Justice professionals’ perceptions of trauma informed supervision: a possible solution to the impact of trauma

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to establish how trauma informed practice (TIP)-based supervision is understood by justice professionals in the UK, as well as how (and whether) it is put to use in the system. Design/methodology/approach A predominantly qualitative phenomenological design with supplementary quantitative data was used to gain a holistic understanding of the topic. Police officers (n = 53 survey; n = 5 interview), solicitors/barristers (n = 47 survey; n = 4 interview), intermediaries (n = 56 survey; n = 4 interview) and judges/magistrate (n = 5 interview) were surveyed and/or interviewed. Findings Supervision was often misunderstood by professionals as case management. Only police officers noted the existence of supervision, but even that was inconsistent and often inadequate. Other respondents noted a complete lack of supervision. However, the need for it was very apparent as narratives surrounding the traumatic experiences respondents lived through included heavy detail relating to impact on mental health. Practical implications At a time when justice system organisations are developing in light of damming reviews, this research calls for embedding TIP-based supervision across all justice system organisations. TIP supervision is key whether professionals are employed (e.g. police) or self-employed (e.g. intermediaries/barristers). TIP supervision needs to be embedded already at the level of initial training, and within a wider TIP context, TIP supervision has to be conducted by adequately trained personnel. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first piece of work on TIP-based supervision in the English justice system with implications globally, as literature is sparse – trauma is present in justice systems all around the world.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.