Introduction

Working with children impacted by trauma can negatively impact early childhood professionals’ (i.e., those who work with young children in early childhood education and care [ECEC] settings, such as early childhood teachers, educators, organisational leaders) well-being and capacity to provide high-quality education and care (Kinkead-Clark, 2021; Münger and Markström 2018; Sun et al., 2024c). Loomis and Felt (2021) suggested that trauma-informed interventions may contribute to staff well-being in ECEC settings. While trauma-informed interventions are increasingly offered within early childhood programs, few focus on building the organisational infrastructure needed to support trauma-informed practice (Sun et al., 2024a). Additionally, despite the important role that early childhood educators play in children’s learning and development, little is known about their experiences and needs relating to supporting trauma-impacted children (Sun et al., 2024c). This paper aims to give voice to these experiences, exploring the challenges and the perceived need for organisational-level action. This knowledge can inform the development of trauma-informed interventions that are relevant, sustainable and provide the structural support required to address current workforce challenges, ultimately benefiting young children’s learning and development.

Impacts and Manifestations of Childhood Trauma

While there is not a universally agreed definition of trauma (Hanson et al., 2018), studies often describe it as an emotional response to a terrible event such as an accident or natural disaster (American Psychological Association [APA], 2013), which can lead to physical or psychological harm for an individual (The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2014). For young children, trauma can eventuate from a wide range of situations that are either acute, chronic, complex or intergenerational, including maltreatment (e.g., abuse and/or neglect), household dysfunction (e.g., parental incarceration, parental mental illness, domestic violence, substance abuse, divorce), community disadvantages (e.g., crime, poverty), human-made disasters (e.g., terrorism, war), natural disasters (e.g., earthquake), and traumatic medical experiences (e.g., burns) (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019). Trauma can harm children’s brain development and functioning (McLaughlin et al., 2014); lead to the fight, flight, flee, and fawn response (Schauer & Elbert, 2010); interrupt their capacity to build trust with others, and impact their ability to engage in learning through manifestations such as avoidance/numbing (e.g., withdrawn, depressed) and hyperarousal (e.g., externalising behaviours, acting out) (Scheeringa et al., 2003). Trauma left inadequately addressed can have lasting impacts on well-being and development across the lifespan (e.g., Copeland et al., 2007; Lawrence et al., 2023; SAMHSA, 2014; Scott et al., 2023).

Impacts on Educators and the Need for Organisational Support

A recent systematic and thematic synthesis of teachers’ experiences have highlighted that teacher well-being is negatively impacted when working with trauma-impacted children, without adequate preparation and support (Sun et al., 2024c). Educator well-being is a key factor contributing to teacher turnover, and can jeopardise the quality of education and care provided to children (Kwon et al., 2022). Thus, multifaced support from pre-service/in-service training, ongoing support (e.g., coaching, refresher-training, consultation), to organisational support (e.g., policy and procedure, culture, inter-agency collaboration) is needed (Sun et al., 2024c). However, current efforts to promote trauma-informed practices in ECEC are largely focused on educator training (Sun et al., 2024a). While this is a promising first step, simultaneous organisational actions are required to support and sustain the change. Such perspective is rooted in system theory, where the improvements lie in the changes not only at the individual level but also throughout all levels of the organisations (Kania et al., 2018). This philosophy is similarly reflected in SAMHSA’s guidance for a trauma-informed approach, where the organisational climate and conditions to support the trauma-informed change was highlighted.

Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Workforce Challenges

ECEC professionals face challenging working conditions. Managing children’s behaviours, routines, developing and implementing educational programs alongside other workplace stressors (e.g., overwhelming workloads, multifaced work nature, low wages, unsupportive management, lack of autonomy, stressful encounters with colleagues and families), can lead to high levels of work-related stress. This is especially the case for services facing other stressors and/or with a high proportion of children experiencing vulnerability (Allen et al., 2018). If not recognised and adequately addressed (e.g., through resources, training, support) this can impact professionals’ physical and emotional well-being and their ability to provide high-quality education and care (Cumming, 2016; Kwon et al., 2022); and can lead to high staff turnover (Logan et al., 2020; McMullen et al., 2020; OECD, 2019). Eadie et al. (2021) stressed that supporting early childhood educators’ well-being is essential for workforce retention, and for promoting high-quality educator-child relationships, which is considered critical to children’s learning and development. Working with trauma-impacted children can add to the stress (Alisic, 2012), thus understanding the experiences of those working with them is critical to provide tailored support, and inform the development of intervention and policy. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to explore frontline ECEC professionals’ experiences of working with trauma-impacted children.

Trauma-Informed Approaches in ECEC

Though there is no universally accepted definition of what it means to be trauma-informed (Maynard et al., 2019), SAMHSA (2014) suggested that trauma-informed programs/ interventions/ organisations/ systems: (1) realise the widespread impact of trauma and understand potential paths for recovery; (2) recognise the signs and symptoms of trauma in clients, families, staff, and others in the system; (3) respond by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices; and (4) seek to actively resist retraumatisation.

