Accreditation, Outcomes, and Accountability

Accreditation is a central feature of higher education quality assurance in the United States, but historically much of the process has operated out of public view and within a statutory framework that has not changed much in recent years. Declining public trust in higher education and questions about its value have resulted in greater public and political scrutiny of the performance of colleges and universities. As a result, the role of accreditation agencies in monitoring and evaluating institutional quality, especially as measured by student outcomes, has increasingly been the subject of public debate.

The role of accreditation agencies in monitoring and evaluating institutional quality, especially as measured by student outcomes, has increasingly been the subject of public debate.

At the same time, the policy environment surrounding accreditation is in a period of significant change. While there has been no federal legislative change, there is substantial federal activity aimed at changing the accreditation landscape. Last fall, the US Department of Education repurposed federal funds for improving postsecondary success to award grants aimed at reforming the accreditation system. Last summer, annual meetings of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) were postponed, and new committee appointments substantially changed the political composition of the board. Next summer, new accreditors will likely form to oversee short-term, workforce-aligned programs that states approve to award Pell grants. At the same time, six public university systems in the southeast have made plans to establish a new accrediting body, signaling that states may play a more assertive role in quality assurance.

Against this backdrop of heightened scrutiny and structural change, Ithaka S+R is pleased to release four reports, funded by Arnold Ventures, that examine the extent to which accreditor standards and interventions influence institutional performance, particularly as reflected in students’ outcomes. These reports provide concrete examples of how accreditors articulate expectations in their written standards, use data in monitoring institutions, communicate performance concerns through Commission Action Letters, and understand their responsibilities in the federal recognition process. The resulting reports, along with a set of overarching policy recommendations, are published on Ithaka S+R’s website and linked here. In this blog post, we synthesize the key findings across those reports and discuss our view on where accreditation research should be headed.

Overview of findings

Our research offers a grounded look at how accreditation has operated over the past several years, and in a fluid policy environment, where its leverage may be limited in the future. Below we outline three consistent themes that cut across the findings in all four reports, despite each report using different methods and sources.

Accreditors emphasize student outcomes in their standards and public materials, but their performance expectations for institutions remain uneven and at times underspecified.
The Higher Education Act requires accreditors to address student achievement but prevents federal authorities from defining what those expectations should be. This limitation contributes to unevenness in how clearly student outcomes are defined or applied across accreditors. Some sets of accreditor standards outline specific outcome metrics that institutions should track or report, while others use broader language that ties student success to an individual institution’s mission. In our analysis of Commission Action Letters, we find that letters citing a need for improvement often reference student outcomes. However, in negative letters—those indicating an institution is out of compliance—standards related to student outcomes are less frequently cited than standards related to institutional finances, governance, and other operational concerns.

Accreditors receive and review substantial outcomes data, but there is limited evidence that they use the data to make decisions. Transparency alone does not appear to produce sustained improvements in student outcomes.
Across our work, we see evidence that outcomes data are regularly collected and reviewed throughout the accreditation process, including during reaffirmation reviews and annual updates. However, the extent to which these reviews influence decision-making remains uneven. The use of student outcomes data through internal dashboards, peer benchmarking, and public-facing reports is linked to modest and short-lived improvements in student outcomes, with little evidence that adopting additional data practices strengthened those effects. Interviews with accreditor presidents and former NACIQI members suggest that data are often incorporated as context rather than as a primary driver of decisions. Absent clearer guidance for integrating student outcomes data into review and enforcement processes, the influence of student outcomes on accreditation will remain limited.

The recognition process creates delays and barriers that limit timely and substantive conversations about student outcomes.
Accreditor presidents and former NACIQI members describe a review process shaped by long lead times, limited communication, and materials that may no longer reflect current conditions by the time they are reviewed. NACIQI members are not permitted to ask questions about materials in advance of meetings and do not receive updated documentation once the public comment period closes. These constraints stem from federal statute rather than the preferences of either party. The result is an often adversarial and inefficient process that limits sustained discussion about student outcomes and other priorities.

Where we go from here

In January 2026, the Department of Education announced its intent to convene the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization negotiated rulemaking committee to develop proposed regulations governing accreditation. The Department signaled its interest in simplifying recognition of new and existing accreditors, sharpening the focus of quality assurance on data-driven student outcomes, and revising regulations that shape how accrediting agencies operate. These developments suggest that the rules governing accreditation, particularly those relating to federal recognition, may soon be changing in meaningful ways.

Much of this activity focuses on the federal role in recognizing and overseeing accreditors. Yet, accreditors operate within a broader quality assurance triad that includes federal authorities and state agencies. Historically, states have authorized institutions to operate within their borders but have not played a formal role in the accreditation process itself. That division of responsibility may now be shifting, as some states signal interest in playing a more assertive role in higher education oversight.

We are already seeing signs of this expanded state role. In some states, legislative mandates shape institutional behavior in ways that intersect directly with accreditation, requiring program-level approval or other forms of accreditor action. Recent federal policy changes have further reinforced state involvement. The expansion of Pell grant eligibility to incarcerated students and to those enrolled in short-term, workforce-aligned programs has created new oversight responsibilities for state agencies. State departments of corrections now serve as oversight entities for Prison Education Programs seeking Pell eligibility, working alongside accreditors and the Department of Education to establish standards and monitor compliance. Similarly, state workforce agencies are likely to play a role in certifying programs as workforce-aligned once those programs receive accreditor approval for short-term Pell access. At the same time, several public university systems have explored alternative accreditation arrangements, underscoring the possibility of a more assertive and visible state presence in the quality assurance ecosystem.

Looking ahead, the most pressing questions about accreditation may be less about the mechanics of review and more about the broader goals of quality assurance. How should student outcomes factor into access to federal financial aid? What is the appropriate balance among federal oversight, accreditor judgment, and state authority? And how can data be used not only to monitor institutions, but to drive improvement and restore public trust in the value of higher education?

The debates on these questions are unfolding in real time, and they extend well beyond the internal processes of accreditation. At Ithaka S+R, our focus will remain on the core issues at stake: how value is defined and measured, how accountability systems influence institutional behavior, and how federal and state policy intersect to shape incentives for institutions and accreditors alike. As states assume a more visible role in authorizing, overseeing, and in some cases reshaping accreditation relationships, understanding that evolving dynamic will be essential. Our aim is to contribute rigorous research and practical insight to ensure that changes to the quality assurance system strengthen its capacity to promote student success and sustain public confidence.