In a recent article by Tracey De Simone and Susan Heward-Belle*, they describe the "cultural tsunami" triggered by the Safe & Together Model in Queensland Australia. In this episode, Ruth interviews David about the theory of change behind the Safe & Together Model and how Safe & Together Institute is attempting to remake the practice of systems. David outlines four goals that drive the work:
Ruth guides the conversation to how all this produces better outcomes for adult and child survivors. David calls out practitioners to remember that professionals are not the arbiters of their own success--adult and child survivors are the arbiters of our success.
*De Simone, T., & Heward-Belle, S. (2020). Evidencing better child protection practice: Why representations of domestic violence matter. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(4), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1840957
Now available! Mapping the Perpetrator’s Pattern: A Practitioner’s Tool for Improving Assessment, Intervention, and Outcomes The web-based Perpetrator Pattern Mapping Tool is a virtual practice tool for improving assessment, intervention, and outcomes through a perpetrator pattern-based approach. The tool allows practitioners to apply the Model’s critical concepts and principles to their current case load in real
Check out David Mandel's new book "Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to transform the way we keep children safe from domestic violence."
In a recent article by Tracey De Simone and Susan Heward-Belle*, they describe the "cultural tsunami" triggered by the Safe & Together Model in Queensland Australia. In this episode, Ruth interviews David about the theory of change behind the Safe & Together Model and how Safe & Together Institute is attempting to remake the practice of systems. David outlines four goals that drive the work:
Ruth guides the conversation to how all this produces better outcomes for adult and child survivors. David calls out practitioners to remember that professionals are not the arbiters of their own success--adult and child survivors are the arbiters of our success.
*De Simone, T., & Heward-Belle, S. (2020). Evidencing better child protection practice: Why representations of domestic violence matter. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(4), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1840957
Now available! Mapping the Perpetrator’s Pattern: A Practitioner’s Tool for Improving Assessment, Intervention, and Outcomes The web-based Perpetrator Pattern Mapping Tool is a virtual practice tool for improving assessment, intervention, and outcomes through a perpetrator pattern-based approach. The tool allows practitioners to apply the Model’s critical concepts and principles to their current case load in real
Check out David Mandel's new book "Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to transform the way we keep children safe from domestic violence."
Speaker 1: [00:00:16] And we're back and we're back. [00:00:17][1.5]
Speaker 2: [00:00:18] Well, this is partnered with the survivor. We're not going to say the episode, no, because I'm still here three [00:00:24][5.5]
Speaker 1: [00:00:25] three four seven two three three. I can remember now where they were later on this season. I can't remember. [00:00:29][4.6]
Speaker 2: [00:00:31] And I'm rooster and this Mandel with the e-learning and communications manager at the Safe and Together Institute. [00:00:36][5.2]
Speaker 1: [00:00:37] And I'm David Mandel, executive director of the Tape and Together Institute, [00:00:39][2.5]
Speaker 2: [00:00:40] and we are doing interview podcasts today of David [00:00:45][4.7]
Speaker 1: [00:00:46] Me and not somebody else's [00:00:47][1.6]
Speaker 2: [00:00:48] interview. You know, this is happening. [00:00:49][1.3]
Speaker 1: [00:00:50] Chuck, it wasn't ready or not ready [00:00:52][2.7]
Speaker 2: [00:00:53] yet, so I'm going to introduce the topic today. We are looking at seven together as an agency for change. A lot of people look at safe and together and see a training organization until they get really deeply into the processes that we employ and the tools that we employ. And then it becomes very clear to people that this changes practices, that this changes perceptions and it changes the language with which a lot of practitioners speak about domestic abuse and child well-being. And so I wanted to have an episode where we talked about safe and together as an agent for change and what the tools are that we use in order to help shift systems that are that are in contact with domestic violence victims and survivors, adult and child survivors as well, which is a lot of systems, right? [00:01:52][59.1]
Speaker 1: [00:01:53] A lot and a lot of system work. And I have two big things come to mind as soon as you start saying that one is is safe and the other. In many ways, the motto of the institute is about a paradigm shift. I think a lot of times that people think about training as well, we're going to get information and I'm going to learn about a new drug and it's its effectiveness. I'm going to learn about how to implement a model. I'm going to learn how to do a new tool. And a lot of times I think people think of training as a way to transmit information. And and we're really about not only transmitting information, but also our teaching skills. And we're also about getting people to really rethink their approach to domestic violence and children and to working with families. So that's one part which we can talk about. And then the other part is that that in changing the paradigm by giving people a common language so they can really work more effectively across systems that are often independent, siloed, often don't do well communicating with each other, and often reinforce some of the worst habits and practitioners. And so, so I think, oh, well, same for the other incident does do training as one of the things that we do, our vision for our self and our vision for the impact our partner agencies are having or anybody we're trained where this is really about this broader, broader movement to change. Mm hmm. And so and we've got a whole third of change behind it and research we're developing and all these different things. So it's it's it's really it's we're so much bigger as an organization than just training we deliver. [00:03:35][102.6]
