association of university and college counseling center...
Post on 09-Jul-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Association of University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD)
Mid-year Board Meeting
Chicago, IL
Friday, March 05, 2010
Members Present: Victor Barr, Yolanda Bogan (ex-officio), Sandy Colbs, Chuck Davidshofer (Ex-officio),
Pamela Duncan, Greg Eells, Terri Hannigan, Denise Hayes, Linda Locher, Bruce Meyer, Sharon Mitchell,
Carolyn Moore, and Barry Schreier
1) The meeting was called to order at 7:40pm by President Denise Hayes. The Board members had a
check-in.
2) Denise provided the President’s report.
A. She presented her report of the NCAA Student Athlete Development Summit
Dr. Bernard Franklin, Senior Vice President, NCAA commented on the trends and current topics of
discussion relating to student athletes such as reducing the number of competitions to reduce the level
of stress. He also acknowledged the death of Myles Brand (January 2009) former Executive Director of
NCAA and the transitions which are taking place within their organization.
Dr. Vasti Torres, Indiana University spoke about the significant role of student affairs for student
athletes and the continuing need to be mindful of inclusion within student affairs generally and athletics
specifically.
Drs. Cricket Lane (UNC – Chapel Hill) and Gary Williams (Carthage College) facilitated a discussion on the
role of bridge building within student affairs and more notably across disciplines.
An informative and interactive discussion occurred with a panel of Div I, II & III coaches and student-
athletes. They shared strategies for maintaining a balanced life, coping with students facing academic
and emotional challenges and collaboration with services outside of athletics.
There was ample opportunity for discussion about the role of our various organizations can and should
have as it relates to student-athletes. Denise offered that AUCCCD would be willing to continue to send
a representative to this summit. A broad range of organizations were present such as: Am College of
Sport Medicine, Assoc of Applied Sport Psych, Assoc for Student Conduct Administration, Assoc of
College and University Housing Officers, Black Coaches and Administrators
Dr. Michael Miranda and Ms Annie Kearns presented the findings of the NCAA GOALS (growth,
opportunities, aspirations and learning of students in college) Study. Surveys were sent to the faculty
athletic representative at 1,026 NCAA institutions. Each rep was asked to survey all student-athletes on
one to three teams at that school chosen by NCAA Research to provide representative samples within
each division.
Significant findings:
1. Student-athletes report being actively engaged in their academic experience-both in and out of
the classroom
2. The majority of student-athletes report both having access to and using academic support
services offered through their campus athletics departments
3. The majority of student-athletes report that they view themselves more as athletes than as
students
4. The majority of student-athletes report that they are actively involved in their campus
community outside of athletics and believe that their athletics participation has benefited them
socially
5. Over ½ of Div I and Div II student –athletes report their primary reason for choosing their
current institution was athletic and if given an opportunity would make same decision to attend
that institution
6. Student-athletes in all sports generally commit large amounts of time to both athletics and
academic endeavors
7. A majority of student-athletes report spending as much or more time on sport out of season as
they do in season. And, given more time, many student-athletes indicate they would devote
additional time to sports rather than academics or extracurricular activities.
8. Overall, in comparison to their schools, NCAA student-athletes see their teams as: being a more
inclusive environment, more accepting of differing viewpoints and cultures, a more comfortable
place to express social, political or religious view; more respectful of members of the opposite
sex, more respectful of person from other racial/ethnic groups but having fewer opportunities
to learn about or discuss other cultures/viewpoints. C.H.A.M.P.S. Challenging Athletes’ Minds
for Personal Success program was discussed.
A. We need a Continuing Education Coordinator for the organization. Jeri Rockett did it for
many years, but she has resigned. It was suggested that preferably we have someone
experienced with AUCCCD and maybe a past Board member who might be familiar with the
politics that go along with the position. Each professional organization has its own
coordinator. It was suggested that Jeri write up a description of the position so that we can
solicit the membership for volunteers. A three year commitment was suggested with an
overlapping term for a co-coordinator. Denise will get a summary of the position from Jeri
Rockett and request a three year commitment. We will start with a coordinator and talk
about a mentoring process after the person begins. We need the person in place by June 1.
We will have an announcement on the list-serve and board members will follow-up with
individual members.
B. Denise discussed the proposal from Tom Seals for getting the emeriti members more
involved. There was discussion regarding the definition of an emeritus member. The
membership committee may need to review the definition and insure that the definitions
on the web and in the by-laws are consistent. The Circle of the Elders will be added to the
conference template at some time close to the banquet. Sandy will setup and manage a list-
serve for them if they want it. This will be managed by the Communications Committee.
We will also setup a list of directors who are interested in mentoring. For now, the cost of
the conference will remain the same at $150.00.
C. The meeting adjourned at 9:48 P.M.
AUCCCD Mid-year Board Meeting
Chicago, IL
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Members Present: Victor Barr, Yolanda Bogan (ex-officio), Sandy Colbs, Chuck Davidshofer (Ex-officio),
Pamela Duncan, Greg Eells, Terri Hannigan, Denise Hayes, Linda Locher, Bruce Meyer, Sharon Mitchell,
Carolyn Moore, and Barry Schreier
1. President Hayes called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M.
2. She thanked the Board members for their participation in the survey for the SWOT analysis and
approval of an external consultant. She introduced Brian Reinhardt and Board members introduced
themselves and welcomed Brian Reinhardt.
3. Brian thanked everyone for their participation and provided introductory comments.
4. The Board spent the day conducting the SWOT analysis. There were 123 members who responded
and all of the Board members responded. Dr. Brian Reinhardt served as the external consultant.
