Standards for public agencies

2020 Edition

Mentoring Services (PA-MS) 1: Client-Centered Logic Model

The agency implements a program logic model that describes how resources and program activities will support the achievement of positive outcomes.
2020 Edition

Currently viewing: MENTORING SERVICES (PA-MS)

VIEW THE STANDARDS

Purpose

Individuals participating in Mentoring Services develop supportive, positive relationships that contribute to the achievement of personal, social, and educational growth.
1
Full Implementation, Outstanding Performance
A rating of (1) indicates that the agency's 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 agency performance. 
2
Substantial Implementation, Good Performance
A rating of (2) indicates that an agency's 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 not yet fully developed practices are noted; however, these do not significantly impact service quality or agency performance.
3

Partial Implementation, Concerning Performance
A rating of (3) indicates that the agency's observed infrastructure and/or practices require significant improvement.  

  • The agency has not implemented the basic framework of the standard but instead has in place only part 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 agency functioning may be compromised.  
  • Capacity is at a basic level.
4
Unsatisfactory Implementation or Performance
A rating of (4) indicates that implementation of the standard is minimal or there is no evidence of implementation at all.  
  • The agency’s observed service delivery infrastructure and practices are weak or non-existent; or show signs of neglect, stagnation, or deterioration.
Self-Study EvidenceOn-Site EvidenceOn-Site Activities
  • Program logic model that includes a list of client outcomes being measured
  • Policy for prohibited interventions
No On-Site Evidence
  • Interviews may include:
    1. Program director
    2. Relevant personnel

 

PA-MS 1.01

A program logic model, or equivalent framework, identifies:
  1. needs the program will address;
  2. available human, financial, agency, and community resources (i.e. inputs);
  3. program activities intended to bring about desired results;
  4. program outputs (i.e. the size and scope of services delivered);
  5. desired outcomes (i.e. the changes you expect to see in service recipients); and
  6. expected long-term impact on the agency, community, and/or system.
Examples: Please see the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide and COA’s PQI Tool Kit for more information on developing and using program logic models.

Examples: Information that may be used to inform the development of the logic model includes, but is not limited to: 
  1. needs assessments and periodic reassessments; and
  2. the best available evidence of service effectiveness.

 

PA-MS 1.02

The logic model identifies client outcomes in at least two of the following areas:
  1. change in clinical status;
  2. change in functional status;
  3. health, welfare, and safety;
  4. permanency of life situation; 
  5. quality of life; 
  6. achievement of individual service goals; and 
  7. other outcomes as appropriate to the program or service population.

 
Fundamental Practice

PA-MS 1.03

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. forced physical exercise to eliminate behaviors; 
  6. unwarranted use of invasive procedures or activities as a disciplinary action; 
  7. punitive work assignments;
  8. punishment by peers; and
  9. group punishment or discipline for individual behavior.