Date: January 17, 2024

To: U.S. Department of Education

From: Erika Linden and Scott Dolan, Private-Nonprofit Institutions of Higher Education

Re: Issue Paper 5— Accreditation

The Department of Education has proposed modifications to 34 C.F.R. § 602.22, Substantive 

Change and other reporting requirements, that is looking to revise substantive change 

requirements to focus on areas of greatest risk. The department notes that the changes in this 

section are focused on “ensur[ing] consistency and quality across institutions and are an 

important guardrail to protect students from significant changes that may impact an 

institution’s resources and capacity.” 

We are particularly concerned with the proposed change to regulations detailed in §602.22(c), 

which would require an accrediting agency to conduct visits at ALL additional physical locations

approved under paragraphs under paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(KH) and (LI).

Rationale

We recognize the important need for the department to have the ability to assess any changes 

that may impact institutional capacity and resources and thereby students; however, we think 

that a shift from a representative sample of locations to ALL locations could create an undue

logistical burden and cost on institutions without furthering the department’s goal of ensuring 

quality and identifying and mitigating risk to students. 

This is particularly true given the recent experience, and relative success, of virtual accreditation 

site visits conducted during the pandemic. We would ask for further clarification from the 

department about how and what types of information collected during a site visit would return 

the appropriate benefits given that the scope of the substantive change review is on the 

following: 1) academic control; 2) adequate faculty, facilities, resources, and academic/student 

support systems; 3) financial stability; and 4) long-range planning. Aside from facilities, we see 

marginal benefit from conducting a site visit to a location, and would ask for more information 

about the concerns of the department.

We see two potential unintended consequences of this proposed change: increased cost of 

delivery that ultimately gets passed on to the student or institutions foregoing offering face-toface instruction in different locations. 

Additionally, as currently defined an “additional location” is a site where 50% of an academic 

program is offered, which could be a relatively low threshold. For example, an institution that 

offers 50% of one 18-credit hour certificate (9 credits in total) at one of their additional locations 

would be subject to a site visit under the new regulations. This might comprise a miniscule 

percentage of the overall institutional resources and capacity. Similarly, an institution that 

serves 20,000 students overall might have an additional location that serves less than 25. 
Furthermore, the geographic distribution of additional locations can vary dramatically from one 

institution to the next. Not all additional locations operate equally or pose the same risk. For 

one institution, an additional location might be within a few miles of the main campus. For 

another, additional locations might be located throughout the country or even abroad. As a 

potential middle ground compromise, we ask that accreditors continue to have discretion to 

select a representative sample of additional locations for institutions that have not been placed 

on probation or equivalent status in the last three years. 

Finally, for colleges and universities that offer academic programming on U.S. military 

installations within the United States and overseas, these proposed changes to the regulation 

would not only be expensive, but would limit the flexibility of institutions to respond to the 

needs of the Department of Defense. For example, given force deployments to Poland and 

Slovakia, the Department of Defense has requested the University of Maryland Global campus 

establish new teaching sites in these countries. Given the low threshold for a site becoming an 

additional location, requiring an accreditor to conduct a visit would limit academic programming 

being offered in a timely fashion. There is also the consideration of sending accreditation visitors 

to locations near active combat zones and the administrative issues in getting access to some 

bases. 

Proposed redline language

§602.22(a)(ii)(K):

Add the following new sentence after §602.22(a)(ii)(K): 

"The site visit requirements of paragraph (K) shall not apply to any United States Department of 

Defense military installation." 

Add the following new sentence after §602.22(a)(ii)(L): 

“The site visit requirements of paragraph (L) shall not apply to any United States Department of 

Defense military installation.” 

§602.22(c):

Current Proposal:

(cd) The agency must have an effective mechanism for conducting, at reasonable intervals, visits 

to all representative sample of additional physical locations approved under paragraphs 

(a)(1)(ii)(KH) and (LI) of this section. 

Revised Proposal:

(cd) The agency must have an effective mechanism for conducting, at reasonable intervals, visits 

to all representative sample of additional physical locations approved under paragraphs 

(a)(1)(ii)(KH) and (LI) of this section. Site visits for all additional locations would be required if 

the institution had been placed on probation or equivalent status or has been subject to 

negative action by the agency over the last three years. 
Add the following new sentence at the end of §602.22(c): 

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply to any United States 

Department of Defense military installation."