Producer's Blog
The Task Ahead
posted September 17, 2010 8:02 a.m.
A couple days ago I read a post on the Time Magazine web site about an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in Buffalo, NY, who was facing a significant prison sentence because of “bizarre death and bomb threats” he made. The vet was diverted to Buffalo’s veterans’ court where he was put in a mandated treatment program with the possibility of avoiding jail if he completed treatment and stayed out of trouble. A pretty good example of how the system should work, at least according to most people in the field. But there was a kicker – in the form of comments on the posting. They ranged from cries about the waste of taxpayers’ money, to assertions that crimes were crimes and vets were no different, to complaints that vets were being pampered, to the proposal that future criminal leniency would be a great recruiting pitch, to accusations that the news media was portraying all members of the US military as “mentally unstable, crazed murderers and criminals.” Barely a whisper of support – or empathy – among what I can only assume is a random cross section of the Time Magazine reading public. Talk about discouraging! No understanding that this policy will not only cost less now but will likely result in substantial long term economic benefits. No understanding how the stress endured in the service of our country does make vets different – psychologically, yes; but also in their relationship to the services and consideration owed them by the wider public. No feeling for the vet’s family, struggling to deal with the person who returned from the wars. No understanding of the need to surface these issues in order to deal with them. Just a lot of nasty, narrow, selfish, cynical, ignorant posturing. Now, to be honest there were a few more considered and informed voices among the exchanges. But the general tenor of the comment thread was unmistakable. On the one hand, the experience of reading this was very upsetting, as much for the destructiveness of the remarks as for what it seemed to say about the current mood of the American public. On the other hand, these comments show what a massive job of public education lies before us. On top of all the other communications challenges – with law enforcement, the judiciary the care providers and among service members and their families – unless we can make the case to the public and generate public understanding and support, any progress that is realized will be under constant threat. Feels like a call to arms.
posted September 17, 2010 8:02 a.m.
A couple days ago I read a post on the Time Magazine web site about an Iraq/Afghanistan vet in Buffalo, NY, who was facing a significant prison sentence because of “bizarre death and bomb threats” he made. The vet was diverted to Buffalo’s veterans’ court where he was put in a mandated treatment program with the possibility of avoiding jail if he completed treatment and stayed out of trouble. A pretty good example of how the system should work, at least according to most people in the field. But there was a kicker – in the form of comments on the posting. They ranged from cries about the waste of taxpayers’ money, to assertions that crimes were crimes and vets were no different, to complaints that vets were being pampered, to the proposal that future criminal leniency would be a great recruiting pitch, to accusations that the news media was portraying all members of the US military as “mentally unstable, crazed murderers and criminals.” Barely a whisper of support – or empathy – among what I can only assume is a random cross section of the Time Magazine reading public. Talk about discouraging! No understanding that this policy will not only cost less now but will likely result in substantial long term economic benefits. No understanding how the stress endured in the service of our country does make vets different – psychologically, yes; but also in their relationship to the services and consideration owed them by the wider public. No feeling for the vet’s family, struggling to deal with the person who returned from the wars. No understanding of the need to surface these issues in order to deal with them. Just a lot of nasty, narrow, selfish, cynical, ignorant posturing. Now, to be honest there were a few more considered and informed voices among the exchanges. But the general tenor of the comment thread was unmistakable. On the one hand, the experience of reading this was very upsetting, as much for the destructiveness of the remarks as for what it seemed to say about the current mood of the American public. On the other hand, these comments show what a massive job of public education lies before us. On top of all the other communications challenges – with law enforcement, the judiciary the care providers and among service members and their families – unless we can make the case to the public and generate public understanding and support, any progress that is realized will be under constant threat. Feels like a call to arms.
On Receiving Awards
posted July 21, 2010 10:14 a.m.
