following objectives:
• To respond to the content and emphasis of the 1992 Standards for Accreditation adopted by the ALA.
• To incorporate suggestions of the LIS educational community and the LIS profession.
• To conform to good practices in the accreditation process in accord with provisions set forth by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors (ASPA).
I.3.1 Scope of the Committee on Accreditation
The COA accredits master’s programs in library and information studies that are offered under the degree-granting authority of regionally accredited institutions located in the United States and also in its territories, possessions, and protectorates. By agreement with the Canadian Library Association (CLA), the COA also accredits LIS master’s programs in institutions in Canada.
As a prerequisite to the accreditation of programs, the ALA requires that the institution be accredited by its appropriate regional accrediting agency. This requirement does not apply in Canada, which has no regional accrediting system.
The COA is responsible for overseeing the development of standards for accreditation of master’s degree programs in library and information studies. The development of standards is a broadly based, inclusive process involving members of the profession and public that culminates in the approval of standards by the ALA Council. The current standards were adopted by the ALA Council in January 1992 and became effective in January 1993. The COA continuously reviews the standards at its regularly scheduled meetings and periodically appoints standards review subcommittees to determine when revisions are necessary.
I.3.2 External Recognition of the ALA COA
CHEA officially recognizes the American Library Association as the accrediting agency for master’s level programs in library and information studies. The ALA is also a member of ASPA and follows its Code of Good Practice.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.4 The Committee on Accreditation’s Structure and Organization
The COA consists of twelve (12) members. They are appointed by the ALA President-elect in the role of Chair of the Committee on Appointments (ALA Bylaws, Article VIII, Section 2). Ten members are personal members of ALA who are appointed to represent educators and practioners. One is Canadian to represent those programs. Two (2) members of the COA must be appointed from the public at large to represent the public interest.
I.4.1 Terms of Appointment
Members of the COA, with the exception of the public members, are appointed for four-year staggered terms and may not be re-appointed to the committee. Only personal members of ALA are eligible for appointment.
Public members are appointed from the public at large and represent the public interest. They are appointed for two-year terms and may be re-appointed once. Public members may not be librarians or information professionals. A public member cannot have studied library and information studies; cannot be currently or formerly professionally employed in a library, information center, or related industry (for example, as a material or systems vendor); and cannot be a current or former member of the ALA or any other library association. Public members cannot be employed in an institution at which there is a program accredited by the ALA or in an institution that has a program in precandidacy or candidacy status.
The Chair of the COA is appointed by the President-elect for a one-year term and may be reappointed once.
When a vacancy occurs on the COA before the end of the member’s term, the ALA Executive Board appoints a replacement (ALA Bylaws, Article VIII, Section 7b).
I.4.2 Conflicts of Interest Policy
It is the responsibility of each COA member to disclose any personal, financial, and/or professional interest that might create a conflict with that member’s ability to carry out fairly and objectively his or her responsibility as a COA member. Typical situations requiring member disclosure and COA review include: 1) current or recent employment by or consulting arrangements with an institution of higher education that offers or proposes to offer master’s degrees in library and information studies; 2) close personal relationships with individuals at institutions with an LIS program; 3) current or recent student status at an institution with an LIS program; 4) any other interest that he or she believes might prevent their objectivity or cause a reasonable person to believe he or she is biased.
Each member’s disclosure is reviewed by the COA at least once a year and also as disclosures are presented. Generally, any conflicts of interest are resolved through the member’s recusal from discussions or votes on the issue or program related to the conflict. COA may request that a member recuse him- or herself due to a disclosed conflict of interest. On a case-by-case basis, the COA may also consider and adopt additional measures to ensure that its work is not compromised by a potential or actual conflict of interest.
I.4.3 Voting by the COA
I.4.3 (a) Quorum
The presence of seven (7) of the twelve (12) members of the COA constitutes a quorum for nonaccreditation business. Decisions are based on a simple majority; the COA Chair votes only in order to break a tie.
Accreditation decisions require a quorum of at least eight (8) voting members of the COA and require an affirmative vote by at least eight (8) voting members of the COA.
I.4.3 (b) Accreditation Actions
Accreditation actions refer to any decisions to initially accredit, grant precandidacy or candidacy status to, continue accreditation of, conditionally accredit, or withdraw accreditation from a program. Accreditation actions may be made only at a regularly scheduled meeting of the COA and require a quorum of at least eight (8) COA members.
A decision to accredit, grant candidacy status to, continue accreditation of, conditionally accredit, or withdraw accreditation from a program requires at least eight (8) affirmative votes. The COA Chair votes only to break a tie. Fewer than eight (8) affirmative votes for accreditation or conditional accreditation results in denial or in withdrawal of accreditation. A motion to reconsider an accreditation action requires a majority affirmative vote (A. F. Sturgis, Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2001, p. 37).
I.4.3 (c) Voting between Meetings
The ALA Bylaws, Article VIII, Section 8, authorizes voting by email, conference call, and mail as long as all committee members are polled simultaneously. No accreditation actions may be made between regularly scheduled meetings, nor may accreditation votes be taken by mail, fax, or telecommunications.
