interagency groups, including the Federal Executive Steering Committee on Mental Health, the Federal/National Partnership, which includes an integrating mental health and education and suicide prevention workgroup, the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, an interagency coordinating group on underage drinking, the Department of Labor’s Shared Youth Vision, and the White House–led helping America’s Youth initiative, there is no apparent coordination among the groups or a clear sense of their distinct or complementary missions. Similarly, although there has long been an Office of Prevention Research in the Office of the Director at NIH, it has apparently limited linkage to activities at the various institutes or agencies involved in MEB disorders.
Both CDC and HRSA have established Mental Health Work Groups. However, there was no evidence that the two groups are aware of each other’s activities, and it is not clear the extent to which these group have considered prevention or interact with the various other interagency groups.
Some states also dedicate significant amounts of state resources to prevention. One example of significant state-level preventive mental health funding can be found in California, which passed its Mental Health Services Act in 2004. This act is funded by a 1 percent tax on personal incomes over $1 million and had generated $2.1 billion in additional revenues for mental health services through the end of FY 2006-2007, with an additional $1.5 billion expected in each of the next two fiscal years (California Department of Mental Health, 2008). As part of this initiative, California has recently completed expenditure and program planning guidelines for counties statewide to address mental health promotion and prevention for youth and their families (California Department of Mental Health, 2007). As of May 2008, over $300 million had been committed for prevention and early intervention11 (California Department of Mental Health, 2008).
Another example is the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency’s Research-Based Programs Initiative, which began funding replications of efficacious prevention programs a decade ago. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, 110 communities received state funding to supplement federal Title V funding to implement Communities That Care. Approximately two-thirds continued to operate four years after the initial implementation phase (Feinberg, Bontempo, and Greenberg, 2008). Even more communities have