- Email: [email protected]
Who takes care of the caretakers?
Adv. B&w. Res. Thu. Vol. 13. pp. 181-183. Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved.
WHO TAKES
1991. 0
CARE
014&6402/91 $0.00 + so 1991 Pergamon Press pk.
OF THE CARETAKERS?
Carol Anne Jones University
of California,
Berkeley,
CA,
U.S.A.
On October 17, 1989 at 5:04pm, an earthquake measuring 7.1 on the Richter Scale hit the Loma Prieta fault, destroying homes, freeways, and lives in the San Francisco Bay area. Although not everyone suffered physical harm or loss of property, no one was unaffected by the devastation. Constant media scrutiny brought the disaster into everyone’s living room, and as a result, the shock of the earthquake was felt from coast to coast. In response, the staff of the UC Berkeley Psychology Clinic offered psychological assistance to the community, and in order to reach as many people as possible, targeted the Berkeley and Oakland school districts. An intervention was planned whereby clinic faculty and interns would meet directly with teachers and administrators, to model a process they in turn could implement with their own staffs and students. Professors Philip A. Cowan and Rhona S. Weinstein proposed an intervention in which an initial team of five clinicians met with fifty principals and district administrative staff during an emergency planning meeting. The meeting broke into smaller groups consisting of ten to twelve participants, and each person was given the opportunity to tell of their experiences at the time of the earthquake, and was encouraged to express their subsequent feelings and concerns. Responses to the trauma varied greatly. Some people experienced debilitating anxiety, while others felt little or none. Reactions included sleeplessness, hypervigilance, disruptions of eating patterns, indifference, crying, and emotional shock. The model used emphasized the importance of providing a safe place in which to express reactions, whatever they might have been. The groups then came together and talked about the similarities, differences, and variability of the responses offered within each of the smaller groups. At this point the model was explained, and the participants were encouraged to repeat this process with the staff at each individual school site. One of the most important reasons for implementing this type of intervention is the normalization of responses. Many principals and administrators were concerned that their personal responses were in some way inappropriate. By witnessing the range of reactions, each participant was able to put her/his response into the context of a continuum, and for many this was greatly relieving. For others, supplemental psychological intervention was suggested, and alternative resources were offered. 181
182
C. A. Jones
The schools were closed for the next three to four days, during which damage to each school was assessed, and staffs came together to plan how to address the probability of encountering high levels of student distress. Teams of two interns then met with the teachers and staffs of each school, and repeated the process done earlier with the principals and administrators. Some of the concerns of the teachers and staff were whether or not to discuss the earthquake with the students, and to what degree, what types of behavior could be anticipated, and how might they best respond to student concerns. On a more personal level, teachers were concerned about the tensions between the needs of their own families, and issues of responsibility to their students, both legally and morally. In the words of one teacher: “My job is to take care of everyone else. I’m the one who is expected to stay after and see to the safety of my students, but who is going to take care of me and my family?” Some teachers used the earthquake as an opportunity to air ongoing concerns about general safety at the schools, and a perceived lack of support from district officials. For many of the teachers and staff, this was the first time they had had the chance to come together and discuss their fears and concerns without fear of reprisal from higher level administrators. Because many found it helpful, this model of open discussion was used in the classroom as a way to address student concerns. In follow up contacts, teachers disclosed that they found this method to be a valuable tool not only for helping students cope with the immediate earthquake, but in helping them deal with other traumatic situations as well. In one Oakland school, a shooting occurred in front of the school on the evening of the school play. Many of the students witnessed the shooting and the aftermath, and were deeply affected by the incident. Several teachers at the school effectively used this model in helping children cope with the distress produced by the shooting. Almost a year after the earthquake, two of the Berkeley schools were found to be potentially unsafe, and were at risk of being closed. Teachers and parents were very concerned about relocation, the possibility of busing, and the effects this would have on the members of those school communities. The superintendent of schools contacted the clinic, seeking assistance in sorting through some of these issues. The same process was used, and participants found it helpful in delineating problems and concerns, thinking through possible solutions, and making plans for implementing those solutions. The process of discussing the fears and anxieties around a traumatic event in a supportive and caring group can be a very effective tool in helping people cope with feelings. This gives them the opportunity to “check” themselves, and to see their reactions as only part of a larger
Who Takes Care of the Caretakers?
183
body of possible reactions. This normalizing serves several purposes. It reassures those with high levels of anxiety, by allowing them to see that they are not the only ones who react strongly to a given situation. For others, in the words of one of the teachers: “I thought I wasn’t doing very well until I saw M, and realized that I was doing just fine.” The process of sitting down in a circle and talking about feelings was a new concept for many of the teachers and administrators, and they were enthusiastic about adopting this model as a way of talking about not only the earthquake, but about other difficult issues as well.
