Did you miss the first part of this series? Visit Domestic Violence Advocacy: Why It Doesn’t Work. In this section, we turn our attention to cross-training victim advocates. Unfortunately, how we train could lead to an increase in domestic violence.
Victim Advocates play a vital role in services. A victim advocate’s job is to offer crisis management through safety planning and referrals. That is it. Victim advocates need only 15 hours of training to work in the field. Many advocates are survivors themselves, wanting to give back. Violence Free Colorado stated something critical in a meeting titled “The Big Question” in 2021. In short, they said, any increase in training requirements would make advocacy unreachable for many. And that includes survivors and people of color. The belief is that raising the bar will “white-wash” the profession. But, what we need most, is people of varying backgrounds that can connect with whatever victim walks through the door.
The Low Bar for Training
The low bar for training is that most advocates don’t know how NOT to project their violent experiences on the victims they serve. And that means a lot of trauma gets thrown around. It also results in a workforce unwilling to work alongside other professionals in other systems. Their cross-training is extremely limited. Also, their experiences in “the system” taint their judgment. There is often blame for re-traumatization on the external systems as community agencies close ranks around a survivor. Some of this is warranted. Others, not. Some protect the victim. Some make their situation worse.
The good news is many advocates have a strong intrinsic drive to become better. So, they want to do better and serve better. But this takes time and experience. With experience and education, comes the knowledge of higher-paid positions and connections to those in those roles. As a result, those motivated advocates work their way through community centers. Eventually, many move into system advocacy. That area offers much higher pay, better benefits, and less crisis work.
This leaves the community agencies largely dependent on advocates who choose not to work with other systems. It happens under the guise of confidentiality. But they never actually advocate for their clients about the benefits of system collaboration because they don’t understand it. They also don’t understand trauma. Meaning, they don’t realize, while their client is a victim, they still may not have the most accurate view of system involvement. Still, the training is just enough to create a workforce that feels “trained.” And there’s the image that it provides high-level support. But workers actually don’t have enough training to do so. Consider the best community agencies (e.g., Project Safeguard, Rose Andom, etc.). Directors build system collaboration into their processes, including cross-training for onboarding training.
Understanding the Meaning of Counselors
In Colorado, most advocates have the title of ‘counselors.’ To be clear, ‘counselor’ is widely used. If I’m a licensed therapist, I may call myself a counselor. But I would have significant education and training to operate as a therapist. Yet, I can also get hired at a church because of my experience and have the counselor title. And that’s true, even if I have no therapeutic training. I can be a life coach using the same title, a school counselor, or someone even offering case management services. Advocates get placed in a very needy population and centers offering various services. It’s all varied, ever-changing, and very needed. But, you see administration encouraging anyone and everyone who wants to take on a special project to go forth and help.
At a well-known community agency in Arapahoe county, the executive director stated advocates need to get called counselors. The director said, “…they feel calling them advocates makes them worth less than the therapists.” Their justification for using the title was that they wanted to be equals to therapists in their agency. But they don’t do the same job. And trained therapists require a great deal of costly education. So why not delineate? This type of misguided leadership creates mass confusion.
A Typical Example of the Lack of Support for Victims
A caseworker (DHS) correctly refers a client to a community agency for services. But the advocate might not advocate for a release of information to get signed. More so, they may even encourage the client not to sign a release of information (ROI). The caseworker, who doesn’t understand the titles of the agency, asks the client what services they receive. The response is the victim sees a counselor. The caseworker then documents and reports “counseling.” After about 4-6 sessions with the advocate, the caseworker tells the client that services ended. Remember, it’s their job to provide resources, a safety plan, and handle any immediate crisis. The victim gets issued a “letter” stating they give it to DHS. It assumes the client even knows to ask for said letter. At times, no letter gets issued and the caseworker receives only a verbal report.
Yet, the caseworker believes the victim “completed counseling” because of the reporting. The caseworker, not cross-trained, has no idea this person did not receive a day of therapy. Moreover, they may or may not require a release from the client to confirm services. In a non-court involved case, they likely will not. In a court-involved case, it may happen.
Lack of Cross-Training Training Leads to Lack of Support
In best case scenario, the client completes a treatment plan objective. And they can focus on other things until they close their case is ready and they can source therapy later. Worst case, the caseworker wrongly assumes the “therapy” reached its maximum benefit. The continued “back and forth” behavior victims see (typical) is because they’re unwilling or unable to make progress. Also, the “counselor” believes they did all they could. This results in a voluntary case becoming court-involved. It also means the removal of children and moving forward with termination. And there’s a belief that the victim is not CAPABLE of change, growth, or (worse) protecting their children.
How is the advocate supposed to know the damage they did without training and cross-training? That’s especially true for even the most basic ideals of child welfare practice. How is the caseworker supposed to know what happened without understanding community agency practices in Colorado? Would a liaison be beneficial here?
