Mental Health in Los Angeles County - Report Example

Mental Health in Los Angeles County Statistical Information of Los Angeles County Population’s Mental Health Using estimated statistics given on LosAngeles population for 2004, different mental health indicators can be isolated to confirm widely held theories on mental health prevalence. The projected estimates in the statistics originate from the 2000 census figures, to characterize expected 2004 mental health prevalence in Los Angeles. The basic factor of consideration was income levels, which included poverty levels of less than 200 per cent, to define the scope of the population under representation. From a total population of about 3,680,000 in 2000, the prevalence factor of mental conditions was a representation of 8.77 per cent, amounting to a population figure of 323,000. Projections on 6.1 per cent growth in 2004 give prevalence numbers at 342,000 against a population of 3,905,000 (DMH, 2004). Further categorization on demographics for the Los Angeles population given includes a youth population of 1,326,080 with a prevalence rate of 8.97 per cent to give 118,895 cases. The 2004 projection was based on population size of 1,406,971 amounting to 126,148 cases on prevalence. Gender interpretation of 2000 data shows that females had a higher prevalence at 8.97 per cent, when compared with a male percentage rate of 8.96 per cent. The actual numbers for females and males prevalence were 57,955 from 646,094 and 60,940 from 679,986 respectively. In 2004, population growth of 6.1 per cent would translate to female prevalence standing at 61,490 from 685,506 and male prevalence figures of 64,657 from a population of 721,465. Youth age cohorts of 0-5 years had 8.96 per cent prevalence rate, similar to 6-11 cohort, which were slightly higher than the 12-17 cohort was at 8.96 per cent prevalence. Adult age cohorts had the following prevalence rates; 18-20 years had 11.41 per cent, 21-24 had 9.20 per cent, 25-34 had 8.06 per cent, 35-44 had 10.46 per cent, 45-54 had 7.65 per cent, 55-64 had 7.76 and cohorts of over 65 years had 5.90 per cent. Adult factors such as marital status also showed marked characteristic of mental conditions, with the married having 6.73 per cent prevalence, single persons had 8.94 per cent prevalence while prevalence stood at 12.28 for troubled marriages such as separations, divorce and death of spouses (DMH, 2004). Ethnicity factors also illustrate marked differences in the prevalence rates for mental conditions in Los Angeles from the 2000 census figures. The highest prevalence rates found among African American community represented 12,591, which is 9.20 per cent fraction, followed by Multiracial prevalence of 2,447 making up 9.16 per cent, Pacific Indians at 3,914 reflecting 9.07 per cent, Hispanic 85,978 (8.94 per cent), Asian 7,041 (8.90 per cent) and lest among the White population at 9,814 reflecting 8.88 per cent prevalence. According to population poverty level classification, populations between 100 per cent and 199 per cent stood at 685,659 out of which 8 per cent exhibited mental health conditions, while those whose poverty level fell below 100 per cent stood at 640,420 and a prevalence rate of 10 per cent (DMH, 2004). From these figures, the state of the County healthcare can be analyzed to illustrate the needy level of the Los Angeles County in terms of mental health agencies serving populations of 100,000, which stands at 4.26. When compared with South Los Angeles (5.75) and West Los Angeles (6.91), perhaps this high prevalence of mental cases would reduce significantly. Indicators in the County for concern as observed by the Los Angeles Department of Mental Health include underserved cultural backgrounds, children within troubled families, stigma and discrimination, suicide risk exposure and juvenile justice procedures (LAC, 2008). Specialized mental care assistance when compared with other types of health care services implies that a lot of work needs to be completed so as to raise the coverage of the services among these populations. With fewer institutions to provide such health care, measures to increase the coverage must form part of the realignment policy in the industry. This implies that the length of provision of the appropriate mental care is significantly affected due to the restriction in terms of institutions, funding, staffing and accessibility across different demographic categories as highlighted above. Intervention An advocacy for mental health provision to youths in the most affected demographic variables will created in a free screening and mobile clinics throughout the County. Every person in the County will be welcomed for the screening and treatment initiation, with an aim of reducing the gap witnessed in the number of agencies needed for efficient healthcare system. The main target will be the minority groups of youths who may not have the information and access to such assistance. Further to this community penetration, referrals will be targeted in order to ensure that the populations continue to find specialized assistance from established institutions. The screening and treatment initiation will also assist in further enhancement of the California mental health service coverage, in terms of collection of data and creation of simplified solutions to the challenge that may face difficulties of budgetary allocation in these difficult economic times. A cooperative approach between the non-governmental concept and government intervention will therefore reduce the cost and improve the status of the County’s provision of mental health care that is usually costly. Advocacy of importance of mental health care through counseling and guidance among the population, particularly the youth will take different attraction concepts such as sports, entertainment and social media planned-events that have an appeal among the youths. In the target approaches to be employed, at least 45.4 per cent of the entire Los Angeles County population estimated at 2.3 million in 2010 will be targeted (LA County, 2010). Within the first five years