Holiday Greetings from the Traumatic Stress Institute of Klingberg Family Centers!

We wish you a joyful holiday season rich with connections!

2009 was a very full year for the staff of the Traumatic Stress Institute. We wanted to share some of our 2009 highlights and look forward to working with you in 2010.

Through our sister organization the Trauma Education Research and Training Institute (TREATI) we completedseven Risking Connection® trainings, including teaching in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and California, and five Train the Trainer trainings, as well as two Restorative Approach trainings. We added over a hundred new RC Associate Trainers. Over thirty Risking Connection® trainers were recertified after having been trainers for two years.

A major project was training staff from all Extended Day Treatment programs in Connecticut, as well as training many Extended Day RC Trainers. Our thanks go out to Marilyn Cloud of DCF for all her hard work and excellent coordination for this effort.

We did numerous presentations at conferences including: Healing the Generations Trauma Conference (CT), Child Welfare League of America (Washington DC), Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (TX), Third Annual Peace It Up Violence Prevention and Intervention Conference (CT); Massachusetts Adolescent Sex Offender Conference (MASOC); and Massachusetts Association for Private (MAPPS). Pat Wilcox taught two courses at the University of Connecticut School of Social Work in their continuing education department.

The Klingberg Traumatic Stress Institute and the Foster Care Department launched an exciting new training initiative entitled: Trauma Informed Foster Care- Why are These Kids Doing These Crazy Things and How Can I Help Them while Preserving My Sanity? This is a six session monthly training program based on ideas from the Risking Connection® curriculum and the Restorative Approach®.

We especially enjoy the events where (through TREATI) we can gather our Risking Connection community together. At this year’s Fourth Annual Day of Learning and Sharing, keynote speaker Lynn Sanford, LCSW, spoke in depth about shame. Lynn is a marvelous speaker, warm and human, very knowledgeable about residential populations, and so respectful of both the clients and treaters.

Looking ahead, The Traumatic Stress Institute is co-sponsoring a conference with Devereux MA in February in Worchester MA called From Strategy to Reality: The ‘Nuts and Bolts’ of Implementing Trauma-Informed Care in Child and Adolescent Settings. The date is February 9, 2010 from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm.

We wish everyone a healthy and happy New Year, and look forward to working with you in 2010. As Margaret Mead famously said. "Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has."

Happy holidays,
Pat, Steve and Megan

Validation

Why is validation so hard?

Corey was screaming in the main hall. It was hard to even understand why he was so upset, but it seemed to have something to do with not being allowed to call his mentor, Bob. Laura, a unit staff, was with him and was speaking in a calm and soothing voice. But what was she saying? "Corey you have already left him 13 messages and you have called him many times. I’m sure he will call you when he can."

What was she not saying? "Corey it must be so upsetting when Bob doesn’t call. I know you are very worried because you haven’t heard from him in a while. I know it is hard for you."
We do understand how painful and scary it is for Corey when his only human contact outside this agency seems to have disappeared. It’s even frustrating for us when someone doesn’t respond to our calls, and we have much less at stake than Corey does.

Yet what makes it hard for us to make validating statements to kids? Why do we move so quickly to rational explaining and giving advice?

1. Laura knows that Corey may be driving Bob further away with his many frantic calls and messages. She feels desperate to preserve this relationship for Corey and wants to change his behavior before Bob gives up.

2. When we validate kids’ complaints we think we are agreeing with them and strengthening their beliefs. Suppose a kid says: "I hate all the staff. They are so unfair." If a staff responds: "right now you hate all the staff here and think they are all unfair" is that person saying that they themselves think the staff are unfair? No. They are saying that they understand how the child is feeling at this time.

3.We think that if we do not explain away the problem and offer fixes the child will feel worse... and act worse. We are frightened by that possibility.

This, I think, is the most important:

4. Giving advice, fixing the problem, feels better to us. To validate you have to feel the child’s pain. And stay with it. And the pain is so intense. We feel so helpless. We under-estimate the value and efficacy of the gift we give through listening and understanding.

So if Laura says "Corey that must be so hard" she has to stop for a moment and feel Corey’s life. What will it be like if in fact he has lost his only outside contact? What does it feel like to be thirteen years old and have no reliable adults in your life? He blames himself. He has no one. That is so sad- and we feel a strong urge to fix it or lessen the impact for him.

Yet time and time again we have seen the power of validation to soothe, to de-escalate, to strengthen relationships, and to promote healing. By validating we are lessening the impact- because we offer Corey the experience of an adult who understands, a new version of the possibilities of relationship.

And we have only to consider times we ourselves have shared a painful experience with a friend to remember what helped us. Did we want our friend to tell us this wasn’t such a big deal? Did we want her to immediately give us advice? Or did we want her to simply acknowledge how bad we were feeling and to understand?

So let’s pass a law saying you must make five validating statements before you give advice to children.

And I know a lot of wives who would like the law to also apply to their husbands.

How to Help Malina

I was doing a recent training when Martha, a therapist asked me: "Pat, I know you say not to blame the kids for their behaviors. However I am a firm believer in the kids needing to take responsibility for what they do. So what do you do when a kid just will not take responsibility for what she did and keeps blaming others?"

When I asked her for further clarification, the situation got worse, in my mind. Martha told me that a fifteen year old girl named Malina was on a plan that she had to earn her weekend pass with her mother by maintaining good behavior in school. Last week, Malina had a major outburst in school, tipping over tables and completely disrupting the classroom. So, she lost her pass. When Martha attempted to talk with her about this incident, Malina would not admit that it was her own behavior that caused the pass to be withdrawn. She blamed her therapist, her teachers, everyone else.

What’s wrong with this (very common) picture?

1. I don’t think I said that "we should not blame the kids for their behaviors." I actually do not think that blame is a useful concept here. I think we should help the kids understand their behaviors, and teach them the skills they need to act in new, more helpful ways.

2. I do not believe that children should have to earn their home passes. If the home situation and the child are safe, they should go. The ties between the child and her family are essential for both recovery and the child’s future. We should do everything possible to enhance them, and nothing to interfere. If the child is actually unsafe (such as suicidal) the family should be welcome at the agency and, when possible, transportation provided for them. Home passes should not be part of a reward system.

3. Okay, so Malina was on this plan, and she blew it. What are we asking of her when we ask her to "take responsibility for her behavior"? We are asking her to admit that she did the one thing she did not want to do, and in the process disappointed herself and her family once again. We are in her mind asking her to admit she is a no good, worthless person who will never change. How can she possibly be able to do this?

4. Why do we even think that "taking responsibility" is such a good idea? I guess it is because we feel a person needs to admit something before they can change it and as long as they are blaming others they will not try to change themselves. There is of course some truth to this. Yet, there are many gentle, face saving ways to discuss an incident and the factors that contributed to it.
Most importantly- what will help Malina to stop turning tables over when she gets upset? Not mere increases in motivation. The "earn your home pass" plan is designed to make Malina want to behave better. And I’m sure it did, I’m sure she wanted to earn the pass. But the problem is, she does not know how. She is not able to be different yet.

5. So what can we do? We can look carefully at the incident in school, with Malina in any way she can participate. Not in a blaming way- let’s discuss this and get you to admit you were wrong. Instead, to understand what happened. What upset Malina? Where did the incident start? What did she first feel? What were the warning signs that she was getting upset? What alternatives did she have then? What help could we have given her at that point? This discussion is a search for better understanding, looking for patterns. It is a path to interventions both we and Malina can do to avert a meltdown next time. Was Malina frustrated by work she didn’t understand? Did another girl make fun of her? Was she agitated because she hadn’t heard from her mother in several days? No- these are not excuses for her behavior. They help us understand the skills she needs to handle such events in the future without making things worse. What can we do to make it easier for Malina to ask the teacher when she needs help? What skills and sense of self worth does Malina need to withstand peer teasing, and how can we help her build them? How can we teach Malina techniques (such as the ones we know and use daily) to get through anxious situations? These are things she has never learned in her disrupted upbringing, and we are here to teach them to her.

This thinking will actually bring us forward in our treatment. Making her earn her home pass undermines the only fragile support she has and increases her anxiety. Forcing Malina to admit that what she did was wrong will leave her feeling more shamed, more stupid, and in fact more likely to do the same thing again. Working with her to determine why she acted this way, and to teach her other alternatives, will (after many repetitions) create real and lasting change.

A Parable: Symptoms are Adaptations

Once upon a time a man named John decided to go for a kayak ride in a near by river. Unfortunately, he greatly underestimated the strength of the current, and shortly after he set out he capsized, He was tumbling down the river, being injured as he banged into rocks, when he spotted a large log near him. With considerable effort, John was able to grab the log, and he held on to it for dear life. Clinging to the log, John continued to be swept down the river. He still crashed against things but with the log he was able to keep his head above water and survive. Finally, the current ejected John and the log into the middle of a large, tranquil pond. The log got caught on a rock in the middle of the pond.

