The research and dissemination efforts of CAFS play a role in behavioral intervention science and its transportation into community settings. These efforts fit centrally within the mission of “Life Sciences.” In early 2006
Indiana University identified Life Sciences as it strategic objective of its research development plan. As noted in the life sciences strategic plan:
"The life sciences stand at an uparelleled confluence of scientific opportunities.
It is now becoming possible to develop detailed knowledge of the functioning of
living systems. In the coming years, it will be possible to develop predictive models
of the functioning of humans that will lead to breakthroughs in disease prevention
and treatments."
Life Sciences are often defined as biological and medical sciences when in fact, behavioral health, are one of the most important areas of life science. The physical, emotional, economical, social impact of problems associated with a lack of behavioral health is staggering accounting for billions of dollars each year. Thus, behavioral bring the scientific lessons of behavioral sciences to the treatment and prevention of behavioral problems is truly an important element of life sciences.
One area of behavioral health of particular social and economic interest is the behavioral problems of at risk youth. These youth have historically been viewed as one of the most difficult prevention and treatment challenges for local communities, individual families, and juvenile justice and mental health service providers. These youth typically engage in what are often called “externalizing behavior disorders” or problems directed outwardly toward peers, others in the communities, their families, or their siblings. Such problems are commonly seen in drug use and abuse, school truancy and behavior disorders, juvenile crime, and youth violence. Adolescent behavior problems, as evidenced by violence and crime, impact community safety, community culture, and tax the available mental health and social services. Within families, the problems of at-risk youth can affect the psychological functioning of all members, in particular younger siblings. The most public evidence for the seriousness of these problems can be found in the highly publicized consequences of disruptive adolescent behavior problems (e.g. youth violence, school shootings, juvenile crime). Unfortunately, traditional treatment programs are notoriously unsuccessful at engaging youth into treatment and prevention programs, keeping them in programs, and demonstrating successful outcomes (Sexton et al, 2003). Thus, traditional forms of prevention and treatment currently available in communities are not adequately dealing with the seriousness of at risk youth.
These children and adolescents struggle with learning and behavioral problems that if untreated have a major personal and social impact on every part of our society. The economic impact of “at risk” children and adolescents is significant. Estimates of costs to treat youth with educational and behavioral problems in juvenile justice systems, schools and community mental health systems are exorbitant and do not begin to address the unaccounted psychological costs to the individual, family, and community. Furthermore, children and adolescents “at risk” are likely to begin the trajectory of problems with learning and behavior that, without early intervention and prevention efforts, will continue to impact families and communities. Given the potentially serious outcomes of childhood learning problems and adolescent behavior problems it is no surprise that families, communities, treatment providers and model developers have searched for programs in which they can have confidence.
The critical importance of using scientifically based approaches to address the behavior problems of adolescents is illustrated by the Surgeon General’s Report on Youth Violence (2000) which stated:
“Our review of the scientific literature supports the main conclusion of the
report: that as a Nation we possess knowledge and have translated that
knowledge into programs that are unequivocally effective in preventing much
serious youth violence. Most of the violence prevention strategies and
interventions currently employed at both the national and local levels either have not
been evaluated with rigor or have been evaluated and found to be ineffective,”
and, “The Nation cannot afford to waste resources on ineffective or harmful interventions and strategies-or to further jeopardize the well being of youth
who may be assigned to ineffective programs.”
Over the last decade, a number of evidence-based programs for at risk youth have been developed, tested, and found to be highly effective (Sexton & Alexander, 2002). Despite the great potential of evidence-based treatment programs addressing the learning and behavioral disorders of children and adolescents, few youth in need receive these services, few communities know of the availability of such problems, and significant gaps remain in our understanding of the degree to which evidence-based programs are effectively disseminated. Estimates suggest that only 1% of at-risk youth receive the academic and behavioral intervention services they need. What is now needed is broader implementation of these programs and systematic study of the degree to which they have the intended impact on local communities. In addition we need to identify the factors that enhance successful transfer of these models into everyday community practice. Thus, while scientifically based programs exist, the translational research necessary to successfully implement these programs and arm local communities with them is severely hindered.