Aim: Existing children and adolescent mental health services in the United Kingdom have many gaps, such as reduced access to community-based services, and a lack of early intervention, prevention, and 24/7 crisis care. These gaps prevent timely access to appropriate levels of care, decrease children and young people's engagement with providers, and lead to increased pressures on urgent and emergency care. In this paper, we outline a newly created 0-19 model and its crisis service, which have been transformed into a fully integrated, "joint partnership" service, in line with the recommendations from the recent UK policies that aim to meet the aforementioned challenges. Method:The "Solar" service is described as a case study of a 0-19 service model. We cover the national and local contexts of the service, in addition to its rationale, aims, organizational structure, strengths and limitations.Results: The presented model is a fully integrated and innovative example of a service model that operates without tiers, and helps to create an inclusive, compassionate, stigma-free and youth-friendly environment. Additionally, the model aims to prioritize recovery, early intervention, prevention and the development of resilience. Conclusion:The 0-19 model is a result of the recent transformation of children and youth mental health services in the United Kingdom. The ongoing evaluation of the 0-19 model and its crisis component will investigate the model's effectiveness, accessibility and acceptability, as well as understanding the potential of the model to contribute towards solving numerous gaps in the existing mental health service provision within the United Kingdom. K E Y W O R D S children and young people, community mental health, integrated-whole system, mental health and crisis intervention, partnership model | INTRODUCTIONThere is prominent recognition of the weaknesses of the current children and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) provision in the United Kingdom (Care Quality Commission, 2017). Specifically, barriers to access (Brown, Rice, Rickwood, & Parker, 2016) and complicated pathways to care (Biddle, Donovan, Sharp, & Gunnell, 2007) are some of the main weaknesses identified. Furthermore, the lack of