Site Visitor Handbook
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction
Letter from the Executive Director / Mission
Contact Information
3
3
4
II. Volunteering for CIDA
Overview of Site Visitor Activities
Accreditation and the Role of Volunteers
Volunteer Conduct and Expectations
Site Visitor Position Description
Duties and Responsibilities
Qualifications
Visiting Team Co-chair Position Description
Duties and Responsibilities
Conflict of Interest
Confidentiality and Disclosure
Peer Review
Resolving Conflict
Training and Development
New Site Visitor Orientation and Training
Experienced Site Visitor Training
Training and Orientation of Co-chairs
Evaluation of Training
Terms of Service
5
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
III. Site Visit Policy and Procedure
Types of Site Visits
Approximate Timeline of Program Review Activities
Preparing for a Site Visit
Site Visit Schedule
Expenses
Travel Arrangements
Canceling a Site Visit
15
15
16
18
18
19
19
20
IV. On-Site Evaluation Guidelines
The Site Visit
Criteria for Successful On-Site Evaluation
Collecting Evidence of Compliance with Standards
Interviews
Exit Meetings
21
21
21
22
24
25
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
1
Site Visitor Handbook
2
V. The Visiting Team Report
The Visiting Team Report
Visiting Team Report Format
Foreword
Introductory Questionnaire
Schedule of Activities
Team Responses to Standards
Overall Analysis of Compliance with the Standard
Concluding Analysis
Team Recommendation for Accreditation
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
VI. Accreditation Decision
Steps of the Review Process Following a Site Visit
Visiting Team Report Due Date
Editing the Visiting Team Report
Program Review of the Visiting Team Report
Site Visitor Review of the Visiting Team Report
Accreditation Decision
30
30
30
30
31
31
32
VII. Resources
CIDA Site Visitors
“What is Accreditation”
“Attributes of a Typical Accreditation Program”
“Assessing Legal Risks of Accreditation Decisions”
“CHEA Statement on Good Practices and Shared
Responsibility…”
33
33
36
36
37
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
39
August 2009
Introduction
Our Mission
The Council for Interior Design Accreditation provides the foundation for future excellence
in the interior design profession by setting standards for education
and accrediting academic programs that meet those standards.
To the site visitors,
Thank you for volunteering for the Council for Interior Design Accreditation. You are a vital part of our
mission. Without the participation of committed volunteers, CIDA would not be able to carry out the peer
review process of accreditation. You are responsible for gathering evidence about academic programs
and developing informed judgments regarding program compliance with standards. In order to effectively
carry out your responsibilities, you are asked to thoroughly understand the procedures accreditors must
follow and to spend a significant amount of time engaged in the intense work of evaluating academic
programs.
We value fairness, consistency, and ethical behavior in the conduct of all our work as well as maintaining
confidentiality about the programs seeking accreditation. We have high expectations for everyone
involved to act with integrity and impartiality. All volunteers are encouraged to strengthen understanding
of the role of accreditation in interior design education among professionals, educators, students, and
other members of the broader design community. We are grateful to you for living up to our expectations.
This handbook will provide you with useful information and tools to use as you conduct site visits. You
are encouraged to contact CIDA staff members at any time if you have questions or concerns.
We sincerely thank you for your commitment to improving interior design education through
accreditation.
Warm regards,
Holly Mattson
Executive Director
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
3
Introduction
Council for Interior Design Accreditation Contact Information
Office hours: 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday-Friday
Phone: 616.458.0400
Fax: 616.458.0460
Website: www.accredit-id.org
E-mail: info@accredit-id.org
Holly Mattson, Executive Director
E-mail: holly@accredit-id.org
For travel information contact:
Stacy Wright, Site Visit and Meeting Coordinator
E-mail: stacy@accredit-id.org
For reimbursement information contact:
Kim Maurice, Office Manager
E-mail: kim@accredit-id.org
In case of an emergency cancellation or for urgent matters requiring immediate
assistance after CIDA office hours contact:
Megan Scanlan, Director of Accreditation: 517.290.7842 Cell
Holly Mattson, Executive Director: 616.970.6668 Cell
4
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Volunteering for CIDA
Overview of Site Visitor Activities
September - October
Teams formed for following year fall site visits
January - April
Winter/spring site visits
March
Accreditation Commission makes accreditation decisions for
programs visited the previous fall
April - May
Teams formed for following year spring site visits
July
Accreditation Commission makes accreditation decisions for
programs visited the previous spring
September - November Fall site visits
Accreditation and the Role of Volunteers
Accreditation is a quality assurance process that replaces government regulation of
education. In the case of professional or specialized accreditation (discipline-specific), it
is a process of program self-evaluation and peer review by volunteers in the field that
ensures programs in higher education prepare graduates for entry into professional
practice. Standards used to evaluate programs are based on research and consensus in the
field.
Accreditation promotes achievement of high academic standards while making education
more responsive to students and society. A program’s involvement in the accreditation
process demonstrates a commitment to continued growth and development.
The accreditation process begins with a comprehensive program self-study, followed by a
series of evaluations, including an on-site review by a Council for Interior Design
Accreditation (CIDA) visiting team and a review of team findings by other experienced
site visitors and CIDA’s Accreditation Commission. The Accreditation Commission
makes the final decision to award or deny accreditation.
All evaluators and decision makers are volunteers who are interior design practitioners
and educators. Peer evaluation is the cornerstone of accreditation. All site visitors must
meet the qualifications described on page 8.
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
5
Volunteering for CIDA
Volunteer Conduct and Expectations
Volunteers should promote the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) mission
to assess academic quality in relation to CIDA standards for interior design education
when representing CIDA on a site visit or at other activities. Personal opinion must not be
presented as CIDA’s official views. The professional courtesy displayed by volunteers is
extremely valuable in establishing CIDA’s credibility.
Participation in the accreditation process requires a sizable contribution of time.
Volunteers should be prepared to commit the necessary hours to complete assignments
and meet deadlines.
CIDA volunteers:
 Do not receive honoraria.
 Are not to accept any gifts of significant value from the programs being reviewed.
 Must adhere to CIDA’s policies concerning confidentiality and disclosure (see
CIDA’s Accreditation Policy and Procedure, Section 7, page 1).
 May independently provide consulting services to programs if pre-approved by
CIDA to do so.
Site Visitors:
 Serve as team members on site visits.
 Assist in writing the Visiting Team Report.
 Collaborate with other team members to respond to concerns during the accreditation
review process, including questions from CIDA staff, the program, report readers,
and Accreditation Commissioners.
 Review and comment on reports completed by other visiting teams.
Visiting Team Co-chairs:
 Work together to provide leadership in the conduct of the visit and preparation of the
Visiting Team Report.
 Coordinate the team response to concerns and questions raised in the accreditation
review process, including questions from CIDA staff, the program, report readers,
and the Accreditation Commission.
 Mentor site visitors as appropriate.
Also see CIDA’s Accreditation Policy and Procedure, Section 1, page 4.
6
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Volunteering for CIDA
Site Visitor Position Description
General scope and function
CIDA site visitors are peer evaluators drawn from the field of interior design. Site visitors
participate on visiting teams to evaluate interior design educational programs using CIDA
Standards. Site visitors are responsible for 1) gathering evidence related to a program’s
compliance with the Standards on a site visit, 2) analyzing the program’s compliance with
the Standards as a team, 3) documenting the team’s analysis of program compliance with
the Standards in a Visiting Team Report, and 4) assessing the program’s success with
respect to student achievement. Additionally, site visitors serve as CIDA’s ambassadors
within the community, strengthening understanding of CIDA’s role and mission in the
interior design profession.
Duties and Responsibilities
Site visitors are expected to attend at least one site visit to an interior design
program annually. Site visit responsibilities include:
 Responding to CIDA staff promptly regarding availability when invited to participate
in a site visit.
 Reviewing the Program Analysis Report promptly upon receipt eight weeks prior to
the site visit.
 Communicating with the visiting team chair or co-chairs prior to the site visit with
questions about the Program Analysis Report or site visit arrangements.
 Reviewing site visit materials mailed from the CIDA office prior to arriving on-site.
 Attending a 4-day site visit.
 Assisting in writing the Visiting Team Report on-site.
Site visitors are expected to participate in the review process following completion of
a site visit. This includes collaborating with other visiting team members to:
 Respond to questions and concerns regarding Visiting Team Report content from the
Accreditation Commission and CIDA staff.
 Respond in writing to program content concerns arising from the program’s review of
the Visiting Team Report. This response must include a detailed explanation of team
decisions based on evidence provided in the report.
Additionally, site visitors are expected to:

Review and comment on a group of 4-6 Visiting Team Reports per year (for the fall
or spring site visit season).
 Maintain up-to-date knowledge of CIDA Standards, policies, and procedures.
 Abide by CIDA policies and procedures.
 Provide feedback to the Accreditation Commission and staff regarding the
accreditation process.
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
7
Volunteering for CIDA
Qualifications
To serve in the role of site visitor, candidates must apply and supply references that testify
to professional and personal qualities that will contribute to the effective participation of
the volunteer. Site visitors are appointed by CIDA’s Board of Directors following an
application process.
Minimum qualifications for site visitors are:

Commitment to CIDA’s mission and Code of Ethics.

