HEALTHmap

Because tracking infectious diseases, worldwide, at 2 o'clock in the morning is a fantastic idea. . .

HEALTHmap: http://www.healthmap.org

"HEALTHmap provides a unified and comprehensive view of the current global state o infectious diseases and their effect on human and animal health by combing disparate data sources, of varying reliability, ranging from news sources (such as Google News) to curated personal accounts (such as ProMED) to validated official alerts (such as World Health Organization). Through an automated text processing system, the data is aggregated by disease and displayed by location for user-friendly access to the original alert. HEALTHmap provides a jumping-off point for real-time information on emerging infectious diseases and has particular interest for public health officials and international travelers."

PILOTS database-Military social work research

It would have been nice to have this a month ago. . .

PILOTS database-Military social work research (link goes to USC login. available via ProQuest)

About this database:

The PILOTS bibliographic database, covering the Published International Literature On Traumatic Stress, is produced at the headquarters of the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in White River Junction, Vermont. The PILOTS database is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Its goal is to include citations to all literature on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental-health sequelae of traumatic events, without disciplinary, linguistic, or geographical limitations, and to offer both current and retrospective coverage.

Subject Coverage:

• post-traumatic stress disorder or acute stress disorder (with or without reference to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
• the assessment, description, prevention, or treatment of any psychiatric disorder, especially dissociative identity disorder (formerly called multiple personality disorder), other dissociative disorders, or borderline personality disorder, associated etiologically or epidemiologically with exposure to a traumatic event, or to an event experienced as traumatic by the population under discussion
• the preparation or provision of mental health services to a traumatized population or a population at risk of experiencing traumatic events
• issues of professional ethics, scientific methodology, or public policy relating to traumatized populations.

Dates of Coverage: 1871-current

Update Frequency: monthly

Size: Over 33,554 records as of January 2008

Policy Links

Los Angeles City and County:

• City of Los Angeles: http://www.lacity.org
• LA County Board of Supervisors: http://bos.co.la.ca.us

California State Resources:

• State of California: http://www.ca.gov
  
• California State Legislature: http://www.legislature.ca.gov
  
• Finding your State Representatives: http://www.legislature.ca.gov/port-zipsearch.html
  
• California State Senate: http://www.senate.ca.gov
  
• California State Assembly: http://www.assembly.ca.gov
  
• California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General: http://caag.state.ca.us
  
• The California Voter Foundation: http://www.calvoter.org
  
• Stateline (California): http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=state&sa=showStateInfo&id=CA
  
• California State Association of Counties (CSAC): http://www.csac.counties.org
  

Federal Resources:

• U.S. Government: http://www.firstgov.gov
  
• The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
  
• U.S. Senate: http://www.senate.gov
  
• U.S. House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov
  
• Finding your U.S. Representative: http://www.house.gov/zip/ZIP2Rep.html
  
• Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov
  
• GPO Access (Government Printing Office): http://www.gpoaccess.gov
  
• Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov
  

Other:

• Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
  
• Influencing State Policy: http://www.statepolicy.org
  
• Google U.S. Government Search: http://www.google.com/ig/usgov
  
• Enter Your Zip Code to see Census Data: http://zipskinny.com
• Google Maps - Where a Bill Becomes a Law: http://whereabill.org

Question

Why is there such a push for male role models for young boys, but not female role models for girls? Is it because there are more "absent" fathers than mothers? What are the actual numbers on this? I was telling a friend's mother about my own childhood and she asked if my younger brother has any male role models, right now. (our dad was killed a year and a half ago) He's 22. In the same story I also talked with her about being thrown out of the house when I was 16 and growing up, for the most part, without a mom. She didn't ask about female role models. Perhaps, because I'm so far beyond it, now? I'm 27. Regardless, this is something I want to spend more time thinking about.

Quick Thought

By letting kids make their own rules to a game (as opposed to instructing them to play the "right" way), they work to discover their rules of the world, their own internal working models, etc. (Piaget's work related to the development of moral reasoning) Plus, I can learn a lot more about a client this way.

Group Work - Solution Focused Therapy

(Readings: Corcoran, J. (2003). Clinical Applications of Evidenced-Based Family Interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press and Johnson, C. V., Reister, A.E., Corbett, C., Buehler, A., Huffaker, L., Levich, K., & Pena, E. (1998). Group activities for children and adolescents: An activity group therapy approach. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy, 8, 2, 71-88.)

