To think the Princess of Wales is wrong and the years that need more support and funding are the teenage years with the 18-25 year group being the most needy.

[Alice1land35543]

Having access to private mental health support , education and all that being rich entails alongside having not experienced the teenage years I don’t think the P of W is fully informed or right.

Teens are facing huge pressures( more than ever before) and mental health struggles are soaring. Services are beyond stretched and what little there is is broken and unable to cope. Schools are struggling, paediatric wards bursting, families are on their knees and continuously battling. When unwell teens reach 18 there is nothing but a cliff edge into zero support and they are abandoned. The brain doesn’t finish developing until 25.

“If we are going to tackle the sorts of complex challenges we face today like homelessness, violence and addiction, which are so often underpinned by poverty and poor mental health, we have to fully appreciate those most preventative years and do everything we can to nurture our children and those who care for them”.

No Kate we need to focus on the years children are struggling the most, fund mental health treatment and support properly and ensure that provision for 18-25 year olds is mandatory in every trust. Early years get plenty already. Teens and parents of teens get next to nothing so why the focus on early years yet again? Maybe the teenage years and 18/25 group aren’t so media appealing.

As an aside rich celebrities jumping on the mental health bandwagon saying let’s talk about mental health and just reach out is not the answer. Those struggling with mental health can’t reach out because there is nothing to reach out to and it’s not that simplistic. That however is a whole other thread.

I have 2 teen & 2 ex-teen offspring...
I agree with PoW (who is lovely, btw). Early years are more important than teen years if we had to choose only one to help: but we don't have to choose.

I agree with PP, there isn't a conflict & there doesn't need to be a conflict between these priorities. Everyone at every age is potentially vulnerable in some way.

I agree about phones/social media can be toxic but if it's effects are that great then why isn't more being done about it?

Would it be ridiculous to suggest a public information campaign for parents of teens along the lines of get them off social media, limit and monitor phone use, spend time outdoors etc Along lines of campaigns when I was growing up about drink driving.....

I'm a teacher and the thing that surprises me is that a lot of the teenagers I teach say that they eat their dinner in their bedrooms. I was shocked!

Wow so still nothing just less paperwork for teachers and legislation. Early years get the actual supportWhat about supporting parents and teens to navigate these years and giving proper professional help as soon as it is needed?

If she wants to support children then 18-25 year old adults will not be in her ‘sphere’ of charities to support.
That doesn’t make any ages more or less worthy.

I don't think anyone would disagree that there needs to be more MH support for teens. We shouldn't be arguing over which group should be prioritised for funding, because then we're allowing the govt to get away with not properly funding MH provision. We should be demanding more for everyone. It could be done, but the govt has chosen not to. This is where your outrage should be directed, not towards Kate.

I also don't really buy into the idea that wealthy, stable, outwardly loving families don't have trauma or dysfunction. The first study into ACEs was a real eye opener because the participants came from white, middle class, well educated families. The researchers were shocked by the results:

www.connectedforlife.co.uk/blog/2017/6/17/the-adverse-childhood-experiences-ace-study#:~:text=It%20began%20in%20the%201980's,obesity%20and%20childhood%20sexual%20abuse.

It's a bit snobby to assume that when a middle class teen has problems it's not related to trauma or adversity. It can happen for lots of different reasons and it's often overlooked because these families aren't under the same level of scrutiny.

Yes. And what's unbelievably frustrating is sure start had improved things so much, if the tories had built on it (or at least left it the fuck alone) instead of dismantling it for their messed up ideological reasons we would be moving forward instead of back.
Which raises the question, what good is a member of the royal family in weighing into this issue at all, given that they can't be political? Few issues are more political!

I totally agree OP.

I actually agree with this too, although it seems counter to calls to prioritise early years. More services needed across age groups. But this is still political, and the Princess can't be so.... what CAN she do exactly?

@MellieBellie Totally agree. I was one of those children, completely overlooked because my parents couldn’t possibly be alcoholics - they were charming and had jobs! I’m glad awareness is changing but it needs much more than this - MH support, social services to not just be firefighting and having to help only the poorest etc.

That has literally nothing to do with the importance of early years support and guidance.

It's a circular argument that involves all areas of environment, development, education, finances, employment, health and society.

At any point in the cycle, you can find people who should have been able to access support, advice, medical treatment, psychological therapies, enhanced finances, opportunities or just, pure and simple, love, at an earlier point. And once you get to the next generation repeating the cycle, you're looking at what should have happened for their parents.

To try and break out of the cycle means identifying a breakpoint. In the 1940s, this was attempted by trying to do it all at once, as no feasible single point could be identified - the approach was From the Cradle to the Grave. Poverty, health, education, housing, employment. But it still couldn't be solved, not for everybody.

Anybody who has worked in education, health, interacted with other people or their children can see cases where there should have been support provided earlier. There is no fixed point where all energies could be poured into. But there are points at which a greater number of children can benefit for the longer term from targeted intervention - entering compulsory education, for example.

