I need help in Socoil Work

California of Pennsylvania Population Distribution

California is a city in Pennsylvania that was founded in 1846. It is a borough on the Monongahela River in Washington County in Pennsylvania. With this intervention project, we are going to focus on the population and demographic distribution of California. We are going to extort elements that revolve around population which include race distribution, gender, age, household tenure, key economic indicators, and other elements that revolve around census. California’s population has been increasing over the years as well as other factors of population varying from a certain number to the other and the American population in general (About California PA, 2006).

Pennsylvania’s City of California Population Breakdown

California boundaries can be approximately estimated to be within 46.4 per square mile with a total population of 6,795 according to a 2010 survey. In 2013, the total population was estimated to be about 6,585, while in 2015, the population was reported to be a total of 6,608. Taking a close look at the above-given data, we can make a viable conclusion that California’s population has been rising and dropping from 2010 to 2015. The anticipated population for 2016 ought to be approximately 6,876; therefore, the population can be seen to have expanded over the years, although in a rising and dropping manner. As of 2010, the population density was estimated to be 189.7 per square mile with the urban population considered to be an approximation of 83% with those who inhabit the rural area been an estimate of 17% (U.S Census Bureau, 2011).

Ethnicity and Race in the Population

According to the U.S Census Bureau, race and ethnicity are regarded to have separate and distinct identities. For this case study, we are going to view both ethnicity and race from a perspective origin. Caucasian or white people are considered to have the largest population inhabiting California with an approximation of 88.32%; black people follow with an estimation of 6.31%. African American settled in California after being brought in during the period of the slave trade to work for the early settlers (Keiser, 2015).

Asian follow with an approximation of 1.48%; while Native Americans follows with an estimation of 0.16%. Native Hawaiian people make an estimate of 0.01%, a mixed race is made up of 2.73% as Hispanics make up an approximation of 1%. Hispanics are a unique ethnic group made up of individuals from different races such as Mexicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans, as well as central and southern Americans (Keiser, 2015). Out of the people inhabiting California, 74.5% were born in California, an approximation of 18.4% were born in different states in the U.S.A, 1.5% are approximated to have been born the Puerto Rico, and a percentage of 5.6% are estimated to have been born from foreign states.

Key Population Age Figures and Gender

In California, the age element is one of the population’s elements that is diversify spread out. It has a median age of 24.9 which is approximately 25 years of age. This is to say that the young people within the age group of 25 are the very individuals who make up the biggest number of California’s population. Infants who are of age five and below make up an approximation of 1.61%, those within the age group of 6 to 11 years make up an estimation of about 1.68% and that percentage also fits those of individuals within the age group of 12 to17 years. As I earlier stated that people who fall within the median age of 24.9 years make up the largest population in California, this is evident where the U.S Census Department Bureau reported that the age group of 18 to 24 years makes up a percentage of 70.80% which is the age group with the largest population. Those between the ages of 25 to 34 years have an estimation of 3.97%, and those between the age of 35 to 44 years make an approximation of 3.19% (Keiser, 2015).

People who fall within the age group of 45 to 54 years make a 4.44% of the total age population, people age 55 to 64 years make a percentage of 4.92, and those age 65 to 74 years make a percentage of 3.20. Those between age 75 and age 84 make up 2.91% of the total percentage, and lastly, the individuals who are 85 years of age and above make up 1.61% of the total age population. From the presented report, we can make viable conclusions concerning the age population of California. One of the findings is the fact that those below the age of 18 and those above the age of 75 make the least age population of California. Those who fall within the age group of 18 to 64 make up the largest percentage of California’s. (Keiser, 2015).

According to an article California of Pennsylvania Population (2016), gender is another population element that we can use for the evaluation and analysis of a population distribution. According to census viewer, in 2000 females were making up total percentage of 51.8% of California’s total population, while males were making up an approximation of 48.12%. In 2010, it was recorded that females made up an estimation of 51.63% while males made up an approximation of 48.37% of California’s total population.

Between the years 2000 to 2010, we can conclude that there was a slight growth change in the population of about 28.22% in the female population. With the male population, between 2000 and 2010 there was a population growth change of approximately 29.51%. Other than the percentage difference between the years we can also conclude that the female population is too high in California compared to that of the males. Despite the population drop from 2000 to 2010, we can also conclude that the female population remains to be the largest in California when it comes to gender.

