For SACSCOC-Accredited Institutions
Your Compliance Certification is your institution's argument. Your QEP is its promise. Campus Credit gives both the evidence.
SACSCOC's Principles of Accreditation ask institutions to demonstrate — through documented, systematically generated evidence — that academic quality is consistent across every modality and site. Campus Credit gives your Accreditation Liaison, Registrar, and Institutional Effectiveness teams the organized workflows that turn the Compliance Certification, QEP Impact Report, and substantive change packets from narrative claims into demonstrated compliance — and keep you ready for the Monitoring Reports SACSCOC requests in between.
Degree and certificate programs offered by a single SACSCOC institution across eight campuses and online — each requiring documented Section 9 program evidence and Section 8 outcomes data.
Monitoring Report turnaround requested by the SACSCOC Board following the University of Alabama at Birmingham's December 2025 reaffirmation. Reaffirmation rarely closes the file.
Interval between Compliance Certification submission and the on-site reaffirmation visit. Every standard must be substantiated by the Off-Site Reaffirmation Committee's review.
SACSCOC member institutions across 11 Southern states, Latin America, and international sites. The largest institutional accreditor in the United States by member count.
SACSCOC doesn't just ask for policies — it asks for evidence those policies are working consistently across every site
With the 2024 Edition of the Principles, SACSCOC publishes a companion Resource Manual that specifies the documentation peer reviewers expect for each standard. For Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 — the ones that govern your QEP, your student achievement evidence, your educational programs, and your operational policies — these expectations are explicit about disaggregated outcomes data, consistency across modalities and locations, and audit trails for credit-awarding decisions.
The shift from policy publication to documented practice across every site
It is no longer enough to publish a curriculum approval process. SACSCOC reviewers ask: How is it applied consistently across instructional locations and modes of delivery? How do you know? Show the records. The institutions that move through reaffirmation cleanly are the ones whose systems generate that evidence as a byproduct of normal operations — not as a special project at self-study time.
Four characteristics distinguish SACSCOC from other institutional accreditors and shape what reaffirmation committees look for:
SACSCOC is the only U.S. institutional accreditor that requires a Quality Enhancement Plan as part of reaffirmation. Standard 7.2 governs its design; its Impact Report on Student Learning is submitted with the Fifth-Year Interim Report. The QEP is what most distinguishes a SACSCOC review from any other accreditor's.
Every institutional accreditor has a substantive change policy. SACSCOC's is the one institutions in correctional, off-site, and distributed delivery encounter most often — because new sites, new credential levels, new modalities, and new partnerships all trigger notification or prior approval under the policy.
Sections 9 and 10 of the Principles use this phrase repeatedly: programs must be applied "consistently across all instructional locations and modes of delivery." For an institution operating across correctional sites, branch campuses, and online, that's an evidentiary burden that compounds with every new site.
Reaffirmation isn't the finish line. SACSCOC routinely issues actions that pair reaffirmation with a required Monitoring Report — often six months out — or, where issues are more significant, a Focused Report with on-site follow-up. The cycle of evidence production rarely pauses.
What a SACSCOC Board decision actually looks like — three documented cases
The 10-year cycle is a planning convenience, not an operating reality. Each December, the SACSCOC Board issues actions across the membership ranging from clean reaffirmation through monitoring, focused reports, probation, and removal. The three cases below — each from public SACSCOC correspondence — illustrate the spectrum institutions actually face.
The University of Alabama at Birmingham
Florida Polytechnic University
Middle Tennessee State University
SACSCOC's Substantive Change Policy is administered separately from the Principles — and it's where Campus Credit lives day-to-day
The Substantive Change Policy and Procedures sits alongside the Principles as a standalone policy document. It governs the modifications and expansions to an institution's nature and scope that require either notification, prior approval, or — in some cases — a Substantive Change Committee review before the change can take effect. SACSCOC has continued to refine the policy in recent years toward streamlined review pathways for routine modifications while preserving rigor on changes that meaningfully alter institutional scope.
Four operational events that almost always require notification or prior approval — each of which Campus Credit can document in advance
These are the events Campus Credit's partner institutions encounter most often. Whether the filing requirement is notification, prior approval, or full Committee review depends on the specific facts — but the documentation needed to support any filing is generated as a byproduct of normal operations on the platform.
The boundary stays bright: Campus Credit is not an academic provider. We do not deliver instruction, award credit, or make academic decisions. The institution's accreditation liaison remains the sole point of contact with SACSCOC, and the platform documents that boundary in writing for every partner.
