Feature Article
Working Toward Suicide Prevention Planning That Is Efficient and Effective
A behavioral scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Keri M. Lubell, Ph.D., often receives inquiries from prevention advocates seeking her advice on how to develop a suicide prevention plan for their community or state. Lubell works in the CDC’s Program Implemen-tation and Dissemination area.
“I’ve worked with advocates and survivors for about five years – since I first came to the CDC,” notes Lubell, whose personal interest in suicide prevention is fueled by friendships throughout her life that have been marked by its effects.
Inquiries from states to Lubell and other prevention experts are spurred in part by the 2001 release of the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention (NSSP), which calls for “coordination of resources … at all levels of government” including the state level to address the public health problem of suicide.
Because state interest was high – and understanding of how best to plan for prevention was minimal – Lubell launched a research project in July 2002: Study of State Suicide Prevention Planning Processes. In it she and CDC colleagues are examining how states across the country are faring when it comes to suicide prevention planning.
Since the study began Lubell and her research team have contacted all 50 states. Of those, 42 responded with background information on their state suicide prevention planning processes. After conducting phone interviews with these 42 states, researchers chose seven states to focus on in-depth and have just completed gathering data from these in 2003.
While Lubell doesn’t anticipate this research study’s being formally published until 2005 at earliest, she is speaking at national, regional and state prevention conferences to share preliminary findings. Recent engagements include two regional conferences held in October and December by the federally funded Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC) in Newton, Mass.
To learn more about Lubell’s study, contact her at
770-488-1659 or klg0@cdc.gov.
Seven States Being Studied
Researchers at the CDC are focusing on these seven states for in-depth case studies as part of their research to understand better the planning process for suicide prevention at the state level. Below each state is the key contact for suicide prevention planning.
CALIFORNIA
Mark Chaffee
SPAN USA
7951 Paseo Aliso
Carlsbad, CA 92009
760-753-4647
mchaffee@wini.com
www.span-california.org
FLORIDA
Pam Harrington
Governor’s Suicide Prevention
Task Force
2869 S. Ponte Vedra Blvd.
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082
904-819-9431
r-harrington@comcast.net
www.floridasuicideprevention.org
MINNESOTA
Candy Kragthorpe, MSW
Mental Health Programs Coordinator
Minnesota Department of Health
P.O. Box 64882
St. Paul, MN 55164-0882
651-281-9833
candy.kragthorpe@health.state.mn.us
pdf of state plan available at www.health.state.mn.us/divs/opa/suicide.pdf
OKLAHOMA
James Allen, M.P.H.
Adolescent Health Coordinator
Oklahoma State Department of Health
1000 N.E. 10th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1299
405-271-4471
JamesA@health.state.ok.us
See the OK state suicide prevention plan at www.health.state.ok.us/program/ahd/index.html
OREGON
Lisa M. Millet
Section Manager
Injury Prevention and Epidemiology
Department of Human Services, Health Services
800 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 772
Portland, OR 97232
503-731-8597
Lisa.M.Millet@state.or.us
www.dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/ipe/2000plan/index.cfm
RHODE ISLAND
Beatriz Perez, M.P.H.
Rhode Island Department of Health
3 Capitol Hill, Room 409
Providence, RI 02908
401-222-7627
beatrizp@doh.state.ri.us
VIRGINIA
Calvin Nunnally, Sr., M.S.
Suicide Prevention Training and Outreach Coordinator
Virginia Department of Health
Center for Injury and Violence Prevention
109 Governor St.
Richmond, VA 23219
804-864-7736
calvin.nunnally@vdh.virginia.gov
www.preventsuicideva.org
State Planning for Suicide Prevention
Some Considerations
No Two States Alike
Accessibility varies from state to state, that is, how easy is it for advocates to reach and influence legislators. Some states have active suicide prevention funding and coalitions, often driven by survivor activists; other states do not. The take away? “No two states are alike,” says Keri M. Lubell, Ph.D., behavioral scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “So there is no model state program – no single right way to do things. While there are principles that might apply broadly, what may work for one state perhaps might not be good for another.”
Diversity Versus Consensus
“Diversity is a moral imperative. You must have diversity to address diverse needs,” notes Lubell, regarding the make-up of the state suicide prevention planning bodies. “It’s a moral and ethical imperative to embrace everyone – of all ages, all backgrounds, all races, all motivations. It’s a moral imperative to have those people at the table so they can speak for themselves.” Yet the research on coalitions suggests that the more people involved in the planning process, the more difficult it is to achieve ownership, buy-in and consensus among disparate groups. There are no easy answers. “It can be a balancing act,” says Lubell of striking the right balance between a diverse planning coalition and one that can develop a prevention plan in an efficient and timely manner.
Prevention Not a Top Priority
Suicide prevention is an under-funded area, one that does not get the attention it deserves, says Lubell. The reasons in part? “If someone is suicidal there’s a general perception that others cannot prevent them from taking their life. People are scared when it comes to suicide; there’s a natural aversion to thinking or talking about it within the general population,” she notes. “But this just highlights the need for education and raising awareness – and countering the stigma associated with suicide and mental illness.”
Philosophies Can Differ
Different philosophies about the causes of suicide and best approaches for its prevention can drive a wedge among state planning group members – unless these and other issues are addressed head-on, according to Lubell. “Don’t let it be the elephant in the living room,” says Lubell of philosophical differences. These can include a mental health/intervention approach to suicide prevention versus a public health approach. “Laying these differences on the table and out in the open can be the key to moving forward in the planning process and establishing trust among those engaged in that process.”
