Responding to Students Affected by Trauma: Collaboration Across Public Systems

• Date: 01 July 2013
• Author: Gene Griffin,Cheryl Smithgall,Gretchen Cusick
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12036
• Published date: 01 July 2013

RESPONDING TO STUDENTS AFFECTED BY TRAUMA:

COLLABORATION ACROSS PUBLIC SYSTEMS

Cheryl Smithgall, Gretchen Cusick, and Gene Griffin

Many youth involvedwith the juvenile justice system have been exposed to trauma and also struggle in school. Yet, success in

school may help to mitigate the effects of trauma exposure and reduce the likelihood of engaging in high-risk behaviors.

Building on the research connecting trauma and learning, this article draws out lessons learned from three initiatives in which

public systems attempt to assess trauma and meet both the behavioral health and academic needs of students. Promoting a

shared view of child development and an understanding of the impact of trauma on that developmental trajectory is an

important step toward implementing an effective, coordinated system of care for high-risk youth.

Keypoints:

• The education and juvenile justice systems overlap at multiple points, and coordinating their approach to acting-out

youth would be more beneficial to the youth and the systems that serve them.

• As juvenile justice systems increasingly recognize the importance of family and the need to address trauma, how

to involve and engage families in trauma-focused assessment and treatment will become all the more critical to

juvenile justice practice.

Keywords: Education;High-RiskYouth;Juvenile Justice;Public systems;and Trauma.

Youth with high-risk behaviors present a challenge to educational and juvenile justice systems.

Behaviors such as fighting, running away, cutting, or substance abuse are some of the more overt

challenges, but inability to pay attention, overreacting to slights, and poor self-regulation skills can be

equally problematic.Although they have different mandates, schools, child welfare, mental health and

substance abuse agencies often deal with youth who present with the same difficult high-risk behav-

iors. Many of these youth have poor educational outcomes, and it can be difficult to disentangle

whether the emotional and behavioral problems contribute to or stem from academic difficulties as

theories support both hypotheses (Altshuler, 1997; Ayasse, 1995; Stein, 1997).

Juvenile courts have not been consistent in how they deal with acting-out youth(Griffin, Ger main,

& Wilkerson, 2012). Under the United States Constitution, states are given parental powers (parens

patriae) to care for such vulnerable citizens such as children. This is a basis for child protection courts.

States are also given police powersto protect their citizens from dangerous individuals. This is a basis

for criminal courts. The dilemma arises when a citizen is both vulnerableand dangerous. Does the state

punish or rehabilitate such a young person?The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes both as legitimate goals

when dealing with criminals, but leaves the decision up to legislatures and public policy.

The public has vacillated on the question of punishment versus rehabilitation. Although juvenile

courts were originally created so that acting-out youth were not treated like criminal adults, juvenile

laws were later modified to allow automatic transfers to adult court, for example. More recently,

however, in 2005 (Roper v. Simmons, 2005) and 2010 (Graham v. Florida, 2010) juvenile justice

decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged new findings in adolescent development in

holding youth less culpable than adults. These findings focused on normal child and adolescent

development and applied to all youth.

Though not yet cited by the Supreme Court, a new body of research is developing regarding

experiences that disrupt this normal development. This research, which focuses on child trauma,

includes both privately funded studies, such as the initial Adverse Childhood Experiences Studies

Corresponderce: csmithgall@chapinhall.org; e-griffin@northwestern.edu; gcusick@uchicago.edu

FAMILY COURT REVIEW,Vol. 51 No. 3, July 2013 401–408

© 2013 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts