National Site Team Chair Training November 6, 2009 Atlanta, Georgia

National Site Team Chair Training

November 6, 2009

Atlanta, Georgia

Participants today:

The Accreditation Commission National Site Team Chairs Regional Directors


This training will:

Outline impetus for change Detail process of shift to national training Describe a change in philosophy and

culture Describe the process Outline expectations for national site team

chairs Provide case study brainstorming


Impetus for change was the Presidential Taskforce to streamline and shorten the accreditation process, to:

Provide greater consistency in site visits Reduce the length of time for reviews ◦ Remove regional review◦ Shorten report receipt times◦ Move to national reviewer quickly

Increase collaboration and collegiality

Impetus for Change

Accreditation, not certification Continuing process of identity and maturity Taskforce-driven changes Focus toward mutuality and collegiality Use of proven ACPE educational methods Relational model of continuous adult

education

The Historical Perspective

Moving away from “us/them”

Moving toward mutuality

Basic Focus of Philosophy

Each Center:

◦ Describes its uniqueness

◦ Expresses its narrative and context

◦ Demonstrates compliance with Standards

◦ Invites and accepts feedback and insight

The Center is the nexus of the Site Visit

Site team is:

◦ Facilitator—of context and Center-centricity

◦ Supporter—of the Center and of ACPE

◦ Encourager—of the supervisor and the process

◦ Challenger—of integration of theory and practice

◦ Reviewer—of compliance and uniqueness

◦ Advocate—of continued success

The Site Team serves the Center and ACPE

Thus, the site visit:

◦ Provides for collaboration and collegiality

◦ Captures unique, creative work of the Center

◦ Supports the work with students and institution

◦ Undergirds Center importance for the institution

◦ Affirms Standard compliance

◦ Challenges Standard non-compliance

The Imperative for the Site Visit

The Parallel Process:

Problem with helping and being helped

The track of learning—the rails of identification, projection

Student, patient, supervisor, administration are interacting whether seen or not: the Site Team may see, humbly.

Center identifies with its context and projects the need on the Site Visit: the Site Team spots the projection and helps the Center see how to reflect on its work effectively.

Scenario One:

A Site Team finds an under-functioning supervisor and completes study to be helpful or pastoral to the supervisor and Center

The Site Team does most of the work. The program continues to under-function. The next review is problematic.

Does the supervisor know who administration is and how to get its support? Does the supervisor know how to manage up and down?

Does the Site Team and/or the regional accreditation committee recognize problem and assist the supervisor with outside insight, consultation, collaboration, and support, instead of over-functioning?

Scenario Two:

Site team finds under-functioning supervisor with incomplete material and inadequate responses. The Site Team refuses to complete the self study.

The Site Team returns inadequate material, advises regional accreditation committee chair of mentoring opportunity for Center.

The supervisor has the opportunity to function up.

The Site Team awaits a completed self study and uses the site visit to assist the Center in achieving accredited status.

Scenario Three:

The Site Team encounters the helpless projection of the supervisor.

The Site Team expects the supervisor to complete the work, and so returns incomplete material to the Center, awaits complete material, and reschedules site visit in collaboration with regional accreditation committee chair and Center supervisor.

The Center uses mentorship from regional accreditation committee, along with teaching and coaching of Site Team during visit.

By such intervention, the supervisor learns how to manage the CPE program better.

Competent Supervisors: Serve administrators and students. Serve the profession and the program. Listen to students’ learning needs, met and unmet. Seek site team feedback to improve and make changes. Celebrate good work.

Competent Site Teams: Look for system dynamics and themes. Recognize parallels and give feedback. See learning needs of students & supervisor, met and

unmet. Listen more than they speak. Have courage, with humility, to say what they see.

