In 2007, a landmark study published by the Harvard School of Health stated that the lifetime cost of caring for an individual with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is estimated to be $3.2 million (Ganz, 2007). Imagine the response of a couple, upon hearing this number, when they have just received a diagnosis of ASD for their preschool age child. At the very next juncture, these parents also learn that in order to have a potentially positive outcome for their own son or daughter with autism, they will need to find an intensive, early intervention program, for at least 25 hours a week, over 12 months (Lord & McGee, 2001). What is perceived as public awareness and education is in fact, an individual family’s nightmare. The trauma and stress associated with receiving a diagnosis of ASD is compounded by the costs associated with doing the “right thing”. And that “right thing” is finding resources to pay for an intensive intervention program, until the child enters grade school and sometimes beyond.
It wasn’t long ago that the medical community believed that autism was untreatable. Today, research has shown differently, especially if the treatment is early, and intensive.If autism is not treated, in many cases, the child will require full time care over their lifetime. The cost of “non treatment” will be incurred by families, Michigan-based companies, and the State of Michigan (disabled children usually get lifetime medical insurance). In Michigan, this amounts to $53 billion, accounting for the 14,000 children currently in the system.
ASD is a complex developmental disorder that impacts a person’s ability to communicate and interact with others, and is usually diagnosed by the age of two or three. Autism is the result of a neurological disorder that affects the functioning of the brain, indicating difficulties in verbal and non-verbal forms of communication, especially in language, social interactions and play/leisure activities. Although current prevalence rates vary depending on the source, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that one in 110 births is affected (CDC, 2006).
Health insurance plans have systematically excluded treatment for individuals with ASD in Michigan.The premium increase cost to policy-holder is estimated to be 1% or even less (in New Jersey, the premium increase was 0.79%).
In consideration of Michigan’s much needed economic reform, health insurance coverage could save our public schools about $200,000 per child over the course of their time in school, representing a total savings of about $1.5 billion.In contrast, families who currently want what is best (and medically proven) for their child, should expect to pay up to $50,000 a year.In addition to the intense financial burden, the time, energy and stress of parenting children with autism can impact employment, health and marriage.For companies thathave an employee with a child with autism, chances are these individuals are working reduced hours, getting a divorce or have stress related medical expenses.
Act now!Autism reform legislation passed the Michigan House in the spring of last year, and now needs to move on to the Senate. Call Senate Majority Leader Michael D. Bishop (517-373-2417) and tell him how this coverage would help your family and would be the fiscally responsible things to do for the state of Michigan!
References
Autism Society of America: http://www.autism-society.org/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, December, 2009 / 58(SS10);1-20.http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr
Ganz, ML. (2007). The lifetime distribution of the incremental societal costs of autism.Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 343-349.
Konstantareas, MM., Homatidis, S.,& Plowright, CMS. (1992). Assessing resources and stress in parents of severely dysfunctional children through the Clarke modification of Holroyd’s questionnaire on resources and stress. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 22,217-34.
Lord, C. & McGee, J.P. (Eds.) (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sexuality is not experienced in a vacuum. On the contrary, its experience and expression are the result of socio-cultural influences that reflect shared assumptions about sex itself. Current U.S. social politics negatively represent adolescent sexuality. Through the use of the existing model of adolescent sexual health and the prevailing form of School-Based Sex Education programs, adolescents are submerged into a culture that legitimizes the placement of women and girls at the bottom of the gender hierarchy, which results in the prioritization of male sexuality. These gender power dynamics create a concrete barrier to behavioral negotiations, thereby negatively affecting young women’s reproductive health. Throughout this post I will advocate for the restructuring of School-Based Sex Education programs by presenting a feminist critical analysis of the role of gender power dynamics in adolescent health. In so doing, I will also examine some of the existing literature surrounding adolescent sexual health.
Society’s negative portrayal of adolescent sexuality causes adolescent sexual health to be defined in terms of disease and pregnancy prevention. This focus on the biological consequences of sex completely ignores the way sex is socially constructed and doesn’t address the lived experiences of sexually active adolescents. In response to this critique, The US Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior states that, “sexual health is not limited to the absence of disease or dysfunction, nor is its importance confined to just the reproductive years. It includes the ability to understand and weigh the risks, responsibilities, outcomes, and impacts of sexual actions and to practice abstinence when appropriate. It includes freedom from sexual abuse and discrimination.” (Tolman, Stripe, & Harmon, 2003) The Surgeon General’s model provides both a starting point for addressing adolescent sexuality and a framework for the restructuring of School-Based Sex Education (SBSE) programs.
