University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Assessing administrators’ perceptions of implementing trauma-informed care in K−12 schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Assessing administrators’ perceptions of implementing trauma-informed care in K−12 schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ASSESSING ADMINISTRATORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF IMPLEMENTING
TRAUMA-INFORMED CARE IN K-12 SCHOOLS

by

Nicole Mendoza

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2021

Copyright 2021 Nicole Mendoza

ii

Dedication

To Alex–
The future is yours.

iii

Acknowledgments
To my committee, my friends, family, colleagues, and Trojan family:
Thank you! I could not have done this without you. Your support has meant everything.

iv

Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Definitions........................................................................................................................................x
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...............................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Field Performance Goal .......................................................................................................3
Related Literature.................................................................................................................4
Rationale for the Study ........................................................................................................5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................6
Stakeholder Group for Study ...............................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study and Questions ....................................................................................7
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................10
Introduction to the Literature .............................................................................................10
Trauma and the Child and Adolescent Population ............................................................10
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) and Health Outcomes ..........................11
Effects of Trauma on Child and Adolescent Development ...................................12
Trauma Exposure and Student Achievement .....................................................................13
Trauma and the School Environment ....................................................................14
Trauma and Complex Academic Tasks .................................................................16
Trauma-Informed Care ......................................................................................................18
Trauma-Informed Practices and Student Achievement .........................................19
Trauma-Sensitive School Model............................................................................20
Implementation of Trauma-Informed Care ............................................................22
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework ..............................................24
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences ..............................................24
Knowledge Influence .................................................................................25
Procedural Knowledge of Supporting School Staff .......................26
Motivation Influences ................................................................................27
Expectancy Value Theory ..............................................................28
Administrators’ Expectations and Value of Non-Academic
Programs ............................................................................28
Self-efficacy Theory ......................................................................29
Administrators’ Self-efficacy in Program Implementation ...........29
Organizational Influences ......................................................................................31
General Organizational Theory..................................................................31
Cultural Models .........................................................................................32
Organizational Identity and Continuity .....................................................33

v

Cultural Settings.........................................................................................33
Communication and Organizational Values ..............................................33
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization .........34
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................37

CHAPTER 3: METHODS .............................................................................................................38
Quantitative Methodology and Research Questions ..........................................................38
Research Questions ............................................................................................................39
Sampling and Recruitment .................................................................................................40
Participating Sample ..............................................................................................40
Survey Sampling Strategy, Criteria, and Rationale ...............................................41
Criterion 1: Student Population Served .....................................................41
Criterion 2: Current Employment Status ...................................................42
Criterion 3: Geographic Location ..............................................................42
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................42
Administrator Trauma-Informed Perception Survey .............................................42
Survey Instrument ......................................................................................42
Survey Procedures .....................................................................................44
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................44
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................46
Ethics..................................................................................................................................47

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS..................................................................................50
Introduction ........................................................................................................................50
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................51
General Demographics...........................................................................................53
School Site Demographics .....................................................................................54
Results for Knowledge Influence.......................................................................................55
Survey Results .......................................................................................................57
Consistent Usage of Terminology .............................................................58
Providing Trauma-Specific Training and Professional Development .......59
Creating Opportunities for Collaboration, Support, and Feedback ...........63
Summary ....................................................................................................67
Results for Motivational Influences ...................................................................................67
Survey Results .......................................................................................................70
Expectancy Value ......................................................................................70
Self-efficacy ...............................................................................................73
Summary ....................................................................................................77
Results for Organizational Influences ................................................................................77
Cultural Models .....................................................................................................79
Organizational Identity and Continuity .....................................................81
Need for Mental Health Professionals .......................................................83
Cultural Settings.....................................................................................................84
Visibility of Trauma-Informed Care in Organizational
Communication ..............................................................................84
Summary ................................................................................................................85

vi

Findings..............................................................................................................................86
Procedural Knowledge Findings ............................................................................86
Trauma-Informed Terminology .................................................................86
Trauma-Specific Professional Development .............................................87
Opportunities for Collaboration, Outside Supports, and Feedback ...........87
Motivational Influence Findings ............................................................................89
Expectancy Value ......................................................................................89
Self-efficacy ...............................................................................................90
Organizational Influence Findings .........................................................................90
Cultural Model Influence ...........................................................................90
Cultural Setting Influence ..........................................................................91
Synthesis ............................................................................................................................92

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................94
Discussion of Knowledge Influence and Recommendations.............................................94
Purpose of the Study and Questions ..................................................................................94
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ............................................95
Procedural Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................96
Increase Administrator Knowledge of Staff Support Strategies ................97
Establish Partnerships with Mental Health and Social Services ................99
Motivation Recommendations .............................................................................101
Use Exemplar Schools to Demonstrate the Value of Trauma-
Informed Care ..............................................................................102
Organization Recommendations ..........................................................................103
Engage All Stakeholders in Developing a Trauma-Informed
Organizational Identity ................................................................105
Operationalize What It Means to Be “Trauma-Informed” ......................107
Translate Organizational Commitment to Trauma-Informed
Care into Policies, Practices, and Procedures ..............................108
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ....................................................................109
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ................................................110
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ..............................................................111
Level 3: Behavior .................................................................................................114
Critical Behaviors ....................................................................................114
Required Drivers ......................................................................................116
Organizational Support ............................................................................117
Level 2: Learning .................................................................................................119
Learning Goals .........................................................................................119
Program ....................................................................................................119
Evaluation of the Components of Learning .............................................120
Level 1: Reaction .................................................................................................121
Evaluation Tools ..................................................................................................122
Data Analysis and Reporting ...............................................................................123
Level 1 .....................................................................................................123
Level 2 .....................................................................................................123
Level 3 .....................................................................................................124

vii

Level 4 .....................................................................................................125
Summary ..............................................................................................................125
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................125
Implications for Future Research .....................................................................................126
Systematic Inquiry and Evaluation of Trauma-Informed Policies and
Practices in Schools .................................................................................126
Systematic Inquiry on Perceptions of Trauma-Informed Care Among
Different Age Groups ..............................................................................127
Utilize Diverse Platforms to Assess Implementation Efforts ..............................128
Analyze Perceptions of Implementation from Different Stakeholder
Perspectives..............................................................................................128
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................129

References ....................................................................................................................................130

Appendix A: Survey Protocol ......................................................................................................147
Appendix B: Trauma-Informed School Evaluation .....................................................................158

viii

List of Tables
Table 1: Knowledge Influences, Types and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis .............27
Table 2: Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis ........................31
Table 3: Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis ...............34
Table 4: States Represented in Sample Population........................................................................52
Table 5: Reported General Demographics of Sample Population .................................................54
Table 6: Reported Practice Demographics of Sample Population .................................................55
Table 7: Trauma-Informed Perception Survey Instrument Procedural Knowledge Questions .....57
Table 8: Use of Trauma-Informed Care Terminology (Question 7) ..............................................58
Table 9: Use of Strategies to Support Staff ...................................................................................64
Table 10: Trauma-Informed Perception Survey Instrument Motivational Influence Questions ...69
Table 11: Outline of Administrator Trauma-Informed Perception Survey Instrument .................78
Table 12: Integration of Trauma-Informed Principles into Organizational Identity .....................82
Tabe 13: First-Ranked School Site Needs to Implement Trauma-Informed Practices ..................84
Table 14: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .........................................97
Table 15: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations .......................................102
Table 16: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations .................................105
Table 17: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ......................113
Table 18: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation .............................115
Table 19: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ..........................................................117
Table 20: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ......................................121
Table 21: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .....................................................122

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation
within Organizational Cultural Models and Settings .........................................................36
Figure 2: U.S. States and Regions Represented in the Sample Population ...................................51
Figure 3: Administrator Perception of Provided Trauma-Specific Professional Development ....60
Figure 4: Administrator Perception of Staff Access to Trauma-Competent Services ...................61
Figure 5: Administrator Perception of Staff Access to Mental Health Professionals....................61
Figure 6: Administrator Perception of Staff Access to Strategic Training for Positive
Relationships ......................................................................................................................62
Figure 7: Administrator Perception of Staff Access to Strategies to Involve Parents ...................62
Figure 8: Administrator Role in Implementing School-Wide Initiatives ......................................65
Figure 9: Administrator Perception of Learning New Strategies ..................................................71
Figure 10: Administrator Perception of Introducing Trauma-Informed Practices ........................71
Figure 11: Administrator Perception of Providing Support for New Programs/Initiatives ...........72
Figure 12: Administrator Perception of Behavioral Challenges ....................................................72
Figure 13: Administrator Self-efficacy for Influencing Teacher Use of Effective Strategies .......74
Figure 14: Administrator Self-efficacy for Modeling Effective Trauma-Informed Strategies ......74
Figure 15: Administrator Self-efficacy for Using Research for Strategic Planning ......................75
Figure 16: Administrator Self-efficacy for Planning Effective Professional Activities ................75
Figure 17: Administrator Self-efficacy for Communicating Implementation Needs and Goals ...76
Figure 18: Administrator Self-efficacy for Facilitating Motivation for Trauma-Informed
Practice Implementation ....................................................................................................76
Figure 19: Administrators Reporting Use of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS) ................................................................................................................................80
Figure 20: Administrators Reporting Use of Social and Emotional Learning Curricula ..............80
Figure 21: Administrators Reporting Use of Restorative Practices/Restorative Justice ................81
Figure 22: Adapted Kirkpatrick Model..............................................................................................

x

Definitions

Recognizing several definitions can exist for any given term, a thorough analysis of
the literature was conducted to operationalize the terms pertinent to the study. To clarify
understanding, the key terms used in this study are presented below. Further discussion of these
concepts is found in Chapter Two.
Administrators—For the purposes of this study, administrators are defined as individuals who
oversee the day-to-day functions of a school site, including, but not limited to, principals,
assistant principals, deans, directors, and heads of schools.
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)—The term is used to describe all types of abuse and
neglect as well as other potentially traumatic experiences (e.g., death of parent, divorce), that
occur in a child’s life before the age of 18 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.)
Trauma-Informed Practice/Trauma-Informed Care—Defined as an organizational structure
and/or treatment framework that involves recognizing, understanding, and ultimately responding
to the effects of trauma that an individual has experienced. Trauma-informed practice focuses on
the physical, psychological, and emotional safety of both survivors and providers and seeks to
help those that have been exposed to trauma regain a sense of control and empowerment
(American Association of Pediatrics, n.d.).
Trauma-Sensitive School—A safe, respectful school environment that allows students to form
caring and positive connections with peers and adults, self-regulate emotions and behaviors, and
achieve academic goals and standards, while supporting the student’s physical health, mental
health, and well-being (Lesley University Institute for Trauma-Sensitivity, 2017).

xi

Abstract
This study applies an integration of learning, motivational, organizational, and change theories
while utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to better understand the
perceived implementation of trauma-informed practices within schools. This provides an
understanding of K-12 administrator perceptions of implementing trauma-informed care at their
school sites. The overall goal for this study was to decipher the broader picture of administrator
knowledge and understanding of how to implement trauma-informed care and analyze the
motivational and organizational factors influencing administrator ability to implement these
practices which could facilitate an emotionally safer environment, thus improving achievement
for trauma-exposed students. In an exploratory research design with quantitative methods via an
online survey, this study engaged 93 K-12 administrators across the United States at various
stages of implementing trauma-informed care at their schools. This study identifies important
areas in need of being addressed in trauma-sensitive school implementation, such as building
partnerships with outside mental health professionals and community mental health agencies,
increasing training and ongoing professional development on trauma-informed practices for
staff, and including multiple stakeholder perspectives, such as students and parents, in the design
and implementation of the trauma-sensitive school model. Based on K-12 administrator
perceptions, the domains to be addressed for trauma-informed care implementation include: (a)
knowledge of how best to support staff for implementing trauma-informed practices; (b)
knowledge of community mental health resources and how to leverage partnerships for staff and
student support; and (c) organizational influences around cultural models and settings for
promoting a trauma-informed school environment. Based on survey findings, in conjunction with

xii

a thorough literature review, this study outlines recommendations for implementing a strong
trauma-informed school initiative.
Keywords: trauma-informed care, trauma-sensitive school, school culture, administrator
role, educational change, social and emotional learning, professional developmental, community
partnerships, K-12 administrator

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Of the 76 million youth in the United States, more than half are trauma survivors (Craig,
2017). The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014) defines
traumatic or stressful events as “adverse childhood experiences” (ACEs). ACEs include abuse,
neglect, household dysfunction, witnessing domestic violence, and growing up in a home with
substance abuse present (SAMHSA, 2014). Roughly 72 percent of American children will
experience at least one ACE before the age of 18 (National Association of School Psychologists,
n.d.).
Childhood trauma has one of the greatest impacts on the ability of an adolescent to learn
(McInerney & McKlindon, 2014). Numerous studies have found that trauma has a significant
impact on student achievement (Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005; Craig, 2015; Craig,
2017), with higher numbers of ACEs related to lower school engagement and an increased
likelihood of the child to be retained in a grade or placed on an individualized education plan
(Porche, Costello, & Rosen-Reynoso, 2016; Walkley & Cox, 2013). Duplechain, Reigner, and
Packard (2008) found that children exposed to trauma have significant difficulties performing
complex tasks, such as reading comprehension. Additionally, reading scores for children that
have been exposed to violence were significantly lower than children who had not been exposed
(Duplechain, Reigner, & Packard, 2008).
As service providers across sectors begin to better understand the prevalence and impact
of trauma on children and adolescents (Boyraz, Horne, Owens, & Armstrong, 2013; Duplechain,
Reigner, & Packard, 2008; Felitti, Anda, Nordenberg, Williamson, Spitz, Edwards, & Marks,
1998) and the role trauma exposure may play on student achievement (Boyraz et al., 2013;

2

Duplechain, Reigner, & Packard, 2008; McLaughlin, Sheridan, & Lambert, 2014), schools are
being called on to provide trauma-informed intervention and services to address the needs of this
growing population of vulnerable students (Craig, 2015; SAMHSA, 2014). While there is
extensive literature, toolkits, and professional development opportunities (Craig, 2015; Craig,
2017) made available to assist schools in gaining knowledge of trauma and its effects on student
achievement, there has been little research about how successful this approach has been in terms
of being incorporated into daily practice, from site systems to teacher curriculum, instruction,
and classroom management (Craig, 2015).
Background of the Problem
In K-12 institutions across the United States, behavioral health issues facing students
have become more of a topic of concern (Bruek, 2016; Kaufman, Seelam, Woodbridge, Sontag-
Padilla, Osilla, & Stein, 2016; Wasco & Frost, 2019). In a study of 1,272 K-12 principals in
California, Kaufman et al. (2016) found that close to 50% of those surveyed indicated disruptive
behavior, harassment, bullying, family violence, and abuse were among some of the more
frequent concerns affecting their school populations. In 2015, the 114
th
Congress introduced the
Mental Health in Schools Act (MHSA) to expand programming and increase funding for
comprehensive, school-based mental health services and supports (Bruek, 2016). The bill also
called for additional funding for staff training and parent and student education to identify at-risk
behaviors, better understand referral processes and resources, and support the establishment of a
positive school climate to prevent mental health disturbances (Bruek, 2016). If passed, the
MHSA funding would support the implementation of school systems that focus on prevention
and early intervention, or universal mental health programs, in addition to traditional assessment
and treatment for students with more severe mental health concerns (Bruek, 2016). Even though

3

the MHSA has not yet become law, many states have begun the process of introducing similar
legislation mandating public schools address a host of behavioral and mental health issues such
as suicide, bullying, and depression (Bruek, 2016). Citing the rise in teen suicide and adolescent
mental illnesses, two states (New York and Virginia), have enacted laws that require K-12 public
schools to implement a curriculum that addresses mental health issues (Vestal, 2018). Mental
health advocates agree – utilizing the school environment, where children spend most of their
day, for prevention and early intervention efforts ensure that public health efforts are more
accessible to all children (Bruek, 2016). More recently, in July of 2019, the Trauma-informed
Schools Act of 2019 was introduced in Congress, which would, for the first time, define trauma-
informed practices and require state plans to include how schools and education agencies will
use funds to increase trauma-informed practices (Trauma Learning Policy Initiative, 2019). The
Act also offers a tentative mission for the generalized body of K-12 schools, tasking these
institutions to establish school-wide learning environments where all students and adults feel
safe, welcomed, and supported as well as enable students to succeed despite traumatic
experiences (Clark, Quigley, & Fitzpatrick, 2019). As schools begin to understand the
relationship between trauma, mental health issues, school behavior, and achievement, more
frequently, schools are adding to their mission the goal of establishing a positive school climate
that helps all students address mental health issues and promote wellness (Vestal, 2018; Wasco
& Frost, 2019).
Field Performance Goal
While goals will differ among schools in different districts and states throughout the
United States, ultimately, educators have repeatedly argued that the priority needs to be to
implement comprehensive, integrated systems that promote positive behavioral health (Fazel,

4

Hoagwood, Stephan, & Ford, 2014; Kaufman et al., 2016). There are several phases to
implement a trauma-informed approach; however, Guarino and Chagnon (2018) offer a sample
timeline that guides schools through a year-long process of initial implementation. In the
timeline provided by Guarino and Chagnon (2016), the first five months of implementation are
primarily administrator driven. Meaning, this time is used for assessing organizational readiness,
reviewing training materials, and developing action plans.
The focus of this study is to assess K-12 administrator perceptions of the facilitators,
needs, and barriers concerning their school’s implementation of trauma-informed practices. It is
hypothesized that administrators will cite mental health professionals, professional development,
funding, and resources as key elements affecting their ability to implement the trauma-sensitive
model successfully.
Related Literature
Students with high numbers of ACEs are often triggered by school environments and
events, including policies and procedures, classroom content, and school culture (Berman &
Schieff, 2000). Teachers may not have the tools to respond to students who disclose personal
crises or are unable to manage their emotions (Anderson & MacCurdy, 2000). In response, many
schools across the United States have become “trauma-sensitive schools,” by implementing a
version of trauma-informed care, or trauma-informed practices. Trauma-informed practice is a
term coined by Harris and Fallot (2001), who argued that survivors of trauma respond to
experiences differently, and thus, systems of service delivery must be customized to consider the
impact of trauma on clients. For a system to be considered trauma-informed, the organization
must understand how traumatic experiences impact the individual’s life and use that knowledge
to adjust services accordingly, focusing on strategies that promote healing and recovery (Cole,

5

Greenwald O’Brien, & Gadd, 2005; Craig, 2017). Since the early 2000s, many schools across the
United States have attempted to incorporate some elements of trauma sensitivity into their
organizational framework (Craig, 2015). However, while more administrators and other school
staff are receiving more professional development and training on ACEs and the impact of
trauma on adolescent development and learning, much of this foundational knowledge has not
translated into specific policies, procedures, and practices to effectively create safe and secure
school environments for students that have experienced trauma (Cole, Greenwald O’Brien, &
Gadd, 2005; Craig, 2017).
Rationale for the Study
Student achievement in the United States has been a topic of controversy since the early
2000s when the No Child Left Behind Act was introduced, and scores in reading and math
stagnated (Bashay, 2018). In 2013, the hold steady pattern broke, however, since then, scores
have been on the decline, with average students performing well below what test administrators
consider to be “proficient” at each grade level (Bashay, 2018). Researchers and policy makers
have argued potential root causes for the decline, such as decreased funding for schools and
access to resources, demographics shifts, and increasing poverty among students (Bashay, 2018).
Many of these potential root causes, such as poverty and access to necessary resources have been
correlated with trauma-exposure and adverse childhood experiences (Houtepen, Heron,
Suderman, Fraser, Chittleborough, & Howe, 2019; Hughes & Tucker, 2018). As researchers
continue to find more evidence that children and adolescents exposed to chronic trauma display a
greater risk of school failure (Houtepen et al., 2019; Hughes & Tucker, 2018; Larson et al.,
2017), the possibility of trauma being a possible contributor to the decline in overall student
achievement has emerged.

6

Children who are focusing all their energy on safety have little emotional energy
remaining for other needs, such as education (Cole, Greenwald O’Brien, & Gadd, 2005). To
ensure that students can focus on learning content, a safe and secure environment must be
established. Several studies (Chafouleas, Johnson, Overstreet, & Santos, 2016; Dorado,
Martinez, McArthur, & Liebovitz, 2012; Overstreet & Chafouleas, 2016) have found that
integrating trauma-informed practices into the educational environment increases student
feelings of safety, connection, and perception of the school as a positive and welcoming
place. School staff must be properly equipped to address the effects of trauma in the classroom.
Often, schools may be the only available entity to provide support for trauma-exposed children
(Green, Holt, Kwon, Reid, Xuan, & Comer, 2015). And with the increase in teen suicide rates
(Hedegaard, Curtin, & Warner, 2018), 1 in 5 children nationally living in poverty (National
Center for Children in Poverty, 2019), and threats of gun violence and school shootings
(Springer, 2018), there is an urgency to gain a better understanding to what extent K-12
administrators in the United States are implementing trauma-informed care, and their perceptions
of barriers and facilitators to implementing trauma-informed practices, so that practical methods
can be provided to address trauma in the school setting.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The three key stakeholder groups that contribute to the implementation of trauma-
informed practices are site administrators, teachers, and non-certified or non-credentialed staff
(e.g., cafeteria staff, transportation, administrative support). Teachers have the highest level of
interaction with students and serve as the frontline staff in the daily implementation of trauma-
informed practices. Non-teaching school staff are also in contact with students and have several
opportunities to also implement trauma-informed practices as well as contributing to a safe,

7

secure, and positive school environment. While K-12 administrators have less daily interaction
with students they serve as instructional leaders and manage daily site operations. Thus, site
administrators greatly influence decisions regarding the implementation of initiatives, practices,
and policies at the school site level.
Stakeholder Group for Study
While the combined efforts of all stakeholders would greatly benefit the overall goal of
becoming a trauma-sensitive school, the stakeholder of focus for this study is site-level
administrators (e.g., principals, assistant principals, deans) and their contributions. Site
administrators have the most direct influence on the culture of school as well as implementation
of school-wide initiatives (Lucas & Valentine, 2002). According to Craig (2017), the principal is
the key player to ensure that all actions related to trauma are integrated throughout the school
and aligned with other school initiatives and priorities. While the charge to become more trauma-
informed can come from anywhere within the school, formal leadership is the ultimate authority
and able to give permission for all staff to be part of creating effective organizational change
(Craig, 2017). As a result, it is critical to first assess administrator perceptions of implementing
trauma-informed practice, as they are typically the impetus for organizational change within a K-
12 setting.
Purpose of the Study and Questions
The purpose of this study is to understand the perceptions of K-12 administrator
implementation of trauma-informed care at their school sites and to gain a sense of the facilitator
attributes required in implementing trauma-informed care as well as needs for a successful
implementation. The goals of this study were to decipher the broader picture of administrator
knowledge and understanding of how to effectively implement trauma-informed care and to

8

analyze the motivational and organizational factors influencing administrator ability to
implement trauma-informed practices.
Utilizing the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, this study assessed
administrator perceptions of their school’s implementation of trauma-informed practices, as well
as their understanding of how to implement trauma-informed practices. Additionally, this study
attempts to gain insight on administrator perceptions of their roles in implementing trauma-
informed practices and examining consistent areas of challenge in the implementation of trauma-
informed care.
The research questions that guided this study were:
1. From the perspective of K-12 administrators, to what extent is their school site
implementing trauma-informed practices?
2. What is K-12 administrator perceived areas of strength and weakness related to the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences needed to implement a trauma-
informed system at their school site?
3. Do administrator perceptions of their actions impacting the organizational culture and
context influence their knowledge and motivation to implement a trauma-informed
system at their school site?
4. What are the perceived facilitators and barriers for K-12 administrators in implementing
trauma-informed practices?
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize and present this study. Chapter 1 provides the reader
with the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about trauma-informed
care and trauma-sensitive schools. Chapter 2 is a review of current literature surrounding the

9

scope of the study; topics include the prevalence of trauma among the school-age population, the
impact of trauma on student achievement, trauma-informed practices, and the implementation of
trauma-informed care in organizations. Chapter 3 details the assumed needs for this study as well
as the chosen methodology pertaining to participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter 4,
the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter 5 introduces potential solutions, based on
the data and literature, for addressing the needs for implementing trauma-informed care in K-12
schools.

