ACCREDITATION MANUAL FOR MASTERS LEVEL REHABILITATION COUNSELOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Transcription

1 ACCREDITATION MANUAL FOR MASTERS LEVEL REHABILITATION COUNSELOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS Includes information about the background of CORE, the accreditation process, accreditation standards, accreditation requirements, policies and procedures that guide the accreditation process, evaluation procedures, and a glossary of important terminology of the Commission on Graduate Standards and Accreditation (CGSA) approved and monitored by the COUNCIL ON REHABILITATION EDUCATION 1699 Woodfield Rd., Suite 300 Schaumburg, IL (847)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I History... 1 Mission of CORE Accreditation... 2 Objectives of Graduate RCE Programs... 4 Composition... 4 Recognition and Eligibility Criteria... 6 Accreditation Application Procedures... 7 Evaluation Procedures... 8 Focus on Academic Quality... 9 Accreditation Review Process Site Visit Process, Policies, and Procedures Site Visitor Pool Site Visit Team Site Visit Preparation Site Visit Agenda Preliminary Review Committee Report Site Visit Evaluation Monitoring Process Notification of Decisions Appeals Procedures General Procedures Informal Appeals Conference Formal Arbitration Reapplication Procedures Withdrawal Procedures Annual Timeline Fees SECTION II Standards for Rehabilitation Counselor Education Programs Section A: Mission and Objectives Section B: Program Evaluation Section C: General Curriculum Requirements, Knowledge Domains, and Educational Outcomes Section D: Clinical Experience Section E: Administration and Faculty Section F: Program Support and Resources SECTION III Policies Accreditation Extension Accredited On Probation Annual Program Review Attendance at Meetings i

3 Commission on Standards and Accreditation Complaints Received about Standards or Compliance On-Site Review CORE Actions Confidentiality Conflict of Interest Consultation Policy Double Majors Fees Length of Accreditation Licensure Disclosure Minutes of Board, Commission, and Committee Meetings Mission Statement Multiple Programs Non-Accreditation Non-Discrimination Organization Membership on CORE and Graduate Commission Outcomes Preliminary Review Committee Report Public Disclosure Public Interest Public Members of CORE Accreditation Reimbursement Policy Responsibilities of Individual Graduate Commission and CORE Members Research Policy Retention of Records Review of Factual Accuracy Specialization Standards Revision Submission Deadline for a Self-Study Substantive Program Changes Meaning of Substantive Change Procedures for Substantive Change Submission of Graduate Self-Study in Electronic Format Self-Study Accreditation Application Preparation of CD/DVDs or Hardcopy Electronic Format Guidelines Terms of Accreditation Vitae for All Faculty Teaching in Program Web Accessibility Guidelines Glossary of Terms ii

4 SECTION I HISTORY In the summer of 1969, a group of rehabilitation professionals met to discuss the need for accreditation of Rehabilitation Counselor Education (RCE) Programs. After two years of planning, in June of 1971, the Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) was formed and was subsequently incorporated as a not-for-profit organization in Washington, DC in CORE has since reincorporated in the State of Illinois. The composition of CORE is unique among accrediting bodies in that it is not specifically academic. From the beginning it has included those concerned with service delivery. The five major professional rehabilitation organizations first represented on CORE were: the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA); Council of Rehabilitation Counselor Educators, now the National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE); Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR); International Association of Rehabilitation Facilities, now American Rehabilitation Association (ARA); and the National Rehabilitation Counseling Association (NRCA). These five organizations represented the professional and organizational constituencies concerned with the training, evaluation, and employment of rehabilitation counselors. This composition assured representative input of groups concerned with the performance of rehabilitation counselors in the variety of agencies, organizations, and other settings where they practice. The composition was also consistent with the focus CORE adopted of including the performance of graduates in the program evaluation process. At the time of CORE s incorporation, rehabilitation counselor education was one of the few educational areas in the helping professions that had no accreditation mechanism. Approximately 70 RCE Programs were producing about 500 graduates yearly, of which over 70 percent entered public or private rehabilitation agencies. Rehabilitation counselor education continued for well over 20 years with federal support without a systematic method of evaluating the effectiveness or appropriateness of the education. The need for a systematic evaluation reached crisis proportions with the challenge of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 identifying individuals with severe disabilities as priority recipients of service. CORE s development of standards of training addressed that need and remains essential to the profession. Consistent with the philosophy of having all constituencies contribute to the evaluation of educational activities, a survey process was developed to collect data from educators and coordinators, students, graduates, and employers of graduates for use in the evaluation of an RCE Program. The method draws on information from many areas to determine the program effectiveness in reaching its public within the specific mission of educating rehabilitation counselors. From the data collected in pre-testing and field-testing the method, CORE was able to develop standards that consider multiple points of view in rehabilitation. 1