The latest systematic review of studies evaluating trauma-informed ECEC programs found a heavy focus on educator training and coaching, with little attention towards organisational level supports (Sun et al., 2024a). While these programs saw promising results for children and teachers, whether such effects sustain over time remains unknown (Sun et al., 2024a). Organisational change research suggests that, without simultaneous structural action (e.g., trauma-informed policies and procedures), individuals face barriers adopting and sustaining new practices such as trauma-informed strategies (Douglass, 2016; Gittell, 2016; Kania et al., 2018). Thus, while educator training is necessary, it alone cannot overcome structural barriers, which in the case of trauma-informed practice results in sub-optimal implementation. Hence, this study also aims to better understand—from multiple perspectives (i.e., educators, leaders, and consultants)—these barriers and what is needed for organisation-wide, trauma-informed change in ECEC.

Research Questions

This qualitative inquiry sought to establish an understanding of early childhood professionals’ experiences of working with trauma-impacted children, barriers for implementing trauma-informed practices, and future-focused perspectives relating to supporting trauma-impacted children in ECEC within the Australian context. The following research questions were proposed to address the aims above:

  1. 1.

    What are ECEC educators’ experiences of working with trauma-impacted children in ECEC?

  2. 2.

    What are the barriers for adopting and implementing trauma-informed practices in ECEC?

  3. 3.

    What is needed to support an organisation-wide trauma-informed approach?

Method

Procedure

Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from Monash University. A mix of convenience sampling and purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. Early childhood professionals, including frontline educators and leaders at any levels of early childhood organisations were the targeted population. Recruitment emails were sent to managers of ECEC organisations/services that had connections with the research team through Alannah and Madeline Foundation (Sun et al., 2024b), with explanatory information and consent forms. These managers were asked to promote the opportunity to relevant colleagues who were then invited to provide their consent to participate in an interview. A range of ECEC organisations were contacted (e.g., sessional kindergarten, long daycare settings). Specifically, sessional kindergartens refer to those that operate on specified times, funded by Australian government, while long daycare services offer early education and care for children from birth to six, and are usually open all year round with extended hours. It is notable that some ECEC centres have sessional kinder programs integrated in long daycare services within school terms. Meanwhile, childhood trauma consultants (i.e., TraCS consultants) who provide consultancy to participating centres were also invited to participate in an interview (see Blewitt et al., 2023). This qualitative inquiry was part of a broader project that was conducted in partnership with an organization that supports children impacted by trauma (see Sun et al., 2024b). These trauma consultants were part of this organisation, providing trauma consultancy services in ECEC centres. They were not involved in the research processes, beyond taking part in an interview. Participation was voluntary and participants did not receive compensation.

The interview questions and guide were developed by the research team. The research team included researchers with extensive experiences in qualitative methods, childhood trauma, developmental psychology, socio-emotional development, stakeholder engagement, and senior practitioners supporting children who have experienced trauma. The guide was developed around the research questions, taking interviewees through a series of discussions, including (1) greetings and introduction, and ethics overview; (2) demographics questions (e.g., role, organisation); (3) understanding of trauma (e.g., how does trauma manifest in your room/centre/organisation, what do you see, if any?); (4) impact of trauma (e.g., what are your experiences of working with and managing the vulnerability of children and families in ECEC, if any?); (5) understanding of trauma-informed practices (e.g., what do you think it means/looks like for an early childhood organisation to be trauma-informed?); (6) current approaches (e.g., what support do you have, if any?); (7) what support is needed and what are the barriers (e.g., What support do you need from your organisation to apply trauma-informed practices? What gets in the way/what are the obstacles for you in getting support?); (8) check if anything else the participants would like to share; (9) thanks and next steps (e.g., member checking, short report produced to keep the participants updated). Follow-up questions were asked for clarity or more information.

Prior to the interview, participants were advised of the approximate interview duration, given the option of being interviewed over Zoom or telephone, and asked to nominate a time most convenient for them. Interviews were conducted by a member of the research team [YS, MB, CB] who again sought consent before recording the interview for transcription purposes. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted over Zoom, with the average interview length being 48 min (ranging from 24 to 65 min). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed before being manually reviewed for accuracy, first by a member of the research team (YS, MB, CB) and then by the interview participant. Of the 22 participants, one updated their work condition, one revised an error and two confirmed the accuracy of the transcripts. The remaining 18 participants did not respond to the invitation to review the transcripts; however, their original transcripts were still included in the larger dataset.

Participants

Three categories of participants were recruited, (1) Early childhood professionals (n = 9), including early childhood educators (i.e., certificate or diploma qualified professionals who provide education and care for children), teachers (i.e., degree-qualified professionals who provide education and care for children), educational leaders, and centre directors, (2) Organisational leaders (n = 8), including leaders positioned outside of centres and/or who oversee/supervise/manage/support several different services (e.g., area manager, practice coach, approved provider), (3) Childhood trauma consultants (i.e., TraCS consultants, n = 5), including social workers and mental health professionals who provide professional consultation on managing children affected by trauma in ECEC settings.

Overall, nine ECEC professionals (four educators and teachers, onr educational leader, four centre directors), eight organisational leaders and five childhood trauma consultants from Victoria, Australia were interviewed. Non-teaching professionals such as organisational leaders and childhood trauma consultants were included to provide further insight and triangulation of educators’ perspectives. A brief summary of participant characteristics is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Participant characteristics
Full size table

Data Analysis

Thematic analysis was informed by Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2022) six-step reflexive framework and Maguire and Delahunt’s (2017) practical guide. The analysis was performed as follows:

  1. 1.

