1

S.A.V.E. MODEL OF INTERVENTION

FINAL REPORT ON-FIELD COMPONENT Author Date

Local Health Authority n°9 SAVE team 01/10/2015

SoluSoluSoluSolutions Against Violence in Europetions Against Violence in Europetions Against Violence in Europetions Against Violence in Europe

SSAAVVEE

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________________ 3

2. THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE SAVE MODEL CONSTRUCTION ____________________ 3

2.1 Grow Concept versus Development Construct ___________________________________________ 3

2.2 Danger - Risk - Damage Constructs ____________________________________________________ 4

2.3. The circular module _______________________________________________________________ 5

2.4 Prevention – Detection – Case Management ____________________________________________ 6

2.5 Bibliography ______________________________________________________________________ 7

2. SAVE MODEL DESCRIPTION ______________________________________________________ 8

2. 1 Project Perspective Development: new references______________________________________ 10

3. PREVENTION AND DETECTION ON FIELD COMPONENT ______________________________ 10

3.1 Prevention module: operational actions ______________________________________________ 16

3.2 Detection module: operational actions _______________________________________________ 16

4 CASE MANAGEMENT MODULE __________________________________________________ 18

4.1 Case Management: operational actions _______________________________________________ 19

5. CONCLUSION ________________________________________________________________ 21

Annex 1 Workshop content _______________________________________________________ 23

3

1. INTRODUCTION

The SAVE model of intervention aims at creating an EU methodology to improve the quality of the

support services for victims of violence in the local territories. Specific objectives to achieve

according to the project are:

• to produce a Model of Intervention based on “beneficiary’s needs”, focused on victim’s

particular situation and, for this reason, flexible enough to be functional in several different

frameworks;

• to define a cost-effective model able to overcome cuts in social policies budget in EU

countries;

• to set up structured operative public - private partnership to give way to complementarities

in this field, in particular where gaps in services delivering will be detected;

• to mix on-field and virtual tools able to cover the whole spectre of intervention

(prevention, detection and care) with victims of violence, with an eye on cost-reduction and

on solution to overcome physical barriers to victims support (distance, remoted-isolated

areas, etc…). The mix is necessary due to the fact that violence is often linked to poverty

and disadvantage and, in this case, ICT solution alone could be unsuccessful ;

• to create a “modular model”, able to be implemented in different countries and systems

with different intensity and different efforts, following the real needs of the territories;

• to create an easy-to-transfer model, to be replicated without major changes in other EU

territories This document aims at giving a contribution to the SAVE model construction. It

defines the three processes feeding the model: Prevention – Detection –Case Management.

This document describes the proposal for the on-field component of the model, prepared by the

LHA9 team and discussed and approved by the Consortium during the virtual meetings in July 29th

and September 16th

and the TWG meeting in Valencia on October 1st

.

2. THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE SAVE MODEL

CONSTRUCTION

When we talk about violence, we refer to what SAVE Consortium shared during the kick-off

meeting in Treviso, considering it in its triple fields of application: sexual violence, physical violence

and psychological violence.

The model has been conceived trying to address or at least to consider the recommendations

sorted out from the EU synthesis report issued during WS1 analysis of local situations. In addition,

it took deep inspiration from the study visits performed outside the partnership.

2.1 Grow Concept versus Development Construct

1

1 In this context, the difference among lexicon, concept and construct refers to the contribution offered by the philosophy of science and by methodology: lexicon refers to the common meaning allocated to a term, for instance the dictionary acceptation; the concept is the meaning given univocally by the scientific community to a term within a specific field of application. For instance, the concept of temperature assumes a specific meaning according to the field of application in which it is used; the construct refers to the meaning that a term assumes within the theory in which it is used; for instance, the term development has a different meaning according to the theory underpinning its use. (Turchi, 2009).

4

First of all, it is essential to distinguish the Grow Concept from Development Construct, as they

have different field of application, meaning also different models and operational tools.

