mental health policy

Making advocacy accessible: 5 learnings from my first congressional briefing

MHA Admin — Tue, 16 Jan 2024 13:40:23 +0000

Making advocacy accessible: 5 learnings from my first congressional briefing

MHA Admin Tue, 01/16/2024 - 08:40

January 16, 2024

by Makalynn Powell

If you’re like me, the idea of attending a congressional briefing may be intimidating and confusing. Initially, I expected what you might see on C-SPAN – to walk into a large meeting room full of older, influential government representatives questioning people as they stand in front of a microphone. As mental health advocates, or future advocates, our voices matter, and attendance at these types of forums is imperative for change. Perhaps, like you, the thought of something so formal was intimidating.

What I experienced, however, was far less stoic. In fact, it was the exact opposite of what I was expecting. They even provided snacks and refreshments.

Briefing basics

Congressional briefings are like mini informational sessions filled with people from all corners of the nation who share a common interest or concern. The main goal is to provide insights into an issue by detailing its prevalence and helping people understand that change is necessary for improvement. Once that information is provided, participants can explain how and why their proposed solution would benefit the greater good.

Recently, Mental Health America and our partners organized a congressional briefing to discuss the importance of peer support services and what is needed from Congress to expand access. You can check out the recording here. For someone new to mental health advocacy or wanting to become more involved in the legislative side, here are discoveries I made that might help on your journey.

5 takeaways and tips

1. If you're looking for a solution to a systemic issue, you must provide information on why and how that issue affects average citizens – and offer solutions.

At the latest briefing, Mental Health America gathered a group of experts in peer support services to discuss why new solutions are vital to their work and how others can get involved. Among the panelists, one provided direct peer support services in underserved communities; the second received these services as a young person and has since dedicated their life to ensuring other young people have that same access; the third works for a health insurance provider that reimburses peer support specialists, increasing access for many folks in need; and the fourth panelist shared her experience with institutionalization and professionals who claimed her diagnosis would prevent her from living an everyday life. All four experts provided in-depth knowledge and living proof that peer support services are effective and should be physically and financially available nationwide. The information they shared proved to attendees how beneficial peer support services have been to the lives of those they serve and showed how easy it would be to implement more peer services across the nation. As an organization led by the voices of lived experience, these real-life accounts gave insights into the issue. By then providing a solution and tips on how that solution can be molded and applied on a larger scale, policymakers are left with tangible mechanisms to work with.

2. Support from multiple groups and organizations is essential.

If you plan on asking for anything from Congress, or even your local or state legislator, you had better have ample support from several sources. With 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 6 youth experiencing a mental health condition in any given year, mental health will affect everybody either directly or indirectly at some point in their lives. Having this knowledge makes the case that mental health care is a bipartisan issue, which has resulted in overwhelming support from both sides. That support comes in handy when these asks are taken to Congress. In addition to bipartisan support, Mental Health America used this opportunity to gather like-minded partners and collaborators to inform the briefing. Increasing the breadth and depth of the information, along with the diverse bodies of representation, strengthened our asks.

3. “Leave-behinds” provide critical information and summaries.

Congressional briefings tend to provide much information within a short period, so it’s reasonable to assume some of that information may be glossed over or not retained. Staffers, liaisons, and others in attendance may need to relay what they heard to a Congressperson or other staff, and you want to make sure they hit the vital information. The purpose of a leave-behind document, or one-pager, is to ensure your audience understands the message and can reference it once the briefing ends. In this particular briefing, we had six asks that included information on different acts, bill proposals and calls to action, all mixed in with impactful stories of lived experiences from our panelists. Providing attendees with a short, concise summary of the focal points ensures those with the power and motivation to take action have the correct information to do so.

