The program submits a Letter of Institutional Intent, the Candidacy Eligibility Fee, and a Candidacy Eligibility Application form with supporting materials. The director of the Office of Social Work Accreditation (OSWA) assigns an accreditation specialist to review the submission. When the specialist approves the Letter of Institutional Intent and Candidacy Eligibility Application, the program is asked to submit a Draft Benchmark I document. The accreditation specialist reviews the Draft Benchmark I document and works with the program to make certain it has fully addressed all of the requirements of the Draft Benchmark I. After approving the Draft Benchmark I document, the specialist recommends that the director of OSWA arrange Commissioner Visit I. The date of Draft Benchmark I approval determines the program’s agenda date (February, June, October).
The Letter of Institutional Intent is a narrative that provides clear, complete, and sufficient information regarding the program and institution’s intent to start a social work program. The letter must include the following:
- A discussion of the institution’s mission and the relationship of the social work program to that mission
- An analysis of the relationship of the proposed program to the institution’s strategic or long-range plan
- A discussion of the costs (including a projected budget) of the program and the benefits or advantages that the institution expects to receive relative to these costs
- Preliminary ideas about the mission and goals of the social work program
- A summary of the program’s initial development activities
Note: If a program is part of a “collaborative,” both institutions must meet eligibility requirements and turn in separate Letters of Institutional Intent and Candidacy Eligibility Applications.
The Candidacy Eligibility Application form lists each eligibility standard, asks a series of simple questions, and/or requires the submission of materials to determine compliance.
Information about when the Candidacy Eligibility Application is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Candidacy.
Eligibility Standard 1
The review of the social work program by the Commission on Accreditation is authorized by the chief executive officer of the institution.
Eligibility Standard 2
The program is located in an educational institution recognized by a regional accrediting body approved by the Commission on Higher Education Accreditation.
Eligibility Standard 3
The institution must be legally organized and authorized to operate as a postsecondary educational institution under the laws of the relevant state. The program has been approved by the appropriate higher education authorities.
Eligibility Standard 4
The institution has a written affirmative action policy, plan or program, and procedures, and a stated policy against discrimination based on race, color, religion, creed, gender, ethnic or national origin, disability, or age. The institution complies with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Eligibility Standard 5
The institution has appointed a chief administrator who has demonstrated leadership ability through teaching, scholarship, curriculum development, administrative experience, and other academic and professional activities in the field of social work.
At the baccalaureate level, the social work program director who is the chief administrator, or the designee of the chief administrator, has a master’s of social work degree from a CSWE-accredited program with a doctoral degree preferred.
At the master’s level, the social work program director who is the chief administrator has a master’s of social work degree from a CSWE-accredited program. In addition, it is preferred that the master’s program director have a doctoral degree.
Eligibility Standard 6
The institution documents sufficient and firm institutional supports to create, build, and maintain the social work program. Include faculty, staff, budget, and other resources necessary to build and maintain the program.
The Letter of Institutional Intent and Candidacy Eligibility Application must be approved by an accreditation specialist before Benchmark I is submitted. Once the letter of intent and application are approved, the program will receive a letter regarding the next step, which is the submission of the Benchmark I document for initial review and approval.
The Benchmark I document should be divided into three volumes as described below.
Volume 1 – Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS)
Section 1-Compliance Accreditation Standards
The first section of volume 1 contains a series of narratives that demonstrate the program’s compliance with the first portion of Benchmark I. This portion of Benchmark I, labeled “Benchmark I—Compliance with the Following Accreditation Standards,” consists of specific accreditation standards the program must be in compliance with during Commissioner Visit I. The commissioner uses this section to make a recommendation to the full COA.
Section 2-Draft Accreditation Standards
The second section of volume 1 contains a series of draft narratives that address the second portion of Benchmark I. This portion of Benchmark I, which is shaded and labeled “Benchmark I—Draft of the Following Accreditation Standards,” consists of specific standards that must be addressed in draft form during Commissioner Visit I. The commissioner consults with the program on how to develop this section further for their Benchmark II document and Commissioner Visit II.
Format
Each accreditation standard should be addressed in a separate narrative headed by the number and full text of each standard for easy identification by the COA reader. Programs should refer to the compliance column of the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements while writing Volume I of the Benchmark I document. It explains the minimum requirements for completely and clearly meeting an accreditation standard and related educational policy and why the COA would cite either as an area of concern or noncompliance.
Volume 2 – Syllabi
Volume two contains drafts of the program’s course syllabi.
Volume 3 – Supporting Documentation
Volume three is the appendix and contains a draft of the student handbook and any other supporting documentation.
Submission of the Draft and Final Benchmark I Document
The program submits a draft Benchmark I document to their accreditation specialist or associate for review and approval per the instructions in the Candidacy Eligibility Approval Letter. This ensures that the program is progressing appropriately. The final version of the Benchmark I document is submitted 1 month before the commissioner visit; see the Timetable for Candidacy—2008 EPAS for submission instructions.
