Clinical Support Options Reviews

Clinical & Support Options is a non-profit 501c3, founded 65 years ago, that maintains a regular four-year certification from the Council on Accreditation (COA). COA accreditation is a sought-after benchmark among human service organizations. It demonstrates implementation of best practice standards in all aspects of programming, service, management, and administration. CSO has a positive working relationship with its union representatives and is proud of its track record for internal promotion. Over 60% of the CSO management team is the direct result of internal promotion, and we dedicate more than 500 hours per year to internal quality trainings. CSO invests in generous benefits, staff training and morale activities, flexible schedules and more. In addition, CSO works closely with longstanding advocacy groups, like the Association for Behavioral Healthcare (ABH), to effect change in the area of public policy, financing, preferred clinical models, and quality assurance issues. These efforts work toward a reduction in disparate compensation among physical and behavioral health care providers.

Clinical & Support Options takes seriously any accusation of fraud or mismanagement, as alleged by this anonymous reviewer. CSO is a trauma-informed non-profit founded 65 years ago that maintains a regular four-year certification from the Council on Accreditation (COA). This rigorous accreditation would not be afforded any agency guilty of the unfounded accusations cited by the anonymous individual above. COA accreditation is a sought-after benchmark among human service organizations. It demonstrates implementation of best practice standards in all aspects of programming, service, management, and administration. Organizations pursue accreditation to demonstrate the implementation of best practice standards in the field of human services. COA evaluated 811 different standards, covering all aspects of CSO’s programs, services, management, and administration. Based on their findings, COA’s qualified, volunteer-based Accreditation Commission voted that CSO had successfully met the criteria for accreditation, exceeding the standards for “Fundamental Practices.” In short, this well-respected third-party agency found no occurrence of what is alleged in this anonymous review. As COA states itself in the findings of its months-long, detailed review of CSO, “The organization successfully implements its ethical practices as reflected in policy and reviewed by staff.”