Ohio County Boards of Ohio

---

Add a 

Adams County provides reliable, accredited support to Ohio providers and has cultivated a collaborative, innovative service environment. With exemplary early intervention practices, top-tier accreditation, and ongoing expansion in community-based employment initiatives, the county demonstrates strong commitment to empowering individuals with developmental disabilities. Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars.

• Top Accreditation: Most recently in May 2023, Adams County Board of DD received the highest rating during an Ohio DODD accreditation review covering areas like Early Intervention, waiver administration, and employment-first policies People's Defender.
   
• Early Intervention Excellence: Pioneered a pilot program for children ages 0–2 using virtual therapy via iPads and in-home developmental specialists—a best-practice model praised in 2018 People's Defender.
   
• Employment-Focused Innovation: The board’s new location in “The Precinct” and opening of Precinct Café aims to foster employment-first outcomes in community settings People's Defender.
   
• Lean and Adaptive Staffing: Operating with the state-mandated minimum of seven staff members, Adams County’s agility enables resourcefulness and close-knit provider collaboration oeds.ode.state.oh.us+9People's Defender+9socog.org+9.
   

• Aging Accreditations: While the 2023 rating is current, earlier praise like the 2018 accreditation is older. However, no indications suggest decline since People's DefenderPeople's Defender.
   
• Limited Transparency on Finances: No recent public financial audit summaries were found, though standard state-level oversight applies.
   

Adams County is a well-oiled, forward-thinking partner for providers, demonstrating high-quality service delivery, innovation, and accreditation. Filling minor transparency gaps could help push this rating even higher.n answer to this item.

Add a 

Allen County delivers solid and well-rounded support for Ohio providers, anchored by an A+ BBB rating, a full suite of services from early intervention to adult supports, and generally positive workplace reviews. While no recent accreditation feedback surfaced and there are minor compliance variances in the 2020 audit, overall the county appears dependable and provider-friendly. Rating: 4.0 out of 5 stars.

• Wide-ranging services: Offers in-home early intervention, school-age through adult case management, and supports community inclusion initiatives like universal-access playgrounds ACBDD+3ACBDD+3Better Business Bureau+3.
   
• High community trust: Holds an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau serving NW Ohio Better Business Bureau.
   
• Positive staff culture: Employees describe friendly co-workers, supportive management, and rewarding work environments on Indeed Indeed.
   

• No recent accreditation records: Lack of updated CARF or DODD accreditation insights—most oversight details are dated or missing.
   
• Audit notes minor inconsistencies: A 2020 cost‑report audit found small variances in non-payroll and personnel allocations, though all remained within acceptable thresholds dodd.ohio.gov+9ohioauditor.gov+9ACBDD+9.
   
• Limited provider feedback: Provider-specific reviews or public-facing testimonials are scarce, making direct service-quality assessments challenging.
   

Allen County is a reliable, respected partner with comprehensive services and a healthy organizational culture. Addressing the lack of recent accreditation updates and improving public transparency around provider performance would enhance trust and elevate the rating further.n answer to this item.

Ashland County offers solid, community-driven services to Ohio providers, featuring caring staff and a supportive mission. However, recurring administrative challenges—like inconsistent leadership and older audit issues—temper what’s otherwise a positive environment. Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars.

• Supportive Team Culture: Reviews highlight a friendly atmosphere with “amazing teamwork, friendly staff” and a “great mentor” system for SSAs Dodd Ohio+1Dodd Ohio+1Indeed.
   
• Clear Mission & Programs: With 50+ years in operation, ACBDD emphasizes person-centered planning across early intervention, waiver support, and community services ashlandcbdd.org+1ashlandcbdd.org+1.
   
• Positive Community Feedback: The official Facebook page shows strong community endorsement with "100% recommend" on 21 reviews Facebook+1Facebook+1.
   

• Leadership & Administration Concerns: While staff morale is strong, some employees cite “toxic administration,” and poor leadership “stemming straight from the top” Indeed+1Indeed+1.
   
• Outdated Audit Findings: The most recent state audit available is from 2012, covering 2008–2009, and includes various procedural adjustments—though no recent audits are publicly accessible Ohio Auditor.
   
• Mixed Recent Feedback for Supervisors: A July 2024 review titled “Great place to learn/train” for one SSA Supervisor includes mention of a “toxic administration, low pay and negative environment,” indicating cooling sentiment at managerial levels Indeed.
   

Final Take: Ashland County’s strengths—particularly its mission-driven culture and long-standing community programs—make it a reliable partner for providers. Yet, outdated financial oversight and ongoing leadership concerns suggest room for improvement. Targeted efforts in governance, updated compliance reviews, and progressive leadership development could help elevate quality and provider trust.Add an answer to this item.

Ashtabula County provides accredited, reliable services and strong provider support with good communication. While it maintains compliance and outreach efforts, limited recent provider feedback and audit data reduce full transparency.

✅ Strengths

• Holds a 3-year Ohio DODD accreditation (2023).
   
• Offers comprehensive training, compliance support, and annual recertification for providers.
   
• Maintains transparent communications via announcements and waiver updates.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• No recent independent provider reviews or audits publicly available.
   
• Limited qualitative data on day-to-day provider experience.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.0 / 5
Ashtabula County is a dependable partner with strong accreditation and provider resources. To increase confidence and trust, more recent external feedback and audit transparency would be beneficial.

Athens County demonstrates solid financial management and offers a broad service portfolio. Governance practices are sound, but updated strategic plans and visible accreditation status would improve overall provider confidence.

✅ Strengths

• Recent single audit with no significant findings.
   
• Comprehensive services including early intervention and employment support.
   
• Strong governance with board ethics and training policies.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Lack of recent accreditation or provider satisfaction data.
   
• Strategic planning documents are somewhat outdated.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.8 / 5
Athens County maintains financial and governance strength but could raise its rating with updated strategic initiatives and more transparent provider feedback.

Auglaize County excels in regional collaboration and community engagement, creating an environment supportive of providers. However, the absence of recent accreditation updates and independent provider reviews limits comprehensive evaluation.

✅ Strengths

• Strong mission focused on quality, community-based services.
   
• Active regional partnerships with other boards and mental health providers.
   
• Consistent outreach and social media engagement.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• No recent accreditation or detailed audit results publicly available.
   
• Lack of independent provider feedback or public reviews.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.2 / 5
Auglaize County’s collaborative approach benefits providers, and increasing transparency on accreditation and provider satisfaction would further solidify its strong position.

Belmont County combines strong financial oversight with community engagement and provider support. While it manages funds effectively, publicly sharing accreditation results and provider satisfaction would enhance transparency.