It’s been both a satisfying and frustrating time here at Fred Friendly Seminars in relation to PTSD. The good part comes in two related experiences. First, our most recent national media production and outreach campaign, “Minds on the Edge” has just received the annual award for outstanding achievement by the two preeminent mental health advocacy groups in the nation: the National Alliance on Mental Illness [NAMI] and Mental Health America [MHA]. It was both an honor and a pleasure to be so generously acknowledged by these wonderful groups. Second, at these organizations’ national conventions, where the awards were presented, it was crystal clear that both NAMI and MHA – and their members – are intently focused on the welfare of our veterans and the challenges many of them are facing, or will soon face, in returning to the US and trying to reintegrate themselves into civilian society. Now the frustrating part: despite this kind of support across the civilian population; despite the resources the issue is receiving; despite the recent relaxation of the rules for “proving” PTSD to receive benefits and disability; despite the vow of Gen. Petraeus, our new OEF commander, to “bring all assets to bear to protect our men and women in uniform”; despite all of this, it’s not at all clear that psychological stress/PTSD problem is getting any better. In fact, the recent rise of suicides among service members seems to indicate exactly the opposite. I remain convinced that a large part of the problem resides in the stigma that people feel if they admit [even to themselves] that they need help with their mental health. Until we can really penetrate down to the junior and non-commissioned officer level, and beyond that to the service members themselves, not much [or perhaps better to say, not enough] will be achieved. Service members just HATE to be labeled "mentally ill" [or anything like that]; many of them don't want to hear another word about PTSD. And I totally get it. But somehow or other, stress injuries need to be accorded the same level of concern and empathy that physical injuries get – and I mean concern and empathy by fellow squad or platoon members, not by officers or other officials. The alternative is a whole lot of crippled or ruined lives. But that is much, much easier said than done, for a lot of reasons. The necessary toughness that must be cultivated to fight wars; the psychological development of young men and women; the ways society organizes its self-knowledge. Lots of reasons. Severe stress and PTSD will always be one of the wounds of war. We can’t avoid that. But we can do a much better job in dealing with those wounds. The biggest step will be the reduction or elimination of stigma – and that is where Fred Friendly Seminars and “When War Hits Home” comes in – in connecting directly to service members and their families. We’re anxious to get this project underway.
posted July 21, 2010 10:14 a.m.
It’s been both a satisfying and frustrating time here at Fred Friendly Seminars in relation to PTSD. The good part comes in two related experiences. First, our most recent national media production and outreach campaign, “Minds on the Edge” has just received the annual award for outstanding achievement by the two preeminent mental health advocacy groups in the nation: the National Alliance on Mental Illness [NAMI] and Mental Health America [MHA]. It was both an honor and a pleasure to be so generously acknowledged by these wonderful groups. Second, at these organizations’ national conventions, where the awards were presented, it was crystal clear that both NAMI and MHA – and their members – are intently focused on the welfare of our veterans and the challenges many of them are facing, or will soon face, in returning to the US and trying to reintegrate themselves into civilian society. Now the frustrating part: despite this kind of support across the civilian population; despite the resources the issue is receiving; despite the recent relaxation of the rules for “proving” PTSD to receive benefits and disability; despite the vow of Gen. Petraeus, our new OEF commander, to “bring all assets to bear to protect our men and women in uniform”; despite all of this, it’s not at all clear that psychological stress/PTSD problem is getting any better. In fact, the recent rise of suicides among service members seems to indicate exactly the opposite. I remain convinced that a large part of the problem resides in the stigma that people feel if they admit [even to themselves] that they need help with their mental health. Until we can really penetrate down to the junior and non-commissioned officer level, and beyond that to the service members themselves, not much [or perhaps better to say, not enough] will be achieved. Service members just HATE to be labeled "mentally ill" [or anything like that]; many of them don't want to hear another word about PTSD. And I totally get it. But somehow or other, stress injuries need to be accorded the same level of concern and empathy that physical injuries get – and I mean concern and empathy by fellow squad or platoon members, not by officers or other officials. The alternative is a whole lot of crippled or ruined lives. But that is much, much easier said than done, for a lot of reasons. The necessary toughness that must be cultivated to fight wars; the psychological development of young men and women; the ways society organizes its self-knowledge. Lots of reasons. Severe stress and PTSD will always be one of the wounds of war. We can’t avoid that. But we can do a much better job in dealing with those wounds. The biggest step will be the reduction or elimination of stigma – and that is where Fred Friendly Seminars and “When War Hits Home” comes in – in connecting directly to service members and their families. We’re anxious to get this project underway.
Bob Woodruff on Brain Trauma and the wars
posted June 1, 2010 8:42 a.m.
