Assessing Trauma-Informed Care Readiness in Behavioral Health: An Organizational Case Study

Abstract

Objective: In this organizational case study the authors pilot a new protocol for evaluating and developing trauma-informed care in behavioral health settings. Methods: A mixed methods design was used to collect data with three instruments: the Adverse Childhood Experiences, the Consumer Perceptions of Care, and the Community Readiness Model key informant interview. Adults (N = 138) in a behavioral health residential treatment program provided a consumer perspective on trauma and integrated services. Providing the staff perspective, key informant interviews of staff (N = 7) were conducted and the overall protocol's utility was assessed. Results: Results indicate the protocol is an efficient, strength-based, and culturally sensitive assessment approach that provided valuable data about the agency's prevalence of consumer trauma, level of integrated trauma-informed services, and readiness to advance a trauma-informed organizational culture. The piloted protocol also fostered understanding of trauma-informed care principles among staff and improved awareness of how to enhance the level of trauma-informed services at their agency. Conclusions: In addition to providing assessment data, the protocol helped agency staff and leadership to fully engage and mobilize toward change. Further application of this tool and future research are discussed.

Keywords:

• trauma-informed care
• mental health
• substance abuse
• co-occurring disorders
• organizational assessment and development

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to express our gratitude to Norin Dollard, PhD, and Victoria Hummer, MSW, for their assistance with this project.

No financial support was received for the current study.

Results from this article were presented at the 2011 Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association/Florida Council for Community Mental Health 2011 Annual Conference: Making Lives Better—The Force that Unites Us in Orlando, Florida, August 24–26, 2011.

Notes

The term consumer used throughout this article refers to a person receiving treatment. Other terms include survivors, clients, and recovering person.

*χ ² = 15.66. p < .000.

*Indicates a significant effect; ACE scores range from 0–10; CPC scores range from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree); ACE total (9) excludes Divorce.