Key Features on Household Composition

California is estimated to have an approximation of 1,891 households in total. With the household structure, for instance, those families who are inclusive of children and parents make a total of 28.79% while the non-family households make a total of 71.21%. The non-family households are made up by the same age group as we saw earlier who are within the age of 18 to 24 years old. Therefore, the same households are evidence that they are inhabited by individuals who fall between the age of 18 to 24 years of age because these are the very people who live by themselves; they are either single or even newly married without kids yet (Keller, 2012).

Family households can also be broken down into the following aspects: those married families fall within a percentage of 20.18%, while those who live as partners but not yet married make up a percentage of 8.61%. Households with only females in the absence of the males make a total of 6.40%, while those with only males in the nonexistence of the females add up to a total of 2.20%. 5.51%, is made up of married families with kids under the age of eighteen 18 years while those married with no kids under the age of 18 make a total of 14.68% (Keller, 2012).

Households with only males with no wives but with children under the age of 18 make a total of 0.88%, while those with only females with the absence of the males but with children under the age of 18 make a total of 3.17%. Households with the only male in the absence of both children and the wives make a total of 1.31%, while those with only the females with no husband or children make a total of 3.23%. Lastly, male householders totaled to approximately 33.64%, while female householders totaled to an approximation of 37.57% (Keller, 2012).

According to United States Census Bureau, (2011), family households are controlled by a householder who is a family member, and it is also made up of both primary and secondary family members. Married households are made up of married individuals with any other member who they are related to by birth. Other family households are made up of a householder with any other person related to them by either birth or adoption. Non-family households are made up of an individual living alone or with anyone else who they are not directly related to them (Keller, 2012). Household Tenure Population

In California, the total household units are about 1,203 with already occupied units totaling to a percentage of 90.61, while those unoccupied units total up to 9.39%. Owner-occupied units total to 30.67% while those occupying rented units total up to 59.93%. It is clear that the largest households’ tenure is represented by the occupants of the rented units, which it is much logical to conclude that they are occupied by individuals with the age group of 18 to 24.

The total number of the occupants of rental units totals up to 721, while the median rental value is $445. A percentage of 8.78 rental units fall under the market rental value of $250. 50.53% which is the largest population fall between a rental value of $250 and $499 of the market value. Individuals who fall between $500 and $749 rental market value, are estimated to make up a percentage of 21.58%. Those between $750 and $999 of the market rental value total up to 10.43%. 3.57% of the total population rent units that fall between $1,000 and $1,249 of the market value, and those between $1,250 and $1,999 of the rental market value are said to make a percentage of 0.00%. Occupants who fall within the range of $2,000 and above of the rental market value make a total of 1.56%. A percentage of 3.55% do not pay any rent since they own their household units (Keller, 2012).

Population Statistics on Marital Status

The right age for individuals to be in a position to marry in California is from the age of 15 and older. The total percentage of males who are not married is 74.91, while that of married males is 18.68%. Males who are widowed have been estimated to be 0.49% and lastly, the percentage of males who are divorced totals up to 5.93%. On the other hand, the percentage females who are not married totals up to 74.17, and 15.11% represents females who are married. Females who are widowed are estimated to be 6.895 and the percentage of those females who have been divorced totals up to 3.84%. The marital status above represents the total population of both females and males. It is clear that the highest percentage of both females and males who are unmarried fall between 18 and 24 years of age.

Education and Enrollment Population Profile

As previously mentioned, California’s highest population is made up of individuals who fall in between the age of 18 and 24. Those who did not attend high school are estimated to be a total of 11.64% while those who completed high school are estimated to be 23.84%. Those who are still completing their college studies are estimated to total up to 15.87%, while those who have completed an associate degree add up to 8.28%. An estimation of 20.97% is made up of individuals who have completed a bachelor’s degree and those who have completed the graduate degree add up to 17.36%. Consequently, we can clearly conclude that the percentage represented by individuals who completed high school, as well as those who have attained and completed a bachelor's degree, is still the largest population that falls between 18 and 24 years of age (Keller, 2012).

