Any effective response to mounting global violence and atrocities must address the significant associated trauma of those on the frontlines and beyond, especially children. An estimated 1.6 billion children, or roughly 65% of the global population under the age of 18, live in a conflict-affected country. This is to say nothing of other forms of violence that pervade our global sphere that commonly co-occur with other forms of mass violence, including violence against women, child maltreatment, community violence, and crime. As we consider how to make change as a global community and break cycles of violence, greater focus on the psychological ramifications of trauma is critically important.
Exposure to traumatic and adverse events is consistently associated with poorer mental and physical health across the lifespan, with early lifetime exposure to trauma having particularly profound impacts on development. In addition, research suggests that the effects of trauma compound, with increased risk to human development and flourishing as traumatic exposure becomes more severe, chronic, or expands to include more manifestations. In settings affected by mass violence and atrocity, individual traumas are also deeply bound up in collective traumas and social narratives about their meaning. For example, for women and girls who experience sexual violence in the context of war, this violence is not only an event that causes individual harm, but also is woven into broader narratives about the conflict that have implications for both individual and social repair. In short, to understand trauma, we must first understand the complex web of interrelations between these events and the social and cultural systems that interpret them.
In considering how best to support individuals, families, communities, and societies, a robust and multilayered system of supports is required. The most widely used framework for current thinking around mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) in conflict-affected settings draws from the Inter-agency Standing Committee guidelines on MHPSS. These guidelines outline four layers of integrated care: basic needs and security, family and community support, focused non-specialized supports, and specialized care that are integrated into a support “ecosystem.” This kind of comprehensive approach can be a starting place for designing strategies to help communities who have experienced mass violence and atrocities – especially over multiple generations.
A core challenge in mounting such comprehensive supports has been a lack of available care providers. Recent research has convincingly established the promise, feasibility, and effectiveness of training lay paraprofessionals (i.e., those who are not mental health professionals, but who are trained in the delivery of a specific program or programs) in the delivery of such care, with some important caveats on the quality and consistency of training. The evidence basis for psychological supports in these domains is promising, but family and community supports, as well as the evidence basis for the effectiveness of psychological supports for (especially young) children, stand out as clear gaps. These aspects need to be a key focal area for research, especially given the well-documented impacts of violence on child and family functioning.
The UN Interagency Standing Committee and UN Development Program have released new, parallel guidelines underscoring the critical integration of peacebuilding and MHPSS. This provides important footing for continuing to advance a nuanced and multisystemic perspective on trauma in conflict-affected settings. They highlight key questions and evidence gaps. For example, if we agree that psychological trauma is important to address in a peacebuilding process – say inter-group dialogue – in what way should that be integrated? Should one type of work be a pre-condition for the other, should they co-occur, or does one type of work effectively result in the other, with no additional “intervention?” In order to advance trauma-focused work in conflict-affected settings to its next phase, clear theory, strategic partnerships, and careful community-engaged work are needed.
In the wake of fraying international institutions and norms, the global atrocity prevention community is exploring more localized and decentralized approaches to support communities experiencing violence and atrocities. These efforts will be more successful and durable if we focus on the psychological well-being of affected communities – as well as those seeking to support them – and design prevention and peacebuilding strategies accordingly. Greater investment and research into integrated psychosocial supports for violence exposure can pay dividends as we seek to repair relationships and bridge divisions.
Download a PDF of this issue »
About the Author
Laura Miller-Graff is a professor of psychology and peace studies at University of Notre Dame, director of the William J. Shaw Center for Children and Families, and a core faculty member of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, part of the Keough School of Global Affairs.
Recommended Citation
Miller-Graff, Laura. “Addressing Trauma, Mitigating Atrocities: Toward More Integrated Prevention.” Peace Policy: Solutions to Violent Conflict, No. 64, (April 2026). https://doi.org/10.7274/32108533