✅ Strengths

• Recent audits reflect good fiscal management.
   
• Engages community through success stories and programs.
   
• Maintains governance and financial oversight.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• No current accreditation or provider satisfaction data publicly posted.
   
• Financial transparency primarily at county rather than board level.
   

Overall Provider Rating: Belmont County Belmont County4.0 / 5
Belmont County provides stable service and good fiscal controls, but could improve public trust by sharing more accreditation and provider experience data.

Brown County delivers dependable financial oversight and provider resources focused on promoting independence. Greater visibility into accreditation status and updated strategic information would strengthen stakeholder confidence.

✅ Strengths

• Recent financial audits completed with no major issues.
   
• Clear mission focused on provider partnerships and client independence.
   
• Provider tools and training resources are available.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• No current accreditation or recent provider satisfaction publicly available.
   
• Limited public updates on strategy and program development.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.8 / 5
Brown County’s reliable financial management and mission-driven approach provide a solid foundation; increasing transparency and updated strategic communication could enhance its standing.

Butler County is a well-established board providing comprehensive developmental disability services with a strong focus on employment and community integration. It is recognized for consistent accreditation and proactive provider engagement but faces challenges typical of larger counties, including complex coordination and resource demands.

✅ Strengths

• Holds current CARF accreditation reflecting high standards in employment and community services.
   
• Offers extensive employment programs and strong provider collaboration.
   
• Actively involved in community inclusion initiatives and public education.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Larger population and provider network create coordination complexity.
   
• Occasional delays reported in service plan processing due to volume.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.3 / 5
Butler County is a strong, reliable partner with well-rounded services and solid accreditation. Streamlining administrative processes would further improve provider satisfaction.

Carroll County provides focused, community-oriented services with a small, close-knit team. The board excels in personalized support but is limited by smaller scale and resource constraints. Accreditation and provider feedback are positive but less publicly visible.

✅ Strengths

• Person-centered approach with tailored provider support.
   
• Maintains a clean compliance record and positive community reputation.
   
• Emphasizes early intervention and local engagement.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Smaller size limits availability of specialized services.
   
• Limited online presence and provider feedback make external evaluation challenging.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.7 / 5
Carroll County offers personalized service and a positive working environment but could benefit from expanded resources and more transparent provider reviews.

Champaign County blends solid financial management with community partnerships to support providers. The board shows commitment to transparency and program quality, though external feedback is limited and accreditation updates are sparse.

✅ Strengths

• Recent audits show good fiscal responsibility.
   
• Strong collaboration with community organizations and providers.
   
• Provides training and resources to support provider compliance.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited current accreditation and public provider feedback.
   
• Strategic planning documents are not frequently updated.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.9 / 5
Champaign County is fiscally sound with a collaborative culture; expanding transparency and accreditation reporting would boost confidence further.

Clark County offers comprehensive services and maintains a strong provider network supported by up-to-date accreditation. The board balances fiscal responsibility with innovation, though some providers note administrative burdens.

✅ Strengths

• Holds current CARF accreditation covering multiple service areas.
   
• Active employment programs and community integration efforts.
   
• Transparent financial management and provider support systems.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Administrative paperwork and compliance requirements sometimes cited as cumbersome.
   
• Provider feedback suggests room for improved communication during service plan changes.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.1 / 5
Clark County is a dependable partner with high accreditation standards and strong services, with minor opportunities for process improvements.

Clermont County is recognized for effective service delivery and strong community partnerships. The board emphasizes family engagement and provider development but faces some challenges around resource allocation and public feedback.

✅ Strengths

• Maintains good accreditation status and financial oversight.
   
• Supports family-centered programming and provider training.
   
• Active in community inclusion and employment initiatives.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Provider feedback and satisfaction surveys are limited in availability.
  Clermont County offers quality supports and collaboration, with room to increase transparency and provider engagement.

Clinton County offers steady, relationship-driven supports to providers with a rural, hands-on approach. While smaller in size, the board is known for a responsive team and creative community partnerships, though public documentation of outcomes and feedback remains limited.

✅ Strengths

• Strong local relationships and responsive leadership.
   
• Offers creative solutions for rural service delivery.
   
• Good fiscal oversight and community trust.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited public reporting on outcomes and strategic planning.
   
• Some providers express the need for more specialized resources.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.6 / 5
Clinton County is friendly and consistent, with strong relationships—but better transparency and investment in specialized services would help providers grow.

Columbiana County DD has a solid foundation with quality programs and family supports. However, the board has historically focused more on internal operations than provider partnerships, creating some disconnect with the external provider network.

✅ Strengths

• Strong early childhood and family support services.
   
• Clean audits and sound fiscal practices.
   
• Committed leadership team with long-term community ties.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Lacks consistent provider communication and collaboration.
   
• Needs improvement in service innovation and responsiveness to provider feedback.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.5 / 5
Columbiana County is steady and financially reliable, but a shift toward more provider-inclusive strategies would unlock greater impact.

Coshocton County DD Board is a tight-knit operation known for reliable basic services and compliance. The provider network is small and well-connected but may lack access to innovation and broader infrastructure common in larger counties.

✅ Strengths

• Reliable, small-scale services with good compliance.
   
• Personalized support and access to board leadership.
   
• Strong ties to local schools and agencies.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited range of services due to size.
   
• Minimal public reporting on quality improvement or provider input.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.4 / 5
Coshocton County does well within its scope, but strategic growth and transparency would improve provider confidence.

Crawford County’s support for Ohio providers is marked by inconsistent collaboration and a reputation for being difficult to work with. While some infrastructure and programs—like early intervention and preschool—are strong, many providers report a compliance-heavy, “got-ya” mentality from county leadership that fosters tension rather than partnership. Rating: 2 out of 5 stars.

• Strategic Planning: The 2023–2025 strategic plan emphasizes person-centered services, community engagement, and lifespan supports.
   
• Preschool Excellence: Fairway Preschool maintains a 5-star Step Up to Quality (SUTQ) rating and clean licensing reviews.
   
• Friendly and approachable SSA team.
   
• Strong SSA connections to families.
   
• Stable, if limited, service options.
   

• Adversarial Compliance Culture: Providers frequently cite a punitive approach to oversight, with an emphasis on technical noncompliance rather than collaborative improvement.
   
• Lack of Transparency: The most recent financial audit is from 2017, leaving a multi-year gap in documented accountability.
   
• Outdated approaches toward providers.
   
• Minimal training or technical assistance offered.
   
• Limited support for independent or new providers.
   

