The Importance of Anti-racism in Trauma-informed Family Engagement

Abstract

Purpose:

Students of color are disproportionately affected by exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), racial trauma, and traumatic stress. Trauma-informed interventions in schools can promote healing among ACE-impacted students of color. These interventions require collaboration with family members to decide upon services and referrals; however, educators commonly face challenges with engaging families. The study purpose is to understand barriers and facilitators to engaging families in trauma-informed mental health interventions for ACE-impacted students of color.

Methods:

As part of a larger school-based trauma-informed trial (Link for Equity), 6 focus groups were conducted with parents/guardians of color and school staff (n=39) across 3 Midwestern school districts. Participants were asked open-ended questions about trauma, discrimination, school supports, and family engagement. Transcripts were coded by two team members, and thematic analysis was used to identify barriers/facilitators to family involvement.

Results:

Results indicated that families of ACE-impacted students of color commonly experienced racism including microaggressions and stereotypes from the school community, which deterred engagement and prevented trusting relationships between families and school staff. Parents highlighted feeling excluded from decisions related to their child’s education and that their voices were not heard or understood. Participants discussed the need for schools to consider how family obstacles (such as mental health and trauma) may prevent families from engaging with staff, and they recommended structural changes, such as anti-racism trainings for educators.

Conclusions:

Findings highlight the need for anti-racist work that addresses interpersonal and structural racism in schools, in order to promote family engagement in trauma-informed mental health interventions.

Introduction

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), or potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood such as abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction, are prevalent among school-aged children, with approximately 2 in 3 children experiencing at least one form of trauma before the age of 18 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). In the United States, approximately 5-28% of youth have experienced sexual victimization, 4-19% have experienced physical abuse, 9% have witnessed serious violence between caregivers, 24-70% have witnessed community violence, and 28-40% have experienced multiple forms of victimization and trauma (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012; Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, & Hamby, 2015; Gonzalez, Monzon, Solis, Jaycox, & Langley, 2016; Saunders & Adams, 2014; Woodbridge et al., 2016).

Adversity and trauma during childhood can have detrimental impacts on physiological, cognitive, behavioral and psychological health across the lifetime (Felitti et al., 2019; Oral et al., 2016; Shonkoff et al., 2012). For instance, ACEs increase the risk for lifetime health problems including psychiatric disorders (i.e., anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder), alcohol abuse, drug dependencies, high-risk sexual behaviors, and chronic diseases (e.g., obesity, diabetes, stroke, and cancer) (Anda et al., 2008; Felitti et al., 2019; Mersky, Topitzes, & Reynolds, 2013). In addition to health outcomes, ACEs can lead to poor academic performance, inappropriate behavior in the classroom, and difficulties forming relationships in school (Cole, Eisner, Gregory, & Ristuccia, 2013; Goodman, Miller, & West-Olatunji, 2012; Groves, 2003; Wolpow, Johnson, Hertel, & Kincaid, 2011). Trauma interferes with organizing and remembering information, hinders ability to concentrate on classroom tasks, restricts appropriate expressions of feelings, delays age-appropriate social skills, and leads to distrust of school staff and peers (Cole et al., 2013; Goodman et al., 2012; Groves, 2003; Wolpow et al., 2011). Consequently, ACE-impacted children are more likely to fail a grade, score lower on standardized tests, receive suspensions or expulsions, and be referred to special education (Goodman et al., 2012; Wolpow et al., 2011).

Due to structural and social inequalities, children of color are disproportionately exposed to cumulative ACEs and untreated traumatic stress (Kenney & Singh, 2016; Slopen et al., 2016; Woods-Jaeger, Briggs, Gaylord-Harden, Cho, & Lemon, In Press). Multiple ACEs are more prevalent among American Indian/Alaska Native (40%), Hispanic (31%) and black children (33%), compared with white children (21%) (Kenney & Singh, 2016; Slopen et al., 2016). One type of ACE that is prevalent among children of color is racial discrimination and microaggressions (Bernard et al., 2020; Cronholm et al., 2015), which manifest through everyday exchanges that denigrate and stereotype minority youth (Woods-Jaeger, Cho, & Briggs, 2020). For instance, school racial/ethnic microaggressions include expressions about perceived academic inferiority, expectations of aggression, and stereotypical misrepresentations (Keels, Durkee, & Hope, 2017). In addition, students of color are frequently penalized more harshly than their white peers for similar school offenses (Gregory, Cornell, & Fan, 2011). Racial discrimination can also exacerbate harm from other forms of ACEs (Cronholm et al., 2015).

Mitigating the effects of childhood adversity is critical to promote school success and lifetime wellbeing among ACE-impacted children of color (Jones, Berg, & Osher, 2018; Shonkoff, Boyce, & McEwen, 2009). By cultivating protective factors, children can develop resilience, or the ability to positively adapt despite adversity (Sciaraffa, Zeanah, & Zeanah, 2018). Protective factors can include internal self-regulation mechanisms and healthy coping behaviors, interpersonal factors such as nurturing relationships and social support, and supportive community environments such as linkages to health and social resources (Sciaraffa et al., 2018). Hence, interventions designed to promote resilience among ACE-impacted children of color should offer safe spaces for youth to receive psychosocial support and services, as well as connections to adults who can help guide their recovery (Estell & Perdue, 2013; Hurd & Sellers, 2013).

