employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Clinical Support Options

Engaged employer

Clinical Support Options Reviews

3.6

80% would recommend to a friend

(75 total reviews)
avatar

Karin Jeffers

88% approve of CEO

85% positive business outlook

Clinical Support Options has an employee rating of 3.6 out of 5 stars, based on 75 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have a good working experience there. The Clinical Support Options employee rating is in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) for employers within the Non-profit and NGO industry (3.7 stars).

Reviews by job title

75 reviews
2.0
11 Feb 2019

Very disappointed after giving 10+ years

Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Salary plus option, health insurance, benefits. Teams try to work together and support each other.

Cons

Supervisors are not held accountable for their unprofessional judgmental biases and controlling micromanaging strategies. Poor salary. Union. Productivity expectations.

avatar
Clinical Support Options Response
5y
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.
1.0
21 Oct 2019

Lack of Respect from Upper Management

Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

caring coworkers, some caring lower-middle management.

Cons

-lack of respect from upper management -threats and intimidation from upper management -lying, fraud, taking advantage of clients an employees They will tell you that the issues at CSO are common to every community mental health organization, but I have now been working for another organization for almost four years and what I have experienced here is nothing compared to what I experienced at CSO. There is a difference between a company that faces barriers but tries to work through them (my current agency) and a company that decides not to take reasonable steps to make the place a good agency to work for (CSO). Doing this would not always require money -- sometimes it is just the way people are spoken to. But there is no effort in working on this on the part of CSO upper management

avatar
Clinical Support Options Response
5y
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.”
1.0
18 Jun 2017

Total Lack of Respect

Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

The actual clinicians really do care, for the most part, about the clients.

Cons

The upper-level management did not care about the workers during a recent strike. They also do not care about the clients other than how to make money from their insurance, and do not respond to concerns/complaints, despite their policies and guidelines claiming that CSO does care. People (clients or employees) who complain are intimidated, despite there being a policy allegedly protecting whistleblowers. As some other reviewers have stated, CSO management does not care about lower-level employees or the clients. I know of an issue in which CSO, under the auspices of Green River House and Quabbin House (programs for people with mental health diagnosis) runs a lunchcounter at a bus station. The workers there (who are members of the two clubhouses, with jobs called Transitional Employment or Supported Employment, only for clubhouse members, NOT standard jobs that outside people can apply for) have to prepare food on small household appliances which are not adequate for restaurant use and keep breaking. CSO claims it cannot afford to purchase proper restaurant equipment. Perhaps the overpaid CEO and others should try working there and see how hard it is! (Instead of telling these nice people that they are "too slow and unproductive", which is inaccurate). Also, I know of a case where a CSO employee, who is also a CSO client and member of one of the clubhouse programs, filed several complaints over a few years, with the help of their therapist and a CSO manager. They had no results from this so they wanted to file a fourth complaint. They were then allegedly told by another CSO employee that the previous complaints "did not exist" and that the people who helped file them "are lying to you". The employee/client is of course quite confused and upset now and does not know whom to believe. There have been other people who have experienced similar situations, especially in regards to Green River House in Greenfield. Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected from harassment, but believe me that is NOT the case at CSO. It is emotional torture for them. I wish the reviewer (a former manager in Greenfield) who mentioned "FRAUD" would actually REPORT this alleged fraud, as well as the ethics issues and nepotism mentioned in the review. I imagine that Social Security and the insurance companies, as well as DMH, would appreciate this information! If you don't work there anymore, what are you afraid of? We need your help!!!!!!! Also, why are unionized employees intimidating lower-level unionized and non-unionized employees and clients who have issues with CSO? Are they being threatened with firing? Why don't these people tell the union that their bosses are making them intimidate/lie to other employees and clients????? That is what unions are for. The atmosphere, as another reviewer from Greenfield pointed out, is NOT "Trauma Informed" at all. It's nauseating.

Viewing 1 - 3 of 75 Reviews

Glassdoor has 88 Clinical Support Options reviews submitted anonymously by Clinical Support Options employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Clinical Support Options is right for you.