    Transcripts were read and re-read by two authors to develop familiarity with the data, before importing into NVivo for further analysis [YS & CB]. Thoughts that emerged (i.e., researchers’ beliefs, biases, preconceptions towards the transcripts while coding) during this process were noted as annotations in NVivo.

  2. 2.

    Three random transcripts were double-coded by two authors inductively and discussed over Zoom [YS & CB].

  3. 3.

    Remaining transcripts were independently coded by one author inductively [YS], and cross-checked by another author [CB].

  4. 4.

    Codes were discussed by author team to identify underlying ideas and combine similar codes [YS, CB, MB]. Codes from transcripts with educators and leaders were explored first, then combined with the codes from transcripts with trauma consultants to uncover differences and general themes.

  5. 5.

    Emerging themes and sub-themes were discussed and reviewed by all authors over multiple meetings until consensus was reached.

  6. 6.

    Findings were written up.

Researcher Reflexivity

Researcher reflexivity is essential for qualitative research as nuanced judgement is heavily relied upon (Olmos-Vega et al., 2022). The author team were aware that their experiences and knowledge may lead to biased judgements. Throughout the interviewing process, the interviewers ensured that the topics in the guide were addressed; extra attention was paid to how questions were asked (e.g., not to involve preferences or perspectives), to avoid misleading participants’ responses. The research teams meet regularly to reflect on the interview practices. During the coding process, thoughts about any potential biases and preconceptions of the researchers were written down as annotations in NVivo and constantly reflected on when identifying themes. Multiple meetings were held in discussing the emerging themes and sub-themes, including a meeting specifically reflecting on the researcher preconceptions, biases and assumptions before reaching consensus of the final themes and sub-themes.

Results

Four main themes were identified through the analysis: (1) Trauma is increasingly present in children attending ECEC settings and impacts those working with them; (2) Educators are generally unprepared and unsupported in their work with trauma-impacted children; (3) Systemic barriers impede the implementation of trauma-informed approaches; and (4) Collective efforts starting from the leadership level, with everyone involved is needed for organisational change in ECEC. Within these overarching themes, a further eleven sub-themes emerged, and are elaborated further below. The themes, sub-themes and contributing transcripts are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Themes and sub-themes
Full size table

Theme 1: Trauma is Increasingly Present in Children Attending ECEC Settings and Impacts Those Working with Them

Trauma is Increasingly Present in ECEC

Twelve participants specifically expressed that trauma is increasingly prevalent in their workplace. Some felt that the COVID pandemic and relevant public health measures have impacted the prevalence of trauma, for example, one centre director told us: “Living in a pandemic for the past two years has caused significant trauma to families, and children are really impacted.” (Early childhood professionals [ECP]_3).

Other participants highlighted the influence of socio-economic status in the community they work. ECEC services within low socio-economic localities can support many children and families experiencing trauma, with one centre director sharing: “Our families are predominantly vulnerable. So we' are in a really quite low socio-economic area and we support a lot of children that have been and families that have been impacted by trauma.” (ECP_5). Meanwhile, one trauma consultant who provided trauma consultancy services to a wide range of communities, including metro and regional services, suggested the prevalence of trauma within rural and regional communities in particular.

“It is awful to say, but our rural and regional communities, the layers of trauma and disadvantage are real and deep.” (Trauma consultant [TC]_3)

Trauma was also seen as something found in close proximity to other forms of disadvantage, and in concentrated pockets. This was highlighted by several participants who provide leadership or support to a range of services and centres (e.g., organisational leaders, practice coaches and trauma consultants), and therefore have broader visibility of the ECEC sector.

"There is a lot, it is not just one, you know, it is often where we find pockets of vulnerability. It is not just one family, it is multiple families, multiple children.” (Organisational leader [OL]_2)

"It's not usually just one child has experienced trauma… there's usually quite a number.” (TC_1)

Working with Trauma Negatively Impacts Educator Well-being and Their Capacity to Educate and Care for Children

Educators shared multiple professional challenges when supporting trauma-impacted children. Challenges in managing behaviours (n = 6), communicating with families (n = 7), balancing the needs of both trauma-impacted children and other children in the group (n = 7), straddling multiple roles (n = 4), feeling and being safe (n = 6), experiencing lack of trust, respect, and voices from their leaders (n = 13), becoming emotionally involved in children’s cases and fatigued (n = 13), and struggling with consistency and dis-integration across and within teams (n = 16), were all experienced by educators working with trauma-impacted children. These challenges impact educators’ capacity to provide high-quality education and care, and meet the needs of trauma-impacted children.

All participants shared that working with trauma-impacted children affects educator well-being. One organisational leader shared, “General burnout, staff getting tired, staff getting, you know, being quite fatigued” (OL_6). Educators suggested that extra effort is needed to support children with additional needs, which can negatively impact their well-being. One educator remarked, “Because the more you give, the more you are literally, you feel like you're just being sucked out that way… I have almost been desensitised, from my empathetic nature, to be able to psychologically cope with this working environment” (ECP_2). This was reiterated by a centre director, “I think that we can see there's a big impact on staff well-being in managing these challenges…” (ECP_6). This further influences their capacity at work. An organisational leader who oversaw multiple centres shared “We see it manifest in staff absences… team dynamics… difficulty within some of those relationships…people's engagement with their work, their engagement with children. Yeah, so their ability to show up for children… a lack of some times and ability to problem solve and critically reflect because we're in a hyper vigilant state a lot of the time.” (OL_2).

