Next Steps for Cornell Addiction and Recovery

Cornell Sober Housing, Inc. has changed its name to Cornell Collegiate Recovery, Inc. (CCR) to reflect its overall mission of advocacy to the Cornell University community about college student alcoholism, addiction, and recovery.

CCR is an independent nonprofit organization. Its board and supporters include faculty, alumni, and students committed to collegiate recovery. Since its founding in 2015, our mission has been multifaceted. We provide a clean and sober living environment for Cornell students, support their sobriety and recovery, and cultivate understanding throughout the broader Cornell community about substance abuse and addiction recovery.

At the end of the 2021-22 academic year, we will be closing our Sober House residence temporarily. This is an unfortunate consequence of Covid-19 and constraints on social gatherings, which have reduced the number of students associated with the Sober@Cornell student organization and who are interested in living in the house. In this context, we are shifting our focus to educating the Cornell University community—students, faculty, and administrators—about alcoholism, drug addiction, and recovery, and working with Sober@Cornell to rebuild its organization and programming.

Another in an occasional series of articles about student mentaOne in an occasional series of articles about student mental health. For more information, go to The Sophie Fund’s Student Mental Health Page

According to the Association of Recovery in Higher Education, approximately 160 colleges have recovery programs for students. Earlier college alcohol and drug programs focused on students drinking to excess (i.e., binge drinking) and gave little attention to students addicted to alcohol and other drugs because it was thought that alcoholics and addicts were primarily middle age adults. Alcohol is the dominant drug of choice among college students and most students drink moderately or are abstinent. National research finds that approximately 6 percent of college students are dependent upon alcohol and approximately 12 percent abuse alcohol. While students abusing alcohol can change their behavior and drink responsibly, either on their own or with professional help, students dependent upon alcohol and other drugs require alcoholism and addiction treatment to abstain and gain long-term sobriety.

The primary barrier to helping students recover from alcoholism and drug addiction is stigma. Cornell Collegiate Recovery, Inc. will work to reduce stigma and promote student access to treatment and long-term recovery through a variety of efforts:

  • Working with the Cornell University administration and Cornell Health to develop a comprehensive collegiate recovery program. We will seek to work with the Skorton Center for Health Initiatives to develop education efforts focused on teaching students about alcoholism, drug addiction, and recovery and how to seek help for themselves or fellow students suffering from alcoholism and drug addiction. We will seek to work with Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) to cross-train its clinicians in the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders and substance use disorders, particularly alcohol and other drug addictions.
  • Working with Sober@Cornell to revitalize its organization and rebuild its membership. We will work to promote a positive identity for students in recovery and a community of support through public relations campaigns and sponsoring sober events on campus.  
  • Working with student service professionals across campus to facilitate their ability to identify students who may be suffering from alcoholism and addiction and refer them to Cornell Health for appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Student service professionals also provide a critical role in supporting students in recovery to maintain their sobriety, achieve their full potential as Cornellians, and pursue successful careers after graduation.
  • Working with student organizations to promote an understanding of alcoholism, drug addiction, and recovery. For several years, we have brought Cornell alumni in recovery to campus to talk with fraternities and sororities. These FAST Talks have been well received, helping students to distinguish between responsible drinking and alcohol dependence and providing them with information on seeking help for themselves or friends. We will be promoting FAST Talks to other student organizations this year. We believe that peers helping peers is one of the best ways to help students suffering from alcoholism, and drug addiction and to support them in their recovery.

By William J. Sonnenstuhl, Alison Young, Tim Vanini, and Shawn Meyer

William J. Sonnenstuhl, Alison Young, Tim Vanini, and Shawn Meyer are officers of Cornell Collegiate Recovery, Inc.

In Our Own Voice

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) works to end stigma around mental health through support, education, and advocacy in our community.

One NAMI program that promotes conversation and awareness on this topic is called In Our Own Voice, in which people with lived experience talk openly about what it’s like to live with a mental health condition through public presentations.

At NAMI Finger Lakes, we are growing the In Our Own Voice program to increase awareness and normalize discussions around mental health. We provide training using a NAMI signature program model for people with lived experience who wish to become presenters and help others through sharing their story.

NAMI-FL coordinates all presentations, which range in length, depending upon how many presenters participate. We can also facilitate virtual or in-person presentations depending upon the comfort level of the presenters and current COVID-19 status or other restrictions.

