ACCREDITATION MANUAL
FOR UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL
REHABILITATION EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
Includes accreditation standards, recognition requirements, and evaluation
procedures of the Commission on Undergraduate Standards and
Accreditation (CUSA)
Approved and monitored by the
COUNCIL ON REHABILITATION EDUCATION (CORE)
1699 Woodfield Rd., Suite 300
Schaumburg, IL 60173
(847) 944-1345
www.core-rehab.org
9/9/2011 revision
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I
History of Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA)...…...…………. 4
Mission of CORE Accreditation...………………………………………………….……………….. 5
Objectives of Undergraduate Rehabilitation Education Programs (URE)…………..…………….. 6
Composition of CORE and Two Commissions……………………………………………………… 7
Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation..……………………………..………. 8
Recognition and Eligibility Criteria ...………………………………………………………………. 9
Accreditation Application Procedures………………………………………………………………. 10
Evaluation Procedures………………………………………………………………………..……... 11
Focus on Academic Quality….……………………………………………………………………… 13
Accreditation Review Process………..…………………………………………………………….. 15
Site Visit Process, Policies, and Procedures………………………………………………………… 15
Site Visitor Pool…………………………………………………………………………… 15
Site Visit Team ...…………………………………………………………….………........ 15
Site Visit Preparation……………………………………………………………………… 16
Site Visit Agenda……………………………………………………………………......... 17
Preliminary Review Committee Report………………………………………..…………. 17
Site Visit Evaluation………………………………………………………….…………… 18
Monitoring Process…………………………………………………………………………………. 18
Notification of Decisions…………………………………………………………………………… 19
Appeals Procedures…………………………………………………………………………………. 19
General Procedures……………………………………………………….…………......... 19
Informal Appeals Conference…………………………………………….………………. 20
Formal Arbitration…………………………………………………….………………… 21
Reapplication Procedures ……………………………………………………………………….… 22
Withdrawal Procedures……………………………………………………..……………………… 22
Annual Time Line…………………………………………………………………………………. 23
Annual Fees………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Section II
Standards for Undergraduate Rehabilitation Programs……………………………………………. 24
Background of Standards…..…………………………………………………………….. 25
Sect. A - Program Eligibility Criteria…….…………………………………………........ 26
Sect. B - Mission and Objectives……………………………………………….………… 28
Sect. C - Curriculum Standards……………………..…………………………………….. 28
Sect. D - Program Evaluation…………………………………………………………….. 37
Section III
Application for Undergraduate Accreditation Evaluation.………………………………………… 39
Types of Recognition………………………………………………………………………………. 40
Eligibility Requirements…………………………………………………………………………… 41
Supporting Evidence for Application……………………………………………………………… 41
Application for Evaluation – Due Date………………………………………………..…………. 42
Required Signatures……………………………………….……………………………………….. 43
9/9/2011 revision
2
Section IV
Policies ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 44
Accreditation Extension……………………………………………………………………………. 44
Accredited – On Probation…………………………………………………………………………. 45
Annual Program Review…………………………………………………….…………………..…. 45
Attendance at Meetings……………………………………………………………………….….... 45
Commission on Standards and Accreditation……………………………………………………… 45
Complaints Received about Standards or Compliance…………………………………………...... 45
On-Site Review…………………………………………………………………..…..…………46
CORE Actions…………………………………………………………………………………. 46
Confidentiality……………………………………………………………………………………… 47
Conflict of Interest………………………………………………………………………………….. 47
Consultation Policy…………………………………………………………………………………. 48
Double Majors………………………………………………………………………………………. 49
Fees……………………………………………………………………………………………..…... 49
Length of Accreditation……………………………………………………………………………. 50
Licensure Disclosure……………………………………………………………………………….. 51
Minutes of Board, Commission, and Committee Meetings………………………………………… 51
Mission Statement………………………………………………………………………………….. 51
Multiple Programs………………………………………………………………………………….. 51
Non-Accreditation………………………………………………………………………………...... 51
Non-Discrimination………………………………………………………………………………… 52
Organization Membership on CORE or the Undergraduate Commission………………………… 52
Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………………………… 53
Preliminary Review Committee Report……………………………………………………………. 53
Public Disclosure…………………………………………………………………………………… 53
Public Interest…………………………………………………………………………………..… 53
Public Members of CORE…………………………………………………………………………. 54
Recognition……………………………………………………………………………………….... 55
Reimbursement Policy…………………………………………………………………………….. 55
Responsibilities of Individual Undergraduate Commission and CORE Members………………… 55
Research Policy…………………………………………………………………………………….. 56
Retention of Records………………………………………………………………………………. 58
Review of Factual Accuracy………………………………………………………………………. 58
Specialization………………………………………………………………………………………. 58
Standards Revision……………………………………………………………………..…………...58
Submission Deadline for a Self-Study…………………………………………………………..…..58
Substantive Program Changes……………………………………………………………………….59
Meaning of Substantive Change……………………………..……………………………....... 59
Procedures for Substantive Change…...…………………………………………………………60
Submission of Undergraduate Self-Study in Electronic Format……………………………….…… 61
Self-Study Accreditation Application…………………………………………………………... 61
Preparation of CD/DVDs or Hardcopy…………………………………………………….…… 61
Electronic Format Guidelines…………………………………………………………………. 62
Terms of Accreditation……………………………………………………………………………. 62
Vitae for All Faculty Teaching in Program………………………………………………………. 63
Web Accessibility Guidelines……………………………………………………………………… 63
Glossary of Terms……………………………………………………………………………......... 64
9/9/2011 revision
3
SECTION I
HISTORY OF COMMISSION
ON UNDERGRADUATE STANDARDS AND ACCREDITATION (CUSA)
When CORE was founded in 1971, it was organized in a way that would permit accreditation for
various educational levels and professional specializations within the field of rehabilitation. As
early as 1978, CORE began discussing the possibility of accrediting Undergraduate Rehabilitation
Education (URE) programs. In fact, a number of universities offered rehabilitation bachelor’s
degrees at that time, and many undergraduate educators felt that accreditation standards would
promote consistency at that level and strengthen the overall identity of the profession.
In the early 1990s, several undergraduate rehabilitation educators began meeting to promote the
idea of accreditation. They met with the CORE Board at several of their annual meetings and
received guidance and support for the development of undergraduate program and curriculum
standards. Originally called the Commission on Undergraduate Education, these individuals
collaborated closely with a rehabilitation educators from the US, Canada, and Ireland in
developing culturally inclusive and rigorous academic standards for undergraduate rehabilitation
programs. This led to the development of the Undergraduate Registry in 1999, designed to
establish program and curriculum standards for such programs. Programs qualified for the Registry
by submitting a Self-Study which documented how they met the established standards. No site
visit was required as part of this process. If programs demonstrated by their Self-Study that they
met the educational and program standards, the Commission recommended to the CORE Board
that the program be placed on the Registry. Currently there are 29 programs on the Registry. The
Commission is responsible for overseeing the Registry.
Beginning in 2005, annual conferences were held which brought together educators and
administrators to discuss the unique needs of URE. The first conference was held in Memphis and
resulted in several white papers that addressed the specific needs and challenges of undergraduate
rehabilitation accreditation. The white papers provided future direction for the field, making
recommendations regarding such important areas as professional identity, scope of practice,
credentialing, and accreditation. Conferences in subsequent years were held in Chicago (2006,
2009), University Park, Pennsylvania (2007), and St. Louis (2010). One outgrowth of the
conferences was the development and implementation of a national role and function study, which
provided an empirical basis for establishing undergraduate curriculum standards.
The CORE Board was apprised of these developments at their annual meetings. In 2008, the Board
asked the Commission to develop a process for implementing the accreditation of undergraduate
rehabilitation programs. Since that time, a number of work teams have been involved in the overall
design of the process and the writing of specific program and curriculum standards. The
accreditation process was refined during the summer of 2010 as a result of an accreditation pilot
study of selected undergraduate programs. Based on these results, a formal application to the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) for a Change of Scope of the accreditation
of CORE to include undergraduate rehabilitation accreditation was submitted during the fall of
2011.
9/9/2011 revision
4
MISSION OF CORE ACCREDITATION
The mission of CORE accreditation is to promote the effective delivery of rehabilitation services
to individuals with disabilities by promoting and fostering continuing review and improvement of
undergraduate-level rehabilitation and graduate-level rehabilitation counselor education programs.
CORE’s accreditation process promotes program self-improvement rather than outside censure. A
concomitant purpose is to meet the personnel needs of both public and private rehabilitation
agencies by providing graduates who have demonstrated through academic achievement the skills,
knowledge, and attitudes necessary to provide rehabilitation services to individuals with physical,
mental, and/or emotional needs. It may also serve to assist in the development and refinement of
university-based programs related to the education of persons for professional endeavors
associated with the rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities.
The broad-based membership of CORE plus the varied composition of its Commissions assures
effective, impartial, and objective public representation in CORE’s evaluation, policies, and
decision-making processes. This assurance is achieved by maintaining appropriate representation
on CORE and the Commissions of relevant publics including rehabilitation educators,
rehabilitation professionals (including rehabilitation counselors, employers of rehabilitation
professionals), the public served by rehabilitation professionals, and the public at large.
CORE utilizes a multifaceted approach to access quality of programs and the standards established.
CORE bases its activities on the general acceptance of the following objectives of professional
education that have been generalized from field surveys of the several constituencies concerned
with the education, performance, and goals of practitioners in rehabilitation. A major factor in the
review of academic quality by CORE, in addition to curriculum, is examination of the mission and
objectives of programs by individuals outside of the academic institution.
Objectives that are based on the CORE mission include:
1.
Promoting a high standard of professional education in rehabilitation services and fostering
on-going program development for the preparation of competent professionals at the
bachelor’s level.
2.
Designing innovative learning experiences that are applicable to real life situations and
using technology in creative and imaginative ways to broaden the educational experience
of students.
3.
Reassessing, redefining, and re-evaluating program criteria as the needs of the profession
and the needs of people with disabilities evolve.
4.
Using a consultative model to assist with the development of new URE programs.
5.
Ensuring that all qualified applicants for admission into URE programs, along with all
students who participate in URE programs, are treated fairly, respectfully, and without any
unfair discrimination.
9/9/2011 revision
5
6.
Fostering mutual respect and collaboration between URE programs and master’s programs
in rehabilitation counseling, as well as between URE programs and other related
undergraduate and graduate programs.
7.
Advancing the practice of rehabilitation services by emphasizing the importance of
employment in the lives of people with disabilities.
8.
Providing competent graduates to meet the personnel needs of community-based, public
and private rehabilitation programs
9.
Periodically publishing a roster of recognized programs for rehabilitation professionals, the
public, government agencies, and prospective students.
10.
Enhancing the position of mutual respect and acceptance of URE programs within the
academic community.
OBJECTIVES OF UNDERGRADUATE REHABILITATION EDUCATION (URE)
The objectives include:
1. A URE Program has an ultimate goal of assuring that individuals with disabilities receive
the high quality of services to which they are entitled. It should provide its students with
the opportunity to:
a. Acquire a sound, basic education in rehabilitation;
b. Develop the lifelong habit of updating skills and professionalism;
c. Assist individuals with disabilities in developing their own resources and opportunities
to meet their developmental, vocational, & educational needs;
d. Nourish a commitment to individual human values;
e. Exercise skills and competencies on a high ethical level and with personal integrity;
and
f. Maintain a critical, questioning, and exploratory attitude.
2. A URE Program should contribute to the development of practitioners, educators, and
researchers through its program of academic instruction and clinical training toward the
overall goal of improving practice in the rehabilitation profession in general and in the
specific area of professional application.
3. A URE Program should develop personnel committed to the field of rehabilitation who can
provide effective services to individuals with disabilities, including individuals with severe
disabilities.
4. A URE Program should contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of
rehabilitation through research and the demonstrated application of significant findings.
9/9/2011 revision
6
COMPOSITION OF CORE AND TWO COMMISSIONS
The Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) is composed of 12 individuals appointed
from CORE sponsoring organizations and two public members. Membership includes public
members (2) which represent the consumer public and the public at large. The sponsoring
organizations are professional organizations concerned with rehabilitation counseling and include:
the National Rehabilitation Counseling Association (NRCA) (2), the American Rehabilitation
Counseling Association (ARCA) (2), the National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE)
(2), the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) (1), and the
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB) (1). The last two members of CORE
are the Chairs of the two Commissions on Standards and Accreditation who shall also be voting
members of CORE. All appointees to CORE should be Certified Rehabilitation Counselors
(CRCs), except the public members. CORE appointees may serve two consecutive four-year terms.
The Graduate Commission on Standards and Accreditation is the evaluation component of
CORE. It is the responsibility of the Commission to evaluate programs for their compliance with
standards and to recommend to CORE the granting of recognition. The Graduate Commission is
comprised of at least 15 and no more than 20 individuals who serve for a four-year term with a
maximum of two full terms. The Commission consists of representatives from CORE’s sponsoring
organizations, professional organizations associated with academic areas to be accredited, and
other at-large nominees from rehabilitation organizations, consumer groups, and publics.
Appointments to the Graduate Commission are made by CORE upon receipt of nominations from
designated organizations or groups. The sponsoring organizations/groups are as follows: the
American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA) (2), the Commission on Rehabilitation
Counselor Certification (CRCC) (1), the National Association of Multicultural Rehabilitation
Concerns (NAMRC) (1), the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) (2),
the National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE) (2), the National Rehabilitation
Counseling Association (NRCA) (2), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (1), the Vocational
Evaluation and Career Assessment Professionals (VECAP) (1), the Consortia of Administrators
for Native American Rehabilitation (CANAR) (1), and the Commission on Undergraduate
Standards and Accreditation (CUSA) (1).
The Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA) is responsible for
recommendations to CORE for the standards and criteria required for undergraduate programs in
Rehabilitation Services and Disability Studies. It will consist of at least 9 and no more than 20
individuals. The Commission shall consist of representatives associated with academic areas
addressed in the Registry, and other at-large nominees from undergraduate institutions,
rehabilitation organizations, consumers groups, and members of the public. All nominations must
be ratified by a majority vote of the CORE membership. Membership shall be for a four-year term
with a maximum of two full terms. In the event of a Commissioner resignation, the Commission
will nominate a new member by majority vote. That nomination shall be ratified by a majority vote
of the CORE membership and will begin a new term.
9/9/2011 revision
7
COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STANDARDS AND ACCREDITATION
CORE is the body responsible for establishing policy and procedures and making final decisions
regarding the accreditation of undergraduate and graduate rehabilitation education programs. The
Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA) is the evaluative component
for undergraduate rehabilitation education within CORE. The Undergraduate Commission
evaluates programs for their compliance with standards and recommends to CORE the granting of
recognition. There shall be at least 9 and no more than 20 members of CUSA. Membership on
CUSA takes place after nomination from appropriate organizations (see below) and upon approval
by CORE. Terms of membership shall be for four years. Members may serve a maximum of two
full terms. Nominees will be asked to complete an application form indicating their interest in, and
experience with, undergraduate rehabilitation education.
CORE will consider applications for new organization membership on CORE or the
Undergraduate Commission as interest may emerge. Applications may be obtained from the
CORE Office and may be submitted at any time. The application must include the following: (1)
a brief description of the mission of the organization for which representation is desired, (2) the
number of representatives requested, (3) rationale for representation, (4) background information
of individual organization desiring representation (name, address, phone, contact person), (5)
statement or agreement to cover related expenses for attendance at regularly scheduled meetings,
and (6) willingness to participate in and follow the responsibilities of the component as outlined
in the CORE Bylaws. Approval of new organization membership on the CORE Board or the
Undergraduate Commission requires a two-thirds vote of the CORE membership.
CUSA shall be made up of at least eight representatives from major professional rehabilitation
organizations such as the National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE), the Council of
State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR), the National Council of State
Agencies for the Blind, Inc. (NCSAB), the Consortia of Administrators for Native American
Rehabilitation (CANAR), the Association of Community Rehabilitation Educators (ACRE), the
International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP), the International Association of
Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services (IAPSRS), the National Rehabilitation Association (NRA),
and the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF).
The Undergraduate Commission ideally will also include up to three representatives from
consumer groups representing persons with disabilities, such as: the American Association of
People with Disabilities (AAPD), the Association for Persons in Supported Employment (APSE),
the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA),
and the Disability Policy Coalition.
There shall be at least one member on CUSA who represents the general public.
Both CORE and its Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation have a
responsibility to:
1.
Represent the professional practice and training communities at large.
9/9/2011 revision
8
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Apply the Undergraduate Rehabilitation Education standards in an objective and
consistent manner.
Assess the degree to which programs have achieved compliance with all other
CORE standards.
Exercise professional judgment during program reviews.
Attend appropriate CORE or CUSA meetings each year.
Actively participate in site visitor training at least once every five years (generally
this can be done at spring and fall NCRE conferences).
Obtain financial support from the sponsoring organization to attend the annual
CORE board meeting or the annual CUSA meeting each year.
RECOGNITION AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
There are two types of recognition for URE programs granted by CORE. Recognition is granted
only upon recommendation from the Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation
(CUSA) after that body reviews a program’s compliance with applicable standards. The types of
recognition are: Candidate for Accreditation and Full Accreditation. First-time applicants may be
granted accreditation for up to three years. Programs previously accredited may be granted
accreditation for up to eight years. Based on the nature of the conditions, either type of program
may be granted accreditation for two years. Upon correction of the conditions, accreditation may
be extended for up to three years for new programs and up to eight years for previously accredited
programs.
1.
CANDIDATE FOR ACCREDITATION: Recognition granted to programs that are in
the early stages of development or implementation, up to the point of graduating 20
students. This recognition provides evidence that a program complies with all standards
except those having to do with the performance of graduates. Programs granted this
recognition are considered to be accredited by CORE.
Candidate for Accreditation recognition is granted by CORE only when there is an
understanding that the program plans to eventually seek Full Accreditation. A program
need not have begun course instruction to apply. Programs not eligible for Full
Accreditation are encouraged to seek ongoing consultation with persons experienced and
educated in the preparation of programs for URE accreditation. Recognition as a Candidate
for Accreditation may be granted to a program for a period of up to three years.
2.
FULL ACCREDITATION: Recognition granted to programs that have been fully
operational long enough to allow for the objective assessment of the professional
performance of graduates. The program must have at least 20 students who have graduated
from the program at the time of the site visit, and have the equivalent of at least one fulltime faculty position assigned to the program under consideration. This recognition
provides evidence that a program complies with all standards and is deemed capable of
maintaining that level of compliance throughout the duration of the recognition period.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The following criteria are the minimal requirements necessary to be
considered for either type of recognition:
9/9/2011 revision
9



