Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative

Transcription

1 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report, Year One Center for Public Health and Health Policy December 2012

2 Garrett Lee Smith Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Annual Evaluation Report Year 1 December 2012 Co-Investigator/Program Evaluator Sara Wakai, PhD Assistant Professor, Center for Public Health and Health Policy Department of Medicine University of Connecticut Health Center 263 Farmington Ave. Farmington, CT Office: Fax: swakai@uchc.edu Principal Investigator Robert H. Aseltine, Jr., PhD Professor, Division of Behavioral Sciences and Community Health Director, Institute for Public Health Research University of Connecticut Health Center 263 Farmington Avenue, MC 3910 Farmington, CT Office: (860) Fax (860) aseltine@uchc.edu Center for Public Health and Health Policy 99 Ash Street, 2 nd Floor; MC 7160 East Hartford, Connecticut 06108

3 Acknowledgement The principal investigator and co-investigator/evaluator would like to thank Andrea Duarte, MSW, MPH, LCSW who is the Project Manager of the Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative (CCSPI) at the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), for the opportunity to conduct this evaluation. We are also very grateful to Connecticut Center for Prevention, Wellness and Recovery for their leadership and administrative support: Judith Stonger, Cathy Sisco, and Corrine King. In addition, we greatly appreciate the expertise of Laurel Buchanan at the Institute for Public Health Research, for preparing and monitoring the SPEAKS-S (Student Version) and SPEAKS-F/S (Faculty/Staff Version). Connie Cantor impressed us again with her editing and formatting talents. A special thank you goes to the representatives of the sub-grantee campuses, Regional Action Councils, and community organizations who, among numerous other responsibilities, attended trainings and prepared for the administration of SPEAKS-S, SPEAKS-F/S, and NCHA on their campuses. Thank you to the CCSPI and Connecticut Suicide Advisory Boards members who attended meetings, completed surveys, and contributed their time and knowledge to this evaluation.

4 Table of Contents Executive Summary....i to iii Introduction...1 Purpose...1 Background and Significance...1 Sub-Grantees...2 Evaluation Design...3 Process Evaluation...3 Outcome Evaluation Impact Evaluation...28 Summary...34 Conclusion...34 References...34 Appendices Appendix A: Satisfaction Survey Appendix B: Connect Training Results (June 2012)...37 Appendix C: Connect Training Results (August 2012)...47 Appendix D: Strategic Planning Meeting Minutes Appendix E: SPEAKS-S...61 Appendix F: SPEAKS-F/S Appendix G: NCHA...79 Appendix H: Binder Table of Contents...91 Appendix I: Evaluation Matrix...93

5 Executive Summary Purpose This evaluation is being conducted by the Center for Public Health and Health Policy (CPHHP) at the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC). The evaluation is designed to assess the Garrett Lee Smith Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative (CCSPI). The purpose of the CCSPI is to develop and enhance sustainable evidence-based, culturally competent suicide prevention and mental health promotion policies, practices and programs at institutions of higher education statewide with the goal of reducing suicide contemplation, suicide attempts and suicide deaths of young adult students ages 18 to 24. The CCSPI is funded by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), with the support of the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA). DMHAS has contracted with Wheeler Clinic s Connecticut Center for Prevention, Wellness and Recover (CCPWR) to provide administrative support to the CCSPI, as well as evidence-based training and technical assistance to the sub-grantees. Training and technical assistance will be conducted in collaboration with the national Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC), the official technical assistance provider to federal GLS grantees. DMHAS has also contracted with UCHC to evaluate this initiative in conjunction with the federal cross-site evaluator, ICF International, Inc. Awarded campuses and community agencies will work with DMHAS and its partners to assess gaps in services and implement evidence-based strategies appropriate for their unique campus needs. Sub-Grantees Campuses and Community Organizations. In January 2012, the CCSPI released the Request for Proposals (RFP) to announce funding to establish or expand evidence-based strategies to reduce suicide on Connecticut college campuses. The RFP was distributed via prevention listservs managed by CCWPR. Listserv recipients were asked to forward the RFP announcement to potentially interested parties. The proposals were reviewed in February 2012 by the GLS-CCSPI advisory committee. CCSPI announced the sub-grantees in March Four campuses were awarded $75,000 to be used over a three year period (March 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014). The sub-grantee campuses are: Connecticut College: New London, Connecticut Manchester Community College: Manchester, Connecticut Norwalk Community College: Norwalk, Connecticut Sacred Heart University: Fairfield, Connecticut Regional Action Councils (RACs). In addition to the institutions of higher education, CCSPI has funded five Regional Action Councils (RACs) since communities have a significant influence on the college experience. The RACs will facilitate the community-level implementation of the evidence-based Connect Suicide Prevention/Intervention Model, Connect Postvention and the QPR Gatekeeper Program. The Regional Coordinators will receive $20,000 per year for three years to build community capacity and infrastructure to prevent suicide and promote mental health, i

6 prioritizing but not limited to, young adults years-old. Funds will be used to support training expenses and mini-grants to communities to support the development or enhancement of evidencebased suicide prevention, intervention and response strategies listed on the Suicide Prevention Resource Center Best Practice Registry. The sub-grantee RACs are: Region 1: Southwest, Regional Youth/Adult Social Action (RYASAP) Region 2: South Central, Greater Valley Substance Abuse Action Council (VSAAC) Region 3: Eastern, Southeastern Regional Action Council (SERAC) Region 4: North Central, Capital Area Substance Abuse Council (CASAC) Region 5: Northwest, Housatonic Valley Coalition Against Substance Abuse (HVCASA) Evaluation Design The evaluation is being conducted by the Center for Public Health and Health Policy (CPHHP) at the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC). The evaluation was designed to address the three objectives of CCSPI which are: Objective One. Strengthen State and campus capacity and infrastructure in support of mental health promotion and suicide prevention Objective Two. Develop, enhance, implement, and sustain evidence-based, culturally competent suicide prevention practices on college campuses across the state for young adult students age 18 to 24. Objective Three. Conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the initiative to determine whether progress towards objectives is being achieved and/or adjustments are needed. The evaluation design consists of three evaluation components (e.g. process, outcome and impact). The purpose of the process evaluation was to measure programmatic activities and collaborative efforts at the State, campus and community levels related to expanding and enhancing the CCSPI. To this end, the CCSPI coordinated a Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Kick-Off, collaborated with the Connecticut Healthy Campus Initiative (CHCI) to co-sponsor five professional development meetings, sponsored/co-sponsored trainings, established the CTSAB, GLS Advisory Committee, and developed several Listservs. Participants were asked to complete satisfaction surveys at the conclusion of the Kick-Off, professional development meetings and trainings. The Outcome Evaluation component was designed to measure the Cross-Site Evaluation Tools. The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act (GLSMA) requires grantees to participate in the cross-site evaluation. The purpose of the cross-site evaluation is to obtain consistent data across grantee sites so they can be analyzed to provide a comprehensive assessment of program effectiveness. SAMHSA selected ICF International, a research and evaluation consulting firm, as the contractor to design the cross-site evaluation and provide technical assistance and training for State/Tribal grantees in implementing the cross-site evaluation. The impact evaluation component is designed to measure long-term program effects. Campuses administered the Suicide Prevention Exposure, Awareness and Knowledge Survey (SPEAKS)-S ii

7 (Student Version), Suicide Prevention Exposure, Awareness and Knowledge Survey (SPEAKS)-F/S (Faculty/Staff Version) and the National College Health Assessment (NCHA) in the fall of 2012 and will administer them again in the spring of The SPEAKS-S and SPEAKS-F/S are being programmed by CPHHP to be administered via Survey Monkey. Sub-grantee campuses have been informed that they must apply for IRB (or equivalent) approval and submit data sharing agreement letters to CPHHP. iii

8 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Introduction Purpose Annual Evaluation Report - Year 1 The purpose of the Garrett Lee Smith Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative (CCSPI) is to develop and enhance sustainable evidence-based, culturally competent suicide prevention and mental health promotion policies, practices and programs at institutions of higher education statewide with the goal of reducing suicide contemplation, suicide attempts and suicide deaths of young adult students ages 18 to 24. The CCSPI is funded by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), with the support of the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) (Grant No.: SM ). Background and Significance The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial (GLS) Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 21, The law was named in memory of Senator Gordon H. Smith s son, a 21 yearold college student, Garrett, who died by suicide on September 8, The bill was authored by a bipartisan, bicameral group of Congressmen intent on curbing the rate of youth suicide in the United States. The GLS Act enables states, institutions of higher education, and Native American Tribes to develop suicide prevention and intervention programs. On August 1, 2011, the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), was awarded a three year grant from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) State Suicide Prevention Program to support CCSPI. The overall goal is to develop and enhance sustainable evidence-based, culturally competent suicide prevention and mental health promotion policies, practices and programs at institutions of higher education statewide to reduce suicide contemplation, attempts and deaths of students attending college in Connecticut ages 18 to 24. The CCSPI will use SAMHSA s Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF), a campus-community coalition-driven expansion of the public health model, the national Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC)/JED Foundation s Comprehensive Approach to Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Promotion, and evidence-based suicide prevention and mental health promotion practices to build campus infrastructures and increase capacity to address recommendations identified in the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, National Prevention Strategy, Connecticut Comprehensive Suicide Prevention Plan, and by the Connecticut Suicide Advisory Board (CTSAB). A subcommittee of the CTSAB, named the GLS-CCSPI, will serve as the advisory board to the CCSPI, providing strategic and operational guidance to staff and partners, ensuring that the initiative addresses the needs of students at risk and satisfies the requirements of the federal grant. DMHAS has contracted with Wheeler Clinic s Connecticut Center for Prevention, Wellness and Recover (CCPWR) to provide administrative support to the CCSPI, as well as evidence-based 1

9 2 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 training and technical assistance to the sub-grantees. Training and technical assistance will be conducted in collaboration with the national Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC), the official technical assistance provider to federal GLS grantees. DMHAS has also contracted with The Center for Public Health and Health Policy (CPHHP) at the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC) to evaluate this initiative in conjunction with the federal cross-site evaluator, ICF International, Inc. Awarded campuses and community agencies will work with DMHAS and its partners to assess gaps in services and implement evidence-based strategies appropriate for their unique campus needs. Campus faculty and staff, peer educators, student organizations, cultural centers and others will be engaged to participate in related health and wellness strategies. Sub-Grantees Campuses and Community Organizations. In January 2012, the CCSPI released the Request for Proposals (RFP) to announce funding to establish or expand evidence-based strategies to reduce suicide on Connecticut college campuses. The RFP was distributed via prevention listservs managed by CCWPR. Listserv recipients were asked to forward the RFP announcement to potentially interested parties. The proposals were reviewed in February 2012 by the GLS-CCSPI advisory committee. CCSPI announced the sub-grantees in March Four campuses were awarded $75,000 to be used over a three year period (March 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014). The sub-grantee campuses are: Connecticut College: New London, Connecticut Manchester Community College: Manchester, Connecticut Norwalk Community College: Norwalk, Connecticut Sacred Heart University: Fairfield, Connecticut Regional Action Councils (RACs). In addition to the institutions of higher education, CCSPI has funded five Regional Action Councils (RACs) since communities have a significant influence on the college experience. The RACs are uniquely positioned to be sub-grantees given that one of their primary purposes is to develop and coordinate needed mental health promotion services statewide. The RACs will facilitate the community-level implementation of the evidence-based Connect Suicide Prevention/Intervention Model, Connect Postvention and the QPR Gatekeeper Program. The Regional Coordinators will receive $20,000 per year for three years to build community capacity and infrastructure to prevent suicide and promote mental health, prioritizing but not limited to, young adults years-old. Funds will be used to support training expenses and mini-grants to communities to support the development or enhancement of evidence-based suicide prevention, intervention and response strategies listed on the Suicide Prevention Resource Center Best Practice Registry. The sub-grantee RACs are: Region 1: Southwest, Regional Youth/Adult Social Action (RYASAP) Region 2: South Central, Greater Valley Substance Abuse Action Council (VSAAC) Region 3: Eastern, Southeastern Regional Action Council (SERAC) Region 4: North Central, Capital Area Substance Abuse Council (CASAC) Region 5: Northwest, Housatonic Valley Coalition Against Substance Abuse (HVCASA)

