Craig Smith, EVP of Operations at Absorb Software

cc

Healthcare finally made the shiftit went digital. Overdue, perhaps and maybe less rapid than the transition by other industries but nonetheless notable. The age of the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) has dawned, and healthcare is riding the wave. You go, healthcare!

For healthcare organizations, the advent of IoMT means new technology tools like smart medical devices extending and streamlining care throughout the hospital. This gives clinicians more mobility and more efficiency in providing patient care. The shift to a completely digitized environment; however, gives the entire healthcare IT infrastructure something else to worry about: new cybersecurity risks.

Healthcare Cyber Threats Are Real

A recent study by Kaspersky confirms this cyber threat, with study data pointing to a significant lack of security awareness among healthcare organizations in both the U.S. and Canada. How big is this risk? Nearly one third (32%) of survey respondents said they had never received cybersecurity training from their employer, while 21% admitted they were not aware of the cybersecurity policy at their workplace.

This is a dangerously high level of exposure, especially when you consider the number of potential threats healthcare organizations face and the resulting impact on Personal Health Information (PHI) and associated data privacy regulations. Phishing attacks represent the biggest cybersecurity threat, cleverly disguised requests for login credentials to dupe unsuspecting employees into providing their usernames or passwords, which would then be used to gain unauthorized access to systems and data establishing an entry point into the target organization for data gathering and establishing an attack plan

Healthcare organizations urgently need a more proactive approach to security training.

Cybersecurity Isnt Just a Tech Problem

When it comes to cybersecurity, awareness matters. But business leaders need to think beyond their IT department and instead focus on training all employees on how to identify and address key risks. Everyone across the organizations regardless of his or her role needs to be equipped with knowledge and skills to protect against threats or attacks. And its not enough to just do the bare minimum to meet compliance or other regulatory requirements. Organizations need blended learning & development (L&D) and other training strategies that empower your employees to protect against cyber-attacks.

The following L&D guidance for cybersecurity training will help healthcare organizations overcome these hurdles and make security training more effective preventing untold costs in security incidents.

1. Make It Simple and Clear

People can be a powerful force when it comes to preventing cybercrime. But individuals often believe they are not a target, which exposes the organization to tremendous risk. Its important to address this misconception and explain the critical importance and benefits of leveraging a cybersecurity awareness and training program. Employee training should explain how threats work, and include recent examples of phishing messages. This will give learners a clear picture of how to detect possible threats, and respond accordingly. It is also recommended that organizations only focus on a single awareness and training topic per quarter to avoid overloading staff with too much information at one time.

2. Vary Your Training Techniques

Plan on using a blend of learning techniques to provide a combination of simulation and engagement. Why? This will build employee confidence in real-world security encounters. If you just lecture to your team, or more likely, have expert conduct the lecture, complete with ominous warnings about worst-case cybersecurity scenarios, your lesson may just backfire. Youll scare them about hackers, but not inspire any behavioral change. By blending the training techniques in your learning management system to include interactive components, videos, and a few real-life examples, you stand a much better chance of having the learning stick.

3. Keep a Steady Drumbeat of Learning

Continuous reinforcement of key lessons is more effective than long learning sessions that can be hard to digest. You can still perform annual cybersecurity training. But also assign microlessons and short quizzes throughout the year to keep learning fresh and top of mind. This way, when its test time everybodys ready to succeed. Thanks, coach!

4. Use Non-Experts

Perhaps the most important way to change employee behavior is by having the message about cybersecurity come from someone human and relatable. This approach can help employees build confidence in secure behaviors and avoid errors in real-world situations. Human behavior is more complex than just technical expertise. Including instructors with soft skills is crucial, according to a recent study of over 1,700 security pros from the SANS Institute. Enlist nontechnical staff members to create engaging learning modules, such as real-life examples your workforce can relate to.

The unique challenges of healthcare

Its been well established that healthcare is now more vulnerable to breaches than any other industry, and the implications of an attack go far beyond data privacy. Cyber incidents can potentially compromise patient safety and interfere with care delivery. Yet, healthcare workers are not getting the consistent education they need to keep organization and patient data safe. These vulnerabilities are exacerbated by the unique challenges healthcare presents, which makes training extremely difficult.

Unfortunately, there is no single, all-encompassing formula for ensuring that employees actually learn and apply the cybersecurity lessons theyre taught. Training can, however, go a long way in mitigating threats. By aligning with these tips, you can ensure your healthcare organization is taking the optimal steps to prepare your team for the new IoMT world, and its related cybersecurity risks.

