SPEC Kit 330: Library Contribution to Accreditation · 33
Concern about the basement level of the library indicating it was ‘sub-optimal’, and the university has since put in a
proper floor capable of bearing the load of the library.
Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing
Library consortial partnerships, depository library status (Canadian government documents), resource access
information, number of licensed and open access e-journals, list of licensed and open access databases, list of point-of-
care resources, list of instructional video series and ebook collections, special print collections, institutional repository,
citation management software and support, ILL information, reference services, liaison librarian services.
Results not yet returned.
Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board
Library location, hours, information services, access to information resources, ILL, study space, print holdings, number of
items acquired in speciﬁed time period, information resource expenditures, self assessment.
There were no library speciﬁc recommendations.
Council for Education on Public Health (CEPH)
“A concise statement of library/information resources available for program use, including description of library
capabilities in providing digital (electronic) content, access mechanisms and guidance in using them, and document
Each institution within the university system is required by the Bylaws of the Board of Regents and by Legislative Bill 663
to periodically review all academic programs.
The purpose of the Review Team is to consider the role of the program in the university environment, in addition to an
assessment of the program quality. The Review Team integrates external peers with faculty and other representatives,
such as members of industry, alumni, and staff, to provide the broad perspective required. The Review Team will submit
a ﬁnal report within 30 days of the site visit. The report should be factual and explicit. All review teams are asked to
relate their comments to the program or college strategic plans and to the core values of the university. The Review
Team is asked to keep in mind that many recommendations that would improve a given program might not be feasible
because of the expense involved and the requirements of other programs within the university. The team is, therefore,
encouraged to: 1) focus their recommendation on what can and should be done within existing resources, and 2) make
one or two suggestions for new investment that would have the greatest impact on program quality.