Skip to main content

Trauma-Informed Social Work Practice: What Is It and Why Should We Care?

3256212725_410a5d062c_z

Over the last 20 years there has been increasing recognition of the role that psychological trauma plays in a wide range of health, mental health and social problems. When people think of trauma, they think about experiences like war and the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. But the reality is that trauma includes a wide range of situations where people are physically threatened, hurt or violated, or when they witness others in these situations. This includes such experiences as childhood physical and sexual abuse, domestic violence, witnessing domestic violence, serious accidents, natural disasters, physical torture, riots, shootings, knifings, being threatened with a weapon, combat, house fire, life-threatening illness, and death of someone close, especially sudden death.

Although, there have been no comprehensive studies of the prevalence of exposure to traumatic events, studies conducted in the United States suggest that exposure to traumatic events occurs in at least 50%-60% of the U.S. population, and rates in clinical settings run much higher (Kessler, 2000); Kessler notes that given that the U.S. has higher crime rates than other developed countries, it may be that these rates are significantly higher in the U.S. than in other developed nations. However, problems like child abuse and domestic violence are challenges faced by almost all the societies on our planet, and natural disasters certainly affect everyone, regardless of national origin.

The impact of living through traumatic events, especially multiple events over the course of a lifetime, can result in a range of behavioral health problems other than post-traumatic stress disorder, including substance abuse, depression, anxiety problems, childhood behavioral disorders, psychosis, and some personality disorder diagnoses (National Trauma Consortium, 2012). Some psychiatrists have suggested that the entire medical model of mental illness needs to be reevaluated in light of the recognition of the role of trauma (e.g. see Canadian psychiatrist, Dr. Colin Ross's book The Trauma Model)-- this is not to say that biology doesn't play a role in behavioral health problems, only that it doesn't, by itself, cause them in most circumstances.

The reality is that social workers have been working with trauma survivors from the first day our profession began. However, the growing knowledge base about how trauma affects people is now being used to inform changes in policy and practice to ensure that we support recovery and don't inadvertently hurt people. Simply stated, trauma-informed practice is policy and practice based on what we know from research about the prevalence of trauma and about how affects people. Within the U.S., trauma-informed practice is usually referred to as Trauma-Informed Care (TIC), a term that is used in national policy efforts initiated by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the National Child Traumatic Stress Network.

What Does Trauma-Informed Practice Actually Look Like?

Trauma-informed practice incorporates assessment of trauma and trauma symptoms into all routine practice; it also ensures that clients have access to trauma-focused interventions, that is, interventions that treat the consequences of traumatic stress. A trauma-informed perspective asks clients not "What is wrong with you?" but instead, "What happened to you?" However, trauma-informed practice also focuses our attention on the ways in which services are delivered and service systems are organized (Bloom & Farragher, 2011). Recognizing that traumatic events made people feel unsafe and powerless, trauma-informed practice seeks to create programs where clients and staff feel safe and empowered. Generally, trauma-informed practice is organized around the principles of safety/trustworthiness, choice/collaboration/empowerment, and a strengths-based approach (Hopper, Bassuk, & Olivet, 2010).

Trauma-informed organizations ensure that every staff member, from the receptionist to the executive director, understands trauma and trauma reactions. Trauma-informed organizations routinely examine all policies, procedures and processes to ensure they are not likely to trigger trauma reactions or to be experienced as re-traumatizing, that is, putting a client through a process that shares characteristics of the traumas they have lived through. For example, within psychiatric hospitals restraints have long been used for patients who are out of control in some way. However, for a person who has lived through abuse, restraint may well have been associated with being hurt physically or with being sexually abused. Restraints therefore have a high potential to actually re-traumatize a client and trigger more psychiatric symptoms. A trauma--informed perspective recognizes the damaging impact of restraints and focuses on incorporation of psychiatric advanced directives into mental health care. This is just one example of a practice within mental health that can be hurtful to trauma-survivors. For more examples of how our efforts to help can inadvertently hurt people, read the heart-wrenching case study, On Being Invisible in the Mental Health System, that describes the devastating impact of the mental health system on one young woman's life and provides a compelling example of how our systems can fail trauma survivors.

Why Should We Care?

