Pennsylvania Report Guardian: Fill & Download for Free

No. Most Americans are completely clueless about how the Government(s) function.New Annenberg Survey Asks: “How Well Do Americans Understand the Constitution?”As America commemorates the 224th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution (September 17, 1787), a national survey of 1,230 adults (margin of error for the full sample is +/-3.3%) conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania confirms the need for the kind of national effort outlined in the report. Specifically:Just 38% could name all three branches of the U.S. government: the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. A third (33%) are unable to correctly name any of the branches.Among those who felt they understood the purpose and role of the three branches of government either very or somewhat well, only 50% could name all three.On presidential veto powers, barely half of Americans (51%) know that a two-thirds majority vote by Congress is needed to overturn a presidential veto.91% of Americans know that the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. However:Only 37% know that a citizen cannot appeal a Supreme Court decision to the Federal Court of Appeals.62% of Americans know that the U.S. Supreme Court carries the responsibility for determining the constitutionality of a law.Over the years there have been many 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, but fewer than half of Americans (48%) know that such decisions have the same effect as 9-0 ones.54% are aware that Supreme Court justices usually announce their decisions in writing.Even after taking the effects of level of education into account, our analysis shows that taking a civics or government course in high school or college predicts civics knowledge.“Since knowing how democracy works predicts civic participation and support for protecting our system of government, these results are worrisome," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC). "The nation should be troubled by the extent to which civic education is downplayed in its schools."Americans are not as knowledgeable as one might assume about control of the House and Senate, and about the identity of the Chief Justice of the United States:More Americans know that the Republicans hold the majority of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives (55%) than know that the Democrats hold the majority of seats in the U.S. Senate (42%).15% correctly named John Roberts as Chief Justice, while almost twice as many (27%) correctly named Randy Jackson as a judge on American Idol.How well did citizens perform on questions the government includes in its official U.S. citizenship test? We put several of those questions on our survey and found mixed results:78% know that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights.76% know that the Declaration of Independence established our independence from Great Britain.42% of Americans know that serving on a jury is a duty exclusively for United States citizens.Only 13% of Americans know that the Constitution was signed in 1787. The majority (55%) said it was signed in 1776, the year the Declaration of Independence was signed.Some more highlights:On the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Civics Assessment, well more than two-thirds of all American students scored below proficient.On the same test, less than one-third of eighth graders could identify the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence, and less than a fifth of high school seniors could explain how citizen participation benefits democracy.In a nationwide study of basic civic knowledge, researchers defined competency as the ability to correctly answer three-quarters of questions on subject based tests. the results were staggering: only 5% of Americans were competent in economics, only 11% in domestic issues, only 14% in foreign affairs, only 10% in geography, and only 25% in history.While most observers cheered the high voter turnout in the election of 2008—a turnout that did indeed break many previous records—there is also a more sobering tale to be told. Despite the highest levels of voter turnout in over forty years, the 2008 presidential election featured turnout of only 56.8% of eligible voters. This means that nearly half of eligible voters, corresponding to nearly one hundred million Americans, failed to vote.Here are the links to two key reports:Guardian of DemocracyThe Civic Mission of Schools You can also find more information at http://www.civicmissionofschools.org

A mental health diagnosis alone does not legally prevent you from owning a gun according to state or federal law.[1]Registering an emotional support animal does not prevent gun ownership according to state or federal law.Federal Law -According to federal law you are prevented from purchasing a firearm if you -Have been involuntarily committed to a mental institutionHave been adjudicated as a mental defective.Basically, if you’ve been involuntary committed to a psychiatric hospital or a judicial body has legally found you to be a danger to yourself or others, or determined that you lack the mental ability to manage your own affairs (take care of yourself and function in normal society) you’re federally prohibited from owning a firearm.State Laws -Several states have additional restrictions which include one or more of the following -Individuals voluntarily committed to a mental institution.Individuals involuntarily committed to outpatient mental health treatment.Individuals assigned a legal guardian to manage their personal affairs.Individuals found insane in criminal cases.Individuals found incompetent to stand trial.The last two technically fall under the adjudicated as a mental defective under federal law but some states have specific verbiage identifying these categories.Reporting of mental health records -Federal and State laws regarding the purchase of firearms and ammunition are enforced by requiring mandatory background checks before the sale of a firearm. Many include a waiting period as well. The background check primarily uses the NICS database to determine eligibility to purchase.Most states have a centralized reporting agency that courts and mental health facilities report mental health records to that then reports those records to NICS and/or other law enforcement agencies that conduct background checks. Many states require additional reporting directly to NICS and/or other law enforcement agency databases. The requirements vary by state, as do the time limits to report.State law requires reporting anyone prohibited by federal or state law from purchasing or possessing a firearm due to mental illness (California, Illinois, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania).Complete reporting by states of anyone prohibited by federal law from purchasing or possessing a firearm due to mental illness includes any person:Determined by a court or other lawful authority to be a danger to self or others because of a mental disorder or defect.Determined by a court or other lawful authority