Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) Position Statement: increase access to mental health services due to COVID-19-related parent and family stress

COVID-19 has caused drastic increases in family stress contributing to deleterious social and emotional ramifications. Before COVID-19, millions of Americans lacked access to mental health resources, and now in the midst of a global pandemic, resources are more limited in times of greater need. In March 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided funding for mental health reforms; yet many barriers remained to receiving sufficient care. In February 2021, the Society of Behavioral Medicine recommended federal legislators expand Community Behavioral Healthcare Centers, increase funding for Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers and School Based Health Centers, incentivize providers to accept Medicaid, and institute more statewide licensing flexibilities to expand the reach of mental health care. In March 2021, the American Rescue Plan was signed into law and provided an additional ~$4 billion in funding for community mental health services, implementing substance abuse prevention and treatment programs, increasing the behavioral health workforce, promoting behavioral telehealth within primary care, increasing school-based mental health services, implementing suicide prevention programs, and improving services for traumatized families. This significant investment in parents and children’s mental health is a tremendous step in the right direction and provides reassurance that relief is underway. Ongoing surveillance of the programmatic and clinical outcomes that result from these new policy reforms will be important for identifying areas that may need continual support as our nation recovers from COVID-19.

The Lessons of Defeat: Transforming the Qing State after the Boxer War

These four essays were first presented to an audience in Washington, D.C. in April 2002 at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies. Richard Horowitz, the panel organizer, argued that:the roots of China's modern state can be found in the Xinzheng or ‘new policy’ reforms during the last decade of the Qing dynasty. These reforms marked a radical departure for the Chinese state, involving a sustained effort to import foreign models and adapt them to Chinese realities. Although scholarship on reforms to provincial and local state institutions in this period is substantial, the transformation of the central government in Beijing has received little attention.

Creating ‘Virtuous and Talented’ Officials for the Twentieth Century: Discourse and Practice in Xinzheng China

‘It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things.’ Machiavelli, The PrinceCentral Xinzheng Reform and the Twentieth-Century Chinese StateThe effort of the Qing dynasty to transform itself and forge a new set of relationships with society in its last decade has been one of the less explored areas in the scholarship on modern China. Although this set of radical initiatives, collectively known as the xinzheng (‘New Policy’) reforms attracted a good deal of commentary from its contemporaries, until recently it has been relatively understudied. There are two reasons for this neglect. First, conventional periodization has divided historical turf between Qing historians (for the Qing dynasty 1644–1911), Republican historians (for the period between 1911 and 1949 ) and political scientists (who cover 1949 to the present). Second, since the dramatic narrative for the first three-quarters of the twentieth century has been largely understood as a process of ever more radical forms of revolutionary change, scholars have understandably been more taken with exploring the antecedents of revolution and/or locally based studies of elite transformation than they have been with exploring a case of seemingly bona fide failure.The central government-initiated xinzheng reform period (1902–1911) has thus borne the full brunt of a Whiggish interpretation of history; too late to command the attention of most Qing historians, too early for the majority of Republican historians, at best a prologue for the real revolution to come, and at worst an abortive failure.