Schools have a unique opportunity to promote resilience among ACE-impacted children of color, and recent school reform efforts have focused on providing trauma support to children within the school setting (Jones et al., 2018). One framework for addressing childhood adversity in schools is trauma-informed care, which is a systems-based approach for validating and recognizing trauma and its effects (SAMHSA, 2014). This organizational framework places trauma support at the center of schools’ missions and shifts the culture, values, and norms of schools to ensure that students feel safe and supported (Jones et al., 2018). School-based trauma-informed mental health interventions can help address traumatic stress by educating members of the school community on trauma and its effects, connecting students to supportive teachers and staff, screening for traumatic stress symptoms, and responding to trauma needs through psychosocial support and linkages to community resources (Blitz, Anderson, & Saastamoinen, 2016; Dorado, Martinez, McArthur, & Leibovitz, 2016; Immerfall & Ramirez, 2019; A. K. Langley, Gonzalez, Sugar, Solis, & Jaycox, 2015; Mendelson, Tandon, O’Brennan, Leaf, & Ialongo, 2015; Stein et al., 2003).

A central component of trauma-informed schools is building collaborative relationships with families and empowering them to be involved in the development of trauma-informed practices and policies (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2017; SAMHSA, 2014). Strong family engagement in trauma-informed schools promotes a climate of trust between school staff, families, and the broader community, as well as promotes sustainable community-level change that addresses family and student needs. This engagement recognizes the value that families have in contextualizing their children’s experiences and allows schools to understand the challenges that students face at home and in their communities (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2017). For ACE-impacted students, families should also be actively engaged in their child’s trauma assessments, as well as involved in the development of individualized trauma-response strategies and treatment plans. They can also help facilitate referrals to external treatment and support organizations, provide emotional support, and reinforce their child’s treatment plan or coping strategies at home (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2017). The most effective interventions to support childhood trauma require some level of family involvement: interventions that involve families typically show improved youth mental health outcomes, increased retention, and improved family functioning compared to youth-only programs (Haine-Schlagel & Walsh, 2015; Hoagwood, 2005; Ingoldsby, 2010; Lindsey, Chambers, Pohle, Beall, & Lucksted, 2013). Despite the importance of family involvement, parents often feel excluded from school decisions, and school staff struggle to create opportunities for family participation in trauma-informed mental health interventions (George, McDaniel, Michael, & Weist, 2014; Gonzalez et al., 2016; Hoover et al., 2018; Ingoldsby, 2010; Langley, Nadeem, Kataoka, Stein, & Jaycox, 2010; Langley, Santiago, Rodríguez, & Zelaya, 2013; Shamblin, Graham, & Bianco, 2016). Also, families who have experienced trauma are less likely to trust schools and participate in programs to support trauma recovery (Ingoldsby, 2010).

Specifically for families of color, racial and cultural biases can have direct influences on their engagement with school staff (Yull, Blitz, Thompson, & Murray, 2014). Parents of color are often stereotyped as being uninvolved, uninterested, and uncaring (Cooper, 2009). These assumptions and deficit-based thinking translate into schools maintaining a stance of disengagement with families of color (Cooper, 2009; Noguera, 2001). In addition, many families of color have experienced racism when they participated in school events or advocated on behalf of their children, and some avoid school involvement to prevent problems (Howard & Reynolds, 2008). Lack of staff training on cultural responsiveness, minimization of the experiences of families of color (i.e., colorblind ideology), lack of anti-racist work, and lack of representation in school communities also strain the relationships between schools and families of color (Auerbach, 2009; Schofield, 2006; Wiggins, Follo, & Eberly, 2007). To effectively engage families of ACE-impacted students of color in school-based trauma-informed mental health interventions, power structures and biases that are engrained in school policies and practices should be addressed (Koonce & Harper, 2005; Yull et al., 2014).

There is a paucity of research on how to engage families of ACE-impacted students of color in school-based trauma-informed mental health interventions. Specifically, limited research exists on how to ensure engagement is responsive to the needs of ACE-impacted families of color. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (1) understand parents of ACE-impacted students of color and school staff’s perceptions of the potential barriers and facilitators to family engagement in trauma-informed school-based mental health interventions, and (2) identify recommendations for enhancing schools’ partnerships with families to improve outcomes among ACE-impacted students of color.

Methods

Study Design

Focus groups were conducted with parents/guardians of ACE-impacted students of color and school staff at 3 public school districts in a Midwestern state. These schools were selected due to their diverse racial/ethnic composition and high levels of disciplinary disparities experienced by students of color. District 1 serves approximately 5,000 students, of which 23% are American Indian and 67% are White. District 2 serves approximately 7,000 students, of which 18% are Black/African American, 15% are Latinx/Hispanic, 18% are Asian, and 40% are White. District 3 serves approximately 12,000 students, of which 30% are Black/African American, 17% are Latinx/Hispanic, and 36% are White. There was 1 parent and 1 staff focus group conducted at each school district (for a total of 3 parent and 3 staff focus groups). Parents and staff were from high schools and middle schools in each district.

This qualitative study was conducted as part of the formative work for a larger school-based trauma-informed mental health intervention trial, Link for Equity. Link for Equity is a two tier intervention. Tier 1 provides universal cultural humility training for all school staff, which is designed to provide a framework and skills to dismantle racism and center equity in school decisions and practices. Tier 2 is a psychological first aid training for selected school staff to promote supporting students healing from racial stress and trauma. All focus groups were conducted prior to the intervention, to determine how to adapt the program to meet the needs of ACE-impacted families and students of color. The study was approved by the university-affiliated institutional review board.

