Cyber Abuse - Family Therapy Magazine

• Read original article here

Cyber Abuse
Morgan Lancaster Strickland, PhD
 
When we pause to think about all the many affordances our internet infrastructure and technologically connected world lends us, it’s easy to recognize at least a handful of ways our lives have been made easier. Apps like Venmo and CashApp allow us the convenience of immediately paying a friend back who just paid for our coffee, and location sharing gives us the ability to instantly know whether the Uber your little sister got into took her straight home.
So many wonderful advantages have come from our technologically-infiltrated world, yet, for those with poor intentions, it provides an easy and sometimes difficult to trace avenue for bullying, abuse, and even crime. The 2022 Netflix docuseries “The Most Hated Man on the Internet,” for example, outlines the story of Hunter Moore who created a popular website centered solely on posting stolen nude photos of unsuspecting people and connecting the pictures to their social media sites and even home addresses. Luckily, the story of Hunter Moore has a relatively happy ending for his victims with the site being taken down and jail time for Moore, but some victims of these kinds of cybercrimes on a smaller scale never receive such justice.
And what about those whose intentions are not purely criminal, but still perpetrate behavior that inflicts emotional, psychological, and/or relational harm on the receiver? That is a much stickier situation and is often the case for dating partners who mutually engage in cyber dating abuse, or the use of communication technologies to threaten, harass, or control one’s romantic partner (David-Ferdon & Hertz, 2007). At first glance, some cyber dating abuse behaviors may be hard to identify because they can also be healthy relational behaviors when used appropriately; for example, checking a partner’s location via a GPS tracking app to ensure they got home safely might be seen as a thoughtful, caring behavior, but constantly monitoring a partner’s whereabouts out of jealousy or unwarranted suspicion is likely experienced as controlling. Other cyber dating abuse behaviors are more obvious, like using a partner’s social network passwords without permission, sending threatening texts to a partner, and sharing private pictures or videos that include nudity. Unfortunately, rates of this type of partner violence are high both in adolescent populations (56%; Cava, Buelga, Carrascosa, & Ortega-Barón, 2020) and young adults (92%; Bennett, Guran, Ramos, & Margolin, 2011) in empirical samples, and with a reported 95% of teens having access to a smartphone (Pew Research Center, 2022) and 46% saying they use the internet almost constantly, clinicians need to be well prepared to handle cyber dating abuse concerns in the therapy room.
So, what’s the best way for clinicians to address cyber dating abuse with clients? It starts with systemic and thorough assessment. One method for which those in the field have advocated for cyber dating abuse assessment is the Couple and Family Technology Framework (Hertlein, 2012). This framework outlines the necessity of examining how technology affects the structure and process of relationships and offers seven characteristics of technology that affect changes to relationships: They include accessibility, affordability, how one can be anonymous through using technology, and how technology can approximate real world situations. The other characteristics include that technology use is very acceptable in relationships, interpretation through technology can involve ambiguity, and can be used to accommodate wishes that may otherwise be unrealistic in real life. These seven characteristics point to issues of structure (roles, rules, and boundaries) as well as processes (the way relationships are initiated, maintained, and terminated) that should be examined in terms of how technology intersects with the relational dynamics of the couple (Hertlein, 2012; Hertlein & Twist, 2019).
It is also extremely important for MFTs to maintain a systemic lens while assessing for cyber dating abuse, as the etiology of partner violence and aggression in a relationship is multifaceted (Whiting, Merchant, Bradford, & Smith, 2020). Considering the context each person brings to how, when, and why technology is used to interact with their partner is part of collecting information about the way the system functions that is necessary for making an effective treatment plan. For example, hearing that a client stole his partner’s phone and sent messages to her contacts without her knowledge may sound concerning at first take. With the added context that the messages were to her friends to coordinate a surprise birthday party for her, perhaps the concern lessens. Context is important.
Unfortunately, empirically validated programs designed to curb cyber dating abuse are virtually non-existent (no pun intended). In a systematic review of cyber dating abuse prevention programs conducted in 2020, the authors found only four studies that reported on three prevention programs with an explicit objective to lower cyber dating violence (Galende, Ozamiz-Etxebarria, Jaureguizar, & Redondo, 2020). All three programs were successful in changing participants’ beliefs and attitudes about cyber dating abuse by having participants do activities such as examine myths of romantic love, sexist attitudes, and cognitions related to the possibility of changing people and situations (Carrascosa, Cava Caballero, Buelga Vásquez, & Jesus 2019; Sánchez-Jiménez, Muñoz-Fernández, Ortega-Rivera, 2018; Muñoz-Fernández, Ortega-Rivera, Nocentini, Menesini, & Sánchez-Jiménez, 2019; Fernández-González, Calvete, & Sánchez-Álvarez, 2011). However, these studies did not measure how the programs impacted actual cyber dating abuse-related behaviors.