Growth refers to a clinical concept, meaning an operational model, in which specific praxis

find their empiric reference in the organism. It describes a progressive increase (or decrease) of

proportions linked to a person’s body morphology, driven by biophysical processes (for instance,

height, weight, etc.). This process is individual, so it is not the same for all but follows a common

path that may be described through predefined and precise physiological and anatomical

parameters. The variability of the process is in line with organism’s evolution: for instance, increase

or slowing may occur. Description and size of this variation are measured through a statistical data

set (i.e. percentiles) to establish the growth level of the observed organism, following a statistical

reference average.

Development refers to a construct applied in the social and psychological fields.

Development is considered a theoretical construct, as there is no empirical background (unlike the

growing organism). For this reason, every single time it is necessary to define and establish which is

the meaning and the theory on which the use of the term “development” is based.

The theoretical choice adopted in this document defines development as a process

characterized by continuous changes/transformations, both from a social and psychological point

of view and from the morpho-genetic of individual. A person, when born is unavoidably governed

by his/her historical and social context and in the meantime has the possibility to govern (modify)

it. This process is individual, in other words the change path is connected to the way everyone

interacts with his/herself, with the others and with the context. Through this continuous

interaction, the person builds up knowledge and competences2 allowing him/her to manage

his/her actions. In this development of knowledge and skills the language plays a fundamental

role. It is considered as the tool throughout which people, all along their life cycle, give sense to

the different events that occur or that they make occur (i.e. the violence suffered and/or acted ).

The above mentioned difference between “growth” and “development” drives us to the

conclusion that it is necessary to have the “development construct” on which the SAVE model will

be based, in order to define operational praxis in line with it. The use of the development construct

allows on one hand to describe how individual competences develop through the life cycle of a

person (for instance, the self-protection competence doesn’t coincide with the innate capacity of

the organism to protect itself), on the other hand to build up praxis completely in line with the

used model, from the theoretical and operational point of views. Referring only to the growth

concept is not enough to define rigorous praxis of intervention for the different situations of

suffered violence.

Finally, growth and development refer to different cognitive plans, with different

assumptions, models and intervention praxis. These plans do not exclude each other, they interact

instead and the first (growth plan) influences the second (development plan) and vice versa. So,

the proposal must include interventions aiming at integrating both growth plan and development

plan praxis

2.2 Danger - Risk - Damage Constructs

Danger, Risk and Damage are three constructs placed at three different levels of reality with

different references.

Danger refers to the potentiality of a situation to cause a damage for a person's health3. It is an

innate property of a situation that may potentially causes a damage for a person compromising

2The term competences refers to the way a person (adult or child) acquired knowledge and manage events. 3 We refer to the WHO health definition.

5

his/her own stability. As a starting point we assume that damage is an existential condition that

cannot be erased but only foreseen and managed. We can only decrease the potentiality of a

danger to cause a damage. This reduction may be obtained working on possible risks that a person

(in this case a minor) may encounter during his/her life cycle.

Risk considers the way in which a person, through the acquired competences, manages different

situations. So, risk depends on how a person choose to interact with the others in the different

contexts he/she experiences.

Prevention, detection and case management are processes allowing on one hand to foresee

possible dangers and risks of violence that a child may encounter, on the other hand to decrease

circumstances that may cause a damage for the minor’s health.

Assuming that danger is part of the evolution process of a minor, the model will contribute to

support the child and his/her family in managing the development and growth period, promoting

a reduction of risk exposure.

2.3. The circular module

On the basis of above described assumptions, it is evident that the approach to the risk

management of physical, psychological and sexual violence situations, considers a range of actions

which cannot be satisfied within a single area of intervention (Prevention or Detection or Case

Management) but only within the continuous interaction between this three processes along a

time continuum. It’s no possible, indeed, to define clearly and exactly which is the process that

takes place before and which one occurs after. In the same way, it’s no possible to say if it is useful

to start first from Prevention to get to Case Management or vice versa.