Participants

Black/African American, Latinx/Hispanic, and American Indian/Native American racial/ethnic children, who experience ACEs, are the focus of the larger trial. Therefore, parents were included in the focus groups if they had an ACE-impacted child (middle school or high school student) who identified as one or more of these racial/ethnic groups. All middle school and high school staff (including teachers, counselors, and administrators) were eligible. Parents and staff were purposively sampled from the three different school districts. The study team mailed or emailed invitation packets to eligible parents and staff in each of the schools. In addition, school administrators reached out to parents and staff to encourage participation, and school-based cultural liaisons who had established connections to the community encouraged parent participation.

There were a total of 39 participants (see table 1 for all demographic characteristics). Twelve parents participated in the focus groups. Parents were 40.8 years old on average and most were female (n=11, 91.7%), single (n=6, 50%), employed full-time (n=6, 66.7%), and had at least some college education (n=8, 88.8%). The racial/ethnic composition of parents included 58.3% Black, 16.7% Native American, 16.7% White, and 8.3% Latinx. A total of 27 staff participated in the focus groups, most of which were licensed educators. Staff were 44.6 years old on average and were predominately female (n=20, 74.1%). The racial/ethnic composition of staff included 44.4% White, 18.5% Black, 18.5% Native American, 18.5% more than 1 race, and 7.7% Latinx.

Table 1.

Characteristics of participants (n=39)

	Parents (n=12)	Staff (n=27)
Age, mean (SD) a,d	40.8 (9.7)	44.6 (10.2)
Gender, n (%)
Female	11 (91.7)	20 (74.1)
Male	1 (8.3)	7 (25.9)
Race, n (%)
Black/African American	7 (58.3)	5 (18.5)
Native American	2 (16.7)	5 (18.5)
White	2 (16.7)	12 (44.4)
More than 1 race	0 (0.0)	5 (18.5)
Other	1 (8.3)	0 (0.0)
Hispanic/Latinx, n (%) c	1 (8.3)	2 (7.7)
School District, n (%)
1	5 (41.7)	7 (25.9)
2	2 (16.7)	8 (29.6)
3	5 (41.7)	12 (44.4)
Marital Status, n (%) d
Single	6 (50.0)	6 (24.0)
Married	5 (41.7)	16 (64.0)
Divorced	1 (8.3)	3 (12.0)
Education, n (%) b, e
High school	1 (11.1)	0 (0.0)
Some college	3 (33.3)	3 (11.1)
College degree	2 (22.2)	9 (33.3)
Postgraduate degree	3 (33.3)	12 (44.4)
Employment, n (%) b, e
Full-time	6 (66.7)	24 (100)
Part-time	1 (11.1)	0 (0.0)
Self-employed	1 (11.1)	0 (0.0)
Retired	1 (11.1)	0 (0.0)
Income, n (%) b, d
$20,001-$40,000	1 (11.1)	4 (16)
$40,001-$60,000	4 (44.4)	4 (16)
$60,001-$80,000	2 (22.2)	6 (24)
$80,001 and over	2 (22.2)	11 (44)
People in household, mean (SD) b, c	3.67 (1.2)	3.08 (1.3)
Children <18, mean (SD) b, d	2.11 (0.9)	0.88 (1.0)

^a1 missing parent response

^b3 missing parent responses

^c1 missing staff response

^d2 missing staff responses

^e3 missing staff responses

Data Collection

Between May and October 2019, focus groups were conducted in-person in private rooms at the schools during a time that was convenient for participants. Focus groups were conducted by a trained focus group facilitator and note-taker. Participants provided verbal consent before initiating the focus group. A semi-structured focus group guide for each sub-group (i.e., parent or school staff) was used to gather information about traumatic experiences among youth in their school community, racial discrimination, school-based services/support, and school engagement with families of color. Since the objective of focus group discussions is to understand group norms, the guide did not ask for personal stories, but instead, asked participants to reflect on experiences that were common among ACE-impacted parents and students of color in the school community. Example focus group questions included: “What are common experiences of racism and discrimination in your community?”; “What traumas have impacted the community?”, “What barriers do youth experience when trying to get support?” Focus groups lasted approximately 1 hour, and participants received a $40 gift card incentive at the end of the discussion.

Data Analysis

We utilized inductive methods to understand participants’ perceptions of family engagement at their schools. Inductive codes were based on emergent concepts, beyond the topics covered in the interview guides. To identify the emergent codes, the team used an open coding method, where 3 members of the coding team reviewed 4 focus group transcripts (2 staff and 2 parent focus groups) and labeled reoccurring concepts related to family engagement. The team met regularly to discuss identified codes and continued to develop codes until saturation (i.e., when no new concepts related to family engagement were identified). Each code was assigned a working definition and example quote. To enhance the reliability of qualitative coding and analysis, we utilized a team coding approach. Each transcript was coded by at least two members of the coding team. Each member coded the transcript separately, and then met to compare and contrast how they applied the codes to the transcripts. Discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussions between coders. If team members were unable to come to a consensus on coding, then a third member of the coding team was consulted. Iterative adjustments to operationalized code definitions occurred throughout the coding process. The study team met regularly to discuss the coding process and review themes as they evolved. Situational mapping, which is a method for visually mapping how codes and concepts are related, was used to develop thematic categories (Clarke, 2003). All coding and analysis was conducted using a qualitative analysis software, NVivo version 12. Results of this study have been shared with the Link for Equity Community Advisory Board (consisting of parents, school staff, and students) as well as with school district leaders. We are continuing our partnered work with each of these school districts to adapt the Link for Equity intervention based on study findings.