10

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction to the Literature
This chapter provides a review of the literature that addresses the major variables and
factors that will be used to investigate possible links to the hypothesized causes of the
administrator perceived skills, motivation, and organizational gaps leading to difficulty
implementing trauma-informed practices and/or the trauma-sensitive school design in K-12
schools. This chapter is divided into two major sections. The first, reviews the current body of
trauma research discussing the prevalence of trauma in the school-age and adolescent population,
the impact of trauma on student achievement, and the development of trauma-informed practices
to address this phenomenon. The second section reviews the implementation of trauma-informed
care in organizations and discusses key components to successful implementation.
Trauma and the Child and Adolescent Population
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) uses the
term “trauma” to describe the adverse childhood experiences that have occurred in childhood
and adolescence that are emotionally painful and interfere with a child or adolescent’s ability to
cope (SAHMSA, 2014). The original work of Felitti et al. (1998) established three categories of
childhood abuse including: psychological abuse, physical abuse, and contact sexual abuse. After
the original study, Felitti expanded on these categories by developing a total of ten
classifications. Five are based on the experience of the individual: physical abuse; verbal abuse;
sexual abuse; and physical neglect (Felitti, 2003). The remaining five are related to exposure to
family members with certain traits: a parent who is an alcoholic; a mother who is the victim of
domestic violence; a family member who is incarcerated; a family member suffering from
mental illness; or the loss of a family member due to divorce, death, or abandonment (Felitti et

11

al., 2003). Since the original study, additional researchers (Finkelhor, Shattuck, Turner, &
Hamby, 2013; Pachter, Bahora, Witherspoon, Davis, Smith-Brown, & Bernstein, 2014; Wade,
Shea, Rubin, & Wood, 2014) have suggested that the expansion of categories of trauma,
especially for diverse minority populations, include exposure to community violence,
deportation, food and housing insecurity, experience in foster care or the juvenile justice system,
and racism, among other things. High levels of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in
childhood and adolescence have been linked to negative health outcomes in adulthood (Felitti et
al., 1998). Exposure to childhood trauma has been shown to explain more than 30% of mental
disorders in the U.S. population (Green, McLaughlin, Berglund, Gruber, Sampson, Zaslavsky, &
Kessler, 2010).
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and Health Outcomes
In the seminal study on trauma conducted at Kaiser Permanente, researchers Felitti et al.,
(1998) found that stressful or traumatic events that occur in childhood (eventually known as
ACEs) are strongly related to the development and prevalence of a wide range of health
problems throughout a person’s lifespan. In the sample of more than 17,000 participants, nearly
two-thirds of participants reported having had experienced one or more adverse childhood
experiences, with more than one in five (20%) reporting four or more ACEs. Additionally, ACEs
have a dose-response relationship with numerous health, social, and behavioral outcomes (Felitti
et al., 1998). Essentially, as the number of ACEs that a patient self-reported increased, so did the
number of negative health outcomes that were reported (Felitti et al., 1998). Adults with higher
ACE scores are more likely to be violent, have unstable relationships, demonstrate increased
risk-taking behavior, depression, autoimmune diseases, and work absences, among other
undesirable outcomes (Burke, Hellman, Scott, Weems, & Carrion, 2011; Dube, Anda, Felitti,

12

Chapman, Williamson, & Giles, 2001; Felitti et al., 1998; Felitti, 2003; Felitti & Anda, 2010;
Hillis, Anda, Felitti, Nordenberg, & Marchbanks, 2000).
The original ACEs study focused on adults, and how childhood experiences were related
to negative health outcomes in adulthood. Since the original study, additional researchers (Green
et al., 2010) have investigated the role that trauma plays in childhood, seeking to understand the
more direct and immediate effects of trauma. Green et al. (2010) not only replicated the results
found by Felitti et al. (1998) but also found that childhood adversity is common and strongly
associated with the subsequent onset of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence.
Similarly to the original study, Green et al. (2010) found that individuals who have been exposed
to trauma are at elevated risk of developing a wide range of mental disorders, including mood,
anxiety, behavior, and substance use disorders – not only in adulthood but in adolescence.
McLaughlin, Green, Gruber, Sampson, Zaslavsky, and Kessler (2012) found that childhood
adversities account for 47% of childhood psychiatric disorder onset and 32% of psychiatric
disorders with adolescent-onset. Thus, early trauma exposure has a profound impact on the
emotional and mental wellbeing of children and adolescents.
Effects of Trauma on Child and Adolescent Development
Early traumatic experiences have been linked to structural and functional changes in the
brain. McLaughlin, Sheridan, & Lambert (2014) found that exposure to trauma is associated with
overall decreases in grey matter volume and thickness, with the most pronounced reductions in
the areas of the cortex that support complex cognitive and social processing. Trauma exposure is
linked to structure and function changes in the amygdala (McLaughlin Sheridan, & Lambert,
2014). As the amygdala is associated with the processing of emotional information, McLaughlin,

13

Sheridan, and Lambert (2014) found that trauma-exposed students display difficulties processing
emotional information, particularly facial emotions.
The changes in brain structure and function impact the baseline arousal states of children,
which greatly affects their ability to monitor and regulate emotions and actions (McLaughlin
Sheridan, & Lambert, 2014; Peri, Ben-Shakhar, Orr, & Shaley, 2000). Peri et al. (2000) found
that traumatized children have a different baseline than normal emotional arousal. Even when no
external threats exist, traumatized children exist in a constant state of hyperarousal or alarm (Peri
et al., 2000). Shore (2003) found similar results, concluding that the most significant
consequence of trauma exposure is the loss of a child’s ability to regulate the intensity and the
duration of the effects of trauma. Thus, at the core of the traumatic stress response is a
breakdown in a child’s capacity to regulate internal emotional states, such as fear, anger, and
impulses (Van der Kolk, Roth, Pelcovitz, Sunday, & Spinazzola, 2005).
The brain-based stress response of trauma-exposed children appears to be a permanent
alteration. This alteration then causes children to focus their attention on the need to ensure their
safety rather than other interests that non-traumatized children find interesting, such as school
activities or hobbies (Bath, 2008). Bath (2008) found that students that have experienced trauma
are hypervigilant in school settings, constantly scanning the environment for potential threats and
sources of danger. Thus, the structural and functional changes in brain development that are
linked to trauma can directly affect the ability of students to perform a variety of cognitive tasks,
and thus, impact school achievement.
Trauma Exposure and Student Achievement
While there are numerous names and definitions for student achievement, for this study,
student achievement is defined as the measure of the amount of academic content a student can

14

learn in a certain amount of time (California State PTA, 2016). K-12 education aims to promote
student achievement for all students, providing the resources and environment that provides
school pupils the opportunity to meet academic outcomes that will ensure their success in school
and life (California State PTA, 2016). According to Hawley, Rosenholtz, Goodstein, and
Hasselbring (1984) there are four primary ways that schools can improve student achievement:
(a) improve instruction and opportunities to learn; (b) increase the availability of high-quality
learning resources (including curriculum, textbooks, and technology); (c) engage parents in
supporting learning at home; and (d) improve the quality of school learning environment (e.g.
provide safety and security, improve positive peer and adult interactions, create an environment
that promotes high standards). Work in improving student achievement has often focused on the
first three components (Hawley, Rosenholtz, Goodstein, & Hasselbring, 1984; Pomerantz &
Pierce, 2013). Proponents of integrating trauma-informed practices in schools believe that the
fourth component related to the school environment is the key missing element to increasing
academic achievement for all students (Day., Somers, Baroni, West, Sanders, & Peterson, 2015;
Tishelman, Haney, O’Brien, & Blaustein, 2010). It thus stands to reason that creating a school
environment that is safe and secure and provides a positive space for healing and personal
growth, is paramount for student achievement (Bath, 2008; Greenwald, 2005).
Trauma and the School Environment
The National Center on Safe Supporting Learning Environments (2019) defines the
school environment as the facilities, classrooms, school-based health supports, and all the
disciplinary policies and practices that compose the external factors that affect students.
Numerous studies (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011; Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2007) have
linked positive school environments to markers of student achievement such as high attendance

15

rates, higher scores on standardized tests, and graduation rates. These positive environments that
promote strong peer and adult relationships and a sense of safety and security for all students
provide the perfect nurturing soil for students to flourish academically.
A key element of positive school environments is the school’s discipline policies. When
school policies are clear and consistently enforced, and emphasize relational or restorative
justice, schools experience higher rates of student attendance and report increased levels of
student engagement (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011; Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2007; Fenzel,
& O’Brennan, 2007). Responses to challenging behaviors that are sensitive and emphasize
student strengths have been found to prevent further misbehavior (Eccles & Midgley, 1989), thus
reducing the possibility of the application of more severe exclusionary discipline policies such as
suspension and expulsion.
Research has demonstrated a strong link between punitive and exclusionary policies such
as detention, suspension, and expulsion to higher rates of high school dropout (Boccanfuso &
Kuhfeld, 2011). As discussed in the previous section, trauma-exposed students often have
difficulty regulating impulses and behavior and are more likely to display strong negative
emotions such as frustration and anger (McLaughlin, Sheridan, & Lambert, 2014; Peri, Ben-
Shakhar, Orr, & Shaley, 2000). The most frequent reasons for implementing punitive discipline
policies are the display of challenging student behaviors such as disruptive classroom behavior,
fighting or screaming, or engaging in oppositional behavior such as refusing to follow directions
or school rules (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011). Thus, it stands to reason that trauma-exposed
students may be at higher risk for receiving punitive disciplinary actions due to the higher
likelihood that they will display challenging behaviors.

16

Exclusionary policies have a damaging effect on the ability of students to exceed in
school. For example, national data were gathered on exclusionary policies administered during
the 2007-2008 school year. This indicated that students were suspended from school for five or
more days more than 584,000 times in the school year (National Center on Safe Supportive
Learning Environments, 2019). This translates to nearly 20 million hours of missed instructional
time (National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, 2019). If students are missing
instructional time, it greatly impacts their ability to excel in school as they are not receiving the
academic content, nor the opportunity to practice, apply and engage with the material (Losen &
Whitaker, 2017). Since they are at a higher risk of displaying challenging behaviors and
receiving punitive discipline, trauma-exposed students also have a higher chance of displaying
poor academic achievement.
Trauma and Complex Academic Tasks
Outside of displaying challenging behaviors, trauma-exposure appears to have an impact
on general academic ability, such as reading comprehension, and the ability to perform complex
tasks. In a study conducted by Porche, Costello, and Rosen-Reynoso (2016), school engagement,
grade retention, and placement on an individual education plan were mediated by the number of
ACEs as well as child mental health diagnoses. The higher number of ACEs a child experienced,
the more likely they were to experience difficulties with academic performance (Porche,
Costello, & Rosen-Reynoso, 2016).
While the focus of this study is not on minority or low-socioeconomic populations, most
research examining the relationship between trauma and school achievement has been primarily
focused on these populations. As the achievement gap still seems to disproportionately affect
minority and low-socioeconomic populations (Blitz, Anderson & Saastamoinen, 2016; Burris &

17

Welner, 2005; Hoff, 2013) many researchers have concentrated their efforts in trauma research
to explore the possibility that trauma may play a role in low academic performance in these
populations. Based on standardized test scores, minority and low-income subgroups often
perform poorly on tests of literacy and math, as compared to their white and affluent peers
(Boykin, & Noguera, 2011). Moreover, minority and low-income populations often have more
exposure to crime and violence and may experience negative home environments due to familial
and community stressors (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008; Wade, Shea, Rubin, & Wood, 2014),
which are all considered traumatic stressors (Felitti, et. al, 1998; Wade et al., 2014).
In a study conducted by Duplechain, Reigner, and Packard (2008), three years of reading
scores of 163 second-fifth grade urban elementary students were analyzed. Results indicated that
the trauma from exposure to violence had an adverse effect on reading scores, and there was a
very significant difference in scores between children who experienced moderate exposure and
high exposure. Boyraz et al. (2013) uncovered similar results among young adults in the college
setting, noting that higher levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were associated with
the increased likeliness of leaving college earlier. Again, while many of the studies have been
primarily focused on minority and low-income subgroups, the research does seem to indicate that
trauma exposure may be one of the key variables in explaining the differences in student
achievement.
Additionally, childhood emotional neglect, one of the frequently cited categories of
ACEs related to high instances of trauma (Dube, Anda, Felitti, Chapman, Williamson, & Giles,
2001) appears to predict poor performance on cognitive tasks, especially those requiring
inhibitory control (McLaughlin, Sheridan, & Lambert, 2014). In research conducted by
Duplechain, Reigner, and Packard (2008), reading scores for students that had been exposed to

18

violence were significantly lower than students who had not been exposed. Time and time again,
researchers have linked youth trauma and mental illness to poor academic performance and
lower rates of high school graduation (Mojtabai, Stuart, Hwang, Eaton, Sampson, & Kessler,
2015; Patel, Flisher, Hetrick, & McGorry, 2007).
In addition to the impact on direct academic tasks, trauma exposure has been found to
impact a host of behaviors necessary to be successful in the school environment. In the mid-
1990s, Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC) began to investigate patterns of violence
among children who had been expelled or suspended from school and found that traumatic
experiences were severely impacting students’ ability to manage their behavior, emotions, and
attention, and develop positive relationships in the school environment (Trauma and Learning
Policy Initiative, n.d.). Recognizing the significant impact that trauma has on a child’s
functioning, and his or her ability to achieve academic success, practices have been developed to
address and mitigate the effects of trauma.
Trauma-Informed Care
Out of behavioral health research has emerged a set of practices called trauma-informed
care that provides a framework for providers to help create safe and supportive environments for
trauma-exposed children and adolescents. Trauma-informed care, synonymous with trauma-
informed practices, shifts the focus about the nature of problems or challenging behaviors,
asking providers to view these behaviors as the result of “sustained physical, psychological,
social, and moral insults that lead to developmental injuries” (Abramowitz & Bloom, 2003, p.
131). This shift focused on holistic healing, requires the use of integrated approaches within a
system, all with the emphasis on safety and connection (Abramowitz & Bloom, 2003; Bath,
2008). The implementation of trauma-informed care, or trauma-informed practices, often

19

mitigates the effect of challenging behaviors on academic performance and relationship building
(Bath, 2008).
According to Bath (2008), children need adults who understand the impact of traumatic
experiences and can recognize that the pain of trauma may be the underlying root cause of many
challenging behaviors displayed by youth. Bath (2008) advocates that trauma-informed care
should be centered around three pillars – safety, connection, and emotion/impulse management.
His research postulates that these pillars of trauma-informed care can be utilized, and should be
applied, by anyone who cares for, teaches, and mentors children (Bath, 2008).
Early prevention and intervention in schools (e.g., restorative practices, teaching positive
behaviors) have been recognized as crucial elements for reducing future behavioral problems,
many of which stem from trauma exposure (Solomon, Klein, Hintze, Cressey, & Peller, 2012).
Within the last few decades, trauma-informed care advocates have begun to champion the
trauma-sensitive school model. This systemic approach to trauma-informed care in the school
environment seeks to address the need for system-wide solutions to mitigate the effects of trauma
on school achievement (Craig, 2015).
Trauma-Informed Practices and Student Achievement
Research linking the role of specific trauma-informed practices and student achievement
is relatively new, however, trauma-informed practices share many of the same principles and
characteristics as those of social and emotional learning (SEL) programs and curricula
(McInerney & McKlindon, 2014; Overstreet & Chafouleas, 2016). There have been many
studies that have found the implementation of SEL initiatives may have a positive effect on
improving academic performance (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011).
In a significant meta-analysis of 213 school-based, universal SEL programs involving nearly

20

300,00 K-12 students, Durlak et al. (2011) found that students who had participated in SEL
programs demonstrated an 11-percentile point gain in academic achievement. Payton,
Weissberg, Durlak, Dymnicki, Taylor, Schellinger, and Pachan (2008) conducted a review of
317 students involving 324,303 K-8 students to understand the impact of SEL programs on
student achievement. In their review, Payton et al. (2008) found SEL programming improved
students’ academic performance between 11 to 17 percentile points and had positive impacts on
other domains related to high levels of student achievement such as positive self-image,
connection to the school, and positive social behavior. While there is a dearth of literature
specifically focused on the impact implementing trauma-informed practices has on improving
student achievement, there is evidence that programs that target students’ social and emotional
wellbeing have a positive effect on improving academic performance.
Trauma-Sensitive School Model
As one of the primary systems in which children and adolescents spend most of their
time, schools have an important role to play in early prevention and intervention for trauma-
exposed students (Craig, 2015). Child mental health advocates have called for the
implementation of trauma-informed care in schools, particularly those serving minority and low-
income populations that many have had more trauma exposure (Berzin, O'Brien, Frey, Kelly,
Alvarez, & Shaffer, 2011; Abramowitz & Bloom, 2003; Craig, 2015). Recognizing the impact of
trauma on learning, Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC) joined Lesly University’s
Center for Education to create the Flexible Framework – an organizational tool designed to help
schools create and implement a school-wide trauma-informed approach (Craig, 2015). The
trauma-sensitive school thus is an educational institution that has embraced and incorporated
trauma-informed practices into their organizational model (Craig, 2015).

21

In a trauma-sensitive school, a shared mission is established to create a learning
environment that acknowledges and addresses trauma’s impact on student academic success
(Barton, Newbury, & Roberts, 2018). According to Carello and Butler (2015), in a trauma-
sensitive school environment, staff learn to assume that in every school space there are students
that are at-risk for retraumatization or vicarious traumatization as a result of past or present
personal trauma or challenges and difficult life transitions. Cole, Eisner, Gregory, and Ristuccia
(2013) concur, adding that one of the crucial elements in the successful implementation of the
trauma-sensitive school model is that staff at all levels have a basic understanding of trauma and
the effect of trauma on student learning and behavior. In a trauma-sensitive school, all staff share
a common understanding of trauma and its impact on students and can identify the signs and
symptoms of trauma, re-traumatization, and vicarious traumatization, so that they can be better
prepared to prevent challenging behavior and help the student develop a greater capacity for
emotional regulation, all to improve student achievement (Carello & Butler, 2015). The goal of a
trauma-sensitive school is to respond to the needs of trauma-exposed students through the
integration of effective practices, programs, and procedures into the various aspects of the
organizational culture (Overstreet & Chafouleas, 2016). Proponents of the trauma-sensitive
school model argue that the comprehensive nature of the model allows all students to receive the
appropriate level of support for their social and emotional needs (Barton, Newbury, & Roberts,
2018).
There is a growing number of researchers advocating for the incorporation of trauma-
informed practices in a school setting and an abundance of professional resources and learning
opportunities surrounding trauma-informed practices and trauma-sensitive schools for
administrators has recently appeared. However, due to perceptions and understanding of trauma,

22

the current model of behavioral intervention delivery in the K-12 school system, and the
variances in definitions of what makes a school trauma-informed, or “trauma-sensitive” (Craig,
2015), few administrators have been able to translate knowledge of ACEs and trauma into school
policies and daily site practices.
Implementation of Trauma-Informed Care
Trauma-informed care has been successfully implemented in much mental health,
behavioral health, and social services agencies (Chafouleas et al., 2015). However, the
implementation of trauma-informed practices in the school environment is still relatively new.
While research in this area is limited, some literature has examined various aspects of the
implementation of trauma-informed practices in K-12 schools.
Perry and Daniels (2016) conducted a pilot, introducing trauma-informed practices at a
Title I school, serving Pre-K – 8 students in New Haven, Connecticut. In the pilot, the
researchers conducted a variety of activities to implement trauma-informed practices such as
professional development workshops, monthly meetings dedicated to the review of specific
student cases, and classroom workshops for students to openly discuss the impact of stress on
behavior. After the multi-year study, Perry and Daniels found that the utilization of a foundation
year to assist administrators and teachers in the understanding of the impact of trauma, as well as
in recognizing the signs and symptoms of trauma, were critical to the successful implementation.
While the study did not analyze if trauma-informed practices were implemented, a satisfaction
survey was conducted at the end of the foundational year. Perry and Daniels found that of the 32
administrators and teachers that participated in the study, 16 indicated a change in attitude
towards their students and how their trauma-exposure may affect their academic performance,
and seven indicated a desire to implement new techniques into daily routines with students.

23

In a review of the current literature of trauma-informed approaches and multitiered
frameworks for school-based service, Chafouleas et al. (2015) found that the following steps are
critical in conceptualizing an implementation of a trauma-informed framework: (1) establishing a
foundational knowledge about the core features of trauma and trauma-informed practices; (2)
identifying outcomes, practices, data, and systems to enable ongoing monitoring; and (3)
developing a comprehensive action plan to address change across key areas such as governance
and leadership, policy, engagement and involvement, and training and workforce development.
Most importantly, Chafouleas et al. (2015) conclude by stating that in the early stages of
implementation, the most critical steps involve building consensus for trauma-informed
practices, developing staff competencies, and establishing commitment and organizational
capacity.
These findings are consistent with the Massachusetts “Flexible Framework”, which was
developed by Massachusetts Advocates for Children (2005) as part of a state-wide policy agenda
for the state. In the Flexible Framework, schools are asked to implement an understanding of
trauma through the following practices: (1) administrator support and promotion of school-wide,
trauma-sensitive approaches; (2) regular staff training on related topics such as strengthening
relationships with trauma-exposed students and caregivers, identification and access of outside
supports, and assisting traumatized children with emotional regulation to ensure academic
achievement; (3) establish links to mental health services for staff, students, and families; (4)
create specific academic and non-academic strategies to support the learning needs of all trauma-
exposed students; (4) foster positive, non-academic relationships between staff and students; (5)
maintain discipline policies that are balanced between accountability and the understanding of
traumatic behavior (McInerney & McKlindon, 2014). While the literature provides a starting

24

point for the implementation of trauma-informed practices in schools, there is still much to be
understood about specific elements that ensure, nor prevent, successful implementation.
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework guiding this study was the gap analysis model created by
Clark and Estes (2008). This framework is a tool to first identify, and then later examine, the
difference between the desired and actual performance. This model acknowledges that three key
areas – knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organizational culture (O), are essential for goal and
performance achievement within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) framework to identify and analyze
administrators’ perceptions of the extent to which their school site is implementing trauma-
informed practices, an assessment of their role in the implementation of trauma-informed
practices, and challenges and barriers to the implementation of trauma-informed care. The
following section identifies and reviews the literature related to the specific knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences that are needed for K-12 administrators to
successfully create trauma-sensitive schools. With a thorough understanding of these influences,
the researcher will gain a greater understanding of perceived barriers in the implementation of
trauma-informed practices.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Childhood trauma is one of the most impactful effects on the ability of an adolescent to
learn (McInerney & McKlindon, 2014). Working with students who have experienced trauma
requires skills and knowledge that often exceed what is taught in teacher and administrator
preparation programs, and what is provided during staff professional development.

25

Knowledge Influence
Clark and Estes (2008) discuss the essential need for role-specific knowledge and skills
for employees to feel successful in performing their duties. Thus, for administrators to
successfully implement the trauma-sensitive school model, they must possess the knowledge and
skills for establishing a school environment that takes into account the experiences of trauma,
how to support teachers and staff in developing curriculum and school-wide behavioral
intervention practices that address these needs, while still helping students meet and exceed
academic standards.
Rueda (2011) categorizes knowledge among four dimensions: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. The first dimension is factual knowledge, which is composed of
basic information that is easily accessible through recall or searches. Factual knowledge may
include such information as being able to define key terms or identifying the components of the
curriculum. The second dimension is conceptual knowledge. This type of knowledge is
characterized by the ability to inference and conclude by determining the relationship between
factual knowledge and prior experiences or knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). An example of
conceptual knowledge is the ability for administrators to understand the relationship between the
experience of trauma and triggering content in the classroom. Procedural knowledge, the third
dimension identified, pertains to the knowledge that an employee has about how to perform a
job-related skill or task (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). An administrator knowing how to
conduct observations and coach teachers on the delivery of trauma-informed lessons that align to
standards is an example of procedural knowledge. The final dimension of knowledge is
metacognition, or how an individual reflects upon his or her learning. An example of
metacognitive knowledge would be the ability of an administrator to self-assess their

26

communication of expectations around implementing trauma-informed practices. Each of the
four types of knowledge can impact the skills that administrators have to improve the field's
organizational goal of improving student achievement. For this study, the focus will be on
procedural knowledge influences. The identified procedural knowledge is the understanding of
how to support staff in the implementation of trauma-informed practices. This knowledge
influence will be used to analyze which knowledge and skills administrators possess that could
help them implement trauma-sensitive practices.
Procedural Knowledge of Supporting School Staff. Administrators must understand
how to develop systems that support school staff in the development of a trauma-informed
school environment. In a trauma-informed school, the staff is tasked with the role of integrating
the knowledge of trauma’s impact on a child’s development in all aspects of the school
environment (Craig, 2015). As the school leader, administrators are the critical element in setting
the stage for implementing trauma-informed practices and providing ongoing support to ensure
successful implementation (Buchanan, Gueldner, Tran, & Merrell, 2009). According to the
trauma-sensitive school model (Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005; Craig, 2015), this
support includes providing access to support services for staff, engaging staff in ongoing,
trauma-specific professional development and training, offering specific feedback on the
implementation of practices, conducting observations of these practices, and providing sufficient
collaboration time for staff to plan and reflect on implementation efforts. Table 1 provides the
field mission, the global goal, and information specific to knowledge influences. Additionally,
this table outlines the types of knowledge and methods for assessing this knowledge indicating
the procedural knowledge influences that will be used to gain insight into the knowledge that K-
12 administrators possess regarding trauma-informed school practices.

27

Table 1
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Field Mission
The mission of K-12 schools is to establish school-wide learning environments where all
students and adults feel safe, welcomed, and supported, and enable students to succeed
despite traumatic experiences.
Global Goal
The goal of K-12 schools is to implement the trauma-sensitive school model.
Stakeholder Goal
K-12 administrators will implement trauma-informed practices at their school site.
Knowledge Type
Procedural
Knowledge Influence
Administrators need to be able to support school staff
in the incorporation of trauma-informed practices in
all aspects of the school environment.

