Category: Trauma Informed

Trauma-Informed: A Cancer on Our Nation’s Legal System

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 14, 2021

SAVE

January 14, 2021

In recent years, a trendy new investigative approach has been pushed both on college campuses and in the criminal justice system. Called “Trauma-informed,” it claims that sexual assault and domestic violence victims are so traumatized by the experience that they are unable to provide a coherent account of the assault.

Which means that every allegation must be taken at face value as truthful, and investigators are not supposed to challenge or question their statements. And every complainant is called a “victim.”

But “trauma-informed” is factually dishonest, because researchers have found that victims of trauma often have an enhanced recall of the details of the event. “Trauma-informed” ideology also eliminates the presumption of innocence, and turns investigators into therapists and social workers. This leads to wrongful findings of guilt.

Nonetheless, trauma-informed activists continue to push forward. Recently the International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a solicitation to do trauma-informed training, making the misleading claim that, “Victim-centered, trauma-informed approaches to crime can support victim recovery and engagement with the criminal justice system.”

Let’s all speak out on the dishonesty behind the “trauma-informed” movement. Contact the IACP and let them know what you think. Here’s the link: https://www.theiacp.org/contact-us

Please try to be polite.

Investigations Law & Justice Sexual Assault Trauma Informed

The Metastasizing Cancer of Trauma-Informed Justice

Post author By Deanna Brown
Post date January 12, 2021

Sunday 10 January 2021
by Wendy McElroy

“Trauma-informed Justice” has percolated in academia and activism for decades. It is now knocking on the door of local police departments to demand changes that could upend the basics of how people relate to law enforcement. The approach converts the police into social workers or therapists and erases the due process upon which traditional Western justice hinges. It also increases the odds of wrongful convictions.

Trauma-informed justice—sometimes called “victim-centered” justice—involves an interview methodology in which the police prioritize empathy for an accuser who is automatically considered to be a victim. Rooted in trauma-informed feminist therapy of the 1960s, the methodology is especially favored for allegations of sexual abuse, such as domestic violence, where the accusers who come forward are overwhelmingly female. The methodology was refined by Russell Strand, U.S. Military Police School, who offered the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview (FETI) as a way to question presumed victims without making them relive an assault.

According to trauma-informed trainers, the police should conduct investigations according to three broad principles.

The accuser is automatically assumed to be a victim even before any verification process occurs; the accused is automatically assumed to be guilty based on nothing more than an allegation. This dynamic reflects a core belief of the #Metoo movement: “Believe All Women.” The leading proponent of the trauma-informed approach is the End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) group which argues that “believing” accusers “is the starting point for a fair and thorough investigation.” If EVAWI is taken literally, however, then further investigation seems to be unnecessary. An accusation is proof of guilt is grounds for conviction. Why investigate?
Contradictions, memory gaps, and inconsistencies in an accuser’s testimony are symptoms of deep trauma and should not be seen as disprobative. A much-quoted guide to trauma-informed justice states, “Trauma victims often omit, exaggerate, or make up information when trying to make sense of what happened to them or to fill gaps in memory.” The true flaw in the process is said to be the police department’s approach which depends on what is called “peripheral information”–for example, a suspect’s description and the time or place of an alleged attack. Instead, the police should focus on eliciting non-linear information from the accuser by establishing trust and interpreting her memories.
Factors that cast doubt on the allegation, such as an accuser’s history of false allegations or drug use, are not to be considered. This creates an enormous problem if the case goes to trial, of course. The Arizona Governor’s Commission to Prevent Violence Against Women issued a letter to Arizona’s criminal justice agencies to explain, “In cases that proceed to trial, defense counsel likely could impugn investigators and claim that alternative versions of the crime were ignored and/or errors were made during the investigation as a result of confirmation bias created by the ‘belief’ element of the Start By Believing campaign.”

Trauma-informed advocates abandon the ethical code of conduct spelled out by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Article 10, Presentation of Evidence states, “The law enforcement officer shall be concerned equally in the prosecution of the wrong-doer and the defense of the innocent. He shall ascertain what constitutes evidence and shall present such evidence impartially and without malice.” By this standard, everyone and their testimonies are to be treated equally.

Trauma-informed justice destroys the due process upon which Western criminal justice rests. The central principle of due process: an accused is innocent until proven guilty either by a standard of “clear and convincing evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There must be proof before there is guilt and, as a matter of logic if not of justice, the accuser bears the burden of proof because she is the one making an affirmative statement. Start by Believing inverts this principle and logic, eliminating Western justice in the process.

