Managing Madness in the Community: The Challenge of Contemporary Mental Health Care

Managing Madness in the Community

Critical Issues in Health and Medicine

Edited by Rima D. Apple, University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Janet Golden, Rutgers University, Camden

Growing criticism of the U.S. health care system is coming from consumers, politicians, the media, activists, and health care professionals. The Critical Issues in Health and Medicine series explores these contemporary dilemmas from political, legal, historical, sociological, and comparative perspectives, among others, with attention to crucial dimensions such as race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and culture.

For a list of series titles, see the last page of this book.

Managing Madness in the Community

The Challenge of Contemporary Mental Health Care

Kerry Michael Dobransky

Rutgers University Press

New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Dobransky, Kerry Michael, 1976–

Managing madness in the community : the challenge of contemporary mental health care / Kerry Michael Dobransky

pages cm. — (Critical issues in health and medicine)

Includes bibliographical references and index

ISBN 978–0–8135–6309–1 (hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–8135–6308–4 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–8135–6310–7 (e-book)

1. Community mental health services—United States. 2. Mentally ill—Care—United States. 3. Social integration—United States. I. Title.

RA790.6.D63 2014

362.2’20973—dc23

2013027187

A British Cataloging-in-Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

Copyright © 2014 by Kerry Michael Dobransky

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. Please contact Rutgers University Press, 106 Somerset Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901. The only exception to this prohibition is fair use as defined by U.S. copyright law.

Visit our website: http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu

For Sarah

By My Side

Contents

Tables

Preface and Acknowledgments

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. Logic and Constraint

Chapter 3. Diagnosis, Labeling, and Social Control

Chapter 4. Empowerment Practice, Practical Empowerment

Chapter 5. The Realities of Community Integration

Chapter 6. The Right Person for the Job: Fragmentation in Staffing and Worker-Client Interaction

Chapter 7. Conclusion

Notes

References

Index

About the Author

Read More in the Series

Tables

2.1 Major Logics in Community Mental Health Care

3.1 Informal Labeling and Social Control of Clients in Community Mental Health Services

6.1 Degree Completions for Race and Gender in Mental Health Care Fields

6.2 Labor Force Participation for Race and Gender in Mental Health Care Fields

Preface and Acknowledgments

The roots of this project can be traced to my time as a social worker. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I worked in child welfare in a state that was participating in the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Family to Family initiative. The initiative held as its goal to build a family-centered, neighborhood-based child welfare system. Though the county I worked in was not part of the initiative, its principles began to diffuse there, in part under the influence of county administrators. Among the many goals of the program was a call for more active roles for parents and community members of children removed from their homes in determining what happened to those children. Because the aim of child welfare casework is often reunification—at least initially—this may not be that surprising. However, in day-to-day conversations among workers regarding the implementation of these principles, some major contradictions emerged. Children were removed from homes because of serious deficiencies in the environment there. Generally, fingers were pointed in the direction of their caregivers (usually parents). The question was asked: If this is the case, and the deficiencies are clear—usually documented in court records—why should these individuals have a say in what happens to their children until those deficiencies are acknowledged and addressed? These parents are seen as mentally or morally lacking. Child welfare workers see themselves as having the insight and training to address these problems, to care for the children, and to determine when parents should be involved again. Incorporating parents in decision-making immediately questioned this professional expertise and turned the child welfare worker-parent dynamic on its head. Ambiguity and complaints were widespread.

I later worked as a substitute house manager for a multiservice mental health care organization for people with severe mental illness. During staff meetings I was reminded of my experience in child welfare, as I encountered for the first time discussions regarding the concept of mental health recovery. In frequent discussions on the ambiguity of recovery in a mental health context, workers noted a fundamental contradiction in their jobs when trying to implement treatment. They were mental health professionals, experts in treating people with mental illness, yet clients likewise were to be considered experts in their own care, determining goals of treatment and means to achieve those goals.