5 To support these activities, CORE requested funding assistance from the Rehabilitation Services Administration in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services of the U.S. Department of Education. This support was used to develop the survey procedures and, after an accreditation mechanism was established, techniques and educational standards were re-tested and refined. It was also anticipated that education/service problem areas would be identified from the accreditation process. The first standards revision project was launched during Additional standards revisions were initiated in , , and with the goal of maintaining current, relevant standards and procedures. A new standards review process was begun in December of 2008 with completion of the project in December, During recent years CORE has focused its efforts on advancing academic quality, planning for developing changes in the rehabilitation service delivery system, the role of counseling services, recognizing the role of the public in preparing professionals, and developing procedures to make sure decisions are relevant and emphasize fair procedures and practices. CORE desires to accredit programs that are accountable and implement and provide services that are consistent with the mission and objectives of the organization. CORE has found it necessary to increase efforts to provide consultation to new and developing programs and to assist established programs update curricula and program practices to assist students as they seek advanced degrees. CORE has also updated and developed new policies dealing with consultation, conflicts of interest of program reviewers, the development of alternative ways to deliver academic programs (on-line), public disclosure of accreditation decisions, a research policy, substantive program changes, use of electronic submission procedures, the importance of website accessibility, and definitions of terms used in accreditation standards. It has also improved communication with other professional organizations that have a similar mission to CORE by considering more efficient communication procedures with individuals, institutions, and organizations, through technology. In summary, CORE has made a commitment to be responsive to education challenges, the changing, often expensive, alternatives necessary for successful employment of program graduates, and has placed an emphasis on improving and revising procedures to guarantee fair and helpful decisions that are needed to support excellent, accredited academic programs. MISSION OF CORE ACCREDITATION The mission of CORE accreditation is to promote the effective delivery of rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities by promoting and fostering continuing review and improvement of undergraduate-level rehabilitation and graduate-level rehabilitation counselor education programs. CORE s accreditation process promotes program self-improvement rather than outside censure. A concomitant purpose is to meet the personnel needs of both public and private rehabilitation agencies by providing graduates who have demonstrated through academic achievement the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to provide rehabilitation services to individuals with physical, mental, and/or emotional needs. It may also serve to assist in the development and refinement of university-based programs related to the education of persons for professional endeavors associated with the rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities. 2

6 The broad-based membership of CORE, plus the varied composition of its Commissions, assures effective, impartial, and objective public representation in CORE s evaluation, policies, and decisionmaking processes. This assurance is achieved by maintaining appropriate representation on CORE and the Commissions of relevant publics including rehabilitation educators, rehabilitation counselors, employers of rehabilitation counselors, the public served by rehabilitation counselors, and the public at large. CORE utilizes a multifaceted approach to assess the quality of programs and the standards established. CORE bases its activities on the general acceptance of the following objectives of professional education that have been generalized from field surveys of the several constituencies concerned with the education, performance, and goals of practitioners in rehabilitation. A major factor in achieving academic quality in both graduate and undergraduate programs of CORE, in addition to curriculum, is examination of the mission and objectives of programs by individuals outside of the academic institution. Objectives that are based on the CORE mission include: 1. Promoting a high standard of professional education in rehabilitation counseling and fostering program development based on the vocationally-oriented, service-to-people to improve attitude needed to educate competent professionals in rehabilitation counseling. 2. Encouraging sound educational experimentation and innovations and assisting RCE institutions to develop high-quality instructional programs by stimulating continuous self-study and improvement. 3. Reassessing, redefining, and re-evaluating program criteria as the needs of the profession and the consumers receiving services change. 4. Using a consultative model for developing programs. 5. Reviewing admissions and other requirements of RCE Programs to assure that all qualified applicants may participate in the program. 6. Fostering mutual respect and cooperation between RCE Programs and the programs of the other helping professions related to the education of professional rehabilitation counselors. 7. Furthering the practice and profession of rehabilitation counseling by emphasizing the vocational aspect of services in the broader context of human development and thereby helping to reduce dependency among consumer groups, especially individuals with the most severe and multiple disabilities. 8. Meeting the personnel needs of public and private rehabilitation agencies by providing graduates of RCE Programs who have been instructed in the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary for delivering rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities. 9. Publishing periodically a roster of recognized programs so that the members of the profession, the public, government agencies, and prospective students may have authoritative information. 3

7 10. Enhancing the position of mutual respect and acceptance of RCE Programs in the academic community and on the campus. 11. Developing a model for the accreditation of professional education based on the objective assessment of outcomes of the educational program that might be utilized by other professions. OBJECTIVES OF GRADUATE REHABILITATION COUNSELING PROGRAMS (RCE) The objectives of RCE programs include the following: 1. An RCE Program has an ultimate goal of assuring that individuals with disabilities receive the high quality of services to which they are entitled. It should provide its students with the opportunity to: a. acquire a sound, basic education in rehabilitation; b. develop the lifelong habit of updating skills and professionalism; c. develop a commitment to assist individuals with disabilities in using their own resources spacing issue and opportunities to meet their developmental, vocational, and educational needs; d. nourish a commitment to individual human values; e. exercise skills and competencies on a high ethical level and with personal integrity; and f. maintain a critical, questioning, and exploratory attitude. 2. An RCE Program should contribute to the development of practitioners, educators, and researchers through its program of academic instruction and clinical training toward the overall goal of improving practice in the rehabilitation profession in general and in the specific area of professional application. 3. An RCE Program should develop personnel committed to the field of rehabilitation who can provide effective services to individuals with disabilities, including individuals with severe disabilities. 4. An RCE Program should contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of rehabilitation through research and the demonstrated application of significant findings. COMPOSITION The Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) is composed of 13 individuals appointed from CORE sponsoring organizations and two public members. Membership includes public members (2) which represent the consumer public and the public at large. The sponsoring organizations are professional organizations concerned with rehabilitation counseling and include: the National Rehabilitation Counseling Association (NRCA) (2), the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA) (2), the National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE) (2), the Council of 4