Furthermore, from a clinical point of view we are not able to clearly distinguish, where a process

ends and the other one begins, but it is clear that there is a continuous coexistence and interaction

between different processes. The distinction between processes occurs only in theory and not in

practice. It is useful to separate Prevention, Detection and Case Management just because, after

defining the boundaries, it is possible to identify specific operational objectives, strategies and

tools that are unrelated with the specific socio-cultural background we operate in, and therefore,

they become transferable. Further, this distinction provides the way to evaluate every single

process of intervention.

6

2.4 Prevention – Detection – Case Management

Prevention can be defined as a process of one-directional information directed to the community

as a whole, aimed at facing sexual, physical and psychological violence. Starting from this,

interventions of Prevention are realized in a widespread way, called “raining spread” because, like

the rain, it makes no differences “where it falls”. So, Prevention may involve both children who

never suffered violence and children who suffered violence. Prevention can lead to different

results: in children who never suffered violence, it will increase self-protection skills4; in children

who suffered violence, instead, it will increase detection skills which allow the child, after

recognizing to be victim of violence, to use lesson learnt by Prevention intervention to implement

actions aimed at ensuring self-protection. Accordingly, it is possible to identify a shared area

between Prevention and Detection, as Prevention can produce effects that activate Detection

actions (see chart below) .

Detection can be defined as an interactive process encompassing the possibility to produce

reporting of suffered violence against a person (minor or adult). According to juridical and social-

health standards, Detection can lead to activate judicial and/or clinical procedures. Indeed, after

reaching its goal (namely, making victims able to talk about their suffered violence/making

violence emerge), Detection allows to start up further interventions such as: socio-health case

management, legal procedures and actions or, sometimes, reporting the violence is enough to

product a resolution and there is no need for further interventions. So, this definition of Detection

does not lead necessarily to a specific activation of socio-health and/or legal intervention but it

offers a range of possibilities of intervention. Further, where this process activates care and

protection actions addressed to the victim, it is possible identify a sharing area between Detection

and Case Management, as Detection can pave the way to care paths aimed at health promotion5

(see chart below).

Finally, Case Management can be defined as a path creating a complex network of actors aimed at

promoting and generating protection and health standards regarding the specific case. Such

definition allows distinguishing case management from psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, indeed,

according to this definition, becomes one of the strategies that Case Management provides.

4 such as recognizing risk and choosing the right actions to do in order to manage the situation. 5 Health promotion has been defined by the World Health Organization as "the process of enabling people to increase control over their health and its determinants, and thereby improve their health"

7

Starting from these three theoretical assumptions above, it has been set up a draft of the Save

Model Structure in which definition, objectives and strategies of the three processes (P., D., C.M.)

are proposed in order to clearly define a shared frame within which to proceed to develop

additional items (Target, Tools, Indicators, Actions).

2.5 Bibliography

Salvini A., Dondoni M., (2011) Psicologia Clinica dell'Interazione e Psicoterapia. Giunti Editore.

Firenze.

Turchi G., Della Torre C., (2007) Psicologia della Salute. Armando Editore. Roma.

Turchi G., (2009) Dati senza numeri. Per una metodologia di analisi dei dati informatizzati testuali:

M.A.D.I.T. Monduzzi Editore. Bologna.

Turchi G., Orrù L., (2014) Metodologia per l'analisi dei dati informatizzati testuali. Fondamenti di

teoria della misura per la scienza dialogica. EdiSES Editore. Napoli.

Bruner J., (2003) La ricerca del significato. Per una psicologia culturale. Bollati Boringhieri. Torino

Vygotskij L. (2002) Pensiero e Linguaggio. Giunti Editore. Firenze.

8

2. SAVE MODEL DESCRIPTION

Table n°1 shows the objectives, strategies, targets, indicators and actions of each specific

intervention phase of the Model.

Tab.1: SAVE Model Structure

PREVENTION DETECTION CASE MANAGEMENT

De

fin

itio

n

Bidirectional process addressed to

the community to fight the use of

physical, psychological and sexual

violence on minors.

Interactive process

considering the possibility to

issue reported of suffered

violence against a person

(child/adult).