Unfortunately, the trauma-informed approach is gaining momentum with training courses for law enforcement seeming to spring up everywhere. Most are held at universities where trauma-informed procedures have dominated Title IX investigations for the last decade; these investigations address allegations of sexual misconduct on campus and a “believe the women” ideology dominates. The spread of FETI is yet another instance of social-justice policies spilling from campuses out onto Main Street.

Other factors contribute to the spread. A revolution in how law enforcement is perceived has occurred, with “Defund the Police!” being one of the loudest aspects. A righteous indignation at police brutality and immunity is fueling a rebellion against the status quo of law enforcement. Trauma-informed justice also grows because it is still grassroots; activists go directly to law enforcement agencies. This makes it largely invisible in the media and to the public from which it encounters little resistance.

This needs to change. Trauma-informed justice must be opposed on three grounds: ethically, on the science, and on practicality.

The ethical case against trauma-informed justice has been made already: it introduces systemic bias into what should be an evidence-based, honest, and impartial process; it embeds unequal treatment under the law; it increases the likelihood of false convictions. It is unfair.

The increased likelihood of false convictions needs to be stressed because the trauma and tragedy of false convictions is often ignored or diminished. This will proliferate because trauma-informed politics encourages law enforcement to become de facto advocates for an accuser and presume the guilt of an accused.

A commonly stated goal of the trauma-informed approach is to secure a “successful prosecution”, which refers to securing a conviction but makes no comment on whether the defendant may be innocent. After all, Start by Believing declares all accuseds to be immediately and automatically guilty, which obviates the need to discuss their possible innocence. When the police pre-emptively decide that an accused is guilty, research shows what common sense suspects. The police look for supporting evidence and tend to dismiss counter information due to confirmation bias. Again, wrongful convictions become more likely, especially since EVAWI instructs investigators on how to assist prosecutors in countering “potential defense strategies.”

Another reason trauma-informed justice gains ground: law enforcement is asked to listen “to the science.” The science of traumatized people remembering events in a disjointed or inconsistent manner is presented as “settled.” This is not true. Unbiased studies contradict trauma-informed claims. Daniel Reisberg’s “Emotion’s (Varied) Impact on Memory for Sexual Misconduct” found, for example, “These data suggest that traumatic events are likely to be well remembered.” At bare minimum, the nature of traumatized memories is a matter for vigorous debate and untested ideology-based theories should not be fixed into policy.

The current standard police procedure is called the Reid method. It has three steps: factual analysis, interviewing, and interrogation. The factual analysis eliminates suspects and develops leads. Interviewing elicits investigative and behavioral information through non-accusatory dialogue with accusers, suspects, and witnesses; the interview has nine well-defined stages. Interrogation involves subjecting a confirmed suspect to accusations in which the investigator claims to know the person is guilty and angles for a confession. Police investigations may be imperfect but they have been tested and streamlined by time, with legal challenges providing protections to those being questioned.

In its “Report on the Use of the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview (FETI) Technique” (2015), the United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations summarized its reluctance to replace an established protocol with trauma-informed techniques. “We believe it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to discontinue the use of a robust, well-studied, effective, and empirically-validated interviewing method that is supported by the latest scientific research (the Cognitive Interview), in favor of an interviewing method that is loosely-constructed, is based on flawed science, makes unfounded claims about its effectiveness, and has never once been tested, studied, researched or validated.”

Social workers and therapists may need to Start By Believing the person they seek to heal. But the police are not mental health workers; they deal in cold, hard facts that have no gender or race. Investigators need to discern what is true or false about a situation rather than respond emotionally to it. In the process, some officers make mistakes and some act with malice; officers are human beings with all the flaws of shared humanity. The incompetence or malfeasance of individuals must be remedied but neither one is an indictment of the principles of Western justice. Turning accusations into convictions only makes prisoners of innocent people.

Content / Editorials / The Metastasizing Cancer of Trauma-Informed Justice – ifeminists.com

Believe the Victim Campus Title IX Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: Campus Administrators Need to Restore Impartial Investigations, or Face a Surge in Costly Lawsuits

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 11, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Campus Administrators Need to Restore Impartial Investigations, or Face a Surge in Costly Lawsuits

WASHINGTON / August 11, 2020 – SAVE has published an analysis that documents a dramatic increase in judicial decisions against universities involving biased investigations of sexual assault allegations. In 2014-2016, the average number of lawsuits alleging faulty campus investigations averaged three decisions per year. In 2020, that number is projected to reach 30 judicial decisions against colleges and universities, a 10-fold increase in the span of a few years.

