Rethinking the Provision of Counseling Services: A Paradigm Shift for College Counselors

Abstract

In the past 40 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of campus counseling services offered to students (Gallagher, 2011). In addition, the variability of these services has been such that students from diverse and varied backgrounds could benefit from available offerings. These efforts have for the most part been successful. As Gallagher (2011) noted, college and university counseling centers serve almost 11% of the enrolled students on their campuses. Despite these gains, there still are challenges facing college counseling centers. Most notable among these challenges is the disparity between student demand and available resources needed to meet this demand. Budgetary concerns and staffing issues continue to provide challenges for counseling centers tasked with meeting the mental health needs of a student body that is increasingly in need of services (Smith et al., 2007). According to the latest Gallagher report, over 90% of college counseling center directors reported that the recent trend toward a greater number of students with severe psychological problems continues to be true on their campuses. In light of these increasing demands for services, counseling centers have begun addressing the imbalance between demand and available resources in new and innovative ways (Hardy, Weatherford, & Locke, 2011). Traditional counseling styles and formats are being de-emphasized in favor of alternative methods of support to best meet the needs and address the unique characteristics of today's college students with staff available (Boone et al., 2011). As Smith et al. (2007) posited, college counseling centers are continually being tasked to more with less (p. 64). As a result, many counseling centers are now using several procedures and interventions that typically are found in community mental health agencies (Rudd, 2004). Examples of these types of procedures are wait-lists, community outreach programs, session limits, psychiatric consultation and referral, and community education and training. The articles in this issue describe a number of opportunities college counselors might use to creatively reach out to students in need given some of the operating parameters in play on their college and university campuses. It is my hope that these articles help build the knowledge base and address the growing need for accountability in higher education (Varlotta, 2012) and in the provision of campus counseling services (Schwartz, 2006). The articles in this issue's Research section represent a variety of interesting topics that college counselors would certainly benefit from reading. The first article addresses the importance of personality type in treating counseling center clients. In a study of over 200 participants at a midwestern university, Maria Hammond, Jennifer Lockman, and Rebecca Temple assessed the relationship between personality characteristics and the presenting clinical symptoms of students seeking services at the local college counseling center. Using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and the Computerized Assessment System for Psychotherapy Evaluation and Research Symptom Scales, their findings seem to indicate that personality domains do have a significant, positive relationship to some of the symptoms with which clients present for services. Their work supports the use of the Five-Factor Model of Personality in working with college students and offers counselors suggestions for how this theoretical model can be applied in their clinical practice. In the second article, Renee Lopez and Jacob Levy examine the counseling needs of college student athletes, including the perceived barriers and preferences these students have for mental health services. Their results suggest that student athletes have distinct preferences for the type of services they prefer when seeking counseling help. In particular, student athletes showed a strong preference for counselors who were either knowledgeable in regard to the unique demands placed on college student athletes or had been a collegiate athlete themselves. …