Complaints Against Graduate Education Programs in Speech-Language Pathology

A complaint about any accredited program or program in candidacy status may be submitted by any individual(s).

Criteria for Complaints

Complaints about programs must meet all of the following criteria:

  1. be against an accredited graduate education program or program in candidacy status in audiology or speech-language pathology;

  2. relate to the Standards for Accreditation of Entry-Level Graduate Education Programs in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology in effect at the time that the conduct
    for the complaint occurred, including the relationship of the complaint to the accreditation standards;

  3. be clearly described, including the specific nature of the charge and the data to support the charge;

  4. be within the timelines specified below:
    • if the complaint is being filed by a graduate or former student, or a former faculty or staff member, the complaint must be filed within one year of separation* from the program, even if the conduct occurred more than 4 years prior to the date of filing the complaint;

    • if the complaint is being filed by a current student or faculty member, the complaint must be filed as soon as possible, but no longer than 4 years after the date the conduct occurred;

    • if the complaint is being filed by other complainants, the conduct must have occurred at least in part within 4 years prior to the date the complaint is filed.

Note: For graduates, former students, or former faculty or staff filing a complaint, the date of separation should be the date on which the individual was no longer considered a student in or employee of the graduate program (i.e., graduation, resignation, official notice of withdrawal or termination), and after any institutional grievance or other review processes have been concluded.

Complaints also must meet the following submission requirements

  1. include verification, if the complaint is from a student or faculty/instructional staff member, that the complainant exhausted all pertinent institutional grievance and review mechanisms before submitting a complaint to the CAA;

  2. include the complainant’s name, address, and telephone contact information and the complainant’s relationship to the program in order for the Accreditation Office staff to verify the source of the information;

  3. be submitted using the CAA’s complaint form

  4. sign and submit a waiver of confidentiality with the complaint; Because it may be necessary to identify the complainant to the affected program or to other potential sources of relevant information, the complainant is required to sign a waiver of confidentiality as part of the complaint submission. Failure to provide a signed waiver of confidentiality will result in dismissal of the complaint;

  5. must be complete at the time of submission, including the complaint, waiver, and all appendices; If a complainant submits an amended complaint, including providing additional
    appendices, it will void the original submission and initiate a new process and time line;

  6. append documented evidence in support of the complaint, including as appropriate relevant policies/procedures, relevant correspondence (including email), timelines of referenced events, etc. Complainants should not enclose entire documents; only the specific pages should be included that present content germane to the complaint. Page numbers to these appendices should be referenced in the complaint. Materials may be returned to the complainant if not properly organized to support the complaint.

  7. must submit all complaints and supporting evidence in English, consistent with the business practices of the CAA;

  8. be signed and submitted in writing via U.S. mail, overnight courier, hand delivery, or via e-mail to:

    Chair, Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology
    American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
    2200 Research Boulevard, #310
    Rockville, MD 20850

    Or accreditation@asha.org.

The complainant’s burden of proof is a preponderance, or greater weight, of the evidence. These procedures do not prevent the CAA from considering a complaint against an accredited or candidate program if the program is involved in litigation or other actions by a third party.

Invisible line, width of the page