Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The whys and why nots of consumer participation

  • Articles
  • Published:
Community Mental Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper takes another look at the role of the consumer in the planning and delivery of services, including mental health services. It raises the issue of consumer representation, explores the antecedents of national legislation requiring consumer participation, indicates problems related to participation and details some solutions. In particular, the paper questions the effect of such participation on the delivery of mental health services and challenges Nader's Raiders who question the representation on boards of “Charity minded housewives, businessmen, lawyers, ministers, judges, and professional persons...”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABCD, Inc. Proposal for a health training program. Boston: 1968 (mimeo).

  • Black, H. Heed public, hospitals told.Boston Globe, March 26, 1969, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomberg, W., & Rosenstock, F. Who can activate the poor. In W. Bloomberg and H. Schmandt (Ed.),Power, poverty and urban policy, Vol. II,United Affairs Annual Reviews. California: Sage Publications, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, S. J. Maximum participation of the poor: Another holy grail?Social Work, 1970,15, 68–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeTocqueville, A.Democracy in America. New York: Vintage Books, 1945 (originally published 1835).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eighty-ninth Congress. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, March 16 and 17, 1966. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Eighty-ninth Congress. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, October 11, 1966. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Frieden, B. J., & Morris, R. Citizens organization and participation. In B. J. Frieden & H. Schmandt (Eds.),Urban planning and social policy. New York: Basic Books, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N., & Eaton, J. W. Who Speaks for the Poor?Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1970,36, 411–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasscote, R. M., Sussex, J. N., Cumming, E., & Smith, L. N.The community mental health center, an interim proposal. Washington, D.C.: Joint Information Service of APA and NAMH, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosser, C. F. Community organization and the grass roots.Social Work, 1967,1, 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, D. A. The community action program: a new function for local government. In B. J. Frieden and H. Schmandt (Eds.),Urban planning and social policy. New York: Basic Books, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, P. Pimps, prostitutes, and policemen: Educating consumers for participating in health planning.American Journal of Public Health, 1970, 60, 2171–2174.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, C.Your committee in community action. New York: Harper & Rowe, 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravitz, S. The community action program in perspective. In W. Bloomberg and H. Schmandt (Eds.),Power, poverty and urban policy, Vol. II,United Affairs Annual Reviews. California: Sage Publications, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. D. Strategies for shaping model cities. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P. Maximum feasible misunderstanding. New York: Free Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nader report scores U.S. unit in mental health center plans.New York Times, July 23, 1972, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Community Health Services.Health is a community affair. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, A. W. The consumer as policy-maker—Issues of training.American Journal of Public Health, 1970,60, 2139–2153.

    Google Scholar 

  • OEO.Community action program guide, Vol. I. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Law 88-164. Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963. October 31, 1963.

  • Public Law 89-749. Comprehensive Health Planning and Public Health Service Amendments of 1966. November 3, 1966.

  • Rabiner, C. J. Organizing a community advisory board for a mental health center.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 1972,23, 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, L. Maximum feasible participation: The origins, implications and present status.Poverty and Human Resources Abstracts, 1967,2, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, B. B. Role of the consumer in regional medical programs.American Journal of Public Health, 1970,60, 2133–2138.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont College of Medicine, 05401, Burlington, Vermont

    Ruth Thomson ACSW (Assistant Professor)

Authors
  1. Ruth Thomson ACSW
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thomson, R. The whys and why nots of consumer participation. Community Ment Health J 9, 143–150 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01411090

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01411090

Keywords

Search

Navigation