WHO IS ACCREDITED?

Private Organization Accreditation

Catholic Charities alleviates human suffering and improves the quality of life of 100,000 people annually, regardless of religious background. A staff of 600 provides support and services related to housing, food, mental health, children's services, addiction treatment, and domestic violence 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 behaviour support and management policies and practices promote positive behaviour and protect the safety of service recipients and staff.

FOC
CA-BSM 3: Safety Training

Personnel receive behaviour support training that promotes a safe and therapeutic environment, is responsive to individual triggers, and takes a trauma-informed approach.

Update:

  • Revised Standard - 05/07/18
     

Note: Refer to CA-ASE for standards regarding safety in the service environment.

Rating Indicators
1
The organization's practices fully meet the standard, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the CA-BSM 3 Practice standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the CA-BSM 3 Practice standards.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the CA-BSM 3 Practice standard; and/or
  • One of the CA-BSM 3 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-BSM 3 Practice standards; and/or
  • Two or more of the CA-BSM 3 Fundamental Practice Standards received a 3 or 4 rating.

Table of Evidence

Self-Study Evidence On-Site Evidence On-Site Activities
    • Table of contents for personnel BSM training curriculum
    • List of personnel required to receive competency based training, and the dates training was received
    • Training curriculum for personnel that address:
      1. recognizing and responding to behaviour management issues
      2. de-escalation
    • Training records that document BSM training
    • Interview:
      1. Relevant personnel

  • FP
    CA-BSM 3.01

    All personnel receive initial and ongoing competency-based training, appropriate to their responsibilities, on the organization’s behaviour support and management intervention policies, procedures, and practices.

    Update:

    • Revised Standard - 05/07/18

    Interpretation: For example, non-direct service program personnel should be trained on how to appropriately respond to incidents of out-of-control behaviour that they may observe or ways they can help create a more therapeutic environment even they work indirectly with service recipients. This does not mean non-direct service personnel, such as administrative staff, participate in hands on interventions or necessitate that level of training.

    Interpretation: Organizations that do not permit restrictive interventions should train their personnel on how to respond to behaviours that threaten the safety of service recipients and perssonnel and procedures for the last resort measure in order to maintain a safe and therapeutic environment (e.g., policies and procedures outlining when it is necessary to call the police).

    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 curriculum is not fully developed or lacks depth; or
    • A few personnel have not been trained.
    3
    Practice requires significant improvement; e.g.,
    • A significant number of staff have not been trained.
    4
    Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all.

  • FP
    CA-BSM 3.02

    Personnel receive training that includes:

    1. practices that promote positive behaviour;
    2. recognizing challenging behaviours that are a threat to self or others, psychosocial issues, and medical conditions; 
    3. the impact of the physical environment and other contributing factors that may lead to a crisis;
    4. understanding the impact of staff behaviours and responses can have on the behaviour of service recipients; and
    5. limitations, including the potential of retraumatization, on the use of restrictive interventions.

    Update:

    • Revised Standard - 05/07/18
       

    Interpretation: Training should also address management of age-appropriate, but potentially dangerous behaviour, for example, ways to protect a child who runs into the street so as not to harm him/her.

    Interpretation: Psychosocial issues should include the role a service recipient’s trauma history may play in their challenging behaviours and reactions to crisis interventions.
     

    Research Note: Research regarding trauma-informed approaches to address service recipients’ challenging behaviours highlights the importance of including trauma in the staff training, specifically looking at the long-lasting effects of trauma on behaviour, its prevalence in the relevant service population, and strategies for hope and recovery.

    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 curriculum related to one of the elements is not fully developed or lacks depth; or
    •  A few personnel have not been trained but only work with clients under the oversight of trained personnel.
    3
    Practice requires significant improvement; e.g.,
    • The curriculum related to two of the elements is not fully developed or lacks depth; or
    • Training does not address one of the elements at all; or
    • A significant number of staff have not been trained.
    4
    Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all.

  • FP
    CA-BSM 3.03

    Training addresses methods for de-escalating volatile situations, including:

    1. listening and communication techniques, such as negotiation, centering strengths, and mediation;
    2. involving the person in regaining control and encouraging self-calming behaviours;
    3. separation of individuals involved in an altercation;
    4. offering a voluntary escort to guide the person to a safe location;
    5. voluntary withdrawal from the group or milieu to allow the person to calm down; and
    6. other non-restrictive ways of de-escalating and reducing episodes of aggressive and out-of-control behaviour.

    Update:

    • Revised Standard - 05/07/18

    Intepretation: In regards to element (f), organizations that create individualized behaviour plans should include some of the non-restrictive ways of de-escalating identified in those plans as part of their training. 

    Research Note: Best practice indicates that when staff are trained and supported in the use of alternate methods in crisis situations, the use of seclusion and restraint is reduced dramatically.

    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 curriculum related to one of the elements is not fully developed or lacks depth; or
    • A few personnel have not been trained but only work with clients under the oversight of trained personnel.
    3
    Practice requires significant improvement; e.g.,
    • The curriculum related to two of the elements is not fully developed or lacks depth; or
    • Training does not address one of the elements at all; or
    •  A significant number of staff have not been trained.
    4
    Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all.
Copyright © 2018 Council on Accreditation. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy and Terms of Use