EPAS Handbook

1.1.1. Accredited Status Language

Statement for Accredited Programs to Post on their Web Sites:

[Program] is accredited by the Council on Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation.

Accreditation of a baccalaureate or master’s social work program by the Council on Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation indicates that it meets or exceeds criteria for the assessment of program quality evaluated through a peer review process.  An accredited program has sufficient resources to meet its mission and goals and the Commission on Accreditation has verified that it demonstrates compliance with all sections of the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards. 

Accreditation applies to all program sites and program delivery methods of an accredited program.  Accreditation provides reasonable assurance about the quality of the program and the competence of students graduating from the program.

For more information about social work accreditation, you may contact Accreditation.

Accredited programs may contact Elizabeth Simon for permission to publish the "Accredited by CSWE" logo on their web pages.

1.1.2. Conditionally Accreditation Status Language

Statement for Conditionally Accredited Programs to Post on their Web Sites:

[Program] is conditionally accredited by the Council on Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation.

Conditional Accreditation of a baccalaureate or master’s social work program by the Council on Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation indicates that it has not demonstrated compliance with one or more of CSWE’s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards.  Programs in Conditional Accredited Status must demonstrate compliance with all standards within one year of being placed on Conditional Accredited Status.  If a program is unable to demonstrate compliance within one year, the COA will move to withdraw accredited status.  Students who graduate from programs with Conditional Accredited Status will still be recognized as having graduated from a CSWE-accredited program. 

Conditional Accreditation Status by the Council on Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation applies to all program sites and program delivery methods of an accredited program.

For more information about social work accreditation, you may contact Accreditation.

1.1.3. Candidacy Status Language

Statement for Programs in Candidacy to Post on their Web Sites:

[Program] has achieved Candidacy for Accreditation by the Council on Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation.

Candidacy for a baccalaureate or master’s social work program by the Council on Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation indicates that it has made progress toward meeting criteria for the assessment of program quality evaluated through a peer review process.  A program that has attained Candidacy has demonstrated a commitment to meeting the compliance standards set by the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, but has not yet demonstrated full compliance. 

Students who enter programs that attain Candidacy in or before the academic year in which they begin their program of study will be retroactively recognized as having graduated from a CSWE-accredited program once the program attains Initial Accreditation.  Candidacy is typically a three-year process and attaining Candidacy does not guarantee that a program will eventually attain Initial Accreditation.  Candidacy applies to all program sites and program delivery methods of an accredited program.  Accreditation provides reasonable assurance about the quality of the program and the competence of students graduating from the program.

For more information about social work accreditation, you may contact Accreditation.

1.1.4. Pre-Candidacy Status Language

Statement for Programs in Pre-Candidacy to Post on their Web Sites:

[Program] is currently in Pre-Candidacy for Accreditation by the Council on Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation.

Pre-Candidacy for a baccalaureate or master’s social work program by the Council on Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation indicates that it has submitted an application to be reviewed for Candidacy and had its Benchmark I approved in draft form to move forward with Candidacy review within one year.  A program that has attained Pre-Candidacy has not yet been reviewed by the Commission on Accreditation or been verified to be in compliance with the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards.

Students who enter programs in Pre-Candidacy that attain Candidacy in the academic year in which they begin their program of study will be retroactively recognized as having graduated from a CSWE-accredited program once the program attains Initial Accreditation.  The Candidacy Process is typically a three-year process and there is no guarantee that a program in Pre-Candidacy will eventually attain Candidacy or Initial Accreditation.

Candidacy by the Council on Social Work Education’s Commission on Accreditation applies to all locations and delivery methods of an accredited program.  Accreditation provides reasonable assurance about the quality of the program and the competence of students graduating from the program.

For more information about social work accreditation, you may contact Accreditation.

1.1.5. Commission on Accreditation

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 social work degree programs in the United States and its territories. Since its inception in July 1952, CSWE has accredited master’s programs. In 1974, it began accrediting baccalaureate programs. The COA is currently piloting accreditation processes for professional practice doctoral programs and post-degree fellowship programs in social work. CSWE does not accredit Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programs, associate degree programs, or minors in social work.

As explained in COA’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CSWE, CSWE delegates autonomous authority and responsibility for all evaluation and accreditation services to the COA. This authority extends to judgments regarding the accredited status of educational programs and includes the formulation and implementation of standards, criteria, policies, and procedures. The decisions of the COA are based on the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS).

The COA is composed of a minimum of thirty (30) members, including a chair. In making appointments, the chair considers previous site visit experience, years and nature of experience in faculty and administrative positions at the baccalaureate and graduate levels, as well as the CSWE affirmative action policy and plan. Members are appointed for 3-year terms and may be reappointed to a second 3-year term. The thirty (30) commissioners are expected to hold full-time faculty or administrative appointments in accredited social work programs; or have emeritus status. The COA Executive Committee, at its discretion, may appointment commissioners based upon the needs of the COA. Incumbent commissioners who retire during their COA appointment may serve out the remainder of that 3-year term. Additional commissioners are public members, as required by CHEA standards, that provide practice-centered perspectives and/or multi-disciplinary lenses. Public members do not review program materials, vote to ratify program decisions, nor conduct commissioner visits to programs in candidacy.

After serving two (2) consecutive 3-year terms (6 years of service total), the commissioner must wait a minimum of three (3) years to apply for another full term of service on the COA. On rare occasions, the COA Executive Committee may approve temporary appointees to serve 1-year term appointments to fulfill immediate needs and/or vacancies on the COA. The temporary appointees shall be assessed by the same criteria as full-term commissioners. At the COA Executive Committee’s discretion, the 1-year temporary appointment may be subtracted from the 3-year term should the temporary appointee be eligible to apply for a full term of service following the 1-year temporary appointment. In extenuating circumstances, the COA Executive Committee may consider extending the term of service for current commissioners by 1-year, recruit a previous commissioner, and/or recruit a qualified site visitor to ensure sufficient volunteers to conduct COA’s evaluation and accreditation services.

The COA reviews all programs in a fair and impartial manner. Materials submitted to the COA relative to a program’s review are available to any commissioner, unless a conflict of interest exists. Members of the COA, site visitors, and former commissioners representing the COA treat accreditation materials as confidential in their discussions and decision-making.

Commissioners may not conduct reaffirmation of accreditation site visits nor consult with social work programs on matters of accreditation during their terms of service to the COA. They only make commissioner visits to programs that have applied for or are in candidacy.

In collaboration with accreditation staff, the COA chair or the chair’s designee, is solely responsible for communicating the COA’s decisions in writing to the program and institutional administrators. The COA may be required to communicate its decision to the regional accrediting agency that accredits the program’s institution. Following the COA’s decisions, the program’s accreditation status is published in CSWE’s Compass monthly newsletter and posted on the CSWE website.

1.1.6. EPAS

CSWE uses the 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) to accredit baccalaureate- and master’s-level social work programs. The 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.

1. The program’s mission and goals address the profession’s purpose, are grounded in the profession’s values, and are informed by its context.


2. The explicit curriculum is the program’s formal educational structure and includes its courses and curriculum design. Core competencies (which define generalist practice or are applied in advanced practice) and field education (as the signature pedagogy of social work education) are the key elements of the explicit curriculum. Competency-based education is an outcome performance approach to curriculum design. Competencies are measurable practice behaviors that are comprised of knowledge, values, and skills. The goal of the outcome approach is to demonstrate the integration and application of the competencies in practice with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.
   
   The explicit curriculum at the baccalaureate level is designed to prepare graduates for generalist practice through mastery of the core competencies. The master's curriculum prepares graduates for advanced practice through mastery of the core competencies augmented by knowledge and practice behaviors specific to a concentration. The program’s mission and goals, as these reflect professional purpose and values and the program’s context, are consistent with the program’s competencies. The program’s competencies are operationalized in the explicit curriculum and in program assessment through measurable practice behaviors.


3. The implicit curriculum refers to the educational environment in which the explicit curriculum is presented. It is composed of the following elements: the program’s commitment to diversity; admissions policies and procedures; advisement, retention, and termination policies; student participation in governance; faculty; administrative structure; and resources. The implicit curriculum is as important as the explicit curriculum in shaping the professional character and competence of the program’s graduates. Heightened awareness of the importance of the implicit curriculum promotes an educational culture that is congruent with the values of the profession.


4. Assessment is an integral component of competency-based education. To evaluate the extent to which the competencies have been met, a system of assessment is central to this model of education. Data from assessment continuously inform and promote change in the explicit and implicit curriculum to enhance attainment of program competencies. (EP 4.0)

1.1.7. Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Definitions & Citations

The COA uses the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) and Interpretation Guide to conduct consistent and complete reviews of programs for candidacy status, initial accreditation, reaffirmation of accreditation, substantive changes, or special compliance reviews. The COA’s reviews, citations, and decision-making are based upon the program implementing, demonstrating, and maintaining compliance with the EPAS or other evaluative criteria. Concern and noncompliance citations are issued when program-submitted content is unclear, incomplete, inadequate, inconsistent, inaccurate, or fail to meet minimum requirements.

Compliance: The program submitted information was clear, complete, and accurate as evaluated by the COA according to the accreditation standards and/or COA’s interpretation.

Concern: The program submitted information was unclear, incomplete, inadequate, inconsistent, or inaccurate as evaluated by the COA according to the accreditation standards and/or COA’s interpretation.

Noncompliance: The program submitted information did not meet the minimum requirements as evaluated by the COA according to the accreditation standards and/or COA’s interpretation.

Understanding Citations
A citation is a concern or noncompliance issue identified by the Commission on Accreditation (COA) based upon the EPAS or other evaluative criteria during an accreditation process.

Citations are documented in a COA-issued letter such as the Letter of Instruction (LOI), deferral letter, decision letter, substantive change letter, or other accreditation letters issued per policies and procedures in the EPAS Handbook.

Citations at the Letter of Instruction (LOI) phase of the reaffirmation process are considered concerns. Citations at the decision phase of the candidacy and reaffirmation processes may be considered concerns or noncompliance issues and will be labeled accordingly within the body of the letter. Citations during a substantive change review and other accreditation processes may be considered concerns or noncompliance issues and will be labeled accordingly within the body of the letter.

Each citation identified in the COA-issued letter will be accompanied by the commission’s findings, a rationale, and instructions for next steps. The reaffirmation LOI is issued directly to the site visitor. Deferrals and substantive change letters are issued directly to the program. All other final COA decisions letters are issued to the program and institutional administrators. The COA employs a fair and impartial peer-review process, ensuring educational programs are provided an opportunity to formally respond to citation(s) identified by the COA or appeal an adverse action.

Occasionally, information provided by the commissioner/site visitor or program may prompt a new citation not identified in a previous accreditation review phase or in between review cycles. In such cases, the following decision trees guide commissioners and/or staff in providing the program an opportunity to respond to the new citation(s).

Candidacy

• Cite new compliance standard(s) if the...
• COA reader identified a concern/noncompliance issue in the benchmark documents that was not identified by the commissioner site visitor
• Program submitted new concern/noncompliance information in their response to the commission visit report
• Program submitted a new compliance plan that warrants a follow up report (e.g., deferral, progress report, etc.)

