Accreditation

Accreditation is a voluntary, nongovernmental process involving a rigorous external review of a program conducted by peers to ensure that the program meets a standard of excellence that provides a high quality of education for students graduating from the program.

Competencies

To obtain accreditation, and for more information, please contact the Chair of the Accreditation Committee Kathleen McNutt kathy.mcnutt@uregina.ca.

Universal

Regardless of the specific mission of each accredited program, CAPPA expects that students will graduate with a set of skills and values that are suitable for success within a changing public sector environment.

Specifically, each program that is accredited by CAPPA must be able to demonstrate that graduates have obtained and can demonstrate certain standard competencies, which provide a basis for professional conduct in public policy and administration. All accredited programs will be able to demonstrate that they are producing graduates with the following competencies :

The ability to analyze and think critically about public sector problems;
The ability to lead and manage within public organizations;
Knowledge and understanding of the tools and techniques required to engage stakeholders in policy and governance processes;
An appreciation of the purpose of public service and associated standards of ethical behaviour;
A capacity to communicate and interact both professionally and productively with a diverse and changing citizenry.

It is incumbent on each program to demonstrate how these competencies are acquired and how knowledge of competency acquisition is obtained.

Mission Specific

Programs will be expected to have a clear mission statement. To ensure that the program’s missions can be accomplished:

The program will have dedicated academic and professional leadership with sufficient resources, access and authority to realize the mission of the program.
Members of the faculty will be academically and/or professionally qualified to help in the pursuit of the mission. There will also be efforts to ensure a diverse faculty that engages in research and scholarship. Programs should also have a core faculty of at least five full-time faculty members, or their equivalent.
Student recruitment will be transparent and will provide evidence of support for students, in terms of advising, career counseling, internships and so on. Programs will also show clear efforts to recruit a diverse student population.
The program will provide sufficient information, specifically about its mission, practices, accomplishments, and learning outcomes, to inform decisions by students, faculty, and other stakeholders.
The curriculum of the program will demonstrate consistency and coherence in meeting its mission. The curriculum should be matched to the overall mission, should reflect a commitment to public service values, and should be designed to allow students to engage with real world problems.

Accreditation Process

Phase 1 >>>	Phase 2 >>>	Phase 3 >>>	Phase 4
Preparation & Intent	Self-Study	Preparing for Site Visit	Site Visit
Actions: Department Agreement Present CAPPA videos on the value of accreditation to department Consultation with Accreditation Committee Chair/Advisor File Intent to proceed with Accreditation Committee or decide to postpone Identify any potential reviewers with a conflict of interest	Actions: Review CAPPA information with department Candidly assess readiness for accreditation noting strengths and weaknesses Make any possible and necessary changes Collect information and complete self-study template Submit final self-study and signal readiness for site visit	Actions: Review Self-Study with CAPPA advisor Review Self-Study with department Identify key messages for reviewers	Actions: Schedule Site visit of 2 reviewers Divide visit responsibilities among department members Host visit and ensure strengths of program are known Be frank about weaknesses and possible fixes Provide any further documentation

Typical 7-year cycle. Mid-cycle progress report in Year 3.

Already accredited? See how the streamlined reaccreditation

Step-by-Step Process

1. Pre-Accreditation Preparation & Intent to Proceed

In this phase of accreditation, the department reviews the importance of accreditation for their program(s). The CAPPA website documentation and video will be helpful in explaining accreditation and its value to the departments. The Head or Director or designated lead on accreditation should outline the stages of accreditation. Ideally, the CAPPA Accreditation process should be conducted at the same time as another review to minimize workload to the department and to avoid “review fatigue.”

The department member in charge of the process, should consult the Accreditation Committee Chair and/or a CAPPA accreditation advisor to discuss the eligibility of the program for accreditation. At this stage, it may be useful to provide a short (5-10) page document outlining the key characteristics of the program(s) being considered for accreditation and the program mission statement if available. If the Board Chair and department representative decide that the program is not ready for accreditation, then they should identify what the department needs to do to begin the process and the appropriate timing for accreditation. If the program appears ready for accreditation and department chooses to go ahead, then it will send a formal request to the CAPPA Board Chair identifying which program(s) it would like accredited.

