Author: Anne P. DePrince, PhD

Author of "Every 90 Seconds: Our Common Cause Ending Violence Against Women" (forthcoming from Oxford University Press), Anne is Distinguished University Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Community Engagement to advance Scholarship and Learning (CCESL) at the University of Denver. She directs the Traumatic Stress Studies Group.

Reflecting on Research into Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations

August 16, 2021

We spend a lot of time thinking about teams here at the Traumatic Stress Studies (TSS) Group, particularly the impact that multidisciplinary teams can have in responding to trauma and violence in our communities.

Whether communities are responding to sexual assault or domestic violence, older adult maltreatment or campus sexual assault, we’ve found that multidisciplinary teams matter — to survivors and providers, to case outcomes and wellbeing.

But what about during child abuse and neglect investigations?

A few years ago, the TSS Group collaborated with government partners and DU Professor Julia Dmitrieva to try to understand more about the impact of multidisciplinary responses to child abuse and neglect investigations. At the time, we shared a few take-aways in our Trauma Notes (in case you missed it, check out: After Child Abuse and Neglect Allegations: Caregiver Perceptions of Investigations and Working Together: Multidisciplinary Team Responses to Child Abuse & Neglect Investigations).

I had a chance recently to talk about the study findings with Tiffany Madrid, the Director of Legislative Affairs and Policy for Colorado’s Child Protection Ombudsman (CPO) and Dr. Kristin Klopfenstein, the Director of the Colorado Evaluation and Action Lab, who supported our research.

You can read more about our conversation here, or take a look below!

Awareness is Not Enough: An Update on the Forthcoming “Every 90 Seconds”

August 16, 2021

“Awareness, though, is not enough.”

That was my response to a recent question about whether awareness of the sexual harassment in the Governor’s office in New York state was going to change things.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the importance of letting go of the promise that awareness will change violence against women while working on book that I just delivered to the Oxford University Press, Every 90 Seconds: Our Common Cause Ending Violence against Women.

I open the book by tracing a bit of the history of our field, and the promise of awareness, back to the Women’s Movement of the 1960s and 1970s. With new awareness of the sheer frequency of violence against women and girls at the time, much started to change: The first rape crisis centers were founded, the number of domestic violence shelters expanded. Legislative change happened too, from new state laws about domestic violence and sexual assault to the passage of the Violence against Women Act. Medicine started paying attention also, adding posttraumatic stress disorder to the medical nomenclature as a nascent traumatic stress studies field began to grow rapidly.

Along the way, though, violence against women continued to be seen as a special interest issue — something that matters to women, or primarily to those who are abused and who abuse; but not necessarily to all of us.

Meanwhile, awareness of violence has never been greater, thanks to the #MeToo movement and near-daily headlines about sexual harassment and gender-based violence.

And yet, violence against women in its many forms has persisted, relatively unabated. Every 90 seconds a woman is raped. Another is assaulted by an intimate partner.

To be sure, we’ve watched declines of a few percentage points in some forms of violence. Yet, the same problem of women being victimized — along with girls and gender nonconforming groups — persists, just as it has for millennia.

So what to do, if awareness isn’t enough for change?

In the book, I argue that we need a new approach that helps people recognize their shared interest in ending violence against women, even if they didn’t think that violence against women has affected their lives directly.

We need an approach that helps people see that violence against women is tangled up with the most pressing public problems of our time — healthcare, immigration, education, and legal reform as well as gun violence and economic inequities. Issue by issue, then, I make the case that we share interests with people working on those issues, some of whom may never have considered the ways that violence against women mattered to them also.

By showing people how violence against women impacts the healthcare system and education access, criminal legal reform and economic opportunity, immigration and gun violence, I hope that we will be able to open doors to new kinds of collaborative action to end violence against women and make progress on those issues at the same time.

To make the case, I draw on concepts from community organizing that I’ve learned about through work at DU’s Center for Community Engagement to advance Scholarship and Learning. The book leads to a call to action to collaborate in new ways to restore and ensure dignity, fairness, opportunity, safety to women and our communities.

