Abstract
This article explores the effects of groupwork with primary school children who have experienced living with domestic abuse. I describe an 8-week dramatherapy programme called Little Voices, which centres around the character of Little-mouse and which uses stories, improvisations, puppets and play to explore his world and the mixture of emotions it engenders. The aim of the group is to help children realise they are not alone and give them a safe place to talk about their experiences. They relate to Little-mouse so they do not disclose personal information and are not retraumatised. Little Voices is underpinned by current attachment and trauma research. I ask if a dramatherapy group can create a safe place to address the trauma of domestic violence. Vignettes of sessions are reflected upon and contextualised within current research theories. Qualitative evaluations were completed by child, parent and teachers and indicate that the groupwork had a positive effect on the children’s ability to interact with parents and peers.
I was awarded the British Association of Dramatherapists Anne Bannister Fund in May 2020, to expand my work with children who have experienced domestic abuse using a group work programme I have developed, called Little Voices. The group took place in a Leeds primary school. Working alongside me was therapist Rachel Tandy, from Northpoint Wellbeing Ltd, a Leeds based charity which provides school counsellors for many schools in Leeds and surrounding areas, and Mrs E, a member of the school staff.
My research involved collecting qualitative data on the effects of the programme with the children and asking whether dramatherapy can help children think and talk about domestic abuse in a way which does not retraumatise them.
Little Voices programme
Little Voices is an 8-week dramatherapy group work programme for Key Stage 2 Primary School children. It is underpinned by current attachment and trauma research. It is based around the character of Little-mouse and features stories about him, including Little-mouse Finds a Safe Place. (Dix, 2016a). I have written extensively about working with children who have experienced domestic abuse (Dix, 2015) and the creation of this programme (Dix, 2016b).
Little-mouse is a small puppet who is based on the many children I have known. I use stories, games, drawing and role-play to address the challenges Little-mouse faces, which often reflect their own. The children can speak to Little-mouse or use him to say things which might be too difficult for them to own. Great care is taken not to retraumatise the children, and Little-mouse offers an opportunity for dramatic distance. Children can talk about Little-mouse, using symbol and metaphor without revealing their own circumstances unless they choose to. In dramatherapy, it is the power of the metaphor that allows the dramatic distance to exist, connecting aesthetics through the arts to the balanced distancing effect of psychotherapy (Schubert, 2020).
The importance of using a dramatherapeutic model as a container is that ‘play within dramatherapy occurs within specific boundaries and frameworks which differ from those in which the child will usually play’ (Jones, 1996: 176). Hence, the use of the Little-mouse puppet and role-plays developed from the stories help the children explore their feelings by creating an alternative ‘Little-mouse World’, which provides a safe container and an emotional distance from their experiences.
As Jennings (1998) writes, ‘the dramatic distancing in itself provides a structure for participants that paradoxically brings them closer to themselves’ (Jennings, 1990: 21). She describes how important it is that the child has the opportunity to play ‘distanced’ roles, that is, through stories and play where they can become someone else, which provide a container and prevent traumatisation.
Challenges before we begin
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic affected my therapeutic work. Even after restrictions were lifted, it was difficult to work within schools on a weekly basis, as there were strict rules around ‘bubbles’ of children and visitors were not encouraged. Eventually, I was able to run a small group in January 2022.
Ethical considerations
I obtained all necessary, written permission to collect the data used in this article. Children’s names and identifying details have been changed. Mrs E and Rachel Tandy have given their consent to be named in this piece; Mrs E is an abbreviation, to avoid identification of the original school.
School setting
The school is in a relatively affluent area of Leeds, with pockets of deprivation which were reflected in the group. The school was very supportive of the work, and put in a lot of effort, pre and post group, to ensure that parents were fully informed and children supported throughout. Mrs E had an excellent relationship with the children and other staff and was able to follow up any concerns.
Rachel is a school counsellor with a clear understanding of group process and creative play. She was able to liaise with other professionals and built a positive rapport with the children.
We used a large room in the local Children’s Centre which was familiar to all the children. It contained many toys and was warm and comfortable. Most importantly, it was a private space that prevented disruption.
The group
All the children had experienced domestic abuse within their family homes, and were living with one parent, usually mother, although one lived with his father. They understood why they were in the group and that they did not have to discuss their family or give any intimate details. They also could leave the group if they wanted. Mrs E was a calming presence for anyone who became unsettled.
