COMMISSION ON DENTAL ACCREDITATION
Evaluation &
Operational Policies
& Procedures
EOPP
February 2024
-i-
COMMISSION ON DENTAL ACCREDITATION
EVALUATION AND OPERATIONAL
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Commission on Dental Accreditation
211 East Chicago Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611-2678
(312) 440-4653
https://coda.ada.org/
Copyright ©2024
Commission on Dental Accreditation
All rights reserved. Reproduction is strictly prohibited without prior written permission.
EOPP
February 2024
-ii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 1
A. PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL .................................................................................................. 1
B. HISTORY AND AUTHORITY OF THIS COMMISSION ......................................................... 1
1. American Dental Association Bylaws ................................................................................... 1
Section 30 Duties ................................................................................................................... 1
2. Rules Of The Commission On Dental Accreditation ............................................................. 2
Article I. MISSION ................................................................................................................ 2
Article II. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ......................................................................... 2
Article III. APPEAL BOARD ............................................................................................... 5
Article IV. ACCREDITATION PROGRAM ........................................................................ 6
Article V. OFFICERS ............................................................................................................ 7
Article VI. REMOVAL FOR CAUSE ................................................................................... 8
Article VII. MISCELLANEOUS ........................................................................................... 9
Article VIII. AMENDMENTS .............................................................................................. 9
3. Governing Law And Venue Policy ........................................................................................ 9
C.
SCOPE AND DECISIONS ........................................................................................................... 9
D. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ............................................................ 10
Policy On Communication With The United States Department Of Education (USDE) ........... 10
E. PHILOSOPHY OF ACCREDITATION .................................................................................... 11
1. Accreditation Standards ....................................................................................................... 11
2. Accreditation Cycle .............................................................................................................. 11
F. RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMISSION ON DENTAL
ACCREDITATION OF CANADA ............................................................................................ 11
G. INTEGRITY ............................................................................................................................... 12
H. DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL
POLICY STATEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 13
1. Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 13
2. Staff Protocol For Drafting Policy Reports .......................................................................... 14
II. REVIEW COMMITTEES AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS .......................................... 14
A. REVIEW COMMITTEES AND REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS .................................. 14
1. Structure ............................................................................................................................... 14
2. Composition ......................................................................................................................... 15
3. Nomination Criteria ............................................................................................................. 17
4. Policy On Attendance At Open Portion Of Review Committee Meetings .......................... 18
5. Chairs Of Review Committees ............................................................................................. 18
6. Calibration Protocol ............................................................................................................. 18
7. Procedure To Resolve Differences Between Allied Dental Review Committees ................ 19
B. COMMISSION AND COMMISSION MEETINGS ................................................................. 20
1. Composition and Criteria ..................................................................................................... 20
2. Policy On Absence From Commission Meetings ................................................................ 21
3. New Commissioner Orientation and Training ..................................................................... 22
4. Protocol For Review Of Report On Accreditation Status Of Educational Programs .......... 22
5. Policy On Attendance At Open Portion Of Commission Meetings ..................................... 23
6. Guests Invited To Commission Meetings ............................................................................ 23
7. Commission Communication Of Actions To The Review Committees .............................. 23
8. Confidentiality Of Accreditation Reports ............................................................................ 23
9. Notice Of Accreditation Actions To Programs/Institutions ................................................ 23
EOPP
February 2024
-iii-
10. Distribution Of Meeting Minutes ......................................................................................... 24
11. Notice Of Accreditation Actions To Communities Of Interest ........................................... 24
12. Notice Of Reasons For Adverse Actions ............................................................................. 24
13. Procedure For Disclosure Notice Of Adverse Actions ........................................................ 25
C. POLICY ON CHANGES TO THE COMPOSITION OF REVIEW COMMITTEES
AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ........................................................................... 27
D. POLICY ON REMOVAL OF COMMISSION, REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND APPEAL
BOARD MEMBERS .................................................................................................................. 28
E. POLICY ON PUBLIC STATEMENTS ..................................................................................... 28
F. COMMISSION COMMITTEES ............................................................................................... 29
G. MATERIALS AVAILABLE FROM THE COMMISSION ....................................................... 31
III. GENERAL COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ................................................. 32
A. POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND REVISION OF
ACCREDITATION STANDARDS ........................................................................................... 32
1. Frequency Of Citings ........................................................................................................... 33
B. POLICY ON ASSESSING THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE
ACCREDITATION STANDARDS ........................................................................................... 33
C. PROCEDURES FOR HEARING ON STANDARDS ............................................................... 35
D. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY ....................................................................................... 36
1. Visiting Committee Members .............................................................................................. 36
2. Commissioners, Review Committee Members And Members Of The Appeal Board ........ 37
3. Commission Staff Members ................................................................................................. 39
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
POLICY ................................................................................................. 39
1. Reminder Of Confidentiality ................................................................................................ 42
2. The Agreement Of Confidentiality ...................................................................................... 42
F. POLICY ON PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ...................................................................................... 42
G. POLICY ON SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE ............................................................................. 43
H. NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY .......................................................................................... 44
I. POLICY ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND PROHIBITION AGAINST
HARASSMENT ......................................................................................................................... 44
J. PROGRAM FEE POLICY ......................................................................................................... 46
K. POLICY ON CODA ADMINISTRATIVE FUND .................................................................... 47
L. GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING PROGRAM FILES ............................................................ 48
IV. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO ACCREDITATION OF PROGRAMS .... 49
A. ACCREDITATION STATUS DEFINITIONS .......................................................................... 49
1. Programs That Are Fully Operational .................................................................................. 49
2. Programs That Are Not Fully Operational ........................................................................... 49
3. Other Accreditation Actions ............................................................................................... 50
B. APPLICATION FOR ACCREDITATION FOR FULLY OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS
WITH ENROLLMENT AND WITHOUT ACCREDITATION ............................................... 51
Time Limitation For Review of Applications............................................................................. 52
C. APPLICATION FOR INITIAL ACCREDITATION FOR DEVELOPING PROGRAMS ..... 52
Time Limitation For Review of Applications............................................................................. 53
1. Enrollment Of Students In A Developing Program Prior To Granting Of Initial
Accreditation Status ............................................................................................................. 53
2. Time Limitation For Initial Accreditation ............................................................................ 54
D. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR ACCREDITATION ...... 54
EOPP
February 2024
-iv-
E. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION OF PROGRAMS IN A NEW
DENTAL EDUCATION AREA OR DISCIPLINE ................................................................... 55
F. SELF-STUDY GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................ 58
G. PRE-VISIT GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................. 58
H. POLICY ON THIRD PARTY COMMENTS ............................................................................ 59
I. SITE VISITS .............................................................................................................................. 60
1. Overview And Accreditation Cycle ..................................................................................... 60
2. Coordinated Site Visits ........................................................................................................ 61
3. Institutional Review Process – Reminder Statement ........................................................... 61
4. Policy On Cooperative Site Visits With Other Accreditors ................................................. 62
5. Policy On Special Site Visits ............................................................................................... 62
6. Invoicing Process for Special Focused Site Visits ............................................................. 63
J. SITE VISITORS ......................................................................................................................... 64
1. Appointments ....................................................................................................................... 65
2. Criteria For Nomination Of Site Visitors ............................................................................. 65
Criteria for Educator Site Visitor Nominees ........................................................................ 66
Criteria for Practitioner Site Visitor Nominees .................................................................... 66
A. Predoctoral Dental Education ........................................................................................ 66
B. Advanced Dental Education .......................................................................................... 67
C. Allied Dental Education in Dental Hygiene .................................................................. 68
D. Allied Dental Education in Dental Assisting ................................................................. 68
E. Allied Dental Education in Dental Laboratory Technology .......................................... 68
F. Allied Dental Education in Dental Therapy .................................................................. 69
3. Policy Statement On Site Visitor Training ........................................................................... 69
4. Job Descriptions For Predoctoral Dental Education Visiting Committee Members ............ 70
A. Chair .............................................................................................................................. 70
B. Financial Site Visitor ..................................................................................................... 71
C. Curriculum Site Visitor ................................................................................................. 71
D. Basic Science Site Visitor .............................................................................................. 71
E. Clinical Sciences Site Visitor ........................................................................................ 71
F. National Licensure (Practitioner) Site Visitor ............................................................... 72
5. Job Description For Advanced Dental Education Site Visitors ........................................... 72
6. Job Description For Allied Dental Education Site Visitors ................................................. 72
K. POLICY ON SILENT OBSERVERS ON SITE VISITS ........................................................... 74
L. POLICY ON STATE BOARD PARTICIPATION DURING SITE VISITS ............................ 75
M. SITE VISIT PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................... 76
1. Duration Of Site Visits ......................................................................................................... 77
2. Final Conferences ................................................................................................................ 77
3. Rescheduling Dates Of Site Visits ....................................................................................... 78
4. Enrollment Requirement For Site Visits For Fully Developed Programs ............................ 78
5. Post-Site Visit Evaluation .................................................................................................... 78
N. SITE VISIT REPORTS .............................................................................................................. 78
1. Preliminary Site Visit Report ............................................................................................... 78
2. Policy On Institutional Review Of Site Visit Reports .......................................................... 78
3. Deadlines For Submission Of Supplemental Information ................................................... 79
4. Final Site Visit Report .......................................................................................................... 79
5. Policy On Distribution Of Site Visit Reports ....................................................................... 80
6. Policy On Reports For Co-Sponsored Programs .................................................................. 80
EOPP
February 2024
-v-
V. OTHER POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO ACCREDITATION .................... 80
A. INFORMATION ON THE COMMISSION’S WEBSITE ........................................................ 80
B. PROGRESS REPORTS ............................................................................................................. 81
C. REPORTING PROGRAM CHANGES IN ACCREDITED PROGRAMS ............................... 82
D. REQUESTS FOR TRANSFER OF SPONSORSHIP OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMS ......... 85
E. POLICY ON PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE
COMMISSION ........................................................................................................................... 86
F. POLICY ON MISSED DEADLINES ........................................................................................ 87
G. POLICY ON PROGRAMS DECLINING A RE-EVALUATION VISIT ................................. 87
H. POLICY ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COMMISSION REQUESTS FOR SURVEY
INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................ 88
I. REFERRAL OF POLICY MATTERS TO APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES .......................... 88
J. POLICY ON NON-ENROLLMENT OF FIRST YEAR STUDENTS/RESIDENTS ............... 88
K. POLICY ON INTERRUPTION OF EDUCATION ................................................................... 88
L. POLICY ON ENROLLMENT INCREASES IN ADVANCED DENTAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................................. 89
M. GUIDELINES FOR REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT IN A
PREDOCTORAL DENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM ......................................................... 90
N. VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE OF ACCREDITATION ................................................ 91
O. POLICY ON DISCONTINUANCE OR CLOSURE OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
ACCREDITED BY THE COMMISSION AND TEACH-OUT PLANS .................................. 92
P. POLICY ON ADVERTISING ................................................................................................... 93
Q. POLICY STATEMENT ON PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS IN PROGRAMMATIC
ADVERTISING AND STUDENT RECRUITMENT ............................................................... 94
R. STAFF CONSULTING SERVICES .......................................................................................... 95
S. POLICY STATEMENT ON REPORTING AND APPROVAL OF SITES WHERE
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY OCCURS ................................................................................... 95
T. POLICY ON DISTANCE EDUCATION .................................................................................. 99
1. Student Identity Verification Requirement For Programs That Have Distance Education
Sites .................................................................................................................................... 100
U. POLICY ON INSTITUTIONS OFFERING BOTH ACCREDITED AND NON-
ACCREDITED PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 100
V. POLICY ON COMBINED CERTIFICATE AND DEGREE PROGRAMS IN ADVANCED
DENTAL EDUCATION .......................................................................................................... 101
W. QUALIFICATIONS OF A PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR A COMBINED ADVANCED
DENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 101
X. POLICY ON REGARD FOR DECISIONS OF STATES AND OTHER ACCREDITING
AGENCIES .............................................................................................................................. 101
Y. COMMENTS ON POLICY PROPOSED AND/OR ADOPTED BY PARTICIPATING
ORGANIZATIONS .................................................................................................................. 102
Z. POLICY ON RESIDENT DUTY HOURS RESTRICTIONS ................................................. 102
AA.POLICY ON CUSTOMIZED SURVEY DATA REQUESTS ................................................ 103
BB. POLICY ON REQUESTS FOR CONTACT DISTRIBUTION LISTS ................................... 103
CC.POLICY ON REPRINTS ......................................................................................................... 104
VI. COMPLAINTS .............................................................................................................................. 105
A. DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................ 105
B. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES .......................................................... 105
C. COMMISSION LOG OF COMPLAINTS ............................................................................... 106
EOPP
February 2024
-vi-
D. POLICY AND PROCEDURE REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
AGAINST EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS ............................................................................ 106
Formal Complaints ................................................................................................................... 106
1. Investigative Procedures for Formal Complaints ................................................................ 106
2. Formal Complaints .............................................................................................................. 107
Anonymous Complaints ........................................................................................................... 109
E. POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON COMPLAINTS DIRECTED AT THE
COMMISSION ON DENTAL ACCREDITATION ................................................................ 110
VII. DUE PROCESS ............................................................................................................................ 110
A. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO SITE VISIT REPORTS ....................................................... 111
B. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO PROGRESS REPORTS ....................................................... 111
C. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO REVIEW COMMITTEE SPECIAL APPEARANCES ....... 112
D. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO APPEAL OF ACCREDITATION STATUS DECISIONS . 112
E. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO DENIAL OF INITIAL ACCREDITATION ....................... 113
F. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO WITHDRAWAL OF ACCREDITATION .......................... 114
G. FUNCTION AND PROCEDURES OF THE APPEAL BOARD ............................................ 115
1. Appeal Board ..................................................................................................................... 115
2. Selection Criteria For Appeal Board Members .................................................................. 115
3. Appeal Procedures ............................................................................................................. 116
4. Mechanism For The Conduct Of The Appeal Hearing ...................................................... 117
VIII. INTERNATIONAL PREDOCTORAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ............................. 118
A. THE CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR PREDOCTORAL INTERNATIONAL
PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................ 118
B. INTERNATIONAL PREDOCTORAL DENTAL EDUCATION SITE VISITS .................... 119
C. BROAD ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PRELIMINARY ACCREDITATION
CONSULTATION VISIT (PACV) .......................................................................................... 121
D. POLICY ON PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING PRELIMINARY ACCREDITATION
CONSULTATION VISIT (PACV) AND INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION SITE
VISITS ...................................................................................................................................... 121
IX. COMMISSION HISTORY AND BACKGROUND .................................................................. 122
X. NON-GOVERNMENTAL RECOGNITION OF POSTSECONDARY ACCREDITATION
......................................................................................................................................................... 124
XI. RECOGNITION CHRONOLOGY - - DENTISTRY ................................................................ 125
INDEX ...................................................................................................................................................... 130
EOPP
February 2024
- 1 -
I. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL INFORMATION
A. PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL
This manual provides information about the Commission on Dental Accreditation’s accreditation policies
and procedures for all institutions sponsoring predoctoral, advanced, and allied dental education programs.
It contains background information on the Commission and its accreditation policies, as well as specific
information to assist programs in attaining accreditation and in preparing for on-site reviews. The
information in this manual applies to all dental education programs (predoctoral, advanced, and allied
dental) except where specifically noted. Dates following each policy refer to the date of the Commission
action to Adopt, Revise, or Reaffirm the policy. A reference noted as CODA: 7/00;4 indicates that
additional information can be found on page four (4) of the Commission’s July 2000 minutes.
Revised: 8/17; Reaffirmed: 8/22
B. HISTORY AND AUTHORITY OF THIS COMMISSION
The Commission on Dental Accreditation, the successor of the Council on Dental Education which had
conducted the accreditation program since 1937, began operating in 1975. Although the Commission has
conducted all accreditation activities since it was formed in 1975, the Council on Dental Education (now
known as the Council on Dental Education and Licensure) was the first accrediting body for dentistry and
the related dental disciplines. All accreditation policy that had been used by the Council was adopted by the
Commission in 1975 and became Commission policy even though some pre-1975 policy continues to be
referenced in Council action and minutes. The Commission serves as the only nationally-recognized
accrediting body for dentistry and the related dental fields. The Commission receives its accreditation
authority from the acceptance of the dental community and by being recognized by the United States
Department of Education (USDE), a governmental agency.
The Commission has participated in governmental recognition since 1952 when the U. S. Commissioner of
Education was first required to publish a list of “nationally recognized accrediting agencies.” USDE has
established recognition requirements that an accrediting agency must meet in order to be recognized and
conducts reviews for continued recognition at five-year intervals.
1. American Dental Association Constitution and Bylaws and Governance and Organizational
Manual
Chapter IX Commissions, Section 30 Duties: The ADA Constitution and Bylaws describe the duties of
the Commission on Dental Accreditation as follows:
a. Formulate and adopt requirements and guidelines for the accreditation of dental, advanced dental
and allied dental educational programs.
b. Accredit dental, advanced dental and allied dental educational programs.
c. Provide a means for appeal from an adverse decision of the accrediting body of the Commission to
a separate and distinct body of the Commission whose membership shall be totally different from
that of the accrediting body of the Commission.
d. Submit an annual budget to the Board of Trustees of the Association.
Section 30 Duties: Revised by the ADA House of Delegates, November 2015 and October 2018
EOPP
February 2024
- 2 -
Governance and Organizational Manual, Chapter IX Commissions, Section L. Power To Adopt Rules
(excerpt): The Commission on Dental Accreditation shall have the authority to make corrections in
punctuation, grammar, spelling, name changes, gender references, and similar editorial corrections to the
Rules of the Commission on Dental Accreditation which do not alter its context or meaning without the
need to submit such editorial corrections to the House of Delegates. Such corrections shall be made only by
a unanimous vote of the Commission on Dental Accreditation members present and voting.
Section L: Approved by the ADA House of Delegates, October 2014
2. Rules Of The Commission On Dental Accreditation:
Article I. MISSION
The Commission on Dental Accreditation serves the public and dental professions by developing and
implementing accreditation standards that promote and monitor the continuous quality and improvement of
dental education programs.
Adopted August 5, 2016; Revised August 6, 2021
Article II. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Section l. LEGISLATIVE AND MANAGEMENT BODY: The legislative and management body of the
Commission shall be the Board of Commissioners.
Section 2. COMPOSITION: The Board of Commissioners shall consist of:
Four (4) members who shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees from the names of active, life or retired
members of this Association. None of the appointees shall be a faculty member of any dental education
program working more than one day per week or a member of a state board of dental examiners or
jurisdictional dental licensing agency.
Four (4) members who are active, life or retired members of this Association and also active members of
the American Association of Dental Boards shall be selected by the American Association of Dental
Boards. None of these members shall be a faculty member of any dental education program.
Four (4) members who are active, life or retired members of this Association and also active members of the
American Dental Education Association shall be selected by the American Dental Education Association.
None of these members shall be a member of any state board of dental examiners or jurisdictional dental
licensing agency.
The remaining Commissioners shall be selected as follows: one (1) certified dental assistant selected by the
American Dental Assistants Association from its active or life membership, one (l) licensed dental hygienist
selected by the American Dental Hygienists’ Association, one (l) certified dental laboratory technician
selected by the National Association of Dental Laboratories, one (l) student selected jointly by the
American Student Dental Association and the Council of Students, Residents and Fellows of the American
Dental Education Association, one (1) dentist who is board certified in the respective discipline-specific
area of practice and is selected by each of the following organizations: American Academy of Oral and
Maxillofacial Pathology, American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, American Academy of
Oral Medicine, American Academy of Orofacial Pain, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, American
Academy of Periodontology, American Association of Endodontists, American Association of Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgeons, American Association of Orthodontists, American Association of Public Health
EOPP
February 2024
- 3 -
Dentistry, American College of Prosthodontists, American Society of Dentist Anesthesiologists; one (1)
dentist who is jointly appointed by the American Dental Education Association and the Special Care
Dentistry Association, and four (4) members of the public who are neither dentists nor allied dental
personnel nor teaching in a dental or allied dental education institution and who are selected by the
Commission, based on established and publicized criteria. In the event a Commission member sponsoring
organization fails to select a Commissioner, it shall be the responsibility of the Commission to select an
appropriate representative to serve as a Commissioner. The Director of the Commission shall be an
ex-officio member of the Board without the right to vote.
Section 3. TERM OF OFFICE: The term of office of the members of the Board of Commissioners shall be
one four (4) year term except that the member jointly selected by the American Dental Education
Association and the American Student Dental Association shall serve only one two (2) year term.
Terms of members of the Board of Commissioners shall begin and end with adjournment of the closing
session of the annual meeting of the House of Delegates of the American Dental Association in the
appropriate year.
Section 4. POWERS:
A. The Board of Commissioners shall be vested with full power to conduct all business of the
Commission subject to the laws of the State of Illinois, the Constitution and Bylaws of the
American Dental Association, the Governance and Organizational Manual of the American
Dental Association, Standing Rules for Councils and Commissions of the American Dental
Association, and these Rules.
B. The Board of Commissioners shall have the power to establish rules and regulations to govern
its organization and procedure provided that such rules and regulations are consistent with the
Constitution and Bylaws of the American Dental Association, the Governance and
Organizational Manual of the American Dental Association, and the Standing Rules for
Councils and Commissions of the American Dental Association.
C. The Board of Commissioners shall be vested with full power to conduct meetings in accordance
with these Rules and the Evaluation and Operational Policies and Procedures manual of the
Commission on Dental Accreditation.
D. The Board of Commissioners shall appoint special committees of the Commission for the
purpose of performing duties not otherwise assigned by these Rules.
E. The Board of Commissioners shall appoint consultants/site visitors to assist in developing
accreditation standards and conducting accreditation evaluations, including on-site reviews of
predoctoral, advanced dental and allied dental educational programs and to assist with other
duties of the Commission from time to time as needed. The Board of Commissioners shall have
the authority to remove a consultant/site visitor for cause in accordance with procedures
established by the Commission.
F. The Board of Commissioners shall have the sole authority to remove a Commission member,
Review Committee member, or Appeal Board member for cause in accordance with procedures
established by the Commission, which procedures shall provide for notice of the charges,
including allegations of the conduct purported to constitute each violation, and a decision in
EOPP
February 2024
- 4 -
writing which shall specify the findings of fact which substantiate any and all of the charges.
Prior to issuance of the decision of the Commission, no Commission, Review Committee, or
Appeal Board member shall be excused from attending any meeting of a Commission, Review
Committee, or Appeal Board unless there is an opportunity to be heard or compelling reasons
exist which are specified in writing by the Commission. The Commission shall inform the
American Dental Association Board of Trustees and any relevant appointing organization when
it has removed a member for cause.
Section 5. DUTIES:
A. The Board of Commissioners shall prepare a budget annually for carrying on the activities of
the Commission for the ensuing fiscal year and shall submit said budget to the Board of
Trustees of the American Dental Association in accordance with the Governance and
Organizational Manual of the American Dental Association.
B. The Board of Commissioners shall submit an annual report of the Commission's activities to its
communities of interest including the House of Delegates of the American Dental Association
and interim reports, on request, to the Board of Trustees of the American Dental Association.
Section 6. MEETINGS:
A. REGULAR MEETINGS: There shall be two (2) regular meetings of the Board of
Commissioners each year.
B. SPECIAL MEETINGS: Special meetings of the Board of Commissioners may be called at any
time by the Chair of the Commission. The Chair shall call such meetings on request of a
majority of the voting members of the Board provided at least ten (10) days’ notice is given to
each member of the Board in advance of the meeting. Confirmation of meeting attendance by a
majority of voting members of the Board shall serve as an indication of the Board’s request to
conduct the special meeting. No business shall be considered except that provided in the call to
the meeting unless consideration of said business is approved by unanimous consent of the
members of the Board present and voting.
C. LIMITATION OF ATTENDANCE DURING MEETINGS: In keeping with the confidential
nature of the deliberations regarding the accreditation status of individual educational programs,
a portion of the meetings of the Commission, and its committees shall be designated as
confidential, with attendance limited to members, the American Dental Association Trustee
Liaison, selected staff of the Commission and affiliated or other accreditors as the Commission
deems appropriate.
Section 7. QUORUM: A majority of the voting members of the Board of Commissioners shall constitute a
quorum.
Section 8. VACANCIES: In the event of a vacancy in the office of a Commissioner, the following
procedures shall be employed:
EOPP
February 2024
- 5 -
A. In the event that the Commissioner was selected by an association, the Director of the
Commission shall notify the appointing organization and such association shall select a
successor who possesses the qualifications established by the Governance and Organizational
Manual of the American Dental Association and these Rules to complete the unexpired term. In
the event the appointing organization fails to select a Commissioner by the prescribed deadline,
it shall be the responsibility of the Commission to select an appropriate representative to serve
as a Commissioner.
B. In the event that the Commissioner was the public representative, the Board of Commissioners
shall elect a successor who possesses the qualifications established by these Rules and
Commission policy to complete the unexpired term.
C. If the term of the vacated office of a member of the Commission has fifty percent (50%) or less
of a full four-year term remaining at the time the successor member is appointed to fill the
vacancy, the successor member shall be eligible for appointment to a new four-year term. If
more than fifty percent (50%) of the vacated term remains to be served at the time of the
appointment of a successor member to fill the vacancy, the successor member shall not be
eligible for another term.
Article III. APPEAL BOARD
Section 1. APPEAL BOARD: The appellate body of the Commission shall be the Appeal Board which
shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals filed by predoctoral and advanced dental educational and
allied dental educational programs from decisions rendered by the Board of Commissioners denying or
revoking accreditation. Such appeals shall be heard pursuant to procedures established by these Rules and
the Commission’s Evaluation and Operational Policies and Procedures manual.
Section 2. COMPOSITION: The Appeal Board shall consist of four (4) permanent members. The four (4)
permanent members of the Appeal Board shall be selected as follows: one (1) selected by the Board of
Trustees of the American Dental Association from the active, life or retired membership of the American
Dental Association giving special consideration whenever possible to former members of the Council on
Dental Education and Licensure, one (l) member selected by the American Association of Dental Boards
from the active membership of that body, one (1) member selected by the American Dental Education
Association from the active membership of that body and one (l) consumer member who is neither a dentist
nor an allied dental personnel nor teaching in a dental or allied dental educational program and who is
selected by the Commission, based on established and publicized criteria. In addition, a representative from
either an allied or advanced dental education discipline would be included on the Appeal Board depending
upon the type and character of the appeal. Such special members shall be selected by the appropriate allied
or advanced dental education organization. Since there is no national organization for general practice
residencies and advanced education programs in general dentistry, representatives of these areas shall be
selected by the American Dental Education Association and the Special Care Dentistry Association. One (l)
member of the Appeal Board shall be appointed annually by the Chair of the Commission to serve as the
Chair and shall preside at all meetings of the Appeal Board. If the Chair is unable to attend any given
meeting of the Appeal Board, the other members of the Appeal Board present and voting shall elect by
majority vote an acting Chair for that meeting only. The Director of the Commission shall provide
assistance to the Appeal Board.
Section 3. TERM OF OFFICE: The term of office of members on the Appeal Board shall be one four (4)
year term.
EOPP
February 2024
- 6 -
Section 4. MEETINGS: The Appeal Board shall meet at the call of the Director of the Commission,
provided at least ten (10) days’ notice is given to each member of the Appeal Board in advance of the
meeting. Such meetings shall be called by the Director only when an appeal to the appellate body has been
duly filed by a predoctoral or advanced dental educational or allied dental educational program.
Section 5. QUORUM: A majority of the voting members of the Appeal Board shall constitute a quorum.
Section 6. VACANCIES:
A. In the event of a vacancy in the membership of the Appeal Board of the Commission, the Chair
of the Commission shall appoint a member of the same organization, or in the case of a
consumer of the general public, possessing the same qualifications as established by these
Rules, to fill such vacancy until a successor is selected by the respective representative
organization.
B. If the term of the vacated position has fifty percent (50%) or less of a full four-year term
remaining at the time the successor member is appointed, the successor member shall be
eligible for a new, consecutive four-year term. If more than fifty percent (50%) of the vacated
term remains to be served at the time of the appointment, the successor member shall not be
eligible for another term.
Article IV. ACCREDITATION PROGRAM
Section l. ACCREDITATION STANDARDS: The Commission, acting through the Board of
Commissioners, shall establish and publish specific accreditation standards for the accreditation of
predoctoral, advanced dental and allied dental educational programs.
Section 2. EVALUATION: Predoctoral, advanced, and allied dental education programs shall be evaluated
for accreditation status by the Board of Commissioners on the basis of the information and data provided on
survey forms and secured by the members of, and consultants to, the Board of Commissioners during site
evaluations.
If the Board of Commissioners decides to deny, for the first time, accreditation to a new educational
program or to withdraw accreditation from an existing program, the Board of Commissioners shall first
notify the educational program of its intent to deny or withdraw accreditation. Notification and subsequent
due process policies and procedures shall be dictated by the Commission through its Evaluation and
Operational Policies and Procedures manual.
Section 3. HEARING: Upon completion of an evaluation for accreditation status, the Board of
Commissioners shall notify the predoctoral, advanced or allied dental education program (hereinafter called
“education program”) of its findings and decision regarding the program’s accreditation status. Two types
of hearings (challenge and supplement) can be held to review the appropriateness of the decision made by
the Commission. Due process policies and procedures shall be dictated by the Commission through its
Evaluation and Operational Policies and Procedures manual.
A. CHALLENGE: This type of hearing is available to a program/institution that wishes to
challenge the decision of the Commission to change its accreditation status or to a new program
that wishes to challenge the decision of the Commission to deny, for the first time, initial
accreditation.
EOPP
February 2024
- 7 -
B. SUPPLEMENT: An institution/program may request a hearing in order to supplement written
information, which has already been submitted to the Commission. A representative of the
institution would be permitted to appear in person before the Commission to present this
additional information.
Section 4. APPEAL: In the event the final decision of the Board of Commissioners is a denial or
withdrawal of accreditation, the educational program shall be informed of this decision within fourteen (14)
days following the Commission meeting. Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the final decision of the
Board of Commissioners, the educational program may appeal the decision of the Board of Commissioners
by filing a written appeal with the Director of the Commission. Due process policies and procedures shall
be dictated by the Commission through its Evaluation and Operational Policies and Procedures manual.
Section 5. HEARING AND APPEAL COSTS: If a hearing is held before the Board of Commissioners, the
costs of the Commission respecting such hearing shall be borne by the Commission. If an appeal is heard
by the Appeal Board, the costs of the Commission respecting such appeal shall be shared equally by the
Commission and the appellant educational program filing the appeal except in those instances where equal
sharing would cause a financial hardship to the appellant. However, each educational program shall bear
the cost of its representatives for any such hearing or appeal.
Article V. OFFICERS
Section l. OFFICERS: The officers of the Commission shall be a Chair, Vice-chair, a Director and such
other officers as the Board of Commissioners may authorize. The Chair and Vice-chair shall be elected by
the Board of Commissioners.
Section 2. ELIGIBILITY: The Chair and Vice-chair shall be dentists who are members of the Board of
Commissioners. The Chair and Vice-chair shall be active, life or retired members of the American Dental
Association.
Section 3. ELECTION AND TERM: The Chair and Vice-chair of the Commission shall be elected
annually by the Board of Commissioners. The term of the Chair and Vice-chair shall be one (1) year
beginning and ending with adjournment of the closing session of the annual meeting of the House of
Delegates of the American Dental Association.
Section 4: DUTIES: The duties of the officers are as follows:
A. CHAIR:
1. Appoint members and chairs of such committees as are necessary for the orderly conduct of
business except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
2. Circulate or cause to be circulated an announcement and an agenda for each regular or
special meeting of the Board of Commissioners.
3. Preside during meetings of the Board of Commissioners.
4. Prepare or supervise the preparation of an annual report of the Commission.
5. Prepare or supervise the preparation of an annual budget of the Commission.
6. Represent the Commission during sessions of the House of Delegates of the American
Dental Association.
EOPP
February 2024
- 8 -
B. VICE-CHAIR: The Vice-chair of the Commission shall assist the Chair in the performance of
his or her duties. If the Chair is unable to attend any given meeting of the Board of
Commissioners, the Vice-chair shall preside at the meeting. If the Vice-chair also is unable to
attend the meeting, the other members of the Board of Commissioners present and voting shall
elect by majority vote an acting chair for the purpose of presiding at that meeting only.
C. VACANCIES: In the event the vacancy involves the Chair, the Vice-chair shall immediately
assume all duties of the Chair. In the event the vacancy involves the Vice-chair, a meeting of
the Commission shall be convened to select a new Vice-chair.
Section 5. DIRECTOR:
A. Appointment: The Director of the Commission shall be an employee of the American Dental
Association selected by the Executive Director of that Association.
B. Duties: The Director of the Commission shall:
1. Prepare an agenda and keep minutes of meetings of the Board of Commissioners.
2. See that all notices are duly given in accordance with the provisions of these Rules or as
required by law.
3. Be the custodian of records of the Commission.
4. Manage the office and staff of the Commission.
5. In general shall perform all duties incident to the office of Director.
Article VI. REMOVAL FOR CAUSE
Pursuant to the Rules of the Commission on Dental Accreditation, the following are causes for removal of a
member from the Board of Commissioners, Committees, or Appeal Board:
• continued, gross or willful neglect of the duties of the office;
• failure to comply with the Commission’s policies on conflict of interest;
• failure or refusal to disclose necessary information on matters of Commission business;
• failure to keep confidential any exclusive information protected by secrecy that becomes
known to
the member by reason of the performance of his or her duties on the
Commission’s behalf;
• failure to comply with the Association’s professional conduct policy and
prohibition against
harassment;
• unauthorized expenditures or misuse of Commission funds;
• unwarranted attacks on the Commission, any of its committees or any person serving the
Commission
in an elected, appointed or employed capacity;
• unwarranted refusal to cooperate with any Commission officer, Commission, Review
Committee or Appeal Board member or staff;
• misrepresentation of the Commission and any person serving the Commission in an
elected,
appointed or employed capacity to outside persons;
• being found to have engaged in conduct subject to discipline pursuant to Chapter XI of the
Governance and Organizational Manual of the American Dental Association; and
• conviction of a felony.
EOPP
February 2024
- 9 -
Article VII. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 1. Meeting Minutes: Minutes of the Commission on Dental Accreditation meetings shall be posted
and available for public viewing.
Section 2. Contracts: The Commission may enter into contracts for services related to accreditation
activities pursuant to the policies and procedures of the Commission.
Section 3. Parliamentary Procedure: The rules contained in the current edition of “The American Institute
of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC)” shall govern the deliberations of
the Board of Commissioners and Appeal Board in all instances where they are applicable and not in conflict
with the Constitution and Bylaws of the American Dental Association, the Governance and Organizational
Manual of the American Dental Association, and these Rules.
Article VIII. AMENDMENTS
These Rules may be amended at any meeting of the Board of Commissioners by a two-thirds majority vote
of the members of the Board present and voting.
Revised: 2/21; 1/20; 2/19; 8/18; 8/17; 1/17; 8/15; 8/10, 10/02, 10/97, 10/87, 11/82; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/12
3. Governing Law And Venue Policy: Any court action challenging an adverse accreditation decision
made by the Commission or otherwise pertaining to these Evaluation and Operational Policies and
Procedures (EOPP) shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Illinois, without
regard to where the challenge arises and without regard to conflict of laws principles. Any suit pertaining to
EOPP shall be brought in the state or federal courts sitting in Chicago, Illinois, each party subject to the
EOPP waiving any claim or defense that such forum is not convenient or proper. Each such party further
agrees that any such court shall have in personam jurisdiction over it and consents to service of process in
any manner authorized by Illinois law.
Revised: 8/10; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/12; Adopted: 7/07
C.
SCOPE AND DECISIONS
The Commission on Dental Accreditation is concerned with the educational quality of predoctoral,
advanced, and allied dental education programs in the United States. The Commission accredits more than
1400 programs in the disciplines within its purview, conducting all aspects of the accreditation process.
Through its accreditation activities, the Commission attempts to foster educational excellence, supports
programmatic self-improvement and assures the general public of the ongoing availability of quality dental
care. These goals are an integral part of a process of evaluation which combines on-site visits with regular
review of written and quantitative data. Decisions on accreditation status are the sole responsibility of the
Commission. Neither Commission staff, site visitors, independent consultants, individual members of the
Commission, nor any other agents of the Commission are empowered to make or modify accreditation
decisions.
The Commission formulates and adopts accreditation standards for the accreditation of predoctoral,
advanced, and allied dental education programs.
EOPP
February 2024
- 10 -
The Commission, in fulfilling its accreditation responsibilities, focuses on the educational results or
outcomes of the programs for which it has authority, as well as on the process used to obtain these results.
During its review process, the Commission evaluates programs in relation to predetermined standards.
These accreditation standards afford educational institutions latitude and flexibility in program development
and implementation. In evaluating the educational process, the Commission applies the established
accreditation standards for each discipline uniformly to all programs. All accreditation actions are based on
and directly linked to the educational standards or required accreditation policies.
The Commission shares routinely with other accrediting agencies and state licensing agencies information
about the status of and any adverse actions taken against any accredited program. Likewise, the
Commission receives information about the accreditation actions taken by other accrediting agencies. In
accord with established procedure, staff reviews that information and makes note of actions taken at those
institutions that also sponsor a Commission-accredited program. When a new program seeks initial
accreditation, information regarding the sponsoring institution’s accreditation status must be provided. If
any potential problems are revealed, staff seeks additional clarifying information and presents that
information to the Commission, usually at its next regularly scheduled meeting. If the Commission were
notified by the Department of Education of a potential problem at an institution sponsoring an education
program accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation, that issue would be addressed
immediately.
Revised: 8/17; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/12, 8/10
D. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The United States Department of Education (USDE) periodically publishes a list of Nationally Recognized
Accrediting Agencies and Associations, which is used to determine eligibility for U.S. federal funding or
government assistance under certain legislation. Agencies and associations included on the USDE list are
those determined to be the reliable authorities in evaluating the quality of education offered by educational
institutions or programs. In order for institutions to become eligible for federal funds, the accrediting
agency for that institution must be recognized by USDE. The authority and recognition responsibility of
USDE is governed by the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended. This legislation is
periodically reauthorized, usually at five-year intervals. Following each reauthorization, the Department
promulgates new Procedures and Criteria for Recognition of Accrediting Agencies. The Secretary of
Education requires the Commission on Dental Accreditation to submit to USDE the standards, policies, and
procedures used in its evaluation program. Periodic reviews by USDE are conducted to determine the
Commission’s continued eligibility for recognition. The Commission on Dental Accreditation has been
recognized since the first recognition list was published in 1952.
Policy On Communication With The United States Department Of Education (USDE):
As required by the USDE, the Commission will forward to the USDE Secretary annually the following:
• Copies of all Annual Report(s);
• Copies, updated annually, of its directory of accredited programs;
• A summary of the Commission’s major accrediting activities during the previous year, if requested
by the Secretary of Education; and
• Any proposed changes in the Commission’s policies, procedures, or accreditation standards that
might alter the Commission’s scope of recognition or compliance with the requirements of this part
of the USDE recognition criteria.
Revised: 8/17; 8/10; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/12. 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 7/96:23
EOPP
February 2024
- 11 -
E. PHILOSOPHY OF ACCREDITATION
The Commission believes that its first responsibility is accountability to the public. The Commission
fulfills its responsibility to the public by ensuring that the programs under its purview meet the established
educational standards, that Commission policies are applied impartially, and that the Commission follows
established procedures to obtain input from a broad constituency and allow for due process. Further,
representatives from the public are members of the Commission and its Review Committees, and public
comment is regularly solicited on the accreditation standards as well as the educational programs accredited
by the Commission.
Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/12; Adopted: 8/10
1. Accreditation Standards: The Commission on Dental Accreditation evaluates the educational quality
of predoctoral, advanced, and allied dental education programs in the United States. All 50 states plus
Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia recognize the Commission’s authority to accredit predoctoral,
advanced, and allied dental education programs in the predoctoral, advanced, and allied dental education
disciplines. The Commission also evaluates the educational quality of international dental education
programs (see International Predoctoral Policies and Procedures). The Commission on Dental
Accreditation has developed accreditation standards for each of the disciplines within its purview. The
standards, which are the basis for accreditation actions, are reviewed periodically and revised as necessary
(see Policy and Procedures for Development and Revision of Accreditation Standards). Documents for
each discipline are available on the Commission’s website and from the Commission office upon request.
In addition, each predoctoral, advanced, and allied dental education program defines its own goals and
objectives for preparing members of the dental team. The extent to which a program meets its own goals
and objectives is also considered by the Commission.
Revised: 8/17; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/10
2. Accreditation Cycle: The Commission on Dental Accreditation formally evaluates programs at regular
intervals. Comprehensive site visits based on a self-study are routinely conducted every seven years.
Programs in the advanced dental education discipline of oral and maxillofacial surgery are site visited at
five-year intervals. Programs found to be in full compliance with the accreditation standards are awarded
the accreditation classification of Approval Without Reporting Requirements. Programs not in full
compliance with the accreditation standards are awarded the accreditation classification of Approval With
Reporting Requirements.
Revised: 8/18; 1/98, 1/99; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/12, 8/10, 7/05; Adopted: 7/97, 7/96
F. RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMISSION ON DENTAL ACCREDITATION OF
CANADA
The reciprocal accreditation arrangement between the Commission on Dental Accreditation and the
Commission on Dental Accreditation of Canada (CDAC) has been maintained and expanded since its
adoption in 1956. Under the reciprocal agreement, each Commission recognizes the accreditation of
educational programs in specified categories accredited by the other agency. Under this arrangement, the
Commissions agree that the educational programs accredited by the other agency are equivalent to their
own and no further education is required for eligibility for licensure. Commissioners and staff of the
accrediting agencies will regularly attend the meetings of the other agency and its standing committees. In
addition, Commissioners and/or staff will participate annually in at least one site visit conducted by the
other agency. The Commissions believe that this cross-participation is important in maintaining an
understanding of the accreditation processes in each country and in ensuring that the accreditation processes
in each country continue to be equivalent.
EOPP
February 2024
- 12 -
The following educational programs are included in the scope of the reciprocal agreement.
• Predoctoral dental education
• Dental hygiene
• Level II dental assisting
• Advanced dental education programs in dental public health, endodontics, oral and maxillofacial
pathology, oral and maxillofacial radiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics and
dentofacial orthopedics, pediatric dentistry, periodontics, and prosthodontics.
The following statement is found in the “Find a Program” section of the CODA website:
Canadian Programs
By reciprocal agreement, programs that are accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of
Canada are recognized by the Commission on Dental Accreditation. However, individuals attending
dental programs in one country and planning to practice in another country should carefully
investigate the requirements of the licensing jurisdiction where they wish to practice.
By reciprocal agreement, predoctoral dental education, level II dental assisting, dental hygiene, and
advanced dental education programs in dental public health, endodontics, oral and maxillofacial
pathology, oral and maxillofacial radiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics and
dentofacial orthopedics, pediatric dentistry, periodontics, and prosthodontics that are accredited by
the Commission on Dental Accreditation Canada are recognized by the Commission on Dental
Accreditation.
