The Higher Learning Commission
A Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
230 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 7-500
Chicago, IL 60604-1413
800-621-7440
ncahlc.org
FEDERAL COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
Effective for visits beginning January 1, 2011
Introduction
As a federally recognized accrediting agency, the Higher Learning Commission is required to
assure that all its member institutions comply with federal regulations. Compliance with that
requirement is necessary to ensure that institutions accredited by the Higher Learning
Commission are eligible for federal financial aid. The following guide outlines the current
Federal Compliance requirements for accredited institutions and peer reviewers.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 increased the number of statutory requirements
that the Commission must ensure its accredited institutions fulfill. Further, the Department of
Education continues to define and to implement these requirements through regulations effective
July 1, 2010, and additional regulations effective July 1, 2011. This document was substantially
revised in 2009 to reflect the changes in statute and anticipated changes in regulation. The
revised document for visits in spring 2011 reflects any changes in regulations and in Commission
policy not reflected in the 2009-2010 document. Finally, the Commission anticipates that it will
need to revise its policies on credits and program length in 2011 to meet new federal regulations
for accrediting agencies recently published in late 2010.
Expectations for Institutions and Peer Reviewers
The Higher Learning Commission’s Federal Compliance program follows a three-step process.
First, institutions must address these guidelines in the materials they submit to the Commission
before a visit. Institutions applying for initial candidacy, continued candidacy, or initial
accreditation, and institutions maintaining accreditation through the Commission’s Program to
Evaluate and Advance Quality (PEAQ) should address the Federal Compliance requirements in
the self-study before the comprehensive evaluation visit. Institutions maintaining accreditation
through the Commission’s Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) should address the
requirements in the materials prepared for a Quality Checkup Visit. Peer reviewers should study
the requirements and submitted materials before the visit to determine whether there are any areas
of concern. Second, with either program, the Commission expects that institutions make Federal
Compliance information available in the Resource Room during the visit. While conducting the
visit, peer reviewers should verify that the Federal Compliance information they received is
accurate and complete. They should raise any questions they have with institutional
representatives. Third, peer reviewers should document that they have conducted a thorough
review of the institution’s compliance with federal guidelines. A template in the team report
guides this documentation.
CREDITS, PROGRAM LENGTH, AND TUITION
Applicable Commission Policies: 3.10, CREDITS, PROGRAM LENGTH AND TUITION; 3.2(d)1,
CHANGES IN MISSION OR INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
What is the expectation of this requirement? The institution should be able to demonstrate that it assigns
credit hours to courses in a reasonable and systematic way, typically in the semester hour or quarter hour
The Higher Learning Commission
Federal Compliance Program - 2010-11
format. Degree programs should have overall credit hour requirements. These credit hour assignments and
degree program requirements should fit within the range of current good practice in higher education in the
United States. Should the institution seek to make any significant change to credit hour assignments or
degree program requirements, the institution must seek Commission approval.
Additionally, institutions should set tuition consistently across degree programs. If tuition differs for a
particular program or programs, the institution should be able to justify that difference based on costs for
offering that degree, the length of the program, or the objectives of the program.
How should the team determine that the institution has met this requirement? The team should review
the information the institution submits before a visit, particularly the course catalog and any specialized
accrediting agency actions. The team should determine whether the institution’s credit hour allocations,
degree program requirements, and tuition costs across programs are within the range of good practice in
higher education and contribute to an academic environment in which students receive a rigorous and
thorough education. Keep in mind that the Commission has specific credit hour requirements for degree
programs as outlined in the Minimum Expectations for institutions; teams should refer to that document
for more information about the expectations and handling any deviation from those expectations.
STUDENT COMPLAINTS
Applicable Commission Policies: 13.3, INSTITUTIONAL RECORDS OF STUDENT
COMPLAINTS
What is the expectation of this requirement? The institution should explain its process for handling
student complaints. The institution should also summarize the number and type of complaints and track
their resolutions for the three years prior to the visit. The institution is free to design the process that best
fits its needs and may even determine that a student complaints policy is not necessary. Whatever approach
the institution takes, the institution should show that it receives, tracks, and processes student complaints in
a timely manner. The institution should also report on this information in the aggregate to the visiting team.
