Substantive Change Policy and Procedures

Overview

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (The Commission) substantive change policies and procedures assure the public that all aspects of an institution continue to meet standards. It helps ensure substantive changes, if approved, do not hinder an institution’s ability to continue meeting The Commission Principles of Accreditation.

A substantive change is a significant modification or expansion of the nature and scope of an accredited institution. Substantive change includes high-impact, high-risk changes and changes that can impact the quality of educational programs and services.

The Commission accredits an entire institution. Accreditation extends to all programs and services of an institution wherever located and however delivered. The Commission does not accredit individual programs, locations, or portions of an institution. However, some new programs, locations, and other institutional changes are subject to notification and/or approval as defined in the Substantive Change Policies and Procedures.

Compliance

Substantive changes, including those required by federal regulations, include:

• Substantially changing the established mission or objectives of an institution or its programs.
• Changing the legal status, form of control, or ownership of an institution.
• Changing the governance of an institution.
• Merging / consolidating two or more institutions or entities.
• Acquiring any assets (e.g., programs or locations) of another institution.
• Offering courses or programs (i.e., credentials) at a higher or lower degree level than currently authorized.
• Adding graduate programs at an institution previously offering only undergraduate programs (including degrees, diplomas, certificates, and other for-credit credential).
• Changing the way an institution measures student progress, whether in clock hours or credit-hours; semesters, trimesters, or quarters; or time-based or non–time-based methods or measures.
• Adding a program that is a significant departure from the existing programs, or method of delivery, from those offered when the institution was last evaluated.
• Initiating programs by distance education.
• Adding an additional method of delivery to a currently offered program.
• Entering into a written cooperative academic arrangement under 34 C.F.R. § 668.5 under which an institution or organization not certified to participate in the title IV Higher Education Act (HEA) programs offers less than 25% (notification) or 25-50% (approval) of one or more of the accredited institution's educational programs. An agreement offering more than 50% of one or more of an institution’s programs is prohibited by federal regulation.
• Substantially increasing or decreasing the number of clock hours or credit hours awarded or competencies demonstrated, or an increase in the level of credential awarded, for successful completion of one or more programs.
• Adding course-based competency-based education programs.
• Adding each competency-based education program by direct assessment.
• Adding a new off-campus instructional site/additional location including a branch campus.
• Adding a permanent location at a site at which an institution is conducting a teach-out program for students of another institution that has ceased operating before all students have completed their program of study.
• Closing an institution, a program, a method of delivery, an off-campus instructional site, or a program at an off-campus instructional site.
• Participating in the federal Prison Education Program providing Pell Grant access to confined or incarcerated students.

Other substantive change requirements, including those required by federal regulations, include:

• An institution is required to notify or secure The Commission approval prior to implementing a substantive change, unless otherwise indicated.
• An institution is responsible for always maintaining compliance with Standard 14.2 (Substantive change) of the Principles of Accreditation and with the Substantive Change Policies and Procedures and related policies, viz.,
• Advertising and Student Recruitment [PDF];
• Credit Hours [PDF];
• Direct Assessment Competency-based Educational Programs [PDF];
• Distance and Correspondence Education [PDF];
• Dual Enrollment [PDF];
• Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree Programs [PDF];

and;

1. Request for a Period of Noncompliance [PDF].
2. An institution is required to have a written substantive change policy and procedure. It must be approved through institutional processes and published in institutional documents accessible to those affected. The purpose of the institution’s substantive change policy and procedure is to ensure all substantive changes are reported to The Commission in a timely fashion as required by Substantive Change Policies and Procedures. Institutions are responsible for implementing and enforcing their substantive change policy and procedure.
3. An institution’s fiscal and administrative capability to operate off-campus instructional sites is assessed when a new site is reviewed for approval and as part of reaffirmation and fifth-year interim reviews.
4. A new off-campus instructional / branch campus site is subject to a substantive change committee visit. A committee visit, when necessary, is authorized when a site is approved. The committee visit ensures the site has the personnel, facilities, and resources identified by an institution in its application or prospectus and ensures the quality of instructional and support services offered at the site.
5. Different or additional requirements apply to an institution on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION. Restriction applies if an institution has been placed on Warning, Probation, or Probation for Good Cause over the prior three academic years, or if an institution is under provisional certification for participation in federal financial aid programs.
6. An institution is required to submit an institutional contingency teach-out plan to The Commission within 30 days of notification if the institution is placed or continued on Probation or Probation for Good Cause, or if the institution meets conditions enumerated in the procedures section of this policy originating from the U.S. Department of Education or state authority.
7. Numerous changes: Numerous substantive changes may accelerate an institution’s next reaffirmation of accreditation. Accelerated reaffirmation may be triggered by, but not limited to,
8. a significant change in the number of off-campus instructional sites including branch campuses,
9. a significant change in the number of programs,
10. a significant change in enrollment, and
11. frequent mergers/consolidations, or acquisitions.

Non-compliance

If an institution is non-compliant with Substantive Change Policies and Procedures or Standard

1. (Substantive change), its accreditation may be in jeopardy. An unreported substantive change may require a review of the institution’s substantive change policy and procedures document by The Commission Board of Trustees. Non-compliance subjects the institution to monitoring, sanction, or removal from membership. Failure to secure approval, if required, of a substantive change involving programs or locations that qualify for title IV federal funding may place the institution in jeopardy with the U.S. Department of Education, including reimbursement of funds received related to an unreported substantive change. For additional information, refer to Unreported Substantive Change in the procedures section of the Substantive Change Policies and Procedures.

Using This Document

Each substantive change type described in the procedures – for institutional changes, for program changes, and for off-campus instructional site changes – is accompanied by a graphical summary of the principal requirements:

1. {width=“2.5078619860017497in” height=“2.8548589238845143in”}The change requires either
   • Notification or
   • Approval

and approval, if required, is by

• Executive Council (year- round except December),
• Full Board of Trustees (June or December), or
• Senior Staff (year-round)
• A committee visit is either
  • Required,
  • Contingent on institutional characteristics, or
  • Not required
• A fee to review the substantive change is either
  • Yes or
  • No

(see the Fee and Expenses section of the procedure for amounts; committee visit fees and expenses are additional and separate)

1. The type of substantive change is subject to additional or different requirements if the institution is on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION, either
   • Yes or
   • No

For each substantive change type – e.g., Off-campus Instructional Site Approval by Extensive Review, New Program-Approval, etc. – a

 What to submit

section identifies and explains the information that must be submitted by the institution.

For a substantive change requiring

Notification, the What to submit information is listed with the substantive change type description and explanation.

For a substantive change requiring

Approval, the What to submit information is provided in

• Appendix A: What to Submit for Approvals, listed by substantive change type.

This document is designed for use in digital and print formats.

• All Table of Contents items are hyperlinked to their location in the document, but they may not display in hyperlink format, i.e., in blue and underlined.
  • Hyperlinks may direct you to
    • a location in this document,
    • another document, or
    • a website.
  • The up arrow in the header on each page is a hyperlink to the top of the document. {width=“0.21081911636045494in” height=“0.21081911636045494in”}
  • When accessing this document from the web, ensure the current version is accessed, i.e., not a saved (cached) copy. This is typically accomplished by clicking the browser's refresh button.
  • When using a copy of the document – a digital or a printed copy – ensure the current version is used. Version dates are noted at the end of the document.

Monitor the substantive change webpage on The Commission website for the most up- to-date information, reminders, and developments. Training and other materials available include

• a frequently asked questions (FAQs) webpage,
• an in-person workshops information webpage,
• announcements and updates,
• short how-to videos,
• substantive change webinars (live and on-demand),
• updates to this and other policies, and
• upcoming The Commission annual meeting sessions.

General Requirements

General requirements universally apply to most or all types of substantive change. They address obligations and processes by an institution and by The Commission. Specific requirements are addressed by substantive change type, organized by institutional changes, off-campus instructional site / additional location changes, and program changes.

• Some types of substantive changes affect an institution’s reaffirmation of accreditation cycle:
• a merger/consolidation or change of ownership normally affects the reaffirmation cycle;
• a change of governance, means of control, or legal status or form may affect the reaffirmation cycle;
• acquiring a program(s) or site(s) from another institution normally will not affect the reaffirmation cycle;
• all other types of substantive change normally will not affect the reaffirmation cycle;
• submitting numerous substantive changes may affect the reaffirmation cycle.
• A substantive change that is denied approval by The Commission Board of Trustees or senior staff is not appealable. All actions are final. An institution may revise and resubmit a prospectus or application without prejudice. However, if the institution continues with a change after denial of approval, it may be placed on sanction or removed from membership.
• A The Commission accredited institution in the appeals process or in litigation or arbitration with The Commission is not eligible for substantive change.
• Applicant and candidate institutions may not initiate substantive change. However, if required, an institutional contingency teach-out plan or an institution closure teach-out plan as described in policy applies to applicant and candidate institutions. The institutional contingency teach-out plan is addressed by candidate institutions in their Candidacy Report and not as a substantive change.
• The approval date of a substantive change is the date of The Commission Board of Trustee's action to approve. A substantive change is included in the scope of the institution’s accreditation as of the approval date (with the exception of Mergers/Consolidations, see Mergers/Consolidations p.29). Substantive changes are not approved retroactively.
• If an institution has filed bankruptcy, The Commission will require any institution or organization acquiring the assets of the Commission-accredited institution in bankruptcy to apply independently for accreditation.
• At the time a substantive change is submitted, the institution is required to disclose if the institution is currently on provisional certification for participation in federal financial aid programs as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 668.13.
• The intended implementation date is when an institution plans to begin the material public, non-reversable, or other significant actions of a substantive change. Examples include changing an institution’s measure of student progress to completion, admitting students to a new program, starting instruction at a new off-campus instructional site, and others.

The intended implementation date is an institution’s forward-looking good faith estimate of when a substantive change will begin. The intended implementation date is provided by the institution when a substantive change is submitted for review.

If a substantive change has already been implemented when an institution submits a substantive change request, or if the institution implements a substantive change after submission but before receiving approval, then the change is considered an unreported substantive change, and the institution is non-compliant with Standard 14.2 (substantive change). Refer to the Non-compliance section of this policy for additional guidance. If a substantive change has already been implemented at the time a notification or prospectus is submitted -- i.e., the institution is submitting a known unreported substantive change -- then the institution should report the actual implementation date as the intended implementation date in its submission.

Although The Commission may approve a substantive change after implementation as an unreported substantive change, approval is not retroactive to the actual implementation date.

For acquisitions, changes in ownership, means of control or legal status, and governance changes, implementation must occur within 30 days of The Commission Board of Trustees’ approval. Mergers/consolidations have a two-step process: (1) approval of the prospectus and (2) consolidation of the merged institutions under a single accreditation status upon USDE final approval.

• Approved substantive changes – except for those changes stated in policy that must be implemented within 30 days or requiring USDE approval – must be implemented within two years of the approval date. If an institution does not implement within two years of approval, then a new prospectus or application must be submitted and approved prior to implementation. An institution may request an implementation extension for cause, subject to The Commission approval; see Implementation Extension in this policy for guidance.
• An institution is obligated to maintain an accurate record with The Commission of off-campus instructional site names and addresses. A site name change, address change, site re-open, or site relocation is managed through the Institutional Portal without submitting a substantive change request. Updating site names, addresses, relocations or closures on the Institutional Summary Form submitted as part of reaffirmation or fifth-year interim reviews is insufficient to affect a change in The Commission database of off-campus instructional sites. If the institution identifies an error in a site record, The Commission staff will work with the institution to resolve the discrepancy.
• Substantive changes are subject to The Commission on Colleges and Universities’s Advertising and Student Recruitment policy. An institution may accept admission applications for substantive changes that are pending approval, but admission offers – including contingent offers – should not be made until the substantive change is approved by The Commission.
• The Commission reserves the right to consider an institutional change, or a group of changes, as constituting a substantive change even if not specifically identified in Substantive Change Policy and Procedures. The Commission may require an institution to submit materials related to the change(s) for review by staff and for possible review and action by The Commission Board of Trustees. A substantive change committee visit may be authorized.
• Upon favorable review of a proposed substantive change, either
• notification is accepted by staff, or
• approval is granted by The Commission Board of Trustees or its senior staff designee.

The Commission cannot accept notification or approve changes not identified and required in policy. Institutions should not submit changes that are not identified in policy as requiring notification or approval; no action will be taken.

• If the review of a substantive change notification, prospectus, or application suggests material non-compliance with any of the Principles of Accreditation or The Commission policies, The Commission reserves the right to further review. An institution may be required to submit materials related to the possible non-compliance for review by staff and for possible review and action by The Commission Board of Trustees. Further review may be warranted even if the related prospectus or application is withdrawn or if the substantive change is denied approval.
• Additional information or explanations may be requested from the institution for substantive change submissions reviewed by staff. If, after review and two requests for information, staff in their sole judgment still does not have a sufficient basis to accept notification or recommend approval, then the notification / prospectus will be referred to the full Board of Trustees at the earliest possible regularly scheduled biannual meeting. At the discretion of senior staff, submissions may be referred to the full Board of Trustees at any point in the process. The institution has a maximum of 180 days to respond to a request for additional information; otherwise, the submission will be rejected. The institution may revise and resubmit a submission at its discretion.
• Approval, or denial of approval, of a proposed substantive change is granted by:
• the full Board of Trustees,
• the Executive Council on behalf of the full Board, or
• senior staff, typically The Commission president, as delegated by the Board of Trustees.*

The types of substantive changes reviewed by the full Board, the Executive Council, and senior staff are defined in the section of the Substantive Change Policies and Procedures that addresses specific substantive changes. Exceptions are noted below.

The full Board of Trustees meets biannually, typically in June and December. The Executive Council meets every two weeks except December through mid- January. Senior staff reviews are continual and as-needed. Published submission deadlines apply.

There are exceptions, based on the conditions or characteristics of an institution, which require review and action by the full Board of Trustees rather than the Executive Council or senior staff.

Review by the full Board of Trustees is required if any of the following apply:

1. An institution is on sanction (Warning, Probation, or Probation for Good Cause) at the time the substantive change prospectus or application is submitted.
   1. If an institution submitted a substantive change prospectus or > application and is subsequently placed on sanction, the > proposed change may be referred to the full Board of Trustees > or may, at the sole discretion of The Commission staff, be reviewed > by staff and referred to the Executive Council or to senior > staff for action.
   2. A substantive change
      1. to close a program, a site, a program at a site, or a method of delivery;
      2. for an implementation extension;
      3. for an institutional contingency teach-out plan; or
      4. for an institution closure

may be reviewed by staff and referred to the Executive Council for action even if the institution is on sanction. The institution’s sanction status is disclosed to the Executive Council at the time of review.

1. An institution has recently been removed from sanction for non-compliance with Standards 13.1 (Financial resources), 13.2 (Financial documents), or 13.3 (Financial responsibility).

Deadlines: Substantive change prospectus, application, and notification submission deadlines depend on (1) the type of The Commission Board of Trustees or senior staff review, if required (see also review pathways explained herein), and (2) the intended implementation date of the substantive change.

For a substantive change requiring approval by the full Board of Trustees (which meets biannually), to be implemented after the date of the Board meeting, the submission deadlines are

• March 15 for review at the Board’s biannual meeting in June of the same calendar year, and
• September 1 for review at the Board’s biannual meeting in December of the same calendar year.

For a substantive change requiring approval by the Executive Council (which meets year-round) or by senior staff, it is recommended that submissions be received by:

• February 1 for changes to be implemented July 1 through December 31 of the same calendar year, and
• August 1 for changes to be implemented January 1 through June 30 of the subsequent calendar year.
• As permitted under 34 C.F.R. § 602.22(a)(2)(i) for federally-define substantive changes

For a substantive change requiring notification only, it can be submitted within 30 days of implementation.

For a substantive change to close a program, site, program at a site, or method of delivery, a teach-out plan should be submitted as soon as possible after the decision is made to close (i.e., stop admitting students).

• Substantive change submissions for which an institution's documentation (a) does not match the substantive change type or (b) is materially insufficient may, at the sole discretion of staff, be rejected. An institution may revise its materials and re-submit the substantive change.
• Because The Commission accredits institutions and does not accredit systems, a substantive change request must be submitted by an institution. Systems or state coordinating boards cannot submit a substantive change request on an institutions’ behalf. System coordination across institutions is encouraged where practicable, yet individual institutions are responsible for their substantive change submissions.
• A substantive change may be submitted by the institution’s chief executive office or accreditation liaison only.
• All substantive changes (unless otherwise directed) must be submitted through the Institutional Portal. For guidance, refer to the Documents Submitted for The Commission Review policy, viz., Appendix A (Electronic Submission of Documents). An Institutional Portal User Guide is available in the portal.
• An institution may withdraw a substantive change application, prospectus, or notification at any point during the review process. However, if a substantive change has been approved or notification accepted -- i.e., it has been completed -- it cannot be withdrawn.

Specific Requirements by Substantive Change Type

Institutional Changes

• Acquisition (p. 15)
• Change in Measure of Student Progress to Completion (p. 16)
• Competency-based Education by Course/Credit-based Approach – Institutional-level Approval (p. 17)
• Distance Education – Institutional-level Approval (p. 18)
• Governance Change (p. 19)
• Institution Closure / Teach-Out Plan (p.20)
• Institutional Contingency Teach-out Plan (p. 21)
• Level Classification and Level Authorization (p. 23)
  • Definitions and Guidelines (p. 23)
  • Level Authorization Addition (p. 25)
  • Level Change to a Higher Level (p. 26)
• Merger / Consolidation (p. 28)
• Mission Change (p. 30)
• Ownership, Form of Control, or Legal Status Change (p. 31)
• Prison Education Program – Institutional-level Approval (p. 32)
• Prison Education Program – Best Interest Review (p. 36)

Acquisition

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

Acquisition is the sale, exchange, or transfer of a component of an institution’s or entity’s assets to a The Commission accredited institution. Following acquisition, the participating entities remain in operation as separate institutions or entities. Acquisition includes off-campus instructional sites, for-credit educational programs, or other tangible educational assets. Acquisition excludes assets unrelated to the core mission of The Commission institution such as non-educational real estate and intangible property.

Acquisition is independent of financial consideration; i.e., an acquisition may or may not involve the exchange of money or other assets between participating entities. Acquisition requires The Commission Board of Trustees approval.

Upon acceptance or approval of the prospectus, a Substantive Change Committee visit will be authorized to review the institution's ongoing compliance with the Principles of Accreditation following implementation of the acquisition. The implementation or effective date must occur within 30 days of The Commission Board of Trustees approval of the acquisition. Acquisition normally does not affect the acquiring institution's reaffirmation cycle.

Institutions are encouraged to contact their The Commission staff member prior to initiating this type of substantive change.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for an Acquisition. (p. 84)



Change in Measure of Student Progress to Completion

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

A change in the way an institution measures students’ progress to completion requires The Commission approval prior to implementation. This includes changes from or to

• semester, trimester, or quarter academic calendars;
• time-based (i.e., calendar-based) or non-time based (i.e., > competency-based) measures; and
• clock hour-based or credit hour-based measures.

This substantive change addresses an institutional-level

change across most or all of an institution’s programs.

However, a program-level change in the measure of student progress, except for some competency-based education programs, is not a substantive change.

A change in measure of student progress must demonstrate

• conversion equivalency from the current measure to the new measure, and
• compliance with The Commission Credit Hours policy and the Principles of Accreditation Standards 9.2 (Program length), 9.7 (Program requirements), 10.1 (Academic policies), and 10.7 (Policies for awarding credit).

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Change in Measure of Student Progress to Completion (p. 85).



Competency-based Education by Course/Credit-based Approach – Institutional-level Approval

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

In a competency-based education (CBE) program using the course/credit-based approach, demonstrating competencies is embedded in a traditional curriculum with courses completed, credits earned, and a credential awarded. Students typically enroll in an academic term and course credits are awarded at the end of the term by demonstrating mastery of the competencies associated with a course. Students may accelerate learning and demonstration of competencies. Transcripts record courses and grades, though the institution may opt to maintain a separate transcript of competencies.