Results

Objective 1: Barriers to Family Involvement in School-Based Trauma-Informed Mental Health Interventions

Our first objective was to better understand the obstacles to school involvement encountered by families of ACE-impacted students of color. There were 5 themes including (1) racism, microaggressions, and stereotypes in the school community, (2) family burden of managing racism in the school, (3) fear of escalating tensions, (4) family mental health and trauma, and (5) family stressors and competing demands. See Table 2 for which themes were discussed in each focus group.

Table 2.

Presence of themes and recommendations across focus groups.

	District 1		District 2		District 3
	Parents	Staff	Parents	Staff	Parents	Staff
Theme 1: Encountering racism, microaggressions, and stereotypes	•	•	•	•	•	•
Theme 2: Family burden of managing racism	•	•	•		•
Theme 3: Fear of escalating tensions	•	•	•		•
Theme 4: Family trauma and mental health	•	•	•	•	•	•
Theme 5: Family stressors and competing demands	•	•	•	•	•	•
Recommendation 1: Value family voices and experiences	•	•	•	•	•
Recommendation 2: Implement family-centered support services	•		•		•	•
Recommendation 3: Reduce interpersonal and structural racism directed towards families of color	•	•	•	•	•	•

Note: Circles indicate that theme/recommendation was present in focus group

Theme 1: Encountering racism, microaggressions, and stereotypes.

Families consistently discussed the racism they encountered from school staff and administrators. Parents expressed that due to their race they were often stereotyped as being uninvolved, uncaring, and abusive parents:

“School administrators, white teachers see it as, ‘You’re just an angry Indian, you’re an angry black woman, you’re an angry this.’…So I wish teachers could reframe that thinking instead of being so, ‘Oh, these parents don’t care, their children are living in horrible conditions.’ Like, ‘no, they care. We care. We love our kids.’” (Parent, District 1)

Parents shared that these stereotypes can have harmful impacts on families and can lead staff to make false assumptions and accusations, such as reporting families of color to child protective services:

“I did have a problem with the teachers not communicating anything with me and they jumped to the assumptions that I was abusing my child. And I don’t know if it’s maybe because of color of his race, it got way out of proportion and it seemed like they were going to call child protection on me, which if you would’ve brought this up to me, and it went too far…and they were making assumptions upon their selves and they had their own emails about stuff.” (Parent, District 2)

Staff also acknowledged the harmful impacts of discrimination on families of color: “These are [stereotypes] that are discriminatory and definitely hurtful to our students and our families, including myself. I feel like it’s very rampant here. It was a very uncomfortable change when I came to the school, for sure.” (Staff, District 2). Overall, racism was the most prominently discussed theme throughout the transcripts, and it intersected with all other barriers to family involvement (themes 2- 5) discussed below.

Theme 2: Family burden of managing racism.

Parents described the lack of school’s accountability for racism as a burden they had to manage. They were frustrated with constantly having to approach staff and administrators when the school did not appropriately respond to racism:

“And then my son had a white student wrap a rope around his neck in seventh grade here…And the teacher saw it happen and did nothing about it. Me trying to take it forward about like, ‘why am I sitting in these rooms every three months going, what are you doing about this? What did you do? What had happened to that student? What happened to the staff? Where’s the training?’ And I’m still dealing with this almost two years later.” (Parent, District 2)

Parents reported trying to educate staff about racism but often experienced opposition and invalidation. Colorblind ideology was pervasive in the schools, and families often felt that their experiences were minimized. The lack of action and understanding from the school placed undue stress on families:

“Why do I constantly feel, in this community, that I have to explain why I’m offended, or break it down for people? They just don’t try to understand it. They should just take what we say at face value, like, ‘Hey, that’s racist.’ ‘Oh, I’m sorry that’s offensive. I’m gonna take your word for it.’ But they have to be like, ‘No, break it down for me and explain it to me first, and then I’ll evaluate it if there’s any validity to it or not.’” (Parent, District 1)

Staff also described the advocacy role that parents had to assume in the school community:

“His mother has come and talked to the administration [about racism], and what ended up coming from that was that they sent out a statement to the kids basically saying that, ‘be nice to each other, be good to each other’… But his mom posted it on Facebook, she’s like ‘this is unacceptable. This is not even addressing the real issues here. The word “racism” isn’t here, bullying isn’t here, it’s just, be nice to everybody.’ It was very sugar-coated and, you know, watered-down.” (Staff, District 1)

Theme 3: Fear of escalating tensions.