Have institutional approval for courses and degrees offered;
Have a person designated as coordinator, or the equivalent, in a position who is a
Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) or has a credential that provides evidence of
knowledge or experience in rehabilitation education acceptable to the Commission on
Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation.
Have a written statement of the program mission, objectives, curriculum, and criteria for
student selection.
ACCREDITATION APPLICATION PROCEDURES
An educational program seeking recognition by CORE must apply for consideration. For any type
of recognition a program may seek, the application process is similar and is designed to assure that
the program meets the eligibility requirements.
The application consists of an application form, an application fee, and specified program
information. The application form requires the signature of the program coordinator and
appropriate institutional official(s). It serves as:
1.
A contract between CORE and the institution for conducting appropriate evaluations and
handling payment of appropriate fees;
2.
Authorization for CORE to collect information from specified persons in the evaluation
process;
3.
Authorization for CORE to inform other relevant accreditation bodies of the fact that the
program has applied for recognition;
4.
Authorization for CORE to publish any recognition that is granted in listings of
recognized programs and to respond to relevant inquiries; and
5.
Agreement for the evaluation to be based on standards and procedures in effect at the
time of the application, subject to prior notification of those standards and the opportunity
to withdraw the application.
The application fee serves to keep the application active for at least one full year unless the
institution withdraws its application. The fee is not refundable. Descriptions and data are requested
in sufficient detail to determine whether the program meets the eligibility requirements.
Consideration for CORE recognition is an annual process. Applications for recognition are made
in April. Data collection and evaluation occur between August of one year through any submission
of supplemental information from the program. Application forms and instructions are typically
updated annually to indicate the deadline date for application, time lines for eligibility decisions
and data collection, and the specifications for program information to be submitted as part of the
application.
9/9/2011 revision
10
In considering program eligibility, the CORE office determines: (1) the sufficiency of information
submitted for making a decision and requests additional information as needed, (2) whether the
mission and goals of the program are relevant to professional preparation that CORE can
appropriately evaluate and recognize, and (3) whether the program meets the stated eligibility
requirements. If the program meets the eligibility requirements for a type of recognition different
from that for which application was made, then that determination is reported to the program.
Programs which are eligible for recognition are informed of that fact and entered into further data
collection and evaluation during the current cycle.
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Once a program is found to be eligible for consideration by CORE, the process is as follows:
1. The CORE administrative office notifies the members of the Commission on
Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation (CUSA) and the regional accrediting body for
the parent institution, that the program is being evaluated for a specified type of
recognition.
2. Data collection forms and instructions are sent by the CORE office to the undergraduate
program coordinator for completion or distribution. The coordinator completes the form
providing Self-Study materials and distributes individual questionnaires to students in their
final year of the undergraduate program and to recent graduates and their employers.
3. The coordinator sends a listing of persons to whom questionnaires were distributed to the
CORE office for use in follow-up and verification.
4. The coordinator sends the completed Self-Study Document to the CORE office.
5. Upon receipt and review of the Self-Study Document, the CORE office may request
additional information from the program coordinator or return the document if it is not
prepared according to the established guidelines.
6. Upon CORE’s receipt of all information and data from individual respondents, quantifiable
responses are tabulated.
7. The Self-Study Document and analysis of program data and ratings are submitted to the
site visit team.
8. The site visit is conducted.
9. The site visit team prepares the Preliminary Review Committee Report (PRCR) of program
strengths and deficiencies based on information obtained through the program Self-Study
and the on-site review. The PRCR is sent to the program coordinator to provide an
opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the report.
9/9/2011 revision
11
10. The program coordinator submits any additional factual or clarifying information to the
site visit team for consideration in preparation of the Final Review Committee Report to
the Undergraduate Commission.
11. At the annual CUSA meeting, at least two Commission members who have not previously
reviewed the materials submitted, examine all documentation and prepare a Final Summary
Report with appropriate rationale and specific recommendations and/or conditions.
12. In official session, the Commission edits and approves a Final Summary Report of the
program concluding with recommendations to CORE regarding recognition. The Chair of
the Commission presents this report to CORE.
13. In the event that the Commission is unable to forward an accreditation recommendation
for a program reviewed in a formal Commission meeting, a specific justification for no
recommendation will be provided to CORE along with specific recommendations for
actions to assist the program in the accreditation process. The Chair of the Commission
will submit this rationale to CORE so there is a record of the disposition of the program’s
accreditation application and review. CORE, in consultation with the Chair of the
Commission, will communicate the decision to the program coordinator and develop
appropriate timelines and procedures to complete the review process, if needed. In cases
of programs applying for reaffirmation of their accredited status, accreditation of the
program will continue until CORE has reached a final decision.
14. In official session, CORE completes final editing and makes a decision on program
recognition at its annual meeting.
15. The results of CORE’s decision regarding recognition, conditions and/or recommendations
for program improvement, are provided in writing to the program coordinator and chief
administrative institutional officer signing the application. The appropriate regional
accrediting body is notified of the recognition decision.
16. During the last year of its designated term of recognition, the undergraduate program may
reapply for a new term of recognition. All procedures used in the process are the same as
for new applicants.
17. Programs that are denied recognition may reapply during the academic year following the
decision not to grant recognition or anytime thereafter. Reapplication cannot be initiated
during an appeals process.
FOCUS ON ACADEMIC QUALITY
Academic quality is determined by the extent to which each program implements the several
standards/criteria that have been established by the profession to effectively deliver important
teaching, learning, research, and service to individuals with disabilities. These factors are often
listed as components of program mission statements. Evidence of academic quality is
demonstrated and achieved by effective use of trained site reviewers, a multi-level accreditation
9/9/2011 revision
12
review process, up-to-date preparation standards, feedback from a variety of stakeholders:
employers of graduates, recent graduates and current students in final stages of their rehabilitation
programs, as well as, the performance (employment success) of graduates. Continuous evaluation
and review of accreditation standards is critical to the success and performance of graduates.
CORE has established and revised several procedures for obtaining feedback to assess the success
and quality of accredited programs. To evaluate academic quality, input must be obtained
regarding the scope of curriculum, the value of internship and related field experiences, the training
of program reviewers, the feedback from graduates and employers on the skills and knowledge
demonstrated following graduation, the importance of peer review , periodic re-training of
program reviewers, staggered turnover of CORE leadership to prevent stagnation and
complacency, and the assessment of breadth and relevance of program mission and goals. The
frequency of assessment and the mission of accredited programs (service, research, etc.) are also
factors that must be monitored and given attention to maintain academic quality.
CORE advances academic quality by conducting on-going evaluation of URE programs and
requiring that evaluation results are communicated to institution administration with
corresponding recommendations for further improvement, modification, and/or changes. In
determining the accreditation status of a program CORE examines a number of factors that
influence educational quality including the following:
1. Data analysis from the survey questionnaires. This is provided to URE programs,
undergoing accreditation review and is another means of advancing academic quality.
Specific areas of a curriculum that need to be addressed by the program can be identified,
when graduates and employers rate one area of a curriculum lower than other areas or
when an area is rated as unsatisfactory.
2. Review of the syllabi that are submitted as part of the Self-Study. Occasionally syllabi
will be missing an important component (e.g. course objectives or course evaluation
procedures) or will indicate that outdated texts are used. Academic quality also
encompasses the learning environment of students. Although it is not a standard,
programs are encouraged to have statements on their syllabi that address the needs of
individuals with disabilities, (e.g., “Student who need special accommodations because
of a documented disability should make their needs known to the instructor as soon as
possible. The instructor will make every effort to accommodate the special needs of
students. Please let the instructor know immediately if your needs are not being met.”)
3. Meetings with clinical supervisors during a site visit. Changes in a program’s Practicum
or Internship frequently result from such meetings. These field experiences provide the
real evidence for the strength of the academic curriculum.
4. Review of faculty vitae. These are submitted as part of the Self-Study Document or as
part of the Monitoring process when changes in faculty occur. It is noted that some
programs hire faculty who have no academic credentials specific to rehabilitation
services. CORE advances academic quality by assuring that individuals teaching full-
9/9/2011 revision
13
time in a rehabilitation services program have the knowledge and skills to teach in such
a program.
5. Review of departmental/RCE admission policies. Since URE programs are frequently
located within a larger department, it is essential that site visitors review admission
practices and their impact on the program. Because of the importance of this issue, CORE
has established a standard that all programs must have enough students to constitute a
“viable learning community.”
6. Interviews with faculty and students. It is very helpful to site visitor reviewers to
interview current students and recent graduates about the strengths and weakness of a
program. This opportunity for face-to-face feedback allows reviewers to gain a better
perspective of the quality in the curriculum and faculty that cannot always be obtained
from forced-choice questionnaires.
7. Annual review of preparation standards. In order to maintain academic quality CORE
reviews its accreditation standards each year to help programs respond to changes and
priorities of the profession and trends in the needs of employers. Through
communications on the CORE website and updates in annual newsletters, program
faculty are informed of recent trends and new research that may influence the curricula
and field experience practices. Programs can modify student expectations and provide
relevant information through technology and other on-line options to improve academic
quality.
ACCREDITATION REVIEW PROCESS
The review process consists of three major elements: a Self-Study Document, data collection from
CORE questionnaires, and the site visit. The Self-Study Document contains descriptive, written
information and documentation on (e.g., program manuals, syllabi, faculty vitae, etc.).
The use of CORE’s questionnaires enhances objectivity, scope, and consistency within the review
process. The questionnaires are distributed to final year students, recent graduates, to employers
of the program’s graduates, and to faculty advisors of those students who are currently enrolled.
The purpose is to collect evaluative ratings about the program’s operations, quality of educational
preparation, and performance of graduates. The data are then collected, analyzed, and provided to
members of the Site Review Team for further analysis and review. Refinements in the CORE
questionnaires occur periodically to ensure objective and consistent evaluations.
The site visit provides for direct observation and review that, in combination with the program
Self-Study, ensures a comprehensive assessment of the undergraduate program. In addition to
verifying and supplementing the Self-Study Document, the site visit supplies program operation
and outcome information available only through direct observation.
9/9/2011 revision
14
SITE VISIT PROCESS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES
Site Visitor Pool. Site visitors are selected from a site visitor roster comprised of individuals who
have completed the Undergraduate Site Visitor Training Program presented by CORE. Each
person on the site visitor roster must meet the following criteria:

Be a member of an organization holding membership on CORE or the Commission;

Have successfully completed training on CORE accreditation procedures;

Be certified as a Rehabilitation Counselor or hold another relevant professional credential that
is accepted by CORE;

If an educator, hold a rehabilitation-specific graduate degree accepted by CORE and have at
least three years of experience as a faculty member in a URE program or a program which
offers both undergraduate and graduate rehabilitation education programs;

If a non-educator, have a minimum of three years of experience in the supervision of
rehabilitation professionals employed either by an established community rehabilitation
program or a state rehabilitation agency;

Have submitted a statement detailing a commitment to participate in the review of programs
as prescribed by CORE.
Site Visit Team. Each Site Visit Team is composed of two members who are acceptable to the
institution under review and includes at least one individual who is an educator. If a program offers
significant distance education (on-line) courses related to the undergraduate degree a third
reviewer may be assigned to the site visit team. The Chair of the Site Visit Team must be an
individual with prior experience as a CORE site visitor. The Undergraduate Rehabilitation
Program identifies any conflict of interest among individuals listed on the site visitor roster. No
one is selected to review a particular institution who:

Is a graduate of the program;

Is a recent appointee or employee of the institution or is related to an employee of the
institution;

Works in the same state as the program under review;

Has reviewed the institution within the past five years;

Can personally identify any potential or apparent positive or negative conflicts of interest
with the program, its faculty, or staff.
Care is taken to avoid potential conflicts of interest within the comparatively small community of
rehabilitation educators, but mere acquaintance need not disqualify a potential site visitor. The
9/9/2011 revision
15
essential requirement is that each site visitor be a neutral observer who can focus on the quality of
the program in relation to CORE criteria. In addition to demonstrating impartiality, all site visitors
must respect the confidentiality of the information gathered during the review.
Site Visit Preparation. The chair of the site visit team contacts the undergraduate rehabilitation
program coordinator to establish dates, a provisional schedule, interviews, and logistical
arrangements for the site visit. Specific needs (e.g., work space, telephone, computer, etc.) of the
team will be communicated to the coordinator. The team chair communicates the site visit
information to the other team member(s) and to the CORE Administrative Office. Members of the
site visit team are not to be held responsible for any non-personal costs related to the site visit.
Members of the site visit team will have thoroughly reviewed and assessed all materials from the
program Self-Study and program data provided by the CORE administrative office. Reviewers
will determine whether documentation provided through the program Self-Study adequately
demonstrates compliance with CORE standards. If not, reviewers will prepare a list of additional
information to be provided prior to or as early as possible to be utilized as part of the program site
visit. Any inconsistencies between elements within the report are noted and special strengths or
deficiencies of the program are identified.
After reviewing the Self-Study materials and prior to the visit, the site visit team chair will confer
with the program coordinator to arrange for any changes in the provisional schedule (e.g., to ensure
that issues identified in the reviews of the Self-Study are addressed or for any other reason) and to
finalize arrangements for the site visit.
Site Visit Agenda. The duration of the site visit may vary depending on unique needs of the
undergraduate program but is typically completed over 2 business days. The site visitors meet
initially with the program coordinator for a general orientation to the program and to go over key
questions/issues that came up in the review of the program Self-Study.
The agenda should include opportunities for the Site Visit Team to interview faculty, staff,
students, alumni, employers, advisory committee members, administrative personnel, and
fieldwork supervisors. Additionally, the Site Visit Team will typically visit facilities used by
students and faculty, such as office spaces, library resources, instructional support, and support
services for students with disabilities.
The program coordinator may provide additional materials and records to supplement the SelfStudy. The site visit culminates with a final conference between the site reviewers, the program
coordinator, institutional administrators, and program faculty. A sample Site Visit Agenda appears
in the Undergraduate Training Manual of the Accreditation Process.
Preliminary Review Committee Report. The Preliminary Review Committee Report (PRCR),
which is generated by the site visit team following a review of an RCE program’s Self-Study
Document and a visit to the program, is a critical document for both CORE and the URE program.
It provides a road map for continuing improvements of an URE program and is used by the
Commission and CORE to determine accreditation decisions, including any conditions that an
URE program must meet. The site visit team should conclude the report with a Summary of
9/9/2011 revision
16
Strengths and Deficiencies, a list of possible recommendations and a list of possible conditions, if
needed. Conditions should be listed in the same order as the Standards. The last three report
components (summary, recommendations, and conditions) are not included in the PRCR that is
sent to the program coordinator.
The Preliminary Review Committee Report is submitted only to the program coordinator. RCE
coordinators may provide copies of the Preliminary Review Committee Report to their department
heads, deans, and advisory committees. Therefore, the report should be as professional as possible,
with complete sentences and appropriate grammar; reports should be proofread carefully by site
reviewers.
After the Preliminary Review Committee Report is received and reviewed by CORE’s executive
director, the Chair of the Undergraduate Commission, and the administrative office, it is mailed to
the program coordinator who then has thirty days to respond to any statements or assessments with
which they disagree by submitting three copies of additional evidence to the CORE office. This
evidence is then forwarded to the site visit team in sufficient time to allow the site visit team to
prepare a revised, or Final Review Committee Report for the Commission.
Because the site visit provides a snapshot of a program at a single point in time, it is inappropriate
for that program to develop new procedures, processes, or manuals during the site visit or to supply
them as supplemental information following the site visit when they have not been in use. Such
changes are appropriately implemented following an accreditation decision by CORE and
documented through the Annual Program Progress Report required of accredited programs or as
evidence supporting a reapplication for accreditation by CORE. Upon receipt of the program
coordinator’s response to the PRCR, the site review team prepares the Final Review Committee
Report (FRCR) and submits it to the CORE administrative office for review by the Undergraduate
Commission and an accreditation recommendation on the program to CORE.
Site Visit Evaluation. The undergraduate program coordinator is required to evaluate the site visit
process after the preliminary report has been sent to the coordinator. The evaluation is returned to
the CORE Administrative Office to determine whether the institution found the review process to
be fair and impartial, to be appropriately cordial, and whether the self-study process and site visit
resulted in recommendations that would help to strengthen the Undergraduate Program. The site
visit evaluation is confidential and is not shared with the site visit team.
MONITORING PROCESS
At the Annual Meeting of the Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation the
status of new undergraduate applicants, along with currently accredited Undergraduate Programs
is reviewed. Each accredited URE Program is required to submit to CORE an Annual Program
Progress Report that includes (1) demographic data on the program for the current academic year,
(2) changes in faculty, courses, coordinator, program affiliation, and (3) responses to any
conditions established by CORE. The role of the Commissioners as Monitoring Committee
Members is to:

Review each Annual Program Progress Report;
9/9/2011 revision
17

Evaluate the program’s responses to unmet conditions;

Determine the impact of programmatic changes; and

Recommend to CORE whether accreditation should be continued.
For programs that have received a two-year term of accreditation, a determination must be made
whether the program has satisfied conditions and whether the term of accreditation should be
extended an additional year (for programs in their first period of accreditation) or six additional
years (for programs previously accredited).
Each URE Program is reviewed by two individuals on CUSA. If the individuals are in agreement,
no further review is necessary. If the two individuals disagree, a third individual evaluates the
materials. In situations where (1) conditions have not been met and/or (2) substantial changes have
occurred in the program, the program shall be reviewed by the entire Commission.
Conflict of interest guidelines apply to the Monitoring Committee. Members do not review a
program that is within their state. (See the Policy Section – Conflict of Interest in the
Undergraduate Accreditation Manual for other considerations related to conflict of interest).
NOTIFICATION OF DECISIONS
Within 30 days of any CORE decision affecting the status of a URE Program, CORE notifies the
chief administrative officer of the institution and program coordinator of the URE Program of the
decision and the rationale for the decision.
Immediately after the CORE meeting at which a URE Program is granted the status of Candidate
for Accreditation or Full Accreditation, the President of CORE, on behalf of CORE, sends a notice
to the chief administrative officer of the institution and the program coordinator of the URE
Program detailing the accreditation status granted to the program. This notice indicates the
effective date of accreditation status, duration of accreditation status, and any conditions or
recommendations specified in the final action (status granted) of CORE.
If a program is denied the status of Candidate for Accreditation or Full Accreditation, the President
of CORE, on behalf of CORE, sends a letter to the chief administrative officer of the institution
and the program coordinator of the URE Program specifying the details of the program’s denial of
accreditation. This notice indicates the effective date of denial of accreditation status and the
revocation of recognition by CORE, the rationale for denial, and the CORE appeals process.
The chief administrative officer of the institution and the program coordinator of the URE Program
maintain the discretion to distribute the CORE letter and subsequent report as they see fit. In the
event that a URE Program or its sponsoring institution publishes or otherwise disseminates
information that misrepresents or distorts the CORE action taken with respect to the accreditation
process or status of a URE Program, the following occurs:
9/9/2011 revision
18
The chief administrative officer of the sponsoring institution and the program coordinator of the
URE Program are notified in writing of the misrepresentation or distortion and are asked to take
corrective action in writing regarding the misrepresentation or distortion.
Should representatives of the sponsoring institution and/or the representatives of the URE Program
fail to take appropriate corrective action, CORE may publish a statement providing correct
information to all appropriate publics. This publication may occur in a newsletter or in whatever
form the Executive Committee of CORE deems appropriate.
Permission to duplicate and/or distribute letters or any other documents submitted as
documentation in the accreditation review process of a URE Program must be granted by the
program coordinator of the URE Program, or, in consultation with the program coordinator, the
chief administrative officer of the institution at which the URE Program is housed.
APPEALS PROCEDURES
General Procedures
A program may appeal a final CORE decision that denies the program:

Recognition as a Candidate for Accreditation or grants such program recognition for a term
of less than three years;

Recognition of Accreditation or grants such program recognition for a term of less than
eight years; or

Continued recognition for failure to meet a condition or conditions stated in CORE’s
recognition decision.
An interim decision by CORE or by any of CORE’s subordinate functions cannot be appealed.
The existing accreditation status of the URE Program appealing a decision of CORE is maintained
during the appeals procedure. A program that has appealed a final CORE decision may withdraw
the appeal and reapply during the academic year following the final CORE decision to withhold
recognition.
An appealing program and CORE will each bear its own expenses incurred in the appeal, and will
jointly and equally bear the expenses of Formal Arbitration, incidentals, travel, subsistence, and
fee of the Arbitrator.
A program may appeal a final CORE decision alleging that the decision was (1) without due
process, or (2) arbitrary, capricious, biased, prejudicial, lacking good faith, or (3) faulty in that in
processing the program’s application for accreditation, CORE or CORE’s subordinate functions,
to the detriment of the program’s accreditation, failed to comply with or failed to make available
to the program, some process step or steps set out in this manual.
9/9/2011 revision
19
There are two appeals stages. The first is the Informal Appeals Conference. Failing to work out a
mutually satisfactory Agreement of Settlement at that stage, the program may appeal to the second
and final stage, that of Formal Arbitration.
Within 30 calendar days following receipt of notice of CORE’s decision to deny a program
accreditation or to deny a program continued recognition, such program may initiate an appeal to
the first appeals stage, the Informal Appeals Conference, by forwarding a registered letter to the
president of CORE stating an intention to appeal, the allegations regarding CORE’s decision, and
the facts to be relied on.
Within 15 calendar days following receipt of the intention to appeal letter, CORE’s president and
the person signing the intention to appeal letter will arrange a mutually suitable time and place for
the Informal Appeals Conference to convene.
Informal Appeals Conference
The program and CORE will each, respectively, be represented by not more than three persons in
the Informal Appeals Conference. Such representatives shall have full authority from their
respective principals to enter into an Agreement of Settlement. The conference is intended to be
less of an adversary proceeding and more of a joint effort to agree on the method, terms, conditions,
circumstances, and time by which the program may achieve the recognition of accredited status
for which it has applied.
Discussion in the Informal Appeals Conference will be free and open; full disclosures will be made
by each conferee in a good faith effort to work out a mutually satisfactory Agreement of
Settlement. No stenographic or other type of record will be made of the discussion; no statement
made or position taken in the Informal Appeals Conference shall be to the prejudice of any
statement later to be made or position later to be taken. Any Agreement of Settlement shall be
stated in full detail including any relevant dates. Such Agreement will take the place of the CORE
decision appealed.
If an Agreement of Settlement is not reached, and the program does not indicate an intention to
appeal to the second and final step, Formal Arbitration, within five calendar days following the
day on which the Informal Appeals Conference was concluded, the CORE decision appealed will
become effective on the day after the fifth day.
Formal Arbitration
If an Agreement of Settlement is not reached in the Informal Appeals Conference and the program,
within five calendar days following the day on which the conference was concluded indicates by
registered letter to the president of CORE an intention to appeal to Formal Arbitration, the program
representative and the president of CORE will undertake to agree upon an appropriate person to
be the Arbitrator. Failing such agreement, they will request the American Arbitration Association
to supply a list of five arbitrators’ names. From this list, each party striking two names will
designate an Arbitrator.
9/9/2011 revision
20
Within 30 calendar days after the Arbitrator had been designated, CORE will forward to the
Arbitrator all documents, data, records, reports, correspondence, records of telephone
conversations – those generated by the program and those generated by CORE or any of CORE’s
subordinate functions – which comprise the complete body of information on which CORE based
the final decision being appealed. The program’s representative will be afforded opportunity to
verify the completeness and accuracy of this submission.
Within the same 30 calendar days, the program and CORE will each forward to the Arbitrator
briefs of fact and argument, and exchange these briefs with each other. The program’s brief will
contend that the body of information on which CORE based its final decision being appealed
supports the program’s appeal allegations. CORE’s brief will support the final CORE decision
being appealed. Within 15 calendar days after the exchange of briefs, the parties may forward to
the Arbitrator a brief responding each to the other’s original brief. The program shall have the
burden of persuasion.
The Arbitrator is asked to make one of two decisions:


The program’s appeal allegations are sustained by the body of information on which
CORE based the final decision which has the listed defects. CORE will reconsider its
final decision remedying the listed defects, or
The program’s appeal allegations are not sustained. CORE’s final decision shall become
effective forthwith.
REAPPLICATION PROCEDURES
It is assumed that a program not granted recognition will implement appropriate program changes
and reapply. Reapplication cannot be initiated during an appeals process. The program may
reapply during the academic year following the decision to not grant recognition or any time
thereafter. Any subsequent application is treated as a new application with new data and an
application fee must be submitted.
WITHDRAWAL PROCEDURES
A URE Program maintains the right to withdraw from participation in a CORE program of
accreditation at any time. If the URE Program is in the process of applying for Candidate for
Accreditation status, and a written request for withdrawal from consideration is received before
any final action by CORE, the program is allowed to withdraw from consideration without
prejudice. If the program elects to participate in a subsequent accreditation cycle, a new application
must be submitted.
All costs related to the application (or withdrawal from application) of a school in Candidate for
Accreditation status are paid by the applicant URE Program.
If a URE Program decides to withdraw from accreditation status, after attaining the Candidate for
Accreditation status or Accreditation status, the chief administrative officer of the institution
9/9/2011 revision
21
should file a letter of intent to withdraw with the Executive Director of CORE. Within this letter
of intent should be content that:




Describes the URE Program that is to be withdrawn from accreditation;
The date on which the withdrawal is to be effective;
Rationale for the request; and
Evidence of assurances that enrolled students, appropriate institution officials and appropriate
publics have been advised regarding the possible consequences resulting from the change in
URE Program accreditation status.
If the students currently enrolled in the URE Program are to be considered as having graduated
from a CORE-accredited program, the institution is required to file an acceptable plan for the
completion of the program by those students.
The request for withdrawal from any status of accreditation is reviewed by the Commission and
its recommendation is forwarded to CORE for consideration and official action.
Upon receipt of notice that a URE Program is withdrawing from accreditation status, the Executive
Director of CORE acts to ensure that, after the date indicated in the letter of intent, the program is
no longer listed as a CORE-accredited URE Program and that it is withdrawn from accreditation
status.
ANNUAL TIME LINE
April 1
Deadline for receipt of completed application in CORE office.
*New applicants: Application Fee, Accreditation Evaluation Fee, and
Completed Application Form including required evidence and signatures.
*Currently recognized programs reapplying for accreditation must include
required evidence.
April 15
Eligibility decision is reached and program coordinators are notified. Self-Study
evidence indices sent to programs and acknowledgement of receipt of
accreditation application.
August 1
Program coordinators are provided with a copy of the URE Program Self-Study
Guidelines (Coordinator Manual) which includes the instructions for preparation
of the Self-Study and the Site Visit Review Process. Programs may choose to
submit Self-Study documents either on-line or via hard copy starting in 2011.
August 15
Instructions for submission of all survey questionnaires (students, recent
graduates, and employers of recent graduates) are available. All surveys will
utilize new CORE Standards and will be available only in on-line/electronic
format in 2011.
September 1
Deadline for withdrawal from consideration for accreditation without payment of
Accreditation Evaluation Fee. The application is non-refundable.
9/9/2011 revision
22
September 15 Deadline for submission to CORE office of the Questionnaire Distribution List,
Conflict of Interest Form, and preferred date for the site visit. (between Feb. 15
and April 1).
October 1
Annual sustaining fee for all programs due.
October 15
CORE provides URE Program with list of non-respondent graduates and students.
November 1
CORE provides URE Program with revised list on non-respondent graduates.
December 1
Receipt at CORE Office of all survey questionnaire responses and program SelfStudy materials. Hard copy submissions require three complete copies of SelfStudy materials. On-line/electronic submissions also require one hard copy
submitted to the CORE Office. (Programs have the option to submit Self-Study
materials in either format in 2011; on-line/electronic submissions will be required
of all programs in 2012.)
January 2-15
Self-Study materials, including individual questionnaire data analyses are
Distributed to Site Visit Team. Individual questionnaire data analyses are
distributed to Program Coordinators.
Feb.15-Mar 31 Site Visits conducted and Preliminary Report Committee Reports are written and
submitted to CORE office for review and editing.
April 15
Preliminary Reports distributed to program coordinators.
May 15
Deadline for institutional/program response to Preliminary Report. (Due 30 days
following receipt of the Preliminary Report from CORE.)
Mid-July
Graduate and Undergraduate Commissions meet to develop final review reports
and to prepare recommendations for CORE regarding recognition.
Beginning
Fall Term
Effective date for CORE decisions regarding recognition of programs under
Review. Program coordinators, appropriate institutional officials, Council for
Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), and regional accreditation bodies are
informed of CORE recognition decisions.
ANNUAL FEES
CORE has approved the following fee schedule for undergraduate accreditation:
$1,750 Application and Accreditation Evaluation Fee (for first time applicants and programs
that are applying for re-accreditation). This fee includes a $250 non-refundable application
fee and the accreditation evaluation fee of $1,500. Due by April 1.
$1,750
Annual Sustaining Fee (for all accredited programs). Due by October 1.
9/9/2011 revision
23
In addition, each URE Program will bear the expense of the site visit when their term of
accreditation ends. Expenses will include airfare, lodging, and meals for a minimum of two site
visitors for a minimum period of two days. At times it may be most convenient for the program to
pay directly (for example, paying for a meal or direct billing hotel expenses to the institution).
Otherwise, site visitors will submit an expense report and request reimbursement directly from
CORE. CORE will then invoice the URE program.
SECTION II
STANDARDS FOR UNDERGRADUATE REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
CORE is committed to adopting professional standards and an accreditation process that are
developed through a valid and reliable examination of several data sources. The procedure for
revision of CORE standards is outlined in the policy section of the Undergraduate Accreditation
Manual. To develop new and modify existing standards, CORE believes strongly in having
empirical data as well as other objective information to justify professional standards.
Due to the diversity of employment settings graduates select, the requirements that are established
in the standards of professional accrediting organizations are sometimes challenging to write. The
standards that CORE has adopted are minimal standards that CORE believes all accredited
rehabilitation programs must address for the professional preparation of graduates and the
evaluation and administration of its programs.
9/9/2011 revision
24
PROGRAM FACULTY AND STUDENTS ENROLLED IN UNDERGRADUATE
ACCREDITED REHABILITATION PROGRAMS SHOULD REMEMBER THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR MANY POSITIONS AND ELIGIBILITY FOR SOME
CREDENTIALS MAY BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THOSE STATED IN CORE
STANDARDS. ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE AWARE OF INDIVIDUAL STATE
REQUIREMENTS FOR POSITIONS THAT MAY SPECIFY LICENSURE OR OTHER
EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS DIFFERENT FROM CORE.
An extensive body of empirically based knowledge domains have been identified through various
research methods resulting in specific outcomes and expectations important to the academic
preparation of professionals working with people with disabilities. These domains and outcomes
serve as critical components of the standards that are established for the granting of CORE
accreditation.
Recognition of program accreditation is dependent upon the applicant being in compliance with
all applicable accreditation standards. Standards frequently include phrases like “shall be” or “shall
focus” or “shall access”, etc. This means that all examples or lists which follow these phrases must
be appropriately addressed before meeting a standard can be confirmed. Failure to comply with
any applicable standard may result in the denial of accreditation or probation. Accreditation may
also be granted with conditions.
Failure to satisfy a condition of accreditation within the prescribed period of time may result in
probation for a program or withdrawal of accreditation. In addition, accreditation decisions shall
reflect recommendations to facilitate program improvement to obtain or maintain program
accreditation.
Since the CORE accreditation process emphasizes outcome oriented data, the response rates from
survey respondent groups are very important in assessing the compliance with standards and the
appropriateness of curricular experiences. It is expected that each group’s response return rate be
at least 50% for graduates and employers and be at least 90% for current second year students.
There must be at least ten total graduates of the program by April 1 of the year in which a program
applies for full accreditation or before the site visit of the program. If expected response rates are
not attained, programs will be notified they are not in compliance with the requirement and
programs will be given a condition in the final accreditation report. Programs will be expected to
provide evidence they have obtained an acceptable response rate by the time specified in the
condition in the final accreditation report.
Standards include the characteristics and outcomes that, by general consent, state a level of
expectation against which programs can be compared. Standards shall not limit program creativity
or prevent variability. Programs may adopt innovative procedures or experiences that address
standards in a different manner. If a creative approach is utilized, an explanation and rationale of
how the standards are met must be included so CORE may accept or reject the appropriateness of
such an approach and determine the degree of compliance with the standards.
Only the specific program accredited by CORE may be recognized as CORE-accredited in any
publication or website. CORE does not accredit the method of delivery of the curriculum. Other
9/9/2011 revision
25
programs similar in name or content, but not reviewed by CORE, must be publicized and/or listed
in a manner that does not suggest CORE accreditation. Statements suggesting future intent of a
program to apply for CORE accreditation are not allowed.
SECTION A - PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
The following eligibility criteria are the minimal requirements for URE accreditation.
1) Programs should be part of an educational institution that is accredited by the appropriate
regional accrediting body and offers undergraduate degrees in areas other than that being
evaluated.
a. Evidence should include documentation from the appropriate regional accreditation
body.
2) Program must demonstrate that universal access is available to students and employees.
The program should document that a barrier-free environment exists in terms of attitudes
as well as building and program accessibility. If a barrier-free environment is not available,
the university must provide a remediation plan that documents a timeline for barrier
removal.
a. Documentation should outline specific accessibility characteristics of the university
environment, including both building and program accessibility. This documentation
may include website information, program brochures, minutes of accessibility
committee meetings, and information regarding accommodations provided by
disability student services.
3) Program must have institutional approval for courses and degrees offered.
a. Documentation of degree should be provided from institutional catalogue.
b. Bachelor’s degree must consist of at least 120 semester hours or 180 quarter hours of
study.
4) Curriculum must be built upon a solid general education/liberal arts foundation.
a. Evidence may include the university’s general education requirements, program
brochures, institutional catalogues and websites, and other program information
sources.
5) Program must offer an integrated rehabilitation-related curriculum which leads to a
bachelor’s degree and which meets the curriculum requirements for undergraduate
accreditation. An integrated curriculum is one in which the curriculum has a logical
sequence of courses that provides both depth and breadth of content in rehabilitation. It
also means that a defined program of study is clearly articulated.
9/9/2011 revision
26
a. Evidence should include syllabi of all required and related course work for the major.
b. Evidence must also include all curriculum requirements, including a description of
which courses meet those curriculum requirements.
6) A faculty member must be designated as the program coordinator. This individual must
hold a minimum of a graduate degree in rehabilitation or another disability-related field. In
addition to a graduate degree, the coordinator should be eligible for or hold professional
licensure or certification and have sufficient disability-related expertise.
a. Coordinator must provide vita detailing degrees, credentials, and professional
experience.
7) Other faculty who teach in the program must possess a minimum of a graduate degree
relevant to course content and should hold relevant licensure/certification and have
sufficient expertise in subject area.
a. Program faculty must provide vitae detailing degrees, credentials, and professional
experience.
8) Faculty-student ratio should be sufficient to carry out the mission of the program and be
comparable to other similar programs at the institution.
a. Evidence must include related university policy, and the current faculty-student ratio
for the URE program and other similar programs at the institution.
9) Program must have an Advisory Board or Committee which is representative of the
community, consisting of current students, alumni, employers, persons with disabilities,
and other stakeholders. If an Advisory Board is not available, the program must
demonstrate a comparable method for obtaining external evaluative feedback related to the
effectiveness of the program.
a. Evidence should include a list of the Advisory Board members, titles, and percentage
of board members who have disabilities.
b. Evidence should also include minutes of Advisory Board meetings.
SECTION B - MISSION AND OBJECTIVES
Overview: The Program shall have a Mission Statement that is a well-articulated statement of the
mission and objectives of that program. Each educational program should be evaluated on the basis
of its mission and objectives as well as it’s pertinence to rehabilitation philosophy, principles, and
disability culture.
9/9/2011 revision
27
1) There shall be written statements of the program’s mission and objectives contained in
institutional documents such as brochures, university and program websites, catalogues,
field experience manuals, and student handbooks.
2) The URE program shall address professional issues, community needs, and needs of people
with disabilities consistent with the program’s stated mission and objectives.
3) The program’s mission and objectives shall be accessible to program applicants, current
students, and supervisors of field experiences, and made available to direct service
personnel in public, educational, and non-governmental organizations, faculty members
in related areas, and institutional administration.
SECTION C - CURRICULUM STANDARDS
National role and function studies have been conducted to determine the work responsibilities and
skills needed by bachelor’s-level professionals who work with individuals who have disabilities.
These Role and Function studies serve as the basis for the identification of academic requirements
in the following areas:
Area C1: Lived Experience of Difference
Overview: Students in rehabilitation education programs need to be exposed to a variety of lived
experiences of disability. Students will learn that attitudes and environments cause functional
limitations more frequently than an individual’s medical/physical condition. Whenever possible,
these principles should be acquired through face-to-face interaction with people with disabilities.
Content Areas:
The URE program graduate will demonstrate the acquisition, utilization, and evaluation of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with curriculum related to these content areas, such as:
1) Overview of Types of Disabilities
a. Physical disabilities, intellectual and cognitive impairments, mental illnesses,
process addictions and substance abuse disorders, sensory losses, chemical
sensitivities, and other disabling conditions.
b. Strengths and weaknesses of the diagnostic process.
c. Individualized response and impact (disability vs. impairment).
2) Theoretical Models of Disability
a. Ecological model
b. Independent living model
c. Medical model
d. Social construction
e. Social justice
3) Disability Definitions and their Impact
9/9/2011 revision
28
a.
b.
c.
d.
Legal
Public service delivery system
Personal
Cultural
4) Environmental
a. Architectural Requirements and Barriers
b. Adaptive Technologies
c. Support systems (e.g., Interpreters, Readers, Guides, Personal Assistants)
5) Living with a Disability
a. Who lives, who dies, and who pays for disability
b. Impact on individual, family, and society
c. Wellness and health models of disability
d. Current/future trends and issues
6) Attitudinal Barriers to People with Disabilities
7) Systemic Challenges and Economic Disadvantages caused by Disability
8) Cultural Responses to Disability
a. Dominant Culture: Individual, Family, and Society
b. Multicultural Responses (e.g., racial, ethnic, spiritual, age, gender, sexual
orientation, and combinations of cultures or orientations)
c. Disability Culture
9) Employment
a. Economic Importance
b. Cultural importance
c. Personal significance
d. Systemic facilitators and barriers
10) Effects of Trauma (physical and psychological)
a. Single event vs. on-going trauma
b. Post-traumatic stress disorder
11) Resilience Theories
12) Living, Learning, Working, Playing, and Socializing with a disability
Area C2: Service Delivery Systems, including Allied Occupations and Professionals
Overview: Students in URE programs should have broad exposure to helping systems and
professionals in local communities, in the United States, and in the world. Additionally, they
should have the skills to identify resources and opportunities in any given catchment area.
9/9/2011 revision
29
Content Areas:
The URE program graduate will demonstrate the acquisition, utilization, and evaluation of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with curriculum related to these content areas, such as:
1) National and Local Trends (e.g., workforce, changing demographic)
2) Vocational Rehabilitation Systems
a) State/Federal Vocational Rehabilitation (general and blind agencies)
b) Private Rehabilitation Providers
c) Community-based Rehabilitation Programs
3) Centers for Independent Living
4) School-to-Work Transition Programs
5) Substance Abuse and Addiction Treatment Programs
6) Wellness and Illness Prevention Programs
7) Community-Based Rehabilitation Programs
a) Supported employment
b) Transitional employment
c) Community support programs
d) Developmental Disabilities Centers
e) Residential services
8) Social Security Disability Insurance Programs
a) Social Security disability programs
b) Disability insurance programs
c) Worker’s compensation programs
9) Medical and Allied Health Supports
10) Churches and Faith-based Organizations
11) Natural and Peer Supports
12) Housing and Transportation
a) Design
b) Needs
c) Legislation
d) Trends
13) Recreation and Leisure
14) Allied Professions
9/9/2011 revision
30
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Physical Therapy
Occupational Therapy
Speech and Language
Prosthetics and Orthotics
Assistive Technology/Rehabilitation Engineering
15) Global Services
a) United Nations organizations
b) World Health Organization
c) Non-government organizations
Area C3: Community Inclusion and Integration
Overview: Students learn to maximize individual strengths in their work with people with
disabilities, and emphasize individual choice in the planning process.
Content Areas:
The URE program graduate will demonstrate the acquisition, utilization, and evaluation of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with curriculum related to these content areas, such as:
1) Rehabilitation Philosophy – Strengths-based and Consumer-driven
2) Collaboration with Agencies and Related Professionals
3) Personal Paradigm Exploration for Helping Clients or Consumers
4) Critical Thinking Skills, Problem Solving, Adaptation, Assistive Technology, and
Accommodation
5) Ability to Understand and Apply Research on Interventions and Supports
a) Research methodologies
b) Statistical analysis
6) Systems Change
a) Individual
b) Family
c) Systemic
7) Identification of Federal, State, and Community Resources for Consumers
Area C4: Interpersonal and Professional Communication
Overview: Students will learn the skills necessary to develop, maintain, and discontinue helping
relationships in ways that empower people with disabilities. Collaborative relationships and
9/9/2011 revision
31
networking with significant others (including other professionals) are also key to effective
rehabilitation.
Content Areas:
The URE program graduate will demonstrate the acquisition, utilization, and evaluation of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with curriculum related to these content areas, such as:
1) Helping skills
a) Attentive listening
b) Establishing and maintaining therapeutic relationships
c) Unconditional positive regard
d) Respect
e) Congruence / Authenticity
f) Validation / Emotional support
g) Integration of skills
h) Discontinuing the relationship / termination
i) Identification and response to abuse and neglect
j) Application of resilience theories
k) Planning for self-sufficiency / success
l) Planning for self-determination
2) Person-Centered Planning and Case Management
a) Intake