The fourteen sections of the Principles — and where Campus Credit creates evidence
The 2024 Edition organizes all SACSCOC accreditation requirements across fourteen numbered sections, encompassing both Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards. Campus Credit directly addresses Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 — and contributes supporting evidence to Sections 6, 13, and 14.
The shift from policy publication to documented practice across every site
It is no longer enough to publish a curriculum approval process. SACSCOC reviewers ask: How is it applied consistently across instructional locations and modes of delivery? How do you know? Show the records. The institutions that move through reaffirmation cleanly are the ones whose systems generate that evidence as a byproduct of normal operations — not as a special project at self-study time.
Faculty qualifications (6.2.a), instructional assignments, evaluation, and program coordination (6.2.c). Academic authority rests with the institution — not the platform.
Standard 7.1 (institutional planning) and Standard 7.2 (the Quality Enhancement Plan). The QEP focuses on improving specific student learning outcomes and/or student success — and its Impact Report is submitted with the Fifth-Year Interim Report.
Standard 8.1 (student achievement goals appropriate to mission) and 8.2.a (program-level student learning outcomes). Disaggregated and published — using multiple measures appropriate to the populations served.
Standards 9.1 (program content), 9.2 (program length), and 9.3 (general education) — applied consistently across all instructional locations and modes of delivery, with faculty and academic governance involvement at every step.
Standards 10.5 (admissions), 10.6 (distance and correspondence education, including identity verification), and 10.7 (policies for awarding credit). The Substantive Change Policy operates alongside these — separately, as policy.
Standard 12.1 (student support services) and 12.4 (student complaints). The platform supports — does not replace — the institution's existing services, with reentry-partner access for justice-impacted learners on release.
Standards 13.2, 13.6, 13.7 — sound institutional finance and consumer protection for the student. Campus Credit does not originate loans and does not tie revenue to individual borrowing or enrollment volume.
Standards 14.1 (publication of accreditation status) and 14.4 (representation to other agencies). All public-facing accreditation language remains authored and controlled by the institution; the platform never publishes it independently.
Across every section, peer reviewers ask the same underlying question: How do you know? Campus Credit answers it the way evaluators want it answered — with records.
The hidden cost of a Compliance Certification isn't the writing — it's the evidence inventory
Every judgment of compliance in the Compliance Certification must be backed by an Index of Evidence Referenced in Narrative. Institutions in our research dedicate full-time staff, faculty, and steering committee members to assembling these indexes for 18+ months. Here's what the burden actually looks like — and how Campus Credit eliminates most of it.
What institutions are doing today to assemble their evidence indexes
Across every section, peer reviewers ask the same underlying question: How do you know? Campus Credit answers it the way evaluators want it answered — with records.
Section 8 of the same Compliance Certification cites Annual Effectiveness Reports as the primary evidence — collected and curated across more than 200 individual programs, each with its own assessment portfolio.
— Miami Dade College 2024 Compliance Certification
The pattern repeats across Sections 9, 10, 12, and 13: dozens of individual documents per section, each gathered from a different office, each requiring version control and attribution. The Evidence Inventory becomes a project unto itself — and reaffirmation is only the half of it.
The same evidence, generated as a byproduct of normal operations
Campus Credit functions as an automated, always-current evidence inventory for the enrollment processes SACSCOC reviewers spend the most time on.
Every transfer credit and CPL evaluation produces a timestamped, evaluator-attributed record with policy version and rubric reference
Articulation agreements live in a versioned library with effective-date tracking and renewal alerts — exportable for catalog and web transparency
Disaggregated student achievement data is queryable by facility, program, demographic, and term — for Section 8 evidence and QEP Impact Reports
Distance-education identity verification and credit-awarding workflows (Standards 10.6 and 10.7) live in the same audit trail
Faculty assignments, qualifications, and instructional locations are structured records, not PDFs — exportable by site for the 6.2.b program-faculty tables
The output: when SACSCOC requests a Monitoring Report six months after reaffirmation, you don't restart a project. You filter a dashboard.
Six enrollment pathways — each generating the evidence SACSCOC reviewers expect to see
Campus Credit unifies six enrollment workflows in one platform. Each module produces the systematic, documented evidence specified in the Resource Manual — so your Compliance Certification narrative is supported by documentation, not just description.
