Summarize with:
This guide explains how AAALAC evaluates programs as of September 2026, including the standards presentation change that took effect on 1 August 2026, how Program Description deadlines work, and how institutions can keep each section current, assign ownership, validate the text against practice and supporting records, and close gaps before submission and the site visit.
AAALAC site visitors compare the Program Description with what they observe in facilities and in program records. A discrepancy can prompt further review. Council then classifies issues as Mandatory Items, Suggestions for Improvement, or Commendations. A Mandatory Item is a serious deviation that must be corrected to achieve or continue Full Accreditation. A Suggestion for Improvement is voluntary and does not by itself change accreditation status.
The Program Description should stay aligned with the current program, and with evidence the institution can produce. Problems often appear as mismatches: a description that still reflects last cycle’s organization, a policy that has not been adopted in practice, or a statement that the supporting record cannot confirm.
What Is AAALAC Accreditation, and What Is It Not?
AAALAC International is a voluntary accrediting body. It is not a regulator. It does not write the Animal Welfare Act, or issue an Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) Assurance. Also, it does not replace U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspection. The Council on Accreditation evaluates an animal care and use program against the standards that apply to its species, activities, and location.
For most U.S. research institutions, a central reference is the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th edition (National Research Council, 2011). Programs that house agricultural species also use the Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching (2020), commonly called the Ag Guide. Institutions in Europe work with ETS 123 (the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes, Council of Europe).
Effective 1 August 2026, AAALAC retired the “Primary Standards” designation. It stated that this will change how standards are presented; it will not change accreditation criteria, documentation, site-visit process, or current accreditation status. Council assesses programs using the applicable standards for the institution’s activities, species, and location. No single document is used in isolation. The most rigorous applicable standard is applied, whether that is the Guide, local regulations, or an AAALAC Position Statement or Guidance Statement. The Guide, the Ag Guide, and ETS 123 remain important resources where they apply. The Guide itself was not revised. The 8th edition remains current.
After a site visit, Council places the institution in one of the published accreditation categories.
For new applicants, the categories are:
• Award Full Accreditation
• Award Conditional Accreditation
• Award Provisional Status (not accredited; corrections may be allowed for up to 24 months)
• Withhold Accreditation
For already accredited institutions, the categories are:
• Continued Full Accreditation
• Conditional Accreditation
• Probation (corrections may be allowed for up to 12 months)
• Revoke Accreditation
Older literature also used “Deferred Accreditation.” That label is not on AAALAC’s current Categories of Accreditation page and should not be listed as a current Council outcome.
Software does not earn accreditation. The Institutional Official, the attending veterinarian, and the institutional oversight body remain accountable for the program. Systems can help those people keep selected records current and retrievable. They do not replace professional judgment or institutional oversight.
Why Do Research Institutions Pursue AAALAC Accreditation?
Accreditation is voluntary. Federal sponsors do not require it as a statutory condition of award. Institutions pursue it because an independent, peer-reviewed assessment of the animal care and use program is useful to leadership, faculty, research partners, and many funders.
The Program Description itself adds to that value. AAALAC describes it as the first phase of accreditation and as an extensive internal review of the animal care and use program. Preparing and maintaining it forces the institution to describe how authority, veterinary care, husbandry, occupational health and safety, and facilities actually work, then test that description against current practice. The Institutional Official and research leadership own the decision to apply or continue. The true cost includes staff time to keep the Program Description accurate across the three-year cycle, not only the AAALAC fee schedule.
What Is the AAALAC Trimester Calendar?
AAALAC evaluates programs on a three-year cycle in three trimesters.
New applications go through pre-review before the Council assigns a trimester. Official notification typically follows four to eight weeks after the Council meeting. A late Program Description does not just get returned for corrections. It can miss the Council meeting for that trimester and wait for the next one.
Note: Confirm dates on AAALAC’s Fees and Deadlines page before briefing the Institutional Official.
How Should a Program Description Be Kept Current?
AAALAC treats the Program Description as an extensive description of the animal care and use program, not as a cover letter for the site visit. Visitors may verify selected statements against rooms, minutes, health files, training records, and other program evidence.
Download the current template and instructions from AAALAC’s Program Description page. New applicants should apply first, then complete the 2016/2025 (rev) Program Description. Institutions renewing their triennial accreditation may use either the 2016/2023 (rev) or the 2016/2025 (rev) version; AAALAC accepts a Program Description version date of 8/16 or later. The March 2023 update added a one-page Institutional Official certification that must be signed.
AAALAC’s own application guidance organizes the Program Description around four areas:
1. Program management and oversight
2. Animal environment, housing, and management
3. Veterinary care
4. Physical plant
Occupational health and safety is a substantial part of the template. OLAW’s mapping of Assurance language to the AAALAC template places OHS under Program Description section 1.A.2.b, within program management and personnel. It is listed separately in the map below only because it usually has a different owner and a different evidence set. Assign drafting work from the current template, not from a five-pillar outline.
