Riskmablog

ATIXA Executive Director Brett Sokolow Co-Authors Letter in Support of the Title IX Dear Colleague Letter on Campus Sexual Violence

2012-02-08T20:04:00.000-08:00

Read the letter here, and see the more than 55 signatory organizations who have joined in support.

http://www.atixa.org/documents/Organizational%20Sign-on%20for%20DCL%20re%20Sexual%20Violence%202012%20FINAL%20Sign%20on.pdf

Brett Sokolow of NCHERM Featured in Time Magazine and ABC News This Week About the Penn State Scandal

2011-12-13T12:02:00.000-08:00

TIME MAGAZINE: Penn State of Mind

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2101025,00.html

ABC NEWS ARTICLE: Lessons for Penn State: Cover-Ups Cost Money, Student Lives

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/lessons-penn-state-college-cover-ups-protect-reputation/story?id=14977462

ARTICLE ABOUT CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT IN U.S. CATHOLIC MAGAZINE

http://www.uscatholic.org/life/2011/11/getting-through-how-catholic-colleges-are-responding-sexual-assault?page=0,0

Article About NCHERM Appears in the Chronicle of Higher Education 11/21/11

2011-11-21T07:36:00.000-08:00

The 'Fearmonger'

As liability worries rise, advising colleges on risk becomes a big business

Brett Sokolow's entrepreneurial zeal in the growing field of legal services in student affairs has attracted both clients and skeptics.

By Sara Lipka

Campus officials panic over the threat of a federal investigation. And few issues are as perilous as sexual assault. Administrators anxious about the Education Department's new rules for resolving complaints also dread being sued by students on either side.

Promotional offers of expert advice stoke those fears even as they promise to allay them: Everything you need to know to avoid fines and liability—just sign up for this training! This fall the brand-new Association for Title IX Administrators, named for the gender-equity law, issued more than 10,000 invitations to buy such reassurance, four days of it, for $2,500 a head.

The force behind the start-up is the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, a law and consulting firm led by Brett A. Sokolow. In the growing field of legal services in student affairs, nobody is faster. A prolific writer and tireless self-promoter, Mr. Sokolow forms associations around hot topics like threat assessment and the prevention of health and safety hazards. Building an empire of acronyms, he has drawn both adherents and skeptics.

The firm has founded or financed three organizations since 2009. The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association, or Nabita, now counts 960 members; the School and College Organization for Prevention Educators, or Scope, has 150; and the Title IX group, known as Atixa, has registered 320 members since it started, in August. Over the next six months, Mr. Sokolow and two partners will run about 20 events under those banners.

What makes that pace possible, critics say, is presenting only a single position on, for example, federal regulations, rather than a range of interpretations, as workshops run by traditional professional associations tend to do. But nervous administrators crave clear instructions, and the new groups' events, which often outline model policies, sell out.

At Atixa's most recent training session, in a suburban Philadelphia hotel last month, four panelists sat flanked by projection screens. Mr. Sokolow, 40, in a navy blazer and paisley tie and handkerchief, insisted that colleges should treat sexual misconduct as a civil-rights issue and conduct thorough investigations of all complaints.

"The key piece you don't discover ends up being litigated," he told the participants. To do a decent job, any campus should have a separate Title IX coordinator and investigators, he recommended. "I hate to fearmonger," he said, "but I do."

Investigations are fairer than the hearings that many colleges now hold to resolve sexual-assault complaints, and administrators should switch models, Mr. Sokolow later told a reporter. "If you can't motivate them necessarily because it's the right thing to do," he said, "then the other piece of this is there are now consequences."

He'd prefer not to resort to fear, he said, but it works, especially when participants relay it to their presidents. At the training, he encouraged attendees to go back to their campuses and make the case for the resources they need; he recommended that colleges have six Title IX investigators. Atixa is offering a dozen training sessions for such investigators next year.

Registrations for Atixa's two most recent training sessions brought in more than $850,000. After such events, requests for the firm's legal and consulting services—including campus visits, with fees starting at $6,500 a day—typically increase by at least 20 percent, Mr. Sokolow said.
That market is driven by concerns about legal liabilities and federal regulations that are more complex than ever, said Peter F. Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University. "We're in a new era of the compliance university."

A competitive risk-management industry is a sign of the times, and old sources of advice, like professional associations, are falling behind, said Mr. Lake, who also consults on campuses. "There's no question that the third-party-vending world is going to rise."

At Your Service

Dating a survivor of sexual assault made Mr. Sokolow an activist, he said. As a student at the College of William & Mary, he lobbied the administration to do more to respond to rape ("I was marginally successful," he said), and he went to Washington to campaign for the Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights, which Congress enacted in 1992.

In law school at Villanova University, he studied how federal civil-rights statutes could be interpreted to compel colleges to protect victims' rights and resolved to make that his life's work. As he saw it, he had two options: "I could be the kind of person who sued colleges," he said, "or I could be the sort of person who was working for change from the inside."

He chose the latter, opening the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management in 2000. As business picked up, he recruited two partners, W. Scott Lewis, then assistant vice provost at the University of South Carolina and now associate general counsel at Saint Mary's College, in Indiana; and Saundra K. Schuster, a former associate dean of students at Ohio State University and general counsel at Sinclair Community College, also in Ohio.

Today the firm, known as Ncherm (pronounced EN-kerm), retains seven additional consultants and advertises more than two dozen areas of expertise, including campus safety, classroom management, and disability law. It offers to train campus police and resident assistants, review staff manuals and student-government constitutions, and provide expert witnesses in cases involving, among other issues, National Collegiate Athletic Association violations and hazing. The firm's Web site indicates that the available services extend beyond the many that are listed, noting: "Please let us know how we can meet your needs."

Twenty-seven institutions, including Milwaukee Area Technical College and Tulane University, have retained Ncherm as special counsel, and Mr. Sokolow counts 2,200 clients that have used the firm's services. It distributes several free books and sells other items, like the Complete 2006 and 2007 Student Suicide Webinar Series, for $599.99.

Though now offering wide-ranging services, Mr. Sokolow long focused on sexual assault, advocating for more federal guidance and advising colleges to tighten their policies, by, for example, lowering the burden of proof in sexual-assault cases to "more likely than not." In April the Education Department delivered much of what he envisioned when it issued a forceful "Dear Colleague" letter, directing colleges to, among other things, use the lower burden of proof and eliminate mediation in sexual-assault cases.

"It probably comes within 70 to 80 percent of the prescription we've been giving out to the ailing patient for years," Mr. Sokolow said. As he told Philadelphia magazine in September, "The 'Dear Colleague' letter was one of the most important moments of my professional life."

Immediately afterward, the firm issued a statement touting its "unrivaled depth of understanding of best practices" and announcing its training courses. "We trust that you will continue to turn to Ncherm to keep you out ahead of the government's expectations," it said.

'Not a Traditional Nonprofit'

In its marketing, the group regularly refers to itself as a nonprofit. But the impression that description evokes, of a tax-exempt organization with transparent finances, isn't accurate. Ncherm is registered in Pennsylvania as a nonprofit corporation, which means it must pay taxes and disburse all of its annual revenue in expenses, including salaries.

Nonprofit corporations are run essentially as businesses, said David M. Watts, a tax lawyer in Harrisburg, Pa. "As a practical matter, they aren't necessarily that different." Technically no individual can profit, but salaries have no limit. "It's a matter of terminology," he said.

Mr. Sokolow declined to divulge his salary, which he said would distract from his contributions to the field. Nor would he disclose his firm's revenues, saying only that with one exception, they've grown by more than 30 percent a year. He isn't compelled to share such information, he said: "We're not a traditional nonprofit."
So why advertise that way? "If people perceived that the motive was all profit making, they would be suspicious," he said. He sought nonprofit status because his motive was advocacy. "We make good money, don't get me wrong," he said. "I always say we're doing well while doing good."

Ncherm operates out of Mr. Sokolow's house, a $1.2-million colonial at the end of a cul-de-sac along suburban Philadelphia's Main Line. So do two of the new affiliate groups, which he seeded with revenue from the firm and set up as membership organizations.

Traditionally such groups are formed when campus-based administrators unite, but Mr. Sokolow wanted to convene them, he said. "The model for each of the associations was to bring together the best minds."

The idea for the behavioral-intervention group, Nabita, came from Cori M. Sokolow, his wife and the executive director of Ncherm. Nabita, now preparing for its third annual conference, is a "big tent" that includes presentations by speakers with whom he disagrees, Mr. Sokolow said. Its presidency has been transferred from him to his two Ncherm partners, Ms. Schuster and Mr. Lewis.

Last summer, when the firm's first certification program for Title IX administrators sold out, its partners decided to start another group. "We said, You know what, this is the moment,'" Mr. Sokolow recalled. "We did Atixa lightning quick."
They transferred the relevant intellectual property from Ncherm to Atixa and developed a new Web site, representing members with stock photographs of smiling, diverse professionals—photos also used by CarMax and the Colorado Women's Chamber of Commerce.

"Why Join Atixa?" the site asks. "You should know that OCR is cracking down on enforcement," it says, referring to the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights. "Title IX is fertile litigation territory, and institutional and personal liability are real, and very often, uninsurable." Annual membership in the group, $599 for an individual or $2,499 for a college, provides benefits that include legal updates, quarterly newsletters, and access to an e-mail list.

'So Much That We're Needing'

At the training last month, representatives from a range of institutions—Colgate and Yale Universities, Grand Rapids Community College, the University of Northern Colorado—collected hefty spiral-bound manuals: 300 pages of model policies, position papers, and PowerPoint slides, each bearing an Atixa copyright.

Ginger Morgan, associate dean of students at Colorado College, admitted that she was somewhat skeptical. "There's a self-interest in creating a professional association," she said. But at the same time, Mr. Sokolow and his partners are familiar with federal recommendations and legal precedents, and talented at drafting policies, she said. "I'm sitting here at this conference and finding it incredibly beneficial."

The groups make clear their connections; Mr. Sokolow's e-mail signature lists him as managing partner of Ncherm and executive director of both Nabita and Atixa. The organizations share space and three employees, but are independent, self-sustaining nonprofit corporations with separate memberships and events, he said.

Several participants in the recent training were unaware of the relationships, and upon discovering them didn't care. "It was a great experience," said Eddie Pawlawski, executive vice president of Cumberland University, in Tennessee. "It was everything that I felt like I needed to have."

He saw a flier for Ncherm's special-counsel program and did not object to it. "I didn't feel like I was being solicited at all," he said. "We have so much that we're needing information about in higher education."

Atixa reached out to campus officials again this month, releasing a statement on the sexual-abuse scandal at Pennsylvania State University. Title IX can be used to hold colleges liable for "deliberate indifference," the failure to remedy sexual assault, the statement said. It encouraged readers to contact Mr. Sokolow for more information.

Offers of expertise pour in from all over. "There are Webinars and conferences and workshops till the cows come home," said Gary Dickstein, assistant vice president for student affairs at Wright State University. "The more seasoned a professional is, the more choosy they are."

Others may act on impulse in signing up. "When you have limited resources, limited staffing, and you know there's something out there that you have to get on the ball and learn about," Mr. Dickstein said, "you look for the easiest and fastest way to get it done."

A general counsel at a regional public institution, already faced with two legal cases involving sexual misconduct, said he had come to Atixa's training because he was "scared to death" by the Education Department's letter. The agenda looked so useful that the university decided to send three officials, for a total of about $10,000, including travel expenses.

"We have a pretty substantial investment," said the general counsel, who asked not to be named. "But of course, you get one case, ... " he added, trailing off.
Atixa's training includes certification, which the group advertises as helpful in legal defense. No external authority verifies the credential, but it still conveys confidence, said Karen S. McIntyre, senior vice president for academic and student affairs at Point Park University, in Pennsylvania, who also attended. "The certification for us internally verifies that it was comprehensive," she said.
For some of the topics on which Mr. Sokolow's groups offer workshops, practitioners have challenged his qualifications. One campus official, who asked that his name not appear, had looked into Mr. Sokolow's recommendations for stemming substance abuse. "I tried to find that he had the content-area training and was unable to find that," he said. "The stuff he says people should be doing, is there any research to support it?"

College counseling-center directors also questioned Ncherm's expertise—and motives—on their private e-mail list in 2009. Mr. Sokolow replied openly on his blog, describing his diligent research and regular visits to campuses. His services have expanded, he wrote, based on demand.

"As my work became known and trusted, our clients called upon us for help with more and more of the issues vexing higher education," he wrote. "Value received for value given is honest, ethical and part of the integrity of who we are and what we do."
Desperately Seeking Guidance

Competition from professional associations and other vendors is picking up, especially for guidance on sexual misconduct. Both the National Association of College and University Attorneys and the insurer United Educators gave Webinars this month and will offer online courses in the spring. Margolis Healy & Associates, a small business led by two former campus police chiefs, is about to run its second Title IX training session, two days for $895. The law firm Ballard Spahr recently hired a second former sex-crimes prosecutor for its Title IX practice, whose business doubled this year.

Meanwhile, Atixa is marketing itself aggressively, especially to community colleges, which tend not to have in-house lawyers and really need advice, Mr. Sokolow said. His group plans to conduct three more certification courses for Title IX administrators, then offer advanced training as well as special sessions for both investigators and victim advocates.

Campus officials are desperately seeking guidance on these issues, said Daniel C. Swinton, director of student conduct and academic integrity at Vanderbilt University and president of the Association for Student Conduct Administration. "The market will bear what people are seeking," said Mr. Swinton, who spoke at Atixa's most recent training.

Some administrators want to attend, but their institutions cannot afford it, Mr. Sokolow said. So he discounts or waives their registration fees. "When I want to help people," he said, "I do."

Each event generates many follow-up e-mails from participants, which Mr. Sokolow and his partners are happy to answer. "We don't start the meter running," he said.
Each week they also respond to dozens of questions on professional associations' e-mail lists. Even if no clients come from that outreach, Mr. Sokolow said, it positions his team as "thought leaders" in the field.

Committed to his career, Mr. Sokolow estimates that he works about 90 hours a week. He plans to double his roster of affiliated consultants by the end of the year. From time to time he wonders when business will taper off, but for now, he sees no signs of that.

The firm's clients return at a rate of 80 percent, he said. Fear, it seems, still sells.

Reprinted With Permission of the Chronicle

NCHERM Managing Partner Brett A. Sokolow, Esq. Quoted in ABC News Story About Penn State Scandal

2011-11-18T09:25:00.001-08:00

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/lessons-penn-state-college-cover-ups-protect-reputation/story?id=14977462

ATIXA Statement on the Penn State Sexual Abuse Scandal

2011-11-11T11:11:00.003-08:00

ATIXA Statement on the Penn State Sexual Abuse Scandal -- November 11th, 2011 -- Malvern, PA

Much has been said and will be written about Jerry Sandusky and the sex abuse scandal involving Penn State University. ATIXA, the Association of Title IX Administrators, is dedicated to advancing information about and compliance with the federal Title IX statute, and will address the Title IX implications of this case.

Our thoughts are with the victims and their families who will never be the same. We are also transfixed, as are so many of us, by the human tragedy of university administrators entrusted with a public duty who sacrificed uncounted young boys to misplaced loyalties. What they knew will come out and we will continue to examine the Title IX implications of the information.

Much is being made of the criminal acts of Sandusky and those who covered for him. In the coming weeks and months, Penn State will be investigated for violating the Clery Act, a federal campus crime reporting law that requires reporting of forcible sex offenses. Lawsuits are likely, and will likely allege that the university -- and perhaps collaborating local officials – were negligent and exposed countless boys to foreseeable harm by failing to fulfill their duties to report and to act.

Will much be made of the Title IX implications of this case? We hope so. Title IX will celebrate its 40th anniversary in June of 2012. Title IX has for nearly 40 years been a tool to assure gender equity in educational programs at schools and colleges. Far beyond equalizing teams, athletic facilities and resources spent on athletics, Title IX can be used to hold school districts and colleges liable for failing to remedy gender discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Liability for Title IX is premised on notice of discriminatory conduct to high-ranking school or campus officials who then respond to that notice with deliberate indifference – failing to take reasonable actions to put an end to the behavior and prevent it from recurring. Title IX also imposes a duty to remedy the effects of the discrimination on the victims. Courts commonly find that a single act of rape is enough to create a discriminatory effect on the basis of gender.

Title IX has no statute of limitations. Courts implied the right to sue under Title IX, and when they did, they never specified a time limitation for filing. In this case, we might see whether acts dating back to 1998 (or earlier) and 2002 that were known to campus officials are still actionable by the victims and their families in the courts. In the case of child victims, courts can be very lenient on tolling the right to file suit, as happened in many of the clergy abuse cases filed against the Catholic Church.

The 40+ count indictment of Sandusky makes clear that the highest ranking officials of Penn State had knowledge of his pattern of abuse and even rape. That is why they have lost their jobs and some are facing prosecution for failing to report the abuse as a crime to authorities. Their failure to act can also form the basis for allegations of deliberate indifference under Title IX. Forcing Sandusky’s early retirement, allegedly taking away the keys to the locker room, and sending him off to run a camp in Erie may not be enough to shield Penn State from Title IX liability. Perhaps Sandusky wasn’t an employee at the time, but was he an agent? The acts occurred on university property. The victims weren’t students at Penn State, but they may have been lured there through its programs.

What we do know is that the proper application of Title IX – stopping discriminatory behavior through reporting and action -- could likely have prevented what has become a large-scale tragedy. And this is why ATIXA continues to strive for a standard where all K-12 schools, colleges and universities – not just departments within these institutions – properly apply the law. ATIXA hopes that the lessons learned from this case permeate our culture to lessen any tolerance for sexual harassment, assault and abuse in any form.

For additional information, contact ATIXA Executive Director Brett A. Sokolow, Esq. Brett@atixa.org. (610) 993-0229. www.atixa.org.

How to Put the Penn State Scandal to Rest

2011-11-09T21:31:00.000-08:00

The formula to put this to rest isn’t that complicated. It will linger as a scandal for years of media coverage and litigation (like Duke) unless the Board acts decisively, which it appears inclined to do as evidenced by its firings tonight of President Graham Spanier and coach Joe Paterno. Next steps...

Step 1: apologize and come clean. We knew and we ignored it and covered-up.
Step. 2: publicly admit Clery Act and Title IX violations.
Step 3: Settle with the victims and families before they even hire a lawyer.

Then, healing and growing as a community can start sooner than later.

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Managing Partner, NCHERM

NCHERM Partner Saundra K. Schuster, Esq., Quoted in Campus Legal Advisor About Online Free Speech Cases

2011-10-31T12:22:00.003-07:00

http://www.ncherm.org/documents/CampusLegalAdvisorNOv2011-Seepage6.pdf

Response to the Anonymous Dean

2011-10-31T10:55:00.000-07:00

On October 28, 2011, an anonymous student affairs administrator wrote an “Open Letter to OCR” that was published in Inside Higher Education. ATIXA’s comments are annotated to the original letter, reproduced below, and appear in italics:

Dear Colleague,

Actually, let me rephrase that.

Dear Attorneys Who Are Employed by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights,

There. That's better. Because despite the fact that you addressed me as a "colleague" in the April 4, 2011 missive that has made my professional life so difficult, a document that has become familiar to me and my (actual) colleagues as the "Dear Colleague Letter," you are not my colleague. A colleague is someone I work with. You are a group of mostly nameless, faceless individuals who crafted a 19-page document that at best complicates my work, at worst undermines my judgment and my ability to make good decisions for my institution and my students.

Not that we haven't needed some guidance in this area. Sexual assault is indeed a difficult and ubiquitous problem in our work. Drunk students are vulnerable to becoming victims. Drunk students are emboldened to become assailants. And I have a lot of drunk students. We all do. Despite our best efforts to provide alcohol-free activities, alcohol education and significant sanctions for alcohol-fueled behavioral problems, there is still no activity on our campuses that can compete with drinking for students' interest and affection. I work for a selective institution whose students are academically pretty strong. It's not as bad on my campus as it seems to be on others. But it's bad, and I have the incident reports to prove it.

A few years ago, the Center for Public Integrity published a report that excoriated that excoriated colleges and universities for their handling of sexual assault cases. It was an absolutely indicting report... unless the reader was, like I am, a student affairs professional who could easily imagine being the one publicly criticized in the report. Yes, I could imagine it. Not that I believed at that point (or since) that I had mismanaged a sexual assault case, but because the ones I had managed were enormously complex, full of truths, lies, reversals, angry parents, hungry lawyers and empowered supporters.

In each of these, I did my best to navigate the extremely difficult landscape, managing to avoid a public airing of the case by an ill-informed media or a lawsuit brought by a student (victim or accused) who felt wronged in the process. This is not at all to say I'm incredibly skilled. Luck probably plays more a part in this than most of us feel comfortable admitting publicly. I happen to know some of the professionals the CPI report criticizes, and I doubt I am much more competent than any of them. I have just been fortunate not to have been the one in the proverbial hot seat, directing a process that is complicated and flawed, at the precise moment several factors merged to create a public relations and professional disaster.

Please don't interpret my comments to mean that I don't appreciate the Office for Civil Rights' efforts to try to assist me in doing my work. I'm always eager for new perspectives that increase my knowledge and strategies related to sexual misconduct response. In laying out some guidelines for how I should inform my students of our policies, ferry them through the process, and report the outcomes, you have given me and my (real) colleagues some consistent expectations that allow us to keep the issue of sexual misconduct in the forefront of our minds as we design our programs, interventions and support strategies.

You have, though, gone too far. While the legal experts out there have been commenting on, criticizing and calling for revisions of the Dear Colleague Letter, I've been plugging away here on my campus, trying to do, at the most fundamental level, the work you purport to oversee.

Let me say this respectfully and with as much clarity as I can: you do not know my work. You do not know what I face every day in responding to a student culture of alcohol-infused hook-ups, where regrettable sex is a daily occurrence. The law has defined sexual misconduct as any activity that takes place with a person who is incapacitated by alcohol or other drugs. That makes sense, until you have to determine what "incapacitation" entails. I'm not much of a drinker myself, but I know that a couple of drinks loosen my tongue enough to say things I might never say without the alcohol. Am I incapacitated? No. But my judgment is impaired.

ATIXA responds: Letters like this appear to mean well, and this one is no doubt well-intentioned. This dean is frustrated, feeling burdened and torn between serving victims and accused students with balance and equality. Yet, the problem with letters such as these is that they prime the audience for non-compliance with messages that convey (inaccurately) that Title IX is so burdensome, compliance is so onerous and the expectations are so unfair that colleges can’t possibly make everyone happy without running afoul of the government.

Let’s acknowledge that there are in the April 4th, 2011 Dear Colleague Letter some new responsibilities that add to the load by which administrators are already saddled. The Title IX Coordinator is a full-time job on many campuses. Training and prevention requirements are broad and deep. Yet, the burdens that this dean is expressing are largely of his or her own creation, and placing the blame on OCR for not understanding campus culture won’t help.

We hope the following comments from ATIXA will help. The dean references above that if s/he has a couple of drinks, s/he is impaired. While true, being impaired while engaging in sex in no way implicates Title IX. Perhaps much of the frustration in the field comes from assumptions of what Title IX addresses and what it does not. S/he was right when referencing the fact that incapacitated sex will implicate Title IX, but confusing incapacitation with impairment helps no one here, especially the students who are trying to understand their experiences. If we can’t define our own terms with clarity, how can they? How can we help them to contextualize a sexual experience that “feels icky” as distinct from a crime, as distinct from a policy violation and not as a gender-based violation of their civil rights?