About Craig Smith

Craig Smith serves as the Executive Vice President of Operations forAbsorb Software, acloud-based learning management system (LMS) engineered to inspire learning and fuel business productivity.Rising through the Absorb leadership ranks, Craig started as the Director of Technology before pivoting to lead Operations as its Vice President. Craig continues to leverage his IT roots to elevate the Absorb customer experience, drawing on his time as a developer at Honeywell International, building websites for clients at Autodata Solutions and leading a team of developers at AGAT Laboratories.

Continue reading here:
4 Ways to Make Security Training A Priority in Your Healthcare Organization - HIT Consultant

This year, climate change was a top concern for college students and professors, and they found plenty of outlandish ways to express their concern. From disruptions to attempts to control human behavior, Campus Reform has gathered a few of the most outrageous things done on campus this year in the name of combatting climate change.

From disruptions to attempts to control human behavior, Campus Reform has gathered a few of the most outrageous things done on campus this year in the name of combatting climate change.

1. 50 climate protesters who disrupted Harvard-Yale football game learn their punishment

During the November 23 Harvard vs. Yale football game, student climate-protesters from both schools raided the field and insisted that the university erase their holdings on Puerto Rican debt and cease fossil fuel investments. The protestors had already delayed the game for thirty minutes before police intervened. Fifty people were reportedly charged with disorderly conduct, and the judge handed a sentence of five community-service hours to at least 29 protesters.

The judge said that as long as these conditions are met, the charges will be dropped. Later, some people from the Democrat party applauded the move made by these students by saying, When people come together to stand up for justice, we win.

2. Researchers at the University of Michigan have conducted a study attempting to Address the myths surrounding climate change.

U of Michigan created guidelines to help individuals spot fake news about climate change as part of a study that concluded that this type of fake news too easily spread on Facebook.

The researchers remarked that this research opens the door for research on other fake news, but says that fake news about climate change is especially problematic because climate change itself is an undeniable widespread, global problem..

Our findings suggest that being exposed to guidelines for evaluating news quality can lead individuals to be less likely to trust, 'like,' and share fake news about climate change, study co-author and UMich postdoctoral research fellow Caitlin Drummond told Campus Reform.

3. Georgetown Universitys Climate...Rebuttal event held by the campus conservative group is shut down by clown with bike horn

A group of environmental protesters crashed a College Republicans event titled Climate Forum: A Rebuttal. One protester was decked out in a clown costume and repeatedly honked a bike horn in an attempt to prevent the event from carrying on. Police were called to the scene after the protesters refused to leave the meeting, When the police entered the room, protesters started chanting, What do we want? Climate justice. When do we want it? Now! No one at the event was arrested, but police did prevent protesters from entering and causing further disruption

4. The University of London bans burgers to combat climate change could this come to the United States?

In August, the University of London banned the sale of beef products and increased the tax on plastic water bottles. This action was taken in light of the belief that beef could be damaging to the environment because cows produce methane gas.

"Our house is on fire...I believe Frances Corner and the university management are realizing this and making these changes to put their part of the house fire out. Regarding climate change, Goldsmiths Students' Union president Joe Leam said.

5. Taxpayers money is used to fund Harvards Climate Change Tree

Researchers at Harvard have used money from the U.S. Government to make a tree that has a twitter account to tweet about climate change concerns. This tree, dubbed the Witness Tree, is equipped with various measuring devices and uses the information collected to send automated tweets about the weather and other factors. It tweets in the first person, which will supposedly, make it relatable to a larger audience, but also allows the tree to include various implications in its otherwise scientific tweets.

The last 2 days were extremely hot for July. When is this heatwave going to end? the treetweeted over the summer.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @SavannahDudzik

Read more from the original source:
Tweeting trees and clowns with horns: How far did universities go to combat the climate change monster this year? - Campus Reform

Fraud is one of the most prominent threats facing the UK economy, costing a reported130 billion each year. Due to the relentless activities of cyber criminals, businesses, and consumers alike are suffering from the devastating effects of fraud. In the first half of 2019, there were over 1.3 million cases of payment card fraud, a 16 percent rise on the same period last year, according toUK Finance. Furthermore,half of UK businesses have fallen victim to cyber fraud in the past two years, explaining why 42 percent believe cybercrime will have the greatest impact on businesses over the next two-year period.