A critical deficit in the SBSE program agenda is its foundation—the drive reduction model. Built on the assumption that adolescent sexuality is based on an “intense instinctual drive that is overpowering if left unchecked by civilizing social mediators such as laws and morality,” (Bay-Cheng, 2003) the drive reduction model associates adolescence with hyper-sexuality and unrestrained moral judgment. Effective comprehensive sex education is essentially impossible when adolescent sexuality is framed so negatively. The drive reduction model is an inadequate political approach that should be completely removed from discussions of adolescent sexual health and especially SBSE programs.
Conservatism’s influence on US School-Based Sex Education programs is manifested in abstinence-only sex education mandates. Currently, federal funding can only be used for abstinence-only sex education programs. More specifically, any “federally subsidized abstinence-only program must teach that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects and that baring children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society.” (Bay-Cheng, 2003) By insisting that marriage is the only appropriate outlet for sexuality, these programs assume heterosexuality (thereby completely ignoring the experiences and risks of youth who do not identify as heterosexual) and they implicitly suggest that the expression of sexuality is an adult privilege. These assumptions leave SBSE instructors with little room to negotiate the curriculum, resulting in many abstinence-only programs simply teaching the slogan, Just Say No! In fact, according to the Family Planning Perspectives journal, only 14% of all public SBSE programs are comprehensive (Landry, Kaeser, & Richards, 1999) despite the fact that “a number of studies have shown that knowledge about AIDS,” which is a key component of abstinence-only programs, “does not predict condom use among adolescents.” (Moore & Rosenthal, 1992) This discrepancy is a leading support for the restructuring of SBSE programs.
The lack of thorough information presented through SBSE programs is intensified by a paralleled silence surrounding adolescent sexuality in the homes of adolescents. In Sexploration (The Ultimate Guide to Feeling Truly Great in Bed), Jane Bogart credits our families with creating the “environment in which we learn key information about our sexuality and play[ing] crucial roles as we develop sexually.” (Bogart, 2006) One of her arguments in the first chapter is that too often the household sexual climate is hostile for teens and that “parents may feel instinctively that it is wrong for kids to explore.” (Bogart, 2006) She uses personal narratives to illustrate that at best, parents’ discomfort with discussing sexuality with their teens makes “the Talk” awkward. But frequently, even the embarrassing sex talk is non-existent, and few adults openly discuss “the mechanics of how sex worked beyond the old sperm-meets-egg description.” (Bogart, 2006) This results in adolescents being unprepared for sexual relationships. Comprehensive sex education programs are necessary to ensure both adolescent sexual preparedness and health.
Mary Crawford and Rhoda Unger examine parents’ acceptance of adolescent sexuality in their book, Women and Gender-A Feminist Psychology. Rather than focusing exclusively on parental silence, however, Crawford and Unger extend their analysis to the gender biases that occur when parents and adolescents themselves discuss pre-adult sexuality. They note that the gender discrepancies begin in childhood and that “mothers are more reluctant to name the genital organs of their daughters than those of their sons and tend to do so at a much later age.” (Crawford & Unger, 2003) So while “boys learn to personify their penises with names like Johnson or dick…girls learn to talk about their genitals, if at all, with terms such as down there, privates, or between your legs.” (Crawford & Unger, 2003) Crawford and Unger use large surveys to propose that this selective silence contributes to young women’s ignorance about their bodies and especially their genitals. Comprehensive sex education programs would provide the unbiased and age-appropriate knowledge about sexuality that is often omitted from parent-child discussions of sexuality.
