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 >>

VOLUNTEER TESTIMONIAL

Rochelle Haimes, ACSW

Volunteer Roles: Commissioner; Peer Reviewer; Standards Panel Member; Team Leader

Rochelle is a Consultant working with a variety of private organizations to become accredited. Her primary area of expertise is in facilitating the development of PQI systems and activities. Her previous experience with both small and large organizations is the cornerstone for her long-standing volunteer activities as a Peer reviewer and as a Team Leader.
read more>>

Purpose

Guardianship Services for Minors support the establishment of a court-appointed, long-term, living arrangement with a committed caregiver that ensures safety and increases stability and child well-being.

GSM 2: Service Philosophy

The program is guided by a service philosophy that:

  1. establishes the child, within the family and community context, as the primary focus of guardianship services;
  2. is culturally grounded;
  3. provides a logical approach for how program activities will meet the needs of children, guardians, and families who receive guardianship services; and
  4. is based on program goals and the best available evidence of service effectiveness for the identified service population.

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.

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
    • Include service philosophy in the Narrative
No On-Site Evidence
    • Interview:
      1. Program director
      2. Relevant personnel
Copyright © 2018 Council on Accreditation. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy and Terms of Use