Mental health | Normative Narratives

May 1, 2022
by bzupnick Leave a comment

Entering the First Post-COVID Mental Health Awareness Month, a Timely Reminder: It’s (Still) OK Not to Be OK

“It’s OK not to be OK”

…was a common refrain at the beginning of the pandemic, with many people experiencing mental health issues for the first time. As the world ground to a halt, with more isolation and fewer distractions, people were forced to reconcile with negative feelings they may have otherwise been able to ignore. There was a sense of “we’re all in this together”, and I do believe a more understanding society with respect to mental health will be an enduring legacy of the pandemic.

But naturally, as vaccines have taken us out of the most dangerous phases of the pandemic for both physical and mental health, that sentiment has receded from the headlines a bit. Life has largely returned to normal for all but the highest-risk people, as COVID shifts from “pandemic” to “endemic”. Unfortunately, part of that normal has historically been a negative stigma surrounding mental health issues; the pandemic helped reduce the stigma, it did not erase it. For some people, that might have been a temporary reduction tied to the pandemic itself.

Unlike the relatively strong economic recovery, the mental health effects of the pandemic may prove more persistent. People who lost loved ones are still learning to live with those losses. People who have experienced depression once are much more likely to experience recurrences. Younger people, our future, experienced anxiety and depression at particularly high rates.

I am not trying to be pessimistic or alarmist, but a clear-eyed assessment of the situation (as well as self-reported survey results) suggests that our mental health crisis isn’t going away; if anything, it seems to have plateaued at an elevated level. So, as we enter May 2022, the first “post-COVID” Mental Health Awareness Month, a reminder—it’s still OK not to be OK; it always was, and it always will be.

There was no shortage of sources of distress before the pandemic, the pandemic introduced others, and there will be new ones in the future—that’s life even during “normal times”. Just reintegrating into society while dealing with the “social rust” of the pandemic could be a new source of self-criticism for people who tend to be too hard on themselves (as I have been, and can only assume is a common characteristic among those with a history of mental health issues.)

Shared Sources of Distress

In considering how larger shared experiences can impact our collective psyche, let’s first look inside America’s borders. The “blue wave” of 2020 appears to have been a mirage, as Biden’s agenda, which encompassed many long-sought progressive goals, has largely stalled. Structural inequalities in our electoral system, combined with a lack of progress on voting rights legislation (if anything, we’ve regressed on that front), make it seem unlikely this opportunity will present itself again anytime soon. Inflation is too high, and while as an economist I still don’t think it presents a long-term threat to the economy or American’s standard of living, it’s certainly a source of material hardship, uncertainty, and anxiety right now. Needless to say, the leadup to the midterm elections will not be a harmonious experience.

Looking abroad, while the bravery and commitment to democratic values exhibited by the Ukrainian people has been heartening, that is a small silver lining to what is an extremely traumatic manufactured crisis. Taking a broader view, universal values such as freedom, accountability, transparency and self-determination will continue to be attacked, as authoritarians wage their existential wars against them. The institutions tasked with preserving the “liberal world order” established after WWII simply don’t seem to be up to the challenge.

So, if you have a more liberal worldview, it has been a frustrating couple of years. Early in 2021, with vaccines on the way and the “blue wave” rolling into Washington, it felt like the tumultuous Trump era was about to come to an end with a New Deal-type inflection point in American history. That has failed to materialize, and instead the Democratic platform and democracy in general seem to be on the ropes.

If, on the other hand, you have a more conservative worldview, you’ve probably been either directly or indirectly exposed to the far right “rage machine”, where everyone who is different from you represents a threat to your way of life. This reality, fueled by anger, division, and an intentional blurring of fact and fiction, is also a very poor environment for one’s mental health.

Regardless of your worldview it has been a tough couple of years. But we should not despair, despair is self-fulfilling. Things may not look good now, but change often comes from unexpected places. Demographic trends and youth sentiments still point toward future interrelated victories in social, racial, environmental and economic justice. Remember, “the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Nor should we be ignorant in the name of self-care. It is up to each person to find their own balance, one that allows them to be informed without being overwhelmed by the deluge of negative or false information out there. You can’t help others if you don’t first take care of yourself.

“Toxic Masculinity” and Mental Health

Men don’t experience anxiety and depression at lower rates than women, despite what the survey results above may suggest. Rather, men are generally less willing or able to communicate their needs and get help. The proof is in the most extreme manifestation of unaddressed distress— “deaths of despair”. Whether looking at suicides specifically, or the broader category including overdose deaths, men are about 3.5 to 4 times more likely to die this way than women are. You don’t just jump from being “OK” to a death of despair; in this case where there is fire (death), there is a lot of smoke (unaddressed mental health issues.)

Men being less likely to seek help is one of the negative manifestations of a very politically charged term, “toxic masculinity”. Before going any further I think it is important to define a term like this, which is so open to interpretation. In my opinion someone can be as stereotypically “manly” as you can imagine, and that isn’t necessarily “toxic” if they are living their truth and aren’t hurting anyone else. That toxic masculinity exists doesn’t mean masculinity is inherently toxic, or that men are inherently bad. Masculinity only becomes toxic either when someone either rejects parts of themselves to live up to gender norms, or dehumanizes others for not living up to them.