The glaring omission of relevant sex ed. content in SBSE programs and parental discourses harms adolescents by creating “additional barriers to knowledge and protection.” (Bruckner & Bearman, 2005) This exclusion is particularly damaging for adolescent females because “traditional gender role socialization runs counter to safer sexual practices.” (Buysse & Oost, 1997) In their book, Women and Gender-A Feminist Psychology, Crawford and Unger suggest that through a process called gender-typing, children acquire information about gender and learn both directly (through reinforcement) and indirectly (through observation) what behaviors are appropriate for their genders and how they are supposed to act. They argue that boys are socialized to be instrumental with traits like independence, aggressiveness, and dominance, while girls, are ushered into roles of passivity by being affective, feminine, and innocent. Gender-typing therefore presents an additional barrier to adolescent sexual health by legitimizing gender-based differences in sexual autonomy. Comprehensive sex education programs would teach adolescents how to unlearn these gender-based stereotypes.
Despite widespread attempts at political correctness, the curriculum of current SBSE programs is rich with gender stereotypes that are particularly disadvantageous to adolescent female sexuality. While SBSE programs limit discussions of girl’s sexuality to menstruation and reproduction, they frame young boy’s sexuality more actively, “in terms of erections, ejaculation, and wet dreams.” (Bay-Cheng, 2003) This teaches both adolescent males and females that the expression of male (and not female) sexuality is innate. Through their interviews of 153 adolescent males and females, ages 15-18, on the topics of love, romance, relationships between the sexes, sexual values, and sexual behaviors, Susan Moore and Doreen Rosenthal found that many adolescents endorse this double-standard of male and female sexuality. They found that both male and female adolescents “expressed views about the difficulties they believed males have in controlling sexual urges,” and they believed that females “better control over their sex drives, either because they were more responsible, or because their drives were weaker in the first place.” (Buzwell & Rosenthal, 1996) This is problematic for girls because it delegitimizes their sexual desire and prioritizes male sexuality. Effective SBSE programs would contribute to adolescent sexual health by eliminating these (and other) gender biases.
Researchers are beginning to explore the link between acknowledging sexual desire and expressing sexual agency. Since School-Based Sex Education programs routinely deny female sexuality outside the context of marriage, girls are taught the importance of saying, ‘no’ to sex, but not when it’s all right to say, ‘yes.’ This ultimately leads to a reduced sense of self-efficacy, which Buzwell and Rosenthal argue includes “the ability to say ‘no’ to unwanted sexual encounters; the ability to assert one’s own sexual desires and wishes, and the ability to take responsible precautions in sexual encounters.” (Buzwell & Rosenthal, 1996) Comprehensive SBSE programs would recognize the difficulty of protecting one’s self interest without a sense of self-efficacy, and would teach adolescents to, also.
I have shown that gender-based stereotypes are pervasive and directly responsible for the power dynamics within adolescent relationships. I’d also like to suggest that these stereotypes are a major threat to safe sex practices among adolescents. In their article, ‘Appropriate’ male and female safer sexual behavior in heterosexual relationships, Ann Buysse and Paulette Oost use interviews with adolescents to illustrate that both male and female adolescents agree that males make sexual decisions. (Buysse & Oost, 1997) This poses a huge risk to females’ sexual health because it forces young women to rely on verbal persuasion as a negotiation style for safer sex. Other researchers have found that adolescent females are at a disadvantage in these negotiations and often resort to “withholding sex and postponing their demand for condom use until men were so sexually aroused that they would accept sex under any condition.” (Wood, Maforah, & Jewkes, 1998) Safe sex should not the subject of negotiation. Adolescents should not be forced to choose between unsafe sex and no sex. Comprehensive SBSE programs teach this.
Buysse and Oost found that safe sex is implemented less than half of the times it is suggested. Given the limited effectiveness of suggesting condom use, adolescents are forced to rely on other methods for safe sex. Many adolescents, and especially those who receive SBSE choose to abstain from sex altogether and commit themselves with virginity pledges. In their article, After the Promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges, Bruckner and Bearman argue that “abstinence only education, “as an intervention may not be the optimal approach to preventing STD acquisition among young adults.” (Bruckner & Bearman, 2005) Their conclusion is based on the cultural association of sex with vaginal sex. Bruckner and Bearman found that in order to stay committed to their pledge, many adolescent pledgers “are more likely to substitute oral and/or anal sex for vaginal sex.” (Bruckner & Bearman, 2005) This sexual substitution does not offer immunity to adolescents. They would know this if they had a received comprehensive sex education prior to their onset of their sexual activity.