The population age of students who are three years and older have enrolled in public pre-schools, and they total up to 0.85%. Students who have enrolled in the public school kindergarten total up to approximately 0.30%, while those in the private school kindergarten totaled up to 0.00%. Those who have enrolled in public schools for grade one all through to grade four totaled to a percentage of 1.30%, while those students who have enrolled for grades 5 to 8 in public schools are estimated to be 0.75%; private schools were still 0.26% for grades 5 to 8. Those who have enrolled in public schools for grade 9 to grade 12 totaled to approximately 0.60%, and those in private school for the same grades were estimated to be 0.45%. Those students who have enrolled in private schools for grade one to four make a percentage of 0.00% (Keller, 2012).

Colleges were not left behind when it came to the education population profile. Students who enrolled for undergraduate in public college were approximately 58.73% while those in the private college as undergraduate added up to 0.33%. Those who enrolled in graduate or professional studies in the public schools added up to 58.73%, while those who enrolled in private schools for the graduate degree totaled up to 0.33%. 33.03% was the total population of individuals who are not enrolled in any learning institution (Keller, 2012).

Household Income Statistics

California’s total household income is reported to total up to $27,319,207, and the average household income totals up to $41,018; the median household income totals up to $31,812, and the household per capita income is estimated to total up to $13,864. California’s unemployed population rate is adjusted to be 10.7%, while that of the employed population totals up to 89.3%. Households living below the poverty line add up to 15.8% instead those above the poverty line make a total of about 84.2%. Children living below the poverty line are estimated to be around 16.3%, and those above the poverty line make up a percentage of 83.7% (Keller, 2012).

The percentage of individuals who earn an income between $15,000 and $24,000 is 13.07%, and those who earn between $25,000 and $34,000 are represented by a percentage of 10.79%. People who fall between the income level of $35,000 and $49,000 make an approximation of about 12.11%, while 16.51% represents those who earn between $50,000 and $74,900. People who earn between $75,000 and $99,999 are represented by a percentage of 8.10%. 4.72% is the percentage for individuals who earn between $100,000 and $124,000, and 2.13% is a representation for individuals who earn between $125,000 and $149,999. Those who earn between $150,000 and $199,999 are represented by 1.29% and those who earn $200,000 and above are represented by 0.24% (Keller, 2012).

Employment and Occupation Population Profile

The startup age for employment in California is age sixteen. Male civilians who are employed in California are estimated to add up to a percentage of 29.28 while the female civilians total up to 33.91%. 1.75% is the percentage that represents males who are not in the labor force while 5.29% represents females who are not in the labor force. A total of 83.64% represents those individuals working in regular or white – collar jobs, while 16.36% represents those individuals who work with the blue collar. California has a total of 1,581 employees by place of work (Keller, 2012).

Relevant Data from other National, State, & Local Sources

“Every 2 minutes an American is sexually assaulted” (RAINN, 2016). “Approximately 3 out of 4 sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim, such as in the case of intimate partner sexual violence or acquaintance rape” (RAINN, 2016). “Approximately 1 in 5 women have been raped in their lifetime” (PCAR, 2010). In comparison to men, women are raped at a higher volume than men. For example, 1 in 71 men have been raped in their lifetime (PCAR, 2010). Furthermore in adulthood, men are most likely to experience sexual assault in their 20’s and 30’s (PCAR, 2010).

Highlight Problems and/or Prospects for the Community

In the community of California, Pennsylvania some of the identified problems associated around sexual assault are victim intimidation, differential student/faculty treatment, victim-blaming, and a lack of cooperation amongst law enforcement. The California University Police complain that the California Borough Police Department does not cooperate with them as much as they would like. For example, the borough police does not release the statistics about how many sexual assault crimes occurred off campus (California community) and/or on campus (California University Police, 2016).

Problem Description

Based on the data gathered on the community and its institutions, the most important issues confronting the community are the after effects of sexual assault on the victim such as victim-blaming and emotional/psychological effects. For example, victim-blaming attitudes marginalize the victim/survivor and make it difficult for them to go to authorities and report the assault because they fear that they will not be believed (Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness, 2016). Some examples of common victim-blaming statements are: she provoked him, they both have problems, she was drunk, he/she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or her skirt was too short. Victim-blaming attitudes also reinforces that it is the victims’ fault. However, it is never the victims’ fault and he/she is not responsible for fixing the situation. Lastly, victim-blaming attitudes allows the abuser to perpetrate relationship abuse or sexual assault while avoiding accountability for their actions (Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness, 2016).