to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs because of a mental disorder or defect, including any person appointed a guardian on this basis (15 states).Formally committed involuntarily to a mental institution or asylum as an inpatient (Most states report at least some individuals) or outpatient (21 states).Found not guilty by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect, or lack of mental responsibility in a criminal case.Found guilty but insane in a criminal case. Found incompetent to stand trial. Who falls within the categories of individuals prohibited under state law from possessing firearms (California, Illinois, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas).Who has previously fallen into one of these categories (Texas has reported individuals who became prohibited as far back as September 1, 1989).Licensed psychotherapists (California, Illinois, New York), law enforcement officials and school administrators (Illinois) must report mentally ill individuals who demonstrate violent behavior; these people become prohibited from possessing firearms.Courts must ensure that information is reported to NICS and to an in-state agency (Tennessee and Washington), which is also charged with ensuring reporting to NICS (Connecticut, Illinois).Law enforcement agencies other than NICS that conduct firearm purchaser background checks or issue firearm purchaser licenses have access to any databases containing relevant mental health records (California, Colorado, Illinois).Mental health facilities must report individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons, if such individuals are not reported by courts (California, Delaware, Illinois).Mental health records are reported immediately upon an adjudication or commitment that renders a person prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm (Arkansas, California, Michigan).Firearms currently in your possession (search and seizure) -The restrictions outlined above prohibiting firearm possession are enforced at the time of purchase from a licensed dealer. The reporting of mental health records to state or federal agencies does not automatically trigger law enforcement to initiate search and seizure of currently owned firearms and ammunition.For example, if you are involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, evaluated, treated and released after you have been found not to be a danger to yourself or others, officers are not going to follow you home to search for and confiscate any firearms in your possession.There are several laws which specifically prohibit your right to have a firearm or ammunition in your possession. These laws are enforced on an individual basis based on applicable federal, state and local laws and can lead to the removal of any firearms currently in your possession by law enforcement.For example, if you are served with a protection order and have registered firearms, you may be required to turn them over to law enforcement. Additionally, if you are reported to the police for violent behavior you may be subject to the search and seizure of any firearms currently in your possession. It is important to note that these examples are completely unrelated to mental disorder diagnosis or mental health record reporting and instead are related to demonstrated/reported violent behavior even though documented history of mental illness may be submitted as evidence of your current mental state.Correlations between violence and mental health -In May of 2015 an epidemiological study entitled, “Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy”[2] was conducted to explore the impact of mental health in comparison to other factors as a predictor of gun violence and to guide policy creation and reform.The scope and depth of data analyzed and evaluated in the study put to rest the arguments of both extreme viewpoints on the issue of gun violence and mental illness. There is a statistically significant increase in violent behavior in individuals with mental illness vs the general population. However, this variance is statistically equivalent to the increased probability of violence in low income and substance abuse populations. This correlates with the increased portion of these populations containing mentally ill individuals vs other demographics.In individuals with only mental illness and no substance abuse there was no statistical significance in violent behaviors compared to others in their same demographic. They also found that the triggers for extreme violent behaviors were consistent and predictable regardless of mental illness.So basically, in the same population group, mental illness is not a reliable predictor of violent behavior.The correlation between suicide and mental illness -Here is where, on the surface, the statistics proved the point of those championing “Red Flag Laws,” or the beginning of the end of your 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights. That’s if we can derail the theft of our civil liberties before we forfeit the bill of rights entirely.However, if you analyze the historical data you will find that while mental illness does make suicide more likely. The correlation stems from easy access, lack of mandatory gun safety training and licensing requirements, socioeconomic status, substance abuse and access to mental health care.With every improvement to these areas, suicide rates dropped significantly in individuals both with and without mental illness. Suicide is an impulsive response to a hopeless or overwhelming situation with no other obvious solution. Limit the access to a quick solution, increase access to education, resources and quality healthcare and suicide rates decrease significantly.For example, when states increased the waiting period to purchase a firearm, suicide rates went down. The same way they went down when the quantities of certain prescription and over the counter medicines were limited.When laws requiring gun safety and training requirements for licensing are implemented or strengthened, suicide rates go down. Suicide is almost always an impulse reaction and if you remove the ability to act impulsively you eliminate the majority of the risk.80–90% of people that seek treatment for depression are treated successfully with therapy and/or medication; but only 50% of Americans experiencing an episode of severe depression get treatment. [3]Lack of access to medical care and prevalent social stigma for a completely treatable medical condition is the cause of suicide. Those are problems no amount of gun legislation will solve.What other rights do you lose when diagnosed with a mental illness -Legally none. You lose no rights based solely on a diagnosis of bipolar or any other mental illness. Serious mental illness is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act and it is illegal to discriminate against people based solely because they have a disability.If you are identified as a danger to yourself or others and committed to a mental institution involuntarily (or even voluntarily at the recommendation of your doctor) your rights depend largely on the quality of the hospital and the quality of your support system.