An institution’s first program in which any portion of the program may be earned through the course/credit-based approach to CBE requires The Commission approval prior to implementation. This approves both the program and approves the institution to offer additional course/credit-based CBE programs subject to additional approvals or notifications described below.

After the institution is approved to offer its first course/credit-based CBE program, additional programs in which any portion of the program is earned through course/credit-based CBE may still be subject to

• new program approval if it is a significant departure from the institution’s existing programs,

—OR—

• notification as an additional method of delivery for an existing program.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for Competency-based Education by Course/Credit-based Approach – Institutional-level Approval (p. 86).



Distance Education – Institutional-level Approval

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

Distance education is a method of delivery in which instruction occurs when students and instructors are not in the same location. It includes synchronous (live or real-time) and asynchronous (not live or real-time) instruction.

An institution’s first program in which any portion of the program may be earned by distance education requires The Commission approval prior to implementation. This approves both the program and approves the institution to offer distance education programs subject to additional approvals or notifications described below.

After the institution is approved to offer its first distance education program, additional programs in which credits are earned through distance education are subject to

• new program approval if it is a significant departure from the institution’s existing programs,

—OR—

• notification as an additional method of delivery for an existing program.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for Distance Education – Institutional-level Approval (p. 87).



Governance Change

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

An institutional governance change requires The Commission approval prior to implementation. A governance change may include significantly altering governing board bylaws, the board’s scope of authority or responsibility, the number of board members, or how board members are selected. Only changing the composition of the board – i.e., replacing current board members with new members or other changes in accordance with established bylaws – does not usually constitute a governance change.

Once the prospectus is approved, the change is effective as of the intended implementation date included in the prospectus, which cannot exceed 60 days after approval by The Commission Board of Trustees.

A substantive change committee visit is required and is authorized at the time of approval.

A governance change may affect the institution’s reaffirmation cycle.

Institutions are encouraged to contact their The Commission staff member prior to initiating this type of substantive change.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Governance Change (p. 88).



Institution Closure / Teach-Out Plan

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.24

An institution ending all instruction requires an institutional teach-out plan subject to The Commission Board of Trustees approval. Unlike an institutional contingency teach-out plan – which is a precautionary plan – an institution closure addresses imminent closure or closure expected with reasonable certainty. The teach-out plan must be submitted as soon as possible after closure becomes known or expected.

The teach-out plan details the institution’s process for orderly closure with primary emphasis on assisting students to complete their programs of study with minimal disruption and additional costs. Institutions may teach-out their own programs, enter into teach-out agreements with other institutions, or both. For an institution with a gradual or phased teach-out plan, the teach-out period may extend several years.

The teach-out institution(s) – i.e., the institution(s) accepting displaced students from the closing institution – may request an exception to Standard 9.4 (institutional credits for an undergraduate degree) and/or Standard 9.5 (institutional credits for a graduate or professional degree) to accommodate students near the end of their program of study. Refer to the Request for a Period of Noncompliance policy for guidance. The closing institution should ensure the teach-out institution(s) are aware of this option and may wish to include it in any teach-out agreement(s) executed pursuant to the closure.

The teach-out plans

• provide reasonable completion options for all students in all programs, independent of how near or far the students are from completion,
• explain how the institution will provide for students’ and former students’ access to academic transcripts and other verification of academic credentials,
• identify the permanent repositor or trustee of student academic and financial aid records,
• describe the process and expected timeline for the disposition of assets,
• address any other provision identified by The Commission staff as essential to the successful closure of the institution based on the institution’s particular situation and in the interest of the affected students and former students.

 What to submit

A teach-out plan: Submit a teach-out plan using the outline provided in Appendix A: Institution Closure Teach-Out Plan Approval (p. 89).

Institutional Contingency Teach-out Plan

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.24

A contingency teach-out plan is created in due diligence as a precaution rather than as an imminent closure plan. Should closure become necessary, the contingency teach-out plan becomes the institution closure plan, subject to revisions as warranted. The objective of a contingency teach-out plan is assurance of adequate institutional planning and The Commission concurrence for the benefit of students, faculty, and staff well in advance of immediate need. The contingency teach-out plan must detail, for each institutional program, how the institution will provide options for students to complete their programs of study with minimal disruption and additional costs, including identification of comparable programs and institutions. Teach-out agreements may be included.

An institution is required to submit an institutional contingency teach-out plan to The Commission within 30 days of notification if the institution is placed or continued on Probation or Probation for Good Cause, or if the institution meets conditions enumerated in the procedures section of this policy originating from the U.S. Department of Education or state authority.

Conditions

An institutional contingency teach-out plan must be submitted and approved by The Commission Board of Trustees if any of the following conditions occur:

1. the institution is placed or continued on probation or probation for good cause by The Commission;
2. The Commission acts to end the institution’s accreditation;
3. the institution is on provisional certification for federal financial aid by U.S. Department of Education (USDE) —AND— the institution has been directed by USDE to submit a teach-out plan as a condition of participation;
4. the institution is on reimbursement for federal financial aid by USDE;
5. the institution is on heightened cash monitoring for federal financial aid by USDE;
6. the institution is the subject of USDE emergency action or an action to limit, suspend, or terminate the institution’s participation in federal financial aid; or
7. the institution’s state authorization is revoked.

Exceptions for institutional credits for a degree

The teach-out institution(s) – i.e., the institution(s) accepting displaced students from the closing institution – may request an exception to Standard 9.4 (institutional credits for an undergraduate degree) and/or Standard 9.5 (institutional credits for a graduate or professional degree) to accommodate students near the end of their program of study. Refer to the Request for a Period of Noncompliance policy for guidance. The closing institution should ensure the teach-out institution(s) are aware of this option and may wish to include it in any teach-out agreement(s) executed pursuant to the closure.

 What to submit

A teach-out plan: Submit a teach-out plan using the outline provided in Appendix A for an Institutional Contingency Teach-out Plan (p. 92).



Level Classification and Level Authorization Definitions and Guidelines

(See also Level Authorization Addition and Level Change to a Higher Level) Definitions

• Level classification: An institutional status indicating the highest level for which an institution is approved to offer instruction and credentials.

Credentials include degrees and non-degree diplomas, certificates, and other generally recognized for-credit credentials.

Levels and their associated instruction and degree credentials, from lowest to highest, are:

An institution’s level classification is denoted by the corresponding Roman numeral defined above.

Non-degree credentials may be offered at any instructional level; e.g., an associate- level (freshman- and sophomore-level coursework) diploma, a masters-level certificate, etc. For further guidance, refer to The Commission Non-degree Credentials Position Statement.

An institution’s level classification is not automatically inclusive of offering instruction and credentials at lower levels.

• Level Authorization: The Commission authorization for an institution to offer instruction and credentials at a level lower than the highest level for which an institution is approved to offer instruction and credentials.

An institution's level classification is not automatically inclusive of level authorization at lower levels.

Guidelines

1. An institution's current level classification and level authorization(s)
   • can be verified in the institutional portal, and
   • are publicly displayed on The Commission website's institutional profile; after searching and selecting an institution, see
     • Accreditation Information | Degree Level for level classification, and
     • General Information | Approved to Offer for level authorization(s).
2. An institution is obligated to ensure its current level classification and level authorizations(s) are accurately maintained in The Commission records via the procedures described in this document.
3. An institution submits a prospectus and secures approval prior to implementation of a
   • Level Authorization Addition or a
   • Level Change to a Higher Level.
4. After all instruction has ended for all programs at a given level, the institution updates, via the Institutional Portal, a
   • level authorization removal or a
   • level change to a lower level.
5. A Level Authorization Addition or a Level Change to a Higher Level cannot be accomplished by re-opening or re-initiating a program previously approved for closure.



Level Authorization Addition

(See also Level Classification and Level Authorization Definitions and Guidelines)

Read the Level Classification and Level Authorization Definitions and Guidelines section of the procedures. It provides context for this substantive change type and guidance on confirming the institution's current level authorization(s) before submitting a substantive change.

Level authorization is required for an institution to offer instruction and credentials at a level lower than the highest level for which the institution is approved and for which the institution is not currently authorized.

After an institution is authorized to offer instruction and credentials at a level, no further authorization is required to add additional instruction or credentials at that level. However, all other substantive change requirements apply without exception to subsequent programs at that level, viz., New Program Approval if the criteria are met.

The institution, through a prospectus, demonstrates its institutional capacity, financial resources, faculty qualifications and sufficiency, and adequate planning to support offering instruction and credentials at the proposed level. Each program to be offered at the proposed level within the first year of implementation is addressed in the prospectus. A level authorization addition requires approval prior to implementation.

Although a substantive change committee visit is not required for a level authorization addition, a committee visit may be authorized at The Commission Board of Trustees' discretion.

An institution may request one level authorization addition only in a single submission. Requests for multiple level authorization additions must be separately submitted but can be submitted concurrently.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Level Authorization Addition (p. 95).



Level Change to a Higher Level

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

(See also Level Classification and Level Authorization Definitions and Guidelines)

(For Level V to Level VI level change, see the special instructions at the end of this section)

Read the Level Classification and Level Authorization Definitions and Guidelines section of the procedures. It provides context for this substantive change type.

If an institution intends to offer instruction or credentials at a level higher than that for which it is currently approved, then approval of a level change to a higher level is required.

A level change to a higher level represents a significant change in the scope of an institution that has far-reaching implications including new and different institutional

effectiveness obligations, resources (including faculty sufficiency and qualifications, financial, and library and learning/information), services (information technology, recruiting and admission, student support, e.g.) and more. The Commission Board of Trustees evaluates an institution's level change prospectus to ensure it

1. demonstrates adequate planning, resources, and readiness to implement the change relative to the criteria articulated in this policy and
2. reasonably demonstrates that implementation of the level change will not place the institution in material jeopardy of being unable to maintain compliance with the Principles of Accreditation or The Commission's policies for accredited institutions.

Approval of a level change to a higher level includes approval of the first program or programs to be offered at the higher level. As such, the prospectus must separately address new program approval requirements for each program at the proposed higher level to be offered in the first year of implementation after approval. Therefore, the prospectus may include more than one program; however, the institution should be aware that The Commission Board of Trustees may deny approval of a level change if any one program (or more) included in the prospectus does not meet all new program and level change requirements.

An institution's new level classification is effective as of the date of the Board of Trustees approval of the level change to a higher level. The institution is reminded to update all occurrences of its statement for accredited institutions to accurately represent its status with The Commission to the public. Refer to the Institutional Obligations for Public Disclosure policy for guidance.

A substantive change committee visit is required after the implementation of a level change to a higher level. The committee visit is authorized by The Commission Board of Trustees at the time the level change is approved. The visit generally occurs no more than six months after implementation of the new program(s) at the newly-approved level. The committee is charged with determining the institution's on-going compliance with select standards following implementation of program(s) at the new level.

If an institution does not implement a level change within two years of approval, commencing on the date of the Board's action to approve, then the institution must submit a request in writing to The Commission president to rescind the level change approval and rescind the authorization of the substantive change committee visit. Upon rescission, the institution's level classification will revert to its previous status or the current highest level for which it offers instruction and credentials. An institution may request an implementation extension for cause, subject to The Commission Board of Trustees approval; see Implementation Extension in the substantive change policy and procedures and contact a substantive change staff member for guidance if needed.

An institution may not offer coursework at a level higher than its current level classification in anticipation of securing level change approval.

The institution is reminded to update all occurrences of its statement for accredited institutions to accurately represent its status with The Commission to the public. Refer to the Institutional Obligations for Public Disclosure policy for guidance.

Special Instructions for Level Change from Level V to Level VI

A level change from Level V (offering one to three doctoral programs) to Level VI (offering four or more doctoral programs) does not require a level change prospectus, Board of Trustees review and approval or a committee visit. Because the distinction between Level V and Level VI is solely the number of doctoral programs currently offered by an institution, a level change from Level V to Level VI is an administrative change only and is managed by the substantive change staff. After the institution receives The Commission new program approval, if necessary, and implements its fourth doctoral program (i.e., after students have matriculated), the institution may contact the substantive change office or The Commission vice president assigned to the institution for guidance. The change will be documented in The Commission records, the institution will receive written confirmation, and the public The Commission website will reflect the institution's updated level.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Level Change to a Higher Level (p.97)

Merger / Consolidation

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

Merger/consolidation is the sale, exchange, or transfer of all assets of at least one institution or entity to a The Commission accredited institution. Following a merger/consolidation, only one institution remains in operation as a separate institution or entity. Merger/consolidation is independent of financial consideration; i.e., a merger/consolidation may or may not involve the exchange of money between participating entities. All mergers/consolidations require approval prior to implementation.

A prospectus that outlines the details of the merger/consolidation must be submitted to the institutional portal by the appropriate due date for consideration at a biannual meeting of The Commission Board of Trustees (typically June or December). The prospectus must describe how the new institution plans to continue to meet the Principles while implementing the change. Please refer to the Appendix for information to be included in the prospectus.

After initial approval of the prospectus by The Commission Board of Trustees the institutions can initiate the merger process within the guidelines of The Commission policy and federal regulations. Both institutions will remain separate institutions with separate accreditation until final approval from USDE. The lead institution is required to notify The Commission within 30 days of final USDE approval. At that time, the acquired institution will be subsumed under the accreditation of the lead institution and may, if appropriate, become an off-campus instructional site/additional location of the lead institution.

A Substantive Change Committee visit is required and will be authorized upon notification to The Commission of USDE’s final approval of the merger/consolidation and the full implementation of the merger/consolidation. The Committee will review the institution's ongoing compliance with the Principles of Accreditation.

A merger/consolidation usually affects the resulting institution's reaffirmation cycle. The newly-merged/consolidated institution will be required to achieve reaffirmation of accreditation within five years following the Commission’s action to approve the change. The institution will then maintain the normal ten-year reaffirmation cycle. In cases where the lead institution – as designated in the prospectus has successfully received reaffirmation of accreditation within the preceding three (3) years of The Commission Board approval of the merger/consolidation, The newly-merged institution will maintain the lead institution’s reaffirmation of accreditation cycle. In these cases, the resulting institution will be required to submit a Fifth-Year Interim report along with its reaffirmation class.

Institutions are encouraged to contact their The Commission staff member prior to initiating this type of substantive change.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Merger/Consolidation (p. 103).



Mission Change

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

A significant change in the established mission of an institution requires The Commission approval prior to implementation. A mission change fundamentally alters the character of an institution and its portfolio of academic programs or other mission-driven activities.

An editorial change or re-wording of a mission statement that does not reflect a material change in mission is not a substantive change. This type of change does not require approval and should not be reported to The Commission.

A mission change may be implicitly embedded or concurrent with other another type of substantive change requiring The Commission approval. Examples are a level change, a merger/consolidation, or establishing a program or portfolio of programs that changes the distinctiveness of an institution. This type of mission change typically does not require separate review and approval but should be clear in the prospectus or application for the other type of substantive change.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Mission Change (p. 104).



Ownership, Form of Control, or Legal Status Change

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

An institutional change of ownership, change of institutional form of control, or change of institutional legal status requires The Commission approval prior to implementation.

A substantive change committee visit is required and is authorized at the time of approval.

A change of ownership normally affects the institution’s reaffirmation cycle. A change of the means of control or change of legal status may affect the institution’s reaffirmation cycle.

Institutions are encouraged to contact their The Commission staff member prior to initiating this type of substantive change.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for Ownership, Form of Control or Legal Status Change (p. 105).



Prison Education Program – Institutional-level Approval (Step 1 of 2)

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 668, Subpart P

Subject to SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

The federal Prison Education Program (PEP) provides Pell Grant access to confined or incarcerated students. Institutional participation in the federal program is voluntary. To participate, institutions

1. enter into an agreement with an oversight entity (as defined below),
2. secure The Commission Prison Education Program – Institutional-level Approval, and
3. secure federal approval.

An institution must receive The Commission PEP approval for its first program at its first two PEP off-campus instructional sites.

The Commission reviews an institution’s capacity, financial stability, planning, and resources to initiate and sustain PEPs to ensure the quality and integrity of curricula, instruction, learning support, library and information resources, faculty qualifications, and plans to ensure ongoing comparability of PEP versus non-PEP programs. Approval is granted or denied by The Commission Board of Trustees.

Because federal regulations require the review of an institution’s first two PEP off-campus instructional sites, an institution may need to submit more than one Prison Education Program – Institutional-level Approval prospectus. However, an institution may submit two sites in one PEP prospectus.

After an institution secures The Commission approval of its first two PEP off-campus instructional sites, it may initiate additional programs at those sites or at additional off- campus instructional sites with confined or incarcerated students without additional The Commission PEP approval. However, additional PEP programs or additional PEP sites may require The Commission notification or approval under other non-PEP substantive change requirements. For example, if an institution has secured The Commission PEP approval for two off-campus instructional sites where PEPs are delivered, no further PEP approval is required for a new off-campus instructional site offering PEPs; however, the new site will require The Commission off-campus instructional site notification/approval prior to implementation (See the Off-campus Instructional Site Definitions and Guidelines, p. 56).

An institution enters into a written agreement with an oversight entity or entities responsible for the site where the PEP will be delivered. The oversight entity may be a state department of corrections or other entity responsible for overseeing correctional facilities, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or other oversight entity consistent with federal regulations. The content and expectations of the agreement are detailed in Appendix A of this policy (see What to Submit below). The institution is responsible for securing the agreement before submitting a PEP prospectus to The Commission; a copy of the signed final written agreement is submitted as part of the prospectus. The institution is responsible for coordinating the approval processes and monitoring the program with (a) the oversight entity, (2) The Commission, and (3) the U.S. Department of Education.

The Commission PEP approval is required regardless of an institution’s prior experience delivering instruction at a prison or other similar facility or prior experience delivering instruction to confined or incarcerated students. A PEP delivered at an already approved off-campus instructional site must go through the PEP approval process as an institution’s first or second PEP site, but the site is not required to go through the off-campus instructional site approval process again.

All prisons or similar facilities with confined or incarcerated students — jails, juvenile justice facilities, penitentiaries, reformatories, work farms, and others — are considered off-campus instructional sites for PEPs regardless of the method of instructional delivery at the site (such as face-to-face, distance education, etc.).

An institution’s The Commission financial responsibility score based on financial data submitted by an institution as part of its annual financial profile is included in the review. If the score suggests financial instability, the review may be deferred for additional information or denied approval by The Commission Board of Trustees.

The first two off-campus instructional sites reviewed as part of a PEP prospectus require a substantive change committee visit. The visit is authorized by The Commission Board of Trustees at the time of the PEP approval. The visit is independent of any prior off-campus instructional site visits.

All other substantive change requirements, policies, and the Principles of Accreditation apply without exception to programs and off-campus instructional sites delivered as part of an institution’s PEP.

Federal regulations stipulate:

1. Proprietary (for-profit) institutions are ineligible for PEP approval.
2. An institution subject to adverse action by The Commission
   1. will have its PEP approval rescinded,
   2. must submit teach-out plans for closure approval for all PEP programs and PEP off-campus instructional sites, and
   3. is ineligible for PEP re-approval (by submitting a new PEP prospectus) for five years commencing on the date of the adverse action.
3. After its PEP approval, an institution adding a method of delivery not previously used in its PEPs must secure The Commission method of delivery approval prior to implementation; for more information, see Method of Delivery–Approval in this policy.

The Commission’s PEP requirements are subject to revision as federal regulations and interpretations are updated.

Because new prison education programs may constitute multiple types of substantive change, an institution should carefully identify all associated substantive changes and coordinate their timing and submission to The Commission. Examples:

• If the PEP will be offered at a new off-campus instructional site, a separate Off-campus Instructional Site Notification/Approval prospectus is required.
• If the PEP will offer a new program with 50% or more new content not currently taught at the institution, a separate New Program–Approval prospectus is required. The requirements for New Program Approvals are more stringent for institutions on substantive change restriction or sanction.