10 Evaluation Design Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 The evaluation is being conducted by the Center for Public Health and Health Policy (CPHHP) at UConn Health Center (UCHC). The evaluation design uses a comprehensive framework detailed in the handbook Understanding Evaluation: The Way to Better Prevention Programs which was developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Education (Muraskin, 1993). The model espouses three evaluation components: process, outcome and impact. The process evaluation focuses on program plans, activities, materials, etc., while the program is being implemented. This component assesses the appropriateness of the program and allows for feedback and programmatic adjustments. The outcome component examines immediate or direct effects of the program on individuals and/or the environment. The impact component emphasizes long-term program effects. The goal of the CCSPI is to reduce suicide contemplation, attempts and deaths of students ages years attending college in Connecticut and is designed to measure whether the CCSPI funded initiatives led to intended changes. The evaluation was designed to address the three objectives of CCSPI which are: Objective One. Objective Two. Strengthen State and campus capacity and infrastructure in support of mental health promotion and suicide prevention Develop, enhance, implement, and sustain evidence-based, culturally competent suicide prevention practices on college campuses across the state for young adult students age 18 to 24. Objective Three. Conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the initiative to determine whether progress towards objectives is being achieved and/or adjustments are needed. Process Evaluation The purpose of the process evaluation was to measure programmatic activities and collaborative efforts at the State, campus and community levels related to expanding and enhancing the CCSPI. To this end, the CCSPI coordinated a Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Kick-Off, collaborated with the Connecticut Healthy Campus Initiative (CHCI) to co-sponsor five professional development meetings, and sponsored/co-sponsored trainings. The process evaluation employed several measures to assess progress. A brief survey was administered at the conclusion of the Kick-Off to gauge satisfaction with the event. Participants were asked to complete satisfaction surveys at the conclusion of professional development meetings and trainings. Table 1 presents attendance at these events. 3

11 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 1 CCSPI Program and Professional Development Attendance Event Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Kick-Off 71 Addressing Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors in Substance Abuse Treatment - Tip 50 and Connecticut Liquor Laws 30 How to Gain Support From College Administrators 21 Recognizing and Responding to Suicide Risk in Primary Care on Campus 48 Question Persuade and Refer Training of Trainers 29 Connect- Prevention Campus Community Training (June 2012) 24 Connect- Prevention Campus Community Training (August 2012) 19 Professional Development: Addressing Cultural Competence for Collegiate Professionals 23 Professional Development: Active Duty and Veteran College Students Substance Abuse and Mental Health 31 Professional Development: Interactive Screening Programs 28 n Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Kick-Off On April 4, 2012, the CCSPI hosted the Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Kick-Off. The CCSPI invited guests from institutions of higher education, state agencies, and community organizations via listservs. Seventy-one guests attended the event. Carol Meredith, MPA, CPP-R, Acting Director of the Prevention and Health Promotion Unit at DMHAS welcomed the audience and introduced the CCSPI and the implementation of the Jed Model. The Key Note presentations included: an overview of the Jed Foundation and the Love is Louder campaign by John MacPhee (Executive Director, Jed Foundation); a discussion on the comprehensive approach to suicide prevention and mental health promotion by Victor Schwartz, MD (Medical Director, Jed Foundation) and; a presentation of the Student Support Network, an evidence based approach to supporting at risk students on the SPRC Best Practices Registry by Charles Morse, MA, LMHC (Director of Student Development and Counseling, Worcester Polytechnic Institute). Andrea Duarte MSW, MPH, LCSW, Behavioral Health Program Manager provided an overview of the CCSPI and introduced the Garrett Lee Smith grant sub-grantees. At the conclusion of the event, attendees were asked to complete a brief satisfaction survey to provide feedback on the quality of the content and presentation of the Kick-Off (Appendix A). Twenty-six attendees completed the survey for a response rate of 37 percent. The satisfaction survey consisted of ten closed-ended questions with responses on a scale of one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree), two open-ended questions, and an opportunity to offer additional comments. The respondents reported that they were very satisfied with the presentation as noted in Table 2. All of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the items The content was relevant to my work on mental health promotion and suicide prevention, I will share the knowledge I have learned with others, The presentation included teaching methods that were effective, and Mastery of the topic 4

12 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 was demonstrated in the presentation. Responses to the open-ended questions were reviewed and categorized based on salient themes (Table 3). Information of greatest value to participants included the Jed Foundation Model, resources, training, programs directed at specific groups of students, and the Love is Louder campaign. Participants reported they planned to use the information they gained from the Kick-Off by sharing information with staff, enriching their current programs, and enhancing their GLS initiatives. The request for any additional comments included positive responses such as All of the information and resources were excellent! and As we begin implementation of the CCSPI grant many of the ideas and training opportunities presented will help in designing our campus initiatives. Table 2 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Results, April, 2012 CCSPI Kick-Off (n = 26) Question Mean SD The presented information broadened my understanding mental health promotion and suicide prevention The content was relevant to my work on mental health promotion and suicide prevention This opportunity has helped me connect with other mental health promotion and suicide prevention professionals I will share the knowledge that I have learned with others The presentation was well organized The presentation included teaching methods that were effective The presentation included an interactive style to engage participants Mastery of the topic was demonstrated in the presentation Difference of opinion was respected throughout the presentation The presentation was cultural sensitivity Range: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 5

13 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 3 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Open-Ended Responses April, 2012 CCSPI Kick-Off (n = 26) Theme Open-Ended Responses What specific information was of greatest value to you? Jed Foundation Model All of it. Charlie made it seem very doable. Loved Charles talk. We will be initiating SSN in the fall. I found the presentation on the SSN program very interesting. Jed model - WPI model Giving specific examples of how to implement the circle The SSN program at WPI. Review of Jed resources that were highlighted. Evidence based model presented by the Jed folks. The practical application of the bubble by the WPI rep. He was very interesting and engaging. Resources Trainings Specific Groups of Students Love is Louder Everything was relevant. Good to hear about SSN. All of it! Websites and resources Resource info Resources All of the information and resources were excellent! Program ideas and resources The resources that are available. Ideas for suicide prevention on campus. Programs Engaging and training students to seek out those who need help, available websites. Ways to help college students Gatekeeper training student support network Specific college intervention/training program Interventions for veterans/soldiers return from combat to the classroom. Suicidal tendencies being increased in junior, senior and grads. So much focus on freshman. Need better continuity for older students. The campaign of Love is Loud. 6

14 Theme Open-Ended Responses Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 How will you utilize the information you have learned to enhance your work related to mental health promotion and suicide prevention? Share with Staff Programmatic Enrichment Enhance GLS Grant Initiative Discuss with Student Affairs, Counseling Bring to director, MD, APRNs, Student Health, Intercampus gathering, Public Safety, Health Services, Counseling, administration. Share with staff. Bring back to administration. New initiatives, share with other staff members Can try to build a similar program on my campus. Create similar programs on my campus Steal some of the topics for use on our campus. Ideas for suicide prevention on campus. Implement new strategies. Focus on bubble chart and start from bottom up. Are now trainers in campus connect and will be rolling it out along with SSN. Enrich current work given thought to new prevention with current suggestions. Example, prevention help line phone number cards. Integrate program into our community Campus health and wellness programs. Public education, distribution of resources, networking Think about how we can be a part of the infrastructure. Will be offering SSN next fall. Program ideas for grants Integrate into grant As we begin implementation of the CCSPI grant many of the ideas and training opportunities presented will help in designing our campus initiatives Please write any additional comments. Positive Comments Excellent information. I loved what CCSU came up with for the Kick- Off event. Great initiatives. Enjoyed hearing about the student support network. Awesome. WPI SSN Kudos, great event! Great program. Well organized the flow was good despite the technical difficulties. Information was valuable and pertinent. Looking forward to the wrapup event. 7

15 Monthly CCSPI-CHCI Meetings Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 During the spring 2012 and fall 2012 semesters, the CCSPI and CHCI steering committees collaborated to co-sponsor monthly professional development meetings. Professional development meetings were facilitated by guest speakers who provided training on topics identified as important by CHCI and CCSPI members. The five professional development meetings were scheduled for three hour time periods and included presentations, group activities, and discussions. April CHCI-CCSPI Professional Development. At the April joint CHCI-CCSPI professional development meeting, Maureen Pasko, Suicide Prevention Coordinator, VA Connecticut Healthcare presented Addressing Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors in Substance Abuse Treatment - Tip 50 and distributed a Tip 50 manual. The training consisted of video vignettes focusing on suicide assessment and intervention in substance abuse treatment settings. The second portion of the April Meeting focused on the Connecticut liquor laws presented by Jack Suchy from the Liquor Control Commission. Both presentations allowed time for group discussions, questions and answers. May CHCI-CCSPI Professional Development. In May, the professional develop topic was How to Gain Support from College Administrators. Three college administrators from diverse types of institutions (e.g. public, 4-year, 2-year) shared their experiences on ways they have collaborated with a variety of entities to promote prevention efforts on their campuses. September 2012 CHCI-CCSPI Professional Development. In September, the professional development meeting topic was Addressing Cultural Competence for Collegiate Professionals. Marc Chartier from the Multicultural Leadership Institute (MLI) presented on multiculturalism focusing on the importance of cultural awareness when hosting trainings/events and while counseling students. After Chartier s presentation, a representative from the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling informed the coalition about their poster design contest. November 2012 CHCI-CCSPI Professional Development. In November, members of the VA Connecticut Healthcare and the Connecticut Army National Guard (CTARNG) Behavioral Health Team presented on Active Duty and Veteran College Students Substance Abuse and Mental Health. Latonya Hart, from the VA, shared information on the VA s suicide prevention programs and Todd Perkins presented on the substance abuse treatment programs offered by the VA Hospital. Major Javier Alvarado, Dr. Lisa Miceli, Susan Tobenkin, Michael Dutko, Specialist Kristy Soucy, and Sergeant First Class Claude Campbell shared information on the substance abuse trends and suicide and substance abuse prevention programs the military has available. All speakers provided coalition members with materials and resources to assist active duty and veteran students. December 2012 CHCI-CCSPI Professional Development. In December, Kimberly Gleason from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) presented on the foundation s Interactive Screening Program (ISP). Gleason provided an overview of the ISP, demonstrated the tool and shared funding opportunities available through the local AFSP chapter. Dr. Meredith Yuhas from the University of St. Joseph highlighted ways the implementation of the ISP has been successful on her campus. CCPWR led a discussion of the online screening and education programs available for substance abuse prevention. A representative from the Jordan Matthew Porco Memorial 8

16 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Foundation presented on their Fresh Check Day and discussed participation requirements for campuses interested in bringing the program to their campus. At the conclusion of each professional development meeting, members were asked to complete a satisfaction survey (Appendix A). The satisfaction survey consisted of ten closed-ended questions with responses on a scale of one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree), two open-ended questions, and an opportunity to offer additional comments. As noted in the following tables (Tables 4 15), respondents reported satisfaction or strong satisfaction with the professional development presentations. Responses to the open-ended questions were reviewed and when applicable categorized into salient themes. Table 4 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Results, April 2012 Tip 50 Professional Development (n = 19) Question Mean SD The presented information broadened my understanding mental health promotion and suicide prevention The content was relevant to my work on mental health promotion and suicide prevention This opportunity has helped me connect with other mental health promotion and suicide prevention professionals I will share the knowledge that I have learned with others The presentation was well organized The presentation included teaching methods that were effective The presentation included an interactive style to engage participants Mastery of the topic was demonstrated in the presentation Differences of opinion was respected throughout the presentation The presentation was cultural sensitivity Range: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 9

17 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 5 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Open-Ended Responses, April 2012 Tip 50 Professional Development (n = 19) Theme Open Ended Responses What specific information was of greatest value to you? Safety Plan Setting a safety plan, and what questions to ask someone if you think suicide maybe considered Safety planning Safety plan-the video Safety plan Safety plan Info on safety plan specific details- resource list Protective factors and safety planning Reinforced and validated current work. Liked the discussion and steps for safety planning Screening and Intervention Risk factors of clients Extended taking action Information on steps. I worked with the VA for 8 years and have extensive training in suicide assessment thanks to DMHAS Techniques for bringing up suicidality with a client Resources Tools and resources available Video with Antonio was good Manual Other As a community organization not client based so the material wasn t very relevant to work. How will you utilize the information you have learned to enhance your work related to mental health promotion and suicide prevention? Share with colleagues Share with treatment counselors Training Share information with key staff members with enhanced student contact or VA student. Share with my team. Think about how to get the campus involved Share knowledge with others Share with counseling staff Take back to the counselors Share with staff regarding safety planning Presentations and training. Awareness and education 10

