Formal complaints to the COA must pertain to matters related to program compliance with accreditation standards and educational policy. Persons, groups, or organizations related to the program are considered recognized complainants and may file a complaint.
The COA is not authorized to adjudicate, arbitrate, or mediate individual faculty or student grievances against a program. Complainants must use all appropriate institutional and professional channels of appeal before filing a formal complaint with CSWE. The institutions in which programs are housed assume responsibility for implementing and enforcing their own policies in these areas. When alleged violations cannot be resolved within the institution, appellate procedures within state systems of higher education or state judicial courts should be used to assess and enforce institutional compliance with policies.
Instructions to File a Complaint
Once you have reviewed all guidelines, please submit a complete complaint form electronically to the Director of Accreditation.
Before filing a formal complaint, a complainant may seek informal consultation from the director of the Department of Social Work Accreditation (DOSWA). After reviewing the complaint procedures and consulting with the director of DOSWA, the complainant decides whether to file a formal complaint.
Formal complaints must be submitted in writing to the director of DOSWA with evidence that the complaint meets the following criteria:
- Filing is by a recognized complainant.
- The complaint is accompanied by documentation showing that the complainant has exhausted all appropriate institutional and professional channels for resolution.
- The complaint is related to a possible violation of one or more accreditation standards or educational policies.
- The documentation submitted in the formal complaint must be connected to a possible violation of one or more accreditation standards or educational policies.
- The complainant must provide evidence that the chief administrator of the program named in the complaint was given a copy of the complaint, including all materials submitted to the COA.
Evaluation to Determine if Criteria Have Been Met
On receipt of the formal complaint, the director of DOSWA determines whether the criteria for formal complaints have been fully met and whether the complaint falls within the COA’s authority. If the DOSWA director determines that the complaint does not meet the criteria for formal complaints or is not within the COA’s jurisdiction, the complainant is notified and given specific reasons for the refusal.
If the director determines the complaint meets the criteria for a formal complaint, the complainant and the program concerned are notified. The program has 30 calendar days from receipt of the complaint to respond. The director shares the program response with the complainant, who is given two weeks to respond. The director of DOSWA presents the formal complaint, the program’s response, and the complainant’s response to the COA during its next regularly scheduled meeting and recommends a decision.
The COA may decide to take one of the following actions.
- Find the program in compliance with the accreditation standard or educational policy and dismiss the complaint. If the COA dismisses the complaint, the chair notifies the complainant and the program, stipulating the reasons for the COA’s action.
- Find the program out of compliance with one or more accreditation standards or educational policies and place it on conditional accreditation. The program is placed on conditional accredited status if the COA believes that noncompliance issue(s) 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.
- Find the program out of compliance with one or more accreditation standards or educational policies and initiate withdrawal of accredited status. The COA initiates withdrawal of accredited status if it believes that the program cannot take corrective action within 1 year. The program is required to work with its accreditation specialist or associate to make arrangements for the graduation or transfer of its students and determine the date the accreditation will be withdrawn. The decision to initiate withdrawal of accredited status is an adverse one, and programs may request reconsideration.
- 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 orders a modified site visit to collect more information. A 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.
- Defer action. If the COA finds evidence that the program has made reasonable progress in rectifying the situation, it can defer the decision to a COA meeting within the next year.
- Appoint an investigating committee. If the COA needs more information to make a decision, it will appoint an investigating committee to conduct a confidential investigation with full knowledge and consultation of those concerned. The program pays expenses relating to the investigative visit. The investigating committee reports its findings to the full COA at its next regularly scheduled meeting, and the COA decides if the program is in compliance with the accreditation standards or educational policies in question.
The COA recognizes that special circumstances may occur that prompt a program to request a to postpone their reaffirmation review by one (1) year and temporarily shift to their accreditation timetable.
Examples of these special circumstances include:
- recent administrative changes in the program;
- institutional restructuring;
- current or anticipated addition of new faculty or loss of faculty key to developing the self-study;
- physical relocation of the program;
- unusual conditions requiring faculty attention;
- Public health crises;
- natural or human-made disasters;
- health problems of key faculty members;
- the program’s desire to synchronize the review dates of its baccalaureate and master’s social work programs; or
- Other, as described by the program.