Based on the feedback, the Board identified seven major goals for AUCCCD.
i) Communication (Barry and Sandy)
ii) Involvement/Inclusion (Sharon, Carolyn & Bruce)
iii) Advocacy (Denise and Greg)
iv) Technology (Victor and Linda)
v) Economics (Chuck and Denise)
vi) Member and Organizational Identity (Terry and Greg)
vii) Professional Development (Pamela and Yolanda)
5. The Board will work on developing objectives, timelines, and other issues. The task of the member
pairs is to 1) flesh out what the umbrella goal will be, 2) list objectives for the full board to review
and choose to develop, 3) provide a timeline, and 4) expected resources, e.g., people, finances.
6. The results of the SWOT and objectives will be presented to the members at the annual conference.
7. President Hayes and the Board thanked Dr. Reinhardt for facilitating the SWOT.
8. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M.
AUCCCD Mid-year Board Meeting
Chicago, IL
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Members Present: Victor Barr, Yolanda Bogan (ex-officio), Sandy Colbs, Chuck Davidshofer (Ex-officio),
Pamela Duncan, Greg Eells, Terri Hannigan, Denise Hayes, Linda Locher, Bruce Meyer, Sharon Mitchell,
Carolyn Moore, and Barry Schreier
President Hayes called the meeting to order at 8:30A.M. She thanked the Board for their participation
in the SWOT analysis and solicited feedback from the Board.
Board members talked about the importance of being clear about the goals and objectives prior to the
annual meeting.
1. President Hayes reviewed the Board members’ task of reviewing the goals, objectives,
timeframe and resources. Members broke into pairs and were given an hour to develop the
goal statements and objectives of the various committees. See number 2-8 below for
committee reports.
2. Director Development- Pamela and Yolanda made the following report:
The Professional development of the directors of AUCCCD will be addressed throughout the
career lifespan of the director.
A. AUCCCD will continue the annual diversity scholars program $2000/scholar
B. AUCCCD will continue to identify new directors for participation in the annual Red Dot
Program at the conference $0
C. AUCCCD will facilitate opportunities for one year mentorships for directors.
1) Directors who volunteer to mentor others will be acknowledged in the conference
program and newsletter each year. $0
D. AUCCCD will provide one program a year for mid and senior level directors, respectively.
$ ???
E. AUCCCD will facilitate a poster session focused on job opportunities for display at the annual
conference and website. $ ???
F. Three to six hours of continuing education credits in ethical and legal issues will be provided
to members annually. $
G. AUCCCD will develop a standing committee for Director Development which will report to the
Chair of the Director Development Committee prior to the mid-year and annual meetings.
1. Their duties will include facilitation of the Red Dot program, mentoring, review
programs for mid and senior level directors and the 3-6 hour CE program.
H. Leadership Growth and Continuity Program- A standing committee will be developed to
mirror each goal of the committee. Members can rotate onto the
I. The Board will continue to support the efforts of the Elements of Excellence Program.
President Hayes requested that Pamela begin to speak with Susan Prieto-Welch and Mark
Thompson regarding their programming as it relates to Director Development and a liaison to
the board.
3. Inclusion and Involvement- Sharon, Carolyn and Bruce made the following report. Goal:
AUCCCD will value and encourage the participation and contributions of all of its members.
A. Objective 1: Will continue the Diversity Scholarships
B. Objective 2: Will continue to have a designated slot in the conference template for a diversity
keynote speaker
C. Objective 3: In the call for programs, include a diversity statement which encourages speakers
to be mindful of diversity when developing their presentations.
D. Objective 4: Include the missions statement in the front of the conference programs because
it encompasses the diversity focus
E. Objective 5: Include a program evaluation question which asks if the speaker paid attention
to diversity in his or her presentation.
F. Objective 6: Ask for additional suggestions for ways the program can be more inclusive.
G. Objective 7: Publicize the Board’s composition including the size of the school, degree and
professional identity on the website and other official documents.
H. Objective 8: Require those running for the board to include their school size, degree, and
professional identity.
I. Objective 9: Use the website and newsletter to convey ways in which members might become
more involved about the organization
j. Investigate the feasibility of developing webinars
K. Objective 10: To assist members in connecting to or developing regional directors’ groups,
including providing instruction for how to sort the membership list by state to facilitate local and
regional connections.
4. Identity-Greg and Terry made the following report.
(new) The mission of the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors
(AUCCCD) is to assist college/university directors in providing effective leadership and
management of their centers, in accord with the professional principles and standards with
special attention to issues of diversity and multiculturalism. AUCCCD promotes the awareness
of student mental health and development issues in higher education through research, advocacy,
education, and training provided to members, professional organizations, and the public.
(old)The mission of the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors
(AUCCCD) is to assist college/university directors in providing effective leadership and
management of their centers, in accord with the professional principles and standards of
Psychology, Counseling, and Higher Education. AUCCCD promotes the awareness of college
student mental health through research, education, and training provided to members,
professional organizations, and the public with special attention to issues of diversity and
multiculturalism.
A. Objective 1: Work to increase the diversity and inclusiveness of the organization and the
Board members from different professional identities. This will be accomplished through
recruiting efforts of varying professionals to serve on the board and making an effort to use
inclusive language in all organizational materials.
B. Objective 2: The Board and the organization will engage in ongoing strategic thinking about
issues of Communication, Involvement/Inclusion/ Advocacy, Technology, Economics, and
Professional Development.
C. Objective 3:Develop a strategy for growth through increased of participation of members
serving on standing committees or considering hiring an executive officer.
5. Advocacy- Denise and Greg provided the following report.
AUCCCD will serve as a leading voice in the discussion around college mental health and student
development issues.
A. Develop a mechanism for press releases around the annual survey and other important issues.
B. Play a large role in shaping the agenda of the Higher Education Mental Health Alliance
(HEMHA).