(I will eventually tell a terrifying story about my experience with my husband and a mental hospital when the right question pops into my feed.)If you are legally, by a court of law, deemed unable to handle your personal affairs then a guardian will be appointed to you by that court. At that point your rights become largely dependent on your guardian as they are now the decision maker for every aspect of your life.A diagnosis of mental illness is the same as any other medical diagnosis. Private and something you manage, not something that defines you.Your choices and behaviors are the things that determine if you retain your legal rights. Do the right thing, stay on the right side of the law, take ownership of your mental health and do what you need to do to be healthy and well. It is harder to navigate life with a mental illness but it’s hard to survive cancer too. Cancer is largely treatable and beatable if diagnosed early, you follow the steps of your medical plan and you fight to be well. Mental illness is exactly the same.Unfortunately, while your life is not legally affected solely by a diagnosis, mental illness is surrounded by misinformation, misunderstanding and serious stigma.There is a lot of judgement and fear surrounding mental illness. You can see physical illness, it makes sense and is largely predictable because its visibility makes it easier to define and study.Mental illness is almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn’t experienced it. The concept that your brain is a liar and actively works against you is terrifying and almost impossible to believe if you don’t have personal experience with it. People are afraid of things they don’t understand.Footnotes[1] Mental Health Reporting | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence[2] Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy[3] Suicide Statistics and Facts – SAVE

UPFRONT DISCLAIMER: KNOW THE LAWS IN YOUR JURISDICTION!The American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethics Code for Psychotherapy requires that all psychologists discuss the limits of confidentiality with their clients during in an informed consent agreement at the start of treatment (Standard 4.02, Title 10.36.05.08A). Further, the informed consent information must be given to the client in understandable language (Standard 3.10a). If you're in therapy, look back to the informed consent document that you agreed to at the start of treatment.There are several instances where psychologists are allowed to break confidentiality without the client's consent. For typical psychotherapy (e.g., individual therapy, not court-ordered, not a forensic or corporate evaluation) it is my understanding that, currently, the most common cases are as follows:The client is at significant risk of harming themselves or others. Psychologists are allowed to break confidentiality if they believe that a client is in imminent danger of harming themselves (Knapp & VandeCreek, 2006). Psychologists have a duty to break confidentiality if they believe that their client is at risk of harming/killing someone and there is no reasonable alternative (e.g., hospitalizing the client; Knapp & VandeCreek, 2006). Some states have very specific laws regarding the psychologist's duty to commit, treat, or warn.There is evidence of child abuse. In many states, such as Maryland, practitioners and educators are mandated to report the reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect of a minor (a child under 18; Family Law Article § 5-701). How abuse and neglect are defined differs from state to state. Often abuse includes physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. However, not all states include emotional abuse in their reporting laws (Twaite & Rodriguez-Srednicki, 2004). In some states, mandated reporters must report past abuse/neglect of an adult if it occurred when the client was a minor.There is evidence of abuse to a vulnerable adult. (The definition of a “vulnerable adult” is typically an adult who lacks the physical and mental capacity to provide for their daily needs.) Some states, such as Maryland, require that health practitioners make a report if they have reason to believe their vulnerable adult client has been subject to abuse, neglect, self-neglect, or exploitation (Family Law Article § 14-101). Other states, such as Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, encourage but do not require reporting (Welfel, Danzinger, & Santoro, 2000).Treatment of minors. In some states, clinicians may disclose any treatment information of a minor to their parent/guardian without the minor's consent, unless an agreement is signed by all parties that specifies otherwise.There is a court order to release the information. In most states, psychologists must comply with a judge's court order for the release of an individual's medical records. However, each state has its own laws about client-therapist privilege (DeBell & Jones, 1997).The client initiates litigation against the psychologist. If a clinician is being investigated, they may be required to disclose medical records to health and licensing boards for investigations for licensure, certification, or disciplinary action. They may also be required to disclose medical records for criminal investigations.The client is involved in litigation and introduces his relationship with the psychologist into evidence. It's my understanding that in some states, this is an exception to confidentiality.The client is impaired and requires involuntary treatment. Depending on the state, a patient can be involuntary committed by court order or by the provider if deemed necessary. When a client is transferred to new treatment facility, medical records are often allowed to be disclosed to the center or another health care provider without the client's authorization.Now, there are also special cases. For example, can a couple's therapist break confidentiality and tell the wife something she [the therapist] was told by the husband in private? How does confidentiality work for a "mature" or "emancipated" minor? If military personnel see a military doctor, is their session confidential? Etc. There are too many corner cases to get into in a simple answer here.The bottom line: Laws related to confidentiality are complex. The above is an overview, in very broad strokes, of common principles related to exceptions to confidentiality for psychologists. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list or to provide definitive answers for all readers. Know the laws in your jurisdiction! If you are a client and are unfamiliar with the laws that govern your treatment, speak with your clinician. They have an obligation to explain the informed consent you both agreed to at the start of treatment in an understandable way. If you are a treatment provider and are interested in staying up to date on the latest changes to state and federal law, contact your state psychological association.Further reading:Barnett, J.E., & Johnson, W.B. (2008). Ethics Desk Reference for Psychologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.