I hope you’ll see things you care about in the book along with work happening here in Colorado. The book is built on the foundation of what we’ve learned together over more than a decade of collaborating on research, while also pulling in national and international research findings.

The book is scheduled to be released in April 2022, just in time for Sexual Assault Awareness Month. I’ll keep you posted as it progresses and look forward to sharing it with you when it’s published. In the meantime, my sincerest gratitude to many people who have provided feedback and supported me throughout this project.

On Accountability After Sexual Victimization

June 9, 2021

During Colorado’s legislative session, issues related to violence and abuse were front and center, from Senate Bill 88’s focus on the statute of limitations after child sexual abuse to the sunset review of the Sex Offender Management Board.

Both the Senate bill and the sunset review focused attention on the importance of accountability after sexual abuse and assault to individual survivors and our communities.

Accountability matters for many reasons, including because sexual victimization is prevalent and often met with denial. Let’s take a look.

How prevalent is sexual victimization?

Approximately 27% of girls and 5% of boys have already been sexually abused or sexually assaulted when they are 17 years old, according to national surveys.

Looking to individuals from age 12 into adulthood, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates that more than 450,000 (459,310) people were sexually assaulted or raped in 2019 alone. These hundreds of thousands of people translate into roughly 1.7 individuals sexual assaulted or raped per 1,000 people. This estimate is in line with the previous 4 years of data collected in the NCVS: From 2015 to 2019, an average of 463,634 people were sexually assaulted or raped each year.

What role does denial play in sexual violence?

Since at least the 1980s, researchers have documented denial as a strategy used by people who sexually offend. More than a psychological defense, denial is part of a set of responses that further the harm of sexual violence.

Psychologist Dr. Jennifer Freyd and her colleagues have described these strategies as Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim Offender (DARVO), and developed a measure of these behaviors. With that measure, they established that DARVO is a pattern of responses to which people, especially women, are commonly subjected upon confronting others about wrongdoing.

Next, Freyd’s research team used a set of experiments to test the impact of DARVO on perceptions of victims and offenders in scenarios that described intimate partner violence. The results were striking: Participants exposed to DARVO strategies “perceived the victim to be less believable, more responsible for the violence, and more abusive; DARVO also led participants to judge the perpetrator as less abusive and less responsible.”

As someone who studies the impact of sexual and other forms of intimate violence on victims and survivors, I can tell you that we hear time and again from survivors in our research studies about the harm of denial. Indeed, survivors have told us and other research teams around the globe about how critical accountability and belief are to healing.

Consider what we learned when my research team interviewed more than 200 women who were sexually assaulted in the previous year about the reactions they got to disclosures. We discovered that friends and family commonly responded to disclosures with negative reactions. For example, they blamed victims, treated them differently, took away their control. Another research team examined 51 studies like ours on reactions to sexual assault disclosures. Across studies, negative reactions to disclosure were linked with worse mental health outcomes, such as more severe posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. The researchers concluded, and I agree, that women disclose sexual assault with the expectation of getting help and support. Being met with negative reactions, like DARVO, furthers harm.

And make no mistake, the harm of sexual abuse and sexual assault is serious. Research by my team and others across the country have documented that sexual violence has serious immediate and long-term psychological and physical health consequences as well as impacts in other areas of life, such as at school and work. From PTSD and suicidality to chronic health problems and poor school performance, survivors and our communities pay a high price for sexual abuse and assault.

What are pathways to accountability?

When researchers ask survivors what is important after victimization, their answers vary, ranging from material and practical support, safety, and recognition of the harm caused to accountability for the offender, prevention, and to be valued and heard. 

Though survivors tend to name a broad mix of restorative and retributive outcomes, public emphasis often veers towards the criminal legal system — whether its the propagation of the rape myth that survivors report to the police right away or actions that make Title IX campus investigations more closely mirror criminal proceeding.