My fellow intern sent me an email asking if I’d read the assigned Johnson article, suggesting that we might discuss it and use it to improve the group we’re co-facilitating. At this point, anything to improve the group sounds like a good plan to me, and if it provides a structured opportunity to really use one of these articles, I am all the more for it.

At present, we are running a solution-focused weekly group for five 3rd grade boys. The boys were referred by each of their teachers and met with N. and I individually to establish personal goals for work during the next 6 weeks. We’re about to have our third session and are feeling a bit worse for wear. These boys are lovely and amazing, but also completely wear me out. It’s such a struggle for me to try and find a balance between the kinds of structure I employed as a teacher as compared with the shift in purpose as a school social worker. More often than not, I have to remind myself that I’m not in the classroom and that this fact gives me a lot of freedom. Old habits are hard to break, however.

Our shared concern has been how to use the group curriculum we’ve been given in a way that fits the needs of these boys. As for all groups, setting, duration, and frequency all much be considered. Right now, our timing is off. Well, my timing is off. I can’t seem to fit things in, in an authentic and organic way. I used to be much better with my time management within the context of groups. I’m also wondering if we’re really clear on the purpose, and if N. and I aren’t clear, we can’t expect the group to be. Also, as referenced by Johnson, Reister, Corbett, Buchler, Huffaker, Levich & Pena (1998), the beginning phase of group centers around a search for meaning and these boys are trying on different roles, testing us and establishing who they want to be in this group. Additionally, the relationship between group structure and ego development is a concept worth more time and thought, on my part, and I hope to further my understanding on the interplay soon.

The Corcoran (2003) article is organized in a very accessible way, and the suggested activities are very helpful. I appreciate the concreteness with which the authors are presenting their material. A central question I have when reflecting upon the group is: are we engaging these kids? Most of the activities listed in the SOS (Spell Out) book are not particularly active and for these five boys, that really doesn’t work for them, and N. and I are finding out that it doesn’t really work for us either. I’m still feeling uncertain as to whether or not this group is going to gel. Our plan for next week, however, is to move away from such direct and didactic interventions and work on an art activity, discussing social skills throughout, as they are relevant and opportunities present themselves.

Symbolic Meanings of Toys

Airplane - escape, distance, speed, search, search, freedom, safety, protection, etc.

Animals (wild) - aggression, fear, survival, power, strength, etc.

Animals (domestic) - protection, family, reactions, relations, vulnerability, compliance, dependency, etc.

Baby Bottle - regression, nurturing, coping issues, dependency, babies, siblings, etc.

Ball - interaction, relationships, trust, competition, etc.

Binoculars - perspective, relationship (close/distance), surveillance, hunting, finding, searching, intimacy, self-examination, etc.

Blanket - regression, security, protection, boundaries, etc.

Blocks - defenses, boundaries, construction, limits, rigidity, closure, structure, protection, vulnerability, etc.

Cars - mobility, power, escape, conflict, safety, protection, travel, defenses, etc.

Chalk/Dry-Erase Board - environment, world, creation, emotional expression, contact, pressure, etc.

Clay - aggression, manipulation, creation, control, self-esteem, change, expression, contact, pressure, etc.

Costumes - relationships, communication, anonymity, fantasy, impule, disguise, etc.

• Gloves - avoiding, distance, safety, etc.
• Hats - identity, roles, expectations, fantasy, power, denial
• Masks - relationships, communication, anonymity, etc.
• Sunglasses - hiding, avoiding, distance, etc.
• Wigs - relationships, communication, impulse

Crayons/Paper - creation, contact, resources, problem-solving, etc.

Dinosaurs - past, history, death, power, extinction, fear, conflict, survival, etc.

Doctor's Kit - healing, repair, respect, power, pain, image, crisis, changing, etc.

• Syringe - intrusion, violation, pain, healing, fear, impact, etc.
• Stethoscope - internal feelings, unknown, undisclosed, validation, etc.
• Thermometer - internal feelings, sick/ok-ness, need for help, crisis, etc.
• Blood Pressure - internal issues, anger, calm, state of mind, internalized feelings, etc.
• Operation - crisis, intervention, intrusion, action, risk, resolution, control, vulnerability, etc.

Dishes/Cooking - nurturing, celebration, attention, neglect, demands, etc.

Dolls - identity, self, regression, sibling, anatomy, competition, closeness, friendship, etc.

Dollhouse - family, family interaction/attitude, environment, security, etc.