Research on peer-to-peer (i.e., with a nonromantic partner) cyberbullying is much more established and lends a bit more information about effective interventions that have potential to be translated to the abuse occurring between partners online. Most cyberbullying interventions are effective in coping with cyberbullying regardless of the method, tool, or theory in which the programs are based (Özgür, 2020), and one meta-analysis suggested that the average cyberbullying program would have a 76% and 73% probability of reducing cyberbullying perpetration and victimization, respectively (Polanin et al., 2022). So, if all the programs are effective, which common elements are most important for clinicians to keep in mind when working with clients struggling with cyber dating abuse?
The good news for MFTs is that there is some evidence to suggest that interventions targeting emotion regulation, communication skills, empathy, and coping strategies can improve cyber abuse (Lancaster, 2018). Teaching these skills is a practice in which most MFTs are generally well versed and have spent a great deal of time in dialogue about, but perhaps in different content areas. In addition, however, clinicians should be prepared to talk about digital citizenship and specific cyber dating abuse behaviors with individuals, couples, and families. Because technology has become ubiquitous in our lives, a sort of homeostasis is likely to set in within family systems that could allow for some harmful technology use to seem normal. As MFTs, we have an opportunity to encourage clients to dig deeper in asking themselves why their behavior over technology looks a certain way (e.g., why is it so important to me that my partner has a new female follower on Instagram?) as well as provide technology-based strategies that have potential to better the relationship (e.g., pausing to text coherent thoughts and emotions to partner when conflict gets too escalated in-person).
In sum, cyber dating abuse is a pervasive problem that clinicians should become accustomed to assessing and intervening. By utilizing thorough assessment strategies, teaching “traditional” therapy skills like emotion regulation, and by talking with couples specifically about patterns they exhibit via technology, we have the ability to help couples recognize other ways of interacting with one another that communicates trust, acceptance, and respect.
This article is offered free by AAMFT. If you are interested in accessing members-only content, join today!
Research on peer-to-peer cyberbullying is much more established and lends a bit more information about effective interventions that have potential to be translated to the abuse occurring between partners online.
Morgan Lancaster Strickland, PhD, is an AAMFT Professional Member holding the Approved Supervisor designation and is an assistant professor of Marriage and Family Therapy and the associate program director for the MFT program, Converse University, Spartanburg, SC. She provides individual, couple, and family therapy and has worked in both traditional therapeutic settings and integrated healthcare settings. Her research focuses on family violence and how survivors can remain resilient to adverse outcomes. She is interested in how violence is perpetuated through communication technologies and how MFTs and other mental health professionals can better assess and intervene in this pervasive problem. Her dissertation on cyber dating abuse won the 2020 AAMFT Foundation Graduate Student Research Award.
REFERENCES
Bennett, D., Guran, E., Ramos, M., & Margolin, G. (2011). College students’ electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 26, 410-429. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.4.410
Carrascosa, L., Cava Caballero, M. J., Buelga Vásquez, S., Jesus ,S. (2019). Reduction of sexist attitudes, romantic myths, and aggressive behaviors in adolescents: Efficacy of the DARSI program. Psicothema; 31(2), 121–127. DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2018.245
Cava, M. J., Buelga, S., Carrascosa, L., & Ortega-Barón, J. (2020). Relations among romantic myths, offline dating violence victimization and cyber dating violence victimization in adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1551. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051551
David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M. F. (2007). Electronic media, violence, and adolescents: An emerging public health problem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S1-S5. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.020
Fernández-González, L., Calvete, E., & Sánchez-Álvarez, N. (2011). Efficacy of a brief intervention based on an incremental theory of personality in the prevention of adolescent dating violence: A randomized controlled trial. Psychosocial Intervention,14(12), 9-18. doi:10.5093/pi2019a14
Galende, N., Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N., Jaureguizar, J., & Redondo, I. (2020). Cyber dating violence prevention programs in universal populations: A systematic review. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 13, 1089-1099. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S275414
Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relationships. Family Relations, 61(3), 374-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00702.x
Hertlein, K. M., & Twist, M. L. C. (2019). The internet family. Routledge.