I.4.3 (d) Communicating with the COA
Correspondence with the Chair of the COA should be sent to the Office for Accreditation. The Office fulfills the secretarial function for the COA and maintains all its records.
Any request for action by the COA must be directed first to the Chair of the COA. In order for the COA to consider an action request at its next meeting, the request should be sent care of the Office for Accreditation at least one (1) month before the next regular COA meeting. This time frame will enable the COA to consider the request for the agenda of the next meeting.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.5 The Office for Accreditation
The Office for Accreditation provides planning, leadership, and a secretarial function in implementing the ALA accreditation process. In fulfilling these roles, the Office serves multiple constituencies: the COA, ALA members, the LIS profession, graduate programs, students, employers, and the general public. Among the responsibilities of the Office for Accreditation are:
• Coordinating and supporting activities that are directly related to the accreditation of master’s programs of education for library and information studies.
• Maintaining relationships with other accrediting agencies within the accreditation community, including CHEA and ASPA.
• Maintaining contact with programs. This may include programs that are in the process of undergoing a comprehensive review or those that are interested in seeking accreditation from the ALA.
• Providing information to graduate programs, potential students, employers, ALA members, the press, and the general public about the accreditation process, policies, and procedures, as well as the accreditation status of specific graduate LIS programs.
• Providing programs, publications, and other activities to promote the awareness and enhance the knowledge of ALA members, other library and information associations, and the general public about the ALA accreditation process, trends in library and information studies education, and trends in higher education accreditation.
• Maintaining a schedule of evaluation reviews and making it available at any time on request from the Office.
• Maintaining the Directory of Institutions Offering Accredited Master’s Programs.
I.5.1 Directory of Accredited Programs
The Directory of Institutions Offering Accredited Master’s Programs, which provides a list of programs currently accredited by the ALA, is published annually. An electronic version of the directory is updated throughout the year and is available at http://www.ala.org/lisdir.
A list of all programs that have been reviewed and accredited by the ALA since 1924 is available at http://www.ala.org/accreditation.
I.5.2 Schedule of Reviews
The Office maintains a schedule of comprehensive reviews, which is available on request and on its web site. This schedule assures the profession and the public that the COA reviews programs in a regular and timely manner.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.6 Standards for Accreditation
The COA develops standards for accreditation through a consensus-building process that involves various communities of interest, including educators, students, and professionals in library and information studies. Throughout the standards-development process, the COA seeks, receives, and uses comments and suggestions from the communities of interest in both the United States and Canada. Standards for Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Library and Informational Studies, 1992, was adopted by the ALA Council in January 1992 and became effective January 1993. Previous standards were adopted in 1925, 1933, 1951, and 1972.
The 1992 Standards describes the essential features of programs of education that prepare library and information professionals. Within the context of the school’s and program’s rights and obligations regarding initiative, experimentation, innovation, and individual programmatic differences, these standards identify the minimum achievement consistent with the needs of the LIS profession as well as the indispensable components of library and information studies programs.
However, the Standards uses qualitative rather than quantitative measures throughout. And the Standards is indicative, not prescriptive. The intent of the Standards is to foster excellence through the development of criteria for evaluating educational effectiveness.
Throughout the Standards, the requirements for evaluation include outcomes assessments, not only of educational processes and resources, but also of the successful use of those processes and resources to achieve established objectives. Furthermore, institutions seeking accreditation of master’s degree programs in library and information studies have an obligation to use the results of their evaluations for broad-based, continuous program planning, development, and improvement.
While the Standards provides the basis for self-evaluation and peer review of all accredited master’s programs in library and information studies, their qualitative nature enables each program to be considered within its unique context. The Standards has been designed to encourage programs to initiate experiments in professional education without creating conflict with the policies and organizational structure of their own institutions.
The 1992 Standards and the current accreditation process emphasize the use of outcomes assessment by the programs accredited by the ALA. Many institutions have tools and resources that departments and programs can use to help develop and measure outcomes. These resources are often available on university Web sites. Examples of such outcomes assessment and evaluation tools are the "Internet Resources for Higher Education Outcomes Assessment" developed by North Carolina State University (http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/ assmt/resource.htm), "Using Assessment for Academic Program Improvement" developed by the University of Wisconsin at Madison (http://www.wisc.edu/provost/assess/manual. html), and "Outcomes Assessment Resources on the Web" developed by Mark Troy (http:// www.tamu.edu/marshome/assess/oabooks.html). The Outcomes Assessment for Library and Information Studies Resource Manual is available on request from the Office for Accreditation.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.7 Accreditation Status
I.7.1 Categories of Accreditation
The categories of accreditation are:
Precandidate for Accreditation: Precandidacy indicates the institution and program’s commitment to achieving ALA accreditation. Precandidacy also provides the program and the COA with a means to communicate formally about programmatic development. Programs in precandidacy status do not appear in the list of accredited programs.