In some situations, the student who is the accuser is clearly incapacitated -- practically (or actually) unconscious. In most cases, though, it's the impairment of her judgment -- agreeing to have sex with someone who, the next morning, she will regret having had sex with -- that causes her friends and supporters and other campus employees to tell her she's been sexually assaulted and needs to file a complaint. This process then begins the long journey down the rabbit hole of OCR-specified response that never ends well.

ATIXA responds: It only begins a process if an administrator lets it. Let’s shed the passive voice here and take ownership over our remedial processes. What is described here is not a severe, pervasive or persistent unwelcome sexual advance. Our deans need to be effective gatekeepers for the process. Investigate complaints, of course, but not every complaint should result in a charge.

Let me repeat that, because it haunts me: these things never end well. All students are traumatized to some degree or another. Families are devastated. And the professionals who must coordinate this process are expected to operate with constraints on our judgment and strategies imposed by a group of people who don't understand what we deal with every day, led by someone who has, according to her online bio, never done a job like mine.

ATIXA responds: Perhaps they never end well because we’re applying a conduct process designed to protect the rights of accused students, rather than deploying a civil rights lens? ATIXA’s upcoming November free webinar details what a civil rights investigation and grievance process is and how it works (http://atixa.org/events_webinars.html#free). In practice, many campuses experience higher levels of outcome satisfaction from this process, and greater perceptions of fairness and balance. Continuing to do what doesn’t work just doesn’t make sense. It’s time for a new paradigm.

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Civil Rights Russlynn Ali is an impressive woman, clearly dedicated to both the legal profession and to education. But nothing I have learned about her indicates that she has ever sat in a seat like mine or been in a position like mine, across from a college student who is reporting an alleged assault or a student who is hearing for the first time that he has been accused of one.

It is unlikely that Ms. Ali has ever sat at desk like mine, on the phone with a parent who cannot believe I allowed his daughter to drink, much less allowed (or not allowed -- always a difficult point to discuss) a "boy" to do the things her account reports. Or a parent who wants to know why I have sent her son home without so much as a hearing, an action we call "interim removal," while we investigate these claims.

"Because the alleged victim is afraid of seeing him, and the Office for Civil Rights has made it clear that our process must support the alleged victim in this way" is not an answer that satisfies an angry mother who believes that her son (1) has been unjustly accused, (2) has not been given a chance to defend himself (yet), and 3) may find his ability to succeed academically compromised by his absence from classes during this investigation. Has Ms. Ali ever had a parent, in a rageful voice, point out the inequity of all of this? Because I've experienced that on several occasions as I have tried to do what OCR expects from a "victim-friendly" policy.

ATIXA responds: Interim suspension should not be an automatic action. It is inequitable to disrupt an accused student’s academic pursuits without a credible complaint. That said, many campuses do not use it when it should be used. Interim suspension is appropriate for two reasons, 1) to protect the alleged victim/community from an ongoing threat of harm, or 2) to prevent the accused student from impeding the progress of the investigation. Not every complaint represents an ongoing threat, or at least evidences that threat early on. Interim suspension should be used as necessary (violence, predation, pattern, intentional incapacitation), but we can also look for ways for the accused student to continue academically during the suspension, including independent study, online, tutoring, etc.

Equating gender equity with being victim-friendly, as the dean does above, is a common misnomer. Being equitable is only victim-friendly if we haven’t been sufficiently victim-friendly in our processes in the past. The DCL mandates equity – doing what is fair under the circumstances. This is a nuanced and subtle mandate, not a blunt instrument. OCR wants us to avoid actions like the automatic “move the alleged victim’s class or room” philosophy that is prevalent on many college campuses, and ask what is fair under the circumstances. It doesn’t presume “guilt” to move an accused student to another section of the same class, or to move him to an equivalent room out of her residence hall. Students don’t have due process rights to a particular room or class section.

All OCR is saying is that gender equity demands we do not automatically inconvenience one gender (usually women), and ask whether it makes more sense to consider remedial actions toward the accused student given a credible accusation. Thus, if there is another equivalent class or room, consider moving him. If there is not an equivalent class, and the accused student and alleged victim are in the same class, offer the alleged victim alternative options such as an incomplete, independent study, etc. If they both want to remain in the class, then impose a no-contact order, send them to opposite sides of the room and let them finish the class. The DCL does not instruct us to kick the accused student out of the class in which he is enrolled, without proof of a violation, when there are no reasonable alternate academic options.

What is my response to that parent? That we are told to lead with belief of the alleged victim over the alleged accuser? Unlike a lawyer (and I suspect this is the crux of our differences), I am responsible for the welfare of all of my students — equally and dispassionately. Though I am often appalled by their actions, my job entails doing more than judging them.

ATIXA responds: We hope it is becoming clear that being unnecessarily polarizing isn’t constructive. Administrators don’t need to believe the alleged victim or disbelieve the accused student in order to implement equitable remedial actions. The talent is in finding ways that reasonably balance the rights of those involved.

My job is also to educate them. Yes, I can hear you now, as clearly as I can hear my more vociferous colleagues: sexual assault victims need to be supported and believed, and men need to be held accountable for their behavior. But you know what? I support my students every day. And I hold them accountable for their behavior. I determine how to do this based on more than two decades' worth of experience and interactions with them, and I tend to trust my judgment. I do not appreciate having my hands tied by the presumption of guilt the Dear Colleague Letter portrays.

ATIXA responds: We see that as a blatant straw man (or woman) argument. Nothing in Title IX or the DCL establishes or encourages a presumption of guilt (we prefer the term “violation” or “responsibility”). Being moved from one residence hall room to another room that is about the same, for the same cost, is not a punishment. For students and parents who decry not being able to live in the student’s room of choice, we think student affairs administrators need to push back against this attempt to recast entitlement and privilege as a due process right. That consumerist lens diminishes the dean to being nothing more than a customer service representative, and administrators contribute to commoditization of higher education when you roll over and accept that from parents and students. If it’s equitable to interim suspend a student, that doesn’t presume guilt. They may return from that suspension, be found not in violation in a hearing and continue with their studies. It might even be equitable to remediate the effect on the accused student of the disruption caused by the interim suspension. The law of interim suspension for colleges is very flexible and conveys broad discretion to administrators for the very reason that we have to prioritize the safety of our communities. That case law derives not from Title IX, but from challenges to due process.

Let me give you an example of a case I managed not long ago. I'll change a few of the facts, but not the ones that matter here. A woman, in speaking with her resident adviser, revealed that she had had sex with another student several days earlier. They had both been drinking. He invited her to his room and she went, enticed by the promise of more alcohol. Once there, he proceeded to kiss her, then do more, while she, according to her written report, "felt uncomfortable." Twice he stopped what he was doing and left her on the bed, once to turn on some music and once to get a condom. He also took a phone call in the middle of everything. She remained on his bed, thinking, "This is not really something that I want to do." She acquiesced to his request that she assume a certain position, that she do certain things to him. "But I really didn't want to." When he was done, he offered to walk her back to her dorm, and he did, saying goodnight to her and promising to see her the next morning at breakfast (which he did).

ATIXA responds: On some campuses, the prevailing reaction to the DCL is the creation of a victim-driven zeitgeist, and this dean is a perpetuator of it (I say this knowing that the dean may turn out to be client, but that’s the risk of commenting on anonymous letters, and there are larger lessons here). Victims should have the right to define their own experiences, but they do not have the right to define what violates our policy. We do, and we need to do a better job of defining what is transgressive. It doesn’t violate our policies just because a victim alleges it does. This dean’s letter just finds new and more politic ways to reiterate the tired “gray area” argument about campus sexual violence. As we’ve said for years, gray areas are created more by poorly articulated policy and insufficient training than by the incidents themselves.

The dean in this letter felt compelled to process this complaint against a male student. Why? What does his or her policy say about the behavior? It requires consent for sex. All of our policies should. Does it define consent, though? If so, does it define consent by what it is, or what it is not? Consent is simply clear sexual permission by word or action. It is active, knowing and voluntary. This dean talks of the lack of verbal consent in this case, but why would a policy require verbal consent? That’s not a requirement of Title IX. There are actions here that a conduct board could construe as consensual. That a male student may have then had consensual sex twice does not a pattern make (see continuation of the dean’s letter, below). Even if two female students file complaints about it.

This misunderstanding speaks to the need for clear policy standards, but also to a better-developed investigation capacity that determines once a complaint is made that there is reasonable cause to support a charge. Perhaps we don’t have all the facts here in the letter, but the specifics of what an alleged victim does can be as important as what an alleged victim says. This is not suggesting these women weren’t assaulted (though on the arguably limited facts as described here, we want to be VERY clear, there was no assault), but instead is asking if perhaps the campus zeitgeist isn’t influencing victims to define as victimization what our policies don’t specify as being violations? The runaway train effect of this leads to cases like the just-litigated case John Doe v. The University of the South, holding a student was negligently disciplined by the university for sexual misconduct. Details of that case can be found at http://atixa.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/the-important-lessons-of-john-doe-v-the-university-of-the-south-sewanee/

A week after she filed her report with us, beginning the process of charging him with sexual assault (she was, after all, drunk, and never verbally consented to any of his requests), a friend of hers came to us with a very similar report. Almost identical, in fact. He offered to share alcohol he had in his room. He quickly became intimate. She felt uncomfortable. He spoke, made requests, moved across the room for a condom from his dresser. She never verbally consented. She acquiesced to his requests without comment. He walked her back to her room. They had a friendly conversation the next day, and the day after that, just as they had before the incident. Both women then e-mailed their professors requesting some leniency for their class work because they had been "sexually assaulted in a dorm and were working on bringing charges against another student."

ATIXA responds: The dean raises the additional question of whether they were drunk. This again raises the red herring of confusing drunkenness with the policy standard of incapacitation. Drunk and incapacitated are not synonymous. Some drunk people have the capacity to give a rational, knowing consent to sex and some don’t. Those who don’t are incapacitated. Having sex with someone you know to be or should know to be incapacitated violates a well-defined policy. Having drunk sex should not violate a policy when you know you are having it, and are capable of making reasonable decisions at the time of the actions. Many students come to regret those actions later, and a supportive dean and counseling center are the right resources in such cases, not the student conduct process.

Two sexual assault charges against one student? Could I defend letting him remain on campus while we investigated this?

ATIXA responds: Yes, and it is the conduct administrator’s job to do so. If not, then it is the Title IX Coordinator’s.

My trusted (real) colleague said no -- that if that information got out to those on our campus who felt that we should have immediately removed him, the criticism would be sharp. Furthermore, my (real) colleague said, "If you don't, you are leaving yourself open to a clear violation of the spirit of the Dear Colleague Letter," which says that an institution must "take immediate action to eliminate the hostile environment… including taking interim steps before the final outcome of the investigation."

ATIXA responds: There were other options, including the non-contact orders, changes in housing and class schedules that we discussed above. Interim suspension should not be our go-to in cases where sexual contact cannot be established, or where consent was arguably present based on the initial investigated facts.

"But these women are not saying they feel threatened by his presence on campus."

"What if a third comes forward, and you have to explain that you knew about these first two and didn't immediately send him home?"

ATIXA responds: That assumes there was knowledge of previous violations. There were accusations, but not enough to establish a violation based on what is revealed here.

And so I did, and the case proceeded from there.

Looking back, I wish I had been able to bring these students together, to talk about what had happened, given them each a chance to air their grievances, respond, learn from what had happened. I have done that countless times in my office — mediated and sorted through differences between students who have behaved badly toward each other. I think this male student might have learned a lot about how to treat women. And perhaps these women would have learned something about self-respect, agency, their own perception of the place of sex in a relationship.

But the Dear Colleague Letter says clearly that "In cases involving allegations of sexual assault, mediation is not appropriate even on a voluntary basis."

ATIXA responds: Correct. We can’t mediate campus sexual violence, and campuses shouldn’t. It’s too serious an offense. BUT, that doesn’t mean we lose the opportunity for the meaningful conversation. We can’t force it, but we can facilitate it. JUST NOT IN LIEU OF A PROMPT AND EQUITABLE REMEDY. Informal resolutions are encouraged. No need for an investigation or a hearing if the accused student is willing to accept responsibility for a violation early on in the process. From there, restorative justice might be a very cathartic and appropriate sanctioning paradigm. And, mediation is only barred in lieu of a remedy. If you find (as you should have above) that they accused students were not in violation through your formal process, and you THEN want to facilitate a mediation or other form of conflict resolution, Title IX would not prohibit that.

Finally, we need to be careful about assumptions here of the danger accused individuals may represent. Talking it out may make sense only when we assume that an act of sexual misconduct is the product of a misunderstanding or other correctable “mistake.” Restorative justice depends on sincere offender accountability. Yet, we know that most sexual misconduct is not the result of miscommunication, but of predation. 90% of assaults are committed by repeat offenders (Lisak & Miller, 2002). That doesn’t mean any one accused student is an offender until a preponderance of evidence establishes that. Once it does, the educator’s desire to rehabilitate needs to yield to our duties to protect the members of our community from someone who likely poses an ongoing risk of harm.

And my fear — yes, it's fear — of seeing my institution's name in Inside Higher Ed or The Chronicle of Higher Education as the subject of an investigation, or, even worse, having the "letter of agreement" OCR makes public displayed for all to read — makes me toe the line in a way I sometimes have trouble justifying to myself. I don't want my employer to be the next University of Notre Dame, College of Notre Dame, Yale, Eastern Michigan.

It's not that I believe that we shouldn’t be held accountable, and yes, it's likely that these and other institutions should have done things differently. It's just that in my most honest moments, despite the efforts of my (real) colleagues here to craft the best possible approach, I doubt our policies and practices could hold up to the intense scrutiny of the team of lawyers OCR will send after us should a complaint arise. Surely, I reason, you will find something, somewhere, that we could have done better. At that point, all the good we might have also done will be lost in the public critique you will offer and we, because we must, will accept without retort.
That should explain the fact that I am an anonymous author. For six months, my (real) colleagues, here and on other campuses, have been talking about the Dear Colleague Letter, about the problems it creates for us, about the apparent lack of understanding of student culture it demonstrates. But we never say these things too publicly. We worry about being branded "soft" on sexual assault by victims' rights groups and by the media, and we worry about attracting your attention. Our voice has been missing from this debate, just as it seems our input was missing from your letter.

ATIXA responds: That’s a very legitimate feeling of paralysis, but it is ATIXA’s mission to proffer models and advice on the practices that allow us to serve many masters without unduly compromising the interests of all parties.

None of us want you knocking on our doors, Title IX complaint in hand, ready to put us under the microscope and force us to explain to you, a group of skilled attorneys, why we did what we did. And that's the difference between you and my real colleagues: I value their feedback and criticism. In fact, we welcome it from each other, as evidenced by the conversations we constantly have about the decisions we are facing and the improvements we are always trying to make. But we trust that each of us understands what we are up against. I'm not at all sure you do.

Substantial Changes to the ADA/504 Direct Threat Test

2011-10-14T16:32:00.000-07:00

I write with news regarding changes this past summer to the ADA/504 Direct Threat standard. While I can tell you what we can't do, I fear that I am not particularly able to shed light on what we can do, legally. Nor can OCR. Let me bottom line it first. We need to use informal processes to press for voluntary (non-coercive) leave for students who are acutely self-harmful. Additionally, we must question the common practice of placing conditions on the return of students who leave voluntarily (OCR Decision Letter to Spring Arbor University). While any one OCR Decision Letter is not precedential, to place conditions on students with disabilities that we do not place on other students can be discriminatory. Perhaps imposing conditions for return on all leaves, for any reason, might mitigate the disparate treatment argument?

I spoke yesterday to wise and trusted colleagues at the Department of Education's OCR. They agree that reinterpretation of the direct threat standard is frustrating. Apparently, DOJ has had a long-term view that the direct threat standard has more potential to be wielded as a dangerous sword than protective shield, though that view is not shared by all at the Department of Ed. Thus, when DOJ rewrote the Title II ADA regulations this summer to eliminate harm to self language, they were sending a signal to DOEd's OCR that its expansive reading of Title III was not sustainable (Title III language has always been "harm to others", but DOEd's OCR had interpreted that to mean harm to self or others). DOJ has failed to elaborate a path forward, but conversations are taking place between DOEd and DOJ.

OCR decisions we all know well (Bluffton, Marietta, DeSales and Guilford) can no longer be considered good law or representative of OCR's future enforcement standards. As applied to both public and private institutions, as of August 2011, the direct threat test has been limited in its application to harm to others, only. Arguments that equate harm to self (self-murder) with harm to others are unlikely to fly with DOJ.

Additionally, the move toward stand-alone involuntary medical/psychological withdrawal processes (a move that I encouraged and championed through NCHERM and NaBITA) is no longer valid (at least for harm to self). I championed it because of OCR's inclination to view conduct proceedings against suicidal and self-injurious students as pretext for discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Now, I think we are only left with voluntary compliance or conduct proceedings, which continue to be fraught with the potential for disparate treatment and pretext arguments.

Apparently, the narrow window left to us is to argue that our conduct actions are neither pretexual nor disparate in their impact. For example, a recent OCR decision upheld Mt. Holyoke's application of its disruption policy specifically for the impact that a self-injurious student had on classmates and the campus community. They were able to demonstrate clearly that their actions were not on the basis of the self-injurious behavior, but on the impact that behavior had on others. This conduct approach won't likely work for threat provisions under our conduct codes, as DOJ is explicitly telling us we can't use a direct threat standard for self-harm, so they are highly unlikely to approve of us using a less protective conduct code threat standard to make an end-run (more elucidating discussions of the Spring Arbor University, St. Joseph College and Mt. Holyoke College decisions will be forthcoming from NCHERM).

Ultimately, I think we are left in the untenable position of deciding between DOEd/DOJ OCR enforcement and the wrongful death and attendant negligence claims that may come if we fail to take action to protect from foreseeable self-harm. Action short of separation will likely pass muster, but action short of separation may also present too acute a threat of harm for us to accept. We also must consider not only the legal implications, but the harm that befalls our students, their families and our larger communities when a friend, roommate or loved one attempts or commits suicide on campus. The survivor grief, their depression responses, and the occasional suicide cluster that follows an attempt or completed suicide are other variables we must consider against the narrowed direct threat perspective of DOJ.

Again, we may act to separate a student lawfully on the basis of a direct threat of harm to others. I think we need to question the viability of interim suspensions for harm to self, and the common practice of interim suspension pending medical clearance or the results of a mandated assessment. Hopefully, greater clarity from OCR will be forthcoming. We'll do what we can to keep you informed of what we find out. Please share this with your legal counsel, as I do not claim to fully have my brain around all of this, or that all of it is accurate. It's the best I can piece together right now with limited access. Please do share any creative ideas, solutions, or theories that you may have to help us achieve a new workable model for balancing the protection of civil rights and the protection of our campuses in these difficult cases.

Regards,
Brett A. Sokolow
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law

Managing Partner, The National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (www.ncherm.org)
Executive Director, The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association (www.nabita.org)
Executive Director, The Association of Title IX Administrators (www.atixa.org)

20 Callery Way
Malvern, PA 19355-2969
Tel. (610) 993-0229
Fax (610) 993-0228

"Best Practices for Campus Health and Safety"
NCHERM serves as legal counsel/advisor to 27 campuses

NCHERM is hiring!

2011-09-21T09:01:00.000-07:00

NCHERM is hiring! We are looking for a dedicated Administrative Coordinator and a Director of Professional Development Programs to join our team. Please click on the above titles for more information.

NCHERM Featured in the Pittsburgh Examiner.com

2011-09-15T14:53:00.000-07:00

Beth Calvano, Pittsburgh Adult Education Examiner
September 14, 2011

Risk management has become a critical issue for institutions of higher learning. A proactive approach is taken by the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM). The organization teaches problem-solving and culture change strategies to colleges and universities. The NCHERM offers expertise in many areas including sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, threat management, litigation management, emergency management, classroom management, hazing, campus safety, culture change initiatives, disruptive students, student suicide, problem drinking, and investigations. These topics are most relevant and significant for campuses today (NCHERM, 2011). The Community College of Allegheny County, PA and other colleges utilize the NCHERM’s Special Counsel Program, and keep them on retainer.

The NCHERM (2011) is a vast resource in that it promotes consulting services, publications, student programs, events, online courses, behavioral intervention/threat assessments, strategic partners, free policies/protocols, testimonials, legal resources, and relevant published articles. Upcoming webinars and seminars include topics such as background checks for all new hires, identifying possible school shooters, and training for hearing officers, boards, appeals panels, and campus Title IX coordinators.

Student programs include “Drunk Sex or Date Rape: Can You Tell the Difference,” “What if the Plane Blew Up? A Program About Empowering Bystander Intervention,” “10 Things Every Student Should Know About Drinking,” and “What You Don’t Know About Hazing Can Kill You” (NCHERM, 2011).

The Behavioral Intervention/ Threat Assessment, College University Behavioral Intervention Team (CUBIT) Model was created in response to campus shootings that began in 2007 (NCHERM, 2011). CUBIT focuses on the prevention of these violent incidents. Research has shown that campus shooters usually exhibit certain behaviors before they act. The CUBIT model was developed using research from the Virginia Tech investigation and research done by task forces, the Department of Education, the FBI, and the Secret Service (NCHERM, 2011).

The NCHERM is an important resource for colleges, universities, faculty, and students. The website is located @www.ncherm.org/index.php

Reference:
NCHERM. (2011). The National Center for Higher Education. Retrieved from
www.ncherm..org/index.php

Washington State University Fined for Violating Clery Act (sexual assault)

2011-08-20T12:08:00.000-07:00

NYTimes.com
Copyright 2011 The New York Times Company

August 20, 2011

Section: us

Washington: University Fined Over Crime Reporting
National Briefing | NORTHWEST

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Federal education officials have fined Washington State University $82,500 for violating a campus crime reporting law in 2007, including not properly reporting two sexual assaults.

Federal education officials have fined Washington State University $82,500 for violating a campus crime reporting law in 2007, including not properly reporting two sexual assaults , the university said Friday. Darin Watkins, a spokesman for the university, said it would appeal the fine. Education officials audited campus crime statistics at about a dozen schools this year, including Washington State. Some of those schools remain under investigation and could also be fined for violations of the Clery Act, which requires campus notification of potential threats to students and employees. Washington State was charged with failing to properly disclose forcible sex crime statistics and accurately classify offenses, and with failing to include statements about campus crime reporting policies in its annual security report.

EDITION: NewYork

Word Count: 144
8/20/11 NYTIMESCOM 14
END OF DOCUMENT

ATIXA -- A New Membership Association for School and College Title IX Compliance

2011-08-15T09:55:00.000-07:00

Announcing a New Membership Association for School and College Title IX Compliance
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 15th, 2011

ATIXA, the Association of Title IX Administrators, launched today. ATIXA provides a professional association for school and college Title IX Coordinators and administrators who are interested in serving their districts and campuses more effectively. Since 1972, Title IX has proved to be an increasingly powerful leveling tool, helping to advance gender equity in schools and colleges.

