UNIVERSITY ACCREDITATION GUIDELINE

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for the accreditation by South African Institute of
Professional Accountants (SAIPA) of tertiary Institutions (Higher Education Institutions) providing
qualifications that meet the academic requirement for SAIPA’s Professional designation. Learners from
an accredited university with a completed degree would by virtue of this accreditation have achieved
the academic requirement for membership with the South African Institute of Professional Accountants.

Learners with qualification issued by the accredited tertiary institutions would by virtue this accreditation
would have achieved the academic requirement for membership for professional designations as
Professional Accountants and Tax Practioners offered by SAIPA.

2. ACCREDITATION CRITERIA

The following criteria will be used for the accreditation of the tertiary institute and/or academic
programmes:

2.1. Academic Requirements

A bachelor’s degree in accounting or finance containing the following subjects –

 Financial Accounting 1, 2, 3
 Management Accounting or Financial Management (at least one year)
 Commercial Law 1, 2 or Corporate Law
 Auditing (at least one year) or Internal Auditing 1, 2
 Taxation (at least one year)
 Programme review processes and policies

2.2. Organisational Structure

 Organogram

2.3. Assessment Processes

 Assessment Policy document
 Assessment structures for the core subject mentioned in 1 above
 Examinations papers for at least two years (formative and summative assessments
 Model answers for all assessments
 Moderators reports (internal and external where applicable)
o Pre Moderation (examination question paper)
o Post Moderation (examination question paper)
 Examination scripts (copies of highest, medium and lowest marks)
 Submission of promotion requirements
 Mark schedules
 Course outlines
 Lesson plans
 Study material/guides

2.4. Human Resources

 Lists of academics teaching on the programme
 Average staff complement
 Average staff loads
 Staff resumes
 Staff qualifications

ETM05-V1-University Accreditation Guidelines

 2.5. Student Management
 Selection criteria or policy
 Promotion
 Marks Management
 Objections and Appeals Procedures
 Disciplinary procedures and policies
 Number of students enrolled for the degree
 Statistics of Pass Rates for the previous three years
 Throughput and dropout rate
 Intervention strategies for students and subjects at risk

3. ACCREDITATION PROCESS

3.1. Desktop Review

 The self-evaluation document will be reviewed by SAIPA’s accreditation committee.
 A report will be generated and submitted to the institution.

3.2. Site Visit

After the desktop review has been submitted a site visit will be arranged.

 The site visit will involve the following – review subject files
o Overview of the mode of delivery
o Overview of curriculum development process
o Overview of learning materials design and development process
o Overview of learners with special needs/ barriers to learning process
o Overview of learner records database process
o Overview of learner results upload and certification process
o Overview of learner appeals process

Interview with the Head of Department of Accounting Interview with a sample of the lecturing staff of
the degree to be accredited.

Interview with a sample of students

 Inspection of the facilities

o Library
o Lecturer venues
o Laboratories
o Study areas

4. MONITORING VISITS

At least one monitoring visit will be conducted during the accreditation period. The monitoring visit will
take a format similar to the site visit. This will be communicated in advance.

5. ACCREDITATION

Universities will be accredited for a period of 5 years. A compulsory monitoring visit will be held at least
once within the five years. Accreditation types that can be awarded are –

5.1. Institutional Accreditation

Institutional accreditation status is achieved by a tertiary institution that meets the quality standards and
fulfills the requirements designated by SAIPA. In order to meet the requirements for institutional
accreditation status, all aspects of the tertiary institution, including academic quality, administrative

ETM05-V1-University Accreditation Guidelines

effectiveness, and all other related services of the institution, are reviewed by SAIPA. Institutional
accreditation affirms that the tertiary institution operates with a high level of quality in all its aspects.
This type of accreditation is comprehensive and indicates that the institution has achieved quality
standards in areas such as faculty, administration, curriculum, student services, and overall financial
well-being.

5.2. Programmatic Accreditation

Programmatic accreditation is a type of accreditation status that is designated for specific department
and/or its programs within a tertiary institution that have already been awarded institutional
accreditation. Programmatic accreditation focuses on particular aspects of the department and its
program or the tertiary institutions specified academic field of study. Students who are considering
enrolling in a college degree program should know the requirements of their future career field and what
it takes to become a practitioner or professional in that field.

