Student Support Team: Collaborative Interventions for Students in Distress .

1. Student Support Team: Collaborative Interventions for Students in Distress. Tom McGinnity, Associate Dean of Students Becky Freer, Assistant Dean of Students University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

2. Today’s Presentation • Portrait of UWM • UWM Intervention structure • Outcomes & Data • Case Studies

3. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 29,768 Student • 24,678 undergrad • 5,090 grad 1,200 military veterans 1,015 international students Average age: 25 23% from underrepresented groups 80% take out Financial Aid • 67% receive need-based aid • 42% are first generation Median Family Income: $60,000 51% receive developmental education Graduation rate • 4 year: 14% • 6 year: 40% 4,000 live on campus 10,000 live in neighborhood

4. Campus Goals Increase retention rates Increase graduation rates Students at-risk • Academically underprepared • Neurological, psychological, cognitive, or health concerns • Family challenges • Finances • Students who are parents/caretakers • Social risk factors (bullying, sexual assault, hate/bias, conflicting identities, etc.)

5. Building Resiliency • Provide choices • Work with personnel across the institution • Interpret and provide rationale for instructional policies, procedures, and requirements • Monitor student progress toward goals • Align student’s abilities and interests with academic program • Teach problem solving techniques • Use intrusive advising methods when appropriate • Refer students to campus and community resources as needed. King, 2004 (as cited in Miller & Murray, 2005)

6. Guiding Models & Principles • NABITA Threat Assessment Tool • Student Support Team responds to cases that are mild, moderate, and elevated risks • Intrusive Advising (Miller &Murray, 2005): • Model effective for Academically underprepared at-risk students • Helps build resiliency • Resilient students are more successful in college • CAS Statement of Shared Ethical Principles

7. Reporting • Concerns submitted to care.uwm.edu or to Dean of Students Office • Maxient database • Presentations about reporting throughout campus • Dean of Students Office reviews cases and reaches out to reporter • Immediate concerns are addressed • Dean of Students Office routes reports: • Dean consults with reporter on how to respond • Dean reaches out to student directly • Student conduct process • Care Team • Student Support Team • Police

8. Two Team Intervention Model • CARE Team (BIT) • Threats, violence • Addresses student, faculty, and staff concerns • Spent most time on high level concerns • Little time for self-harm and lower level concerns (e.g. disruptive but not threatening)

9. Student Support Team • Self-harm, suicidal ideation, accessibilityconcerns, classroom disruption, AODA, homelessness, lower level concerns, etc. • Student has been reported by more than one person. • Student would greatly benefit from intervention from more than one office.

10. Team Members • Associate Dean of Students (conduct) • Assistant Dean of Students (advocacy & support) • Student Success Center Director (early alert/peer mentor program) • Assistant Director of Residence Life • Counseling Center Director • Accessibility Resource Center Advisor • Others by invitation

11. Structure • Meet Mondays 10am-noon. • Each member has a back-up • Agenda • shared on Fridays • Weekend concerns added on Monday • New cases, Ongoing cases

12. Meetings • Share incident report and provides overview of student. • Identify the main concern(s) and the desired outcome(s). • Gather Information on the Student. • Identify secondary concerns and desired outcome(s). • Strategize how to best go about working with the student. • Identify the best person(s) to reach out to the student. • Reach out to the student using appropriate intrusive advising techniques. • Identify urgency and timeframe for follow-up.

13. Concerns • Self-harm • Depression, sadness • suicidal ideation • Eating disorders • Chronic health conditions • Disability struggles • AODA concerns • Loss of a loved one • Family issues • Homelessness, food insecurity • Academic preparedness • Odd or strange behavior • Classroom disruption • Not taking meds or not taking meds as prescribed

14. Information Gathering • Student information database (grades, aid, holds, etc.) • Previous institutions • MAPWorks • Maxient (conduct) • Social media • Campus involvements • Court records • Police • Advisors • Residence Life • Faculty • Accessibility Resource Center staff • Employers

15. Strategize • What is the core issue? • Is the student aware of the concern? • What has worked in the past? • What resources do we have access to? • Who is (can be) the student’s support network? • Who or what does the student respond well to? • Should anyone else be included in the intervention? • Do we need to ask the student for permission to talk to someone? • Can the student be successful academically while experiencing this challenge? • Can the University reasonably support/handle this concern? • Will the person be better served off campus? • Should it be addressed through the student conduct process (e.g. is the behavior harmful to the community?)

16. Who is the Best Person to Reach Out? • Whose role makes most sense for the situation (e.g. a disability related concern might be best brought up by the disability resource center advisor) • Look at natural connections (e.g. person who submitted report) • Pre-existing relationships (e.g. advisor, RA, hall director, faculty) • Person of authority (e.g. Director, Dean) • Consider multiple individuals reaching out.

17. Intrusive Advising Techniques • Use assessment (MAPWorks) • Ask open-ended questions: learn about their lives/ ask about the situation • What have you thought about doing? • Do you have a plan to resolve the situation? • What resources do you have? • Have you thought about harming yourself or someone else? • Are you suicidal? Do you have a plan? • Identify strengths and deficits • Be direct, empathetic, and prescriptive • Make informed recommendations • Help them set short & long-term goals • Provide structure: boundaries, clear expectations, timelines • Explain policies, procedures, and how to “do college” • Connect to resources (help make connection, walk student to office) • Connect to individuals with compatible styles (Peer mentors, counselors)

18. Urgency & Follow up • Team identifies timeline for follow-up based on imminence of concern and potential impact on student or community. • Consistent follow up with the student until: • Situation/concern is resolved • Student is connected to resources • Student has an established relationship with someone on campus • Student has withdrawn from campus • Ongoing support: Dean of Students Office follows up at least once a semester.