The reality is, however, that sexual abuse and assault are vastly under-reported to law enforcement relative to other crimes. For example, back in 2011, researchers described phone interviews with 3,001 women from across the country as part of the “National Women’s Study – Replication.” Of those three-thousand women, 526 reported having been raped. Only 15.8% of women – or fewer than one in six – had reported the most recent rape to the police. Sadly, that rate was no different from those seen in the 1990s.

The Traumatic Stress Studies Group has looked at these issues in Colorado, including in research funded by the National Institute of Justice.1 In that study, we recruited 228 women aged 18 and older who were sexually assaulted in the previous year, and who had disclosed the sexual assault to at least one formal support person, such as a healthcare provider, victim advocate, or the police.

Importantly, this means that the sample of women we interviewed were unique in that they had all disclosed to a formal support person. Yet, only 42% of those women had reported to law enforcement.

Thus, even among women willing to disclose the sexual assault to someone formal and talk to a researcher about their experiences, still only a minority had reported the incident to law enforcement.

After the initial interview, we invited women back to talk with us again 3, 6, and 9 months later. At each interview, we asked them about sexual assaults that had occurred since the previous interview; and if so, whether they had reported to law enforcement.  

Two out of every five women (40.6%) we interviewed were sexually assaulted at least once in the subsequent nine months. Yet, at each interview, only a small minority (9-18%) of women had reported new sexual assaults to the police.

These findings make plain that survivors do not necessarily report new incidents of sexual assault – even if they have previously disclosed to service providers or reported to law enforcement.

And of course, even if sexual assault cases are reported, the vast majority will not end in prosecution or accountability in the criminal legal system.

Take-Aways

Research findings on denial, the prevalence of sexual victimization, and police reporting offer us at least two important take-aways for thinking about accountability.

First, denial is a strategy used against victims, which makes a firm commitment to accountability of central importance to supporting survivors.

Second, sexual victimization is terribly common; however, many women do not engage with the criminal legal system for a host of reasons. Legal options outside the criminal system are essential to accountability, making efforts such as those undertaken in Senate Bill 88 to expand civil legal options especially important.

***

Note: This post was adapted from text submitted as written testimony in response to HB 1320.

1 National Institute of Justice Grant #2012-W9-BX-0049. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or the official position of the National Institute of Justice or any other organization.

Growing Despite Trauma

June 9, 2021

by Adi Rosenthal, 3rd Year Graduate Student, TSS Group

Most trauma research focuses on the many negative impacts of trauma exposure, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, poorer physical health, and disruptions to social relationships. But psychologists have also studied positive outcomes after trauma, called posttraumatic growth. Think: new appreciation for life, strengthened relationships with others, increased sense of personal competence. Between 30-70% of survivors report some level of growth following trauma exposure, and this growth is associated with less post-trauma distress.

Dr. Richard Tedeschi, who coined the term post-traumatic growth, described that “experience of pain produces the most far-reaching searches for meaning.” Tedeschi recognized that trauma often forces survivors to re-evaluate their views of the world. We all have existing beliefs and assumptions that help us navigate our day-to-day lives. Over time, these beliefs get refined based on our experiences. However, when a traumatic event violates existing beliefs, we are pushed to adjust. Consider that intimate partner violence and sexual assault don’t make sense, aren’t fair, and challenge views of the world as a just place. Yet, survivors of interpersonal violence report better relationships as a result of their trauma. In the face of having to reevaluate views of themselves and others, survivors find ways to accept support from others and strengthen some interpersonal relationships.

How survivors think about their experiences may be key to understanding posttraumatic growth. Years of research have shown that the way individuals process and think about their traumatic experience impacts coping. This is why a big part of trauma-focused therapy involves processing one’s thoughts about the traumatic event. Post-trauma appraisals are survivors’ beliefs and emotions related to trauma exposure, such as experiences of shame, fear, betrayal, self-blame, anger, and alienation. Post-trauma appraisals have been found to predict posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, dissociation, and depression.

