All posts by Dr. Michael Forster

Welcome good news from the Center for Mississippi Health Policy (an outstanding research organization that regularly engages College of Health faculty in its work)  – Data from their well-designed longitudinal study of child and youth obesity prevalence (CAYPOS), reported in “Year Three Report: Assessing the Impact of the Mississippi Healthy Students Act,” show a significant decline in the combined prevalence of overweight and obesity in elementary students.  (In fact, a decline of overweight/obesity was found for all grades, but not to a statistically significant level.)  In the words of the report’s executive summary, the gains represent “a major shift in direction after decades of steady increases.”

For a state that’s been ranked “the fattest in the nation” for several years running, that’s very good news indeed.  Maybe Mississippi is not destined to forever occupy the basement of national health statistics after all. 

Unfortunately, the report also contains lots of not-so-good news.  “Wellness policy” implementation in schools lags in key areas, including health policy council participation, nutrition education, general health education, and full implementation of physical activity programs.  In addition, family surveys indicate more talk than action when it comes to improving nutrition and physical activity in the home environment.  Most distressing is that obesity declines are concentrated among white students, with black kids continuing to show increases; alarmingly, racial disparities appear to be increasing.  Concludes the report, “[I]t is clear that further work is necessary to ensure that health improvements are realized by all students and to counteract decades of negative trends.”

Let’s celebrate this bit of good news, Mississippi, but let’s keep the celebration restrained.  And, please, hold the fried chicken and sweet tea.

Aside from ideological disagreement over the proper size and role of government, most of the debate over cuts in public expenditures has been over the expected economic impacts – notably, the effects on job creation and unemployment. 

Far too little attention has been paid to non-economic impacts.  There’s a dangerous misconception – an implicit and unexamined assumption, really – that we can keep zapping public budgets, yet somehow manage to carry on essential public services more-or-less as before.

That misconception will shortly be exploded, I suspect, as the health consequences of sustained cuts start to emerge.  It appears that the process has begun.  A case in point has just popped up in Washington state, parts of which are being walloped by a spring whooping cough (pertussis) epidemic.

Nearly 1300 cases of whooping cough have been reported so far, ten times last year’s rate, prompting state public health officials to declare an epidemic and the national Centers for Disease Control to send out investigators.  The situation calls for speedy reaction and an intensification of preventive actions.  But hobbling Washington’s ability to respond is the cumulative impact of successive reductions in public health budgets.  Hard-hit Skagit County, north of Seattle, has lost half its public health staff to budget cuts since 2008.  County prevention programs are virtually non-existent.

If we continue on our present course, Skagit County’s experience will become the rule, rather the exception, across America.  Short-term savings at the expense of public health are long-term stupid, plain and simple.  As the saying goes, “pay me now, or pay me later.”  In the case of public health, “later” means not merely more money, but unnecessary human suffering.

Undergoing a change of president is usually at least mildly traumatic for a university.  The president is the central symbol of unity, typically credited with setting both tone and direction for the institution.  So when change occurs – often itself a lengthy process, with many voices needing to be heard before a selection is made, typically followed by an extended period of orientation and learning by the new executive – it is a setback of sorts.  Leadership and progress are inevitably disrupted to some degree.

Friends of the university can be reassured in knowing, however, that institutional momentum is tremendous.  The great body of work carried out day-to-day within the university – all the teaching, research, and service, as well as all the administrative and supportive activity surrounding these core dimensions of institutional mission – make up 98% of who we are and what we do.  Popular impressions aside, little in fact changes with that 98% when a president resigns, interim leadership steps in, and the search for a new leader commences.

Momentum is ensured in large part because the structure of leadership below the executive cabinet level (i.e. president and vice-presidents) – deans, department chairs, and program directors – as well as the body of dedicated faculty and staff colleagues they lead, remain intact.  While hardly untroubled by a disruption in executive leadership, these seasoned professionals generally carry on without any loss of quality, enthusiasm, or sense of purpose.

At least I’m confident that’s the case in the College of Health.  Ironically enough, I had the opportunity to discuss vision and challenges for the college with the president and vice-presidents just days before Dr. Saunders’ surprise resignation.   On the vision side, I emphasized moving forward following the watershed event of Nursing’s elevation to college status, focusing on significant opportunities for enrollment growth, expansion of the research enterprise, and emerging collaboration possibilities.  As always, I underscored the high market demand for health and wellness oriented professionals, and the tremendous contribution of the health sector – which our graduates feed – to the community’s overall economic well-being.

I also noted the multiple challenges we face in realizing our potential – inadequate budgets battered by three years of cuts, dangerously “thin” research and administrative support, crippling constraints on office and lab space, woefully outdated furnishings, among them.

Here’s the rub: I see no reason to alter either list, vision or hurdles, as a result of a change of president.  Moving forward, the same key issues will shape our priorities and focus our attention. 

So, while the fall of a chief executive and the byzantine politics that may lie behind it grab the headlines, the life of the institution goes on, uninterrupted.

The pattern has become all too familiar – a five-year president departs Southern Miss under a cloud of controversy, and we start anew the process of searching for a leader who can help us “move to the next level.”

The past three presidents (not counting Aubrey Lucas’ one-year caretaker turn) – Horace Fleming, Shelby Thames, and now Martha Saunders – share this disappointing storyline, despite their striking differences of background, vision and style.

Many are quick to point out that the tenure of university presidents these days isn’t much longer than five years anyway (actually, I think it’s currently running better than eight years), so maybe our experience is fairly “normal” after all.

Baloney.  

Will university life go on at a fairly steady pace?  Of course.  Faculty will teach and research and participate in the processes of shared governance.  Staff will manage offices and provide essential quality services.  Students will attend classes and progress toward degree completion and  graduation.  But the pattern of short-term presidential turnover is ugly and damaging.  The result is a setback to the strategic direction, momentum and morale of the Southern Miss community.

Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking otherwise.

In a single day last week I got two very different perspectives on the challenges of “building community resilience” in the process of long-term disaster recovery. 

The RAND Corporation’s Gulf States Community Resiliency project is developing a web-based course on the subject, and developers invited me to participate in a review session in downtown New Orleans.  Though the RAND session shot most of the day, I had a chance that afternoon to visit a small community-based organization, “lowernine.org,” that helps residents of the Katrina flood-devastated Lower Ninth Ward rebuild their homes – mustering volunteer labor to assemble owner-purchased materials.   

Each organization might rightfully claim to anchor one end of a continuum – RAND on the side of high-flying analytics and conceptual rigor, lowernine.org on the side of roll-up-your-sleeves, get-down-in-the-dirt-and-do-it practicality. 

Both ends of the spectrum are not only useful, but doubtless essential, to the myriad challenges of long-term disaster recovery and community strengthening.  But to see them juxtaposed, as it were, so starkly in so short a span of time was a rare eye-opening experience for this social work educator.