EDITORIALS

Editorial: Mental health 'scan' offers valuable tool

Community has a guide for improving services

Staff Writer
Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Dr. John Robst, left, Dr. Norin Dollard and Dr. Anna Abella of the University of South Florida led a study on mental health care for children and young adults in Sarasota County. [Herald-Tribune Staff Photo / Carlos R. Munoz]

A report commissioned by two local foundations provides a summary of data, best practices, broadly framed recommendations and anecdotal information that creates a platform for changing and improving the community's approach to mental-health services for children and young people.

The need for an independent assessment has long been clear. Many care providers are diligent and work hard with limited resources. But, as we wrote in January 2018, the so-called system is fragmented, funding and accountability are inadequate, the demands for services are greater than many people realize, and some agencies have not performed adequately.

In May, the Charles & Margery Barancik Foundation and the Gulf Coast Community Foundation began soliciting proposals for a "mental health environmental scan." The results were released this week, accompanied by a small gathering that featured local residents with either professional or personal experience with mental health.

The foundations deserve credit for stepping into this space, which often involves uncomfortable conversations and challenges with agencies that prioritize protecting their turf over patients and their families.

The "scan" has five strengths, in our view:

• It gathers relevant data into one credible document.

• It recognizes community-based efforts that have already occurred but cites the need for sweeping change.

• It expertly highlights best practices from other communities for providing services, accessing funding and establishing a governance model that emphasizes coordination and accountability.

• It includes compelling testimony from the most important experts — parents of children, and others, who have tried to obtain treatment for  family members.

• It provides recommendations for action, albeit in general terms and on matters that fall into the "obvious" file.

The report did not, however, address the effectiveness of providers and programs or assess levels of communication between institutions and providers, and between providers and patients. That is a shortcoming but perhaps it's just as well: Local governments and agencies often don't react well to criticism from academics. (The University of South Florida College of Behavioral & Community Sciences conducted the study.)

So, these issues will be left to the community to decide as the public and private sectors endeavor to implement the recommendations. One recommendation, to create "an interagency governance structure" that would lead a "unified system of care," is solid. But a successful unified system depends on the effectiveness of agencies, their ability to communicate — and, most important, their willingness to put the needs of patients and the community first.

An overriding theme, based largely on input from parents and others who have sought treatment is that access is limited — even for middle-income families — and difficult to obtain.

Another conclusion: Although severe cases of mental illness occur among young people, many children need treatment and guidance before their problems intensify.

To that end, implementing the recommendations for universal prevention and early intervention, as well as expanding the supply of high-quality mental-health providers, should be priorities.

As with any report, the question is whether the community will react and act with passion and purpose. The foundation has been laid: If the community builds a first-rate system, those in need will come.