Other substantive change types that may be associated with a PEP include

• Competency-based Education,
• Course/Credit-based Approach–Institutional-level Approval,
• Competency-based Education Direct Assessment–Approval,
• Distance Education–Institutional-level Approval,
• New Program–Approval,
• Off-campus Instructional Site Notification/Approval,

or other substantive change types as defined in The Commission Substantive Change Policies and Procedures as determined by the institution.

PEP prospectuses will normally be reviewed by The Commission staff and referred to the Executive Council for action. The submission deadline depends on the intended implementation date; those deadlines are contained elsewhere in this policy. However, if any existing The Commission policy requires an institution’s prospectus be reviewed by the Board of Trustees (typically in June or December), then those requirements and submission deadlines prevail.

If there are multiple substantive change types associated with a PEP, institutions are encouraged to contact the substantive change staff for guidance on the coordination and timing of multiple substantive change submissions. This is especially important if the PEP includes a new off-campus instructional site requiring approval by extensive review. In general, all related substantive change types requiring notification or approval must be settled before or concurrently with the review of the PEP prospectus.

Best Practices Review: The institution must submit a copy of the USDE’s PEP approval letter to subchange@sacscoc.org within 30 days of receipt. A Two-Year Follow-up report will be due two years from the date of the USDE PEP approval letter.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Prison Education Program – Institutional-level Approval (p. 106).



Prison Education Program – Best Interest Review (Step 2 of 2)

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 668, Subpart P

Subject to SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

The Commission is required to review and approve the methodology for how the institution, in collaboration with the oversight entity, made the determination that the Prison Education Program (PEP) is in the “best interest” of the incarcerated students. This review takes place two years from the date the PEP received approval by United States Department of Education (USDE).

To fulfill the twoyear follow up review requirement, institutions must submit a prospectus that clearly documents how the “Best Interest” determination for their Prison Education Program (PEP) was originally established and approved. This includes describing the methodology jointly agreed upon with the oversight entity which was previously submitted for The Commission approval, as well as explaining any modifications made to that methodology in the two years following U.S. Department of Education approval. The prospectus must also outline how relevant shareholders—such as institutional representatives, corrections officials, employers, and other partners—were actively engaged in evaluating whether the program serves the best interests of confined or incarcerated students.

In addition, the prospectus must present data and findings across key areas, including instructor qualifications and stability, credit transferability and applicability to degree pathways, and the availability and quality of academic and career advising before, during, and after incarceration. It must also address the ability of students to transfer credits and continue their education seamlessly across institutional locations or comparable programs.

Finally, the report may incorporate additional outcome measures that demonstrate program effectiveness, such as recidivism rates, completion rates, post-release enrollment in higher education, job placement outcomes, earnings, and other relevant indicators. Where applicable, these measures should be evaluated against thresholds established by the oversight entity with shareholder input. The twoyear follow up report is intended to demonstrate that the program produces meaningful educational and post-release outcomes and operates in the best interest of the student population it serves.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Prison Education Program – Best Interest Review (p. 107).



(End of Institutional Changes)

Program Changes

• Competency-based Education by Direct Assessment – Approval (p. 38)
• Cooperative Academic Arrangements
  • Definitions and Guidelines (p. 39)
  • Cooperative Academic Arrangement w/ Non-Title IV Entities – Approval (p. 41)
  • Cooperative Academic Arrangement w/ Non-Title IV Entities – Notification (p. 42)
• Method of Delivery – Approval (p. 44)
• Method of Delivery – Notification (p. 46)
• New Program – Approval (p.
• Program Closure / Teach-Out Plan Approval (p. 50)
• Program Length Change (p. 52)
• Program Designed for Prior Learning – Approval (p. 54)

Competency-based Education by Direct Assessment – Approval

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

(See also Competency-based Education by Course/Credit-based – Approval (institutional level change), and Method of Delivery - Notification.)

A program in which any portion of the program may be earned through the direct assessment approach to competency-based education (CBE) requires The Commission approval prior to implementation. Each direct assessment CBE program requires The Commission approval, independent of prior direct assessment program approvals for the institution. A new direct assessment program is subject to determination of significant departure and, as warranted, approved as a new program concurrent with the direct assessment approval prior to implementation. Approval by the full The Commission Board of Trustees is required. See also

Direct Assessment Competency-based Educational Programs policy [PDF].

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Competency-based Education by Direct Assessment – Approval (p. 109).



Cooperative Academic Arrangements Definitions and Guidelines

There are two types of substantive change cooperative academic arrangements:

1. Cooperative Academic Arrangement with Non-Title IV Entities – Approval
2. Cooperative Academic Arrangement with Non-Title IV Entities – Notification

The institution’s approval and notification obligations are described below by type. The institution determines if an entity is a title IV entity or a non-title IV entity for the purposes of substantive change. Refer to the definition of a program in the Glossary.

Definitions

For substantive change purposes only – A title IV entity

• is certified to participate in U.S. Department of Education title IV programs

—OR—

• is an administrative organization or unit that administers or coordinates academic programs across multiple educational institutions or providers
  • —AND— does not provide or is not involved in aspects of educational instruction
  • —AND— all educational institutions or providers participating in the administrative organization are certified to participate in U.S. Department of Education title IV programs.

A non-title IV entity

• is not certified to participate in U.S. Department of Education title IV programs

—OR—

• is an administrative organization or unit that administers or coordinates academic programs across multiple educational institutions or providers that provide or participates in aspects of educational instruction

-AND / OR-

one or more educational institutions or providers participating in the administrative organization is not certified to participate in U.S. Department of Education title IV programs.

Guidelines

An administrative organization or unit as used in these definitions include, as examples,

• a department within a state higher education coordinating board,
• a unit under the direction of an institutional system’s central office,
• a coalition of colleges sharing access to its members’ existing instructional resources,
• and others.

Determination examples

1. The entity is an educational institution certified to participate in title IV programs. For substantive change purposes, this is a Title IV entity.
2. The entity is not certified for title IV but is an administrative unit of a state college system’s governing board, the entity provides no instruction, and every college participating in the administrative unit is certified to participate in title IV programs. For substantive change purposes, this is a title IV entity.
3. The entity is not certified for title IV but is an administrative unit of a state’s higher education coordinating board, the entity provides no instruction, and all but one college participating in the entity is certified to participate in title IV programs. For substantive change purposes, this is a non-title IV entity.
4. The entity is not certified for title IV but is a unit under the control of a university system’s central office, the entity has hired some of the instructors providing instruction under the agreement, and every college participating in the entity is certified to participate in title IV programs: For substantive change purposes, this is a non-title IV entity.



Cooperative Academic Arrangement with Non-Title IV Entities – Approval

Federal Regulations 34 CFR 602.22 & 34 CFR 668.5

Subject to SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

(See also Cooperative Academic Arrangements Definitions and Guidelines.)

An agreement with an entity (or entities) not certified to participate in U.S. Department of Education title IV programs to deliver 25-50% of a program’s content recorded on The Commission institution’s transcript as its own requires The Commission approval prior to implementation. A prospectus must include the program(s) involved, names and contact information of the principal responsible parties at the institution and participating entity (or entities), and a copy of a signed agreement with the entity (or entities). The Commission is obligated to respond within 90 days of receipt of the notification. Also refer to Standard 10.9 of the

Principles of Accreditation.

An institution on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION entering into a cooperative academic arrangement with a non-title IV certified entity offering up to 50% of a program requires The Commission approval prior to implementation (see also Cooperative Academic Arrangement with Non-Title IV Entities – Notification).

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Cooperative Academic Arrangement with Non-Title IV Entities – Approval. (p. 112).



Cooperative Academic Arrangement with Non-Title IV Entities – Notification

Subject to SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

(See also Cooperative Academic Arrangements Definitions and Guidelines.)

An agreement with an entity (or entities) not certified to participate in U.S. Department of Education title IV programs to deliver less than 25% of a program’s content recorded on The Commission institution’s transcript as its own requires notification prior to implementation. The Commission is obligated to respond within 90 days of receipt of a materially complete notification. Also refer to Standard 10.9 of the Principles of Accreditation.

An institution on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION entering into a cooperative academic arrangement with a non-title IV certified entity requires The Commission approval prior to implementation; notification is not an option (see also Cooperative Academic Arrangement with Non-Title IV Entities – Approval).

 What to submit

1. An affirmative statement that the institution will record credits under the arrangement (or other measures of completion) on its academic transcripts as awarded by the institution.
2. The name and credential of each program to which credits earned under the arrangement will apply.
3. The maximum percentage of the total program requirements that will be earned under the agreement; identify this for each program for which credits earned under the arrangement will apply.
4. Demonstrate the institution’s determination that the entity or entities in the agreement are non-title IV entities for the purpose of substantive change as provided in the Cooperative Academic Arrangements Definitions and Guidelines section of this policy.
5. A statement of the institution’s intent for students enrolled in the program(s) covered under the agreement to be eligible to receive title IV federal financial aid including the portion of each program or programs that will be eligible.
   1. If the intent is for students to receive title IV aid,
      1. demonstrate the institution has assessed and reached a good- faith conclusion of the program(s) title IV eligibility under the terms of the agreement, and
      2. if any portion of any program or programs will not be eligible for title IV aid, demonstrate the institution’s plan to communicate this information to the affected students prior to initial matriculation and to any other impacted party/parties.
   2. If the intent is students will not receive title IV aid, demonstrate the institution’s plan to communicate this information to the affected students prior to initial matriculation and to any other impacted party/parties.
6. A copy of a signed and dated memorandum of agreement or other document explaining the scope and responsibilities of each partnering institution or entity.
7. The names and contact information of the principal parties at the institution and at each participating entity (or entities); this may be included in the memorandum of agreement.
8. Provisions for the regular review of the agreement, including renewal and termination of the agreement; this may be included in the memorandum of agreement.
9. The intended implementation date.



Method of Delivery – Approval

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

Subject to SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

Adding a method of instructional delivery requires approval prior to implementation if:

1. the institution is implementing its first program delivered by distance education or Competency Based Education (CBE).*
2. an institution is on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

─OR─

1. an institution with The Commission Prison Education Program (PEP) – Institutional-level Approval adds, for the first time, a method of delivery not previously used in its PEPs.

For example, if an institution’s PEPs are delivered by face-to-face instruction only and the institution adds distance education as a method of delivery for the first time in a PEP, then adding the distance education method of delivery requires approval prior to implementation. All other method of delivery approvals and notifications also apply without exception as applicable: Competency-based Education by Course/Credit-based Approach – Institutional-level Approval, Competency-based Education Direct Assessment–Approval, and Distance Education – Institutional-level Approval.

Institutions that are not on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION or are not adding its first method of delivery in a PEP are not required to secure approval to add a method of delivery. However, all institutions are subject to method of delivery notification (see Method of Delivery – Notification).

A specific method of delivery applies when any portion of a program is delivered by that method. A program may be delivered by more than one method (students may have the option to choose from different methods of delivery for the same program, e.g., predominately face-to-face versus predominately distance education).

The three methods of delivery are

• competency-based education,
• distance education, and
• face-to-face instruction.

* the first program the institution offers by distance learning requires approval (see Distance Education – Institutional Level Approval) or the first CBE course based (see Competency by Course Credit Based Approach Approval), or each CBE Program by Direct Assessment require approval.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for Method of Delivery – Approval (p. 113).



Method of Delivery – Notification

Subject to SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

The first program delivered by distance education or by course-based CBE must be approved by The Commission prior to implementation.

Subsequent distance education programs require notification to The Commission within 30 days of implementation.

Adding other methods of instructional delivery to an existing program requires notification to The Commission via the Institutional Portal.

A specific method of delivery applies when 50% or more of a program is delivered by that method. A program may be delivered 50% or more by more than one method (students may have the option to choose from different methods of delivery for the same program, e.g., predominately face-to-face versus predominately distance education).

The three methods of delivery are

• competency-based education,
• distance education, and
• face-to-face instruction.

For example, adding a distance education delivery to an existing program delivered face-to-face requires notification.

Adding some methods of delivery may require approval as a separate type of substantive change:

• Adding a direct assessment competency-based education delivery of a program requires The Commission approval if any portion of the program can be earned by direct assessment.
• Adding a course/credit-based competency-based education delivery of a program requires The Commission approval if any portion of the program can be earned by course/credit-based competency-based education and if the institution has not been previously approved to offer a program by course/credit-based competency-based education.
• Adding a distance education delivery of a program requires The Commission approval the first-time any portion of a program can be earned by distance education and if the institution has not been previously approved to offer a program by distance education.

An institution on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION adding a method of instructional delivery to an existing program requires The Commission approval prior to implementation; notification is not an option (see also Method of Delivery–Approval).

 What to submit

1. The name of the program (to indicate the discipline).
2. The credential to be awarded (e.g., Associate of Arts, Master of Accounting).
3. The instructional level (associate, baccalaureate, master’s, education specialist, or doctoral, if not obvious from the credential).
4. The method of delivery to be added: competency-based education, distance education, or face-to-face instruction.
5. The intended implementation date.



New Program – Approval

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

Subject to SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

New – March 2026 – All reduced credit hour undergraduate degrees must be submitted for new program approval regardless of the percent of new content – see below.

*Note - If the institution would like to re-open a closed program and five years have elapsed since the letter date of The Commission closure/teach-out approval, the program is subject to new program approval regardless of the percent of new content offered in the program.

A new program with 50-100% new content is a significant departure from the institution’s existing programs and requires The Commission approval prior to implementation.

For an institution on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION, a new program with 25-100% new content is a significant departure from the institution’s existing programs and requires The Commission approval prior to implementation.

• Content is new if it is not currently offered by the institution at the new program’s instructional level (associate, baccalaureate, master’s, education specialist, or doctoral).
• A determination of the percentage of new content is made by the institution.
• The percentage of new content is based on the amount of disciplinary content that is new to the institution, excluding general education.
• New program approval equally applies to a degree, diploma, certificate, or other for-credit credential.
• If the institution is not currently approved to offer courses or programs at the new program’s instructional level, a level change approval is required (e.g., the institution’s first courses or programs at the baccalaureate degree level).
• Increasing the level of a program, i.e., offering a new program in a discipline at a higher instructional level than a currently offered program, is by definition a significant departure. For example, if an institution offers a baccalaureate degree program in a discipline and begins a new program in the same discipline at the master’s degree level, then the new program is a significant departure and requires approval prior to implementation. This applies across all instructional levels.
• Not-for-credit programs transitioning to a for-credit credential program is by definition a significant departure.
• A proposed degree program that does not meet the program length requirement of Standard 9.2 of the Principles of Accreditation (e.g. reduced credit undergraduate degrees), must be submitted as a New Program – Approval requiring a prospectus, regardless of the percent of new content offered in the program. See the Reduced Credit Degree Policy, Guidelines, and FAQ.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for New Program – Approval (p. 114).



Program Closure / Teach Out Plan Approval

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.24

Discontinuing / closing a program requires The Commission approval of its teach-out plan. All program closures require a teach-out plan, independent of the size of the program, number of currently enrolled students (including programs with no students enrolled), or other program characteristics.

Note - If the institution would like to re-open a closed program and five years have elapsed since the letter date of The Commission closure/teach-out approval, the program is subject to new program approval regardless of the percent of new content offered in the program.

Closure is defined as closed to admission or entry, not the cessation of instruction; i.e., closure date is when students can no longer start, not the date instruction ends. Approval of the teach-out plan ensures the institution has a plan and process to provide students reasonable completion options that minimize disruption and additional costs. Because the approval is of the teach-out process, not the closure per se (i.e., not after the fact., a teach-out plan should be submitted as soon as possible after the decision is made to close).

Program closure includes ending a program at all locations or by all methods of delivery, but also includes ending a student’s completion option at a specific location or by a specific method of delivery. Therefore, program teach-out plan approval is required if a program closes

• at a location (on-campus or off-campus instructional site) but continues to be offered at other locations, or
• by a method of delivery but continues to be offered by other methods of delivery.

Program teach-out plan approval is not required for a specialization embedded within a discipline-specific program. Depending on an institution’s terminology, a specialization within a program may be called a minor, concentration, cognate, or other similar term.

Because time is of the essence – to provide students maximum time to consider and adapt to alternate completion plans – an institution may generally begin a program teach-out plan after it has been submitted to The Commission for approval. This assumes the institution completes a teach-out plan with all due care to address the requirements explained here and in the teach-out plan requirements in Appendix A. If upon review by The Commission the teach-out plan is incomplete or inadequate, the teach-out plan may be deferred pending additional information, explanation, or an acceptable revised teach-out plan is provided to The Commission. Although the institution may begin a teach-out immediately after submitting it, the teach-out plan is not approved until action is taken by The Commission Board of Trustees. Starting and completing a teach-out plan before securing The Commission Board approval does not relieve the institution of its obligation to provide an acceptable teach-out plan.

The teach-out institution(s) – i.e., the institution(s) accepting displaced students from the closing program – may request an exception to Standard 9.4 (institutional credits for an undergraduate degree) and/or Standard 9.5 (institutional credits for a graduate or professional degree) to accommodate students near the end of their program of study.

Refer to the Request for a Period of Noncompliance policy for guidance. The institution closing its program should ensure the teach-out institution(s) are aware of this option and may wish to include it in any teach-out agreement(s) executed pursuant to the closure.

 What to submit

A teach-out plan: Submit a teach-out plan using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Program Closure / Teach-Out Plan Approval (p. 116).



Program Length Change

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

Subject to SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

A change in program length – for either an increase or a decrease – requires The Commission approval prior to implementation if

• program credit hours (or an equivalent or comparable measure of progress such as clock hours or demonstrated competencies) increase or decrease by 25% or more

— AND —

• students' expected time to completion increases or decreases by more than one term or its equivalent or comparable measure.

This requirement equally applies to degree, diploma, certificate, or other for-credit credentials.

Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degrees: A proposed degree program that does not meet the program length requirement of Standard 9.2 of the Principles of Accreditation (e.g., reduced credit undergraduate programs) must be submitted as a New Program – Approval prospectus regardless of the percent of new content offered in the program.

• A change in program length if program credit hours – or an equivalent or comparable measure of progress such as clock hours or demonstrated competencies
• increase or decrease by 25% or more (versus the same percentage plus the additional criterion of changing expected time to completion by more than one term or its equivalent for institutions not on restriction).

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Program Length Change (p. 117).



Program Designed for Prior Learning – Approval

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

Subject to Substantive Change Restriction

This requirement applies only to institutions on Substantive Change Restriction; refer to the Substantive Change Restriction section for more information.

Initiating a program requiring students to possess prior learning as a condition of admission requires The Commission approval prior to implementation only for institutions currently on Substantive Change Restriction. For all other institutions, no action is required.

Standard 10.7 (Policies for awarding credit) of the Principles of Accreditation applies without exception to programs designed for prior learning. A new program designed for prior learning is subject to notification or approval as a new program as defined in Substantive Change Policy and Procedures.

A proposed degree program that does not meet the program length requirement of Standard 9.2 of the Principles of Accreditation must be submitted as a New Program – Approval prospectus regardless of the percent of new content offered in the program.

þ What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for a Program Designed for Prior Learning – Approval (p. 118).

(End of Program Changes)

Off-campus Instructional Site / Additional Location Changes

• Off-campus Instructional Site Definitions and Guidelines (p. 56)
• Off-campus Instructional Site Approval (including branch campus) (p. 58)
  • Committee Visits (p. 61)
• Off-campus Instructional Site Notification (p. 62)
• Off-campus Instructional Site Closure / Teach-out Plan Approval (p. 63)

Off-campus Instructional Site Definitions and Guidelines

Definitions

• Off-campus instructional site: An additional location
  • geographically apart from an institution's sole main campus and
  • where instruction is delivered.
• Branch campus: A special form of off-campus instructional site
  • that is geographically apart from an institution’s main campus,
  • where instruction is delivered, and
  • is independent of the main campus of an institution. An additional location/off-campus instructional site is independent of the main campus if it
    • is permanent;
    • offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, > diploma, certificate, or other for-credit credential;
    • has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization; and
    • has its own budgetary and hiring authority.
• Program: For the purpose of an off-campus instructional site, a for-credit credential for which an institution awards a degree, diploma, certificate, or other credential at any level of instruction.
• Percentage of program instruction: The percentage of the total instruction required to earn a credential measured in credit hours, clock hours, competencies, or other generally accepted measure of progress to completion.