A postponement will not be granted for the following rationales:
- Implementing a new program level / having a baccalaureate or master’s program in candidacy;
- Implementing a new program option;
- Implementing a new set of standards that has been published for three (3) or more years;
- Experiencing an extended reaffirmation process during the last review cycle (e.g., receiving a postponement, adjustment, deferral, progress reports, restoration reports, modified site visits, etc.); or
- Other, as described by accreditation staff.
Postponement Policies
The following policies guide the decision making of the accreditation staff and COA Executive Committee:
- A postponement can be granted to a single program for a maximum of one (1) year.
- Postponements 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 postponement.
- After postponement of a review, the program’s next reaffirmation date is calculated from program’s original review date (i.e., the year in 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 not eligible for postponement of its review.
- These programs are eligible for one (1) agenda adjustment per section 1.2.3 in the EPAS Handbook.
- A site visit for initial accreditation of one degree-level program cannot take place at the same time as the site visit for the reaffirmation of another degree-level program.
- Programs in any stage of the candidacy process cannot request a postponement.
- These programs are eligible for one (1) agenda adjustment per section 1.2.3 in the EPAS Handbook.
- Programs granted a postponement are also eligible for one (1) agenda adjustment per section 1.2.3 in the EPAS Handbook.
Programs will not be granted more than one (1) postponement and one (1) agenda adjustment during each reaffirmation cycle (i.e., once per each 8-year reaffirmation period).
Permanent Alignment
Programs with both accredited baccalaureate and master’s programs on separate review timetables may request to align the reaffirmation review dates of their baccalaureate and master’s programs so they take place at the same time. A permanent alignment may be granted to establish a single review date, as long as one program level’s delay is accompanied by the other program level’s review date being moved forward a comparable period of time.
The alignment entails a delayed review for one program level and a corollary shift forward of the other program’s review, so they meet in the middle date between the two dates. If the middle date is in between two dates, the new reaffirmation date will be the earlier of the two dates.
The following restrictions apply to program alignments:
- A program that is scheduled for its first reaffirmation review after receiving initial accreditation is eligible to synchronize the review dates of the institution’s baccalaureate and master’s social work programs to establish a single review date, as long as the program scheduled for its first reaffirmation review after receiving initial accreditation does not delay their first reaffirmation review for more than one (1) year.
- Programs must either wait for their next reaffirmation cycle or move one program forward without delaying the other program for more than one (1) year.
- Programs cannot request an alignment if it will lead to a delay of more than two (2) years for one of the programs.
- Programs must either wait for their next reaffirmation cycle or move one program forward more than two (2) years.
Instructions
To request a postponement, 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. COA’s Executive Committee has final approval authority.
Deadline for Requesting a Postponement
The program may submit their request no earlier 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.
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.
Postponement Actions
When reviewing the postponement 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:
- Approve the request and establish, for the current review only, a new timetable for submission of materials for reaffirmation review.
- Defer a decision pending the receipt of additional information.
- Recommend that the COA order a modified site visit to make a fully informed decision regarding postponement. The program pays the cost of the visit.
- Deny the request, providing in writing the reasons for denial and avenues of redress if the program disagrees.
Postponement Appeals Procedures
Programs dissatisfied with the decision may appeal, in writing, to the chair of the COA and request a review by the COA as a whole at its next scheduled meeting. The COA decision on the appeal is final, and there is no further appeal.
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:
- Approve the request and establish, for the current review only, a new timetable for submission of materials for reaffirmation review.
- Defer a decision pending the receipt of additional information.
- 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.
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.
CSWE-accredited programs can submit waiver requests for the 2015 accreditation standards listed below. Programs in Candidacy are not eligible to request waivers.
