Abstract
The purpose of this study is to understand how advocates perceive their job in relation to meeting and fighting for the standards of the Mental Health Services Act that was enacted in 2004 with the passage of Proposition 63. The research questions for this study look at how people negotiate with both counties and legislators in the implementation of Proposition 63, how they negotiate with the State of California, and how they view their role in relation to the bigger issue of mental health. Historical Context This chapter gives in-depth background to the history of mental health in the United States, exploring both the history of legislation and advocacy movements that were imperative in future endeavors by mental health advocates. The chapter begins in the early 19th century and concludes to present day issues that relate to Proposition 63. Analysis The data were collected from two primary ways, interviews and observation at a six person lobbying firm. The qualitative data analysis was adopted from grounded theory. In effect, the data showed that the staff views themselves as an informational organization which allows them to be a voice for others. Discussion This chapter covers discussion around current criminal justice and health care topics and concludes with what can be done in the future to support mental health. The main concerns for the future is that mental health needs to be equal to that of other health care conditions, and second that the federal government has to do its part in reducing stigma. These conversations are important to further the message for a stronger community driven, bottom up, mental health care system.