Forced mental health treatment in California may soon be getting a huge boost in funding, using a projected windfall of taxpayer money from recently passed ballot initiative Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). In the months leading up to November's election and during the statewide stakeholder input process that followed, voters and supporters of the MHSA have been told that these funds, an expected $275 million for this year and $750 million for subsequent years, paid for with a one percent state income surtax on incomes of over a million dollars, would only be used for voluntary, community-based services that were client-centered and supported choice, autonomy and self-determination. But when the California Dept. of Mental Health (CA DMH) released its draft plan requirements for county mental health administrators on February 15, they contained a provision that would allow MHSA funds to be used for "involuntary services" if certain criteria were met.
In the month and a half following CA DMH's release of the draft plan requirements, mental health clients throughout the state have spoken out against these provisions at stakeholder meetings, and the California Network of Mental Health Clients (CNMHC) has released a position paper strongly opposing the forced treatment provisions.
Dismissing clients' demands to remove this language, CA DMH Deputy Director Carol Hood announced Tuesday and Wednesday at MHSA stakeholders meetings in Los Angeles and Sacramento that the CA DMH intends to keep the forced treatment provisions in the requirements. Hood went on to say that the agency is preparing a checklist that it will make available to counties interested in using MHSA monies to implement involuntary outpatient commitment law AB 1421 ("Laura's Law"), explaining how to make their proposals "consistent with the MHSA". Laura's Law, which was signed into law two years ago by then-Governor Grey Davis, expands criteria for court-ordered forced treatment, but requires counties to pay for it themselves, which has kept them from implementing forced treatment under the Law, up until now. African Americans and other people of color have been disproportionately subjected to court-ordered forced outpatient treatment in New York State, as shown in a recent study. New York's "Kendra's Law" has been opposed by a coalition of clients, service providers and civil rights lawyers, who are trying to stop NY Governor George Pataki from renewing the law and making it permanent in June.
Mental health clients who had been attending the state-level stakeholder meetings had expressed concern that the CA DMH might not listen to them on this issue. CNMHC members distributed a flyer at last week's meetings to remind the DMH of the MHSA's promise of transforming the system from a "fail-first" model based on force and coercion to a "clients-first" model embracing choice, autonomy, independent living and self-determination. The flyer and position paper were distributed at both the Los Angeles and Sacramento stakeholder meetings. But none were quite prepared for Hood's announcement, which many clients have called a large-scale betrayal of trust.
The 50 or so clients at Wednesday's meeting, many of whom had gathered signatures and campaigned for Prop 63, were devastated at the news. Some left the meeting in despair, while others decried Hood's announcement as a dangerous move away from the promised client-centered, voluntary services toward force, and a huge slap in the face to the many clients and psychiatric survivors who worked tirelessly for two years to support the measure and have been participating in its planning and implementation. At the end of the meeting, clients, family members and advocates at twelve out of perhaps 20 tables in the large room voiced their strong objection to any MHSA funds being permitted for forced treatment. The prevailing mood as stakeholders left was one of shock and dismay; yet many clients were galvanized by a shared desire to take action and stop the proposed plans from taking effect.
The CA DMH has extended its official deadline for public comment to Monday, April 11, but they are not expected to release their final plan requirements to the county mental/behavioral health departments until early to mid-May, so client activists plan to keep the pressure up until then.
The CNMHC has launched an international letter-writing campaign to tell the CA DMH that forced and coercive treatment, far from being transformational, represents a dangerous retreat from the voluntary, community-based, client-centered, culturally competent services and supports that California voters were promised when they voted for Prop 63.
To contact MHSA Staff:
Toll-free voicemail (within California):
(800) 972-MHSA (6472)
By Fax: (916) 653-9194
By Email:
mhsa@dmh.ca.gov By Mail:
ATTN: MHSA
California Department of Mental Health
1600 Ninth Street, Room 130
Sacramento, CA 95814
USA
Community mental health centers are an organized crime scam. The real intent is to funnel huge amounts of money into the hands of a select few.