Buysse and Oost also found that when abstinence is not chosen as the method for ensuring safer sex, “the selection of a non-infected partner is the most popular way of practicing safer sex amongst youngsters.” (Buysse & Oost, 1997) Partner selection is typically used by male adolescents and is particularly dangerous because it is often based on insufficient information about sexual histories and social stereotypes. For example, potential partners are often considered healthy based on appearance. This poses additional risks for adolescents because most sexually transmitted diseases are visibly undetectable. Partner selection is also based on “stereotypes and fetishized notions of sexuality throughout our cultural history and present: lustful and loose lower class women; sexually aggressive and animalistic black men and women; emasculated and impotent Asian men,” (Bay-Cheng, 2003) are some of the criteria adolescents use in the process of partner selection. Compressive SBSE programs would teach that sexual health status cannot be determined with the naked eye, nor can sexual stereotypes be used as an accurate means of predicting risks.
Throughout this post, I have explored aspects of the culture surrounding adolescent sexuality. My goal was to demonstrate the importance of implementing comprehensive School-Based Sex Education programs as a means. These programs would challenge gender power dynamics and stereotypes in adolescent relationships. They would encourage sexual agency among adolescents. In sum, comprehensive SBSE programs would acknowledge the existing barriers to safe sex and teach effective strategies for promoting sexual health. My recommendation is for the immediate defunding of abstinence-only sex education programs and the implementation of comprehensive programs instead.
References
Bay-Cheng, L. (2003). The Trouble of Teen Sex: the construction of adolescent sexuality through school-based sexuality education. Sex Education , 3, 61-74.
Bogart, J. (2006). Sexploration-The Ultimate Guide to Feeling Truly Great in Bed. Penguin Books.
Bruckner, H., & Bearman, P. (2005). After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges. Journal of Adolescent Health , 271-278.
Buysse, A., & Oost, P. V. (1997). 'Appropriate' Male and Female Perceptions of Safer Sex Behaviour in Heterosexual Relationships. Internatational Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health , 9, 548-561.
Buzwell, S., & Rosenthal, D. (1996). Constructing a sexual self: adolescents' sexual self-perceptions and sexual risk taking. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 489-513.
Crawford, M., & Unger, R. (2003). Women and Gender-A Feminist Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.
Landry, D., Kaeser, L., & Richards, C. L. (1999). Abstinence Promotion and the Provision of Information About Contraception in Public School District Sexuality Education Policies. Family Planning Perspectives , 280-286.
Moore, S., & Rosenthal, D. (1992). The Social Context of Adolescent Sexuality: Safe Sex Implications. Journal of Adolescence , 415-435.
Tolman, D., Stripe, M., & Harmon, T. (2003). Gender Matters: Constructing a Matter of Adolescent Sexual Health. The Journal of Sex Research , 40, 4-12.
Wood, K., Maforah, F., & Jewkes, R. (1998). "He Forced Me To Love Him": Putting Violence on Adolescent Sexual Health Agendas. Social Science Medicine , 223-242.
Middle school and high school students are in desperate need for “after school” programs. For years we have had after school programs for band, sports, and various clubs. While these programs are beneficial for students that join them, a majority of students abstain from these programs due to lack of interest, transportation, or other obligations. I propose that we extend the school day for an hour and a half. During these extra 90 minutes students could be taught about career choices, hear motivational speakers, and talk to successful peers about career and life choices. Students could also learn life skills and receive information about college, the application processes, and scholarships. Students could also be informed about their options if they choose not to attend college. While these things could be taught during the regular school day, it would take away from their academic studies which are already being downsized and streamlined for standardized testing. This would also give students structured activities and role models who exhibit positive behaviors. Both of these things are needed for the students as can be seen in the following two quotes from a study to reduce teenage pregnancy: “There is a lack of structure in terms of providing activities here in the school and in the community. They have a lot of spare time and they are bored”. “Participants viewed lack of role models rather than a lack of mentors as a key element in teenage pregnancy. Participants indicated youth in their communities often do not have responsible adults to model positive behaviors in their homes” (Community perspective on a model to reduce teenage pregnancy, 2002). This added 90 minutes every day would give students added activities and bringing in successful alumni would give students positive role models who understand where their coming from. If this extra 90 minutes were present everyday from 6th to 12th grade if would give students a huge about of time to interact with role models, ask questions, hear about different career and life choices, and gain valuable life skills. All of these things may be lacking in their home life and may add significantly to their well being and development. This program would help change the way students view their future.