Program waiver requests are sent to the director of accreditation who submits them to the COA's executive committee for review and decision. The COA's executive committee meets three times a year and can review requests between meetings if needed. The following guidelines for submitting program waivers are:
-
Waiver requests must be submitted by the chief administrator of a social work education program that is fully accredited to the director of accreditation at CSWE. Waiver requests must be submitted prior to the implementation of the proposed waiver. If the waiver is being requested on behalf of the chief administrator, the request must come from the administrator to whom the chief administrator answers.
-
Waiver requests must be submitted in writing and provide full documentation of the program’s justification for its waiver request on behalf of the program or on behalf of an individual faculty member.
-
Waiver requests must specify the accreditation standard for which a waiver is sought.
2015 Accreditation Standards for which a program waiver can be requested:
2015 Accreditation Standards regarding baccalaureate and master’s faculty qualifications
-
Accreditation Standard 3.2.2: The program documents that faculty who teach social work practice courses have a master's degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited program and at least 2 years of post–master’s social work degree practice experience.
-
Accreditation Standard B3.2.4: The baccalaureate social work program identifies no fewer than two full-time faculty assigned to the baccalaureate program, with full-time appointment in social work, and whose principal assignment is to the baccalaureate program. The majority of the total full-time baccalaureate social work program faculty has a master's degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited program, with a doctoral degree preferred.
-
Accreditation Standard M3.2.4: The master's social work program identifies no fewer than six full-time faculty with master's degrees in social work from a CSWE-accredited program and whose principal assignment is to the master's program. The majority of the full-time master's social work program faculty has a master's degree in social work and a doctoral degree, preferably in social work.
Accreditation Standards regarding baccalaureate and master’s field education director qualifications
-
Accreditation Standard B3.3.5(b): The program documents that the field education director has a master’s degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited program and at least 2 years of post-baccalaureate or post-master's social work degree practice experience.
-
Accreditation Standard M3.3.5(b): The program documents that the field education director has a master’s degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited program and at least 2 years of post-master's social work degree practice experience.
A waiver may be granted to a program that has identified faculty in their accredited social work program who do not have the credentials specified in Accreditation Standards 3.2.2, B3.2.4, M3.2.4, B3.3.5(b) and M3.3.5(b). This waiver is granted to the program for a particular individual whose credentials do not meet the requirements specified in the standards, but whom the program believes best meets its current faculty or field education program director needs. Because the waiver is granted to the program to meet institutional needs, the waiver expires when the individual for whom it was granted leaves the position. To request a waiver, the program is asked to provide a curriculum vitae and present information that demonstrates the individual’s competence to teach in the specified area of social work practice or administer field education.
Request for a Waiver to the Requirement for a Master's Degree in Social Work and at least 2 years of post-master's social work degree practice experience to teach social work practice courses (AS 3.2.2)
The program’s chief administrator seeks a waiver for a faculty member by presenting information that demonstrates the individual’s competence to teach in the specified area of social work practice. The minimum requirement of 2 years of post-master’s social work practice degree experience is calculated in relation to the total number of hours of full-time and equivalent professional practice experience that does not include internship hours as part of a social work degree program. Social work practice experience is defined as providing social work services to individuals, families, groups, organizations, or communities. The waiver request should include:
-
a curriculum vitae of the faculty member that provides information on the individual’s credentials in the following areas:
-
demonstration of knowledge of the professional literature, theories, practice innovations, and emerging knowledge in the area of practice for which a waiver is sought.
-
documentation of practice experience in the specified area of social work practice under professional social work supervision. Documentation should include the dates of such experience, frequency of social work supervision, clientele served, intervention techniques employed, and the ways in which this experience supports the request for waiver.
-
documentation of courses taught under previous EPAS
-
evidence of active membership in and contributions to professional organizations and attendance and active involvement at professional social work meetings that relate to the practice content area for which the waiver is sought.
-
publication in juried social work and related journals or through monographs and edited works in the area of practice area for which the waiver is sought.
-
identification of the social work practice courses for which the waiver is sought. Social work practice courses are defined by the program.
-
syllabi for the course(s) for which the waiver is sought and an explanation of how the course(s) fit in the social work curriculum.