4. Invite the right speakers, organizations, and other attendees.

If you are hosting a briefing, or advocacy event, getting the word out to key individuals and organizations will go a long way to strengthen your message and improve the chances of asks being put into legislation. With mental health being a concern for everyone, regardless of their political affiliation or demographic profile, it stands to reason that most folks would want to see conditions improve. At this briefing session, the invite list included over 70 organizations who wanted to learn more about or shared our passion for peer support services. We also invited experts to share their lived experience: Tiara Springer-Love, a mental health advocate from New York; Lauren Foster, a behavioral health program manager at Blue Cross Blue Shield, Minnesota; Vesper Moore, a mental health advocate at Kiva Centers; and Dana Foglesong of the National Association of Peer Services. By having panel experts from various corners of the mental health world, we could discuss the multiple barriers to implementation and potential solutions to improving access. The wide array of attendees improved our chances of spreading that information throughout groups and organizations to garner even more support. This is crucial for goals like increasing funding for research and advocating for grants and support for community organizations that provide peer support services.

5. Congressional briefings are a great place to network and meet folks with similar agendas.

If you are attending a congressional briefing, it’s probably because you have a vested interest in the subject matter – along with the other attendees. Common interests make it the perfect opportunity to meet face-to-face with other people who share your passion and can discuss solutions. A business card is a must if you plan to expand your professional contact list. Additionally, introducing yourself to panelists after the session is always a good idea. After all, those speakers are experts in their field and have experience in your area of interest.

Ultimately, my frightening perception of congressional briefings at Capitol Hill was shattered, and I will attend more should I get the chance. I arrived feeling anxious and out of place but left feeling supported and rejuvenated in being a part of the solution. I also learned a lot despite being well-versed in the subjects. It helped to hear accounts of lived experiences and realize that others care about and want to improve mental health in our nation. Plus, the snacks they provided were excellent. If you get the chance to attend a congressional, or even state government, briefing, take it.

Watch recording of congressional briefing

Makalynn Powell is the Peer and Youth Policy Fellow at Mental Health America.

Tags

policy

mental health policy

Add new comment

Why You Should Care About #FreeBritney

JCheang — Wed, 14 Jul 2021 14:07:01 +0000

Why You Should Care About #FreeBritney

JCheang Wed, 07/14/2021 - 10:07

July 14, 2021

By Jessica Kennedy, Chief of Staff at Mental Health America

Britney Spears’ case returns to court today and supporters of the #FreeBritney movement will rally in D.C. at the Lincoln Memorial to pledge their support for her and her fight against conservatorship.

Britney Spears has asked courts to end a conservatorship that has prevented the singer-songwriter from managing her own finances, her own business, and her own life.

Her public mental health struggles in the 2000s, her subsequent treatment, and the assignment of her father as conservator have all been well-documented in the press. Social media fans, petition creators, and others launched the #FreeBritney movement to raise awareness about Britney’s conservatorship.

The movement exploded earlier this year when a heartbreaking Hulu documentary from the New York Times Presents, Framing Britney Spears, laid everything out on the table.

But #FreeBritney is also about something more than legal efforts to free someone from a conservatorship. It’s about a societal stigma -- our fundamental inability to believe that people with mental health challenges are intelligent, capable people who can make good decisions.

It’s a stigma faced by people like Britney--people like me.

I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t pretend to know the right legal arguments for either side. But Britney’s story, and her journey, are so sadly similar to what I’ve experienced, and many people with mental health and substance use conditions experience.

After a crisis experience, we may find ourselves in rehab programs, partial hospitalization programs, or inpatient facilities. A lot of the time, that’s because there weren’t enough resources to get us help before the crisis stage.

The thing is, as Britney has experienced, once you’re part of this system, it can be hard to get out. People just stop treating you as someone who is able to make their own decisions.

Do you want to check out of the facility? You have to wait until you’re cleared by someone else, even if you checked in yourself.

Do you want to stop taking a certain medication or stop seeing a certain therapist? You’re not well; those are choices for someone else to make.

Do you make bad choices with money? Even just a few times? Now we need to put you into a conservatorship or assign you a representative payee (for social security management) to help you “make good choices.” You will need to justify every single decision.

There are times when someone does need a conservator or a representative payee. Some MHA affiliates run representative payee programs. MHA’s position statement on self-determination acknowledges that while there are some times when appointing a guardian, conservator, or representative is necessary, the individual with the mental health condition MUST have a voice. It’s critically important that guardianship and conservatorship laws limit the discretion of guardians and require shared decision-making in justifying any action that affects the person with a mental health condition.

