This article considers the implications of theory and research in developmental psychopathology for existing and emerging social policy concerning treatment of child and adolescent psychopathology. Based on the concept that all psychopathology is a process, four core principles of a developmental psychopathology perspective are discussed. In turn, each is applied to an evaluation of policy issues with implications for intervention, including mental health parity, treatment guidelines, mental health reimbursement, and level of intervention. It is concluded that social policy on treatment must be based on an empirically supported theory of developmental psychopathology and on evidence-based interventions that link treatments to pathogenic processes.

This paper examines the conceptual and empirical connections between competence and psychopathology, two historically rich traditions for the study of adaptation in development, and what might be gained from their integration. Historical roots of these two traditions are reviewed, then overlaps in their definition are considered, with a focus on the ways in which judgments about competence enter into the nosology of mental disorders. DSM-IV is analyzed from the perspective of competence, and the debate about “harmful dysfunction” in defining mental disorder is discussed in relation to competence. Different models explaining the empirical associations of competence and psychopathology are delineated, and illustrative empirical evidence is provided. Potential explanations include confounded concepts and methods, symptoms undermining the effectiveness of adaptation in the environment, failures in age-salient developmental tasks leading to emotional and behavioral problems, transactional influences, shared vulnerability or risk factors producing both kinds of difficulties, and more complex models. The potential benefits of integrating competence and psychopathology as two major approaches to adaptation are discussed in regard to theory, classification of mental disorder, research, and intervention.

The focus of this article is on the interface between research on resilience—a construct representing positive adaptation despite adversity —and the applications of this work to the development of interventions and social policies. Salient defining features of research on resilience are delineated, as are various advantages, limitations, and precautions linked with the application of the resilience framework to developing interventions. For future applied efforts within this tradition, a series of guiding principles are presented along with exemplars of existing programs based on the resilience paradigm. The article concludes with discussions of directions for future work in this area, with emphases on an enhanced interface between science and practice, and a broadened scope of resilience-based interventions in terms of the types of populations, and the types of adjustment domains, that are encompassed.