Toxic masculinity, almost by definition, precludes mental health treatment; it essentially acts as an additional, internal stigma against mental health issues. This is a shame because, in addition to all the personal benefits, talk therapy can also lead to greater tolerance towards others. The alternative, ignoring problems and letting them fester, typically results in people turning their anger towards themselves and/or other people.

For example, violent and sexual crimes are disproportionately carried out by men. I am not trying to excuse anything by pointing out one of the root causes, perpetrators of serious crimes should be held accountable. LGBTQ people deserve to live a life free of discrimination and full of dignity just like anyone else. To that end, the likes and proclivities of heterosexual people shouldn’t be defined by their genders either!

I chose to focus on the intersection of toxic masculinity and mental health because I have lived it. Even without many common impediments to care (I was lucky to have financial resources, supportive family and friends, and an employer I could be honest with), I still made things much harder on myself than they had to be. Not everyone is as lucky to have the, let’s call it “margin for error”, that I did when it came to mental health issues. Even so, it is still easy for me to imagine a world where I never made it to the point of acceptance so that I could start healing, or even one where I just didn’t make it at all.

So, as a man on his own mental health journey, a yogi and a “sports bro”, I feel compelled to state what should be obvious: even for men, it’s still OK not to be OK. There is room for toughness and vulnerability in everyone, people contain multitudes. Open yourself up to that, and to getting the care you need, and you will find the confidence to face your fears and stand up for what you believe in even when it’s unpopular—real courage. Not only will you be better for it in the long run, but you also won’t need to hide behind the shield of toxic masculinity that harms both its adherents and their victims alike.

March 7, 2021
by bzupnick 2 Comments

In Support of a Jobs Program (working title)

Fed Chief Jerome Powell, most of his life a fiscal conservative, has lately sounded like anything but:

“Given the number of people who have lost their jobs and the likelihood that some will struggle to find work in the post-pandemic economy, achieving and sustaining maximum employment will require more than supportive monetary policy,” Powell said in remarks to the Economic Club of New York. “It will require a society-wide commitment, with contributions from across government and the private sector.”

Recovery, Powell said, would require both “near-term policy and longer-run investments” to ensure anyone who wants a job can get one.

Powell on Wednesday cemented that stance, noting that after World War Two, as the economy transitioned from wartime and needed to absorb millions of returning soldiers into the labor force, the Employment Act of 1946 committed the government “to use all practicable means” to see that anyone willing and able to work can find “useful employment.”

Fed Chiefs typically stay out of fiscal policy debates; in being vocal, Powell is going against both tradition and his long held personal beliefs. But as a true expert he understands that appropriate economic policy is context sensitive, and as a dedicated public servant he understands what his priorities should be.

Powell is probably advocating for something temporary in nature, however I see the need for a more permanent expansion of the civil service. Whether such a program should be guaranteed to everyone, or just very large in scale, is open to debate (I would argue a guarantee is worth the higher price tag). What is not open to debate is the need to do something—the private sector is no longer up to the task of productively employing as many Americans as we ask it to:

“The labor market continues to work pretty well as an economic institution, matching labor to capital, for production. But it is no longer working so well as a social institution for distribution. Structural changes in the economy, in particular skills-based technological change, mean that the wages of less-productive workers are dropping. At the same time, the share of national income going to labor rather than capital is dropping.

This decoupling of the economic and social functions of the labor market poses a stark policy challenge. Well-intentioned attempts to improve the social performance of the labor market – through higher minimum wages, profit-sharing schemes, training and education – may not be enough; a series of sticking leaky band-aids over a growing gaping wound.

As Michael Howard, coordinator of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network, told Newsweek magazine: “We may find ourselves going into the future with fewer jobs for everybody. So as a society, we need to think about partially decoupling income from employment.”

This decoupling of the economic and social functions of the labor market is most pronounced after recessions. It wasn’t until 5 years after the Great Recession “ended“ that employment reached its pre-recession level. This time around the CBO projects employment won’t hit its pre-pandemic peak until 2024, even though GDP is expected to recover midway through this year.

But workers getting a smaller piece of the pie is not just an issue during and after recessions—declining labor force participation and stagnant wages have persisted for decades. Even during the period before the pandemic—the longest economic expansion on record—labor force participation never really recovered from the Great Recession (which itself was lower than before the dotcom bubble burst). This gives reason to believe the COVID Recession might lead to permanent labor market scarring even with continued fiscal support.

Recessions aren’t just economic downturns, they also accelerate existing economic trends like automation. Cost reduction measures necessitated by the COVID Recession, combined with long overdue calls for a livable minimum wage, will likely accelerate the trend of less Americans (particularly the less educated) being employed through the private sector. If this is the case, the public sector will need to pick up the slack.

Universal Basic Income is an idea that gained mainstream attention in America during Andrew Yang’s 2020 Presidential bid. But giving everyone some money doesn’t really solve the financial problems of people whose jobs are displaced by automation and globalization, nor does it address the mental health impact of being disconnected from the labor force. A jobs program addresses both issues, and the jobs themselves can be used to address other social issues.

