Zero suicide cities: learning from Detroit in the UK

Suicide is the biggest killer of men under the age of 45. Yet people still experience stigma when seeking help for mental illness, despite high-profile discussions of mental health issues such as those by members of the royal family and sportspeople. And a report into the Government’s suicide prevention strategy in March 2017, suggested that although 95% of local authorities now have a suicide prevention plan, there is little or no information about the quality of those plans, or whether adequate funding is available to implement them.

The lack of progress made on improving suicide and general mental health provision has led to a growing frustration among professionals and resulted in attempts to create new approaches to tackle mental health issues, and in particular to improve access to support for people in crisis or at risk of suicide.

The idea of a “zero suicide city” was first adopted in Detroit in the late 2000’s, with others following its lead in subsequent years. With reports finding that around 14 Londoners a week took their own life in 2015 (735 in total), an increase of a third from the 2014 statistics, a report in February 2017 by the London Assembly Health Committee suggested that London too should take this approach.

So what can London, and other areas of the UK, learn from Detroit’s approach? And how can services act to reduce the number of people taking their own lives?

Zero-suicide cities

Poverty and high unemployment in Detroit are contributing factors to high levels of depression among city residents. As a result of these high rates of depression and very high suicide statistics, Detroit-based mental health professionals adopted a new approach to tackle the stigma around mental illness and use identifiers to highlight cases of crisis, or potential crisis. The focus is on preventative care, encouraging professionals to act upon signs of mental illness before a suicide or attempted suicide takes place.

Patients attending health clinics for other illnesses, including diabetes or heart failure, are also now screened for depression and other mental health issues before they are released. This allows people deemed to be ‘at risk’ to be identified as soon as they come into contact with medical professionals, who can then refer the patient to a mental health specialist if needed, rather than reacting to mental illness once it reaches crisis point.

In order to support this approach, a centralised IT system was created which means results are traceable, and surveys and information are standardised so they can be used and accessed across clinics throughout Detroit. Coordination with non-medical practitioners, including social workers, employers and family members, has also been key in identifying people at risk and signposting them to help at every possible opportunity. There has also been additional training for staff to improve recognition of identifying factors. Patients can email their clinicians or liaising staff directly and attend regular drop-in appointments. Up to 12,000 patients using mental health facilities are tracked each year in the city and some statistics suggest that the clinics reduced suicides by over 80%.

There have been some criticisms of the system however, despite the reduction in the number of suicides in the city. Critics highlight the fact that many of the poorest and most severely in need of help are not reached as they do not have health insurance and so do not attend those clinics involved in the scheme.

Ultimately, however, the scheme seeks to provide better preventative, coordinated and targeted care to those who are at risk or show some signs of mental health crisis. And some in the UK have suggested there are lessons that could be learned from this approach.

Whole system approach to suicide prevention in the East of England

Four local areas in the East of England (Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough, Essex and Hertfordshire) were selected in 2013 as pathfinder sites to develop new approaches to suicide prevention based in part on the Detroit model.

Since then, Mersey Care, Cambridge and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group and Teesside councils have also become aligned with the programme and are continuing with their approach towards improved suicide prevention. The Centre for Mental Health evaluated the work of some of the sites during 2015.

The evaluation found there were a range of activities that had taken suicide prevention activities out into local communities. They included:

  • training key public service staff such as GPs, police officers, teachers and housing officers
  • training others who may encounter someone at risk of taking their own life, such as pub landlords, coroners, private security staff, faith groups and gym workers
  • creating ‘community champions’ to put local people in control of activities relating to promoting positive mental health and signposting to help services
  • putting in place practical suicide prevention measures in ‘hot spots’ such as bridges and railways
  • working with local newspapers, radio and social media to raise awareness in the wider community
  • supporting safety planning for people at risk of suicide, involving families and carers throughout the process
  • linking with local crisis services to ensure people get speedy access to evidence-based treatments.

However, subsequent research also highlighted some of the challenges. The marketing of the pilots was seen to be damaging and misleading with regards to creating “zero suicide areas”, rather than suicide prevention areas. It has also been suggested that although the campaigns serve to raise publicity and awareness, there is little evidence that the schemes actually reduce the number of suicides in an area any more than “traditional campaigns” to better signpost people to available support.

In addition, many of the projects struggled past the initial implementation stage to have long-term impact, as the buy-in from local GPs and other service professionals was not as high as was expected.

