BUILD: Why “Awareness” Alone Isn’t Enough
For years, conversations about sexual violence have centered on awareness. Awareness campaigns. Awareness months. Awareness posts. Awareness ribbons.
And while awareness matters, it is not enough. Awareness can name a problem without changing the conditions that allow it to continue.
Survivors do not experience harm in theory. From my lived experience and observation, they experience it in systems that were created to ensure their well-being. Schools, therapeutic settings, and religious institutions often do not know how to respond when someone finally speaks up.
In those moments, awareness is not what they need.
Response is.
Support is.
Follow-through is.
What is missing in the gap between awareness and action is infrastructure. We cannot keep acting like knowing better is the same as doing better. It is not. What we need is to build.
When I say build, I am talking about the intentional work of creating structures, protocols, and cultures that do not collapse the moment a survivor needs them. Building looks like clear reporting pathways, trained staff who know what to do every time, and systems that prioritize safety over liability or convenience. It is the difference between a system that reacts and a system that is prepared.
Survivors need systems that are built to support them, not just acknowledge them. This means providing trauma-informed responses that are consistent, not conditional.
It means reducing the burden on survivors to repeat, relive, and re-explain their experiences to be believed or helped. It means moving away from fragmented services that pass people along without continuity or care. It means checking biases at the door.
It also looks like simple, concrete things: a school that has a warm handoff protocol, so a survivor never walks into the next room alone; a therapist who does not ask a survivor to start from the beginning every time they meet; or a faith leader who knows how to respond without spiritualizing the harm or silencing the survivor. These are small examples, but they are the difference between harm and healing.
Awareness tells us something is wrong. “Building” asks what we are actually doing about it. And building is where the real hands-on-deck work begins.
One training does not transform a system, one campaign does not shift outcomes, and one moment of attention does not create lasting change.
Building requires consistency, coordination, accountability, and the willingness to stay engaged after the headlines fade. It also requires something we do not talk about enough: survivor input.
Survivor input should not be a checkbox or a quote in a report that sounds good on a grant proposal. It should be by design, and a strategic tool that helps survivors thrive.
Meaningful survivor engagement means inviting survivors into the rooms where decisions are made, not after the plan is finished, but while it is being shaped. It means compensating survivors for their expertise, honoring boundaries, and recognizing that lived experience is not a story to extract but a lens that strengthens systems. As a member of the Survivor Advisory Council, I joined because I refuse to let systems keep guessing what survivors need when survivors have been telling them for decades.
Awareness is easier than building because awareness lets us talk about the problem, while building forces us to change what we are doing.
So, the real questions become:
What happens after someone discloses harm?
Are our systems prepared to respond appropriately?
Do people leave safer than when they came in, or more traumatized and exhausted?
If awareness is the entry point, building is the responsibility that follows. Survivors deserve more than recognition of harm. They deserve systems that respond clearly, consistently, and with care that does not disappear after the conversation ends.
This project was supported by Grant No. 15JOVW-25-GG-00184-MUMU awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice.” The recipient also agrees to ensure that any subrecipient at any tier will comply with this condition
