Accreditation

For decades NAAB has been funded by the four collateral organizations – AIA, NCARB, AIAS and ACSA—who work collectively to support accreditation. Since 2006, NAAB’s primary accreditation funding has been governed by successive memoranda of understanding that outline the amount, scope, and conditions for funding. Our last MOU expired at the end of 2023. 

Since funding renewal discussions began in June 2022, all four funders (AIA, NCARB, AIAS and ACSA) have rejected NAAB’s funding proposals. NAAB’s three funding proposals issued between June 2022 and November 2023, have called for a nearly 50% funding increase. 

In July 2024 NAAB announced a proposed funding model that increased funding to $1,614,144, an increase of $324,911 over its 2023 funding total (or 25%). This model included direct fees to architecture programs (rather than funding directly from ACSA via dues) as well as contributions from AIA and NCARB. 

The collateral organizations have worked consistently since 2022 to negotiate an agreement. We hired a facilitator in March 2023 to mediate the negotiations, and NAAB refused to compromise on the amount of its funding increase nor evaluate opportunities to streamline their processes.

In March 2024, AIA and NCARB commissioned an external assessment of NAAB’s operations and financial management. The report indicated that NAAB failed to adhere to the funding agreement it signed with the four organizations. The report found the organization used inconsistent and erroneous financial management and accounting practices that enabled the organization to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in surpluses for their general reserves. It is our position that those funds were improperly handled, because the funding agreement indicated that funds contributed by the four organizations were to be used only in the year in which they were given and not in any other year. The collateral organizations have called on NAAB to either recognize these surpluses as restricted funds or to return them to the organizations. 

In short, NAAB made decisions that fail to live up to the collaborative vision that led to the organization’s establishment. Moreover, their decisions do not align with their bylaws and IRS regulations, and undermine critical relationships between our allied organizations.

The No Confidence resolution calleds for immediate change in NAAB’s plans to charge schools directly, restore a multi-year funding agreement, and review areas to streamline the accreditation process both within NAAB and for the schools. 

ACSA postponed this vote in February, pending a three month period in which the organizations would further discuss a funding agreement. With NAAB announcing a new funding model with fees to schools, ACSA has decided to call for a members meeting on August 21, 2024, at 7:00 pm Eastern to discuss how to move forward.

• NAAB’s authority resides in architectural licensing requirements and NCARB’s recognition of NAAB as the sole accrediting organization. An accredited degree is required for licensure in 38 states. Getting licensed with less education is possible, but it requires additional work experience. NCARB currently specifies NAAB in its Model Law, which recommends statutory and regulatory language for use by NCARB’s Member Boards. A NAAB-accredited degree is also required for an NCARB Certificate, although experience can substitute for that. (If you want to understand more about licensing, visit NCARB’s page.)
• Consequently, schools do not have to be accredited, but accreditation indicates a level of quality, an orientation to the profession, and a commitment to professional education that is not merely vocational training, among other values. For these reasons, ACSA’s position is that we value having accreditation. NAAB’s move toward independence and toward charging schools directly without any written agreement with the organizations that created NAAB represents a radical change in the historic alliance (ACSA, NAAB, AIA, AIAS).

Our member schools and their faculty are ACSA. We are not a regulatory body, and so our power comes in solidarity among schools and speaking and acting in unison. We value differences among schools in regard to pedagogy, curriculum, degrees offered, institutional setting, etc., but we hope that schools understand the risk they face by NAAB’s decisions.

We continue to call on NAAB to halt its fees to schools, to address the inconsistencies in its financial management identified in the spring 2024 external assessment, and to return to discussions with ACSA, AIA, NCARB, and AIAS that match the spirit and intent of their bylaws.

• We are fully accountable to our members about funds collected for NAAB.
• In past years ACSA notified U.S. Full and Candidate member schools that a portion of their dues is passed through to NAAB. For 2023-24 this amount was $3,122 per school. Additionally, we noted that in the previous year, we sent less money to NAAB than planned, and so we were holding $73 per school, which we would contribute to NAAB when an agreement is finalized. (Our October 26 presentation also included this information.)
• Beginning January 1, 2024, there is no funding agreement with NAAB, and we are not contributing funds until there is. Of the $3,273 we are collecting/holding from U.S. Full/Candidate member schools, we have contributed $1,093 per school to NAAB (for end of FY2023).
• Beginning July 9, 2024, ACSA is initiating a process for schools to either receive these $2,180 in earmarked funds as a refund or to have these funds credited toward their 2024-25 dues. Additionally, ACSA’s 2024-25 dues will not include the additional amount that we would have passed through to NAAB.