Building Trauma-Informed Evaluation Tools
June 2025
This article is rated:
At Three Hive Consulting, much of my work as an evaluator involves asking people to share personal experiences, reflect on sensitive topics, or provide feedback on complex situations through interviews, focus groups, and surveys. But what happens when those experiences are shaped by trauma?
As evaluators, our work involves more than data, it involves people. That’s why it’s essential to ensure that the tools we use to collect data uphold dignity, safety, and respect. The Canadian Evaluation Society’s Guidance for Ethical Practice remind us that ethical evaluation demands more than methodological rigour; it also requires compassion, inclusivity, and respect for human experience. In this article, we explore how to build trauma-informed evaluation tools that reflect these values, particularly when working with communities affected by trauma.
What Does “Trauma-Informed” Mean in Evaluation?
A trauma-informed approach in evaluation recognizes that trauma is both widespread and often invisible. It acknowledges that individuals and communities may carry the effects of past or ongoing trauma, whether disclosed or not, and that evaluation processes must be designed to minimize harm, prevent retraumatization, and promote psychological and emotional safety for all participants. Drawing from principles of ethical practice, trauma-informed evaluation emphasizes safety, trustworthiness, choice, collaboration, and empowerment throughout the evaluation process. At its core, trauma-informed evaluation is grounded in deep respect for people and a commitment to being responsive to lived experience.
Why It Matters
According to the 2023 Survey on Mental Health and Stressful Events, approximately 8.4% of Canadian adults reported moderate to severe symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the month before the survey. This was higher among women (9.8%) compared to men (6.9%), and highest among young adults aged 18 to 24. While not all individuals exposed to trauma develop PTSD, these figures highlight the widespread impact of traumatic experiences and underscore the importance of trauma-informed approaches in evaluation practices.
For individuals living with PTSD or who have experienced trauma, evaluation processes that are not designed with care can feel intrusive or unsafe. A trauma-informed evaluation approach helps mitigate this risk by ensuring participation is voluntary and empowering, questions are framed with cultural and emotional sensitivity, environments foster psychological safety, and data collection is conducted in ways that align with healing-centered and do-no-harm practices
Tips for Building Trauma-Informed Evaluation Tools
These tips reflect what I’ve learned through my experience developing trauma-informed evaluation tools in practice.
1. Begin with intentional design
Before drafting your survey, interview guide, or focus group script, reflect on:
Purpose: Why are you asking each question?
Audience: Who will be answering the questions?
Application: How will the data be used?
If a question lacks a clear purpose or has the potential to cause harm, consider removing or rephrasing it. This aligns with ethical principles of minimizing harm and upholding participant well-being.
Example
Surveys: Avoid overly intrusive questions unless absolutely necessary, including asking unnecessary demographic questions. For sensitive topics, provide a “prefer not to answer” option and make it clear that skipping questions is an option.
Interviews: Begin with light, grounding questions to establish comfort before moving into more personal topics. Let participants know they can pause, skip, or stop at any time.
Focus Groups: Clearly outline the goals and limits of the conversation at the start. Establish ground rules that support confidentiality, respect, and emotional safety. Use warm-up questions to build comfort and trust before asking participants to reflect on difficult experiences. Also reflect critically on whether a focus group is the most appropriate method for the topic, particularly when discussing trauma or highly sensitive experiences, individual interviews or alternative formats may be more suitable.
2. Engage individuals with lived experience and experts when developing the tools
Trauma-informed evaluation is most effective when shaped by the voices of those it’s meant to serve. Involving people with lived experience and subject matter experts ensures your tools reflect real-world perspectives and minimize harm.
Co-create or review tools with:
Individuals with lived experience who feel ready and supported to assist the evaluation
Trauma-informed care practitioners
Mental health professionals
Cultural safety or equity advisors
Their feedback can help surface issues evaluators may not see, ensuring tools are relevant, inclusive, and safe.
Example
Ask a peer advisory group or trauma-informed review panel to review your tools before finalizing them. This could include adapting language, changing the order of questions, or flagging triggering content you may have missed.
3. Use clear and appropriate language
Language matters, especially when discussing sensitive topics. Avoid jargon, overly clinical terms, and wording that could feel judgmental or stigmatizing. Instead, use language that is plain, respectful, and inclusive of a range of experiences.