Speaker 2: [00:03:36] So how how how do how does safe and together use the the model and the trainings and the language to create change? And what is that vision? Because we're sitting at the center of a lot of very large, powerful systems that have a tremendous amount of influence over people's lives, over the well-being of children and families. And they all have different practices, different ways of doing thing, different policies, different mandates, different funding streams. So how is it that we are sitting at the center of this? And how is it that we're trying to create change within those agencies? [00:04:15][38.7]
Speaker 1: [00:04:16] I think the first thing I would say is that we've got a vision for what we want different across the board. You know, we want. Children and families to be safer and stronger, I mean, and that's super obvious, I hope that would be so obvious to anybody, anybody in social justice work or Human Services work. That's that's that's one of the primary goals. So that to me is sort of a an obvious one. The less obvious things I think in some ways is we want to end mother blaming right in the context of domestic violence. We want it to stop, right? We want to stop an approach or that's become prevalent, which is that people look at the behaviors of victims, usually moms, when their kids involve and are are critical of them. And and don't look at the perpetrators behavior. [00:05:04][48.1]
Speaker 2: [00:05:05] You mean the usually the father? That's right. That's right. But not always, [00:05:09][4.4]
Speaker 1: [00:05:10] but not always. Right? And and so that that that we really have this very ambitious, but I think doable goal, which is that that mother blaming does nothing to help keep kids safe. Right? In fact, you actually can work against keeping kids safe. So I think this idea that any any child serving agency really needs to reflect on and think about it and anybody who cares about kids needs to really understand that that when domestic violence in kids is approached from a failure to protect, approach or mother planning for that, that's that's that's bad for kids. It's bad for survivors. See, bad for for people, choose violence and who want to change. Mm-Hmm. Mm-Hmm. And so we have this real vision that that we can end mother blaming [00:05:51][41.6]
Speaker 2: [00:05:52] well and ending mother blaming is is a negatively focused statement. There is a positively focused statement that safe and together employers and is the mirror to that. [00:06:02][10.1]
Speaker 1: [00:06:02] And that is the big one is we actually want to transform. This is super big. We actually want to transform the way systems think about fatherhood. Right? You know, in the subset which is which is probably where you're going, is this idea of perpetration as a parenting choice? You know, and I think that we really have this vision that that systems have really done a poor job of operationalizing thinking about what fathers do behaviorally to make families stronger or weaker. Right. So when we say change the understanding of fatherhood, we want to move away from the simplistic view of breadwinner or not criminal or not present father or not, which is all about the addict or an addict or not, which is really not behavioral and really doesn't create a way for people to engage men in a meaningful way to work with men who have been marginalized or victims of of historical trauma or colonization. You know, it doesn't give us a way to really work with those families and to strengthen them. But that we really mean in some ways, it's super simple. And you said that talked about this the other day, this something that Jeremiah Meyer wants our friend and colleague who does work with family courts that we hold men and women to the same standards around parenting. [00:07:16][73.7]
Speaker 2: [00:07:17] Well, you know, that's interesting because a lot of people would say that they do hold men and women to the same standards as parenting. So can you give us examples and instances of of that not actually occurring within systems? [00:07:28][11.8]
Speaker 1: [00:07:29] I think the most basic one I give over and over again that I think most people can relate to is if a social worker walks into a home, they're going to ask the mother if the children are medically up to date. I mean, I think it's it's that basic. It's really it's it's in front of our faces, the language that people use, which is he's babysitting his own kid that's embedded in all those different things. Our expectations that the mothers are going to follow the doctor's recommendations or the therapist recommendations and make sure the kids are going to get medication or, you know, go to therapy. It's it's in those ways that we act as if men's day to day behaviors and families don't matter. And the inverse is, you know, there are plenty of families out there where a mother has substance issue and the kids are doing well because the father is, is is stepping up and doing the things that right. So the kid needs it [00:08:21][52.3]
Speaker 2: [00:08:21] actually leaves fathers not being seen. [00:08:24][2.2]