My first impressions of the group were as follows:
fidgeted at first but became engaged with the creation of a safe place for Little-mouse. He made a roaring or mewing noise when he felt overwhelmed.
often said she couldn’t remember or didn’t know when asked her opinion. She often looked frozen with anxiety.
confident and articulate. Gave the game ‘My name is . . .’ a negative twist by saying what he didn’t like. Chose a dominant role.
quiet and nervous. Engaged with all the exercises but needed reassurance.
To answer my question ‘can a play-based dramatherapy group provide a safe container to help children explore the effects of domestic abuse?’ I will examine sections of three sessions to illustrate the group’s journey. Each vignette is a snapshot and cannot fully encapsulate all that happened in the group.
Session 1: A safe place to talk and think
The aims of the session were (1) to introduce the children to Little-mouse, Rachel and myself; (2) to establish the group rules and boundaries and create a safe therapeutic space; (3) to explain the difference between confidentiality and keeping secrets, and how this is part of safeguarding.
Sitting in a circle, we played simple games, such as ‘my name is Ann and I like . . . . (something beginning with A)’. This game was followed by a fantastical, invented description of how the children came to school that morning to relax and provide a baseline assessment as to how they played. Some children embraced this while some were unable to think of anything, seeming frozen.
The main part of the session involved each child creating a safe place for themselves and Little-mouse, with cushions and material where they could listen to a story. They built dens which provided an emotional safe place as well as a physical space. Most dens became places to hide in, where they could see but not be seen. Each child had autonomy over their space which was respected by the therapists and other children. The children built their den for themselves and Little-mouse, adding food, escape routes and early warning sensors, indicating a heightened need for protective behaviours.
They sought approval from Rachel, Mrs E, and me, and began to create stories to describe how their dens would work. All the children climbed into their dens and listened to the Little-mouse story from a comfortable, sensory place they had created. Importantly, there was an experience of safety and absence of threat, which needed to be established before moving into work around trauma. Music (2019) states that those who have experienced trauma need ‘help to trust in a soothing safeness system’ (p. 132) before they can manage difficult experiences.
The group engaged quickly. The children were able to work alone or together with no obvious behavioural challenges. George had Mrs E for support for his learning and behavioural needs but quickly revealed a creative imagination and became more self-sufficient as the weeks went on.
This group was quieter and more self-contained than previous groups I have run. The children were keen to observe all the rules which they had set themselves and were good at listening to each other. Often, I have experienced a lot of anger and distrust in groups, which can be unhelpful to the group process because it can make the experience feel unsafe. The traumatic effect of domestic abuse on children is that some will react with mistrust, anger and violence and others with distrust and shame.
There was, however, a feeling of reticence in the group. They were polite and hesitant in beginning to play the games. Ruby found it impossible to join in, appearing terrified of ‘getting it wrong’ or ‘saying the wrong thing’. Domestic abuse can provoke feelings of shame as children do not want to acknowledge that anything is wrong or may be afraid of the consequences if they do. It is not unusual for children who have been abused or threatened to maintain a polite watchfulness.
De Thierry (2019) explores the concept of shame and states that ‘some children can become afraid to asset opinions or express feelings in any way as they already feel rejected and unwanted, or they may continually demand to be listened to so that they feel a sense of being valued’ (p. 66).
The aim of this first session was to create an atmosphere in which the children were not afraid to play and voice their opinions. The Little-mouse story encouraged this and the children were asked to help him think about his worries and what might help. Using games which evoked laughter and silliness helped to break down latent feelings of shame by enabling each child to contribute.
By the end of the session, this group felt supportive of each other. As Treisman (2017) suggests, children who have experienced developmental trauma ‘within the context of their relationships . . . need to do and be in healthy relationships’ (p. 18). This group was beginning to feel like a safe and healthy place to contain the children’s hopes and fears.
Session 3: Understanding our feelings
By now, the members of the group were well established and comfortable with each other. We discussed emotions and how they can be difficult to put into words. We considered how Little-mouse found it hard to talk to his Mum. George made a roaring noise but could not articulate his feelings. Josh said his dad did not listen to him when he tried to talk, and Ruby agreed that her Mum was often too busy. Aisha’s eyes filled with tears as she whispered that her dad shouted a lot.
We discussed how our brains work, using Siegel and Bryson’s whole-brain model which links the lower, more primitive brain which controls basic functions, innate reactions and strong emotions with the upper brain which is responsible for analytical thinking, control of emotions and self-regulation. Siegel and Bryson use the image of a hand to explain when the two become disconnected by stress, resulting in dysregulation (Siegel and Bryson, 2012: 15).