Process of build up of a

network of actors

targeted to promote and

generate health and

protection standards for

a specific case.

Ob

ject

ive

(s)

Promoting skills of self-

protection and hetero-

protection from situations of

violence.

Promote reporting of

violence and enable

appropriate action to

protect and care depending

on the legal, social

healthcare (restore the right

to health of the person adult

/ minor)

-Hinder the victimize

process (pars destruens);

- Promote the

redefinition of the

suffered violence in

terms of building and/or

implementation of skills

of self and hetero

protection (pars

costruens).

Str

ate

gie

s

Training

(possible measurement*)

Training

Focus group on the

importance of telling

Activities to make the

person able to tell his/her

suffered violence.

Management plan:

- Network Maker

appointment

- Public-private

partnership

Clinical plan:

- Individual therapy

- Group therapy

- Support to the

family

- Intervention with

the Reference

Adult

-

(possible measurement*)

9

Targ

et

Minors from 10 to 15 years.

Community adults.

Minors and adults.

Professionals dealing

with minors victims of

violence and adults who

suffered violence in

childhood.

Minors victims of

violence and adults who

suffered violence in

childhood.

To

ols

On

F

i e

l d

- Workshops

- Manuals

- Measurement

tools*

Tools to favour the violence

reporting:

- Video

- Written texts (poetry,

nursery rhymes,

story-telling)

- Open questions

- Measurement tools*

- Trauma focus

Approach

- Measurement

tools*

ICT

Ind

ica

tors

*

- N° of reached minors

- N° of involved adults

(Promoters)

- N° of workshops (= n° of

video issued by the

youngest).

- N° of reached minors

- N° of involved adults

- N° of feed-back to the

strategic

questions/tools

- N° of relevant feed-

back to the specific

question/tool

- N° of invalid feed-back

(including: no answers

or inadequate ones).

- N° di cases managed

according to the

SAVE model (among

them: n. of minors

and n. of adults)

- N° of reference

adults involved in

the network

- N° of Network

Maker appointed

10

Act

ion

s

1. Promoter training

2. Workshop with children

and video issue

3. SAVE VIDEO widespread

+

(Possible collection of efficacy

indicators*)

1. Promoter

training

2. Workshops

3. Collection of

detection

“texts” or other

tool

+

(Possible collection of

efficacy indicators *)

1. Creation of the

protection

network

2. Therapy with

victim

+

(Possible collection of

efficacy indicators*)

* Indicators and measurement written in the table refer exclusively to the ones required by the

project and partly by the model itself. As agreed by the Consortium, indicators related to

intervention efficacy are discretionally choosen and measured by each single partner. Thus, they

are not described in the abovementioned table.

2. 1 Project Perspective Development: new references

New elements are shown in the table: the change of a prevention definition part which shift from a

one way process (as defined previously) to a two-way process and as such is considered within an

health promotion perspective.

Nowadays, Social and also Medical Sciences focus on healthy behaviours promotion: hence we

propose to use term “promotion” next to term “prevention” or to completely replace prevention

concept with promotion concept. Thus, using promotion process involves the target participation

and replace the “raining information”6 with the “training”. Furthermore, prevention and detection

refer to the community in order to make it able, by specific training, to generate protection and

health for all.

Another new element is the choice of prevention target: children from 10 years to 15 years who

have not suffered violence or who have suffered violence but have not yet reported. The choice of

the proposed target has been made on the basis of experimentation requirements and

comparison of data. It is therefore a methodological but not grounding requirement. This means

that the model can also be open to a wider target (i.e. 6-17 years).

3. PREVENTION AND DETECTION ON FIELD COMPONENT

Graphic n°1 shows a Conceptual Map about prevention and detection phases, based on three main

elements. The first one refers to different ways of thinking about violence and acting on it: you

pass from an suffered/acted violence conception to a point of view providing for violence

management which generate self and hetero protection expertise. The second one refers to the

training, considered as the main strategy that allows to get the objective of prevention and

detection. At last, the third one refers to the whole community as intervention context.