Revised: 8/18; 8/17; 2/15; 7/91; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/12, 8/10, 7/07, 1/03, 7/01; CODA: 1/97:03, 1/94:4-5
G. INTEGRITY
Integrity is expected throughout the accreditation process. In its relationships with the Commission, a
program shall demonstrate honesty and integrity. By seeking accreditation or re-accreditation, and
maintaining accreditation, the program agrees to comply with Commission requirements, policies,
guidelines, self-study requirements, decisions, and requests.
• In the accreditation process, the program shall be completely candid, providing all pertinent information;
• All program changes will be reported in a timely manner and in accordance with the Commission’s
Policy on Reporting Program Changes; and
• With due regard for the rights of individual privacy, the program shall provide the Commission with
access to all parts of its operations, and with complete and accurate information about the program's
affairs, including reports of other accrediting, licensing, and auditing agencies, as requested.
The program’s failure to report honestly, by presenting false information, by omission of essential
information or by distortion of information with the intent to mislead, constitutes a breach of integrity, in
and of itself. If it appears to the Commission that the program has violated the principles of integrity in the
materials submitted to the Commission or in any other manner that requires immediate attention, an
investigation will be made, and the program will be offered an opportunity to respond to suspected
violations. The Commission will ordinarily withdraw accreditation from a program, after due notice, if:
EOPP
February 2024
- 13 -
• The Commission concludes that the program has engaged in illegal conduct or is deliberately
misrepresenting itself or presenting false information to the faculty, staff, students, the public or the
Commission; or
• The program fails to provide fully and truthfully all pertinent information and materials requested by
the Commission.
The Commission may immediately withdraw accreditation if it deems that action to be the most appropriate
way to address the issue.
Revised: 2/18; 8/17; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/12, 8/10; Adopted: 7/08
H. DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS
The purpose of the Commission on Dental Accreditation as described in its Rules and in the American
Dental Association (ADA) Bylaws is (1) to formulate and adopt requirements and guidelines for the
accreditation of dental, advanced dental and allied dental educational programs and (2) to accredit dental,
advanced dental and allied dental educational programs. It is frequently necessary for the Commission to
develop policy statements in the process of conducting its business. Such policy may be accreditation
related, administrative or operational. The intended audience of a policy statement may be the accredited
programs, the broader educational community, the dental community, the general public or some other
more specialized audience.
Although policy statements adopted by the Commission may serve a variety of purposes, the procedures
which precede adoption are very similar. As the Commission deems appropriate, comment from all
potentially affected communities will generally be obtained by circulating the proposed policy to the
appropriate discipline-specific Review Committees and, on occasion, to those organizations traditionally
viewed as partners in the accreditation process. Some circumstances may dictate even wider circulation to a
broader community to provide the Commission with the information it needs in order to take action.
Although the issue may have come from a specific discipline, the Commission may determine that the issue
may affect a broader community and provide guidance to staff for further development of the issue. While
the Commission may elect to circulate policy for comment, it is not required to do so. Operational policy,
such as that related to Commission and Review Committee meetings or policies and procedures related to
the accreditation of programs, are the purview of the Commission’s Standing Committee on Documentation
and Policy Review, and may not be sent out for comment.
Revised: 2/19; 8/17; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/12, 8/10
1. Procedure: The following procedure is used when basic policy statements are developed:
1. An issue or concern surfaces during or between meetings and is placed on the agenda for the next
meeting of the Commission.
a. If an issue surfaces between meetings, it is automatically placed on the next agenda.
b. If an issue surfaces during a meeting, the Commission determines whether or not the issue will
be considered further at the next meeting.
2. Staff studies the issue, gathers information from appropriate sources and develops a draft policy
statement for circulation to the Commission, a Standing Committee and/or all potentially affected
Review Committees, as appropriate.
3. The recommendations of a Standing Committee and/or each affected Review Committee, as
applicable, on the draft policy statement are forwarded to the Commission. The Commission may
take action on the statement in one of the following ways:
EOPP
February 2024
- 14 -
• The statement may be ruled unnecessary and rejected;
• The statement may be referred back to staff for further work (additional study or redrafting)
which should be clearly specified; or
• The statement may be adopted, with or without amendments.
If adopted, the policy statement is included in the appropriate compilation of Commission policy
statements. In general, the following occurs:
• Accreditation-related policies are included in the Commission’s Evaluation and Operational Policies
and Procedures Manual.
• Accredited programs will be informed of the new policy, usually through an announcement posted in
the Accreditation Area of the Commission’s website.
Revised: 2/19; 8/17; 2/15; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/12, 8/10
2. Staff Protocol For Drafting Policy Reports: The staff member:
1. Receives writing assignment and determines which staff should be involved in the assignment;
2. Conducts preliminary planning meeting;
3. Develops framework (e.g., outline, notes) for report;
4. Prepares an executive summary that clearly delineates the exact charge to the Commission, a
Standing Committee and/or Review Committee(s). This approach will be taken on policies
considered by more than one Review Committee (1800’s), or by a Standing Committee or the
Commission (1900’s);
5. Circulates the framework to the Director and managers (those determined at time of assignment);
6. Conducts staff meeting to resolve substantive differences, if necessary;
7. Drafts report;
8. Circulates draft report to the Director and managers for review & comment; requests reviewers to
highlight strong concerns; and
9. Conducts staff meeting to resolve any substantive differences in comments received (if necessary).
Revised: 2/22; 2/19; 7/06; 7/97; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/12, 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 5/88:5
II. REVIEW COMMITTEES AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A. REVIEW COMMITTEES AND REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS
1. Structure: The chair of each Review Committee will be the appointed Commissioner from the
relevant discipline.
i. The Commission will appoint all Review Committee members.
a. Review Committee positions not designated as discipline-specific will be appointed from
the Commission where feasible, e.g. a public representative on the Commission could be
appointed to serve as the public member on the Dental Laboratory Technology Review
Committee; an ADA appointee to the Commission could be appointed to the Dental
Assisting Review Committee as the general dentist practitioner.
b. Discipline-specific positions on Review Committees will be filled by appointment by the
Commission of an individual from a small group of qualified nominees (at least two)
submitted by the relevant national organization, discipline-specific sponsoring organization
or certifying board. Nominating organizations may elect to rank their nominees, if they so
choose. If fewer than two (2) qualified nominees are submitted, the appointment process
EOPP
February 2024
- 15 -
will be delayed until such time as the minimum number of required qualified nominations
is received.
ii. Consensus is the method used for decision making; however if consensus cannot be reached and a
vote is required, then the Chair may only vote in the case of a tie (American Institute of
Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedures).
iii. Member terms will be staggered, four year appointments; multiple terms may be served on the
same or a different committee, with a one-year waiting period between terms. A maximum of two
(2) terms may be served in total. The one-year waiting period between terms does not apply to
public members.
iv. One public member will be appointed to each committee. Following consideration of workload,
public members may concurrently serve on more than one (1) review committee.
v. The size of each Review Committee will be determined by the committee’s workload.
vi. As a committee’s workload increases, additional members will be appointed while maintaining the
balance between the number of content experts and non-content experts. Committees may formally
request an additional member through New Business at Review Committee/Commission meetings.
If an additional member is approved, this member must be a joint nomination from the professional
organization and certifying board, as applicable.
vii. Conflict of interest policies and procedures are applicable to all Review Committee members.
viii. Review Committee members who have not been on a site visit within the last two (2) years prior to
their appointment on a Review Committee should attend the Commission’s site visitor training
workshop within their first year of service on the Review Committee.
ix. In the case of less than 50% of discipline-specific experts, including the Chair, available for a
review committee meeting, for specified agenda items or for the entire meeting, the Review
Committee Chair may temporarily appoint an additional discipline-specific expert(s) with the
approval of the CODA Director. The substitute should be a previous Review Committee member or
an individual approved by both the Review Committee Chair and the CODA Director. The
substitute would have the privileges of speaking, making motions, and voting.
x. Recommendations to the Commission from the Review Committee must be taken at meetings in
which there is both a quorum and at least one (1) discipline-specific expert, other than the Chair,
present.
xi. Consent agendas may be used by Review Committees, when appropriate, and may be approved by
a quorum of the Review Committee present at the meeting.
Revised: 8/23; 8/22; 2/22; 8/20; 1/20; 8/18; 8/17; 2/15; 1/14, 2/13, 8/10, 7/09; 7/08; 7/07; Adopted: 1/06
2. Composition
Predoctoral Education Review Committee (9 members)
1 discipline-specific Commissioner appointed by American Dental Education Association
1 public member
3 dental educators who are involved with a predoctoral dental education program (two must be
general dentists)
1 general dentist (One of whom is a practitioner
1 non-general* dentist dentist and the other an educator)
1 dental assistant, dental hygienist, dental therapist or dental laboratory technology professional educator
1 dental therapist educator
*a dentist who has completed an advanced dental education program in dental anesthesiology,
dental public health, endodontics, oral and maxillofacial radiology, oral and maxillofacial
pathology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine, orofacial pain, orthodontics and
dentofacial orthopedics, pediatric dentistry, periodontics, or prosthodontics.
EOPP
February 2024
- 16 -
Six (6) Advanced Dental Education Review Committees (DENTANES, DPH, OFP, OMP, OMR, OM -
5 members each. At least one member must be a dental educator.)
1 discipline-specific Commissioner appointed by the discipline-specific sponsoring organization
1 public member
1 dentist nominated by the discipline-specific sponsoring organization
1 dentist nominated by the discipline-specific certifying board
1 general dentist
Six (6) Advanced Dental Education Review Committees (ENDO, OMS, ORTHO, PERIO, PED, PROS
- 6 members each. At least one member must be a dental educator.)
1 discipline-specific Commissioner appointed by the discipline-specific sponsoring organization
1 public member
1 dentist nominated by the discipline-specific sponsoring organization
1 dentist nominated by the discipline-specific certifying board
1 dentist nominated by the discipline-specific certifying board and discipline-specific sponsoring
organization
1 general dentist
Postdoctoral General Dentistry Review Committee (9 members)
1 discipline-specific Commissioner, jointly appointed by American Dental Education Association
(ADEA) and the Special Care Dentistry Association (SCDA)
1 public member
2 current General Practice Residency (GPR) educators nominated by the SCDA
2 current Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) educators nominated by ADEA
1 general dentist graduate of a GPR or AEGD
1 non-general* dentist
1 higher education or hospital administrator with past or present experience in administration in a
teaching institution
*a dentist who has completed an advanced dental education program in dental anesthesiology,
dental public health, endodontics, oral and maxillofacial radiology, oral and maxillofacial
pathology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine, orofacial pain, orthodontics and
dentofacial orthopedics, pediatric dentistry, periodontics, or prosthodontics.
Dental Assisting Education Review Committee (10 members)
1 discipline-specific Commissioner appointed by American Dental Assistants Association
1 public member
2 general dentists (practitioner or educator)
5 dental assisting educators
1 dental assisting practitioner who is a graduate of a Commission accredited program
Dental Hygiene Education Review Committee (13 members)
1 discipline-specific Commissioner appointed by American Dental Hygienists’ Association
1 public member
5 dental hygienist educators
2 dental hygienist practitioners
2 dentist practitioners
1 dentist educator
1 higher education administrator
EOPP
February 2024
- 17 -
Dental Laboratory Technology Education Review Committee (5 members)
1 discipline-specific Commissioner appointed by National Association of Dental Laboratories
1 public member
1 general dentist
1 dental laboratory technology educator
1 Certified Dental Technician who manages and/or supervises dental laboratory technicians
nominated by National Association of Dental Laboratories
Revised: 8/22; 2/22; 2/21; 8/18; 2/16; 2/15; 8/14; 2/13, 7/09, 7/08, 1/08; Reaffirmed: 8/17; 8/10; Adopted: 1/06
3. Nomination Criteria: The following criteria are requirements for nominating members to serve on the
Review Committees. Rules related to the appointment term on Review Committees apply.
All Nominees:
• Ability to commit to one (1) four (4) year term;
• Willingness to commit ten (10) to twenty (20) days per year to Review Committee activities, including
training, comprehensive review of print and electronically delivered materials and travel to Commission
headquarters;
• Ability to evaluate an educational program objectively in terms of such broad areas as curriculum,
faculty, facilities, student evaluation and outcomes assessment;
• Stated willingness to comply with all Commission policies and procedures (e.g. Agreement of
Confidentiality; Conflict of Interest Policy; Operational Guidelines; Simultaneous Service; HIPAA
Training, Licensure Attestation, and Professional Conduct Policy and Prohibition Against Harassment);
and
• Ability to conduct business through electronic means (email, Commission Web Sites)
Educator Nominees:
• Commitment to predoctoral, advanced, and/or allied dental education;
• Active involvement in an accredited predoctoral, advanced, or allied dental education program as a full-
or part-time faculty member;
• Subject matter experts with formal education and credentialed in the applicable discipline; and
• Prior or current experience as a Commission site visitor is preferred.
Practitioner Nominees:
• Commitment to predoctoral, advanced, and/or allied dental education;
• Majority of current work effort as a practitioner; and
• Formal education and credential in the applicable discipline.
Public/Consumer Nominees:
• A commitment to bring the public/consumer perspective to Review Committee deliberations. The
nominee should not have any current or past (within the past three years) formal or informal connection
to the profession of dentistry; also, the nominee should have an interest in, or knowledge of, health-
related and accreditation issues. In order to serve, the nominee must not be a:
a. Dentist or member of an allied dental discipline;
b. Member of a predoctoral, advanced, or allied dental education program faculty;
c. Employee, member of the governing board, owner, or shareholder of, or independent consultant to,
a predoctoral, advanced, or allied dental education program that is accredited by the Commission
on Dental Accreditation, has applied for initial accreditation or is not-accredited;
EOPP
February 2024
- 18 -
d. Member or employee of any professional/trade association, licensing/regulatory agency or
membership organization related to, affiliated with or associated with the Commission, dental
education or dentistry; and
e. Spouse/Partner, parent, child or sibling of an individual identified above (a through d).
Higher Education Administrator:
• A commitment to bring the higher education administrator perspective to the Review Committee
deliberations. In order to serve, the nominee must not be a:
a. Member of any trade association, licensing/regulatory agency or membership organization related
to, affiliated with or associated with the Commission; and
b. Spouse, parent, child or sibling of an individual identified above.
Hospital Administrator:
• A commitment to bring the hospital administrator perspective to Review Committee deliberations. In
order to serve, the nominee must not be a:
a. Member of any trade association, licensing/regulatory agency or membership organization related
to, affiliated with or associated with the Commission; and
b. Spouse, parent, child or sibling of an individual identified above.
Revised: 8/22; 4/22; 8/21; 2/21; 8/18; 8/17; 8/14; 8/10; Adopted: 07/08
4. Policy On Attendance At Open Portion Of Review Committee Meetings: The policy portion of
Review Committee meetings is open to representatives from organizations and certifying boards
represented on the Review Committee. Participation of these representatives during the meeting is at the
discretion of the Review Committee Chair. Confidential accreditation matters are discussed in a closed
session of the meeting that is not open to observers.
Representatives attending the open portion of meetings are asked to pre-register to assist the Commission in
making arrangements for the meeting. Pre-registration ensures that the individual receives a copy of the
meeting agenda and policy reports at the same time as Review Committee members.
Revised: 8/20; 2/15; 7/07, 7/97; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/10, 7/01; CODA: 07/96:10
5. Chairs Of Review Committees: Review Committees are chaired by the Commissioner for the
respective discipline(s). The Chair of the Predoctoral Review Committee is selected by the Chair of the
Commission from among the four (4) Commissioners appointed by ADEA.
Revised: 8/17; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/10
6. Calibration Protocol: The following protocol used to calibrate Review Committee members:
i. Documentation Guidelines for Selected Recommendations is provided to all programs scheduled to
submit either a response to a preliminary draft site visit report or a progress report.
ii. Documentation Guidelines for Selected Recommendations is provided to all members of Review
Committees for use as accreditation reports are reviewed.
iii. At the beginning of each committee meeting, the chair reminds the committee of the Documentation
Guidelines for Selected Recommendations and reviews how the document is to be used.
iv. A specific calibration exercise is conducted prior to each committee’s consideration of accreditation
reports.
v. Each staff secretary refers the committee to the Documentation Guidelines at appropriate points
throughout the committee’s discussion of accreditation reports.
vi. At the end of the committee’s accreditation actions, the staff secretary asks for comments and
feedback on the calibration process.
EOPP
February 2024
- 19 -
vii. Following each meeting of the Commission, a staff meeting is convened for the purpose of
discussing input received from each committee on the Documentation Guidelines for Selected
Recommendations. Appropriate adjustments are incorporated into the document annually, following
the July meeting of the Commission.
viii. When specific calibration problems are identified, a specific exercise to address the problem will be
designed and implemented as soon as feasible, usually at the next meeting.
ix. Reports of calibration activities are provided to the committees and the Commission as needed.
Revised: 7/97, 7/00; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 12/92:8
7. Procedure To Resolve Differences Between Allied Dental Review Committees: The Dental
Assisting, Dental Hygiene and Dental Laboratory Technology Education Review Committees usually
consider reports with common recommendations as their first item of accreditation business. The staff
secretaries compare the two or three committees’ decisions relative to the common recommendations,
accreditation status and changes to the report. Discrepancies must then be reconsidered.
At the earliest opportunity convenient to the involved Review Committees, the two reviewers (primary and
secondary) from each committee will meet to discuss and resolve any differences. These individuals will be
excused, if necessary, from committee deliberations for this purpose and committees will adjust their
agendas as much as possible to accommodate this process. The two reviewers from each committee will
have delegated authority to act on behalf of their respective committees in reaching consensus.
Representatives of the Review Committees should be reminded prior to the joint meeting that every effort
should be made to focus on substantive issues affecting accreditation status, to relate report contents to the
discipline standards and to reach a consensus whenever appropriate. The agreed-upon decision, or the
failure to achieve consensus, will be reported back to the disciplines’ Review Committees.
If a decision on a single joint recommendation cannot be reached by consensus, then each committee will
prepare a report stating the rationale for its recommendation and all reports will be submitted to the
Commission for consideration. The Chair and Director of the Commission should be informed promptly
when this occurs.
The Chair of each Review Committee or its designated spokesperson will be expected to speak to the
committee’s position during the Commission meeting. The Commission will consider both reports and will
determine the accreditation status.
Revised: 7/99; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01
EOPP
February 2024
- 20 -
B. COMMISSION AND COMMISSION MEETINGS
The Commission and its Review Committees meet twice each year to consider site visit reports and
institutional responses, progress reports, information from annual surveys, applications for initial
accreditation, and policies related to accreditation. These meetings are held in the winter and the summer.
Reports from site visits conducted less than 90 days prior to a Commission meeting are usually deferred and
considered at the next Commission meeting. Commission staff can provide information about the specific
dates for consideration of a particular report.
The Commission has established policy and procedures for due process which are detailed in the Due
Process section of this manual.
Revised: 8/17; 8/14; 7/06, 7/96; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/10; Adopted: 7/96
1. Composition and Criteria
Composition
The Board of Commissioners shall consist of:
Four (4) members who shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees from the names of active, life or retired
members of this Association. None of the appointees shall be a faculty member of any dental education
program working more than one day per week or a member of a state board of dental examiners or
jurisdictional dental licensing agency.
Four (4) members who are active, life or retired members of this Association and also active members of
the American Association of Dental Boards shall be selected by the American Association of Dental
Boards. None of these members shall be a faculty member of any dental education program.
Four (4) members who are active, life or retired members of this Association and also active members of
the American Dental Education Association shall be selected by the American Dental Education
Association. None of these members shall be a member of any state board of dental examiners or
jurisdictional dental licensing agency.
The remaining Commissioners shall be selected as follows: one (1) certified dental assistant selected by
the American Dental Assistants Association from its active or life membership, one (l) licensed dental
hygienist selected by the American Dental Hygienists’ Association, one (l) certified dental laboratory
technician selected by the National Association of Dental Laboratories, one (l) student selected jointly by
the American Student Dental Association and the Council of Students, Residents and Fellows of the
American Dental Education Association, one (1) dentist who is board certified in the respective discipline-
specific area of practice and is selected by each of the following organizations: American Academy of Oral
and Maxillofacial Pathology, American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, American
Academy of Oral Medicine, American Academy of Orofacial Pain, American Academy of Pediatric
Dentistry, American Academy of Periodontology, American Association of Endodontists, American
Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, American Association of Orthodontists, American
Association of Public Health Dentistry, American College of Prosthodontists, American Society of Dentist
Anesthesiologists; one (1) dentist who is jointly appointed by the American Dental Education Association
and the Special Care Dentistry Association, and four (4) members of the public who are neither dentists
nor allied dental personnel nor teaching in a dental or allied dental education institution and who are
EOPP
February 2024
- 21 -
selected by the Commission, based on established and publicized criteria. In the event a Commission
member sponsoring organization fails to select a Commissioner, it shall be the responsibility of the
Commission to select an appropriate representative to serve as a Commissioner. The Director of the
Commission shall be an ex-officio member of the Board without the right to vote.
Criteria (All Appointees)
• Ability to commit to one (1) four (4) year term;
• Willingness to commit ten (10) to twenty (20) days per year to activities, including training,
comprehensive review of print and electronically delivered materials, and travel to Commission
headquarters;
• Ability to evaluate an educational program objectively in terms of such broad areas as curriculum,
faculty, facilities, student evaluation and outcomes assessment;
• Stated willingness to comply with all Commission policies and procedures (e.g. Agreement of
Confidentiality; Conflict of Interest Policy; Operational Guidelines; Simultaneous Service; HIPAA
Training, Licensure Attestation, and Professional Conduct Policy and Prohibition Against Harassment);
• Ability to conduct business through electronic means (email, Commission Web Sites); and
• Active, life or retired member of the American Dental Association, where applicable.
Revised: 2/21; 8/18; 8/17; Reaffirmed: 8/22; Adopted: 8/14
Public/Consumer Commissioner:
• A commitment to bring the public/consumer perspective to Commission deliberations. The appointee
should not have any current or past (within the past three years) formal or informal connection to the
profession of dentistry; also, the appointee should have an interest in, or knowledge of, health-related
and accreditation issues. In order to serve, the appointee must not be a:
a. Dentist or member of an allied dental discipline;
b. Member of a predoctoral, advanced, or allied dental education program faculty;
c. Employee, member of the governing board, owner, or shareholder of, or independent consultant to,
a predoctoral, advanced, or allied dental education program that is accredited by the Commission
on Dental Accreditation, has applied for initial accreditation or is not-accredited;
d. Member or employee of any professional/trade association, licensing/regulatory agency or
membership organization related to, affiliated with or associated with the Commission, dental
education or dentistry; and
e. Spouse/Partner, parent, child or sibling of an individual identified above (a through d).
Revised: 8/22; Adopted: 4/22
2. Policy On Absence From Commission Meetings: When a Commissioner notifies the Director that
he/she will be unable to attend a meeting of the Commission, the Director will notify the Chair. The Chair
determines if another individual should be invited to attend the meeting in the Commissioner’s absence. A
substitute will be invited if the Commissioner’s discipline would not otherwise be represented. This
individual must be familiar with the Commission’s policies and procedures; and therefore, must be a current
or former member of the appropriate Review Committee and must represent the same discipline or
appointing organization as the absent Commissioner. In the event that these criteria cannot be met, the
Commission Chair may elect not to invite another individual to the meeting. The substitute would have the
privileges of speaking, introducing business, making motions, and voting.
Revised: 8/17; 8/10, 7/97; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 12/86:14
EOPP
February 2024
- 22 -
3. New Commissioner Orientation and Training: Newly appointed Commissioners will undergo a six-
month training period prior to beginning their official term. This training includes attendance at a
Commission meeting, at the discipline-specific review committee meeting and the Commission’s site visitor
training workshop within their first year of service on the Commission.
Revised: 8/23; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/14; Adopted: 8/11
4. Protocol For Review Of Report On Accreditation Status Of Educational Programs: Commission
staff sends the final listing of programs to be reviewed at the Commission meeting to each Commissioner to
allow each Commissioner to identify all conflicts with these programs.
A conflict includes, but is not limited to:
• close professional or personal relationship or affiliation with the institution/program or key personnel
in the institution/program which may create the appearance of a conflict;
• serving as an independent consultant to the institution/program;
• being a graduate of the institution/program;
• being a current employee or appointee of the institution/program;
• previously applied for a position at the institution within the last five (5) years;
• being a current student at the institution/program;
• having a family member who is employed by or affiliated with the institution;
• manifesting a professional or personal interest at odds with the institution or program;
• key personnel of the institution/program having graduated from the program of the Commissioner;
• having served on the program’s visiting committee within the last seven (7) years; and/or
• no longer a current employee of the institution or program, but having been employed there within the
past five (5) years.
Conflicts of interest for Commissioners may also include being from the same state, but not the same
program. The Commission is aware that being from the same state may not itself be a conflict; however,
when residence within the same state is in addition to any of the items listed above, a conflict would exist.
When a program is being considered, Commissioners must leave the room if they have any of the above
conflicts.
Each year Commissioners report conflicts to the Director. Prior to each Commission meeting, staff analyze
the reported conflicts to determine whether reformatting of the Report on Accreditation Status of Educational
Programs (yellow sheet reports) is necessary. Reformatting of yellow sheet reports may include grouping all
dental school based programs and/or any institution that sponsors multiple programs so that recusals leave the
room once.
During the Commission meeting, in addition to yellow sheet reports, each Commissioner receives a copy of
the key guidelines of the Commission’s Conflict of Interest policy and a listing of conflicts reflecting their
listings. Explanation of protocol, including definitions of conflicts, will be provided to Commissioners prior
to each Commission meeting.
The Chair will confirm conflicts and remind Commissioners of their responsibility to recuse themselves. The
Chair will then allow appropriate time for exiting of relevant Commissioners before review of each yellow
sheet report and promptly invite the return of these Commissioners after the specific report is reviewed.
EOPP
February 2024
- 23 -
After the Commission meeting, the Report of Accreditation Status of Education Programs in the minutes of
the meeting will include the Commissioners’ identified conflicts.
Revised: 2/22; 8/14; 8/11, 8/10, 7/09; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; Adopted: 7/06
5. Policy On Attendance At Open Portion Of Commission Meetings: The policy portion of
Commission meetings is open to interested observers from all members of the public, including the
communities of interest, international observers, and representatives of dental education programs. Those
attending are observers only and do not participate in the Commission’s discussion. Confidential
accreditation matters are discussed in a closed session of the meeting that is not open to observers.
Observers are asked to pre-register to assist the Commission in making arrangements for the meeting. Pre-
registration ensures that the individual is notified when the preliminary agenda is available. When possible,
policy reports and committee summary reports related to agenda items will be available prior to the
meeting. Access to the preliminary meeting agenda and meeting materials is provided through CODA’s
website.
The Commission does not assume any travel, hotel or other costs for observers attending the meeting.
Observers are not required to pay any registration or materials fee for observing the meeting.
Revised: 2/16; 2/15; 7/97; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 7/95; CODA: 12/92:13; 05/93:9
6. Guests Invited To Commission Meetings: Representatives from an accrediting agency in any country
with which the Commission has a reciprocal agreement, such as the Commission on Dental Accreditation of
Canada, or other accreditors as the Commission deems appropriate, may attend both the closed and open
portion of Commission meetings as guests provided they comply with confidentiality guidelines and
procedures.
Revised: 2/16; 7/07; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/14; 8/10, 7/01; CODA: 05/93:11; 01/94:10
7. Commission Communication Of Actions To The Review Committees: On occasion, an accreditation
action taken by the Commission differs from the action recommended by a Review Committee. In these
instances, the actions taken by the Commission are communicated back to the relevant Review Committee
with an explanation regarding the Commission’s final decision. The Chair of the Review Committee
communicates the Commission’s final decision to members of the Review Committee through a letter of
explanation.
Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/10, 7/09; CODA: 01/04:20
8. Confidentiality Of Accreditation Reports: Commission members are not authorized, under any
circumstances, to disclose any information obtained during site visits or Commission meetings. All
accreditation actions are confidential and accreditation reports are reviewed during the closed portion of the
meeting. The extent to which publicity is given to site visit reports is determined by the chief executive
officer of the educational institution. For more specific information, see the Commission’s Statement of
Policy on Public Disclosure and Confidentiality in this manual.
Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/14; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 5/80
9. Notice Of Accreditation Actions To Programs/Institutions: An institution will receive the formal
notice, including the accreditation status awarded to the program, within thirty (30) days following the
official meeting of the Commission. Actions resulting in other than “approval without reporting
requirements” will be accompanied by the specific date(s) for submission of progress report(s) and/or
notification that a special site visit will be conducted.
EOPP
February 2024
- 24 -
When warranted, the Commission action may include a notification of its intent to withdraw a program’s
accreditation and the time at which this intended action will be taken. This notification will advise the
institution of an opportunity to submit additional information and that a special appearance (hearing) before
the Commission or one of its Review Committees may be requested. If a program’s accreditation status is
withdrawn, the institution is advised of its right to appeal the decision before the Appeal Board. For further
information, refer to the Policy on Due Process in this manual.
Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/17; 8/14; 8/10
10. Distribution Of Meeting Minutes: Final minutes of each Commission meeting, including the report
on accreditation status of dental education programs, are made available to the Commission’s communities
of interest through an e-mail notice of posting on the Commission’s website.
Revised: 8/20; 8/18; 8/17; 2/15; 1/14; 8/10; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/14
11. Notice Of Accreditation Actions To Communities Of Interest: In carrying out its responsibilities as
an accrediting agency, the Commission on Dental Accreditation announces its decisions to grant, renew or
discontinue (at an institution’s request) accreditation to the USDE Secretary, the appropriate state licensing
or authorizing agency, appropriate accrediting agencies, the public, educational institutions, dental
examining boards, related dental organizations, and the profession no later than thirty (30) days after it
makes the decisions.
The Commission publishes listings of accredited programs in predoctoral, advanced, and allied dental
education. Lists of accredited programs are posted to the Commission’s website within thirty (30) days
following a Commission meeting to be available to educational institutions’ executives and administrators,
the USDE, regional and appropriate national accrediting agencies, state licensing agencies and to other
interested agencies and organizations.
When warranted, the Commission may notify an institution of its intent to withdraw a program’s
accreditation and the time at which this intended action will be taken. In these instances, the Commission
provides written notice of the final decision to place a program on “intent to withdraw” accreditation to the
USDE Secretary, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the appropriate state licensing or authorizing
agency within fourteen (14) days of the Commission’s decision. Notice to the public is provided through
the listings of accredited programs that is available on the Commission’s website and is updated within
fourteen (14) days of the Commission’s decision.
The Commission may also reach the decision to deny or withdraw the accreditation of a program. In these
instances, the Commission provides written notice of the final decision to deny or withdraw accreditation to
the USDE Secretary, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the appropriate state licensing or authorizing
agency at the same time it notifies the sponsoring institution of the decision. Notice to the public is
provided through the listings of accredited programs that is available on the Commission’s website and is
updated within one (1) business day of providing the final notice to the program’s sponsoring institution.
Revised: 4/22; 8/17; 2/15; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/14; 8/10
12. Notice Of Reasons For Adverse Actions: Accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary of the
USDE, including the Commission, are required to report any adverse accreditation action (defined as an
action to deny or withdraw accreditation). Accordingly, when the Commission makes a final decision to
deny or withdraw a program’s accreditation, a brief statement summarizing the reasons for the
Commission’s decision and the official comments that the affected program may make with regard to that
decision, is made available to the USDE Secretary, the appropriate state licensing or authorizing agency and
the public. The Commission’s final decision; the statement summarizing the reasons for the Commission’s
EOPP
February 2024
- 25 -
decision; and the program’s official comments will be posted on the Commission’s website no later than
sixty (60) days after the decision is final.
The Commission’s Notice of Reasons for Adverse Action Disclosure Statement includes the following
information about the program’s accreditation history, past problems, current problems, specific reasons
why action to deny or withdraw accreditation was taken and what future option are available to the
program.
To illustrate the scope of the statement and the level of reasons reported, a sample announcement follows:
Disclosure Statement: Dental Assisting Program
Pick Your State Community College
The Commission on Dental Accreditation, the only nationally-recognized accrediting agency for
predoctoral, advanced, and allied dental education programs, reviewed an application for initial
accreditation of the new dental assisting program offered by Pick-Your-State Community College.
On the basis of information provided in the application, the Commission was unable to grant
“initial accreditation” status to the program.
The Commission determined, at its (date) meeting, that the application did not provide sufficient
information and assurances that the proposed program meets the intent of the Accreditation
Standards for Dental Assisting Education Programs. Specific concerns in compliance with the
standards were noted in the following areas:
Financial Support (adequacy of resources);
Curriculum (adequacy of knowledge and skills offered, scope and depth of instruction in
required areas, and documentation of student competence);
Admissions (documentation that written criteria, procedures, and policies are used);
Faculty (adequacy of teaching and supervision of students);
Facilities (insufficient documentation of adequacy of physical facilities and equipment).
The Commission informed the program and sponsoring institution that these specific concerns would need
to be addressed before the institution reapplied for “initial accreditation” status of the dental assisting
program.
CEO, Sponsoring Institution (date)
Chair, Commission on Dental Accreditation (date)
Revised: 8/17; 5/12; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/14; 8/10
13. Procedure For Disclosure Notice Of Adverse Actions: The following procedure is used when an
adverse action (to deny or withdraw accreditation) is taken. Applicants, when they inquire about initial
accreditation, are to be notified by Commission staff that the Notice of Reasons for Adverse Actions
statement will be prepared and distributed should accreditation be denied.
1. The Commission sends notice of any initiated adverse action in a transmittal letter to the appropriate
institutional executives no later than fourteen (14) days after the Commission meeting. This letter is
sent by tracked electronic communication and includes the reasons for any adverse action to deny or
withdraw accreditation. All current and prospective students/residents/fellows must be informed by the
institution of the Commission’s notice of any initiated adverse action within seven (7) business days of
EOPP
February 2024
- 26 -
the program’s receipt of the notice. The USDE Secretary, the appropriate state entities, and any
appropriate institutional accrediting agency are notified at the same time, usually by a letter to the
Secretary with copies to the other entities and the institution.
2. A statement of the reasons for any adverse action is developed and available for distribution within
sixty (60) days after the decision is final. This new statement will include the same information that has
been contained in the transmittal letter. For this reason, the statement will be drafted and the draft will
be sent to the institution/program for review at the same time as the transmittal letter. As needed, the
draft statement will be reviewed by legal counsel prior to being sent.
3. The institution must notify the Commission within fourteen (14) days if it wishes to indicate an intent to
appeal an adverse action. If an intent to appeal is received, the usual appeal procedures are followed
according to the Commission policy on Due Process Related to Appeal of Accreditation Actions.
4. If an intent to appeal is not received by the fourteen (14) day deadline specified, the adverse action is
considered final and the USDE Secretary, the appropriate state entities, and any appropriate institutional
accrediting agency are notified at the same time, usually by a letter to the Secretary with copies to the
other entities and the institution.
5. During the same fourteen (14) days, the institution/program will be asked to review the draft statement
and:
a. indicate agreement with the statement; and/or,
b. make official comments with regard to the decision, or state that the affected institution has been
offered the opportunity to provide official comment.
6. When the final statement (or statement and response) has been developed and signed by both parties, it
will be distributed as required in the regulations to the USDE Secretary, to the appropriate state
licensing or authorizing agency, and to any appropriate institutional accrediting agency, at the same
time, usually by a letter to the Secretary with copies to the other entities and the institution. Written
notice to the public will occur within one (1) business day of its notice to the program through the
Commission’s website. All current and prospective students/residents/fellows must be informed by the
institution of the Commission’s final decision within seven (7) business days of the program’s receipt
of the notice.
7. The Commission’s final decision; the statement summarizing the reasons for the Commission’s
decision; and the program’s official comments will be posted on the Commission’s website no later
than sixty (60) days after the decision is final.
When there are no differences of opinion regarding the statement, it may be possible to send it to the
Secretary along with the letter in step #4 above, along with posting the final decision and reasons on the
Commission’s website.
Revised: 2/23; 4/22; 2/21; 8/17; 5/12; 7/06; Reaffirmed: 8/22; 8/14; 8/10; Adopted: 7/00; CODA: 07/94:6
EOPP
February 2024
- 27 -
C. POLICY ON CHANGES TO THE COMPOSITION OF REVIEW COMMITTEES AND THE BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS
The Commission believes it is imperative that content area experts are represented on site visit committees,
Review Committees and on the Commission to accomplish its mission. However, the Commission does not
establish Review Committees or add Commissioner positions based upon the number of programs accredited
or number of students/residents enrolled within a given discipline.
The Board of Commissioners is composed of representatives and subject area experts from the dental
education, dental licensure and private practice communities, advanced dental education, allied dental
education, and the public at large. The Commission’s Review Committees mirror this structure with
committees devoted to dental, dental assisting, dental hygiene, dental laboratory technology, dental
anesthesiology, dental public health, endodontics, oral and maxillofacial pathology, oral and maxillofacial
radiology, oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine, orofacial pain, orthodontics and dentofacial
orthopedics, pediatric dentistry, periodontics, and prosthodontics. The Review Committee on Postdoctoral
General Dentistry reviews programs in advanced education in general dentistry and general practice
residency; content experts from each of these areas are represented on the Committee. The Predoctoral
Dental Education Review Committee reviews programs in predoctoral dental education and dental therapy
education; content experts from each of these areas are represented on the Committee. The Review
Committees function to ensure the quality of predoctoral, advanced, and allied dental education programs
accredited by the Commission is maintained; they are advisory to the Commission on matters of accreditation
policy and program review.
As predoctoral, advanced, and allied dental education and practice continues to evolve, the Board of
Commissioners may consider a change in its composition, consistent with its Rules. The Board may also
modify the number or composition of its Review Committees. Such changes may be necessary to reflect
changes in the makeup of the dental profession workforce and to provide standards and quality accreditation
services to the educational programs in these areas.
For example, changes to the Board of Commissioners or Review Committees may be considered by the Board
of Commissioners under the following circumstances:
• When a new dental workforce or discipline is recognized by a nationally accepted agency.
• When development of accreditation standards or accreditation services for a new or existing dental
workforce or discipline cannot be supported by the existing structure(s).
• When the Board of Commissioners identifies the need to modify its composition or that of a Review
Committee(s).
Procedure for Requesting a New Review Committee and/or Commissioner Position:
• A request is submitted to the Commission for either a new Review Committee and/or Commissioner
position.
• The Chair of the Commission may refer the request to the appropriate standing committee and/or
review committee(s) for evaluation or may present the request to the Commission at its next regularly
scheduled meeting.
• If referred to a committee, the committee considers the request and provides a recommendation to the
Commission.
• The Commission considers the report and recommendation of standing/review committee(s) or
considers the request directly as presented by the chair and makes a final determination.
• If the Commission approves the request and directs a new Review Committee, a period of
EOPP
February 2024
- 28 -
implementation and training will also be provided. If a modification to the existing composition of
the Board of Commissioners is approved, the Commission’s Rules will be modified.
Revised: 2/21; 8/18; 8/17; 2/16; Reaffirmed: 8/22; Adopted 8/14
D. POLICY ON REMOVAL OF COMMISSION, REVIEW COMMITTEE,
AND APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS
Pursuant to the Rules of the Commission on Dental Accreditation, the Commission may remove from office
a member of the Commission, Review Committee, or Appeal Board for cause. The causes for removal
from office are documented within the Commission’s Rules. Before a member is removed for cause, the
following procedures shall be followed by the Board of Commissioners:
The Chair of the Board of Commissioners shall notify the accused member in writing of the allegations
concerning the member’s
performance. The written notice shall include a description of the conduct
purported to constitute
each charge. The accused shall be invited to respond in writing. If the accused
member wishes, he or
she may resign the position voluntarily or may request the opportunity to appear
before the Board to
respond to the allegations received. If an appearance is requested, the Board shall
schedule it during
the next meeting of the Board.
If the Commission, Review Committee, or Appeal Board on which the accused holds an office is
scheduled to meet before the date of the appearance, the Board of Commissioners at its
discretion may
excuse the accused member from attending that meeting only after the Board of Commissioners offers
the accused an opportunity to be heard or where it determines that compelling reasons exist for
excusal.
It shall specify the reasons for excusal in writing.
Formal rules of evidence shall not apply to the appearance to discuss the allegations made, but if
requested, the Board of Commissioners shall permit the accused member to be assisted by legal counsel.
Following the
appearance, the Board shall decide by majority vote whether or not to remove the
accused member.
Every decision, which results in removal of a Commission, Review Committee, or
Appeal Board member for cause, shall be
reduced to writing and shall specify the findings of fact
which support the decision to remove the
accused members. If the Board of Commissioners decides to
remove the accused, that action shall create a vacancy on
that Commission, Review Committee, or
Appeal Board which shall be filled in accordance the appropriate provisions in these Rules. All
records
of the proceedings and the cause for removal shall be confidential information.
T
he Commission on Dental Accreditation shall provide notice to the ADA Board of Trustees once the
Commission acts to remove a member for cause.
Revised 10/18; Reaffirmed: 8/22; Adopted: 8/18
E. POLICY ON PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Public Statements: The current Commission Chair, Vice-chair, and Director have the sole authority to
speak on behalf of the Commission. No current or former Commission volunteer, including members of
the Board of Commissioners, the Review Committees, the Appeal Board, and Consultants/Site Visitors
may issue a public statement, or serve on an external committee as a spokesperson in the name of the
Commission.
In their capacity as educators and practitioners, Commission volunteers may be asked from time to time by
an external agency to participate in activities related to dental education and accreditation. If a
EOPP
February 2024
- 29 -
Commission volunteer serves in this capacity, they must disclose to the external agency and the
Commission their plan to participate, the role they will serve, and a disclosure statement that they do not
speak on behalf of the Commission.
Reaffirmed: 8/22; Adopted: 1/20
F. COMMISSION COMMITTEES
The Commission on Dental Accreditation has six (6) standing committees: Quality Assurance and Strategic
Planning, Documentation and Policy Review, Finance, Nomination, Communication and Technology, and
International Accreditation (Predoctoral only). Additionally, ad hoc committees and other committees and
task forces may be formed to address specific issues or concerns. An ad hoc committee functions until the
issue is resolved or until it becomes a standing committee of the Commission.
Occasionally, a Commissioner may be asked to serve on other task forces or joint committees that could
include representatives from the American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association
or other organizations.
The charge to each of the Commission’s standing committees follows:
Quality Assurance and Strategic Planning
• Develop and implement an ongoing strategic planning process;
• Develop and implement a formal program of outcomes assessment tied to strategic planning;
• Use results of the assessment processes to evaluate the effectiveness of the Commission and make
recommendations for appropriate changes, including the appropriateness of its structure;
• Monitor USDE, and other quality assurance organizations e.g. Council on Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA), American National Standards Institute/International Organization for
Standardization (ANSI/ISO), and International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher
Education (INQAAHE) for trends and changes in parameters of quality assurance; and
• Monitor and make recommendations to the Commission regarding changes that may affect its
operations, including expansion of scope and international issues.
