The Assignment For This Week Has You Considering Legislators

The Assignment For This Week Has You Considering Legislators In A Way

The assignment for this week has you considering legislators in a way – it is the rough draft of your lobbying plan. Please note that the annotated bibliography from Week 2 is a primary driver for this assignment. You are developing this plan in the hopes of executing it, and only first-rate presentations make the cut when you are lobbying. You will have much competition. Structure your lobbying plan following this standard outline incorporating appropriate heading levels: An APA Style Title Page An Introduction Section (a Level 1 heading) words that introduce the issue Description of setting (a Level 2 heading) Statement of objectives in your plan (a Level 2 heading) An Argument Section (a Level 1 heading) 780-1,330 words where you summarize the research support for the issue. Explain what you have found out about your issue and what areas need to be addressed. (a Level 2 heading) Analyze the current status of actions being taken in the professional and legislative areas to support your explanations. (a Level 2 heading) Provide examples of areas that are working well and may need to be enhanced, as well as areas that are not working so well and need to be changed. (a Level 2 heading) An Action Section (A Level 1 Heading) words that define what action or legislative changes that you would like to see to resolve the issue. Explain what resources may be needed to execute the plan. (a Level 2 heading) Analyze how executing this plan will provide better services. (a Level 2 heading) Provide examples of the measurable improvements that you would expect to be the metrics for ongoing evaluations of the plan. (a Level 2 heading) Conclusion (A Level 1 Heading) words bringing the paper to a logical end. References For this week, you should have each section substantially completed so that your instructor can provide feedback that you will integrate into the completed project for Week 6. For Week 6, you will submit the final version of this with a cover letter to the legislator to whom you will be lobbying. It is also strongly suggested that you send your work to the Writing Center for review and use the Grammarly (Links to an external site.) program by Week 4, Day 3 at the latest so that you will have time to get feedback and revise your draft accordingly before submitting your assignment on Day 7. Your paper should be 1,730-3,430 words in length and be based on articles published in the last ten years. The length does not include the cover page, table of contents, or references. You are required to use APA formatting for in-text citations and references. For further guidance, refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Additional References must be from 2014 to current Resources Required References The Joint Commission. (2007). 2007 Guide to Joint Commission behavioral health care accreditation. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.) Willging, C., Sommerfeld, D., Aarons, G., & Waitzkin, H. (2014). The effects of behavioral health reform on safety-net institutions: A mixed-method assessment in a rural state. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, 41 (2), . World Health Organization. (2003). Quality improvement for mental health. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.) Pgs. Recommended References Al-Sughayir, M. A. (2016). Effect of accreditation on length of stay in psychiatric inpatients: Pre-post accreditation medical record comparison. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 10 , 1-5. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. APA Practice Organization. (n.d.) Legal issues. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.) CARF Behavioral Health. (2016). Providers. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.) The Joint Commission. (n.d.). Joint Commission FAQ page . Retrieved from (Links to an external site.) The Joint Commission. (n.d.) Standards interpretation. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.) Lee, M. Y. (2014). Motivations to pursue accreditation in children's mental health care: A Multiple case study. Nonprofit Management And Leadership, 24 (3), . Shallcross, L. (Ed.). (2012). What the future holds for the counseling profession. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.) Smucker, B. (1999). The non-profit lobbying guide (2nd ed.). Independent Sector: Washington, DC. Retrieved from

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The critical importance of legislative advocacy in enhancing mental health care services cannot be overstated. With mental health issues increasing globally and within the United States, effective policymaker engagement is essential for fostering positive change. This paper presents a comprehensive lobbying plan aimed at influencing legislative decisions that impact mental health services, particularly focusing on behavioral health care accreditation and reform initiatives. Guided by recent scholarly research and authoritative resources, the plan seeks to outline strategic actions to support policies that improve mental health outcomes, ensure quality standards, and promote sustainable funding.