Willingness to devote the time necessary to participate fully in at least one site visit
annually.

Willingness to participate in training activities.

Appropriate academic credentials. As the bachelor’s degree is generally accepted as
the terminal degree for professional practice in interior design, all site visitors must
have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in interior design or a closely related
discipline.

Experience in teaching or relevant professional practice in the field of interior design.
Experience should indicate a broad exposure and expertise, not a narrow and
exclusive focus on one particular area of interior design. An educator must be
currently teaching in, or have taught in, a CIDA-accredited interior design program.
A practitioner must have had some relationship to education during the course of
their professional life. For example, he or she may have worked as a critic,
supervised interns, worked as an adjunct faculty, or served on an educational
advisory board.

Objectivity and open-mindedness.

Strong communication skills, both oral and written.

Ability to work well as a team member.

Sufficient professional references.

Preference will be given to individuals who have passed the complete NCIDQ exam.
Site visitors are given training to familiarize them with CIDA Standards, practices, and
procedures. An ongoing training program promotes good practices in accreditation and
informs about changes to accreditation processes, procedures, and standards. Site visitors
are evaluated by their fellow team members as well as by the programs they visit (see
Training and Development, page 12).
8
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Volunteering for CIDA
Visiting Team Co-chair Position Description
Site visitors who have received consistent positive performance evaluations from
programs and fellow site visitors will periodically be asked to serve as a visiting team cochair along with another experienced site visitor. Visiting team co-chairs work together to
lead the collaboration with the program and their fellow visiting team member to ensure
that site visit activities facilitate the team’s work to collect evidence and evaluate
compliance with Standards.
In order to be eligible to serve as a visiting team co-chair, site visitors must:
 Have actively participated in three or more site visits.
 Demonstrate strong knowledge of and adherence to CIDA policy and procedure.
 Demonstrate leadership characteristics, such as effectively communicating CIDA’s
mission and value, conflict resolution, active listening skills, diplomacy, good
organization and time management skills, strong communication skills, etc.
Duties and Responsibilities
Visiting team co-chairs organize critical elements of the site visit to ensure the team is
able to fulfill its responsibilities. One co-chair serves as the communication coordinator
and is the primary contact for the program before and during the site visit. The other cochair serves as the documentation coordinator and is responsible for organizing written
documents produced by the visiting team.
The co-chair assigned to be the communication coordinator must:
 Review and discuss the Program Analysis Report upon receipt, collect team
comments, and communicate with the program and CIDA regarding sufficiency of
information and requests for additional information.
 Communicate site visit scheduling preferences to CIDA staff and review and approve
the site visit schedule organized by the program in collaboration with CIDA staff.
 Provide leadership and communicate CIDA’s role and value to program and
institutional representatives during interviews.
The co-chair assigned to be the documentation coordinator must:
 Provide leadership in organizing the visiting team to prepare the Visiting Team
Report.
 Ensure that all portions of the Visiting Team Report are complete and submit the
report to the CIDA office.
 Coordinate the team response to concerns and questions raised in the accreditation
review process, including questions from CIDA staff, the Accreditation Commission,
and the program.
In addition, the visiting team co-chairs must:
 Resolve conflicts that arise during the site visit.
 Notify CIDA staff immediately in the event unforeseen circumstances significantly
impact the site visit, such as circumstances preventing a team member from
participating in site visit activities.
 Mentor site visitors (see Training and Development, page 12).
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
9
Volunteering for CIDA
Conflict of Interest
The standard of behavior at CIDA is that all staff, volunteers, and board members
scrupulously avoid conflict of interest between the interests of CIDA on the one hand, and
personal, professional, and business interests on the other. This includes avoiding actual
and potential conflicts of interest, as well as the perception of conflicts of interest.
To this end, no CIDA representatives, including members of the Board of Directors,
Accreditation Commission, Standards Committee, site visitors, staff, and consultants, may
participate in any way in decisions in which he or she has a financial or personal interest
(or appearance of the same) or with respect to which, because of present business,
organizational, institutional, or program association, he or she has divided loyalties or
conflicts (or the appearance of same) pertaining to the outcome of the decision.
CIDA representatives must disclose financial or personal interests or affiliations that pose a
conflict of interest. If an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest exists, the CIDA
representative may not participate in discussions or vote on matters affecting the outcome
or decision. This is not intended to restrict participation in discussions or decision-making
that has no clear and direct impact on the business, organization, institution, or program
with which the CIDA representative is associated.
An interior design program that is scheduled for evaluation by CIDA is responsible for
identifying conflicts of interest and for requesting certain site visitor(s) be replaced. CIDA
staff will do all that is reasonably fair in replacing individuals provided a clear conflict of
interest is identified by the program in accordance with the above policy.
Examples of conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

Graduation from the program being evaluated for accreditation,

A close personal and/or professional relationship with someone associated with the
program being evaluated for accreditation,

Service as a consultant to the program being evaluated for accreditation, with the
exception of services specifically authorized by the Board of Directors.
10
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Volunteering for CIDA
Confidentiality and Disclosure
Site visitors must respect the confidentiality of the programs being visited. Discussions
concerning a program under review must be limited to those necessary to complete the
review process and to those persons or parties directly involved in the accreditation
process. Site visitors must not disclose information regarding a program review to any
persons or parties not directly involved in the accreditation process. While it is acceptable
to provide appropriate contact information to family members and employers while you
are conducting a site visit, information regarding the quality of the program or CIDA’s
evaluation is strictly confidential.
The Program Analysis Report, Visiting Team Report, Accreditation Report, and related
correspondence are confidential documents. The program alone has the right to disclose
the contents of these documents. Correspondence and documents pertaining to the site
visit may not be shared with persons or parties not directly involved in the accreditation
process.
The Accreditation Commission makes the final decision concerning accreditation status.
The visiting team’s recommendation for accreditation status and recommendations for
improvement will be included in the Visiting Team Report released to the program for
review. The team should not divulge this information to the program during the site visit.
Peer Review
Site visitors are educators and practitioners who have demonstrated expertise in the field
of interior design. Site visitors bring a variety of perspectives to the accreditation review
process. Teaming helps ensure that no single perspective dominates the evaluation of
interior design programs. Team members must be capable of placing themselves in the
appropriate framework for peer review, which requires unbiased judgment of compliance
based on consensus-driven standards.
What are the guiding principles of peer review?
August 2009

Use your background and experience to make informed judgments regarding
quality. Site visitors come together to form a team of experts that evaluate quality in
each interior design program.

Stay focused on the Standards as your criteria for evaluation. Standards are
equally applied to all programs and are based on thorough research into the field. The
evaluation of Standards or specific student learning or program expectations should
not be unduly influenced by one site visitor’s area of specialization or opinion on
requirements to practice.

Be objective. Comparisons to other programs are strictly prohibited. Not all
programs will be excellent. Accreditation uses threshold standards as a measure of
quality. In other words, accreditation status with CIDA makes no distinction between
those programs that meet standards and those that exceed standards.