Speaker 1: [00:08:24] That's right. And this is where we're really trying. And I was just talking to somebody about this the other day. We're really trying to sort of connect the dots on the on the the father involvement side of things where people are like looking at marginalized men. You know, in the US, it's black men, it's brown men, you know, it's indigenous men who have been excluded from a lot of services who have been ignored, but often over criminalized and over, you know, responded to with a castle approach. That's the way the system relates to that. Mm hmm. And instead, you know, we're really trying to say, wait a second, there's a lot of a lot of parenting that's being done by these men. That's really good. And they need to be seen as important to their families. Not disposable, not fodder for prisons. But really, we need to commit to helping these men be better parents. We also need to see the way that they are good parents already. And there's there's research out there, there. Some of that says that black fathers are actually better fathers than white fathers, but you don't hear that talked about [00:09:23][58.5]
Speaker 2: [00:09:24] right because of the racism in the. [00:09:25][1.3]
Speaker 1: [00:09:25] Embracing the system. So on one side, we want to name these things and say, wait a second, you know you need to. Value these men at the same time, you don't want value to be based on rates, you are value to be based on behaviors and because we want also guard against the other side of things, which is fathers rights movements, which are often been filled with with men who have a history of abuse, saying I have a right to my kid. It doesn't matter whether I beat up their mom. It doesn't matter what kind of parent I am and which systems have particularly Family Court have colluded with those men, sometimes for them and will show up seem very committed or I cry or all their appointments. And remember, a judge said to me, Show up with a white shirt. You look good. You say, I love my kids and you get your kids. It's that simple. And and so we don't want to be we don't want to support a kind of rights approach. I'm a parent. I'm the father. Therefore, it doesn't matter what I do. I think we all can agree that the quality of parenting should matter, right? And it's a really basic thing. All we're saying is let's pay more attention to the behaviors which include statements, actions of fathers value, the good ones support people becoming better, behaving parents right and then sort of be able to look at the ones who aren't doing well and saying your behaviors are harmful to me. And she was really pretty straightforward and simple, very pragmatic. And so when you say, what are we failing? People should be listening and looking, where am I engaging in behavioral conversations about fathers roles in families, even if I don't meet with the father? Am I asking the mother and the kids about how the father acts in the family, what the father does to make the family stronger or weaker? Any of those things, you know, move us in a direction I think is is puts us on the right track. [00:11:21][115.4]
Speaker 2: [00:11:21] And in this, this behavioral focus, which is in the mapping tool, is non gendered, and it is focused towards either one of the parents so it can be equally applied. But that's the practice part of it. Right. How does this change the systems around us? What is the what is the way by which it does this? [00:11:40][19.4]
Speaker 1: [00:11:41] That's right. And so that brings us to the fourth item, you know, and this is where I still Sundays think we're taking a leap of faith, but more and more, I'm seeing the evidence that this is right. So this is all these four things that I'm naming a part of our theory of change. So this is all thought out. It's it's actually part of our vision and this idea that child protection agencies, statutory child welfare agencies can be should be drivers of change in this area. And that's a radical leap because historically, because of failure to protect approach has been embedded in those systems that they've often done a lot of harm to domestic violence survivors. Right. You know, so the vision is that that those systems now can be allies to individual women, but that they can be agents of change, drivers of change in their communities because of their role and their connections and where they sit in systems. So I'll give you I'll give you some examples. I was involved in a very large project that the federal government in the U.S. funded about 20 years ago, called the Green Book and had a longer name. But the Green Book became the shorthand, right? And it was about getting collaboration going between child welfare courts, domestic violence advocates and settler child welfare. And so they were meant to be co-equal participants and coordination. Well, it turned out that that coequal model really didn't work in a lot of ways. And one of the ways it didn't work is that child welfare was really in the driver's seat in a lot of ways because, for instance, they were the ones who would bring cases to the court. The court didn't generate the cases right. Child welfare brought their case. Their facts quote-unquote to the courts, right. And so they would often bring it from a failure to protect approach. You got the more domestic violence they brought, more failure to protect cases to the courts. [00:13:40][119.4]
Speaker 2: [00:13:40] They've now influenced the whole chain [00:13:42][1.3]