We wondered whether some kinds of posttraumatic appraisals are more likely to contribute to posttraumatic growth over time than others. As part of the Women’s Wellness Project, the TSS Group interviewed 216 adult women who had disclosed a sexual assault in the previous year to a formal support person, such as a doctor or victim advocate. At the start of the study, women reported on their post-trauma appraisals by indicating to what extent they agreed with statements such as “I must have done something really awful to make this happen” and “I am disconnected from people.” They also reported on post-traumatic growth by rating how much they experienced change in various areas (e.g., “I can better appreciate each day”) as a result of the traumatic event. Post-traumatic growth was assessed initially and then again 3, 6, and 9 months later.

What did we find?

Post-traumatic appraisals of betrayal and alienation were particularly important for post-traumatic growth, according to our preliminary analyses. As illustrated in the figure below, women who reported more betrayal after the sexual assault also indicated more initial post-traumatic growth. Women who reported more alienation after the sexual assault described more post-traumatic growth over time. Self-blame, shame, fear, and anger did not predict post-traumatic growth.

Two graphs display the pattern of posttraumatic growth across four time points. The first graph shows the pattern for women who reported high and low betrayal. The second shows the pattern for women who reported high and low alienation.

What does this mean?

Experiencing more betrayal and alienation may require women to reevaluate interpersonal relationships, more so than other appraisals directed at the self, such as shame. For example, betrayal appraisals include items such as “If the person really cared about me that person would not have done what they did” and “Someone important (such as a parent, lover, friend) should have kept me safe.” Recognition of these relational violations likely challenges views of interpersonal relationships. Similarly, alienation appraisals, such as “I am disconnected from people” and “I can’t get close to people” reflect feelings of isolation and rejection following sexual assault. Both of these appraisals challenge views that relationships with close others are necessarily safe and supportive. Following sexual assault, betrayal and alienation may lead survivors to actively seek new relationships and connections with others, resulting in relational growth captured in the posttraumatic growth measure (e.g., “I put more effort in my relationships”).

So what?

Findings suggest that post-trauma experiences of alienation and betrayal may be particularly important to consider among service providers. For instance, there may be value in helping clients think through changed views of interpersonal relationships in building (or rebuilding) and strengthening their social support networks. Because post-traumatic growth is linked with reduced distress among survivors of sexual assault, a better understanding of what leads to growth can provide vital direction for survivors and providers.

***

Note: This research was funded by the National Institute of Justice [Grant #2012-W9-BX-049]. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or the official position of the National Institute of Justice or any other organization.

Thank you to our community partners who made this research possible, particularly Denver’s Sexual Assault Interagency Council.

Evolving Perspectives

May 10, 2021

Science and discovery require learning to see the world all around us in new ways.

Focusing on trauma and violence requires truth-telling about the harm that humans cause each other as well as curating hope, joy, and mindfulness of the moment.

Here are some images from my photo practice through which I seek to do both: Learn to see the world in new ways while curating hope, joy, and mindfulness.

Tracking COVID-19 Impacts and Legal Needs in Colorado

November 10, 2020

by Anne P. DePrince & Adi Rosenthal

As the world reeled from the first wave of the coronavirus in the Spring, lots of conversations turned towards concern about the impact on victims/survivors and victim service agencies.

To track these concerns, we started to ask victim service providers to share what they saw as the biggest coronavirus impacts on victims/survivors and their agencies. Since May, we have asked these questions each month as part of our collaboration with LINC — the Legal Information Network of Colorado.

Here’s a snapshot of what we’ve learned so far from providers’ responses.

A Preliminary Snapshot of COVID-19 Impacts

Each month’s data reflect the views of about 20 victim service providers, many of whom work in and around the Denver Metro Area.

First, let’s look at what providers have to say about impacts on clients. The figure below shows the percent of responses that fell into five of the themes that emerged. The most common theme since May have been concerns about clients’ getting their economic/basic needs met (yellow line). This is consistent with providers’ ongoing concerns about whether clients have enough resources (orange line).

As illustrated above, providers also noted impacts on victims/survivors in terms of changes to the court systems and technological challenges. These two issues are, of course, inter-related as victims/survivors (as well as lawyers and advocates) have worked to keep pace with technology used in remote adaptations to COVID-19 that have varied across jurisdictions.