The Benchmark I Review Brief form is a tool used to guide the program in writing a complete Benchmark I document and by the commission visitor to review the program for compliance with Benchmark I and to make a recommendation to COA. In the Location column of sections 2 and 3, the program indicates the document name and page number where each compliance statement is addressed in the program’s Benchmark I document. See the Timetable for Candidacy for submission instructions.
The commission visitor’s primary task is to discuss the Benchmark I document and identify areas of compliance and noncompliance with the first portion of Benchmark I. The visitor also reviews the draft standards in the second portion of Benchmark I and identifies areas of further development that the program can use in writing the compliance section of Benchmark II.
Qualifications
Commissioner Visit I is conducted by a current member of the COA. Commissioners have a minimum of 5 years of teaching experience and have been experienced site visitors prior to serving on the COA.
Selecting the Commission Visitor
The director of OSWA and site visit coordinator select a commissioner to make Commissioner Visit I after the program’s accreditation specialist or associate approves the Benchmark I document. The date the Benchmark I document is approved determines when (February, June, or October) the program will be reviewed for candidacy status. The commission visitor contacts the program to arrange a date for the visit and lets the site visit coordinator know when the visit will occur. Commissioner visits for programs on the February agenda take place between September 1 and November 15, on the June agenda between December 1 and February 28, and on the October agenda between March 1 and May 31.
Program Preparation for the Commissioner Visit
The program director should communicate with the commission visitor about arrangements such as travel plans, work space requirements in the hotel and on campus, and the schedule for the commissioner visit. The program’s chief administrator or designee should confirm all arrangements with the commission visitor in writing. Programs are to provide prepaid airline tickets and should consult with the commission visitor about the most convenient airline carrier and flight times. Coach fare is expected. The program should also inform the commission visitor about transportation from the airport to the campus.
The commission visitor should be housed in a hotel, not in a dormitory or other campus housing. The program should make arrangements with the hotel to pay the bill, minus any of the commission visitor’s personal expenses, directly. Hotel accommodations should be arranged so that the commission visitor has a place to work on the Benchmark I Review Brief.
Ground transportation and meals not taken at the hotel are likely to be out-of-pocket expenses for the commission visitor, and the program should inform the commission visitor how reimbursement for these expenses will be managed.
Communication Guidelines
The program director is the person responsible for all communication with the commission visitor. Faculty members, students, or others should not communicate with the commission visitor before the arrival on campus, nor after the arrival until the appointed time in the commissioner visit schedule. Constituent groups desiring to meet with the commission visitor should request that the program’s chief administrator arrange time on the commissioner visit agenda. It is inappropriate for the commission visitor to receive anonymous documents, telephone calls, or other similar information. The commission visitor is instructed to discuss any such incidents with the program’s chief administrator and to refuse written or verbal information that cannot be shared openly.
Commission Visitor Arrival
During the first evening the commission visitor works alone to prepare for the visit. The program director may meet with the commission visitor to extend a brief welcome, explain the schedule, answer any questions, and outline the arrangements to escort them to the campus. During the commissioner visit, evenings are reserved for the commission visitor to work on the Benchmark I Review Brief and prepare for the exit interview. No social events should be planned for the commission visitor.
Meeting With the Institutional Administrators
The commissioner visit should begin with a meeting with the institution’s chief executive officer and other institutional administrators. The program director should escort the commission visitor to the office of the chief executive officer of the institution and, after introductions, permit the commission visitor to meet alone with the chief executive officer. The purpose of this meeting is to explain the accreditation process, learn more about the role and place of the program within the institution’s system, and answer questions from the president or chancellor. When it is impossible to meet with the institution’s chief executive officer, it is acceptable to meet with his or her designee.
Meetings With the Social Work Program
The schedule may also include meetings with the program director, faculty members, the director of the field practicum, field instructors, students, librarians, and other individuals whose presence is relevant (such as faculty concerned with ethnic or gender issues) to Benchmark I.
The COA does not require or recommend dismissing classes during the commissioner visit. It is expected that the schedule be planned to permit participation by all constituents without disrupting the academic schedule.
Additional Materials
If the program provides additional information to the commission visitor during the visit, three copies of those materials must be sent to the program’s accreditation specialist or associate.
Exit Interview
The commission visitor holds an exit interview, open to the people who met with the commission visitor during the visit (institutional administrators, program leadership, faculty, students, and other constituencies) to convey the findings that will be in the Benchmark I Review Brief. The commission visitor then invites the participants to ask questions, comment on the findings, and/or correct any inaccuracies. The commission visitor may respond to questions but not make judgments of whether the program is in compliance with the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, because that judgment rests with the COA.
The commission visitor should remind the program that the findings, along with the program’s response to the Benchmark I Review Brief, are reviewed by the COA before making a decision about compliance. The commission visitor should explicitly inform the institution and program that the COA will notify them of its decision about program compliance and concerns, and that it is possible that the COA’s analysis will differ from that of the commission visitor.
