S1: It's time for Midday Edition on KPBS. The way San Diego County meets the needs of people with mental health disorders is transforming. Today , we'll talk with two people behind the changes. I'm Jade Hyndman with conversations that keep you informed , inspired and make you think. The outgoing director of San Diego County's behavioral health services talks about one of the most successful changes.
S2: It's been about shifting our thinking from one that's oriented to crisis to one that's oriented to chronic or long term care.
S1: Then , as Nami gears up for their annual walk this weekend , we'll hear about on the spot services available at the event. That's ahead on Midday Edition. Over the last five years , San Diego County transformed how it serves people living with mental illness , substance use disorder or homelessness. While now a leading figure behind that transformation has stepped down. Luke Bergman is the former director of San Diego County's behavioral health services. I spoke with him last week to reflect on his time with the county and the challenges that lie ahead. Here's that conversation. So you started in your role leading behavioral health for the county six years ago ? Thereabouts.
S2: Yeah. Between 6 and 7 years ago.
S1:
S2: When I came into this role. The budget of the behavioral health Services Department that I was charged with , with running was around half $1 billion. This year's budget will come in probably at around 1.2 billion , which is pretty close to what last year's budget is as well. So the money has grown enormously. I think , you know , that reflects a kind of burgeoning awareness of the significance of these issues as health care issues and as social issues , and it reflects a sort of wave of policy attention on behavioral health care. I think , most significantly , the state and local levels , but also federally. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. You know , the term behavioral health can be confusing for some. So we're talking about mental health. But more than just that. So how do you define define that term and what's covered under there. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. Behavioral health is a term that has kind of become the term of of art as a means to reference mental health and substance use disorder. Now both substance use disorder and and mental health conditions are addressed in sort of what is the kind of diagnostic it's referred to as the diagnostic Bible within the field of , of psychiatry. They are both understood to be related to a person's mental wellness , though services for them have traditionally been very separate , very siloed. So for many , many years , the nomenclature in this field referred to mental health conditions and substance abuse conditions. And you see that in in names of agencies like SAMHSa , the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration , that is an agency that's gotten a lot of attention recently because the current administration at the federal level is sort of decimating it. Behavioral health is a term that's really risen to prominence over the last , I would say , decade , as a means to refer to the larger umbrella of both of those sets of conditions and treatments for them.
S1:
S2: And it's also important to note that there is very frequent co-occurrence of substance use disorder with other mental health conditions. But I would say it's also really important to understand that substance use disorders are important ways very different from other mental health conditions. And I think it's important that we that we sort of continue to make space to think about substance use in ways that's very different from how we think about and serve mental health concerns.
S1:
S2: Um , and uh , and that reflects , I think , overarching thinking and talking about behavioral health conditions that privileges the notion of crisis and moments of crisis in a person's life , as sort of like the moments when we address behavioral health conditions. So on the substance use side of things , we talk about needing to to hit some kind of rock bottom before people are able to become better , before they're able to really engage in recovery journeys. It's kind of become just our , our , our kind of common sense thinking that a person has to be in a state of crisis before they can become better. That , in turn , has driven investments in behavioral health toward these moments of crisis. It's driven policy thinking and policy development toward moments of crisis. Behavioral health conditions , though , are in fact not best thought about through the lens of crisis. They are chronic conditions. Very much like diabetes is a chronic condition. Diabetes , hypertension , these physical or somatic chronic conditions have really reshaped health care in the US over the last number of years. Um , behavioral health conditions are also chronic conditions. They are conditions with which people have to deal for many , many years , in most cases across lifespans , in lots of cases. But the systems that we've developed to serve those conditions are really oriented around crisis. My overarching effort has been to shift that emphasis from one on crisis to one on longitudinal chronic care engagement.
S1: And I feel like with the shortage of , say , therapist and psychiatrist at many of the medical institutions around here , that it's become just something that's treated when one is in crisis , because there's not. There's the capability to do so and treat it as a chronic issue isn't available. Yeah , for a lot of people. No.