Documentation and Policy Review
• Ensure all Commission documents reflect consistency in application of Commission policies, and that
relevant sections of accreditation standards are consistent across disciplines;
• Review and consolidate the recommendations of all review committees into standard language for the
Commission’s consideration for adoption, when new or revised standards are proposed and will impact
more than one discipline; and
• Develop Commission policies and procedures contained in the Evaluation and Operational Policies and
Procedures manual.
• Periodically review current Commission policies and procedures to ensure that they are current and
relevant.
Nomination
• Review nominations and make recommendations for appointment of consumer/public members to the
Commission;
• Review nominations and make recommendations for appointment of individuals to Review Committees
of the Commission;
• Ensure the pre-nomination education process provides information regarding expectations and duties of
EOPP
February 2024
- 30 -
commissioners, review committee members, and site visitors; and
• Periodically review nomination and selection criteria and make recommendations for changes if
necessary, consistent with the Commission’s strategic plan and policies.
Finance
• Monitor, review and make recommendations to the Commission concerning the annual budget, provide
administrative oversight of the administrative fund, and review and make recommendations regarding
the Intercompany Memorandum of Understanding and Services Agreement.
Communication and Technology
• Evaluate and recommend alternative methods, including the use of enhanced technology, for
monitoring programs’ continuous compliance with the standards;
• Evaluate and recommend new technological advances in accreditation for reporting and management of
information, allowing accreditation to move toward the concepts of continuous assessment, data
collection, and readiness;
• Monitor technological trends in alternative site visit methods;
• Develop and implement strategies to increase the effectiveness, quality, content, and processes of
communication with all the Commission’s communities of interest;
• Ensure that Commission communications strategies allow for transparency and accountability; and
• Oversee the publication of the e-newsletter, the CODA Communicator, with emphasis on
communicating the value/outcomes of accreditation.
Site Visit Process and Training
• Monitor trends and USDE regulations related to CODA’s site visit process;
• Evaluate site visit feedback from site visitors and programs;
• Review and develop protocols and materials to enhance the site visit process;
• Oversee and provide input on training for new and reappointed site visitors;
• Oversee and provide input on training for programs preparing for site visits; and
• Oversee and provide input to educate new program directors on working with the Commission.
International Accreditation (Predoctoral only)
• Provide international consultation fee-based services to international predoctoral dental education
programs, upon request.
• Develop and implement international consultation policies and procedures to support the international
consultation program.
• Monitor and make recommendations to the Commission regarding changes that may affects its
operations related to international issues.
Revised: 8/23; 1/20; 2/19; 8/17; 2/16; Reaffirmed: 8/22; Adopted: 8/10
EOPP
February 2024
- 31 -
G. MATERIALS AVAILABLE FROM THE COMMISSION
These materials are available from the Commission on Dental Accreditation upon request.
• Application for initial accreditation for each discipline
• Accreditation standards documents for each discipline
• Self-study documents for each discipline
• Accredited Program Listing:
o Predoctoral Dental Education Programs,
o Allied Dental Education Programs, and
o Advanced Dental Education Programs
• Annual Reports for Predoctoral Advanced, and Allied Dental Education are available online, including:
o Supplement: Dental School Tuition, Admission and Attrition
o Supplement: Dental School Faculty and Support
o Supplement: Dental School Trends
o Supplement: Dental School Curriculum, Clock Hours of Instruction
Reports listed as confidential include information which was collected with the understanding that the
reports would not identify specific educational institutions. Thus, these reports use randomly assigned code
numbers for each predoctoral dental education program rather than the name of the institution. Confidential
reports include the Supplement: Analysis of Dental School Finances - Financial Report
• Guidelines:
o Preparation of Reports (Response to Site Visit Reports and Progress Reports)
o Submitting Teach-Out Reports by Institutions Discontinuing or Closing Commission-Accredited
Educational Programs Preparing Phase-out Reports by Institutions Terminating Educational Programs
o Preparing Requests for Transfer of Sponsorship
o Reporting Program Changes in Accredited Programs
o Documentation Guidelines for Selected Recommendations (in site visit reports)
o Requesting an Enrollment Increase
o Reporting and Approval of Sites Where Educational Activity Occurs (Adopted 2/16)
o Electronic Submission of Documents
o Privacy and Data Security Requirements for Institutions
o Privacy and Data Security Requirements for International Institutions
• Outcomes Assessment - a resource packet on assessing outcomes
Revised: 8/23; 8/17; Reaffirmed: 8/22;
EOPP
February 2024
- 32 -
III. GENERAL COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
A. POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND REVISION OF ACCREDITATION
STANDARDS
The Commission on Dental Accreditation has authority to formulate and adopt educational requirements
and guidelines, i.e. standards, for the accreditation of dental educational programs within its purview.
These include the predoctoral programs, as well as advanced and allied dental education programs.
In developing and revising accreditation standards, the appropriate communities of interest are substantially
involved in all stages of the process. The process culminates in the adoption of accreditation standards
which become the property of the Commission. Any individual who assists in developing or revising a
standards document must sign a release giving the Commission the right to copyright such documents.
During the initial step of the process, representatives from the discipline involved are invited to participate
in the development of the preliminary document. These representatives are selected in cooperation with the
organizations(s) nationally recognized in the discipline whose membership is reflective of the discipline.
The communities of interest (COI) include, but are not limited to, the following: sponsoring organizations
and certifying boards of all dental and dental related disciplines under the purview of the Commission,
program directors, dental school deans, administrators of non-dental school institutions offering dental
programs, and constituent societies of the American Dental Association.
The Commission uses consistent definitions and terms in its standards documents. The Commission
monitors the consistency of the definitions of terms used in the accreditation standards documents and lists
a glossary of terms and approved definitions to be used by appropriate audiences when the revision of the
accreditation standards for a discipline is initiated.
The following language is used when draft revisions of standards are circulated:
The Commission directed that the proposed revision of the (discipline) Standards be distributed to
the appropriate communities of interest for review and comment. The Commission also directed
that the proposed revised standards be presented in a hearing to be held....
Based on current word processing programs, the Commission now indicates a proposed deletion with a
strikethrough and recommended additions are underlined. In the case of multiple circulations of proposed
revisions, each successive revision will be presented to show all currently proposed changes to the original
document, which is the current document in use by the Commission. The title page of the document will
provide a chronology of Commission action(s) on revisions. The header on each page will indicate the
meeting at which the proposed document was considered by the Commission. In addition, documents for
circulation will have line numbers throughout.
The following is a summary of the standards development and revision process:
Step 1. Development of a preliminary document by staff and selected representatives of the discipline
involved.
EOPP
February 2024
- 33 -
Step 2.
i. Consideration of preliminary document by appropriate Review Committee
ii. Recommendation by Review Committee for circulation of document to COI by the Commission
iii. Commission authorizes circulation
Step 3.
i. Circulation of preliminary document to COI for review and comment
ii. Hearings are conducted with communities of interest, as appropriate.
Step 4.
i. Comments from COI compiled by staff
ii. Comments reviewed by appropriate review committee and appropriate changes made
iii. Recommendation by Review Committee to implement changes, or to recirculate for further
comment if changes are significant
iv. Commission approves changes and authorizes implementation timeframe or recirculation to COI
for comments
v. Steps 3 and 4 can be repeated, depending upon significance of changes. In the case of multiple
circulations of proposed revisions, each successive revision will be presented to show all currently
proposed changes to the original document, which is the current document in use by the
Commission. The title page of the document will provide a chronology of Commission action(s) on
revisions. The header on each page will indicate the meeting at which the proposed document was
considered by the Commission. In addition, documents for circulation will have line numbers
throughout.
Step 5. Commission notifies all appropriate individuals and programs of implementation timeframe
Revised: 2/22; 2/15; 1/14; 7/09, 1/04 5/89; 12/89; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/12, 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; Adopted:
4/83; CODA: 12/91:15, 12/90:2, 12
1. Frequency Of Citings: Each of the Review Committees and the Commission regularly review an
updated analysis of the number of “must” statement citings and their distribution among the “must”
statements in the accreditation standards for each discipline. These analyses are conducted at the summer
meetings. Frequency of Citings Reports are provided to programs and presented at workshops. To ensure
confidentiality, Frequency of Citings Reports will not be made available in disciplines where a limited
number (three or less) of programs have been site visited.
Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/12, 8/10
B. POLICY ON ASSESSING THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE ACCREDITATION
STANDARDS
The Commission on Dental Accreditation has developed accreditation standards for use in assessing,
ensuring and improving the quality of the educational programs in each of the disciplines it accredits.
The Commission believes that a minimum time span should elapse between the adoption of new standards
or implementation of standards that have undergone a comprehensive revision and the assessment of the
validity and reliability of these standards. This minimum period of time is directly related to the academic
length of the accredited programs in each discipline. The Commission believes this minimum period is
essential in order to allow time for programs to implement the new standards and to gain experience in each
year of the curriculum.
EOPP
February 2024
- 34 -
The Commission’s policy for assessment is based on the following formula: The validity and reliability of
accreditation standards will be assessed after they have been in effect for a period of time equal to the
minimum academic length of the accredited program plus three years. Thus, the validity and reliability of
the new standards for a one year program will be assessed after four years while standards which apply to
programs four years in length will be assessed seven years after implementation. In conducting a validity
study, the Commission considers the variety of program types in each discipline and obtains data from each
type in accord with good statistical practices.
The Commission’s ongoing review of its accreditation standards documents results in standards that evolve
in response to changes in the educational and professional communities. Requests to consider specific
revisions are received from a variety of sources and action on such revisions is based on broad input and
participation of the affected constituencies. Such ongoing assessment takes two main forms, the
development or revision of specific standards or a comprehensive revision of the entire standards document.
Specific issues or concerns may result in the development of new standards or the modification of existing
standards, in limited areas, to address those concerns. Comprehensive revisions of standards are made to
reflect significant changes in disease and practice patterns, scientific or technological advances, or in
response to changing professional needs for which the Commission has documented evidence.
If none of the above circumstances prompts an earlier revision, in approximately the fifth year after the
validity and reliability of the standards has been assessed, the Commission will conduct a study to
determine whether the accreditation standards continue to be appropriate to the discipline. This study will
include input from the broad communities of interest. The communities will be surveyed and invited to
participate in some national forum, such as an invitational conference, to assist the Commission in
determining whether the standards are still relevant and appropriate or whether a comprehensive revision
should be initiated.
The following alternatives, resulting in a set of new standards, might result from the assessment of the
adequacy of the standards:
• Authorization of a comprehensive revision of the standards;
• Revision of specific sections of the standards;
• Refinement/clarification of portions of the standards; and
• No changes in the standards but use of the results of this assessment during the next revision.
The new document is developed with input from the communities of interest in accord with Commission
policies. An implementation date is specified and copyright privileges are sought when the document is
adopted. Assessment of the validity and reliability of these new standards will be scheduled in accord with
the policy specified above. Exceptions to the prescribed schedule may be approved to ensure a consistent
timetable for similar disciplines (e.g. advanced dental education programs and/or allied dental education
programs).
Revised: 8/18; 7/07, 07/00; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/12, 8/10, 7/06; Adopted: 12/88
EOPP
February 2024
- 35 -
C. PROCEDURES FOR HEARING ON STANDARDS
The Commission makes every effort to have two Commissioners attend each hearing on standards
sponsored by the Commission. The Commission believes that two Commissioners is an appropriate
number to routinely attend hearings on standards, but also believes that those in attendance are not always
appropriately visible. Thus, the Commission directed that all members of the Commission who are present
during Commission sponsored hearings on standards be introduced at the beginning of the hearing on
standards and, if feasible, be seated at a head table to ensure their visibility to those offering testimony.
The purpose of a hearing on standards is to provide individuals, institutions and organizations that will be
affected by the document with an opportunity to comment. The Commissioner selected to chair the hearing
is generally responsible for:
• Calling the hearing to order, indicating that the hearing is one (1) hour but will be concluded in 30
minutes if limited comments are received and the agenda is completing during that time;
• Introducing him/herself, other Commission members and Commission staff present;
• Explaining the purpose of the hearing on standards;
• Providing brief background information on the proposed revision;
• Explaining the ground rules for the hearing;
• Listening to comments and maintaining the order and flow of the hearing; and
• Concluding the hearing.
The goal of a hearing on standards is to hear as many varied points of view on the proposed documents as
possible in an orderly fashion. The following ground rules facilitate achieving this goal:
• The document should be reviewed on a page-by-page basis so that comments on specific issues can be
provided at the same time.
• General comments on the document can be considered either before or after the page-by-page review,
as determined by the Chair.
• Individuals who wish to provide comments should wait to be recognized by the Chair, and identify
themselves by giving their name, city, state, and educational institution, if applicable.
• Individuals reference the specific section of the document on which they wish to comment by indicating
the page and line numbers of the section.
• Comments should be as concise as possible.
• Individuals should provide written comments that summarize their verbal remarks to the Chair by the
end of the hearing.
Hearings on standards should be constructive. It is sometimes helpful for the Chair to ask an individual
who is speaking at length against a section of the proposed document whether he/she has a specific
suggestion for revision. This can help to clarify the speaker’s objection more precisely and to bring the
comments to closure.
Occasionally, an individual or a few individuals may monopolize a hearing on standards. In fairness to
other attendees who may wish to speak, the Chair should direct individuals who have had ample
opportunity to express their opinions to conclude their remarks.
Commissioners are present to listen to representatives of the communities of interest and should avoid
becoming involved in debates about the relative merits of specific sections of the document.
EOPP
February 2024
- 36 -
Similarly, hearings on standards attendees should refrain from engaging in heated debates with each other.
If such debates develop, the Chair may wish to remind participants that the Commission is interested in
considering all viewpoints on the issues and that no decision regarding any issue will be determined during
a hearing on standards.
At the close of the hearing on standards, the Chair should advise attendees of other opportunities for
comment (i.e. other hearings on standards, if any, and the deadline for written comments) and indicate when
the Commission will take the final action on the document.
Revised: 8/21; 2/15; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/12, 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 12/91:15
D. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
Evaluation policies and procedures used in the accreditation process provide a system of checks and
balances regarding the fairness and impartiality in all aspects of the accreditation process. Central to the
fairness of the procedural aspects of the Commission’s operations and the impartiality of its decision
making process is an organizational and personal duty to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest. The
potential for a conflict of interest arises when one’s duty to make decisions in the public’s interest is
compromised by competing interests of a personal or private nature, including but not limited to pecuniary
interests.
Conflict of interest is considered to be: 1) any relationship with an institution or program, or 2) a partiality
or bias, either of which might interfere with objectivity in the accreditation review process. Procedures for
selection of representatives of the Commission who participate in the evaluation process reinforce
impartiality. These representatives include: Commissioners, Review Committee members, site visitors, and
Commission staff.
In addition, procedures for institutional due process, as well as strict guidelines for all written documents
and accreditation decisions, further reinforce adherence to fair accreditation practices. Every effort is made
to avoid conflict of interest, either from the point of view of an institution/program being reviewed or from
the point of view of any person representing the Commission.
On occasion, current and former volunteers involved in the Commission’s accreditation process (site
visitors, review committee members, commissioners) are requested to make presentations related to the
Commission and its accreditation process at various meetings. In these cases, the volunteer must make it
clear that the services are neither supported nor endorsed by the Commission on Dental Accreditation.
Further, it must be made clear that the information provided is based only on experiences of the individual
and not being provided on behalf of the Commission.
Revised: 8/15; 8/14; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 2/18; 8/12, 8/10
1. Visiting Committee Members: Conflicts of interest may be identified by either an institution/program,
Commissioner, site visitor or Commission staff. An institution/program has the right to reject the
assignment of any Commissioner, site visitor or Commission staff because of a possible or perceived
conflict of interest. The Commission expects all programs, Commissioners and/or site visitors to notify the
Commission office immediately if, for any reason, there may be a conflict of interest or the appearance of
such a conflict.
All active site visitors who independently consult with educational programs accredited by CODA or
applying for accreditation must identify all consulting roles to the Commission and must file with the
EOPP
February 2024
- 37 -
Commission a letter of conflict acknowledgement signed by themselves and the institution/program with
whom they consulted. All conflict of interest policies as noted elsewhere in this document apply. Contact
the CODA office for the appropriate conflict of interest declaration form.
Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, a site visitor who:
• is a graduate of the institution;
• has served on the program’s visiting committee within the last seven (7) years;
• has served as an independent consultant, employee or appointee of the institution;
• has a family member who is employed or affiliated with the institution;
• has a close professional or personal relationship with the institution/program or key personnel in the
institution/program which would, from the standpoint of a reasonable person, create the appearance of a
conflict;
• manifests a partiality that prevents objective consideration of a program for accreditation;
• is a former employee of the institution or program;
• previously applied for a position at the institution within the last five (5) years;
• is affiliated with an institution/program in the same state as the program’s primary location;
• is a resident of the state; and/or
• is in the process of considering, interviewing and/or hiring key personnel at the institution.
Note: Because of the nature of their positions, a state board representative will be a resident of the state in
which a program is located and may be a graduate of the institution/program being visited. These
components of the policy do not apply for state board representatives, although the program retains the right
to reject an individual’s assignment for other reasons.
If an institutional administrator, faculty member or site visitor has doubt as to whether or not a conflict of
interest could exist, Commission staff should be consulted prior to the site visit. The Chair, Vice-Chair and
a public member of the Commission, in consultation with Commission staff and legal counsel, may make a
final determination about such conflicts.
Revised: 2/24; 2/21; 8/18; 2/18; 2/16; 8/14; 1/14; 2/13; 8/10; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/12
2. Commissioners, Review Committee Members And Members Of The Appeal Board: The
Commission firmly believes that conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest must be
avoided in all situations in which accreditation recommendations or decisions are being made by
Commissioners, Review Committee members, or members of the Appeal Board. No Commissioner,
Review Committee member, or member of the Appeal Board should participate in any way in accrediting
decisions in which he or she has a financial or personal interest or, because of an institutional or program
association, has divided loyalties and/or has a conflict of interest on the outcome of the decision.
During the term of service as a Review Committee member, these individuals should not serve as site visitors
for an actual accreditation site visit to an accredited or developing program, unless deemed necessary. Two
instances when a review committee member could serve on a site visit include: 1) an inability to find a site
visitor from the comprehensive site visitor list, or 2) when the review committee believes a member should
attend a visit for consistency in the review process. This applies only to site visits that would be considered by
the same review committee on which the site visitor is serving. Review committee members may not
independently consult with a CODA-accredited program or a program applying for CODA accreditation. In
addition, review committee members may not serve as a site visitor for mock accreditation purposes. These
policies help avoid conflict of interest in the decision making process and minimize the need for recusals.
EOPP
February 2024
- 38 -
During the term of service as a commissioner or appeal board member, these individuals may not independently
consult with a CODA-accredited program or a program applying for CODA accreditation. In addition,
Commissioners or appeal board may not serve on a site visit team during their terms.
Areas of conflict of interest for Commissioners, Review Committee members and/or members of the Appeal
Board include, but are not limited to:
• close professional or personal relationships or affiliation with the institution/program or key personnel in
the institution/program which may create the appearance of a conflict;
• serving as an independent consultant or mock site visitor to the institution/program;
• being a graduate of the institution/program;
• being a current employee or appointee of the institution/program;
• previously applied for a position at the institution within the last five (5) years;
• being a current student at the institution/program;
• having a family member who is employed by or affiliated with the institution;
• manifesting a professional or personal interest at odds with the institution or program;
• key personnel of the institution/program having graduated from the program of the Commissioner, Review
Committee member, or member of the Appeal Board;
• having served on the program’s visiting committee within the last seven (7) years; and/or
• no longer a current employee of the institution or program but having been employed there within the past
ten (10) years.
To safeguard the objectivity of the Review Committees, conflict of interest determinations shall be made by the
Chair of the Review Committee. If the Chair, in consultation with a public member, staff and legal counsel,
determines that a Review Committee member has a conflict of interest in connection with a particular program,
the Review Committee member will be instructed to not access the report either in advance of or at the time of
the meeting. Further, the individual must leave the room when they have any of the above conflicts. In cases in
which the existence of a conflict of interest is less obvious, it is the responsibility of any committee member
who feels that a potential conflict of interest exists to absent himself/herself from the room during the
discussion of the particular accreditation report.
To safeguard the objectivity of the Commission, conflict of interest determinations shall be made by the Chair
of the Commission. If the Chair, in consultation with a public member, staff and legal counsel, determines that
a Commissioner has a conflict of interest in connection with a particular program, the Commissioner will be
instructed to not access the report either in advance of or at the time of the meeting. Further, the individual
must leave the room when they have any of the above conflicts. In cases in which the existence of a conflict of
interest is less obvious, it is the responsibility of any Commissioner who feels that a potential conflict of interest
exists to absent himself/herself from the room during the discussion of the particular accreditation report.
To safeguard the objectivity of the Appeal Board, any member who has a conflict of interest in connection
with a program filing an appeal must inform the Director of the Commission. The Appeal Board member
will be instructed to not access the report for that program either in advance of or at the time of the meeting,
and the individual must leave the room when the program is being discussed. If necessary, the respective
representative organization will be contacted to identify a temporary replacement Appeal Board member.
Conflicts of interest for Commissioners, Review Committee members and members of the Appeal Board
may also include being from the same state, but not the same program. The Commission is aware that
being from the same state may not itself be a conflict; however, when residence within the same state is in
addition to any of the items listed above, a conflict would exist.
EOPP
February 2024
- 39 -
This provision refers to the concept of conflict of interest in the context of accreditation decisions. The
prohibitions and limitations are not intended to exclude participation and decision-making in other areas,
such as policy development and standard setting.
Commissioners are expected to evaluate each accreditation action, policy decision or standard adoption for
the overall good of the public. The American Dental Association (ADA) Constitution and Bylaws limits
the involvement of the members of the ADA, the American Dental Education Association and the
American Association of Dental Boards in areas beyond the organization that appointed them. Although
Commissioners are appointed by designated communities of interest, their duty of loyalty is first and
foremost to the Commission. A conflict of interest exists when a Commissioner holds appointment as an
officer in another organization within the Commission’s communities of interest. Therefore, a conflict of
interest exists when a Commissioner or a Commissioner-designee provides simultaneous service to the
Commission and an organization within the communities of interest. (Refer to Policy on Simultaneous
Service)
Revised: 2/21; 8/16; 2/16; 2/15; 8/14; 1/14, 8/10; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/12
3. Commission Staff Members: Although Commission on Dental Accreditation staff does not participate
directly in decisions by volunteers regarding accreditation, they are in a position to influence the outcomes
of the process. On the other hand, staff provides equity and consistency among site visits and guidance
interpreting the Commission’s policies and procedures.
For these reasons, Commission staff adheres to the guidelines for site visitors, within the time limitations
listed and with the exception of the state residency, including:
• graduation from a dental program at the institution within the last five (5) years;
• service as a site visitor, employee or appointee of the institution within the last five (5) years; and/or
• close personal or familial relationships with key personnel in the institution/program which would from
the standpoint of a reasonable person, create the appearance of a conflict.
Revised: 2/24; 8/14; 8/10, 7/09, 7/07, 7/00, 7/96, 1/95, 12/92; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/12, 1/03; Adopted:
1982
E. CONFIDENTIALITY
POLICY
All materials generated and received in the accreditation process are confidential. In all instances Protected
Health Information (PHI), Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and student/resident/fellow identifying
information must not be improperly disclosed. The Commission’s confidentiality policies apply to
Commissioners, Review Committee members, members of the Appeal Board, and site visitors. Confidential
materials are maintained to ensure the integrity of the institution/program and of the accreditation process,
and may be shared by the Commission in instances related to USDE re-recognition or responding to state or
federal legal requirements, as appropriate. Because of the confidential nature of the accreditation process,
the Commission identifies three (3) points of contact with whom Commission staff is authorized to
communicate, either in writing or verbally. These individuals are designated by the sponsoring institution
and include the chief executive officer (university president/chancellor/provost or medical center director),
the chief academic officer (dean/academic dean/chair/chief of dental service, etc.), and the program
director. Commission staff is not authorized to discuss program-specific situations or share confidential
material with any other individual(s).
EOPP
February 2024
- 40 -
Confidentiality applies without limitation, to the following:
SELF-STUDY DOCUMENT: At the discretion of the institution, the administration may either release
information from this document to the public or keep it confidential. The Commission will not release the
self-study document.
SITE VISIT REPORT: The preliminary draft of a site visit report is an unofficial document and remains
confidential between the Commission and the institution’s executive officers and may not, under any
circumstances, be released. Members of a visiting committee who review preliminary drafts of the report must
consider the report as privileged information and must not discuss it or make its contents known to anyone,
under any circumstances. Oral comments made by site visit team members during the course of the site visit
are not to be construed as official site visit findings unless documented within the site visit report and may not
be publicized. Further, publication of site visit team members’ names and/or contact information is prohibited.
Reasons for assigning any non-adverse status other than full approval remain confidential between the
institution and the Commission unless the institution wishes to release them. Public release of the final draft of
the site visit report that is approved by the Commission is at the sole discretion of the institution. If there is a
point of contention about a specific section of the final site visit report and the institution elects to release the
pertinent section to the public, the Commission reserves the right to make the entire site visit report public.
INSTITUTION'S RESPONSE TO A SITE VISIT REPORT: Release of this information is at the sole
discretion of the institution. An institution’s response must not improperly disclose any Protected Health
Information; however, if any such information is included in the response, such information will not be
made public.
TRANSMITTAL LETTER OF ACCREDITATION NOTIFICATION: Information such as accreditation
status granted and scheduled dates for submission of additional information is public information.
However, release of other information or details is at the sole discretion of the institution and will not be
disclosed by the Commission.
PROGRESS REPORT: The scheduled date for submission of progress reports is public information. Release
of the content of a progress report is at the sole discretion of the institution. If there is a point of contention
about a particular portion of the progress report and the institution elects to release the pertinent portion to the
public, the Commission reserves the right to make public the entire progress report. Progress reports must not
disclose Protected Health Information (PHI) or Personally Identifiable Information (PII).
SURVEYS: Routinely gathered data are used in the accreditation process and also provide a national data
base of information about the accredited dental and dental-related educational programs. The Commission
may release to the public any portion of survey data that is collected annually unless the terms of
confidentiality for a specific section are clearly indicated on the survey instrument. Subsections of each
survey instrument containing data elements which are confidential are clearly marked. Any data which may
be reported from confidential subsections are published in a manner which does not allow identification of
an individual institution/program.
EXIT INTERVIEWS: The final conference or exit interview between the site visit committee and the chief
executive officer, dental dean, chief of dental service or the program director(s) is also confidential.
Additional people may be included at the discretion of the institutional administration. The interview is a
confidential summation of the preliminary findings, conclusions, recommendations and suggestions which
will appear in the site visit report to the institution. This is a preliminary oral report and the preliminary
EOPP
February 2024
- 41 -
written report is often only in draft stage at this point; therefore, this session may not be recorded in either
audio or video format. Note taking is permitted and encouraged.
ON-SITE INTERVIEWS AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: In order to carry out their duties as on-site
evaluators, visiting committee members must communicate freely with administrators, faculty, staff and
students and any other appropriate individuals affiliated with an education program. As part of their on-site
accreditation duties, committee members are expected to share with other team members pertinent and
relevant information obtained during interviews. All oral communications occurring on-site, however, are
confidential. Interviews may not be recorded in either audio or video format. Note taking is permitted and
encouraged. When the site visit ends, team members may communicate orally, or in writing, only with
Commission staff or other team members about any on-site interview or conversation. All questions related
to any aspect of the site visit including oral communications must be referred to the Commission office.
MEETING MATERIALS/DISCUSSIONS: Background reports and informational materials related to
accreditation matters are regularly prepared for review by the Commission and its Review Committees.
These materials and all discussions related to accreditation matters routinely remain confidential. All Ad
Hoc and Standing Committee meeting materials remain confidential unless the Commission determines the
materials warrant public distribution. The Commission determines when, and the manner in which, newly
adopted policy and informational reports will receive public distribution.
PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION: Patients’ protected health information, which includes any
information that could identify an individual as a patient of the facility being site visited, may not be used
by the site visitors, Review Committee members, or Commissioners for any purpose other than for
evaluation of the program being reviewed on behalf of the Commission. Protected Health Information may
not be disclosed to anyone other than Commissioners, Commission staff, Review Committee members or
site visitors reviewing the program from which the Protected Health Information was received. Individual
Protected Health Information should be redacted from Commission records whenever that information is
not essential to the evaluation process. If a site visitor, Review Committee member, or Commissioner
believes any Protected Health Information has been inappropriately used or disclosed, he/she should contact
the Commission office.
MEETINGS: Policy portions of the Review Committee and Commission meetings are open to observers,
while accreditation actions are confidential and conducted in closed session. All Ad Hoc and Standing
Committee meetings, and all meetings related to CODA operations are confidential and conducted in closed
session. All deliberations of the Appeal Board are confidential and conducted in closed session.
NOTICE OF REASONS FOR ADVERSE ACTION: Notice of the reasons for which an adverse
accreditation action (i.e. deny or withdraw) is taken is routinely provided to the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Education, any appropriate state agencies, and, upon request, to the public.
Revised: 8/23; 8/20; 8/18; 2/18; 2/16; 8/14; 1/05, 2/01, 7/00; Reaffirmed: 8/12, 8/10; Adopted: 7/94, 5/93
EOPP
February 2024
- 42 -
1. Reminder Of Confidentiality: To be read at meetings or on site visits:
The Commission on Dental Accreditation reminds you that confidentiality is an integral part of the
accreditation process. The Commission must have access to much sensitive information in order to conduct
its review of programs and in the course of its operations and meetings. The confidentiality of this
information must be protected by participants of meetings as well as by participants on accreditation site
visits.
To remind you of the seriousness with which the Commission views its commitment to protect
confidentiality, the Commission requires that all participants of meetings and site visits sign an Agreement
of Confidentiality. In signing the Agreement which was provided to you, you indicated your familiarity
with the Commission’s policy on confidentiality and agreed to abide by it. If you have not already signed
the Agreement, please arrange to do so.
Unless indicated otherwise, all meeting and site visit materials, all information obtained on-site, all patient
Protected Health Information, and all discussions related to the accreditation of programs and Commission
operations are confidential. Patients’ Protected Health Information, which includes any information that
could identify an individual as a patient of the facility you are visiting or reviewing, may not be used by you
for any purpose other than for evaluation of the program on behalf of the Commission. If you believe any
Protected Health Information has been inappropriately used or disclosed, you must contact the Commission
office. And, please remember that confidentiality has no expiration date -- it lasts forever!
Revised: 8/23; 1/05; Reaffirmed: 8/18; 8/12, 8/10, 7/01; Adopted: 12/85
2. The Agreement Of Confidentiality:
Agreement of Confidentiality
I am aware that, as a participant of an accreditation site visit, committee, or the Commission, I have access
to accreditation information which must remain confidential. I have read and understand the Commission
on Dental Accreditation’s policy on Confidentiality and Public Disclosure and agree to protect the
confidentiality of all accreditation materials, all patient Protected Health Information, recommendations and
suggestions and discussions before, during and after the meeting or site visit.
_______________________________________________ __________________________
Signed Date
Revised: 1/05; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/12, 8/10, 7/01; Adopted: 12/8
F. POLICY ON PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
Following each meeting, final accreditation actions taken with respect to all programs, are disclosed to all
appropriate agencies, including the general public. The public includes other programs or institutions,
faculty, students and future students, governing boards, state licensing boards, USDE, related organizations,
federal and state legislators and agencies, members of the dental community, members of the accreditation
community and the general public. In general, it includes everyone not directly involved in the
accreditation review process at a given institution.
If the Commission, subsequent to and following the Commission’s due process procedures, withdraws or
denies accreditation from a program, the action will be so noted in the Commission's lists of accredited
programs. Any inquiry related to application for accreditation would be viewed as a request for public
EOPP
February 2024
- 43 -
information and such information would be provided to the public. The scheduled dates of the last and next
comprehensive site visits are also published as public information.
The Commission has procedures in place to provide a brief statement summarizing the reasons for which it
takes an adverse accreditation action. If initial accreditation were denied to a developing program or
accreditation were withdrawn from a currently accredited program, the reasons for that denial would be
provided to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, the appropriate accrediting agencies, any
appropriate state licensing or authorizing agencies, and to the public. In addition, the official comments that
the affected institution or program may wish to make with regard to that decision, or evidence that the
affected institution has been offered the opportunity to provide official comment will also be made available
to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, the appropriate accrediting agencies, any appropriate
state licensing or authorizing agencies, and to the public
All documents relating to the structure, policies, procedures, and accreditation standards of the Commission
are available to the public upon written request. Other official documents require varying degrees of
confidentiality.
Revised: 1/05, 2/01, 7/00; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/12, 8/10; Adopted: 7/94, 5/93
G. POLICY ON SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE
A member of the Commission on Dental Accreditation, including its Standing and Review Committees, and
Appeal Board, may not simultaneously serve as a principal officer of another organization within any of the
Commission’s primary communities of interest if that organization has a role in appointing or co-appointing a
member of the Commission. The Commission interprets principal officer to mean those in the position of
being final decision-makers which usually includes positions such as the president, president-elect, immediate
past president, secretary or treasurer of an organization, as well as members of any executive committee that
has decision-making authority which does not require confirmation by a board or house. The Commission
has defined primary community of interest in this context as any organizations who have a role in appointing
Commissioners, and the Regional Clinical Testing Agencies. Additional criteria found in CODA’s Rules for
nominations apply during an individual’s entire term on CODA.
When such a conflict is revealed at the time of appointment, the appointing organization will be informed
that the conflict exists and requested to take steps to identify a replacement on the specific committee,
Appeal Board, or Commission.
When such a conflict arises during the term of a current Commissioner, Review Committee, or Appeal
Board member, the Commissioner, or Review Committee, or Appeal Board member will be asked to
resolve the conflict by resigning from one of the conflicting appointments. In the event that the member
resigns from the Commission or Appeal Board, the appointing organization will appoint another individual
to complete the unfinished term, as specified by the Rules of the Commission on Dental Accreditation. In
the event that the member resigns from the Review Committee, the Commission will contact the
representative organization for nominations to fulfill the unfinished term.
EOPP
February 2024
- 44 -
If the term of the vacated Commission, Appeal Board, or Review Committee position has fifty percent
(50%) or less of a full four-year term remaining at the time the successor member is appointed, the
successor member shall be eligible for appointment to a new, consecutive four-year term. If more than fifty
percent (50%) of the vacated term remains to be served at the time of the appointment, the successor
member shall not be eligible for another term.
Revised: 8/23; 2/19; 8/18; 8/16; 2/16; 2/13, 7/09, 7/01, 7/95; Reaffirmed: 8/13; 8/10, 7/07
H. NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY:
The Commission on Dental Accreditation does not discriminate against any person in the conduct of its
activities because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual preference, gender identity, age, disability or national
origin.
Revised: 8/23; Reaffirmed: 8/18; 8/13; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 5/84, 7/95
I. POLICY ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND PROHIBITION AGAINST HARASSMENT
All staff members and volunteers must treat each other and all others with whom we work on behalf of the
ADA
1
with integrity, courtesy and professionalism. It is ADA
policy that all staff members and volunteers are responsible for
assuring that the work place is free from improper harassment.
With this policy, the ADA prohibits not only unlawful harassment,
but also other unprofessional and discourteous actions. For
example, rude, insulting, disrespectful, disruptive, uncivil and
unprofessional comments or conduct will also not be tolerated.
Workplace harassment isn’t limited to sexual harassment, and
doesn’t preclude same-gender harassment; it can occur between any
two people - co-workers, managers, or even non-employees like clients, contractors, or vendors.
The ADA absolutely prohibits sexual harassment and harassment on the basis of one’s status as a member
of a legally-protected class, such as race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth and related
medical conditions), gender, gender identify, national origin, age (40 or older), disability (mental or
physical), sexual orientation, military status, genetic information, and marital status. These types of
discriminatory harassment are prohibited by state and federal laws and may subject the ADA and/or the
individual harasser to liability for any such unlawful conduct.
Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling,
physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or
pictures, unwelcome sexual advances, unwanted physical contact (including touching), and all other verbal,
or physical conduct directed at an individual because of their status as a member of a protected class that is
unwelcome and interferes with work performance. Such conduct constitutes unlawful harassment when:
1
For purposes of these HR protocols ‘the ADA’ collectively refers to the American Dental Association and its two
affiliated organizations, the for-profit company ADA Business Enterprises, Inc. (ADABEI) and the not-for-profit
educational and research focused ADA Foundation (ADAF).
To Report a Potential Incident
If you believe you have experienced or
have become aware of an incident of
harassment or a violation of our
professional conduct policy, report it
as soon as possible to your supervisor
and/or Human Resources at (312) 440-
2005.
EOPP
February 2024
- 45 -
• Submission to such conduct is made either implicitly or explicitly a condition of the individual’s
employment;
• Submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as the basis for decisions affecting an individual’s
employment; or
• Such conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and to create a
hostile or abusive working environment.
Each staff member and volunteer must exercise his or her own good judgment to avoid engaging in conduct
that may be perceived by others as harassment. As an ADA staff member or volunteer, you are responsible
for keeping our work environment free of all such harassment. If you believe that you have been harassed,
or if you become aware of an incident of harassment, whether by an employee, a member, or a non-
employee or non-member, you should report it as soon as possible to your supervisor, a volunteer leader,
and/or to the Human Resources, (312-440-2005).
If the incident is reported to an employee’s supervisor or a volunteer leader, the supervisor or volunteer
leader must then report the incident to the head of ADA Human Resources. Do not allow an inappropriate
situation to continue by not reporting it, regardless of who is creating that situation.
No staff member or volunteer in this organization is exempt
from this policy. This policy applies to the immediate work
place as well as to ADA related activity outside the ordinary
work place, such as travel on ADA business, meetings
outside the ADA building, email and telephone
communications, and ADA-sponsored social or recreational
events.
In response to every complaint, the ADA will take prompt investigatory actions and corrective and
preventative actions where necessary. A staff member who brings such a complaint to the ADA in good
faith will not be adversely affected as a result of reporting the harassment or objectionable conduct. All
staff members should be aware that the privacy of the charging party and the person accused of the
harassment will be protected to the extent consistent with effective enforcement of this policy.
The ADA will retain confidential documentation of all allegations and investigations. Any staff member or
volunteer found to have violated this policy may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge
from employment with the ADA or removal from a volunteer position. Any memoranda regarding a
determination that a violation of the Professional Conduct Policy and Prohibition against Harassment has
occurred shall be placed in a staff member’s personnel file. Effective: January 1, 2015
Procedures Applicable to Professional Conduct Policy and Prohibition against Harassment
a. If you believe that there has been a violation of the ADA’s Professional Conduct Policy and Prohibition
against Harassment (ADA’s Policy) immediately contact your supervisor, or Human Resources.
b. If an incident is reported to a supervisor or volunteer leader, the supervisor or volunteer leader must
then notify Human Resources of the incident.
c. In a timely and confidential manner, the ADA will conduct an investigation of any complaint that is
made pursuant to the ADA’s Policy. Human Resources will conduct an investigation, which includes
interviewing witnesses with potential knowledge of the objectionable conduct.
** Reminder to Supervisors and
Volunteer Leaders**
If you witness or are informed of a
potential incident of harassment or
violation of our professional conduct
policy, you MUST report it to Human
Resources at (312) 440-2005.
EOPP
February 2024
- 46 -
d. It is the obligation of each staff member and volunteer to cooperate in these investigations by providing
truthful, thorough information.
e. The alleged harasser is given an opportunity to relate his/her version of the events and to provide any
information that the ADA should consider before it finalizes its investigation. If the alleged harasser
refuses to participate, the ADA will base its decision on the other information gathered during the
investigation, the inferences drawn from that evidence and the alleged harasser’s unwillingness to
cooperate in the interview.
f. Information obtained pursuant to the investigation is confidential and will be reported to those within
the ADA on a “need to know” basis. The privacy of the complaining party and the person accused of
the harassment will be protected to the extent consistent with effective enforcement of this Policy.
g. Attempting to influence the investigation or to disclose confidential information by discussing it with
others can be cause for disciplinary action, up to and including discharge, except to the extent such
disclosure may be legally permissible.
h. Human Resources, in consultation with legal counsel, will make a recommendation to the Executive
Director as to whether there has been a violation of the ADA’s Policy and whether corrective action, if
any, should be taken.
i. Any staff member found to have violated the Professional Conduct Policy and Prohibition against
Harassment will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge. Any memoranda
regarding violation of the Professional Conduct Policy and Prohibition against Harassment will be
placed in the staff member’s personnel file.
The ADA prohibits managers and supervisors from taking adverse job consequences against staff who engage
in protected activities such as :1) lodging a discrimination complaint or concern, 2) participating in an
investigation of such a discrimination complaint or concern or 3) opposing employment practices that an
employee reasonably believes discriminate against the employee or another staff member.
The ADA prohibits any form of retaliation against any staff member for making a bona fide complaint under
this policy or for assisting in a complaint investigation. Any individual, however, whose complaint is
determined to be false or made in bad faith, or supported by false information, may be subject to disciplinary
action.
The ADA specifically reserves its right to change, modify or eliminate any of the provisions of its Procedures
Applicable to the Professional Conduct Policy and Prohibition against Harassment Policy at any time with or
without notice. Effective: January 1, 2015.
Revised: 8/15; 8/14; 7/09, 1/03, 7/97; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; /13; 8/10; CODA: 01/95:11
J. PROGRAM FEE POLICY
Programs accredited by the Commission pay an annual fee. The annual fee is doubled in the year of the
program’s regular interval accreditation site visit. As there is some variation in fees for different disciplines
based on actual accreditation costs, programs should contact the Commission office for specific
information. Other than doubling of the annual fee during the site visit year, site visits are conducted
without any additional charge to the institution and the Commission assumes all expenses incurred by its
site visitors. However, accredited programs with multiple s
ites which must be site visited during a regular
site visit and programs sponsored by the U.S. military in international locations are assessed a fee at the time
of the site visit. The fee is established on a case-by-case basis, dependent upon the specific requirements to
conduct the visit (e.g. additional site visitors, additional days, and additional travel time and expenses), which
EOPP
February 2024
- 47 -
will result in a flat fee of $750 per site visitor for each additional day. Fees are also assessed to the program for
the conduct of special focused site visits. (See Invoicing Process for Special Focused Site Visits in Policy on
Special Site Visits). International dental education programs also pay an annual fee and site visit fees (See
International Dental Education Site Visits). Expenses for representatives from the state board of dentistry or
from other agencies, such as a regional accrediting agency, are not assumed by the Commission. Fee
structures are evaluated annually by the Commission. The Commission office should be contacted for
current information on fees.
An annual administrative fee is also applied to each program. Fees may also be associated with staff
consulting services (See Staff Consulting Services, and International Policies and Procedures)
administrative fees related to the Commission policy on protected health information and personally
identifiable information (See Policy and Procedures Related to Compliance with the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act).
All institutions offering programs accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation are expected to
adhere to the due date for payment of all fees for each accredited program sponsored by the institution.
