The Benchmark II document should be divided into three volumes as described below.
Volume 1 – Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS)
Section 1-Compliance Accreditation Standards
The first section of volume 1 contains a series of narratives that demonstrate the program’s compliance with the first portion of Benchmark II. This portion of Benchmark II, labeled “Benchmark II—Compliance with the Following Accreditation Standards,” consists of specific accreditation standards the program must be in compliance with during Commissioner Visit II. The commissioner uses this section to make a recommendation to the full COA.
Section 2-Draft Accreditation Standards
The second section of volume 1 contains a series of draft narratives that address the second portion of Benchmark II. This portion of Benchmark II, which is shaded and labeled “Benchmark II--Draft of the Following Accreditation Standards,” consists of specific standards that must be addressed in draft form during Commissioner Visit II. The commissioner consults with the program on how to develop this section further for their Benchmark III document and Commissioner Visit III.
Format
Each accreditation standard should be addressed in a separate narrative headed by the number and full text of each standard for easy identification by the COA reader. Programs should refer to the compliance column of the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements while writing Volume I of the Benchmark II document. It explains the minimum requirements for completely and clearly meeting an accreditation standard and related educational policy and why the COA would cite either as an area of concern or noncompliance.
Volume 2 – Syllabi
Volume two contains the program’s course syllabi.
Volume 3 – Supporting Documentation
Volume three is the appendix and contains a draft of the field education manual, the final version of the student handbook, and any other supporting documentation.
Submission of the Benchmark II Document
The Benchmark II Document is submitted 1 month before the commissioner visit (see the Timetable for Candidacy for submission instructions).
The Benchmark II document should be divided into three volumes as described below.
Volume 1 – Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS)
Section 1-Compliance Accreditation Standards
The first section of volume 1 contains a series of narratives that demonstrate the program’s compliance with the first portion of Benchmark II. This portion of Benchmark II, labeled “Benchmark II—Compliance with the Following Accreditation Standards,” consists of specific accreditation standards the program must be in compliance with during Commissioner Visit II. The commissioner uses this section to make a recommendation to the full COA.
Section 2-Draft Accreditation Standards
The second section of volume 1 contains a series of draft narratives that address the second portion of Benchmark II. This portion of Benchmark II, which is shaded and labeled “Benchmark II—Draft of the Following Accreditation Standards,” consists of specific standards that must be addressed in draft form during Commissioner Visit II. The commissioner consults with the program on how to develop this section further for their Initial Accreditation Self-Study and Commissioner Visit III.
Format
Each accreditation standard should be addressed in a separate narrative headed by the number and full text of each standard for easy identification by the COA reader. Programs should refer to the compliance column of the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements while writing Volume II of the Benchmark II document. It explains the minimum requirements for completely and clearly meeting an accreditation standard and related educational policy and why the COA would cite either as an area of concern or non-compliance.
Volume 2 – Syllabi
Volume two contains drafts of the program’s course syllabi.
Volume 3 – Supporting Documentation
Volume three is the appendix and contains a draft of the student handbook, field manual, and any other supporting documentation.
The commission visitor’s primary task is to discuss the Benchmark II document and identify areas of compliance and noncompliance in the first part of the Benchmark II document. The visitor will also ask the program whether there have been any changes since the last visit and determine whether any of those changes affect the program’s compliance.
The visitor also reviews the draft standards in the second part of the Benchmark II document and identifies areas of further development that the program can use in writing the compliance section of the Initial Accreditation Self-Study.
Qualifications
Commissioner Visit II is conducted by a current or recently retired member of the COA. Commissioners have a minimum of 5 years of teaching experience and have been experienced site visitors prior to serving on the COA.
Selecting the Commission Visitor
The director of OSWA and site visit coordinator select a commissioner to make Commissioner Visit II. The commission visitor contacts the program to arrange a date for the visit and lets the site visit coordinator know when the visit will occur. Commissioner visits for programs on the February agenda take place between September 1 and November 15; on the June agenda, between December 1 and February 28; and on the October agenda, between March 1 and May 31.
Program Preparation for the Commissioner Visit
The program director should communicate with the commission visitor about arrangements such as travel plans, work space requirements in the hotel and on campus, and the schedule for the commissioner visit. The program’s chief administrator or designee should confirm all arrangements with the commission visitor in writing. Programs are to provide prepaid airline tickets and should consult with the commission visitor about the most convenient airline carrier and flight times. Coach fare is expected. The program should also inform the commission visitor about transportation from the airport to the campus.
The commission visitor should be housed in a hotel, not in a dormitory or other campus housing. The program should make arrangements with the hotel to pay the bill, minus any of the commission visitor’s personal expenses, directly. Hotel accommodations should be arranged so that the commission visitor has a place to work on the Benchmark II Review Brief.