There were some people on the beach at the edge of the pond, and they saw John out in the middle. The called out to him: "Hello! You are safe now! It is not very far to shore! Just swim over here- the water is calm, it’s not that deep, you will be fine!"
But John could not let go of the log.


**********************************************************************************

Why is John clinging to the log when he is so close to safety?

What will the people have to do if they truly want to help John?

**********************************************************************************


They will have to swim out to him, and they will have to give him something like a life preserver to replace his log.

**********************************************************************************

In what ways are you swimming out to your clients?

What life preservers are you giving them?

Playing the Victim

Overheard at a Risking Connection® training: "Well, you know Jeff. He just likes to play the victim."

Questions:
What is wrong with talking this way?
How do we understand this behavior?
What can we do about it?

What is wrong with talking this way? Why did I cringe when I heard it? It is because of the blaming quality- the statement that Jeff likes to play the victim, as though it is a deliberate choice he makes every day among the many delightful possibilities open to him. Although minor in itself, it leads to an annoyance with the boy, a frustration that he doesn’t see how much better his life would be if he would just stop this.

How do we understand this behavior? When asked to describe Jeff further, the staff member said that he constantly uses his past abuse as an excuse for not trying or for failing. He also picks on other kids (instigates, to use a residential favorite word) and then blames them for whatever fight begins. So why would a kid do that? It is because he sees absolutely no possibility of success through competence. In other words, he has no confidence at all that he could succeed on the basis of his talents and natural skills. He has had no experience of being loved or appreciated for who he is. All the goodies of life and of relationships have come to him in the context of his problems, of reparations for his abuse, of sympathy for being picked on. That is the only way he knows to engage others.

So, what can we do about it? The road to change is through helping Jeff experience other types of competence and success. And this will be difficult, as he will be afraid to try things and will quickly revert to his old standby methods that have worked so well. But with patience staff can support him into positive experiences, achievements, maybe even triumphs. These must include positive interactions with peers, fun, play, every day social back and forth. He doesn’t know how to do this, staff must teach and model. It will take many repetitions for Jeff to believe that people like him for other reasons than his problems.

When Jeff experiences the possibility of competence and fun, we will notice that he "likes" to play the victim much less.

Victor and Vicarious Traumatization

Victor is eight years old and in residential treatment. He was born to a teen aged mother with a severe trauma history. He has moved around a lot, several foster homes, treatment programs, back and forth to his mother. One difficulty has been that his mother always distrusts his caretakers and forms combative relationships with them. So it is hard for Victor to trust, because he loves his mother deeply. He has a low IQ and sensory issues. He cannot read.

Victor has developed one solid coping mechanism. When ever he is confused, ashamed, sad, upset or fearful, he becomes aggressive. He curses, attacks, spits, etc. He has got this down to a science- because he feels confused, afraid and ashamed often.

Luckily Victor also has a lovable side. Staff care about him a lot. They speak of him with affection and amusement. They go far out of their way to help him feel safe and comfortable.

Victor’s mother has moved to Mississippi, where she has relatives. The long inter-state compact process has been completed, and a plan arranged in which Victor will go to a foster home in Mississippi. In fact, one was located for him. The plan was that he would go there with his state worker for a long weekend, return and say his good byes, and go there to live. Victor was scared, and very excited about being closer to his mother.

Victor was going to be picked up at 5:00 a.m. At 10:00 p.m. the night before, the foster mother called the unit and cancelled the visit, mentioning a "family emergency". Later it turned out that she had not been told any information about the severity of Victor’s problems, and now that she knew more, she was not prepared to take him.

Since then, Victor has fallen apart, and the frequency and intensity of his aggression has increased.

This is why we get vicarious traumatization. Its not just that we read or hear the children’s histories, or that we sit with them and feel their pain from the past- although that would certainly be enough. It is also that we go through with them the terrible things that continue to happen in the present- the many ways the adults (including, at times, ourselves) are not able to provide safe, long lasting homes.

And we have to acknowledge that much as they love Victor, staff were in some ways looking forward to his discharge. It would be a relief not to be spit on, hit or bitten as often. Treaters totally understand why he is falling apart. And, it can be exhausting to deal with the depths of his despair. Especially when we do not ourselves see where there is hope for his future. Not to mention that it can be tiring just to hold a strong wiry little boy over and over again.

But here he still is. And there is as yet no alternative plan. And to give this boy safety, to stick with him, to be there as he survives all this, is certainly the most important thing we could be doing in the world.

So how can we bear it? The most important thing is to talk about it. We have to share all our complex feelings with each other. We have to be free to say that at times we get tired of him, just as we are free to say that our hearts hurt with his pain. Staff have to be commended over and over again for the difficult, repetitive, unending acts of caring they provide. Of course, we continue to advocate that the system give Victor what every child should have.

And we turn to each other with tears in our eyes, make a joke, take a break, have a meal, and return to Victor, and continue the heartbreaking work that will save his life.

Marcus, Take Two

Thank you to everyone who participated- and please, continue to add your thoughts!

If we keep in the front of our minds the idea that symptoms are adaptations, we must wonder what doing the drawings and sharing them with his peers is accomplishing for Marcus. I can think of several possible theories, such as giving him power, expressing his pain, giving him one area in which he is in control and can have an effect on others.

Also, the drawings express a part of Marcus, however disturbing they are. If we just try to ban them, we are giving Marcus a message that we are turning away from his pain, and that we do not want to see, share or accept all of who he is and what he has experienced.

I do not feel that taking drawing supplies away from Marcus will help at all. For one thing, we won’t win on this one. There are many more pencils and pieces of paper in the world than we can ever confiscate. But more importantly, that is a response that tries to eliminate his behavior and not to understand it.

We need to take seriously the effect the drawings have on the other kids, the staff and especially the therapist. This is something we have to discuss as a team and make deliberate plans to give ourselves the stamina to take this on. For example, the therapist may wish to include a male staff at first when she talks with Marcus about the drawings.

Then, as noted by one of the comments, I think we should explore the pictures with Marcus, and not in a judgmental way. What is happening? What are the characters thinking and feeling? What is likely to happen next? The therapist can express her thoughts: "Really? I think the woman might be scared and angry." But all discussion should be from a very centered, calm place- tell me more. Explain how it feels. What does it remind you of?

These discussions should include NO MENTION OF THE NEED TO CHANGE. They are entirely exploratory.

Meanwhile, staff can talk with the other kids about how sometimes when people have had painful lives they draw painful drawings. Encourage the kids not to react, but just bring staff into the conversation if Marcus shows them a picture. Of course, Marcus’ showing them around would decrease if he got less reaction. Then staff would handle it matter-of-factly: you know, Marcus, better to save these for therapy- I’ll give this one to your therapist and you can talk it over with her.

Another area of treatment could be to offer Marcus other opportunities to have power and control, using his drawing. Could he draw some posters for an upcoming agency event (subject to review of course). Can he draw a picture for the unit illustrating some positive message, and can staff get it framed and hang it up? You get the idea.

Marcus has been hurt repeatedly over his life time. He has found a way to both express his pain and get strong reactions from others. His behavior will not change quickly. We must understand that the way that we feel in looking at these pictures is the way that he often feels in his life. And we must support each other in doing the long hard work it will take for Marcus to develop a new, kinder view of life’s possibilities.

Let’s continue this discussion- click on "leave a comment" to share your thoughts.

PLEASE Participate

Please please please participate in our discussion of how to react to the boy with the cruel pictures. Remember to first answer the question: how is this behavior adaptive for Marcus? What is it accomplishing for him- what problem does it solve? Then give your opinion about what the best treatment approach is that will help Marcus change and heal. I REALLY want the opinions of everyone who is reading this. Just click "post a comment". Thank you.

Marcus and the Scary Pictures-What Would Your Team Do?

Marcus came into residential after having been ejected from a previous residential. He is adopted, and his current adoption is actually his second as he was removed from his first home because of abuse. He is small for his age and a bit strange looking. In the month he has been here he has not made any friends, in fact the other kids seem to pick on him. Several times he has said inappropriate sexual things to female clients and to female staff, which does not increase his popularity. Generally he is the kid who is always doing what you just told him not to do, then accusing you of only talking to him when he does something wrong. Staff is finding it hard to engage with Marcus.

However recently a more upsetting issue has emerged. Tony and Jarell, two of the other boys, and Amber, one of the girls, separately came to staff to complain that Marcus has been showing them some very disturbing pictures that he drew. A search of his room in fact produced many of these pictures, which are very graphic (and skillfully drawn) renditions of men torturing naked women, complete with blood and gore. Amber said to her staff that she thinks Marcus is going to grow up to be a murderer and the staff who have seen the pictures tend to be worried about the same thing.

At first when this was discovered, staff gave Marcus a sketch book and said he could draw the pictures in there, but not show them to anyone. However yesterday his roommate Tim told staff that Marcus had been showing him his latest creation. It is one of the bloodiest yet. Lisa, Marcus’s therapist, finds that the pictures make her very uneasy and she does not know what to do to help Marcus. In fact lately she has been avoiding meeting with him. In the staff meeting the most popular suggestion is that Marcus be forbidden any access to paper and writing or drawing materials in an attempt to prevent him from making these drawings.

