Private Organization Accreditation

One Hope United offers a range of services aimed at our mission of "Protecting children and strengthening families" including early childhood education, early intervention and prevention, family preservation, foster care, residential, and adoption.


Jane Bonk, Ph.D., LCSW

Volunteer Roles: Commissioner; Evaluator; Lead Evaluator; Peer Reviewer; Team Leader

Dr. Jane Bonk is a team leader, evaluator, and commissioner who has led over 25 site visits for COA.
read more>>


Youth who participate in Wilderness and Adventure-based Therapeutic Outdoor Services expand individual capabilities, develop self-confidence and insight, ameliorate symptoms, and improve interpersonal skills and relationships.

WT 10: Privacy Provisions

The organization provides for participant comfort, dignity, and private communications.

Note: Please see Facility Observation Checklist - Private, Public, Canadian for additional assistance with this standard.

Rating Indicators
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.
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
  • 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
  • Active client participation occurs to a considerable extent.
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
  • Timeframes are often missed; or
  • A number of client records are missing important information  or
  • Client participation is inconsistent; or
  • One of the Fundamental Practice Standards received a rating of 3 or 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.,
  • 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
    • Privacy policy and procedures
No On-Site Evidence
    • Interview:
      1. Program director
      2. Relevant personnel
      3. Youth or families served
    • Review case records
    • Observe facilities

  • FP
    WT 10.01

    The organization:

    1. establishes and implements policies for searches of participants or their property consistent with applicable state and federal law; and
    2. prohibits the use of surveillance cameras or listening devises for routine observation unless required by judicial order, law, or contract.

  • FP
    WT 10.02

    Searches of participants or their property are conducted in a manner that respects client rights, dignity, and self-determination and include, as appropriate to the frequency and invasiveness of searches:

    1. timely notification of a parent or guardian;
    2. definition and documentation of reasonable cause and assessed risk;
    3. trained, qualified staff; and
    4. an administrative review process including documentation, notification, and the timetable for review.

    Interpretation: The invasiveness of the search to be conducted has a direct impact on all aspects of search procedures. Organizations must demonstrate that more invasive searches are associated with an increased level of risk, reasonable cause, staff competence, and level of administrative review.

  • FP
    WT 10.03

    The organization does not open mail received by a participant, unless a previous incident involving the resident indicates that:

    1. the mail is suspected of containing unauthorized, dangerous, or illegal material or substances, in which case it may be opened by the participant in the presence of designated personnel; or
    2. receipt of, or sending, unopened mail is contraindicated.

  • FP
    WT 10.04

    Each participant can have private telephone conversations, and any restriction is:

    1. based on contraindications and/or a court order;
    2. approved in advance by the program director or an appropriate designee;
    3. documented in the case record; and
    4. reauthorized weekly by the immediate supervisor of the direct service provider.
Copyright © 2019 Council on Accreditation. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy and Terms of Use