In candidacy, draft standards will not be cited; however, staff commissioner visitors, and COA readers may provide consultation and developmental feedback on draft standards.

Reaffirmation

• COA cite new specific standard(s) if the...
• Site visitor reported new information based on general questions to which the program did not respond clearly; the new information was evaluated as a concern by the COA
• Site visitor reported new information based on specific questions to which the program did not respond clearly; the new information was evaluated as a concern by the COA 
• Program submitted new concern/noncompliance information in their response to general questions
• Program submitted new concern/noncompliance information in their response specific questions
• Program submitted a new compliance plan in response to specific questions that warrants a follow up report (e.g., deferral, progress report, etc.)
• Program submitted new concern/noncompliance information in their response to a COA-requested report (e.g., deferral, progress report, modified site visit, etc.)

• COA or Accreditation Specialist identified a concern/noncompliance issue in the substantive change proposal that was not previously identified
• Program submitted a new compliance plan that warrants a follow up (e.g., deferral, virtual visit, etc.)
• Program submitted new concern/noncompliance information in their response to the deferral or virtual site visit

• Program submitted new concern/noncompliance information in their report
• COA or Accreditation Specialist identified a concern/noncompliance issue in the report that was not previously identified
• Program submitted a new compliance plan that warrants a follow up (e.g., deferral, progress report, modified or virtual visit, etc.)

1.1.8. Candidacy Benchmarks

The benchmark model is a systematic, incremental approach to developing a social work program and writing a comprehensive self-study. There are three benchmarks; the first portion of each benchmark consists of specific accreditation standards that must be approved by the Commission on Accreditation (COA) to proceed to the next benchmark, and the second portion consists of standards that must be addressed in draft form. Please see the Candidacy Process: 3 Year Benchmark Grid for more information. 

Program development is guided by three visits from the COA commissioners. During the commissioner visits 1 and 2, the commissioner makes a recommendation as to whether to approve the program’s standards in the first portion of the benchmark and provides consultation on the standards in the second portion. During commissioner visit 3, the commissioner makes recommendations as to whether the program is in compliance with the EPAS.

Programs progress through several stages of program development: applying for candidacy status, completing candidacy, and receiving initial accreditation status. There are several products, timetables, forms, and accreditation fees associated with each stage, which can be found on the CSWE website.

More information on the candidacy process can be found in section 3 of the EPAS Handbook.

1.1.9. Reaffirmation of Accreditation

1.1.10. COA Decision Making

1.1.11. The COA Executive Committee

The COA has one standing committee, the Executive Committee, which serves in place of the 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 (OSWA). At COA meetings the Committee’s work includes the following.

•Monitor and make recommendations for the revision of accreditation standards.
•Review updates from the director of OSWA.
•Evaluate the processes and procedures of COA meetings.
•Monitor the COA’s quality assurance.
•Develop and consider policies for the COA and direct office staff in maintaining a record of instituted policies (including a COA Policy Manual).
•Oversee staff training of site visitors and programs seeking candidacy, initial accreditation, or reaffirmation.
•Oversee and review staff recommendations on waiver and postponement applications.
 

1.1.12. Office of Social Work Accreditation (OSWA)

The staff of OSWA consists of accreditation specialists, a site visit coordinator, an office manager, and a director. Accreditation specialists 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 and the program to arrange each site visit. The office manager 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.

1.1.13. Whom to Contact About What

Department of Social Work Accreditation (DOSA)	Contact Regarding:
Mary D. Kurfess Social Work Director, DOSA Telephone: 703.519.2078 E-mail: mkurfess@cswe.org	•Starting a new program •Reconsideration of a COA decision •Consideration of a waiver •Filing a complaint
Monica Wylie Accreditation Office Manager and Assistant to the Director, DOSA Telephone: 703.519.2073 E-mail: mwylie@cswe.org	•Assistance in contacting Director or staff •Available accreditation training •Accreditation workshop registration •Accreditation fees
Sheila Bell, Site Visit Coordinator Telephone: 703.519.2042 E-mail: sbell@cswe.org	•Commissioner / Candidacy Site Visits •Site Visit Procedures •Site Visitor Training
Accreditation Specialists Each program is assigned one of the following specialists: Katie Benson, MSW Telephone:  571.527.3483 E-mail: kbenson@cswe.org Marilyn Gentner, LMSW, LICSW Telephone: 703.519.2040     E-mail:  mgentner@CSWE.org   Katie Gibson-Ledl, LLMSW-Macro Telephone: 703.519.2063       E-mail:  kgibson@CSWE.org   Anna R. Holster, MSW, MPhil Telephone:  703.519.2044 E-mail:  aholster@CSWE.org Spencer Middleton, MSW Telephone:  703.519.2052 E-mail:  smiddleton@CSWE.org	Guidance and interpretation of 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) Reaffirmation, Candidacy, and Initial Accreditation Planning Timetables Process Guidelines for writing self-study document The accreditation cycle Guidance regarding the policies and the role of the Commission on Accreditation (COA) Understanding COA decisions Program Changes Addition of new program options Updates to area(s) of specialized practice Substantive (as defined in section 1.2.4 of the 2015 EPAS Handbook) Personnel Changes Program Director Field Director Dean Chair Institution’s President or Chancellor An agenda adjustment or postponement Requesting updates or revisions to program directory listing All materials should be submitted to the program’s assigned specialist, unless otherwise specified.

1.1.14. Mailing Instructions for Programs

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

Programs Send the Following Materials (postal mail or e-mail):	To the Attention of:
Candidacy Review Benchmark I Program Response to Benchmark I Review Brief (Commissioner Visit Report) Benchmark II Reaffirmation Review Reaffirmation Eligibility Application Self-Study Program Response to the Site Visit Report Postponement or Agenda Adjustment Request Progress Report Progress Report and Any Supporting Materials Restoration Report Restoration Report Notification of Program Changes Modified Site Visit Clarifying Materials Reconsideration Hearing Clarifying Materials	Your Program's Accreditation Specialist
Site Visit Planning Form	Site Visit Coordinator
Other correspondence Complaint Correspondence Program Waiver Request Letter Requesting a Reconsideration Hearing Letter of Institutional Intent and Candidacy Eligibility Application Alternative Reaffirmation Proposal	OSWA Director

 

Programs Send the Following Fees (With a Copy of the Invoice):	To the Attention of:
Accreditation Fees Candidacy Eligibility Fee Commissioner Visit I Fee Commissioner Visit II Fee Initial Accreditation Eligibility Fee Initial Accreditation Fee Reaffirmation Eligibility Fee Reaffirmation Fee	Finance and Administration

1.1.15 Integrity Policy

Doctine of Integrity

In all relationships with the Council on Social Work Education and its Commission on Accreditation, a program shall demonstrate honesty and integrity. In submitting materials for candidacy, reaffirmation, or other accreditation-related review processes, the program agrees to comply with CSWE’s requirements, policies, guidelines, decisions, and requests. Accredited and candidate programs must evidence full and candid disclosure and shall make readily available all information necessary to determine compliance. Programs are responsible for ensuring the integrity of the data and information submitted. Presenting false or materially inaccurate information, either through intent or through failure to exercise care and diligence in verifying the information, is considered a breach of this policy. Programs are responsible for maintaining compliance with the EPAS during review and in-between review cycles.

Breaches of Integrity

The program’s failure to disclose information honestly and completely by presenting false or materially inaccurate information, by the intentional omission of relevant information, or by a distortion of information for the purpose of deliberate misrepresentation, will be considered a breach of integrity, in and of itself. It is crucial for each program to be aware that it will be held responsible for the actions of its representatives. Verification of any alleged instances of breaches of integrity that impact compliance with one or more accreditation standards is referred to the COA Executive Committee. The Committee may conduct an investigation that may result in sanctions that could impact the program’s accreditation or candidacy status. The result of this investigation may adversely affect the program’s accreditation or candidacy status with CSWE’s Commission on Accreditation.

1.2.1. Complaints Regarding Program Compliance

1.2.2. Postponement of Reaffirmation Review

1.2.3. Agenda Adjustments

Agenda,  Administrative, & Permanent Adjustments

An agenda adjustment is a one-meeting (i.e., 4-month) temporary shift to a program’s accreditation timetable requested by the program due to one (1) or more special circumstances described in section 1.2.3 of the EPAS Handbook.
 
An administrative adjustment is a one-meeting (i.e., 4-month) temporary shift to a program’s accreditation timetable made by the COA or DOSWA staff due a request for revision of program-submitted materials that reflects substantial issues or errors that hinders the commission’s review process. Review section 1.2.11 of the EPAS Handbook for more information on administrative adjustments.

Adjustment Policies

The following policies guide the decision making of the staff:

• A maximum of one (1) agenda adjustment is permitted per decision type.
• An adjustment can be granted to a single program for a maximum of one (1) meeting.
• Agenda adjustments are granted only once during each reaffirmation cycle (i.e., once per each 8-year reaffirmation period). 
• The program remains accredited during the period of adjustment.
• After adjustment of a review, the program’s next reaffirmation date is calculated from program’s original review date (i.e., the date at which the previous accreditation status expired). This ensures the program is reviewed on the correct cycle, accreditation status is retroactively effective, and there are no gaps in accreditation history.
• An accredited program that is scheduled for its first reaffirmation review after receiving initial accreditation is eligible for an agenda adjustment.
• Programs preparing for reaffirmation and those in any stage of the candidacy process may request an agenda adjustment.
• Programs granted an agenda adjustment are also eligible for one (1) year postponement per section 1.2.2 in the EPAS Handbook.
• Programs will not be granted more than one (1) agenda adjustment and one (1) postponement and during each reaffirmation cycle (i.e., once per each 8-year reaffirmation period).

Permanent Adjustment

Programs in pre-candidacy or candidacy may request a permanent one-meeting agenda adjustment at any benchmark.
 
Benchmark 1: When a program requests a permanent adjustment at Benchmark 1, it will affect the program’s retroactive accreditation date and may impact which students are covered under accreditation. It will also shift the program’s Benchmark 2 and Initial Accreditation (Benchmark 3) review dates. Consult with the program’s accreditation specialist regarding how a Benchmark 1 permanent adjustment may affect the program’s retroactive accreditation date and students.
 
Benchmark 2: When a program requests a permanent adjustment at Benchmark 2, it will not affect the program’s retroactive accreditation date and will not impact which students are covered under accreditation. However, it will shift the program’s Initial Accreditation (Benchmark 3) review date.
 
Initial Accreditation (Benchmark 3): When a program requests a permanent adjustment at Benchmark 3, it will not affect the program’s retroactive accreditation date and will not impact which students are covered under accreditation. However, students will not be recognized as having graduated from an accredited program until initial accreditation has been granted. This may impact students who will be graduating before initial accreditation is achieved.
 
Programs will not be granted more than one (1) permanent adjustment during each benchmark, for a total of three (3) permanent adjustments per the 3-year candidacy process.