Motivation Influences
Motivation is the psychological process that prompts an individual to begin and complete
a task (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Clark and Estes (2008), there are three key aspects of
motivation: choice, persistence, and mental effort. When employees are motivated to achieve
organizational goals, they make choices consistent with meeting those goals, persist in
completing tasks that are aligned with those choices, and are willing to expend the mental effort
necessary to continue striving towards the achievement of the goal (Grossman & Salas, 2011).
The most successful employees know how to motivate themselves even when they do not feel
like performing a task (Dembo & Eaton, 2000). By examining motivational influences and
constructs, an organization may gain a clearer picture in determining which specific issues
should be addressed to increase employee performance and engagement (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011). While there are numerous motivational theories and constructs, this study will

28

focus on expectancy-value theory and self-efficacy theory. These motivational influences will be
used to examine a) how administrators feel the systemic changes they make can directly
contribute to increasing student achievement and establishing a positive school climate, and b) to
what extent school administrators believe they possess the ability to successfully implement
these changes.
Expectancy Value Theory. Expectancy value theory states that an individual’s
expectation that their performance will bring about either success or failure and the value that the
individual places on that success or failure are one of the key determinants of motivation to
complete a task (Wigfield, 1994). Cohen (2017) found that self-efficacy was not only important
for task completion, but employees performed better on a task when there was a high level of
motivation to complete it. Employees are motivated to complete a task when they perceive it has
value (Cohen, 2017). Perceived value is determined by 1) intrinsic value or the extent to which
employees expect they will enjoy completing the task; 2) attainment value or the extent to which
engagement in the task is consistent with the employee’s identity; 3) utility value, which assesses
to what extent the task helps the employee meet immediate or long-term external goals or
rewards; and 4) perceived cost, including both time and energy (Eccles, 2006).
Administrators’ Expectations and Value of Non-Academic Programs. Administrators
must find value in learning, and integrating, new, non-academic strategies to improve student
achievement. Expectancy value theory indicates that for people to work towards a goal, they
must not only find value in the task but also hold the belief that achievement of the goal will be
worth the expended time and energy (Palmgreen, 1984). Many factors may influence these
beliefs, including demographic factors such as age, race, and geographic location, and prior
knowledge and experiences related to the goal (Baron & Hullerman, in press). To achieve the

29

organizational goal of creating a trauma-sensitive school, administrators must be convinced that
changing their current organizational practices to include a holistic trauma-informed approach
will greatly benefit the school climate. Research in the implementation of SEL programs like
trauma-informed practices indicates that a key component of successful implementation is
administrators’ understanding and belief that the programming is relevant to organizational goals
(Kress & Elias, 2007).
Self-efficacy Theory. According to social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is an
individual’s belief about their ability to achieve a certain level of success at a given task
(Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1997) defines self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainment (p.3).”
Essentially, individuals with higher self-efficacy have more confidence in their ability to be
successful compared to those individuals with lower self-efficacy (Pajares, 1996). Research
indicates that high self-efficacy has been associated with greater persistence and strategy use
(Pajares, 1996). Self-efficacy beliefs are a foundation for human motivation. Above all, an
individual must believe that his or her actions can produce their desired outcomes (Denler,
Walton, & Benzon, 2014). Otherwise, the individual has very little incentive to act or to
persevere in the face of challenges (Denler, Walton, & Benzon, 2014).
Administrators’ Self-efficacy in Program Implementation. To be successful in
implementing trauma-informed practices, and continuing with the ongoing monitoring of
successful integration, administrators must have confidence in their ability to implement the
initiative and support staff in this implementation. Research indicates that the successful
implementation and execution of new school initiatives to fidelity is largely dependent upon the

30

confidence, competence, and comfort of the personnel responsible for the implementation
(Rohrbach, Graham, & Hansen, 1993; Sweitzer, 2004).
While there is a large body of research on teacher self-efficacy, research in the self-
efficacy of administrators is a less studied area (Smith, Guarino, Strom, & Adams, 2006).
However, some studies have linked self-efficacy to the leadership capabilities of administrators.
Oplatka (2004) argues that self-efficacy in administrators is a function of the career stage.
According to Oplatka, those administrators who are in the middle or later in their career
demonstrate higher self-efficacy than novice or early career administrators, especially within
regards to instructional leadership. Trauma-informed care in schools is a relatively new initiative,
with few concrete resources that provide a detailed structure of how to implement all
components (Chafouleas, Johnson, Overstreet, & Santos, 2015). Thus, to achieve the
organizational goal of successfully implementing trauma-informed care at their site,
administrators must feel confident in their abilities, so that they can persevere in the face of
organizational barriers and look for innovative strategies to implement change. Table 2 (on the
following page) identifies two motivational influences that focus on values and self-efficacy.

31

Table 2
Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis
Field Mission
The mission of K-12 schools is to establish school-wide learning environments where all
students and adults feel safe, welcomed, and supported, and enable students to succeed despite
traumatic experiences.
Global Goal
The goal of K-12 schools is to implement the trauma-sensitive school model.
Stakeholder Goal
K-12 administrators will implement trauma-informed practices at their school site.
Assumed Motivation Influences
Expectancy – Value (Utility)
Administrators find value in learning and
integrating new, non-academic strategies to
improve student achievement.
Self-efficacy
Administrators must have confidence in
their ability to implement trauma-informed
practices and support staff in this
implementation.

These influences will be used to more fully understand how motivation affects the
implementation of the trauma-sensitive school model.
Organization Influences
According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational culture must be considered and
addressed for change to be successful and sustained. In addition to addressing the previously
stated knowledge and motivation influences, for administrators to achieve the goal of
implementing the trauma-sensitive school model, organizational culture must be addressed. This
section reviews the literature that focused on organizational cultural models and the setting
affecting administrators in achieving this goal.
General Organizational Theory. Organizational culture is a force that shapes the
activities within the organization, affecting the change process, and the ability of an organization

32

to sustain desired changes (Kezar, 2001). Schein (2004) defines organizational culture as that
which shapes and frames the overall thinking within an organization. Schein (2004) goes on to
discuss the consideration of culture through three specific lenses. First, Schein (2004) discusses
viewing organizational culture through artifacts, which are the visible behaviors, structures, and
processes in an organization. Artifacts include specific programs, the built environment, and
traditions or rituals of the organization. The second lens that Schein discusses is that of values
and beliefs, which are the shared systems that provide meaning for the members of the
organization. The last lens that Schein discusses is the underlying assumptions, which are deeply
held values that unconsciously guide organizations. Underlying assumptions are deeply
ingrained into organizational culture and are difficult to address in the change process (Schein,
2004).
In Schein’s (2004) discussion of organizational culture, he postulates that adaptive and
flexible cultures can more easily accommodate and adapt to the changes in a diverse and
complex world. Thus, successful organizations are ones that can continually adapt and change.
By viewing an organization as a complex system that is responsive to the ever-changing nature
of the world and problems that the organization may face, the organization can conscientiously
and purposefully evolve (Schein, 2004). The following sections will examine the literature
relevant to the ability of administrators to implement the trauma-sensitive school model as it
relates to K-12 organizational culture.
Cultural Models. Cultural models are often invisible or hidden internal values that are
present in an organization. These include how employees view the organization, and the shared
story that members organization believe about the purpose and function of the organization. This
cultural model may either hinder or facilitate stakeholder goal achievement.

33

Organizational Identity and Continuity. A strong collective organizational identity is
one of the key essential elements in organizational growth and facilitating both internal
relationships within the organization and external perceptions among stakeholders (Bolman &
Deal, 1997). For maximum employee engagement, it is imperative that all employees within the
organization feel invested in a common purpose and organizational mission. All stakeholders
within the organization should have a clear and shared understanding of the organization’s
identity. Continuity of this identity is achieved when the organization has developed a shared
story, and all organizational norms and structures support and enhance this shared story (Bolman
& Deal, 1997; Schein, 2004). With regards to implementing trauma-informed practices, the
organization must commit to student safety, connection, and emotional regulation at the center of
its educational mission.
Cultural Settings. Cultural settings are the observable phenomenon or results of cultural
models in an organization. These include the visibility of organizational practices in policies,
procedures, daily practices, and communication. The cultural setting of the focus is the
communication of organizational values and expectations.
Communication and Organizational Values. To facilitate and sustain change within an
organization, the messaging, procedures, and policies must all align with the stated goals and
values of the institution (Clark & Estes, 2008). But most importantly, the articulated values must
be visible in the actual organizational practices (Schein, 2004). To successfully implement
trauma-informed practices into all aspects of a school, administrators need to communicate clear
and explicit expectations (Schein, 2004); and these expectations must be supported by, and
aligned with, the values of the institution (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, leadership must
make space within the organizational policies and procedures to accommodate these expectations

34

(Schein, 2004). Table 3 outlines a summary of the organizational influences and related
assessments necessary for administrators to achieve the goal of implementing a trauma-informed
system.
Table 3
Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis
Field Mission
The mission of K-12 schools is to establish school-wide learning environments where all
students and adults feel safe, welcomed, and supported, and enable students to succeed despite
traumatic experiences.
Global Goal
The goal of K-12 schools is to implement the trauma-sensitive school model.
Stakeholder Goal
K-12 administrators will implement trauma-informed practices at their school site.
Assumed Organizational Influence
Cultural Model Influence: Organizational
identity and continuity.
The organization must have the commitment
to student safety, connection, and emotional
regulation at the center of its educational
mission.
Assumed Organizational Influence
Cultural Setting Influence: Communication
and organizational values.
Administrators must communicate the value of
trauma-informed practice through translation
into policies, procedures, and daily practices.

Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
As stated, at the beginning of this chapter, the conceptual framework guiding this study
was the gap analysis model created by Clark and Estes (2008). A conceptual framework seeks to
define the relationship between various factors that interact with a study (Maxwell, 2013). The
purpose of the conceptual framework is to synthesize the literature and the concepts that are
being investigated into a model to understand the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). The
conceptual framework integrates personal experience with the select theories from the literature,

35

and this in turn provides structure and support for the study (Maxwell, 2013). Thus, the
conceptual framework is crucial as it connects ideas and concepts across the literature and
personal experience to the study, providing a roadmap of the most important elements upon
which the research should focus. Additionally, the conceptual framework justifies the research
and the methodology for exploring the research questions (Maxwell, 2013).
The conceptual framework presented here considers Clark and Estes’ (2008) assertion
that the interaction of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences contribute to the
ability of organization goal achievement. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences presented previously to act as separate elements affecting the implementation of
trauma-informed practices. While these are discrete elements, Clark and Estes (2008), argue that
for an organization to achieve its goals, all three must be addressed concurrently. The conceptual
framework presented here (Figure 1) explains how knowledge and motivation influence the
typical K-12 school organizational context to achieve the stakeholder goal of implementing
trauma-informed practices.
Figure 1 outlines the relationship between the factors that influence the implementation
of trauma-informed practice by K-12 administrators. The far left rectangle represents the
foundational procedural knowledge of developing school-wide systems to implement trauma-
informed practices. The next two rectangles moving right across the diagram represent the
motivational influences of self-efficacy concerning administrator confidence in his or her ability
to implement trauma-informed practices and expectancy-value of learning new strategies to
increase student achievement. In the figure, this is represented as a recursive process.
Administrators obtain knowledge, which increases their self-efficacy. Increased confidence in
their abilities influences additional knowledge seeking. Both the knowledge foundation and the

36

increase in self-efficacy facilitate the perceived value of trauma-informed practices and the
expectancy that implementing these new practices will have a positive impact on increasing
student achievement. The process is not linear, but both aspects of knowledge and motivation are
facilitated continuously. The interaction of knowledge and motivation influences the
organizational context and setting of the organization. These influences include communication
of values (Schein, 2004) and issues of identity and continuity (Waters, Marzano, McNulty,
2003). This process supports growth towards the stakeholder goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). When
all these elements are facilitated, they lead to the achievement of the stakeholder goal, which is
depicted in the far right circle. This conceptual framework offers the tentative theory that the
likelihood of achieving the stakeholder goal will increase if knowledge and motivation
influences are addressed, while simultaneously addressing the issues of organizational culture.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation within
Organizational Cultural Models and Settings

37

Conclusion
This study sought to ascertain the extent to which K-12 administrators are implementing
trauma-informed systems at their sites, as well as identify needs, facilitators, and barriers to
establishing trauma-informed systems and supporting staff with integration into daily practice.
The literature review presented in this chapter synthesizes the existing research surrounding the
KMO influences related to the implantation of trauma-informed care in schools, utilizing the
conceptual framework of the gap analytical model (Clark & Estes, 2008). Collectively, the
limited literature specific to the implementation of trauma-informed systems in K-12 schools,
augmented by the substantial research centered on the impact of trauma on student achievement,
and current approaches towards addressing behavioral health and mental health issues in schools,
provides key insights into the KMO factors affecting the implementation of trauma-informed
systems. The literature review not only highlights critical elements associated with administrator
knowledge (how to support staff in implementing trauma-informed care), administrator
motivation (utility value and self-efficacy), and organizational influences (organizational identity
and communication of values) but also defines the clear paths for understanding the interaction
between influences.
The complexities and interaction of KMO elements suggest a more robust
methodological approach to understand the actualized effect of each influence and to better
conceptualize the interaction between the elements. Using the KMO elements to shape the
research questions, a quantitative research design (Creswell, 2014) was the tool for overlaying
the literature to define the KMOs associated with K-12 administrators’ goal of implementing
trauma-informed practices at their school site. A more in-depth discussion of this method is
presented in the methodology section of Chapter 3.

38

CHAPTER 3: METHODS
Quantitative Methodology and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which K-12 administrators
perceive they are implementing trauma-informed practices, as well as identify barriers and
facilitators for implementation from the perspective of K-12 administrators. Recent literature
suggests reform is needed in education policies and practices due to the rise of trauma exposure
among students as well as the growing research surrounding the negative impact of trauma on
student achievement (Berizin, 2011; Boyraz et al., 2013; Chafouleas et al., 2016). The study
intended to increase understanding and awareness in the broader field of education about how
administrators perceive implementing a trauma-informed approach to establishing organizational
culture. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, an analytical method used to
identify discrepancies between actual and desired performance within an organization, was
utilized. This framework was adapted to understand the trauma-setting performance gap of K-12
schools across the United States, rather than a singular organization.
This study utilized a modified gap analysis framework with a quantitative research design
(Creswell, 2014). The methodological design for this project considered that a knowledge (K),
motivational (M), and organizational (O) analysis of K-12 administrators’ perceived efficacy in
implementing trauma-informed practices requires data from administrators to assess their success
in using recommended strategies to improve the school environment. This chapter discusses the
research questions, research design, and describes participants, instrumentation, procedures, and
analysis. Analysis by research question concludes the chapter.

39

Research Questions
This study utilized an online survey research design to examine the perceived knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on K-12 administrator's perceived implementation of
trauma-informed care at their school site. The following practice implications were explored: (1)
knowledge of implementing trauma-informed practices based on the Trauma and Learning
Policy Institute’s (TLPI) trauma-sensitive school model and the Flexible Framework (Cole,
Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005); (2) the trauma-informed practices currently implemented at
the site; (3) motivation to implement trauma-informed practices; and (4) perceptions of the
challenges and facilitators to implementing trauma-informed practices. The questions that guided
this study address the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences for this
stakeholder group and are as follows:
1. From the perspective of K-12 administrators, to what extent is their school site
implementing trauma-informed practices?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences necessary for K-12
administrators to implement a trauma-informed system at their school site?
3. Do administrator perceptions of their actions impacting the organizational culture and
context influence their knowledge and motivation to implement a trauma-informed
system at their school site?
4. What are the perceived facilitators, needs, and barriers for K-12 administrators in
implementing trauma-informed practices?

40

Sampling and Recruitment
The following section evaluated the sample and method of respondent recruitment.
Participating Sample
The stakeholder group of focus for this study is K-12 school site administrators in the
United States. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (2017), there
are approximately 90,410 administrators in the nation. Site administrators were chosen because
they have the most immediate decision-making power for the implementation of new educational
models and strategies at the site level.
Subjects for this study were chosen using mixed purposeful sampling, which allowed for
the use of multiple sampling strategies. According to Johnson and Christensen (2014), this
method is useful to increase the representative sample size. Invitations to participate were sent to
students in the University of Southern California Organizational Change and Leadership (OCL)
program and the University of Southern California Educational Leadership program who identify
as a school site administrator and are currently serving as an administrator in K-12 public,
private, or charter school. Additionally, survey links were posted in the OCL virtual learning
management systems (LMS), the researcher’s LinkedIn and Facebook pages, and in Facebook
groups with targeted membership for K-12 school administrators. Therefore, snowball sampling
was also utilized. After the trauma-informed perception survey instrument, participants were
asked to forward the survey link to other eligible participants in their professional networks. The
following sections describe each of the methods that were used in the sampling and recruitment
for the data collected.

41

Survey Sampling Strategy, Criteria, and Rationale
According to Johnson and Christensen (2014), sampling strategies are used in
quantitative research to enable researchers to generalize findings to a population. A diverse
sample was sought to reliably represent K-12 site administrators across the United
States. Johnson and Christensen (2014) suggest a sample size of at least 384 participants for
populations over 90,000 to reach a 95% confidence level. This goal was not met. The study
obtained 93 survey results for a confidence interval of 10.16 (for more information about
participant demographics, see Chapter 4). The following criteria were stratified and applied in
the analysis:
Criterion 1: Student Population Served
K-12 schools are either separated into elementary, middle, and high schools or a
combination of differing levels. While trauma-informed practices have gained traction with
elementary schools, there are fewer middle and high schools that have adopted the model
(Chafouleas, 2016). To ensure adequate representation of all school levels, it is important to
stratify the sample based on the school level. Participants were current administrators of an
elementary, middle, or high school, or any combination of these classifications serving grades
kindergarten through 12th grade. Administrators of preschool programs, daycare programs, and
postsecondary programs were not included in the sample as these grade levels and programs are
generally not federally funded, and thus, not part of the mandate proposed in the Trauma-
informed Schools Act of 2019 (Clark, Quigley, & Fitzpatrick, 2019).

42

Criterion 2: Current Employment Status
To be eligible for the study, participants must have been currently employed as a K-12
administrator. Principal interns, retired administrators, or educators who have previously served
as an administrator but who do not currently work in that capacity were not eligible for the study.
Criterion 3: Geographic Location
This study attempted to cover a national sample, spanning all 50 states. Guerra and
Williams (2010) state that geographic location may have an impact on the implementation of
new initiatives and programming. All administrators residing in the United States, including
Alaska and Hawaii, were eligible for the study. International administrators and administrators in
U.S. territories were excluded.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study utilized an online survey as the method of data collection. This data collection
method provided the researcher an understanding of the perceived way in which the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences impact K-12 administrators perceived
implementation of trauma-informed practices per Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
framework. The online survey also allowed the researcher to cast a cost-efficient and wide net
for the desired national target sample. This section discusses the survey method and how it was
utilized to collect data.
Administrator Trauma-Informed Perception Survey
Survey Instrument
The trauma-informed perception survey instrument consisted of 50 questions including
close-ended, scaled, and unordered questions (see Appendix A). The survey instrument consisted
of 12 demographic questions, 32 Likert-scale items measuring the knowledge, motivation, and

43

organizational influences, and six open-ended questions for participants to provide additional
information on their perception of the implementation of trauma-informed practices. Text entry
responses on the “other” categories for specific questions were allowed in the survey instrument.
The survey utilized elements from two different established instruments. First, items were
selected and modified from the Trauma-Sensitive School Checklist (Lesley University, 2017), a
publicly available instrument used to assess organizational readiness for trauma-informed
practices. Questions from the “School-wide Policies and Practices” focusing on leadership,
support for staff, and professional development opportunities as well as from the “Collaborations
and Linkages with Mental Health” section dealing with expert assistance were included in the
trauma-informed perception survey instrument. Second, items were selected and modified from
the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (Smith & Guirano, 2005), which examines administrators’
self-efficacy in the areas of instructional leadership and management skills. Instead of focusing
on the perceived implementation of school spirit or disciplinary measures, questions were
modified and reframed to relate to trauma-informed practices within the school setting.
According to the Flexible Framework (Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005), the
ability of site administrators to serve as leaders and models of trauma-informed practices is vital
to a successful implementation. Thus, administrators must possess a belief in their abilities to
lead their staff through the implementation process. The total survey consisted of seven items
assessing the perceived knowledge influence, 13 items assessing perceived motivational
influences, and 18 items assessing perceived organizational influences. The primary purpose of
the survey was to understand the extent to which administrators perceived their schools are
employing trauma-informed practices. The number of questions assessing each of these
influences was reflective of the conceptual framework presented in Chapter 2.

44

Survey Procedures
Surveys were administered via an online link through Qualtrics. Participants were able to
access the survey through the following methods: 1) link posted on social media; 2) email
invitation sent via personal connection; 3) email invitation sent via university; or 4) an email sent
by the researcher based on contact data gathered from publicly available sources. To improve the
response rate, social media posts with the survey link were posted in different K-12 administrator
groups on Facebook and LinkedIn, on different days of the week, and at various times in the day.
The choice was made to send surveys via email given the large sample size sought and the
recruitment of participants from across all 50 states. The survey was designed to be brief to
ensure a large sample and completion rate. The survey was available for participants for
approximately 12 weeks, from the end of November 2019 through mid-February 2020.
Validity and Reliability
The credibility of research is dependent on reliability and validity. Surveys are widely
used in the social sciences because they can easily be proven to be both valid and reliable.
However, Herbert Blumer most famously cast doubt on survey validity despite their high
reliability (Marsden & Wright, 2010) not taking into consideration how closely the two are
linked. Reliability is the consistency of measurement while validity is the extent to which the
measurement accomplishes its intended purpose.
The trauma-informed perception survey attempted to understand K-12 school
administrators’ perceptions of implementing trauma-informed care at their school site. As
previously referenced, the instrument was partially based on the Trauma-Sensitive School
Checklist (Lesley University, 2017), the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (Smith & Guirano,
2005), and the Flexible Framework (Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005). As the Trauma-

45

Sensitive School Checklist (Lesley University, 2017) is not a psychometric assessment, there is
no data validity or reliability available. While the PSES is considered a valid instrument (Smith
& Guirano, 2005), the researcher modified items from the original survey. The Flexible
Framework (Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005) was used as a context to revise questions
in terms of trauma-informed schools as well as to inform additional survey questions.
While constructing the survey instrument, the items were created logically with the
study’s research questions and hypotheses in mind. Because of this careful construction, face
validity, or validity of the measure because it appeared to make sense, was acquired. Expert jury
validity has also been attained by showing the survey to a panel of experts including the
dissertation chair and fellow committee members. These faculty members have performed
extensive research in the education field.
To ensure reliability, the researcher constructed all questions based on trauma-sensitive
school literature and the aforementioned assessments. Several of the survey items were formatted
on a Likert scale, thus increasing the consistency of how participants had to respond. During the
construction of the survey, the questions were worded clearly, concisely, and objectively. When
administered, each respondent took identical surveys with the same amount of understanding
going into the process after reading the survey introduction. Because of this identical experience,
there was no chance for the research to bias the results in any way such as skipping a question,
making a mistake with the wording, or failing to record a response. The survey software
Qualtrics collects and reports all data electronically through a web-based application, so it is also
highly improbable for any data reporting issues to occur at that phase.

46

Data Analysis
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), data analysis is the process researchers use to
derive meaning from the data. Data analysis was conducted after the survey window. To
interpret the data collected from the survey, the researcher conducted data analysis utilizing
several tools and strategies. This section describes the process.
Data was collected via the online survey instrument between November 2019 and
February 2020. One hundred sixty-six individuals responded to the survey; however, 73 surveys
were removed as they did not complete any survey questions beyond initial consent. All
completed survey responses were downloaded from Qualtrics and uploaded into Excel. Data was
cleaned in Excel and then uploaded into SPSS. Forty variables for each survey respondent were
entered. These variables included numeric data entries. Text entry responses were compiled in a
word processing program. The constant comparison strategy (Kruger & Casey, 2009) was
applied to determine codes and themes among the qualitative responses. No inclusion criteria
were violated. The total number of surveys for analysis was N=93.
An exploratory data analysis was conducted to provide information on any errors
associated with the data and allow for assumptions to be checked (Morgan et al., 2013). Data
were checked and edited; to ensure the data was “clean” for further analysis. To analyze the data,
the researcher conducted a univariate analysis of survey items. These measures provide a
comprehensive quantitative understanding of the participants (Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
Survey items were used to identify differences among K-12 administrators based upon
key attribute variables (e.g., school type, school level, and years of experience). These variables
were used as themes for organizing analysis. Descriptive statistics are the characteristics of a set
of data, which includes frequency analysis. Frequencies use measures of central tendency,

47

dispersion, and percentiles and were used within this study to evaluate administrator perception.
For the open-ended survey questions, the analysis was conducted within each question. As such,
each open-ended question was considered a predetermined category. Within each category (i.e.,
questions) responses were analyzed using a constant comparison framework that allows for the
researcher to establish codes and themes by comparing meaningful units of data (Krueger &
Casey, 2009). Text responses were downloaded from Qualtrics, transferred, and cleaned in a
word processing document. This allowed the researcher to generate a code list, run frequencies,
and search for key terms more clearly.
Ethics
One of the most crucial aspects of any research study and the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) process is that of informed consent (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). According to Glesne (2011),
researchers have a duty to assure that no harm will come to participants from the choice to
participate in a research study. As a study involving human subjects to gain a deeper
understanding of those themes related to the research questions, the investigator had a
responsibility to ensure that all participants were informed. To do this, making ethical choices
before, during, and after the study was crucial. Considering these considerations, the research
focused on ethical decision-making with regards to informed consent, data handling, and
confidentiality.
Data for this study was collected via an online survey. Informed consent was necessary to
ensure that participants are aware that they could withdraw from the study at any point (Glesne,
2011). Participants received information indicating that their participation was voluntary. While
the survey did not collect any personal pr identifiable information such as name or school name,
the researcher did inform participants that any potentially identifying information (e.g., location)

48

would be kept confidential but provided warning that with the Internet, there is always the
possibility of hacking from external threats. The following text was used:
When using the internet for collecting information, there is always the possibility of
tampering from outside sources. While the confidentiality of your responses will be
protected once the data are downloaded from the internet, hacking or other security
breaches could threaten the confidentiality of your responses. Please know that you are
free to decide not to answer any questions.
Participants who wished to continue were required to click on the “I Consent” button to continue.
Once the ‘button’ was clicked, the participants were redirected to the research survey
questionnaire to answer the questions. To eliminate the possibility of coercion, participants were
informed that they will not receive any incentives for participation. In conducting this study, the
following was assumed of participants:
• Administrators want to improve their school climate for students using positive
behavioral strategies; and,
• Administrators will answer the questions in the survey honestly and accurately.
The researcher also held inherent biases that must be addressed. With nearly 13 years of
experience in the field of study, as a teacher, leader, author, and consultant, the researcher holds
beliefs regarding the trauma-sensitive school model. Due to the purposeful sampling
methodology, the researcher could potentially have some relationship with participants. The
researcher posted links through personal social media accounts and university online forums;
thus, it is possible that participants were former colleagues or currently participating in the same
doctoral program. However, as the researcher is not currently employed in a K-12 school, there
was no risk that participants were current colleagues, and the researcher was not an evaluator or

49

direct supervisor of any participant in the study. The researcher was not a direct member of
participants’ school communities and did not have a vested interest in the individual achievement
of schools’ goals. However, due to the researcher’s inherent bias toward the topic, they may have
been compelled to take on the role of “advocate.” Glesne (2011) discusses how the advocate may
take a stance on an issue that could arise from the research. This bias was kept in mind when
analyzing the data.
The use of ethical, quantitative methodology and data analysis aids in the investigation
into the extent to which K-12 administrators perceive they are implementing trauma-informed
practices, as well as identifying perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation.