Do you think this is the best approach? Why or why not?

How do you understand Marcus’ behavior? In what way are these pictures adaptive for him- what positive results is he getting from drawing and sharing them?

What does Marcus need? What approach would you recommend?

What should be done to support Lisa and the staff in helping Marcus to heal?

Share your answers by clicking on "post a comment" below. I strongly encourage you to participate in this discussion. Let’s generate a robust list of possible answers. I will write more about this in my next post.

The Persistence of Punishment

Why is it that no matter how much we know, when we are concerned about a behavior our first thought about how to change it seems to always be punishment? Is it our Puritan heritage? Our religious backgrounds that emphasize Heaven and Hell? Is it that our parents used to ground us when we did something bad? Maybe our entire culture reinforces the idea that punishment solves problems. After all, we do keep building all these jails.

If you are interested in learning more about exactly how to use both reinforcement and punishment, I recommend a book called Don't Shoot the Dog! The New Art of Teaching and Training by Karen Pryor Ringpress Books Ltd; 3rd edition (March 2002). This was recommended to us in our DBT intensive training. The author states that punishment is not as powerful as reinforcement, and must be used precisely- for example, it must happen immediately after the undesirable behavior.

Let’s go back to our own upbringings. I certainly did not like it when my parents grounded me for sneaking out to see my boyfriend. However, much MUCH more difficult was when they sat me down for a talk that began: "Young lady, your mother and I are deeply disappointed in you." In other words, it was the relationship. That they loved me, and I had let them down. That is what I really wanted to avoid.

In out programs we could be much more deliberate about relational rewards and punishments, making sure to convey both our delight and our sadness about the events that take place.

But let’s remember that no matter how well done, rewards and punishments affect motivation. They make some one want to do something more, or want to stop doing it to avoid the punishment.

But if you do not know how to do anything different, it does not matter how much you want to. You need to learn the skills.

In my training I ask participants to think of a time they have tried to do something they really wanted to do, but they were not able to. The examples have included playing tennis, rollerblading, knitting, learning a language. People readily see that more punishment for not playing tennis well would not have helped- in fact it might have made the situation worse, and/or contributed to the learner giving up. If someone wants to learn to play tennis, they need lessons from a kind and patient teacher, who will teach them the many small skills that go into the game.

In some ways our punishments render our children LESS likely to achieve better behavior. They often contribute to shame and hopelessness, thus increasing the intolerable negative emotions that currently overwhelm the child’s ability to think. They accentuate passivity- I have messed up and there is nothing I can do about it. They undermine self worth.

But if not punishments, then what? We often turn to punishment when we ourselves are feeling overwhelmed and helpless.

Increase the child’s sense of safety
Build strong relationships that the child can trust so the child can ask for help
Help the child remember that people care about him even when they are not present
Teach the skills of emotion management
Increase the child’s self worth
Help the child learn to sooth her over-active danger system
Give the child opportunities for effective action and for fixing problems
Give the child opportunities to play and have fun
Create a strong community
Help the child create a positive plan for moving forward in life- create hope

These things are harder than assigning two days of room time, but they are more meaningful and they create lasting change.

Remember- children do well if they can. And remember also- children act better when they feel better.

Please let us know your thoughts by clicking on "post a comment" below and adding a comment.

Exercise about Taking Responsibility

I developed this training exercise to teach people how shame interferes with taking responsibility, and how a simple conversation between a Callie care worker and a client can go wrong.

I will ask for two volunteers, one reads part of Latasha, one of Callie
Latasha- Staff
Callie- Child

VERSION ONE:

Callie is sitting playing electronic game, Latasha walks into room

Latasha: Thoughts: Oh, there is Callie. I heard she had a hard time in school today; I’d better talk to her to see what happened.

Callie: Thoughts: Oh, here comes Latasha. I know she heard I screwed up AGAIN in school today. I know she’s mad at me. I hope she doesn’t see me. I’d better hide.

Latasha: Thoughts: I am really getting discouraged, Callie doesn’t seem to be changing, I wonder what I am doing wrong.
Says: Hi Callie. Let’s talk about what happened in school today. Can you tell me what went on?

Callie: Thoughts: I knew it, she hates me now, I never should have started to like her, I bet they are getting ready to kick me out; nothing is ever going to work out in my life.
Says: It’s those stupid teachers. They are no good. I want to get out of this dumb place and go to a place with a real school.

Latasha: Thoughts: This kid will never take responsibility for her own actions. If she never learns to accept what she has done she is going to end up in jail. We have to make her understand that her actions are her own choice. Maybe she is right, maybe she doesn’t belong here. We do not seem to know what to do to help her.
Says: But Callie you must have done something to get yourself into a fight. It can’t be all the teacher’s fault.

Callie: Thoughts: See I knew it she blames me for the whole thing. And she is right I will never be smart enough to learn math, I am such a loser, and when Kristi made fun of me I just could not stand it. And now (name) hates me too I have to get out of this place!!!
Says: I hate all you f...ing people and if you get any nearer to me I am going to hit you so leave me alone!!!!

Latasha: Thoughts: She is really just impossible I cannot have a simple conversation with her. She really has to learn that she cannot talk to me that way.
Says: That’s threatening. You have to go to your room now if you are going to be so disrespectful.

VERSION TWO:

Callie is sitting playing electronic game, Latasha walks into room

Latasha: Thoughts: Oh, there is Callie. I heard she had a hard time in school today; I’d better talk to her to see what happened.

Callie: Thoughts: Oh, here comes Latasha. I know she heard I screwed up AGAIN in school today. I know she’s mad at me. I hope she doesn’t see me. I’d better hide.

Latasha: Thoughts: I know Callie has so much trouble in school, especially in math. We have been working on how to ask for help when she is confused but it is so hard for her. And I know that Kristi, the girl she had a fight with, can be so mean and pick on people’s weaknesses.
Says: Hi Callie. How are you? I heard that this weekend you made that beautiful bulletin board over there, it really adds color to the unit.

Callie: Thoughts: I know she is going to talk about school and she is mad at me, but at least she noticed the bulletin board I made. Might as well get it over with.
Says: Yeah but today really sucked.

Latasha: Thoughts: I’m glad she brought up what happened. I know this kind of discussion is really hard for her because she always feels so hopeless.
Says: Yeah, I heard you had a problem with Kristi in math, that staying calm thing and asking for help thing didn’t work out as well as we hoped today, but I also heard you calmed down and did well in art afterwards.

Callie: Thoughts: Well, maybe she doesn’t hate me, but I know I screwed up big time. I wonder if they are going to kick me out of here now? I never should have trusted these people.
Says: So I suppose I’m kicked out now right and that is fine with me because I hate this f..ing place anyway and this is a stupid school that doesn’t know how to teach kids.

Latasha: Thoughts: Is that what she has been afraid of all day? It’s even more amazing she was able to calm down. Maybe she is making progress.
Says: Oh no Callie, we are not kicking you out! Far from it! We see the progress you are making. You and I just have to figure out what went wrong today and how we can come up with some better ideas for next time.

Callie: Thoughts: That’s surprising. Well, I would like to know how to keep that Kristi from aggravating me so much- I know she was glad she got me going.
Says: Well, you can start by getting rid of Kristi.

NOTE: The difference between the two versions is not just that the Latasha mentions some positives. It is that the Latasha is operating from a THEORY, and her understanding of the meaning behind Callie’s action’s enables her to approach this event differently.

As usual I am interested in your ideas and reactions. Just click "comments".

Visit to CA LO

This past week I visited a remarkable place. It is called the Change Academy, Lake of the Ozarks, (http://caloteens.com/) and is in Missouri. CA LO is a residential treatment school formed on attachment principles. It was born two years ago from the dreams and convictions of its founder, Ken Huey, and its Clinical Director Landon Kirk. Both were working in more traditional treatment settings and felt that while good work was going on, the treatment methods did not fit their understanding of attachment and healing. So they determined to open an attachment based treatment center located in the middle of the country.

CA LO treats approximately thirty five teenagers, divided evenly between boys and girls. The youth come from all areas of the country, even Alaska. CA LO employs many creative ways to engage the families in treatment. CA LO does not use levels, points, or traditional rewards and punishments. Instead, they have developed a treatment model that describes the tasks the children must complete in order to have a life worth living, and they train staff in the empathetic responses necessary to help the children grow through these tasks. When a student does something particularly harmful, he or she is assigned a chore done with a staff, which provides reconnection with an adult and making amends to the community.

A unique feature of CA LO is their canine program. They have around 25 Golden Retriever dogs, from puppies through adults. The dogs are assigned to individual children ho provide all their care. The dogs go every where with the kids, except to meals- to school, to recreation, one free time. Youths can complete an entire process including references, a home study, etc and be approved to adopt a dog. Then they take that dog home with them when they leave! Many places have some form of pet therapy, but this is the first time I have ever seen pets so thoroughly integrated into a treatment process. The learning and love the children gain from this process is obvious.

