Your browser does not support accepted Web standards. This site has been redesigned to meet Section 508 accessibility standards for persons with disabilities and to meet W3C recommendations for forward compatibility. If you are using an older browser (Netscape or IE 4.x and older), the site layout will not display correctly. However, all pertinent information should still be viewable. To better view this site, please download a browser that complies with Web standards. For upgrade information, visit [www.webstandards.org/upgrades]. Comments or questions? Email [accessibility@osrhe.edu].

Skip directly to: Content, Search Box, Main Navigation
 
 
 
 

CAMPUS LIFE AND SAFETY AND SECURITY (CLASS) TASK FORCE 2008 fINAL Report 

Survey Results - Counseling Survey

Introduction
The governor’s Campus Life and Safety and Security (CLASS) Task Force also asked each postsecondary institution to review their counseling services as they relate to campus security.

Methodology
Surveys were distributed by e-mail and letter to all chief executive officers. Responses were sent to the Oklahoma Office of Homeland Security where the sending institution’s name was redacted. The surveys were then sent to the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education’s Strategic Planning and Analysis unit for processing and statistical interpretation.

Results

Responding Institution Characteristics
Eighty-five postsecondary institutions responded to the survey. Of those, 74 are public institutions. Responders represent career technology centers (36), community colleges (16) and universities (33). Consistent with the rural nature of the state, the majority of responders represent institutions in rural areas.

Pie chart indicating percentages of different types of institutions responding to survey: Career Technology Center, 42.4%; University, 38.8%;  and Community College, 18.8%.

Only four campuses reported student headcounts at or above 15,000. More than 70 percent reported student headcounts below 3,000. Just over one-third have residence halls on campus. Of those, three-fourths house 1,000 or fewer students. There are a reported 26,949 students living on campus. The vast majority (25,768) of students live in single-student housing.

Pie chart indicating that 38.8% of responding institutions have resident halls on campus, while 61.2% do not.

Counseling Services
Sixty-five responders (77 percent) reported having full-time mental health practitioners. Of those, 52 percent have only one or two practitioners. A similar number (66) reported having academic counselors or advisors where a bachelor’s degree is typically required. Fewer (60 percent, 51) reported employing personal counselors who hold a master’s degree in counseling.

Most responders reported being “familiar” to “very familiar” with their mental health and substance abuse treatment resources on campus. Career technology centers are less likely to be familiar with these resources at their locations (statistical significance level of .004). Respondents from campuses with residence halls are more likely than those without residence halls to be familiar with substance abuse treatment resources (statistical significance level of .000). All responders are at least “somewhat familiar” with mental health and substance abuse treatment resources in the surrounding community.

Fifty-six institutions (66 percent) utilized general operating funds to pay for on-campus counseling services. Fifteen (17.6 percent) reported using student activity fees to pay for counseling. Most (87 percent) do not limit the number of times a student can utilize an on-campus counselor. For the 10 institutions that do impose a limit, the number of allowed visits ranges from two to 16. In the event a student exhausts on-campus services, additional resources can be sought and found in the local community.

Bar graph indicating what percentage of responding institutions pay for on-campus counseling services  in the following ways: General Operating Funds, 65.9%, Student Activity Fees, 17.6%; Other, 14.1%; and Student Insurance, 1.2%. 12.9% of responding institutions indicated that on-campus counseling services are not offered at their institutions.

Pie chart indicating that 13.3% of responding institutions limit how many times a student can utilize a counselor on campus, while 86.7% do not.

Eleven responders (12.9 percent) indicated that there are no on-campus counseling services offered at their locations. Institutions without on-campus services refer students who are in need of mental health counseling services to off-campus resources. If the student needs mental health counseling and may pose a threat to himself or to others, referral is still the most common measure indicated by survey responders. Only four campuses indicated contacting law enforcement or the campus office of public safety.

Only a few institutions (7.1 percent, 6) have active peer support groups or networks to work with students who have mental health problems. Slightly more (11.8 percent, 10) have active peer support groups or networks to work with students who have substance abuse problems.