Such investigations go by a variety of names: “trauma-informed,” “Start By Believing,” and “victim-centered.” These investigative approaches discount the presumption of innocence and begin with the assumption that the complainant is being fully truthful. As a result, exculpatory evidence is often discounted or ignored.

Five examples illustrate the due process deficiencies that judges considered in the university lawsuits:

In Neal v. Colorado State University-Pueblo, the university opened an investigation into a male student after a classmate saw a hickey on that student’s girlfriend’s neck during class. The girlfriend swore to the university the sex was consensual, but the university decided to “investigate” anyway. The university gave the male student less than 24-hour notice to the hearing and refused to give him a copy of the investigative report.
In Doe v. Regents of University of California, a female student accused a male student of sexual assault without providing any witnesses or evidence. Without any investigation, the university put the male student on interim suspension and then did not allow him access to the investigative report once one was created.
In Doe v. Purdue University, the university withheld the investigative report, which included a made-up “confession” by the accused student.
In Doe v. Brandeis University, the institution refused to interview the accused student’s witnesses, refused to inform him of what he was being investigated for, and refused to allow him to review the investigative report.
In Doe v. Syracuse University, the accused student alleged that the university trained its investigators that “perpetrators of sexual assault are supposedly rational actors who plan, practice, and become habitual rapists and sexual predators… [and that] inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account [is] evidence that her testimony is truthful, because of alleged trauma.”

On May 6, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new regulation that would require campus investigations to be impartial and free of bias. In response, the State of New York filed a lawsuit requesting a Preliminary Injunction against the Title IX regulation (1). SAVE then filed an Amicus Brief highlighting the fact that, “The Regulations require that any coordinator, investigator, decision-maker, or any person designated to facilitate an informal resolution process be free from conflict of interest or bias.” (2) The SAVE Brief urged the Court to reject the New York complaint.

This past Sunday, Judge John Koeltl issued a ruling denying the State of New York request (3). In the opinion, the judge favorably quoted a key provision from the new regulation:

During an investigation of a formal complaint, the school must “[p]rovide both parties an equal opportunity to inspect and review any evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the allegations raised in a formal complaint, including the evidence upon which the recipient does not intend to rely in reaching a determination regarding responsibility and inculpatory or exculpatory evidence whether obtained from a party or other source, so that each party can meaningfully respond.” (page 12)

The new Title IX regulation is slated to take effect this coming Friday, August 14 (4). SAVE urges campus administrators to carefully review investigative policies and procedures to assure compliance with the new regulation.

The SAVE analysis, “University Administrators Need to Assure Impartial and Fair Investigations, or Face Legal Consequences,” is available online (5).

Links:

Campus Investigations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Trauma Informed

PR: Four Reasons Why General Counsel Should Not Allow ‘Trauma-Informed’ Investigations for Title IX Cases

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 3, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Four Reasons Why General Counsel Should Not Allow ‘Trauma-Informed’ Investigations for Title IX Cases

WASHINGTON / August 3, 2020 – With less than two weeks remaining before the effective date of the new Title IX regulation, SAVE is advising university counsel to review institutional polices to assure Title IX investigations do not rely on flawed “trauma-informed” methods. The use of such investigative approaches, sometimes referred to as “victim-centered” or “Start By Believing,” is inadvisable for four reasons:

Regulatory Requirements: “Trauma-informed” means the investigator presumes that the complainant has experienced significant physical and psychological trauma, and interprets the complainant’s statements through that lens. This presumption is inconsistent with the text of the new Title IX regulation, which reads:

“A recipient must ensure that Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any persons who facilitate an informal resolution process, receive training on….. how to serve impartially, including avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias… recipient also must ensure that investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence….Any materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process, must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment.” [key words in italics] (1)

Case Law: In a growing number of lawsuits, judges have issued rulings against universities because of their use of trauma-informed investigations. In a recent judicial decision against Syracuse University, the federal judge noted: “Plaintiff alleges that the investigation relied on ‘trauma informed techniques’ that ‘turn unreliable evidence into its opposite,’ such that inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account . . . becomes evidence that her testimony is truthful” (2).

Brooklyn College professor KC Johnson has summarized a number of these cases (3): “In a lawsuit against Penn, the court cited the university’s trauma-informed training as a key reason why the complaint survived a motion to dismiss. During the Brown university bench trial, the decisive vote in the adjudication panel testified that she ignored exculpatory text messages because of the training she had received. Ole Miss’ trauma-informed training suggested that an accuser lying could be seen as a sign of the accused student’s guilt. And at Johnson & Wales, the university was so disinclined to make public the contents of its training that it refused a request by the accused student’s lawyer to see it before the hearing.”