How should the team determine that the institution has met this requirement? The team should review
the process that the institution uses to manage complaints as well as the history of complaints received and
processed. The team should use this information to determine whether the institution has a process to
review and resolve complaints in a timely manner. The team should verify that the evidence shows that the
institution can, and does, follow this process and should advise the institution of any improvements that
might be appropriate. This requirement links to the institution’s fulfillment of Criterion One regarding
mission and integrity.
TRANSFER POLICIES
Applicable Commission Policies: 3.11, TRANSFER OF CREDIT
What is the expectation of this requirement? The institution should demonstrate that it discloses its
transfer policies to students and to the public. Its policies should contain information about the criteria the
institution uses to make transfer of credit decisions.
How should the team determine that the institution has met this requirement? The team should review
the institution’s transfer policies. In particular, the team should consider where the institution discloses
these policies (in its catalog, on its Web site, etc.) and how easily current and prospective students can
access that information. The team should determine whether the disclosed information clearly explains the
criteria the institution uses to make transfer decisions.
Page 2
The Higher Learning Commission
Federal Compliance Program - 2010-11
VERIFICATION OF STUDENT IDENTITY Updated in 20010-11!
Applicable Commission Policies: 3.12, VERIFICATION OF THE IDENTITY OF STUDENTS IN
DISTANCE OR CORRESPONDENCE EDUCATION
What is the expectation of this requirement? The institution should verify the identity of students who
participate in courses or programs provided through distance or correspondence education. The institution
may use a variety of approaches to verifying student identity, which may include (1)
secure login and pass code; (2) proctored examinations; and (3) new or other
technologies and practices that are effective in verifying the identity of students. Additionally, if the
method by which the institution verifies student identity will incur a cost to the student (such as a fee for a
proctored exam) the institution must disclose that cost to the student at the time of registration or
enrollment. The institution must also demonstrate that it is making reasonable efforts to protect student
privacy in verifying student identity. Note that the definitions of distance and correspondence education for
the purpose of verifying student identify are the federal definitions and are quoted in the Commission
policy for reference.
How should the team determine that the institution has met this requirement? The team should
determine how the institution verifies that the student who enrolls in a course is the same student who
submits assignments, takes exams, and earns a final grade. The team should ensure that the institution does
not merely have plans to verify student identity but has implemented actual approaches and that those
approaches respect student privacy.
TITLE IV PROGRAM and RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES
Updated in 20010-11!
Applicable Commission Policies: 1.6, INSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE HIGHER
EDUCATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT; 3.2(d)1, CHANGES IN INSTITUTIONAL MISSION
OR CHARACTERISTICS
What is the expectation of this requirement? Institutions are expected to provide the Commission with
information regarding each of the following components. The institution staff compiling this information
should work with the financial aid office and the Chief Financial Officer or comptroller.
This requirement has several components the institution and team must address:
1. General Program Responsibilities. The institution should provide the Commission with information
regarding the status of its Title IV program; in particular, the institution should submit information about
recent findings from Title IV program reviews, inspections, or audits. The institution should disclose any
limitation, suspension, or termination actions that the Department of Education may have undertaken and
the reasons for those actions. The institution should also disclose any fines, letters of credit, or heightened
monitoring arising from the Department of Education. The institution should address, in the self-study, the
consequences of these requirements on its financial health. The institution should also discuss its response
and corrective actions to these challenges.
2. Financial Responsibility Requirements. The institution must provide information about the
Department’s review of the institution’s composite ratios and financial audits. In particular, the institution
should provide information about the A-133 portion of the audit. The Commission also analyzes each
institution’s financial ratios to determine whether there might be financial concerns. The team should check
to see whether either the Commission or the Department has raised concerns about the institution’s finances
based on these ratios. If so, the institution should discuss the actions it has taken in response to these
concerns.