We were honored recently to be able to spend some time with Bob Woodruff, the ABC reporter who suffered severe TBI when his vehicle ran into an IED in Iraq. I don’t know if you’ve seen the X-rays of Bob’s injury in the aftermath of the attack, but the left side of his skull was reduced to mere fragments. He was in a medically induced coma for over a month. Very scary stuff. The miracle – the result of the amazing medicine that can now be brought to bear – is that Bob’s wounds are now virtually undetectable. Almost no physical scars are visible and his mental acuity seems as sharp as ever. Bob is acting as one of our advisors on the When War Hits Home project. It’s stunning to be able to discuss the stresses of re-entry with someone like Bob, a journalist who became the story and in the process deepened and strengthened his commitment and understanding. He occupies a unique position – not actually a vet and not totally an objective journalist – and as such he has unique access to and empathy for both worlds. Bob’s ‘citizenship’ in these two worlds reminds me of a recent event that took place at the Columbia School of Journalism, where the Fred Friendly Seminars is located. Kelly Kennedy, another project advisor, Desert Storm veteran and journalist came to discuss her very moving and difficult [in the best possible way] book on Iraq, “They Fought For Each Other.” The book is about the triumphs and struggles of Charlie Company I-26, the Army unit that was perhaps the hardest hit in the Iraq war. It’s a great book. But what struck me was a remark she dropped about her appearance at West Point the day before. When she told the cadets that she was due at Columbia the next day, their expectation was that she would experience significant hostility from the Ivy League audience. That expectation was not at all justified – the reaction at Columbia was overwhelmingly positive – but that West Point cadets should have that expectation is potentially very damaging. Not that Columbia undergraduates probably don’t have analogous misperceptions about their peers in military educational institutions. I’m sure they do. But if these two groups – our future military leaders and our future leaders in civil society – persist in seeing each other as hostile and alien groups, then there is trouble ahead. I’m not sure what a project like, When War Hits Home can do to bridge that gulf, but that is certainly part of our ambition. After all, what we are attempting to surface is a realization of the full cost and obligation that war demands of us. Not that we should therefore totally abjure war, but that we should be cognizant as a society what it costs to send young people out to fight. That means in both money and the welfare of American citizens, the promotion of which is (or ought to be) the ultimate goal of any of our wars.
posted June 1, 2010 8:42 a.m.
We were honored recently to be able to spend some time with Bob Woodruff, the ABC reporter who suffered severe TBI when his vehicle ran into an IED in Iraq. I don’t know if you’ve seen the X-rays of Bob’s injury in the aftermath of the attack, but the left side of his skull was reduced to mere fragments. He was in a medically induced coma for over a month. Very scary stuff. The miracle – the result of the amazing medicine that can now be brought to bear – is that Bob’s wounds are now virtually undetectable. Almost no physical scars are visible and his mental acuity seems as sharp as ever. Bob is acting as one of our advisors on the When War Hits Home project. It’s stunning to be able to discuss the stresses of re-entry with someone like Bob, a journalist who became the story and in the process deepened and strengthened his commitment and understanding. He occupies a unique position – not actually a vet and not totally an objective journalist – and as such he has unique access to and empathy for both worlds. Bob’s ‘citizenship’ in these two worlds reminds me of a recent event that took place at the Columbia School of Journalism, where the Fred Friendly Seminars is located. Kelly Kennedy, another project advisor, Desert Storm veteran and journalist came to discuss her very moving and difficult [in the best possible way] book on Iraq, “They Fought For Each Other.” The book is about the triumphs and struggles of Charlie Company I-26, the Army unit that was perhaps the hardest hit in the Iraq war. It’s a great book. But what struck me was a remark she dropped about her appearance at West Point the day before. When she told the cadets that she was due at Columbia the next day, their expectation was that she would experience significant hostility from the Ivy League audience. That expectation was not at all justified – the reaction at Columbia was overwhelmingly positive – but that West Point cadets should have that expectation is potentially very damaging. Not that Columbia undergraduates probably don’t have analogous misperceptions about their peers in military educational institutions. I’m sure they do. But if these two groups – our future military leaders and our future leaders in civil society – persist in seeing each other as hostile and alien groups, then there is trouble ahead. I’m not sure what a project like, When War Hits Home can do to bridge that gulf, but that is certainly part of our ambition. After all, what we are attempting to surface is a realization of the full cost and obligation that war demands of us. Not that we should therefore totally abjure war, but that we should be cognizant as a society what it costs to send young people out to fight. That means in both money and the welfare of American citizens, the promotion of which is (or ought to be) the ultimate goal of any of our wars.
PTSD Comes Home to Ft. Campbell
posted May 14, 2010 8:39 a.m.
