Social Workers' Assessments of Differences in Practices and Policies in Trauma-Informed and Non-Trauma-Informed Schools

Background and Purpose: Trauma-informed (TI) schools are based on the premise that any environment can adapt policies and practices to support individuals with traumatic pasts and prevent retraumatization. However, most school-based trauma responses have focused on scaling up clinical interventions or training staff about trauma. While helpful, these steps are insufficient to create a trauma-informed environment. The current study set out to examine differences in school policies and practices between schools that are TI and schools that are not.

Methods: Participants (N=538) were U.S.-based school social workers recruited through membership in professional associations to complete an anonymous online survey. Participants were very experienced, reporting more than 10 years of experience on average, with the highest proportion reporting more than 20 years (23.7%). They worked across 43 states and the District of Columbia in high-need schools, where on average 63.8% of students received free/reduced lunch; 55.7% of students were from historically marginalized populations; 19.5% of district students dropped out, and 55.5% entered college. Participants were asked to identify practices or policies that existed in their school from among 33 options, including socioemotional skills training, school climate programs, screening for adverse childhood experiences, student searches, metal detectors, and COVID-specific policies. Participants were also asked to indicate whether their school self-identified as trauma informed. Chi-square tests of independence were conducted to examine bivariate associations between type of school (TI or not) and each of the policies/practices present.

Results: Results included numerous significant associations between school type and policies/practices. For example, trauma training was present in 80.5% of TI schools and in 33.1% of non-TI schools, X²(1, N = 532) = 98.95, p < .001. Resources for secondary traumatic stress and self-care, trauma psychoeducation for students/parents, screening for trauma symptoms, and trauma interventions/treatments (e.g., CBITS) were all more prevalent in TI schools. Unexpectedly metal detectors were also more common in TI schools: 16.9% of TI schools had them compared to 5.3% of non-TI schools, X²(1, N = 532) = 18.62, p < .01. Several COVID-related policies were more common in TI schools as well, including providing for students’ and families’ basic needs, X²(1, N = 532) = 17.30, p < .001, and guidelines for appropriate parent communication/behaviors, X²(1, N = 532) = 14.45, p < .001. In fact, TI schools were significantly more likely to have 24 of the 33 policies/practices surveyed.

Conclusions and Implications: Given that TI schools were more likely to have every policy/practice we asked about, current differences between TI and non-TI schools may relate more to the availability and allocation of resources rather than to strategic, mission-driven policy and practice decisions with respect to trauma awareness and response. Future research should seek to understand to what extent policy/practice differences between TI and non-TI schools are intentional and believed essential to a TI approach. Additional study of what a TI school looks like in practice is needed.