There is data to evidence the effectiveness of intervention at earlier ages based upon large study cohorts. Is this because nobody's interested at studying other groups? Is it because the money that support requires is so much that it has to be done with political will in mind? Would identifying and addressing the most pressing need as being a certain demographic result in howls of rage and a decline in popularity at the polling station? Or is it because the actual most effective and critical time to intervene is at the earlier age?

Fundamentally, to an individual, it is of little consolation when they or their loved one are falling through the gaps that the needs of the many are better met at a different time. That's not 'wrong', it's a normal human perception. But it doesn't mean campaigning on the basis of the best way to meet the needs of the many is nonsense.

The PoW is speaking of the many. Not the individual 18 year old. This doesn't make her wrong, any more than your concerns are in any way invalid.

Great post.

Worth remembering that this site will never give a balanced range of experiences as predominantly used by more advantaged demographics. You do need to look at the numbers.

You are certainly right that teens/young adults need more support, but this is, or at least should not be one Vs another. She is definitely right (and supported by a massive array of evidence) that early years interventions yield the best results for improving the overall life chances of children and young people. There should be robust support throughout childhood for families.

Its all about the early years and there isnt enough support for that. Childrens centres services have been decimated, the expertise and skill of the staff lost due to cuts, libraries closing, health visitor services are often letting people down either by way of brief visits but also their presentation sometimes makes parents not want to engage, poor mental health support for parents of young children, poor nursery provision for working parents, the list is endless

I understand your frustration as there are so, so many problems with support services for adolescents and young adults. However, pound for pound there is something like a 10 fold increase in impact when that money is spent in early years. They really are absolutely key years in development. Support of the child, mothers and families is paramount if we want to try and stop the endless crisis of problems further up the line. I get it though. Both should have high priority

No nothing has changed for the better. Funding cuts have made things worse.

I agree that early intervention is important. However, I do also agree that the current cohort of teens, particularly those later teens/early twenties, are in a terrible state mentally. You only have to look at social media pages of sites focused on universities. Thousands of students with SEN, and being supported via DSA, often with associated mental health issues, and then additionally thousands with separate acute anxiety issues, needing ILP's, and access to university counselling. There are too many students trying to access all these support services, so thousands just give up. The universities can't cope, there is an epidemic of mental health problems in this cohort.

I think for many of us, the frustration is that this has been like this for decades. I agree that EY funding is critical, but it clearly isn’t a panacea. We are ignoring the MH epidemic in teens who were the under 5s - the target of all of the funding - when I was a teen being ignored. The current EYs will no doubt grow up to be teenagers, fall off the cliff edge, and be ignored in favour of the next generation of under 5s.

It shouldn’t be all or nothing, of course it shouldn’t, but the focus is way too imbalanced.

bellac11

Current teens had all that, it has not stopped the MH epidemic . Struggling teens need proper professional help not messy play in a children’s centre yeasts before. Their parents need support and advice.

I am shocked at this - every single one. Are these all real mental health problems or the usual difficulties of life relabelled as mental health problems?

In our area these teens had the lot- children’s centres, child trust funds, libraries, a free playgroup every day of the week, a huge amount of health visitor support and baby groups run by the clinic….

It did zilch as regards staving off this MH epidemic and is not helping parents or teens at all now.

You keep saying early years gets all the support and doesn't need more, but you have only referenced things like coffee mornings and messy play - is this the support you mean? The support that means early years has enough and doesn't need more?
What do you mean when you say early years has adequate support?

Olly, not at all, I cited your passage as supportive of what I was trying to convey; poor mental health and mental illness in YP can arise as a result of a myriad factors, some easily tracked back to EY ACEs, others as a response to more recent adverse experiences, such as the sudden and unexpected onset of bullying at secondary school, especially if the YP in question is already disadvantaged by SEN, for instance, as in my DC's case.

Yours was a great and insightful post, I should have made this clearer.

Working in education, with a special interest in SEN, I frequently see parents who are at their wits end fighting for support for their DC, dismissed and fobbed off, or worse presumed part of the problem on account of the anxiety they feel on their child's behalf. Services are gatekept to the point of callousness and cruelty because there is not enough resource to go around. Parents are frequently shut out or painted into impossible corners when trying to advocate for their children. The desperation is real.
Mellie is right, we need to direct our outrage at the government, of course.

In my group of friends all of whom accessed all the above with bells on(a couple even running said support) many teach or work in professions that you’d think would aid the superior parenting needed to offset MH cited below. Every single one of us has been blighted by serious teen mental health issues with 4 having kids who have had serious suicide attempts, another in and out of hospital with an ED, chronic anxiety, depression….All have struggled to get support at all for serious mental health issues, are on huge waiting lists or dismissed. There has never been any teen or MH parenting advice. I look back and would swop those children’s centres in a heart beat.

None of that means early years support is not worthwhile.