Sortir ensemble et se respecter-SEESR » Final report

Transcription

Centre Universitaire Romand de médecine légale
Unité de Médecine des Violences
« Sortir ensemble et se
respecter-SEESR »
Final report
1
« Sortir ensemble et se respecter-SEESR »
Prévention des violences et promotions des compétences
dans les relations amoureuses auprès des jeunes
RAPHAELA MINORE, DIPL. PSYCH., CHARGÉE DE RECHERCHE À LA FONDATION CHARLOTTE OLIVIER
MARIE-CLAUDE HOFNER, MÉDECIN ASSOCIÉE À L’UNITÉ DE MÉDECINE DES VIOLENCES
Nous remercions Jacqueline de Puy pour la relecture des documents en anglais et Isabelle Evéquoz
Diethelm pour la relecture des documents en français
Financement : Fondation UBS OPTMUS
Lausanne, le 20 août 2013
2
FEASABILITY STUDY REPORT
ASSESSING THE FEASIBILITY OF THE “SORTIR ENSEMBLE ET
SE
RESPECTER-SEESR “PROGRAM
AMONG
SEESR
FACILITATORS IN FRENCH-SPEAKING SWITZERLAND
SEESR:
A
PREVENTION
PROGRAM
PROMOTING
HEALTHY
AND
RESPECTFUL RELATIONSHIPS AND POSITIVE COMPETENCIES IN EARLY
DATING
RAPHAELA MINORE, DIPL. PSYCH., CHARGÉE DE RECHERCHE À LA FONDATION CHARLOTTE OLIVIER
MARIE-CLAUDE HOFNER, MÉDECIN ASSOCIÉE À L’UNITÉ DE MÉDECINE DES VIOLENCES
ABSTRACT
Teen dating violence, concerning more than 20% of teens in Switzerland, is a significant
public health problem that causes immediate and long term harm, adverse consequences and
reproduction of violent settings in adulthood.
A prevention program positively evaluated in the United States, “Safe Dates”, a US teen
dating violence prevention program, has been adapted for the Swiss cultural context. “Sortir
ensemble et se respecter-SEESR”, the Swiss version of the program, includes 9 weekly sessions with
groups of girls and boys aged 13 to 18 years, promoting healthy and respectful relationships and
positive competencies in early dating relationships. Since 2003 some professional has been trained
for the facilitation of this program.
In order to better understand conditions of a large scale implementation of SEESR, a
feasibility study was performed in 2012-13. The study revealed that the program is currently
implemented in different contexts (schools, specialized training, prevention centers, leisure centers,
victim assistance, foster home) with a high level of satisfaction of both trainers and young people.
Nevertheless, a lack of quality insurance and of systematic evaluation was observed, demanding
development of a quality control support device for trainers, and a regular centralized monitoring.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.
Material and Method .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.
4.
2.1
Study design ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2
Constitution of the study population.............................................................................................................. 6
Questionnaire survey ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1
Survey method ................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2
Population survey.............................................................................................................................................. 7
3.3
Survey results ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Focus group ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1
Focus-group method ....................................................................................................................................... 15
4.2
Focus-group Survey population .................................................................................................................... 15
4.3
Focus-group results ......................................................................................................................................... 15
5.
Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................................... 18
6.
Conclusion and recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 19
7.
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20
7.1
Questionnaire survey ...................................................................................................................................... 20
7.2
Focus-group: plan and questions of the meeting ........................................................................................ 22
7.3
Focus-group: discussion’s transcription ....................................................................................................... 23
8.
Selected bibliography per Youth Dating Violence ....................................................................................................... 27
9.
References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30
4
1.
INTRODUCTION
Teen dating violence is a significant public health problem that can cause immediate and
long term harm (1), adverse consequences and reproduction of violent settings in adulthood (2). In
Switzerland, 20% to 30 % of young people reported having been sexually abused at least once in
their life, most of the time, the perpetrator was a peer (3). Swiss and international studies identify
that gender stereotypes and easy access to pornography contribute to this phenomenon by
propagating models of dominance, lack of respect and social acceptance of physical, psychological
and sexual violence. In addition, adolescents tend to trivialize abuse, especially verbal and emotional
abusive behavior (4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
To raise awareness and educate young boys and girls to identify and prevent abusive
behavior that may occur in early dating relationships, SEESR has been identified as one of the best
preventive practices. The period during which teenagers contemplate and/or experience their first
dating relationships are crucial for setting long term patterns and provide a favorable context to
learn positive relationship models (9). Early prevention programs are a critical part of global
prevention of domestic and partner violence in Switzerland (10,11, 12).
Many violence prevention programs exist and are implemented but their impact is rarely
evaluated, due to lack of means. “Safe Date” is a violence prevention program targeted at young
boys and girls developed in the United States (University of Chapel Hill, North Carolina) (13). Its
impact has been carefully evaluated on a large scale and has shows its effectiveness and positive
effect. Young people involved in "Safe Date" trivialized less violence, perceived better negative
consequences of their behavior, reacted in a less destructive way to anger and were more aware of
existing services for victims (14).
“Safe Date” was adapted to the Swiss cultural context in 2002 following a careful feasibility
study among young people and social workers (15). The latest Swiss adaptation of the program
published in 2009, “Sortir ensemble et se respecter-SEESR”, includes 9 weekly sessions with groups
of young people aged 13 to 18 years. Activities (scenes of daily life, role playing, etc…) aim to
promote discussion and to enable young people to think about what they are looking for in a
relationship. On the one hand, it encourages young people to change their attitudes or behaviors and
learn new interpersonal skills. On the other hand, the program provides resources to resolve
difficulties that may arise in early dating relationships and to identify potential abusive behavior.
Since 2003 teaching sessions were organized by members of the SEESR Swiss association to
train professionals working with young people (social workers, educators, teachers, etc.) to facilitate
the SEESR program. As the SEESR association had very few financial means, even a basic monitoring
of the number of trainers trained, of young people exposed to the program or institutions hosting
the program were missing. Little was known about conditions of implementation, difficulties and
needs of trainers or the appreciation of participants. Once the Fondation Charlotte Olivier took over
the task of promoting and managing the SEESR program, it was decided to carry out a feasibility
study to collect data about the trainers, sites and conditions of program accomplishment, and needs
for implementation of SEESR in Switzerland.
5
2.
2.1
MATERIAL AND M ETHOD
STUDY DESIGN
In order to assess the feasibility of the SEESR program, to collect data about facilitators of the
program, sites, conditions and needs for the program implementation, we conducted a survey by
means of semi-structured interviews and focus group with representatives of institutions (IR) trained
to facilitate SEESR.
2.2
CONSTITUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION
The first step was to constitute a group of key persons able to provide information about
what was happening with SEESR in French-speaking Switzerland (“Suisse Romande”). From a primary
record of all types of contacts collected by the SEESR association (N=221), we selected contacts
registered as interested in or having followed a training session. Thus, a secondary list including
supposedly trained contacts was established (N=68). Via phone calls and/or email messages, we
excluded some contacts: addresses impossible to find out (N=7), people interested but untrained
(N=3), active only in administrative activities (N=2) or research (N=3) with no contact with young
people, changed jobs or domain (N=7), retired (N=1), deceased (N=1). Following information
collected by primary phone calls, the contact list was completed with: facilitators who actually
followed the SEESR training but were not registered in the primary list (N=5), persons who
implement the program but did not attend the SEESR association’s training, either trained by another
organization or “learned by doing in professional context” (N=3) and another institution known to
implement the program but not registered in the initial list (N=1).
Finally a database of 53 validated contacts constituted our survey population. Contacts are
active in different area, some of them share the same institution and/or function, they represent 31
various institutions: school, specialized training, prevention centers, leisure centers, victim assistance
and foster home scattered in 5 of the 6 “Suisse Romande” cantons (see figure I).
5
4
VD
3
FR
2
NE
1
VS
0
school
Specialised
training
Prevention
center
Leisure center
Victim
assistance
Foster home
GE
Figure I: Number of institutions per cantons represented by our survey population
3.
QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
3.1 SURVEY METHOD
Interviews were conducted following an interview schedule by telephone, except for two
institutions where interviews were conducted face to face. Each interview was transcribed and
submitted to the interviewed institution representative (IIR) for corrections, additions and validation
6
of the data per email. The questionnaire focused on facilitators’ motivation about the issue,
satisfaction concerning the SEESR training, implementation and evaluation conditions and needs,
topicality and effectiveness of the program (appendix 7.1). Elementary socio-demographic data
completed the questionnaire.
3.2 POPULATION SURVEY
As the topic was to investigate the feasibility of the program and characteristics of
potentially favorable implementation settings rather than individual experiences, we focused on
contacting one representative per institution. Finally 35 contacts were established among which, 7
did not answer and one dropped out. Our final sample consists of 27 interviewed institution
representative (IIR) of 25 institutions (following two explicit requests two IIR were interviewed in two
institutions).
Population characteristics: The majority are social educators (N=10) and sexual health
educators (N=5), others are sociocultural facilitators (N=5), psychologists (N=4) and adults trainers or
persons responsible for violence prevention in their institutions (N=3). Years of experience in the
respective domain are variable, at the moment of SEESR training some have more than 10 years of
experience (N=9) other less (N=11), 7 did not provide any information in this respect. 25 different
institutions and centers from French-speaking cantons are represented by IIR (see figure II).
3.5
3
2.5
VD
2
FR
1.5
NE
1
VS
0.5
GE
0
school
Specialised
training
Prevention
center
Leisure center
Victim
assistance
Foster home
Figure II: IIR institutions per canton
IIR were trained between the years 2002 to 2011 (N=27), the majority followed
SEESR training within the scope of their professional activity (N=21), a minority during their studies
(N=3) and 3 did not follow SEESR training but were trained by another organization or learned by
doing in professional context. Training sessions took place in Canton Vaud (N=11), Fribourg (N=5);
Geneva (N=5) (3 did not follow a SEESR training session, and 3 did not provide any information in this
respect). For the majority (N=17), the training session was financially supported by their employers.
IIR reported that they chose to attend the SEESR training for different reasons: interest for the topic
(N=6), usefulness for their professional activity (N=11), in need of tools to speak about violence with
young people (N=7), and to help young people in their relationships (N=8). Moreover, IIR report to
witness frequently violence between young people.
7
3.3
SURVEY RESULTS
3.3.1
TRAINING
IIR who followed SEESR training sessions (N=24) are in general satisfied with the training and
feel able (on a scale from 1 “not able at all” to 4” quite capable”) to implement the program and to
animate debates with the young (mean=3.8), to provide explanations about abusive relationships
and the dynamics of violence (mean=3.6) and about gender differences and homosexuality (mean=
3.4). For several IIR, the SEESR training strengthens initial professional skills (N=9) and is good
enough to implement the program easily (N=4). For others, the training should develop the topic of
homosexuality and gender differences and go more deeply into facilitating aspects (N=7). A minority
report the need for coaching to implement the program in their institutions (N=5).
3.3.2
TOPICALITY OF THE PROGRAM’S CONTENTS
Concerning the topicality of the examples, a minority doesn’t remember enough to answer
precisely (N=9). For the majority examples are adequate and still current (N=13), nevertheless, they
should be adapted to new contents as social networks (N=6). On the one hand, some examples are
reported to be too complicated either for young people in a special education vocational training
school (N=1) or for younger children (N=3); on the other hand, some examples are reported to be too
childish (N=2). IIR report different elements to be adapted or added to promote SEESR’s
implementation:
 Actualize and integrate new contents (N=6):
o use of internet social network and mobile phones in relation to virtual communication and
protection of privacy, relating to nude photos and videos.
o impact of alcohol during leisure time.
o role of men in current society and social expectations of women.
o current statistics about violence and abuse.
o relations to other domains as violence at work.
 Add training support (N=5):
o more training focusing on practice.
o continuing education.
o meetings with the facilitators to exchange views about practical aspects; knowing other
facilitators is reported to be an important resource.
 Change some exercises (N=2): more funny and interactive exercises (video, photos, theater
game).
 Anticipate the promotion (N=2): Find institutions agreeing to implement the program.
 Use of some sessions of the program as one tool among others (N=5): The program is reported to
be too long to be used in current activities. The SEESR program should be used as a tool, in order
to provide a lesson or an exercise when needed.
8
3.3.3
IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF SEESR PROGRAM
We observe that the majority of IIR have been using or still use the program (N=25), only two
do not use it, mainly due to lack of collaboration. The uses are varied, the majority provide or have
provided all the sessions of the program occasionally (N=8) or regularly (N=6). A minority implement
the program partially, selecting sessions occasionally (N=1) or regularly (N=1), and some include
some SEESR exercises in their other activities (N=5). Partial use and use of only some isolated SEESR
tools is mainly due to lack of time to provide all program’s sessions. Adult trainers and sexual health
facilitators are involved in classroom only for a few hours and insert some exercises to their
respective program reporting that exercises are useful to address the issue of abuse. A minority of IIR
have attempted to implement the program in leisure centers (N=5) nevertheless after advertising,
they did not reach the management (N=1) or/and the youth (N=4) who did not register to participate
in the program.
IIR implement the program either in their own organizations or in other ones.
Implementation sites vary, with no implementation in a center for victim assistance and quite a few
in leisure centers. Figure II (below) shows the type of use of the program according to the following
modalities of implementation: total (9 sessions), partial (less than 9 sessions), use of some tools, and
by type of institution delivering the program.
6
9
sessions
<9
sessions
Tools
5
4
3
2
1
0
Obligatory schools
Specialised
Professional
schools
Prevention center
Helping center
Foster Home
Leisure center
Figure 1: Number of institution beneficing of the program according to implementation’s modality
The majority of implementation sites are schools, specialized professional schools and
prevention centers. Only one leisure center, a community center, implements the program. The
SEESR program is sometimes given regularly (once a year or more) and sometimes occasionally in a
class or several classes.
Table I (below) describes institutions characteristics and canton, the public and the modality
of SEESR implementation, and an estimated number of young people exposed to SEESR program.
9
Table I : Listing of SEESR program implemented from 2002-2013, according to IIR data (institutions, public, modalities, estimated coverage and cantons)
Specialized professional schools
schools
Category
institutions characteristics
SEESR Public
SEESR use
SEESR implementation Frequency
Estimated
coverage
Cantons
9 sessions
After issue events
Given in emergency

