A Bioecological Policy Analysis of Trauma-Informed Practice: Implications for Families, Schools, and Communities
Anglin P. Thevaraja, Miriam R. Linver, Pearl Stewart
Montclair State University, 2024
Embedded Files
Trauma refers to the emotional result of distressing life events (CAMH, 2023; De Bellis et al., 1999). It can hinder relationship formation, impede brain development, and lead to adverse behaviors (ECS, 2020).
Existing research has explored the psychological and educational impact of trauma, as well as trauma-informed interventions within schools (Blodgett et al., 2018; Craig, 2016; Phifer et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2019), but there is limited knowledge on how recent legislation reflects a systems-level commitment to TIP or how political contexts influence adoption across domains serving children and families.
Because most education and family policy in the U.S. are determined at the state level (Manna, 2006; Saultz et al., 2017), political party control and policy climate can significantly shape whether child- and family-serving policies are enacted (Berry et al., 2019; Nicholson-Crotty, 2009). Federal policy, however, can create consistency and reduce inequities across jurisdictions (Kaestle, 2016).
Theory:
Theory:
This study adapts Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory (BST) to examine how trauma-informed practice (TIP) policy operates across the ecological systems that serve both children and families. BST originally conceptualizes human development as occurring within nested systems that interact with each other. This theory is particularly relevant in understanding trauma, as it highlights how experiences of adversity are embedded within broader systemic influences (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006; Harvey, 1996; Lopez et al., 2021).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
- How many trauma-informed practice (TIP)-related laws were passed across the United States in 2022?
- Is there a relationship between state political party affiliation and the passage of TIP-related legislation?
- To what extent are passed TIP-related laws focused on educational (school) settings?
- Is there an association between state political party affiliation and whether TIP-related laws target school settings?
RESULTS:
RQ1: How many TIP-related laws were passed across the United States in 2022?
Out of 313 proposals, 93 (30%) were passed into laws.
Out of 44 states, 28 (64%) had passed laws.
RQ2: Is there a relationship between state legislative control and the passage of TIP-related legislation?
There was a statistically significant relationship between legislative control and the passage of TIP laws, χ²(2, N = 313) = 11.74, p = .003.
Of the jurisdictions that enacted trauma-informed legislation, 62 (out of the 93 total bills that passed) were Democratic-controlled (61 states plus Washington D.C), making up 67% of all passed laws.
Republican-controlled states accounted for 28 of the laws passed, representing 30% of the total. An additional three laws, or 3%, were passed at the federal jurisdiction level.
Of the bills that were not enacted into law (n = 220) majority were also Democratic-controlled (69%, n = 152), while only 14% (n = 30) were from Republican-controlled states.
RQ3: To what extent are passed TIP-related laws focused on educational (school) settings?
Among the 93 TIP-related laws enacted in 2022, 38 (41%) were identified as having an education or school-related focus.
The remaining 55 laws (59%) targeted other systems and institutions.
Across these passed laws, the most common themes included the creation of a trauma-informed workforce (17%, n = 16) and reforms within the incarcerated or legal system (17%, n = 16). Other laws centered on sexual assault and domestic violence (12%, n = 11), access to health services (10%, n = 9), and only three laws (3%) addressed housing and foster care needs.
RQ4: Is there an association between legislative control and TIP-related laws in school settings?
Among the 62 TIP laws passed in Democratic-controlled states, 15 (24%) were school-focused, while the remaining 47 (76%) were not. Of the 28 laws passed in Republican-controlled states, 10 (36%) targeted school settings and 18 (64%) did not.
The chi-square test indicated no meaningful association between legislative control and whether a TIP law focused on schools, χ² (2, N = 93) = 2.44, p = .295. These findings suggest that while Democratic-led states were more likely to pass trauma-informed legislation overall, the proportion of those laws that focused on educational settings was relatively consistent across party lines.
So what does this all mean?
So what does this all mean?
Trauma-informed practices should be embedded in educational institutions as a standard rather than an exception.
Trauma-informed practices should be embedded in educational institutions as a standard rather than an exception.
A federal policy would not only address immediate concerns regarding trauma and its impact on learning while fostering long-term societal benefits by supporting students to navigate academic, professional, and personal challenges.
A federal policy would not only address immediate concerns regarding trauma and its impact on learning while fostering long-term societal benefits by supporting students to navigate academic, professional, and personal challenges.
These structures must extend beyond the school walls to include coordinated partnerships with families, communities, and other child-serving systems, which are key players in a child’s ecological system and in buffering against trauma and promoting healthy development.
These structures must extend beyond the school walls to include coordinated partnerships with families, communities, and other child-serving systems, which are key players in a child’s ecological system and in buffering against trauma and promoting healthy development.
The microsystem (schools, teachers, and student relationships) is directly shaped by the level of support provided at the exosystem (policies and state mandates) and macrosystem (federal education laws and political climate), while the chronosystem reflects how historical and political shifts influence priorities over time.
The microsystem (schools, teachers, and student relationships) is directly shaped by the level of support provided at the exosystem (policies and state mandates) and macrosystem (federal education laws and political climate), while the chronosystem reflects how historical and political shifts influence priorities over time.
Without federal commitment, TIP remains inconsistently applied, leaving students without the support they need. This study is a call for fostering systemic change, and we urge educators, policymakers, and practitioners to collaborate to ensure TIPs are integrated into schools nationwide.
Without federal commitment, TIP remains inconsistently applied, leaving students without the support they need. This study is a call for fostering systemic change, and we urge educators, policymakers, and practitioners to collaborate to ensure TIPs are integrated into schools nationwide.
It is also a call to strengthen school-family-community collaboration, recognizing that caregivers and families must be included in the systems designed to support student development in school settings.
It is also a call to strengthen school-family-community collaboration, recognizing that caregivers and families must be included in the systems designed to support student development in school settings.
Only through a long-term investment that goes beyond shifting political cycles and administrations and geographic boundaries can we ensure that all children, regardless of where they live, have access to the trauma-informed environments they need to heal, learn, and thrive.
Only through a long-term investment that goes beyond shifting political cycles and administrations and geographic boundaries can we ensure that all children, regardless of where they live, have access to the trauma-informed environments they need to heal, learn, and thrive.
Page updated
Report abuse