Step 1: The process usually begins in January of the first year, when the institution requests accreditation for its programs.

Step 2: The campus visit is usually conducted between September and December of the first year.

Step 3: After the visit, the Team Chair develops a Draft Statement to the institution by editing and combining the material written by the Program Evaluators and adding material that applies to the institution as a whole.  

Step 4: The Draft Statement is reviewed by two Editors from the respective Commission and by ABET headquarters staff for adherence to standards and consistency with other Draft Statements.

Step 5: The edited Draft Statement is sent to the institution, which has 30 days to respond.

Step 6: The Team Chair uses the response from the institution to prepare the Final Statement, which again is edited and then provided to the full Commission for action.

Step 7: Final accreditation decisions are made at the Summer Commission Meeting in July of the second year.

ABET is a federation of more than two-dozen professional and technical societies. Societies with curricular responsibilities recruit, select, mentor, and assist in training qualified Program Evaluators who, along with Team Chairs, comprise the teams assigned to accreditation visits. ABET Member Societies also nominate individuals to the four ABET Commissions (the Applied Science Accreditation Commission, the Computing Accreditation Commission, the Engineering Accreditation Commission, and the Technology Accreditation Commission).

Institutions

Institutions requesting an ABET evaluation have a number of responsibilities to complete before ABET's Visit Team arrives on campus. Each program completes a Self-Study Report, which serves as the central document the team relies on for the evaluation. In the Self-Study Report, each program details how Criteria are being met.

The institution hosts the visit. On campus, institutions arrange for interviews and reviews of display materials, facilities, equipment, and other observations that cannot be included in the Self-Study Report.  

After the visit, the institution has seven days to report errors of fact in the Visiting Team's preliminary findings. After it receives the Draft Statement, the institution has 30 days to report actions it has taken since the visit to address the team's findings and improve the program.  These 30 days are called the "Due Process Response Period."

Commissions

Each of the Member Societies is invited to have representation on one or more of the four ABET commissions, according to the curricular areas that those societies are assigned to by the ABET Board of Directors. The four commissions are the Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC), the Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC), the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC), and the Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC). The accreditation commissions are responsible for administering the ABET Accreditation Process, based on the Policies and Procedures and on the Criteria, both of which are approved by the ABET Board of Directors. The commissions recommend Criteria, assign the Chairs of the visiting teams, and make final accreditation decisions (by vote of the entire membership).

Team Chair

The Team Chair is a member of the Commission (or, occasionally, a former member), appointed by the Commission Executive Committee to lead the Visit Team. The Team Chair is the primary contact with the institution. The Team Chair is responsible for contact with the dean of each program being evaluated. He or she is involved in approving the composition of the Visit Team. As the leader of the Visit Team, the Team Chair assembles the Draft Statement and presents the findings to the ABET Commission at the Summer Commission Meeting in July.

The responsibilities of the Team Chair will vary depending on the size of the Visit Team. Also, Team Chairs may use different leadership approaches and organizational strategies to ensure a successful visit. Some Team Chairs, for example, may conduct conference calls with teams prior to the visit. Some may request an additional team meeting while on the visit.

Program Evaluator

Program Evaluators (PEVs) have been selected by their Member Societies to represent ABET on campus visits, where they work with a team of colleagues from other Member Societies. As an ABET team member, the PEV's role is to provide knowledge on professional practice, professional preparation, and continuous improvement. The PEV also provides sound judgment about how the program he or she is evaluating meets ABET's Accreditation Criteria.

One of the PEV's most important responsibilities is to behave in an ethical and professional manner and to uphold ABET's Code of Conduct. It is particularly important to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest with the institutions being evaluated. PEVs must disclose any real or perceived conflicts and recuse themselves from discussions or decisions related to any associated issues. If you have any questions about this, contact Maryanne Weiss, ABET Accreditation Director, at mweiss@abet.org or 410-347-7730. 

Avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest with the institutions being evaluated.

As a Program Evaluator, you will have responsibilities before, during, and after the campus visit.

The Criteria are intended to

• Ensure the quality of educational programs.

• Foster the systematic pursuit of quality improvement in educational programs.

• Help develop educational programs that satisfy the needs of constituencies in a dynamic and competitive environment.

It is the responsibility of the institution seeking accreditation to demonstrate clearly that the program meets the Criteria.

