It takes an institution's village to retain a student: A comprehensive look at two early warning system undergraduate retention programs and administrators' perceptions of students' experiences and the retention services they provide students in the early warning system retention programs

Institutions have implemented many campus interventions to address student persistence/retention, one of which is Early Warning Systems (EWS). However, few research studies show evidence of interventions that incorporate noncognitive factors/skills, and psychotherapy/psycho-educational processes in the EWS. A qualitative study (phenomenological interview and document analysis) of EWS at both a public and private 4-year Florida university was conducted to explore EWS through the eyes of the administrators of the ways administrators make sense of students' experiences and the services they provide and do not provide to assist students. Administrators' understanding of noncognitive factors and the executive skills subset and their contribution to retention and the executive skills development of at-risk students were also explored. Hossler and Bean's multiple retention lenses theory/paradigms and Perez's retention strategies were used to guide the study. Six administrators from each institution who oversee and/or assist with EWS for first time in college undergraduate students considered academically at-risk for attrition were interviewed. Among numerous findings, at Institution X: EWS was infrequently identified as a service, EWS training was not conducted, numerous cognitive and noncognitive issues/deficits were identified for students, and services/critical departments such as EWS did not work together to share students' information to benefit students. Assessment measures were used to identify students' issues/deficits; however, they were not used to assess, track, and monitor students' issues/deficits. Additionally, the institution's EWS did address students' executive skills function beyond time management and organizational skills, but did not address students' psychotherapy/psycho-educational processes. Among numerous findings, at Institution Y: EWS was frequently identified as a service, EWS training was not conducted, numerous cognitive and noncognitive issues/deficits were identified for students, and services/critical departments such as EWS worked together to share students' information to benefit students. Assessment measures were used to identify, track, and monitor students' issues/deficits; however, they were not used to assess students' issues/deficits. Additionally, the institution's EWS addressed students' executive skills function beyond time management and organizational skills, and psychotherapy/psycho-educational processes. Based on the findings, Perez's retention strategies were not utilized in EWS at Institution X, yet were collectively utilized in EWS at Institution Y, to achieve Hossler and Bean's retention paradigms. Future research could be designed to test the link between engaging in the specific promising activities identified in this research (one-to-one coaching, participation in student success workshops, academic contracts, and tutoring) and student success (e.g., higher GPA, retention). Further, because this research uncovered some concern with how to best handle students with physical and psychological disabilities, future research could link these same promising strategies for improving student performance for example among ADHD students or those with clinical depression.

Disaster Risk Management Disparity in the Caribbean: Evidence from Barbados, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago

This study on risk and disaster management capacities of four Caribbean countries: Barbados, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, examines three main dimensions: 1) the impact of natural disasters from 1900 to 2010 (number of events, number of people killed, total number affected, and damage in US$); 2) institutional assessments of disaster risk management disparity; and 3) the 2010 Inter-American Bank for Development (IADB) Disaster Risk and Risk Management indicators for the countries under study. The results show high consistency among the different sources examined, pointing out the need to extend the IADB measurements to the rest of the Caribbean countries. Indexes and indicators constitute a comparison measure vis-à-vis existing benchmarks in order to anticipate a capacity to deal with adverse events and their consequences; however, the indexes and indicators could only be tested against the occurrence of a real event. Therefore, the need exists to establish a sustainable and comprehensive evaluation system after important disasters to assess a country‘s performance, verify the indicators, and gain feedback on measurement systems and methodologies. There is diversity in emergency and preparedness for disasters in the four countries under study. The nature of the event (hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and seismic activity), especially its frequency and the intensity of the damage experienced, is related to how each has designed its risk and disaster management policies and programs to face natural disasters. Vulnerabilities to disaster risks have been increasing, among other factors, because of uncontrolled urbanization, demographic density and poverty increase, social and economic marginalization, and lack of building code enforcement. The four countries under study have shown improvements in risk management capabilities, yet they are far from being completed prepared. Barbados‘ risk management performance is superior, in comparison, to the majority of the countries of the region. However, is still far in achieving high performance levels and sustainability in risk management, primarily when it has the highest gap between potential macroeconomic and financial losses and the ability to face them. The Dominican Republic has shown steady risk performance up to 2008, but two remaining areas for improvement are hazard monitoring and early warning systems. Jamaica has made uneven advances between 1990 and 2008, requiring significant improvements to achieve high performance levels and sustainability in risk management, as well as macroeconomic mitigation infrastructure. Trinidad and Tobago has the lowest risk management score of the 15 countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region as assessed by the IADB study in 2010, yet it has experienced an important vulnerability reduction. In sum, the results confirmed the high disaster risk management disparity in the Caribbean region.

Disater Risk Management Disparity in the Caribbean: Evidence from Barbados, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago

This study on risk and disaster management capacities of four Caribbean countries: Barbados, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, examines three main dimensions: 1) the impact of natural disasters from 1900 to 2010 (number of events, number of people killed, total number affected, and damage in US$); 2) institutional assessments of disaster risk management disparity; and 3) the 2010 Inter-American Bank for Development (IADB) Disaster Risk and Risk Management indicators for the countries under study. The results show high consistency among the different sources examined, pointing out the need to extend the IADB measurements to the rest of the Caribbean countries. Indexes and indicators constitute a comparison measure vis-à-vis existing benchmarks in order to anticipate a capacity to deal with adverse events and their consequences; however, the indexes and indicators could only be tested against the occurrence of a real event. Therefore, the need exists to establish a sustainable and comprehensive evaluation system after important disasters to assess a country’s performance, verify the indicators, and gain feedback on measurement systems and methodologies. There is diversity in emergency and preparedness for disasters in the four countries under study. The nature of the event (hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and seismic activity), especially its frequency and the intensity of the damage experienced, is related to how each has designed its risk and disaster management policies and programs to face natural disasters. Vulnerabilities to disaster risks have been increasing, among other factors, because of uncontrolled urbanization, demographic density and poverty increase, social and economic marginalization, and lack of building code enforcement. The four countries under study have shown improvements in risk management capabilities, yet they are far from being completed prepared. Barbados’ risk management performance is superior, in comparison, to the majority of the countries of the region. However, is still far in achieving high performance levels and sustainability in risk management, primarily when it has the highest gap between potential macroeconomic and financial losses and the ability to face them. The Dominican Republic has shown steady risk performance up to 2008, but two remaining areas for improvement are hazard monitoring and early warning systems. Jamaica has made uneven advances between 1990 and 2008, requiring significant improvements to achieve high performance levels and sustainability in risk management, as well as macroeconomic mitigation infrastructure. Trinidad and Tobago has the lowest risk management score of the 15 countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region as assessed by the IADB study in 2010, yet it has experienced an important vulnerability reduction. In sum, the results confirmed the high disaster risk management disparity in the Caribbean region.