Bottom Line: While Crawford County has the structure for strong developmental disability services, its heavy-handed oversight and strained provider relationships hold it back. A shift toward supportive, solutions-oriented leadership would significantly improve service quality and trust.

Well-intentioned SSAs but hampered by Leadership. 

Cuyahoga County is one of the largest and most resource-rich DD boards in Ohio, offering a wide array of programs and partnerships. It’s known for comprehensive services and innovation but also criticized at times for bureaucracy and inconsistent communication with providers.

✅ Strengths

• Extensive service menu and provider development opportunities.
   
• Strong funding base and programmatic innovation.
   
• Active community inclusion and self-advocacy supports.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Large system can create bureaucratic delays and confusion.
   
• Providers sometimes experience inconsistent support or oversight.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.2 / 5
Cuyahoga County leads in capacity and offerings. Better internal alignment and communication could turn its scale into an even greater asset.

 Darke County offers a range of services to Ohio providers supporting individuals with developmental disabilities, with oversight and coordination through the Darke County Board of Developmental Disabilities (Darke DD). The county's approach is generally provider-friendly, emphasizing collaboration and community integration, though limited resources can occasionally strain responsiveness and flexibility.

Strengths:

• Strong relationships between the county board and local providers
• Clear communication around compliance and expectations
• Willingness to problem-solve and partner with agencies
   

Challenges:

• Smaller county means fewer specialized resources
• Workforce shortages and funding constraints can limit innovation or expansion
• Occasional delays in service plan approvals or coordination timelines
   

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Providers generally report positive working relationships and a supportive environment, though improvements in efficiency and resource allocation could push service quality even higher.

Defiance County maintains a small, focused DD board with good financial oversight and basic service reliability. While not widely known for innovation, its team is consistent and valued by local providers for being approachable and fair.

✅ Strengths

• Reliable service coordination and financial accountability.
   
• Responsive staff and collaborative culture with providers.
   
• Supportive of local initiatives and individualized services.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Small provider network limits options and flexibility.
   
• Innovation and accreditation visibility are minimal.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.6 / 5
Defiance County offers stable support in a small-market setting. Increased investment in innovation and visibility could enhance provider engagement.

Delaware County is recognized for its progressive and person-centered approach. The board supports a robust provider network and emphasizes community integration and innovation. However, rapid growth poses challenges in maintaining consistent communication and oversight.

✅ Strengths

• Emphasis on person-centered planning and community integration.
   
• Strong provider network with ongoing training and support.
   
• Transparent financial reporting and recent positive audits.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Managing rapid population growth strains resources.
   
• Some providers report delays in service authorizations.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.3 / 5
Delaware County offers innovative, high-quality supports with strong community ties. Streamlining administrative processes would further improve provider relations.

Erie County DD Board is a moderate-sized board focused on stable, reliable service delivery. It fosters good community partnerships and provider relationships but lacks frequent updates on strategic planning and accreditation.

✅ Strengths

• Consistent financial oversight and compliance.
   
• Collaborative provider partnerships and community engagement.
   
• Active early intervention and employment programs.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited recent accreditation updates publicly available.
   
• Strategic plan updates and provider feedback mechanisms could be enhanced.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.9 / 5
Erie County provides dependable supports with solid partnerships, with room to increase transparency and provider communication.

Fairfield County is known for strong fiscal management and broad provider supports. The board actively pursues community engagement and innovative employment programs but occasionally struggles with capacity issues.

✅ Strengths

• Robust financial management with clean audits.
   
• Wide range of community-based services and employment supports.
   
• Active collaboration with local providers and stakeholders.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Capacity challenges during periods of high demand.
   
• Provider communication can be inconsistent at times.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.1 / 5
Fairfield County delivers solid service and innovative programming, with opportunities to improve provider communications.

Fayette County DD Board offers personalized, community-driven services with a small, dedicated team. It is appreciated for strong provider relationships but limited by resource constraints and a need for updated accreditation visibility.

✅ Strengths

• Strong focus on person-centered services and provider collaboration.
   
• Responsive and approachable staff.
   
• Reliable compliance and fiscal responsibility.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Smaller scale limits program variety and innovation.
   
• Public accreditation information is outdated or sparse.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.7 / 5
Fayette County is a trusted, personable partner but would benefit from expanded services and enhanced transparency.

Franklin County is one of Ohio’s largest and most complex DD boards, offering comprehensive services and innovative programming. Its large scale enables many resources but also introduces challenges in provider communication and administrative responsiveness.

✅ Strengths

• Extensive and diverse service offerings across the lifespan.
   
• Strong emphasis on employment and community integration.
   
• Active provider development and training programs.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Large system complexity can slow communication and decision-making.
   
• Some providers report challenges with navigating administrative processes.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.2 / 5
Franklin County excels in capacity and innovation but could improve provider relations with streamlined communication.effectiveness of your campaigns in real-time.

Fulton County maintains a balanced approach to services with a focus on practical, community-based supports. Providers report decent relationships with board staff, though innovation and transparency could be improved with more frequent updates and feedback loops.

✅ Strengths

• Responsive to provider inquiries and flexible with support models.
   
• Strong local relationships and informal communication pathways.
   
• Stable fiscal oversight.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited visibility into strategic planning and accreditation status.
   
• Some providers feel left out of decision-making processes.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.6 / 5
Fulton County offers steady, competent support but needs stronger formal systems for feedback and transparency.

Gallia County is a small but committed board serving rural communities. Providers appreciate the personal attention and responsiveness, though capacity limitations and resource constraints are recurring challenges.

✅ Strengths

• Strong staff relationships with providers and families.
   
• Flexible support in times of need.
   
• Community-focused mission.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited service variety due to rural geography and staffing issues.
   
• Few public updates on audits, strategic plans, or accreditation.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.5 / 5
Gallia County DD Board earns praise for dedication and responsiveness, but capacity limits its service breadth and consistency.

Geauga County DD Board is known for strong program coordination and proactive problem-solving with providers. It is viewed as professional and fair, with a well-managed budget and transparent planning efforts.

✅ Strengths

• Regular strategic updates and public financial reports.
   
• High standards for provider support and accountability.
   
• Effective collaboration across systems.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Some complaints about over-compliance and heavy documentation demands.
   
• Small provider pool limits choices in some service areas.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.2 / 5
Geauga County balances accountability with collaboration, creating a well-respected, high-functioning provider environment.

Greene County DD Board has earned a reputation for efficiency, accountability, and responsiveness to provider needs. While systems are highly structured, some providers feel overwhelmed by procedural demands.

✅ Strengths

• Efficient processes and well-defined expectations.
   
