Overview Of Visits Made In 2010

• Quick Statistics
• Most Missed Standards
• Most Missed Mandatory Standards
• Phone Calls/E-mails to Visitors — 2010

Quick Statistics (comparable 2009 data in parenthesis)

• 828 accreditation visits were conducted (852)
• 1,072 visitors made these visits “happen” (1048)
• 120 phone calls/e-mails made due to a question about a score form (189)
• 38 visits were conducted by one person (70)
• 18 camps (2.2 percent) failed visits (22; 2.6 percent)
• Most missed Standard: HW-6 (Health Exams)
• Most missed Mandatory Standard: HR4A (Disclosure statements and National Sex Offender Public Web site check)

Most Missed Standards

w = written documentation required

Most Missed Mandatory Standards

w = written documentation required

Phone Calls/E-mails to Visitors — 2010

We appreciate that visitors are conscientious and submit score forms in a timely manner. As we review these score forms and listen to the challenges of our visitors we have identified challenging areas from the score forms. This year, we received 828 score forms at the national office. Of these, 120 (14.5 percent) required contact with the visitors to correct errors or clarify scoring issues. Here are the most popular reasons for calls to visitors:

• Standards left blank are always one of the leading causes for calls to visitors, as it was again this past summer. Here is a tip: As you finish the visit, take a deep breath and sit down one more time. Turn the paper horizontally and slowly review the score form from this perspective. All items need to be marked in some manner; any item that is not a “yes” must have a “no” or “DNA” score. Consider having the second visitor and camp director do this as well. It seems silly, but it is amazing what a new perspective can do to catch the dreaded blanks.
• Missing or confusing comments will also trigger us to contact the lead visitor. Comments and scores need to agree with one another. Since every “no” score requires a comment; if a “no” score is missing a comment, expect a phone call. Additionally, if you change a score from “no” to “yes,” (usually because of the 72-Hour Rule) this must be indicated with a comment. Occasionally those reviewing the score forms are confused by a comment that indicates one thing and a score that indicates another.
• Inappropriately marked DNAs always require follow-up contact. If you are uncertain during the visit process, re-read the entire text of the standard carefully. Things often seem gray or have an odd applicability. Please remember that you are welcome to call your standards chair or the national office during the visit if there is confusion over the applicability of a standard or group of standards. 
• Profile/Modes and scoring patterns that do not agree are an issue. In order to accurately tabulate the visit scores, these issues need to be resolved. This issue is most often caused by inconsistency between the camp profile, the mode or modes indicated on the score form, and the standards that are scored. Begin your visit by talking with the camp director and determining what modes the camp operates with and the activities they actually offer. Then make certain that the profile, the modes indicated, and the scoring reflect the correct modes of operation and activities offered.