50

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which K-12 administrators in
the United States are implementing trauma-informed care, or trauma-informed practices, at their
school sites. Additionally, this study sought administrators’ perceptions of their roles in
implementing trauma-informed practices, examining perceived areas of both strength and
challenge in the implementation. The goal of this study was to gain a broad picture of K-12
administrators’ knowledge and understanding of how to implement trauma-informed care and
analyze the motivational and organizational factors influencing the implementation of trauma-
informed practices.
This chapter first reviews the stakeholder participants in the study and then outlines the
results from the survey in relation to the research questions:
1. From the perspective of K-12 administrators, to what extent is their school site
implementing trauma-informed practices?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences necessary for K-12
administrators to implement a trauma-informed system at their school site?
3. Do administrator perceptions of their actions impacting the organizational culture and
context influence their knowledge and motivation to implement a trauma-informed
system at their school site?
4. What are the perceived facilitators, needs, and barriers for K-12 administrators in
implementing trauma-informed practices?
To address these research questions, this exploratory research sought to gather
information from a national K-12 administrator sample. A 38-item online survey was

51

implemented over a 12-week period. Participants accessed the online survey via a link posted on
social media, forwarded by friends and colleagues, and posted on university discussion forums.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was United States K-12 administrators. This
population consists of approximately 90,410 school site leaders (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2017). The study sought to capture a national sample of principals who represent the
diverse U.S. administration population. The states shaded in various colors in Figure 2 indicate
the states that were represented in the sample population. All 10 regions, as classified by the U.S.
Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2006), were represented in the sample
population. Table 4 shows the frequencies and percentages of participants from the states
represented. The total number of survey responses was N=93.
Figure 2
U.S. States and Regions Represented in the Sample Population

52

Table 4
States Represented in Sample Population

N %
California 16 17.2
Texas 10 10.8
Illinois 5 5.4
Ohio 5 5.4
Arizona 4 4.3
Massachusetts 4 4.3
Michigan 4 4.3
Washington 4 4.3
Florida 3 3.2
Georgia 3 3.2
Iowa 3 3.2
New Hampshire 3 3.2
North Carolina 3 3.2
Maine 2 2.2
Pennsylvania 2 2.2
Nevada 2 2.2
New Jersey 2 2.2
Alaska 1 1.1
Arkansas 1 1.1
Connecticut 1 1.1
Delaware 1 1.1
Indiana 1 1.1
Kansas 1 1.1
Louisiana 1 1.1
Maryland 1 1.1
Missouri 1 1.1
New Mexico 1 1.1
North Dakota 1 1.1

53

Oregon 1 1.1
Utah 1 1.1
Virginia 1 1.1
West Virginia 1 1.1
Wisconsin 1 1.1
Decline to State 2 2.2

General Demographics
Data from 93 K-12 school administrators was collected. The age of survey respondents
ranged between 21 and 67 years old; with the mean age of 45 years old. The overwhelming
majority consisted of female respondents (85%) and individuals that self-identified as white
(78.3%), non-Latino (76.7%). The years of experience as a K-12 administrator ranged between 0
and 25 years, with a mean of 8.36 years of experience. Survey respondents had an average of
14.89 years of experience as K-12 educators, excluding their time as administrators (e.g.,
classroom teachers, paraprofessionals, instructional coaches), which ranged from 2 to 36 years of
experience. Table 5 (on the following page) shows the frequencies and percentages of
participants by age, biological sex, race, and ethnicity.

54

Table 5
Reported General Demographics of Sample Population

School Site Demographics
School administrators serving elementary, middle school, high school, and alternative
schooling populations were represented. While the definitions of these terms varies by district
and state, for the purposes of this study, the researcher used the general guidelines presented by
the National Center for Education Statistics (2019): elementary (Kindergarten - 5th grade);
middle (6th grade - 8th grade); and high school (9th grade - 12th grade). Schools representing
other configurations (e.g., serving all grades K-12, residential treatment programs, continuation
schools) were classified as other. More than half of the respondents (53.8%) served elementary

55

school populations. Most survey respondents were public school administrators (84.8%).
Communities of practice were almost equally represented, with principals from rural
communities making up only a slightly larger percentage (39.1%) than their suburban (32.6%)
and urban (28.3%) counterparts. Table 6 shows the frequencies and percentages of participants
by student populations served, community type, and school type.
Table 6
Reported Practice Demographics of Sample Population

N %
Population Served

Elementary 50 53.8
High School 18 19.4
Other 18 19.4
Middle School 7 7.5
Community Type

Rural 36 39.1
Suburban 30 32.6
Urban 26 28.3
School Type

Public 78 84.8
Private 6 6.5
Charter 5 5.4
Other 3 3.3

Results for Knowledge Influence
Administrator knowledge of critical strategies to best support staff in the implementation
of trauma-informed care was measured through quantitative survey methodology. Four
procedural knowledge questions were established utilizing the Flexible Framework developed by
Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd (2005) to assess administrator perceptions of a trauma-

56

sensitive school environment. The Framework has six key elements: schoolwide infrastructure
and culture, staff training, linking with mental health professionals, academic instruction for
traumatized children, nonacademic strategies, and school policies, procedures, and protocols
(Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005). For administrators, this includes effectively
demonstrating the knowledge and understanding of trauma-informed care through consistently
using trauma-informed terminology, providing trauma-specific training and professional
development for staff, and creating opportunities for collaboration, outside supports, and
feedback on implementation (Cole, Greenwald O’Brien, & Gadd, 2005). Three survey
procedural knowledge questions used a Likert scale and two questions asked respondents to
check all answers that applied to their situation. Table 7 (on the following page) outlines the
administrator trauma-informed perception survey instrument about the influence type, assumed
influence, and the corresponding survey questions for assessing procedural knowledge.

57

Table 7
Trauma-Informed Perception Survey Instrument Procedural Knowledge Questions
Influence
Type
Assumed Influence Associated Questions
Procedural
Knowledge
Administrators need to be
able to support school staff
in the incorporation of
trauma-informed practices in
all aspects of the school
environment.
• Do you use any of the following terms at
your school? (check select all that apply):
trauma-informed care; trauma-informed
practices; trauma-sensitive practices;
trauma-sensitive school. My school does
not use any of these terms.
• I provide support to staff through the
following (check all that apply): Specific
feedback about the incorporation of
trauma-informed practices; Opportunities
to collaborate with grade-level team
vertical team, and/or department team to
discuss trauma-informed practices in daily
practice; Consultations with a trauma
expert; Classroom observations on trauma-
informed practices.
• I provide/offer ongoing professional
development opportunities as determined
by staff needs assessments.
• I provide training for staff on the use of
strategies to actively engage and build
positive relationships with families.
• I provide ongoing support for staff on
strategies to involve parents that are
tailored to meet individual family needs

Survey Results
The following details the results of the administrator trauma-informed perception survey.
Specific areas of analysis are administrator self-reporting using trauma-informed terminology,
providing trauma-specific training and professional development for staff, and creating
opportunities for collaboration, outside supports, and feedback on implementation.

58

Consistent Usage of Terminology
The survey asked respondents to indicate which terms related to trauma-informed care
they used at their school site. The implementation of consistent terminology reflects
administrators’ procedural knowledge (Rueda, 2011) through a demonstration of weaving the
concepts of trauma-informed care into the daily fabric and common language of the school.
According to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (n.d.), terms related to understanding
children who have experienced trauma include integrated care, trauma-informed care, trauma
screening, trauma-informed mental health assessment, trauma surveillance, and trauma-informed
integrated care. Concerning the school setting specific terms, states like Connecticut have
developed their own Trauma-Informed Schools Dictionary with a detailed list of terms and their
definitions (Trauma-Informed School Mental Health Task Force, 2019). As shown in Table 5,
the most frequently used term is “trauma-informed practices” (54%). Only 20.4% of school
administrators use the term “trauma-sensitive school.” More than a quarter of administrators
(29.3%) do not use any of these terms. Nearly half of participants (45.2%) state they use multiple
terms at their school site. Table 8 shows the self-reported terms and frequencies of trauma-
informed term use.
Table 8
Use of Trauma-Informed Care Terminology (Question 7)

n %
Trauma-informed practices 54 58.1
Multiple terms 42 45.2
Trauma-informed care 31 33.3
Trauma-sensitive practices 30 32.3
None of these terms 27 29.3
Trauma-sensitive school 19 20.4

59

Providing Trauma-Specific Training and Professional Development
The provision of trauma-specific training in the Flexible Framework incorporates a
method for administrators to demonstrate their knowledge of how to support their staff in the
implementation of trauma-informed care (Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005; Rueda,
2011). Survey respondents were asked to demonstrate procedural knowledge through several
items assessing the extent to which they provide training on specific elements related to the
implementation of trauma-informed practices. As explained by Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, &
Gadd (2005), staff training should cover three core areas:
Strengthening relationships between children and adults and conveying the vital role staff
play as caring adults in the lives of traumatized children and their caregivers; identifying
and using outside supports, and helping traumatized children modulate their emotions and
gain social and academic competence. (p. 50)
A Likert scale of never (1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), and often (4) was used to assess
administrator perception.
Overall, less than one-quarter of respondents (21.7%) indicated that they often provide
trauma-specific training to their staff. As much as 56.5% of participants indicated they never or
seldom provide trauma-specific training to support their staff in implementing trauma-informed
practices. Figure 3 (on the following page) illustrates administrator perception of whether they
provide trauma-specific professional development.

60

Figure 3
Administrator Perception of Provided Trauma-Specific Professional Development

Figures 4-7 (on subsequent pages) detail the responses regarding participant perception of
each specific element about trauma-specific training. There is a great deal of variance in the
types of trauma-specific training that administrators were more likely to provide. The majority of
administrators indicated that they often or sometimes provide trauma-specific training that is
focused on building positive relationships with students and families. However, only 10.1% of
administrators indicated that they provided staff training on how to tailor these strategies to meet
individual student and family needs. One notable finding that emerged was that administrators
working in rural communities were more likely to provide their staff with access to mental health
supports.

8.7%
33.3%
36.2%
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Q22a. I provide/offer ongoing professional
development opportunities as determined by staff
needs assessments.

61

Figure 4
Administrator Perception of Staff Access to Trauma-Competent Services

Figure 5
Administrator Perception of Staff Access to Mental Health Professionals

8.7%
44.9%
30.4%
15.9%
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Q22f. I provide staff access to trauma-competent
services for prevention, early intervention. treatment,
and crisis intervention.
8.7%
47.8%
26.1%
17.3%
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Q22g. I provide staff regular opportunities for
assistance from mental health providers in responding
appropriately and confidently to families.

62

Figure 6
Administrator Perception of Staff Access to Strategic Training for Positive Relationships

Figure 7
Administrator Perception of Staff Access to Strategies to Involve Parents
14.5%
49.2%
26.1%
10.1%
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Q22i. I provide ongoing support for staff on strategies
to involve parents that are tailored to meet individual
family needs.
8.7%
37.7%
33.3%
20.2%
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Q22h. I provide training for staff on the use of
strategies to actively engage and build positive
relationships with families.

63

Creating Opportunities for Collaboration, Support, and Feedback
The survey instrument assessed respondents' procedural knowledge by asking them to
assess their use of strategies to support staff in implementing trauma-informed practices.
Respondents were provided five strategies (feedback, collaboration, consultation with mental
health professionals, and classroom observations) presented in the Flexible Framework
recommended by Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, and Gadd (2005) and were asked to select all tactics
they use to support their staff. The most common strategy used by administrators to support their
staff was the use of specific feedback about the incorporation of trauma-informed practices
(32.3%). Just after this strategy, 31.2% of respondents provide a regular time for staff to
collaborate in teams about implementing trauma-informed practices. Less than one third (29%)
of respondents provide their staff with the opportunity to consult with mental health and trauma
experts on implementing trauma-informed practices. Finally, the least used strategy was
providing support by actively conducting classroom observations on the implementation of
trauma-informed practices. Only 12.9% of administrators demonstrated this skill. Table 9 (on the
following page) shows the frequencies of each strategy used by administrators to support their
staff in implementing trauma-informed care.

64

Table 9
Use of Strategies to Support Staff

n %
I provide support to staff through the following (check all that apply)

Specific feedback about the incorporation of trauma-informed
practices
30 32.3
Opportunities to collaborate with grade-level team vertical team,
and/or department team to discuss trauma-informed practices in
daily practice
29 31.2
Consultations with a trauma expert 27 29.0
Classroom observations on trauma-informed practices 12 12.9

Finally, the Flexible Framework states that it is the senior administrator’s leadership role
to engage staff and participate in strategic planning as well as help staff identify ways to
integrate trauma-sensitive routines into existing school operations. In this frame, survey
respondents were asked about their perceived role in terms of trauma-informed practices, “From
your perspective, what is the role of the administrator in supporting staff to implement school-
wide initiatives?” Forty-two respondents answered this question. The majority of responses
(72.1%) fell into three themes: serving as a leader and model for staff; providing ongoing
training, support, and resources; and removing obstacles and barriers for staff. Figure 8 (on the
following page) represents the thematic grouping of responses to this question.

65

Figure 8
Administrator Role in Implementing School-Wide Initiatives

Serving as a leader and model for staff was the most common response to this question.
Sixteen of the 42 respondents (38.1%) indicated that the primary role of the administrator is to
serve as a leader to staff in implementation efforts. Within this theme of leadership, the concepts
of modeling, developing a vision, and taking charge of the initiative were frequently repeated.
An elementary school administrator from an urban public school in California commented, “The
administrator should be the leader and the model to support faculty and staff through
implementation of school-wide initiatives.” The same sentiment was expressed by an
administrator of a private high school administrator in Georgia. She states that the role of the
administrators is to “set the example and facilitate the growth of all the school employees.” From
a public elementary school in Arizona, one administrator used imagery to convey her point. She
comments that administrators are “the cheerleaders, the motivator and should be the one who is
38.1%
26.2%
26.2%
9.5%
Leader/Model
Training/Support/Resources
Other
Remove Barriers
Role of the Administrator in Implementing School-wide
Initiatives
Leader/Model Training/Support/Resources Other Remove Barriers

66

providing clear expectations and modeling everything that should be done.” An elementary
school administrator from rural Iowa provides the motto, “Provide leadership. Build vision.
Create team.”
The second most frequent response to the question was the role of the administrator to
provide ongoing training, support, and professional development. Eleven of the 42 respondents
(26.2%) stated that this was the primary role of the administrator. Of those 11 respondents,
81.8% used the word “ongoing.” This indicates that administrators perceive their duty to provide
training, support, and resources consistently for their staff. An administrator from an elementary
charter school in suburban Florida comments that it is the administrator’s role to, “plan and
implement Professional Development on an ongoing basis.” A private school administrator for
grades K-8 in urban Indiana states that administrators are responsible for, “providing a vision,
resources, and ongoing support for each staff person to take the next step.” From a public high
school in suburban Missouri, an administrator offers the perspective that his role is, “to be a
model of said implementation; to provide ongoing support as needed or requested.” An
elementary school administrator from a public school in rural Texas summarizes the role of the
administrator as to, “provide training and ongoing guidance, assist teachers with whatever they
need to implement, [and] provide time for the initiative built into [the] master schedule.”
The third theme that emerged from the data was the perception that the role of
administrators should be to remove obstacles and barriers from staff so that they can implement
school-wide initiatives such as trauma-informed care. Four of the 42 respondents (9.5%) gave
answers that fell into this theme. An elementary school principal in suburban California states,
“The role of the administrator is to remove all barriers of implementation so that all teachers
implement school-wide initiatives. This could include but is not limited to: open and honest

67

conversations, data, and active listening.” This was similar to another response provided by an
administrator at a residential treatment school in suburban Massachusetts. She comments that it
is the role of the administrator to, “remove barriers to implementation and visably [sic] champion
the initiative.”
Summary
The administrator trauma-informed perception survey determined the administrator
perception of the need to know how to support school staff in the implementation of trauma-
informed practices. Based on the Flexible Framework (Cole, Greenwald O’Brien, & Gadd,
2005), the survey asked administrators to assess the use of terms, how often they provide trauma-
specific training for staff, and how often they create opportunities for collaboration and use of
outside supports, which are all methods to demonstrate their skill in leading a trauma-informed
implementation. They were also asked about their perceived role in implementing school-wide
trauma-informed initiatives.
Though the majority of administrators report using a term to discuss trauma-informed
practices at their site, nearly half of the participants use multiple terms at their site, rather than
one specific term. Less than a quarter of administrators often provide trauma-specific training for
their staff, with more than half reporting that they never or seldom provide trauma-specific
training. Concerning collaboration and outside supports, less than one-third of administrators
support staff using any of the suggested implementation strategies. Given the data, procedural
knowledge influence is validated.
Results for Motivational Influences
The motivation of administrators to implement trauma-informed practices at their school
site was measured in 11 survey questions. Five expectancy-value questions were developed

68

based on the research of Kress & Elias (2007) discussing the relationship of successful
implementation of social and emotional learning initiatives like trauma-informed care and
administrator belief in organizational relevancy. Six questions measuring self-efficacy were
selected and modified from the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (Smith & Guirano, 2005), which
examines administrators’ self-efficacy in the areas of instructional leadership and management
skills. All but one of the questions was ordinal, utilizing a Likert scale. The remaining question
prompted participants to respond if they were interested in implementing trauma-informed care,
providing a chance to explain their reasons in a follow-up question, however, no participants
completed the follow-up question. Table 10 (on the following page) outlines the administrator
trauma-informed perception survey instrument about the influence type, assumed influence, and
the corresponding survey questions for assessing expectancy value.

69

Table 10
Trauma-Informed Perception Survey Instrument Motivational Influence Questions
Influence
Type
Assumed
Influence
Associated Questions
Expectancy
Value
Administrators
find value in
learning and
integrating new,
non-academic
strategies to
improve student
achievement.
• It is important for me to learn new strategies to better
guide the improvement of trauma-informed practices
at my site.
• Introducing trauma-informed practices to my school
will improve student achievement.
• Providing ongoing professional support is essential for
the successful implementation of new
programs/initiatives.
• Addressing behavioral challenges before teaching
academic content is crucial to student academic
success.
• Would you be interested in implementing trauma-
informed practices at your school site?
o Why would you be interested in implementing
trauma-informed practices at your school site?
o Why wouldn’t you be interested in
implementing trauma-informed practices at
your school site?
Self-
efficacy
Administrators
must have
confidence in
their ability to
implement
trauma-
informed
• I believe in my ability to influence teachers in utilizing
effective instructional and behavioral management
practices.
• I believe in my ability to effectively model for staff
effective instructional and behavioral management
strategies.
• I believe in my ability to use research to guide
strategic planning for accomplishment of school goals.
• I believe in my ability to plan effective professional
activities and experiences which facilitate teachers’
beliefs in their abilities to provide effective trauma-
informed teaching and learning activities to their
students.
• I believe in my ability to communicate needs and
goals necessary to successfully implement trauma-
informed practices.
• I believe in my ability to provide experiences that
foster and facilitate high levels of teacher motivation
towards implementing trauma-informed practices.

70

Survey Results
Expectancy Value
Survey respondents were asked four questions to rate their belief in trauma-informed
care’s value. Expectancy-value questions used the scale strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree
(3), and strongly agree (4), to assess the degree of perceived value. Of the original 93
participants, 64 respondents responded to the expectancy-value questions. Overall, participants
found value in the implementation of trauma-informed practices and the core concepts
represented in the framework (Cole, Greenwald O’Brien, & Gadd, 2005). The majority of
respondents (93.8% of total respondents, n=64) agreed or strongly agreed that it was important
for them to learn new strategies to better guide the improvement of trauma-informed practices at
their school site. Additionally, 93.8 percent of respondents also indicated that trauma-informed
practices were valuable in improving student achievement. Close to 94 percent of respondents
(93.8%) also felt that it was important to address behavioral challenges before teaching academic
content - a key philosophy in the trauma-sensitive school framework.
Two-thirds of respondents (96.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that providing ongoing
professional development was crucial for the successful implementation of new programs and
initiatives (Question 26). Kendall’s tau-b correlations were conducted Pearson’s correlations
were conducted between the expectancy-value survey items and the key attribute variables of
age, years of experience as an administrator, and years of experience in K-12 education. A
significant relationship was found between years of experience in K-12 education and belief in
the value of ongoing professional development, r τ=.269, p<.05. This indicates that belief in the
value of ongoing professional development for the successful implementation of new initiatives
increases as years of experience in K-12 education increases. No other significant relationship

71

was found between the expectancy-value items and other key attribute variables. Figures 9-12
show the spread of responses for questions assessing the expectancy-value of trauma-informed
practices.
Figure 9
Administrator Perception of Learning New Strategies

Figure 10
Administrator Perception of Introducing Trauma-Informed Practices
68.8%
25.0%
2.0%
5.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Q24. It is important for me to learn new strategies to
better the guide the improvement of trauma-informed
practices at my site.
70.0%
25.0%
2.0%
2.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Q25. Introducting trauma-informed practices to my
school will improve student achievement.

72

Figure 2
Administrator Perception of Providing Support for New Programs/Initiatives

Figure 3
Administrator Perception of Behavioral Challenges

76.9%
20.0%
2.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Q26. Providing ongoing professional support is essential
for the successful implementation of new
programs/initiatives.
70.0%
25.0%
2.0%
2.0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Q27. Addressing behavioral challenges before teaching
academic content is crucial to student academic
success.

73

Though a little over five percent (5.55%) of respondents stated that they are not
implementing trauma-informed care at all, and approximately 25 percent stated that they were
only implementing trauma-informed practices “very little”, there were no responses to the
qualitative question asking why participants would be, or would not be, interested in
implementation.
Self-efficacy
Survey respondents were asked six questions to rate their belief in their ability to
implement trauma-informed practices at their school site. Self-efficacy questions used the scale
of very weak belief in my ability (1), weak belief in my ability (2), a strong belief in my
ability (3), and a very strong belief in my ability (4), to assess the degree of perceived self-
efficacy. Generally, participants had high self-efficacy in their ability to implement trauma-
informed practices at their school site. Nearly all respondents (96.8%), believed strongly or very
strongly in their belief to influence teachers in utilizing effective instructional and behavioral
management strategies. Close to 93 percent of respondents (92.2%) had a strong or very strong
belief in their ability to model trauma-informed strategies for staff. With regards to using
research to guide strategic planning, 87.5 percent of administrators had a strong or very strong
belief in their ability. Just under 85 percent (84.1%) of respondents rated the belief in their ability
to communicate the needs and goals necessary to a successful trauma-informed care
implementation as strong or very strong. Slightly more than three-fourths of participants (77.8%)
had a strong or very strong belief in their ability to create experiences for their staff to increase
motivation for implementing trauma-informed practices. Additionally, 74.6 percent of
respondents had a strong or very strong belief in their ability to plan professional development
activities for their staff to implement trauma-informed practices. When looking at all the self-

74

efficacy questions comprehensively, less than one percent (0.52%) of respondents rated their
belief as very weak on any of the self-efficacy items. Figures 13-18 depict the range of responses
for the survey questions.
Figure 4
Administrator Self-efficacy for Influencing Teacher use of Effective Strategies

Figure 5
Administrator Self-efficacy for Modeling Effective Trauma-Informed Strategies
39.1%
57.8%
3.1%
0.0%
Very Strong Belief in Ability
Strong Belief in Ability
Weak Belief in Ability
Very Weak Belief in Ability
Q23a. I believe in my ability to influence teachers in
utilizing effective instructional and behavioral
management practices.
43.8%
48.4%
7.8%
0.0%
Very Strong Belief in Ability
Strong Belief in Ability
Weak Belief in Ability
Very Weak Belief in Ability
Q23b. I believe in my ability to effectively model for
staff effective instructional and trauma-informed
strategies.

75

Figure 15
Administrator Self-efficacy for Using Research for Strategic Planning

Figure 6
Administrator Self-efficacy for Planning Effective Professional Activities
31.3%
56.2%
12.5%
0.0%
Very Strong Belief in Ability
Strong Belief in Ability
Weak Belief in Ability
Very Weak Belief in Ability
Q23c. I believe in my ability to use research to guide
strategic planning for accomplishment of school goals.
23.8%
50.8%
23.8%
1.6%
Very Strong Belief in Ability
Strong Belief in Ability
Weak Belief in Ability
Very Weak Belief in Ability
Q23d. I believe in my ability to plan effective
professional activities and experiences which facilitate
teachers' beliefs in their abilities to provide effective
trauma-informed teaching and learning activities to
their students.

