WHO IS ACCREDITED?

Private Organization Accreditation

Debt Education and Certification Foundation (DECAF), a private non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, provides high-quality financial education and counseling, with nationwide outreach throughout the U.S. DECAF is HUD-approved, and recognized as one of the 100 Best Companies to Work for in Texas.
read more >>

ORGANIZATION TESTIMONIAL

ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions

Tim Spearin, Vice President, Quality Assurance

ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions has been accredited by the Council on Accreditation (COA) since 1996.  Reaccreditation attests that a member organization continues to meet the highest national operating standards as set by the COA.  It also provides assurance that ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions is performing services which the community needs, conducting its operations and funds successfully.
read more>>

Purpose

A qualified, trained, and supported workforce contributes to the delivery of quality services that promote customer satisfaction and positive service delivery results. 

MIL-HR 1: Positive Work Environment

Through the adoption and implementation of human resource policies, the MFR program provides an equitable work environment that promotes a high level of staff satisfaction and is supportive of productivity and diversity. 

Rating Indicators
1
Full Implementation, Outstanding Performance
A rating of (1) indicates that the programs’ practices fully meet the standard and reflect a high level of capacity.  All elements or requirements outlined in the standard are evident in practice, with rare or no exceptions; exceptions do not impact service quality or overall performance.  
2
Substantial Implementation, Good Performance 
A rating of (2) indicates that a programs’ infrastructure and practices are basically sound but there is room for improvement. The majority of the standards requirements have been met and the basic framework required by the standard has been implemented.  Minor inconsistencies and practices that are not fully developed are noted; however, these do not significantly impact service quality or overall performance.
3
Partial Implementation, Concerning Performance
A rating of (3) indicates that significant aspects of the programs’ observed infrastructure and/or practices require significant improvement. The program has not implemented the basic framework of the standard but instead has in place only part(s) of this framework. Omissions or exceptions to the practices outlined in the standard occur regularly, or practices are implemented in a cursory or haphazard manner.  Service quality or program functioning may be compromised. Capacity is at a basic level.
4
Unsatisfactory Implementation and Performance
A rating of (4) indicates that implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all. The programs’ observed administration and management infrastructure and practices are weak or non-existent; or show signs of neglect, stagnation, or deterioration.

Please see Rating Guidance for additional rating examples. 

Table of Evidence

Self-Study Evidence On-Site Evidence On-Site Activities
    • Description of the mechanisms in place for obtaining staff input and providing feedback on staff recommendations (MIL-HR 1.07)
    • Description of staff recognition efforts (MIL-HR 1.08)
    • Non-discrimination/EEO and anti-harassment policy and procedures (MIL-HR 1.01)
    • Staff training curricula (MIL-HR 1.01, MIL-HR 1.09, MIL-HR 1.11)
    • Local-level documentation for tracking staff completion of required trainings (MIL-HR 1.01, MIL-HR 1.09, MIL-HR 1.11)
    • Nepotism policy (MIL-HR 1.02)
    • Procedures for tracking completion of required background investigations (MIL-HR 1.03) 
    • Legislation or regulations pertaining to background investigations (MIL-HR 1.03)
    • Local-level documentation for tracking the completion of background investigations for relevant staff (MIL-HR 1.03) 
    • Documentation of local level human resource information provided to government employees (e.g. training curricula, handbook, self-paced power point slides, links to online resources, etc.) (MIL-HR 1.04)
    • Procedures for soliciting feedback from government employees who leave the program (e.g. exit interview procedures) (MIL-HR 1.05)
    • Local-level documentation for tracking receipt of feedback and/or completion of exit interviews (MIL-HR 1.05)
    • Policy and procedures governing the use of volunteers, if applicable (MIL-HR 1.06)
    • Volunteer assignments, if applicable (MIL-HR 1.06, MIL-HR 1.11)
    • Meeting minutes and/or schedules from program or team meetings (MIL-HR 1.07)
    • Grievance procedures (MIL-HR 1.09)
    • Evidence of improvements made in response to staff satisfaction concerns (MIL-HR 1.10)
    • Interview: 
      1. MFR program director
      2. Relevant staff (MIL-HR 1.04)

  • FP
    MIL-HR 1.01

    The MFR program promotes a workplace that is free of discrimination and harassment by: 

    1. adhering to relevant policy and procedures; and
    2. ensuring access to relevant training for staff on an annual basis.


  • MIL-HR 1.02

    MFR program leadership adheres to human resources policies that:

    1. prohibit preferential treatment except when permitted under the law; and 
    2. address nepotism with regard to hiring, supervision, and promotion. 


  • FP
    MIL-HR 1.03

    The MFR program has a mechanism for tracking completion of required background investigations for government employees, contractors, volunteers, and student interns including specialized screenings for indivdiuals who will be working with children and youth.

    Note: MIL-HR 1.03 is NA for volunteers when the MFR program is being reviewed under Volunteer Coordination (MIL-VC).  


  • MIL-HR 1.04

    Government employees receive up-to-date information on human resource policies and procedures specific to the local MFR program. 


  • MIL-HR 1.05

    Government employees who leave the MFR program voluntarily or due to a Permanent Change of Station have the opportunity to provide feedback on the MFR program’s strengths and weaknesses as well as address issues related to the transition.


  • MIL-HR 1.06

    MFR programs that use volunteers to provide direct services specify their roles and responsibilities and how they will be supervised.

    NA The MFR program does not use volunteers to provide direct services.
    NA The MFR program is being reviewed under Volunteer Coordination (MIL-VC).
     


  • MIL-HR 1.07

    The MFR program promotes open communication and collaboration among disciplines and staff levels by:

    1. holding regular program and team meetings; 
    2. soliciting feedback from staff regarding program operations and service delivery; and
    3. providing feedback to staff about their suggestions and recommendations.

    Note: MIL-HR 1.07 is NA for volunteers when the MFR program is being reviewed under Volunteer Coordination (MIL-VC).


  • MIL-HR 1.08

    The MFR program recognizes and rewards the contributions of staff. 

    Note: MIL-HR 1.08 is NA for volunteers when the MFR program is being reviewed under Volunteer Coordination (MIL-VC).


  • MIL-HR 1.09

    Government employees and volunteers are trained on and familiar with the formal grievance procedures, which includes:

    1. the right to file a grievance without interference or retaliation;
    2. a description of how grievances are filed, to whom, and who will make a final determination;
    3. timelines for resolution;
    4. how the resolution is documented; and
    5. an explanation of any appeal, rights, or recourse.


  • MIL-HR 1.10

    MFR program leadership takes action to identify and address staff satisfaction concerns expressed by government employees and volunteers working within their MFR program.


  • MIL-HR 1.11

    The MFR program promotes productive and positive relationships between government employees  and volunteers by:

    1. training staff on how to work effectively with volunteers;
    2. recognizing staff accomplishments in this area, including excellence in supervising volunteers; and
    3. minimizing any perceived threat to paid positions by clearly defining the boundaries of volunteer participation in the MFR program.

Copyright © 2018 Council on Accreditation. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy and Terms of Use