Written requests for an extension must specify a payment date no later than thirty (30) days beyond the
initial due date. Failure to pay fees by the designated deadline is viewed as an institutional decision to no
longer participate in the Commission’s accreditation program. Following appropriate reminder notice(s),
if payment or a request for extension i
s not received, it will be assumed that the institution no longer
wishes to participate in the accreditation program. In this event, the Commission will immediately notify
the chief executive officer of the institution of its intent to withdraw the accreditation of the program(s) at
its next scheduled meeting. Programs which have been discontinued or had accreditation withdrawn will
not be issued a refund of accreditation fees.
Revised: 2/24; 1/20; 2/19; 2/15; 8/14; 8/13; 7/08; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/13; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 7/95
K. POLICY ON CODA ADMINISTRATIVE FUND
In 2020, the Commission on Dental Accreditation approved the reclassification of its Research and
Development Fund (R&D Fund) to an Administrative Fund.
The Commission on Dental Accreditation Administrative Fund may include but is not limited to the
following uses:
• Commission studies and activities related to quality assurance and strategic planning
• Conduct of business through newly formed ad hoc or sub-committees not previously budgeted;
engagement of site visitors to gain unique expertise or to provide training
• Ongoing review and enhancement of business resources, human resources, and technology
resources in various aspects of the CODA accreditation program
• Expenses related to Shared Services Agreement with the American Dental Association not
previously budgeted
• Other business purposes as applicable to the work of the Commission on Dental Accreditation
Criteria Guideline for Distribution of Funds:
1. Funds $5,000 or less: Funds in this category are classified as discretionary funds that may be used by
the CODA Director. A maximum of $5,000 per use is permissible, with a requirement for immediate
EOPP
February 2024
- 48 -
reporting on the use of the funds, via email, to the Finance Committee for informational purposes. The
discretionary funds do not require a formal request by a CODA committee, nor do they require prior
approval for use by the Finance Committee or Commission.
2. Funds between $5,001 and $20,000: Projects which require this level of funding must be reviewed and
approved by the Finance Committee prior to use. Approval by the Commission is not required.
3. Funds greater than $20,000: Projects which require funding in excess of $20,000 must be submitted for
review and approval by the Commission upon recommendation of the Finance Committee.
All Funding Disbursements:
• The Finance Committee and Commission will review a full accounting of the Administrative Fund and
uses of the fund at each finance committee and Commission meeting.
• Fund allocations requiring approval by the Finance Committee or the Commission require formal
requests/proposals from the Commission’s review committees or standing committees; disbursement of
funds within the Director’s discretionary allocation do not require formalized requests.
Reaffirmed: 8/23; Adopted: 2/20
L. GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING PROGRAM FILES
All correspondence is maintained and documentation related to one accreditation cycle will be stored
electronically. Electronic documents/correspondence do not need signatures (per Commission legal
counsel). Transmittal letters can be saved to the accredited program’s document retention space without a
signature.
Accredited programs
• All correspondence and letters of transmission of Commission action;
• All site visit reports (including the institution’s response);
• Two (2) most recent self-studies;
• Progress reports related to the two (2) most recent site visit reports; and
• Special Reports: (e.g. interim review, major change, transfer of sponsorship) occurring during time
period of the two most recent site visit reports.
Discontinued programs
• All correspondence and letters of transmission of Commission action;
• Two (2) most recent site visit reports (with institutional responses);
• Two (2) most recent self-studies; and
• Progress reports related to the two (2) most recent site visit reports.
Programs with accreditation withdrawn
• All correspondence and letters of transmission of Commission action;
• Two (2) most recent site visit reports (with institutional responses);
• Two (2) most recent self-studies; and
• Progress reports related to the two (2) most recent site visit reports.
Revised: 8/23; 8/02, 8/03, 8/99; Reaffirmed: 8/18; 8/15; 8/10, 7/09; Adopted: 9/92
EOPP
February 2024
- 49 -
IV. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO ACCREDITATION OF PROGRAMS
A. ACCREDITATION STATUS DEFINITIONS
1. Programs That Are Fully Operational:
Approval (without reporting requirements): An accreditation classification granted to an educational
program indicating that the program achieves or exceeds the basic requirements for accreditation.
Approval (with reporting requirements): An accreditation classification granted to an educational program
indicating that specific deficiencies or weaknesses exist in one or more areas of the program. Evidence of
compliance with the cited standards or policies must be demonstrated within a timeframe not to exceed
eighteen (18) months if the program is between one and two years in length or two years if the program is at
least two years in length. If the deficiencies are not corrected within the specified time period, accreditation
will be withdrawn, unless the Commission extends the period for achieving compliance for good cause.
Identification of new deficiencies during the reporting time period will not result in a modification of the
specified deadline for compliance with prior deficiencies.
Circumstances under which an extension for good cause would be granted include, but are not limited to:
• sudden changes in institutional commitment;
• natural disaster which affects affiliated agreements between institutions; faculty support; or
facilities;
• changes in institutional accreditation;
• interruption of an educational program due to unforeseen circumstances that take faculty,
administrators or students away from the program.
Revised: 8/17; 2/16; 5/12; 1/99; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/13; 8/10, 7/05; Adopted: 1/98
2. Programs That Are Not Fully Operational: A program which has not enrolled and graduated at least
one class of students/residents and does not have students/residents enrolled in each year of the program is
defined by the Commission as not fully operational. The accreditation classification granted by the
Commission on Dental Accreditation to programs which are not fully operational is “initial accreditation.”
When initial accreditation status is granted to a developing education program, it is in effect through the
projected enrollment date. However, if enrollment of the first class is delayed for two consecutive years
following the projected enrollment date, the program’s accreditation will be discontinued, and the institution
must reapply for initial accreditation and update pertinent information on program development. Following
this, the Commission will reconsider granting initial accreditation status. The developing education program
must not enroll students/residents/fellows with advanced standing beyond its regularly enrolled cohort, while
holding the accreditation status of “initial accreditation.”
Initial Accreditation is the accreditation classification granted to any dental, advanced dental or allied
dental education program which is not yet fully operational. This accreditation classification provides
evidence to educational institutions, licensing bodies, government or other granting agencies that, at the
time of initial evaluation(s), the developing education program has the potential for meeting the standards
set forth in the requirements for an accredited educational program for the specific occupational area. The
classification “initial accreditation” is granted based upon one or more site evaluation visit(s).
Revised: 8/23; 7/08; Reaffirmed: 8/18; 8/13; 8/10; Adopted: 2/02
EOPP
February 2024
- 50 -
Other Accreditation Actions:
Teach-Out: An action taken by the Commission on Dental Accreditation to notify an accredited program
and the communities of interest that the program is in the process of voluntarily terminating its accreditation
due to a planned discontinuance or program closure. The Commission monitors the program until
students/residents who matriculated into the program prior to the reported discontinuance or closure
effective date are no longer enrolled.
Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; Adopted: 2/16
Discontinued: An action taken by the Commission on Dental Accreditation to affirm a program’s reported
discontinuance effective date or planned closure date and to remove a program from the Commission’s
accredited program listing, when a program either 1) voluntarily discontinues its participation in the
accreditation program and no longer enrolls students/residents who matriculated prior to the program’s
reported discontinuance effective date or 2) is closed by the sponsoring institution.
Intent to Withdraw: A formal warning utilized by the Commission on Dental Accreditation to notify an
accredited program and the communities of interest that the program’s accreditation will be withdrawn if
compliance with accreditation standards or policies cannot be demonstrated by a specified date. The
warning is usually for a six-month period, unless the Commission extends for good cause. The Commission
advises programs that the intent to withdraw accreditation may have legal implications for the program and
suggests that the institution’s legal counsel be consulted regarding how and when to advise applicants and
students of the Commission’s accreditation actions. The Commission reserves the right to require a period
of non-enrollment for programs that have been issued the Intent to Withdraw warning.
Revised: 2/16; 8/13; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18
Withdraw: An action taken by the Commission when a program has been unable to demonstrate
compliance with the accreditation standards or policies within the time period specified. A final action to
withdraw accreditation is communicated to the program and announced to the communities of interest. A
statement summarizing the reasons for the Commission’s decision and comments, if any, that the affected
program has made with regard to this decision, is available upon request from the Commission
office. Upon withdrawal of accreditation by the Commission, the program is no longer recognized by the
United States Department of Education. In the event the Commission withdraws accreditation from a
program, students currently enrolled in the program at the time accreditation is withdrawn and who
successfully complete the program, will be considered graduates of an accredited program. Students who
enroll in a program after the accreditation has been withdrawn will not be considered graduates of a
Commission accredited program. Such graduates may be ineligible for certification/licensure examinations.
Revised 6/17; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/13; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 12/87:9
Denial: An action by the Commission that denies accreditation to a developing program (without
enrollment) or to a fully operational program (with enrollment) that has applied for accreditation. Reasons
for the denial are provided. Denial of accreditation is considered an adverse action.
Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/13; Adopted: 8/11
EOPP
February 2024
- 51 -
B. APPLICATION FOR ACCREDITATION FOR FULLY OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS WITH
ENROLLMENT AND WITHOUT ACCREDITATION
Those programs that have graduated at least one class of students/residents and are enrolling
students/residents in every year of the program are considered fully operational. These programs will
complete the self-study document and will be considered for the accreditation status of “approval with
reporting requirements” or “approval without reporting requirements” following a comprehensive site visit
(Please see procedures for the conduct of a comprehensive site visit). Students/Residents who are enrolled
in the program at the time accreditation is granted, and who successfully complete the program, will be
considered graduates of an accredited program. Students/Residents who graduated from the program prior
to the granting of accreditation will not be considered graduates of an accredited program.
Because accreditation is voluntary, a program may withdraw its application for accreditation at any time
prior to the Commission taking action regarding an accreditation status. When an accreditation status has
been granted, the program has the right to ask that the status be discontinued at any time for any reason.
Upon request, the Commission office will provide more specific information about types of programs,
application forms, deadlines for submission and accreditation standards. Program administrators and
faculty are encouraged to consult with Commission staff during this initial process.
An application fee must be submitted with a program’s application for accreditation. Programs should
contact the Commission office for the current fee schedule.
The following steps apply:
1. An application for accreditation is completed by the program and submitted to the Commission on
Dental Accreditation, along with appropriate documentation and application fee. Provided that the
application is in order, the first opportunity for the Commission to consider the program is generally 12
to 18 months following the Commission’s formal acknowledgment of receipt of the application,
initiation of the review process, and following an initial site visit.
2. The completed application for accreditation is reviewed to determine whether the program, as proposed,
appears to have the potential to meet the Accreditation Standards and has sufficiently addressed and
documented the Criteria for Consideration of An Application for Accreditation before proceeding to the
next step of the application process.
3. If it is determined that the Criteria for Consideration of An Application for Accreditation have been
sufficiently addressed and documented, and that the program, as proposed, appears to have the potential
to meet the Accreditation Standards, a site visit is scheduled four (4) to seven (7) months following
completion of the application review.
4. Substantive changes to the proposed program that occur between the date of submission of the application
and scheduled site visit, if one is warranted, must be reported to the Commission immediately, will
require further review, and may result in a delay of the site visit.
5. After the site visit has been conducted, the visiting committee submits a draft report to the Commission
office.
6. Following the site visit, the preliminary draft of the site visit report is transmitted to the institution for
consideration and comment.
7. The visiting committee’s report and the institution’s response to the preliminary report, should one be
submitted, are transmitted to the discipline-specific Review Committee for consideration at its meeting
prior to the Commission meeting.
8. The Commission then considers the Review Committee’s report and takes action on the accreditation
status.
EOPP
February 2024
- 52 -
9. The Commission’s action regarding accreditation status and the final site visit report are transmitted to the
institution within thirty (30) days of the Commission’s meeting.
Time Limitation for Review of Applications: The review of an application will be terminated if an
institution fails to respond to the Commission’s requests for information for a period of six (6) months. In
this case, the institution will be notified that the application process has been terminated. If the institution
wishes to begin the process again, a new application and application fee must be submitted.
Revised: 8/22; 2/22; 2/21; 8/16; 2/16; 8/13; 7/08; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/13; 8/10; Adopted: 8/02
C. APPLICATION FOR INITIAL ACCREDITATION FOR DEVELOPING PROGRAMS
A program which has not enrolled and graduated at least one class of students/residents and does not have
students/residents enrolled in each year of the program is defined by the Commission as “developing.” The same
review steps that apply for Application for Accreditation for Fully Operational Programs with Enrollment and
Without Accreditation apply to Application for Initial Accreditation for Developing Programs.
The developing program must not enroll students/residents until initial accreditation status has been
obtained. Once a program is granted “initial accreditation” status, a site visit will be conducted in the
second year of programs that are four or more years in duration and again prior to the first class of
students/residents graduating. Programs that are less than four (4) years in duration will be site visited
again prior to the first class of students/residents graduating.
An institution which has made the decision to initiate and seek accreditation for a program that falls within
the Commission on Dental Accreditation’s purview is required to submit an application for accreditation.
“Initial accreditation” status may then be granted to programs which are developing, according to the
accreditation standards.
Because accreditation is voluntary, a program may withdraw its application for accreditation at any time
prior to the Commission taking action regarding an accreditation status. The initial accreditation status is
granted based upon one or more site evaluation visit(s) and until the program is fully operational. When an
accreditation status has been granted, the program has the right to ask that the status be discontinued at any
time for any reason.
Upon request, the Commission office will provide more specific information about types of programs,
application forms, deadlines for submission and accreditation standards. Program administrators and
faculty are encouraged to consult with Commission staff during this initial process.
An application fee must be submitted with a program’s application for initial accreditation. Programs
should contact the Commission office for the current fee schedule.
The following steps apply:
1. An application for accreditation is completed by the program and submitted to the Commission on
Dental Accreditation, along with appropriate documentation and application fee. Provided that the
application is in order, the first opportunity for the Commission to consider the program is generally 12
to 18 months following the Commission’s formal acknowledgment of receipt of the application,
initiation of the review process, and following an initial site visit.
2. The completed application for accreditation is reviewed to determine whether the program, as proposed,
appears to have the potential to meet the Accreditation Standards and has sufficiently addressed and
EOPP
February 2024
- 53 -
documented the Criteria for Consideration of An Application for Accreditation before proceeding to the
next step of the application process.
3. If it is determined that the Criteria for Consideration of An Application for Accreditation have been
sufficiently addressed and documented, and that the program, as proposed, appears to have the potential
to meet the Accreditation Standards, a site visit is scheduled four (4) to seven (7) months following
completion of the application review.
4. Substantive changes to the proposed program that occur between the date of submission of the
application and scheduled site visit, if one is warranted, must be reported to the Commission
immediately, will require further review, and may result in a delay of the site visit.
5. After the site visit has been conducted, the visiting committee submits a draft report to the Commission
office.
6. Following the site visit, the preliminary draft of the site visit report is transmitted to the institution for
consideration and comment.
7. The visiting committee’s report and the institution’s response to the preliminary report, should one be
submitted, are transmitted to the discipline-specific Review Committee for consideration at its meeting
prior to the Commission meeting.
8. The Commission then considers the Review Committee’s report and takes action on the accreditation
status.
9. The Commission’s action regarding accreditation status and the final site visit report are transmitted to
the institution within thirty (30) days of the Commission’s meeting.
Time Limitation for Review of Applications: The review of an application will be terminated if an
institution fails to respond to the Commission’s requests for information for a period of six (6) months. In
this case, the institution will be notified that the application process has been terminated. If the institution
wishes to begin the process again, a new application and application fee must be submitted.
Revised: 8/22; 2/22; 2/21; 8/16; 2/16; 8/13; 7/08, 8/02, 7/01; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/13; 8/11, 8/10
1. Enrollment Of Students In A Developing Program Prior To Granting Of Initial Accreditation
Status:
An additional purpose of accreditation recognized by the United States Department of Education
(USDE) is the protection of the public through the identification of qualified personnel to staff the
health care system. Therefore, the Commission on Dental Accreditation established accreditation
classifications, which have proven to be acceptable to educational institutions. Published definitions
are a widely recognized means for carrying out accreditation functions.
“Initial accreditation” status is an accreditation classification that is applicable to developing programs.
It is granted when a proposed or developing program demonstrates that it has the potential to meet the
accreditation standards.
For this reason, the Commission is firm in its policy that the developing program must not enroll
students/residents until “initial accreditation” status has been obtained. If a program enrolls
students/residents without first having been granted “initial accreditation” status, the Commission will
not accept the application for accreditation until after the first enrolled class has graduated. In addition,
the Commission expects that the program will notify all students/residents enrolled of the possible
ramifications of enrollment in a program operating without accreditation. The Commission will also
notify the applicable state board of dentistry.
EOPP
February 2024
- 54 -
When “initial accreditation” status is denied and the program wishes to reapply, it is the responsibility
of the institution to make use of all possible resources, including consultation with the Commission on
Dental Accreditation. (Refer to the Policy on Public Disclosure and Confidentiality for additional
information regarding the announcement of an action to deny accreditation).
Revised: 2/16; 7/08, 8/02, 7/96; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/13; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CDE: 12/74:19
2. Time Limitation For Initial Accreditation:
The classification of “initial accreditation” granted to dental and dental-related educational programs
will be terminated at the end of two (2) years following the projected enrollment date if
students/residents have not been enrolled. (See the Commission’s Policy on Non-Enrollment of First
Year Students for further information).
Revised: 8/02; Reaffirmed: 8/23; 8/18; 8/13; 8/10; CODA: 05/80:12
D. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION FOR ACCREDITATION
The application for accreditation of a dental or dental-related program is considered complete when the
program has demonstrated the potential to meet the Accreditation Standards and when the following
criteria, as applicable, have been adequately addressed and documented in the application:
a. A dean/program director/program administrator, as applicable, who meets the requirements of the
discipline-specific standards, has been appointed at the time the application is submitted and at least six
(6) months prior to a projected accreditation site visit. Should the dean/program director/program
administrator change during the application review, the program must notify the Commission
immediately and a delay of six (6) months for a projected site visit (should one have been directed) will
be applied.
b. The program is sponsored by an institution that, at the time of the application, complies with the
discipline-specific accreditation standards related to institutional accreditation.
c. A strategic plan/outcomes assessment process, which will regularly evaluate the degree to which the
program’s stated goals and objectives are being met, is developed and documented, including the
program’s expected measures for student/resident/fellow achievement and schedule for ongoing
program review.
d. The long and short-term financial commitment of the institution to the program is documented and is
sufficient to support the program’s stated goals and objectives during development and long-term.
e. If the program will rely on support from entities outside of the institution to comply with the
Accreditation Standards or program requirements (e.g. access to clinical facility or resources for
required instruction), contractual agreements are drafted and signed providing assurance that a program
dependent upon the resources of a variety of institutions and/or extramural clinics and/or other entities
has adequate support. The program must document that support from outside entities does not
compromise its authority as the sponsor of the program.
f. Policies related to student/resident/fellow admission process and due process procedures are developed
and documented.
g. A projection of the number, qualifications, assignments and appointment dates of faculty is developed
and is sufficient to support the program during development and long-term. The program must provide
evidence of availability of adequate faculty and a hiring plan.
h. An explanation is included of how the curriculum was developed including who developed the
curriculum and the philosophy underlying the curriculum. If curriculum materials are based on or are
from an established education program, documentation that permission was granted to use these
materials is provided.
EOPP
February 2024
- 55 -
i. The curriculum must be mapped for all years of the program, including documentation of all
competencies that will be required in each course. Curriculum materials for each course in all years of
the program must be presented and include general and specific course and instructional objectives,
learning activities, evaluation instruments (including, as applicable, sample tests, quizzes, and grading
criteria). All evaluation instruments for laboratory, pre-clinical, clinical, and clinical enrichment
experiences are developed and included.
j. Class schedule(s) for all years noting how each class will utilize the facility are developed and
provided, including a mapping of facility utilization when the program is in full operation. If the
capacity of the facility does not allow all students/residents/fellows to be in laboratory, pre-clinical
laboratory and/or clinic at the same time, a plan documenting how students/residents/fellows will spend
laboratory, pre-clinical and/or clinical education sessions has been developed and is included.
k. As applicable, formal diagrams or blueprints of the didactic, laboratory, pre-clinical laboratory and
clinical facilities, and equipment needs are developed to support the anticipated enrollment date. An
equipment procurement timeline and/or construction timeline has been developed and documented to
support the anticipated enrollment date.
l. As applicable, policies and procedures related to clinical operation including but not limited to ionizing
radiation, infection control and hazardous material, and bloodborne and infectious diseases are
developed and documented.
m. As applicable, the adequacy of the patient caseload in terms of size, variety and scope to support
required clinical experiences is available and documented. The program’s patient classification system,
patient recruitment system, and student/resident/fellow patient experience tracking system are
developed and documented.
Revised: 8/23; 8/22; 2/22; 8/16; 8/10, 7/08, 8/03; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/13; Adopted: 8/02
E. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ACCREDITATION OF PROGRAMS IN A NEW DENTAL
EDUCATION AREA OR DISCIPLINE
In the initiation of an accreditation review process for programs in a dental education area or discipline, the
Commission on Dental Accreditation seeks only to ensure the quality of the education programs in the area or
discipline, for the benefit and protection of both the public and students/residents. The Commission’s
accreditation process is intended to promote and monitor the continuous quality and improvement of dental
education programs and does not confer dental specialty status nor endorse dental disciplines.
Items 1 through 4 listed below provide a framework for the Commission in determining whether a process of
accreditation review should be initiated for the new dental education area or discipline. Each item must be
addressed in a formal, written request to establish an accreditation process for programs in an area or
discipline of dentistry.
1. Does the dental education area or discipline align with the accrediting agency’s mission and scope?
Elements to be addressed:
• Define the nationally accepted scope of the dental education area or discipline.
• List the nationally accepted educational goals and objectives of the dental education area or
discipline.
• Describe how the area or discipline aligns with the Commission on Dental Accreditation’s mission
and scope.
• Describe the quality of the dental education area or discipline, and need for accreditation review of
the programs, as an important aspect to the health care of the general public. Include evidence that
EOPP
February 2024
- 56 -
the area of knowledge is important and significant to patient care and dentistry.
• Provide evidence that the programs are academic programs sponsored by an institution accredited by
an agency legally authorized to operate and recognized by the United States Department of Education
or, as applicable, by an accreditation organization recognized by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS), rather than a series of continuing education experiences.
• Describe the sponsoring, professional organization/association(s), if any, and (if applicable) the
credentialing body, including the following information:
o number of members;
o names and contact information of association officers;
o list of sponsored continuing education programs for members within the last five (5) years; and
o for credentialing body: exam criteria; number of candidates; and pass rate for the past five (5)
years.
2. Is there a sufficient body of knowledge to educate individuals in a distinct dental education area or
discipline, not merely one or more techniques?
Elements to be addressed:
• Describe why this area of knowledge is a distinct dental education area or discipline, rather than a
series of just one or more techniques.
• Describe how scientific dental knowledge in the education area or discipline is substantive to
educating individuals in the education area or discipline.
• Document the complexity of the body of knowledge of the education area by identifying specific
techniques and procedures.
• List the nationally accepted competency statements and performance measures for the dental
education area.
• Identify the distinct components of biomedical, behavioral and clinical science in the dental education
area or discipline.
• Provide documentation that there is a body of established, substantive, scientific dental knowledge
that underlies the dental education area or discipline.
• Document that the dental education program is the equivalent of at least one twelve-month full-time
academic year in length.
• Describe the current and emerging trends in the dental education area or discipline; and
• Document that dental health care professionals currently provide health care services in the identified
dental education area or discipline.
3. Do a sufficient number of established programs exist and contain structured curricula, qualified faculty
and enrolled individuals so that accreditation can be a viable method of quality assurance?
Elements to be addressed:
• Document that the educational program is comprised of formal curriculum at the postsecondary or
postgraduate level of education leading to a bona fide educational credential (certificate or degree)
that addresses the scope, depth and complexity of the higher education experience, rather than a series
of continued education courses.
• Describe the historical development and evolution of educational programs in the dental education
area or discipline. Do not submit information on the history of the sponsoring organization.
• Provide a list of all the currently operational programs in the dental education area or discipline,
including the following information:
EOPP
February 2024
- 57 -
a. sponsoring institution;
b. name and qualifications of the program director;
c. number of full-time and part-time faculty (define part-time for each program) and list the
academic credentials required for these faculty;
d. curriculum (academic calendars, class schedules, student/resident competencies, syllabi that
address scope, depth and complexity of the higher education experience, including course
outlines for each course, formal approval or acknowledgment by the parent institution that the
courses or curricula in the education area meet the institution’s academic requirements for
advanced education);
e. textbooks and journals, or other learning resources used within the educational program;
f. evidence that the program is a bona fide higher education experience that addresses the scope,
depth and complexity of higher education, rather than preceptorships or a series of continuing
education courses;
g. outcomes assessment methods;
h. minimum length of the program for full-time students/residents;
i. certificate and/or degree or other credential awarded upon completion;
j. number of enrolled individuals per year for at least the past five (5) years; and number of
graduates per year for at least the past five (5) years. If the established education programs
have been in existence less than five (5) years, provide information since its founding;
k. confirmation that the program in the education area would seek voluntary accreditation review,
if available;
l. programs’ recruitment materials (e.g. bulletin, catalogue); and
m. evidence that the programs in the discipline are legally authorized to operate by the relevant
state or government agencies.
4. Is there evidence of need and support from the public and professional communities to sustain
educational programs in the discipline?
Elements to be addressed:
• Provide evidence of the ability to perform a robust, meaningful peer-reviewed accreditation process
including a sufficient number of peers to conduct reviews at all levels of the Commission, as
needed.
• List states where graduates of the dental education area or discipline are recognized for licensure and/or
practice.
• Provide evidence of the potential for graduates to obtain employment, including the following
information:
o Employment placement rates (when available);
o Documentation of employment/practice opportunities/settings; and
o Evidence of career opportunities, student interest, and an appropriate patient base.
Adopted: 8/19
(Former Policies and Procedures for Accreditation of Programs in Areas of Advanced Dental Education and
Principles and Criteria Eligibility of Allied Dental Programs for Accreditation by the Commission on
Dental Accreditation)
EOPP
February 2024
- 58 -
F. SELF-STUDY GENERAL INFORMATION
In preparation for a site visit, institutions are required to complete a self-study for each program being
evaluated. A self-study involves an analysis of the program in terms of the accreditation standards and an
assessment of the effectiveness of the entire educational program. It includes a review of the relevance of
all its activities to its stated purposes and objectives and a realistic appraisal of its achievements and
deficiencies. The self-study process permits a program to measure itself qualitatively prior to evaluation by
an on-site committee of peers in education and the profession. On-site evaluation assesses the degree to
which the accreditation standards are met and assists the program in identifying strengths and weaknesses.
The self-study manual includes questions which require qualitative evaluation and analysis of the
educational program. The intent of the self-study process is to identify program strengths and
weaknesses. Latitude is permitted in interpreting questions to meet the specific needs of the program;
however, Commission staff should be consulted if revisions are planned.
Visiting committee members review the completed self-study documents in preparation for conducting an
on-site review. Any requests by committee members for additional materials relating to the on-site review
are forwarded to the institution by the Commission staff, when staff attends the visit, or site visit chair. All
such requests are compiled into one official communication from the Commission staff or site visit chair to
the institution. Individual site visitors may not request additional material or information directly from an
institution. The institution’s response serves as an addendum to the self-study document.
The sponsoring institution is required to forward a copy of the completed self-study document to each
member of the visiting committee and to the Commission office no later than sixty (60) days prior to the
scheduled site visit. If the self-study document is submitted with insufficient time for site visitor review, the
visit may be canceled. Further, if an opportunity to reschedule the visit within the same calendar year is not
available, the Commission will be informed. Failure to submit the self-study within the expected deadline
could affect the accreditation status of the program.
Guidelines for preparing self-study documents for each discipline, including more specific information and
instructions, and Electronic Submission Guidelines, are available upon request from the Commission office
or on the Commission’s website.
Revised: 1/20; 8/19; 8/14; Reaffirmed: 8/10
G. PRE-VISIT GENERAL INFORMATION
The Commission proposes and confirms dates for the site visit, assists the institution with pre-visit plans
and communicates with the visiting committee regarding transportation, hotel accommodations and the
program’s accreditation history.
A site visit focuses only on the program(s) in operation at the time of the visit. The visiting committee will
expect, however, to be apprised of any change in admissions, facilities, faculty, financial support or
curriculum which is contemplated, but not yet implemented.
Although the Commission provides a suggested site visit schedule, the institution is responsible for preparing
the actual schedule. Any necessary modifications to the schedule proposed by the institution are made prior
to the visit either by Commission staff or by the staff representative assigned to the visiting committee. The
schedule is also reviewed at the beginning of the visit to determine whether any other changes are indicated.
EOPP
February 2024
- 59 -
The institution notifies all individuals associated with the institution, who are participating in the review, of
the time and place of their scheduled conferences with the visiting committee.
Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10
H. POLICY ON THIRD PARTY COMMENTS
The Commission currently publishes, in its accredited lists of programs, the year of the next site visit for
each program it accredits. In addition, the Commission posts its spring and fall site visit announcements on
the Site Visit Process and Schedule area of the Commission’s website for those programs being site visited
in the current and next year. Special site visits and initial accreditation site visits for developing programs
may be scheduled after the posting on the Commission’s website; thus, the specific dates of these site visits
may not be available for publication. Parties interested in these specific dates (should they be established)
are encouraged to contact the Commission office. The Commission will request written comments from
interested parties on the CODA website.
The United States Department of Education (USDE) procedures require accrediting agencies to provide an
opportunity for third-party comment, either in writing or at a public hearing (at the accrediting agencies’
discretion) with respect to institutions or programs scheduled for review. All comments must relate to
accreditation standards for the discipline and required accreditation policies. In order to comply with the
Department’s requirement on the use of third-party comment regarding program’s qualifications for
accreditation or initial accreditation, the following procedures have been developed.
Those programs scheduled for regular review must solicit third-party comments through appropriate
notification of communities of interest and the public such as faculty, students, program administrators,
dental-related organizations, patients, and consumers at least ninety (90) days prior to their site visit. The
notice should indicate the deadline of sixty (60) days for receipt of third-party comments in the Commission
office and should stipulate that signed or unsigned comments will be accepted, that names and/or signatures
will be removed from comments prior to forwarding them to the program, and that comments must pertain
only to the standards for the particular program or policies and procedures used in the Commission’s
accreditation process. The announcement may include language to indicate that a copy of the appropriate
accreditation standards and/or the Commission’s policy on third-party comments may be obtained by
contacting the Commission by calling 1-312-440-4653 or by email.
All comments submitted must pertain only to the standards relative to the particular program being
reviewed or policies and procedures used in the accreditation process. Comments will be screened by
Commission staff for relevancy. Signed or unsigned comments will be considered. For comments not
relevant to these issues, the individual will be notified that the comment is not related to accreditation and,
where appropriate, referred to the appropriate agency.
All relevant comments will have names and/or signatures removed and will then be referred to the program
at least fifty (50) days prior to the site visit for review and response. A written response from the program
should be provided to the Commission office and the visiting committee fifteen (15) days prior to the site
visit. Adjustments may be necessary in the site visit schedule to allow discussion of comments with proper
personnel. Negative comments received after the established deadline of sixty (60) days prior to the site
visit will be handled as a complaint. Any unresolved issues related to the program’s compliance with the
accreditation standards will be reviewed by the visiting committee while on-site.
EOPP
February 2024
- 60 -
Programs with the status of initial accreditation, and programs seeking initial accreditation must solicit
comment through appropriate notification of communities of interest and the public such as faculty,
students, program administrators, dental-related organizations, patients, and consumers utilizing the
procedures noted above.
On occasion, programs may be scheduled for special focused or special comprehensive site visits and
because of the urgency of the visit, solicitation of third-party comments within the ninety (90) day time-
frame may not be possible. However, third party comments must be solicited at the time the program is
notified of the Commission’s planned site visit, typically sixty (60) days in advance of the visit. In this case,
the timeframe for solicitation of third-party comments will be shortened. The notice should indicate the
deadline of thirty (30) days for receipt of third-party comments in the Commission office and should
stipulate that signed or unsigned comments will be accepted, that names and/or signatures will be removed
from comments prior to forwarding them to the program, and that comments must pertain only to the
standards for the particular program or policies and procedures used in the Commission’s accreditation
process. All relevant comments will have names and/or signatures removed and will then be referred to the
program at least twenty (20) days prior to the site visit for review and response. A written response from
the program should be provided to the Commission office and the visiting committee ten (10) days prior to
the site visit. Adjustments may be necessary in the site visit schedule to allow discussion of comments with
proper personnel. Any unresolved issues related to the program’s compliance with the accreditation
standards will be reviewed by the visiting committee while on-site. Negative comments received after the
established deadline of thirty (30) days prior to the site visit will be handled as a complaint.
Individuals who are interested in submitting third party comments, may contact the Commission office for
submission guidance. Third party comments should be emailed to the appropriate Commission staff;
comments should not be sent to the Commission office via the US Postal Service.
Revised: 2/22; 8/19; 8/18; 2/18; 2/16; 2/15; 8/13; 8/12, 8/11, 7/09, 8/02, 1/97; Reaffirmed: 8/13; 8/10, 1/03;
Adopted: 7/95
I. SITE VISITS
The Commission on Dental Accreditation formally evaluates accredited programs at regular intervals.
Comprehensive site visits based on a self-study are routinely conducted every seven years. Site visits of
advanced dental education programs in oral and maxillofacial surgery are conducted at five year intervals.
Special site visits (which may be either focused or comprehensive in scope) are conducted when it is
necessary for the Commission to review information about the program that can only be obtained or
documented on-site. Information on special site visits is included elsewhere in this manual.
Revised: 8/18; 1/14; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10
1. Overview And Accreditation Cycle: The Commission requires that each accredited program, or
program seeking initial accreditation, conduct a self-analysis and submit a self-study report prior to its
on-site review. Using the Commission’s self-study guide helps the program ensure that its self-study report
addresses, assesses critically, and documents the degree of compliance with each of the accreditation
standards and with the program’s own stated goals.
EOPP
February 2024
- 61 -
The Commission expects that one of the goals of a dental or dental-related educational program is to
prepare qualified individuals in their respective disciplines. Accredited programs must design and
implement their own outcomes measures to determine the degree to which stated goals and objectives are
being met. Results of this ongoing and systematically documented assessment process must be used to
evaluate the program’s effectiveness in meeting its goals, to improve program quality and to enhance
student achievement.
All members of the visiting committee carefully review the self-study document prior to the on-site review.
This initial assessment serves to identify areas where the program may not comply with the accreditation
standards or to raise questions about information that is unclear. While on site, the visiting committee
verifies the information provided in the self-study document and carefully assesses any unclear or problem
areas. The verification process includes interviews with institutional personnel and review of program
documentation. A recommendation is included in the report of the site visit when noncompliance with a
standard is identified. If a particular standard is not addressed by the site visit report, the program is viewed
as meeting that standard.
The site visit report, along with the institutional response to the report, serves as the Commission’s primary
basis for accreditation decisions. The report also guides chief executive officers and administrators of
educational institutions in determining the degree of the program’s compliance with the accreditation
standards. The Commission, assisted by the visiting committees, identifies specific program deficiencies or
areas of noncompliance with the standards, but it is the responsibility of the program to identify specific
solutions or means of improvement.
Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10
2. Coordinated Site Visits: If an institution offers more than one dental education program, the
Commission evaluates all programs during a single site visit whenever possible and may, at the
program’s/institution’s request reduce the site visit date cycle to coordinate visitation to all programs at one
time. Shared faculty, shared facilities and integrated curricula, as well as the time and expense involved in
preparing for a visit, are among the reasons for coordinated evaluations.
The Commission encourages the coordination of its evaluations with evaluations by regional and/or other
nationally recognized accrediting associations. It will make every effort to coordinate its evaluations with
those of other associations if requested to do so by an institution. The Commission has conducted
simultaneous evaluations with regional accrediting associations such as the Commission on Colleges of the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and other specialized agencies such as the Commission on
Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP) or with state accrediting agencies such as
the State Education Department, the University of the State of New York Division of College and
University Evaluation. If an institution wishes to coordinate accreditation activities, the Commission
should be contacted well in advance of the projected time of the site visit.
Revised: 8/16; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10
3. Institutional Review Process – Reminder Statement: The Commission on Dental Accreditation is
recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) as an umbrella specialized accrediting agency for
dental and dental-related disciplines. As a specialized accrediting agency, the Commission is responsible
for the review of all dental, allied dental, and advanced dental educational programs. The Commission is
also responsible for evaluating educational programs which are sponsored in a variety of educational
settings, including hospitals. For this reason, when an institution sponsors multiple programs falling within
the Commission’s accreditation purview, the institutional component is included as an integral part of the
umbrella review process.
EOPP
February 2024
- 62 -
Although the Review Committees play a significant role in this broad-based review, the Commission has the
final responsibility for ensuring that the impact of the programs on the sponsoring institution is considered.
Revised: 8/18; 7/97, 7/00; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/13; 8/10, 7/09, 1/03; CODA: 5/91:16, 1994
4. Policy On Cooperative Site Visits With Other Accreditors:
The Commission encourages the
coordination of its site visits with the accreditation reviews of other specialized or regional accrediting
agencies. The Commission consults with institutional and program administrators to determine whether a
coordinated visit can meet the accreditation needs of each agency involved in the visit. If so, a coordinated
visit is scheduled. In order to protect the confidentiality of information gathered during the review, the
cooperating agencies usually specify in advance the degree of access each will have to the other’s site visit
documents and reports. Each visiting committee may develop its own report or certain sections of the
report may meet the needs of the cooperating agencies.
The institution that sponsors the accredited program must request that a coordinated site visit be conducted.
An offer to try to work cooperatively with other agencies is routinely included in the initial letter that
announces an upcoming scheduled site visit by the Commission. If a request is received from the
institution, the Commission contacts the other accrediting agencies. The agencies work together with the
institution to attempt to develop a schedule or protocol that will meet the needs of both accrediting agencies
and the institution.
The Commission requests the members of the visiting committees from other agencies sign the
Commission’s Statement of Confidentiality in order to participate in interviews conducted by the
Commission’s site visitors.
A reminder about the Commission’s willingness to conduct coordinated site visit is included periodically in
the CODA Communicator e- newsletter.
Revised: 8/14; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/13; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 10/94, 6/92; CODA: 05/92:1, 2; 12/92:5
5. Policy On Special Site Visits: Special site visits are conducted when it is necessary for the
Commission to review information about the program that can only be obtained or documented on-site.
When necessary, special site visits are conducted to ensure the quality of the educational program, but are
used selectively in order to avoid perceived harassment of programs. A special site visit may be either
focused, limited to specified standards, or comprehensive, covering all accreditation standards. In making
recommendations to the Commission for a special site visit, the Review Committee will indicate the
specific standards or required accreditation policy in question. The Commission will communicate these
concerns to the program in the letter transmitting the action related to a special site visit. If a
comprehensive special visit will be conducted, the program must prepare a self-study prior to the visit. If a
focused visit will be conducted, the program will be required to complete some portions of the self-study
and/or to develop some other materials related to the specific standards or required policies that have been
identified as areas of concern. With the exception of a special site visit due to falsification of information,
all costs related to special site visits are borne by the program, including an administrative special focused
site visit fee. (See Invoicing Process for Special Focused Site Visits)
The Commission may conduct a special site visit for any of the following reasons:
a. Failure to document compliance: A special site visit may be directed for an accredited program when,
six (6) months prior to the time period allowed to achieve compliance through progress reports
(eighteen (18) months if the program is between one and two years in length or two years if the
program is at least two years in length), the program has not adequately documented compliance with
EOPP
February 2024
- 63 -
the accreditation standards. The special site visit will be focused on the recommendations contained in
the site visit report. Recommendations for which supplemental information or documentation is
submitted after the last progress report or special site visit report is reviewed by the appropriate
Review Committee or the Commission and that in the Commission’s opinion requires on-site
verification, shall be considered as not met for purposes of accreditation. Following the special site
visit, if compliance is not demonstrated, the Commission will withdraw the program’s accreditation
unless the Commission extends the period for achieving compliance for good cause.
b. Change within a program: A special site visit may be directed for an accredited program when a
report of program change, review of annual survey data, or information received in other ways,
indicates that changes in a program may have affected its ability to maintain compliance with the
accreditation standards. The Commission may also request a special report from the involved program
prior to conducting a special site visit. The Commission’s Policy on Reporting Program Changes in
Accredited Programs found in Section V.C of this manual provides details.
c. Investigating complaints: A special site visit may be directed for an accredited program to investigate
a complaint raising questions about the program’s compliance with the accreditation standards. The
Commission’s Policy and Procedure Regarding Investigation of Complaints Against Educational
Programs found in Section V.D of this manual provides details.
d. Falsifying information: A special site visit may be directed for an accredited program to investigate
the possible intentional falsification of information provided to the Commission. The Commission’s
policy on Integrity found in Section I.G provides details. The cost of such a special site visit is shared
by the Commission and the program.
e. Sites Where Educational Activity Occurs: The Commission’s Policy Statement on Reporting and
Approval of Sites Where Educational Activity Occurs found in Section V.R provides details.
f. Other reasons: A special site visit may, on occasion, be directed for an accredited program to respond
to a request to the Commission from the chief executive officer or program administrator. The
Commission may also direct that a focused site visit is necessary for just cause if it determines that a
program may be unable to maintain compliance with the accreditation standards.
Revised: 8/19
Invoicing Process for Special Focused Site Visits
In advance of the special focused site visit, the program must remit payment for the Administrative Fee
($5,000) plus $1,500 per site visitor/staff attending visits up to two (2) days in length. Site visits that are
three (3) or more days will be billed an additional $750 per site visitor/staff for each additional day; further,
if additional airfare or transportation expenses are incurred, these will be assessed to the program. Failure
to submit the special focused site visit fee in advance of the visit may result in a delay of the visit and
additional rescheduling cost to the program, and may impact the program’s accreditation status. See
Program Fee Policy.
Revised: 2/24; 2/22; 1/20; 8/19; 2/19; 2/18; 2/17; 8/16; 2/16; 8/14; 8/13; 1/00, 1/99, 1/98; Reaffirmed: 8/13; 8/10,
7/06; Adopted: 7/96
EOPP
February 2024
- 64 -
J. SITE VISITORS
The Commission uses site visitors with education and practice expertise in the discipline or areas being
evaluated to conduct its accreditation program. Nominations for site visitors are requested from national
dental and dental-related organizations representing the areas affected by the accreditation process. Self-
nominations are accepted. Site visitors are appointed by the Commission annually and may be re-appointed.
During the term of service as a Review Committee member, these individuals should not serve as site visitors
for an actual accreditation site visit to an accredited or developing program, unless deemed necessary. Two
instances when a review committee member could serve on a site visit include: 1) an inability to find a site
visitor from the comprehensive site visitor list, or 2) when the review committee believes a member should
attend a visit for consistency in the review process. This applies only to site visits that would be considered by
the same review committee on which the site visitor is serving. Review committee members are prohibited
from serving as independent consultants for mock accreditation purposes. These policies help avoid conflict of
interest in the decision making process and minimize the need for recusals.
During the term of service as a commissioner, these individuals may not independently consult with a CODA-
accredited program or a program applying for CODA accreditation. In addition, site visitors serving on the
Commission may not serve on a site visit team during their terms.
