Accreditation Self-Study Report Template
Four documents and three sheets that join every accreditor criterion to dated exhibits, so evidence predating the review period surfaces before a reviewer finds it.
Free download · No account needed
Criterion to Evidence Map
Every criterion, against the date on its evidence
One row per criterion. Cites is what the narrative points at, on file is what exists, in period is what covers the review.
| Row | Criterion | Cites | On file | In period | Newest | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S2 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S3 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S4 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S5 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S6 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S7 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S8 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S9 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| S10 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Checks
| Check | What it counts | Value |
|---|---|---|
| CHK-1 | Criteria with nothing on file | — |
| CHK-2 | Criteria whose evidence all predates the period | — |
| CHK-3 | Exhibits three or more criteria rest on | — |
| CHK-4 | Exhibits outstanding, against days left | — |
The date column is the one an accreditor's own template has no room for, and it is the one that decides whether an exhibit is evidence.
Every self-study template an accreditor publishes is organised the same way: one section per criterion, write the narrative, attach the exhibits. That gives a criterion two states, addressed or not addressed. The expensive failure is neither. It is a criterion that is addressed, cites a real document, and cites one dated before the period under review. A checklist reports that criterion as complete, and so does everyone reading the checklist, right up until a reviewer opens the exhibit.
Thurloe College, ten criteria, 34 exhibits, 44 citations, 88 days to submission. The map verdicts each criterion four ways rather than two, and eight of ten came back readable against dated evidence in period. Two did not. Student complaints had nothing on file at all. Facilities had two exhibits on file and both predated the period, by 213 and 101 days. Neither is visible on a checklist, because both criteria have a section, a narrative and an exhibit reference.
A third finding only the join produces: programme length reads as evidenced, and rests on a credit hour policy dated 299 days before the period opened. Those ten criteria are the ten areas an accrediting agency's standards must cover, and the agency conducts its own analysis of the self-study and the supporting documentation rather than reading the narrative alone. The publication check asks whether that policy text is the version a committee approved, and the rubric weight check and the course design pack apply the same test one level down, against marks and against outcomes.
What's in the pack
Criterion to Evidence Map
One row per criterion holding what it cites, what exists, what falls in period, the newest date and a verdict with four states.
Exhibit Register
Every exhibit with its date, its owner, its status and the criteria citing it, so a late document names what it blocks.
Gap Register
The findings ranked by cost, from a criterion with nothing on file to an exhibit four criteria happen to share.
How the Criterion to Evidence Map Is Built
The four verdict states written out, why a checklist only has two, and what each verdict calls for next.
Exhibit Index
The index a reviewer reads, with dates and owners on every entry and the uncited exhibits flagged rather than hidden.
Self-study Narrative
The text by criterion, written against the map so each paragraph cites exhibits the register says are actually there.
Response to Prior Findings
Last review's findings answered with dated evidence of the action taken, including the ones whose source documents are still outstanding.
How to use it
- 1
Open it in River, or download it
Open the pack in River and let the agent build the map and run the date check, or download the seven blank Word and CSV files with no account.
- 2
Send the criteria and the two dates
Paste the accreditor's criteria, the submission date and the date the review period opens. Without that second date nothing can be verdicted.
- 3
Add the exhibit list, however rough
A spreadsheet, an email thread or a folder listing all work. Each exhibit needs a title, a date and an owner, and the missing dates become the first questions.
- 4
Read the gaps before the narrative
The map names the criteria with nothing on file, the ones resting on stale documents and the exhibits several criteria share. Chase those, then write.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes. Download all seven files as Word documents and CSV sheets with no signup and no card. Edit with AI is the optional path, where the agent builds the map from your own criteria and exhibit list. The rest of the packs sit in the template library.
What format are the downloaded files?
Word documents (.docx) for the narrative, the exhibit index, the response to prior findings and the method explainer, and CSV (.csv) for the three sheets, zipped together. They open in Word, Pages, Google Docs, Excel, Numbers and Sheets.
Does it work with my accreditor's criteria?
Yes, and it expects them rather than assuming them. The worked example uses the ten federal areas because they are public and stable, but the map takes whatever criteria you paste, in whatever numbering your handbook uses. The date check does not care what the criteria are called. For the student achievement criterion the exhibit usually comes from the outcome assessment pack.
How is this different from the template my accreditor publishes?
Theirs sets the structure the report has to arrive in, and you should follow it. This one answers a question that structure does not ask: whether the exhibit behind each criterion covers the period being reviewed. The two are used together, not instead of each other.
What if half our exhibits have no date recorded?
That is the normal starting state and the map treats it as a finding rather than a blank. An undated exhibit is not evidence yet, so it is listed with its owner and a request for the date, ahead of any narrative drafting on the criterion citing it.
Will it write the self-study for us?
It drafts against the map, which is a narrower claim. Each paragraph cites the exhibits the register says exist, and where a criterion is short of evidence it says so plainly rather than writing around the gap. The judgement and the submission stay yours.
Can we use it partway through a cycle?
Yes, and late is when it earns most, because the question stops being what is best and starts being what is real. On your institution's own cycle rather than the accreditor's, the programme review template scores what the last review changed before adding anything new.
Find the criterion whose evidence predates the review
Download the blank pack as Word and CSV files, or open it in River and have the map built from your own criteria and exhibit list.
Edit with AI