Skip to main content

Why Are We Afraid of Mental Health Screening?


Should all school children be screened for mental health?

The evidence suggests that if we do not screen them, then we will be continuing a persistent and historical pattern of neglecting the mental health needs of our children.  But why let evidence get in the way of fear?

Over the past several months, legislators in a number of states have considering mandating – or at least offering – mental health screening for all children, either in the schools or in pediatricians’ offices. 


But when the Connecticut Legislature had a public hearing on a mental health screening bill recently, opponents came out in force

One parent called mandatory screening an “unnecessary invasion.”  The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union argued that mental health screenings should be optional.  A treatment provider asserted that the problem wasn’t with a lack of assessment, but the lack of treatment options.

And in recent days, a Palm Beach Post writer in Florida joined the chorus when he claimed that mental health screening is less “straightforward” than vision and hearing screening in an editorial entitled “Florida Should Not Require Mental Health Screenings in Schools.”

The truth is that if we don’t at least screen, then we don’t know what it is we’re supposed to treat.  And this “head in the sand” approach is what has gotten us into trouble in the first place.

The extent of our neglect of our children’s mental health needs is staggering.  

In 1999, the U.S. Surgeon General estimated that 10 percent of children had mental illnesses serious enough to disrupt their home life or schooling.  That percentage is still cited today, but we have more recent data, too.

For example, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration noted that in 2009 two million children between the ages of 12 and 17, or 8.1 percent of the population, had a major depressive episode.

In the same report, SAMHSA also disclosed that 2.9 million children that year, or 12.1 percent of the population, received at least some mental health services in a school setting.

But here’s where the neglect comes in.  Only 407,000 children in 2009 received special education services because of their mental illness – just a fraction of those who needed them.

And this neglect is getting worse.  According to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Education, only 389,000 children were offered special education services in 2011 as a result of their mental illness.  To put this number in context, this was:
  • The smallest number in 20 years;
  • A drop of over 20 percent in just six years; and
  • Only 8 tenths of one percent of the entire school-age population.

In other words, less than one in every ten children with a serious mental illness is even identified as emotionally disturbed by our special education system.

As for the other nine in ten, their time bombs just tick silently.

Perhaps this could be justified if the stakes were low.  But they are not.  We all know the results of neglect.  We see them every day in our homes and neighborhoods, and, most tragically, on the news.

And what is most frustrating is that the “controversial” screening that could save lives is both simple and non-invasive – and straightforward. 

More often than not, mental health screening consists of a few questions that can be answered and scored in minutes. 

Here is a link to a commonly-used tool, called the PHQ-9.

It asks nine questions about how a person has felt in the last two weeks, with one follow-up question at the end.  Has the person been having trouble falling asleep or staying asleep, or sleeping too much? Been feeling tired? Experienced a poor appetite or overeating? Had trouble concentrating?

These are hardly the kinds of questions that probe so deeply into the psyche of the individual as to scar or stigmatize them for life. 

But, ironically, when we refuse to ask these questions we do end up stigmatizing people for life – if not costing them their lives.

It may seem hard to believe that there could be any fuss about using such screening tools universally when you consider the alternative.  Or that the tools can reasonably accurately identify an emerging mental illness.  But they can, and do.  And the more we use them, the better off we will be.

So what are our schools afraid of?  And, more importantly, what are we all afraid of? 

To reach Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/ 

Comments

  1. Well the main reason I don't support this is because this is a SCAM put on by the big pharmaceutical companies, to get your child on prescription drugs. In Connecticut, forced mental health assessments on all children are being supported by a lobby group of Johnson & Johnson, the biggest pharmaceutical company in the world. The interesting thing is, all of these mass shooters were either ON, or COMING OFF OF, prescription drugs, however no politician seems to want to address that fact, instead, they are trying to push MORE drugs on children. Maybe it is because of the heavy influence ($$$) that BIG PHARMA companies have in politics.

    But most importantly, don't I have the right to decide whether my child sees a 'mental health' doctor? The state seems to think they own your children, indoctrinating them with propaganda and lies through the public school system, and now wanting to force mental health doctors on them, to push drugs for big pharma. Disgusting.
    http://www.thegoodmanchronicle.com/2013/03/forced-mental-health-assessments-being.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you have it backwards. While it is possible that screening would lead to more use of medications, it is more likely that it would lead to less use of the wrong medication, and almost certain that it would lead to earlier use of the right one for the child (or adult). And wouldn't you rather be in a position to make an informed decision about about whether or not to bring your child to a mental health professional, should that need ever arise?

      Delete
  2. This post is surprising to me.Your writing is good and fast.I glad to read to it and thanks for sharing it.

    muscle pain relief in Taiwan

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mental screening for children should be implemented and parents should support this kind of screening because this is really good for our children's life. If children undergo mental screening,it doesn't mean that they are mentally disorder, we just want to prove that there's nothing wrong with them and for us to be aware whatever the result is.


    eye exam irmo sc

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Missing Mental Health Element in the Ferguson Story

By now, everyone has heard the news from Ferguson, Missouri.  An unarmed 18 year old named Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer.  Michael Brown was black. Some of the events surrounding the shooting are in dispute.  But what isn’t in dispute is that for the past two weeks, a community has been torn apart by race – a community that until recently was best known for its proximity to St. Louis and its designation as a Playful City, USA . Picture credit: Health Affairs Media reports since the August 9 th shooting have focused almost entirely on one angle – race relations.  We’ve heard about unrest in the city, the National Guard, police in riot gear, and danger in the streets.  We’ve heard about the District Attorney’s ties to law enforcement, and concerns that a too-white Grand Jury may be racially motivated not to indict the police officer involved in the deadly shooting. But the media have been strangely silent about a different angle – this comm

Celebrating Larissa Gionfriddo Podermanski Five Years Later

My daughter Larissa died of Metastatic Breast Cancer five years ago, in May of 2018.  She had only two wishes at the end. One was that we plant a tree for her. We did - in a Middletown CT city park - and it has grown straight and tall. The other was that she not be forgotten. Larissa's family and friends took pains to reassure that she could not be forgotten. If you were fortunate enough to know Larissa, you would know why. Still, I wondered how I might celebrate her a little more now that some years have passed, while sharing some of her memorable spirit with others (some who knew her and others who did not), while reminding us why she was such an extraordinary woman. In early 2017, Larissa started a blog called Metastatically Speaking, through which she chronicled her life with MBC. Unfortunately - and through no one's fault - her blog disappeared some time after her death. So, if you search for it now, you can't find it.  However, I was fortunate enough to see and retain

Judgment Day

Ironic. I was not as nervous as you would think on April 23 rd .  Martin, my mother and I drove up to Dana Farber.  All weekend I wanted plan for Poland, Barbados and Florida, as we brainstormed ideas of what could be attainable or possible. I started to realize I looked pregnant… but that couldn’t be. When the appointment began I noticed it felt like a routine visit. Everything went smoothly, but what were we focusing on? It was this: if I did nothing the outlook for me was living three weeks to a few months longer. So, is that my only option, I wanted to know?   No, I was told we can try a low dose chemo and see how it works.   Since it is low dose, they said, it won’t do much harm, but we truly don’t know how it will work. It’s not a treatment we have used a lot at low dose and technically you are in liver failure, leaving you with limited options.   Of course, the goal would still be to get you to be stable; however, this is a blind treatment. We don’t know if this approach w