Join Together
Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts
Please leave this field empty

Already signed up?
Login here
Support Us
Support Join Together with a tax-deductible gift today.

Donate



Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP


Connect with us

 

Future of Prevention Funding Lies in Broad, Public-Health Approach
May 14, 2010

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Feature
by Bob Curley

Fueled in part by national healthcare reform, a quiet revolution is taking place in how the federal government conceives of prevention and funds preventive services, and the upshot could mean more money for programs that take a public-health approach to addiction and mental health problems and less for standalone programs that focus solely on alcohol and other drugs.

The healthcare reform bill passed by Congress includes a plan to spend $15 billion on disease prevention, and while many advocacy groups want that money to be spent on disease-specific interventions targeting problems like smoking and diabetes, others have called for using the money on broader community health initiatives.

"This is the first time in all of the debates over healthcare reform that prevention is being taken somewhat seriously," said Kenneth Warner, Ph.D., dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan, who chaired an Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel that released a landmark report on prevention in 2009.

The report, Prevention of Mental, Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People, concluded that prevention of addiction and mental illness has been proven to be scientifically feasible, but said that only public-health approaches are demonstrably effective.

"Currently, treatment interventions tend to isolate single problems, but there is growing evidence that well-designed prevention interventions reduce a range of problems and disorders and that these efforts are sustained over the long term," the report noted. "These programs often help children, families, and schools build strengths that support well-being. A focus on prevention and wellness can have multiple benefits that extend beyond a single disorder."

The report identified five proven approaches to prevention, including:

  • Strengthening families by targeting problems such as substance use or aggressive behavior; teaching effective parenting skills; improving communication; and helping families deal with disruptions (such as divorce) or adversities (such as parental mental illness or poverty).

  • Strengthening individuals by building resilience and skills and improving cognitive processes and behaviors.

  • Preventing specific disorders, such as anxiety or depression, by screening individuals at risk and offering cognitive training or other preventive interventions.

  • Promoting mental health in schools by offering support to children encountering serious stresses; modifying the school environment to promote prosocial behavior; developing students' skills at decision making, self-awareness, and conducting relationships; and targeting violence, aggressive behavior, and substance use.

  • Promoting mental health through health care and community programs by promoting and support- ing prosocial behavior, teaching coping skills, and targeting modifiable life-style factors that can affect behavior and emotional health, such as sleep, diet, activity and physical fitness, sun- shine and light, and television viewing.

"The key to most of these approaches is to identify risks—biological, psychological, and social factors—that may increase a child's risk of MEB disorders," the report noted. "Some of these risks reside in specific characteristics of the individual or family environment (such as parental mental illness or substance abuse or serious family disruptions), but they also include social stresses such as poverty, violence, lack of safe schools, and lack of access to health care."

It all sounds fairly innocuous, but researcher Dennis Embry, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Paxis Institute, says the report is a "sleeping giant that will sweep through U.S. prevention," in part because the report concludes that most addiction problems can be prevented in early childhood.

"So much for having all those lessons about the harms of drugs or having a drug prevention program for every drug," said Embry.

Relatively few federal prevention dollars go to programs with proven outcomes, or to those that step outside their silos to address a broad range of behavioral problems, but that may be changing. The Obama administration's new Successful, Safe and Healthy Students program -- slated to replace the Safe and Drug-Free Schools grants -- is a good example, with its broad focus on creating "an improved school climate that reduces drug use, violence, and harassment and improves school safety and students' physical and mental well-being." The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's strategic goal of creating "prevention prepared communities" by addressing addiction, mental health and other issues to improve "emotional health," is another.

Warner told Join Together that the report's call for funding evidence-based "holistic, population-based interventions" will inevitably spark turf battles. Notably, the first reaction to the Successful, Safe and Healthy Students program included concerns that funding might be diverted away from anti-drug programs.

The report's recomendations seem to have been well-received by policymakers, however. The just-released National Drug Control Strategy from the Obama administration emphasizes that drug abuse needs to be addressed as a public-health issue, with a focus on early interventions and a national community-oriented prevention system.

"It's getting some traction, and people are paying attention to it," Warner said. "There's certainly a lot of discussion of the report, but whether that translates to any policy changes remains to be seen."

"Organizational barriers are being challenged; cherished boundaries are going to get weaker," predicted Embry. "State governments will get whacked by this, because they often follow federal guidelines, and rarely read ahead of what is clearly in the literature."

On the other hand, said Embry, "Our kids might just possibly benefit, because we could have a prevention policy that is both scientifically informed and grounded in common sense that almost every preventionist in the field knows: problems we want to prevent run in packs. We need community strategies and government policies that enable preventionists to work across the artificial boundaries to help make America's future safer, saner, more sober and less stoned." 

SHARE   

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Dr. Edward Pabon on 14 May 10 05:30 PM CDT
This administration's submitted budget does not appear to give credibility to the paradigm shift with its emphasis on enforcement versus prevention. In addition, the same players a grant recipients who profited under the previous administration appear to be profiting from current efforts. Change labels and nothing changes.Rhetoric and "marketing" rather than real performance seem to be the current key foundations.

