WHO IS ACCREDITED?

Private Organization Accreditation

Family Services of Southeast Texas strengthens families through accessible, affordable counseling services and education for issues affecting family life, mental health and employment.  We also provide comprehensive domestic violence shelter and support services.
read more >>

ORGANIZATION TESTIMONIAL

Orange County Government, Youth & Family Services Division

Rodney J. Hrobar Sr., LMHC, CPP, Quality Assurance Manager

As the lead agency in Orange County, providing the safety net for children and families, it is reassuring that our clients can be confident that their needs will be addressed in accordance with the most stringent standards of public, as well as private, accountability as monitored and reviewed by the Council on Accreditation. 
read more>>

Purpose

Group Living Services allow individuals who need additional support to regain, maintain, and improve life skills and functioning in a safe, stable, community-based living arrangement.

CA-GLS 1: Service Philosophy, Modalities, and Interventions

The program’s service philosophy:

  1. sets forth a logical approach for how services, supports, activities, and interventions will empower and meet the needs of residents;
  2. ensures that services are resident-guided, family-driven, culturally and linguistically competent, and trauma-informed;
  3. guides the development and implementation of program activities and individualized services based on the best available evidence of service effectiveness; and
  4. outlines the service modalities and interventions that personnel may employ.

Interpretation: A functional service philosophy, defined through a logic model or similar framework, guides program development and implementation by linking the organization’s mission, or purpose with strategies, practices, or tools needed to integrate these into daily work. A well-defined and visible practice framework will help staff and stakeholders think systematically about how the program can make a measureable difference by drawing clear connections between program values, service population needs, available resources, program activities and interventions, program outputs, and desired outcomes.

Interpretation: Organizations that are resident-guided empower, educate, and facilitate voice and choice of those served by the program. Offering residents decision-making power leads to more positive long-term outcomes. 

Organizations that are family-driven empower, educate, engage, and promote voice and choice of families.

Research Note: Organizational self-assessments can evaluate the extent to which organizations’ policies and practices are trauma-informed, as well as identify strengths and barriers in regards to trauma-informed service delivery and provision. For example, organizations can evaluate staff training and professional development opportunities and review supervision ratios to assess whether personnel are trained and supported on trauma-informed care practices. Organizations can also conduct an internal review of their assessments and service planning processes to ensure that services are being delivered in a trauma-informed manner. 

Research Note: Organizations that create environments where there is little to no coercion help reduce the use of restrictive behavior management intervention, such as restraint and seclusion, and reinforce trauma-informed care practices. Establishing non-coercive environments actively promotes interpersonal and cognitive skill development, as well as other positive outcomes for residents. 

Rating Indicators
1
All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the Practice standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice standards; e.g.,  
  • Minor inconsistencies and not yet fully developed practices are noted, however, these do not significantly impact service quality; or
  • Written service philosophy needs improvement or clarification; or
  • Procedures need strengthening; or
  • With few exceptions procedures are understood by staff and are being used; or
  • Proper documentation is the norm and any issues with individual staff members are being addressed through performance evaluations (CA-HR 6.02) and training (CA-TS 2.03); or
  • In a few rare instances required consent was not obtained; or
  • Monitoring procedures need minor clarification; or
  • With few exceptions the policy on prohibited interventions is understood by staff, or the written policy needs minor clarification.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice standards. Service quality or program functioning may be compromised; e.g.,
  • The written service philosophy needs significant improvement; or
  • Procedures and/or case record documentation need significant strengthening; or
  • Procedures are not well-understood or used appropriately; or
  • Documentation is inconsistent or in in some instances is missing and no corrective action has not been initiated; or
  • Required consent is often not obtained; or
  • A few personnel who are employing non-traditional or unconventional interventions have not completed training, as required; or
  • There are gaps in monitoring of interventions, as required; or
  • Policy on prohibited interventions does not include at least one of the required elements; or
  • Service philosophy is not clearly related to expressed mission or programs of the organization; or
  • One of the Fundamental Practice Standards received a rating of 3 or 4.
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the Practice standards; e.g.,
  • There is no written service philosophy; or
  • There are no written policy or procedures, or procedures are clearly inadequate or not being used; or
  • Documentation is routinely incomplete and/or missing; or  
  • Two or more Fundamental Practice Standards received a rating of 3 or 4.

Table of Evidence

Self-Study Evidence On-Site Evidence On-Site Activities
    • Service philosophy
    • Policies for prohibited interventions
    • Procedures for use of non-traditional or unconventional practices
    • Table of contents of training curricula on the use of non-traditional or unconventional practices
    • Documentation of training on the use of non-traditional or unconventional practices
    • Interview:
      1. Program director
      2. Personnel
      3. Residents
    • Review of case records

  • CA-GLS 1.01

    The program is guided by a philosophy that provides a logical basis for services and supports to be delivered to residents in a trauma-informed and culturally and linguistically competent manner, based on program goals, desired outcomes, and the best available evidence of service effectiveness.


  • FP
    CA-GLS 1.02

    If the organization permits the use of service modalities and interventions it defines as non-traditional or unconventional, it:

    1. explains any benefits, risks, side effects, and alternatives to the service recipient or a legal guardian;
    2. obtains the written, informed consent of the individual or legal guardian;
    3. ensures that personnel receive sufficient training, and/or certification when it is available; and
    4. monitors the use and effectiveness of such interventions.

    Interpretation: Examples of non-traditional and unconventional service modalities or interventions include, but are not limited to: hypnosis, acupuncture, and modalities or interventions that involve physical contact, such as massage therapy.

    Interpretation: Organizations that choose to permit non-traditional or unconventional service modalities or interventions should ensure that practices do not cause physical or psychological harm by demonstrating in their procedures that they have acknowledged the potential risks of implementing these methods and subsequently taken appropriate measures to minimize those risks. 

    NA The organization does not permit non-traditional or unconventional modalities or interventions.


  • FP
    CA-GLS 1.03

    Organization policy prohibits:

    1. corporal punishment;
    2. the use of aversive stimuli and/or therapies;
    3. interventions that involve withholding nutrition or hydration, or that inflict physical or psychological pain;
    4. the use of demeaning, shaming, or degrading language and bullying activities;
    5. unnecessarily punitive restrictions including restricting contact with family as a disciplinary action;
    6. forced physical exercise to eliminate behaviors;
    7. unwarranted use of invasive procedures or activities as a disciplinary action;
    8. punitive work assignments;
    9. punishment by peers; and
    10. group punishment or discipline for individual behavior.


  • FP
    CA-GLS 1.04

    An intervention is discontinued immediately if it produces adverse side effects or is deemed unacceptable according to prevailing professional standards.

Copyright © 2017 Council on Accreditation. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy and Terms of Use