Fingerpaints - contact, involvement, impact, etc.

Flashlight - control, secrecy, fear, searching, leadership, dependency

Games - competition, competency, structure, resistance, moral reasoning, cooperation, etc.

Grooming - self-image, self-concept, change, validation, caring, nurturing, etc.

Guns - aggression, control anger, hostility, power, death, pain, intrusion, impact, protection, boundaries, etc.

Knife - utensil, aggression, power, defense, protection, intrusion, sexual, etc.

Lights - control, power, secret, escape, hiding, denial, change, etc.

Magic Wand / Crystal Ball - fantasy, wishes, goals, desire, future, etc.

Mirror - self-image, self-concept, memories, past, change, future, etc.

Money/Poker Chips - security, power, control, loss, cheated, etc.

Monster Figure - fear, mystery, protective, secretive, conflict, perpetrator, relationship, revenge, attack, etc.

Musical Instruments - self-expression, internal, communication, creativity, contact, etc.

Paints - distance, expression, inaccessible needs, etc.

Pillow - bed, safety, territory, parent, monster, aggression, relaxation, burden, etc.

Playing Cards - money, control, power, secrets, spontaneity, etc.

Puppets - relationships, communication, anonymity, impulses, disguise, etc.

Puzzles - problem solving, decisions, completion, integration, whole picture, getting-it-together, etc.

Sand - construction, destruction, community, feelings, change, emotional world, creativity, etc.

Teddy Bear - warmth, nurturing, security, companionship, etc.

Telephone - communication, distance, safety, control, power, disconnect, etc.

Water - emotionality, flexibility, freedom, anxiety, orality, sadness, depth, internal, etc.

Adapted from V. Richards, 2007

(note: toys can be a need for or a lack of some feeling, emotional state, or competency. context is always important. nothing is black and white.)

Reading Resources for Grief and Loss with Children

(by no means is this an exhaustive list)

Children Ages 3-8:

Brown, L. K., & Brown, M. T. (1996). When dinosaurs die a guide to understanding death. Boston: Little, Brown.

Curtis, J. L., & Cornell, L. (1998). Today I feel silly & other moods that make my day. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Mundy, M., & Alley, R. W. (1998). Sad isn't bad a good-grief guidebook for kids dealing with loss. St. Meinrad, IN: One Caring Place.

Palmer, P., & Burke, D. O. (1994). I wish I could hold your hand- a child's guide to grief and loss. San Luis Obispo, Calif: Impact.

Silverman, J. (1999). Help me say good-bye: Activities for helping kids cope when a special person dies. Minneapolis: Fairview Press.

Teakle, H. (1993). My daddy died: Supporting young children in grief. New York: HarperCollins.

Thomas, P. (2001). I miss you. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series, Inc. (Ages 3-6)

Viorst, J., & Blegvad, E. (1988). The tenth good thing about Barney. New York: Aladdin Books.

Winsch, J. L., & Keating, P. T. (1995). After the funeral. New York: Paulist Press.

Children Ages 9-12:

Clifton, L. (1983). Everett Anderson's good-bye. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Heegaard, M. (1991). When someone has a very serious illness: Children can learn to cope with loss and change. Minneapolis: Woodland Press.

Silverman, J. (1999). Help me say good-bye: Activities for helping kids cope when a special person dies. Minneapolis: Fairview Press.

Smith, D. (1973). A taste of blueberries. Thomas Y. Crowell.

Children 13 and Older:

Agee, J. (1967). A death in the family. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.

Alcott, L. M. (2001). Little women. New York: HarperFestival.

Gootman, M. E., & Espeland, P. (2005). When a friend dies a book for teens about grieving & healing. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Pub.

Romain, T., & Verdick, E. (1999). What on earth do you do when someone dies. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

The Dougy Center for Grieving Children. (2004). Helping teens cope with death. Portland, OR: The Dougy Center for Grieving Children.

Recommended for all Ages:

Buscaglia, L. F. (1982). The fall of Freddie the leaf a story of life for all ages. New York, N.Y: Distributed to the trade by Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kroen, W. C., & Espeland, P. (1996). Helping children cope with the loss of a loved one a guide for grownups. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Pub.

Mellonie, B., & Ingpen, R. R. (1983). Lifetimes a beautiful way to explain death to children. New York: Bantam Books.

Silverstein, S. (1964). The giving tree. New York: Harper & Row.