19. Case Tracking • Students stay on the agenda until consistent follow up is not needed (case is closed in Maxient) • Tracking in Maxient • Updated by Dean of Students Office or Residence Life • Follow-up detailed in notes section • Organized chronologically • One CARE/Student Support Team Report Per student (conduct cases are per incident)

20. Factors Contributing to Success • Committee willing to engage (or have staff engage) in direct outreach with students. • Focus on how to best support students (both the individual and the community). • Treat students with dignity and respect. • Understand that we might not always know what is best for the student. • Act lawfully. Know the law is usually on our side when we have student’s best interests in mind.

21. Unanticipated Outcomes • Stronger collaborations between units. • Build upon each others ideas and skills. We are better professionals because of it. • Better grasp on our student population and their needs. • Identified and rectified gaps in our services. • We are automatically responding to students more efficiently. • Identify potential issues unknown to student. (e.g. Students close to graduating and running out of aid).

22. The Numbers • Fall 2012: 18 cases • Spring 2013: 35 cases • Summer 2013: 4 • Fall 2013: 35 cases to date

23. More Numbers Referral Sources • Faculty = 33 • DOS = 18 (direct contact with student or relative) • Housing = 15 • Advisors = 8 • Campus police = 3 • Other student affairs staff = 15

24. More Numbers • Primary reason for referral 28 = Mental health (depression, anxiety, etc.) 16 = Attempted suicide or suicidal ideation 8 = Financial/Homelessness 7 = Disruptive behavior, threats 7 = Loss of a loved one 6 = Odd behavior 5 = AODA 5 = Victim 4 = Accessibility/ongoing medical issues 3 = Witnessed traumatic event

25. What’s Next • Explore ways to measure success • Improve usage of database • Increase reporting

26. Case Studies

27. Guiding Resources Douce, L. A.(2011). Enough is Enough: A Student Affairs Perspective on Preparedness and Response to a Campus Shooting (review). Journal of College Student Development 52(5), 633-635. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved November 3, 2013, from Project MUSE database. Jed Foundation. 2010. Balancing Safety and Support on Campus: A Guide for Campus Teams http://www.jedfoundation.org/campus_teams_guide.pdf Miller, M. A., & Murray, C. (2005). Advising academically underprepared students. NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/ Academically-underprepared-students.aspx

28. Contact us for more information Becky Freer Assistant Dean of Students UW-Milwaukee bfreer@uwm.edu 414-229-4575 Tom McGinnity Associate Dean of Students UW-Milwaukee tommc@uwm.edu 414-229-

30. _ _ _ _ _ _

31. Case Study 1 • Student visited Dean of Students angry because Admissions front desk staff wouldn’t give him a paper application. They referred him to print the paper application online. • Appeals Poly Sci grade. Exam on dialysis day. Frustrated that the cannot get accommodations. Wants to appeal grade. Learned that he visited the Accessibility Resource Center. Frustrated with staff. Doesn’t go back. • English class. Frustrated he wasn’t getting weekly feedback. Turns out, prof. gave him feedback for 6 assignments on one document. • Fails criminal background check for education practica.

32. Case Study 2 • Faculty reports student’s odd behavior in class. Testifying, crying, having epiphanies. • Consult with faculty and SST. Clear change in behavior. Seemed overly medicated in past. Admitted that she has stopped taking meds and now feels alive. • All offices on SST had already had encountered with her. She consumes a large amount of time. Typically, we would all bend over backward to be helpful and address all of her needs. With the team, we were able to quickly identify that she liked the attention (borderline?). We had to set limits with what behavior we’d accept, when she could meet with us, and what topics she would meet about.

33. Case Study 3 • Student was new to campus. Complained about using shuttle wheelchair and/or walker on shuttle. • Asked for interpreter for events • Wanted to hang a therapy swing in her room. • Raced through residence halls on walker. • Petitioned to Chair of English to get W in English • Found out we had permission to talk to parents. Met with them. They shared she has legitimate disabilities but she makes some up for attention. • Central processing issue. Spoke at length about resources. Arranged for Accessibility director meeting. Also determined student was not engaging in coursework as her parents had hoped. They were worried about her ability to complete Math. Gave them resources. Told them this would never be waived.

34. Case Study 4 • Shared email with advisor. Was concerning • Learned from housing staff that the student wouldn’t leave room for several days. • Learned he was severely paranoid and suicidal. • Contacted police to find him. • Reached out to mother to walk her through how to assist him.

35. Case Study 5 • Found out student was sleeping in labs on campus from Student Success Center. • Head injury when sleeping outside. Withdrew. Withdrew again due to issues with homelessness. • Physics major. Believes he can do well if his basic needs are met. • Got him a residence hall room for 1 week. • Private donor works with foster kids. Heard his story and gave 1000 to him to pay for Housing. • Taught him about financial aid and did cost benefit analysis of failing and attending more years v. taking aid and graduating quicker. • Worked closely with advisors, housing, SAC, and Norris. • Later found out it was not feasible for him to major in engineering in physics. Took him long time to come to terms with this. Eventually was able to track him into a degree program that he could finish.