8 State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) (1), the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) (1), and the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB) (1). The last two members of CORE are the Chairs of the two Commissions on Standards and Accreditation who shall also be voting members of CORE. All appointees to CORE should be Certified Rehabilitation Counselors (CRCs), except the public members. CORE appointees may serve two consecutive four-year terms. The Graduate Commission on Standards and Accreditation is the evaluation component of CORE. It is the responsibility of this Commission to evaluate programs for their compliance with standards and to recommend to CORE the granting of accreditation. The Graduate Commission is comprised of at least 15 and no more than 20 individuals who serve for a four-year term with a maximum of two full terms. The Commission consists of representatives from CORE s sponsoring organizations, professional organizations associated with academic areas to be accredited, and other at-large nominees from rehabilitation organizations, consumer groups, and publics. Appointments to the Graduate Commission are made by CORE upon receipt of nominations from designated organizations or groups. The sponsoring organizations/groups are as follows: the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA) (2), the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC) (1), the Consortia of Administrators for Native American Rehabilitation (CANAR) (1), the National Association of Multicultural Rehabilitation Concerns (NAMRC) (1), the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) (2), the National Council on Rehabilitation Education (NCRE) (2), the National Rehabilitation Counseling Association (NRCA) (2), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (1), and the Vocational Evaluation and Career Assessment Professionals (VECAP) (1). CORE will consider applications for new organization membership on CORE or the Graduate Commission as interest may emerge. Applications may be obtained from the CORE Office and may be submitted at any time. The application must include the following: (1) a brief description of the mission of the organization for which representation is desired, (2) the number of representatives requested, (3) rationale for representation, (4) background information of individual organization desiring representation (name, address, phone, contact person), (5) statement or agreement to cover related expenses for attendance at regularly scheduled meetings, and (6) willingness to participate in and follow the responsibilities of the component as outlined in the CORE Bylaws. Approval of new organization membership on the CORE Board or the Graduate Commission requires a two-thirds vote of the CORE membership. The Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation is responsible for recommendations to CORE for the standards and criteria required for undergraduate programs in Rehabilitation Services and Disability Studies. It will consist of at least 12 and no more than 20 individuals. The Commission shall consist of representatives associated with academic areas addressed in the Registry, and other at-large nominees from undergraduate institutions, rehabilitation organizations, consumer groups, and members of the public. All nominations must be ratified by a majority vote of the CORE membership. Membership shall be for a four-year term with a maximum of two full terms. In the event of a Commissioner resignation, the Commission will nominate a new member by majority vote. That nomination shall be ratified by a majority vote of the CORE membership and will begin a new term. The composition of the Commission on Undergraduate Standards and Accreditation is explained in the Undergraduate Accreditation Manual. 5

9 ACCREDITATION AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA There are two types of accreditation granted by CORE. Accreditation is granted only upon recommendation from the Commission after that body reviews a program s compliance with applicable standards. The types of accreditation are: Candidate for Accreditation and Full Accreditation. First-time applicants may be granted accreditation for up to three years. Programs previously accredited may be granted accreditation for up to eight years. Based on the nature of the conditions, either type of program may be granted accreditation for two years. Upon correction of the conditions, accreditation may be extended to eight or three years depending on the program application status. 1. CANDIDATE FOR ACCREDITATION: Accreditation granted to programs that are in the early stages of development or implementation, up to the point of graduating 10 students. This accreditation provides evidence that a program complies with all standards except those having to do with the performance of graduates. Programs granted this accreditation are considered to be accredited by CORE. Candidacy for Accreditation is granted by CORE only when there is an understanding that the program plans to eventually seek Full Accreditation. A program need not have begun course instruction to apply. spacing issues Programs not eligible to be considered for Full Accreditation are encouraged to seek ongoing consultation with persons experienced and educated in the preparation of programs for accreditation. Candidacy for Accreditation may be granted to a program for a period of two or three years. 2. FULL ACCREDITATION: Accreditation granted to programs that have been fully operational long enough to allow for the objective assessment of the professional performance of graduates. The program must have 10 students in the final term or graduation status at the time of the site visit, and have the equivalent of at least one full-time faculty position assigned to the program under consideration. This accreditation provides evidence that a program complies with all standards and is deemed able to maintain that level of compliance through the duration of the accreditation. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The following criteria are the minimal requirements necessary to be considered for either type of accreditation: be part of an educational institution that is accredited by the appropriate regional accreditation body and that offers graduate degrees in areas other than that being evaluated; provide for two years of full-time graduate study; have institutional approval for courses and degrees offered; have a person designated as coordinator, or the equivalent, who is a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) have a written statement of the program mission, objectives, curriculum, and criteria for student selection. 6 1/30/2012