I’ve just returned from Fort Campbell, which straddles the Tennessee/Kentucky border, and which is at the center of the Army’s efforts to get its arms around the issue of combat stress and PTSD. I was there to attend a NAMI Tennessee event, “Healing the Wounded Warriors,” which aimed to bring the mental health advocacy/provider/military communities together in Tennessee and Kentucky to figure out how to use collective resources and knowledge to help active service members, veterans and their families. A fascinating picture emerges of a giant, results-driven, resource sensitive organization trying to tackle a critical issue while in many respects still tripping over its own feet. As we’ve seen many times, it’s clear that the brass has gotten the message. Numerous Generals pounded home the same message: This is urgent; we’re doing everything we can to get on top of it including research, resources, care and communications; and we’re open to working with you. A trip through the PTSD/mTBI [that stands for mild Traumatic Brain Injury] facility at the Fort was awesome. Certainly the most advanced testing and rehab facility I’ve ever seen, full of immersive environments, virtual reality war “games” and psychological testing apparatuses. I had a chance to test drive, as the passenger-side gunner, a virtual motorized patrol of Baghdad. Serious equipment, and for me seriously fun. If the level of adrenaline that I had pumping was any indication, this machine will definitely surface stress issues with which service members recently returned from Iraq or Afghanistan may be struggling. And it’s worth noting that Ft. Campbell itself has been able to reduce its suicide rate by 2/3 in the last year. On the other hand, seeking counseling for mental health issues can still block your chances to become an officer; officers still aren’t rated on how they train for and treat mental health issues in their command; it seems that the “dwell” time [i.e. out of the war zone] needed to re-establish psychological balance could be as long as 24 months while the Army allows only 12; and stigma is still ferocious. The upper brass might have gotten the message but the platoon and squad leaders are not there yet. Furthermore, breaking through the carapace of your average 22 year-old soldier, especially a male soldier, is a very tough assignment. These guys –both because of their own proclivities and the dynamics of groups of young fighters, and because military training which stresses toughness and mission-focus – just don’t want to have to confront mental health issues. In fact, soldiers are frequently and deliberately dishonest when filling out post-deployment assessment reports. At the Ft. Campbell assessment center, soldiers sometimes show up drunk to take their post-deployment psychological/physiological testing. Eventually they are obliged to sober up and take the test, but you get the message. The fight to get on top of this problem continues – but it’s a heck of a fight
posted May 14, 2010 8:39 a.m.
I’ve just returned from Fort Campbell, which straddles the Tennessee/Kentucky border, and which is at the center of the Army’s efforts to get its arms around the issue of combat stress and PTSD. I was there to attend a NAMI Tennessee event, “Healing the Wounded Warriors,” which aimed to bring the mental health advocacy/provider/military communities together in Tennessee and Kentucky to figure out how to use collective resources and knowledge to help active service members, veterans and their families. A fascinating picture emerges of a giant, results-driven, resource sensitive organization trying to tackle a critical issue while in many respects still tripping over its own feet. As we’ve seen many times, it’s clear that the brass has gotten the message. Numerous Generals pounded home the same message: This is urgent; we’re doing everything we can to get on top of it including research, resources, care and communications; and we’re open to working with you. A trip through the PTSD/mTBI [that stands for mild Traumatic Brain Injury] facility at the Fort was awesome. Certainly the most advanced testing and rehab facility I’ve ever seen, full of immersive environments, virtual reality war “games” and psychological testing apparatuses. I had a chance to test drive, as the passenger-side gunner, a virtual motorized patrol of Baghdad. Serious equipment, and for me seriously fun. If the level of adrenaline that I had pumping was any indication, this machine will definitely surface stress issues with which service members recently returned from Iraq or Afghanistan may be struggling. And it’s worth noting that Ft. Campbell itself has been able to reduce its suicide rate by 2/3 in the last year. On the other hand, seeking counseling for mental health issues can still block your chances to become an officer; officers still aren’t rated on how they train for and treat mental health issues in their command; it seems that the “dwell” time [i.e. out of the war zone] needed to re-establish psychological balance could be as long as 24 months while the Army allows only 12; and stigma is still ferocious. The upper brass might have gotten the message but the platoon and squad leaders are not there yet. Furthermore, breaking through the carapace of your average 22 year-old soldier, especially a male soldier, is a very tough assignment. These guys –both because of their own proclivities and the dynamics of groups of young fighters, and because military training which stresses toughness and mission-focus – just don’t want to have to confront mental health issues. In fact, soldiers are frequently and deliberately dishonest when filling out post-deployment assessment reports. At the Ft. Campbell assessment center, soldiers sometimes show up drunk to take their post-deployment psychological/physiological testing. Eventually they are obliged to sober up and take the test, but you get the message. The fight to get on top of this problem continues – but it’s a heck of a fight
Partners Unite on "When War Hits Home"
posted April 22, 2010 2:23 a.m.