There is the question of what types of work we should prioritize, and there is a good argument for having some flexibility at the local level. But generally speaking there are needs which, while not profitable for the private sector to provide affordably, would nonetheless make us a more productive and cohesive society. The government already provides many of these things in some capacity, but they tend to be chronically underfunded. Notably they all address issues that were present before the pandemic, but have since been brought to light and exacerbated.

Lets start with infrastructure, historically a less contentious area for public investment and one where there is obvious need. America’s roads and bridges are in need of repair. Flint, Michigan didn’t have clean drinking water for years, and many other areas are at risk of similar crises. The “digital divide” (broadband internet availability and affordability) has been exposed as we scramble to educate children remotely, but is a problem that preceded and will outlast the pandemic. Climate change demands investments in clean energy infrastructure, and if we want to shift to electric vehicles we’ll need a reliable network of charging stations installed around the country.

For some types of infrastructure public-private partnerships could leverage taxpayer money to tease out private sector contributions, but not all of them. Recent history has made it pretty clear the government will have to do most of the heavy lifting if we want these investments made at scale.

Other areas of need exist in the education, healthcare, and social assistance sectors. Affordable childcare and universal pre-K help women enter the labor force, and have a strong positive impact on the development of young minds (increasing their future contributions to society). Mental healthcare is another area to invest in; improving mental health outcomes not only reduces human suffering, it also leads to an overall healthier and more productive society. Jobs in these sectors rely on a human touch, making them more difficult to automate.

America already had a lack-of-employment-induced mental health crisis before COVID—the “Opioid Crisis”. We need to try to address mental health issues preventatively by educating a more resilient and understanding youth through social and emotional learning (SEL) in K-12 schools. For adults we must address the difficulty of finding affordable mental healthcare by creating an corp of licensed mental health professionals. Police officers need more mental health professionals to effectively serve and protect their communities.

An Associates degree type program, developed in consultation with leaders in the field and focused on treating the most common mental health issues like anxiety and depression, could be administered at Community Colleges across the country. This corp of social workers is not intended to replace psychologists or psychiatrists, but rather operates under the belief that less-credentialed care is better than no care at all (which is what too many Americans are currently receiving).

There should be broad based support for such a jobs program. Progressive politicians need to make the case that these are the coal mining jobs, or the manufacturing jobs, of 21st century America; they won’t make you rich, but it’s meaningful work that provides a decent standard of living. We need to invest more in public higher education and apprenticeships, as President Biden is proposing, so new and existing jobs can be obtained without risking financial ruin by way of student loan debt (another drag on the economy and people’s mental health).

That is the promise America once provided, at least for some people—stable, meaningful employment you won’t go broke chasing the skills for. It is within our fiscal ability to provide these jobs, fulfills major societal needs, and complements the private sector by making it more productive in various ways. These are not just a scattershot of “progressive priorities”, taken together they synergize to form a visionary mosaic which would provide hope, direction, security and a sense of unity to the American people.

Yes, a jobs program would lead to some savings on welfare programs and the criminal justice system. Yes, health outcomes should generally improve as mental health issues are better addressed, resulting in increased tax revenues from a healthier, more productive society. But lets be honest–such a jobs program may or may not “pay for itself” in fiscal terms; forecasting a program of this scale, with all its unanticipated impacts, would ultimately be inaccurate. But factoring in what it would mean for America—by addressing the worsening and interrelated economic, social, emotional, and [literal] environmental storms the status quo has left brewing—how could it not be worthwhile? The question is not “can we afford to make these investments?”, but rather “can we afford not to?”

Social unrest this past year has proven people will not sit idly by while lawmakers figure out some elusive, deficit-neutral “grand compromise” to address the nation’s problems (as if they are even trying to). We will eventually have to pay for a jobs programs and other programs needed to promote economic opportunity, but low interest rates give us time to figure out that side of the equation. The Biden Administration is committed to international cooperation on taxation, a necessary precondition to building a global financial system that ensures the wealthiest and big corporations pay their fare share of taxes.

The levers of power and public opinion are aligned in a way our tilted electoral system doesn’t often allow for–the time for bold action is now.

May 18, 2015
by bzupnick 1 Comment

Transparency Report: Parenting, Emotional Development, and Social Mobility

Benchmarks for Success from the Social Genome Model

According to the Brookings Institute’s Social Genome Model Benchmarks for Success, the route to a successful life begins with a child’s emotional and cognitive development. Whether it is due to a lack of financial resources, time, or parental ability (or some function of the three), success in life is strongly influenced by the one stage a person has absolutely no control over–family formation.

As Brooking Institute’s Hugh B Price concludes in his recent paper “Social and Emotional Development: The Next School Reform Frontier”:

“Of course parents, churches and communities bear primary responsibility for socializing children, but if in reality they are not up to it, what then? Consigning these youngsters to academic purgatory or, worse still, the criminal justice system serves neither society’s interests nor, obviously, theirs. Research and real-world experience demonstrate convincingly that investing in the academic and social development of youngsters left way behind pays welcome dividends. SEL deserves, at long last, a prominent place in school reform policy and practice.”

It is impossible to determine what single element holds back social mobility efforts, whether it is time, money, “values”, or some other variable. This is because the missing element is dependent upon the strengths and weaknesses of parents, which vary from couple to couple.