of the program, the targeted population numbers will be estimated at 40 per cent, with subsequent incremental coverage aimed at reducing the prevalence to below 3 per cent. To accomplish this, the project will require accommodating more than advocacy and treatment for the prevalent mental conditions. Incorporation of family reorganization and empowerment to assist coping with stressing environment subjected to children and parents will also form an overall target for the program. This implies that the difficulties experienced by different individual settings will form an important focus for the mental health campaign. In this proposed campaign, two local agencies will be involved in order to facilitate faster establishment of relevant infrastructure to roll out the program. To this end, Alcott Center for Mental Health Services and Network for Mental Health for Los Angeles County will be contacted for their cooperation in implementing the outreach and mobile clinics across the Los Angeles County. The two groups form motivation on the suitability of this partnership based on the facts of the specialized operations. On one hand, Alcott Center for Mental Health Services that has an extensive operations experience in West Los Angeles, which makes the experience memory in California an important starting point (Alcott Center, 2012). The approach adopted by Alcott facilities in covering the whole person needs to initiate mental recovery further supports the choice of the organization in the partnership as it captures overall objectives of the program. The Network for Mental Health for Los Angeles County also has extensive operations for the mental health care needs of the County and many other locations in the country as the Network of Care. The focus of the organization with regard to behavioral elements of the victims as practiced by the Network for Mental Health for Los Angeles will complement the program’s objectives. Introduction treatment for the victims and their referral to specialized institutions of health care will also provide extra function that the two organizations cannot easily provide separately and alone (Network of Care, 2012). Cost Estimates Within the framework of a constricted budgetary allocation for healthcare services, mental care is hugely affected in Los Angeles as it is across the country. This implies that the programs run by the government in provision of such care will continue to find it difficult to operate. In view of the cost projections, it is estimated that costs met in search of mental health care will also continue to increase. The reason for the increase is that already overstretched facilities continue to face growing prevalence of mental conditions among different age groups and demographic classes. The Los Angeles County devotes about $5.5 billion to healthcare services for the entire population, a fraction of which is directed to cover 250,000 mental health patients (County of LA, 2012). Since the conditions for other public health needs, experience budgetary cuts, support for the reduced funding will be sought from different sources, including the non-governmental organizations. The deficit projected from the fraction of the $5.5 billion that supports direct mental health, which is about a fifth of the entire population shows the need to contribute between various stakeholders. Cooperation with agencies in the program will maximize results and reduce costs, which can translate to about $3 billion. This program will save over $2.5 billion, when compared with the government’s budget that fails to meet the mental needs of the entire population. Funding Sources In order to enable the sustainability of the program, funding will need to be a central focus for the program through appropriate partnerships. Perhaps two of the most relevant funding sources will be sought from the government through social support programs as well as from fund raising activities. The contribution that the organization is making for public good is massive and important at a time when the budgetary allocation to health care services continues to shrink. In terms of the funding component that the government would be making towards the running of the program, the organization platforms at the two service provision levels would favor the non-profit model. Among the efficiency considerations for the new model, health care system complications and bureaucracies that make it difficult for such programs to run will be avoided. Making an appeal for funding from the government will perhaps increase the success of the organization in meeting its objectives than when compared with the government doing it within the current financial complications. Secondly, the involvement of the public through fundraising functions will facilitate realization of results in a wider approach as intended. Apparently, mental health needs appreciation from the social environment and calling the public to participate in the process will enable integration of the program into the society. In terms of the need to have a tighter social fabric in solving various psychological challenges, fundraising will assist in the diversification of the integration concept. Online donations from the Los Angeles community and across the borders will assist the expansion of the program in offering other important mental health projects (Achenbach and Wadsworth, 2005). References Achenbach, T. M., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2005). “Explaining the Link between Low Socioeconomic Status and Psychopathology: Testing Two Mechanisms of the Social Causation Hypothesis.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6):1146-1153 Alcott Center. (21012). “Alcott Center for Mental Health Services.” Retrieved from http://www.alcottcenter.org/ County of LA (2012). “Health and Mental Health.” Retrieved from http://lacounty.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/b0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOItDCDAyCDY1dHAyCfI2NAnLNTQwNxYvyDbUREAhpMoxA!!/ DMH (2004). “Prevalence Table 2: Prevalence Estimates in Households Read More