Pie chart indicating that 7.1% of responding institutions have an active peer support group or support network on campus that work with students who have mental health problems, while 92.9% do not.   Pie chart indicating that 11.8% of responding institutions have an active peer support group or support network on campus that work with students who have substance abuse problems, while 88.2% do not.

More than one-half of responders feel strongly that their counseling services are readily available and accessible to all students. Most agree that their counseling services are consistently effective in serving students’ needs. Generally, responders feel that the counseling services available in their local communities are slightly less available and accessible than those on campus. This is felt the strongest on campuses with residence halls, where responders were significantly less likely to report that counseling services in the local community are readily available and accessible to all students (statistical significance level of .000). They also have less confidence in community-based counseling services. University responders are significantly less likely to agree that counseling services in the local community are consistently effective in serving students’ needs (statistical significance level of .029).

Bar graph indicating the availability and effectiveness of counseling services as rated by responding institutions on a scale of 1-5, with 1 equalling strongly disagree and 5 equaling strongly agree. The counseling services on our campus are readily available and accessible to our students, 4.44. Counseling services provided on our campus are consistently effective in serving students' needs, 4.16. Counseling services in the local community where our institution is located are readily available and accessible to all students, 3.58. Counseling services in the local community where our institution is located are consistently effective in serving students' needs, 3.45.

Survey respondents were asked to indicate to what degree they agreed that student services staff had a positive relationship, including active cooperation and collaboration, with campus and non-campus entities. In general, the most positive relationships were reported between student services staff and campus police, campus judicial/conduct officers and campus Americans with Disabilities Act-compliance officers. Overall, the relationship between student services staff and the campus legal representation is less than positive.

Areas of Greatest Concern
Almost all campuses reported being “somewhat” to “very prepared” to deal with alcohol and drug use, misuse or abuse. The only survey behaviors and/or incidents where fewer than 50 percent of campuses felt “very prepared” were suicidal ideation, gestures and attempts and critical incident response. Community colleges are less likely than career technology centers or universities to agree that they are prepared for handling suicide (statistical significance level of .001). Public respondents are more likely to agree that their institutions are prepared for handling suicide than the private respondents. While statistically significant (at .014), the numeric difference between the groups seems slight and perhaps not of practical significance. Urban respondents are more likely to agree that they are prepared for handling suicide than the rural respondents (statistical significance level of .044).

However, career technology centers are the most likely to agree that they are prepared for classroom disruption or control issues than the community colleges and universities (statistical significance level of .001). Respondents from campuses without residence halls are more likely to agree that they are prepared for handling classroom control issues. This finding probably relates closely to the finding that career technology centers, which have no residence halls, are better prepared for handling such issues (statistical significance level of .013).

Bar graph indicating how prepared responding institutions say their campuses are to deal with the following types of behavior or incident, based on a scale of 1-3, with 1 equaling little prepared, 2 equaling somewhat prepared and 3 equaling very prepared. Classroom disruption/control issues, 2.72; Property Damage (theft, break-in, etc.), 2.72; Violence (fights), 2.69; Weapons on Campus, 2.62; Sexual Violence (student on student), 2.58; Alcohol Use, Misuse or Abuse, 2.56; Making Threats (terroristic or personal) Against Others on Campus, 2.52; Complaints of Odd or Unusual Student Behavior, 2.51; Other Drug Use, Misuse or Abuse, 2.49; Critical Incident Response, 2.44; Suicide Ideation, Gestures and Attempts, 2.39.

Open access to campus was the most commonly shared concern regarding campus safety. Seventeen institutions (20 percent) also reported a shooter or intruder as the issue causing the most concern.

Two-thirds of responders were involved in the development of their institutions’ emergency management plans. Sixty-three percent are “satisfied” to “very satisfied” with the mental health or counseling component of the plan. Private respondents were more likely to agree that they are satisfied with this component than were public respondents (statistical significance level of .026).

More than one-half of respondents expressed the greatest interest in receiving training in the areas of psychological issues, emergency planning, emergency response and preparedness, crisis management, and violence assessment strategies. Urban respondents are more interested in training that deals with working effectively with police and other first responders (statistical significance level of .037).