WHO IS ACCREDITED?

      Private Organization Accreditation

      HeartShare assist individuals with developmental disabilities through education, day, residential and recreation programs, case management, and health services, and provides foster care/adoption services, counseling, after school and energy assistance programs, and programs for people with HIV/AIDS.
      read more >>

      ORGANIZATION TESTIMONIAL

      Holy Family Institute

      Sister Linda Yankoski, President/CEO

      The Council On Accreditation provides all stakeholders involved in the delivery of social services the assurance that the organization is credible, effective, and is committed to quality improvement. The COA process is an important tool for anyone involved in leading an organization to establish best practices and maintaining and updating these practices over time.
      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 4: Assessment

      Individuals and families participate in a comprehensive, individualized, strengths-based, culturally-responsive, and trauma-informed assessment of disaster recovery-related needs.

      Interpretation: A trauma-informed approach to assessment is one that incorporates and applies knowledge about trauma and trauma survivors to minimize the risk of re-victimization, to address the effects of trauma on the individual, and to facilitate healing. Trauma-informed service delivery considers and emphasizes:

      1. safety; 
      2. trustworthiness and transparency;
      3. peer support;
      4. collaboration and mutuality;
      5. empowerment, voice and choice; and 
      6. cultural, historical, and gender issues.

      Note: Refer to the Assessment Matrix - Private, Public, Canadian, Network for additional Screening/Intake Assessment criteria. The assessment elements of the Matrix can be tailored according to the needs of specific individuals or service design.

      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
      • Procedures need strengthening; or
      • With few exceptions procedures are understood by staff and are being used; or
      • For the most part, established timeframes are met; or
      • Culturally responsive assessments are the norm and any issues with individual staff members are being addressed through performance evaluations (HR 6.02) and training (TS 2.05); or
      • Active client participation occurs to a considerable extent; or
      • Diagnostic tests are consistently and appropriately used, but interviews with staff indicate a need for more training (TS 2.08).
      3
      Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the Practice standards.  Service quality or program functioning may be compromised; e.g.,
      • Procedures and/or case record documentation need significant strengthening; or
      • Procedures are not well-understood or used appropriately; or
      • Assessment and reassessment timeframes are often missed; or
      • Assessment are sometimes not sufficiently individualized;
      • Culturally responsive assessments are not the norm and this is not being addressed in supervision or training; or
      • Staff are not competent to administer diagnostic tests , or tests are not being used when clinically indicated; or
      • Client participation is inconsistent; or
      • Assessments are done by referral source and no documentation and/or summary of required information present in case record; 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 are no written 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
        • Assessment procedures
        • Assessment tools and/or criteria included in assessment
      No On-Site Evidence
        • Interview:
          1. Clinical or program director
          2. Relevant personnel
          3. Individuals or families served
        • Review case records

      • DRCM 4.01

        The information gathered for assessments is comprehensive, directed at concerns identified in the initial screening, and limited to material that is pertinent for meeting service requests and objectives.

        Interpretation: There may be delays in client identification of needs and the ability to discern disaster specific impacts on life circumstances.

      • FP
        DRCM 4.02

        Assessments are conducted in person at a mutually agreed upon location and include assessment of natural supports and helping networks.

        Interpretation: Conditions may require beginning an assessment by telephone and continuing in person at a location that takes into account client and worker safety, client confidentiality, and client accessibility. In-home visits are optimal for completing a comprehensive assessment.

      • FP
        DRCM 4.03

        Personnel who conduct assessments are qualified by training, skill, and experience, can recognize individuals and families with special needs and vulnerabilities, and are knowledgeable about available supplemental resource.

      • DRCM 4.04

        The organization promptly provides or advocates for referrals and coordinates arrangements for specialized assessments, as needed.

        Interpretation: All programs should maintain an evidence-based suicide risk assessment protocol that evaluates suicidal desire, capability, intent, and buffers/protective factors. Staff should ask questions to learn if the individual is currently thinking of suicide, has thought about suicide recently, and/or has ever attempted suicide. An affirmative answer to any of these questions would require a comprehensive, evidence-based suicide risk assessment or a referral for one with a partnering agency. 

        Research Note: Victims of mass violence and terrorism often require specialized mental health assessment and treatment to cope with the impacts of trauma. 

        Research Note: Though limited, determination of outcomes for victims of disasters relative to types of services received is now receiving attention in professional literature. Such resources sometimes provide a comprehensive list of the many services that can be offered and useful program performance measurement indicators.

      • DRCM 4.05

        Assessments are conducted in a culturally responsive manner to identify resources that can increase service participation and support the achievement of agreed upon goals.

      • DRCM 4.06

        Assessments are completed within timeframes established by the organization.

        Interpretation: Organizations that establish their own timeframes should be sensitive to the needs of individuals and families, ongoing recovery efforts and deadlines, and support the timely development of a recovery plan.

      • DRCM 4.07

        Engagement and assessment are characterized by:

        1. sensitivity to the willingness of the person or family to be engaged;
        2. sensitivity to differences in presentation of needs over the phases of recovery and changes in availability of resources;
        3. a non-threatening manner;
        4. respect for the person, his/her autonomy, culture, and confidentiality; and
        5. flexibility.
      Copyright © 2019 Council on Accreditation. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy and Terms of Use