b) Obtaining background information (e.g., from consumers, families, significant
others, friends, employers, medical providers)
c) Critical thinking / Problem solving
d) Planning
e) Resource identification
f) Skill training
g) Understanding when and how to make meaningful referrals
h) Follow-up / Aftercare
i) Disengagement
3) Assessment Models
a) Home, work, and community environments
b) Behavioral observations
c) Drug, alcohol, and substance abuse
d) Academic skills and needs
e) Independent living skills and needs
f) Support systems (e.g., families, communities, significant others, friends)
g) Functional capacities
h) Safety, risk, and abuse
i) Vocational interest and aptitudes
4) Group facilitation skills
9/9/2011 revision
32
a) Client education and support groups
b) Family/significant other education and support groups
c) Communication with peers and colleagues
5) Written communication
a) Writing reports
b) Progress notes
c) Client planning documents
6) Public speaking
a) Organization and clarity of information
b) Managing critical feedback
c) Constructive engagement with audience
d) Comfortable in front of audiences of varying sizes
7) Valuing Diversity
a) Gender
b) Age
c) Disability
d) Ethnicity
e) Race
f) Sexual orientation
g) Gender identity
h) Geographic
i) Economic
8) Crisis / Conflict management
a) Conflict management and resolution
b) Crisis situation responses (immediate to proactive)
c) Prevention of abuse and neglect
d) Protection of vulnerable populations
e) Natural disasters
9) Professional Management
a) Critical Thinking
b) Problem solving
c) Professionalism
d) Confidentiality
e) Prioritization
f) Case management
g) Reflective practice
h) Appropriate use of supervision
i) Time management
Area C5: Advocacy and Self-Determination
9/9/2011 revision
33
Overview: Oppression and discrimination represent a significant portion of the shared history of
persons with disabilities. Unfortunately, this pattern continues into the present. Students must have
a working knowledge of that history, pertinent legislation, current trends, and ways to successfully
advocate for change. Helping consumers self-advocate and advocating with and on behalf of
persons with disabilities is also expected.
Content Areas:
The URE program graduate will demonstrate the acquisition, utilization, and evaluation of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with curriculum related to this content area, such as:
1) History and Impact of Discrimination
2) Current Disability and Related Legislation
3) Civil Rights Movements
4) Patient and Consumer Rights (e.g., informed consent, the right to refuse treatment)
5) Rights Groups
6) Advocacy Techniques and Resources
Area C6: Ethics and Professional Practices
Overview: Students will learn to uphold the tenets of ethical professional practice.
Content Areas:
The URE program graduate will demonstrate the acquisition, utilization, and evaluation of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with curriculum related to this content area, such as:
1) Aspirational Ethics
2) Ethical Codes / Rule-Based Ethics
3) Scope of Practice
4) Malpractice
5) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Regulations
6) Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Regulations
7) Confidentiality
9/9/2011 revision
34
8) Responsibility
9) Integrity
10) Accountability
11) Informed Consent
12) Release of Information
13) Client Rights
14) Cultural Sensitivity
15) Mandated Reporting
16) Personal Job Seeking and Keeping Skills
17) Techniques for Professional Self-evaluation (“walking the walk”)
18) Professional boundaries in working relationships
Area C7: Field Experiences
Overview: Practicum, field experience, and internship allow students to apply theory to practice
within the field of rehabilitation services.
Content Areas:
The URE program graduate will demonstrate how the acquisition, utilization, and evaluation of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with the curriculum are applied in field settings. The
following should be described or demonstrated:
1) Demonstrate that required field experience is no less than 400 clock hours which may
include a combination of practicum field work, relevant employment, and internship. A
minimum of 40% of the hours must involve direct contact with consumers.
2) Demonstrate that agencies and sites used for field experiences provide services to persons
with disabilities.
3) Demonstrate that the program awards academic credit for field experience.
4) Demonstrate that orientation and site-specific training is provided.
9/9/2011 revision
35
5) Demonstrate how the field experience provides developmental growth opportunities for
student ranging from observation of professional involvement to direct client contact under
supervision, culminating in bachelor’s-level competencies.
6) Describe how the URE program provides ongoing supervision and documentation of
student progress toward professional development.
7) Supervision Expectations
a) URE faculty will ensure that appropriate level of supervision is provided by the site
supervisor.
b) URE faculty will provide ongoing supervision of students during field experience to
insure the integration and application of the curriculum.
c) URE faculty will provide evidence that timely, written feedback is provided to students.
d) URE faculty will demonstrate that students have the opportunity to reflect on their
professional development through assignments and supervision.
e) URE faculty will specify the number of hours of supervision provided by site
supervisors and URE faculty.
8) URE faculty will provide a copy of the field experience manual and/or syllabus and all
other related written goals, expectations, and responsibilities of students, the URE program
and the field experience sites.
a) Evidence should be provided that student exploitation does not exist.
b) Provide examples of Learning Agreement / Contract that protect the program, the
agency, and students (e.g., driving and liability).
9) Field experience site supervisors shall have appropriate academic background and
adequate experience to provide quality student supervision.
a) Evidence shall include site supervisor’s resumes or vitae detailing degrees, credentials,
and professional experience. At least three years of work in the field of rehabilitation
and one year with the agency of current employment is recommended.
Area C8: Concentration or Specialty Areas
Overview: URE programs are not required to provide concentrations or specialties. However, if
they are provided by the program, there must be sufficient course work required to demonstrate
the acquisition, utilization, and evaluation of knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to the
specialty area. Pertinent state regulations, if applicable, must be included in application documents
9/9/2011 revision
36
and a clear explanation as to how the program addresses these provisions must be provided within
the Self-Study documents.
Content Areas:
1) Concentration or Specialty Areas may include but are not limited to the following:
a. Independent Living
b. Rehabilitation Administration
c. Specific Disability Populations (e.g., deafness, blindness, psychiatric, substance
abuse, and developmental disabilities)
d. Transition from School to Work
e. Therapeutic Recreation
f. School-based Services
g. Criminal Justice System
h. Life Span Perspectives (e.g., children with disabilities or elderly individuals)
i. Veteran Services
2) The URE program will describe the academic and field work requirements of the
concentration or specialty areas by providing examples of specific plans of study.
SECTION D: PROGRAM EVALUATION
Overview: Regular program evaluations allow the URE program to make adjustments and
improvements which will enhance its ability to meet its mission and objectives.
1) There shall be a written evaluation plan that systematically assesses and reviews the major
elements and overall effectiveness of the URE Program in relation to its mission and objectives.
This program review shall occur at least every four years and shall include:
a. Self-evaluation by the URE program.
b. Examination of efficacy of technology used in program delivery.
c. External review (e.g., advisory committee, employers, alumni).
2) The program evaluation shall include the following seven areas:
a. Appropriateness of the program’s mission and objectives.
b. Content and design of the academic curriculum for the URE Program.
9/9/2011 revision
37
c. Effectiveness of field experience instruction.
d. Graduate achievements, including employment, attendance in graduate school, and
professional credentialing. This shall also include participation in CUSA’s on-going Role
and Function study, which is being conducted to improve the understanding of bachelor’slevel professional responsibilities.
e. Recruitment and retention of students with an emphasis on proactive inclusion of
individuals considered to be from historically marginalized groups.
f. Program recognition, support, and resources; (e.g., ongoing technical support, financial and
other resources).
g. Overall URE faculty strengths in composition, qualifications, performance, and experience
in rehabilitation services.
3) Results of the evaluation shall be communicated to institution administrators and CORE as part
of the Self-Study Document.
SECTION III
APPLICATION FOR UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM
ACCREDITATION EVALUATION IN REHABILITATION SERVICES
COUNCIL ON REHABILITATION EDUCATION (CORE)
1699 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 300, Schaumburg, IL 60173
Phone: (847) 944-1345 Fax: (847) 944-1346
Institution: ____________________________________________________________________
College: ______________________________________________________________________
Department: __________________________________________________________________
Program: _____________________________________________________________________
URE Program Coordinator/Title: __________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________
9/9/2011 revision
38
City: _____________________________________________ State: __________ Zip: _____
Telephone: (_______)_________-_____________
Fax: (_______)_________- ___________
E-mail: ______________________________________________________________________
Indicate how the Diploma of a Person Graduating from the Accredited Program reads:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Institution President or Administrative Officer to be Notified of Accreditation:
______________________________________________________________________________
Name and Title
Mailing Address: _______________________________________________________________
City: _____________________________________________ State: __________ Zip: ______
Regional Accrediting Body Which Recognizes Institution and Dates of Term of Current
Accreditation by this Body:
______________________________________________________________________________
Term: _________/_________-________/________
Indicate minimum number of hours required to complete the URE Program noting semester or
quarter hours: __________________
Which Recognition Status are you Applying For (see definitions on next page):
Candidate
First Time Accreditation
Re-Accreditation
_____
_____
_____
Persons involved with the Program (will be used to determine number of questionnaires needed
for evaluation):
Students:
The number of majors in the program at the end of the current fall term: _______
9/9/2011 revision
39
Graduates:
The total number of Undergraduate Rehabilitation Education Bachelor’s Degree
students who have graduated since, but not including, the summer term two years
ago: _______
If the Program has graduated less than thirty students since it began operation or
since the last CORE review, please indicate the total number of students
graduated by the Program since this time: _______
List preferred dates which you would be available to complete the site visit. CORE prefers that
site visits be arranged from 2/1 - 3/31.
First Available Date:
_____________________________________
Second Available Date: _____________________________________
TYPES OF RECOGNITION:
Candidate for Accreditation: Granted to Programs that are in the early stages of development or
implementation, up to the point of graduating 20 students. This recognition provides evidence that
a Program complies with all standards except those having to do with the performance of
graduates.
Full Accreditation: Granted to Programs that have been fully operational long enough to allow for
the objective assessment of the professional performance of graduates. This recognition provides
evidence that a Program complies with all standards and is deemed able to maintain that level of
compliance through the duration of the recognition.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS:
All Applicants Must:
1.
Be part of an educational institution which is accredited by the appropriate regional
accrediting body and which offers undergraduate degrees in areas other than that being
evaluated.
2.
Provide for full-time undergraduate study for four academic years (120 semester or 180
quarter hours).
3.
Have institutional approval for courses and degrees offered.
4.
Have a person designated by the institution as program coordinator (or equivalent) who
meets the standards outlined in page 5 of this manual.
5.
Have a written statement of its objectives, curriculum, and criteria for student selection.
9/9/2011 revision
40
Applicants for Accreditation (both new applicants and currently recognized programs) must:
6.
Have 10 students in the final term or graduation status at the time of the site visit.
7.
Have the equivalent of at least one full-time faculty position assigned to the Program.
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION:
(Please circle the numbers of the evidence you have submitted, number submissions, site page in
documents that evidence is located, and highlight the information in the documents.)
All Applicants (including currently recognized Programs) must submit:
1. A letter of notification, page from institution catalog, or other documents showing current term
of accreditation of institution by the regional accrediting body.
2. Portions of institution catalog stating semester/quarter hours constituting full-time enrollment
and documentation indicating minimum number of hours necessary to complete the URE
Program.
3. Portions of institution catalog or other documentation indicating undergraduate study in areas
other than Rehabilitation Education.
4. Portions of institution catalog or other documentation listing courses and degrees in
undergraduate Rehabilitation Education which have been approved by the institution.
5. A written statement of the Program's curriculum, preferably from institution documents,
recruitment, or other Program material which describes the educational opportunities and
options contained in the curriculum, including the course descriptions.
6. Official position description, letter of appointment, or other documentation designating the
program coordinator (or equivalent) in position for the URE Program.
7. A written statement of the Program's mission and objectives, preferably from institution
documents.
8. A written statement or listing of student selection criteria, preferably from recruitment or other
Program material available to students and other publics.
9. The date of the first Bachelor’s Degree awarded in the Undergraduate Rehabilitation Education
Program and the number of such degrees awarded by the institution.
10. The names of faculty teaching required courses in the URE curriculum or devoting more than
50% of their time to the Program. Indicate percentage of time devoted to Program by each
faculty member.
9/9/2011 revision
41
APPLICATION FEES:
$1,750 Application and Accreditation Evaluation Fee (for first time applicants and programs
that are applying for re-accreditation). This fee includes a $250 non-refundable
application fee and the accreditation evaluation fee of $1,500. Due April 1.
$1,750 Annual Sustaining Fee (for all accredited programs until July of 2015. Due by
October 1.
APPLICATION DUE DATE:
The entire Application Form, Supporting Evidence, and Application Fee (where applicable) are
due in the CORE office postmarked no later than April 1 of the year of application. An extension
of up to 30 days may be granted due to extenuating circumstances if a written request is
submitted and received in the CORE office prior to the due date. No extension will be granted to
allow time to meet CORE eligibility requirements.
REQUIRED SIGNATURES:
This Application for evaluation is hereby submitted to the Council on Rehabilitation Education.
Its purpose is to bring about determination of the eligibility of the Undergraduate Rehabilitation
Education Program to be evaluated for recognition on the basis of the Program's compliance with
the latest version of the Standards for Undergraduate Rehabilitation Education Programs.
Should this Application be for Candidate for Accreditation, the submission of the Application
constitutes an expression of the URE Program's intent to seek Accreditation status upon meeting
the additional eligibility requirements.
Should the Application be accepted, CORE is granted permission to collect information from
students, faculty, recent graduates, and others related to the Program; inform appropriate regional
accrediting bodies and related special accrediting bodies of the Application and any recognition
granted; and publicly list the Program's recognition status. Further, this Application constitutes
agreement that the URE Program will assemble descriptive information, assist in the collection of
information from those related to the Program to the point that sufficient evidence is available to
complete the evaluation for accreditation, and host a site visit.
This Application remains in effect for at least one year from the date of Application unless
withdrawn by the applicant. Withdrawal by the applicant after the distribution of data collection
instruments by CORE during the evaluation process will obligate the Program for payment of the
applicable application fee.
If recognition is granted, the Program agrees to complete an Annual Program Progress Report by
May 1, and to pay the sustaining fee by October 1, of each year of the term of the Program's
recognition or recognition may be withdrawn.
9/9/2011 revision
42
Signed:
_____________________________________________________
URE Program Coordinator’s name (please print)
__________________________________________
Coordinator’s Signature
________/________/ ________
Date
_____________________________________________________
Institution President/Administrative Officer's Name (please print)
__________________________________________
President or Officer's Signature
________/________/ ________
Date
SECTION IV
POLICIES
Accreditation Extension: A program may request the extension of the length of an accreditation
cycle if there are extenuating circumstances that might prevent a program from submitting program
Self-Study Document or arranging the site visit for the accreditation review, or if the program
desires to coordinate the accreditation process with another review process at the institution. The
request for an extension must be received prior to April 1 of the last year of the accreditation cycle
of the program.
An extension may also be approved by CORE, at its discretion, for programs that have not received
any conditions during the last program accreditation review or have clearly met all conditions from
a previous review. This type of extension is considered when the number of programs exceeds the
number that CORE believes it can effectively review in a given cycle. Decisions on COREinitiated extensions are made jointly by the Executive Director, the Chair of the Commission, and
the President of CORE. If a conflict of interest is evident in the decision process, the Vice-President
of CORE will serve on the committee to make the decision. An extension is rarely approved by
CORE for more than one year. Exceptions to this policy must be resolved by CORE.
Accredited – On Probation
On Probation is a condition of accreditation that permits CORE, upon being apprised of material
change in the RCE Program’s functioning in terms of standards or failure of the program to comply
with any conditions imposed in accrediting the program, to modify the terms or length of
accreditation. CORE may re-evaluate a program at any time with due notice to assess the effects
9/9/2011 revision
43
of substantive changes in the program or to monitor developing situations. During the annual
monitoring process, an accreditation status for a program may be changed as a result of occurring
substantial deficits, major program changes, or inability to meet conditions set forth by CORE.
CORE, at its discretion, may take any of the following actions: (1) revoke accreditation, (2) add
or revise condition(s) which may include a site visit, (3) extend the accreditation status beyond the
ending date of the most recent accreditation status, or (4) place a program in probation status, under
specified conditions, until the conditions are addressed or resolved.
A program placed on probation is judged to be not in compliance with accreditation standards
and/or is not responding appropriately to CORE administrative requirements. A program may also
