Keeping Investigations Trauma–Informed

Investigations into sensitive matters such as harassment, discrimination, or abuse require a sensitive approach. In addition to following general best practices and providing due process, people who have been harmed need care and consideration. Participating in an investigation will likely be a difficult process for them. For one thing, by its very nature, a neutral investigation is not as warm and supportive as counseling or pastoral care. A neutral investigator is concerned to hear and receive allegations but cannot automatically "believe" them.

How then can someone who has been harmed be supported in an investigation? A trauma–informed approach will help to ensure that the investigative process does not inadvertently cause additional harm to individuals who have experienced trauma. It won't make participating in an investigation easy, but it will help a witness get through it.

1. What is Trauma?

Trauma is an intense emotional (and natural) response to a distressing or harmful event or situation. Such events can include accidents, natural disasters, abuse, or witnessing violence. The immediate reactions to trauma often involve shock and denial. Long–term effects may include emotional reactions, obsessive thoughts, flashbacks, relational difficulties, and physical symptoms. Persons who are closely connected to the trauma but don't experience it directly can also suffer secondary trauma.

The onset of trauma can be delayed. This is common, for example, in child sexual abuse, where trauma may be delayed until the child is old enough to understand what really happened. (Immediate expert care will often help a child avoid such long–term trauma, which is one reason an immediate response is critical.)

The degree of trauma is not always proportional to the injury. Some people undergo very serious events without apparently being traumatized, and others can experience a lot of trauma from what may seem to be a lesser incident. This depends in part on the person's natural makeup, the support they may have had to process trauma, and whether they are suffering from other forms of trauma (creating complex trauma). How much trauma a person experiences may not be predictable and is usually outside their personal control.

Anyone in an investigation may be suffering from trauma, either from the events leading to the investigation or other events. This can include complainants, other witnesses (either because they have also been victims, because of secondary trauma, or other life events), and those accused (either because they are also victims, because of the trauma of being attacked, or other life events). This means that all witnesses should be treated as if trauma could be involved, but for those alleging harm, special care should be taken.

If investigators don't understand the possible effects of trauma, they may fail to accurately gather information, or skew the investigation. They may also do harm to witnesses. A victim–focused or trauma–informed approach will prioritize the well–being of persons involved, will respect their dignity, give them support, and give them agency in decision–making.

Investigations should take a trauma–informed approach. While investigations are complex, and no investigation or investigator can be perfect, here are some approaches to be aware of.

2. Tips for Trauma–Informed Investigations

A. Monitor emotional level:

Usually, interviews are hardest for those bringing complaints and for those accused. The investigator should be aware that for people with high stakes in the investigation, it's a very tough process.

B. Setting up meetings:

Investigators should use patience and respect in setting up meetings. Where they can, they should be flexible. Witnesses may need more information, and prompt, courteous responses will help. Witnesses may ask for special arrangements and should be given choices to the degree that it doesn't violate best practices. It's not uncommon for witnesses to be hostile or rude to investigators, and investigators should remind themselves that this is likely the result of trauma or insecurity and is not personal (even though it may feel like it). Investigators also need to recommit themselves to giving a full and fair hearing to each witness.

C. A safe place:

Conduct interviews in private, comfortable settings. If someone is alleging abuse in an organizational context, such as a church, it's important that the interview happen in a neutral space.

D. In–person interviews:

It's better to conduct important interviews in person, especially if someone is suffering trauma. It's hard to provide any level of compassionate support across the Internet. And in worst–case scenarios, if a person starts to decompensate, the interviewer wants to be close enough to take action (like calling for help).

E. A support person:

It's challenging for a witness to participate in an investigation. Witnesses often do better with a support person, and this is particularly important for people suffering trauma. The support person, who knows the witness better, can help monitor if they need breaks or how they are doing. If a person has suffered extreme trauma or is known to be under psychological care, a counselor can be a good option for a support person.