Program Description statements concern institutional governance, veterinary authority, husbandry, occupational health and safety, facilities, and emergency planning. Approved protocols and associated records should show that the policies and processes described in the Program Description are followed. Site visitors should be able to confirm this when they review selected protocols.
Program Description evidence map
Use the table as a planning aid. These are representative subjects and examples, not prescribed AAALAC questions.
Examples of evidence each function may contribute
Roles and record ownership vary by institution. Items below that reflect PHS Policy, USDA regulations, or published AAALAC expectations are labeled as such. The rest are recommended internal practices.
• Oversight coordinator. Current approved protocol version; documented designated member review or full committee review path; three-year de novo review date under PHS Policy where applicable; annual review dates for USDA-covered species; amendment history; roster; minutes; letters; and the last two semiannual packets with deficiency dates and IO transmittal.
• Facility manager. Census by species, protocol, room, and housing unit; husbandry and sanitation records; and orders checked against protocol status. Reconcile animals currently on study or in the facility with protocol assignments and documented activity.
• Attending veterinarian. Clinical and postoperative records that support the veterinary-care program described in the Program Description; preventive medicine and surgery documentation; endpoint and euthanasia records; and drug-control records.
• Post-approval monitoring lead. A risk-based visit schedule, observations that can be tied to the activity reviewed, and closed follow-up. A formal PAM program is a recommended practice that helps demonstrate the oversight described in the Program Description.
• Facilities. Floor plans, maintenance and emergency-power records, and environmental logs for facilities in the accredited unit. Citing only the planned tour path is too narrow.
• Institutional Official. The signed Program Description certification. Separate from that certification, the IO also holds reporting responsibilities when an incident must be reported to OLAW or to USDA. Those are different reporting channels with different rules.
What Late Preparation Actually Risks
Expired training, incomplete clinical notes, census discrepancies, and weak post-approval monitoring files can exist whether the Program Description is drafted early or late. Assembling records just before submission does not create those problems. It often reveals them too late, or leaves too little time to investigate and correct them.
The practical risks of late Program Description work are:
• The narrative still describes a previous organizational structure, policy, or facility layout.
• Documented processes no longer match what staff do in the rooms.
• Two versions of the same record are in circulation and cannot be reconciled quickly.
• Supporting evidence for a statement cannot be found.
• Ownership of a section is unclear, so no one can confirm it.
• Gaps are identified with too little time left to fix them, obtain Institutional Official certification, and submit on the trimester deadline.
For common Program Description risk patterns and inspection-day readiness, see our IACUC compliance guide and AAALAC site-visit preparation guide.
What Continuous Readiness Means for the Program Description
Institutions that treat AAALAC as a three-year writing project work backward from the deadline. They compile files, reconcile conflicts, and rewrite the Program Description from the last cycle.
Continuous readiness is broader than the ability to retrieve a protocol, a census report, a veterinary record, or a PAM file. Those records matter, but they are only part of the process. Continuous readiness means:
• The Program Description is updated when policies, practices, facilities, leadership, or program scope change.
• Each Program Description area has an owner.
• Reviews happen on a regular cycle and whenever a material change occurs.
• The written description is checked against current practice, not only against last year’s file.
• Supporting evidence is current and can be produced for the statements that need it.
• Identified gaps are tracked through closure before submission and the site visit.
Technology can keep records current, accessible, and easier to compare. It is an enabler of readiness. It is not the definition of readiness. The Program Description is a comprehensive document; records and observed practices should support that description.
AAALAC Program Description Checklist
You can use this checklist for Program Description preparation. Work each section, check the box when the description matches current practice and the supporting evidence is in hand, and name the owner accountable for it.
How Key Solutions Can Support Applicable Records
Key Solutions helps institutions maintain current, traceable, and readily retrievable records that support applicable portions of the Program Description :
- eProtocol IACUC maintains protocol, review, committee, and oversight records, helping teams trace current approvals and changes.
- LARS maintains census, cage movement, and protocol-linked ordering records, helping teams reconcile animal activity with approved protocols.
- LAHS maintains veterinary medical records that help demonstrate how veterinary care practices are documented.
- IACUC-PAM maintains monitoring observations, corrective actions, and follow-up records, helping demonstrate ongoing oversight and resolution.
When these modules are used together, program teams can more efficiently cross-check related records, identify missing or inconsistent information, and assemble supporting evidence before updating the Program Description or preparing for a site visit. This reduces manual reconciliation and supports continuous readiness.
Review the records that already support your Program Description
See how your current protocol, census, veterinary, and post-approval monitoring records can support ongoing readiness, and where manual reconciliation creates delays.