Example
Instead of: “Have you experienced abuse or violence?”
Try: “Have you ever felt unsafe or been treated in a way that didn’t feel right?”
This approach uses softer, more open language that avoids labelling.
4. Offer choice and control
One of the core principles of trauma-informed evaluation is respecting participants’ autonomy. Providing options throughout the process helps reduce power imbalances and creates a safer, more respectful experience.
Empower participants by:
Allowing them to skip any question they don’t want to answer
Offering different participation formats (e.g., written, verbal, online)
Explaining how their data will be used, and who will see it
Example
During interviews or focus groups, remind participants that they’re in control of what they share. Use consent forms that reinforce autonomy and include language such as:
“You can choose to skip questions or stop the discussion at any time.”
Evaluators should also be able to recognize signs of discomfort or distress (e.g., changes in tone, body language, or engagement) and have a plan to respond appropriately to support the participant, such as pausing the conversation, checking in, or offering a break.
5. Create a supportive environment
The physical or virtual space in which data is collected plays a critical role in participant safety and comfort. A supportive environment reduces anxiety, fosters trust, and helps participants feel respected and in control throughout the process.
For in-person methods:
When conducting interviews, focus groups, or other face-to-face activities, consider how the setting and facilitation style may affect participants.
Choose a private, quiet, and neutral space that feels safe and welcoming. Avoid clinical or institutional settings when possible.
Ensure evaluators are trained in trauma-informed approaches, including how to recognize signs of distress, respond with empathy, and prioritize participant autonomy.
For online methods:
Even digital tools can trigger distress if not thoughtfully designed. Be transparent and build in safety supports from the start.
Provide a content warning at the beginning if sensitive or potentially distressing topics will be addressed. Let participants know they can proceed at their own pace.
Include support resources and contact information at both the beginning and end of the tool, such as helplines, crisis services, or community supports relevant to your audience.
Use gentle and reassuring language throughout and clearly state that participants can stop or skip questions as they choose.
6. Establish a contingency plan
Even with the most thoughtful planning, evaluators may encounter participants who become overwhelmed or emotionally distressed during data collection. Preparing for these situations helps ensure responses are compassionate, consistent, and grounded in ethical care.
Develop a response plan: Create internal guidance on what to do if a participant becomes visibly upset or discloses distressing information. This may include offering a break, pausing or ending the session, or following up with support resources.
Clarify evaluator/facilitator roles: Remind participants at the start of the session that while you are there to listen, you are not a counsellor or therapist. Be clear about your role and redirect participants to professional supports if needed.
Train the evaluation team: Ensure everyone involved in data collection is briefed on the contingency plan, knows how to recognize signs of distress, and feels equipped to respond with care and professionalism.
Example
If a participant becomes tearful or withdrawn during an interview, the evaluator might say:
“Thank you for sharing that — it sounds like this is a really difficult experience. If you’d like, we can pause here or stop entirely. I also have a list of resources that might be helpful if you feel like talking to someone after this.”
7. Incorporate debriefing and follow-up options
Trauma-informed evaluation doesn’t end when data collection is complete. Following up with participants, creating a space for closure, and offering support when needed, helps ensure that their emotional well-being is supported and that their contribution is acknowledged with care and professionalism.
Offer a debriefing conversation: After interviews or focus groups, take a few minutes to check in with participants. Ask how they’re feeling, thank them for sharing, and remind them who they can reach out to if they need support.
Provide referrals to support services: Include a list of accessible, relevant mental health or community resources in any follow-up communications. These supports should reflect the participant’s geographic region, cultural context, and language needs. Evaluators should also have this list available during the data collection activity in case support is needed in the moment.
Send a thoughtful follow-up message: Acknowledge the time, insights, and emotional labour participants may have contributed. A simple thank-you note that affirms the value of their input can foster trust, respect, and goodwill.
Example
After an interview, the evaluator might say:
“Thanks again for sharing your experiences today. If anything we discussed brought up difficult feelings, please reach out to one of the resources we’ve provided.”
Being trauma-informed isn’t just about minimizing risk, it’s about actively creating evaluation experiences that foster safety, trust, and empowerment. By taking a trauma-informed approach and working alongside people with lived experience, evaluators can develop tools that not only gather quality data but also honour the dignity and agency of every participant.