Proposed Fee Structure

NAAB is a 501(c)(3), independent and separate organization (incorporated in 1967). 

In 1940, ACSA, AIA, and NCARB collectively recognized the need for an impartial organization to facilitate quality assurance in support of architecture programs that prepare students for professional licensure. The cost of this system has been subsidized by the profession with external funding historically provided by AIA and NCARB, matching the accreditation fees collected by ACSA as part of ACSA’s annual member dues, and an additional contribution from AIAS. 

In the current economic climate, we appreciate the likely need to diversify our funding sources and implement a program fee structure. Of 61 professional accrediting boards, NAAB is one of the only accreditors that does not utilize a structure in which fees are charged directly to programs. 

NAAB Opens Call for Public Comment on NAAB Proposed Accreditation Program Fees:

July 1, 2024–September 29, 2024

7/1/24 Update on Proposed Program Fees

Background Information

NAAB Governance 

NAAB Accreditation Services and Staffing

NAAB Volunteers

Historical Funding and 2024 Accreditation Expenses

Pre-Pandemic Deficit Growth

Fee Types Typically Assessed by Accrediting Boards

Proposed NAAB Accreditation Program Fee Structure, 2025-2028

FAQs

Below, please find information pertaining to a developing list of Topics of Interest to the architecture program community for the duration of the open comment period regarding the proposed accreditation fee structure.

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.

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.