Screening for Youth Depression
By Albert B. Kelly
If there is something that should trouble us all, it is the
increasing number of suicides among tweens and teens. This trend is not
confined to one state or region, but is happening everywhere. In terms of the
numbers, according to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the
suicide rate for young people between the ages of 10 and 24 years old jumped
56% in the decade between 2007 and 2017. For a subset of children ages 10-14,
the suicide rate tripled during that same ten year stretch after seeing a decline
from 2000 to 2007.
As of 2017, suicide followed by homicide, were the second
and third leading causes of death respectively for young people ages 15-19
(accidents were the leading cause of death). For that same year according to
“Child Trends”, a research organization focused on youth, females were twice as
likely as males to either seriously consider suicide, attempt suicide, or
require medical treatment as a result of an attempted suicide. For whatever
reason, those in the 9th grade were particularly vulnerable as
compared to seniors in high school.
As common sense might suggest, depression and depressive
episodes are among the biggest factors driving these troubling numbers. That’s
part of why I was disappointed that New Jersey State Senate Bill 2835 couldn’t
make it across the finish line in one form or another at the end of this
legislative session. If you’re not familiar with 2835, it would have required
public schools to do screenings for students beginning in grade 7 and
continuing through grade 12. These screenings would have been done via computer
through a series of questions vetted and approved by departments and agencies
connected with health, education, and family services.
The intent was to have screenings focused on suicidal
ideation, substance use disorder, anxiety, and similar factors that are most
commonly associated with suicide. These screenings were to be done annually
from grade 7 through grade 12. If a screening showed an increased risk, the
school superintendent would notify a student’s parent or legal guardian of the
result and suggest follow-up with a health care professional for diagnosis and
treatment. Schools would have to get written consent from a parent or legal
guardian at the start of each school year in order to do the screenings and parents
or legal guardians could opt their child out of the screenings with a request
to exempt their child.
As it stands, 2835 died a quiet death and according to
recent reporting by journalist Amanda Hoover for NJ.com, it was one of the
nearly three dozen bills vetoed by the governor to close out this latest
session. Looking ahead, my hope is that lawmakers might consider revisiting the
bill and the issues that prompted the bill in the first place to see if the
goal of early intervention to reduce the number of teen suicides might still somehow
be accomplished.
At first glance, you can understand why some might object to
the bill- after all, who really trusts bureaucracy with such sensitive and
personal information? One issue that all should be concerned with is how
screening information might get used. What I mean to say is that too many
times, a student gets labeled as being one thing or another and they end up
being defined by it for their entire school career and beyond.
With privacy and confidentiality in mind, it is fair to ask
what measures would be in place to make or keep data anonymous to the greatest
extent possible. It is also fair to insist that any identifying records be
destroyed when the student is no longer in the school or in that grade. In a
day and age when we can’t even agree that vaccines are beneficial things, I
wouldn’t imagine there would be unanimous support for screenings.
Yet, we have some very fragile and vulnerable young people
trying to navigate one of the harder seasons of life and if the stats tell us
anything, it’s that more and more of these young people are not making it
through into adulthood. This should alarm us all and implementing measures to
deal with it should take priority over most anything else. If it is a matter of
building-in some additional safeguards or setting up stronger protocols, sponsors
would do well to invest the time and effort to bring the bill back through this
upcoming session. Young lives may well depend on it.