Accreditation Handbook for State Agencies

Agencies and Review Teams will evaluate the agency against each standard, and assign a rating of 3, 2, 1, or 0. Below is the rating scale including some sample narrative and definitions for each point value on the scale.

Rating Definition

Descriptions

3 Points Exceeds standard, no suggestions for improvement

• Excellent • Exceptional • Outstanding • Strong • Proactive • Much more than acceptable • Surpasses expectations • Significant evidence that the agency exceeds the standard • Meets or exceeds requirements in spite of unusually challenging issues • Work performed influences other agencies such as serving as model or motivating or inspiring others to perform better • Adequate • Reactive • Some of the major criteria for the standard were met; some deficiencies exist in the areas assessed but none of major concern • Satisfactory evidence that the essential aspects of the standard are met • Demonstrates proficiency in meeting the requirements of the standard • Less than satisfactory • Less than acceptable • Significant weaknesses • Insufficient or significantly below the requirements of the standard • Inefficiencies cause difficulty in meeting standard • Attempt made to address standard, but lack of evidence the standard is met • Good • Acceptable • Satisfactory

2 Points Meets standard, may or may not

have suggestions for improvement

1 Point Does not meet standard, significant improvement(s) required

0 Points Does not meet standard, major deficiencies exist; Not performed

• Significantly below requirements of the standard • Much less than acceptable • Major deficiencies/problems evident

• Describes/demonstrates insufficient skills to meet criteria of the Standard • Describes/demonstrates counter-productive practices/procedures that can result in negative outcomes or consequences (make the situation worse) • Not Active • Poor performance • Significant improvement required in the short-term

12

Back to Table of Contents