Title IX's benefits can be found in promoting equity in academic and athletics programs, preventing hostile environments on the basis of sex, prohibiting sexual harassment and sexual violence, protecting from retaliation and remedying the effects of other gender-based forms of discrimination.

ATIXA Executive Director Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., gave the following statement at the launch event: “Every school district and college in the United States is required to have a Title IX Coordinator who oversees implementation, training and compliance with Title IX. ATIXA brings campus and district Title IX Coordinators and administrators into professional collaboration to explore best practices, share resources and advance the worthy goal of gender equity in education.”

The April 4th, 2011 Dear Colleague Letter on campus sexual violence gave us some insight that the role and responsibilities of the Title IX Coordinator are a lot broader and deeper than we thought. The Coordinator role is complex, sophisticated, and comprehensive. In honor of the remarkable impact this has already caused in higher education, and will cause in the future to both schools and colleges, ATIXA has chosen to use the term Title IX Administrators to describe its membership, rather than coordinators, to reflect the broad compliance responsibilities that fall on administrators widely in school districts and on college campuses. To assist in that compliance challenge, ATIXA offers comprehensive benefits to its members, including:

• Access to the best source materials and training on Title IX
• Title IX Legal Updates
• An active and pertinent professional listserv
• Quarterly newsletters
• An annual conference*
• The ATIXA Title IX Coordinator Training and Certification Course*
• Annual Certification Update Opportunities (seminars & webinars)*
• 15% Member discounts on many ATIXA events
• The ATIXA Blog
• Access to the OCR Investigation Finding Letter Database
• Access to Partner and Sponsor organization resources and discounts
• Access to the most comprehensive online Title IX library available
• Membership roster access

*Additional registration fees apply

What can ATIXA do for you? Consider the wealth of the resources we can offer, based on the expertise of our executive team and our amazingly talented Advisory Board. As one example, ATIXA is distributing freely and publicly its Model Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct Model Policy to commemorate its launch. We hope that it will help your campus or district to comply with Title IX and protect the safety of your community. Access this free resource on the ATIXA homepage at www.atixa.org.
While you’re there, please join ATIXA today.

For more information, please contact ATIXA Executive Director Brett A. Sokolow, Esq. at (610) 993-0229 or email to: Brett@ATIXA.org

NCHERM Partner W. Scott Lewis Quoted in Chronicle Article on Threats by College Faculty

2011-08-04T16:45:00.000-07:00

http://chronicle.com/article/Casual-References-to-Violence/128422/

NCHERM Announces Title IX Administrator Training and Certification Courses

2011-08-04T15:44:00.000-07:00

The NCHERM Campus Title IX Coordinator Certification and Training Course is being offered to 170 college and university administrators this week in St. Louis, MO.

This event greatly surpassed the initial projection of 100 participants a month ahead of our registration deadline, and even at 170, created a waiting list of more than 50 people. To address continuing interest, NCHERM has scheduled three more Campus Title IX Coordinator Certification and Training Courses around the country, and has broadened the attendance to include not just Title IX Coordinators, but also conduct administrators, HR staff, legal counsel, academic administrators, investigators, campus law enforcement, athletics administrators, k-12 school Title IX Coordinators and administrators and others concerned with Title IX compliance.

Registration is now open and seats are already filling quickly (60+ already) for our Philadelphia event, October 17th – 20th, 2011.

Please visit www.ncherm.org for details and to register for a seat. Or, come to our January 2012 event on the Riverwalk in San Antonio, or Atlanta in spring of 2012 (more information coming soon).

These events will open for registration soon. The faculty will shift slightly for each event, but will include the NCHERM partners, practitioner experts, leaders in issues of athletics equity, and anticipated representatives from the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

For the Philadelphia event, new faculty members include professor and legislative authority John Wesley Lowery, Ph.D., Daniel C. Swinton, J.D., Ph.D., Director of Student Conduct at Vanderbilt University, and Professor David O’Brien, a noted expert on athletics administration and gender equity in athletics programs. These events are the only certification courses on Title IX, and feature advantages unavailable in any other course, including:

• A top-notch expert faculty with extensive writing, publication, research and practical application on Title IX
• Invited representatives from the Office of Civil Rights
• Four full days of content (okay, that’s a blessing and a curse, but you can come for less than all four days if you are willing to forego certification)
• A comprehensive set of 250 PowerPoint slides
• On-site case studies with group and faculty feedback
• Extensive exploration of the NCHERM Civil Rights Investigation Model
• 250 pages of materials, including exclusive access to the Model NCHERM Sexual Misconduct Policy, Civil Rights Investigation and Grievance Procedure

Consider the advantages of attending this course in any of our locations around the country – you get comprehensive advice to enhance your competent compliance. And, if litigation should occur, you’ll have the ability to demonstrate certification from NCHERM, the most trusted source of Title IX expertise.

This event is no mere rehashing of the April 4th, Dear Colleague Letter. It is a comprehensive exploration of Title IX and the role of the Coordinator. Including §504 Disability compliance, another area of responsibility for campus Coordinators.

We’ll go beyond the DCL, share best practice ideas that OCR hasn’t divulged, and explore areas where OCR may have muddied waters on how we’re supposed to comply. Simply put, you’ll have Title IX coming out of your ears after four days with us. But, when you get back to campus, you’ll have the tools you need to implement and operationalize Title IX compliance best practices, take training to your community, and bring meaningful prevention to your campus.

Register for Philadelphia today. www.ncherm.org

Op-Ed on DSK by Wendy Murphy

2011-07-07T19:34:00.001-07:00

By Wendy J. Murphy

For The Patriot Ledger

July 3, 2011

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance has a big political problem: Sexual
violence is occurring at epidemic rates but the guy can't manage to do
justice for victims. He lost the "Rape Cop" case despite overwhelming
evidence of guilt, and now he stands poised to dismiss rape charges against
deposed IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) in a case he said only a
month ago was very strong and had lots of forensic evidence to corroborate
the victim's description of what happened. If this is what Vance's
constituents can expect from their elected District Attorney, the public
should consider running the guy out of town and electing someone who will
put the safety of women higher up the ladder of prosecutorial priorities.

Jurors said they voted to acquit in the "Rape Cop" case because there was no
DNA evidence. (Didn't Vance's prosecutors tell the jury the cops used
condoms?)

Any prosecutor who just lost a big case because there was NO DNA, should be
hard-pressed to criticize the evidence against DSK where there is PLENTY of
DNA. In fact, not only was DSK's semen found on the front of the victim's
shirt, there's blood evidence, too, consistent with the victim's description
of a violent struggle.

In Cyrus Vance's office, rape cases are apparently unprovable with or
without DNA.

What's that old saying? With prosecutors like that ...

I hate to rub in Vance's face that his decision to criticize the prosecution
of DSK was predictable, but in an article I wrote for Women's eNews only
days after DSK was arrested, I said the case would soon go "poof". It
wasn't that I was suspicious of the victim's credibility or thought she was
some sort of agent for DSK's political opponents (as if they wouldn't think
of a million better ways to bring the guy down), it was the wealth of the
accused, the relative poverty of the victim, and the fact that before the
ink was dry on DSK's arrest papers, people on his behalf reportedly had
already offered money to the victim's family in Africa to make the case go
away.

That a payoff was in the works so soon made the end game obvious before the
game even started. In a criminal justice system where corruption is not
tolerated, it wouldn't matter. But the American legal system has long
protected the wealthy over the poor, which is one of the reasons Kobe Bryant
walked away from his criminal rape prosecution while so many poor men of his
color sit in prison for committing less serious offenses. That's right.
Kobe Bryant, a black man, is partly responsible for why lots of black men
are behind bars. Nice.

Recent developments in DSK's case suggest the players took a page out of
Bryant's diabolical defense strategy. If the victim's reputation is
destroyed in the court of public opinion, and then she's given money as a
"settlement", nobody will care that the criminal charges go away or that a
"settlement" in a criminal case is illegal. Immoral victims who've behaved
badly don't deserve fair treatment in law and society.

The difference between the Bryant case and this one, at least so far, is
that the payoff is not yet obvious - though it's interesting that the
attorney the victim had representing her early on, a "personal injury"
lawyer, has gone silent. It's hard to get at the truth about whether a deal
is in the works when the dealmakers refuse to speak, but let's just say we
should be on the lookout for whether the victim starts driving a Bentley.
If there's a payoff in the works, she will disappear and spend her newfound
wealth in a location where nobody will notice.

Between now and then, the public will watch this case die - in two stages.

First we get the trial balloon about the case developing "weaknesses"
because of the victim's "credibility problems" - (on the eve of a three-day
weekend, no surprise). If the public's reaction is politically tolerable,
step two will be the prosecutor's motion to withdraw the charges "in the
interest of justice".

For those who care about the truth, find corruption disdainful, and who
believe that no man is above the law, the following points should be up
front and center as this facade continues to unfold:

1. The victim's credibility problems in the DSK case have been described as
so serious, prosecution may be impossible. But the victim in the "Rape Cop"
case had equal if not more serous credibility issues. Why didn't Cyrus
Vance dismiss THOSE charges before trial?

2. Cyrus Vance released to the public a detailed description of the victim's
reported lies to immigration officials where she claimed she'd been raped
and tortured in her native African country. She made those claims in support
of her request for asylum and stated she was at risk for further persecution
if she were returned to Guinea. Vance said these lies seriously undermine
the victim's credibility in the case against DSK even though lots of
immigrants lie about abuses in countries where living conditions are
inhumane not because they're pathological liars but because they're
desperate for a better life in the U.S. These lies that Vance claims
destroy the case against DSK were made eight years ago and were probably
crafted by someone other than the victim - an attorney perhaps (ironically
enough) who would have provided guidance to the victim about the things she
should say that would enhance her chances for being granted asylum. If
Vance's policy is that lying about such things almost a decade ago is a
moral failing of such magnitude it prevents his office from prosecuting the
far more serious crime of rape, let the word go out to all sex predators in
New York that they should choose immigrants as their victims and they should
commit their crimes in Cyrus Vance's jurisdiction.

As if immigrants aren't vulnerable enough.

3. No matter what the victim lied about in the past, the prosecutor found NO
reason to question the integrity of her claims as they relate directly to
the sexual assaults. To the contrary, the forensic evidence proved the
victim's essential credibility on the only facts that really matter.

4. If Cyrus Vance thinks it's appropriate to dismiss rape charges because of
a victim's prior false statements and other past "bad" behavior, he must
also consider the past "bad" behavior and lies of DSK. For example, DSK has
been repeatedly accused of sexually offensive behavior toward women and has
admitted engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with an inferior
employee. As for his past lies - just ask the people of Greece how many
lies were produced by the IMF last year about the need to prevent collective
bargaining in that country.

5. There's no dispute the incident occurred. Even the most reviled woman in
the world has a chance at justice when there's DNA proof that the incident
occurred. The problem is, there's a good chance the victim doesn't want
justice and that she'll trade even the well being of all women for a big fat
paycheck.

The real question is whether Cyrus Vance has the moral fiber and political
will to let a jury decide this case. DSK says it was consensual. The
victim, and the forensic evidence, says it was forced. A jury can figure
out what to make of the victim's lies in her immigration papers just as they
can correctly weigh the video of DSK's unusually swift flight from the hotel
after the incident - and the fact that he has an ugly history of similar
sexually offensive behavior.

If Cyrus Vance has integrity, he will stay the course. If there's money
involved, he won't. And the only thing that can force him to do the right
thing is people rising up and demanding fair treatment of a woman who may
not even want it.

It isn't the victim's personal lawsuit - it's the public's case against a
man who deserves to face the charges against him. If "we the people" do
nothing in this case, as we did during and after the Kobe Bryant debacle,
then we deserve a legal system that continues unabashedly to facilitate
rather than prevent violence against all women.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

School and College Organization for Prevention Educators (SCOPE) Launches Today

2011-06-15T08:41:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — JUNE 15, 2011

A New Membership Association -- SCOPE

Today, the School and College Organization for Prevention Educators (SCOPE) opened its doors and began welcoming its first members. SCOPE serves as an interdisciplinary hub for prevention educators. SCOPE is the first organization of its kind to encompass the full breadth and depth of the field of prevention. SCOPE prioritizes the advancement of primary prevention research, practice and implementation.

Schools, communities, agencies, colleges and universities all over the world employ prevention professionals who are tasked with addressing a range of high risk violence, health and safety issues, but until now, no membership association has been able to bring these dedicated educators into community with one another. SCOPE fills that need.

SCOPE was created by a generous grant from the parents of a college student who wish to remain anonymous. Through their generosity, SCOPE can function and thrive independently as a not-for-profit association of like-minded professionals who serve the prevention needs of schools, colleges and communities in the United States and internationally.

Why SCOPE?

Prevention professionals have historically joined professional associations, participated in listservs and attended conferences in their specific disciplines. This has resulted in the compartmentalization of prevention efforts by subfields. SCOPE recognizes that there are more commonalities to prevention efforts than there are distinctions. What alcohol abuse educators know can benefit what sexual violence prevention specialists do. Prevention of hazing and bullying have much in common. Additionally, we know that many areas of prevention intersect. SCOPE aims to bridge subfields by joining prevention professionals from across the prevention disciplines together to learn from one another, explore best practices and further shared goals.

At the launch, Founding Executive Director Michelle Issadore stated, “As a prevention educator for many years, I am intimately familiar with the need for this organization. The response we have received prior to our launch from members of the prevention field has been overwhelmingly positive. We look forward to joining forces with new members and partners to raise the profile of primary prevention.”

The SCOPE Annual International Conference

Conferences focused at school, college and community audiences address sexual assault, eating disorders, peer education, advocacy, alcohol abuse, hazing, drug abuse, bullying, bystander intervention, suicide, mental health and other risks. Until now, no conference has gathered prevention professionals in a multi-disciplinary setting to guide, shape and lead the prevention field. SCOPE’s Annual International Conference will bring school, college and community prevention educators together to share resources, apply research, and empower the synergies that result from bringing the disparate constituencies of prevention together into common cause.

SCOPE Knowledge Groups

Knowledge Groups are a central SCOPE resource. Knowledge Groups represent specific content areas relevant to the field of prevention. Members participate in one or more Knowledge Groups, as well as having access to topical materials. SCOPE’s

Knowledge Groups include:

• Advocacy
• Alcohol Abuse
• Bullying
• Bystander Intervention
• Drug Abuse
• Eating Disorders
• Hazing
• Mental Health
• Peer Education
• Primary Prevention
• Relationship/Domestic/Intimate Partner Violence
• Research
• Sexual Assault
• Social Norms
• Stalking
• Suicide

Another of SCOPE’s Advisory Board members, Feministing.com editor Courtney Martin, was interviewed about the launch and had this to say, “Just about every social justice issue that I write about--whether in one of my blog posts for Feministing, an opinion piece for The American Prospect, or in book form--winds around to the critical need for more focus on prevention. SCOPE is supporting impassioned, dedicated people who are working on this mission. It is solutions-oriented, systemically-sophisticated, and destined to create real change.”

The SCOPE Mission

SCOPE embraces an ecological, inclusive, holistic, feminist, public health, evidence-based and multi-disciplinary vision of prevention. To effectively promote the aims of the prevention community, SCOPE members deeply examine the causes of violence, health and safety risks within society — including hate, intolerance, apathy, gender bias, racism, homophobia, stigmatization of mental health, objectification of the human body, ignorance, predation and discrimination — to foster effective, interconnected, strategic prevention.

Contact SCOPE

For more information, please visit www.WeAreSCOPE.org or contact:

Michelle Issadore, M.Ed., Executive Director
execdir@wearescope.org
610-993-0227

To join SCOPE, please visit WeAreSCOPE.org/join

More Voices About SCOPE

“For over 15 years I have provided preventive legal assistance to schools and colleges. I am delighted that there is now an organization for all the dedicated individuals engaged in preventive care, training and advocacy at our institutions to have a collective voice and outlet for sharing expertise, research and resources.”

Saunie Schuster, former Senior Assistant Attorney General and General Counsel and currently a Partner at NCHERM
_____________________

"There is too much fantastic prevention work going on for any practitioners to work in a vacuum. SCOPE offers the opportunity for us to learn from, support and grow with each other so that we can achieve truly effective prevention to address a variety of challenges. Men Can Stop Rape is tremendously excited to collaborate with and help build the organization that is going to facilitate that process."

Joe Vess, Men Can Stop Rape
_____________________

"With unprecedented Title IX guidelines newly in place, it's an exciting time for a group of independent dedicated professionals to come together to inject new energy into the critical goal of primary prevention."

Wendy Murphy, New England Law|Boston
_____________________

"Outreach and prevention programming are essentials element for counselors, psychologists and social workers who work in education and communities. These dynamic educational programs, clinical screenings and orientation events with students, parents, faculty and staff are critical to foster social adjustment and academic success. SCOPE offers a professional home for those who program, train and educate in schools, colleges, universities and communities."

Dr. Brian Van Brunt, President of the American College Counseling Association (2010-2011)
_____________________

"The dire issues that feminists seek to address intersect with one another and the best solutions always draw from various movements. I'm excited to see what manifesting this intersectional approach will do for the emotional, psychological, and physical safety of young people on campuses."

Jennifer Baumgardner, author, educator, and activist
_____________________

"Our brightest hope for ending violence against women is effective prevention efforts with young people. SCOPE offers an opportunity for professionals working toward this goal to share best practices and creative ideas, as well as to support one another in this difficult work."

Heather L. Horton, Ph.D., Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, Psychologist, Colorado College
_____________________

“SCOPE is about global prevention, not just in the sense of international efforts, but in terms of SCOPE’s scope. To me, global means connecting the dots between disparate sources of harm and violence so that knowledge sharing is truly transformative. The research of David Lisak and others, for example, shows us that those likely to commit sexual violence are also highly likely to be non-sexual abusers. What are the roots of that connection, and what are its solutions? When we look at Seung-Hui Cho, and the carnage he caused at Virginia Tech, we tend to overlook his history of ideation of self-harm, his stalking behaviors, and history of sexual harassment. We must respect the distinctions in the etiology of different forms of violence, but we must also learn from the intersectionality.”

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., Managing Partner, NCHERM

www.WeAreSCOPE.org

NCHERM Managing Partner Brett Sokolow Quoted in Article About Campus Sexual Violence

2011-06-06T13:14:00.001-07:00

http://chronicle.com/article/Striving-for-Both-Compliance/127774/

NCHERM Assists the University of Virginia in Revising Sexual Misconduct Policies and Procedures

2011-05-26T06:16:00.000-07:00

A landmark shift is happening with respect to college and university conduct policies and grievance procedures as a result of the OCR Title IX Dear Colleague Letter released in April, which finally clarifies a wide range of critical issues pertaining to campus sexual violence.

In the years to come, the issuance of this Dear Colleague Letter will come to be seen as a watershed moment in advancing victim’s rights on college campuses, and in recognizing the influence that Title IX wields in defining best practices for campus response to sexual violence.

Campuses including Yale and Stanford have recently announced changes in many areas; including policy, grievance procedures, standards of proof, and appeal rights for victims. For these campuses and many others, including the University of Virginia, revisions were underway before the issuance of the Dear Colleague Letter, which provided additional impetus for changes and clarity on what types of changes were needed.

NCHERM has had a long-standing relationship with the University of Virginia, providing annual training on sexual misconduct to the UVa Sexual Misconduct Board, investigators and advocates since 2005. Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., NCHERM’s Managing Partner has also had the opportunity to play a role in the revision of the UVa Sexual Misconduct Policy and Grievance Procedures released at the end of May.

This revision process engaged a wide range of stake holders in a thoughtful and informed dialogue about how to produce policies and procedures that were not only compliant with Title IX, but would create a roadmap of best practices as a model for the field of higher education. UVa invited and encouraged extensive public commentary on drafts before finalizing its revisions.

In addition to providing consultation during the revision process, NCHERM made public comments on the UVa policy and procedures in draft form. NCHERM has posted those comments on its website, and at this link: http://www.ncherm.org/documents/UVaSexualMisconductPolicyProcedures-PublicComment-5-25-11.pdf

By posting its edits and comments, NCHERM hopes not only to provoke thought on critical issues, but also to showcase the process by which NCHERM provides policy and procedural consulting services to college and university clients.

For more information on NCHERM’s policy and procedure revision services, please contact NCHERM Executive Director Cori Sokolow, M.Ed., at cori@ncherm.org or 610.993.0229.

From August 2^nd-5^th, 2011, NCHERM will be hosting the first-of-its-kind Campus Title IX Coordinator Training and Certification Course in St. Louis, MO. Featuring an exceptional faculty of eight nationally-recognized Title IX experts, this event is more than half full already. Register today at: http://www.ncherm.org/webinars.html#stlouis

NCHERM Reaction to the OCR Title IX Dear Colleague Letter on Campus Sexual Violence

2011-04-06T18:05:00.000-07:00

(Link to the full version online at:

http://www.ncherm.org/documents/NCHERMReactiontotheDearColleagueLetter4.6.11.pdf)

For Immediate Release

NCHERM applauds the release on Monday by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of a Dear Colleague letter giving higher education greater clarity on how Title IX impacts on campus sexual violence.

Announced with a press conference at the University of New Hampshire by Vice President Biden and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and coupled with an announcement from the Obama White House, the spotlight on campus sexual assault clearly showed how significant a priority Title IX is for this administration.

Our hope is that this guidance will lead to policy and practice changes on college and university campuses that will more effectively empower and embrace the rights of complaints, and further the goal of an equitable result via an equitable process.

The hesitation to embrace correct standards of proof and rights such as complainant appeals, moving an accused student to alternate housing, and keeping a complainant apprised of the investigation have resulted in years of successful legal challenges to and liability for colleges and universities. We are optimistic that OCR’s action will bring about a sea change now.

Acting on the Dear Colleague letter with revised policies and practices will more effectively shield campuses from liability because it offers campuses a roadmap for delivering prompt and effective remedies to campus sexual violence.

Yet, it is important to recognize that the substance of the Dear Colleague letter is not new. With this Dear Colleague letter, OCR has not expanded Title IX. What OCR has done is finally to promulgate guidance that reflects the substance of its enforcement.

To date, that enforcement has been accomplished campus-by-campus, without public dissemination of the findings and compliance requirements. We’ve had to read tea leaves to discern OCR’s expectations. Now, we have greater clarity on a number of key issues.

To help you determine the course of your campus reaction, NCHERM has updated the free resources available on the Title IX section of our website. There you will find a series of links to recent OCR actions, announcements, decision letters and compliance resources. Additionally, the entire OCR case letter file of more than 200 Title IX findings on complaints of sexual violence against colleges and universities is now available freely available online as the result of a collaboration between NCHERM and the Center for Public Integrity to publicize these documents.

http://www.ncherm.org/legal.html

We hope these resources will be invaluable to your campus.

http://www.ncherm.org/documents/NCHERMReactiontotheDearColleagueLetter4.6.11.pdf

Visit the link above to access to extended version of this reaction, including direct links to the resources noted above, and details about four upcoming Title IX related events from NCHERM including our rapid response webinar on the OCR Guidance, two upcoming institutes on sexual misconduct, and our first-ever Campus Title IX Coordinator Training and Certification Course.

