By Jesse Kohler, Executive Director of CTIPP and Whitney Marris, LCSW
At this critical juncture in our nation’s history, embedding a commitment to the principles of a trauma-informed (TI) approach in our policies and practices remains vital. Alarmingly, though, we have seen active pushback against TI public policy this legislative session.
For instance, Kentucky Senate Bill 93 (SB 93), which was under consideration during the state’s main 2024 legislative session, represents the first measure formally positioning itself against TI principles we have discovered since we began formally tracking the issue several years ago.
Specifically, SB 93 seeks to strike any and all language regarding requirements to integrate a “trauma-informed approach” into schools originally found within a bill initially signed into law in 2019 following a fatal school shooting. The original language on integrating a TI approach in schools has been reaffirmed in subsequent bills, including a measure signed into law as recently as 2022 — which was explicitly uplifted and celebrated as a strong representation of progress aligned with CTIPP’s vision (found on p. 8 of our 2022 Policy Review).
The significant pivot SB 93 presents, given its introduction so shortly after the above-referenced language was upheld within the same venue, indicates that there are misunderstandings around what integrating TI approaches into school settings does and does not do, fueled by political conversations happening on a more macro-level scale.
That assertion seems to be supported based on the divided discourse around the measure, which has been featured in several local news articles, as well as in passionate pleas to preserve TI practices and programs.
It is a relief that Kentucky’s General Assembly adjourned its 2024 session in April without SB 93 enshrined in law. Still, it is unlikely that this is the final and only time we will face challenges related to misinformation or misunderstanding around concepts related to a TI approach. It is more important than ever to be intentional and aligned as we collectively issue a clarion call for TI change in the face of future threats to our vision for a healthy, resilient future in which all may flourish and thrive.
Modeling the Model in our Trauma-Informed Advocacy
We at CTIPP call on our network of advocates, activists, and partners in change to continue informing policymakers of the importance of integrating a TI lens into their roles and the broader culture of policymaking. Policymakers will only stand up and correct the record in the halls where laws are made if they understand the depth of the desire for TI change among the constituents and communities they serve and represent.
As we have worked toward and will continue to do with advocates, activists, and partners in change across the country, we see it necessary to model the model of being trauma-informed in our advocacy work, being intentional in not just what we work toward but also in how we do the work of advancing TI policies and practices.
While it might feel tempting to throw our hands up, say, “What is wrong with these legislators?!” and begin writing them off as people with whom it is a waste of time and energy to interact, it is our best hope that this piece invites us all to pause and consider “what happened” to underpin the formation of these worldviews.
We believe that, through the power of mobilizing our robust network of advocates, activists, and partners in change, we can collectively correct the record and create more opportunities to work in partnership with perceived opponents toward what often, in many ways, involves aligned values and visions.
Misunderstandings & Political Context
To successfully address this resistance, it is vital to understand the misunderstandings from which such policy propositions emerge. Looking to understand SB 93 better, for example, might lead us to examine Senate Bill 6, which distinguishes a variety of “divisive concepts” and “discriminatory” practices.
While TI approaches are not named in this measure, concepts aligned with accessibility, belonging, diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (ABDEIJ) – which are inextricable from a TI approach—are addressed. The seemingly well-intentioned legislators appear to believe that this proposal will maintain a safe and inclusive environment and that its enactment will actually reduce discrimination and injustice.
Unfortunately, this misses the likely disproportionate adverse impacts this will have on people who rely on such protections to feel safe, valued, and as if they matter and belong, all of which are important factors for holistic health and well-being. It certainly seems as if this would counter the spirit of the legislation to prevent discrimination.
Other states, such as South Dakota and Tennessee, also use the term “divisive concepts.” Far more states are similarly introducing (and often enshrining in law) efforts to restrict or regulate concepts allied with ABDEIJ and a TI approach.
At the time of writing, more than 100 bills across more than 30 states have been under consideration. As we have seen, we are not powerless against the consolidated wealth that is mobilizing carbon copy language across states. The trauma-informed movement is nonpartisan, as trauma impacts every community and family. As this movement continues to mobilize, we can—and must—make it known that efforts to strip our systems of necessary supports, which are not just humane but necessary and efficient, will not stand.
Impact over Intent
We know that what we enshrine in law and enact within our systems and institutions can either help or hurt, and this is true regardless of the good intentions policymakers and other key decision-makers may hold. To this point: while the bills proposed may indeed contain text indicating that they are intended to be instruments of justness and healing, their impacts are more likely than not to unintentionally re-traumatize and harm those who have already been forced to the margins of society.
For instance, examining SB 93 reveals the clear potential to suppress and discourage diverse perspectives and open, authentic conversations, which we know are crucial to supporting younger people's development into healthy adults who are able to navigate the world with curiosity, compassion, critical thinking, and citizenship.
Further, the prohibition of concepts aligning with principles of (AB)DEI(J) itself can signal unsafety for many learners and members of the education workforce alike. The policy proposal also does not fully engage with the complexities of cultural, gender, and historical issues in relation to trauma, fundamentally ignoring the impacts of these experiences.