18 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Theme Open Ended Responses Enhance Student Support Reminded me to explore beyond the referral for substance abuse. I work closely with Veterans on my campus so I will need to use Tip 50 as a resource. x x I routinely ask about suicide during sessions. I will use it when I get a positive response. Other Not sure Please write any additional comments. Additional Comments I would have been interested in hearing more about the relationship to his veteran status and being a student Edit the panel out of the video Good training Well done? Thank you! Presenter was good. Very well done presentation. Table 6 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey, April 2012 Connecticut Liquor Laws, (n = 8) Question Mean SD The presented information broadened my understanding about underage drinking prevention The content was relevant to my work on underage drinking prevention This opportunity has helped me connect with other underage drinking prevention professionals I will share the knowledge that I have learned with others Was well organized Used teaching methods that were effective Used an interactive style to engage participants Demonstrated mastery of the topic Respected differences of opinion Demonstrated cultural sensitivity Range: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 11

19 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 7 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Open-Ended Responses, April 2012 Connecticut Liquor Laws, (n = 8) Open Ended Responses What specific information was of greatest value to you? Alcohol laws All Very helpful to understand laws and possible legislative changes Methods students use to get around the law Sales of alcohol How will you utilize the topic information to enhance the work for your campus-community coalition? Share with community Pass along information to students in upcoming event on 4/30 at SCSU Share with other co-workers Reference co-occurring disorders Related knowledge and hand out of PowerPoint with Campus Safety and Housing Additional Comments Jack is very informative Very informative and beneficial This was very informative and disturbing at the same time! Table 8 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Results, May 2012 How to Increase Administrator Support for Campus Prevention Efforts: Round Table Discussion, (n = 9) Question Mean SD The presented information broadened my understanding about mental health promotion and suicide prevention The content was relevant to my work on mental health promotion and suicide prevention This opportunity has helped me connect with other mental health promotion and suicide prevention professionals I will share the knowledge that I have learned with others Was well organized Used teaching methods that were effective Used an interactive style to engage participants Demonstrated mastery of the topic Range: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 12

20 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Question Mean SD Respected differences of opinion Demonstrated cultural sensitivity Range: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Table 9 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Open-Ended Responses, May 2012 How to Increase Administrator Support for Campus Prevention Efforts: Round Table Discussion (n = 9) Open-Ended Responses What specific information was of greatest value to you? Ways to engage institutions with data Information on how vice presidents handle communication, advocacy with leadership. Ways to work on getting the message out for resources. The panel was great very knowledgeable and helpful Good panel. Good ideas How will you utilize the information you have learned to enhance your work related to mental health promotion and suicide prevention? Keep coming to CHCI. It takes time. I am committed to helping make a contribution towards suicide prevention efforts and have a desire to work on more training prevention efforts, example, Active Minds. Please write any additional comments. This has been a great networking experience for the council and I have learned so much from each speaker and member. We hope to provide something ourselves. Thank you for all your work, dedication and commitment towards making our campuses and communities safer places. Mary Kate is awesome! 13

21 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 10 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Results, September 2012 Addressing Cultural Competence for Collegiate Professionals (n = 14) Question Mean SD The presented information broadened my understanding about multiculturalism The content was relevant to my work This opportunity has helped me connect with other prevention professionals I will share the knowledge that I have learned with others The speaker was well organized The speaker used teaching methods that were effective The speaker used an interactive style to engage participants The speaker demonstrated mastery of the topic The speaker respected differences of opinion The speaker demonstrated cultural sensitivity Range: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Table 11 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Open-Ended Responses, September 2012 Addressing Cultural Competence for Collegiate Professionals (n = 14) Open Ended Responses What specific information was of greatest value to you? This was a great review of material I learned long ago Nothing in particular Focus on reflecting your own perceptions Learning that even simple language we use with clients can be discriminating Being reminded to pay attention to cultural diversity as it effects clinical practice That no matter what you will always be prejudice, you constantly have to be aware and willing to grow. This was a great review of material I learned long ago How will you use this information to enhance your work related to mental health promotion and suicide prevention and/or underage/high-risk alcohol use? I won t; just created renewed awareness It helped me think about power between staff and students. As a clinician I am mindful of many cultures. The NCC campus provides diversity Be more mindful of language I use 14

22 Open Ended Responses Share with colleagues Make sure material is as multi-culturally diverse as possible. Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Please write any additional comments in the box below There was very little discussion about suicide which was on the agenda I found the material to be particularly basic and didn t really address issues of mental health, access and serving under represented populations. I also was extremely troubled that the only time the presenter had questions about race he spoke directly to the woman of color in the room. I thought it was going to touch more upon suicide and alcohol/substance abuse. The training was excellent. I got a lot out of the comments and questions from the attendees as well. Would have preferred more advanced information and a more dynamic speaker Discussions were great There was very little discussion about suicide which was on the agenda Table 12 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Results, November 2012 Active Duty and Veteran College Students Substance Abuse and Mental Health (n = 10) Question Mean SD The presented information broadened my understanding of mental health or prevention The content was relevant to my work in mental health or prevention This opportunity has helped me connect with other mental health or prevention professionals I will share the knowledge that I have learned with others The presentation was well organized The presentation included teaching methods that were effective The presentation included an interactive style to engage participants Mastery of the topic was demonstrated in the presentation Differences of opinion was respected throughout the presentation The presentation was cultural sensitivity Range: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 15

23 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 13 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Open-Ended Responses, November 2012 Active Duty and Veteran College Students Substance Abuse and Mental Health (n = 10) Open Ended Responses What specific information was of greatest value to you? General various branches; statistics and tools used to screen Military culture Learning about the branches & suicide Px resources available Resources for vets Resources Contact information and programs for soldiers Educating me on what resources are available so I can share that information Availability of services How will you use this information to enhance your work related to mental health promotion and suicide prevention and/or underage/high-risk alcohol use? Work with veteran clubs on campus Very helpful and great refresher I will share what I have learned with others at my school and hopefully bring some of these resources to campus Take it back to faculty and try to incorporate Working with military students on campus That the veteran population may have different needs and/or ways to address those needs Promote to military/vets To be a resource to people on campus Please write any additional comments in the box below The location was difficult. Challenging to navigate & find. & it should start on time How appropriate to do this training 3 days before Veteran s Day! Wonderful! Little disappointed ppl had to leave during presentation when the trainers give so much!!! Not only today but in their line of work (???) Great presentation. When discussing military I remind people that this is 1st time students have much more military experience than faculty The presentation was excellent and I really feel more agencies would benefit from this information. Fantastic Program 16

24 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 14 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Results, December 2012 Online Screening Programs (n = 13) Question Mean SD The presented information broadened my understanding of mental health or prevention The content was relevant to my work in mental health or prevention This opportunity has helped me connect with other mental health or prevention professionals I will share the knowledge that I have learned with others The presentation was well organized The presentation included teaching methods that were effective The presentation included an interactive style to engage participants Mastery of the topic was demonstrated in the presentation Differences of opinion was respected throughout the presentation The presentation was cultural sensitivity Range: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Table 15 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Open-Ended Responses, December 2012 Online Screening Programs (n = 13) Open Ended Responses What specific information was of greatest value to you? Spreadsheets, handouts ISP & Fresh Check Day Fresh Check Day & ISP Various assessment tools available Discussion of online tools Online tools The Fresh Check Day presentation got me thinking about activities to bring to school The resources for suicide prevention More details about the ISP at St. Joes ISP Suicide prevention online program I loved the Jordan Matthew Presentation (& the online education discussion) 17

25 Open Ended Responses Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 How will you use this information to enhance your work related to mental health promotion and suicide prevention and/or underage/high-risk alcohol use? Bring back to campus to evaluate Have conversations on my campus about ISP Look into having Fresh Check Day Share with peers identifying tools that could be applicable to the department Take it back to agency & school to try and get them on board Inquire with Active Minds on campus about possibility of bringing Fresh Check to Campus Talk with university personnel staff about online programs Look into check in day. Review online programs Please write any additional comments in the box below Too bad people leave early, end of program was excellent! People have plenty of notice to schedule this meeting. end was great Can we alternate substance abuse trainings w/ suicide prevention Community Trainings Recognizing and Responding to Suicide Risk in Primary Care on Campus. For the College Health Symposium III-Networking of Professionals, the CCSPI and the Connecticut College of Health Association of Nurse Directors (CCHAND) co-sponsored Recognizing and Responding to Suicide Risk in Primary Care on Campus in May, The partnership was initiated since CCHAND and CCSPI felt it was a convenient and efficient way to train the attendees many of whom are nurses in student health services on college campuses and have direct contact with students. As part of the symposium, a GLS-CCSPI advisory board member, Maureen Pasko, Suicide Prevention Coordinator, VA Connecticut Healthcare presented Recognizing and Responding to Suicide Risk in Primary Care on Campus (RRSR-PC). Forty-eight individuals attended the 1.5- hour training which consisted of an overview of suicide risk in primary care settings, ways to identify patients at risk for suicide, how to incorporate assessment into regular primary care visits and crisis planning, prevention and intervention. In addition to the PowerPoint presentation, video vignettes, large group discussion, and questions from participants were incorporated into the training. At the conclusion of the training, participants were asked to complete a satisfaction survey. As noted in Table 16, 29 participants responded to the survey (response rate of 60 percent). Not surprisingly, the participants were primarily nurses (89.7 percent) with master s degrees (46.4 percent). The majority currently works in a college or university setting (93.1 percent) and has more than 15 years of experience (72.4 percent). The responses to the close-ended questions indicate a high level of satisfaction with the training (Table 17). Based on the open-ended questions, examples of new skills learned included screening and assessment, and safety planning (Table 18). The respondents also noted modifications they plan to make in the care of patients as a result of training. 18

26 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 16 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey, Frequency and Percent, May 2012 Recognizing and Responding to Suicide Risk in Primary Care on Campus, (n = 29) Item Frequency Percent Profession of Current Practice Physician 0 0 Physician Assistant 0 0 Nurse Other Highest Degree MD 0 0 Masters Bachelors Other Setting of Primary Practice Private Practice 0 0 Hospital 0 0 Out-patient Clinic Employee Assistance Program 0 0 Group Home/Other Residential Facility Jail, Prison, or Other Correctional Institution 0 0 College or University Other 0 0 Number of Years in Practice Less Than 5 Years 0 0 Between 5 and 10 Years Between 11 and 15 Years More than 15 Years Program Met Expectations As expected More than expected Exceeded Current Learning Needs Too Basic Just About Right Too Advanced

27 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 17 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey, Mean and Standard Deviation, May 2012 Recognizing and Responding to Suicide Risk in Primary Care on Campus, (n = 29) Item Mean SD Learned skills from training Competency After Course Course Objectives Clearly Stated Learning Objectives Defined Interactive Sections Appropriate Pocket Card Useful Resource Sheets Appropriate Facilitator Demonstrated Knowledge and Understanding Facilitator Presented Information Clearly (Range: 1-Completely disagree to 4-Completely agree) Overall Impression (Range: 1-Poor to 5-Outstanding) Program Met Expectations (Range: 1-Not at all to 5-Exceeded) Amount of Time Scheduled (Range: 1-Much too short to 5-Much too long) Competency Before Course Able to Initiate and Discuss Suicide Able to Use Algorithm to Identify Patients at Risk Able to Apply Crisis Management Able to Deliver Intervention (Range: 1-Disagree to 10-Agree) 20

28 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 18 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Open Ended Responses, May 2012 Recognizing and Responding to Suicide Risk in Primary Care on Campus, (n = 29) Theme Open Ended Responses Examples of new skills learned at Professional Development Screening and Tools for psychosocial assessment (questions to ask) Assessment Learned brief interview The questions to ask Intent of action only may underestimate lethality if intent not understood Say the word suicide Performing a better suicide assessment Assessment Card Assessment card handout Using the formalized pocket card assessment Learned new # s, esp for veterans. Liked the idea of putting crisis plan on a business card. Safety Plan Make sure student has phone numbers of support people Creating a crisis management plan Video Liked the video vignette What will you do differently in the care of your patients as a result of this training? Screening and Delve more into the patient that provides mixed messages Assessment Look for subtleties of mental health problems, ask more direct questions Be willing to ask questions of pt before just referring to counselor Screen more thoroughly Ask more questions Assess more carefully ask assessment questions Clue into somatic c/o even more than I do I would feel more comfortable in doing more in depth assessment beforehand off to campus counseling. For non-referable patients I would be comfortable doing problem solving with students/patients Safety Plan Improved Communication Additional Comments Always write out the safety plan for file Make sure to develop specific plan Keep card readily available Help put crisis plan on a business card More open to talking about issues with clients Be able to address the issue of depression + suicide more effectively Informative and interesting. Entire time for discussion of case scenarios listed. 21