S2: No. That's right , that's right. And it's really kind of. A catch 22 right. I mean , we tend to treat behavioral health conditions only in moments of crisis to some extent. I think you're very right. Because we don't have sufficient resources devoted to longer term longitudinal or chronic care. That would , in fact , help us avoid lots of those crises. And until we make those shifts in investment , we're going to keep seeing the perpetuation of these of these crises , which will continue to make it difficult for us to shift our very precious workforce into those more longitudinal care spaces. So , you know , and that's been a real sort of , I think , central and kind of more concrete piece of what it is that I've really been pushing for in San Diego County over the last number of years , right ? It's been about shifting our thinking from one that's oriented to crisis to one that's oriented to chronic or long term care. What that has meant is that we've really had to reshape where we are making investments in services. So one of the , you know , kind of signal , I think , developments and service provision in San Diego County that that I have really pushed for and that I think has matured quite beautifully. Here is a totally new crisis intervention landscape. We have a kind of ecosystem of services in San Diego County now that that just categorically didn't exist six years ago. And that's made up primarily of what we call crisis stabilization units , and then also mobile crisis response teams. I realize I'm using the word crisis frequently in describing a new ecosystem of services that's meant to , in fact , shift our attention away from crisis through most modern medical history in this country. The most important setting for treating behavioral health conditions has been the medical emergency departments of hospitals. Right ? Those are settings where incredible work happens. Heroic work happens. Lives are saved every day , every moment in spaces like that. They are not good settings to treat behavioral health conditions , crisis stabilization units and mobile crisis response teams , which really go to wherever people are. They have that capacity. They're really anchored to the idea of building a relationship over time that will enable long term longitudinal care over the course of a person's journey through recovery.
S1: You know , I want to turn to some major policy changes in behavioral health. California voters narrowly passed prop one last year.
S2: And some of those will , I think , be very visible. And some of them will are so technical that folks may not notice them. But I think it's really important to to talk a bit about those on one side. Prop one established a huge amount of money to build new treatment infrastructure for behavioral health. It's really about establishing more beds in which to treat people , and that's very important work. There is , I think , in every county in the state of California , an insufficiency of of , you know , beds that are devoted to to behavioral health care. The other half of prop one was really devoted to reshaping what is called colloquially , the millionaires tax in California. This is a source of revenue. It involves the taxation of 1% on any income over $1 million. It was initially passed with prop 63 a couple decades ago , and it's been an incredibly important source of revenue for establishing services to treat people with behavioral health conditions. It's been since its passage as prop 63. It's been devoted to people only with mental health conditions , not with substance use disorder. That's that's that's been a kind of core foundational piece of this tax revenue. What prop one does is it enables counties that are receiving this revenue to spend it both on mental health and on substance use disorder. It also asks counties , county behavioral health services departments to not spend these these funds. And I can tell you that the county of San Diego gets year over year in recent years , about $300 million of this millionaires tax to to devote to behavioral health care. Prop one asks counties in receipt of that revenue Not to spend as much of that money on clinical care. It asks. County behavioral health services departments to spend more of it on housing.
S1: Well , you mentioned the need for beds.
S2: I think that , you know , there will be significant infrastructure development as a result of of money coming to us through prop one. What prop one does , though , is it requires that those funds be spent primarily on clinical services beds. So inpatient acute beds , outpatient clinical beds. The piece of our continuum , our behavioral health services continuum that we most urgently need to build up , I would argue , aren't actually those clinical settings. But clinical settings really aren't designed for the kind of long term care that people with really serious mental illness need. the category of infrastructure that we most need. And a lot of this , you know , has become especially clear in some of our new analytic work in behavioral health services in San Diego County. We've developed a kind of framework. It's a complex algorithm involving lots of math. What it tells us to do is to spend lots more of our precious resources on things like board and care , places where people can live , who will always have a difficult time living on their own in community settings are non-clinical settings , so prop one money isn't allowable as an expenditure for board and care spaces because it's really devoted to clinical care , board and care. We have to find other many other money to to kind of create new infrastructure for. And we've got to find other means to fund ongoing operations of board and care. That's that's particularly Really challenging. It's a service area that is in especially dire need in San Diego County , in part because so much Bordon care in this county has traditionally been provided in small group home settings. Well , there's been an absolute hemorrhaging of people out of the Borden care business in San Diego County over the last decade.