Important Community Institutions/Organizations & Sources of Power and/or Resources within the Community

Within the community of California, Pennsylvania a source of power and/or resources is the Monongahela Valley Hospital who will perform medical examinations on a victim if they have been sexually assaulted to detect any pregnancies or any sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, the hospital may connect the victim to other community resources such as legal departments and support groups. Another source of power and/or resources within the community is local churches who may provide spiritual and emotional support to the victim. Lastly, the California Borough Police Department is a major source of power within the community because the police have the power to investigate the sexual assault allegations and then charge the perpetrator if there is enough evidence. Also, the California University Police Officers are trained to assist sexual assault victims and to maintain the crime scene/evidence (California University of Pennsylvania, 2016). Thus, they can file and prosecute the perpetrators in the same manner as the California Borough Police Department. In addition, University Police can also accommodate a campus victim's request for academic schedule and housing changes and transport campus victims to the hospital (California University of Pennsylvania, 2016).

General Description

This section is looking at two organizations on CALU campus that provide services to CALU students who have been experienced all types of sexual assault. The two organizations are the Counseling Center and Women's Center. The importance of these two organizations is to ensure that college students are protective in order to achieve their academic, personal, and professional goals. Women's Center and Counseling Center rely on some acts and laws, which assist those organizations to achieve their missions, goals, and objectives.

The most significant law is Tile IX of the Education Amendments (1972), which requires all the educational institutions to follow this law in order to receive the federal funds. All educational institutions have to prevent gender-based violence and harassment. The educational institutions are required to react very responsibly to survivors' needs to ensure that all college students are equal access to education (National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2016). These two centers assess the college students' needs, intervene to prevent further risks, and evaluate the outcomes of their programs by focusing on every students regardless their race, religion, gender, or culture their equal rights to achieve their academic goals without any or with low risks (California University of Pennsylvania, n.d.).

Beside Title IX, Women's Center's services, specifically, relies on that act that prevents violence against women. The act that Women's Center utilizes is The Jeanne Clery Act (1990) requires all educational institutions that are receiving federal funding to expose information and data about all type of crimes that happen on campus to their students and the public around their campuses. This information and data are required to be announced publicly accessible through the university's annual security report. Additionally, those educational institutions are required to make efforts to enhance their campus safety (Clery Center for Security On Campus, 2016). Women's Center contributes to CALU's information about sexual assault cases that happened on-campus (California University of Pennsylvania, n.d.).

Specific Description of The Organization

The two organizations above are going to help us to put the framework of our potential organization including its mission, goals, and objectives. Along with other organizations on campus, our potential organization is going to be on campus to serve all CALU students. The name of the organization is going to be "Stronger Together."

Stronger Together

Mission.

The mission is to share a commitment to issues concerning women by providing advocacy, support, education, collaborations, leadership and empowerment for all women. Stronger Together's mission is to create a safe environment for the college student on campus that appreciate all women and their diverse identities and experiences in order to achieve their educational, professional, and personal goals by recognizing the diversity among their needs for communication, learning, and equality among them.

Goals.

The goals of Stronger Together are to provide support to the vulnerable students who are sexually assaulted regarding their gender, sex, religion, and believes. Stronger Together's goal is to create a safe environment for all students, particularly females students. Stronger Together is also going to provide an opportunity for leadership, volunteer, and networking opportunities. In addition, Strong Together aims to reduce the negative language toward survivors. For further assistance, Stronger Together referrals vulnerable students to other resources on and off campus.

Organizational structure.

Strong Together's officers include president, Nancy Skoble, vice president for student affairs D.Ed., Tim Susick, secretary, Mary Pruss, and a treasurer, Elizabeth Guerrieri. The director is going to be, Donna George. There will be one licensed professional counselor, John Massella, and one licensed social worker social worker, Allison MecClintock.

Population served.

Stronger Together will serve all CALU students and the campus community.

Theories.

Stronger Together utilizes different kinds of theories that are including in cognitive behavioral theory, trauma theory, and system theory .

Additional Information

The location is going to be in the Carter Hall on the ground floor. The services are going to be available by appointment or walk-in from 8 a.m. 4 p.m. from Monday to Friday. The organization provides services on Saturday and Sunday from 7 p.m. 7 a.m. In addition, there is a crisis hotline that a student will be in contact with a therapist immediately.

