Social Workers' Understanding of Trauma-Informed Approaches in Schools, Their Required Components, and Expected Outcomes

Background and Purpose: Prior research has shown real differences in policies, practices, and climate between trauma-informed (TI) and other schools; however, it is unclear how intentional these differences are. School social workers (SSWs) are well-suited to discuss TI approaches because they are one of few school professionals trained to consider children and families in a socioecological context and they often serve as frontline mental health providers in schools. The research questions guiding this study were: What do social workers believe is required to call a school trauma informed and what outcomes do they expect? How do they think TI approaches relate to anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives (ADEI)? How do SSWs view their role in the creation and sustainment of TI schools, as compared to educators and administrators?

Methods: A purposefully selected qualitative sample (N = 20) was recruited from participants who completed a 2022 survey and provided consent for follow up. Prospective participants were sent an email asking their interest in and availability for a 30-minute semi-structured interview about TI schools. Interviews took place via Zoom from June-October 2023. Thematic analysis began with deductive coding to assess how well participants’ responses fit existing conceptual models for TI schools and answered our research questions. Interviewees were very experienced: Half had practiced 20 or more years. They supported schools of all grade levels across 11 states and every U.S. region.

Results: Identified themes included: 1) SSWs believed TI schools required a holistic, systemic focus, not just the availability of trauma training or trauma-specific interventions; 2) They viewed positive interpersonal connections with educators and administrators as key facilitators to development and sustainment of TI schools; and 3) Most, but not all, SSWs believed that TI schools required a commitment to ADEI. Reported characteristics of TI schools included a welcoming climate; trusting and collaborative relationships; restorative practices; and a whole-child focus. Participants did not highlight a necessity for trauma screening, treatment, or secondary traumatic stress resources. Relational skills believed to facilitate TI approaches included self-awareness, empathy, humility, and a growth-oriented mindset. When asked about the relationship between TI and ADEI, 14 SSWs identified a direct, essential relationship; the remaining 6 were vague or used color blind language.

Conclusions and Implications: SSWs’ views mostly matched conceptual models of a whole-school, TI approach. They deemed trauma training essential but insufficient and named many expected programs within and related outcomes for a TI school. Many SSWs reported working with other school-based professionals to implement TI approaches and shared practice recommendations for such collaborations. In line with prior criticism of TI and related approaches as color blind, not all SSWs indicated a commitment to ADEI as part of TI schools. All students, staff, and families will never experience the safety of a truly TI environment without ADEI; thus, we recommend it must be included in all future conceptualizations, implementations, and research.