Observe appropriate protocols. Address individuals with deference to their
position. Professional courtesy sets the stage for respectful dialogue between visiting
team members, program representatives, and others engaged in the review process.
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
11
Volunteering for CIDA
Resolving Conflict
Visiting teams are composed to represent a variety of viewpoints. A natural by-product of
the collaborative teaming of diverse individuals is the potential for conflicting opinions.
One important skill necessary to successfully serve as a site visitor is a willingness and
ability to resolve conflicts through working to understand differences of opinion. Team
members should demonstrate appreciation of diverse perspectives and focus their review
on compliance with standards.
The team chair or co-chairs should provide leadership to resolve conflicts between team
members that arise during the site visit. CIDA’s director of accreditation or executive
director may be contacted for advice if the team is unable to resolve a conflict. It is
imperative that all team members agree on the level of compliance and the recommended
accreditation status prior to leaving the site.
Training and Development
Site visitors bring expertise in the field of interior design to the accreditation process. In
order to effectively carry out the role of peer evaluator, site visitors must maintain
knowledge of current trends in the market for interior design services and knowledge of
CIDA Standards, policy, and procedures. CIDA values the continued professional
development of site visitors and encourages site visitors to enrich their knowledge of
design education and the profession through active participation in professional
associations and other activities, such as taking and passing the NCIDQ exam.
Training is required upon appointment as a site visitor. Site visitors are also required to be
retrained when CIDA implements significant changes to Standards or accreditation policy
and procedures. Additionally, ongoing training opportunities are available to promote
good practices and develop site visitor skills. Site visitors who have not participated in a
site visit in more than one year may be required to complete training prior to a site visit.
Intrinsic to the accreditation process is continual training of site visitors. Site visitors hone
their skills by engaging in the report review process, which includes an ongoing dialogue
to support the team’s evaluation of program compliance with Standards. Through this
experience, site visitors develop expertise in using CIDA Standards to make fair and
defensible judgments of quality.
CIDA hosts annual training workshops for site visitors focused on developing skills.
Additionally, special training is provided to implement revised Standards and/or new
policy and procedure.
Training of site visitors is structured, systematic, and ongoing. Training is delivered
through multiple mechanisms and is available to all site visitors on a regular basis.
Training includes evaluation components to ensure site visitors grasp concepts critical to
their role as peer evaluators. Additional evaluation mechanisms are in place to ensure
retention of important concepts.
12
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Volunteering for CIDA
New Site Visitor Orientation and Training
New site visitors are required to complete a sequence of training activities that thoroughly
prepares them for the role of site visitor. After the completion of the training sequence,
new site visitors will be invited to participate on a site visit. New site visitors receive
additional support from CIDA staff and fellow team members prior to and during their
first site visit.
The preferred sequence of training activities includes:
Step 1) Review an orientation presentation
Step 2) Attend an in-person training workshop
Step 3) Attend a site visit
Alternate sequence: If an individual is unable to attend an in-person training workshop
within the first year of appointment as a site visitor, that person may shadow a site visit in
place of attending the training workshop. The new site visitor will be a fourth team
member/trainee and might be assigned a very small portion of the review. Evaluation of
site visitor comprehension takes place following the site visit to conclude whether
workshop attendance is required in order for the new site visitor to satisfactorily complete
training.
Experienced Site Visitor Training
CIDA’s policy is to require periodic training for experienced site visitors. Additional
training to enhance site visitor performance is offered periodically, and ongoing training
occurs through other vehicles. Training is not mandatory, except when the Accreditation
Commission judges content to be critical for consistent application of Standards,
including significant changes in Standards and changes in policy and procedure.
Co-chair Orientation and Training
Site visitors who are eligible to serve as a visiting team co-chair receive an orientation
and special training. Each co-chair is also provided with contact information for other cochairs as a resource. Site visitors who periodically serve as visiting team co-chairs are
invited to training sessions for experienced site visitors during which specialized training
for co-chairs is often delivered. Experienced visiting team co-chairs are often involved in
training new co-chairs.
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
13
Volunteering for CIDA
Evaluation of Training
Training includes evaluation components to ensure site visitors grasp concepts critical to
their role as peer evaluators.
Site visitor performance is evaluated by visiting team members as well as by the programs
visited to ensure issues are addressed as they arise and effective training and participation
occur.
Terms of Service
CIDA volunteers are appointed for three-year terms, renewable by the Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors makes every effort to maintain a roster of site visitors who
actively participate, who have appropriate credentials and experience, and who contribute
to the professional composition of CIDA’s volunteers.
Removal from volunteer service may occur at any time due to:
 Inability to maintain objectivity.
 Not actively participating as a site visitor or travel restrictions preventing active
participation.
 Repeated cancellations, or failing to notify the CIDA office of cancellation.
 Receiving numerous poor evaluations and/or complaints.
 Negligence regarding CIDA policy and procedure, including due dates.
 Lack of response to mail or telephone contacts.
Retirement from volunteer service may occur due to:
 Having served for an extended period of time.
 No longer being eligible to serve.
CIDA notifies volunteer site visitors of removal or retirement. Individuals who have
previously served as site visitors and have been retired from service are ineligible for
reappointment as site visitors.
Site visitors may retire from volunteer service at any time and for any reason by notifying
the CIDA office.
14
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Site Visit Policy and Procedure
Types of Site Visits
Initial and re-accreditation visits
Initial and re-accreditation visits are the most common types of accreditation reviews.
Procedures followed for a program seeking initial accreditation (program not currently
accredited) and re-accreditation (program currently accredited) are the same. In both
cases, the visiting team will evaluate the program’s achievement of all CIDA Standards.
Information from the last accreditation review is not provided to the team unless the
program voluntarily includes this information in the Program Analysis Report. The
visiting team should not request information from the last accreditation review to use in
their evaluation of the program.
Interim visits
The Accreditation Commission may require an interim visit as a condition of
accreditation. An interim visit may be required if evidence presented in a report of
significant change or a complaint raises questions about a program’s compliance with the
Standards. In this case, the Commission will determine the scope of the visit and the
composition of the team.
A visit may also be required if the Commission finds it necessary to monitor improvement
in areas found to be weak at the time of the last accreditation review. In addition to the
expected Progress Report, the interim visit will be scheduled to take place three years
after the date of the accreditation decision. The Accreditation Commission will determine
the scope of the interim visit at the time accreditation is awarded. A visiting team will be
composed of one to three site visitors. If possible, at least one team member from the
previous accreditation review will participate in the interim visit. The visit will be one to
three days in length and the program will be provided with a sample visit schedule prior
to the review. Procedures followed for the interim visit are the same as those followed for
an accreditation review. The program must prepare a student work display to demonstrate
compliance with the Standards.
-continued on next page
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
15
Site Visit Policy and Procedure
Probationary visits
Probation is an accreditation status that indicates critical weaknesses have been identified
in an accredited program and provides the program a specific period of time to improve
areas of weakness in order to maintain CIDA accreditation. Probation may be granted for
a period of not more than two years at the discretion of the Accreditation Commission.
The Commissioners will state in writing specific areas of weakness, which the program
must improve within a specified time period. Probationary status may require a site visit
by one or more representatives of CIDA to review evidence on-site and report to the
Accreditation Commission. (For more information on probation, see CIDA’s
Accreditation Policy and Procedure, Section 7, page 3)
Probationary reviews typically focus on the educational program. The program completes
a Program Analysis Report responding to the appropriate Standards as stipulated by the
Accreditation Commission. The team is provided with the Accreditation Report from the
previous site visit as an important reference. When reviewing the program, the team
should pay close attention to areas of weakness identified during the last site visit. The
probationary status states that the program must improve overall student achievement in
these areas in order to maintain accreditation. Due to the limited nature of a probationary
review, CIDA will provide the program with a sample site visit schedule, which includes
only those activities critical to the review.
Approximate Timeline of Program Review Activities
A year in advance:
 Team members are asked to participate in a specific visit a year in advance of the
visit.
 Team members agree and program is notified of proposed team and dates.
 Program confirms team and CIDA notifies team of approval.
Three months in advance:
 Team receives materials from the CIDA office pertaining to the site visit.
Two months in advance:
 Team receives the Program Analysis Report from the program.
 Team makes travel arrangements.
 CIDA distributes arrival and departure times of team members to program
coordinator and team.
 Team reviews the Program Analysis Report, site visit materials provided by CIDA,
and the Site Visitor Handbook. Team members direct questions to the team chair or
co-chair.
 Team chair or co-chair communicates with the program coordinator if any additional
information is needed to supplement the PAR.
-continued on next page
16
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Site Visit Policy and Procedure
One month in advance:
 Program coordinator sends the visit schedule and other visit arrangements (lodging,
transportation, travel considerations, etc.) to the team chair or co-chair and the CIDA
office
 Program coordinator sends team members supplemental PAR information if any was
requested.
Site visit:
 Day before visit:
Team arrives on-site
 Day one:
Review student work
Team work session in evening: begin drafting Visiting Team Report
 Day two:
Continue review of student work
Interview faculty members
Prepare for interviews with students
Team work session in evening: continue work on Visiting Team Report
 Day three:
Interview students
Visit studio classes or critique sessions
Meet with unit or program administrators
Tour facilities
Team work session: finalize Visiting Team Report
Prepare for exit interviews
 Day four:
Exit interview with chief administrative officer of institution
Exit interview with program faculty
Team departure
One week after the last date of the visit:
 Team submits Visiting Team Report to CIDA office.
Three weeks after visit:
 CIDA sends edited report to team with any final questions.
30 days after visit:
 Visiting Team Report mailed to program for review.
Two months after visit:
 Program submits their response to the Visiting Team Report.
 Team sent program response (if any) for review and is provided an opportunity to
clarify the report or respond to program concerns in writing.
 Report sent to a group of site visitors for review.
Three months after visit:
 Finalized report distributed to Accreditation Commission and program.
 Accreditation Commission makes final decision on accreditation.
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
17
Site Visit Policy and Procedure
Preparing for a Site Visit
Typically, the CIDA office will contact potential team members approximately a year in
advance of the scheduled visit. On occasion, a last minute situation arises and CIDA may
contact site visitors to determine availability closer to the date of the actual visit. Site
visitors should consider possible conflicts of interest before accepting assignment as a
team member.
Assignment as a team member is subject to acceptance by the program being reviewed.
The CIDA office notifies team members when the interior design program confirms a
proposed team.
The program sends the team a copy of their Program Analysis Report. CIDA distributes
other materials to team members at least 30 days prior to the scheduled visit dates. All
team members should thoroughly review these materials before arriving on-site.
Prior to arrival or at any time during the visit, the team chair or co-chairs may request
additional information from the program if necessary to conduct the evaluation. A
program expecting a visit should be encouraged to provide additional pertinent
information that has become available since the Program Analysis Report was submitted.
Copies of any additional materials should be sent to visiting team members and the CIDA
office.
The CIDA office facilitates coordination of travel arrangements between the team and
program. Team members’ questions pertaining to the visit schedule or other aspects of the
site visit should be addressed to the team chair or co-chair serving as the communication
coordinator.
Site Visit Schedule
The program sends a draft of the site visit schedule to the team chair or co-chair serving
as the communication coordinator. The team chair or communication coordinator consults
with the program coordinator to ensure the site visit schedule provides adequate time and
appropriate activities for team evaluation of the program. The program provides the team
members with the finalized visit schedule prior to arriving on-site. The team is
responsible for keeping track of any adjustments to the schedule during the visit and
submitting a record of the schedule of activities to the CIDA office after the site visit. A
sample site visit schedule can be found in CIDA’s Accreditation Policy and Procedure,
Section 6, page 4.
Work sessions are scheduled each day of the site visit to provide time to consider, in
private, the team’s findings and to prepare a draft of the Visiting Team Report.
Attendance at work sessions is mandatory, as is attendance at all other site visit activities.
Personal business must be conducted outside of time scheduled for visit activities.
18
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Site Visit Policy and Procedure
Expenses
A program being visited provides lodging, meals, and ground transportation during a site
visit. Programs are asked to make arrangements to pay these expenses directly during the
visit. Site visitors should not feel obligated to use personal credit cards to pay for
expenses that are the responsibility of the program. Site visitor expense report forms
should be used for all other allowable expenses. CIDA will reimburse the site visitor and,
if appropriate, bill the program. Submit the expense report form and original itemized
receipts to the CIDA office at the completion of each trip.
Reimbursable expenses include:
 Mileage to and from the airport/train station in your home city, and tolls.
 Airport parking for the days covering the travel period for CIDA business.
 Baggage fee for one piece of checked luggage.
 Ground transportation to and from the airport in your home city.
 Internet connection for CIDA business only (expense should be minimal).
 CIDA-business-related local and long distance telephone calls.
 CIDA-business-related photocopies and any other reproduction charges.
Items not reimbursable include:
 Personal telephone calls.
 Laundry, dry-cleaning charges.
 Lodging beyond the scheduled meeting date(s) for personal use. Additional lodging
for CIDA business, committee meetings, or as a result of flight schedules must be
pre-authorized by the CIDA office and documented on the expense report.
 Entertainment, including television movies.
Travel Arrangements
CIDA staff will assist site visitors in booking air travel prior to a site visit using the
Egencia (formerly Expedia Corporate Travel) website. Please do not make travel
arrangements for a site visit without prior approval from the CIDA office. All flights
must be approved by the CIDA office before a ticket is purchased.
Egencia Information:
Website
www.egencia.com
-continued on next page
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
19
Site Visit Policy and Procedure