76

Figure 17
Administrator Self-efficacy for Communicating Implementation Needs and Goals

Figure 18
Administrator Self-efficacy for Facilitating Motivation for Trauma-Informed Practice
Implementation
19.0%
65.1%
15.8%
1.6%
Very Strong Belief in Ability
Strong Belief in Ability
Weak Belief in Ability
Very Weak Belief in Ability
Q23e. I believe in my ability to communicate needs and
goals necessary to successfully implement trauma-
informed practices.
15.9%
61.9%
22.2%
0.0%
Very Strong Belief in Ability
Strong Belief in Ability
Weak Belief in Ability
Very Weak Belief in Ability
Q23f. I believe in my ability to provide experiences that
foster and facilitate high level teacher motivation
towards implementing trauma-informed practices.

77

Summary
Two motivational influences were examined with this survey. The first motivational area
that was examined was expectancy-value, specifically, the need for administrators to find value
in learning and integrating new, non-academic strategies into their school sites to improve
student achievement. The second influence that was assessed was related to self-efficacy. These
questions centered on the need for administrators to have confidence in their ability to implement
trauma-informed practices. Consistently, the majority of administrators surveyed rated their
belief in their abilities to carry out the strategies for implementation as strong or very strong.
Less than one percent of administrators surveyed rated their belief as very weak. Given the data,
the motivational influences of expectancy-value and self-efficacy were not validated as gaps.
Results for Organizational Influences
Organizational influences regarding administrators’ perceptions of implementing trauma-
informed care were measured in 18 survey questions. Eight questions addressed the
organizational influence focused on cultural settings. These eight questions used a Likert scale to
assess participant perceptions. The remaining 10 questions examined cultural models. Five of
these questions used a Likert scale, two questions assessed perceptions using rank order
questions, and three questions were open-ended, allowing participants to use their own words to
describe their perceptions of implementing trauma-informed care. Table 11 outlines the
administrator trauma-informed perception survey instrument about the influence type, assumed
influence, and the corresponding survey questions for assessing cultural model influence and
cultural setting influence.

78

Table 11
Outline of Administrator Trauma-Informed Perception Survey Instrument
Influence Type Assumed
Influence
Associated Questions
Cultural Model
Influence:
Organizational
identity and
continuity
The
organization
must commit to
student safety,
connection, and
emotional
regulation at the
center of its
educational
mission.
• To what extent are you implementing trauma-
informed practices or the trauma-sensitive school
model at your site?
• Which trauma-informed practices have you
implemented at your site?
• I have made efforts to ensure the school mission
reflects the school’s commitment to the principles
of trauma-informed care.
• I actively seek the input of all stakeholders (e.g.,
students, teachers, parents) before making
decisions about school policies related to the
principles of trauma-informed care.
• What would you need to help you implement
trauma-informed practices at your school?
• What do you perceive are the biggest barriers for
you in implementing trauma-informed practices
at your school?
Cultural Setting
Influence:
Communication
and
organizational
values
Administrators
must
communicate
the value of
trauma-
informed
practice through
translation into
policies,
procedures, and
daily practices.
• I reinforce the school’s commitment to the
principles of trauma-informed care in internal
communication (e.g. staff meetings, professional
development workshops, weekly staff emails,
etc.).
• I have made efforts to ensure the school’s policies
reflect the school’s commitment to the principles
of trauma-informed care.
• Our school policies guide referring families for
mental health supports.
• I ensure staff actively support families’ access to
trauma-competent mental health services.
• I communicate to staff that the goals for student
achievement for students affected by traumatic
experiences are consistent with the expectations
for non-trauma-exposed students.

79

• I communicate to staff the expectation for
activities to be structured in predictable and
emotionally safe ways.
• I communicate to staff the expectation to provide
opportunities for students to learn and practice
regulation of emotions and modulation of
behaviors.
• I communicate to staff the expectation that
classrooms will employ positive supports for
behavior

Cultural Models
Respondents were asked to assess the extent to which their school site engaged in popular
school-wide trauma-informed practices. Participants were presented with several trauma-
informed programs that are commonly used in K-12 schools. The most widely used program is
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Two-thirds (66.2%) of respondents
indicated that they often use this program. Following this, 46.6 percent of administrators
indicated that they often use social and emotional learning curricula at their site. Close to 40
percent of participants (39.7%) use restorative practices/restorative justice at their site. A little
less than one third (32.4%) of school administrators identified bullying prevention programs as a
trauma-informed practice frequently used at their site. Just under 30 percent (28.8%) of
respondents specified emotional regulation as a practice they use often at their site. Figures 19-
21 (on the following pages) depict the trauma-informed programs and their respective
percentages of administrators currently utilizing these practices at their school sites.

80

Figure 7
Administrators Reporting Use of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

Figure 20
Administrators Reporting Use of Social and Emotional Learning Curricula

46.6%
27.4%
16.4%
9.6%
Often
Somewhat
Never
Seldom
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%
Social and Emotional Learning Curicula
Often Somewhat Never Seldom
66.2%
21.6%
6.7%
5.4%
Often
Somewhat
Seldom
Never
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
Often Somewhat Seldom Never

81

Figure 8
Administrators Reporting Use of Restorative Practices/Restorative Justice

Few participants (9.6%) indicated that they often use any trauma-informed programs
other than those mentioned. Other cited programs were the following: character education,
Capturing Kids’ Hearts, conscious discipline, responsive classroom, and social thinking skills.
Organizational Identity and Continuity
Participants were asked several questions to rate their perception of how they have led the
charge to place trauma-informed care at the center of their school’s organizational mission.
Several items were presented to assess the level of commitment to including trauma-informed
values at the heart of the school site’s organizational identity. Respondents were asked to reflect
on the frequency they advocated for specific trauma-informed principles to be reflected in their
organizational identity, using the scale never (1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), and almost always
(4). Roughly 40 percent of administrators are sometimes advocating for the integration of
39.7%
38.4%
5.5%
16.4%
Often
Somewhat
Never
Seldom
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
Restorative Practices/Restorative Justice
Often Somewhat Never Seldom

82

trauma-informed principles into the heart of their organizational identity. Table 12 shows the
frequencies for these items.
Table 12
Integration of Trauma-Informed Principles into Organizational Identity
Never Seldom Sometimes Almost
Always

n % n % n % n %
Q13. I have made
efforts to ensure the
school mission reflects
the school’s
commitment to the
principles of trauma-
informed care.
9 12.6 14 19.71 29 40.85 19 26.76
Q14. I actively seek the
input of all stakeholders
(e.g., students, teachers,
parents) before making
decisions about school
policies related to the
principles of trauma-
informed care.
0 0 13 18.56 26 36.11 23 31.94
Q15. I reinforce the
school’s commitment to
the principles of trauma-
informed care in internal
communication (e.g.,
staff meetings,
professional
development
workshops, weekly staff
emails, etc.).
1 1.38 10 13.88 33 45.83 28 38.88

Through a qualitative question (question 32), participants were provided the opportunity
to address the integration of trauma-informed care into their existing school framework. While
only 33 percent of respondents answered this question (n=31), many answers revealed that
administrators have the desire to integrate trauma-informed practices into the school’s identity
but lack the knowledge and resources. For example, an administrator from a public alternative

83

school in urban New Jersey commented, “We value a safe school environment. But in actual
practice, we lack professionals who specialize in this area.” Similar sentiments were expressed
by a middle school administrator at an urban public school in California. She stated, “…[the]
exposure and resources aren’t there. Our counselor was trained, but she does not have the
capacity to get it off the ground with staff.”
Need for Mental Health Professionals
Survey respondents were asked to rank eight needs that would facilitate the
implementation of trauma-informed care at their school site. Nearly one-third of respondents
(31%) ranked the need for mental health professionals at their school site as their number one
organizational need. This indicates that schools are heavily relying on their resources to
implement trauma-informed care, even though they do not always perceive that they know to
successfully implement the approach.
Additionally, no respondents ranked student buy-in as a first or second priority need. Yet,
the trauma-informed approach calls for all stakeholders to have a voice in implementation efforts
(Trauma and Learning Policy Institute, n.d.). It is unclear if this was not ranked as a need
because administrators are already including student voices and have buy-in, or if they do not
find student voices important for implementation. Table 13 lists the stated organization needs in
order of frequency that respondents ranked each item as their primary need to implement trauma-
informed practices.

84

Table 4
First-Ranked School Site Needs to Implement Trauma-Informed Practices

n %
Mental health professionals 18 31.0
Support from district office 15 25.9
Dedicated funds or monies 11 19.0
Support from parents 2 3.4
Support from local community 1 1.7
Other 1 1.7
Student buy-in 0 0

Cultural Settings
To gain a broad picture of the cultural setting related to trauma-informed care, the survey
instrument asked respondents to indicate to what extent they perceived their school was
implementing trauma-informed practices (question 8). A scale of not at all (1), very little (2),
somewhat (3), and all the time (4) was used. Of the valid responses, 92.5 percent of
administrators are implementing trauma-informed care to some extent. Half (50%) are
implementing trauma-informed practices somewhat, and nearly one fifth (18.9%) implement
trauma-informed practices all the time. Figure 3 represents the percentage of administrators
implementing trauma-informed care at their school sites.
Visibility of Trauma-Informed Care in Organizational Communication
To assess how consistently administrators’ perceived trauma-informed practices were
reflected in their internal communication, respondents were presented with four items using the
scale never (1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), and almost always (4). A performance gap was found
in nearly all aspects of the communication of trauma-informed care principles to school staff.
Close to two-thirds (63.8%) of respondents (n=69) perceive that they never, seldom, or

85

sometimes communicate to staff that student achievement goals for trauma-exposed should be
consistent with the expectations for non-trauma-exposed students. Seventy-one percent of
respondents (n=69) never, seldom, or sometimes communicate expectations about structuring
activities to be emotionally safe for students. A little more than half (58.8%) of respondents
(n=68) indicated that they are not consistently communicating to staff the need to provide
students guidance in emotional regulation.
One area of strength was noted in administrators’ perceptions of their communication of
trauma-informed principles. Almost two-thirds (62.3%) of respondents (n=69) perceive that they
“often” communicate expectations for the use of positive behavior supports, with only 37.7
percent rating their consistency as never, seldom, or sometimes. Table 10 outlines the
frequencies and percentages for the items assessing the visibility of trauma-informed care in
organizational communication.
Summary
Two organizational influences were examined with this survey. The first organizational
area that was examined was the cultural model of organizational identity and continuity,
specifically, the need for the organization to commit to student safety, connection, and emotional
regulation at the center of its educational mission. The second organizational influence that was
assessed was related to the cultural setting of communication and organizational values. This
influence indicates that administrators must communicate the value of trauma-informed practice
through translation into policies, procedures, and daily practices. Nearly three-quarters of
administrators surveyed rated their efforts to integrated trauma-informed practices into their
organizational practices as inconsistent. Given the data, the organizational influences were
validated as gaps.

86

Findings
The administrator trauma-informed perception survey instrument aided in answering the
four proposed research questions within the modified Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework.
The purpose is to determine how school administrators perceive their implementation of best
practices strategies for creating a trauma-sensitive school environment for educators and their
students.
Procedural Knowledge Findings
The Flexible Framework (Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005) establishes that
administrators should at a minimum demonstrate the knowledge and understanding of trauma-
informed care. Thus, this research presented the following research question:
RQ1: From the perspective of K-12 administrators, to what extent is their school
site implementing trauma-informed practices?
This research question evaluates administrator perception of using trauma-informed terminology,
providing trauma-specific training and professional development for staff, and creating
opportunities for collaboration, outside supports, and feedback on implementation.
Trauma-Informed Terminology
Utilizing the administrator trauma-informed perception survey instrument, the findings
indicate that administrators perceive they are significantly using trauma-informed terminology
with 70.7% reporting they frequently use the term “trauma-informed practices,” use the term
“trauma-sensitive school,” or use multiple terms at their school site. While the Flexible
Framework is designed to be customized for each school setting, one of the core components of a
trauma-informed school is using relevant terminology to effectively communicate with

87

colleagues, mental health professionals, parents, and students. It is administrator perception that
they are frequently using the appropriate terminology to create a trauma-sensitive school setting.
Trauma-Specific Professional Development
Staff training is recommended in the Flexible Framework to strengthen relationships
between children and adults as well as to educate staff on how to measure the emotional
improvement and academic success of children that have faced trauma. Per the administrator
trauma-informed perception survey results, as many as 56.5% of participants indicated they
never or seldom provide trauma-specific training to support their staff in implementing trauma-
informed practices. Therefore, this is a significant area in need of improvement by
administrators. Yet, when asked about specific staff training content, the majority of
administrators indicated that when they do provide trauma-specific training, it is often or
sometimes focused on building positive relationships with students and families. Because staff
brings to the table varying levels of trauma-related knowledge, consistent staff trauma-specific
training is recommended to bridge the gap.
Opportunities for Collaboration, Outside Supports, and Feedback
Respondents were asked to address the strategies they perceive administrators use to
incorporate trauma-informed practices into their schools. The administrator trauma-informed
perception survey found that administrators believe they most commonly (32.3%) use specific
feedback followed closely by providing regular time for staff to collaborate at 31.2%. However,
less than one-third (29%) provide their staff with the opportunity to consult with mental health
and trauma experts on implementing trauma-informed practices and only 12.9% of
administrators conduct classroom observations. The Flexible Framework explains that it is the
senior administrator’s leadership role to engage staff and participate in strategic planning

88

regarding trauma-informed practices. Yet, this does not appear to be occurring by administrator
admission. Also, one of the most advantageous approaches, as noted by the Flexible Framework,
is engaging mental health professionals to assist with traumatized children and aid teachers in
how best to approach these students. But, again, administrators express that less than one-third of
them reach out to mental health professionals, which indicates this is an area in need of
improvement.
Answering RQ1, respondents perceive their school site is implementing trauma-informed
practices by frequently using trauma-informed terminology, garnering feedback, and providing
staff time to collaborate. However, administrators also report that they are not providing trauma-
specific training for their staff nor are they providing access to mental health professionals, key
provisions of the Flexible Framework. RQ2 addresses three components of perceived trauma-
informed implementation, one of which also includes the knowledge influences necessary to
successful implementation.
RQ2: What is the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences necessary for K-
12 administrators to implement a trauma-informed system at their school site?
Procedural knowledge, as previously referenced includes the use of trauma-informed
terminology, providing trauma-specific training and professional development for staff, and
creating opportunities for collaboration, outside supports, and feedback on implementation.
However, in terms of RQ2, this aspect of the question applies to administrator perception of the
role they play in implementation including leadership, providing ongoing training, support and
professional development, and removing obstacles and barriers from staff. Administrators
surveyed, believe their primary responsibility in terms of trauma-informed implementation is
modeling, developing a vision, and taking charge of the initiative. But, as described by the

89

administrators themselves, their role has been inconsistent, and they have served more as a
facilitator rather than an executor. While the Flexible Framework indicates that senior
administration’s role is to engage staff in the process of implementation to build a schoolwide
learning environment for children with trauma, strategic planning and instituting a trauma-
informed infrastructure needs to come from the top. Utilizing erratic terminology, professional
development, and a band-aid approach to resources is not optimal in terms of being successful in
this area nor does it evoke the leadership qualities needed or removing barriers and obstacles.
Motivational Influence Findings
RQ2 also addresses motivational influences, which are an integral component of creating
a trauma-sensitive school setting. Through the second research question, the study evaluates self-
reported administrator motivation to implement trauma-informed practices at their school site.
RQ2: What is the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences necessary for K-
12 administrators to implement a trauma-informed system at their school site?
The question examines specific administrator perceptions of the motivational influences
expectancy-value and self-efficacy in terms of implementing a trauma-informative setting.
Expectancy Value
Assessing the value expected from the successful implementation of trauma-informed
care and administrator belief in organizational relevance is important to understanding
motivational influences within the school setting. According to the administrator trauma-
informed perception survey, overwhelmingly, participants (93.8%) found value in the
implementation of trauma-informed practices and the core concepts represented in the Flexible
Framework. They agreed or strongly agreed that it was important for them to learn new strategies
to better guide the improvement of trauma-informed practices at their school site. They also

90

indicated that trauma-informed practices were valuable in improving student achievement and
that it was important to address behavioral challenges before teaching academic content.
Self-efficacy
Gaining an understanding of administrator self-efficacy in the areas of their ability to
implement trauma-informed practices is essential toward the goal of building a trauma-sensitive
school environment. The administrator trauma-informed perception survey found that
participants perceive they have a high level of self-efficacy. In fact, less than one percent
(0.52%) of respondents rated their belief as very weak on any of the self-efficacy items.
Answering RQ2, administrators perceive both the expectancy-value of trauma-informed
practices and their self-efficacy to implement such practices as strong. This is regardless of
whether the administrators put their beliefs into action as noted in RQ1 findings. The study’s
second research question also looks at the organizational influence of administrator perception.
Organizational Influence Findings
Organizational influences regarding administrator perceptions of implementing trauma-
informed care were informed by RQ2. Specifically, assessing cultural model and cultural setting
influences within the school environment to address the organizational component. The Flexible
Framework explains that it is important to weave “trauma-sensitive approaches into the fabric of
the school” (Cole, Greenwald, O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005). This element of RQ2 overlaps the
components of RQ3 as is detailed below.
Cultural Model Influence
It is necessary to evaluate administrator perception of the cultural model in establishing a
trauma-sensitive school. In addition to R2, the third research question seeks to inform this
research area.

91

RQ3: Do administrator perceptions of their actions impacting the organizational culture
and context influence their knowledge and motivation to implement a trauma-informed
system at their school site?
The culture of a school environment is often dependent on the programs and initiatives instituted.
According to the administrator trauma-informed perception survey, the Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports system is the most widely used program by school administrators
(66.2%). This is followed by social and emotional learning curricula (46.6%), restorative
practices/restorative justice (39.7%), bullying prevention programs (32.4%), and emotional
regulation (28.8%). Utilization of these trauma-informed programs would suggest a trauma-
sensitive atmosphere. Yet, nearly one-third of respondents (31%) ranked the need for mental
health professionals at their school site as their number one organizational need. This finding
suggests that while some programs are in place, critical resources such as mental health experts
are not being facilitated by administrators as posed by RQ2. Regarding the intersection of
organizational influence and motivational influence as stated in RQ3, administrators perceive the
success of such resources but have failed to fully implement them according to their perception.
Cultural Setting Influence
The cultural setting of a school can serve as a facilitator or barrier to sustaining a trauma-
informed environment. The fourth research question looks at administrator perception in this
regard.
RQ4: What are the perceived facilitators, needs, and barriers for K-12 administrators in
implementing trauma-informed practices?
Administrators, as reported in the trauma-informed perception survey, failed to adequately
communicate trauma-informed care principles to school staff, a barrier to implementing trauma-

92

informed practices. Administrators perceive that communication to staff never, seldom, or
sometimes occurs regarding student achievement goals for trauma-exposed students (63.8%),
expectations about structuring activities to be emotionally safe for students (71%), and the need
to provide students guidance in emotional regulation (58.8%). Staff needs increased and quality
communication to create a trauma-informed school setting. Additional barriers are a perceived
lack of professional development on trauma-informed practices (25%) and funds dedicated to the
implementation of trauma-informed practices (19%) according to administrators surveyed.
Limited resources (40%) and staff reluctance (22%) were also cited as barriers, which could be
tied to the lack of communication with staff and staff training. As mentioned in evaluating R1
and R2, administrators perceive they are facilitating trauma-informed practices through staff
training and motivational influence but admit to not providing mental health experts as a
resource to staff. Ultimately, the needs of the staff are not being met to embrace a trauma-
informed school setting.
Synthesis
The findings suggest a disconnect between administrator perception of what is required
for a trauma-informed school setting and what they are implementing toward this goal.
Administrators concede that they are not providing the necessary staff training nor are they
facilitating a relationship with mental health professionals but then consider reluctant staff a
barrier to implementation. Through the administrator trauma-informed perception survey,
administrators also admit they believe they demonstrate the knowledge and understanding of
trauma-informed care, yet they communicate few trauma-informed care principles to school
staff. This is despite administrator motivational influences to pursue a trauma-informed school
environment.

93

The Flexible Framework details a pathway to success in creating such a school
atmosphere. It serves as a blueprint for what is ultimately possible when an administrator is
proactive and strategic in their approach. The administrators surveyed perceive they are being
successful toward this goal without putting in the significant action steps required. While they
may have the best of intentions, their organizational influences are dominating the outcome.

94

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion of Knowledge Influence and Recommendations
This chapter first provides a summary of the organizational context and mission within
the field of K-12 schools, the general organizational performance goal of the field, a description
of the stakeholder group of focus, and the study’s purpose and research questions. Next, a
discussion of the results is presented and solutions to the identified and substantiated needs are
offered, within the general context of the K-12 educational space. Finally, this is superseded by a
discussion on recommendations and concludes with implications for practice and future research.
Purpose of the Study and Questions
The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of how K-12 administrators in
the United States perceive their implementation of trauma-informed care in the journey to
become a trauma-sensitive school. Perceptions, beliefs, and experiences from the perspective of
school site administrators were explored. A growing number of studies (Houtepen et al., 2019;
Hughes & Tucker, 2018; Larson, Chapman, Spetz, & Brindis, 2017) have linked trauma-
exposure in children and adolescents to a greater risk for school failure. As schools often may be
the only available entity to provide support for trauma-exposed students (Green, Holt, Kwon,
Reid, Xuan, & Comer, 2015), it is imperative to explore how K-12 school administrators
perceive the implementation of trauma-informed care, especially in regards to their ability to
support school staff throughout the process, the perceived value and impact on student
achievement, and their perceived self-efficacy in leading the implementation. The research
questions that guided this study were:
1. From the perspective of K-12 administrators, to what extent is their school site
implementing trauma-informed practices?

95

2. What is K-12 administrators’ perceived areas of strength and weakness related to the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences needed to implement a trauma-
informed system at their school site?
3. Do administrator perceptions of their actions impacting the organizational culture and
context influence their knowledge and motivation to implement a trauma-informed
system at their school site?
4. What are the perceived challenges and facilitators for K-12 administrators in
implementing trauma-informed practices?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
This study utilized an exploratory research design to assess perceptions of implementing
trauma-informed care in K-12 schools. As this study sought participants from a national sample
of administrators, all with varying levels of knowledge and motivation toward implementing
trauma-informed care, the performance gap was representative of K-12 school administrators
nationwide. The literature review focusing on the links between trauma and student achievement
and implementing school-wide initiatives identified several potential influences and barriers to
goal attainment. These identified influences were categorized within the Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analysis framework assessing knowledge (K), motivational (M), and organizational (O)
influences. According to Clark and Estes (2008), identifying the KMO barriers and subsequently
addressing these, increases the ability of an organization to meet its organizational goal. The
following sections outline the recommendations, utilizing the Flexible Framework, for the
presumed influences and barriers according to the KMO Framework.

96

Procedural Knowledge Recommendations
According to Rueda (2011), knowledge can be categorized into four distinct areas:
factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge.
Declarative knowledge (factual and conceptual) is the content to be learned; procedural
knowledge refers to the knowledge of how to use the learned content, and metacognitive
knowledge is an individual’s self-awareness and ability to reflect upon their application and use
of the content (Krathwohl, 2002). Clark and Estes (2008) state that gaps in knowledge and skills
must be identified and addressed to improve organizational performance.
This study assessed administrators perceived procedural knowledge of supporting staff in
implementing trauma-informed practices. Rueda (2011) states that procedural knowledge is
crucial for successful performance, as it implies that not only does an employee conceptually
understand a job-related skill or task but can apply this knowledge in performing the skill. As the
school leader, administrators must understand how to develop systems that support school staff
in the development of a trauma-informed school environment.
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that knowledge influence is a
significant factor in administrator perception of trauma-informed school implementation.
Knowledge influence, in this case, refers to the schoolwide infrastructure and culture, staff
training, linking with mental health professionals, academic instruction for traumatized children,
nonacademic strategies, and school policies, procedures, and protocols. Knowledge influence is
therefore a critical piece in ensuring the holistic fulfillment of trauma-informed care in schools as
it relates to administrator perception of implementation. It is recommended that K-12 schools
establish knowledge influence as a priority area of assessment and utilize the Flexible
Framework as a reference guide. Table 14 outlines knowledge influence as it relates to

97

theoretical learning principles and context-specific trauma-informed implementation
recommendations based on these principles and the findings of the study. Following the table is a
discussion of the recommendations and the related literature.
Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a
Gap?
Priority

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Administrators need
to be able to support
school staff in the
incorporation of
trauma-informed
practices in all
aspects of the school
environment (P).

Yes Yes When information
learned is
meaningful and
frequently
connected with
prior knowledge, it
is stored and more
accurately
remembered
(Shraw &
McCrudden,
2006).

Provide administrators with
ongoing training and
professional development
with guided practice and
corrective feedback
(Tuckman, 2009) using a
consultant or partnerships
with social service agencies
that have expertise in
trauma-informed care.