All other active site visitors who independently consult with educational programs accredited by CODA or
applying for accreditation must identify all consulting roles to the Commission and must file with the
Commission a letter of conflict acknowledgement signed by themselves and the institution/program with whom
they consulted. All conflict of interest policies as noted elsewhere in this document apply. Contact the CODA
office for the appropriate conflict of interest declaration form.
Prior to a site visit, a list of site visitors and other participants is reviewed by the institution/program for conflict
of interest or any other potential problem. The program/institution being site visited will be permitted to
remove individuals from the list if a conflict of interest, as described in the Commission’s Conflict of Interest
Policy, can be demonstrated. Information concerning the conflict of interest must be provided in writing clearly
stating the specifics of the conflict.
Site visitors are appointed by the Chair and approved by the institution’s administration, i.e. dental school dean
or program director. The visiting committee conducts the site visit and prepares the report of the site visit
findings for Commission action. The size and composition of a visiting committee varies with the number and
kinds of educational programs offered by the institution, and will include, whenever possible, at least one (1)
educator and one (1) practitioner. All visiting committees will include at least one person who is not a member
of a Review Committee of the Commission or a Commission staff member. Two dental hygiene site visitors
shall be assigned to dental school-sponsored dental hygiene site visits.
When appropriate, a generalist representative from a regional accrediting agency may be invited by the chief
executive officer of an institution to participate in the site visit with the Commission’s visiting committee. A
generalist advises, consults and participates fully in committee activities during a site visit. The generalist’s
expenses are reimbursed by the institution. The generalist can help to ensure that the overall institutional
perspective is considered while the specific programs are being reviewed.
EOPP
February 2024
- 65 -
The institution is encouraged to invite the state board of dentistry to send a current member to participate in the
site visit. If invited, the current member of the state board receives the same background materials as other site
visit committee members and participates in all site visit conferences and executive sessions. The state board of
dentistry reimburses its member for expenses incurred during the site visit.
In addition to other participants, Commission staff member may participate on the visiting committee for
training purposes. It is emphasized that site visitors are fact-finders, who report committee findings to the
Commission. Only the Commission is authorized to take action affecting the accreditation status.
Revised: 2/23; 4/22; 8/19; 2/16; 8/14; 1/14; 1/03, 1/00, 7/97; Reaffirmed: 8/10, 7/09, 7/07, 7/06, 7/01; CODA:
07/96:10, 12/83:4
1. Appointments: All site visitor appointments are made annually for one year terms for a maximum of
six consecutive years. Following the maximum appointment period of six consecutive years, the site visitor
may reapply for appointment after one year. In exceptional circumstances the Review Committee may
recommend that the Commission alter an individual’s term limits. Site visitors assist the Commission in a
number of ways, including: developing accreditation standards, serving on special committees, and serving
as site visitors on visits to predoctoral, advanced dental and allied dental education programs.
The Commission reviews nominations received from its communities of interest, including discipline-specific
sponsoring organizations and certifying boards. Individuals may also self-nominate. In addition to the
mandatory subject expertise, the Commission always requests nominations of potentially under-represented
ethnic groups and women, and makes every effort to achieve a pool of site visitors with broad geographic
diversity to help reduce site visit travel expenses.
Site visitors are appointed/reappointed annually and required to sign the Commission’s Conflict of Interest
Statement, the Agreement of Confidentiality, the Copyright Assignment, Licensure Attestation, and the
ADA’s Professional Conduct Policy and Prohibition Against Harassment. Site visitors must also complete
annual training and will receive periodic updates on the Commission’s policies and procedures related to
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The Commission office stores these
forms for seven (7) years. In addition, site visitors must comply with training requirements, the ADA’s
travel policy and other CODA Rules and Regulations. The Commission may remove a site visitor for
failing to comply with the Commission’s policies and procedures, continued, gross or willful neglect of the
duties of a site visitor, or other just cause as determined by the Commission.
Subsequent to appointment/reappointment by the Commission, site visitors receive an appointment letter
explaining the process for appointment, training, and scheduling of Commission site visitors.
Revised: 8/19; 8/18; 8/14; 7/08; Reaffirmed: 8/10, 1/98, 8/02; CODA: 07/94:9, 01/95:10
2. Criteria For Nomination Of Site Visitors: For predoctoral dental education programs, the Commission
solicits nominations for site visitors from the American Dental Education Association to serve in five of six
roles on dental education program site visits. The site visitor roles are Chair, Basic Science, Clinical Science,
Curriculum, and Finance. Nominations for the sixth role, national licensure site visitor, are solicited from the
American Association of Dental Boards.
For advanced dental education programs, the Commission solicits nominations for site visitors from the
discipline-specific sponsoring organizations and their certifying boards.
For allied dental education programs, the American Dental Education Association is an additional source of
nominations that augments, not supersedes, the nominations from the Commission’s other participating
EOPP
February 2024
- 66 -
organizations, American Dental Assistants Association (ADAA), American Dental Hygienists’ Association
(ADHA) and National Association of Dental Laboratories (NADL)
Revised: 8/18; 8/15; 8/14; 8/12; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 05/93:6-7
The Commission requests all agencies nominating site visitors to consider regional distribution, gender and
minority representation and previous experience as a site visitor. Although site visitors are nominated by a
variety of sources, the Commission carefully reviews the nominations and appoints site visitors on the basis
of need in particular areas of expertise. The pool of site visitors is utilized for on-site evaluations, for
special consultations and for special or Review Committees.
Appointments are made at the Winter (January/February) Commission meeting and become effective upon
Commission action and completion of site visitor mandatory training.
Revised: 4/22; 2/22; 1/20; 8/19; 8/18; 8/14; 8/12, 7/09, 7/07, 7/01; Reaffirmed: 8/10; Adopted: 7/98
In addition to the discipline-specific criteria noted below, the following criteria apply to all site visitor
nominees.
Criteria for Educator Site Visitor Nominees. The following are criteria for educator site visitor
nominees:
• Commitment to predoctoral, advanced, and/or allied dental education;
• Active involvement in an accredited predoctoral, advanced, or allied dental education program as a full-
or part-time faculty member;
• Subject matter experts with formal education and credentialed in the applicable discipline; and
Criteria for Practitioner Site Visitor Nominees. The following are criteria for practitioner site visitor
nominees:
• Commitment to predoctoral, advanced, and/or allied dental education;
• Current active license and work effort as a practitioner or clinical instructor; and
• Formal education and credential in the applicable discipline.
Adopted 4/22
A. Predoctoral Dental Education: The accreditation of predoctoral dental education programs is conducted
through the mechanism of a visiting committee. Membership on such visiting committees is general
dentistry oriented rather than discipline or subject matter area oriented. The composition of such
committees shall be comprised, insofar as possible, of site visitors having broad expertise in dental
curriculum, basic sciences, clinical sciences, finance, national licensure (practitioner) and one
Commission staff member. The evaluation visit is oriented to an assessment of the educational
program’s success in training competent general practitioners.
Although a basic science or clinical science site visitor may have training in a specific basic science or
discipline-specific advanced dental education area, it is expected that when serving as a member of the
core committee evaluating the predoctoral program, the site visitor serves as a general dentist. Further,
it is expected that all findings, conclusions or recommendations that are to be included in the report
must have the concurrence of the visiting committee team members to ensure that the report reflects the
judgment of the entire visiting committee.
In appointing site visitors, the Commission takes into account a balance in geographic distribution as
well as representation of the various types of educational settings and diversity. Because the
Commission views the accreditation process as one of peer review, predoctoral dental education site
EOPP
February 2024
- 67 -
visitors, with the exception of the national licensure site visitor, are affiliated with dental education
programs.
The following are criteria for the six roles of predoctoral dental education site visitors:
Chair:
• Must be a current dean of a dental school or have served as dean within the previous three (3) years.
• Should have accreditation experience through an affiliation with a dental education program
accredited by the Commission and as a previous site visitor.
Basic Science:
• Must be an individual who currently teaches one or more biomedical science courses to dental
education students or has done so within the previous three (3) years.
• Should have accreditation experience through an affiliation with a dental education program
accredited by the Commission or as a previous site visitor.
Clinical Science:
• Must be a current clinical dean or an individual with extensive knowledge of and experience with the
quality assurance process and overall clinic operations.
• Has served in the above capacity within the previous three (3) years.
• Should have accreditation experience through an affiliation with a dental education program
accredited by the Commission or as a previous site visitor.
Curriculum:
• Must be a current academic affairs dean or an individual with extensive knowledge and experience in
curriculum management.
• Has served in the above capacity within the previous three (3) years.
• Should have accreditation experience through an affiliation with a dental education program
accredited by the Commission or as a previous site visitor.
Finance:
• Must be a current financial officer of a dental school or an individual with extensive knowledge of
and experience with the business, finance and administration of a dental school.
• Has served in the above capacity within the previous three (3) years.
• Should have accreditation experience through an affiliation with a dental education program
accredited by the Commission or as a previous site visitor.
National Licensure:
• Should be a current clinical board examiner or have served in that capacity within the previous three
(3) years.
• Should have an interest in the accreditation process.
Revised: 8/18; 2/18; 2/16; 8/14; 1/99; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 07/05, 05/77:4
B. Advanced Dental Education: In the disciplines of dental public health, dental anesthesiology,
endodontics, oral and maxillofacial pathology, oral and maxillofacial radiology, oral and maxillofacial
surgery, oral medicine, orofacial pain, orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, pediatric dentistry,
periodontics and prosthodontics, sponsoring organizations are advised that candidates recommended to
EOPP
February 2024
- 68 -
serve as site visitors be board certified and/or have completed or participated in a CODA-accredited
advanced dental education program in the discipline and must have experience in advanced dental
education as teachers or administrators. Each applicable Review Committee will determine if board
certification is required. Some sponsoring organizations have established additional criteria for their
nominations to the Commission.
C. Allied Dental Education in Dental Hygiene: In appointing site visitors, the Commission takes into account
a balance in geographic distribution, representation of the various types of educational settings, and
diversity. Because the Commission views the accreditation process as one of peer review, the dental
hygiene education site visitors are affiliated with dental hygiene education programs.
The following are criteria for selection of dental hygiene site visitors:
• a full-time or part-time appointment with a dental hygiene program accredited by the Commission
on Dental Accreditation;
• a baccalaureate or higher degree;
• background in educational methodology;
• accreditation experience through an affiliation with a dental hygiene education program that has
completed a site visit; and
• accreditation experience within the previous three (3) years.
Revised: 8/21; 8/18; 8/16; 8/14; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10; Adopted: 7/09
D. Allied Dental Education in Dental Assisting: The following are criteria for selection of dental assisting
site visitors:
• certification by the Dental Assisting National Board as a dental assistant;
• full-time or part-time appointment with a dental assisting program accredited by the Commission
on Dental Accreditation;
• equivalent of three (3) years full-time dental assisting teaching experience;
• baccalaureate or higher degree;
• demonstrated knowledge of accreditation; and
• current background in educational methodology.
Revised: 8/18; 8/16; 8/14; 2/13, 1/08, 1/98, 2/02; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10, 7/08; CODA: 07/95:5
E. Allied Dental Education in Dental Laboratory Technology: The following are criteria for selection of
dental laboratory technology site visitors:
• background in all five (5) dental laboratory technology specialty areas: complete dentures,
removable dentures, crown and bridge, dental ceramics, and orthodontics;
• background in educational methodology
• knowledge of the accreditation process and the Accreditation Standards for Dental Laboratory
Technology Education Programs;
• Certified Dental Technician (CDT) credential through the National Board of Certification (NBC);
and
• full or part-time appointment with a dental laboratory technology education program accredited by
the Commission on Dental Accreditation or previous experience as a Commission on Dental
Accreditation site visitor.
Revised: 8/18; 8/14; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10; Adopted: 07/09
EOPP
February 2024
- 69 -
F. Allied Dental Education in Dental Therapy: The following are criteria for selection of dental therapy
site visitors:
• a full-time or part-time appointment with a predoctoral dental or allied dental education program
accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation or an accredited (or recognized) dental
therapy program;
• a baccalaureate or higher degree;
• background in educational methodology;
• accreditation experience through an affiliation with a dental therapy, allied, or predoctoral dental
program that has completed a site visit;*
• accreditation experience within the previous three (3) years;*
• must either be a licensed dentist educator (general dentist) or licensed dental therapist educator; and
• the “licensed dentist educator” may be predoctoral dental educator site visitors (i.e., a general
dentist educator who serves as curriculum or clinical predoctoral site visitor) or allied dental
educator site visitors.
*temporarily waived for dental therapist educator position until after CODA determines there exists
an adequate supply of site visitors.
Dental therapy site visit team consist of three (3) members as follows: one (1) dental therapist
educator, one (1) predoctoral dentist educator (curriculum or clinical site visitor), and one (1)
additional site visitor that could be either a second dental therapist educator, second predoctoral
dentist educator, or an allied dentist educator. If needed due to lack of dental therapy educator
availability, such that if a dental therapy educator cannot be identified in accordance with
Commission policy then the three-person site visit team may be composed of predoctoral educators
and allied dentists, three (3) people total in any combination.
Revised: 8/23; 2/21; 8/18; 8/16; Reaffirmed: 8/19; Adopted: 02/16
3. Policy Statement On Site Visitor Training: The Commission has a long history of a strong
commitment to site visitor training and requires that all program evaluators receive training. Prior to
participation, site visitors must demonstrate that they are knowledgeable about the Commission’s
accreditation standards and its Evaluation and Operational Policies and Procedures. Initial and ongoing
training takes place in several formats.
New site visitors must attend a two-day formal workshop that follows the format of an actual site visit. All
new site visitors are directed to the Commission’s on-line training program and are required to successfully
complete the training program and site visitor final assessment.
Site visitor update sessions take place at several dental-related meetings, such as the annual session of the
American Dental Education Association (ADEA), the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgeons and the ADEA Allied Dental Program Directors’ Conference. The Commission may entertain
requests from other organizations. Components from the workshop are sometimes presented at these
meetings; however, the primary purpose of the update sessions is to inform site visitors about recent
Commission activities, revisions to standards and newly adopted policies and procedures.
Keeping costs in mind, the Commission continually explores new methods of providing initial and ongoing
training to site visitors, as well as ensuring their ongoing competence and calibration. Methods being
examined include on-line materials, virtual webinars (synchronous and/or asynchronous), broadcast e-mails
and other self-instructional materials.
EOPP
February 2024
- 70 -
The Commission emphasizes its increased commitment to quality training for site visitors. While the
Commission sponsors comprehensive training for new site visitors and provides updates for site visitors on a
regular basis, all parent organizations are urged to provide support for CODA-sponsored training to augment
the Commission’s programs. All active site visitors must complete mandatory annual web-based retraining
in order to retain appointment.
Revised: 8/20; 8/19; 2/19; 8/14; 8/10, 7/06, 7/00, 1/98; Reaffirmed: 7/07, 7/01, 7/96; CODA: 01/94:9
4. Job Descriptions For Predoctoral Dental Education Visiting Committee Members:
A. Chair:
• Will conduct a briefing session with the entire visiting committee relative to the philosophy of the
Commission on the approach, purpose and methodology of the conduct of the site visit on the
evening prior to the first day of the site visit;
• Will be responsible for the continual reinforcement of the above concepts during the course of the
site visit and for monitoring continually the conduct of the site visit;
• Will brief visiting committee members as to their role as a fact-finding and reporting committee and
the appropriate protocol during the course of the site visit; including what is expected of each
member in terms of kinds of activities and relative to the report of findings and conclusions and
recommendations, with adequate background rationale for making recommendations and
enumerating strengths and weaknesses in the education program being evaluated;
• Will lead all assigned conferences and executive sessions;
• Will serve as liaison between the visiting committee members and the dental administration and the
executive administrators of the institution;
• Will make specific and special assignments to individual visiting committee members relative to
evaluating and reporting on specific matters and sections of the site visit report, e.g. administrative
organization, faculty, library facilities and resources, research program, facilities and equipment,
admission process, hospital program(s), student achievement;
• Will be responsible for ensuring that site visitors fully understand their responsibility for reporting
adequately, but succinctly, in their area of expertise (finance, curriculum, basic sciences, clinical
sciences and national licensure);
• Will consult with the dental administration at regular intervals to discuss progress of the visit;
• Will be responsible, during executive sessions with visiting committee members, for the separation
of recommendations from suggestions–focusing upon the recommendations which are to be included
in the site visit report which are considered to be major, critical and essential to the conduct of the
education program(s); suggestions for program enhancement are to be included as part of the
narrative of the report;
• Will be responsible for the preparation of a written summary of the visiting committee’s
conclusions, findings, perceptions and observations of the program(s)’ in the form of suggestions
and recommendations, as appropriate, for oral presentation during the exit interview with the Dean,
and for presentation of an abbreviated summary during the exit interview with the institution’s
executive administrators.
• Will assess institutional effectiveness including:
• Assessment of the school’s mission statement;
• Assessment and evaluation of the school’s planning, and achievement of defined goals related to
education, patient care, research and service;
• Assessment of the school’s outcomes assessment process; and
• Evaluation of the school’s interaction with other components of higher education, health care
education or health care delivery systems.
EOPP
February 2024
- 71 -
• Will assess the effectiveness of faculty and staff including:
• Assessment of the number and distribution of faculty in meeting the school’s stated objectives;
• Assessment of the school’s faculty development process;
• Assessment of the school’s faculty governance;
• Assessment of the school’s measurement of faculty performance in teaching, patient care,
scholarship and service; and
• Assessment of the school’s promotion and tenure process.
B. Financial Site Visitor: Will confer with the sponsoring institution’s chief financial officer(s) and the
dental administration and its financial manager to assess the adequacy of the full spectrum of finance as
it relates to the dental school including:
• Assessment of the operating budget and budgeting process;
• Assessment of all sources of revenue (state, federal, tuition and fees, practice plans, etc.);
• Evaluation of the maintenance of the facilities and learning resources to support the school’s
mission and goals;
• Assessment of the school’s compliance with applicable regulations;
• Assessment of the resources for planned and/or future renovations and/or new construction; and
• Assessment of the school’s resources as they relate to its mission and goals.
C. Curriculum Site Visitor: Will examine the education program and the education support services including:
• Admissions
• Instruction
• Curriculum Management
• Behavioral Sciences
• Practice Management
• Ethics and Professionalism
• Information Management and Critical Thinking
• Student Services
D. Basic Science Site Visitor: Will work closely with curriculum site visitor to ensure consistency of
evaluation and assessment. During the formal and informal evaluation of the basic sciences, the site
visitor will conduct personal interviews with students, faculty and departmental Chairs and during the
assessment will focus on:
• Biomedical Sciences
• Research Program
E. Clinical Sciences Site Visitor: Within the limitations imposed by the length of the site visit, will
examine and evaluate the preclinical and clinical portions of the predoctoral dental education program
and activities in terms of the details of what is occurring in these areas and assess the quality of the
education and experiences provided to students to prepare them for dental practice. Will work closely
with curriculum site visitor to ensure consistency of evaluation and assessment. During the formal and
informal evaluation of the preclinical and clinical sciences, will conduct personal interviews with
students, faculty and departmental chairs and during the assessment will focus upon:
• Clinical Sciences
• Patient Care Services
• During the formal and informal evaluation of the clinical program, will conduct personal interviews
with students, faculty and departmental chairs and during the assessment will focus upon:
• stated objectives;
• adequacy of instruction;
EOPP
February 2024
- 72 -
• appropriateness of subject matter;
• intra/extra-mural experiences;
• student clinic requirements;
• student performance evaluation mechanisms;
• sterilization of instruments;
• patient care policies;
• laboratory tests for patients;
• patient physical examinations; and
• clinic administration.
F. National Licensure (Practitioner) Site Visitor: Will serve in the same capacity as the clinical sciences
site visitor on the visiting committee.
Revised: 8/14; 7/07; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10, 7/05; Adopted: 7/96; CODA: 01/99:1
5. Job Description For Advanced Dental Education Site Visitors: Dental Public Health, Endodontics, Oral
and Maxillofacial Pathology, Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Residency
and Fellowship), Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Residency and Fellowship), Pediatric Dentistry,
Periodontics, Prosthodontics (Combined and Maxillofacial), and Advanced Education in General Dentistry,
General Practice Residency, Oral Medicine, Orofacial Pain, and Dental Anesthesiology.
Advanced dental education program site visitors will utilize the site visitors’ evaluation report form for their
respective area, conduct personal interviews with Program Directors, faculty and students, and assess the
advanced dental education program focusing upon:
• administration and staff;
• admissions procedures;
• physical facilities and equipment;
• didactic program (biomedical, lecture, seminar and conference program)
• clinical program;
• evaluation of residents;
• research activities and requirements;
• library resources;
• intra/extra-mural experiences;
• hospital program; and
• teaching conducted by residents.
An assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the advanced dental education program is based upon the
published accreditation standards for each respective program.
Revised: 8/18; 8/14; 7/07, 7/99, 7/00; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10, 7/01; CODA: 11/87
6. Job Description For Allied Dental Education Site Visitors:
A. Site Visit Chair
• Will function as chair/staff representative of visiting committee of site visitors evaluating the allied
dental education programs in dental assisting, dental hygiene, dental therapy and dental laboratory
technology;
• Will be responsible for the continual reinforcement of the Commission’s procedures to be used for the
site visit and for monitoring continually the conduct of the visit;
EOPP
February 2024
- 73 -
• Will brief site visitors as to their role as a fact finding and reporting committee and the appropriate
protocol during the course of the site visit; including what is expected of each site visitor in terms of
kinds of activities and relative to the report of findings and conclusions and recommendations, with
adequate background rationale for making recommendations and enumerating strengths and weaknesses
in the education program being evaluated;
• Will chair all conferences and meetings of the allied dental visiting committee, as well as those which
occur during the visiting committee’s executive sessions;
• Will be responsible for maintaining closely the site visit evaluation schedule;
• Will serve as liaison between the visiting committee and the allied dental visiting committee members;
• Will make specific and special assignments to individual visiting committee members relative to
evaluating and reporting on specific matters and sections of the site visit report, e.g. administrative
organization, faculty, library facilities and resources, research program facilities and equipment,
admissions process, hospital program(s), student achievement;
• Will be responsible for ensuring that site visitors fully understand their responsibility for reporting
adequately, but succinctly, in their area of expertise;
• Will consult with the allied dental administration at regular intervals to discuss progress of the visit;
• Will be responsible, during executive sessions with visiting committee members, for the separation of
recommendations from suggestions – focusing upon the recommendations which are to be included in
the site visit report which are considered major, critical and essential to the conduct of the education
program(s). Suggestions for program enhancement are to be included as part of the narrative of the
report; and
• Will be responsible for the preparation of a written summary of the visiting committee’s conclusions,
finding, perceptions and observations of program(s) strengths, weaknesses, recommendations and
suggestions for oral presentation during the exit interview with the dean, and for presentation of an
abbreviated summary during the exit interview with the institution’s executive administrators.
B. Dentist: A dentist is also included, when at all possible, on site visits to dental assisting and dental
hygiene programs in settings other than dental schools. An additional dentist site visitor will be added
to dental school visiting committees when multiple programs are to be reviewed.
The role of the dentist team member during allied site visits includes the following responsibilities:
• Take notes during conferences;
• Conduct meeting with advisory committee, when applicable;
• Ensure confidentiality by waiting to begin the meeting until all affiliated school personnel have left
the room;
• Introduce the visiting committee to the advisory committee members;
• Thank the members of the committee for meeting with the team and for their interest in and
commitment to the specific allied program(s);
• Explain the purpose of the site visit;
• Discuss the Commission’s policy on confidentiality as it applies to the meeting and the entire site
visit;
• Begin discussion of the following topics/questions:
a. How often the committee meets and the purpose or goals of the committee
b. Strengths/weaknesses of the students
c. Specific current committee activities and future goals or anticipated activities
• Ensure that all of the questions in the Site Visit Evaluation Report form under Standard 1.
Institutional Effectiveness, Community Resources are answered during the meeting;
• Assist Curriculum site visitor in review of science courses;
EOPP
February 2024
- 74 -
• Review clinical courses and clinical evaluation mechanisms;
• Review learning resources – library & audiovisual materials/equipment (It is usually most efficient
for this review to be conducted by the dentist site visitor only.);
• Review documentation in the self-study prior to visit;
• Conduct preclinical, clinical, and/or laboratory observations (on/off campus) with Curriculum site
visitor;
a. Extended campus laboratory facilities
b. Extramural clinical facilities
• Review equipment and instruments using Site Visit Evaluation Report Checklist under Standard 4.
Educational Support Services;
• Formulate recommendations and suggestions; and
• After the visit, review and critique preliminary draft of the site visit report.
Revised: 2/16; 8/14; 7/07, 7/00, 7/99; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10, 7/01; Adopted: 10/94, 11/87; CODA: 05/86:10
K. POLICY ON SILENT OBSERVERS ON SITE VISITS
In order to facilitate a better understanding of the accreditation and site visit processes, any dental education
program scheduled for a site visit of its program, may request the opportunity to send one administrator or
faculty member as a silent observer to a Commission site visit. Representatives of international programs
may also participate as a silent observer on a Commission site visit. The silent observer visit will be
scheduled one to two years before the scheduled site visit of the observer’s program. The program being
observed has the right to approve the designated observer. Requests for a faculty member or administrator
to observe the site visit of another program are managed according to when the observer’s site visit is
scheduled. Requests for the opportunity to have a faculty member or administrator observe a site visit are
made through a letter from the chief administrative officer (dean, chair, chief of dental service) of the
program. While the observer may request to observe a specific site visit, Commission staff will make the
final determination based upon the site visit schedule and availability of observation opportunities.
Generally, a program is provided one opportunity to send an observer to a site visit. The observer’s program
pays all expenses for such an observer.
The observer receives all self-study materials and is allowed to observe all interviews and meetings. The
observer must remain silent during all sessions where university and/or program officials, faculty, staff or
students are present at the site visit. The observer is encouraged to ask questions of the visiting committee
during executive session meetings only but does not participate in decision-making discussions. As an
observer of the site visit, it is expected that this individual will remain with the designated site visit team
members at all times during the visit.
All observers must sign the Commission’s Agreement of Confidentiality prior to the site visit. The chair of
the site visit committee has the right to excuse and/or exclude the observer from any or all aspects of the
site visit for improper and/or unprofessional behavior. The chair’s decision to remove or exclude an
observer from the site visit cannot be appealed.
A representative of the state dental society may attend a comprehensive dental school site visit as a silent
observer, if requested by the society and approved by the institution.
Revised: 2/24; 2/16; 8/14; 8/13; 2/13, 07/98:2, 01/94:2, 05/93:1-2, 12/92:3; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10, 7/07,
7/01
EOPP
February 2024
- 75 -
L. POLICY ON STATE BOARD PARTICIPATION DURING SITE VISITS
It is the policy of the Commission on Dental Accreditation that the state board of dentistry is notified when an
accreditation visit will be conducted in its jurisdiction. The Commission believes that state boards of dentistry
have a legitimate interest in the accreditation process and, therefore, strongly urges institutions to invite a current
member of the state board of dentistry to participate in Commission site visits. The Commission also encourages
state boards of dentistry to accept invitations to participate in the site visit process.
If a state has a separate dental hygiene examining board, that board will be contacted when a dental hygiene
program located in that state is site visited. In addition, the dental examining board for that state will be
notified.
The following procedures are used in implementing this policy:
1. Correspondence will be directed to an institution notifying it of a pending accreditation visit and will
include a copy of Commission policy on state board participation. The institution is urged to invite the
state board to send a current member. The Commission copies the state board on this correspondence.
2. The institution notifies the Commission of its decision to invite/not invite a current member of the state
board. If a current member of the state board is to be present, s/he will receive the same background
information as other team members.
3. If it is the decision of the institution to invite a member of the state board, Commission staff will
contact the state board and request the names of at least two of its current members to be representatives
to the Commission.
4. The Commission provides the names of the two state board members, to the institution. The institution
will be able to choose one of the state board members. If any board member is unacceptable to the
institution, the Commission must be informed in writing.
5. The state board member, if authorized to participate in the site visit by the institution, receives the self-
study document from the institution and background information from the Commission prior to the site
visit.
6. The state board member must participate in all days of the site visit, including all site visit conferences
and executive sessions.
7. The state board member serves as a silent observer in all sessions except executive sessions with the
site visit team.
8. In the event the chair of the site visit committee determines that a vote is necessary to make a
recommendation to the Commission, only team members representing the Commission will be allowed
to vote.
9. The state board reimburses its member for expenses incurred during the site visit.
The following statement was developed to assist state board members by clearly indicating their role while
on-site with an accreditation team and what they may and may not report following a site visit. The
statement is used on dental education, advanced dental education and allied dental education site visits.
The state board member participates in an accreditation site visit in order to develop a better understanding
of the accreditation site visit process and its role in ensuring the competence of graduates for the protection
of the public. The dental, advanced dental and allied dental education programs are evaluated utilizing the
Commission’s approved accreditation standards for each respective discipline.
The state board member is expected to be in attendance for the entire site visit, including all scheduled
conferences and during executive sessions of the visiting committee. While on site the state board member:
EOPP
February 2024
- 76 -
• provides assistance in interpreting the state’s dental practice act and/or provides background on other
issues related to dental practice and licensure within the state.
• on allied dental education visits: assists the team in assessing the practice needs of employer-dentists in
the community and in reviewing those aspects of the program which may involve the delegation of
expanded functions.
• on dental school visits: functions primarily as a clinical site visitor working closely with the clinical
specialist member(s) who evaluate the adequacy of the preclinical and clinical program(s) and the
clinical competency of students.
Following the site visit, state board members may be asked to provide either a written or oral report to their
boards. Questions frequently arise regarding what information can be included in those reports while
honoring the Agreement of Confidentiality that was signed before the site visit. The following are some
general guidelines:
• What You May Share:
• Information about the Commission’s accreditation standards, process and policies.
• What You May Not Share:
• The school’s self-study;
• Previous site visit reports and correspondence provided to you as background information;
• Information revealed by faculty or students/residents during interviews and conferences;
• The verbal or written findings and recommendations of the visiting committee; and
• Any other information provided in confidence during the conduct of an accreditation visit.
The Commission staff is available to answer any questions you may have before, during or after a site visit.
Revised: 2/24; 7/09, 1/00; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10, 7/07, 7/04, 7/01, 12/82, 5/81, 12/78, 12/75; Adopted:
8/86
M. SITE VISIT PROCEDURES
The basic purpose of the site visit is to permit peers to assess a program’s compliance with the accreditation
standards and with its own stated goals and objectives. Information provided in the self-study is confirmed,
documentation is reviewed, interviews are conducted and the programs are observed by the visiting
committee. Information related to the site visit is viewed as confidential. Therefore, no audio, video or
other type of recording of the site visit is permitted. The Commission’s policy on confidentiality, elsewhere
in this document, gives more specific information about the degree of confidentiality extended to various
materials.
The Commission recognizes that there is considerable latitude in determining procedures and methodology
for site visits. Experience has shown that the conference method for conducting a site visit is widely
favored and effective. Conferences are scheduled with identified administrators, faculty and students at
specified times.
In all cases, the recommendations of the dean or program director determine protocol to be followed during
conferences with chief executive officers of the parent institution and/or their appointed representatives.
Program administrators are excused during conferences scheduled with faculty members, students or other
invitees.
EOPP
February 2024
- 77 -
In addition to formal scheduled conferences, committee members may informally discuss department and
division programs with chairs and faculty members throughout the site visit. The visiting committee chair
will make every effort to schedule hearings with any individual or group of individuals wishing to present
information about a program.
Executive sessions of the visiting committee are a critical part of the on-site evaluation process. These
sessions are scheduled at intervals during the day and evening and provide time for the committee to meet
privately to prepare its findings and recommendations.
Oral comments made by site visit team members during the course of the site visit are not to be construed as
official site visit findings unless documented within the site visit report and may not be publicized. Further,
publication of site visit team members’ names and/or contact information is prohibited.
Revised: 8/18; 2/16; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10
1. Duration Of Site Visits: Predoctoral dental education program and initial accreditation (pre-enrollment)
site visits are scheduled for 2.5 days. Advanced and allied dental education programs evaluated during a
comprehensive dental school visit are 1.5 days.
Single-discipline advanced dental education program site visits scheduled outside of a comprehensive
dental school visit are 1 day in length. Multi-discipline advanced dental education site visits conducted
outside of a comprehensive dental school visit are 1.5 days in length. Initial accreditation (pre-enrollment)
site visits are typically 1 day in length.
Allied dental education site visits scheduled outside of a comprehensive dental school visit are of varying
length based on the number of programs to be evaluated. All single discipline visits are 1.75 days. All
multiple visit site visits are 2.5 days. Initial accreditation (pre-enrollment) site visits are typically 1.5 days.
Additional time can be added to any educational program site visit if additional training sites will be
evaluated or if other cause exists.
Revised: 8/18; 2/16; 8/14; 7/01; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10, 7/07; CODA: 07/95:3
2. Final Conferences:
It is the visiting committee’s responsibility to prepare and present an oral summary of
its findings to the dean, chief of dental service, program director(s) and the institutional executives. Two
separate conferences are scheduled at the end of every visit, one with the program director(s) and chief of
dental service or dental dean and one with the chief executive officer(s) of the institution.
During these conferences, the committee presents the findings it will submit to the Commission. These
findings address both program strengths and weaknesses. The committee also informs individuals in charge
of the program(s) about the Commission’s procedures for processing and acting on the report. In keeping
with the Commission’s policy on Public Disclosure and Confidentiality, these final conferences are not
recorded on tape or by stenographer. Note taking, however, is permitted and encouraged.
Site visitors or any other participants are not authorized, under any circumstances, to disclose any
information obtained during site visits. For more specific information, see the Commission’s Statement of
Policy on Public Disclosure and Confidentiality.
Revised: 8/14; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/10
EOPP
February 2024
- 78 -
3. Rescheduling Dates Of Site Visits: In extraordinary circumstances the Commission staff can
reschedule the site visit if the program will be reviewed within the same calendar year. Commission staff
can also reschedule the site visit to an earlier year to coincide with other programs at the institution. If the
site visit would occur in a later year because of the rescheduling, the request must be considered and acted on
by the Commission. In general, the Commission does not approve such requests, but it does review each
request on a case-by-case basis. Should a site visit be changed the term of the accreditation will remain
unchanged.
Revised: 8/16; Reaffirmed: 8/19; 8/14; 8/10
4. Enrollment Requirement For Site Visits For Fully Developed Programs: Site visit evaluations of
dental, allied dental and advanced dental education programs will be conducted at the regularly established
intervals, provided that students are enrolled in at least one year of the program. If no students are enrolled
on the established date for the site visit, the visit will be conducted when students are enrolled, preferably in
the latter part of the final year prior to graduation. In instances where the program utilizes educational
activity sites where students/residents/fellows are primarily located for their education, enrollment
requirements as noted above apply. (Refer to the Policy on Non-enrollment of First Year Students)
Revised: 2/23; 8/19; 5/93; Reaffirmed: 8/14; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01
5. Post-Site Visit Evaluation: After each site visit, electronic evaluation forms are completed by the
visited program and the participating site visitors to give the Commission feedback on the effectiveness of its
processes and procedures. In addition, site visitors electronically evaluate their fellow site visitors and the
visited programs electronically evaluate the individual site visitors.
Revised: 8/14; 8/10; Reaffirmed: 8/19
N. SITE VISIT REPORTS
1. Preliminary Site Visit Report: The site visit report is a written summary of the findings of a site visit
and serves as the primary basis for the Commission’s accreditation decision. The report also serves to
identify for officials and administrators of educational institutions any program deficiencies and weaknesses
relative to the accreditation standards.
The report is an assessment of the program’s compliance with the accreditation standards, including any
areas needing improvement, and the program’s performance with respect to student achievement. The report
may include recommendations and suggestions related to the program’s compliance with the accreditation
standards. A program’s continued compliance with any standards for which deficiencies are noted in
previous reports, as well as its compliance with current Commission policies and procedures are also noted.
Preliminary drafts of site visit reports are prepared by site visitors, consolidated by Commission staff and
transmitted to visiting committee members for review, comment and approval prior to transmittal to the
sponsoring institution for review and response.
Effective July 26, 2007, commendations are no longer cited in site visit reports; however, verbal
acknowledgement of a program’s strengths may be provided during the exit interview.
Revised: 8/20; 8/14; Reaffirmed: 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 4/83
2. Policy On Institutional Review Of Site Visit Reports: Accreditation is a peer review process
whereby an educational program is evaluated by individuals in education and the profession who are
identified as having particular expertise in a specific area or field. In this context, a visiting committee is a
EOPP
February 2024
- 79 -
fact-finding committee charged by the Commission with the responsibility of assessing the quality of an
educational program utilizing pre-determined educational requirements and guidelines (standards).
Subsequent to such peer review, an evaluation report (See Preliminary Site Visit Report) is developed based
upon the factual findings, perceptions, interpretations, observations and conclusions of the external
reviewing team. The information contained in site visit reports is obtained from review and verification of
materials and documents submitted by the institution’s administration, program directors, faculty and
students. Since the information is gathered from various sources, on occasion the perceptions,
interpretations and conclusions of the visiting committee may not coincide with those of the administration
and program directors who review and comment on the preliminary draft.
In compliance with the due process policy and procedures established by the Commission, the preliminary
draft report is sent to the chief executive officer(s), chief academic officer(s), and appropriate program
director(s). The Commission requests that the entire preliminary draft report, or specific sections, be
released to departmental chairs, and appropriate faculty and standing committees for review. In reviewing
the report the Commission requests that the program respond to correct factual inaccuracies within the
report and/or note any differences in perception.
It is the policy of the Commission to correct bona fide factual inaccuracies in a report. It does not change
the substance of a report based upon differences of interpretations and perceptions. In such cases, however,
the institution’s observations regarding these matters are discussed and considered at the Commission’s
meeting and the final judgment of the Commission is based not only on the site visit report, but also on the
institution’s response to that report.
Revised: 8/20; Reaffirmed: 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 12/78:4
3. Deadlines For Submission Of Supplemental Information: All programs receive thirty (30) days in
which to prepare a response to the preliminary draft site visit report. This response may address any factual
inaccuracies or differences in perception and may also report any progress made in implementing
recommendations contained in the report.
After the response to the preliminary report has been submitted, a program may wish to report additional
progress in implementing recommendations contained in the preliminary report or wish to submit other
information for review by the Commission and its Review Committees. While submission of multiple
reports is not encouraged, the Commission will accept supplemental information no later than December 1
(for site visits occurring May1 through October 31) or June 1 (for site visits occurring November 1 through
April 30) to allow time for review by the Review Committees.
In this way, fair review of the additional information can be ensured. Any unsolicited information received
after December 1 or June 1 will be reviewed by the Review Committee Chair. If adequate time is not
available to ensure appropriate review, the materials may be returned to the program or held for
consideration at the following meeting in accord with the wishes of the program.
Revised: 8/14; 7/05; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/10, 7/01, 5/93, 12/88
4. Final Site Visit Report: After the Commission has reached a decision regarding the accreditation
status of the program, a final site visit report is prepared and transmitted to the chief executive officer(s),
chief academic officer(s), and appropriate program director(s). The site visit report reflects the program as
it existed at the time of the site visit. The final report to the institution does not reflect any improvements or
changes made subsequent to a site visit and described in the institution’s response to the preliminary draft of
the site visit report. Such changes or improvements represent progress made by the institution subsequent
EOPP
February 2024
- 80 -
to the site visit. It should be noted, however, that information on such progress is considered by the
Commission in determining accreditation status.
Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/14; 8/10
5. Policy On Distribution Of Site Visit Reports: The Commission recommends that the chief academic
officer and program director disseminate the preliminary draft report and the final site visit report to all
chairs, appropriate faculty and standing committees for review to allow for broad input as the program
works toward implementing any specific recommendations contained in the report.
Revised: 8/14; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 12/91, 5/80
6. Policy On Reports For Co-Sponsored Programs: In special circumstances of co-sponsorship of
programs where preparation of an integrated site visit report would breach confidentiality for one or more
of the programs, the Commission has determined that confidentiality takes precedence over integration of
reports and separate reports may be prepared. This decision will be made in consultation with the chief
executive officers of the co-sponsoring institutions.
Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/14; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 12/91:12
V. OTHER POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO ACCREDITATION
A. INFORMATION ON THE COMMISSION’S WEBSITE
The following information is posted on the Commission’s website as indicated. Some of these items are
mandated by the Commission, while others are merely viewed as a service to accredited programs.
The following items are routinely posted following the Commission’s winter meeting:
• Report of Unofficial Actions of the Commission
• List of Commissioners and appended biographical information
• List of Scheduled Site Visits
• Policy On Third Party Comments
• Policy on Complaints and Guidelines for Filing a Complaint
• Summer Commission Meeting – Open Session Announcement and Materials, as available
• Commission policies, procedures and guidelines for reporting program changes:
o Guidelines for Requesting Increase in Enrollment
o Policy and Guidelines for Reporting Program Changes In Accredited Programs
o Policy and Guidelines on Reporting and Approval of Sites Where Educational Activity Occurs
o Policy and Guidelines for Preparing a Teach-Out Report
o Policy and Guidelines for Transfer of Sponsorship
o Policy and Guidelines for Interruption of Education
o Policy and Guidelines for Reporting the Use of Distance Education
o BioSketch Templates
o Electronic Submission Guidelines
o Privacy and Data Security Summary for Institutions/Programs
The following items are routinely posted following the Commission’s summer meeting:
• Report of Unofficial Actions of the Commission
• List of Scheduled Site Visits
• Policy On Third Party Comments
EOPP
February 2024
- 81 -
• Policy on Complaints and Guidelines for Filing a Complaint
• Winter Commission Meeting – Open Session Announcement and Materials, as available
• Commission policies, procedures and guidelines for reporting program changes:
o Guidelines for Requesting Increase in Enrollment
o Policy and Guidelines for Reporting Program Changes In Accredited Programs
o Policy and Guidelines on Reporting and Approval of Sites Where Educational Activity Occurs
o Policy and Guidelines for Preparing a Teach-Out Report
o Policy and Guidelines for Transfer of Sponsorship
o Policy and Guidelines for Interruption of Education
o Policy and Guidelines for Reporting the Use of Distance Education
o BioSketch Templates
o Electronic Submission Guidelines
o Privacy and Data Security Summary for Institutions/Programs
The following items are posted at appropriate intervals:
• Department of Education Observers May Attend Site Visits
• Re-recognition: Opportunity for Third Party Testimony
Revised: 8/23; 8/21; 8/20; 2/16; 8/15; 2/15; Reaffirmed: 8/10
B. PROGRESS REPORTS
Programs with recommendations identified as unmet following Commission review of site visit reports and
institutional responses are required to submit progress reports. A progress report is submitted by the program
director and it is due at a time specified by the Commission, at six (6) month intervals unless otherwise
specified. Evidence of compliance with all recommendations must be demonstrated within the specified time
frame not to exceed eighteen (18) months if the program is between one (1) and two (2) years in length or two
(2) years if the program is at least two (2) years in length. When Accreditation Standards are revised during the
period in which the program is submitting progress reports, the program will be responsible for demonstrating
compliance with the new standards. Identification of new deficiencies during the reporting time period will not
result in a modification of the specified deadline for compliance with prior deficiencies.