CA LO’s model has four components: Trust of Care, Trust of Control, Trust of Self, and Interdependence. Trust of Care teaches children that that the caregivers around them will take care of their physical needs. Food, shelter, health, wellness, and hygiene will be provided by trusted adults. Trust of Control involves believing that the adults in your life can be trusted to help and guide you. Youth who are successfully humble and vulnerable enough to accept Trust of Control allow the adults and peers in their life to teach them life lessons. When youth accept Trust of Control it provides opportunity for adults and peers to provide emotional dysregulation, coaching, guidance, and physical and emotional closeness. Trust of Self occurs when a youth moves towards independently practicing and implementing what has been modeled and taught. In Trust of Self the youth moves from doing the right thing because s/he is "supposed to" or because it has worked a few times in the past, to an inner change and commitment to live life differently. Interdependence is the ultimate goal for a youth, which means learning to live life with interdependence or the ability to maintain healthy, reciprocal relationships. Interdependence defines a successful student transition from a false and selfish independence, to experiencing the value and joy of interdependence and mutual relationships. Clearly, interdependence is neither independence nor dependence but is connected living. It is a person understanding that his/her actions affect others. Instead of just taking, the youth is now also giving. (The previous paragraph was adapted from the CA LO web site.) The youth do not move up and down between these tasks such as phases. It is understood that we all have to move around and re-work parts of each over and over again.

CA LO also includes a school with many imaginative programs, and a Therapeutic Recreation department that utilizes an indoor ropes course as well as many waterfront activities. The staff at CA LO is warm and caring. They have their struggles like everyone else. However, it is very exciting to see a program that is founded on the principles I believe in.
I particularly recommend their blog, which can be found at: http://caloteens.com/blog/

Power and Trauma Informed Care

Many times both in my own agency and in agencies I have trained I have encountered staff who are paralyzed. They are trying to change their practice with the clients. Often, the environment around them has changed the rules for restraint. No longer is it permissible to restrain children for lack of compliance. There must be imminent physical danger. And/or the agency is implementing trauma informed care and is looking differently at the use of consequences.

However, in the midst of this change, staff become confused and over react. For example, Mark is taking the books out of the bookcase and throwing them to the floor. Joe, a child care worker, knows that he will not be able to restrain Mark for this behavior, so he does nothing, just stands by and watches Mark become more and more escalated. Joe pleads weakly for Mark to stop. Mark feels more and more unsafe as he senses that Joe feels powerless and ineffectual. He does not know how to stop his own escalation. Thus he acts out more to draw a response and to elicit some control from the adults.

There are many things you can do to stop a behavior without restraint. One of them is to say in a strong, powerful voice: "Stop it! You can’t do that!" It is amazing how often forbidding a child to do something stops them, even when you have no idea how you would enforce this dictate. Another is to say in a calm but intense voice: "Mark! What is wrong?" and to actively listen to the response.

People some times think that if you are no longer supposed to slam a child with consequences, you must ignore their obnoxious behavior. No! This would be just another form of neglect. Throughout the children’s lives, many people have ignored them rather than take the time and energy to engage with them. And if we ignore actions because we are scared of the behavioral result if we confront them, the child notices this and feels even more unsafe. To the child it seems that the adults cannot handle his intense emotions- so how will he possibly be able to handle them?

Dan is one of the best staff. He has a personal power, centeredness and strength. He speaks to the children in a calm, straightforward way. He is sure of his own values and able to tell a child when the child’s actions hurt him. He speaks from his heart, steps up to the children and engages deeply with them. He feels sure of the rules and expectations and does not hesitate to give directions. However, he also is interested in them, celebrates their successes, and knows their lives and preferences. He is able to relax and have fun with the children.

Staff have many sources of power with the children in addition to their power to dispense privileges, consequences and to physically restrain. After all, staff control everything that happens in the program. They can say; "I am not feeling safe enough to take you for a trip" or "We’ve all been getting along so well let’s go to the go karts!" They control access to much of the rest of the world, and regularly report on the child’s progress to those who are making decisions about her life.

And the most effective form of power is influence. Relationships. Danita cares about her team mate (primary staff contact) Lucy. Lucy has high expectations of Danita and eagerly waits to hear how each day of school goes. Lucy expects that Danita will be successful. When Danita has problems Lucy talks with her about them and together they try to figure out what went wrong and how things could go better next time. Lucy heard that Danita was mean to a new staff member Jennifer over the weekend. When Danita saw Lucy she asked to speak to her, and said she was disappointed by Lucy’s behavior. Danita said that she does not like Jennifer, she is not cool like Danita. Danita replied: "I expect you to be polite to all staff members, whether you like them or not." Because Danita cares what Lucy thinks, she is slightly nicer to Jennifer from then on, giving them a chance to form their own relationship.

Relationships are far more powerful than consequences. How many books have you read in which someone describes their life being turned around by earning 15 minutes later bed? How many describe the profound influence of one other person who changed someone’s life by being active and caring?

Trauma informed care has nothing to do with letting the children run the program. It does not instruct staff to be wimpy. Trauma informed care demands strong human beings who have the courage to open their hearts to these wounded children, to stay engaged and active through all the symptoms, and to celebrate growth and triumph. These valuable people have true power to create life long change.

Please click "comment" and let me know your reaction to these ideas.

Fear and Anger

Imagine that your teen age daughter is not home at the expected time. As the hours go on, terrible pictures form in your mind. You worry that she has had an accident or has been hurt and she cannot call you. You think about how much you love her and how awful life would be without her. You wonder if or when you should call the police. You are so afraid.

Then she comes in. Nothing happened- she was with her friends and was having so much fun she forgot to call. Now you are furious. A few minutes ago you were terrified that she was dead, now you are personally going to kill her.

There is a close link between fear and anger. When we are afraid, we are vulnerable. We feel the strength of our need of another person. We experience their ability to hurt us. We feel weak and powerless. Anger gives us power. Anger pushes away that vulnerability. Anger puts us in control: I thought you were hurt and I would die from the pain of it, I was so powerless. But now I am angry, I am going to kill you myself, I am completely in control.

We often talk about the link between anger and fear in our kids. I am more and more convinced that behind every act of aggression and violence there is fear, panic, vulnerability, hopelessness, powerlessness. Connecting with those feelings give us much more power for change.

But what about us? There are many ways in which the kids make us afraid. They may make us physically afraid, by aggressive attacks, lashing out in a restraint, biting, kicking, etc. They threaten us. Also, we feel afraid about what will happen to them on our watch- will Johnny run away and get hurt? Will Crystal cut herself badly this time and need to be hospitalized? Will I be blamed? We are afraid of censure, oversight, the opinions of our co-workers and bosses. We feel lost and vulnerable when we don’t know what to do, when our best techniques are not working, when Anthony just will not change. We doubt ourselves.

I wonder how often this fear gets converted to anger, and acted out? Maybe- hopefully- we do not actually scream at the kids or threaten to kill them ourselves. But there are many ways to act out anger- harsh punishments, refusing to help, excess bossiness, and maybe most common, distant withdrawal. All of these make us feel more in control, powerful again. We turn away from our feeling or fear and helplessness and feel strong.

At the cost of good treatment and connected, safe relationships with the kids which would promote their healing.

What if as a staff or in supervision we talked about our fears and were open about them? What if we shared our feelings of pain and hopelessness about the kids that don’t change? What if after working them through them with adults we even talked with the kids about these feelings, in a modulated way? Could we then model that an adult can be vulnerable, afraid and strong at the same time? Could we teach the kids how to have a strong relationship that includes and contains scary feelings?

When you see anger in the kids, look for fear and vulnerability. When you feel anger in yourself, look for the same things.

Books I am Reading

I have been caring for my post-surgery husband and thus have been away from my work for a couple of weeks. He is recovering well, if slowly. I wanted to share with you two excellent books I have read during this time period.

The first is Nurturing Attachments: Supporting Children who are Fostered or Adopted by Kim S. Golding (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2008). This was suggested to me by my Australian blog friend, Laurel Downey. Thanks Laurel!

In this book Ms. Golding starts with the stories of four children entering foster care, children much like the ones we all treat. She then follows their progress and the challenges and successes of their foster parents to illustrate the points she is making. It is very effective. The book is especially good at illustrating how the attachment styles of ambivalent attachment, avoidant attachment and disorganized/controlling attachment are created and how they play out in the child’s behavior as time goes on. She offers excellent strategies and ideas, but also emphasizes the difficulty of healing and the need for many repetitive experiences. I have a few minor disagreements with her use of consequences, but she does not emphasize rewards and punishments as the main source of healing. She describes the "House" model of secure parenting which gives an excellent framework for foster parents. I now want everyone I know to read this book. It not only offers a lot to foster parents and their support staff, but will have equal value to any one working with these children in congregate care or any other treatment setting. Ms. Golding is English, so there is also the fun of noting small language differences. The book is very readable and accessible.