Speaking of the prevention/promotion and detection actions (see graphics 2 and 3) there are three

6 Indeed, “information process” involves the presence of target but not its partecipation.

11

different Step:

The First Step named "Promoters training", foresees that, SAVE Operators, after their own

training on the model, spread the SAVE project and the proposed training activities on self/other

protection skills within their own community. After collecting participations, SAVE operators will

realize a training intervention which has the overall objective to make participants skilled on how

the violence develops and how to manage and face it7. The promoter training is also planned as

feasible opportunity to promote a possible detection of violence experienced by adults in

childhood. At the end of the training, you will have people who are specifically trained on the issue

called promoter: they will be available resources for the community promoting health and violence

detection.

During the training, the promoter will receive the workshop manual where they will find all

the useful information allowing them to realize the workshop to the target (from 10 to 15 years).

After training conclusion, a promoters list will be created, where operators can access to

find competent resources to promote health in the community and prevent/manage situations of

violence or detection. Then the promoters will use learnt skills in order to implement training

programs to the identified target. To implement these actions, promoters will refer to the provided

manual, to the coaching of SAVE operator (that will follow the different phases of implementation)

and to a website, where the promoter can find material/information/tools to use.

The second step "V.v.V. (Voice vs. Violence) Workshop", provides that the promoter realize

workshops aimed to children from 10 to 15 years (target of prevention). The Consortium agreed

that the best context for workshops is school, also to meet the recommendation stating that “The

compulsory education system reaches all children, there is partially close contact between teachers

and students. This potential has to be used more to detect violence against children and to

intervene.” The workshop consists of meetings between promoter and children: the aim is to

promote the competence of self/other protection8. In this phase, it will be possible that violence

detection occurs, because of the topic and the use of promoting detection interaction and tools.

Such situation will be closely monitored by save operators to whom promoter has to refer together

with the manual, where they find specific practices to be used in detection case in order to grant

anonymity, listening and gathering of the text as well as the appropriate reporting practices

consisting to inform qualified professionals (public and private operators first) to manage the case.

The workshop outcome will be suffered violence detection and a video production, made

by target through teamworking, answering the questions: "What is violence?", "How can you do to

avoid violence?" and “What can you do when violence has happened to you or a friend of yours?”.

To assure that children product videos, we consider the possibility of setting up a contest called

“V.v.V. (Voice vs. Violence) Contest”, where participants can access submitting the video produced

during the workshop. The videos will be evaluated and selected by a jury of SAVE operators and

Promoters (max 5 members) according to pre-established criteria.

The Third Step "Save video" consists of an action for the citizens. In this phase of the

intervention, SAVE operators, once selected the videos made by the target, will build an unique

video for each partner country that will be considered the SAVE project video. After collecting all

the partners Save Video, there will be the possibility of producing a video that will be

“International” (using English language), built with the contributions of the most effective videos

sent by all project partner countries. Once we have the Save video, the next action will be to

identify possible institutional and not institutional contexts where broadcast the video and spread

7 For this training intervention, a micro-plan will be provided outlining the specific objectives of the training, the strategies and actions. The content that will cover competence of violence management. 8 For this training intervention a micro-plan will be provided outlining the specific objectives of the training, the strategies and actions. The content that will be the one used to train promoter but adapted to the target audience (children aged 11 to 14 years)

12

to the community the product made by community itself, about promotion of violence

management.

13

Chart 1.: Prevention and Detection Conceptual Map

14

Chart 2.: Chronology of Actions

Chart 3.: Chronology of Actions

15

16

3.1 Prevention module: operational actions

The Prevention module starts with the promoters training actions. Using formal and/or informal

networks at least n.20 promoters will be selected for the training program, performed by the SAVE

operators. The program consists of some training sessions aiming at learn how to generate

protection skills in the minors.

The session will focus on the following topics:

The chronology of topics to be touched, together with length and number of sessions are

discretionally chosen by each partner. At the end of the training, 4 promoters will be chosen to

perform the workshop into a selected group of students between 10 and 15 years old. The other

ones may decide to replicate the workshop in other contexts (associations, parish, etc.) given that

the SAVE operators are alerted.

