Judges’ comments: A tour-de-force of a medical issue that gets little attention. Exposes shortcomings in the mental health system in a compelling way. This submission showed the power of fine storytelling and narrative journalism to deepen understanding of a complex and topical health policy issue.
Provide names of other journalists involved.
Gary Porter, photographer
Bill Schulz, multimedia producer
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Articles and individual videos were published Dec. 11 and Dec. 14, 2011. A related documentary was posted on Dec. 24, 2011.
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
How a 40-year-old lawsuit decided in federal court in Milwaukee revolutionized mental health care in America. The story examined how the lawsuit set a new commitment standard for those with mental illness, that a person is an imminent danger to himself or others. That standard has proven to be tragically inadequate, a fact borne out by tragedies such as Virginia Tech and Tucson. The project examined how best to be sure those who need care are able to get care. The work exposes flaws, identifies shortcomings, holds the system accountable and points to solutions. The work won deep praise from those on the front lines of the issues — families, nurses, law enforcement officials. One reader, an attorney familiar with the system, summed it up as “a magnificent job with a very tough subject.”
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
We reviewed federal and state laws; federal, state and county mental health planning documents; court transcripts; newspaper articles; books; training videos; medical journal articles; and mental health treatment plans. We put in FOIAs for bed count numbers from Milwaukee County, commitment data and budget data. We used Wisconsin law to frame the issue and impact here.
Explain types of human sources used.
The project was driven by human interviews. Original interviews with Alberta Lessard, the 91-year-old woman who brought her lawsuit in 1971, her lawyer, former students. Other interviews with more than 100 people in Washington, D.C.; Blacksburg, Va.; Tucson, Ariz.; San Antonio and Austin, Texas; and Wisconsin.
Subjects included those suffering from mental illness, victims of the Virginia Tech shootings and their families, victims of the Tucson shooting and their families, psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health administrators, epidemiologists, social workers, judges, lawyers, lawmakers, government administrators, police officers and nurses. Key interviews were recorded and became the backbone of our multimedia presentation. In addition to the documentary, aspects of the issue are presented in stand-alone videos on the web page.
Results (if any).
In addition to holding the system accountable for its dysfunction — this is an issue we all ignore at our own peril — the work was designed to prompt a vital community discussion. The Journal Sentinel sponsored “Imminent Danger: A Community Discussion” with the Marquette University Law School on Jan. 11, 2012. The event was attended by about 250 people. The conference featured a series of panel discussions and a key note speech. A video of the conference can be found on our website at www.jsonline.com/imminentdanger. The effort is another way to create a community discussion around key issues raised by vital reporting. Meanwhile, Kissinger worked with photojournalist Gary Porter and multimedia producer Bill Schulz to produce a 40-minute documentary on the subject. It was the first ever documentary by the Journal Sentinel and done completely with internal staff. It promises to carry the story to new audiences in a powerful way. It is expected to be run on local commercial and cable television. It is being offered to groups as a DVD– and we have distributed dozens. The Journal Sentinel also established a list of speakers willing to talk to groups about the issues raised in the series. We continue to follow up on angles the story raised where the system is failing.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
We plan to do more enterprise work in 2012. We have not run any corrections associated with this project.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Know what you want to say in a single sentence. This was a very complex issue with no one answer or solution. But you have to have the main thread running throughout. We tried to show, not tell, wherever possible.