Rather than parents’ advocacy being welcomed at the schools, parents and staff described how tensions could escalate when parents advocated for their children. Some parents also reported that they avoided interactions with staff to prevent retaliation, which they feared could negatively impact their child’s education:

“I have been a very strong advocate about the way brown, black and indigenous students are treated in school. When I speak up about what has happened, [my son] is retaliated against and that’s mostly by the staff. So like if I call out something that’s happening…It feels like the tensions raise and things get worse and it shouldn’t be that way. So now I’ve kind of taken it to the level of, I will kind of go over the staff now because they’re not very helpful.” (Parent, District 2)

Staff also observed students’ concerns related to escalating tensions if parents advocated for them, which ultimately prevented students and families from seeking help and support:

“I think there are situations too, where kids will willfully withhold information from their parents, like ‘Never mind, I’m not gonna tell you because I know you’ll go and start something, and you’ll say something, and you’re just gonna make everything worse.” And, you know, [students will] just shut down.” (Staff, District 1)

Theme 4: Family trauma and mental health.

Parents shared that staff sometimes labeled them as being “lazy”, but noted that this was a result of family trauma and mental health conditions that hindered parents’ ability to consistently engage with the school community:

“Some of these parents have been going through things generationally and they’re not getting off the couch because they have PTSD and they’re just depressed, you know what I mean? So, it’s like, are they lazy or do they need some mental health intervention because they just really need help?” (Parent District 3)

Additionally, parents discussed how the trauma and racism they experienced during their own schooling was an obstacle to current involvement:

“The emotional obstacle too with the historical trauma associated with their own school experience. I have so many parents who are like, ‘Oh, I hated school. I hate going in there now. Walking into my kids school makes me feel like it did when I was there.’ It’s a really huge emotional obstacle. And teachers get really frustrated with that because their privilege, again, afforded them an educational experience that was welcoming and loving and inviting.” (Parent, District 1)

Staff believed that family mental health and trauma prevented parents from being present and supportive in their child’s education:

“That [parental] support is already tired and worn out…So then it’s like [parents] are there, but then, they’re still absent, because they’re not present mentally and emotionally for the things that our students need…I think then that filters down to the lack of consistent education for those kids.” (Staff, District 2)

While staff and parents both recognized the role of family mental health and trauma, parents clearly expressed a need for greater empathy, while staff largely focused on the barriers this presented for students.

Theme 5: Family stressors and competing demands.

In addition to racism and trauma, both parents and staff cited financial stress, work-related demands, and single parenthood as obstacles that prevented parents from attending school functions:

“I think sometimes the reasons behind [lack of engagement] can be either financial insecurities, so having to work multiple jobs just to pay the bills and so it’s not necessarily that they’re not involved, but that in order to provide there’s that choice that they have to make. It could be that one of the parents is either not alive or incarcerated or otherwise not in the home for some reason.” (Parent, District 3)

Families often felt judged for not attending school conferences or events, and they believed staff did not understand the numerous stressors they face on a daily basis:

“[Staff] have to remember that person that didn’t go to the conference, they’re probably trying to figure out where they’re gonna sleep tomorrow night, or ‘What am I gonna feed my kids for supper? I don’t have any food. I don’t have a way to the store.’ And so someone sitting there criticizing them because they didn’t come to the conference, well, my goodness, they couldn’t possibly get there if they wanted to.” (Parent, District 1)

Staff also acknowledged that families encountered many stressors, and they believed educators should be more understanding: “A lot of our families didn’t choose [Community]. It’s because that’s where [affordable housing] brought them. I just want to make sure teachers are aware of the amount of alcoholism, and displacement, homelessness, hunger.” (Staff District 2)

Objective 2: Recommendations to Enhance Schools’ Partnerships with Families of ACE-Impacted Students of Color.

Our second objective was to better understand parent and staff’s recommendations for improving engagement with families of ACE-impacted students of color. There were 3 categories of recommendations including, (1) valuing family voices and experiences, (2) implementing family-centered support services, and (3) reducing interpersonal and systemic racism directed towards families of color. See Table 3 for recommendations and implications for family engagement in school-based trauma-informed mental health interventions.

Table 3.

Recommendations for engaging ACE-impacted families of color in trauma-informed mental health interventions.

Recommendation	Description	Implications for trauma-informed schools
Value family voices and experiences	To ensure the needs of families of color are met, parents want to be involved in decisions related to the care of their child as well as administrative and policy-related decisions in the school.	- Incorporate family preferences and experiences when designing supports for children of color. - Respectfully communicate all concerns with families. - Involve families in the design and implementation of trauma-informed interventions to ensure family needs are addressed.
Implement family-centered support services	Families of color encounter numerous stressors such as racism, trauma, and mental health issues that require services and supports.	- Provide supports for the family unit (not only the child) - Link families to mental health/social services and supports. - Educate families on support services available in their community
Reduce interpersonal and structural racism directed towards families of color	To create a safe, supportive, and trusting environment for families of color, schools must prioritize inclusivity and equity at all levels.	- Train staff on cultural sensitivity to improve communication with families of color and reduce interpersonal racism. - Engage in anti-racist training and initiatives to address structural racism in the school community. - Create staff accountability for preventing and responding to racism to reduce burden on families. - Hire cultural liaisons to help bridge the gap between schools and families. - Enhance representation at all levels (teachers, counselors, staff, leadership) to create a safe and inclusive environment.

Recommendation 1: Value family voices and experiences.

