Making the invisible, VISIBLE

By Joan Tabachnick, Kieran McCartan, and David Prescott

For 30 years, each of us has struggled with this essential question: How can we make the invisible visible? How can we create good research and emerging practice in the most effective way? This is especially true when our working lives sit at the intersection of research, policy, and practice, each of which often has different ways, means, and justifications to enable making the invisible visible.

In the world of sexual violence prevention, the question is how to prove that something didn’t happen because of an essential intervention, education program, or other factors that protected against harm. Disentangling evidence from practice and “proving” the effectiveness of an intervention is difficult in any field and especially so in an emerging field like sexual violence prevention. In the last 30 years we have seen incredible change – most importantly in the general acceptance of strategies to prevent the perpetration of sexual violence from members of the public to frontline professionals, to national policy makers and transnational organizations. In the wake of ATSA’s name change, with new funding for prevention, more acceptance of this perspective from the victim advocacy community, and new research emphasizing the importance of primary prevention on preventing the perpetration of sexual abuse, we were all feeling optimistic.  

Unfortunately, in the USA at this moment, we are now heading in the totally opposite direction and diametrically opposed to international trends, especially those in other anglophone, westernized countries (i.e., UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Norway, to name a few). 

Last week, this question of how we make things visible became even more important, Ironically, April is sexual violence awareness month, and yet in early April the US Center s for Disease Control’s Office of Violence Prevention was gutted, leaving research funding, national organizations, and local sexual violence prevention programs adrift (NPR, 2025).  More than two-thirds of the staff lost their jobs, jeopardizing essential programs to prevent child abuse, child sexual abuse, sexual assault, and gun violence. 

Except for one or two articles and a few organizational statements (including one from ATSA), the world has been silent.  In fact, it seems that the public has not become aware of these changes and their impact.  Much of this is due to the onslaught of political and social change and commentary going on in the USA and its reverberations around the world. Yet the impact of these cuts and layoffs will be felt by countless numbers of people for many years to come. 

Again, how do we make the invisible, visible?  How can we help people feel these changes today, this week, this month. How do we highlight the importance of prevention, its messaging and investment to communities and individuals, when the people that sexual violence prevention activities support do not often bring attention to themselves, and the topic is uncomfortable and challenging for society.

The people who benefit the most from our prevention efforts may never know anything about our efforts  because we have been successful and they have never experienced harm. More than ever, we need to shine a light on this.

What exactly are we losing?  For decades, the CDC has offered research about the risk and protective factors for those who have been sexually abused or those who have perpetrated sexual abuse.  They have also offered critical surveillance data, strategies for preventing sexual abuse, and the funding and guidance to evaluate the results.  And for decades they offered funding for research and for programs specifically through Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) funding that has been essential for the victim advocacy movement.  Again, removing this funding and these staff will not be immediately felt in the next days or weeks ahead. However, it all signals a shift in societal (or at least governmental) perspectives on the importance of sex and relationship education as well as sexual violence prevention. It will doubtless take years to re-focus communities’ attention on the scope of these issues.

While we don’t have that key strategic advice about what is the one thing that would make a huge difference.  We do know it is important to do something and look for hope in what others are doing. We need to look to our international colleagues, as well as those in related fields, for help, support, and direction.

We find hope in the courage and tenacity of our colleagues.  ATSA did not just issue a statement, they issued a call to all ATSA members in the US to contact their elected officials to emphasize the importance of research-informed policymaking in the effort to eliminate sexual violence.  If you have not done this yet, please make those calls. 

We find hope in movies and stories that take the risk to expand the narrow narrative of sexual violence, perpetrated by monsters lurking in the shadows.  Look for a new thoughtful documentary film called “Predator” that is really an expose on the salacious TV show called “To Catch a Predator”.  According to the film’s director, this offers insights into the complex experiences of those whose thoughts and desires do not match who they are on the inside.

We find hope when people begin to talk about institutional courage rather than institutional betrayal.  This challenges us to think about what we can do when we hear stories of sexual abuse and what can do within our institutions whether they are campuses or youth serving organizations or faith-based communities or government agencies.  How we can come together as communities to argue for and establish the need for sexual abuse prevention and the impact that it has across society. When leaders choose to face the harms that have happened and take the time to listen, that alone can make a difference.  And when leaders choose to ask what can be done to repair the harm, that can be incredibly healing for everyone.  The Center for Institutional Courage is collecting the research and hopefully make these stories of courage more visible. 