The second book, on a very different note, is Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home and School by John Medina (Pear Press, 2008). This book is about how the brain works, and what it means for how we learn and work. It presents a lot of scientifically based information in a very readable, entertaining format. It is helpful to understand normal brain function in order to appreciate what goes wrong in the development of the kids we serve. Also, he speaks to the effect of stress on the brain. Furthermore, he presents a lot of information about what is necessary in order for people to remember things. One element is that we learn best in relationships (where have I heard that before?). Another is the importance of repetition. A lot of the information in this book is helpful in the healing process, and will also be useful in improving the training that we do.

If you read or have read either of these books, what did you think? Please click in comment and leave your thoughts.

An Interesting Idea from Australia

I was delighted to learn that this blog had readers in Austrailia, when I heard from Laurel Downey, Consultant to the Learning and Development Strategy, James Cook University (Cairns), Australia. Laurel writes: "I have been reading your blog regularly and sending it on to all the people I know working in therapeutic residentials - we think it is fantastic."

Laurel was kind enough to send me her work creating a model for residential care. It is entitled:

From Isolation to Connection
Therapeutic Care Practice Model

Laurel Downey
James Cook University, July 2009

Within this work, Laurel synthesis many ideas about trauma and recovery, as well as adding her own.

One though that caught my interest was Laurel’s discussion of the child’s Internal Working Model:

"The Internal Working Model develops from repeated experiences of relationship with the primary caregiver. IWM influences how the child sees him or herself and how they will respond to future relationships. Abused and neglected children have often developed a negative internal working model. They see themselves as unlovable, expect new care givers to reject them, see the others and the world as unsafe and that relationships cannot be relied upon to keep them safe."

Laurel suggests that staff need to provide "counter-intuitive care":

"Counter-intuitive care describes interactions that are contrary to what intuition may indicate and sometimes different to what ‘general parenting’ may provide. The staff’s interaction with the young person is based on an understanding of the internal working model of the particular young person... A counter-intuitive response is where staff recognize and respond to the young person's underlying attachment need, rather than their presenting behavior, or their stated need.

For example the young person who doesn’t acknowledge pain when hurt, still needs comfort and care, even if they cannot ask for it. This young person may feel disconnected from the experience of physical pain, and/or be unable to ask for help. The counter-intuitive response may be one of over exaggeration of care to give the message that when a young person is hurt, their pain will be acknowledged and soothed, they will be cared for.

Another example is where a young person appears to be ‘independent’ beyond their years, and not needing help with anything, but who may really require comfort, security and close proximity to staff even though their behavior implies they don’t need it. Rather than praise the young person for their independence, staff supply care, nurture, help and support without being asked, and challenge the young person if they object."

In our training we talk about our relationships as creating new templates of what relationships can be for the children. However, I think it would be a very helpful and productive exercise for teams to deliberately take time to identify what each child’s current working model of relationships is, based on their behavior. This could lead to a deliberate plan to provide the child with experiences that are opposite to that model, and that gradually over time build new more positive internal models.

Thanks, Laurel, for the opportunity to consider this concept in a new way.

Keep up the good work in Australia.

My Heart Sank

I was talking with staff about Jesse. We had gone over his childhood, with his addicted mother and absent father. We had discussed the fact that his mother describes him as having problems since birth. They had told me about his many attempts at treatment, his failed foster placement, and the other disruptions that had led him to our doors. Jesse is 13 years old and very intelligent. He is overweight, poor at sports, and has no friends. And he is mean. He constantly says awful things to others, and (because he is smart) often he finds the very most upsetting thing to say to each person. He has trouble with boundaries- often touching others in ways they don’t like, although not in overtly sexual ways. The staff has tried. They have explained to Jessie how bad he makes others feel. The therapist tries to draw out how bad Jesse has felt at times and link that to how he makes others feel. There has been no change. The staff is feeling hopeless.

Then the unit supervisor speaks: "There is nothing you can do about Jesse. We have tried everything. Jesse just likes making other people feels bad. He admits it. It makes him happy to hurt others."

My heart sinks.

What I wish for is that when confronted with a child like Jesse, staff automatically attribute his behavior to pain and hurt. The amount we feel that this child is a pain is the amount that this child is in pain. Why does Jesse like hurting others? What has happened to him?

I would like staff to see Jesse as a child who has no sense of power, no sense of self worth. The only way he can engage others is through making them feel bad- and he is very good at that. He sees others as likely to hate, hurt and abandon him- why not attack them first? He is scared, shame-filled and hopeless inside, and can only escape from these feelings by making others (including the staff) feel as bad as he does.

Jesse will be able to decrease his meanness when he feels better. The task is not to explain to him how bad his actions are. The task- and it is a very difficult one- is to help him to see how good his actions can be. To help him see his strengths, use his powers for good, establish control in more positive ways, and connect with others through constructive leadership. If Jesse can experience (and experience again and again) the many pleasures the world has to offer, he can find other things that can more reliably make him happy.

In other words- we have to show Jesse that he can like other things, besides hurting people- that friendship is possible, control can become leadership, intelligence can be admired and draw praise from the group.

How can we possibly make this kind of thinking more routine in our settings? How can we begin to realize that change from helping a child to feel better, rather than making him feel worse?

As always, I’d love your comments, just click on the comments button.

The Crucial Question

I was doing some training this week, and had just finished saying that if a child trashed the playroom, then worked to set it right, he should then be allowed to go to the movies once he was done, if he seemed calm and safe. He should not have a restriction that lasts beyond his having fixed the problem.

One child care worker obviously thought this was nuts. "You mean he should be able to go to the movies just because he fixed the room up? But then the kids will think they can do anything they want, and all they have to do is clean it up, and everything will be fine. They will be going crazy destroying this place. The child care workers will have no control at all."

The therapist was skeptical too. "Won’t we be setting them up?" she asks. "What about when they get to public school, where there are consequences for behaviors. We will have given them unrealistic expectations."

I think these are the crucial questions we must answer if we are going to actually change the way children are managed within treatment programs.

And what are the assumptions behind these questions?
1. That children are eager to misbehave and will choose to do so whenever they can "get away with it".
2. That only the fear of consequences prevents them from acting up constantly.
3. That a child care worker’s most significant source of influence on a child is the wielding of punishments and rewards.
4. That our reward and punishment systems will teach the children to stop doing disruptive behaviors and that learning will transfer to their next settings.

Do we actually believe these assumptions? I know I don’t.

I believe that children do well if they can. Children do not want to fail, to anger the adults around them, to be kicked out of programs, to be placed in residential. They do not WANT to trash the playroom, and they are not looking for opportunities to do so when they can get away with it.

What prevents you from acting up constantly? What prevents you from destroying your agency’s play room? Well, some of it may be fear of punishments, such as losing your job. But I’ll bet there is a lot more to it. For example, you have people and goals that you care about. You have hope. You have a sense that there are people who love you and would be disappointed if you got arrested. You have a positive idea of what kind of person you are. And when you are extremely frustrated (and I know you can be VERY frustrated at your job) you have skills to manage these emotions. You talk to someone, you take a break, and you go for a walk, whatever. You have other options other than room-trashing.

Child care workers have a chance to have a powerful and long lasting impact on a child’s life. They can rebuild a child’s brain. However, I do not think they do so mainly through their use of rewards and consequences. They change children through connected, caring relationships in which children build new ideas of how adults can be, how trust is possible, and how people can care about their needs. Through many, many repetitions of attuned caretaking, a child care worker creates a new view of the world for a child. And, the child care worker actively teaches the child skills through that relationship. She teaches the child that others care about her even when they are not physically present; that she is worthwhile and special; and how to recognize and manage her emotions.

This brings us to the question of what will help the child when he gets to public school. It isn’t that the child has to learn that there are negative consequences when he trashes a room. He already knows that. He has experienced a lot of negative consequences in his young life. The problem is: when he experiences a set back, he is not able to get help from others or draw on an image of anyone who cares about him. He is already convinced he is a lousy no-good person. His biology is over activated and over reactive. And he has no idea how to recognize his emotions and soothe himself. So he is plummeted into despair, fear and hopelessness. And his brain stops working. He is in danger mode, feeling like his very life is under attack. He has to do something to get away from all this pain- so he trashes a room.

In order to help him not get kicked out of public school, we need to teach him that he matters, people care, and he can get help. We need to help him calm down and feel safe. And we need to teach him specific emotion management skills.

This is where our power is. This is what will make a difference. This is where we have the ability to influence (rather than control) a child’s life.

So, help him clean up the room. Have a brief discussion of what he was feeling that led up to this event. Validate his feelings as much as possible. Talk a little about what else he can do when he feels this way. And then take him to the movies.

