34 C.F.R. § 602.15

Administrative and fiscal responsibilities

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The agency must have the administrative and fiscal capability to carry out its accreditation activities in light of its requested scope of recognition. The agency meets this requirement if the agency demonstrates that—

(a) The agency has—

(1) Adequate administrative staff and financial resources to carry out its accrediting responsibilities;

(2) Competent and knowledgeable individuals, qualified by education or experience in their own right and trained by the agency on their responsibilities, as appropriate for their roles, regarding the agency's standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its on-site evaluations, apply or establish its policies, and make its accrediting and preaccrediting decisions, including, if applicable to the agency's scope, their responsibilities regarding distance education and correspondence courses;

(3) Academic and administrative personnel on its evaluation, policy, and decision-making bodies, if the agency accredits institutions;

(4) Educators, practitioners, and/or employers on its evaluation, policy, and decision-making bodies, if the agency accredits programs or single-purpose institutions that prepare students for a specific profession;

(5) Representatives of the public, which may include students, on all decision-making bodies; and

(6) Clear and effective controls, including guidelines, to prevent or resolve conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest, by the agency's—

(i) Board members;

(ii) Commissioners;

(iii) Evaluation team members;

(iv) Consultants;

(v) Administrative staff; and

(vi) Other agency representatives; and

(b) The agency maintains complete and accurate records of—

(1) Its last full accreditation or preaccreditation review of each institution or program, including on-site evaluation team reports, the institution's or program's responses to on-site reports, periodic review reports, any reports of special reviews conducted by the agency between regular reviews, and a copy of the institution's or program's most recent self-study; and

(2) All decision letters issued by the agency regarding the accreditation and preaccreditation of any institution or program and any substantive changes.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1099b) [84 FR 58919, Nov. 1, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2018–2018 · leading case: Accrediting Council for Indep. Colls. & Sch. v. Devos, 303 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Accrediting Council for Indep. Colls. & Sch. v. Devos, 303 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “at 37 (questioning the soundness of the Department's staff's conclusion that the Accrediting Council did not comply with 34 C.F.R. § 602.15 (a)(1) ); id. at 44 ("The [senior Department official]'s determinations regarding why [the Accrediting Council] could not demonstrate or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.