Context

1 in 5 children experience a traumatic event every year, undermining their ability to learn. A student carrying chronic stress, instability, or exposure to violence doesn’t arrive at school ready to perform on a state test. But tests rarely adjust for children’s lived realities.

Schools are increasingly expected to address broader student needs such as mental health and wellbeing that make learning possible. Academic outcomes are central to accountability, and accordingly, their budget, while these non-academic factors drive schools’ daily reality.

The good news is that some states’ funding approaches already include counselors, nurses, and support staff. And some districts may utilize state dollars to fund trauma-related work out of necessity, even if state funding formulas do not explicitly consider this in calculations. There is a gap between stretched resources and intentional investment.

Afton partnered with a state-level advocacy organization to further understand this gap and make a case for aligning what schools are funded to do with what they’re being asked to do.

Goal

This advocacy organization ultimately sought to extend the state’s current funding formula by making the implicit explicit. The project ultimately focused on what types of services and supports schools can achieve within their walls, during the hours students are in their care. External partnerships and community services matter, but a funding formula can only address what happens inside the school day.

The question we explored was narrow and actionable:

“What does it cost to support students experiencing trauma in a school-based setting, and how should those costs show up in how a state allocates resources?”

Approach

Research-Reviewed, Evidence-Based Strategies

We began with a literature review, showing that chronic trauma exposure:

• Adversely affects attention, memory, and cognition
• Interferes with problem-solving and often surfaces as behavioral challenges in the classroom
• Disproportionately affects children of color and children from low-income households at higher rates, while having less access to mental health care outside of school

The research also clarified which interventions are best positioned to support students and staff. Rather than catalog every approach, the team focused on two school-wide strategies with strong evidence bases:

1. Trauma-Informed Frameworks: Models that equip students, teachers, and administrators to recognize and respond to trauma across the school environment
2. School-Based Mental Health Supports: Programs targeting social-emotional development, delivered by school staff or school-partnered providers

With the research grounded, Afton examined the existing landscape. The state’s formula already included resources for positions that in theory could support trauma-related work. But effective school-wide strategies require dedicated personnel, professional development, and infrastructure. The cost components are identifiable.

Schools may already be doing this work. Yet “mental health” and “trauma-informed care” aren’t explicitly named. The formula doesn’t recognize it that way.

Potential Recommendations & Levers

Afton identified two key levers to close the gap, each building on mechanisms the formula already uses:

1. Per-Student Investments. Earmark a portion of professional development funding for trauma-informed training. The current PD allocation is content-neutral. Designating funds for this purpose ensures all staff (not just counselors and school-based clinicians) learn to recognize and respond to student needs.
2. Additional Targeted Investments. Apply the formula’s existing logic for student characteristics (e.g., income level) to trauma. Use indicators like housing instability, community violence exposure, or child welfare involvement to direct resources to schools serving higher concentrations of affected students.

Outcomes

The state advocacy organization now has a research-backed policy brief connecting trauma’s learning impacts to specific cost factors, identifying where the current formula falls short, and offering actionable recommendations tied to existing funding mechanisms.

The project positions them to make a clear case to state policymakers: their state’s formula is strong, but it hasn’t named what schools are already being asked to do. Naming it is the first step toward funding it intentionally.

Takeaways

For State Policymakers: Your formula likely has a similar gap. Positions doing mental health work may be funded without naming that function, or the funding level may be inadequate to meet the growing need. Making the purpose explicit creates accountability and signals that student wellbeing is foundational — not supplemental — to academic outcomes.

For K12 District Leaders: Formula changes take time. Braiding and blending existing local, state, and federal streams — including Title I, IDEA, Title IV, Medicaid — can support mental health programming now. Understanding what’s allowable is the first step toward sustainable support.