As I returned to this contradiction as a research topic, I connected it to a broader push for client empowerment in mental health services. Since the middle of the twentieth century, concern for the rights of the subjects of human services—evident in both of my work settings—has gained rhetorical traction and also faced the hard realities of implementation. I explored those issues in two community-based nonprofit mental health organizations like the one in which I had worked. These types of organizations are increasingly common providers of care in today’s system, with the role of state hospitals and other governmental providers being replaced by fluctuating public funding of private providers. I eventually detected four key forces in community care for people with severe mental illness—empowerment, professionalism, community integration, and bureaucratic forces. I came to understand them as institutional logics in the field of mental health services. At times they worked in tandem for the same means and ends, but, as I experienced on my own and confirmed in my research, they also conflicted. This project explores these conflicting situations and the ways workers deal with them.

Several colleagues have played an important role in this work from its inception. Judith Cook was gracious in her help locating and accessing appropriate sites. Michaela DeSoucey, Wendy Griswold, Eszter Hargittai, Terry McDonnell, Bernice Pescosolido, Art Stinchcombe, Berit Vannebo, and especially Carol Heimer and Corey Fields all provided invaluable early feedback, guidance, and critique. A number of others were gracious enough to lend their eyes and minds to reading drafts of chapters, even though for some the topics were not exactly their specialties: Ben Brewer, Bethany Bryson, Keo Cavalcanti, Chris Colocousis, Matt Ezzell, Allan Horwitz, Nikitah Imani, Mark Peyrot, Steve Poulson, Teresa Scheid, Celeste Watkins-Hayes, and Joe Spear. The reviewers at Rutgers were incisive and helped make a better manuscript. Peter Mickulas at Rutgers was insightful and efficient—overall a pleasure to work with. Susan Campbell’s keen eye greatly benefited the manuscript. Any remaining shortcomings are solely my own responsibility. Versions of various chapters were presented at Northwestern University, University of Louisville, Loyola Marymount University, James Madison University, and the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems; the helpful feedback I received from all these forums was much appreciated. Earlier drafts of parts of chapter 3 were published as The Good, the Bad, and the Severely Mentally Ill: Official and Informal Labels as Organizational Resources in Community Mental Health Services, in Social Science and Medicine 69 (2009):722–728; and Labeling, Looping and Social Control: Contextualizing Diagnosis in Mental Health Care, in Advances in Medical Sociology 12 (2011):111–131. They are included here with permission from Elsevier and Emerald.

As I’ve learned is commonly the case, the research, writing, and publishing of this project was not restricted to nine-to-five shifts in a comfy office. Thus, more thanks are in order. Generous financial support came from Northwestern University and James Madison University. The welcoming environments provided by the many cafés where much of this work was written—especially Starbucks in Rogers Park, Chicago, Illinois, and in Staunton, Virginia—were a sustaining force. The staffs of the interlibrary loan departments in the Northwestern University and James Madison University libraries were always gracious and helpful during my extensive use of their facilities. The clients and workers at both research sites were wonderfully open and welcoming to a stranger exploring their personal and professional lives. I hope the result can contribute in some way to bettering those lives. Finally, this book—along with many other aspects of my life—never would have been possible without my partner, Sarah Blythe. She is a major source of my own empowerment, mental health, and happiness.

A note on terminology: A variety of terms are used to refer to those being treated for behavioral health problems, depending on the period and the treatment setting. The terms client, participant, consumer, member, patient, and subject, among others, have all been used. Though a particular term may be used to highlight a point, I attempt for the most part to stick with client, even changing words quoted from individuals without necessarily noting so in the text. I find this increases readability and helps protect confidentiality.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Jabar Jones was pretty content with life at Suburban, a multiservice mental health care organization outside a midwestern US city. With an official diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, he had spent the previous three decades involved with the mental health system in one form or another, including more than twenty hospitalizations. Had he been born a couple of decades earlier, Jabar could easily have spent those decades in a state hospital. Instead, coming of age and becoming ill in the era of deinstitutionalization, he fell into the all-too-familiar pattern of contemporary community care for people diagnosed with severe mental illness: residential and psychiatric instability. Having attended Suburban’s day program while living at a nursing facility for a few years, Jabar made the move to Suburban’s group home a few years prior to our meeting.

