Pros
Front-line staff are friendly while being asked to do what's a nearly impossible job, and the same handful of people are very passionate about their work. People here are asked their opinion, so at least there is a forum for discussion, even if my opinion of it was fairly disingenuous and possibly more a way to determine who's dumb enough to openly offer a dissenting voice to management about their policies, eventually leading to possible punishment or retaliation (as opining about policy is not a "formal complaint" and would not suffice for anti-retaliation standards in occupational law. I suppose I should remove this and place it below, but open discussion, whether my suspicions are accurate or not, is a net positive. They want to appear as a force for good, which is an improvement over apathy. They have won, and probably will continue to win, several awards and certificates for this.
Cons
The front-line staff are not paid an equitable wage compared to people that work at other facilities that take on less aggressive clientele, leading to high turnover at this level. It is hard to fathom when the CEO is making upwards of 500,000$ a year with bonuses, how they can't manage to field a more competitive salary for these workers. Because of this, they rely on other staff to do what the front-line staff should be doing, and cut things that actually help in the service of, what appears as public relations purchases (i.e., relatively inexpensive toys, clothes, etc.) that look great on a pamphlet but do little aside from comfort. Comfort is another overemphasized buzzword at this job. Their approach with comfort over structure is a wonderful ideal and entirely impractical with the increasingly aggressive clientele they're taking on. If they were more selective, they would take only clients that are likely to benefit from this approach and deny clients that are better suited for clear-cut structure with consequences for behavior (i.e., there are few, if any here). I am unsure of the selection process, but it appears to be more based on the CEO and board's approach to profiteering at a non-profit than actual clinical selection, based on actual criteria and likelihood for success in the environment. The "recidivism" rate here is unbelievably high and their "long-term studies" do not engage clients on whether they've been admitted to other similar facilities, a psychiatric hospital, or incarcerated, so there was no method of determining whether individuals were ever able to function independently. The extended staff are also overworked and expected to do tasks that are not commensurate with a 40 hour even 45 in some cases) work week, and are not adequately supported by management, who's job is to really act as a buffer between staff and the brutal capitalist attitude of the board and CEO of this so-called non-profit. There is a huge gap between the attitudes of the front-line staff and those in administrative or executive roles, similar to that of a feudal state. Except middle management is a thing, and expected to keep the serfs in order (another impossible job given their compensation and benefits structure). The benefits are some of the poorest in the region (you probably know who it is), so even when purchasing the best plan from this provider, the quality for value is low.