Parents wanted schools to give them opportunities to be involved in policy-related decisions, so that the needs of families of color are met:

“[The school] had a lot of influx [of students of color], and I think the district doesn’t know how to deal with it. I think they don’t want help. [Staff are] not interested in parental help and they’re not interested in community help…this district, in particular, needs to give the community a really nice sounding board, and I don’t think they do.” (Parent, District 3)

Not only do families want to be heard, but they also want their suggestions to enact changes in the school:

“We had a meeting with the new curriculum specialist and that got kinda heated…she wasn’t open to hearing what [Indian education counsel] were telling her…we’re like, ‘You ask us all the time for our input and feedback, and then you never do anything with it’… So I mean things like that, it’s just such a fight to make any sort of change.” (Parent, District 1)

Staff acknowledged that schools need to provide more timely responses to the concerns voiced by families:

“I think that’s been one of the biggest complaints that I heard when I worked here in this district, is that you can tell someone who has some authority to make a decision about how to resolve a concern that’s being brought to their attention, but the timeframe is so long that either they forget about it, or the parents just say, ‘Move on,’ and then they don’t get the support that they need then.” (Staff, District 1)

In addition to involvement in school-level decisions, families also wanted their perspectives to be incorporated into decisions related to their child, such as disciplinary, behavioral health, or medical decisions. Parents often felt that staff took the initiative to provide services to their children without involving the family in these decisions:

“There was no one back there defending [my son] when he needed to be defended. Instead, [staff] took upon yourself to jump to your own conclusions and worry about my child…That’s my job. Your job is to teach him correctly. Don’t worry about my child…” (Parent, District 2)

Parents believed that they had key knowledge about the culture, behavior, and background of their child, which staff needed to be aware of prior to drawing conclusions. For instance, parents wished staff would involve them when their child is having behavioral challenges, so they can prevent problems from escalating and help develop solutions that are beneficial for their child: “[Staff] were talking about in two months if the behavior doesn’t change, we’re kicking [my son] out…and wanting me to take him and have him assessed and all of these things.” (Parent, District 3).

Recommendation 2: Implement family-centered support services.

As exemplified in the themes above, families experienced numerous stressors including racism, trauma, and mental health concerns. Parents and staff believed that more support services needed to be offered to families. To effectively support their child, families need help managing their own stress:

“I think that there are really levels to like, to get to helping the kids sometimes you have to get to helping the parents because there have really been generations of things that have affected…some [parents] just feel so hopeless that they don’t know really what to do.” (Parent, District 3)

However, mental health services for families are limited in the community: “We’re very limited with our mental health resources here…and even with the mental health therapists who are of color- I know we were trying to look for somebody and we weren’t able to really find any locally.” (Parent, District 1). To fill this gap in services, staff believed that schools could be a location where family services were offered:

“And while there are programs and there are organizations and non-profits that are there to help the families outside of the school, I don’t know that I’ve seen much of that inside of the school. And I guess I would really love to see more of that.” (Staff District 3)

Recommendation 3: Reduce interpersonal and structural racism directed towards families of color.

Parents recommended schools implement cultural sensitivity trainings for educators to dismantle colorblind racism and help families feel respected and understood during interactions with staff: “Walk in my shoes for a while, see how you feel, what it’s like…Our educators need to be educated. They need to be more sensitive with people of color.” (Parent, District 1). Parents also recommended creating meaningful interactions between staff and families to build trust and understanding:

“And even something as simple as if there’s a Native family who’s willing, or an African-American family, a minority family who would allow even a teacher or someone else to come into their home and be the minority in their home if it’s for a day, if it’s for a dinner, what have you. Just to feel the difference that’s there. That’s something I think could be really doable.” (Parent, District 1)

Parents believed that trauma-informed schools also needed to be culturally-informed: “Staff need to be trained on [cultural sensitivity], because they’re pushing trauma informed really big in the schools, but it’s also about being culturally informed.” (Parent, District 2). In addition to cultural sensitivity training, parents and staff also noted the need for anti-racism work and structural changes in the school such as improving representation: “There’s a lot of diversity in terms of race, ethnic background, financial backgrounds, educational backgrounds with the parents and students. But then, the teachers are not that much ethnic diversity.” (Staff, District 3). Staff also recommended the utilization of cultural liaisons to bridge relationships with families of color:

“So a lot of our families, it’s like, ‘A white person is telling me that my kid is acting up. So you’re referring me to social services? Like, who are you? Of course you wouldn’t understand what it’s like. You’re just a white woman in the suburbs’…So having someone from your own ethnic group saying, ‘Hey, this is something I have seen before. It happened to me, and I can really relate. Like, what are the barriers? How can I get your kid there?’ It’s easier having someone from your own ethnic group, which is very, very hard finding another, like, American Indian.” (Staff, District 2)

Discussion

Family engagement is a cornerstone of effective trauma-informed care (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2017). However, there are few research efforts that focus on the process of establishing and maintaining engagement among families of ACE-impacted students of color, who endure microagressions and racism in their school communities. Our focus group data provides an in-depth understanding of the potential barriers and facilitators of successfully engaging families of ACE-impacted students of color, in order to meet the long-term goal of establishing effective trauma-informed care in school. Themes discussed by the focus group participants broaden our understanding of schools’ impacts on families of color through staff and parent perspectives. The findings of our focus groups highlight specific areas that should be addressed to improve school engagement with families of ACE-impacted students of color including: systemic and interpersonal racism, family burden of managing school’s response to racism, fear of escalating tensions, family mental health and trauma, and family stressors and competing demands.