By: Heather Bell
References
Tabi, M.M. (2002). Community perspective on a model to reduce teenage pregnancy.
About half of all high school students are sexually active (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention). While Michigan schools stress abstinence education and don’t appear to give information on contraceptives or birth control, 42 % of Michigan high school students are sexually active (CDC, 2005). Teens are told to abstain from sex until marriage and that this is the only 100 % effective way to prevent STDs and pregnancy but they aren’t given information about contraceptives or birth control nor any easy ay to obtain them if they choose to become sexually active. Michigan schools are prohibited from giving information on abortion and handing out “family planning” devices (HIV/STD and sex education in Michigan public schools, 2007). Although most planned parenthood organizations and free clinics give out free condoms and cheap or free birth control, students may not know this or don’t have transportation to these locations.
We need to do away with abstinence only education and refusing to talk about safe sex. We need to give teens all the information about sex and have open discussions both about waiting and using protection once they become sexually active. Teaching teens to abstain from sex until marriage may not be a realistic goal any longer now that the average age for marriage is 25.3 for women and 27.1 for men (Abstinence, sex, and STD/HIV Education programs for Teens, Kirby). In many European countries such as Netherland, France, and Germany promote comprehensive sex education and safe sex practices (Kelly & McGee, 1999). European teens have less negative consequences associated with sex, aren’t asked to abstain until marriage, and are given positive messages to help them unplanned pregnancy and STDs (Kelly & McGee, 1999). The government runs “safe sex or no sex” type ads on television and billboards (Harris, 2002). Examples of these ads are “Be proud of having safe sex”, “STDs are available somewhere near you. Condoms are too”, I’ll take something off if you put something on”, and Your condom or mine?” (Harris, 2002). Sex is also openly talked about in sex education classes as well as other classes (Something to learn, Harris). Students have easy access to free contraceptives and birth control (Harris, 2002). While most Americans would think this would promote more teen sex, it actually does the opposite. European students on average wait a two years longer to become sexually active then American teens, 15.8 versus 17.7 (Harris, 2002). This shows that when you talk to teens like the responsible young adults they are and give them the information they need, they usually make the responsible choice. I’m not proposing that the U.S. can change it’s views on sex over night and have an over all more open view on sex but we can change the information and resources teens are given. We can end abstinence only education programs and give students comprehensive sex education in schools. We can also run teen oriented safe sex ads and make condoms available in schools.
References
CDC. (2005). Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States. Youth Online. Retrieved
from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss55505a1.htm
Harris, M. (2002). Something to learn, Sex education in Europe vs. in the U.S. The
Athens News.
HIV/STD and Sex education in Michigan public schools. (2007). A summary of legal
obligations and best practices. Retrieved from www.michigan.gov/mde
Kelly, M.A. & McGee, M. (1999). Report from a study tour teen sexuality education in
the Netherlands, Frances, and Germany. SIECUS Report, 27(2), 11-15.
Kirby, D. (2007). Abstinence, sex, and STD/HIV education programs for teens: Their
impact on sexual behavior, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted disease. Williams
Our current abstinence only education is not working to prevent STDs, HIV, or pregnancy in teens. Every year 640,000 teens are infected with genital herpes and approximately 4.2 million teens between the ages of 15 and 24 have this incurable STD (Rogers, Augustine, & Alford, 2005). Each year 20,000 new cases of HIV occur in people under the age of 25 (Rogers, Augustine, & Alford, 2005). In 2000 there were 9 million new sexually transmitted infections in youth ages 15 to 24 (Morrison et. al., 2007). 2.8% of girls between the ages of 15 and 19 have Chlamydia (Morrison et. al., 2007). In 2000, 697,000 women under the age of 20 had an unintended pregnancy (Rogers, Augustine, & Alford, 2005). These numbers are atrocious and show that we are not properly educating our teens about sex. This is understandable considering 33% of schools give students abstinence only education (Keiser Family Foundation, 2002). Abstinence only education tells teenagers that abstinence from sex until marriage is the ONLY option for teenagers (Keiser Family Foundation, 2002). They do NOT give students any information about contraception or safe sex (Keiser Family Foundation, 2002).