C. Develop an advocacy council comprised of emeriti members, former presidents and board
members to advise the president and current Board.
6. Communication- Sandy and Barry made the following report. AUCCCD will provide membership with ready access to resources, organizational information, and opportunities through transparent, frequent, and timely communications.
a. OBJECTIVES i. Communications Committee will (1 Year)
1. Explore options for enhancement of website including cataloging resources via the listserv, i.e. listserv discussions.
2. Explore options for new technologies for the website for multiple routes of communication, i.e. blogging.
3. Explore options for sharing organizational resources, i.e. databases. a. METHODS
i. Develop broader web subcommittee of
Communications Committee.
ii. Develop proposal for enhancement of website.
iii. Delineation of Board responsibility for tracking the
currency of their area of the web.
4. Review listserv guidelines to include considerations of listserv etiquette, confidentiality of listserv postings, guiding principles for open communication between members. (Free & 6 Months)
5. Establish a listserv for Emeriti Directors (Free & Immediate) ii. On at least a quarterly basis, the President will provide an internal and external
business update to membership. (Free & Immediate) a. METHOD
i. Highlights of Existing Resources ii. Board Initiatives
iii. Opportunities for Involvement iv. Liaison Reports
v. Budgetary Updates vi. Statements of Principles and Values
iii. Throughout all communication venues, leadership will create and advertise opportunities for member involvement, i.e. Committee invites at Conferences (Free & Immediate)
a. METHODS i. Quarterly Updates ii. Business Meeting Announcements at Conference
iii. Via listserv and web iv. Newsletter announcements
7. Economics- Chuck and Denise made the following report. AUCCCD will be responsible and
sensitive to membership in regard to changes in the economic environment and the implications
it has for membership dues and the distribution of funds required for AUCCCD programs and
services.
A. Objective 1: To explore potential sources of future funding to secure sustainable fiscal
solvency.
1) explore what a different kind of dues structure would look like, e.g., based on the
institution’s budget.
B. Objective 2: To stabilize the infrastructure of the organization.
1) start exploring the idea of an administrative executive assistant, e.g., share
administrative duties with someone in an existing office such as IACS. This would provide a
stable office address
8. Technology- Victor and Linda reported the following:
Science & Research – AUCCCD Resource Database
Review: Discussed and decided March 2010:
1. Proceed with developing a framework (e.g., resource database) that supports AUCCCD members
coming together for collaborative work, e.g., conference presentations, journal/magazine
articles, webinars, drive-in/regional conferences, etc.
2. AUCCCD will not provide an official endorsement of events/products that are an outgrowth of
#1.
3. AUCCCD will not be seeking income from these events/products.
4. AUCCCD will consider “sponsoring” events/products on a case by case basis, e.g., “Webinar on
assessing college students’ need for sleep – sponsored by AUCCCD, CCAPS, etc.”. Sponsorship
would mean that the event/product could list AUCCCD as supportive of the event/product but
not that the organization is providing an endorsement of the particular ideas or products.
Draft Content for an e-mail to AUCCCD membership
AUCCCD Resource Database
How might the considerable knowledge and experience of AUCCCD directors better serve the
membership and the professional field? How might we expand upon the networking that our annual
conference affords us? How can we better capture and retain answers to the proverbial questions that
arise on our listserve? To further facilitate access to, and sharing of our organization’s expertise, the
Science and Research area of the Board would like your assistance in creating an AUCCCD Resource
Database on our secure member-only website. Open to all member directors, the database would
provide information about the interests and expertise of our membership and help promote
connections among the membership in these areas.
Interested members will be invited to register and list up to five areas of professional interest and/or
expertise. This information will form the basis of a searchable database that members can use to:
identify colleagues with shared interests,
identify colleagues willing to consult informally with another director on particular topics,
identify topics that could generate a presentation at AUCCCD or other conferences,
provide opportunities for generating webinars, drive-in conferences or professional articles
with our CCAPS colleagues or others, and
provide a contact for media representatives who contact the Board requesting an expert
opinion or perspective on particular topics.
To add your information to the database, please provide your contact information. List up to five areas
of interest/expertise. For each area indicate (e.g., with a “Y” for “yes”), if you’d be willing to be a
resource on the topic. Indicate in which category you’d like your topic to be listed.
EXAMPLE TEMPLATE – bold indicates the template prompts, regular type potential answers.
AUCCCD Resource Database
Name: John Doe
Institution Name: Matthews University
State: Ohio
Contact information (please check preferred method of contact) -
Phone: 614-555-100
Fax:
Email: Doe@Matthews.edu
Areas of interest/expertise (Please list up to five areas)
Category* Conference presentation
Webinar Article
Drive in conference
Consult with colleagues
Media contact
Treating disordered eating among male athletes
3, 4 Y Y Y
Merging counseling 1,5,7,9 Y Y
and health centers
*Categories:
1) Center administration – budgeting, personnel, hiring, relation to supervisor/president, etc.
2) Training & Supervision – student training, peer programs, staff professional development, etc.
3) Clinical/counseling services – individual and group counseling, innovative services, etc.
4) Outreach & Educational programs -
5) Ethical & Legal issues –
6) Crisis & Trauma issues –
7) Campus & Community relations –
8) Student development -
9) CC trends –
Possible conference presentation – I would be interested in developing a presentation for AUCCCD
and/or ACPA/CCAPS conferences on this topic, or a closely related topic.
Webinar – I would consider collaborating with colleagues in developing and offering a webinar on this,
or a closely related, topic.
Article – I would consider collaborating with colleagues in authoring/co-authoring an article on this
topic, or a closely related topic, for a ACPA/CCAPS or other professional publication.