Parents in our study experienced racist stereotypes from staff such as being uncaring and abusive parents; which are common stereotypes reported in prior research (Cooper, 2009; Marchand, Vassar, Diemer, & Rowley, 2019; Noguera, 2001; Woods-Jaeger et al., 2020). The results of the current study suggest that this stereotyping can lead to false accusations against families of color, which can result in the involvement of child protective services and other legal actions. Previous studies have documented how these types of interactions can be traumatic, invasive, frightening, and unfair (Clarke, 2012; Miller, Farrow, Meltzer, & Notki, 2016; Woods-Jaeger et al., 2020). The potential harmful impacts of stereotypes and resulting discrimination, including potential traumatic and invasive interactions with social services, were highlighted by parents as an important reason for lack of family engagement. Explicit attention to addressing institutional racism manifested in these inequitable policies and practices is needed.

Further, parents reported experiencing stigma and judgment from staff, where they were labeled as lazy or uncaring if they did not attend school events. Previous research has demonstrated that staff often assume that families with disadvantaged economic statuses or minority racial backgrounds are unable and unwilling to participate in their child’s education (Fine, 1993; Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001) and this was echoed by parents and staff in this study. This stigmatization presents a particularly difficult dilemma for parents as they decide whether to engage with staff that may misunderstand them and their actions. Parents also mentioned how they actively avoided interacting with staff out of a fear of escalating tensions and aforementioned stereotyping. This navigation of stereotypes, stigma, and judgement is challenging when parents of color engage with the school system. There is an expectation that families carefully walk the line between involved and being “demanding” (Cooper, 2009; Doucet, 2011; Marchand et al., 2019). In our focus groups, parents decided to engage in anti-racist advocacy, by having conversations with school staff about necessary changes to practices and policies. Not only is advocacy burdensome on families of color, but it has also been misinterpreted by schools as confrontational or adversarial, which further stigmatizes parents and fosters divisions between families and school personnel (Cooper, 2009). In other words, in addition to managing potential perceptions of being too uninvolved, parents of color have to worry about negative impacts stemming from being perceived as confrontational or angry (Cooper, 2009).

Parents and staff also expressed that parent mental health, stress, and trauma are key barriers to involvement. While there is increasing research documenting the importance of addressing parent trauma in ACEs prevention and response (Bethell et al., 2017; Woods-Jaeger et al., 2020), this is not currently reflected in school practices (Henderson et al., 2019). Parents in our study mentioned how their own emotional experiences can be factors in their level of engagement in their children’s schooling; and their own negative experiences in school may obstruct their abilities to engage effectively in their children’s education by causing them to emotionally relive upsetting or traumatic scenarios. Further, staff noted that parents’ mental health can not only impact their level of involvement in the school, but also impact students’ health and educational outcomes. To build effective trauma-informed practices that consider the whole family, additional research is needed to explore how parents’ mental health affect their level of engagement in their children’s school.

Compounded by experiences of racism and trauma, families faced additional stressors such as financial concerns, work demands, single parenthood, food insecurity, and homelessness. Families believed that staff lacked understanding of the complex conditions that impacted their ability to attend school events, causing them to feel disrespected and powerless during interactions with staff. Prior research suggests that social class is not a consistent predictor of the amount of parent participation in school settings. However, social class does altar the nature of the interactions, where those with less social capital experience more disempowering and contentious exchanges in schools (Lewis & Forman, 2002). Parents and staff recommended increasing empathic understanding, through creating meaningful interactions between staff and families to build trust and understanding.

Qualitative methods provided an in-depth understanding of family engagement from the perspectives of parents and staff. The chosen methodology centers marginalized and minoritized voices, which aligns with anti-racist and trauma-informed care principles. However, the methods have limitations. The data were collected using non-probability sampling from three school districts, which were selected due to their diverse racial/ethnic composition and high levels of disciplinary disparities experienced by students of color. The schools and experiences of families may not generalize to the broader population of schools in the US. Additionally, parents and staff who had an invested interested in racial disparities and trauma-informed care may have been more likely to participate in the study. Specifically, staff in our focus groups confirmed many of the themes discussed by parents and recognized that racism was a problem in their school. However, these affirmative staff views may not be representative of the broader population of school staff, since parents in our focus groups believed staff lacked understanding. This highlights the important work to be done moving beyond problem recognition to concrete anti-racist action among school staff. Another limitation of this study is that parent focus groups were conducted in English, which excluded non-English speaking immigrant populations. More research needs to be conducted with parents who are less engaged in school activities and who are from immigrant populations; and more research is needed to understand the perspectives of staff who hold colorblind attitudes and stigmatizing beliefs about families of color.

Implications for Family Engagement in Trauma-Informed Schools

In order for schools to better engage families of ACE-impacted students color, it is critical to address long-held assumptions and biases regarding parent involvement. Adopting a parent-school engagement approach that seeks to combat barriers to engagement borne from systemic racism is needed (Marchand et al., 2019). Traditional family engagement models, developed in predominately white middle-class schools, value in-school forms of parent involvement such as volunteering, attending school events, and participating in parent councils (Cooper, 2009). However, these models promote exclusionary and biased educational practices that ignore the many ways that families of color engage in their child’s schooling, such as through advocacy, promoting resilience at home, and motivating their children to succeed (Cooper, 2007; Thompson, 2003). Traditional models also do not consider the other life stressors, such as child care, work schedules, and transportation, which might prevent families of color from participating. Adopting a strengths-based approach to family engagement that values the many forms of involvement and centers the voice and experience of families of color is a first step to building respectful relationships with ACE-impacted families of color. In addition, participants in our study recommended three strategies for enhancing families’ involvement in trauma-informed schools, which include: valuing family voices and experiences, implementing family-centered support services, and reducing interpersonal and systemic forms of racism (See table 3).

