involvment/ inclusion​

What's the Point Of the Video?

      This question of what makes a "good person" is just as relevant for Policy Makers & Authority Figures as it is for anyone else.
          We went through several years of the Hickenlooper Administration violating Olmstead [THE LAW] because it was going to be politically difficult to comply with it.
           The Polis Administration has had a pretty amazing first legislative session and for that matter so has Mental Health Colorado.
            This may seem like a Tempest in a Teapot BUT for Colorado State Government and certainly the Office of Behavioral Health -- insufficient inclusion & ethical challenges have come up as issues.
           We've made a really simple request of both the Polis Administration and  Mental Health Colorado [MHC] -- to take off  MHC's advertising & puffery from a STATE-FUNDED On-line Resource Guide -- although they can still give attribution to MHC.                   

MOST IMPORTANTLY

 We want DIVERSE INVOLVEMENT in decisions and policy-making affecting people with cognitive differences.

We want the involvement of people with cognitive differences who are:

• involved with Child Welfare
• Homeless, and/or
• involved with the Criminal Justice System

in decisions and policy-making affecting them and the services that are available to them.

Four primary methods of getting involvement are:

• Stakeholder Groups
• Listening Sessions
• Focus Groups, &
• On-line Surveys

We would like to see these methods and others expanded to bring everyone into the "IN GROUP."  We've had enough of "OUT GROUPS."

DIALOGUE FOR INCLUSION

​Update
     Mental Health Colorado reached out to us and others on the issue of the Resource Guide [see our concerns below this section] .
             We are really, really appreciative.

           Our view is that  the guide should not be a product of Mental Health Colorado & CDHS -- we think if the State wants to include many voices including Mental Health Colorado and acknowledge those individuals and organizations -- we think that is fine.  

               So we do care about the RESOURCE GUIDE but this is really about re-negotiating how STATE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH interacts with the full range of individuals and advocacy organizations that need INCLUSION regarding the State's BEHAVIORAL HEALTH decision and policy-making. 

               We are very encouraged by the openness to DIALOGUE and we are very appreciative for it.       

​

CDHS we're disgusted
with what appears to be a sweetheart deal with mental health colorado

Original Complaint
​
             Colorado State Government has a love affair with well-bank rolled &/or large Mental Health Advocacy organizations and providers.
              The problem comes when together they come up with ideas that are inappropriate.  Under the Hickenlooper Administration, there was the problem with the Crisis Contracts.
               There was  the Mental Health/Criminal Justice Summit  that was the brain-child of a very well-intentioned organization -- the only problem was that most people affected would have to apply for a "SCHOLARSHIP" to attend.
               In 2018, Mental Health Colorado had a Governor's Candidates Forum that cost $50 a piece to attend.
               Now there is this new Free Resource that evidently was funded by CDHS [Colorado Dept. of Human Services] to Mental Health Colorado.   CDHS just happens to be the former employer of the new CEO of Mental Health Colorado, a former State employee.    
            Does the fact that Mental Health Colorado's former CEO is running for the US Senate have anything to do with this?
             At the very least this has the "appearance of impropriety" and maybe more than that.
             Further, there are a wide range of ideas out there about "Treatment" which CDHS is or should be well aware of.   The idea that CDHS is putting its blessing on any advocacy organization is just wrong.
             AND we're NOT surprised they didn't know better.     

              We have great admiration for Mental Health Colorado -- BUT like many organizations they like to tout themselves as the "Best."   
                 That's pretty problematic.  Especially, when there are other organizations out there who have different ideas.         

                 Our concern is really with the larger issue of inclusion for mental health decision and policy making @ the STATE.  That issue has been simmering for awhile when it is not occasionally boiling over.       

                 We have made a request to the State for an Inclusion Track for the Behavioral Health Task Force to address issues of inclusion in State decision & policymaking.                       
                

Photo Credit: New Scientist

https://cowellnessrecovery.org/

The video above addresses the employment context, but we think many of the points are equally valid in the relationship between government and stakeholders.