Electronic ticketing is standard practice for most airlines. Present a printed itinerary
with your government issued picture identification (e.g., driver’s license, state
identification card, or passport) at the airport and your boarding pass will be issued.

Frequent flyer points accrue to the individual traveler. CIDA staff can enter your
frequent flyer numbers into your Egencia traveler profile. Instructions for setting up
your traveler profile are included in the information on using Egencia on CIDA’s
website.

When scheduling a site visit, unless instructed otherwise, plan to arrive on-site Friday
afternoon or evening and depart on Tuesday afternoon. If a team member must arrive
and/or depart at a different time, please notify the CIDA office and the team chair or
program.

Most airlines are now charging a baggage fee for checked luggage. CIDA will
reimburse for one piece of checked luggage; additional bags must be checked at your
own expense.

Tickets issued through the Egencia website are billed directly to CIDA. Tickets
issued through other means are reimbursed promptly upon the receipt of the travel
expense form in the CIDA office.

Contact the CIDA office immediately if you need to make changes to your travel
itinerary.

Car rental must be authorized in advance by the CIDA office and can be booked
using the Egencia website. Rental cars should be compact or standard models and
shared by CIDA travelers when feasible. If you are using the Egencia website, CIDA
will be contacted for approval before the reservation is completed. If you do not use
Egencia, submit pre-approved charges for reimbursement to CIDA.
Canceling a Site Visit
Visitors should be aware that cancellation may result in postponement of a site visit. Site
visitors should cancel their participation in a visit only in the case of an emergency. If
cancellation is necessary, the CIDA office must be contacted immediately. CIDA staff
will attempt to find a substitute visitor so as not to inconvenience the program. Site visits
may be conducted with a two-person team only if circumstances warrant and with written
approval from the program.
Site visitors who fail to notify the CIDA office of a visit cancellation will be removed
from volunteer service.
20
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
On-Site Evaluation Guidelines
The Site Visit
The goal of a site visit is to evaluate program success in achieving Standards and
documenting this clearly in a written report. Program success is evaluated through review
of the program self-study (PAR), review of student work, interviews on-site, review of
additional information provided by the program when necessary, and team deliberation
and agreement.
Judgment of compliance is based on the expertise of experienced peer evaluators and
precedent in accreditation. A visiting team must document in writing the determination of
program quality and the performance or lack thereof that supports that conclusion.
Questions concerning the eligibility of the program being visited or CIDA policy should
be addressed to CIDA’s director of accreditation or executive director.
In order to evaluate a program according to CIDA Standards, a visiting team must
understand the system for evaluation set forth in the Standards. The Standards are
available for download on CIDA’s website. The Standards are comprehensive and contain
a wealth of important information for evaluating the criteria, including:

How to determine whether a Standard is in compliance, partial compliance, or noncompliance.

