Content warning:
This episode discusses practitioners' experiences of working with adult victim-survivors of child sexual abuse. Whilst listening, please be mindful of your own wellbeing and prioritise taking a break if you need to.
Intro:
Welcome to the NSPCC Learning Podcast, where we share learning and expertise in child protection from inside and outside of the organisation. We aim to create debate, encourage reflection and share good practice on how we can all work together to keep babies, children and young people safe.
Peter Wanless:
Welcome to the NSPCC Learning Podcast. I am Peter Wanless, I'm the Chief Executive of the NSPCC and also the Chair of the IICSA Changemakers, IICSA being the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.
Now, back in the autumn of 2022, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse produced its final report and recommendations. This was a culmination of seven years of work at a cost of a quarter of a £1 billion, and an exercise which took testimony from over 7,000 victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. But the way these public inquiries work, there isn't an automatic implementation mechanism associated with the recommendations. The recommendations go to the government and who knows what might happen next.
So, the authors of the IICSA reports convened a meeting of interested, like-minded individuals and organisations to reflect on what they had discovered, just to pose the question 'what's going to happen next?' I was one of the people fortunate enough to be at that meeting and we reflected on the huge scale of change that was going to be required if the recommendations that IICSA had come up with were going to be realised. We all looked at one another and everyone looked at everyone else and thought, well, what are we going to do about this?
And I thought, if not us, then who? And if not now, then when? And between us, we agreed that we should convene a collective group of organisations really to keep the IICSA recommendation flames alive for three really important reasons. The first was that there really did need to be a step change in the statutory framework within which these issues are considered. Secondly, there's all sorts of things which organisations could be doing to improve the consistency of their safeguarding and protection of children and young people at risk of child sexual abuse. And thirdly, we felt that in particular the voices and perspectives of all those victims and survivors who had given that testimony deserved to be kept at the forefront of the debate and discussion in terms of what happened next.
So out of that conference, the IICSA Changemakers were born. I agreed to chair this coalition of organisations — of which there are now, I think from memory, 67 — who share those high-level objectives. As 67 organisations, we are supported by Clare Kelly, who has been pulling the work together and creating momentum and focus behind our efforts and activities, and Denise Pringle who, right from the beginning, we felt we needed to support the IICSA Changemakers, someone with really authentic understanding and expertise when it comes to adult-survivor perspectives on child sexual abuse.
So there's the three of us supported by, as I say, these 67 organisations, banging the drum for what happens next, post the inquiry. I'd really like now to invite Denise to tell us a little bit about her involvement with the Changemakers and in particular what she's been up to, leading to a really powerful and important conference that we had with victims and survivors of child sexual abuse front and centre.
Denise Pringle:
So I am the adult-survivor participation manager for IICSA Changemakers. I joined the team almost a year ago and I came on board really to help make sure that survivor voice was prioritised and included in a really rich and genuinely diverse way. It's not something that you can just tick off and say you've done. We needed to be able to take all the learnings from the over 7,000 victims and survivors that engaged with the original inquiry and then those that were engaging with Changemakers to make sure that we were creating safe, meaningful participation, which sounds very straightforward but isn't always.
And that really culminated in the event that we did in September where we came together and it was a survivor-led event, which was something that we spent many months planning. It was a chance to use this two-year anniversary of IICSA finishing to come together and say, 'this is why all these issues, all these recommendations are still as important today as they were two years ago,' and trying to get momentum... to keep up the determination to get this work done.
Our event was purely survivor speaking. We didn't allow any CEOs — we didn't allow Peter — to stand up and we didn't allow any policy heads or civil servants to stand up. We really wanted this to be an exercise in witnessing, listening and hearing survivors take the lead and be able to set a tone of trust and holding survivors as experts in their own rights around all of these policy points and their experiences.
So, Peter, Clare; do you have any questions about the planning for the event that you want me to particularly focus on?
