Post Visit Procedures

After the evaluation visit, the following post-visit procedures and reviews occur.

The MEMAAC office sends a copy of the evaluation report to the chief on-site administrative officer, who is invited to respond to it in writing within the specified time frame. Failure to respond within the specified time frame may result in denial of the grant of accreditation.

This section has information pertaining to the following:

  • Opportunity to Respond
  • Intermediate Review
  • Council Review
  • Council Actions

Opportunity to Respond

Print

The MEMAAC office sends a copy of each evaluation team report to the designated representative at the centrally controlled academic administrative center or to the chief on-site administrator of the respective multiple or single campus institution. These individuals are invited to respond in writing within the specified time frame.

Intermediate Review

Print

All materials pertinent to an institution’s accreditation are reviewed by experienced persons before being reviewed by the Council. These materials include, but are not limited to, the institution’s self-evaluation report(s), the visiting team report(s), the institution’s response(s) to the team report, financial records of the institution (which are not examined by the evaluation team), and any official reports from governmental regulatory bodies (if pertinent).
The Intermediate Review Committee (IRC) upon intensive review of institutional files makes recommendations to the Council of possible accreditation action.

Council Review

Print

All materials collected during the evaluation process are reviewed by the Council. Only the Council can take final accreditation action.

Council Actions

Print

Action by MEMAAC to accredit or renew accreditation or not to do so, or to limit or otherwise condition the grant of accreditation, is determined only following review of the self-evaluation report prepared by the applicant institution, the report of the visiting team, the response of the institution to that report, the institution’s financial condition, and the recommendations (if any) of the interim reviewers. At each level of review, the number and seriousness of any deficiencies are taken into account, as well as the institution’s indicated willingness and capability to overcome them.