Full Text Full Text (PDF) Appendix Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Articles by Garfield, R. L. PubMed Citation Articles by Garfield, R. L. Other Health Services Issues Related Article

Mental Health Policy Development in the States: The Piecemeal Nature of Transformational Change

Dr. Garfield is affiliated with the Department of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto St., A612 Crabtree Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 (e-mail: rachelg{at}pitt.edu).

OBJECTIVE: Transformation—systemic, sweeping changes to promote recovery and consumerism—is a pervasive theme in discussions of U.S. mental health policy. State systems are a fundamental component of national transformation plans. However, it is not clear how the vision of transformation will be balanced against the idiosyncratic political forces that traditionally characterize state policy making. This article examines the development of state mental health policy to assess whether and how it reflects the broader context of transformation versus political forces. METHODS: Analysis used qualitative evidence collected from semistructured interviews in four states (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New Mexico), which were chosen to capture variation in geography and population, health systems, and political environment. Interviewees included 35 key mental health officials, directors of principal mental health consumer and family advocacy groups, and executives of major mental health provider groups. Interviews were conducted between May 2007 and March 2008. RESULTS: Many recent state policy priorities in mental health are consistent with the overall goals of transformation, but some are particular to a state's circumstance. The case studies showed that these priorities are largely shaped by executive control, stakeholder interests, and crises. There is mixed evidence on whether these drivers of state priorities reflect an underlying transformative process. CONCLUSIONS: States' mental health policies are largely guided by the problems and resources of the states: sometimes these forces dovetail with nationwide transformation goals and processes, and sometimes they are idiosyncratic to a particular state. Thus, although states can play an integral role in forwarding transformation, their own mental health policy agendas are not eclipsed by this nationwide movement.

Related Article:

October 2009: This Month's Highlights
Psychiatr Serv 2009 60: 1294. [Full Text] [PDF]

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2009 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us