Institute of Ministry
Formation Policies
The Institute of Ministry's formation policies set out the standards, responsibilities, and procedures that govern admissions, conduct, assessment, safeguarding, partner-body arrangements, records, complaints, appeals, and quality assurance across Institute formation courses.
These policies apply to all Institute of Ministry formation courses, current and future. A course prospectus gives the curriculum and course-specific details; these policies provide the underlying rules and standards that make formation serious, fair, and accountable.
Purpose and Scope
| Purpose | To protect candidates, protect those served by Institute-formed ministers, protect the Institute's integrity, and ensure that formation is serious, fair, and consistently maintained. |
| Scope | Applies to all Institute formation courses, including the Licentiate in Diaconal Ministry, the planned Licentiate in Sacred Ministry, Orientation and Equivalency Intake, Safeguarding for Clergy courses, and future formation offerings. |
| Formation tradition | The Institute's formation is principally Western in character - Old Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, and Sarum-influenced - serving the independent sacramental and Western Rite tradition. |
| Authority | Policies are set and maintained by the Rector of the Apostolic Old Catholic Mission NPC, who also serves as Course Director of the Institute of Ministry. |
| Policy updates | The Institute may amend policies when needed. Material changes affecting candidates already in formation are communicated in writing. |
Candidate Standards
Formation is not an academic transaction. It is sustained engagement with Scripture, doctrine, prayer, ministry practice, accountability, and personal growth.
What the Institute expects
Honesty, effort, teachability, self-discipline, spiritual seriousness, emotional maturity, intellectual integrity, and willingness to receive correction.
What the Institute is not looking for
Status-seeking, title-seeking, adversarial attitudes toward authority, hostility to correction, or the use of formation as a credential without genuine ministry commitment.
Suitability is ongoing
Suitability is assessed at admission and throughout formation. Conduct, safeguarding concerns, dishonesty, disengagement, or payment failure may trigger review.
The standard is not perfection
Candidates who struggle honestly, communicate early, ask for help, and keep engaging can still be forming well.
Admissions and Selection
| Application | Applications are submitted through the online application route published for each cohort. Applying does not create a fee obligation, guarantee a place, or confer candidate status. |
| Information requested | Applications normally request personal and contact details, educational background, faith community, ministry experience, vocational statement, sponsoring body where applicable, references, suitability questionnaire, and course-specific documents. |
| Selection stages | Written application review, suitability questionnaire, references, video interview, and final written acceptance or decline decision. |
| Selection principle | The Institute selects for readiness, not entitlement. A sincere applicant may be deferred if formation would be premature. |
| Acceptance and enrolment | Acceptance becomes enrolment only after the required fee or approved payment plan is in place, platform access is confirmed, and the formation covenant is accepted. |
| Declined applications | The Institute may decline an application without extended debate. Where appropriate, general guidance may be given. |
| Reapplication | Declined applicants may reapply for a future cohort, but concerns previously raised should be addressed before reapplication. |
| Deferral | Some applicants may be asked to wait for a later cohort. This is a pastoral judgement about timing, not necessarily a rejection. |
Fees and Refunds
| Purpose of fees | Fees support the professional systems needed for online formation: platform access, administration, assessment handling, records, and quality assurance. |
| What fees are not | Fees are never payment for ordination, recognition, faculties, titles, employment, status, or ministry authority. |
| Refund policy | Formation fees and payments toward a formation course are non-refundable once paid, except where applicable law requires otherwise. |
| Non-completion | No refund is given for voluntary withdrawal, non-attendance, disengagement, failure to meet standards, removal from formation, technology failure, personal circumstances, or failure to proceed to ordination. |
| Institute postponement | If the Institute postpones a cohort before it opens, candidates who have paid may transfer payment to the rescheduled cohort or receive a full refund. |
| Candidate responsibility | Applicants should apply only when they are ready to accept the time, financial, and formation commitments involved. |
Academic Integrity and AI
The Institute's core principle is simple: formation of character cannot be outsourced.
| Required standard | Submitted work must be genuinely the candidate's own engagement, thinking, and formation. |
| Permitted tools | Digital and AI tools may be used for organisation, study support, accessibility, note-taking, research support, transcription, grammar checking, or checking understanding. |
| Not permitted | Submitting AI-generated work as original work, copying another candidate, ghostwritten work, plagiarism, fabricated references, fabricated citations, or fabricated evidence. |
| Why it matters | If a candidate submits work they have not genuinely engaged with, they have deprived themselves of the formation the assignment was designed to provide. |
| Consequences | A confirmed breach may lead to resubmission, a failed assessment, suspension, or removal from the programme. |
Assessment Policies
| Pass standard | The standard pass mark for assessed units is 80 percent, unless a course prospectus specifies otherwise. |
| Attempts | Candidates normally have a maximum of two attempts at each assessed unit, unless a course prospectus specifies otherwise. |
| Late submission | A seven-day late window may be permitted at the Institute's discretion for genuine and communicated reasons. Repeated late submission is a formation concern. |
| Plagiarism and fabrication | Assessments submitted without genuine engagement with the material will not be marked as meeting the formation standard. |
| Portfolio and oral review | Where a final portfolio and oral review are part of a course, the portfolio must be complete before the oral review. The oral review assesses integrated readiness, not academic performance alone. |
| Possible oral review outcomes | Recommended, Further formation required, Delayed pending specific areas, Not recommended, or Withdrawn. |
| Moderation | Assessment results are subject to internal moderation by the Course Director and may be raised or lowered where needed. |
Mentoring, Attendance, and Participation
Mentoring
Mentoring is strongly encouraged. A mentor should have genuine ministry or formation experience and provide honest accountability rather than uncritical support.
