HOW ARE RATINGS DETERMINED?

Rating System Overview
The Peer Review Team uses the following rating scale to assess implementation of the standards and organisational 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 organisation'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 organisation's exact situation, the Peer Team will assign the rating that most closely captures the organisation's response to the standard's intent.

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

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

Achieving Accreditation
An organisation 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 organisation 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