10 ACCREDITATION APPLICATION PROCEDURES An educational program seeking accreditation by CORE must apply for consideration. The application process is similar, regardless of the type of accreditation being sought, and is designed to assure that the program meets the eligibility requirements. The application consists of an application form, a nonrefundable application fee, and specified program information. The application form requires the signature of the program coordinator and appropriate institutional official(s). It serves as: 1. a contract between CORE and the institution for conducting appropriate evaluations and handling payment of appropriate fees; 2. authorization for CORE to collect information from specified persons in the evaluation process; 3. authorization for CORE to inform other relevant accreditation bodies of the fact that the program has applied for accreditation; 4. authorization for CORE to publish any accreditation that is granted in listings of recognized programs and to respond to relevant inquiries; and 5. agreement for the evaluation to be based on standards and procedures in effect at the time of the application, subject to prior notification of those standards and the opportunity to withdraw the application. The non-refundable application fee serves to keep the application active for at least one full year unless the institution withdraws its application. Descriptions and data are requested in sufficient detail to determine whether the program meets the eligibility requirements. Consideration for CORE accreditation is an annual process. Applications for accreditation are made in April. Data collection and evaluation occur between August of one year through any submission of supplemental information from the program. Application forms and instructions are typically updated annually to indicate the deadline date for application, time lines for eligibility decisions and data collection, and the specifications for program information to be submitted as part of the application. In considering program eligibility, the CORE office determines, (1) the sufficiency of information submitted for making a decision and requests additional information as needed, (2) whether the mission and goals of the program are relevant to professional preparation that CORE can appropriately evaluate and recognize, and (3) whether the program meets the stated eligibility requirements. If the program meets the eligibility requirements for a type of accreditation different from that for which application was made, then that determination is reported to the program. Eligible programs are informed of that fact and entered into further data collection and evaluation during the current cycle. 7 1/30/2012

11 EVALUATION PROCEDURES Once a program is found to be eligible for consideration by CORE, the process is as follows: 1. All members of the Commission and the regional accrediting body that has already accredited the parent institution are informed by the CORE office that the program is being evaluated and the type of accreditation that is being sought. 2. Data collection instructions are sent by the CORE office, or its designee, to the program coordinator for completion. The coordinator completes the form providing contact information for students/graduates and employers and submits to the CORE administrative office. 4. The coordinator sends the completed Self Study Document to the CORE office. 5. Upon receipt and review of the Self Study Document, the CORE office may request additional information from the program coordinator or return the Document if it is not prepared according to the established guidelines. 6. Upon receipt of all information and data from individual respondents, quantifiable responses are analyzed by computer. 7. The Self Study Document and computer analysis of program data and ratings are submitted to the Site Visit Team. 8. A site visit is conducted. 9. The Site Visit Team prepares a preliminary report (PRCR) of program strengths and deficiencies, based on data available. This report is sent to the program coordinator to provide an opportunity to comment on the factual accuracy of the report. 10. Any additional factual or clarifying information from the coordinator is forwarded to the Site Visit Team for consideration in preparation of its Final Review Committee Report to the Commission. (See CORE policy regarding comments to the PRCR on pages 12 and 13 of this manual.) 11. At the annual Graduate Commission meeting, at least two Commission members who have not previously reviewed the materials submitted, examine all documentation and prepare a Final Summary Report with appropriate rationale and specific conditions and/or recommendations. 12. In official session, the Commission edits and approves a Final Summary Report of the program concluding with recommendations to CORE regarding accreditation. The Chair of the Commission presents this report to CORE. 13. In the event, due to exceptional circumstances, that the Graduate Commission believes it is unable to forward a recommendation on the accreditation of a program which has been discussed in a formal Commission meeting, it shall provide clear rationale of the decision why no Commission recommendation was provided to CORE. Because of the implications for a program, a decision to not forward a recommendation should be discussed thoroughly by the 8 1/30/2012