Mentor expectations
Mentors are expected to meet candidates regularly, engage honestly with progress, provide feedback where required, and raise serious concerns where necessary.
Cohort discussions
Monthly cohort discussions are required in cohort-based programmes. More than one unexcused absence is a formation concern.
Platform engagement
Candidates are expected to engage regularly with the learning platform. Disengagement without communication for two or more weeks may trigger a welfare check.
Technology Requirements
| Online delivery | Institute programmes are delivered online. Candidates must meet and maintain the technology requirements for their course. |
| Candidate responsibility | Technology difficulties do not automatically remove assessment obligations or fee commitments. |
| Communication | Technical difficulties should be reported promptly. The Institute will work with candidates who communicate early and honestly. |
| Sustained difficulty | Repeated or unresolved technical difficulty may require a discussion about whether continued participation is feasible. |
| Workload realism | Candidates should assess honestly whether they can sustain the workload set out in the course prospectus before applying. |
Safeguarding
| Requirements | Candidates must complete satisfactory background checks where applicable, complete the Institute's or an approved equivalent safeguarding course, and comply with safeguarding requirements of their own jurisdiction. |
| Before ministry review | No candidate may be recommended for ordination review or receive a final award without satisfactory safeguarding evidence recorded separately from the curriculum. |
| Safeguarding concerns | If a safeguarding concern arises during formation, the Institute treats it seriously and may suspend the candidate pending investigation. |
| Refusal | A candidate who refuses safeguarding requirements is unsuitable for ordained ministry and will be removed from formation. |
Partner Bodies
| Who may partner | Compatible jurisdictions, communities, and independent bodies in the independent sacramental and Western Rite tradition. |
| Eligibility | Partner bodies should hold apostolic succession, celebrate valid sacraments in a Western Rite or compatible sacramental tradition, maintain equivalent safeguarding standards, and accept the published academic and formation standards. |
| What the Institute provides | Curriculum, online learning platform, assessment framework, quality assurance process, cohort participation, and the Institute formation award. |
| What partner bodies provide | Canonical formation elements, local rites and discipline, safeguarding clearances under local law, discernment, ordination decisions, and clear communication with candidates. |
| What the Institute does not provide | The Institute does not ordain, issue ministry licences, confer canonical faculties, or speak for partner bodies. |
| Shared responsibility | Partner bodies share responsibility for the suitability, welfare, and conduct of candidates they sponsor and should communicate concerns promptly. |
Records, Verification, Complaints, and Appeals
Candidate records
The Institute maintains records of applications, enrolments, assessment results, formation outcomes, and awards securely and in accordance with applicable data protection law.
Certificate verification
Certificates issued by the Institute include a verification reference. Third parties may verify awards through the certificate verification page.
Assessment appeals
Assessment appeals must be submitted in writing within 14 days of receiving the result and must identify a specific assessment-process error.
Complaints
Complaints about Institute conduct, administration, or processes should be submitted in writing, identifying the issue, relevant dates, and the outcome sought.
Failure, Withdrawal, and Removal
| Failure to meet standards | Two failed attempts at the same assessed unit trigger review by the Course Director. Outcomes may include support, a re-engagement plan, suspension, or removal. |
| Voluntary withdrawal | Candidates wishing to withdraw must notify the Institute in writing. Fees already paid are not refunded. Platform access is closed and the withdrawal is recorded. |
| Grounds for removal | Academic dishonesty, safeguarding concerns, refusal of safeguarding requirements, incompatible conduct, hostility to inclusive sacramental ministry, unwillingness to receive correction, harassment, sustained non-payment, reputational damage, or unsuitability for ministry. |
| Removal process | Except in urgent safeguarding cases, concerns are normally communicated in writing before a removal decision is made, and the candidate is given an opportunity to respond. |
| Effect of removal | Removal ends platform access, assessment rights, cohort participation, and any expectation of award. A removed candidate may not represent themselves as a candidate of the Institute. |
Quality Assurance and Review
| After-cohort review | The Institute reviews completion patterns, areas of difficulty, assessment clarity and fairness, candidate feedback, mentor feedback, workload realism, resource quality, broken links, and reading lists. |
| External standards | The Institute reviews its benchmarking position against external published standards annually and updates the Benchmarking Framework where needed. |
| Version control | Course materials, rubrics, templates, and assessment criteria are version-controlled. Candidates are not normally subject retrospectively to changed assessment criteria after enrolment. |
| Online learning quality | Online delivery is benchmarked against the Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric and the Online Learning Consortium Quality Scorecard for Online Programmes. |
| Communication of amendments | Policy amendments are published and communicated to candidates in formation by email. Changes required by law or safeguarding necessity take effect immediately. |
The Spirit of the Policies
These policies are not obstacles to formation. They are the boundaries that make serious formation possible. They ask candidates, mentors, partner bodies, and the Institute itself to act with honesty, clarity, accountability, and care for the people whom future ministers will serve.