Sections 9.1 and 6.2.c require dual enrollment programs to demonstrate the same rigor and program coordination as on-campus instruction. Section 8 requires outcomes evidence appropriate to the population. Campus Credit's instructor-qualification and section-tracking records support both.
.svg)
Instructor qualification documentation under Standard 6.2.a
Course equivalency and curriculum alignment records
Disaggregated enrollment and outcomes data by partner site
Achievement and completion tracking for Section 8 evidence
Articulation agreement management for partner high schools
Standard 10.7 requires policies for awarding credit — including prior learning — to be applied consistently across all instructional locations and modes of delivery. Campus Credit makes the consistency demonstrable evaluator-by-evaluator, term-by-term.
Published, accessible criteria covering all CPL types
Portfolio, challenge exam, ACE, and military transcript workflows
Faculty evaluation records with rubric-based documentation
CPL award data disaggregated for Section 8 equity assessment
Consistency tracking across evaluators and time periods
Standard 10.7 governs awarding credit; Section 9 governs program content and length. Campus Credit creates the documented, policy-aligned system that demonstrates consistent application across all instructional sites and modes — and generates the outcomes data Section 8 requires.
Agreement creation, version control, and renewal workflows
Course equivalency mapping with documented evaluation criteria
Public disclosure exports for catalog and web transparency
Evaluator consistency tracking across offices and over time
Transfer outcome data for Section 8 student achievement evidence
Standard 9.1 requires program content to be applied consistently regardless of location. Campus Credit provides the agreement management and credit evaluation infrastructure that demonstrates institutional academic oversight of off-campus and international experiences.
Partner institution agreement tracking and academic oversight
Pre-departure credit planning and equivalency mapping
Health, safety, and risk management documentation
Credit transfer evaluation with institutional approval trail
Learning outcome documentation for Section 8 evidence
Standard 12.1 requires student support services appropriate to the population. Section 14 governs accurate representation to other agencies — including federal SEVIS reporting. Campus Credit manages institutional records alongside federal compliance.
I-20 generation, updates, and batch printing workflows
OPT, CPT, and STEM OPT authorization and tracking
SEVIS reporting and enrollment status management
Secure student record maintenance and audit logs
International student outcome data for Section 8 reporting
Section 1 (mission) requires all institutional programs — including noncredit — to align with the institution's mission. Section 7 (institutional effectiveness) requires their assessment. Campus Credit brings noncredit programs under the same documentation infrastructure as credit programs.
Course catalog, section management, and online registration
Completion certificates and noncredit transcript records
Noncredit-to-credit pathway mapping and student progression
Program review data for Section 7 effectiveness cycles
Mission alignment reporting for Section 1 evidence
Three pillars. One unified student record.
All six workflows share a single student record connected to your SIS — so every enrollment decision is documented, every policy is consistently applied across sites, and your Compliance Certification evidence tells a coherent story across all fourteen sections of the Principles.
What a SACSCOC Board decision can actually look like — and what your evidence has to support
Each December the SACSCOC Board reviews member institutions and issues actions across a spectrum of outcomes. Understanding the spectrum helps your team know what's at stake — and what kind of evidence shifts a decision from "reaffirmed with no further reporting" to "reaffirmed with a required Monitoring Report" or worse.
01
The cleanest outcome. Next reaffirmation set 10 years out. QEP executive summary still due in February; QEP Impact Report still due at the Fifth-Year mark.
02
Reaffirmation paired with a follow-up report — most often due in six months — on specific standards the committee wanted more evidence about. The most common combined outcome.
03
More significant findings prompt a Focused Report and a follow-up on-site visit. Recommendations from the committee must be formally addressed within the window the Board sets.
04
Where compliance issues are unresolved, the Board can impose Warning or Probation — both public sanctions — or, ultimately, remove accreditation. Each carries federal financial-aid consequences.
Reaffirmation is a multi-year project — not a report you write the year of the visit
Across the SACSCOC institutions in our research, the consistent pattern is a 24- to 30-month preparation cycle for the Compliance Certification and QEP, paced against the Fifth-Year Interim Report and the on-site visit. Below is a compressed view of the ten-year arc.
Representative SACSCOC Reaffirmation Cycle
14
2
∞
Differentiated Review — for institutions in good standing
SACSCOC now offers Differentiated Review, a streamlined reaffirmation pathway available to qualifying institutions in good standing. It changes the rhythm of evidence-gathering rather than the substance of what's reviewed. MTSU was approved for Differentiated Review in its 2026 cycle. Campus Credit's audit trail and outcomes reporting are structured to support either pathway.