Drive in conference – I would consider collaborating with other colleagues in developing a drive in
conference presentation on this topic, or a closely related topic.
Consult with colleagues – I would be available for other AUCCCD directors to consult about this topic.
Media contact – I would be available to respond to requests from media resources seeking “expert
opinions” or “professional perspectives” on this topic.
Areas of interest will be searchable by key words, and also organized by category by the author.
9. After a break, President Hayes asked that we review the minutes from the annual conference.
The Board reviewed the minutes. Members will provide corrections no later than March 15,
2010. The secretary will provide the corrections to President Hayes.
10. Chuck Davidshofer provided the financial report.
1) Based on the 2008-2009 financial report, as of June 30, 2009 our net worth was
179,964.30.
2) According to the 2009-2010 financial report, our net worth as of March 4, 2010 was
120,075.48.
3) The Board charged $50 less for the 2009 conference. The expected profit from the
2009 conference is $10,666.26 compared to $30,753.27 in 2008.
4) A suggestion was made to have a financial committee to assist Chuck. Chuck
indicated that a one year apprentice would be necessary to have someone to
commit to a three year term as changing treasurer each year would not be practical.
5) The Board suggested that we investigate transferring the funds to a National Bank
and the President have signatory rights.
6) The Board also requested that the treasurer be bonded.
7) The Board will develop a plan for treasurer succession including the terms of office.
8) Terri made a motion that we set the Portland conference registration fee at $350.
Bruce seconded the motion. Following Board discussion, the motion was tabled
until we get estimates from CMC.
9) The Finance Committee may also consider these issues in terms of supporting other
issues brought up from the SWOT analysis.
10) The website costs roughly 4,000 a year to iDiZ for hosting and management. We
need to be clear about whether our needs are being met. It was suggested that we
have them to provide us an itemized bill. We should revisit the contract and Sandy,
the Board contact as chair of the Communications Committee, should be copied on
all activities requested of iDiZ.
11) It was moved and seconded that the Treasurer’s Report be accepted. The vote
carried unanimously.
11. Sandy presented the Communications Report.
A. She provided a handout on the AUCCCD Award for Excellence in Counseling Center
Scholarship.
B. Sandy will check with CMC about providing all of our plaques. All of our plaques have been
ordered through Josten’s. Check with Chuck about ordering plaques prior to doing so to
insure we are not double-billed. It was clarified that board members are eligible to apply for
the award, but committee members should recuse themselves if necessary.
1) After Board discussion, it was decided that the award will include a plaque and a
press release to the winner’s university media relations and President, AUCCCD list-
serve, website and newsletter.
2) One author must be a member of an AUCCCD member organization.
3) The solicitation will be published on the list-serve and website.
C. It was suggested that the Presidential Updates go on the website as well as the list-serve to
facilitate timely and accessible communication.
D. A handout of the Proposal for AUCCCD Special Presidential Commendation was distributed.
1) The commendation may be provided at any time.
2) The formal presentation will take place at the annual meeting.
3) The first two paragraphs of the document will be posted on the website. As
recipients are announced, their names will be listed.
4) It was moved and seconded that we accept the guidelines for the award. The vote
carried unanimously.
5) The recipient will be invited to the banquet for the recognition.
E. List-serve guidelines- After some discussion, it was decided that the Committee will review
the guidelines and send them to the Board for review. The Committee will provide the
Board with guidelines by May 1.
F. It was suggested that there be a Presidential checklist so that the new President’s name is
listed as necessary on the website, etc. Denise will start a checklist.
12. President Hayes discussed the administration of the Lifetime Achievement Award being the
responsibility of the President or Past President.
A. She identified several formats to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Award.
B. President Hayes will ask Greg to contact all previous recipients to invite them to the
banquet, let them know we are celebrating the tenth anniversary, and send pictures that
relate to their relationship with AUCCCD or their professional life.
C. The pictures will be developed into a slide show that will be shown at the banquet.
D. President Hayes will ask the ED’s to beef up the archival information.
13. Conference Planning Committee- Barry provided a presentation to the Board.
14. Director Development-Pamela presented this report.
A. Call for Nominations will be sent to the list-serve next week.
B. It is not clear if others have volunteered to be mentors.
C. The Board discussed having presenters identify when beginning, mid and senior level
directors are targeted.
D. Director Development will remind members to bring position announcements for
dissemination at the Board
15. Diversity- Bruce reported that most of the recommendations have been incorporated in the
inclusion suggestions discussed during the overview of the SWOT.
A. Individuals who are MFT’s who want to take on the responsibility of exploring the cost and
information related to acquiring CE’s may do so.
B. The cost for CE’s for psychiatrists is cost-prohibitive.
C. Historically, the conference liaison in collaboration with the Host committee is responsible
for updating the conference template.
D. Another aspect of diversity may be commuter vs. residential schools
16. Membership- Sharon provided a written report as follows:
A. Emeriti Inclusion
a. Membership committee will send reminder to emeriti members of reduced membership fees
b. Membership committee will send email to listserv approximately 1 month before the
annual conference to determine which directors will be retiring and to inquire about news of deceased directors so that they may be acknowledged at the conference
c. Emeriti inclusion proposal & items that are moving forward: Circle of Elders (Tom
Seals will solicit someone to lead this), ask conference host to put this program close to the awards banquet, have an emeriti table at the banquet, solicit programs on
retirement and/or transitions, creation of a “how to” manual for new directors,
establish emeriti director’s listserv
B. Defining Emeriti Status
a. Current definition of Emeriti Honorary Membership. There shall also be
members known as Emeritus Members. Emeritus Membership is open to any person who has been a member of AUCCCD for a minimum of 5 years at the time of his/her
professional retirement or otherwise departure from the position of Director.
