Debate contribution: Adverse Childhood Experiences and Trauma
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Adverse Childhood Experiences and Trauma
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774227
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Executive-wide programme includes work that goes on in schools, and, indeed, there are many good initiatives in the school system on tackling paramilitarism, particularly those that look at trauma-informed approaches. I can think of two clear examples. The first one is the trauma-informed approach in the Encompass programme, where we inform schools if a child has been subject to a domestic abuse incident or has been in a household in which a domestic incident occurred overnight so that that child will receive a more trauma-informed response when they arrive at school. The second one is the work that is being done on child criminal and sexual exploitation. The Health Minister, the Education Minister and I jointly launched a strategy to deal with that issue because we recognised that many of those vulnerabilities will often present in either a healthcare or school setting, and it is important that people fully understand the kinds of red flags that they should watch out for.
162 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.67).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.84 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:52 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.