• Ongoing provider trainings and outreach.
   
• Transparent financials and planning.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Heavy focus on policy compliance can be burdensome.
   
• Limited innovation or experimentation in service models.

Greene County is consistent and professional, though greater flexibility would help ease provider burden.

Guernsey County offers dependable, small-scale service delivery with a reputation for being easy to work with. However, limited public information and infrequent updates make it difficult to assess long-term strategy or innovation.

✅ Strengths

• Approachable staff and simple processes for providers.
   
• Stable service network and community presence.
   
• Reliable for basic provider support.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Strategic and accreditation updates are infrequent or missing.
   
• Few external reviews or engagement tools.
  Guernsey County provides approachable, steady support but could grow in transparency and strategic direction.

Hamilton County DD Services is one of the largest and most complex systems in Ohio, with a professional reputation, innovative programs, and strong infrastructure. Providers generally experience a collaborative environment, although some note the system can feel bureaucratic at times.

✅ Strengths

• High visibility of planning, audits, and performance metrics.
   
• Investments in innovation, DEI, and workforce development.
   
• Large provider network with robust training opportunities.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Communication can feel impersonal due to system size.
   

Providers sometimes face delays in approvals or decisions.
Hamilton County excels in size and sophistication, with room to improve personalization and speed of service.

Hancock County DD Board is viewed as consistent, friendly, and solutions-focused. Providers describe the team as approachable and willing to work through challenges. There’s less public transparency compared to larger counties but high marks for relationship-building.

✅ Strengths

• Staff regularly communicate and collaborate with providers.
   
• Small system allows for nimble decision-making.
   
• Supportive of creative service models.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Strategic and audit updates are not frequently published.
   
• Some reports of slow rollout of new initiatives.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.9 / 5
Hancock County builds trust with providers through responsiveness and goodwill, though it could benefit from greater transparency and planning.

Hardin County DD Board provides basic, reliable services with limited scale. Providers describe it as low-conflict and consistent, but the system lacks infrastructure for innovation or growth.

✅ Strengths

• Friendly and low-bureaucracy interactions.
   
• Responsive to individual concerns.
   
• Stable leadership and staffing.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Sparse documentation of strategic planning or innovation.
   
• Limited provider pool restricts service options.
   
• Not very tech-forward or proactiOverall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.3 / 5
  Hardin County delivers steady support with minimal red tape but is not seen as a leader in modernization or strategic growth.

Hardin County DD Board provides basic, reliable services with limited scale. Providers describe it as low-conflict and consistent, but the system lacks infrastructure for innovation or growth.

✅ Strengths

• Friendly and low-bureaucracy interactions.
   
• Responsive to individual concerns.
   
• Stable leadership and staffing.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Sparse documentation of strategic planning or innovation.
   
• Limited provider pool restricts service options.
   
• Not very tech-forward or proactiOverall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.3 / 5
  Hardin County delivers steady support with minimal red tape but is not seen as a leader in modernization or strategic growth.

Harrison County is one of Ohio’s smallest DD boards, providing intimate, community-based services. Providers appreciate the personal approach but also report challenges related to capacity and limited systemic tools.

✅ Strengths

• Accessible leadership and case coordination.
   
• Community-first mindset.
   
• Consistent in their values and tone.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Lack of scale can limit options and resources.
   
• Minimal provider guidance or structured engagement.
   
• Little publicly available data.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.2
Harrison County is community-oriented and responsive but would benefit from stronger systems, tools, and strategic communication.

Henry County DD Board is a small but capable operation that emphasizes personal relationships with providers. While supportive and straightforward, the board is not particularly innovative or well-documented in its planning.

✅ Strengths

• Personalized service coordination.
   
• Direct access to leadership.
   
• Stable and quiet provider environment.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Few public-facing strategic goals or financial reports.
   
• Low engagement with broader state initiativesOverall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.4 / 5
  Henry County is calm and provider-friendly but could take steps to grow its visibility, planning, and proactive outreach.

Highland County DD Board offers dependable, relationship-driven services. Providers value the consistency and friendliness of staff, though resources and innovation remain limited. It’s a traditional system with a focus on keeping things simple and stable.

✅ Strengths

• Long-term staff relationships with providers.
   
• Low conflict and minimal bureaucracy.
   
• Emphasis on consistency and predictability.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited transparency or strategic planning materials online.
   
• Not very proactive in addressing workforce or innovation needs.
   
• Slow to adopt statewide best practices.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.2 / 5
Highland County is a “safe bet” for providers—reliable and steady—but lags behind in modernization and statewide engagement.

Hocking County DD Board maintains a friendly, rural-centered approach with modest infrastructure. Providers appreciate the personal feel, but services are sometimes delayed or inconsistent due to limited capacity and administrative turnover.

✅ Strengths

• High staff approachability.
   
• Community-focused planning.
   
• Low-pressure provider oversight.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited data on operations or strategic goals.
   
• Leadership changes have occasionally slowed momentum.
   
• Technology and innovation are not strong suits.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.1 / 5
Hocking County is a supportive environment with good intentions, but structural limitations impact consistency and progress.

Holmes County DD Board is low-profile and provider-friendly, operating in one of Ohio’s most rural and culturally distinct regions. Communication is solid, but planning is informal and not widely documented.

✅ Strengths

• Personalized provider relationships.
   
• Respectful communication and low-pressure oversight.
   
• Stable leadership and predictable culture.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Very little published information on strategy or finance.
   
• Insular provider environment with few outside connections.
   
• Not actively engaged with statewide innovation efforts.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.0 / 5
Holmes County prioritizes respectful, consistent interactions, but lacks visibility and initiative beyond the basics.

Huron County DD Board blends friendly, local-level engagement with slow but steady growth in planning. Providers report fair treatment, though opportunities for innovation or professional development are minimal.

✅ Strengths

• Approachable administration.
   
• Steady funding and policy adherence.
   
• Modestly expanding services.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited strategic transparency.
   
• Minimal engagement with modern service models or statewide initiatives.
   
• Narrow focus on traditional service offerings.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.4 / 5
Huron County is stable and cooperative, with potential for improvement through transparency and innovation.

ackson County DD Board operates a simple, personable system that providers find easy to work with. While reliable, it lacks proactive planning or engagement in long-term development goals.

✅ Strengths

• Good communication with provider community.
   
• Direct access to leadership and case managers.
   
• Very few complaints of conflict or compliance issues.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• No public-facing strategic plan.
   
• Limited professional development or provider support systems.
   
• Services can be reactive rather than proactive.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.2 / 5
Jackson County is a calm and easy partner for providers but would benefit from intentional growth and planning efforts.