Instructions

To request an agenda adjustment, programs must complete the required Agenda Adjustment / Postponement Request Form, which documents the program’s rationale for the request. The form must be submitted via e-mail to the program's Accreditation Specialist and align with the document submission policy and formatting requirements detailed in section 1.2.11 of the EPAS Handbook. Accreditation staff have final approval authority.

Deadline for Requesting an Agenda Adjustment

Reaffirmation: The program may submit their request no more than two (2) years before their next self-study due date; and no later than two (2) months before their next self-study due date.
 
Candidacy: The program may submit their request no later than two (2) months before the first day of their next site visit timeframe (i.e., July 1st for a February agenda date; October 1st for a June agenda date; January 1st for an October agenda date).
 
In extenuating / emergency circumstances only, programs may request a postponement and/or agenda adjustment after the deadline. These requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Agenda Adjustment Actions

When reviewing the agenda adjustment request, the Accreditation Specialist considers the program’s accreditation history, with special attention to recent COA actions and the program’s response to any concerns. The program is notified in writing of the decision. One (1) of four (4) decisions may be reached:

1. Approve the request and establish, for the current review only, a new timetable for submission of materials for reaffirmation review.
2. Defer a decision pending the receipt of additional information.
3. Deny the request, providing in writing the reasons for denial and avenues of redress if the program disagrees.

Agenda and administrative adjustment decisions are not eligible for appeal.

1.2.4. Program Changes

For more information on program changes that take place between scheduled accreditation reviews, please click here

Use the Substantive Change Proposal Template to submit your substantive change proposal in order to add a new location or delivery method.

Programs are required to log their intent to submit a substantive change proposal no later than 30 days before they intend to submit.

Use the database update form to make any of the following updates:
Change of name of university of program; change in program email address; change in program phone number; change in program website; change in logo; change in degree granted by program; change in area(s) of specialized practice (master's programs); change in assessment reporting link; change in certificates offered; change in dual degree opportunities; addition of location or delivery method (after approval of substantive change proposal); elimination of location or delivery method; elimination of program option; change in plan of study; change in primary address; change in primary contact or primary contact's name, credentials, title, email address, or phone number; change in program director or program director's name, credentials, title, email address, or phone number; change in field director or field director's name, credentials, title, email address, or phone number; change in president/chancellor or president/chancellor's name, credentials, title, or email address

For further information and specific inquiries please contact your program's accreditation specialist. 

1.2.5. Waivers to Accreditation Standards

1.2.6. Appeals of COA Decisions

1.2.7. Information Sharing and Release of COA Decision Letter

Information Sharing

Each accredited program selects one (1) primary contact. To streamline communication, the primary contact’s responsibility is to represent the program in all exchanges with CSWE and the public. The primary contact manages all accreditation-related communications including reviewing periodic COA and DOSWA updates, submitting program materials for accreditation reviews and in-between review cycles, receiving official COA-issued letters, processing fee invoices, and engaging in consultation or other accreditation services with accreditation staff.

The primary contact also ensures that CSWE program records remain accurate and current, including the public-facing Directory of Accredited Programs located on the CSWE website. To complete updates to the program’s record or Directory listing, review the steps outlined in policy 1.2.4 Program Changes regarding changes in key program personnel. Email complete contact information per the policy to the program’s accreditation specialist.

The primary contact may request additional program authorized personnel (e.g., designees) to be added to the program’s CSWE database record. Accreditation staff may share program-specific information with designees (e.g., program director, field director, coordinators, dean, chair, committee chair, key faculty writing the self-study, etc.) as long as the primary contact is included on all communications. When designees initiate contact with accreditation staff, it is the program’s responsibility to ensure the primary contact is aware of and involved in each verbal exchange and copied on each written communication. If the program fails to include the primary contact on communications, accreditation staff will include the primary contact in their response. To add designees to the program’s CSWE database record, follow the steps outlined in policy 1.2.4 Program Changes and email complete contact information required per the policy to the program’s accreditation specialist. Accreditation staff reserve the right to verify authorized personnel status with the primary contact.

To change the primary contact, the current primary contact and/or their superior must follow the steps outlined in policy 1.2.4 Program Changes and email complete contact information required per the policy to the program’s accreditation specialist to facilitate the transfer of responsibility.

Accreditation staff do not share program-specific information or provide accreditation services to any individual not identified in the program’s CSWE database record as the primary contact or a designee. Such services are reserved for authorized personnel only.

Accreditation staff do not share program-specific information with other programs. For any purpose, including independent scholarly research, accreditation staff do not share program contact information, program lists, accreditation spreadsheets, or other individualized program information not already publicly available on the CSWE website and Directory of Accredited Programs.

General and public-facing information may be shared upon request with any stakeholder including administrators, faculty, students, and members of the public.

Release of COA Decision Letter

The COA is required by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) to release the COA decisions and programs’ accreditation status to the public. The COA will use the text of its decision letters for research and evaluation purposes in aggregate. The 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, the COA reserves the right to release the full text of such reports or letters to correct the perceived distortion. 

Programs are expected to maintain accurate records of their accreditation-related documents, including any documents submitted to the accreditation department or COA and official COA decision letters. Examples of accreditation-related documents include self-study/benchmark documents, Letters of Instruction, commission/site visit reports, program responses to the commission/site visit reports, COA decision letters, deferral letters, postponement/adjustment approvals, waiver notifications, program change notifications, and substantive change acceptances.

Authorized personnel from accredited social work programs have the right to request a copy of a COA decision letter or custom letter confirming the program’s accreditation history, current status, and next review date. The following are not considered COA decision letters and will not be re-released to programs: self-study/benchmark documents; Letters of Instruction; commission/site visit reports; program responses to the commission/site visit reports; postponement/adjustment approvals; waiver notifications; program change notifications; and substantive change acceptances.

Authorized personnel include the primary contact and any additional designees listed in the program’s CSWE database record. Follow the steps outlined in policy 1.2.4 Program Changes and email complete contact information required per the policy to the program’s accreditation specialist policy to update authorized personnel in the program’s record.

The request for a COA decision letter or custom accreditation confirmation letter must be made in writing via email to the program’s accreditation specialist a minimum of two (2) weeks in advance of the date the program requires the documentation. Requests that are not allotted a full two (2) weeks for staff processing are not guaranteed to meet the program’s expected timeframe.

1.2.8. Accreditation Fees and Related Policies

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.

1.2.9. Program Closure and Withdrawal of Accredited Status

If a program wishes to withdraw from accredited status, the program’s chief administrator sends a formal letter to its accreditation specialist notifying the 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.

1.2.10. Dissolution of Collaborative Programs

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.
 
Accreditation is awarded to the collaborative program as a whole; not to the member institutions.
 
Pooling resources:  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 administrators.
 
Models of the structure:  Some collaborative programs have one chief administrator who is accountable to a multi-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.
 
Dissolution:  If one or more of the member institutions of a collaborative program wish to separate or withdraw accredited status, the members of the collaborative program are first required to come to an agreement regarding the collaborative program’s accreditation end date.  The end date is defined as the agreed-upon date after the final students would graduate or transfer out of the collaborative program.
 
Once an end date for the collaborative program is agreed upon by the members of the collaborative, the chief administrator of the collaborative program submits a Letter of Withdrawal per policy 1.2.9 in the EPAS Handbook, notifying the program’s accreditation specialist in writing of the intention to dissolve the collaborative. Students can no longer be admitted to the collaborative after this date. The Letter of Withdrawal includes the end date of the collaborative and a narrative discussing how the program is making arrangements for the graduation or transfer of its students. Copies of the letter are also to be sent to the president of each member institution. The specialist will guide the collaborative and its members through the dissolution process. 
 
The collaborative program’s chief administrator is expected to work with the accreditation specialist and the members of the collaborative to make arrangements for the graduation or transfer of its students.
 
If the members of a collaborative do not agree upon an end date, the Director of Accreditation will refer the matter to the Executive Committee of the Commission on Accreditation (COA) to determine an end date that is in the best interest of the students. 
 
Accredited status during dissolution:  The collaborative remains accredited until a plan of graduation or transfer for all students is established.  A collaborative program is expected to remain in full compliance with all standards during the dissolution process.  The COA votes on the withdrawal of the collaborative’s accreditation at the COA meeting after the agreed upon end date, as documented in the Letter of Withdrawal.
 
Independent accreditation for members of the collaborative:  If one or more of the member institutions chooses to establish an independent social work program following the dissolution of the collaborative, the program(s) will be in candidacy status for one year and then reviewed for initial accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation. The Director of Accreditation will assign each member institution seeking individual accreditation an accreditation specialist. 
 
The accreditation specialist will provide a timetable, guidance, and information during the year of candidacy. The timetables for member programs from a dissolved collaborative may differ, depending upon the circumstances and readiness of each program to proceed toward initial accreditation. 
 
The one-year candidacy option is only available at the time of dissolution:  If an individual program chooses not to seek initial accreditation at the time the collaborative is dissolved, the program loses the option of the one-year candidacy process toward initial accreditation.  If the individual program decides at a later time to seek accredited status, the program is required to enter the full three-year candidacy process to gain accreditation.
 
Students enrolled in programs leaving collaboratives and seeking individual accreditation: Accredited status for individual programs will be retroactive to the fall term of the academic year in which the program is granted initial accreditation. Students enrolled in programs in a dissolving collaborative are to be informed that their program will be in candidacy status for one year and that they will not be considered to have graduated from an accredited program until the program is granted initial accreditation by the COA. Programs should also ensure student transcripts reflect enrollment or transfer to the single program no earlier than the fall preceding Initial Accreditation being granted.

1.2.11. Document Submission Policy

Programs are required to address all requirements of the standards, including all program options, and to submit documents in the required format. Should a program fail to address all requirements of the standards sufficiently, including all program options, and/or fail to submit documents in the required format, the program may be required to revise and resubmit its document(s) for review at the next COA meeting. The request for revision and resubmission is determined by the COA of accreditation staff and reflects substantial issues or errors with program-submitted materials that hinders the commission’s review process. A letter will be issued to the program noting the administrative adjustment to the program’s review timetable and the program’s primary contact will be requested to consult with their accreditation specialist to confirm submission requirements to prepare for final submission.  The program’s accreditation status will remain unchanged during the revision period. Should the program fail to submit the accreditation document(s) by the revision due date, the COA may initiate an adverse action.

No additional materials will be accepted after an accreditation due date. Accreditation staff cannot alter, edit, amend, nor substitute program materials submitted for an accreditation review.

Required Format of Materials Submitted to the COA

1.2.12. Programs Found Out of Compliance Between Reviews

For more information on special compliance reviews, please click here.

1.2.13. Use of Consultants

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.

1.2.14. Conflict of Interest Policy

1.2.14 Conflict of Interest Policy for Volunteers

Preamble

In order to ensure that programs receive an equitable and impartial review from the Commission on Accreditation (COA), free from any ethical conflicts or inappropriate influences that could either corrupt the integrity of the accreditation process or could result in any appearance of impropriety, the following conflict of interest policies and procedures shall be in place. The same rules apply for all volunteers interacting with programs on behalf of CSWE-COA (whether commissioners or site visitors).