Clare Kelly:
I think for me, Denise, it was watching you do your thing as we built towards that event. Every day there was a new scheduled element that you knew we needed to cover. And sometimes, you know, from someone like myself, I was sat back going, 'Why do I need to do that?' And you question it and you don't really understand it until you see it play out. And I just wonder, in your experience, do people really underestimate the amount of time and energy it takes in the pre-planning as well? Because you — although we had a few months to do it — you were constant on it. I just wonder what your view was on it.
Denise:
A lot of the things with safeguarding and safety and risk management and participation, you're planning for situations and putting measures in place that hopefully you won't actually need or won't need to click into place, but you need to have them planned, prepped and thoroughly explored. Something that you often hear a lot with best practice guidance around participation is it's got to be meaningful, right. It's got to be meaningful, it's got to be meaningful. But it's not just meaningful for the organisation or the outcome or the policy point we're trying to land. It needs to be meaningful for the lived experienced folks that are taking part in it.
And the only way you're going to understand what meaningful means for them is by exploring it and diving in and learning more about them; finding out what things are difficult, what aligns with their wants and ambitions. And all of that takes a lot of time and safety planning and transparency. Because trust doesn't come easy.
Clare:
Something we were really keen to do was involve voices from underrepresented areas, seldom heard voices in the room who had not yet had the opportunities or hadn't been heard during the original independent inquiry, and still wanted to make sure that they got space in the room with the right people.
That was something during the planning phase as well, when we were thinking about who our speakers were and making sure that they were in a position to, yes, be safe and it be healthy for them, but also making sure we had a really good spread of voices because child sexual abuse affects so many different areas, different communities and individuals as well.
Peter:
There was also the relationship between the stories which people had to tell— it's a horrible word really, 'story', isn't it. I mean, this is life experience. Lived experience is a better phrase. But how to relate... It would have been quite straightforward at one level to get some people to come and tell us what has happened in your life in order to shock or inspire, but actually, there were some crunchy recommendations and expectations that have been raised as a consequence of the inquiry, weren't there?
So relating the stories to the change we wanted to see, I think, was another really important dimension to this that you must have given an awful lot of thought to.
Denise:
We did spend a lot of time on this and it really fell onto survivor speakers to do a lot of that labour with Clare and I supporting them. Because, in order to make sure you're not doing tokenistic participation, you need to make sure that you're not just using people as props or creating a sense of, like you said, just trying to 'shock factor' people or sensationalise someone's life experiences; because apart from these abuse experiences, these are also human beings and folks that have whole complete lives outside of it and we wanted them to bring their entire selves to the event. So Clare and I worked with them to identify which recommendations and policy areas they were interested in, how it aligned with their experiences, what particular points they wanted to make, and how that correlated with who was in the room.
Then we did a lot of work making sure that we were helping to manage the emotional boundaries of it as well. Because although we never wanted to censor people, we had to be aware that we have a large amount of survivors speaking in the same room, and there would definitely be undisclosed survivors in the audience, and we didn't want it to be an an event where everyone was becoming retraumatised and put in a really fragile state.
So that was something we had to carefully work through individually with each speaker. It wasn't something that could just be done with a blanket approach.
Peter:
Another thing which struck me on the day was — and I'm interested in the extent to which this was planned or it just emerged — was, you know, we heard about some really devastating consequences and shattered lives, but we also heard aspects of hope and success within some of the stories.
So the testimony felt authentically associated with a range of different characters, but also when one listened to the collection of speakers together, it wasn't unadulterated misery and everything is wrong and hopeless. Actually, within the testimony that was delivered on the day, there were clues and examples that left people at the event thinking, 'actually, it doesn't have to be like this.'
Denise:
It doesn't have to just be pity and sadness. They have their place, but what we wanted to focus on — and we said this right at the beginning of the event — is, you know, bring your whole self, bring all the feelings of anger and and shock, but we want to inspire people to move through that to action because that's what survivors are asking for. That's what they need. That's what they want. So that we're not just stuck in this frozen state of being overwhelmed, which is easy to be.
Part of being able to prioritise that hope and wholeness comes down to really prioritising a trauma-informed approach and making sure that you're prioritising people's strengths and their skills and their humanity and their wholeness, rather than just focusing on what's happened to them. So that was definitely a lens that we put all of the planning through, including all the speeches as well.