The progress report must respond specifically to each recommendation determined to be unmet that was
contained in the Commission’s report. The progress report must quote each individual recommendation as it
appears in the Commission report and follow each quote with comments and documentation of the institution’s
implementation of the specific recommendation.
Questions on the preparation of progress reports should be directed to Commission staff. The Commission
has developed Guidelines for Preparation of Reports to assist programs and to illustrate examples of
acceptable documentation.
The Commission reviews a progress report in the same manner as a site visit report. Based on the progress
report, the Commission will determine any subsequent actions necessary. The Commission may request a
report of additional progress, an appearance of an institutional representative before the Commission, and/or
a special focused reevaluation visit to the program.
If the program does not demonstrate compliance with the accreditation standards within the specified time
frame, the Commission will withdraw the program’s accreditation, unless the Commission extends the
period for achieving compliance for good cause.
Revised: 8/20; 8/15; 2/15; 1/99, 1/98; Reaffirmed: 8/10, 7/05; Adopted: 07/96
EOPP
February 2024
- 82 -
C. REPORTING PROGRAM CHANGES IN ACCREDITED PROGRAMS
The Commission on Dental Accreditation recognizes that education and accreditation are dynamic, not
static, processes. Ongoing review and evaluation often lead to changes in an educational program. The
Commission views change as part of a healthy educational process and encourages programs to make them
as part of their normal operating procedures.
At times, however, more significant changes occur in a program. Changes have a direct and significant
impact on the program’s potential ability to comply with the accreditation standards. These changes tend to
occur in the areas of finances, program administration, enrollment, curriculum and clinical/laboratory
facilities, but may also occur in other areas. All program changes that could affect the ability of the
program to comply with the Accreditation Standards must be reported to the Commission. When a change
is planned, Commission staff should be consulted to determine reporting requirements. Reporting program
changes in the Annual Survey does not preclude the requirement to report changes directly to the
Commission. Failure to report and receive approval in advance of implementing the change, using the
Guidelines for Reporting Program Change, may result in review by the Commission, a special site visit, and
may jeopardize the program’s accreditation status.
Advanced dental education programs must adhere to the Policy on Enrollment Increases in Advanced
Dental Education Programs. In addition, programs adding off-campus sites must adhere to the Policy on
Reporting and Approval of Sites Where Educational Activity Occurs. Guidelines for Reporting and
Approval of Sites where Educational Activity Occurs are available from the Commission office. Guidelines
for Requesting an Increase in Enrollment in a Predoctoral Dental Education Program, Guidelines for
Reporting Enrollment Increases in Advanced Dental Education Programs, and Guidelines for Reporting
Enrollment Increases in Dental Hygiene Education Programs are available from the Commission office.
On occasion, the Commission may learn of program changes which may impact the program’s ability to
comply with accreditation standards or policy. In these situations, CODA will contact the sponsoring
institution and program to determine whether reporting may be necessary. Failure to report and receive
approval prior to the program change may result in further review by the Commission and/or a special site
visit, and may jeopardize the program’s accreditation status.
The Commission’s Policy on Integrity also applies to the reporting of changes. If the Commission
determines that an intentional breech of integrity has occurred, the Commission will immediately notify the
chief executive officer of the institution of its intent to withdraw the accreditation of the program(s) at its
next scheduled meeting.
A Report of Program Change must document how the program will continue to meet accreditation
standards. The Commission’s Guidelines for Reporting Program Changes are available on the
Commission’s website and may clarify what constitutes a change and provide guidance in adequately
explaining and documenting such changes.
The following examples illustrate, but are not limited to, changes that must be reported by May 1 or
November 1 and must be reviewed by the appropriate Review Committee and approved by the
Commission prior to the implementation to ensure that the program continues to meet the accreditation
standards:
• Establishment of Off-Campus Sites not owned by the sponsoring institution used to meet accreditation
standards or program requirements (See Guidelines on Reporting and Approval of Sites Where
Educational Activity Occurs);
EOPP
February 2024
- 83 -
• Changes to Off-Campus Sites that impact the use of the site (e.g. minor site to major site, or termination
of enrollment at or discontinued use of major site);
• Transfer of sponsorship from one institution to another;
• Changes in institutional accreditor or pending or final adverse actions. (See Policy on Regard For
Decisions of States and Other Accrediting Agencies);
• Moving a program from one geographic site to another, including but not limited to geographic moves
within the same institution;
• Program director qualifications not in compliance with the standards. In lieu of a CV, a copy of the new
or acting program director’s completed BioSketch must be provided to Commission staff. Contact
Commission Staff for the BioSketch template.
• Substantial increase in program enrollment as determined by preliminary review by the discipline-
specific Review Committee Chair.
o Requests for retroactive permanent increases in enrollment will not be considered. Requests
for retroactive temporary increases in enrollment may be considered due to special
circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Programs are reminded that resources must be
maintained even when the full complement of students/residents is not enrolled in the program.
(see Policy on Enrollment Increases In Advanced Dental Education Programs and Predoctoral
programs see Guidelines for Requesting an Increase in Enrollment in a Predoctoral Dental
Education Program);
• Change in the nature of the program’s financial support that could affect the ability of the program to
meet the standards;
• Curriculum changes that could affect the ability of the program to meet the standards;
• Reduction in faculty or support staff time commitment that could affect the ability of the program to meet
the standards;
• Change in the required length of the program;
• Reduction of program dental facilities that could affect the ability of the program to meet the standards;
• Addition of advanced standing opportunity, part-time track or multi-degree track, or other track offerings;
• Expansion of a developing dental hygiene or assisting program which will only be considered after the
program has demonstrated success by graduating the first class, measured outcomes of the academic
program, and received approval without reporting requirements; and/or
• Implementation of changes in the use of distance education that could affect the ability of the program to
meet the standards (see reporting requirements found in the Policy on Distance Education).
The following examples illustrate, but are not limited to, additional program changes that must be reported in
writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the anticipated implementation of the change and are not
reviewed by the Review Committee and the Commission but are reviewed at the next site visit:
• Establishment of Off-Campus Sites owned by the sponsoring institution used to meet accreditation
standards or program requirements;
• Expansion or relocation of dental facilities within the same building;
• Change in chief executive officer, chief academic officer, and program director. For the program
director only (new, acting, interim): In lieu of a CV, a copy of a completed BioSketch must be provided
to Commission staff. Contact Commission Staff for the BioSketch template.
• First-year non-enrollment. See Policy on Non Enrollment of First Year Students/Residents.
The Commission recognizes that unexpected, changes may occur. If an unexpected change occurs, it must be
reported no more than 30 days following the occurrence. Unexpected changes may be the result of sudden
changes in institutional commitment, affiliated agreements between institutions, faculty support, or facility
EOPP
February 2024
- 84 -
compromise resulting from natural disaster (See Policy/Guidelines on Interruption of Education). Failure to
proactively plan for change will not be considered an unexpected change. Depending upon the timing and
nature of the change, appropriate investigative procedures including a site visit may be warranted.
The Commission uses the following process when considering reports of program changes. Program
administrators have the option of consulting with Commission staff at any time during this process.
1. A program administrator submits the report by May 1 or November 1.
2. Commission staff reviews the report to assess its completeness and to determine whether the change
could impact the program’s potential ability to comply with the accreditation standards. If this is the case,
the report is reviewed by the appropriate Review Committee for the discipline and by the Commission.
3. Receipt of the report and accompanying documentation is acknowledged in one of the following ways:
a. The program administrator is informed that the report will be reviewed by the appropriate Review
Committee and by the Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. Additional information
may be requested prior to this review if the change is not well-documented; or
b. The program administrator is informed that the reported change will be reviewed during the next site
visit.
4. If the report will be considered by a Review Committee and by the Commission, the report is added to the
appropriate agendas. The program administrator receives notice of the results of the Commission’s
review.
The following alternatives may be recommended by Review Committees and/or be taken by the Commission
in relation to the review of reports of program changes received from accredited educational programs.
• Approve the report of program change: If the Review Committee or Commission does not identify any
concerns regarding the program’s continued compliance with the accreditation standards, the transmittal
letter should advise the institution that the change(s) have been noted and will be reviewed at the next
regularly-scheduled site visit to the program.
• Approve the report of program change and request additional information: If the Review Committees or
Commission does not identify any concerns regarding the program’s compliance with the accreditation
standards, but believes follow up reporting is required to ensure continued compliance with accreditation
standards, additional information will be requested for review by the Commission. Additional
information could occur through a supplemental report or a focused site visit,
• Postpone action and continue the program’s accreditation status, but request additional information:
The transmittal letter will inform the institution that the report of program change has been considered,
but that concerns regarding continued compliance with the accreditation standards have been identified.
Additional specific information regarding the identified concerns will be requested for review by the
Commission. The institution will be further advised that, if the additional information submitted does
not satisfy the Commission regarding the identified concerns, the Commission reserves the right to
request additional documentation, conduct a special focused site visit of the program, or deny the
request.
• Postpone action and continue the program’s accreditation status pending conduct of a special site visit:
If the information submitted with the initial request is insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that
the accreditation standards will continue to be met, and the Commission believes that the necessary
information can only be obtained on-site, a special focused site visit will be conducted.
• Deny the request: If the submitted information does not indicate that the program will continue to
comply with the accreditation standards, the Commission will deny the request for a program change.
The institution will be advised that they may re-submit the request of program change with additional
EOPP
February 2024
- 85 -
information if they choose. If the program change was submitted retroactively, and non-compliance is
identified, the program’s accreditation status will be changed. The transmittal letter will inform the
institution that the report of program change has been considered, but an area of non-compliance with
the accreditation standards has been identified. The program’s accreditation status is changed and
additional specific information regarding the identified area(s) of non-compliance will be requested for
review by the Commission.
Revised: 8/23; 2/22; 8/21; 2/21; 8/20; 1/20; 8/18; 2/18; 8/17; 8/16; 2/16; 8/15; 2/15; 8/13 2/12, 8/11, 8/10, 7/09,
7/07, 8/02, 7/97; Reaffirmed: 7/07, 7/01, 5/90; CODA: 05/91:11
D. REQUESTS FOR TRANSFER OF SPONSORSHIP OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMS
The sponsorship of an accredited program may be transferred from one educational institution to another
without affecting the accreditation status of the program, provided the accreditation standards continue to be
met following the transfer. A request for transfer of sponsorship will be considered by the Commission if
significant aspects of the program will remain unchanged following the transfer.
Critical factors that will be weighed in review of the transfer of sponsorship request include: administration,
funding sources, curriculum, faculty, facilities, and patient volume. If most of these critical factors will be
unchanged, then the Commission will consider the request for transfer of sponsorship of the program. If
most of these factors will be significantly altered following the change in sponsorship, then the program
cannot be considered as a continuation of the same program under different sponsorship. Rather, the
program to be offered by the new sponsoring institution will be considered as a new program and will be
required to complete the established application process for initial accreditation appropriate to the
discipline. If the program is viewed as a new program, the accreditation status of the previous program will
be discontinued at an appropriate time.
Information regarding the transfer of sponsorship and its effect on the program’s compliance with the
accreditation standards must be submitted prior to implementation of the transfer. Written notice of the
agreement to transfer sponsorship of the program must be provided to the Commission by both institutions;
the new sponsor must explicitly indicate its willingness to accept responsibility for the transferred program.
The information to be submitted must include the expected date of the transfer and the anticipated
enrollment in each year of the program following the transfer. In addition, documentation must be
submitted to demonstrate how the program will continue to meet the accreditation standards related to
administration, financial support, curriculum, faculty and facilities. Any other changes that will occur in the
program as a result of the transfer of sponsorship must also be explained and documented.
Programs anticipating a possible transfer of sponsorship are strongly encouraged to consult with
Commission staff prior to submitting a request. The Commission has guidelines for preparing a request for
transfer of sponsorship, to assist institutions in adequately explaining and documenting such changes.
The following alternatives may be recommended by Review Committees and/or be taken by the
Commission in relation to the review of requests for transfer of sponsorship.
• Approve the transfer of sponsorship: If the Review Committee or Commission does not identify any
concerns regarding the program’s continued compliance with the accreditation standards, the transmittal
letter should advise the institution that the program will be reviewed at the next regularly-scheduled site
visit to the new sponsoring institution. If concerns have been identified that are not of such a nature as
EOPP
February 2024
- 86 -
to require the submission of additional information immediately, the concerns may be cited in the
transmittal letter; the institution will be advised that the concerns will be reviewed at the time of the
next regularly-scheduled site visit.
• Postpone action and continue the program’s accreditation status, but request additional information:
This action may be taken only once following submission of the initial request. The transmittal letter
will inform the institutions that Commission action has been postponed because concerns regarding
continued compliance with the accreditation standards have been identified. Additional specific
information regarding the identified concerns will be requested for review by the Commission. The
institutions will be further advised that, if the additional information submitted does not satisfy the
identified concerns, the Commission reserves the right to conduct a special focused site visit of the
program at an appropriate time following implementation of the transfer, or to deny the request.
• Postpone action and continue the program’s accreditation status pending conduct of a special site visit:
If the information submitted with the initial request is insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that
the accreditation standards will continue to be met, and the Commission believes that the necessary
information can only be obtained on-site, a special focused site visit to the new sponsoring institution
will be conducted.
• Deny the request for transfer: If the submitted information does not indicate that the program will
continue to comply with the accreditation standards, the Commission will deny the request for transfer
of sponsorship. The institutions will be advised that they may re-submit the request with additional
information if they choose.
Revised: 1/14, 8/10, 7/07, 7/97; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/15; 7/07, 7/01, 5/91, 12/82; CODA: 05/91:11
E. POLICY ON PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
All institutions offering programs accredited by the Commission are expected to prepare documents that
adhere to guidelines set forth by the Commission on Dental Accreditation, including required verification
signatures by the institution’s chief executive officer, the institution’s chief academic officer, and program
director. These documents may include, but are not limited to, self-study, responses to site visit/progress
reports, initial accreditation applications, reports of program change, and transfer of sponsorship and
exhibits. The Commission’s various guidelines for preparing and submitting documents, including
electronic submission, can be found on the Commission’s website or obtained from the Commission staff.
In addition, all institutions must meet established deadlines for submission of requested information. Any
information that does not meet the preparation or submission guidelines or is received after the prescribed
deadlines may be returned to the program, which could affect the accreditation status of the program.
Electronic Submission of Accreditation Materials: All institutions will provide the Commission with an
electronic copy of all accreditation documents and related materials, which conform to the Commission’s
Electronic Submission Guidelines. Electronic submission guidelines can be found on the Commission’s
website or obtained from the Commission staff. Accreditation documents and related materials must be
complete and comprehensive.
Documents that fail to adhere to the stated Guidelines for submission will not be accepted and the program
will be contacted to submit a corrected document. In this case, documents may not be reviewed at the
assigned time which may impact the program’s accreditation status.
EOPP
February 2024
- 87 -
Compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA is the federal
law that governs how “Covered Entities” handle the privacy and security of patients’ protected health
information (PHI). HIPAA Covered Entities include health care providers that send certain information
electronically as well as certain health plans and clearinghouses. The Commission may be deemed a
“Business Associate” of institutions that are HIPAA Covered Entities. A Business Associate is an
individual or entity, other than a workforce member of the Covered Entity, that performs a function or
activity on behalf of a HIPAA Covered Entity that involves creating, receiving, maintaining, or transmitting
protected health information. Business Associates must comply with certain provisions of the HIPAA
Security, Privacy and Breach Notification Rules. The Commission “HIPAA Policy and Procedure Manual”
is updated periodically. All Commission site visitors, Review Committee members, Commissioners, and
staff are required to complete a CODA HIPAA training exercise on a yearly basis.
The program’s documentation for CODA must not contain any patient protected health information (PHI)
or sensitive personal information (SPI). If the program submits documentation that does not comply with
the policy on PHI or SPI, CODA will assess an administrative processing fee of $4,000 per program
submission to the institution; a program’s resubmission that continues to contain PHI or SPI will be
assessed an additional $4,000 administrative processing fee.
Revised: 2/24; 8/23; 8/20; Adopted 1/20 (Formerly Policy on Electronic Submission of Accreditation
Materials, Commission Policy and Procedure Related to Compliance with the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act [HIPAA] and Policy on Preparation and Submission of Reports to the Commission)
F. POLICY ON MISSED DEADLINES
So that the Commission may conduct its accreditation program in an orderly fashion, all institutions
offering programs accredited by the Commission are expected to adhere to deadlines for requests for
program information. Programs/institutions must meet established deadlines to allow scheduling of regular
or special site visits and for submission of requested information. Program information (i.e. self-studies,
progress reports, annual surveys or other kinds of accreditation-related information requested by the
Commission) is considered an integral part of the accreditation process. If an institution fails to comply
with the Commission's request, or a prescribed deadline, it will be assumed that the institution no longer
wishes to participate in the accreditation program. In this event, the Commission will immediately notify
the chief executive officer of the institution of its intent to withdraw the accreditation of the program(s) at
its next scheduled meeting.
Revised: 2/16; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/15; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 5/88
G. POLICY ON PROGRAMS DECLINING A RE-EVALUATION VISIT
When an institution elects not to schedule a site visit, the chief executive officer of the institution will be
informed of the Commission’s intent to withdraw accreditation at its next scheduled meeting. This
notification shall be by tracked electronic communication.
Revised: 2/23; 8/15; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 12/80
EOPP
February 2024
- 88 -
H. POLICY ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COMMISSION REQUESTS FOR SURVEY
INFORMATION
The Commission on Dental Accreditation continuously monitors the educational programs it accredits
through annual surveys. Completion of the Commission’s annual survey by each accredited program is a
requirement for continued participation in the voluntary accreditation program. The Commission expects
that all accredited programs will submit completed surveys by the stated deadline. Administrators who
anticipate difficulty in submitting completed surveys on time must submit a written request for extension
prior to the date on which the survey is due. Requests for extension must specify a submission date no later
than two (2) weeks beyond the initial deadline date. If a program fails to submit its completed survey or
request for extension by the deadline, the Commission will notify the institution that action to withdraw
accreditation will be initiated at the next Commission meeting.
Revised: 8/20; 8/19; Reaffirmed: 8/15; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 12/79, 4/83
I. REFERRAL OF POLICY MATTERS TO APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES
The Chair of the Commission, in consultation with the Director and Commission staff, will review all
agenda items and refer policy matters to the appropriate committee(s) for discussion and recommendation.
Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/15; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 05/83:9
J. POLICY ON NON-ENROLLMENT OF FIRST YEAR STUDENTS/RESIDENTS
First-year non-enrollment must be reported to the Commission. The Commission expects institutions to
maintain compliance with all accreditation standards during a period of non-enrollment. In addition,
resources accounting for the potential enrollment capacity of the program must be maintained during a
period of non-enrollment.
The accreditation status of programs within the purview of the Commission on Dental Accreditation will be
discontinued when all first-year positions remain vacant for two (2) consecutive years. Exceptions to this
policy may be made by the Commission upon receipt of a formal request from the institution stating reasons
why the accreditation of the program should not be discontinued. If the Commission grants an institution’s
request to continue the accreditation of a program, the continuation of accreditation is effective for one (1)
year. Only one (1) request for continued accreditation will be granted for a total of three (3) consecutive
years of non-enrollment. See the Commission’s policies related to Reporting Program Changes in
Accredited Programs, Initial Accreditation, Intent to Withdraw Accreditation, Voluntary Discontinuance,
and Discontinuance or Closure of Educational Programs Accredited by The Commission and Teach-Out
Plans for additional information.
Revised: 2/23; 2/22; 2/21; 8/20; 8/16; 2/15; Reaffirmed: 8/15; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 7/99, 12/87, 4/83, 12/76
K. POLICY ON INTERRUPTION OF EDUCATION
Interruption of an educational program due to unforeseen circumstances that requires a modification of the
program, the curriculum, or take faculty, administrators or students away from the program is a potentially
serious problem. If such interruption may compromise the quality and effectiveness of education, the
Commission must be notified in writing.
EOPP
February 2024
- 89 -
If the interruption results in modification of the program, instructional time, or curriculum content, for
example, the institution must provide a comprehensive plan for how the loss of instructional time will be
addressed and how the program will continue to comply with the Accreditation Standards during the period
of interruption of education. If the program’s modifications result in the same student/resident/fellow
achievement experiences and requirements and can be completed without extension of the overall program
length, an interruption report is not required. When an interruption occurs, Commission staff should be
consulted to determine reporting requirements.
A program which experiences an interruption of longer than two (2) years will be notified of the
Commission’s intent to withdraw accreditation at its next scheduled meeting unless the institution applies
for and is granted extension for good cause by the Commission.
Modification of the program due to an interruption of education will be viewed by the Commission as a
temporary solution to maintain educational quality and compliance with Accreditation Standards.
Following the interruption of education, should the program subsequently decide to permanently implement
a change, the program must submit a formal Report of Program Change for consideration by the
Commission.
Revised: 8/22; 2/22; 8/15; 8/10, 5/91, 1975; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 7/07, 7/01
L. POLICY ON ENROLLMENT INCREASES IN ADVANCED DENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
An advanced dental education program considering or planning an enrollment increase, or any other
substantive change, should notify the Commission early in the program’s planning. Such notification will
provide an opportunity for the program to seek consultation from Commission staff regarding the potential
effect of the proposed change on the accreditation status and the procedures to be followed.
The following advanced dental education disciplines have authorized total complement enrollment: dental
public health, endodontics, oral and maxillofacial pathology, oral and maxillofacial radiology, oral and
maxillofacial surgery (per year enrollment is authorized), orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics,
pediatric dentistry, periodontics, and prosthodontics. Programs with authorized enrollment must use the
discipline-specific Guidelines to request and obtain approval for an increase in enrollment prior to
implementing the increase.
Programs may, from time to time, require a temporary, one-time only increase in enrollment to permit a
student/resident/fellow to complete a program, which was extended beyond the program’s regular
completion date. A program must use the discipline-specific Guidelines to request a temporary, one-time
only increase in enrollment prior to implementing the increase. Upon submission of the program change
report, a temporary, one-time only increase in program enrollment of up to a maximum of six (6) months
may be reviewed and approved by the Review Committee Chair, if the program provides evidence of
sufficient resources and procedures to support the temporary increase. If the temporary, one-time only
increase in enrollment may not be adequately supported, as determined by preliminary review by the
discipline-specific Review Committee Chair, prior approval by CODA will be required and the report will
be considered at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting.
Programs are reminded that resources must be maintained even when the full complement of
students/residents/fellows is not enrolled in the program.
EOPP
February 2024
- 90 -
The following advanced dental education disciplines do not have authorized enrollment: advanced education in
general dentistry, general practice residency, dental anesthesiology, oral medicine, and orofacial pain.
However, approval of an increase in enrollment in these advanced dental education programs must be reported
to the Commission if the program’s total enrollment increases beyond the enrollment at the last site visit or
prior approval of enrollment increase. Programs must use the discipline-specific Guidelines to request an
increase in enrollment prior to implementing the increase. Upon submission of the program change report, a
substantial increase in program enrollment as determined by preliminary review by the discipline-specific
Review Committee Chair, will require prior approval by CODA.
A request for an increase in enrollment with all supporting documentation must be submitted in writing to
the Commission by May 1 or November 1. A program must receive Commission approval for an increase
in enrollment prior to publishing or announcing the additional positions or accepting additional
students/residents. Failure to comply with this policy will jeopardize the program’s accreditation status, up
to and including withdrawal of accreditation.
Requests for retroactive permanent increases in enrollment will not be considered. The Commission may
consider retroactive temporary enrollment increases due to special circumstances on a case-by-case basis,
including, but not limited to:
• Student/Resident extending program length due to illness, parental leave, incomplete
projects/clinical assignments, or concurrent enrollment in another program;
• Unexpected loss of an enrollee and need to maintain balance of manpower needs;
• Urgent manpower needs demanded by U.S. armed forces; and
• Natural disasters.
If a program has enrolled beyond the approved number of students/residents without prior approval by the
Commission, the Commission may or may not retroactively approve the enrollment increase without a
special focused site visit at the program’s expense.
If the focused visit determines that the program does not have the resources to support the additional
student(s)/resident(s), the program will be placed on “intent to withdraw” status and no additional
student(s)/resident(s) beyond the previously approved number may be admitted to the program until the
deficiencies have been rectified and approved by the Commission. Student(s)/Resident(s) who have already
been formally accepted or enrolled in the program will be allowed to continue.
Revised: 2/24; 8/23; 2/22; 8/20; 1/20; 8/18; 8/16; 2/16; 8/15; 8/10; Reaffirmed: 7/07; CODA: 08/03:22
M. GUIDELINES FOR REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT IN A PREDOCTORAL
DENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
Guidelines for requesting an increase in enrollment in a predoctoral dental education program complement
the Commission’s Policy on Reporting Program Change and are available upon request from the
Commission Office. These Guidelines focus upon the adequacy of programmatic resources in support of
additional student enrollees. Enrollment increases are tracked to ensure over time total enrollment does not
exceed the resources of the program.
A program considering or planning an enrollment increase, or any other substantive change, should notify
the Commission early in the program’s planning. Programs are reminded that resources must be maintained
even when the full complement of students is not enrolled in the program.
EOPP
February 2024
- 91 -
Approval of an increase in enrollment in predoctoral dental education programs must be reported to the
Commission if the program’s total enrollment increases beyond the enrollment at the last site visit or prior
approval of enrollment increase. Upon submission of the enrollment increase report, a substantial increase
in program enrollment as determined by preliminary review by the discipline-specific Review Committee
Chair will require prior approval by CODA. Programs should be cognizant of the impending need for
enrollment increases through short- and long-term planning and proactively request permission for the
increase. The Commission will not consider retroactive permanent requests, nor will it consider inter-cycle
requests unless there are documented extenuating circumstances.
Revised 2/24; 1/20; 8/19; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/15; Adopted: 08/14
N. VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE OF ACCREDITATION
The Commission may become aware of an accredited program’s decision to voluntarily discontinue its
participation in the accreditation program when it receives official notification from the sponsoring
institution’s chief executive officer. When the Commission becomes aware of the program’s intent to
discontinue accreditation, it takes the following steps:
1. Commission staff verifies that both the program and institution understand the impact of this intended
action and informs the institution and program of the specific audiences that will be notified of their
decision to let accreditation lapse (the USDE Secretary, the appropriate accrediting agency and state
licensing agency). If students/residents who matriculated prior to the program’s reported
discontinuance effective date are enrolled in any year of the program, the program must submit a
Teach-Out Plan until all of these students/residents have graduated. (See Policy on Discontinuance or
Closure of Educational Programs Accredited by the Commission and Teach-Out Plans)
2. Within ten (10) business days, Commission staff contacts the institution’s chief executive officer and
program director and acknowledges the date when accreditation will lapse (i.e. program’s discontinuance
effective date) and the date by which the program will no longer be listed in the Commission's lists of
accredited programs (i.e. date of CODA meeting or mail ballot). The USDE Secretary and the state
licensing or accrediting agency are copied on this letter. Commission staff will inform the program that
any classes enrolled on or after the program’s reported date of discontinuance must be advised that they
will not graduate from a CODA-accredited program. (See Policy on Discontinuance or Closure of
Educational Programs Accredited by the Commission and Teach-Out Plans)
3. At its next meeting, or by mail ballot if waiting until the next meeting would preclude a timely review,
the Commission will take action to affirm the program’s decision to let accreditation lapse, either
through a Discontinuance or Teach-Out (See Other Accreditation Action Definitions). The USDE
Secretary and appropriate state licensing or accrediting agency are copied on any follow-up
correspondence to the institution/program that may occur after this meeting.
Revised: 2/21; 2/16; 8/15; 7/06, 7/00; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/10
EOPP
February 2024
- 92 -
O. POLICY ON DISCONTINUANCE OR CLOSURE OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS ACCREDITED
BY THE COMMISSION AND TEACH-OUT PLANS
It is the responsibility of an institution sponsoring an accredited program to report to the Commission any
programmatic change that might affect a program’s ability to meet accreditation standards.
When an institution is considering discontinuance or closure of a Commission-accredited educational
program that currently enrolls students/residents, the Commission must be notified officially in writing as
early as possible in the decision making process. Specifically, the Commission must be informed of the
institution’s reason for program discontinuance and/or closure, and the program’s plans for the entire
Teach-Out period, during which students/residents are enrolled, including a detailed explanation of any
significant changes relative to retention of qualified faculty and support personnel, student/resident
enrollment by class, the didactic and clinical teaching programs (including curriculum, extramural
experiences and facilities), and financial support that will be provided. During the period of Teach-Out, the
program may not enroll additional students/residents in any year of the program.
The institution must ensure that the program continues to meet minimum accreditation standards and that
students/residents and other interested parties are protected throughout the Teach-Out period. In this
regard, the Commission reserves the right to closely monitor the Teach-Out through the annual
accreditation survey, or periodic reports from the institution detailing changes in administration, faculty,
curriculum, facilities, finances, and other major components that could affect the quality of the educational
program. In addition, the Commission reserves the right to conduct a special site visit following review of
each of these reports. If a program fails to submit a Teach-Out report or requested monitoring information,
the Commission will notify the chief executive officer of the institution of its intent to withdraw
accreditation at its next scheduled meeting.
The institution has moral and ethical obligations to meet the commitment and responsibility it assumes when
it matriculates students/residents into the program; those obligations include providing the students/residents
with the opportunity to complete the educational sequence at that institution. When an institution indicates
its intent to close an accredited program or to voluntarily discontinue participation in the Commission’s
accreditation program, and if there will not be adequate resources for the program to meet its obligations to
enrolled students/residents and allow them to complete their training, the institution must assist
students/residents in a timely fashion in transferring to other accredited programs in order to complete their
educational program. The Commission will assist students/residents in transferring to other accredited
programs; this assistance will be provided in the form of guidance with reporting program changes to CODA
for review, in cooperation with the institution that sponsors the closing program.
The program to which students/residents transfer should be able to demonstrate that the finances, facilities,
faculty, and patient resources can accommodate the transferring students/residents. Any changes in
program enrollment that would result from the transfer of students/residents must be reported to the
Commission by the receiving program(s) in accordance with the Commission’s policy for reporting
program changes. Formal teach-out agreements must be developed with all institutions accepting
transferring students/residents to specify the conditions of the transfer. These agreements must ensure that
the combined educational experiences meet the Commission’s accreditation standards. Such teach-out
agreements must be submitted to the Commission as part of the Teach-Out plan.
Students/Residents who are enrolled and successfully complete the program during the Teach-Out will be
considered graduates of an accredited program. Students/Residents who transfer to another program and
successfully complete that program will be considered graduates of the latter program. Such
EOPP
February 2024
- 93 -
students/residents will be considered graduates of an accredited program if the latter program is accredited
during the time such students/residents are enrolled. It will be the closing institution’s responsibility to
ensure that appropriate student/resident records and transcripts are maintained for future reference.
The Commission will take action to affirm a program’s reported discontinuance or closure effective date at
the appropriate time when the program no longer enrolls students/residents in any year of the program. The
Commission has developed Guidelines for Submitting Teach-Out Reports by Institutions Discontinuing or
Closing Commission-Accredited Educational Programs to assist institutions with preparing teach-out
reports for the Commission. These guidelines are routinely distributed along with the Commission’s Policy
on Discontinuance or Closure of Educational Programs.
Revised: 2/23; 8/17; 2/16; 8/15; 5/93; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/10, 7/07, 07/01, 12/92, 12/85, 12/79
P. POLICY ON ADVERTISING
Any advertising pertaining to an educational program that is accredited by the Commission on Dental
Accreditation must be clear and comprehensive, indicating the accrediting body by name and accurately
specifying the scope of accreditation. Any reference to a specific aspect of the program and its length
should indicate that accreditation standards for the respective discipline are met.
The Commission has authorized use of the following statement by institutions or programs that wish to
announce their programmatic accreditation by the Commission. Programs that wish to advertise the
specific programmatic accreditation status granted by the Commission may include that information as
indicated in italics below (see text inside square brackets); that portion of the statement is optional but, if
used, must be complete and current. The logo of the Commission on Dental Accreditation cannot be used
alone without the following advertising statement. When used in electronic publications, the logo must link
to the Commission website included in the statement.
The program(s) in (--discipline(s)--) is/are accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation [and
has/ have been granted the accreditation status(es) of (--X--)]. The Commission is a specialized
accrediting body recognized by the United States Department of Education. The Commission on Dental
Accreditation can be contacted at (312) 440-4653 or at 211 East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611-
2678. The Commission’s web address is: http://www.ada.org/en/coda.
In addition to the statement noted above, programs in advanced dental education must include the following
statement in advertising materials:
The Commission on Dental Accreditation has accredited the program in (--education discipline--).
However, accreditation of the program does not in itself constitute recognition of any dental specialty
status.
Revised: 8/18; 8/16; 8/14; 7/09; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/15; 8/10, 7/04, 7/00, 1/95; Adopted: 12/83
EOPP
February 2024
- 94 -
Q. POLICY STATEMENT ON PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS IN PROGRAMMATIC ADVERTISING AND
STUDENT RECRUITMENT
All accredited dental and dental-related education programs, or individuals acting on their behalf, are
expected to exhibit integrity and responsibility in programmatic advertising and student recruitment.
Responsible self-regulation requires rigorous attention to principles of ethical practice. If the Commission
determines that the institution or program has provided the public with incorrect or misleading information
regarding the accreditation status of the program, the contents of site visit evaluations reports, or the
Commission’s accrediting actions with respect to the program, the program must provide public correction
of this information to all possible audiences that received the incorrect information. The Commission must
be provided with documentation of the steps taken to provide public correction. Other areas covered in this
policy include, but are not limited to:
Advertising, Publications, and Promotional Literature
• Educational programs and services offered should be the primary emphasis of all advertisements,
publications, promotional literature and recruitment activities.
• All statements and representations should be clear, factually accurate and current. Supporting information
should be kept on file and be readily available for review.
• The sponsor of the educational program must be clearly identified when referencing the program’s
accreditation status with CODA.
• The sponsor of the educational program must be clearly identified when referencing any educational
activity site(s) used by the program.
• Catalogs and other official publications should be readily available and accurately depict:
a. purpose and goals of the program(s);
b. admission requirements and procedures;
c. degree and program completion requirements;
d. faculty, with degrees held and the conferring institution;
e. tuition, fees, and other program costs including policies and procedures for refund and withdrawal; and
f. financial aid programs.
• College catalogs and/or official publications describing career opportunities should provide clear and
accurate information on the following, as applicable:
a. national and/or state requirements for eligibility for licensure or entry into the occupation or profession
for which education and training are offered;
b. any unique requirements for career paths, or for employment and advancement opportunities in the
profession or occupation; and
Student Recruitment for Admissions
• Student recruitment should be conducted by well-qualified admissions officers, faculty or trained
volunteers whose credentials, purposes, and position or affiliation with the program and/or institution are
clearly specified.
• Independent contractors or agents used by the program and/or institution for recruiting purposes should be
governed by the same principles as institutional admissions officers and volunteers.
• Prospective students must be fully informed of program costs, available financial aid and repayment
options.
• All catalogs and career materials should accurately describe the skills and competencies that students will
need at the time of admission to the program. Options to accommodate students with lesser or greater
skills, such as remediation or advanced standing programs, should be included in this description.
• If information about employment or career opportunities is included in an official publication, such
EOPP
February 2024
- 95 -
information must be current and accurate.
• Accurate information must be provided for all dental education programs.
• Programs applying for accreditation must make it clear that submission of an application for
accreditation indicates the institution has entered into the accreditation process; it does not mean that
the program is accredited. Further, programs must not enroll students/residents until accreditation is
granted and must make it clear to applicants that accreditation is granted only by the Commission.
Educational programs accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation should assume responsibility
for informing the Commission office of improper or misleading advertising or unethical practices which
come to their attention, so that the Commission may take appropriate steps to be sure the situation is
rectified as quickly as possible.
Revised: 8/20; 8/18; 8/17; 8/15; 7/04, 7/96; Reaffirmed: 8/10, 7/09, 7/01; Adopted: 12/88
R. STAFF CONSULTING SERVICES
The staff of the Commission on Dental Accreditation is available for consultation to all educational
programs which fall within the Commission’s accreditation purview. Educational institutions conducting
programs oriented to dentistry are encouraged to obtain such staff counsel and guidance by written or
telephone request. Consultation is provided on request prior to, as well as subsequent to, the Commission’s
granting of accreditation to specific programs. Consultation shall be limited to providing information on
CODA’s policies and procedures. The Commission expects to be reimbursed if substantial costs are
incurred.
Revised: 8/20; Reaffirmed: 8/15; 8/10
Staff consultation to international programs or groups may also be available. All consultation services are
provided in English, and if necessary, the program or group is responsible for costs associated with the use
of interpreters. The schedule for international consultation activities must be arranged around staff primary
responsibilities in the United States. International consultation trips should be long enough to allow ample
time for staff to adjust to any time change. The program pays a consultation fee and all expenses associated
with the consultation visit, including travel, hotel, and meals. U. S. State Department travel warnings and
advisories are consulted prior to international travel and Commission staff will not provide consultation
services in any location where staff is placed at risk. This includes but is not limited to locations where a U.
S. State Department travel warning and/or travel alert is in effect.
Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/15; Adopted: 8/11
S. POLICY STATEMENT ON REPORTING AND APPROVAL OF SITES WHERE EDUCATIONAL
ACTIVITY OCCURS
The Commission on Dental Accreditation recognizes that students/residents may gain educational experiences
in a variety of settings and locations.
An accredited program may use one or more than one setting or location to support student/resident learning
and meet Commission on Dental Accreditation standards and/or program requirements. The Commission
expects programs to follow the EOPP guidelines and accreditation standards when developing, implementing
and monitoring activity sites used to provide educational experiences.
EOPP
February 2024
- 96 -
Reporting Requirements:
The Commission on Dental Accreditation must be informed when a program accredited by the Commission
plans to initiate educational experiences in new settings and locations. Off-Campus training sites that are
owned by the sponsoring institution or where the sponsoring organization has legal responsibility and
operational oversight do not need prior approval before utilization but must be reported to the Commission in
accordance with the Policy on Reporting Program Changes in Accredited Programs.
Reporting Requirements
for Off-Campus Sites
Major Activity Sites
Minor Activity Sites
Supplemental
Activity Sites
Definitions
Students/Residents
required to complete an
experience at this site to
meet a program
requirements or
accreditation standards,
and
Competency
assessments or
comparable summative
assessments performed
at the site
Students/Residents
required to complete
an experience at this
or another site to meet
a program
requirements or
accreditation
standards, and
No competency
assessments or
comparable
summative
assessments
performed at the site.
Evaluation may occur.
Student/Resident
chooses whether to
visit the site
outside of the
educational
program (e.g.
volunteer mission
trips, health fair,
etc. not used to
fulfill program or
accreditation
requirements).
Program Report
Requirement
Report required by
May 1 or November 1
Report required at
least 30 days prior to
planned
implementation of
educational activity
site.
No report required.
Acknowledgement/Approval
Commission approval
required prior to
implementation of the
educational activity site.
Approval of the major
activity sites required
prior to recruiting
students/residents for the
site and initiating use of
the site.
Commission
acknowledgement of
review at the
program’s next site
visit.
No approval
required.
Site Visit(s) to Educational
Activity Site
Commission may direct
special focused site visit
to review educational
activity site prior to or
after approval of the site.
Commission may review
site at future site visits.
Commission may visit
educational activity
site during program’s
next site visit.
No site visit
required.
EOPP
February 2024
- 97 -
The Commission must ensure that the necessary education as defined by the standards is available, and
appropriate resources (adequate faculty and staff, availability of patient experiences, and distance learning
provisions) are provided to all students/residents enrolled in an accredited program. Generally, only
programs without reporting requirements will be approved to initiate educational experiences at major
activity sites.
When the Commission has received notification that an institution plans to offer its accredited program at
an off-campus educational activity site, the Commission may conduct a special focused site visit to each
educational activity site where each student’s/resident’s educational experience is provided, based on the
specifics of the program, the accreditation standards, and Commission policies and procedures, or if other
cause exists for such a visit as determined by the Commission. There may be extenuating circumstances
when a special review is necessary.
The program must report the rationale for adding an educational activity site and how that site affects the
program’s goals, objectives, and outcomes. For example, program goals, objectives, and outcome measures
may address institutional support, faculty support, curriculum, student didactic and clinical learning,
research, and community service. The program must support the addition of an educational activity site with
trends from pertinent areas of its outcomes assessment program that indicates the rationale for the additional
site.
When conducting a review of the program, the Commission’s site visit team will identify the sites to be visited
based upon educational experiences at the site (for example based upon length of training at the site, educational
experience or evaluation/competencies achieved). After the initial visit or review, each educational activity site
may be visited during the regularly scheduled CODA evaluation visit to the program.
Discipline-specific Exemptions:
The Commission recognizes that dental assisting and dental laboratory technology programs utilize numerous
extramural private dental offices and laboratories to provide students with clinical/laboratory work experience.
The program will provide a list of all currently used extramural sites in the self-study document. The
Commission will then randomly select and visit facilities at the time of a site visit to the program. Prior
Commission approval of these extramural dental office and laboratory sites will not be required.
The Commission recognizes that dental public health programs utilize numerous off-campus sites to
provide students/residents with opportunities to conduct their supervised field experience. The program will
provide a list of all currently used sites in the self-study document. The visiting committee will select and
visit facilities during the site visit to the program to evaluate compliance with CODA accreditation
standards. Prior Commission approval of these supervised field experience sites will not be required.
Programs where 30% or more of the overall student/resident training occurs at off-campus site(s) must
report the off-campus site(s) under the Commissions Policy Statement on Approval of Sites Where
Educational Activity Occurs.
The Commission recognizes that advanced dental education programs in dental anesthesiology utilize
numerous mobile ambulatory settings and rotations to provide residents with opportunities to gain required
clinical experiences. The program will provide a list of all currently used settings and rotations in the self-
study document. The visiting committee will randomly select and visit several settings and rotation
locations during the site visit to the program to evaluate compliance with Commission on Dental
Accreditation standards. Prior Commission approval of these settings and rotations will not be required.
EOPP
February 2024
- 98 -
For predoctoral dental education programs, when primary program faculty travel with student(s) to a site and
competency is assessed, the site may be treated as a minor site for reporting purposes.
The use of service-learning/community service sites are exempt from reporting.
Expansion of a developing dental hygiene program and/or current or developing dental assisting program will
only be considered after the program has demonstrated success by graduating the first class, measured
outcomes of the academic program, and received approval without reporting requirements.
Fees Related to the Use of Educational Activity Sites:
All programs accredited by the Commission pay an annual fee. Additional fees will be based on actual
accreditation costs incurred during the visit to and educational activity site. The Commission office should
be contacted for current information on fees.
Commission on Dental Accreditation Consideration of Educational Activity Sites:
The Commission uses the following process when considering reports for adding educational activity sites.
Program administrators have the option of consulting with Commission staff at any time during this
process.