Ethical Guidelines/Direct Conflicts

A variety of situations exist where the potential for ethical dilemmas in the form of a conflict of interest (hereinafter “COI”) can arise, when volunteers serve in the capacity of a site visitor or a commissioner. Some of these potential ethical conflicts are easily discernable and others more nuanced. The questions of whether the visitor can act in an impartial manner free from any bias, or the potential for the program to believe that any such lack of impartiality exists, should be paramount to determining the existence of a potential ethical COI.

A. Situations Where Recusal is Necessary

In the event that any of the situations (below) occur, the volunteer MUST recuse themself from any involvement in the visitation or review of a program, and decision-making about a program:

a. The volunteer lives or works in the geographical location of the institution or social work program’s main campus (i.e., within the same state or metropolitan area); if the volunteer is affiliated with the same educational system (e.g., SUNY, CSU, etc.); or where the appearance of a conflict of interest might be present. If a program is online-only, this applies to a volunteer who lives or works in the same state or metropolitan area of the institution's main campus.

i. An exception to this rule is that volunteers may conduct visits when there is a necessity for a Spanish-speaking volunteer regardless of geographical location, as long as that volunteer does not fall under any other situations where recusal is necessary.

b. The volunteer visited the program for the last accreditation review.

i. An exception to this rule is Commissioners may be readers of program documents for programs they have read for previously.

ii. An exception to this rule is Commissioners may be readers of program documents for Spanish-speaking programs they have visited in a prior candidacy benchmark due to the necessity for review by Spanish-speaking Commissioners.

c. The volunteer has any existing or prior relationship with the institution or the social work program, as an employee, faculty member (full or part-time), staff member, student, alumnus, intern, donor, board member, member of educational or research collaborative, previous or current applicant (student or employment), party to any litigation, and/or consultant.

d. The volunteer has any pecuniary or personal interest in the program or its parent institution. This may include but is not limited to, any monetary or personal interest in the outcome of an accreditation decision; any close personal or professional relationships with individuals at the institution or social work program (including, but not limited to, any family members attending); or nonpublic or privileged information.

e. The volunteer believes that any other circumstances not aforementioned, could result in an impairment of judgement, create any appearance of impropriety, or cast any reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the accreditation process.

f. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by DOSWA staff or the COA Executive Committee.

Confidentiality of Accreditation Process and Materials

Program materials provided to volunteers are strictly to be used in furtherance of the accreditation process for the specific program that developed those materials. These materials are confidential, as is the review process. The volunteer is not to use any of that program’s materials for any other purpose and must dispose of, delete, and/or destroy any program-related materials following the site visit or review. Any volunteer who is found to have used program materials for personal gain, consultant work, internal use by their own program, or discusses confidential program material or findings with any external source outside of Department of Social Work Accreditation (hereinafter “DOSWA”) staff, will be removed from service.

Responsibility to Notify of Alleged COI

A. Programs: If a program is aware of any potential COI issue related to commission/site visitor assignments, they are responsible for immediately notifying DOSWA staff (the Site Visit Coordinator) of such potential COI, so that alternative arrangements can be made. Should it later be determined that a program knew or should have known of a potential COI and did not disclose this, it could have a potential adverse impact on their accreditation status per section 1.1.15 Integrity Policy in the EPAS Policy Handbook.

B. Volunteers: Should a volunteer become aware of any potential COI, it is also their responsibility to immediately notify DOSWA staff (the program’s Accreditation Specialist and the Site Visit Coordinator) of such potential COI, so that alternative review or visit arrangements can be made. Should it be later determined that a volunteer knew or should have known of a potential COI and did not disclose this, they will be referred to the COA Executive Committee for remediation and potentially removed from future service.

Accepting Gifts/Personal Time

The primary function of a commission/site visit is program analysis in furtherance of the accreditation process. Social engagements, gratuities, or gifts may interfere with this function or create an appearance of impropriety or bias. Therefore, in furtherance of a need to keep the accreditation process impartial, site visitors and commissioner visitors should not accept non-visit related social invitations or gifts from institutions, programs, individual faculty/staff, students, or any other stakeholder group, and should politely decline any such overtures in relation to the commission/site visit. Additionally, while conducting a visit, a volunteer may be in close proximity to family, friends, colleagues, etc. Volunteers should exercise prudence and refrain from visiting with any of these personal contacts during the time in which they are scheduled to attend to matters associated with the site visit. Volunteers should not make any plans that may interfere with their work of the site visit, given that the travel and lodging the site visitor is receiving is at the expense of the program and is with the understanding that they first perform the duties associated with the visit, free from any distractions. Upon the conclusion of the visit, the volunteer exercises care and discretion in the use of their personal time, ensuring that any personal activities do not incur additional cost or undue burden on the host institution and program (i.e., extending the visit an additional day or night).

2.1. Reaffirmation Timetables and Policies

At the end of a program’s 4 years of initial accreditation the Commission on Accreditation (COA) reviews the program for reaffirmation of accreditation. If the program is found in compliance with all Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS), its accreditation will be reaffirmed for 8 years. The COA will continue to review the program for reaffirmation of accreditation every 8 years.

2.1.1 Failure to Submit Reaffirmation Materials by the Due Date

If a program fails to apply for reaffirmation or postponement, or fails to submit a complete self-study by the due date for the submission of reaffirmation materials, the COA may initiate withdrawal of accreditation.

2.1.2. Timetable for Reaffirmation

2.2. Reaffirmation Eligibility

The reaffirmation of accreditation process begins by evaluating the institution’s ability to maintain an accredited social work program and meet the COA’s Reaffirmation Eligibility Standards. The program’s chief administrator completes the Reaffirmation Eligibility Application form to demonstrate compliance with the Reaffirmation Eligibility Standards. This information is reviewed and approved by the program’s accreditation specialist, who will decide to approve the eligibility application or return it to the program for additional information.

2.2.1. Reaffirmation Eligibility Application

Reaffirmation Eligibility Standards are outlined in the Reaffirmation Eligibility Application.

Information about when the Reaffirmation Eligibility Application is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Reaffirmation.

2.2.2. Baccalaureate Reaffirmation Eligibility Standards

Reaffirmation Eligibility Standards are outlined in the Reaffirmation Eligibility Application.

2.2.3. Master's Reaffirmation Eligibility Standards

Reaffirmation Eligibility Standards are outlined in the Reaffirmation Eligibility Application.

2.2.4. Permission to Use Data for Research

From time to time CSWE staff use self-study (or reaffirmation compliance audit) data for the purposes of quality assurance for the COA and for research, both about the field in general and for the specific purpose of preparing information for the revision of EPAS. Results are reported in aggregate form only, so programs will not be individually identifiable in any reports. There will be no repercussions on the program’s accreditation status. Requests by non-CSWE staff for use of self-study (or reaffirmation compliance audit) data are subject to institutional review board review and program approval. Such research may significantly improve our understanding of the current state of social work education, and we thank you in advance for your contribution. If you do not want to include your program’s data for use in CSWE research you can opt out at the end of the Baccalaureate Reaffirmation Eligibility Form and/or Master's Reaffirmation Eligibility Form.

2.3.1. Purpose and Overview of the Site Visit

The COA reviews the program’s self-study before the site visit and sends a letter of instructions to the site visitor(s) specifying the accreditation standards that the visitor(s) should address. This ensures the visit is focused and guided by the initial COA review. Site visitors are expected to conduct visits so that programs have the opportunity to provide information that clarifies, corrects, or supplements those parts of the self-study about which the COA has questions. As representatives accountable to the COA, site visitors have authority to request, examine, and report any information and materials relevant to the letter of instruction.

Every site visitor is expected to discuss general questions related to three accreditation standards (AS) from the 2015 EPAS with programs: AS 1 (Program mission and goals), AS 3.0 (Nondiscrimination and Human Diversity), and AS 4 (Program Assessment and Continuous Improvement). Site visitors explore these standards with relevant constituents by asking broad questions about program, mission and goals and how these relate to the level of practice for which they prepare students and insights the program may have reached based on its assessment of student outcomes. In addition, site visitors ask general questions about

2.3.2. Site Visit Planning Form

2.3.3. Site Visitor Qualifications and Selection

Qualifications

To become a certified site visitor an individual must be a full- or part-time social work faculty member at a CSWE-accredited social work program, have a letter of recommendation from that program’s chief administrator or an institutional administrator, and maintain CSWE membership. Site visitors are required to have three years of teaching experience. Every site visitor participates in training on EPAS before being certified. Site visitors must attend an update session whenever new standards are developed.

Site Visitor Selection

The site visit coordinator and the director of the Office of Social Work Accreditation (OSWA) use the information on the Reaffirmation Site Visit Planning form to select several potential site visitors from the roster of certified site visitors. Certified site visitors are not eligible to participate in the site visit if they participated in the program’s last site visit; work or reside in the same state as the program; are current or former faculty members or students; previously applied for a position at the program; are current or former consultants to the program; or have other conflicts of interest brought to CSWE’s attention by the program or potential site visitor.

Potential site visitors are not selected according to their experience at the program level (baccalaureate or master’s); its religious affiliation, size, administrative structure of institution, or program; area of expertise; or other similar criteria that are not germane to the collection of accurate information. Program directors are able to refuse specific site visitors only on the basis of a conflict of interest.

The site visit coordinator sends an e-mail with the names of the potential site visitors to the chief administrator of the program to review for possible conflicts of interest. The program’s chief administrator replies to the e-mail and indicates whether there is any conflict of interest with each potential site visitor and if so, the nature of the conflict.

The site visit coordinator uses that information to select a site visitor or visitors, and when site visitors are confirmed, sends the names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers to the program.

2.3.4. Program Preparation for the Site Visit

Advance preparation for site visits is essential and involves close collaboration among OSWA staff, site visitors, and programs.

Travel and Accommodations

Program directors should communicate with the site visitors about arrangements such as travel plans, work space requirements in the hotel and on campus, and the schedule for the site visit. The program’s chief administrator or designee should confirm all arrangements with the site visitor(s) in writing.

Programs are to provide prepaid airline tickets to site visitors and should consult with the site visitors about the most convenient airline carrier and flight times. Coach fare is expected. The program should also inform site visitors about transportation from the airport to the campus.

Site visitors should be housed in hotels, not in dormitories or other campus housing. Programs should arrange for hotels to bill the program for site visitors’ expenses minus personal expenses. Hotel accommodations should be arranged so that site visitors have a place to work on the site visit report.

Ground transportation and meals not taken at the hotel are likely to be out-of-pocket expenses for the site visitors. Programs should inform the site visitors how reimbursement for these expenses will be managed.

Communication Guidelines

Program directors are responsible for all communication with the site visitors. Faculty members, students, or others should not communicate with the site visitors before their arrival on campus nor after their arrival until the appointed time in the site visit schedule. Constituent groups desiring to meet with site visitors should request that the program’s chief administrator arrange time on the site visit agenda. It is inappropriate for site visitors to receive anonymous documents, telephone calls, or other similar information. Site visitors are instructed to discuss any such incidents with the program’s chief administrator and to refuse written or verbal information that cannot be shared openly.