Speaker 1: [00:13:42] and the whole chain. You know, and and that advocates were often on the outside that system without a lot of influence on it. And so, you know, so what we're really suggesting, you know, is saying, what is it? We really need to own this idea that child welfare is very influential. One is they are the in a community and a state. They are the agency charged by us. You know, they're the government agency charged to be the last line of defense against kids. So therefore, kind of our ideals are on kids kind of come together there. And so therefore they've got a responsibility to do this right? Right. You know, in the cases they have and they have the ability to influence their workers through training through policy. So one of the ways they change is they change their social workers to do better practice. Right. So directly. But also, they have influence on multidisciplinary teams they sit in. They have influence through their findings and their case decisions and how those impact Family Court, which is a hugely huge area. Right. So if you go in and you find no domestic abuse charges against a perpetrator in child protection and then that case goes to custody and access and family court, right? Then the perpetrator, if they've got a good lawyer, say, Wait, we had an open case. There is no domestic violence harm to the kids. It's close where they investigated it and nothing happened to us. And so they they had no finding. So all of those things, you know, or if a survivor gets caught up in that system because she's a trauma survivor, gets blamed for her parenting and that then becomes a tool that gets used against her and family court. So by fixing child welfare, you not only change, although the interaction social workers have with families and make them better. And we've seen this, by the way, in Florida, for instance, in the United States, you know, when child welfare adopted safe and together in some jurisdictions, they saw a 50 percent reduction out of home removals. Right. Cases relate to domestic violence. [00:15:42][120.0]
Speaker 2: [00:15:42] Well, that's interesting. I'm going to stop you right there, OK? Because there's been a lot of news articles about Florida and its failure to protect system and how it's harming domestic violence victims in our in our in our desire to make change to shift agencies. We do come up with the challenge and that is is that a lot of agencies touching upon child welfare and domestic violence have really high drift rates. And so we can go in and train people and then, boom, they're gone six months later. So in that context, what how is safe and together continuing to make change, right? Regardless of the realities within those agencies and within those sectors, [00:16:26][44.0]
Speaker 1: [00:16:27] I'm sorry, I'm just starting to use the word drift, and our son, Nick uses the word drift to describe cars and snowboarding. So I'm just like the the word drafter. My mind went off in the other direction. But other things, I mean, change is hard. And actually, when I talk to agencies and I think they can handle this, I say to them, this is a 10 year project. You know, I say, I say, I mean, I think we need to be realistic. [00:16:49][21.8]
Speaker 2: [00:16:50] But I think there's something else behind that is that the language that safe and together uses once it works its way into the culture and agency, or once it's being widely used by people that are in relation to that agency, community partners, mental health, addiction, you know, advocates, you know, people in their sphere, the language of safe and together itself is really easily identifiable. You see the logic and the pragmatism and the in it and context it provides. And so if I were answering the question, which I'm not, but now I am, I would say that deeply embedded in the model is the language of change. And it's very similar to when we saw cultural shifts around sexual assault. You know, about 10 years ago, when we started to see the language shift from a focus on survivors and victims to perpetrators and their choices. So that's how I see it happening and occurring. Even though there's a lot of drift and a lot of of change with improvizations themselves. [00:17:58][67.4]
Speaker 1: [00:17:58] Right? I mean, I think, you know, you're right. I mean, I have numbers of examples where you know that when new workers get trained in this and then they're told, Oh, we used to do differently, they go, that doesn't make any sense. So self-evidently the better way to do it. Right. And I in Florida actually had one experience where I was training one region in this model, and they invited some colleagues from a different region to sit in case they wanted to adopt it. And I checked in with those folks at lunch and said, How's it going? And this is what they said to me. They said, we're having a hard time following the conversation because it feels so different than the way we talk. Yes. So you're right. Once the language gets in there, it gets embedded. You know, it's sort of you can't unlearn it. And and it takes a really wide systems approach. And this is why we're where, you know, we're not we're not just a training organization, we're a system change organization because we're finding, for instance, now that we are we're doing organizational assessments using our coaching model with the idea that we're we're scaling up a group of 10 to 20 people in agency to teach them about the model, then having them reflect on their systems, their data collection, their quality assurance, their training, their service contracts, their policies and then having them come back and kind of raid it and then discuss it with us and develop a plan for change. We weren't doing that 10 years ago when we started doing work with Florida. I mean, it's sort of we have to like every agency that we work with, we're kind of in a different place in our own growth when we start working with them. And so, so, you know, and it's really hard, it's it. You said turn off. Over. You've got a just policy, you've got to adjust your training, you've got to look at your service, you have new mandates, you have new mandates, you have new government, you know, government reform, you know, agencies, you know, reorganize. I mean, just all these things get in the way of change. It's not because people aren't committed to domestic violence change, actually, they're dealing with all their other stuff as well. But we are, you know, our organizational assessment as one Twitter user right now to try to help agencies