Trauma Informed Evaluation: Red Flags to Watch Out For
October 2026
About the author: Alecia Kallos is a Project Lead and Director of People and Culture at Three Hive Consulting. A Credentialed Evaluator with a public health background, she brings experience using collaborative, strengths-based, and trauma-informed approaches to design and lead mixed-methods evaluations across provincial, community, and national programs.
This article is rated as:
Evaluators, or at least the ones I’ve met, do not set out to cause harm. The main principles of trauma-informed approaches[1]: safety; trustworthiness and transparency; peer support; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment and choice; and cultural, historical and gender issues; can seem fairly obvious. They reflect how most of us would like to approach our work
The advice we typically receive, including our own checklist and articles about creating trauma-informed tools and applying trauma-informed practices across the evaluation lifecycle, focuses on what we should do. I’ve found that trauma-informed also requires us to notice when those principles are absent or beginning to slip. Sometimes the risk is obvious, such as asking someone to recount an obviously difficult experience without providing a safe environment and follow-up supports. In other situations, the risk takes us by surprise. A focus group participant begins to share a story that is making the others in the group deeply uncomfortable. A survey didn’t have time to be vetted by someone with first hand experience and accidentally uses a term that offends the participant population. In most of these situations, the intention was not to cause harm, but rather a series of events unfolded that began to compromise the principles of trauma-informed approaches.
This article highlights red flags that evaluators can watch for when designing and implementing evaluations and suggests some potential “fixes” to avoid or mitigate harm. These red flags are intended to encourage reflection about how our choices compound and why we need to continually examine how evaluation activities are experienced. Often, small adjustments can be made to create the conditions to better uphold the principles of trauma-informed approaches.
As you go through the examples in this article, I hope you reflect on your own practice and experience and consider: Which red flags have you encountered before? Which are hiding in your routine processes? Where are there opportunities to make small changes or use checks and balances to ensure your quest for evaluation rigour does not accidentally cause harm?
The Red Flags and Fixes
1. Asking participants to repeatedly retell difficult experiences.
Sometimes this red flag is obvious. We ask participants a question about a difficult experience and then follow up with probes that begin to veer into intrusive territory. Other times it’s subtle, we ask about an experience and a participant begins to share something that was traumatic. Because this story is novel or unexpected, we begin to probe deeper, losing sight of the interview purpose and scope. This red flag can be difficult to navigate because sometimes our job as evaluators is to ask probing questions about difficult experiences.
Here are some fixes:
When developing the evaluation plan, ensure the evaluation purpose and scope are clear. Create strong boundaries around what you do or do not need to know.
When developing evaluation tools, ask only the questions you need answers to and ensure questions are strengths-based. It can be tempting to add in background or adjacent questions that dive into a person’s experience to help build rapport or understanding. But if those questions are about difficult experiences, it’s best to stay clear unless absolutely crucial to the evaluation.
During data collection, if you notice an individual is uncomfortable and repeating a difficult experience, offer them the opportunity to take a break, skip a question, or answer in a way that doesn’t include the harmful experience.
2. Explaining consent only once.
Imagine this, you set up an interview and email the information sheet in advance. At the start of the interview, you summarize a few of the items in the information sheet, then jump straight into “do you consent to this interview?” This practice has assumed that: 1. The participant has read the information sheet, and 2. They understand the implications of the details included on that information sheet. Now think back to how many meetings you have attended where some (most? all?) of the attendees have not read the agenda, let alone the supporting documents. So why do we assume our interview participants have read and understood our information sheets? Or, if you aren’t providing an information sheet, why are you assuming the participant will understand and process the (long) consent speech you just gave at the start of your interview?
Here are some fixes:
Prior to and during data collection, explain consent in plain language in multiple ways. Provide an easy-to-read information sheet before the interview, cover key items in your introduction, and allow and encourage participants to ask questions.
During data collection, remember that consent is ongoing. If you notice that someone may have misunderstood some of the items covered in your consent and information process, take the time to pause and ensure they are clear. For example, I often find as an external evaluator that participants aren’t clear about who I am and my relationship to the program being evaluated. Stopping to ensure participants understand who I am and what I can and cannot do for them is important.
3. Assuming everyone feels safe sharing in groups.
When choosing methods, we often use what we know worked in similar situations and apply it to our current evaluation. Focus groups are often used (here’s a course to help you decide which data collection methods to use) as a way to gather feedback from what we think are cohesive groups of individuals. In choosing to use focus groups, we can make assumptions about group norms and dynamics and who feels safe sharing with each other.
Here are some fixes:
During evaluation planning, rely on those who know the individual and group dynamics well to help you understand when a focus group would be appropriate and how to group individuals to ensure their safety and comfort in sharing.
When scheduling a focus group, ensure that participants are aware of who else is included in the group. This doesn’t mean sharing the names of potential participants but rather explaining at a high-level the groups or roles who were invited to that specific group. If possible, provide the option for one-on-one interviews as well.
During the focus group, look for signs of discomfort. If a participant is uncomfortable sharing or you feel there is a power imbalance at play, consider stopping the group or avoiding asking the individual questions directly. Follow up with the individual one-on-one after the focus group.
4. Treating emotional reactions as a reason to immediately stop an interview.
Hear me out, this flag may seem to contradict the first one, but there is an important distinction. If a participant is in distress or their safety is at risk, data collection may need to stop immediately. An emotional reaction, however, does not always mean that a participant wants or needs to stop. Empowerment and choice mean giving them the option to pause, skip the questions, continue, or end the data collection activity. In some situations, emotional reactions may be an expected response rather than a sign that data collection must stop.
Here are some fixes:
When developing data collection protocols, consider how participants might respond to the questions you are asking. Work with people who have firsthand knowledge to help guide the development of appropriate questions, discuss what participant responses may look like, and determine how the evaluator should respond.
During data collection, continue to treat consent as an ongoing process. If a participant becomes emotional, pause and ask what they need. Offer options, such as taking a break, skipping the question, or ending the data collection activity. If they choose to continue, allow them the time and space they need before moving on.
After data collection, if you feel it’s appropriate and consistent with the consent process, reach out to the participant to ensure that they are comfortable with the information they have shared and remind them of any relevant supports or next steps.
5. Ending conversations without proper closure or supports.
A data collection activity may surface difficult emotions even when we do not expect it to. When that happens, ending the conversation abruptly or moving straight into logistics can leave a participant feeling unsettled or unsure about what happens next. Proper closure gives the participant time to transition out of the conversation, ask questions, and ask for available supports. Take the time to close each evaluation activity with care.
Here are some fixes:
During evaluation planning, ask if there are any resources you can provide if your data collection brings up sensitive issues. If an evaluation seems particularly benign, having the number of a distress line in the area is always a good back up plan.
During tool development, build in questions that ease the participant out of the data collection activity. Ensure that data collection guides have a list of resources at the end and a protocol for offering them to participants if needed.
During the data collection activity, reference the availability of supports at the beginning of data collection, then follow up at the end, even if you think the participant seems ok. Remind participants of the evaluation purpose and how their stories and data will be used at the end of the data collection activity. Give participants the option to remove any of their data where possible.
Trauma-informed evaluation is not about getting every decision right from the start. It is about paying attention to how our choices compound and are experienced, noticing when something begins to feel off, and being willing to adjust. These red flags will not cover every situation, but I hope they offer a useful starting point for reflecting on your own practice. Often, it is the small, intentional changes we make throughout an evaluation that help participants feel safer, more respected, and more in control of their experience.