3. Default Rates. The institution should take steps to avoid excessive loan default rates. The institution
should disclose student loan default rates for the three years leading up to the visit. The institution should
use either the Department’s calculation of these rates or the Department’s instructions for calculating rates.
Page 3
The Higher Learning Commission
Federal Compliance Program - 2010-11
If the default rates are higher for the institution than its peers or if rates have triggered a Department
review, then the institution should address the actions it has taken in response and submit to the team any
corrective plan filed with the department. Note for 2011: institutions and teams should use the three-year
default rate; if the institution does not provide the default rate for three years leading up to the
comprehensive evaluation visit, the team should contact Commission staff.
4. Campus Crime Information and Related Disclosure of Consumer Information. Title IV program
responsibilities include legal responsibilities to disclose information to students and to the public. The
institution should provide the Commission samples of those disclosures. In addition, the institution should
discuss any findings from the Department regarding these disclosures.
5. Satisfactory Academic Progress and Attendance Policies. Institutions are required to have a
Satisfactory Academic Progress policy and an attendance policy as part of the Title IV program. They must
document to the Commission that this policy is readily available to students and satisfies state or federal
requirements. In most cases, teams should verify that these policies exist and are available to students,
typically in the course catalog or student handbook. Note that the Commission does not necessarily require
that institutions take attendance but does anticipate that institutional attendance policies will provide
information to students about attendance requirements at the institution.
6. Contractual Relationships. The institution should disclose its contracts with third-party entities not
accredited by a federally recognized accrediting agency as a part of the materials for the on-site evaluation.
The institution should have previously disclosed all existing contracts to the Commission during the 2010
Annual Institutional Data Update (AIDU). The Commission’s substantive change policy requires that that
institution notify the Commission of any new contracts for up to 25 percent of an academic program, that
the institution obtain prior Commission approval before initiating any contract for 25 to 50 percent of a
program, and that the Commission will approve contracts for more than 50 percent of a program only in
exceptional circumstances under heavy scrutiny.
7. Consortial Relationships. The institution should disclose its consortial relationships with other entities
accredited by a federally recognized accrediting agency as part of the materials for the on-site evaluation.
Institutions should have previously disclosed all consortial relationships to the Commission during the 2010
AIDU. The Commission’s substantive change policy requires that the institution notify the Commission of
any new consortium for up to 50 percent of an academic program and that the institution obtain prior
Commission approval for any consortium that offers 50 percent or more of an academic program.
How should the team determine that the institution has met this requirement? The team should review
all of the information that the institution discloses having to do with its Title IV program responsibilities.
the team should determine whether the Department has raised any issues related to the institution’s
compliance and decide whether these issues relate to the institution’s ability to satisfy the Criteria for
Accreditation.
INSTITUTIONAL DISCLOSURES and
ADVERTISING AND RECRUITMENT MATERIALS Updated in 20010-11!
Applicable Commission Policies: 12.2, AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION’S OBLIGATIONS
FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE; 12.6, AN ORGANIZATION’S ADVERTISING AND RECRUITING
MATERIALS
What is the expectation of this requirement? The institutions= should demonstrate that it provides
accurate, timely, and appropriately detailed information to current and prospective students and the public
about its accreditation status with the Commission and with other accrediting agencies. The institution
should also provide such information to students about its programs, locations, and policies.
Page 4
The Higher Learning Commission
Federal Compliance Program - 2010-11
How should the team determine that the institution has met this requirement? The team should review
the institution’s disclosure about its accreditation status with the Commission to determine whether the
information it provides is appropriately formatted and contains the Commission’s Web site address. The
institutions should use the Commission’s Mark of Affiliation wherever possible because it provides all
required disclosure information about accreditation. The team should review disclosures about other
accrediting agencies for accuracy and for appropriate consumer information, particularly regarding the link
between specialized/professional accreditation and the licensure necessary for employment in many
professional or specialized areas. The team should also review the institution’s catalog, brochures,
recruiting materials, and information provided by advisors or counselors to determine whether the
institution provides accurate information to students.
