Governing Body
Commission Plenary
Approves standards, determines reserved authorization matters, adopts policy, and oversees institutional integrity.
About the CCHE
The Commission on Christ-Centered Higher Education (CCHE) is a faith-based institutional authorization and quality-assurance body serving higher-education providers whose identity, governance, teaching, and community life are intentionally centered on the Christian faith.
The Commission maintains a public register of authorized institutions and applies a common review framework addressing Christian mission, institutional integrity, academic quality, student support, responsible stewardship, and continuing accountability. Registry entries are published through the Global Educational Registry for public verification.
Mission & Mandate
CCHE encourages trustworthy, academically responsible, and authentically Christ-centered higher education through institutional review, authorization decisions, continuing monitoring, public registry maintenance, and defined corrective-action and appeals processes.
Christian Identity
Mission, governance, and educational practice remain meaningfully Christ-centered.
Academic Integrity
Curriculum, faculty oversight, assessment, and awarded credentials meet stated standards.
Public Accountability
Authorization records are clear and material institutional changes are reported promptly.
Governance, Delegated Authority & Institutional Independence
CCHE governance separates standard-setting, institutional evaluation, authorization decisions, appeals oversight, registry administration, and routine secretariat functions. This distribution of responsibility supports consistent decisions while preserving an institution's legitimate autonomy in theology, tradition, educational model, governance form, and community expression.
The Commission evaluates each institution against its own publicly declared Christian identity as well as the common CCHE standards. Review does not require uniformity of denomination or ecclesial expression; it requires coherence between declared commitments, governing practice, academic provision, student experience, and public representation.
Standards Function
Standards & Formation Committee
Maintains the framework for Christian mission, academic quality, formation, student care, and responsible stewardship.
Evaluation Function
Institutional Review Panel
Tests institutional evidence, conducts engagement, records findings, and makes a reasoned recommendation.
Integrity Function
Integrity & Appeals Panel
Provides procedurally separate consideration of eligible appeals, conflicts, and significant conduct matters.
Administrative Function
Commission Secretariat
Coordinates submissions, correspondence, schedules, controlled records, institutional reporting, and decision notices.
Publication Function
Registry & Public Information Office
Maintains authorized institution entries, status terminology, corrections, and public verification information.
Principles Governing Commission Action
Mission fidelity: the declared Christian identity is evaluated through evidence of lived institutional practice.
Academic seriousness: faith commitment and demonstrable higher-education quality are considered together.
Peer judgment: reviewers apply the standards with relevant academic, institutional, and faith-based competence.
Independence: conflicts are disclosed and decision roles are separated where procedural integrity requires it.
Proportionality: evidence and monitoring requirements reflect institutional scale, complexity, and risk.
Reasoned accountability: material findings and formal outcomes are recorded in a form capable of review.
Institutional Authorization Standards
Applicants must demonstrate substantial compliance with every core standard. Authorization remains subject to continuing review and timely reporting of material changes.
Standard 1: Mission & Christian Commitments
The institution publicly defines its Christ-centered mission, governing commitments, and educational philosophy.
Standard 2: Governance & Integrity
Responsible governance, conflict controls, truthful public information, and fair policies are maintained.
Standard 3: Academic Programs & Learning
Programs have coherent curricula, defined outcomes, appropriate assessment, and academic oversight.
Standard 4: Faculty & Resources
Faculty, learning resources, technology, and administration are appropriate to institutional scope.
Standard 5: Student Care & Transparency
Admissions, tuition, progress, complaints, records, and student support are clearly administered.
Standard 6: Stewardship & Improvement
Financial stewardship, data protection, planning, and evidence-based improvement support sustainability.
Christ-Centered Formation & Academic Evidence Framework
CCHE considers Christ-centered identity to be an institution-wide responsibility rather than a statement confined to promotional language or a single academic department. Evidence is therefore examined across mission, governance, curriculum, faculty life, student formation, community relationships, stewardship, and institutional decision-making.
Reviewers consider both design and effectiveness: what the institution formally intends, how those intentions are translated into policies and educational practice, how members of the community experience them, what outcomes are observed, and how the institution responds when evidence identifies a gap between commitment and practice.
