Balancing Safety and Compassion: Understanding Behavior Through a Trauma-Informed Lens

The other day, I was responsible for leading a reconciliation meeting between two young seven-year-olds who had gotten in a physical altercation in our dining hall at camp. I spoke with both campers individually, and it was clear that one had instigated the fight (let’s call her Fiona), while the other (we can call her Amelia) was defending herself. I explained to Fiona the importance and power of saying sorry. We practiced an apology, and I went to get Amelia to facilitate this relationship repair. This was, on a much smaller scale, an example of restorative justice, which is, “a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible” (Rousseau, 2026). Rather than simply separating the girls or issuing consequences, it was important for Fiona to acknowledge the harm she had caused and give Amelia an opportunity to express how the incident affected her. The goal was not just punishment but repairing the relationship.

As I was bringing Amelia over to Fiona, she asked the following question: “Is she saying sorry because she’s actually sorry or because you told her she needs to say sorry?” Needless to say, this question stumped me. Yes, Fiona knew she had to apologize. Did she want to? No. But why did she not want to? Did she know that what she did was wrong, and so she was embarrassed to apologize? Or was she unaware of the true impact of her physicality? Amelia reminded me, though, that full reconciliation would not be possible unless Fiona really meant it. 

Ultimately, Fiona did apologize to Amelia, and we ended up eating dinner together, where Fiona and Amelia were calling each other “besties.” Just a day later, though, when Amelia took a pool ring from Fiona, Amelia once again resorted to physical violence. 

We ended up having to make the incredibly difficult decision to send Fiona home from camp after the two physical altercations and another escalation that resulted in her throwing hard objects at counselors. She couldn’t keep herself or others safe, and that is our top priority here at camp. 

What I just kept thinking, though, was, especially given this child’s history, that her actions may have reflected a trauma response. I think back to that behavioral iceberg model—a child’s behavior is their way of communicating their needs. What was this child trying to tell us? What was triggering her trauma response? What needs was she expressing? Rather than viewing her aggression simply as misconduct, I began to wonder whether it was a survival strategy that had once protected her. Van der Kolk explains that trauma can leave the brain in a constant state of vigilance, causing the amygdala to perceive threats even in situations that are objectively safe (2014). When this occurs, access to the prefrontal cortex—the part of the brain responsible for reasoning, impulse control, and decision-making—can become impaired. Instead of thoughtfully responding to conflict, children may instinctively fight, flee, or freeze.

I understood that these intense emotional reactions may have been driven by her brain perceiving danger where none existed, limiting access to the prefrontal cortex and making thoughtful decision-making much more difficult. In these moments, it wasn’t that she didn’t want to regulate her emotions and make rational decisions; it was that she couldn’t. Ethically, this experience reminded me that trauma-informed care sometimes requires balancing one child’s needs with the safety of an entire community.

What gives me hope, though, is that this child is still young and has an opportunity to develop coping skills and to work through her trauma, if given the right tools. I think back to restorative justice and Dan Reisel’s TED Talk, The Neuroscience of Restorative Justice. Reisel describes neuroplasticity as the brain’s ability to form new neural connections throughout life. Building on this idea, he argues that empathy is not a fixed trait but a skill that can be strengthened through repeated opportunities to practice accountability, emotional regulation, and healthy relationships (Reisel, 2013).

While we at camp did not have the resources to support Fiona for the entire week, I like to think that we took a baby step in supporting her development of coping skills. There was one instance when Fiona shared that another camper had made her angry. Instead of hitting the camper, she told me, “I’m angry,” put on her noise-canceling headphones, and went to her bed to color until she calmed down. While this may seem like a small victory, I saw it as evidence of exactly what Reisel describes. Fiona practiced a new response instead of relying on aggression. Even though she later struggled again, this moment demonstrated that change is possible and that healthier behavioral patterns can begin to replace old ones through repetition and support. Although the progress was inconsistent, healing from trauma is rarely linear, and this moment reminded me that success is often measured by small steps rather than complete transformation. In that sense, restorative justice is not simply about repairing a single conflict but about creating opportunities for individuals to practice empathy, accountability, and healthier ways of relating to others.

This course has changed the way I interpret challenging behavior. Instead of asking, “Why is this child acting this way?” I now find myself asking, “What happened to this child, and what is she trying to communicate?” While not every child can remain in an environment like camp safely, trauma-informed care reminds us that behavior is often an expression of unmet needs rather than simply defiance. Reisel’s discussion of neuroplasticity reinforces that healing and behavioral change are possible because the brain remains capable of change throughout life (2013). Although our time together lasted only three days, I hope the coping strategies Fiona practiced at camp become the foundation for continued healing. While we could not change her past, I hope we contributed, even in a small way, to changing what comes next.

References:

Reisel, D. (2013). The neuroscience of restorative justice [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_reisel_the_neuroscience_of_restorative_justice

Rousseau, D. (2026). Trauma and Crisis Intervention [Course materials]. Boston University.

van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.

View all posts