Maybe It’s Not the Consequences

Think about a child in your program who has significantly improved. Maybe it would be that boy who recently came back for a visit after a successful discharge. Or maybe it’s the girl who has finally stopped hurting herself and running away and who is excelling in African drumming.

What do you think made the difference for this child? What actually helped him or her change and heal?

Most likely you think of the relationships, the patience, the caring. It’s the fact that your team was able to stick with him through the hard times. Maybe you were able to make some progress in connecting her with her family. You noticed that after a while she started to feel safe in the program and began to relax and play more. Probably you taught her some skills- now she asks for her crisis kit when she gets upset, and uses her distress tolerance skills. Maybe he experienced some success- it was when he started doing well on the basketball team that he began his turn around, or when he had that work study job in the kitchen and connected with the cook and started to enjoy cooking. When he finally trusted his therapist enough to tell her that he hated feeling like an idiot when it came to math, that helped too.

In short, we all know that what changes children is the web of loving, patient relationships combined with many repetitive specific skill building activities.

Yet, when we are anxious and upset about a certain child or a certain behavior, our thoughts automatically turn first to consequences.

Janessa keeps running away. Maybe we should give her a longer restriction when she comes back.

Sam continues to be mean to the other boys. Maybe we should give him a reward for every day he is not mean.

How would our programs be if we operated from the assumption that the actions we take after a behavior occurs have NO EFFECT on that behavior? That when we are concerned about a behavior, all our creativity and effort should go into creating the safety and teaching the skills that will enable a child not to need that behavior any more?

Of course this is an exaggeration, our response to a behavior does have some effect on it. But it is actually not our most powerful point of intervention.

What then would we do when a behavior occurred?

What if we thought of that moment as a time to teach a kid what you do when you screw up. This is something we all need to know (I use my skills in this area regularly). This is also something our kids do not know. When they screw up they plunge into an abyss of hopelessness, think all is lost, and prepare to be kicked out.

So we have an opportunity to teach how to repair a mistake. How do we repair our own mistakes with our friends? Apologize, explain what happened, listen to the other person’s experience and take in how they felt, do something nice for them, and make an effort not to make the same mistake again.

Of course our kids can’t do all this. Shame and self hatred make it difficult. But we can lead them to do small steps, small parts and thus gradually and slowly increase their ability to right their wrongs.

And at the same time, we continue the day to day work of helping them develop the self capacities that will diminish the number of mistakes they need to make.

What do you think of this idea? Click on comment and share your response.

Foster Care Behavioral Guidelines

Healing Parents: Helping Wounded Children Learn to Trust & Love by Michael Orlans, Terry M. Levy
CWLA Press (Child Welfare League of America) (December 30, 2006)

Creating Capacity for Attachment: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy in the Treatment of Trauma-Attachment Disorders by Deborah Shell; Art Becker-Weidman Wood N Barnes (July 20, 2005)

I have improved my foster care guidelines, partly through consultation with these two books.

Again, this is only meaningful when imbedded in a context of training, supervision and support. I am currently working on developing a series of six training modules to deliver to our foster care program through out the up coming year.

All comments and suggestions would be most welcome.

Guidelines for Trauma-Informed Behavior Management in Foster Care

1. This approach to behavior management is based on the understanding that problem behaviors are the child’s attempt to manage intolerable emotions such as fear, despair and hopelessness. Because the child does not trust relationships and thus has trouble asking for and accepting help; because he or she has an overly activated nervous system; and because he or she has not learned emotion management skills, the child reacts to set backs with behaviors that help in the moment but have long term negative consequences.

2. The most powerful way to change behavior will be through forming strong relationships, creating attuned communication, creating a sense of self worth, and modeling and teaching emotion management skills.

3. Interactions with the children should be consistent with the Restorative Approach. They should display the qualities of playfulness, love, acceptance, curiosity, and empathy.

4. Whenever possible parents should promote attunement with their children. When there is a break in attunement, the parent should address it and reconnect.

5. Parents must understand that they need to help the child regulate his emotions, by remaining calm them selves, using soothing words, and naming and validating feelings.

6. Many children are shame based and do not feel worthy of life. Parents should be aware of the pervasiveness of shame, be careful not to shame the child, and understand the paralyzing effect of shame.

7. As the child begins to feel safe, her need for problem behaviors will decrease.

8. Building the relationship is more important than changing the behavior. In fact it is necessary before the behavior can change. Prioritize alliance, not compliance.

9. Behavioral difficulty should be handled through re-direction and persuasion. Consequences should not be threatened or imposed except as a last resort. Children can be kept closer in (i.e. kept to house, in sight of parents) when they have acted out, but should constantly be re-evaluated as to whether this is still necessary.

10. Points Levels and behavior charts are not used.

11. As soon as the child is back on track after any incident, they should resume normal activities.

12. Children who are having difficulty should be kept closer to parents. They should not go on trips or off on their own.

13. When a child is agitated, escalated or out of control, all parent efforts should be directed towards helping them calm down. This can be done through listening, validating, taking a walk, quiet, adult closeness and calmness. There should be no discussion at this time of consequences or better ways to handle things. These can be discussed later when the child is calm.

14. If a child has a major problem, they should be given a restorative task consistent with the problem they had. The task should include the elements of learning, making amends and reconnecting. In other words, they should be given opportunities to repair damage done, make amends to people hurt, restore damaged relationships, and do something nice for the family.

15. Until the child has completed their restorative tasks, they should not participate in extra or just-for-fun activities. They should be part of all regular activities. This means all regular therapy and school unless parents determine it’s unsafe for the child to be in these activities. They could go to bed earlier to get energy for their restorative work.

16. When the child has completed their restorative task, they should return to all normal activity.

17. Isolation to any room should not be used. Children become regulated in the presence of regulated adults.

18. Restrictions can be used (car, pool, etc). These are used when a child is not safe while doing these activities. They should be for short times such as a day or two and constantly reevaluated.

19. Children can be asked to leave the family area (if possible, with an adult) to calm down or re focus, and then return in a short time (5-15 minutes), but this should be done only rarely- children are most likely to calm down when close to calm adults, not when sent off by themselves.

20. Structure is extremely important and the children need a highly structured day with planned activities, and they are helped by knowing what will happen next. Families maintain order throughout the day by such mechanisms as plans, describing what will happen next, taking turns, quiet time, and game playing. Alternating quiet activities with more energetic activities helps the kids contain their emotions. When kids are unsafe, keeping them to a small circle of activities and people is helpful; taking them to events like large family picnics may be a set up for difficult behavior. Choices should be limited. Free time, alone time, and going to bed are particularly difficult and should be supported by the adult. Events in which there is a lot of noise, confusion and stimulation (such as shopping) can also be difficult for some children. The adults should try to structure the child’s day so he experiences success, not put him in situations for which he is not prepared. Routines, rituals and ceremonies are very helpful in establishing a safe structure in the home.

21. Bedtime and hygiene are particularly sensitive times for children who have experienced trauma. Problems in these areas should not be addressed through punishments or rewards. The children should be supported through parent closeness and creative interventions such as music, night lights, bubble baths, etc.

22. When a child’s behavior begins to deteriorate, the first question to ask is: is she feeling safe? The second question is: is she over stimulated?

Guidelines for Trauma-Informed Behavior Management in Foster Care

I am working on training and materials to adapt the Restorative Approach for foster parents. As one piece of it, I am developing Behavior Management guidelines for foster families. The guideline will be meaningless unless embedded in a training program that teaches how to understand trauma, how to help children heal, understanding symptoms as adaptations, the use of the relationship, and taking care of ourselves. However, I do think it will be useful to give parents specific ideas about what we expect them to do. Here is what I have so far, and I would greatly appreciate feed back. Just click the word "comment" below. Thank you.

1. This approach to behavior management is based on the understanding that problem behaviors are the child’s attempt to manage intolerable emotions such as fear, despair and hopelessness. Because the child does not trust relationships and thus has trouble asking for and accepting help; because he or she has an overly activated nervous system; and because he or she has not learned emotion management skills, the child reacts to set backs with behaviors that help in the moment but have long term negative consequences.

2. The most powerful way to change behavior will be through forming strong relationships, creating attuned communication, creating a sense of self worth, and modeling and teaching emotion management skills.

3. Interactions with the children should be consistent with the Restorative Approach. They should display the qualities of playfulness, love, acceptance, curiosity, and empathy. (Daniel Hughes)

4. As the child begins to feel safe, her need for problem behaviors will decrease.

5. Behavioral difficulty should be handled through re-direction and persuasion. Consequences should not be threatened or imposed except as a last resort.

6. Children can be kept closer in (i.e. kept to house, in sight of parents) when they have acted out, but should constantly be re-evaluated as to whether this is still necessary.

7. Points Levels and behavior charts are not used.

8. As soon as the child is back on track after any incident, they should resume normal activities.

9. Children who are having difficulty should be kept closer to parents. They should not go on trips or off on their own.

10. When a child is agitated, escalated or out of control, all parent efforts should be directed towards helping them calm down. This can be done through listening, validating, taking a walk, quiet, adult closeness and calmness. There should be no discussion at this time of consequences or better ways to handle things. These can be discussed later when the child is calm.

