Evidence for the Criteria for Accreditation

An institution has to provide a narrative and supporting evidence that demonstrate it meets HLC’s criteria for accreditation. A team of peer reviewers evaluates the institution to validate its argument and determine if each core component of the criteria is met. HLC provides suggestions to assist institutions in thinking about possible sources of evidence in Providing Evidence for the Criteria for Accreditation (PDF).

Identifying Evidence

The evidence an institution provides to demonstrate that it complies with HLC’s Criteria should do the following:

• Substantiate the facts and arguments presented in its institutional narrative.
• Respond to the prior peer review team’s concerns and recommendations.
• Explain any nuances specific to the institution.
• Strengthen the institution’s overall record of compliance with HLC’s requirements.
• Affirm the institution’s overall academic quality and financial sustainability and integrity.

HLC encourages institutions to provide thorough evidence and ensure that the sources selected are relevant and persuasive. To identify compelling evidence, it may be helpful to consider the three categories of evidence presented in Black’s Law: clear, corroborating and circumstantial.

Clear Evidence

Clear evidence is precise, explicit and tends to directly establish the point it is presented to support. Institutions should provide clear evidence of their compliance with each core component.

Example: Clear evidence that a president was duly appointed by an institution’s board would be a board resolution or meeting minutes showing a motion and vote to hire the president.

Corroborating Evidence

Corroborating evidence is supplementary to evidence already given and tends to strengthen or confirm it. This type of evidence can be useful in illustrating points made in the institution’s narrative, but it may not be persuasive to peer reviewers on its own.

Example: Corroborating evidence that a president was duly appointed by an institution’s board would be a copy of the offer letter addressed to the president.

Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence establishes a condition of surrounding circumstances, from which the principal fact may be inferred. This type of evidence is never sufficient on its own.

Example: Circumstantial evidence that a president was duly appointed by an institution’s board would be a copy of a letter from the president to the chair of the board, accepting the presidential appointment.

Summary

Institutions should remember the peer review team will base much of its recommendations on the evidence presented. In order to identify whether any gaps exist in the institution’s evidence, it is recommended institutions analyze each core component from the perspective of the peer review team. Peer reviewers will consider all materials presented and ask questions if they determine information is missing, but it is ultimately the institution’s responsibility to present evidence of their compliance with the criteria.