Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	student involvement; public information on criteria used
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review report noted that ASIIN’s certification committee did not currently include a student member. The Register Committee therefore considered that the involvement of stakeholders in the design and decision-making process was not fully ensured as required by the standard. The review report noted that only criteria that comply with the ESG can be chosen for evaluations (type 1). The report, however, noted that this was not made clear to the public. The Register Committee further noted that it was not explained in detail how this is verified by ASIIN. The Committee therefore considered that the requirement of external quality assurance processes being defined and designed to ensure their fitness for purpose was not complied with as regards evaluations. The Register Committee was able to verify that a student member was appointed to the certification committee, as noted in ASIIN's additional representation. The Register Committee further noted that ASIIN had clarified in its public information that the criteria in type-1 evaluations, including those of third parties, must be compatible with the ESG.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	methodology
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“15. The Register Committee learned that at the time of the site-visit the provider accreditation was a desk-based procedure conducted by the MFHEA’s staff. The Register Committee is concerned about the fitness for purpose of this procedure for regulating providers’ access to the higher education sector. As noted by the panel, the methodology differs for providers seeking university status and for other providers of higher education. The Committee noted that it was unclear for the panel which methodology is applied when.

16. In its statement on the report, MFHEA informed that these concerns have been further addressed in the revised manuals for programme and provider accreditation. Furthermore, MFHEA explained that all procedures now include a site-visit by a review panel (see more under ESG 2.3).

17. The Register Committee took note of the actions taken by the agency. The Committee could however not confirm whether and how the updated procedures are implemented in practice.

18. In its additional representation, the agency reaffirmed that it had addressed the panel’s concerns regarding the provider accreditation procedures in the new manual, which has been in use for all provider accreditation procedures as of January

2024. Furthermore, the agency reaffirmed this will also be addressed for all programme accreditation procedures when the new Programme Accreditation Manual will come into force as of January

2025.

19. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without a panel insight. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ASHE
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Implementation of procedures and transparency of CBQA procedures
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its last review the Register Committee noted that ASIIN's policies were not always followed in practice, i.e. use of on-site visits in evaluations and use of evaluation results in programme accreditations. In its current review, the panel stated that it did not find any evidence of deviations from the prescribed procedures and that policies are implemented consistently. The panel, however, remarked that ASIIN could provide better guidance about the site visit schedule and ensure more transparency in the processing of requests deemed potentially problematic from countries of higher education institutions outside of the European Higher Education Area (see also under ESG 3.1).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack of on site visits; Lack of interviews with stakeholders
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2021)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“absence of any standard framework or guidance as to the use of site visits or interviews in thematic evaluations, makes it unclear whether the agency has sufficient approaches to validate the evidences provided by HEIsin this activity. In addition, the panel's report touched only briefly on the suitability of online interviews instead of regular site visits in the activities program evaluation and appraisal of applications for degree-awarding powers.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack follow-up procedures
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“ In its previous decision of inclusion (05/06/2015) the Register Committee flagged for attention whether follow-up procedures were introduced for degree assessments between the first ex-post accreditation and consecutive periodic re-accreditations. ACSUCYL has since its last review introduced a new system of annual follow-up procedures. The panel also confirmed that it was convinced that the follow-up procedures are well and consistently implemented. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