think more comprehensively about change. We're just about to embark on this new project. When New South Wales, in conjunction with Cathy Humphreys and her team, where we're actually looking at the intersection of domestic violence, mental health and addiction issues and getting those systems to talk to each other better using that common language that you're talking about, making sure that mental health and addiction issues are looked at in the context of domestic violence and that that professionals, we're giving them language, we're giving them meeting formats and these are things we didn't have 10 years ago, you know, so when when we're talking, you and I are talking about this and talking about saving together as a systems change agency, you know, it's it is an evolution, right? Right. You know, even though I've been thinking about systems from the beginning that this is we're really in a much different place now [00:20:57][179.0]
Speaker 2: [00:20:58] where we've scaled up to have a partner agency program, and that has really blossomed in burgeoned, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. And we see lots of movement in the UK as well as in North America at this point. Can you talk a little bit about how you saw partner agencies as being a really integral part to this theory of change? [00:21:21][23.0]
Speaker 1: [00:21:22] I would sound smarter than than I than I am if I if if I didn't mention that we kind of backed into partner agencies as a as an agent of change. I mean, I don't want to get credit for that. Mean, the partner agency relationship, you know, was created because we were getting a lot of training requests in Australia and there were layers, a limit to how much we could travel right from the U.S. to train there and also concerns about sustainability over time and the cost associated with with with training from overseas. But also that if people didn't own it. And one of the sayings I have particular about child safety is I want this to get into their DNA and I want it to be an add on. I don't want to be another flavor of the month or another model, and [00:22:02][40.0]
Speaker 2: [00:22:02] you want it to be culturally appropriate to the culture. [00:22:04][1.8]
Speaker 1: [00:22:04] That's right. I want to respond to local context. And so, you know, we sort of this this trainer certification program where we certify individual people to be kind of licensed or certified to deliver the model, deliver the certain curricula. And then they had to be associated with an agency that we call the partner agency. And so that's where we started. And it was really about quality assurance of trainings, localized delivery, all these things. But as we started working with folks and they they committed to this, we realized, well, they're committing to this larger vision. They're committing to this view of of changing their agencies and maybe even change in their communities. And we need to figure out how to support that. And so we evolved really in response to the excitement and passion of those partner agencies. And in Queensland, child safety is, you know, is a great example. I'll do a shout out send out shout out to the folks at Queensland Child Safety because they really bought it. They were the first group of certified trainers and they started with five and now I think they have 23. So that's just one simple measure of sort of buy in. But really, they've committed to doing our core training to many of their social workers. We've been involved with them around a policy level revolving around a practice. My level, then super exciting things go along with this. They launched Walking With That, which is a social work case management program to help them do a better job working with particularly Aboriginal fathers who are violent. But all fathers are violent, and it's a wonderful program and it's again about embedding DV informed practice, and it was inspired by safe and together was influenced by safer together. But it was it was really this great thing to really create practice with men who are choosing violence. That's one thing. Then they also brokered us to do training with their legal services, folks. So, so again, when you think about this model of child safety organizations being this driver of change, this is a great example because their training in their own hierarchy, their training, their staff, their training, their supervisors, their workers, but then it starts spreading out, you know, so we're walking with dads, training their legal folks. So they're they're legal folks, they're legal aid attorneys. They all got trained and and then that training has had wider repercussions. It's touching out to the family court system in Australia, but also right now they're doing work training, they're high risk teams, which involves criminal justice partners, child welfare, a lot of other focusing on the table to manage these high risk domestic violence cases. They're getting trained in the core, and this has all been supported by our collaboration with Cathy Humphreys, where we've done communities of practice there in Queensland has bought in and been part of these communities of practice and and recently, Tracy Do, someone who is one of their attorneys, wrote an article that said that this is a cultural tsunami was the term she used. Mm-Hmm. And so she's identifying. The not only is there practice change, but there's a mindset change, right? And she's really clear as a as a child safety attorney, a child protection attorney, that what they do in their court makes a profound impact on what happens in other systems, including Criminal Court and Family Court. [00:25:32][208.0]