Data breaches in 2019, affecting major brands such as Capital One, have exposed 4.1 billion records. Cyber criminals can then use the stolen information to set up new bank accounts in the victims name, and any compromised passwords can be used in credential stuffing attacks.

However, although breaches and fraud are becoming normal, everyday events, there are steps businesses can take to protect themselves and their customers. Security needs to be baked in from the beginning not bolted on at the end to protect critical data. Here are some key questions businesses should ask themselves when evaluating their ability to tackle fraud in 2020.

The cyber-landscape is changing so rapidly driven by a combination of regulations, complex enterprise infrastructures, and increasingly sophisticated criminals that companies need to constantly assess and update their security systems and processes.

In order to detect and defend against modern attacks with greater efficiency, value and importance must be placed on dynamic and flexible controls. Organizations need to invest in the collection of high-quality data that will provide the basis for these controls, as well as the informed decisions they need to make on threats and criminal activity.

For example, were seeing the emergence of next-generation intelligent security, such as adaptive authentication, which uses AI and machine learning to score the increasingly vast amounts of data businesses collect, analyze the risk of a situation, and adapt authentication levels accordingly.

Using a layered approach to authentication, incorporating biometrics, behavioral analysis, and data from third-party tools makes staying ahead of the cybercriminals that little bit easier. Security moves from being a black and white binary story, to becoming precise and intelligent. Businesses need to regularly update their infrastructures and adopt a strong, multi-layered approach to security thats capable of detecting the most advanced and new strains of cyber-attacks.

Make no mistake, fraud is as much a business as any other, and this wont change in 2020. As such, cyber-criminals will focus their attacks that will bring them the greatest return on investment with minimal effort. As such, its important that your business is capable of securing all channels, as all are potential targets for criminals to exploit.

Criminals are already using an arsenal of tools and tricks to deceive individuals into handing over sensitive information via multiple channels. For example, more than 175,000 phishing sites were taken down over the past year by the National Cyber Security Centre, and Mimecast halted an astonishing 99 billion suspicious emails, ranging from sophisticated impersonations to volume-focused spam campaigns.

Mobile channels are also increasingly under threat. Apple and Google Play app stores are no strangers to malware infested apps. Despite an incredible amount of suspicious activity being thwarted, malicious software and websites still slip through the net.

In 2020, fraud will continue to follow the ebb and flow across different channels as new technologies or standards are introduced, making one channel more secure than another. As the saying goes, when one door closes another one opens. Its the job of businesses to predict those doors opening, and make sure theyre secure from the offset.

The best position security position you can take is one that incorporates both technology and human behavior.

While its important to have controls in place that can filter malicious content, such as fraudulent emails and suspicious websites, you shouldnt forget that human error can compromise even the best technological defenses. So having an educational program in place that trains employees on how to spot phishing emails, outlines what to do if theyre targeted, and provides other tips for staying secure is key. Crucially, this should be a process thats constantly revised, and training should be held at regular intervals so that staff dont lose focus of the most prevalent threats.

Ultimately, there is plenty of work still to be done to improve IT security and get ahead of attackers, whether its strengthening human or technical defenses. Despite modern companies placing far more importance on security than ever before, the threat of fraud remains.

But, by regularly assessing their security infrastructure, making sure every channel is covered and training their employees, businesses can put themselves in the best position to fight back against fraud in 2020 and beyond.

Published December 27, 2019 16:00 UTC

Excerpt from:
3 security steps you should take to protect your company from fraud - The Next Web

And if The West Wing trio worked in Congressman Frank Underwoods Washington, they might just get shoved in front of a moving Metro train. When Netflix premiered House of Cards in 2013, it seemed natural to juxtapose it with the brighter era of political TV that preceded it. If only we knew at the time that the show was preparing us for a decade of dark political TV to comeand reflecting an overall perception of Washington that would soon have an impact on the real Washington.

Of course, Scandal and House of Cards were just TVfew people on the government payroll, after all, could afford those wardrobes. But these shows portrayal of the creeping rot of Washington didnt show up in a vacuum. Television can both set and reflect the mood of the nation, creating expectations about human behavior. After Barack Obamas 2008 victory, many mused, in seriousness, about whether Dennis Haysberts acting turn as President David Palmer on 24 helped get voters used to the image of a black president. Something similar might be at work now. Todays real-life sweeping nihilism about politicians motives, the widespread hatred of the swamp, the notion that the process is flawed and the rules of engagement themselves might not be worth following, was, if not created by television, then at least predicted by it.