Emeritus members are non-voting members and do not pay membership dues.
b. The Board will craft an acceptable statement for Emeriti definition. Greg will send the latest version of the by-laws to Yolanda.
C. Yolanda will contact Dan and others to update the by-laws. Yolanda, Chuck and Bruce will
serve as the By-laws committee. She will send the most recent version of the definition of
Emeriti that we can find. The Board will craft an acceptable statement for Emeriti definition.
Greg will send the latest version of the by-laws to Yolanda.
D. Sharon requested guidance about what the membership committee should be doing.
a. Committee can provide assistance with facilitating members sorting the membership
roster to quickly ascertain directors in their state or region.
b. Committee can place a mission statement in the conference handbook.
c. There were questions regarding whether we want the organization to grow.
d. Typically the conference committee invites local non-AUCCCD members to the
preconference and/or conference to solicit membership.
e. The committee may also examine attrition issues and enrollment issues.
f. Chuck is going to speak with Corrine to update the Board members’ information on
the membership invoice form, including school size.
g. There were questions regarding advertisements; “How do people know that we
exist?”
E. Board members contact information on the web and letterhead should include: name, school,
school size, email, and phone numbers for everyone. Currently, there is missing information
especially, email addresses.
17. Linda distributed a written report on the partnership with ACPA-CCAPS
A. There was discussion regarding collaboration around webinars, enlarging our sphere of
influence by collaborating, being clear that we are not endorsing the comments of the
presenter.
B. We need to examine the costs, infrastructure, and expertise of our directors. Victor will
identify the costs of sponsoring a Webinar.
18. Survey-Victor presented the following report.
The 2009 AUCCCD Survey launched on October 26th and closed on January 28
th, 2010. Bob Rando and I
were very pleased that we had two directors interested in taking part in the data analysis for the 2009
Directors survey . They were Evelyn B. Winfield of Western Michigan University and Brian Krylowicz of
Truman State University. The board had just agreed to fund the additional persons’ involvement.
This data analysis was very fruitful. I spent most of one day teaching Evelyn and Brian the process of the
survey. Their impact on our analysis was profound and substantive. Both found it a very worthwhile
endeavor and would like to be part of the 2010 process. Bob is also willing to continue for another year. It
was great having other sets of eyes and hands working on the analysis and report. We finished the
analysis the last morning by 9:30 and had several hours to talk about the next survey. I think the
Monographs are clearer than ever before. Bob revised the format of the Executive summary extensively.
The data analysis team will continue to work to revise and update the AUCCCD survey. We had chosen
not to make major changes in the 2009. We need to make some changes that will create a data seam for
several items for the 2010 survey. We presented the 2008 data in Asheville with the survey already
open. We had many very good suggestions that we had to put off till the next survey because the 2009
survey was already launched. This next year we are proposing to delay the start date until after the
conference. We will try to do a presentation early of the last survey and solicit changes for the upcoming
survey. Main focus will be are we asking the questions we need to be asking. I figure we make the
changes we already plan to make and have the survey ready up to that point. Following the presentation
we will make any minor changes we can at that point – as last minute revisions. We will add any new
questions in this next year’s Trial Questions. Currently, the data analysis team plans to meet at the
conference and plot out any new revisions. We also plan to do a later presentation that reviews the
longitudinal data and any trends. There is just too much to cover to shoehorn it all into one presentation
slot.
Our analysis plan for the 2010 Survey is to meet somewhere around Atlanta in early February 2011 to do
the next data analysis. All four from the 2009 team indicated a willingness to continue. Lexington the past
two years has been a little dicey on the weather. (It took me 4 hours and I drove 20 miles on ice at about
15 miles and hour.) We chose Atlanta because it was 2 ½ hour for Bob and I driving. The airport in
Lexington is much more difficult for Brian and Evelyn. Brian will be in Wyoming at a new center. I will still
drive which will allow us to take a desktop, printer and extra equipment. I did dual 19” monitors and it was
much easier to both show the team things and get analysis done. The costs are pretty close.
In September, I sent to the members of AUCCCD an explanation of many issues about the survey
entitled “Understanding Your AUCCCD Survey 2009.”
Understanding Your AUCCCD Survey 2009
By Victor W. Barr (Survey Coordinator)
History of the Survey
Up to the 2006-07 year AUCCCD financially supported both the Gallagher and Maryland surveys. The
organization did not own the surveys or the data that resulted from their analysis. The Board made the
decision that AUCCCD should move to owning and running a AUCCCD survey and the first version was
launched just following the 2006 AUCCCD Convention. The group that collaborated on the development
of the survey (Robert Rando, Greg Eells, and Greg Snodgrass) attempted to stay true to the traditions of
the prior surveys while allowing significantly greater levels of analysis. The AUCCCD survey now gives a
previously unprecedented degree of access to the data through the online analysis tools available. You
as a director who participates in the survey can find your own answers based on the data available from
the survey. It truly is your survey.
CSCMH
“The Center for the Study of Collegiate Mental Health (CSCMH) in an emerging multi-disciplinary
research center focused on providing accurate and up-to-date information about the mental health of
today's college students in order to serve the needs of mental health providers, administrators,
researchers, and the public.” CSCMH website (http://www.sa.psu.edu/caps/research_center.shtml).
This is not “how does it seem to you” data but direct data on actual use of counseling by clients.. I highly
recommend that directors take a look at their 2009 Pilot study report that is available at the site.
The hope of the board is that the Center for Study of Collegiate Mental Health (CSCMH) research will
offer offers a view of counseling center work that is less based on director perception. The board has
provided financial support for the past couple of years for this project.
Changing Items in the AUCCCD Survey
A challenge in running the survey is the balance between getting good information and getting
comparable information across time. If the questions are changed too much each year they become
non-comparable year to year. An example of this is a count of total sessions offered by a center. This
last year we split this into two questions. The first asks total sessions not including psychiatry visits. The
second asks total sessions including psychiatry visits.
When is the Survey?
Comments on when this survey should be run tend to range the year round. When the survey runs is a
compromise between a couple of factors.
The summer does not work because many centers are closed for the summer. Also many
centers have not finished their year reporting cycle.
If we wait until the spring, the data will be almost a year old when we collect it.
We need to have the data ready for both directors needs for salary information as they go into
the typical spring budget cycle and to support the board’s presentation at the NASPA
conference.
It was decided to launch the survey around the AUCCCD conference each year and close if before
Christmas. Last year we received many requests to leave the survey open into January.
Mid January is as late as we can leave the survey open and still get the analysis done so that the
data can be used to support centers requests for the next year. Bob Rando and I (Victor Barr)
typically spend several weeks checking and cleaning the data. Next , we get together for about
three days of very intense number crunching, near the beginning of February. Following this there is
typically a week to two weeks of additional part-time analysis before the monograph is released.
(Typically we spend over a 150 hours each checking and cleaning the survey and preparing the
monograph.) This puts the release of the monograph near the end of February and just in time to
begin to prepare for the AUCCCD Board’s NASPA conference presentation.
Answering Specific Questions
We get many requests to be able to analyze the data by many characteristics. With the 2008 survey
participating directors can select individual schools through the filter process on EBI’s website. EBI is the
company that host and maintains our survey. To be able to run and analysis there must be data from six
or more data points thus preventing access to the results of a single university. You could pick for
example counseling centers that are at universities that have won NCAA Woman’s Basketball
championships. On the AUCCCD website, after logging in as a member, go to Resources: find the file
“2008 AUCCCD Survey: Using the Filter to look at a Subset of the Survey Responses. [PDF]” The
document shows step by step screen shots through the filter process. I also recommend running the EBI
tutorial. You could then select universities that have won NCAA Woman’s Basketball championships and
run analysis only on that subset of the data.
IACS Ratios etc.
We get a fair number of requests for things that are not directly in the survey but which we calculate
and present in the monograph, the report on the Director’s Survey is called a monograph. Several
directors have commented on the need to use IACS recommended ratios of students to staff. The survey
does not ask directly for this ratio, instead we calculate this ratio and several others – students to
professional staff, students to professional staff and interns, and this past year students to professional
staff, interns and all trainees. In general, we are moving away from having directors enter anything that
we can calculate.
By the way, all of these can be entered as partial FTE. [One day per week equals 1/5 =.2 FTE, 3
hours per week = 3/40 which is .075 FTE, 100 hours per year = 100/(52 WEEKS X 40 hour per
week) = 100/2080 = .048 FTE.]
Length of the Survey
We get many comments that the survey is too long and even more asking for us to add even more
questions. Again, what is included each year is a compromise. I completed the survey in under an hour
including gathering some data I had forgotten to get ahead of time. For myself I find it easier to print off
a copy of the survey and go through it ahead of time to see what additional data I will need to collect.
Should I Just Guess?
One way of filling out the data is to guess. Please don’t. One person told they take the average percent
of the student body dying by suicide and multiply it by the number of student on campus to get the
number of student who died by suicide on their campus. This type of data is not helpful to our
profession, please do not guess when completing the survey. We have identified critical items on the
survey (identified in italics) that we hope that you would minimally be able to complete with data
accessible to you in your role as Director.
NEW Trial Questions
With the 2009 survey we have added additional items at the end for questions that seem to be rising
from the list serve and from suggestions in the 2008 survey. The reason they are there and not
integrated into where they might seem to belong has to do with the ease of setting up the data for
analysis. The way EBI handles data is such a way that changing the order of the items also changes the
numbering of items. If we do not change the numbering of the items, we are able to use a template in
SPSS from the previous year’s data which will save us approximately 20 hours of work each!.
Feel free to contact me (vbarr@utk.edu) if you have questions or concerns. I will be attending the 2009
conference and always enjoy talking about the survey.
19. Liaison reports
A. Sandy reported on ACCCCS-The Clinical Directors Organization would like to have a liaison
with us. Terrie will attend this conference if Sandy is unable.
B. CCAPS- Linda provided a written report on ACPA Commission on Counseling and
Psychological Services
1) It was clarified that Linda will attend as a liaison for this year.
C. Barry reported on Div 17 and has not attended the meeting yet but has received a warm
welcome. Barry clarified that we do provide sponsorships based on organizational requests.
D. Greg reported on ACHA, Jed, and HEMHA-He provided a brief history. Began in 2007 for
increased public policy and advocacy related to mental health. It is an umbrella organization
representing 217,000 members: ACPA, ACHA, AUCCCD, CCAPS, APA, NASPA, and AUCCCCD.
There is no money. The host organization provides the room and lunch for the meeting.
1) Discussed advocacy regarding healthcare and mental health parity.
2) Discussed doing a white paper on behavioral intervention and administrative teams
in about a year. There will likely be an opportunity for public feedback.
E. NASPA Survey Project- no report.
F. Sandy reported on IACS- no report.
G. Additional topics- Terry presented on issues of participation with New Jersey directors. The
key issues were location of the conference and non-psychologists feeling that they are
invisible as a group.
20. The meeting was adjourned at 4:46 P.M.
AUCCCD Mid-year Board Meeting
Chicago, IL
Monday, March 08, 2010
Members Present: Victor Barr, Yolanda Bogan (ex-officio), Sandy Colbs, Chuck Davidshofer (Ex-officio),
Pamela Duncan, Greg Eells, Terri Hannigan, Denise Hayes, Linda Locher, Bruce Meyer, Sharon Mitchell,
Carolyn Moore, and Barry Schreier
President Hayes called the meeting to order at 8:30am.