12 Commission. The Commission should also provide a recommendation to CORE for what action and/or possible procedures should be followed to assist the program in the future. The Chair of the Commission will submit this rationale to CORE so there is a record of the disposition of the program s accreditation application and review. CORE, in consultation with the Chair of the Commission, will communicate the decision to the program coordinator and develop appropriate timelines and procedures to complete the review process, if needed. If the program is accredited, the accreditation of such program will continue until CORE can reach a decision. 14. In official session, CORE at its Annual Meeting, provides final editing and makes the final decision regarding accreditation. 15. The results of CORE s decision regarding accreditation, conditions and/or recommendations for program improvement, upon accreditation, are provided in writing to the program coordinator and chief administrative officer signing the application. The appropriate regional accrediting body is notified of the accreditation decision. 16. During the last year of the current term of accreditation, the RCE Program may reapply for a new term of accreditation. All procedures used in the process are the same for all applicants. 17. Programs not granted accreditation may reapply during the academic year following the decision not to grant accreditation or anytime thereafter. Reapplication cannot be initiated during an appeal. FOCUS ON ACADEMIC QUALITY Academic quality is determined by the extent to which each program implements the several standards/criteria that have been established by the profession to effectively deliver important teaching, learning, research, and service to individuals with disabilities. These factors are often listed as components of program mission statements. Evidence of academic quality is demonstrated and achieved by effective use of trained site reviewers, a multi-level accreditation review process, up-todate preparation standards, feedback from employers of graduates, and the performance (employment success) of graduates. Continuous evaluation and review of accreditation standards is critical to the success and performance of graduates. CORE has established and revised several procedures for obtaining feedback to assess the quality and success of accredited programs. To evaluate academic quality, input must be obtained regarding the scope of curriculum, the value of internship and related field experiences, the training of program reviewers, the feedback from graduates and employers on the skills and knowledge demonstrated following graduation, the importance of peer review, periodic re-training of program reviewers, staggered turnover of CORE leadership to prevent stagnation and complacency, and the assessment of breadth and relevance of program mission and goals. The frequency of assessment and the mission of accredited programs (service, research, etc.) are also factors that must be monitored and given attention to maintain academic quality. CORE advances academic quality by requiring on-going evaluation of RCE programs and requiring that evaluation results are communicated to institution administration with corresponding recommendations for further improvement, modification, and/or changes. In determining the 9 1/30/2012

13 accreditation status of a program, CORE examines a number of factors that influence educational quality including the following: 1. Data analysis from the survey questionnaires. This is provided to RCE programs undergoing accreditation review and is another means of advancing academic quality. Specific areas of a curriculum that need to be addressed by the program can be identified when graduates and employers rate one area of a curriculum lower than other areas or when an area is rated as unsatisfactory. 2. Review of the syllabi that are submitted as part of the Self Study. Occasionally syllabi will be missing an important component (e.g. course objectives or course evaluation procedures) or will indicate that outdated texts are used. Academic quality also encompasses the learning environment of students. Although it is not a standard, programs are encouraged to have statements on their syllabi that address the needs of individuals with disabilities, (e.g., Students who need special accommodations because of a documented disability should make their needs known to the instructor as soon as possible. The instructor will make every effort to accommodate the special needs of students. 3. Meetings with clinical supervisors during a site visit. Changes in a program s Practicum or Internship frequently result from such meetings. These field experiences provide the real evidence for the strength of the academic curriculum. 4. Review of faculty vitae. These are submitted as part of the Self Study Document or as part of the Monitoring process when changes in faculty occur. It is noted that some programs hire faculty who have no academic credentials in rehabilitation counseling. CORE advances academic quality by assuring that individuals teaching full-time in a rehabilitation counseling program have the knowledge and skills to teach in such a program. 5. Review of departmental/rce admission policies. Because RCE Programs are frequently located within a larger department, site visits have revealed admission practices that may negatively impact a program (e.g., one department allocated 15 slots for new graduate students each year, regardless of the majors of the students. The RCE Program at this institution was admitting 2-3 students per year. Because of the importance of this issue, CORE established a new standard that a program had to have enough students to constitute a viable learning community. 6. Interviews with faculty and students. It is important for site visitors to interview current students and recent graduates about the strengths and weaknesses of a program. This opportunity for face-to-face feedback allows reviewers to gain a better perspective of the quality in the curriculum and faculty that cannot always be obtained from or through forcedchoice questionnaires. 7. Annual review of preparation standards. In order to maintain academic quality, CORE reviews its accreditation standards each year to help programs respond to changes and priorities of the profession and trends in the needs of employers. Through communications on the CORE website and updates in annual newsletters, program faculty are informed of recent trends and new research that may influence the curricula and field experience practices. Programs can modify student expectations and provide relevant information through technology and other on-line options to improve academic quality. 10 1/30/2012