Explanations of student learning and program expectations and their impact on the
overall achievement of the Standards.

The definitions of the student learning levels found in the student learning
expectations.

Guidance provided to assist in understanding specific expectations.
It is highly important to review the Standards prior to any site visit. Even seasoned site
visitors need to re-familiarize themselves with the system for evaluation and important
terms and definitions prior to an accreditation review.
Criteria for Successful On-Site Evaluation
August 2009

Give the program many opportunities to demonstrate achievement of Standards. Ask
the program for further evidence when necessary to demonstrate achievement.

Be explicit about areas of weakness identified. If an area will be reported as weak in
the Visiting Team Report, be sure this is made clear to the program during the visit
and the exit meetings.

Avoid advising the program, especially in relation to:
- Internal affairs not related to compliance with Standards (for instance, faculty
unrest, conflict between disciplines, disgruntled students)
- Specific educational practices. CIDA does not require a specific methodology
- Institutional policies, such as hiring practices, faculty tenure and promotion, and
budget and resource allocation
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
21
On-Site Evaluation Guidelines
Collecting Evidence of Compliance with Standards
Review of interior design curriculum and student work
The review of the interior design curriculum and student work is a major component of
the team’s on-site evaluation. The program is required to organize a display of student
work for the team to review on-site. The display also includes a binder for each course,
describing course content and objectives and including course materials.
Additionally, the program provides a curriculum matrix in its self-study report that helps
the team find evidence in the display of student work. If the team is not able to find
adequate evidence to evaluate the Standards in the information and student work provided
by the program, the team must request evidence from the program and document that they
have done so in the team’s introductory comments in the Visiting Team Report.
At least one full day of the site visit is dedicated to review of the interior design
curriculum and student work.
For accreditation purposes, the interior design curriculum is broadly considered as
information addressed in or by:
 Course calendars
 Syllabi
 Textbooks
 Lectures
 Project assignments
 Guest speakers, jurors, and critics
 Field trips
 Blank exams
 Other assignments, such as papers, exercises, readings, etc.
 Any other learning experience provided within the curriculum
-continued on next page
22
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
On-Site Evaluation Guidelines
For accreditation purposes, student work is broadly considered as:
 Matrixes
 Bubble diagrams/schematics
 Sketches/drawings
 Concept development
 Exploration of a variety of design ideas
 Design refinement
 2- and 3-D basic creative work
 Drafting
 CAD drawings
 Perspectives
 Design proposals
 Programming documents
 Detailing and working drawings
 Business documents
 Research papers
 Student presentations (in person or on video)
 Demonstration of understanding or knowledge in student interviews
 Completed tests
The most important aspects of reviewing the interior design curriculum and student work
are to:
 Keep in mind that you are reviewing student work, not professional work.

Program expectations focus on program inputs and student learning expectations
focus on student learning outcomes. Refer to CIDA’s Professional Standards 2009,
pages 8-9 for additional information.

For program expectations, answer the questions “How do I know the program did or
did not address this in the curriculum? What does the program offer as learning
experiences?”

For student learning expectations, look for the expected learning level. These
learning levels are defined in CIDA’s Professional Standards 2009, pages 8-9.
Once you determine what level of learning the expectation requires ask yourself,
“How do I know that students did or did not reach this level of learning? What
student learning was evidenced in student work (not just design projects) and what
was not? What did I hear in interviews that led me to the conclusion that learning had
or had not taken place?”
August 2009

In evaluating student learning expectations, do not focus on the work of individual
students, but look at the student work as a whole. Take a broad view and seek the
preponderance of evidence. Overall, do students graduating from the program
achieve the learning outcomes described in the student learning expectations?

Ask the program for evidence if none is found. Document that you have requested
this evidence in the Visiting Team Report.
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
23
On-Site Evaluation Guidelines
Interviews
Interviews with students, faculty, and other individuals can provide important evidence to
demonstrate achievement of student learning and program expectations. The team should
approach interviews as part of the fact-finding process and be prepared to ask questions
that contribute to their evaluation. The team should also be prepared to answer questions
about CIDA’s mission, history, procedures, and value in the interior design community.
Interviews with faculty
Faculty interviews provide an important opportunity to collect information about
curriculum development and course content. Interviews with faculty occur in conjunction
with the team review of student work and should help the team further collect evidence.
The team should consider what areas are still unclear and what questions could be asked
of the faculty to assist in their review. Furthermore, faculty interviews provide an
opportunity to confirm information in the PAR or collect additional evidence in relation
to Section IV. Program Administration of CIDA’s Professional Standards 2009.
Interviews with students
Student interviews are a critical part of the evaluation process, and the visiting team
should be thoughtful in asking questions that help them evaluate student learning
outcomes. Interviews with students may be particularly helpful in evaluating student
learning expectations that require awareness or understanding.
Techniques for successful fact-finding in interviews:

Identify areas of Standards where the team needs evidence and ask questions that are
directly related to achievement of those areas. In other words, focus on evaluation in
interviews.

Decide on the appropriate strategy to collect the information needed. For instance,
should each team member focus questions on different areas of Standards and report
back? Should all team members ask the same questions and compare answers later?
Consider the groups being interviewed, the amount/variety of information needed,
and the best method to collect that information.

Be up front about the nature of interviews as part of the evaluation process. Let
participants know that interviews are only one component of the on-site review and
that individual answers will not be quoted.

Begin with simple, factual questions to put the interviewee(s) at ease. For instance,
ask students what year of the program they are in. Ask faculty members what classes
they teach.

Avoid leading questions, such as: (to student) “How do you use sketching in the
design process?” (Question implies that student does.) Instead, form non-leading
questions, such as: “Do you use sketching in the design process? How?”
-continued on next page
24
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
On-Site Evaluation Guidelines
Techniques for successful fact-finding in interviews (cont’d)

Ask for information in an open-ended way. Begin with words such as “Describe,”
“Characterize,” and “Comment on.”

Use information provided in the Program Analysis Report as a springboard for
interviewing faculty members and administrators. This will demonstrate that you
have reviewed the information provided and are seeking to confirm or clarify
information.
Exit Meetings
Exit meetings are scheduled for the last day of the site visit. During these meetings, the
CIDA visiting team reviews findings with the program administration and faculty. This
may be the only time the team meets with institutional administrators, so it is important to
review the purpose of the visit and acknowledge the institution’s role in supporting
accreditation of the program.
Techniques for successful exit meetings:
August 2009

Be objective, clear, and concise in presenting program strengths and weaknesses. It is
especially important to be candid regarding program weaknesses. The team should
not offer solutions to program weaknesses.

Do not divulge the accreditation status recommended by the team to the program.
The team’s recommendation will be included in the Visiting Team Report the
program receives for review approximately 30 days after the visit.

Tell faculty and administration that the Accreditation Commission makes the final
decision on accreditation status. The team makes a recommendation, which may or
may not be the final status granted.

Discuss CIDA’s schedule for processing the Visiting Team Report, the program’s
opportunity to review the report, and an approximate date of decision and
notification.