F. Answer questions:

Both before and during the interview, it's good for witnesses to get information about how the process works and what to expect. Even if it's not the answer they want—such as not having all the confidentiality or access to information that they want—there needs to be trust that they are not being lied to. One important area to be clear about is whether the witness can be anonymous, and if anonymous, how that may affect the outcome of the investigation (usually, it's much harder to substantiate anonymous allegations).

​​​​​​​G. Style of questioning:

Interviews used to be conducted more as "grilling," with very specific and sometimes repeated questions, and even leading questions. Best practices now involve open–ended questions and the opportunity for a witness to tell their story in their own words. While an investigator has to stay neutral, stories should be heard in a compassionate way. Follow–up questions may be needed, but the witness should not feel attacked. An investigative interview is not a cross–examination.

​​​​​​​H. Taking breaks:

Witnesses can ask for breaks, step out to discuss things with their support person, stop for water or a snack, etc. In some settings, witnesses are required to participate, such as the person accused in an employment misconduct investigation. In others, they are not, such as a person bringing allegations. But in either case, pressuring people will increase the trauma. Sometimes, it may be necessary to postpone an interview until better support can be put in place.

​​​​​​​I. Be sensitive to emotional responses:

The interviewer should be attentive to signs of distress and offer breaks or breathing spaces. The investigator should stay aware of the physical and emotional security of the witness.

​​​​​​​J. Appropriate choice of investigator:

Not every investigator is good in every setting. For sexual misconduct allegations, for instance, it's almost always better to have a female interviewer talk to women. In interviewing a child, the investigator needs to be a trained child forensic interviewer (or child therapist). In interviewing a witness suffering from extreme trauma, it may be wise for the investigator to be a trained psychologist. In addition, the investigator needs to know something about the subject matter of the investigation, whether that is in the child abuse context or the employment context.

​​​​​​​K. Memory issues:

The investigator should be aware of possible memory issues. It may be necessary to press for details, but this should be done carefully and gently. Another effect of trauma may be that a witness cannot express himself or herself in a linear or logical way. An investigator may need to work hard to piece together a coherent timeline, maybe using other witnesses for some details.

​​​​​​​I. Avoid judgment:

Investigators should avoid questions that imply blame, such as "Why didn't you report it sooner?" or questions about how the victim responded. They should be aware that it is very common for victims not to know what to do in the face of abuse or not to be able to come forward for an extended period of time.

​​​​​​​M. Cross–cultural differences:

Investigators should be aware of possible cross–cultural differences, including those related to race, age, gender, and nationality. It may be possible to tailor the choice of interviewer to this context.

​​​​​​​N. Care in documentation:

Usually, reports that are given to witnesses should avoid unnecessary repetition of distressing details.

​​​​​​​O. Follow–up:

Investigators can sometimes provide communication about the investigation's progress, and they can give information about support services, or they can encourage the organization to do both of these.

3. Avoiding Re–Traumatization

A poorly conducted investigation can re–traumatize individuals, exacerbating their distress. This can occur through dismissive attitudes, invasive questioning, or lack of support. It can definitely occur if someone feels blamed.

Re–traumatization may in turn lead to feelings of betrayal, increased anxiety, and reluctance to participate in future processes. Implementing trauma–informed practices helps prevent additional harm and supports the individual's recovery journey.

4. The Impact of Trauma on Memory

Trauma can significantly affect how memories are formed and recalled, both short–term and long–term memory. Chronic stress from trauma can affect the hippocampus, which is responsible for making and keeping memories. One common effect is that a person may have incomplete memories. In the case of child abuse, someone may lose large chunks of time from their memory. A person can have difficulty recalling the actual traumatic events, or have impaired general memory. The brain may also suppress memories as a way of coping. Sometimes, these memories return as "recovered memories."

The ongoing effect of trauma may cause a sufferer to "over–remember" more details of trauma than factually occurred. While all memories are easily distorted, memory distortion for traumatic events often follows a pattern called "memory amplification." Memory amplification can happen in at least a couple of ways. One is by taking in details from other sources, such as through conversations with others. This is called "social contamination" and is common where there have been group discussions or other exchanges of information. Another way is that the intrusive memories themselves create "growing" memories. Traumatic memories are often vivid and intrusive but are also commonly fragmented and disorganized. They can contain both accurate and inaccurate details. This jumbled "information" may lead to source monitoring errors (i.e. confusion about where the memory is coming from). Remembering things worse than what actually happened worsens the trauma.¹

Memory distortion is one reason that modern trauma therapy does not have a person rehearse the trauma multiple times, and why treatment seeks to help the person avoid intrusive memories.

