Topics
In social work education, the Commission on Accreditation (COA) of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) is recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) to accredit baccalaureate and master’s degree programs in the United States and its territories. Since its inception in July 1952, CSWE has accredited master’s degree programs in social work. In 1974 it began accrediting baccalaureate programs. CSWE does not accredit doctoral programs, associate arts degree programs, or minors in social work.
As explained in its Bylaws (Article IV, Section 7, 1, a) CSWE delegates autonomous authority and responsibility for all accreditation activities to COA. This authority extends to judgments regarding the accredited status of educational programs and includes the formulation and implementation of accreditation standards and procedures. The decisions of COA are based on the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS), written by the Commission on Curriculum and Educational Innovation and COA and approved by the CSWE Board of Directors.
COA is composed of a minimum of 25 members, including a chair, appointed by the president of CSWE. In making appointments, the president considers previous site team experience, years and nature of experience in faculty and administrative positions at the baccalaureate and master’s levels, as well as the CSWE affirmative action guidelines. Members are appointed for 3-year terms and may be reappointed to second 3-year terms. Most of the commissioners hold full-time faculty or administrative appointments in accredited programs. The remaining commissioners include social work students, practitioners, or public members.
COA reviews all programs in a fair and impartial manner. Material submitted to COA relative to a program’s review is available to any commissioner, unless a conflict of interest exists. Members of COA, site visitors, and former commissioners representing COA treat accreditation materials as confidential in their discussions and decision making.
Commissioners may not go on site visits or consult with social work programs on matters of accreditation during their terms on COA. They make commissioner visits to programs that have applied for or are in candidacy.
The COA chair or the chair’s designee is solely responsible for communicating COA’s decisions in writing to the program and institutional administrators. COA may be required to communicate its decision to the regional accrediting agency that accredits the program’s institution. Following COA’s decisions, the program’s accreditation status is published in CSWE Focus and posted on the CSWE Web site.
CSWE uses the 2008 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) to accredit baccalaureate- and master’s-level social work programs. EPAS supports academic excellence by establishing thresholds for professional competence. It permits programs to use traditional and emerging models of curriculum design by balancing requirements that promote comparability across programs with a level of flexibility that encourages programs to differentiate.
The educational policy and the accreditation standards are conceptually linked. The educational policy section describes each curriculum feature, and the derivative accreditation standards specify the requirements used to develop and maintain an accredited baccalaureate or master’s social work program.
EPAS describes four features of an integrated curriculum design: (1) program mission and goals; (2) explicit curriculum; (3) implicit curriculum; and (4) assessment.
COA uses the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements as a guide to consistent and complete review of a program for candidacy status or reaffirmation of accreditation. Statements of compliance, concern, and noncompliance are provided for each accreditation standard (AS) and related educational policy (EP).
Statements in the compliance column address the minimum requirements for completely and clearly meeting an accreditation standard and related educational policy. Statements in the concern column indicate how the narrative addressing an accreditation standard or related educational policy is unclearly and inadequately addressed. Statements in the noncompliance column note how an accreditation standard or related educational policy statement has not been met and has not been addressed.
The benchmark model is a systematic, incremental approach to developing a social work program and writing a comprehensive self-study. There are four benchmarks; the first portion of each benchmark consists of specific accreditation standards that the program must be in compliance with, and the second portion consists of standards that must be addressed in draft form.
Program development is guided by four visits from COA commissioners. During each visit the commissioner makes a recommendation about the program’s compliance with standards in the first portion of the benchmark and provides consultation on the standards in the second portion.
Programs progress through several stages of program development: applying for candidacy status, completing candidacy, and receiving initial accreditation status. There are several products, forms, and accreditation fees associated with each stage (a current list of fees is available in the candidacy section of the CSWE Web site).
After its initial receipt, a program’s accreditation is reaffirmed every 8 years. The five steps in reaffirming a program’s accreditation are completing an eligibility application; setting up a site visit; writing and submitting the self-study; COA letter of instructions to the site visitor(s), conducting a site visit, and responding to its report; and COA review to determine if the program’s accreditation will be reaffirmed. For programs completing an alternative self-study, a proposal to pursue this option is submitted 2 years prior to the program’s accreditation review date. If the proposal is accepted, the program implements the project and completes a Reaffirmation Compliance Audit.