29 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Question-Persuade-Refer (QPR) Training of Trainers. On August 16, 2012, CCPWR hosted a Question-Persuade-Refer (QPR) Training of Trainers. The Question-Persuade-Refer training, from the QPR Institute, is an evidence-based, widely used gatekeeper training. The curriculum uses data, warning signs and simple steps to train individuals in suicide prevention: question someone exhibiting signs of suicide by asking Are you thinking about killing yourself ; persuade an individual who responds affirmatively or appears at risk to seek treatment and; refer the individual to someone in an intervention role. Members of the CHCI, CCSPI grantees, RACs and community members were invited to attend the training of trainers. Twenty-eight people became trainers and Dave Denino became a master trainer allowing him to train others to become QPR trainers (Tables 19 and 20). Table 19 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey, Mean and Standard Deviation, August 2012 Question-Persuade-Refer (QPR) Training of Trainers (n = 29) Item Mean SD Overall Program Organization Program Content Program Presentation Overall Value Course meet expectations Instructor demonstrated thorough knowledge of subject Instructor s presentation of material Degree course provided practical applications for work Overall evaluation of course (Range: 1-Poor to 5-Outstanding) 22

30 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 20 Professional Development Satisfaction Survey Open-Ended Responses, August 2012 Question-Persuade-Refer (QPR) Training of Trainers (n = 29) Open Ended Responses Ways to utilize the QPR training Hopefully for employees at work and with student leaders and athletes I plan to engage parish nurses in a training in the near future. Once the academic year begins, I will utilize this training with high school youth as part of Life Skills classes Educating students, using practices with individual clients Training gatekeepers at our college We will be presenting this in and around our 20 communities Training community/students on campuses and surrounding towns Training campus community and student leaders As a community trainer Conducting QPR teacher training at the CT Community College On college campuses Training the staff and faculty of my institution I will use it to train staff to provide hope/services and resources to our young adult population who may be at risk for suicide Offering to my community wide organizations and perhaps local schools, physicians, etc I will be utilizing this information immediately with my RA staff Training for college community - RA s, faculty, and staff Working with two colleges in region to offer training to college community. Offer to community, faith based, educational organizations as well. Older adult provider networks - school counselors, faith based etc. - many different sectors Providing community workshops In the prevention agency I work with - within our communities Across my region I would with students who have psychiatric and physical disabilities and often times depressed about their situations Training in the community and schools Being able to train campuses as needed This would be quite appropriate to NCC campus works Training town and school staff, community groups Supporting other trainers in the state - training their campus membership Training statewide as needed under GLS grant 23

31 Open Ended Responses Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Most beneficial about training Great facilitation, excellent step by step content The directness and concrete information to use and teach alters how to de-stigmatize suicide Yes - precise and to the point, easily interpreted Yes, I can see how this would be beneficial to so many community members Empowerment of people to speak about suicide and to educate about prevention and validate taking action The statistics were helpful. I would recommend the training so that prevention could be more prevalent Hands on, experiential exercises and power point presentations It was helpful and good useful tools handed out and explained. Interactive style of presentation Worth the time Its critical to get the message that QPR teachings can save a life It is a quality program and the more people who could learn and teach this knowledge, it could prevent a death Yes, it was all beneficial Excellent opportunity to strengthen our own community resources It s well worth the time to do the training. Great info as well as the curriculum is provided to take back to the office Helps people feel more comfortable knowing what to do and why it s important At end of day they will have basic understanding of QPR Length just right - materials excellent It provides the basic knowledge Every aspect can be applied to any audience Video and sample presentations. This program gave me very good basic knowledge on this topic Information presented will help you save lives Short, sweet, informative, no question on what has to be done The clarity, respect and knowledge tools Yes, the more the merrier Suggestions for future QPR trainings The background information early in the day was most helpful. Issues around language was helpful. When the individual resists referral, what to do Maybe an activity in the morning or introduction of the group to break things up Conduct boot camp via group work or open floor. Don t put people on the spot No, perfect 24

32 Open Ended Responses Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Follow up for certifications Suicide Being Against The Law Twice a year Latino Specific, LGBT, Veterans, Elders, Older adults (40-65) Perform role-play or two. I noticed some materials need to be updated and TOC in binder needs revising - pages are misaligned Connect Prevention/Intervention Model. The Connect training program addresses suicide prevention, intervention and views suicide as a public health problem focusing on the community/ campus as a whole and educates the community/campus to work across systems to build a safety net for people at risk. The curriculum was developed and is operated by National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) New Hampshire and uses lecture, interactive case scenarios, activities, facilitated discussion, printed materials, and best practice protocols. On June 13 to 15, 2012, CCSPI hosted a three-day Connect training and required that GLS higher education sub-grantees send two representatives. Remaining availability was offered to RAC subgrantees. Twenty-five participants attended the training, 24 of whom completed the evaluation component (response rate of 96 percent). Based on results from the evaluation, participants reported a gain in suicide-related knowledge, exhibited desired changes related to attitudes, and a decrease in scores on the stigma scale. Appendix B provides a detailed summary of the June training outcomes based on the Connect evaluation tools. On August 21 to 23, 2012, CCSPI hosted a three-day Connect Prevention Community training and invited EMPS and Regional Action Council representatives. Nineteen participants attend the training, all of whom completed the evaluation component (response rate of 100 percent). Based on results from the evaluation, participants exhibited the desired changes on items related to attitudes and decrease in scores on the stigma scale. Appendix C provides a detailed summary of the August training outcomes based on the Connect evaluation tools. Collaborative Efforts and Outreach Listservs. CCPWR established and co-manages several listservs to facilitate efficient CCSPI communication to a broad audience. The CTSAB listserv and GLS Advisory Committee listserv were developed on January 30, Shortly after the April 10, 2012 GLS Kick-off, CCPWR established the CCSPI grantee listserv that focuses on communication specifically related to the GLS grantees. Communications are also distributed via the CHCI membership listserv and the CHCI community and campus outreach listserv to provide professionals in the field of AOD prevention at institutions of higher education and in the community with information on suicide prevention, intervention and postvention (Table 21). 25

33 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 21 CCSPI Related Listserv Membership Listserv CTSAB 98 GLS Advisory Committee 26 CCSPI Grantee 17 CHCI Membership 149 CHCI Community and Campus Outreach 220 n Connecticut Suicide Advisory Board. The Connecticut Suicide Advisory Board (CTSAB) was established in January 2012 and is comprised of 98 members from institutions of higher education, state agencies, community organizations and mental health facilities. The board was formed as a merger of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) Suicide Advisory Board and the DMHAS Interagency Suicide Prevention Network to facilitate collaborative efforts among state partners for suicide prevention, intervention and postvention. The CTSAB meets monthly for programmatic and strategic planning to address issues related to suicide across the life span in Connecticut. Suicide Prevention Campaign. The CTSAB has developed and disseminated the Connecticut suicide prevention campaign: 1 Word, 1 Voice, 1 Life: Be the 1 to start the conversation. SAMHSA Grantee Meeting and American Association of Suicidology Annual Conference. The SAMHSA Grantee Meeting was held in Baltimore April 16 18, 2012 and provided an opportunity for technical assistance and training. Three GLS team members attended the plenary and break-out sessions and met with the SPRC liaison, ICF liaison and the GLS project officer. CCPWR hosted a table at the Networking Fair and distributed the Connecticut suicide prevention campaign materials: 1 Word, 1 Voice, 1 Life: Be the 1 to start the conversation materials including brochures, bags, T-shirts and posters. Three GLS team members also attended the American Association of Suicidology Annual Conference in Baltimore April 18-21, They attended workshops including Evaluating Suicide Prevention Programs for Evidence of Effectiveness; Blending Public Health and Behavioral Health Approaches in a Statewide Suicide Prevention Program: A Model for Successful Collaboration; Building a Comprehensive Campus Suicide Prevention Program and; Genetic Risk Factors for Suicidal Behavior, and Connect Training. Strategic Planning Meeting. On May 10, 2012, 24 CTSAB members attended the CTSAB Strategic Planning Meeting. The meeting began with a welcome and opening remarks from Andrea Duarte and Tim Marshall. Dr. Robert Aseltine, PI for the CCSPI Evaluation, and Dr. Sara Wakai, CCSPI Evaluator, presented Connecticut and national data on suicide rates, youth risk behavior, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. A CTSAB member, Tom Stein, facilitated a group exercise to identify four issues critical to CTSAB: 1. Who we are (mission), 2. What we do (vision), 3. The problems we face (a declarative statement), 4. Critical issues to consider (ongoing considerations). The afternoon was spent developing work plans based on the outcomes of the group exercise including: dissemination of awareness campaign, revision of the Connecticut comprehensive 26

34 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 suicide prevention plan (2005), and evidence based practice promotion. Nina Rovinelli Heller, PhD, Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Connecticut and member of the National Alliance for Suicide Prevention facilitated drafting a work plan for the committee. Minutes of the Strategic Planning Meeting are in Appendix D. Press Conference. To promote the 1 Word, 1 Voice, 1 Life awareness campaign and promote the launch of the website ( the CTSAB planning committee organized a Press Conference on September 10, 2012-World Suicide Prevention Day at the Connecticut State Capitol. The press conference included prevention statements from survivor families, a prayer from a Connecticut National Guard Chaplain, and a presentation by the DMHAS Commissioner. 371 yellow, blue and orange carnations were donated by the Connecticut Florist Association representing the number of Connecticut lives lost to suicide in The event was video-taped by the Connecticut Television Network ( asp?mbid=19309). Outcome Evaluation The Outcome Evaluation component was designed to measure program effects using the Cross-Site Evaluation Tools. The GLS requires grantees to participate in the cross-site evaluation. The purpose of the cross-site evaluation is to obtain consistent data across grantee sites to provide a comprehensive assessment of program effectiveness. SAMHSA selected ICF International as the contractor to design the cross-site evaluation and provide technical assistance and training for State/Tribal grantees in implementing the cross-site evaluation. Cross-Site Assessment Tools The cross-site evaluation team at ICF International has developed the following assessment tools and posted them and manuals to the Suicide Prevention Data Center (SPDC). Early Identification, Referral and Follow-up (EIRF) Tracks program early identification activities, referrals and follow-ups Early Identification Referral and Follow-up (EIRF) Aggregate Form Tracks program early identification activities, referrals and referral follow-ups during a group evaluation Prevention Strategies Interventions (PSI) Catalogues prevention strategies, describes target population and budget Training Exit Survey (TES) Cover Sheet Identifies number and types of trainings, describes participants Training Utilization and Prevention Survey (TUPS) Consent Form Gathers names for ICF International to contact to deliver the TUP-S 27

35 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Impact Evaluation The impact evaluation component was designed to assess whether GLS funded suicide prevention practices implemented on sub-grantee campuses led to changes in suicide related issues for young adult students ages 18 to 24. Method A GLS sub-grantee requirement is to administer three surveys in the fall of 2012 and the spring of Instruments. Instruments used for the impact evaluation: The SPEAKS-S (Suicide Prevention Exposure, Awareness and Knowledge Survey-Student) is an infrastructure change survey. The SPEAKS-S is a survey for college students and consists of 59 questions and takes about 20 minutes to complete (Appendix E). The SPEAKS-F/S (Suicide Prevention Exposure, Awareness and Knowledge Survey-Faculty and Staff) is an infrastructure change survey. The SPEAKS-F/S is a survey for college faculty and staff and consists of 54 questions and takes about 15 minutes to complete (Appendix F). The National College Health Assessment (NCHA) was developed and is administered by the American College Health Association (ACHA). It is a survey for college students that focuses on health habits, behaviors and perceptions. It consists of 66 questions and takes approximately 25 minutes to complete (Appendix G). Procedure. The CPHHP assisted campuses in obtaining random samples of students. Campuses provided CPHHP with addresses of all students ages 18 to 24. CPHHP generated two nonoverlapping random student samples to reduce the possibility of burdening a student with requests to complete both the SPEAKS-S and NCHA. Campuses sent one student sample to ACHA and administered the SPEAKS-S to the other student sample. Campuses were asked to administer the SPEAKS-F/S to all faculty and staff with addresses. Approximately one week prior to survey distribution, a senior campus administrator ed prospective respondents informing them that the institution was participating in the CCSPI and supported the administration of the surveys. The surveys were distributed from early November to early December, 2012 for about a two to three week period and included a cover letter to provide the following detailed information: Completing the survey is voluntary. Participants may stop filling out the survey at any time. Participants are allowed to omit questions they do not want to answer. Participants must be 18 years of age or older to participate in the survey. Participants should only complete the survey once per administration. (Participants may complete the survey once in the fall of 2012 and once in the spring of 2014.) Responses will be kept confidential and the survey cannot be linked to a participant s name or other sources of personal identification. By participating in the NCHA or SPEAKS-S, students have the option to enter into a drawing for a chance to win one $ gift card as an incentive. 28