be placed on probation because the program has not corrected deficiencies noted earlier in an
accreditation evaluation and/or has not addressed deficiencies in an Annual Program Progress
Report.
A program is placed on probation for a period of one year, at which time the program must file a
probation report with CORE. However, if at any time during the year, the program is able to rectify
the deficiencies noted and achieve compliance with the standards, CORE will consider removing
the probationary status. If compliance with the probation requirements is not demonstrated within
one year, accreditation may be withdrawn. Probation may be extended for one additional year only
under extenuating circumstances. Probation status may not exceed two years. A probation decision
cannot be appealed.
Annual Program Review. Programs that hold an accreditation status are evaluated annually
through the Annual Program Progress Report, which is due in the CORE office April 1 of each
year. Because programs are responsible to continuously maintain and improve the components of
their program, especially those that have been identified by CORE as areas of concern (i.e.,
conditions), CORE reserves the right to require periodic specified information so CORE might
assure that key elements of a program have not undergone changes that could negatively affect
program quality.
Because the Annual Program Progress Report is the mechanism by which URE Programs (1)
report program changes (e.g., changes in faculty, coordinator, program affiliation, courses, (2)
provide detailed explanations of the impact of the changes on the program’s operation, 3) provide
evidence of any response to conditions, and (4) assist CORE in maintaining its database on URE
Programs, failure to submit an Annual Program Progress Report may result in withdrawal of
accreditation by CORE.
Attendance at Meetings. Individuals who serve as Commissioners are expected to attend the
annual Commission meeting, and to serve as accreditation site visitors each year. Occasionally,
there are conflicts and Commissioners may be unable to attend a meeting; members may be
excused by the Chair of the Commission. Members of CORE may also have a conflict and may be
excused by the President of CORE. Members of CORE or the Commission may not identify other
individuals to represent them at meetings when members are unable to attend. CORE has
established a policy that Board members of CORE do not participate in Commission meetings in
the event of an appeal. Occasionally, CORE Board members may be asked to assist in monitoring
accreditation reports or in reviewing PRCRs as needed. Non-CORE members may attend CORE
meetings with the permission of the CORE President. Only CORE members will be present during
discussion of confidential matters.
9/9/2011 revision
44
Commissions on Standards and Accreditation. CORE is composed of two Commissions
(Graduate and Undergraduate) that evaluate their respective programs for their compliance with
standards and to recommend to CORE the granting of recognition. All CORE policies are
applicable to both Commissions on Standards and Accreditation.
Complaints Received About Standards or Compliance. CORE embraces the importance of
consistent interpretation and application of policies and procedures and careful assessment by
recognized programs of issues and decisions that affect the structure and quality of accredited
programs. CORE endorses the guidelines and standards of organizations like CHEA and ASPA
regarding the policies and procedures developed to assist programs in maintaining its integrity and
value as a viable accreditation organization. The ultimate goal of the CORE accreditation process
is to improve the educational effectiveness of CORE-accredited programs with the establishment
of policies and procedures that enhance the academic quality and relevance of programs.
To insure the integrity of CORE accreditation and for the evaluation process to be effective and
fair, it is imperative that professional conduct be exemplified in the review of program applications
and self-study materials submitted to CORE, as well as the accreditation review process followed
by CORE as a specialized accreditation organization. Assessment of applications from programs
for accreditation recognition must be based on clear standards, expectations, and documentation
that validate decisions and the value of the accreditation process and the goals of academic
programs. If misrepresentation is determined to have occurred, or if the integrity of the
accreditation review process has been compromised by the actions taken by CORE or by programs
seeking accreditation, the value and importance of accreditation will be questioned.
Complaints may evolve from two different sources; students, faculty, and other interested parties
may be concerned: (1) about CORE policies and procedures; or (2) issues about the conduct,
veracity, or performance of individuals or programs which CORE evaluates or monitors. CORE
has as a major goal the implementation of a credible accreditation process.
SOURCE ONE - Complaints about Program Compliance and Integrity
A decision for a formal review of a complaint will be based on supported evidence and the belief
that there may be areas of noncompliance with the Standards for Accreditation or significant
disregard for the policies that guide the activities and responsibilities of CORE that could have a
significant impact on the quality of student education. CORE reserves the right to conduct an onsite review or to initiate a review of a complaint about any program seeking accreditation or that
is already accredited by CORE. A review does not mean that there must be an on-site visit.
Accrediting organizations have an obligation to follow up on complaints or concerns that come to
their attention. The objective for a review is to determine the facts related to a complaint or concern
that has come to the attention of CORE; it is hoped that this can occur without an on-site visit to a
program. Concerns or complaints about individuals, the procedures, and the topics that are related
to CORE Standards or policy must be provided to CORE in writing. CORE will determine the
need for a review based on factual information or reliable documentation. For example, a review
would be warranted if a program failed to correct serious allegations of non-compliance with the
9/9/2011 revision
45
Standards for Accreditation for RCE Programs or if information has been provided to CORE that
raises significant concerns about CORE policies and compliance with its standards.
Understanding the concern and the reasons that a complaint has come to the attention of CORE is
the primary initial objective of CORE in the resolution of a complaint. Program reviews for
complaints are not regularly scheduled and the goal is to resolve possible conflicts, noncompliance
issues, and unwanted recognition in the most expeditious manner possible.
A review may involve an on-site visit or simply an inquiry to determine the seriousness of
noncompliance or if program activities are not consistent with CORE policies. In most situations
the reasons for an inquiry/review are related to complaints by individuals about policies or
noncompliance of programs with CORE Standards. An on-site review of facts is unusual and most
concerns are resolved with honest communications between a program coordinator and
representatives of CORE.
If an on-site review is deemed necessary, permission will be requested from the program director
of the accredited program. An on-site review will focus on specific issues identified by CORE.
However, CORE reserves the right to conduct a comprehensive review of any activities, events,
or policies that may be relevant to the reason(s) for the inquiry or on-site visit. A program is
expected to facilitate the conduct of an on-site review by cooperating with CORE and its reviewers.
Procedures that are deemed necessary for a due process review will be clearly explained and made
available to a program prior to an on-site visit.
If an on-site review occurs, a written report and recommendation will be provided to the program
coordinator; the report and recommendation will address the findings related to investigation of
relevant issues. The report may also include additional issues or areas of concern that were
identified by CORE. The report will be provided in writing to the program coordinator with an
opportunity to respond to the recommendation given to CORE by the reviewers.
CORE will determine the need for reviewers and the scope of any review. If time permits, CORE
will forward a letter (or email) to the program coordinator or other university representative or
notify the program by telephone prior to a review of the general nature of an inquiry. The final
disposition of an inquiry (review) to determine facts and to understand a complaint will be
provided to the program coordinator when it is deemed beneficial to all concerned.
If an institution or program will not permit an on-site review to proceed, CORE will forward a
“show cause” letter to the chief executive officer and program coordinator seeking justification for
the decision. If the “show cause” letter is not acknowledged within a 30-day period, the program’s
accreditation may be revoked. All CORE correspondence that may involve the need for an on-site
visit will be sent by certified, registered, or overnight mail. A “show cause” letter for revocation
will also be sent to the program if permission for the review has been denied.
SOURCE TWO - Complaints about CORE Policies and Procedures
Accrediting organizations have an obligation to follow up on complaints or concerns that come to
their attention. The objective for a review is to determine the facts related to a complaint or concern
that has come to the attention of CORE. Concerns or complaints about individuals, the procedures,
9/9/2011 revision
46
and the topics that are related to CORE Standards or policy must be provided to CORE in writing.
Formal complaints are generally considered confidential information and CORE will determine
the need for a formal review of a complaint based on factual information or reliable documentation.
If CORE is unable to determine a satisfactory response that is acceptable to a complainant(s), the
issue will be referred to other individuals who can provide objective, unbiased recommendations
or suggestions.
To maximize the integrity of the process of reviewing complaints where there is not mutual
acceptance of a recommendation or suggestion involving CORE procedures or individuals
representing CORE or its Commissions, an external team of three individuals will be requested to
review the allegations and to provide suggestions or recommendations to CORE regarding the
disposition of a complaint. The team will be composed of individuals acceptable to both the
complainant(s) and CORE. The recommendation of a team is not public information but is
communicated to both the complainant and CORE.
Confidentiality. Members of CORE, its Commission on Standards and Accreditation, and site
visitors shall treat all information and data obtained from whatever source regarding the program
under evaluation as confidential. In addition, the disclosure of personal or team opinions with
respect to the accreditation status of the program being evaluated is unauthorized at any time
before, during, or after the on-site visitation. Under no circumstances shall a member discuss the
details of a particular institution or program with anyone outside of CORE or the Commission.
Following CORE’s approval of the formal report, team members are expected to destroy their
copies of any program materials.
Conflict of Interest. CORE believes that in order to carry out its responsibilities of accreditation,
maintain credibility in the accreditation process and confidence in its decisions, each member of
CORE and the Commission must be free to make decisions regarding accreditation without any
undue pressure or perceived alliance to any organization or institution that CORE recognizes, or
to any political entity within the field of rehabilitation. Evaluation policies and procedures of
CORE and the Commission shall provide a system to ensure fairness and impartiality in all aspects
of the evaluation process. Procedures for the selection of Site Visit Team members shall reinforce
this impartiality. Representatives of CORE and the Commission shall avoid even the appearance
of impropriety. Members of CORE and the Commission, including the Executive Director, will
perform all work assigned to them in a timely manner including committee and program review
responsibilities. Any member having a possible conflict of interest on any matter may not vote or
use his or her influence on the matter
Definition of conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest may arise when an individual is
involved in any discussion or decision related to CORE accreditation where the individual:
(1) works in the same state as a program under review; (2) is a recent appointee or employee
of an institution or is related to an employee of an institution or program under review; (3)
is a graduate of the program under review; or (4) can personally identify any potential or
apparent positive or negative conflicts of interest with a program, its faculty or staff. It also
includes situations where a representative of CORE, its’ Commissions or Committees may
benefit financially from a decision he or she could make in that capacity, including indirect
9/9/2011 revision
47
benefits such as to family members or businesses with which the individual is closely
associated.
Individuals covered. Persons covered by this policy are CORE’s officers, Board
Members, Members of both the Undergraduate and Graduate Commissions, Committees
of these groups, and the Executive Director of CORE.
Procedures to manage conflicts. For each potential conflict of interest disclosed to the
President of CORE or its Executive Director, the CORE Board will determine whether to:
(1) take no action; (2) request clarification about possible conflict of interest; (3) request
the disclosing person to recuse him/herself from participation in related discussions or
decisions concerning the organization; or (4) if the person refuses to recuse him/herself,
upon a majority vote of Board members, the individual will be excused from participation
and any deliberations relevant to the potential conflict of interest, as determined by the
President of CORE. The organization’s Executive Director will monitor proposed or
ongoing transactions for potential conflicts of interest and disclose them to the President
of CORE in order to address potential or actual conflicts, whether discovered before or
after the transaction or event has occurred.
In accordance with these policies, each CORE Board member, all Commissioners and
Committee Members identified by the CORE President, and CORE’s Executive Director
must sign the Disclosure Statement annually (usually at the Annual Meeting of CORE in
July).
In addition, at the beginning of each accreditation review cycle, the CORE administrative
office shall provide each member of CORE’s Commission on Standards and Accreditation
and individuals on the Site Visit Roster with a listing of the URE Programs undergoing
review for that cycle and ask each individual to indicate any potential conflict of interest.
It is the policy of CORE that no one will be selected to review a particular institution who
has a conflict of interest.
Similarly, URE Programs undergoing review by CORE are also provided a list of site
visitors and have the opportunity to note any conflict of interest with potential site visitors.
Consultation Policy. Program consultation may be very helpful to program faculty preparing a
Self-Study Document or for the purpose of program improvement or new program development.
Any program may request a site visit primarily for purposes of consultation (e.g., readiness to seek
accreditation, establishing a rehabilitation program (Graduate or Undergraduate), reorganizing or
expanding an existing program, resolution of curriculum, policy, or administrative/faculty issues,
or other purposes identified by a rehabilitation program).
The following guidelines are provided so programs seeking consultation and those who provide
consultation services understand the process that is currently being used by CORE to assist
programs who have submitted a consultation request.
A. Programs seeking consultation should provide CORE with a short paragraph and specific
questions that identify the main concerns or interests a program and the faculty wish to
9/9/2011 revision
48
resolve or discuss. Information is sent to: kandre@core-rehab.org. This information will
help CORE identify the names of individuals that CORE believes have experience or
perspectives that will be most meaningful for a program.
B. Each year CORE emails its member institutions and site visitors who have expressed
interest in consultation opportunities, announcing that it will be updating a list of potential
consultants knowledgeable about CORE accreditation procedures and standards.
Individuals who wish to self-nominate must submit a letter to CORE, vita, and address
and how they meet the following requirements and qualifications:
1. Ability to provide constructive and objective information to programs without bias
and to maintain confidentiality of communications and perceptions following a
consultation visit;
2. A strong understanding and practical experience in applying current CORE
standards during the accreditation process;
3. Awareness of the alternative methods of delivering curriculum and the
implications of credentialing policies and institution academic requirements on
rehabilitation programs;
4. Knowledge of professional issues influencing rehabilitation counselor education
programs, curriculum, employment, and credentialing requirements;
5. A broad and in-depth knowledge of rehabilitation counselor education either
through service as a CORE site visitor, extensive experience as a faculty member
at a CORE accredited program, or a combination of both;
6. Demonstrated commitment to quality rehabilitation education through professional
involvement and service activities;
7. Professional attributes, including strong communication skills, open-mindedness,
ethical behavior, dependability, and timeliness.
C. CORE maintains a list of potential, self-nominated consultants; however, CORE does not
rate or recommend specific individuals on this list. The list is available to programs
upon request. Potential consultants must provide authorization to CORE to release copies
of individual background information to programs seeking consultation. Upon receipt of
this authorization the names and some brief background about potential consultants are
provided to Program Coordinators and others who may wish to contact a consultant for
consultation assistance. Individuals currently serving on the CORE Board or one of
the Commissions are not eligible to provide consultation assistance. It is hoped this
information will help programs in considering an individual to invite that can best respond
to unique program needs.
D. Programs should contact the individual consultant desired and all arrangements are the
responsibility of the program and consultant. Consultation visits may vary in length but
often can be completed in one day on-site; the objectives of the visit determine the length
of a visit, dates, expenses, honoraria, the sharing of a written report by a consultant and
any consultation travel or expenses to be considered. Consultation opinions in no way
implies, nor should they be interpreted, as approval or endorsement of any aspects of the
program by CORE should the program apply for accreditation at some future time or
make curriculum changes, etc. based on a consultant’s recommendation.
9/9/2011 revision
49
E. If consultation does occur CORE does request evaluation of consultants by programs after
services have been provided. The names of consultants who are on the list, maintained by
CORE, may be removed at any time. The list of consultants is updated annually by a
committee appointed by the President of CORE; the committee should include the
President of CORE, the Executive Director, Administrative Assistant, and at least one
other individual serving on one of the Commissions or the CORE Board. (Approved by
E.C. 5/5/2011)
Double Majors. In situations where there are two majors awarded to a student, all CORE
Undergraduate Commission requirements must be met.
Fees. Annual accreditation/sustaining fees are due by October 1. An additional fee will be charged
for any non-payment beyond October 1. Any fees not paid by January 1 will result in termination
of accreditation.
Length of Accreditation. It is the assumption of CORE that a quality, fully operational
educational program has the internal means to continue the optimum production of quality
graduates over a specified period of time. It is this assumption that underlies the awarding of
accreditation by CORE for a period of up to eight (8) years. However, CORE reserves the right to
award accreditation for less than eight years at any time that the ability of a program to sustain its
quality is in doubt. To receive an eight year term of accreditation, programs must have been
previously accredited and meet the following criteria:

The program is in substantial compliance with all standards, has a track record of compliance
with the standards, and has no serious deficits or obvious gaps in compliance with CORE
standards;

The program may have conditions and/or recommendations that are designed to further
develop and enhance the program; and/or

The program demonstrates a commitment to maintain an appropriate level of compliance and
responds to any conditions.
Programs that are seeking accreditation for the first time may be awarded a three-year term of
accreditation if appropriate and initial levels of compliance are demonstrated. If this is not the case,
a two-year term of accreditation or non-accreditation may be awarded.
If a program does not meet the requirements set forth for an eight year term of accreditation,
conditions are outlined that must be met within a two year period of time. Examples of indicators
that could result in a two year accreditation include:

Substantial deficits exist in the program or the program has obvious gaps in compliance with
standards;

Program stability in question due to significant changes or specific program deficits;

A significant number of conditions have been specified for the program;
9/9/2011 revision
50

The program has newly developed policies or procedures that have not yet been implemented;

The program demonstrates an interest and commitment to improve, progress, and respond to
outlined conditions; or

The program has not developed/implemented evaluation instruments or updated instruments
for practicum or internship evaluations.
Previously accredited programs that are awarded a two-year term of accreditation may have the
period of accreditation extended an additional six years if conditions are met and there are no
substantial changes in the URE Program. If the program is unable to meet the conditions set forth
by CORE by the end of the two year period, CORE may take any of the following actions: (1)
withdrawing accreditation, (2) revising condition(s), which may include a site visit, or (3) requiring
completion of the full accreditation process including another site visit. If CORE determines that
action (2) or (3) is appropriate, accreditation will be extended an additional year.
Programs should avoid using phrases such as accreditation has been continued for eight years.
CORE accreditation is not necessarily for a specific period since it is subject to annual review.
Depending on the outcomes of the Annual Program Progress Report, interim visits, substantive
program changes, and other significant events affecting a program, CORE may decide to schedule
a full on-site visit before the original eight-year accreditation period has ended.
When CORE signifies its desire to visit and evaluate an accredited program, a failure by that
program to extend an invitation for a site visit may be interpreted as a lack of interest in further
accreditation by CORE.
Licensure Disclosure. It is an ethical obligation of RCE Program faculty members to be aware of
licensure requirements and to provide appropriate guidance to students regarding preparation to
meet such requirements.
Minutes of Board, Commission and Committee Meetings. For all official CORE Board
Meetings, a “closed session” agenda and meeting format has been developed for confidential
matters that may come before the Board. Other portions of the meeting, as reflected in the minutes
of the meeting, will be available to the public, if requested. When meeting agendas are developed
items will be identified as for “closed discussion.”
Minutes shall be taken at all Board and Commission meetings and shall be maintained in the CORE
Administrative Office. The policy was developed at the recommendation of financial auditors who
must have evidence of official actions and decisions when expenditure and policy questions are
created by the actions in these meetings.
Mission Statement. One important characteristic of a quality educational program is a wellarticulated statement of the mission and objectives of that program. CORE evaluates each
educational program on the basis of its own mission and objectives. If any part of a program’s
mission is beyond the range of CORE’s standards at any particular time, then CORE assesses only
those portions of the program to which its standards apply.
9/9/2011 revision
51
Multiple Programs. For institutions with multiple undergraduate rehabilitation education
programs (on-campus and distance learning, one city and another city, etc.), (a) the number of site
visitors may be three instead of two, or the number of days for the site visit may be increased to
three days; (b) the results from survey respondents (i.e., students, graduates, employers) shall be
grouped according to their program. CORE standards are applied the same to each program. URE
programs that have more than one program must provide evidence in the Self-Study Documents
for each of their programs. For example, the program may use the same written evaluation plan as
a guide in evaluating multiple programs, but it must provide evidence of evaluation results from
its individual programs.
Non-Accreditation. If the identification and/or stability of the program is in question due to
serious deficits, non-accreditation may be recommended and the program is encouraged to reapply
after securing consultation and correcting major deficiencies.
Non-Discrimination. CORE does not practice, condone, or perpetuate discrimination on the basis
of age, gender, religion, race, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability. Further,
CORE urges each institution to pursue an active affirmative action policy regarding the recruitment
of under-represented and disadvantaged students, faculty, staff, and administrators.
Organization Membership on CORE or the Undergraduate Commission. A diverse and
representative composition of the CORE Board and the two Commissions are important to achieve
broad-based expertise and feedback about professional preparation standards for rehabilitation
personnel. General requirements for membership on CORE are outlined in Article IV of the CORE
Bylaws. Article XII addresses membership on the Graduate Commission and Article XIII deals
with membership on the Undergraduate Commission.
The bylaws of CORE are flexible to maintain membership representation that can most effectively
respond to emerging issues and priorities. CORE will consider applications for new organization
membership on CORE or either of the CORE Commissions as interest may emerge. Applications
may be obtained from the CORE Office and may be submitted at any time. The application must
include the following: (1) a brief description of the mission of the organization for which
representation is desired, (2) the number of representatives requested, (3) rationale for
representation, (4) background information of individual organization desiring representation
(name, address, phone, contact person), (5) statement or agreement to cover related expenses for
attendance at regularly scheduled meetings, and (6) willingness to participate in and follow the
responsibilities of the component as outlined in the bylaws of CORE. Approval of new
organization membership on the CORE Board or of either Commission requires a two-thirds vote
of the CORE membership.
The sponsoring organizations and the number of representatives on the Commission on
Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation and the responsibilities of individuals representing
organization members are identified on page 7 of this manual.
CUSA shall be made up of at least eight representatives from major professional rehabilitation
organizations such as the National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE), the Council of
State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR), the National Council of State
Agencies for the Blind, Inc. (NCSAB), the Consortia of Administrators for Native American
9/9/2011 revision
52
Rehabilitation (CANAR), the Association of Community Rehabilitation Educators (ACRE), the
International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP), , the National Rehabilitation
Association (NRA), and the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF).
CUSA will also include representatives from disability consumer groups, such as: the American
Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), the Association for Persons in Supported
Employment (APSE), the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), the National Alliance
on Mental Illness (NAMI), the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the Disability Policy
Coalition.
There shall be at least one member on CUSA who represents the general public with
professional organizations or rehabilitation groups currently represented.)
Outcomes. The mission of CORE is (1) the accreditation of Graduate Rehabilitation Counselor
Education (RCE) Programs and the accreditation of Rehabilitation Education (URE) Programs to
promote the effective delivery of rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities by
promoting and fostering continuing review and improvement of master’s degree level RCE
programs or undergraduate degree level URE programs, and (2) to improve and enhance the
quality of services to individuals with disabilities, where graduate education in counseling may
not be necessary, through undergraduate preparation programs in rehabilitation services and
disability studies.
CORE changed its Bylaws in 2010, to expand the mission of CORE to include the accreditation
of undergraduate-level rehabilitation programs. Through the recognition of the Undergraduate
Commission on Standards and Accreditation, CORE enhanced its capacity to ensure proper
training of the many levels of services available to persons with disabilities. Basic to the
accomplishment of this mission is CORE’s systematic assessment of outcomes in order to
determine program quality. The primary outcome of a professional education program is the
performance of its graduates in their work settings. CORE standards state these areas of
performance as they are currently used for evaluation of educational programs. Other possible
outcomes of professional education programs, such as the development of continuing professional
education or program consultation in the community, are also referred to in the standards as a basis
for program evaluation.
Under the realization that at any given time the definition and measurement of outcomes are less
than perfect, CORE continually assesses those characteristics of educational programs that are
commonly agreed upon as facilitating desirable outcomes. These characteristics are also stated in
the CORE standards and are used in the evaluation of programs.
Preliminary Review Committee Report. The PRCR must serve not only CORE as an accurate
basis for accreditation decisions, but also as an impartial guide to the qualitative aspects of their
educational programs. The PRCR should reflect CORE’s sensitivity to the multifaceted problems
that confront institutions of higher education, and should also demonstrate the professionalism of
CORE in its efforts to provide constructive analysis and recommendations for the improvement of
the rehabilitation counseling program.
The report should include: (1) a summary of the program including strengths and deficiencies, and
(2) areas of compliance and non-compliance with CORE standards.
9/9/2011 revision
53
Public Disclosure: The specific conditions or recommendations regarding individual accredited
programs are confidential. This information may be made available to other accrediting agencies
or programs if requested by a coordinator of an accredited program and appropriate institutional
representatives. Programs that choose not to continue (withdraw) their accreditation after having
been accredited or programs where CORE has denied continued accreditation will also be listed
on the CORE website for one year following the withdrawal or denial decision. The list of all
programs reviewed annually along with the accreditation status of each program shall also be
forwarded to CHEA and ASPA after the annual meeting of CORE each year.
Public Interest. As a not-for-profit corporation, CORE is charged with responsibility for serving
the public interest. It is assumed that CORE’s mission of quality assurance in professional
preparation is in the public interest. Further, CORE is responsible for accounting to the public for:
its policies, procedures, and decisions; assuring the public that its decisions are in the public rather
than the profession’s interest; and providing the public and potential students and employers with
information regarding the quality of educational programs sufficient to make decisions regarding
participating in a program or employing a program’s graduates.
One element of serving the public interest, as well as facilitating the effectiveness of an accrediting
body’s own evaluations, is to increase the efficiency and consistency of the accreditation
evaluation process. CORE seeks to work closely with other accrediting groups to avoid duplication
of data collection and decision-making and to work toward common data collection systems.
As a specialized accrediting body, CORE accepts the evaluation of regional accreditation bodies
regarding the educational institutions in which professional education programs are located. Where
appropriate, the evaluation of departments and related programs by other specialty accreditation
bodies are also accepted, and attempts are made to avoid duplication of data collection and review.
This practice allows CORE to concentrate its efforts on the evaluation of the professional
education program itself.
Although CORE attempts to avoid duplication of effort with other accrediting bodies and
regulatory agencies, the right is reserved to re-examine areas that are of particular importance to
the field of rehabilitation. A prime example is the assurance that professional education programs
in rehabilitation actively seek to recruit and graduate culturally diverse students and students with
disabilities. CORE cannot assume that institutional policies and practices will result in numbers of
ethnic/minority students and students with disabilities adequate to meet the needs of the field of
rehabilitation. Further, because of the importance of accommodating students with disabilities and
the lessons to be learned regarding accessibility, CORE reserves the right to review the
accessibility of facilities used by RCE Programs and the plans for the elimination of deficiencies
in program accessibility throughout the institution.
Public Members of CORE. The bylaws of CORE require that there be two public members (atlarge) on the CORE Board. CORE seeks public members who have a strong interest in professional
standards and accreditation in rehabilitation education and would be interested in serving on CORE
and representing the interests of the public in general. CORE establishes policy and standards for
graduate rehabilitation counseling programs and undergraduate programs in rehabilitation services
and disability services. CORE also assists in the development of university-based rehabilitation
education programs. To serve as a public member the following qualifications are important:
9/9/2011 revision
54
1. Interest in rehabilitation education standards and accreditation
2. Knowledge of academic programs in rehabilitation education
3. Understanding of credentialing issues, advocacy, and employment
opportunities for graduates of recognized programs
4. Be a recipient (consumer) or provider of rehabilitation services or
has served as an advocate for consumers and rehabilitation services
5. Can represent the perspectives of individuals with disabilities and
the public in general
6. Understands the relationship between rehabilitation services and
the counseling profession
7. Not currently employed in an academic rehabilitation education program
The involvement of public members in the accreditation procedures of CORE is important to
provide perspectives about the evaluation of academic programs preparing individuals as
rehabilitation counselors. Public members should have no vested interest in the decisions of CORE
and should not represent a specific rehabilitation counseling program. CORE desires to have two
individuals who have demonstrated an active interest in the services and professional personnel
that are needed to promote the rehabilitation and independence of individuals experiencing
disability. Individuals should have an understanding of the service delivery systems available to
persons with disabilities and the role of advocacy, counseling, and qualified personnel that may be
needed in meeting the needs of persons with disabilities.
Public members are expected to attend CORE meetings. CORE usually has one, 2-3 day meeting
the second week in July in Schaumburg, IL and a 1-2 day mid-winter meeting. The appointment
is a volunteer position but all travel expenses and related expenses are paid by CORE to attend
annual meetings. Public members shall be appointed by CORE for a four-year term with a
maximum of two, four-year terms. CORE desires to have at least one public member on the Board
that clearly identifies and understands both the implications of disability and the value of qualified
personnel to provide needed services. CORE seeks, through a formal application and screening
process, to invite individuals to serve on CORE.
Recognition. Individuals who graduate from an RCE Program may represent themselves as having
graduated from a CORE-accredited program, if they graduate within the term of the program’s
accreditation or within the calendar year in which accreditation is granted to the program.
Reimbursement Policy. CORE may reimburse members of CORE, Commissions, and
Committees of CORE and legal advisors to CORE for expenses incurred if attending a meeting
or completing a task or assignments requested by the President of CORE. Approval of
reimbursement must be authorized by the President of CORE or the Executive Director of
CORE. Individuals should not assume reimbursement without consultation with the President or
Executive Director of CORE in advance. In general the only individuals who are regularly
reimbursed for CORE meeting expenses are the two public members of CORE, the President for
attendance at the AASCB Annual Meeting, and the Executive Director and the CORE Staff in
the Administrative Office. Individuals who incur expenses for printing, travel, phone calls, etc.
who regularly receive reimbursement should provide receipts; this information or a description
of the reason for requests should be submitted to CORE staff in the Administrative Office.
9/9/2011 revision
55
Exceptions to these procedures and this policy may be approved by the President of CORE.
(approved 4/14/2010)
Responsibilities of Individual Undergraduate Commission and CORE Board Members. As
a not-for-profit organization, CORE relies on the voluntary efforts of its sponsoring members to
complete its accreditation process. The responsibilities which follow apply only to the Graduate
Commission. The responsibilities of the appointees and the sponsoring organizations to the
Undergraduate Commission and CORE would be as follows:
1. Individuals are appointed to four-year terms and must be able to attend CORE’s
Annual Meeting each year which is held in July. This meeting is generally a twoday meeting. All Undergraduate Commission and CORE Board members should
be Certified Rehabilitation Counselors (except the public members of CORE) or
possess a credential that provides evidence of knowledge or experience in
rehabilitation acceptable to the CORE Board; prior experience on CORE’s
Undergraduate or Graduate Commissions on Standards and Accreditation is
desired if being considered for appointment to the CORE Board.
2. In addition to attendance at the CORE Annual Meeting, Undergraduate
Commission representatives are expected to participate in yearly site visits when
possible. Inability to participate in at least two site visits in a four year term will
be reason to terminate a representative on the Undergraduate Commission. If
necessary, the President of CORE may waive this responsibility.
3.
All members of CORE and the Undergraduate Commission shall not use
information obtained by participating in accreditation reviews to identify or exploit
opportunities for personal gain or for the benefit of individuals or entities external
to CORE and the Commission. Members will refrain from accepting any gifts,
including money, favors, or services that might be reasonable perceived to
influence him/her in the discharge of his or her duties.
4. All members of CORE and the Undergraduate Commission shall not initiate any
official correspondence and shall forward immediately to the CORE
Administrative Office any correspondence of an official nature that he/she receives.
No member, other than the Executive Director, Chair of the Undergraduate
Commission, or President of CORE shall act or speak on behalf of CORE or the
Undergraduate Commission, nor shall he/she make any commitments or
agreements on behalf of the Undergraduate Commission or CORE.
5. When individuals are acting in their individual capacities, members of CORE and
the Undergraduate Commission shall refrain from any actions or public statements
that could be reasonably perceived to reflect the opinions or policies of CORE or
the Undergraduate Commission. Individuals should make clear the source of public
comments and make clear they do not represent the opinions or positions of CORE
or the Undergraduate Commission. The foregoing requirements should not be
construed as preventing a member of CORE or the Undergraduate Commission
from briefly stating his or her position in the matter, nor from answering pertinent
9/9/2011 revision
56
questions since his or her knowledge may be of great assistance.
6. Due to increasing accreditation issues, CORE has added a one day winter Board
meeting generally held in conjunction with the AASCB meeting in January.
Appointing organizations of CORE members are responsible for the expenses to
attend this meeting. Attendance at this meeting is not an expectation of either
Undergraduate or Graduate Commission members.
7. The financial support of appointing organizations helps to promote CORE’s
policy of allowing the broader rehabilitation community to preserve CORE’s fee
income, which is derived solely from Undergraduate and Graduate Rehabilitation
Education Programs. A policy on the use of fee income from recognition on the
Undergraduate Registry is currently being developed and will be reviewed to see
the implications for assisting with possible representation expenses of the
membership of the new Undergraduate Commission when it is completed and
approved by CORE.
Research Policy. The Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) encourages scholarly
research activities which can contribute to the preparation of professionals in the rehabilitation
field and the enhancement of rehabilitation education programs in higher education. The Council
welcomes the opportunity to respond to articles and studies being submitted/published. It utilizes
research information to evaluate the effectiveness of CORE-accredited programs and to improve
procedures and standards related to accreditation and recognition of rehabilitation education.
The Council does not provide formal endorsement of research activities of individuals or
organizations that are not formally representing CORE. Research that is specifically conducted
by the research committee of the Council or conducted in partnership with the Council may be
publicized and endorsed if approved by the Council.
Research activities usually require the collection of data from individuals or programs. CORE
supports the collection and analysis of data that follows established procedures for conducting
objective, empirical research and the implementation of procedures that may improve or
communicate policy, mission, and organization philosophy. If use or collection of data is
requested, the purpose and procedures for obtaining data and distributing the results shall be
provided to the Executive Committee of CORE. When CORE data is generated or obtained from
CORE-related research or other organization data collection activities, use of that data must be
approved by the CORE Board or the Executive Committee of CORE. If use of CORE-generated
data is approved, the written interpretation of and communication or formal conference
presentation of the analysis of information shall be provided to the Executive Committee of
CORE for approval prior to publication or formal presentation. These guidelines serve to assist
individuals who are affiliated with accredited institutional members of CORE in pursuing
research and publishing opportunities. The policy provides some assurance that information
about CORE accredited programs and from individuals associated with these programs is
accurately communicated in publications and presentations.
The Council is obligated to maintain relevant demographic and program information data about
individual accredited programs. The information may be of interest to researchers; access to this
9/9/2011 revision
57
information must be requested by providing a written proposal to the Executive Director of
CORE. Research proposals should include: why data is being requested, who is/are the
researchers, what and when data is needed, what is the anticipated benefit of the research, and
where and how the research results will be communicated. After review by the Executive
Director, proposals will be forwarded to both the Executive Committee and Research Committee
of the Council for additional review. If a proposal is accepted by the Executive Committee and
Research Committee, final approval must be provided by the full Council. The Executive
Director, on behalf of the Council, will provide researchers notification on approval or rejection
of proposal requests. (Approved by CORE July 13,2002 and amended 5/24/2010 by CORE E.C.)
Retention of Records. CORE will retain records of a program for a period of one year after
accreditation ceases except for the first letter of appointment and any succeeding letters of reaccreditation. The final letter to the program showing cessation of accreditation will also be kept.
Any and all other materials will then be destroyed.
Review of Factual Accuracy. The Preliminary Review Committee Report will be transmitted by
the CORE Administrative Office to the URE Program Coordinator, for review of the report for
factual accuracy. The report submitted to the program will not include any recommendations,
conditions, or statements regarding accreditation status. In reviewing the draft report, the program
should concentrate on issues of fact. The program may challenge the factual accuracy of any
aspects of the draft report by submitting additional evidence to the team chair through CORE’s
administrative office.
Specialization. Rehabilitation education, as a field of professional preparation, is characterized by
emerging areas of specialization and new programs and departments throughout the country.
CORE recognizes its responsibility to assist in the development of these areas of professional
study and in the development of specific programs.
Standards Revision. CORE is committed to conducting a valid and reliable accrediting process.
Review and revision of the CORE standards are regular parts of its activities. Programs or
