Bridging the Gap: Evaluating a Clinical Treatment Model to Address Racial Trauma

Background and Purpose: Although there is a growing body of literature that discusses the etiology and impact of racial trauma, there are few evidence-based treatment modalities to support Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) who have experienced race-based trauma. Furthermore, current clinicians are ill-equipped to navigate racial trauma symptoms in therapy due to a lack of opportunities during their educational and professional training. The current study addresses this dearth in racial trauma therapy training opportunities for clinicians through the implementation and evaluation of a training protocol based on the Kniffley Racial Trauma Therapy Model (KRTTM)—an evidence-based clinical model for the treatment of race-based stress and trauma—with community based clinicians. This study examines the following research questions: (1) Do KRTTM trainees demonstrate overall satisfaction with the KRTTM training protocol?; (2) Do KRTTM trainees experience changes in efficacy with addressing racial trauma after completing the training protocol?; and (3) Do clinicians experience the training differently, based on the race/ethnicity of the clinician?

Methods: Our study includes a sample of 118 master’s level (or higher) clinicians trained in the KRTTM, with 54 completing both the pre- and post-training survey measures (46% response rate). Measures included a 7-item efficacy scale as well as a 17-item training satisfaction survey. Of the 54 clinicians included in the study, the majority identified as female (83%), with 15% identifying as male, and 2% as non-binary. Clinicians primarily identified as White (76%), with 13% identifying as Black/African American, 4% as Asian, 4% as American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 4% identifying as Other. The average age was 40 years old with an average of 6 years at their mental health agency, and an average of 11 years in their field overall. The client population served by clinicians consisted mostly of individuals who lived within an urban, mid-size, southern city. The client populations receiving the KRTTM intervention are mostly historically marginalized BIPOC individuals largely consisting of Black, Latinx, and Asian individuals who often have less access to financial, educational, social, and health resources.

Findings: Results of the paired-samples t-test revealed a statistically significant change in perceived efficacy among clinicians who completed the KRTTM training. Specifically, survey scores amongst clinicians averaged approximately 22 (i.e., M=22.2, SD=4.9) at pre-test and 30 (i.e., M=29.8, SD=3.7) at post-test, indicating a statistically significant increase in perceived efficacy (t(53), -9.9, p=.000). Further, results of the paired samples t-test split by race indicated differences in pre-test efficacy scores between White clinicians (M=21.7, SD=4.5) and BIPOC clinicians (M=23.6, SD=5.9) in this study.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings highlight the potential benefits of KRTTM clinical training for improving efficacy with addressing racial trauma with clients, as well as the importance of future research with relation to how clinicians implement KRTTM skills and how client symptoms are impacted by the intervention.