Some Benefits of In Our Own Voice:

For the presenter:

—Build confidence and pride in one’s experience and achievements

—Promote continued recovery

—Gain volunteer hours to use toward other certifications

—Enhance public speaking and storytelling skills

—Build a resume of appearances and references

—Change attitudes and assumptions about people with mental health conditions

—Know that you’re changing lives through sharing your experience

For the community:

—Increased program offerings to participants of recovery and wellness programs (as attendees or presenters)

—Increased program offerings to participants of work empowerment programs (as attendees or presenters)

—Public education events about living with mental health conditions

—An end to stigma around mental health conversations and care

—An introduction to free NAMI mental health support and education

If you know or are an adult with lived experience who would like to learn more or become an In Our Own Voice presenter, please email namiflexec@namifingerlakes.org.

Click here for more information about In Our Own Voice.

—By Beth McGee

Beth McGee is the executive director of NAMI Finger Lakes

Are Therapists Sufficiently Trained to Treat Suicidal Patients?

The headline of a USA Today article two years ago posed a troubling question: “We tell suicidal people to go to therapy. So why are therapists rarely trained in suicide?”

The article by Alia Dastagir noted that people experiencing suicidal thoughts are routinely advised, “See a therapist.” Yet, the article reported, “training for mental health practitioners who treat suicidal patients—psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, among others—is dangerously inadequate.”

Dastagir quotes this concerning statement from Paul Quinnett, a clinical psychologist and founder of the QPR Institute, an organization that educates people on how to prevent suicide:

“Any profession’s ethical standards require that you not treat a problem you don’t know, and yet every day thousands of untrained service providers see thousands of suicidal patients and perform uninformed interventions.”

READ MORE: Training Tompkins Clinicians in Suicide Prevention

USA Today noted that no national standards require mental health professionals to be trained in how to treat suicidal people, either during their education or in their career; and only nine states mandate training in suicide assessment, treatment, and management for health professionals.

A survey for “Suicide Prevention and the Clinical Workforce: Guidelines for Training,” a 2014 task force report by the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, found that only 19 percent of responding institutions of higher education reported that their clinical degree programs required specific course work entirely about suicide prevention. Seventy-five of 80 state credentialing and licensing boards reported they did not require specific training in suicide prevention prior to initial licensure or certification, and all 80 said that there was no specific training requirement for continuing education in suicide prevention.

Clearly, much work needs to be done to prevent suicides, judging from death statistics. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among Americans aged 10-34 and the 10th leading cause of death overall. While rates for other causes of death have remained steady or declined, the U.S. suicide rate increased 35.2% from 1999 to 2018.

In 2009, Quinnett kickstarted a discussion among colleagues about inadequate clinical training in suicide prevention, which inspired the American Association of Suicidology (AAS) to set up a task force to study the issue.

It issued a damning report in 2012, declaring that “the lack of training required of mental health professionals regarding suicide has been an egregious, enduring oversight by the mental health disciplines… The current state of training within the mental health field indicates that accrediting bodies, licensing organizations, and training programs have not taken the numerous recommendations and calls to action seriously.”

The report said, in part:

“We establish that mental health professionals regularly encounter patients who are suicidal, that patient suicide occurs with some frequency even among patients who are seeking treatment or are currently in treatment, and that, despite the serious nature of these patient encounters, the typical training of mental health professionals in the assessment and management of suicidal patients has been, and remains, woefully inadequate.”

The report said that only the field of psychiatry seemed to be “attempting to ensure that their trainees are, at a minimum, exposed to the skills required to properly conduct a suicide risk assessment and address suicidality in treatment.”

The report cited Quinnett’s definition of competence in the field:

“The capacity to conduct [a] one-to-one assessment/intervention interview between a suicidal respondent in a telephonic or face-to-face setting in which the distressed person is thoroughly interviewed regarding current suicidal desire/ideation, capability, intent, reasons for dying, reasons for living, and especially suicide attempt plans, past attempts and protective factors. The interview leads to a risk stratification decision, risk mitigation intervention and a collaborative risk management/safety plan, inclusive of documentation of the assessment and interventions made and/or recommended.”

The AAS report noted the U.S. surgeon general’s “call to action” in 1999 for competency in suicide risk assessment and management, as well as the 2001 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention’s goals for improved graduate school training in suicide care and more suicide care recertification and licensing programs for mental health professions.

The report said that while some states mandate continuing education in topics such as ethics, “there is no similar requirement to ensure that mental health professionals are using current information to assess and treat suicidal patients.”

The report noted the irony that in some places school employees are required to take gatekeeper training to make referrals to mental health professionals for potentially at-risk youth but there is no such requirement for the mental health professionals. “It is incomprehensible that, in many states, a teacher is now required to have more training on suicide warning signs and risk factors than the mental health professionals to whom he or she is directing potentially suicidal students,” the report said.

