We've had from thirty to fifty years of mental health deinstitutionalization in America. Don’t listen to people who whine about the days of yore when we locked people away in big institutions. Presidents Kennedy and Carter were right. That should not happen again.
It’s time for Americans to adjust. As disorderly and chaotic as deinstitutionalization has been, every one of our civilian institutions has had enough time to figure out some basic strategies that work. The practices outlined below are well-documented and in place today, but on a hit-and-miss basis.
Access to treatment
The problem: People have difficulty accessing care and connecting with systems.The solution: A single point of contact telephone number for a region or a county, connecting with multi-system resources for screening, assessment, and referral. A “no wrong door” mutual aid policy within healthcare and mental health systems that includes some basic protocols for data exchange. A tiered entry into care, with an emphasis on delivering the first appointment in a timely fashion. Neighborhood health centers and public clinics with sufficient capacity for delivering assessments and delivering basic care for depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder and first-onset schizophrenia, plus family and caregiver education. More specialized care available promptly for more complex cases. De-couple assessment systems from resource allocation systems. Do not change standardized assessments so that they “ration care.” Use mobile crisis teams to prevent escalation to the criminal justice system.
Housing
The problem: When we had big institutions, we underfunded them, but even then they were among the largest budget items for state government. As deinstitutionalization progressed, state governments kept funding the big hospitals for many years. For the most part, when these institutions closed, their former funding did not transfer to communities. And if it did, the money generally went for mental health treatment, not housing. Deinstitutionalized people found themselves with no way to access housing, because SSI, the primary source of income for people who never had substantial work histories, did not pay enough to cover the cost of market rate housing, and Medicaid, which pays for treatment, does not pay for housing.The solution: Subsidized housing using housing dollars, plus case management services covered by Medicaid. “Housing First” policies work because they simply deliver a housing product, and, after thirty years, the mental health system has figured out how to keep people connected to mental health care. Small scale group homes also need enough supplemental funding to permit operators to deliver realistic levels of programming for people with a high burden of disability.
Criminalization
The problem: Unruly people with mental illness are clogging our courts and jails. The most difficult population has moved from mental hospitals to jails and prisons.The solution: Diversion programs throughout the entire criminal justice pipeline. Pre-arrest solutions that give street level officers discretion to drop people off for mental health evaluation in lower-cost settings than emergency rooms or psychiatric hospitals. Jailhouse coordination with mental health agencies to provide early release of clients already in the system. Secure mental health facilities under criminal justice jurisdiction separate from local general population jails. Social workers available at all levels of the criminal justice system, including courtrooms and probation offices. Restorative justice programs that address the needs of crime victims and offenders, but allow a way out of imprisonment. Note: This works once the housing issue is fixed.
Police killings of people with mental illness
The problem: Too many people with mental illness end up dead after encounters with police.The solution: Training every officer to identify mental illness and use appropriate tactics that de-escalate situations. Specialized units to respond to mental health calls. These practices must be incorporated into use of force policies and firearms training protocols. Many deaths of people with mental illness occur because these training protocols and policies were designed before the era of deinstitutionalization.
Violence and suicide connected with mental illness
The problem: People with mental illness become disconnected from treatment, stop taking medication, or use drugs or alcohol, and commit violent acts or suicide. People decompensate and become violent or suicidal without being connected with treatment.The solution: Better communication, coordination and data exchange between all levels of the mental health, general health care, education, criminal justice, and court systems. More suicide prevention training within the general population. Risk management protocols that give greater weight to leaked signals of harmful intent. Sufficient secure healthcare facilities to handle immediate needs including mandatory minimum stays in step-down facilities for medication stabilization. Protocols within treatment systems that facilitate information sharing with caregivers or family members. Protocols that integrate college counseling centers with the community’s mental health provider system. Consider “safe harbor” provisions to permit and encourage information sharing under HIPAA and professional practice systems. Increase funding for substance abuse detox and treatment.
