Our approach

A black and white diagram of our core program elements - movement, mindfulness, breathwork, and awareness.

Somatic Model of Care

Our ‘Somatic Model of Care’ is a unique, evidence-informed framework that integrates movement, mindfulness, nervous system education, and community connection.

Informed by a decade of service delivery, our model emphasises somatic ‘micro-practices’ - small, practical, and accessible interventions designed to interrupt the stress response, regulate emotions, and move towards rest or calm. Participants in our programs learn a suite of micro-practices that can be integrated into daily life - wherever they may be.

Underpinned by our commitments to community wellbeing, our approach isn’t just about individual recovery and care. It’s about building healthier and more resourced communities.

Why ‘body-based’?

Evidence shows that body-based, trauma-informed approaches can reduce symptoms of stress, while improving emotional regulation and interoceptive awareness. Somatic practices can also support neuroplasticity, helping the brain learn new, more adaptive responses to ongoing pressure and challenge.

Through movement, mindfulness, and nervous system education, our programs support people to notice what's happening in their bodies, understand how stress and trauma affect their systems, and learn simple practices to reconnect with safety, agency, and belonging.

What makes our approach powerful is its sustainability. Once learned, these tools become internal resources people can return to in their own time and in ways that suit their lives, building skills that are simple, effective, and enduring.

A man and woman stand back to back, each with their eyes closed, appearing to be in a moment of reflection or emotional connection.

Why it matters

Many people are living with the impacts of stress, but can’t access care that feels safe, appropriate, or ongoing, particularly those facing systemic barriers.

Research demonstrates that emotional regulation is a prerequisite for reflection, relationship, and healing, and that somatic techniques are one of the most effective pathways to shift from dysregulation to connection.

Evidence also shows that social connection and a sense of belonging are powerful protectors against the long-term impacts of stress and trauma.

In addition to fostering enduring skills and strategies for individuals, our group programs centre the role of connection. In doing so, we aim to contribute to a more community-centred and accessible mental health ecosystem.

Four women sitting on a couch engaged in conversation, with one woman gesturing with her hand.

We put our approach into practice by partnering with community services to co-design and deliver group programs, build practical skills, and embed trauma-informed, nervous-system-aware care into everyday environments.

Programs in clinical, carceral, educational, and community settings

Education for professionals, carers, and community workers

Public events that offer inclusive, accessible experiences of care

Advocacy and systems work informed by practice and evaluation.

How we use this approach

1. Payne, P., Levine, P.A., & Crane-Godreau, M.A. (2015). “Somatic experiencing: using interoception and proprioception as core elements of trauma therapy.” Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 93.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00093
2. Epstein, R. (2016) “Gender & Trauma: Somatic Interventions for Girls in Juvenile Justice: Implications for Policy and Practice. “Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality. Available at: https://jjie.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/gender-and-trauma.pdf
3. McEwen, B.S., & Morrison, J.H. (2013). “The brain on stress: vulnerability and plasticity of the prefrontal cortex over the life course.” Neuron, 79(1), 16–29.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.06.028
4. Mehling, W.E., Wrubel, J., Daubenmier, J.J., Price, C.J., Kerr, C.E., Silow, T., Gopisetty, V., & Stewart, A.L. (2011). “Body awareness: a phenomenological inquiry into the common ground of mind-body therapies.” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 6(1), 6.https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-6-6
5. Rhodes, A.M. (2015). “Claiming peaceful embodiment through yoga in the aftermath of trauma.” Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 21(4), 247–256.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2015.09.004
6. Teicher, M.H., & Samson, J.A. (2016). “Annual Research Review: Enduring neurobiological effects of childhood abuse and neglect.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12507
7. Emerson, D., et al. (2009). “Trauma-sensitive yoga: Principles, practice, and research.” International Journal of Yoga Therapy, 19(1), 123–128.