The CDC and the Division of Violence Prevention are essential to our work.  We cannot remain silent.  We need to find ways to talk about the importance of their work, their research, and their funding to continue our efforts on behalf of society.  Please don’t give up; look for places of hope that can help sustain us in the weeks and months and possibly years ahead. 

The role of sudden insights in making difficult changes

By David S. Prescott, LCSW, LICSW

“I know it sounds funny, but I changed that night when I got arrested. Nobody would ever believe it, but when I was in the back of the cop car… That was it. I knew I would never hurt anyone again. That’s when I really changed.”  Many professionals will hear these words and assume that this individual was engaging in impression management, putting himself into the best light he could under the circumstances.

In fact, this person (whose progress in treatment I was asked to assess) went on to describe how everyone assumed that he needed treatment in order to change (meaning to manage risks and lead a better life). His perspective was that although he had already changed, he needed treatment to help make those changes solid and durable. He also appreciated the opportunity to reflect on his life with therapists and group members.

It was an interesting way to look at the treatment process, one that our field rarely discusses. From the perspective of treatment planning, he sought to demonstrate in his actions who he had become in his identity. It was certainly a different pathway to completing treatment, although the end game was the same: the development of a lifestyle incompatible with harming others. What helped this client move forward, however, was that by viewing himself as a different person he could more easily maintain a better outlook on his future.

Another client was asked to reflect on what made him get himself together and participate meaningfully in treatment. He had made a sudden turn for the better in every respect, surprising everyone in his multidisciplinary team. He resided in one of two treatment programs located on the same campus. One night, a client into his program became highly aggressive, to the point where he overcame a staff person. The other staff member shouted out for help, telling the client to run and get help from the program next door.  While many will recognize this as reflecting several problems with program staffing, the client did what he was told.

He later recalled, “When I saw the look on the staff’s face in the doorway as I told her they needed help next door, that’s when it all made sense. I did not want to spend the rest of my life in places where all this could happen. I knew I had to do something different.” He did; he went on to make meaningful changes in his life and returned to living independently in the community. Arguably, his life changed quickly, with treatment being a means to become in his life who he now was in his heart. The clients in these cases went on to live successfully, all things considered.

How is it that these sudden insights so infrequently receive attention? We tend to structure treatment programs in a stepwise fashion to help clients change their lives slowly, and for good reason. Living one’s life differently is a lot of work. Often, our attempts to reduce risk don’t easily mesh with many clients’ progress, which can proceed in fits and starts. Nonetheless, whether we call them sudden insights, quantum changes, or epiphanies, they do happen and can be cause for celebration. They also illustrate how no one treatment plan or program is a perfect fit for every individual.

Perhaps one reason these sudden changes don’t garner more discussion is that professionals so often have a wait-and-see attitude. There was a conference presenter who observed with sarcasm that, “I’ve seen more people suddenly find God in the back seat of a police cruiser than in any chapel.” Many have seen some variation of this observations in their own practice. With that kind of attitude,  it is no surprise that professionals are very cautious. On the other hand, if we remain too skeptical, we may miss the opportunity to help clients consolidate their motivations to change and weather the storms of generalizing treatment insights into daily behaviors. As always, change can be messy and sporadic, and therapists need to work hard to make sure that they hear, understand, and respect their clients as fellow human beings. 

 

The use of TV drama ‘adolescence’ in schools: why simple solutions to complex problems don’t work

 By Kieran McCartan, PhD., & Sophie King-Hill, PhD.

Editor’s note: This blog follows up on Sophie King-Hill's last week’s blog on the Netflix show Adolescence. It was originally posted on the UWE Bristol research and enterprise blog. Kieran.

Recently, there has been a lot of debate about the Netflix show Adolescence. It tells a fictional story of a 13-year-old boy who is rejected by a female classmate and because of the influence of incel counterculture goes on to stab and kill her. The narrative of the four-episode story is that children and young people are being influenced by harmful online social media, which is radicalising them into accepting extreme misogynistic beliefs, which they then unwittingly internalise and act on. The drama touches upon how exposure to unfiltered, problematic social media may change children and young people’s perceptions of, and engagement with each other.

The drama skirts many issues about misogyny that involve hate crime, violence against women and girls, gender-based violence and Incel culture, mental health, wellbeing, radicalisation, risk management, education, radicalisation, knife crime, counterculture, the collapse of parental engagement, issues with family systems, and growing societal disengagement.

