Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Follow-up
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“11. The Register Committee, noted in the analysis by the panel that evalag’s review procedures include a self-assessment report and an external assessment followed by expert’s report, but no follow-up activities, unless related to conditions/requirements established by evalag when taking the corresponding decision.

12. Given the concerns on the lack of consistent follow-up in all of evalag's procedures the Register Committee concurred with the panel that evalag complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Implementing processes
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“9. In the last review, the agency was found to be partially compliant with the standard as the follow-up model did not ensure a consistent follow-up for all evaluated higher education institutions.

10. The Register Committee noted from the panel’s analysis IEP’s efforts in addressing the shortcomings with the standards. Furthermore, the Committee noted that IEP took further measures to increase the rate of submission of follow-up reports by evaluated higher education institutions. .

11. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel's conclusion that IEP complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	incomplete implementation of reviews for independent private providers
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its 2016 decision on QQI's Substantive Change Report, the Register Committee flagged for attention the use of site visits. The Committee noted that site visits are not used in some processes, but that this was adequately explained by a “lighter touch in recognition of the greater responsibility held by those providers” (p. 27). The Register Committee concurred with the panel that the alternative approach used is effective and robust in the light of the process' objectives.The Register Committee noted that QQI has finalised its external quality assurance processes and moved to full implementation of most processes since the last review.The external review report, however, noted that for independent private providers “no cyclical institutional reviews have taken place as a result of the delay in approving those providers’ Quality Assurance Procedures through Re-engagement” (p. 28). While the report cited a combination of reasons for that and underlined that it was not the result of poor intentions on the part of the agency, the report noted that some providers may actually go up to 12 years without an institutional review. The panel further noted that the “risk of concerns about quality going unnoticed in these providers” was partly, but not wholly, mitigated by QQI having more intensive engagement with them through theirprogramme validation relationship (p. 28).In light of the incomplete implementation of reviews for independent private providers the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel's conclusion of compliance, but considered that QQI only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Implementation of follow-up procedures; accreditations carried out without a site visit
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“For accreditation in Germany, the Register Committee underlined that evalag retains responsibility for follow-up to take place, even if GAC makes the accreditation decisions under the new legal framework. This does not exclude that GAC actually implements the follow-up processes, as long as evalag has assured itself that this indeed happens.Given the small number of accreditations under the new legal framework thus far, it was not possible to analyse the actual practice at this point. The Register Committee therefore noted that this is a matter for further attention in future reviews of evalag.While the German legal framework potentially allows for an accreditation procedure to be carried out without a site visit, the panel understood from evalag that the agency did not plan to make use of that option. The Register Committee underlined that it might be helpful if evalag would point that out in its official documentation.Notwithstanding the above remarks, the Register Committee concurred with the panel's conclusion that evalag complies with the standard”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	unclear monitoring processes
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (06/06/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel found that the agency’s monitoring processes - the follow-up and case-based monitoring procedure - were not fully clear, and in particular on how these processes would be complementing each other. The Register Committee therefore asked the agency for further clarification.The agency explained (see letter of 06/06/2019) that higher education institutions complete a mandatory follow-up process which takes place onceevery three years, where HEIs provide a self-evaluation on the progress made following its previous institutional evaluation. In addition, the agency may carry out a site-visit to review progress at the requested of the Authorization or Accreditation Councils following a review of the institution’s compliance with the authorisation/accreditation standards.The agency further described its case based monitoring procedure that is initiated in case a substantiated complaint is received about an institution. If the concern remains unresolved, NCEQE assembles a group of experts to investigate the complaint, which may include a site visit at the institution. Having considered the agency’s clarifications, the Register Committee found the follow-up processes well defined and reasonable. The Committeetherefore could follow the panel’s conclusion that NCEQE complies with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Follow-up of conditions unclear
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“16. For AHPGS' external quality assurance activities outside Germany, the review report concluded that AHPGS did not include follow-up as a mandatory step in the procedure. While the review report stated that “there are only recommendations, no conditions” in accreditation decisions outside Germany, the Register Committee noted that AHPGS had published (according to DEQAR as of 5/11/2019) at least 31 reports and decisions on programmes/institutions outside Germany that impose conditions in the decision. [...] it was not evident whether and how the fulfilment of these condition was verified, except for one case. […]