“The review panel considered there was a lack of a formal follow-up by SQAA to "touch base with HEIs” before the next cyclical re-evaluation/re-accreditation in case of unconditionally positive decisions. The Register Committee further took note of SQAA's response to the review report, setting out its approach to monitoring higher education institutions' internal quality assurance systems during the re-accreditation cycles.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	consistent implementation of a follow-up procedure & site visits
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel’s analysis showed that the agency has made improvements, having also introduced follow-up procedure for its audits. The Register Committee found that while the panel was satisfied with this improvement, the approach to follow-up should allow higher education institutions to also report progress in the implementation of recommendations before all external review procedures. The Register Committee further noted that site-visits are not consistently carried out by NEAQA for programme accreditation.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/09/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	EQA processes that include: self-assessment, site visit,
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In ANECA’s last review, the Register Committee flagged for attention the implementation of the key elements of the standard i.e. self-evaluation, site visit in the development and implementation of the ACCREDITA programme. The panel’s evidence and analysis show that since its last review ANECA has revised the ACREDITA procedure, which now includes: a self-evaluation stage, a revision by an assessment committee during a site-visit, and a report providing guidance for the actions taken by the institution.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Consistency and transparency in decision making
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“ Having evaluated the procedures for decision making by Quality Assessment Council for Higher Education (HEQAC), the panel concluded that the standard for consistency and transparency in decision-making has received considerable attention and improvement since the last review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack of consistent follow-up procedures
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its decision of initial inclusion (18/05/2011) the Register Committee flagged the introduction of site visits as well as follow-up procedures undertaken by HCERES. The panel noted that since its last review HCERES did not ensure a consistent follow-up in its EQA activities due to a prolonged process of succeeding evaluations (that included the introduction of site evaluations). The agency replaced the follow-up with a progress report that higher education institutions would prepare as part of their self-evaluation so as to facilitate and speed up the process. Moreover, the panel noted that evaluations of programmes are carried out without site visits.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	consistent follow up procedures
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that AEQES has acted on the recommendations made in the 2011 review and adopted reinforced follow-up procedures in 2015.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	consistent follow-up policy
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Review Panel noted that the follow-up procedure is only compulsory for MusiQuE’s accreditation reviews at present.While the Register Committee acknowledged that it is more difficult to impose a follow-up procedure in a voluntary review than an obligatory one, the Committee underlined that MusiQuE is free to design the contractual conditions and requirements for institutions.The Register Committee thus noted the Review Panel’s recommendation that MusiQuE should implement a consistent follow-up policy for all different types of review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	28/06/2022
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	follow-up with limited value added, no students interviewed in site visits
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (14/06/2022)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“18. The panel noted that HCERES programme evaluation panels do not meet with students during review visits. The panel discussed the new follow-up process introduced for institutional evaluation only, but noted that some questions remained regarding the added value given that there is no analysis or feedback in direct response to follow-up reports.

19. The panel considered that HCERES made improvements since the last review, as site visits were not carried out for programme evaluations at all previously and given there was no follow-up process previously.

20. While the Register Committee acknowledged that significant progress has been made, it did not consider that HCERES complies with the standard yet in light of the limited added value of the follow-up process and the fact that students are not interviewed during site visits. The Committee therefore did not concur with the panel, but concluded that HCERES remains partially compliant with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	new accreditation programm, follow-up process not yet defined.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (09/10/2020)
RC decision	Compliance

“Compliance Compliance While the Register Committee noted – from the agency’s statement to the review report – that THEQC had introduced the new maturity levels for internal QA systems, the Committee was unclear whether any changes were made to the agency’s follow-up processes and has therefore sought further clarification from the agency.The agency explained in its clarification letter that an Institutional Follow-up Program (IFuP) was initiated at the beginning of 2020 and it is carried out for all institutions that have passed through an initial institutional external evaluation. The follow-up team performs a preliminary check of the institutional self-evaluation reports, performance indicators and other additional documents followed by a one-day online site-visit, which results in an Institutional Follow-up Report (IFuR) published by THEQC.

The Committee further noted that THEQC has only just initiated the Institutional Accreditation Programme (IAP); the follow-up process for this procedure has not yet been defined. new accreditation programm, follow-up process not yet defined.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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	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	22/06/2020
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack follow-up procedures
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee noted that AKKORK’s follow-up procedures were not consistently implemented for all off the agency’s external quality assurance activities and therefore flagged this matter for future attention. In its 2019 review report, the panel showed that AKKORK had taken steps to address its flag by including follow-up processes as part of its contracts with higher education institutions. The panel found that - while follow-ups are not part of all contracts signed with the reviewed institutions, that they are nevertheless carried out after a conditional accreditation. The panel further underlined a number of shortcomings related to AKKORK’s independent accreditation reviews at institutional level and AKKORK’s IQAS procedures. Since these procedures are no longer on offer by AKKORK, the Register Committee found that the panel’s concerns were therefore addressed”

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