Encourage faculty members and administrators to contact the CIDA office if they
have any questions or concerns.
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
25
The Visiting Team Report
The Visiting Team Report
The Visiting Team Report (VTR) communicates the visiting team’s evaluation of
program compliance with CIDA Standards. The VTR presents the evidence and rationale
for team conclusions, taking into consideration the review of student work, interviews,
site visit observations, and the Program Analysis Report (PAR). The VTR should
describe all program strengths and weaknesses related to the Standards, but it should not
identify better approaches or solutions to areas of weakness.
When the VTR is submitted to CIDA, it is edited for technical correctness and clarity in a
collaborative effort between staff, representatives from the Accreditation Commission,
and the visiting team. Following this editing process, the program reviews the complete
VTR, including all visiting team comments, the marks of compliance provided for each
Standard, and the recommendation for accreditation status.
Visiting Team Report Format
An electronic report template is provided for the team’s use in completing the Visiting
Team Report.
The visiting team must submit the following items in electronic format for the Visiting
Team Report:
 Introductory Questionnaire
 Team Evaluation and Analysis of Achievement of the Standards
 Concluding Analysis
 Recommendation for Accreditation Status
Additionally, the visiting team must send the following information to the CIDA office:
 Signed Foreword (form provided)
 A copy of the site visit schedule provided by the program, marked up to reflect
the actual on-site schedule
 Lists of interview/meeting attendees
 Additional documentation provided by the program prior to or during the visit
(only provide information that is important to clarify the team’s evaluation or the
PAR)
Foreword
A Foreword is provided for the team to sign, indicating team consensus regarding the
report content and the recommendation for accreditation status.
Introductory Questionnaire
The first section of the VTR is an Introductory Questionnaire that the team completes
on-site. This section of the report provides additional information important to
understanding the context of the program and the site visit.
26
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
The Visiting Team Report
Schedule of Activities
The program will provide the visiting team with a Schedule of Activities that lists dates
and times of all meetings, people interviewed, and events that occurred during the visit.
One copy of this schedule should be used to maintain an accurate record of any changes
as the visit takes place. Collect names of persons who attended various functions and
record all requests for additional information on-site. The final schedule, marked up to
reflect what actually occurred during the visit, as well as lists of meeting attendees are
submitted to CIDA and kept on file.
Team Responses to Standards
Executive Summary
Guidance is provided to assist teams in writing an Executive Summary for each Standard
that supports the team’s conclusion of compliance, partial compliance or non-compliance.
In the Executive Summary:
 Provide a narrative assessment that addresses each bullet point.
 Include descriptions of program characteristics, key projects, exercises, or
other learning experiences that provided evidence for the Standard. This is
especially important when the team has identified program strengths or
weaknesses. Elaboration helps support the team’s evaluation. Without these
elements, the report reader does not emerge with a sense of an individual
program’s approach to delivering interior design education.
 Think macro vs. micro. Standards are broad expectations (macro) and are the
focus of your analysis and your recommendation for accreditation. Degree of
achievement of student learning and program expectations (micro) impact
compliance with Standards.
 Be analytical. Describe the important factors (program strengths and
weaknesses; key projects, assignments, and learning experiences) and the degree
to which these impacted and led to your conclusion of compliance, partial
compliance, or non-compliance with the Standard.
 Avoid including information from the PAR verbatim in the Executive
Summary. If information in the response clearly contradicts information
presented in the PAR, explain this disparity.
 Do not use superlatives (“stupendous”, “wonderful”, “brilliant”) and
comparative statements (“the best student work ever seen”).
 Remember that the program does not need to achieve all student learning
or program expectations in order to be in compliance with a Standard.
Analyzing how weaknesses impact the achievement of the broad Standard
statement is key to determining the appropriate level of compliance.
- continued on next page
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
27
The Visiting Team Report
Check Marks for Expectations
Student Learning Expectations
The check mark options correspond with the learning levels included in the student
learning expectations. In the VTR template, the checkbox that corresponds with the
expected learning level for each student learning expectation is shaded gray. Check only
one box per expectation: insufficient evidence, awareness, understanding, or
ability/application.
Program Expectations
If the program has addressed a program expectation sufficiently, the team should check
yes. If the program has not addressed a program expectation sufficiently or at all, the team
should check no. Check only one box per expectation.
While it is not necessary to address each expectation in the Executive Summary, the team
will need to agree on the evidence and the check mark for each expectation. The team
explicitly addresses program strengths and weaknesses in the Executive Summary.
Keeping close track of this evidence as you are going through your evaluation will make
writing the Executive Summaries easier.
Overall Analysis of Compliance with the Standard
Check compliance, partial compliance, or non-compliance beneath the Standard or delete
the two that don’t apply.

Be sure the Executive Summary and the check marks for student learning
and program expectations support the mark of compliance. The Standards
may still be in compliance if one or more of the expectations are not met as long
as the team determines the program has achieved the broad Standard statement.
Concluding Analysis
The Concluding Analysis provides an opportunity for the team to synthesize information
presented in the PAR and VTR and describe characteristics that differentiate the program.
Guidance is provided to assist teams in composing this analysis. Team responses may be
provided as notes, bullet points, or some other short form. CIDA staff will use the
information provided by the team to draft a narrative.
28
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
The Visiting Team Report
Team Recommendation for Accreditation
The visiting team must submit a recommendation for accreditation status: accreditation
for six years, accreditation for six years with an interim visit, or denial of accreditation.
If the team recommends an interim visit, the team must provide the rationale for this
recommendation. The rationale must address why an interim visit is needed and be based
on weaknesses identified during the site visit, not future curriculum changes, faculty
retirements, etc. The team should carefully review CIDA policies that describe the
accreditation term and circumstances of an interim visit.
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
29
Resources
Steps of the Review Process Following a Site Visit