Site teams will:

Return incomplete material for further work Rely on fundamentals of meeting Standards Access checklists Resist reactivity Encourage feedback to Standards Committee Recommend: ◦ notations◦ adverse actions

When Centers Resist Mutuality

Using National Site Team Chairs Ten Year Re-accreditation visits Site Visits to potential new member Centers

Using Commissioners as Chairs Called Reviews

Using Regional Site Visit Chairs New Candidacy Centers Site Visits for Supervisory CPE, Component

Sites, Satellite Programs (as needed)

Types of Site Visits

Conflicts of Interest

Refrain from consulting until Commission vote

Note ineligibility with consulted Centers

Disclose all relationships

Refuse gifts or benefits

Refrain from recruiting staff until one year post-site visit

The Role of the National Site Team Chair

Pre-Visit Responsible to the Accreditation Commission Avoids conflicts of interest Leads the Site Team and its process Determines suitability of material Forms site teams with regional accreditation

chair Educates site team members Creates visit agenda with Center supervisor Negotiates arrangements for visit Reviews Center material with site team


During the Visit

Meets with site team prior to visit, on site

Re-educates site team as necessary

Manages accountability of the site team

Assures all portions of review are complete

Makes initial report to Center at close of visit


To the Commission Chair

Forwards Center documents to Commission Chair

Manages Site Team evaluation of Site Team Chair

Ensures Center evaluation of Site Team Chair is received by Commission


After the Visit

Prepares Site Visit Report—Part I within 14 days

Receives Center response within 30 days after it receives Site Visit Report—Part I

Prepares Site Visit Report—Part II for delivery to Center and Commission Chair

Assures feedback is received


Professional quality

Accurate representation of visit

Publication-grade material

A Word About the Quality of Reports

Student handbooks are created:

to give students what they need to have a consistent CPE process

to meet ACPE Standards

Focus of Student Handbooks

In Regard to Site Visits

Forms team with National Site Team Chair

Supports development of Site Team Members

Provides consultation/mentoring to Centers

Maintains communication with Centers

Receives material from Site Visit Teams

The Role of the Regional Accreditation Committee Chair

Conflicts of Interest

Refrain from consulting until Commission vote

Note ineligibility with some Centers

Disclose all relationships

Refuse gifts or benefits

Refrain from recruiting staff for one year after visit

The Role of Site Team Members

Competency

Maintain working knowledge of ACPE matters Act in ethical manner at all times Seek continuing education about

accreditation Work with the National Site Team Chair Mentor new Site Team members Share feedback with Accreditation

Commission◦ About National Site Team Chair◦ About process

The Role of Site Team Members

ACPE Standards: foundational for Center stories

Each Center story is unique

Accreditation process is the Center’s action/ reflection on its work

Site Teams “willingly suspend disbelief” to understand Center issues—kenosis

“Center-centric” variations: valued and challenged

Hearing a Center’s Story

Led by National Site Team Chair

Demonstrates:◦ Familiarity with Center programs ◦ Thorough examination of all material ◦ Professionalism and courtesy

Allows sufficient time for complete review

Team participation in all review aspects

The Site Team Visit

Dress professionally

Prompt in attendance and responsiveness

Exercise tact, collegiality, and professionalism

Maintain confidentiality

Maintain pastoral identity with Center

Challenge appropriately

Use ethical financial practices

Expectations of Site Team Conduct

Responsibility of National Site Team Chair and Regional Accreditation Committee Chair

Use mentorship model

Use feedback from Center, Chairs, Commission

Training of New Site Team Members

Center Site Visit Questionnaire

Site Team Peer Evaluation

Chair’s evaluation using Peer/Self-Evaluation

Review by the Accreditation Commission

Evaluation of Site Team Members

Violation of ACPE Code of Ethics

Change in eligibility

Substandard performance

Failure to participate in education

Continued unavailability for visits

Consistent complaints in site visits

Consistent late submission of reports

Removal from Service

Usually two full days, including travel◦ May extend to additional days for larger Centers

Travel in accordance with ACPE/regional policies◦ Work with regional chair of accreditation

Coordination by Chair with Team and Center

Scheduling the Site Visit

Receive material thirty (30) days before site visit

Examine material thoroughly using Standards

Note areas of concern or confusion

Discuss material as a team via e-mail/phone

Sketch preliminary Site Visit Report—Part I

Review of Documents

Site Team Chair creates the agenda in cooperation with primary Center Supervisor

Ensure that required interviews are scheduled

Provide time for team consultation

Allow sufficient time for review and report

Development of Agenda

Meet prior to contact with Center supervisor or personnel to clarify issues and plan visit

Review team assignments

Identify areas of concern

Review agenda

On-Site Preliminary Team Meeting

Follow the established agenda

Look for strengths an limitations

Consider Center context in meeting Standards

Maintain clear boundaries regarding internal Center matters of concern

Conducting the Site Visit

Verify information in material

Clarify information in material

Seek additional information not in material

Clarify any discrepancies

Keep notes of interviews for later reporting

Conducting Interviews

All work prior to Commission vote is consultative!