S1: Why is.
S2: That ? Because property values have increased. Rents have increased so much that if somebody has , you know , has extra real estate or extra an extra house with which they can make income , which has been sort of the case for most of , of , you know , kind of the history of boarding care in this county. They would much prefer to simply rent their house out. They can get substantial passive income that way. So a lot of folks who had been running board and care services in their homes have now left the business. We've seen something on the order of a 20% decrease in Borden care slots in San Diego County over the course of my tenure here , even as we've been scrambling to reestablish it.
S1: Hopefully there'll be one on the plate soon.
S2: I would note that the sort of , you know , grander hope among people working in this field is that the public insurance system would pay for things like burden care , that Medi-Cal would pay for things like burden care. Now , I said before , this is a non-clinical setting. It's really it's a residential setting where where people with serious mental illness can make a life. Can , you know , live with a sense of purpose and a sense of place and a sense of community ? Sure. It's so important for that kind of long term recovery that I was just I was describing before , and a lot of the policy push up in Sacramento over the last number of years has been around trying to get Medi-Cal to provide ongoing operational funding for this kind of space , even though it's nonclinical. And in fact , there's approval to start doing that with recent waivers that have come from the federal government. We are now hearing , though , that those waivers may very well not only not be renewable , but in some cases may be canceled. And so we have had a lot of hope that Medi-Cal would provide , uh , you know , important resources for the ongoing operations of board and care spaces that's now seeming much less likely.
S1: Up next , a check on how conservatorship reform is working in San Diego.
S2: Senate Bill 43 dramatically changes the terms around involuntary detainment and transport for care. It pretty dramatically widens the net that.
S1: Hear more when KPBS Midday Edition returns. Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. Today I'm speaking with Luke Bergman as he steps down from his role leading San Diego County's behavioral health Services department. Well , I do want to turn to care court. You know , this is a program to treat people who may be living , living with certain mental health disorders or substance abuse. You've maintained that care court is voluntary , meaning you cannot force someone to get treatment.
S2: And this is sort of like been a topic of lots of conversation. The statutory foundation of the Care Act program is very clear. The Care Act program is a voluntary program. It is meant for a pretty specific cohort of people , folks with schizophrenia or schizophrenia spectrum disorders who are not currently engaged in treatment. It's not just for people who are experiencing homelessness , but many people who are currently being served through the San Diego County's Care Act program have experienced homelessness recently. It is in every case a voluntary option for people. It involves a court order , but the weight of the court in the context of the Care Act program is not meant to press people into treatment. It's meant to press county treatment systems , to provide care where it's needed and where they learn about needs for care through the petitioning process in the Care Act program. And I think there's been. I would actually say maybe a little bit of willful misdirection about that from the the talking that's been done about the Care Act program by political actors from the get go. There was a lot of misunderstanding of what the program was meant to do , really borne of the way that it was being talked about up in Sacramento. There was , I think , a confusing language about , you know , about whether it was mandating care or whether it was creating additional voluntary care. It was also talked about as the thing that would radically change behavioral health care forever. Sure. And and in fact , that is definitely not the not the case. It's a it's a very valuable program , I would say , for reaching a very specific cohort of people. San Diego County is , I think , according to most people who are familiar with the work , it's become the model county across the state of California for the Care Act program. We have , you know , twice as many people involved in our Care Act program here in this county as the rest of the counties across the state combined. So we are we're doing a lot of work in that space , but the overall numbers are much smaller , I think , than people anticipated because of the way that the administration was talking about the correct program when it was first introduced.