Candidate for Accreditation: Candidacy status indicates that the program is ready to begin the two-year process that culminates in the Program Presentation, comprehensive review of the program, and the COA’s accreditation decision. Programs in candidacy status do not appear in the COA’s list of accredited programs.
Initial Accreditation: This category indicates that a program has been accredited by the COA for the first time. This may be a new program, an existing program at a school with another accredited master’s program, and/or an established unaccredited program.
Continued Accreditation: A program that has continuously demonstrated evidence of conformity with the standards is referred to as accredited.
Conditional Accreditation: This category is assigned to a program that must make changes to comply with the standards to enable accreditation beyond the date specified by the COA. Conditional accreditation is applied only to programs seeking continued accreditation.
Withdrawn Accreditation: This category is assigned to a program that, effective on the date specified, is no longer accredited by the ALA’s Committee on Accreditation.
I.7.2 Precandidacy and Candidacy Procedures
An institution that has a master’s program in library and information studies that is not accredited by the ALA’s Committee on Accreditation must go through precandidacy and candidacy status before receiving initial accreditation from the COA. As a prerequisite to the granting of precandidacy or candidacy status to a program, the ALA requires that the institution be accredited by its appropriate regional accrediting agency. This requirement does not apply in Canada, which has no regional accrediting system.
I.7.3 Precandidacy Status
Precandidacy indicates the institution and program’s commitment to achieving ALA accreditation. This status provides a mechanism for the program to establish, measure, and meet goals and objectives in order to achieve candidacy status and to comply with the 1992 Standards. Precandidacy also provides the program and the COA with a means to communicate formally about programmatic development.
I.7.3 (a) Eligibility Requirements
As the first step in seeking accreditation from the ALA, the following programs are required to apply for precandidacy status: 1) a new program at an institution that does not have an ALA-accredited program and/or 2) an existing program at an institution that does not have an ALA-accredited program.
I.7.3 (b) Application Requirements
An application for precandidacy status must be submitted to the Chair of the COA in care of the Office for Accreditation. The precandidacy application must include:
• A letter from the CEO of the institution requesting precandidacy status for the program. In the case of a new program, this letter must also include documentation of institutional and state approval of, commitment to, and support for the new program.
• A letter from the dean of the program and/or school in which the program is located requesting precandidacy status for the program.
• A report of the program’s status. This report must address how the program will comply with the 1992 Standards for Accreditation of Master’s Programs in Library and Information Studies. The report must also include, but is not limited to: 1) descriptions of the program’s mission, goals, and objectives; curriculum; faculty or faculty recruitment plans; and physical resources and facilities; 2) statements of financial support for the program (including a copy of the program’s current budget), and 3) a projected budget for the program during the precandidacy and candidacy periods. The names and positions of the persons responsible for developing and monitoring these reports must be included.
• A detailed plan for achieving candidacy status. Such plans must include clearly stated objectives, a calendar for reaching these objectives (for example, hiring a certain number of faculty each year, enrolling a certain number of students each year), methods of assessing whether the objectives have been met, and evaluation plans for the program. If the program does not have a dean, plans for selection and hiring to fill this position must be included.
• A waiver signed by both the CEO of the institution and dean of the school stating that the institution understands that precandidacy status in no manner guarantees or implies that the program will move to candidacy status or that it will be accredited at the end of the candidacy period.
I.7.3 (c) Review by the COA
The COA will review the precandidacy application at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Committee will take one of the following actions: 1) grant precandidacy status, 2) grant precandidacy status and immediately move the program into candidacy status, or 3) deny precandidacy status. Option two would normally apply only to programs with established nonaccredited programs. The decision to deny precandidacy status to a program is not appealable.
I.7.3 (d) Length of Precandidacy Status
A program may remain in precandidacy up to three (3) years. At the end of three (3) years, the COA may grant one (1) extension of up to three (3) years. After six (6) years in precandidacy status without progress to candidacy, the program will no longer be considered a precandidate and must wait two (2) more years before reapplying for precandidacy.
During the precandidacy period, the institution, school, and program are encouraged to seek advice from individuals within the profession who have experience with accreditation. The Director of the Office for Accreditation may suggest possible contacts. The Director is also available to advise on the ALA accreditation process and on the development of reports that are to be submitted to the COA.
Precandidate programs will receive all literature and mailings sent to accredited programs. Representatives of precandidate programs are welcome to attend all open meetings, training sessions, and workshops offered by the COA or the Office.
Precandidate programs are not listed in the directory of ALA-accredited programs.
Program and school literature must indicate that the program is in precandidacy status and must include this statement:
[Name of school and institution] has been granted precandidacy status by the Committee on Accreditation of the American Library Association. Precandidacy status is an indication that [name of school and program] has voluntarily committed to participate in the ALA accreditation process and is actively seeking accreditation. Precandidacy does not indicate that the program is accredited nor does it guarantee eventual accreditation of the program by ALA.
