Proposed Fee Structure

For nearly 20 years, four organizations have defined what NAAB looks like. Changing the funding model to direct fees from programs allows 175+ programs the opportunity to directly shape NAAB policies and conditions. This new funding model aligns with 60+ programmatic accreditors’ funding structures across diverse professional fields in bringing the voice of architecture programs to the forefront of the accreditation process. The strength of the new model lies in the ‘both/and’ approach that retains the governance framework of the ACSA, AIA, AIAS, and NCARB nominees comprising the NAAB Board of Directors, with a direct voice from all of NAAB’s 175+ programs.

In 2018, the cost per accredited program was $9,287. After the collateral organizations reduced their contributions to NAAB by 10%, NAAB received $7,994 per accredited program in collaterals contributions, and covered the remaining deficit from its reserves.

In 2025, the cost per accredited program is projected to be $9,325, remaining on par with 2017 costs. Programs have been sheltered from the total cost because of contributions by AIA and NCARB, and because NAAB funded deficits from its reserves. We encourage ACSA and AIAS to collaborate with NAAB in urging AIA and NCARB to continue supporting accreditation of architecture programs..

It is our commitment to provide uninterrupted accreditation services to programs. To ensure there are no delays to the delivery of accreditation services, it is essential that the new fee structure goes into effect on January 1, 2025.

Yes. NAAB submitted the proposed fee model to ACSA, AIA, AIAS, and NCARB in November 2023. This model included a request for financial contributions from AIA and NCARB and an invitation to ACSA and AIAS to contribute as they see appropriate. A public call for comment was issued in February 2024 and again in July 2024, with a 15% cost reduction in response to feedback from our stakeholders to help reduce the impact on programs.

A strong and sustainable accrediting system supports the profession of architecture. Programs can use their voice to encourage the collateral organizations to renew their financial support for NAAB accreditation. Continued financial support from the profession would minimize the impact on program budgets.

NAAB will publish the fee structure within 30 days following the October 18-19 Board of Directors meeting, during which comments will be reviewed and the fee structure finalized for implementation on January 1, 2025. This schedule allows sufficient time to synthesize the feedback collected during the 90-day public comment period, which concludes on September 30, 2024.

The decision is now in the hands of AIA and NCARB. The NAAB Board of Directors continues to believe that under the terms of the 1940 founding agreement, accreditation costs should be shared by the profession of practicing architects; the regulators who protect the health, safety, and welfare interests of the public; and the academic programs that educate emerging architects. As such, the NAAB Board invited AIA and NCARB to make contributions that would defray the cost of accreditation services at a time when their contributions are most needed for architecture programs. Additionally, the Board has continuously welcomed ACSA’s and AIAS’ support of this new funding model. Read the full text here.

Yes, the proposed fee structure is being proposed by the NAAB Board of Directors, which is comprised of three nominees from ACSA, AIA, NCARB, two nominees from AIAS, and two Public Directors. For more information for NAAB’s governance model, click here.

Since NAAB accredits architecture programs and not architecture schools, in developing and proposing a fee structure, the NAAB Board of Directors thought it was important to distribute the costs of delivering accreditation services as equitably as possible among programs. While annual fees for smaller programs are projected to be less than those for larger programs, the actual per student cost for smaller programs will be higher than that for larger programs. If NAAB were to reduce annual costs for institutions with multiple programs, that would cause single program institutions to pay higher annual fees. The 90-day comment period seeks to provide NAAB with a better understanding of the impact of the proposal on individual programs and schools in their unique context.

No, programs do not need to be members of ACSA in order to seek and maintain NAAB accreditation. NAAB and ACSA are two separate organizations.

You can find membership information for ACSA on its website here.

NAAB will absolutely take into consideration budgeting timelines of programs and institutions in establishing the accreditation fee payment due dates. We hope programs respond to the Call for Comment and share their budgeting cycles. Our goal is to ensure that programs have adequate time and notice to plan for their budgets.

The annual fee will be invoiced to programs based on the program’s enrollment tier in the prior year’s annual report entry. If the program's enrollment changes in any given year, their fee will reflect it.

ACSA, AIA, AIAS, and NCARB will continue to be represented on the NAAB Board of Directors. Consistent with the NAAB Bylaws, ACSA, AIA, and NCARB each have three positions and AIAS has two positions on the NAAB Board. NAAB will continue to welcome their nominations for the Board of Directors positions as well as the accreditation visiting team pool.

For educator, practitioners, regulators, and student positions on the NAAB board, individuals need to be nominated by ACSA, AIA, AIAS and NCARB. Click here to access their contact information.