36 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Campuses that allowed incentives for faculty and staff, provided an option to enter into a drawing for a chance to win one $ gift card at the end of the SPEAKS-F/S. NCHA - Campuses sent an Excel file of student addresses to ACHA. ACHA ed students a link to the survey with an access code. Electronic survey responses went directly to a secure ACHA database. A campus could not collect surveys electronically and did not have access to individual survey responses from students. Two to three reminders to complete the survey were sent one to two weeks later. The link to the survey was kept active for a two to three week period. ACHA s ing software can track whether a student submits a survey. At the end of the data collection period, ACHA generated a list of participants and randomly selected one winner for the $ gift card. ACHA sent the address of the winner to the CCSPI campus coordinator, who contacted the student. SPEAKS-S and SPEAKS-F/S - SPEAKS-S and SPEAKS-F/S were programmed by a CPHHP researcher to be administered electronically via SurveyMonkey. CPHHP sent the campus contact person one link for the SPEAKS-S and one link for the SPEAKS-F/S. Campuses ed the survey links to a randomly selected sample of students and all the faculty and staff. Electronic survey responses went directly to a SurveyMonkey database. A campus could not collect surveys and did not have access to individual survey responses from students, faculty or staff. At least one reminder to complete the survey was sent one to two weeks later. The link to the survey was kept active for a two to three week period. Data were retrieved from the SurveyMonkey database and are stored on a UCHC server. Respondents who participated in the SPEAKS-S and eligible respondents who participated in the SPEAKS-F/S were offered the opportunity to enter into a drawing. Each campus offered students a chance to win one $ gift card. Faculty and staff at campuses that allowed them to participate in the drawing had a chance to win one $ gift card. To enter into the drawing, respondents had the option of submitting an on-line form with their contact information at the end of the survey. Contact information was collected separately from survey responses by SurveyMonkey. Once the administration of the survey was complete, one student name and one faculty/staff name (of those who are allowed to participate in the drawing) were randomly selected and the names were given to the CCSPI campus coordinator who contacted the winners. The contact information was deleted from the electronic files once the incentives were distributed. Sample Size Recommended sample size was based in part by the number of students ages 18 to 24 at each campus (Table 22). Response rates for the SPEAKS-S, SPEAKS-F/S, and NCHA are listed below (Tables 23, 24, and 25) 29

37 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 22 Sample Size Sub-grantee Undergraduate Total Enrollment Undergraduate Sample Size On-Line Faculty and Staff Sample Size On-Line Connecticut College 2,000 1,800 All Manchester Community College 8,000 2,100 All Norwalk Community Colleges (NCC) 7,000 2,100 All Sacred Heart University 4,000 2,100 All Table 23 SPEAKS-S Sub-Grantee Received Survey Completed Survey Response Rate Connecticut College Manchester Community College Norwalk Community Colleges (NCC) Sacred Heart University TOTAL Table 24 SPEAKS-F/S Sub-Grantee Received Survey Completed Survey Response Rate Connecticut College Manchester Community College* 47 Norwalk Community Colleges (NCC) Sacred Heart University TOTAL 562 *Survey administration not complete 30

38 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Table 25 NCHA Sub-Grantee Received Survey Completed Survey Response Rate Connecticut College Manchester Community College Norwalk Community Colleges (NCC) Sacred Heart University TOTAL Data Entry and Analysis The NCHA, SPEAKS-S and SPEAKS-F/S were administered on-line. The electronic survey responses for the NCHA went directly to an ACHA database. Electronic survey responses for SPEAKS-S and SPEAKS-F/S were submitted directly to a SurveyMonkey database. Statisticians at CPHHP will analyze the data to assess progress towards program objectives. No analyses will be conducted on single individuals or campus. Reports will present aggregate findings. Study identification numbers were not assigned since follow-up responses from specific respondents are not essential to the evaluation design. Respondents identifying information (e.g. addresses) will not be linked to responses and will not be tracked from 2012 to Data Management At the close of the SPEAKS-S and SPEAKS-F/S administration, data were extracted from the SurveyMonkey databases and are stored on a UCHC secure, password protected server. NCHA survey responses went directly to a secure, password protected ACHA server. Campuses could not collect surveys and did not have access to individual survey responses from respondents. ACHA and CPHHP will send each campus only their data. CPHHP, DHMAS, and CCPWR will receive data from all of the campuses. Only designated researchers and project coordinators at DMHAS, CCPWR, and CPHHP will have access to the data. CPHHP instructed all sites to store electronic data files on a secure password protected hard drive and/or server. DMHAS and CPHHP will store electronic data for 5 years. CCPWR, ACHA and campuses will store data indefinitely. 31

39 Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 Technical Assistance Technical assistance for the GLS is being provided by an ICF liaison, an SPRC liaison, the GLS program officer, CCPWR project manager, and CPHHP evaluator. GLS Project Planning Meeting and ICF Site Visit. ICF technical assistance liaisons provided an initial six-hour on-site training in November During the morning session, the liaisons provided an introduction to the Garrett Lee Smith grant, overview of the SAMHSA Strategic Initiatives and ICF s technical assistance model. The afternoon was spent reviewing the GLS cross-site assessment tools, local evaluation materials, and resources. The SAMHSA Program Officer joined the last hour of the meeting via telephone for a discussion on Strategic Integration. CCSPI Kick-Off and Grantee Meeting. At the conclusion of the Kick-off, the CCPWR project members, CPHHP evaluator, ICF liaison, and SAMHSA program officer provided an on-site GLS evaluation training for the sub-grantees. The ICF liaison reviewed the crosssite evaluation tools and the SPDC website. The CPHHP evaluator created local evaluation protocols, examples of letters of support, timelines, etc. and reviewed those documents and the local evaluation tools (e.g. NCHA, SPEAKS-S and SPEAKS-F/S). CCPWR created binders for each of the participants which included information and documents necessary to implement the cross-site and local evaluations (e.g. acronyms, contact information, evaluation matrix, training checklist, assessment tools, etc.) A flash drive that included all of the documents was given to each of the attendees. (See Appendices H and I for the binder Table of Contents and the evaluation matrix.) Additional technical assistance was provided at a grantee meeting in June 2012 which focused on the administration of the SPEAKS-S, SPEAKS-F/S and NCHA. Webcast Trainings. ICF International hosted a series of webinars to provide training for the cross-site evaluation tools beginning in September GLS team members attended all of the trainings. The recordings of the webinars are available on the SPDC website and several of the GLS team members have reviewed them. The following is a list of webinars.»» Webinar 1: Welcome Webinar»» Webinar 2: SPDC»» Webinar 3: Tools and Strategies for Gathering Data (PSI and TES)»» Webinar 4: EIRF Data Collection»» Webinar 5: Preparing for the Prevention Strategies Inventory (PSI)»» Webinar 6: Cross-site Evaluation Referral Network Survey (RNS) Conference calls and team meetings. Regular conference calls and team meetings are held with the SAMHSA program officer, ICF liaison, the SPRC Liaison, CCPWR project members and the CPHHP evaluator to discuss project updates and technical assistance. On-going technical assistance. On-going technical assistance and monitoring is provided to sub-grantees by SAMHSA, ICF, SPRC, CCPWR, and CPHHP as needed via phone, and in person. 32

40 Institutional Review Board Submittal Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 An IRB application was submitted to the UCHC IRB to request approval of the CCSPI evaluation. After reviewing the application, an IRB representative requested the completion of a Human Subjects Determination Form which was submitted to the IRB in March The IRB determined that UCHC s role in the evaluation did not constitute human subjects research. The sub-grantees were informed that UCHC could not be the IRB of record and they would need to pursue Human Subjects approval through the appropriate mechanism on their individual campuses. IRB technical support has been provided by the CPHHP evaluator and CCPWR coordinator via in-person training, telephone conversations, and correspondences. Data Sharing Agreements Having access to sub-grantees GLS data is a requirement of the grant in order for CPHHP to conduct the evaluation. The data sharing requirement was noted in the RFP and reiterated at the April evaluation meeting. Sub-grantees were asked to submit written documentation in the form of data sharing agreement letters to allow CPHHP, DMHAS, and CCPWR to have program related data. Three example letters were distributed to sub-grantees at the April evaluation training for: 1) NCHA data; 2) SPEAKS-S and SPEAKS-F/S and; 3) ICF International Cross-Site Evaluation Assessment data. Sub-grantees reviewed the letters, made modifications as needed, obtained signatures from authorized personnel, and submitted the letters to CPHHP. Program and Evaluation Challenges The fall of 2012 marked the launch of many CCSPI grant requirements including cross-site assessment tools and three local surveys. Although detailed technical assistance was provided, demands placed on the sub-grantees were substantial. To obtain feedback from the sub-grantees, a sub-grantee meeting is scheduled for February 2013 to discuss grant related procedures, specifically administering the local surveys. A significant challenge for the CCSPI evaluation, and the majority of the northeast, was the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy. In preparation of the hurricane, Governor Malloy signed a Declaration of Emergency on October 26, 2012 closing all state highways and evacuating many cities. Sandy made land fall on October 29, 2012 and caused widespread damage including flooding and power outages across the state. Three of the four sub-grantee campuses were closed for two to eight days. The storm coincided with the anticipated administration of the NCHA, SPEAKS-S, and SPEAKS-F/S and caused an estimated two to three week delay in the survey administration and other grant related activities. 33

41 Summary Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Evaluation Report - Year 1 The evaluation design consists of three evaluation components (e.g. process, outcome and impact). The purpose of the process evaluation is to measure programmatic activities and collaborative efforts at the State, campus and community levels related to expanding and enhancing the CCSPI. To this end, the CCSPI coordinated a Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Kick- Off, collaborated with CHCI to co-sponsor two professional development meetings, sponsored/ co-sponsored trainings, established the CTSAB, GLS Advisory Committee, and developed several listservs. Participants were asked to complete satisfaction surveys at the conclusion of the Kick-Off, professional development meetings and trainings. The Outcome Evaluation component is designed to measure the Cross-Site Evaluation Tools. The Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act (GLSMA) requires grantees to participate in the cross-site evaluation. The purpose of the cross-site evaluation is to obtain consistent data across grantee sites so they can be analyzed to provide a comprehensive assessment of program effectiveness. SAMHSA selected ICF International, a research and evaluation consulting firm, as the contractor to design the cross-site evaluation and provide technical assistance and training for State/Tribal grantees in implementing the cross-site evaluation. The impact evaluation component was designed to assess whether GLS funded suicide prevention practices implemented on sub-grantee campuses led to changes in suicide related issues for young adult students ages 18 to 24. Campuses administered the SPEAKS-S, SPEAKS-F/S, and the NCHA in the fall of 2012 and will administer the surveys again in spring 2014 as part of the impact evaluation. Survey data will be analyzed in the coming months. Conclusion This report presents the Year 1 findings of the CCSPI. The project is making appropriate progress towards grant objectives. The evaluation will continue through the end of Year 3 of the CCSPI as described earlier and additional analyses will be conducted. References Muraskin, L.D. (1993). Understanding Evaluation: The Way to Better Prevention Programs. U. S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 34

42 B Connecticut Campus Suicide Prevention Initiative Professional Development Meeting Evaluation Kick Off Event- Jed Foundation Presentation Wednesday, April 4, 2012 CHCI - Appendix A We would like to know what you think about this professional development topic. Your feedback is crucial for assessing the quality of CCSPI. Please indicate your responses by filling in one circle for each question below. Please keep your writing within the lines of the comment boxes. C Response Definition: SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree N=Neutral A=Agree SA=Strongly Agree SD D N A SA 1. The presented information broadened my understanding of mental health promotion and suicide prevention. $ $ $ $ $ 2. The content was relevant to my work on mental health promotion and suicide prevention. $ $ $ $ $ 3. This opportunity has helped me connect with other mental health promotion and suicide prevention professionals. $ $ $ $ $ 4. I will share the knowledge that I have learned with others. $ $ $ $ $ Response Definition: SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree N=Neutral A=Agree SA=Strongly Agree SD D N A SA 5. The presentation was well organized. $ $ $ $ $ 6. The presentation included teaching methods that were effective. $ $ $ $ $ 7. The presentation included an interactive style to engage participants. $ $ $ $ $ 8. Mastery of the topic was demonstrated in the presentation. $ $ $ $ $ 9. Differences of opinion were respected throughout the presentation. $ $ $ $ $ 10. The presentation was culturally sensitive. $ $ $ $ $ 11. What specific information was of greatest value to you? 12. How will you utilize the information you have learned to enhance your work related to mental health promotion and suicide prevention? 13. Please write any additional comments in the box below. (optional) Name: Colleg/Organization: BCE Page 1 E