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.
   

2.3.5. Letter of Instruction and the Site Visit Schedule

The site visit schedule, including visits to off-campus sites, must be arranged in advance of the visit by the site visitor and program directors.

Letter of Instructions to the Site Visitor(s)

A copy of the Letter of Instructions to the Site Visitor(s) is provided to program directors for guidance in working with site visitors to set up the visit and for informational purposes. The site visitors and program directors use the letter to create the site visit schedule, including with whom the visitors will meet and the specific times and locations where the meetings will occur.  View a sample Letter of Instruction.

The program prepares for the visit by considering how it might respond to the questions raised in the letter during the site visit. The COA does not expect the program to take formal action on the letter of instructions nor to submit a response to it before the site visit. Site visitors are instructed not to request the Program Response in advance of the site visit.

Site Visitor(s) Arrival

During the first evening site visitors generally work alone to prepare for the visit. Program directors may meet with site visitors to extend a brief welcome, explain the itinerary, answer any questions, and outline the arrangements to escort them to the campus. During the site visit, evenings are reserved for site visitors to work on the site visit report and prepare for the exit interview. No social events should be planned for the site visitors.

Meeting with the Institutional Administrators

The COA expects the site visit to begin with the institution’s chief executive officer and other institutional administrators. The program director should escort the site visitor(s) to the office of the chief executive officer of the institution and, after introductions, permit the site visitor(s) to meet alone with the chief executive officer or his or her designee. 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, answer any questions the president or chancellor may have, and to collect any information related to EPAS listed in the COA Letter of Instructions to the Site Visitor(s). 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, the librarian, and other individuals whose presence is relevant (such as faculty concerned with ethnic or gender issues) to the issues raised in the Letter of Instructions to the Site Visitor(s). The purpose of these meetings is to assess the program in relation to the instructions given in the COA Letter of Instructions to the Site Visitor(s).

The COA does not require or recommend dismissing classes during the site visit. It is advised 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 site visitor(s) during the site visit, three copies of those materials must be sent to the program’s accreditation specialist or associate. The COA uses the site visit report and the program’s response to it to make a decision on the program’s reaffirmation. Site visitors should not forward program materials to CSWE for the program.

Exit Interview

Site visitors hold an exit interview with the program director to convey the findings for inclusion in the site visit report. The program and/or site visitor will determine if additional constituents (administration, faculty, etc.) should be present. The program director may ask questions, comment on the findings, and/or correct any inaccuracies. Site visitors may respond to questions but not make judgments of whether the program is in compliance with EPAS, as that judgment rests with the COA.

Site visitors should remind programs that the findings, along with the programs’ response to site visit reports, are reviewed by the COA before making a decision about compliance. Site visitors 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 site visitors.

After the visit has concluded, contact between the program and site visitor(s) should end. If the program has additional questions or comments after the visit, the program should contact its accreditation specialist or associate. The program does not provide a copy of its response to the site visitor.

2.3.6. Emergencies or Questions During the Site Visit

Emergencies or Questions During the Commissioner Visit

DOSWA recognizes that scheduled visits may need to be delayed or cancelled due to special circumstances beyond the control of relevant parties. Examples of these special circumstances include inclement weather conditions, natural or manmade disasters, or changes to visitor’s or key personnel’s schedules due to unforeseen personal matters. As this list is not exhaustive, the visitor or program is encouraged to contact CSWE’s site visit coordinator to discuss special circumstances that may affect the completion of the visit. Cancelling or delaying a visit is an extenuating circumstance. Due to complexity in scheduling visits, cancellations and delays will be avoided whenever possible.

Should an emergency arise before the visit occurs requiring the visitor or program to delay or cancel the visit, CSWE’s site visit coordinator should be notified immediately via telephone and email. To inform the DOSWA of any delays or cancellations to a planned visit:

• The party (visitor or program) must immediately notify the site visit coordinator of the delay or cancellation along with the other party (visitor or program) via telephone and email 
• The program, visitor, and site Visitor Coordinator must communicate to determine the best course of action:
  • Delay visit
  • Reschedule visit with same visitor for a later date 
  • Reschedule visit with an alternate visitor* for the original date
  • Reschedule visit with an alternate visitor* for a later date

*If the program and visitor are unable to select a new visit date, the site visitor coordinator may work directly with the program to assign an alternate visitor if available. The delayed or rescheduled visit is based upon the alternate visitor’s availability.

Responsibility of Fees Incurred

The program will be responsible for any fees associated with the delayed or rescheduled the visit. Programs are advised to purchase refundable and transferrable transportation and accommodations to avoid incurring fees in the event of visit cancellation or delay.
 
Should an emergency arise during the visit requiring a visitor or program to leave the visit early, the site visit coordinator should be notified immediately via telephone and email. These occurrences will be handled on an individual basis. 

If the site visit coordinator is unavailable, the DOSWA director or accreditation specialist may be contacted. 

Questions During the Visit

Logistical questions related to visit, including concerns about boundary or ethical issues, scheduling, transportation, accommodations, or reimbursement* may be directed to the site visit coordinator. 
*Per policy 2.3.4. Program Preparation for the Site Visit, requesting visitors to complete W-9 forms in order to be reimbursed is not supported by the CSWE or the DOSWA.

Visitors or a program’s primary contact may contact the program’s accreditation specialist at any time to clarify an accreditation standard or the Commission on Accreditation’s policies or procedure, such as:

• Interpretation of an accreditation standard
• Clarification of the letter of instruction
• EPAS Handbook policies and procedures

If the site visit coordinator or accreditation specialist is unavailable, the DOSWA director may be contacted. 

Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Expenses

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.
• 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.

2.3.7. Site Visitor Ethical Guidelines

When accepting an appointment to visit a program, each site visitor is required to subscribe to the Site Visitor Ethical Guidelines to ensure that the site visitor duties are carried out fairly, impartially, and responsibly by avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest and other improprieties. Adherence to these guidelines is essential to maintaining and preserving the integrity and effectiveness of the accreditation process.

2.4.1. Purpose of the Self-Study

The term self-study refers to the program’s process of self-examination during the creation of the self-study, as well as to the self-study document itself. The purpose of the self-study document is to demonstrate the program’s compliance with all of the 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards. The self-study process should begin approximately 2 years prior to the COA Review for Determination of Reaffirmation.

2.4.2. COA Guidelines for Writing the Self-Study

These guidelines are intended to make the process of writing and compiling the self-study easier for programs and make the evaluation of the self-study easier for COA readers. The COA encourages a clear and succinct narrative. The self-study should be divided into three volumes as described below.

Volume 1 –EPAS

Volume 1 contains a series of narratives that demonstrates the program’s compliance with 2015 EPAS. Each accreditation standard (AS) should be addressed in a separate narrative headed by the number and full text of each standard for easy identification by the COA reader. The Program Expense Budget form should be included near the narrative for AS 3.4.1 and the Librarian’s Report near AS 3.4.4

Programs should refer to the compliance column of the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements (previously discussed in section 1) while writing the self-study. 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.

In institutions with both an accredited baccalaureate and an accredited master’s social work program, a complete self-study must be submitted for each program.

Volume 2 – Syllabi

Volume 2 contains all of the program’s course syllabi. Elective courses not taken by all students do not need to be included. Dual degree courses, other than those for the MSW degree, need not be included. The syllabi need to be uniform. If there is more than one section of a course, a common syllabus may be submitted that contains all the components required for the course.

Volume 3 – Supporting Documentation

Volume 3 is the appendix and contains the student handbook, the field education manual, and any other supporting documentation.

2.4.3. Formatting Guidelines

Document Formatting Guidelines

2.4.4. Accreditation Review Brief

The Accreditation Review Brief form is a tool used by the COA commission reader to report his or her evaluation of the program. Section 2 of the Accreditation Review Brief lists each accreditation standard, related educational policies, and compliance statements from the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements.

In the location column of section 2, the program indicates the document name and page number where each compliance statement for an accreditation standard is addressed in the program’s self-study. In section 1 the program completes identifying information. The program fills out one Accreditation Review Brief for each program level that is being reviewed for reaffirmation during the site visit.

Include an unbound, paper-clipped copy in Word of the Accreditation Review Brief with the self-study.

2.5. Site Visit Report and Program Response

As described in the purpose and overview of the site visit (2.3.1), the COA reviews the program’s self-study before the site visit and sends a Letter of Instruction to the site visitors and program director specifying the accreditation standards that the visitors should address so the visit is more focused and guided by the initial COA review.

2.5.1 Site Visit Report

The beginning of the site visit report must include the name, date, and state of the program visited, the program level, and the name(s) of the site visitor(s). The report should include either a copy of the site visit schedule or a list of people who met with the site visitor(s) during the visit (e.g., groups and individuals from the program and institution).

The next part of the report is a brief summary of the conversation with the program on general questions related to AS 1 (Program mission and goals), AS 3.0 (Nondiscrimination and Human Diversity), and AS 4 (Program Assessment and Continuous Improvement).

In the last part of the report the site visitors list each accreditation standard and question raised by the COA in its letter of instructions with a thorough discussion of findings for each.

Information about when the site visit report is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Reaffirmation.

2.5.2. Program Response to the Site Visit Report

The program is required to submit a response to the site visit report within 2 weeks of receiving the report. The beginning of the response must include the name and state of the program visited, the program level visited, the name(s) of the site visitor(s), and the date of the response.

Next, the program lists each accreditation standard and question raised by the COA in its letter of instructions and states whether it agrees or disagrees with site visit finding, corrects any errors of fact, and clarifies information that may have been incorrectly understood by the site visitor(s). Disagreements with the site visit report should be stated clearly, and additional documentation should be provided if necessary.

Information about when the program response to the site visit report is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Reaffirmation.

2.6.1 Reaffirmation Determination Decisions

2.6.2. First Progress Report Decisions

After hearing the accreditation specialist or associate’s review of the first progress report, or after reviewing the first progress report itself, the COA takes one of six actions, regardless of who reviewed the report:

1. Accept the First Progress Report. All of the areas of concern were addressed in the progress report, and no further action by the program is required.
2. Request a Second Progress Report to be Reviewed by the Program’s Accreditation Specialist or Associate. The COA finds that one or more of the concerns in the first progress report are still areas of concern and requests a second progress report. The COA’s letter identifies specific areas of concern and a due date for the progress report. If the second progress report is not accepted, the program is automatically placed on conditional accreditation.
3. Request a Second Progress Report to be Reviewed by the COA. The COA finds that one or more of the concerns in the first progress report are still areas of concern and requests a second progress report. The COA’s letter identifies specific areas of concern and a due date for the progress report. If the second progress report is not accepted, the program is automatically placed on conditional accreditation.
4. Place the Program on Conditional Accredited Status. The COA finds the program out of compliance with one or more educational policy or accreditation standards and places the program on conditional accredited status if the COA believes that noncompliance issues can be resolved by the program within 1 year. Conditional status is an adverse decision, and programs may request reconsideration. If the program accepts The COA’s decision, it submits a restoration report.
5. Initiate Withdrawal of Accredited Status. The COA initiates withdrawal of accredited status if the program is found to be out of compliance with one or more educational policy or accreditation standards and the COA does not believe that noncompliance issues can be resolved within 1 year. The COA’s letter identifies specific areas of noncompliance and instructs the program to work with its accreditation specialist or associate to arrange for the graduation or transfer of its students and determine when the program’s accreditation will be withdrawn. The decision to initiate withdrawal of accredited status is an adverse one, and programs may request reconsideration. After its official withdrawal date a program may apply for candidacy status.
6. Order a Modified Site Visit. If the COA believes that a program may be out of compliance with one or more educational policy or accreditation standards, the COA can order a modified site visit to collect more information. A site visitor is sent, at the program’s expense, to review specific compliance issues. This program is reviewed at the next COA meeting after the site visit.
7. Accept the Program's Response to the Modified Site Visit Report. All areas of concern were addressed in the program’s response, and no further action by the program is required.