1. Depending upon the type of educational activity site established, a program administrator submits either:
(1) the major educational activity site report by May 1 or November 1 or (2) the minor educational
activity site report at least thirty (30) days prior to planned implementation of educational activity site.
2. Commission staff reviews the report to assess its completeness and to determine whether the change
could impact the program’s potential ability to comply with the accreditation standards. If this is the
case, whether the site is major or minor, the report is reviewed by the appropriate Review Committee
for the discipline and by the Commission.
3. Receipt of the educational activity site report and accompanying documentation is acknowledged in one
of the following ways:
a. The program administrator is informed that the report will be reviewed by the appropriate Review
Committee and by the Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. Additional
information may be requested prior to this review if the change is not well-documented; or
b. The program administrator is informed that the reported change will be reviewed during the next
site visit.
4. If the report will be considered by a Review Committee and by the Commission, the report is added to
the appropriate agendas. The program administrator receives notice of the results of the Commission’s
review.
The following alternatives may be recommended by Review Committees and/or be taken by the
Commission in relation to the review of reports of addition of educational activity sites received from
accredited educational programs.
• Approve the addition of the educational activity site: If the Review Committees or Commission does
not identify any concerns regarding the program’s continued compliance with the accreditation
standards, the transmittal letter should advise the institution that the change has been noted and will be
reviewed at the next regularly-scheduled site visit to the program.
• Approve the addition of the educational activity site and request additional information: If the Review
Committees or Commission does not identify any concerns regarding the program’s compliance with
the accreditation standards, but believes follow up reporting is required to ensure continued compliance
with accreditation standards, additional information will be requested for review by the Commission.
EOPP
February 2024
- 99 -
Additional information could occur through a supplemental report or a focused site visit. Use of the
educational site is permitted.
• Postpone action and continue the program’s accreditation status, but request additional information:
The transmittal letter will inform the institution that the report of the addition of the educational activity
site has been considered, but that concerns regarding continued compliance with the accreditation
standards have been identified. Additional specific information regarding the identified concerns will
be requested for review by the Commission. The institution will be further advised that, if the
additional information submitted does not satisfy the Commission regarding the identified concerns, the
Commission reserves the right to request additional documentation, conduct a special focused site visit
of the program, or deny the request. Use of the educational activity site is not permitted until
Commission approval is granted.
• Deny the request: If the submitted information does not indicate that the program will continue to
comply with the accreditation standards, the Commission will deny the request for the addition of
educational activity sites. The institutions will be advised that they may re-submit the request with
additional information if they choose.
Revised: 2/24; 2/22; 8/18; 8/17; Reaffirmed: 8/20; Adopted: 2/16 (Former Off-Campus Policy)
T. POLICY ON DISTANCE EDUCATION
The Commission’s accreditation standards have been stated, purposefully, in terms which allow flexibility,
innovation and experimentation. Regardless of the method(s) used to provide instruction, the Commission
expects that each accredited program will comply with the accreditation standards.
Distance education means education that uses one or more of the technologies listed below to deliver
instruction to students/residents/fellows who are separated from the instructor or instructors and to support
regular and substantive interaction between the students/residents/fellows and the instructor or instructors,
either synchronously or asynchronously. The technologies may include:
• the internet;
• one-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave,
broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices;
• audio conference; or
• Other media used in a course in conjunction with any of the technologies listed above.
For purposes of this definition, an instructor is an individual responsible for delivering course content and who
meets the qualifications for instruction established by an institution’s or program’s accrediting agency.
For purposes of this definition, substantive interaction is engaging students/residents/fellows in teaching,
learning, and assessment, consistent with the content under discussion, and also includes at least two of the
following:
• Providing direct instruction;
• Assessing or providing feedback on a student’s/resident’s/fellow’s coursework;
• Providing information or responding to questions about the content of a course or competency;
• Facilitating a group discussion regarding the content of a course or competency; or
• Other instructional activities approved by the institution’s or program’s accrediting agency.
EOPP
February 2024
- 100 -
An institution ensures regular interaction between a student/resident/fellow and an instructor or instructors
by, prior to the student’s/resident’s/fellow’s completion of a course or competency:
• Providing the opportunity for substantive interactions with the student/resident/fellow on a
predictable and scheduled basis commensurate with the length of time and the amount of content in
the course or competency; and
• Monitoring the student’s/resident’s/fellow’s academic engagement and success and ensuring that an
instructor is responsible for promptly and proactively engaging in substantive interaction with the
student/resident/fellow when needed on the basis of such monitoring, or upon request by the
student/resident/fellow.
A program that is planning to implement the use of distance education methods must submit a report of
program change (See Policy on Reporting Program Changes in Accredited Programs) and include evidence
of the program’s compliance with the Student/Resident/Fellow Identity Verification noted below. Upon
review and Commission acknowledgement that the program has addressed all Student/Resident/Fellow
Identity Verification requirements, the use of distance education and the program’s compliance with the
below noted items will be further reviewed at the time of the program’s next site visit.
Revised: 8/21; 8/20; 8/10; Reaffirmed: 8/15
1. Student/Resident/Fellow Identity Verification Requirement For Programs That Offer Distance
Education:
Programs that offer distance education must:
• have a process in place through which the program establishes that the student/resident/fellow who
registers in a distance education course or program is the same student/resident/fellow who participates
in and completes the course or program and receives the academic credit;
• verify the identity of a student/resident/fellow who participates in class or coursework by using, at the
option of the program, methods such as a secure login and pass code; proctored examinations; and/or
new or other technologies and practices that are effective in verifying student/resident/fellow identity;
• make clear in writing that processes are used that protect student/resident/fellow privacy;
• notify students/residents/fellows of any projected additional student/resident/fellow charges associated
with the verification of student/resident/fellow identity at the time of registration or enrollment.
Revised: 8/21; 8/20; Reaffirmed: 8/15; Adopted: 8/10
U. POLICY ON INSTITUTIONS OFFERING BOTH ACCREDITED AND NON-ACCREDITED
PROGRAMS
Institutions offering both accredited programs and non-accredited programs, (other than continuing
education programs) have an obligation to explain program differences to potential students and the
community. Therefore, any information publicizing the institution’s programs should indicate which
programs are and are not accredited by the Commission.
Because establishment of a non-accredited program may dilute the instructional resources available for the
accredited program, the Commission reserves the right to request information about a non-accredited
program and its relationship to the accredited program.
Revised: 8/13; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/15; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01, 12/90, 12/85
EOPP
February 2024
- 101 -
V. POLICY ON COMBINED CERTIFICATE AND DEGREE PROGRAMS IN ADVANCED DENTAL
EDUCATION
The Commission supports the principle that advanced dental education programs culminate with the
awarding of a certificate attesting to successful completion of an accredited program. Further, such
certificates indicate fulfillment of educational requirements and are recognized as meeting eligibility
requirements for ethical announcement of limitation of practice and examination by the dental certifying
boards.
The Commission expects that advanced dental education programs leading to the awarding of a certificate
and an academic degree, (e.g. M.S. or Ph.D. degree), will be conducted in compliance with standards
stipulated by the graduate school. Graduate level academic degrees must maintain the level of excellence,
quality controls and academic standards established by the graduate school of the university. The
Commission further expects that the requirements for research projects and theses will demonstrate a
scholarly effort. It is recognized that completion of the educational requirements, as stipulated in the
accreditation standards on advanced dental education training and the academic degree requirements of a
graduate school, may require an additional year of training devoted primarily to research and theses
completion.
Revised: 8/18; 8/15; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; CODA: 12/76:2
W. QUALIFICATIONS OF A PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR A COMBINED ADVANCED DENTAL
EDUCATION PROGRAM
When an institution sponsors a combined advanced dental education program, (e.g. orthodontics and
dentofacial orthopedics/periodontics), it is most desirable that the program director be qualified according
to the accreditation standards in all areas involved in the combined program. At a minimum, the program
director must be qualified (i.e. board certified by nationally accepted certifying boards or grandfathered) in
one of the involved areas and educationally trained (i.e. completed a Commission-accredited advanced
dental education program) in the other involved areas. Board certification is to be active and applies to an
interim/acting program director as well.
Revised: 8/18; 8/15; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/10, 7/07
X. POLICY ON REGARD FOR DECISIONS OF STATES AND OTHER ACCREDITING AGENCIES
The Commission takes into account decisions made by other recognized accrediting or state agencies. If the
Commission determines that an institution sponsoring an accredited program or a program seeking
accreditation is the subject of an interim action or threatened loss of accreditation or legal authority to
provide postsecondary education, the Commission will act as follows.
The Commission does not renew the accreditation status of a program during any period in which the
institution offering the program:
• Is the subject of an interim action or final decision by a recognized institutional accrediting agency
potentially leading to the suspension, revocation, withdrawal, or termination of accreditation or pre-
accreditation;
• Is the subject of a decision by a recognized institutional accrediting agency to deny accreditation or pre-
accreditation;
EOPP
February 2024
- 102 -
• Is the subject of a pending or final action by a state agency potentially leading to the suspension, revocation,
withdrawal or termination of the institution's legal authority to provide postsecondary education;
• Has been notified of probation or an equivalent status, or a threatened loss of accreditation, and the due
process procedures required by the action have not been completed; and/or
• Has been notified of a threatened suspension, revocation, or termination by a state of the institution's legal
authority to provide postsecondary education, and the due process procedures required by the action have not
been completed.
In considering whether to grant initial accreditation to a program, the Commission takes into account actions by:
• Recognized institutional accrediting agencies that have denied accreditation or pre-accreditation to the
institution offering the program, placed the institution on public probationary status, or revoked the
accreditation or pre-accreditation of the institution; and
• State agency that has suspended, revoked, or terminated the institution's legal authority to provide
postsecondary education.
If the Commission grants accreditation to a program notwithstanding its actions described above, the
Commission will provide to the USDE Secretary, within 30 days of granting initial or continued
accreditation, a thorough and reasonable explanation, consistent with the accreditation standards, why the
action by a recognized institutional accrediting agency or the state does not preclude the Commission's
grant of accreditation. The Commission’s review and explanation will consider each of the findings of the
other agency in light of its own standards. Upon formal request, the Commission will share with other
appropriate USDE-recognized accrediting agencies and USDE-recognized State approval agencies
information about the accreditation status of a program and any adverse actions it has taken against an
accredited program.
Revised: 2/21; 5/12; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/15; 8/10, 7/07, 7/01; Revised: 7/96; 12/88
Y. COMMENTS ON POLICY PROPOSED AND/OR ADOPTED BY PARTICIPATING
ORGANIZATIONS
The Commission may provide comments on another organization’s proposed policy, procedures, or other
documents as part of that organization’s review and comment period when requested.
Revised: 1/03; Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/15; 8/10, 7/09; CODA: 05/93:10
Z. POLICY ON RESIDENT DUTY HOURS RESTRICTIONS
The Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) acknowledges the revised resident duty-hours and
supervision requirements of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).
Recognized by the United States Department of Education, the Commission is the specialized
programmatic accreditor for dental and dental-related programs. Institutions in which both graduate
medical education residencies and advanced dental education programs reside may determine that CODA-
accredited programs should comply with ACGME standards. It is the policy of the Commission that the
institution should consider the accreditation standards of the Commission on Dental Accreditation for
hospital-based dental residency programs and consider whether the ACGME requirements are in the best
interests of patient safety, resident education and the CODA-accredited programs.
Reaffirmed: 8/20; 8/15; Adopted: 8/11
EOPP
February 2024
- 103 -
AA. POLICY ON CUSTOMIZED SURVEY DATA REQUESTS
Periodically, the Commission receives requests for data collected in the annual surveys of accredited dental
education programs from the communities of interest. The nature and scope of a request will determine
whether approval of the Commission and the ADA Officers or the ADA Board of Trustees must be
attained. For all types of requests, a “Survey Data Request Form” must be submitted to the Director of the
Commission, who will consult with the ADA Health Policy Institute or appropriate ADA agency regarding
the potential for supplying requested data. This form is available upon request from the Commission office
or the ADA Health Policy Institute. Examples of potential requesting parties include member and non-
member dentists; other dental professionals; deans, dental faculty and affiliates of dental education
programs; non-profit dental organizations; researchers; and government officials (Federal and state).
Granting the request is at the sole discretion of the ADA.
Requests which can be approved directly through the ADA Division of Education and Professional Affairs
involve non-confidential and non-commercial data and include:
• Data that are collected in the annual surveys and are available publicly, but presented in a different
way than the published report (e.g., broken down by certain characteristics, by individual
school/program, and/or for a specific trend period).
• Data that are collected in different surveys and published in different reports, grouped together in a
single report.
Survey data will not be provided for the following types of requests:
• Requests made for data from surveys that are still in the data collection or analysis phase. Custom
data requests cannot be fulfilled if the corresponding published report has not yet been released.
• Confidential data (e.g., financial data; curriculum/patient care figures collected from advanced
programs; protected student information).
• Requests at a level of granularity which would compromise confidentiality of the survey
respondents.
• Requests that involve reproduction in a publication of any sort, appear to be for the purpose of
monetary gain, or used in some type of litigation or for questionable motives.
• The scope of the request exceeds the Health Policy Institute’s workload capacity.
Additional requirements:
• Requests will be granted only in the following output formats used by the Health Policy Institute:
Word, PDF, Excel, and certain SAS output types.
• Fees are charged based on a time estimate to complete the request, with a one-hour minimum. The
Commission office should be contacted for current fees and rates.
• A formal agreement specifying the permitted use of the data is required before the Health Policy
Institute will act on the request.
Revised: 8/15; Reaffirmed: 8/20; Adopted: 8/11
BB. POLICY ON REQUESTS FOR CONTACT DISTRIBUTION LISTS
Periodically, the Commission receives requests for contact distribution lists from the communities of interest.
The nature and scope of a request will determine whether the Commission will be able to comply with the
request. For all types of requests, a “Contact Distribution List Request Form” must be submitted to the
Director of the Commission, who will consult with CODA staff regarding the potential for supplying the
EOPP
February 2024
- 104 -
requested lists based on staff workload capacity and the purpose for which the contact list is requested. This
form is available upon request from the Commission office. Examples of potential requesting parties include
member and non-member dentists; other dental professionals; deans, dental faculty and affiliates of dental
education programs; non-profit dental organizations; researchers; and government officials (Federal and
state). Contact distribution lists will not be supplied to commercial interests. A commercial interest is defined
as an entity or corporation whose primary purpose for requesting the information is to sell a product or
service. Granting the request is at the sole discretion of the Commission.
Additional requirements:
• Requests will be granted only in Excel format.
• The Commission office should be contacted for current fees and rates.
• A formal agreement specifying the permitted use of the data is required before the Commission will act
on the request.
Revised: 8/20 8/15; 1/14; Adopted: 8/12
CC. POLICY ON REPRINTS
All Commission on Dental Accreditation material is copyrighted and may be reprinted by permission only.
“Reprint” means reproducing Commission materials in any paper or electronic format or media. Requests
must be in writing or via e-mail. Permission will not be granted over the phone.
Requests must include the exact materials intended for reprint, i.e.: “Accreditation Standards for Dental
Education Programs – Standard 5.” All permissions are granted for one-time usage only, as stated in the
permission agreement.
The Commission requires that materials be reprinted, unedited and in their entirety. Deletion or alteration of
any Commission on Dental Accreditation material is prohibited. Content must not be placed on any
electronic platform; however, the reprint may include a link to the Commission’s website where the
material is located.
The Commission does not provide hard copies of the requested reprint content.
Each page of the reproduced Commission on Dental Accreditation material should contain the following
statement, clearly indicting these materials are the Commission’s. The statement must be placed at the
bottom of each page of the print copy (remove quotation marks):
“Reprinted by permission of the Commission on Dental Accreditation, [current year]. Further
reproduction by permission only. Permission to reprint Commission on Dental Accreditation
materials does not constitute explicit or implicit endorsement of any activity, program, or
presentation in which the materials may be used.”
No content may be translated into any language without the expressed permission of the Commission on
Dental Accreditation.
Revised: 2/21; 1/20; Reaffirmed: 8/20; Adopted: 8/18
EOPP
February 2024
- 105 -
VI. COMPLAINTS
A. DEFINITION
A complaint is defined by the Commission on Dental Accreditation as one alleging that a Commission-
accredited educational program, a program which has an application for initial accreditation pending, or the
Commission may not be in substantial compliance with Commission standards or required accreditation
procedures.
B. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO FILE COMPLAINTS: In accord with the U.S. Department of
Education’s Criteria and Procedures for Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, the Commission requires
accredited programs to notify students of an opportunity to file complaints with the Commission.
Each program accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation must develop and implement a
procedure to inform students of the mailing address and telephone number of the Commission on Dental
Accreditation. The notice, to be distributed at regular intervals, but at least annually, must include but is not
necessarily limited to the following language:
The Commission on Dental Accreditation will review complaints that relate to a program's
compliance with the accreditation standards. The Commission is interested in the sustained quality
and continued improvement of dental and dental-related education programs but does not intervene
on behalf of individuals or act as a court of appeal for treatment received by patients or individuals in
matters of admission, appointment, promotion or dismissal of faculty, staff or students.
A copy of the appropriate accreditation standards and/or the Commission's policy and procedure for
submission of complaints may be obtained by contacting the Commission at 211 East Chicago Avenue,
Chicago, IL 60611-2678 or by calling 1-312-440-4653.
The accredited program must retain in its files information to document compliance with this policy so that
it is available for review during the Commission's on-site reviews of the program.
REQUIRED RECORD OF COMPLAINTS: The program must maintain a record of student complaints
received since the Commission’s last comprehensive review of the program.
At the time of a program’s regularly scheduled on-site evaluation, visiting committees evaluate the
program’s compliance with the Commission’s policy on the Required Record of Complaints. The team
reviews the areas identified in the program’s record of complaints during the site visit and includes findings
in the draft site visit report and note at the final conference.
Revised: 2/13, 8/02, 1/9; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/15; 8/10, 7/09, 7/08, 7/07, 7/04, 7/01, 7/96; CODA:01/94:64
EOPP
February 2024
- 106 -
C. COMMISSION LOG OF COMPLAINTS
A log is maintained of all complaints received by the Commission. A central log related to each complaint
is maintained in an electronic data base. Detailed notes of each complaint and its disposition are also
maintained in individual program files.
Revised: 8/10, 7/06, 7/02, 7/00, 7/96; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/15; CODA: 01/95:5
D. POLICY AND PROCEDURE REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
The following policy and procedures have been developed to handle the investigation of “formal” complaints
and “anonymous” comments/complaints about an accredited program, or a program which has a current
application for initial accreditation pending, which may not be in substantial compliance with Commission
standards or established accreditation policies.
The Commission will consider formal, written, signed complaints using the procedure noted in the section
entitled “Formal Complaints.” Unsigned comments/complaints will be considered “anonymous
comments/complaints” and addressed as set forth in the section entitled “Anonymous
Comments/Complaints.” Oral comments/complaints will not be considered.
Formal Complaints
A “formal” complaint is defined as a complaint filed in written (or electronic) form and signed by the
complainant. This complaint should outline the specific policy, procedure or standard in question and
rationale for the complaint including specific documentation or examples. Complainants who submit
complaints verbally will receive direction to submit a formal complaint to the Commission in written,
signed form following guidelines in the EOPP manual.
1. Investigative Procedures for Formal Complaints: Students, faculty, constituent dental societies, state
boards of dentistry, patients, and other interested parties may submit an appropriate, signed, formal
complaint to the Commission on Dental Accreditation regarding any Commission accredited dental, allied
dental or advanced dental education program, or a program that has an application for initial accreditation
pending. An appropriate complaint is one that directly addresses a program’s compliance with the
Commission’s standards, policies and procedures. The Commission is interested in the continued
improvement and sustained quality of dental and dental-related education programs but does not intervene
on behalf of individuals or act as a court of appeal for treatment received by patients or individuals in
matters of admission, appointment, promotion or dismissal of faculty, staff or students.
In accord with its responsibilities to determine compliance with accreditation standards, policies, and
procedures, the Commission does not intervene in complaints as a mediator but maintains, at all times, an
investigative role. This investigative approach to complaints does not require that the complainant be
identified to the program.
The Commission, upon request, will take every reasonable precaution to prevent the identity of the
complainant from being revealed to the program; however, the Commission cannot guarantee the
confidentiality of the complainant.
EOPP
February 2024
- 107 -
The Commission strongly encourages attempts at informal or formal resolution through the program's or
sponsoring institution's internal processes prior to initiating a formal complaint with the Commission. The
following procedures have been established to manage complaints:
When an inquiry about filing a complaint is received by the Commission office, the inquirer is provided a
copy of the Commission’s Evaluation and Operational Policies and Procedures Manual which includes the
policies and procedures for filing a complaint and the appropriate accreditation standards document.
The initial screening is usually completed within thirty (30) days and is intended to ascertain that the
potential complaint relates to a required accreditation policy or procedure (i.e. one contained in the
Commission’s Evaluation and Operational Policies and Procedure Manual) or to one or more accreditation
standard(s) or portion of a standard which have been or can be specifically identified by the complainant.
Written correspondence clearly outlines the options available to the individual. It is noted that the burden
rests on the complainant to keep his/her identity confidential. If the complainant does not wish to reveal
his/her identity to the accredited program, he/she must develop the complaint in such a manner as to prevent
the identity from being evident. The complaint must be based on the accreditation standards or required
accreditation procedures. Submission of documentation which supports the noncompliance is strongly
encouraged.
When a complainant submits a written, signed statement describing the program’s noncompliance with
specifically identified policy(ies), procedure(s) or standard(s), along with the appropriate documentation,
the following procedure is followed:
1. The materials submitted are entered in the Commission’s database and the program’s file and reviewed
by Commission staff. At this point, the complaint is the property of the Commission and may not be
withdrawn by the complainant for the purposes of the Commission’s review.
2. Legal counsel, the Chair of the appropriate Review Committee, and the applicable Review Committee
members may be consulted to assist in determining whether there is sufficient information to proceed.
3. If the complaint provides sufficient evidence of probable cause of noncompliance with the standards or
required accreditation procedures, the complainant is so advised and the complaint is investigated using
the procedures in the following section, formal complaints.
4. If the complaint does not provide sufficient evidence of probable cause of noncompliance with the
standard(s) or required accreditation policy(ies), or procedure(s), the complainant is so advised. The
complainant may elect:
a. to revise and submit sufficient information to pursue a formal complaint; or
b. not to pursue the complaint. In that event, the decision will be so noted and no further action will
be taken.
Initial investigation of a complaint may reveal that the Commission is already aware of the program’s
noncompliance and is monitoring the program’s progress to demonstrate compliance. In this case, the
complainant is notified that the Commission is currently addressing the noncompliance issues noted in the
complaint. The complainant is informed of the program’s accreditation status and how to monitor the
program’s status through the Commission’s website.
Revised: 2/23; 2/18; 8/17; 1/14, 11/11; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/15; 8/10
2. Formal Complaints: Formal complaints (as defined above) are investigated as follows:
1. The complainant is informed in writing of the anticipated review schedule.
EOPP
February 2024
- 108 -
2. The Commission informs the chief administrative officer (CAO) of the institution sponsoring the
accredited program that the Commission has received information indicating that the program’s
compliance with specific required accreditation policy(ies), procedure(s) or designated standard(s) has
been questioned.
3. Program officials are asked to report on the program’s compliance with the required policy(ies),
procedure(s) or standard(s) in question by a specific date, usually within thirty (30) days.
a. For standard(s)-related complaints, the Commission uses the questions contained in the appropriate
sections of the self-study to provide guidance on the compliance issues to be addressed in the report
and on any documentation required to demonstrate compliance. Additional guidance on how to best
demonstrate compliance may also be provided to the program.
b. For policy(ies) or procedure(s)-related complaints, the Commission provides the program with the
appropriate policy or procedural statement from the Commission’s Evaluation and Operational
Policies and Procedures Manual. Additional guidance on how to best demonstrate compliance will
be provided to the program. The Chair of the appropriate Review Committee and/or legal counsel
may assist in developing this guidance.
4. Receipt of the program’s written compliance report, including documentation, is acknowledged.
5. The appropriate Review Committee and the Commission will investigate the issue(s) raised in the
complaint and review the program’s written compliance report at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
In the event that waiting until the next meeting would preclude a timely review, the appropriate Review
Committee(s) will review the compliance report in a telephone conference call(s). The action
recommended by the Review Committee(s) will be forwarded to the Commission for mail ballot
approval in this later case.
6. The Commission may act on the compliance question(s) raised by the complaint by:
a. determining that the program continues to comply with the policy(ies), procedure(s) or standard(s)
in question and that no further action is required.
b. determining that the program may not continue to comply with the policy(ies), procedure(s) or
standard(s) in question and going on to determine whether the corrective action the program would
take to come into full compliance could be documented and reported to the Commission in writing
or would require an on-site review.
i. If by written report: The Commission will describe the scope and nature of the problem and set
a compliance deadline and submission date for the report and documentation of corrective
action taken by the program.
ii. If by on-site review: The Commission will describe the scope and nature of the problem and
determine, based on the number and seriousness of the identified problem(s), whether the
matter can be reviewed at the next regularly scheduled on-site review or whether a special on-
site review will be conducted. If a special on-site review is required, the visit will be
scheduled and conducted in accord with the Commission's usual procedures for such site
visits.
c. determining that a program does not comply with the policy(ies), procedure(s) or standards(s) in
question and:
i. changing a fully-operational program’s accreditation status to “approval with reporting
requirements”
ii. going on to determine whether the corrective action the program would take to come into full
compliance could be documented and reported to the Commission in writing or would require
an on-site review.
• If by written report: The Commission will describe the scope and nature of the problem and
set a compliance deadline and submission date for the report and documentation of
corrective action taken by the program.
• If by on-site review: The Commission will describe the scope and nature of the problem
EOPP
February 2024
- 109 -
and determine, based on the number and seriousness of the identified problem(s), whether
the matter can be reviewed at the next regularly scheduled on-site review or whether a
special on-site review will be conducted. If a special on-site review is required, the visit
will be scheduled and conducted in accord with the Commission's usual procedures for
such site visits.
7. Within two weeks of its action on the results of its investigation, the Commission will also:
a. notify the program of the results of the investigation.
b. notify the complainant of the results of the investigation.
c. record the action.
8. The compliance of programs applying for initial accreditation is assessed through a combination of
written reports and on-site reviews.
a. When the Commission receives a complaint regarding a program which has an application for
initial accreditation pending, the Commission will satisfy itself about all issues of compliance
addressed in the complaint as part of its process of reviewing the applicant program for initial
accreditation.
b. Complainants will be informed that the Commission does provide developing programs with a
reasonable amount of time to come into full compliance with standards that are based on a certain
amount of operational experience.
Revised: 8/17; 1/98; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/15; 8/10, 7/09, 7/04; Adopted: 7/96
Anonymous Comments/Complaints
An “anonymous comment/complaint” is defined as an unsigned comment/complaint submitted to the
Commission. Any submitted information that identifies the complainant renders this submission a formal
complaint and will be reviewed as such (e.g. inclusion of a complainant’s name within an email or
submitted documentation).
All anonymous complaints will be reviewed by Commission staff to determine linkage to Accreditation
Standards or CODA policy and procedures. If linkage to Accreditation Standards or CODA policy is
identified, legal counsel, the Chair of the appropriate Review Committee, and the applicable Review
Committee members may be consulted to assist in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of
probable cause of noncompliance with the standard(s) or required accreditation policy(ies), or procedure(s)
to proceed with an investigation. The initial screening is usually completed within thirty (30) days. If
further investigation is warranted, the anonymous complaint will be handled as a formal complaint (See
Formal Complaints); however, due to the anonymous nature of the submission, the Commission will not
correspond with the complainant.
Anonymous comments/complaints determined to be unrelated to an Accreditation Standard or CODA
policies and procedures will not be considered. Anonymous comments/complaints that do not provide
sufficient evidence of probable cause of noncompliance with the standard(s) or required accreditation
policy(ies), or procedure(s) to proceed, will not be considered.
Revised: 8/22; 2/22; 2/21; Reaffirmed: 8/21; Adopted: 8/17
EOPP
February 2024
- 110 -
E. POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON COMPLAINTS DIRECTED AT THE COMMISSION ON
DENTAL ACCREDITATION
Interested parties may submit an appropriate, signed complaint to the Commission on Dental Accreditation
regarding Commission policy(ies), procedure(s) or the implementation thereof. The Commission will
determine whether the information submitted constitutes an appropriate complaint and will follow up
according to the established procedures.
Procedures:
1. Within two (2) weeks of receipt, the Commission will acknowledge the received information and
provide the complainant with the policy(ies) and procedure(s).
2. The Commission will collect additional information internally, if necessary, and then conduct an initial
screening to determine whether the complaint is appropriate. The initial screening is completed within
thirty (30) days.
3. The Commission will inform the complainant of the results of the initial screening.
4. If the complaint is determined to be appropriate, the Commission and appropriate committees will
consider the complaint at its next regularly scheduled meeting. The complaint will be considered in
closed session if the discussion will involve specific programs or institutions; otherwise, consideration
of the complaint will occur in open session. In the event that waiting until the next meeting would
preclude a timely review, the appropriate committee(s) will review the complaint in a telephone
conference call(s). The action recommended by the committees will be forwarded to the Commission
for mail ballot approval in this later case.
5. The Commission will consider changes in its policies and procedures, if indicated.
6. The Commission will inform the complainant of the results of consideration of the complaint within
two (2) weeks following the meeting or mail balloting of the Commission.
Revised: 1/98; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/15; 8/10; 7/09; 7/04; Adopted: 7/96
VII. DUE PROCESS
The Commission makes every effort to protect the due process rights of institutions and programs and
follow ethical accrediting practices. Because due process is a necessary and integral part of accreditation,
the Commission builds due process measures into various aspects of the accreditation process. For
example, the Commission sends a copy of the site visit report to the institution for review prior to action by
the Commission and encourages the institution to prepare a response to the report.
Adverse actions, or those that may be appealed, are defined as those related to denial or withdrawal of
accreditation. Such decisions become final fourteen (14) days after the date on the transmittal letter or
when any appeal has been resolved. The Commission has procedures in place to provide notice of the
reasons for taking an adverse accreditation action. Such procedures are required in order for accrediting
agencies to comply with U.S. Department of Education's Criteria and Procedures for Recognition of
Accrediting Agencies.
Notice of “intent to withdraw” accreditation at a subsequent meeting is sent by tracked electronic
communication within fourteen (14) days. (See “Notice of Accreditation Actions to Programs/Institutions”
for more information.)
The following sections describe the Commission’s due process practices and indicate the sequence of
events that is typically followed when such procedures are needed.
Revised: 2/23; 8/16; Reaffirmed: 8/21
EOPP
February 2024
- 111 -
A. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO SITE VISIT REPORTS
The most frequent way in which the Commission’s policies and procedures provide due process to an
institution is the opportunity that is always provided to an institution to review and to respond to the site
visit report prior to the Commission on Dental Accreditation taking an accreditation action. Due process
related to site visit reports is provided in the following three stages:
First, the institution is provided with a copy of the draft site visit report. The site visit committee approves
the draft site visit report which is then forwarded to the institution for review and comment.
Second, the institution is provided with an opportunity to respond to the draft report. The institution may
respond in three ways. The response may address:
• factual inaccuracies;
• differences in perception with the visiting committee; and/or
• progress made subsequent to the site visit to implement recommendations cited in the report.
This institutional response must be transmitted to the Commission within the specified time, up to thirty
(30) days from the time the report is sent to the institution. Factual inaccuracies noted in the report are
corrected. In addition, the Commission considers any responses related to differences in perception and any
reported progress in implementing recommendations contained in the report before it grants the
accreditation status.
A third opportunity for due process may occur after the institution has submitted its initial response to the
site visit report. An institution may provide supplemental information regarding implementation of
recommendations in the site visit report. Any supplemental information must be submitted prior to
December 1 for consideration at the winter Commission meeting and June 1 for consideration at the
summer Commission meeting. Such supplemental information is also considered by the Commission prior
to reaching an accreditation decision.
Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/16; 8/10
B. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO PROGRESS REPORTS
Another due process option is available to a program when an accreditation status of “approval with
reporting requirements” has been granted. The option involves further consideration at a subsequent
regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission.
The institution/program must submit a progress report at the time specified in the Commission’s transmittal
letter, i.e., the following meeting six months later. All reported progress is considered by the Commission
in determining the accreditation status. When a progress report is submitted, the specific instructions for
preparing the report must be followed. The signature of the chief administrative officer of the sponsoring
institution must be included with the report.
Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/16; 8/10
EOPP
February 2024
- 112 -
C. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO REVIEW COMMITTEE SPECIAL APPEARANCES
If the Commission, at its prior meeting, granted the status of “approval with reporting requirements,”
“approval with reporting requirements, intent to withdraw,” or denied a requested program change, and the
program submits a subsequent program change report, the program may request a special appearance
(hearing) at the next meeting of the Review Committee in order to supplement the written information which
has already been provided to the appropriate Review Committee. A representative of the institution would
be permitted to appear in person before the Review Committee to present this additional information.
Generally, such appearances occur prior to the Review Committee’s consideration of the program’s
accreditation classification. When such a special appearance is desired, a written request must be made to
the Director of the Commission thirty (30) days prior to the meeting. The Chair and Director of the
Commission will determine the disposition of the request and inform the requestor of the date, hour and
amount of time that will be allocated for the appearance.
If the requestor wishes to submit additional written materials, these materials should be provided by the
requestor to the Commission office at least one (1) week prior to the meeting, absent documented
extraordinary circumstances.
The Commission and its Review Committees permit special appearances using the following guidelines:
• The Review Committee will discuss the report of the program/institution prior to the appearance of the
representative(s).
• The Review Committee Chair will introduce members of the Review Committee to the
program/institutional representative.
• The Chair will restate to the representative(s) the amount of time allocated for the hearing.
• The representative is invited to make an opening statement.
• Following the presentation by the representative, the Chair allows members of the Review Committee
to ask questions. Although primary and secondary reviewers are assigned primary responsibility for
questioning, all Review Committee members have the opportunity to participate in the discussion.
• The Chair thanks the representative for appearing before the Review Committee and the representative
leaves.
• The Review Committee discusses the recommended action.
• The Review Committee Chair and Commission staff notifies the representative of the Review
Committee’s recommendation. If the Review Committee’s recommendation is to deny or withdraw
accreditation, the institution’s representation has the opportunity to have a hearing with the Commission
on a subsequent day.
• In general, special appearances before the Commission also follow the process listed above.
Revised: 8/21; 2/18; 8/16; 7/06, 1/00, 5/93, 1991, 1983; Reaffirmed: 8/10; Adopted: 1977
D. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO APPEAL OF ACCREDITATION STATUS DECISIONS
An institution/program may request a special appearance (hearing) before the appropriate Review Committee
in order to supplement the written information about the program which has already been provided to the
Review Committee. (See Due Process Related to Review Committee Special Appearance).
EOPP
February 2024
- 113 -
If the Review Committee’s recommended accreditation status to the Commission is “approval with
reporting requirements,” “approval with reporting requirements, intent to withdraw,” or if the Review
Committee recommends denying a requested program change, the Review Committee will make a
recommendation to the Director and Chair of the Commission and indicate whether an appearance before
the full Commission is appropriate.
If representatives of the institution choose to appear before the Commission, they may present arguments that the
Review Committee made an error in judgment, based on the information available, in making the accreditation
status or action recommendation. Alternately, representatives of the institution may choose to appear before the
Commission to address the Commission’s questions related to the Review Committee’s recommendation. During
the special appearance before the Commission, no new information regarding correction of deficiencies
subsequent to the Review Committee special appearance may be presented. The institution’s representative(s)
may attend the Commission meeting only during the time assigned for the hearing.
If the Commission determines the program accreditation status is “approval with reporting requirements,”
“approval with reporting requirements, intent to withdraw,” or denies a requested program change, and the
institution/program believes that the Commission has made an error in judgment regarding accreditation
status or action, a special appearance (hearing) before the Commission may be requested sixty (60) days
prior to the Commission meeting. The special appearance (hearing) before the Commission would be held
at the next regularly scheduled meeting. At the hearing, representatives of the institution may present
arguments that the Commission, based on the information available when the decision was made, made an
error in judgment in determining the accreditation status of the program. The Director of the Board of
Commissioners must receive any written evidence or argument at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing.
Under these circumstances, no new information regarding correction of deficiencies subsequent to the
previous Commission meeting may be presented. The institution’s representative(s) may attend the
Commission meeting only during the time assigned for the hearing.
The decision of the Commission on the accreditation status of the program after this special appearance is final.
Revised: 8/23; 2/23; 8/18; 8/16; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/10
E. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO DENIAL OF INITIAL ACCREDITATION
An institution/program may request a special appearance (hearing) before the appropriate Review Committee
in order to supplement the written information about the program which has already been provided to the
Review Committee. (See Due Process Related to Review Committee Special Appearance)
If the Review Committee’s recommendation to the Commission is to deny initial accreditation, the Review
Committee will make a recommendation to the Director and Chair of the Commission and indicate whether
an appearance by the program before the full Commission is appropriate. If so, representatives of the
institution may present arguments that the Review Committee made an error in judgment, based on the
information available, in making its recommendation to deny initial accreditation. During this special
appearance before the Commission, no new information regarding correction of deficiencies subsequent to
the Review Committee special appearance may be presented. The institution’s representative(s) may attend
the Commission meeting only during the time assigned for the hearing. If a program is denied accreditation
by the Commission, reasons for the denial are provided. Because denial of accreditation is defined as an
adverse action, notice of such decisions occurs within fourteen (14) days and is sent by tracked electronic
communication.
EOPP
February 2024
- 114 -
If the Review Committee recommendation to the Commission is to grant initial accreditation and the
Commission subsequently denies initial accreditation, reasons for the denial are provided. Because denial
of accreditation is defined as an adverse action, notice of such decisions occurs within fourteen (14) days
and is sent by tracked electronic communication. Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of such notice, the
educational program may, in writing, request a hearing before the Board of Commissioners at its next
meeting. Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the request, the Board of Commissioners shall schedule
a hearing and notify the educational program of the date, time and place of such hearing. A request for a
hearing due to the Board of Commissioner’s decision to deny for the first time, accreditation to a new
program, shall automatically stay the decision to deny accreditation. In the event the educational program
that has been denied initial accreditation for the first time does not make a timely request for a hearing, the
Board of Commissioners’ findings and proposed decision to deny accreditation shall become final.
In both circumstances outlined above the program has the opportunity, at the next regularly scheduled
Commission meeting, to present additional information to the Commission through the appropriate Review
Committee, following the special appearance procedures outlined in “Due Process Related to Review
Committee Special Appearances.” Such a request for a hearing automatically stays the Commission’s
decision. When a program has been denied initial accreditation and requests a stay of that decision, no
additional application fee will be assessed. Should a program choose to reapply, rather than request a stay
of the Commission’s decision, a second application fee must be submitted with the program’s reapplication.
If, following reconsideration, the Commission again denies accreditation to the program, the program will
be notified of its right to appeal this decision to the Appeal Board.
Programs also have the right, after initial accreditation is denied by the Commission the FIRST time, to
immediately appeal this decision to the Appeal Board. If the Appeal Board sustains the decision of the
Commission, the program forfeits the right to present additional information to the Commission through the
appropriate Review Committee as outlined above.
Adverse actions, or those that may be appealed, are defined as those related to denial or withdrawal of
accreditation. Such decisions become final fourteen (14) days after the date on the transmittal letter or
when any appeal has been resolved. The Commission has procedures in place to provide notice of the
reasons for taking an adverse accreditation action. Such procedures are required in order for accrediting
agencies to comply with U.S. Department of Education's Criteria and Procedures for Recognition of
Accrediting Agencies. The Commission’s notice of initiated and final adverse actions will be reported as
described in the Commission’s Procedure For Disclosure Notice Of Adverse Actions.
Revised: 2/23; 4/22; 8/18; 8/16; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/10
F. DUE PROCESS RELATED TO WITHDRAWAL OF ACCREDITATION
An institution/program may request a special appearance (hearing) before the appropriate Review Committee
in order to supplement the written information about the program which has already been provided to the
Review Committee. (See Due Process Related to Review Committee Special Appearance)
If the Review Committee’s recommendation to the Commission is to withdraw accreditation, the
Commission will notify the institution of the proposed action and the date of the Commission meeting at
which the Review Committee’s recommendation will be considered. This notification will advise the
institution of its right to provide additional information for the Commission to consider prior to reaching a
EOPP
February 2024
- 115 -
decision on the proposed action. Any additional information must be submitted in writing at least one (1)
week prior to the meeting, absent documented extraordinary circumstances, and should include any reasons
why the institution believes that the withdrawal of accreditation is unjustified.
If the Commission determines that accreditation should be withdrawn, the program will be notified within
fourteen (14) days and the notification is sent by tracked electronic communication. The program is also
notified of its right to appeal this decision to the Appeal Board. The filing of an appeal shall automatically
stay the final decision of the Commission.
Adverse actions, or those that may be appealed, are defined as those related to denial or withdrawal of
accreditation. Such decisions become final fourteen (14) days after the date on the transmittal letter or
when any appeal has been resolved. The Commission has procedures in place to provide notice of the
reasons for taking an adverse accreditation action. Such procedures are required in order for accrediting
agencies to comply with U.S. Department of Education's Criteria and Procedures for Recognition of
Accrediting Agencies. The Commission’s notice of initiated and final adverse actions will be reported as
described in the Commission’s Procedure For Disclosure Notice Of Adverse Actions.
Revised: 2/23; 4/22; 2/19; 8/18; 2/18; 8/16; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/10
G. FUNCTION AND PROCEDURES OF THE APPEAL BOARD
The principal function of the Appeal Board is to determine whether the Commission on Dental
Accreditation, in arriving at a decision regarding the withdrawal or denial of accreditation for a given
program, has properly applied the facts presented to it. In addition, the Commission’s Rules stipulate that
the Appeal Board shall provide the educational program filing the appeal the opportunity to be represented
by legal counsel and shall give the program the opportunity to offer evidence and argument in writing
and/or orally to try to refute or overcome the findings and decision of the Commission.
Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/16; 8/10
1. Appeal Board: The four (4) permanent members of the Appeal Board include: one (1) representative
selected by the American Dental Association, one (1) representative selected by the American Association of
Dental Boards, one (1) representative selected by the American Dental Education Association and one (1)
consumer representative selected by the Commission on Dental Accreditation. Representatives from allied
or advanced dental education areas would also be included on the Appeal Board, depending on the nature of
the appeal. Appeal Board members do not concurrently serve on the Commission. (See Rules of the
Commission, Article III, Section 2. Appeal Board Composition, p. 5)
The Appeal Board is an autonomous body, separate from the Commission. Costs related to appeal
procedures will be underwritten, whenever possible, by the institution and the Commission on an equally
shared cost basis.
Revised: 8/18; 8/16; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/10
2. Selection Criteria For Appeal Board Members: The Appeal Board Member shall not be:
• a current member of a dental or allied dental faculty*;
• an employee, member of the governing board, owner, shareholder of, or independent consultant to, a
program that either is accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation, has applied for initial
accreditation, or is not-accredited*; and
• spouse/partner, parent, child, or sibling of an individual identified above;
• current member of the Commission; and/or
EOPP
February 2024
- 116 -
• an individual who has participated in any step of the process leading up to the decision that is being
appealed (e.g. member of the visiting committee, member of Review Committee, etc,).