Each of us chose social work because we want to make a positive difference in the world. Some of us can see clearly where our work has this contribution. Many of us struggle to "do good" within service systems that are broken--we know at a basic level that something is very wrong, even if we manage to bring about positive outcomes much of the time. The systems within which many social workers are employed are often based on principles that are not only not trauma-informed, but instead, reinforce damaging messages to both staff and clients, such as "your voice doesn't matter here." Bloom and Farragher (2011) in their book Destroying Sanctuary, have written eloquently about the current crisis facing our human services delivery systems and how the impact of our systems often is the opposite of creating safe and growth-promoting environments, both for clients and staff. While it may not be the only lens that can be helpful in addressing this crisis, a trauma-informed perspective shines a clear light on what's broken, what needs to change, and what will work instead. It focuses us not only on our direct practice, but on organizations, service systems, and ultimately our paradigms for understanding the work we are doing and the work we would like to do--in other words, it's a true social work perspective. The paradigm fits well with the values of our profession, it draws attention to all that we know about a systems perspective, and it incorporates a holistic, biopsychosocial perspective on human beings.

It's because of all of the above reasons that our faculty chose to incorporate a trauma-informed perspective (along with a human rights perspective) into all aspects of our masters in social work program. We feel that this perspective is a missing piece in social work education and that having it will make a difference in our graduates being able to practice effectively at all levels of social work practice, especially in their ability to bring about needed transformations in our service systems. Beyond the growing body of research that I've mentioned, part of what brought our faculty to this understanding was the feedback we were receiving from clients and agencies within our own community, Western New York, about the power of this perspective after years of incorporating it into our School's continuing education programs. Agency directors were becoming increasingly interested in seeking out trauma trainings for everyone in their agencies because of the transformational impact they were seeing with clients and the workforce. One after another, social workers and other human services professionals were describing this as "the missing piece" in their knowledge base and that having this knowledge made a difference in their practice.

Many social workers feel disempowered within the systems in which they work: trauma-informed practice is a framework of system and practice transformation that can provide us with a blueprint for empowerment for ourselves as well as for our clients. I hope I've piqued your interest in this concept enough that you'll consider learning more about it.

Where Can I Learn More About Trauma-Informed Practice?

Many of the resources cited in this post are good places to start to learn more about trauma-informed practice. In addition, try checking out the following:

Reference Citations

Bloom, S. L., & Farragher, B. (2011). Destroying sanctuary: the crisis in human services delivery systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jennings, A. (1994). On being invisible in the mental health system. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 21(4), 374-387. Available online at: http://www.theannainstitute.org/obi.html or http://www.theannainstitute.org/OBI.pdf

Kessler, R.C. (2000). Posttraumatic stress disorder: The burden to the individual and to society. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61(supplement 5), 4-12.

National Child Traumatic Stress Network (2012). http://www.nctsnet.org/ retrieved March 17, 2012

National Trauma Consortium (2012).  http://www.nationaltraumaconsortium.org/ retrieved March 17, 2012.

Ross, C.A. (2011). The trauma model: A solution to the problem of comorbidity in psychiatry (Kindle Edition). Austin, TX: Greenleaf Book Group.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2012). National Center for Trauma-Informed Care. http://www.samhsa.gov/nctic/ retrieved March 17, 2012.

This post is cross-posted from my post on my blog, Virtual Connections, and was originally a guest post on SWSCMedia blog.

Photo is provided courtesy of SashaW on Flickr

Add Comment

Comments (14)

Newest · Oldest · Popular

Regarding Nancy's comment about naming, I remembered this abstract that I wanted to share:

 

Trauma Experience in Children and Adolescents: An Assessment of the Effects of Trauma Type and Role of Interpersonal Proximity

http://acesconnection.com/profiles/blogs/trauma-experience-in-children-and-adolescents-an-assessment-of

 

Even though it's an abstract, I felt it was rich in naming to show the language being used and the direction of the research. , e.g.,

"Categories of impairment associated with experiences of early trauma include internalizing and externalizing emotional and behavioral problems, posttraumatic stress symptomatology, and dissociation.";

"direct, vicarious, interpersonal";

 "levels of various symptom domains (e.g., anxiety, posttraumatic stress, conduct problems.)"; and

"interpersonal proximity."

Somatization, though not mentioned, is another facet of symptomatology that I'd like to share. It is defined as: the conversion of anxiety into physical symptoms.

Thanks for the kind words, Chris! One thing nice about founding a community, is that it's the members' participation -- Nancy, and all of the people who commented on your post, for example -- that's so terrific and useful.  

Nancy, I SO agree with everything you said about emotional abuse. And I, also, just wanted to say that I felt you were very clear about the usage of your definition of trauma as being scientific and NOT political. I just took advantage in my response to further educate those, not in the know, of the extended repercussions the DSM can have on other fields and society as a whole and the reasons why no-brainers (no pun intended), imho, like Dr. van der Kolk's DTD dx do not make it into the DSM.

