I whole heartedly agree that if we focus our efforts on
timely warning improper practice, we can minimize the institutional betrayal our survivors will feel when their confidential disclosure results in their entire floor receiving a text message about it.
I Spent 2 hours on the Clery Center’s Webinar yesterday and with DOE representation and did not catch any guidance on this and the only example used, perpetuates
the myth that campus sexual assault is a violent stranger rape that we as Advocates know is not what the majority of what our reports will be. Unfortunately, no disrespect, but I think the Lisak research is hindrance here for determining danger to campus community.
I think we need to advocate for space on our campus’ Clery Documentation that allows for Advocates to provide perspective on the “Case by Case” basis in light
of all facts surrounding the crime. (Handbook 6-14) We won’t be the ultimate decision makers, but at least our clients will know that we are in their corner, regardless of who listens to us.
·
CSA (Advocates) document that alleged perpetrator has been
reported (via the CSA.)
o
Police are likely to focus on the “caught” aspect, but if we can make a case that the perpetrator was reported to the CSA maybe that could deter improper timely
warning.
·
Document, survivor’s level of interest in future reporting, and if from Advocate perspective an alert would compromise that report, or law enforcement effort.
o
This is vital for cases where Restricted SART exams have been conducted to address the time sensitive needs, and allow time for survivor to decide.
Other Tips/Thoughts:
·
Make ourselves an ally to the Clery Coordinator. Point of Entry for me, was revising the “safety tips” aware from risk reduction messages to primary prevention
and bystander intervention strategies.
·
Clearly spell out CSA Process on your advocacy Service agreement/consent for service/intake form
·
Walk the survivor through potential outcomes at first intake.
·
Fill out the CSA report together with survivor so there are no surprises.
·
If campus advocate has not had prior contact with survivor, institute practice that
BEFORE an alert is sent an Advocate contacts either the survivor or CSA, to ensure that survivor is fully informed that their disclosure to xx is going to prompt an alert. Do not let Survivors find this information out by receiving the text message.
Briana Conway
Acting Director
CARE & Women’s Center
University of California, Santa Barbara
1220 Student Resource Building
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-7190
805-893-3305
Vist our Website
http://wgse.sa.ucsb.edu/Care/
Call 805-893-4613 to reach a confidential advocate 24/7.
From: Brett Sokolow []
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:58 AM
To: Diaz, Sarah; Liz Howley;
Subject: Re: Clery Confidentiality
The problem, it seems to me, isn’t caused by requiring anonymous stats from advocates (that’s always been the case), it’s the improper practice of issuing timely warnings
on them that creates the potential for harm. So, that’s where I’d focus my time in trying to get reform from campus law enforcement on that misinterpretation of the regulations related to timely warnings.
This e-mail message is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this
electronic mail transmission in error, do not read it. Please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail at or by calling 610.993.0229,
so that our address record can be corrected.
From:
"Diaz, Sarah" <>
Date: Friday, July 8, 2016 at 9:19 AM
To: Liz Howley <>, "" <>,
"" <>
Subject: RE: Clery Confidentiality
Liz,
I share your concerns. As soon as I read the new handbook section you’re referring to I contacted our Clery compliance officer to seek clarification. If the CSA report really
did just entail tracking statistics that would be one thing. However, on our campus CSA reports most often trigger timely warnings which creates a barrier to students seeking support.
I am also concerned that if we are now forced to exclude certain individuals who wish to remain confidential (counselors, specifically, with a strong understanding of trauma)
from being involved on a SART team that we are missing a critical voice.
To amp up our confidential options for students we are now exploring a stronger partnership with a local rape crisis center.
If anyone has sought clarification already on the language in the new Clery handbook and has something to offer I’d love to hear that. Thanks for posing this question, Liz.
Kindly,
Sarah
Sarah B. Diaz, MSW
Coordinator for Health Education and Outreach Programs
Campus Victim Advocate
Butler University
4600 Sunset Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Office: 317.940.8311
24 Hr. Victim Support: 317.910.5572
Fax: 317.940.6403
#BUBeWell
From:
[]
On Behalf Of Liz Howley
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 9:00 AM
To: ;
Subject: Clery Confidentiality
Hi Everyone,
I'm wondering how the new Clery specifications are affecting your work/how you might be adapting? In particular I'm talking about Chapter 4-2, which deals with Campus Security Authorities.
"Examples of individuals (outside of a police or security department) who generally meet the criteria for being campus security authorities include:
• victim advocates or others who are responsible for providing victims with advocacy services, such as assisting with housing relocation, disciplinary action or court cases, etc.;
• members of a sexual assault response team (SART) or other sexual assault advocates"
I'd love to hear how your institution is interpreting this. I am sure many of us who are confidential advocates have concerns about reporting"just numbers", especially if those numbers might develop into timely notices.
--
Elizabeth Gallon Howley, MS, MCHES
(she/her/hers)
Assistant Director, Sexual Violence Advocacy & Prevention
University Health Center - The Well
Student Success Center 1319
724 S. Mason Street, MSC 7901
540.568.6251
