When the myriad of examples like this are documented, Dr. Poaster claims that critics are "use(ing) single anecdotes out of context and ignore overwhelming facts." But it is Dr. Poaster who fails to present the big picture.
As part of his claim that MHSA is working well, he points to a report that shows MHSA Full Service Partnerships (FSP) reduced hospitalizations, arrests and incarcerations. Those claims are probably true. It's a good and important program. But he fails to disclose that these programs are exclusively for voluntary patients. The homeless psychotic people on the streets who 'know', they are Jesus or the FBI planted a transmitter in their head--the most severely ill who refuse treatment can not get access to these programs. They are turned over to police and law enforcement in record numbers. As a result of realignment, many may soon to be discharged back into the communities where service providers will again refuse to serve them.
Dr. Poaster correctly notes that 20% of total MHSA funding goes to "Prevention and Early Intervention" programs. The law requires those programs to be "designed to prevent mental illnesses from becoming severe and disabling." But the oversight committee's guidelines to counties say, "(P)revention programs are expected to focus on individuals prior to diagnosis of a mental illness. (emphasis in original)". 20% of MHSA funds meant to help people with mental illness are now being diverted from their proper destination. The mentally ill are specifically excluded. Dr. Poaster claims these programs are effective but MHSOAC minutes show their evaluation "is based on what counties said they were going to do, rather than actual on-the-ground assessment."
In defense of the status-quo, the Oversight Commission chair claims that counties, not the committee set priorities and that millions were spent on a process that included "the diverse segments that are affected by mental health: schools, law enforcement, homeless programs, social services, faith communities and countless others." Prop 63 was not passed to improve mental health (make people happier) it was passed to reduce the long-term adverse impact... resulting from untreated serious mental illness." Including these 'countless others' led to a money grab free-for-all and counties developing amorphous something-for-everyone plans that focused primarily on 'social services' rather than treatment and services for those with severe mental illness. Lack of housing, education and employment were defined as 'risk factors' for poor mental health, and therefore housing, education and employment programs were showered with money that should have been spent helping people with severe mental illness. Except in the case of Nevada County (and more recently Los Angeles county) none of the county plans included implementation of Laura's Law, and making services available to those enrolled. Services for Laura's Law recipients is the exact type of "new and innovative" services MHSA should be funding.
Millions continue to be spent on process, committees, consultants, PR firms, publishers, art directors, and writers instead of programs for people with severe mental illness. Orange County just published an expensive glowing report on their use of MHSA funds, but no useful financial data that would help the public see where the money was going. And the report was fifty pages long.
As Rusty Selix, executive director of the California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies stated in reviewing where we are "In many ways, conditions are horrendous and difficult, but we're kind of used to that."
As the family member of someone with severe mental illness, I am not used to that. The problems with MHSA are not 'isolated incidents'.
What's the answer?
1. The legislature should require distributors of MHSA funding to follow the language and clear intent of the law and only distribute MHSA funds to programs that focus on "severe mental illness." They can accomplish that by adopting the National Institute of Mental Health's definition of 'serious mental illness', which covers no more than 8% of the population and require all or the majority of MHSA funding to be spent on this targeted population. By using this definition, California can avoid the wrangling that would result from trying to create it's own definition.
2. The state should use its "clarification" power under Section 18 of MHSA to eliminate regulations that are contrary to law and direct desperately needed MHSA funds towards uses consistent with MHSA.
3. Rose King, a veteran California political consultant who was involved in writing MHSA legislation makes a good case for the legislature to reexamine the maintenance of effort provision, which created a two-tier system: those with serious illness who received minimal and substandard services prior to MHSA are now routinely and intentionally denied any MHSA funded services, while those who are barely ill, or not ill, get comprehensive services.
4. Carla Jacobs of the Treatment Advocacy Center says the legislature should remove the sunset provision from Laura's Law because it discourages counties from making the long-term plans needed to correctly implement it. Once Laura's Law is implemented, MHSA funds could be used to serve those enrolled in Laura's Law in programs already serving others.
5. MHSA boards should be independent of the organizations they fund. End the conflict of interest cause by board members, employees, former board members and former employees of MHSA recipients serving on the oversight committees.
The critics of MHSA do not have an MHSA-funded PR firm on their side. But they do have the facts.