A Study of the Government Support System for the Mentally Handicapped

Abstract

Based on the data gathered, this study has come up with some assessment and concluding points on the government support system for the mentally handicapped. First, the government has indeed implemented some important service programs responsive to the needs of the mentally handicapped. As has been pointed out earlier in this study some of the objectives were achieved. However, the programs contain inherent weaknesses that need to be addressed by the agencies implementing them and the executive and legislative branches of the government. First, the programs are too institutionalized or institution—- based meaning the agencies execute the plans and implement the programs as if these were dole—outs to the mentally handicapped. The delivery of services are overly "top down", meaning the participation of the beneficiaries and their families are at most confined to being recipients of the services. Consultations are wanting in the planning and organization of services. The second point is with reference to the Magna Carta for the Disabled. The law offers some hopes for the mentally handicapped because of the wide coverage of their needs and rights. It is sad to note, however, that the law seems to have been formulated without the comprehensive evaluation of the existing programs for it failed to take into consideration the problems in implementation of the current programs and services of the line agencies. Apart from the provisions on specific services, it should have given emphasis on the mechanics of its implementation which stresses the need for a coordinated and integrated implementation. Third, the programs are loosely coordinated, dispersed and agency-oriented as if it were not part of a wholistic and comprehensive program for the disabled. Programs are rather fixed and stagnant, that what was started ten or more years ago remain basically the same with no innovations or qualitative development to boast of. This probably signals the need to sum up the implementation of the Programs before the government agencies set their targets to enable them to identify the strong and weak areas and work on them. Fourth, the government does not have family support services which may take various forms. One is through the alternative residential or day-care centers to temporarily admit the mentally handicapped and provide respite or short term care for their retarded member allowing the parents some time for themselves and their other children. Another is the provision of special allowances to families looking after a mentally handicapped member or direct financial benefit to the retarded themselves. This is nowhere to be found in any of the specific programs currently being implemented by the line agencies. Lastly, the obvious lack of census on the mentally handicapped is a sign of glaring neglect on this sector. Neither of the line agencies implementing programs and services for the disabled can show a systematic count on the number of mentally retarded Filipinos, except for the number actually enlisting their specific services. The government seems to be content on the number they currently handle as it does not actively search for the possibly undiagnosed and misdiagnosed cases that need their attention. An updated census on the mentally handicapped is certainly called for so that all the government agencies implementing various programs can assess if they serve the marginalized disabled and if their programs need extensions.