Speaker 2: [00:25:32] Yeah, it's just very funny to me as a person who's very eco systemic in my thinking that these siloed systems sort of lacked the awareness of their impact upon each other and how that impacted families and survivors, and was creating this on accountability for perpetrators of violence and coercive control. And so we've talked about the partner agencies and and how they fit into that. That's one tool that we use in order to create this, this tsunami of change. I like that I like. I want to be here. [00:26:10][37.9]
Speaker 1: [00:26:11] Term was a cultural tsunami, cultural tsunami, but I may be getting it wrong, actually. Sorry, Tracy, if you're listening that I may be getting the term rocks out of the article in front of me. Yes, please, you know. [00:26:19][8.6]
Speaker 2: [00:26:20] But I would like to. I'd like to hear about some of the other tools as you perceive them for this, for this, this cultural tsunami. [00:26:27][7.4]
Speaker 1: [00:26:28] Well, I think the other big one, I think, you know, you know, something about this is our e-learning. You know, I know a little bit you might know that. What are you learning here? E-learning major? But I think one of the things that we we realized with the e-learning is that it really extends our reach, right? And it really extends our ability to reach people with with anything from a basic message around it. You know, from our introduction to the motto, of course, to, you know, something on intersections, domestic violence, mental health and subdues or working with men as parents. And so that the material can get out to more people. And I think we have like 7000 people in our e-learning virtual academy right now. So starting about numbers, I and I started realizing that between the partner agency relationship and where we are training, which is thousands of people across the globe every year, you know, you think about the Ministry of Defense training and anywhere that the U.K. Department of Defense is effective, which is all over the world, all over the world. You know, you think about that reach, you think about the partner agencies across Australia or across the UK or across North America. And then the e-learning extensive read. So for instance, New Mexico with CAFTA, which is a fabulous partner here in North America. They've got a lot of e-learning licenses that they purchased, and they're using it to train into their community partners because they really buy into this idea that. The more other partners, because they don't work in isolation. Child protection, I know most of you listening know this, but you know they're very dependent on the opinions and feedback and assessment of their community partners, their child and family agencies, their their their their mental health agencies. You know, what happens in different courts matters to them. And so they've really identified that and their secretary, you know, is really committed to this, this sort of holistic approach. The more they can reach out, so they're taking some of their money and dedicating it to training advocates for training men's behavior change programs to courts, to their their mental health and behavioral health providers with the idea that their families benefit. Right, right. And that's the kind of leadership that we really see when, again, when we see. We want to turn child protection, which is often been viewed very skeptically for good reason from from the women sector or from survivors themselves, very skeptically. We want to change them into an ally because we believe their shared goal. This is not like based on nothing is the idea that child welfare wants the violence to stop. They care to do well. Survivors want the violence to stop and their kids do well, their shared interests. Right. And we believe that safe and together creates the opportunities for people to work better together around those shared interests. [00:29:17][169.0]
Speaker 2: [00:29:18] So we've gone through some of the tools, and I would like for you to talk about your big vision. What does an ecology of domestic abuse, domestic violence and form systems look like? How does it operate together and what should be the outcomes for survivors and children? [00:29:41][22.6]
Speaker 1: [00:29:42] Well, the outcomes for survivors and children, you know, should be greater safety, greater self-determination, you know, more choices, more agency in their life and better quality of life. To me, that's super super simple stability, a more nurturing environment, you know? Beyond that, I think survivors from historically marginalized and and oppressed communities, they want healing in their community, which means that. Partners who choose violence get help to be better people and better parents, and I think it's I think it's we can't separate those things out. I think for too long we've sort of said in a in a kind of white western model of feminism, you can save women and ignore the men. I don't think that's possible. I think that's sort of for me, it's it's you have to tackle these things and deal with the tensions and deal with the challenges [00:30:38][55.4]
Speaker 2: [00:30:38] in that right. And as a survivor of child abuse, I can say, please, please save our fathers because we actually want them in our lives and we care about them. And that being ignored by systems is incredibly painful and actually incredibly dangerous as well. So, you know, when I think about eco systemic responses to domestic violence survivors, victims, adult and child doesn't matter. I really think about responsive systems that are able to partner with survivors in order for them to ascertain what their needs are and that that would be the stance that we take as a culture. But also the word preponderance, right? [00:31:24][45.2]