To realize how dark TVs take on Washington has been these past eight or 10 years, its worth thinking about how relatively sunny the view was just a decade earlier. The aughts were full of political shows whose central politicians were virtuous and well-meaning, engaged in public service for the right reasons. This wasnt a just a liberal Hollywood thing; in ABCs short-lived Commander in Chief (2005-06), Geena Davis, a vice president who ascended to the Oval Office when her boss died, was a political independent. Foxs 24 (2001-10) didnt take a progressive view of issues like torturebut when Kiefer Sutherland and his fellow counterterrorism agents played fast and loose with the Geneva Accords, they did so for the sake of virtuous presidents and the safety of the American people.

And nothing screamed higher calling more than The West Wing, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2006, tracking the righteous souls who worked for President Jed Bartlet. The soundtrack was stirring and majestic; the opening sequence was gauzy and triumphant; in most episodes, someone gave a speech about doing the right thing. When the actors showed up on the Democratic campaign trailas they did en masse for Hillary Clinton in 2016you sometimes got the sense that they actually believed they had been part of the government.

The West Wing, created by Aaron Sorkin, was a liberal wish-fulfillment fantasy, but it also mostly imbued Team Bartlets conservative antagonists with a certain kind of honor: They wanted power, but in service to their causes, and with ultimate respect for the system. (That point was underscored in a 2002 documentary-style Special Episode that featured gauzy interviews about the work of White House staffers, and included such Republicans as Marlin Fitzwater, Peggy Noonan and Karl Rove.) Even though the show premiered seven months after President Bill Clintons highly partisan impeachment trial, it was forever optimistic about the systemconfident that a few good friends and well-placed Sorkin-penned speeches could fix whatever ailed democracy. If there was political analysis embedded in The West Wing, it was the notion that the system fell short when the players didnt fight hard enough for what they believed in; when they were too willing to play the safe bet instead of taking a risk for the greater good.

Then came the end of Obamas first terma moment when, if you were a liberal with Sorkinesque optimism about Yes We Can slogans and transformative change, you might be coming to terms with the notion that politicians are imperfect, gridlock is pervasive and Mitch McConnell isnt just going to step aside to make way for your higher cause, whether its universal health care or closing Guantanamo.

And a new era of political TV shows took that disillusionment one step further. Shows like Veep and House of Cards offered a new, darker theory: The system can never work if everybody in politics is terrible and venal and self-servingand the very nature of Washington makes people terrible and venal and self-serving.

Veep, a kind of inverse of The West Wing that premiered in 2012, was a farce about ambitious politician Selina Meyer and her marginally competent, politically hungry staff. Here, majestic West Wing-style music is played in little jabs, like punchlines, between scenes where Meyer does her best to squeeze political capital from every situation. And her disdain for the actual public is glaringly obvious. (Ive met some people, some real people, and Ive got to tell you, a lot of them are f---ing idiots, she says in the first season.) Where the staffers in The West Wing were fast and loyal friends, Meyers staffers mock and undermine one another other without mercy. The closest thing Meyer has to a friend is the devoted body guy who brings her snacks on demand and whispers useful facts in her ear in public settings. In the series finale, she sets him up to take the fall for a political scandaland watches FBI agents haul him away, out of the corner of her eye, as she delivers a nomination acceptance speech at the party convention.

Veep was created by a Scotsman, Armando Iannucci, a veteran of scathing British black comedies about the moral compromises of government. He held no special reverence for American institutions, and he was keenly aware of the comedic possibilities when teeming ambition crashed into powerlessness. Around the time of the series premiere, Iannucci told the Los Angeles Times that he was partly inspired by Lyndon B. Johnson, who spent his vice presidency sort of sitting in his office waiting for a phone call. (The running joke in the first season is that Selina keeps asking if the president called, and the answer is always no.) Like the best satire, the show has an undercurrent of sadness; Meyer is acutely aware of how much toil and personal sacrifice it has taken to obtain whatever capital she has, and how much the struggle has changed her as a person. The finale offers a brief, melancholy image of her sitting alone in the Oval Office, having sacrificed every relationship to reach her goal.

House of Cards, too, had roots across the pond; it was loosely based on a British political-thriller series from the 1990s. But where Veep spun nihilism into farce, House of Cards turned it into high melodrama. The credit sequence shows the monuments of Washington in ominous time-lapse photography, with dark clouds sweeping overhead and shadows climbing up the buildings. The central characters, politician Frank Underwood and his wife, Claire, are so deeply committed to Washington power that theyd do anything to get itnot just the garden-variety TV fare of murders, affairs and bribery, but some truly sinister bureaucratic moves. In the second season, in order to blackmail a pregnant former employee, Claire forges health insurance paperwork to deny her a drug that would aid blood flow to her placenta. Im willing to let your child wither and die inside you if thats whats required, but neither of us wants that, she says, matter-of-factly.

The ruthlessness of politics was a running theme throughout the decade. Even soap-opera fantasies picked up on the idea of Washington as a force for ambition, evil and, really, not much else. The Oval Office, in our show, was a place that corrupted anybody who came near it, Scandal creator Shonda Rhimes told reporters before the series finale. And the closer you came, the more corrupt it made you and the more damaged it made you. This year, Netflixs The Politician, a Ryan Murphy political allegory set at a California high school, mocked the poll-driven, values-free drive of a budding politician and his handlers.

The most powerful way that TV predicted politics in the 2010s, though, was in its prescription for a fix: the suggestion that what Washington really needs is an outsider to swoop in and shake things up (or drain the swamp, if you prefer). Mainstream networks in particular offered another archetype alongside these power-hungry nihilists: the accidental politician who reluctantly takes high office, then comes face-to-face with that broken system. These shows might have been more optimistic about human nature than Scandal or Veep, but in their own way, they were just as cynical about Washington.

In 2016, ABC launched Designated Survivor, a political thriller starring Kiefer Sutherland, best known as fearless agent Jack Bauer in 24. Here, Sutherland plays Tom Kirkman, a mild-mannered career academic who serves as secretary of Housing and Urban Developmentbut is so bad at navigating Washington politics that one morning, he learns that president plans to fire him. He has one final duty: to be the Cabinet member taken to a secure location during the State of the Union address, just in case. As it so happens, that night, somebody blows up the Capitol.

Kirkman takes the Oath of Office with no trust, no mandate and no idea how to do the job, though viewers surely trust that his inner Kiefer Sutherland will come through. It does, in a mild-mannered way, as he fires subordinate generals, stumbles through international crises and finds it within himself, eventually, to deliver a stirring speech. (In the third season, he delivers his own State of the Union address, but goes off-script and caterwauls at Congress: The system is broken and you people broke it!) Through it all, Kirkman is fighting against a greater conspiracy: a network of corruption that wrongly believes hed be an easy mark. As other characters handle the action-adventure work, Kirkman stands his ground; its his rare integrity, his un-Washingtonian Kiefer-ness, that holds the nation together.

CBS Madam Secretary, which premiered two years earlier, has a similar premise: Elizabeth McCord, a former CIA analyst-turned-college professor, is tapped to become secretary of State after the current one dies in a plane crash. The president, a former CIA director, tells McCord he trusts her to think more expansively than most Washington lifers, and within reason, she complies, battling a White House chief of staff who would prefer she follow protocol more often. This is me not being a politician, she declares in one early episode, explaining an unconventional decision.

Madam Secretary is more like The West Wing in the sense that multiple characters have virtue. The president is a basically a good guy; the McCords marriage is a mutually supportive dream; the State Department staff is behind her. (So are some real-world political operatives: In one 2018 episode, former Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell appear together, as themselves, to offer bland advice about pushing for national unity after a crisis.) Still, the shows backdrop is a Washington thats compromised and divided, full of conspiracies and unworthy opponents, from secretive bureaucrats to government moles and ambitious two-dimensional senators. At the end of the first season, one such senator discovers that McCord shared classified information with her husband Henry. Issued a subpoena to appear before the Senate committee, Henry declares his intention to obstruct justice. This whole thing lacks integrity, he tells Elizabeth. I feel no ethical obligation to play by their rules.

Ultimately, Elizabeth barges into the hearing, takes Henrys place at the witness table and delivers an impassioned speech, saying she only broke the law because she cared about the country and didnt know who else she could trust. (Man, I have never heard a more eloquent defense for violating the Espionage Act, another character says, in admiration.) She storms out of the hearing without being dismissed. Soon afterward, the president informs her that the Justice Department has decided to let it pass.

Of all of the political shenanigans on television this decade, that 2015 scene might have been the most telling, and the most predictive of the real-life politics that were to come, not long after the episode aired. The West Wing never argued that the rules of political engagement can and should be broken. But today, real-life Washington is full of disagreements, not just about facts and outcomes, but about the basic codes of conduct, the processes that everyone needs to follow, the obligation anyone has to play by anyones rules.

