Building Bridges in Our Communities During Times of Trauma

1. A Bridge Over Troubled Water Building Bridges in Our Communities During Times of Trauma Chris Mercer College of the North Atlantic, Stephenville, NL

2. Is there a role for post secondary counsellors in building bridges to other human services professionals within our communities?

3. Overview • Where have we been? • Where are we? • Where are we going?

4. Overview • Context • Trauma in the Community • Thinking Outside of the Box • Issues & Solutions • What We’ve Learned • Summary

5. Trauma • Trauma comes from Latin for wound • Wound can be in body, mind, spirit, relationships • Predominant therapeutic models are individually focused, pathology based, aim to identify & reduce symptoms of post traumatic stress (Walsh, 2007)

6. Community Trauma • Impact of traumatic events on communities is on a continuum • Trauma has potential to change communities basic assumptions • Safety • Control • Being able to make sense of events

7. Community Trauma • Natural helping systems may be insufficient during times of trauma • Non-existent • Severely disrupted • Communities have various levels of success in dealing with trauma

8. Community Trauma • Potential risks to communities of long lasting difficulties in social, family, or individual functioning • Communities may need help recovering from traumatic events • On individual level: trauma can lead to: • Stress disorders, addictions, domestic problems, coping problems

9. Community Trauma • Multi-systemic, resilience oriented practice approach (Rutter, 1999; Walsh, 2007) • Recognizes community impact of trauma • Contextualizes distress • Attends to effects through relational networks • Aims to strengthen community resources • Community wide responses are most effective when centrally coordinated

10. Context • Newfoundland & Labrador – pop. approx 500,000 • Bay St. George region – pop. approx 25,000 • Stephenville – pop. approx 8000 • Site of former US Air Force Base • College of North Atlantic local campus • approx 600 full time students • 200 Residence/400 Commuters

12. Context • 1970s/80s: high need/service gaps • Collaboration opportunities? • DIY ethic • Result: multi-disciplinary/agency initiatives • Increased community capacity to meet needs of individuals/groups

13. Context • 1990s/2000s: renewed interest/ need for increased capacity/ community trauma response • Initial stakeholders • counsellors representing college, social work, mental health, secondary school • Goal: collaboration on community trauma response

14. The Hidden Agenda • Was there an opportunity to: • Increase local community capacity/ skill levels for trauma response? • Include both professionals AND community members? • Get someone to pay for it? • Role(s) for College?

15. Barriers to collaboration • No sense of urgency • Concerns around: • Turf • Leadership/Ownership • Logistics • Liability • Informed consent/confidentiality • Direct versus indirect services • WIIFM (What’s in it for me?)

16. For some team members: Success defined by professional competencies and high levels of individual achievement; not necessarily by team building and collaboration skills.

17. Trauma & Community • Stephenville (late 90s) = limited experience with community trauma; limited capacity for coordinated response; desire to increase capacity • What changed the status quo?

26. Response Counsellors from all agencies volunteered to provide services • Debriefing (short term/immediate) • Defusing (short term/immediate) • Counselling (longer term if possible)

27. Trauma & Community • Stephenville (post traumatic events) = experience • What did we learn? • Responses were effective BUT spontaneous, uncoordinated, difficult to replicate/evaluate

28. Thinking Outside the Box • Trauma mandate ≠ any single stakeholder • Steering group • Goal: find a corporate sponsor • Best Fit = regional health authority

29. Thinking Outside the Box • HOWEVER: initiative is collaborative and multi-disciplinary • Not owned solely by regional health authority • Working group evolved into Community Trauma Assessment Team

30. Building the Bridge • Multidisciplinary, multi-agency working group • Redefined vision/mission • Response versus assessment • Strategic plan • Included needs assessment, deliverables, evaluation • Growing the team: additional members invited • clergy, police, EMO

32. Issues & Solutions • Confidentiality • Information sharing • Privacy legislation • Liability • Different Codes of Practice • Different employers/scope of work/unions • Different policies and procedures

33. Issues & Solutions • Most issues needed to be negotiated as a team • Solutions are usually specific to individual team • Team has spent considerable time looking at fundamental assumptions • Helps mitigate barriers (i.e. diversity)

34. Issues & Solutions • Moved beyond assessment and planning stages • Delivers coordinated trauma services to local area • Assessment of need and response • Could include debriefing and defusing • Educational sessions • Training opportunities

35. What We’ve Learned • Someone has to begin to build the bridge • College and University Counsellors are well positioned to provide leadership to community

36. Community Trauma Response Capacity DIAGRAM: Relationship between Counselling, Adult Education, and Community Capacity Building.

37. What We’ve Learned • Engaging other agencies requires a will to make collaboration work • DESPITE inherent barriers with multi-disciplinary teams • i.e. differing policies, protocols, guidelines, orientations, assumptions • Requires a sense of timing

38. What We’ve Learned • Sustaining initiative requires high degree of trust among team members • Assumption that team has collective concern for the common good

39. Next Steps • Continues to be work in progress • Training upcoming in June 2007 and Fall 2007 • Looking at other training possibilities • Planning community education events • Assessing and responding to trauma in the community

40. Summary Remarks • The Community Trauma Assessment Team continues to provide coordinated response to trauma in the Bay St. George area • Successes in both building bridges and in addressing traumatic events translates into a safer, more caring community

41. Thank You © College of the North Atlantic 2007

42. References Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 119–144. Walsh, F. (2007). Traumatic Loss and Major Disasters: Strengthening Family and Community Resilience. Family Process,46 (2), 207–227.