2.6.3. Second Progress Report Decisions

After reviewing the second progress report, the COA takes one of four actions:

1. Accept the Second Progress Report. All areas of concern were addressed in the progress report, and no further action by the program is required.
2. Place the Program on Conditional Accredited Status. If the second progress report is not accepted, the program is automatically placed on conditional accreditation. Placement on conditional status is an adverse decision, and programs may request reconsideration. If the program accepts the COA’s decision, it submits a restoration report.
3. Initiate Withdrawal of Accredited Status. The COA initiates withdrawal of accredited status if the program is found to be out of compliance with one or more educational policy or accreditation standards and the COA does not believe that noncompliance issues can be resolved within 1 year. The COA’s letter identifies specific areas of noncompliance and instructs the program to work with its accreditation specialist or associate to arrange for the graduation or transfer of its students and determine when the program’s accreditation will be withdrawn. The decision to initiate withdrawal of accredited status is an adverse one, and programs may request reconsideration. After its official withdrawal date a program may apply for candidacy status.
4. Order a Modified Site Visit. If the COA believes that a program may be out of compliance with one or more educational policy or accreditation standards, the COA can order a modified site visit to collect more information. A site visitor is sent at the program’s expense to review specific compliance issues. This program is reviewed at the next COA meeting after the site visit.
5. Accept the Program's Response to the Modified Site Visit Report. All areas of concern were addressed in the program’s response, and no further action by the program is required.

2.6.4. Restoration Report Decisions

When the program accepts the COA decision to place it on conditional accredited status or when the outcome of the reconsideration hearing is to uphold the COA decision (see reconsideration policy), the program must submit a restoration report. When the restoration report is received, the COA reviews it along with all previously submitted materials. The COA takes one of four actions:

1. Restore Accredited Status. The COA review of the program’s restoration report finds that the program has taken corrective action and is in compliance with all standards. No further action is required.
2. Restore Accredited Status and Request a Progress Report. The request includes a due date and indicates whether the report will be reviewed by the program’s accreditation specialist or associate and/or the COA.
3. Order a Modified Site Visit. A modified site visit is ordered when the restoration report fails to clarify program compliance. A site visitor is sent at the program’s expense to review specific issues. This program is reviewed at the next commission meeting following the site visit. After its review of the site visit report, the COA either returns the program to accredited status or initiates withdrawal of its accredited status.
4. Initiate Withdrawal of Accredited Status. The COA initiates withdrawal of accredited status if the program is found to be out of compliance with one or more standards and the program cannot take corrective action within 1 year. The COA’s letter identifies specific areas of noncompliance and instructs the program to work with its accreditation specialist or associate to determine the effective date of the withdrawal of accreditation. The decision to initiate withdrawal of accredited status is an adverse one, and the program may request reconsideration (see Reconsideration Policy).

3.1. Introduction to Candidacy

The candidacy process is a developmental approach to beginning a social work program. Following submission of the Candidacy Eligibility Application, programs begin to develop a series of benchmark documents. The benchmark model is a systematic, incremental approach to developing a social work program and writing a comprehensive self-study. Programs may read more about the candidacy process and benchmark model in section 3 of the EPAS Handbook.
Programs interested in submitting the Candidacy Eligibility Application should contact the Accreditation Senior Team Leader.  Institutions are only permitted to have one program in Candidacy at a time.  Only ten programs may be reviewed for Candidacy on any individual COA meeting. Once ten programs have applied for Candidacy, subsequent Draft Benchmark One approvals will be automatically placed on the next available agenda.

3.1.1 Benchmark Model

3.2. Benchmark Model

3.2.1 Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements

The COA uses the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements as a guide to consistent and complete review of a program’s candidacy or reaffirmation of accreditation. Statements of compliance, concern, and noncompliance are provided for each accreditation standard (AS) and related educational policy (EP).

Each benchmark has a corresponding Benchmark Review Brief form that lists the accreditation standards the program must be in compliance with and the related compliance statement from the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements. The commission visitor uses the brief to evaluate the program’s compliance with the benchmark and make a recommendation to the COA.

3.2.2 Timetable for Candidacy

The Timetable for Candidacy provides a detailed chronological list of accreditation fees, materials, and activities with the deadline, number and kind of copies needed, and who should receive them as the program progresses through the steps of obtaining candidacy, completing candidacy, and receiving initial accreditation.

There are three versions of the Timetable for Candidacy with dates that correspond to the February, June, and October COA meetings held each year. Once the program has been assigned an agenda, select the corresponding Timetable for Candidacy (February, June, October) on the Candidacy section of the Web site, then go to the last row of the first page and insert the year the program will be reviewed for candidacy in the middle column next to “Commission Review for Candidacy”. That is when the COA will decide whether the program is in compliance with Benchmark I and whether the program should be granted candidacy status. From there, work up to the top of the page and fill in the year for each step in the candidacy process. Contact your accreditation specialist  if you have any questions or need assistance.

3.2.3 Candidacy Policies

Student Admission

Only students admitted during or after the academic year in which the program is granted candidacy will be recognized as having graduated from an accredited program, once the program is fully accredited. Students admitted prior to the academic year in which the program was granted candidacy will not be recognized as having graduated from a CSWE-accredited social work education program, regardless of the program's accredited status when they graduate.

Foundation Content and Advanced Content for MSW Programs

Programs in candidacy must develop and offer foundation content and advanced content for the master’s program. They cannot offer an advanced-standing only program.

Delivery of the Curriculum

All means of delivery of the curriculum (part-time, distance education off-site or online), being implemented currently or planned in the near future, should be included in the Benchmark I document.

Failure to Submit

If a program fails to submit a Benchmark document by the due date, COA may remove the program from candidacy or deny initial accreditation.

3.3.1 Overview of Applying for Candidacy Status

The program submits a Letter of Institutional Intent, the Candidacy Eligibility Fee, and a Candidacy Eligibility Application form with supporting materials. The Senior Team Leader of the Office of Social Work Accreditation (OSWA) reviews the submission. When the Senior Team Leader approves the Letter of Institutional Intent and Candidacy Eligibility Application, the program is asked to submit a Draft Benchmark I document. The Senior Team Leader 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 Senior Team Leader formally grants Pre-Candidacy Status to the program, assigns the program to an Accreditation Specialist, and grants permission for the program to move forward with Commissioner Visit I. The date of Draft Benchmark I approval determines the program’s agenda date (February, June, October).

3.3.2. Letter of Institutional Intent

3.3.3. Candidacy Eligibility Application

Candidacy Eligibility Standards are outlined in the Candidacy Eligibility Application.

Information about when the Candidacy Eligibility Application is due and where it should be sent can be found in the Timetable for Candidacy.

3.3.4. Progressing to Benchmark I

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.

3.3.5. Writing the Benchmark I Document

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.

3.3.6. Formatting Guidelines

Document Formatting Guidelines

3.3.7. Program Completion of the Benchmark I Review Brief

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.

3.3.8. Commissioner Visit I

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

DOSWA recognizes that scheduled visits may need to be delayed or cancelled due to special circumstances beyond the control of relevant parties. Examples of these special circumstances include inclement weather conditions, natural or manmade disasters, or changes to visitor’s or key personnel’s schedules due to unforeseen personal matters. As this list is not exhaustive, the visitor or program is encouraged to contact CSWE’s site visit coordinator to discuss special circumstances that may affect the completion of the visit. Cancelling or delaying a visit is an extenuating circumstance. Due to complexity in scheduling visits, cancellations and delays will be avoided whenever possible.

Should an emergency arise before the visit occurs requiring the visitor or program to delay or cancel the visit, CSWE’s site visit coordinator should be notified immediately via telephone and email. To inform the DOSWA of any delays or cancellations to a planned visit:

• The party (visitor or program) must immediately notify the site visit coordinator of the delay or cancellation along with the other party (visitor or program) via telephone and email 
• The program, visitor, and site Visitor Coordinator must communicate to determine the best course of action:
  • Delay visit
  • Reschedule visit with same visitor for a later date 
  • Reschedule visit with an alternate visitor* for the original date
  • Reschedule visit with an alternate visitor* for a later date

*If the program and visitor are unable to select a new visit date, the site visitor coordinator may work directly with the program to assign an alternate visitor if available. The delayed or rescheduled visit is based upon the alternate visitor’s availability.

Responsibility of Fees Incurred

The program will be responsible for any fees associated with the delayed or rescheduled the visit. Programs are advised to purchase refundable and transferrable transportation and accommodations to avoid incurring fees in the event of visit cancellation or delay.
 
Should an emergency arise during the visit requiring a visitor or program to leave the visit early, the site visit coordinator should be notified immediately via telephone and email. These occurrences will be handled on an individual basis. 

If the site visit coordinator is unavailable, the DOSWA director or accreditation specialist may be contacted. 

Questions During the Visit

Logistical questions related to visit, including concerns about boundary or ethical issues, scheduling, transportation, accommodations, or reimbursement* may be directed to the site visit coordinator. 
*Per policy 2.3.4. Program Preparation for the Site Visit, requesting visitors to complete W-9 forms in order to be reimbursed is not supported by the CSWE or the DOSWA.

Visitors or a program’s primary contact may contact the program’s accreditation specialist at any time to clarify an accreditation standard or the Commission on Accreditation’s policies or procedure, such as:

• Interpretation of an accreditation standard
• Clarification of the letter of instruction
• EPAS Handbook policies and procedures

If the site visit coordinator or accreditation specialist is unavailable, the DOSWA director may be contacted. 

Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Expenses

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.
• 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.

3.3.9. Commission Visitor Completion of the Benchmark I Review Brief

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.

3.3.10. Program Response to the Benchmark I Review Brief

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.

3.3.11. COA Decisions for Commissioner Visit I

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:

1. 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.
2. 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. In extenuating circumstances, and at the COA's discretion, the COA may grant two deferrals at each Benchmark phase.
3. 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.

