FASD and TRC Call to Action 34.4: A Consideration of Evaluation Methods
Trauma-informed
All programs and evaluation designs should be trauma-informed to construct appropriate evaluative measures, as people with FASD may have experienced trauma throughout their lives. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) indicates that “[a] program, organization, or system that is trauma-informed realizes the widespread impact of trauma and understands the potential paths to recovery; recognizes the signs and symptoms of trauma in clients, family, staff, and others involved with the system; and responds by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices, and seeks to actively resist re-traumatization” (2014, 9). The SAMHSA (2014) has also identified six key principles to trauma-informed approaches, including: safety; trustworthiness and transparency; peer support; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment, voice, choice; and cultural, historical, and gender issues. To elaborate:
- Safety implies, but is not limited to, physical and psychological security.
- Trustworthiness is applied to the program and the people operating it, while transparency suggests decisions are made with openness and integrity.
- Peer support is used between people who have experienced trauma to build a trusting community.
- Collaboration and mutuality is meant to divert programs away from tendencies of power imbalances - suggesting that all people are valuable and valued.
- Empowerment, voice, and choice builds on the last point such that when people are valued, their strengths are highlighted and celebrated, empowering all people. Moreover, people who have experienced trauma are often denied avenues to share their voice and make autonomous choices as well as self-advocate.
- Cultural, historical, and gender issues address individual experiences of marginalization or stigmatization, as well as offering opportunities to explore and celebrate cultural differences and connections, incorporating these into the functioning of a program, to better address ‘isms’ and historical and intergenerational traumas.
While trauma-informed practices cover a lot of ground, it is worth reiterating that appropriate evaluation methods should be person-centered, where the process is guided by the relevant individual or community, with a focus on stability and sustained relationships. While the overall functioning of the program is of course important, the only way to really know how effective a program is, is to pay close attention to the individuals being served. For example, in regard to stability, questions should be explored as they relate to housing. People with varying disabilities often have issues maintaining stable housing and this can directly correlate to their success in thriving in the community. In exploring relationships, questions need to be addressed around proper, stable, and ongoing supports. Often when an individual is identified as stable and/or healthy their support person will be removed, under the assumption that they are no longer needed. In reality, to maintain the achieved success, it is imperative that the supports remain in place. Evaluations that do not include formative assessments, where attention is paid to the experience of the individuals accessing the program, could miss important information that would assist the program in evaluating its effectiveness.
- Date modified: