As we come to the end of May, it is important to remember one more time that this month has been Mental Health Awareness Month (http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/may/). It is a time to recognize the struggles that many face simply getting on with their day-to-day lives, and reflect on our own mental health challenges. An abundance of research now exists about the role of our behaviors in diagnosing and correlating mental illness. These behaviors can sometimes be linked to the environment. Therefore, mindfully changing the environment can help change a behavior.
 
When diagnosing a mental illness (https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/warning-signs-of-mental-illness), doctors tend to look at how a person is feeling, a person’s cognitive functioning, and their behaviors. The affect of an individual can indicate a person’s emotions on a deep level. However, if it is not self-reported, it is communicated in terms of behaviors: “My friend/family member is acting cold and withdrawn.” Likewise, a person’s cognitive functioning requires a description of doing: “He couldn’t even remember his own phone number.” These behaviors coalesce into a rounded form of information that can lead to a formal psychiatric diagnosis.
 
Behaviors, when performed over and over, become habits. Habits such as sleeping too much are linked to depression (http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/guide/physical-side-effects-oversleeping#1/). Habits such as sleeping too less are linked to psychosis (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/serendipupdate/effects-sleep-deprivation-brain-and-behavior/). And of course, habits such as substance abuse become their own diagnosis (https://www.centeronaddiction.org/).
 
These habits are all made possible by the schedule a person keeps because of their position in life. Someone who has to work a full-time job and then go to school every night might have a tougher time getting the sleep they need. Someone who works from home may be getting too much sleep. These habits are made possible partially by a person’s employment. Of course, we all have the position in life to change our own behavior. Author Charles Duhigg writes about how to change a behavior given the science of habit loops in his book “How Habits Work” (http://charlesduhigg.com/how-habits-work/).
 
So if you are feeling depressed, consider scheduling some time for a little exercise. If you are having weird thoughts about your neighbor, try getting a good night’s sleep. And if you’re having trouble with an addiction, be it coffee or heroin, try replacing the behavior with something more healthy but still reward-rich. And of course, have a good life the entire way!

The Baltimore-based initiative to provide a safe place for community members to go to in times of conflict just got rotated a few degrees. Last week it was discovered that the program would have its state funding cut entirely from $1M down to zero. In a panic, advocates of the program rallied to the call of their fallen cause:

                               Read about the rally to restore the Safe Streets initiative here.
 
Then on Monday, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan announced that the initiative would indeed be fully funded, and then some. Just over $2M is to be appropriated to the program, taking the number of locations and neighborhoods it represents from 4 to 9. But there is a catch, the program will have to work with the Opiod Task Force to find ways to cut down the heroin use in the state, and its so far unclear whether the new locations will be in the most dangerous Baltimore neighborhoods or will be shipped off elsewhere.

                               Read about the new grants in relation to Baltimore here.

The new program directive to help eradicate heroin is certainly a noble one, however, it could also mean stretching a fledgling project too thin, while limiting resources to its progenitor: Baltimore. Time will tell at this point. One thing is for sure, the program’s efficacy makes it a worthwhile investment.

                               Read the evaluation of the Safe Streets Initiative from Hopkins here.
 

​"Assault Weapon" is an interesting term. Made to categorically remove semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 from the rest of the lexicon, it stems from a belief that we should rank weapons according to their destructive power and then legislate accordingly. Shotguns sure do “Assault”, so do semi-automatic handguns. Not entirely arbitrarily but mostly so, we section these dangerous weapons off in an effort to curb the homicide rate in the US.
 
We’ve done it before. Between 1994 and 2004, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act made the manufacture (but not individual possession) of assault weapons illegal. The result? According to data compiled from US Crimes and Suicide Data, a 38.9% decrease in the homicide rate and a 6.7% decrease in the suicide rate relative to the start of the ban in 1994. 
 
But we should look at the broader picture. What happened in the decades following and preceding the ban? In the decade before the ban, 1984 to 1994, there was an 13.9% increase in the homicide rate and a 5.6% decrease in the suicide rate. In the decade following the ban, 2004 to 2014, the homicide rate decreased by 18.2% and the suicide rate increased by 16.2%. Well that’s interesting.