S1:
S2: Um , for a number of reasons. The the eligibility criteria , I thought were somewhat problematic. There's a real focus on schizophrenia in the correct program in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. And we know that schizophrenia is a diagnosis that is given to African Americans with like wild disproportionality. There's another diagnosis bipolar disorder , that can involve psychotic features. Also kind of a disconnection from reality. That's a lot that's very reminiscent of what we see with schizophrenia. That's a diagnosis that's given to to white folks with an almost inverted disproportionality. So one of the questions that I asked and that I certainly pushed , you know , up to the state , was why the focus on schizophrenia here ? Why the exclusion of bipolar disorder ? So I had some concern that there would sort of be an artificially kind of elevated engagement with the black community , and that because this was a , you know , a kind of policy leading to a program that involved the court system. It seemed to me potentially problematic that a court involved program would be designed to potentially disproportionately impact the black community. Interestingly , the the scenarios that most frequently lead to Care Act involvement are cases where young people who have been disconnected from their families are petitioned for Care Act involvement by their families. So family members have lost touch with a with a loved one. They are very eager to re-engage with that person. They see the Care Act program as a potential means to do that. There's a petitioning process that enables family to say to the court , hey , I want you to focus on my loved one. That's part of what's generated , I think expectations that the Care Act program may provide this mandated care , because family members have been so eager to make use of something like this , to make use of a program that allows them to submit a petition for care that they feel like , well , I've submitted the petition. Clearly that should activate the court to make care imperative for my loved one. That's not how the program works , of course , and I think that's generated some of the misgiving. Another thing I would quickly say is that after the Care Act program was passed , one of the , I would say the most significant policy developments over the last five years also came to pass. And that Senate Bill 43 , Senate Bill 43 dramatically changes the terms around involuntary detainment and transport for for care. It pretty dramatically widens the net.
S1: And that conservatorship bill you mentioned , SB 43 , is now law. It changed and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to allow for involuntary treatment in certain cases. So can you talk about the intention behind the change and how it's impacting people here in San Diego.
S2: A lot was driving the passage of SB 43 , and it does really two significant things. It defines categories of experience that may lead to a person being understood as gravely disabled. Those have for many , many years been insufficiency of food , shelter and clothing. With the passage of SB 43. Those also include insufficiency of medical care and personal safety. Very vaguely defined personal safety. Those may also trigger involuntary detainment and transport to care. In addition , in California , for , you know , since the passage of of law that that governed involuntary detainment , it has exclusively applied to suspected mental illness. Senate Bill 43 introduces the possibility Of taking action to detain a person and transport them for care when their suspicion of only substance use disorder. So one might suspect mental illness and substance use disorder , and see one of these grave disability categories flagged and detain a person. With Senate Bill 43 , 1st May suspect only a substance use disorder. See one of these categories , including personal safety , which is of course very vaguely defined and so could represent a very wide net. And based on those two things , based on a suspicion of substance use disorder and the the appearance of compromised personal safety , a peace officer , a police officer may have stand on very firm ground now in applying a hold in in transporting that person to an emergency department. So what Senate Bill 43 seems to want to do is really dramatically widen the net of potential cases or scenarios that could be picked up and transported to care. What seemed to be driving that really dramatic net widening to most of us who are observing the development of this policy as it was , as it was happening , was a concern with homelessness. And again , Senate Bill 43 was initially drafted before the Grants Pass case came to the Supreme Court , which has enabled law enforcement across the country in jurisdictions where that's , you know , where those municipalities elected to law enforcement now may take people in for booking who are homeless. Right. That was not the case when Senate Bill 43 was passed. So I think it was imagined as it was being developed as legislation , as potentially a very useful tool that municipal leadership might use to transport street homeless folks to some other place , an emergency department in this case. I think the the fact of the Supreme Court's action around Grants Pass has made Senate Bill 43 much less attractive as a means to move people who are experiencing homelessness , because it's much easier to use. You know , sort of the , the , the foundation that the Supreme Court provides with the Grants Pass action than it is to to do all the work that's involved in documenting suspected grave disability or imminence of threat , transporting that person to an emergency department , which then can consume the entire day or shift of a peace officer. So we've seen much less impact from Senate Bill 43 than we had anticipated.