WHO TAKES
1991. 0
CARE
014&6402/91 $0.00 + so 1991 Pergamon Press pk.
OF THE CARETAKERS?
Carol Anne Jones University
of California,
Berkeley,
CA,
U.S.A.
On October 17, 1989 at 5:04pm, an earthquake measuring 7.1 on the Richter Scale hit the Loma Prieta fault, destroying homes, freeways, and lives in the San Francisco Bay area. Although not everyone suffered physical harm or loss of property, no one was unaffected by the devastation. Constant media scrutiny brought the disaster into everyone’s living room, and as a result, the shock of the earthquake was felt from coast to coast. In response, the staff of the UC Berkeley Psychology Clinic offered psychological assistance to the community, and in order to reach as many people as possible, targeted the Berkeley and Oakland school districts. An intervention was planned whereby clinic faculty and interns would meet directly with teachers and administrators, to model a process they in turn could implement with their own staffs and students. Professors Philip A. Cowan and Rhona S. Weinstein proposed an intervention in which an initial team of five clinicians met with fifty principals and district administrative staff during an emergency planning meeting. The meeting broke into smaller groups consisting of ten to twelve participants, and each person was given the opportunity to tell of their experiences at the time of the earthquake, and was encouraged to express their subsequent feelings and concerns. Responses to the trauma varied greatly. Some people experienced debilitating anxiety, while others felt little or none. Reactions included sleeplessness, hypervigilance, disruptions of eating patterns, indifference, crying, and emotional shock. The model used emphasized the importance of providing a safe place in which to express reactions, whatever they might have been. The groups then came together and talked about the similarities, differences, and variability of the responses offered within each of the smaller groups. At this point the model was explained, and the participants were encouraged to repeat this process with the staff at each individual school site. One of the most important reasons for implementing this type of intervention is the normalization of responses. Many principals and administrators were concerned that their personal responses were in some way inappropriate. By witnessing the range of reactions, each participant was able to put her/his response into the context of a continuum, and for many this was greatly relieving. For others, supplemental psychological intervention was suggested, and alternative resources were offered. 181
182
C. A. Jones
The schools were closed for the next three to four days, during which damage to each school was assessed, and staffs came together to plan how to address the probability of encountering high levels of student distress. Teams of two interns then met with the teachers and staffs of each school, and repeated the process done earlier with the principals and administrators. Some of the concerns of the teachers and staff were whether or not to discuss the earthquake with the students, and to what degree, what types of behavior could be anticipated, and how might they best respond to student concerns. On a more personal level, teachers were concerned about the tensions between the needs of their own families, and issues of responsibility to their students, both legally and morally. In the words of one teacher: “My job is to take care of everyone else. I’m the one who is expected to stay after and see to the safety of my students, but who is going to take care of me and my family?” Some teachers used the earthquake as an opportunity to air ongoing concerns about general safety at the schools, and a perceived lack of support from district officials. For many of the teachers and staff, this was the first time they had had the chance to come together and discuss their fears and concerns without fear of reprisal from higher level administrators. Because many found it helpful, this model of open discussion was used in the classroom as a way to address student concerns. In follow up contacts, teachers disclosed that they found this method to be a valuable tool not only for helping students cope with the immediate earthquake, but in helping them deal with other traumatic situations as well. In one Oakland school, a shooting occurred in front of the school on the evening of the school play. Many of the students witnessed the shooting and the aftermath, and were deeply affected by the incident. Several teachers at the school effectively used this model in helping children cope with the distress produced by the shooting. Almost a year after the earthquake, two of the Berkeley schools were found to be potentially unsafe, and were at risk of being closed. Teachers and parents were very concerned about relocation, the possibility of busing, and the effects this would have on the members of those school communities. The superintendent of schools contacted the clinic, seeking assistance in sorting through some of these issues. The same process was used, and participants found it helpful in delineating problems and concerns, thinking through possible solutions, and making plans for implementing those solutions. The process of discussing the fears and anxieties around a traumatic event in a supportive and caring group can be a very effective tool in helping people cope with feelings. This gives them the opportunity to “check” themselves, and to see their reactions as only part of a larger
Who Takes Care of the Caretakers?
183
body of possible reactions. This normalizing serves several purposes. It reassures those with high levels of anxiety, by allowing them to see that they are not the only ones who react strongly to a given situation. For others, in the words of one of the teachers: “I thought I wasn’t doing very well until I saw M, and realized that I was doing just fine.” The process of sitting down in a circle and talking about feelings was a new concept for many of the teachers and administrators, and they were enthusiastic about adopting this model as a way of talking about not only the earthquake, but about other difficult issues as well.