On the one hand, we seem to be riding a wave of decreasing violence with or without the ban. On the other, an Assault Weapons ban appears to have had a substantial impact on the homicide rate. Add to that, almost as a depressing icing on a morbid cake, our suicide rate has risen an alarming amount (mostly, an increase in Veterans' suicide rate).

Here's a table for summation:

What are the take-aways, in terms of increase constituent safety holistically?

1. Mental Health resources need to be increased, especially among veterans.
2. An Assault Weapons Ban (of the manufacture, but not possession of) could be helpful in continuing to decrease the national homicide rate.
   
3. As violence continues to fall, we must constantly be learning from the effects of different legislation, so as to corner and eliminate the problem as best we can. 

There are times where our largest achievements go unnoticed and the largest achievers go unrecognized. 
 
Kenny Barnes is well known by many, and has been a leading advocate against gun violence since the brutal murder of his son, Kenny, Jr., by a 17 year old youth in 2001.  Although he has been recognized by media, awards, proclamations, and by those on the forefront of the campaign against gun violence, he has somehow been excluded from the national dialogue, and not included with those voices that are offering recommendations and seeking solutions.
 
Furthermore, Mr. Barnes believes firmly that gun violence, and its accompanying youth violence, is a public health/mental health crisis and not a legal issue; that 2nd amendment arguments and debates cloud the real issues of the causes of gun violence; and that legislation, though a part of a comprehensive strategic approach to reducing gun violence, is not, in and of itself, the panacea.
 
In fact, among Mr. Barnes' many accomplishments was the introduction to Congress in 2009 by Congressman Bobby Rush of a public health model for reducing gun and youth violence, entitled The Community in Action Neighborhood Defense and Opportunity Bill, The CANDO Bill –HR1303. This Bill is the only one of its kind ever introduced in Congress to address the reduction of gun violence from a comprehensive, public health perspective.
 
In addition to having proclamations introduced on both the Senate and House floors by Senator Carl Levin and Congressman Bobby Rush, respectively, ceremonial proclamations and resolutions have been introduced in Washington, D.C., along with 2 days named in his honor in Prince Georges County, Montgomery County, and Boston, Mass.
 
Mr. Barnes has been at the forefront of organizing the D.C. community in blocking attempted efforts by others, including members of Congress and the Senate, to change the gun laws as they exist in the District of Columbia.
 
His reasoning, unlike many others, is not based on 2nd amendment issues, but on autonomy.  His rallying cry was that only D.C. residents should decide what regulations regarding gun laws should be imposed in the District of Columbia.  His efforts with respect to his involvement include:
 
▪  Serving as a friend-of-the court, “amicus curiae,” for the landmark decision by the U.S.  Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller.
▪  Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was dissuaded in his attempt to introduce legislation that would have drastically changed the D.C. gun laws.  After a compassionate meeting with Senator Frist’s chief of staff, led by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mr. Barnes, and Ms. Marita Michael, Senator Frist withdrew his support for the Bill.
▪  Mr. Barnes organized the effort and helped lead the charge against the Ensign Amendment, introduced by Senator John Ensign, which led to its demise.
▪  Mr. Barnes organized and facilitated the campaign and subsequent press conference to denounce S. 3265/H.R. 5162, “The Second Amendment Enforcement Act," together with the D.C. Mayor, the entire City Council, various local and national organizations, and victims of gun violence, all organized by Mr. Barnes, aligned to express opposition to this legislation which was introduced by Senators John McCain and Jon Tester. Based on his efforts, Mr. Barnes was instrumental in having these Senators withdraw their support for the Bill.
 
In April, 2013, Mr. Barnes was selected by the Rotary Club Foundation and the National Rotary Club as one of 10 Rotarians chosen throughout the United States to be presented to the White House as a Champion of Change during Rotary Day at the White House.
 