S1: Has sort of seen all of this legislation enacted. And watching it kind of miss the mark in terms of addressing the problem.
S2: Jade , thank you for taking an interest and whether or not I'm frustrated. It has been frustrating. It's also been , for me , Very motivating. You know , I am in this work and I have been in this work because I know that we mean that we need to make we collectively the royal , we need to make really significant deep structural changes to how it is that we have approached behavioral health conditions. So when I see policy missing the mark , I see it as a kind of clarion call to amplify my own voice about what we should be doing. And we've done a lot of that. And I think , you know , we're I think the team that that , you know , will be succeeding me in behavioral health services at the county will continue to do that work. You will continue to hear about the significance of investments in border care as opposed to crisis services. Right. If we make those kinds of investments , we're going to see reductions in crisis service utilization. We're going to see healthier people , happier people , people who are able to function better in the world and become contributing members of society , irrespective of their diagnoses. If we make the kinds of investments in long term care that we've been describing. So it's I feel very motivated in this , in this moment to to sort of redouble the energy with which I've approached this work. I am moving into a into a space out of , out of county behavioral health into work that will allow me , I think , or into a kind of work space or professional space that will allow me to address these issues. Um , uh , at , you know , potentially a higher level at a , at a both state and national level. It will enable me to work not just in San Diego County , but other counties across California , where I have a kind of particularly good sense about what's going on. Um , so the you know , the fight in me hasn't diminished at all. And I think the terms of the fight hasn't , you know , haven't changed. I'll be , I think , working in a different ring than I have been.
S1:
S2: I'll be working for a consultancy that's very engaged already in a lot of the sort of state policy activity about which you and I have been talking today.
S1: All right. So , you know , you've been in this role during a time of enormous policy changes in how the county treats mental illness and homelessness.
S2: There is I mean , even in the news this morning , uh , you know , there was a story that I saw about tension between the mayor of the city of San Diego and county leadership around a homeless shelter that those two governing entities have really well collaborated to run. And this is the Rosecrans shelter , um , uh , owing , I think , mostly to , um , to pretty Provincial politics and frankly , like , you know , the the convenience of of political animosity to political actors. The sustained operations of that shelter is now in question. And the solution to that isn't just one about designing a better service , it's about managing political relationships. And that's challenging in this county.
S1: I've been speaking with Luke Bergman , the outgoing director of behavioral health services with the County of San Diego. Luke , thanks again for joining us.
S2: Thank you. Jay.
S1: Still to come hear about the services Nami provides throughout San Diego County and how the stigma around mental illness is crumbling.
S3: Our mantra of you are not alone. You're not walking alone in your journey with mental health. We're really seeing this shift happen with the younger generation , where there is much more openness and tolerance of just speaking about what's going on with you.
S1: Hear more when KPBS Midday Edition returns. You're listening to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. We just heard from now former head of behavioral health services for San Diego County , Luke Bergman , and some of the county's efforts to increase mental health and substance abuse treatment for San Diegans. One of the county's partners in that effort is Nami San Diego. This weekend , they'll be hosting Nami walks to bring attention to behavioral health needs and available services from around the region. Here to tell us more is CEO of Nami San Diego and Imperial County's Catherine Macario. Catherine , welcome back to Midday Edition.
S3: Thank you so much for having me.
S1: I'm so glad to have you here.
S3: Most families , though , do come to us as their loved one is about to enter into crisis. So we provide a lot of education support groups. We also have programs to help individuals after a crisis , or even help to stave off a crisis , such as our clubhouses , where it's a safe place for individuals with serious mental illness to go every day. But we are really fortunate here in San Diego County that our system has really valued that prevention and early intervention is key to success and that we need to continue to shore up those services. Where many of these treatment options can be done outside of an inpatient setting.