It doesn’t seem like Britney has been involved in a whole lot of shared-decision making.

Treat Britney with respect.

Read her statement.

Listen to her words.

I am. Join me.

Tags

mental health policy

Newsletter

Mental Health America Turns 112: A Hopeful Birthday

JCheang — Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:07:32 +0000

Mental Health America Turns 112: A Hopeful Birthday

JCheang Thu, 02/18/2021 - 14:07

February 19, 2021

By Paul Gionfriddo, President and CEO

Mental Health America (MHA) is celebrating its 112th birthday. There were times in our history when we could not have imagined getting to this day. But not only are we still here, we find ourselves emerging from one of the most consequential years in our history.

That is worth more reflection. But first think about who we were in 1909 when MHA was founded by a young, white man with lived experience. Much of Clifford Beers’ vision is still relevant today – that all children should have access to mental health screening and services, that prisons should not be used as mental health facilities, and that mental health professionals, not sheriffs and police, should manage mental health programs.

Otherwise, our society was very different in 1909. We were still a decade away from women gaining the right to vote and a century away from women serving at the highest levels of our legislative and executive branches of government. And in much of the country the mental health service delivery system – already segregated from the general health care system – was further segregated by race.

It is impossible to think about our history without understanding the distance we have traveled.

Today, young people still use our resources more than any other group. But it is young women – not young men – who are driving so much of our work. As a group, women have brought awareness of mental health forward in recent years. And they are challenging men to catch up.

And today, we understand that the racist and discriminatory systems that we often took for granted through much of the last century have left an indelible mark on our society’s mental health. While all racial and ethnic groups have experienced the loneliness, financial stress, grief, loss, and worry that have characterized this past year, different population groups are experiencing these things far differently.

How they respond is not only due to the “free” choices they make today, but also to the choices that have been made by generations of policy leaders that resulted in inequitable and discriminatory systems that limited access to affordable, appropriate, high-quality services and supports.

Still, this past year has challenged all our prior notions of “normal.”

What that has done is to draw attention our way. It is pushing more people than ever to talk about mental health. It is pushing employers to support employee mental health. It is pushing media to report on mental health. It is pushing communities to protect mental health.

And, most importantly, it is pushing policy leaders to invest in mental health.

On this MHA birthday, we have more reason for hope.

This is because in the worst of years we can see more clearly all that needs to be done to build a better foundation for our current and future generations. And this truly has been one of the worst of years for all too many people. So, our eyes are now opened wide and we can see just how weak the foundations of our systems have been.

At MHA, we have been working on changing that by building some new foundations that we hope will prove to support more equitable structures over time. And we have reason to celebrate because so many people are working together with us in realizing our vision. Together, we are looking forward to better systems and structures on the horizon. Happy birthday, MHA!

Tags

mental health

mental health policy

Newsletter

Who Is Responsible for Addressing Mental Health and Wellbeing in Education?

JCheang — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:30:39 +0000

Who Is Responsible for Addressing Mental Health and Wellbeing in Education? JCheang Tue, 04/24/2018 - 11:30

April 24, 2018

By Leah Goodman, Collegiate Mental Health Innovation Council Member, University of Illinois at Chicago

As a kid, I played a board game called “Life” with my parents.

Each player could make decisions about the course of their life that would lead them along a different path. I always chose to go to college, hoped to pull a “good” career card with high pay, and waited with anticipation to add the additional pink and blue pieces to my car that meant I had a partner and children to tow along the rest of my “Life” journey. It was calculated. It was simple. It’s how 8-year-old me thought life would unfold.

Spoiler alert: my real life did not unfold this way. Nor do I wish it had.

This simple board game does not capture the experiences, joys, or challenges that encompass real lives.

Nowhere along the game board would one see “Lose your scholarship. Withdraw from semester and skip next turn”. There are no cards that read “struggle with your identity“ or “have trouble cultivating friendships”. There certainly is not a path for navigating chronic depression, experiencing home sickness, losing peers to suicide, traveling the world, discovering new interests, or having difficulty finding employment after years of higher education and several degrees.