At each COA meeting, programs are reviewed in one of four work groups, each of which has six to eight commissioners. Each work group is chaired by a commissioner and staffed by an accreditation specialist.
Prior to a COA meeting, the accreditation specialist assigns two commission readers—commissioners from the work group—to read the program’s materials. After reading the program materials, the commission reader makes a recommendation regarding the program’s compliance with EPAS and submits the recommendation to the accreditation specialist.
During the COA meeting, all of the commissioners in the work group review the readers’ recommendations, formulate a work group recommendation for consideration by the full COA, and draft a letter of instructions to the site visitor or a decision letter. The recommendations from each work group are discussed and ratified by the full COA at its final plenary session. The COA letters are signed by the chair of COA.
On the first business day after the conclusion of the COA meeting, decision letters and letters of instruction to the site visitor(s), along with the COA decision and rationale for the decision, are mailed. Letters of instruction are addressed to the site visitor(s) with a copy to the chief administrator of the program. Decision letters are addressed to the president or chancellor, and a copy is sent to the chief administrator of the program.
COA has one standing committee, the Executive Committee, which serves in place of COA between commission meetings. The committee is composed of the COA chair, the work group chairs, and the director (ex officio) of the Office of Social Work Accreditation and Educational Excellence (OSWAEE). At COA meetings the Committee’s work includes the following.
The staff of OSWA consists of accreditation specialists and associates, a site visit coordinator, an office manager, and a director. Accreditation specialists and associates provide technical assistance to programs in preparing their eligibility application, benchmark documents, and self-studies. They staff the COA work groups and participate in site team, candidacy, and reaffirmation trainings. The site visit coordinator works with the site visitor(s) and the program to arrange each site visit. The office manager/executive secretary supports OSWA staff in preparation for meetings and trainings, prepares minutes from COA meetings, prepares the COA meeting agenda book, and manages the daily operations of OSWA. The director staffs the executive committee, supervises the accreditation staff, coordinates trainings, and consults with individuals who wish to file complaints.
Joyce Z. White, MSW, PhD Accreditation Specialist I +1.703.519.2052 jwhite@cswe.org
Anna R. Holster, MSW Accreditation Associate +1.703.519.2044 aholster@cswe.org
Mary Deffley Kurfess, MSSW Accreditation Associate +1.703.519.2046 mkurfess@cswe.org
Jo Ann Coe Regan, MSW, PhD Accreditation Specialist I +1.703.519.2048 jregan@cswe.org
Sheila Bell Site Visit Coordinator +1.703.519.2042 sbell@cswe.org
Monica Wylie Accreditation Office Manager/Assistant to the Director, OSWA +1.703.519.2073 mwylie@cswe.org
Vitali Chamov Research Assistant +1.703.519.2075 vchamov@cswe.org
It is important that the materials you mail to OSWA are delivered to the correct staff member.
Please find the item you are mailing on the list below and make sure the envelope or package is addressed to the attention of the corresponding staff member. Our address is:
Attention of: ____________ Council on Social Work Education 1701 Duke Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22314
Your Accreditation Specialist or Associate: Joyce White, Work Group A RosieLee Camacho Salinas, Work Group B Anna R. Holster, Work Group C Mary Kurfess, Work Group D
Formal complaints to COA must pertain to matters related to program compliance with accreditation standards and educational policy. Persons, groups, or organizations related to the program are considered recognized complainants and may file a complaint.
COA is not authorized to adjudicate, arbitrate, or mediate individual faculty or student grievances against a program. Complainants must use all appropriate institutional and professional channels of appeal before filing a formal complaint with CSWE. The institutions in which programs are housed assume responsibility for implementing and enforcing their own policies in these areas. When alleged violations cannot be resolved within the institution, appellate procedures within state systems of higher education or state judicial courts should be used to assess and enforce institutional compliance with policies.