What are the implications for an investigation? First, it's important for an investigator to realize that if a witness has incomplete or fragmented memories, or is not able to tell the story in a linear way, it does not mean that the story isn't true or that the person is lying. In fact, it's very rare that someone bringing forward a story of harm is deliberately lying. However, an investigator also needs to be aware of the possibility of memory distortion or memory amplification. A witness may genuinely and truly believe facts that did not actually happen. When the memory is recovered or amplified, it may or may not be factually true. One way to look at it is that a recovered memory may not accurately describe the injury that caused trauma, but it does accurately point to the existence of trauma.

Investigators must take all memories seriously and also look for corroboration. Some facts can be established by other witnesses. Also, it can be very helpful if the narrative can be corroborated close in point of time to the event. For instance, did the witness tell someone about the event at the time, write it down, etc.? Often, events can be substantiated in spite of significant memory distortion.

5. Responses to Those Harmed

Even when allegations are substantiated, healing is not automatic for persons traumatized. The conclusion of the investigation will not be helpful unless further healing processes happen.

And what if the allegations are not substantiated? Understandably, it is deeply frustrating for those suffering harm when their allegations are not substantiated—and it may be frustrating for other witnesses and for the organization as well. The nature of investigations is such that many allegations cannot be substantiated. This is especially common for older (historical) allegations, allegations where there are memory issues, allegations where there are no witnesses, etc.

It's important for investigators and organizations alike to be clear that failing to substantiate—that is, failing to be able to say that the allegation more likely than not happened—is not the same as saying that the allegation is false or unfounded.

Even more importantly, it is not the same as saying that the person has not experienced harm. The harm and trauma may be very apparent if the allegation cannot be substantiated and even if it is not factually true. Other traumatic events may have happened that we do or don't know about. Someone who has certain memories suffers from them whether they are 100% true, partially true, or not true. And they continue to suffer from them whether or not the allegations are substantiated.

It is also important to distinguish between lack of substantiation of an allegation and complete vindication of the person or organization. For example, in a situation where it is not substantiated that leaders are abusive, it's very common that the investigation may still reveal the need for revision and change in the organizational culture, or for closer management and coaching of a poor leader.

Whether or not there has been substantiation, there can be care provided and restorative processes. This can be anything from organizational apologies about exposing people to harm, to Christian mediation (which is often very restorative), to providing counseling, to updating policies so that predicaments are not repeated—and so on. Much good can be obtained once an investigative process is concluded even if the findings are disappointing to people coming forward with allegations. And if restorative processes and care are offered, the overall experience can still move in a healing direction for the person suffering trauma.

6. Conclusion

Adopting a trauma–informed approach in investigations is not only compassionate but also enhances the effectiveness of the investigative process. By understanding trauma's impact and implementing supportive practices, investigators can ensure that all parties are treated with dignity and respect, leading to more thorough and just outcomes. Understanding trauma will also help organizations respond with restorative processes after an investigation, whether allegations are substantiated or not.

7. Addendum: Trauma for the Investigator

Investigators do not work in a vacuum; they bring their own history, struggles, and narrative to the interviews. Investigators should be aware that being exposed to narratives of trauma in the investigations may cause secondary trauma, particularly if it ties into trauma in their own lives. They should carefully monitor their own reactions to witnesses to make sure they are staying impartial and unbiased.

Signs of secondary trauma can include emotional exhaustion, hypervigilance, physical symptoms, or intrusive thoughts.

Investigators may need to establish good work–life boundaries, engage in self–care, or seek professional support.

____________________________________

¹ "Memory Distortion for Traumatic Events: The Role of Mental Imagery," Deryn Strange and Melanie Takarangi: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4337233/