A multi-dimensional approach to social mobility, including paid maternity leave, universal pre-K, and investing in K-12 social and emotional learning (SEL) is needed to mitigate the effects of inadequate parenting (regardless of its cause). A child born to a wealthy family with strong values will always be at an advantage; this reality does not mean we cannot or should not ensure there is a developmental “floor” that supports all children.

America cannot afford a future where only children born to the wealthiest parents receive the attention and resources that nurture both cognitive and emotional development. One of the key factors that has sustained American exceptionalism over the course of our history has been our talented, innovative, and hard working labor force.

America’s historic commitment to freedom and human rights manifests itself in a creative and innovative spirit that has made American inventions and culture dominant on the global stage (even as our “Superpower” status wanes in other respects). But maintaining a large, skilled labor pool–the workers needed to bring great visions to reality–requires investments that promote a meritocratic society, one in which true equality of opportunity results in broad based economic growth and social mobility.

Innovation is the ultimate engine of sustainable growth–not financial engineering or mining finite resources in ways that do not even pay lip service to the public costs resulting from their production. We cannot know who the next great innovators are, the ones who’s inventions will create new industries that employ future generations, contribute to solving the global issues of the 21st century, and develop medical breakthroughs that change peoples lives. Every child must be enabled to reach these heights if they are talented enough to do so.

Investing in people pays dividends, particularly during the early developmental stages of life. Furthermore, we cannot just wish away societies most vulnerable (try as we might). When one considers the increased welfare and criminal justice costs, as well as the general insecurity associated with systematically underinvesting in societies most vulnerable groups, the arguments for greater investment in SEL programs are bolstered.

Considering how low long-term borrowing rates are for the U.S and many foreign governments, these are certainly investments we can afford to make (and I would argue cannot afford not to make). But what about poorer countries with less resources and higher borrowing costs? In these cases, SEL targeted Flexible Credit Lines (FCLs) should be extended to low and middle income countries that are willing to adhere to certain oversight mechanisms.

Unfortunately, it appears that national policymakers are leading their citizens in the wrong direction when it comes to funding programs that promote human development. Even in wealthy places like America and Europe, politicians claim we cannot afford to make these investments, despite their alignment with our purported values, high long-run returns on investment, and low long-term borrowing costs.

Investing adequately in childhood development is a question of both social justice and long-term economic growth. Governments around the world must stop viewing impoverished youth as a liability and start embracing them as the future asset they are.

February 17, 2015
by bzupnick 3 Comments

Transparency Report: Debt, Depression, and College Drop-Outs

The graphs in this blog come from a recent report co-authored by the Pell Institute and The University of Pennsylvania:

In addition to the direct (tuition, room and board, cost of living) and “opportunity cost” (foregone wages) of attending college, there is mounting evidence that suggests there is an emotional / psychological cost associated with taking out student loans.

Despite the intense interest in this issue among researchers, this is the first paper that attempts to understand the emotional cost of carrying student loan debt. This question is, in fact, more fundamental than the others being posed in this genre of research, since it could help to explain the mechanism through which debt may be affecting other outcomes (i.e. emotional health, graduation rates).

Based on their analysis, the authors report, “cumulative student loans were significantly and inversely associated with better psychological functioning.” In other words, individuals with more student debt reported lower levels of psychological health, when other things are held constant (including occupation, income, education and family wealth). The effect is statistically significant, but it is quite small. They also find that “the amount of yearly student loans borrowed was inversely associated with psychological functioning,” which implies that taking on debt is emotionally costly for students.

Unfortunately, this emotional / psychological “cost” seems to be affecting a greater number of incoming college students:

High numbers of students are beginning college having felt depressed and overwhelmed during the previous year, according to an annual survey released on Thursday, reinforcing some experts’ concern about the emotional health of college freshmen.

The survey of more than 150,000 students nationwide, “The American Freshman: National Norms Fall 2014,” found that 9.5 percent of respondents had frequently “felt depressed” during the past year, a significant rise over the 6.1 percent reported five years ago. Those who “felt overwhelmed” by schoolwork and other commitments rose to 34.6 percent from 27.1 percent.

Not coincidentally, the frequency and magnitude of student loan debt has increased greatly during this period of increasing student unease and depression, according to data released by the NY Fed:

More U.S. students continued to borrow larger sums for their college education last year, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, while total student loan balances tripled over the last decade.

At 43 million, the number of student borrowers jumped 92 percent from 2004 to 2014, while their average balances climbed 74 percent, according to New York Fed researchers. The average balance was some $27,000.

Obviously correlation does not prove causation. But given the logical link between debt, depression, and dropping-out of school, these trends cannot be purely coincidental–more research on the subject is needed.

—

“It’s a public health issue,” said Dr. Anthony L. Rostain, a psychiatrist and co-chairman of a University of Pennsylvania task force on students’ emotional health. “We’re expecting more of students: There’s a sense of having to compete in a global economy, and they think they have to be on top of their game all the time. It’s no wonder they feel overwhelmed.”

While I cannot speak personally about the burden of student loan debt, I have experienced depression first hand, and understand how being depressed could make one more likely to drop out of school.

Depression is particularly difficult to battle in a college atmosphere. The pressure to maintain a social life, despite anxiety and financial issues, can reinforce negative feelings associated with depression. The abundance of drugs and alcohol certainly does not help the situation either.