Ground transportation and meals not taken at the hotel are likely to be out-of-pocket expenses for the commission visitor, and the program should inform the commission visitor how reimbursement for these expenses will be managed.
Communication Guidelines
The program director is the person responsible for all communication with the commission visitor. Faculty members, students, or others should not communicate with the commission visitor before the arrival on campus, nor after the arrival until the appointed time in the commissioner visit schedule. Constituent groups desiring to meet with the commission visitor should request that the program’s chief administrator arrange time on the commissioner visit agenda. It is inappropriate for the commission visitor to receive anonymous documents, telephone calls, or other similar information. The commission visitor is instructed to discuss any such incidents with the program’s chief administrator and to refuse written or verbal information that cannot be shared openly.
Commission Visitor Arrival
During the first evening the commission visitor works alone to prepare for the visit. The program director may meet with the commission visitor to extend a brief welcome, explain the schedule, answer any questions, and outline the arrangements to escort them to the campus. During the commissioner visit evenings are reserved for the commission visitor to work on the Benchmark II Review Brief and prepare for the exit interview. No social events should be planned for the commission visitor.
Meeting With the Institutional Administrators
The commissioner visit should begin with a meeting with the institution’s chief executive officer and other institutional administrators. The program director should escort the commission visitor to the office of the chief executive officer of the institution and, after introductions, permit the commission visitor to meet alone with the chief executive officer. The purpose of this meeting is to explain the accreditation process, learn more about the role and place of the program within the institution’s system, and answer questions from the president or chancellor. When it is impossible to meet with the institution’s chief executive officer, it is acceptable to meet with his or her designee.
Meetings With the Social Work Program
The schedule may also include meetings with the program director, faculty members, the director of the field practicum, field instructors, students, librarians, and other individuals whose presence is relevant (such as of faculty concerned with ethnic or gender issues) to Benchmark II.
The COA does not require or recommend dismissing classes during the commissioner visit. It is expected that the schedule be planned to permit participation by all constituents without disrupting the academic schedule.
Additional Materials
If the program provides additional information to the commission visitor during the visit, three copies of those materials must be sent to the program’s accreditation specialist or associate.
Exit Interview
The commission visitor holds an exit interview, open to the people who met with the commission visitor during the visit (institutional administrators, program leadership, faculty, students, and other constituencies) to convey the findings that will be in the Benchmark II Review Brief. The commission visitor then invites the participants to ask questions, comment on the findings, and/or correct any inaccuracies. The commission visitor may respond to questions but not make judgments of whether the program is in compliance with the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, because that judgment rests with the COA.
The commission visitor should remind the program that the findings, along with the program’s response to the Benchmark II Review Brief, are reviewed by the COA before making a decision about compliance. The commission visitor should explicitly inform the institution and program that the COA will notify them of its decision about program compliance and concerns, and that it is possible that the COA’s analysis will differ from that of the commission visitor.
After the visit has concluded, contact between the program and commission visitor should end. If the program has additional questions or comments after the visit, the program should contact its accreditation specialist or associate.
Emergencies or Questions During the Commissioner Visit
DOSWA recognizes that scheduled visits may need to be delayed or cancelled due to special circumstances beyond the control of relevant parties. Examples of these special circumstances include inclement weather conditions, natural or manmade disasters, or changes to visitor’s or key personnel’s schedules due to unforeseen personal matters. As this list is not exhaustive, the visitor or program is encouraged to contact CSWE’s site visit coordinator to discuss special circumstances that may affect the completion of the visit. Cancelling or delaying a visit is an extenuating circumstance. Due to complexity in scheduling visits, cancellations and delays will be avoided whenever possible.
Should an emergency arise before the visit occurs requiring the visitor or program to delay or cancel the visit, CSWE’s site visit coordinator should be notified immediately via telephone and email. To inform the DOSWA of any delays or cancellations to a planned visit:
- The party (visitor or program) must immediately notify the site visit coordinator of the delay or cancellation along with the other party (visitor or program) via telephone and email
- The program, visitor, and site Visitor Coordinator must communicate to determine the best course of action:
- Delay visit
- Reschedule visit with same visitor for a later date
- Reschedule visit with an alternate visitor* for the original date
- Reschedule visit with an alternate visitor* for a later date
*If the program and visitor are unable to select a new visit date, the site visitor coordinator may work directly with the program to assign an alternate visitor if available. The delayed or rescheduled visit is based upon the alternate visitor’s availability.
Responsibility of Fees Incurred
The program will be responsible for any fees associated with the delayed or rescheduled the visit. Programs are advised to purchase refundable and transferrable transportation and accommodations to avoid incurring fees in the event of visit cancellation or delay.
