A Model to REACH Trauma-Responsive Schooling in Illinois

• In Event: Trauma Informed and Subtance Use Mental Health Care

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of trauma exposure and its potential negative sequelae has garnered the interests and concern of our nations’ mental health professionals, educators and policymakers, alike. A growing body of work suggests that school systems that demonstrate an understanding of and are responsive to youth who have experienced trauma may offer an avenue to foster well-being. This work has led a cross-section of professionals to call for school systems to better support children who have been exposed to trauma.  Some states have even passed legislative policies and standards that require school systems to do so.  Notwithstanding these well-intentioned policies, many school administrators and educators acknowledge their lack of understanding and preparedness to create the systems level change needed to implement trauma responsive systems and practices. The fields of implementation science, school mental health and school improvement have identified several potential levers of change.

The state of Illinois has partnered with a local academic medical institution to develop the Resilience Education to Advance Community Healing (REACH) statewide initiative.  This statewide model leverages four core components of school improvement to help schools create and implement a school-specific action plan to advance trauma-responsive policies and practices and monitor progress.

Method: This paper is based on a study of 974 K-12 schools in a midwestern state.  Schools were invited to engage in four evidence-based school improvement components. A quasi-experimental design and a mixed-methods data analytic approach were used.  Data collection consisted of surveys, principal interviews, and focus groups.  Linear regression models were used to control for school demographics and outcome measures at baseline.  

Findings: The mixed-methods data analytic approach found that of the eight domains on the TRS-IA, staff self-care, whole school trauma programming and classroom-based strategies have the greatest need for growth. Outcome analyses (based on paired t-tests) show that participation in REACH significantly improved schools’ trauma responsive policies, procedures and practices.  Controlling for school characteristics and baseline levels of outcome variables, schools enrolled in REACH were more likely to retain their teachers than were schools not enrolled in REACH. REACH schools that were “engaged” had fewer students who were chronically absent than REACH schools that were not engaged. Finally, REACH schools that were “very engaged” had fewer out-of-school suspensions than schools that were not engaged. There were no effects of REACH on student achievement nor school climate.

Conclusions:  Whole-school trauma-responsive approaches are still relatively new, and evidence supporting them remains limited. Though the way in which schools and districts define, implement and assess the effectiveness of comprehensive trauma-responsive practices is often unclear, this study clearly operationalizes and measures the effectiveness of a trauma-responsive approach and lends support for both the expansion of the REACH model and for additional rigorous evaluation on both improvement in school-wide trauma-responsive practices and more distal outcomes of student achievement and well-being.  This study’s findings may have implications for amendments to preservice preparation standards for both teachers and school based mental health staff.  Also, it has implications for the prioritization of funding by state governments.

Author

• Mashana Smith, Northwestern University
  Presenting Author