Disappointment in counseling services
February 3, 2011
It would be difficult to overstate my disappointment in the new policies of Grinnell College counseling services. For those of you who could not or did not read the long, bureaucratic e-mail from Student Health and Counseling Services, now, not only do you have to schedule a counseling appointment days in advance, failing to attend an hour-long appointment now requisites a $200 fine and the missing student “will no longer have access to psychiatric services on campus.”
Is it really so difficult to imagine that a student with mental health concerns might miss an appointment? Why is it necessary to intimidate and browbeat students who may already be hesitant about getting mental health care? Why are the penalties outrageously harsh? Why is it necessary to schedule appointments at all? For some time counselors were available on a walk-in basis. It is particularly ironic that Student Health and Counseling Services claims that these are similar policies to health care providers “beyond college,” because I miss doctor’s appointments all the time and am neither fined $200 nor kicked out of the hospital.
Although these new policies are disingenuously billed as for “our” benefit, the likeliest outcome I can see is that counseling services will now be far less accessible for Grinnell College students. Apparently the convenience of Student Health and Counseling Services is more important than the mental health needs of the campus.
Marnie • Dec 30, 2011 at 9:51 am
It’s always a pleasure to hear from someone with expreiste.
Jing Tao Liu • Feb 11, 2011 at 4:26 am
Here is the follow up article: SHACS Introduces New Psychiatrist.
Isaac • Feb 10, 2011 at 9:45 pm
David,
I agree that I would like to see a follow-up article like that. If anything, in the interest of hearing both sides. Since it’s hard to understand why they would decide such drastic measures make sense I want to know what their reasoning behind it is.
David Nathan '01 • Feb 9, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Isaac-
While at Grinnell, I attended the funeral of one good friend who took his own life in his dorm room one morning and, two years later, drove another friend who cut her wrists to Grinnell Regional Medical Center, so I am personally aware of the tragedies that have taken place on campus. I think it is vitally important that there be access to mental health care for all.
I also wrote for the S&B and noticed that the column did not include a statement from the administration to explain the reasons behind the new policy. I would be interested in seeing a follow up article that does this.
David Nathan
Isaac • Feb 9, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Some mentioned there have been examples of tragedy in other communities. We don’t even have to look outside the Grinnell community for examples as we had plenty of our own in the past few years. I would imagine there is some “reasonable” explanation for why the administration thinks this is a good idea. I would hope they’re not just thinking “screw the students.” But whatever the intention here, it sounds like they are ultimately punishing an already marginalized group of people. Accountability is important but so is compassion. There has to be some middle ground. Especially one where the walk-in counseling still existed in some form. While at Grinnell I benefited greatly from the availability of walk-in counseling. One of the wonders of that service was that I didn’t have to keep up with yet one more activity in my schedule, which would have felt near impossible when my anxiety/depression was at it’s worst. I know we can’t expect the college to coddle us and treat us like children who don’t have to take responsibility for their actions but making an example out of those with mental health needs just doesn’t make sense.
David Nathan '01 • Feb 9, 2011 at 6:13 am
As a psychological practitioner in graduate school, I wonder if the fee and loss of access to on campus services has a to deal with client no shows. I live in the Twin Cities, a region with nearly the highest proportion of psychological service providers in the nation, and the need here still means people need to wait weeks and sometimes months to get into an appointment, and one of the reasons for this is clients making appointments and then not attending.
Part of my regular practice is calling or texting clients 12-24 hours prior to an appointment to verify that they are still planning on keeping the appointment, and I still have a 20%-25% no show rate, which is better than average for my type of practice, but it still means I am only able to see 75%-80% of the clients I could on a normal day, and there are many clients who would truly benefit from being able to be seen sooner rather than later.
College clinics everywhere have far higher no show rates than other forms of psychological practice. Perhaps this is part of the reason these dire consequences have been put in place. Does anyone know what the justification student affairs has made for this new policy?
David Nathan ’01
Lindsay • Feb 7, 2011 at 12:40 pm
As a fairly recent college grad, I remember the days when $200 was a pretty astronomical sum. I think the stigma surrounding mental health concerns is already a roadblock to seeking treatment, and the idea that massive fines are potentially on the table is yet another huge deterrent.
I was always super busy when I was at Grinnell, and if I had known that I’d be out that much money for setting up an appointment and having to miss it, there’s no way I would have set it up. It’s also unclear to me whether this fee can be avoided if you call in to cancel. I get that people should be conscientious about going to appointments, or calling and rescheduling if need be (missed appointment fees are not uncommon in the ‘real world’, though I think fees this high are pretty rare), but sometimes s*** happens, especially if you are experiencing mental health problems.
And the idea of barring students from further treatment is just absurd. That is reprehensible. What if someone misses an appointment because they are having a severe anxiety attack or breakdown? Is that really a good excuse for denying them psychological care? The underlying assumption of this policy is that students who miss appointments are just careless or flaky, and I really don’t think that’s true or remotely fair. Since when do students not deserve the benefit of the doubt?
Dan • Feb 7, 2011 at 8:54 am
Jessica,
Students not only will be fined $200 but banned from future appointments. As someone who grew up in a town with three teen suicides, the idea of refusing anyone psychological counseling bothers me. We don’t have to think too hard to remember tragedies that have happened at other Colleges which counseling may have prevented. This is not just a matter of courtesy but a decision to possibly put Grinnellians in harms way.
Jessica '09 • Feb 6, 2011 at 9:25 pm
I agree that $200 seems rather harsh, but I think the message is a no-brainer: If you request to use others’ time, by all means, at least have the courtesy to show up. If something comes up, call in and cancel. Not being on campus I obviously don’t know the context of the policy, but I’m guessing this “bureaucratic decision” isn’t without precedence.
Josey • Feb 6, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Poor management and communications by new Student Affairs crew has become an unfortunate pattern (i.e., since the massive staff turnover two or three years ago). The Trustees used to do reviews of ‘big’ departments every three years. Is that still done, and is Student Affairs’ turn coming soon?
Dan • Feb 6, 2011 at 3:00 am
It seems like every single week we hear about something new that goes wrong with some department of student affairs. Last week, it was that they lied to students about the availability of off-campus housing approval, causing students to lose a ton of money after signing a lease on absolutely false information given by the office. Before that, it was security calling the police on students smoking marijuana despite their continued lip service to self-gov.
This tops all of them though. Refusing students psychiatric services on campus is nuts. Many students have issues such as depression (or even suicidal thoughts), substance abuse, eating disorders, etc that absolutely need to be addressed or will get worse. We can think of many tragedies that have happened at educational institutions that psychiatric services may have prevented.
It seems like this lack of concern for students may stem from the attitudes of the people at the top of the department most responsible for caring for students. The college needs to change this if it wants to remain a place that values respect between the institution and its students. It can start by removing those at the top of student affairs.
Amanda Davis • Feb 4, 2011 at 12:44 pm
As an alum, I would really like to know more about this. Because if this is in fact the current policy, something is clearly very wrong and needs to be addressed. If anyone could provide some more background, I would really appreciate it. I was there in the spring of 2003 and I remember the conversations we all had about how the Grinnell community needed to do more to prioritize students’ mental health. I would be shocked and extremely disappointed in the college if this is what passes for access to mental health care on campus right now.