The purpose of this study is to test the utility of Talcott Parsons' AGIL Model, i.e., Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, and Latency (Pattern Maintenance) in evaluating the program effectiveness of a community mental health center (CMHC). The model provided a conceptual framework for the selection of appropriate variables. The dependent variable in this study is the overall evaluation of the CMHC as measured through the perception of community leaders. Fourteen hypotheses were constructed to identify and test the relationship among the AGIL criteria and the use of a selected set of independent variables. Data for this study were collected from primary and secondary sources. Secondary data were obtained from the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation in Austin and the CMHC center in Eton. Primary data were collected through personal interviews of general community leaders and influential persons in health-related activities in the community. The selected independent variables included the scope of leadership, the attitude towards this community, socio-economic status, knowledge of the CMHC, and the commitment and involvement in the CMHC. Data indicated that Parsons' criteria for evaluating the CMHC's program were comprehensive and related to each other both positively and negatively. Among the selected independent variables, the type of leader was found to be the best predictor of program evaluation of this CMHC. Overall, generalized community leaders were more defensive and favorable to the CMHC's program compared with the specialinterest leaders. The leaders also differed in their emphasis of the AGIL criteria. The generalized community leaders were conservative in emphasizeing the evaluative criteria of adaptation, integration, and pattern maintenance; the special-interest leaders gave more emphasis to the goal attainment function of CMHC. It was concluded that Parsons' AGIL model was useful for evaluating a CMHC. The variant direction of relationship among AGIL criteria indicated differences in the perception of community leaders in the evaluation of the CMHC.

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed the Mental Retardation and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act, establishing the beginnings of deinstitutionalization in the United States. By some counts, this Act was a stupendous policy success—by others, a dismal failure. 50 years later, no cohesive national mental health care policy has emerged to deal with increased rates of mental illness among the homeless and the incarcerated. However, California has made enormous strides to create a state policy which provides adequate services to the mildly, moderately, and severely mentally ill as well as adequate funding for those services through Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, passed in 2004. This paper reviews mental health policy history from Colonial America to the present, paying special attention to JFK's deinstitutionalization in 1963 and the discontents that followed. It takes a special look at California's mental health care policy history and the strides the state has made to better serve the mentally ill.