18. In its additional representation, AHPGS confirmed that also in accreditation/assessment procedures outside Germany conditions might be imposed (in cases with AHPGS final decision) or recommended (in cases where the decision is taken by a national authority). AHPGS further explained how these are followed up and noted that follow-up is now regulated formally in its contracts. AHPGS further explained that some mistakes were made when uploading the cases in question to DEQAR, which it had corrected.

19. The Register Committee could establish that the presentation of the reports in question was corrected in DEQAR. […]”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Informing stakeholders
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“9. The Register Committee understood from the panel’s analysis, that while external quality assurance processes are in line with the standard, there are discrepancies in understanding the processes of drafting and finalising review reports, as well as the role of the QA expert in the Commission of Study Programmes Evaluation (CET).

10. The Register Committee could follow the panel's view that the agency is compliant with standard, but emphasized the panel's recommendation that the agency should ensure that all stakeholders are effectively informed about the entire external evaluation process.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Consistent follow-up
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee acknowledged the steps taken by IEP to enhance the participation in follow-up processes, but noted that the current follow-up model does not ensure for a consistent follow-up for all evaluated higher education institutions. The Committee considered that a progress report, which is a relatively light requirement, could possibly be a feasible follow-up for all evaluated institutions. The Committee took note of the panel's concern that making the requirement more stringent would pose a risk of turning progress reports into a purely formal requirement, but considered that such a risk had not necessarily to become true. Moreover, the same argument could be used against any obligatory element in quality assurance, or obligatory quality assurance as such.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	strengthening follow-up procedures for voluntary international reviews
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (20/05/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“The external review panel noted that for (voluntary) international accreditation procedures “the full responsibility to request any kind of follow-up lies in the hands of the institution”.The Register Committee considered the clarification by Unibasq that it follows up programmes' improvement plans in its international quality assurance activities, which is mentioned in the relevant protocol. Having considered Unibasq's clarification, the Register Committee was ableto concur with the panel's conclusion of compliance.The Register Committee, however, encouraged Unibasq to look into possibilities to strengthen its follow-up procedure for (voluntary) international reviews, and to clarify the expectation towards HEIs regarding the follow-up.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	light systematic follow-up approach (compliant)
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The panel noted that “actions taken by the institutions after the audit are not checked comprehensively”. While the panel noted that NOKUT provided an avenue for follow-up through seminars and conferences organised to discuss the audit findings and recommendation, it did consider those to be a systematic follow-up and noted that “the institutions do not feel obliged to implement the recommendations received”. The Register Committee considered that a very “light” approach to follow-up can be appropriate for (purely improvement-oriented) recommendations from an audit with an unconditionally positive outcome. Moreover, it considered that it was in the nature of a recommendation that there is no obligation to implement it.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2019
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Consistency in implementation of EQA procedures
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (26/02/2021)
RC decision	Compliance

“In its response letter the panel stated that it is the responsibility of each Permanent Speciality Commission to ensure that judgements in ARACIS reports are accurate and consistent and the panel was convinced that all processes defined in the Methodology are implemented consistently.

Having found limited information in the panel’s analysis on the functioning of provisional authorisation for programmes and higher education institutions, the Committee has asked the panel to confirm that the key features of ESG 2.3 (self-assessment, external assessment, site visit, review report, follow-up) are implemented by ARACIS in these reviews.

In its response letter the panel confirmed that following the detailed examination of ARACIS’s Methodology and Guide, the agency followed the same procedures for provisional authorisation as the ones employed for the evaluation of accredited programmes, which were addressed by the panel in its review report (p. 31).Having considered the panel’s clarification the Register Committee was able to concur with the panel’s conclusion that ARACIS complies with the standard.

