ACISC Accreditation Process

The ACISC International Accreditation Process is a structured, evidence-based process designed to evaluate an institution’s capacity, educational quality, institutional integrity, and commitment to continuous improvement.

The process is designed to provide institutions with a clear framework for self-evaluation, external review, and quality improvement while ensuring that accreditation decisions are based on documented evidence and the applicable ACISC Accreditation Standards.

ACISC accreditation is independent of governmental licensing, registration, or regulatory approval. Institutions remain responsible for meeting all legal and regulatory requirements applicable in their respective jurisdictions.

1. Determination of Eligibility

Before beginning the formal accreditation process, an institution must demonstrate that it meets the minimum ACISC Eligibility Requirements.

The eligibility review considers factors including the institution’s legal status, educational activities, operational history, governance, financial sustainability, institutional capacity, student provision, and readiness to participate in the accreditation process.

Institutions are encouraged to complete the ACISC Self-Assessment Checklist before submitting an application.

Eligibility is not accreditation and does not guarantee an accreditation outcome.

[Learn more about Determination of Eligibility]

2. Initial Application

Institutions that meet the applicable eligibility requirements may submit an Initial Accreditation Application.

The application provides ACISC with essential information about the institution, including its legal and organizational structure, educational provision, governance, student population, campuses, programs, and institutional resources.

ACISC reviews the application and supporting documentation to determine whether the institution is ready to proceed to the next stage of the accreditation process.

Where additional information or clarification is required, ACISC may request further documentation from the institution.

[Submit an Initial Application]

3. Institutional Information and Accountability Report

As part of the accreditation application, the institution may be required to submit an Institutional Accountability Report or other prescribed institutional information.

The report provides ACISC with reliable information about the institution and may include data relating to:

Student enrollment.
Student retention and progression.
Completion and graduation.
Academic programs.
Faculty and staffing.
Student support services.
Institutional resources.
Financial sustainability.
Graduate or other relevant educational outcomes.

The information submitted must be accurate, complete, current, and supported by appropriate institutional records.

ACISC may request additional information where necessary to understand the institution’s context and readiness for accreditation.

4. Initial Readiness Review

Following review of the initial application and required institutional documentation, ACISC may conduct an Initial Readiness Review.

Where appropriate, this may include a virtual or on-site review conducted by authorized ACISC representatives or evaluators.

The purpose of the review is to:

Verify key institutional information.
Confirm the institution’s operational status.
Review the adequacy of institutional resources.
Clarify information submitted in the application.
Assess the institution’s readiness to undertake the formal self-study and evaluation process.
Identify matters that may require attention before the institution proceeds.

An initial readiness review is not an accreditation evaluation and does not constitute an accreditation decision.

5. Accreditation Orientation and Training

ACISC may provide accreditation orientation, workshops, guidance materials, or training to institutions participating in the accreditation process.

The purpose of these activities is to help institutional leaders and accreditation coordinators understand:

The ACISC accreditation framework.
The applicable accreditation standards.
Evidence and documentation requirements.
The self-study process.
Evaluation procedures.
Expectations for institutional participation.
Preparation for the external evaluation visit.

Where ACISC designates specific training as mandatory for an applicant or accreditation cycle, the institution must complete the required training within the timeframe established by ACISC.

6. Application and Institutional Self-Study

The Institutional Self-Study is a central component of the ACISC accreditation process.

The self-study provides the institution with an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive and evidence-based review of its educational programs, governance, resources, student support, institutional effectiveness, and quality-assurance practices.

The institution is expected to:

Evaluate itself against the applicable ACISC Accreditation Standards.
Identify strengths and areas requiring improvement.
Provide supporting evidence for its assessment.
Analyze institutional effectiveness and educational outcomes.
Identify priorities for continuous improvement.
Develop appropriate improvement actions where gaps are identified.

The self-study should represent the institution’s own analysis and should involve appropriate participation from institutional leadership, faculty, staff, and other relevant stakeholders.

ACISC may review the submitted self-study and request clarification, additional evidence, or revisions before scheduling the external evaluation.

[Learn more about Application and Self-Study]

7. External Evaluation Visit

Once the institution has submitted an acceptable self-study and all required supporting documentation, ACISC will arrange an External Evaluation Visit.

The evaluation team will normally consist of appropriately qualified and trained evaluators selected in accordance with ACISC procedures.

The evaluation team may review:

Institutional documentation and evidence.
Academic programs and learning provision.
Governance and leadership.
Faculty and staff.
Student support services.
Institutional resources and facilities.
Quality-assurance systems.
Student and educational outcomes.
Compliance with applicable ACISC standards.

The evaluation may include meetings or interviews with institutional leaders, faculty, staff, students, and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate.

The institution will be informed of the proposed evaluation team in advance and may identify a potential conflict of interest or other legitimate concern regarding an evaluator in accordance with ACISC procedures.

8. Evaluation Team Report

Following the evaluation, the evaluation team prepares a written Evaluation Report.

The report provides an evidence-based assessment of the institution against the applicable ACISC Accreditation Standards.

The report may identify:

Areas of demonstrated compliance.
Institutional strengths.
Areas requiring improvement.
Conditions or requirements that may need to be addressed.
Recommendations for continued institutional development.
Other matters relevant to the accreditation decision.

The evaluation team submits its report to ACISC in accordance with the applicable procedures.

9. Institutional Response

The institution is provided with an opportunity to review the evaluation report and submit a formal Institutional Response.