Move your Compliance Certification from assertion to evidence
For enrollment-related sections of the Principles, Campus Credit provides the institutional records and data that turn narrative judgments of compliance into supportable evidence — both in the Compliance Certification itself and in the Monitoring Reports that often follow.
What SACSCOC reviewers look for in your Compliance Certification
What Campus Credit gives you to answer with
How Campus Credit maps to the Principles
Use this as a reference when preparing your Compliance Certification, responding to Off-Site Committee findings, or addressing Board-required Monitoring Reports.
SACSCOC Standard
Requirement Summary
Campus Credit Module
Support
Standard 7.2
The Quality Enhancement Plan — focused on improving specific student learning outcomes and/or student success, with committed resources and a plan to assess achievement; reviewed by the On-Site Reaffirmation Committee
Longitudinal Cohort Tracking · Pre/Post Assessment · Disaggregated Outcomes
Direct
Standard 8.1
Institution identifies, evaluates, and publishes goals for student achievement appropriate to its mission and the populations served, using multiple measures
Outcome Reporting · Disaggregated Analytics · Multi-Measure Dashboards
Direct
Standard 8.2.a
Program-level student learning outcomes — identified, assessed, and used to seek improvement across every educational program
Program-Level Assessment · Annual Effectiveness Reporting
Direct
Standard 9.1–9.3
Program content, length, and general education — applied consistently across all instructional locations and modes of delivery, with faculty governance involvement
Curriculum Approval Workflows · Section-Level Records · Articulation Library
Direct
Standard 10.6
Distance and correspondence education — including consistent identity verification methods and distance education student data privacy procedures across all online courses
Identity Verification Logs · LMS Integration · Modality Records
Direct
Standard 10.7
Policies for awarding credit — the curriculum development process and credit-assignment criteria followed consistently for all new courses and course revisions regardless of location or mode of delivery
CPL Workflow · Transfer Credit Engine · Credit Assignment Audit Trail
Direct
SACSCOC Substantive Change Policy
Notification or prior approval for significant modifications to the nature and scope of the institution — including new sites, new credential levels, modality expansion, and outside-party agreements
Site Activation Records · Program Launch Audit · Partner Agreement Library
Direct
Standard 6.2.a–c
Faculty qualifications, program faculty, and program coordination — documented for every instructional location and modality
Faculty Credentials Registry · Section-by-Site Reporting
Supporting
Standard 14.1 + 14.4
Public statements about accreditation status and accurate representation to other agencies — controlled by the institution, not by vendors or partners
Liaison-Routed Templates · Disclosure Library · No Independent Publication
Supporting
The language reviewers actually use
These requirements come from the 2024 Edition of the Principles of Accreditation, the Substantive Change Policy and Procedures, and current SACSCOC reaffirmation correspondence. Campus Credit is built to make demonstrating compliance with each of them systematic and defensible.
The Quality Enhancement Plan demonstrates that it (a) has a topic identified through ongoing comprehensive planning and evaluation processes; (b) has broad-based support of institutional constituencies; (c) focuses on improving specific student learning outcomes and/or student success; (d) commits resources to initiate, implement, and complete the QEP; and (e) includes a plan to assess achievement.
Policies, procedures, and criteria guiding program content are applied consistently across all instructional locations and modes of delivery. The curriculum development process applies to all programs, without regard to location or modality.
The SACSCOC Board of Trustees reaffirmed accreditation and requested a Monitoring Report due in six (6) months. We appreciate your continued support of SACSCOC's activities and work.
All institutions are requested to submit an Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan on Student Learning as part of their Fifth-Year Interim Report due five years before their next reaffirmation review. Institutions will be notified 11 months in advance.
Build a Compliance Certification your accreditation liaison can defend — and a record system that survives every Monitoring Report after it.
Schedule a 30-minute walkthrough with your accreditation liaison, Provost, or Registrar — we'll map Campus Credit to your Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 evidence needs and any open substantive change filings.
Sources. Institutional examples on this page are drawn from publicly available SACSCOC Reaffirmation Letters, Compliance Certifications, Quality Enhancement Plans, and On-Site Reaffirmation Reports published by the named institutions and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. Quoted SACSCOC language is from the 2024 Edition of The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, the Resource Manual for the 2024 Principles, and the Substantive Change Policy and Procedures. Specific document citations available on request.