Guidelines

• Off-campus instructional site requirements apply without exception to dual enrollment sites.
• If instruction is delivered by distance education (synchronously or asynchronously) to a location geographically apart from an institution’s sole main campus

— AND —

if a student is required to be at the location to receive instruction, then the location is an off-campus instructional site.

• A clinical training site at which no didactic instruction is delivered is not an off-campus instructional site.
• A location at which no instruction is delivered to students is not an off-campus instructional site, e.g., a distance education video studio (with no students physically present), an off- campus student services complex, or administrative offices.
• Site names must be unique for an institution; an institution cannot have multiples sites with identical names. Check The Commission website or Institutional Portal to verify before submitting.

*It is strongly suggested that site names for OCISs located at other institutions of higher education include the name of the home institution, for example ABC at XYZ University. Site addresses must be unique for an institution; an institution cannot have multiple sites with identical addresses. Check The Commission website or Institutional Portal to verify before submitting.

Off-campus Instructional Site Approval (including Branch Campus)

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

(See also Off-campus Instructional Site Definitions and Guidelines.) An institution’s first two off-campus instructional sites at which 50% or more of a program’s instruction is delivered requires The Commission approval prior to implementation. If an institution has successfully completed at least one cycle of accreditation, has had two off campus instructional sites successfully reviewed by the Extensive Review process, and the institution is not on Substantive Change Restriction, then subsequent off campus instructional sites require only notification within 30 days of implementation.

• Each branch campus must be approved by Extensive Review.
• Sites approved before the extensive review requirement was included in policy in 2020 are not deemed approved by extensive review except as provided by approval method two described below.
• An institution that currently has at least two off campus instructional sites previously approved by extensive review and is not on sanction or substantive change restriction, may inform The Commission of subsequent increase in the percentage of instruction via notification.

An off-campus instructional site may qualify as a branch campus; refer to the federally defined branch campus criteria under Off-campus Instructional Site Definitions and Guidelines at the beginning of this policy section. Before submitting a prospectus for approval of a branch campus, ensure – and demonstrate in the prospectus – all branch campus criteria are met. A site name may not include “branch” or “branch campus” unless approved as a branch campus as defined in policy.

Extensive Review

Subject to SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

An extensive review has two components:

• an institutional-level review, and
• a site-specific review.

The purpose of the institutional-level review is to ensure institutional capacity and planning to offer courses away from its main campus and to ensure quality across locations. Institutional capacity and planning considers such things as:

• adequacy of faculty, facilities, resources, and academic and student support services at sites;
• sufficient fiscal and administrative capacity to add additional sites;
• clear academic control of sites;
• regular evaluation of all sites;
• financial stability of the institution;
• engagement in long-range planning for expansion.

The site-specific review considers such things as:

• physical resources including specialized equipment or materials at a site,
• qualifications of faculty at the site,
• adequate financial resources and financial planning for the site,
• adequacy of library and learning/information resources available to students at the site, adequacy of student support services available to students at the site.

There are two extensive review approval methods:

• Approval method one –required if the institution, at the time a site prospectus is submitted to The Commission,
  • has fewer than two sites approved under the extensive review > criteria and process,

—OR—

• has not successfully completed at least one reaffirmation of accreditation,

—OR—

• is on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION,

—OR—

• The site is a new branch campus.

Approval by The Commission Board of Trustees based on a prospectus review: The institution prepares and submits an off-campus instructional site by extensive review prospectus. The prospectus, in part, addresses the requirements listed above; refer to Appendix A of this document for guidance and requirements. An extensive review prospectus is reviewed by the full The Commission Board of Trustees at a regularly scheduled biannual meeting, usually in June and December. Submission due dates are published in this policy and on The Commission website.

An institution may submit a single prospectus for up to ten off-campus instructional sites provided program offerings are identical across all sites; otherwise, a separate prospectus (or prospectuses) is required for each site.

 What to submit

A prospectus: Submit a substantive change prospectus using the outline provided in Appendix A for Off-campus Instructional Site Approval by Extensive Review (p. 119).

• Approval method two – Approval by The Commission Board of Trustees based on inclusion and review at reaffirmation: An existing, approved site(s) that was (a) included as an approved site on the Institutional Summary Form submitted as part of the institution’s on-site reaffirmation review and (b) reviewed by the on-site reaffirmation committee to include the site- and institutional-level extensive review requirements, will be considered approved by extensive review after The Commission Board of Trustees takes positive action on the institution’s reaffirmation. Approval method two applies to institutions reaffirmed in 2020 or afterwards.



Off-campus Instructional Site Committee Visits

(See also Committee Visits, International Off-campus Instructional Sites)

A substantive change committee visit is required if any of the following criteria are met at the time of approval or accepted notification an off-campus instructional site where 50% or more of a program is offered:

• the site is a branch campus;
• the institution has fewer than three already existing off-campus instructional sites where 50% or more of instruction is delivered
• the institution has not successfully completed at least one reaffirmation of accreditation;
• the institution is on sanction (Warning, Probation, or Probation for Good Cause);
• any of the International Off-campus Instructional Sites conditions in the Committee Visits section of this policy is met; or
• the institution has not, in the professional judgment of The Commission staff, demonstrated effective oversight of off-campus instructional sites or if there is reason to believe the institution may not be able to meet all The Commission requirements at the new off-campus instructional site.

A visit is authorized by the Board of Trustees at the time of approval. The Commission President is also authorized to appoint a substantive change committee.

If a committee is authorized to visit an off-campus instructional site, the committee is required to determine compliance with the Principles of Accreditation, including verification of personnel, facilities, and resources as asserted by the institution in its application for the additional site.

Exception. An off-campus instructional site approved by the extensive review approval method two, as defined herein, is not subject to a substantive change committee visit; the site would have been subject to a committee visit as part of the institution’s reaffirmation of accreditation.

Refer to the committee visits section of this policy for additional information, including additional considerations for visits to international off-campus instructional sites.



Off-Campus Instructional Site Notification

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.22

(See also Off-campus Instructional Site Definitions and Guidelines.)

An institution that has had (a) its first two off-campus instructional sites (additional locations and/or branch campuses) at which 50% or more of a program’s instruction is delivered approved by The Commission Extensive Review and (b) has successfully completed at least one cycle of accreditation may submit notification of each subsequent off campus instructional site via the Institutional Portal within 30 days of implementation.

Off-campus instructional sites (additional locations) require notification within 30 days of implementation when:

• 25-49% of a program’s instruction is delivered at the location
• 50% or more of a program’s instruction is delivered at a location, after the first two off-campus instructional sites (additional location and/or branch campus) have been approved by extensive review.

Instruction may cross the 50% or more threshold any time after the institution submits notification; the institution does not have to wait for a The Commission response to implement (note this applies to site notification only, not to site approval). However, notification must occur within 30 days of implementation.

Each off-campus instructional site that qualifies as a branch campus requires approval prior to implementation. (See Off-campus Instructional Site Approval)

A committee visit may be required for new notified off-campus instructional sites where 50% or more of a program is offered, if it meets the criteria in the Off-Campus Instruction Site Committee Visits section.

 What to submit

1. Site name (must be unique, i.e., it cannot be the same as an institution’s existing site).
2. The physical address or location of the site (i.e., no post office box numbers).
3. The implementation date.

Off-campus Instructional Site Closure / Teach-Out Plan Approval

Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.24

Discontinuing all offerings at an off-campus instructional site requires The Commission approval of the teach-out plan. Approval equally applies to

• notified sites and
• approved sites.

All off-campus instructional site closures require a teach-out plan, independent of the size of the site, location of the site, number of currently enrolled students (including sites with no students enrolled), or other site characteristics.

For The Commission, a site is considered closed as of the date the institution stops admitting students to the site; closure is not the date of last instruction.

Closure is defined this way because The Commission’s approval is of the teach-out process, not the closure per se, to help ensure students have reasonable opportunities to complete their program of study as originally planned at initial matriculation and with minimal disruption and additional costs. Because approval is for the teach-out process, not the closure per se (i.e., not after the fact), a teach-out plan should be submitted as soon as possible after the decision is made to close. Institutional, system, or state definitions of closure must be reconciled by the institution with The Commission definition.

If a program will no longer be offered at a site but the site will remain open for other programs, see program closure approval requirements under Program Closure.

A teach-out plan is due to The Commission as soon as possible after the institution decides to close a site.

Because time is of the essence – to provide students maximum time to consider and adapt to alternate completion plans – an institution may generally begin a site teach-out plan after it has been submitted to The Commission for approval. This assumes the institution completes a teach-out plan with all due care to address the requirements explained here and in the teach- out plan requirements in Appendix A. If upon review by The Commission the teach-out plan is incomplete or inadequate, the teach-out plan may be deferred pending additional information, explanation, or an acceptable revised teach-out plan is provided to The Commission. Although the institution may begin a teach-out immediately after submitting it, the teach-out plan is not approved until action is taken by The Commission Board of Trustees. Starting and completing a teach-out plan before securing The Commission Board approval does not relieve the institution of its obligation to provide an acceptable teach-out plan.

The teach-out institution(s) – i.e., the institution(s) accepting displaced students from the closing off-campus instructional site – may request an exception to Standard 9.4 (institutional credits for an undergraduate degree) and/or Standard 9.5 (institutional credits for a graduate or professional degree) to accommodate students near the end of their program of study. Refer to the Request for a Period of Noncompliance policy for guidance. The institution closing its off-campus instructional site should ensure the teach-out institution(s) are aware of this option and may wish to include it in any teach-out agreement(s) executed pursuant to the closure.

 What to submit

A teach-out plan: Submit a teach-out plan using the outline provided in Appendix A for an Off-campus Instructional Site Teach-Out Plan Approval (p.121).



(End of Off-campus Instructional Site / Additional Location Changes)

Other Changes

Implementation Extension

(See also implementation dates and implementation time limits in the General Requirements section)

An institution may request an implementation extension for cause for a previously approved substantive change. Except for substantive changes that must be implemented within 30 days as defined in policy, approved substantive change must be implemented within two years of approval (see also Implementation time limit in the General Requirements section of the substantive change policy). An implementation extension may be approved for a maximum of one year (i.e., 12 months) beyond the policy-defined two year implementation limit commencing with the date The Commission Board of Trustees approval of the substantive

change. If the substantive change is not implemented by the end of the approved extension but the institution still wants to implement, then the institution must re-submit a prospectus for approval prior to implementation.

• If a substantive change was not implemented by the intended implementation date as submitted in the prospectus but will be implemented within two years of the approval date, then an implementation extension is not necessary.
• Implementation extension is available for substantive changes requiring approval only; for substantive changes requiring notification only, reasonable extensions are the institution’s prerogative.
• Only one implementation extension may be approved for a substantive change.
• An implementation extension request must be submitted within two years of the substantive change's approval date.
• Acquisition; governance change; merger / consolidation; and ownership, means of control, or legal status change are not eligible for implementation extension.

 What to submit

Submit a substantive change request using the outline provided in Appendix A for Implementation Extension (p. 122).



(End of Other Changes)

SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION

An institution on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION is subject to different or additional requirements for certain types of substantive change. An institution is on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION if it

• is currently on
  • Warning,
  • Probation, or
  • Probation for Good Cause;

—OR—

• was removed from Warning, Probation, or Probation for Good Cause within the prior three years;

—OR—

• is currently on provisional certification for participation in federal financial aid programs as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 668.13.[^\*^](#_bookmark43)

Alternately stated: An institution is on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION while on sanction (Warning, Probation, or Probation for Good Cause), for three years after removal from sanction, or while on provisional certification for federal financial aid programs.

Institutions on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION are subject to the following different or additional substantive change requirements:

Off-campus instructional site changes —

• Approval through the extensive review pathway of all new off-campus instructional sites offering 50% or more of a program
• []If an institution is under provisional > certification for participation in federal financial aid programs > and if the institution is directed to do so by the U.S. > Department of Education, then the institution is required to > submit an Institutional Contingency Teach-out Plan for approval by > The Commission Board of Trustees as described in this policy. This > requirement is in addition to the institution being on SUBSTANTIVE > CHANGE RESTRICTION.

Program changes —

• Approval of new programs with 25% or more new content
• Approval of a change in program length if program credit hours – or an equivalent or comparable measure of progress such as clock hours or demonstrated competencies – increase or decrease by 25% or more
• Approval to add a method of delivery to an existing program
• Approval of an agreement with an entity (or entities) not certified to participate in

U.S. Department of Education title IV programs to deliver less than 25% of a program’s content

• Approval of a Program Designed for Prior Learning.



Committee Visits

A substantive change committee visit is a quality assurance mechanism designed to ensure the quality of an approved substantive change and to ensure the institution remains in compliance with all Principles of Accreditation and policies.

A committee visit is required for certain types of substantive change. A committee visit may also be required if certain institutional conditions are met. A committee visit is authorized at the time a substantive change is approved or notification is accepted. The Commission Board of Trustees and The Commission President are authorized to appoint a substantive change committee to review an institution for any change requiring a more in-depth evaluation beyond the prospectus submitted by the institution. The Report of the Substantive Change Committee is reviewed by The Commission Board of Trustees to determine ongoing accreditation status of an institution. A committee visit is generally within six months after implementation of the change.

A substantive change committee visit is required for the following seven types of substantive change. The criteria for a committee visit are detailed under the specific requirements by substantive change type in policy.

Initiating an off-campus instructional site where 50% or more of a program is offered.

In addition to a committee visit at the time of notification/approval, if one or more visit criteria are met, visits to a representative sample of off-campus instructional sites are required at the fifth-year interval between reaffirmations if the additional sites have been initiated since the last reaffirmation and if the sites have not been visited. At any time, The Commission may choose to authorize a visit to a new site(s) developed between the fifth-year review and the next scheduled reaffirmation of accreditation. As part of reaffirmation, The Commission conducts a thorough review of a representative sample of off-campus instructional sites where 50% or more of a program is offered. The extent of the review at reaffirmation depends, in part, on whether there has been a recent review of the site(s).

If a committee is authorized to visit an additional location, the committee is required to determine compliance with the Principles of Accreditation, including verification of personnel, facilities, and resources as asserted by the institution in its application for the additional site.

The institution-specific criteria for a committee visit are listed in the in the Off- campus Instructional Site Committee Visits section of policy.

Initiating a branch campus.

The criteria to qualify an off-campus instructional site as a branch campus are listed in the Off-campus Instructional Site Approval section of the procedures.

Initiating a branch campus requires a committee visit regardless of the institution’s number of existing off-campus instructional sites offering 50% or more of a program.

Initiating a change in governance or a change in ownership with a change in control or legal status.

The Substantive Change Committee visit will occur within six months after the implementation date. The report of the Substantive Change Committee, together with the response of the institution to any recommendations contained in that report, will be reviewed by the The Commission Board of Trustees. Following review, the Board will (1) continue the institution in accreditation, with or without a monitoring report, or (2) impose sanctions for failure to maintain compliance with the Principles. If The Commission Board of Trustees determines that the substantive change adversely affects the institution’s continued compliance with the Principles of Accreditation, the accreditation of the institutions involved will be placed in jeopardy.

Initiating a merger / consolidation or acquisition.

The Substantive Change Committee visit will occur within six months after notification to The Commission of final USDE approval of the merger/consolidation. The report of the Substantive Change Committee, together with the response of the institution to any recommendations contained in that report, will be reviewed by The Commission Board of Trustees. Following review, the Board will (1) continue the institution in accreditation, with or without a monitoring report, or (2) impose sanctions for failure to maintain compliance with the Principles. If The Commission Board of Trustees determines that the substantive change adversely affects the institution’s continued compliance with the Principles of Accreditation, the accreditation of the institutions involved will be placed in jeopardy.

Initiating a level change.

Initiating coursework or programs at a different level than currently approved requires level change approval and a substantive change committee visit. Depending on the existing related programs offered by an institution, a committee visit may not be required of institutions moving from Levels III (offers the master’s degree as the highest degree) to IV (offers the master’s and specialist degree as the highest degrees) or from Levels V (offers three or fewer doctoral degrees as the highest degrees) to VI (offering four or more doctoral degrees as the highest degrees). A level change adding authorization of a degree level lower than the highest degree level currently authorized for an institution may not require a visit if the new program(s) at the lower degree level do not constitute a significant departure from existing programs.

Initiating a competency-based education by direct assessment program that requires The Commission approval.

A committee visit is required for each competency-based education by direct assessment program that is approved.

Initiating a Prison Education Program at an off-campus instructional site.

A committee visit is required for the first two off-campus instructional sites approved under the Prison Education Program – Institutional-level Approval requirements. The committee visit requirement applies regardless of any prior approval or committee visit to the site.

International Off-campus Instructional Sites

First International Site

Any other requirement for a substantive change committee visit notwithstanding, approval of an institution’s first international* off-campus instructional site requires authorization of a substantive change committee visit.

Subsequent International Sites

Approval of an institution’s subsequent international* off-campus instructional site may include authorization of a substantive change committee visit at the discretion of The Commission Board of Trustees. Staff consider the following in making a recommendation for a committee visit to the Board:

• the institution’s experience managing off-campus instructional sites, in general;
• the institution’s experience managing international off-campus instructional sites, in particular, including sites in the proposed country or territory;
• known issues based on prior accreditation reviews suggesting institutional challenges to providing effective oversight of off-campus instructional sites; and
• the feasibility of visiting the site as part of a Fifth-year Interim Review or Reaffirmation within two years of approval of the site.

Authorization of a substantive change committee visit to an international site is made by the Board at the time an off-campus instructional site is approved. Any other off-campus instructional site committee requirement – e.g., approval of a site as a branch campus, approval of the institution’s first three sites, etc. – supersedes an optional international site visit described herein.



• []Any site outside of the country of the > institution’s main campus; United States territories (American > Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. > Virgin Island) may be considered outside of the United States for > off-campus instructional site purposes.

Substantive Change Fees

Fees are assessed for review of a substantive change prospectus, application and/other materials. Some Substantive Changes require a committee visit, which incurs separate fees.

All fees are listed in the The Commission DUES, FEES, AND EXPENSES Policy Statement, linked here and available on The Commission website.



Unreported Substantive Change

(See also “Non-compliance” in the policy section of Substantive Change Policy and Procedures)

If an institution discovers it is non-compliant with Substantive Change Policy and Procedures or Standard 14.2 (substantive change) -- i.e., an unreported substantive change -- the top priority is to remedy the unreported change as soon as possible. This is accomplished by submitting, through the established substantive change submission process, either the notification or the prospectus for approval for the unreported substantive change.

Institutions are advised, when an unreported substantive change is discovered, to undertake a thorough institutional review to identify all possible unreported substantive changes. Once the population of unreported substantive changes is identified, each instance is separately addressed by submitting the appropriate notification or prospectus for approval. If multiple unreported substantive changes are identified, the institution should

• submit each instance at about the same time (i.e., within a few days of each other), and
• note, in each submission, that multiple instances of unreported substantive change have been identified and the institution is submitting each for review (e.g., “We have discovered three unreported substantive changes; this submission addresses the first,” and “We have discovered three unreported substantive changes; this submission addresses the second,” etc.) This will allow multiple instances to be included in the review of the institution’s substantive change policy and procedures, if warranted, as explained in this procedures section.