14 ACCREDITATION REVIEW PROCESS The review process consists of three major elements: a Self-Study Document, data collection from CORE questionnaires, and the site visit. The Self-Study Document contains descriptive, written information about a program (e.g., program manuals, syllabi, vita). The CORE questionnaires, which are disseminated to second-year students, recent graduates, and employers of the program s graduates, provide evaluative ratings about various aspects of the program s operations, the quality of students, and the performance of graduates. Once the data is collected and analyzed, it is sent for further analysis and review to the Site Visit Team. Refinements in the CORE questionnaires occur periodically to help assure objective and consistent evaluations. The use of the questionnaires enhances objectivity, breadth of input, and consistency of input across RCE Programs. The site visit provides for direct observation and review that, in combination with the program Self- Study, ensures a comprehensive assessment of the graduate program. The site visit supplies critical information about a program, verifying and supplementing the information contained in the Self Study Document and adding information about program operation that can only be obtained by visitation and direct observation. SITE VISIT PROCESS, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES Site Visitor Pool. Site visitors are selected from a site visitor roster comprised of individuals who have completed the Site Visitor Training Program presented by CORE. Each person on the site visitor roster must have the CRC and meet the following criteria: be a member of an organization holding membership on CORE or the Graduate Commission; have successfully completed training on CORE accreditation procedures; be a certified rehabilitation counselor or hold another relevant professional credential that is accepted by CORE; be an educator or have been an educator from an institution with an accredited RCE Program and who has been a faculty member for at least three years since receiving a doctoral degree; if a non-educator, have a minimum of three years of experience in the supervision of rehabilitation professionals or be employed either by an established community rehabilitation program or a state rehabilitation agency; have submitted a statement detailing a commitment to participate in the review of programs as prescribed by CORE. 11 1/30/2012

15 Site Visit Team. Each Site Visit Team is composed of two members who are acceptable to the institution under review and includes at least one individual who is an educator. If a program offers significant distance education (on-line) courses related to a master s degree, a third reviewer may be assigned to the site visit team. In most situations one member of the Site Visit Team is also a member of CORE s Graduate Commission on Standards and Accreditation. The RCE Program identifies any conflict of interest among individuals listed on the site visitor roster. The Chair of the Site Visit Team must be an individual with prior experience as a CORE site visitor. No one is selected to review a particular institution who: works in the same state as the program under review; has reviewed the institution within the past five years; is a recent appointee or employee of the institution or is related to an employee of the institution; is a graduate of the program; or can personally identify any potential or apparent positive or negative conflicts of interest with the program, its faculty or staff. It is recognized that acquaintances abound within the small community of rehabilitation counselor educators. Thus, care is taken to avoid potential conflicts of interest, but mere acquaintance need not disqualify a potential site visitor. The essential requirement is that each site visitor be a neutral observer who can focus on the quality of the program in relation to CORE criteria. In addition to demonstrating impartiality, all site visitors must respect the confidentiality of the information gathered during the review. Site Visit Preparation. The Chair of the Site Visit Team contacts the RCE Program Coordinator to make preliminary arrangements for the visit. This includes agreeing upon the dates for the visit, setting up a provisional schedule of interviews and meetings, and determining arrangements for hotel, transportation, and other practical necessities. For example, the RCE Program is asked to arrange for a large office or a small conference room where the team can conduct interviews or discussions. Access to a telephone and a computer with a printer may also be appropriate. The Site Visit Team Chair communicates information about the arrangements to the team member(s) and to the CORE Administrative Office. The site visit team should not be held responsible for any costs involved with the site visit. The Site Visit Team will have thoroughly studied all of the materials from the institution s self-study as well as the data analysis from the questionnaires prior to the site visit. In reading the written materials describing the program under review, site visitors will note any questions or issues to be explored during the interviews. They will determine whether the materials adequately demonstrate that the program meets each of the CORE standards. If not, they will determine what further information will be required to reach a decision. Any inconsistencies between elements within the report are noted and special strengths or deficiencies of the program are identified. After reviewing the self-study materials and prior to the visit, the Site Visit Team Chair confers with the program coordinator to arrange for any changes in the provisional schedule (e.g., to ensure that issues identified in the reviews of the self-study are addressed or for any other reason) and to ensure that all arrangements are in place. 12 1/30/2012

16 Site Visit Agenda. The duration of the site visit varies according to the purpose being served by the visit. Site visits typically range between two and three days. The site visitors usually arrive the afternoon before the visit. The team generally has an opening conference with the RCE Program Coordinator to gain an overall orientation and understanding of the RCE Program and to clarify any ambiguous materials or data from the program self-study. The agenda includes opportunities for the Site Visit Team to visit with or observe: facilities (e.g., counseling laboratory; offices and other space used by faculty and students in the program; the library, including a review of the journals and texts relevant to rehabilitation counseling; computer and audiovisual facilities; and support services, especially those for students with disabilities) and interview key individuals and groups (e.g., relevant administrative personnel of the institution, teaching staff and clinical supervisors, current students in the RCE Program, available graduates of the RCE Program, employers of graduates, and Advisory Committee members). The RCE Program makes relevant materials and records available on-site at the team s request. Such materials may include, but are not limited to: course descriptions and schedules, records about student and faculty competency and activities, program announcements and publications, fiscal records, grant applications, Advisory Committee minutes, agreements with and reports to agencies about clinical practice experience and supervision. At the conclusion of the site visit, the team holds a final conference with the RCE Program Coordinator, a college or university administrator, and perhaps other program faculty. A sample Site Visit Agenda appears in the Graduate Training Manual of the Accreditation Process (pages 8-9). Preliminary Review Committee Report. The Preliminary Review Committee Report (PRCR), which is generated by the site visit team following a review of an RCE program s Self Study Document and a visit to the program, is a critical document for both CORE and the RCE program. It provides a road map for continuing improvements of an RCE program and is used by the Commission and CORE to determine accreditation decisions, including any conditions that an RCE program must meet. The site visit team should conclude the report with a Summary of Strengths and Deficiencies, a list of possible conditions and a list of possible recommendations, if needed. Conditions should be listed in the same order as the Standards. The last three report components (summary, conditions, and recommendations are not included in the PRCR that is sent to the program coordinator. The Preliminary Review Committee Report is submitted only to the program coordinator. RCE coordinators may provide copies of the Preliminary Review Committee Report to others (e.g., university administrators, advisory committees, program faculty). After the Preliminary Review Committee Report is received and reviewed by CORE s executive director, the Chair of the Graduate Commission, and the administrative office, it is mailed to the program coordinator who then has thirty days to respond to any statements or assessments with which they disagree by submitting three copies of additional evidence to the CORE office. This evidence is then forwarded to the site visit team in sufficient time to allow the site visit team to prepare a revised, or Final Review Committee Report for the Commission. Because the site visit provides a "snapshot" of a program at a point in time, it is inappropriate for a program coordinator to develop new procedures, processes, or manuals during the site visit or supply them as supplemental information following the site visit, when they have not been used. It is appropriate to make such changes and provide this evidence in the Annual Program Progress Report that is required of all CORE-accredited RCE programs. Upon receipt of the program coordinator s response to the PRCR, the site review team prepares the Final Review Committee Report (FRCR) and 13 1/30/2012