Lancaster, M. (2018). A systematic research synthesis on cyberbullying interventions in the United States. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(10), 593-602. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2018.0307
Muñoz-Fernández, N., Ortega-Rivera, J., Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Sánchez-Jiménez, V. (2019). The efficacy of the “dat-e adolescence” prevention program in the reduction of dating violence and bullying. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3), 408.
Özgür, H. (2020). A systematic review on cyberbullying interventions and preventions. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(1), 11-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9i1.3373
Pew Research Center. (2022). Teens, social media and technology. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/
Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., Grotpeter, J. K., Ingram, K., Michaelson, L., Spinney, E., Valido, A., Sheikh, A. E., Torgal, C., & Robinson, L. (2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to decrease cyberbullying perpetration and victimization. Prevention Science, 23(3), 439-454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01259-y
Sánchez-Jiménez V., Muñoz-Fernández, N., & Ortega-Rivera, J. (2018). Efficacy evaluation of ”dat-e adolescence”: A dating violence prevention program in Spain. PLoS One,13(10), e0205802.
Whiting, J. B., Merchant, L. V., Bradford, A. B., & Smith, D. (2020). The ecology of family violence: Treating cultural contexts and relationship processes. In K. Wampler & A. Blow (Eds.), Handbook of systemic therapy. Springer.
Other articles
Cyberbullying and Online Gaming
Cyberbullying is bullying that takes place over digital devices like cell phones, computers, and tablets. Cyberbullying can occur through SMS, text, and apps, or online in social media, forums, or gaming where people can view, participate in, or share content. Cyberbullying includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else. It can include sharing personal or private information about someone else causing embarrassment or humiliation. Some cyberbullying crosses the line into unlawful or criminal behavior.
x
Special to This Issue
An Iranian Therapist’s Reflection: A Revolution has Begun, Inspired by Decades of Oppression, Led with Courage and Determination by the Women of Iran
 I was born in Iran, and at the age of 10, my family and I absconded from multi-systemic injustices and immigrated to the US in hopes of extended opportunities and freedom. I was about three years old when the Islamic Republic overthrew the Shah of Iran and the Iran-Iraq War started.
Bahareh Sahebi, PysD
Self-Esteem and Social Media Impact
At age 16-17, while I was struggling emotionally to get through high school, I had been the target of a bully for many months, which escalated nearing the end of my senior year. To add insult to injury, this bully was my best friend (or so I thought). This was during the 80s when there was no social media, cell phones, or other electronic/internet access to images. There only existed the daily experience with my peers, magazine pictures, commercials, television shows, etc.
Katharine Larson, MA
Proposed Rule Allows MFTs Greater Flexibility in Providing Care to Medicare Beneficiaries Under Supervision
On July 7, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services…
By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies, whose purpose it is to provide web analytics and measurements of visitor traffic and browsing behavior.
Close
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
TREATNET Family and the United Nations: Family Therapy with Adolescents at Risk of Substance Abuse and Contact with the Criminal Justice System
In 2018, we (LLC and MP) met in person for the first time in the lobby outside a large conference room at the United Nations Office in Vienna. Although we had collaborated previously (Palit & Levin, 2016; Charlés & Samarasinghe, 2016), we had never met face-to-face. In Vienna, we were invited participants in a United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) technical consultation: “Elements of Family-based Treatments for Adolescents with Drug Use Disorders: Creating Societies Resilient to Drugs and Crime. ” This consultation meeting included 25 experts across the fields of family therapy, staff from the UNODC PTRS unit, and the World Health Organization, and subject matter experts in substance use disorders and countering violent extremism. The meeting was convened for a memorable week in Vienna, with participants from over 13 countries. The goal of the meeting was “to identify key elements of effective approaches to the treatment of adolescents with drug use disorders and to provide guidance for the development of a UN training package on family therapy.” A key aspect of the “effective approaches” and “guidance” asked of us as a group of technical experts was that we had to consider FT adaptation and implementation in low and middle income countries. The challenge is clear; while research studies in many contexts illustrate how systemic family therapy practices are part of the evidence base, Busse et al. (2021) noted that:
…almost all these studies were conducted in high-income countries and almost all of them were conducted within a research context in university setting. As such, the findings might not be generalisable to studies conducted in LMICs …. Furthermore, adolescents with SUDs and their families in LMICs do not have or very little access to effective treatment such as family-based therapy. To address this accessibility gap as well as to increase quality and diversity of treatment options for adolescents with drug and other SUDs, the Treatnet Family (TF) was developed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC; 2020). (p. 2)
That package that was begun in 2018 in Vienna is now called Treatnet Family (see below for an example of some of the concepts addressed in the package). Treatnet Family has been a part of feasibility studies, has been implemented in many countries and regions, and involved hundreds of practitioners across the globe. The package is openly accessible at no cost, and as of this writing, has been translated into four languages, with more on the way. We need more multilateral efforts and collaborations like this one, and family therapy as an established field needs to hear much more and much more often about the ways practice must be adapted to meet country contexts across the globe.