Should an emergency arise during the visit requiring a visitor or program to leave the visit early, the site visit coordinator should be notified immediately via telephone and email. These occurrences will be handled on an individual basis.
If the site visit coordinator is unavailable, the DOSWA director or accreditation specialist may be contacted.
Questions During the Visit
Logistical questions related to visit, including concerns about boundary or ethical issues, scheduling, transportation, accommodations, or reimbursement* may be directed to the site visit coordinator.
*Per policy 2.3.4. Program Preparation for the Site Visit, requesting visitors to complete W-9 forms in order to be reimbursed is not supported by the CSWE or the DOSWA.
Visitors or a program’s primary contact may contact the program’s accreditation specialist at any time to clarify an accreditation standard or the Commission on Accreditation’s policies or procedure, such as:
- Interpretation of an accreditation standard
- Clarification of the letter of instruction
- EPAS Handbook policies and procedures
If the site visit coordinator or accreditation specialist is unavailable, the DOSWA director may be contacted.
Reimbursement for Out-of-Pocket Expenses
It is the policy of the Commission on Accreditation that:
- Programs are to provide prepaid airline tickets to site/commission visitors.
- Programs should consult with the site/commission visitors about the most convenient airline carrier and flight times.
- Programs should inform site/commission visitors about transportation from the airport to the hotel and campus.
- Programs should house site/commission visitors in hotels, not in dormitories or other campus housing.
- Programs should arrange for hotels to bill the program for site/commission visitors’ expenses minus personal expenses.
- Hotel accommodations should be arranged so that site/commission visitors have a place to work on the site visit report.
- Ground transportation and meals not taken at the hotel are likely to be out-of-pocket expenses and programs should inform site/commission visitors how reimbursement for these will be managed.
The Benchmark II Review Brief form is a tool used to guide the program in writing a complete Benchmark II document and by the commission visitor to review the program for compliance with Benchmark II and to make a recommendation to the COA. Section 2 lists each accreditation standard and related educational policy under “Compliance with the Following Accreditation Standards” in Benchmark II. Section 3 lists each accreditation standard and related educational policy under “Draft of the Following Accreditation Standards” in Benchmark II. The Compliance Statement column in either section lists the related compliance statement from the Compliance, Concern, and Noncompliance Statements.
Commission Visitor Reporting of Findings
In the C/NC column of section 2 the commission visitor types “compliance” or “noncompliance” next to each compliance statement, to report how well the program meets and addresses each item. The commission visitor indicates her or his reasoning in the Comments column for any compliance statement marked noncompliance. In section 4 of the Benchmark II Review Brief the commission visitor recommends a decision to the COA, lists areas of noncompliance with the corresponding accreditation standard, and writes a brief discussion of the problem and how the program can fix it.
Information about when the Benchmark II Review Brief is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Candidacy—2008 EPAS.
The program is required to submit a response to the Benchmark II Review Brief within 2 weeks of receiving the brief. The response must include the name and state of the program visited, the program level visited, the name of the commission visitor, and the date of the response.
The program should list each commissioner visit finding and clearly state whether it agrees or disagrees with the finding, correct any errors of fact, and clarify information it thinks may have been incorrectly understood by the commission visitor. Disagreements with the Benchmark II Review Brief visit should be stated clearly and additional documentation should be provided if necessary.
Information about when the program’s response to the Benchmark II Review Brief is due and where it should be sent is on the Timetable for Candidacy.
After reviewing the program’s Benchmark II document, the Benchmark II Review Brief submitted by the commissioner making Commission Visit II (including the commissioner’s recommendation), and the program’s response to Benchmark II Review Brief, the COA makes one of three decisions:
- Grant a Second Year of Candidacy Status. The COA finds that the program is in compliance with Benchmark II and grants the program a second year in candidacy. The decision letter instructs the program to prepare Benchmark III in preparation for its Commissioner Visit III. A commissioner will contact the program to arrange the visit.
- Defer a Decision on a Second Year of Candidacy Status and Request Clarifying Information. The COA decides to defer a decision when the program’s documentation is insufficient to make a decision. A deferral is for one meeting only. Before the next commission meeting the program is expected to submit the documentation or clarification necessary for the COA to make a decision. In extenuating circumstances, and at the COA's discretion, the COA may grant two deferrals at each Benchmark phase.
- Remove From Candidacy Status. A program is removed from candidacy status if the COA finds the program’s Benchmark II document to be inadequate. The program has two options in response to the decision: (1) to accept the decision and apply for candidacy by submitting a Benchmark I document or (2) to appeal by requesting a reconsideration of the decision. The program must notify its accreditation specialist or associate in writing which option it intends to pursue. If the program accepts the decision, it may submit a Benchmark I document and apply for candidacy status no earlier than the second COA meeting following the one at which the COA made its decision.