Frequently Asked Questions
This set of Frequently Asked Questions addresses issues pertaining to the university’s institutional accreditation with the Higher Learning Commission:
- Institutional accreditation
- Elements of accreditation
- Campus preparation for the Comprehensive Review
- Determining accreditation status
For more information about the university's most recent accreditation reviews, see Assurance Review 2023 and Reaffirmation 2019.
What is accreditation?
Accreditation is the recognition that an institution or program maintains standards and practices which ensure that its educational programs meet acceptable levels of quality. In higher education, accreditation signifies that graduates are prepared to gain admission to other reputable institutions of higher learning or to achieve credentials for professional practice.
One important consequence of accreditation is that the Federal Government administers federal financial aid funds only to institutions that are accredited by recognized accrediting agencies.
About Accreditation
Who determines the university's accreditation status?
In the United States, the institutional accreditation process is conducted by regional accrediting agencies. These are private organizations recognized by the U.S. Department of Education to operate as reliable authorities as to the quality of education or training provided by institutions of higher education. The University of Iowa is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC).
How often is the university's accreditation status reviewed?
UI is identified by HLC as an Open Pathway institution. This pathway follows a 10-year cycle, which includes regular monitoring by HLC, a virtual Assurance Review in year 4 and a Comprehensive Review with a Site Visit in year 10.
| Annually | Regular Monitoring: Institutions submit an annual Institutional Update to report on organizational health, compliance with certain federal requirements, and any institutional changes that may require HLC follow-up. |
| Year 4 | Virtual Review: Institutions complete an Assurance Argument to ensure they are meeting HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation. The argument is limited to 35,000 words and is supported by links to documents in an online Evidence File. The Assurance Argument undergoes review by a team of HLC Peer Reviewers, but there is usually no campus site visit associated with the Year 4 Review. |
| Year 5-9 | Quality Initiative: Institutions design and undertake a Quality Initiative project designed and proposed by the institution to meet current needs and aspirations. HLC peer reviewers approve an initial proposal, as well a report on the outcomes of the project. |
| Year 10 | Comprehensive Review and Site Visit: Institutions complete an Assurance Argument to ensure they are meeting HLC’s Criteria for Accreditation. The argument is limited to 35,000 words and is supported by links to documents in an online Evidence File. The Comprehensive Review includes a site visit by a team of HLC Peer Reviewers and a Federal Compliance Review to ensure that the university is complying with requirements set by the U.S. Department of Education. |
The most recent Comprehensive Review (Year 10) took place in March 2019, and the recent Virtual Review (Year 4) took place in March 2023. The next Comprehensive Review and Site Visit will take place during 2028-29.
What criteria are used for determining the university's accreditation status?
HLC’s current Criteria for Accreditation address five broad areas, each of which includes 3-5 core components, for a total of 18 specific items to address in the Assurance Argument. The five broad areas are:
- Mission
The institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly; it guides the institution’s operations. - Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct
The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible. - Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support
The institution provides high quality education, wherever and however its offering are delivered. - Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement
The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments, and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement. - Resources, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness
The institution’s resources, structures, and processes are sufficient to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its education al offerings, and respond to future challenges and opportunities. The institution plans for the future.
What other types of accreditation exist?
There are two main types of accreditation in higher education:
- Institutional accreditation is based on a review of the institution as a whole. In our region, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) is the agency charged by the U.S Department of Education to determine the accreditation status of universities and colleges.
- Specialized accreditation is available in some academic and professional fields for departments and programs that choose to undergo additional review by an agency that specializes in their area of study. The Directory of University Accreditations lists UI departments and programs that undergo specialized accreditation reviews, which are independent of the institutional accreditation review process.
Elements of Accreditation
Based on our long history of institutional accreditation, the Higher Learning Commission has placed UI on the Open Pathway, a cycle which focuses on quality assurance in a Comprehensive Review every ten years, and addresses other elements of accreditation in the years between Comprehensive Reviews. UI's most recent Comprehensive Review took place in March 2019.