Lack of a Scientific Basis: Several peer-reviewed articles have discredited the scientific basis of trauma-informed investigations: Deborah Davis and Elizabeth Loftus: “Title IX and “Trauma-Focused” Investigations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” (4); Sonja Brubacher and Martine Powell: “Best-Practice Interviewing Spans Many Contexts” (5); and Christian Meissner and Adrienne Lyles: “The summary of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing.” (6)

Journalist Emily Yaffe has described trauma-informed methods as “junk science.” (7) A compilation of other scientific critiques of trauma-informed is available online (8).

Criticized by Leading Title IX Groups: Several organizations have issued reports and statements that are critical of trauma-informed investigations: ATIXA: “ Trauma-Informed Training and the Neurobiology of Trauma;” (9) FACE: “Trauma-Informed Theories Disguised as Evidence”(10) SAVE: “Believe the Victim: The Transformation of Justice;” (11) In addition, 158 professors and legal experts endorsed an Open Letter that is critical of the use of trauma-informed methods (12).

A UCLA working group appointed by former California governor Jerry Brown concluded, “The use of trauma-informed approaches to evaluating evidence can lead adjudicators to overlook significant inconsistencies on the part of complainants in a manner that is incompatible with due process protections for the respondent.” (13)

“Trauma-informed” may be useful in the context of providing counseling and mental health services. But trauma-informed philosophy serves to bias the investigative process, rendering campus adjudications unreliable.

Links:

Campus Sexual Assault Trauma Informed

PR: Impartial and Fair Investigations at Risk in Four States Eyeing ‘Trauma-Informed’ Methods

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 24, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart
Telephone: 513-479-3335
Email: info@saveservices.org

Impartial and Fair Investigations at Risk in Four States Eyeing ‘Trauma-Informed’ Methods

WASHINGTON / March 25, 2020 – Proposed legislation in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii would require universities to use controversial “trauma-informed” methods for investigations of allegations of campus sexual assault. Investigative reporter Emily Yoffe has concluded that “trauma-informed” methods represent a form of “junk science.” (1)

Numerous judicial opinions have found “trauma-informed” investigations presume the guilt of the accused and violate due process (2). In Norris v University of Colorado, Boulder, the university’s motion-to-dismiss was denied as the Plaintiff argued that a trauma-informed approach reflected bias by university investigators (3). In Doe v Syracuse University, the court criticized the university’s apparent bias based on “the influence on university officials of trauma-informed training”(4).

Even though the Department of Education’s April 2014 Q&A on Title IX and Sexual Violence with language about “effects of trauma, including neurobiological changes” was officially withdrawn in September 2017, “Trauma-informed” concepts are featured in bills currently being debated in four states across the country:

— New Hampshire SB679 mentions “trauma-informed response” six times and mandates the policy that institutions of higher education use regarding sexual misconduct must be “trauma-informed.”(5)

— Massachusetts H4418 requires an individual who participates in the implementation of an institution of higher education’s disciplinary process for addressing complaints of sexual misconduct be trained on “the effects of trauma, including any neurological impact on a person.”(6)

— Hawaii SB2311 requires “training on the impact of trauma” and “training on the neurobiological and psychological impact of trauma, stereotypes surrounding the causes and impact of trauma, and the components of trauma-informed care.”(7)

— California SB493 includes three provisions where “trauma-informed practices” are required: during the investigation of complaints, and training for the gender-equity officer and other employees engaged in the grievance procedures must be on “trauma-informed investigatory and hearing practices.”(8)

Three major organizations that provide training to campus investigators have cautioned against the use of “trauma-informed” methods. In July 2019, law firm Holland & Knight issued a white paper warning clients that content of training will be analyzed closely, and training for investigators and adjudicators, including trauma-informed training, should be presented in a manner that is fully balanced, does not rely on sex-stereotypes, and promotes fairness and equity for both complainants and respondents (9). In August 2019, the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) released a statement to avoid the use of theories on the neurobiology of trauma to substitute for evidence (10). Likewise, End Violence Against Women International (“EVAWI”) recently issued a report that admits, “there is a legitimate concern that the scientific literature is currently being misinterpreted and misapplied in some trainings, and this can yield inaccuracies and inappropriate conclusions during the course of a sexual assault investigation.”(11)

The use of trauma-informed practices in providing mental health services to rape victims is appropriate and useful. But relying on quasi-scientific theories for campus investigations raises concerns about fairness and objectivity. More information on the scientific and legal problems with such “victim-centered” investigations is available on the SAVE website (12).