Speaker 1: [00:31:24] Yeah, OK. Yes. Provided open the door. Preponderance of the good as a good word. And I think part of it, just to underline, you know, when you and I were talking before we started taping this show about that, we're talking about changing systems, not just around services for survivors, because that implies oftentimes survivors are broken. They need these services, right? And that's not always true, but I think it's sort of we want a really transformation of the systems that better at service delivery, want them to be thinking differently. And part of the way we do that, I think, is embedding the term partnering into the model. You know, it's part of the second career component. We talked about that on the first show of the season. But really, that partnering that language of what did we do, what are we doing to partner with survivors is inherently about putting are as professionals and systems are behavior under the microscope. The question how did we partner with a survivor? Mhm. Here's a fundamentally different question with different answers than what services do we provide her? Yes. Yeah. You know, it just is a totally different question and much more open and much bigger because partnership built into it is that that the other person is respected as a human being. They're seen as human beings with their own needs, with their own values, with their own, their own position, ality, their own socio economic, cultural context. All those things we we partner differently with an Aboriginal woman living in rural Australia. You know where it's a small community cut off, maybe from the rest of the world. You know, for three months a year because of the rainy season, even differently than we we we do. Somebody was living in Victoria, or maybe partly different with somebody as Aboriginal in Queensland than we are in Western Australia. I mean, just it sort of, you know, you bring it down to those levels. [00:33:25][121.1]
Speaker 2: [00:33:27] So that's really just a respect and honoring, for [00:33:29][2.2]
Speaker 1: [00:33:29] sure on the ground. And I [00:33:32][2.2]
Speaker 2: [00:33:32] hope that we're not always good at that when we [00:33:33][1.6]
Speaker 1: [00:33:34] create the right system. But I think again, it's the language of partnering it again. Is, is, is I'm a lot about behaviors and practice. And so partnering gives anybody practicing safe and together. So if you're listening and you're talking to a colleague, you know, you can use and say, Well, how did you partner with the survivor? You can use this immediately without major changes in your organization. And so I really expect to be partnered [00:33:58][24.1]
Speaker 2: [00:33:58] with and that's the preponderance, right? So the preponderance of your impact should be beneficial to the families that you're serving and should have the the impact that you claim to have, right? [00:34:09][11.0]
Speaker 1: [00:34:10] That's just that's a rational that's right. [00:34:12][2.8]
Speaker 2: [00:34:13] But currently, yeah, most survivors and victims do not want to engage the system. And and in fact, only one in five survivors calls law enforcement in order to intervene. And this is directly a result of the inefficiencies or the dangers within the system that presents to survivors and their children themselves. Right. So in fixing that, then we have we have a greater willingness to engage systems, to create safety and to bring more safety to children. [00:34:45][31.5]
Speaker 1: [00:34:46] Well, you and I have been talking about this for a while, but the concept of net promoter scores, which is, [00:34:50][4.2]
Speaker 2: [00:34:52] yeah, you did pull me in outside the domestic. I did. [00:34:55][3.2]
Speaker 1: [00:34:56] I did, you know? And I think it's a fascinating idea because it's this concept. And if anybody's ever been on the phone with customer service and then said, Well, you stay on the line for answer a one question survey, that's a net promoter score. You know, I get that as a flier, my airline that I fly with all the time says, Would you hire this person back? Would you hire this person as an employee for your business, right? You know, and I think it's fascinating because it really encapsulates lots of things about how I feel about the interaction, their professionalism, the quality. Did it help me? And so you and I have been talking about net promoter scores for a while, and I've been so to talk about this with some of our potential clients around this, which is how are they measuring with survivors, you know, changes and one of things we don't even do. Forget that for a second, I'll come back to it. But most systems don't know if they're how many domestic violence cases they have on their caseload in child welfare. They often don't know how many of those kids are coming into care, how long they're staying into care. We're not even doing these other markers, which are even easier to do in some ways. But net promoter score in this context might be a question like this, which is would you recommend involvement with this agency? Mm hmm. For somebody else who was in a similar situation to you, I [00:36:07][71.2]
Speaker 2: [00:36:07] wonder how many people when you say that, they say, Oh, [00:36:09][2.0]
Speaker 1: [00:36:10] well, I think it's really important for us to be. I think we have to really reflect on does what we do to what we hope it does. And I think. For me, at least as somebody who worked with men for a long time, 20 years to are violent. I had to every day questioned my efficacy and my own senses and my own experience in the room because my experience of a good interaction with a guy in the room might not translate at all to things getting better for his partner. [00:36:47][36.6]
Speaker 2: [00:36:47] Right? Right. [00:36:48][0.6]