1. Victor made a presentation on Center for the Study of Collegiate Mental Health (CSCMH). He
submitted an electronic report to the Board as follows:
Disclosure: Karl Zercoe did buy me a stout at Ashville. I plan to do the same for him the next
time I see him.
I became part of the CSCMH Advisory Board in late spring 2009. I attended the 2009 CSCMH
conference on April 17th -18th 2009 at Penn State. I also attended the Advisory Board on
February 22nd through 24th 2010.
HISTORY
Initially, the CSCMH worked to create and refine a demographics and presenting
concerns questionnaire (now known as the Standardized Data Set or SDS) that could be
administered to all students requesting services from college and university counseling
centers. The second task was to further develop and validate a measure of the specific
symptoms an individual student might be experiencing. The measure chosen for this
purpose was the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS),
initially developed by the University of Michigan and then further revised by the CSCMH.
Both the SDS and CCAPS form the backbone of the CSCMH’s efforts to understand the
concerns of an individual student seeking psychological services and how these
concerns are manifested at a population level in college students nationwide. The SDS
and the CCAPS are believed to be relatively stable.
CCAPS
The CCAPS 70 was shortened to the CCAPS 62 from which the CCAPS 34 was developed.
The CCAPS 34 was designed to take about 3 minutes and to be used for frequent follow-
up. A number of centers are already collecting longitudinal data collection with clients
using the CCAPS as part of an effort to assess the CCAPS utility as a change measure.
In the works on the CCAPS are the profile report redesign, clinical significant cutoffs,
sensitivity to change, and concurrent validity with other instruments such as the Deck,
OQ45, PAI, etc.
CCAPS POPULATION STUDIES
CSCMH, NASPA and Student Voice have developed a partnership to gather data on
nonclinical student populations using the CCAPS. In addition, Victor Barr is working with
Bill DeJong of Outside the Classroom to include the CCAPS in a subset of their
population’s experience of Alcohol EDU. This would allow another population sample
and allow the CCAPS to be examined in light of substance abuse issues.
PILOT STUDY 2009
A successful pilot project was run in early 2009 with data contributed by 66 counseling
centers, providing a “proof of concept” for such a system. This has resulted in the
changes discussed above to CCAPS and a number research publications and
presentations.
DATA FLOW NEXT STEP
Further efforts are now in place to refine the data collection and uploading process so
that the mechanisms become automatic, requiring less involvement of staff members at
the participating centers. CSCMH is also working to develop the site of the centralized
data repository, ensuring that data integrity and security concerns are met. IRB approval
is needed for each center to be able to be part of the aggregation of data. The current
plan is to initial data flow in the fall with those centers which have gotten IRB approval.
There are 50 center already approved out of the approximate 150 who have indicated
Interest.
AUCCCDS FUNDING of CSCMH
AUCCCD voted to give $7,500 to partially fund the development of this process. A
question is did AUCCCD intend another $6000 towards the efforts of CSCMH. Currently
the CSCMH plan is to use the $7,500 allocated to facilitate the development of data flow
mechanism which was estimated at $12,000. CSCMH has partnered with Titanium
creator Karl Zercoe to develop the mechanisms to facilitate this process. The steps are
development of the parts of Titanium that allow the easy download of the information
from centers, a server to receive the information and validate the received information
and then upload the data to a permanent server location within Penn State’s Server
cloud. The end server had much heavier protection of the data and allows the merger of
the multiple site data into a totality.
From Ben on this issue:
Estimated cost for completing rudimentary infrastructure will be $11,500 or
$12,000. This includes paying Titanium $8500 to build out the send, receive,
verify, 2-stage server design, and data export. The additional funds will support
server setup and about a year's maintenance at PSU. AUCCCD has committed
$7500 thus far - and that check can be written directly to TItanium Software for
the infrastructure if you desire.
If AUCCCD were to increase that allotment, up to $8500 could be written
directly to Ti and the remainder could come to CSCMH.
- As I mentioned when we talked, CSCMH does not have a budget. We have a
development fund which retains from year to year. Out of it comes wage-payroll
when we need it, buyout of my time to CAPS (about $6-8k/year this year), all
related travel expenses, printing of pubs, etc., occasional support of graduate
student's travel, etc.. Currently CSCMH is generating approximately
$18,000/year in membership fees ($150 x 125 -- because somewhere in the
range of 15-20 don't pay the fee) and we have no other income. If 8k goes to
CAPS, 6-8k to travel, and and the remainder to misc - that pretty much explains.
CSCMH BUDGET ISSUES
CSCMH does not technically have a budget. Penn State’s Counseling Center has funded
parts of CSCMH. Karl Zercoe, of Titanium Scheduler, has been willing to partially
funded the Advisory Board and CSCMH general meetings that have occurred so far. The
members of CSCMH pay $150. Of note is that CSCMH waives this charge for centers
indicating a hardship in paying this amount (16+ center who participated were waived).
This money was used for incidental expenses and to pay for part of a GA’s Salary.
From Ben on this issue:
As I mentioned when we talked, CSCMH does not have a budget. We have a
development fund which retains from year to year. Out of it comes wage-payroll
when we need it, buyout of my time to CAPS (about $6-8k/year this year), all
related travel expenses, printing of pubs, etc., occasional support of graduate
student's travel, etc.. Currently CSCMH is generating approximately
$18,000/year in membership fees ($150 x 125 -- because somewhere in the
range of 15-20 don't pay the fee) and we have no other income. If 8k goes to
CAPS, 6-8k to travel, and the remainder to misc - that pretty much explains it.