Setting and Objectives

The setting for this lobbying effort is primarily within state and federal legislative bodies responsible for health policy regulation. These policymakers possess the authority to enact laws affecting mental health service provision, funding, and accreditation standards. The primary objectives of this plan include advocating for increased funding for mental health programs, supporting accreditation initiatives that enhance service quality, and promoting legislation that facilitates access to mental health services, especially within underserved communities.

Research Summary and Analysis

Extensive research indicates that mental health reform remains a complex but vital endeavor. According to Willging et al. (2014), behavioral health reforms in rural states have demonstrated the potential for improving service delivery but face significant challenges such as funding limitations and regulatory barriers. Additionally, accreditation processes, like those governed by The Joint Commission, have been linked to improved patient outcomes and reduced inpatient stays, as shown by Al-Sughayir (2016). Nevertheless, disparities persist, and some reform efforts lack efficacy or adequately address marginalized populations.

Current Legislative and Professional Actions

Presently, numerous efforts aim to bolster mental health services through federal grants, state initiatives, and accreditation standards. Programs like the Mental Health Block Grant provide crucial funding, but their adequacy remains contested (The Joint Commission, 2007). Professional organizations, including the APA Practice Organization and CARF, advocate for accreditation and legislative support. However, legislative inertia and bureaucratic obstacles often impede swift reform (Shallcross, 2012). Successful models, such as integrated care initiatives, show promise but require scaling and supportive legislation.

Areas for Enhancement

While some programs succeed, certain policies and practices need refinement. For example, funding allocations often fail to meet the growing demand for mental health services, especially in rural and underserved areas. Additionally, legislative initiatives addressing social determinants of health are limited. Expanding mental health parity laws and increasing funding for community-based services are critical. Improvements in data collection and outcome measurement are also needed to better assess reform impact and inform policy adjustments (World Health Organization, 2003).

Proposed Legislative Actions and Resources

This lobbying plan advocates for legislative reforms that increase federal and state funding, strengthen accreditation requirements, and expand access to mental health services across demographic groups. Specific actions include securing additional grants, incentivizing community providers, and enacting policies that enforce mental health parity. Resources required encompass research data, stakeholder engagement, lobbying advocacy, and collaboration with professional organizations. Funding for these activities must be secured through budget allocations, grants, and partnerships.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation Metrics

Implementing these legislative changes is expected to yield significant improvements in service quality, access, and patient outcomes. Measurable metrics include reduced inpatient hospitalization rates, increased access to outpatient and community services, improved patient satisfaction scores, and better workforce recruitment and retention figures. Regular evaluation will involve tracking these metrics, analyzing policy impact through surveys, and adjusting strategies accordingly to ensure continuous improvement.

Conclusion

Effective legislative advocacy is essential for advancing mental health care reform. A strategic lobbying approach, grounded in research and supported by stakeholder collaboration, can influence policy changes that lead to substantial improvements. By advocating for increased funding, accreditation standards, and expanded access, this plan aims to foster a health care environment where mental health needs are adequately addressed, and quality of care is consistently elevated. Persistent effort, data-driven strategies, and stakeholder alliances will be key to transforming mental health legislation for better societal outcomes.

References

  • The Joint Commission. (2007). 2007 Guide to Joint Commission behavioral health care accreditation. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.)
  • Willging, C., Sommerfeld, D., Aarons, G., & Waitzkin, H. (2014). The effects of behavioral health reform on safety-net institutions: A mixed-method assessment in a rural state. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, 41(2), 147-163.
  • World Health Organization. (2003). Quality improvement for mental health. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.)
  • Al-Sughayir, M. A. (2016). Effect of accreditation on length of stay in psychiatric inpatients: Pre-post accreditation medical record comparison. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 10, 1-5.
  • American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
  • APA Practice Organization. (n.d.) Legal issues. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.)
  • CARF Behavioral Health. (2016). Providers. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.)
  • Shallcross, L. (2012). What the future holds for the counseling profession. Retrieved from (Links to an external site.)
  • Lee, M. Y. (2014). Motivations to pursue accreditation in children's mental health care: A Multiple case study. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 24(3), 287-302.
  • Smucker, B. (1999). The non-profit lobbying guide (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

Related Assignments