Fixing the Youth Mental Health Crisis: Data-Driven Solutions for a Safer, Healthier Future

Economist Janet Currie’s NBER paper challenges common myths about the U.S. youth mental health crisis, highlighting the role of improved diagnosis, firearm access, and policy interventions. She argues that early investments and smart policies can significantly improve mental health outcomes and reduce youth suicides.

In a groundbreaking working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in March 2025, Princeton University economist Janet Currie takes on one of the most pressing and emotional public health issues of our time: the mental health crisis among American children and adolescents. Drawing on decades of data and research, she challenges widely accepted myths and provides a policy-driven, evidence-based roadmap to improve outcomes. Her work, rooted in both economics and health policy, is a sobering yet hopeful reminder that while the crisis is real, it is far from unsolvable.

Currie opens with a stark assessment of the financial toll. In 2021 alone, the U.S. spent $31 billion on children’s mental health services—nearly half of all medical spending on kids. But the costs don't stop there. Parents often reduce their work hours or exit the workforce entirely to care for children with mental health needs, creating ripple effects throughout households and the broader economy. More troubling is the long-term fallout. Children with untreated mental health conditions face significantly higher risks of dropping out of school, enduring poverty, experiencing homelessness, or entering the criminal justice system.

Debunking the Myth of a “New” Crisis

One of the core myths Currie tackles is the belief that the child mental health crisis is a recent development, driven by modern pressures like smartphones and social media. While diagnoses of disorders such as anxiety, depression, and ADHD have certainly increased in recent years, Currie argues that this is more a reflection of improved detection and broader diagnostic criteria than a sudden surge in mental illness. She traces these shifts to the adoption of the DSM-5, the transition to ICD-10 coding in hospitals, and changing incentives in the healthcare system that encourage more rigorous screening and documentation.

Historical context supports her claim. A 1970 Congressional report, as well as a 2000 Surgeon General’s report, both recognized widespread mental health issues among children. What has evolved is society’s willingness to name and treat these conditions. Decreasing stigma and increased public awareness have brought many previously hidden struggles to light.

Youth Suicide: A Tragic Indicator, Not the Whole Story

Currie also challenges the assumption that rising youth suicide rates are direct evidence of worsening mental health. Though suicide among American teens has increased sharply since 2011, the rates do not align neatly with trends in reported symptoms or diagnoses. Geography and gender disparities suggest other influences are at play. For instance, in rural states, suicide rates among teens are up to seven times higher than in urban areas, even though reported levels of mental distress are similar.

A major differentiator, Currie finds, is access to firearms. Her analysis shows that states that enacted permissive gun laws, like repealing permit requirements for concealed carry or introducing “shoot first” statutes, saw statistically significant rises in youth firearm suicides. Critically, this increase wasn’t offset by suicides using other means. These findings dismantle the notion that suicidal intent will always find an outlet, pointing instead to access to lethal means as a crucial factor. Simply put, restricting access to firearms can save young lives.

Social Media: Not the Villain We Think

Social media is often blamed for worsening mental health among youth, but Currie’s analysis paints a more nuanced picture. Experimental studies have shown small negative effects of excessive or harmful social media use, particularly among vulnerable adolescents. However, meta-analyses reveal mixed findings overall. Some young people, especially those who feel marginalized in their offline communities, have found vital support networks online.

Moreover, suicide rates among teens actually peaked in 2017 and have declined slightly since then, even as social media usage continued to grow. These trends complicate the narrative that apps like Instagram and TikTok are the primary culprits behind the mental health crisis, suggesting instead that their impact varies greatly depending on context, content, and the individual.

Investing in Solutions That Work

Perhaps the most optimistic finding in Currie’s report is that investments in children’s health and development can make a real difference. Programs like WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) have been associated with lower rates of childhood ADHD and other disorders. Early childhood initiatives such as the Perry Preschool Project show long-term benefits in emotional resilience and life outcomes. Anti-poverty efforts, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, also help reduce stress and improve mental well-being among low-income families.

During adolescence, school-based interventions can be especially powerful. For example, a program in Minneapolis that placed licensed mental health clinicians in schools led to more accurate diagnoses, increased therapy sessions, and a reduction in suicide attempts. Anti-bullying policies and empathy training programs have likewise proven effective, helping to reduce rates of depression and suicidal ideation.

Still, Currie cautions that not all treatment is helpful. Children on Medicaid, for example, are more likely than privately insured peers to be prescribed strong psychiatric medications, sometimes by the same doctors raising concerns about overmedication and systemic inequities. She argues that improving access must go hand-in-hand with improving the quality of care.

In sum, Currie’s work provides not just a diagnosis of the crisis but a prescription for hope. By questioning assumptions, spotlighting evidence-based interventions, and emphasizing the role of policy in shaping mental health outcomes, she shows that the tools to tackle the youth mental health crisis are already within reach. What’s needed now is the political will, funding, and focus to put them into action.