On the heels of several blockbuster reports detailing years of fraud and abuse at the schools ACICS oversees, Department of Education career staff recommend termination of ACICS as a federally recognized accrediting agency—in part, on the basis of the lack of oversight of Corinthian Colleges, the for-profit chain that collapsed in 2014 after committing widespread fraud. The department finds ACICS to be in violation of numerous regulatory criteria, citing 21 applicable areas in which it was out of compliance.

On June 23, the independent federal advisory committee, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), agrees and votes 10-3 to derecognize ACICS, leaving the accreditor’s fate to a senior department official (SDO).

On September 22, the SDO issues the decision to cease recognition of ACICS. The official agrees with department staff and NACIQI members’ recommendations that while agencies may be given 12 months to come into compliance, ACICS was far too deficient to be permitted to continue operating. The official states that the recommendations of department staff and NACIQI are “reasonable and well-justified.”

ACICS appeals the SDO’s decision regarding its recognition status. It asks Secretary of Education John King to reverse the decision and exercise discretion to continue the agency’s recognition for a period of 12 months or less—or for department staff and/or NACIQI to reconsider its petition for recognition.

On December 12, Secretary King denies ACICS’ appeal after review, concluding that it is not capable of coming into compliance within a year. King effectively terminates the agency’s federal recognition, citing the “nature and scope of ACICS’ pervasive noncompliance.” This triggers an 18-month clock for colleges accredited by ACICS to find a new accreditor by June 12, 2018, in order to continue receiving federal student aid dollars.

On December 15, ACICS challenges Secretary King’s decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Trump administration files a legal brief backing former Secretary John King’s decision to kick ACICS out of its role as a gatekeeper for federal financial aid dollars. Among many other arguments, the Department of Education says that ACICS had admitted its noncompliance on multiple occasions and that additional record evidence supported Secretary King’s finding of noncompliance.

Career staff write an internal report, known as the “draft staff analysis,” based on a review of the accreditor’s new application for recognition—an attempt to circumvent its loss of recognition. Later that year, in June, the report is released to the public in response to a lawsuit filed by the Century Foundation.

A federal judge orders the Department of Education, now led by Betsy DeVos, to reconsider ACICS’ case, stating the department failed to review key evidence. By this time, most ACICS colleges were well on their way to finding new accreditors, were closed, or were acquired as branches of already-accredited institutions.

On April 3, Secretary DeVos orders further review of the 2016 ACICS petition and temporarily restores ACICS as a federally recognized accrediting agency until she makes a final decision on the court’s remand. The 18-month deadline on ACICS colleges is eliminated, and the agency continues to oversee 85 colleges. ACICS is removed from the agenda for the May 2018 meeting of NACIQI.

The Education Department releases the March 2018 draft staff analysis, which details major concerns over reinstating ACICS’ federal recognition and finds that ACICS is out of compliance with 57 of 93 criteria required for federal recognition. ACICS responds shortly thereafter, claiming inaccuracies and submitting additional information to correct the record.

On September 28, the SDO for the Trump administration does not consider the most recent draft staff analysis and concludes that ACICS is in compliance with 19 of the 21 applicable recognition criteria. The two areas of noncompliance are competency of representatives and conflicts of interest. The SDO recommends that ACICS be given a year to become fully compliant. The report also recommends that the agency submit monitoring reports on four additional criteria: administrative and financial resources, student achievement, recruiting and admissions practices, and monitoring. The SDO in the case, Diane Auer Jones, had previously served as senior administrator for the Career Education Corporation, which operated schools accredited by ACICS.

On November 21, Secretary DeVos accepts the recommendation of the senior department official, formally restores federal recognition for ACICS, and gives the agency one year to demonstrate full compliance. The findings of the March 2018 draft staff analysis are not considered in Secretary DeVos’ review.

Institutions owned by the Education Corporation of America (ECA) precipitously close; this was the largest chain overseen by ACICS, enrolling 45 percent of all students at ACICS-accredited schools. The agency revoked ECA’s accreditation just before closure but had failed to uncover numerous long-standing quality concerns and did not secure teach-out agreements for students to assist in transfer until it was too late.

Inside Higher Ed reports ACICS faces $2.1 million in financial losses due to legal fees and school closures and will not recoup until 2023. Meanwhile, the Chronicle of Higher Education reports on compliance issues at two ACICS-accredited institutions: Virginia International University and San Diego University for Integrative Studies.

The Department of Education opens a new inquiry into the financial health of ACICS after the news reporting about its financial losses.

The department flags potential “compliance concerns” in a letter to ACICS. It requests information about oversight of Virginia International University and San Diego University for Integrative Studies, citing both the Inside Higher Ed and Chronicle of Higher Education articles.

On February 15, a USA Today investigation finds that ACICS-accredited Reagan National University appeared not to be in operation, with no students and faculty listed on its website who claimed to have never worked there. The story exposes various red flags about the institution, again raising questions about ACICS’ failure to conduct proper oversight and monitoring. The Education Department opens a second investigation into ACICS’ oversight.