The beauty of having court ordered patients is that you can abuse the crap out of them. You can deprive them of access to Doctors and bill the state for fantastic amounts for frivolous services.
They can have as many as three people assisting a patient who do nothing more than take pills out of a bottle and put them in a daily med box. They can charge the state $150 for sending a social worker out to the residence and offering helpful advice like "It's cold outside, stay warm."
Community mental helath centers are run by gangsters. They lie, they steal, and they prey on the weakest people they can find. Yes Delphine, there really is a big bad wolf.
This theory predicts skyrocketing costs and a dramatic reduction in the quality of care.
Have you been keeping up with Evelyn Pringle's articles on Bush's plan to implement mandatory mental health screening for schoolchildren ?
Converse Murdoch wrote: "Community mental health centers are an organized crime scam. The real intent is to funnel huge amounts of money into the hands of a select few."
That may well be the case, oftentimes. The quality of "care" in many clinics and day-treatment centers run by both for-profit and non-profit contractors is notoriously low, and there appears to be much more interest on the part of many professionals and providers in getting MediCal and insurance reimbursemenrts than there is in meeting the clients where they're at and letting them direct their own care.
But then there are the small but growing number of self-help centers run by and for mental health clients, which often struggle to stay afloat despite their loyal client memberships and the many popular, innovative, alternative and holistic services and supports they offer. These services include 24 hour drop-in and respite centers, peer counseling, massage, acupuncture, "warm lines", co-op housing, and other innovative services and supports that allow clients a much greater degree of independence and self-determination in deciding what is best for themselves. But the funding is often dependent on disappearing funds from county mental health departments and very small foundation grants, which are disappearing as well.
Prop 63 promised to fund "new, innovative and client run services" and could still be a lifesaver for client-run services. But that all depends on whether CA DMH is willing to keep its end of the deal. If, when CA DMH releases its final plan requirements in May, Prop 63 funds are allowed to be used for force, not only will many people avoid seeking any public mental health services altogether for fear of getting court-ordered into medication compliance, there is also a high likelihood of a lawsuit against the CA DMH and a good chance of a repeal of the measure in the next election with the support of the client movement .
Converse Murdoch wrote: "Have you been keeping up with Evelyn Pringle's articles on Bush's plan to implement mandatory mental health screening for schoolchildren?"
I have been looking for more articles on this. Thank you for pointing those out. For folks who haven't read Evelyn Pringle's articles on this dangerous new trend, here are a few links:
http://www.independent-media.tv/group.cfm?ffield=media_producer&fvalue=Evelyn%20Pringle Pringle appears to have taken the lead in covering the "screening" phenomenon. In San Francisco, I have been participating in meetings with the behavioral health department to gather input from "stakeholders" on the local Prop 63 three-year implementation plan. Most of the attendees havce been service providers and professionals who contract with the city. Several have been aggessively promoting MHSA fundiing of the "teen screen" program. Very few youth, clients or homeless people have attended these meetings so far, because virtually no outreach has been done to bring these "central stakeholders" to the table. At the sub-committee on services for transition age youth, I advocated against funding of programs that coerce young people, potentially violate their confidentiality, and give them a label of questionable accuracy, with a great deal of stigm and discrimination (not to mention toxic and addictive medication) attached. I spoke as a young adult mental health client and advocate; another youth advocate spoke in agreement.
But unless issues like the ones Pringle writes about are covered by more independent media, forced and coercive mental health diagnosis and treatment of children, youth and adults will likely become much more commonplace.
This article disappeared from the LA IMC newswire for about a day and a half. I'm really interested in the politics of the mental health care system. My wife is under court order and is being subject to all manner of abusive treatment by the local mental heath center.
I ran your name on google and you seem to be extrememly knowledgeble about this matter and quite the activist. Here is my address :
Converse Murdoch
112 S. Elm St.
Wellington, KS.
67152
umlaut@idir.net At the risk of being too intrusive: I would like to keep in touch with you so that we can compare notes. It appears that we have a common enemy. IndyMedia is an unreliable way to communicate.