Theme 2: Educators are Generally Unprepared and Need Support to Work with Trauma-Impacted Children

Pre-service Teacher Trainings Lack Focus on Working with Trauma-Impacted Children

Ten participants expressed that pre-service education did not prepare them to work with trauma-impacted children. As one educator told us, “… it’s not even mentioned that when I was studying, they did not touch base on this area.” (ECP_1), “I feel like it is not something that anyone knows, because we are not taught it.” (ECP_9). Several organisational leaders and childhood trauma consultants expressed concern about the lack of trauma-awareness, which they attributed to the paucity of trauma-related training in pre-service education.

“I’ve got some educators that have been educators for 20 years. Yeah, and they are like, we never did this, this was not a thing back then. We just kind of always put it down to that child’s badly behaved or their bad job, which we know is not correct. But that is kind of how we used to manage it. But new graduates, they are having similar dilemmas is they are stepping into rooms where there is significant trauma…they haven’t been prepared for it.” (TC_4).

This might be the reality across of range of pre-services courses, “I do not think we’ve done any training on it. Yeah, so that does not help. Trauma-informed training is not part of the diploma, Cert 3, I’ will even say it’s not part of bachelor’s degree.” (OL_7).

Educators Lack of Knowledge and Strategies to Work with Trauma-Impacted Children

The majority of the participants recognised educators’ lack of knowledge and strategies to work with trauma-impacted children (n = 16). While, some may have an emerging understanding of trauma-informed practices, they often lack the practical strategies to work with children. One centre director of an ECEC service who actively sought trauma-informed training reflected on the lack of strategies of her frontline teaching team, “…they understand what trauma is and the outcome of it, but they just do not know what they can do. Like a lot of the time they like that so 'how do I help? what do we do about it? what are we supposed to do? What' is the best practice here? And how do we support these children?” (ECP_7). Some organisational leaders expressed concern about the consequences of these knowledge and skill deficits, “I worry that staff because they do not feel equipped enough to deal with, you know, certain children, that I think at times, they can respond in ways that are less than ideal as well.” (OL_6).

Some educators that have trauma-impacted children in their room are “self-motivated to go and get some training because need to be able to understand or for self-preservation” (ECP_3), while others receive education and support from professionals specialised in childhood trauma, “we got the Alannah & Madeline Foundation support person in here, because it [supporting trauma-impacted children] just consumes a lot of my day, and I am not a trained specialist” (EDP_5). However, educators working in long daycare centres in particular, appear to know less about trauma-informed practices, “Honestly, I don’t know much about it…It’ is horrible…I never really know how to approach the situation…Sorry, I do noteven know what trauma is” (ECP_8), and expressed a desire for more support and opportunities for related skill-building.

Consultants who work closely with ECEC professionals suggested that educators have strong foundational knowledge in childhood development. They expressed that, with the right support, educators would be capable of grasping such knowledge and strategies.

“I do not doubt that if it's been new information that's been delivered to many of these educators, there's still a long way to go to integrate it. But at the point in which you have somebody that can keep reminding them of that theory and how it applies in that setting, utilising their current knowledge and experience, they'll grasp it quite quickly. Because they already have a good understanding of what normative child development looks like.” (TC_5)

Educators Need Well-being Support to Work with Trauma-Impacted Children

As a result of the challenges described above, participants suggest that educators need well-being support. One teacher stated, “We need the support just as much as the children need the support.” (ECP_8), while the current perceived support was not adequate, “I do feel that educators feel a lack of support.” (OL_6). When asked what well-being support is available, educators predominantly talked about peer support and debriefing, “We have wonderful open communication, very respectful of one another, and at the end of every session, we will have a debrief.” (ECP_2). Similar experience was shared by a centre director, “Um, well, there is our internal mechanisms, obviously, and our internal support network, we are a close team.” (ECP_7). These quotes highlight how current mechanisms for well-being can rely on peer support, with limited formal professional support from organisations (n = 17). As one centre director shared, “I feel like we do not have any professional support. But it would be more peer support, like us, reaching out to one another, but not actually implementing any, any professional things, which is definitely something that we can look into.” (ECP_9).

Organisational leaders suggested that educators do not always actively seek support when they need it, for example, “They would just try and get along on their own. Until it gets so bad that they' will go to their area manager or contact someone else in the organisation. But up until then, they are just on their own, they'll just think, ‘oh, I have to deal with this on my own.’ But you do not.” (OL_4). Leaders suggested that it might be them not knowing that they can seek support, and that the supports can help, “Staff often does not have the awareness that they can speak up to someone or I just view the EAP programme is a little bit faded in the dark.” (OL_1).