The general pessimism which accompanies depression compromises a person’s ability to clearly assess long term goals, such as completing a degree. Depression also affects ones cognitive abilities, hampering academic outcomes.

I can only imagine the pressure on someone who is both depressed and has student loan debt to consider; some combination of the two surely accounts for more low-income drop-outs than is currently recognized.

I had to take a semester off to get myself back in the proper state of mind to complete my degree; not everyone has this luxury. However, everyone should have the support needed to realize their educational and emotional potential.

Due to my personal experiences and knowledge of economics, I vehemently support President Obama’s proposed Community College plan. Lower income students could learn if pursuing a bachelor’s degree is “for them” without taking out tens of thousands of dollars in loans, likely leading to better emotional, educational, and economic outcomes.

Furthermore, community colleges are more likely to have the the social counseling and financial advising services missing from for-profit universities, which predominantly attract low income students.

The Obama administration is attempting break the vicious cycle of student debt, emotional suffering, and dropping-out of college. Dropping out of college with student loan debt in a competitive global economy is a poverty trap for low income individuals, and has become a drag on economic growth in the macro.

By expanding mental health parity through the ACA, getting treatment for depression is no longer a luxury reserved for the wealthy. If our lawmakers pass a free community college bill, the synergy between these two public policies would go a long way towards bringing equity to America’s higher education system and reinvigorating the American Dream.

June 2, 2014
by bzupnick 3 Comments

Transparency Report: Preventing Tragedy Revisited

In the wake of Ivan Lopez’s Ft. Hood rampage, I posed a question to my readers; “can social media posts be considered ‘warning signs’ for violent / deadly behavior”? After another mass killing Isla Vista, Calif. a little more than a month later, the issue is again thrust back into the spotlight, this time calling police protocol into question:

A week after Elliot O. Rodger’s violent rampage in Isla Vista, Calif., that left six college students dead and 13 other people wounded, state lawmakers are now calling for an investigation of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office’s previous contact with Mr. Rodger. Some are calling for wholesale changes to how law enforcement officers respond to calls that someone could be a threat to himself or to others.

Sheriff’s deputies visited Mr. Rodger on April 30, just three weeks before his rampage, after receiving a call from his mother, who had been concerned by videos he posted online.

At the time, Mr. Rodger had already bought at least two firearms, which were both registered in his name. But sheriff’s deputies were unaware of that when they visited Mr. Rodger, because they had not checked the statewide gun ownership database. They also had not watched the videos Mr. Rodger had posted.

Law enforcement agencies across California have said that it is not necessarily standard practice to check the state gun registry before any check by officers on someone’s well-being. And the sheriff’s office has defended the six deputies who visited Mr. Rodger in April.

“When questioned by the deputies about reported disturbing videos he had posted online, Rodger told them he was having trouble fitting in socially in Isla Vista and the videos were merely a way of expressing himself,” the sheriff’s office said in a written statement.

“Sheriff’s deputies concluded that Rodger was not an immediate threat to himself or others, and that they did not have cause to place him on an involuntary mental health hold, or to enter or search his residence. Therefore, they did not view the videos or conduct a weapons check on Rodger.”

Kelly Hoover, a spokeswoman for the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office, would not elaborate on why no weapons check was done, and declined to confirm whether there would be an internal investigation of the visit.

“Based on the information reviewed thus far, the sheriff’s office has determined that the deputies who responded handled the call in a professional manner consistent with state law and department policy,” Ms. Kelly Hoover, a spokeswoman for the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office said in an email on Saturday.

After Mr. Rodger’s rampage in Isla Vista, Ms. Jackson co-wrote legislation that would create a “gun-violence restraining order.” If family members or friends alert law enforcement that someone poses a threat to themselves or to others, law enforcement would then be able to petition a judge to prohibit the person from purchasing firearms.

Ms. Hannah-Beth Jackson, the state senator who represents Santa Barbara, said she planned to introduce further legislation designed to keep guns from people who could become violent, including a major overhaul in protocol for how the authorities follow up on calls from family members expressing worry that someone could hurt himself or others. She said a mental health professional, who is trained to identify mental illness, should accompany law enforcement.

“We need to completely re-evaluate protocols that are used when law enforcement is given info that someone potentially is a danger to themselves or to others,” Ms. Jackson said. “I think we need to check the gun registry. And then we have to find a balance for when it is appropriate for police to remove those firearms, and when it is not.”

My intention is not to place blame on the Santa Barbara police officers who initially responded to Mr. Rodger’s mother’s call; I am sure they followed procedure for such incidents. However, the procedure they where following certainly needs to be revisited. While it is impossible to preemptively identify all killers, a certain pattern has emerged from the three most notorious mass killings in recent American history; Sandy Hook, Ft. Hood, and now UC Santa Barbara. Recognizing this pattern, and updating police procedures, could provide a blueprint for how to prevent future tragedies and get people the help they need:

Step 1) Identifying a Potential Threat: In each of these incidences there was someone–either a parent, confidant, or mental health worker–who had reason to believe the future shooter was mentally unstable. These people either notified the police, or should have.

In a recent NYT “Room For Debate”, 6 experts weighed in on the question “Can Therapists Prevent Violence?”; notably, each expert agreed to varying degrees that red flags should be acted on, and there should be greater coordination between law enforcement and mental health professionals–a rare consensus for a feature which typically, as its name suggests, presents a number of differing views.