Clare:
The other big thing on the actual day itself was the planning Denise had done around specific advocacy; having a safety plan for each individual and having enough support. I think, again, that is something that can be underestimated. Denise is fabulous, but she is not ten people in ten different rooms in ten different scenarios. And we knew — thinking about this amount of people that would require, appropriately so, support on the day — we needed support.
So we went out to IICSA Changemakers and we knew who had the right qualifications, who had the right characteristics and skillset, and was experienced at supporting people with lived experiences in similar situations. We don't think anyone had done a very specific one like this, but Denise, you ran sessions with them and you spent as much time with the advocates as you did with the survivors. I just think it'd be great to talk about that a bit as well.
Denise:
Every survivor speaker had a safety plan that was done with me and in collaboration with them, so they had full transparency of it. Every survivor speaker then had an assigned advocate. As Clare said, this was a dedicated professional that had experience in safeguarding and had been matched and aligned with what that individual speaker would feel comfortable with.
And they were really their point of contact for the day. So imagine it like a miniature safeguarding triage; so we had all of the advocates with their speaker and they could escalate up to me and Clare if necessary, but then they also had their own levels of awareness on their individual speaker safety plan so they could respond in the moment if needed and necessary.
But we absolutely couldn't have done the day without them. I think it would have severely impacted survivor's wellbeing and safety — not just physical safety, but psychological safety as well — if they hadn't had that singular point of contact that they could trust was solely there for them.
Clare:
I think the other thing on the day that we found incredibly important was environment. We'd done quite a few recces of the location. We knew it, we knew what was going to be... how the layout was, and we could describe that to people early on so that we could have discussions around does anything not feel right about that environment? What can we change? What can we do?
But something that we learned on the day was that you have to be flexible to that and that things can change. Denise and I had worked up this huge risk register. Denise had thought of nearly every situation—
Denise:
[Laughter.] Literally every scenario you think possibly could happen.
Clare:
—Every scenario; fire, flood the lot. Peter, you kindly signed it off for us and we had this big conversation about, okay, these are the steps that we've gone through and these are the plans that we've got. And then on the day, I think it's important to share that things can change. In our venue, which was a community/charity-based venue, they had rented out some rooms to the NHS who were doing blood donation and the venue had not shared that with us.
We knew instantly that might be a significant consideration for our survivor speakers, but also our guests — we don't know who has had negative experiences before and that might be a problem. We had to have enough flexibility on the day to move to that, respond to it, and I think the biggest thing we did that people responded to was being transparent about it.
Peter:
You talked about the whole design of the event being trauma-informed. I have lost count of the number of times that I've been to events where someone stands up at the beginning — and the content is going to be about child sexual abuse — and someone says 'there could be some content here which is relevant to child sexual abuse, so I'm just giving you a warning.'
Now, when you say 'trauma-informed' it is so much more than that. I haven't given you notice, Denise, that I'm going to ask you this question but the remarks which you gave at the start of the conference — could you say a little bit more about those?
Denise:
This is the danger with the phrase 'trauma-informed' is that as it gets more well-known, it can also then become tokenised itself and be used in situations that aren't actually trauma-informed. There isn't really one specific common definition, people tend to slightly mould it depending on their organisation and their needs, but there tends to be five or six cornerstones and pillars of trauma-informed practice that people work with.
For Clare and I when we were planning the event, it was: safety, choice, collaboration, trust and cultural equity. So everything we were doing had to prioritise those principles, or I had to look at what I was asking of people or how I was talking to them and say, how am I prioritising these things? What are the power dynamics like? Are we gatekeeping? Are we hoarding information for no reason?
And I really wanted to make sure that came across in the opening of the event, because we knew we had to have a very boundaried event. We knew that for the safety of the delegates and the speakers. But like you said, we didn't want to just stand up and say, 'here's a trigger warning', because although they definitely have their place and some people do find them very helpful, we needed the understanding there as well so delegates could understand the intention and the space and what people needed, so there wasn't this us versus them dynamic; survivors [on] one side, delegates [on] the other side. Because as fantastic as practitioners are, sometimes we distance ourselves from the emotion of an event because it feels safer or because we don't want to seem emotional in our professional lives.
