Mental Health Commissions: making the critical difference to the development and reform of mental health services

Several Mental Health Commissions (MHCs) have emerged in developed countries over recent years, often in connection with mental health reform strategies. It is timely to consider the types of MHC which exist in different countries, their characteristics which may contribute to making them more effective, and any possible limitations and concerns raised about them.

The emerging literature on MHCs indicates, particularly with the wider types of MHCs, that they may contribute to the substantial enhancement of mental health resources and sustainability of services; mental health reform is much more likely to be implemented properly with an independent monitor such as a MHC which has official influence at the highest levels of government; and they can encourage, champion and monitor the transformation of services into more evidence-based, community-centred, recovery-oriented, consumer, family and human rights-focused mental health services.

The advent of MHCs may enhance the resourcing, quality and consistency of distribution of effective clinical practices and crucial support services, and foster more relevant practice-based research. MHC variants can work in different countries and the model can be adapted to state jurisdictions, single state nations and federated systems of government, without duplicating bureaucracies. Achievements and possible limitations are considered.