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

A stable, qualified workforce contributes effectively and efficiently to consumer satisfaction and positive service delivery results.

HR 6: Performance Review

The performance review process:

  1. assesses job performance;
  2. recognizes accomplishments; 
  3. provides constructive feedback; 
  4. emphasizes self-development and professional growth; and 
  5. facilitates open, two-way communication as a means to encourage performance improvement.

Update:

  • Deleted Standard - 08/31/17
    HR 6.04 was deleted; performance monitoring of independent contractors is now addressed in HR 8. 

Note: HR 6 does not apply to independent contractors. If the organization uses independent contractors see HR 8.

Rating Indicators
1
The organization's practices fully meet the standard, as indicated by full implementation of the practices outlined in the HR 6 Practice standards.
2
Practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement, as noted in the ratings for the HR 6 Practice standards.
3
Practice requires significant improvement, as noted in the ratings for the HR 6 Practice standards.
4
Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all, as noted in the ratings for the HR 6 Practice standards. 

Table of Evidence

Self-Study Evidence On-Site Evidence On-Site Activities
    • Performance evaluation forms/templates or description of ongoing review process
    • Personnel records
    • Performance review procedures
    • Interview:
      1. HR Director
      2. Supervisory personnel
      3. Direct service personnel
      4. Personnel at various levels

  • HR 6.01

    The organization has a standardized process for providing every full-time and part-time employee and volunteer with a written performance review at regular intervals that involves the employee or volunteer and the supervisor.

    Interpretation: Performance reviews should be conducted in-person where possible. Ongoing, regular professional or case supervision, group supervision, etc., by themselves do not meet the intent of the standard. Casual volunteers do not need to participate in the organization’s performance review process.

    Interpretation: When determining the timelines for the performance review, the organization may consider the qualifications and experience of the worker and the supervisor, and the complexity and intensity of the service. Timelines should be communicated to staff and clearly stated in the organization’s policies, procedures, and/or employee manual. 

    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., 
    • Some performance evaluations were not competed within stated timeframes; or
    • A few staff did not receive an evaluation within the most recent evaluation cycle.
    3
    Practice requires significant improvement; e.g.,
    • Performance evaluations have not been conducted within the last two years; or
    • Evaluations are poorly documented or missing in some personnel files; or
    • The process, including timeframes, differs significantly between departments or programs; or
    • Volunteers providing direct services do not receive regular performance reviews.
    4
    Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all.

  • HR 6.02

    Staff performance reviews emphasize self-development and professional growth and include:

    1. specific expectations defined in the job description;
    2. organization-wide expectations for personnel;
    3. objectives established in the most recent review, accomplishments and challenges since the last review period, and objectives for future performance, including developmental and professional objectives;
    4. recommendations for training; and
    5. an assessment of the staff member’s knowledge and competence related to the characteristics and needs of service recipients, if applicable.

    Research Note: Research suggests that adding narratives to the review is more effective in capturing job performance than numerical ratings alone.

    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., 
    • In a substantial percentage of cases, the organization complies with the standard; or
    • One of the required elements is not fully addressed.
    3
    Practice requires significant improvement; e.g.,
    • In a significant percentage of cases, the organization does not address two of the required elements; or
    • The organization does not consistently conduct evaluations across departments and/or programs.
    4
    Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all.

  • HR 6.03

    The organization’s performance review process: 

    1. promotes a work environment that supports active participation by personnel in the performance review process; and
    2. gives staff members the opportunity to obtain a copy, provide comments, and sign written reviews. 
    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.,
    • Procedure needs clarifying; or  
    • A few staff report being unaware of their rights as per the requirements of the standard.
    3
    Practice requires significant improvement; e.g.,
    • Many staff report being unaware of their rights as per the requirements of the standard; or
    • Practice is informal and has not been outlined in procedure; or
    • The procedure is inconsistently applied across departments and/or programs.
    4
    Implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all.
Copyright © 2017 Council on Accreditation. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy and Terms of Use