I.7.3 (e) Reporting to the COA
Each year the precandidate program is required to submit a detailed progress report to the COA. This report should indicate what progress the program has made in reaching its objectives, obstacles it has encountered, and its plans to address these obstacles. The program is also required to submit the annual statistical information collected from all ALA-accredited programs. These reports are due in the Office for Accreditation on October 15 each year.
The COA reviews these reports and sends a response to the dean and CEO of the institution. This response is not an indication or checklist of steps that must be taken to achieve candidacy status; rather, it is the COA’s response to the program’s efforts to obtain candidacy status.
I.7.3 (f) Fees
Programs filing for precandidacy status are required to submit a nonrefundable application fee of $1,000. Precandidate programs are also required to pay an annual fee of $2,000 while in precandidacy. If the Director or other Office staff member is invited to visit the institution, the institution will be billed for travel related expenses.
I.7.4 Candidacy Status
Candidacy status indicates that the program is ready to begin the two-year process that culminates in the Program Presentation, comprehensive review of the program, and accreditation decision by the COA. When a program is granted candidacy status, it then follows the processes for undergoing a comprehensive review.
I.7.4 (a) Eligibility Requirements
In order to seek initial accreditation from the ALA, precandidate programs are required to apply for candidacy status. A precandidate program that is ready to proceed with the comprehensive review process must submit the application for candidacy status at least two (2) years before the anticipated comprehensive review. A permanent full-time dean must be in place before a program can be granted candidacy status. All candidate programs must have an on-site comprehensive review.
I.7.4 (b) Application Requirements
An application for candidacy status must be submitted to the Chair of the COA in care of the Office for Accreditation. The candidacy application must include:
• A letter from the chief executive officer of the institution requesting candidacy status for the program.
• A letter from the dean of the program and/or school in which the program is located requesting candidacy status for the program.
• A report of the program’s status. This report must provide a status report for each part of the 1992 Standards: mission, goals, and objectives; curriculum; faculty; students; administrative and financial support; physical resources and facilities; and for its projected budget for the program during the candidacy period.
• Detailed plans for developing the program presentation and preparing for the comprehensive review. These plans must include clearly stated objectives, a calendar for developing the Program Presentation and preparing for the review, and plans for evaluating the performance outcomes of the program.
• A waiver signed by both the CEO of the institution and dean of the school stating that the institution understands that candidacy status in no manner guarantees or implies that the program will be accredited or that accreditation is automatic at the end of the candidacy period.
I.7.4 (c) Review by the COA
The COA reviews the application for candidacy status at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The COA takes one of the following actions: 1) to grant candidacy status, 2) to keep the program in precandidacy status, or 3) to deny candidacy status. Decisions to keep a program in precandidacy status or to deny candidacy status to a program are not appealable decisions.
I.7.4 (d) Length of Candidacy Status
A program may remain in candidacy status for two (2) years. A one-year extension is possible pending the approval of the COA.
During the candidacy period, the institution, the school, and program are encouraged to seek advice from individuals within the profession who have experience with accreditation. The Director of the Office for Accreditation may suggest possible contacts. The Director is also available to advise on the ALA accreditation process and on the development of reports that are to be submitted to the COA.
Candidate programs will receive all literature and mailings sent to accredited programs. Representatives of candidate programs are welcome to attend all open meetings, training sessions, and workshops offered by the COA or the Office.
Candidate programs are not listed in the directory of ALA-accredited programs.
Program and school literature must indicate that the program is in candidacy status and must include this statement:
[Name of school and institution] has been granted candidacy status by the Committee on Accreditation of the American Library Association. Candidacy status is an indication that [name of school and program] has voluntarily committed to participate in the ALA accreditation process and is actively seeking accreditation. Candidacy does not indicate that the program is accredited nor does it guarantee eventual accreditation of the program by ALA.
I.7.4 (e) Reporting to the COA
Each year the candidate program is required to submit a detailed progress report to the COA. This report should indicate what progress the program has made in reaching programmatic objectives, obstacles that have been encountered, and its plans to address these obstacles. The program is also required to submit the annual statistical information collected from all ALA-accredited programs. These reports are due in the Office for Accreditation on October 15 each year.
The COA will review these reports and will send a response to the dean and CEO of the institution. This response is not an indication or checklist of steps that must be taken to achieve accreditation; rather, it is the COA’s response to the program’s efforts to obtain accreditation.
If, on review of the annual reports, the COA determines that the program is not yet ready to undergo a comprehensive review, it may grant a one-year extension of candidacy status to the program for a total of three (3) years of candidacy.
I.7.4 (f) Fees
Programs that are moving from precandidacy to candidacy are required to pay a $1,000 application fee. Candidate programs are also required to pay the same annual fee ($750 effective 2002-2003 academic year) paid by accredited programs. If the Director or other Office staff member is invited to visit the institution, the institution will be billed for travel related expenses.