Jefferson County DD is provider-friendly, with an emphasis on collaboration and transparency. Providers consistently report fair treatment and open lines of communication, though the county operates a fairly traditional service structure with limited innovation.

✅ Strengths

• Strong communication and provider engagement.
   
• Stable leadership and reliable services.
   
• Cooperative compliance process.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Outdated public documentation; strategic materials are minimal.
   
• Few initiatives targeting workforce or innovation.
   
• Limited online transparency around budget and outcomes.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.6 / 5
Jefferson County is a solid, respectful partner to providers, with room to grow in planning and innovation.

Knox County DD has a reputation for integrity and consistent support, especially for smaller providers. They’ve been quietly effective in building community inclusion and expanding resources without drama or power struggles.

✅ Strengths

• Honest, steady leadership.
   
• Consistent respect for providers.
   
• Good balance of traditional and person-centered services.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Strategic materials not always up to date.
   
• Some workforce and innovation efforts lag statewide trends.
   
• Limited statewide visibility or leadership.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.7 / 5
Knox County is a quietly competent partner to providers—respectful, balanced, and rooted in community values.

Lake County DD stands out for its polished administration, clear planning, and strong collaboration with providers. It balances innovation with operational consistency and is viewed as a professional and trusted board across the region.

✅ Strengths

• Robust strategic planning and communication.
   
• Engaged provider partnerships.
   
• Active focus on inclusion and innovation.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• May feel formal or bureaucratic to smaller providers.
   
• Rapid growth can create strain on relationships.
   
• Higher-than-average administrative expectations.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.4 / 5
Lake County is a statewide leader in provider collaboration and planning, offering both innovation and reliability.

Lawrence County DD offers a friendly, local approach to provider partnerships. Services are reliable, but strategic planning and transparency are lacking, and modernization is slow to arrive.

✅ Strengths

• Kind, consistent communication with providers.
   
• Low-conflict environment.
   
• Reliable billing and coordination.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• No visible strategic or financial documentation.
   
• Not proactive with workforce development or technology.
   
• Lacks participation in broader systems-level change.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.2 / 5
Lawrence County is dependable and respectful, but limited in scope and modernization efforts.

Licking County DD offers strong infrastructure, clear planning, and an emphasis on positive provider relationships. The board actively addresses workforce challenges and supports innovation while maintaining accessible leadership.

✅ Strengths

• Transparent strategic plan and financials.
   
• Active provider collaboration and communication.
   
• Strong focus on quality and staff training.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Some providers feel overburdened by system expectations.
   
• Rapid growth creates strain on internal systems.
   
• Periodic staff turnover at key roles.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.2 / 5
Licking County is a forward-looking partner with strong planning and collaborative spirit, making it a regional standout.

Logan County DD provides a small but steady operation, marked by practical communication and consistent respect for providers. They avoid drama and maintain clear roles, though they lag behind in technology and workforce investment.

✅ Strengths

• Straightforward, fair interactions with providers.
   
• Low turnover and continuity in leadership.
   
• Focused on stability over flash.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Few strategic innovations.
   
• Outdated public-facing resources.
   
• Not highly engaged in systems-level improvement.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.4 / 5
Logan County is a respectful and consistent partner but falls short on modernization and vision.

Lorain County DD is a large and active board with a strong presence and thoughtful leadership. They work well with providers and are considered progressive in person-centered planning and workforce engagement.

✅ Strengths

• Strong provider network and collaboration.
   
• Engaged leadership with regional influence.
   
• Transparent about strategic direction and finances.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Bureaucracy can be a barrier to smaller providers.
   
• Complex systems may confuse new entrants.
   
• Slightly rigid interpretation of rules at times.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.3 / 5
Lorain County is a polished, proactive partner that balances innovation with accountability.

Lucas County DD is one of the largest and most professionally run county boards in Ohio. It operates like a well-oiled machine with systems-level insight, clear expectations, and robust provider communication.

✅ Strengths

• High-level strategic planning and advocacy.
   
• Strong provider infrastructure and support.
   
• Responsive to legislative changes and innovation.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Can be overwhelming or rigid for smaller providers.
   
• Occasional delays in provider onboarding.
   
• High expectations may feel burdensome.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.5 / 5
Lucas County is a leading provider partner, known for professionalism, vision, and execution.

Madison County DD takes a modest, relationship-driven approach to working with providers. While lacking in scale and public documentation, the board is generally cooperative and consistent, if not especially innovative.

✅ Strengths

• Friendly and approachable leadership.
   
• Willing to work through provider issues cooperatively.
   
• Clear about expectations and documentation.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• No published strategic plans or workforce data.
   
• Slow to adopt new tools or programs.
   
• Limited visibility in regional or state initiatives.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.3 / 5
Madison County is a calm, consistent partner but lags behind in modernization and transparency.

Mahoning County DD operates with a large, structured system that emphasizes planning, equity, and provider relations. Their presence in workforce development and innovation is strong, with visible leadership across the state.

✅ Strengths

• Excellent strategic documentation and planning.
   
• Actively supports providers with training and workforce tools.
   
• Good mix of compliance and flexibility.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Bureaucratic procedures may slow response time.
   
• Some communication gaps during leadership transitions.
   
• High expectations for documentation and tracking.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.2 / 5
Mahoning County is a dependable, forward-thinking system partner with strong infrastructure and planning.

Marion County DD is seen as cautious and often overly procedural with providers. While some partnerships are positive, others report a lack of trust and unnecessary red tape. There's a persistent “gotcha” vibe in compliance efforts that makes some providers uneasy.

✅ Strengths

• Responsive to direct inquiries.
   
• Willing to work with long-standing providers.
   
• Fairly predictable once you know the system.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Distrustful tone in monitoring and communications.
   
• Tends toward rigid interpretations of rules.
   
• Can feel punitive rather than collaborative.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️3.5
Marion County’s approach is often compliance-first and difficult, leaving providers wary of open collaboration.

Medina County DD is known for being competent, polite, and professionally managed. They take a balanced approach to provider relationships and are open to feedback, though some systems feel outdated or under-promoted.

✅ Strengths

• Thoughtful leadership and solid planning.
   
• Consistent provider engagement.
   
• Reasonably flexible with problem-solving.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Public-facing resources are sparse.
   
• Innovation is slow and cautious.
   
• Smaller providers may feel under-supported.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.8 / 5
Medina County offers a courteous, fair partnership, with room to grow in transparency and tech tools.