Under federal law abstinence funds are only available to programs that teach: “A mutually faithful and monogamous married relationship is the standard for sexual activity, sexual activity outside marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects, and out-of-wedlock childbearing is likely to harm a child, the parents, and society” (Keiser Family Foundation, 2002). All three of these things are untrue. The majority of adults have sex before marriage and sexual activity happens in non-mutually faithful married relationships. Safe sexual activity outside of marriage does not have harmful psychological or physical effects. Many committed monogamous couples choose not to get married and have planned pregnancies that not harm the child, themselves, or society.
Not only is abstinence only education not working, it is also teaching students that having sex outside of marriage has consequences that it doesn’t have. While students don’t have the information and resources (e.g. condoms, birth control, STD testing, etc.) to have sex, they are still having it. In 2009, 46 % of high school students were sexually active and 34% of those did not use a condom (Sexual risk behaviors). 14% of high school students had 4 or more sexual partners in their lifetime (Sexual risk behaviors). 11% of teens (aged 15 to 19) had engaged in anal sex and 54% had oral sex (Sexual risk behaviors). This clearly shows that we need to change the way we education students about sex and relationships.
References
Kaiser Family Foundation (2002). Sex education in the U.S.: Policy and Politics. Issue
update March 2002.
Morrison, D.M. et. al. (2007). Replicating a teen HIV/STD preventive intervention in a
multicultural city. AIDS Education and Prevention. 19(3), 258 – 271.
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2010). Sexual
“It gets better.”This phrase has been repeatedly used in the past weeks by politicians, musicians, star athletes, actors, and other various members of the media.The reason they’ve been repeating these three words in video messages to teens, whether on TV or over the internet, is because of the recent tragic suicides of several young people in the United States.
One of the most covered deaths was the devastating suicide of 18 year-old Tyler Clementi.Clementi, a student at Rutgers University, jumped off the George Washington Bridge in New Jersey.Just days before his death, videos of Clementi having sexual encounters with another male were secretly streamed on the internet by Clementi’s dorm roommate and the roommate’s friend, making Clementi’s private life a public and humiliating event.It is believed that the posting of these videos led Clementi to end his life (Flecknoe, 2010).
Clementi’s death, along with the suicides of other gay and lesbian teenagers, have brought the serious and extremely tragic results of LGBTQ bullying into the spotlight.However, suicide is a severe, gigantic, and upsetting risk issue for all teens in the U.S. – no matter their sexuality or whether or not they’re bullied.
In Wasthtenaw County, Michigan, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death (Waller, 2009).In the United States, suicide “is the third leading cause of death for persons 10-24 years” (Youth Suicide and Prevention Fact Sheet).Additionally, it is estimated that there are “100-200 suicide attempts for each completed suicide among young people” (Youth Suicide and Prevention Fact Sheet).The 2005 Michigan Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Survey reported that “16% of high school students seriously considered attempting suicide during the past year” (Waller, 2009).These upsetting statistics show that suicide is a huge problem that calls for drastic policies and programs to address its related issues.
In 2004, the suicide prevention law/policy, Garret Lee Smith Memorial Act, was passed by the 108th Congress.This act, which was created in the memory “of former Oregon Senator Gordon Smith’s son, Garrett, who died by suicide in 2003,” allows federal funding for suicide prevention and mental-health screening (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention).This law has allowed other policies involving teen suicide prevention and mental health screenings to be created.One such policy is called Teen Screen.
Best described by the Teen Screen website, The Teen Screen National Center “operates an active federal and state policy effort to encourage the adoption of promising approaches to the early identification of mental illness by working closely with government and advocates, supporting demonstration projects, and collaborating with expert panels” (Teen Screen National Center for Mental Health Checkups at Columbia University Policy, 2010)
According to Teen Screen researchers, mental illness in youth is related to suicide, as well as other major issues such as substance abuse, failure in school, crime, and violence. Research has found that “90% of adolescent suicide victims have a psychiatric disorder, with 63% exhibiting symptoms identifiable by screening for at least a year before their death” (Research Supporting the Integration of Mental Health Checkups Into Adolescent Health Care).An alarming 80% of youth with a mental illness are not medically diagnosed as having a mental illness and don’t receive the proper mental health treatment (Research Supporting the Integration of Mental Health Checkups Into Adolescent Health Care).Yet, “70% of adolescents see a physician at least once each year” and only 23% of physicians are screening these adolescents for mental illness (Research Supporting the Integration of Mental Health Checkups Into Adolescent Health Care)
Teen Screen has come up with an effective survey that can be quickly and confidentially completed by a teen at their physician’s office.The survey includes easily understandable questions that teens are to rate as always, sometimes, or never.The Teen Screen survey has proven to work; a study of 2,000 high school students given the Teen Screen survey showed that “74%of students who were contemplating suicide and 50% of students who had made a prior suicide attempt were not previously known to having problems” (Flynn, 2005).Also, “72% of parents report teens doing very well and/or significantly improved after screening” (Flynn, 2005).However, though Teen Screen’s research, efforts, and survey have proven to be an effective and helpful preventative measure benefiting teens across the U.S., many physicians and pediatricians don’t apply it in their practice, and it is not known about to the public, including parents, teachers, and other medical professionals.