The workshop, entitled “V.v.V. – Voices vs. Violence” will be composed by 4 specific session on

prevention and 1 session on detection (described in the following section). The overall

requirements to realize the workshop are the availability of a computer room and parental

authorization to film the child.

At the end, there will be a SAVE video for each involved classroom, and the SAVE operator will

select the best contribution and edit a SAVE local video (with English subtitles) that will be locally

broadcasted. One partner will be in charge of finally creating an EU SAVE videos from all the local

ones.

The workshop contents are illustrated in Annex 1.

3.2 Detection module: operational actions

The SAVE detection module is a contemporary process of the Prevention, to be developed during

17

the Promoter Training and the Workshop. It is addressed to two different targets: minors attending

the workshop and adults involved in the training of the Promoter.

Each SAVE partner’s thematic expert should find one or more fostering detection tool(s) to be used

during the workshop with children. It is essential to find out the same detection tool both for

children and adults.

Starting from the detection module for children, there will be a specific session where the tool will

be used and after discussing the importance of telling, they will receive all the information about

how and who contact to report what happened. By using strategic questions, children will have the

opportunity to talk, in a written or oral form, about a secret that they want to reveal and deliver it

to the promoter. The promoter won’t be in charge of detecting anything, they will simply report

the discussion’s output to the SAVE operators: the latter will detect an eventual suspected case of

violence and activate the following steps.

For instance, in Italy there is an online video with characters from a TV show and a poetry where

the importance of telling is very well explained. The video may be shown and it will feed a further

discussion on it (understanding phase). Finally, each child answers a specific question in a written

form and give the answer to the promoter in a close envelop which will be collected by promoter

and delivered to the SAVE operator. If a child tells orally his/her experience to the Promoter, the

latter will listen as learned during the training and immediately contact the SAVE operator.

Concerning the adult detection phase, it will be part of the training experience, as they will

perform a role-play of the workshop (a sort of simulator lab): they will do the same activities as

children, including the detection session, where they will have the possibility to come out and/or

have all the necessary information for reporting.

18

4 CASE MANAGEMENT MODULE

Starting from this shared definition of the Case Management (see chapter 1), the SAVE model

intervention for Case Management is based on the following assumptions:

1. Distinction between Management level and Clinical level

The Management level refers to the interaction between the different institutional roles involved

in the case management. It answers the question: "How do I manage the specific violence case?".

It is fundamental, hence, from the operational point of view, to build up the protection network in

relation to each specific situation.

The Clinical level refers to the "treatment", or rather, to the interaction between the clinician and

the child or the adult victim of violence. It answers the question: "What do I use for the victims of

violence treatment?”.

Hence, the model will have to include a section about the management plan and another one

about the clinical plan.

2. Partnership between public and private actors

Assuming that situations of violence are managed through the integration and the coordination of

the multiple involved roles, the collaboration between the public and the private services becomes

the essential element of the C.M. and it might have different forms related to each country

legislation. The improvement of collaboration between public and private sectors is one of the

main pillar of the EU synthesis report recommendations.

This collaboration is built up, first of all, intercepting, in each local territory, the protection agencies

that belong to the private sector, or, vice versa, to the public one, in order to draw up and sign

possible cooperation forms (e.g. Memorandum of understanding or Agreements) providing

resources available to answer the child’s and his family needs. The signature of a written

agreement is strictly recommended, in order to create and anchored binding structures, allowing

efficient cooperation between different actors in the field of child protection, as suggested in the

above mentioned synthesis report.

This assumption allows a greater coverage of the C.M. interventions in the local territory, ensuring

that private professionals can operate where public system cannot arrive and vice versa. In this

way, the child’s right to protection and care is widely respected and guaranteed, as well as an

increasing operational efficiency.

3. Shared Construction of the Self and Hetero protection network

With "self and hetero protection network" we refer not only to the network of services

institutionally provided, but also to the network built starting from the active involvement of the

child or the adult victim of violence. The victim, who takes part in the treatment path, identifies

19

people significant to her/him, who could become an additional resource to be involved in the

construction of the network, in order to extend it and to implement protection.

