TeenScreen

TeenScreen is a national mental health and suicide risk screening program for students and adolescents in the United States. The screening itself generally consists of a short (usually around ten minutes) questionnaire and is conducted in public and private schools, doctor's offices, clinics, youth groups, shelters, and other youth-serving organizations and settings.

As of October 2005, TeenScreen has 460 active screening sites in 42 states. Missing from the list of states where TeenScreen has been established are: Hawaii, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, Alabama, New Hampshire and Maryland.

Controversy
TeenScreen has become the subject of much controversy. It has been criticized by many family groups, professional associations, education groups, legislators, doctors, and watch-dog organizations publicly opposing mental health screening in general and TeenScreen in particular. These groups include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), Eagle Forum, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, Alliance for Human Research Protection, the Liberty Coalition, Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), EdWatch, the Rutherford Institute, Texans for Safe Education and the Citizens for Health.

These groups spoke up in opposition of screenings that were being conducted without explicit parental consent that relied instead on passive consent, whereby consent is assumed if it is not explicitly denied. On June 5, 2006, TeenScreen changed their consent procedures for public schools so that active parental consent - meaning that parents have to sign and turn in a permission slip - is now a requirement of TeenScreen in public schools. Passive consent is still being used in some private schools, in teen shelters and the juvenile justice system.

TeenScreen is the subject of a lawsuit in a case in Indiana.

No evidence of effectiveness
TeenScreen officials admit that there have been no studies that show that their program reduces suicide. After an in-depth investigation, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force report of May of 2004 states: A. There is no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. B. There is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk. C. There is insufficient evidence that treatment of those at high risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. D. No studies were found that directly address the harms of screening and treatment for suicide risk.

Two years later, on June 16, 2006, Ned Calonge, the chairman of the Task Force, and the chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, spoke to the Washington Post and said the same findings apply to screening today: “The panel would reach the same conclusion today… Whether or not we like to admit it, there are no interventions that have no harms… There is weak evidence that screening can distinguish people who will commit suicide from those who will not… And screening inevitably leads to treating some people who do not need it. Such interventions have consequences beyond side effects from drugs or other treatments… Unnecessary care drives up the cost of insurance, causing some people to lose coverage altogether.”

Referral to treatment
Before screening takes place, TeenScreen partners with local mental health providers. This has become a source of controversy as some have alleged that TeenScreen is merely a scheme to market psychiatric drugs. In addition, critics show that some of TeenScreen's executives and advisory board members have ties to pharmaceutical companies. Some of the symptoms that TeenScreen uses as indicators of mental illness can also be caused by physical illnesses, allergies, poor nutrition, lack of sleep, drug abuse, and toxic exposure. TeenScreen refers students flagged by the screening process to psychiatric professionals only.

TeenScreen refutes controversial claims
On its website, TeenScreen provides information aimed at "Setting the Record Straight About TeenScreen" to refute these claims and emphasize the voluntary nature of the TeenScreen program. One critic says they are side-stepping the real issues.