Implementing trauma-informed care through social innovation in residential care facilities serving elementary school children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This article presents the theoretical basis, initial deployment strategies, and resulting preliminary findings of a program implemented in residential treatment centres (RCs) in child welfare. “Program Penguin” aimed to help workers develop trauma-informed attitudes and implement trauma-informed practices, make the workplace more responsive to the well-being of RC workers, and reduce the use of restraints and seclusion among school-aged children in RCs. Methods: Informed by the theories of complex trauma (National Child Traumatic Stress Network Complex Trauma Task Force, 2003), polyvicitimization (Finkelhor et al., 2007), Attachment, Self-Regulation and Competency (ARC; Blaustein & Kinniburgh, 2018) and Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports (PBIS; Sugai & Horner, 2002), Program Penguin was developed and deployed using the social innovation approach (Fixsen et al. 2005). The key stages of social innovation will here be used to describe the implementation process. Results: Changes in practices were observed, RC worker attitudes towards trauma-informed care were assessed and showed strong effects between multiple covariables. RC worker support needs were identified, and a reduction in the use of restraints and seclusions was shown. Key strategies towards the development and maintenance of buy-in and meaningful change in practices are also described. Implications: Changes observed at all levels of this implementation suggest Programme Penguin is a promising approach, despite local issues that arose and the challenges inherent to program deployment within child protection settings. It appears a trauma-informed program using positive behavioural approaches and leveraging existing organizational strengths may impact intervention strategies, worker attitudes, and the use of restraints and seclusions against children in RCs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".