2 times (2 school classes)
<9 sessions
Not compulsory
During free time

1 time for young people of different
school classes
10
Geneva
Tools
During other trainings
/ teachings

Tools of the program are used
regularly in three sexual health
education
-
Geneva
Valais
Vaud
Young people aged
9 sessions
12-16 years old
presenting learning
problem and social
and familial difficulties <9 sessions
Not compulsory
Included in teaching
time

20
Fribourg
After particular events

20
Fribourg
A. Institutions providing vocational
training (apprenticeship), in a
boarding system or not, to youth
receiving social assistance or
disability insurance for mental or
physical problem (aged 15 to 22
years old) and who cannot acquire
it in the traditional process.
Young people aged
14-25 years old
receiving social
assistance, or
disability insurance,
Compulsory
program


2 times per years since 3 years
currently regularly used
60
Vaud


2 times per years since 3 years
currently regularly used
54
Fribourg

140
Valais
B. Organization preparing for
apprenticeship in various field and
offering support for all young
people aged 15 to 18 years old
who have not found a job or for
non francophone young people.
Young people who
have not find a job
after compulsory
school in vulnerable
situation aged
between 14-18 years
old
A. Compulsory education lasts nine
years and is divided into three
levels, the primary level (6 to 10
years old), transition’s degree (1012 years old) where students are
oriented according to their level,
and secondary degree (12 to 15
years old).
Young people aged
12-14 years old.
B. Compulsory specialized education,
for children who cannot benefit
from the teaching of a primary or
secondary classroom, where
teaching and individualized
program is needed.
9 sessions
<9 sessions
Tools
0)-11 10
Fribourg

3 or 4 time per years, given for four
years
currently no longer implemented
Compulsory
program (sexual
health training or
social training)