The response may:

Correct factual inaccuracies.
Provide additional evidence where appropriate.
Respond to findings and recommendations.
Clarify institutional circumstances.
Identify actions already taken or planned in response to findings.

The institutional response becomes part of the accreditation record and is considered as part of the subsequent review.

10. Independent Accreditation Review

The completed accreditation file is reviewed by the designated ACISC accreditation review authority in accordance with applicable ACISC policies and procedures.

The review considers the complete body of evidence, which may include:

The eligibility determination.
The initial application.
Institutional reports and documentation.
The self-study.
Supporting evidence.
The external evaluation report.
The institution’s formal response.
Any additional information relevant to the accreditation decision.

The review body may request clarification or additional evidence where necessary.

Where appropriate, it may also identify conditions, recommendations, or other matters for consideration by the accreditation decision-making authority.

11. Accreditation Decision

The final accreditation decision is made by the designated ACISC accreditation decision-making authority in accordance with the organization’s governance framework and accreditation policies.

The decision is based on the institution’s demonstrated compliance with the applicable ACISC Accreditation Standards and the complete accreditation record.

Possible outcomes may include:

Accredited

The institution has demonstrated sufficient compliance with the applicable ACISC Accreditation Standards and is granted accreditation for the period specified by ACISC.

Accredited with Conditions

The institution is granted accreditation subject to specified conditions that must be addressed within a defined period.

Deferral

A final accreditation decision is deferred pending the submission or review of additional evidence, corrective action, or other information required by ACISC.

Not Accredited

The institution has not demonstrated sufficient compliance with the applicable accreditation requirements to receive accreditation at that time.

Where applicable, ACISC may establish additional categories or conditions in accordance with its accreditation policies.

Payment of accreditation fees, completion of the application, participation in an evaluation, or submission of a self-study does not guarantee accreditation.

12. Accreditation Notification

ACISC will formally communicate the accreditation decision to the institution.

Where accreditation is granted, the institution may receive formal documentation identifying:

The accreditation status.
The effective date.
The accreditation period.
Applicable conditions or requirements.
Any reporting or monitoring obligations.

Institutions may represent their accreditation status only in accordance with the ACISC Accreditation and Public Representation Policy.

13. Post-Accreditation Monitoring and Continuous Improvement

Accreditation is not intended to be a one-time assessment.

Accredited institutions are expected to maintain compliance with the applicable ACISC requirements and demonstrate continued commitment to institutional effectiveness and continuous improvement.

During the accreditation period, ACISC may require institutions to submit:

Interim or progress reports.
Updated institutional information.
Evidence addressing accreditation conditions.
Notifications of material institutional changes.
Other reports or documentation required under the applicable accreditation cycle.

ACISC may conduct additional reviews where significant changes or concerns arise.

14. Renewal and Reaccreditation

Accreditation is granted for a defined period and is subject to renewal or reaccreditation in accordance with the applicable ACISC accreditation cycle.

Institutions seeking continued accreditation must demonstrate ongoing compliance with the applicable standards and participate in the required review process.

The renewal or reaccreditation process may include:

Updated institutional information.
Institutional self-study or review.
Evidence of continuous improvement.
External evaluation.
Review of previous accreditation conditions and recommendations.
Review of student and institutional outcomes.
A formal accreditation decision.

Accreditation renewal is not automatic.

15. Appeals and Review of Accreditation Decisions

ACISC maintains appropriate procedures through which an institution may request a review or appeal of an accreditation decision where permitted under the applicable policies.

Appeals must be based on the grounds and procedures established by ACISC and must be submitted within the applicable timeframe.

The appeals process is intended to provide a fair and transparent mechanism for reviewing eligible procedural or substantive concerns without compromising the independence of the accreditation decision-making process.

ACISC Principles of Accreditation

The ACISC accreditation process is guided by the following principles:

Independence

Accreditation decisions are made independently of governmental authorities and are based on the applicable ACISC standards and documented evidence.

Evidence-Based Evaluation

Accreditation decisions are based on reliable institutional information, documented evidence, external evaluation, and appropriate review.

Transparency

ACISC seeks to maintain clear and transparent accreditation requirements, processes, decision-making procedures, and institutional responsibilities.

Fairness and Consistency

Institutions are evaluated against the applicable standards using consistent procedures while recognizing differences in institutional mission, educational model, size, and jurisdiction.

Continuous Improvement

Accreditation is intended not only to evaluate institutional quality but also to encourage ongoing reflection, improvement, and sustainable development.

Institutional Responsibility

The institution retains primary responsibility for the quality of its educational provision, the accuracy of its information, compliance with applicable laws, and implementation of improvement measures.

Important Distinction

ACISC accreditation is an independent institutional quality-assurance determination.

It does not constitute:

Governmental licensing.
Governmental authorization.
Governmental recognition.
National accreditation.
A substitute for legal or regulatory approval.
A guarantee of student outcomes or institutional performance.

Institutions remain responsible for maintaining all licenses, registrations, authorizations, approvals, and other legal requirements applicable in their respective jurisdictions.

The ACISC Accreditation Pathway

1. Eligibility Review
↓
2. Initial Application
↓
3. Institutional Information & Accountability
↓
4. Initial Readiness Review
↓
5. Accreditation Orientation
↓
6. Institutional Self-Study
↓
7. External Evaluation
↓
8. Evaluation Report
↓
9. Institutional Response
↓
10. Independent Accreditation Review
↓
11. Accreditation Decision
↓
12. Accreditation Notification
↓
13. Monitoring & Continuous Improvement
↓
14. Renewal / Reaccreditation

Accreditation Process