Step 2/3) Access to Weapons: Adam Lanza, Ivan Lopez, and Elliot Rodger’s all had access to weapons; Lanza from his parents, while Lopez and Rodgers had legally bought guns prior to their rampages. If somebody is deemed a threat to themselves or others, the next question should be “do they have access to guns?” (beyond the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, direct access to a gun already purchased).

I applaud Senator Jackson’s proposed “gun-violence restraining order” plan to keep potentially dangerous people from buying guns. However, in a country where gun ownership is so pervasive, we must also consider whether these people already have direct access to a weapon.

Step 3/2) Social Media Postings: Social media has become a window into people’s thoughts, beliefs, and actions. Adam Lanza’s social media posts showed a fascination with mass shootings, Lopez expressed a general disillusion with the world and sympathy for Adam Lanza prior to his massacre, and Mr. Rodger’s posted now infamous (and removed) videos detailing his personal issues on Youtube.

After a potential threat is referred to the police, an investigation of that person should begin immediately. If that person is known to have access to firearms, or has a social media footprint suggesting mental instability, this is pertinent information that police should be aware of before responding to a call (and not only for public safety, but also for the safety of the responding officers). The police should also be accompanied by a mental health professional, preferably one who has experience identifying someone who is trying to mislead investigators.

I am not talking about an in depth investigation, but rather a cursory search of weapons databases and social media outlets. This can all be done digitally and should not significantly delay police response times.

—

Preemptively identifying potential mass murders and placing them involuntarily under mental health surveillance based on the factors above is sure to be a contentious issue. Upon developing a new draft protocol, an open comment period including people suffering from mental illnesses, mental health experts, civil liberty advocates, law enforcement officials, and anybody else interested, should be initiated. Doing so would help develop a more effective police protocol that balances public safety and civil liberties (specifically for people with mental health issues).

Such a protocol would not prevent all mass murders–nothing can. Notably, it ignores those who obtain guns illegally (which if you ask a gun activist, 100% of criminals do, despite evidence to the contrary). It would also not help in the instance of an imminent threat. But it may have helped prevented any of the three tragedies mentioned in this post from occurring, and on that merit alone is worthy of serious consideration.

April 6, 2014
by bzupnick 5 Comments

Transparency Report: Can Social Media Postings Be Considered “Warning Signs”?

According to his army psychiatrist, Fort Hood shooter Ivan Lopez showed “no sign of likely violence, either to himself or to others.” While it may be possible for someone to “snap” and go on a shooting spree without warning, I have trouble believing this was the case in this incident.

Lopez had a history of depression and anxiety, yet he was still able to purchase a firearm legally (at the same store the 2009 Fort Hood shooter bought his weapon), underscoring the need for stronger background check laws for gun purchases.

“We have very strong evidence that he [Lopez] had a medical history that indicated an unstable psychiatric or psychological condition,” Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, head of the Army’s III Corps at Fort Hood, said of Lopez. “There was no indication that he was targeting specific people.”

—

3 people are dead 16 more are wounded. The questions we as a nation now face are:

1) Could this tragedy have been prevented? (were there warning signs?)

2) How can we prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future?

These two questions are obviously related. If there were warning signs, then recognizing these signs can help prevent similar tragedies from happening.

The warning signs, beyond Lopez’s mental health record, came in the form of Facebook posts:

1) On March 1, the same day he purchased the .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol he used in the attack, Specialist Lopez wrote an especially angry and vaguely threatening post. “My spiritual peace has all gone away, I am full of hate, I believe now the devil is taking me. I was robbed last night and I’m sure it was two flacos. Green light and thumbs down. It’s just that easy …”

2) In a Facebook post, Specialist Lopez said of the Newtown massacre: “For me, the direct responsibility for this situation is with the psychiatrist, who didn’t uncover Adam’s level of dangerousness so that he could be restricted.”

Read posthumously, these posts depict someone who was unable to grasp the concept of personal accountability. On the other hand, hindsight is always 20-20; these posts were separated by over a year, during which time Lopez probably made many posts which are irrelevant to his mental state.

Taken separately, each of these pieces of “evidence”; a questionable mental health history, delusional Facebook posts, and a gun purchase; could not be considered a red flag–it would be impossible to police all social media platforms. But taken together, they form the profile of an individual who is very likely a risk to himself and others.

—

What someone posts on social media can get them fired or (if a public figure) publicly ridiculed–American’s clearly take social media postings seriously. What can we do when someone writes about hurting themselves or others on social media? At what point does protecting a persons right to privacy prohibit the ability to protect another persons right to life? As a social scientist, I am constantly looking for “information”; is it possible that we are overlooking a valuable source of information in social media posts?

I already alluded to the need for stronger background checks for gun purchases, another preventative measure is greater access to mental healthcare, which I believe should be a human right (it is currently viewed as a luxury for the wealthy). Specialist Lopez was covered as an Army employee; what about people out there without mental health coverage? Obamacare has gone a long way in rewriting insurance guidelines to cover mental healthcare, and subsidizes plans for those who cannot afford insurance on their own, but what about people who are still not covered? Given the various ramifications of untreated mental illness (crime, poverty, etc.), is it time to consider investing more tax dollars into walk-in mental health clinics?