Final thoughts

Widening and improving access to support and services for people at risk of mental ill health or suicide is a big challenge for health and social care professionals. Identifying those people at risk is one of the key barriers and taking inspiration from schemes like those trialled in Detroit is one way for professionals in the UK to adapt their approaches in order to overcome these barriers.

Providing more opportunities for people to get help, and better training for professionals who may come into contact with people with mental illness are some of the ways that current schemes are trying to address mental health and suicide in particular.

However, as many of the evaluative studies from test sites in the UK have found, going beyond that to take mental health into the community, in order to create whole system pathways of care across multiple settings and professions, remains a challenge.

As the London Assembly report pointed out, another key aspect is creating an open environment for people to talk about how they are feeling. This week is Mental Health Awareness Week 2017 and the theme is ‘surviving to thriving’ – and emphasising that good mental health is more than the absence of a mental health problem. Whether in the workplace or in the home; with friends, family or colleagues; it’s important that everyone feels that they have a space where they can talk, and to cultivate resilience and good mental health.


If you enjoyed this blog, you may also be interested in our other articles on mental health in the workplace.

To see what other topics our researchers are interested in, follow us on Twitter.

Focusing on the end result: outcomes based commissioning in health and social care

In March 2016, the government announced that it was pairing up with the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford to create the Government Outcomes Lab (GOL). The aim of this partnership was to create a centre for excellence in commissioning research and practice – to find new and innovative ways for the public sector to commission projects, provide on the ground support to local commissioning teams and become a world class research centre on effective models of commissioning.

belangrijke-sales-opdracht2

Payment by service vs payment by results

Traditionally, governments contract third-party service providers on a ‘fee for service’ basis – so commissioners prescribe and pay for a particular service that they believe will lead to a desired outcome. More recently however, commissioning teams have started to introduce elements of ‘payment by results’ or ‘pay for success’ when commissioning services – so providers only get paid in full if they deliver the desired outcomes.

Social impact bonds

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are a tool to help outcomes-driven providers deliver on their projects, by giving them access to financing and management support from “socially-minded investors”. The idea being that this will broaden the pool of skilled providers, encourage smaller more locally based providers to tender for projects (who may have been reluctant to previously because of cost and lack of support) and, potentially, increase the chances of the service being successful.

One of the primary aims of the Government Outcomes Lab is to consolidate and promote as far as possible the use of social impact bonds to align social value based commissioning with commissioning for measurable outcomes – to promote a social value as well as an economic value in the way providers deliver on contracts. There are now 32 Social Impact Bonds across the UK, supporting beneficiaries in areas like youth unemployment, mental health and homelessness.

Gear

Benefits and challenges to outcome based commissioning

While to many people it may seem almost impossible to question the principle of outcomes based commissioning (to move from a system focused on process measures and targets to a system that is focused on improving the outcomes that matters to citizens and patients) the reality for commissioning teams, providers and service users is, in some cases, very far removed from this ideal.

In April 2012, the Audit Commission published its guidance on Payment by Results (PbR). This generated fairly positive messages around PbR but also advised commissioners to be aware of the risks:

“At its best, PbR can deliver savings and bring in new resources at a time when budgets are under great pressure. It also defers costs to commissioners to allow time to realise the benefits of change and preventative work….. However, PbR carries extra risks to securing value for money and requires higher level commissioning skills than more traditional approaches”- Audit Commission (2012)

Much of the literature on outcomes based commissioning models emphasises the importance of:

  • transparency;
  • agreed objectives;
  • agreed measurable outcomes;
  • communication and clear definitions of accountability between commissioners;
  • any social investors or third sector bodies with input;
  • providers;
  • and any secondary providers who may be awarded subsequent sub contracts

A more comprehensive list of pros and cons to outcomes based commissioning can be found here.

One high-profile intitiative which has faced more challenges than it has produced benefits is the “troubled families” programme. which aimed to support families with long-standing problems. The programme was heavily criticised for its payment by number (number of clients processed) rather than payment by specific outcome. The issue here appeared to be the lack of definition of outcomes and what was going to be expected of the provider in terms of service before they could be paid.

In this instance the organisations delivering the “troubled families” programme in some areas were being paid for the number of people who went through the service, rather than the number of people who completed the programme successfully, or saw notable improvement as a direct result of the input of the programme, and without taking note of the professional view of the quality of the service being provided (which was considered in some areas to be poor). This resulted in providers being paid for a service which, while many people used, did not actually achieve the expected outcomes. This is something which future commissioning bodies must take note of and act upon to ensure that any future agreements do not contain such massive loopholes with regards to payment.

