Community factors supporting child mental Health

A principal purpose of this article has been to examine the gap between research and practice in relation to community factors in child mental health. Two caveats were introduced in preparation for this assessment. First, it was pointed out that the definition of communities has been expanded by considering the organizing properties of social aggregates that are not simply a function of the race, ethnicity, or social class of individuals who compose them. Having these definitions grounded in theory substantially advances the needs of research and the design and goals of community-level interventions. The second caveat relates to the boundaries of the disciplines that cater to the needs of children. During the same era when child psychiatry is largely occupied with placing psychotropic medications at the center of clinical approaches, there is an important effort in child psychology and sociology to cut across their disciplinary confines to form more comprehensive designs that are sensitive to experiences and circumstances that emerge from specific aspects of community context. Research from the PHDCN was used as an example of this new interdisciplinary approach. Several community-based research projects were selected for review based on their clear implications to improve context-sensitive assessment of child mental health and design effective community-based interventions to improve child mental health. The Healthy Start and CATCH programs indicate that involving child professionals at the grassroots of community life requires skill and patience but that the effort is satisfying and potentially effective. Other examples, exemplified by North Carolina's Smart Start initiative and the program of developmental assets from the Search Institute, demonstrate coherent approaches that provide a foundation for long-term capacity building in assessment, local decision making, and the design and evaluation of interventions. Three conclusions are warranted from this discussion. The first conclusion suggests that research in child development generally, and child mental health specifically, does not incorporate the social ecology of the child is seriously flawed. There is a broad recognition within most sectors of society that the quality of civic engagement is of critical importance to community efforts to improve the health and well-being of children. This is true for all communities and families, regardless of their levels of material wealth and educational achievement. It is also well understood that poverty undermines the well-being and life chances of children. For this reason, the third conclusion requires that intensive, sustained efforts be made to eradicate poverty and reverse the current economic trend toward growing economic disparity. The implications of this knowledge for the practice of child psychiatry are not new ones. In many ways, they advocate for a re-examination of the historical roots of the field as it defined approaches to juvenile justice, school counseling, and early intellectual enrichment for economically disadvantaged preschool children. All these efforts were sensitive to children's social environment, and child psychiatrists viewed their success in taking on the challenges of changing schools, courts, and community and family environments. These challenges hardly have been overcome. The requirements of understanding and evaluating community supports for children are a fundamental component in the training and practice of child psychiatry. To quote the U.S. Surgeon General in a preamble to the recent Report on Child Mental Health: One way to ensure that our health system meets children's mental health needs is to move toward a community based health system that balances health promotion, disease prevention, early detection and universal access.