17 submits it to the CORE administrative office for review by the Graduate Commission at its annual meeting. An accreditation recommendation on the program is then submitted to CORE. Site Visit Evaluation. The RCE Program Coordinator is asked to evaluate the site visit process after the preliminary report has been sent to the coordinator. The evaluation is returned to the CORE Administrative Office to determine whether the institution found the review process to be fair and impartial, to be appropriately cordial, and whether the self-study process and site visit resulted in recommendations that would help to strengthen the RCE Program. The Site Visit Evaluation is strictly confidential and is not shared with the Site Visit Team. MONITORING PROCESS At the Annual Meeting of the Graduate Commission on Standards and Accreditation, Commissioners serve as members of the Monitoring Committee to review the status of currently accredited RCE Programs. Each RCE Program is required to submit to CORE, an Annual Program Progress Report that includes, (1) demographic data on the program for the current academic year, (2) changes in faculty, courses, coordinator, program affiliation, and (3) responses to any conditions established by CORE. The role of the Commissioners as Monitoring Committee Members is to: review each Annual Program Progress Report; evaluate the program s responses to unmet conditions; determine the impact of programmatic changes; and recommend to CORE whether accreditation should be continued. For programs that have received a two-year term of accreditation, a determination must be made whether the program has satisfied conditions and whether the term of accreditation should be extended an additional year (for programs in their first period of accreditation) or six additional years (for programs previously accredited). Each RCE Program is reviewed by two individuals on the Graduate Commission. If the individuals are in agreement, no further review is necessary. If the two individuals disagree, a third individual evaluates the materials. In situations where (1) conditions have not been met and/or (2) substantial changes have occurred in the program, the program shall be reviewed by the entire Commission. Conflict of interest guidelines apply to the Monitoring Committee. Members do not review a program that is within their state. (see the Policy Section Conflict of Interest in the Graduate Accreditation Manual for other considerations related to conflict of interest). 14 1/30/2012

18 NOTIFICATION OF DECISIONS Within 30 days of any CORE decision affecting the status of an RCE Program, CORE notifies the chief administrative officer of the institution and program coordinator of the RCE Program the decision and the rationale for the decision. Immediately after the CORE meeting, at which a RCE Program is granted the status of Candidate for Accreditation or Full Accreditation, the President of CORE, on behalf of CORE, sends a notice to the chief administrative officer of the institution and the program coordinator of the RCE Program detailing the accreditation status granted to the program. This notice indicates the effective date of accreditation status, duration of accreditation status, and any conditions or recommendations specified in the final action (status granted) of CORE. If a program is denied the status of Candidate for Accreditation or Full Accreditation, the President of CORE, on behalf of CORE, sends a letter to the chief administrative officer of the institution and the program coordinator of the RCE Program specifying the details of the program s denial of accreditation. This notice indicates the effective date of denial of accreditation status and the revocation of accreditation by CORE, the rationale for denial, and the CORE appeals process. The chief administrative officer of the institution and the program coordinator of the RCE Program maintain the discretion to distribute the CORE letter and subsequent report as they see fit. In the event that an RCE Program or its sponsoring institution publishes or otherwise disseminates information that misrepresents or distorts the CORE action taken with respect to the accreditation process or status of an RCE Program, the following occurs: The chief administrative officer of the sponsoring institution and the program coordinator of the RCE Program are notified in writing of the misrepresentation or distortion and are asked to take corrective action in writing regarding the misrepresentation or distortion. Should representatives of the sponsoring institution and/or the representatives of the RCE Program fail to take appropriate corrective action, CORE may publish a statement providing correct information to all appropriate publics. This publication may occur in a newsletter or in whatever form the Executive Committee of CORE deems appropriate. Permission to duplicate and/or distribute letters or any other documents submitted as documentation in the accreditation review process of a RCE Program must be granted by the program coordinator of the RCE Program, or, in consultation with the program coordinator, the chief administrative officer of the institution at which the RCE Program is housed. Probationary Accreditation CORE may place a program on probation if it is judged to not be in compliance with accreditation standards and/or is not responding appropriately to CORE administrative requirements. A program may also be placed on probation because the program has not corrected deficiencies noted earlier in an accreditation evaluation and/or has not addressed deficiencies in an Annual Program Progress Report. 15 1/30/2012