In addition to the criteria noted above, the public/consumer member of the Appeal Board shall not be:
• a dentist or member of an allied dental discipline,
• a member or employee of any professional/trade association, licensing/regulatory agency or
membership organization related to, affiliated with or associated with the Commission, dental education
or dentistry, or
• spouse/partner, parent, child, or sibling of an individual identified above.
The Appeal Board Member shall:
• be willing to participate as a member of the appellate body should it be convened; and
• be willing to comply with all Commission policies and procedures (e.g., Agreement of Confidentiality;
Conflict of Interest Policy; and Professional Conduct Policy and Prohibition Against Harassment).
In the absence of a public member on the Appeal Board, a public member from a review committee not
involved in the discipline-specific appeal may be temporarily appointed to the Appeal Board.
*Discipline-specific representatives from allied or advanced dental education areas and the ADEA
representative can be a program director, faculty member or practitioner.
Revised: 2/24; 4/22; 8/18; 2/16; 8/14; 2/13; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/16; 8/10
3. Appeal Procedures: If a program has been denied accreditation or if its accreditation has been
withdrawn, the following appeal procedures are followed:
1. Within fourteen (14) days after the institution’s receipt of notification of the Commission on Dental
Accreditation’s decision to deny or withdraw accreditation, the program may file a written request of
appeal to the Director of the Commission. If a request of appeal is not made, the Commission’s
proposed decision will automatically become final and the appropriate announcement will be made.
2. If a request of appeal is received, the Director of the Commission shall acknowledge receipt of the
request and notify the program of the date of the appeal hearing. The appeal date shall be within sixty
(60) days after the appeal has been filed.
3. The program filing the appeal may be represented by legal counsel in addition to the program
administrator and other program representatives and shall be given the opportunity at such hearing to
offer evidence and argument in writing or orally or both tending to refute or overcome the findings and
decision of the Board of Commissioners. The educational program need not appear in person or by its
representative at the appellate hearing.
4. Legal counsel of the American Dental Association will be available to members of the Appeal Board
upon request.
5. No new information regarding correction of the deficiencies may be presented with the exception of
review of new financial information if all of the following conditions are met: (i) The financial
information was unavailable to the institution or program until after the decision subject to appeal was
made. (ii) The financial information is significant and bears materially on the financial deficiencies
identified by the Commission. The criteria of significance and materiality are determined by the
Commission. (iii) The only remaining deficiency cited by the Commission in support of a final adverse
action decision is the institution’s or program’s failure to meet the Commission’s standard pertaining to
finances. An institution or program may seek the review of new financial information described in this
section only once and any determination by the Commission made with respect to that review does not
provide a basis for an appeal.
EOPP
February 2024
- 117 -
6. The Appeal Board may make the following decisions: to affirm, amend, or remand the adverse actions
of the Commission. A decision to affirm, or amend the adverse action is implemented by the
Commission. In a decision to remand the adverse action for further consideration, the Appeal Board
will identify specific issues that the Commission must address. The Commission must act in a manner
consistent with the Appeal Board’s decisions or instructions.
7. No change in the accreditation status of the program will occur pending disposition of the appeal.
8. Within ten (10) days of the hearing, the applicant shall be notified by tracked electronic communication
of the Appeal Board's decision. The decision may be to sustain the decision of the Commission or to
remand the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration. Notice shall include a statement of the
specifics on which the decision is based.
9. The decision rendered by the Appeal Board shall be final and binding.
10. In the event the educational program does not file a timely appeal of the Board of Commissioner’s
findings and decisions, the Board of Commissioner’s decision shall become final. The Commission’s
notice of final adverse actions will be reported as described in the Commission’s Procedure For
Disclosure Notice Of Adverse Actions.
In accord with due process measures, the Appeal Board will, when appropriate, review substantive
procedural issues raised by the appellants. To this end, the Appeal Board is limited in its inquiry to the
factual determinations up to the time of the Commission on Dental Accreditation’s decision regarding the
status of the program at issue.
It is not proper for the Appeal Board to either receive or consider facts not previously presented to the
Commission on Dental Accreditation since it does not sit as an initial reviewing body. Similarly, it is not
the function of the Appeal Board to determine whether the facts, singularly or cumulatively, justify the
decision of the Commission on Dental Accreditation unless it can be shown that the Commission’s decision
was clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence. Further, the Appeal Board will not hear testimony
relative to the reasonableness of previously determined requirements for accreditation since this is clearly
outside the scope of authority of this reviewing body.
Revised: 2/23; 4/22; 2/21; 8/18; 8/16; 8/11, 1/03; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/10
4. Mechanism For The Conduct Of The Appeal Hearing:
1. A brief opening statement may be made by the Commission of Dental Accreditation for the purpose of
establishing the Commission’s finding and the reasons therefore.
2. The Appellant will then present its argument to the Board.
3. The Commission may then present its rebuttal of the Appellant’s argument.
4. After hearing the evidence, the Appeal Board shall meet in executive session to discuss the appeal and
make its decision. The Appeal Board’s decision may be to sustain the decision of the Commission, or
remand the matter to the Commission for reconsideration. The decision shall be based on a majority
vote of the members of the Appeal Board with the Chair voting only to break a tie vote.
5. The Appellant shall be notified by tracked electronic communication of the decision of the Appeal
Board, including a statement of specifics, within ten (10) days following the hearing.
Revised: 2/23; 8/16; 7/07, 7/06, 7/00, 12/88, 1978; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/11, 8/10; Adopted: 12/77
EOPP
February 2024
- 118 -
VIII. INTERNATIONAL PREDOCTORAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Dental accreditation in the United States is a voluntary quality evaluation system that includes a standard
setting and review process to promote the goal of continuous quality improvement in dental education.
Additional goals are to provide public protection and accountability and to assure prospective students and
state licensing agencies that educational programs provide appropriate education, training and experience to
adequately prepare individuals for dental licensure and practice in the U.S. International dental education
programs may seek consultation and/or accreditation services from the Commission on Dental Accreditation
for the purpose of obtaining an independent, external review, for benchmarking or to serve the needs of
graduates who may wish to demonstrate their preparedness for licensure in a state in the U.S.
International consultation and accreditation fee-based services are available to international predoctoral
dental education programs, upon request. Once an international dental education program meets the
established criteria, consultation and accreditation services will be provided in accord with Commission
policies and procedures. Eligibility criteria and Commission policies, standards and procedures are subject
to change and will be periodically reviewed and updated. It is the responsibility of programs to keep
informed of changes in accreditation policies and procedures, and abide by all current policies and
procedures.
An international dental education program is defined as a program located and sponsored by an institution
whose primary location is outside of the United States and Canada. The Commission will only accept
requests for consultation and accreditation fee-based services from established international dental
education programs. The international dental education program must be:
• accepted in its country of origin;
• officially chartered/recognized in its country of origin; and
• recognized or accredited by the country’s relevant government or non-governmental agency.
International predoctoral dental education program seeking accreditation by the Commission must meet the
same Accreditation Standards for Dental Education Programs as the United States-based programs and
follow the same process and procedures.
All correspondence, written documents and conversation with the Commission must be in English. If any
portion of the consultation and accreditation program is conducted in a language other than English, and
translation is required, the Commission will employ a translator of its choosing. The cost of translation will
be charged to the international dental education program.
Revised: 8/16; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/10
A. THE CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR PREDOCTORAL INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
International consultation and accreditation fee-based services are available to international predoctoral
dental education programs, upon request. Attainment of accreditation from the Commission on Dental
Accreditation is a multi-step process that involves self-study, observation of the Commission’s accreditation
process, and consultation with Commission staff, site reviewers, and the Standing Committee on
International Accreditation. To begin the process, the Dean of the International Education Program or
International University President/Provost requests, in writing, information from the Commission regarding
its fee-based consultation and accreditation services.
EOPP
February 2024
- 119 -
The consultation process includes the following steps:
1. Completion of the Preliminary Accreditation Consultation Visit (PACV) survey.
2. Observation of a Commission dental school site visit and individual consultation
3. Completion of a PACV self-study and consultation visit
4. Application for accreditation from the Commission on Dental Accreditation.
At each step of the process a report is submitted to the Standing Committee on International Accreditation.
The Committee’s findings are communicated to the international dental education program and the
Commission. If the consensus of the Standing Committee is that the international program has the potential
to achieve U.S. accreditation, the program may elect to submit an application for accreditation. A positive
determination from the Standing Committee at any step in the process does not guarantee that an
application for accreditation will be successful. An international program may elect to withdraw from the
consultation and or accreditation process at any time; however, the chief academic officer should inform the
Standing Committee in writing of the program’s intent.
Revised: 2/16; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/16; 8/10
B. INTERNATIONAL PREDOCTORAL DENTAL EDUCATION SITE VISITS
Three types of site visits may be conducted to international dental education programs.
FOCUSED CONSULTATION VISIT: Focused, fee-based programmatic consultation services are available
for programs requesting less than comprehensive consultation services or for programs that the Standing
Committee has determined would benefit from a focused consultation. Trained content experts will provide
the consultation services.
In preparation for the consultation visit, the international dental school will prepare a written document
describing its policies and procedures related to the focused topics. The written material will be submitted
ninety (90) days prior to an on-site focused consultation visit. All documents and communications will be
in English.
Two site visitors (Commission staff and/or volunteers) selected for their expertise in the focused topic areas
will make up the visiting committee that provides the focused consultation services and carries out the visit.
The trip may be seven days in length, allowing ample time for the committee to adjust to any time change
and to access lower airfares. The program will receive a written report summarizing the review and
recommendations within sixty (60) days.
COMPREHENSIVE CONSULTATION VISIT: A comprehensive, fee-based site visit with programmatic
consultation by trained content experts regarding topics such as:
• Institutional effectiveness/outcomes assessment
• Curriculum content and scope
• Competency-based curriculum
• Faculty and staff qualifications and numbers
• Type and adequacy of facilities
• Patient care services and policies
• Student policies and services
• Research for both faculty and staff
EOPP
February 2024
- 120 -
• Readiness for accreditation
• Quality assurance
• Comprehensive patient care
• Relationship of dental school to the university and government
• Standards of care
In preparation for a comprehensive consultative site visit, the international dental schools will prepare a
written document describing its policies and procedures related to the above topics. All documents and
communications will be in English. Four site visitors (curriculum specialist, basic science specialist, clinician
educator, and clinician practitioner representing the American Dental Association) and one Commission staff
will make up the visiting committee that will conduct the PACV.
The visit will involve several interviews with the identified stakeholders of the international dental education
program and the institution’s administration. Interviews will be conducted with the appropriate
administrators, faculty, staff and students. The visiting committee will also provide consultation regarding
the facilities. A written report summarizing the evaluation will be provided to the program within sixty (60)
days.
ACCREDITATION SITE VISIT: The Commission’s accreditation service for international dental education
programs is the same as the process and procedures of the accreditation program for U.S.-based dental
education programs. The application process for accreditation of fully-operational international programs will
not be modified. For fully-operational programs, one site visit would occur upon application and, if
successful, subsequent visits would occur on the usual seven-year cycle established for U.S. predoctoral
dental education programs.
Programs that are successful in the PACV may submit an application for accreditation and an application fee
for accreditation. The program will also be responsible for all site visit expenses (actual expenses) for all site
visits during the application process and regular site visit schedule. International programs will pay an
administrative fee of 25% of the total site visit cost to the program for coordination of each site visit.
Accredited programs also pay an annual fee. All fees must be paid in advance in United States dollars and
include any bank or other transaction fees. See CODA Policy on Fees and contact the Commission office for
current fee schedule.
Commission site visitors will then be selected to evaluate the written application and determine whether the
application is complete and the program is ready for an accreditation site visit. Once the Commission
determines that the program has submitted sufficient information to determine the program’s potential for
complying with the accreditation standards, a site visit will be scheduled.
A visiting committee consists of six (6) Commission trained volunteer site visitors and one Commission
staff. The committee includes a chair, basic scientist, curriculum site visitor, clinical science site visitor,
finance site visitor, and a national licensure site visitor.
The accreditation visit, following the process established for U.S.-based programs, will involve several
interviews with the identified stakeholders of the international dental program and the institution’s
administration. Interviews are conducted with the appropriate administrators, faculty, staff and students.
The accreditation site visit committee also verifies that the written application accurately represents the
program through multiple interviews, observations, on-site documentation review and facility inspection.
EOPP
February 2024
- 121 -
Following the site visit, the visiting committee writes a preliminary draft site visit report that will be
considered by the Review Committee on Predoctoral Dental Education and the Commission. The
Commission then determines whether to grant the program the appropriate accreditation status.
Revised: 8/21; 8/16; 2/16; 8/14; 1/14; Reaffirmed: 8/10; Adopted: 7/06
C. BROAD ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PRELIMINARY ACCREDITATION CONSULTATION
VISIT (PACV)
The PACV survey will be evaluated by the Standing Committee on International Accreditation using the
following broad criteria. These criteria are subject to change and will be periodically reviewed and updated.
• Information from the U.S. State Department confirms that no conditions (war, threat of terrorism,
etc.) exist that might put the safety of a visiting committee at risk.
• There are no cultural restrictions or legal restrictions which would make site visits by U.S. citizens
problematic.
• The PACV survey responses in English are appropriate and understandable.
• The dental school or program has a sponsoring university.
• There is an accreditation and/or approval process within the country for higher education and the
sponsoring university or dental school is accredited/approved within the country.
• A letter of support from the accreditation/approval agency has been submitted to the Commission.
• The university or institution that sponsors the dental program has been determined to meet the
requirements for equivalency to U.S. regional accreditation.
• The school or program is degree granting.
• It appears the program has adequate financial support.
• The dental school or program has been in existence long enough to have had several graduating
classes.
• The education model is essentially similar to that in the U.S. and Canada.
• Pre-requisites for admission to the dental school are appropriate and adequate.
• The number of full-time and part-time faculty appears to be adequate based on the number of
students enrolled.
• There appears to be a developed curriculum plan with adequate clock hours in:
o Basic Sciences
o Preclinical laboratory
o Clinical sciences
• Clinical treatment of patients is an essential part of the educational program.
• There appears to be developed facilities for dental education.
• Health care standards and standards of care for dentistry support the practice of dentistry in
essentially the same manner as in the U.S.
Revised: 2/16; Reaffirmed: 8/21; 8/16; 8/10
D. POLICY ON PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING PRELIMINARY ACCREDITATION
CONSULTATION VISIT (PACV) AND INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION SITE VISITS
The Commission on Dental Accreditation has developed the following policy and procedures for use in
planning and implementing international Preliminary Accreditation Consultation Visit (PACV) and
Commission accreditation site visits. (See the policy on Staff Consulting Services).
EOPP
February 2024
- 122 -
Prior to staff and volunteer travel, travel warnings from the US Department of State, US Department of
Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be continuously
monitored. Additionally, the Commission will ensure there are no cultural restrictions or legal restrictions
which would make PACV or accreditation site visits in any international location by Commission staff and
volunteers problematic. Volunteers will be identified and invited to attend with the full knowledge of travel
warnings. Prior to travel, the Commission Director in consultation with the Commission Chair will
determine whether CODA volunteers and staff require additional security, which would be the
responsibility of the international dental education program to which the Commission is traveling.
The Commission reserves the right to change travel plans due to safety, health, or similar concerns, as
warranted by the Commission Director in consultation with the Commission Chair. The Commission also
reserves the right to cancel international travel when US State Department or other concerns discourage
travel due to potential threats to safety or health (war, terrorism, health, etc.). All costs incurred by the
Commission and/or its volunteers will be borne by the international program.
Site visits may be rescheduled within the same calendar year without prior approval by the full
Commission. Site visits rescheduled in the following calendar year must be approved by the Commission
(See Rescheduling Dates of Site Visits). Accreditation decisions for programs whose site visit has been
rescheduled or cancelled due to circumstances beyond the control of the Commission and/or program will
be made on a case-by-case basis.
Reaffirmed: 8/21; Adopted: 8/17
IX. COMMISSION HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
The American Dental Association (ADA) authorized the Council on Dental Education to accredit dental
schools in 1938; however, the Requirements for the Approval of a Dental School did not go into effect until
the 1941-42 academic year. The Council’s initial accrediting activities were confined to dental schools. As
the dental profession developed and grew, however, the scope of accrediting activities also grew. Current
activities include accreditation of educational programs for dental assisting, dental hygiene and dental
laboratory technology and accreditation of advanced dental education programs, in addition to predoctoral
dental education programs.
In 1973, the House of Delegates of the American Dental Association approved the establishment of a
Commission on Accreditation of Dental and Dental Auxiliary Educational Programs. In 1979 this body’s
name was officially changed to the Commission on Dental Accreditation. The twenty (20) member
Commission included the twelve (12) Council on Dental Education members, four of whom represented the
American Dental Association (ADEA), four the American Association of Dental Boards and four the
American Dental Education Association. The additional eight (8) Commission representatives included two
(2) dental specialists selected by specialty organizations having certifying boards recognized by the
Association, one (1) representative selected by the American Dental Assistants Association, one (1)
representative selected by the American Dental Hygienists’ Association, one (1) certified dental laboratory
technician selected by the National Association of Dental Laboratories, one (1) student representative
selected jointly by the American Student Dental Association and the Council of Students of the American
Dental Education Association and two (2) public representatives selected by the Council on Dental
Education.
In 1979 the Commission on Accreditation of Dental and Dental Auxiliary Education Programs was
renamed the Commission on Dental Accreditation.
EOPP
February 2024
- 123 -
In 1996, the ADA House of Delegates adopted two resolutions (84H-1996 and 142H-1996) calling for the
restructuring of the ADA’s Council on Dental Education and the Commission on Dental Accreditation.
Specifically, members of the Council on Dental Education would no longer serve concurrently as members
of the Commission. The Council and Commission became two distinct agencies with separate
memberships, at the adjournment of the 1997 House of Delegates.
In August 1997, the Commission adopted revised Rules of the Commission on Dental Accreditation to
complement the resolutions adopted by the 1996 House of Delegates. In October 1997, the ADA House of
Delegates approved the Commission’s revised Rules. The members of the Commission now includes: four
(4) dentists appointed by the American Dental Association, four (4) dentists appointed by the American
Dental Education Association, four (4) dentists appointed by the American Association of Dental Boards,
one (1) dentist for each ADA recognized specialty appointed by the respective specialty sponsoring
organization, one (1) dentist to represent postdoctoral general dentistry jointly appointed by the ADEA and
the American Association of Hospital Dentists, one (1) certified dental assistant selected by the American
Dental Assistants Association, one (1) licensed dental hygienist selected by the American Dental
Hygienists’ Association, one (1) certified dental laboratory technician selected by the National Association
of Dental Laboratories, one (1) student jointly selected by ADEA and the American Student Dental
Association, and four (4) consumers. Language was also added to clarify that when assigned by the ADA
Board of Trustees, a member of the Standing Committee on the New Dentist is an ex-officio member of the
Commission without the right to vote (in accord with Chapter VII, Section 150 of the ADA Bylaws.)
In July 2004, the Commission adopted the Request to Establish a Process of Accreditation for Programs in
Areas of Advanced Training in General Dentistry (currently called Policies and Procedures for
Accreditation of Programs in Areas of Advanced Education in General Dentistry).
In January 2005, the Commission directed that a process of accreditation be established for advanced
general dentistry programs in the area of dental anesthesiology and in the area of oral medicine.
In January 2006, the Commission adopted the revised Review Committee Composition which was
implemented in January 2007.
In July 2006, the Commission discontinued the use of commendations in written site visit reports.
In July 2006, the Commission adopted CODA: International Policies and Procedures for accreditation of
international predoctoral dental education programs.
In January 2008, the Commission directed that a process of accreditation be established for advanced
general dentistry programs in the area of orofacial pain.
In August 2010, the Commission adopted the Principles and Criteria Eligibility of Allied Dental Programs
for Accreditation by the Commission on Dental Accreditation.
In August 2015, the Commission directed that a process of accreditation be established for dental therapy
education programs.
In February 2018, the Commission directed that all accreditation standards and supporting documents, the
Commission website, and other accreditation policies and procedures eliminate terminology that
unintentionally dictates which advanced dental education program is a dental specialty.
EOPP
February 2024
- 124 -
In October 2018, sole authority to revise the Rules of the Commission on Dental Accreditation was granted
to the Commission on Dental Accreditation by the ADA House of Delegates.
In January 2020, the Commission adopted a comprehensive review and revision of the Rules of the
Commission in accordance with recent ADA Governance changes.
In February 2021, the Commission directed the establishment of three (3) Review Committees, one (1) each
for dental anesthesiology, oral medicine, and orofacial pain, effective January 1, 2022. The Commission
directed the appointment of three (3) Commissioners, one (1) each for dental anesthesiology, oral medicine,
and orofacial pain, effective January 1, 2022. The Commission directed the appointment of three (3)
Appeal Board members, one (1) each for dental anesthesiology, oral medicine, and orofacial pain, effective
January 1, 2022.
X. NON-GOVERNMENTAL RECOGNITION OF POSTSECONDARY ACCREDITATION
Since 1952, the Commission on Dental Accreditation has been recognized by the Secretary of the United
States Department of Education (USDE) as the agency responsible for the accreditation of dental and
dental-related educational programs. In addition, the Commission has sought and received recognition from
a non-governmental recognition agency since the 1960’s. These non-governmental agencies have included
the National Commission on Accrediting (NCA), the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA) and
the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA).
COPA was formed in 1975. The Commission received full recognition for the maximum period when
evaluated in 1977 by COPA. In 1984 and again in 1989, the Commission submitted re-recognition
materials to COPA and was awarded full recognition each time. In April 1993, the COPA Board voted to
dissolve the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, effective at the end of 1993. The Commission on
Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA) was formed and took over the recognition function
from COPA, effective January 1, 1994.
The Commission on Dental Accreditation submitted re-recognition materials for review by CORPA at its
February 1996 meeting. In March 1996, the Commission received notification that CORPA had granted the
Commission re-recognition for the maximum period of five years and cited no areas of noncompliance.
The Commission’s next re-recognition review by CORPA was conducted in 2001.
On December 31, 1996, CORPA filed Articles of Dissolution, as voted by CORPA at its August 1996
meeting. The Commission was informed that CORPA recognition function would become a responsibility
of the newly-established Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). In February 1997, the
accrediting community was informed about recent actions of the CHEA Board of Directors. The letter
stated that for an accrediting agency to be eligible for CHEA recognition, it must have a majority of degree
granting programs or institutions. In early March 1997 the Commission was informed that CHEA had
accepted the Commission’s CORPA recognition status.
In January 1999, the Commission on Dental Accreditation considered a report on the recently established
Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and its newly approved Recognition of Accrediting
Organizations Policy and Procedures, effective January 1999. The Commission noted that accreditation
agencies were eligible to apply for recognition of CHEA if the majority of the accredited programs were
degree granting. At that time, 41.3% of Commission-accredited programs were granting degrees. Thus, the
Commission was not eligible for CHEA recognition and would have to pursue an exemption from the
EOPP
February 2024
- 125 -
eligibility requirements if CHEA recognition were to be sought. At that time, the Commission determined
not to request an exemption for the Eligibility Policy, but to continue to monitor issues being addressed by
the higher education community through attendance at CHEA conferences. The Commission may pursue
CHEA recognition in the future.
XI. RECOGNITION CHRONOLOGY - - DENTISTRY
1840 The first dental school was established and the first state statute requiring a license to practice
dentistry was passed.
1847 The American Medical Association was founded to advance the profession through state licensing
and improving educational quality.
1859 The American Dental Association (ADA) was founded. At the time of the Civil War, it divided into
two organizations, the ADA and the Southern Dental Association. In 1897, these two groups merged
into the National Dental Association. In 1921, the NDA changed its name back to the ADA.
1867 The Office of Education was established to collect statistics, including data on the numbers of
schools and colleges.
1906 The nine-member Dental Educational Council of America was established with its membership
equally representing education, licensure and practice.
1934 The Dental Educational Council of America issued its last listing of dental schools using the A, B,
C terminology (Reports 1958:59). There were 39 dental schools at this time.
1937 The nine-member ADA Council on Dental Education was established, retaining the tripartite
structure of the earlier Dental Educational Council of America (educators, examiners,
practitioners); the Council membership expanded to 12 members in 1974, again retaining the
tripartite structure.
1937 Educational standards for dental schools were approved by the ADA House of Delegates for
implementation in 1941-42.
1949 The National Commission on Accrediting (NCA) began operating, taking over responsibilities and
files of the Joint Committee on Accrediting which had been established in 1938 to control proliferation
of accrediting entities.
1952 Public Law82-250 tries to correct abuses in the G.I. Bill by requiring the U.S. Commissioner of
Education to publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies.
1952 The Council on Dental Education is recognized by the U.S. Office of Education as the national
accrediting agency for dentistry (Trans.1954:26).
1963 The first reference to the National Commission on Accrediting (NCA) occurs in the Council’s annual
report (Reports 1963:11)
EOPP
February 2024
- 126 -
1964 The Council received recognition from NCA as the “official accrediting agency in the area of
dental hygiene education” and had previously received similar recognition for accreditation of
dental education programs (Reports 1964:10)
1964 The Federation of Regional Accrediting Agencies for Higher Education (FRACHE) replaces the
National Commission of Regional Accrediting Agencies (NCRAA) which was formed in 1947 by the
American Council on Education (ACE).
1968 The NCA recognized the Council for its accreditation of dental assisting and dental laboratory
technology education programs (Trans.1968:37)
1972 The Council’s recognition by NCA was continued for five years; the U.S. Office of Educationcriteria
were being revised (Reports 1972:19; see also pp.17-20 for discussion of federal influence on
education)
1973 The ADA House of Delegates transferred dentistry’s accreditation program from the Council on
Dental Education to the new 20-member Commission on Accreditation of Dental and Dental Auxiliary
Education Programs (effective January 1975). Support for the tripartite membership of the Council
was reaffirmed (Reports 1973:21). The Council reported to the House that it would jeopardize its
recognition were to use accreditation sanctions to enforce Association policy (Reports 1973:25).
1973 The Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA) formed; NCA and FRACHE dissolved.
1974 The Council membership expanded to 12 members, again retaining the tripartite structure originated
when the Dental Educational Council of America was formed in 1906.
1975 The Commission on Accreditation of Dental and Dental Auxiliary Education Programs began to
accredit educational programs. There were 59 dental schools at this time.
1975 After several years of effort, the National Commission on Accrediting and the Federation of
Regional Accrediting Commission of Higher Education merged on January 1, 1975 to become the
Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). For the first time, representatives from the
Council of Specialized Accrediting Agencies (the group representing all recognized specialized
accrediting agencies) had a voice within COPA in policy and decision-making processes.
1977 The Commission received full recognition for the maximum period when evaluated in 1977 (by
both COPA and the U.S. Office of Education) (Reports 1982:40; 1977:25)
1979 The Commission on Accreditation of Dental and Dental Auxiliary Education Programs was
renamed the Commission on Dental Accreditation (Reports 1979:67); the U.S. Office of Education
became the U.S. Department of Education and its first Secretary was sworn in on December 6,
1979.
1980 The Commission presented testimony to a subcommittee of the U.S. Department/Office of
Education against the 1979 petition of the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools
(ABHES) to expand its scope in 14 additional areas of education in the proprietary sector,
including the two Commission-accredited areas of dental assisting and dental laboratory
technician. In 1980 this ABHES petition was denied (Reports 1980:43).
EOPP
February 2024
- 127 -
1981 The Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES) petitioned USDE to expand its
accreditation scope to include institutional accreditation of private, postsecondary institutions
offering allied health education programs. The Commission did not support or oppose the
institutional expansion of scope, but did express concern about how the public might interpret
ABHES' institutional accreditation where DA and DLT programs are concerned. In late 1982, the
Department approved the petition, despite the Commission's concern to ABHES (Reports 1982:45;
1983:38).
1984 The Commission submitted one application/petition to the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation
(COPA) and the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and received full recognition for the
maximum terms (5 and 4 years) from each agency. The Commission’s accreditation of advanced and
specialty education programs was now recognized by COPA, as well as by USDE.
1988- The Commission submitted re-recognition materials to COPA and USDE; COPA granted
1989 the Commission the maximum period of five years, citing no specific areas of noncompliance, but
required an annual progress report until revision of the dental hygiene accreditation standards was
completed; USDE granted the Commission the maximum period of five years and cited no areas of
noncompliance.
1993 In April 1993, the COPA Board voted to dissolve the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation,
effective the end of 1993. Partially in response to the anticipated dissolution of COPA, the
Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors ASPA) was incorporated in August
1993. In June 1993, nine regional and seven national higher education associations formed the
National Policy Board on Higher Education Institutional Accreditation (NPB).
1994 The Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA) was formed and took
over the recognition function from COPA, effective January 1, 1994.
1995- The Commission submitted re-recognition materials to the U.S. Department of Education in
1996 November, 1995, using Criteria effective on July 1, 1994. USDE granted the Commission re-
recognition for the maximum period of five years, but required submission of a progress report to
ensure compliance with several new USDE criteria for recognition.
1995- The Commission submitted re-recognition materials for review by the Commission on
1996 Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA) at its February 1996 meeting based on the
Provisions revised by COPA during its last year of operation. The Provisions were adopted by
CORPA when it was formed and went into effect in January 1994. CORPA granted the
Commission re-recognition for the maximum period of five years and cited no areas of
noncompliance.
1996 On December 31, 1996 CORPA filed Articles of Dissolution. The Commission on Dental
Accreditation was informed that the CORPA recognition function would be assumed by the
Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
1997 In March 1997 the Commission was informed that because the Commission was recognized by
CORPA, CHEA was extending that recognition until new recognition standards can be developed.
EOPP
February 2024
- 128 -
1997 In June 1997 the USDE considered the Commission’s progress report demonstrating strengthened
compliance with several of the new recognition criteria. The USDE accepted the report and
requested an interim report by June 1, 1998 demonstrating full compliance with four cited criteria.
1998 In December 1998, the USDE considered the Commission’s interim report on compliance with the
four cited criteria. The USDE determined that the Commission was in full compliance with
§602.21(b)(2); §602.26(c)(3); and §602.27(f), but needed to take additional action to come into full
compliance with criterion §602.26(c)(4). The USDE requested that another report be submitted by
December 9, 1999 demonstrating full compliance with criterion §602.26(c)(4).
1998 On September 28, 1998, the CHEA Board of Directors approved the CHEA Recognition of
Accrediting Organizations Policy and Procedures, effective January 1999. CHEA’s Institutional
Eligibility and Recognition Policy stated that organizations which accredit programs were eligible
to apply for recognition by CHEA if the majority of the accredited programs are degree-granting.
CHEA reserved the right to amend its eligibility criteria for an ineligible accrediting agency.
1999 At is January 1999 meeting, the Commission noted that 545 of the Commission’s 1321 accredited
programs (41.3%) grant degrees and concluded that the Commission was not eligible for
recognition by CHEA. The Commission determined not to seek a waiver in pursuit of CHEA
recognition at that time, but to monitor the success of the newly established recognition program
for accrediting agencies, and continue participation in CHEA activities.
1999 In December 1999, the USDE considered the Commission’s interim report on compliance with
criterion §602.26(c)(4). The USDE Secretary found the Commission to be in compliance with
the requirement and accepted the interim report.
2002 On November 15, 2000, the Commission submitted its application to the Secretary of the United
States Department of Education (USDE) for continued recognition as the accrediting agency for
dental and dental-related education programs. The Secretary’s National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity reviewed the USDE Staff Analysis of the application and the
Commission’s response at its May 2001 meeting. The Commission received the Secretary’s final
transmittal letter, dated December 17, 2001, granting recognition to the Commission for the
maximum period of five years at its February 2002 meeting.
2005 In November 2005, the Commission submitted its application to the Secretary of the United
States Department of Education (USDE) for continued recognition as the accrediting agency for
dental and dental-related education programs. The Secretary’s National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity reviewed the USDE Staff Analysis of the application and the
Commission’s response at its June 2006 meeting.
2006 The Commission’s petition for continued recognition by the United States Department of Education
(USDE) received a favorable review by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality
and Integrity (NACIQI) at its meeting on June 5, 2006. The Secretary of the USDE granted
recognition to the Commission for the maximum period of five years starting December 12, 2006.
EOPP
February 2024
- 129 -
2012 On January 9, 2012, the Commission submitted its application to the Secretary of the United
States Department of Education (USDE) for continued recognition as the accrediting agency for
dental and dental-related education programs. The Secretary’s National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity reviewed the USDE Staff Analysis of the application and the
Commission’s response at its June 2012 meeting.
2012 In August 2012, the Commission received confirmation that the U.S. Secretary of Education
accepted the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity recommendation
that recognition be continued to permit the Commission an opportunity to, within a 12 month
period, bring itself into compliance with three criteria.
2013 In January 2013, the Commission submitted documentation that it is in compliance with the three
criteria cited in the final report. The Commission’s petition for continued recognition by the United
States Department of Education (USDE) received a favorable review by the National Advisory
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) at its meeting on June 6, 2013. In July
2013 the Secretary of the USDE Office of Postsecondary Education granted recognition to the
Commission for the maximum period of four years.
2017 On January 5, 2017, the Commission submitted its application to the Secretary of the United States
Department of Education (USDE) for continued recognition as the accrediting agency for dental
and dental-related education programs. The Secretary’s National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) reviewed the USDE Staff Analysis of the application
and the Commission’s response at its June 20, 2017 meeting. On September 20, 2017 the Assistant
Secretary of the USDE Office of Management granted recognition to the Commission for the
maximum period of five years.
2023 On September 18, 2020, the Commission submitted its application to the Secretary of the United
States Department of Education (USDE) for continued recognition as the accrediting agency for
dental and dental-related education programs. The Secretary’s National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) reviewed the USDE Staff Analysis of the application
and the Commission’s response at its July 20, 2022 meeting. On October 21, 2022 the Deputy
Under Secretary of the United States Department of Education granted recognition to the
Commission for the maximum period of five years.
EOPP
February 2024
- 130 -
Index
Accreditation Actions, 49
Accreditation Actions, Notice To Communities of
Interest, 23
Accreditation Cycle, 11
Accreditation Standards, 11
Accreditation Standards, Policy and Procedure for
Development and Revision, 32
Accreditation Status Definitions, 49
Accreditation of Programs in New Dental Education
Area or Discipline, policies and procedures, 54
Administrative Fund, 46
Adverse Actions, 24
Disclosure Notice, 25
Notice of Reasons, 24
Advertising, 93
Advertising and Student Recruitment, 93
Allied Dental Review Committees, procedure to
resolve differences, 19
American Dental Association Bylaws, 1
Appeal Board Function, 115
Selection Criteria, 115
Mechanism for conduct of hearing, 117
Procedures for appeals, 115
Application for Accreditation, 51
Initial Accreditation, developing programs, 52
Fully Operational Programs with enrollment, 51
Assessing the Validity and Reliability of
Accreditation Standards, 33
Canada, Reciprocal Agreement, 11
Combined Certificate and Degree Programs in
Advanced Dental Education, 101
Combined Advanced Dental Education Program
Director Qualifications, 101
Comments on Policy Proposed and/or Adopted by
Organizations, 102
Commission actions, communication to Review
Committees, 23
Commission and Commission Meetings, 20
Changes to the Composition of Board of
Commissioners, 26
Commission Committees, 28
History and Background, 122
Composition and Criteria, 20
Confidentiality Of Accreditation Reports, 23
Distribution Of Meeting Minutes, 23
Notice Of Accreditation Actions To
Programs/Institutions, 23
Website, information on, 80
Commission meetings, 19
Attendance at open portion, 22
Invited guests, 23
Policy On Absence, 21
Protocol For Review Of Accreditation Status, 21
Complaints, 105
Against Educational Programs, 106
Anonymous, 109
Definition, 105
Directed at the Commission on Dental
Accreditation, 110
Formal, 106
Investigative Procedures for Formal Complaints, 106
Log of Complaints, 106
Program Requirements and Procedures, 105
Composition of Review Committees and Board of
Commissioners Changes, 27
Confidentiality, 39
Agreement of, 42
Reminder of, 42
Conflict of Interest Policy, 36
Commission Staff Members, 39
Commissioners, Review Committee Members And
Members Of The Appeal Board, 37
Visiting Committee Members, 36
Contact Distribution List, Request, 103
Criteria for Granting Accreditation, 54
Customized Survey Data Requests, 103
Deadlines, Missed, 88
Decisions of States and Other Accrediting Agencies,
101
Developing Programs, Application for Initial
Accreditation, 51
Development of Administrative and Operational
Policy Statements, 13
Procedure, 13
Staff Protocol for Drafting, 14
Development and Revision of Accreditation
Standards, 32
Disclosure Notice, adverse actions, 25
Discontinuance, Voluntary, 91
Discontinuance or Closure of Educational Programs
Accredited By the Commission and Teach-Out
Plans, 92
Distance Education, 99
Distribution Lists, 104
Documents, Submission to CODA, 86
Due Process, 110
Appeal of Accreditation Status Decisions, 112
Denial of Initial Accreditation, 113
Progress Reports, 111
Review Committee Special Appearances, 112
Site Visit Reports, 111
Withdrawal of Accreditation, 114
EOPP
February 2024
- 131 -
Submission of Materials to CODA, 87
Enrollment
In A Developing Program Prior To Granting Of
Initial Accreditation Status, 52
Non-enrollment, First Year, 88
Requirement for Site Visits, 78
Enrollment Increases in Advanced Dental Education
Programs, 89
Enrollment Increases in Predoctoral Dental
Programs, Guidelines, 90
Time Limitation for Initial Accreditation, 54
Ethics in Programmatic Advertising and Student
Recruitment, 93
Failure to Comply with Commission Requests for
Survey Information, 88
Fees
Program Fees, 46
Administrative Processing, 46
Frequency Of Citings, 33
Fully Operational Programs with enrollment,
Application for Accreditation, 51
Commission Policies and Procedures, General, 30
Hearing on Standards, Procedures, 35
History and Authority of this Commission, 1
History and Background, CODA, 122
Initial Accreditation Application for developing
programs, 51
Institutions Offering Both Accredited and Non-
Accredited Programs, 101
Integrity, 12
International Dental Education Site Visits, 119
International Policies and Procedures, 118
International Predoc Programs, Consultation Process,
118
International Accreditation Site Visits, Policy on
Planning, 122
Interruption of Education, 88
Introduction and General Information, 1
Materials Available From the Commission, 31
Missed Deadlines, 87
New Commissioner Orientation and Training, 21
Non-Accredited Programs, 101
Non-Discrimination Policy, 44
Non-Enrollment of First Year Students, 88
Non-Government Recognition of Postsecondary
Accreditation, 124
Observers
On A Site Visit, 74
Silent, 74
Off-Campus Sites (Sites Where Educational Activity
Occurs), 95
PACV Broad Eligibility Criteria, 121
PACV Visits, Policy on Planning, 121
Philosophy of Accreditation, 11
Pre-Visit General Information, 58
Preparation and Submission of Documents to CODA,
Policy on, 86
Principles of Ethics in Programmatic Advertising and
Student Recruitment, 93
Professional Conduct and Prohibition Against
Harassment, 44
Program Changes in Accredited Programs, 82
Program Director Qualifications, Combined
Advanced Dental Education Program, 101
Program Files, Guidelines for Managing, 48
Programs Declining a Re-Evaluation Visit, 87
Programs, Fully Operational, 51
Programs, Developing, 53
Progress Reports, 81
Public Disclosure, 42
Public Statements, Policy on, 28
Qualifications of a Program Director for a Combined
Advanced Dental Education Program, 101
Reciprocal Agreement with Commission on Dental
Accreditation of Canada, 11
Recognition Chronology-Dentistry, 125
Referral of Policy Matters to Appropriate
Committees, 88
Removal of Commission, RC, Appeal Board
members, 27
Reporting and Approval of Sites Where Educational
Activity Occurs, 95
Reporting Program Changes in Accredited Programs, 82
Reprints, Policy on, 104
Requests for Contact Distribution Lists, 103
Requests for Transfer of Sponsorship of Accredited
Programs, 85
Resident Duty Hours Restrictions, 102
Retention of Program Files, 48
Review Committee Meetings, attendance at open
portion, 18
Review Committees
Chairs, 18
Composition, 15
Nomination Criteria, 17
Structure, 14
Change in Composition, 27
Calibration Protocol, 18
Review Committees and Board of Commissioners, 14
Review Committees and Review Committee
Meetings, 14
Rules Of The Commission On Dental Accreditation, 2
Scope and Decisions, 9
Self-Study General Information, 58
Silent Observers on Site Visits, 74
Simultaneous Service, 43
Sites Where Educational Activity Occurs, 95
Site Visits, declining, 87
Site Visit Procedures, 76
EOPP
February 2024
- 132 -
Duration Of Site Visits, 77
Enrollment Requirement For Site Visits For Fully
Developed Programs, 78
Final Conferences, 77
Post-Site Visit Evaluation, 78
Rescheduling Dates Of Site Visits, 78
Site Visit Reports, 78
Deadlines Supplemental Information, 79
Distribution Of Site Visit Reports, 80
Final Site Visit Report, 79
Institutional Review Of Site Visit Reports, 78
Policy On Reports For Co-Sponsored Programs, 80
Preliminary Site Visit Report, 78
Site Visitor Appointments, 63
Site Visitor Training Policy Statement On, 69
Site Visitors, 64
Site Visitors, Criteria For Nomination, 65
Educator Site Visitors, 66
Practitioner Site Visitors, 66
Advanced Dental Education, 67
Allied Dental Education in Dental Hygiene, 68
Allied Dental Education in Dental Assisting, 68
Allied Dental Education in Dental Laboratory
Technology, 68
Allied Dental Education in Dental Therapy, 69
Predoctoral Dental Education, 66
Site Visits, 60
Coordinated Site Visits, 61
Institutional Review Process – Reminder
Statement, 61
Invoicing Process for Special Focused Site Visits, 63
Overview And Accreditation Cycle, 60
Policy On Cooperative Site Visits With Other
Accreditors, 62
Policy On Special Site Visits, 62
Staff Consulting Services, 95
Staff Protocol For Drafting Policy Reports, 14
Standing Committees, 28
State Board Participation on Site Visits, 75
Student Identity Verification Requirement For
Programs That Have Distance Education Sites,
101
Survey Data Request, 103
Teach-Out Plans, 92
Third Party Comments, 59
Time Limitation For Initial Accreditation, 54
Time Limitation for Review of Applications, 52, 53
Transfer of Sponsorship of Accredited Programs, 85
United States Department of Education, 10
Validity and Reliability, 33
Voluntary Discontinuance of Accreditation, 90
Site Visitor Job Descriptions
Allied Dental Education, 72
Advanced Dental Education, 72
Predoctoral Chair, 70
Predoctoral, Basic Science, 71
Predoctoral, Clinical Sciences, 71
Predoctoral, Curriculum, 71
Predoctoral, Financial, 71
Predoctoral, National Licensure (Practitioner), 72