NOTE: In this stage, it is critical for departments to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the program(s) being considered for accreditation and the objectives of the program. The designated lead on the process should to discuss them candidly with the Accreditation Committee Chair or advisor. CAPPA recognizes that programs may have weaknesses or areas requiring improvement that may be due to factors beyond the department’s ability to address in the short term but will be interested in understanding how the department plans to address any such weaknesses or areas for improvement.

2. Conducting the Self-Study

In this phase, the department should discuss the self-study template and prepare the relevant documentation. It will be helpful if the designated department member in charge of the process has reviewed the template and filled in any easily accessible information in advance of the department review. The department may wish to have a meeting dedicated to accreditation during which they identify the core strengths of the program and areas for improvement, keeping in mind the department mission statement since it will be critical to the program review. If the department does not have a mission statement, then developing one should be the first step in the self-study. The mission statement will state the goals of the department and thus provide the rationale for the programs it offers. Learning objectives then flow from the mission statement.

If the department is undergoing another review, much of the information prepared for that review may just require a summary document that can be inserted into the CAPPA Accreditation Self-Study template. The referenced material may then be included in an appendix using the format of either review. Be sure to include all of the areas identified on the CAPPA template.

The self-study should not exceed 45 pages excluding appendices. During the preparation of the self-study, the department may wish to consult the CAPPA accreditation advisor regarding any questions or uncertainties. If the department identifies critical omissions in its program during the discussion with the CAPPA advisor, it may elect to pause the accreditation process until changes can be made. The department should inform the Accreditation Committee Chair of this decision. The process will recommence when the department signifies its intention to resume the process to the Chair.

Once the self-study is completed to the satisfaction of the department, then the department head or designate submits it to the Accreditation Committee Chair and indicates readiness for a site visit.

3. Preparing for site visit

In Phase 3, the department head or designate should meet by phone/zoom with the Accreditation Committee Chair to advise the Chair of any concerns and any special conditions with the self-study. The Accreditation Committee Chair will advise the department of the two reviewers for the program(s), taking into account any reviewers with possible conflicts of interest as identified by the department.

The department should review the responsibilities of the department members during the visit. It is important to encourage faculty, staff, students and administrators to be candid and to understand the perspective of the department as expressed in the self-study. The site visit should be scheduled by the department designate with a clear itinerary for the reviewers including a block of time towards the conclusion of the visit for the reviewers to meet to discuss their report and obtain any additional material they require to conclude their review. It is also helpful to reserve time for the reviewers mid-review to consult on what they are hearing and review or request any new documentation.

4. Site Visit

The department will host the reviewers and supply any additional information that the reviewers deem necessary. The department should ensure the reviewers have time to confer and structure the outline of their report. Prior to their departure, the reviewers will give the department an indication of their assessment. The department may then supply any additional information that they believe is relevant to respond to any concerns expressed by the reviewers.

5. Decision and Feedback

Reviewers Report

After the site visit and after any additional information has been received from the department, the reviewers will compose and submit their report to the Accreditation Committee.

As the reviewers write the report, they will advise the department if an emerging negative assessment is likely and the nature of their concern(s). The department will be given an opportunity to respond and provide any relevant documentation before the report is submitted by the reviewers to the Board.

If the reviewers still believe an emerging negative assessment is forthcoming, then they should advise the Accreditation Committee Chair of the nature of the concern. After consulting with the Accreditation Committee, the Chair will discuss with the department representative how to proceed. The department may elect to pause the process to address the concern or it may choose to file additional information for the review pertaining to the concern raised. While the Accreditation Committee cannot alter the report of the reviewers, it will take into account any such information filed by the department when it is making its decision on accreditation.

The Reviewer Report should be submitted to the Accreditation Committee as two separate documents.

The main document should be prepared as the Report that is posted on the CAPPA website and should include the recommendation of the reviewers and their review of the program noting areas for improvement in a constructive manner.
The second document should be a confidential strategic memorandum that outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the program(s) and provides advice to the leadership of the department/school on matters which are especially important to ensure continued success and improvement in the future. The strategic memorandum will not be a public document but will be confidential to the Board and department to allow for detailed candid comments. However, it is an integral part of the process intended to promote continuous improvement in programs and potentially provide the program leadership with assistance in making necessary changes or to obtain required resources for their programs.