3.4.1. Writing the Benchmark II Document

The Benchmark II 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 II. This portion of Benchmark II, labeled “Benchmark II—Compliance with the Following Accreditation Standards,” consists of specific accreditation standards the program must be in compliance with during Commissioner Visit II. 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 II. This portion of Benchmark II, which is shaded and labeled “Benchmark II--Draft of the Following Accreditation Standards,” consists of specific standards that must be addressed in draft form during Commissioner Visit II. The commissioner consults with the program on how to develop this section further for their Benchmark III document and Commissioner Visit III.

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 II 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 the program’s course syllabi.

Volume 3 – Supporting Documentation

Volume three is the appendix and contains a draft of the field education manual, the final version of the student handbook, and any other supporting documentation.

Submission of the Benchmark II Document

The Benchmark II Document is submitted 1 month before the commissioner visit (see the Timetable for Candidacy for submission instructions).

3.4.2. Formatting Guidelines

Document Formatting Guidelines

3.4.3. Program Completion of the Benchmark II Review Brief

The Benchmark II Review Brief form is a tool used to guide the program in writing a complete Benchmark II document and by the commission visitor to review the program for compliance with Benchmark II and to make a recommendation to the 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 II document. See the Timetable for Candidacy for submission instructions.

3.4.4. Benchmark II

The Benchmark II 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 II. This portion of Benchmark II, labeled “Benchmark II—Compliance with the Following Accreditation Standards,” consists of specific accreditation standards the program must be in compliance with during Commissioner Visit II. 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 II. This portion of Benchmark II, which is shaded and labeled “Benchmark II—Draft of the Following Accreditation Standards,” consists of specific standards that must be addressed in draft form during Commissioner Visit II. The commissioner consults with the program on how to develop this section further for their Initial Accreditation Self-Study and Commissioner Visit III.

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 II of the Benchmark II 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 non-compliance.

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, field manual, and any other supporting documentation.

3.4.5. Commissioner Visit II

The commission visitor’s primary task is to discuss the Benchmark II document and identify areas of compliance and noncompliance in the first part of the Benchmark II document. The visitor will also ask the program whether there have been any changes since the last visit and determine whether any of those changes affect the program’s compliance.

The visitor also reviews the draft standards in the second part of the Benchmark II document and identifies areas of further development that the program can use in writing the compliance section of the Initial Accreditation Self-Study.

Qualifications

Commissioner Visit II is conducted by a current or recently retired 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 II. 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 II 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 II 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 of faculty concerned with ethnic or gender issues) to Benchmark II.

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 II 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 II 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

DOSWA recognizes that scheduled visits may need to be delayed or cancelled due to special circumstances beyond the control of relevant parties. Examples of these special circumstances include inclement weather conditions, natural or manmade disasters, or changes to visitor’s or key personnel’s schedules due to unforeseen personal matters. As this list is not exhaustive, the visitor or program is encouraged to contact CSWE’s site visit coordinator to discuss special circumstances that may affect the completion of the visit. Cancelling or delaying a visit is an extenuating circumstance. Due to complexity in scheduling visits, cancellations and delays will be avoided whenever possible.

Should an emergency arise before the visit occurs requiring the visitor or program to delay or cancel the visit, CSWE’s site visit coordinator should be notified immediately via telephone and email. To inform the DOSWA of any delays or cancellations to a planned visit:

• The party (visitor or program) must immediately notify the site visit coordinator of the delay or cancellation along with the other party (visitor or program) via telephone and email 
• The program, visitor, and site Visitor Coordinator must communicate to determine the best course of action:
  • Delay visit
  • Reschedule visit with same visitor for a later date 
  • Reschedule visit with an alternate visitor* for the original date
  • Reschedule visit with an alternate visitor* for a later date

*If the program and visitor are unable to select a new visit date, the site visitor coordinator may work directly with the program to assign an alternate visitor if available. The delayed or rescheduled visit is based upon the alternate visitor’s availability.

Responsibility of Fees Incurred

The program will be responsible for any fees associated with the delayed or rescheduled the visit. Programs are advised to purchase refundable and transferrable transportation and accommodations to avoid incurring fees in the event of visit cancellation or delay.
 
Should an emergency arise during the visit requiring a visitor or program to leave the visit early, the site visit coordinator should be notified immediately via telephone and email. These occurrences will be handled on an individual basis. 

If the site visit coordinator is unavailable, the DOSWA director or accreditation specialist may be contacted. 

Questions During the Visit

Logistical questions related to visit, including concerns about boundary or ethical issues, scheduling, transportation, accommodations, or reimbursement* may be directed to the site visit coordinator. 
*Per policy 2.3.4. Program Preparation for the Site Visit, requesting visitors to complete W-9 forms in order to be reimbursed is not supported by the CSWE or the DOSWA.

Visitors or a program’s primary contact may contact the program’s accreditation specialist at any time to clarify an accreditation standard or the Commission on Accreditation’s policies or procedure, such as:

• Interpretation of an accreditation standard
• Clarification of the letter of instruction
• EPAS Handbook policies and procedures

If the site visit coordinator or accreditation specialist is unavailable, the DOSWA director may be contacted. 

Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Expenses

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.
• 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.

3.4.6. Commission Visitor Completion of the Benchmark II Review Brief

The Benchmark II Review Brief form is a tool used to guide the program in writing a complete Benchmark II document and by the commission visitor to review the program for compliance with Benchmark II and to 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 II. Section 3 lists each accreditation standard and related educational policy under “Draft of the Following Accreditation Standards” in Benchmark II. The Compliance Statement column in either 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 II 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 II Review Brief is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Candidacy—2008 EPAS.

3.4.7. Program Response to the Benchmark II Review Brief

The program is required to submit a response to the Benchmark II 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 it thinks may have been incorrectly understood by the commission visitor. Disagreements with the Benchmark II 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 II Review Brief is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Candidacy.

3.4.8. COA Decisions for Commissioner Visit II

After reviewing the program’s Benchmark II document, the Benchmark II Review Brief submitted by the commissioner making Commission Visit II (including the commissioner’s recommendation), and the program’s response to Benchmark II Review Brief, the COA makes one of three decisions:

1. Grant a Second Year of Candidacy Status. The COA finds that the program is in compliance with Benchmark II and grants the program a second year in candidacy. The decision letter instructs the program to prepare Benchmark III in preparation for its Commissioner Visit III. A commissioner will contact the program to arrange the visit.
2. Defer a Decision on a Second Year of Candidacy Status 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. In extenuating circumstances, and at the COA's discretion, the COA may grant two deferrals at each Benchmark phase.
3. Remove From Candidacy Status. A program is removed from candidacy status if the COA finds the program’s Benchmark II 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 its 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.

4.1. Introduction

Italicized documents or forms in this section can be found on the Candidacy section of the CSWE Web site.

4.1.1. Benchmark Model and Initial Accreditation Overview

4.1.2. Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements

The COA uses the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements as a guide to consistent and complete review of a program’s candidacy or reaffirmation of accreditation. Statements of compliance, concern, and noncompliance are provided for each accreditation standard (AS) and related educational policy (EP).

Each benchmark has a corresponding Benchmark Review Brief form that lists the accreditation standards the program must be in compliance with and the related compliance statement from the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements. The commission visitor uses the brief to evaluate the program’s compliance with the benchmark and make a recommendation to the COA.

4.1.3. Timetable for Candidacy

The Timetable for Candidacy provides a detailed chronological list of accreditation fees, materials, and activities, with the deadline, number and kind of copies needed, and who should receive them as the program progresses through obtaining candidacy, completing candidacy, and receiving initial accreditation. Be sure to use the timetables marked 2008 EPAS

There are three versions of the Timetable for Candidacy with dates that correspond to the February, June, and October COA meetings held each year. Once the program has been assigned an agenda, select the corresponding Timetable for Candidacy (February, June, October) on the Web site, then go to the last row of the first page and insert the year the program was reviewed for candidacy in the middle column next to ”Commission Review for Candidacy.” That is when the COA decided whether the program was in compliance with Benchmark I and whether it should be granted candidacy. From there, work up to the top of the page and fill in the year for each step in the candidacy process. Contact your accreditation specialist if you have any questions or need assistance.

4.1.4. Candidacy Policies

Student Admission

Only students admitted during or after the academic year in which the program is granted candidacy will be recognized as having graduated from an accredited program, once the program is fully accredited. Students admitted prior to the academic year in which the program was granted candidacy will not be recognized as having graduated from a CSWE-accredited social work education program, regardless of the program's accredited status when they graduate.

Foundation Content and Advanced Content for MSW Programs

Programs in candidacy must develop and offer both generalist and specialized content for the master’s program. They cannot offer an advanced-standing only program.

Delivery of the Curriculum

All means of delivery of the curriculum being implemented, currently or planned in the near future, should be included in the Benchmark I document.

Failure to Submit

If a program fails to submit a Benchmark document by the due date, the COA may remove the program from candidacy or deny initial accreditation.

4.2.1. Initial Accreditation Eligibility Application

Initial Accreditaiton Eligibility Standards are outlined in the Initial Accreditation Eligibility Application.

Information about when the Initial Accreditation Eligibility Application is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Candidacy.

4.2.2. Baccalaureate Initial Accreditation Eligibility Standards

Initial Accreditaiton Eligibility Standards are outlined in the Initial Accreditation Eligibility Application.

4.2.3. Master's Initial Accreditation Eligibility Standards

Initial Accreditaiton Eligibility Standards are outlined in the Initial Accreditation Eligibility Application.

4.3.1. Writing the Benchmark III Document

The Benchmark III document should be dived into three volumes as described below. Like the previous benchmarks, Volume I contains a series of narratives that demonstrate the program’s compliance with EPAS. In the Benchmark III document however, the program assembles the narratives from the compliance sections of Benchmarks I, II, and III to create a self-study.

Volume 1 – Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS)

1. Section One

Accreditation Review Brief. The Accreditation Review Brief should be included in the beginning of volume one. During Commissioner Visit III the Accreditation Review Brief is used as a tool for the commission visitor to locate content on each accreditation standard within the Initial Accreditation Self Study. In the Location column of section 2, the program indicates the document name and page number where each compliance statement for an accreditation standard is addressed. In section 1 the program completes identifying information. The rest of the form is not used by the program.

Narrative for Accreditation Standards in Benchmarks I and II. Review the narratives in the compliance portions of Benchmarks I and II for accuracy; update as necessary; and order them by AS (see Format for Volume 1 below). Complete the Program Expense Budget form and include it near the narrative for AS 3.5.1, as well as the Librarian’s Report form and include it near the narrative for AS 3.5.4

2. Section Two

Benchmark III Review Brief. The Benchmark III Review Brief should be included in the beginning of section two of the Benchmark III document. In the Location column of the brief in sections 2 and 3, the program indicates the document name and page number where each compliance statement is addressed.

Narrative for Accreditation Standards in Benchmark III. The rest of section two should be comprised of a series of narratives that demonstrate the program’s compliance with the remaining accreditation standards in Benchmark III (see Format for Volume 1 below).

Format for Volume 1

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 III document. It explains the minimum requirements for completely and clearly meeting an accreditation standard and related educational policy and why COA would cite either as an area of concern or noncompliance.

Volume 2 – Syllabi

Volume two contains the program’s course syllabi.

