What level of government? Balancing the interests of the state and the local community
The authors describe the cycles of reform that have characterized the evolution of the mental health services system. State and local governments predominated until the 1960s when the community mental health movement introduced the federal government into mental health care financing. The past decade has seen a return shift toward increased state and local control. The authors contend that local interests and innovations are supported best by local government, but central government is needed to maintain equity, protect the larger interests of society, and assure that the most disabled are served.
KeywordsMental Health Health Service Local Government Mental Health Service Local Community
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Frank, R., & Gaynor, M. (in press a). State government choice of organizational structure for local mental health systems: An exploratory analysis.Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research.Google Scholar
- Frank, R., & Gaynor, M. (in press b). Organizational failure and transfers in the public sector: Evidence from an experiment in the financing of mental health care.Journal of Human Resources.Google Scholar
- Goldman, H., & Frank, R. (1990). Division of responsibility among payers. In B. Fogel, A. Furino, & G. Gottlieb (Eds.),Mental health policy for older Americans. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
- Goldman, H., Gattozzi, A., & Taube, C. (1981). Defining and counting the chronic mentally ill.Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 32, 21–27.Google Scholar
- Goldman, H., Morrissey, J., & Ridgely, M.S. (1990). Form and function of mental health authorities at RWJ Foundation Program Sites: Preliminary observations.Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 41, 1222–1230.Google Scholar