I'm on Chapin Hall's email notification list, and I really like your description of primary vs. secondary supports.
Sheri McMahon
From: rogerdphillips@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Question of the day
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:46:34 -0500
To: child-maltreatment-research-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sheri:
I'm not going to pretend to understand all the definitional categories, bureaucratic silos, and isolated funding streams undoubtedly involved in the data you describe; and your question is an important one to raise.
I'll just mention work by the folks at Chapin Hall in Chicago over the years that may be relevant to the explanation offered by your state statistician (although s/he may not have had this in mind when s/he answered your question). The Chapin Hall folks have done a very nice job articulating distinctions between, what they refer to as, primary and secondary supports for children-in-need and their families within communities. The formal services you describe in your email represent secondary supports in the Chapin Hall framework. They make a strong case for the value/primacy of primary supports, which are structures, organizations, programs and opportunities (churches, athletic leagues, scouts, work & volunteer opportunities, etc.) that exist within communities and which are available to any and all children/families without special designation, status, etc. (e.g., diagnoses, income criteria, etc.). Resourceful and opportunistic families within supports-rich communities can maintain and nourish children-/youth-in-need, according to the Chapin Hall folks.
But, please do not rely on my simplistic paraphrasing. I urge you to read their work directly; Joan Wynne is the Chapin Hall person I've read over the years, but I'm not sure if she is still there.
Roger D. Phillips, Ph.D.
120 W. 2nd Street
P.O. Box 100
Alburtis PA 18011
610.442.2215
rogerdphillips@xxxxxxxxx
On Feb 9, 2008, at 12:38 PM, D F MCMAHON wrote:
I am on the Mental Health Planning Council for my state (my seat is for parents of children with SED). According to federal statistics we recently reviewed in our draft state report, 5.4% of the adult population has serious mental illness but only 2% requires formal mental health services. I asked for clarification and have been told by a state statistician than the other 3.4% are "able to maintain" without formal services; formal services would include the gamut from psychiatric, psychological, to supportive services (lord knows where targeted case management fits in there).
I'm feeling definitionally impaired here. "Serious mental illness," "diagnosable", "substantial impairment," etc (federal definition of SMI) doesn't quite jell with the idea of "maintaining" without formal services (unless friends/family take up the slack). Some kind of picture of this 3.4% of the population would help me. Thanks,
Sheri McMahon
|