I.7.5 Candidacy Status and Initial Accreditation of Additional Programs
A school with a program that is already accredited by the ALA and that is seeking initial accreditation of an additional master’s program must file an application for candidacy status at least two (2) years before the date of the anticipated comprehensive review. The review of the candidate program may occur at the same time as the regularly scheduled comprehensive review of the currently accredited program (in-cycle) or at a different time
(off-cycle) upon request of the school. All candidate programs must have an on-site comprehensive review.
I.7.5 (a) Requirements for Candidacy Status for an Additional Program
An application for candidacy status of an additional program must be submitted to the Chair of the COA in care of the Office for Accreditation. The candidacy application must include:
• A letter from the chief executive officer (CEO) of the institution requesting candidacy status for the additional program.
• A letter from the dean (dean) of the school in which the program is located, and if applicable the director or chair of the program, requesting candidacy status for the additional program.
• A waiver signed by both the CEO of the institution, dean of the school, and if applicable, program director or chair stating that the institution understands that candidacy status in no manner guarantees or implies that the program will be accredited or that accreditation is automatic at the end of the candidacy period.
If the comprehensive review of the additional program does not occur at the same time as a previously scheduled review (i.e., off-cycle), the application must also include a report describing how the additional program addresses each part of the 1992 Standards (mission, goals, and objectives; curriculum; faculty; administrative and financial support; and physical resources and facilities) and projected budget for the candidacy period.
I.7.5 (b) Review by the COA
The COA reviews the application for candidacy status at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Committee takes one of the following actions: 1) to grant candidacy status or 2) to deny candidacy status. Decisions to deny candidacy status to a program are not appealable decisions.
I.7.5 (c) Length of Candidacy Status
A program may remain in candidacy status for two(2) years. A one-year extension is possible pending the approval of the COA.
The Director of the Office is available to advise on the ALA accreditation process and on the development of reports that are to be submitted to the Committee.
Candidate programs are not listed in the directory of ALA-accredited programs.
Program and school literature must indicate that an additional program is in candidacy status and must include this statement:
The [name of program] at [Name of school and institution] has been granted candidacy status by the Committee on Accreditation of the American Library Association. Candidacy status is an indication that [name of school and program] has voluntarily committed to participate in the ALA accreditation process and is actively seeking accreditation for an additional program. Candidacy does not indicate that the additional program is accredited nor does it guarantee eventual accreditation of the additional program by ALA.
I.7.5 (d) Reporting to the COA
Each year the candidate program is required to submit the annual statistical information collected from all ALA-accredited programs. This report is due in the Office for Accreditation on October 15 each year.
For off-cycle reviews of additional programs, the program must also submit a detailed annual progress report to the COA. This report should indicate what progress the program has made in reaching programmatic objectives, obstacles that have been encountered, and its plans to address these obstacles.
The Committee will review these reports and send a response to the dean and CEO of the institution. This response is not an indication or checklist of steps that must be taken to achieve accreditation, rather, it is the COA’s response to the efforts to obtain accreditation.
If, on review of the annual reports, the COA determines that the program is not yet ready to undergo a comprehensive review, it may grant a one-year extension of candidacy status to the program.
I.7.5 (e) Fees
No application fee is required if the additional program is reviewed at the same time as the currently accredited program.
If the comprehensive review of the additional program occurs off-cycle, a $1,000 nonrefundable application fee is required. If the Director or other Office staff member is invited to visit the institution, the institution will be billed for travel related expenses.
I.7.6 Initial Accreditation
I.7.6 (a) Initial Accreditation of Candidate Programs
As a prerequisite to the initial accreditation of a program, the ALA requires that the institution be accredited by its appropriate regional accrediting agency. This step does not apply to Canadian institutions.
At the end of the candidacy period and following the comprehensive review of the program, the COA makes an accreditation decision. The COA takes one of the following actions: 1) to grant initial accreditation, 2) to maintain the program’s candidacy status, or 3) to deny initial accreditation. If initial accreditation is granted, the COA will schedule a comprehensive review or progress review following its usual procedures. Initially accredited programs may be required to submit detailed annual narrative reports to the COA to enable the committee to monitor the development of the new program.
A decision to leave a program in candidacy status is not appealable. If a program is returned to candidacy, the COA will provide a detailed decision document that states the areas of its concerns.
I.7.6 (b) Retroactive Period of Initial Accreditation
Initial accreditation, when granted, applies retroactively to the academic year preceding the academic year in which the on-site comprehensive review occurred. For example, if a program underwent a comprehensive review and was granted initial accreditation during the 2001-2002 academic year, the students that graduated from the program during the 2000- 2001 academic year are considered to have graduated from an ALA-accredited program.
I.7.7 Continued Accreditation
Accreditation, or continued accreditation, status is granted to programs that demonstrate conformity to the 1992 Standards. Accreditation status carries with it terms and responsibilities, including the submission of statistical and biennial narrative reports and, when called for, special reports.
The COA schedules the next comprehensive review as part of its accreditation decision. For continued accreditation, the next comprehensive review is normally scheduled seven (7) years after the last comprehensive review.