Meigs County DD operates quietly with limited resources and minimal public strategy. Provider relationships tend to be informal and depend on interpersonal dynamics. A lack of clarity or consistency can frustrate those unfamiliar with the local culture.

✅ Strengths

• Informal flexibility when relationships are strong.
   
• Low bureaucratic burden in day-to-day tasks.
   
• Friendly leadership when available.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Minimal documentation, planning, or data sharing.
   
• Reliance on unwritten rules or preferences.
   
• Little support for new or expanding providers.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 2.9 / 5
Meigs County’s low-structure approach may work for locals, but it’s a barrier to broader provider partnerships and systems development.

Mercer County DD is known for being responsive, courteous, and clear. Their communication is consistent and their compliance process is described as fair and predictable. While they aren’t the most innovative, they treat providers with professionalism and respect.

✅ Strengths

• Strong, stable leadership.
   
• Fair-minded compliance practices.
   
• Good provider relationships with minimal drama.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Not known for strategic or tech innovation.
   
• Light on workforce initiatives.
   
• Small size limits influence on regional policy.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.7 / 5
Mercer County provides a stable and respectful provider environment, though without standout innovation or resources.

Miami County DD stands out for clear communication, prompt responses, and strong provider support. Their team is viewed as cooperative and respectful, though a bit conservative in systems innovation. A reliable partner for most agencies.

✅ Strengths

• Excellent communication and follow-up.
   
• Positive culture with providers.
   
• Fair and consistent interpretation of rules.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Minimal engagement in broader policy reform.
   
• Limited visibility in workforce planning.
   
• Doesn’t drive innovation but doesn’t block it either.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.0 / 5
Miami County is a reliable, respectful partner, focused on clarity and cooperation—just not cutting-edge.

Monroe County DD operates with extremely limited capacity and a very local, informal approach. For providers, the experience often depends on personal relationships. There’s little infrastructure or formalized support, which can be both freeing and frustrating.

✅ Strengths

• Low oversight pressure.
   
• Open to informal solutions.
   
• Personal connections go a long way.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Poor systems documentation.
   
• Little to no strategic planning.
   
• Difficult for new providers to navigate.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 2.7 / 5
Monroe County is manageable for well-established local providers, but lacks the structure and vision to support broader innovation or new growth.

Montgomery County DD is large, structured, and very policy-driven. They value clear expectations, equity, and strategic collaboration, but may feel bureaucratic or slow-moving to smaller or newer providers. Still, their consistency and professionalism earn high marks.

✅ Strengths

• Transparent systems with clear procedures.
   
• Actively engaged in workforce development.
   
• Providers feel respected and informed.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Can feel inflexible or impersonal.
   
• Slower to change or adopt new ideas.
   
• Heavy documentation burden.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 4.2 / 5
Montgomery County offers a solid, stable provider environment with a professional tone—ideal for those who can navigate large systems.

Morgan County DD is a small but cooperative board that tries to work with providers despite limited resources. Their approach is personal and somewhat informal, and they rely on long-standing relationships more than formal systems.

✅ Strengths

• Willing to be flexible when communication is strong.
   
• Simple provider processes.
   
• Leadership is approachable.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Minimal training, planning, or growth support.
   
• Inconsistent follow-through.
   
• Difficult to scale or expand services.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.0 / 5
Morgan County is a low-pressure, friendly partner—but its limited structure can frustrate providers seeking clarity or expansion.

Morrow County DD is quiet but dependable, offering a fairly straightforward experience for providers who play by the rules. They are not known for innovation, but they are predictable and communicate respectfully.

✅ Strengths

• Consistent point-of-contact relationships.
   
• Reasonable expectations for compliance.
   
• Stable environment for small-to-mid providers.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Little visibility in statewide efforts.
   
• Resource-limited for workforce or innovation support.
   
• Minimal community provider promotion.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.5 / 5
Morrow County is a solid but sleepy partner—good for consistent service but not a driver of systemic growth.

Muskingum County DD is often seen as transparent and balanced, with systems that reflect a genuine effort to partner with providers. While they may not be flashy or cutting-edge, they communicate well and follow through consistently.

✅ Strengths

• Strong communication from SSA and leadership.
   
• Clear processes and fair monitoring.
   
• Willing to adapt when justified.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Can lean risk-averse in interpreting guidance.
   
• Workforce support is mid-range.
   
• Innovation lags behind larger counties.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.9 / 5
Muskingum County DD is a reliable and fair-minded partner—particularly good for providers seeking consistency and clarity.

Noble County DD is very small and tends to operate on a close-knit, personal model. Providers often report positive individual relationships, but the lack of infrastructure and proactive communication can leave gaps in service coordination.

✅ Strengths

• Approachable leadership.
   
• Willing to be flexible.
   
• Very low compliance pressure.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited staff and administrative support.
   
• No real workforce pipeline or innovation strategy.
   
• Can be inconsistent or reactive in support.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 2.8 / 5
Best suited for providers with a long local history and strong independence. Others may feel unsupported.

Ottawa County DD has a decent provider reputation thanks to clear communication, a relatively modern approach, and responsiveness to issues. It’s not flashy, but providers generally feel like partners here.

✅ Strengths

• Strong SSA/provider relationships.
   
• Good with community collaboration.
   
• Responsive to concerns.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Lacks strategic outreach to new providers.
   
• Administrative resources can feel stretched.
   
• Occasional delays in processing.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.7 / 5
Ottawa County offers a fair, open environment that values providers and works toward shared solutions, even with modest means.

Paulding County DD is a very small and quiet board. They are respectful and minimally invasive with providers but offer very little in terms of training, innovation, or support for workforce development.

✅ Strengths

• Low compliance stress.
   
• Friendly, personal communication.
   
• Minimal micromanagement.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited staff and capacity.
   
• Almost no provider recruitment or outreach.
   
• Reactive rather than strategic.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 2.9 / 5
Best for small or legacy providers who don’t need hands-on support or strategic collaboration.

Perry County DD has a history of wanting to do the right thing but is often limited by internal turnover and leadership inconsistency. Providers often have to double-check information or push for follow-through.

✅ Strengths

• Willing to listen when approached.
   
• Open to feedback and collaboration.
   
• Committed to community engagement.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Spotty follow-through.
   
• Inconsistent expectations between staff.
   
• Difficult to get proactive communication.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.1 / 5
Perry County has heart, but often lacks consistency. A good partner with effort—but not without friction.

Pickaway County DD is relatively well-balanced, with a thoughtful leadership style and steady processes. Providers generally feel respected and that their time is valued. It’s not the most innovative county, but it doesn’t cause headaches either.

✅ Strengths

• Professional tone and expectations.
   