4.1 Case Management: operational actions

According to point 1 of the previous section, C.M. operational actions are divided into

management plan and clinical plan that may be implemented separately or jointly. The

management plan includes the network construction and management, and the eventual Public-

Private Partnership (PPP) setup. The clinical plan is focused on treatment on victims and envisages

the use of the trauma focus approach and the individuation of a minor’s reference person.

Management plan

From the management plan point of view, the goal is the set up of network levels. First of all, the

involved operators will try to introduce also the private networks (in other words, all the additional

resources available thanks to public-private partnership - PPP) to be added to the “offered

networks” (all public services involved in case of violence on minors) and to the co-built networks

(minor’s reference person and family). The network setup will follow the steps indicated in the

figure below:

The second phase is the role identification, strictly connected to the network construction and

process management. The involved roles are the therapist (responsible for the clinical framework),

the family operator (responsible for the educational and social framework), the reference adult

(responsible for daily interaction framework) and the network maker. The appointment of the

reference adult will be explained in the clinical plan section.

The SAVE model for C.M. foresees the appointment of a network manager, who will be in charge of

the following tasks:

• Build up and activate the network

20

• Management of the communication flows

• Management of the reference person (significant adult)

• Network and role tasks monitoring

The SAVE Consortium suggests to appoint a social worker as communication manager. At the end,

there will be a “child welfare network” operating around the victim. The monitoring of roles’

responsibilities is very important, as effective collaboration requires clear responsibilities (ref. EU

synthesis report recommendations).

This welfare network generates processes that may be summarize in the picture below:

Clinical plan

From a clinical point of view, the therapist will perform the intervention on victim according to

his/her own therapeutic tools, following the steps of violence victim treatment, that are:

1. Build up of therapeutic alliance + identification of the reference adult

2. Detection of suffered violence

3. Re-elaboration of violence meaning

4. Build up of self/hetero protection skills

5. conclusion

In particular, the identification of the reference adult, made by the victim, is strongly

21

recommended, and may be performed according to the following flowchart

The question is just an example, each involved therapist may choose its own question, but the goal

must be the same: make the child in the condition to indicate a trusted person that may be

involved in the “child welfare” network.

At the same time, the therapist will apply the “Trauma focus approach”, which foresees specific

theme to be addressed:

• Who am I

• What happened

• The interview

• What were you thinking of while happened

• The first person you told it

• The help you received

• What have you learnt from therapy

• What would you say to a child that may have suffered the same experience as you

This approach foresees also a therapeutic tool named “Book of the trauma”, which consists in the

drawing up of a booklet written by the child, divided into chapters related to the thematic areas

mentioned above, afforded during therapy. Child receive only the chapter title, and she/he’s free

to write whatever he wants (including picture, photos, drawings). If the child is not able to write,

she/he can dictate to the therapist. The Consortium agreed that each therapist can choose to use

or not this tool, and to adapt it according to his/her own approach.

This “Trauma focus approach” comes from “The Children House” best practice of Reykjavik

(Iceland), and according to their experience, it takes 6 months to conclude this path. This means

that public resources are potentially more available to intervene in a medium-long period to

support victim.

5. CONCLUSION

According to the EU synthesis report, when project are transferred from other regions, the

respective structures of the new region has to be taken as a starting point: this means that

22

project’s requirements and implementation are to be developed in collaboration with local

stakeholders. The on-field SAVE model of intervention has been conceived in a modular way in

order to allow the experimentation of a single module according to the available resources.

Furthermore, the operational actions describe a general approach that can be easily adapted to

different contexts, in order to give the SAVE model the necessary flexibility and transferability.

This report, jointly with the ICT final report represents the preliminary version of the SAVE model

that will be adapted and tested in the 6 territories involved in the experimentation phase, and it is

therefore propaedeutic for WS3 activities.

23

Annex 1 Workshop content

24

25

26