One promising finding that emerged was organisational leaders increasingly recognising the lack of support mechanisms in place and the necessity to invest in educator well-being. One large organisational leader acknowledged on the lack of focus on educator well-being, “I would not even begin to say that they' are doing that very well yet.” (OL_3). Another large organisational leader expressed the hope to see educator well-being reflected through their organisational policy in the future:

“Other than that (EAP & psychologist), we do not have an actual framework or commitment to much more than that. We talk about well-being being an outcome of the different things that we do…I do like to see this kind of stuff reflected through some of our policies that particularly do with well-being for our staff.” (OL_2)

Theme 3: Several Systemic Barriers Impede the Implementation of Trauma-Informed Approaches

System and Service Barriers Impact Opportunities for Practice Improvement

Participants highlighted a number of system and service factors that impact the support provided to trauma-impacted children in ECEC, including (1) tight educator-child ratios (n = 10), (2) constricted time allocation for upskilling, reflective practices, and conversations (n = 10), and (3) complex and lengthy processes to seek additional funding (n = 10).

Educators described the current educator-child ratios as too tight, remarking that “an extra pair of hands” are needed. In the meantime, educators understood the significance of professional development, collaboration and reflective practice in supporting children impacted by trauma. However, limited time prevents them from engaging in these. While considered critical, respondents felt there was little capacity to “resource training” (ECP_2), “do that collaboration” (ECP_6), “invest in conversation and relationships and follow up and referral” (OL_2), “respond in an individualised way to a child” (OL_6), and “plan and reflect” (TC_2).

Government funding is needed to support children impacted by trauma in similar ways to children with other needs (e.g., disabilities). However, participants shared that applying for this funding in ECEC settings is lengthy, burdensome on services, and complicated by the fact that trauma is not easily diagnosed. For example, one educator shared her concern, “It is not essentially a diagnosis. It's not a diagnosis in lots of these signs and symptoms, as we know, autistic traits, … but the ratio… In regard to trauma practice is unsafe.” (ECP_2). Meanwhile, the lengthy process and the paperwork needed can be a hurdle for the ECEC sector. “At this point in time, we have to collect a whole heap of information about the child, we' do have to demonstrate that we've exhausted every other option… So we are now sitting in term four, almost on the cusp of term four and we' have had no result of funding applications that we are putting in term two.” (OL_2) Moreover, with some educators and organisational leaders lacking the skills or time to navigate complex applications, children face the risk of going without the necessary funded support.

“The process is so complicated; a lot of people do not even initiate it. There is…the complicated conversations and that you are required to have with families to even begin the process, …educators are not equipped to, to approach a family about a child that may or may not have trauma induced behaviours, diagnosis. And without the parent consent, obviously, there is not much we can do. So it is the access to the funding and the resources is a really big hurdle.” (OL_8).

Sector Diversity and Complexity Impacts Transferability and Unity

The Australian ECEC sector is diverse, complex, and nuanced, with varied governance arrangements, management infrastructure (e.g., government, council, early years management, parent committee, large organisations, standalone approved provider), and operating models (e.g., community-based, government providers, for-profit, not-for-profit). This makes it challenging to develop interventions that are universally applicable, fit-for-purpose, and impactful. For example, long day care centres and sessional kindergartens are likely to require different approaches and supports to embed trauma-informed approaches (n = 11). Further exploration is needed in regard to the different strategies and applications to apply a trauma-informed practices in diverse ECEC settings.

“If you are early years managed, it's different to if you are a private, long daycare, yeah, and sessional… But I think that is part of the challenge, too, because some organisations are stronger in their governance and stuff like that. But when we think of a parent run organisation, a parent committee ran kindergarten, you know, those parents might only be there for 12 months as well. To severely get the long-term investment sometimes hard. Privates it is more about money and saving money, rather than? So I don't know the answer to that.” (ECP_6).

Theme 4: Collective Efforts Starting from the Top, with Everyone Involved is Needed for Organisational Change in ECEC

Leaders at All Levels Need to Engage in trauma-informed Thinking and Set the Tone

Participants suggested a “starting from the top” approach might be needed, with the engagement of different levels of leadership to help promote ‘buy-in’ for implementing trauma-informed approaches across ECEC organisations (n = 14). Leaders are the ones that set the tone and vision and therefore have huge influence of how others perceive and engage in initiatives.

“One of the key things for me is that the CEO, or equivalent, has to be on board with that, that's the first thing. If they are not on board with it, they are not understanding it, they do not understand trauma, they do not understand what we're trying to achieve, and they're not… you know, really actively supporting it, involved in that process. It's very, very hard to see systemic change, and for it to be really effective. So it really needs to start at the top… and then it permeates down.” (TC_1).

Some organisational leaders recognise their lack of knowledge and expressed that they need support first to better support frontline professionals, “it is quite limited because we're not getting the support on any level. So I'm not getting the support at my level to enable me to pass it on to my team at their level…There is really nothing above and beyond that, that enables me to support my team.” (OL_8). Whereas others might be reluctant to recognise their lack of knowledge in this space, “I think in the head office space, it's a lot of ‘That's not my work. That's not my…' 'Oh, that sounds like it's that person's job' or 'I don't really see that happening'. Yeah, a lot of just deflection, limited ownership. Limited curiosity, I think is a big one.” (OL_5). Participants suggested that leaders’ openness, curiosity, and growth mindset are helpful, “it's about organisational leaders being really open to it, but also them having an awareness of what trauma looks like, and how we can be trauma-informed because the trickiest part I think about trauma is it's not black and white.” (TC_4).

