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
Monday, July 20, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
7-1-09 - MORE DIFFICULTIES FOR OUR TROOPS
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
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
Sunday, June 28, 2009
June 28
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
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
Thursday, June 18, 2009
NaBITA Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 1. June 2009.
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
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
Monday, June 8, 2009
Myths of Primary Prevention
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
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
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Upcoming Student Suicide Webinar
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
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
Friday, May 22, 2009
Various BITs
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)