The CNMHC has its mythological view of "client history" based on one group that rebelled against standing practices; I'll trace that. Rough outline history of CNMHC polity.
Step 0, NAPA. Before CNMHC, the lead movement in CA was the Network Against Psychiatric Assault (NAPA). They, working
with Radical Therapy (RT), were able to initiate movements for "self-help" and for "patients rights." However their advocacy broke up approximately 1980 due to RT's "control" approach and its failure to get involved in the "system transformation"
issue.
In terms of "respect," many were dissed, and those who were heard had to fight "double hard" to get heard, or heard to some extent. One activist, for example, who has later become prominent, walked into an early NAPA meeting and was told,
"You're a middle class housewife, get out!" She did not return to the movement for more than 15 years.
Step 1, CNMHC begins. The CNMHC in its early years (esp., before 1990) was split between those who leaned on a "grassroots" advocacy and those who leaned on an ideological advocacy (mainly, related to or derived from NAPA). In the terms of the ideological faction, it was a matter of
"`opposing forced treatment' versus `supporting forced treatment'." In the terms of the "grassroots" faction, it
was necessary to represent the "common sense" of the `clients'.
In terms of "dignity," a bitter faction fight led to the breakdown of the "grassroots" oriented tendency. It was
a difficult victory for the ideological faction, for What remained was a "residual" situation that lacked direction.
These events paralleled a phase where the power structure of DMH was also being reorganized, via "re-alignment" and
"managed care."
Step 2, CNMHC is reorganized. In 1995 a `client', a member of the CNMHC Board, wrote Steve Mayberg and asked that the
Network be disbanded because of "corruption." "Instead," so
they say, the Network was re-organized. Part of that was its present regional structure. However the process involved
"re-organizing" in a dysfunctional way where individual selfishness was encouraged to the detriment of established advocacies for principle. That was the era of the "new kids on the block." There were two factions primarily involved,
one the miscellaneous group of "selfish" people and the other built around the "ideologues" who saw the "re-organization" as an "empowerment opportunity." Because ofthat dynamic,
some of the "grassroots" activists organized a "social accountability" advocacy. Carol Moss, the volunteer
coordinator of CNMHC during the transition, helped develop that latter point of view.
That argument is a confusion based on not understanding [i] that Carol had 22 years at DHS and had a consummate insight
into Sacramento bureaucracy (she was not ignoring the expectations of DMH!) and [ii] Carol is a Japanese-American
who was born in a U.S. internment camp and knew full well the meaning of "cultural competence." Carol fought to bring
the divisive DMH backed manipulation of "it's selfish persons versus ideologues" into a frame of democratic support for
"freedom and dignity". Her advocacy failed and the "ideologues" prevailed. They ran the CNMHC 1997-2007 and to their credit they did take on the NAMI agenda of "involuntary outpatient commitment." They also "kept down the grassroots"
and managed by "accommodation" of DMH, the value that Kathy espouses.
Step 3, MHSA and CNMHC. Now we are facing a situation where the power structure (based on a political arrangement in 1992 between CMHDA predecessor the California Conference of Local Mental Health Directors (CCLMHD) and then Assemblyman Bruce Bronzan) is up against a "transformation paradigm"
expectation which they can't fulfil. They are in trouble.
In Sacramento County, where Kathy has been involved, is where the local M.H. administrators are "close to the center of
power." This situation has produced an extreme anxiety on their part. The dreadful consequences that Kathy and others
have experienced are the natural consequence of the "treatment bankruptcy" (or, "compassion failure") that the
M.H. system is now facing, together with the limited administrative options available "so close" to the center of
power. Our problem, topic for many discussions, is to "get real transformation on track."
Step 4, where we are going. The issue is, IMHO, that "behavior management is a treatment approach that can lead to torture," versus simply today's "supporting treatment alternatives" (and not directly organizing against torture), then labeling that system adjustment is "transformation." Today, the managers of the system use the phrase, "Some animals are more equal than others," to describe how to manage us. A volatile arrangement, I'd say.
Today the practice of self-help/wellness needs to be upgraded to uthentic "community advocacy" (such as the Berkeley/Oakland Homeless Action Center, such as diverse
projects around the state) which can challenge the underlying "learned helplessness" or torture dynamisms. Much
that has been done in the area of "supporting treatment alternatives" is very important and helpful, but – I'd say – that approach generally is not strong enough in the area of "accountability to the grassroots," where things begin.
