Database of Precedents
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ACSUCYL – Compliance (2020) Lack follow-up procedures
ACSUCYL
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – SQAA – Compliance (2019) Formal follow-up processes
SQAA
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – NEAQA – Partial compliance (2018) consistent implementation of a follow-up procedure & site visits
NEAQA
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ANECA – Compliance (2018) EQA processes that include: self-assessment, site visit,
ANECA
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – HAKA – Compliance (2018) Consistency and transparency in decision making
HAKA
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – HCERES – Partial compliance (2017) Lack of consistent follow-up procedures
HCERES
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AEQES – Compliance (2017) consistent follow up procedures
AEQES
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – MusiQuE – Compliance (2016) consistent follow-up policy
MusiQuE
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – HCERES – Partial compliance (2022) follow-up with limited value added, no students interviewed in site visits
HCERES
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – THEQC – Compliance (2021) new accreditation programm, follow-up process not yet defined.
THEQC
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – EVALAG – Partial compliance (2024) Follow-up
EVALAG
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – IEP – Compliance (2024) Implementing processes
IEP
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AQUIB – Compliance (2024) Informing stakeholders
AQUIB
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AKKORK – Compliance (2020) Lack follow-up procedures
AKKORK
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – QQI – Partial compliance (2019) incomplete implementation of reviews for independent private providers
QQI
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – EVALAG – Compliance (2019) Implementation of follow-up procedures; accreditations carried out without a site visit
EVALAG
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – NCEQE – Compliance (2019) unclear monitoring processes
NCEQE
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AHPGS – Compliance (2020) Follow-up of conditions unclear
AHPGS
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – IEP – Partial compliance (2019) Consistent follow-up
IEP
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – Unibasq – Compliance (2019) strengthening follow-up procedures for voluntary international reviews
Unibasq
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