Volume 3 – Supporting Documentation

Volume three is the appendix and contains the field education manual, the student handbook, and any other supporting documentation not already included in Volume 1.

4.3.2. Formatting Guidelines

Document Formatting Guidelines

4.3.3. Program Completion of the Benchmark III Review Brief

The Initial Accreditation Self-Study should be divided into three volumes as described below. Like the previous benchmarks, Volume I contains a series of narratives that demonstrate the program’s compliance with the EPAS. In the Initial Accreditation Self-Study, however, the program assembles the narratives from the compliance sections of all Benchmarks to create a self-study.

Volume 1 – Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS)

Initial Accreditation Review Brief. The Initial Accreditation Review Brief should be included in the beginning of volume one. During Commissioner Visit III, the Initial Accreditation Review Brief is used as a tool for the commission visitor to locate content on each accreditation standard within the Initial Accreditation Self-Study.  In section 1, the program completes identifying information. In the Location column of sections 2 and 3, the program indicates the document name and page number where each compliance statement for an accreditation standard is addressed.

Review the narratives for accuracy; update as necessary; and order them by AS, following the order of the Initial Accreditation Review Brief. Complete the Faculty Summary Form and Faculty Data Forms and include them near AS 3.2.1; complete the Program Expense Budget form and include it near the narrative for AS 3.4.1; and complete the Librarian’s Report form and include it near the narrative for AS 3.4.4.

Format for Volume 1

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 III document. It explains the minimum requirements for completely and clearly meeting an accreditation standard and related educational policy and why COA would cite either as an area of concern or noncompliance.

Volume 2 – Syllabi

Volume two contains the program’s course syllabi.

Volume 3 – Supporting Documentation

Volume three is the appendix and contains the field education manual, the student handbook, and any other supporting documentation not already included in Volume 1.

4.4.1. Commission Visitor Qualifications and Selection

The commission visitor’s primary task is to discuss the Benchmark III document and identify areas of compliance and noncompliance. The visitor will also ask the program whether there have been any changes since the last visit and determine whether any of those changes affect the program’s compliance. The visitor also reviews the self-study and identifies areas of further development that the program can use in writing its next self-study.

Qualifications

Commissioner Visit III is conducted by a current or recently retired 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 the Office of Social Work Accreditation and Educational Excellence (OSWA) and the site visit coordinator select a commissioner to make Commissioner Visit III. 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.

4.4.2. Program Preparation for the Commissioner Visit

Travel and Accommodations

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 personal expenses for the commission visitor, directly. Hotel accommodations should be arranged so that the commission visitor has a place to work on the Benchmark III 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 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.

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.

 

4.4.3. Commissioner Visit Schedule

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 him or her to the campus. During the commissioner visit, evenings are reserved for the commission visitor to work on the Benchmark III 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 of faculty concerned with ethnic or gender issues) to Benchmark III.

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 III 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 III Review Brief, are reviewed by COA before a decision is made 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.

4.4.4. Emergencies or Questions During the Visit

Emergencies or Questions During the Commissioner Visit

DOSWA recognizes that scheduled visits may need to be delayed or cancelled due to special circumstances beyond the control of relevant parties. Examples of these special circumstances include inclement weather conditions, natural or manmade disasters, or changes to visitor’s or key personnel’s schedules due to unforeseen personal matters. As this list is not exhaustive, the visitor or program is encouraged to contact CSWE’s site visit coordinator to discuss special circumstances that may affect the completion of the visit. Cancelling or delaying a visit is an extenuating circumstance. Due to complexity in scheduling visits, cancellations and delays will be avoided whenever possible.

Should an emergency arise before the visit occurs requiring the visitor or program to delay or cancel the visit, CSWE’s site visit coordinator should be notified immediately via telephone and email. To inform the DOSWA of any delays or cancellations to a planned visit:

• The party (visitor or program) must immediately notify the site visit coordinator of the delay or cancellation along with the other party (visitor or program) via telephone and email 
• The program, visitor, and site Visitor Coordinator must communicate to determine the best course of action:
  • Delay visit
  • Reschedule visit with same visitor for a later date 
  • Reschedule visit with an alternate visitor* for the original date
  • Reschedule visit with an alternate visitor* for a later date

*If the program and visitor are unable to select a new visit date, the site visitor coordinator may work directly with the program to assign an alternate visitor if available. The delayed or rescheduled visit is based upon the alternate visitor’s availability.

Responsibility of Fees Incurred

The program will be responsible for any fees associated with the delayed or rescheduled the visit. Programs are advised to purchase refundable and transferrable transportation and accommodations to avoid incurring fees in the event of visit cancellation or delay.
 
Should an emergency arise during the visit requiring a visitor or program to leave the visit early, the site visit coordinator should be notified immediately via telephone and email. These occurrences will be handled on an individual basis. 

If the site visit coordinator is unavailable, the DOSWA director or accreditation specialist may be contacted. 

Questions During the Visit

Logistical questions related to visit, including concerns about boundary or ethical issues, scheduling, transportation, accommodations, or reimbursement* may be directed to the site visit coordinator. 
*Per policy 2.3.4. Program Preparation for the Site Visit, requesting visitors to complete W-9 forms in order to be reimbursed is not supported by the CSWE or the DOSWA.

Visitors or a program’s primary contact may contact the program’s accreditation specialist at any time to clarify an accreditation standard or the Commission on Accreditation’s policies or procedure, such as:

• Interpretation of an accreditation standard
• Clarification of the letter of instruction
• EPAS Handbook policies and procedures

If the site visit coordinator or accreditation specialist is unavailable, the DOSWA director may be contacted. 

Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Expenses

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.
• 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.

4.5.1. Commission Visitor Completion of the Benchmark III Review Brief

The Initial Accreditation Review Brief form is a tool used to guide the program in writing a complete Initial Accreditation Self-Study and by the commission visitor to review the program for compliance with Initial Accreditation and to make a recommendation to the COA. Section 2 lists each accreditation standard and related educational policy in the Initial Accreditation Self-Study. The Compliance Statement column 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 3 of the Benchmark III 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 Initial Accreditation Review Brief is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Candidacy.

4.5.2. Program Response to the Benchmark III Review Brief

The program is required to submit a response to the Initial Accreditation Review Brief within two 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 it thinks may have been incorrectly understood by the commission visitor. Disagreements with the Initial Accreditation Review Brief visit should be stated clearly and additional documentation should be provided if necessary.

Information about when the program’s response to the Initial Accreditation Review Brief is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Candidacy.

4.6.1. Initial Accreditation Decisions

After reviewing the program’s Initial Accreditation Self-Study and the Initial Accreditation Review Brief submitted by the commissioner who conducted Commission Visit III (including the commissioner’s recommendation) and the program’s response to the Initial Accreditation Review Brief, the COA makes one of six decisions:

1. Grant Initial Accreditation for 8 Years. The COA finds the program in compliance with all accreditation standards and educational policy and grants accreditation for 8 years.
2. Grant Initial Accreditation for 8 Years with a Progress Report to be Reviewed by the Program’s Accreditation Specialist. The COA finds the program in compliance with all educational policy and accreditation standards, but identifies one or more areas of concern that must be addressed in a progress report that the program’s accreditation specialist will review. The COA’s letter identifies specific areas of concern and a due date for the progress report.
3. Grant Initial Accreditation for 8 Years with a Progress Report to be Reviewed by the COA. The COA finds the program in compliance with all educational policy and accreditation standards, but identifies one or more areas of concern that must be addressed in a progress report that the COA will review. The COA’s letter identifies specific areas of concern and a due date for the progress report.
4. Defer a Decision on Initial Accreditation 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.  In extenuating circumstances, and at the COA's discretion, the COA may grant two deferrals at each Benchmark phase.
5. Order an Additional Year of Candidacy. The COA finds that the program’s Initial Accreditation Self-Study needs further development and needs an additional year. The program should revise its Initial Accreditation Self-Study for an additional commissioner visit.
6. Deny Initial Accreditation. The COA determines that the program is out of compliance with one or more educational policies and/or accreditation standards. The COA’s letter identifies specific areas of noncompliance. The program has two options in response to the decision: (1) accept the decision and apply for candidacy by submitting a Benchmark I document or (2) to appeal by requesting a reconsideration of the decision. 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.

4.6.2. First Progress Report Decisions

4.6.3. Second Progress Report Decisions

After hearing the accreditation specialist’s review of the first progress report or after reviewing the first progress report itself, the COA takes one of four actions, regardless of who reviewed the report:

1. Accept the Second Progress Report. All areas of concern were addressed in the progress report, and no further action by the program is required.
2. Place the Program on Conditional Accredited Status. If the second progress report is not accepted, the program is automatically placed on conditional accreditation. Placement on conditional status is an adverse decision, and programs may request reconsideration. If the program accepts the COA’s decision, it submits a restoration report.
3. Initiate Withdrawal of Accredited Status. The COA initiates withdrawal of accredited status if the program is found to be out of compliance with one or more educational policies or accreditation standards and the COA does not believe that noncompliance issues can be resolved within 1 year. The COA’s letter identifies specific areas of noncompliance and instructs the program to work with its accreditation specialist or associate to arrange for the graduation or transfer of its students and determine when the program’s accreditation will be withdrawn. The decision to initiate withdrawal of accredited status is an adverse one, and programs may request reconsideration. After its official withdrawal date a program may apply for candidacy status.
4. Order a Modified Site Visit. If the COA believes that a program may be out of compliance with one or more educational policies or accreditation standards, the COA can order a modified site visit to collect more information. A site visitor is sent at the program’s expense to review specific compliance issues. This program is reviewed at the next COA meeting after the site visit.
5. Accept the Program's Response to the Modified Site Visit Report. All areas of concern were addressed in the program’s response, and no further action by the program is required.

4.6.4. Restoration Report Decisions

When the program accepts the COA decision to place it on conditional accredited status or when the outcome of the reconsideration hearing is to uphold the COA decision (see reconsideration policy), the program must submit a restoration report. When the restoration report is received, the COA reviews it along with all previously submitted materials. The COA takes one of four actions:

1. Restore Accredited Status. The COA review of the program’s restoration report finds that the program has taken corrective action and is in compliance with all standards. No further action is required.
2. Restore Accredited Status and Request a Progress Report. The request includes a due date and indicates whether the report will be reviewed by the program’s accreditation specialist or associate and/or the COA.
3. Order a Modified Site Visit. A modified site visit is ordered when the restoration report fails to clarify program compliance. A site visitor is sent at the program’s expense to review specific issues. This program is reviewed at the next COA meeting following the site visit. After its review of the site visit report, the COA either returns the program to accredited status or initiates withdrawal of its accredited status.
4. Initiate Withdrawal of Accredited Status. The COA initiates withdrawal of accredited status if the program is found to be out of compliance with one or more standards and the program cannot take corrective action within 1 year. The COA’s letter identifies specific areas of noncompliance and instructs the program to work with its accreditation specialist or associate to determine the effective date of the withdrawal of accreditation. The decision to initiate withdrawal of accredited status is an adverse one, and the program may request reconsideration (see reconsideration policy).