READ MORE: New Plan for Preventing Suicides in Tompkins County

The task force said there are inherent dangers in referring suicidal people to mental health professionals who are not adequately trained. If these individuals do not feel they receive effective treatment, the report said, they may drop out, become discouraged about the usefulness of treatment, and become at even higher risk for suicide.

The task force made five recommendations “to ensure that mental health professionals are properly trained and competent in evaluating and managing suicidal patients, the most common behavioral emergency situation encountered in clinical practice.”

  1. Accrediting organizations must include suicide-specific education and skill acquisition as part of their requirements for postbaccalaureate degree program accreditation.
  2. State licensing boards must require suicide-specific continuing education as a requirement for the renewal of every mental health professional’s license.
  3. State and federal legislation should be enacted requiring health care systems and facilities receiving state or federal funds to show evidence that mental health professionals in their systems have had explicit training in suicide risk detection, assessment, management, treatment, and prevention.
  4. Accreditation and certification bodies for hospital and emergency department settings must verify that staff members have the requisite training in assessment and management of suicidal patients.
  5. Individuals without appropriate graduate or professional training and supervised experience should not be entrusted with the assessment and management of suicidal patients.

The Sophie Fund asked Quinnett on March 8 whether any progress had been made in implementing the recommendations in the decade since the report was issued.

“I am unaware of significant changes in the training of clinicians at the graduate level where It needs to happen. There are a few people here and there teaching a seminar or maybe one class in one school of social work or psychology, but to my knowledge any training to really prepare students for practice is offered only though postgraduate seminars, workshops, and proprietary offerings. Practitioners continue to behave as if they don’t need this training. Thus, the consumer, in my view, remains at avoidable risk.”

New Plan for Preventing Suicides in Tompkins County

The Tompkins County Suicide Prevention Coalition on February 24 unanimously adopted a three-year strategic plan guided by a vision “for a community where no lives are lost to suicide” and using data, science, and collaborations to implement effective strategies.

T-shirts for the Greater Ithaca “Out of the Darkness” Walk, September 18, 2021

The plan noted that suicide continues to be the second leading cause of death among Americans aged 10-34, and in Tompkins County approximately half of the population is under 30.

“We believe that the persistent rise in the U.S. suicide rate over the past two decades demands a public health response from communities across the nation,” the plan stated. It said that since 2016, Tompkins County has averaged 12 suicide deaths per year. Another 1,600 parents, children, siblings, friends, and spouses may have been negatively impacted by resulting psychological, spiritual, and/or financial loss, it added.

The plan seeks to improve the quality and enhance the use of data sources and systems for suicide prevention in Tompkins County. It proposes the development of a data collection infrastructure to regularly collect timely, high quality, and interpretable data on those at risk of suicide. It calls for a county dashboard that integrates data from multiple sources for the purposes of surveillance, monitoring program/policy impact, and informing the coalition’s planning and activities.

The plan’s second goal is to advance quality improvement for suicide care in all Tompkins County healthcare and behavioral health settings. It seeks to promote and facilitate the implementation of the Zero Suicide Model in the county’s major healthcare and behavioral health settings as well as in primary care practices and clinical therapy practices. The plan calls for the formation of a Zero Suicide Work Group comprised of health and mental health providers, and funding for a coordinator to manage and assist education, training, and other collaborative activities.

Another goal is to reduce suicide attempts in the youth population, including students attending local colleges, through suicide awareness activities and “gatekeeper” training programs.

The plan seeks to reduce access to lethal means for suicide within high-risk demographic populations as determined by national, state, and local data. It calls for suicide prevention awareness programming related to suicide death by firearms and suicide death by drug overdose.

Finally, the plan seeks to advocate for policies and practices designed to prevent suicides in the community and to request support and funding from government agencies and nonprofit organizations. The plan said the coalition would support legislation in the New York State Legislature for full funding for the enhancement of crisis response services aligned with the introduction of the 988 suicide prevention lifeline number in 2022.

The plan said that the coalition is committed to measuring the results of its strategic plan and making them public. The coalition drafted its strategic plan with the support of the Suicide Prevention Center of New York.

The Suicide Prevention Coalition was founded in 2017 by 40 health agencies, community organizations, and individual members who share a determination to prevent suicide deaths in Tompkins County. “The coalition draws inspiration and purpose from The Watershed Declaration, a call to action by Tompkins County mental health leaders to renew our community’s commitment to suicide prevention,” the plan said.