I can't remember the exact words I said, but I think I was trying to speak to that at the beginning and encourage people to be authentic and present, but also to remember that we're not here just to be garnering pity. Survivors don't need people to come and tell them, 'I'm so sorry'. They want to hear what you're going to do about it. And, by the way, these themes are going to come up, so take care of yourselves, but, full transparency, this is what we're talking about.
Peter:
And I'm used to going to events and going away saying, 'oh, my head's buzzing with all these ideas and thoughts' and I'm quite a kind of task-based person and can relate to the idea of, you know, I need to go and lie down and have a think or whatever, because there's so many thoughts going on in my head. Whereas I came out of this experience with so many things going on in my heart and my soul.
And, you know, I've said that it's one of the most memorable days of my time at the NSPCC. I left packed full of... I've said I was concerned. I was horrified. I was inspired. I was angry. I was impatient. I was in awe of the speakers. There were all these feelings going on, and I had to— Rather than going straight on the tube, I took myself off for a walk and that really helped.
But that was me. How was it for the speakers in particular and the advocates and for your selves subsequent to the event? Because I think you've got quite a lot to share there in terms of what we learnt, what we expected and maybe what we didn't expect.
Denise:
You can never do any kind of participation or event like this without there being a cost. That's just the reality of this work. But what's important is making sure that you're transparent and giving enough information that survivors are making informed consent so they can balance that cost, sacrifice versus outcome.
So in the immediate aftermath of the event, we had not only that being explored by speakers, but then the physical and emotional repercussions; because being visible as a survivor, talking about your experiences, it affects you physically, it affects you emotionally, for some people it affects you spiritually, all in individual ways. And it's also not something— I think actually someone said this in one of their speeches, that it doesn't nice and neatly fall into a nine-to-five work pattern. You know, these are symptoms and consequences that unfold over a series of days and weeks.
So the period of time after the event was as important as the prep. We had debriefs, stabilisation time, a lot of check-ins. It was really time to help speakers and survivors route back into their lives, route back into how they feel grounded and stable to make sure that this didn't completely derail them from their present life.
But we had no one regret taking part in the event. No survivor came back and said, 'I wish I hadn't done that. The cost wasn't worth it for me.' And that, for me, is important; that feels worth it.
Peter:
And there's something special about the coalition that is the Changemakers in this context as well, isn't there. So this wasn't the conference which was being put on to advance the interests of any individual or organisation. As you said earlier on, it was to create a platform to amplify the insights and experiences of people who'd experienced child sexual abuse.
And that was something which united the 67 organisations in their determination for things to be better. So, the collective endeavour feels quite special actually in this way of working, which is another interesting thing perhaps just to reflect on.
Clare:
I think it is. We always felt this background of support from the Changemakers. We'd had to do some really careful pitching in the early days when we were planning the event of 'we want to do this, what do you think' and taking in views. But then another thing that we had was space to create.
I remember the early days when we came to you and we said, 'We've got this idea, it's a little bit different, there's an awful lot of risk, but will you trust us to do it?' And you did. And I think that's an incredibly important thing when you have got trust amongst a group of people and can say, okay, it might be risky, but it's going to be worth it as long as you can show me the safety mechanisms and that everything is being done well, it's worth doing. And I think that was always in our mind as we worked through, wasn't it?
Denise:
Yeah, absolutely. You need people at the top to be able to trust and invest in your ideas for it to come to life. But then likewise, I think, Clare, we needed the trust with each other as well because we were managing so much. We needed to be able to feel the support and trust together and then have all the Changemakers as well.
All of the advocates who were Changemakers were phenomenal and their support was absolutely integral. But all of the work that we did is, without minimising our own input, it's nothing compared to the amount of strength and labour that the survivors put in to attend the event, to speak, to deal with the aftermath.
So, for me, even though it was a lot of work, I just think it was all worth it to be able to facilitate that opportunity for survivors and for Changemakers to be there with them and say, we're here with you. Absolutely worth it.
