The idea of re-institutionalization for mental health patients has risen to avoid problems such as suicide, school failure, or homelessness. But given the past attempt, this isn’t the solution for all people. In some cases where an individual creates a hazard to themselves or others, institutionalism may be considered necessary. On the other hand, the vast majority of people in need of mental health services can be cared for under the California Mental Health Services Act (CMHSA).
The essay discusses the system for the “mentally ill”. The first legislative attempt was the Federal Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963. It was the transfer of the mental health patients from large asylums into smaller community living situations. But since there was an unfunded mandate by the government it left the states with no centers. If the centers did exist, they would be under funded, which may have included a lack of trained professionals. Eventually patients became homeless. This may have added to drug/alcohol addiction, disruption of families and their community, and incarceration.
The Lanterman-Petris Short Act (LPS) of 1969 was later created to enhance The Federal Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Act. LPS gave the patients more legal rights, stopped indefinite commitment to mental health facilities and created mental health courts and judges. Still, individuals who posed a threat to themselves or others could still be involuntarily detained. However, when patients were discharged, their families were not prepared or not capable of the task, so many become homeless leading to incarceration and/or drug abuse once again.
Finally, a long while since the last act, the California’s Mental Health Services Act (CMHSA) of 2004 was created. It was created as a remedy for the problems that came with deinstitutionalization (Baron). As well as, to implement more community mental health programs centers...