OCR Issues New Title IX Dear Colleague Guidance on Sexual Assault for Colleges and Universities -- April 4th, 2011

2011-04-04T06:26:00.000-07:00

Today, the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague Letter as Guidance on Title IX compliance for institutions on campus sexual violence. The letter explicitly addresses hot button issues such as complainant appeals and preponderance of evidence as the standard of proof. Please access the letter at: http://www.ncherm.org/documents/OCRDearColleagueLetter4.4.11.pdf

NCHERM Releases 2011 Whitepaper -- Deliberately Indifferent

2011-02-04T20:23:00.000-08:00

http://www.ncherm.org/documents/2011NCHERMWHITEPAPERDELIBERATELYINDIFFERENTFINAL.pdf

CQ Researcher Article on Campus Crime

2011-02-04T20:21:00.000-08:00

http://www.ncherm.org/documents/CampusCrime.pdf

College Student Stress Levels Increasing -- NY Times

2011-01-27T06:05:00.000-08:00

ACCA President and NCHERM Consultant Brian Van Brunt, Ed.D., was quoted in the NY Times today, along with NCHERM Behavioral Mental Health Consultation Team member Dr. Perry Francis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/education/27colleges.html?_r=1&hp

Brett Sokolow, Brian Van Brunt and Scott Lewis of NCHERM were all quoted in the USA Today, today on troubled students and campus behavioral intervention teams:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-01-27-1Ashooting27_ST_N.htm

Brett Sokolow was quoted in another USA Today article, as well:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-01-27-threat27_ST_N.htm

Brett Sokolow Interviewed on Campus Threat Assessment on WERC

2011-01-26T19:15:00.001-08:00

http://www.nabita.org/BrettSokolowinterviewonWERC1.19.11.mp3

Brett Sokolow discusses NaBITA, Jared Loughner and Pima Community College on CNN

2011-01-18T17:56:00.001-08:00

The video has been posted at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE-3hFoOu54

Brett

NaBITA Position Statement on Pima Community College, Jared Loughner and the Arizona Shootings (January 17, 2011)

2011-01-17T08:06:00.000-08:00

The Tyranny of the “Do Mores” -- For Immediate Release -- January 17^th, 2011

The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association (NaBITA) (www.nabita.org) is the leading national association for school and college behavioral intervention teams (BITs), with more than 500 active members. On behalf of NaBITA’s members, advisory board and officers, we extend our sympathies and thoughts to the victims, families and survivors of the Arizona shootings.

Last week, former Pima Community College student Jared Loughner committed a violent attack on public officials and private citizens. We now know a litany of strange and threatening behaviors preceded his attack, and led to his suspension from Pima prior to the shootings. Some have offered the notion that being separated from Pima was a “final straw” that drove Loughner to his extreme act. If so, why wasn’t his wrath directed specifically at Pima? Loughner’s disturbed and violent mind drove him to commit the murders, not the actions of Pima. Most students who suffer from mental illness are not violent, but this one was.

Pima is facing the tyranny of the “Do Mores” who come out of the woodwork after acts like these to point fingers and suggest that everyone needed to do more. Commentators have piled on Pima all week. NaBITA’s official position is that Pima was competent, responsible and effective in its interventions. Hindsight always provides a chance to reconsider, but based on what we know so far of what Pima knew and did at the time, its actions were reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

The process of “what if’ing” is now on in earnest on every show and in print. What if Pima had reached out to the parents? It did. What if Pima had referred Loughner to its campus counselors? Like most community colleges, Pima does not have a comprehensive mental health service. What if Pima had encouraged Loughner into counseling externally? It did. Should the police have been involved? They were. Pima has a sworn campus police department. And, they determined that his behaviors were erratic, aberrant and potentially threatening. Frankly, so are the behaviors of many college students, given the mental health crisis on college campuses. We can respond with discipline, and that is what Pima did. Pima held Loughner accountable for disrupting campus activities, as it should have. It didn’t just suspend him, it made his reinstatement conditional on clearance from a mental health professional. It gave Loughner more than a gentle push in a life-saving direction, but it was Loughner who opted not to grasp the lifeline that was there for the asking.

Now, the “do mores” say Pima should have referred Loughner to the courts, to the local mental health agencies, or to the local police. Given Arizona’s relatively liberal involuntary assessment laws, it’s possible this action could have drawn Loughner into therapy, treatment or hospitalization. That’s possible, but when Seung-Hui Cho was involuntarily hospitalized prior to his shootings at Virginia Tech, the mental health facilities had him back on campus within 24 hours, and Cho’s threats were arguably more specific and acute than what we know of Loughner’s so far.

The “do mores” always see their preferred solution as a panacea, but it’s just optimistic guesswork. Maybe those additional referrals by Pima would have made a difference to Loughner, but they were available to him and his parents irrespective of Pima’s actions. Loughner was resistant to them, and he would have been resistant to treatment even if mandated. When he was released (and he would have been), perhaps it would have been the involuntary hospitalization that triggered his ultimate loss of control. The “do mores” speculation always prophesies a better outcome, but how would you cure the delusions and reality contact deficits Loughner was exhibiting? That might require long-term treatment and expensive medications. Was Loughner eligible? Was he amenable? Was he capable of making decisions in his own best interests? What if Loughner benefited from the treatment and meds, but then one day went off his meds, as college students frequently do? What if that triggered his violence? What if his frustrations with the mental health treatment he received caused him to develop a more elaborate plan of attack with more weapons and a larger kill zone? The assumptions that mental health and law enforcement intervention immediately upon Loughner’s suspension would have made a difference here are hopeful conjecture at best.

Are you tired of these what if’s yet? We are. The New York Times ran a story on Friday, January 14^th, which contained two quotes worth noting. First, it quoted Virginia Tech’s threat assessment expert Dr. Gene Deisinger in an article with the loaded title, “College Policy on Troubled Students Raises Questions.” Deisinger, speaking in general terms about the dismissal of a disruptive student, said, “We should never treat that as a panacea that increases our safety.” While it is true that dismissal (which is not what Pima did, by the way) is no panacea, this quote leaves the impression that separating a student is not a useful tool. NaBITA believes that suspension is a useful and appropriate tool. It is more useful when coupled with additional modalities, but those whose coping skills are eroding need boundaries from their campus administrators, and clear consequences for failing to adhere to campus expectations. And, Deisinger’s comments miss the point that suspension from Pima was effective at protecting that community, because Loughner did not open fire there.

The Times then quoted another expert, Deisinger’s colleague Marissa Randazzo. If a school expels a threatening student, she said, “you are now adding to the person’s losses, even if you’re within your legal rights to do so … At the same time, you’re losing your own ability to keep an eye on their behavior or have a positive effect,” she said. NaBITA disagrees. Pima’s job was to protect its students, employees and facilities first, and Loughner second, if it could. Pima did its job. To suggest that Pima is supposed to be able to protect the rest of society as well places a burden on college campuses that they are not capable of upholding.

To suggest that students like Loughner should not be separated implies that Pima should not have followed its own policies, which call for suspension of repeatedly disruptive students. It implies that it is the job of a college or university to monitor them to ensure that they do not take their own lives or the lives of other members of the college community. Colleges are not in-patient treatment facilities. To retain a student like Loughner places unreasonable burdens on the faculty members who are required to teach him, on his fellow students who cannot pursue their educations free of his outbursts, and strains the resources of the college that could be allocated to the success of many students by centering them on the constant crises of one. That’s unfair and untenable for most community colleges, and many four-year colleges. The quotes assume that all colleges and universities have the resources that Virginia Tech can now throw at students in distress, and these approaches are undoubtedly ideal. Yet, no other college or university can bring to bear on these concerns the resources that Virginia Tech now can.

NaBITA represents a diverse constituency of public, private, two-year and four-year institutions, and our responsibility is to help frame responsible national public discourse on the role of schools, colleges and universities in balancing the rights and needs of the individual with the safety of the campus and larger communities. We believe that Pima got that balance right. Sometimes, though, getting it right doesn’t prevent the attack. Pointing fingers won’t either. Ultimately, Loughner and other violent actors are responsible for their own acts. If Loughner had been fired from McDonald’s, no one would be asserting that McDonald’s should have prevented its former employee’s subsequent violent actions. Loughner was stopped by law enforcement on the morning of the shootings. Should the officer have picked up on the impending violence? What could or should Pima have seen last October that a trained police officer could not detect on the morning of the shootings?

For more information, contact NaBITA President Saundra K. Schuster, Esq. or NaBITA Executive Director Brett A. Sokolow, Esq. (610) 993-0229. Saundra@nabita.org. Brett@nabita.org.

Campus Threat Assessment in the News

2011-01-14T04:33:00.000-08:00

Brett Sokolow, Past President of NaBITA, and NaBITA Advisory Board Member Patricia Lunt of NVCC are quoted in this article from the USA Today, January 14th, 2011.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-01-13-colleges-keep-watch-for-violent-students_N.htm

NaBITA Advisory Board Member Brian Van Brunt (President of ACCA and Director of Counseling at WKU),was featured on Anderson Cooper on CNN last night. He should try out for the debate team!

www.cnn.com/video -- search for "suspect's red flags"

More fallout from the Loughner shootings to come...

Brett

Sexual Harassment and the First Amendment: Will Your Policies Hold Up In Court?

2011-01-13T10:22:00.000-08:00

NCHERM Partner and resident First Amendment expert Saunie Schuster has written a piece for the Winter 2011 NASPA Digital Leadership Exchange:

http://www.leadershipexchange-digital.com/lexmail/2011winter?sub_id=lUoivJakEaeV&folio=34#pg37

Newsweek.com article on campus mental health

2011-01-07T16:36:00.000-08:00

NCHERM consultants Brian Van Brunt and Brett Sokolow were featured this week in a newsweek.com story on campus mental health.

http://education.newsweek.com/2011/01/06/mental-health-on-campus.html

New Article on Campus Sexual Assault

2010-12-10T13:43:00.000-08:00

The Center for Public Integrity has released another article in its ongoing coverage of campus sexual assault. http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2747/

NCHERM Expert Witness and Litigation Services Lead to Recent Victory

2010-10-04T12:56:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release

October 4, 2010. Malvern, PA. Recently, the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to Widener University in the wrongful death and premises liability case of Lacey v. Widener University. Widener successfully repelled the plaintiff's efforts to expand institutional liability to off-campus injuries in Pennsylvania.

NCHERM is proud of the role it played in helping Widener to prevail on its summary judgment motion. NCHERM partners Saundra K. Schuster and Brett A. Sokolow filed a brief as amicus curiae in this case on behalf of AICUP, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania.

The NCHERM brief has been posted at http://www.ncherm.org/witness-litigation.html for your access. Judge Pagano’s reconsideration of his denial of summary judgment and order granting summary judgment in favor of Widener is posted as well. NCHERM extends congratulations to Rocco Imperatrice, lead litigation counsel for Widener, of the firm of Imperatrice, Amarant, Capuzzi & Bell.

NCHERM's work on behalf of AICUP is a typical example of the effective litigation support consultation and expert witness services NCHERM provides to colleges and universities across the country. Similar recent efforts include:

Assisting Notre Dame College of Ohio in its voluntary participation in a compliance review and resolution with the OCR. Ongoing.

Defense expert to West Virginia Wesleyan University in a campus security and premises liability negligence action for a student sexual assault. Settled with plaintiff.

Defense expert to private liberal arts college in Iowa in a premises liability negligence action against the college and the president is his personal capacity. Ongoing.

Defense expert to a New Jersey school district in a school security and negligence action. Ongoing.

Expert witness to a plaintiff suing a Pennsylvania school district in a Title IX sexual assault/harassment and retaliation action. Ongoing.

Plaintiff's expert witness in John Doe et. al. v. Sewanee, the University of the South in a student discipline, “due process” and negligence action. Ongoing.

Plaintiff's expert witness in Padiyar v. AECOM, Inc., an appeal of a student discipline expulsion and allegation of sexual orientation discrimination. Case dismissed on procedural grounds.

Defense expert to Chi Psi Fraternity in Lanahan v. Chi Psi Inc., a wrongful death, hazing and alcohol action. Settled with plaintiffs.

Plaintiff's expert witness in Candace Minear v. Sigma Kappa Sorority, Inc., Sigma Kappa Sorority Delta Upsilon Chapter, Sigma Kappa National Housing Corporation, Inc., a negligence action for injuries resulting from a sorority initiation. Settled with defendants.

Defense team in the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice Clery Act investigations of La Salle University. Successful result.

Defense team member in an NCAA investigation of a Division I Athletic Program. Successful result.

NCHERM’s experts are well-versed in:

Title VII and Title IX (Equity, Harassment, and Sexual Assault)
General Tort Liability Issues
Student Conduct/Discipline (academic and non-academic) Issues
Other Discrimination Complaints
FERPA/HERA/Clery Act Complaints
OCR/Clery Act/FPCO/DOJ Investigations
Internal Misconduct Investigations

NCHERM’s experts represent leadership in the field of higher education through professional associations, as practitioners and as consultants. Our ranks include one current and two past presidents of the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASJA, now ASCA), a former vice president of the ACPA Commission on Student Conduct and Legal Issues, the current president and president-elect of the National Behavioral Intervention Team Association (NaBITA) and the current president of the American College Counseling Association (ACCA).

For more information on NCHERM's litigation support services, please contact Samantha Dutill, NCHERM Client Relations Coordinator at (610) 993-0229. Email: Samantha@ncherm.org Website: www.ncherm.org

Threat Assessment on Campus

2010-09-30T14:59:00.000-07:00

Colleagues,

Brett Sokolow's recent article "How to Do Threat Assessment Right on a College Campus" was recently featured in the Newsletter of the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP -- www.atapworldwide.org).

Please find the article here: http://www.atapworldwide.org/associations/8976/files/documents/ATAP_Newsletter_Vol-2_Iss-3.pdf

Regards,

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Managing Partner, NCHERM

Campus Mental Health Resource

2010-09-26T17:27:00.000-07:00

Colleagues,

NCHERM-Affiliated Consultant Brian Van Brunt has passed along a terrific new resource. http://www.campusmentalhealth.com/

Regards,

Brett Sokolow

NCHERM Announces Campus Sexual Misconduct Investigation Trainings

2010-09-21T08:37:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release

September 24th, 2010 – Malvern, PA – The National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM) announces a series of Campus Sexual Misconduct Investigation Trainings to be held in November 2010. NCHERM and ACPA co-sponsored three national Institutes on Sexual Misconduct in July of 2010 attended by over 300 college and university administrators across the country. One of the clear needs emerging from these events was a training program addressing the creation and operation of an effective investigation model for campus sexual misconduct, including sexual assault and harassment. NCHERM has designed the upcoming events to address this need for both student and employee-related misconduct.

The Investigation Trainings will be divided into two thematic sections. In the morning, participants will focus on the question of how to develop or refine the right model. The afternoon session will focus on the training skills investigators need and will finish with a case study to deploy those skills. Three of the foremost nationally-known experts on this subject, NCHERM partners Brett A. Sokolow, Saundra K. Schuster and W. Scott Lewis, will serve as trainers for these events.

Why Is This Training Needed Now?

For years, campuses have sought models of resolution for campus sexual misconduct complaints that provide fairness, balance, and a measure of satisfaction with the fairness of the process for the participants. We’ve tried adversarial hearings. Administrative hearings. Shuttle diplomacy. Mediation. Restorative justice. And, hybrids of each of these. For the most part, these approaches to addressing sexual misconduct have been ineffective because we’re trying to fit campus sexual misconduct into a student conduct/discipline framework like hazing, a roommate conflict, or some similar developmental challenge.

Campus sexual misconduct is more accurately seen not as a conduct issue, but as a civil rights/ discrimination matter. We need to take a page from HR and create a civil rights investigation model for addressing campus sexual misconduct. Civil rights investigations are not police-led investigations, and are not the same as investigating student conduct violations. They require a very specific, highly specialized skill-set. But, where do you to get the training you need on how to develop, implement and operate a civil rights investigation model for campus sexual misconduct? This event is designed for you.

This training will benefit you, whether you work in student affairs or student conduct and need a new model, or work in campus law enforcement or HR, and need to sharpen your civil investigation skills. In fact, anyone investigating any type of civil rights complaint will benefit from this training, including those investigating hate crimes, gender bias, racial, religious, ethic, and other discriminatory acts against any group or protected class. Prosecutors, sex crimes investigators, magistrates, victim advocates and judges are welcome too. We’ll address the confluence of campus, civil and criminal processes and how we can all do our jobs cooperatively and collaboratively without obstructing each other.

For an outline of the content and to register, visit: http://www.ncherm.org/webinars.html#UML

The three, one-day events will be held at:

n University of Massachusetts Lowell in Lowell, MA on November 2nd, 2010

n Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, WA on November 9th, 2010

n The University of Colorado -- Boulder in Boulder, CO on November 15th, 2010

n Additionally, the University System of Georgia will be hosting three events for system campuses in December, 2010. Outside registration is not accepted.

n An abbreviated version of this training will be provided on October 14th, 2010 at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, CA. Please check the NCHERM website for details.

For more information, please visit www.ncherm.org or contact NCHERM Client Relations Coordinator Samantha Dutill at (610) 993-0229 or Samantha@ncherm.org

2nd Annual NaBITA Conference on Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment

2010-09-13T09:29:00.001-07:00

For Immediate Release

September 13th, 2010 – Malvern, PA – The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association (NaBITA) announces its 2nd Annual Conference to be held from December 1st – 3rd, 2010 at Tulane University in New Orleans, LA. 175 participants gathered for an impressively substantive conference last year, and this year’s event will be both bigger and better. What’s new this year?

• New host location – Tulane University
• Our first pre-conference session
• The new four-day Campus Threat Management Institute Track
• An opening reception sponsored by Health Management Systems of America, Inc.
• Two Keynote sessions

For 2010, the NaBITA Annual Conference will have two Keynote speakers who will be contributing to a conference strongly focused on the practical mechanics, administration and application of risk and violence assessments. The conference will open with law and policy expert Gary Pavela, J.D., addressing the question, “Should students at risk of suicide be dismissed?” Former FBI Agent Mary Ellen O’Toole will give the keynote presentation on the second day, focusing on the “Mission Oriented Shooter”.

The conference will feature the pre-conference session, two keynotes, nine invited speakers, 18 concurrent sessions, and several roundtable discussions. The Conference Committee expects this combination of learning formats will create a dynamic and progressive curriculum for participants.

NaBITA is also introducing its first Campus Threat Management Institute this year. NaBITA 2009-2010 President Brett Sokolow said, “Each year, we strive to expand programmatic events and learning opportunities for our members. This year, we have created our first NaBITA Campus Threat Management Institute, allowing participants to attain a Campus Threat Manager Certificate of Completion after four days of engaging, interactive training.” Designed as an annual event, the NaBITA Institute offers an intense level of depth and training for those charged with campus behavioral intervention and threat assessment responsibilities.

The NaBITA Institute runs concurrently with the NaBITA Annual Conference, and then continues for two additional days. Institute registrants will attend the NaBITA Conference, in a special track for Institute registrants. The Conference concludes after a closing lunch panel on Friday, December 3rd, and the Institute continues for the remainder of Friday the 3rd, all day on Saturday the 4th, and then concludes at 1:00pm on Sunday, December 5th, 2010. The Institute is capped at 35 registrants. With seven faculty members, the Institute has a 1:5 faculty/participant ratio, and participants will have individual and small-group opportunities to interact with each of the expert faculty members throughout the week.

NaBITA is an organization created to support and provide professional development in the field of behavioral intervention for team members in schools, colleges and workplaces. NaBITA is committed to providing education, resources and support to professionals in schools and in the workplace who endeavor every day to make their campuses and workplaces safer through caring prevention and intervention.

For more information, please visit www.nabita.org or contact NaBITA Associate Executive Director Samantha Dutill at (610) 993-0229 or Samantha@nabita.org

Campus Sexual Assault Study

2010-09-08T15:58:00.001-07:00

COPS, under the DOJ, has released a new report, Acquaintance Rape of College Students. It is worthwhile.

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e03021472.pdf

Brett Sokolow

Article: Tough to Prosecute Sexual Assaults

2010-06-09T12:25:00.000-07:00

NCHERM Managing Partner Brett Sokolow quoted in an article on Jezebel.com
http://jezebel.com/5559107/the-line-when-rape-victims-arent-perfect?skyline=true&s=i

Campus Sexual Assault: A Matter of Civil Rights and Title IX

2010-06-04T05:22:00.000-07:00

Women in Higher Education recently published a nice article on Campus Sexual Assult and Title IX featuring NCHERM Partners Brett A. Sokolow, Saundra K. Schuster, and W. Scott Lewis.

It can be accessed at http://www.ncherm.org/documents/NCHERMSexualAssaultWIHEJune2010.pdf

Have a great weekend.

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Managing Partner

National Institutes on Responding to Campus Sexual Misconduct

2010-05-20T09:35:00.001-07:00

For Immediate Release

May 20, 2010 – Malvern, PA – The National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM), and College Student Educators International (ACPA) announce their collaborative sponsorship of three national Institutes on Responding to Campus Sexual Misconduct to be held in July of 2010 at sites on the East Coast, in the Midwest and on the West Coast.

Today, colleges and universities are facing an unprecedented onslaught of litigation, fierce media coverage and deeper scrutiny through government investigations. Sometimes, the allegations and media coverage are unfair, and sometimes, colleges and universities could do a better job in addressing campus sexual misconduct. These Institutes are about rising to the challenge, learning better methods, and improving campus approaches. These landmark two-day Institutes are designed to provide comprehensive training for college and university administrators, hearing boards, conduct administrators, appeals officers, sexual harassment grievance officers, and legal counsel.

NCHERM has been a national leader for ten years on issues of campus sexual misconduct. These Institutes are designed to elevate the dialogue across the country about how colleges and universities can more effectively respond to campus sexual misconduct, including harassment and sexual assault. NCHERM Managing Partner Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., explained, “We have presented standing-room-only sessions on campus sexual misconduct at a number of conferences over the past year, and the need for deeper and more comprehensive training is clear. We wanted to provide our colleagues in higher education with a thorough overview of the legal and procedural issues that campuses are facing today. A two-day Institute will allow us to really take this issue to a new level of national competence, excellence and accountability.”

Vernon A. Wall, Director of Educational Programs & Publications at ACPA, said, "ACPA is proud to partner with NCHERM in providing this outstanding resource for campus administrators and policy makers who are ready to expand the dialogue around campus sexual misconduct and provide timely and effective interventions for the campus community."

Three of the foremost, nationally-known experts on this subject, NCHERM partners Brett A. Sokolow, Saundra K. Schuster and W. Scott Lewis, will serve as Institute Faculty. The Institutes have been designed to provide each attendee with the following five learning outcomes:

· Gain an understanding of the Title IX, negligence law, FERPA and Clery Act-based legal framework that provides the underpinning of effective and compliant campus sexual misconduct remedial structures;

· Comprehensively understand the best practices for campus sexual misconduct policy development;

· Learn the essential elements and recommended best practices for conduct procedures and protocols on sexual misconduct;

· Gain knowledge of how to effectively manage the conduct proceedings in sexual misconduct cases from intake to investigation to appeal;

· Explore the substance of what training should be provided to hearing panels for these types of challenging hearings.

All three institutes will be held during the month of July. Providing this training opportunity during the summer gives administrators time to focus, and allows institutions to be well prepared as they enter the fall term.