Peter:
So, just to to conclude: if you were to be giving advice to listeners who are thinking of doing work with victims and survivors, what would you say?
Denise:
I suppose I want to draw it back to what I said at the beginning, that with lived experience and working with victims and survivors, it's never a tick box. It's never going to be something that you get absolutely right or you're going to nail every time. There's always going to be risk and flexibility and nuance and intersection with other issues and vulnerabilities, so be alive to that. Don't strive for perfection. Strive for safety, humanity, trauma-informed working; because that's a more realistic outlook when you're approaching this work. Clare, what about you?
Clare:
I would ask yourself a question: is what you're about to do actually going to move things on for future survivors and victims? And if it is, if you can genuinely say to yourself, 'yes, it will,' then it is worth your commitment, time and energy. And if you put that in, know that the survivors have put in a hundred fold more in. Then go for it, embrace it, because it has such significant impact.
You know, for the event, we had a booklet that we gave out at the end, which had my wording that we'd use for IICSA Changemakers, and then it was backed up by survivor experience on every single point. I think I'd given those speeches at events on those points so many times and they'd meant something; but back it up with survivor experience and it lands. The message is so much clearer and easier for people to feel and experience, and like you said, Peter, it hits differently when you get it like that, so it will move positions on.
I think the other really important thing to consider is that fear can creep up in this area. People can overthink and get so caught up and be afraid of taking this step to make sure that they are including survivor voice. I would really urge people to put that fear aside, and if anything turn into your risk management. You can lower your own fear and anxiety by managing things properly, looking for appropriate mitigations to those issues. So use the fear that you had but we would urge please go for it, overcome that fear and turn it into action, because that will actually help people.
Denise:
Sometimes that fear can be part of how we 'other' survivors. It's sometimes referred to as 'othering' where you push and separate a group of people. When we are afraid to connect and afraid to work with, we can 'other'. So think of it as a great piece of advocacy and activism as well. When you're embracing and doing risk management properly, you're connecting and you're making sure that you're breaking down that sense of othering and really treating people and including them.
Clare:
Don't underestimate the importance of skill in this area. It is paramount. It is not safe to do it without it. You need that expertise. But even if you personally don't have that expertise, be open to working with someone who does and they will share with you and they will help you carry out things in a safe and appropriate way and you will be all the better for it.
Peter:
Denise, where where do you go about learning those skills then? So if I come out of this call and I think, 'yeah, that's something I'd like to get better at', what would I need to do?
Denise:
I mean, I have an advantage because most of my career I've worked in the violence against women and girls sector. So I've been frontline, I've worked in training, I've worked in digital technologies, so I've had the benefit of a lot of training in my career.
It's definitely not something that you should bulldoze into and make assumptions of, but you can start learning about trauma-informed practice; I can't emphasise that enough of how critical it is to safe and meaningful work across the board.
Also understanding intersectionality; again, it's something that I think more people are becoming aware of, quite rightly, but you need to have an in-depth courage and willingness to explore it because it's not something that you can just tick off.
So those would be my two ports of call. I would say dive into trauma-informed working, dive into learning about intersectionality and best practice with that, and then that's your skillset that then would help bolster the work.
Peter:
Excellent. Very good. Well, thank you very much to both of you for working so carefully with our lived experience speakers and with the Changemakers to put on such a memorable and important day.
And, as we have this conversation, I have seen and heard from at least one government minister who has reflected on what they have been told happened on this day and how important it is to their thinking. And they're not the only ones, so we need to follow through and follow up on that. But there's definitely work to be done that this day has created something of a reset on.
So, powerful and important work, but it doesn't happen without a huge amount of preparation, and as we've reflected, a huge amount of aftercare, never mind all the diligence that was was applied on the day. So thanks for sharing all of that with us on this podcast and on we go.
Denise:
Thanks, Peter.
Clare:
Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Denise.
Outro:
Thanks for listening to this NSPCC Learning podcast. At the time of recording, this episode’s content was up to date but the world of safeguarding and child protection is ever changing – so, if you're looking for the most current safeguarding and child protection training, information or resources, please visit our website for professionals at nspcc.org.uk/learning.