Again, its just TV. But academic treatises have been written about how TV crime shows can create a warped impression of the criminal justice system, giving jurors outsized expectations, for example, of the power of forensic evidence. A decade ago, on political TV, we had an openhearted baseline expectation about how the system works, why it fails and what kinds of behavior gets rewarded.

But in these 2010s shows, the characters learn that breaking the codes of conduct and propriety will wind up taking you far. Selina Meyer of Veep and both Underwoods of House of Cards all get to be president in the end. Elizabeth McCord, of Madam Secretary, eventually becomes president, too. But, you know, a good one. So long as youre on her side.

Visit link:
How TV Predicted Politics in the 2010s - POLITICO

Media Advisory

Friday, December 27, 2019

Findings from NIH-funded study could inform treatment strategies.

Identical twins with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often experience large differences in symptom severity even though they share the same DNA, according to an analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health. The findings suggest that identifying the causes of this variability may inform the treatment of ASD-related symptoms. The study was conducted by John Constantino, M.D., of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and colleagues. Funding was provided by NIHs Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The study appears in Behavior Genetics.

ASD is a developmental disorder that affects how a person behaves, interacts with others and learns. Previous studies have found that when one identical twin has ASD, chances are extremely likely that the other twin has it, too.

The authors analyzed data from three previous studies comprising a total of 366 identical twin pairs with and without ASD. The severity of autism traits and symptoms in the twins was measured by a clinicians assessment or by parents ratings on a standardized questionnaire. Some cases were diagnosed by both methods. The researchers determined a 96% chance that if one twin has ASD, the other has it, too. However, symptom scores varied greatly between twins diagnosed with ASD. The researchers estimated that genetic factors contributed to only 9% of the cause of trait variation among these twins. In contrast, among pairs of identical twins without ASD, the scores for traits were very similar.

The study authors do not know the reasons for differences in symptom severity, but they rule out genetic and most environmental causes because the twins share the same DNA and were raised in the same environment. Additional studies are needed to determine the cause.

Alice Kau, Ph.D., NICHD Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Branch, is available for comment.

Castelbaum, L. On the nature of monozygotic twin concordance for autistic trait severity: A quantitative analysis. Behavior Genetics.2019.

About theEunice Kennedy ShriverNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD): NICHD conducts and supports research in the United States andthroughout the world on fetal, infant and child development; maternal, child and family health; reproductive biology and population issues; and medical rehabilitation. For more information, visitNICHDs website.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH):NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.

NIHTurning Discovery Into Health

###

Read more:
Severity of autism symptoms varies greatly among identical twins - National Institutes of Health

I got lots of comments on my column supporting giving to beggars. I wrote the column expecting that I might produce only one or two notes of agreement, but my heart was lifted by the number of softhearted readers who, like me, give to beggars. Of course, there were a few like this one, from W:

In this day and age your answer was absolutely wrong! Enabling begging, alcohol and drug addicts exacerbates the problem!

Many of these people will not accept help from shelters because their addiction is more important to them! By funding their habit, you are making their circumstances worse.

Encourage people to give generously to shelters and organizations that assist the homeless. This is the Christian thing to do!

I respect that point of view, but I disagree with it. In our broken world, it is almost always the case that we cannot change the big things but can have an impact on little things. As Mother Teresa wrote, "God does not call us to do great things. God calls us to do small things with great love." Amen.

The following notes lifted my heart and convinced me that many people are doing small things with great love.

From K: I read your piece on giving to the homeless. So many people have the same questions in our church. So now we have prepared snack bags that have a short blessing attached. When we see homeless people, we hand them a bag and they are always appreciative. My husband and I have always felt that any money we give no matter where is given in God's name and no longer belongs to us and we don't question how it's used.

From J in New York:I have worked in NYC for the past 38 years. I, too, had a dilemma about giving to the less fortunate. I finally realized that I was in a better place than those who asked for a handout. I then made sure that I always had a couple of singles in my pocket and would give to anyone who asked. Or I would put a couple of granola bars in my pocket and distribute them. If there was someone I saw on a regular basis, I would ask if there was anything I could get them. Usually they would ask for personal hygiene items. If I ever saw tube socks for sale, I would also give them out. The bottom line is that God, for whatever I did, has granted me and my family a very comfortable life. Thank you very much for this article;if only more people felt this way and [did] not make assumptions, we would be a better society.