Use forms in Policy & Procedure Manual

Base conclusions on fact, not on impression

Cite specific Standards

Site Visit Report—Part I due 14 days after site visit

Site Visit Report—Part I

SITE VISIT REPORT – Part I

CENTER: DATE(S) OF VISIT:

CENTER ADDRESS:

CENTER SUPERVISOR(S):

SITE TEAM CHAIR:

TEAM MEMBERS:

1. Check List: Material Submitted and Fees Paid (refer also to checklist for in the Accreditation Manual)

Face Sheet

__ Statement from ACPE that Center is in good financial standing

__ Statement from region that Center is in good financial standing

__ Self Study/Feasibility Document Annual Reports (up to 4 years) Action Reports from Prior Reviews Student Handbook

Accreditation Questionnaire

Accreditation Review Criteria Document

2. Describe the site team’s pre-visit orientation to its role and responsibilities and actions taken to familiarize the

team with ACPE standards and accreditation procedures.

3. Briefly summarize the history and current description of the Center, including the pastoral care program/department.

4. Briefly summarize the Center’s prior accreditation history. What deficiencies and/or notations were assigned? What concerns were identified? How were concerns, deficiencies, and notations addressed?

5. Assess the Center’s self study/feasibility study process and the resulting document.

6. Describe each component of the site visit.

7. List strengths and limitations of the Center and programs. Include:

a) an assessment of the Center’s financial viability to offer programs of CPE as reflected in financial audit statements;

b) a description/assessment of measurement of students’ achievement after CPE (Level I/Level II) and Supervisory CPE.

8. Summarize the standards issues needing to be addressed by the Center in its response to the site team preliminary report.

Within 14 days from site visit, complete Part I and send it to the Center. Copy the regional accreditation chair and the Chair of the Accreditation Commission.


Due within 30 days of receipt of Site Visit Report—Part I

Encourage complete response

Site Team discusses by e-mail/phone

Center Response


Use form in Policy & Procedure Manual

Standards not met? Recommend notations/deficiencies:◦ Note areas of insufficiency◦ Cite specific Standards

If commendations are recommended:◦ Note areas of excellence◦ Cite specific Standards

Site Visit Report—Part II

SITE VISIT REPORT—Part II

CENTER: DATE(S) OF VISIT:

Complete this section after receiving the Center response to Site Visit Report—Part I.

1. Comment on the Center’s written response to the site team visit and Part I Site Visit Report. Assess the Center’s compliance or feasibility for compliance (candidacy) with ACPE Standards. Include Accreditation Manual, Appendix 5, A and B and make additional comments if necessary to document points of non-compliance.

2. Summarize specific issues for discussion by the Accreditation Commission.

3. Prepare a separate document, listing any commendations (See Appendix 3: Commendations for Centers) that may be appropriate for the Center. Describe the portion of the Center’s documentation, operations, or program design and execution found to be exemplary. Specific Standards must be cited for commendations.

4. Give a recommendation for action to the Accreditation Commission. Cite specific standards when recommending non-compliance, deficiencies or notations.

5. Record the site visit team’s vote on its recommendation for action.

Combine Site Visit Report Part I, the Center Response, Site Visit Report Part II, all Center materials and correspondence, and any recommendations for commendation(s) and submit to the Chair, Accreditation Commission, for assignment to a national reviewer. Send a copy of the Site Visit Report, Part II, to the Center and the regional chair of accreditation.

NOTE: Any recommendations for commendation(s) are shared only with the regional chair of accreditation and the Chair of the Accreditation Commission. They are not to be made available to the Center.