Citations:

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is leading the national policy movement for fairness, due process and the presumption of innocence: http://www.saveservices.org/

Start By Believing Trauma Informed

Commentary on EVAWI’s Revised Report on the Neurobiology of Trauma

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 9, 2020

In 2016, End Violence Against Women, Inc. (EVAWI) published a report titled, “Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims.”[1] Noting several scientific flaws, Dr. Sujeeta Bhatt and I published a detailed critique of the EVAWI report last September.[2]

In response, EVAWI made numerous revisions to their report, published under a new title, “Becoming Trauma-Informed: Learning and Appropriately Applying the Neurobiology of Trauma to Victim Interviews.”[3] The present commentary reviews EVAWI’s latest version.

My expertise lies in the domain of science-based investigative interviewing, not in the neurobiology of trauma. Co-authoring a response to the EVAWI 2016 paper sensitized me to some of the challenges faced by those responsible for investigating and adjudicating instances of sexual discrimination under Title IX (as a civil offense) as well as those responsible for investigating charges of sexual violence (as a criminal offense). Rape kits languish in police stations and those who assert that they have been sexually assaulted often are not believed and/or their complaints not investigated.

Responding to our criticisms, EVAWI’s revised report recognizes that not all victims of sexual assault display the symptoms described. For example, EVAWI now acknowledges, “the same event might be experienced as traumatic to one person but not another” (p. 15). Trauma-informed interview training should also provide an understanding of the neurobiology of resilience (a topic not addressed in the new EVAWI report), since not all those who are sexually assaulted are traumatized. Doing so may help an interviewer approach an alleged victim with fewer assumptions, which is critical to any investigation. Equally important, the authors point out that it is not “the investigator’s role to determine whether someone has experienced trauma” (p. 18).

The EVAWI report asserts that “traditional strategies don’t work with trauma victims” (p. 6). EVAWI appears to be referring to the often-accusatorial approaches used by American police investigators (e.g., the ‘Reid method’) or the question-and-answer tactics used by attorneys. These persons tend to assume that memories are best recalled in response to closed-ended questions, and that apparent resistance to answering questions indicates deception or a lack of cooperation.

What science has shown for the past several decades is that empowering an interview subject to tell their story with as few interruptions as possible is more likely to elicit reliable information, whether the subject be a victim, witness, source, or suspect. One method of such elicitation is the Cognitive Interview, developed by Ron Fisher and Edward Geiselman in the 1980s. The efficacy of the Cognitive Interview approach has been demonstrated in both laboratory and field conditions — see reviews by Memon, Meissner, and Fraser[4] and Dodier and Otgaar[5]. Although the revised EVAWI report does not explicitly reference the Cognitive Interview method, its description of a good interview approach (p. 7) closely tracks with that methodology.

As appears happens in both science and policy, we swing from one side of an issue to the other. Because some victims of sexual assault have been neglected by the criminal justice system, victim advocates often assert that alleged victims should be assumed to be telling the truth (“start by believing”) and not be challenged in their account. In my view, the latter risks a bias against the alleged perpetrator. All bias is problematic, and an investigator is most likely to uncover the truth when the investigator treats both alleged victim and alleged attacker with respect and empathy.

Science resides in neutral ground. My experience with proponents of trauma-informed interviewing leads me to believe that we will find the best science via engagement with each other – certainly, there are opportunities to address grievances on many fronts. Change happens when people on all sides of an issue work together.

Citations:

[1] https://www.evawintl.org/Library/Detail.aspx?ItemID=842

[2] http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx

[3] https://www.evawintl.org/library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=1364

[4] Memon, Meissner, and Fraser [2010], “The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years.”

[5] Dodier and Otgaar [2019], “The forensic and clinical relevance of evidence-based investigative interview methods in historical sexual abuse cases”.

Military Trauma Informed

Ignoring Due Process, DOD Climbs on to the Trauma-Informed Bandwagon

Post author By saveadmin
Post date September 17, 2019

The Department of Defense (DoD) is collaborating with colleges and universities to promote an ideology that threatens citizens’ fundamental constitutional rights to the presumption of innocence and due process. Trauma-informed or “start by believing” practices infer credibility on complainants while compromising the rights of the accused. Over the past decade, this prioritization of belief over truth has resulted in investigators being increasingly encouraged to “reassure the victim that he or she will not be judged and that the complaint will be taken seriously” so they will not “suffer additional trauma” or be discouraged from reporting. Trauma-informed procedures represent an attempt to recast the neutral role of the investigator into that of an advocate and thereby systematically bias the criminal justice system.