Increase Administrator Knowledge of Staff Support Strategies
Findings show that K-12 school administrators perceived that they had some procedural
knowledge regarding supporting staff in implementing trauma-informed care into their district’s
infrastructure and culture; however, only between 12-32% of administrators admitted they
believe they are implementing any of the best practice strategies for supporting staff toward the
goal of trauma-informed implementation, as measured by the Trauma-Sensitive School Checklist
(Lesley University, 2017). This means that less than one-third of respondents perceive
themselves to be engaging consistently in strategies that support their staff in implementing
trauma-informed practices at the school level. More research is needed to understand nuances in
this knowledge influence such as studying academic instruction for traumatized children,

98

nonacademic strategies, and school policies, procedures, and protocols best suited to provide
trauma-informed care.
A recommendation rooted in information processing theory has been selected to close
this gap in procedural knowledge. Shraw and McCrudden (2006) suggest that when information
learned is meaningful and frequently connected with prior knowledge, it is stored and more
accurately remembered. One of the foundational steps implementing a trauma-sensitive
school calls for regular training for all staff and the use of outside supports, such as trauma-
informed care experts and partnerships with social service agencies that provide training and
technical assistance in the area of trauma-informed care (Cole, Greenwald, O'Brien, & Gadd,
2005). This is in line with Kirkpatrick’s (2016) view that training and other essential resources
are necessary for employees to learn and apply knowledge in their jobs. Ongoing professional
development and training with specific, corrective feedback, using current trauma-related issues
they might be facing at their sites, will provide administrators frequent opportunities to practice
the skills they need to support their staff in implementation. The continuous, on-the-job
application directly contributes to organizational results (Kirkpatrick, 2016). Frequent practice
over time helps with the application of new learning and is vital to mastery (Shraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
More than two-thirds of respondents found value in the strategy of providing ongoing
professional development for their staff. Thus, this would be an appropriate strategy to use to
simultaneously support administrators’ knowledge of how to support their staff in these
initiatives. The recommendation to provide K-12 staff ongoing professional development with
corrective feedback assists them and administrators not only with learning the strategies but
knowing when to apply what they have learned (Shraw & McCrudden, 2006).

99

The proposed ongoing professional development would focus on helping administrators
develop fluency in the strategies recommended to support staff, such as providing specific
feedback, providing collaboration time for staff, and conducting classroom information (Cole,
Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005). While 32.3% of administrators stated that they perceive
they provided specific feedback to staff on the implementation of their trauma-informed
practices, only 12.9% of administrators said they conduct classroom observations. There is a
clear disconnect in how to obtain the best indicators of data to provide staff with meaningful
feedback on their implementation. Enhanced professional development may address the
inconsistencies of administrators’ applying certain staff support strategies, such as conducting
classroom observations. With ongoing training, administrators can address any issues they may
have with supporting their staff as they arise and receive feedback on how they have applied
their learning.
Establish Partnerships with Mental Health and Social Services
Nearly three-quarters (71%) of administrators do not feel they provide any opportunities
for their staff to consult with experts in trauma-informed care. This is reinforced by 56.5% of
administrators who reported seldomly or never providing staff with regular opportunities for
assistance from mental health providers for working with trauma-exposed students and families.
Nearly one-third of participants ranked support from mental health professionals as both a
perceived need for implementation and the primary barrier to successful implementation at their
sites. This can be considered an area of concern, as most responses from participants who
perceived their implementation of trauma-informed care as successful cited support from social
workers, psychologists, and trauma experts as the crucial element in their site’s successes with
implementing trauma-informed practices. Embedded within the recommendation for ongoing

100

professional development is that administrators seek this training by not only utilizing the mental
and behavioral health supports at their school sites (e.g. school social workers, psychologists) but
also establish partnerships with trauma experts and local social service agencies who are
positioned to provide specialized support in helping administrators transition their schools into
becoming trauma-sensitive.
However, without state and national support, collaborative action on the local level often
cannot occur (Wyatt & Novak, 2000). Many advocates of the collaboration between schools and
community mental and behavioral health support acknowledge the primary focus of schools is to
educate students in academic content, and a shift in focus on trauma and its related issues may
not be deemed a key point of focus for the school or district (Adelman & Taylor, 2003). The
school and community partnerships that do exist often focus on linkages, rather than
collaboration or integration, resulting in a fragmentation of services (Adelman & Taylor, 2003).
There is an urgency for policymakers to recognize the need to reform and restructure the work of
schools and community health organizations to better address the barriers to providing
partnerships for training and integration of services (Adelman & Taylor, 2003; Wyatt & Novak,
2000). Administrators play a key role in furthering the development of these partnerships by
advocating for these needs with their district offices (Kourkoutas, Eleftherakis, Vitalaki, & Hart,
2015), seeking outside grants and funding opportunities (Wyatt & Novak, 2000), and leveraging
their memberships in professional organizations, such as the American Association of School
Administrators, to lobby policymakers to include a focus on the integration of services in school
reform efforts (Adelman & Taylor, 2003). Most importantly, establishing partnerships will
require administrators to revise their beliefs and philosophy about the isolated functions of
schools and outside mental health supports as well as shift their emphasis to fostering a

101

relationship and partnership model (Kourkoutas, Eleftherakis, Vitalaki, & Hart, 2015;
Richardson, 2008).
Motivation Recommendations
Motivation consists of three essential areas: choice, persistence, and mental effort. Choice
is an individual’s active decision to work towards a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Once that choice
is made, persistence or the decision to continuously work towards that goal, despite challenges or
barriers is needed. Finally, mental effort is defined as cognitive exertion required to address a
challenge or task innovatively. Grossman and Salas (2011) argue when individuals are motivated
to achieve organizational goals, they exhibit the choice, persistence, and mental effort to
continuously strive toward goal attainment.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), choice, mental effort, and persistence are all vital
for one to continue to pursue a goal despite challenges and barriers. School leaders are frequently
bombarded with new initiatives and must prioritize which they will place their focus and the
focus for their staff. The data from this study did not show any significant gaps in motivation,
but rather that there are differences in the perceived value of trauma-informed care across
different groups of K-12 administrators. Administrators finding value in learning and integrating
new, non-academic strategies to improve student achievement is only partially validated by
survey results because of organizational influences. Table 15 shows the recommendations to
contend with these influences based on theoretical principles. Following the table is a discussion
of each of the recommendations.

102

Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a
Gap?
Priority
Yes, No

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Administrators find
value in learning and
integrating new, non-
academic strategies
to improve student
achievement.
Partially

Yes Individuals must
perceive an
activity is
important and
valuable to move
from intention to
action (Pintrich,
2003). Employees
must perceive
utility and cost
value - in order to
act upon the goal
(Eccles, 2009).
Conduct a site visit to a
school with similar goals
and demographics that is
already implementing
trauma-informed care,
with successful ratings on
school climate and student
achievement assessments.
Administrators must
have confidence in
their ability to
implement trauma-
informed practices
and support staff in
this implementation.
No No Individuals must
not only have the
desire to carry out
a task but also
must believe that
they can do the
task (Eccles,
2009).
No specific
recommendations are
needed as this is an area of
strength for most
administrators.

Use Exemplar Schools to Demonstrate the Value of Trauma-Informed Care
Kress & Elias (2007) found that a critical element for the successful implementation of
initiatives focused on improving student social and emotional wellbeing is the belief that the new
program is relevant and important to organizational goals. Thus, to achieve the organizational
goal of creating a trauma-sensitive school, administrators must see the value in implementing
trauma-informed practices and believe that a commitment to their implementation will greatly
benefit their school’s goals.
Pintrich’s (2003) theory in motivational science has been used as the foundation for the
recommendations to close the expectancy-value motivation gap. Pintrich (2003) argues that an

103

individual must perceive an activity as valuable to move from intention to action. This is further
supported by the work of Eccles (2009), who states that individuals must find both utility value -
the belief that goal achievement will help in obtaining immediate or long-term goals, as well as
the cost - the perceived resources that will be expended in pursuit of the goal, to act upon the
goal. Generally, findings indicate a strong positive relationship between the perceived value of
trauma-informed practices and reflecting this perceived value in organizational identity;
communication about school policies, practices, and procedures; and the implementation of staff
support strategies. The recommendation to K-12 administrators to conduct site visits to schools
already implementing trauma-informed care, which shares similar goals and demographics, and
are experiencing success in both the implementation of trauma-informed care and student
achievement, will demonstrate the value in using a trauma-informed approach to assist in
improving student academic achievement.
While there is a dearth of research on the implementation of trauma-informed practices,
Kress and Elias (2007) offer several components that are necessary for the successful
implementation of social-emotional learning programs. They state that administrators’
understanding and belief that the programming is relevant to organizational goals is vital for a
successful implementation. This framework supports the recommendation to provide
administrators with exemplars to demonstrate the value of implementing trauma-informed care.
Organization Recommendations
Schein (2004) states that organizations must be responsive and ready to evolve to the
ever-changing nature of the world and new problems that may arise over time. As the recognition
of trauma’s impact on student academic achievement is still evolving, the findings indicate that
administrators must become clearer on what it means to make trauma-informed care at the center

104

of the organizational culture and educational mission, as well as provide the necessary changes
to organizational identity, culture, and communication to reflect this commitment.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), recommendations or interventions to be
implemented must first and foremost consider the organizational culture in which they are to be
implemented. Organizational environments must be favorable for any change effort to be
successful. Organizational culture is divided into two constructs - cultural models which are the
organizational values, and cultural settings, which are the visible manifestations of these values
(Hirabayashi, n.d.). Addressing both the cultural models and settings, combined with attention to
the knowledge and motivation influences, can positively affect change and growth within an
organization (Hirabayashi, n.d.). Table 16 (on the following page) outlines the recommendations
for the identified organizational influences based on theoretical principles. Following the table is
a discussion of each of the recommendations.

105

Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a
Gap?

Priority

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization
must have the
commitment to
student safety,
connection, and
emotional
regulation at the
center of its
educational
mission.

Yes Yes Effective change
begins by addressing
motivation
influencers; it ensures
the group knows why
it needs to change. It
then addresses
organizational barriers
and then knowledge
and skills needed
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Conduct a “state of the
union” reflection with key
stakeholder groups to
analyze current status and
circumstances that may
warrant the
implementation of
trauma-informed care.

Operationalize the
definition of trauma-
informed care for school
site using a job aid and
provide to key
stakeholders.
Administrators
must communicate
the value of
trauma-informed
practice through
translation into
policies,
procedures, and
daily practices.
Yes Yes Effective
organizations ensure
that organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Pajares,
2006).
Conduct an informal audit
of school policies,
procedures and messages
to check for alignment or
interference with goals of
implementing trauma-
informed care. Utilize
trauma-informed care
committees to provide
feedback.

Engage All Stakeholders in Developing a Trauma-Informed Organizational Identity
Nearly three-fourths of respondents (72.6%) of K-12 administrators indicate that they
believe they never, seldom, or only sometimes reinforce their school’s commitment to making
the principles of trauma-informed care the heart of their school site mission. Additionally, only
66.2% of respondents feel they seek the input of all stakeholders in implementing the principles

106

of trauma-informed care. Very interestingly, no administrators ranked student buy-in as a priority
for their implementation of trauma-informed practices, even though one of the principles of
trauma-informed care and the trauma-sensitive school model is to provide student voice and
choice in school planning, policies, and procedures (Craig, 2015).
A recommendation rooted in Bolman and Deal’s (1997) theory of organizational identity
and continuity has been selected to close this organizational gap. Bolman and Deal (1997) state
that all stakeholders within an organization must have a shared understanding and story about
their purpose and identity. The recommendation is for K-12 administrators to lead a “state of the
union” reflection with key stakeholder groups, analyzing the current status and circumstances at
their sites that may warrant the implementation of trauma-informed care. As recommended by
the Flexible Framework (Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, & Gadd, 2005), these key groups should
include teaching staff, non-teaching staff, parents, community members, and students. For
example, depending on the age of students, administrators could involve students in the planning
process using surveys, focus groups, or including student representatives on committees (Watts,
2020).
Clark and Estes (2008) note that effective change at the organizational level begins by
first addressing motivation influencers. Each stakeholder group must know why it needs to
change. Once the question of why change is needed has been answered, knowledge, skills, and
organizational barriers can be addressed. This reinforces the work by Bolman and Deal (1997),
which argues that maximum employee engagement can only be achieved when everyone within
the organization feels invested in a common purpose and organizational mission. Thus,
administrators must communicate to staff, parents, community members, and students that
trauma-informed care is not just “another thing to do,” but an actual cultural model through

107

which the organization will operate. Using the information gathered from the state of the union,
administrators can use their individualized data and anecdotal evidence to demonstrate their
site’s need to place trauma-informed care at the center of their organizational identity.
Operationalize What It Means to Be “Trauma-Informed”
Beyond the scope of trauma-informed care, across many career fields and academic
disciples, organizational research has repeatedly indicated that the use of common language and
shared understanding of definitions is crucial for the success of a program or organization
(Barker, Gilbreath, & Stone, 1998; Givvin & Santagata, 2011; Koen et al., 2016; Macdonald,
Burke, & Stewart, 2006; Seemilier & Murray, 2013). To effectively become a trauma-sensitive
school and work towards a common mission and vision, there must be a shared definition among
school staff, parents, community members, and policymakers (Cole, Greenwald O'Brien, &
Gadd, 2005). Overall, the data indicates that there are several conflicting messages about the
implementation of trauma-informed care. Results revealed inconsistencies between perceived
commitment to certain trauma-informed principles and practices and actual implementation of
these principles and practices. For example, while 26% of administrators reported they perceive
their school’s policies, practices, and procedures are trauma-informed, only 15.9% reported they
provide staff access to universal prevention and early intervention services, 17.4% provide staff
access to mental health professionals, and 10% provide staff training on tailoring support
services to meet individual family needs - all key components to a holistic, integrated trauma-
informed system (Craig, 2015). Even the terms used by administrators across the country differ,
with a little more than half (58.1%) using the term “trauma-informed practices,” but the other
nearly half of administrators using other terms, or in many cases, administrators using multiple
terms within their school site.

108

Due to these inconsistencies, it is recommended that administrators, in conjunction with
the trauma-informed care implementation committee, develop and distribute a job aid containing
a glossary of key terms found in policies and handbooks that outlines the expectations about
utilizing trauma-informed practices at their school aid. The job aid should be distributed to all
staff members, prominently displaying in key areas that staff access, and the information
reinforced in internal communication at key times throughout the school year. Similar
information should be provided to all key stakeholders (e.g. students and parents) so that there is
a shared understanding of what it means to be trauma-informed, and what these policies and
practices look like in the school environment. It is also recommended that this information be
communicated to other stakeholder groups consistently and frequently to ensure effective
understanding. The recommendation of the “state of the union” assessment could be used to
provide administrators with ideas to tailor the communication methods specific to the needs of
their school community.
Translate Organizational Commitment to Trauma-Informed Care into Policies, Practices, and
Procedures
Almost a quarter (24.6%) of K-12 administrators indicate that they perceive their school
policies do not reflect a commitment to trauma-informed care. Roughly half (49.3%) of
respondents perceive their policies are somewhat reflective of their commitment to trauma-
informed practice. Before policies and procedures can reflect the commitment to trauma-
informed practices, administrators must put the commitment to becoming trauma-informed at the
center of their site’s educational mission. The recommendation is to conduct a “state of the
union” assessment with key stakeholder groups to analyze the current circumstances at their sites
that may warrant the implementation of trauma-informed care. In the Flexible Framework

109

(MAC, 2005), one of the first tasks that are asked of sites as they begin to shift towards
becoming trauma-sensitive is to reflect upon where their school currently is in the
implementation of various trauma-informed practices. Once administrators have a sense of what
is needed to modify their site’s organizational identity to reflect a commitment to trauma-
informed care, then they can use the guidelines set forth from this exercise to determine which
policies, practices, and procedures should be implemented. Clark and Estes (2008) argue that the
organization’s values must be evident in its messaging, procedures, and policies to facilitate and
sustain change. Schein (2004) also reinforces this sentiment by stating that articulated values
must be visible in the actual organizational practice for real change to have occurred. The next
section presents the implications of this research for practice.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation and evaluation plan outlined below is based upon the New World
Kirkpatrick evaluation model (Kirpatrick & Kirpatrick, 2016), which uses a hierarchy of levels
to assess successful implementation. The Kirkpatrick model is a backward design model that
asks organizations to plan with their goals in mind and then work backward to identify the
actions and practices that would best facilitate the path toward reaching the organizational goals
(Kirpatrick & Kirpatrick, 2016). Once goals are identified, the model asks organizations to
identify observable outcomes that expressly demonstrate that the goal has been met, identify
measurable indicators that learning has occurred during the implementation process, and finally,
the development of a methodology to assess member satisfaction of the implementation process.
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), the model bridges the gap between the larger
organizational goal and the more pressing immediate solutions, promoting employee interest and
“buy-in,” thus increasing the chances for organizational success in goal attainment.

110

Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
K-12 schools in the United States are being tasked to implement comprehensive,
integrated systems that promote positive behavioral health, in addition to facilitating high student
achievement in academic content. While the joint efforts of all stakeholders would contribute to
the achievement of the overall goal of becoming a trauma-sensitive school, the stakeholder of
focus for this study is site-level administrators (e.g., principals, assistant principals, deans), due
to the high level of influence site administrators have in establishing the organizational culture of
their school. The focus of this study was to assess K-12 administrators’ perceptions of their site’s
implementation of trauma-informed practices. The goals of this study are to decipher the broader
picture of administrators’ knowledge and understanding regarding how to implement trauma-
informed care and analyze the motivational and organizational factors influencing
administrators’ ability to implement trauma-informed practices. The proposed solution is a
general framework for K-12 schools, which includes a focus on developing a stated commitment
to becoming trauma-informed and operationalizing what that looks like in all aspects of the
organization, development of unique, site-specific, comprehensive training programs that
emphasize ongoing support and feedback cycles between staff and administrators, and
developing partnerships with local trauma consultants and social services agencies, should
provide the desired outcome of becoming a trauma-sensitive school. The New World Model
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) utilizes levels of training evaluation as will the proposed
adapted evaluation method (Figure 22).

111

Figure 22
Adapted Kirkpatrick Model
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
As K-12 institutions undergo their site-specific professional development programs that
ensure the commitment to trauma-informed care into school-wide policies, procedures, and
practices, it is crucial to monitor progress towards the stated outcomes. In the New World Model,
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) state that organizations must develop measurable indicators
to determine whether goals have been met, to ensure successful implementation of the training
program. These indicators are both internal and external and will provide markers and guidance
to administrators throughout their implementation of trauma-informed care, consistently
identifying areas that may need to be adjusted and modified based on organizational needs.
Suggested internal outcomes include developing a committee composed of all
representatives from all relevant stakeholder groups (e.g., teachers, non-teaching staff, parents,
community members, trauma experts, and students) to operationalize trauma-informed language,

112

policy development about the implementation of trauma-informed care in daily job activities,
develop common language and expectations, and increase expectancy-value for administrators to
implement staff support strategies. These internal outcomes move in conjunction with the stated
external outcomes, which include visible commitments to trauma-informed care in published
mission statements and school policies, and attitudes and perceptions of trauma-sensitivity
among key stakeholder groups. Table 17 (on the following page) outlines these internal and
external outcomes and the related metrics and methods for measuring them.

113

Table 8
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
School mission statement
reflects commitment to
trauma-informed care.
Published mission statement
with trauma-informed
language.
Stakeholders review and update
mission statement with trauma-
informed language.

Administrator facilitates approval
of revised mission statement.
Stated policies and
procedures are trauma-
informed.
Published handbook with
trauma-informed school
wide policies and
procedures.
Stakeholder committee reviews
current school handbooks/policies,
in conjunction with trauma-
informed care experts, and updates
them with trauma-informed
language and practices.

School has established
partnerships with trauma
experts and social services
agencies for the purposes
of referrals, wraparound
services, and training
needs.
Number of partnerships
Diversity of partnerships

Number of trainings
provided by partners.

Number of referrals made to
partners.
Solicit information from city,
county, state, and national
agencies.

Contact agencies and schedule
trainings and professional
development.

Develop referral policy.
Internal Outcomes
Definition of trauma-
informed care is
established.
Published job aid. Research committee is formed,
comprised of all relevant
stakeholders.
Terms related to trauma-informed
care are chosen and defined.
Committee comes to consensus on
terms and publishes job aid.

Increase administrator
practices of conducting
classroom observations on
trauma-informed
practices.
Number of observations.

Administrators self-report of
number of observations.

114

Increase younger
administrators’ and urban
school administrators’
belief in the value of
ongoing professional
development (OPD).
Number of younger
administrators reporting
increased value of OPD.

Number of urban school
administrators reporting
increased value of OPD.
Administer surveys to sites to
determine change in attitude.

Increased understanding
of common expectations
for implementing trauma-
informed care in daily
practices.

Number of staff who report
understanding of
professional expectations
regarding trauma-informed
care.

Staff climate survey.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
In Level Three, once implementation has begun and after all have been trained,
stakeholders must be accountable for applying their learning (Kirpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
As the stakeholder group of focus for this study was site administrators, administrators'
behaviors must be monitored to ensure goal achievement. This may present a unique challenge if
there is no district or overarching governance or policy that would provide accountability for
administrators (Trimmer, 2014). Therefore, part of the critical behaviors for administrators
would also be to seek a method to monitor their accountability if this is not a priority for their
district. Other critical behaviors would be the identification of staff learning needs in regard to
trauma-informed care, the establishment of a stakeholder committee, and the engagement of
mental health professionals and partnerships. Table 18 below outlines each of these critical
behaviors, their related metrics, methods, and timing.

115

Table 9
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Administrators identify
staff learning needs.
Number of
identified staff
learning needs
Administrator will review
and discuss staff needs with
a trauma expert/consultant.
Grade level
chairs/department heads
will report team needs.
Individual staff members
will report needs on a staff
climate survey.
Suggested
quarterly for
first year,
thereafter,
periodic as
determined by
individual sites.
2. Administrators will
establish stakeholder
implementation
committees to identify
needs, develop resources,
examine
organizational practices,
and monitor progress
towards organizational
goals.
Number of
members from
each stakeholder
group

Number of
meetings
conducted
Administrator will track
attendance.

Committee self-assessment
of engagement
Suggested
monthly, in first
year of
implementation;
thereafter,
periodic as
determined by
individual site
need
3. Administrators will
consistently engage
mental health
professionals.
Number of staff
trainings provided
by mental health
partners

Number of school
events attended
by mental health
professionals
Administrator will track
number of trainings

Administrator will track
number of events
Periodic, as
determined by
individual site
need
4. Administrators will
determine a method for
self-accountability.
Written
accountability
plan
Administrator self-report During the first
60 days of
implementation
or employment.
Updated
annually.

116

Required Drivers
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) state that an organization must have supports in place
to facilitate an environment conducive to critical behaviors. These are called required drivers. In
the New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), two categories of drivers are
identified: support and accountability. Support drivers are those who nurture the organization so
that critical behaviors can thrive. Accountability drivers are the ways an organization takes
responsibility for its articulated goals. Within these categories, four types of drivers are outlined.
The first drivers, reinforcing drivers, are those which facilitate the transfer of the newly
learned skills into daily practices and activities (Kirkpatrick & Kirpatrick, 2016). These would
include the knowledge and organizational solutions such as ongoing professional development
and the development of a job aid. Encouraging drivers are systems and processes that provide
consistent motivation for participants to continue the transfer of the skills over time (Kirkpatrick
& Kirpatrick, 2016). The encouraging drivers include motivation-related solutions such as
seeking inspiration and value from exemplar schools and establishing relationships with trusted
mental health professionals who administrators can consult to maintain confidence in their
implementation abilities. Rewarding drivers include things such as public recognition and
possible incentives for implementing trauma-informed care (Kirkpatrick & Kirpatrick, 2016).
Finally, monitoring drivers are accountability drivers. Table 19 outlines the reinforcing,
encouraging, and rewarding drivers necessary for administrators to implement trauma-informed
care in their schools, and which critical behaviors they support.

117

Table 10
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing

Meetings to collaborate and learn from trauma experts to
identify needs and reflect upon practices.
Quarterly 2, 3
Meetings to collaborate and learn from stakeholder
groups to identify needs, problem solve and work on
implementation tasks.
Monthly 2, 3
Encouraging

Rationale for trauma-informed practices (utility value) Ongoing 2, 3
Peer modeling/exemplar school visits Quarterly 1
Presentations of alternative viewpoints to help address or
solve problems.
Ongoing 1
Rewarding

Public recognition on district website, blog, and monthly
publications when schools successfully implement
trauma-informed care strategies.

Monthly 4
Monitoring

External review of administrator goals and action plans
by superintendent or mental health consultant.
Bi-annually 4
Performance indicators for self-monitoring Bi-annually 4

Organizational Support
Accountability systems are those methods used by an organization to take responsibility
for its contribution to the larger public or community (Conner & Rabovsky, 2011). To remain
relevant, there must be constant monitoring of the organizational goals and plans (Darling-
Hammond & Snyder, 2015). Through these monitoring systems, the external evaluator can gain a

118

sense of the areas in which the administrator may need additional support, and offer resources,
guidance, or referrals. As many administrators are the sole individuals responsible for
implementing new programs and initiatives at their sites, they must build a network of mentors
and peer contacts that can support in a review of their goals and help hold them accountable,
even in the absence of district, state, or national requirements.
Access to mental health supports, resources, and support from district offices was
administrators’ top-ranked needs. Administrators must work with their districts; city and state
education departments, and community mental health agencies to obtain the individualized
support needed for their individual site to implement trauma-informed care. While specific needs
for implementation will differ from site to site, the following is a list of questions that could be
used as a guide to jumpstart implementation planning.
• If necessary, has the trauma-informed care implementation initiative been approved at the
district level?
• Has the administrator formed connections with community mental health agencies or
trauma experts to guide and support implementation efforts?
• Has a budget been drafted and approved? (Budget should include any costs associated
with training and professional development, materials, curriculum, marketing, etc.)
• Has an advisory committee been established to conduct the “state of the union” needs
assessment?
• Have goals, a timeline, and an action plan been developed?