The VTR is completed during the site visit and is due in the CIDA office one week
after the last day of the site visit.
Team members complete team member evaluation forms and travel expense reports
and submit them to the CIDA office.
CIDA drafts letters of appreciation to appropriate administrators and/or program
head and sends to the team chair for completion and mailing.
Team members edit the report in consultation with the Accreditation Commission
and CIDA staff.
Report is sent to the program for review.
A copy of the program response (if any) is sent to the visiting team, and the team is
asked to respond.
Report is sent to a group of CIDA site visitors for review and comment.
Accreditation Commission is mailed all materials pertaining to the program review:
the Program Analysis Report, the Visiting Team Report, program response (if any),
and site visitor comments.
The final version of the Visiting Team Report is sent to the program.
The Accreditation Commission makes the accreditation decision, and the program is
notified by e-mail, with a letter following by mail.
Accreditation Report is sent with decision letter to the program and institution.
Team receives a copy of the accreditation decision letter.
Visiting Team Report Due Date
The VTR is due in the CIDA office no later than one week after the site visit. A checklist
of items that must be submitted with the report is included in the pre-visit package sent to
the team. Adherence to the due date is essential to fulfilling CIDA’s obligation to the
program being reviewed.
Editing the Visiting Team Report
Upon receipt of the Visiting Team Report in the CIDA office, staff edit the report for
grammar, spelling, formatting, and clarity.
Representatives from the Accreditation Commission then review the report and typically
have questions for the team. The team will be contacted in writing regarding these
questions. The team should work collaboratively to edit the report and/or respond to
Commissioner questions.
The editing process is intended to help the team develop a clear and defensible report.
Involvement of representatives of the Accreditation Commission at this stage helps ensure
that the report clearly describes evidence and supports the team’s conclusions. This, in
turn, ensures that the Accreditation Commission has a clear body of evidence upon which
to base an accreditation decision.
30
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Accreditation Decision
Program Review of the Visiting Team Report
The program has an opportunity to review the Visiting Team Report. (See CIDA’s
Accreditation Policy and Procedure, Section 6, page 9).
If the program responds only with technical concerns (spelling errors, grammar, etc.),
which do not impact the content of the report, changes are made in the CIDA office.
If the program responds with content concerns, the response is forwarded to the team for
review. When reviewing a program response, the team should be aware of options for
replying. The team may: 1) edit the report to alleviate some or all of the program’s
concerns; 2) make no changes to the report, in which case the program’s response is
appended to the report for circulation; 3) address the program’s concerns in writing and
forward to the CIDA office, in which case the reply is also appended to the report for
circulation.
Site Visitor Review of the Visiting Team Report
All site visitors will be asked to read and review a group of 4-6 Visiting Team Reports
per year (for the fall or spring site visit season). Site visitors are asked whether or not
evidence presented in the report substantiates the mark of compliance for each Standard
and, subsequently, the recommendation for accreditation status. Readers should also
notify CIDA of any technical/grammatical errors within the report; however, they should
not edit the report for stylistic preferences.
Site visitors’ participation in reviewing Visiting Team Reports provides a valuable
contribution to the checks and balances that promote consistency in the application of
standards. These responses are forwarded to the Accreditation Commission with the
Visiting Team Report and provide an overview of support for the conclusions reached in
the report, call attention to possible concerns, and thus broaden input into final decisionmaking.
Site visitors should bear in mind that responses become part of the written record in the
event of an appeal or litigation.
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
31
Resources
Accreditation Decision
The Accreditation Commission makes the final decision on accreditation. Occasionally
the Commission reaches a different conclusion than the team regarding compliance with
Standards and/or the accreditation status recommended by the visiting team. The
Commission places a high level of confidence in site visitors’ ability to assess program
quality; however, the Commission also must base its decisions on the broad
considerations of consistency and equity in application of Standards and precedent in
decision-making.
32
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Resources
Council for Interior Design Accreditation Site Visitors
Scott M. Ageloff, AIA, ASID, IDEC
Cherif Amor, IDEC
Rebecca Ballema, IIDA
Carl R. Ballinger, IIDA, ASID
Jan Bast, IDEC, IIDA
Jose Bernardi
Sherry Bilenduke, IDC
Patricia Borba McDonald, ASID
Rosemary Botti-Salitsky
Darrin Brooks, ASID, IIDA, IDEC
Philip Bulone, IDEC, IIDA
Karen Clarke, ASID, IIDA, IDEC
Stephanie Clemons, IDEC
Holly Cline, IDEC
Noreen Connelly, ASID, IDEC
Stephanie Deshaies, IIDA
Arlene Dougall, IDC
Laura Fenniak, IDC
Elaine Fenton, IDC
Leslie Fossler, IIDA
John W. Gaul, ASID, IIDA
Sheri S. Gerdes, ASID
Kathleen Gibson, IDEC
Delores Ginthner, FIDEC
Kelly Gluck, ARIDO, IDEC, IDC
Lisa Godsey, AIA, ASID, IIDA, IDC, IDEC
Chris Good, ASID
Ellen B. Goode, IDEC
Sari Graven, ASID
Allan Guinan, ARIDO, IDC
Denise Guerin, FIDEC, IIDA, ASID
Stephanie Hawkins
Lisa Herriott, IIDA
Henry Hildebrandt, AIA, IIDA
Joseph Hittinger, ASID, IIDA
Holly M. Hodnick, IIDA
Denise Homme, AIA, ASID, IIDA, IDEC
J. Kirk Irwin
Kris V. Irwin
Kijeong Jeon, IDEC, IIDA
Lynn M. Jones, ASID, IIDA, IDEC
Kathleen Julin, IDEC, IIDA
Mark Karlen, AIA, ASID, IDEC
Beth Katz, IIDA
Rosemary Kilmer, ASID, IDEC
Janine King, IDEC, IIDA
August 2009
New York School of Interior Design, Brooklyn, NY
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX
Design Plus, Grand Rapids, MI
Carl R. Ballinger Design Studio LLC, Philadelphia, PA
Design Institute of San Diego, San Diego, CA
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
KBH Interior Design Inc., Toronto, ON
McDonald & Moore Ltd., San Jose, CA
Mount Ida College, Newton, MA
Utah State University, Logan, UT
International Academy of Design & Technology, Tampa, FL
The New England School of Art & Design, Boston, MA
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
Radford University, Radford, VA
Brenau University, Gainesville, GA
Architex International, Seattle, WA
Dougall Design, Islington, ON
Smith & Co. Studio, Calgary, AB
Elaine Fenton Design, Westmount, QC
Leslie Fossler Interiors, Austin, TX
Avondale Estates, GA
Vigil Enterprises, Santa Fe, NM
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Minneapolis, MN
Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Toronto, ON
International Academy of Design and Technology,
Chicago, IL
KSA Interiors, Glen Allen, VA
Meredith College, Raleigh, NC
Vashon Island, WA
Figure 3, Toronto, ON
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
S. Hawkins Design, North Vancouver, BC
NBBJ, Seattle, WA
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
Joseph Hittinger Designs, Palo Alto, CA
San Diego Mesa College, San Diego, CA
Design Institute of San Diego, San Diego, CA
Columbia College of Chicago, Chicago, IL
Station Casinos, Las Vegas, NV
Color Workshop, San Francisco, CA
Brenau University, Gainesville, GA
University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, WI
Moore College of Art and Design, Philadelphia, PA
Katz Design Group, Phoenix, AZ
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Florida International University, Miami, FL
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
33
Resources
Marjorie Kriebel, FIDEC, FIIDA
Robert Krikac, IIDA
Nancy Kwallek, IDEC, IIDA
Cynthia Landis
Seunghae Lee, IDEC
Michael Loalbo, IIDA
Jana Macalik, IDEC, ARIDO, OAA
Steven Mansfield, AIA, IDEC
Craig Marlow, IDEC
Caren Martin, IIDA
Janetta McCoy, IDEC
Cath McGlynn, IIDA
Sandra G. McGowen, FASID
Jeanne Mercer Ballard, IDEC
Beth Miller, ASID, IDEC
Kay Miller Boehr, IIDA, IDEC
Dana Moody, IDEC
Helena Moussatche, IDEC
Patricia Murray, ASID, IDEC, IIDA
Christine Myres, IDEC, ASID
Vini Nathan, IDEC
Linda Nelson Johnson
Mark Nelson, IDEC
Marlene Newman, AIA
Margaret Noakes, FIIDA
Linda Nussbaumer, ASID, IDEC
Linda O’Shea, IIDA
Jill Pable, IDEC
Sharran Parkinson, IIDA, IDEC
Mitzi R. Perritt, IDEC
Judy Pickett, ASID
Cheryl Lynn Pin, IIDA
Michael Plasse-Taylor, IDC
Craig C. Polacek
Tiiu Poldma, SDIQ, IDC
Ihor Pona, IDEC
Kristie Pudlock, IIDA
Sandra Rawls Oltmanns, ASID, IIDA
Marilyn Read, IIDA, IDEC
Cheryl Reece Myers, FASID
Roberto Rengel, IIDA, IDEC
Kevin Michael Renz, AIA, IIDA
Randall Russ, ASID, IDEC
Anne Savill, FIDC, FIDIBC
Charles Seale, ASID
Christopher Sherry, AIA, ASID
Lynn R. Smith, IIDA
Mishca R. Smith, IIDA
Alison Snyder, IDEC, IIDA, ASID
Olivia Jane Snyder, ASID
Deborah S. Steinmetz, FASID, IIDA
34
Philadelphia, PA
Washington State University, Pullman, WA
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis, IN
Purdue University, IN
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
Ryerson University, Toronto, ON
Utah State University, Logan, UT
Art Institute of Washington, DC
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
Washington State University, Spokane, WA
McGlynn Design Group, Grand Rapids, MI
McGowen Interiors, Inc., Alpharetta, GA
Appalachian State University, Zionville, NC
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS
Park University, MO
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, TN
Savannah College of Art and Design, Savannah, GA
The Art Institute of California – San Diego, CA
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Fayetteville, AR
Philadelphia University, Philadelphia, PA
Washington State University, Pullman, WA
University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, WI
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
WHR Architects, Dallas, TX
South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD
Kean University, Union, NJ
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX
Design Lines, Ltd., Raleigh, NC
Workplace Management, Portland, OR
Ryerson University, Toronto, ON
Steven Kahle Architects, Annapolis, MD
University of Montreal, Montreal, QC
Kwantlen University College, Surrey, BC
Champlin/Haupt Architects, Inc., Cincinnati, OH
Cumming, GA
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Oklahoma Christian University, Oklahoma City, OK
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Endicott College, Beverly, MA
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Savill Design Associates, Vancouver, BC
Charles Seale Design, Eunice, LA
Dunwoody, GA
Art Institute of Charlotte, Charlotte, NC
Pfizer, Kalamazoo, MI
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Kendall College of Art & Design, Grand Rapids, MI
Steinmetz & Associates, New Orleans, LA
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Resources
Mary Sterling, IDC, IDEC
Dorothy Stern, ARIDO, IDC, IDEC
Sally Ann Swearingen, IDEC
Karen Trimbach, IIDA
Lisa Tucker, AIA, ASID, IDEC
Randa Tukan, IDC
Angela Turner, ASID, IIDA, IDEC, ICC
John Turpin, IDEC
Susan Walker-Davies, IIDA
Ann Whiteside-Dickson, IDEC, IIDA
Morley Winnick, IDC
Diana Wright, IDC
Barbara Young, IIDA
Linda Zimmer, IDEC, IIDA
Stephanie Zollinger, IDEC
August 2009
Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN
Algonquin College, Ottawa, ON
Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX
Cooper Carry, Alexandria, VA
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
HOK Canada, Toronto, ON
University of Montevallo, Birmingham, AL
Washington State University, Pullman, WA
RS&H, Jacksonville, FL
Lexington, KY
Morley J. Winnick Interior Designers Ltd., Calgary, AB
Retail Environments Marketing Corp., Toronto, ON
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
35
Resources
What is Accreditation?1
A process that uses experts in a particular discipline or field to define standards of acceptable
operation/performance for institutions, organizations, or systems and to measure compliance with
them.
Accreditation typically refers to a standard setting and review process.
Attributes of a Typical Accreditation Program

Accreditation programs usually incorporate a formal, systematic, and highly structured
process for the standards development and review.

