Objective: To explore changing the procedures for site reviews of mental health facilities in New Jersey, the study sought to determine the views of administrators of mental health agencies and of state and county mental health officials about evaluation methods used by site visit teams. Methods: Responses to a 35-item questionnaire by 86 provider-agency administrators were compared with responses by 34 government officials using chi square analysis and two-way analyses of variance. Results: Both agency administrators and government officials believed that the primary purpose of site visits was to improve service quality and assess compliance with standards of good care. Compared with agency administrators, government officials viewed site visits as more useful and important. Agency administrators believed that identifying problems not under the agency's control was the most useful feature of a site visit. Although both groups apparently wanted consumers' input during the evaluation process, both were hesitant to accept consumers and their families as members of site visit teams. conclusions: Both groups favored changes that would make site visits a more collaborative enterprise. Their similar views on many issues form a core of agreement about site visit procedures around which further consensus can be built.