Next, let’s look at what providers have noticed about impacts on agencies. As illustrated below, one of the clearest and most persistent impacts on agencies has been the lack of face-to-face contact, which can make providing services more difficult and be more isolating for staff.

The figure above also shows concerns early on about public-facing communications as agencies worked to make clients aware of options and get information out remotely. Those impacts looked like they were dropping off in August and September, but seem to have resurfaced in October as COVID-19 cases increased and many communities began to anticipate new restrictions. Echoing impacts on clients directly, providers also noted that agencies are affected by changes to the court system and limited resources for clients.

What’s Next? Monitoring Legal Needs around the State

We’ll keep asking about COVID-19 impacts, particularly as the Fall’s record number of cases ushers in growing uncertainty. We will also continue ongoing efforts to monitor crime victims’ legal needs in Colorado. You may have heard someone asking you to fill out a survey on barriers facing clients to getting their legal needs met. When you and colleagues fill out those surveys, we summarize the responses for the LINC Steering Committee for use in guiding the development and implementation of LINC.

In addition to our ongoing work, we are gathering input from victims/survivors and providers about legal needs and barriers facing clients outside the Metro Denver area. We are in the process of inviting Colorado agencies to share information about the survey with clients and staff. This short survey study closes on December 1, 2020. For more information, reach out to us at legalstudy@du.edu.

***

Traumatic Stress Studies Group Team Members standing on a bridge

Sharing Research in Socially-Distanced Times

November 10, 2020

The pandemic has only amplified the importance of doing research into the causes and consequences of violence as well as effective responses. However, sharing that research looks different these days.

In the Fall, our team typically heads off to the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) to share our work with other researchers and practitioners. Instead of logging miles this year, however, we’re logging on to a remote meeting.

The findings that we’re sharing at the remote ISTSS Annual Meeting reflect the breadth that is characteristic of our team’s work — as I hope you’ll see below across five poster presentations led by graduate student team members. From measuring service needs to developing a better understanding of revictimization risk, we hope there’s something for everyone in these posters. (Click on the picture of the poster to open a pdf version of the work.)

Needs and Concerns of Caregivers Involved in Child Abuse/Neglect Investigations

Two posters focused on understanding the needs and concerns of caregivers involved in child abuse and neglect investigations.

Adi Rosenthal led our team’s efforts to gather information about the service needs of families involved in child abuse and neglect investigations — and barriers to getting those needs met. She described that “We developed a measure for assessing the service needs and barriers across a wide range of services (i.e., physical health, mental health, school, and social, and basic needs) for families involved in child abuse or neglect investigations. The measure appears to be a promising assessment and captured high rates of unmet service needs: 94% of caregivers reported at least 1 unmet need and 39% reported at least 5. Caregivers reported an average of 7 barriers to getting their service needs met.”

Recognizing a research gap that has implications for practice, Maria-Ernestina Christl set out to develop a way to measure failure-to-protect fears. She summarized that, “Women involved in a child abuse investigation who had a history of intimate partner violence reported fears related to failure-to-protect laws. These fears were found to be related to economic dependence on the offender, racial identity, and their perceptions of the child abuse investigation.”

Revictimization

Three of the posters built on our team’s longstanding focus on revictimization.

Naomi Wright described findings from one of the studies that drew on interviews conducted over 9 months with women who had a recent unwanted sexual experience: “This study explored whether we could predict which women experienced another unwanted sexual experience. In particular, we wanted to understand whether social betrayal helped predict revictimization in addition to women’s other circumstances.”

Another study, led by Julie Olomi, tackled methodological limitations that have limited research on information processing and revictimization. Julie described, “Current methods seeking to interrupt the association between childhood interpersonal violence and revictimization by examining how women perceive and respond to risk using written, audio, or video vignettes have led to mixed results and not yet translated to effective, long-term interventions. This study sought to address this gap and introduces a novel risk recognition and response task asking participants to monitor and provide social skills feedback on a chat room conversation between a man and a woman to mask the focus on risk detection and response.”