Ethical codes, at the core of assuring our due process rights, mandate diligence, integrity, and impartiality in the conduct of criminal investigations. “This system of truth seeking and the imposition of appropriate sanctions rest on the discovery and production of evidence that is accurate, relevant, adequate and unbiased.”i Former Secretary of Defense Mattis declared that “the DoD must be the epitome of American values and ethics” and “doing what is right at all times.” Current Secretary of Defense Martin Esper recently renewed this commitment, requesting all military personnel and DoD employees to take “a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution.”

Contrary to these pledges, the DoD is coordinating with colleges and universities to promote the use of a ‘Start By Believing’ or trauma-informed approach to sexual assault/sexual harassment as “best practice” in military criminal investigations and on college campuses.

On September 5, the Department of the Navy, in conjunction with the State University of New York (SUNY), hosted a regional discussion entitled “Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment.” The conference is a continued discussion from the National Discussion on Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment at America’s Colleges, Universities, and Service Academies held at the United States Naval Academy in April 2019.

Speakers included Secretary of the Navy, Richard V. Spencer and Ms. Melissa Cohen, Director, Department of Navy, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), among others.ii

Cohen explained, “By holding these regional discussions, we can learn from each other and work together to eliminate these criminal and destructive behaviors from the military and in society.” For many years, the DoD has used trauma-informed, victim-centered approach in criminal investigations, similar to those utilized in college Title IX investigations. However, the DoD appears to be even more aggressive in their attempt to eradicate sexual assault and sexual harassment so they can “rid our institutions of these crimes.”

Earlier this year, the military assembled a joint task force to study sexual assault accountability and investigation. In April, the task force issued a report, stating, “The military justice system is… quite unique in that it treats behaviors counter to good order and discipline as crimes, while providing comprehensive support to victims throughout the process.” This report’s highest priority recommendation is “establishing a specific criminal offense for sexual harassment as a stand alone crime. The over-broad definition of sexual harassment as “conduct that-involves unwelcome, unwanted or uninvited advances” means even a first time request for something could be considered unwelcome.

The task force concluded that making sexual harassment a crime would “more firmly reinforce the Department’s view that such conduct is immoral and unacceptable” and that “adding a specific criminal offense of sexual harassment” will “make a strong military-wide statement about the seriousness of these behaviors and the military’s zero tolerance for them.” The task force recommendation? Sexual harassment” is an offense subject to court-martial!

The DoD has also worked hard to push the concepts of ‘believe the victim’ and trauma-informed training in the military. There are many strong arguments as to why our military should not be teaming up with our colleges and universities to push the agenda of these guilt presuming, trauma informed approach’s to sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Serious questions and problems that have been identified with a “Start By Believing approach. “Assertions about how trauma physiologically impedes the ability to resist or coherently remember assault have greatly undermined defense against assault allegations. Science offers little support for a ‘Start By Believing’ approach.The US Air Force (USAF) rejected the use of Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview, (FETI) techniques, stating “Given the lack of empirical evidence on FETI’s effectiveness, and the large number of investigative, professional and scientific concerns regarding FETI and FETI training, the Air Force does not consider FETI as a viable option for investigative interviewing. We believe it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to discontinue the use of a robust, well-studied, effective, and empirically-validated interviewing method that is supported by the latest scientific research (the Cognitive Interview), in favor of an interviewing method that is loosely constricted, is based on flawed science, makes unfounded claims about its effectiveness, and has never once been tested, studied, researched or validated.” Military officers are being trained by the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA). NOVA serves as a national forum for victim advocacy in support of victim oriented legislation and public policy.In the USAF rejection of FETI techniques, Officers of Special Investigations, Linda S. Estes and Jeane M. Lambrecht report that trauma-informed “reasoning became endemic in the therapeutic community decades ago as part of the “recovered memory” movement, which led to many false accusations of abuse.” Estes and Lambrecht question whether it is “prudent to present sensory details and emotion as “evidence” of an allegation” and shared concern “that using this terminology could lead our investigators to be discredited in court.”

Two independent reports issued in the past month refute Trauma-Informed theories as scientifically flawed and incompatible with constitutionally rooted notions of due process and fundamental fairness.

In early September the Center for Prosecutor Integrity issued a Special Report that analyzes and refutes many claims of Trauma-Informed proponents. Written by behavioral neuroscientists Sujeeta Bhatt, PhD and Susan Brandon, PhD, the report concludes:
“Examination of studies across these domains did not reveal any evidence to support the notion that victims of potentially traumatic events require interview methods that are different from those that have been shown to be most effective for accounts of events that are presumably not traumatic.”