While many schools place high value on family-school partnerships, the general approach reflects a preference for parents to take a subsidiary role when it comes to decisions about their children’s education (Cooper, 2009). In our study, many parents felt powerless, facing opposition and invalidation when they tried to advocate on behalf of their child. To address this concern, they recommended that schools have structured processes for involving families in school policy and practice-related decisions, to ensure the needs of families and students of color are being addressed. When schools take the initiative to develop these formal procedures, families are more likely to be involved (Epstein et al., 2018). For trauma-informed mental health interventions, families of ACE-impacted students color have key knowledge about children in their community and should be involved in the design of programs to address student traumatic stress. Although empirical evidence is lacking, family partnerships in trauma-informed mental health interventions are predicted to promote successful implementation and improved student outcomes (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2017).

In addition to involvement in organizational-level decisions, parents also wanted to be involved in decisions related to their child’s service needs. Because families have intimate knowledge about their child’s culture, behavior, and health, families can enhance the design of school supports (Osher, Osher, & Blau, 2008; Osher, Penn, & Spencer, 2008). However, many parents of ACE-impacted students of color reported feeling excluded from these school decisions, leading staff to inappropriately address student’s needs, escalate problems, pursue punitive disciplinary actions, or involve child protective services. Family group decision making is one method for effectively engaging families in decisions, where parents, students, educators, and counselors engage in collaborative care planning to design supports that prioritize family culture and capacity (Crampton, 2007). Studies have shown that parent involvement in decision-making leads to improved student educational, behavioral, and psychological outcomes (Epstein et al., 2018). Also, families are more likely to support and implement services that they helped develop (Richard Spoth & Redmond, 1993, 1995; R. Spoth, Redmond, & Shin, 2000). Because of these benefits, involving parents in treatment decision making aligns with the core trauma-informed care principles of empowerment and collaboration (SAMHSA, 2014).

Because families of ACE-impacted students of color experience high levels of race-related stress as well as untreated mental health conditions and trauma (Franklin, Boyd-Franklin, & Kelly, 2006; McGuire & Miranda, 2008), participants recommended providing family-centered support services in the school setting. Parents who experience high levels of stress, hopelessness, and competing demands are less likely to involve their child in mental health, trauma support, or social services (Davis, Myers, Logsdon, & Bauer, 2016; Ofonedu, Belcher, Budhathoki, & Gross, 2017). Therefore, by addressing parent needs (through provision of coping skills training, psychoeducation, and support networking), schools can help promote better behavioral health outcomes among students (Kuhn & Laird, 2014). Despite the proven effectiveness of family-centered services, implementation in the school setting can be challenging due to limited resources and competing school priorities (Stormshak et al., 2016). Therefore, schools may need to build community partnerships with local providers, to facilitate effective family linkages to care (Stephan, Weist, Kataoka, Adelsheim, & Mills, 2007).

Lastly, participants recommended reducing interpersonal and systemic racism directed towards families of color. Trauma-informed schools must be able to effectively address race-related trauma and stress encountered by families of color (Henderson et al., 2019). Therefore, schools should not only adopt trauma-informed practices, but also engage in anti-racist work to dismantle discriminatory policies and practices (Blitz, Yull, & Clauhs, 2020; Ranjbar, Erb, Mohammad, & Moreno, 2020). Because school staff are predominately white, participants emphasized the need for cultural humility and anti-racism trainings for educators, to reduce color blindness, foster respectful interactions between staff and families, and reduce structural racism at the school and community level. At the institutional level, families believed that hiring and retaining staff of color in the schools would help produce a safe and understanding environment for families. As indicated in the focus groups, parents of color often encountered conflicts because white educators misinterpreted their cultural norms or stigmatized their behavior (Henderson et al., 2019). Staff also believed that cultural liaisons (i.e., people who are connected to a cultural group and can serve as a link between the school and community) could help bridge the gap between schools and families of color, by respectfully communicating with parents about their child’s traumatic stressors and service needs.

To enhance partnerships with families of ACE-impacted students of color, schools should value families as partners in decision-making, create spaces for families to feel heard, provide family-centered services, enhance cultural responsiveness and engage in anti-racism work at all levels. To be more responsive to the needs of families, trauma-informed interventions should partner with families in all aspects of program design and implementation. We are utilizing the results of this study to adapt future iterations of our intervention, Link for Equity, which is a school-based trauma-informed mental health intervention for ACE-impacted students of color. We have engaged families and school staff in program design and implementation, and the results of this study have been integrated into our partnered work with each school district. Specifically, we have added family engagement as a focus of our intervention, and we are developing a trauma-informed family engagement training for school staff. Also, while our intervention was specifically focused on interpersonal racism (e.g., improving teacher cultural humility and improving teacher-student interactions), the results have highlighted the need for more structural racism targets in trauma-informed interventions for ACE-impacted families of color.