To help enable a link between the embodiment of a feeling and its verbal expression, each child was given a feeling word and asked to create a visual representation. Josh asked if he could use the large teddy bear which was in the room. This caused much hilarity, and each pair chose to add the bear to their creations. The addition of an inanimate bear allowed the children to develop their words more subtly. They were able to project the emotion onto the bear and extend a non-verbal conversation using facial expressions and their physical bodies. They were also able to dress up the bear and discuss what they were doing, thus making non-verbal and verbal sense of their play. Jones (1996) states that ‘in dramatic play the child does not only involve themselves in a solitary discovery but in a mutual one which involves the sharing of meaning discovered through enactment’ (p. 172). This shared meaning helped them to face more uncomfortable feelings and memories.
As in previous sessions, this group chose to look for the comfortable emotions, such as happiness, joyfulness, sleepiness and struggled with the words like anger, frustration and loneliness.
I noted that we needed to focus on Little-mouse’s quietness and inability to verbalise rather than his anger. These children were not openly feeling angry. This contrasted with previous groups where anger was the dominant emotion, often presenting challenges which prevented discussion of the feelings behind it and would sometimes erupt into physical violence. This group did not want to acknowledge anger, but it was there, in the growls of George, the language inversions of Josh (‘I am not feeling unhappy’) and the lack of self-confidence from Ruby, along with Aisha’s need to please everybody.
I hypothesised that both anger and shame were hidden emotions. Overt anger may have felt too dangerous as they had witnessed its devastating effects on their families. Some children learn that anger can protect them from others by making them frightening and powerful, but others experience powerlessness and fear. To avoid the feeling of shame,
some children and young people will be compliant in their behaviour and do everything under the shadow of the terror of being ‘told off’ by any adult. They may well be too fearful to speak out about any personal opinion, or even to be noticed in case they have got something wrong. (De Thierry, 2019: 71)
Little Voices is structured so that there is continuous opportunity to discuss all emotions, using the stories of Little-mouse. He gets angry, cries, shouts at his Mum and gets into trouble, so the children can offer suggestions for different ways he might be helped. They talk about what might help him, which often leads to their own disclosures and peer support.
The group asked if they could make up a puppet show in pairs. Their stories reflected our discussions. Using animal puppets, they created a child and parent scenario, and through their play, they created conversations which spoke of wanting to be heard, cuddled and soothed. George played an angry hedgehog and Josh was his badger dad. After an argument and threats of grounding and removal of electronic equipment, there was a resolution in which ‘badger Dad’ listened to his son and put his arm around him. This was mirrored by Josh putting his arm around George’s shoulder. This scene was very moving and demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of therapeutic play. The children appeared to be confronting their fear of anger and finding a way to reduce its power. Although I do not encourage children to take on the role of an abusive parent, this scenario was controlled by the children who held the power to change the outcome. It also elicited further discussion about what a ‘good enough’ (Winnicott, 1971) parent might be, with statements such as ‘I’ll ask my kids if they’re OK’, ‘I’ll listen to them’ and ‘I’ll be a decent adult’. The group had become a place to imagine different ways of behaving and be able to act them out within a safe container.
Session 8: Little Voices – Big Voices
The final session consisted of remembering what we had done, playing favourite games, evaluations and goodbyes. The session focussed on learning to get along with others, regulating emotions and experiencing pride in oneself. The Little-mouse story is about learning to be proud of our achievements. The children leave with their work folders containing any worksheets or drawings and a page containing ‘slices of cheese’ filled with positive comments from the rest of the group.
However, this group decided that they wanted to revisit the bag of small puppets and include Little-mouse. Together, they developed a story:
Little-mouse and his Mum go on a picnic. They don’t know that Little-mouse’s step-dad (The Big Grey Mouse) followed them and is hiding in the bushes, watching them. He comes out of the bushes and shouts at them, and they are afraid. Suddenly, lots of Little-mouse’s friends appear and tell the Big Grey Mouse to go away. They tell him that they don’t want his nastiness and bullying, and that he’s not going to hurt anyone anymore. He slinks away and all the friends, Little-mouse and Mum have a party.
As this story was slowly unfolding, Rachel and I held our breath and wondered if we should intervene. This was the end of the final session. I did not want to bring the Big Grey Mouse/abuser into the room with no time to process or contain. However, the story evolved into something the children wanted to say to the abuser – Enough. Stop it and go away. This was made possible by the dramatic distance the puppets provided. As Pernicano states, ‘metaphor and storytelling help the therapist access the unseen and unspoken inner worlds of the client and help the client make sense of that world’ (Pernicano, 2019: 30). The children were able to face their feelings of anger and shame and find some resolution with the support of the group.