This is where the drama falls short as an educational resource.  Four hours over the episodes is not enough time to unpack these issues in any meaningful way. The programme signals the need for an informed debate and conversations about all these issues yet does not cover these in any great depth. Adolescence is not the answer to the issues posed and it is dangerous to think of it as such, for it offers no solutions. The show has sparked a national debate in the UK, with the Prime Minister stepping in to say that adolescence should be screened in schools to educate, and raise awareness with children and young people about the realities of harmful online social media and misogynistic hate crime. This sensationalist, knee-jerk reaction to a range of complex and endemic problems and issues that are faced by children and young people in society is problematic. Although across the political spectrum in the UK there is not a considered evidence-based response to this with Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition, although not having seen Adolescence believes that removing phones from children and young people in schools is one of the most effective responses. It is important to remember that under the last Conversative government the issue of Relationships and Sex Education in schools was a challenging issue and unresolved debate.

The show, given its short run time and structure which includes an episode about a different aspect of the story - the arrest, the school based follow up, the risk assessment, and the consequence, delves into parts of this story but does not offer a rounded in-depth perspective. No understanding of how and why the young boy was “radicalised” into accepting Incel culture as is implied. The complex social interactions between the boy, his friends, his family, his community or the victim are not explored. This is problematic, especially if the show is to be used as a teaching and critical reflection tool in schools.

No points of intervention and what those interventions look like are offered, as this was not designed as an educational resource. What is implied is that there is a problematic online community that are out there influencing children and young people, but no explanation is given as to how or why. Additionally, the show indicates that online misogyny, Incel culture and violence against women and girls is omnipresent in the lives of children and young people and that children and young people are accepting of this. This approach takes away the autonomy and agency of children and young people. This is problematic and works against the prevention of sexual abuse and violent behaviour. A multi-level approach is needed to tackle social issues being targeted at individuals and the community and society in which they sit. In preventing radicalisation, how the individual is affected needs exploring, which cannot be done with ‘Adolescence’.

Wanting to introduce this into schools is naïve. Adolescence is a fictional story, designed for TV/streaming and therefore its content, although based in real world issues, is fictionalised. Its aim, although to raise awareness of social issues, is to increase viewership and ratings. It is important to state that teen murders are rare and that most online hate crimes and misogyny do not result in fatalities. TV shows are not always realistic and can often adapt knowledge and practice to fit the needs to the story. Which means that the evidence based, research informed and even practice consultation which may be part of the development and writing of the screenplay can get lost of the needs of the story as they can get in the get in the way of the drama.

The best example of this flaw in Adolescence is the admission in episode four that the main character is going to change their plea from not guilty to guilty. Which goes against the narrative of episode one and three, and there is no real discussion of change of heart in episode four. It seems out of place, but it wraps the story up nicely in the last episode. Which means that the psychological or behavioural change in the character is not seen and therefore learning cannot take place from their experience. The arc of the story and the story telling approach do not allow a nuanced debate about the reality of the offence committed, the thinking and motivation behind it or the best way to understand it.

‘Adolescence’ does not help understanding of Incel culture or online hate crime better. It does not help understanding knife crime and harmful behaviour between children and young people better. It sets out that children and young people are at risk but does not offer any solutions to the problem.

The UK government want to screen it in schools as a prevention and desistence tool to educate children and young people about the issues of radicalisation, online hate and synonym. Which is problematic, as this is not what it was designed to do and does not offer those insights. What does is say then? The main discussion piece from the show detracts from the main narrative, that understanding and engagement with young people is needed to better understand these issues. In episode four where the parents recognise that they could have done, and maybe should have done more, is where the real message is. The showing of adolescence in schools to GCSE and A-Level students (as its rated 15) will not help pre-teens and younger teenagers understanding and engage with these issues better and it will not help their parents understand the issues or how to engage with them better on it. In the UK it would be better to have a conversation about the reality of growing up online, the intersection between the online and offline worlds and how they impact the mental health and wellbeing og children and young people and how we as adults, and parents, can better support them in this transition. There are pockets of work being carried out that do this with young men and boys that are evidence based and well evaluated. Why is the upscaling of these not the focus.

The period of adolescence is a point of transition and liminality in the lives of children and young people how can we support them in becoming well rounded, thoughtful and critically engaged adults. By engaging with children and young people, talking and communicating directly and thoughtfully we can learn how to best fit their individual needs. This cannot be done by simply showing them a fictionalised TV show.