These issues, privacy and security, lend themselves to heated debates. I leave my readers with these loaded questions to ponder.

April 18, 2013
by bzupnick Leave a comment

Transparency Thursday: Remembering the Victim’s of the Boston Marathon Bombing–Creating a Legacy of Peace

“This is Martin Richard, 8, who was killed in yesterday’s attack. His sister and mother are critically injured. His message, “No more hurting people–Peace” is something we should all seek to honor, and remember him by.” –George Takei

By now, everybody has heard about the tragic events that unfolded this Monday during the Boston Marathon. Two bombs exploded, killing three people and injuring over 100 more. Today, President Obama Spoke at an interfaith memorial service at Boston’s Cathedral of the Holy Cross:

“Mr. Obama spoke in personal terms about the victims of the bombing and offered prayers for their families. Krystle Campbell, 29, of Medford, Mass., was ‘always smiling,’ he said, noting that her parents were at the service. He said that his prayers were with the family of Lu Lingzi, 23, in China, who had sent her to graduate school at Boston University ‘so that she could experience all that this city has to offer.’ And he spoke about what he called the heartbreaking death Martin Richard, 8, of Dorchester, who was killed in the blast, which also wounded his mother and sister.”

—

“At a Senate hearing Thursday morning, the nation’s top intelligence official, James R. Clapper Jr., echoed President Obama’s comments earlier this week that the authorities still do not know whether the attack was a foreign or domestic plot, carried out by one or more individuals or a group.”

This tragic event understandably evokes emotional responses from those directly and indirectly affected. In the aftermath of this event, as the details reveal themselves over time, it would be prudent to take a step back and remember some of the ideals America was founded on; tolerance and freedom of speech, a place where no one could be persecuted based on nationality or religion, and where everyone is innocent until proven guilty (due process of law).

I came out with this response to the bombings on Monday:

“Tragedy in Boston. Prayers go out to the families and loved ones affected by this senseless act of violence.

Please do not jump to xenophobia and hatred after this event. Only through cooperation and kindness can events like this be prevented. There is no proof as to who committed this unthinkable act–American, Muslim, or otherwise.

In America everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”

Many people started blaming “muslims”, “terrorists”, or “them” after this attack. Jumping to such conclusions are counter-productive. For one thing, all signs point to this being a domestic terror attack; the sight was not a huge landmark like the W.T.C, and no terrorists organization has claimed responsibility. While it would be irresponsible journalism to say with certainty this was not an act of a foreign terrorist organization, all signs are pointing in that direction.

—

This message of the preventative powers of peace, kindness and cooperation sound good on paper, but can they actually work in practice? Martin Richard was an 8-year-old boy who believed in these principles, but are they practical in real life? Beyond the ethical stance, there are economic and social reasons why these normative views can indeed help reduce acts of terrorism. Of course we need security, but security is only one side of the preventative coin. Dealing with the root causes of domestic and foreign terrorism will reduce the number of would be attacks, and allow our security forces to better manage the threats that inevitably will still exist.

First let us examine foreign terrorism. I would like to point you all to an earlier post I made on preventative peace-building and protracted social conflict (PSC). This piece highlights how human rights violations are at the root of most violence in the developing world. Instability creates a foothold for terrorism to operate–when a government is not providing essential services and / or security, terrorist groups can fill the void, essentially buying goodwill. Most people in these countries are aware they are supporting terrorist activities, but if it is a choice between having essential services provided or not, they could care less.

That is why, in order to stop foreign terrorism at its roots, we must empower friendly governments to provide the services and security that they are obligated to provide. Doing this will help push terrorists to the margins, and create lasting alliances in strategic locations. My previous post suggests redistributing money from the D.o.D. to the D.o.S., as overt military action has proven to be an ineffective and costly means of nation building.

Next let us examine domestic terrorism. In America, we are all relatively well off compared to those in the rest of the world. Social programs exist to help protect the human rights of those less fortunate; hopefully drastic cuts in these programs do not take place or else we will see the crime rate go up.

One area that America is notoriously weak in is public mental healthcare access. Mental health issues affect the rich and poor alike, and probably disproportionately affect the poor. As someone who has personally seen their self-confidence and productive capacity bolstered by mental healthcare, I am a strong proponent of providing access to mental healthcare to all Americans.

Obamacare, which is supposed to become effective in 2014, is expected to extend mental healthcare to all Americans. This should help people overcome their issues, lead happier and more productive lives, and ultimately reduce the number of people dependent on the welfare state in the long run. Many people have issues that are fairly common, but due to their socioeconomic standing remain isolated and untreated. It is these people who usually turn to crime, including domestic terrorism. By increasing access to mental healthcare, these incidents will decline.

No policies will ever entirely eliminate terrorism, domestic or foreign. But there are common sense ways to reduce the number of attacks as much as possible, which should allow our security forces to better prevent future acts of terrorism.

—

Robert Martin did not understand these complex interconnections, he was an 8-year-old boy. It is an honor to be able to provide some theoretical insight into Robert Martin’s normative stance; just because he didn’t understand why he was right doesn’t make him any less right. The best way to reduce terrorism, both domestic and foreign, is to attack it at its roots. The alternative, an increasing reliance on American security forces at home and abroad, has been proven too costly and ineffective.