It is critical that you thoroughly understand the Criteria and how to apply them to evaluate a program. (Note: In the PEV Training Pre-Work, we will be addressing the General Criteria only. Program-specific Criteria will be covered by your own Member Society.)

Stop and read the General Criteria now.

Program Educational Objectives: Broad statements that describe the career and professional accomplishments that the program is preparing graduates to achieve.

Program Outcomes: Narrower statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire in their matriculation through the program.

Assessment: One or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data used to evaluate the achievement of Program Outcomes and Program Educational Objectives.

Evaluation: One or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which Program Outcomes or Program Educational Objectives are being achieved and results in decisions and actions to improve the program.

Statements of Concern: A concern indicates that a program currently satisfies a Criterion, Policy, or Procedure. However, the potential exists for the situation to change such that the Criterion, Policy, or Procedure may not be satisfied.

Statements of Weakness: A weakness indicates that a program lacks the strength of compliance with a Criterion, Policy, or Procedure to ensure that the quality of the program will not be compromised. Remedial action is required to strengthen compliance with the Criterion, Policy, or Procedure prior to the next evaluation.

Statements of Deficiency: A deficiency indicates a Criterion, Policy, or Procedure is not satisfied. The program is not in compliance with the Criterion, Policy, or Procedure.

Statements of Observation: An observation is a comment or suggestion that does not relate directly to the accreditation action but is offered to assist the institution in its continuing efforts to improve its programs.

When the general intent of the Program Educational Objectives Criterion is satisfied, but potential exists for change such that Criterion may not be satisfied in the future. Contributing factors may include the following:

• Objectives are published but are changed frequently.
• Objectives are evaluated, but there is limited involvement of constituencies in this process, or it varies from cycle to cycle.
• Program development processes may rely too heavily on one person.

When the general intent of the Program Outcomes Criterion is satisfied, but potential exists for change such that Criterion may not be satisfied in the future. Contributing factors may include the following: 

• Processes to produce some outcomes are possibly inconsistent and may lead to circumstances in which their quality is insufficient to meet program metrics.
• Loop closed on most outcomes, but some important evaluation results have not been acted upon.
• Inconsistent coverage or assessment of a small number of outcomes, maybe overly dependent on one person.

When the general intent of the Continuous Improvement Criterion is satisfied, but potential exists for change such that Criterion may not be satisfied in the future. Contributing factors may include the following: 

• Loop closed on most outcomes, but some important evaluation results have not been acted upon.
• Program improvement processes may rely too heavily on one person.

When the general intent of the Program Educational Objectives Criterion is satisfied but lacks the strength of compliance to ensure program quality. Contributing factors may include the following:

• Objectives are published but are not accessible to constituencies and potential students.
• Limited involvement of constituencies.
• Incomplete links to curriculum or links are not clear.
• Incomplete process for evaluating objectives.
• Incomplete evidence of development and improvement of Program Outcomes.

When the general intent of the Program Outcomes Criterion is satisfied but lacks the strength of compliance to ensure program quality. Contributing factors may include the following:

• Absence of a working process(es) to produce some outcomes.
• Loop closed on some outcomes.
• Defined goals and documented assessment results for some but not all outcomes.
• Absence of assessment evidence for a small number of outcomes.

When the general intent of the Continuous Improvement Criterion is satisfied but lacks the strength of compliance to ensure program quality. Contributing factors may include the following:

• Incomplete process for evaluating objectives.
• Incomplete evidence of efforts at program improvement based on assessment; efforts may be ad hoc rather than based on a formal process.

When the general intent of the Program Educational Objectives Criterion is not satisfied. Contributing factors may include the following:

• No involvement of constituencies.
• Educational program does not prepare students to attain Program Outcomes.
• No process for evaluating objectives.
• No data that demonstrates the extent to which objectives are attained.
• No evidence of development and improvement of Program Outcomes.

When the general intent of the Program Outcomes Criterion is not satisfied. Contributing factors include the following:

• No documented working process(es) to produce outcomes.
• Loop not closed on any outcomes.
• Absence of defined goals and documented assessment results.
• No assessment evidence that outcomes are attained by students.
• No evidence of efforts at program development based on assessment.

When the general intent of the Continuous Improvement Criterion is not satisfied. Contributing factors include the following:

• No process for evaluating objectives.
• No evidence of development and improvement of Program Outcomes.
• No evidence of efforts at program improvement based on assessment.
• No evidence that the Program Outcomes foster attainment of the Program Educational Objectives.