In August the Association of Title IX Administrators – ATIXA – issued a Position Statement on “Trauma-Informed Training and the Neurobiology of Trauma.” The strongly worded report concludes,

“we need to resist biased and biasing trainings and the temptation to allow evidence to be influenced by conclusions about the neurobiology of trauma that are not empirically supported.”

Trauma-informed approaches do not allow for the presumption of innocence, a neutral civil liberty, and our constitutional right. The concern to provide justice for “victims” seems to have trumped concern for avoiding wrongful convictions and the seeking of truth and facts! Our young men in the military deserve a fair process that honors our constitution and the military’s ethical codes. The DoD should not be waging war against its members who are fighting for our freedoms, but against unsound policies that seek to destroy what America is about.

Source: http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1459

Investigations Trauma Informed

‘Trauma-Informed’ Bulletin Is Replete with Misrepresentations and Mistakes: CPI Report

Post author By saveadmin
Post date September 3, 2019

‘Trauma-Informed’ Bulletin Is Replete with Misrepresentations and Mistakes: CPI Report

WASHINGTON / September 3, 2019 – A new Center for Prosecutor Integrity report documents factual errors and faulty conclusions contained in a 2019 bulletin published by End Violence Against Women International. Titled, “Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims,” the EVAWI bulletin purports to summarize the research on the neurobiology of trauma and provide recommendations for law enforcement personnel who investigate allegations of sexual assault.

The new CPI report was researched and written by behavioral neuroscientists Sujeeta Bhatt, PhD and Susan Brandon, PhD.

“Trauma-informed” proponents claim that persons who experience sexual assault are unable to accurately recall the incident, and that inconsistencies in their accounts should be taken as proof that the assault occurred. But citing numerous studies, Bhatt and Brandon reject this theory, concluding, “The impacts of trauma on memories and recall are widely variable. The stress accompanying and resulting from trauma may produce strong memories, impair memories, have no effect on memories, or increase the possibility of false memories.”

Bhatt and Brandon argue that criminal investigators do not need to use special interview methods with purported trauma victims: “Examination of studies across these domains did not reveal any evidence to support the notion that victims of potentially traumatic events require interview methods that are different from those that have been shown to be most effective for accounts of events that are presumably not traumatic.”

Their critique is more fundamental, saying an “undue emphasis on brain science increases the likelihood of hindering an investigation” because it can promote confirmation bias and undue stereotypes. The new CPI report is available online (1).

Separately, the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) recently published a Position Paper on “Trauma-Informed Training and Neurobiology of Trauma” that sharply criticizes the assumptions, precepts, and methods of trauma-informed advocates (2).

Citations:

Press release is posted here: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/trauma-informed-bulletin-is-replete-with-misrepresentations-and-mistakes-cpi-report/

Believe the Victim Trauma Informed

Highlights of New Special Report on the Neurobiology of Trauma

Post author By saveadmin
Post date September 1, 2019

Recently the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) published a Position Paper on “Trauma-Informed Training and Neurobiology of Trauma” that sharply criticizes the assumptions, precepts, and methods of trauma-informed proponents. Now, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity has published a separate report that takes a deep-dive into the science behind trauma-informed theory, as expounded in a bulletin written by End Violence Against Women International titled, “Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims.”

Following are highlights from the CPI report titled, “A Review of ‘Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims:’ Are We Trading One Prejudice for Another?“, researched and written by behavioral neuroscientists Sujeeta Bhatt, PhD and Susan Brandon, PhD. A large part of their review, which contains 250 citations from the scientific literature, documents the “Over-Simplification and Errors in Descriptions of Brain Processes” of the EVAWI report:

“The impacts of trauma on memories and recall are widely variable. The stress accompanying and resulting from trauma may produce strong memories (McGaugh, 2000; McGaugh and Roozendaal, 2002), impair memories (Salehi, Cordero, and Sandi, 2010), have no effect on memories (Shermohammed, Davidow, Somerville, and Murty, 2019), or increase the possibility of false memories.” (p. 5)
“The [EVAWI] authors describe one of the roles of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) as being to integrate “memory data into narrative ‘stories’ (p. 9);” however, recent research shows that the neural networks involved in narrative formation are currently unknown.” (p. 5)
“The description of ‘attachment circuitry,’ defined as that “which allows us to connect emotionally with other human beings,” does not appear to be based on current findings.” (p. 6)
“The authors incorrectly name and describe “habitual behaviors” demonstrated by sexual assault victims.” (p. 7)

