| Abstract: | Three policy termination objectives can be analyzed in the field of mental health: the move to phase-down, and in some instances close, large state institutions for the mentally disabled; the elimination in some states of indefinite involuntary commitment procedures; and the attempt to transfer responsibility for the provision of direct services from the state level to local government and/or private providers of care. Initiatives in these areas have come from the executive, the legislature, consumer organizations, and most recently from the public interest law community through the use of litigation. Termination in this field, however, has met with increasing resistance because of the failure in many instances to pair these objectives with positive program development. In some states, the result has been the dismantling of one system without the commitment of resources necessary to encourage the development of an alternative system. |