A recent publication by Busse et al. (2021) described Treatnet Family (TF) as:
containing elements of evidence-based family therapy which has been developed specifically for adolescents with SUDs and their families in low resource settings. TF focuses on family interactions and uses elements of family therapy to interrupt ineffective communication within the family. It contains the key components of family therapy, such as:
positive reframing (i.e., positive labeling of a negative behavior without necessarily accepting it as fine. It involves emphasizing the possible positive intent behind a seemingly negative behavior),
positive relational reframing (i.e., positive labeling of a negative behavior in relationship to the family without necessarily accepting it as okay. Even when the behavior is self-destructive, the intent behind it can be understood and appreciated, yet not necessarily condoned).
perspective taking (i.e., developing empathy and the ability to take another person’s viewpoint into account).
relational questions (i.e., to support perspective taking, relational questions are asked [e.g., “When Narendra gets into trouble, who feels most sorry for him?”] in order to encourage perspective taking and relational thinking).
going with resistance (i.e., helping family members feel heard and understood, which reduces defensiveness and makes more productive conversations possible).
TF has six sessions, with each session lasting between 90 and 120 minutes. Each session is to be attended by the adolescent with SUDs and his/her family members because the primary focus of the sessions is on the relationships among family members. The practitioner’s role is to interrupt problematic cycles, ineffective communication, and harmful behaviors family members currently use to meet their emotional and interpersonal needs. As change in family interaction can influence each family member’s behavior, family members are encouraged to be part of the solution.” (p. 2)
For more on Treatnet Family: https://www.unodc.org/documents/southeasterneurope/UNODC_Treatnet_Family_brochure_190320.pdf
CLOSE
Definitions
The following are definitions for terms commonly used pertaining to becoming licensed in other states or practicing in other states. The definitions below represent how these terms are used in this article and may not represent how these terms are defined by others:
Portability: Portability or license portability is the general ability to take an individual’s qualifications for a license in one state and apply them for licensure in another state. The term “portability” is used to describe the various methods to allow a licensee in one state to be able to legally provide services to clients in other states, including through model laws, reciprocity, endorsement, or compacts.
Model Laws: Model laws, also referred to as model portability laws, are laws included as provisions within existing state licensure statutes that allow out-of-state licensees to obtain a license in a state in an expedited fashion without having to meet all of the requirements that an associate clinician applying for initial licensure would have to meet. Most MFT state licensure laws contact such model laws allowing an MFT licensed in another state to obtain licensure if they meet certain requirements or have been licensed for several years. Model laws are far more common than licensure compacts. Unlike compacts, the language in model laws can differ from state to state.
Endorsement: Endorsement generally describes laws that allow a state board to recognize or endorse a person’s license granted in another state, allowing that person to become licensed in the endorsing state. The terms “portability” and “endorsement” are commonly used interchangeably.
Reciprocity: Licensure reciprocity is when a state honors and recognizes licensees from certain other states through mutual agreements in other states. However, in the healthcare field, these agreements, which must be approved by officials in each state, are not found in most states pertaining to mental health licensure as states are reluctant to grant reciprocity.
