Table 1.

Example of criteria used to rate levels of five service system characteristics

	Service System Characteristics
Score	Family Involvement	Access & Array	Coordination	Individualized	Long-term View
Optimal Rating = 6	Key Family members and/or child's substitute caregiver(s) are full, effective, and on-going participants in all aspects of assessment, planning services, making service arrangements, selecting providers, monitoring, and evaluating services and results. Special accommodations or supports are offered as needed to assist participation.	A full array of behavioral health supports and services is available to reach optimal levels of functioning.	There is a single point of coordination for the child/family services, and the service coordinator works with all members of the service team and the child/family.	All necessary supports and services are assembled into a holistic and coherent process, with child/family preferences reflected.	The child has an explicitly written and up to date LTV that is consistently articulated among service members. Transitions are anticipated, and the child's strengths and needs are included.
Substantially Acceptable Rating = 5	Key family members are regular participants in most aspects of services. Special accommodations to facilitate participation may be made on some occasions, if requested by the family.	An array of behavioral health supports and services is available to help the child reach favorable levels of functioning. Formal and informal supports and services are generally satisfactory to the child/family.	There is a generally effective single point of coordination and accountability for the child/family's services and results.	Essential behavioral health supports and services are assembled into a holistic and sensible service proves with a workable fit between the child/family situation and the services.	The child has a clearly written LTV that anticipates the next major transition, and considers the strengths and needs of the child/family.
Sufficiently Acceptable Rating = 4	Key family members are regular participants in most aspects of services. Special accommodations to facilitate participation may be made on some occasions, if requested by the family.	An array of services and supports is available to help the child reach minimally acceptable levels of functioning. Services are available, although they may require a lot of effort to obtain, and are seen as marginally acceptable to the child/family.	There is minimally adequate coordination and accountability for the child/family's services and results. Services are minimally integrated across settings.	Basic behavioral health supports and services are assembled into a sensible process having a minimally acceptable fit between child/family situation and the service mix. Some child/family preferences are reflected, but there is some conflict between family situation and services.	The child has a written set of strategic goals that creates and implicit LTV that is accepted and sued by service team members. The next major transition is anticipated in these goals.
Partially Acceptable Rating = 3	Key family members are notified of the service planning meetings. Meetings are held at the convenience of the service providers and family participation is limited to planning and annual evaluations.	A limited set of supports and service may be available and used, but may be seen as partially unsatisfactory by the child/family. The array provides few options and access requires a high level of effort.	There is limited coordination of services with little accountability for service delivery and results. Services are fragmented and breakdowns may occur occasionally.	Basic behavioral health supports and services are not assembled into a sensible service process. The fit between child/family situations is inadequate to meet identified needs.	The child has several goals set by one or more agencies that create a common planning direction used by service team members. The goals address the next major decision, but there is no formal plan in place.
Substantially Unacceptable Rating = 2	Key family members are notified late about service planning members. Meetings are held at the convenience of service providers. Plans are made before the meetings and parents are expected to accept what is offered.	Few supports and services may be available and used. They may be seen as generally unsatisfactory. There are very few options for services, substantially limiting the use of professional judgment and family choice. Access is significantly limited.	There is limited coordination of services with little accountability for service delivery and results. Services are fragmented and breakdowns may occur occasionally.	Basic behavioral health supports and services are not assembled into a sensible service process. The fit between child/family situations is inadequate to meet identified needs.	The child has several goals set by one or more agencies that create a common planning direction used by service team members. The goals address the next major decision, but there is no formal plan in place.
Completely Unacceptable Rating = 1	Service planning and decision-making activities are conducted at times and places that prevent effective consumer participation. Decisions are made without the knowledge or consent of parents, caregivers, or the youth. Services are denied because of failure to show or comply. Important information is withheld from parents.	Few if any supports and services are provided. They may not fit the actual needs of the child and may not be dependable over time.	There is no coordination and accountability for services and results. Needed services may be absent or fragmented. The family may “get lost in the system” for periods of time.	Basic behavioral health supports and services may not be provided or may not be assembled into a unified process. The fit is unacceptable or services are woefully inadequate to meet identified needs. Child/family preferences are not reflected and they report undependable or conflicting service strategies.	There is no common future planning direction that is accepted and used by service team members. Goals do not address required future transitions.

© Human Systems and Outcomes, 1998