Speaker 1: [00:36:49] Fundamentally, I had to be skeptical of my own experience as a practitioner, which is very difficult, is very hard, and it wasn't easy. And it was it was something I had to do every day and didn't always do well, and it was imperfect. But there was a fundamental sense that I was not the arbiter of success. Yeah, that the survivor was. And I think that's really what I've brought forward. You know, 25 or 30 years is is as much as I believe in the work we do and the difference it makes. And we we get feedback from survivors, from professionals about changes in practice. So I believe in it. The bottom line is we all should be engaged in this conversation about, are we really looking at survivors and asking them, OK, we've just had director over the last three months. You know, and this is a really tough question. Would you recommend? Your sister, she was in similar circumstances, working with Mayor Agency again. I mean, I think it's a really bold it is confrontational question. It is. And I think it's I think we all need to ask ourselves that about our own practice or our team's practice or our agency policies. You know, and and hopefully you see things in your work that tell you that's true, even if you're not asking that specific question. And one of the examples I have, and it's a it's a very dramatic one, though, is a system we worked with where we train their workers and safety. They use that with with families and this particular survivor. Her partner went to jail and then came back and tried to kill her and in self-defense, she ended up killing him. And the first call that person made. After she did that, to defend herself was to her social worker child welfare, and while this is a deeply tragic circumstance, there's no way to make it a good circumstance. The fact that she trusted her social worker from child welfare to be a person who is most likely to understand, yeah, what she felt compelled to do right says says so much about the quality of interaction that happened before. [00:38:57][128.2]
Speaker 2: [00:38:57] No, that's very powerful. [00:38:58][0.6]
Speaker 1: [00:38:59] And so I think we need to name these things and we need to really listen to survivors and ask them and understand what made this better. Because we know I mean, I'm not saying this in every case, but over and over again, I hear stories. I just heard one the other day, people taking really difficult cases where they they saw this intractable neighbor and move kids multiple times and they go back and kind of reset the case using safe and together. And it completely changes the relationship with the survivor. And in fact, led to returning kids home. Yeah. And so so this is really for me is is what we are about and what the miles about. [00:39:34][35.1]
Speaker 2: [00:39:35] Well, David Mandel, that was a great place to end this interview on. Is there anything else that you'd like to say about safe and together and our theory of change or as an agency for a change? [00:39:48][13.3]
Speaker 1: [00:39:49] No, there's so much to say. And you know, we'll be talking in the coming period of time around, you know, how to work with the police as meant to support our work with child welfare and all those things and how we're going be doing more with Family Court and more with addiction and mental health systems. I mean, I think part of what's prompting this interview is just that we're going to be branching out in our work with other systems in support of our core mission. If we realize we can't just talk about breaking down silos, we have to be an agent for breaking those silos down. [00:40:23][33.7]
Speaker 2: [00:40:24] And what I really see and saw when I first was exposed to the model and started, you know, communicating with you and talking about it, and that was that, you know, having a common language and and a common measurable goal, right? That is practical, pragmatic, easy to apply and make sense and also provides a measure of safety to survivors, adult and child survivors within systems. It doesn't matter who creates that documentation, it doesn't matter where it starts. Once it's in the system, it actually does provide a measure of safety unless you have a judge or somebody who completely ignores that [00:41:10][46.1]
Speaker 1: [00:41:10] or it gets misused somehow. But I think we in our when we haven't named it here, it's really comes back to describing the perpetrator's pattern of behavior and its impact on on child partner and family functioning and right. The other contextualizes the survivors strengths in the in the in her situation with those behaviors, in her broader socioeconomic situation, doing meaningful interventions with that person, choosing violence, partnering with a with that survivor based on these things that you know, these are the fundamentals of domestic violence, of our practice that really almost everybody can implement, right? And that's the the common framework that we're really looking to connect up these different systems. [00:41:48][38.4]
Speaker 2: [00:41:49] Well, let's make a cultural tsunami, [00:41:50][1.6]
Speaker 1: [00:41:51] a cultural tsunami. Let's do it. Let's do it anyway. Okay, so this you've been listening to our third episode of Of Partner with the Survivor for season two. David Mandel, executive director of the Safe and the Other Institute. [00:42:05][13.7]
Speaker 2: [00:42:06] And I'm Ruth Stern's Mandelblit, e-learning and communications manager, and you can find us and Tiberius the dog on Safe and Together Institute dot com [00:42:17][10.8]
Speaker 1: [00:42:18] or Academy Dot safe for the other intercom, which is where you can get e-learning. Our core training is there all the of course I was talking about today we're on there are Father's Choices Matter Bundle is up and we're about to launch that again. Yes, all these things. And then there's a discount code that you always talk about discount code. [00:42:36][17.7]
Speaker 2: [00:42:36] I did make a discount code for you. It's 15 percent off. It's partnered all lowercase and you can use that when you are trying to purchase any training, but there's also tons of free training. That's right. That's right. So I guess we're out. [00:42:52][15.4]
Speaker 1: [00:42:52] We're out. [00:42:52][0.0]
[2509.4]