5.3. Accreditation statuses that can be awarded are -

Status of Maximum number of months to correct

Is the institution accredited?
Accreditation mandatory item(s)

Award Full Yes. This is the only category in which

N/A
Accreditation the institution is fully accredited.

Correction of the mandatory item(s)

Yes. The accreditation allows the
identified during the accreditation process
Award Accreditation institution to offer programmes limited to
needs to be addressed by the annual
with Condition the conditions highlighted during the
compulsory monitor visit or in any period at
accreditation visit.
the discretion of EDCOM.

By vote of EDCOM of SAIPA, up to a total of

24 months. Note that these are not calendar
Award Provisional
No months, but rather represent the number of
Status
months granted by EDCOM in each letter to
the institution.

No. However, the SAIPA Bylaws provide

Withhold Accreditation the opportunity for the institution to N/A
appeal this decision.

6 months. Failure to fully correct the

Deferred Accreditation Yes mandatory issue(s) of Deferred
Accreditation will result in Probation.

By vote of EDCOM, up to a total of 12

months. If adequate correction of the
Probation Yes mandatory item(s) is not achieved within the
allotted time, proceedings to Revoke
accreditation are initiated.

As of the date of the letter informing of

the Revoke Accreditation status, the
Revoke Accreditation institution is no longer accredited. The N/A
SAIPA Bylaws provide the opportunity for
the institution to appeal this decision.
However, the institution is not accredited

ETM05-V1-University Accreditation Guidelines

 during the appeal process. Accreditation
is restored by a vote of EDCOM.

6. FINDINGS
6.1. Findings will be duly communicated to the applicant institution. Where necessary timeframes
will be suggested for remediation. Failure to remediate within the suggested timeframes will
result in the applicant institution not being accredited or losing accreditation with the SAIPA.The
de-accredited institution will be required to remove all SAIPA reference from their marketing
materials within one year of the de-accreditation.

6.2. Findings, Recommendations & Remediation

The accreditation committee will identify issues, concerns or gaps in the accreditation criteria.
Judgements will be made as to recommendations or findings to address these issues, concerns or
gaps. Any findings should be satisfactory remediated through the following processes:

- Making recommendations, and/or

- Raising a finding, and/or

- Remediating against a finding

6.3. What is a Finding?

A finding represents evidence which indicates a gap in the accreditation criteria which may compromise
the quality delivery of the qualification.

Gaps in the accreditation criteria might include:

- Lack of coverage in the depth and breathe of the core subject content

- Inadequate facilities (e.g. unavailability of necessary facilities to provide a conducive learning

environment).

- Non-compliance with the necessary legislation (employment, health & safety, etc.).

- Non-compliance with SAIPA’s regulations, policies and procedures.

Gaps you might find on an accreditation or monitoring site visit –

 Not meeting the Academic Requirements

 Not adhering to the assessment criteria
 Not adhering your human resource policies
 Not adhering to Institutional Policies

6.4. Remediation to Findings

A remediation action plan to findings approved by the assessor or monitoring officer and authorised by
the Head of the Department must be forwarded to ETM Executive for record keeping and follow up
procedures.

Evidence of the implementation of the remediation plan must be forwarded to SAIPA within the
stipulated timeframe for evaluation by the ETM Executive so that it may be closed.

Should remediation evidence not be received on or before the stipulated timeframe, the accreditation
will be suspended or revoked.

ETM05-V1-University Accreditation Guidelines

 7. RECOMMENDATIONS

SAIPA may, upon evaluation of the applicant institution’s submission or following a monitoring visit,
issue recommendations to the institution in terms of best practice.

The applicant institution is not required to remediate against such recommendations, and these
recommendations are provided for continuous improvement of the applicant institution’s offering.

8. MARKETING OF SAIPA ACCREDITATION

Accredited institutions will be permitted to reflect the SAIPA accreditation status and use the SAIPA
logo within their yearbooks and other promotional materials.

Thank you for showing interest accrediting your qualifications with SAIPA. We trust that this new
endeavour will grow from strength to strength and that the tertiary institutions play a more pivotal role
in the delivery of SAIPA qualifications.

Education, Training and Membership (ETM) Department.

ETM05-V1-University Accreditation Guidelines