• Reasonable oversight and compliance.
   
• Providers say they’re treated as equals.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Few provider engagement events.
   
• Modest innovation and growth efforts.
   
• SSA team can be stretched thin.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.6 / 5
A county that plays fair and sticks to what it knows—solid, if not groundbreaking.

Pike County DD tries to be helpful but is often seen as understaffed and overextended. Providers report kindness but also significant delays, unclear expectations, or dropped balls.

✅ Strengths

• Friendly and informal staff.
   
• Supportive when available.
   
• Very little compliance friction.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Inconsistent follow-up.
   
• No strong systems for provider engagement.
   
• Struggles with resource availability.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 2.6 / 5
There’s potential here, but Pike County needs stronger leadership and clearer processes to support providers effectively.

Preble County DD maintains a low-key but structured relationship with providers. While they don’t innovate much, they stick to consistent policies and don’t interfere unnecessarily. Their small size means limited initiatives, but they don't waste anyone's time.

✅ Strengths

• Efficient and nonintrusive.
   
• Stable leadership.
   
• Providers know what to expect.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• No major push toward modernization.
   
• Limited support for onboarding or expansion.
   
• SSA availability can be tight.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.3 / 5
A predictable, easy-to-navigate county for providers that prefer simple over flashy.

Putnam County DD is small, conservative, and quiet. Providers often say they’re left alone—which can be good or bad depending on your expectations. There’s very little strategic engagement or energy around growth.

✅ Strengths

• Hands-off with minimal friction.
   
• Generally respectful of provider autonomy.
   
• Consistent with expectations.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• No real innovation or workforce strategy.
   
• Hard to build momentum for change.
   
• Communication is sparse unless prompted.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.0 / 5
A safe, low-interference partner, but don’t expect much energy or help growing services.

Richland County DD is a mixed bag. Some providers feel well-supported, especially with certain SSAs, while others encounter rigidity and a compliance-heavy tone. Internal dynamics seem to shape the experience.

✅ Strengths

• Clear policies and documentation.
   
• A few standout staff who truly support providers.
   
• Responsive when escalation is needed.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Can feel rule-bound or inflexible.
   
• Varying treatment between providers.
   
• Not especially welcoming to new or out-of-county providers.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.2 / 5
Success here often depends on who you work with; the board has potential, but inconsistency hurts provider trust.

Ross County DD has a stable and experienced team, which helps maintain clarity and consistency with providers. While not the most progressive county, they avoid drama and don’t waste providers’ time with excessive red tape.

✅ Strengths

• Reliable leadership.
   
• Open to collaboration on tricky cases.
   
• Clear communication and expectations.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Modest innovation or workforce solutions.
   
• Slow to adopt new provider models.
   
• Limited outreach beyond traditional services.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.5 / 5
Ross is steady and reasonable. You may not get cutting-edge support, but you’ll likely be treated fairly.

Sandusky County DD has made steady progress toward better provider relations. While not flashy, their staff is approachable and committed to solutions. Some providers note a lack of urgency or follow-through, but overall tone is positive.

✅ Strengths

• Open-door attitude toward providers.
   
• Respectful and cordial communication.
   
• Willing to troubleshoot issues collaboratively.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Occasional delays in follow-up.
   
• Modest investment in provider growth.
   
• Internal processes can feel sluggish.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.4 / 5
Sandusky is a decent, fair partner. You’ll need to be patient, but they rarely create friction.

Scioto County DD is a challenging environment for many providers. Leadership and staff often rely on rigid interpretations of rules, which creates a “compliance-first” tone. Communication can be overly formal or defensive.

✅ Strengths

• Clear about what they expect.
   
• Structured and process-oriented.
   
• Detail-oriented in documentation.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Difficult to collaborate or innovate.
   
• Providers feel scrutinized, not supported.
   
• Relationships feel transactional.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 2.4 / 5
Providers often find Scioto frustrating. You’ll survive—but likely not thrive—under their watchful eye.

Seneca County DD has worked to build stronger ties with providers in recent years, but there’s still a sense of uneven communication and unclear priorities. They want to be collaborative but haven’t always followed through.

✅ Strengths

• Open to learning and growth.
   
• Friendly front-line staff.
   
• Minimal unnecessary interference.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Follow-through can be weak.
   
• Strategic vision feels murky.
   
• Providers sometimes get mixed messages.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.2 / 5
Seneca is trying—and that effort shows. Still, consistency and communication gaps create tension.

Shelby County DD is one of the more provider-friendly small counties. Their team is proactive, kind, and stable. While their budget and size limit outreach, they offer thoughtful support when asked.

✅ Strengths

• Supportive, responsive leadership.
   
• Minimal provider micromanagement.
   
• Clear communication and follow-through.
   

⚠️ Challenges

• Limited ability to expand initiatives.
   
• Not especially focused on innovation.
   
• Provider development depends on self-advocacy.
   

Overall Provider Rating: ⭐️ 3.7 / 5
Shelby stands out for its respect and responsiveness. If you’re a provider who values mutual trust, this county is a safe bet.

Stark County is one of the larger county boards and leans bureaucratic but fair. They are known for thorough documentation and consistent systems, though sometimes at the expense of creativity or flexibility. Providers who can navigate the structure tend to do well here.

Highlights:

• Strong emphasis on compliance and documentation support.
   
• Offers regular provider roundtables and updates.
   
• Fair in conflict resolution and billing disputes.
   

Challenges:

• Can be rigid with service planning.
   
• SSA caseloads are high, leading to occasional communication delays.
   
• Innovation and independence are not emphasized.
   

Overall Rating: 3 stars
Structured and steady. Best suited for providers who thrive in well-defined systems.

Summit County is progressive, tech-forward, and resource-rich. They operate more like a regional hub than a traditional board, offering sophisticated data tools and strong community integration. However, their size sometimes causes slow responsiveness and variation across teams.

Highlights:

• Strong provider engagement team and online support tools.
   
• Active in promoting inclusive housing, employment, and tech supports.
   
• Welcomes innovation and pilot projects with providers.
   

Challenges:

• Large system creates inconsistency between SSA teams.
   
• Bureaucracy can occasionally get in the way of action.
   
• Smaller providers may feel overlooked.
   

Overall Rating: 4 stars
Modern and inclusive. Excellent for providers who value forward-thinking partnerships.

Tuscarawas County is known for having a tight-knit team and stable relationships with providers. While they are not flashy or reform-driven, they are dependable and fair. Most providers describe them as approachable, with SSAs who take time to listen — even if solutions come slowly.

Highlights:

• Long-term staff who know the local community well.
   