These experiences are common for today’s young people but are seldom represented.

Experiences that make us who we are and continue to inform the work that we do and the lives that we build are never discussed or introduced in this game.

Or in school.

I was fortunate enough to have parents, a sibling, friends and mentors who did help me navigate real life and who continue to teach me, support me, and inspire me. I developed interests and skills that help me cultivate my own mental health and wellbeing. I acknowledge my unique privilege in having unconditional support and in being able to explore these topics through my own educational pursuits.

However, not all young people have this opportunity.

One in five children ages 13-18 will have a mental illness and 50% of students with mental illness ages 14 and older will drop out of high school. College students with mental illness are significantly more likely to withdraw before completing a degree and suicide is the second leading cause of death for ages 10-24 (1).

The messages and lessons we learn in school do not prepare us for real life. The responsibility of addressing mental health and wellbeing has been shuffled along, much like the game pieces of “Life” I used to play.

We have enormous expectations of young people, but we do not prepare them to succeed. Some high school students move on to college and some college students become adults who go out into the world lacking skills because they’ve never been taught to take care of themselves. Students may be brilliant – they can compose a symphony or ace any chemistry exam – but if they haven’t learned how to take care of themselves and manage their wellbeing, their gifts become a lot less useful to themselves and a lot less impactful for the world.

Universities have often claimed that teaching life skills is not part of their responsibility. But whose responsibility is it?

Students are taught how to draw parabolas and calculate a hypotenuse, but not how to develop a toolbox of skills to support a lifetime of health and wellbeing. Health classes deliver strong messages of abstinence and the dangers of substance use, but don’t seek to help students foster positive mental health and wellbeing. Issues related to identity, LGBTQIA+ communities, advocacy and health promotion are often relegated to extracurricular interest groups. What if, instead, they were embedded into core curricula in a way that communicates an institutional priority of mental health and wellbeing?

People, particularly developing young minds, learn from what is modeled; we are taught by what we observe. By not prioritizing wellbeing in educational settings, we are teaching young people that mental health does not matter.

For the educational system to serve its mission “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness,” it must actually prepare students for real life and ensure equity through mental health support (2). This requires a paradigm shift, a true change in the priorities, services and curricula that educational institutions provide.

As I think about the role of education, I replay this ideal in my mind: “Society is best served by assisting all of us in maintaining mental health, rather than trying to foresee which of us is most likely to act out when mental health support is not readily available” (3).

We are supposedly investing in institutions to educate young minds and prepare people to be successful adults.

But how can any institution truly claim to be providing a comprehensive education if they don’t address, teach and prioritize mental health and wellbeing?

Dr. Leah Goodman is a licensed occupational therapist and yoga instructor in Chicago, Illinois. Her recent doctoral work focused on building supportive and mental health programming for college students, particularly through the development of courses to address wellbeing. Leah is a member of Mental Health America’s Collegiate Mental Health Innovation Council. For inquiries and collaboration contact LeahGoodman91@gmail.com

References

(1) Collins & Mowbray (2008): https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ822096.pdf

(2) US Department of Education: https://www2.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml

(3) Oslund (2014): https://www.amazon.com/Supporting-University-Students-Invisible-Disabilities/dp/1849059551

Tags

college

student

mental health policy

How Georgetown University is Addressing High Costs in College Mental Health Care

JCheang — Mon, 02 Apr 2018 12:35:16 +0000

How Georgetown University is Addressing High Costs in College Mental Health Care JCheang Mon, 04/02/2018 - 08:35

April 02, 2018

By Kenna Chick, Collegiate Mental Health Innovation Council Member, Georgetown University

I met Elizabeth* after she set up an appointment with the Counseling and Psychiatric Service (CAPS) at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

She first experienced suicidal ideation at 15 and needed support in her transition to college. “I only knew that I wanted everything to end. So I could stop hurting,” she said. “My freshman year was a difficult adjustment, but with CAPS’ assistance, I made it through. I was able to be successful despite my mental illness,” she said.

But shortly after receiving service, she was referred off-campus and was unable to continue to afford the specialized care that helped her. As I spoke with more students dealing with similar obstacles, I realized barriers to access are systemic and I needed to do something to help.

My mission is to create a world that does not stigmatize mental illness but rather provides enough support to ensure that students with mental health conditions succeed and flourish.

The first step towards that vision: increase access.

While CAPS made significant strides towards improving the student experience in recent years such as significantly lowering its cost to $10 per psychotherapy session, it is ultimately a short-term service. Students who need prolonged intensive care are referred to external services in the DC area. Although all students have health insurance, the exorbitant costs of off-campus support often hinder students’ abilities to seek out care.

With that, an initiative to create a pilot program that subsidizes off-campus mental health care was born.

After being appointed the Chair of Georgetown University Student Association’s Mental Health Policy Coalition, I connected with key administrators and gathered a team of students to serve on the Coalition. We worked together to develop a proposal – that included information about a budget, the average cost of therapy in the DC area, and the departments best equipped to provide us support.

We met with various administrators for their input. While student mental health support is still new to universities, I urged the University of the time-sensitive nature of the initiative. When it’s difficult for students to get through the day, every second matters.

Once the proposal was finished, we introduced it to the community by engaging students through a petition. Within a week, we received over 1,400 names. After a series of negotiations the Off-Campus Therapy Stipend received administrative support and $10,000 in funding.

The Off-Campus Therapy Stipend program offers individuals without means to support themselves access to care through financial support starting this Spring.

The impact of the program stretched beyond students who are seeking care. Presidential candidates for the student association included expansion and sustaining support for the program in their bids and I am advocating for mental health as the focus of Georgetown University’s next capital campaign to the Board of Directors.

The implementation of the stipend program demonstrated the University’s prioritization of mental health, highlighting its importance starting from the administrative levels. The administrators’ actions emphasized their dedication to mental health, promoting it on campus.

This encourages students to seek help because they now have support that ensures the continuation of their care regardless of socioeconomic status and stigma.

At an institution where students sleep three hours a night because “you can sleep when you’re dead,” the stipend will allow students to access a space to cultivate understanding for the importance of caring for one’s mental health. Students should not have to decide between succeeding at an elite university or letting their mental health suffer.

My dream is that this program inspires other schools to invest in student mental health and that, in the process, we change the culture of mental health in the United States.

Continuation of care is relevant not only to the Georgetown community but to countless other higher education institutions across the country. Since the passage of the Stipend Program, I have been in discussions with students at George Washington University and Columbia University to spread this program to other students in need of mental health care.

But I can’t stop here.

I dream that one day all students who require mental health care will be able to receive the help that they need. This program will help make that dream a reality.

*name changed for privacy

Kenna Chick is currently a sophomore at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Her greatest passion is mental health policy and advocacy, especially on destigmatizing mental illness and removing barriers to treatment.

As the current Chair of the Georgetown University Student Association Mental Health Health Policy Team, she is working on many projects that focus on destigmatizing, educating, and eliminating barriers to access to mental health resources. One of the projects is to implement off-campus therapy stipends, as psychotherapy in the DC area is notoriously expensive and the University’s services are short-term. In addition to that, she is the Director of Outreach for Project Lighthouse, an anonymous peer to peer chat-line that provides information about campus resources and peer support. Finally, she is on the Youth Advisory Board of the Steve Fund (a group that aims to destigmatize mental health and increases access to services for people of color in college) and Young Mind Advocacy’s Generation Bold (a group that focuses on mental health care for transition-aged girls).

Tags

How Trump's Budget Will Affect People with Mental Health Conditions

JCheang — Thu, 15 Feb 2018 05:00:00 +0000

How Trump's Budget Will Affect People with Mental Health Conditions

JCheang Thu, 02/15/2018 - 00:00

Typically, much of the budget takes form as a narrative about the administration’s strategy and perspective about the nation over the next ten years.

And though Congress is not bound by the President’s budget - the House and Senate agree to their own separate budget deal - the President’s budget is a request to Congress that highlights the Administration’s priorities.

We combed through the budget and found several key provisions that could affect people with mental health and substance use disorders.

The Fiscal Year 2019 budget requests $68.4 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is a $17.9 billion (or 21 percent) decrease from the 2017 enacted level.

And the budget:

Includes $10 billion over five (5) years to combat the opioid epidemic and serious mental illness to build upon the 21st Century Cures Act.
Promotes structural reforms to Medicaid to eliminate the funding gap between states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare and those states that did not expand Medicaid, and asks states to chose between a per capita cap and a block grant.
Reduces Medicaid by $1.4 trillion, Medicare by ~$500 billion and Social Security Disability Insurance by $10 billion over ten (10) years. Medicaid and Medicare are currently the largest payers of behavioral health services in the country.
For Medicare, proposes to test and expand nationwide a bundled payment for community-based medication assisted treatment, including, for the first time, comprehensive Medicare reimbursement for methadone treatment.
Includes $15 million for a new Assertive Community Treatment for Individuals with serious mental illness.
Reduces funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment Programs of Regional and National Significance by ~$600 million.
Discontinues funding for the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment program.
Increases funding for the Criminal Justice and Juvenile Justice programs by $10 million to a total of $14 million.
Proposes to align the MarketBased Health Care Grant Program, Medicaid per capita cap, and block grant growth rates with the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) and allows states to share in program savings.
Consolidates federal graduate medical education spending from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Hospitals Graduate Medical Education program into a single grant program for teaching hospitals, and directs funding toward physician specialty and geographic shortages.
Eliminates $451 million in other health professions and training programs.
Eliminates funding for Minority Fellowship programs at SAMHSA.
Includes $500 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to support and supplement existing efforts with a publicprivate collaborative research initiative on opioid abuse.
Integrates into one agency: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation.
Slashes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, by $17.2 billion or 16 percent.
Cuts funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by 18 percent.
Does not request any of ~$8 billion in funding currently allocated to the HUD public housing capital fund.

While there are many additional changes made in the President’s budget, we thought these critical changes would be important to you.

We encourage your questions and comments which may be sent to our Advocacy Manager, Caren Howard or Senior Policy Director, Nathaniel Counts.

If you think of ways in which you or your loved ones will be affected by the budget feel free to also share your thoughts about the impact with your Congressional representatives by:

Tweet them. Not sure of the Twitter handle of your members of Congress? Find them here.
Call your Senators' office or the Capitol Hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Press #2. Then enter your zip code.
Write to your Senator using Facebook's Town Hall feature. If this feature is available in your area, make sure your Constituent Badge is on. Many legislators will not read the comments of individuals who are not marked as one of their constituents.
Meet with your elected officials. Let them know that mental health is important to you, and that you are not just a number.

Tags

policy

mental health policy

No funding for oversight to

No funding for oversight to address fraud and waste.
This is overall terrible news, and I mean scary. No funding for intervention and referral? No request for $ set aside for HUD? 20% cuts all around. But I am thinking of going into law now, instead of Mental Health.

This Budget Is Devastating To Both Medically Needy And Substanc

It seems obvious to me that If we had more trained people in the mental health and substance use disorder field we might reach more people that have drug or mental health psychosis before people are hurt, such as the school shootings. The young people are slipping through the cracks, the adults are slipping through cracks because we are lacking in these fields. This budget further strips us of the ability capture these people in a timely manner. I can only hope congress is more cognizant of the ramifications than the writer of this budget.

mental health budget cuts

Ok not sure where to begin so I will just say whats on my mind. I voted for Mr. Trump. I support him, I will stop someone in mid-sentence when they are slamming him. But please hear what I'm saying Mental Health Care is not where the Budget needs to be cut. Think about what you're doing we need more mental health care not less. PLEASE, I am begging you all to talk about this Please don't let this be in the Budget cuts. have a heart please it's so bad and so serious. Please re-evaluate this. Thank You for your time.Karen Woodson- Arkansas