I totally agree- the field is not using the same definition for the terms and it makes it very challenging to build an evidence based related to a model. as a field we have to agree on and use the term with a set definition in order to measure our progress, build the evidence, and effectively implement and train. Based on a review of literature, Trauma -Informed Care traditionally refers to an organizational practice of systems change. This is different than "trauma specific services" which are of course informed by trauma and responsive to it- usually done by professionals in a treatment context. Trauma -informed care- an organization wide practice is done y everyone an is for everyone . I see people calling the direct services "trauma-informed" all the time and not working at the organizational level. Trauma-informed care represents the whole culture, as you all know, and not just what is done with the "client." In 2015, My colleague and I wrote paper to help clarify the term and history of the field. if it helps the conversation, see https://www.air.org/sites/defa...nse-Guarino-2015.pdf
I also suggest looking at Bassuk et al."s 2015 article on the Ticometer- the only psychometrically validated tool to identify organizational domains related directly to TIC. I use it in my work and am able to help folks target their efforts to make the whole organization trauma-informed. They just published a new article on the data- came out in Nov 2018.
I believe that if we are to move the field beyond a movement we have to build the scientific base and it has to start with a uniform definition. Hopper et al.'s captures it best.
Love to keep chatting to help the field grow. thanks for the post.
Carmela