Rylant, C. (1999). The Heavenly Village. New York: Blue Sky Press.

Lessons That Should Be Learned From the Virginia Tech Mass Murders

From one of my most respected professors. I really admire his work.

Lessons That Should Be Learned From the Virginia Tech Mass Murders

by Ron Avi Astor — May 23, 2007


I’ve been researching school violence worldwide since the early 1980s and I’ve seen how our culture has responded to these tragedies. Unfortunately, some of the most important lessons that need to be learned are often lost in a quest to “understand the perpetrator.” If we hope to reduce future attacks, these are the main lessons we should learn as a culture.


Lesson 1: Students, teachers, and family members are our most important line of defense for saving lives. In almost all mass school shooting events the perpetrator has sent out many messages to friends, family, and peers. These signs follow a similar pattern across many of the shooting situations. This means we need ways to allow these groups to pass information on to the correct places that could address potential danger. Almost all K-12 school murders that have been thwarted were stopped because a student, faculty member, or family member came forward before the event occurred. When these types of lethal events are prevented, our nation should celebrate as heroes the students, teachers, and family members who saved lives. This past year we had one such event in Green Bay. Students were amassing napalm, firearms and had a clear plan to create another Columbine-like massacre. Luckily, one student came forth (many students knew and heard about it), and the school/ authorities took the threat seriously. This tragedy was averted due to the student who heard about the pending attack and the appropriate response from professionals. However, through local media and sometimes the grapevine (and we should have a better way of knowing when these thwarted events occur) it appears that there are dozens of these kinds of student, teacher, and family hero scenarios since Columbine that go unacknowledged in our national consciousness. It sometimes seems that our populous wants to learn after a tragedy occurs but devotes far less effort to understanding how these atrocities have been averted. This hampers our societal learning on how to prevent mass shootings in schools.


Lesson 2: We need to be clear on what to look for. Most of the shooters have been suicidal and homicidal for extended periods of time. The public and media have been trying to frame the cause along one variable (e.g., bullying, mental illness, guns, suicidal behavior, etc.). It’s clearly not ONE variable but the combination of variables. The most important one is threat to self and others. This means that the risk signs we normally look for with suicide could be very helpful in deciding what is a real problem. Has he made threats of suicide/homicide? Does he have a plan? Does he have a target group? Does he have a method? Is he obsessed with weapons, firearms, or explosives? Has he communicated verbally or in writing violent tendencies? Does he have a history of mental illness with violent traits? Does he see himself as a victim with many perpetrators around him? It’s not one of these questions that determine the ultimate risk, rather the combination of all of them that requires the need for speedy intervention. Creating institutional mechanisms that can examine risk variables across multiple categories is critical in assessing the overall risk. A focus on only one or two variables distorts the level of potential risk. Clearly, at Virginia Tech, the perpetrator had been suicidal and reported by his peers; a stalker and reported by his peers; a violence concern to his professor(s) and reported by the professor. So this was not a failure of the cohort to recognize the overall fear and risk involved. Rather, it was a failure of the system to consider (or be aware of) the multiple risks in combination. Part of the reform will require changes in state and federal laws surrounding privacy in high-risk situations, but schools should also change their procedures to inquire and take into account these other multiple variables rather than focus on only one that is presented at that period of time. Most K-12 schools have already informally moved to this kind of swift assessment since the Columbine murders.


Lesson 3: Understanding this act as a form of national terrorism, personal glorification, and a desire for eternal fame. This understanding is critical if we as a society want to reduce the number of such tragedies. The main motivation shooters have in perpetrating these events in the way that they are done is eternal memory and fame. They also want to strike fear into the hearts of every American for many years to come. This means the country should respond to these events as they would to terrorist acts, acts of suicide, and attempts to destroy our morale. Decades of social science research clearly show that glorification of perpetrators in the media right after an event increases the chances of these events happening in the months and years following a saturation of information on perpetrators in the media. A focus on the victims and the pain caused by the tragedy leads to a decrease in copycat events. The public has a right to know information; however, the guidelines and deliberations on what events to show and how to show them should follow similar guidelines surrounding terrorism and suicide. These kinds of guidelines might be helpful to schools in the way they frame the issue to students and faculty. It may encourage a greater alertness and clarity about the need to respond and inform if similar situations appear in their settings. Over time, this type of response may help in reducing the number of copycat events.