The Reasons for Choosing This Organization

Stronger Together is very significant in the aspect of assisting students who have experienced any sexual assault on or off campus. Through its goals and objectives, CALU students will learn how to cope and function in healthy ways that will assist them to achieve their personal and academic goals without or with low risk. Stronger Together is a beneficial place so that CALU students could utilize after any incidents. For example, Stronger Together will meet with CALU students who are sexually assaulted needs by offering various of empowering activities that help women feel comfortable talking about themselves in a public setting.

Theories Section

This organization is going to utilize two types of theories. This theory is going to deal with the problems on the micro and mezzo levels while the other theory is going to focus on the macro level. The trauma theory and system theory both prove their effectiveness in dealing with the consequences from sexual assault.

Trauma Theory

The first theory is going to be trauma theory, which was developed in the 1970s within the health care environment with its formulation linked to the studies of the Vietnam veterans as well as of other disaster survivors and sufferers of sexual assault and physical abuse (Balaev, 2008). The application of trauma theory impacts a healing feeling among individuals who have suffered psychological distress due to unforeseen events like sexual assault.

The fundamental concept of the trauma theory centers on the victims of sexual assault as individuals who are injured being in need of healing. Previous theories have attempted to characterize individuals suffering from trauma as sick or lacking of moral character. Thus, the new perspective went on to define trauma as experiences which are emotionally painful and stressful (Balaev, 2008). Additionally, the occurrence of the mentioned psychologically hurting events devastates the individuals’ coping ability, thus disempowering them. The frequent occurrence of terrifying events can have life-altering consequences. Such after-effects can be in the form of chronic fear and anxiety with adverse long-term health outcomes. The development of the theory was in the recognition of the increasing experiences of both men and women encounters of sexual and physical abuse. It is crucial that social workers and professionals working in the human services field understand trauma so that they can improve the survivors’ lives.

Even though some think that the trauma theory only generates a speechless fright, which breaks up or completely destroys an individual’s identity, other noted that the specific tasks involved in the trauma theory intervention are education and cognitive therapy (Wilson, Friedman, and Lindy, 2012). The education is going to be on the symptoms of post trauma stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. For example, the survivors can write about and read their personal experiences. At the end of the experience, the survivors are encouraged to process emotions for purposes of healing.

System Theory

Systems theory targets interactions between the complex systems (Walsh, 2014). The theory posits that individuals live in a system that influence each other by way they interact (Teater, 2014). As a result, system theory is very important in the term of understanding reciprocal relationships between individuals (survivors), groups (families, friends, and classmates), organizations (CALU, Women’s Center, Counseling Center, and Stronger Together), and community systems (Tile IX of the Education Amendments and The Jeanne Clery Act) as one concept. For instance, the introducing law (The Jeanne Clery Act) is going to affect the relationships between faculty, staff, students, and other workers on campus who have different points of view on how to approach the safety and the right for each one on the campus (Payne, 2014).

Model and Approach

The system perspective model is going to be utilized in this organization. This model focuses on the continuous interactions between the organization (Stronger Together) and the other systems, such as CALU community, students, faculty, staff, off-campus community, and authorities (Evans, 2016; Hutchison, 2011). This model requires organizations and agencies to acknowledge the change agent system, client system, target system, action system, and professional system to have a clear picture on the interactions between the social constructions of the political, legal, and professional environment of the society (Payne, 2014). As a result, Stronger Together is going to work continuously with Women’s Center and Counseling Center in order to identify the ways how the CALU’s regulation and federal laws affect the survivors and the community.

Goals and Objectives

The goals of Stronger Together are to provide support to the vulnerable students who are sexually assaulted regarding their gender, sex, religion, and beliefs. This goal is going to be achieved by an objective that, “All CALU students can receive psychological counseling by

refering them to the Counseling Center.” Another goal is that the Stronger Together will create a safe environment for all students, particularly female students. The objective of this goal is going to be, “There will be a mandatory on-line training for students on safety tips.” This on-line training is going to be launched at the beginning of every semester. Stronger Together is also going to provide an opportunity for leadership, volunteer, and networking opportunities. The objective of this goal is going to be, “The social worker and the counselor are going to train survivors who want to be an advocate twice every month.” In addition to the goals, Stronger Together aims to reduce the victim blaming language toward survivors. This goal is going to be achieved by, “Stronger Together is going to educate the CALU community, such as the dean, the student conduct officers, and campus police officers on how to use appropriate words that describe the survivors’ situations by attending a mandatory on-line training once a month.” For further assistance, Stronger Together referrals vulnerable students to other resources off campus. This goal is going to be achieved by referring the severe sexual assault cases to other resources, such as domestic violence shelters.

