Research studies show that potential barriers may hinder a successful accreditation process. This research study examined perceptions of Mississippi’s community/junior college administrators relating to the accreditation process in general, their communication with the regional accrediting agency, and their institution’s facilitation of the accreditation process. 150 administrators participated in an online survey containing 36 questions. Likert-scale response set type questions were used to provide precise information related to the research. Two open-ended questions were also used to provide for a deeper understanding of the administrators’ perceptions. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. ANOVA tests were run to determine if differences existed in the administrators’ perceptions based on the administrators’ size of institution, latest accreditation process, or position titles. The findings of the study showed that the administrators agreed or strongly agreed with the majority of the survey statements related to the accreditation process in general, their communication with the regional accrediting agency, and their institution’s facilitation of the accreditation process. In addition, the findings indicated that there were no significant differences in administrators’ perceptions related to the accreditation process. An analysis of the responses to the two open-ended questions suggested the need for consistency in elements relating to the peer review committee’s training, experience, and size, and the need for consistency in information and communication from the accrediting agency. Responses also indicated a need for additional funding and personnel. Major themes drawn from the administrators’ documented perceptions included the following: (a) the self-study (compliance certification) was a major component of the accreditation process in general; (b) a liaison between the institution and the accrediting agency was a necessity for communication between the two entities; and (c) the leadership committee provided adequate assistance to facilitate the process at the institutional level. The size of the institution, the latest initiation of the process, and the position titles within the institution made no significant statistical difference in the administrators’ perceptions.