The Colony 47 Drop-In Centre is said to be facing closure because of an increase in rents causing a $150,000 shortfall. However I did hear the words “not the Government’s favoured Model” coming from the lips of a Colony 47 operative on the nightly news so I would suggest the mooted closure has a lot to do with “branding” and fads in mental health.
In an extraordinary situation mental health services run on a wave of what is “in” and what is “out” and this mainly refers to buzzwords rather than to any logical concept or theory. For some years now the words “drop-in centre” have been “out”.
I actually attended a meeting at which the spokesperson for a peak Victorian mental health body used the terms “in” and “out” to describe what programmes were likely to be funded in the future. She spoke in relation to words like “Recovery” (still In), “social inclusion” (very In) “clinical divide” (on the way Out). Tasmania appears to work on a similar basis.
If Colony 47 had been termed a “consumer-run flexible facility” or a “consumer-run peer-facilitated recovery oriented strengths-based facility” – its survival would be more likely. Because someone somewhere has decided that the expression “drop-in centre” with all its 70s hippy, laid-back vibe is “out” the facility is doomed. It’s all about the words.
The Government preferred Model, which is probably being used to justify the closure of Colony 47, the “Recovery Model” is difficult to define, highly subjective and to me seems to mean: “We don’t want you to get too attached; move on; get a menial part time job and get out of our statistics and out of my hair”. Drop-in centres which encourage a feeling of belonging and provide consistent, reliable service don’t fit this mantra.
The common accusations made against drop-in centres, that they stifle “Recovery” and employment readiness and lead to dependency, are false. One of the best psychosocial research centres in the world, the Centre for Psychiatric Rehabilitation in Boston, has recently found that a consumer run drop-in centre obtained more positive results for employment and social inclusion than traditional rehab programmes. The drop-in centre is not in trouble in the USA.
You can see mental health services, including NGOs, buying into this “words driving policy” syndrome by studying the language they use. If you look at the corporate speak used by Community Central’s Therese Taylor in the Colony 47 website you get some idea of what is occurring within NGOs: “We intend to use this base (Aboriginal Information and Referral Service program) to grow our business in the north and north-west of the state”
This is the sort of language that makes you want to say WTF. People attending mental health services or indigenous services are not there to help grow any sort of business. It is not a business at all. It is the provision of a social service on the basis of community and individual needs. The very fact that I have used the word “needs” will immediately condemn me to the “dependent” category, however I press on.
Therese continues: “We are vulnerable to policy shifts regardless of how well our current services are received by clients.”
The reason that mental health NGOs and Peak Bodies are vulnerable to policy shifts is because, with a few exceptions, they are absolutely craven in that they will not take on the Government over the use of these meaningless buzz words that dictate services. Peak Bodies and NGOs could rebut many of the assumptions behind bureau-speak terms such as “recovery” and “dependence” using available evidence and show how these words unfairly limit services to people with mental illness. This isn’t happening.
This I feel is mainly because the CEOs of peak bodies and NGOs are ambitious and are on a career path and don’t want to cause any sort of kerfuffle. There is also a sort of cosy circular process in which influential CEOs who become compliant or who expect compliance, then become key advisors on mental health matters.
Frankly all this faddism is expensive. It fails to build on programmes that have been successful and generally, because there is no reason behind it, it encourages the promotion of people who have their minds in neutral and who fail to question the assumptions behind these buzzwords du jour.
The Men’s Shed initiative which was rolled out across Australia last year is effectively a “drop-in” centre. There have been no attempts to limit the service or raise questions about what is happening in these programmes. They haven’t been the subject of criticism, because they are not dealing with people with mental health issues.
One of the more extraordinary reasons I have heard for the phasing out of the “drop-in Centre” was the fact that they require costly security. I’ve only seen one potential problem at a drop-in centre and that was because it was sited right next to a Bikie clubhouse.
Besides, is a drop-in centre for persons with mental illness more likely to require security than a Men’s Shed? Bristling as it is with disgruntled Family Court litigants, power tools and sharp implements? I doubt it.
There is also a strong mind set in mental health services that if you leave a lot of people with mental health issues in a room together something bad is going to happen. Perhaps we might spontaneously combust. This is why drop-in centres are allowed to survive if we are all “doing something” in other words if there is an organised programme. This is profoundly unfair and even mentalist. It reminds me of when inmates of Royal Derwent used to pack pegs. If a person attends a drop-in centre and talks to one other person then that is “doing something”. If that person is having a nutritious meal then that also is enough. Why should disadvantaged people have to justify what they do when they seek warmth, shelter or just want to be with people?
The reason why drop-in services are great for people with mental illness is that they can access the service when they need it and not when some programme dictates. This is vitally important as mental illness is spasmodic and intermittent and may not permit them to attend a sequential programme. While drop-in centres are said to encourage dependence, in fact they do the opposite, because people can more easily drop-out of them knowing that the service will be there if they need it and they can return to it without fuss.
This allegation about “dependence” is only used to limit access to services by people with mental illness. Ask yourself whether those using the Government funded grandstand to watch the Hawks play are at risk of becoming dependent. Are the petrol heads who attend speedway supported by Government funds at risk of become dependent? Are parents of children at private schools dependent on Government subsidy? Sure. We are ALL dependent on something including the Minister who put the blue line through Colony 47. To use this buzz word to exclude people from mental health services is truly unfair.
I have no doubt that the Colony 47 drop-in centre will be rebadged and re-emerge with some trendy name in order to support some administrator’s vision of what mentally ill people should be doing. However the destruction of a service that has been in place for 30 years is very costly, particular for the participants who experience increased anxiety and risk losing their friends and their only support and social occasion.
The Boston University Research on Drop In Centre Employment and Social Inclusion outcomes can be found at: http://www.bu.edu/cpr/research/recent/cosp/index.html
I attempt to wrassle with the Recovery Model here: http://stopthrashingaround.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/recovery-analyse-this/
And here: http://stopthrashingaround.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-recovery-model/
• Sue Neales, Mercury: Crumbs for the poor
…
The Premier on Thursday pleaded empty Government pockets. She said there was no money to help beyond the emergency $5000 she’d managed to find to benevolently help keep its doors open for an extra 30 days.
In that context, it is worth contemplating the fate of the $1 million held and topped up annually in the loosely-regulated Premier’s Sundry Grants fund.
Its stated purpose is to be kept aside for emergencies that arise during the year in the community that have not been funded in the previous Budget.