43 36 CHCI - Appendix A

44 CHCI - Appendix B Prevention Campus Community Training June 13, 2012 Plainville, CT Ann Duckless and Julie Golkowski Summary: There were a total of 24 participants in training who completed an evaluation booklet. From the pre-test to the post-test, training participants demonstrated a change in mean number of knowledge items correct from 5.67 at pre-test to 7.0 at post-test (maximum score possible = 8). This change was statistically significant at the level 1. Participants also exhibited the desired changes on items related to attitudes, with eight of the changes being statically significant. Lastly, participants exhibited a decrease in scores on the stigma scale. This change means that participants reported lower levels of stigma towards Mental Health and Help-Seeking following the training. The mean scores from the Training Exit Survey ranged from 3.43 to 3.61 on a four point scale (1 to 4). The highest scoring item was The training materials I received will be very useful for my suicide prevention efforts (3.61) and the lowest score was tied between two items (3.43). The overall rating was % of participants felt that the training was at their skill level. 1 Please note: This is a relatively small sample. Any conclusions based on the statistical analyses should be made with caution. 37

45 CHCI - Appendix B 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 79% 54% In CT suicide is the second leading cause of death for individuals age 10 to 34 (True) 63% 67% Males are more likely than females to attempt suicide (False) Knowledge Items 100% 96% 88% 88% 75% 75% 96% 96% 96% 83% 63% 54% Females are more likely than males to die by suicide (False) In CT, hanging/suffocation is the method most frequently used by those who die by suicide (True) Those who attempt suicide frequently communicate their plans in advance (True) If a student confides in you about thoughts of suicide, you are bound by confidentiality to keep that information private (False) The state of Connecticut does not yet have a suicide prevention plan (False) Restricting access to lethal means is an effective suicide prevention practice (True) Pre-Test Post-Test Percent of Individuals Answering Correctly 38

46 CHCI - Appendix B Knowledge Items PRE-TEST Percent of Respondents POST-TEST Percent of Respondents TRUE FALSE UNSURE TRUE FALSE UNSURE In CT, suicide is the second leading cause of death for individuals age 10 to 34 (true) Males are more likely than females to attempt suicide. (false) Females are more likely than males to die by suicide.(false) In CT, hanging/ suffocation is the method most frequently used by those who die by suicide.(true) Those who attempt suicide frequently communicate their plans in advance.(true) If a student confides in you about thoughts of suicide, you are bound by confidentiality to keep that information private.(false) The state of Connecticut does not yet have a suicide prevention plan.(false) Restricting access to lethal means is an effective suicide prevention practice.(true) *All percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Due to this, the percentages for some items may not total 100. Summary of Knowledge Items PRE-TEST SD POST-TEST SD Mean Number of True/False Items Correct *** 1.06 Mean Number of True/False Items Marked As Unsure ** 0.34 Difference is significant at the * =.05, ** =.01, *** =.001 level 39

47 CHCI - Appendix B M E A N S C O R E Most deaths by suicide are preventable Mental healt care is useful for those who might be thinking about, threatening, or who had attempted suicide Asking someone about their feelings if they are suicidal might encourage them to act on the feelings Attitudes Related to Suicide Prevention I am really not sure I would know what to do if I was faced with someone I believed was thinking about suicide If someone is really intent on dying by suicide, there is little anyone can do If I became aware that a student was thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide, I would feel I had a responsibility to do something to help If I became aware that an older person was thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide, I would feel I had a responsibility to do something to help I would feel confident about my ability to effectively respond to threats or an attempt of suicide I believe I have adequate knowledge and training to help someone who might be thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide PRE-Test POST-TEST I would feel comfortable responding to someone who might be thinking about, threatening, or had attemped suicide I would be willing to remove firearms from my home to reduce the risk of their being used by someone thinking about suicide I have a good understanding of the resources on campus for assisting someone who might be thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide Suicide prevention is a priority on campus 40

48 CHCI - Appendix B Attitudes Related To Suicide Prevention SCALE RANGE: 0 = TOTALLY DISAGREE 10 = TOTALLY AGREE MEAN SCORE: PRE-TEST SD MEAN SCORE: POST-TEST Most deaths by suicide are preventable SD Mental health care is useful for those who might be thinking about, threatening, or who had attempted suicide Asking someone about their feelings if they are suicidal might encourage them to act on the feelings. I am really not sure I would know what to do if I was faced with someone I believed was thinking about suicide. If someone is really intent on dying by suicide, there is little anyone can do. If I became aware that a student was thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide, I would feel I had a responsibility to do something to help. If I became aware that an older person was thinking about threatening or had attempted suicide, I would feel I had a responsibility to do something to help. I would feel confident about my ability to effectively respond to threats or an attempt of suicide. I believe I have adequate knowledge and training to help someone who might be thinking about, threatening or had attempted suicide. I would feel comfortable responding to some who might be thinking about, threatening or had attempted suicide I would be willing to remove firearms from my home to reduce the risk of their being used by someone thinking about suicide. I have a good understanding of the resources on campus for assisting someone who might be thinking about, threatening or had attempted suicide. Suicide prevention is a priority on campus Difference is significant a the * =.05, ** =.01, *** =.001 level 41

49 CHCI - Appendix B Stigma Related To Mental Health/Help-Seeking Pre-Test SD Post-Test SD Stigma Scale Rating Difference is significant a the * =.05, ** =.01, *** =.001 level Percentage of Participants Required to Participate in the Training Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes Valid No Don t Know Total Missing System 0 0 TOTAL How Participants Intend to Use What They Learned From the Training Percent of Participants Screen youth for suicide behaviors 46 Formally publicize information about suicide prevention and mental health resources 71 Have informal conversations about suicide and suicide prevention with youth and others 71 Identify youth who might be at risk for suicide 71 Provide direct services to youth at risk for suicide and/or their families 46 Train other staff members 83 Make referrals to mental health services for at risk youth 54 Work with adult at-risk populations 33 Other 8 Don t intend to use what I learned 0 42

50 CHCI - Appendix B Training Content 4 3 Mean The training increased my knowledge about suicide prevention. The training The materials I training received (i.e., met my brochures, needs. wallet cards) will be very useful for my suicide prevention efforts The training addressed cultural difference s in the youth I intend to serve The training was practical to my work and/or my daily life. I fully understand why I attended the training. I am now more ready to help with youth suicide prevention in my community. The things I learned will help youth seek help for issues that might lead to suicide Training Content Descriptive Statistics 43 N Minimum Maximum Mean SD The training increased my knowledge about suicide prevention The training materials I received (i.e., brochures, wallet cards) will be very useful for my suicide prevention efforts The training met my needs The training addressed cultural differences in the youth I intend to serve The training was practical to my work and/or my daily life I fully understand why I attended the training I am now more ready to help with youth suicide prevention in my community The things I learned will help youth seek help for issues that might lead to suicide

51 CHCI - Appendix B Skill Level of Training Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Below my skill level At my skill level Valid Above my skill level Don t know Total Missing System 0 0 TOTAL Who Will Benefit From What Was Learned During the Training Percent of Participants Youth 71 Parents/Foster Parents/Caregivers 29 Family 29 Co-Workers 75 Community Members 58 Other 8 44

52 CHCI - Appendix B 4 3 Mean The trainers knowledge of the training topics? The trainers presentation of the training topics? The building where the training was held? The location of the training? Your overall training experience? Satisfaction with Training Satisfaction with Training Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean SD The trainers knowledge of the training topics? The trainers presentation of the training topics? The building where the training was held? The location of the training? Your overall training experience?

53 CHCI - Appendix B Satisfaction with Training Components Percent of Participants Who: Liked Neutral Disliked Activities/Case Scenarios Amount of Material Covered Atmosphere of Training Data/Statistics Discussion/Interaction Handouts/Materials Provided Instructor/Trainer Length of Training Number of Breaks Opportunity to Ask Questions Pace of Training Resource Information Open Ended Responses Do you have any specific comments about the aspects of the training that you liked or disliked? Need more info on LGBTQ especially transgender Trainers didn't have control over group and getting through the entire presentation in a timely fashion. Information is not new, too many comments It was a little slow paced I attended the one day training. I would like more information on the 2nd and 3rd day training formats and the option # and type of community members to involve for trainings The instructors were excellent. The training was not at all what I expected. Far too much time spend on data/facts/gatekeeping and not enough on coalitions/collaborative/etc. Level was too basic. Agenda was not followed. Materials were basic, resources w Module one - too long! Lots of data that could have been reviewed in an hour. The length should be a 1/2 day just like ASIST model Role play was excellent, it was nice to step outside your everyday role, how would that person react 46

54 CHCI - Appendix C Prevention Social Services Training August 21, 2012 Middletown, CT Ann Duckless and Julie Golkowski Summary: There were a total of 19 participants in the training who completed an evaluation booklet. From the pre-test to the post-test, training participants demonstrated a change in mean number of knowledge items correct from 6.16 at pre-test to 7.11 at post-test (maximum score possible = 8). This change was statistically significant at the 0.01 level 1. Participants also exhibited the desired changes on items related to attitudes, with seven of the changes being statistically significant. Lastly, participants exhibited a decrease in scores on the stigma scale. This change means that participants reported lower levels of stigma towards Mental Health and Help-Seeking following the training. The mean scores from the Training Exit Survey ranged from 3.53 to 3.74 on a four point scale (1 to 4). The highest scoring item was The training was practical to my work and/or my daily life (3.74) and the lowest score was tied between two items (3.53). The overall rating was % of participants felt that the training was at their skill level. 1 Please note: This is a relatively small sample. Any conclusions based on the statistical analyses should be made with caution. 47

55 CHCI - Appendix C 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 100% 84% Nationally, suicide is the third leading cause of death for individuals age 10 to 24 (True) 79% 63% Males are more likely than females to attempt suicide (False) Knowledge Items 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 90% 79% 79% 68% 63% 58% Females are more likely than males to die by suicide (False) Nationally, firearms are the method most frequently used by those who die by suicide (True) Those who attempt suicide frequently communicate their plans in advance (True) If a young person confides in you about thoughts of suicide, you are bound by confidentiality to keep that information private (False) My state does not yet have a suicide prevention plan (False) Restricting access to lethal means is an effective suicide prevention practice (True) Pre-Test Post-Test Percent of Individuals Answering Correctly 48

56 CHCI - Appendix C Knowledge Items Pre-Test Percent of Respondents Post-Test Percent of Respondents TRUE FALSE UNSURE TRUE FALSE UNSURE Nationally, suicide is the third leading cause of death for individuals age 10 to 24 (True) Males are more likely than females to attempt suicide (False) Females are more likely than males to die by suicide (False) Nationally, firearms are the method most frequently used by those who die by suicide (True) Those who attempt suicide frequently communicate their plans in advance (True) If a young person confides in you about thoughts of suicide, you are bound by confidentiality to keep that information private (False) My state does not yet have a suicide prevention plan (False) Restricting access to lethal means is an effective suicide prevention practice (True) *All percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Due to this, the percentages for some items may not total 100. Summary of Knowledge Items Pre-Test Post-Test Mean Number of True/False Items Correct ** Mean Number of True/False Items Marked as Unsure Difference is significant at the * =.05, ** =.01, *** =.001 level 49

57 CHCI - Appendix C M E A N S C O R E Most deaths by suicide are preventable Mental healt care is useful for those who might be thinking about, threatening, or who had attempted suicide Asking someone about their feelings if they are suicidal might encourage them to act on the feelings Attitudes Related To Suicide Prevention I am really not sure I would know what to do if I was faced with someone I believed was thinking about suicide If someone is really intent on dying by suicide, there is little anyone can do If I became aware that a young person was thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide, I would feel I had a responsibility to do something to help If I became aware that an older person was thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide, I would feel I had a responsibility to do something to help I would feel confident about my ability to effectively respond to threats or an attempt of suicide I believe I have adequate knowledge and training to help someone who might be thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide I would feel comfortable responding to someone who might be thinking about, threatening, or had attemped suicide PRE-Test POST-TEST I would be willing to remove firearms from my home to reduce the risk of their being used by someone thinking about suicide I have a good understanding of the resources in my community for assisting someone who might be thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide Suicide prevention is a priority in my community 50

