How We Have Fulfilled Requests, Part 8 of 10
This post (8 of 10) is a portion of our larger report on “How We Have Fulfilled Requests of People Who Have Reported Harm.” Follow this link for an introduction to our terminology, how we facilitated and organized requests, and for a table of contents for each request.
Accountability Request 8:
To inform Charlie’s clients and potential clients about his abusive patterns and the accountability process.
In November 2020, Charlie and the team created an onboarding protocol for potential coaching clients. This new protocol assures that, when a potential client reaches out to him, Charlie informs them of the accountability process and shares a document containing information about his harms and links to this Medium page. He first informed his clients about the accountability process in 2019 and then sent an update to current and new clients in 2021. These update emails included information about our process as well as his revised consent practices. He also added a statement about his accountability process on his websites’ contact pages, provided detailed written information about the process on his intake materials, and created a list of prompt questions about the accountability process to discuss with potential clients during verbal onboarding. The homepage of his website also links to a post detailing his accountability process.
We also asked Charlie to consider which kinds of clients and coaching topics would not be a good or safe fit, given his own trauma triggers as well as the range of concerning or outright abusive behaviors we’ve worked with him to identify. This included pointed reflection questions about when and how he might refer some potential clients to other coaches. Instead of us as a team forcing specific answers or giving him a script to follow, this was an opportunity for Charlie to synthesize information and critically engage with his understanding and responsibilities. He was initially resistant to considering that it would not be appropriate for him to work with certain people. Upon deeper reflection, he recognized that this was at least partly due to his concerns about having enough work and income. Additionally, his framing and considerations seemed primarily focused on his own safety or work preferences rather than creating safety for his clients. He struggled to integrate our concerns about him potentially causing harm to clients, as this directly challenged his identity as a healing professional and felt counter to his genuine intentions to help others. Furthermore, he cited confusion about our questions in ways that served to deflect and avoid searching for answers. These were points we raised numerous times and engaged him on until it was better understood.
Outside of all-team conversations around this, pairs of pod members had in-depth conversations with Charlie about his screening and referral practices. In addition to turning down a potential client when their needs are outside his areas of knowledge, Charlie now has a list of criteria for not working with someone if there are particularly activating client histories (such as acute traumas within the past six months) or when significant power dynamics are involved and a client is unwilling to explore them (for instance, if the potential client is a woman and/or person of color who is reluctant to engage in collaborative examinations of how Charlie’s power as a cis White man can affect the coaching relationship). If any of these criteria are met, he is committed to discussing this with the potential client and offering appropriate referrals.
Follow this link to go to the Request 9: Monetary reparations for Harmed Individuals.
Follow this link for an introduction to our reporting on requests and a table of contents for each request.
