One of the biggest areas of misunderstanding when working with children who have SEMH needs or have experienced trauma is around the topic of boundaries and consequences.
To be clear – all children require safe boundaries and there are consequences for all actions. I am using the term consequences here in place of punishment quite deliberately. Punishments are often arbitrary, disconnected from what has happened but convenient in universal policy. It can be and is often argued that for most children they serve a useful purpose – I am not going to start that debate here, my focus is on SEMH needs and trauma informed practice. A useful point to remember is at some point every child with SEMH needs was once one without identified SEMH needs. Similarly trauma.
I have often seen trauma informed practice be described as one that removes boundaries and consequences. This is often a big reason why staff can feel disempowered and hopeless. If an adult comes out of a trauma informed meeting feeling hopeless or disempowered the process has failed. The adult should come out with a way of being that is consistent and informed and that supports the young person as an individual, rather than using previously failed approaches.
With that in mind, how do we apply consequences and maintain boundaries? Firstly, as per the government’s own principles of trauma informed practice, collaboration is key. In order to successfully set boundaries, we first need to understand a young person fully from their own perspective but also taking in the views of professionals around the young person. We need to explore their goals where possible to show how we are working towards the same end point. We identify and remove the barriers we can, stage expectations over time where possible. There is a need to consider the executive function of a young person, their development age – what is realistic for this young person with the knowledge we have? Some may describe this as low expectations but this only feeds the narrative of mental health needs not having parity with physical health needs – what we can’t see, we don’t make adjustments for.
When we have understood the young person as best we can, we can decide on the safest relationship(s) who will support the maintenance of boundaries (e.g. respond when things go wrong). It is more preferable in a school environment for this to be 2-3 people in order to accommodate illness and absence, but also to show the young person that safe adults aren’t a fluke and they can be liked and appreciated by more than one adult – they are likeable and have much to offer.
It’s important these boundaries relate back to their goals. Some boundaries put into place by schools can be much tighter than some other schools or what is considered to be needed to access education successfully. This, again, is a debate for another place. However, it must be considered that where boundaries are tight, consider the ones needed for safety first and how we can support compliance with them, then the boundaries for effective education. Some boundaries may be developmentally quite difficult for young people with specific needs, but may be achieved in time. When relating back to goals, even short term ones, we can focus the boundaries on what is needed to stay in school, to be safe in school, to go to the lessons that focus on their future (initially). By collaborating with a young person they also feel a sense of control and safety and are more likely to continue with the plan they have agreed to (considered a psychological nudge).
Consequences
When things go wrong, and consequences need to be applied, these could have also have been discussed in advance with a young person e.g. How do we keep you on track to staying safe, staying in school, getting the grade you want etc? Who responds, when? How do you tell us you are struggling to meet those agreements? Going back to the drawing board and looking with a young person again at the plan is effective too when things go wrong. Letting a child know things may go wrong, this is normal but we are all committed to them and their plan/place in school is a good way to pre-empt future difficulties and provide a sense of safety.
Most importantly where we feel we must apply logical consequences for a young person, they need to be connected to what has happened and framed supportively for a young person. There will be rare times when consequences need to be applied that are unconnected e.g. a serious incident in a school that may lead to suspension. Consider how we might frame this effectively but genuinely for that young person – a suspension can provide time out for the adults to consider what plan is needed to keep the young person in because the adults want the young person to stay in school because they bring xyz to the school, they have the potential to do xyz and they are very much part of the community. How can we use reintegration meetings to reinforce this message?
Sometimes staff may wish to take back time from a young person who has acted in a way that has not supported their learning. Again, how can we frame this so the young person does not experience shame? Time to check in with the child to see what else can be done to support them? An exploration of “what is going wrong” rather than a you harmed me, I harm you framing. This can sometimes fill the gap where a narrative around consequences is not applied. Young people can also understand the need for consequences themselves when this is explained fully.
Many children who experienced adverse childhood experiences can have a strong sense of justice but some young people can feel treated unfairly by default based on what they have experienced, so we must make it incredibly clear that the same responses are taken for all (in most cases, reasonable adjustments will be made that can be highlighted to the young person to show how staff are striving to support them above and beyond the normal process i.e because of identified needs). Some young people can feel they are worth less than other children inherently and punishments can reiterate this and lead to a downward spiral. Where we can show the consequences are logical, make sense and being used to support them, to keep them safe and in school and heading towards their goals, this can have a real impact on responses to challenging situations.
Conclusion
In summary, consequences can either create belonging or push out. Boundaries need to be informed and begin from establishing safety. Collaboration is key, doing with and not to. Being willing, as adult professionals, to say where we could have done better helps to model the process for the young person and create an environment where mistakes are not high stake, thereby lowering the temperature and reducing anxieties that can lead to further escalations.
This article was first written in August 2024 but is subject to ongoing redrafting – none of us are perfect first time! Get in touch, discuss, share, collaboration is key!