The Committee nevertheless underlined the panel’s suggestion on the need to further develop the follow-up procedures of the agency and to consider how institutions have addressed the ARACIS’s recommendations in their evaluation reports.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	follow up (ineffective and not reviewed by the panel); implementation of programme accreditation was not analysed by the panel
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/03/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted that it did not analyse the effectiveness of the monitoring process, normally taking place two years after accreditation, since it had not yet been implemented. The Register Committee sought and received clarification from the panel on the 6-monthly follow-up processes after conditional accreditations. The Committee understood that the panel did not consider the 6-monthly follow-up effective and, hence, recommended revisiting the 6-month period. The Register Committee further sought clarification from the panel concerning the programme accreditation process, since only pilot accreditations had been carried out so far. While the panel clarified that it had analysed how ANQA took into account the lessons learned from the pilots, it had not analysed the implementation of the pilots. While the Committee considered that the review report demonstrates that ANQA's process for programme accreditation includes the features required by the standard in theory, no statement could be made on actual practice at this point. One of the two follow-up processes appears to be considered ineffective by the panel, the other follow-up process was not reviewed by the panel and the implementation of programme accreditation was not analysed by the panel.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	follow up procedure for programmes accredited without condition
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the review report (p. 28) the panel stated that if a programme is accredited with conditions, the programme is expected to submit an interim report on how it has fulfilled these conditions. The Register Committee was unclear if a follow-up is also implemented for programmes accredited without conditions and have therefore requested the panel to clarify this matter.The panel (response letter of 28/05/2017) stated that higher education institutions are expected to inform FINEEC of significant changes related to their programme organisation, implementation and development. The panel found no other evidence of a follow-procedure that would apply to programmes accredited without conditions. The Register Committee considered the design of the follow-up of programmes accredited without conditions to be minimal but nevertheless appropriate.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Not clearly defined processes for institutional audits offered in Austria
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review report demonstrates that ACQUIN's external quality assurance processes are clearly defined in public documents, except for institutional audits offered in Austria. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's view that the process should be clearly defined and published despite the low demand. The Register Committee took note of ACQUIN's statement on the external review report, which states that audits in Austria follow the same procedure as system accreditation in Germany. The Register Committee, however, understands from the review report that this is not stipulated in ACQUIN's public documentation. When ACQUIN's registration was last renewed, EQAR had flagged for attention whether ACQUIN’s international accreditation and evaluation activities take place on a clearly defined and transparent basis, within and beyond the EHEA. The Register Committee concluded that this flag has been resolved for ACQUIN's international accreditation activity in general, but not for audits in Austria”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	inconsistency in implementation of the process; unclear definition for cases where there is no site visit.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review report noted that on-site visits are not mandatory in evaluations (type 1) and recommends that ASIIN should establish clear principles to state in which cases on-site visits are not necessary. Given the current absence of such principles, the Register Committee considered that ASIIN did not comply with the requirement to normally include a site visit. In its additional representation, ASIIN specified that site visits were a mandatory element in all type-1 evaluations. While the Register Committee welcomed the clarification, it underlined that the clear implementation in practice cannot be assessed at this stage; it should thus be subject of the next external review of ASIIN. The review report further identified cases where ASIIN did not follow the principles established in its own policy regarding the use of evaluation results for programme accreditation. The Register Committee took note of ASIIN’s statement on the report, which confirms that fact but does not include an explanation or rationale for departing from the policy. The Register Committee therefore considered that ASIIN did not implement its own processes consistently in all areas. Despite the fact that ASIIN stated in its additional representation that this was “one case among hundreds of procedures” and announced that it was planning to amend its own policy to the effect that a prior evaluation result could be used, provided is is not older than 2 years, the Register Committee noted that ASIIN's current policies were not always followed in practice, even if this was so in only very few cases.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack of transparency and precise roles in criteria and procedure for selection of experts and guidelines for decision-making process.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/03/2025)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“While the external review report states that AAQ and SAR function well together as a unit, the external review panel considered that the “allocation of duties should be presented with greater transparency in the relevant guidelines” (p. 25). The Register Committee noted that further comments regarding a certain lack of transparency of the precise roles of AAQ and SAR were made by the panel with regard to the criteria and procedure for selection of experts (see 2.4) as well as guidelines for SAR’s decision deviating from the expert-recommended decisions (see 2.5).The Register Committee considered that transparency is crucial especially in a layered system such as that of AAQ and SAR.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	study programme groups
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee found the difference between the initial and re-assessments of study programme groups on the one hand and the phasing out of assessments of study programme groups on the other hand not to be completely clear.