POPULATION ANALYSIS ISSUES
A very significant issue in the use of the CSCMH data is that research analysis methods
are not those social science researchers tend to have experience. Statistical significance
is not as meaningful as the N is both large and total population. In essence, all
differences are statistically significant but may not be meaningfully as differences
clinically. This is especially an issue as CSCMH moves to allow researchers outside of the
Penn State group access to the data. CSCMH will develop a policy on how access to the
data will occur both to ensure quality and ethical utilization.
CSCMH AND VENDORS BEYOND TITANIUM
The CSCMH is working on building partnerships with vendors of computerized
scheduling and recordkeeping software beyond titanium. In order to ensure that the
process works effectively for all parties, a number of steps are necessary before
additional vendor partnerships can be forged. The CSCMH is committed to
accomplishing the following steps, which it sees as integral to quality assurance of the
data and software. A process for this to move forward is under development. Vendors
who have indicated interest include Point N Click, Pyramid, and Medcat. There is also a
Canadian firm who has made contact.
RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY
CSCMH researchers at Penn State had produced a number of papers and presentations
based on the Pilot data. CSCMH collaborators currently have somewhere around 30
pieces under development or published. CSCMH is currently developing the model for
researchers outside of Penn State to gain access.
I am on CSCMH Data Access Subcommittee and the immediate tasks are
a. How to handle data requests b. Handling data requests c. Tracking requests/publications d. Ethics subcommittee e. Alias account f. File management g. Currently we are in - “well get back to you” until we can do the above
I am also on the CSCMH Research Advisory and the immediate tasks are:
a. New areas for data standardization-surveys? b. When will next annual report happen & what will it look like
THE ADVISORY BOARD PRIORITIES
The priorities as CSCMH moves forward are by year:
Year 1 (FY2009-2010)
Funding Statement
Vendor Statement o Exploration of licensing
Spring – servers, Titanium, beta-site testing, etc.
Data flow on in Sept.
Summary Report input from guidelines
Possible summary of research
Website list of publications/presentations
Recruitment of Titanium centers (300) o Survey centers o CE conference interest assessment
Completing IRB approvals o Central repository of IRB materials
Historical recording o Data seam dates (June 1st) o Chronology of center, data points, decisions
Year 2 (FY2010-2011)
Feb 2011 meeting to allow for changes by June 1
HEMA meeting?
Website re-design?
1 year of data-flow Sept 2010 through May 2011
Re-assess vender inclusion timing o Vendors…Exploration of licensing
CCAPS report re-design (summer 2010)
2010 exec summary?
Select conference planning committee?
Year 3 (2011-2012)
Spring Conference (CE conference?) –
ACPA/NASPA preconference? o Recruiting and jobs? o Piggy-back advisory board meeting o Conference planning meeting? Committee? o Web option? o Funding/underwriting?
The Current Advisory Board is
1. Victor Barr 2. Ian Birky 3. Robin Buhrke 4. Betsy Cracco 5. Jeffrey Hayes – as a representative of the faculty of Penn State 6. Dennis Heitzmann - ex-officio 7. Ben Locke 8. Larry Marks 9. Megan Mustafoff 10. David Rardin 11. Nicole Ruzek 12. Greg Snodgrass 13. Jan Collins-Eaglin 14. Nivla Fitzpatrick
A. To get involved, you must have Titanium. Google CSCMH. A fee of $150 is also required.
B. The data are owned by CSCMH.
C. It was suggested that we contribute $10,000. $12,000 is the cost for building the mechanism for
setup. There will not be additional setup changes.
D. There still is no confirmation that Penn State will not own the data. Perhaps we can provide
financial assistance pending confirmation that Penn State will not own it. Victor is on a
subcommittee of the Board that will develop the guidelines and standards for others to use the
data and review the proposal.
E. President Hayes was concerned that we are investing in this project in which many members are
not participating. It was clarified that you do not have to be a participating member to get
access to the data.
F. We need specific information. We are not going to fund any more unless we get a statement
from Penn State that this data belongs to the Consortium. The Board should get a copy of the
grant proposal that includes the proposal. The check should be written only to CSCMH, not
Titanium. After much discussion, it was clear that CSCMH needs to provide an invoice to
AUCCCD.
G. Victor agreed to check the membership to see how many were participating in CSCMH
Barry reported on his conversation with Corrine regarding the fee for the conference. The food is
more expensive in Portland than in Asheville. There was a motion that the fee for the conference be
set at $350. It was seconded. There was Board discussion. There were five in favor; five opposed.
President Hayes broke the tie with a yes vote. The vote passed. Registration fee will be $350 for
early registration only.
2. Greg reported on Active Minds. Active Minds is requesting the AUCCCD write an FAQ for Counseling
Center professionals. They want to make sure that chapters are closely linked to their counseling
centers. The FAQ can be for students and for counseling center staff. There was a question about
them coming to the conference as a vendor to speak with directors about Active Minds. Yolanda
agreed to assist Greg and Barry in developing the FAQ’s.
3. Sharon asked if ACCA would be a contact or liaison. Sharon discussed the importance of having a
valid perception of AUCCCD be conveyed. It was moved and seconded that ACCA become a liaison
relationship. The motion passed unanimously.
4. Linda provided a handout on an organizational calendar that would be put on the website and
updated monthly. She recommended that we not have a Wikipedia entry due to the outside and
inside editing it invites and the regular monitoring it requires.
5. President Hayes asked that we have a link on each page for organizations in which we have a liaison
and we will do vice versa. Pamela agreed to take responsibility for setting up a facebook page and a
link for AUCCCD.
6. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00am.
Respectfully Submitted,
Yolanda K. H. Bogan, Ph.D., CAP
AUCCCD Secretary
top related