Close
Afghan Family Evacuees: “Not just here for themselves”
I (LLC) interviewed Alexandra “Xan” Weber, International Institute for New England’s (IINE) Senior Vice President for Advancement. IINE was founded in 1918, and is a non-profit social service organization that serves refugees and immigrants through resettlement, education, livelihood/career advancement and support for the journey toward citizenship. Responsible for resource development, advocacy, and strategic initiatives, Xan oversees the organization’s fundraising, institutional partnerships, advocacy initiatives, and strategic planning. She began her career at IINE in 2008 as IINE’s Director of Community Services, managing the Boston site’s refugee resettlement program, various victim services projects, and behavioral health services. IINE is an affiliate of the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, and one of the nine national networks contracted with the U.S. Department of State to resettle Afghan evacuees. In 12 weeks, IINE resettled over 450 Afghan evacuees throughout New England.
Laurie: What are the most important things that clinicians need to know about this group? 
Xan: In my presentations to the community, I often list everything that refugees usually go through—statelessness and forced migration, violence, war. This population faced an additional challenge—evacuation, an additional trauma. At IINE, we’re not used to receiving evacuated populations who have had no time to prepare and process their resettlement. Afghan evacuees did not prepare for resettlement and I think that that in itself has created another layer of suffering. We are meeting many Afghans who do not have a sense of refugee identity. Evacuees made a life or death decision to evacuate—a lot to process in just a short amount of time. And we’ve heard the actual evacuation itself was horrible and traumatic. People rushing the airports and tarmacs and getting trampled, getting pulled over barbed wire fencing to reach an airplane, some people making it onboard and others not and families separated.
Afghan evacuees were air evac’ed from Afghanistan to a third country, and this step added to the complexity of their resettlement process. From overseas bases, evacuees were flown to Dulles Airport in Virginia and then dispersed to military bases in the U.S. A shuffling between U.S. bases in multiple countries is not the typical refugee experience, and when they arrived at U.S. bases, most lacked processing documentation. Lack of documentation impacted evacuees’ sense of security—they did not enter the country with traditional refugee documentation, work authorization, etc. The U.S. government didn’t really know who they were and they had to go through months of processing on U.S. bases to generate critical documents. On the U.S. military bases, families struggled. Even if they had shelter, heat, and food that they could eat, for some there was so much dust in the air, their children had asthma attacks. 
Laurie: Can you say a bit more about the term used for the evacuees? “Humanitarian parole”?
Xan: Most Afghan evacuees were offered Humanitarian Parole by the U.S., and they entered as parolees. Humanitarian Parole is a rare authorization—it’s an opportunity offered to people ineligible for admission to the U.S. to enter temporarily due to a compelling emergency. This designation is outside of refugee processing, and it doesn’t confer the same benefits. Afghans who have humanitarian parole have been authorized to stay in the U.S. for two years, and within that time, they have to adjust their legal status or they will become unlawfully present. Afghan evacuee status presents, therefore, an additional significant concern—without a broad status adjustment of the 100,000 Afghans who are here now, every single one of them will need an attorney to adjust their legal status in the U.S. The adjustment process is extraordinarily time consuming and expensive.  
Laurie: How would you say your organization looks at mental health and psychosocial support needs of the families you serve, in particular the Afghan families? 
Xan: I think it’s our mission to consider clients’ health, mental health, and well-being. The logistical support offered by resettlement is not enough. Refugees by definition have been through persecution, for many physical and emotional violence, and upon resettlement need time to adjust. Ideally, IINE would have clinically-trained case workers who could enhance client health, even providing practical and logistical support alone. We don’t have many clinically-trained case workers on staff, but we are lucky because we work with amazing community health center partners, and over the summer we moved offices in Lowell and are now co-located with the Lowell Community Health Center. In considering our move, we asked ourselves, what’s the most important support that our clients need that we don’t provide? We don’t provide healthcare [at IINE]. In combining skill sets with partners, we can achieve holistic support.
Laurie: What have you seen that’s on the minds of these families? What’s the thing that they’re telling you or telling your caseworkers?
Xan: I’ve worked with a few Afghan families myself, and our staff have shared lots of different stories about their experiences resettling Afghan evacuees. Honestly, I think our staff, on the whole, are very challenged by many of the Afghan families that they’ve met. The evacuees’ expectations are so high, and many seem so dissatisfied with what we can offer through the resettlement program. The U.S. resettlement program is one-size-fits all: every refugee receives the same services and support, right down to the the number of forks, spoons, and knives per family…it’s very, very proscribed. 
