WHO IS ACCREDITED?

Private Organization Accreditation

Lutheran Social Services of New England is a high-performing nonprofit organization. LSS is a powerful difference maker and go-to resource, driving ourselves to constantly anticipate futures that are different from the past. For 140 years, LSS has been caring for people in need in New England.
read more >>

ORGANIZATION TESTIMONIAL

Family Services of the North Shore

Kathleen Whyte, Manager of Human Resources / Accreditation Coordinator

Family Services of the North Shore is about to enter our third accreditation cycle with COA. Accreditation has provided us with a framework that enables us to demonstrate accountability to our clients, our funders and our donors. There is no question that the accreditation process and COA have benefited our agency.
read more>>

Purpose

Shelter Services meet the basic needs of individuals and families who are homeless or in transition, support family stabilization or independent living, and facilitate access to services and permanent housing.

PA-SH 1: Service Philosophy

The program is guided by a service philosophy that:

  1. sets forth a logical approach for how services, supports, activities, and interventions will empower and meet the needs of service recipients;
  2. ensures that services are strengths-based, person- or family-centered, culturally and linguistically competent, and trauma-informed; and
  3. guides the development and implementation of program activities and individualized services based on the best available evidence of service effectiveness.

Interpretation: A functional service philosophy, logic model, or similar framework guides program development and implementation by linking the agency’s mission or purpose with strategies, practices, or tools needed to integrate these into daily work. A well-defined and visible practice framework will help staff and stakeholders think systematically about how the program can make a measureable difference by drawing clear connections between program values, service population needs, available resources, program activities and interventions, program outputs, and desired outcomes.

Interpretation: Agency self-assessments can evaluate the extent to which agencies’ policies and practices are trauma-informed, as well as identify strengths and barriers in regards to trauma-informed service delivery and provision. For example, agencies 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. Agencies 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.

Research Note: A trauma-informed approach is one that involves recognizing the signs and symptoms of trauma, and responding by emphasizing/considering the following during service delivery: 

  • safety; 
  • trustworthiness and transparency;
  • peer support; 
  • collaboration and mutuality; 
  • empowerment, voice, and choice; and 
  • cultural, historical, and gender issues. 

Table of Evidence

Self-Study Evidence On-Site Evidence On-Site Activities
    • Service philosophy
    • Policies for prohibited interventions
No On-Site Evidence
    • Interview:
      1. Program director
      2. Relevant personnel

  • PA-SH 1.01

    The program is guided by a philosophy that provides a logical basis for services and supports to be delivered in a trauma-informed and culturally and linguistically competent manner, based on program goals and the best available evidence of service effectiveness.


  • FP
    PA-SH 1.02

    Agency policy prohibits:

    1. corporal punishment;
    2. the use of aversive stimuli;
    3. interventions that involve withholding nutrition or hydration, or that inflict physical or psychological pain;
    4. the use of demeaning, shaming or degrading language or activities;
    5. unnecessarily punitive restrictions including cancellation of visits as a disciplinary action;
    6. forced physical exercise to eliminate behaviors;
    7. punitive work assignments;
    8. punishment by peers;
    9. group punishment or discipline for individual behavior; and
    10. unwarranted use of invasive procedures and activities as a disciplinary action.

Copyright © 2017 Council on Accreditation. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy and Terms of Use