Comment on a standard
Submit clause-specific feedback, proposed wording and rationale through the controlled public-comment process. Commenter identity is not a factor in disposition.
Standards comment →Public participation & qualified service
Get Involved with CHSPS
There is more than one way to contribute. Public comments, technical-panel participation, accreditation review and formal governance service have different authority, qualification requirements and conflict controls. Start with the route that matches the work you want to do.
Standards commentsAccepted year-round
Current formal windowThrough Oct. 30, 2026
Reviewer serviceQualified + conflict-screened
Governance serviceFormal appointment required
Current standards feedback cycle: clause-specific comments on Edition 2026.1 are accepted through October 30, 2026. The standing standards-comment channel remains open year-round.
Submit a standards comment →Choose your routeOpen to the public Technical participation Case review Formal appointment Public-interest input External engagement
Participation starts with the type of work, not the title.
A public commenter does not need an appointment. A technical reviewer must be qualified, calibrated and screened for the specific file. A governance or decision role begins only after formal appointment under the applicable rules.
Join a technical panel
Contribute subject-matter expertise to standards or specialty work. Technical-panel participation does not create authority over an accreditation decision.
Technical panels →Serve as a technical reviewer
Evaluate evidence against published requirements, raise clarification questions and document findings. Reviewers do not make the final accreditation decision.
Reviewer framework →Board, council or decision service
Governance and decision-body service requires qualifications, independence review, conflict disclosure and formal appointment. Expressing interest does not appoint someone to a role.
Service expectations →Participate as an employer or stakeholder
Share user, employer, learner or public-interest perspectives without entering applicant review or final decision authority.
Participation routes →Speaking, vendors or partnerships
Speaker requests, vendor relationships and partnerships use separate channels so commercial activity stays distinct from review and decision roles.
Contact CHSPS →Role boundariesStandards Development Evidence Decision
Technical contribution is not the same as decision authority.
CHSPS separates standards development, technical evidence review, final accreditation decisions and appeals. Conflict screening becomes more specific as a role moves closer to an individual accreditation case.
Public commenter
May propose changes and rationale. No appointment and no authority over an applicant case.
Technical panel
Provides technical input within a defined project or subject area. Does not grant accreditation.
Technical reviewer
Evaluates evidence and drafts findings. A reviewer may not vote on the same applicant's final decision.
Decision / appeals role
Requires formal conflict-screened appointment. Appeals are independent from the original review and decision.
Participation firewallReviewers Decision Committee Compensation Appeals
Service, membership, sponsorship and education do not buy influence.
Participation may provide expertise or public-interest perspective, but it does not create preferential standing in standards approval, reviewer selection or accreditation decisions. Commercial relationships remain separate from accreditation authority.
No same-file decision vote
A technical reviewer who evaluated an applicant's evidence does not vote on that applicant's final accreditation decision.
Conflict-free quorum required
The five-member Accreditation Decision Committee requires four conflict-free voting members for quorum.
Never tied to outcome
Some technical-review assignments may carry an honorarium disclosed before assignment. Compensation is never linked to an accreditation outcome.
Independent from the original case
Appeal participants must be conflict-free and independent from the original technical review and decision.
Expression of interest
How service selection works
CHSPS accepts expressions of interest year-round. The process differs by role, but an interest submission alone never creates appointment, assignment or voting authority.
1
Describe your background and role interest
Use the form to identify the service area and summarize relevant experience. The current form does not require a CV upload; CHSPS may request one during screening.
2
Qualification and fit review
CHSPS evaluates relevant expertise, stakeholder perspective and the requirements of the specific reviewer, panel or governance role.
3
Conflict and independence review
Employment, consulting, vendor, applicant and other relevant relationships are evaluated before appointment or case assignment.
4
Written appointment or assignment
Formal service begins only after the applicable approval, written terms and required onboarding or calibration. Case-specific reviewer assignments remain subject to additional conflict screening.
Expression of interest ≠ appointment. Submitting this form does not promise selection, compensation, a reviewer assignment or a governance seat.
Other ways to contribute
Not every relationship belongs in the service-interest form.
Speaker, vendor or partnership inquiry
Use Contact CHSPS or the vendor and partner guidance. Commercial relationships do not create reviewer or accreditation preference.
Sponsorship or funding
Use the dedicated sponsorship or grants and funding routes. Funding activity is firewalled from standards and accreditation decisions.
Contribute through the right channel
Comment publicly, join technical work, or express interest in service.
Choose the route that matches the authority and conflict controls appropriate to the work.