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER ACCREDITING AGENCIES AND WITH
STATE REGULATORY BODIES Updated in 20010-11!
Applicable Commission Policies: 9.1 PROFESSIONAL OR SPECIALIZED ACCREDITATION;
9.2(a) REGARD FOR ACCREDITATION ACTIONS BY OTHER INSTITUTIONAL
ACCREDITING AGENCIES; 9.3 REQUIREMENTS OF INSTITUTIONS HOLDING DUAL
INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION; 9.4 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER AGENCIES’
DECISIONS;10.2 RELATIONS WITH STATES, COORDINATING BOARDS, AND HIGHER
BOARDS
What is the expectation of this requirement? These policies requires that the institution appropriately
disclose to the Commission its relationship with any other specialized, professional, or institutional
accreditor and with all governing or coordinating bodies in states in which the institution may have a
presence. The institution must disclose this information in appropriate portions of the AIDU as well as in
its Self-Study or Quality Checkup Report. The institution must also make available for the team the most
recent comprehensive evaluation report and action letter from each institutional or specialized accrediting
agency as well as any interim monitoring prepared for that agency.
How should the team determine that the institution has met this requirement? The team should review
the information, particularly any information that indicates the institution is under sanction or show-cause
or has had its status with any agency suspended, revoked, or terminated as well as the reasons for such
actions. The team should then determine whether this information provides any indication about the
institution’s capacity to meet the Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation. Should the team recommend
initial or continued status to an institution that is under sanction or adverse action (i.e., withdrawal,
suspension, denial, or termination) with another institutional accreditor or state entity IN THE PAST FIVE
YEARS?, the team must outline in the report its reasons for making its recommendation despite its
knowledge of these actions. Should the team learn that the institution is at risk of losing, or has lost, its
degree authorization in any state in which it meets state presence requirements, it should contact the
Commission staff liaison as soon as possible.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION VISIT and
THIRD PARTY COMMENT
Applicable Commission Policies: 12.8, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE
EVALUATION VISIT
What is the expectation of this requirement? The Commission seeks public comments on institutions as
part of its comprehensive evaluations and Quality Checkup Visits. To decide how best to solicit third party
comments, the institution should first determine its constituencies. These groups should include students,
parents, alumni, taxpayers, donors, community groups, local businesses, and so on. The institution should
then decide what media it will use to solicit comments. Local newspapers, institutional Web sites, and
alumni magazines are appropriate choices. The notice should reach all constituencies but should not unduly
Page 5
The Higher Learning Commission
Federal Compliance Program - 2010-11
burden the institution. The notification should follow the prescribed format; a sample notification is
available on the Commission’s Web site under Third Party Comment.
How should the team determine that the institution has met this requirement? The team should review
information about the public disclosure of the upcoming visit, including sample announcements, to
determine whether the institution made an appropriate and timely effort to notify the public and seek
comments. The team also will evaluate the comments to determine whether the team needs to follow-up on
any issues through its interviews and review of documentation during the visit process.
Summary
The Higher Learning Commission expects that accredited, candidate and applying
institutions comply with federal regulations and demonstrate fulfillment through the Federal
Compliance program explained in this document. Should the Commission receive any
information to the contrary—through an evaluation visit, the AIDU, institutional reporting, or
other means—the Commission will take any steps necessary to further assess the institution’s
noncompliance. However, the Commission does not itself determine compliance with federal law
and regulations: such determinations are the province of the U.S. Department of Education or
other appropriate body legally empowered to make such judgments.
The Commission, instead, determines whether information it receives about the Federal
Compliance requirements affects the institution’s capacity to meet the Commission’s Criteria for
Accreditation and Commission policies. If the Commission finds that further review would
benefit the institution’s ongoing capacity to meet the Criteria, then the Commission may require
monitoring such as a progress report or a focused visit. Significant noncompliance will result in a
review of the institution’s affiliation with the Commission.
Contact for Questions: Department of Legal and Governmental Affairs
Carrie Caine, Assistant, 312-263-0456 ext. 125 • legalaffairs@hlcommission.org.
Page 6