Bhatt and Brandon caution that an “undue emphasis on brain science increases the likelihood of hindering an investigation” because it can promote confirmation bias and undue stereotypes, and create a false information effect (pp. 7-9) More fundamentally, the authors argue that criminal investigators do not need to use special interview methods with purported trauma victims:

“Examination of studies across these domains did not reveal any evidence to support the notion that victims of potentially traumatic events require interview methods that are different from those that have been shown to be most effective for accounts of events that are presumably not traumatic. In fact, one of the most robust – and most studied – methods of interviewing victims and witnesses, the Cognitive Interview, was constructed specifically for such interviews, as part of a request to the academic and scientific community by the U.S. Department of Justice to construct an interview protocol that was different from the accusatorial protocols common to American police departments (Kelly and Meissner, 2015; Meissner, et al., 2014). Previous reviews of interview protocols purported to be especially useful to trauma victims (e.g., the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview; Meissner, 2014) also have failed to support the assertion that memory processes (encoding, consolidation, or recall) are so unique in instances of trauma that special protocols are necessary or even useful.” (p. 9)

Bhatt and Brandon conclude their analysis with this stunning critique:

“Unfortunately, the neurobiology of trauma information provided in the Wilson et al. (2019) bulletin does not contribute in any meaningful way to justify the need for trauma-informed interviewing methods….research has indicated that resilience, use of psychopharmacologic substances (e.g., drugs, alcohol), and frequency and type of trauma all affect the subjective experience of trauma, however, none of these mitigating factors are described in the Wilson et al. (2019) bulletin.

“The meaning of our current understanding of the brain, as described above, for investigations of assault is difficult to ascertain because the impacts of traumatic experiences on memories and recall are variable, as noted. This means that an investigator who makes assumptions about the status of an alleged victim risks biasing the investigation in ways that increase the likelihood that either the innocent will be found guilty or the guilty will go free.

“In fact, assertions about brain processes in instances of trauma run the risk of leading an investigator to assume that he or she knows how the case should proceed, what the victim feels, or what should happen with respect to the suspect.” (p. 10)

In short, “Over-generalizations and assertions in the bulletin that cannot be supported by current science make some of these descriptions problematic for the intended audience(s)” (p. 5), and “As written, the bulletin does not provide sufficient evidence to support conclusions reached on the basis of the anecdotes” (p. 3).

Campus Trauma Informed Violence Against Women Act

Highlights from the ATIXA Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Methods

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 23, 2019

On August 22, the Association of Title IX Administrators – ATIXA – issued a Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Training and the Neurobiology of Trauma that exposes the many fallacies of “trauma-informed” concepts and methods: https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf

The Statement begins by quoting a claim that is often cited in trauma-informed training materials:

“Trauma leaves tracks on its victims. It is very difficult to fake or ‘act’ the sorts of symptoms [of trauma]. When someone displays these symptoms, this alone is evidence that they have been victimized.”

ATIXA delivers a strong rebuke to this claim: “Proffered as truth that a mere claim of trauma is proof of assault, this quote should be troubling to any rational mind. To assert that trauma cannot be faked is as flagrantly false a claim as asserting that trauma is proof of assault.”

The eight-page Statement goes on to address many of the flaws of the claims of trauma-informed proponents:

“Using a study of lab rats to reach any conclusion about the story of a victim of sexual assault is troubling..Do rats tell stories? Do they experience sexual assault?..there is science behind these ideas, but they are not empirical conclusions.”
“The ‘Neurobiology of Trauma’ should not significantly influence the way that colleges and schools evaluate evidence… improper use of trauma-informed methods turns trauma into evidence, which IS junk science and goes way too far.”
“application [of trauma-informed theories].. has gotten way ahead of the actual science… is being misapplied, and…some purveyors of this knowledge are politically motivated to extrapolate well beyond any reasonable empirical conclusions…”
There’s an “important distinction between practices that help an impacted party retrieve memory and avoid gratuitous re-triggering…and those [relying] on neurobiological theories to influence the interpretation of evidence.” Only the former is correct.

The ATIXA Statement concludes with this unequivocal message:

“The truth is that we understand perhaps 1/100^th of 1% of what we need to know and may someday understand about how the brain responds to trauma. With such a nascent body of knowledge, most conclusions are premature. It is irresponsible to attribute much about how we interpret evidence to existing neuroscientific understandings of trauma, except to correlate scrambled memory encoding and retrieval with life-threatening incidents, and to see that flight/fright/freeze may be common reactions to such incidents. That is about it. Anything more than that is really theory, thus far unsupported by conclusive evidence.”

The ATIXA report may turn out to be a game-changer.

Quotes compiled by Cynthia Garrett, Esq.