In answer to my original question, these final minutes are further evidence that a play based dramatherapy approach can help children say what they need, in a safe and non-retraumatising way. There was a look of joy and delight on all the children’s faces when they had completed their group story. We applauded and so did they.
Evaluation
It is difficult to evaluate the effects of Little Voices because it is impossible to record the individual, internal changes within each child, or to know the effects of being in the group in the years to come. Eight weeks is not long to address such a difficult topic when schools are usually unable to accommodate a longer group.
I designed my own simple evaluation forms because many of the more formal assessment tools (i.e. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Psychlops Kids) did not provide me with the information I needed. My forms included scaling questions, choosing words to describe feelings and opportunity to write or draw in response to questions.
I have run this programme many times with different groups of children, and have designed it to be flexible, with a range of activities to suit those who prefer being active and those who enjoy more writing and drawing. It can be tailored for specific groups. There is space within the framework to personalise it.
Sometimes, there are issues around behaviour and anger, particularly in more boisterous groups, where there is a need for very clear boundaries. This group was different because the children were so quiet and polite. They needed to get everything right and found it difficult to be spontaneous. Unusually, they did not identify with Little-mouse getting angry, so we concentrated on giving them a voice, ways of self-regulating and building a sense of trust and connection. The children appeared very happy in school and brought with them the school’s values of tolerance and kindness. Mrs E was an asset because the children could laugh with her but also be respectful.
Little-mouse experienced many different challenges such as witnessing violence, moving home and school, or feeling scared. The children learned alongside him that violence is not an acceptable way of interacting. Through the Little-mouse stories, they gained an understanding of why he behaves as he does, and helped to think about what might be more appropriate. Little Voices enable children to speak out when they are afraid, and to understand how their emotions can influence their behaviour.
As part of the evaluation, I asked the parents two questions, pre and post group:
Pre group.
Post group.
I asked the children the following questions, pre and post group:
Pre group.
Post group.
I asked the teachers for a brief pen picture of each child before and after the group, and if they noted any changes. These tended to be very learning based such as for instance, ‘she is showing good progress in her lessons and will attempt all activities with enthusiasm’ or ‘X continues to be a happy member of our class. She works well with her peers’. They did not reflect some of the changes other members of staff reported anecdotally. This may be because these children were well behaved in class, so there were no obvious behavioural differences. Mrs E said George had not worked in this way before and seemed more settled and happier. She saw a big change in his behaviour and his teacher wrote, ‘G plays much more calmly with his peers than he did prior to the groupwork’.
Conclusion
Little Voices raised the profile of domestic abuse in school and hopefully the dramatherapy group encouraged the children to continue talking about it. We know from adult survivors that they wished they had someone to talk to and realised that they were not alone. The actor Patrick Stewart described his feelings as a child,
I needed someone else to take over and tell me everything was going to be all right and that it wasn’t my fault. I wanted the anger to go away and, while it stayed, I felt responsible. The sense of guilt and loneliness provoked by domestic violence is tainting – and lasting. No one came, but everyone knew. (Stewart, 2009)
Little Voices provided a space for children to address their feelings of anger, guilt, fear and loneliness, and to achieve a sense of control through their play. They experienced being listened to and heard, as well as having fun.
All the children enjoyed coming to the group and felt it had helped them. They were able to identify that they felt calmer. Little-mouse became an important part of their world. The children were also able to remember the stories in detail and say how Little-mouse’s feelings had influenced his behaviour, as well as making connection to themselves. They were able to demonstrate empathy towards him and each other. Most of all, they were allowed to be children and to play within the safe boundaries of the dramatherapy group.
The responses from parents, children and school staff indicated that there was a benefit and that the children talked about Little-mouse outside the group. The children appeared happier, more able to talk about their feelings appropriately, and to respond to other peers in a more regulated way. The group appeared to confirm the words of Dr Wendy Buston,
There is little direct evidence to support my view that what I am advocating . . . will radically change or prevent the spiralling levels of domestic violence, present in most communities. However, there is also no evidence to suggest that it will not make an important contribution to positive change. (Buston, 2017: 170)
As a result of the Little Voices groups I have run for Northpoint Wellbeing Ltd and the successful feedback from schools, I will be training school therapists to run this programme so that it can be rolled out across the Leeds area.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank BADth for funding the development of her work.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by BADth Anne Bannister Fund, awarded May 2020.