Upon review of the institution’s submission(s) of previously unreported substantive change, the institution may be asked to submit its institutional substantive change policy and procedures for review at a regularly scheduled The Commission Board of Trustees meeting. The purpose of the review is developmental to help the institution ensure it has adequate policy and procedures in place to identify and report substantive changes in a timely manner in keeping with The Commission requirements. Requests for the institution’s substantive change policy and procedures are included in the response letter from The Commission addressing the unreported substantive change; i.e., do not submit institutional substantive change policy and procedures proactively.

If the institution has not, since its last reaffirmation, been previously asked for its institutional substantive change policy and procedures for Board review, the institution submits its policy only. If the institution has, since its last reaffirmation, been previously asked for its institutional substantive change policy and procedures for Board review, the institution submits its policy and submits a narrative assessment of why the previously reviewed policy and procedures again failed to identify substantive changes requiring notification or approval prior to implementation.



Review Procedures

Staff Options

Upon receipt of a substantive change prospectus, a The Commission staff member will review the prospectus and any supporting material submitted by the institution and will:

1. recommend approval of the substantive change to the Executive Council or Senior Staff, or
2. request additional information. If approval can't be recommended after two requests for additional information -
3. refer the substantive change to The Commission Committee on Compliance and Reports ("C&R") for review and a final recommendation to the Board of Trustees.

The Commission Senior Staff (typically the President), at their discretion, may refer a substantive change to The Commission Committee on Compliance and Reports (C&R) at any point in the process.

Options of the Committee on Compliance and Reports Following Review of the Prospectus or Application

Prospectus: The Committee will review the prospectus and any additional material submitted, and will recommend one of the following actions:

1. Accept the prospectus or recommend approval of the change, with or without a site visit.
2. Recommend denial of approval of the substantive change and continue the institution's accreditation. The reason for denial of approval may have been caused by an institution’s current non-compliance with a standard or requirement. Consequently, denial may be accompanied by monitoring or imposition of a sanction.

Preparation for a Substantive Change Committee Visit

When a Substantive Change Committee is authorized, it is charged with determining the institution’s continued compliance with the Principles of Accreditation following the initiation of the change. The visit will occur within six months after initiation of the change. In preparation for this visit, the institution will complete the appropriate substantive change documentation template which cites relevant Standards and the roster of faculty members who will be teaching in the program or at the site. Both the template and the Faculty Roster form are available on The Commission Web site (www.sacscoc.org) under Substantive Changes. The institution’s The Commission staff representative will inform the institution of the composition and schedule for the Committee.

Options of the Committee on Compliance and Reports Following Review by a Substantive Change Committee

The report of the Substantive Change Committee, together with the response of the institution to the recommendations contained in that report (due within five months of the Committee visit), will be reviewed by the Committee on Compliance and Reports. The Committee on Compliance and Reports may recommend one of the following actions:

1. Continue the institution in accreditation, with or without a monitoring report.
2. Continue the institution in accreditation, impose a sanction, and request a monitoring report, with/without a special committee visit (mandatory visit if placed on Probation).
3. Discontinue accreditation.

Teach-out Plans

A teach-out plan is a written plan developed by an institution that provides for the equitable treatment of students if an institution, or an institutional location that provides twenty-five percent or more of at least one program, ceases to operate. It may include, if required by the institution's accrediting agency, a teach-out agreement between institutions. Teach-out plans must be approved by The Commission.

Following review and approval of a teach-out plan that includes a program that is accredited by another accrediting agency, The Commission will notify that accreditor of its approval.

A teach-out agreement is a written agreement between institutions that provides for the equitable treatment of students and a reasonable opportunity for students to complete their program of study if an institution, or an institutional location that provides twenty-five percent or more of at least one program offered, ceases to operate before all enrolled students have completed their program of study. Such a teach-out agreement requires The Commission approval in advance of implementation.

For approval by The Commission, the agreement must

• be with an institution accredited by a
  • U.S. Department of Education recognized institutional accreditor, or
  • non-U.S. institutional accreditor or governmental entity;
• be consistent with applicable standards in the Principles of Accreditation and with The Commission policies; and
• provide for the equitable treatment of students by ensuring
  • the teach-out institution has the necessary experience, resources, and support services to provide an educational program that is of acceptable quality and reasonably similar in content, structure, and scheduling to that provided by the teach-out institution; and
  • the teach-out institution demonstrates it can provide students access to the program(s) and services without requiring them to move or travel substantial distances.

Closing an Institution without an Agreement

In accordance with 34 CFR § 602.24, if a The Commission candidate or member institution closes without a teach-out plan or agreement, The Commission will work with the U.S Department of Education and the appropriate State agency, to the extent feasible, to assist students in finding reasonable opportunities to complete their education. The President is authorized to act on behalf of the Executive Council to approve requests for periods of non-compliance for institutions to which impacted students are likely to transfer in the wake of the closure.

Applicant and Candidacy Teach-out Plans

The Commission Board of Trustees has approved additional substantive changes that require notification and, in some cases, approval prior to implementation. When an applicant is authorized a Candidacy Committee, it must submit an institutional contingency teach-out plan as a part of its Candidacy Report to the Candidacy Committee. The plan ensures students completing the teach-out would meet curricular requirements for professional licensure or certification, if any, and must include a list of academic programs offered by the institution and the names of other institutions that offer similar programs that could potentially enter into a teach out agreement with the institution. If the institution does not receive initial accreditation within two years of becoming a candidate, the institution will remain a candidate upon the condition that only the currently enrolled students have had a reasonable time to complete the activities in its teach-out plan to assist students in transferring or completing their programs, but for no more than 120 days unless approved by The Commission Board of Trustees for Good Cause.



Appendix A: What to Submit for Approvals

This appendix provides an enumerated list – an outline – of the required content for each prospectus and teach-out plan requiring approval prior to implementation. Required content is provided for each type of substantive change requiring approval identified in the Specific Requirements by Type of Change section of this document; the content of this appendix is arranged by the same categories – Institutional Changes, Program Changes, and Off-campus Instructional Site Changes – and in the same order.

Use the enumerated list as the verbatim outline of the prospectus or teach-out plan. Provide the information in the same order the information is listed in this appendix: substantive change readers know exactly what they need to see for a particular substantive change type and where it is expected to be in the prospectus. All listed content is required; do not leave any items unanswered even if the institutional response is “no” or “does not apply” – in those circumstances, provide an explanation.

Prospectuses are limited to 25 pages exclusive of appendices. Make judicious use of appendices by including only information necessary to support the institution’s proposed change: volume is not a valid substitute for substance. Moving content to an appendix is acceptable to meet the 25- page limit; Faculty Rosters, for example, may be moved to an appendix as necessary at the institution’s discretion. Respect substantive change reviewers’ time and professional judgment by providing direct, relevant, and complete information.

Prospectuses must be self-contained. The prospectus may not include materials by reference by linking to an external website. All information provided by the institution in support of the proposed change must be on file.

Before beginning the prospectus, ensure the guidance and requirements provided in the General Requirements section and in the Procedures section of this document have been thoroughly reviewed and are understood.

Common Content

Many substantive change prospectuses contain the same standard or common content. Rather than listing that content for every substantive change type, the common content is identified here. In the enumerated list of required content by substantive change type, common content is identified and can be copied-and-pasted from this section into the outline for the prospectus.

Common Content A – Background and Context

1. A list of programs offered by the institution (excerpt from the catalog or a printout of a webpage is acceptable).
2. Abstract (one page maximum)
   1. Briefly describe the proposed change to include the intended implementation date.
   2. Provide projected number of students, if applicable.
   3. Indicate the projected life of the change, as applicable: one-time/limited duration or ongoing).
   4. Describe the primary target audience or market.
   5. Describe the strengths of the institution to undertake the change.
   6. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: The name of the program must clearly identify it as a reduced credit program. The following names are acceptable: Reduced-Hour Bachelor of (Discipline), or Abridged Bachelors of (Discipline). See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
3. Describe how the need for the change was determined and how the change was approved by the institution.
4. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: Make a strong case that this major/discipline lends itself to this degree format and clearly justify why a reduced-credit degree is more appropriate for the educational goals of the degree than a traditional bachelor’s degree. The prospectus should also indicate the relationship of the major or discipline to the fulfillment of workforce needs (e.g., data on high workforce demand in the region, state requirements, etc.). See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
5. Describe how the change is consistent with the mission and goals of the institution.
6. Provide documentation of faculty involvement in the planning and approval of the change.
7. Provide evidence of legal authority for the change if approval is required by the governing board or the state.



Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications

1. Provide a completed Faculty Roster Form to include faculty members scheduled to teach in the proposed substantive change (program, site, arrangement, etc.). Follow the Faculty Roster Form Instructions which require the institution to demonstrate the qualifications of each faculty member to teach the courses assigned (refer to Standard 6.2a (faculty qualifications) of the Principles of Accreditation). Use the standard Faculty Roster Form and instructions; do not create a new form or format:
   1. Faculty Roster Form [DOCX]
   2. Faculty Roster Form Instruction [PDF]
2. Include on the Faculty Roster Form all faculty members for the courses to be taught; do not include historical teaching assignments unless they are also to be taught in the proposed change.
   1. For a program: list the faculty members for all courses in the curriculum; exclude general education courses, if applicable, unless the general education curriculum is the substantive change being submitted for review.
   2. For an off-campus instructional site: list the faculty members for all courses to be taught at the site for the first 12 months of operation.
3. Do not submit faculty curricula vitae or transcripts.
4. Referring to Standard 6.2a (faculty qualifications):
   1. For a program: demonstrate the institution has at least one faculty member qualified in the discipline to develop the curriculum and/or teach in the program.
   2. For a site: demonstrate the institution has at least one faculty member qualified in the discipline to teach at the site.
5. Provide narrative with supporting evidence to demonstrate the number of full-time faculty members will be adequate to support the proposed change. In addition to at least one faculty member qualified in the discipline, include any to-be-hired faculty members, if applicable, on the Faculty Roster Form (e.g., “To-be-hired #1,” “To-be-hired #2,” etc.) with the expected qualifications for teaching the courses assigned. Describe the impact on faculty workload of the proposed change.
6. For a graduate program,
   1. demonstrate scholarship and research capability of faculty members teaching in the program and
   2. if applicable, document faculty experience in directing student research or creative work (always applicable for doctoral programs).



Common Content C – Resources

Library and Learning/Information Resources

1. List and describe discipline-specific learning resources to support a new program. Do not list all library resources; include only those related to the proposed change. If electronic databases are listed, describe the discipline-specific suites of resources rather than the name only of the database or the consortium through which it is accessed (Such as Galileo, Louis, TexShare, Viva, etc.).
2. Document discipline-specific refereed journals and primary source materials. This is particularly important for graduate programs and especially important for doctoral programs.
3. Describe how students enrolled in a new program, at an off-campus instructional site, or in a distance education program can access discipline-specific library and learning/information resources.
4. Describe how students are made aware of library and learning/information resources available to them, how they can learn how to access the resources and are instructed in the use of online resources, as well as on-site library resources.
5. Describe resources to support students in access to and use of library and learning/information resources.

Student Support Services

1. Describe specific programs, services, and activities which will support students enrolled in the new program and / or enrolled at a new off-campus site /additional location and / or enrolled in distance education programs. Do not list student support services which are not relevant to the specific change.

Physical Resources

1. Describe the adequacy of physical facilities which will support the change.
2. Describe equipment which will be available for a new program or available at a new site.
3. Describe the impact that the proposed change will have on physical facilities and equipment for existing programs and services.

Financial Resources

1. Describe in narrative the financial resources needed to initiate and provide on-going support of the proposed change.
2. Provide a budget for the first year of the proposed change. For a branch campus, provide a three-year budget. Do not provide an institutional budget.
3. Include in the budget resources to be directed to institutions or organizations for contractual or support services for the proposed change.
4. Include projected revenues and expenditures and cash flow for the proposed change.
5. Include a contingency plan should expected revenue does not materialize or should costs exceed estimates.



Common Content D – Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes

1. Provide a brief description of institutional assessment processes.
2. Describe how the institution will incorporate the proposed change into the institution-wide assessment infrastructure and processes.
3. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: In addition to student learning outcomes, the institution should identify other appropriate metrics for assessing the value of the program such as student satisfaction, student debt, retention rates, graduation rate, and employment data. See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.



Institutional Changes

Acquisition

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Provide Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), relative to the proposed change.
• If applicable to the change, provide an Institutional Summary form listing all locations for all entities involved in the acquisition where 50% or more of the credit hours toward a degree, diploma, or certificate can be obtained primarily through traditional classroom instruction. Report two types of locations: (1) all off-campus instructional sites and (2) all branch campuses. The sites and branch campuses should be reported in accord with the Commission’s definitions and the directions on the Institutional Summary Form. The acquisition of off-campus instructional sites approved by The Commission Board of Trustees, if appropriate, will include only sites and campuses listed on this form.
• A copy of the institution’s Pre-Acquisition Application submitted to USDE, if appropriate to the change, and all documents/correspondence from the institution to USDE and from USDE to the institution pertaining to the change.
• Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide Common Content C – Resources (p. 81), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide the institution’s financial audit reports for the two most recent fiscal years, and include the institution’s most recent financial aid audit. The most recent year is defined as the fiscal year ending immediately prior to the submission of the prospectus. The institution(s) from which assets ae being acquired are also required to provide the audits as described above. In addition, the institution is required to include a statement of financial position of unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant assets and plant-related debt, which represents the change in unrestricted net assets attributable to operations for the most recent year.
• Provide Common Content D – Resources (p. 83), relative to the proposed change.

Change in Measure of Student Progress to Completion

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Describe the current measure and the proposed measure of student progress to completion.
• Describe the rationale for the change.
• Provide a narrative explanation or a chart illustrating the conversion equivalency between the current method and the proposed method.
• Demonstrate the proposed method will, for all programs, maintain compliance with the Standard 9.2 (program length) of the Principles of Accreditation. Provide equivalencies to semester credit hours, if applicable.
• Provide evidence the proposed measure is published and accessible to all concerned parties (students, faculty, staff) in compliance with the Standard 9.7 (program requirements) of the Principles of Accreditation.
• Provide evidence the proposed measure is published in institutional policy and accurately reflects how the policy and procedures will be implemented in compliance with Standard

10.1 (academic policies) of the Principles of Accreditation.

1. Describe how the institution will determine the amount and level of credit awarded for its courses under the proposed measure regardless of the method of delivery.
2. Describe how the institution will provide oversight of the policy in compliance with The Commission Credit Hours policy and with Standard 10.7 (policies for awarding credit) of the Principles of Accreditation.



Competency-based Education by Course/Credit-based Approach – Institutional-level Approval

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Provide Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide a description of the program or programs that will be taught via credit/course- based competency-based education methodology for the first time. Include the curriculum, outcomes/competencies, and course descriptions. If the CBE modality is being added to an existing program, submit current (non-CBE) and CBE curriculum for comparison. If it is a new program, meeting the new content threshold for approval that will be offered by CBE, submit the required information for New Program Approval. Note: For CBE programs offered by Direct Assessment refer to Competency-based Education by Direct Assessment – Approval.
• Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: Provide an explanation of how curricular breadth and depth are ensured. While a reduced-credit degree may have a more abbreviated general education component and/or more limited minor or elective requirements, students should still be expected to demonstrate an approximately proportional breadth of general education knowledge that are encompassed in a four-year program See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
• Explain the student progression policy, including how student mastery of competencies will be assessed and documented. For example, include the score(s) that equal(s) mastery and how many attempts students are allowed to achieve mastery. If students fail to achieve mastery during an academic term, what grade are they given?
• Explain options available to students who do not find CBE to be a good academic fit.
• Describe the infrastructure to support credit/course-based competency-based education.
• Describe how faculty members will be trained in credit/course-based competency-based education and how courses will be developed.
• Describe technical support for students enrolled in courses delivered by credit/course- based competency-based education and technical support for faculty members.
• Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide Common Content C – Resources (p. 81), relative to the proposed change.
• Describe how effectiveness of programs offered via credit/course-based competency-based education will be assessed.
• Provide Common Content D – Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes (p. 83), relative to the proposed change.



Distance Education – Institutional-level Approval

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Provide Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide a description of the first program that will be taught via distance education. Include the curriculum, outcomes/competencies, and course descriptions. If the distance education modality is being added to an existing program, submit current (traditional face-to-face) and distance education curriculum for comparison. If it is a new program, meeting the new content threshold for approval, that will be offered by distance education, submit the required information for New Program Approval.
• Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: Provide an explanation of how curricular breadth and depth are ensured. While a reduced-credit degree may have a more abbreviated general education component and/or more limited minor or elective requirements, students should still be expected to demonstrate an approximately proportional breadth of general education knowledge that are encompassed in a four-year program See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
• Describe the infrastructure to support distance delivery methods to include the learning management system and the administrative structure the support distance education.
• Describe how faculty members will be trained in distance delivery methodology and how courses will be developed.
• Describe technical support for students enrolled in courses delivered by distance methods and technical support for faculty members.
• Document compliance with Standard 10.6 (distance and correspondence education) of the

Principles of Accreditation.

1. Document the institution’s approval in any state where distance education students may be located.
2. Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change.
3. Provide Common Content C – Resources (p. 81), relative to the proposed change.
4. Describe how effectiveness of programs offered via distance delivery will be assessed.
5. Provide Common Content D – Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes (p.83), relative to the proposed change.



Governance Change

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Provide Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), relative to the proposed change.
• A copy of the institution’s Pre-Acquisition Application submitted to USDE, if appropriate to the change, and all documents/correspondence from the institution to USDE and from USDE to the institution pertaining to the change.
• Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide Common Content C – Resources (p. 81), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide the institution’s financial audit reports for the two most recent fiscal years, and include the institution’s most recent financial aid audit. The most recent year is defined as the fiscal year ending immediately prior to the submission of the prospectus. Additional institutions involved in the change, if appropriate, are also required to provide the audits as described above. In addition, the institution is required to include a statement of financial position of unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant assets and plant-related debt, which represents the change in unrestricted net assets attributable to operations for the most recent year.
• Provide Common Content D – Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes (p. 83), relative to the proposed change.