The agency explained (see clarification of 2023-06-06) that the initial and re-assessment procedures remain compulsory for the opening of any new study programme groups. For existing study programme groups that have gone successfully through multiple assessment processes, the assessments of individual study programme groups are being phased out for a sample of these programmes, within the new model for institutional accreditations.

Having considered the agency’s explanation and the implementation of the new procedures, the Register Committee concurs with the panel’s conclusion of compliance.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	follow-up, online procedures,
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (04/10/2023)
RC decision	Compliance

“12. The Register Committee noted that PKA does not have separate follow-up mechanisms in place, but that they are part of the re-accreditation process i.e., after a conditional two year period (or longer depending on the length of the study cycle) the agency monitors the implementation of recommendations, while in case of a six year accreditation cycle, the agency monitors if the recommendations for improving the quality of education are addressed.

13. The Register Committee finds this approach completely reasonable and in line with the requirement of the standard

14. The Register Committee noted that all of PKA’s evaluation procedures (with some exceptions) are being carried out remotely. In its clarification call the review panel explained that PKA is following clear regulations regarding its remote procedures, regulations that have been updated following wide consultations with the sector. The panel was reassured with PKA’s approach in its online accreditation procedure i.e., PKA carries out observations of classes, institutions are asked to provide a video of the learning facilities and during the remote visit PKA experts also meet with different stakeholders to verify the facts in the review report.

15. The Register Committee further noted concerns from the review panel’s analysis regarding the factual accuracy-check of review reports, as this practice was not clear for those the review panel interviewed. The Register Committee however noted that the possibility for the higher education institution to comment on the assessment report is given to all higher education institutions (as confirmed by the panel) and that this is part of the procedure of the agency in the consideration of the report. The Register Committee nevertheless underlines the panel’s recommendation to further clarify the stage of factual accuracy check in PKA’s procedures.

16. Having considered the clarification of the panel and PKA’s statement to the review report, the Register Committee could not concur with the review panel’s decision of partial compliance, and found that the agency is in fact compliant with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	inconsistencies in the implementation
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. The Register Committee noted that there are inconsistencies in the implementation of the processes. The Register Committee underlines the panel’s recommendation that the agency should clearly communicate on the valid reasons behind multiple inputs to its accreditation process and decisions, by publishing them on the website as noted also in its Substantive Change Report Decision of 15 October 2021.

14. The Register Committee further noted the concerns raised by the review panel concerning the lack of relevant criteria and information integrated in AIC’s guidebook from the Law on Higher Education and Cabinet Regulations, as well as the updating of assessment methodologies, frameworks and the guidelines for institutions, as well as experts.

15. From the additional representation by the agency, the Register Committee understood that, when considering that different procedures would be considered as a package the Methodology for organising the assessment of higher education institutions and colleges could be seen as a follow-up procedure for the one-off procedure Accreditation of higher education institutions. While the panel noted that the agency is preparing a cyclical institutional accreditation, the Committee reiterates the need for clear follow-up measures.

16. The Register Committee concluded that AIC complies with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2021
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	Using feedback for improving methodologies
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee welcomed the diverse methods used by the agency

for gathering feedback from different stakeholders, but could

not confirm that the reflections are efficiently and systematically used in the

improvement of the activities. The findings indicate that the

feedback is only sporadically used in the improvement of the agency’s

external QA activities.”

Full decision: see agency register entry