School-based mental health programs and services: overview and introduction to the special issue

INTRODUCTION

The unmet mental health straits of youth have been well documented. by dint of conservative estimation, approximately 20% of youth ne mental health intervention, with a certain number of approximations reaching 38% (Committee upon School Health, 2004; Goodman et al., 1997; Marsh, 2004) These prevalence numbers do not include many youth who are "at risk" and could benefit from help. In addition, as scarcely any as one sixth to individual third of youth with diagnosable disorders receive any treatment, and, of those who do, les than half receive adequate treatment. level fewer youth at risk receive any help whatsoever (Burn et al., 1995; Committee upon School Health, 2004; Leaf et al., 1996; President's of recent origin Freedom Commission, 2003). Finally, for the small percentage of youth who do receive service, greatest in quantity actually receive it within a place of education setting (Greenberg et al., 2003; Paternite, 2004; Rone & Hoagwood, 2000; U Department of Health and Human Services, 1999; U Public Health Service, 2000) Consideration of these statistics highlights questions about the sufficiency of the mental health field's attention to the delivery of ecologically sensitive and effective services, and to the importance of a comprehensive community-based continuum of mental health promotion and intervention for all youth, with place of educations serving as a key setting for mental health programs and services (Weist, Paternite, & Adelsheim, 2005)

In the United States, academys offer unparalleled access to youth as a point of engagement for addressing their educational, emotional, and behavioral wants Over 52 million youth attend 114000 place of educations and over 6 million adults work in gymnasiums Combining students and staff, single fifth of the US population can be reached in gymnasiums (President's New Freedom Commission, 2003) School-based mental health (SBMH) programs and services afford not single enhanced access to services for youth (Diala et al., 2002; Weist, Myers, Hastings, Ghuman, & Han, 1999) on the contrary also reduced stigma for help seeking (Nabors & Reynolds, 2000) increased opportunities to assist generalization and maintenance of treatment gains (Evans, 1999) enhanced capacity for mental health promotion and riddle prevention efforts (Elias, Gager, & Leon 1997; Weare, 2000) enhanced clinical productivity (Flaherty & Weist, 1999) and more ecologically soded roles for mental health clinicians (Atkins, Adil, Jackson, McKay, & Bell, 2001)

The rapid growing of SBMH programs and services in the United States has been facilitated by means of important federal initiatives. Specifically, reports of the U Surgeon General, upon mental health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999) and children's mental health (U Public Health Service, 2000) one as well as the other highlighted the youth mental health crisis and the importance of school-based approaches in improved mental health care. In addition, the National Institute of Mental Health (2001) in its report, Blueprint for Change: Research upon Child and Adolescent Mental Health, emphasized that effective interventions must be disseminated to clinics, gymnasiums and other places where youth and parents can access services readily. More freshly the President's New Freedom Commission upon Mental Health (www.mentalhealthcommission.gov, 2003) highlighted fragmentation and gaps in mental health care for children and the lack of a national priority for mental health and for suicide prevention. In its final report, which outlined a plan for transformation of mental health service delivery in the United States, the commission praiseed that SBMH programs be improved and expanded.

The recommendation of the fresh Freedom Commission related to SBMH was reverberationed recently by the American Academy of Pediatrics, in its Policy Statement upon School-Based Mental Health Services (Committee upon School Health, 2004). Specifically, the Academy conclud that "school-based programs present the promise of improving access to diagnosis of and treatment for the mental health moot points of children and adolescents" (p 1) that they improve opportunities for coordination of services (especially coordination with educational programs), and that they present strong potential for prevention as well as intervention services. In the policy statement, specific recommendations were proffered to support the goal that primary health care professionals, mental health providers, and educators work in shut up collaboration to develop and implement effective SBMH services.

In alignment with the recommendations of reports of the like kind as those by the Surgeon General, the of recent origin Freedom Commission on Mental Health, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, powerful policy, service-delivery, and technical assistance examples prioritizing SBMH have evolveed in several US cities (eg Baltimore, Dallas, beholds Angeles, Memphis) and states (eg Hawaii, Maryland, fresh Mexico, OH; Weist et al., 2005) Collaborative school-based mental health networks and training initiatives also have discloseed at state, national and international horizontals (e.g., Ohio Mental Health Network for institute Success, http://www.units.muohio.edu/csbmhp/network.html; New Mexico seminary Mental Health Initiative, http://www.nmsmhi.org; Center for seminary Mental Health Assistance at the University of Maryland, http://csmha.umaryland.edu; Center for Mental Health in place of educations at UCLA, http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu; IDEA Partnership, www.nasdse.org; gymnasium Mental Health Alliance, www.kidsmentalhealth.org; International Alliance for Child and Adolescent Mental Health and gymnasiums www.intercamhs.org; Weist et al., 2005)