In 2012, UNA will enter the reevaluation year of its 10-year accreditation cycle through the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, also known as SACS, which will determine if UNA meets the standards set by the association and other institutions of higher learning.

UNA has been continuously accredited since 1934, and according to several people involved in UNA’s reaffirmation process, UNA is not at risk of losing accreditation this time.

“We’re not going to lose accreditation,” said Dr. Phil Bridgmon, chair of the university’s Quality Enhancement Plan, also known as the QEP. “We have been very conscientious in our approach to reaffirmation. Many people across campus have devoted much time to reaffirmation.”

Bridgmon said that for UNA, the accreditation process is more than just signing up with an association, but a chance to improve the entire university.

“It’s a 10-year chance to have a check to make sure our priorities, values and practices are aligned,” Bridgmon said.

If the university did somehow lose its accreditation, though, not only would it lose its membership with SACS, but also a series of other benefits that would damage the university.

“If an institution loses their accreditation, they will lose financial aid through the federal government,” said Celia Reynolds, assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs for SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation. “That will affect various loans and Pell grants. And with that, enrollment would be sure to fall.”

According to Reynolds, if something did go wrong in a university’s attempt at accreditation, it is unlikely that they would completely lose it.

“For an institution, (the worst case scenario) would be losing accreditation completely,” Reynolds said. “It would be quite rare for a university to lose accreditation completely, unless something completely horrendous happened. There is a level, like an A-to-F grade, and SACS will give a specific amount of time and advice to the institution.”

Universities that lose their accreditation usually lose it because the university is in financial trouble, is holding an arrogant opinion of itself or just doesn’t pay attention to the process, according to Bridgmon.

“In terms of the report, they just don’t take it seriously,” Bridgmon said of universities with an overly arrogant attitude. “And incompetence comes from just not knowing the requirements.”

In terms of how UNA fairs in the financial, prepared and informed sense, Reynolds believes that the university is fine, even if the last 10 years have had serious changes.

“In the course of the 10-year process, state appropriations have dwindled and funding had to come from other sources,” Reynolds said. “The administration has been very prudent, and UNA is on steady financial ground.

“The administration is well-informed and involved in the process. As new policies are approved by the SACS board, I try to disseminate information about it.”

According to Bridgmon, UNA has already submitted its Compliance Certification for the reaffirmation period, and will receive feedback by mid-November on the state of certification. When the university receives the score, it will have a chance to respond to it before the actual on-site visit in February 2012.

The on-site visit usually lasts three days, with the first day dedicated to documentation and one-on-one interviews on campus, the second day focusing on the QEP and a few hours of the third day spent doing exit interviews.

Though the university is focused right now on accreditation, according to Reynolds, it’s a constant improvement process.

“There are two small but annual reports we have to submit,” Reynolds said. “There is something to keep us on our toes. You’d like to think you’d be doing those things anyway, but it helps to go through these processes.”