Current approaches to apply accreditation in the field of blindness, whether through the National Accreditation Council (NAC), CARF, or others have been a failure in our field. A better, simpler approach is described elsewhere in this volume. It is the belief of the Merlin Confederation that we can do better!

The reasons for this failure are multiple. First, the standards applied by NAC and others identify what many see as minimal standards. Second, there is a great deal of repetition among the standards in an approach that involves a very clumsy self-study process. Accreditation bodies have been slow to move the process unto computer-based systems which would speed the process. Some agencies have taken it upon themselves to put volumes of self-study materials on word processing formats, but why should they have to do so?

 In an effort to reduce expenses, the site visit process often includes very participants as members of the team. Often, site visit teams are afforded very little time to do more than cursory reviews of agencies. However, it is almost unheard of that an agency does not receive their accreditation.

NAC has traveled a long, hard road to regain its credibility, but seems to have turned the corner in some respects, while wallowing in status quo in others. NAC is stronger than in the past, financially speaking, and its survival, for now, seems assured. CARF has made progress in encroaching on NAC's territory, but lacks experience and standards that apply to specialized services provided by agencies in the field of education and rehabilitation of consumers with vision loss. CARF has been seen as a last resort by agencies that were concerned about NAC's viability or attacks by the NFB.

It is not the purpose of this article to criticize these programs' efforts to provide accreditation, but to describe a better approach that is entirely different in nature and focus. In the meantime, both NAC and CARF need to examine their credibility in our field and study why interest in accreditation is probably at an all-time low. It isn't because some agencies don't believe in standards, they may not believe in the existing approaches offered by current efforts.