19 APPEALS PROCEDURES General Procedures A program may appeal a final CORE decision that denies the program: Candidacy for Accreditation or grants such program accreditation for a term of less than three years; Accreditation or grants such program accreditation for a term of less than eight years; or continued accreditation for failure to meet a condition or conditions stated in CORE s accreditation decision. An interim decision by CORE or by any of CORE s subordinate functions cannot be appealed. The existing accreditation status of the RCE Program appealing a decision of CORE is maintained during the appeals procedure. A program that has appealed a final CORE decision may withdraw the appeal and reapply during the academic year following the final CORE decision to withhold accreditation. An appealing program and CORE will each bear its own expenses incurred in the appeal, and will jointly and equally bear the expenses of Formal Arbitration, incidentals, travel, subsistence, and fee of the Arbitrator. A program may appeal a final CORE decision alleging that the decision was (1) without due process; or (2) arbitrary, capricious, biased, prejudicial, lacking good faith; or (3) faulty in that in processing the program s application for accreditation, CORE or CORE s subordinate functions, to the detriment of the program s accreditation, failed to comply with or failed to make available to the program, some process step or steps set out in the Accreditation Manual for Masters Level Rehabilitation Counselor Education Programs. There are two appeals stages. The first is the Informal Appeals Conference; and, failing there to work out a mutually satisfactory Agreement of Settlement, the program may appeal to the second and final stage, that of Formal Arbitration. Within 30 calendar days following receipt of notice of CORE s decision to deny a program accreditation or to deny a program continued accreditation, such program may initiate an appeal to the first appeals stage, the Informal Appeals Conference, by forwarding a registered letter to the president of CORE stating an intention to appeal, the allegations regarding CORE s decision, and the facts to be relied on. Within 15 calendar days following receipt of the intention to appeal letter, CORE s president and the person signing the intention to appeal letter will arrange by telephone a mutually suitable time and place for the Informal Appeals Conference to convene. 16 1/30/2012

20 Informal Appeals Conference The program and CORE will each, respectively, be represented by not more than three persons in the Informal Appeals Conference. Such representatives shall have full authority from their respective principals to enter into an Agreement of Settlement. The conference is intended to be less of an adversary proceeding and more of a joint effort to agree on the method, terms, conditions, circumstances, and time by which the program may achieve the accredited status for which it has applied. Discussion in the Informal Appeals Conference will be free and open; full disclosures will be made by each conferee in a good faith effort to work out a mutually satisfactory Agreement of Settlement. No stenographic or other type of record will be made of the discussion; no statement made or position taken in the Informal Appeals Conference shall be to the prejudice of any statement later to be made or position later to be taken. Any Agreement of Settlement shall be stated in full detail including any relevant dates. Such Agreement will take the place of the CORE decision appealed. If an Agreement of Settlement is not reached, and the program does not indicate an intention to appeal to the second and final step, Formal Arbitration, within five calendar days following the day on which the Informal Appeals Conference was concluded, the CORE decision appealed will become effective on the day after the fifth day. Formal Arbitration If an Agreement of Settlement is not reached in the Informal Appeals Conference and the program, within five calendar days following the day on which the conference was concluded indicates by registered letter to the president of CORE an intention to appeal to Formal Arbitration, the program representative and the president of CORE will undertake to agree upon an appropriate person to be the Arbitrator. Failing such agreement, they will request the American Arbitration Association to supply a list of five arbitrators names. From this list, each party striking two names will designate an Arbitrator. Within 30 calendar days after the Arbitrator had been designated, CORE will forward to the Arbitrator all documents, data, records, reports, correspondence, records of telephone conversations - those generated by the program and those generated by CORE or any of CORE s subordinate functions - which comprise the complete body of information on which CORE based the final decision being appealed. The program s representative will be afforded opportunity to verify the completeness and accuracy of this submission. Within the same 30 calendar days, the program and CORE will each forward to the Arbitrator briefs of fact and argument, and exchange these briefs with each other. The program s brief will contend that the body of information on which CORE based its final decision being appealed supports the program s appeal allegations. CORE s brief will support the final CORE decision being appealed. Within 15 calendar days after the exchange of briefs, the parties may forward to the Arbitrator a brief responding to each other s original brief. The program shall have the burden of persuasion. 17 1/30/2012