The Institutes will be held at:

-- Drew University in Madison, NJ on July 20th and 21st;

-- Loyola University Chicago on July 26th and 27th;

-- Stanford University on July 29th and 30th

NCHERM will provide a follow-up series of sexual misconduct investigation training events for administrators and campus law enforcement throughout the 2010 fall semester.

For more information, please visit www.ncherm.org or contact NCHERM Client Relations Coordinator Samantha Dutill at (610) 993-0229 or Samantha@ncherm.org

Threat Assessment -- NaBITA Spring 2010 Newsletter Now Available

2010-04-27T08:34:00.000-07:00

Hello RiskMaBlog Readers,

The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association (NaBITA) Spring 2010 Newsletter has been published. Annual Conference Details are included.

http://www.nabita.org/nabita_newsletter_template_single_article_FINAL_000.html

Also, please note that the Virginia Tech Demonstration Project Book has been released publicly. You can download it at http://www.police.vt.edu/VTPD_v2.1/assets/documents/VT_ThreatAssessment09.pdf

It is worth a read.

Regards,

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Managing Partner, NCHERM
www.ncherm.org
brett@ncherm.org

Green Dot Institute in Tennessee

2010-04-21T17:57:00.001-07:00

Colleagues,

The Green Dot Institute is coming to Tennessee! The Green Dot primary prevention initiative is a new way of thinking about and doing violence prevention. Green Dot is about culture change – harnessing the power of individual choices to shift our current norms. It was designed by integrating some of the best research on social change, diffusion of innovation, communication, persuasion, bystander intervention, and perpetrator patterns into a program that makes practical sense.

The Institute will feature Green Dot author Dr. Dorothy J. Edwards of the University of Kentucky. Dr. Edwards and the Green Dot training team will train participants on launching a Green Dot movement in their communities, agencies and universities. Green Dot Institute participants will be certified to implement both phases of the Green Dot curriculum (Phase 1: Green Dot Persuasive Speech; Phase II: Green Dot Bystander Training). The training will include a comprehensive review of the philosophy, research-base, and curriculum of Green Dot.

When: June 7-8 & June 10-11, 2010. 9:30am-5:00pm.
Where: Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

Cost:

Fee breakdown: $735
Curriculum manual, support materials & sample participant workbook: $75

Lunch/breaks…$15/day…$60

Registration fee…$600
Registration cut-off date: May 21, 2010
Registration form: See below

For more information, including payment, registration, and hotels, please see http://www.vanderbilt.edu/WomensCenter/institute/

Please share this announcement with anyone who might be interested. For more information about Green Dot, including other upcoming trainings, please visit http://www.uky.edu/StudentAffairs/VIPCenter/index.html

With questions, please contact:

Anna Guest-Jelley, Associate Director

Margaret Cuninggim Women's Center

Office of the Dean of Students

Vanderbilt University

Phone: (615) 322-4843
Fax: (615) 343-0940

Margaret Cuninggim Women's Center

Office Location:

Franklin House, 316 West Side Row

Mailing Address:

VU Station B #351513

2301 Vanderbilt Place

Nashville, TN 37235

Targeted Violence in Higher Education Study

2010-04-20T07:03:00.000-07:00

U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Education and Federal Bureau of Investigation to Jointly Release Findings of New Study of Targeted Violence Affecting U.S. Institutions of Higher Education

The U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Department of Education and the Federal Bureau of Investigation jointly released a study of targeted violence incidents on U.S. campuses of higher learning. The study and its findings will be available on each of the agencies' Web sites: http://www.secretservice.gov/, http://www.ed.gov, and http://www.fbi.gov/.

In response to the Virginia Tech incident on April 16, 2007, former Cabinet Secretaries Michael Leavitt and Margaret Spellings, and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales submitted a Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy dated June 13, 2007. The report included a recommendation that the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Education and the Federal Bureau of Investigation explore the issue of violence at institutions of higher education. Accordingly, the three agencies initiated a collaborative effort, the goal of which was to understand the scope of the problem of targeted violence at these institutions in the United States.

In total, 272 incidents were identified through a comprehensive search of more than 115,000 results in open-source reporting from 1900 to 2008. The findings are pertinent and far-reaching, and the incidents studied include all forms of targeted violence, ranging from domestic violence to serial killers.

The study can also be viewed at: http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/campus-attacks.pdf.

Editor's Note: For questions concerning the study or its findings, contact the U.S. Secret Service Office of Government and Public Affairs at 202-406-5708, the Department of Education Office of Public Affairs at 202-401-1576, or the FBI Office of Public Affairs at 202-324-3691.

Ten Years After Columbine

2010-04-20T06:58:00.000-07:00

Colleagues,

You may find this article of interest. http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1984

Regards,

Brett Sokolow, Esq.

New Study of Targeted Violence in Higher Education

2010-04-16T12:42:00.001-07:00

New Study of Targeted Violence Affecting U.S. Institutions of Higher Education Released

U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Education, and Federal Bureau of Investigation Collaborate on Joint Effort

On Friday, April 16, 2010, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will release a study of targeted violence incidents on U.S. campuses of higher learning.

The June 2007 Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy included a recommendation that the Secret Service, Department of Education, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation explore the issue of violence at institutions of higher education. This collaborative effort examines the scope of the problem of targeted violence at U.S. institutions.

In total, 272 incidents were identified through a comprehensive search of more than 115,000 results in open-source reporting from 1900 to 2008. The incidents studied include various forms of targeted violence, ranging from domestic violence to mass murder. The findings should be useful for campus safety professionals charged with identifying, assessing, and managing violent risk at institutions of higher education.

The full report is available online at http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/CampusAttacks041610.pdf

Campus Sexual Assault -- More from the Center for Public Integrity

2010-04-09T04:39:00.001-07:00

http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/2030/

Navy Research on Rape Reperpetration

2010-03-23T10:36:00.001-07:00

Colleagues,

I have obtained a copy of Stephanie McWhorter's study of Rape Reperpetration in the Navy. I have her permission to disseminate it, and it may be downloaded free of charge at http://www.ncherm.org/documents/McWhorterVV2009.pdf

Regards,

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.

Professor Suspended for Reported Facebook Threats

2010-03-02T04:14:00.000-08:00

NCHERM Managing Partner Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., was quoted in Inside Higher Education on 3/2/10 talking about potentially threatening speech by an East Stroudsburg University professor that was seen on her Facebook wall. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/02/facebook

Final Article in the CPI Campus Sexual Assault Investigative Series

2010-02-26T16:15:00.001-08:00

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/articles/entry/1948

NCHERM Managing Partner Brett Sokolow quoted in Boston Globe Today About Campus Sexual Assault

2010-02-25T06:17:00.000-08:00

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/02/25/no_crackdown_on_assaults_at_colleges/?page=1

Additionally, the CPI article series latest installment indicates that OCR intends to more actively enforce Title IX. See story at: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/articles/entry/1946/

Campus Sexual Assault Article Series (2nd Article Released Today)

2010-02-24T18:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/articles/entry/1947/

Article on Campus Sexual Assaults

2010-02-24T05:43:00.001-08:00

The Center for Public Integrity has released its next article in its series on Campus Sexual Assault. NCHERM Managing Partner Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., was interviewed for the article, and is quoted extensively on the need to reframe the way we sanction students who violate campus sexual misconduct policies. You can find the article at

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/articles/entry/1945

Amy Bishop Shooting at the University of Alabama Huntsville

2010-02-15T18:30:00.000-08:00

Lessons of the Huntsville Shootings

Our condolences and thoughts are with our colleagues at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. The importance of extending the scope of our campus behavioral intervention and threat assessment teams to reach faculty/staff concerns cannot be understated. Colleges and universities have developed student-focused teams, but it is past time to broaden the scope. Faculty/staff focused teams are something we need to pusher harder for across the country.

The media seems shocked by a shooting involving a female professor. Are we? Women are a rapidly growing violent demographic in our society, and have been for more than a decade. We should not be surprised by a female perpetrator. If we are, we're not paying enough attention. A female-perpetrated campus shooting has happened before (Louisiana) and will happen again, with increasing frequency. Shootings by faculty should not surprise us either, as there have been college-related shootings in Texas, Louisiana, and most recently Georgia by faculty and staff.

We also need to question the "tenure made me do it" media coverage, and the suggestion that softening the tenure denial blow might help. We ought to cushion that blow for other reasons, but not because of the specter of violence. 99.9% of those denied tenure don't kill people. Treating faculty as "more special" than other employees only feeds the culture that makes it so politically untenable to direct campus behavioral intervention/threat assessment efforts to faculty/staff concerns on most college campuses.

It has been suggested that we make already overworked, understaffed counseling centers available to faculty. How about for every employee we fire? Why stop at faculty? This idea could have merit for campuses with counseling centers if we could dramatically expand their resources, but could also perpetuate the "dump all our problems on the counseling center" mentality that has been so pervasive since Virginia Tech. It also feeds the incident-by-incident reaction model we use to address campus violence. Cho brought us widespread mandated assessment. Kazmierczak brought classroom and centralized door locking to the fore. Now, we should revise tenure procedures because of Bishop? We're reacting incident-by-incident rather than envisioning comprehensive prevention models that are driven by our campus culture, community, resources and vulnerabilities, not every other campuses'.

If there is anything about this shooting that is anomalous and interesting that has received NO media coverage, it is that this shooting doesn't seem to fit a pattern common to almost all campus mass murders/shootings, which is the murder/suicide pattern. Bishop called her husband after the shootings to get a ride home, did not mention the shootings, disposed of her weapon in a second floor bathroom, and was apparently arrested coming out of the building without incident or reported resistance. Campus mass killers are usually their own last victims. Why Bishop walked out is worthy of some further exploration.

This shooting will lead to calls for criminal background checks and revised hiring practices, too. But, campus shooters rarely have reportable criminal histories that would show up on a typical background screening. Criminal backgrounds are not predictive of mass shootings. Bishop's history, as reported so far, is of alleged and unproven crimes. It makes for media fodder, but may not be effective prevention.

This conversation ought to be about how we build and empower the cultures of reporting that are essential to getting red flags to those on behavioral intervention/threat assessment teams who can connect the dots, identify emerging patterns and interdict them. In the coming weeks, more and more of those red flags will come out about Bishop. The disconnect on most campuses is getting that information from those who have it to those who need it.

For more resources on this topic, please visit www.nabita.org

2010 NCHERM Whitepaper Released -- Sexual Misconduct

2010-02-08T12:47:00.000-08:00

Hello Colleagues and Friends,

February is the time for the annual NCHERM Whitepaper to be released. Here's an introductory caption with a link to the full paper:

TEN YEARS OF NCHERM WHITEPAPERS

2010 marks the 10th anniversary of the founding of NCHERM. Every year since NCHERM was founded, we have published an annual Whitepaper on a topic of special relevance to student affairs professionals, risk managers, student conduct administrators and higher education attorneys. The Whitepaper is distributed via the NCHERM e‐mail subscriber list, posted on the NCHERM website, and distributed at conferences.

In 2001, NCHERM published Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment and Title IX: Managing the Risk on Campus.

In 2002, NCHERM published Complying With the Clery Act: The Advanced Course.

In 2003, the Whitepaper was titled It’s Not That We Don’t Know How to Think—It’s That We Lack Dialectical Skills.

For 2004, the Whitepaper focused on Crafting a Code of Conduct for the 21st Century College.

Our 2005 topic was The Typology of Campus Sexual Misconduct Complaints.

In 2006, the Whitepaper was entitled Our Duty OF Care is a Duty TO Care.

The 2007 Whitepaper was entitled, Some Kind of Hearing.

In 2008, NCHERM published Risk Mitigation Through The NCHERM Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment (CUBIT) Model.

For 2009, NCHERM published The NCHERM/NaBITA Threat Assessment Tool.

For 2010, the NCHERM Whitepaper is entitled Gamechangers: Reshaping Campus Sexual Misconduct Through Litigation. What game has changed? Who changed it? How?

Click the link below to find out.

http://www.ncherm.org/documents/2010NCHERMWhitepaperFinal.pdf

Regards,

The NCHERM Team

Search and Seizure at Schools and Colleges

2010-01-27T08:18:00.000-08:00

SEARCH & SEIZURE

In the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Sanford v. Redding, the Court ruled that school officials at a K-12 school violated the 4th Amendment rights of an 8th Grade girl who was stripped search while looking for prescription grade ibuprofen (my colleagues and I will undoubtedly comment more on this case in our annual report at ASCA and at next year’s NCHERM NLU events). School officials in many media outlets were vocal about their concerns that this decision would have a chilling effect on administrator’s attempting to “keep schools safe through the use of searches.”

As with many K-12 decisions, this one will have a ripple effect in the world of higher education – especially since it comes from the high Court – and because it addresses a topic that has produced at times seemingly conflicting opinions in the lower courts – Search and Seizure. Even in the K-12 world, but especially in housing departments everywhere in higher education, I would hope that this decision is not “over-interpreted”,” as – even in a preliminary reading – some significant differences exist between the “normal” College “Search” and this case.

Body vs. Residence Hall Room

There exists in reality and in the law a significant difference between the search of a person and the search of property, not the least of which is that, in order to search a person, they may have to be detained (which can constitute a deprivation of liberty as well). In this case, setting a relatively high standard for the strip search of a minor is a poor analogy for an administrator looking around the average residence hall room. That being said, residence life staffs should not view this as relaxing what are good practices in terms of setting clear separation between administrative searches and law enforcement involvement in those searches.

13 year-old vs. Average College Student

While I know at times the amount of parent contact our students have makes us think they are still minors (sorry Millennials), they are not in the eyes of the law. An adult student who consents to the search of their person or property will likely find themselves subject to a) the search, and b) the consequence of whatever may be found, barring the demonstration of some duress or general inappropriate law enforcement involvement.

Prescription Strength Ibuprofen vs. Marijuana? Narcotics? Weapons?

Here, the analogy is probably a little more appropriate, primarily because the “average” residence hall search does not involve even prescription strength ibuprofen. Generally speaking, the things that College administrators are looking for have already met the legal standard for being “dangerous.” That being said, I think there is something to be said for this analogy if the college was looking for minor misuse (not including sale of) Ritalin or Adderal. If nothing else, this search would warrant (pun intended) some more discussion.

In short, college and university administrators should not overreact to this decision. If you have reviewed your policies in light of the Houston and Washington and D.C. cases over the last few years (and you review their implementation and the training of your staff annually), you should keep doing the good work you continue to do.

Have a great weekend.

Saundra K. Schuster, Esq.
Partner, NCHERM

What Colleges Can Learn from the Detroit Almost-Bombing

2009-12-28T06:32:00.000-08:00

Dear Colleagues,

A short blog thought for you in this holiday interstice about the attempted terrorist bombing over Detroit on Christmas, and its implications for threat assessment in higher education. More reports come out each day about this incident, but a central question that everyone is asking is why was this bomber not identified sooner, and why didn't some responsible agency have a closer eye on him?

There are only a few possible answers, all of which have implications for colleges and universities:

1. Responsible agencies did have intel on Abdulmutallab, but did not accurately classify the level of risk the intel indicated. This is a rather unlikely conclusion, though we make sport of constant charges of government incompetence. The risk assessment tools in use by intelligence agencies are sound, and are implemented by some of the world's foremost threat experts. Nothing suggests a misclassification so far. The implications for colleges and universities lie in using informal risk classification mechanisms, "feel-based" approaches, inconsistent measures (we often get this from over-reliance on mental health assessments by different assessors, or using different inventories/scales) or risk rubrics that are not meant to be used for the kinds of risk being assessed.

2. There were reports raising red flags about Abdulmutallab, but they did not provide sufficient intel to be actionable -- to peg him high enough on the risk scale for "no-fly" or any other kind of action/intervention. In higher education, this is a real fear, as well. Someone within our communities is a real and present danger, and we don't know it. We have bits and pieces, but nothing to indicate the impending crisis with any accuracy or forewarning. This reminds us of the need to continue to build and empower cultures of reporting, where the right decisionmakers know what the people on the frontlines know. A culture of reporting exists when all members of the community recognize when they come into possession of key pieces of intel, know who to pass the intel along to, and do so in real time and with accuracy.

3. Nigeria knew, but America or the intelligence agencies of other countries did not. This is the silo effect where communication either does not flow, or is impeded. This is one of the main challenges for any organization, whether it is an intelligence agency, college or university. Some level of communication barrier is inevitable. Perhaps it is reasonable to argue that a report in Nigeria by a father of a remotely radicalized son is not something that should be known immediately by intelligence agencies around the world. There must be hundreds of thousands of such young men, and concerned parents. Yet, when the father of Cho's suitemate learned that Cho had threatened suicide, he reported it immediately, and Virginia Tech's police department took action immediately. To me, it speaks to the value of intel that can come from outside our jurisdictions, campuses, and communities that can bear directly upon our communities. Perfect communication is impossible, but priority communication can help to ensure the flow of critical intel, even if lesser intel may not always get through.

4. Finally, it may be that the red flags raised about Abdulmutallab were sufficient for a watch list or or risk status elevation, but there was insufficient man or womanpower to investigate and make that critical judgment call. This is a persistent detriment in the intelligence world, where no action is taken on actionable intelligence either because the agency has insufficient resources, there is just too high a volume of reports to investigate all of them adequately, or there is a language or other barrier to effective follow-up. It is also a potential hazard for colleges and universities that are experiencing a high volume of reports of concerning behaviors, but do not have the resources to adequately follow-up and investigate. While we may feel this is inexcusable, it happens on many college campuses, and the best band aid is an effective triage system where all reports are follow-up, but some more quickly and with more intensity than others. This brings us back to have a risk rubric we can trust, because we can rely on it for initial triage and ultimately overall threat, too, once we have collected more intel and engaged a preliminary investigation.

Those are my thoughts for now. Happy New Year, and for those of you who, like me, are headed back onto an airplane soon, the vigilance and action of those who engaged Abdulmutallab on flight 253 may have made all the difference. Keep your eyes open, and be willing to intervene when something smells wrong, or like smoke.

Regards,

Brett Sokolow

VA Tech Governor's Panel Report Revised

2009-12-04T18:16:00.001-08:00

Colleagues,

The revised report is posted at this link: http://www.nabita.org/documents/VATechRecordRpt179-09110909final.pdf

Regards,

The NCHERM Team

Sexual Assault on Campus

2009-12-02T07:52:00.000-08:00

Thought you would want to see this in-depth, investigative, multi-media story about sexual assault on college campuses by Kristen Lombardi and Center for Public Integrity

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/

Campus Sexual Assault Policy Press Release

2009-12-01T18:54:00.000-08:00

PASSING ALONG A PRESS RELEASE...

V-Day and Students Active for Ending Rape Launch Campus Accountability Project: A Demand for Sexual Assault Policy Reform

New York, NY, December 1, 2009—V-Day and Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER) are proud to announce the launch of their joint “Campus Accountability Project: A Demand for Sexual Assault Policy Reform.” For the past ten years, both V-Day and SAFER have been helping college and university students organize to fight sexual violence and challenge rape culture on their campuses. By combining forces on the multi-phase Campus Accountability Project (CAP), both organizations hope to empower more students to take an active role in changing the ways in which their campuses prevent and respond to sexual assault, and spark a nationwide dialogue on what schools should be doing to properly educate and protect their students.

Sexual assault on college campuses is a pressing issue. One in four women will survive rape or attempted rape during their college career and rape is the most common violent crime committed on college campuses. Colleges and universities have the power to change these statistics and foster healthy sexual attitudes on campus by implementing comprehensive and easily accessible sexual assault policies and prevention programs. V-Day and SAFER believe that students have the power to hold their schools accountable for these key provisions and to fight for and win reforms when necessary.

The CAP kicks off this winter as V-Day and SAFER invite college students across the country to become part of the movement by researching their school’s current sexual assault policy and providing feedback. Students can register for the V-Day/Safer Campus Accountability Project Database where they will be guided through a thorough policy analysis process, answering questions meant to assess the policy’s thoroughness, inclusivity, and adherence to federal law. Once completed, these analyses will be reviewed by staff and submitted to the Database, creating a powerful tool for student activists and administrators to see how their schools match up to peer institutions and what improvements can be made.

After the first batch of policies have been submitted, SAFER trainers will be available for students who want to make changes on their campus. During the 2010–2011 school year, V-Day and SAFER will review the compiled information to assess the state of the nation’s campus sexual assault policy’s and establish a thorough list of key criteria to effectively prevent, track and respond to sexual assaults on college campuses. We hope to eventually integrate our database into existing college ranking systems, so students and parents have easy access to the information.

Please visit http://safercampus.org/campus-accountability-project or http://www.vday.org/cap for more information.

About V-Day

V-Day is a global activist movement shattering taboos, raising millions and transforming communities to end violence against women and girls. Annually, activists stage thousands of benefit productions of Founder/playwright Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues and other works. Working at the intersection of art, social action, and politics, V-Day empowers grassroots activists to become leaders, turning pain to power. To date, the V-Day movement has raised over $70 million, crafted international educational, media and PSA campaigns, reopened shelters, and funded over 11,000 community-based anti-violence programs and safe houses in Democratic Republic Of Congo, Egypt, Haiti, Iraq, Kenya, Pakistan, and South Dakota. V-Day was named one of Worth magazine's "100 Best Charities" in 2001 and Marie Claire’s “Top Ten Charities” in 2006. The 'V' in V-Day stands for Victory, Valentine and Vagina. http://www.vday.org

About SAFER

Started by Columbia University students in 2000, Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER) is the only organization that fights sexual violence and rape culture by empowering student-led campaigns to reform college sexual assault policies. An all-volunteer collective, SAFER facilitates student organizing through a comprehensive training manual; in-person workshops and trainings; free follow-up mentoring; our Campus Sexual Assault Policies Database; and a growing online resource library and network for student organizers. Committed to social change through community mobilization, SAFER arms students with the tools needed to mobilize communities and make lasting change on campus. www.safercampus.org

Mandated Psychological Assessment -- Best Practices

2009-11-11T06:44:00.000-08:00

NCHERM-affiliated consultant Brian Van Brunt has suggested ten questions you may want to pose when choosing outside assessors to perform evaluations on students:

1) Does the mandated assessment create a “counseling” relationship with the student. If so, what does the informed consent for treatment and assessment look like (can we see a copy?). Is the relationship covered by HIPAA or FERPA---or is it medical in nature without electronic billing (HIPAA)

2) Is the student required to have information shared with the referring party regardless of the results or their wishes? If so, what does this release of information form look like (can we see a copy?)

3) What is the scope of the assessment? Will previous records (e.g. judicial files, out of state criminal records, third-party interviews, review of transcripts/GPA/class attendance, contact with RA or RD to determine residential life performance) be considered. If so, is the student informed of this prior to the assessment starting.

4) What kind of testing will be used to augment the clinical interview (e.g. symptom based measures (beck scales, EDIT, STAXI…), outcome measures (SCL-90-R, OQ-45, QOLI), personality testing (MMPI-2, TAT, Rorschach). How are the results reported back to the referring agent (e.g. letter, summary vs. overly technical data). Is there an additional costs for these assessments or are they provided as part of the overall cost?

5) What is a reasonable time frame for a first meeting? How long does a letter or results typically take to generate?