Board Decision

The Board will review the reviewers’ report and any additional information supplied by the department in response to concerns raised in the report. Based on the Board deliberations and decision, the Board Chair will inform the department of the accreditation decision. If there is an emerging negative decision, then the department will be advised and will be given the opportunity to reply and provide any additional information to answer concerns before the Accreditation Committee takes its final decision.

Once the department has been informed of the Board decision and the department has had an opportunity to respond to that decision in writing, then the Accreditation Committee will post the Board letter to the department with the accreditation decision, the reviewer report and the department response(s) on the CAPPA website. The Accreditation Committee will report its decisions to the CAPPA Board through its annual report.

APPLY FOR ACCREDITATION

Tip preparing for your first accreditation? Book a 30-minute orientation with CAPPA Accreditation Committee.

Benefits of Accreditation

Accreditation is beneficial to:

Aspiring public administration students – helps them choose a high-quality program

Current students – provides them credibility with prospective employers

Faculty members – gives them pride in the quality of their program

Your program – provides an independent external validation of the quality of your program

Your program is already subject to an internal quality review just like all the other programs at your university. Accreditation provides external validation by an independent body that your program meets the standard of excellence established for comparable programs across the country. This also provides a benchmark to determine the level of resources that you need in order to maintain that position.

Your university – enhances the reputation of your university

Discipline of public administration – improves the quality of education for the discipline

Accreditation Committee

Chair

Kathleen McNutt,
Johnson Shoyama Graduate School
of Public Policy

Member

Isabelle Caron, Dalhousie University

Governance

Accredited Member Schools and Accreditation Reports

Concordia University accreditation (2019)
- Accreditation Committee Decision
- Report from the CAPPA Accreditation Review Committee for the Master of Public Policy and Public Administration Program
Dalhousie University accreditation (2018)
- Report from the CAPPA Accreditation Review Committee for the Graduate Programs in the School of Public Administration
- Accreditation Review Committee Decision
Johnson-Shoyama accreditation (2011)
- Report from the CAPPA Accreditation Review Committee for the Masters of Public Administration and Masters of Public Policy
University of Western Ontario accreditation (2009)
- Report from the CAPPA Accreditation Review Committee for the Master of Public Administration Program
- UWO response to Accreditation Report
Carleton University accreditation (2009)
- Report from the CAPPA Accreditation Review Committee for the Master of Arts in Public Administration and Graduate Diplomas in Public Policy and Administration
Ryerson University accreditation (2008)
- Report from the CAPPA Accreditation Review Committee for the Master of Arts (Public Policy and Administration)
- Ryerson response to Accreditation Report

Annual Accreditation Committee Reports

Studies and Reports on the Accreditation Process

Recommendations of the CAPPA Accreditation Board on Revisions to the Accreditation Process (including, as an annex, the December 2019 Report of The CAPPA Accreditation Process Review Committee)
Kathy Brock, Ian Clark, Nancy Olewiler, Luc Bernier, David Siegel (February 2020)
A Discussion Paper on CAPPA Accreditation
Michael Atkinson and Ken Rasmussen (February 2015)
Accreditation and Competencies: The Canadian Experience
Kathy Brock and Michael Atkinson (November 2014)
CAPPA Accreditation Survey Results
Michael Atkinson and Kathy Brock (October 2014)
Experience with a CAPPA Accreditation Review
David A. Good (December 2011)
Managing Multiple Missions - The Development of Accreditation of Public Policy and Public Administration Programs in Canada
Leslie A. Pal and Susan Phillips (April 2010)
Comparison of Canadian master's programs in public administration, public management and public policy (preprint pdf here)
James Iain Gow and Sharon L. Sutherland (January 2008)

Accreditation Logos

Accredited schools and programs can download one of the two logos below to use. To see a list of currently accredited schools please visit our Member Schools page. If you are just looking for the CAPPA/ACPAP logo, you can find on the Contact page.