Elements of accreditation include:
Assurance Argument
Comprehensive Review
A Comprehensive Review is the process used to determine whether an institution meets the Criteria for Accreditation. The process includes peer review of the university's Quality Assurance and Federal Compliance documentation, culminating in a site visit by the peer review team.
Assurance Argument and Evidence File
Prior to the accreditation site visit, the institution prepares a narrative Assurance Argument describing how it meets each of the five Accreditation Criteria. The text of the Assurance Argument is limited to 35,000 words.
To demonstrate or further support the claims made in the Assurance Argument, the institution uploads supporting documents to an online Evidence File. Examples of evidence might include:
- Mission statements and strategic plan implementation
- Assessment reports and program review documents
- Minutes from meetings of governing boards and decision-making groups
- Financial records
The Assurance Argument and Evidence File are completed fully online in the HLC Assurance System, and made available to the Peer Review team about one month prior to the site visit.
Federal Compliance Review
As a federally recognized accrediting agency, HLC is required to assure that all its member institutions are meeting their Title IV program requirements. Compliance with these is necessary to ensure that the university is eligible to receive and administer federal financial aid.
The Federal Compliance Review, which takes place in conjunction with the Comprehensive Review and Site Visit, requires the institution to provide documentation of:
- Assignment of credits, program length, and tuition
- Institutional records of student complaints
- Publication of transfer polices
- Practices for verification of student identity
- Title IV program responsibilities
- Required information for students and the public
- Advertising and recruiting materials and other public information
- Review of student outcome data
- Standing with state and other accrediting agencies
- Public notification of opportunity to comment
HLC may ask institutions to provide additional supporting information on Federal Compliance during the Comprehensive Review and Site Visit.
Site Visit by a Team of Peer Reviewers
The HLC Comprehensive Review includes a site visit by a team of peer reviewers to verify the claims made in the Assurance Argument. The site visit team will consist of eight reviewers, who will meet with university leaders, faculty, staff, and students.
The purpose of the Site Visit is for a team of peer reviewers to verify the claims made in the Assurance Argument, explore how well the Assurance Argument aligns with information gained through face-to-face meetings on campus, and ask for elaboration or clarification in cases where reviewers think additional information is needed.
A typical site visit includes:
- Meetings with institutional leadership, representatives of shared governance, and members of the university community
- Open meetings with various campus constituency groups such as faculty, staff, graduate students, and undergraduates
- One or more areas of focus determined by the team as needing additional attention
Reviewers are faculty and administrators at peer institutions which are also accredited by HLC. Their role is to review the Assurance Argument, confirm that information and evidence presented in the Assurance Argument accurately reflect the institution, and request additional information or evidence if needed to support the argument.
After the site visit, reviewers submit a report of their visit to HLC, which becomes an additional source of evidence (along with the Assurance Argument and Federal Compliance Review) for HLC to use in determining the university’s accreditation status.
Annual Institutional Update
HLC requires each member and candidate institution to provide an update on organizational health through the Institutional Update. Information provided to HLC in the Institutional Update serves multiple purposes:
- Some information is used to update the Statement of Accreditation Status that is posted on HLC’s website.
- Certain financial and non-financial indicators of organizational health are reviewed to determine whether there are any trends that suggest HLC follow-up.
- Some changes may require review through HLC’s policies and procedures on institutional change.
- Some information is collected and monitored in compliance with federal requirements.
- Student enrollment data are used to calculate HLC membership dues.
Mid-Cycle (Year Four) Virtual Review
In Year Four of the Open Pathways cycle, institutions are reviewed to ensure they are continuing to meet HLC’s criteria for accreditation. The university submits an Assurance Argument that demonstrates the institution is in compliance with the Criteria and has pursued institutional improvement efforts.
Mid-Cycle Reviews are virtual reviews, and do not include an on-site visit unless requested by the review team. Peer Reviewers evaluate the materials submitted in the Assurance Argument and make recommendations to HLC on whether the university is eligible to continue on the Open Pathway or if additional monitoring is required.