Outcome Flow Chart

Outcome Flow Chart via Roma Learning Leaders

Outcomes based commissioning in health and social care

A number of different policy areas have begun to use outcomes based commissioning models with varied success (although as we have seen this can be as much to do with the quality of the provider and the transparency of the contract as it is about the implementation of an outcomes based model). Rather than focusing on inputs (e.g. number of doctors) or outputs (e.g. number of operations conducted, or amount of drugs administered), these commissioning models are based on achieving specific, predefined and measurable ‘outcomes’ (e.g. improved health).

In a specific health and social care context, outcomes based commissioning can, if done well, form a key part of a wider prevention agenda, as well as helping to improve personalisation of services. In Wiltshire for example, the council has employed outcomes based commissioning techniques in relation to its domiciliary social care teams. This example shows that when the right providers are selected and clear outcome measures are defined, the impact for service users can be significant, in a positive way: there is a strong focus on getting the best possible result for the customer in the way that suits them; with every visit having a clear purpose and a focus on achieving greater independence for the older person wherever that is possible (which is the overall wider outcome the commissioning teams were hoping to achieve – greater independence of service users and less reliance on the social care teams in the long term).

Some specific challenges in a health and social care context include coordinating payment for outcomes with direct (or personal) payment schemes and agreeing on realistic and well defined outcomes and time frames with service users (which if done well can have a very positive impact on the personalisation agenda of services) Attributing outcomes specifically to one set of interventions in health and social care can also be difficult, particularly if a service user is in receipt of a number of different strands of care, for example, primary care and domiciliary social care as well as having access to some remote telehealth facilities.

Commissioning for long term outcomes

If the issue of defining or attributing outcomes is a challenge for outcomes based commissioners, then the issue of planning for long term outcomes is even more difficult. This approach requires commissioners to have a long term view of the strategic aims of a programme, as well as requiring them to consider any factors which may influence or change these aims, and additionally to consider the scope of need in the future if other preventative measures are successful.

Advice for councils

The LGiU and academics at Oxford Brookes University, as well as many others, have published guidance for local authority commissioning teams, giving them some direction in relation to best practice in outcomes based commissioning. Some of the key “pointers” for councillors include:

  • Take time to get the right set of providers in place to deliver the new model and collaborate with them to get the best possible system in place – be thorough in research and consideration of tenders.
  • Be very clear what the likely outcomes are that any specific service is being asked to deliver.
  • Make the payment mechanism as simple as possible. Consider whether any rewards will be paid for good performance in delivering outcomes. Consider if payments should be made on each individual outcome achieved or for outcomes for sub-sets of the population e.g. hospital discharges.
  • Make use of the public, their opinions and data collected about them to assess the needs of the population and reflect this in the agreed outcomes.
  • Try to implement outcomes based commissioning as part of wider transformation within the organisation – in order to improve quality, reduce costs and improve efficiency (particularly in health and social care) other infrastructure and practices (such as IT systems and skills development in staff) need to be addressed in addition to commissioning models in order to bring about change.

Further reading about health and social care on our blog

Co-production in social care … a need for systems change

Why a holistic approach to public health and social care needs a wider evidence base … and how Social Policy and Practice can help

What’s happening to make big data use a reality in health and social care?

Telecare in the UK: lessons from Barcelona

By Rebecca Jackson

Telecare is technology to help people live independently, usually in their own homes, for longer. Usually delivered as part of a package of care, telecare devices can include things like: bed sensors, to detect if someone is out of bed at an unusual time; fall sensors; medication reminders; and alerts on screens or over loudspeakers. Such devices have led telecare to be heralded as a new dawn in patient-centred, independent living.  However, despite initiatives  to drive its application forward, not everyone in the UK is convinced about the benefits of telecare.

Practitioners and carers are sceptical about the potential of replacing traditional care with digital models to save money and the impact that this could have on standards of care. In addition, many patients themselves are uncertain about the use of telecare and digital health solutions, with many who have telecare systems within their homes choosing to continue to interact with primary and home care services in the same way as before. Much of the academic and expert-led research and evaluation of telecare programmes in the UK by organisations such as the Nuffield Trust and the Kings Fund has found little to no improvement in service, reduction in cost or reduction in workload for care teams in areas where telecare has been deployed.

While telecare in the UK appears to have stalled, elsewhere digital health solutions are not only successfully integrated into traditional care models, but are having a positive impact on the people in receipt of care, and reducing the burden of work on care providers.

