Data-driven criteria used to identify top-ranked residential programs and help families compare treatment options.
These criteria determine which residential mental health treatment centers are included in our regional “best of” lists. To ensure high standards of care, each program is evaluated using a four-pillar framework that examines clinical practices, business transparency, treatment offerings, and long-term patient support.
Facilities are prioritized when there is clear, third-party clinical review, with extra weight for:
Full and relevant Joint Commission (JC) or CARF accreditation for mental health or integrated behavioral health at the specific location/program.
Semi-relevant accreditation (for example, accreditation for related behavioral health or outpatient programs).
This indicates that the facility has invited an outside body to review its policies, safety practices, and clinical standards. Accreditation doesn’t guarantee your personal outcome, but it does signal that the program has been inspected and holds itself to ongoing review.
The evaluation also considers whether the organization shows signs of being stable, established, and accountable over time through its public track record and reputation. That includes:
Years in operation
Number of locations (too new vs. stable network)
Google review rating
Google review count, to adjust for how much data is available
Better Business Bureau (BBB) rating, where available
These signals help distinguish between facilities with a solid public track record / public reputation and those that are newer, unproven, or have patterns of complaints.
Because there is limited independent data on condition-specific outcomes and what care actually looks like in a facility, this category relies heavily on self-reported services — for example, whether a program lists depression-focused tracks, therapies, or groups — in addition to meeting our baseline accreditation and business criteria.
Evidence-based treatment: therapies like CBT, DBT, EMDR, trauma-focused care, or other research-supported approaches
Skills development: psychoeducation, coping skills, life skills, and other supports that help people function outside of treatment
Aftercare support: step-down planning, alumni support, follow-up contact, and other services that help maintain progress after discharge
Where possible, our internal team of recovery advocates and treatment specialists conducts a final round of vetting by speaking directly with facility clinical leadership. This allows us to better assess:
Philosophy of care: Ensuring the program’s approach aligns with evidence-based standards.
Clinical depth: Detailed discussions regarding staff-to-patient ratios, specialized track offerings, and more.
Patient experience: Clarifying a client’s typical daily schedule, the frequency and type of staff engagement, and exactly what an individual can expect from the treatment environment.
Note: Not all facilities participate in interviews, and participation does not guarantee inclusion. However, when available, this step provides additional qualitative insight beyond public records, accreditation status, and self-reported materials.
Facilities generally needed to meet a minimum score on this framework to be included. In areas with fewer residential options, facilities with at least one relevant accreditation and a solid public track record may be included even if scores are slightly lower, so long as they meet basic safety and quality standards.