Local

Washington State

Only 5.7% – 12.5% of adults achieve meaningful improvement in their psychological and social functioning after receiving treatment (WSIPP report 2008).

Poor results are corroborated statewide.

Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) was directed by the 2001  Washington State legislature to conduct long-term outcomes studies of clients of the Washington State public mental health system.  In 2008, WSIPP reported the results of a 4-year study on 39,039 clients of the Washington State public mental health system.  Based upon their analysis of Global Assessment of Functioning scale scores, the Institute report concluded that “5.7 to 12.5 percent of consumers in the study cohort [cohort: the group of individuals who are the subjects of a study] had a meaningful improvement in GAF scores during the period of service.”  Significantly, the Institute stated, “Improvement levels did not appear to be related to utilization patterns.”  In other words, those who received regular services did no better than those who received intermittent services.

and

http://lackofresultswamh.com/lack-of-recovery/lack-of-health-outcomes/

Lack of Health Outcomes

Update on Outcome Reporting in the Washington State Mental Health System

I. The JLARC report
In 2000, the Washington State Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee produced a report entitled Mental Health System Performance Audit analyzing the Washington State Mental Health System.* This report had been requested by the Washington State Legislature. The report noted that “Legislative enactments in 1995 directed the MHD to streamline process-oriented oversight activities and focus on consumer and system outcomes.” In other words, the legislative intention to have a mental health system that tracks consumer outcomes has been in place for at least 18 years.

(See http://www.leg.wa.gov/JLARC/AuditAndStudyReports/2000/Documents/00-8.pdf)

Among the “major findings” of the JLARC report were the following:

The MHD has made efforts to streamline burdensome activities to promote system accountability. However, these accountability activities are focused on processes of service, rather than on outcomes of service. There is almost no information collected on a statewide basis on client or system outcomes. (p. 3)

Because of the lack of statewide outcome data, comparisons of the effectiveness of services provided by RSNs and providers are impossible. (p. 3)

King County report – Lack of Recovery:

http://lackofresultswamh.com/lack-of-recovery/king-county/

King County

KING COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH – LACK OF RESULTS

This report is so damning of the mental health system, they do not want you to see the report. You can go to the King County mental health website and you will not see this report. You have to know it exists and ask for it.

NOTE:  One of these reports is available elsewhere online – you can see the second year report here [and excerpts at the bottom of this page]:   http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/articles/kings.htm

SUMMARY OF WELLNESS ORDINANCE THAT SHOWS LACK OF “WELLNESS”

Outcomes in King County  – The Recovery Ordinance Reports

The Recovery Ordinance reports for the years 2001 through 2003 highlighted the fundamental flaw of the mental health system – its inability to move people from a state of severe mental and emotional dysfunction to a stable state of moderate dysfunction or recovery. The chart below illustrates the problem.

 and:

http://lackofresultswamh.com/lack-of-recovery/warehousing-in-a-major-mental-health-system/

Warehousing in a major mental health system

Abstract

Over the past decade, proposals to transform our nation’s mental health system have called for an end to the “warehousing” of system clients and the provision of services that promote recovery.  In King County, Washington, efforts would also appear to be underway to establish a recovery-based system.  But outcome reports from the King County mental health system suggest that it has moved increasingly in the direction of warehousing its clients.  Warehousing, not recovery, would appear to be King County’s operational goal and what it believes it can achieve.
*********************

This paper explores the reality of warehousing amidst the promises of recovery for clients of the King County (Washington State) mental health system.

No expecation of recovery in public mental health

[Excerpt from King County Ordinance 13974] – emphasis in red added]

Promoting recovery has become the rallying point for the consumer and family movement (1999 Mental Health Report from the Surgeon General). Throughout 1999 the public debate about mental health issues raised expectations about the recovery model as mentioned by providers, clients, advocates and citizens.

…

The county’s present mental health system operates primarily as a safety net for its clients. While that is an improvement over the system that existed thirty years ago, the safety net all too often tends to keep clients in a state of dependency with minimal expectations that the clients will get well.

As the mental health system implements the integration of the inpatient and outpatient system in 2001, recovery is expected to be a key theme in individual treatment planning. Successful caregivers recognize that a client will get well more easily or lead a more productive life when there is a high expectation that as a result of treatment, the quality of life of the client will improve. Specifically, the division should contract with caregivers to develop an atmosphere of treatment in which the interaction between the caregiver and the client focuses on the importance of a progression toward recovery and wellness.