At IINE, we’ve been doing this a long time—we try to assess each family’s needs and we give as much individualized support as we can. Because of an incredible outpouring of support from community members and funders, the Afghan evacuee population is receiving about five times the amount of funding and resources than any other resettling refugee population. But many evacuees are upset because they expect to resettle into a middle-class American life, and the U.S. refugee program doesn’t provide resources to begin life in the U.S. at that economic level.  Most families we have met are completely focused on their children, and they are here for their children. They’re also really focused on working; they want to get a job. They want to know where their paperwork is. They want to know where the grocery store is. They want to know how to get work authorization. They want to know where things are, they want to do things. They want a bank account, they want to finally move into the driver’s seat in their life after having a huge, disruptive time of feeling out of control. 
After the evacuation experience, it hard to know how so many function so well. Most are simultaneously experiencing deep grief, because most of their family is still in Afghanistan. 
Laurie: Have you noticed things that have worked that have been helpful to reduce the worry for the families you work with, or that caseworkers work with?
Xan: I think when evacuees get their questions answered, that’s the most helpful, moving away from complete uncertainty about everything and toward control. Even if it’s just receiving a food card to go and buy their own groceries. These are practical things that I think have helped people start making their decisions, and feeling more in control. 
Laurie: You mention the deep grief for families, who are separated from each other, with many still in Afghanistan. Can you say more about what is happening regarding reuniting families?
Xan: Most evacuees left most of their family in Afghanistan when they were evacuated. We refer evacuees to our attorneys to explore legal reunification options. But we haven’t had success in helping Afghan families in country to get out. An IINE case worker is an Afghan refugee whose family resettled in Canada, and she and her husband were admitted to the U.S. Her entire family fled Afghanistan through Pakistan, and just barely escaped. They recently  joined her sister in Canada. The CTV W5 Channel broadcasting station did an entire video series on her—with graphic footage of the Afghan evacuation. Watching it, I realized it is hard to put into context what people endured. People had to decide who in their family was going to try to evacuate and who would be left behind.
But those who fled have not left their connections behind. Many Afghans are motivated to resettle and work because they want to be able to send money home, to those now struggling in an Afghanistan on the verge of famine. I was just talking to someone who worked in Afghanistan for years, and he said all of the money wire channels are still open, and people can still send money through Western Union to family in Afghanistan. At the end of the day, what you learn as a resettlement provider is that those offered a chance to resettle in a new country and rebuild their lives are not just here for themselves. They try desperately to share even the most basic, modest support they are given with others still in hell.
Close
Afghan Family Evacuees: “Not just here for themselves.”
I (LLC) interviewed Alexandra “Xan” Weber, International Institute for New England’s (IINE) Senior Vice President for Advancement. IINE was founded in 1918, and is a non-profit social service organization that serves refugees and immigrants through resettlement, education, livelihood/career advancement and support for the journey toward citizenship. Responsible for resource development, advocacy, and strategic initiatives, Xan oversees the organization’s fundraising, institutional partnerships, advocacy initiatives, and strategic planning. She began her career at IINE in 2008 as IINE’s Director of Community Services, managing the Boston site’s refugee resettlement program, various victim services projects, and behavioral health services. IINE is an affiliate of the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, and one of the nine national networks contracted with the U.S. Department of State to resettle Afghan evacuees. In 12 weeks, IINE resettled over 450 Afghan evacuees throughout New England.
Laurie: What are the most important things that clinicians need to know about this group?
Xan: In my presentations to the community, I often list everything that refugees usually go through—statelessness and forced migration, violence, war. This population faced an additional challenge—evacuation, an additional trauma. At IINE, we’re not used to receiving evacuated populations who have had no time to prepare and process their resettlement. Afghan evacuees did not prepare for resettlement and I think that that in itself has created another layer of suffering. We are meeting many Afghans who do not have a sense of refugee identity. Evacuees made a life or death decision to evacuate—a lot to process in just a short amount of time. And we’ve heard the actual evacuation itself was horrible and traumatic. People rushing the airports and tarmacs and getting trampled, getting pulled over barbed wire fencing to reach an airplane, some people making it onboard and others not and families separated.
Afghan evacuees were air evac’ed from Afghanistan to a third country, and this step added to the complexity of their resettlement process. From overseas bases, evacuees were flown to Dulles Airport in Virginia and then dispersed to military bases in the U.S. A shuffling between U.S. bases in multiple countries is not the typical refugee experience, and when they arrived at U.S. bases, most lacked processing documentation. Lack of documentation impacted evacuees’ sense of
Close