OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I, personally, find the neurobiology of ACES triggering which is why I dislike so much of what is happening with this process.
This is my hindbrain level reaction to 40 years of neurobiology being used to throw away the entire group of people receiving mental health services. As much as that book says, "A high ACE score is not a destiny," I think the research on mental health stimga clearly shows that linking problems to biology does make it more permanent and not less. See this article which is the MOST cited article on stigma reduction. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20843872
So too much biology and you might be riding a fine line between understanding and demoralizing people. I know that many of these committees are run by mental health providers, and mostly they don't understand that the mental health labels and the mental health providers themselves are the #1 and #2 biggest sources of stigma.
I just visualizing all these social service people going around preaching about ACES and making people feel hopeless and they might not notice any more than they ever noticed about the stigma stuff. And yes, this is a trauma reaction because most mental health providers have no clue about how many people they have damaged. So now the same crew wants to go on and on about ACES? When they don't event realize they are the one perpetuating a bunch of the problems? And they don't have plans for real community engagement? This process is downright scary, at least in my city.
Just enough innovative words to hog up all the resources being needed to try new things, but not enough community engagement to actually help people.