2 times (classes)
currently no longer implemented
30
Fribourg


3 times
Currently no longer implemented
30
Vaud
During other
trainings/teachings

Used regularly in one sexual health
education course.
-
Geneva
10
Prevention center
institutions characteristics
Social consultation offering social,
school and professional support, and
socio-educational activities for all teens
and teens in vulnerable situation aged
14 to 22 years old.
SEESR Public
Young people aged
12-22 years old
SEESR use modality
9 sessions
<9 sessions
Foster home
Leisure center
and
community center
Center
for
victim
assistance
Tools
Not compulsory
SEESR implementation Frequency
Estimate
d coverage
Cantons
1 time per year since 4 years
currently regularly offered
40
Neuchâtel
2 times per year since 3 years
200
Fribourg
Not compulsory
Included in a sportive
week-end
1 time per year since 3 years
22
Vaud
During other
trainings/teachings
Used regularly in a violence prevention
educational sessions
-
Fribourg
No implementation
-
Geneva
Neuchâtel
Center offering specialized counseling
for victims of violence (individual or
group therapy, accommodation), for
children, teens, and adults.
No implementation
No implementation
Center offering a consultation for
children, teens and young people with
various sports and cultural activities and
offering meals and lunch.
Young people aged
12-16 years old
9 sessions
Not compulsory
During free time
2 times
10
Genève
short or long term accommodation,
ensuring physical and psychological
safety, support to young and parents,
and the maintenance of relationships
with the natural network
Young people in
difficulty aged 13-15
years old
9 sessions
During free time
1 time
7
Genève
<9 sessions
During free time
1 time
8
Genève
11
Almost all IIR implementing the program (N=15/16) report they adapt it, generally in
collaboration with a colleague. Various adaptations are reported. The majority (N=11) suppress sessions
and exercises or gather sessions according to time resources and populations (i.e. some exercises
reported to be too difficult for young people presenting reading difficulties). Half of IIR add a final
session to close formally, even giving a certificate of participation or diploma (N=6). Some add contents
such as fun and interactive exercises, video linked to their professional context to introduce the issue
(N=6). Only a minority (N=2) change the order or the frequency of the sessions (N=2), in order to fit
SEESR in other offered training sessions or activities.
10
8
6
4
2
0
session
content
Addition
session
content
suppression
order
frequency
modification
Figure 2: Number of IIR adapting the program per type of adaptation
3.3.4
IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES AND NEEDS
Answers to open questions about IIR obstacles encountered and needs can be divided in
institutional, environmental and management levels (see table II below).
Results of additional specific questions about the needs (“do you need additional facilitators,
organizational assistance, educational material, logistic assistance, or continuous training?), show that
half of the IIR report that more continuous training and additional trainers would be useful. Some IRR
underlie that it is difficult to implement the program alone and that the program requires two
facilitators, a man and a women contributing to complementary views. The number of IIR expressing
need per type is shown in figure 5.
20
yes
no
15
10
5
0
Additional trainers
Organisational
assistance
Educational
material
Logistic assistance
Continuous
Training
Figure 3: number of IIR expressing need for the implementation per type
12
Needs for implementation
obstacles during
implementation
Table II: IIR encountered obstacles needs during SEESR implementation per level
Institution
Environment
Management
(N=9)
 Difficulties to obtain permissions
from
centers,
institutions
or
department.
 Lack of main concern for the issue,
resulting in a lack of funding, of
human and logistical resources.
(N=11)
 Lack of time, especially for IIR using the program
as a tool or partially. Program is too long to
insert in their respective activities.
 Difficulties to reach young people. In structures
such as prevention centers or leisure centers, it
is hard to motivate young people as
participation to activities of the center is non
compulsory, and groups are not homogeneous
regarding age. These difficulties are also
reported in a professional specialized school
were young people are mostly male.
(N=4)
 Difficulties to organize the program,
especially for prevention and leisure centers
where the program cannot be given in a
mandatory way and is implemented most of
the time during free time, which influences
young’s motivation and participation. In the
professional center, facilitators create rules
to face young’s absenteeism, nevertheless,
professionals do not have a common
definition of rules.
(N=12)
 Official credit from department or
institutions and permission to
intervene in schools and funding.
 Several trained facilitators per
institution, as well as teachers to
promote and advocate for the
program.
 An external institution endorsing
responsibility and duty for the
program, organizing complementary
training, meetings or supervision
coaching, etc. and maintaining
interest.
(N=7)
 Time to provide all sessions of the program.
 Methods to motivate and get in touch with the
young people.
(N=8)
 Coaching for organizational support, group
creation and adaptation possibilities.
 Material support, adapted version for
youngest participants, a scenario per sheet
for single use and more interactive exercises.
13
3.3.5
EVALUATION
The SEESR association has promoted an evaluation “before-after” questionnaire measuring
the impact of the program on young participants. Among IIR who have implemented the program
(N=16) less than a half knew the questionnaire tool (N=6) and very few used it (N=4). IIR report that
young are not motivated to fill the questionnaire (N=3) and that it is too complex, some questions
have to be explained (too long, repetitive, too subtle) especially for young people with reading
problems (N=3), and accordingly it requires too much time to be completed (N=3). IIR ask for a short
evaluation form with easy to understand and brief questions adapted to their public (N=8).
Moreover, IIR report to evaluate the immediate impact through an additional session using oral
questions measuring young people’s satisfaction (N=8). A minority report that the impact could be
evaluated by external persons as parents or educators (N=2) and that a long term evaluations should
be foreseen.
Answers to specific questions concerning the needs for logistic ressources of evaluation
process (“do you need additional facilitators, organizational assistance, standard procedure, logistic
assistance?”) show mixed opinions (see figure 6). Among IIR, need for an additional facilitator could
be useful, especially in a research context. A standard procedure could support the project’s quality,
but should be adaptable to young people’s characteristics. Logistic assistance should be offered
principally by institutions, and evaluation material should be included in the program or available on
the internet.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
yes
no
Additional animators
Organisational
assistance
Standard procedure
Logistic assistance
Figure 4: number of IIR expressing need for logistic ressources of evaluation process
3.3.6
PROMOTION MODE
The majority have presented the program in their institution (N=21), promoted the program
by informing institutions, young people, teachers, educators (N=7), and offered to implement it in
institution (N=5) and schools (N=6). Among IIR, few use the training ressources in another context,
such as a conference (N=1), adult training (N=1), and documents or article (N=4). The majority know
a colleague trained to the SEESR program for the implementation of the program (N=20). Minority
have trained a colleague in order to implement the program (N=4).
14
3.3.7
MISCELLANEOUS
For the majority of IIR, the SEESR program is effective (N=21), popular with young people,
gives a basis for positive relationships, allows support for discussion with young people and between
young people, is transferable to the domain of violence at work and in friendships, develops
awareness about parenting style and young people’s relationships, and provides guidance especially
for young people who experienced abuse.
A minority could not judge the impact (N=5) or /and think that the program needs
complementary themes (violence at work, violence in friendships, thematic of gender and violence,
description of aggressor).
In relation to the relevance of the program, the majority think that the program is relevant to
their public (N=23) and underline that young people are looking for answers and many experienced
abuse. For a minority (N=3), it is not adapted, their population being either too old or too young. The
ideal age to participate to the program varies according to IIR. For the majority, the program is
relevant at any age, underlying the periods between 12-18 years old. For the minority the program
needs adaptation for the 12 years old, and is not suitable beyond 18 years old.
4.
FOCUS GROUP
4.1 FOCUS-GROUP METHOD
All IIR having taking part to the questionnaire survey were invited to participate in a focus
group (N=28).
The focus group took place on the 6th February 2013 at the university hospital in Lausanne,
from 2 to 5 pm, moderated by a MD of the Violence medical Unit and a scientific collaborator. 3
principal themes have been broached: choice of the program, implementation of the program
among the young, and program’s characteristics. Appendix 7.2 evidenced the planning of the focus
group including the order of the themes broached, the questions and the time spent for each
question and theme.
4.2 FOCUS-GROUP SURVEY POPULATI ON
Among IIR who took part in the questionnaire survey (N=28), 5 agreed to participate in the
focus group, and some of them invited a colleague with whom they facilitate the program (N=2).
Finally, the focus group population included 6 social educators and 1 adults trainer, belonging to 4
different institutions, 2 professional centers and 2 prevention centers , with canton Vaud and canton
Fribourg represented in each category.
4.3 FOCUS-GROUP RESULTS
The focus group took place in an enthusiastic atmosphere. IIR exchanged informally about
how exciting and stimulating it was to run SEESR with teens. They highly appreciated this opportunity
to share their experience and to encounter other facilitators.
A synthesis of the discussion for each question is described below (for the French
transcription see appendix 7.3).
15
 Topic 1: Why did you choose to implement this program?
IIR choose SEESR according to personal and professional interests and needs. IIR observe
abusive behavior and violent patterns in young people’s relationships and have to manage
situations of violence. Therefore, violence prevention is part of the goals of the institutions.
SEESR is reported to be a useful program, allowing young people to become aware of their
behaviors, and meets practical educational needs. Ideally, all institutions working with young
people should provide the SEESR program and educators’ training should integrate violence
issues and the SEESR tool.
 Topic 2: Which difficulties have you encountered in the implementation of the program and
what would be your advice to others institutions?
Management boards of institutions agreed with the SEESR implementation. Nevertheless,
despite the authorization of the hierarchy, no actions are taken to integrate and coordinate
SEESR in regular teaching programs. Consequently, difficulties emerge during the organization
of the implementation. IIR have to face colleagues’ resistance, who trivialize violence, disagree
to make the program compulsory, and are afraid to address this issue. IIR should analyze the
available logistical resources to integrate SEESR. In general, few resources are available and
SEESR program is, most of the time, performed during leisure time in a non-compulsory way,
despite the fact that these modalities could cause young people’s absenteeism and lack of
motivation. To overcome colleagues’ resistance, members of the management boards and
colleagues should be informed of the objectives and contents of the program and of the
necessary logistical and financial resources (registration, rooms, time slot, preparation time,
trainings). In addition, facilitators should highlight that the program is not only useful for
dating relationships but also for friendships and work relationships. To overcome young
people’s resistance, facilitators should create interest among young people informing them of
the program’s content. It turns out that peer-to-peer marketing is a good promotion. They
should also create a trusting relationship with the young people. Ideally, SEESR should not be
proposed during leisure time, but if it must be, special efforts have to be done to implement
SEESR in an attractive manner.
 Topic 3: Which are the elements promoting exchange views with and between young?
Before the program starts facilitators should introduce the topic and inform young people of
the contents and objectives of the program; young people shouldn’t disclose personal events
during the session. They could entrust private events to facilitators after the sessions.
To give legitimacy to gender questions and credibility to the program’s contents, the program
should be facilitated by two persons, ideally a man and a woman. Facilitators should prepare
their coordination, one interplays with the young, the other observes that everything is going
well. Without this diversity of gender “something is loose, a man and a woman bring another
look”. Nevertheless, a minority support that in the impossibility to bring young people a male
and a women model, credibility could be maintained by explaining gender models to young
people.
Facilitation among young people requires involvement in role-playing games, IIR agree on the
fact that some writing activities are too similar to school work and should be replaced by role
playing promoting much more sensitive exchanges. To contribute to young people’s reflection,
16
facilitators should contextualize the topics and encourage young people to ask questions
between the sessions.
 Topic 4: What is your advice to face possible difficulties during program’s animation?
For IIR it is essential to have a good collaboration between facilitators in order to manage
young people groups and the program’s contents. Management of young people groups could
be difficult in presence of "young negative leaders". Facilitators should pay particular attention
to preserve a good group dynamic. Management of program’s contents could be difficult when
facilitators are not familiar with the meeting’s topics and contents. Facilitators should have a
good knowledge of the program in order to be comfortable with the topics, they should also
anticipate young people’s reaction to face possible differences of beliefs, values or cultural
differences. A good knowledge of violence issues, current statistics, events and the country’s
laws allows to bring examples and to react in a non-judging way.
 Topic 5: What do you think of the organization of the program and what are your
recommendations?
IIR agree that the time elapsed between sessions rises young people’s awareness and
promotes peer-to-peer discussions. The number and frequency of sessions are reported to be
optimal. For the majority, all sessions of the program should ideally be provided; however, the
shortening or shaping of the program could be possible if the following conditions are met:
maintain of objectives and exchange of views within and between meetings. Moreover, IIR
mentioned that it is more important to pay attention to young people’s concerns and
questions than to maintain the sessions’ contents. The main adaptations and their reasons as
known by IIR are:

Suppression of exercises, some exercises are too complicated and took too much time
particularly with young people with disabilities.
 Addition of a session, IIR support this idea positively, in order to certify participation,
to allow young to ask questions and to share a friendly time adding a closing session.
 Merging sessions: a minority of IIR report that the number of sessions is too high,
particularly in some structures where the program is offered as a leisure activity and
where the young are not numerous. To reshape the duration of the program could be
a solution to promote positive behavior in these structures. Moreover IIR report that
colleagues merged some sessions when exercises are repetitive. However, for the
majority merging is not ideal, repetition of exercises is beneficial for young people.
 Adaptation according to young people’s age: IIR agree that this program fits different
ages, for some, the ideal age is between 13-15 years, for others, 15-17 years. This
program can be implemented with younger pre-teens aged 12 years old, however, in
that case it requires adaptations.
 Topic 6: What are your needs for implementing and organizing the program?
IIR explain that they are considered as "idealists" promoting a personal idea and an unknown
program. To promote and implement the program, they need:

Legitimacy and acknowledgement, SEESR should be officially presented and SEESR
training should be recognized. For IIR the SEESR program has the legitimacy to be
proposed as the logical continuation of sexual health education in schools
17


Continuing education on violence and gender issues to deepen their knowledge.
Opportunities to share with others facilitators to obtain advices and to improve
practices. Facilitators ask for a “facilitator-network”, because it will allow them to
meet others facilitators, to benefit of their experiences and to rely on others potential
resource persons. Moreover institutions wishing to implement the program may refer
to the facilitator-network and it will also be a good tool to make the program known to
the public.
 Topic 7: In relation to the contents of the program do you see any elements to add or
delete?
The majority report that “nothing should be deleted”, sessions and respective contents are
relevant. Nevertheless, some topics deserve to be developed as positive communication and
friendly relationships. Other topics are missing as the use of social networks, homosexuality
and cultural differences.
5.
DISCUSSION
Very few was known about the implementation of the SEESR program in Switzerland. Our
results show that the SEESR program is chosen and implemented in different institution and in
different Cantons from the French speaking part of Switzerland.
According to IIR observations, the issue of violence is present in the daily life of young
people. Their observations are in concordance with recent results about violence among young
people. The quite important current implementation of the SEESR program highlights the willingness
of educators to prevent violent and abuse behaviors among young people and that SEESR is an
accessible ready-made program offering good solutions for prevention.
The response rate to the survey was high, as 70 % of institutions which could potentially
implement the program have been reached, allowing to establish a good picture of the situation in
the French speaking part of Switzerland. This particular high rate of response reveals the interest and
the implication of both educators and institutions for the prevention of violent and abusive behavior
among the young.
IIR actually implement the program but the modality of use could be quite different from one
facilitator to the other. The modality may change from all 9 sessions to only a few sessions or a few
exercises, from a session a week during 9 weeks to 4 sessions during a week-end. Concerning training
of facilitators, if a large part followed the 2 days educational training provided by the SEESR
association, some were trained by trained colleagues or just “learned by doing” took the booklet and
used it in their professional context without training.
We could not assess either the degree of adaptations introduced for each implementation or
the program’s impact because of the lack of systematic monitoring and evaluation. The positive
impact of Safe Dates has been pointed out in optimal conditions: trained facilitators, complete
sessions and frequency planned by the program. Hence in the absence of systematic evaluation we
could not estimate the impact of modified uses of SEESR. These modified uses are mainly due to
disparity of available professional resources. According to IIR needs expressed, the SEESR program
needs time, professional and financial resources to be implemented.
18
Nevertheless, institutions do not have the means to develop adequate resources and IIR
must do with available possibilities.
6.
CONCLUSION AND RECOM MENDATIONS
The SEESR program is quite widely used contrary to what we initially thought and seems to
be a good program appreciated by facilitators and young people involved in the French speaking part
of Switzerland.
Nevertheless, SEESR program should be carried out by an official organization to obtain a
better acknowledgement and develop resources for its implementation and promotion. Moreover,
despite the fact that the different use modalities and the lack of impact evaluation could mainly be
explained by a lack of resources, it points out, that there is no insurance quality for the
implementation of the program. So to maintain the accuracy and safety of the SEESR program and to
promote its implementation quality the program should benefit from a precise global management
device. In the light of these results we can put forward the following recommendations:

Ensure the integration of the program in a trustful and sustainable INSTITUTION. The SEESR
program should be represented by an institution recognized in the health prevention and
education field. She should be accountable for SEESR towards public and para-public
institutions, financial partners and SEESR trained facilitators. She guarantees minimal
requirements of interested facilitators and institutions and manage all ordinary tasks
required by the development of a prevention program:
o Promote SEESR towards general public or specialized services
o Create, develop and sustain a MONITORING SYSTEM ensuring the regular follow up
of implementation.
o Develop a NETWORK of facilitators via a website where facilitators and institutions
could share experiences, get in touch with facilitators in their region and contact
them, get in touch with experienced colleague available for counseling and support,
get updated information about trainings of trainers, continuing education, data and
news about the topic, meetings, and so on.
o Develop CONTINUOUS TRAINING opportunities in the field, as “Annual days of SEESR
network”, conferences and specific training sessions.
o Develop a VADEMECUM for facilitators to support facilitators’ approaches to
promote the program in institutions, to help setting up the program and to
guarantee the implementation’s quality.
o Develop an EVALUATION SYSTEM ensuring regular impact evaluation of the program
in the short and middle term (pre-post participation evaluation and 6 months later).
Accurate and user-friendly questionnaires must be created and resources to run
theses evaluation made available to help facilitators when necessary (from sending
of paper questionnaires to integrating external evaluators).
19
7.
APPENDIX
7.1 QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
Date de l’entretien téléphonique, Nom, Institution (nom et adresse), téléphone :
1.
Vous souvenez-vous quand vous aviez suivi la formation de formateur SE&SR ?
2.
Vous souvenez-vous dans quel cadre vous aviez suivi la formation de formateur SE&SR ?
3.
Vous souvenez-vous où vous aviez suivi la formation de formateur SE&SR ?
4.
Vous souvenez-vous qui avait financé votre formation ?
5.
Vous souvenez-vous quelles sont les raisons qui vous ont convaincues à poursuivre cette
formation?
6.
Activité professionnelle (domaine, fonction, année d’expérience au moment de la formation,
mention des changements de domaine d’activité, d’employeurs et de fonction suite à la
formation)
7.
En complément de votre expertise professionnelle, la formation, sur une échelle de 1 à 4,
l’échelle allant de 1 « pas du tout capable » à 4 « tout à fait capable », vous a permis de :
appliquer le programme, apporter des explications concernant les relations abusives et la
dynamique de la violence, apporter des explications concernant les différences de genre et
l’homosexualité, animer des séances (débats, jeux de rôle).
8.
A l’heure actuelle quels éléments devraient être ajoutés pour mettre en œuvre la formation de
manière optimale ?
9.
Selon vous, les images et exemples sont-ils adéquats et d’actualité? Qu’en pensez-vous ?
10.
Avez-vous des remarques ou d’autres propositions concernant la formation ?
11.
Suite à la formation, avez-vous mis en œuvre /organisé des programmes de formation auprès
des jeunes au sein de votre institution ou autres?
Oui (suite questions a, b, c, d)
Non, pour quelle raisons, avez-vous rencontré des
obstacles ?
a. Dans quel cadre (périodicité, régularité, durée)?
b. Public ? (jeunes de votre institution ou ouvert à tout public) ?
c. Age des jeunes ?
d. Combien de jeunes ont suivi le programme ?
12.
Avez-vous rencontrez des obstacles en cours de mise en œuvre du programme auprès des
jeunes ?
Oui, lesquels ?
Non
20
13.
Quelles sont vos besoins pour la mise en œuvre des formations ?
Parmi les propositions suivantes, lesquelles répondent à vos besoins ?
14.
Formateurs supplémentaires (binôme)?
Oui
Non
Assistance organisationnelle (coordinateur formation) ?
Oui
Non
Matériel éducatif ?
Oui
Non
Appui logistique (salle de cours, photocopieuse, etc.) ?
Oui
Non
Possibilités d’échange, suivi, soutien, inter-vision ?
Oui
Non
Autres? (précisez-svp)
Oui
Non
Le programme comporte 9 séances, est-ce que vous dispensez toutes les séances et dans
l’ordre proposé?
Oui
Non
15.
Si vous avez adapté le programme, comment l’avez-vous adapté et sur quelle base ?
16.
Le programme comportait un formulaire d’évaluation « avant-après » mesurant l’impact de la
formation, l’avez-vous fait passer systématiquement ?
Oui, que faites-vous des résultats des questionnaires ?
17.
Non, pourquoi ?
Avez-vous rencontré des obstacles lors de la passation des questionnaires « avant-après »?
Oui, lesquels ?
Non, points forts de la passation?
18.
Que pensez-vous du questionnaire d’évaluation « avant-après » actuel?
19.
Quelles sont vos besoins pour réaliser une évaluation ?
Parmi les propositions suivantes, lesquelles répondent à vos besoins ?
Formateurs supplémentaires (binôme)?
Oui
Non
Assistance organisationnel (rappel, préparation) ?
Oui
Non
Mise en place d’une procédure standard?
Oui
Non
Appui logistique (envoi du matériel d’évaluation) ?
Oui
Non
Autres ?
Oui
Non
20.
Selon vous, le programme de formation dispensé aux jeunes est-il efficace ?
21.
Selon vous, le programme est-il adapté à votre public?
22.
Avez-vous utilisé la formation dans un autre cadre (mémoire, conférences, présentations,
cours, entretien de conseil auprès des jeunes, auprès des familles, etc…) ?
23.
Avez-vous des collègues qui ont suivi la formation et leur implication dans le programme ?
24.
Avez-vous transmis des informations concernant le programme à vos collègues ou dans un
autre cadre (formation) ?
25.
Avez-vous d’autres remarques ?
26.
Avez-vous des propositions pour promouvoir le programme ?
21
7.2 FOCUS-GROUP: PLAN AND QUESTIONS OF THE MEETING
BIENVENUE
13h00-14h00
1.
PRÉSENTATIONS DES INTERVENANTS
5’
2.
PRÉSENTATION DU PROJET ET DU BUT DE LA RENCONTRE
12’
3.
PRÉSENTATION DES INTERVENANTS –TOUR DE TABLE
8’
4.
THÈMES ET QUESTIONS
5’
I.
CHOIX DU PROGRAMME ET MISE EN ŒUVREA)
13h30-14h15
15’
B)
POURQUOI AVEZ-VOUS CHOISI DE METTRE EN ŒUVRE CE PROGRAMME (TOTALITÉ OU UTILISATION
D’OUTILS) ?
QUELLES DIFFICULTÉS AVEZ-VOUS RENCONTRÉS DANS LA MISE EN ŒUVRE DU PROGRAMME ?
C)
QUELLES SERAIENT VOS CONSEILS À D’AUTRES ORGANISATIONS, INSTITUTIONS ?
10’
RÉCAPITULATIFS DES ARGUMENTS
II.
MISE EN ŒUVRE AVEC LES JEUNES
15’
5’
14h15-15h00
A)
QUELLES SONT LES ÉLÉMENTS QUI FAVORISENT L’ADHÉSION DES JEUNES ?
10’
B)
QUELLES SONT LES ÉLÉMENTS QUI FAVORISENT LES ÉCHANGES AVEC LES JEUNES ET ENTRE LES JEUNES?
10’
C)
QUELLES DIFFICULTÉS RENCONTREZ-VOUS LORS DE L’ANIMATION AVEC LES JEUNES
10’
D)
QUELLES SERAIENT VOS CONSEILS À D’AUTRES ANIMATEURS ?
10’
III.
ORGANISATION & QUALITY
A)
5’
15H00-15H45
10’
B)
QUE PENSEZ-VOUS DU NOMBRE DE SÉANCE, DE LA DURÉE DES SÉANCES, DE LA FRÉQUENCE DES SÉANCES
(HEBDOMADAIRE)?
COMMENT SOUHAITERIEZ-VOUS MODIFIÉ LE PROGRAMME, QUELLES SONT VOS RECOMMENDATIONS?
C)
PENSEZ-VOUS QU’IL FAUT ÊTRE DEUX POUR ANIMER LES SÉANCES ?
10’
D)
QUELS SONT VOS BESOINS ET VOS AMBITIONS ?
10’
IV.
CONTENU
E)
PAR RAPPORT AU CONTENU DU PROGRAMME VOYEZ-VOUS DES ÉLÉMENTS À AJOUTER OU À SUPPRIMER
10’
5’
15H45-16H00
10’
5’
5.
CLOTURE
16h00-16h30
6.
INFORMATIONS
5’
7.
QUESTIONS& VERRE DE L’AMITIE & SALUTATIONS
25’
22
7.3 FOCUS-GROUP: DISCUSSION’S TRANSCRIPTION
Pourquoi avez-vous choisi de mettre en œuvre ce programme ? Le programme SEESR est choisi
par intérêt personnel pour la thématique mais surtout par intérêt professionnel. Dans le cadre de
leur activité professionnelle, développer des programme de prévention fait partie des objectifs et
souhaits des institutions, et la thématique des violences fait partie intégrante des thématiques
abordées par les participant-e-s. La violence est un problème présent, au centre de la vie des jeunes.
Pour plusieurs participant-e-s l’intérêt pour le programme SEESR découle d’un besoin du terrain.
Dans le cadre de leur activité, ils sont amenés à gérer des situations de violence entre jeunes. Les
participant-e-s observent chez les jeunes avec qui ils-elles interagissent la présence de
comportements abusifs dans le cadre de leurs relations, des problèmes de violence et de schémas
violents. Beaucoup de problèmes chez les jeunes sont liées à la violence et aux relations de couples,
ces problèmes ont une influence sur l’insertion professionnelle des jeunes. Les participant-e-s
soulignent la présence d’une interaction entre le travail qu’ils-elles font avec les jeunes et les
difficultés qui découlent de violence dans les couples et les relations amoureuses. Il résulte donc un
réel besoin de faire de l’éducatif. Le programme est donc utile, il permet au jeune de prendre
conscience de certains comportements. Idéalement, un programme destiné à prévenir la violence
chez les jeunes devrait être proposé dans chaque institution et les personnes travaillant en contact
privilégié avec les jeunes devraient être formé à ce type de prévention. Cette nécessité devrait
également être prise en considération lors de la formation des futurs éducateurs-trices qui seront
amené-e-s à interagir avec les jeunes. SEESR est un programme concret bien construit, et bien conçu
et qui possède un descriptif détaillé. C’est un programme qui répond bien au besoin du terrain, car la
thématique de la violence dans la relation de couple y est centrale.
Quelles difficultés avez-vous rencontrés lors de la mise en œuvre du programme ? Lors de la
mise en œuvre de ce programme dans leur institution, les participant-e-s rapportent des résistances
de la part de leurs collègues et des difficultés au niveau de l’organisation. En ce qui concerne les
résistances des collègues, elles sont latentes, non verbales, et se traduisent par, d’une part un