Suicide and mental health issues, especially when it comes to youth, have become a focus of mental health professionals in Washtenaw County.These professionals are advocating for more physicians and medical professionals to become more aware and knowledgeable of the legislation and policies relating to this issue, such as Teen Screen and the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, and are pushing for pediatricians to utilize the Teen Screen survey in their practices.The groups Washtenaw Alive and Michigan Prevents Prodromal Progression (M3P) are grant run projects in Washtenaw County that research treatment and provide “assessment and services for young people” (Kelley).
Diagnosing mental health disorders and providing the correct treatment can help teens and many local efforts are being done to spread information on mental health and suicide prevention policies in Washtenaw County.To make sure that “it gets better” for youth in our area and to prevent the loss of young, promising lives, we must advocate for these policies and offer diagnostic tools, treatments, and support.
To advocate for this issue and to spread awareness about these policies, consider these ideas:
·Join the Teen Suicide Youth Advisory Committee at the Ozone House of Ypsilanti.For information call Karyn Boyce at (734) 662-2265 or email at kboyce@ozonehouse.org
·Write or call your state representatives or senators and let them know about Teen Screen and the importance of screening for mental illness and preventing youth suicide.
·Spread information on the Teen Screen survey and policies to the people that you know and stay up to date on policies.Bookmark www.teenscreen.org and www.preventmentalillnessMI.org and share these links with your friends, family, and classmates.
Academies, T. N. (2009). Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. 1-4.
Adolescent Mental Health in Michigan. (2003). Retrieved October 1, 2010, from Teen Screen National Center for Mental Health Checkups at Columbia University: http://www.teenscreen.org/learn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&Itemid=7&id=182:michigan
Flecknoe, M. (2010, September 30). Secret Sex Video Linked to Student's Suicide. Retrieved October 19, 2010, from Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/kiah-rutgers-suicide-story,0,7579505.story
Flynn, L. (2005). Science Into Policy. Teen Screen National Center for Mental Health Checkups at Columbia University.
Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2010, from Access.gpo.gov: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2634enr.txt.pdf
Kelley, T. (n.d.). A Snapshot of Suicide Prevention Activities in Washtenaw County. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from Washtenaw Alive: www.washtenawalive.org
National Legislative Initiatives. (2010). Retrieved October 11, 2010, from American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: www.afsp.org
Research Supporting the Integration of Mental Health Checkups Into Adolescent Health Care. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Teen Screen National Center for Mental HealthCheckups: www.teenscreen.org
Teen Screen National Center for Mental Health Checkups at Columbia University Policy. (2010, May 18). Retrieved October 19, 2010, from Teen Screen National Center for Mental Health Checkups: www.teenscreen.org
The GarrettLee Smith Memorial Act :http://www.teenscreen.org/images/stories/PDF/GarrettLeeSmithMemorial_Act5.10.pdf
Waller, A. (2009, June 12). Suicide Prevention Plan of Washtenaw County. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from WashtenawAlive.org: http://www.washtenawalive.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/WashtenawSuicidePreventionPlan.pdf
Youth Suicide and Prevention. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2010, from Teen Screen National Center for Mental Health Checkups and Columbia University:http://www.teenscreen.org/images/stories/PDF/YouthSuicideandPrevention.pdf
Youth Suicide and Prevention Fact Sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Teen Screen National Center for Mental Health Checkups at Columbia University:www.teenscreen.org