58 CHCI - Appendix C Attitudes Related To Suicide Prevention SCALE RANGE: 0 = TOTALLY DISAGREE 10 = TOTALLY AGREE MEAN SCORE: PRE-TEST MEAN SCORE: POST-TEST Most deaths by suicide are preventable * Mental health care is useful for those who might be thinking about, threatening, or who had attempted suicide Asking someone about their feelings if they are suicidal might encourage them to act on the feelings I am not really sure I would know what to do if I was faced with someone I believed was thinking about suicide If someone is really intent on dying by suicide, there is little anyone can do * If I became aware that a young person was thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide, I would feel I had a responsibility to do something to help * If I became aware that an older person was thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide, I would feel I had a responsibility to do something to help I would feel confident about my ability to effectively respond to threats or an attempt of suicide *** I believe I have adequate knowledge and training to help someone who might be thinking about, threatening, or who had attempted suicide *** I would feel comfortable responding to some who might be thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide I would be willing to remove firearms from my home to reduce the risk of their being used by someone thinking about suicide I have a good understanding of the resources in my community for assisting someone who might be thinking about, threatening, or had attempted suicide * Suicide prevention is a priority in my community * Difference is significant a the * =.05, ** =.01, *** =.001 level Stigma Related To Mental Health/Help-Seeking 51 Pre-Test Post-Test Stigma Scale Rating Difference is significant a the * =.05, ** =.01, *** =.001 level

59 CHCI - Appendix C Percentage of Participants Required To Participate in the Training Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes Valid No Don t Know Total Missing System 0 0 TOTAL How Participants Intend to Use What They Learned From the Training Percent of Participants Screen youth for suicide behaviors 32 Formally publicize information about suicide prevention and mental health resources 79 Have informal conversations about suicide and suicide prevention with youth and others 63 Identify youth who might be at risk for suicide 26 Provide direct services to youth at risk for suicide and/or their families 32 Train other staff members 84 Make referrals to mental health services for at risk youth 58 Work with adult at-risk populations 32 Other 26 Don t intend to use what I learned 0 52

60 CHCI - Appendix C TRAINING CONTENT 4 3 Mean The trainingthe training increased materials I m received (i. knowledge e., about brochures, suicide wallet prevention. cards) will be very useful for my suicide prevention efforts The training met my needs. The training addressed cultural differences in the youth I intend to serv The training wa practical to my work and/or my daily life. I fully understand why I attended the training. I am now more ready to help with youth suicide prevention in community. The things I learned will help youth seek help for issues that might lead to suicide Training Content Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean SD The training increased my knowledge about suicide prevention The training materials I received (i.e., brochures, wallet cards) will be very useful for my suicide prevention efforts The training met my needs The training addressed cultural differences in the youth I intend to serve The training was practical to my work and/or my daily life I fully understand why I attended the training I am now more ready to help with youth suicide prevention in my community The things I learned will help youth seek help for issues that might lead to suicide

61 CHCI - Appendix C Skill Level of Training Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Below my skill level At my skill level Valid Above my skill level Don t know Total Missing System 4 21 TOTAL Who Will Benefit From What Was Learned During the Training Percent of Participants Youth 42 Parents/Foster Parents/Caregivers 47 Family 42 Co-Workers 68 Community Members 79 Other 42 54

62 CHCI - Appendix C Satisfaction with Training 4 3 Mean The trainers knowledge of the training topics? The trainers presentation of the training topics? The building where the training was held The location of the training? Your overall training experience? Satisfaction with Training Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean SD The trainers knowledge of the training topics? The trainers presentation of the training topics? The building where the training was held? The location of the training? Your overall training experience?

63 CHCI - Appendix C Satisfaction with Training Components Percent of Participants Who: Liked Neutral Disliked Activities/Case Scenarios Amount of Material Covered Atmosphere of Training Data/Statistics Discussion/Interaction Handouts/Materials Provided Instructor/Trainer Length of Training Number of Breaks Opportunity to Ask Questions Pace of Training Resource Information Open Ended Responses Do you have any specific comments about the aspects of the training that you liked or disliked? Nice balance between DMHAS and Connect [illegible] materials A lot of information, felt rushed in last part because of time restraints Very cold room Went a little too long for periods of discussion Would have liked more focus as [illegible] national resources, articles Room very cold Enjoyed meeting others involved in this process Data sections should have been more overview to allow more time for other modules and processing The training provided wonderful perspective on suicide prevention across the age span and across cultural groups. Great resource sharing Exercises are great 56

64 CHCI - Appendix D CTSAB Strategic Planning Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 5/10/12 Location: Crowne Plaza Hotel, Cromwell, CT Present: Rob Aseltine (UCHC), Wendy Caruso (United Way of CT), David Denino (Mental Health Consultant), Andrea Duarte (DMHAS- Prevention), Marisa Giarnella-Porco (JMPFoundation), Victoria Ginter (CCSU), Latonya Harts (VACT), Jean Haughey (Enfield Youth Services), Nina Heller (UCSSW), Catrina Johnson (SAMHSA Fellow), Corrine King (Wheeler Clinic), Brittany LaRose (OCA Intern), Tim Marshall (DCF), Robin McHaelen (True Colors), Rich Monterosso (Enfield Public Schools), Scott Newgass (SDE), Maureen Pasko (VACT), Fran Simcic (DMHAS-MSP), Tom Steen (CASAC), Judy Stonger (Wheeler Clinic), Ronald Thompson (Yale), Meryl Tom (DPH), Sara Wakai (UCHC), LoriBeth Young (DSS) Results of Strategic Planning Meeting 5/10/12 are in regular font and results of Planning Committee Debriefing 6/7/12 are italicized TOPIC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Who We Are? (Mission) We are a concerned network of advocates, educators, and leaders for suicide prevention. We are a diverse group of goal oriented problem solvers. The CTSAB is a network of diverse advocates, educators and leaders concerned with addressing the problem of suicide with a focus on prevention, intervention, and health and wellness promotion. What We Do? (Vision) The CTSAB seeks to increases awareness of risk factors and protective for suicide across the lifespan by improving culturally competent infrastructure through advocacy, education, collaboration and networking. The CTSAB seeks to reduce and eliminate suicide by instilling hope across the lifespan and through the use of culturally competent advocacy, policy, education, collaboration and networking. Problems We Address (A declarative statement) Educate, Advocate, and coordinate to promote best practices in screening, intervention, and post-vention in multiple settings. Critical Issues to Consider (Ongoing Considerations) 1. Funding 2. Building capacity including stake holders (politicians, department of education, state government, community, etc.) 3. Education through data, best practices, coalition building, targeting specific populations (at risk) 4. Resources include: people, time, and coordinating efforts 5. The S.A.F.E. process will address the critical issues by seeking funding to build capacity with stake holders; educate through data best practices to develop coalitions at a state and local level; and develop resources to implement the safe process at all levels. 1 57

65 CHCI - Appendix D CTSAB Strategic Planning Meeting Minutes TOPIC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Dissemination of Awareness Campaign (Priority Area-Work in Progress) 1. Train the Trainer through the Regional Action Councils 2. Garner publicity through: Schools Hospitals/ ER Colleges Detention Centers/ Juvenile Probation YWCA/YMCA Doctors Offices Community Mental Health Clinics Family Court Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, texts) TV/ Radio Posters/Billboard/ Busses QR Codes Revision of the Connecticut Comprehensive Suicide Prevention Plan (2005) (Priority Area-Work in Progress) 1. Establish stakeholders team 2. Evaluate Plan- (current) things that worked, what to continue or what to eliminate. 3. Build state plan based on SPF process. 4. Build/ Identify resources to help deliver plan (infrastructure, communication, trainings) and support local efforts. 5. Connect to national plan 6. 9/3/12 Suicide Prevention Week Evidence Based Practice Promotion (Priority Area-Work in Progress) 1. Researching current evidence based practices. 8/1/12 2. Identify potential and vested stakeholders in suicide (website, toolkits, and outreach physical/print). 9/30/12 3. Collaborate on website development to have available and disseminate Evidence Based Programs available at low or no cost in CT. 6/1/12 (ongoing) 2 58

66 CHCI - Appendix D CTSAB Strategic Planning Meeting Minutes TOPIC SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Statewide Network (Priority Area-Work in Progress) 1. Recruit municipalities, boards of education and corporations as stakeholders 2. Social Media campaign/bar code/ FB 3. Large Events (flash Mob) 4. State Fairs 5. Grass roots organizers To Identify other groups, organizations, agencies and individual/ networks 1. Website list serve individuals and organizations can subscribe 2. Calendar of events (connect, QPR) 3. Links to services and resources (parent trainings) 4. Create inventory from existing CTSAB members 5. Flash Mob 6. Align with prevention/intervention/prevention format/survivors and resources 7. Subcommittee/ Work Group for networking Work with Tim as website is being designed 8. Participate in state events 9. Exchange health organizations, towns, school colleges etc. to establish links to preventsuicide.org website 10. Integrate Clearinghouse & United Way systems with initiative 3 59

67 60 CHCI - Appendix D

68 CHCI - Appendix E Cross-site Evaluation of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial (GLS) Campus Suicide Prevention Program Suicide Prevention Exposure, Awareness and Knowledge Survey (SPEAKS) S (Student Version) Site: (Name of Campus) [Select from Pull-down menu] SPEAKS Student Version 1 61

69 CHCI - Appendix E Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey about suicide prevention. Your responses to these questions are extremely important in enhancing programs to prevent suicide on campuses. 1. Have you been exposed to any materials on your campus related to suicide prevention (e.g., brochures, posters, videos, radio messages, orientation materials, etc.)? Yes No Don t know If Yes, what materials have you been exposed to? 2. Have you directly participated in any suicide prevention activities sponsored by your campus (e.g., gatekeeper training, seminar, workshop, orientation program, etc.)? Yes No Don t know If Yes, what activities have you participated in? Please rate your level of confidence in your ability to interact with students about the suicide prevention behaviors described below from not confident to very confident (check one). I feel confident that: 3. I would be able to recognize the warning signs of suicide in students. 4. I would be able to ask someone who was exhibiting the warning signs of suicide if they are thinking about suicide. 5. I would be able to connect or refer a student at risk for suicide to resources for help (e.g., hotline, counseling, ER, etc.). Not Confident Somewhat Confident Level of Confidence Confident Very Confident Don t know SPEAKS Student Version 2 62

70 CHCI - Appendix E Next, we would like to know a little bit about your campus and resources available for students at risk for suicide. Please respond to each of the items using the response options provided that best represents your answer. 6. I am aware of at least one local resource to which I could refer a student who seemed at risk for suicide. Yes (continue to question 7) No (skip to question 8) 7. If you knew a student that was thinking about suicide, where would you refer him/her? (List up to 4 local resources) 8. My campus values the mental health and wellbeing of its students. Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree We d like to understand your perceptions of mental health seeking. Please respond to each of the following using the scale provided. Select the number that best represents what you think. Neither Strongly Disagree Strongly No Personally: Disagree Agree Disagree nor Agree Opinion Agree 9. I think that it is a sign of personal weakness or inadequacy to receive treatment for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. 10. I would see a person in a less favorable way if I came to know that he/she has received treatment for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. 11. I think that it is advisable for a person to hide from people that he/she has been treated for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. SPEAKS Student Version 3 63

71 CHCI - Appendix E *Adapted from Komiya, Good & Sherrod (2000) We d like to understand the perceptions of mental health seeking on your campus. Please respond to each of the following using the scale provided. Select the number that best represents what you think most people on your campus think. On my campus: 12. It is a sign of personal weakness or inadequacy to receive treatment for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. 13. People would see a person in a less favorable way if it became known that he/she had received treatment for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. 14. It is advisable for a person to hide from people that he/she has been treated for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. *Adapted from Komiya, Good & Sherrod (2000) Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Opinion The following statements represent myths or facts about suicide. Some are true and some are false. Please indicate whether you believe the statement is true or false (select one). 15. People often attempt suicide without warning and out of the blue. 16. People who have attempted suicide are less likely to attempt suicide in the future. 17. Sometimes a minor event (like a bad exam grade) can push an otherwise normal person to attempt suicide. 18. People who are depressed are more likely to attempt suicide. 19. The great majority of people who commit suicide do not have psychiatric or substance use disorders. 20. Someone who has aggressive or impulsive tendencies is at lower risk for suicide attempt. 21. If a person attempted suicide, their situation was probably so bad that death was the best solution. 22. Reducing access to firearms and other lethal weapons reduces the risk of suicide. 23. People who talk about or threaten suicide don t do it. True False Don t Know SPEAKS Student Version 4 64

