So, I've started some discussion on this campaign in general. Of course INFO on trauma is useful, BUT:
1. Are we using evidence community engagement practices?
2. Are we using evidence based health care messaging techniques?
3. Are we providing people effective tools for social change, or community organizing?
No one has answered those questions. People have responded to those discussions by saying, "Of course we need trauma info." "This stuff helped me." "This stuff helps my clients." And worse...."You need to be nicer as an advocate." "You will burn out as an advocate." and "You need to do more self-care." OR "This is a valuable discussion," BUT still not talking about the issues.
None of which answered the questions above. So can we please talk about the issues at hand?
1. Effective community engagement means that meetings don't particularly work if you want to "hear" from marginalized communities. There is a difference between "at the table," and being "effectively at the table." If you don't look at community engagement science, then the communities you purport to serve will not be at the table, or if they are there, the engagement will be token and trivialized.
2. Effective health care messaging means reaching desired outcomes. In this case, reducing ACE scores and increasing community resilience. Other outcomes related to "knowledge of the message," are a branding and marketing thing and not related to solving the problem. So, is harping on neurobiology of ACES an effective way to reduce them? Well, all kinds of academic literature, over 300 research articles, says NO. The mental health literature shows that harping on neurobiology in mental health care actually made things worse. It Increased stigma, lowered compassion, reduced recovery rates, lowered people's willingness to be friends with diagnosed people, and lowered people's ability to do something about the problem.
So why would it be somehow magically different when trying to act on trauma? Look at health care messaging about seat belts, around smoking, around teen drinking, around AIDS. Does neurobiology motivate action or is it something else? Seat belts, "click it or ticket." Smoking, "smokers stink, don't be one." Teen drinking, "Parents who host lose the most." Those are carefully derived public health campaigns based on what that audience needed to hear to motivate action. Why ignore the 300 research articles that says harping on biology made things worse in the mental health industry? What, you never heard of that research? time to look, EH? Because all the anecdotal evidence in the world about people liking the ACES stuff, and you still gotta look at some science on what actually works. Trauma information is needed, of course, but what is the most effective way of getting that info into the world?
3. And motivating action? Do we want to raise awareness of the problem or solve the problem? There are good tools to build resilience. Why not use them? Resilience and awareness are not the same thing. A messaging campaign does not automatically build resilience. "Awareness" does not necessarily equal action.
So GO: talk about the issues above. Let's not talk about Corinna as an advocate. Bring your data to bear and let's debate some science. If you don't know the science, HOW do you think you are going to do this work? If you are paid over $30k and year and you still don't know the academic literature in YOUR OWN profession??? Then it's time to be the change you wish to see in the world and start doing some homework.