As Albert Einstien said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

People (generally) respond to violence and hatred with more violence and hatred. People (generally) respond to acts of kindness with humility, gratitude, and friendship. Acts of terrorism represent an intractable vicious cycle; someone can always point a finger and recall past atrocities to justify their actions in their own mind.

In order to move forward as a global community we must look forward and think about what we can do differently, if we hope to break this vicious cycle.

March 7, 2013
by bzupnick 2 Comments

Transparency Thursday: Inching Our Way Towards Meaningful Gun Regulations

“In a possible harbinger of bipartisan support for a small piece of legislation to curb gun violence, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a measure that would make the practice of illegally buying a gun for someone else a felony, and increase penalties for the crime.

The measure, which addresses so-called straw purchasing, passed the committee by 11 to 7; the only Republican to vote in favor was Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa. Mr. Grassley’s nod on the measure, which already had two Republican co-sponsors, was significant because he is the most senior member of the committee. The panel is comprised of 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans.”

—

This is a good first step, imposing stricter penalties for so called “straw” gun purchases. It is a bit alarming that only one Republican Senator voted in favor of this measure, considering a recent Gallup Poll (1/23/13) showed an overwhelming majority of both Democrats (81%) and Republicans (75%) support tougher penalties for such crimes. But still, the bill passed with support from the most senior Republican Senator on the committee.

Still, harsher penalties for “straw” gun purchases amount to only a partial fix. “Most gun safety experts say they believe that straw purchasing and background check measures work in tandem. A failure by Congress to pass more than a modified straw purchasing bill would be a victory for the National Rifle Association, which opposes each measure.”

The same committee will vote on universal background checks for potential gun buyers; perhaps a longer waiting period in order to obtain the necessary information will be part of newly proposed laws. The same Gallup poll showed even greater bipartisan support for “requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales” (97% of Democrats and 92% of Republicans agree with such measures). I would argue not only should there be a criminal background check, but also a mental health evaluation, we will have to wait and see what is proposed in future bills. Hopefully the committee represents those it was elected by, and comes up with a working background check / “straw” purchase system to ensure that responsible adults can enjoy their guns while those who are not responsible enough (due to criminal or mental health history) cannot obtain guns.

I would argue that “straw” purchases and universal background checks both rely on better overall mental healthcare. Often, it is the poor who cannot afford mental healthcare; these people may then turn to violence because they are not getting the help they need. By no means should having a psychological disorder prohibit someone from owning a gun, but it should raise a red-flag that makes anyone reviewing the case pay special attention to exactly what the condition is and if it is accompanied by a history of violent and/or anti-social behavior.

“The committee is also set to consider the reauthorization of a program that provides matching grants for school safety improvements, as well as a measure that would greatly expand background checks for gun buyers, with the goal of preventing sales to people with criminal records or a history of mental illness.”

Mental health and criminal background checks must be viewed on a case-by-case basis; this may be expensive and time consuming, but it is the price we must to pay for responsible gun ownership.

—

While criminal records are readily available, it is harder to get information on a person’s mental health history. A “positive externality” of the Affordable Care Act is that it will expand mental health coverage to many American’s who currently do not qualify for such coverage. This will make meaningful universal background checks more feasible. The Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014, will help those previously uninsured get insurance not only for physical illness, but also for mental health disorders:

“…it can be difficult for people with mental health and substance use disorders to find affordable, quality coverage in the health insurance marketplace. Right now, estimates show that one-fifth to one-third of the uninsured are people with mental and substance use disorders.

Starting in 2014, substance abuse or mental illness can no longer be used by insurers to deny coverage as a “pre-existing condition” – and insurers also won’t be able to use those conditions to raise your premiums.
Also in 2014, mental health and substance use disorder services will be part of the essential benefits package, a set of health care service categories that must be covered by certain plans, including all insurance policies that will be offered through the Exchanges, and Medicaid.

These reforms all work to make the health insurance marketplace a more accessible, affordable place for people with mental health and substance abuse disorders.”

Mental healthcare coverage and a mental health evaluation for purchasing a firearm are two different yet related issues. Better overall mental health coverage will afford someone reviewing a background check more information than they would otherwise be able to obtain from a single evaluation. Both are necessary steps to ensure guns are only used by responsible people.

—

I hope congress also re-authorizes the grant for school safety. If cash-strapped municipalities receive federal assistance, they will have more money to station armed police officers at all schools (possibly more than one depending on the size of the student body).

It seems that the Senate is enacting (or at least considering) many of the common-sense gun laws advocated here at Normative Narratives in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy (Gallup Polls show widespread support for many of these measures across the political spectrum). Non-gun owners can feel safer knowing there are stricter gun laws, while responsible gun owners can rest more easily knowing they have no fear of “having their guns taken away” (which was really never a threat to begin with).

Again, this is the first step of many common sense gun laws needed to make America a safer place. No amount of gun laws will ever end all gun-related violence; there will always be people who are hell-bent on causing pain and no law or regulation will be able to stop them. But by putting these common sense gun laws in place, gun-related violence WILL go down (not may, will). These laws will cost money, but that is the cost of having “the right to bear arms” in contemporary America.