Mr. Barnes was the recipient of the 2009 National Service Award presented to him by the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder during National Victims of Crime Week. This honor is the highest award to an individual based upon their work on behalf of victims of crime.
 
Finally, perhaps his greatest achievement to go unrecognized is that Mr. Barnes may be the only person in the country to have met or discussed with the following organizations, institutions, and individuals in a true quest to set aside differences and work together collaboratively in an effort to reduce the incidents of gun violence:
 
▪  Wayne LaPierre & the National Rifle Association - NRA
▪  The Brady Campaign
▪  The NAACP
▪  The Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
▪   Dr. Abby Spangler, Founder, Protest Easy Guns
▪  The Vera Institute of Justice
▪  Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health
▪  Howard University
▪  Debbie Weiss and the UCLA School of Public Health
▪  Dr. Carl Bell, Director of Public Health & Community Psychiatry, the University of Chicago
▪  Dr. Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Associate Dean & Professor of Public Health Practice, Harvard 
 University
▪  Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland

(Article written by Barbara Hanson of HHM Consultants, Inc. - www.hhmconsultantsinc.com)

Cities across America are facing a gun violence epidemic and Baltimore City has been amongst the hardest hit. Last year, a spike in homicides put the area at a record high rate of 55 per 100,000 people. Right before the memorial day break, the count for murders during 2016 passed the century mark. This gives a projected annual rate of 39 per 100,000. A slight improvement, but still not good enough.


                                                          Read the article from the Baltimore Sun.


The spirit of the city is quite a bit calmer, and more people are talking about social change. However, the urban renewal projects set in place to try to create an environment that naturally deters violence still have much work to do, as these things to not happen overnight. 

I came across an article recently that described the relationship of gang membership with suicide attempts. While everyone seems to know about how gang violence increases the amount of homicides on the streets, perhaps more surprising is the its relationship to self-inflicted injury.

                                                            Read the full article here.

It describes a study from the journal of Criminal Justice and Behavior that found that gang members are TWICE as likely to attempt suicide as the normal population. The risks and highly stressful environment of street violence has an enormous affect on those who participate, and the results are extremely tragic. 

As we continue in the fight against gun violence, we find that the symptoms we see are so often a terrible summation of past traumas that congeal into a formidable effect of unpredictability and aggression. Intervening in these situations as mediators and therapists gives us the best chance of properly dealing with these issues.   

When we talk about gun violence, something always gets left out. We fear mass shootings and terrorist attacks, but more often than not, a violent act committed with a gun is committed against oneself rather than others. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm) there are 6.7 suicides by guns per 100,000 people, compared to only 3.5 homicides. The overall rate of suicides and homicides (with or without a firearm) is 13 and 5.1 respectively per 100,000 people.
 
Given that there are twice as many suicides as homicides, why do we focus so much on mass shootings? They certainly affect us emotionally. They drive into us fear that it could happen to us, but when you look around you, you are more likely to have a friend or family kill themselves then die by the hand of another.
 
This is why we argue for a public and mental health perspective on gun violence. Identifying key triggers to suicide can help to save lives. Allocating resources to high risk areas and demographics (males age 18-34 are especially at risk) can go a long way to reduce gun violence that is expressed against oneself. This is an important step, and one of many, involved in properly addressing gun violence.

During tonight’s State of the Union address, President Obama will likely mention his new plan to address gun violence. The main points of his plan are pretty spot on, and I expect us, as a nation, to drive the continuing conversation about addressing gun violence in such a way that measurable results are observed. His administration has outlined the policy with four major points:
 

1. “Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.” – make sure that people who are struggling to maintain the clarity of thought needed to operate a gun with consistent safety are not allowed to purchase such an item until it is deemed permissible.
   
2. “Make our communities safer from gun violence.” – investment in systems that communicate ballistic information and internet gun-sales.
3. “Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system.” – $500 million toward mental healthcare and reporting direct threats of homicide or suicide to the background check system.
4. “Shape the future of gun safety technology.” – investment in making guns safer so that accidents are greatly reduced.

