Hardening and Softening Strategies in Schools: School Social Worker Perspectives about Trauma-Informed Environments

Background and Purpose:School social workers (SSW) are core advocates and practitioners of trauma-informed approaches to address well-being and safety at school. Typically, trauma-informed schools that emphasize softening strategies (e.g., restorative practices, SEL, etc.) to discipline and safety are seen as most beneficial to the health of students at school, while hardening strategies (e.g., school resource officers, metal detectors, etc.) are criticized as doing more harm to students, especially those from marginalized or under-resourced communities. Many schools that claim to be trauma informed simultaneously utilize softening and hardening strategies. SSW perspectives are needed to shape a more sophisticated understanding of what trauma-informed schools can and should be. This study focused on two primary questions: 1) How do SSW understand efforts to simultaneously implement hardening and softening strategies to improve school safety; and 2) How do these strategies relate to SSWs’ trauma-informed vision of school climate?

Methods: Data for this study came from a nationwide survey about trauma-informed approaches in schools. Researchers partnered with professional organizations, including NASW and SSWAA, to recruit SSW for an anonymous online survey. A subset of survey respondents participated in in-depth interviews about trauma-informed practices in their schools (n=20). Interviewees represented schools across the United States and half had practiced 20 or more years. Researchers reviewed excerpts of interview transcripts focused on the presence of softening and hardening strategies in schools and utilized deductive and inductive coding to identify common themes.

Results: SSW shared an initial resistance to metal detectors in schools, indicating that hardening measures are intimidating and do not reflect a trauma-informed approach. However, some SSW indicated their belief that the presence of metal detectors and other hardening infrastructure would keep danger outside of schools and help students feel safer. Relatedly, participants also suggested that metal detectors might help staff members feel safe in their workplaces. SSW also articulated an acceptance of hardening measures and stressed the importance of integrating hardening measures into a trauma-informed approach. For instance, the presence of SROs and metal detectors may seem less threatening when students and staff encounter an environment where relationships, restorative practices, and trauma training are clear priorities. In other words, it’s how you use metal detectors that matters rather than their mere presence. Finally, participants highlighted the variability of available resources, some noting that they wouldn’t ever have metal detectors because of insufficient funding while others pragmatically noted that schools should use all available resources to enhance safety in schools.

Conclusions and Implications: As school social work practitioners and researchers seek to define best practices for school safety and addressing trauma, and continue to debate the effects of hardening measures on safety and student well-being, our findings reinforce the need for flexible perspectives. It may be that SSW will not be empowered to choose whether or not hardening measures will be implemented in their schools. However, SSW should leverage their influence to create a shared vision of school safety, rooted in a trauma-informed approach, that includes students, staff, and parents.