On Monday, April 19th we held a meeting a meeting of potential partners on the PTSD project in Washington, DC. The meeting demonstrated the extraordinary support this project has garnered already, with senior people from the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare the VA, the DoD, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Mental Health America, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, etc. etc. etc. Their attendance was gratifying, for sure. But even better, the meeting turned into an exciting, invigorating swap-fest of ideas that illuminated all levels of the issue. OIF veteran Todd Bowers from IAVA and Dr. Maria Llorente of the Miami VA hospital offered their insights “from the trenches” so to speak. Judge Stephen Leifman, Special Advisor to the Florida Supreme Court, and Hank Steadman, head of The National GAINS Center, added invaluable texture on the needs and attitude of the law enforcement/criminal justice communities. The contributions of Sonja Batten, from Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health & Traumatic Brain Injury and the VA’s Dr. Mehret Mandefro utterly transcended clichéd expectations about calcified thinking in government agencies. They are powerful and original thought leaders. Several messages came through clearly and universally. Everyone is united on the urgency of the issue. Everyone is committed to working with this project to ensure maximum impact in all areas. And everyone recognizes the core of our challenge is to address veterans in a way to which they will respond positively. As we’ve learned and re-learned, veterans feel themselves to be a band apart in many senses, and are proud of it. They don’t want to be seen as a ‘problem’ – on the contrary, the lessons of war, as hard as those lessons can be, also can [and usually do] make them stronger, more directed, more mature. They don’t like the constant drumbeat about mental health – it puts them back in that ‘problem’ category. They don’t want to be seen, and don’t see themselves, as needy. So how do we connect with veterans about their possible mental health needs without making them feel like we are talking down, that we just don’t get it? And how do we do that before a crisis precipitates something really bad? Stay tuned.
posted April 22, 2010 2:23 a.m.
On Monday, April 19th we held a meeting a meeting of potential partners on the PTSD project in Washington, DC. The meeting demonstrated the extraordinary support this project has garnered already, with senior people from the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare the VA, the DoD, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Mental Health America, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, etc. etc. etc. Their attendance was gratifying, for sure. But even better, the meeting turned into an exciting, invigorating swap-fest of ideas that illuminated all levels of the issue. OIF veteran Todd Bowers from IAVA and Dr. Maria Llorente of the Miami VA hospital offered their insights “from the trenches” so to speak. Judge Stephen Leifman, Special Advisor to the Florida Supreme Court, and Hank Steadman, head of The National GAINS Center, added invaluable texture on the needs and attitude of the law enforcement/criminal justice communities. The contributions of Sonja Batten, from Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health & Traumatic Brain Injury and the VA’s Dr. Mehret Mandefro utterly transcended clichéd expectations about calcified thinking in government agencies. They are powerful and original thought leaders. Several messages came through clearly and universally. Everyone is united on the urgency of the issue. Everyone is committed to working with this project to ensure maximum impact in all areas. And everyone recognizes the core of our challenge is to address veterans in a way to which they will respond positively. As we’ve learned and re-learned, veterans feel themselves to be a band apart in many senses, and are proud of it. They don’t want to be seen as a ‘problem’ – on the contrary, the lessons of war, as hard as those lessons can be, also can [and usually do] make them stronger, more directed, more mature. They don’t like the constant drumbeat about mental health – it puts them back in that ‘problem’ category. They don’t want to be seen, and don’t see themselves, as needy. So how do we connect with veterans about their possible mental health needs without making them feel like we are talking down, that we just don’t get it? And how do we do that before a crisis precipitates something really bad? Stay tuned.
PTSD-the Momentum Builds
posted March 25, 2010 3:15 a.m.
It’s been a great week. To continue with tales from Orlando – Pamela Hyde the new chief of SAMHSA [Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency at NIMH], made a dynamic presentation that made one thing perfectly clear: PTSD, military families and communication are at the top of the Agency’s agenda. Even better, the PTSD initiative at SAMHSA is headed by Kathryn Powers the chief of the Center for Mental Health Services who has been an enthusiastic supporter of our work. It certainly feels like the stars are aligning, that critical mass is building [add the cliché of your choice here – but it’s all good!]. A few days later we presented Minds on the Edge at an NIMH meeting in Indianapolis and had breakfast the following morning with Dr. Tom Insel the Director of the NIMH. By a lucky chance, Dr. Insel had arrived at the meeting just as our presentation concluded and was mobbed by enthusiastic attendees who let him know how great they thought Minds on the Edge is. At breakfast he let us know that he clearly saw the value of our work on Minds and wanted to find a way to continue to push it out nationally. Just as importantly, he was clearly of one mind with his colleagues at SAMHSA, CMHS, etc. about the urgency of PTSD. It’s extremely difficult and time-consuming to get the support of giant federal agencies, and we’ve suffered our share of frustration. But it appears that our efforts are paying off. Now if we could move from moral support to something more tangible…!
posted March 25, 2010 3:15 a.m.