119

Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
Following the completion of the recommended solutions for the implementation of
the trauma-sensitive school model, administrators will be able to:
1. Accurately identify trauma-informed strategies (Declarative Knowledge).
2. Confidently implement a variety of strategies to support staff needs (Procedural
Knowledge, Self-Efficacy).
3. Value the importance of creating a trauma-sensitive environment (Value).
4. Adjust school policies and daily practices to reflect trauma-informed approaches
(Cultural Model).
5. Effectively communicate to school staff the school commitment to trauma-informed care
with colleagues and administrators (Cultural Setting).
6. Confidently lead a team to implement trauma-informed care (Self-efficacy).
7. Monitor progress towards implementation goals and make adjustments where necessary
(Efficacy, Procedural Knowledge).
Program
The recommended program is a comprehensive plan for assuring the implementation of
holistic, integrated trauma-informed practices school-wide. This program supports administrators
in achieving the above-stated learning goals through foundational supports in understanding the
elements of trauma-informed care, utilizing common language about trauma-informed care, and
actively engaging in the successful implementation of associated strategies and techniques.
Additionally, the program engages administrators in developing an awareness and appreciation
for the benefits trauma-informed care has for their school’s student population, as well as their

120

fulfillment and engagement as a school leader. Administrators will engage in communication
techniques, focused goal setting, and feedback loops designed to support them throughout the
implementation process.
The training program will take place in an ongoing manner throughout the school year.
The program will be implemented in a blended learning format, with a combination of
asynchronous materials and in-person training. To support the learning, administrators will
develop methods to check for their understanding, reaching out to district officers and
community mental health professionals for ongoing coaching and observations.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
As administrators attempt to implement trauma-informed practices at their school site,
they must feel that they have the key knowledge needed to be successful. It is important to
evaluate the degree to which administrators have learned the declarative procedural knowledge
needed to support staff in the implementation. Table 20 (on the following page) outlines these
methods for evaluation and the timing.

121

Table 20
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Pre-test and post-test Before and after training workshops.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Quality of strategic planning and the degree
to which plans are trauma-informed,
according to job aids.
Based on school review cycle of strategic
planning.
Staff survey Before training, mid-year, and end of
year.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Pre and post satisfaction surveys Quarterly, throughout the year.
Discussions of the value of what they are
being asked to do on the job
During the coaching and feedback
sessions with mentors, trauma
consultants, and supervisors.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Discussions following practice and feedback.

During workshops and individual
coaching sessions.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Creation of individual goals and related
action plans.
During workshops and coaching
sessions.

Level 1: Reaction
In Level 1, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend measuring three types of
reactions: engagement, relevance, and satisfaction. With high levels of each of these
components, the program is more likely to yield the desired results. Table 21 outlines the
components to measure reactions from the program.

122

Table 21
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Attendance During workshops, mentoring, and
coaching sessions
Completion of goals Annually
Observation During workshops and coaching sessions
Relevance

Brief pulse-check with participants via scaled
survey (online) and discussion (ongoing).
Following workshops or when new
trauma-informed strategies are
introduced.

End of quarter evaluation of program. Two weeks following the end of each
quarter.
Satisfaction

Brief pulse-check with participants via scaled
survey (online) and discussion (ongoing).

Following workshops or when new
trauma-informed strategies are
introduced.

End of quarter evaluation of program. Two weeks following the end of each
quarter.

Evaluation Tools
The trauma-informed school evaluation instrument (Appendix B) was developed
adapting the Kirpatrick model (2016) utilizing both closed and open-ended questions. Resources
provided by the CDC’s Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers online
knowledge repository also aided in the creation of the tool. Developing standardized measures
across the four levels given the varying needs and infrastructure of K-12 schools is challenging,
thus, the instrument is easily adaptable to meet an individual school’s needs. The trauma-

123

informed school evaluation instrument is intended for use both immediately following the
implementation of a trauma-informed school environment as well as over varying periods to
ascertain whether the original assessment still stands.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The proposed trauma-informed school evaluation instrument facilitates effective data
analysis and reporting to assess a school environment and its trauma-informed preparedness. The
following details each of Kirkpatrick’s (2016) level of evaluation as adapted for the
measurement of trauma-informed school implementation within the instrument.
Level 1
The first five questions are intended to measure satisfaction consistently and uniformly
with school trauma-informed implementation in terms of quality, usefulness, value, and
relevance across school districts. These questions use Likert scales to measure satisfaction. There
are several approaches for reporting Level 1 evaluation data, including summary statistics such
as mean, mode, range, and correlation. Data may also be analyzed grouped or ungrouped. All
evaluation items should be analyzed and used for trauma-informed implementation improvement
and feedback to school administrators. Sample Level 1 evaluation data can also be reported as:
• Overall Satisfaction: # of respondents who reported “somewhat agree” and “strongly
agree” on items 4 and 5 divided by the total # of respondents.
• Enhanced Knowledge: # of respondents who reported “somewhat agree” and “strongly
agree” on items 1, 2, and 3 divided by the total # of respondents.
Level 2
The next set of questions, three in total, on the trauma-informed school evaluation
instrument, measures the extent to which professional development improved staff knowledge

124

and skills. Measuring impact at Level 2 allows for determining the relevance and quality of
trauma-informed staff development and the suitability of the assessments and evaluation
instruments used as part of the sessions. These questions use Likert scales to measure staff
learning, which provides summary data. In addition to the three Level 2 questions, specific
assessments following each session are encouraged as mentioned in the aforementioned
recommendations. As a result, a guide for proposed tools that are in alignment with these
recommendations is included in the Learning Matrix that accompanies the Level 2 questions.
Sample Level 2 data can be reported as:
• Enhanced Knowledge: # of respondents who reported “somewhat agree” and “strongly
agree” on items 1, 2, and 3 divided by the total # of respondents.
Level 3
The next 11 questions solicit 9 Likert scales and 2 open-ended short answer responses.
The intention is to measure the extent to which staff applies what they learned in trauma-
informed professional development to their daily school responsibilities. Level 3 assesses staff
work behavior in terms of implementing a trauma-informed school setting. Summary statistics
such as mean, mode, range, and correlation can highlight staff contribution to the implementation
of the trauma-informed school. Questions 3-5 can help to inform future implementation needs
and associated behaviors. Sample Level 3 data can be reported as:
• Knowledge Application: # of respondents who reported “somewhat agree” and
“strongly agree” on items 1 and 2 divided by the total # of respondents.
• Implementation Perception: # of respondents who reported “somewhat agree” and
“strongly agree” on items 6-11 divided by the total # of respondents.

125

Level 4
The fourth level and remaining 5 questions measure the degree by which trauma-
informed implementation is attributed to the application of knowledge and skills gained as a
result of professional development. These open-ended questions help to determine which trauma-
informed implementation results and organizational impact occurred due to professional
development as well as overall strategies adapted from the Flexible Framework.
Summary
The trauma-informed school evaluation instrument was created to uniformly measure and
evaluate the success of implementing a trauma-sensitive school setting through strategies from
the Flexible Framework. The evaluation tool adapts the four levels of Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model
to assess implementation. The instrument is intended to be somewhat flexible so that a school
district may customize it to meet their needs. Utilizing it as a measurement of success can assist
school administrators in determining what is working and what isn’t in terms of the Flexible
Framework for their school district. The instrument can help to guide the strategic planning and
implementation of a trauma-informed school environment.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were several limitations and delimitations of which the researcher was aware
throughout the development and implementation of this study. Limitations are those factors
related to the study participants who are outside of the researcher’s immediate control. Some
limitations of the study include:
• The instrument contains modified elements and the researcher did not have data on the
psychometric properties;
• The open-ended questions were specifically designed for this study;

126

• Data accuracy was dependent upon the truthfulness of the respondents;
• There were not enough respondents for a truly representative sample;
• Online survey method limited sample to administrators who feel comfortable navigating
and responding to web-based surveys; and
• Participants might have had differing definitions of trauma or any of the concepts
presented in the questions.
Delimitations are reflective of those factors that are within the researcher’s control. These
are related to the decisions the researcher makes that may have implications for the
study. The delimitations that affected this study include:
• Data collection only focused on administrators and does not reflect teacher or student
perspectives;
• Recruitment methods were not efficient, as a representative sample was not achieved;
• Groups utilized for recruitment may not be reflective of the target population;
• The researcher’s personal networks were geographically bound, thus there was a slight
overrepresentation of educators from California, the location of the researcher’s
institution and where the researcher has many contacts in K-12 education; and
• The demographics of participants were skewed. For example, most respondents were
female, white, and not all states were represented.
Implications for Future Research
Systematic Inquiry and Evaluation of Trauma-Informed Policies and Practices in Schools
Existing research is limited to the implementation of trauma-informed care in K-12
schools. As this study indicates, the systematic inquiry is needed at the school, district, state, and
national level regarding the policies and practices (the Flexible Framework) that are being

127

implemented to become trauma-informed. While it is possible schools and districts have written
policies and practices that are trauma-informed but are not enforced, or they do not even realize
that they are trauma-informed this data suggests otherwise. Thus, specific barriers to
implementation as well as additional stakeholder perception (staff, parents, and mental health
professionals) should be studied in future research. Also, the evaluation of implemented or semi-
implemented trauma-informed initiatives through longitudinal and comparative study or case
study is warranted. Another area for future investigation should be a large-scale inquiry into the
language that schools may be using in their trauma-informed care implementation, to establish a
common language for the field. This research indicates that more than half of administrators
perceive they use the term “trauma-informed practices” but additional research into the
frequency of use of such terms is needed as well as recommendations from mental health
professionals for schools. The concepts of trauma-informed care and trauma-sensitive schools
are relatively new; therefore, there needs to be a content analysis and review of existing literature
as well as more alignment with key learning theories and principles as well as child psychology
to reduce trauma’s negative impact on student achievement. Finally, future research should
measure the impact of trauma-informed school initiatives on student academic success from
early intervention through higher education.
Systematic Inquiry on Perceptions of Trauma-Informed Care Among Different Age
Groups
Findings revealed that the age of the administrator was a significant factor in the
frequency of implementing trauma-informed practices and strategies, as well as in individual
self-efficacy and expectancy-value in implementing trauma-informed care. This relationship
seemed to be irrespective of years of experience as an administrator or years of experience in K-

128

12 education. Several studies have demonstrated a relationship between age and workplace
skills, styles, and behavior (Cleveland & Shore, 1992; Maurer, 2001; Maurer, Weiss, & Barbeite,
2003; Maurer, 2007; Sterns & Miklos,1995). As trauma-informed care is a newer approach to
addressing the needs of students that have only really gained momentum within the last 15 years,
more research is needed to understand changes in attitudes of trauma-informed care based on
age.
Utilize Diverse Platforms to Assess Implementation Efforts
Since the survey utilized in this study was administered in an electronic format,
accessible primarily through social media, the administrator respondents may represent a small
sample of a “tech-savvy” group of school administrators. Likely, respondents are administrators
who actively use social media, administrators who were more interested in the topic of trauma,
or administrators who were more likely to be implementing trauma-informed practices. Further
inquiry, through different modalities (e.g. phone surveys), or using a mixed-methods study
would provide additional and more diverse information on the perception of the implementation
of trauma-informed care in K-12 schools, as the facilitators and challenges identified in this
research have only scratched the surface.
Analyzing Perceptions of Implementation from Different Stakeholder Perspectives
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was composed of K-12 site level
administrators. However, there are many other stakeholders such as teachers, students, parents,
and community members whose perceptions are critical for understanding how to successfully
implement trauma-informed practice at a school site. Probably one of the most poignant
responses reflecting the need for student input in building school programs and policies comes
directly from a student, who was interviewed as part of a study conducted through a partnership

129

between the Education Law Clinic of Harvard Law School and the Trauma and Learning Policy
Institute (2019). The student states, “…the students should be grading the school. If you don’t go
to the school, who are you to say what the school is like and if the school is OK?” Students,
teachers, as well as parents and community members, are critical voices in informing school
priorities to better inform decisions that will ultimately impact them. Future research should
focus on the impact on trauma-informed care implementation efforts from these differing
perspectives. Additionally, future research is needed to understand the role higher education
plays in helping administrators understand, and prepare to implement, trauma-informed care.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to assess K-12 school site administrators’ perceptions of
implementing trauma-informed care at their sites. With research suggesting trauma impacts
student achievement, the need to implement school-wide trauma-informed practices, or create
trauma-sensitive schools, has gained momentum across the United States. Ultimately, this study
found that administrators are conscious of the need for trauma-informed practices and are
making efforts to integrate the principles of trauma-informed care into their organizational
identity and culture. This study examined this issue from multiple theories in learning,
motivation, and organizational change theories, and identified several solutions to assist
administrators with implementation efforts. The recommendations presented in this study c
further assist in the creation of nurturing school environments where both students and staff
thrive. To truly address all the factors impacting student achievement, the need to understand
leadership perspectives is a vital first step.

130

References
Abramowitz, R., & Bloom, S. (2003). Creating sanctuary in residential treatment for youth:
From the “well-ordered asylum” to a “living learning environment.” Psychiatric
Quarterly, 74(2), 119-113.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2003). Creating school and community partnerships for substance
abuse prevention programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 23(3), 329-369.
Administration for Children and Families (nod). Secondary traumatic stress.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/trauma-toolkit/secondary-traumatic-stress
Alisic, E. (2012). Teachers' perspectives on providing support to children after trauma: A
qualitative study. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(1), 51–59.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2019). Becoming a trauma-informed practice.
https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/resilience
/Pages/Becoming-a-Trauma-Informed-Practice.aspx
Anderson, C. M., & McCurry, M. M. (2000). Writing and Healing: Toward an Informed
Practice. Refiguring English Studies. National Council of Teachers of English.
Atkins, M. S., Hoagwood, K. E., Kutash, K., & Seidman, E. (2010). Toward the integration of
education and mental health in schools. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and
Mental Health Services Research, 37(1), 40–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10488-010-
0299-7
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Barnet, D. (2004). School leadership preparation programs: Are they preparing tomorrow's
leaders? Education, 125(1), 121-130.

131

Barron, K. E., & Hulleman, C. S. (in press). The expectancy-value-cost model of motivation. In
J.D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd
edition). Elsevier Ltd.
Barton, E. R., Newbury, A., & Roberts, J. (2018) An evaluation of the Adverse Childhood
Experience (ACE)-Informed Whole School Approach. 10.13140/RG.2.2.26263.19368.
Barker, R. T., Gilbreath, G. H., & Stone, W. S. (1998). The interdisciplinary needs of
organizations: Are new employees adequately equipped? Journal of Management
Development, 17(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719810210767.
Barton, E. R., Newbury, A., & Roberts, J. (2018). An evaluation of the adverse childhood
experience (ACE)-informed whole school approach. Policy, Research, and International
Development, Public Health Wales. https://www.ehcap.co.uk/content/sites/ehcap/
uploads/NewsDocuments/331/Police--Crime-Comm-ACEs-Whole-School-Approach-
Eng-web.PDF
Bashay, J. (2018). National test scores reveal a decade of educational stagnation.
https://hechingerreport.org/national-test-scores-reveal-a-decade-of-educational-
stagnation/
Bath, H. (2008). The three pillars of trauma-informed care. Reclaiming Children and
Youth, 17(3), 17-21.
Bell, H., Kulkarni, S., & Dalton, L. (2003). Organizational prevention of vicarious trauma.
Families in Society, 84(4), 463-470.
Bertrand, M., & Rodela, K. C. (2018). A framework for rethinking educational leadership in the
margins: Implications for social justice leadership preparation. Journal of Research on
Leadership Education, 13(1), 10-37.

132

Berzin, S. C., O'Brien, K. H. M., Frey, A., Kelly, M. S., Alvarez, M. E., & Shaffer, G. L. (2011).
Meeting the social and behavioral health needs of students: Rethinking the relationship
between teachers and school social workers. Journal of School Health, 81(8), 493–501.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00619.x
Blitz, L. V., Anderson, E. M., & Saastamoinen, M. (2016). Assessing perceptions of culture and
trauma in an elementary school: Informing a model for culturally responsive trauma-
informed schools. The Urban Review, 48(4), 520-542.
Boccanfuso, B., & Kuhfeld, M. (2011). Multiple responses, promising results: Evidence-based,
nonpunitive alternatives to zero tolerance. Child Trends.
Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research
to practice to close the achievement gap. ASCD.
Boyraz, G., Horne, S. G., Owens, A. C., & Armstrong, A. P. (2013). Academic achievement and
college persistence of African American students with trauma exposure. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 582.
Bridges, E. M. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state of the art, 1967-19801.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12-33.
Brown, S. M., Baker, C. N., & Wilcox, P. (2012). Risking connection trauma training: A
pathway toward trauma-informed care in child congregate care settings. Psychological
Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(5), 507.
Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. M., & Sindelar, P. T. (2005). NCLB and the demand for highly
qualified teachers: Challenges and solutions for rural schools. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 24(1), 9-15.

133

Brueck, M. (2016). Promoting access to school-based services for children’s mental health. AMA
Journal of Ethics, 18(12), 1218-1224.
Bruens, R. (2012). Educational administrator – Job description, pay and career outlook.
https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/teaching-careers/educational-supervisor/
Burke, N. J., Hellman, J. L., Scott, B. G., Weems, C. F., & Carrion, V. G. (2011). The impact of
adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population. Child Abuse & Neglect,
35(6), 408-413.
Burris, C. C., & Welner, K. G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(8), 594-598.
California State PTA (2016). Student achievement. https://capta.org/focus-areas/lcfflcap/priority-
areas/student-achievement/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). About adverse childhood experiences.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/acestudy/aboutace.html
Chafouleas, S. M., Johnson, A. H., Overstreet, S., & Santos, N. M. (2016). Toward a blueprint
for trauma-informed service delivery in schools. School Mental Health, 8(1), 144-162.
Chance, E. W. (1999). School-community collaborative vision building: A study of two rural
districts. Leadership for Rural Schools: Lessons for All Educators, 231-242.
Cleveland, J. N., & Shore, L. M. (1992). Self-and supervisory perspectives on age and work
attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 469.
Cole, S. F., O’Brien, J. G., Gadd, M. G., Ristuccia, J., Wallace, D. L., & Gregory, M. (2005).
Helping traumatized children learn: Supportive school environments for children
traumatized by family violence. Massachusetts Advocates for Children.

134

Craig, S. E. (2015). Trauma-Sensitive Schools: Learning Communities Transforming Children's
Lives, K 5. Teachers College Press.
Craig, S. E. (2017). Trauma-sensitive schools for the adolescent years: Promoting resiliency and
healing, grades 6 –12. Teachers College Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage Publications.
Cohen, E. (2017). Employee training and development. In CSR for HR (pp. 153-162). Routledge.
Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2007). School characteristics related to high
school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28(6), 325-339.
Day, A. G., Somers, C. L., Baroni, B. A., West, S. D., Sanders, L., & Peterson, C. D. (2015).
Evaluation of a trauma-informed school intervention with girls in a residential facility
school: Student perceptions of school environment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment
& Trauma, 24(10), 1086-1105.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014, January 28). Social cognitive theory. [Blog post].
https://web.archive.org/web/20150304040104/http:/www.education.com/reference/article
/social-cognitive-theory/
Dorado, J. S., Martinez, M., McArthur, L. E., & Leibovitz, T. (2016). Healthy Environments and
Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS): A whole-school, multi-level, prevention and
intervention program for creating trauma-informed, safe and supportive schools. School
Mental Health, 8(1), 163-176.
Dowdy, E., Ritchey, K., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2010). School-based screening: A population-
based approach to inform and monitor children’s mental health needs. School Mental
Health, 2(4), 166-176.

135

Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Chapman, D. P., Williamson, D. F., & Giles, W. H.
(2001). Childhood abuse, household dysfunction, and the risk of attempted suicide
throughout the life span: findings from the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(24), 3089-3096.
Duplechain, R., Reigner, R., & Packard, A. (2008). Striking differences: The impact of moderate
and high trauma on reading achievement. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 117-136.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of
school‐based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate
classrooms for early adolescents. In C. Ames & R. E. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). Academic Press.
Evers, W. J., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self‐efficacy: A study on teachers'
beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 227-243.
Fazel, M., Hoagwood, K., Stephan, S., & Ford, T. (2014). Mental health interventions in schools
in high-income countries. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1(5), 377-387.
Felitti, V. J., & Anda, R. F. (2010). The relationship of adverse childhood experiences to adult
medical disease, psychiatric disorders, and sexual behavior: Implications for healthcare.
In R. A. Lanius, E. Vermetten, and C. Pain (Eds.), The impact of early life trauma on
health and disease: The hidden epidemic (pp. 77-87). Cambridge University Press.

136

Felitti, V. J. (2004). The origins of addiction: Evidence from the childhood experiences study.
Department of Preventive Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program.
https://www.nijc.org/pdfs/Subject%20Matter%20Articles/Drugs%20and%20Alc/ACE%2
0Study%20-%20OriginsofAddiction.pdf
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., &
Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many
of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE)
study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245-258. doi:10.1016/S0749-
3797(98)00017-8.
Fenzel, M. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Educating at-risk urban African American children:
The effects of school climate on motivation and academic achievement. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Figley, C. R. (2002). Compassion fatigue: Psychotherapists' chronic lack of self-care. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 58(11), 1433-1441.
Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. (2013). Improving the adverse childhood
experiences study scale. Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatric,
167(1):70–75.
Givvin, K. B., & Santagata, R. (2011). Toward a common language for discussing the features of
effective professional development: The case of a US mathematics program. Professional
Development in Education, 37(3), 439-451.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed., pp. 162-183). Pearson.

137

Goldhaber, D. D. (1999). School choice: An examination of the empirical evidence on
achievement, parental decision making, and equity. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 16-
25.
Green, J. G., McLaughlin, K. A., Berglund, P., Gruber, M. J., Sampson, N. A., Zaslavsky, A. M.,
& Kessler, R. C. (2010). Childhood adversities and adult psychopathology in the National
Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) I: Associations with first onset of DSM-IV
disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 113–123.
Green, J. G., Holt, M. K., Kwon, L., Reid, G., Xuan, Z., & Comer, J. S. (2015). School- and
classroom-based supports for children following the 2013 Boston Marathon attack and
manhunt. School Mental Health, 7, 81–91.
Greenwald, R. (2005). Child trauma handbook: A guide for helping trauma-exposed children
and adolescents. The Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press.
Guerra, N. G., & Williams, K. R. (2010). Implementing bullying prevention in diverse settings:
Geographic, economic, and cultural influences. Preventing and Treating Bullying and
Victimization, 319-336.
Hadi, M. A., & Closs, S. J. (2016). Ensuring rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative research in
clinical pharmacy. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38(3), 641-646.
Harris, M., & Fallot, R. D. (2001). Envisioning a trauma‐informed service system: A vital
paradigm shift. New Directions for Mental Health Services, 2001(89), 3-22.
Hedegaard, H., Curtin S. C., & Warner M. (2018). Suicide mortality in the United States, 1999–
2017. NCHS Data Brief, no 330. National Center for Health Statistics.

138

Hawley, W. D., Rosenholtz, S., Goodstein, H. J., & Hasselbring, T. (1984). Good schools: What
research says about improving student achievement. Peabody Journal of
Education, 61(4), iii-178.
Hillis, S. D., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Nordenberg, D., & Marchbanks, P. A. (2000). Adverse
childhood experiences and sexually transmitted diseases in men and women: A
retrospective study. Pediatrics, 106(1), e11-e11.
Hirabayashi, K. (n.d.) How do we identify organizational influences on performance?
https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=109259
Hite, J. M., Williams, E. J., Hilton, S. C., & Baugh, S. C. (2006). The role of administrator
characteristics on perceptions of innovativeness among public school
administrators. Education and Urban Society, 38(2), 160-187.
Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and
language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental
Psychology, 49(1), 4.
Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on
children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8),
797-810.
Houtepen, L., Heron, J., Suderman, M., Fraser, A., Chittleborough, C. R., & Howe, L. (2019).
Adverse childhood experiences: Associations with educational attainment and adolescent
health, and the role of family and socioeconomic factors. Analysis of a prospective cohort
study. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/612390
Hughes, M., & Tucker, W. (2018). Poverty as an adverse childhood experience. North Carolina
Medical Journal, 79(2), 124-126.

139

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Kaufman, J. H., Seelam, R., Woodbridge, M. W., Sontag-Padilla, L., Osilla, K. C., & Stein, B.
D. (2016). Student mental health in California’s k–12 schools: School principal reports of
common problems and activities to address them. Rand Health Quarterly, 5(3).
Kipps-Vaughan, D. (2013). Supporting teachers through stress management. The Education
Digest, 79(1), 43.
Kirkpatrick, J. (2008). The new world level 1 reaction sheets. Kirkpatrick Partners.
https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Portals/0/Storage/The%20new%20world%20level
%201%20reaction%20sheets.pdf?ver=2017-03-17-073922-513
Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D'Amore, R., Elkins, C., Herald,
K., Incorvia, M., Johnson, A., Karol, R., Seibert, R., Slavejkov, A., & Wagner, K. (2001).
Providing clarity and a common language to the “fuzzy front end.” Research-Technology
Management, 44(2), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2001.11671418
Kress, J. S., & Elias, M. J. (2007). School‐based social and emotional learning programs.
Handbook of Child Psychology, 4, 1017-1032. 10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_57
Larson, S., Chapman, S., Spetz, J., & Brindis, C. D. (2017). Chronic childhood trauma, mental
health, academic achievement, and school‐based health center mental health services.
Journal of School Health, 87(9), 675-686.
Lawson, H. A., Alameda-Lawson, T., Lawson, M., Briar-Lawson, K., & Wilcox, K. (2014).
Three parent and family interventions for rural schools and communities. Journal of
Education and Human Development, 3(3), 59-78.