S1:
S3: It's considered what's called a work order day. And that's where the members of the clubhouses actually participate in the operations of the clubhouse. So it teaches job skills , increases socialization. There's a noon meal every day. Also benefits assistance , such as Social Security if somebody needs some entitlements as well , and just a safe place for individuals to go where they can start to live very successfully in recovery , whether it's their first time joining us in a clubhouse or they're coming in and out , we all know sometimes mental health conditions aren't always a straight line in recovery , and there's some starts and stops and we're always here as that safe place for an individual.
S1: What are the biggest behavioral health needs you hear about from the community and that clubhouses are really addressing.
S3: Some of the biggest needs right now are access to care. We know many of our provider networks are not very adequate. We have an enormous behavioral health workforce shortage , not only here in San Diego but across the country. So as a social model of a clubhouse , they can kind of be a little bit of that bridge where an individual can go for some support groups. Again , that side by side , uh , socialization , friendships , being able to talk through and know that they're not alone in their struggles , as we're also concurrently working with clinical providers to meet their needs and help them navigate a very complex system.
S1: You know , one of those clubhouses that you have , it focuses on people experiencing homelessness. So how does that look differently from your other clubhouses in the services they offer.
S3: For those experiencing homelessness ? Our number one resource we provide there are housing navigation services. So we're talking and engaging and getting earning the trust of individuals who are unsheltered. We're bringing them in into a safe place and saying , hey , when you're ready , let's look at what's going to work from you , from from being sheltered. And let's how let's have you be successful. And what does that look like to you ? So really having a strength based approach and walking side by side and knowing that not one , not one size fits all. Especially when it comes to individuals who are unsheltered. So may want to live in an apartment , say some may not so may want to have a roommate cause they like the socialization. Others like nope , I'd rather be on my own. So trying to again earn that trust , which is number one , that we're not going to fail them and we're going to try to our best of our ability to assure that they're successful. We're of a place of their choosing. And then again , start those job skills , employment skills , soft skills of how to live sheltered , especially if somebody has been in an unsheltered environment for a very long time.
S1: In our discussion with Luke Bergmann , Another important issue that kept coming up was housing.
S3: It's very difficult to when you don't have an address , to be able to get your medications , to be able to apply for Medi-Cal or any other type of , um , insurance that you may be eligible for. And that's also one thing our specialty clubhouse connection to community does. It's a mail stop. It's a physical address where somebody can get their mail , can put on a job resume. But we really believe in the housing First model. Like , let's get you into housing. Let's get you settled. Now let's start your plan for your recovery.
S1: And I know your organization is working to meet the needs of a lot of people who are experiencing , you know , different things. And one of those things you mentioned is this shortage of health care professionals.
S3: We'd get a lot of calls into our helpline for housing being number one , finding affordable housing and food insecurity was number two. And then of course , the end needing to access clinical services and just calling individuals and having them be ghost networks and really not having the providers that were listed there or they're no longer a part of their plan. Trying to get them plugged in. Even with private pay individuals , a lot of our our , our clinicians no longer take insurance for a variety of reasons , which , you know , if you're paying $180 for a visit , that's out of reach for many of our individuals these days. Yeah.
S1: Yeah.
S3: I hate to use the word threat , but you're correct. The threat of funding going away. We're very fortunate that we are heavily county contracted where a majority of our dollars are not federal pass through , with the exception of Medi-Cal , which of course , Medicaid , Medi-Cal , and California has a lot of federal pass through dollars that 30% of San Diego receives its Medicaid dollars through the federal government. So especially for our clinical providers , that is a significant concern for access to care. Wow.
S1: Wow. Um , you know , in recent years , there's been a lot of awareness raised about mental illness.
