Impact, Volume 7, Number 4, November/December 1977 Page: 29
48 p. : col. ill. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
This year there were increasing costs
for service delivery, demands for innova-
tive programs and needs to expand the
geographic areas served. Above it all was
the call for a means of accountability
that could maintain public confidence
in this community MHMR center
system.
To meet these challenges, some
center workers focused new attention
on special populations---the elderly, the
children of alcoholics, the mentally
retarded juvenile offenders, infants
developing slowly, teenagers with both
school and personal problems, new
parents learning their baby is mentally
retarded.
These persistent staff members also
responded to silent pleas for help from
individuals whose lives had been so
empty of meaning, so tangled in
problems that restoration seemed an
impossible dream. But they dared to
dream and were not deterred by such
obstacles as one client's 40 years of
deafness and 20 years of residence in a
state school. The challenge he presented
was matched with a hearing aid, speech
therapy, job placement and a home of
his own.
Another center provided aftercare,
therapy, medical treatment and a
workshop position for a man who had
been a mental hospital patient for
decades. Still another corps of caregivers
accepted the call to help someone
nobody wanted and offered the means
to an independent life for a mentally
retarded man turned away by an
abusing family, an ill-equipped school, a
rejecting community and an institution
unable to reach him. Others searched
for, and found, the right placement for
someone whose diagnosis had been
changed from "mentally retarded" to
"mentally ill."Many of these efforts required
coordination between the centers and
the state facilities. Some state schools
and centers, for example, jointly started
community residential programs for the
mentally retarded. A similar effort was
initiated between three state hospitals
and three centers to develop pilot
community residential programs for
patients in long-term care.
Abusers of drugs and alcohol found
more community alternatives to treat-
ment than ever before. Liaison workers
were on hand in the courtroom as
defendants faced the judge's bench to
link them with community chemical
abuse services they so desperately
needed. Cities, counties, local agencies
and individuals joined in providing land
and buildings for community detoxifica-
tion facilities. Halfway houses en-
couraged long periods of sobriety for
alcoholics, and other agencies chose to
handle detoxification, intermediate care
and follow-up under one roof. Drug
treatment agencies began coordinating
their efforts.
The wise use of money was not
neglected as a way to help clients. One
center took a small grant to initiate a
volunteer program that, it was hoped,
would merit continued funding.
Another center began collecting its
sliding scale client fees as a means to
indicate fiscal responsibility and help
clients realize their investment in
treatment.
Teams of staff members across the
state struggled with (and overcame)
difficult problems---adding programs
without extra funding, for example, and
making those services accessible to an
isolated or scattered population. They
learned ways to involve citizens in
planning efforts and formed committees
of staff members to monitor the qualityof care delivered. This improved
accountability to the public was a
challenge faced by every center as a
prerequisite for seeking review of its
programs by the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Hospitals. New depart-
ment rules mandating Peer Review
Committees and Professional Advisory
Committees further increased the level
of accountability.
Although exasperated by voluminous
and often conflicting standards required
by other agencies, the centers responded
with good intentions and ended the year
with many new programs underway and
many old ones certified. Sixteen centers
received ICF.-MR (Intermediate Care
Facilities-Mentally Retarded) certifica-
tion for community-based residential
services for the mentally retarded.
The TDMHMR Community Services
division's management audit section,
which assisted the centers in upgrading
their accountability, completed 13
management audits of center programs.
These audits, focusing on economy and
efficiency of each center's administra-
tive program, produced reports which
were shared with the Governor's Budget
Office, Legislative Budget Board and the
respective centers' boards of trustees.
The reports analyzed administrative
practices and made recommendations
where deviations from the standards of
good management were found. A
follow-up program monitored remedia-
tion efforts of each center.
A planning grant awarded during the
year helped develop the state's 28th
center, Pecan Valley MHMR Region, to
serve Erath, Hood, Palo Pinto, Parker
and Somervell Counties. With its addi-
tion effective Sept. 1, 1977, community
MHMR services were made available to
125 counties, representing 82 per cent
of the state's population.I,
-~ /29
Aj
r4l
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. Impact, Volume 7, Number 4, November/December 1977, periodical, November 1977; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1588488/m1/31/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.