Trauma Informed Schools UK

What does this project involve?

The Trauma Informed Schools UK (TISUK) training and implementation programme aims to improve pupils’ wellbeing and behavioural difficulties and overall school culture by supporting secondary schools to adopt a whole-school, trauma-informed approach. It is intended to benefit all pupils, while also strengthening schools’ ability to respond to children who have experienced trauma. 

It combined multiple strands of support, including: 

• whole staff training delivered in two 3-hour sessions,  
• two days of training for senior leadership,  
• 11 days of practitioner training for a small group of school staff,  
• workshops with an experienced professional to help leaders embed policy and culture changes,  
• three network meetings to share experiences across schools,  
• four days reflective supervision workshops for staff to learn how to run reflective supervision groups, and  
• webinar resources for staff and pupils.   

The programme was delivered by Trauma Informed Schools UK over four school terms (from January 2024 to March 2025) and the implementation with pupils occurred in the final six-seven months, following the initial training period. 

Why did YEF fund this project?

Trauma occurs when an event or set of circumstances causes physical or emotional harm that leads to lasting adverse effects on well-being. Research on trauma has often focused on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). ACEs are negative childhood experiences that can include experiences of abuse or neglect, having a close family member in prison or witnessing violence in the home. We know that ACEs have a long-term relationship with children’s development, including their involvement in crime and violence.

Acknowledging the impact that trauma can have and continuing to be curious about the causes of children’s behaviour is sensible. Many school, college and AP leaders have sensibly aimed to embed trauma-informed principles into their settings and have reflected these principles in their behaviour policies. These policies and principles may aim to shift a teacher’s perspective of a child’s behaviour from ‘What is wrong with you?’ to ‘What has happened to you?’. Trauma-informed principles can also lead to the targeted support that some children may need. For instance, there is some evidence that trauma-specific therapies, which aim to support children’s recovery from trauma, can reduce children’s involvement in crime and violence. 

However, beyond these general principles, we know very little about how to effectively train teachers to recognise trauma and amend their practice in in a way that results in changes in young people’s outcomes. 30% of primary and 38% of secondary teachers in England who responded to our Teacher Tapp survey in October 2023 reported that their school delivers trauma-informed practice training for teachers. However, we do not yet know if this training is effective at preventing children’s involvement in violence.  

Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) and the Home Office funded a randomised controlled trial of TISUK. The trial aimed to establish whether the programme reduces pupils’ externalising behaviour, measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) among the Year 8 cohort. It also tested impacts on secondary outcomes, such as internalising behaviour, prosocial behaviour, psychological distress, overall wellbeing and school connectedness, school-level exclusions, suspensions, and attendance. The evaluation also aimed to measure staff outcomes such as staff wellbeing and attitudes to trauma-informed care.  

78 secondary schools (across ten areas in England) and 12,725 Year 8 pupils took part in the trial: 40 schools were assigned to receive the TISUK programme and 38 continued with business as usual practices. The study also evaluated a targeted component of the programme that provided one to one or small group support to children with higher needs, such as those with behavioural difficulties.  

The study also included an implementation and process evaluation (IPE) to examine barriers and facilitators, and how both pupils and staff experienced the programme. This drew on interviews with school staff and TISUK trainers, observations of training delivery, and school case studies including pupil focus groups. 

Of the 12,725 pupils involved in the trial, 65% were White; 11% Asian or Asian British; 7% mixed or multiple ethnic groups; 6% Black, Black British, Caribbean or African; 3% from another ethnic group and 9% had no ethnicity data recorded.

Key conclusions

TISUK had a small positive impact on children’s externalising behaviour. After the programme, children who received TISUK had lower levels of externalising behaviour compared to those who did not receive TISUK. This result has a very low security rating.

TISUK had mixed results on secondary outcomes: a small positive impact on children’s internalising behaviour, emotional and behavioral difficulties and psychological distress; no effect on pro-social behaviour or wellbeing and a small negative impact on school connectedness. TISUK had a large positive impact on staff attitudes towards trauma-informed care and on staff wellbeing. These are secondary outcomes and should be interpreted with caution. There is also statistical uncertainty regarding almost all outcomes.

These findings have a very low security rating because the trial suffered from very high level of attrition. 27% of schools and 69% of children who started the trial were not included in final analysis. All impact findings should therefore be treated with caution.

Attendance at TISUK training was generally high, although some schools reported difficulties sustaining consistent participation due to operational pressures, lengthy sessions and staff turnover. Staff valued the programme and reported increased confidence and capability in their roles. Perceived benefits included a shift from punitive approaches towards more relational and restorative practice, alongside reported reductions in exclusions and improvements in attendance and behaviour.

The evaluation found evidence of positive effects on staff outcomes, but this did not translate into measurable improvements in pupil outcomes within the planned timeframe.

How secure is this evidence?

These findings have a very low security rating. The trial was a well-designed two-armed randomised controlled trial but it experienced very high level of attrition: the trial did not include as many children as originally intended, reducing the trial’s ability to accurately estimate the impact of TISUK. 69% of the children involved in the trial at the start did not complete the endline data collection, due to school dropout from the evaluation (largely due to staffing and capacity issues). We do not know if the effect found for TISUK would be the same if the children missing from the final analysis were included. 

Should we fund or deliver TISUK?

This evaluation is one of the first robust evaluations of trauma-informed practice in education in the UK and it contributes to filling existing evidence gaps on implementation. Unfortunately, the high level of attrition in the trial severely limits our ability to make a recommendation on whether schools should or should not deliver the programme. 

The evidence still suggests that it is very sensible for schools to be aware of trauma, and carefully consider how to respond to the impacts of trauma among their pupils. However, the limited evidence base on the impact of trauma-informed practice training on pupils’ outcomes means schools should think carefully and cautiously about its adoption when the primary aim is violence prevention. See YEF’s education practice guidance for more information on effective school-based strategies for violence prevention.  

What will YEF do next?

YEF has no further plans to evaluate or invest in TISUK.

Download the report