Compared to the alternatives he had experienced in the mental health system, living at Suburban had many advantages. All the residential programs he had been involved in had met his basic needs—food, a roof over his head, basic medical and psychiatric care—but he was given a lot more autonomy at Suburban. Two areas in particular stood out for Jabar. First, he had much more control over his money at Suburban than at the nursing facility where he had previously lived. The nursing facility was for-profit, as most are, and kept all his income except for a $30 per month allowance, which remained the same regardless of whether he supplemented his Social Security income through work or not. At Suburban, however, it was different: Here, everything over my rent, I keep. I work . . . I get to keep all my money, he said. Jabar also liked having more control over when and how much he ate than he had in previous placements. However, not everything was positive for him or for the staff that provided him with care.

Staff members at Suburban were concerned about Jabar. He had once attended the day program and had obtained a job at a cafeteria, but he had been fired from the job and no longer regularly attended the day program. Staff claimed that since his firing, his motivation had waned. One group home staff member said, He just lays around, eats, sleeps, and smokes cigarettes (interview). Further, Jabar spent his money in ways that caused problems for him and for Suburban. He was months behind in paying rent. Other residents of the group home pointed out a double standard with Jabar, arguing that he was permitted to not meet his obligations while they were not allowed to do the same. On the other hand, Jabar made claims of a reverse double standard, saying staff members were holding him to a higher standard than another resident in the house who had schizophrenia.

Because Jabar was a client at a mental health services organization and had an official diagnosis of severe mental illness, one might find his problematic behaviors no big surprise. This picture of Jabar as a severely mentally ill individual was the one depicted in his clinical file, which described him as at times experiencing unspecified delusions and disordered thought processes. He was prescribed a host of medications, including antipsychotics. However, in numerous staff discussions regarding Jabar that I observed, his behavior was not described in this setting as resulting from mental illness. Rather, his disruptions were referred to as willful acts. Hence, it was a challenge to determine exactly what staff thought of Jabar’s mental state. Jabar himself did not connect his current behaviors with mental illness; he discussed them as based in rational decisions. He felt the day program no longer interested him, saying, They can’t teach me nothing new (interview). He did, however, participate in illness management and recovery, an evidence-based practice involving his setting goals and working with a staff member and a curriculum to achieve those goals. Among the top goals he set were losing weight and catching up on his back rent—two problems that were directly tied to the freedoms Suburban had brought him.

It became clear that staff felt pulled in a number of directions. Suburban’s delivery of services (and the outcomes of those services), and their use of the resources their funders provided, was increasingly tracked and audited. This made evidence-based services such as illness management and recovery increasingly attractive. Impending changes in the state’s Medicaid mental health financing were leading to changes for organizations like Suburban that depended on that funding. At Suburban, this meant that there was an increased pressure for staff to make sure clients were participating in activities that were Medicaid-billable. In most cases, Suburban could not bill the state for clients sitting around the group home smoking and eating—as Jabar was reported doing most of the time.

Another force at work at Suburban was a long-standing impetus to move clients out of mental health services organizations and into independence in the community. The move Jabar had made from living in the nursing facility to Suburban’s group home—a less restrictive setting—was a step in this direction, as was his work in the cafeteria. A further step would be his obtaining steady work and moving to an apartment, both of which Jabar expressed interest in doing. At the same time, however, he did not appear to be investing much effort in locating more work, and even he realized that with his limited income and money problems, moving out would be difficult to achieve. He said he had located and qualified for numerous apartments in the past, but he had lacked money for a deposit when they became available.

Alongside the tracking and community integration, Suburban’s parent organization also had adopted the recovery model of mental health services. This generally meant that clients were to have a much more active role in their treatment. Thus, staff believed they were not supposed to force clients to do anything that they did not want to do when it came to treatment, and it was very rare to kick clients out of housing. It also meant that they could not arrange a behavioral contract with Jabar—a behavior modification strategy involving a written agreement between a client and an organization—though the organization had used the tool in the past.

