CACREP Policy Revisions- April 2026

The CACREP Board of Directors adopted the policy revisions below at the April 2026 meeting. The majority of these changes were editorial changes made for the purpose of improving readability and/or clarity. Additionally, there was: 1) a reinstatement of a prior policy; and 2) a revision in which a portion of one policy was excerpted and built into a new policy with additional, related requirements. The changes detailed here will go into effect July 1, 2026. Until that time, the current version of the policy remains in effect. On July 1, 2026, the revisions and additions will be finalized in the CACREP Accreditation Policy Document.

Revisions to Existing Policies

Policy A.1.a Institutional Accreditation

This revision removes the qualifying clause “that reviews comprehensive degree-granting institutions” in relation to the ED-recognized institutional accreditors that CACREP accepts for program eligibility to apply. The revision additionally adds that CACREP will also accept CHEA-recognized institutional accreditors.

 

Policy A.1.b Impact of Institutional Accreditation Decisions on CACREP Degree Programs

This revision modifies the 20-day timeframe for programs to notify CACREP that their institution’s accreditation is potentially at risk, from the time of “notification from the institutional accreditor” to the time of “notification from the institution.” Additionally, clarifying language is added that the circumstances the CACREP Board will review are the circumstances “of the institution’s accreditation being at risk.”

 

Policy A.2.a Counseling Program Identity

This revision adds a ‘for example’ indicator (i.e., “e.g.”) to the parenthetical list following “Foundational Counseling Curriculum.” Additionally, “counseling” is changed to “Counseling” in areas where that was not the case.

 

Policy A.2.k Adding a Degree Program During an Accreditation Cycle

This revision removes the requirement that programs be free of any encumbrances in order to be able to add specialized practice area(s) and/or a doctoral program during an accreditation cycle. Additionally, a statement is added that provides for the cancellation or delay of the review for adding a program if the program has encumbrances or if any are imposed on the program during the course of the review.

 

Policy A.2.l Substantive Change in an Accredited Degree Program

This revision clarifies the expectation that anticipated substantive changes must be reported and reviewed by CACREP prior to the change being initiated, and that unanticipated substantive changes must be reported to and reviewed by CACREP as soon as possible.

 

Policy A.2.m Teach-out of an Accredited Degree Program

This revision clarifies that voluntary withdrawal from accredited status is a scenario necessitating teach-out reporting, and that the type of report that is required for teach-outs is a substantive change teach-out report. Additionally, the revision specifies that there can be consequences for failure to submit an acceptable teach out plan or to pay applicable annual fees based on when the program’s accreditation will end.

 

Policy A.3.c Site Visits

This revision clarifies that applications for adding programs during an accreditation cycle are treated as new applicant programs in relation to site visit scheduling requirements and to the applicability of the 18-month recognition for program graduates as graduates of an accredited program. The revision also removes the indication in this policy that programs in the re-affirmation of accreditation review process will not lapse while in the process, to allow for greater nuancing of the parameters under which this would occur or not occur. (see new policy A.3.o)

 

Policy A.3.f Notification of Decisions

This policy revision clarifies that there are two different types of accreditation decision-related letters that get mailed after a Board meeting – ones that communicate changes to a program’s accreditation status (e.g., change from unaccredited to accredited) and ones that either maintain status (e.g., continue accreditation following review of a Progress Report) or involve other types of reviews (e.g., waivers, substantive changes). Each type of letter has an associated time frame for communication.

 

Policy A.3.h Extension of Accreditation Status

This policy revision clarifies that “would include the extension time” means that the next cycle of accreditation is shortened by the length of the extension granted.

 

Policy A.3.i Student Qualification as Graduate of Accredited Program

This policy revision clarifies when student recognition as graduates of a CACREP-accredited program begins in instances when the Board defers an accreditation decision and subsequently grants initial accreditation. The start date for student recognition is based on the date of the Board’s decision to grant accreditation, not the deferral date.

 

Policy A.3.j Graduates of Withdrawn or Denied Programs

This policy revision indicates scenarios other than when accredited programs have accreditation withdrawn or reaffirmation of accreditation denied, for which it must be determined which students are eligible to be considered graduates of a CACREP-accredited program. The revision indicates that CACREP will apply the same determination (i.e., students must graduate before or in the academic term during which accreditation ends in order to be recognized as graduates of a CACREP-accredited degree program) to these other scenarios.

 

Policy A.3.m Use of New Standards

This policy revision is a simple clarifying edit for “their” in “All currently accredited degree programs must come into compliance with new or revised standards within two years of their effective date.” It clarifies that “their” is in reference to the new standards.

 

Policy B.2 Appeal Policy

This policy revision removes an unclear reference to complaints in relation to appeals.

 

Policy Additions

 

Policy A.2.o Doctoral Programs

This change restores a similar, prior policy. The policy indicates that in order to have an accredited doctoral Counseling program, a program must also have at least one accredited entry-level Counseling specialized practice area. New applicants can apply concurrently for accreditation of an entry-level Counseling specialized practice area and a doctoral program.

 

Policy A.3.o Reporting Deadlines

This policy addition incorporates part of what was in Policy A.3.c (i.e., that program accreditation will not lapse while program is in the reaffirmation of accreditation review process), but clarifies that this is contingent on programs meeting established deadlines and paying fees on time. It further clarifies that failure on a program’s part to meet established deadlines and pay fees on time may result in a gap in accredited status.