Lesson 4. Pre- and post-crisis planning need to include many citizens. Compared with other countries, the United States has very few members of the public trained in how to help and respond in a crisis. Much of my work has been in Israel where most of the people have training in basic crisis principles and response. Hence, in a crisis the EMTs and police have thousands of civilian helpers and allies to help evacuate, secure perimeters, triage, and everyone knows where to go and how to respond in a timely manner. In the United States, the entire immediate crisis response is professionalized to police officers, firefighters, and a small group of crisis workers. There is no reason that all U.S. high school students and college freshmen can’t take basic emergency training courses to increase our national and local capacity to handle disaster events. Clearly, 9/11, the Oklahoma bombing, the many school shootings, Hurricane Katrina, pending earthquakes, and other forms of natural disasters in recent years have shown that our population could be better educated and prepared to be assets in crisis situations. In the same way we educate about CPR or how to use the Heimlich procedure or basic safety classes on riding a bike, or driving a car, we can create short pre-during-post crisis units in health classes (both at the high school and college levels). This would be especially important for schools in high-risk areas (e.g., California with earthquakes). This way our country could have millions of responders rather than populations that feel helpless and are unsure how to respond when the need appears. In the same way that learning CPR and the Heimlich empowers people who learned these skills, basic crisis knowledge could help students feel that they can help and contribute if called upon.

Teachers College Record, Date Published: May 23, 2007
http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 14497, Date Accessed: 10/10/2007 11:20:16 PM

Running Groups

I'm losing my thoughts, left and right, with increasing regularity. It's a problem. At any rate, I ran the first session of a solution-focused group for five third grade boys, last week. The intern who will co-facilitate had another meeting to attend, so another intern (at the end of her placement) sat in.

Thus far, this kind of "support" feels to be more of a hindrance than a help. I don't like being observed. In fact, I hate it. I feel much more confident and competent just walking in and doing it on my own. I understand the principle of having a kind of human lifeline in the room is supposed to decrease the anxiety, but that's really not my experience: it makes me want to bolt. I know a lot of it stems from my insecurities and irrational convictions related to my perceptions of constant judgment by others. I'm trying to get over that. This first group, however, also brought up the beginnings of quasi-ethical (perhaps, more ideological) points of contention and reminded me of just how hard it can be to run a group with another person.

For me, when I'm in a teacher's classroom, I try to adhere to his/her version of "appropriate behavior" as much as possible, without sacrificing my own values and ceasing to function as my authentic self (or whatever). It's a different beast, however, when a session is on your turf. This first session was particularly difficult in that the intern with whom I was co-facilitating would only be there the once and I, as previously mentioned, was experiencing my typical anxiety related to the presence, observations, and perceived judgments of my "superiors".

Also: they're boys. Boys after recess. And I'm comfortable with a level of "chaos" that others find infuriating. In my opinion, they weren't horrible at all. Testing, sure; but that's what kids are going to do the first time they're in a new group, with a new adult: test. Of course, I'll sit in on a classroom lesson with my supervisor and the "calling out" and volume that she's OK with makes me want to climb out of my skin. These boys know each other well and this, of course, impacts the dynamics of the group. We discussed group guidelines and they talked over one another regardless. Fairly quickly, they began to police each other, but without any real thought as to how what they said about another child could also be reflected back on themselves. This isn't surprising and while it wasn't my favorite thing, I felt confident that a shift could be made in future sessions.

What threw me was the co-facilitator's response to the kid-on-kid policing: she loved it. She said that it would only become more pronounced and spoke of this as an extremely positive thing. I think I see where she's coming from, in that such self-regulation potentially speaks to group cohesion, but with kids, group process functions a bit differently. Kids calling each other out and putting each other down for not sitting up or talking out of turn doesn't feel right. Maybe it's because there is such a disconnect between what they're saying and what they're doing. To me, it seems more that they reprimand each other for the purpose of gleaning individual attention from the adult facilitators, not because they feel the group suffers from such disregard of agreed upon rules. And the other intern was clear to say that she did not allow for personal put-downs (i.e. "that's stupid" or "shut-up"), but these kids possess not an ounce of tact and when they instruct another child to sit up, it sure sounds like a personal attack.

So, how much of this is just me? Is there a right or wrong? The other intern intimated that best-practice was to let the kiddos work out these issues completely on their own. I have a strong bias toward following the rules by demonstrating the rules, otherwise it feels like this hypocritical free-for-all. I guess I'll see how the group goes this week and what differences there will be with the introduction of N. as co-facilitator. To be continued. . .