What is it?
Within justice systems, a trauma-informed approach ensures that individuals and agencies act with due regard for how stakeholders—particularly victims and survivors—have been impacted by their experiences with trauma, so that the pursuit of justice is conducted in ways that mitigate the risk of further harm.
NCMEC's Position:
Justice systems should adopt trauma-informed, victim-sensitive practices throughout investigation, prosecution, and post-adjudication stages to minimize further traumatization and promote survivor engagement.
Why does it matter?
When governments do not use a trauma-informed approach to criminal justice, multiple negative impacts may follow: survivors may be subjected to additional harm; survivor engagement in the justice process may be impeded, jeopardizing offender accountability; and trust in the justice system may be diminished, creating obstacles to responding to other crimes.
Conversely, trauma-informed practices protect survivors from further harm; empower survivors and support their healing/recovery; strengthen the collection of relevant evidence; help secure accountability for offenders; and improve trust in and reliance on justice system agencies.
What context is relevant?
Circumstances that bring people into contact with the criminal justice system often involve some form of trauma suffered by the victim of an offense. In the context of child sexual exploitation, these traumatic experiences are exacerbated by multiple factors, including the victim’s age; offenders who break trust inherent in familial or other relationships; feelings of shame, embarrassment, and guilt; and distortion of the victim’s engagement with implicated institutions, such as schools or religious organizations. These aspects of the impact of sexual exploitation on a child increase the importance of a trauma-informed approach to criminal justice.
Significant efforts have been undertaken to incorporate trauma-informed practices in justice systems across various jurisdictions. In the United States, more than 900 child advocacy centers (often operated by non-governmental organizations) exist to provide multidisciplinary services to young crime victims and witnesses. These services often include forensic interviewing, medical examinations and treatment, mental health support, resources for caregivers, assistance navigating the criminal justice system, and referrals for other services.
In Europe, the “Barnahus” model is similar to child advocacy centers but has been widely adopted and incorporated into government systems rather than being operated by non-governmental organizations. The Barnahus Network is “engage[d] with more than 40 national contexts,” stretching beyond Europe to include jurisdictions in Asia, Africa, and Australia.
Forensic interviews, as occur in a child advocacy center or Barnahus, help reduce or avoid retraumatization by minimizing the number of times a child is asked to discuss the abuse they suffered. In some jurisdictions, written, recorded or remote testimony can prevent a child from having to be physically present in a courtroom with the accused defendant. Elsewhere, advocacy efforts are directed at promoting victim-independent prosecutions, which rely on evidence other than victim testimony, as the least-detrimental option when a child is particularly vulnerable to additional harm through testifying.
Because the experience of trauma is highly individualized, justice systems should endeavor to offer survivors options and not subject them to circumstances in which they have little or no control or influence. Some survivors may want to confront the accused through live testimony or a victim impact statement, but others may not. As much as possible, survivor participation in the criminal justice system should not be forced or prohibited.
Additional trauma-informed measures include development of specialized investigative units, prosecutors, and courts to address crimes against children; ensuring that individual officials are well-trained; permitting emotional support animals to accompany survivors; promoting and protecting the exercise of victims’ rights; and including survivors in the development and revision of policies and practices. Particularly in jurisdictions where the official language of the justice system is not the same as that understood by the survivor, proceedings and documents should be translated to give the survivor complete access.
What have survivors said about it?
Unsurprisingly, survivors have much to say about this subject. Because child abuse and exploitation often remains undiscovered for many years, trauma-informed practices relevant to those offenses should be applied to survivors regardless of age (even as adults) at the time that the justice system engages.
A trauma-informed approach is necessary beyond the scope of investigation, prosecution, and aftercare. These cases are often of significant public interest, and the manner in which government officials and the news media communicate about them should also be trauma-informed. Details of abusive acts or information regarding offenders that would also identify the victims need not be shared publicly. Release of such information violates the survivor’s privacy and serves little purpose other than to provoke public interest or emotional responses among media consumers.
While the formation of specialized units is helpful, front-line personnel should be thoroughly trained in trauma-informed interventions because they are most likely to first encounter abused and exploited victims. If that initial interaction is negative and adds to the victim’s trauma, engagement through the rest of the system is jeopardized. The lack of trauma-informed practices in some jurisdictions has led some survivors to opt out of engaging, fearing additional trauma from a harmful process.
Not all experiences are negative; for example, some survivors noted feeling supported by investigators who listened well, demonstrated patience, advocated for them, and prepared them for additional engagement with the justice system. Those actions should become the norm rather than a notable exception.
Justice cannot occur if the system is ignorant of the injustice the victim suffered. Often times the notion of whether a system is promoting justice focuses on the prosecution or the defense, when the reality is, there is no justice if it is not trauma-informed, victim sensitive.
- Survivor
A reliable way to improve case outcomes is improving victims' interactions with each person they encounter, even officers who are not the lead investigator. All these interactions impact victims, so everyone involved needs to be properly trained."
- Survivor
We need to create a trauma-informed criminal legal system that supports victims and survivors, and does not protect perpetrators. The odds are currently stacked against us to receive the justice we deserve. Less than ten percent of reported child sexual abusers are convicted. This low number, coupled with how defense attorneys often rip apart victims and survivors on the witness stand, is why I haven't—and probably never will—press charges against my perpetrator even though my jurisdiction does not have a statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. I wish I could say I helped lock up my perpetrator for the rest of his life, and kept him away from other children, but I don't trust our current criminal legal system to protect me as an adult, just as they didn't protect me as a child.
- Survivor
What drives opposing viewpoints?
In the best circumstances, opposition to adopting trauma-informed practices is likely due to a lack of awareness or understanding of why a trauma-informed approach is essential. Some people may think that certain practices—such as those that allow a victim to testify through alternative means, or not at all—are unfair to criminal defendants. Given legal frameworks in various jurisdictions, even advocates of trauma-informed practices might advise against certain provisions—for example, allowing an emotional support animal to accompany a survivor giving testimony—because they may prejudice a jury, jeopardizing a conviction on appeal.
A related viewpoint that might be perceived as conflicting is that efforts to make criminal justice systems more trauma-informed in dealing with accused, convicted, and incarcerated individuals may be in opposition to creating more trauma-informed systems for victims and survivors.