Instructions to File a Compliant Before filing a formal complaint, a complainant may seek informal consultation from the director of OSWA. After reviewing the complaint procedures and consulting with the director of OSWA, the complainant decides whether to file a formal complaint.
Formal complaints must be submitted in writing to the director of OSWA with evidence that the complaint meets the following criteria:
Evaluation to Determine if Criteria Have Been Met On receipt of the formal complaint, the director of OSWA determines whether the criteria for formal complaints have been fully met and whether the complaint falls within COA’s authority.
If the director determines the complaint meets the criteria for a formal complaint, the complainant and the program concerned are notified within 10 business days. The program has 30 calendar days from receipt of the complaint to respond. When the program response arrives, it is shared with the complainant, who is given 10 business days to respond. The director of OSWA presents the formal complaint, the program’s response, and the complainant’s response to COA during its next regularly scheduled meeting and recommends a decision.
COA may decide to take one of the following actions.
If the OSWA director determines that the complaint does not meet the criteria for formal complaints or is not within COA’s jurisdiction, the complainant is notified and given specific reasons for the refusal within 10 business days. The director of OSWA also informs COA of the complaint and determination at the next COA meeting. The complainant may appeal the OSWA director's decision at the following COA meeting.
COA recognizes the need of some programs, under special circumstances, to postpone their reaffirmation review. Examples of these special circumstances include
COA’s Executive Committee oversees and reviews staff recommendations on waiver and postponement applications. A staff member reviews and considers requests for postponements throughout the year.
Instructions A written request, supported by documentation, is sent to the staff member explaining why the program is seeking a postponement of its accreditation review.
Postponement Policies The following policies guide the decision making of the staff and Executive Committee.
Postponement Actions Prior to deliberating on a request, the program’s accreditation history is reviewed, with special attention to recent COA actions and the program’s response to any concerns. The program is notified in writing of the COA decision. One of four decisions may be reached:
Postponement Appeals Procedures Programs dissatisfied with the decision may appeal, in writing, to the chair of COA and request a review by COA as a whole at its next scheduled meeting. The COA decision on the appeal is final, and there is no further appeal.
The director of OSWA may approve an adjustment of a program's review date for one meeting only.
Although ongoing change is necessary to improve the educational quality of a program, initial accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation covers only the components that existed and were reviewed at the time of the COA review. Changes may take place within the program prior to its next scheduled accreditation review. Some of these changes may affect the program’s compliance with EPAS and need to be reported. Some of these changes do not affect the program’s compliance with EPAS and do not need to be reported.
Changes that Affect Compliance with EPAS A waiver request is required before the program makes a change that would place it out of compliance with EPAS. Any program proposing a substantive change that affects its compliance with EPAS must obtain COA’s approval prior to implementing the change. The program submits a waiver request as described in the next section.
Changes that Potentially Affect Compliance with EPAS Written notification is required when programs make changes that potentially affect compliance with EPAS, such as adding a dual-degree program; offering an off-campus program; initiating a new part-time program; starting an entire distance education or online program; revising the program’s mission and goals in a way that critically restructures the curriculum; reduction in resources; the closing of a program or off-campus site; faculty workload policy changes; and institutional shifts in admission policies and procedures. Written notification should be addressed to the program’s accreditation specialist and include a detailed description of the change and a standard-by-standard discussion of how compliance with EPAS is affected. The program’s accreditation specialist reviews the notification and may, if necessary, seek clarifying information.
Changes that Do Not Affect Compliance with EPAS Written notification is not required when programs make changes that do not affect their compliance with EPAS, such as revision of the program’s mission and goals or curriculum (syllabi, electives, course sequencing, prerequisites, definition of generalist practice, liberal arts requirements, field courses, concentrations, assessment plan, addition of off-campus courses); changes in qualified faculty or the composition of faculty, students, or both; and changes in the program’s policies and procedures relative to admission, assessment, transfer, advisement, grievance, or termination.
Changes that Affect Communication with CSWE Change in qualified program director does not affect the program’s compliance with EPAS, but still needs to be reported to CSWE so that communication about accreditation and other vital information can be delivered to the correct person. The program should notify its accreditation specialist of such changes by sending a letter on institutional letterhead along with a copy of the new program director's most recent CV.