Institution Closure/Teach-out Plan

• Submit a teach-out plan to include the following:
• Communication
  1. Describe a communication plan to inform students, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders of the institution’s closure. The plan
     1. must not rely on a single medium (e.g., email only),
     2. must be appropriate to each stakeholder,
     3. must include how it will inform students how to access transcripts, other academic records (such as advising plans), financial records (such as payments due to the institution), and financial aid records (such as loan processors),
     4. must explain how it will inform students of any additional costs associated with teach-out options, and
     5. must provide copies of all planned communication from the institution to demonstrate the institution is making accurate statements about students' ability to transfer credits to teach-out institutions.
• Student academic records
  1. Describe a plan to preserve and make available to former students all academic transcripts including validations/confirmations of academic credentials awarded to former students.
  2. Identify the party to whom academic records will be entrusted and include a physical address and contact information.
  3. Identify any state or other governmental agency requirement regarding disposition of academic records.
  4. Describe a plan to inform current and former students how they may request transcript copies.
  5. Include a description of any encumbrances placed on access to academic records such as withholding transcript copies if a former student has an outstanding balance owed to the institution, consistent with current federal regulations.
• Student accounts receivable
  1. Describe a plan to collect outstanding balances owed to the institution by students and former students after the closure.
  2. Include a description of how students and former students will be informed of the institution’s intention to collect.
• Refunds and loan discharges
  1. Describe a plan to provide all potentially eligible students with information about how to obtain a closed school discharge and, if applicable, information on State refund policies.
• Re-employment
  1. Explain how the institution will assist faculty and staff in finding new employment.
• Programs (report on spreadsheet template; see below)
  1. Provide a list of all academic programs offered by the institution for all credentials (e.g., certificates, diplomas, degrees) and for all instructional levels (associate, baccalaureate, master’s, education specialist, or doctoral, as applicable to the institution).
  2. The program list must include for each program
     1. at least two teach-out institutions offering comparable programs where students could complete their program of study, and
     2. for each program / teach-out institution combination,
        1. a statement of assurance that the method of delivery is comparable,
        2. a good faith assessment of the number and types of credits each teach-out institution is willing to accept prior to students’ enrollment,
        3. a statement of assurance that the curricular > requirements at the teach-out institution meet > requirements for professional licensure or > certification as applicable to the program,
        4. a statement of assurance that students are not required > to move or travel substantial distances or durations > with possible exceptions for highly specialized > programs, and
        5. the institution’s plan to provide a clear statement to > students of the tuition and fees of the educational > program and the number and types of credits that will > be accepted by the teach-out institution.
• Teach-out institutions (report on spreadsheet template; see below)
  1. Provide a list of all institutions identified as offering comparable programs where students could complete their programs of study to include
     1. the name and web address of each institution,
     2. the institution’s accreditor or accreditor(s),
     3. a good faith statement of assurance that the institution is > in good standing with its institutional accreditor(s), > the U.S. Department of Education, and is not under > investigation, subject to an action, or being prosecuted > for an issue related to academic quality, > misrepresentation, fraud, or other severe matters by a > law enforcement agency.
• Students (report on spreadsheet template; see below)
  1. Provide a list of all enrolled students by academic program to include each student’s current progress to completion. Student names or other individually identifiable information may be anonymized at the institution's discretion using an identification number or code if the institution can deanonymize (i.e., reidentify) the individual student data if needed.
• Spreadsheet templates
  1. Information for items 6 (Programs), 7 (Teach-out institutions), and 8 (Students) above must be reported on Commission-provided spreadsheet templates. The templates may be accessed from the substantive change webpage under “Documents and Templates”. Instruction and guidance are provided within the templates.
• Teach-out agreements
  1. A teach-out agreement is usually required if any significant consideration other than the transfer of academic credit is agreed upon between the institution and a teach-out institution. If the teach-out institution is only transferring credit and making no additional consideration for students covered under a teach-out plan, then the institutions are, in essence, executing a transfer articulation agreement and a teach-out agreement is not necessary. Teach-out agreements are subject to approval separate from the approval of the teach-out plan.



Institutional Contingency Teach-out Plan

An institution is required to submit an institutional contingency teach-out plan to The Commission within 30 days of notification if the institution is placed or continued on Probation or Probation for Good Cause, or if the institution meets conditions enumerated in the procedures section of this policy originating from the U.S. Department of Education or state authority.

• Submit a teach-out plan to include the following:
• Communication
  1. Describe a communication plan to inform students, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders of the institution’s closure. The plan
     1. must not rely on a single medium (e.g., email only),
     2. must be appropriate to each stakeholder,
     3. must include how it will inform students how to access transcripts, other academic records (such as advising plans), financial records (such as payments due to the institution), and financial aid records (such as loan processors),
     4. must explain how it will inform students of any additional costs associated with teach-out options, and
     5. must provide copies of all planned communication from the institution to demonstrate the institution is making accurate statements about students' ability to transfer credits to teach-out institutions.
• Student academic records
  1. Describe a plan to preserve and make available to former students all academic transcripts including validations/confirmations of academic credentials awarded to former students.
  2. Identify the party to whom academic records will be entrusted and include a physical address and contact information.
  3. Identify any state or other governmental agency requirement regarding disposition of academic records.
  4. Describe a plan to inform current and former students how they may request transcript copies.
  5. Include a description of any encumbrances placed on access to academic records such as withholding transcript copies if a former student has an outstanding balance owed to the institution, consistent with current federal regulations.
• Student accounts receivable
  1. Describe a plan to collect outstanding balances owed to the institution by students and former students after the closure.
  2. Include a description of how students and former students will be informed of the institution’s intention to collect.
• Refunds and loan discharges
  1. Describe a plan to provide all potentially eligible students with information about how to obtain a closed school discharge and, if applicable, information on State refund policies.
• Re-employment
  1. Explain how the institution will assist faculty and staff in finding new employment.
• Programs (report on spreadsheet template; see below)
  1. Provide a list of all academic programs offered by the institution for all credentials (e.g., certificates, diplomas, degrees) and for all instructional levels (associate, baccalaureate, master’s, education specialist, or doctoral, as applicable to the institution).
  2. The program list must include for each program
     1. at least two teach-out institutions offering comparable programs where students could complete their program of study, and
     2. for each program / teach-out institution combination,
        1. a statement of assurance that the method of delivery is comparable,
        2. a good faith assessment of the number and types of credits each teach-out institution is willing to accept prior to students’ enrollment,
        3. a statement of assurance that the curricular > requirements at the teach-out institution meet > requirements for professional licensure or > certification as applicable to the program,
        4. a statement of assurance that students are not required > to move or travel substantial distances or durations > with possible exceptions for highly specialized > programs, and
        5. the institution’s plan to provide a clear statement to > students of the tuition and fees of the educational > program and the number and types of credits that will > be accepted by the teach-out institution.
• Teach-out institutions (report on spreadsheet template; see below)
  1. Provide a list of all institutions identified as offering comparable programs where students could complete their programs of study to include
     1. the name and web address of each institution,
     2. the institution’s accreditor or accreditor(s),
     3. a good faith statement of assurance that the institution is > in good standing with its institutional accreditor(s), > the U.S. Department of Education, and is not under > investigation, subject to an action, or being prosecuted > for an issue related to academic quality, > misrepresentation, fraud, or other severe matters by a > law enforcement agency.
• Students (report on spreadsheet template; see below)
  1. Provide a list of all enrolled students by academic program to include each student’s current progress to completion. Student names or other individually identifiable information may be anonymized at the institution's discretion using an identification number or code if the institution can deanonymize (i.e., reidentify) the individual student data if needed.
• Spreadsheet templates
  1. Information for items 6 (Programs), 7 (Teach-out institutions), and 8 (Students) above must be reported on Commission-provided spreadsheet templates. The templates may also be accessed from the substantive change webpage under “Documents and Templates.” Instruction and guidance are provided within the templates.
• Teach-out agreements (optional at the institution’s discretion)
  1. A teach-out agreement is usually required if any significant consideration other than the transfer of academic credit is agreed upon between the institution and a teach-out institution. If the teach-out institution is only transferring credit and making no additional consideration for students covered under a teach-out plan, then the institutions are, in essence, executing a transfer articulation agreement and a teach-out agreement is not necessary. Teach-out agreements are subject to approval separate from the approval of the teach-out plan.



Level Authorization Addition

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Provide the intended implementation date.
• Provide the level authorization for which the institution is seeking approval; i.e., what instruction and credential level is the institution seeking to add authorization to offer: I (associate), II (baccalaureate), III (masters), or IV (specialist). Indicate one only.
• Provide the program or programs to be offered in the first year of implementation at the new authorization level. For each program, provide the credential (e.g., Associate of Arts, Master of Education, etc.) and the discipline (e.g., Mechatronics, Early Childhood Education, etc.).
• Provide Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), relative to the proposed change.
• Describe the institution's
  1. assessment of the level authorization's impact on the institution's capacity to support the level's program(s) instruction, students and student support services, library/learning and information resources, faculty, and other affected institutional capacities, and
  2. how the institution will manage the impact of the level authorization while maintain compliance with the Principles of Accreditation and The Commission policies.
• Separately, for each program identified in the item above:
  1. Provide the curriculum for the entire program.
  2. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: Provide an explanation of how curricular breadth and depth are ensured. While a reduced-credit degree may have a more abbreviated general education component and/or more limited minor or elective requirements, students should still be expected to demonstrate an approximately proportional breadth of general education knowledge that are encompassed in a four-year program See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
  3. Provide program-specific goals (objectives) and specific student learning outcomes for the program.
  4. Describe how the student learning outcomes for the program will be assessed.
  5. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: The knowledge, skills, abilities, and dispositions of graduates must be clearly stated and consistent with the content of the degree. Evidence of how the student learning outcomes will be introduced, practiced, applied, and assessed at various levels across the curriculum must be included in the prospectus. See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
  6. Provide course descriptions for all courses in the proposed program. Do not provide syllabi or catalogs (though course description excerpts from a catalog are acceptable).
  7. Describe admissions and graduation requirements for the program.
  8. Provide the planned method(s) of delivery, as defined in policy, of the program.
  9. Provide the planned location(s) at which the program will be delivered, i.e., on- campus and/or at specific off-campus instructional site(s). (Providing this information does not replace submitting a notification or prospectus for approval, if necessary, of an off-campus instructional site as required by policy.)
  10. Demonstrate compliance with Standard 10.7 (policies for awarding credit) of the Principles of Accreditation.
  11. Describe administrative oversight to ensure the quality of the program.
  12. For a program offered in compressed time frames, describe the methodology for determining that levels of knowledge and competencies comparable to those required in the traditional formats have been achieved.
  13. Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change.
  14. Provide Common Content C – Resources (p. 81), relative to the proposed change.
  15. Provide Common Content D – Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes (p. 83), relative to the proposed change.



Level Change to a Higher Level

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Provide a current, completed Institutional Summary Form Prepared for The Commission Reviews.
• Program information
  1. Provide the program or programs to be offered at the higher level. For each program, provide the credential and the discipline; e.g., Bachelor of Science in Physics, Master of Fine Arts in Digital Arts, Doctor of Philosophy in Genomics, etc. Avoid using abbreviations only. Note: Only programs or coursework submitted for review at the new level will be included in the Board of Trustees' action. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: the name of the program must clearly identify it as a reduced credit program. The following names are acceptable: Reduced-Hour Bachelor of (Discipline), or Abridged Bachelors of (Discipline). See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
  2. Provide the locations where the program will be offered. If the proposed programs/courses will be offered at off-campus instructional sites, list each site and address as currently on record at The Commission, the mode of delivery, and the percentage of the program that will be offered at each site. Note: Sites offering 25% or more of a program should be on record at The Commission at the time of the level change application submission. If more than 50% of a program will be offered at a site, the site must be approved separate from the level change. Including an instructional site in the level change prospectus -- whether for a site subject to notification (offering 25-49% of a program) or for a site subject to approval (offering 50% or more of a program -- does not relieve an institution of its obligation to submit notification or secure approval for a site as warranted. Sites offering less than 25% of the program should be reported for this item but there is no separate off-campus instructional site notification or approval obligation.
• General institutional and program information
  1. Provide the name of the agency or entity that has legally authorized the institution to provide instruction and credentials at the new level.
  2. Document the charter, letter of authorization, or letter of approval from the appropriate agency or organization indicating the institution may offer instruction and credentials at the new level. Board minutes indicating approval are acceptable documentation; board minutes that do not indicate approval and board agendas are not acceptable documentation. All required documentation must be included with the prospectus at the time of submission; supplemental or piecemeal submission of documentation is not possible.
  3. Provide the date the institution intends to enroll the first students at the higher level.
  4. Provide the projected date the first students will graduate from a program at the higher level.
• Enrollment information
  1. Referring to your most recently completed The Commission Institutional Profile, provide the following enrollments (headcounts) for the institution for the most recent fall term:
     1. The year for which this fall term data is reported
     2. Full-time undergraduate students
     3. Full-time post-baccalaureate students
     4. For-credit part-time undergraduate students
     5. For-credit part-time post-baccalaureate students
     6. Non-credit course enrollment students
     7. Total headcount (sum of the five preceding items)
  2. Provide the following projected enrollments (headcounts) for the new program(s) at the proposed higher level:
     1. Full-time students
     2. Part-time students
     3. Non-credit students
     4. Total projected headcount (sum of the three preceding items)
• Describe the rationale for the new program(s) including an assessment of need.
• Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: Make a strong case that this major/discipline lends itself to this degree format and clearly justify why a reduced-credit degree is more appropriate for the educational goals of the degree than a traditional bachelor’s degree. The prospectus should also indicate the relationship of the major or discipline to workforce needs. See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
• Financial resources
  1. Provide a budget for the new program(s) to include revenues and expenses for the first three years of operation. (Standard 13.1: Financial resources [CR] and Standard 13.3: Financial responsibility)
  2. Provide a copy of the full financial statement audit from the most recent audited fiscal year. (Standard 13.2: Financial documents [CR])
• In response to the following selected standards, explain how the institution will maintain compliance relative to the proposed level change and new program(s) at the new level:
  1. Standard 2.1: Institutional mission [CR]. The institution has a clearly defined, comprehensive, and published mission specific to the institution and appropriate for higher education. The mission addresses teaching and learning and, where applicable, research and public service. As part of the response, clarify that the mission statement is inclusive of the expansion to a new program(s) at a higher level.
  2. Standard 5.4: Qualified administrative/academic officers. The institution employs and regularly evaluates administrative and academic officers with appropriate experience and qualifications to lead the institution.
  3. Standard 6.2.a: Faculty qualifications. For each of its educational programs, the institution justifies and documents the qualifications of its faculty members.
     1. Outline faculty designated for the change by creating a > prospective roster that will support the program(s). > Provide faculty qualifications on the Faculty Roster Form > [DOCX]. > Use the standard Faculty Roster Form and instructions > [PDF]; > do not create a new form or format. Limit entries to those > faculty members assigned to the new program(s).
     2. For graduate programs, provide documentation of the > scholarship and research capabilities of faculty.
     3. For doctoral programs, provide documentation of faculty > experience in directing dissertation research.
  4. Standard 6.2.b: Program faculty. For each of its educational programs, the institution employs a sufficient number of full-time faculty members to ensure curriculum and program quality, integrity, and review.
     1. The narrative should only address the impact of the program > expansion (new programs and affected existing programs – > e.g., include information on the impact of staffing at the > lower degree level(s) in related fields of study).
     2. Describe the impact of the program expansion on faculty > workload.
     3. Provide a list of newly hired faculty to support this > initiative.
  5. Standard 6.2.c: Program coordination. For each of its educational programs, the institution assigns appropriate responsibility for program coordination. The narrative should only address the new program(s).
  6. Standard 8.2.a: Student outcomes: educational programs. The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results in student learning outcomes for each of its educational programs.
     1. Explain how the institution is monitoring the quality of the > new program(s).
     2. Summarize current procedures for the assessment of learning > outcomes and achievement, and how results are being or > will be used to improve the new programs.
     3. Include relevant information about existing related > programs that may serve as indicators of the > institutional effectiveness process that apply to the new > program(s).
     4. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: The > knowledge, skills, abilities, and dispositions of > graduates must be clearly stated and consistent with the > content of the degree. Evidence of how the student > learning outcomes will be introduced, practiced, applied, > and assessed at various levels across the curriculum must > be included in the prospectus. See Reduced-Credit > Undergraduate Degrees Policy > Statement > and
  7. Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.Standard 9.1: Program content [CR]. Educational programs (a) embody a coherent course of study, (b) are compatible with the stated mission and goals of the institution, and (c) are based upon fields of study appropriate to higher education. The narrative should only address the new program(s). Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: Provide an explanation of how curricular breadth and depth are ensured. While a reduced-credit degree may have a more abbreviated general education component and/or more limited minor or elective requirements, students should still be expected to demonstrate an approximately proportional breadth of general education knowledge that are encompassed in a four-year program See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
  8. Standard 9.2: Program length [CR]. The institution offers one or more degree programs based on at least 60 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the associate level; at least 120 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the baccalaureate level; or at least 30 semester credit hours or the equivalent at the post- baccalaureate, graduate, or professional level. The institution provides an explanation of equivalencies when using units other than semester credit hours. The institution provides an appropriate justification for all degree programs and combined degree programs that include fewer than the required number of semester credit hours or its equivalent unit. The narrative should only address the new program(s). Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: Reduced hour undergraduate degree should require fewer than 120 credit hours, but more than eighty-nine (89) credit hours (or the equivalent quarter credit hours or clock hours). If an institution wishes to offer a program below ninety (90) hours, the option of a certificate should be considered. See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
  9. Standard 9.4: Institutional credits for an undergraduate degree. At least 25 percent of the credit hours required for an undergraduate degree are earned through instruction offered by the institution awarding the degree.

Address Standard 9.4 only if the institution is moving from Level I to Level II.

1. Standard 9.5: Institutional credits for a graduate/professional degree. At least one- third of the credit hours required for a graduate or a post-baccalaureate professional degree are earned through instruction offered by the institution awarding the degree. Address Standard 9.5 only if the level change involves programs at the graduate-level.
2. Standard 9.6: Post-baccalaureate rigor and curriculum. Post-baccalaureate professional degree programs and graduate degree programs are progressively more advanced in academic content than undergraduate programs, and are structured (a) to include knowledge of the literature of the discipline and (b) to ensure engagement in research and/or appropriate professional practice and training. Address Standard 9.6 only if the level change includes graduate programs
3. Standard 9.7: Program requirements. The institution publishes requirements for its undergraduate, graduate, and post-baccalaureate professional programs, as applicable. The requirements conform to commonly accepted standards and practices for degree programs. The narrative should only address the new program(s). Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: the institution must demonstrate (e.g, provide a draft announcement) that it has/will communicate with all stakeholders: 1) describing the structure and purpose of the new reduced-credit hour program as outlined in the guidelines; 2) disclosing that the reduced-credit undergraduate degree may not fulfill admission and pre-requisite requirements for some graduate and professional programs, and/or may not meet expectations of some future employers. Indicate the names of the websites, catalogs, publications, flyers, etc. where the reduced credit hour program is publicized. The institution should document this in a public and transparent manner. See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
4. Standard 10.4: Academic governance. The institution (a) publishes and implements policies on the authority of faculty in academic and governance matters, (b) demonstrates that educational programs for which academic credit is awarded are approved consistent with institutional policy, and (c) places primary responsibility for the content, quality, and effectiveness of the curriculum with its faculty. The narrative should only address the new program(s).
5. Standard 10.5: Admissions policies and practices. The institution: (a) publishes admissions policies consistent with its mission; (b) ensures that its recruitment materials and presentations accurately represent the institution’s practices, policies, and accreditation status; and (c) ensures that independent contractors or agents used for recruiting purposes and for admission activities are governed by the same principles and policies as institutional employees. The narrative should only address the new program(s).
6. Standard 10.7: Policies for awarding credit. The institution publishes and implements policies for determining the amount and level of credit awarded for its courses, regardless of format or mode of delivery. These policies require oversight by persons academically qualified to make the necessary judgments. In educational programs not based on credit hours (e.g., direct assessment programs), the institution has a sound means for determining credit equivalencies.
7. Standard 10.8: Evaluating and awarding external academic credit. The institution publishes policies for evaluating, awarding and accepting credit not originating from the institution. The institution ensures (a) the academic quality of any credit or coursework recorded on its transcript, (b) an approval process with oversight by persons academically qualified to make the necessary judgments, and (c) the credit awarded is comparable to a designated credit experience and is consistent with the institution’s mission. Emphasize aspects of this standard that may have special relevance to the program expansion at the new degree level.
8. Standard 11.1: Library and learning/information resources [CR]. The institution provides adequate and appropriate library and learning/information resources, services, and support for its mission. The narrative should only address the new program(s).
9. Standard 11.3: Library and learning/information access. The institution provides

(a) student and faculty access and user privileges to its library services and (b) access to regular and timely instruction in the use of the library and other learning/information resources.

1. Standard 12.1: Student support services [CR]. The institution provides appropriate academic and student support programs, services, and activities consistent with its mission. The narrative should address the appropriateness of student support services available to students at the new degree level.
2. Standard 12.4: Student complaints. The institution (a) publishes appropriate and clear procedures for addressing written student complaints, (b) demonstrates that it follows the procedures when resolving them, and (c) maintains a record of student complaints that can be accessed upon request by The Commission.
3. Standard 13.7: Physical resources. The institution ensures adequate physical facilities and resources, both on and off campus, that appropriately serve the needs of the institution’s educational programs, support services, and other mission- related activities. The narrative should emphasize facilities relevant to the new program(s).