I.7.8 Conditional Accreditation
Conditional accreditation status indicates a need for significant and immediate action for improvement to maintain conformity with the requirements of the 1992 Standards. This status is listed in both the print and electronic directories of accredited programs. The COA must place a program on conditional accreditation before it can withdraw accreditation from the program. A decision to conditionally accredit a program requires at least eight (8) affirmative votes.
In its Decision Document, the COA identifies the sections of the 1992 Standards with which the program failed to conform, schedules either a comprehensive review or a progress review. Either review will occur three (3) years after the program is placed on conditional status. Then, the COA requests a meeting with the dean and institutional representatives to discuss the program’s plans to remove the conditional status.
A conditionally accredited program must submit annual progress reports to the COA. The program should use the ERP report, the COA Decision Document, and previous correspondence from the Committee to identify the specific areas and issues of concern that will serve as a basis for the development of a plan to achieve compliance with the 1992 Standards.
Removal of conditional status is an accreditation decision. As such, this decision requires eight (8) affirmative votes and is determined during a regularly scheduled meeting of the COA.
I.7.9 Progress Review
In some instances, the COA schedules a progress review for either a conditionally accredited program or an initially accredited program three (3) years after the last comprehensive review. Information on the comprehensive review process is found in Section I.16.
The progress review process lasts approximately one (1) year. It includes the development of a new Program Presentation document, on-site review by a three-member progress review team, and an accreditation decision by the COA. Sections II and III of this document contain details regarding the Program Presentation and work of the team.
At least one (1) year before the scheduled review, the Office for Accreditation notifies the program of the upcoming review. A three-member progress review team (including the chair) is appointed approximately one (1) year before the visit. The progress review team is appointed in the same manner as an External Review Panel (see Section III.2).
The new Program Presentation document should focus on the areas of concern identified by the COA, but must also address all parts of the 1992 Standards. Previous documentation and annual reports should be used to create a new Program Presentation document. The Director and progress review team chair review a draft of this document by four (4) months before the scheduled review. The final Program Presentation is due six (6) weeks before the on-site visit.
The Office for Accreditation provides the progress review team with copies of all reports and correspondence between COA and the program since the issuance of a notice of concern and/or since the program was placed on conditional status. These documents are sent to the team chair four (4) months before the review and to other team members six (6) weeks before the visit.
The site visit will be at least one (1), but no more than two (2), business days. Review team members meet with institutional representatives, students, alumni, and others as necessary.
The progress review team submits a draft report for corrections of facts to the program and the Office three (3) weeks after the visit. The program submits corrections of fact one (1) week later (four (4) weeks after the visit). The team chair will make factual corrections and submit the final team report one (1) week after receipt of factual corrections (five (5) weeks after the visit).
The program can submit an optional response to the team report. The optional response is due one (1) week after receipt of the final team report, or six (6) weeks after the visit.
The Dean and team chair will meet with the Committee at the regularly scheduled COA meeting held in conjunction with the ALA Midwinter Meeting or Annual Conference.
COA takes one of the following accreditation actions: 1) schedules a comprehensive review in seven (7) years, 2) releases the program from conditional status and schedules a comprehensive review in seven (7) years, 3) withdraws accreditation from the program.
I.7.10 Withdrawal of Accreditation
The COA must place a program on conditional accreditation before accreditation can be withdrawn from a program. A decision to withdraw accreditation may be made only following a comprehensive or progress review. Accreditation may be withdrawn for serious lack of conformity to the 1992 Standards, for failure to participate in the process, and/or for failure to meet financial obligations related to the accreditation process. A decision to withdraw accreditation for serious lack of conformity to the Standards may occur by 1) failure to obtain eight (8) votes in favor of continuing accreditation or 2) a majority vote to withdraw accreditation.
I.7.10 (a) Voluntary Withdrawal of Accreditation
An institution may exercise its right to voluntarily withdraw its program from the accreditation process. To do so the institution must notify the COA in writing of this intent. The notification must be accompanied by a plan to inform students of the withdrawal from accreditation. The COA will act on the notice of voluntary withdrawal at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Notice of an institution’s intent to withdraw from the accreditation processes appears in the next print edition of the directory and as soon as possible on the electronic version.
I.7.10 (b) Date of Withdrawal
The date of withdrawal of accreditation is calculated from the date of the COA meeting at which the program’s intent to withdraw is presented or at which the COA votes to withdraw accreditation. Accreditation of a program ends twenty-four (24) months after the date of the COA meeting at which the withdrawal action was taken.
I.7.10 (c) Student Status Following Withdrawal
When accreditation is withdrawn from a program, any student who is enrolled in the program before the withdrawal of accreditation and who completes the degree program requirements within twenty-four (24) months after the withdrawal date is considered as having graduated from an ALA-accredited program. In the event that the end of the eighteen-month period falls within an academic semester or quarter, the student has until the end of that semester or quarter to complete the program and graduate in order to graduate from an ALA-accredited program.