6) Is there a limit on the number of assessments that can be completed in a time frame (e.g. we know there are busy times where multiple students may be referred for an assessment---will this slow down the process)

7) Are there choices for the student in terms of who can do the assessment (e.g. is it only one person or a team that the student can switch to another person if they are uncomfortable)

8) What kind of ways does the assessment address concerns of “faking” or malingering responses? If assessments are used, do they address valid responses?

9) Who is paying for the assessment? If the student pays, do they then have a right to refuse having the results shared? If the school pays, how to you address the students right to see the results? (who gets the results first? Are both parties given the same results?)

10) What are the credentials of the person doing the assessment? Do they have specific training in the area of assessment and college student development?

Hope you find these helpful.

Regards,

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.

Mandated Psychological Assessment

2009-11-02T05:32:00.000-08:00

Another look at mandated assessment

The second step in Covey’s seven habits of highly effective people is “begin with the end in mind.” Keeping this simple statement in mind has the potential to improve the quality of any mandated suicide or risk assessment. Too often, clinicians become distracted by non-essential questions or external pressures which lead them away from what the referral source is really looking for in terms of feedback.

What is that primary focus when performing an assessment? Well, it depends. It may be a Dean or VP of Student Affairs needs to determine if the student is likely to be safe remaining on campus or if he should be removed them from campus housing. Police may be looking to gauge the severity of a given situation, perhaps a note that lists “people I hate” left on the outside of the student’s door or a creative writing essay that outlines a campus shooting scenario.

Before I start digging into the magic bag of assessments and structured clinical interviews, it is helpful to being any assessment with the end in mind. What is the referral source looking for? It is rarely a 10 page psycho-social assessment or summary of developmental milestones. More often, referral sources are looking for counseling to assist in their process of determining risk. Too much time and effort is spent on answering questions that no one is asking.

Deans, Housing directors and campus police know we can’t predict the future. They understand that a counseling assessment isn’t a guaranteed prediction of future behavior. What they are looking for is assistance in determining a future course of action. Too often, psychologists and counselors don’t focus enough on providing assistance to the questions being asked by the referral source.

Many of the difficulties which arise between counselors and BIT teams center on the lack of effort put into developing the expectations of the beginning of the referral process. Counselors end up guessing at what kind of information they need to provide and BIT teams try to decipher overly technical assessment reports that may be thorough, but miss answering the key questions.

I would suggest counselors and BIT teams come together and discuss what kind of help they can offer each other to build a better foundational conversation prior to beginning any assessment. Some of these questions might include:

1) Are decision makers trying to determine whether the student can live on campus? The real question or threat may be more focused on the dangers or difficulty experienced by roommates and community members. The assessment may want to focus on the relationships the student has and the likelihood of these relationships being disruptive to the residential life community.

2) Does the referral source need help developing educational sanctions or monitoring if the student remains on campus? Counseling may not be the office providing these, but often those performing these assessments are in an excellent position to offer some advice about what kinds of corrective action or treatment would be helpful to avoid future problems.

3) Does the student seem remorseful and show insight into the severity of the situation?

4) Are there personality or psychological issues that may impact the likelihood of the threat occurring again (future suicide attempts, poor impulse control, past behavior, difficult environmental stressors)?

5) Is there a specific timeline that needs to be adhered to? Performing a detailed assessment that will not be ready for a hearing will not be as helpful to the threat team.

6) How can the information best be shared? Is a formal letter needed or a conversation more helpful?

Have a great weekend.

Brian Van Brunt, Ed.D.
Director of Counseling and Testing, WKU
NCHERM-Affiliated Consultant
Brian@NCHERM.org

Brian Van Brunt and Brett Sokolow will explore the topic, "We've Intervened -- Now What?" in a webinar this Friday, November 6th. Details are posted at http://www.ncherm.org/webinars.html

NCHERM Consultant Brian VanBrunt Comments on UCLA Stabbing

2009-10-25T19:25:00.000-07:00

Colleagues,

You may find this article of interest.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-college-mental25-2009oct25,0,2132918.story

Regards,

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.

NCHERM Joins Corporate Partnership Program to Support IACLEA and Campus Public Safety

2009-10-22T14:50:00.000-07:00

NCHERM Joins Corporate Partnership Program to Support IACLEA and Campus Public Safety

WEST HARTFORD, CT. – NCHERM has become a Corporate Partner of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, Inc., (IACLEA), under a program developed to honor IACLEA’s 50 years of service and to support initiatives to enhance the ability of campus public safety to protect higher education institutions in the future.

NCHERM is a Titanium Sponsor and, as such, has pledged a significant donation to support IACLEA’s 50th Anniversary and future initiatives. The goals of IACLEA’s Corporate Partnership program are to highlight the growth and importance of campus public safety during IACLEA’s first 50 years and to support initiatives to strengthen campus public safety and expand its impact on higher education and its service to stakeholders worldwide.

IACLEA celebrated its 50th Anniversary with a series of events, beginning in Las Vegas in 2007 and culminating with its 50th Annual Conference and celebration in Hartford, CT, in June of 2008. These included a commemorative anniversary book entitled, “IACLEA: The First 50 Years,” and a video called, “Five Decades of Success.”

NCHERM, the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, is a law and consulting firm dedicated exclusively to higher education practice. NCHERM’s 11 consultants offer more than 100 training and consulting workshop topics, focused on prevention, risk management and preventive law. Started in 2000, NCHERM’s recent work on behavioral intervention and threat assessment has taken it into far greater interaction with campus law enforcement, though many in IACLEA are already familiar with NCHERM’s Managing Partner Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., and his work on the Clery Act since 1996. In a short time, NCHERM has received national prominence for its CUBIT Behavioral Intervention Team model, now in place at nearly 300 campuses, its threat assessment model, and its recent creation of NaBITA, the National Behavioral Intervention Team Association. More information is posted at www.ncherm.org and www.nabita.org

NCHERM continues to support IACLEA and the campus public safety profession. IACLEA asks all of its members to thank NCHERM for its support by keeping their services in mind for any future assistance they can provide in developing mission critical solutions for campus public safety departments.

More Trouble in Cyberspace

2009-10-09T07:57:00.001-07:00

Social networking sites, such as Facebook, My Space, You Tube and Twitter continue to provide a source for new legal challenges and new applications of law. A Federal judge in Kentucky ordered the reinstatement of a University of Louisville nursing student who had posted a blog on MySpace recounting, in detail, the experiences of a patient giving birth. The nursing student included information about the date of the birth, the number of children the patient already had, the fact that she had an epidural and the reactions of her family. In addition, she described the newborn as “a wrinkly, bluish creature, all Picasso-like and weird, ugly as hell, covered in god knows what, screeching and waving its tentacles in the air”. The nursing student was subsequently dismissed from the University for violating patient confidentiality by providing sufficient personal information in her blog about the patient to enable the patient to be identified, and, in addition, for violating the principles of professionalism in the code of nursing.

The dismissed student argued that the University violated her First Amendment rights by dismissing her for the comments and information she posted in her blog. The student also argued that the University could not take the dismissal action because she was not using University technology to create her blog, she did not post the blog as a representative of the School of Nursing, and that she used the blog to create a “mixture of fiction and satire” as an emotional relief from the daily stress of her academic program.

We advise colleges and universities that students enrolled in professional programs who violate the standards and ethics of the profession may be disciplined if that expectation is clearly stated as a condition of enrollment in the program. Although the article does not address whether the nursing student had a due process hearing prior to her dismissal, the case was not presented as, nor decided as, a due process issue. Rather, the judge seemed to be substituting his opinion of the professional standards for that of the University by stating, “the post was not written in a professional medical context and thus fell outside the code of professionalism for nursing”. It seems to me that providing patient confidentiality, consistent with both ethical standards and HIPAA, is an across the board expectation for both students and professionals in the medical field, and not one confined to writing in a “medical context”.

This case raises concerns because of the judge’s involvement in the academic context, and the presumption that something posted on a personal blog protected the poster from being held accountable for violating legal and ethical standards of her profession. What do you think? Should she be disciplined? Dismissed from the program? Or is her comments protected by the First Amendment because of the vehicle for expression she used.

Regards,

Saunie Schuster

Whoopi Goldberg, Roman Polanski, and Rape

2009-10-01T07:46:00.000-07:00

Colleagues,

Wendy Murphy wrote this with such clarity of vision that I wanted to pass it along, with her permission and my gratitude.

AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOOPI GOLDBERG

Dear Whoopi;

Yesterday on "The View", you said Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to
"unlawful sex with a minor", but that it wasn't "rape rape".? So I've
been wondering -

What the hell is "rape rape"?

I know you said your point was to articulate the nature of the crime
to which he pleaded guilty - which, you said, was somehow DIFFERENT
from "rape".

It isnt.

"Unlawful sex with a minor" IS the crime of child rape in California.

So again - I ask you - how is "rape rape" different from "rape"?

Regular folks understand "rape" to mean "sexual penetration without
consent" - and of course, consent is irrelevant when the victim is a
child.

The law says "rape" means:? "sexual penetration".

The dictionary says "rape" is:? "forced sexual intercourse".

No matter which definitional source you use, Whoopi, Polanski "raped"
his victim.

So I'm trying to understand what you meant when you say it wasn't
"rape rape".

Did you mean it wasn't "real rape"? ?

What wasn't "real" enough about the crime for you, Whoopi?

A 43 year old man forced his penis into a 13 year-old child's vagina -
and then he forced his penis into her anus.? How is this "rape", but
not "rape rape"?

The victim was not only a child, she was also intoxicated because
Polanski gave her booze and drugs before the crime.? The child
protested - told him to stop - but he continued.? She was
incapacitated to a point where she could barely walk, much less defend
herself against her 43 year-old attacker.? Is that enough for "rape
rape", Whoopi?

What would have done it for you?? If he'd used a knife - or jumped on
her in a dark alley instead of a bed?? If it had happened at a
homeless shelter instead of the mansion of a famous Hollywood actor??
If he'd had to remove a trench coat before committing the crime,
rather than silk underwear from a fancy shop on Rodeo Drive?

What if the victim had been a little black girl from a triple decker
in the poorest part of Los Angeles?? Would that have been "rape rape",
Whoopi? Or would you have still offered the same lame excuse you came
up with on The View - that "people in other countries see things
differently" when middle-aged men force themselves on children.

If it's true that 13 year-old kids in France are so disrespected they
can anticipate being attacked by men - you can and should condemn the
practice - not chalk it up to a "cultural difference" - as if to
suggest that the United States might evolve one day to a period of
enlightenment when we will be "liberated" enough to celebrate the
sexual abuse of children. ?

Your audience is filed with women who need and deserve the empowerment
potential in a show like yours. Cultural values are created, in part,
through the dissemination of ideas.? You had a chance to explain to
millions of people why the personal autonomy, bodily integrity and
liberty of all women and children is at stake when even one rapist is
not held accountable for his actions.? At a minimum, you could have
explained how backward we really are in this country - and how the
epidemic of rape and child sex abuse serves as a kind of domestic
terrorism that interferes with the freedom of millions of people who
are affected by the disproportionate failure of our legal system to
redress sexual violence.? According to a study submitted to Congress
in support of the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s, by then
Senator Joseph Biden, only 2% of rapists spend even one day behind
bars.? Violence against women and children is grossly underreported
and underprosecuted, and the data c
onsistently shows that crimes against property are punished much more
harshly than crimes against female bodies.

Rather than highlight this profound and pervasive injustice, you
bemoaned the fact that Mr. Polanski was compelled to flee the United
States after pleading guilty to child rape because he was about to be
go to jail for "a hundred years". ?

Many people would argue he deserved such a sentence, and under
California law today, but not back then, drugging and raping a child
would expose Mr. Polanski to a mandatory minimum term of 25 years.?
But because he was allowed to plead guilty to only one of six felonies
with which he was originally charged - he faced no more than four
years behind bars, and some reports say the judge intended to impose a
sentence of only a few weeks of incarceration.

Mr. Polanski arrogantly decided that he shouldn't spend any time in
jail, and he fled this country spinelessly for a nation he knew would
not extradite him for his crime.? If it's true, as has been reported,
that he took off because he thought it was unfair that he should go to
jail after his lawyer worked out a "no jail" deal with the prosecutor,
he had a right to withdraw his guilty plea and go to TRIAL - not PARIS.

That Mr. Polanski would show such disrespect for this country's legal
system is a reason to punish him MORE, not less, for his crime.? It
may be a decades-old case, but it bears stating the obvious that the
law should not reward fugitives for their successful efforts to evade
justice.

Nonetheless, Mr. Polanski is a man of wealth and power, and kids don't
vote or have any money.? Which is why people like you are so quick to
say things that degrade children.? Admit it Whoopi, you'd be talking
out of the other side of your mouth if filmmaker Polanski were
garbageman Polanski.

Next time, try reading the Constitution BEFORE speaking on this
topic.? There's nothing in there that says people of influence should
not be held accountable for their crimes.? In fact, try focusing on
the 14th Amendment for a few minutes - especially the part about how
all citizens are entitled to "equal protection" of the laws.? Then try
reading some of our most basic court decisions that discuss how the
law is supposed to protect the weak, and deter the cunning.

You have a 13 year-old granddaughter, Whoopi.? What does she call
you?? "Nana"? "Grandma"?.? What if she told you that she had been
"raped" by a 45 year-old man who stripped her naked and then
penetrated her private parts even as she cried "no".? Would you
correct her for using the word "rape"?? Would you say, "sorry
sweetheart -? what happened to you was not a 'rape rape'". ?

No matter how hard some people try to make the crime seem harmless and
full of gray areas - - it really is quite simple if you think about it
the way someone famous once did:? "rape is to sex what a punch in the
mouth is to a kiss".? Not all punches knock teeth out - but nobody
ever says "it wasn't a 'punch punch'". ?

I will say one thing, Whoopi - in your defense.? Maybe we SHOULD give
up the term "rape" altogether, and start calling it "bodily
enslavement".? We could put it in the Constitution as a civil rights
crime, rather than in the lowly statute books alongside shoplifting. ?

I'm thinking if we had initially codified the offense in law where it
truly belongs - under the umbrella of fundamental liberty - you might
have stopped yourself before saying "it wasn't a violation of civil
rights civil rights".

Can you see how dumb that sounds, Whoopi?

I hope so - because you are an important voice for women and children
and I want you to sound smart.

Yours truly,

Wendy Murphy
New England Law|Boston

Juicy Campus Title IX OCR Investigation Follow-up

2009-09-15T08:23:00.000-07:00

Colleagues,

We posted several weeks ago on the OCR investigation of Hofstra University with a promise to update it when we had more information. I made a FOIA request for the letter of findings. Those who are interested may find the letter posted at http://www.ncherm.org/documents/Hofstra02092051.pdf

Here is my initial take on it. What are your thoughts?

Having read the letter now, I can understand the downplaying comments by OCR, as I don't think the interpretation is as expansive as Wendy Murphy or SOC would like, though I think it does establish the requirement that a college at least investigate such a complaint. Thus, failure to do so could result in a Title IX violation. If Hofstra knew the alleged harassee's name, it would have been required to do more by OCR. How much more is the question, given the online nature of the harassment. But, OCR did not wash their hands of the complaint, and that has significance.

What they said may be as significant here as what they did not. On the question of what they did not say, as potentially significant -- OCR did not address first amendment concerns at all, which I find to be an oversight. While Hofstra is private, the forum was public. AND, I'm not as congratulatory on how Hofstra's response is described here. If the mother and daughter approached student affairs, were told they could not be helped by students affairs because the conduct was online, and then pushed the alleged victim off on campus law enforcement, who were unresponsive or unreachable, this is a pattern that occurs too often.

There should be on every campus a "no wrong door" policy on reporting sexual harassment. Shunting a potential victim from disinterested office to disinterested office is what provokes this kind of complaint to OCR in the first place. And I find it disingenuous that campus police is a more appropriate department to report harassment than student affairs, which has jurisdiction over conduct code violations.

It is convenient that no one had the alleged victim's name after a face-to-face meeting between student affairs officials, the mother and daughter, but that seems sloppy to me. It also seems sloppy that OCR could approve of trying to avoid actual notice.

Could we improve on how Hofstra responded? An intake form? An offer, "let me help you contact campus police...". "Let me get your contact information." "Are the harassers students?"

Any of that follow-up would have seemed less deliberately indifferent to a situation that was important enough that daughter and mom both showed up looking for help.

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.

Sexual Assault and the Millennials

2009-09-04T07:22:00.000-07:00

Greetings Colleagues,

I'll make this short, but wanted to weigh in on my travels, and the anecdotal information that I'm getting from my interactions with students. As you know, this is the time of the year when I'm keynoting orientation programs across the country for four straight weeks. It gives me a real insight into the student mores of the class of 2013, as it does every year. While Millennials literature can forecast, and the Beloit list can look back, I always consider orientation my most accurate barometer for the year to come. It hasn't led me wrong yet. Most of my orientation programs have focused on sexual assault, with several addressing alcohol and bystander intervention instead as their primary focus. What can I relate so far -- three important initial impressions:

1. The class of '13 is slightly more alcohol naive than the class of '12. They're a little less experienced coming in, though only a little. They are about as well-informed on alcohol as previous classes, maybe slightly more so, but it is clear the high schools are still not giving them critical information and that colleges still need to fill that gap.

What are the implications? Depends on how quickly they acclimate to campus and begin to reflect the campuses alcohol mores, rather than those of their high school. Often, when the incoming class is inexperienced, it's bad for college administrators. Coming in with more experience often means savvier drinkers, and less fallout from first-time drunkfests. With a naive class like '13, it suggests to me higher risk when and if they do drink, as they have less experience with the effects of different types of alcohol, and how they will react.

2. About 6 years ago, there was a 2-3 year period in which it was not uncommon for young women to excuse themselves (sometimes running) from my sexual assault program when it triggered them. We beefed up counselors outside as a result, and that made for some valuable support structures. It happened practically every night. Then, for the last four years, I've watched powerless as sometimes a few or even a dozen women just sat through the presentation in tears. Every night. But, almost never left. Hopefully, they had someone to talk to, or sought help after the program, but there was enough emotional control that fleeing was rare. This year, I've had multiple women flee in almost every program.

What are the implications? I'd generalize and say this class has less emotional control than the classes over the last four years. We've been watching this erode, and dealing with flare-ups, conflict and other emotional control issues more and more, but it may come to a head with this class. It's all on the surface, for better or worse. Also, we need to again beef up the counselor presence outside in the halls, so there is an emotional safety net for these women as they go running out.

3. The audience is splitting along gender lines in the Drunk Sex program based on a case study. I have the audience vote as if they are a jury, and it has been 10-11 years since I saw gender-split audiences, and only then primarily when I was visiting campuses in the South. This year, after three weeks, only two juries out of 12 have split with men and women equally divided. All the others have voted with a clear majority of men siding with the male defendant in the case, and women voting with the female victim. I've never seen this before, and it is widespread, from CA to VT.

Implications: this class seems to have regressed in gender role assumptions and stereotyping, and based on their comments, possesses a rather 1950s sensibility of "men can't keep it in their pants, so women better cross their legs." A lot of that is coming from women, too. It will be fascinating to see what has caused such an interestingly narrow gender-role perspective that seems to affect this entire class from campus to campus. Perhaps we are reaping the message of the Girls Gone Wild generation, and it seems to me, this is clearly not for the better.

Just some preliminary thoughts from the road. I'll more comprehensively summarize my impressions at the end of the semester, after another 30 programs or so.

Have a great long weekend and happy holiday.

Regards,

Brett Sokolow

A Blog from Saunie

2009-08-21T08:19:00.000-07:00

Dear Colleagues,

The Columbus Dispatch, my hometown newspaper, has been running a series of ”exposes” about how the colleges and universities in the state address questions regarding release of certain information. Mostly the questions involved athletes and involved travel info and job info. The responses were all over the place, with most institutions who refused to give up the information citing to FERPA. Some of the institutions provided the information saying it was a public record. This has set off quite a firestorm regarding “what constitutes a record” under FERPA.

Our state senator is calling for clarification and our state Attorney General is sending requests for clarification to the Dept. of Ed. But this issue is also receiving national attention, bolstered by the involvement of former Senator James Buckley, the original drafter of the legislation.

The new head of the Family Compliance Office, Paul Gammill, stated that he intends to meet with the NCAA reps to discuss better transparency in records, but what is badly needed is a comprehensive review of the law, the legislative intent and the application to practice.

The only time a federal court of appeals evaluated what constituted a “record” under FERPA was in 2002 when the Sixth Circuit ruled that student discipline records constitute a “record” under FERPA. The court stated that since the regs specify exceptions to FERPA, if a record was NOT identified as an exception, then it would be encompassed by the privacy provisions of the law.

So, do we look forward to greater specificity in the language of the law imposed by the Dept. of Ed., or to continued interpretative discretion on the part of the institutions?

Have a great weekend.

Saunie Schuster

Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment Association Annual Conference

2009-08-17T14:19:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- August 17, 2009

Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment Association Annual Conference

Today, NaBITA (The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association) announced its 1st Annual Conference and Call for Programs. This two-day international conference will be hosted by the University of Texas at San Antonio from December 10-11, 2009. NaBITA is the national association for behavioral intervention and threat assessment teams operating to prevent violence in schools, on college campuses, and in workplaces.

Dr. Rick A. Myer, Professor of Counseling and Psychology at Duquesne University will give the Keynote address, entitled: "Crisis Intervention and Prevention: The Three `C's." NaBITA's 2009 President, Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., issued the following statement:

We think participants will appreciate the format of the NaBITA Annual Conference, which has been given much thought and consideration by the NaBITA Conference Committee. In addition to Dr. Myer's speech, the conference has three types of presentation slots: Featured Speakers, Concurrent Sessions, and Roundtables. There are three Featured Speaker sessions in addition to the Keynote. Ten Featured speakers have been invited to present by the conference committee based upon their prominence and contribution to the thought, theory, practice and evolution of behavioral intervention efforts. Their topics have been assigned to them, with the intention of creating a dynamic and progressive Institute-style curriculum for participants. These Featured Speakers include: W. Scott Lewis, J.D., Saundra K. Schuster, Esq., Carolyn Reinach Wolfe, Esq., Elizabeth Brody Gluck, Esq., Michael Dolan, Aaron Hark, Mitchell Levy, Ph.D., Brian Van Brunt, Ed.D., Brett A. Sokolow, Esq. and Rick A. Myer, Ph.D.

The conference committee also recognizes that expertise exists beyond the ten featured speakers, and has slated four concurrent sessions so that practitioners from schools, college campuses and workplaces can share their promising models, valuable experience and professional expertise with the participants. Click here to access the Call for Programs or visit www.nabita.org. NaBITA invites and encourages the submission of program proposals. The Call for Programs submission deadline is September 1st.

The conference planners have recognized that learning is more powerful when participants get a chance to digest and apply the concepts shared at a conference. As a result, the conference incorporates Roundtable and panel sessions, to engage participants interactively. There are Roundtable sessions at the end of each day. On the first day, participants will be able to join themed Roundtables facilitated by the Featured Speakers based on topics of interest. On the second day, there will be track-based roundtables facilitated by concurrent session presenters and then a Featured Speaker panel to close the conference.

The NaBITA conference, in addition to offering three types of presentations, is designed to allow participants to follow presentations in three tracks, by level of sophistication. NaBITA intends this conference to be relevant to all participants, whether they are just beginning a team, have one already established, or have been doing behavioral intervention well for years. The three tracks are Basic, Intermediate and Advanced, and participants may follow their track, or jump around to topics that interest them.

