Great article with many interesting and valid points. You mentioned many issues that are not empowering to people, but rather keep power with agencies/government.
One question I have is what are the solutions? You mentioned bike groups, drop-in centers, and peer support--which are all great ideas. But looking at this from a top-down perspective--what would need to change at a federal/state level in order to start this process? What specific steps would need to take place at the macro level? And how would one go about starting that process?
Thanks for the comment! Being a policy guy, I often think in those terms; however, also being a systems guy, I am always trying to think about connecting the parts that are so disconnected in service to something that benefits communities. That being said, I usually default to this playbook:
1) Set clear priorities/vision (ideally after A LOT of listening!)
2) Fund the system/plan/idea/community
3) Coordinate and integrate wherever is possible
4) Create accountability through measurable targets and track results - we have to know what's working or not
While this may oversimplify the issue, these are steps I feel have to be set no matter how big or small your problem or solution is. And of course, there are many details and nuances here, too! I'd welcome your thoughts as well!
Love this! I'm not a policy person at all, so sometimes I feel frustrated when I read/hear about how people would like to see a change happen . . . but then not have any concrete ideas on how to go about it.
(Not saying that's what you did in your article AT ALL--just that I'm not too quick with big-picture ideas/concepts so I need a little extra help.) Thanks for this great plan with steps. I understand it's too complicated to give a play-by-play, but this helps me wrap my mind around what these changes might look like.
"As many have pointed out in their critique of the current model, much of mental health care treats people as passive recipients. They're not seen as experts in their own experience, but as problems to fix or manage. It’s a model that’s built on countless flawed assumptions."
In other contexts, this behavior would be considered racism or sexism, or at least, insensitive.
That's the beauty of so much that's missed in human centered design - the foundation of listening. Communities all have their own solutions, some of which have been scaled, others continue to be stuck in the shadows. The solutions will be comprehensive, whole, and more authentically representative of the community and their needs. That feels like a pretty dynamic shift - one that shifts us from reacting with what we think the community needs to one that's proactively doing what the community wants. I'd welcome your thoughts, too!
As you pointed out the foundation is listening—deeply, intentionally, and with a genuine respect for the uniqueness of every community. Effective solutions must be comprehensive and whole, yet we’ve never truly defined what "whole" health means. Imagine if we could shape a shared vision of individual and collective wellbeing—one that actually reflects the people it serves.
Defining what “whole” means could be the powerful first step that leads us toward thoughtful, transformative change. From there, we can design a system that uplifts, empowers, and truly serves the people within it. Because, as you wisely pointed out, we don’t need more programs stacked onto broken structures—we need something built with purpose, with unity, and with the people at its core.
Great article with many interesting and valid points. You mentioned many issues that are not empowering to people, but rather keep power with agencies/government.
One question I have is what are the solutions? You mentioned bike groups, drop-in centers, and peer support--which are all great ideas. But looking at this from a top-down perspective--what would need to change at a federal/state level in order to start this process? What specific steps would need to take place at the macro level? And how would one go about starting that process?
Thanks for the comment! Being a policy guy, I often think in those terms; however, also being a systems guy, I am always trying to think about connecting the parts that are so disconnected in service to something that benefits communities. That being said, I usually default to this playbook:
1) Set clear priorities/vision (ideally after A LOT of listening!)
2) Fund the system/plan/idea/community
3) Coordinate and integrate wherever is possible
4) Create accountability through measurable targets and track results - we have to know what's working or not
While this may oversimplify the issue, these are steps I feel have to be set no matter how big or small your problem or solution is. And of course, there are many details and nuances here, too! I'd welcome your thoughts as well!
Love this! I'm not a policy person at all, so sometimes I feel frustrated when I read/hear about how people would like to see a change happen . . . but then not have any concrete ideas on how to go about it.
(Not saying that's what you did in your article AT ALL--just that I'm not too quick with big-picture ideas/concepts so I need a little extra help.) Thanks for this great plan with steps. I understand it's too complicated to give a play-by-play, but this helps me wrap my mind around what these changes might look like.
"As many have pointed out in their critique of the current model, much of mental health care treats people as passive recipients. They're not seen as experts in their own experience, but as problems to fix or manage. It’s a model that’s built on countless flawed assumptions."
In other contexts, this behavior would be considered racism or sexism, or at least, insensitive.
"We need a new way of thinking..." Indeed! What way of thinking do you suggest?
That's the beauty of so much that's missed in human centered design - the foundation of listening. Communities all have their own solutions, some of which have been scaled, others continue to be stuck in the shadows. The solutions will be comprehensive, whole, and more authentically representative of the community and their needs. That feels like a pretty dynamic shift - one that shifts us from reacting with what we think the community needs to one that's proactively doing what the community wants. I'd welcome your thoughts, too!
As you pointed out the foundation is listening—deeply, intentionally, and with a genuine respect for the uniqueness of every community. Effective solutions must be comprehensive and whole, yet we’ve never truly defined what "whole" health means. Imagine if we could shape a shared vision of individual and collective wellbeing—one that actually reflects the people it serves.
Defining what “whole” means could be the powerful first step that leads us toward thoughtful, transformative change. From there, we can design a system that uplifts, empowers, and truly serves the people within it. Because, as you wisely pointed out, we don’t need more programs stacked onto broken structures—we need something built with purpose, with unity, and with the people at its core.