Standards Review

As I mentioned, there were a few areas in the Accreditation Standards that were fine-tuned when we were doing Maine. Most often, the existing language was either unclear, too verbose, or was not appropriate for want was being asked. I will send a marked up copy to everyone via email. tThe marked up copy with the changes on it address the following standards: 1.07 1.09 2.01 2.08 3.02 Additionally there are a few items in the Auditors' Manual that should be looked at or changed pg. 8 Audit Assignment - was meant to ensure to the audit team that there will be a fair distribution of assignments. If you think that language is needed to better enforce that, it should be enhanced. pg. 16 - Discretionary Compliance There was one important issue that will become a sticking point on audits and it did in Maine. If a program is coming into compliance with a mandatory standard, but through no fault of their own is not able to achieve the "letter of the law" but is in fact following the standard, Can a "Plan of Action" be written and submitted for the program to achieve the full standard within the three-year accreditation period. So in the case of Maine: they have been using a risk assessment validated for another jurisdiction, and they are attempting to get it validated for their jurisdiction, but need expected buy-in over the next two years. Can the Action Plan be accepted? This would only be good for one mandatory standard, and would give the program needed backup to get funds more quickly for the validated program. If it were not achieved by the next re-accreditation, they would lose accreditation status. The key point is that they are basically "there" with respect to standard compliance. Pg. 24 - Monitoring Visits Once a program gets accredited, we had spoken about a yearly form (probably multi-page) that would be filled out to address compliance with the standards and report on any occurrences that might have impacted on programs. This was not developed. Peter