Conference registration is open and details are posted on the conference site at www.nabita.org/annualconference.html.

For more information, contact:

Samantha Dutill, Associate Executive Director
NaBITA
610.993.0229
samantha@nabita.org
www.nabita.org

OCR, Title IX and Juicy Campus

2009-08-12T13:54:00.000-07:00

Colleagues,

Many of you are following the stories on the OCR investigation of Hofstra regarding harassment of a student that occurred on the defunct JuicyCampus website. I've been talking yesterday and today to Wendy Murphy, the lawyer who filed the complaint, to get more insight. I've made a FOIA request for the OCR letter and will share it as soon as I get it. Anyone have a copy already?

The substance concerns whether colleges and universities will be required to remedy gender discrimination of a student occurring on 3rd party Internet sites not owned or controlled by the institution. Wendy's interpretation is that by making a finding on the complaint (no Title IX violation by Hofstra), the OCR believes it has jurisdiction over online harassment of a student. The OCR itself has today declaimed that reading of its finding, instead saying it found no violation, and nothing more. Security-on-Campus, of course, disputes the OCR characterization, and believes this is a landmark ruling.

There is no authority in Title IX for such an action, but OCR does essentially make law with its administrative rulings. Harassment must be within a program of a funding recipient to come under OCR jurisdiction, and 3rd party Internet sites don't meet that requirement. And only the most egregious of Internet harassment could rise to the level of being severe, pervasive and objectively offensive enough to overcome the 1st Amendment rights of the speaker. I could see a requirement to address harassment occurring on a campus network, or by university email, as being within OCR's jurisdiction programmatically. I could see an argument that harassment occurring in a university-sponsored Second Life could be seen as occurring within the programs of a funding recipient. I could even see OCR weighing in on a campus remedy of such discrimination, if the campus exercised its conduct jurisdiction to do so, even if Title IX did not require it to. How OCR saw a nexus between the harassment and Hofstra will hopefully be illuminated by the letter.

I'll share more about this case when I know more...

Here are some relevant articles:

http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?view=article&id=2027%3Acampuses-wont-be-so-juicy-this-fall&option=com_content&Itemid=79

August 11, 2009, 10:00 AM ET

And, this article, posted by blog to the Chronicle of Higher Education

Education Dept. Disputes Nonprofit's View of New Internet Harassment Ruling

By Erica Hendry

The nonprofit group Security on Campus (http://www.securityoncampus.org/) issued a news release (http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2027:campuses-wont-be-so-juicy-this-fall&catid=3:sexualassault&Itemid=79) this week about a U.S. Department of Education ruling that it said held institutions responsible under Title IX for responding to sexual harassment on the Internet. But the department says the ruling does not have those implications.

The ruling came out of the department's Office for Civil Rights in New York, which investigated Hofstra University, after a student complained the institution did not "appropriately address" her complaints about peers who made sexually explicit and sexist comments about her on the now-defunct (../../../article/JuicyCampus-Shuts-Down-Bla/1506) gossip Web site JuicyCampus.

According to a letter sent to the student's lawyer, Wendy Murphy, who is also a board member of the nonprofit, the office had "jurisdictional authority to investigate this complaint under Title IX," but found "insufficient evidence to conclude that the university failed to respond appropriately."

Ms. Murphy said the ruling indicated institutions could be similarly investigated or held responsible for violations of Title IX or sexual harassment on the Internet in the future.

Jim Bradshaw, a representative from the Office for Civil Rights (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/reports-resources.html), said the office "would not characterize this as a "landmark ruling." He said the office found insufficient evidence of a violation of Title IX, and the findings should not be "interpreted beyond those parameters."

Regards,

Brett Sokolow

NCHERM Affiliated Consultant Carolyn Wolf Interviewed by ABC

2009-08-06T20:19:00.000-07:00

Colleagues,

Please find the link to Carolyn's comments here

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0809/647102.html

Have a pleasant weekend.

Brett Sokolow

Special Announcements

2009-08-03T10:24:00.000-07:00

This week, we are pleased to announce two pieces of news:

1. JOHN WESLEY LOWERY JOINS NCHERM

John Wesley Lowery, Ph.D. has joined NCHERM as an Affiliated Consultant.

John brings a wealth of expertise in legislative and regulatory mandates, compliance, student conduct and CAS standards.

Our first event featuring Dr. Lowery will be a webinar on the new Higher Education Reauthorization Act Final Regulations in December.

To learn more about Dr. Lowery, visit http://www.ncherm.org/consultants.html#JWL

2. The 1st Annual NaBITA Conference website is live. Registration is open, and the Call for Programs is posted. Please join us in San Antonio in December. For details, visit www.nabita.org

Regards,

Brett A. Sokolow, J.D.

Suicide Study

2009-08-01T04:44:00.000-07:00

Colleagues,

Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin have published a study on student suicide that contains important insights.

The study is posted at http://www.nabita.org/documents/NewDataonNatureofSuicidalCrisis.pdf

Have a pleasant weekend.

Brett Sokolow

Article Published in Journal

2009-07-27T08:02:00.001-07:00

A version of the article, 2nd Generation Behavioral Intervention Best Practices, by Brett A. Sokolow, J.D. and W. Scott Lewis, J.D. has been published in the URMIA Journal.

It is posted at http://www.nabita.org/documents/Article_SokolowLewis_URMIAJournal2009_20090722.pdf

Colleges Ignore Risk Management?

2009-07-20T13:46:00.000-07:00

Colleagues,

The link below leads to a valuable study.

The State of Enterprise Risk Management at Colleges and Universities Today
http://www.agb.org/user-assets/documents/AGBUE_FINAL.pdf

This survey was jointly conducted by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) and United Educators (UE) and reports data on attitudes, practices and policies regarding enterprise risk management among American colleges and universities. The survey was completed by more than 600 respondents in June 2008.

"A wide-ranging study of best practices and policies for higher education governance reveals that while many important policies and practices are in place to guide the work of college and university governing boards, there is also room for improvement. Covering issues such as assessment of individual trustees to presidential compensation, the report, based on a survey of 700 respondents, is the first comprehensive and focused look at higher education governance: how well boards are meeting their responsibilities, what issues are at the top of their agendas, and which policies and good practices guide their work."

Happy Reading!

Brett

7-1-09 - MORE DIFFICULTIES FOR OUR TROOPS

2009-07-02T07:02:00.000-07:00

NCHERM Partner Scott Lewis blogging this week.

Dear Friends,

This week marked the official beginning of the well-publicized withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The media and government trumpeted the end of these operations and I saw at least one report (USA Today) that commented on the mass return of these troops.

What was less publicized was that the order actually withdrew troops from the urban regions of Iraq, with the relocation of some troops to the rural regions. Also underway is the redeployment of many of our troops to Afghanistan. Why this is significant has to do with the highly documented incidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), substance abuse/misuse and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) related mental health issues in our returning veterans, and also more critically some of the reasons behind these issues.

The difficulties our troops may face in the rural regions in Iraq may mirror the difficulties that they face in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan – difficult terrain, lack of contact, difficulty telling the “friendlies” from the “hostiles,” etc. Some of these issues for soldiers have been exacerbated not just by these conditions (they existed in other wars as well), but by the number of days the troops are exposed to these difficult conditions.

To explain: with the Stop-Loss provisions implemented by the Bush administration increasing the number of tours, the increase in the length of tours, and the shrinking of the required number of days between tours, our veterans find themselves facing combat and/or hazard at a level three to five times the number of days per year, and two to three times the total number of combat days as were served by veterans of past wars. (NOTE: technology has played a significant role here as well over time, especially in the area of troop movement.)

This is even more significant when you consider the number of Reservists and National Guard members who have served, as the data seems to indicate increased difficulties with those populations versus “regular” military http://www.defenselink.mil).

Almost 2 years ago, we at NCHERM predicted some of these continued difficulties, as well as the difficulties a struggling job market may have on this group and on colleges and universities (this was pre-recession too). And what we said then is even truer today, with two notable adjustments.

First, we understated the initial impact this will have on community colleges and open enrollment institutions. These schools will see more than just an initial surge of returning vets (they already are), but the pressure on these institutions to increase their counseling services with counselors able to respond to these very serious issues will increase proportionally.

Second, as the Millennials continue to tax current mental health services and the evolution of the BIT continues to increase the need for qualified assessments to be performed (for not only students, but faculty and staff), there will be an increased need to find a way to do these assessments through an independent (probably off-campus) resource.

We will continue to monitor these changing dynamics and hope that we can help one another in these trying times.

Have a great holiday.

W. Scott Lewis, JD

June 28

2009-06-28T05:52:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends,

NCHERM's blog this week takes the form of an article by Scott Lewis and Brett Sokolow on the difference between threat assessment teams and behavioral intervention teams. It can be accessed at: http://www.ncherm.org/documents/BehavioralInterventionThreatAssessmentArticle.pdf

Happy reading and have a great weekend.

Brett

NaBITA Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 1. June 2009.

2009-06-18T11:01:00.000-07:00

Friends,

This blog is longer than it looks :)

Copy the link below into your browser to read the first volume of the NaBITA Newsletter.

http://www.nabita.org/nabita_newsletter_template_single_article_FINAL.html

Have a great weekend.

Regards,

Brett Sokolow

Myths of Primary Prevention

2009-06-08T06:14:00.001-07:00

Hi Friends,

I will keep this short, but have a point I have wanted to make for quite some time. Based upon solid research findings, many colleges and universities have shifted to an emphasis on primary prevention approaches to sexual assault. The term primary prevention refers to those efforts that are directed specifically toward stopping a rapist or perpetrator of sexual assault, as contrasted with information-based programming and risk reduction approaches, which often focus on the victim, rather than the assailant.

Initially, many of the campuses that made this shift were pleased with early data and initial assessments, especially of work to decrease the bystander effect through empowering more effective peer intervention. However, those early promising results have not held up well over time, for many of the campuses that made the shift. Why?

This is just my theory, and I'm open to your perspectives. I believe the emphasis on primary prevention at most of the campuses that made the shift isn't having the hoped-for effect because we threw the baby out with the bathwater. We decided that because information-based programming was of limited measurable effectiveness, and because of the philosophical objection to inherently victim-focused risk reduction programming, that we were going to go full-tilt into primary prevention and leave these marginal other approaches behind.

Whoops! Now we're finding that our students lack the foundation of information, empathy and risk-reduction skills that efforts on bystander empowerment and normative messaging need as a foundation for success. We went with an either/or approach, rather than a both/and. What we're starting to see emerge now is a recognition that developmentally, primary prevention efforts need a solid foundation, or they lack context.

You can't ask people to intervene in high-risk situations if they don't know how to recognize those situations. They need to know more about consent, the role of alcohol, blackouts, rape drugs, etc. to be able to act. I'm a fan of emphasizing primary prevention, but I hope we're learning something interesting as we try to find effective models. The literature on risk reduction and information-based programming didn't say that it didn't work. It just showed that in a vacuum, it was ineffective. Without other supportive and mutually reinforcing efforts, that result makes sense. The same will be shown to be true for primary prevention efforts. In a vacuum, they're not giving us the results they potentially could. So, maybe the problem is the vacuum?

I've argued for years the need to be strategic. We need to research the knowledge and behavioral gaps that exist for our students, and then plug them, methodically with a long-term programmatic strategy. We need a both/and approach. Either/or is useless. I wrote on this in 2006 with the Whitepaper posted at http://www.ncherm.org/pdfs/2006-whitepaper.pdf.

We need these ideas now, more than ever, in my opinion.

Have a great weekend,

Brett Sokolow

Upcoming Student Suicide Webinar

2009-05-27T10:21:00.000-07:00

Brett Sokolow gave the following interview to Chris Hill from MAGNA Publications about an upcoming webinar addressing student suicide.

Q: Most reputable schools don’t want to let fear of legal liability outweigh concern for the student. But it’s a blurry line to keep in focus. How can administrators tell if they’ve crossed it?

A: While the answer requires a lot more complexity than I'll offer here, one good way to keep on the legal side of the line is to utilize interim suspension or voluntary withdrawal when a student needs to get help externally, and try to avoid involuntary separation longer-term unless absolutely necessary. When you have to go that route, only separate the student based on suicidal threats or attempts, rather than on lesser ideation or gestures.

Q: Shin vs. MIT is generally thought to have changed the landscape in the area of student suicidality. Is it possible that, with time, that case will come to seem one exceptional incident, instead of grounds for changing our whole approach?

A: Actually, just the opposite. We've become all things to our students -- we feed them, house them, entertain them, clothe them, provide for their fitness, health, and mental health. The law is actually just catching up with the FACT that we have changed our legal relationship to our students. In ten years, the majority of courts will operate from the principle that colleges are in a special relationship to students, and that we owe them a commensurate duty of reasonable care. Having said that, I don't think Shin or any other case requires us to change our whole approach. We have to ensure that we bring reasonable care to our interactions with suicidal students. I'd like to think that we do that regardless of a legal mandate. In fact, I think one of the lessons of the Shin case may be that MIT tried too hard, rather than that they did not do enough. We need to have some tough conversations on all of our campuses about how and why we are coming to resemble mental health facilities rather than colleges, and whether that is a direction we really want to be taking.

Q: Because colleges and universities are so exposed in student suicide cases, does that justify us in intruding on student privacy, i.e., requesting mental health records from incoming students?

A: Just as we must challenge how far we want to go in providing mental health services, I think there must be a healthy debate on every campus about how to more successfully balance individual rights with the welfare/safety of the community. Prior to Virginia Tech, I think the balance skewed too heavily toward privacy on many campuses, and now we are charged with finding a more successful happy medium. If that means better data mining, I think that option should be on the table for discussion not as a mandate, but as a voluntary sharing option.

Q: How can we establish such a behavioral baseline for each student that we are able to detect significant variation from it? How can we possibly find the time and person-power for such a project?

A: I don't think we can or that we should. I think establishing a baseline for those who are at-risk (e.g., those whose conduct brings them to the attention of a behavioral intervention team) is the best we should be doing now, and then we need to keep tabs at intervals to see if there is a substantial departure from that baseline that causes us concern. A baseline for everyone is neither desirable nor possible. In fact, I think just accomplishing the task of establishing a baseline for only the known at-risk individuals may be overwhelming. As currently practiced, behavioral intervention will overwhelm many campuses. More are hiring full time team chairs and case managers. More are looking to options to mandate assessment externally, and even then are finding that local mental health providers are as overwhelmed as campus resources. We are, unfortunately, well behind the 8 Ball in addressing campus mental health issues. We're scrambling to catch up. Yet, we're still addicted to spending money and time on cameras, text warnings, and door locks, rather than allocating what we really need to the NECESSITY of a comprehensive behavioral intervention capacity. That will change by choice or by tragedy, but it will change.

More on this June 9th webinar can be found at: http://www.magnapubs.com/calendar/319.html

Various BITs

2009-05-22T17:34:00.000-07:00

This week’s blog is going to address a few recurring questions that we are getting about behavioral intervention teams.

1. What do you see as the ideal/appropriate functions of a BIT?

• Centralize reporting
• Triage reports
• Assess threat/risk
• Assess available resources
• Perform or empower interventions
• Coordinate follow-up
• Assess long-term success/outcomes
• Educate the community

2. What are some affirmative steps we can take to implement our BIT once we have formed it?

• Fully implement all twelve 2nd gen BIT best practices as identified by NCHERM in the Whitepaper posted at http://www.ncherm.org/pdfs/2009NCHERMwhitepaper.pdf
• Develop and implement strategies to empower a culture of reporting within your campus and community
• Conduct bystander intervention training for your students and staff
• Ensure access to adequate mental health services
• Train faculty & staff on what to report, how, when and to whom – supplement training efforts by your team members with the new online course Campus Safety 101 from MAGNA Publications (http://www.magnapubs.com/courses/cs101.html)
• Offer suicide gatekeeper training to your community (QPR, Campus Connect, etc.)
• Provide team training on aggression management (www.aggressionmanagement.com)

3. What are the responsibilities of a BIT post-intervention?

• Case management, such as:

-- Coordinate care, pharmacology and insurance issues that may inhibit long-term therapeutic goals
-- Prophylactically inhibit triggers that may impede an individual’s current level of coping (e.g., helping someone avoid over-involvement in activities that overwhelm; blocking opportunities such as study abroad, if access to needed supports will be an issue when abroad; coaching the individual on techniques to maintain a regimen of needed medications, etc.).

• Mind the gaps by occasionally checking in on the at-risk individual or those who can update on that individual’s status
• Coordinate compliance with team mandates
• Coordinate communication with parents, spouses, faculty, and other relevant stakeholders
• Ease voluntary withdrawal options (if necessary) by addressing financial and academic disincentives to withdrawing
• Assess areas where a referral or mandate for skills training is an ongoing need

That’s all for now. Have a great weekend and holiday.

Brett Sokolow

Discrimination by Student Organizations

2009-05-16T04:09:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I participated in a day-long seminar on the topic of religious student organizations and denial of recognition and/or funding by the college or university for refusal to agree to institutional non-discrimination policies. I have been involved with many controversial legal issues over the years, but none that seem to have held the deep personal impact that this issue holds on individuals. The lines of this controversy are unpredictably drawn and not predictable based on religious beliefs, race, sexual identity or gender.

I provided the introductory presentation that set forth the legal issues and the court decisions handed down over the past few years. The panel discussions that followed my presentation provided an eye opening experience of passion, anger and perspective that was like peeling back the layers of an onion. From a legal perspective the issue revolves around First Amendment rights. Those rights encompass freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of association. Generally a Constitutional issue requires a “compelling governmental interest” to limit or regulate. However, the courts have carved out circumstances, based on a forum analysis, that allows a lower standard for regulation of expression in certain circumstances. The higher requirement of strict scrutiny applies in all circumstances regulating religion or association, however. Thus, across the country courts, from district courts to courts of appeals, are rendering opposing opinions on identical sets of circumstances using standards based on expression versus religion or association. The coming years will provide an interesting opportunity to watch judicial bodies address this issue and the legal arguments put forth.

BUT...what I observed throughout the rest of the day was not just a scholarly legal debate of the issue, but was even more interesting, and perhaps more significant from a social justice perspective—and that was the passion and anger and outrage expressed by individuals involved with the actual controversy. Throughout the day participants challenged one another about equality and belief systems and recognition and affirmation. The discussions were loud, emotional and personal.

Clearly this issue cuts far deeper than just a scholarly legal analysis.

Have a great weekend,

Saunie Schuster

What a Disaster!

2009-05-07T17:08:00.000-07:00

Preparing for the next disaster

With all of the school closings, a group of recent students being “quarantined” from graduation, and Vice President Biden telling everyone not to travel on public transit (later recast as “if you are SICK, don’t use mass transit”), the H1-N1 virus(we have now been told not to call it the “swine flu” so as not to negatively impact pork sales in the US, where no swine have been infected – true story) has dominated headlines. But, as we at NCHERM are in the business of PREVENTIVE law and risk management, we hope that our clients (and readers) will pay attention to other potential threats and prepare accordingly, so as to avoid being stuck in reactionary modes.

So, in that vein, here are some other things to consider over the next year:

A recent forecast for the 2009 Hurricane Season predicted 12 named storms with 2-3 being “intense.” While the Gulf Coast states are painfully aware and prepare every year, the East Coast schools tend to sporadically prepare – as other things (e.g., H1-N1, school deaths, etc.) tend to get in the way. But I would offer yet another cautionary suggestion to our inland colleagues. While I am confident that the Federal response to another Katrina-esque storm will be better, (could it possibly be worse?!?), our inland colleagues should dust off the post-Katrina reports (if you have them) and make sure you are ready to house, enroll, treat, and/or shelter a group if need be. Not only is it the right thing to do, but the positive PR cannot be ignored (kudos to Mayor White and the city of Houston and Stephen F Austin State University among many others). From a risk management perspective, this is a “Natural Disaster;” an inevitability, not a possibility, so get ready – you will be measured not on prevention, but response.

Another news story has been tracking the wildfires over the last year in California, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and South Carolina and predicts that, as global warming continues to increase drought days in these areas, the wildfire phenomenon will continue. While these events feel like “Natural Disasters,” I classify them in my Risk Management Arena as “Man-Made Disasters.” Not because of the arson possibility or to make some global warming political statement, but because, especially for those schools in high-risk states and areas, you will be measured – in the risk management world – on your risk reduction activities as well as your response.

In the same arena as Hurricanes, an interesting, yet not well publicized report was made analyzing fault lines around the world. Of particular note was the Heyward fault, which runs through Northern California, and directly through SF and Oakland. For over 700 years, there has been a major earthquake roughly every 104-140 years(defining “major” is apparently a sticking point, but doesn’t matter here). If you count the “Big One” of 1906 (no one seemed to count the World Series interrupting 1989 quake as “major” – except for the victims, I am guessing), we are coming up on time for the next one. If you don’t, we are long overdue (by about 25 years). Either way, imagine a minimum 3500 dead, 50,000+ injured, 75,000-100,000 homeless, and the 30+ schools in the area devastated. These are Katrina-esque numbers, but in larger metropolitan areas.

I certainly don’t want to ruin your summer, but I do want us all to be prepared. In an odd way, this makes even more critical the need to have practiced, established preventive protocols and solid risk management practices in place for the (by comparison) “mundane” issues like student self-injury – intentional or otherwise – and other mental health issues.

Have a great weekend.

Scott Lewis

A Month of Violence

2009-05-01T17:01:00.000-07:00

On the Predictability of Virginia Tech

I am struck by the awesome change in the landscape of higher education since the shootings at Virginia Tech. Not because of the fact that so many were killed in such a horrific manner – that number of people dying at any one time always warrants significant analysis, like in a plane crash, hurricane (i.e., Katrina), etc., and it should. What struck me then, and continues to strike me, is how it was (and continues to be) treated like such an anomaly.

Let me preface this by stating that I mean no disrespect to the victims, the families of the victims, the members of the community, or the staff and faculty at Virginia Tech. My shock is aimed at all of us in higher education, that we ignored the signs for as long as we did, and continued doing our work, “business as usual” in the face of such overwhelming data.

Allow me to explain. I was giving a presentation when a colleague referred to the murders (I also don’t like referring to it as a “tragedy,” I think that term misrepresents the horrific nature of the intent of the act) at Virginia Tech as “the 9/11 for Higher Education.” I have thought about that for a while, and I think he is almost right. It is the 9/11 for education, not just higher education.

(NOTE: I will acknowledge now the dissent that some may take with the political assertations and analogies I am going to make, but bear with me – we can argue about it later.)

Much like 9/11, there were multiple warning signs prior to Virginia Tech that – like 9/11 – were ignored in their increasing dynamic. The 1st bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the US Embassies and the USS Cole are analogous with the shootings at Paducah, Jonesboro, and Columbine.

The journal articles by K-12 teachers about increasing violence by and violent reaction of students, the crime statistics, and the anecdotal stories they were sharing – that higher education administrators and faculty ignored – are analogous to the memos (“Bin Laden determined to attack in US” and the memo outlining the threat of a repeat attack on the WTC come to mind) ignored by the Bush Administration in the year and a half prior to 9/11.