72 CHCI - Appendix E 24. If someone is exposed to a suicide (family, friends, other students) this increases their own risk for attempting suicide. 25. People who really want to die will find a way; it won t help to try and stop them. 26. People who are using alcohol more than usual or abusing substances are at greater risk for attempting suicide. 27. A person with a family history of suicide is at lower risk for attempting suicide. 28. Hopelessness is a risk factor for attempting suicide. 29. You should not talk to depressed people about suicide; it might give them the idea or plant the seed in their minds. 30. A fellow student with sleep problems is at increased risk for attempting suicide. 31. People with both mental health problems and substance problems are at even greater risk of attempting suicide that those with either mental health or substance problems alone. 32. The majority of suicides are among people of lower socioeconomic status. 33. Suicides occur in the greatest numbers around the holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas. 34. Social isolation/withdrawal is a risk factor for suicide attempt. 35. Most suicidal people never discuss their problems with others. 36. The experience of physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse puts one at greater risk for attempting suicide. 37. A fellow student who has a sexual identity conflict or is uncertain about their sexual identity is at greater risk for a suicide attempt. 38. Many people who talk about suicide just want attention. 39. Suicide is the leading cause of death among college students. 40. Risk for suicide attempt is not associated with police or law enforcement (arrest or incarceration) contact 41. Most suicide attempts occur late at night or early in the morning. True False Don t Know SPEAKS Student Version 5 65

73 CHCI - Appendix E We d like to know a little bit about your involvement with and your connectedness to your campus. Please rate your agreement with the following statements from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree or Agree Agree Strongly Agree 42. I am involved in extracurricular activities on campus 43. I feel I have a supportive group of friends on campus 44. I feel I have a sense of togetherness with my peers. 45. I feel connected to my campus. Adapted from the Social Connectedness Scale. (Lee, R.M., & Robbins, S.B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The Social Connectedness and Social Assurance Scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, Now we d like to understand what you do when you encounter a stressful life event. For the following items, please indicate how often you do the following when you experience a stressful event. Please mark the appropriate column for each row. 46. When I experience a stressful event: a. I concentrate my efforts on doing something about it. b. I get emotional support from others. c. I turn to work or other activities to take my mind off things. d. I use alcohol or drugs to make myself feel better. e. I learn to live with it. f. I make fun of the situation. g. I pray or meditate. h. I get help or advice from other people. i. I do things to think about it less such as going to movies, watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or going shopping. Never Occasionally Sometimes Always SPEAKS Student Version 6 66

74 CHCI - Appendix E Never Occasionally Sometimes Always j. I give up attempting to cope. k. I blame myself. Adapted from the Brief COPE. (Carver, C.S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol s too long: Consider the Brief Cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), ) If you were having a personal or emotional problem, how likely or unlikely is it that you would seek help from the following people: Very Unlikely Neither Likely Unlikely 47. If I had a personal or emotional problem I would seek help from: a. Intimate partner (NOTE: If you do not have an intimate partner, please skip this item but answer the rest.) b. Friend not related to you c. Parent d. Other relative/family member e. Mental health professional/school counselor f. Doctor/general practitioner g. Clergy member h. Other not listed (please specify) i. I would not seek help from anyone Very Likely SPEAKS Student Version 7 67

75 CHCI - Appendix E If you were having thoughts of suicide, how likely or unlikely is it that you would seek help from the following people: Very Very Unlikely Neither Likely Unlikely Likely 48. If I were having suicidal thoughts, I would seek help from: a. Intimate partner (NOTE: If you do not have an intimate partner, please skip this item but answer the rest.) b. Friend not related to you c. Parent d. Other relative/family member e. Mental health professional/school counselor f. Doctor/general practitioner g. Clergy member h. Other not listed (please specify) i. I would not seek help from anyone Adapted from the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire. (Ciarrochi, J.V., & Deane, F.P. (2001). Emotional competence and willingness to seek help from professional and nonprofessional sources. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 29 ( 2), Do you know where to find the counseling center on your campus? Yes No My campus does not have a counseling center 50. Have you ever received psychological or mental health services from your current college/university's Counseling or Health Service? Yes No My campus does not have a counseling center 50a. If so, how helpful were the services you received based on why you attended services? Very Unhelpful Unhelpful Neither Helpful Very Helpful 51. Do you know other students who have received psychological or mental health services from your current college/university's Counseling or Health Service? SPEAKS Student Version 8 68

76 CHCI - Appendix E Yes No My campus does not have a counseling center Background Information 52. What is your gender (select one)? Female Male Transgender Other, Please Specify: 53. What is your age? years 54. Are you Hispanic or Latino (select one)? Yes No 54a. If Yes, Which group represents you? Are you (select one or more) Mexican, Mexican-American, or Chicano Puerto Rican Cuban Dominican Central American South American Other Hispanic origin (please describe: ) 55. What is your race (select one or more)? American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White 56. Are you an international student? Yes No SPEAKS Student Version 9 69

77 CHCI - Appendix E 57. Which of the following best describes your academic level (select one)? Undergraduate 1 st Year Undergraduate 2 nd Year Undergraduate 3 rd Year Undergraduate 4 th Year or more Graduate Student (e.g., master s, PhD, MD, JD, DDS, etc.) 57a. Which best describes your enrollment status at this school? Part-time Full-time 58. Which best describes your living situation? On-campus, university housing Off-campus, university housing Off-campus, non-university housing 59. How many years have you attended school at this campus? (select one) One year or less More than one year but less than two years Between two and three years More than three years SPEAKS Student Version 10 70

78 CHCI - Appendix F. Cross-site Evaluation of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial (GLS) Campus Suicide Prevention Program Suicide Prevention, Exposure, Awareness, and Knowledge Survey (SPEAKS) - FS (Faculty/Staff Version) Site: (Name of Campus) [Select from Pull-down menu] SPEAKS Faculty and Staff Version 1 71

79 CHCI - Appendix F. Cross-site Evaluation of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial (GLS) Campus Suicide Prevention Program Suicide Prevention, Exposure, Awareness, and Knowledge Survey (SPEAKS) - FS (Faculty/Staff Version) Site: (Name of Campus) [Select from Pull-down menu] SPEAKS Faculty and Staff Version 1 72

80 CHCI - Appendix F Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey about suicide prevention. Your responses to these questions are extremely important in enhancing programs to prevent suicide on campuses. 1. Have you been exposed to any materials on your campus related to suicide prevention (e.g., brochures, posters, videos, radio messages, orientation materials, etc.)? Yes No Don t know If Yes, what materials have you been exposed to? 2. Have you directly participated in any suicide prevention activities sponsored by your campus (e.g., gatekeeper training, seminar, workshop, orientation program, etc.)? Yes No Don t know If Yes, what activities have you participated in? Please rate your level of confidence in your ability to interact with students about the suicide prevention behaviors described below from not confident to very confident (check one). I feel confident that: 3. I would be able to recognize the warning signs of suicide in students. 4. I would be able to ask someone who was exhibiting the warning signs of suicide if they are thinking about suicide. 5. I would be able to connect or refer a student at risk for suicide to resources for help (e.g., hotline, counseling, ER, etc.). Not Confident Somewhat Confident Level of Confidence Confident Very Confident Don t know SPEAKS Faculty and Staff Version 2 73

81 CHCI - Appendix F Next, we would like to know a little bit about your campus and resources available for students at risk for suicide. Please respond to each of the items using the response options provided that best represents your answer. 6. I am aware of at least one local resource to which I could refer a student who seemed at risk for suicide. Yes (continue to question 7) No (skip to question 8) 7. If you knew a student that was thinking about suicide, where would you refer him/her? (List up to 4 local resources) 8. My campus values the mental health and wellbeing of its students. Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree We d like to understand your perceptions of mental health seeking. Please respond to each of the following using the scale provided. Select the number that best represents what you think. Personally: 9. I think that it is a sign of personal weakness or inadequacy to receive treatment for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. 10. I would see a person in a less favorable way if I came to know that he/she has received treatment for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. 11. I think that it is advisable for a person to hide from people that he/she has been treated for suicidal thoughts Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Opinion SPEAKS Faculty and Staff Version 3 74

82 CHCI - Appendix F and behaviors. We d like to understand the perceptions of mental health seeking on your campus. Please respond to each of the following using the scale provided. Select the number that best represents what you think most people on your campus think. On my campus: 12. It is a sign of personal weakness or inadequacy to receive treatment for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. 13. People would see a person in a less favorable way if it became known that he/she had received treatment for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. 14. It is advisable for a person to hide from people that he/she has been treated for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Opinion The following statements represent myths or facts about suicide. Some are true and some are false. Please indicate whether you believe the statement is true or false (select one). 15. People often attempt suicide without warning and out of the blue. 16. People who have attempted suicide are less likely to attempt suicide in the future. 17. Sometimes a minor event (like a bad exam grade) can push an otherwise normal person to attempt suicide. 18. People who are depressed are more likely to attempt suicide. 19. The great majority of people who commit suicide do not have psychiatric or substance use disorders. 20. Someone who has aggressive or impulsive tendencies is at lower risk for suicide attempt. 21. If a person attempted suicide, their situation was probably so bad that death was the best solution. 22. Reducing access to firearms and other lethal weapons reduces the risk of suicide. 23. People who talk about or threaten suicide don t do it. True False Don t Know SPEAKS Faculty and Staff Version 4 75

83 CHCI - Appendix F 24. If someone is exposed to a suicide (family, friends, other students) this increases their own risk for attempting suicide. 25. People who really want to die will find a way; it won t help to try and stop them. 26. People who are using alcohol more than usual or abusing substances are at greater risk for attempting suicide. 27. A person with a family history of suicide is at lower risk for attempting suicide. 28. Hopelessness is a risk factor for attempting suicide. 29. You should not talk to depressed people about suicide; it might give them the idea or plant the seed in their minds. 30. A fellow student with sleep problems is at increased risk for attempting suicide. 31. People with both mental health problems and substance problems are at even greater risk of attempting suicide that those with either mental health or substance problems alone. 32. The majority of suicides are among people of lower socioeconomic status. 33. Suicides occur in the greatest numbers around the holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas. 34. Social isolation/withdrawal is a risk factor for suicide attempt. 35. Most suicidal people never discuss their problems with others. 36. The experience of physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse puts one at greater risk for attempting suicide. 37. A fellow student who has a sexual identity conflict or is uncertain about their sexual identity is at greater risk for a suicide attempt. 38. Many people who talk about suicide just want attention. 39. Suicide is the leading cause of death among college students. 40. Risk for suicide attempt is not associated with police or law enforcement (arrest or incarceration) contact. 41. Most suicide attempts occur late at night or early in the morning. 42. Do you know where to find the counseling center on your campus? Yes No My campus does not have a counseling center 43. Have you ever identified a student who was at risk for suicide? Yes No True False Don t Know SPEAKS Faculty and Staff Version 5 76

84 CHCI - Appendix F 44. Have you ever referred a student to campus or community counseling services? Yes No 45. Have you ever provided someone the number to a hotline (e.g., National Suicide Prevention Lifeline)? Yes No 46. Have you ever received training in suicide prevention? Yes No Don t know Background Information 47. Please select the one primary role with which you most closely identify. For example, if you are a faculty member who is also an administrator, choose the position that best matches your primary role on campus. Faculty/Professor/ Researcher/Lecturer Administrator (e.g., dean s office, vice-president, provost etc.) Residential life staff Mental health clinician/counselor/psychologist Social Worker/Caseworker/Care coordinator Emergency/crisis care worker Campus security or police officer Program Evaluator Administrative assistant/clerical support personnel Student Other How many years have you worked at this campus? Years Months 49. Which best describes your employment status on campus? Full time Part time 50. What is your gender (select one)? Female Male Transgender Other (specify): 51. What is your age? years SPEAKS Faculty and Staff Version 6 77

85 CHCI - Appendix F 52. Are you Hispanic or Latino (select one)? Yes No 53. If Yes, Which group represents you? Are you (select one or more) Mexican, Mexican-American, or Chicano Puerto Rican Cuban Dominican Central American South American South American Other Hispanic origin (please describe : ) 54. What is your race (select one or more)? American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Other (please describe: ) Thank you for your time and attention to this survey, the information you have provided is extremely important to suicide prevention efforts on your Campus. SPEAKS Faculty and Staff Version 7 78

86 79 CHCI - Appendix G

87 80 CHCI - Appendix G

88 81 CHCI - Appendix G

89 82 CHCI - Appendix G

90 83 CHCI - Appendix G

91 84 CHCI - Appendix G

92 85 CHCI - Appendix G

93 86 CHCI - Appendix G

94 87 CHCI - Appendix G

95 88 CHCI - Appendix G

96 89 CHCI - Appendix G

97 90 CHCI - Appendix G