Lessons from Barcelona

In Spain, the law has guaranteed access to telecare since 2006. Economic austerity has led to individual local authorities in Spain being given control over their budgets and therefore their provision of telecare. The approach in Barcelona has been highlighted as an example of best practice in telecare.

The system there – a cooperative venture between an independent provider and the local authority – sees carers take a proactive approach to telecare. The system does not just monitor and provide assistance in times of distress, but proactively engages with service users at regular intervals to help carers provide reassurance and build relationships.

As well as the emergency measures, such as fall sensors (typically the primary use of telecare in the UK), calls are made to check up on service users, provide reassurance, deliver general public health information and to mark important occasions, like birthdays. This can help to reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness, which in turn can lead to better general health and wellbeing.

Calls can also be made to highlight important information, such  as weather warnings; safety alerts and local events which the service users may wish to attend. These calls are backed up by visits from the care team, who work for the telecare provider. These visits supplement visits from municipal care and social workers and the two teams communicate and share information via digital platforms.

Digital healthcare as an enabler

The case of Barcelona shows us how digital healthcare solutions, and more specifically telecare, can be used as an enabler – a tool to allow the local authority to pursue a joined up and preventative approach to healthcare which has positive benefits for recipients.

Such approaches could also have a significant impact on the UK’s 3.8 million unpaid carers. Telecare has the potential to reduce some of the burden and stress of caring for a relative, which in turn can have positive effects on the health of the person in receipt of care. It can also  form an effective part of reablement programmes – supporting people as they leave hospital or return to independent living.

However the approach to delivering telecare in Britain is as much about culture as it is about the technological infrastructure. Using telecare as part of a preventative, person-centred approach should produce better outcomes. In this sense, implementation of telecare in the UK still lags behind other countries. Key lessons could also be learnt from programmes in Norway and the Netherlands in relation to telecare in dementia settings.

Generally, the targeting of telecare services also differs – in the UK it tends to be aimed at elderly people with complex and diverse needs, while in Norway and the Netherlands the focus has shifted to those suffering from chronic illnesses.

Local solutions

In the UK, some local authorities have been experimenting with digital healthcare, although local authority budget cuts have meant that in many cases these have been cut back to focus delivery on the most vulnerable clients.

The lessons in digital healthcare that Britain can learn from places like Barcelona could be key to the successful roll out of digital healthcare solutions in the future. The Barcelona example highlights the enabling role that telecare can play in joining up health and social care and promoting a more preventative approach to healthcare.

Opportunities to develop telecare strategies and deliver them in partnership, as in the Barcelona model, show that it cannot be delivered in isolation, or be used as a replacement for existing carer-led services. Instead telecare has the potential to be a supporting tool to ensure effective care outcomes. It could also help care services in Britain to tackle the increasing demand of an ageing population.


Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

Read some of our other blogs on social care:

The local prevention of terrorism

by Steven McGinty

Since the terrorist attacks in Paris there has been a renewed focus on preventing terrorism.  On a national level, the UK government has increased the defence budget by an extra £12 billion, and is expected to hold a vote on airstrikes in Syria. More locally, there has been fierce debate about looming police cuts, with the Muslim Council of Britain suggesting that it could harm trust with communities.

At the Knowledge Exchange, we recently received an Ask-a-Researcher request for information on the role and importance of local partners within the counter-terrorism and extremist space. We provided the member with a number of resources to support their work; but there was one that stood out.

Essential resource

The book was ‘The Local Prevention of Terrorism: Strategy and Practice in the Fight Against Terrorism by Joshua J. Skoczylis, Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Lincoln, UK. It was published in September 2015 and appears to be a vital resource for UK policymakers and academics.

The book explores the UK government’s Prevent policy, a key strand of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) that focuses on stopping people becoming or supporting terrorism, as well as examining its impact on local communities.

Concepts and tensions affecting Prevent

In chapter 2, the key concepts are analysed that underpin CONTEST, and in particular the Prevent policy.  This involves looking at the idea of prevention, the relationship between Prevent and policing, and the relationship between communities and CONTEST.

An interesting point raised is that the narrative of CONTEST provides a powerful basis for which policies are based on. There is a critique of the phrase ‘international terrorism’ (often used in government strategies), with the author suggesting that the lines between international and local have been blurred, with terrorist attacks being carried out by local residents.