inconfort à aborder cette problématique notamment parce que c’est un sujet qui touche, et d’autre
part par une banalisation de la problématique chez les jeunes, les comportements des jeunes sont
trop dramatisés. Il en découle une opposition à rendre ce programme obligatoire et une crainte
d’aborder cette thématique avec les jeunes. Les sujets abordés par ce programme touchent les
collègues adultes, par conséquent il convient de leur donner une information plus approfondie. Au
niveau de l’organisation avec les jeunes, les participant-e-s sont souvent confronté-e-s à
l’absentéisme des jeunes qui peut s’expliquer par le caractère non obligatoire du programme et par
le fait qu’il doit être mis en œuvre sur le temps libre des jeunes. Les participant-e-s relèvent que la
motivation des jeunes est difficile lorsque le programme est dispensé pendant le temps libre des
jeunes. Cette absence de motivation se traduit par un taux d’absence plus élevé lors des trois
premières séances. Lorsque le programme n’est pas obligatoire, il est difficile de faire venir les
jeunes ; pour les motiver, il est rapporté que mettre en lien le programme avec d’autres activités
portent ces fruits. Les participant-e-s mentionnent que la direction est généralement d’accord que
cet outil soit utilisé au sein de l’institution. Toutefois, aucune mesure n’est mise en place par la
direction pour intégrer SEESR dans le programme ou pour coordonner SEESR avec les autres
activités. Les participant-e-s organisent, coordonnent et préparent le programme sans soutien de la
part de la direction et en dehors de leur temps d’activité, cette activité n’est pas insérée dans leur
cahier des charges. Etant donné que SEESR n’est pas inséré dans le programme, il est le plus souvent
23
donné en dehors du temps d’activité des participant-e-s, mais également en dehors du planning des
jeunes. Les participant-e-s rapportent que SEESR est un programme pensé pour être mis en œuvre
dans un cadre structuré tel que l’école, or le dispensé hors du cadre des enseignements obligatoires,
provoque une absence de motivation ; par conséquent, les trois premières séances se révèlent être
cruciales pour l’adhésion des jeunes. En effet, c’est pendant ces trois premières séances que les
jeunes sont soit motivés à poursuivre le programme soit absents. Face à ces obstacles, il est difficile
de pérenniser le programme sur le long terme, l’organisation doit être repensée à chaque nouvelle
mise en œuvre.
Quelles seraient vos conseils à d’autres organisations, institutions ? Afin de palier aux
résistances, il est rapporté qu’une bonne information et sensibilisation à la direction mais aussi aux
collègues est nécessaire. Les buts et les objectifs du programme doivent leur être présentés ainsi
que le contenu. Mettre en scène certains scénarios et faire quelques activités avec les collègues (jeu
de rôle) permets aux collègues de connaître le programme et de l’appréhender avec moins de
résistances. Il est important de mettre en évidence que le programme n’est pas uniquement un
programme qui traite des violences au sein des relations de couples, mais qu’il a également sa place
au sein de structure professionnels ou scolaires. Les compétences acquises sont transposables. Les
jeunes disposent d’outils qui leur permettent de gérer la colère et les conflits, de communiquer de
manière positive et constructive, et ces outils peuvent être transposables aussi bien au sein des
relations de couples, qu’au sein des relations amicales ou professionnelles. Informer également la
direction concernant les ressources nécessaires (salle, horaire, temps de préparation) et les
modalités du programme (nombre de séance et durée). Dire que c’est un programme mixte qui
permet d’aborder les questions de genre. Afin de mettre en œuvre le programme de manière
optimale, il est important d’obtenir le soutien de sa direction, mais également que la direction octroi
des ressources temporelles pour mettre en œuvre ce programme au sein des activités régulièrement
offertes, des ressources temporelles aux animateurs-trices leur permettant un temps de
préparation, et des ressources financières pour former des animateur-trices au programme.
Quelles sont les éléments qui favorisent l’adhésion des jeunes? Lorsque le programme n’est pas
obligatoire, il est difficile de faire venir les jeunes. Il est rapporté que mettre en lien le programme
avec d’autres activités porte ces fruits, par exemple, bains thermaux, grimpe, ou théâtre. Il est
favorable de focaliser les thématiques abordées par rapport aux relations de couples qui intéressent
les jeunes et qui sont au cœur de leur préoccupation, ceci est valable pour les jeunes entre 15 et 17
ans mais également pour les plus âgés 18-22 ans. Un lien de confiance avec les jeunes doit être
présent au préalable avant de mettre en œuvre le programme avec eux. Dans le cas particulier de
certaines institutions où les éducateurs sont les référents de certains jeunes, les participant-e-s
déconseillent aux éducateurs de dispenser le programme à des jeunes pour lesquels ils sont
référents, afin de maintenir un lien de confiance. Le programme ne devrait idéalement pas être
proposé pendant les loisirs mais pendant les heures obligatoires de cours. Dans le cas où il est
dispensé pendant les loisirs, la façon dont il est proposé est très important. Il faudrait idéalement
sortir du cadre normal et proposé le programme comme un programme convivial. En général, les
jeunes sont vite partants, toutefois les trois premières séances sont capitales et il est essentiel de
bien informer les jeunes avant le programme, si possible dans l’informel et dans un rapport de
confiance. Un débriefing avec les jeunes doit également être prévu à la fin des séances. Il est
favorable de faire en sorte que les jeunes en parlent entre eux, le meilleur marketing est celui
24
« peer-to peer ». En outre, les participant-e-s mentionnent qu’il serait intéressant de créer une page
« facebook » pour favoriser les échanges.
Quelles sont les éléments qui favorisent les échanges avec les jeunes et entre les jeunes ? Il est
important que les animateur-trice s’impliquent dans les jeux de rôle et introduisent les thématiques
avec humour et/ou avec des contextes qui parlent au jeunes et qui sont d’actualité. Un duo
d’animateur-trice mixte donne de la légitimité à la question de genre. Lors de l’animation, il est bien
de s’organiser de sorte à ce que l’un des animateurs interagisse avec les jeunes, et l’autre prenne un
moment pour observer que tout se passe bien. Il est essentiel de faire en sorte que le programme ne
soit pas scolaire, en évitant par exemple les exercices où les jeunes doivent écrire. Par conséquent,
les participant-e-s proposent de modifier les modalités de la première séance où les jeunes bloquent
face aux exercices où ils doivent rédiger. Les participant-e-s proposent plutôt des exercices plus
ouverts et ludiques, sous forme d’histoire, d’échanges et jeux de rôle. Les participant-e-s
mentionnent que la force du programme résulte dans le fait que l’espacement des séances donne
l’opportunité aux jeunes de réfléchir aux thématiques abordées ; par conséquent, il serait bien de
permettre aux jeunes de poser des questions aux animateur-trices, au sein des séances et entre les
séances, de sorte à avoir un suivi et alimenter les réflexions. Il est essentiel de mentionner aux
jeunes au début des séances qu’ils peuvent revivre des événements, et qu’ils peuvent se confier aux
animateurs ou s’adresser à des professionnels si cela leur arrive. L’animateur-trice est disponible à la
fin des séances dans le cas où une personne désire se confier, et informe les jeunes des adresses
locales en cas de besoin.
Quelles difficultés rencontrez-vous lors de l’animation avec les jeunes? Quelles seraient vos
conseils à d’autres animateurs ? Une bonne gestion du groupe est primordiale pour mettre en
œuvre le programme et permettre une bonne dynamique. Cette gestion peut toutefois être difficile
en présence de jeunes « leaders négatifs » qui peuvent influencer la dynamique du groupe. La
gestion des absences peut également être une difficulté, celles-ci entraînent également des
changements au sein du groupe et de la dynamique. La gestion du contenu du programme (nombre
de thèmes) peut s’avérer particulièrement difficile pour maintenir les objectifs de la séance.
L’animateur-trice doit bien connaître le contenu de chaque séance et s’approprier le programme, de
sorte à être à l’aise avec le nombre de thématiques et les contenus abordés. Face à certains
contenus, la plupart des animateur-trices évoque la crainte d’être « stigmatisants »,
particulièrement face à certaines réactions et dires des jeunes. L’animateur-trice doit anticiper les
réactions et les divergences de croyances provenant de contextes et cultures différentes, et être
préparé à réagir de manière non-jugeante. Evoquer les normes du pays est reporté être un atout
dans certaines situations. Idéalement, il faudrait également connaître la thématique des violences
conjugales, l’actualité (statistique actuelle, journaux) et/ou films évoquant le sujet, de sorte à
pouvoir amener aux jeunes des exemples parlant. De plus, les participant-e-s sont d’accord sur le fait
qu’il est indispensable d’avoir, entre animateur-trice, un bon équilibre et une bonne entente. Les
animateurs doivent s’entendre sur la manière d’aborder les contenus.
Que pensez-vous du nombre de séance, de la durée des séances, de la fréquence des séances?
Le temps entre deux séances est précieux, ce temps permet une prise de conscience et permet au
jeune de discuter entre eux et avec les animateur-trices, et de revenir avec des questions. Le nombre
de séance est idéal, de même que la fréquence des séances, à savoir une fois par semaine. Toutefois,