Request for a Waiver to the Requirement for a Master's Degree in Social Work (AS B3.2.4, M3.2.4, B3.3.5(b), and M3.3.5(b))
The program’s chief administrator seeks a waiver for a faculty member and/or field education director by presenting information that demonstrates the individual’s competence to serve as a social work faculty or to administer the field education program. The waiver request should include:
Request for a Waiver to the Requirement for a Minimum of 2 Years of post-baccalaureate and post-master's social work degree practice experience for the field education director (B3.3.5(b) and M3.3.5(b)
The program’s chief administrator seeks a waiver for a field education director by presenting information that demonstrates the individual’s competence to administer the field education program. The minimum requirement of 2 years of post-baccalaureate and post-master’s social work practice degree experience is calculated in relation to the total number of hours of full-time and equivalent professional practice experience that does not include internship hours as part of a social work degree program. Social work practice experience is defined as providing social work services to individuals, families, groups, organizations, or communities. The waiver request should include:
-
information regarding its rationale for selecting this individual as the field education director for the social work program without the required practice experience
-
a curriculum vitae of the field education director that provides information on the individual’s credentials in the following areas:
-
documentation of hours employed under professional social work auspices, the nature of the work performed, and documentation that work was done under the supervision of professional social work supervisors
-
documentation of hours of volunteer practice experience in a social service agency.
-
documentation of hours of paid experience as a consultant in the areas of the individual’s practice expertise.
-
if licensed, documentation of hours required for licensure or other certification.
-
Academy of Certified Social Workers certification.
-
supervision by professional social workers in a social service agency.
-
agency-based field instruction of social work students in their practica.
-
demonstration of practice-based, qualitative, or quantitative research.
-
empirical applied field research in teaching practice (not solely a literature review).Practice-related research or scholarly publication in social work journals.
Accreditation Standards regarding baccalaureate and master’s program director qualifications
-
Accreditation Standard B3.3.4(a): The program describes the baccalaureate program director’s leadership ability through teaching, scholarship, curriculum development, administrative experience, and other academic and professional activities in social work. The program documents that the director has a master’s degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited program with a doctoral degree in social work preferred
Accreditation Standard M3.3.4(a): The program describes the master's program director’s leadership ability through teaching, scholarship, curriculum development, administrative experience, and other academic and professional activities in social work. The program documents that the director has a master’s degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited program. In addition, it is preferred that the master’s program director have a doctoral degree, preferably in social work.
A waiver may be granted to a program that has identified an individual to administer its accredited social work program who does not have the credentials specified in Accreditation Standards B3.3.4(a) or M3.3.4(a). This waiver is granted to the program for a particular individual whose credentials do not meet the requirements specified in the standards, but whom the program believes best meets its current administrative needs. Because the waiver is granted to the program to meet institutional needs, the waiver expires when the individual for whom it was granted leaves the position. The waiver request should include:
-
information regarding its rationale for selecting this individual as chief administrator of the social work program
-
a curriculum vitae and information regarding the equivalent leadership qualities of the individual as demonstrated through
-
teaching social work courses;
-
conducting scholarship and research in social work;
-
developing curriculum in social work;
-
administrative experience in social work;
-
presenting at professional social work meetings; and
-
other academic and professional activities in the field
COA Executive Committee Waiver Decisions
One of four decisions may be made at any time during the calendar year about waivers:
-
Approve a waiver request;
-
Deny a waiver request, providing in writing the reasons for denial and avenues of redress if the program disagrees;
-
Defer a decision pending the receipt of additional information; or
-
Refer a waiver request to the Commission on Accreditation for a decision at its next meeting.
All decisions will be sent in writing to the program making the waiver request by the director of accreditation.
The following COA decisions are adverse actions and are eligible for appeal.
- Deny Candidacy Status
- Remove from Candidacy Status
- Deny Initial Accreditation
- Place the program on Conditional Accredited Status
- Initiate withdrawal of Accredited Status
If a program receives an adverse decision, the COA provides two appeals procedures: reconsideration and panel review. Reconsideration must be completed before moving to the panel review.