 
These are all very important steps to reducing gun violence, but I feel the one that still requires the most conversation is the one about mental health. Effective treatment is key, but what does that look like? And how do we truly remove the stigma of mental illness?
 
I feel it may be important to recognize what mental illness truly is; a temporary condition that is the result of stress and trauma. When we label people as “bipolar” or “schizophrenic”, and assume these conditions to be chronic, we assert onto them a learned helplessness that they cannot improve, because it is simply in their nature to be ill. This is not the case.
 
All of us experience depression, all of us experience delusion, but in different ways and to different degrees. It is much like the flu. Most of the time we can power through, make it to work, and maybe take some cough syrup. Other times, it is such a powerful virus that we are confined to our rooms with the lights out.
 
Providing effective treatment that properly addresses the patient’s past traumas and current stresses, and provides them with strategies to move forward, will go a long way. After all, there are three gun related suicides to every two gun related homicides each year in the US. The gun violence issue is as much about the violence we put on ourselves as it is the violence we put on others.  

I recently had the privilege of teaching adult literacy at LIFT Baltimore. When discussing an essay topic the class had just completed, our talk veered into the violent world the students had become accustomed to. A late middle-age student, who had been a mother, told of a horrific incident where her son was tied to a tree and shot for not wanting to join a gang. My heart broke upon hearing this.
 
We talked further about the territorial nature of gang violence, and in particular, how Cherry Hill was divided between those at the top and those at the bottom of the hill. This escalated the violent activity to unbearable levels.
 
Then I read an article about a program in Cherry Hill that has mentors and outreach activists speaking out against violence and making their neighborhood safer. Mentorship may be the thing we need to create the strong communities necessary to dispel violent activity, and this ideology is perfectly housed in the Safe Streets program of Baltimore City.
 
Catering to the Cherry Hill, McElderry Park, Mondwamin, and Park Heights communities, the program enlists outreach workers who are the soul of the organization. They reach out to affected youths with a risk of violence. They call attention to safety and canvass for peace. They respond to shootings with vigils and marches. Pulling a community together is the essence of success in their mission.
 
The numbers are proving it works. Cherry Hill has had only four shooting incidents and one official homicide during a year where Baltimore has seen its largest ever homicide rate. Similar successes have occurred in the other communities as well. The question is, why hasn’t this program been scaled up to meet the demands of the city?

The issue of gun violence is inevitably controlled by our brains. While perhaps an oversimplification, the left/right brain dynamics can help us understand how we think about gun violence and its consequences. The unity of emotion and reason is where progress is made.
 
The left temporal hemisphere of the human brain is thought to house most of our analytical and critical thinking. People with a dominant left brain tend to make decisions based on logic and fact rather than an emotional response. Mathematics and language are the foundation of this logic. Whenever a new mass shooting occurs, left-brain dominant people will more likely use statistics and chart trends to make their points about legislation.
 
The right temporal hemisphere, on the other hand, is thought to be responsible for our gut reactions and emotions. A right-brain dominant person will likely emote against a larger picture view of things. This type of thinking sometimes leads to a person being more creative or artistic. Typical responses to gun violence tend to be more dramatic and filled with a striking emotional content.
 
Of course, all people have left and right temporal hemispheres, so we all experience a mixture of these two mental modes as we process information. Then, as we have experiences that provide us with new stimuli, we begin to change our thinking to adapt to the new signals coming in. Personal experience can temper one’s default settings to make a person more or less emotional about a subject.
 
Experience can therefore be a huge progenitor to a person’s views on gun violence. This is why we here at ROOT, Inc believe in sharing these experiences. When our founder Kenny Barnes, Sr. lost his son to a senseless act of gun violence, he decided to share his story with the world. So many people have similar experiences. They’ve lost someone close to them or know someone who has. They’ve survived direct hits; they have scars – both physical and emotional.
 
So many people have been affected by gun violence. Too many people, but sharing the experience helps us to understand the overwhelming amount of information our left-right brains must process. Only then can we actually understand how to fix this epidemic.