In the midst of these other forces, staff also struggled to exercise their own expert judgment in how to provide services. As complaints regarding differential treatment from both Jabar and his housemates revealed, there was no cookie cutter approach to handling clients. Plainly put, another client in the group home was seen as much more seriously ill than he was. Thus, she was not expected to conform to rules as much as Jabar was. It was a clinical decision—the type that staff felt was increasingly difficult for them to make in the face of other forces.

What emerged was a somewhat disorganized strategy. On the one hand, an administrator directed Suburban to put Jabar under protective payee status with Social Security. This meant that Jabar would be deemed officially incompetent to manage his money—removing this freedom he held so dear. His Social Security checks would be sent directly to Suburban, with them having final say on how his money would be spent. Thus, they could make sure he was caught up on his rent, and the organization would receive reimbursement for services. Another policy, less formally outlined, was that some of Suburban’s workers encouraged Jabar to move out of the group home of his own accord and even offered him limited financial assistance for doing so. This move toward community independence occurred despite the fact that many staff doubted his ability to manage living independently. Although they could not remove him from the organization, they could help him choose to remove himself.

Fragmentation in Mental Health Services

The above story will be all too familiar to anyone acquainted with services for people with severe, persistent mental illness (SPMI) in the United States. By all accounts, the lack of unity or coherence in American community mental health services is stark. The number of conflicting players and priorities at work in a given case or situation—the fragmentation of mental health services—is often overwhelming for both clients and those providing services.

Most discussions of this fragmentation describe two key divisions in the administration and financing of services for people with SPMI. The first major division is between the different levels of government involved in mental health care. Public mental health care had first been the institutional responsibility of local governments (through almshouses and poorhouses), then state governments (through state mental hospitals). Although the federal Veterans Administration had historically provided mental health care, it was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the federal government became more broadly involved in mental health policy (Grob 1991). The National Mental Health Act, signed in 1946, created the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Advisory Mental Health Council. Thus began the sustained—if at times tumultuous—large-scale partnership between federal and state governments in the development, funding, and provision of mental health care. Through providing grants-in-aid to states, and by funding demonstration programs and clinics in states, the federal government came to take a more hands-on role in mental health care and policy. This role continued with the President John F. Kennedy’s signature of the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Act in 1963 (hereafter, CMHC program or act). Although the two thousand planned centers in the bill were not constructed (and, indeed, the entire CMHC program was all but dismantled over time), the construction of a third of them helped to push mental health care away from its basis in state hospitals to the community (Grob 1991; Grob and Goldman 2007).

A true watershed in government involvement was the series of entitlement programs that finally made community care for residents of mental hospitals plausible. The creation of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) in 1956, Medicaid and Medicare in 1965, and Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, the Disabled, and the Blind (SSI) in 1972 together provided the possibility that the care and general material support that patients received in the mental hospital might be replicated in the community. SSDI serves people fifty years old or older who cannot work because of a physical or mental condition, whereas SSI provides financial support for those of any age who cannot work by virtue of age or disability. Finally, Medicaid and Medicare fund health care for the indigent and aged, respectively. Medicaid, in particular, has become a major source of funding of mental health services for people with SPMI (Day 2006; Mechanic 2007). NIMH and (since 1992) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) continue to play a major part in the development of mental health services, funding research and demonstration programs at the national, state, and local levels.

Federal, state, and local governments all had a hand in mental health care, but what was missing was an all-encompassing oversight body. No one level of government clearly was in the driver’s seat when it came to mental health services. Though the federal government played a powerful role in the overall trend toward deinstitutionalization and community care (through the CMHC act and later through the Community Support Program), states had (and still have) a great deal of autonomy in how they constructed and funded mental health services within their borders.

Overlying the fragmentation by level of government is the other type of fragmentation: among the many target categories of social, medical, and mental health policy into which members of this population fall (Dill 2001). The disability and chronicity that characterizes SPMI renders those suffering from it in need of a broad range of supports to manage life in the community successfully. Vocational services, income support, housing assistance, social rehabilitation, and health care, as well as mental health services such as medication management