The term enrolled is defined as registration in graduate-level course work in library and information studies. This definition also includes all students previously enrolled in the accredited program who are still considered active under institutional policy that exists at the time of the decision to withdraw accreditation.
The definition of enrolled does not include students who have been admitted to begin their study in the term after the date of the decision to withdraw or students enrolled in programs other than the specific program addressed in the decision to withdraw.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.8 Accreditation Decisions
Accreditation decisions are made at the ALA Committee on Accreditation’s regularly scheduled meetings held in conjunction with the ALA Midwinter Meeting and the ALA Annual Conference. The decision about a particular program is made at the meeting immediately following the conclusion of the comprehensive visit of the program. Accreditation decisions are based on the Program Presentation, the report of the ERP, optional program response to the ERP report, a meeting with the dean and the Chair of the ERP, and a review of correspondence regarding regularly submitted biennial narrative and statistical reports as well as required special reports submitted since the last comprehensive review. Following this meeting, the COA’s decision is formalized into a Decision Document that is sent to the dean of the school and to the CEO of the institution via an overnight mail service, with a signature on receipt required. The Decision Document is sent no later than ten (10) days following the end of the ALA conference at which the decision was made.
The Committee’s decisions are diagnostic, not prescriptive. Therefore, when the COA has issues or concerns bearing on conformity to the 1992 Standards, it will not prescribe specific actions to be taken; rather, it will state the areas of concern and require reports that describe how the program plans or takes actions to achieve or maintain conformity.
The Decision Document contains the following elements:
• The name of the institution and school.
• Accreditation status of the program(s) and the date(s) when this status was granted.
• The name of all ALA-accredited programs offered by the school.
• Issues or concerns regarding compliance with the standards, a list of required reports, and a schedule for submission of those reports.
• The date of the next comprehensive review.
• Recommendations for improvements and/or enhancements.
The COA schedules the next comprehensive review as part of its accreditation decision. For continued accreditation, the next comprehensive review is normally scheduled seven (7) years after the last comprehensive review.
In the event of an accreditation action of either conditional accreditation or withdrawal of accreditation, the COA will identify the sections of the 1992 Standards with which the program failed to conform. A copy of the "Guidelines for Appeal" is included with the decision document when accreditation is withdrawn.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.9 Notice of Concern
The Notice of Concern is a method of formal communication with and notification to representatives of the program and institution that the COA has serious concerns about the program’s ability to comply with the Standards. This process provides the program the opportunity for both written and in-person communication with the Committee about the areas of concern. It also serves notice that the program may be placed on conditional accreditation.
The Committee may issue a Notice of Concern to a program along with the institution if changes occur between comprehensive reviews that could affect the program’s continued compliance with the Standards and/or if special or biennial narrative reports do not address COA’s stated concerns about the program. Before issuing a Notice of Concern, the Committee provides the program an opportunity to address these concerns through special reports that may be submitted as part of a biennial narrative report. If the COA determines that subsequent reports do not provide evidence of sufficient progress, it will take steps to issue the Notice as described in Section I.9.1
A program is required to submit special reports to COA if a Notice of Concern is issued. Upon review of these reports, the COA may take one of three actions: 1) Withdraw the Notice, 2) Reaffirm the Notice, or 3) Place the program on conditional accreditation and reschedule the comprehensive review or schedule a progress review.
I.9.1 Procedures
To issue a Notice of Concern, the COA first sends a letter to the program and the institution that specifies areas of concern, cites previous correspondence on these issues, and lists required reports and due dates. The Committee may incorporate this information into its Decision Document. A copy of this letter is also sent to the person to whom the Dean reports and CAO of the institution.
If, upon review of subsequent reports, the COA determines the reports do not provide evidence that issues are being addressed or sufficient progress is being made, the Committee sends a letter to the representatives listed above that reiterates the COA’s concerns and states that a Notice of Concern may be issued. This letter will include a request to meet with the dean and institutional representatives to discuss the situation.
Following its meeting with the dean and institutional representative, the COA will deliberate, take action, and prepare a letter that includes discussion points from the meeting and any actions that were taken. The COA’s actions may include: requesting additional reports, issuing a formal Notice of Concern to the program and institution, or preparing a statement indicating that concerns were resolved at the meeting.
The formal Notice of Concern specifies areas of concern that could lead to noncompliance with the Standards, a list of required reports, a statement that the program may become conditionally accredited, and a list of possible actions by COA. The Notice does not change the accreditation status of the program and is considered confidential correspondence between the program, institution, and the COA.
I.9.2 COA Actions Following a Notice of Concern
After receiving a Notice, the program is required to submit special reports by the dates established by the COA. The Committee will review the report at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Following its review of a report, the COA may take one of three actions: 1) withdraw the Notice of Concern, 2) reaffirm the Notice, or 3) place the program on conditional accreditation and reschedule the comprehensive review or schedule a progress review. A letter explaining COA’s actions will be sent to the dean and institutional representatives.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.10 Appeal Process
The only COA decisions that may be appealed are withdrawal of accreditation or denial of initial accreditation. In order to safeguard the rights of institutions that seek ALA accreditation, an appeal process is available if the COA denies or withdraws accreditation. Accreditation may be withdrawn for several reasons, including serious lack of conformity to the 1992 Standards, failure to participate in the accreditation process, and failure to meet financial obligations associated with the accreditation process.