Finally, Naomi Wright previewed findings from our team’s collaboration with Dr. Kim Bender (Graduate School of Social Work, DU). Naomi noted that “This study with young people experiencing houselessness found that young people who experienced violence or abuse before leaving home were more likely to also experience violence after leaving home. Psychological distress (i.e., depression and PTSD symptoms) were explored as a link between violence experiences before and after leaving home.”

***

Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire: Victimization of Young People Before and After Leaving Home

September 23, 2020

By Naomi Wright (TSS Group), Tara Milligan (Graduate School of Social Work, DU), Kim Bender (Graduate School of Social Work, DU), Anne P. DePrince (TSS Group)

COVID-19 has renewed public attention to the U.S.’s “pre-existing condition” of houselessness, which has only worsened with recent COVID-19-related layoffs and job loss.  Emerging evidence suggests those without housing may be at greater risk for infection with COVID-19. As researchers of interpersonal violence and abuse, we have had longstanding concerns about another health risk of housing instability: interpersonal victimization and revictimization.

Unfortunately, little research is available on youth experiences of violence and factors that might affect risk of revictimization after leaving home. Thus, we wanted to answer three questions:

  1. At what rate do youth experiencing houselessness report victimization before and after leaving home?
  2. Are youth who experience victimization before leaving home more likely to later experience victimization after leaving home?
  3. Could the connection between victimization before and after leaving home be explained by symptoms of psychological distress?

To answer these questions, we conducted preliminary analyses of data collected as part of a five-year collaborative study led by Dr. Kimberly Bender. The larger study tested a mindfulness training to reduce risky substance use and victimization among young people (age 18-20) residing at a Denver-area shelter. As part of that larger study, 245 young people living at a shelter participated in research interviews that asked about experiences of violence and abuse before and after leaving home as well as symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. Finally, we asked some questions about their personal characteristics—such as time away from home, gender, and number of moves between cities after leaving home— that have been linked in previous research to increased risk for victimization.

Here are a few things we learned.

At what rate do youth experiencing houselessness report victimization before and after leaving home?

Nearly all young people (218 out of 236 youth; 92%) interviewed were victimized before leaving home. Three-quarters (183 out of 243 youth; 75%) were victimized after leaving home. The majority of young people reported violence in both settings (176 out of 237 youth; 72%). The figure below represents the distribution of violence experiences.

For comparison, in a 2018 research study with college students, who are approximately the same age as the young people in this sample, only 16% of the students reported experiencing violence or abuse in their lifetime.

Of the 218 young people victimized before leaving home, 198 (91%) experienced physical abuse, 99 (45%) sexual abuse, and 211 (97%) emotional abuse. We counted up the number of types of victimization young people reported: Before leaving home, youth experienced an average of 2.14 out of 3 of these types of victimization (SD = .88, range = 0-3).

Among the 183 young people victimized after leaving home, youth were most likely to experience conventional crime (155 youth; 85%) followed by peer victimization (111 youth; 61%), electronic victimization (108 youth; 59%) and sexual victimization (90 youth; 49%). Youth reported an average of 1.9 out of 4 types of victimization (SD = 1.47, range = 0-4).

Several factors were linked to victimization that warrant attention. Youth who had been away from home longer or moved more times between cities were more likely to be victimized while unstably housed than other youth in the sample. Young people who identified as cisgender women were significantly more likely to experience victimization than young people who identified as cisgender men. Young people who identified as transgender or gender non-binary had wide variation in experiences of victimization.

Are youth who experience victimization before leaving home more likely to later experience victimization after leaving home?

In short: yes. As has been found in many other populations, young people in this study who reported experiencing more victimization before leaving home also reported significantly more victimization after leaving home. The upward-trending dotted line in the figure below provides a visual representation of the relationship between victimization before and after leaving home.

Could the connection between victimization before and after leaving home be explained by symptoms of psychological distress?

Yes, at least partially. Young people’s levels of psychological distress seemed to play a role connecting victimization before and after leaving home. Specifically, young people who experienced more types of victimization before leaving home reported more symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression; in turn, youth with more symptoms of psychological distress reported more victimization after leaving home. 

