HOW ARE RATINGS DETERMINED?

Rating System Overview
The Peer Review Team uses the following rating scale to assess implementation of the standards and organizational performance:

1 = Full Implementation/Outstanding Performance
2 = Substantial Implementation/Strong Performance
3 = Partial Implementation/Concerning Performance
4 = Unsatisfactory Implementation and Performance

For descriptions and examples of the indicators COA uses to assess an agency"s implementation of the standards, see the Related Files (Rating Indicators for Assessing the Implementation of COA Administration and Management Standards, and Rating Indicators for Assessing the Implementation of COA Service Standards).

When a rating indicator does not describe an agency"s exact situation, the Peer Team will assign the rating that most closely captures the agency"s response to the standard"s intent.

Assignment of Ratings
The Peer Review Team uses professional judgment and information provided by the agency in its Self-Study and during the site visit to rate an agency"s implementation of the standards. The Peer Review Team"s ratings on all applicable standards are based on:

• Self-Study documentation;
• program and facility observations;
• questionnaire data and information;
• materials provided on site; and
• interviews with staff, clients, and other key stakeholders.

Achieving Accreditation
An agency must ultimately receive the following ratings in order to achieve accreditation:

• "1" or "2" on all Purpose Standards
• "1" or a "2" on all Core Concept Standards
• While an agency can achieve accreditation with a "3" or a "4" rating on some Practice Standards, these ratings cannot reflect a pattern of partial or unsatisfactory implementation
• "1" or "2" on all Fundamental Practice Standards