IACDE operates as an independent, private quality-assurance and accreditation organization. Its accreditation jurisdiction arises through its governance documents, adopted standards and policies, accreditation agreements, professional review processes and the voluntary participation of institutions seeking IACDE recognition.

New Mexico business registration establishes the legal existence of the IACDE entity. It does not constitute governmental approval of IACDE accreditation and must not be represented as recognition by the U.S. Department of Education, CHEA or another governmental or nongovernmental recognition body.

Each institution remains responsible for maintaining licenses, exemptions, authorizations and other approvals required by the jurisdictions in which it operates.

Applicants must provide sufficient information for IACDE to identify the institution or organization seeking recognition, determine the proposed scope of review and evaluate eligibility under current standards.

Applications, declarations and supporting records must be accurate, current and materially complete. IACDE may request original documents, independent verification, additional evidence or clarification whenever identity, authority, ownership, scope or authenticity is uncertain.

Acceptance of an application, fee, preliminary inquiry, pre-qualification or other administrative step does not guarantee Candidate Status or Accreditation.

Candidate Status identifies an institution that has entered IACDE’s formal accreditation process and is continuing through self-study, evidence development, institutional improvement and review. It is not Full Accreditation.

Candidate institutions must make reasonable progress, satisfy reporting and payment obligations, remain eligible and respond to required improvement activities. They may not state or imply that Full Accreditation is guaranteed.

Membership, partnership, training participation, evaluator service, advisory involvement and other relationships are distinct from Candidate or Accredited Status and must not be represented as accreditation.

Institutions undergoing comprehensive review are expected to address applicable standards through a formal self-study supported by credible evidence. IACDE may request additional documentation, interviews, demonstrations or virtual review activities when necessary to evaluate conformity.

Peer reviewers evaluate evidence against the published criteria assigned to the review. Reviewers provide findings and professional judgments but do not independently guarantee or award accreditation.

Mentors, consultants, advisors and administrative personnel may explain the process and support institutional readiness, but they may not promise a favorable Commission outcome.

Formal accreditation status is determined through authorized Commission action based on the record properly before the decision-making body, including institutional evidence, self-study, review findings, written responses and other relevant materials.

Persons with disqualifying conflicts must not participate in the decision. Financial contribution, membership, sponsorship, consulting activity, personal relationships or organizational influence may not purchase or guarantee an accreditation result.

Material decisions should be documented through official records and communicated through authorized IACDE channels.

IACDE recognition applies only to the legal entity, program, credential level, location, modality or other scope identified in the applicable Commission action and public directory.

Institutions may use only the status formally granted to them and must distinguish Candidate, Accredited, Probationary, Suspended, Withdrawn, Expired, Member and other classifications accurately.

Accreditation claims may not imply guaranteed transfer credit, professional licensure, federal student-aid eligibility, government authorization or acceptance by another institution, employer or regulator unless separately supported by the relevant authority.

Institutions must notify IACDE of substantive changes within the timeframe required by the governing manual or policy. Material changes include changes in ownership, governance, legal status, executive or academic leadership, mission, major program scope, instructional sites, financial condition, bankruptcy, closure plans, or required licensure or regulatory approval.

IACDE may request supporting documentation, impose conditions, conduct focused review or determine that a revised scope or new accreditation action is necessary.

Failure to disclose a known substantive change may itself constitute a compliance matter.

Candidate and Accredited institutions must maintain continuing compliance with applicable standards and provide periodic information requested by IACDE. Annual reporting may include institutional profile information, enrollment and completion data, financial attestations, program changes and updates on prior conditions or recommendations.

Full Accreditation is subject to the term and reaffirmation requirements stated in current IACDE policy. Reaffirmation may require a new self-study, peer evaluation and Commission review.

Failure to complete required reporting or reaffirmation may result in monitoring, probation, suspension or loss of recognition.

Institutions are responsible for the fees applicable to their accreditation stage under the current published Fee Schedule and any controlling written agreement. Payment supports administrative and review activity; it does not guarantee a favorable decision.

Refund eligibility is determined by the current adopted financial policy, the nature of the fee, timing of withdrawal and work already performed. Institutions should review the controlling schedule and terms before payment.

Material nonpayment may result in administrative hold, suspension of services, loss of good standing, removal from public listings or other action authorized by policy. Accreditation judgment on academic quality remains separate from the fact of payment.

Stakeholders may submit a written complaint alleging that IACDE has materially violated its own standards, policies or procedures. The complaint should identify specific facts, supporting evidence and the policy or procedure believed to have been violated.

Complaints concerning IACDE should be reviewed by an appropriate compliance function and escalated to an independent review body when warranted. Findings and corrective actions, if any, should be documented and communicated as permitted by policy.

A disagreement with the merits of an appealable accreditation decision is ordinarily handled through the Appeals Policy rather than through an internal-conduct complaint.

Retaliation against a person for good-faith participation in an IACDE complaint, appeal, review or compliance inquiry is prohibited. Candidate and Accredited institutions are expected to permit truthful communication with IACDE without retaliation.

This protection does not shield knowingly false statements, deliberate fabrication, harassment or misuse of the complaint process.

Retaliation concerns may be considered as an independent ethics or compliance issue in addition to the underlying matter.

IACDE may place an institution on probation or require corrective action when it is out of compliance with one or more standards or fails to remedy identified deficiencies. A corrective-action plan may include defined steps, evidence expectations, timelines and interim review.

Revocation may be considered for serious or persistent noncompliance, fraud, material misrepresentation, refusal to cooperate, failure to satisfy probation conditions or other grounds stated in governing policy.

Institutions seeking recognition again after withdrawal or revocation must satisfy current eligibility requirements and any applicable waiting period, new application, evidence, candidacy and peer-review requirements.

Institutional applications, self-studies, review findings, reviewer notes, internal deliberations and other protected accreditation information are handled as confidential except where disclosure is authorized or required.

IACDE’s manual provides for secure retention of accreditation evaluations, decisions, appeals and complaints, typically for a minimum period stated in the controlling records policy.

Records relevant to pending litigation, governmental inquiry, appeal, complaint, investigation, audit or other formal preservation obligation should not be routinely destroyed while that obligation remains active.

Candidate and Accredited institutions may use only the seal, logo, designation and accreditation language authorized for their current status and approved scope.

Institutions may not imply Full Accreditation during candidacy, use an IACDE mark after recognition ends, alter an official mark in a misleading manner, or extend accreditation claims to unreviewed entities or programs.

IACDE may require correction or removal of improper claims, issue public clarification, impose accreditation consequences, or pursue other remedies available under policy or law.

Institutions must represent accreditation status accurately in websites, catalogs, announcements, marketing and other public communications and must update statements after a material status change within the timeframe required by policy.

IACDE may issue official notices concerning accreditation actions, sanctions, corrective measures and material misrepresentation while protecting confidential review materials to the extent required by policy.

Submitted information may be used for accreditation evaluation, institutional monitoring, public directories and appropriately aggregated or non-identifiable quality reporting consistent with governing privacy and confidentiality requirements.