tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8870492126959061342.post1410172616457836980..comments2024-03-26T11:50:32.354-05:00Comments on Youth Development Insight: The question of youth program accreditationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8870492126959061342.post-55253191602831663742012-08-09T06:16:55.000-05:002012-08-09T06:16:55.000-05:00Hey there, Kate. There were adjustments to be mad...Hey there, Kate. There were adjustments to be made, but, by and large, the NAA model works pretty well for Army Child, Youth & School Services, which is perhaps why it was chosen as the accrediting body (I don't know how this decision was made - just surmising). In its very thoroughness, it a very good way to bring all voices into the process of making the programs better through combination of staff and family education, input and analysis, planning, action improvement, reassessment, and then--only when ready--an endorser visit. It was this whole process that created opportunities for grassroots voice and change that aren't always easy to create in a highly hierarchical organization like the Army.<br>Heidi Haugennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8870492126959061342.post-43386997991209942382012-07-26T02:48:48.000-05:002012-07-26T02:48:48.000-05:00Thank you for the information. This is great.Thank you for the information. This is great.<br>Hui-Hui Wangnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8870492126959061342.post-70737549562253370702012-07-25T10:53:12.000-05:002012-07-25T10:53:12.000-05:00Thanks for sharing your first-hand experience with...Thanks for sharing your first-hand experience with youth program accreditation, Heidi! You echo many of the top pros and cons that surfaced in the Minnesota forums. I wonder, in applying NAA’s accreditation process to youth programs on military bases abroad, were there contexts that did not fit well with the model?<br>Kate Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8870492126959061342.post-33470061780119689092012-07-25T10:15:49.000-05:002012-07-25T10:15:49.000-05:00Wow, this is a potentially really hot topic. Spea...Wow, this is a potentially really hot topic. Speaking from my own experience preparing staff, parents and youth for the NAA accreditation process on U.S. Army bases overseas, I can offer my thoughts on how this requirement of the after-school programs did, usually, lead to better programs and better facilities. I don't think that we would have gotten as far had the process not been required. Staff understood better what quality meant (and thus what to shoot for, and plan for, and train for); parents and youth felt more involved in the decision-making process of and improvements to the program; and military staff who were involved in funding decisions had a better understanding of what expenses were priorities for youth programs.<br>I also recognize some of the drawbacks in the table above: there was a lot of paperwork involved, for example, and I can also see where standardization could inhibit innovation. It seems to me that the biggest risk when requiring accreditation is the system becoming a gatekeeper, which is very troubling. Perhaps the next question might be, what would be the consequence for those choosing not to do the process, or not successful in their process?<br>Heidi Haugennoreply@blogger.com