Children's Mental Health Policy: Analyzing H.R. 2646
This paper examines the inadequacies of the United States mental healthcare system as it pertains to children and adolescents. Drawing on social, economic, ethical, and political factors, it describes how millions of young people lack access to adequate behavioral and psychiatric services. The paper then evaluates the 2015 Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (H.R. 2646) as a legislative response to these shortcomings, analyzing the bill's provisions through the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. The analysis weighs the bill's benefits — including expanded workforce development and assisted outpatient treatment funding — against its potential drawbacks, such as reduced SAMHSA program funding and weakened patient privacy protections.
- Introduction and Problem Description: Mental health crisis facing youth; Raeburn case illustrates systemic gaps
- Background: The State of Children's Mental Healthcare: Statistics on prevalence and inaccessibility of youth mental health services
- Social, Economic, and Ethical Factors: Demographic disparities, underfunding, and value judgments in diagnosis
- Political and Legal Context: 2014 Presidential Budget allocations for mental health and school safety
- The 2015 Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (H.R. 2646): Key provisions of the bill including SAMHSA reforms and Medicaid changes
- Bill Evaluation: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity: Pro/con analysis of H.R. 2646 across three policy criteria
- Conclusions: Bill recommended with noted need for targeted improvements
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its policy analysis in a compelling real-world anecdote (Paul Raeburn's experience), which immediately establishes the human stakes of the issue before moving to systemic analysis.
- It applies a structured multi-factor framework — social, economic, ethical, political — to diagnose the problem before proposing and evaluating a legislative solution, lending analytical rigor to the argument.
- The pro/con evaluation of H.R. 2646 across three criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, equity) provides a balanced assessment and demonstrates critical thinking rather than uncritical advocacy.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates policy analysis using a structured evaluation rubric. Rather than simply describing a bill, the author assesses it against defined criteria — effectiveness, efficiency, and equity — and acknowledges counterarguments from advocacy organizations like the Bazelon Center. This technique mirrors how public health and social policy analyses are conducted in professional and academic settings.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an illustrative case study, then builds background context through statistical evidence. It proceeds through a layered factor analysis (social, economic, ethical, political) before introducing the legislative policy option. The core of the paper is a structured bill evaluation, followed by a summary recommendation and brief conclusion. This problem-to-solution architecture is characteristic of applied policy writing at the undergraduate level.
Introduction and Problem Description
Paul Raeburn was faced with hardly any good alternatives when he required immediate assistance with his suicidal teenage son, who threatened to lie in wait for a train on nearby railway tracks. Despite Raeburn — one of the top science and health writers in the United States — being more capable than most people of locating the best mental health professionals and therapy options in the country, only one option came to mind when he was hit by this crisis: seeking the police's help and risking the imprisonment, rather than hospitalization, of his son (Szalavitz, 2012).
Though it remains unclear whether mental illness — alone or combined with a developmental disorder — played any role in the shocking Newtown shooting, that tragedy sparked an important national discussion about how psychiatric patients are cared for. This debate has harshly criticized the disorganized nature of the U.S. mental health care system, which leaves countless children and young adults — such as Raeburn's son — without the resources they need. This paper examines the current mental healthcare structure for children and how it affects their families.
Background: The State of Children's Mental Healthcare
The current state of America's mental healthcare delivery is inadequate in meeting the needs of children and adolescents. Mental health care is inaccessible to many individuals who urgently need it (Stagman and Cooper, 2010):
- Substance abuse and mental health issues are common in today's youth, beginning from a very young age.
- Twenty percent of individuals under 18 years of age suffer from diagnosable mental health problems.
- Ten percent of young people suffer from severe mental ailments that impair their functioning at school, at home, and in society.
- Major mental illnesses can begin anywhere between 7 and 11 years of age.
- About 50% of lifetime mental illnesses begin in mid-adolescence.
References
Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2015. (n.d.). H.R. 2646 — 114th Congress (2015–2016). Congress.gov — Library of Congress. Retrieved February 19, 2016, from http://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2646
Many children not receiving needed mental health services, study finds. (2010, October 18). HRSA. Retrieved February 18, 2016, from http://www.hrsa.gov/about/news/pressreleases/2010/101018childmentalhealth
Jacques, M. (2015, June 30). PRA Statement. LinkedIn. Retrieved February 19, 2016, from http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pra-statement-helping-families-mental-health-crisis-act-marc-jacques
Parens, E., & Johnston, J. (n.d.). Mental health in children and adolescents. The Hastings Center. Retrieved February 18, 2016, from http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?id=2188
Sebelius, K. (2013). Increasing access to mental health services. The White House. Retrieved February 18, 2016, from
Stagman, S., & Cooper, J. L. (2010). Children's mental health: What every policymaker should know. National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved February 18, 2016, from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_929.html
Szalavitz, M. (2012, December 20). America's failing mental health system: Families struggle to find quality care. TIME. Retrieved February 18, 2016, from
The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2015a-u represents wrong policy direction. (n.d.). The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. Retrieved February 19, 2016, from
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
7-Day Pass
Does not renew
Get 7-Day PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 3 during the 7-Day Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.