WHO IS ACCREDITED?

Private Organization Accreditation

Southeastern Regional Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services is a Local Management Entity, covering the geographic areas of Bladen, Columbus, Robeson, and Scotland counties. SER ensures continuity of care to consumers through access to a quality of care system available 24/7/365 days a year through management of our network provider services.
read more >>

ORGANIZATION TESTIMONIAL

Joint Base Charleston School Age Program

Paula B. Matthews, School Age Program Coordinator

Preparing for our after school accreditation was an awesome and very valuable learning experience for the Child and Youth Professionals at Charleston Air Force Base. Becoming familiar with and understanding the After School standards was a breeze because of the training webinars and the great customer service we received from all of the COA staff. Thank you for supporting our military families.
read more>>

Purpose

The organization’s administrative and service environments are respectful, caring, safe, and accessible, and contribute to organizational productivity and effective service delivery.

CA-ASE 2: Accessibility

Service and administrative facilities are accessible and comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

Note: Please see Facility Observation Checklist - Canadian for additional assistance with this standard.

Rating Indicators
1
The organization's practices fully meet the standard, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the CA-ASE 2 Practice standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the CA-ASE 2 Practice Standards.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the CA-ASE 2 Practice standards; and/or 
  • One of the CA-ASE 2 fundamental practice standards received a 3 or 4 rating.
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the CA-ASE 2 Practice standards; and/or 
  • Two of the CA-ASE 2 fundamental practice standards received a 3 or 4 rating.

Table of Evidence

Self-Study Evidence On-Site Evidence On-Site Activities
No Self-Study Evidence
    • Documentation of legal compliance
    • Interview:
      1. Program director
      2. Relevant personnel
    • Observe facility

  • CA-ASE 2.01

    The organization complies with legal, regulatory, and/or contractual federal, provincial, and local legal requirements governing facility accessibility.

    Interpretation: Examples of applicable legislation laws governing organizations are that operate in Canada include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act, provincial/territorial human rights statutes, and provincial/territorial, and municipal building codes. 
     

    The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians from discrimination by laws and government actions.  It gives everyone in the country the same benefits and the same protection of the law without being discriminated against because of race, age, sex, or disability. A “disability” includes mental health and addiction disorders.

    Rating Indicators
    1
    The organization's practices reflect full implementation of the standard.
    2
    Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement; e.g.,
    • The organization complies with most legal requirements regarding accessibility and is actively working to address any minimal issues, however, there have been minor delays in implementing some aspects of a plan for addressing identified issues.
    3
    Practice requires significant improvement ; e.g.,
    • The organization is in the process of implementing plans for addressing accessibility issues, but has not as yet done so.
    4
    Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all; e.g.,
    • The organization does not comply with legal requirements regarding accessibility, as indicated by a letter or ruling from authorities, or in evidence of generally inaccessible and non-adapted facilities.

  • CA-ASE 2.02

    In planning the location and use of offices and branches, the organization considers:

    1. accessibility, availability, and affordability of public transportation;
    2. location of other relevant community resources; and
    3. the special needs of service recipients.

    Interpretation: In addition to the needs of the defined service population, this standard requires the organization to address the needs of persons with disabilities.

    Rating Indicators
    1
    The organization's practices reflect full implementation of the standard.
    2
    Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement; e.g.,
    • One of the elements is not fully addressed, but the organization has taken steps to strengthen practice.
    3
    Practice requires significant improvement; e.g., 
    • The organization does not formally consider the availability of public transportation nor does it formally review the distribution of persons within the service population in relation to facility locations; or
    • Some persons served must travel prohibitively long distances to receive services; or
    • Does not formally consider the needs of persons with special needs when planning and locating service delivery sites.
    4
    Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all; e.g.,
    • Access to services is severely limited because of the location of service-delivery sites resulting in the underutilization of the services by a part of the organization's defined population; or
    • The organization is failing to respond to changing community needs.

  • CA-ASE 2.03

    Some of the organization’s administrative and service facilities are free of architectural barriers, or the organization coordinates use of accessible facilities.

    Interpretation: When the facility’s age or excessive cost prevent change, an organization that provides equivalent services at an alternate, accessible location will have fully implemented this standard. Additionally, the organization will have effectively addressed legal requirements by adapting some of its physical facilities (ramps, washrooms, and drinking fountains) to be accessible to persons with physical disabilities or those otherwise qualified. This implementation may be evident in the current provision of services to persons with physical disabilities.

    Rating Indicators
    1
    The organization's practices reflect full implementation of the standard.
    2
    Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement; e.g., 
    • Some alternate sites are inconveniently located.
    3
    Practice requires significant improvement, e.g., 
    • Barriers exist that may make entering and using facilities difficult for persons with disabilities, and few alternates sites are available; or
    • The organization has made little effort to identify low cost renovations or to take other steps to make the facilities accessible.
    4
    Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all; e.g.,
    • The organization’s facilities have barriers that restrict usage by those in need of special accommodation, and no attempt at needed modifications or identifying convenient alternatives has been made.