The path to revictimization through PTSD symptoms was significant. 

The path to revictimization through depression symptoms was also significant.

Limitations to consider

These findings provide preliminary evidence that childhood victimization may increase psychological distress, and in turn, revictimization among young people experiencing houselessness. However, an important limitation has to be considered. We measured victimization and psychological distress at the same time; therefore, it’s possible that revictimization increased symptoms rather than symptoms increasing revictimization.  

So what? We can better support youth experiencing houselessness by addressing the effects of childhood victimization and supporting trauma-informed care 

 The best supports for young people experiencing houselessness try to address the many facets of their complex social, material, physical, and psychological needs. These findings point to the importance of determining whether young people have a history of childhood victimization in order to support interventions for psychological distress and to ensure safety – but waiting until young people are living in shelters makes this more difficult.  Early-life preventative programs as part of schools, child welfare, and foster care systems could serve as universal points of screening and intervention.

Research also shows that it is common for people who have been victimized to cope with their experiences by using substances or have difficulty regulating their emotions and attention. All of these issues can make accessing and using services more challenging. One way to help young people get services despite these challenges is to focus on trauma-informed models of care. Such trauma-informed programs go beyond providing for basic needs, or building skills to be productive citizens, to also support the emotional, physical, and relationship wellbeing of unstably housed young people. Trauma-informed practices also use universal design in day-to-day practices to account for the cognitive or social effects of trauma. For example, visual aids could accompany verbal explanations to help with attention and remembering the information later. Another approach is the use of harm-reduction models that are most helpful to youth whose strategies for coping may be mistaken as deliberate misconduct.

Our hope is that the current study’s findings can be one brick in the pathway to understanding and reducing revictimization among young people experiencing houselessness. We do not doubt that building a route to reduce the risk to unhoused youth will require significant advocacy, collaboration within communities, and efforts toward larger social change.

***

Acknowledgements: The research described here was supported by the National Institute On Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number NIH 1 R15 DA039355-01. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Welcoming a New Team Member

September 23, 2020

With September comes the start of our Fall Quarter at the University of Denver. One of the most exciting parts of kicking off an academic year is when new graduate students join our team.

This year, the TSS Group gets to welcome Becky Suzuki to our team.

A first-year doctoral student in the Department of Psychology’s clinical program, Becky joins returning graduate team members Naomi Wright, Adi Rosenthal, and Maria-Ernestina Christl.

As is our team’s tradition, we invite you to get to know Becky through the following brief Q&A!

Q: Welcome to the TSS Group. Tell us about yourself, please!

Welcome Becky!

Becky: Hello! I am originally from the Denver area and very excited to be coming back to Colorado after a long hiatus. I graduated from Haverford College in 2016, after which I completed a Fulbright fellowship in Germany and served with AmeriCorps in Memphis, TN. For the past two years I lived in Brooklyn with my twin sister and worked at the NYU School of Medicine doing anxiety and trauma research. In my free time I like to do puzzles, ride my bike, read, and look at pictures of dogs on the internet.

Q: As a first year graduate student in the Clinical Psychology Program, what are your current research interests?

Becky: I am interested in how structural inequities in access to services affect the care and recovery of survivors of sexual violence. I am particularly interested in developing interventions that may better serve those who do not regularly interact with the mental health care system. I am committed to practicing community-engaged research that centers the experiences of people from marginalized communities.

Q: What drew you to the TSS Group?

Becky: I worked at the TSS group for one summer as an undergraduate and was impressed by the lab’s commitment to developing relationships with community organizations and service providers. In the years since, I have come to believe that community engagement is essential to conducting research that has real-world applications. I was also very drawn to to the lab’s commitment to an anti-racist and feminist approach to research.

Q: What do you hope to accomplish as a member of the TSS Group?

Becky: I am most excited to learn from my colleagues and conduct work that has a real impact on the Denver community. I hope to develop into a researcher who can contribute to the lessening health disparities for women and children.

***