Engagement Across and Within All Levels of ECEC Organisations

Meaningful change in ECEC services requires engagement across and within all levels of the organisation (n = 19), starting with building an awareness and understanding of trauma-informed practices, “…we need everyone to have a basic understanding of what trauma-informed practice looks like, let alone the things that we scaffold on top of that” (OL_2).

For organisations to become trauma-informed, commitment to a relational approach is required throughout all levels. One trauma consultant shared his experience of building rapport and trust with staff at all levels, “connect with all the staff, while I am there so that every staff, does not matter if they're from [casual agency], … or the permanent [ECEC organisation name] staff, …because they feel safe… So it's about building that connection and stuff.” (TC_1). Beyond educational teams, this should reach other operational teams within ECEC organisations, such as finance or HR who also need to be trauma-informed to create a trauma-informed workplace, “And at every level…I would say probably across unrelated teams, like your accounting team, and you know, whatever… all of that stuff to me is about freeing up people to be more relationally oriented in their work.” (TC_3). To achieve the trauma-informed organisational change, “it takes reflection at all the different levels, not just people on the floor.” (TC_3).

Trauma-Informed Mindsets of All Staff Enable Better Education and Care for All Children

A trauma-informed mindset is fundamentally strengths-based, and seeks to understand children’s behaviours through curiosity, for example, wondering “what has happened to the child?” instead of “what is wrong with the child?” (Osher et al., 2021). Participants suggested this is essential in ECEC as it helps contextualise the adverse experiences of the child(ren) and the impact of trauma (n = 14).

Participants highlighted that, when trauma-impacted children display externalising behaviours or become withdrawn, some educators will consider this as inappropriate, “some people really do not recognise that children do not come to kinder and just would like to destroy other people by not doing what they' are asked…But there' is actually some underlying, underlying reasons why that behaviour is occurring.” (ECP_6). However, as one organisational leader suggested, “there are no children who are innately naughty. When children are experiencing vulnerabilities that the behaviour within themselves is not going to be like that of the child who is not. But there was very limited understanding of that.” (OL_5). Thus, a transformative trauma-informed mindset of all staffs is needed to effectively support children in ECEC settings, by understanding them first:

“…you would not be sort of blaming that child for any developmental difficulties that they're arising with or thinking they are naughty or bad or wrong. You'd just be using this trauma lens and thinking 'I'm curious about what might be going on for you and where you are up to developmentally. I have got no idea what might have happened for you in your earlier life. But I am going to hold that lens in mind as I work with you to allow you to be exactly where you are at developmentally'. So yeah, that's kind of how I conceptualise it.” (TC_3).

Interdisciplinary Collaboration with Professionals with Expertise in Trauma Can Build Capacity and Enhance Practice

The majority of participants suggested that they are not equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to work with trauma-impacted children, and that the support from external professionals with expertise in childhood trauma is needed (n = 15). In fact, several participants with experience receiving external support from professionals with expertise in childhood trauma (i.e., TraCS consultant), expressed their desire for consultants or psychologists on site, full-time (n = 4).

“A full-time consultant on site every day. That is our goal. So we have worked with Alannah and Madeline Foundation for the last two years, and we have learnt an awful lot of what works and what does not. And we have got them booked in for next year as well…So yeah, I think identifying the needs of your service specifically, and your staff and your children and families and being able to cater to what that need is and deliver it.” (ECP_5).

In addition to supporting trauma-impacted children, this assistance could boost educator confidence, equip them with knowledge and strategies, and ease their emotional stress, which could ultimately support children’s learning and development. This is especially the case when external professionals use relationships with staff to tailor their support to the needs of the particular ECEC service.

Discussion

Recognising the paucity of research evidence focusing on trauma-informed practice in ECEC, this qualitative inquiry contributes to the evidence base by exploring the experiences of early childhood frontline professionals in supporting children impacted by trauma. Specifically, it explored early childhood professionals’ experiences of working with trauma-impacted children in ECEC, the barriers to adopting trauma-informed approaches, and recommended steps forward for sustainable, organisation-wide adoption of a trauma-informed approach. ECEC centres, as universal services for young children, have a critical role to play in mitigating the detrimental effects of trauma on children. Here, childhood trauma is increasingly present, especially in low socio-economic and rural/regional communities (Higgins et al., 2023). However, the findings presented highlight that ECEC educators are generally ill-equipped and unsupported and experience an array of workplace challenges that leave them feeling overwhelmed.

Evidence from the present study suggests that currently, educators get support from each other over professional and/or organisational support. Recognising the multifaced role frontline professionals are playing that requires continuous learning, resilience, and psychological capacity to take on challenges (Beltman et al., 2019), it is critical for ECEC organisations to focus on and invest in educator well-being. Engaging with trauma-impacted children can bring on secondary traumatic stress and/or vicarious trauma (Lawson et al., 2019), which may further cause compassion fatigue and other negative impacts on well-being (Ormiston et al., 2022). Such educator well-being is inextricably related to their ability—as a key enabling influence—to deliver quality education and care. When educator well-being is not supported, children’s learning and development outcomes can be jeopardised (Logan et al., 2020).

