Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Connecticut Promised To Invest in Community-Based Care. Twenty-Six Years Later, We’re Still Waiting.

Opinion

Connecticut Promised To Invest in Community-Based Care. Twenty-Six Years Later, We’re Still Waiting.
Getty Images, fotostorm

The following letter is in response to "Lamont vetoed HB 5002. What could the reworked bill include?" published by the CT Mirror.

In 1999, Connecticut made a promise. As the state downsized psychiatric institutions, leaders pledged to reinvest those funds into home and community-based services. The goal was clear: honor the Olmstead decision, reduce unnecessary institutionalization, and build systems that support people where they live—with dignity, autonomy, and care.


That promise was never kept.

Today, families wait months for emergency shelter. Youth with mental health diagnoses are shuffled between fragmented systems. Police and hospitals are still the default response to what are fundamentally housing and health needs. And most critically, Black, Indigenous, People of Color with disabilities remain disproportionately impacted—overrepresented in institutional settings, underrepresented in leadership, and routinely denied access to culturally responsive care.

As former chair of the Keep the Promise (KTP) Coalition and past president of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Connecticut, I’ve spent decades working alongside families, youth, and providers who were told the money would follow the person. Instead, it vanished into bureaucratic silos and short-term fixes. The systems we were promised—trauma-informed, inclusive, and community-rooted—have become reactive, exclusionary, and retraumatizing.

This isn’t just a policy failure. It’s a moral one.

The recent federal executive order encouraging expanded civil commitment and criminalization of homelessness only deepens the crisis. Threats to Medicaid and Medicare also reverse decades of advocacy and evidence-based practice. It ignores the lived realities of those most affected. And it sends a chilling message: that institutionalization is easier than investing in people.

But we know better. We know that housing is healthcare. That culturally responsive, community-based services save lives. That youth and families thrive when systems are built around their strengths—not their diagnoses.

Connecticut must reckon with its broken promise. We need transparency about where those funds went. We need reinvestment in housing, peer support, and wraparound services. And we need to center the voices of those most impacted—especially communities of Black, Indigenous, People of Color with disabilities—in every decision moving forward.

The money was supposed to follow the person. It didn’t. It’s time to make good on that promise.

Doris Maldonado Mendez is a member of the Connecticut Mirror’s Community Editorial Board.


Read More

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
State Gerrymandering Surge Ends Path to Proportional Representation
United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.

State Gerrymandering Surge Ends Path to Proportional Representation

“We are in an era of maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time. And we are going to keep the pressure on . . .” –Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Leader, April 22, 2026

Borrowing a slogan from the Trump White House, Jeffries was describing mid-decade gerrymandering in Texas, California, Virginia, and half a dozen other states, with others queued up behind them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democratic Party Suicide
a piece of paper cut out of the shape of a donkey
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Democratic Party Suicide

A recent New York Times article, "Moderate Democrats Prepare for 'War' Against an Ascendant Left," describes a disturbing perspective among mainstream, moderate, centrist Democrats. It is disturbing for many reasons.

First, there is the practical impact. If indeed mainstream Democrats attack socialist Democrats in a sustained, organized manner, there is only one possible result: the defeat of the Party in 2026 and the renewed vigor of Trump and his MAGA allies. Especially when combined with the all-out effort that AIPAC will mostly take to support Republican candidates running against Democratic candidates who are socialists. (See my article, "The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC.")

Keep ReadingShow less