140

Lesley University Institute for Trauma Sensitivity. (2017). Trauma-sensitive school checklist.
https://lesley.edu/sites/default/files/2017-06/trauma-sensitive-school-checklist.pdf
Losen, D. J., & Whitaker, A. (2017). Lost instruction: The disparate impact of the school
discipline gap in California. Civil Rights Project-Proyecto Derechos Civiles, UCLA.
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-
remedies/school-to-prison-folder/summary-reports/lost-instruction-the-disparate-impact-
of-the-school-discipline-gap-in-california
Logan, J. R., & Burdick-Will, J. (2017). School segregation and disparities in urban, suburban,
and rural areas. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
674(1), 199-216. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0002716217733936
Lucas, S. E., & Valentine, J. W. (2002). Transformational leadership: Principals, leadership
teams, and school culture. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED468519.pdf
Macdonald, I., Burke, C. G., & Stewart, K. (2006). Systems leadership: Creating positive
organizations. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Manno, B. V., Finn Jr, C. E., Bierlein, L. A., & Vanourek, G. (1998). How charter schools are
different: Lessons and implications from a national study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(7), 488.
Maurer, T. J. (2001). Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about
self-efficacy for development. Journal of Management, 27(2), 123-140.
Maurer, T. J. (2007). Employee development and training issues related to the aging workforce.
In Aging and Work in the 21st Century (pp. 187-202). Psychology Press.

141

Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A model of involvement in work-related
learning and development activity: The effects of individual, situational, motivational,
and age variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 707.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). SAGE.
McDonald, J. P., Klein, E. J., & Riordan, M. (2009). Going to Scale with New School Designs:
Reinventing High School. The Series on School Reform. Teachers College Press.
McInerney, M., & McKlindon, A. (2014). Unlocking the door to learning: Trauma-informed
classrooms & transformational schools. Education Law Center, 1-24.
McGee, J. (2001). Reflections of an alternative school administrator. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8),
588-591.
McLaughlin, K. A., Green, J. G., Gruber, M. J., Sampson, N. A., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Kessler,
R. C. (2012). Childhood adversities and first onset of psychiatric disorders in a national
sample of US adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 69(11), 1151-1160.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.2277
McLaughlin, K. A., Sheridan, M. A., & Lambert, H. K. (2014). Childhood adversity and neural
development: Deprivation and threat as distinct dimensions of early experience.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 47, 578-591. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.
neubiorev.2014.10.012
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student
motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

142

Mojtabai, R., Stuart, E., Hwang, I., Eaton, W., Sampson, N., & Kessler, R. (2015). Long-term
effects of mental disorders on educational attainment in the national comorbidity survey
ten-year follow-up. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 50(10), 1–15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00127-015-1083-5.
Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. (2012). IBM SPSS for
introductory statistics: Use and interpretation. Routledge.
Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school
administrators. Corwin Press, Inc.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2019). Creating trauma-sensitive schools.
National Center for Children in Poverty. https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-
publications/resources-and-podcasts/school-climate-safety-and-crisis/mental-health-
resources/traumahttp://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Fast facts: Back to school statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Fast facts: Back to school statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments (2019). Environment.
https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/topic-research/environment
Oplatka, I. (2004). The principal’s career stage: An absent element in leadership perspectives.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 43-55.
Orr, M. T. (2006). Mapping innovation in leadership preparation in our nation's schools of
education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 492-499.

143

Overstreet, S., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2016). Trauma-informed schools: Introduction to the special
issue. School Mental Health, 8, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9184-1.
Pachter, L. M., Bahor, Y., Witherspoon, M., Davis, M., Smith-Brown, C., & Bernstein, B. A.
(2014). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in an urban Latino community: A
qualitative study. Paper presented at the 2014 Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting,
Vancouver, BC. 17.
Patel, V., Flisher, A. J., Hetrick, S., & McGorry, P. (2007). Mental health of young people: A
global public-health challenge. The Lancet, 369(9569), 1302–1313. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60368-7
Peri, T., Ben-Shakhar, G., Orr, S. P., Shalev, A. Y. (2000). Psychophysiological assessment of
aversive conditioning in posttraumatic stress disorder. Biological Psychiatry 47, 512–
519.
Perry, D. L., & Daniels, M. L. (2016). Implementing trauma-informed practices in the school
setting: A pilot study. School Mental Health, 8(1), 177-188.
Phifer, L. W., & Hull, R. (2016). Helping students heal: Observations of trauma-informed
practices in the schools. School Mental Health, 8(1), 201-205.
Porche, M. V., Costello, D. M., & Rosen-Reynoso, M. (2016). Adverse family experiences, child
mental health, and educational outcomes for a national sample of students. School Mental
Health, 8(1), 44-60.
Pomerantz, F., & Pierce, M. (2013). "When do we get to read?" Reading instruction and literacy
coaching in a "failed" urban elementary school. Reading Improvement, 50(3), 101-117.
Pryce, J. G., Shackelford, K. K., & Pryce, D. H. (2007). Secondary traumatic stress and the child
welfare professional. Lyceum Books.

144

Richardson, J. W. (2008). From risk to resilience: Promoting school-health partnerships for
children. International Journal of Educational Reform, 17(1), 19-36.
Rohrbach, L. A., Graham, J. W., & Hansen, W. B. (1993). Diffusion of a school-based substance
abuse prevention program: Predictors of program implementation. Preventive Medicine,
22(2), 237-260.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed., pp. 85-92). SAGE Publications.
Seemiller, C., & Murray, T. (2013). The common language of leadership. Journal of Leadership
Studies, 7(1), 33-45.
Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect regulation and the repair of the self (Norton series on interpersonal
neurobiology) (Vol. 2). Norton & Company.
Sly, G., Everett, R., Mcquarrie, F. O., & Wood, F. H. (1990). The shadowed face of staff
development: Rural schools. Research in Rural Education Journal, 6(3), 11-19.
Smith, R. W., & Guarino, A. J. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the principal self-efficacy
survey. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 9(1), 81-86.
Springer. (2018, April 19). Rapid rise in mass school shootings in the United States, study
shows: Researchers call for action to address worrying increase in the number of mass
school shootings in past two decades. Science Daily. www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2018/04/180419131025.html
Sterns, H. L., & Miklos, S. M. (1995). The aging worker in a changing environment:
Organizational and individual issues. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47(3), 248-268.

145

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014) SAMHSA’s concept of
trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-
4884. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T.,
Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wickham, D., Wilcox, B.,
Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral
assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 131-143.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F109830070000200302
Sweitzer, M. J. (2004). Positive prevention: The relationship between teacher self-efficacy,
program implementation, and student outcomes (2698) [Master’s thesis, California State
University San Bernardino]. Theses Digitization Project. https://scholarworks.lib.
csusb.edu/etd-project/2698.
Taber, T. A. (2015). Generalization and maintenance of high school teachers' use of behavior
specific praise following direct behavioral consultation in classrooms (108) [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi]. Aquila. https://aquila.usm.edu/
dissertations/108.
Tishelman, A. C., Haney, P., O’Brien, J. G., & Blaustein, M. E. (2010). A framework for school-
based psychological evaluations: Utilizing a ‘trauma lens.’ Journal of Child & Adolescent
Trauma, 3(4), 279-302.
Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative. (2019, August 20). MA Congresswoman Clark files
trauma-informed schools act of 2019 to amend ESEA. https://traumasensitiveschools.org/
ma-congresswoman-clark-files-trauma-informed-schools-act-of-2019-to-amend-esea/

146

Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative (n.d). Four Perspectives. https://traumasensitiveschools.
org/trauma-and-learning/
Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative. (n.d.) History and Background. https://traumasensitive
schools.org/about-tlpi/
Trimmer, K. (2014). Decision-making by school principals and education researchers: The
dilemma of reverse coding in structural equation modeling and its resolution in a study of
risk-taking in decision-making for school principals. Athens Journal of Education, 1(1),
69-81.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Regional Communications Offices. https://www2.ed.gov
/about/contacts/gen/regions.html
Van der Kolk, B. A., Roth, S., Pelcovitz, D., Sunday, S., & Spinazzola, J. (2005). Disorders of
extreme stress: The empirical foundation of a complex adaptation to trauma. Journal of
Traumatic Stress: Official Publication of The International Society for Traumatic Stress
Studies, 18(5), 389-399.
Wade, R., Shea, J. A., Rubin, D., & Wood, J. (2014). Adverse childhood experiences of low-
income urban youth. Pediatrics. 134(1): e13–e20.
Walkley, M., & Cox, T. L. (2013). Building trauma-informed schools and communities.
Children & Schools, 35(2), 123-126.
Watts, E. (2020). Valuable Voices: Increasing student buy in through allowing them to be
involved in planning. New Jersey English Journal, 9(1), 17.
Wyatt, T. H., & Novak, J. C. (2000). Collaborative partnerships: A critical element in school
health programs. Family & Community Health, 23(2), 1-11.

147

APPENDIX A
Survey Protocol
Assessing Perceptions
T1
Dear Participant,
Thank you for your willingness to complete this survey. Your responses will be instrumental in
understanding how we as educators can improve student achievement for trauma-exposed
students in the United States.

This survey asks you to make a series of judgments about your experience as a head
administrator for a K-12 school regarding the implementation of school-wide initiatives, with a
focus on trauma-informed care, or trauma-informed practices.

Please be assured that your responses will be kept completely confidential. When using the
internet for collecting information, there is always the possibility of tampering from outside
sources. While the confidentiality of your responses will be protected once the data are
downloaded from the internet, hacking or other security breaches could threaten the
confidentiality of your responses.

The survey should take you around 10-20 minutes to complete. Your participation in this
research is voluntary. You are free to decide not to answer any question. You have the right to
withdraw at any point during the study, for any reason, without any prejudice. If you would like
to discuss this research, please contact Dr. Allison Muraszewski, Faculty Advisor, at
alkeller@usc.edu

Please check the “I consent” circle if you wish to proceed. By clicking the button below, you
acknowledge that your participation in the study is voluntary, you are 18 years of age or older,
and that you are aware that you may choose to terminate your participation in the study at any
time and for any reason.
• I consent, begin the study (1)
• I do not consent; I do not wish to participate (2)

Q56 Are you currently employed as a K-12 school site administrator (e.g. principal, director,
head of school, dean)?
• yes (1)
• no (2)

Q57
Thank you for your interest in completing this survey. However, this survey is only available to
current K-12 school site administrators. If you know a K-12 administrator who may be
interested in completing this survey, please forward the following link:

https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9H2lVnR49vITyN7

148

Q1 In which state is your school located?
▼ Alabama (1) ... Wyoming (51)

Q2 My school is
• rural (school is in a county with a population of less than 250,000 people and more than 10
miles from a principal city or urbanized area) (1)
• urban (urban (school is in a principal city or urbanized area with a population of 250,000 or
more) (2)
• suburban (school is in a principal city or urbanized area with a population of 250,000 or
more) (3)

Q3 My school is
• public (1)
• private (2)
• charter (3)
• Other (please specify) (4) ________________________________________________

Q4 Grades served at my school site (check all that apply)
• Kindergarten (440)
• 1 (441)
• 2 (442)
• 3 (443)
• 4 (444)
• 5 (445)
• 6 (446)
• 7 (447)
• 8 (448)
• 9 (449)
• 10 (450)
• 11 (451)
• 12 (452)
• Other (e.g. alternative school, continuation, residential treatment) (453)
________________________________________________

Q5 Number of students enrolled in the school ______________________________

Q6 Percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch ____________________________

T2 Trauma-informed care, or trauma-informed practices, are those specific practices such as
curriculum, social-emotional initiatives, and specific procedures and/or policies that seek to
create a safe, secure, respectful, and nurturing environment for all students with the goal of
promoting positive peer and adult relationships, regulate their emotions and behaviors, and
succeed academically. Some examples of trauma-informed practices in a school include the use

149

of social and emotional learning curriculum, restorative practices, and bullying prevention
programs.

A trauma-sensitive school is a holistic model of integrating these trauma-informed practices into
the school’s organizational structure to create a is a safe and respectful environment that enables
students to build caring relationships with adults and peers, self-regulate their emotions and
behaviors, and succeed academically, while supporting their physical health and well-being. This
means that addressing the needs of trauma-exposed students is at the center of the school’s
mission, and all staff, regardless of role, are expected to utilize trauma-informed practices, and
school policies and procedures are reflective of a trauma-informed approach.

Please evaluate your practices in the implementation of your school’s practices that focus on
building student safety, connection, and emotional regulation.

Q7 Do you use any of the following terms at your school? (check select all that apply)
• trauma-informed care (1)
• trauma-informed practices (2)
• trauma-sensitive practices (3)
• trauma-sensitive school (4)
• My school does not use any of these terms. (5)

Q8 To what extent are you implementing trauma-informed practices or the trauma-sensitive
school model at your site?
• Not at all (1)
• Very Little (2)
• Somewhat (4)
• All the time (5)

Q9 Are you interested in implementing trauma-informed practices at your school site?
• Yes (1)
• No (2)
• Unsure (3)

Q10 Why are you interested in implementing trauma-informed practices at your school site?

Q11 Why aren't you interested in implementing trauma-informed practices at your school site?

150

Q12
How often is your school engaging in the following practices?

Never
(1)
Seldom
(2)
Sometimes
(3)
Often
(4)
Restorative practices/restorative justice (e.g. Restorative
Circles, Collaborative Class Agreements, feelings
statements, problem-solving strategies) (1)
•

Social and emotional learning (e.g. Second Step, Toolbox,
The Compassion Project, Social Skills) (2)
•

Bullying prevention (e.g. Olweus Bullying Prevention,
Stop Bullying Now) (3)
•

Emotional regulation (e.g. Move-Work-Breathe, Kids
Connect, mindfulness/meditation) (4)
•

Positive behavioral supports for all students (e.g. PBIS,
schoolwide silent signals, brain breaks, Positive
Discipline, CHAMPS) (5)
•

Other (Please specify) (6)
•

Q13 I have made efforts to ensure the school mission reflects the school’s commitment to the
principles of trauma-informed care.
• Not at all (1)
• Very little (2)
• Somewhat (3)
• All the time (4)

151

Q14 I actively seek the input of all stakeholders (e.g. students, teachers, parents) before making
decisions about school policies related to the principles of trauma-informed care.
• Not at all (1)
• Very little (2)
• Somewhat (3)
• All the time (4)

Q15 I reinforce the school’s commitment to the principles of trauma-informed care in internal
communication (e.g. staff meetings, professional development workshops, weekly staff emails,
etc.).
• Not at all (1)
• Very little (2)
• Somewhat (3)
• All the time (4)

Q16 I have made efforts to ensure the school’s policies reflect the school’s commitment to the
principles of trauma-informed care.
• Not at all (1)
• Very little (2)
• Somewhat (3)
• All the time (4)

Q17 Our school policies provide guidance in referring families for mental health supports.
• Not at all (1)
• Very little (2)
• Somewhat (3)
• All the time (4)

Q18 I ensure staff actively support families’ access to trauma-competent mental health services.
• Not at all (1)
• Very little (2)
• Somewhat (3)
• All the time (4)

Q19 What challenges (if any) have you experienced in implementing trauma-informed practices?

Q20 What has helped you in the implementation of trauma-informed practices?

152

Staff Support Systems

Q21
I provide support for staff through the following (check all that apply):
• Consultations with a trauma expert (1)
• Classroom observations on trauma-informed practices (2)
• Specific feedback about the incorporation of trauma-informed practices (3)
• Specific feedback about the incorporation of trauma-informed practices (4)
• Opportunities to collaborate with grade level team vertical team, and/or department team to
discuss trauma-informed practices in daily practice (5)

Q22 Please answer the following questions.

Never
(1)
Sometimes
(2)
Most of
the time
(3)
Almost
Always
(4)
I provide/offer ongoing professional development
opportunities as determined by staff needs
assessments. (1)
•

I communicate to staff that the goals for student
achievement for students affected by traumatic
experiences are consistent with the expectations for
non-trauma-exposed students. (2)
•

I communicate to staff the expectation for activities to
be structured in predictable and emotionally safe ways.
(3)
•

I communicate to staff the expectation to provide
opportunities for students to learn and practice
regulation of emotions and modulation of behaviors.
(4)
•

I communicate to staff the expectation that classrooms
will employ positive supports for behavior. (5)
•

153

I provide staff access to trauma-competent services for
prevention, early intervention, treatment, and crisis
intervention. (6)
•

I provide staff regular opportunities for assistance from
mental health providers in responding appropriately
and confidentially to families (7)
•

I provide training for staff on the use of strategies to
actively engage and build positive relationships with
families. (8)
•

I provide ongoing support for staff on strategies to
involve parents that are tailored to meet individual
family needs. (9)
•

Ability to Implement Trauma-Informed Practices
Q23
Please read the following items. Rate the strength of your beliefs in your abilities to attain the
following outcomes. These items should be answered from your perspective as a school
administrator working to implement trauma-informed practices at your site.

Indicate your level of agreement with each statement.

I believe in my ability to...

Very weak
belief in
my ability
(1)
Weak
Belief in
My Ability
(2)
Strong
belief in
my ability
(3)
Very
strong
belief in
my ability
(4)
influence teachers in utilizing effective
instructional and behavioral management
practices. (1)
•

effectively model for staff effective
instructional and trauma-informed strategies.
(2)
•

use research to guide strategic planning for
accomplishment of school goals. (3)
•

154

plan effective professional activities and
experiences which facilitate teachers’ beliefs in
their abilities to provide effective trauma-
informed teaching and learning activities to
their students. (4)
•

communicate needs and goals necessary to
successfully implement trauma-informed
practices. (5)
•

provide experiences that foster and facilitate
high levels of teacher motivation towards
implementing trauma-informed practices. (6)
•

Q24 It is important for me to learn new strategies to better guide the improvement of trauma-
informed practices at my site.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Agree (3)
• Strongly agree (4)

Q25 Introducing trauma-informed practices to my school will improve student achievement.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Agree (3)
• Strongly agree (4)

Q26 Providing ongoing professional support is essential for the successful implementation of
new programs/initiatives.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Agree (3)
• Strongly agree (4)

Q27 Addressing behavioral challenges before teaching academic content is crucial to student
academic success.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Agree (3)
• Strongly agree (4)

155

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Trauma-Informed Care

Q28 What would you need to help you implement trauma-informed practices at your school?
Click and drag the items to rank the following items in order, with 1 being the most important.
______ Support from district office (1)
______ Support from parents (2)
______ Support from local community (3)
______ Student buy-in (4)
______ Dedicated fund or monies (5)
______ Mental/behavioral health personnel (e.g. counselor, psychologist, care coordinator, social
worker) (6)
______ Professional development on trauma and trauma-informed care (7)
______ Other (please specify) (8)

Q29
What do you perceive are the biggest barriers for you in implementing trauma informed practices
at your school?
Click and drag the items to rank the following items in order, with 1 being the most important.
______ Little/no support from district office (1)
______ Little/no support from parents (2)
______ Little/no support from local community (3)
______ Little/no student buy-in (4)
______ Lack of dedicated funds or monies (5)
______ Inadequate staffing of mental/behavioral health personnel (e.g. counselor, psychologist,
care coordinator, social worker) (6)
______ Few professional development opportunities on trauma and trauma-informed care (7)
______ Other (please specify) (8)

Q30 From your perspective, what is the role of the administrator in supporting staff to implement
new school-wide initiatives?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Q31 Do trauma-informed practices align with your school's goals for student achievement? Why
or why not?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

156

Q32 How do trauma-informed practices fit with existing school values?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q33 What comments or observations can you add to provide the researcher with additional
insight in your school’s process of becoming trauma-informed?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Additional Demographics

T3 The following information will only be used for data analysis purposes to find similarities
and trends in the implementation of trauma-informed practices.

Q34 Years of experience as a K-12 administrator
________________________________________________________________

Q35 Years of experience as a K-12 teacher or education professional (e.g. paraprofessional,
instructional coach, reading interventionist, etc.)
________________________________________________________________

Q36 Race (check all that apply)
• American Indian or Alaska Native (4)
• Asian (10)
• Black or African American (5)
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (11)
• White (6)
• Unknown/Not Sure (8)
• Decline to State (9)

Q37 Are you Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish origin? (A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican,
South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.)
• Yes (1)
• No (2)
• Unknown/Not Sure (3)
• Decline to State (4)

157

Q38 Gender
• Female (3)
• Male (4)
• Self-Identify (5)

Q39 Age
________________________________________________________________

158

APPENDIX B

Trauma-Informed School Evaluation
(Modified Using the Kirkpatrick Model)

CORE EVALUATION ITEMS: LEVEL 1 (REACTION)
Rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I attended most trauma-
informed workshops,
mentoring, and
coaching sessions.
1 2 3 4 5
I completed the
proposed trauma-
informed annual goals.
1 2 3 4 5
I observed during
trauma-informed
workshops and
coaching sessions.
1 2 3 4 5
I found the trauma-
informed strategies
relevant to the school
setting.
1 2 3 4 5
I found the trauma-
informed strategies
satisfied my needs.
1 2 3 4 5

159

CORE EVALUATION ITEMS: LEVEL 2 (LEARNING)
Rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I know and understand
the methods to implement
a trauma-informed
school setting.
1 2 3 4 5
I can implement the
methods to create a
trauma-informed school
setting.
1 2 3 4 5
I have created individual
goals and related action
plans to implement a
trauma-informed school
setting.
1 2 3 4 5

160

CORE EVALUATION MATRIX: LEVEL 2 (LEARNING)
EVALUATION
TOOL
EXAMPLES MODES OF
DELIVERY
WHEN DOES
EVALUATION
OCCUR
QUIZZES and TESTS Multiple Choice,
True/False, Open-
Ended Response,
Matching, Short
Answer, Essay
Paper-Based,
Online/Web-
Based, Verbal
Pre-/Post-Training
PERCEPTIONS and
FEEDBACK
Surveys, Polls,
Questionnaires, Essay
Paper-Based,
Online/Web-
Based, Verbal
Before training, mid-
year, and end of year.
PROBLEM-
SITUATION-BASED
EXERCISES OR
ACTIVITIES
Tabletop Exercises,
Case Scenarios, Case
Studies
Paper-Based,
Online/Web-
Based, Verbal,
PPT, Videos
During the coaching and
feedback sessions with
mentors, trauma
consultants, and
supervisors.
GOALS and ACTION
PLANS
Outline, Essay, Report Paper-Based,
Online/Web-
Based, Verbal,
PPT, Videos
During workshops and
coaching sessions.
For reference and to utilize as a guide.

161

CORE EVALUATION ITEMS: LEVEL 3 (BEHAVIOR)
Rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I have participated in any
training in the last 3-6
months that helped me
perform my roles and
responsibilities to implement
a trauma-informed school
setting.
1 2 3 4 5
The trainings I completed
apply to my role and
responsibilities to implement
a trauma-informed school
setting.
1 2 3 4 5

Short
Answer
Were there any lessons learned from the trauma-informed school training
related to your roles and responsibilities? If so, please describe briefly.

Could you perform all the trauma-informed school duties and tasks for which
you were responsible?

Thinking back prior to the trainings, would you have performed your role and
responsibilities in terms of a trauma-informed school setting the same or
differently? If so, please briefly explain.

162

For the following trauma-informed strategies per the Flexible Framework, indicate your level of
competence using the following scale:

No
Knowledge
Not
Mastered
Requires More
Knowledge or
Supervision
Requires
Little
Supervision
Mastery
Level
Use trauma-
informed
terminology
0 1 2 3 4
Build positive
relationships with
families
0 1 2 3 4
Involve parents to
meet individual
family needs
0 1 2 3 4
Collaborate with
mental health
experts
0 1 2 3 4
Use outside
supports
0 1 2 3 4
Provide feedback to
administrators
0 1 2 3 4

CORE EVALUATION ITEMS: LEVEL 5 (RESULTS)

Short
Answer
Which aspects of the trauma-informed implementation were effective and
which need improvement?

What impact did professional development have on the trauma-informed
implementation in your school district?

To what extent was professional development successful in helping achieve
your school district’s trauma-informed implementation goals?

To what extent did participation in professional development impact the
systems and or processes in the trauma-informed implementation of your
school district?

What was the value of professional development in trauma-informed
implementation?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Primary care physicians' experiences working within the patient-portal to improve the quality of patient care

PDF

Student engagement: a quantitative analysis on aspects that are predictive of engagement

PDF

A faith-based nonprofit organization’s implementation of strategic planning: A qualitative study

PDF

Implementing organizational change in a medical school

PDF

The use and perceptions of experimental analysis in assessing problem behavior of public education students: the interview - informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA)

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Unpredicted but not unexpected: developing prepared health and human services crisis leaders

PDF

Health care disparities and the influence of nurse leader cultural competency: an evaluation study

PDF

The nature of K-12 education news in the United States

PDF

Corporate innovation labs: exploring the role of university research park innovation lab leaders

PDF

School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty

PDF

The attrition and lack of medical follow-up of patients in research in a primary care setting: a gap analysis

PDF

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers

PDF

Assessing mental health barriers faced by Air Force law enforcement veterans

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

Organizational levers for frontline health care employee well-being in long-term care

PDF

African American college completion at Hillside College: an evaluation study

PDF

Exploration of the reasons for the overrepresentation of Black patients in schizophrenia clinical trials

PDF

Preparing student affairs administrators to support college students of color with mental health needs

Asset Metadata

Creator Mendoza, Nicole Charisse (author)

Core Title Assessing administrators’ perceptions of implementing trauma-informed care in K−12 schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/25/2021

Defense Date 05/11/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag administrator role,community partnerships,educational change,K−12 administrator,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional developmental,school culture,social and emotional learning,trauma-informed care,trauma-sensitive school

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Muraszewski, Alison (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), Malloy, Courtney (committee member)

Creator Email mendozanicolec@gmail.com,nmendozaconsulting@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-450674

Unique identifier UC11668934

Identifier etd-MendozaNic-9535.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-450674 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MendozaNic-9535.pdf

Dmrecord 450674

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mendoza, Nicole Charisse

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA