rss
Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Japanese box loving cat...funny!

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Mental health experts fight to stop raid on funding

Good, short story about measure 1E that would take $226 million away from mental health treatment for adult clients in California to fund federally mandated child services (EPSDT).  Prop 63, AKA the Mental Health Services Act, was passed in 2004 by CA voters because existing funding for mental health treatment was inadequate.  Taking money from this “pot” of money to fill another required treatment “pot” is not the solution.  This is a classic example of Robbing Peter to pay Paul.  The cost of taking treatment funds is a reduction in services, which results in an increase in cost to California taxpayers as clients are hospitalized or incarcerated.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

2009 Rose Bowl: USC Trojans

Not mental health news...but USC winning the Rose Bowl is good for the mental health of all of us Trojans! Fight on!
Posted by Picasa

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Mental Health Services Act (MHSA)

The Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), formerly know as Proposition 63, went to effect January 1, 2005.

The passage of Proposition 63 in November 2004, provided the first opportunity in many years for the California Department of Mental Health (DMH) to provide increased funding, personnel and other resources to support county mental health programs and monitor progress toward statewide goals for children, transition age youth, adults, older adults and families. The Act addresses a broad continuum of prevention, early intervention and service needs and the necessary infrastructure, technology and training elements that will effectively support this system.

This Act imposes a 1% income tax on personal income in excess of $1 million. Statewide, the Act was projected to generate approximately $254 million in fiscal year 2004-05, $683 million in 2005-06 and increasing amounts thereafter. Much of the funding will be provided to county mental health programs to fund programs consistent with their local plans. Any uncommitted funds during FY 2005-06 will be used to establish county prudent reserve accounts as required by the Act.

To provide for an orderly implementation of MHSA, DMH has planned for sequential phases of development for each of the six components of the Act. An extensive stakeholder process is being employed to inform the state’s implementation efforts. Improvement in client outcomes is a fundamental expectation throughout the implementation process.

Click to read the full text of the MHSA act.