Recognising the barriers for the implementation of trauma-informed practices in ECEC, including the system factors (i.e., high educator-child ratio, time poor, complex and lengthy processes when seeking funding), lack of training and preparation thus the lack of knowledge and strategies, we propose the shift of the current focus from frontline practice change (Sun et al., 2024a) to organisational change. Insights that emerged from the current qualitative inquiry suggested a “starting from the top” approach, with whole-of-organisational engagement to enable transformational, trauma-informed change in ECEC. Participants all suggested if the management is not on board, it is difficult for frontline professionals alone to realise and sustain change. Extensive organisational change research evidence supports that without simultaneous actions and changes in the broader organisational context, adoption and sustainment of new practices such as trauma-informed practices are unlikely (Douglass, 2017; Kania et al., 2018).

Trauma-informed thinking and the conscious use of approaches and practices that are trauma-informed are still emerging within the education sector, especially ECEC settings. For such new practices to have better ‘buy-in’, starting from top and permeating down need to be considered. Establishing positive workplace relationships, trauma-informed culture and climate are essential enablers for organisational change (Dutton & Ragins, 2017). The findings of our study concur that the predominant focus on teacher training for trauma-informed practice is important but not enough; rather, ECEC organisations have a critical role to play in developing a trauma-informed organisational culture, policies and procedures that support this practice (Sun et al., 2024a). Leadership is a critical driver of organisational change (Douglass, 2017). For trauma-informed organisational change to be realised, leaders play an important role in changing cultures and norms, activating trauma-informed policies and procedures, role modelling and providing support for frontline professionals. Such role modelling is supported by the theory of parallel process, where the interactions between leaders and educators in an organisation can mirror, or reinforce, interactions among educators, and between educators and children (Douglass, 2011). The actions of leaders have influence on children’s learning outcomes through the impact on educator satisfaction, well-being, and the consequent psychological capacity to provide education and care (Strehmel, 2016). Thus, training packages, coaching, consultation, peer-support networks should be developed and scaled up to support ECEC organisational leaders in driving the trauma-informed organisational change.

Trauma-informed practice is closely aligned with high quality, developmentally appropriate early childhood practice. For example, nurturing connections, high-quality teacher–child relationships, consistent and predictable environments (Blodgett et al., 2016; Brunzell et al., 2016) and cultivating children’s social and emotional competencies (Osher et al., 2021) are at the centre of trauma-informed practice. Almost all participants indicated that they and their staff or colleagues are not equipped with the knowledge and skills to support trauma-impacted children. However, considering trauma-informed approaches alongside early childhood practice reveals many similarities. The daily practice implemented by early childhood professionals in building relationships, establishing safety and dependability, attending to and creating consistent routines has many benefits for trauma-impacted children. There are many potential reasons for this disconnect, including the tendency for early childhood educators to draw most heavily on tacit knowledge when engaging with children (O’Connor et al., 2019; Taylor, 2017), and the perceived devaluing of early childhood professionals in an interdisciplinary context (Wong et al., 2012). Similar findings reported by Koslouski and Stark (2021) suggest that many elementary teachers intuitively use trauma-informed practices but express doubts about their abilities without formal training. As such, there are opportunities to work with educators and stakeholders to demystify trauma and trauma-informed approaches, and highlight its parallels with existing ECEC practice to further advocate for this practice.

Lastly, while emerging efforts and advocacy for trauma-related content knowledge to be embedded in pre-service education are evident (e.g., Hobbs et al., 2019), participants in our study also expressed the need for external support, provided by professionals with expertise in childhood trauma. It is indeed important to be mindful of the multiple challenges experienced by ECEC frontline professionals such as the lack of time, resources, and training that make it difficult for teachers alone to attend to all children’s needs (Ekornes, 2015). This is a pressure that could be eased with the support of various external professionals (e.g., childhood trauma consultant, occupational therapist). However, cross-sector collaboration, as one of the ten implementation domains of a trauma-informed approach (SAMHSA, 2014), requires further exploration in relation to ECEC and related sectors. Deep consideration and continuous improvement are required to develop a shared language that supports communication between educators, other professionals and families; ensures collaborative partners are trauma-informed, and promotes cross-sector capacity building and partnerships. Meanwhile, measures to address the existing barriers (e.g., institutional boundary, inadequate resources) (McIsaac et al., 2020; Payler & Georgeson, 2013) for the implementation of such cross-disciplinary collaboration require further investigation.

Divergent Perspectives Across Professionals’ Groups

In the present qualitative inquiry, three professional categories were examined. The themes presented above were derived from the aggregated transcripts of all participants. However, there are two divergent perspectives within professional categories worth noting. First, in terms of the well-being support, educators conveyed that such assistance primarily emanates from other educators through peer debriefing. Conversely, some organisational leaders asserted that educators may not always actively seek support or might not be aware of the available professional support options. This highlights an opportunity for ECEC organisations to provide clearer, more considered promotion of both internal and external well-being supports and pathways. Another notable disparity exists in perspectives concerning the efficacy of increasing the number of educators on the floor to manage child trauma. While early childhood professionals and organisational leaders expressed a desire for improved staff-to-child ratio, trauma consultants contested that this might not solve everything. Instead, they stressed that it is more about all staff members being trauma-informed, possessing the awareness, knowledge, and skills to establish safe and trusting relationships with the child, and providing relational support rather than increasing the number of people responding.