Reconsideration
Programs may challenge an adverse decision if, in the opinion of the program, the COA’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or violates procedures. The program’s written request to the director of OSWA must be made within 30 days following its receipt of notice of the adverse action (all adverse decision letters are certified).
A request for reconsideration must relate to the conditions that existed in the program at the time of the COA’s adverse action and state specific reasons why the reconsideration should be granted.
When reconsideration is requested, the director of OSWA sets the date and time for the hearing and appoints a reconsideration committee of three commissioners. The program may send, at its own expense, the program’s chief administrator, program faculty members, and representatives from the institution. Legal counsel, students, or other interested parties are not permitted to attend.
The reconsideration committee reviews the documentation on which the COA based its decision and any written or verbal clarifying information the program provides. No new documentation is considered. The reconsideration committee makes one of three decisions:
- Uphold the original COA decision. If the reconsideration committee believes that the original COA decision was correct, it decides to uphold the original decision. The program will then respond as originally required in the original COA decision letter.
- Revise the decision. If the committee believes that the COA decision was in error, the committee may revise the COA decision and issue a letter with the revised decision and instructions to the program regarding the next step it should take.
- Uphold the original decision and revise the decision. The committee may uphold the COA decision based on the original program documentation and revise the decision as a result of the clarifying information provided by the program at the reconsideration hearing.
The COA’s decision is reported in writing to the institution’s chief executive officer and the chief administrator of the social work program. If the program accepts the decision of the committee, it is expected to follow the instructions contained in the letter informing the program of the adverse decision. If the program does not accept the decision of the reconsideration committee, it may request a panel review. An accredited program retains its accredited status until all appeals have been exhausted.
Panel Review
The final appeal for the program is a panel review, which is an independent consideration of the COA’s decision. The program’s written request for a panel review must be made within 30 days of receipt of the COA’s certified letter upholding an adverse decision. If the program fails to respond within 30 days, it waives the right to further review. The program requests a panel review if, after the reconsideration findings are presented, it believes the COA’s action was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the COA accreditation standards or procedures; or the COA action was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The panel will review evidence in the record, including documentation and witness statements directly related to the COA’s adverse action and the reconsideration hearing. The record includes the program’s self-study or candidacy documentation, any additional material submitted to the site team or commissioner, the report of the commissioner or site team chair, the program’s response to the commissioner or site team report, the COA decision letter detailing the adverse decision; and materials from the reconsideration hearing.
Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the panel review request, the chair of the Commission on Accreditation appoints a chair and two or more review panel members from the list of active certified site visitors. Members of the review panel may not include current members of the COA or former commissioners serving at the time of the COA’s adverse action. The chair of the review panel specifies the time and place of the review. All costs related to the panel review are paid by the program. These include any legal expenses of the COA, travel and accommodations for the review panel and participants in the proceedings, reproduction of materials presented at the hearing, and other related expenses.
The Executive Director of DOSWA submits the record to the review panel and the program’s written request, including additional evidence challenging the COA’s procedures or its facts. The chair of the review panel presides at the review hearing and rules on procedure, conducting the hearing in a manner that allows the program a fair opportunity to present its case and explain its position without resort to formal rules of evidence. The program may be represented by counsel during the hearing, and counsel may question any witnesses who speak at the hearing. Review panel members may question any witnesses or parties to the appeal.
After considering the record, the review panel may make either of the following determinations:
- uphold the COA action, or
- remand the decision back to the COA for further consideration.
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.
To maintain candidacy or accredited status, programs are expected to be members of CSWE in good standing. Good standing means that programs have paid all current membership dues and candidacy and reaffirmation accreditation fees. Programs that fail to maintain good standing are subject to having their accreditation status suspended. Direct any questions regarding program membership to the Member Services Coordinator at membership@cswe.org or 703.519.2067. Direct any questions regarding accreditation fees to feesaccred@cswe.org.
If a program wishes to withdraw from accredited status, the program’s chief administrator sends a formal letter to its accreditation specialist notifying 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.
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.
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
For more information on special compliance reviews, please click here.
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 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).