It’s been a great week. To continue with tales from Orlando – Pamela Hyde the new chief of SAMHSA [Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency at NIMH], made a dynamic presentation that made one thing perfectly clear: PTSD, military families and communication are at the top of the Agency’s agenda. Even better, the PTSD initiative at SAMHSA is headed by Kathryn Powers the chief of the Center for Mental Health Services who has been an enthusiastic supporter of our work. It certainly feels like the stars are aligning, that critical mass is building [add the cliché of your choice here – but it’s all good!]. A few days later we presented Minds on the Edge at an NIMH meeting in Indianapolis and had breakfast the following morning with Dr. Tom Insel the Director of the NIMH. By a lucky chance, Dr. Insel had arrived at the meeting just as our presentation concluded and was mobbed by enthusiastic attendees who let him know how great they thought Minds on the Edge is. At breakfast he let us know that he clearly saw the value of our work on Minds and wanted to find a way to continue to push it out nationally. Just as importantly, he was clearly of one mind with his colleagues at SAMHSA, CMHS, etc. about the urgency of PTSD. It’s extremely difficult and time-consuming to get the support of giant federal agencies, and we’ve suffered our share of frustration. But it appears that our efforts are paying off. Now if we could move from moral support to something more tangible…!
Mental Health/Criminal Justice Brace for PTSD Impact
posted March 16, 2010 8 a.m.
We’re in Orlando all week for two conferences: The National Council on Community Behavioral Health Care and the Center for Mental Health Services’ National GAINS Center Conference . Members of the National Council are primarily the leadership and clinicians at community-based mental health agencies. GAINS is tackling the tragic problem of the arrest and incarceration of people with severe mental illness or brain injury – that includes PTSD and TBI – by promoting evidence-based practices that reduce criminal justice involvement in favor of treatment. It’s a timely undertaking. Just think of the cost of putting all these people in prison or jail at a time when states are buckling under the impact of the Great Recession. Not to mention the ethical problem of incarcerating people whose behavior is a result of injuries suffered in our country’s service. That’s as close to inexcusable as you’d ever want to get. Our entrée to these conferences is that we are presenting Minds on the Edge, but our [not so] secret agenda is to gather intelligence, partners and sources for the PTSD project. Both organizations clearly see that PTSD is the big freight engine gathering speed and about to collide with our dysfunctional “system” of patchy services and under-prepared law enforcement. Both are trying to prepare their fields for the challenge in regard to both vets and their families. Many terrific sessions here on model programs that reach out to vets and that are getting a footing now in states across the country. We’re thrilled that both the National Council and GAINS, having seen what Minds on the Edge accomplished, are eager to be partners with us on this new project. The National Council has even offered to host a meeting in DC in April to gather our PTSD project partners to plan strategy, define goals for the outreach and communications portions of the project.
posted March 16, 2010 8 a.m.
We’re in Orlando all week for two conferences: The National Council on Community Behavioral Health Care and the Center for Mental Health Services’ National GAINS Center Conference . Members of the National Council are primarily the leadership and clinicians at community-based mental health agencies. GAINS is tackling the tragic problem of the arrest and incarceration of people with severe mental illness or brain injury – that includes PTSD and TBI – by promoting evidence-based practices that reduce criminal justice involvement in favor of treatment. It’s a timely undertaking. Just think of the cost of putting all these people in prison or jail at a time when states are buckling under the impact of the Great Recession. Not to mention the ethical problem of incarcerating people whose behavior is a result of injuries suffered in our country’s service. That’s as close to inexcusable as you’d ever want to get. Our entrée to these conferences is that we are presenting Minds on the Edge, but our [not so] secret agenda is to gather intelligence, partners and sources for the PTSD project. Both organizations clearly see that PTSD is the big freight engine gathering speed and about to collide with our dysfunctional “system” of patchy services and under-prepared law enforcement. Both are trying to prepare their fields for the challenge in regard to both vets and their families. Many terrific sessions here on model programs that reach out to vets and that are getting a footing now in states across the country. We’re thrilled that both the National Council and GAINS, having seen what Minds on the Edge accomplished, are eager to be partners with us on this new project. The National Council has even offered to host a meeting in DC in April to gather our PTSD project partners to plan strategy, define goals for the outreach and communications portions of the project.
Psychiatrists Say PTSD #1 Need
posted February 25, 2010 4 a.m.
Awareness of PTSD and TBI as they affect Iraq/Afghanistan vets and active military seems to be gaining more and more prominence and urgency. Spoke today to the people at the US Psychiatric Congress, which organizes a huge annual meeting to provide cutting-edge continuing medical education to psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals. Their membership has told them that the #1 ‘emerging issue’ they feel the need to learn more about is PTSD among vets. This issue is obviously moving beyond its core constituency, which is great. We had a very successful collaboration with the Psych Congress at their meeting last November in Las Vegas. We screened Minds on the Edge in a ballroom for over 500 conference participants and challenged them to think about how they can be change agents to improve the mental health system. Now we’re trying to figure out how we can work together to educate medical services providers on attitudes, effective practices, treatment resources, etc. etc. in relation to PTSD. For these locally-based mental health professionals who are not connected to the DOD or the VA or with vets per se, a significant looming challenge will be the members of vets’ families – especially spouses and children – who will seek their services and need informed help. That’s going to be an immense need; and right now it’s often unmet. National Guard and Reserve families receive no help from the VA or DOD but will really bear the brunt of husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, who return to the US and are often described by families as being “different people.” The Guard and Reserves especially are often whisked from the field of battle and almost literally air-dropped back into their old lives. The shock and sense of dislocation can be overwhelming. High tension in an Afghani desert one day; buying shoes with the kids at the mall the next. Hard even to imagine what that feels like.
posted February 25, 2010 4 a.m.