After the visit has concluded, contact between the program and commission visitor should end. If the program has additional questions or comments after the visit, the program should contact its accreditation specialist or associate.
Emergencies or Questions During the Commissioner Visit
The commission visitor or the program’s chief administrator may call the OSWA director at any time during the commissioner visit to clarify an accreditation standard or procedure. This includes any concerns about boundary issues pertaining to the commission visitor. Should an emergency arise requiring a commission visitor to leave the visit early, OSWA staff should be notified immediately.
POLICY ON REIMBURSEMENT FOR OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES FOR SITE VISITOR/COMMISSIONER VISITS TO PROGRAMS FOREITHER CANDIDACY OR REAFFIRMATION PURPOSES
It is the policy of the Commission on Accreditation that:
- Programs are to provide prepaid airline tickets to site/commission visitors.
- Programs should consult with the site/commission visitors about the most convenient airline carrier and flight times.
- Programs should inform site/commission visitors about transportation from the airport to the hotel and campus.
- Programs should house site/commission visitors in hotels, not in dormitories or other campus housing.
- Programs should arrange for hotels to bill the program for site/commission visitors’ expenses minus personal expenses.
- Hotel accommodations should be arranged so that site/commission visitors have a place to work on the site visit report.
- Requesting site/commission visitors to complete W-9 forms in order to be reimbursed is not supported by the Council on Social Work Education or the Office of Social Work Accreditation.
- Site visitors and commissioner visitors are not employees of the Council on Social Work or of the program they visit, neither are they vendors selling products which would require a W-9 form. They are simply non-paid volunteers contributing their services to Social Work Programs so if they are uncomfortable completing the W-9 form, they are to submit their expenses to the site visit coordinator (sbell@cswe.org), our finance department will reimburse them and invoice the programs.
- Ground transportation and meals not taken at the hotel are likely to be out-of-pocket expenses and programs should inform site/commission visitors how reimbursement for these will be managed.
The Benchmark I Review Brief form is a tool used to guide the program in writing a complete Benchmark I document and by the commission visitor to review the program for compliance with Benchmark I and make a recommendation to the COA. Section 2 lists each accreditation standard and related educational policy under “Compliance with the Following Accreditation Standards” in Benchmark I. Section 3 lists each accreditation standard and related educational policy under “Draft of the Following Accreditation Standards” in Benchmark I. The Compliance Statement column in each section lists the related compliance statement from the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements.
Commission Visitor Reporting of Findings
In the C/NC column of section 2 the commission visitor types “compliance” or “noncompliance” next to each compliance statement to report how well the program meets and addresses each item. The commission visitor indicates her or his reasoning in the Comments column for any compliance statement marked noncompliance. In section 4 of the Benchmark I Review Brief the commission visitor recommends a decision to the COA, lists areas of noncompliance with the corresponding accreditation standard, and writes a brief discussion of the problem and how the program can fix it.
Information about when the Benchmark I Review Brief is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Candidacy.
The program is required to submit a response to the Benchmark I Review Brief within 2 weeks of receiving the brief. The response must include the name and state of the program visited, the program level visited, the name of the commission visitor, and the date of the response.
The program should list each commissioner visit finding and clearly state whether it agrees or disagrees with the finding, correct any errors of fact, and clarify information the program thinks may have been incorrectly understood by the commission visitor. Disagreements with the Benchmark I Review Brief visit should be stated clearly and additional documentation should be provided if necessary.
Information about when the program’s response to the Benchmark I Review Brief is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Candidacy.
After reviewing the program’s Benchmark I document, the Benchmark I Review Brief submitted by the commissioner making Commission Visit I (including the commissioner’s recommendation), and the program’s response to the Benchmark I Review Brief, the COA makes one of three decisions:
- Grant Candidacy Status. The COA finds that the program is in compliance with Benchmark I and grants the program candidacy status. The decision letter instructs the program to prepare Benchmark II in preparation for its Commissioner Visit II. A commissioner will contact the program to arrange the visit.
- Defer a Decision on Candidacy Status to the Next Meeting and Request Clarifying Information. The COA decides to defer a decision when the program’s documentation is insufficient to make a decision. A deferral is for one meeting only. Before the next commission meeting the program is expected to submit the documentation or clarification necessary for the COA to make a decision.
- Deny Candidacy Status. A program is denied candidacy if the COA finds the program’s Benchmark I document to be inadequate. The program has two options in response to the decision: (1) to accept the decision and apply for candidacy by submitting a Benchmark I document or (2) to appeal by requesting a reconsideration of the decision. The program must notify their accreditation specialist or associate in writing which option it intends to pursue. If the program accepts the decision it may submit a Benchmark I document and apply for candidacy status no earlier than the second COA meeting following the one at which the COA made its decision.