State Mental Health Planning Research Articles

Ambitious state mental health plan in New York would boost CCBHCs' presence

New York state's mental health advocacy community is expressing cautious optimism over a comprehensive mental health reform plan announced this month in Gov. Kathy Hochul's State of the State address. Advocates will be closely watching for the specific budget proposals that will follow, mindful of financial shortcomings that they say have impeded the mental health field's progress.

The power of policy networks: The case of the state mental health planning process.

The power of policy networks: The case of the state mental health planning process.

Re-Designing State Mental Health Policy to Prevent the Use of Seclusion and Restraint

: The members of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) believe that seclusion and restraint, including "chemical restraints," are safety interventions of last resort and are not treatment interventions. Seclusion and restraint should never be used for the purposes of discipline, coercion, or staff convenience, or as a replacement for adequate levels of staff or active treatment. The use of seclusion and restraint creates significant risks for people with psychiatric disabilities. These risks include serious injury or death, retraumatization of people who have a history of trauma, and loss of dignity and other psychological harm. In light of these potential serious consequences, seclusion and restraint should be used only when there exists an imminent risk of danger to the individual or others and no other safe and effective intervention is possible. (Endorsed by the State Mental Health Directors, July 13, 1999). (NASMHPD 1999, NASMHPD Position Statement on Seclusion and Restraint. Alexandria, VA: National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning.).

Mental health care for Latinos: introduction to the special section.

Mental health care for Latinos: introduction to the special section.

Mental Health Consumer Service Preferences and Professional Plannnig

The purpose of this survery was to update the state mental health planning process with representative input from mental health consumer with severe mental illness. This update is necessitated by national research and legislation which questions the traditional planning process and service array that were considered the state-of-the-art only ten years ago. Consumer service preferences of perceived needs were obtained through personal interviews conducted with consumers in six geographic service areas throughout the State of Alaska, including the State hospital. The results are discussed in contrast to the current goals developed by mental health professional in the State mental health plan. The results support the need to continue the traditional array of residential services, and to amend the State plan to increase the emphasis to assist consumers to succeed in independent living and to individualize support services.

State mental health planning: New opportunities

Mental health planning has been limited by conceptual and logistical restraints. As a result, planning has been isolated from management and ineffectual in describing the total system of services required by persons experiencing severe mental illness. New conceptualizations and information technologies can yield enhanced understanding and control of system change. Application of these ideas to state mental health planning and management is described.

Developing a comprehensive state mental health plan

The authors review the history of state mental health planning from the federal perspective, discuss some state objectives for comprehensive planning, and present a participatory model for plan development. They demonstrate how the model can be used as a theoretical framework to produce a mental health plan that is a viable management tool fulfilling many state objectives.

Overview of the Community Mental Health Centers Program from an evaluation perspective.

The 18-year Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) Program of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) was a complex and ambitious social experiment. This review identifies nine of the major goals of the program and examines available evaluative information on how well each was achieved. The most significant achievements of the program include increasing the quantity and range of public mental health services. Equality of access to services was also improved but all inequities were not removed. Problems continue to exist in funding services on the basis of need, in providing services to chronic clients, and in coordinating services. Prevention efforts suffered from uncertainties and perhaps overly optimistic expectations. The achievements of the program are currently threatened by third-party reimbursement mechanisms, the loss of federal leadership and oversight, and the loss of a community orientation in public mental health services. A great deal can be learned from the achievements and the shortfalls of the CMHC program that may be useful in state and federal mental health planning.

The birth and demise of a planning unit in a state mental health department.

The development over a five-year period and the sudden dissolution of the Division of Planning and Evaluation Services of a major state department of mental health provides an interesting insight into an effort to establish a rational base of planning in a complex bureaucracy. The characteristics of this division are explored in relation to the rest of the Department of Mental Health as well as its relationship to the State Mental Health Planning Board and its advisory councils. It is felt by the authors that this paper will offer some guidance to others involved in or about to embark upon a similar enterprise.