As the pace of institutional closure increases for colleges and universities around the United States, the quality assurance ecosystem for postsecondary education becomes ever more essential. The three pillars of that ecosystem—the “triad” established by the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEA)—are the federal Department of Education (ED), the accreditation agencies recognized by ED, and the various state governments which authorize institutions to operate. Together, the triad serves as gatekeepers for student access to federal financial aid, which totals over $114 billion provided to almost 10 million students enrolled at over 5,000 different institutions. With so much money at stake, quality assurance is an existential issue for institutions as much as it is of vital concern for students and their families.

One of the least well-known aspects of quality assurance is the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), the federal body that recommends to the Secretary of Education, or their designee, the accreditation agencies they should recognize. Despite holding public meetings twice a year, NACIQI’s status as a federal advisory committee prevents members from regularly interacting with the public or the accreditors with whom they share an interest in supporting student success. Despite these constraints, accreditation agency leaders and NACIQI members do have a relationship beyond the biannual meetings. Illuminating the nature of those relationships and exploring how NACIQI influences accreditors outside of the statutory requirements can provide a window into one of the least well-known aspects of quality assurance.

With support from Arnold Ventures, we are publishing a report that synthesizes our interviews with accreditation agency leaders, ED staff members, and former NACIQI members. The report includes a broad overview of the quality assurance triad, with a focus on the procedural elements of the recognition process for accreditors that NACIQI helps facilitate, to set the necessary context for the analysis that follows. We also provide recommendations for other stakeholders looking to influence this aspect of the quality assurance process.

NACIQI’s Limited Influence on Accreditors

The accreditation agency presidents reported that their interactions with NACIQI had very little influence on the standards to which they hold member institutions, as these are largely outlined in the statutes and regulations of the HEA and ED or not discretionary criteria for recognition. NACIQI’s influence was stronger in other areas of accreditor operations, in recent years most notably around the complaint processes for students, or others, registering formal complaints. Our interviews suggest that when NACIQI focused on the complaint process of select accreditors during the public meetings on their re-recognition, other accreditors took notice and preemptively changed their processes to be in closer alignment with NACIQI member’s expectations by the time of their own future recognition review.

What Can Be Done

The heart of the challenge in leveraging NACIQI to influence the quality assurance process or the standards to which accreditors hold their institutions is the HEA, which prohibits the establishment of specific metrics for institutional quality and student success. Updates to the HEA have repeatedly failed to pass in Congress, leaving those interested in improving quality assurance with few avenues for influence. In these circumstances, one of the most prominent means of influence is the public nature of the NACIQI meetings. The priorities raised by members from the bully pulpit of the public meetings do initiate changes within accreditors’ operations. Continued focus on student success and more public attention to the recognition review meetings could motivate additional change.

The agenda for the NACIQI meetings could also be expanded to focus more on the shared goals of institutional and student success. So much of higher education operates on collegiality, which requires not just common purpose but also opportunities to work towards that purpose together. As essential as it is for NACIQI members to evaluate the initial or continued recognition of accreditors, NACIQI meetings could also be a time to build relationships and understandings between the members and the accreditors.

Read the full report to learn more about our research methodology, conclusions, and recommendations.