Accreditation usually has a national scope although there are some regional, state, and
international accreditation efforts.

Accreditation is one of the better-known mechanisms of self-regulation in the
association world. One might call accreditation a quasi-regulatory or quasi-government
activity.

Accreditation programs are usually voluntary, although government does operate some
accreditation programs. Accreditation is also typically a volunteer driven process.

Accreditation activities usually involve some form of peer review, where groups of
experts are called upon to determine acceptable levels of competence and performance.

Protection of the public is frequently one of the most important goals of the better
known accreditation efforts.

Accreditation is a continuous, ongoing, and long-term activity both for the accrediting
body and potential applicants.

The goals of accreditation typically include the improvement and continuing
education of the entity seeking recognition.

Some of the primary benefits of seeking accreditation are the learning process and
potential positive change that can occur in participating organizations.

Most accreditation organizations currently operating in the United States were initially
developed to meet needs in some level of education or training.

Educational accreditation efforts usually provide a minimum set of curriculum
requirements to help ensure consistent outcomes.
Hamm, Michael S., The Fundamentals of Accreditation, ASAE, 1997.
36
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Resources
Assessing Legal Risks of Accreditation Decisions
By Mark L. Pelesh
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Washington, DC
As much as we might wish it were otherwise, the collegial process of self-improvement
can result in a lawsuit. Accrediting agencies confer a status that frequently is the key to
valuable resources for a school or program – eligibility for Title IV funds, access to
state licensure, or professional standing and prestige. It is unsurprising, therefore, that
institutions or programs denied accreditation may resort to the courts to challenge an
adverse action. Unless an accrediting agency has properly positioned itself, it could
face expensive and burdensome litigation, the potential for judicial intrusion into the
accreditation process and, at the worst, a court overturning the agency’s decision.
The good news is that the legal steps necessary to help an accrediting agency to defend
itself in litigation are consistent with good accreditation practice. Indeed, they may even
help an agency avoid a legal challenge. What are the key questions to ask in assessing
the legal risks that an agency may face?
1. Is the agency following its own procedures?
An accrediting agency must first and foremost follow its own established procedures
for conducting an accreditation review. While this may seem elementary, there is often
a tendency to take procedural shortcuts when a review appears to be heading for an
adverse result. The courts give accrediting agencies some latitude to interpret their own
procedures and to fill in procedural gaps. But, nothing is more likely to invite a court
challenge or an unfavorable judicial decision than a material failure to follow the
agency’s own procedures.
2. Is the agency affording notice and opportunity to respond?
In addition to following its own procedures, an accrediting agency must give a school
or program notice of areas where it may be failing to meet accrediting standards and a
meaningful opportunity to respond before adverse action is taken. This is the core
meaning of “due process.” Yet, accreditors sometimes resist this step as
time-consuming and unnecessary. “Due process,” however, is your friend in convincing
a court that a thorough and fair review has occurred.
3. Is there substantial evidence in the record to support the decision?
Fortunately, the trend of the case law on judicial review of accreditation decisions has
been for the courts to defer strongly to the judgments of accreditors and to confine their
review to the record assembled during the accreditation review. The clear implication is
that an accreditation decision is unlikely to be reversed on the merits if the decision is
tied to the agency’s standards and facts have been assembled and cited which plausibly
support the conclusion that accrediting standards have not been met.
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
37
Resources
4. Is the accreditation review tainted by extraneous considerations?
If the first three questions have been answered favorably, there will be a high, if not
insuperable, hurdle for any potential plaintiff to surmount. Nonetheless, substantial
allegations of bias, conflict of interest, or anti-competitive conduct may open the door
to a more searching judicial examination of the accreditation decision.
The time to be asking these questions is not when a decision has already been reached
and suit is about to be filed, but at an early stage of the accreditation process. At that
point, issues can be spotted and appropriately dealt with so that, if the considered
judgment of the agency is to reach an adverse decision, the agency will be in the best
possible position to minimize the disruption and cost of litigation and to have its
judgment vindicated in the courts.
Reprinted with permission.
This article first appeared in the newsletter for
ASPA, the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors.
Mark Pelesh served as counsel for the Council for Interior Design Accreditation
and a number of other accreditors.
38
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009
Resources
Council for Higher Education Accreditation
Statement of Good Practice and Shared Responsibility
In the Conduct of Specialized and Professional Accreditation Review
The long tradition of quality assurance through peer review and self-examination
continues to be valued throughout higher education, benefiting students, the public and
the enterprise. This statement has been developed to further strengthen that tradition
through encouraging ongoing, careful review of the relationship between institutions
and specialized and professional accreditors.
Key issues addressed by the statement are:

Clear and direct communication between specialized accreditors and institutional
leaders,

Enhanced understanding by specialized accreditors of the larger context of
institutional needs and direction,

Enhanced understanding by institutional leaders of the perspective and needs of
specialized accreditors, and

Affirmation that the relationship between resources and accountability is grounded
in meeting accreditation standards.
The statement builds on the existing policies and procedures of specialized and
professional accreditors, both reinforcing these policies and procedures and calling for
additional action.
I. Institutions and programs are responsible for:
1. Providing clear, accurate and complete information for an accrediting review.
2. Emphasizing the importance of having key faculty and administrators
appropriately involved in the accrediting review.
3. Informing accrediting organizations of the desired purpose and expected results of
the review in relation to institutional and program purpose and strategic direction.
4. Providing constructive information in a timely manner to accrediting organizations
if there are concerns or difficulties that emerge during the accrediting review.
5. Understanding the standards, policies, and procedures of the accrediting
organizations with which institutions and programs are working.
II. Accreditors are responsible for:
1. Ensuring that the accreditation team is well informed and prepared for the review.
2. Ensuring that standards, policies, and procedures are consistently applied.
3. Pursuing only those data and information that are essential to judging whether
accreditation standards are met.
4. Focusing on financial and other resources only to the extent that they affect
compliance with accreditation standards.
5. Respecting the relationship of individual program needs to broader institutional
objectives.
-continued on next page
August 2009
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
39
Resources
6.
7.
8.
Keeping institutional executives appropriately informed at all stages of the review
process.
Communicating consistent information at all stages of the review.
Providing opportunities for objective review and resolution of differences if they
arise during the accreditation process.
III. Both are responsible for:
1. Providing for candid and useful evaluation of the accreditation review.
2. Ensuring open exchange if issues and concerns are identified by institutions,
programs, or accreditors.
3. Encouraging flexibility, openness and cooperation in considering experimental and
creative variations of accreditation review.
4. Ensuring that resources are used efficiently through consistent monitoring of the
costs of accreditation review (whether resulting from institutional decisions about
self-study or accreditor decisions about reports, visits and presentations) in order
that costs incurred are essential to a determination that standards are met.
Revised 11/3/99 (Specialized Advisory Panel)
Adopted by CHEA Board of Directors, January 2000
40
Council for Interior Design Accreditation
August 2009