Awareness of PTSD and TBI as they affect Iraq/Afghanistan vets and active military seems to be gaining more and more prominence and urgency. Spoke today to the people at the US Psychiatric Congress, which organizes a huge annual meeting to provide cutting-edge continuing medical education to psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals. Their membership has told them that the #1 ‘emerging issue’ they feel the need to learn more about is PTSD among vets. This issue is obviously moving beyond its core constituency, which is great. We had a very successful collaboration with the Psych Congress at their meeting last November in Las Vegas. We screened Minds on the Edge in a ballroom for over 500 conference participants and challenged them to think about how they can be change agents to improve the mental health system. Now we’re trying to figure out how we can work together to educate medical services providers on attitudes, effective practices, treatment resources, etc. etc. in relation to PTSD. For these locally-based mental health professionals who are not connected to the DOD or the VA or with vets per se, a significant looming challenge will be the members of vets’ families – especially spouses and children – who will seek their services and need informed help. That’s going to be an immense need; and right now it’s often unmet. National Guard and Reserve families receive no help from the VA or DOD but will really bear the brunt of husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, who return to the US and are often described by families as being “different people.” The Guard and Reserves especially are often whisked from the field of battle and almost literally air-dropped back into their old lives. The shock and sense of dislocation can be overwhelming. High tension in an Afghani desert one day; buying shoes with the kids at the mall the next. Hard even to imagine what that feels like.
Not Our Father's War, Thankfully
posted February 10, 2010 2:10 a.m.
Met today with Wes Moore who is on the board of the IAVA [Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association]. Wes is one of those people who make me feel tired just thinking about all they have accomplished --officer in Iraq; Presidential Fellow at the US Department of State; working now in international markets for Citigroup. Oh, and he’s a terrifically charming person who has perhaps reached his early thirties. Impressive. IAVA is doing an amazing job advocating for this generation of vets. They are hyper-active in DC and really leading the charge with the veterans themselves. We’re thrilled Wes and IAVA are getting involved with When War Hits Home. It is clear that one essential difference between today’s vets and Vietnam-era vets is that the public embraces them. The public is not making the mistake of conflating America’s military personnel who answered the call to service with political judgments about the Bush administration’s rush into Iraq. I think everyone regretfully recognizes that we radically failed Vietnam vets when they most needed public support – when they returned to the states. A sympathetic public creates the opportunity for the rest of us to give back. And, since invisible wounds of war – brain injuries like PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) – are the signature wounds of these wars, this creates an opportunity to readjust the attitudes of the whole nation on the nature and origin of serious mental illnesses, which are themselves brain injuries or malfunctions. This is the same idea being pursued by MHission Vermont [see my previous blog].
posted February 10, 2010 2:10 a.m.
Met today with Wes Moore who is on the board of the IAVA [Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association]. Wes is one of those people who make me feel tired just thinking about all they have accomplished --officer in Iraq; Presidential Fellow at the US Department of State; working now in international markets for Citigroup. Oh, and he’s a terrifically charming person who has perhaps reached his early thirties. Impressive. IAVA is doing an amazing job advocating for this generation of vets. They are hyper-active in DC and really leading the charge with the veterans themselves. We’re thrilled Wes and IAVA are getting involved with When War Hits Home. It is clear that one essential difference between today’s vets and Vietnam-era vets is that the public embraces them. The public is not making the mistake of conflating America’s military personnel who answered the call to service with political judgments about the Bush administration’s rush into Iraq. I think everyone regretfully recognizes that we radically failed Vietnam vets when they most needed public support – when they returned to the states. A sympathetic public creates the opportunity for the rest of us to give back. And, since invisible wounds of war – brain injuries like PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) – are the signature wounds of these wars, this creates an opportunity to readjust the attitudes of the whole nation on the nature and origin of serious mental illnesses, which are themselves brain injuries or malfunctions. This is the same idea being pursued by MHission Vermont [see my previous blog].
MHission Vermont-A New Model
posted January 20, 2010 4 a.m.
