Developing a Trauma-Informed Service Ecosystem in East Harlem
By Brandon Martinez, Research Associate
Drawing on a mixed-methods framework rooted in community-based participatory research, the final evaluation of the Center for Trauma Innovation explores the successes and challenges in how the program supported both program participants and program staff.
Healing from trauma is a complex process and unique to each person, shaped by their life experiences. Integrating trauma-informed approaches into service delivery and program infrastructure can help service providers better understand and support participants healing from past trauma in their journeys. Fundamental to these approaches is flexibility: in supporting the unique needs and experiences of their participants, programs and their staff must be flexible with the approaches, services, and environments used.
In 2017, Exodus Transitional Community (ETC) was funded by the Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII)—a partnership between ISLG and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office—to develop the Center for Trauma Innovation (CTI). The CTI operated in East Harlem and was developed to address trauma experienced by individuals and communities impacted by the criminal legal system. Since its creation, the CTI developed and implemented best practices to create and sustain trauma-informed environments that support both participant and staff healing alike.
In a newly published evaluation report, a research team at the Center for Complex Trauma at Icahn School of Medicine (CCT) synthesized more than three years of data, observation, and staff and participant knowledge to understand the CTI’s approach and the impact of its trauma-informed programming. Research questions developed with ISLG guided the outcome-focused aspects of the evaluation and helped ensure the evaluation captured key learning goals. The findings presented in the report shed light on the approaches and infrastructure necessary for supporting participant healing journeys and the wellbeing of staff.
For more information about CCT’s evaluation of the CTI, visit the CTI Evaluation page.
Supporting Participants with Trauma-Informed Approaches
Due to the complex nature of traumatic experiences and healing from them, programs should be prepared to support participants with many different life experiences. This requires taking a nuanced and tailored approach that accounts for both general and individualized needs. One way to do so is to ensure that staff recognize and affirm differences among participants, both in experiences and healing trajectories, so that their approaches are tailored to participant needs. Staff may then be better equipped to emphasize one type of support over another. For example, recently incarcerated participants may need to prioritize material needs, such as employment or housing needs, before focusing on long-term mental health needs.
Programs should also be prepared to offer services that are both culturally responsive to their participants and holistic in addressing varied needs. Many CTI participants first interacted with the program because of community-centered interventions that met people where they already were, like seeking out a daily MetroCard to get to work, attending an Open Mic night with a friend, or wanting to talk to a counselor about their feelings. By broadening participants’ points of entry to the CTI through culturally relevant engagement strategies, participants were able to more easily find support suited for their needs. This should be an ongoing process: staff should solicit regular feedback once participants are established within a program. By listening to and acting on the needs of participants, programs help establish a trauma-informed environment that fulfills their material, social, and emotional needs.
By listening to and acting on the needs of participants, programs help establish a trauma-informed environment that fulfills their material, social, and emotional needs.
Staff with lived experiences similar to participants’ are often better equipped to support others through trauma healing work. At the same time, they—and all staff, regardless of background—may experience or be reminded of trauma in this intense line of work. Programs should recognize this and ensure both participants and staff are supported. By recognizing and valuing the diverse lived experiences of staff and participants, and acknowledging the complexity and nuance of healing trajectories, programs can create a trusting and empowering environment where healing takes place.
Relatedly, creating safety and trust through an emphasis on similar lived experiences between participants and staff is a conduit for healing to occur. CTI staff participate fully alongside participants in their healing work, modeling a culture of equality and shared experiences to create trusting relationships—a necessary component for successful programming. CTI staff recognized the importance of trust, noting:
“We try to come at people like equals, in this together. And I think that helps build trust. I also think the fact that we, our team, is largely made up of people who have a lot of lived experience -- there's just a different energy that people are getting and so that trust is a lot faster to form.”
Creating trusting relationships and open environments further supports a program’s broader goals of better understanding participants’ needs, goals, and healing journeys.
Developing Trauma-Informed Program Infrastructure
Developing and implementing a strong organizational infrastructure is essential for addressing participants’ trauma and providing continuous support to staff that helps prevent burnout. To better understand participant needs, programs can implement data and monitoring systems that track overall and individual service utilization, helping identify changes in participants’ healing journeys. Data collection systems, intake forms, check-in cadences, and assessment tools can all form the backbone of this infrastructure, but should be adaptable given the complex and varied needs of participants and staff.
This is especially important when looking at service utilization for disconnected and vulnerable populations. These populations may be juggling multiple responsibilities upon returning to the community after incarceration or after experiencing traumatic events; subsequently, they would benefit from individualized progress indicators. By engaging in continuous review of program infrastructure, programs can leverage these systems as a way to stay flexible in tailoring services to participants’ evolving needs.
In addition to supporting participants, programs should also provide staff with ongoing offerings for training, professional development, and social-emotional support. These are essential for preventing staff burnout in challenging environments that may expose them to complex stressors. This was an especially important takeaway in the CTI’s evaluation because many staff were formerly incarcerated and working through their own healing journeys while supporting participants.
To learn more about how the CTI supported staff and participant needs through a trauma-informed approach, visit the CTI Evaluation page to read the Summative Evaluation Report.
About the Criminal Justice Investment Initiative
Under former Manhattan District Attorney Cy R. Vance, Jr., the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office created the Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII) in order to use $250 million seized in international financial crime prosecutions to invest in transformative projects that will improve public safety, prevent crime, and promote a fair and efficient justice system. CJII is a first-of-its-kind effort to support innovative community projects that fill critical gaps and needs in New York City’s criminal legal system infrastructure.
CJII focuses on three investment areas—crime prevention, diversion and reentry, and supports for survivors of crime. The CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance manages and provides technical assistance to CJII contractors, and conducts oversight and performance measurement throughout the lifetime of the initiative.