From N:I believe that most homeless people fall into two categories people with mental health problems and those who fell into homelessness because of circumstances. I fell into the latter category and without the help of friends and family, I would have been living on the street. I agree with you saying not to judge others, assuming they are druggies or scammers. Most of these people are down on their luck and, as you said, who in their right mind would want to beg just to survive? It must be humiliating. I thank God every day for being here with me through the good and especially the bad things in life.

M from Gainesville, Florida:I thank you for the reply you wrote regarding giving money to beggars. I would like to add one thing: I sometimes see someone who is asking for handouts accompanied by a dog. Rather than just give money, I prefer picking up a small package of dog food to give them. They always accept it with a smile. One even said that he was sure that his friend would share it with him!

And my favorite response that came from B:I read your column often and often feel lifted up and given water by a greater soul than mine. I have traveled a lot and far these past six-plus decades. I have seen the beggars, the homeless, the needy, the liars, the helpless, the drug addicts, the lost, the hopeless, the lonely, the predators, the starving, the thieves, the spiritually bereft, the seekers, the musicians, the broken. This I avow to you:That every one of those descriptions of human behavior I have been and done! I give to anyone broken. I give that lousy dollar. Not to feel better about me. THEY are me! Greater souls than mine have pointed out that divinity is in the shadows of human action. My last gasp is a quote from you: "Great changes come from small change." I thank you with fondness and am looking forward.

SEND QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS to The God Squad at godsquadquestion@aol.com or Rabbi Marc Gellman, Temple Beth Torah, 35 Bagatelle Rd., Melville, NY 11747.

See more here:
God Squad: Readers respond about giving to the panhandlers - Newsday

Shelter is not prison technically speaking. Yet as I wrote in a previous article, the traditional power structure in emergency shelter closely resembles the power structure in prison.

Individuals residing in these institutions are expected to be obedient, docile, and submissive to staff at all times and in all circumstances. Each institution is also similarly defined by the experience of social rejection, sexual frustration, loss of autonomy, material scarcity, chronic stress, disturbed sleep, and emasculation.

Meanwhile, the prevailing social dynamic in male prisons what sociologists call the convict code is nearly identical to the prevailing social dynamic amongst homeless men the code of the streets.Both are behavioral and cultural norms premised on hyper-masculinity, exploitation of weakness, dominance, and violence.

They are two sides of the same coin.

There is also significant overlap between prison and shelter populations with people experiencing homelessness significantly more likely than the general population to have a criminal record, and nearly 20% of city shelter users entering shelter directly after incarceration according to one study.

This overlap means elements of prison culture regularly find their way into emergency shelters. In fact, in my experience, it is not uncommon to hear shelter guests reflexively and matter-of-factly refer to each other as inmates, refer to staff as guards, refer to the shelter itself as the prison, or refer to the curfew as lock up. When enough of our guests have this kind of prison mentality, we reach a tipping point and the shelter culture virtually becomes a prison culture. Yet even if we dont, it remains the case that for many men residing in shelter in Philadelphia, shelter and prison arent all that different.

In that sense, we can say that shelter and prison are experientially alike, but categorically distinct. After all, there is an explicit and meaningful difference between me saying I work for Bethesda Projects Church Shelter Program as opposed to Bethesda Projects Church Prison Program.

This helps explain why, for example, the United Nations has separate international standards for emergency shelters and for prisons namely, because shelter is not prison. Simply experiencing homelessness having no home or housing is not a crime, just as being a refugee, internally displaced person, or stateless person is not a crime. Nor is the act of residing in a homeless shelter a legal form of punishment in the way that being sentenced to prison is.

Because shelter is not prison, we should reasonably expect that a person residing in shelter experiences more liberty, rights, and privileges than a person residing in prison. This is another way of saying we should reasonably expect shelters to meet and exceed the minimum standards for prisons.

So lets take a closer look at whether or not they do.

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners were first adopted in 1955 and then revised in 2015, at which point they were renamed the Nelson Mandela Rules (in honor of the former President of South Africa). In total, the United Nations lists 122 rules, although the term rules can be misleading. They are meant to describe general principles of practice for prison operation, rather than mandating a specific prison model.

The rules concern matters that range from personal hygiene and exercise to filing systems and instruments of restraint. Together, they affirm that incarceration does not mean anything goes. When a person is incarcerated, their change in social status does not diminish or negate their humanity. In prison as in shelter people retain their human rights.

Unfortunately, when we look closely at the Nelson Mandela Rules, it appears that the experience of residing in shelter in Philadelphia fails to meet at least three of these baseline standards.

