LEVI CSA Committee
Meeting Notes
September 18, 2012
Attendees: Marti Hopper, Lora Atkinson, Emily Tofte (MESA), Alida Fischer (Project Reach), Bryan Russell (HHS), Amber McDonald (Blue Sky Bridge),Sandie Jones (LPD), Trish Wood, Kim Heard(LEVI), Jackie List (Safe Shelter), Anne Tapp (SPAN)
Action Items from previous meetings;
· Sandie is still working with individuals on staff on SA data from LPD cases.
· Alida was unable to connect with school district representatives.
· Blue Sky Bridge did go to Boulder High School to do a staff training on boundaries. In addition, they are scheduled to conduct an in-service to BVSD middle school staff this fall.
Kemp Center Research
The origin and nature of the Kemp Center (Gail Ryan) research on the relationship between witnessing DV and later sexually inappropriate behaviors was discussed. Jackie List mentioned that she had contacted NSVRC (National Sexual Violence Research Center) for information that either refuted or validated the Kemp research. She had not received a response yet. She added that she believes there is a high percentage of children from DV households who have been “compromised” in some way.
Shelter’s Response to CSA & Supporting Non-offending Parent
· The discussion started with a statement that anything we do should focus on the pro-positive and protective factors to prevention instead of scaring parents about protecting their kids. Things like afterschool programs, early intervention programs in school,etc.
· DV victims already feel that they “suck as a parent” and so we need to be sensitive to not adding to that mis-perception. They are hypersensitive to their ability to parent.
· There needs to be a focus on positive factors in social development and an overall shift towards the positive in the community in terms of prevention.
· Identify the research-based protective factors and get positive supports in the lives of children from DV households to mitigate negative influences. HHS added they are currently providing differential response depending on the situation which includes pro-social development.
· Shelters do not “formally” screen for CSA but they work with moms and kids around their concerns, behavior patterns and will report if a child discloses.
· Children of victims in shelter are easy to protect because of constant survelliance but in general survivors are hyper sensitive to reading behavior and therefore can clue in when children are being compromised or “preyed upon.”
· The protective parent is always “dialed-in” to threatening situations therefore there is no need to bring awareness to them.
· Protective parents sometimes have trouble knowing how much of behavior is acting out of trauma and how much is sexualized concerning behavior.
· The real problem is not helping mom but how to “contain” the abuser.
· In general DV parents “do the best they can with what they have.” When asked if there was anything our group could provide so they “have” more, the response was that the shelters have it covered with parents in terms of education/information and assistance in this area. In addition, both shelters felt that the intervention/treatment currently provided was adequate.
· The barrier isn’t that parents don’t want to be protective it is either that they don’t seek resources or they are afraid of the system.
· BSB added that anecdotally with the dv families they interview, many of the moms were victims of SA as children so their boundaries are blurred and they don’t trust their instincts. Therefore one approach would be to give tools through treatment/intervention to SA victims on how to cope and using targeted intervention to help moms reconnect with their instinct/gut feel and encouraging them to take the next step.
· Sandie Jones commented that the reason the discussion came up in the first place is because law enforcement sees cases involving DV where parents are not protective and sometimes pressure the child to recant. The shelters said that these cases must be from families who do not seek services.
Prevention Ideas
· The Safe & Together Model is a proven successful approach to working with DV households in terms of protecting kids, safety planning and building on strengths/competencies. It is particularly useful in situations where there is distrust of the “system.” It unpacks barriers to success, identifies protective factors, and acknowledges real threats to safety. It has a mapping tool to create a plan and has the most promise for offering long-term support for families.
· Softer language (rather than perpetrator/victim) around the issue will help deflate fears and increase compliance.
· Our efforts should be mindful of the fact that 1/3 of SAs are committed by kids nationally so if we are honestly looking at primary prevention, we need to address these kids and the etiology that precipitates their perpetration.
· More “general” outreach at festivals, fairs, etc. to break the stigma, increase visibility, and improve channels of accessibility.
· It was recommended that we approach the issue from a public health perspective like drunk driving campaigns or anti-smoking. These models are collective solution oriented like “friends don’t let friends drive drunk.”
· The biggest issues are kids who are “below the radar” of adults in their lives and those whose families don’t seek services for DV.
· When families are in services they are receiving intensive, supportive and compassionate care but after they leave services there is a higher likelihood of problems. They need to feel like someone is with them for the long-term.
· A wrap-around response between BSB and the shelters should be explored but advocates at BSB are under different confidentially rules than shelter advocates.
· Bystander intervention programs are becoming quite effective with older (college) audiences.
· One past successful anti-dv campaign was “don’t grow it at home.”
· Explore public health models to change the community dialogue around DV/SA.
· There was a review of what BSB and other organizations do in terms of prevention in the classroom since students are our most captive and important audience. Everyone believes that tapping into schools is the most efficient and effective way to reach our target population.
· There was a discussion around prevention in schools and how research shows that dosage of less than 7 is not effective and sometimes harmful. Trish offered an opinion that given the pressures of schools to perform in other areas it is unrealistic to request 7 weeks of time. Instead, prevention could get creative and weave curriculum into other topics (ie, suicide, substance abuse).
Trish will send a doodle poll to arrange for a meeting in October