We recognize that in many parts of the country, it is simply unrealistic that the movement to be truly trauma-informed, which relies on engagement with concepts of historical trauma, will be realized immediately. There is still opportunity for the movement to build momentum, and we believe this is well illustrated using the Missouri Model, where folx may currently be hesitant to engage with concepts necessary to be fully trauma-informed. Yet, we can still work toward trauma-awareness, trauma-sensitivity, and trauma-responsiveness.
We must be willing to meet folx where they are rather than where we wish they were or believe they ought to be, and the Missouri Model provides a roadmap to do just this. For legislators to remove critical trauma-informed supports from schools in the midst of a youth mental health crisis that is shaking our nation is dangerously irresponsible and will inevitably bring about cascading harm. Using the Missouri Model as a framework for advocacy efforts provides a pathway to move progress forward while remaining firmly anchored in our values, given current realities.
Unintended Consequences
It is important to recognize that a variety of factors may contribute to policymakers failing to see the forest for the trees and consider the possible unintended consequences of their proposed changes. While the specific factors that disconnect policymakers from the true meaning and spirit of a TI approach will differ from person to person, there are some general trends we have noticed and can offer consideration around to support TI advocates, activists, and partners in change to meet policymakers where they actually are at rather than where those of us in the movement wish they were (or believe they ought to be).
Our broader society’s scarcity mindset perpetuates the myth that equity is a zero-sum game, where others gaining something is a loss for oneself or someone else. Policymakers and constituents grappling with TI approaches may experience fear, uncertainty, and doubt around concepts they perceive as threatening to their comfortable and familiar ways of knowing, thinking, being, doing, and relating. This often sows untrustworthiness in our institutions and in one another, further obscuring how much we have in common.
It is important to remember that such experiences often stem from one’s own unique lived experiences and lessons learned therefrom and that challenging these deeply held values and associated narratives can be deeply confronting. Accordingly, engaging with genuine curiosity to understand where those who have the power to shape policies and practices are coming from when they present barriers to TI change.
Clarifying Misconceptions: The True Meaning of Trauma-Informed Approaches
In our discussions of equity, especially within the context of a TI approach, it is crucial to contextualize what equity looks like in action and why it benefits us all. The allocation of Opioid Settlement Funds exemplifies equity effectively in that West Virginia received the highest sum of funds despite being the 39th most populous state in the country.
According to a recent study by West Virginia University, one in eight babies in the state are exposed to substances in utero. The need for greater support is clear as the economy and broader systems are both perpetuating and themselves experiencing trauma. In 2021, West Virginia experienced 90.9 deaths per 100,000 residents—the highest in the country. The next closest state, Tennessee, experienced 56.6 deaths per 100,000 residents, a significant difference.
Looking at this data, it is clear why the decision to allocate more funds to West Virginia was made; this resource distribution method is advancing equity to fairly address and mitigate significant historical and societal issues.
Notably, despite the trend in legislation barring equity-centered efforts, there was little resistance to West Virginia, nor other disproportionately impacted states, receiving a more significant proportion of funds to rectify imbalances and promote equality of outcome. This is a great example to demonstrate how equity seeks to ensure each community receives the support necessary to overcome the unique challenges, which may clarify points of confusion around these concepts.
Concepts surrounding accessibility, belonging, diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice are not just concepts surrounding race, though our country must acknowledge and address the legacies of racism that underpin the development of this nation, along with other systemic and institutional tools of marginalization and oppression. ABDEIJ is about creating a society in which all individuals, families, and communities have the opportunities and supports necessary to thrive, as underpins our nation's creed, “with liberty and justice for all.”
In addition to engaging with policymakers directly to ensure all are operating based on this moment in time’s most compelling evidence when it comes to conflating TI approaches with treating some groups unfairly, we encourage connection with community members and others who may not be familiar with or clear around what a TI approach really entails as well. Remember: anyone you encounter in the community has the potential to participate in the policy process and influence the community contexts and conditions that impact our daily lives, too.
Communities Flourish with Trauma-Informed Policies & Practices
Modeling and championing TI change, and helping others understand what striving to be TI really means (and does not mean), is a powerful way to organically engage others to join the broader movement to shape a more TI future.
The sum of our actions is greater than the parts. Any and all engagement increases the volume of our collective voices and places greater pressure on policymakers to hear and consider what we have to say!
We know that people, communities, and systems that come together to build capacity and resilience to future stress, challenge, and change through a TI lens are more likely to flourish and thrive. The solutions we co-construct to address the complex emerging and evolving issues facing our world are stronger and more sustainable when everyone involved feels valued, treated fairly, empowered to contribute, as if their perspective matters, and like they belong.
A TI approach inherently calls us to attend to cultural, gender, and historical issues and align our policies and practices with the principles of ABDEIJ to support safety, restore trust in our institutions, and facilitate empowerment and thriving for all. Let us come together in action to help shine a spotlight on and work to enliven our shared values.
Collectively, we can cultivate the culture and capacity to support virtuous cycles that ripple through generations rather than vicious ones.
Comments