11. If a child has a major problem, they should be given a restorative task consistent with the problem they had. The task should include the elements of learning, making amends and reconnecting. In other words, they should be given opportunities to repair damage done, make amends to people hurt, restore damaged relationships, and do something nice for the family.

12. Until the child has completed their restorative tasks, they should not participate in extra or just-for-fun activities. They should be part of all regular activities. This means all regular therapy and school unless parents determine it’s unsafe for the child to be in these activities. They could go to bed earlier to get energy for their restorative work.

13. When the child has completed their restorative task, they should return to all normal activity.

14. Isolation to any room should not be used. Children become regulated in the presence of regulated adults.

15. Restrictions can be used (car, pool, etc). These are used when a child abuses the rules around activities to the point where safety is compromised. They should be for short times such as a day or two and constantly reevaluated.

16. Children can be asked to leave the family area to calm down or re focus, and then return in a short time (5-15 minutes), but this should be done only rarely- children are most likely to calm down when close to calm adults, not when sent off by themselves.

17. Structure is extremely important and the children need a highly structured day with planned activities, and they are helped by knowing what will happen next. Families maintain order throughout the day by such mechanisms as plans, describing what will happen next, taking turns, quiet time, and game playing. Alternating quiet activities with more energetic activities helps the kids contain their emotions. When kids are unsafe, keeping them to a small circle of activities and people is helpful; taking them to events like large family picnics may be a set up for difficult behavior. Choices should be limited. Free time, alone time, and going to bed are particularly difficult and should be supported by the adult. Events in which there is a lot of noise, confusion and stimulation (such as shopping) can also be difficult for some children. The adults should try to structure the child’s day so he experiences success, not put him in situations for which he is not prepared. Routines, rituals and ceremonies are very helpful in establishing a safe structure in the home.

18. Bedtime and hygiene are particularly sensitive times for children who have experienced trauma. Problems in these areas should not be addressed through punishments or rewards. The children should be supported through parent closeness and creative interventions such as music, night lights, bubble baths, etc.

19. When a child’s behavior begins to deteriorate, the first question to ask is: is she feeling safe? The second question is: is she over stimulated?

Thanks again for any ideas or suggestions you may have.

The Talk

I am beginning to work on an adaptation of the Restorative Approach for foster parents. As part of that project, I have been re-reading Dan Hughes latest book:

Attachment Focused Parenting (Daniel Hughes W.W. Norton & Co.; 1 edition March 16, 2009) particularly the last section on reducing attachment resistance. I came across the following section:

"Many children who resist turning to their parents for both safety and exploration of the self and the world tend to develop similar strategies for self-reliance and coping. These strategies reflect the psychological reality that they are responsible for both their own safety and for learning about the world. They... cannot rely on their parents.. They tend to tell other- including their parents- what they are convinced is best and what others should do. They tend to want to decide the best course of action for themselves and to oppose the decisions of their parents and others.

These children also try to avoid any event that might be associated with prior events involving fearful and shaming experiences. They develop a strong avoidance of memories of those prior events as well as any current situations that might elicit those memories. These children, in a fundamental way, may never feel safe since they fear parts of their own mind. Not only are they hyper vigilant about external events, they are equally hyper vigilant about allowing parts of their inner life to enter awareness. They often react with intense rage or terror when seemingly routine events- associated with past traumas- elicit an intense emotional response. Parents may facilitate perceived safety by controlling what their child is exposed to in the external world. It is much harder for parents to increase their child’s sense of safety when his fears originate within himself.

Given that these children have not relied on their attachment figures in any consistent manner, they are also likely not to show the developmental skills that children with attachment security tend to manifest. Their emotional experience and expressions tend toward the extreme, lacking a "thermostat" that will create flexible regulation. Their ability to reflect on the events of their lives tends to be weak, as they react to situations, often in a repetitive and rigid manner driven by fears regarding safety." (p. 177)

I think the idea of the traumatized child being afraid of what is inside himself has profound implications.

To further quote Daniel Hughes:

"Without attachment security, a child is less likely to turn to his parents for guidance as to how to be successful. He is also less likely to acknowledge his mistakes and try to correct them. He is less likely to communicate his difficulties and ask for help. As a result, he is less likely to learn from his mistakes and so correct them. Rather, he is more likely to make the same mistake again and again. This most likely will create a pervasive sense of failure. Rather than ask for help, he is likely to rely on himself more, become even more hypervigilant and controlling. With structure, supervision and limited choices, his environment makes success more likely and failure more difficult. Until he can learn from his mistakes, they have to be kept to a minimum by his environment.

There are many different reasons why children who resist attachment have trouble learning from their mistakes. First, their pervasive sense of shame causes them to deny mistakes, have excuses for them, or blame others. Second, they often have developmental disabilities that place them in situations that they are not prepared for. They tend to be raised or taught according to their chronological age rather than their developmental age. Basic skills of self-direction, impulse control, frustration tolerance, and delay of gratification tend to be weak, leaving them at a high risk for failure in many situations." (p. 185)

This seems to me further illuminate the problems that occur when staff in treatment programs try to talk to kids about their mis-behavior. Staff then say: "He will never take responsibility for his behavior" and are disappointed when the children don’t change. So we have scenarios like this:

Staff is approaching Mark to discuss what happened in school today:

Mark is new here but I really like him. I know he’s has had a rough life
Still, he can’t go around hitting people like he did in school today.
I have to get him to understand what he did wrong and take responsibility for his behavior.
I know Leroy can instigate other kids.
I will explain to Mark that if he just asks staff for help when Leroy bothers him things will go much better.
I will explain that if he doesn’t hit anyone for the rest of the week he can go to the movies with us on Saturday.
At first I didn’t think he was listening but then he began to agree with what I was telling him.
I’m sure the rest of the week will be better.

Mark is being approached by staff with a serious look on their face:

Someone is coming towards me. She looks angry. Danger! Danger! Mobilize all defenses!
I don’t trust her. I just met her a few weeks ago and she seems mean.
I know I screwed up in school again today, what a total loser I am, but the class was so confusing and I didn’t get the math. The teacher was busy with the other kids as usual and besides I know she doesn’t like me. Leroy was giving me that smirk like Joe used to and what could I do but push him away and I was afraid I was going to do much worst things.
She’s coming over here to kick me out or punish me or something bad I know it I know it.
La la la la la la I cannot hear a word she is saying who cares it doesn’t matter
I tell her what happened was Leroy and the teacher’s fault and this place sucks and I hate everyone here.
I try to shut out her words, she is smiling but I know that is fake. I agree with whatever she says trying not to hear it. I have my own ways of protecting myself against Leroy.
FINALLY she is going away and I can get back to my Nintendo DS

Sound familiar?
Will the rest of the week go better?

What could the staff have done differently:
Take longer to connect before going into the problem.
Identify the feelings Mark must have had in school and emphatically validate them.
Understand the math difficulty, get the teacher’s help.
Connect with Mark around how scary this place is.
Apologize that the staff didn’t see he was having trouble.
Hope that he will be able to trust them enough to tell them when he gets upset.
Meanwhile say they will look out for him and try to be more alert for when things go wrong, he is over whelmed or other kids are getting on his nerves.

Maybe it sounds too hard or too much time or a luxury- but dealing with the fights and restraints that could emerge from this scenario takes a lot of time.

And doesn’t Mark have to learn that hitting is wrong and he should take responsibility for his actions?

No, he has to learn that not understanding the math doesn’t mean you are no good and that someone can assist you, that he can trust people, that adults will help him, and how to notice when he begins to feel frustrated and upset and what to do to calm himself down.

Trauma Conference Part Two

On the second day of the conference, the general speakers were:
Glenn Saxe speaking on Complexity Theory
Dan Hughes speaking about the use of the body in therapy
And
Bessel van der Kolk on Developmental Trauma Disorder

Glenn Saxe is one of my favorite theorists and writers. His book, Saxe, Glenn; Ellis, B. Heidi; and Kaplow, Julie B. Collaborative Treatment of Traumatized Children and Teens: The Trauma Systems Therapy Approach (2006, The Guilford Pres)s does the best job of any I have read to conceptualize a model for working both with the child themselves and with the system around the child.

At this presentation Dr. Saxe was talking about his latest fascination, complexity theory, which is the science that investigates how schools of fish or flocks of birds maintain their complex, moving patterns with out a leader or a plan. Dr. Saxe is using this theory to look at the complex patter of a traumatized child in his or her social systems, and stated that the theories will help us understand which changes will be most powerful, and where we could intervene to gain the most effect.

