WHO IS ACCREDITED?

Private Organization Accreditation

Germaine Lawrence is a residential treatment center for girls ages 12-18 with complex behavioral, psychological and learning challenges.   Girls live at our programs while receiving special education, individual, family and group therapy; psychiatric and primary medical care; and a wide variety of therapeutic activities and interventions.
read more >>

VOLUNTEER TESTIMONIAL

Audrey Coleman, RN-MSN

Volunteer Roles: Military Reviewer; Peer Reviewer; Team Leader

My first experience with COA was in 1999 with what was a NC Area Program. I started as a peer reviewer in 2005, doing two to four site visits a year. I am also a team leader and have recently been approved to be a military reviewer.
read more>>

Purpose

Individuals and families who receive Disaster Recovery Case Management Services access and use resources and support that build on their strengths and meet their service needs.

DRCM 1: Service Philosophy

The program is guided by a service philosophy that:

  1. facilitates the development, implementation, and evaluation of the program based on program goals and the best available evidence of service effectiveness; and
  2. establishes how the program will support service recipients in accessing resources to meet disaster-related needs and in achieving their recovery goals; and
  3. ensures that services are strengths-based, person- or family-centered, culturally and linguistically responsive, and trauma-informed.

Update:

  • Revised Standard - 10/17/17
    Element (c) and the interpretations were added.

Interpretation: A program model or logic model can be a useful tool to help staff think systematically about how the program can make a measureable difference by drawing a clear connection between the service population’s needs, available resources, program activities and interventions, program outputs, and desired outcomes.

Interpretation: Circumstances under which disaster recovery case management service are delivered create challenges for research and evaluation, for example, control or comparison group studies would be difficult to conceptualize and implement. There is however, a need for disaster recovery case management studies to determine key components and methods that contribute to quality service delivery and effectiveness, possibly beginning with systematic reviews and publication of client needs, services received, and client outcomes. DRCM 1 promotes program evaluation to the greatest extent possible given these challenges.

Interpretation: 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 assessment and service planning processes to ensure that services are being delivered in a trauma-informed manner. 

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 (HR 6.02) and training (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
No On-Site Evidence
    • Interview:
      1. Program Director
      2. Relevant personnel
      3. Service recipients
Copyright © 2017 Council on Accreditation. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy and Terms of Use