Pete Earley

I’ve been asked to post the comments that I made during the 2015 NAMI convention where I appeared on a panel discussing Assisted Outpatient Treatment, one of the most divisive topics in the mental health community. Panel members were asked to briefly comment on San Francisco’s version of Laura’s Law and then talk about a specific subject. In my case, it was what I have learned getting individuals with mental illnesses engaged in treatment based on my experiences with my adult son.

Remarks July 9th, NAMI Convention, panel discussion “Treatment Engagement in San Francisco: Humane or Coercion?”  (Slightly edited.)

I have read San Francisco’s version of Laura’s Law and after hearing Dr. Angelica Alameida’s description of it, I would characterize it as an attempt to make coercion less coercive.

Consider the multiple safeguards in the bill’s language: A judge can only implement an AOT order if: “a referred individual is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision.. if a referred individual has a history of lack of compliance within a specified time period…If a referred individual has been offered the opportunity to participate in a treatment plan voluntarily…If a referred individual’s condition is substantially deteriorating.  AOT must be the least restrictive placement necessary to ensure the referred individual’s recovery and stability. The referred individual must benefit from AOT.” The law requires peer specialists and family members to be involved in the process.

According to Dr. Alameida, the law is intended to engage persons who are in critical need of help not force them into treatment.  All of this language is intended to insure that AOT is not used flippantly and not implemented until after every other form of treatment has been attempted and has failed.

Will San Francisco’s law placate opponents of AOT? I decided to find out by asking several of them before I came to San Francisco. All of them said they wouldn’t support this new version. “You can put lipstick on a pig,” one said, “but it still is a pig.” This critic and others said they oppose all forms of coercion. If we simply had patience, met individuals where they were, and provided them with enough community support, acceptance and love, they would recover without being coerced.

I’ve thought a lot about those critics’ argument and I am confused by it.

Click to continue…

Singer Jason DeShaw at NAMI convention

Sometimes in life you feel as if you are part of something bigger than yourself. You feel connected to strangers because of a joint experience. You feel a bond, as if you are part of a family.

This is how I felt Thursday night during the closing ceremony of NAMI’s national convention in San Francisco. It was a warm sensation, a rewarding one and an invigorating one. More than two thousand of us had come together.

It was liberating knowing that the persons sitting near you understood what you had gone through because they also had gone through similar experiences.When Kevin had his first breakdown more than 13 years ago, a friend introduced me to Mark Gale whose son also had been diagnosed with a mental illness.  Neither of us knew much about mental disorders. Now Mark is one of California’s most influential champions for reform.  Our son’s illnesses changed both of our lives and thankfully, both of our sons are in recovery. Mark represents the best in NAMI to me. A take charge individual determined to help others.

Click to continue…

I’ll be participating in an afternoon session Thursday (7-9-15) at the national convention of the National Alliance on Mental Illness being held this week in San Francisco.  The panel discussion is entitled: Treatment Engagement in San Francisco: Humane or Coercion?

In July 2014, San Francisco approved an innovative approach to engage individuals living with serious mental illness who are most vulnerable to hospitalization, arrests or other negative consequences due to lack of treatment. Laura’s Law authorizes courts to order treatment for individuals who meet specific criteria. San Francisco’s approach differs from other states and counties in key ways. Peers and family members must be included on all treatment teams. Additionally, comprehensive services must be available to individuals on a voluntary basis before a court order can be issued. This forum will examine San Francisco’s new approach from multiple perspectives, including peers, family members, mental health professionals and others.

Click to continue…

The man at the door said he was doing a background investigation and asked if I could answer some routine questions about the man next door. Most of my neighbors work at federal government jobs that require security clearances so I was not surprised.

The first questions were about criminal activity. Had I seen the police coming to the house? Did I know if my neighbor had a criminal record? Did he seem to spend money lavishly? Had I noticed any suspicious behaviors?

Next came this question: “Do you know if  your neighbor has a mental illness? Do you know if he has every been under a psychiatrist’s care or if he is seeing a therapist? Does your neighbor seem stable to you?”

Not long after that exchange, I went online to get pre-approved for the TSA Pre-Select program. I travel a lot and wanted to shortcut the line by not having to remove my shoes or put my toiletries on display when passing through airport security. Sure enough, after answering questions that asked if I had ever been arrested, convicted of a felony, or done time in jail or prison, there were queries about my mental state. Had I ever been a patient in a psychiatric ward, been involuntarily committed, or been diagnosed with a mental illness?

Click to continue…

7-3-15 From My Files Friday: Since I posted this blog in 2010, my friend Sam Ormes has been working with a production company to tell his story either on television or in a movie. I can’t wait! 

He Created A TV Station Inside A Jail: An Incredible Story of Zany Antics,

Creativity, and Redemption

 Sam Ormes is a colorful and delightful person.

I found him in a tiny cubicle crammed with electronic gizmos inside the Miami Dade jail.  Sam looked like a  hoarder because nearly every inch of the space was taken-up by television equipment, cameras, video tapes and stage props, including a rubber chicken hanging on a rope from the ceiling.

Sporting a bow tie, a 1960s style beatnik goatee and reading glasses perched on the tip of his nose, Sam explained that he was the originator and driving force behind Inmate Corrections Television, better known as ICTV.

An inmate televisions station in a jail? I asked. He told me to sit down and listen.

Click to continue…

An Open Letter to Anthea Butler

Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Graduate Chair in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

Dear Dr. Butler,

I read with interest your recent Op Ed piece in The Washington Post entitled: “Shooters of color are called ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs.’ Why are white shooters called ‘mentally ill?’

Clearly, you were making a point about how the public and, more importantly, our justice system view persons of color and treat them differently from white suspects. As someone who has spent time inside a maximum security prison and numerous jails as a journalist, and also covered criminal trials, I agree with the observation that minorities are treated much harsher. Comparisons of incarceration rates and a visit to any death row prove that. My book, Circumstantial Evidence: Death, Life and Justice in a Southern Town, chronicles how racism contributed to the wrongful conviction of an African American man in Alabama. 

But your assertion that labeling whites “mentally ill” is a media tactic to make them more sympathetic is a red herring and your suggestion that mass murders by white shooters are excused by writers who blame our mental health system on being flawed is hyperbolic.

Click to continue…