Merger/Consolidation

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
  1. Provide Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), relative to the proposed change.
  2. A copy of the institution’s Pre-Acquisition Application submitted to USDE, if appropriate to the change, and all documents/correspondence from the institution to USDE and from USDE to the institution pertaining to the change.
  3. Provide an Institutional Summary form listing all locations for all entities involved in the merger/consolidation where 50% or more of the credit hours toward a degree, diploma, or certificate can be obtained primarily through traditional classroom instruction. Report two types of locations: (1) all off-campus instructional sites and (2) all branch campuses. The sites and branch campuses should be reported in accord with the Commission’s definitions and the directions on the Institutional Summary Form. The new entity approved by The Commission Board of Trustees will include only sites and campuses listed on this form. The main campus of the consolidated institution must be identified, and all other formerly independent campuses should be listed on the submitted forms (if such sites are to be retained as an off-campus instructional site/additional location or branch campus).
  4. Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change.
  5. Provide Common Content C – Resources (p. 81), relative to the proposed change.
  6. Provide the lead institution’s financial audit reports for the two most recent fiscal years, and include the institution’s most recent financial aid audit. The most recent year is defined as the fiscal year ending immediately prior to the submission of the prospectus. Each institution involved in the merger/consolidation is also required to provide the audits as described above. In addition, the lead institution is required to include a statement of financial position of unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant assets and plant-related debt, which represents the change in unrestricted net assets attributable to operations for the most recent year.
  7. Provide Common Content D – Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes (p. 83), relative to the proposed change.
  8. Provide, within 30 days of receipt, documentation of USDE approval of the change (including the date of USDE approval) to subchange@sacscoc.org

Mission Change

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Provide the current mission statement.
• Provide the proposed mission statement.
• Provide the intended implementation or effective date of the change.
• Provide evidence of the institution’s governing board approval of the mission change
• Describe the impetus and rationale for the mission change.
• Assess the impact on the number and mix of programs in the institution’s portfolio.
• Assess the impact on the number and composition of the institution’s faculty in the short- and long-term.
• Assess the impact on staff members.
• Describe the impact on the non-academic operations of the institutions, e.g., business services, facilities and maintenance, intercollegiate athletics, etc.
• Describe the current financial stability of the institution.
• Assess the financial impact of the mission change.
• Describe any expected, forthcoming substantive change because of (not concurrent with) the mission change, e.g., new program prospectuses, off-campus instructional site prospectuses, level change application, etc.



Ownership, Form of Control, or Legal Status Change

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Provide Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), relative to the proposed change.
• A copy of the institution’s Pre-Acquisition Application submitted to USDE, if appropriate to the change, and all documents/correspondence from the institution to USDE and from USDE to the institution pertaining to the change.
• Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide Common Content C – Resources (p. 81), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide the institution’s financial audit reports for the two most recent fiscal years, and include the institution’s most recent financial aid audit. The most recent year is defined as the fiscal year ending immediately prior to the submission of the prospectus. Each additional institution involved in the change, if appropriate, is also required to provide the audits as described above. In addition, the institution is required to include a statement of financial position of unrestricted net assets, exclusive of plant assets and plant-related debt, which represents the change in unrestricted net assets attributable to operations for the most recent year.
• Provide Common Content D – Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes (p. 83), relative to the proposed change.

Prison Education Program – Institutional-level Approval

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), as defined in the substantive change policy, relative to the proposed prison education program.
• A copy of a signed final written agreement between the institution and the oversight entity (or entities) responsible for the facilities where confined or incarcerated students are located addressing all requirements stipulated in Part 668.236 of the federal regulations, including,
  1. the oversight entity’s approval of the institution to operate in its facilities;
  2. the oversight entity’s approval of the programs to be offered in > its facilities with programs identified by name to include, > for each, credential (e.g., Associate of Arts, certificate, > diploma, etc.) and discipline (e.g., Dental Hygiene, Medical > Office Management, Web Development, etc.);
  3. how the oversight entity will determine, after the initial > two-year approval, that the programs operating in its > facilities are in the best interest of students;
  4. assurance of transferability of credits to at least one other > institution for each program identified above;
  5. programs to be offered satisfy professional licensure or > certification requirement, if applicable;
  6. programs to be offered do not prohibit licensure or employment > of graduates who were formerly incarcerated, if applicable; > and
  7. acknowledgement that PEP programs and sites must be taught-out > and closed by the institution if the institution is subject to > adverse action by The Commission.
• Evidence of an effective methodology developed and implemented by the institution to establish the prison education program, in collaboration with the oversight entity (or entities), meets the same standards as substantially similar programs delivered to non- prison education program students. The methodology may include PEP versus non-PEP similarity evaluations of
  1. academic advising;
  2. academic policies such as grade appeals, conditions for continued enrollment, program completion time limits, student codes of conduct, etc.;
  3. access to appropriate library / learning and information resources;
  4. access to learning and student support services;
  5. admission requirements;
  6. career services;
  7. curricula;
  8. faculty qualifications;
  9. student learning outcomes; and
  10. other measures or evidence at the institution’s and the oversight entity’s discretion

Prison Education Program – Best Interest Review

Institutions must submit their letter of approval from the USDE for each of the first two PEP locations to The Commission within 30 days of approval. Letters of approval should be emailed to subchange@sacscoc.org. Include the SC# for the original The Commission PEP Approval in your email.

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Describe the methodology for determining “best interest” agreed upon by the oversight entity and the institution and submitted in the original PEP Approval prospectus to The Commission (The Commission Substantive Change Policy and Procedures, Prison Education Program – Institutional-Level Approval, Item 2.c.)
• Discuss and describe all changes made to the methodology described in item 1 over the two years following USDE approval.
• Describe how relevant stakeholders were included by the institution and oversight entity in the assessment of the “best interest” determination.
• Provide the two-year “best interest” report from the oversight entity with relevant data and assessment results documenting the findings of the oversight entity, in collaboration with the institution. Considering the unique geographic and other constraints of prison education programs, the assessment report must address:
  1. The experience, credentials, and rates of turnover or departure of instructors for the prison education program in comparison to other programs at the institution,
  2. The transferability of credits for courses available to confined or incarcerated individuals and the applicability of such credits toward related degree or certificate programs in comparison to other programs at the institution
  3. The prison education program's offering of relevant academic and career advising services to participating confined or incarcerated individuals, while they are confined or incarcerated, in advance of reentry, and upon release, in comparison to other programs at the institution.
  4. The ability of all formerly confined or incarcerated individuals to fully transfer their credits and continue their programs at any location of the institution or any other institution that offers a comparable program, including by the same mode of instruction.

The assessment report also may address one or more of the following, including whether these rates/measures meet thresholds established by the oversight entity with input from relevant stakeholders:

1. Rates of recidivism, not including recidivism by the student after a reasonable number of years of release and which only include new felony convictions, defined as each sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month (see United States Sentencing Guideline section 4A1.1(a) for criteria).
2. Rates of completion reported by the Department, which do not include any students who were transferred across facilities and which account for the status of part-time students.
3. Rates of continuing education post-release for confined or incarcerated individuals, as determined by the percentage of students who re-enroll in higher education reported by the Department.
4. Job placement rates in the relevant field (indicate if they meet any applicable standards required by the accrediting agency for the program or by the State where the institution is authorized. If no standard job placement rate applies to prison education programs offered by the institution, the oversight entity may define, and the institution may report, a job placement rate, with input from relevant stakeholders).
5. Earnings for formerly incarcerated individuals, which could include measuring earnings against a threshold established by the oversight entity; and
6. Any other relevant measures demonstrating the program is in the “best interest” of confined or incarcerated students.



Program Changes

Competency-based Education by Direct Assessment – Approval

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Program Information
  1. Provide Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), relative to the proposed change.
  2. Explain how the program meets the policy-defined characteristics of a competency- based education program by direct assessment versus a competency-based education program by course/credit-based approach.
  3. Provide the curriculum for the program, including a description of each competency. The curriculum must include
     1. all competencies required to be demonstrated to complete the program,
     2. a description of each competency,
     3. the sequence through which competencies will be completed.
  4. Provide the program's student learning outcomes if different from the program's competencies. For example, student learning outcomes may be individual competencies and/or clusters of related competencies. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: The knowledge, skills, abilities, and dispositions of graduates must be clearly stated and consistent with the content of the degree. Evidence of how the student learning outcomes will be introduced, practiced, applied, and assessed at various levels across the curriculum must be included in the prospectus. See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and
  5. Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.Demonstrate how the curriculum
     1. creates a coherent program of study in the discipline, and
     2. represents teaching and learning at the program's intended > instructional level, i.e., teaching at learning at the > associate, baccalaureate, master's, specialist, or > doctoral level.
     3. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: Provide an explanation of how curricular breadth and depth are ensured. While a reduced-credit degree may have a more abbreviated general education component and/or more limited minor or elective requirements, students should still be expected to demonstrate an approximately proportional breadth of general education knowledge that are encompassed in a four-year program See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and
  6. Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.Explain how the program's competencies are related to or derived from external standards, i.e., industry or licensure standards. If competencies are not related to or derived from external standards, explain the method or process by which the program's competencies were identified and defined
  7. Identify the method(s) of delivery by which the program's instruction will be delivered (face-to-face, distance education, etc.).
  8. Explain how students will engage in regular and substantive interaction with the faculty.
  9. Provide the planned location(s) at which the program will be delivered, i.e., on- campus and/or at specific off-campus instructional site(s). (Providing this information does not replace submitting a notification or prospectus for approval, if necessary, of an off-campus instructional site as required by policy.)
• Institutional Support and Practices
  1. Describe admissions and graduation requirements for the program.
     1. Document that recruitment materials are clear and comprehensive; include the structure and expectations of the program, tuition and fees, and academic policies, etc. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: the institution must demonstrate (e.g, provide a draft announcement) that it has/will communicate with all stakeholders: 1) describing the structure and purpose of the new reduced-credit hour program as outlined in the guidelines; 2) disclosing that the reduced-credit undergraduate degree may not fulfill admission and pre-requisite requirements for some graduate and professional programs, and/or may not meet expectations of some future employers. Indicate the names of the websites, catalogs, publications, flyers, etc. where the reduced credit hour program is publicized. The institution should document this in a public and transparent manner. See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
  2. If the institution engages a contractor to provide services for a direct assessment program, provide the complete, fully executed agreement with contact information for both parties. (See Cooperative Academic Agreements in The Commission

Substantive Change Policies and Procedures.)

1. Demonstrate compliance with Standard 10.7 (policies for awarding credit) of the Principles of Accreditation. Include the methodology used to determine the credit hour equivalence of the direct assessment measures.
2. Explain
   1. how many attempts a student is given to demonstrate mastery of a > competency, and
   2. what happens if a student fails to achieve mastery of a > competency (e.g., options for academic support, remedial > instruction, etc.).
3. Describe administrative oversight to ensure the quality of the program. Include qualifications of person(s) directly responsible for administrative oversight on the Faculty Roster.
4. Describe how tuition and fees are determined based on the institution’s contribution to the development or formation of the student’s knowledge and skills.
5. Describe and explain special arrangements for the direct assessment program (in contrast to non-direct assessment programs) for
   1. course grades or grade equivalents;
   2. institutional policies on satisfactory academic standing, i.e., > academic warnings or probations;
   3. recording competencies on academic transcripts;
   4. transfer policies, e.g., accepting previously completed > traditional course credit hours as satisfying a direct > assessment program's defined competency or competencies, > prohibiting credit transfer, etc.; and
   5. withdrawal and refund policies.
6. Provide a statement of assurance and evidence for each of the following that the institution:
   1. assists students in seeking title IV student aid funds for those > courses, modules or components of the academic program that > the institution contributes to the development or formation of > the student's mastery of competencies;
   2. has policies and procedures to address the disbursement of > financial aid, and tuition charges and refunds;
   3. has the option to charge a reasonable fee for its assessment of > a student's prior learning used to satisfy one or more > competencies required in the program's curriculum and the > transcription of those competencies; and
   4. will charge tuition only for those courses, modules, components, and services that the institution contributes to the development or formation of the student or for the term in which the student is enrolled in the direct assessment program.
7. Assessment
   1. Describe how the competencies will be developed and assessed and by whom (include these person(s) on the Faculty Roster with their qualifications)
   2. Describe how student mastery of each competency will be determined.
   3. Describe the methodology for determining that levels of knowledge and competencies are comparable to those required in the traditional formats (for general education and disciplinary courses, if applicable).
   4. Describe how faculty members will be trained in competency-based direct assessment.
   5. Provide Common Content D – Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes (p. 83), relative to the proposed change. Describe how effectiveness of the program(s) offered via competency-based direct assessment will be assessed.
8. Faculty and Other Resources
   1. Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change. Substitute individual competencies or sets of related competencies for courses. The Faculty Roster must clearly demonstrate a faculty member's qualification to teach the competencies to which they are assigned.
   2. Provide Common Content C – Resources (p. 81), relative to the proposed change.
   3. Describe technical support available to students and faculty engaged in this competency-based direct assessment program.



Cooperative Academic Arrangement with Non-Title IV Entities – Approval

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• The program or programs for which the entity/entities will provide academic content.
• The rationale for entering into the agreement.
• A description of the expected benefits to (a) the students and (b) the institution.
• The name and contact information for at least one person at the institution and at each participating entity.
• Demonstrate the institution’s determination that the entity or entities in the agreement are non-title IV entities for the purpose of substantive change as provided in the Cooperative Academic Arrangements Definitions and Guidelines section of this policy.
• A statement of the institution’s intent for students enrolled in the program(s) covered under the agreement to be eligible to receive title IV federal financial aid including the portion of each program or programs that will be eligible.
  1. If the intent is for students to receive title IV aid,
     1. demonstrate the institution has assessed and reached a > good-faith conclusion of the program(s) title IV > eligibility under the terms of the agreement, and
     2. if any portion of any program or programs will not be > eligible for title IV aid, demonstrate the institution’s > plan to communicate this information to the affected > students prior to initial matriculation and to any other > impacted party/parties.
  2. If the intent is students will not receive title IV aid, demonstrate the institution’s plan to communicate this information to the affected students prior to initial matriculation and to any other impacted party/parties.
• Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change.
• A copy of a signed and dated written agreement amongst all parties to include:
  1. roles and responsibilities of all parties,
  2. a description of the regularly scheduled evaluation process to validate quality and integrity of the content,
  3. a description of the regularly scheduled review and approval by all parties of course content and, as warranted, program curricula,
  4. assessment of student learning outcomes and acceptable thresholds of demonstrated student learning,
  5. statements that
     1. The Commission accreditation does not extend to the non-The Commission entities and
     2. The Commission institution is responsible for ensuring compliance by the participating entity/entities, and
  6. provisions for the regular review of the agreement including renewal and termination of the agreement.



Method of Delivery – Approval

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• The name of the program (to indicate the discipline).
• The credential to be awarded (e.g., Associate of Arts, Master of Accounting).
• The instructional level (associate, baccalaureate, master’s, education specialist, or doctoral, if not obvious from the credential).
• The method of delivery to be added: competency-based education, distance education, or face-to-face instruction.
• The intended implementation date.
• If the institution is on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION, provide an assessment of the impact of the addition of a method of delivery relative to the reason the institution is on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION.
• Demonstrate the addition of a method of delivery will not negatively impact student learning outcomes, student support services, library and learning/information resources, or institutional financial stability.
• If the institution is seeking method of delivery approval due to its participation in the federal Prison Education Program, include the institution’s The Commission PEP approval date and case identification (Case ID).



New Program – Approval

*New – March 2026 – All reduced credit hour undergraduate degrees must be submitted for new program approval regardless of the percent of new content.

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Provide Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide the curriculum for the entire program.
• Provide program-specific goals (objectives) and specific student learning outcomes for the program. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: The knowledge, skills, abilities, and dispositions of graduates must be clearly stated and consistent with the content of the degree. Evidence of how the student learning outcomes will be introduced, practiced, applied, and assessed at various levels across the curriculum must be included in the prospectus. See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and
• Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.Describe how the student learning outcomes for the program will be assessed.
• Provide course descriptions for all courses in the proposed program. Do not provide syllabi or catalogs (though course description excerpts from a catalog are acceptable).
• Describe admissions and graduation requirements for the program.
• Provide the planned method(s) of delivery, as defined in policy, of the program.
• Provide the planned location(s) at which the program will be delivered, i.e., on-campus and/or at specific off-campus instructional site(s). (Providing this information does not replace submitting a notification or prospectus for approval, if necessary, of an off-campus instructional site as required by policy.)
• Demonstrate compliance with Standard 10.7 (policies for awarding credit) of the Principles of Accreditation.
• Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: Reduced hour undergraduate degree should require fewer than 120 credit hours, but more than eighty-nine (89) credit hours (or the equivalent quarter credit hours or clock hours). If an institution wishes to offer a program below ninety (90) hours, the option of a certificate should be considered. See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
• Describe administrative oversight to ensure the quality of the program.
• For a program offered in compressed time frames, describe the methodology for determining that levels of knowledge and competencies comparable to those required in the traditional formats have been achieved. Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: Provide an explanation of how curricular breadth and depth are ensured. While a reduced-credit degree may have a more abbreviated general education component and/or more limited minor or elective requirements, students should still be expected to demonstrate an approximately proportional breadth of general education knowledge that are encompassed in a four-year program See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
• Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree programs: the institution must demonstrate (e.g, provide a draft announcement) that it has/will communicate with all stakeholders: 1) describing the structure and purpose of the new reduced-credit hour program as outlined in the guidelines; 2) disclosing that the reduced-credit undergraduate degree may not fulfill admission and pre-requisite requirements for some graduate and professional programs, and/or may not meet expectations of some future employers. Indicate the names of the websites, catalogs, publications, flyers, etc. where the reduced credit hour program is publicized. The institution should document this in a public and transparent manner. See Reduced-Credit Undergraduate Degrees Policy Statement and Reduced Credit Hour Undergraduate Degree Guidelines.
• Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide Common Content C – Resources (p. 81), relative to the proposed change.
• Provide Common Content D – Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes (p. 83), relative to the proposed change.



Program Closure/Teach-Out Plan Approval

• Submit a teach-out plan to include the following:
• Provide the closure date, defined by The Commission as the date when students are no longer

admitted.

1. Provide a communication plan to inform all affected parties of the closure to include
   1. how each of the following will be informed for the closure:
      1. currently enrolled students,
      2. students with lapsed enrollment (i.e., not currently enrolled but recently enrolled), and
      3. prospective students.
   2. how faculty and staff will be informed, viz., admissions and recruiting / marketing staffs; and
   3. how community or industry partners will be informed. If not applicable, provide an affirmative statement to that effect.
2. If the institution is providing options for students to complete at another institution(s), provide copies of all planned communication from the institution and from the teach-out institution(s) related to the closure. All communication must demonstrate the institutions are making accurate statements about students’ ability to transfer credits to the teach-out institution(s) and disclose tuition, fees, and other costs at the teach-out institution(s).
3. An explanation of how all affected students will be helped to complete their programs of study with minimal disruption or additional costs.
4. An explanation of whether the students subject to the teach-out plan will incur additional charges or other expenses because of the teach-out and, if so, how the students will be notified.
5. Copies of signed teach-out agreements with other institutions, if applicable.
6. A description of how faculty and staff will be redeployed or helped to find new employment.



Program Length Change

*New – March 2026 – All reduced credit hour undergraduate degrees must be submitted for new program approval regardless of the percent of new content.

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• Provide a description of the program.
• Provide the intended implementation date.
• Identify which condition describes this program; i.e., why the program length change is being submitted for approval (indicate one only):
  1. the program's length is changing by 25% or more –AND– students' expected time to completion is changing by more than one term;
  2. the institution is on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION –AND– the program's length is changing by 25% or more; or
  3. the institution is seeking approval as an exception to policy-defined criteria to meet federal requirement that limit program length for some gainful employment programs.
• Describe the rationale for the increase or decrease in program length.
• Describe how the change was approved by the institution.
• Describe how the faculty participated in the review and approval of the planned change.
• Provide a ‘before’ and ‘after’ comparison of the curriculum.
• Describe changes in student learning outcomes because of the program length change.
• Provide an analysis of the impact of the change in student learning outcomes.
• For a decrease in program length, explain how program quality and integrity are maintained with fewer credit hours and/or a shorter time-to-completion.
• Provide an explanation of the impact on students’ time-to-completion.
• Provide an explanation of the financial impact to students.
• Provide an explanation of the impact on staffing and faculty workloads.