dans l’idéal la durée d’une séance ne devrait pas dépasser 1 heure, après une heure les jeunes
« décrochent ». Les animateur-trices rapportent également le besoin d’effectuer une dixième séance
25
de clôture permettant de partager un moment convivial avec les jeunes (attestation de participation
délivrée aux jeunes, collation, apéro). Difficultés liées au terrain : Une minorité de participant-e-s
mentionnent que dans certaines structure il est impossible de faire 9 séances, parce qu’il n’y a pas
beaucoup de jeunes et qu’il y a beaucoup de désistement. Condenser-remodeler le programme sur
la durée d’un week-end et le proposer simultanément avec d’autres activités s’avère être une
solution. Cette forme ne convient toutefois pas à des jeunes qui sont « désocialisés » et qui
présentent des problèmes majeures. Les participant-e-s rapportent que d’autres animateur-trices
regroupent des séances, la plupart du temps les séances regroupées sont la 2 et la 3 ainsi que la 4 et
la 5. Pour la majorité des participant-e-s, ce regroupement n’est pas idéal, la force du programme
étant le temps laissé aux jeunes entre les séances (leur permettant une prise de conscience).
Toutefois, le contenu du programme se révèle être avec certaine population trop compliqué, et est
en général trop dense. Il arrive souvent que des exercices ne soit pas fait faute de temps. Les
participant-e-s rapportent donc qu’ils doivent sélectionner parmi les exercices proposés.
Comment souhaiteriez-vous modifier le programme, quelles sont vos recommandations ? La
majorité des participant-e-s mentionne que la mise en œuvre du programme devrait idéalement
rester à 9 séances, mais qu’il est possible toutefois d’alléger le contenu des séances. La majorité ne
pense pas que raccourcir ou modeler le programme représente un danger, à condition de garder un
fil conducteur, et que le programme ne soit pas transformé en une activité scolaire, les espaces
d’échange et de discussion ainsi que le délai entre les séances doivent être maintenus. Les
participant-e-s mentionnent qu’il est important de suivre les questions des jeunes et que ce suivi est
plus important que le maintien du contenu d’une séance.
Pensez-vous qu’il faut être deux pour animer les séances ? La majorité pense qu’il faut être deux
pour animer, si possible un homme et une femme, sinon l’équilibre entre les modèles et la crédibilité
auprès des jeunes sont perdus. La majorité soutien que sans cette mixité, « on perd quelque chose »
un duo homme-femme apporte un autre regard. Une minorité pense qu’il est important que les
jeunes aient un modèle masculin ; toutefois, dans l’impossibilité d’offrir ce modèle, la crédibilité
peut être maintenue par deux personnes du même sexe qui peuvent expliquer aux jeunes certains
aspects. A ce propos, il est soulevé que les jeunes ont souvent comme modèle, un modèle mono
parental.
Quels sont vos besoins et vos ambitions par rapport à l’organisation? Les participant-e-s
rapportent être souvent considérés comme « idéalistes » promouvant une idée personnelle et un
programme qui n’est pas connu du public. Ils soulèvent la nécessité d’avoir une légitimité, une
caution de l’Etat, pour promouvoir le programme mais aussi pour le mettre en œuvre. Une
présentation officielle du programme (origine, utilisation, validité, reconnaissance de la formation)
est nécessaire. Des formations continues sur la thématique leur seraient également utiles pour
approfondir leur connaissance dans le domaine de la violence et du genre. La majorité participant-es rapportent se sentir seul-e-s et souhaiteraient pouvoir se rencontrer entre animateurs-trices pour
pouvoir partager, échanger, et ainsi enrichir leur pratique. Une formation continue, un réseau
d’animateurs-trices, et des personnes ressources permettraient de partager les pratiques, d’avoir
des points de références, de pouvoir faire des « débriefing », d’échanger du matériel, d’obtenir des
conseils et de poser des questions. Un réseau d’animateurs-trices serait également nécessaire pour
connaître d’autres animateur-trices, mais aussi pour se faire connaître du grand public. Une
institution désirant mettre en œuvre le programme pourrait ainsi faire appel aux animateurs-trices
de sa région.
26
Les évaluations sont vues comme utiles et constituent un soutien pour les institutions. La majorité
des participant-e-s mentionnent évaluer le programme lors de la 10ème séance avec les jeunes à
l’aide de questions ouvertes telles que : Qu’est-ce que vous avez retenu ? Qu’est-ce que vous avez
aimé ? Qu’est-ce que vous changeriez au programme ? Une évaluation a également donné lieu à des
interviews filmés dans une institution. Les résultats sont transmis par la majorité des participant-e-s
à la direction. La moitié des participant-e-s n’ont pas connaissance de l’existence d’un questionnaire
d’évaluation, l’autre moitié rapporte que le questionnaire existant est trop long, trop compliqué et
complexe pour les jeunes ; et est vu comme une contrainte par les jeunes.
Par rapport au contenu du programme voyez-vous des éléments à ajouter ou à supprimer?
Pour la majorité, rien ne serait à supprimer. Toutes les séances sont pertinentes. Les participant-e-s
rapportent plusieurs thèmes à ajouter: gestion des réseaux sociaux-relations sur internet et
comment se protéger, l’homosexualité, et les divergences culturelles « c’est culturel » - « conflit de
loyauté ». Les participant-e-s rapportent que le mélange des cultures et des âges dans les groupes se
révèlent être très enrichissant. La séance concernant la communication devrait être plus accentuée
et/ou développée, car les jeunes n’ont pas beaucoup de temps pour exercer leur communication. Le
programme pourrait également être étendu aux relations amicales. Les ressources doivent être
complétées en fonction des ressources proches (ville, canton) et des institutions mettant en œuvre
le programme. Les participant-e-s mentionnent que ce programme peut être mis en œuvre avec des
jeunes d’âge différents et devrait être proposé comme une suite logique de l’éducation sexuelle.
Pour certains, l’entrée au CO (13-15 ans) est le moment idéal, mais il peut aussi être dispensés avec
des jeunes plus âgés (15-17 ans). Pour des enfants plus jeunes (12 ans), il nécessite des adaptations.
8.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPH Y PER YOUTH DATING VIOLENCE
[1]
GRAY HM, FOSHEE V. Adolescent Dating Violence: Differences Between One-Sided and
Mutually Violent Profiles. J Interpers Violence. 1997 February 1, 1997;12(1):126-41.
[2]
Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Arriaga XB, Helms RW, Koch GG, Linder GF. An evaluation of Safe
Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health.
1998;88(1):45-50.
[3]
Cohall A, Cohall R, Bannister H, Northridge M. Love shouldn't hurt: strategies for health care
providers to address adolescent dating violence. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 1999 Summer;54(3):1448.
[4]
Culross PL. Health care system responses to children exposed to domestic violence. Future
Child. 1999 Winter;9(3):111-21.
[5]
Spencer GA, Bryant SA. Dating violence: a comparison of rural, suburban, and urban teens. J
Adolesc Health. 2000 Nov;27(5):302-5.
[6]
Foshee VA, Linder F, MacDougall JE, Bangdiwala S. Gender differences in the longitudinal
predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive medicine. 2001;32(2):128-41.
[7]
Lavoie F, Vezina L. [Female victimization in the context of dating violence in adolescence:
development of an instrument (VIFFA)]. Can J Commun Ment Health. 2001 Spring;20(1):153-71.
[8]
Conard LA, Blythe MJ. Sexual function, sexual abuse and sexually transmitted diseases in
adolescence. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2003 Feb;17(1):103-16.
27
[9]
Wolfe DA, Wekerle C, Scott K, Straatman AL, Grasley C, Reitzel-Jaffe D. Dating violence
prevention with at-risk youth: a controlled outcome evaluation. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003
Apr;71(2):279-91.
[10]
Arriaga XB, Foshee VA. Adolescent dating violence: do adolescents follow in their friends', or
their parents', footsteps? J Interpers Violence. 2004;19(2):162-84.
[11]
Arriaga XB, Foshee VA. Adolescent Dating Violence Do Adolescents Follow in Their Friends’,
Or Their Parents’, Footsteps? J Interpers Violence. 2004;19(2):162-84.
[12]
Foshee VA, Benefield TS, Ennett ST, Bauman KE, Suchindran C. Longitudinal predictors of
serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventive medicine.
2004;39(5):1007-16.
[13]
Ulloa EC, Jaycox LH, Marshall GN, Collins RL. Acculturation, gender stereotypes, and attitudes
about dating violence among Latino youth. Violence Vict. 2004 Jun;19(3):273-87.
[14]
Ashley OS, Foshee VA. Adolescent help-seeking for dating violence: prevalence,
sociodemographic correlates, and sources of help. J Adolesc Health. 2005;36(1):25-31.
[15]
Ashley OS, Foshee VA. Adolescent help-seeking for dating violence: Prevalence,
sociodemographic correlates, and sources of help. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2005;36(1):25-31.
[16]
Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Ennett ST, Suchindran C, Benefield T, Linder GF. Assessing the Effects
of the Dating Violence Prevention Program “Safe Dates” Using Random CoefficientRegression
Modeling. Prevention Science. 2005;6(3):245-58.
[17]
Hokoda A, Ramos-Lira L, Celaya P, Vilhauer K, Angeles M, Ruiz S, et al. Reliability of translated
measures assessing dating violence among Mexican adolescents. Violence Vict. 2006 Feb;21(1):11727.
[18]
Jaycox LH, McCaffrey D, Eiseman B, Aronoff J, Shelley GA, Collins RL, et al. Impact of a schoolbased dating violence prevention program among Latino teens: randomized controlled effectiveness