individuals who wish to suggest changes to the standards are invited to submit their suggestions in
writing. The procedure for revision of standards is as follows:
1. CORE will review the standards at least every five years. CORE may review, revise, delete, or
add individual standards at any time it deems appropriate provided that accredited programs
and other interested parties are given an opportunity to comment before the standards are
adopted.
2. As part of the standards review process, CORE will publish proposed changes to accredited
programs, appointing organizations, and other interested parties.
3. Following the review of comments on the standards, CORE may elect to re-publish a revised
draft for additional comments.
4. When the comment solicitation and review process are complete, CORE will take action to
adopt the standards.
9/9/2011 revision
58
Submission Deadline for a Self-Study. CORE will normally not grant delays in the submission
of the Self-Study and discourages an accredited program from requesting delays in its regularly
scheduled accreditation visit. In extenuating circumstances, the program must submit a written
request in a reasonable amount of time prior to the scheduled visit. This request must include
documentation of the following:
1. The reason for the requested delay;
2. A report of the program’s progress to date on the conditions of the last evaluation report of
CORE; and
3. Other supporting documentation.
Evaluation visits will not be conducted during vacations and breaks since student and faculty input
are valuable components of the accreditation process.
Substantive Program Changes. CORE Accreditation provides a benchmark of program
commitments to quality rehabilitation counselor preparation in accordance with established
preparation standards. The accreditation of a program is in part an affirmation that the program
has established conditions and procedures that meet and maintain established standards for the
preparation of professional rehabilitation counselors.
Preparation programs, and the educational institutions in which they are housed, are continually
changing and evolving. The decision to modify the curriculum, policies, or academic requirements
of a program is an institutional prerogative and responsibility. Most changes, such as routine and
reasonable personnel change and/or adding, modifying, and dropping courses, fall within the
responsibility and scope of the program and typically do not affect accreditation status. Such
changes are, however, one reason for the periodic reexamination required of all accredited
programs, including annual vital statistics reports, mid-cycle reports, and reaccreditations.
Some changes, however, significantly affect the nature of the preparation program, including
mission and objectives, educational curricula, professional identity of the faculty, and the
allocation of resources. Such substantive changes initiated subsequent to the most recent
evaluation of a program (i.e., accreditation report) are not automatically included in the
institution’s accreditation. CORE supports and encourages innovation and experimentation;
however, it also has the obligation to evaluate the effect of substantive changes on the
comprehensiveness and strengths of a program’s accreditation.
Meaning of Substantive Change
Substantive changes of a program include, but are not limited, to the following:
1. Changes in program coordination, departmental reorganization, management, oversight,
including merging with another program;
2. Changes in geographical setting, including moving a program to a new location, or
establishment of a branch campus or an off-campus cohort program;
9/9/2011 revision
59
3. Dropping or modifying requirements to an extent that the program’s mission is not being
accomplished;
4. Adding or modifying courses that represent a significant departure in terms of either the
content or method of delivery from those that were offered when the institution was most
recently evaluated, such as distance learning or correspondence courses (substantive
change is operationally defined as 25% or more of the credit hours of the accredited
curriculum);
5. Significantly departing from the stated mission, population served, objectives, or
educational programs operative at the time of the most recent evaluation;
6. Substantial turnover of core faculty, operationally defined as loss or replacement of any
tenured faculty member during an academic year.
The decision as to whether a change is substantive is a judgment specific to an individual
program, since the change must be considered in the context of the whole program and
institution. The Executive Committee of CORE is authorized to decide if a substantive change
report is required from a program.
Procedures for Substantive Change
The following procedures describe the process to be following for reporting and acting upon
substantive changes:
1. Notice to CORE
A. Prior to Change. A program considering or planning a substantive change should
notify CORE early in the planning process and prior to the implementation of the
change. Such notification will provide an opportunity for a program to seek
consultation from CORE that may lead to an advisory opinion on its plans about
the effect of the change on the accreditation, as well as the procedures to be
followed.
A detailed description and analysis of the change, including authorization
by the appropriate institutional authorities should be provided to CORE
prior to implementation. Information about the following items should be
included in appropriate:
a. A comparison between the existing and proposed changes;
b. Purpose of the change, relationship of change to development of
the program in terms of need and clientele to be served , and
timetable for implementing the change;
c. Descriptions of changes in program design;
d. Faculty and staff needs for initiation of changes and qualifications
of faculty;
e. Library and other learning resources and facilities required for
change;
9/9/2011 revision
60
f. Physical plant expansion and equipment required for the change;
g. Financial support available and projection of needs over the next
few years, including estimates of additional costs resulting from
the substantive change in the program, and
h. A description of general developments anticipated in the future
relative to substantive change.
B. Upon Commitment to Change. If a program proceeds with a substantive change, it
must provide a report to the CORE office. The report should be submitted within
30 days of the implementation date of the substantive change:
2. Evaluation by CORE
Upon receipt of the notice of anticipated change, the CORE Executive Committee will
schedule a review of the proposed change. The scope of its evaluation to be determined
by the magnitude of the change and the need to assess its impact on the total program.
The following decisions may be made by the Executive Committee:
a. Require a site visit or other measures to ensure adequacy of information on
which to base a decision;
b. Endorse the change without conditions;
c. Endorse the change with conditions specified;
d. Not endorse the change; and/or
e. Suggest additional actions as deemed necessary.
3. Determination of Status
If substantive changes are endorsed, the CORE Executive Committee will communicate
the assessment of the change(s) proposed to the program.
If the program’s plans are not endorsed and the program proceeds with the changes, the
program is obliged to notify the CORE office that it has proceeded. In proceeding with
plans not endorsed by CORE, the program has placed its accreditation at risk and the issue
will be referred to the CORE Executive Committee for a recommendation to CORE as to
whether accreditation should be discontinued or a condition established for the program to
address.
Submission of Undergraduate Self-Study Documentation in Electronic Format
Electronic technology has created opportunities for increased efficiency and paperwork reduction
in meeting the requirements of accreditation processes specifically regarding program and policy
documentation. Preparation of the Self-Study may reduce the number of hardcopy documents that
need to be submitted to CORE. Selecting this option may also allow program reviewers easier
access to evidence and documentation supporting accreditation standards. In addition, submission
using CD/DVD disks reduces the volume of paperwork and the time often needed to identify
relevant materials which ultimately should save time and space.
The advantages of electronic retention of accreditation documents (course syllabi, faculty vitae,
appendices, university documents, etc.) are generally acknowledged to be both cost and time
saving. Following the specific guidelines which follow will be essential to enhance the
accessibility and minimize inaccurate interpretation of documents provided.
9/9/2011 revision
61
Self-Study Accreditation Application
One hardcopy of the accreditation application, with original signatures of the institution’s CEO
and program coordinator, must be submitted to the CORE office regardless of the format selected
for submission of materials.
Preparation of CD/DVDs or Hardcopy
1. Programs may not send documentation combining both hardcopy and CD/DVD selfstudies.
2. If the Self-Study is being submitted on CD/DVD, then four copies should be provided
using that format.
3. Each CD/DVD submitted must be clearly labeled: name of program, institution, date
prepared, and contents.
4. The cover page of the Self-Study should include the name of the program, coordinator,
phone number, and email address.
5. One hardcopy of the Self-Study must be retained by the rehabilitation counseling
program for possible review by site-reviewers during the site visit process.
6. One hardcopy of the Self-Study must be submitted to the CORE office.
7. CD/DVD Self Studies should be submitted on “read only” CD/DVD disks.
8. Before submitting a CD/DVD Self-Study, each disc should be tested on different
computers (MAC or PC) to ensure consistent readability.
Electronic Format Guidelines
1. Tips on the materials and contents to be provided are explained in the CORE Self-Study
Document which may be obtained from the CORE office.
2. The first page, after the cover page, should contain a table of contents for all sections in
the Self-Study. Each item in the contents should be linked to the first page of the
appropriate section.
3. The Self-Study should be written using Microsoft Word. If supporting materials are
submitted in PDF format, a URL to the site for a free Adobe Acrobat reader should be
indicated.
4. Graphics should be limited. If materials are scanned which include charts and graphics,
narrative description of information should be included for individuals who have visual
limitations. Self-Studies should meet the same national guidelines that exist for website
accessibility.
5. In general, each page should include a link that allows for quick return to the table of
contents. Links that might facilitate the understanding of documentation or that provide
additional related reference material should be provided when possible.
6. Links to supporting documents should open in their own window when possible.
7. It is recommended that scanned documents be saved as PDF files.
Terms of Accreditation. Program accreditation may be accompanied by conditions and
recommendations. Conditions are obligations placed on a program in order for it to be in full
compliance with one or more CORE standards. Conditions include specific actions to be taken
within a prescribed time span in order to maintain accreditation status and are monitored through
the Annual Program Progress Report. Recommendations are suggestions to improve and
strengthen an RCE Program.
9/9/2011 revision
62
Accreditation shall terminate if the condition(s) are not satisfied within the prescribed time span.
Reinstatement of terminated accreditation for failure to satisfy a condition shall occur if, within
the 60-day period immediately following termination of accreditation, the program, (1) Submits
proof, to CORE satisfaction, that the outstanding condition(s) has been satisfied; or (2) Submits a
written plan which, to the satisfaction of CORE and in CORE’s sole opinion, sets forth clear and
specific procedures and timetable for the satisfaction of all outstanding condition(s). Failure to
satisfy conditions pursuant to the plan shall result in the termination of accreditation.
Vitae for All Faculty Teaching in Program. All programs, including both on-campus and
distance education, must submit vitae for all individuals responsible for teaching and/or
supervision of students in the program. All faculty should have the CRC credential or the
program should provide documentation that supports the qualifications of the individual(s)
teaching or supervising students.
Website Accessibility Guidelines. According to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
federal agencies must provide access to electronic and information technology to individuals with
disabilities who are federal employees or members of the public. While some institutions are
developing their own web accessibility guidelines, most have followed the standards outlined in
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Another set of guidelines frequently used is the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), which was developed by a working group of the
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The WCAG offers resources for creating accessible web
content.
Several years ago CORE established standards that required RCE programs to have information
about the mission and objectives of programs available in accessible formats and usable by
individuals with disabilities. The following two standards were adopted by CORE for graduate
program accreditation:
A.1 – There shall be written statements of the program’s mission and objectives
contained in institutional documents (e.g. brochures, websites, institutional catalogues,
intern manuals, graduate handbooks). These statements shall be in accessible format and
meet national website accessibility standards.
F.2 – The campus … websites…shall be accessible and usable by individuals with
disabilities.
Similar standards should be followed by accredited undergraduate programs.
Those who are charged with evaluating whether or not a web site complies with Section 508 web
accessibility standards must also have an understanding of what each standard means and enough
technical knowledge about web pages to evaluate whether or not a web page is compliant.
Although some CORE site reviewers may have experience with web accessibility, most CORE
site reviewers are not trained nor do they understand how to determine if a program website is in
fact accessible. From research and discussion with institution colleagues who have significant
9/9/2011 revision
63
knowledge of accessibility issues, there are around 20 different assessment tools that can provide
some evidence of accessibility to individuals with disabilities.
Making appropriate accommodations using web authoring software or adjusting scripts within web
page programming code can be challenging. Web development software has become more user
friendly and the ability to create web pages has become less technical; however, while some
options have made formatting for users with disabilities a little easier, many other websites require
more technical knowledge for format accommodations to be developed.
The issue for CORE is to determine if a program website is accessible. Some tools only identify
that there is an error or weakness or the program is not in compliance but they do not provide the
explanations needed to correct the errors. To address CORE Standards dealing with website
accessibility, it is suggested that site reviewers schedule time to visit with the institution webmaster
and/or the individual responsible for department/program website development and maintenance.
Three key questions should be asked during the visit:
1. How do you determine if a program/department website is accessible to individuals
with disabilities?
2. What evaluation tool or procedures are used to evaluate the site?
3. Ask for a brief demonstration of the accessibility tool they use by going to a relevant
website with information about the program that has a picture or graphics to
communicate information. Does the website accessibility tool provide a narrative
explanation of the picture(s) or graphic(s)?
Other information could be requested, but satisfactory answers to these questions should provide
sufficient evidence that a nationally recognized assessment tool is used to assist in making
information available on a program/institution website. Asking individuals at an institution, who
should have the expertise, some or all of the questions listed seems more realistic and should
provide satisfactory evidence of program compliance with the two standards.
The following resources provide more detailed information about website accessibility.
The following resources provide more detailed information about website accessibility. Other
resources to evaluate website accessibility may be used if there is evidence they are
comprehensive and widely used in institutions of higher education.
World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
Web Accessibility in Mind
http://www.webaim.org/
Comparing Section 508 to WCAG
http://www.jimthatcher.com/sidebyside.htm
Accessibility tool to evaluate websites.
9/9/2011 revision
64
http://www.cynthiasays.com.
Glossary of Terms
Academic Year: Two semesters or three quarters.
Accreditation: The process whereby an organization or agency recognizes an institution,
or a program of study or service delivery, as having met predetermined qualifications or
standards. CORE has two types of recognition: Candidate for Accreditation and Full
Accreditation.
Candidate for Accreditation: Recognition granted to programs that are in the
early stages of development or implementation, up to the point of graduating 10
students. This recognition provides evidence that a program complies with all
standards except those having to do with the performance of graduates. Programs
granted this recognition are considered to be accredited by CORE.
Full Accreditation: Recognition granted to programs that have been fully
operational long enough to allow for the objective assessment of the professional
performance of graduates. The program must have 10 students in the final term or
graduation status at the time of the site visit and have the equivalent of at least one
full-time faculty position assigned to the program under consideration.
Accredited Agency: A rehabilitation service delivery program that has been found by the
appropriate accrediting body, or bodies, to meet prescribed standards and has
subsequently been duly recognized.
Applied Experience: Supervised work experience in a rehabilitation setting that allows
the student to integrate knowledge, skills, and attitudes by performing tasks comparable to
those performed by professionals.
Certification: The process whereby an organization or agency recognizes an individual as
having met predetermined qualifications or standards.
Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC): A person recognized by the Commission on
Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC) as having met that organization’s
prescribed qualifications for a rehabilitation counselor.
Clinical Experience: Includes all practicum and internship experiences required in a
student’s program in which the student has the opportunity to receive faculty instruction,
to engage in direct service experiences with individuals with disabilities, and to develop
effective rehabilitation counseling skills.
Consumer(s): People who receive rehabilitation counseling services.
CORE Accredited Program: Programs reviewed and accredited by CORE.
9/9/2011 revision
65
Direct Service: Application of counseling and case management skills with consumers
including the use of consultant and advocacy skills on behalf of consumers. In general, the
term refers to time spent by practicum and internship students working with and for
consumers.
Diverse Populations: Members of groups who have historically been oppressed and/or
marginalized as a result of racial, ethnic, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability,
socioeconomic status, religious, spiritual and language differences.
Equivalency: Refers to the substituting of one course for another in meeting degree
requirements. If equivalency rationale is used, the procedures for this must be readily
available to students. The effect of using equivalency provisions is to permit substitution
of similar coursework and experiences in meeting degree requirements. It usually does not
result in the reduction of required hours for a degree.
Evidence: Written documentation provided in a Program’s Self-Study or information
gained from the site visit that supports the assessment of a particular CORE standard.
Faculty: (types)
Program Faculty Member: A program faculty member has academic rank
(lecturer or above) at the institution with responsibilities directly related to the
rehabilitation counseling program, teaches at least one rehabilitation counseling
course required for the master’s degree in rehabilitation counseling or advises
students or supervises the internship of rehabilitation counseling students.
Full-time Program Faculty: A program faculty member who meets the definition
of full-time faculty that is in accordance with that defined by the institution.
Individuals shall also meet the qualifications as stated in Standard E.5 in the RCE
Accreditation Manual.
Part-time Program Faculty: A faculty member often hired as an instructor (not
in a tenure track position) who teaches rehabilitation counseling courses or
supervises students less than full-time. This could include a program faculty
member that has academic rank (lecturer or above) at the institution with less than
full-time responsibilities directly related to the rehabilitation counseling program,
teaches at least one rehabilitation counseling course required for the master’s
degree in rehabilitation counseling or advises students or supervises the internship
of rehabilitation counseling students or is an adjunct faculty member. This could
also include adjunct or courtesy faculty or a faculty member from another
institution who teaches at least one, on-line course in the RCE program.
Full-time Equivalent Faculty: (FTE Faculty) The term is defined differently at
institutions of higher education. CORE defines FTE as the total amount of time
(percentage of workload in the academic year converted to a decimal value, i.e. .80
FTE for an individual or 3.4 FTE for all program faculty) of full and part-time
9/9/2011 revision
66
program faculty members (see definitions above) involved in the teaching,
supervision, advising, and administration in the RCE program. The FTE for an
individual faculty member is based on workload as determined by the institution.
Calculation of the FTE of program faculty may include adjunct faculty teaching a
required course in the RCE program but does not include faculty from other
departments teaching non-required courses.
Full-time Equivalent Students: (FTE Students) The meaning of this term is defined
differently at institutions of higher education. Programs should provide evidence of the
institution’s criteria/definition that is used for the calculation of FTE Students in the SelfStudy Document.
Internship Experience: A field-based clinical experience of a minimum of 600 clock
hours that allows the student to develop and deliver rehabilitation counseling services
learned through didactic and experiential on-campus experiences, with at least 240 hours
of direct service to individuals with disabilities. It permits the student to gain confidence
in delivering rehabilitation counseling services by exposing the student to a variety of
professional activities, community resources, assessment approaches, and consumer
populations. Supervision is provided by program faculty and qualified on-site
rehabilitation counseling personnel.
Licensure: The process whereby a governmental unit authorizes an individual (or
agency) to practice or provide prescribed services within its jurisdiction.
Mission: The duty, however prescribed or imposed, that a program is to carry out, the
needs it is to meet, and/or the problems it is to solve.
Monitoring: The periodic observation of selected characteristics of a program for the
purpose of assuring continued compliance with standards.
Outcomes: The assignment of a rating or value to the results of a program’s efforts.
Practicum Experience: A minimum of 100 clock hours of instruction and clinical practice
experiences, which include 40 hours of direct service to individuals with disabilities and
which facilitate the development of rehabilitation counseling skills. It fosters personal
growth and introduces students to counseling approaches and rehabilitation issues that
affect service delivery. Supervision is provided by program faculty or on-site rehabilitation
counseling personnel. Successful completion of a practicum is a prerequisite to the
supervised rehabilitation counseling clinical internship experience.
Qualified Individual: An individual who is a CRC, or in those cases where the individual
is not a CRC, the individual shall have demonstrated by experience and education,
appropriate supervision skills satisfactory to the URE Program.
9/9/2011 revision
67
Recognition: The formal acknowledgment that a program has been determined to be in
compliance with applicable standards or conditions. CORE grants two types of recognition:
Candidate for Accreditation and Full Accreditation.
Rehabilitation Counselor: A counselor who possesses the specialized knowledge, skills,
and attitudes needed to collaborate in a professional relationship with people who have
disabilities to achieve their personal, social, psychological, and vocational goals.
Standards: Those characteristics or outcomes which state a level of excellence, against
which programs can be compared.
Substantive Change: An alteration in a program’s mission, status within the larger
academic setting, coordination, curriculum or other areas, that may be significant enough
to alter compliance with standards or affect the ability of the program to maintain
compliance.
Supervision: An intervention provided by a supervisor (either a faculty member or an onsite qualified individual) to a practicum or internship student. This relationship is
evaluative, extends over time, and has the simultaneous purposes of enhancing the
professional functioning of the student(s), monitoring the quality of professional services
offered to the consumer(s), and serving as a gatekeeper of those who are to become
rehabilitation counseling professionals. Supervision may be face-to-face or via other types
of communication, i.e., video, phone, or teleconferencing.
Waiver: Refers to the elimination of a course or requirement for a degree based on some
previous experience or coursework. Procedures used in granting waivers must be clearly
stated in materials readily available to students. Waivers have the effect of reducing the
total hours required for a degree.
Weekly Scheduled Supervision: Individual supervision on the average of one (1) hour
per week or group supervision on the average of 1 ½ hours per week.
CUSA Manual 9/7/2011
9/9/2011 revision
68