First, Rule 5 of the Nelson Mandela Rules states: The prison regime should seek to minimize any differences between prison life and life at liberty that tend to lessen the responsibility of the prisoners or the respect due to their dignity as human beings. When emergency shelters institute arbitrary rules that confine, monitor, and control the lives of shelter guests, their property, their activities, and their movements, we are not respecting the liberty due to them as human beings.

Instead, we are incarcerating them on our terms and incarceration on our terms is still incarceration. Even if our approach to incarceration is less restrictive than prison, we should be asking ourselves whether it is more restrictive than life outside both prison and shelter. If it is, then we are in violation of Rule 5 and depriving people of their liberty when they have not been convicted of a crime.

Relatedly, in a previous article I described how the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Emergency Handbook articulates a standard of self-determination and empowerment for people residing in shelter. This standard reappears in the Nelson Mandela Rules, specifically in Rule 40, which states: No prisoner shall be employed, in the service of the prison, in any disciplinary capacity. This rule shall not, however, impede the proper functioning of systems based on self-government.

This rule serves as an indirect affirmation that self-determination, empowerment, and self-governance are appropriate in prisons. As I see it, if the worlds leading human rights organization has legitimized their use in prisons, then surely we can consider them legitimate in emergency shelters.

The standards articulated in Rules 5 and 40 actually intertwine. For example, the notion of life at liberty means you have freedom of movement and freedom from arbitrary detention, while self-governance means you get to participate in deciding the rules that you have to live by and which may impact your liberty. Taken together, they imply that shelter staff should remove all curfews and restrictions on movement (i.e. Once you enter the shelter, you are not permitted to leave until the next morning) unless the guests themselves decide otherwise.

In that sense, compliance with Rules 5 and 40 in emergency shelters also involves democratizing management procedures. Typically, staff members claim a monopoly over establishing curfews, budgeting, managing cleaning supplies, organizing laundry schedules, resolving disputes, etc. However, these are also things that shelter guests will do when they exit shelter into housing, and things that many of them are capable of doing now. As it turns out, according to the Nelson Mandela Rules, it is reasonable to say that they also have a right to do these things now.

The third area where it can be said emergency shelters fail to meet the United Nations standards for prisons involves disciplinary standards. Rule 39 of the Nelson Mandela Rules states that: Before imposing disciplinary sanctions, prison administrations shall consider whether and how a prisoners mental illness or developmental disability may have contributed to his or her conduct and the commission of the offence or act underlying the disciplinary charge. Prison administrations shall not sanction any conduct of a prisoner that is considered to be the direct result of his or her mental illness or intellectual disability. Although the word sanction can mean both penalize and permit, in the context of disciplinary sanctions (as it is used here) it means penalize.

In my experience, I have encountered no clear or explicit restrictions on my ability as a shelter staff member to sanction or discipline a shelter guest for behavior that is a direct result of his mental illness or intellectual disability. On the contrary, the expectation has always seemed to be that I will sanction or discipline any shelter guest for any behavior that is threatening, violent, or which otherwise seriously disrupts the shelter community regardless of what prompted the behavior.

In Philadelphia, given the high percentage of people experiencing homelessness who also live with serious mental illness or intellectual/developmental disabilities, the suggestion that we not discipline problematic behavior resulting from them almost seems to suggest an anything goes attitude.

But thats not what the United Nations is saying.

Rule 39 specifically prohibits sanctioning and disciplining certain kinds of behavior but it does not prohibit responding to it, resolving it, or transforming it. Nor does it prohibit restoring safety, trust, dignity, and community after harm or wrongdoing has occurred. In that sense, the Nelson Mandela Rules are not prohibiting justice. They are, however, prohibiting punitive responses to incidents where a mental health diagnosis or intellectual disability is a key variable.

What Philadelphia homeless services can learn from Rule 39 is that non-punitive, restorative justice practices in shelter settings arent just innovative theyre actually the standard. With that in mind, I encourage emergency shelters to begin reformulating their disciplinary protocols to align with restorative justice practices, as weve begun to do in Bethesda Projects Church Shelter Program.

This kind of transformation may not be easy, but it is necessary because shelter is not prison, nor should it be. If we take that distinction seriously, and I certainly hope that we do, then emergency shelters have an obligation to meet and exceed the minimum human rights standards for prisons.

See original here:
Emergency shelter is not prison, but there are overlapping human rights concerns - Generocity