The appeal process for accreditation actions falls within the jurisdiction of the ALA Executive Board. Section IV of this document discribes the appeal process in detail.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.11 Reports and Reviews
As indicated, accreditation is a process that results in a continuing accreditation status. As part of their commitment to the accreditation process and to allow the COA to monitor accredited programs, programs are required to submit the following documents. The COA uses these documents in its efforts to monitor and evaluate programs’ conformity with the 1992 Standards:
Statistical Reports: Statistical information is gathered annually in cooperation with the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE).
Biennial Narrative Reports: Biennial narrative reports enable the dean to inform the COA and the Office of major developments related to the school or its program and to respond to previously asked COA questions. These reports also demonstrate the ongoing nature of a program’s planning, evaluation, and assessment processes. Programs are provided advance notice of when their biennial narrative report is due.
Special Report: A special report addresses specific issues needing clarification or identifies areas for improvement as called for in the Decision Document. It may involve a presentation by representatives of the program and the institution to the COA. The COA may also request a special report following its review of the interim narrative and/or statistical report.
Comprehensive Review: The COA will schedule a comprehensive review for each program on a regular basis. The preparation for and completion of the process extends over approximately two (2) years. Major components of a comprehensive review include the development of a Program Presentation, a review by an ERP, and the COA’s consideration of the program’s accreditation status.
I.11.1 Statistical Reports
Annual statistical reports are due in the Office of Accreditation by October 15. The statistical elements requested include information such as student and faculty demographics and program finances. The COA reviews these reports to analyze trends in individual programs and in library and information studies education in general. The Office for Accreditation and the COA cooperate with ALISE in collecting these statistical data.
The COA reviews statistical reports annually at its regularly scheduled fall meeting, usually in mid-November. Normally, the COA only acknowledges receipt of a program’s statistical report. If a report is incomplete or contains information on trends that warrant explanation, the COA may request further information or an explanation, or may require a special report.
I.11.2 Biennial Narrative Reports
The Office notifies the dean in advance when a biennial narrative report is due. These reports enable the dean to inform the COA and the Office about major developments related to the school’s program(s) and to respond to COA’s questions. These reports also demonstrate the ongoing nature of the school’s planning, evaluation, and assessment processes as well as their effectiveness. Reports are due in the Office for Accreditation by October 15.
At its regularly scheduled fall meeting, the COA reviews the biennial narrative reports and responds to each program based on the information it contains. The COA sends its response to the dean of the program. If the dean has concerns regarding the COA’s response, he or she may respond with additional information or documentation for review at the COA’s next regularly scheduled meeting. The COA then conveys its response to the school’s dean and, following acceptance by the dean, submits a copy to the institution’s president. The dean may also request a meeting with the COA. This request must be made no later than one (1) month before a regularly scheduled COA meeting.
I.11.3 Special Reports
Special Reports should be submitted in accord with the time frames indicated in the Decision Document or other correspondence from the COA. The dean is encouraged to work with the Director in addressing any questions with regard to the information to be included in the special report.
I.11.4 Comprehensive Reviews
The comprehensive review provides the basis for a COA decision to grant initial or continued accreditation. Major steps in the process include the following:
• Development of a Plan for Program Presentation.
• Development of a Program Presentation.
• Review by an External Review Panel.
• Decision by the COA on the accreditation status of the program.
Throughout the comprehensive review process, the Director of the Office of Accreditation serves as the program’s primary contact on the COA’s concerns and requirements. The dean should keep the Director informed about the progress of the Program Presentation. The Director will respond to questions from the dean, will make suggestions as appropriate, and may consult with the Chair of the ERP. Additional details regarding specific steps involved in the comprehensive review process can be found in Section II on the Program Presentation, in Section III on the External Review Panel, and in the Appendix: Time-Line for the Comprehensive Review Process.
[Back to Table of Contents]
I.12 Confidentiality and Ownership
The owners of documents related to the accreditation process determine access to them. Following this principle, the following guidelines apply:
• The school owns the Program Presentation. The COA encourages broad distribution of the Program Presentation. The COA or the Director may request the school’s permission to make certain portions of the Program Presentation public for educational purposes.
• The Report of the ERP is co-owned by the COA and the school. The school is encouraged to release the report in its entirety. If the school makes public only excerpts, the COA may elect to make the entire report public.
• The document containing the COA’s accreditation decision is public. No modification to it may be made by anyone except the COA. The COA encourages broad distribution of the accreditation decision by the school.
• Correspondence between the COA, the Office, and programs is owned by the parties and is considered confidential.
[Back to Table of Co |
