Hello Lorraine,
You are right to think that something isn't right in going with a punitive approach within a trauma-informed environment.
You nailed it when recognizing that it depends on the relationships of the staff and children. However, I would be careful about using the alternative of forced conversations. Forced conversations will rarely be productive. I often say that relationships are the most efficient and effective behavior intervention for staff.
I understand your dilemma as in my position I work with supporting and teaching the staff during a philosophical change. I work within a private special education school and residential campus where all of the residential clients attend the school and a large number of students from surrounding school districts attend.
A couple quick thoughts on punishment in these environments...
- If we look at many of the behaviors that are displayed as result of neurological changes and responses to prior trauma, why would we punish a child for being traumatized?
- A common thing I hear is, "In the real world X is going to happen..." "They have to learn to X" I often tell staff and teachers that anytime we say "they have to learn" we should rephrase it to "I have to teach them..."
- If our job is to teach them new skills in various environments and situations, we cannot punish new skills into them. If I do not know, and just cannot grasp a math concept...or if I cannot read, you cannot punish me into having the skill.
When looking at consequences, and teaching that things can happen as a result of behaviors, look for natural consequences and provide feedback and help them see the connection. When I say look for them, I don't mean because they did something and they have to be punished, but when they are apparent and directly linked as a result and they need help making the connection.
The "old way" of doing things with punishments, time outs, seclusion are hard habits to break. We are a few years in to a trauma-informed approach and there are staff that feel that they cannot do their work without those old methods. There are two ways of looking at it...1) They need more training in what to do when those old ways are not there for them, and 2) Even with all the training in the world, we often go back on our beliefs. If someone's belief is so strong that children should only be "dealt with" in a certain way (punishment), and that cannot be changed, we have staff that will continue to do it their way. In many articles that I have read on systematic change, this is when it should be considered to council people out. With that, I hold a strong belief that there needs to be a trauma-informed element in the hiring process. There should be no surprise to the staff when they start working there as to what our intentions are in our way of working with kids.
As for your question, we use the Mandt System and trauma-informed care as our philosophical umbrella. Under that, we use Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS) http://livesinthebalance.org/ which has an evidence base showing reduction in office referrals, seclusion & restraint, and teacher stress.
As for PBIS in residential settings, this slideshow on the subject has a number of citations of studies with evidence http://www.pbis.org/common/cms/files/Forum_09_Presentations/E2_PBS_2009.pptx
One thing to be cautious about that I see often is to be sure that if following an approach, make sure it is done with fidelity and not "half way." With PBIS, sometimes it will be looked at as all we need to do is put a sticker chart system together. While something like that may be a part of it, only using that assumes that motivation is the problem. as we know with working with kids with trauma, it is much deeper than "they just need to try harder.."
Please let me know if you would like more help finding resources, I would be happy to.
“The explicit assumption of the Sanctuary Model is that traumatized childrencannot heal within traumatizing – or traumatized – organizations, and that instead suchorganizations can make children’s problems worse.”