| Review Domain | Institutional Evidence | Assurance Question |
|---|---|---|
| Mission & Christian identity | Mission statement, faith commitments, strategic priorities, public information, institutional narratives. | Is the declared identity clear, coherent, understood, and consequential for institutional action? |
| Governance & ethical leadership | Constitutive documents, board responsibilities, delegations, ethics policies, decision records. | Do governance arrangements protect mission, integrity, accountability, and responsible authority? |
| Curriculum & faith-learning integration | Program outcomes, course design, learning activities, assessment, curriculum review, student work. | Is integration academically credible, educationally intentional, and appropriate to the discipline? |
| Faculty vocation & development | Appointment criteria, qualifications, induction, workload, mentoring, scholarship, formation support. | Are faculty equipped and supported to fulfil academic responsibilities within the declared mission? |
| Student formation & community life | Formation programs, worship or community practices, mentoring, conduct expectations, participation data. | Does the student experience support intellectual, spiritual, ethical, and relational development? |
| Student care & fair treatment | Admissions, safeguarding, wellbeing, accessibility, complaints, discipline, advising, records practices. | Are dignity, transparency, pastoral responsibility, due process, and learner welfare evident in practice? |
| Stewardship & institutional sustainability | Budgets, audited information, facilities, technology, libraries, risk management, continuity planning. | Are resources governed prudently and aligned with mission, educational scope, and long-term obligations? |
| Outcomes, service & improvement | Learning results, graduate outcomes, community engagement, feedback, review findings, improvement plans. | Can the institution demonstrate educational effectiveness, faithful service, and evidence-led improvement? |
Faith Commitment & Academic Responsibility
The Commission expects an institution to articulate how its Christian commitments inform scholarship and learning while maintaining transparent academic expectations, appropriate disciplinary methods, reliable assessment, honest inquiry, and fair treatment of students. Mission coherence is demonstrated most persuasively when faithfulness and academic responsibility reinforce one another in observable institutional practice.
Institutional Review Method & Continuing Assurance
The formal review method expands the four-stage authorization overview into a controlled evaluation sequence. The Commission may adapt the sequence to the scale and complexity of the institution, but each determination must remain traceable to the standards, evidence considered, reviewer findings, institutional response, and competent decision body.
Review 01
Scope Confirmation
Legal identity, mission, programs, locations, delivery modes, and intended authorization scope are defined.
Review 02
Self-Evaluation
The institution provides a candid standards-based analysis supported by an indexed evidence record.
Review 03
Desk Evaluation
Reviewers test completeness, internal consistency, performance evidence, and matters requiring clarification.
Review 04
Institutional Engagement
Interviews, observation, sampled records, and community perspectives are used to corroborate written claims.
Review 05
Findings & Response
Draft findings identify strengths, requirements, and evidence gaps; factual comments are formally considered.
Review 06
Recommendation
The panel records its standards-based conclusion, proposed status, conditions, and monitoring needs.
Review 07
Determination
The Commission confirms the outcome, effective record, follow-up requirements, and next review point.
Review 08
Publication & Assurance
The registry entry is published and continuing obligations are tracked through scheduled and risk-led controls.
Continuing Assurance Requirements
- Institutional return: confirmation of current identity, governance, programs, students, resources, and significant developments.
- Condition reporting: evidence demonstrating timely completion of requirements attached to an authorization decision.
- Focused review: targeted evaluation of a material issue, risk indicator, complaint pattern, or incomplete improvement action.
- Comprehensive renewal: periodic reconsideration of the complete standards framework and continuing mission coherence.
Material Change Notification
- Change in legal identity, ownership, sponsoring body, governing authority, or senior leadership.
- Substantial revision of mission, statement of faith, denominational relationship, or institutional purpose.
- New award levels, major program expansion, additional locations, digital delivery, or academic partners.
- Significant financial pressure, closure, teach-out, loss of resources, safeguarding event, or interruption of service.
Authorized Institutions Directory
This directory lists current and historical CCHE authorization records. Verify any institution by name or authorization number in the GER Verification System.
Showing 60 institutions · Page 1 of 3
| # | Institution | Recorded | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blockchain Christian University | Current registry cycle | AUTHORIZED |
| 2 | Trinity Harbor University of Ministry and Leadership | 2017 | AUTHORIZED |
| 3 | Kingdom Bridge International Christian University | 2006 | AUTHORIZED |
| 4 | Zion Crest University of Arts and Sciences | 2001 | PROVISIONAL |
| 5 | Logos River University of Ministry and Leadership | 1997 | AUTHORIZED |
| 6 | Hopewell University of Theology and Sciences | 2016 | AUTHORIZED |
| 7 | Antioch Heights International Christian University | 2016 | PROVISIONAL |
| 8 | Cornerstone Summit International Christian University | 2015 | AUTHORIZED |
| 9 | Faithstone University of Arts and Sciences | 2014 | PROVISIONAL |
| 10 | Mount Olive Christian University | 2025 | AUTHORIZED |
| 11 | Faithstone University of Theology and Sciences | 1992 | UNDER REVIEW |
| 12 | Trinity Harbor University of Theology and Sciences | 1989 | PROVISIONAL |
| 13 | Logos River Christian University | 2001 | AUTHORIZED |
| 14 | Hopewell Christian University | 2020 | AUTHORIZED |
| 15 | Morning Star University of Arts and Sciences | 2014 | UNDER REVIEW |
| 16 | Bethany Fields International Christian University | 2000 | SUSPENDED |
| 17 | Antioch Heights Christian University | 1985 | PROVISIONAL |
| 18 | Redeemer Valley University for Faith and Learning | 2023 | SUSPENDED |
| 19 | Jubilee Springs International Christian University | 1994 | PROVISIONAL |
| 20 | Redeemer Valley International Christian University | 1997 | PROVISIONAL |
Records 1-20 of 60
Policies & Resources
| Document | Reference |
|---|---|
| Institutional Authorization Standards | CCHE-IAS |
| Continuing Review & Material Change Guidelines | CCHE-CRG |
| Complaints, Corrective Action & Appeals Procedure | CCHE-CAP |
Integrity, Complaints, Appeals & Public Accountability
CCHE expects review participants and authorized institutions to act with truthfulness, candour, respect, responsible confidentiality, and appropriate care for affected persons. Reviewers and decision participants disclose relationships or interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartial judgment.