trial. J Adolesc Health. 2006 Nov;39(5):694-704.
[19]
Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Linder F, Rice J, Wilcher R. Typologies of Adolescent Dating Violence
Identifying Typologies of Adolescent Dating Violence Perpetration. J Interpers Violence.
2007;22(5):498-519.
[20]
Ocampo BW, Shelley GA, Jaycox LH. Latino teens talk about help seeking and help giving in
relation to dating violence. Violence Against Women. 2007 Feb;13(2):172-89.
[21]
Rayburn NR, Jaycox LH, McCaffrey DF, Ulloa EC, Zander-Cotugno M, Marshall GN, et al.
Reactions to dating violence among Latino teenagers: an experiment utilizing the Articulated
Thoughts in Simulated Situations paradigm. J Adolesc. 2007 Dec;30(6):893-915.
[22]
Toscano SE. A grounded theory of female adolescents' dating experiences and factors
influencing safety: the dynamics of the Circle. BMC Nurs. 2007;6:7.
[23]
Foshee VA, Karriker-Jaffe KJ, Reyes HL, Ennett ST, Suchindran C, Bauman KE, et al. What
accounts for demographic differences in trajectories of adolescent dating violence? An examination
of intrapersonal and contextual mediators. J Adolesc Health. 2008;42(6):596-604.
28
[24]
Manganello JA. Teens, dating violence, and media use: a review of the literature and
conceptual model for future research. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2008 Jan;9(1):3-18.
[25]
Edelen MO, McCaffrey DF, Marshall GN, Jaycox LH. Measurement of teen dating violence
attitudes: an item response theory evaluation of differential item functioning according to gender. J
Interpers Violence. 2009 Aug;24(8):1243-63.
[26]
Finkel EJ, DeWall CN, Slotter EB, Oaten M, Foshee VA. Self-regulatory failure and intimate
partner violence perpetration. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2009;97(3):483.
[27]
Herrman JW. There's a fine line...adolescent dating violence and prevention. Pediatr Nurs.
2009 May-Jun;35(3):164-70.
[28]
Walton MA, Cunningham RM, Goldstein AL, Chermack ST, Zimmerman MA, Bingham CR, et
al. Rates and correlates of violent behaviors among adolescents treated in an urban emergency
department. J Adolesc Health. 2009 Jul;45(1):77-83.
[29]
Erickson MJ, Gittelman MA, Dowd D. Risk factors for dating violence among adolescent
females presenting to the pediatric emergency department. J Trauma. 2010 Oct;69(4 Suppl):S227-32.
[30]
Kettrey HH, Emery BC. Teen magazines as educational texts on dating violence: the $2.99
approach. Violence Against Women. 2010 Nov;16(11):1270-94.
[31]
Foshee VA, McNaughton Reyes HL, Ennett ST, Suchindran C, Mathias JP, Karriker-Jaffe KJ, et
al. Risk and protective factors distinguishing profiles of adolescent peer and dating violence
perpetration. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2011;48(4):344-50.
[32]
Karriker-Jaffe KJ, Foshee VA, Ennett ST. Examining how neighborhood disadvantage
influences trajectories of adolescent violence: a look at social bonding and psychological distress. J
Sch Health. 2011;81(12):764-73.
[33]
Stephenson PS, Martsolf DS, Draucker CB. Proximal antecedents to violent events in
adolescent dating relationships. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2011;32(11):670-7.
[34]
Walton MA, Resko S, Whiteside L, Chermack ST, Zimmerman M, Cunningham RM. Sexual risk
behaviors among teens at an urban emergency department: relationship with violent behaviors and
substance use. J Adolesc Health. 2011 Mar;48(3):303-5.
[35]
Alvarez AR. "IH8U": confronting cyberbullying and exploring the use of cybertools in teen
dating relationships. J Clin Psychol. 2012 Nov;68(11):1205-15.
[36]
Enriquez M, Kelly PJ, Cheng AL, Hunter J, Mendez E. An intervention to address interpersonal
violence among low-income midwestern Hispanic-American teens. J Immigr Minor Health. 2012
Apr;14(2):292-9.
[37]
Foshee VA, McNaughton Reyes HL, Ennett ST, Cance JD, Bauman KE, Bowling JM. Assessing
the effects of Families for Safe Dates, a family-based teen dating abuse prevention program. J
Adolesc Health. 2012 Oct;51(4):349-56.
[38]
Haglund K, Belknap RA, Garcia JT. Mexican American female adolescents' perceptions of
relationships and dating violence. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2012 Sep;44(3):215-22.
29
[39]
Martin CE, Houston AM, Mmari KN, Decker MR. Urban teens and young adults describe
drama, disrespect, dating violence and help-seeking preferences. Matern Child Health J. 2012
Jul;16(5):957-66.
[40]
Martsolf DS, Draucker CB, Stephenson PL, Cook CB, Heckman TA. Patterns of dating violence
across adolescence. Qual Health Res. 2012 Sep;22(9):1271-83.
[41]
McNaughton Reyes HL, Foshee VA, Bauer DJ, Ennett ST. Heavy alcohol use and dating
violence perpetration during adolescence: family, peer and neighborhood violence as moderators.
Prev Sci. 2012;13(4):340-9.
[42]
Reyes HL, Foshee VA, Bauer DJ, Ennett ST. Developmental Associations Between Adolescent
Alcohol Use and Dating Aggression. J Res Adolesc. 2012;22(3):526-41.
[43]
Brooks-Russell A, Foshee VA, Ennett ST. Predictors of latent trajectory classes of physical
dating violence victimization. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42(4):566-80.
[44]
Foshee VA, Benefield TS, Reyes HL, Ennett ST, Faris R, Chang LY, et al. The peer context and
the development of the perpetration of adolescent dating violence. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42(4):47186.
[45]
Freeman SA, Rosenbluth B, Cotton L. Teen dating abuse: recognition and interventions. NASN
Sch Nurse. 2013 Mar;28(2):79-82.
[46]
Helms SW, Sullivan TN, Corona R, Taylor KA. Adolescents' Recognition of Potential Positive
and Negative Outcomes in Risky Dating Situations. J Interpers Violence. 2013 May 22.
[47]
Jouriles EN, Rosenfield D, McDonald R, Kleinsasser AL, Dodson MC. Explicit Beliefs about
Aggression, Implicit Knowledge Structures, and Teen Dating Violence. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2013
Jul;41(5):789-99.
[48]
Martsolf DS, Draucker CB, Brandau M. Breaking up is hard to do: how teens end violent
dating relationships. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2013 Mar-Apr;19(2):71-7.
[49]
Mueller V, Jouriles EN, McDonald R, Rosenfield D. Adolescent beliefs about the acceptability
of dating violence: does violent behavior change them? J Interpers Violence. 2013 Jan;28(2):436-50.
[50]
Reyes HL, Foshee VA. Sexual dating aggression across grades 8 through 12: timing and
predictors of onset. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42(4):581-95.
[51]
Stephenson PS, Martsolf D, Draucker CB. Peer involvement in adolescent dating violence. J
Sch Nurs. 2013 Jun;29(3):204-11.
[52]
Zweig JM, Dank M, Yahner J, Lachman P. The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and
how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. J Youth Adolesc. 2013 Jul;42(7):1063-77.
9.
REFERENCES
30
1
Hébert et al. 1999
2
Himelein 1995
3
Schmid, C. & Eisner, M. (2012).Violences sexuelles envers des jeunes en Suisse. Formes, ampleur, et
circonstances du phénomène. Etude Optimus Suisse.
4
BFEG-Bureau fédéral de l’égalité entre femmes et hommes, Berne. (2012). Violence dans les
relations de couple entre jeunes. Feuille d’information violence domestique 18.
http://www.ebg.admin.ch/dokumentation/00012/00442/index.html?lang=fr
5
World Health Organization. (2007). Engaging men and boys in changing gender-based inequity in
health: Evidence from programme interventions. Geneva.
6
WHO. Violence prevention the evidence. Preventing violence by developing life skills in children and
adolescents. Geneva.
7
Henton,1983
8
Gray, H.M., & Foshee, V. (1993). Adolescent Dating Violence: Differences Between One-Sided and
Mutually Violent Profiles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1997 February 1, 1997; 12(1):126-41.
9
De Puy, J., Monnier, S., Hamby, S.L. (2009). Sortir ensemble et se respecter. Prévention des violences
et promotion des compétences positives dans les relations amoureuses entre les jeunes. Ed. IES,
Suisse, Genève.
10
Hofner, M.-C., Siggen, S. (2001). Violence conjugale dans le canton de Vaud. Recherche
préparatoire réalisée sur mandat du Bureau de l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes du canton
de Vaud. Unité de prévention de l’IUMSP, Lausanne.
11
Unité de Médecine des Violences (2011). 10 ans de lutte contre la violence domestique. Résumé de
la recherche menée par l’Unité de Médecine des Violences (UMV) sur mandat de la Commission
cantonale de lutte contre la violence domestique (CCLVD).
12
Commission cantonale de lutte contre la violence domestique (CCLVD) (2011). Plan stratégique
2011-2015 de lutte contre la violence domestique dans le canton de Vaud.
13
Foshee, V.A., Langwick, S. (1994). Safe Dates: an adolescent dating abuse prevention curriculum.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina et Chapel Hill.
14
Foshee, V.A., Bauman, K.E., Arriage, X.B, Helms, R.W., Koch, G.G., Linder, G.F. (1998). An evaluation
of Safe Dates, and adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health,
88, 45-50.
15
De Puy, J., Monnier, S., Hamby, S.L. (2002). Etude de faisabilité d'un projet de prévention des
violences dans les relations amoureuses auprès des adolescents-e-s en Suisse romande. Recherche
DORE Genève no 01042.1. Suisse, Genève : Ceres/Ies.
31

Sortir ensemble et se respecter-SEESR » Final report

Transcription

Documents pareils

Pourquoi : Pourquoi l`intervention ou la pratique prometteuse est

Nord Eclair

Introduction: Social Innovation Fellowship

École secondaire Lake of Two Mountains

La violence des femmes

APPÂTUn site internet et son équipe de «séducteurs

creo rapport annuel 2009-2010 - Eastern Ottawa Resource Centre

Eduquer aux médias et la violence des images: Pourquoi il faut une

Revenus des offrandes : 28 août: 1 716,50$ 4 sept.: 3 009,96

New Yo rk - Gitterman Gallery