Wichita ? The National Alliance on Mental Illness has given Kansas an “F” for its public health care services for people with severe mental illnesses.

Its first state-by-state analysis focuses on public mental health care services available for people with low incomes and serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, bipolar illness and major depression.

About 20 percent of people have mental health problems at some point in their lives, said Gerry Lichti, president of the Kansas chapter of the alliance, a grass-roots mental health organization.

Most get treatment and get on with their lives, but others need more intensive care throughout their lives. Lichti’s own family has struggled to find the right services for their son, who as a teen spent time in one of Kansas’ now-closed state mental hospitals.

Lichti said he hopes the report will be “a kick in the pants” to continue with reform efforts.

It comes just months after the convictions of Arlan and Linda Kaufman for involuntary servitude and fraud related to the abuse of the mentally ill residents of their Newton group home.

That trial and the new report “are not necessarily a bad thing, if it helps us focus accurately on the needs of people,” said Tom Pletcher, director of clinical services for Comcare of Sedgwick County.

Mental health care providers agreed in part with the report but took issue with some of it.

“We’re concerned that NAMI may not have had all the information to issue an accurate report card,” said Mike Hammond, executive director of the Association of Community Mental Health Centers of Kansas. “But in fairness, there’s some things we agree with.”

He said the report rightly gives high marks to Kansas for not restricting medications used in publicly funded programs. Also accurate, he said, are low marks for access to hospitalization for mental illness and for development of a mental health care work force.

But the report wrongly penalized Kansas for a lack of jail diversion programs, Hammond said, because mental health centers across the state participate in such programs.

In the area of infrastructure – which included things like insurance parity for mental illness – the state received an “F.” It also received an “F” for information access, which judged how easily people were able to find out about services.

In the area of services – such as medication access and reduced use of restraints – it received a “D-minus.” Its recovery support services such as employment and housing earned the state a “B.”

The nation overall received a “D” for its mental health care services. Eight states were graded with an “F.”