Collegiate Times

In times of budgetary crisis, what priorities do we expect our state to safeguard?

In times of budgetary crisis, what priorities do we expect our state to safeguard? Your answer says a lot about your conception of fairness -- who is deserving of state funds and who is not?

Typically, things that all Virginians enjoy -- transportation, health infrastructure, education -- are atop the list because of their widespread consumption.

Gov. Tim Kaine's budget attempts to reconcile these needs. It fails, however, on a critical point of fairness. In slashing $6.6 million worth of funding for state mental health centers, Kaine's budget hits some of the Commonwealth's most needy for pitiful gain.

The 16-bed adolescent ward of the Southwestern Virginia Mental Health Institute in Staunton, Va., and the entire 48-bed Commonwealth Center for Children and Adolescents in Marion, Va., will either face shuttering or significant reductions in operating ability under Kaine's new budget. The closing of the CCCA is particularly devastating: "Children and adolescents who are admitted to the Center are in crisis in their current environment," its Web site reads.

More than 800 patients between the ages of 13 and 17 pass through these 64 beds per year. These are the only 64 beds in public institutions across the state for this purpose.

While the sad cases of those whom Virginia Tech has lost to suicide or to the violence of the mentally ill were outside the immediate prerogative of these centers (the students in question were too old for help in these institutions), the Tech community knows all too well the terrible upshot of mental health issues left untreated.

We raise these troubled young men because the budgetary savings the governor will reap are simply insignificant. By following the pledge to cut funds from state institutions with a promise to give $2.1 million to private institutions of the same nature, the Commonwealth has shaved only -- and we mean "only" -- $4.5 million.

Considering Virginia's 2008-10 budget is set for over $38 billion, this represents an unbelievably small amount of funding for facilities that are running well and providing some of the Commonwealth's neediest citizens with vital services. While not profitable -- they operate on a pay-as-one-can system predicated on the financial situation of the families of admitted individuals -- they are all the state has in regard to its clinical support for the adolescent mentally ill.

As both the cases of Seung-Hui Cho and Daniel Kim illustrate, once young people reach the age of the majority, privacy laws and a general sense that college students should "take care of themselves" greatly hampers their ability to seek or be forced to seek help.

Perhaps private institutions will be able to quickly pick up the slack. But are we ready to say that the slim budgetary reward is worth the risk?

The editorial board is composed of David Grant, David Harries and Laurel Colella.