Posted by Kenneth Bruce on 17 May 10 11:51 AM CDT
One of the problems regarding the replacement of the ���Safe and Drug Free Schools program��� grant with the new ���Successful, Safe and Healthy Students program��� grant is that it is a competitive grant that only those schools with the infra structure to write successful grants will receive the money, meaning only some students will benefit. However ���Safe and Drug free School program��� grant money was sent to schools solely on a per capita formula, and it had excellent goals similar to the new but recycled ���Successful, Safe and Healthy Students program��� grant. The main problem with the Safe and Drug free School grant was the oversight process at the fed level to read the annual report from the school districts and to encourage change or compliance was nearly non existent, thus the money wasn���t always well spent. Perhaps oversight will be easier for the ���Successful, Safe and Healthy Students program��� grant because there will be fewer school districts to monitor, but this is hardly a situation that benefits or is equitable for our young people. .

Posted by john from Oceanside on 17 May 10 12:34 PM CDT
I have worked in AOD prevention for 20 years and this is exactly what we were doing in the early 90's. Back to Risk and Protective factors. Are we also going back to self-esteme programs that only resulted individuals who felt they were entilted to use drugs?

Posted by Norm Walker on 17 May 10 01:09 PM CDT
Bullet point number four addresses exactly what we were doing with our Safe, Drug-Free School State Grant. We documented results that showed the effectiveness of our approaches. nevertheless, this funding source has been totally eliminated and all the people working in our projects will soon join the ranks of the unemployed. We are totally discouraged by the direction that has been taken. It is interesting that, because accountability was poor in some states, the "baby has been thrown out with the bathwater."

Posted by Dave on 17 May 10 03:05 PM CDT
Why so often does it become:Either/Or? Either broad based wellness initiatives or narrower drug prevention programs. Why not: Both/And? We shouldn't choose one over the other when both are effective. Programs to educate grade school kids about the dangers of cigarette smoking have worked. But wellness initiatives so that kids won't be so tempted to smoke are also good. Let's do both!

Posted by jerry januszewski on 17 May 10 09:41 PM CDT
To John from Oceanside: I'm grateful for the excellent insight you contribute regularly to the Join Together forum. Keep the faith brother.

Posted by Hermann T. Meyer on 18 May 10 04:12 AM CDT
This looks exactly like the new trend we had in Mideurope 20 years ago, when science discovered this sort of prevention. They built nice theories which could never be successful because this task is just too big and too expensive. It works only in small projects. Since T. Babor et al. "Alcohol no ordinary commodity" we know what works in alcohol prevention. The WHO-Resolution on an alcohol strategy is the result. If this is taken up and alcohol related harm is reduced it will have many of the effects described above. Of course the above theory is much easier to realise because the alcohol industry will like it.

Posted by Sgt. Thomas Fraga on 18 May 10 09:12 AM CDT
I have supported school resources for over thirty four years as a juvenile officer a detective and now a supervisor of School Resource Officers who are active in numerous prevention programs both directly and indirectly; I totally agree that school with out grant writers lose out in these competitive grants first! Second many will just change the labels to meet the expectation of new rules. Thirdly these should be broad goals, where locally we continue to collaborate and strategize about resources that best serve local factors concerns. Trying to put the square peg in the round hole is all we really get when these policies come down to earth from above!

Posted by Jason Blanchette on 18 May 10 01:01 PM CDT
I am surprised to see so many people commenting on JT opposing this report. They are not saying that we need to ignore substance abuse or that we need to focus solely on building self-esteem. They are saying that we need to address substance abuse, but it has to be a part of a more comprehensive effort. Getting adolescents through life without using substances is not our end goal. We have to prevent adolescent substance use in order to promote healthy adolescent development, but we also have to promote healthy adolescent development in order to prevent substance abuse. The report hits that nail on the head. Some of the most successful interventions address things other than just substance abuse, such as individual skills, family communication, and school connectedness. Examples are the Botvin's Life Skills curriculum, Iowa Strengthening Families Program, and Seattle Social Development Project.

Posted by Phil Appel on 03 Jun 10 03:53 AM CDT
I liked the 'both/and' remark.Sums up quite a bit. Also, the theory vs. what's implemented. I'm for more funding for promoting literacy, numeracy,and a desire to learn. The national conversation in 'like,umm', 'omigod','yeah', 'like' is depressing--no content, no demands, no health.

Posted by d. benton on 21 Jul 10 11:03 AM CDT
Change is inevitable and we do not alway like or feel comfortable with what we are asked to change or conform to. The bottom line is that our most vulnerable, our youth, still struggle every day with so much and there is so little for them. Mental Health services for the young is so desperately needed, as is continued Prevention Education and Counseling. Combined, they have the potential of creating real change along with community, parental, and scholastic support. We must get everyone on board. Policy changes, programmatic changes, and cultural changes must all take place for long term effects to be sustained. Lets think positive and give suggestions/ solutions rather than rant and be negative.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

(Submissions are reviewed by staff before publication)

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

Guidelines for comments