Daniel Hughes has long been an inspiration of mine, and was part of our beginning down the journey towards trauma informed care. His book: Hughes, Daniel. (1998). Building the bonds of attachment: Awakening love in deeply troubled children. Jason Aronson served as our guide book as we invented this new model. More recently, I have appreciated his newest books: Attachment Focused Family Therapy, (W.W. Norton & Co.; 1 edition May, 2007) and Attachment-Focused Parenting: Effective Strategies to Care for Children (Norton Professional Books, March 2009). At the conference Dr. Hughes was emphasizing the role of non-verbal communication within therapy. In fact he wondered why we call it "non-verbal" communication- 80% of our communication is what he would term "body communication". Since trauma is held in the body, it is essential that the therapist deliberately use all body communication to facilitate and deepen the therapeutic process. This includes:
Matching vitality and affect of client
Congruent with verbal communication
Awareness of other’s nonverbal meaning
Clear, nonambiguous expressions
Flowing- gradual, regulated, changes
Gaze- direct, warm, open, interested, responsive
Voice- variable, responsive, relaxed, open, animated
thoughtful, alive, empathic.
Gestures- animated, expansive, dramatic, responsive
Posture- open, moving/leaning forward

Dr. Hughes showed some wonderful videos to illustrate his points. However, he was especially prod of the picture with which he began his slide show- a lovely picture of his daughter and her daughter in attuned communication.

Bessel van der Kolk then presented on his work on establishing a new diagnostic category for the upcoming DSM V- that of Developmental Trauma Disorder. Dr. van der Kolk started by relating the history of the trauma diagnosis- noting that there is a new phrase for the effect of war on soldiers in each war, and it reflects the weapon predominated in that war (such as "shell shock"). The PTSD diagnosis was created in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, in an attempt to get funding and medical care for the veterans, and has proved effective for adults who experience trauma in adulthood.
However, there has been recognition of the profound difference between adult onset PTSD and the clinical effects of interpersonal violence on children, as well as the need to develop effective treatments for these children. It has become evident that the current diagnostic classification system is inadequate for the tens of thousands of traumatized children receiving psychiatric care for trauma-related difficulties.
PTSD is a frequent consequence of single traumatic events. Research supports that PTSD, with minor modifications, also is an adequate diagnosis to capture the effects of single incident trauma in children who live in safe and predictable caregiving systems. Even as many children with complex trauma histories exhibit some symptoms of PTSD, research shows that the diagnosis of PTSD does not adequately capture the symptoms of children who are victims of interpersonal violence in the context of inadequate caregiving systems. In fact, multiple studies show that the majority meet criteria for multiple other DSM diagnoses.

Therefore, the goal of introducing the diagnosis of Developmental Trauma Disorder is to capture the reality of the clinical presentations of children and adolescents exposed to chronic interpersonal trauma and thereby guide clinicians to develop and utilize effective interventions and for researchers to study the neurobiology and transmission of chronic interpersonal violence. Whether or not they exhibit symptoms of PTSD, children who have developed in the context of ongoing danger, maltreatment, and inadequate caregiving systems are ill-served by the current diagnostic system, as it frequently leads to no diagnosis, multiple unrelated diagnoses, an emphasis on behavioral control without recognition of interpersonal trauma and lack of safety in the etiology of symptoms, and a lack of attention to ameliorating the developmental disruptions that underlie the symptoms. Most children exhibited posttraumatic sequelae not captured by PTSD: at least 50% had significant disturbances in affect regulation; attention & concentration; negative self-image; impulse control; aggression & risk taking. These findings are in line with the voluminous epidemiological, biological and psychological research on the impact of childhood interpersonal trauma of the past two decades that has studied its effects on tens of thousands of children. Because no other diagnostic options are currently available, these symptoms currently would need to be relegated to a variety of seemingly unrelated co-morbidities, such as bipolar disorder, ADHD, PTSD, conduct disorder, phobic anxiety, reactive attachment disorder and separation anxiety.

Suggesting that an alternative diagnosis was necessary to capture the spectrum of coherent symptoms of children exposed to interpersonal violence and disruptions in caregiving, van der Kolk (2005) proposed the creation of a Developmental Trauma Disorder diagnosis and described the broad domains of impairment and distress that characterize these children and adolescents.

PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENTAL TRAUMA DISORDER

A. Exposure. The child or adolescent has experienced or witnessed multiple or prolonged adverse events over a period of at least one year beginning in childhood or early adolescence, including:
A. 1. Direct experience or witnessing of repeated and severe episodes of interpersonal violence; and
A. 2. Significant disruptions of protective caregiving as the result of repeated changes in primary caregiver; repeated separation from the primary caregiver; or exposure to severe and persistent emotional abuse

B. Affective and Physiological Dysregulation. The child exhibits impaired normative developmental competencies related to arousal regulation, including at least two of the following:
B. 1. Inability to modulate, tolerate, or recover from extreme affect states (e.g., fear, anger, shame), including prolonged and extreme tantrums, or immobilization
B. 2. Disturbances in regulation in bodily functions (e.g. persistent disturbances in sleeping, eating, and elimination; over-reactivity or under-reactivity to touch and sounds; disorganization during routine transitions)
B. 3. Diminished awareness/dissociation of sensations, emotions and bodily states
B. 4. Impaired capacity to describe emotions or bodily states

C. Attentional and Behavioral Dysregulation: The child exhibits impaired normative developmental competencies related to sustained attention, learning, or coping with stress, including at least three of the following:
C. 1. Preoccupation with threat, or impaired capacity to perceive threat, including misreading of safety and danger cues
C. 2. Impaired capacity for self-protection, including extreme risk-taking or thrill-seeking
C. 3. Maladaptive attempts at self-soothing (e.g., rocking and other rhythmical movements, compulsive masturbation)
C. 4. Habitual (intentional or automatic) or reactive self-harm
C. 5. Inability to initiate or sustain goal-directed behavior

D. Self and Relational Dysregulation. The child exhibits impaired normative developmental competencies in their sense of personal identity and involvement in relationships, including at least three of the following:
D. 1. Intense preoccupation with safety of the caregiver or other loved ones (including precocious caregiving) or difficulty tolerating reunion with them after separation
D. 2. Persistent negative sense of self, including self-loathing, helplessness, worthlessness, ineffectiveness, or defectiveness
D. 3. Extreme and persistent distrust, defiance or lack of reciprocal behavior in close relationships with adults or peers
D. 4. Reactive physical or verbal aggression toward peers, caregivers, or other adults
D. 5. Inappropriate (excessive or promiscuous) attempts to get intimate contact (including but not limited to sexual or physical intimacy) or excessive reliance on peers or adults for safety and reassurance
D. 6. Impaired capacity to regulate empathic arousal as evidenced by lack of empathy for, or intolerance of, expressions of distress of others, or excessive responsiveness to the distress of others

E. Posttraumatic Spectrum Symptoms. The child exhibits at least one symptom in at least two of the three PTSD symptom clusters B, C, & D.

F. Duration of disturbance (symptoms in DTD Criteria B, C, D, and E) at least 6 months.

G. Functional Impairment. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in at two of the following areas of functioning:
· Scholastic: under-performance, non-attendance, disciplinary problems, drop-out, failure to complete degree/credential(s), conflict with school personnel, learning disabilities or intellectual impairment that cannot be accounted for by neurological or other factors.
· Familial: conflict, avoidance/passivity, running away, detachment and surrogate replacements, attempts to physically or emotionally hurt family members, non-fulfillment of responsibilities within the family.
· Peer Group: isolation, deviant affiliations, persistent physical or emotional conflict, avoidance/passivity, involvement in violence or unsafe acts, age-inappropriate affiliations or style of interaction.
· Legal: arrests/recidivism, detention, convictions, incarceration, violation of probation or other court orders, increasingly severe offenses, crimes against other persons, disregard or contempt for the law or for conventional moral standards.
· Health: physical illness or problems that cannot be fully accounted for physical injury or degeneration, involving the digestive, neurological (including conversion symptoms and analgesia), sexual, immune, cardiopulmonary, proprioceptive, or sensory systems, or severe headaches (including migraine) or chronic pain or fatigue.
· Vocational (for youth involved in, seeking or referred for employment, volunteer work or job training): disinterest in work/vocation, inability to get or keep jobs, persistent conflict with co-workers or supervisors, under-employment in relation to abilities, failure to achieve expectable advancements.

(Material adapted from:
Proposal To Include A Developmental Trauma Disorder Diagnosis For Children And Adolescents In Dsm-V, Bessel A. van der Kolk, MD, Robert S. Pynoos, MD, 2009)

At the conference Dr. van der Kolk discussed the complex political process that is involved in changing the DSM. The proposed new diagnosis would create sweeping changes, in that it postulates that early childhood trauma is actually at the root of other diagnosis, such as Borderline Personality Disorder. Many grants, insurance payments, and other funding streams are shaped by the DSM, and such a profound change might threaten many established programs. This change has at the time of the conference been rejected by the DSM committee. It will be fascinating to watch the process and the evolution of our understanding.

I highly recommend this trauma conference, which is held every year in Boston. It is the only conference of the many I attend which so effectively combines science, social issues, advocacy and clinical practice, and brings us the most current thinking in our field.