Program Designed for Prior Learning – Approval

*New – March 2026 – All reduced credit hour undergraduate degrees must be submitted for new program approval regardless of the percent of new content.

þ Submit a prospectus to include the following:

1. The name of the program (to include the program’s discipline).
2. The credential to be awarded (e.g., Bachelor of Applied Science, Master of Professional Studies, etc.).
3. The program’s instructional level (associate, baccalaureate, master’s, education specialist, or doctoral, if not obvious from the credential).
4. The intended implementation date.
5. A description of the prior learning required as a condition of admission.
6. A description of how the institution
   1. will assess prior learning,
   2. award credit, if applicable, for prior learning,
   3. establish the validity of its prior learning assessment,
   4. how faculty participate in the assessment of prior learning,
   5. how the faculty involved in the assessment of prior learning are qualified in the disciplines in which credit for prior learning is awarded, and
   6. how the institution, with faculty involvement, periodically assesses third parties on which it relies for prior learning assessment, if applicable.
7. Demonstrate compliance with Standard 10.7 (Policies for awarding credit) for the Principles of Accreditation.
8. Provide specific programmatic goals (objectives) and specific student learning outcomes for the program.
9. Provide course descriptions for all courses in the proposed program (do not provide syllabi).
10. Describe administrative oversight to ensure the quality of the program.
11. For a program offered in compressed time frames, describe the methodology for determining that levels of knowledge and competencies comparable to those required in the traditional formats have been achieved.
12. Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change.
13. Provide Common Content C – Resources (p.81), relative to the proposed change.
14. Provide Common Content D – Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes (p. 83), relative to the proposed change.
15. An assessment of the impact of the addition of a program designed for prior learning relative to the reason the institution is on Substantive Change Restriction.

n

Off-campus Instructional Site / Additional Location Changes

Off-campus Instructional Site Approval (including branch campus) by Extensive Review

• Submit a prospectus to include the following:
• If multiple sites are proposed in a consolidated prospectus (see qualifying criteria), address each site separately, viz., the description of the physical resources and a Faculty Roster Form separated by site.
• Site name (must be unique, i.e., it cannot be the same as an institution’s existing site).
• The physical address or location of the site (i.e., no post office box numbers only).
• The intended implementation date.
• Indicate if the site will be a branch campus.
• If the site will be a branch campus, demonstrate the site will meet each of the following criteria:
  1. The site is geographically apart from an institution’s main campus.
  2. Instruction is delivered at the site.
  3. The site is permanent.
  4. The site offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, diploma, certificate, or other for-credit credential.
  5. The site has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization.
  6. The site has its own budgetary and hiring authority.

For the institutional level review –

1. The institution must demonstrate, at an institutional level, the capacity to effectively oversee and provide ongoing support for off-campus instructional sites / additional locations (including branch campuses, as applicable), by the following:
   1. Demonstrating how the institution will have administrative oversight of off-campus instructional sites / additional locations that ensures academic control of all off- campus instructional sites.
   2. Demonstrating how the institution will have academic assessment and evaluation processes that include the regular and robust assessment and evaluation of each of the institution’s off-campus instructional sites / additional locations.
   3. Demonstrating how the institution will engage in ongoing and thorough long-range planning processes for expansion of instructional and other services to off-campus instructional sites / additional locations.
   4. Demonstrating financial resources and financial stability by submitting for review the institution’s two most recent financial statement audits.

For the site-specific review –

1. Provide Common Content A – Background and Context (p. 79), relative to the proposed change.
2. Describe the educational program(s) to be offered at the site. If a program to be offered at the site is a new program requiring approval, also provide the prospectus information for New Program – Approval.
3. Provide documentation of approval to operate in the state where the site is located if the site is outside of the state of the institution’s main campus (in addition to the state approval evidence in Common Content A).
4. Provide the course schedule and course descriptions to be taught during the first year of operation; do not provide syllabi.
5. Provide Common Content B – Faculty Qualifications (p. 80), relative to the proposed change. All courses to be taught during the first year of operation must be assigned to at least one faculty member on the Faculty Roster.
6. Provide Common Content C – Resources (p. 81), relative to the proposed change.
7. Provide Common Content D - Institutional Evaluation and Assessment Processes (p. 83), relative to the proposed change.



Off-campus Instructional Site Teach-Out Plan Approval

• Submit a teach-out plan to include the following:
• Provide the closure date, defined by The Commission as the date when students are no longer

admitted.

1. Provide a communication plan to inform all affected parties of the closure to include
   1. how each of the following will be informed for the closure:
      1. currently enrolled students,
      2. students with lapsed enrollment (i.e., not currently enrolled but recently enrolled), and
      3. prospective students.
   2. how faculty and staff will be informed, viz., admissions and recruiting / marketing staffs; and
   3. how community or industry partners will be informed. If not applicable, provide an affirmative statement to that effect.
2. If the institution is providing options for students to complete at another institution(s), provide copies of all planned communication from the institution and from the teach-out institution(s) related to the closure. All communication must demonstrate the institutions are making accurate statements about students’ ability to transfer credits to the teach-out institution(s) and disclose tuition, fees, and other costs at the teach-out institution(s).
3. An explanation of how all affected students will be helped to complete their programs of study with minimal disruption or additional costs.
4. An explanation of whether the students subject to the teach-out plan will incur additional charges or other expenses because of the teach-out and, if so, how the students will be notified.
5. Copies of signed teach-out agreements with other institutions, if applicable.
6. A description of how faculty and staff will be redeployed or helped to find new employment.



Other Changes

Implementation Extension

• Submit a request to include the following:
• The Case ID of the previously approved substantive change. Do not submit requests for multiple extensions in one request; submit each separately as needed. If more than one is included, only the first will be reviewed.
• The type of substantive change as defined in policy that was previously approved; e.g., New Program - Approval, Off-campus Instructional Site Approval by Limited Review, etc.
• The approval date of the previously approved substantive change.
• The requested implementation extension date up to a maximum of one year (i.e., 12 months) after the approval date.
• A statement of assurance that previous institutional, institutional governing board, and/or state approval(s) are unchanged as described in the institution’s original submission for approval of the substantive change.
• Narrative answers to the following questions:
  1. What is the reason for the implementation extension?
  2. How will the change differ compared to what was originally approved including, but not limited to, differences in student enrollment and the institution’s financial resources to support the change? If none, explain.
  3. How will the institution ensure the quality and integrity of the change given the differences described in the preceding item? If none, explain.



Appendix B: Glossary

This glossary provides basic definitions of commonly used substantive change words and phrases. It is designed as a quick reference only. Refer to the more complete and detailed information elsewhere in this policy and in related policies.

Acquisition: Acquisition is the sale, exchange, or transfer of a component of an institution’s or entity’s assets to a The Commission accredited institution. Following acquisition, the participating entities remain in operation as separate institutions or entities. Acquisition includes off-campus instructional sites, for-credit educational programs, or other tangible educational assets. Acquisition excludes assets unrelated to the core mission of the The Commission institution such as non-educational real estate and intangible property. Acquisition is independent of financial consideration, i.e., an acquisition may or may not involve the exchange of money between participating entities. (See also merger/consolidation)

See off-campus instructional site / additional location

Approval: An official action by The Commission Board of Trustees or delegated senior staff enabling an institution to implement a proposed substantive change. All changes requiring approval are defined in Substantive Change Policy and Procedures. An institution secures approval by submitting a substantive change prospectus or application subject to satisfactory review by the Board of Trustees or delegated senior staff.

Assets: institutional assets include, but are not limited to, land, buildings, off-campus instructional sites, courses, and educational programs.

Branch campus: An off-campus instructional site

/ additional location

• that is geographically apart from an institution’s main campus,
• where instruction is delivered, and
• is independent of the main campus of an institution.

An additional location/off-campus instructional site is independent of the main campus if it

1. is permanent;
2. offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree, diploma, certificate, or other for-credit credential;
3. has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization; and
4. has its own budgetary and hiring authority.

Closure: The ending of instruction

• in an educational program,
• at off-campus instructional site,
• in an educational program at an off- campus instructional site or main campus,
• by a method of delivery, or
• at an entire institution

such that a student cannot complete their program of study as planned.

(See also teach-out agreement and teach-out plan)

Competency-based education: A method of delivery in which competencies are learned through interaction with faculty and an academic credential is earned based on what students demonstrate they can do. A competency is a well- defined statement of what a person can do as a result of learning. Progression and completion are measured by demonstrated attainment of competencies. (See also competency-based education by course/credit-based approach, competency- based education by direct assessment, and method of delivery)

Competency-based education by course / credit-based approach: Demonstrating competencies is embedded in a traditional curriculum with courses completed, credits earned, and a credential awarded. Students typically enroll in an academic term and course credits are awarded at the end of the term by demonstrating mastery of the competencies associated with a course.

Students may accelerate learning through demonstration of competencies. Transcripts record courses and grades, though the institution may opt to maintain a separate transcript of competencies. Competency-based education by direct assessment: Progression and completion of a program is based solely on demonstrating mastery of prescribed competencies. There are no academic terms (i.e., calendars), courses, or credit hours. Students' progress through a program’s competencies at their own pace within limits, if any, established by the institution. The academic transcript consists of successfully demonstrated competencies and the level of mastery attained.

Control, change in: Occurs when a person or entity acquires or loses the ability to control the institution, such as through a merger, acquisition, or a change in ownership interest (typically 50% or more, or 25% under certain conditions). This often triggers a, "change of ownership" resulting in a, "change in control"

Cooperative academic arrangement: An agreement between a Commission-accredited institution and another entity (or entities) to deliver program content recorded on The Commission institution’s transcript as its own (see also Standard 10.9 (Cooperative academic arrangements) of the Principles of Accreditation). Examples include geographic or denominational consortia, statewide distance education agreements, collaborative agreements with international institutions, and contractual instruction.

Correspondence courses: Courses in which students and instructors are not in the same locations and in which instructional materials and learning assessments (such as examinations, assignments, creative works, etc.) are delivered electronically or by mail. Interaction between instructor and student is limited, is not regular and substantive, and is primarily initiated by the student. Courses are usually self-paced within limits.

Degree completion program: a program typically designed for a non-traditional undergraduate population such as working adults who have completed some college-level course work but have not achieved a baccalaureate degree. Students in such programs may transfer credits from courses taken previously and may receive credit for experiential learning. Courses in degree completion program are often offered in an accelerated format or meet during the evening and weekend hours, or may be offered via distance learning technologies. Direct assessment

See competency-based education by direct assessment

Distance education: A method of delivery in which instruction occurs when students and instructors are not in the same location. It includes synchronous (live or in real- time) and asynchronous (not live or in real-time) instruction.

(See also method of delivery)

See distance education

See program

Face-to-face instruction: A method of delivery in which 50% or more of instruction occurs when students and instructors are in the same location. (See also method of delivery)

Federal regulations: Rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) as codified in the Code of Federal Regulation (C.F.R.) including but not limited to 34 C.F.R. § 600, 602, 603, 654, 668, and 674; viz., § 600.2 (definitions), § 602.22 (substantive changes and other reporting requirements), § 602.24 (additional procedures certain institutional agencies must have), and § 668 Subpart P (Prison Education Programs).

Geographically apart (or geographically separate): Non-contiguous locations independent of distance.

See also off-campus instructional site / additional location (and branch campus)

Governance, change in: The significant alteration of governing board bylaws, the board’s scope of authority or responsibility, the number of board members, or how board members are selected. Only changing the composition of the board – i.e., replacing current board members with new members or other changes in accordance with established bylaws – does not usually constitute a governance change. Instructional level: For courses and programs, the level of content and rigor corresponding to traditional academic degree levels: associate, baccalaureate, master’s, education specialist, or doctoral.

Level authorization: The Commission authorization for an institution to offer instruction and credentials at a level lower than the highest level for which an institution is approved to offer instruction and credentials.

Level classification: An institutional status indicating the highest level for which an institution is approved to offer instruction and credentials.

Legal status, change in: A change of corporate form, which may include, but is not limited to: a change from Limited Partnership to Corporation, from Limited Liability Corporations to Corporation, from a Not-for-Profit Corporation to a For-Profit Corporation, a private to a public, a Not-for Profit Corporation controlled by members to one controlled by a Board of Directors.

Merger/consolidation: The sale, exchange, or transfer of all assets of at least one institution or entity to a The Commission accredited institution. Following a merger/consolidation, only one institution remains in operation as a separate institution or entity.

(See also Acquisition)

Method of delivery: The principal method by which instruction is delivered to include:

• competency-based education (all forms),
• distance education, and
• face-to-face instruction.

Notification: An official communication from an institution to The Commission as defined in Substantive Change Policy and Procedures. A notification is uploaded through the institutional portal and is complete only when accepted by The Commission upon satisfactory review by staff. (See also Approval)

Off-campus instructional site / additional location: A location geographically apart from an institution’s sole main campus, where instruction is delivered. An off-campus instructional site may qualify as a branch campus. (See also branch campus) Oversight Entity: Under the federal Prison Education Program (PEP), the state department of corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, or other entities responsible for facilities where[] confined or incarcerate students are located.

Ownership, change in: A change of ownership involves the sale or transfer to a new owner of all or a substantial portion of the institution’s assets.

Program: a coherent course of study leading to a for-credit credential including a degree, diploma, certificate, microcredential, or other generally recognized credential.

Prison Education Program (PEP): A federal program providing Pell Grant access to confined or incarcerated students.

Teach-out: The process and time period of a teach-out plan.

(See also closure, teach-out agreement, and teach-out plan)

Teach-out plan: A written plan developed by an institution when it decides to close a program, off-campus instructional site, method of delivery, or the institution. The plan provides processes and procedures for how currently enrolled students will be able to complete their program of study with minimal disruption. A teach-out plan provides an orderly process for closure that ensures the equitable treatment of students, transparency about additional costs to students (if any), and covers all enrolled students regardless of their progress to completion. A teach-out plan may include a teach-out agreement. (See also closure, teach-out, and teach-out agreement) Teach-out agreement: An optional written agreement between institutions/entities under which students covered by a teach-out plan may complete their program of study at another institution/entity. A teach-out agreement may include student eligibility criteria, time limits, fee waivers, tuition parity, or other negotiated terms. Teach-out agreements require The Commission approval.

(See also closure, teach-out, and teach-out plan)

∎

Appendix C: Quick Reference

Substantive Change Types

This quick reference is designed as a summary only. It is not intended to replace a careful reading and understanding of policy. As a summary of select information, it provides an efficient reference to identify substantive change types and to make comparisons across types.

Substantive Change Type

Requires

Visit

Other

This is a summary only. Always consult policy for complete information of substantive change types.

Notification

Approval – Senior Staff

Approval – Executive Council

Approval – Full Board

Contingent

Required

Review Fee

Sub Change Restriction

INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES

Acquisition







Change Measure Progress to Completion





CBE Course-Credit Approach-Institutional Approval





Distance Ed-Institutional-level Approval





Governance Change







Institution Closure



Institutional Contingency Teach-out



Level Authorization Addition





Level Change to a Higher Level







Merger / Consolidation







Mission Change





Ownership, Means of Control, or Legal Status Change







Prison Education Program – Institutional-level Approval







Prison Education Program – Best Interest Review







PROGRAM CHANGES

CBE Direct Assessment-Approval







Coop Acad Arr Non-Title IV Entities-Approval







Coop Acad Arr Non-Title IV Entities-Notification





Method of Delivery-Approval





Method of Delivery-Notification





New Program-Approval







Program Closure



Program Length Change







Program Designed for Prior Learning - Approval







OFF-CAMPUS INSTRUCTIONAL SITE (OCIS) CHANGES

OCIS Notification



OCIS Approval Extensive Review









OCIS Closure



• Some of the types are abbreviated in this table; refer to the policy text for the full-text type.
• Action requirements are for an institution not on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION; see policy for requirements for an institution that is on SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION.
• An institution on sanction when a substantive change is submitted is ineligible for Executive Council review or senior staff review (except for closures); full Board review is required.



This quick reference is designed as a summary only. It is not intended to replace a careful reading and understanding of policy. As a summary of select information, it provides an efficient reference to identify the conditions for SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE RESTRICTION and for an Institutional Contingency Teach-out Plan.



Appendix D: Summary of Recent Changes

• Changes to the recommended dates for submitting substantive changes requiring approval by the Executive Council and/or Senior Staff.
• Changes to the Merger/Consolidation policy to conform with new federal regulations.
• Clarification in policy that The Commission approves teach-out plans, not closures, for institutions, programs, and off-campus instructional sites.
• Instructions for the Two-year Follow-up of the “Best Interest” methodology for Prison Education Programs .
• Modification of Competency-Based Education by Direct Assessment – Approval and Distance Education – Institutional-level Approval to conform with federal regulations. Any portion of a program offered by these methods now triggers approval.
• Clarification of expectations for the approval of Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degrees, including links to the new Reduced Credit Undergraduate Degree Policy and Guidelines.
• Reinstating the Program Designed for Prior Learning – Approval for institutions on substantive change restriction to conform to federal regulations.
• Addition of language clarifying federal requirements for notification and approval of new off-campus instructional sites offering 50% or more of instruction.
• Clarification about the re-opening of previously closed Programs and Off-campus instructional sites when more than five years has elapsed.
• Miscellaneous clarifications and typographical corrections.

• Added approval pathway by senor staff explanation an identified eligible types.
• Removed 25 substantive change types from policy:
• Acquisition - 6 month notification in advance of a prospectus
• Clock-Credit Hour Conversion
• Competency-based Education by Direct Assessment – Notification
• Cooperative Academic Arrangement with Title IV Entities
• Correspondence Education
• Dual Academic
• Governance Change - 6 month notification in advance of a prospectus
• Institution Relocation
• Joint Academic Award with non-The Commission Institution(s) or Entity(ies)
• Joint Academic Award with The Commission Institution(s)
• Level Authorization Removal
• Level Change to a Lower Level
• Merger / Consolidation - 6 month notification in advance of a prospectus
• New Program – Notification
• OCIS Approval Limited Review
• OCIS Name or Address Change
• OCIS Relocation - Branch
• OCIS Relocation - Non-Branch
• OCIS Re-open
• Ownership, Means of Control, or Legal Status Change - 6 month notification in advance of a prospectus
• Program Designed for Prior Learning-Approval
• Program Designed for Prior Learning-Notification
• Program Re-open
• Temporary Emergency Relocation of Instruction - Approval
• Temporary Emergency Relocation of Instruction - Notification
  • Miscellaneous clarifications and typographical corrections

• Added minor edits to the policy section for clarifications.
• Removed all references to the Seeking Accreditation at a Higher or Lower Degree Level policy: all level change information revised and added to the substantive change policy to permit the separate outdated level change policy to be retired.
• Deleted and replaced all existing level change language (a) to incorporate all level change information previously maintained in the separate level change policy and (b) to accommodate new substantive change types to more efficiently manage changes to level status and level authorizations.
• Added miscellaneous clarifications to Institutional Contingency Teach-out Plan.
• Added to the Program Re-open requirements that changes to level status or level authorization cannot be accomplished by re-opening a previously closed program.
• Added new prospectus content in Appendix A for Level Authorization Addition.
• Added new prospectus content in Appendix A for Level Change to a Higher Level.
• Edited New Program - Approval prospectuses content: (a) clarified the curriculum for the entire program must be submitted and (b) removed the requirement to submit a projected schedule of courses.
• Corrected an internal inconsistency regarding the criteria for a Program Length Change.
• Added two new terms to the Appendix B glossary: level authorization and level classification.
• Updated level change items in the Appendix C quick reference table of substantive change types.

