Accreditation Reviews

Regular reviews will be undertaken periodically and are expected to take place approximately every three years, though this may vary.

Regular reviews will focus on topics identified through annual monitoring and other submissions since the last application or review, and allow discussion of current and forthcoming matters relevant to the provider and qualification(s).

Review visits may be in-person (on the provider’s premises) or virtual (online), and most will last no more than half a day.  ARB will decide the most appropriate format on a case-by-case basis and liaise with the provider to make arrangements.

For virtual visits, ARB will circulate a meeting link to the attendees.

For in-person visits, the provider will be required to reserve a meeting room large enough to accommodate ARB’s Review Panel plus the provider’s representatives.

The meeting room must be available to the Panel for the hour before and the hour after the scheduled visit times.

The meeting room must be equipped with power sockets and access details for the provider’s wifi network.  The provider will be expected to arrange tea, coffee and water for the visit, but will not be required to provide food for the Panel.

ARB will advise the provider of the broad areas to be explored during the visit.

The provider will be required to supply details (names, positions/roles, email addresses and phone numbers) of its representatives for the visit – there must be more than one representative, and those in attendance must be able to answer questions about the matters to be discussed.

Once attendees and arrangements have been confirmed, should any of the provider’s representatives be unable to attend due to unforeseen circumstances, the provider must notify ARB at the earliest opportunity.

When the Review Panel is satisfied that no further information or explanations are required and has reached its conclusions, the review will be scheduled for Accreditation Committee consideration and decision.

ARB will prepare a report summarising the overall assessment of the review (including the visit) and setting out the recommendations for the Committee.

Following a regular review, recommendations will typically be to conclude the review with one or more of the following:

• No further actions required
• Matters identified for improvement and/or observation
• To vary any existing condition(s)
• To retain existing or attach new additional conditions

The expected timing of the next review(s) will be indicated as well.

A review may occasionally be initiated outside the regular review cycle for one or more of the reasons set out in Section 11 of the Accreditation Rules:

1. ARB becomes aware of information suggesting that the qualification may not comply with any condition of accreditation.
2. ARB considers that the nature and content of the qualification may no longer correspond with current requirements.
3. Material changes appear to have been made to the content or title of the qualification without ARB’s prior approval.
4. ARB becomes aware of circumstances suggesting that a review would be desirable in the public interest.
5. ARB identifies a relevant risk relating to the qualification which suggests a review would be desirable.
6. A review is a condition of accreditation.
7. ARB considers that it has insufficient up-to-date knowledge of a qualification.
8. A provider requests a review.

Should a provider want ARB to undertake a review, a request must be submitted in writing to Qualifications@arb.org.uk.

The request must specify the qualification(s) the provider would like to be included, the reason(s) for the request, and any timing considerations (e.g. the provider’s availability in the forthcoming months, dates of any relevant recent/imminent internal or external reviews).

Whether a review is initiated by ARB or on request, the provider will be advised of the process for the review and any information required.  In most cases the process will be the same as for regular reviews (see 1.3-1.7.5 above).  Where relevant, ARB will determine a different approach to be taken.

In the unusual event that it is deemed necessary, ARB reserves the right to not accept pass lists from the provider until the review has concluded.

The outcome of an ‘occasional’ review may include one or more of the following:

• No further actions required
• Matters identified for improvement and/or observation
• To vary any existing condition(s)
• To retain existing or attach new additional conditions

In such cases, the outcome of the review will inform the timing of the next review (regular or otherwise) and may also impact any accredited qualifications not included in the review.

Alternatively, where there were findings of non-compliance with the Standards and requirements for accreditation, ARB may withdraw accreditation from one or more of the provider’s qualifications.

In this instance, ARB will also determine the date that accreditation will cease (which may be retrospective).

Before this action is taken, the Committee will consider a recommendation to withdraw accreditation on two occasions – firstly to determine its ‘minded to’ position, and secondly to make its decision.  The provider will have opportunities to make representations on the recommendation before it goes to the Committee on both occasions.

Should accreditation be withdrawn, students that received the award(s) during the period of accreditation (between the date that accreditation started and the date of withdrawal) will still have an accredited qualification that would be accepted for the purpose of registration.  Students that receive the award(s) after the withdrawal date will not have an accredited qualification, even if accreditation was in place when they started.

These investigations may be instigated as a result of information submitted or self-reported by the provider, whistleblowing allegations or information received from another third party (e.g. another PSRB).

Where concerns arise during the course of a regular or occasional review, that review may be escalated to a cause for concern investigation.

ARB will only investigate matters within and relevant to its statutory remit.  ARB is not responsible for the regulation of higher education or the control of funding.

Where a matter relevant to accreditation arises but is primarily within the remit of another regulator or authority, the powers and processes of that body will take precedence.

ARB will not typically commence a cause for concern investigation while another enquiry process – by the provider or by another PSRB or authority – is ongoing.

In such cases, ARB will ask to be informed of the outcome and will take this into account when considering any investigation or action(s).

However, there may be exceptions to this where ARB considers that the circumstances necessitate investigation while another enquiry is also underway.

ARB will determine the investigation process to be taken according to the concern(s) raised/identified.  This may include (though is not limited to) any/all of the following:

• Further information being sought from the whistleblower and/or other third party.
• The provider being invited to give a written response to the concern(s)/allegations.
• The Investigation Panel visiting the provider to discuss the concern(s)/allegation. In most cases, this will follow the same approach as visits for regular reviews (see 1.4.1-1.4.6 above) and the provider will be advised of any variation.

In some cases, ARB may impose additional conditions on some or all of the provider’s qualifications during the course of an investigation.  Before this happens, ARB will prepare a report setting out the recommendation and reasons for the Committee.

The provider will receive a copy of the report and have the opportunity to submit written representations in respect of the contents before these are presented to the Committee.

When the Investigation Panel is satisfied that no further information or explanations are required and has reached its conclusions, the investigation will be scheduled for Accreditation Committee consideration and decision.

ARB will prepare a report summarising the findings and setting out the recommendations for the Committee.

The provider will receive a copy of the report and have the opportunity to submit written representations in respect of the contents before these are presented to the Committee.

The outcome of a cause for concern investigation may include one or more of the following:

• No further actions required
• Matters identified for improvement and/or observation
• To vary any existing condition(s)
• To retain existing or attach new additional conditions

In such cases, the outcome of the investigation will inform the timing of the next review (regular or otherwise) and may also impact any accredited qualifications not included in the investigation.

Alternatively, where there were findings of non-compliance with the Standards and requirements for accreditation, ARB may withdraw accreditation from one or more of the provider’s qualifications.

In this instance, ARB will also determine the date that accreditation will cease (which may be retrospective).

Before this action is taken, the Committee will consider a recommendation to withdraw accreditation on two occasions – firstly to determine its ‘minded to’ position, and secondly to make its decision.  The provider will have opportunities to make representations on the recommendation before it goes to the Committee on both occasions.

Should accreditation be withdrawn, students that received the award(s) during the period of accreditation (between the date that accreditation started and the date of withdrawal) will still have an accredited qualification that would be accepted for the purpose of registration.  Students that receive the award(s) after the withdrawal date will not have an accredited qualification, even if accreditation was in place when they started.