Suicide of armed forces members and military veterans
The problem: We are losing more soldiers to suicide than to other war wounds, and the high number of veteran suicides is simply tragic.The solution: Increase the capacity of soldiers, families, churches, community groups and employers to detect problems as they are developing. This involves having face to face conversations and perhaps following a simple script, plus the willingness to ask about suicidal intent. You can find a script in my book Defying Mental Illness, and free suicide prevention training through the QPR Institute. Every community already has a front door for treatment.
That’s a start. I think we get the rest of the way with more emphasis on what ordinary citizens can do, starting with simply talking with each other, and recognizing that mental health and mental illness are not obscure and unfathomable or disgraceful, but legitimate topics for everyone. The experts are needed too, but many ordinary people with a little more training can do a lot to keep us safe. It takes an hour or two to train anyone on the basics of mental illness.
Let me know if you need some help rolling this out.
Best regards,
--pk---
The author of this report, Lembi Buchanan, deserves praise for her activism, which is grounded in support of her husband's survival from a very difficult experience of mental illness. She told Marvin Ross that her husband of 40 years would not be alive today if it hadn't been for involuntary hospitalization, medication and treatment on occasions when he has had psychotic episodes. She said that her husband is grateful for having been saved from suicide and for the support that has kept him in good health.
What I like about Mrs. Buchanan's report is the opportunity it provides to review what we believe about recovery and the role of treatment in extremely difficult circumstances. The theoretical limits of recovery is an issue worth exploring. I know that some people are not comfortable with the concept -- and even I have some trouble with it, which I have written about before. What I don't like about Mrs. Buchanan's report is the way she mischaracterizes today's recovery movement by claiming that today's recovery-oriented groups and today's anti-psychiatry groups are essentially the same.
Recovery may have started out connected with anti-psychiatry, but it's a mistake to jam the two concepts together today.
Recovery literature is less than fifty years old. Authors like Judi Chamberlin, who created the language of the recovery movement, were reacting against psychiatric hospitals that operated as very coercive "total institutions." Thomas Szasz was inventing antipsychiatry at roughly the same time. Chamberlin quoted Szasz, and even E. Fuller Torrey (who was a Szasz follower at the time) in her 1978 book On Our Own.
Recovery and anti-psychiatry are separate concepts these days. Psychiatrists, healthcare administrators and insurance companies have all signed off on recovery, with recovery being the notion that people can get better, decide what's important for them, and assert control of their lives. Recovery even has a SAMHSA-approved cousin, whose name is shared decision-making. At least on paper it seems the bad old days of one-sided, white-coated, doctor-driven psychiatry are gone. Even inside hospitals, care is meant to be person-centered. In many hospitals today, few decisions are made without the patient's buy-in, participation or consent -- or a court order.
Sadly, people with mental health conditions still get to the point where they're not safe. Most of the time, these are not people fully engaged in recovery. People pursuing recovery, with or without medication, usually know what they must do when they are getting into trouble. The people I worry about are those the system fails to help when they show up in emergency rooms asking for help, and those the system fails to detect or engage, the people who have disordered lives, clusters of sub-clinical trouble symptoms, who never get diagnosed until they are drugged or drunk, suicidal or psychotic, out of control, blatantly unsafe and possibly a threat. Society needs to be able to respond appropriately. Jails are no help, so we need hospitals, and community-based solutions.
As I worked through my own recovery, and later, when I ran a substance abuse treatment program that supported people who did not respond to AA, I came to realize that diagnosis and labels essentially did not matter in the lives of non-clinicians. What matters in recovery is engaging in the struggle, finding a path for moving forward. An hour or two of training lets anyone spot signs of trouble in people's lives. The real work follows, connecting people with a clinician who can do a real work-up and help create a treatment and recovery path that works for that individual.
So here's where I have ended up. Pro-recovery, pro-science, pro-therapy, pro-psychiatry, pro-choice, pro-wellness, and anti-coercion (to a point). Neutral on meds. Unfortunately, some people need treatment, imperfect as it may be, at times when they don't want it. The anti-psychiatry folks are the experts on how offensive and distasteful involuntary treatment is. It would be great to have workable, effective alternatives that can be funded with healthcare dollars, but right now, we have what we have, and it's certainly not perfect either.
But recovery is nobody's threat.