And now, sadly, the rush to implement response measures and the arguable overspending on them – text messaging systems, loudspeaker systems, security cameras to name a few – in lieu of equal spending on effective preventive measures – like well trained behavioral intervention teams at the college and K-12 level – are analogous to the monies spent on the initial response to 9/11 – the invasion of Iraq – which we now know had nothing to do with 9/11, and which has arguably not resolved the problems that led to 9/11.

Let’s hope that we are wiser in the future in both the observation of warning signs and the focus on actions that make us safer in the long run – preventive measures. Let’s hope our government does the same.

Have a great weekend,

Scott

Part II -- Lewis Takes On

2009-04-24T13:58:00.000-07:00

This blog picks up where I left off last week...

“Kill the Messenger”

Faculty members may see this manifest itself in a variety of ways, but most likely during in-class discussions/debates or in on-line discussions. Of course, those courses which lend themselves to debate will be most prone to this unprincipled attack. Other areas where this may rear its ugly head may include elections (student government, greek letter organizations, etc.) In these arenas, student affairs professionals have a great opportunity to engage in not just traditional student development, but in “classroom-esque” academic development as well.

In order to properly address this, we – faculty and staff – must engage students preemptively in discussions about the differences in principled and unprincipled debate. Also, we cannot shy away from using current events and current commentators to illustrate not only the weakness of these arguments, but the social irresponsibility of those who engage in them (usually under the guise of “journalists”). It will be clear in a moment where I stand politically on most issues, but, politics aside, the effect cannot be ignored. Commentators like O’Reilly (who resorts to name-calling – e.g., “Pinheads”), Hannity (who will “shout down” those who disagree, or turn down their microphones), and Coulter (whose work at times is not only poorly argued, but poorly researched) are lowering the standard of discourse, and our students are, at times, following suit. It is up to us to teach them how to engage in debate that speaks to the message, not the messenger; and is well thought out, well researched, well organized, and amicable.

Note: I am sure that Franken, Stewart and Colbert will come up as well – and they should – they are good illustrations of satire, a good form of entertainment, not argument. (Although I did have one first year student who did not get the “joke” of Colbert’s show – he thought he was serious. Sigh.)

“Stop the Madness”

Again, it is imperative that we address this issue “head on.” There is no shortage of data on this, and Student affairs professionals should start engaging in programming that addresses how and why society’s threshold for violence has lowered, while the use of violence has increased in severity (and subsequently, frequency). Even utilizing students’ own emails – where they use inappropriate or aggressive tone – as instructional tools should be considered. Too often, we are afraid to use these “real life” examples to illustrate how students’ aggressive behavior is considered (by students) to be “acceptable” and/or “assertive.” It is only by addressing these low-level or “entry-level” behaviors that we can begin to make a societal difference on our campuses.

“All or Nothing”

It is this construct where I am most concerned about our millennial students (and increasingly about our non-millennial students, given the “osmosis effect” I speak about in my faculty/staff training programs). Given their well documented mental health issues, lack of basic stress coping mechanisms, increased propensity for self-injury, and the above mentioned issues, confronting their hyperbolic response is fast becoming not just a student developmental issue, but a health and safety issue. It is critical that we teach them that one bad grade is not the end of their academic career, that a lost relationship is not the last one they will have, and that there are healthy and appropriate outlets for these stressors. But, we must use real life illustrations and examples – or they will see us as disingenuous.

So, what about the students I mentioned in Part One? We must focus on:

1) Preventive efforts, especially in the area of mental health,
2) Challenging intellectual dishonesty, and
3) Changing the construct that allows for zero-sum argument and outcome only.

I realize that the last two are large initiatives, but it is fast becoming a health and safety crisis. Finally…what do we do when they are already acting out? How do we respond on the scene? That is for another entry.

Have a great weekend.

Scott

Scott Blogs This Week PART 1

2009-04-17T17:02:00.000-07:00

Dear Colleagues,

There were three seemingly unrelated news items this week which – when viewed through a different lens - are actually very related to the work that we do, the climate we are in (with our students and in society) and speak very clearly to the approaches we need to take.

“Kill the Messenger”

The first is the “breaking” news regarding Sarah Palin’s response to her daughter’s former fiancée speaking out about their relationship. In his interview (on the Tyra Banks show, which speaks to another phenomenon), he discussed whether or not Gov. Palin knew that he and Bristol were sexually active, whether they used protection, etc. Gov. Palin’s response was to attack him, essentially referring to him as an opportunist, as opposed to addressing his message.

This is not new to politics, but has seeped further and further into “everyday life” and our students have noticed. See the Facebook pages, Ratemyprof.com, etc. where the individual is attacked not for the substance of their work or teaching, but for seemingly unrelated characteristics that border on defamation (Actual poor Professor ratings included “I’ve seen him out drinking at bars,” “she dresses like a (tramp)” – Actual Facebook Group: “Students who took and hate Dr. Smith”). One fraternity even went so far as to dig up criminal background on a dean they were unhappy with to put it in the paper. This ignores the professional/faculty substance in their teaching and decision, and makes it personal.

“Stop the Madness”

The second news item involved the violent incidents in Oakland, Alabama, Binghampton, and Pittsburgh – all of which involved individuals seemingly at their breaking points for a variety of reasons. The media attributed the violence at some level to the economic downturn/recession, rather than looking at the broader scope and context of violence in the United States over the past 10 years.

While the economic situation may be a contributing factor to the desperate actions of these men (certainly the one who took his daughter with him to rob a convenience store is an example), we cannot ignore the growing trend toward the lower threshold for extreme violence. It has been creeping up on us (in the US) for 40+ years, and this is where we find ourselves. We should not be surprised, we should be appalled.

“All or Nothing”

The third was the recent conservative response to President Obama’s trip overseas. From Rush Limbaugh on the radio to Glen Beck on Fox, the response to him “apologizing for America’s arrogance” to his “rejecting Christianity” has been, to put it mildly, hyperbolic (with one call for his removal from office, and another to “start a fire” reminding viewers that “(we) outnumber them, and they need to remember that”).

While this may make for good ratings, it is inappropriate and irresponsible for anyone with a pulpit to ignore the sociological ramifications of their statements. This immediate call to hyperbole does not represent the “fringe arguments” that advanced certain movements (e.g. civil rights) in history, but instead represent arguments that ignore opposing principles, value systems, and worse -- call for the removal of those with opposing views.

Why are these related and why do they matter to student affairs professionals and faculty? Well, when combined with what we already know about the troubling trends regarding our student populations, they paint a dismal picture if not addressed properly. I certainly do not want to be “Beck-esque” in my assessment (that is to say – hyperbolic), but it merits analysis from a college and university perspective.

Imagine the student who:

1) Doesn’t like your message so s/he wants to attack you personally,
2) Has a lower threshold for violence, and
3) Believes that your values are different, so you must “be removed”.

I will blog in Part II of this blog thread next week about how to address this...to be continued.

Have a great weekend,

W. Scott Lewis

A Great Campus Visit

2009-04-10T16:04:00.000-07:00

Hello Colleagues,

I had a great campus visit this week. What made it so great? Well, I had three good ones, but my visit to Columbus State Community College stood out because it gave us a challenge that is new for NCHERM. It was engaging and compelling. Saunie Schuster and I visited on Monday, for the purpose of helping CSCC to assess and overhaul its admission process for those with histories of criminal activity or misconduct.

We've never had a chance to re-envision such a process from scratch and our charge was aided by the administrators at CSCC who are really proactive and looking to design a new process that is fair and protective of their community. They don't want to do just enough, they want to create a process that will be a model for the other community colleges in Ohio, and I think that is just what the end result will be.

Some community colleges are open admissions with no exceptions. In Ohio, community colleges have more latitude for excluding those who may not be safe, and for placing restrictions on those who are admitted, but on whom restrictions are needed. The campus has both a day care center and an adjacent high school, which are complications for the admission of sex offenders. So, we're creating objective criteria and a secondary admissions process to help screen and make admissions determinations.

Key to this effort is that CSCC has recently put a Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT) in place. By broadening this team to a second tier, each BIT member will have a backup and that backup will also serve as the primary member of the newly named Enrollment Review Committee. Why is this key? Because the training skill sets are similar. Both teams need to know how to do threat assessments, and need to be able to address issues of pattern violence, recidivism, rehabilitation, criminal background screening, and more.

It is efficient to parallel their efforts, and once our proposal is submitted, Saunie and I will return in May to spend a day training both teams on these key topics. We'll blog about that then. Happy Easter and Passover.

Brett Sokolow

NCHERM and the AUCCCD

2009-04-05T06:40:00.000-07:00

Dear Colleagues,

Two weeks ago, a member of the AUCCCD (Counseling Center Directors) listserv posted an inquiry about the value of attending an NCHERM seminar. List responses were less than glowing, focusing on two critiques:

1) NCHERM is in this field to profit and therefore of questionable merit;
2) NCHERM seems to make ever-growing claims to areas of expertise that are suspect.

NCHERM clients on the AUCCCD list concerned with the tenor of the exchange let me know, and I forwarded an email to their list as a response. Here is what I wrote:

"Dear list members,

I heard that I have come up in discussion on your list. An NCHERM client who participates in your list contacted us today in distress over comments being made about NCHERM and me. While details were not provided, some of the substance was. I am glad you are questioning the sincerity, expertise and/or validity of the contribution we make at NCHERM. If I were in your position, and an outsider like me who has no experience working on a college campus claimed expertise that would be valuable to you, I’d have hesitations, too.

I entered into higher education with a single purpose, to help colleges and universities prevent sexual assault. The experiences of the women in my life have made that a command for me, not an option. I am an activist, and I am passionate and dedicated. I never expected that NCHERM would become the wide-ranging source of risk management expertise it has, but as my work became known and trusted, our clients called upon us for help with more and more of the issues vexing higher education…alcohol, hazing, campus security, etc.

I am not an expert in all things and don’t claim to be. I do diligent research, and I talk to lots of people who are experts who are a lot smarter than I am, and they inform my perspective. Your colleague Brian Van Brunt has been an excellent teacher. I teamed with my partner Scott Lewis on a webinar on Returning Veterans issues to force myself to learn more about this population who are challenging us to serve them better. I am not and have never held myself out to be an expert on veterans’ issues. Scott is, and he took the lead on that event. In fact, when a campus called and asked me to consult with them on veterans, I refused the engagement, because I am not an expert on veterans.

NCHERM was created to have a positive impact on student health and safety – these have been and continue to be my passions. It is true that NCHERM is also how I make a living, but to imply that I do this solely for money is contrary to my work history, ethic, and ignores the fact that I could have made money in any area of law. I will not apologize for making a living and providing for my family, as I suspect none of you would.

Also, I’d like to think that NCHERM is a good corporate citizen. We give generously to higher education foundations, and of our time in volunteering. Our websites are full of free resources. When we created the CUBIT model in 2007, we could have charged for it, but that is not our mission. If it can help to improve the safety of campuses, it is not our philosophy to consider it proprietary. It is free and posted on our website. We are a not-for-profit corporation, and not many law firms are. That doesn’t mean that we are a charity or tax exempt foundation, but it does mean we take seriously our obligation to give back and benefit not just ourselves, but our field and community.

Value received for value given is honest, ethical and part of the integrity of who we are and what we do. It’s not a detriment to charge for our services, it is a compliment that more than 1,800 colleges have done so in the last nine years.

It is true that I have never worked as a college or university administrator. That means I can’t see some things that you can, but could it also mean that I may objectively see some things that you can’t. NCHERM consultants visit almost 200 colleges a year. Our national travel and constant campus-hopping actually give us a perspective on trends as they are emerging that a geographically fixed perspective cannot provide. We can synthesize what is going on across campuses in a way that is unparalleled, because of our reach and access. And both of my partners have long careers as college administrators, rounding out our skill set very nicely. My purpose in writing this is not to advertise NCHERM to you. Instead, I’d like to ask you to judge us on the quality of our work, as that is the only way you really have a basis from which to accurately critique. I invite each of you who has never attended an NCHERM regional event to come to one in the next year. Your registration fee is waived. Please be our guest. Then, feel free to come to us, as others have, with the perspective of what you saw, what you learned, and whether you feel our contribution to the field is deserving of merit or demerit. This is one way in which we grow and learn as well. Thank you for this opportunity to address your list, and thank you for what you all do to advance the health and safety of our campus communities.

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq."

Events Upcoming

2009-03-28T13:33:00.000-07:00

Hello Friends of NCHERM,

We had a flurry of calls this week asking about upcoming events, as many of you are trying to plan ahead and budget ahead. Here is what we have in store for you in the coming months. I hope you'll join us. Below are the five events (two webinars and three regional seminars) that are already posted on our website, but let me also give you a sneak peek at those that are coming and will be officially announced shortly. We're trying to give you a variety of online, one-day and two-day events to give you budget flexibility, and we're trying to do more regional events so that if you'd like to come, hopefully you'll have lower travel expenses if our event is close by.

May 19 & 20, our 6th Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment two-day Institute will be hosted by Tulane University. Details will be posted to the homepage by Wednesday of this coming week.

Last week of May -- John Byrnes and I will be presenting a one-day drive-in regional seminar on Threat Assessment and Aggression Management in northern Virginia. Details will be posted by next week.

Between June and August, two more of our two-day events are planned, but have not yet been officially scheduled. One will be in eastern Pennsylvania, and one will be at St. Mary's in Notre Dame, IN. We should have those finalized and announced by the end of April.

Finally, the roster of our monthly webinars with MAGNA is set until August. Events up to May are already posted to www.ncherm.org. In June, we're revisiting the current state of efforts to address student suicide on campuses. This event on June 9th will feature Carolyn Reinach Wolf, Esq., a mental health law expert, Jacqueline Wiebe, M.D., a psychiatrist on staff in the health service at the University of Southern Mississippi, and me.

In July, we'll present two webinars, one on the 14th and the second on the 28th. Scott Lewis will present the first one, entitled The Perfect Storm, about how the Millennial challenge became the vexing phenomenon we address daily, and how we can best function to support and cope with this generation of students.

July 28th will be a joint presentation by Saunie Schuster, Scott and me, bringing the three NCHERM partners together for our first joint webinar as partners. This event will focus on the growing trend of personal liability for college administrators, and what it may mean for you.

All our events are hosted by MAGNA Publications (www.magnapubs.com), and are listed on their site and ours 12 weeks prior to the event.

Below are the upcoming events already listed on our site.

NCHERM EVENTS

UPCOMING WEBINARS & SEMINARS

4/14/09 - Challenges in Creating and Assessing Campus Emergency Management Plans - NCHERM ONLINE SEMINAR
Presented by William L. Kibler, Ph.D. and Maureen Connolly, MBA
12:00 - 1:30 PM CDT. Hosted by Magna Publications.

4/17/09 - Best Practices for Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment - REGIONAL SEMINAR HOSTED BY LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. Presented by Brett A. Sokolow, JD and W. Scott Lewis, J.D. Two tracks, 9:00am-12:00pm & 1:00pm-5:00pm.

4/22/09 - NCHERM Threat Assessment Seminar
REGIONAL SEMINAR HOSTED BY EDINBORO UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Presented by Brett A. Sokolow, JD. Registration is through the host campus.

5/13/09 - Best Practices for Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment - REGIONAL SEMINAR HOSTED BY CLAYTON STATE UNIVERSITY NEAR ATLANTA, GA. Presented by Brett A. Sokolow, JD and W. Scott Lewis, JD

5/19/09 - Clery Act Compliance -- Getting the Big Picture - NCHERM ONLINE SEMINAR Presented by John Wesley Lowery, Ph.D., Brett A. Sokolow, JD and Douglas Tuttle, M.P.A. 12:00 - 1:30 PM CDT. Hosted by Magna Publications.

Well, Scott, Saunie and I are off to the ACPA conference. We hope to see you there.

Brett

March Madness

2009-03-19T14:05:00.000-07:00

NCHERM Partner W. Scott Lewis here, with my first ever blog. Not just for this site, but my first ever. Period. I just returned from a series of speaking and conference engagements including NASPA and the NCHERM event at Occidental College. This was right on the heels of the SC Safety Conference, ASCA, and the Community Colleges Legal Issues Conference (with a webinar for Magna Publications in the midst of that as well).

At all of the national and regional events, I noticed a similar theme from presenters who were providing information on Behavioral Intervention Teams – the lack of distinction between “threat assessment” and “behavioral intervention.” I noticed (especially in the five sessions I attended at NASPA) that the terms were being used interchangeably. I believe that, in doing so, we do ourselves and the students, faculty and staff we serve a disservice by this misnomer.

Let me begin by saying that I am truly excited in seeing these teams (whatever they may be called) become more formalized and better developed than they were previously. As one who found himself in a quasi-hostage situation, seeing this “next generation” of teams evolve assures me that we will truly be saving students lives as we continue to develop these practices and teams.

Where I fear we may go astray is if we think in terms of “threat assessment” instead of “behavioral intervention,” and I think it goes beyond semantics. I recognize that the Presidential/Gubernatorial report(s) and multiple entities (including NCHERM, at times) have used the term “threat assessment” to describe these intervention teams, so I want to draw a clear distinction, in the hopes of creating better terminology, better practices, better reporting, and therefore, better teams.

“Threat Assessment” in my mind – and likely in the minds of many of our constituents – means exactly what it says, the assessment of threats (or threatening behavior). While Intervention teams certainly need to be able to assess the level of threat in certain behaviors, I would assert that we (and our communities) are better served when we are able to intervene long before the behavior reaches that which a layperson would think of as “threatening.”

This is where I think the use of “Threat Assessment Teams” as a term of art “threatens” (get it?) to undermine the early reporting culture we are trying to foster. Additionally, in marketing these teams, the terminology makes the assumption that all of the students we work with are “threats” as opposed to students who need some (hopefully) low level assistance. The language is limiting.

Rather than try to get everyone to switch the everyday definition of “threat,” I think we are better served by utilizing the term “behavioral assessment” or “behavioral intervention,” and then training the community to recognize low level and early warning signs of students headed toward crisis instead of waiting until their “threatening” behavior indicates that they are already in crisis. Then we can ensure that the teams are trained in behavioral recognition (and intervention) as well as in threat assessment.

In short, I think of threat assessment skills as an integral tool for Behavioral Intervention Teams, but as a subset of overall behavioral recognition skills that these teams – and ideally, the entire community – possess. I have engaged some teams in dialogue about this distinction, and I am glad to report that some teams are already changing their names to reflect this shift, as well as their training practices. I welcome the continued discussion, and look forward to hearing from you.

On a lighter note, speaking of “teams,” happy March Madness to everyone! Hope your brackets, favorite teams, alma maters, etc. are going well! Be safe and have a great weekend!

Scott

Middlemarch

2009-03-15T11:07:00.000-07:00

It has been an interesting and engaging week at NCHERM. I visited the University of New Hampshire. Great to see my old friends there. In the course of our dialogue, a tough question came up for us. If a student submits a conduct hearing appeal letter, including some things that form the basis for the appeal, and other things which should not (and might take the form of rearguing, new evidence, etc), should the appeals officers see the entirety of those letters, or should some “gatekeeper” redact them first, to ensure the purity of the appeal? Not sure there are right and wrong answers. What do you all think?

The tail end of the week found Scott and me in Los Angeles at Occidental College for our Threat Assessment event. Oxy is an oasis, and a truly beautiful campus. Unlike many campuses where the architecture is haphazard, the buildings at Oxy blend stylistically, creating an effect unmarred by the “Howard Johnsons looking res hall” in the middle of campus that so many campuses suffer from. Obama went there before transferring to Columbia, and apparently, “90210 – The College Years” was set there. I can see why. Jon and Emily were amazing hosts, and went well above and beyond for us. Thanks!

Unlike our previous four such events where attendance ranged as high as 175 people, the Oxy event was more intimate; 30 and change. We can thank the economy for that, but also thank the economy for a different kind of event, engaging on a level and depth that the larger events could not attain. And thanks to the attendees for challenging questions. We had risk managers, campus law enforcement, student affairs, counselors, auditors, registrars and case managers forming our diverse group.

Scott and I enjoyed dinner with folks from William Rainey Harper College, Alta Colleges and Southwestern Michigan College. I went to my first Churrascaria, a delight for the carnivorous. It is interesting to hear about Alta, and the truly innovative things that proprietary colleges are able to do.

Finally, the week ended with an unusual twist. Filmmakers producing a documentary about the rape and activism of Linor Abargil, the 1998 Miss World, contacted me. They wanted to talk about an event I have upcoming at Princeton University, but when they found out I was in LA, and they were too, we agreed to meet Friday after the seminar. Scott dropped me off on his way to the airport, and I felt some irony on heading to a discussion on a documentary about rape as we crossed Rockingham Rd. in Brentwood (OJ’s former and more capacious digs) and headed into Santa Monica.

Our meeting was at a private home, and upon entering I could not help but notice that pictures of Gregory Peck were featured prominently. I asked if Peck had once lived there, only to find out that the film’s producer is Peck’s daughter Cecilia Peck Voll. The producers wanted some insights on how rape is impacting college campuses, and I am pleased to be able to inform their project. I saw some clips of footage they have taken already, and it is compelling. For more information, visit www.linordocumentary.com.

The home was graceful and my hosts gracious. A word about Gregory Peck. There are probably many young men and women who were inspired to become lawyers by Peck’s portrayal of Atticus Finch in “To Kill a Mockingbird”. While that is true of me, it was Peck’s social activism that I admired most. Long before Clooney, Pitt, Penn and Robbins used fame as a tool of social justice, Peck was a great crusader. It is a pleasure to see his daughter carrying on this legacy with this film, and I am in awe of Linor’s strength and courage to speak out.

Have a great weekend.

Brett

Inaugural Blog Post

2009-03-03T16:27:00.000-08:00

March 3, 2009

Colorado Springs, CO

Dear Friends of NCHERM,

As of this writing, the NCHERM website (www.ncherm.org) has received 46,765 unique visitors since our launch nine years ago in January of 2000. While this may be many or few, depending on your perspective, 4,100 of those visitors have knocked on the NCHERM door (portal, I guess) in just the last six weeks. This is a rather startling spike in our web traffic.

The NCHERM website is, of course, our main means of staying connected with those of you who are our fellow travelers in this field. We may visit a campus a day, and connect with you more directly and viscerally during those visits, but in between, NCHERM.org is our way of maintaining, growing and nurturing the relationships we have with you that empower us to be positive influences on our field. At a time when the economy has made our visits to your campuses less frequent, and our ability to connect at conferences is impeded as well, it makes sense that traffic to the website would increase.

Because we value our dialogues with you, and want the website to be for you an increasingly valuable resource, we have decided to initiate a weekly blog. It will give you a regular reason to visit the NCHERM homepage and to connect with us, in a spirit of shared learning and exchange. We may post more often, too, when there are interesting things to report or reflect upon.

What can you expect? A post each week from Scott or Saunie or me. We'll identify who's writing each week, and you can expect an occasional guest blog, too. What will our topics be? A report of an interesting campus visit. Something learned at a conference. A frustration with a needed change that is coming too slowly. A new case that should be on your radar. A soapbox about an issue or topic that needs our attention. A best practice we have identified. A valuable upcoming event. Etc.

We'll try to keep the posts short and sweet, and we'll make sure the content is engaging enough to keep you coming back.

Welcome to the NCHERM Risk MaBlog. Happy reading.

Brett