The Assurance Argument is limited to 35,000 words, and is supported by links to documents in the Evidence File.
Quality Initiative
One element of institutional accreditation is the Quality Initiative, a three-year institutional improvement project designed by the university to address a present concern or aspiration of the university.
Preparation for Accreditation Review
The Office of the Provost coordinates institutional accreditation processes. The Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education serves as the University’s Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) with HLC. Within the Provost's Office, the Office of Assessment serves as the hub for collecting and compiling information in preparation for the Review.
Preparation
What does the university do to prepare for a Comprehensive Review?
University accreditation is campus-wide effort, coordinated by the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education. In the months leading up to the Comprehensive Review, faculty, staff, and students throughout the university compiled documentation demonstrating ways that the university meets each of the HLC Criteria for Accreditation.
The compiled documentation was then assembled to form the Assurance Argument, Evidence File, and Federal Compliance report, after which dozens of faculty, staff, and students participated in Feedback Forum sessions to provide input on drafts of the materials that were assembled.
The Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education serves as Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) and primary contact person for UI communication with the Higher Learning Commission.
What opportunities are available for members of the campus community to participate?
In addition to their contributions to the Assurance Argument, Evidence File, and Federal Compliance documentation, many university leaders, faculty, staff, and students are invited to meet with peer reviewers during the site visit, and are invited to attend Open Forum sessions with members of the peer review team.
Hundreds of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students responded to the Student Opinion Survey, and members of the community on and off campus were given Opportunities for Public Comment.
When is the university's next Comprehensive Review?
The most recent Comprehensive Review (Year 10) took place in March 2019. The next Comprehensive Review and Site Visit will take place during 2028-29.
What happens between now and the next Comprehensive Review?
The next and the next Comprehensive Review and Site Visit will take place during 2028-29. Between now and then, the Office of the Provost will provide HLC with updates on university data on an annual basis.
In HLC's Open Pathway model, there is a Virtual Review scheduled for Year Four of the Ten-Year accreditation cycle. Like a Comprehensive Review, the Virtual Review is based on peer review of an Assurance Argument and Evidence File which demonstrate how the university meets each of HLC's criteria for accreditation. The only difference is that the Year-Four peer review is conducted virtually, with no campus site visit. The most recent Virtual Review took place in March 2023. The next Comprehensive Review and Site Visit will take place during 2028-29.
In the years between the Year-Four review and the next Year-Ten Comprehensive Review, the university will be asked to implement and assess a three-year Quality Initiative. At some point during that same time period, there will also be a review of off-campus locations where the university offers courses and programs.
Accreditation Decision-Making
The Higher Learning Commission determines the institution's accreditation status based on their review of the site visit report, the Assurance Argument and Evidence File, the Federal Compliance documentation, and any additional documentation that the university might choose to submit in response to the site visitor report.
Decision-Making
What is the role of peer reviewers in accreditation decision-making?
Peer reviewers do not make the final decision about UI reaffirmation of accreditation.
Reviewers prepare a site visit report and submit it HLC, along with their recommendations. HLC decision-making bodies review these recommendations, along with other materials provided by the institution, and make the final decision about the reaffirmation of accreditation.
Within HLC, who makes decisions about the university's accreditation?
HLC has three decision-making bodies: The Institutional Actions Council, the Board of Trustees, and the Appeals Body. The Institutional Actions Council and the Board of Trustees are composed of members representing HLC member institutions and the public. The Appeals Body is selected by the Board of Trustees. See the HLC web site more information about decision-making bodies and procedures.
When is the final decision made?
The decision-making process begins once the site visit concludes. After the visit, the peer review team submits a report that includes a recommendation to an HLC decision-making body that meets approximately every six weeks to review cases.
How will the results be reported?
HLC will send an official correspondence (Action Letter) to the university detailing an action taken regarding our institution. HLC’s decision will be publicly announced on the UI accreditation website and communicated through campus media.