Commendation: an honor and acknowledgement of excellence as recognition of superiority.

By definition, they are rare.

Created in a separate document.

Not shared with Center.

Tied to a specific Standard.

A Note about Commendations


Thorough review of all materials.

Recommendations to Commission for:◦ Continued or New Accredited Membership◦ With or without notations◦ With or without commendations

Review by National Reviewer

Chair follows up with feedback from Center

Reports feedback to Commission Chair

Receives fee for service

National Site Team Chair Follow-Up

300.1 All ACPE Centers shall maintain compliance with the ACPE Standards, reports, procedures and fees as detailed in the ACPE Accreditation Manual.

Accredited Centers are also responsible for submitting student units reports to ACPE within 45 days of the end of each unit. Reports are filed electronically through the members-only section of the ACPE website (www.acpe.edu). Copies are forwarded automatically to the regional director. A notation for Standard 300.1 will be assigned for late reports.

Case Study: Responsible Compliance

302.1 financial, human and physical resources sufficient to support the units of CPE offered by the Center.

Case Study: Auditor’s Statement

Centers may include policies and procedures that go beyond the expectations of the ACPE Standards 2010, but the policies and procedures of an Accredited Member Center must include:

Access to ACPE standards and commissions’ manuals (Standard 303.7) Access to library, other resources (Standard 303.6) Admissions (Standard 304.1) Agreement for training (Standard 304.9) Complaints (Standard 304.3) Completion of unit in progress if supervisor unable to continue (Standard

304.10) Consultation (Standard 304.5) Discipline, dismissal and withdrawal (Standard 304.6) Ethical conduct for students consistent with ACPE standards (Standard

304.7) Maintenance of student records (Standard 304.4) Supervisor’s evaluation (Standard 308.8.1) Financial—fees, benefits, etc. (304.2) Students’ rights and responsibilities (304.8)

Case Study: How Many Policies?

303.6 access to library and educational facilities adequate to meet the

ACPE standards.

Case Study: What’s a Library?

303.7 access to current ACPE standards, commissions’ manuals, the ACPE Policy for Complaints Alleging Violation of ACPE Education Standards, and the ACPE Policy for Complaints Against the Accreditation Commission (See Appendix 10

ACPE Accreditation Manual).

304.3 a complaint procedure consistent with ACPE standards and the ACPE manual Processing Complaints of Ethics Violations that addresses an alleged violation of the ACPE ethics standards.

Case Study: Grievances

304.7 a policy for ethical conduct of students and program staff consistent with the ACPE Code of Ethics.

Case Study: Student Code of Ethics

302.3 a written agreement that specifies the relationship and operational details between the Center and any agency(ies) whenever a program uses elements from any agency(ies) external to itself.

304.9 an agreement for training at the ministry site that includes, but is not limited to:

o authorization to visit patients, parishioners, clients; o access to appropriate clinical records and informed

consent with regard to use of student materials; and o agreement by the student to abide by Center polices

protecting confidentiality and rights of clients/patients/parishioners.

Case Study: Agreements

303.5 a peer group of at least three CPE (Level I/Level II) students engaged in small group process and committed to fulfilling the requirements of the educational program.

Case Study: Peer Groups

305.1 an on-going process of consultation with a designated professional advisory group.

Case Study: PAGs

308.6 an instructional plan that employs a process model of education and

clinical method of learning including:

o 308.6.1 delineation and use of students’ goals. o 308.6.2 core curriculum appropriate to CPE

setting. o 308.6.3 clearly written syllabus. o 308.6.4 evidence of congruence between program goals and the mission of the institution. o 308.6.5 program evaluation by the students.

Case Study: What’s Curriculum?

308.8.1 Supervisor’s evaluation will be available to the student within 45 calendar days of the completion of the unit. To extend this deadline in rare, unusual circumstances, the supervisor may negotiate with the student and receive approval from the regional accreditation chair to extend this deadline. The supervisor’s evaluation will document

this process, and such extensions must be reported on the next annual report.

Case Study: Evaluations—45 days