Hi Jennifer,
I would say, as a responder, that part of the resistance is the possibility that they might have to face their own trauma. Granted, that might not be the subject matter. If you start discussing issues like suicide, divorce, alcoholism, PTSD, and so on, responders will get triggered. If they know its already on the table, they might not show. That was the very reason we got into what we do: we wanted to give responders a tool to deal with their own stuff first. It hasn't changed the culture of the services though.
Looking at your list then, I see another possibility: it challenges the basis of justice in their minds. It seems any more these days "guilty until proven innocent and your life is destroyed," or you just get shot dead. What might be required then is making sure that 1) What you're dealing with is being able to have the justice system respond properly to trauma. That means justice, and healing for the trauma. Let's make sure we don't have a repeat offender. This isn't about abrogating responsibility. 2) Being aware yourselves of how people are responding to your material. I imagine you're dealing with abstracts and theories, but the word "trauma" itself can be triggering. Some of my colleagues don't use it. 3) Make what you're doing inclusive, and say why. Essentially, this is about serving the people. Better service, better reputation. Helping them where they're at means we can reduce recidivism. In the short and long run, that might reduce stress levels in the serving organizations. That's somewhat my approach, except that I then teach them how to release their own stress and trauma (without having to be diagnosed, or talk about it), which as individuals gives them that awareness of dealing with trauma in the executions of their duties.
My two cents...
Leckey