Thanks for your kind follow-up comments. And everyone needs to know that Jane creates the wonderful e-newsletter with the help of her web designer Val. Jane is the brilliance and dynamo behind the scenes creating and moving this cause forward in so many ways and everyday I, like so many others here, appreciate her founding and managing this incredible online community. Thank you, Jane!  And thank you again, Nancy, for your dialogue and sharing your expertise!

Oh...and with all of that response, Chris, I forgot to thank you for your kinds words about the work we do at our school. Like you, we feel very strongly about the importance of trauma-informed care and ACES! We're trying to envision a world where every human services professional understands these concepts. While we haven't been able to change the world (yet!) we have, at least, been able to ensure that every MSW who graduates from our school understands these concepts.

I also want to thank you for the amazing work you do with this community. I have no idea how you manage to do it all, but I do know how valuable and important it is. I love the ACES Connection e-letters that you send, too. I've passed on many of the resources that I've found here to our faculty and students.

I really appreciate all the

Chris, I agree, the politics of the DSM are disgraceful, and I am a real fan of Bessel van der Kolk's work (I did some work in his clinic back in 2000-helped out on his EMDR vs. Prozac study on my sabbatical). I do want to clarify though, my reasons for language clarity are for scientific reasons, not political. If we call everything by the same name then we aren't able to sort out how things are different and similar from each other. So I'm in favor of being clear and consistent in our definitions (and the DSM, unfortunately, is the standard in most trauma research). There's really no reason to think that threatening or hurting someone physically would affect a person the same way that emotional abuse does. The first one really brings up safety concerns. Emotional abuse, while it damages a sense of emotional safety, has a much more global effect on someone. It really shapes a person's whole sense of self, and most people internalize emotional abuse and end up talking to themselves the same way (in their thoughts). So if we call all these things trauma, we won't be able to sort the impact out. And I think we really need to be able to sort the impact out. 

In my clinical work I found that emotional abuse was a much harder thing for people to heal from than was physical and even sexual abuse. Most of my clients agreed with this perspective, too. I don't think we know anywhere near enough about the effects of emotional abuse, or being a parentified child. In order to learn more about these things we need well done research that studies each in it's own right. Tossing all those experiences in the "trauma" bucket will obscure what's unique. And understanding what's unique about how these things hurt people is empowering for a survivor and helpful for those designing recovery programs.

I agree that silos aren't helpful. But naming is very powerful and doesn't have to be the same thing as a silo. What we do with the names and the knowledge is what's important. 

I hope that's not too long winded.  :-) 

Hi Nancy, Thanks for your explanation! Wouldn't it be great if there was just one language for all this? Just this problem with the definition of "trauma" I see as being part of the infamous "silos" that Dr. Shonkoff mentioned that really need to come down. I think the DSM has so many problems. It's just a shame Dr. van der Kolk's DTD (Developmental Trauma Disorder) dx didn't make it in the DSM-5. That would have helped give this overall cause that we're all working on some common language to use. I know a lot of politics go into the DSM as well. Considerations of how changes would affect the law, insurance, military benefits, etc. Thanks, again, for the clarification! And thanks for the awesome work you and UBSSW are doing to teach the TIC approach to new & current social workers! I have encountered your website in my research and you have some fabulous resources. So glad you listed some! There are some in our Resource Center, too. :)

Thanks Chris. I agree completely about the damaging effects of emotional abuse. I'm even aware of research that suggests it can result in more psychiatric problems that some types of physical abuse. However, I reserve the word "trauma" and t"traumatizing" for the technical definitions of each (as apposed to the popular definitions). Within the trauma field the focus is usually similar to the DSM definition: threat to physical integrity of self/other. This is one of the important ways that trauma and ACES differ -- for example ACES can include a divorce in the family, whereas that would not usually be classified as trauma. I think the same is true of emotional abuse.

Hi Nancy, Thanks for this great piece! I did just want to add the addition of emotional abuse to the roster of traumatic experiences by mentioning these two sources:

 

"Members of the public shouldn't take lightly the potential effects of emotional abuse in childhood or in any life stage," said Heilig. "Just because there may not be visible physical scars does not mean that no lasting damage has been done." --Markus Heilig, Clinical Director, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/ace-cte030812.php

 

Far from being harmless, the effects of bullying last long into adulthood

http://acesconnection.com/profiles/blogs/far-from-being-harmless-the-effects-of-bullying-last-long-into

Post
Copyright © 2023, PACEsConnection. All rights reserved.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×