The Commission maintains distinct channels for factual corrections, administrative complaints, institutional compliance information, reconsideration, and eligible appeals. Each submission is classified according to its substance so that it is considered by the appropriate function and against the correct evidentiary and procedural standard.
| Route | Appropriate Use | Commission Response |
|---|---|---|
| Registry correction | An objectively inaccurate institution name, identifier, reference, date, status field, or publication detail. | Source validation, record-owner confirmation, controlled amendment, or reasoned closure. |
| Administrative complaint | Communication, accessibility, timeliness, service handling, reviewer conduct, or procedural administration. | Acknowledgement, classification, independent assignment where needed, and recorded disposition. |
| Compliance concern | Credible information relevant to Christian identity, academic integrity, learner care, governance, or continuing authorization. | Threshold review, corroboration, institutional response, monitoring, or formal compliance action. |
| Reconsideration | A permitted request that the original decision body consider a material clarification or qualifying new evidence. | Eligibility screening followed by confirmation, variation, or replacement of the original outcome. |
| Appeal | A qualifying claim of material procedural error, undisclosed conflict, or unreasonable application of the approved standard. | Procedurally separate review and a written decision within the authority granted to the appeals function. |
Notice
Material concerns and applicable response requirements are communicated in an identifiable form.
Opportunity to Respond
The institution may address relevant facts and evidence before a final adverse determination.
Role Separation
Appeal or integrity functions are separated from the original review where the procedure requires independence.
Recorded Reasons
Formal outcomes identify the relevant framework, determination, and resulting institutional obligation.
Authorized Institution Responsibilities
- Represent CCHE authorization using the current registered name, authorization number, and status.
- Ensure websites, catalogs, recruitment materials, and formal communications remain accurate and current.
- Maintain evidence of continuing compliance and complete scheduled reports in a candid and timely manner.
- Notify material changes before implementation where prior consideration is required or otherwise without avoidable delay.
- Protect students and preserve reliable academic records during restructuring, interruption, teach-out, or closure.
Public Verification Practice
- Consult the live CCHE directory or GER verification system rather than relying on an undated reproduction.
- Match the institution name and authorization number as a single verification pair.
- Read AUTHORIZED, PROVISIONAL, UNDER REVIEW, or SUSPENDED in the context of the complete entry.
- Record the date of consultation when authorization information is used in formal due diligence.
- Direct a suspected discrepancy through the registry correction route with supporting evidence.
Controlled Policy Register & Official Terminology
| Controlled Instrument | Reference | Administrative Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Governance, Delegations & Reserved Matters | CCHE-GOV-01 | Commission Plenary |
| Institutional Review & Evidence Manual | CCHE-REV-02 | Review Panel |
| Material Change & Continuing Assurance Protocol | CCHE-MCA-03 | Secretariat |
| Reviewer Ethics, Confidentiality & Conflict Code | CCHE-ETH-04 | Integrity Panel |
| Public Registry & Institutional Representation Policy | CCHE-PUB-05 | Registry Office |
| Complaints, Reconsideration & Appeals Rules | CCHE-APL-06 | Integrity & Appeals Panel |
- Authorization
- A formal institutional status recorded by CCHE following application of the Commission's standards and decision process.
- Condition
- A required action, evidence submission, or performance expectation attached to a decision and subject to follow-up.
- Material Change
- A development significant enough to affect mission coherence, educational quality, resources, students, governance, or authorization scope.
- Self-Evaluation
- The institution's evidence-based analysis of its own compliance, effectiveness, risks, and priorities for improvement.
- Continuing Assurance
- The reporting, monitoring, review, and notification activity that supports confidence between comprehensive decisions.
- Public Registry Entry
- The controlled public record identifying the institution, authorization number, status, and related verification information.
Verification & Contact
Institution Verification
Search by institution name or CCHE authorization number.
Open GER VerificationRegistry Corrections
Correction requests should identify the institution, authorization number, requested amendment, and supporting documentation. Authorized institutions receive official contact details through their registry correspondence channel.