Complaints Related to Accreditation

Associated Policy: Complaints Related to Accreditation
Responsible Unit: Accreditation and Compliance | Executive Lead: Provost 
Created: 03/06/2018 | Reviewed/Revised: 09/12/2019, 10/27/2020, 4/24/2023 | Effective: 5/1/2023 

Process:
Complaints of accreditation standards, eligibility requirements, procedures, policies, or other accreditation elements must be submitted in writing, within one year of the alleged violation.  

It is expected that, when appropriate, every effort is made to resolve issues informally or through mediation. If a suitable solution cannot be reached through ordinary means, a formal written complaint may be made (see Procedures below).  

Written complaints should include the complainant’s full name, address, and contact information, including email address, and telephone number. Complaints should also indicate relationship with the University or college (i.e. position/title—if an employee, retired, volunteer, or other). The complaint should be specific in describing the nature of the complaint and relevant information: the name of the parties involved, including witnesses; date(s) of occurrence(s); informal efforts to resolve the issue; and the accreditation standard, eligibility requirement, procedure, policy, or other accreditation element violated (if known). Any supporting material that substantiates the complaint should also be included. Steps will be taken to keep the identity of the individual(s) filing the complaint confidential. 

The provost (for university accreditation complaints) or the dean/program director (for programmatic accreditation complains) will acknowledge receipt of complaint within five (5) working days and respond to the complainant with a recommended resolution within 30 calendar days of receipt of the written complaint. If the recommended resolution is accepted, any resulting steps or changes are implemented and the process is complete. If the recommendation is not accepted, the individual may appeal to the same office/officer. If the result of the appeal is still not accepted, the individual may appeal to the next superior office/officer (e.g. from provost to president, from dean to provost). If, upon appeal to that office/officer, the recommended resolution is still not satisfactorily achieved, the individual may file a complaint with the appropriate accrediting body:  

University Accreditation:

Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU)
8060 165th Avenue N.E., Suite 100
Redmond, WA 98052
425-558-4224

Criteria and procedures for filing a complaint with NWCCU are found in the Complaints Regarding Member or Candidate Institutions Policy on the NWCCU Policy web page at nwccu.org. Submit a complaint via the online form: https://www.nwccu.org/tools-resources/complaints/

Individual College Accreditation:

College of Osteopathic Medicine

American Osteopathic Association Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation (AOA COCA)
142 E. Ontario St.
Chicago, IL 60611-2864
800-621-1773 or 312-202-8000
predoc@osteopathic.org

Criteria and procedures for filing a complaint with the COCA and the online form are found on the COCA Accreditation Guidelines page:  https://osteopathic.org/accreditation/accreditation-guidelines/

School of Physical Therapy

Department of Accreditation 
American Physical Therapy Association (APTA)  
1111 North Fairfax Street  
Alexandria, VA 22314  
accreditation@apta.org 

Criteria and procedures for filing a complaint with APTA and the online form are found on the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) File a Complaint page: http://www.capteonline.org/Complaints/  

School of Occupational Therapy 
ACOTE maintains a complaint procedure for issues involving program integrity after all remedies at the institution have been exhausted. The general contact information for ACOTE is: 

Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education 
6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 200,  
North Bethesda, MD 20852-4929 
(301) 652-6611 
accred@aota.org 

Procedure:

1. Individual(s) submits written complaint relative to University accreditation to:

PNWU Provost
111 University Parkway, suite 202
Yakima, WA 98901
Or wmiller@pnwu.edu

Individual submits written complaint relative to the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine Program accreditation to:

PNWU-COM Dean
200 University Parkway
Yakima, WA 98901
Or tscandalis@pnwu.edu

Individual submits a written complaint relative to the Doctor of Physical Therapy Program accreditation to:

DPT Program Director
PNWU Watson Hall
111 University Parkway, Suite 202
Yakima, WA 98901
Or ptrueblood@pnwu.edu

Individual submits a written complaint relative to the developing School of Occupational Therapy Program accreditation to:  

SOT Program Director  
PNWU Watson Hall  
111 University Parkway, Suite 202 
Yakima, WA 98901  
Or hfritz@pnwu.edu 

Alternatively, an individual may use the Confidential Report form available at PNWU.edu. However, if the individual desires follow up to the complaint, contact information must be provided.

For the complaint to be fully investigated it should include:

• Complainant’s full name and contact information (mailing address, telephone number, and email address)
• Complainant’s relationship with PNWU (employee—if so, title/position, retired employee, volunteer, other)
• Nature of the complaint and specific and relevant information regarding the complaint such as:
  • Name(s) of all those involved, including witnesses
  • Date(s) or timeframe of alleged violation(s)
  • University or program accreditation standard, eligibility requirement, policy, procedure, or other accreditation element violated (if known)
  • Supporting material that substantiates the violation
• Description and results of efforts to resolve issue informally (provide documentation if any exists)
• Signature and date

2. The provost (for university accreditation complaints) or the dean/program director (for programmatic accreditation complaints) reviews and investigates the complaint. The provost/dean/program director or a designee may request from the complainant additional information, and has the authority to interview the complainant and any of those involved with the complaint. The provost/dean/program director or a designee may seek advice from any with knowledge relative to the complaint including outside council and may convene an ad hoc committee.

3. Every effort will be made to maintain the confidentiality of the complainant.

4. Within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, the complainant will receive a recommended resolution. The recommended resolution will be in writing and will contain the following:

• Statement of the original complaint
• Findings resulting from the investigation
• Conclusion:
  • The complaint as presented and investigated is not in violation of an accreditation standard, eligibility requirement, policy, or procedure. No further action.
  • The complaint as presented and investigated is in violation of an accreditation standard, eligibility requirement, policy, procedure, or other accreditation element. A plan and timeline to remedy the issue is provided.

5. The complainant must respond within five (5) working days whether the recommended resolution is acceptable or the complainant may appeal but only if the complainant does not believe due process was followed or if the complainant has new and contributing information relevant to the complaint. The appeal must clearly articulate how due process was not followed and/or explain how the new and contributing information is relevant. No response from the complainant within the prescribed timeframe indicates acceptance of the recommended resolution.

6. The provost or dean/program director has 15 calendar days to respond to an appeal indicating the original recommended resolution stands or provide an amended recommended resolution.

7. If complainant is still not satisfied with the recommended resolution, the complainant may appeal the decision to the next superior office (from provost to president, from dean/program director to provost). The complainant must provide the office/officer with the original complaint and the responses from the previous office/officer. The appeal must clearly articulate how due process was not followed and/or explain how contributing information was not considered.

8. The president/provost has 15 calendar days to respond to the final appeal.

9. If the complainant is still not satisfied with the recommended resolution from the president/provost, the complainant may file a complaint with the appropriate accreditor following that accreditor’s process (see accreditors noted in the process section).

10. Should the accreditor find the complaint valid, PNWU and/or the program will abide by the procedures and/or requirements set forth by the accreditor to rectify the violation.

11. All records relative to the adjudication and resolution of the complaint will be maintained by the office that received the original complaint.