“It is interesting, because I know a lot of educators say that they're like, if we just had more, if we had another staff member, it would be easier. I think an extra person in the room can assist with things like supervision. I do not think it's always the answer, though. And if they're not able to respond appropriately, you could have 100 adults in the room, and it's still not going to make a difference.” (TC_4)

Educators have multifaced roles to fulfil (Sun et al., 2024c). It can be challenging for them to adopt a trauma-informed approach, which relies heavily on building relationship with children, necessitating significant time investment and presence. Adequate educator resourcing is crucial, particularly considering the challenges they face in responding to the needs of trauma-impacted children amidst their busy schedules. This can assist with the supervision and ensure the safety and educational standards for all children. However, simply increasing the number of educators is insufficient without equipping them with the trauma-informed mindset, knowledge, and skills necessary to effectively support trauma-impacted children, as well as all children. Thus, both the quantity and quality of educators play interconnected roles, each indispensable in creating a safe, supportive, and trauma-informed environment for children.

Limitations

The qualitative approach used in the present study provided an in-depth understanding of the experiences of frontline professionals, and their perspectives towards trauma-informed organisational change in ECEC. The majority of ECEC professionals who participated in this study were from sessional kindergartens, with only three working in long daycare settings. Recognising that ECEC services with different operating models might need different support, the findings may not be generalizable to all ECEC settings. Meanwhile, the recruitment of participants largely benefits from the existing connection between ECEC organisations and Alannah and Madeline Foundation through TraCS project (see Blewitt et al., 2023). As a result, participants all had some level of awareness or understanding of childhood trauma and trauma-informed practice. However, data on participants’ previous training on trauma-informed care was not collected, which may have contributed to the depth in understanding. The reason that these ECEC organisations accessed TraCS program may have related to child and family needs (e.g., trauma-impacted children attended their service). Hence, themes such as “Trauma is increasingly prevalent in ECEC” may be biased and need verifying through quantitative methods including random sampling techniques. Lastly, due to the practical constraints, not all transcripts were double-coded, but all codes were cross-checked and discussed by the author team to ensure the trustworthiness. Despite these limitations, this study drew from the insights of different types of participants (i.e., early childhood professionals, organisational leaders, and childhood trauma consultants) and diverse perspectives are presented.

Recommendations for Future Research

The findings of this study contribute to the literature and understandings of the experiences, challenges, and needs of ECEC professionals in the Australian context. Future research including exploration of these topics within the diverse national and cultural context is recommended to gain a holistic picture. Such understanding can ensure the support (e.g., intervention, training, funding) is tailored for ECEC professionals based on their needs within various contexts. Also, the specific needs of different types of ECEC services (e.g., long daycare, sessional kindergarten) should be investigated. With diverse operating models, this may also encourage tailored support within different ECEC contexts. It may be also valuable to explore whether establishing leadership buy-in first could promote the implementation of trauma-informed practices in ECEC. While the findings of this study highlighted that professionals working in ECEC are experiencing an increasing presence of childhood trauma, representative epidemiological studies across contexts and cultures is needed to gauge and understand the prevalence of early childhood trauma, and its impact on educators. Additionally, findings of this study highlight the need to explore organisational support mechanisms for educator well-being. While related professionals’ perspectives were sought in the present inquiry, and the need for an organisation-wide professional well-being support is evident (i.e., the “why”), the “what” and “how” needs further investigation. The development and evaluation of interventions that promote organisational-level change towards trauma-informed practice are needed. This should involve interrogating whether such interventions are effective and produce sustainable outcomes, compared with the interventions that target frontline professionals only. Finally, investigation of the feasibility and potential models for including interdisciplinary professionals within ECEC settings may advance the practical support that can be offered to children impacted by trauma.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The thematic findings have implications for policy and practice related to trauma-informed ECEC. Moving from the current focus on upskilling frontline educators to also engaging early childhood organisational leaders in being trauma-informed is essential to drive organisational change. Meanwhile, as several systemic factors were identified as barriers for the adoption and implementation of trauma-informed practices, reviewing the current support available for early childhood organisations, in terms of ratio, funding, and access to external professionals could be beneficial to maximise the support available for ECEC organisations. A system-wide focus (e.g., advocacy campaign, policy) for ECEC organisations to support educator well-being is needed, to ensure children receive continual high-quality education and care that supports optimal learning and development.

Further, the importance of breaking down silos between disciplines and sectors, and promoting interdisciplinary and cross-sector collaboration that supports children impacted by trauma in ECEC is evident. To achieve this, the exploration of collaboration models informed by professionals from multi-disciplines (e.g., education, psychology, social work, health) and sectors (e.g., education, social care, and social welfare) may be helpful to provide holistic support for trauma-impacted children. Governance and rules of engagement of the collaboration, cross-sector data sharing across early childhood programs, cross-sector professional development, development of shared language, and strategic government funding support are elements that should be explored. Promoting such collaboration that has potential to address the challenges and barriers identified earlier (e.g., through resource and knowledge sharing) through policy and government-level call for actions can be beneficial.