Conclusion It is the program’s responsibility to notify COA of changes to ensure compliance with EPAS. Failure to report such changes places the program’s accredited status in jeopardy. If a program questions whether notification of a program change is required by COA, it should discuss the change with the accreditation specialist assigned to the program.
Application letters must be in narrative form and provide full documentation of the program’s justification for its waiver request on behalf of the program or on behalf of an individual faculty member. Applications must specify the accreditation standard(s) for which a waiver is sought.
Applications for waivers must be submitted by the chief administrator of a social work education program that is fully accredited. Applications must be submitted prior to the implementation of the proposed waiver. If the waiver is being requested on behalf of the chief administrator, the request must come from the administrator to whom the chief administrator answers.
Accreditation Standards B3.4.4(a) and M3.4.4(a) A waiver may be granted to an individual or to an institution. In either case, the institution has identified an individual to administer its accredited social work program who does not have the credentials specified in Accreditation Standards B3.4.4(a) or M3.4.4(a).
Accreditation Standards 3.3.1 and 3.4.5(b) COA has established guidelines to assist programs in preparing waiver applications for accreditation standards regarding faculty or field program director credentials. The guidelines apply only to accredited programs. When a waiver is approved for an individual faculty member, approval continues to be in effect if the faculty member moves to another accredited social work program.
The following COA decisions are adverse actions and are eligible for appeal.
If a program receives an adverse decision, the COA provides two appeals procedures: reconsideration and panel review. Reconsideration must be completed before moving to the panel review.
Reconsideration
Programs may challenge an adverse decision if, in the opinion of the program, COA’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or violates procedures. The program’s written request to the director of OSWA must be made within 30 days following its receipt of notice of the adverse action (all adverse decision letters are certified).
A request for reconsideration must relate to the conditions that existed in the program at the time of COA’s adverse action and state specific reasons why the reconsideration should be granted.
When reconsideration is requested, the director of OSWA sets the date and time for the hearing and appoints a reconsideration committee of three commissioners. The program may send, at its own expense, the program’s chief administrator, program faculty members, and representatives from the institution. Legal counsel, students, or other interested parties are not permitted to attend.
The reconsideration committee reviews the documentation on which COA based its decision and any written or verbal clarifying information the program provides. No new documentation is considered. The reconsideration committee makes one of three decisions:
COA’s decision is reported in writing to the institution’s chief executive officer and the chief administrator of the social work program. If the program accepts the decision of the committee, it is expected to follow the instructions contained in the letter informing the program of the adverse decision. If the program does not accept the decision of the reconsideration committee, it may request a panel review. An accredited program retains its accredited status until all appeals have been exhausted.
Panel Review
The final appeal for the program is a panel review, which is an independent consideration of COA’s decision. The program’s written request for a panel review must be made within 30 days of receipt of COA’s certified letter upholding an adverse decision. If the program fails to respond within 30 days, it waives the right to further review. The program requests a panel review if, after the reconsideration findings are presented, it believes COA’s action was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the COA accreditation standards or procedures; or the COA action was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The panel will review evidence in the record, including documentation and witness statements directly related to COA’s adverse action and the reconsideration hearing. The record includes the program’s self-study or candidacy documentation, any additional material submitted to the site team or commissioner, the report of the commissioner or site team chair, the program’s response to the commissioner or site team report, the COA decision letter detailing the adverse decision; and materials from the reconsideration hearing.
Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the panel review request, the president of the CSWE Board of Directors appoints a chair and two or more review panel members from the list of active certified site visitors. Members of the review panel may not include current members of COA or former commissioners serving at the time of COA’s adverse action. The chair of the review panel specifies the time and place of the review. All costs related to the panel review are paid by the program. These include any legal expenses of COA, travel and accommodations for the review panel and participants in the proceedings, reproduction of materials presented at the hearing, and other related expenses.
COA submits the record to the review panel and the program’s written request, including additional evidence challenging COA’s procedures or its facts. The chair of the review panel presides at the review hearing and rules on procedure, conducting the hearing in a manner that allows the program a fair opportunity to present its case and explain its position without resort to formal rules of evidence. The program may be represented by counsel during the hearing, and counsel may question any witnesses who speak at the hearing. Review panel members may question any witnesses or parties to the appeal.
