Evaluative Framework for the HLC Criteria

An institution demonstrates that it meets each of the Criteria for Accreditation, and the Core Components comprising them, in addition to other HLC requirements articulated in policy. In evaluating the Criteria for Accreditation, HLC shall take into account varying institutional missions, models and approaches within higher education. 

The distinctiveness of an institution’s mission may condition the strategies it adopts and the evidence it provides that it meets each Core Component. The institution shall also provide evidence with regard to those sub-components of the Criteria that apply to the institution. An institution may provide evidence relevant to additional topics related to a Core Component beyond those specified in the sub-components to be evaluated in determining whether the institution meets the relevant Core Component. In its review, peer reviewers may determine that an institution meets the relevant Core Component on the basis of such evidence. 

The judgment that the institution meets the Criteria for Accreditation and Core Components is based on detailed information about all parts of the institution. Such information may be acquired through evidence provided to HLC by the institution or acquired by HLC from other sources prior to, during, or subsequent to an evaluation process. This information will be confirmed in the written report of the peer reviewers or in other review documents identified by HLC. 

In the evaluation process, HLC will review the institution’s compliance with the Criteria and Core Components according to the following evaluative framework. 

Core Components. The institution meets the Core Component if: 

1. the Core Component is met without concerns, that is the institution meets or exceeds the expectations embodied in the Component, or to the extent opportunities for improvement exist, peer review or a decision-making body has determined that monitoring is not required; or 
2. the Core Component is met with concerns, that is the institution demonstrates the characteristics expected by the Component, but performance in relation to some aspect of the Component must be improved. 

The institution does not meet the Core Component if the institution fails to meet the Component in its entirety or is so deficient in the area covered by the Core Component that the Component is judged not to be met. 

Criteria for Accreditation. The institution meets the Criterion if: 

1. the Criterion is met without concerns, that is the institution meets or exceeds the expectations embodied in the Criterion, or to the extent opportunities for improvement exist, peer review or a decision-making body has determined that monitoring is not required; or 
2. the Criterion is met with concerns, that is the institution demonstrates the characteristics expected by the Criterion, but performance in relation to some Core Components of the Criterion must be improved. 

The Criterion is not met if the institution fails to meet the Criterion in its entirety or is so deficient in one or more Core Components of the Criterion that the Criterion is judged not to be met. 

The institution meets the Criterion only if all Core Components are met. The team’s judgment in applying this evaluative framework shall be exercised at the level of each Core Component and each Criterion for Accreditation. For purposes of compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation, findings of “met” and “met with concerns” both constitute compliance. 

Policy History

Last Revised: June 2023 
First Adopted: February 2003 
Revision History: February 2012 (effective January 2013), November 2018, November 2021, June 2023 
Notes: Formerly policy number 1.1(a)2, 2013 – 1.1(a)1, 1.1(a)1.1. In February 2021, references to the Higher Learning Commission as “the Commission” were replaced with the term “HLC.”