S3: The ah , you know , our mantra of you are not alone. You're not walking alone in your journey with mental health. And we're really seeing this shift happen with the younger generation , where there is much more openness and tolerance of just speaking about what's going on with you , and we want to continue to normalize that conversation , socialize that conversation , because it happens to all of us. Absolutely all of us. You may not have a diagnosis of a serious mental illness , which is 1 in 5 of us Americans , but all of us go through periods of time where we may be struggling , whether it's from environmental factors , you know , just job factors or just genetic factors , and to know that there is a safe place or somebody you can reach out to and talk to and say , you know , I'm just not feeling great today. Can I can I share my story with you ? And that's where our model , using peer support specialists with lived experience , really makes us unique. 95% of our staff come with that lived experience , so they can really identify and build that trust and saying , I know where you've been. I've been there too. Let's let's help get you to the other side.
S1:
S3: There , even workplaces have done a remarkable job over the past five , ten years or so and say , you know what ? We want you to be healthy and mentally well when you come to work. So we're going to put resources in place for you. We're going to have an EAP program or we're going to give you mental health days , because we all know sometimes you just need a break and you do , whether it's , you know , sitting at home , uh , binge watching your favorite streaming channel or going for a walk with your dog or enjoying the outdoors. We all need that mental break during high times of stress.
S1: You know ? And as more people are opening up about their mental health needs , a service that you offer is a warm line. Not a hot line , but a warm line. So tell me about that.
S3: So we call our warm line kind of like crisis light. So it's staffed with certified peer support specialists. So it's a place you can call if you're just not feeling great. You're not at the point where you need to call 988 and you need crisis intervention , but you just want to talk to somebody and get that support. And if need be , we can soft patch you into a higher level of care for that conversation. And it's open seven days a week from 3:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. , and it's just a great place to go to talk through some issues. Maybe having we have some folks that call in every evening just to say good night because and it decreases that social isolation and you feel connected. You know , that's where we found especially going through that , the pandemic , that connectedness that we all had from seeing each other in the workplace every day was lost for a period of time , and especially with our school age children were that side to side play is so incredibly important for their development as well as adults. We need that too. And , you know , we found other ways to do that with all of our virtual work that we do and hybrid models and so forth , but so important to have that human interaction and connection. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. Well , Nami provides classes for families who may have family members struggling with mental illness or other behavioral health conditions. For someone who may be struggling with that. What message do you have for them ? Messages.
S3: You are not alone. We have the expertise. We have volunteers. We have staff that can assist you through this journey. One of the main entry points into our services is our Family to Family class , where we have usually parents or caregivers of adult children living with serious mental illness. Or it's a first time one of their kiddos or our family members in crisis and they give us a call and say , I don't know what to do. And we say , okay , let us walk you through this and let us get you pointed in the right direction and take our family to family class.
S1: That's a great service to have for so many people. You know well , the theme for this year's Nami walks event is no one walks alone.
S3: So we have over 80 community based providers in behavioral health that will be there , sharing the services that they do in the community , because it truly does take a village not to overuse that term , but it really does. We believe in wrapping an individual around and the supports that they need. So it's not going to only be our services , but other services provided in the county. And having a mental health condition can be a very lonely event , especially if it's the first time you're experiencing signs and symptoms and you're not quite sure what's going on. Being able to reach out to somebody without judgment , without shame and say , look , what you're going through is normal and let us walk you through this with you.
S1:
S3: We have a Jewish family services , other clinical providers. Many of our programs are going to be there with information tables as well. Recovery international , our alcohol and drug and Sud providers , will also be there to county providers for services that are directly provided through behavioral health services in San Diego County , housing providers , veteran services. We have a whole depth and breadth of individuals who will be there sharing what they do. And a majority of these services , if not all , all are free for individuals in the county. And I think that's what most people don't realize. It's kind of what you don't know , what you don't know until you need it. And you can come and find out that where you can access services that are going to be either no cost or very low cost , because that's the great thing about San Diego County and our behavioral services is being able to fund a lot of these services , so they are accessible by the community.
S1: Well , again , Nami walks event is this Saturday at Liberty Station in San Diego.
S3:
S1: Catherine Macario is the CEO of Nami San Diego and Imperial County's Katherine. Thank you.
S3: Thank you for having us and helping us spread the word and reduce that stigma.
S1: All right. You can also find more information on this weekend's events at our website , KPBS. That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