After considering the record, the review panel may make either of the following determinations:
The chair of the review panel reports the panel’s action in writing to the institution’s chief executive officer, the chief administrator of the social work program, the chair of COA, the president of CSWE, and the director of OSWA.
COA is required by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) to release the COA decisions and programs’ accreditation status to the public. COA will use the text of its decision letters for research and evaluation purposes in aggregate. COA’s policy is not to release the full text of letters. If an institution or program releases parts of the site visit report or the COA letter that distorts the decision, COA reserves the right to release the full text of such reports or letters to correct the perceived distortion.
To maintain candidacy or accredited status, programs are expected to be members of CSWE in good standing. Good standing means that programs have paid all current membership dues and candidacy and reaffirmation accreditation fees. Programs that fail to maintain good standing are subject to having their accreditation status suspended. Direct any questions regarding program membership to the Member Services Coordinator at membership@cswe.org or 703.519.2067. Direct any questions regarding accreditation fees to feesaccred@cswe.org.
If a program wishes to withdraw from accredited status, the program’s chief administrator sends a formal letter to its accreditation specialist notifying COA of its intention to close the program. The program is expected to make arrangements for the graduation or transfer of its students and should work closely with its accreditation specialist during this planning process, at the conclusion of which the date of the program’s accreditation will be decided. A program is expected to remain in full compliance with all standards during the withdrawal process.
A collaborative program is a baccalaureate or master’s social work education program operated by two or more colleges or universities. The collaborative design recognizes the collective experience of two academic units and creates a distinctive organizational structure. Some collaborative programs have one chief administrator who is accountable to a bi-institutional board that functions as a dean or academic vice president would in a traditional program, such as making budgetary or personnel decisions regarding the hiring of the program director. Others have one chief administrator who is accountable to appropriate academic administrators at each campus. Another model may designate two persons, one from each institution, to serve alternating terms as chief administrator. The collaborative program may be located on one campus, both campuses, or separate from both institutions.
Typically, collaborative programs are formed to pool resources (faculty, library, information technology, expenses for operating costs), enhance opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration, and to increase student and faculty campus-based resources (bookstores, cafeterias, and fitness centers). Collaborative programs are generally found to enhance programs by enabling them to serve a broader pool of students. Collaborative programs offer new opportunities while also creating new demands for increased coordination and teamwork among faculty and administratrators.
Accreditation is awarded to the collaborative program as a whole, not to the member institutions. If one or more of the member institutions of a collaborative program wish to separate or withdraw accredited status, the chief administrator of the collaborative program notifies the program’s accreditation specialist or associate (with a copy to the president of each member institution) of its intention in writing. This action results in the dissolution of the collaborative program and ends its accreditation status. The collaborative program’s chief administrator is expected to make arrangements for the graduation or transfer of its students and should work closely with its accreditation specialist during this planning process, at its conclusion the date the program’s accreditation will be decided. A program is expected to remain in full compliance with all standards during the withdrawal process.
If either member institution wants to have its own accredited program, the chief administrator of the collaborative program should consult with its accreditation specialist or associate regarding the candidacy process.
If a program fails to submit accreditation materials by the due date, COA may initiate withdrawal of accreditation.
When there is a possibility that a program may be out of compliance with one or more educational policy and accreditation standard, the matter is referred to the Executive Committee for substantiation and possible action (e.g., order a modified site visit, place on conditional accredited status, or initiate withdrawal of accredited status).
CSWE does not recommend the use of external paid consultants. External consultants hired by programs to assist in their reaffirmation of accreditation or progression through candidacy status are not employees or agents of CSWE. CSWE is in no way responsible for the services provided by such consultants, and in no way does CSWE guarantee, recommend, or endorse the services of any consultant. Although CSWE offers training for external consultants that covers the 2008 EPAS and related reaffirmation or candidacy procedures, attendance at this training does not result in any credentialing nor does it guarantee proficiency in the content.