Prevent – an innovative counter terrorism strategy

One of the main arguments put forward is that the Prevent policy is an innovative approach to counter-terrorism. The author explains that Prevent occupies the ‘space somewhere in the middle, between extremism and violent extremism’. In essence, this space provides an area for honest engagement within communities, free from the security and intelligence community. This space allows local actors to be involved in the debate, including local authorities and Muslim organisations.

Delivering Prevent to Maybury Council

In the final chapters, the book reflects on Prevent’s impact on Maybury, a mill town in the north of England. Since 2007, several Prevent programmes have been delivered in the area, including Channel, an early intervention programme for young people vulnerable to be drawn into terrorism. Although, the majority have focused on community cohesion and awareness raising.

The book also discusses the findings of a report commissioned by Maybury Council into the Prevent policy. It highlights that the Prevent programme has been viewed as ‘divisive’ and has alienated members of the community that local agencies need to engage with. In particular, it suggests that focusing solely on Muslim communities, using surveillance measures, only breeds distrust.

The report also highlights the tension that exists between the national and the local delivery of Prevent. It explains however that Maybury Council have adapted their own policy to address local needs; although it’s noted that this may change as the government have introduced a more centralised administration process for Prevent funds.

Conclusions

At the end of the book, the author comes to several conclusions about the local delivery of Prevent. One of the main conclusions is that evaluation is crucial for establishing what policies and programmes are successful. It is important that an evidence base is developed and that good practice is shared amongst practitioners.


Our popular Ask-a-Researcher enquiry service is one aspect of the Idox Information Service, which we provide to members in organisations across the UK to keep them informed on the latest research and evidence on public and social policy issues. To find out more on how to become a member, get in touch.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in public and social policy are interesting our research team.

 

What’s preventing preventative policy?

governmentBy Stephen Lochore

I recently blogged about the potential benefits of preventative policy-making – an approach that aims to prevent or reduce the risk of social and economic problems. But if prevention really is better than cure, why isn’t prevention universally accepted and implemented?  What are the challenges, barriers and limits to preventative policy?

  • Funding and budgets are usually short-term while preventative policy requires long-term commitment. It may take decades for a preventative approach to deliver outcomes, yet require significant up-front spending. When faced with shrinking budgets, it may seem expedient to cut preventative spending rather than services that more immediately benefit local communities.
  • Changing priorities can undermine preventative approaches.  Much political attention is currently focused towards economic development, and it has become harder for many public bodies to maintain spending on activities that don’t explicitly target economic growth, even if they would save money in the long-term.  Public opinion fluctuates, and often focuses on local solutions rather than high-level holistic approaches.  Yet preventative policy often depends on long-term commitment.
  • Preventative intervention is difficult to evaluate – partly because of the long time-scale, sometimes compounded by a lack of obvious measures of success, but also because the problems such interventions try to address usually cut across policy domains, making it difficult to determine the net impact of any individual initiative among an ever-changing set of interrelated interventions.  To put it another way, preventative policy faces problems of both measurement and attribution.  This puts it at a disadvantage when there is an expectation to demonstrate measurable progress.
  • There is limited evidence about ‘what works’ in preventative policy.  The policy-making cycle operates at a different timescale to that needed to create a robust evidence base.  The Big Lottery suggests longitudinal studies of at least five years to support research into prevention.  People often quip that politicians want quick answers… the other side of the argument is that researchers only want to give comprehensive answers!
  • Public sector budgeting isn’t well suited to those ‘wicked’ issues that cut across departmental and service lines. Preventative spend in one area may save money in another by reducing demand for services.

Long timescales, interdependent issues, and limited evidence, all mean that preventative intervention carries a high level of uncertainty, and can be seen as risky.

There are also some general tensions within policymaking that are exacerbated when taking a preventative approach.

  • Participatory policymaking – communities may prioritise locally identifiable outcomes rather than long-term, holistic interventions.  Issues that are important at a local level (e.g. noise pollution, traffic congestion, litter) are not always the same as those policymakers seek to address, particularly using a preventative approach.
  • Centralised processes to establish good practice and monitor progress versus greater autonomy for localised decision-making and freedom from central interference.
  • Using evidence to follow established practice balanced against policy and research innovation to try and to evaluate new approaches. The relative paucity of evidence about some areas of prevention and early intervention mean that policy risks need to be taken, and policymakers have to accept uncertain returns and some risk to reputation.
  • Activities that have a predictable return or accepted value versus those that have potential for greater positive impact but less certainty.