More Information about The Intervention

Stronger Together has different staff who is trained to intervene in sexual assault problems. For example, the licensed social worker is going to work directly with the survivors to help them to find ways to empower themselves. In addition, the licensed social worker is going to work with other agencies and organizations in order to target everyone on or off campus, such as survivors, perpetrators, faculty, students, staff, and campus police officers.

Roles for Each Level

Micro.

On the Micro level, the staff will have a role as a broker. For example, the social worker will be involved in the process of making referrals to link CALU students to needed resources. In addition, the social worker will follow up on the referrals cases to be sure the needed resources are attained.

Mezzo.

On this level, the staff are going to have a role as an educator. For example, social worker will often be involved in teaching CALU students, faculty, staff, campus police officers, and community about the victim-blaming language in order to prevent violence.

Another role the staff is going to have is a facilitator. The social worker, for example, is involved in gathering groups of CALU students together for reducing the negative consequences after sexual assault incidents in order to develop a healthy environment, self-advocacy, political organization, and policy change. The social worker is also involved in a group with another therapists and task group leaders in order to provide butter services for CALU community.

Macro.

On the Macro level, there is going to be a role as an advocate for the staff. For example, the social worker will fight for the rights of CALU students and work to obtain needed resources by convincing other agencies and organizations of the legitimate needs and rights of CALU students. The social worker will help vulnerable people who are unable to speak for themselves as advocates. Advocacy will occur on the CALU community campus, Washington county, and Pennsylvania state.

Obstacles

Before providing the measurement tool, it is very important to acknowledge the possible obstacles towards fighting the issue of victim blaming problems. The major obstacle is the burden of proof in legal environments. The survivors who make a sexual harassment report are expected to show evidence of harassment. Another obstacle is that students who had sexual assault experiences might not go to counseling center because of feeling ashamed or guilty. Within the society, that people are prone to engage in deviant sexual behaviors based on their conditioning and socialization over their entire lifetime (Kerig, & Becker, 2015). Therefore, the same societies are also responsible for instilling an element of stigma to such crimes. In addition, the advocates might find rejection from the society due to their goal of reducing the victim blaming language. The online training programs might not be effective in reducing the victim-blaming language, so that CALU staff who attend the online training might continue using victims blaming language.

Measurement

Tools and Operation

Every goal and objective are going to be measured by different methods to ensure the effectiveness of the intervention on micro, mezzo, and macro level. In addition, goals and objectives are very important in the progress of the improvement. There will be some goals and objectives that will be measured by the same tool. For example,

The goals that aim to provide a safe environment and reduce the use of victim blaming language are going to be measured by gathering the number of CALU students, deans, the student conduct officers, faculty, and campus police officers who attend the mandatory on-line trainings. In addition, each on-line training is going to ask participants to answer the survey on the end in order to measure their knowledge of the learning materials. To operate this measurement, Stroger Together organization is going to gather all the numbers of participants and their answers on the surveys. This operation is going to happen every time when the trainings are launched.

To measure the effectiveness of training the harassed students who want to become an advocate, the organization is going to have pre and post-test that measure the students' confidence and ability to engage in the advocacy. To operate this measurement, the social worker and the counselor who are in charge of training those students are going to utilize the pre-test before every training and post-test after every training in order to acknowledge their strengths and weakness.

The last measurement tool is going to be creating a follow-up plan with the referred students due to their severity of their mental and social needs. The plan is going to be, "before referring the students to on or off campus resources, there is going to be a form that every student is going to fill out, which include their information contact, the most important resources that will meet their needs, Stronger Together's contact, and hot-line for Domestic violence shelter." The student is going to informed that he or she will receive a phone call to make sure their needs are met. Then, the worker who refer the student is going to document the progress that the student makes.

Summary

The reason for choosing trauma theory and system theory as a valid intervention is because it helps to understand the effects of the overwhelming stress from sexual assault. Applying professional services helps survivors to have a smooth healing process; however, the negative feelings may remain longer, depending on the individual perception of the whole problem. The intervention is significantly effective because survivors will be able to present for professional help that will assist and promotes a positive physical, social, and psychological development for survivors.

References