Getting involved with a project called “MHission Vermont.” The “MH” standing for “mental health.” It’s an innovative integrated effort to transform veteran’s mental health services statewide in Vermont. It is the brainchild of Dr. Tom Simpatico, who was a panelist on the Fred Friendly Seminar Minds on the Edge. Tom has managed to ally veterans’ groups, state agencies, care providers, the VA, the law enforcement and prison systems and others in the effort to identify vets throughout the system [many of whom to date remain unidentified as vets] and make sure they have appropriate services they want and need. A critical goal is to minimize encounters with law enforcement and the prison system. As if all this isn’t enough [it isn’t], Tom’s project integrates and creates data-bases that will help to find and track the vets [those that want to be found, that is] and track outcomes. This will provide much needed data to support the implementation and methodology of evidence-based practices. Two other implications for this work: assuming it succeeds [and it should], it could be a model for all states; and if MHission VT can evolve an integrated system that helps vets overcome their psychological war wounds, this could be a stalking horse of sorts for treatment of, and attitudes for, all severe mental illnesses. Exciting stuff.
posted January 20, 2010 4 a.m.
Getting involved with a project called “MHission Vermont.” The “MH” standing for “mental health.” It’s an innovative integrated effort to transform veteran’s mental health services statewide in Vermont. It is the brainchild of Dr. Tom Simpatico, who was a panelist on the Fred Friendly Seminar Minds on the Edge. Tom has managed to ally veterans’ groups, state agencies, care providers, the VA, the law enforcement and prison systems and others in the effort to identify vets throughout the system [many of whom to date remain unidentified as vets] and make sure they have appropriate services they want and need. A critical goal is to minimize encounters with law enforcement and the prison system. As if all this isn’t enough [it isn’t], Tom’s project integrates and creates data-bases that will help to find and track the vets [those that want to be found, that is] and track outcomes. This will provide much needed data to support the implementation and methodology of evidence-based practices. Two other implications for this work: assuming it succeeds [and it should], it could be a model for all states; and if MHission VT can evolve an integrated system that helps vets overcome their psychological war wounds, this could be a stalking horse of sorts for treatment of, and attitudes for, all severe mental illnesses. Exciting stuff.
PTSD at the Carter Center
posted January 7, 2010 11:31 a.m.
I’m attending the three-day workshop put on by Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism Continuing Education Program, the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma and the Carter Center’s Mental Health Program, When Veterans Come Home: A Workshop for Working Journalists, on veterans and psychological health. It’s an incredible conference: revealing, informative etc. etc. It really makes me appreciate how essential good journalism can be, since it’s obvious that it is journalists [along with the veterans themselves] who have pushed this issue up the agenda, and who have the most revealing stories. But it’s also evident now that that message is starting to get through– the VA and DOD both have impressive representatives here who clearly feel the urgency. The real question is whether it is possible to ramp up capabilities fast enough to address needs [finding 20,000 qualified counselors is no joke, and that’s just for starters]. Not to mention the issue of stigma and the impulse of many, many vets to distance themselves from the federal government. That makes them hard to reach and treat. Interesting comments from vets here like Michael Jernigan - a vet/journalist who blogs for the NY Timesand was hit hard by an IED in Iraq - that vets don’t want to be labeled as having mental illnesses or psychological problems – too needy, too helpless sounding. No, these are war injuries, and that’s how they should be understood. If we want to get anything done, it’s critical to address vets in a manner that acknowledges their contributions and doesn’t imply that they are moaning about “poor pitiful me…!”
posted January 7, 2010 11:31 a.m.
I’m attending the three-day workshop put on by Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism Continuing Education Program, the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma and the Carter Center’s Mental Health Program, When Veterans Come Home: A Workshop for Working Journalists, on veterans and psychological health. It’s an incredible conference: revealing, informative etc. etc. It really makes me appreciate how essential good journalism can be, since it’s obvious that it is journalists [along with the veterans themselves] who have pushed this issue up the agenda, and who have the most revealing stories. But it’s also evident now that that message is starting to get through– the VA and DOD both have impressive representatives here who clearly feel the urgency. The real question is whether it is possible to ramp up capabilities fast enough to address needs [finding 20,000 qualified counselors is no joke, and that’s just for starters]. Not to mention the issue of stigma and the impulse of many, many vets to distance themselves from the federal government. That makes them hard to reach and treat. Interesting comments from vets here like Michael Jernigan - a vet/journalist who blogs for the NY Timesand was hit hard by an IED in Iraq - that vets don’t want to be labeled as having mental illnesses or psychological problems – too needy, too helpless sounding. No, these are war injuries, and that’s how they should be understood. If we want to get anything done, it’s critical to address vets in a manner that acknowledges their contributions and doesn’t imply that they are moaning about “poor pitiful me…!”