Despite these challenges, prevention is a policy imperative throughout the UK, if for no other reason than its potential to reduce future public spending. However, it’s particularly notable in Scottish policymaking.

The Scottish Government designated prevention as one of its priorities for reform in its response to the Christie Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services. The influence of the preventative principle can be seen in the Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs) produced by local authorities and their respective Community Planning Partnership. The guidance to CPPs issued by Scottish Government in 2012 explicitly stated that SOAs “should promote early intervention and preventative approaches”.

Prevention aligns with some of the other principles behind the CPP process in Scotland and public service reform elsewhere  – the idea of co-operation between levels of government, pooling resources and sharing benefits.  It may be risky, but it’s an imperative that all organisations involved in funding, designing and delivering public services ought to embrace.


 

Further reading

Christie Commission on the future delivery of public services

Climate change, Single Outcome Agreements and Community Planning Partnerships

Renewing Scotland’s public services: priorities for reform in response to the Christie Commission

Preventative spending and the ‘Scottish policy style’

The preventative agenda in Scotland is a worthy initiative, but the tensions inherent in its execution may yet undermine it

The Idox Information Service has a wealth of research reports, articles and case studies on public policymaking. Abstracts and access to subscription journal articles are only available to members.

How preventative policymaking could benefit local authorities

Crossing out problems and writing solutions on a blackboard.By Stephen Lochore

Preventative policy and spending aim to address the root causes of social and economic problems. In public policy, it’s most commonly applied in the fields of health and social care, early years education, welfare and criminal justice (reducing offending).

Early in November, I spoke at a seminar organised by the Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change and SCVO which explored preventative policy in Scotland.  While we inevitably spent some time discussing the challenges, there was a strong collective feeling about the advantages of a preventative approach to policymaking.  Continue reading

World Alzheimer’s Day: can we reduce dementia risk?

Older woman with Alzheimer's in a chair

Image courtesy of Flickr user Vince Alongi using a Creative Commons license

By Steven McGinty

On the 21st September, Alzheimer’s organisations across the world will be carrying out events to raise awareness about Alzheimer’s and dementia. The event, a key part of World Alzheimer’s Month, was launched by Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI) in 1994, with the aim of highlighting the tremendous work carried out by Alzheimer’s organisations.

Each year, a new theme is selected for World Alzheimer’s Month, and this year the focus will be on how we can reduce the risks of developing Alzheimer’s and dementia. In support of this event, I’ve decided to look at some of the statistics on dementia, as well as review the latest evidence on reducing the risks.

Continue reading

The way forward for mental health services for children and young people

Black and white photo of young girl.

Image courtesy of Flickr user darcyadelaide using a Creative Commons license

By Steven McGinty

“Not fit for purpose” and “stuck in the dark ages”

These are two of the phrases used by the Care Minister, Norman Lamb, to describe mental health services for children and young people in England. The minister admitted that young people are being let down by the current system and has announced that a new taskforce will look into how the system should be improved.  To coincide with this review, I decided to look at the current situation for children and young people with mental illness, as well as highlight some of the main themes from the latest evidence.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reports that one in ten children and young people (aged 5-16) have a clinically diagnosed mental health disorder. This covers a broad range of disorders, including emotional disorders, such as anxiety and depression, as well as less common disorders such as autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and eating disorders. Approximately 2% of these young people will have more than one mental disorder. The most common combinations of disorders are conduct and emotional disorders and conduct and hyperkinetic disorders.

The likelihood of a young person developing a mental disorder is increased depending on a number of individual and family/ social factors. There are a whole range of risk factors, but some of these include:

  • having a parent in prison
  • experiencing abuse or neglect
  • having a parent with a mental health condition
  • having an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD)

It’s important to note that mental illness is complex, and that not everyone in these risk groups will struggle with it. This is particularly true when a young person is in receipt of consistent long-term support from at least one adult.

The impact of mental illness can be particularly difficult for young people. For instance, the National Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) Support Service reported that young people who suffer from anxiety in childhood are 3.5 times more likely to suffer from depression or anxiety in adulthood. There is also an increased chance of young people coming into contact with the criminal justice system, with Young et al highlighting that 43% of young people in prison have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The Centre for Mental Health also suggests that young people with mental health problems struggle to achieve academically, as well as in the employment market.

When a government minister condemns his own department, it’s evident that there are severe problems.  However, this does not have to be the case.

Below I’ve outlined some of the key lessons to come from evidence on what makes a good mental health service for children and young people.

Continue reading