When Accreditation Becomes a Requirement: Navigating Concerns About Compliance
We had a provider going through re-accreditation in a jurisdiction where IACET Accreditation is mandated for their industry. He was clearly invested in his learning programs and wanted to do things right, but he was also frustrated.
"Honestly," he said, "I know several of our competitors who are IACET-accredited, and they’re not even following the Standard anymore. What’s the point if no one’s holding them accountable?"
That question stayed with me, not because it was unfamiliar, but because it highlights a growing tension we’re seeing as IACET accreditation becomes a requirement from regulators and government agencies. It’s a valid concern and deserves a clear, thoughtful response.
Let’s take a closer look.
Voluntary by Design
The IACET Standard for Continuing Education and Training is a voluntary, consensus-based standard—and that distinction matters. Our accreditation program is grounded in the idea that organizations choose to align with the Standard because they’re committed to quality, transparency, and continuous improvement in their learning programs. The Standard is rigorous.
Accredited providers go beyond checkbox compliance; they are committed to maintaining a documented internal review process to ensure continuous adherence to the Standard (see Element 1.5). By pursuing accreditation, these organizations engage in meaningful self-assessment and establish robust systems that drive consistent quality. This commitment encompasses verifying that CEUs are awarded exclusively to the actual participants (Element 8.1) and conducting systematic evaluations aimed at ongoing improvement (Element 9.1).
This dedication introduces complexities but underscores the critical importance of upholding these standards.
What Happens When Accreditation Is Mandated?
In certain jurisdictions, IACET accreditation has transitioned from a voluntary pursuit to a regulatory mandate—a notable shift from internal aspiration to external obligation. As professionals in education and compliance are well aware, imposed requirements don't always inspire optimal engagement.
It's not uncommon to hear concerns from competitors or local organizations: "I've noticed several IACET-accredited providers here who aren't adhering to the Standard." Such observations are troubling—not just for IACET, but for the entire ecosystem. They erode trust, create unfair advantages, and risk devaluing the IACET brand as a symbol of quality.
So, how do we address this?
A Standard, Not a Police Force
Let's be clear: IACET is not a regulatory body. We lack investigative authority and cannot perform random, unannounced audits. Our accreditation framework is founded on transparency and trust, relying on providers to honor the commitments made during their accreditation process.
However, this doesn't render us powerless. On the contrary, this reliance on the broader learning community—including staff, learners, partners, and even competitors—is crucial for upholding the integrity of our accreditation system. If you suspect a provider is not complying with the IACET Standard, we encourage you to inform us. We offer multiple channels for reporting concerns:
- Email: feedback@iacet.org
- Phone: +1 (703) 763-0705
- Mail: 21670 Ridgetop Circle, Suite 170, Sterling, VA 20166
We welcome anonymous reports and treat every concern with the utmost seriousness. However, to initiate disciplinary action, we require substantive evidence. Unsubstantiated claims cannot lead to consequences, but detailed reports, especially those accompanied by documentation, can prompt thorough investigations and potentially a formal audit. If significant non-compliance is confirmed, it may result in suspension or termination of accreditation.
It's a Shared Responsibility
Maintaining the credibility of IACET accreditation is a shared responsibility. It involves every provider, instructional designer, facilitator, and learner who values quality in continuing education.
This collective commitment is more crucial than ever in a world where external pressures can compromise internal motivation.
I thought back to that conversation with the re-accrediting provider. His frustration was real—and valid. But after we talked through the options, he sighed and said, “Yeah, but I still don’t want to be the one to report it.”
At the heart of the matter is this: if everyone waits for someone else to act, progress stalls. Our system thrives when individuals committed to quality take a stand, even when it's uncomfortable. Reporting suspected non-compliance isn't about fault-finding or undermining others; it's about preserving the integrity and value of the IACET-accredited provider designation.
If you observe something amiss, speak up—not out of malice or competition but from a shared dedication to advancing a world that learns better.
About the Author
As the Chief Accreditation Officer, Karen is responsible for overseeing and implementing the accreditation application process and training solutions for the Commission and external stakeholders necessary to achieve the strategic and operational goals of the Board of Directors. She oversees the management of the application process, including appeals and denials, and the development and coordination of application workshops, application assistance webinars, and professional development learning events.
With over 20 years of experience as a continuing education professional and almost 15 years on the IACET Commission and as a Facilitator, she is an advocate for quality adult training, workforce development, and continuous improvement. Karen also serves as the staff liaison to the Competency-based Learning Task Force and the Distance Learning Taskforce.