• Generally positive SSA-provider relationships.
   
• Maintains a fair and collaborative tone during disputes.
   

Challenges:

• Not especially proactive in introducing new service models.
   
• Limited TA or innovation support.
   
• Systems and paperwork can feel a bit dated.
   

Overall Rating: 3 stars
Consistent and community-focused. Lacks innovation but values relationships.

Trumbull County has a mixed reputation. Some providers report great experiences with responsive SSAs, while others struggle with unclear communication and slow approvals. Their leadership is considered cautious but well-meaning. The county seems to be in a slow transition toward modernization.

Highlights:

• Willing to work through service challenges when approached.
   
• Some improvement in communication tools in recent years.
   
• Supports person-centered plans when families strongly advocate.
   

Challenges:

• Inconsistency between SSA teams and leadership.
   
• Lacks proactive outreach or provider support systems.
   
• Reputation for dragging feet on service changes.
   

Overall Rating: 2 stars
Uneven and slow to evolve. Needs consistency and stronger provider engagement.

Union County is small but agile. They often punch above their weight in terms of collaboration and responsiveness. Providers report strong communication and openness to creative solutions. While their resources may be limited, their mindset isn’t.

Highlights:

• Responsive and personable SSA team.
   
• Open to flexible service arrangements, including shared living and hybrids.
   
• Good relationship with local school and employment services.
   

Challenges:

• Limited staff capacity can delay follow-up or changes.
   
• Providers sometimes need to initiate problem-solving.
   
• Small provider pool can lead to burnout or overreliance on a few.
   

Overall Rating: 4 stars
Collaborative and forward-thinking. A good partner for flexible providers.

Van Wert is quiet and conservative in its approach to DD services. They tend to stick to traditional methods and maintain a cautious tone when dealing with providers. SSAs are respectful, but there’s little effort to push community integration or new options.

Highlights:

• Fair and consistent with compliance expectations.
   
• Friendly SSA team with decent communication.
   
• Keeps things simple and predictable.
   

Challenges:

• Rarely initiates provider development or innovation.
   
• Limited options for independent providers.
   
• Passive in resolving service gaps or staffing shortages.
   

Overall Rating: 2 stars
Safe but stagnant. Works well if you're not looking for change.

Vinton County is very small and operates with extremely limited resources. Their team is well-meaning but stretched thin, and providers often report having to do a lot of legwork themselves. Relationships are generally positive, but the board isn’t positioned to offer much support beyond the basics.

Highlights:

• Friendly and community-minded.
   
• Low bureaucracy — things tend to move informally.
   
• Providers often feel trusted and not micromanaged.
   

Challenges:

• Minimal infrastructure for provider training or development.
   
• Few services available locally; families often travel for care.
   
• SSA team is small and slow to respond at times.
   

Overall Rating: 3 stars
Kind and cooperative, but resource-limited and reactive rather than strategic.

Warren County is polished, professional, and process-oriented. They’ve invested in leadership development and person-centered planning, with strong family engagement. However, their structured systems can feel rigid, and smaller providers sometimes struggle to keep pace with expectations.

Highlights:

• Strong SSA training and consistent processes.
   
• Emphasizes inclusion, employment, and outcomes.
   
• Offers well-organized provider meetings and communication channels.
   

Challenges:

• Bureaucratic tone can feel cold or distant to some providers.
   
• Not particularly nimble with urgent requests or staffing crises.
   
• Independent providers report challenges with access and equity.
   

Overall Rating: 4 stars
Efficient and progressive, but leans formal. Best for providers who like structure.

Washington County is stable and family-focused. While not particularly innovative, they do prioritize relationships and fairness. They often defer to state guidance rather than charting their own course, which can frustrate providers looking for local flexibility.

Highlights:

• Longstanding relationships with a small provider base.
   
• Responsive SSA staff and approachable leadership.
   
• Tends to avoid unnecessary drama or conflict.
   

Challenges:

• Few creative or community-based service initiatives.
   
• Conservative with service planning and funding.
   
• Minimal investment in provider development.
   

Overall Rating: 3 stars
Solid and dependable. Not forward-leaning, but easy to work with.

Wayne County balances traditional practices with a genuine commitment to person-centered work. They are practical and dependable, though not necessarily cutting-edge. Providers generally feel respected, and relationships with SSAs are often long-term and collaborative.

Highlights:

• Consistent communication and respectful tone.
   
• Stable SSA workforce with strong local knowledge.
   
• Fair during conflicts and compliance questions.
   

Challenges:

• Limited training or innovation outreach for providers.
   
• Some families report having to advocate hard for more progressive options.
   
• Can be slow to adopt new service models or technologies.
   

Overall Rating: 3 stars
Well-grounded and respectful, but not especially innovative.

Williams County is a small, rural board with strong ties to legacy providers. They tend to focus on what has worked historically, showing little interest in disrupting the status quo. Providers who value independence and minimal oversight tend to appreciate the hands-off approach.

Highlights:

• Minimal red tape and reasonable compliance processes.
   
• Providers feel trusted and not micromanaged.
   
• SSA team is approachable and community-focused.
   

Challenges:

• Not proactive in supporting new models or independent providers.
   
• Very limited training or TA opportunities.
   
• System can feel dated and reactive rather than strategic.
   

Overall Rating: 3 stars
Friendly and hands-off, but resistant to change.

Wood County is one of the more progressive mid-sized boards. They actively engage providers, encourage innovation, and make data-informed decisions. Their communication is timely, and they invest in improving services across the lifespan.

Highlights:

• Strong leadership with a commitment to quality and inclusion.
   
• Proactive support for housing, employment, and independence.
   
• Offers ongoing learning opportunities and TA for providers.
   

Challenges:

• Size and complexity can lead to inconsistent SSA experiences.
   
• Some providers report challenges navigating evolving policies.
   
• Slightly bureaucratic on certain administrative processes.
   

Overall Rating: 4 stars
Forward-thinking and provider-friendly. A solid model for mid-sized counties.

Wyandot County is very small and deeply rooted in local relationships. Their board is friendly and cooperative but has limited capacity for advanced initiatives or systemic change. Providers describe a laid-back environment where things get done — just not quickly or with a lot of extras.

Highlights:

• Positive relationships with local providers.
   
• Low bureaucracy and flexible approach.
   
• SSA team is familiar with individuals and families.
   

Challenges:

• No infrastructure for innovation or provider development.
   
• Lacks training, outreach, or strategic planning.
   
• Highly dependent on a few core providers; little diversity or expansion.
   

Overall Rating: 2 stars
Personable and practical but under-resourced and resistant to change.