Trauma-Informed Organisational Development

Self-assessment of duty of care, protection and organisational learning

Pilot · Version 7 · October 2026 · developed by Peter Urs Aeberhard, THAC

Some organisations expose their own staff to traumatic stress: through violence, accidents, deployments in crisis areas or distressing material. Others work every day with people who may be traumatised – victims, witnesses, patients, refugees, children. Many do both.

In both cases, the effects of trauma do not stop with the individual. They shape teams, decisions and culture. How an organisation leads, plans, listens and responds decides whether its people remain able to act – and whether the people it serves can trust it.

The tool brings together organisational responsibilities for staff care and trauma-informed principles. THAC’s Relational Systems Framework (RSF) provides a conceptual framework for examining organisational conditions, relationships and opportunities for development together.

What the self-assessment does

The self-assessment helps an organisation see where it stands and what a realistic next step would be.

Four blocks. Three concern the organisation and its staff: Empower people, Strengthen systems and Build trust (trust within the organisation). The fourth, Service users, looks at how the organisation meets, protects and supports the people it works for, including equal treatment and supportive services.
16 core questions, plus the block «Service users» and optional modules for police and security, justice, health, education, asylum, migration and social work, emergency services, and humanitarian work. A further module covers intercultural cooperation and diversity.
Four levels for each question, written as concrete practice: ad hoc, defined, practised, learning. A policy on its own is level 2; from level 3, what counts is what can be observed in daily work.
Honest answers: «not applicable» and «cannot yet be assessed» are valid answers, and each question has room for evidence and differing views.
Protection first: where a protection-relevant question is at the lowest level, the result points to responsible bodies rather than treating it as an ordinary development step.
From result to action: the result shows for each question what is in place and what is missing for the next level. Recommendations are ordered by THAC’s three fields of action – Leadership & Strategy, Governance & Resilience, Dialogue & Conflict Transformation – and name who acts and the sources they build on. The organisation can record its three next priorities with owner and review date.

The tool deliberately calculates no overall score and no averages. Each axis of its chart is a single question; nothing is added up.

Start the self-assessment → · Deutsche Fassung →

Who it is for

Leaders and management teams who want to know how well their organisation cares for its people and for those it serves.
Organisational developers, HR and staff-care professionals who need a structured starting point.
Staff who want to engage with the issue and bring it into their organisation.

How to use it

On your own: about 20 minutes for the core set.
With different perspectives: the result is most meaningful when leadership and staff complete it separately and compare. Differences are a result in themselves. The tool can save one result and show another against it.
In a workshop: the questions work well as a basis for a facilitated discussion in a team or leadership group.

Your data: answers stay in your browser. THAC does not collect any data and does not produce an assessment of you or your organisation. You can copy the result, or save it as a PDF in your browser, and share it yourself.

Where it comes from

The work started from the 2024 DCAF study on trauma-informed policing, of which Peter Urs Aeberhard was the lead author, and the DCAF guide on assessing and addressing trauma in the security sector that builds on it. To transfer the topic to organisations in general, the Duty of Care Maturity Model offered a suitable structure. It was developed in 2018/2019 by a working group of the Swiss Security Network with GISF and cinfo, in which Peter Urs Aeberhard took part. The tool keeps that model’s four areas of duty – information, prevention, monitoring, intervention – as orientation, and its maturity logic, simplified to four levels.

New are the focus on the effects of trauma, all questions and level descriptions, the four blocks, the fields of action, the modules and the sourced recommendations. Questions and structure were reorganised with the support of AI; content and responsibility lie with THAC. No endorsement by cinfo, DCAF or other sources should be inferred.

The two THAC tools have different emphases: the trauma-informed self-assessment looks at an organisation’s care, protection and learning practice. The RSF Assessment examines the interplay of relational conditions and functions, and indications of development or erosion. Document review is one possible way in.

Status and limits

This is a pilot. It has not been validated; its reliability still has to be shown in use.
It assesses organisational conditions and practices, not individuals. It is not a diagnosis, a certificate or proof of legal compliance.
The legal references follow Swiss law. Most legal systems know a comparable employer duty of care; organisations elsewhere should check their national law. The model can be adapted.
It sets no standards. It supports learning and comparison over time.

Feedback

Feedback on questions, levels and recommendations will inform the next version. Please write to peter.aeberhard@thac.ch with the subject [TIO-Pilot] Feedback, and name the question ID (for example p3 or jus4) where it helps. Please do not send names, case histories or health information.

Work with THAC

The tool is open to everyone. THAC also offers, on request:

a presentation of the tool to leadership, a team or a professional body;
a facilitated self-assessment with a mixed group;
evaluation and action planning (priorities, owners, dates);
process support over a repeat round;
deepening and organisation-specific questions, for example for a particular sector;
training in trauma-informed leadership and staff care.

Work with THAC → · The RSF → · Publications →

Cite as: Aeberhard, Peter Urs (2026). Trauma-Informed Organisational Development: Self-assessment of duty of care, protection and organisational learning. Pilot, Version 7. THAC, Bern. https://thac.ch/relational-systems-framework/trauma-informed-organisation/

Key sources

Aeberhard, P. (lead author), Robinson, A. and Hales, D. (2024). Addressing trauma as a missing element in security sector governance and reform: Perspectives on trauma-informed policing. Geneva: DCAF.
Robinson, A., Hales, D. and Stark, E. Guide on assessing and addressing trauma in the security sector. Geneva: DCAF.
Swiss Security Network, GISF and cinfo (2018/2019). Duty of Care Maturity Model. Biel/Bienne: cinfo.
SAMHSA (2023). Practical Guide for Implementing a Trauma-Informed Approach. Rockville, MD.
World Health Organization (2022). WHO guidelines on mental health at work. Geneva: WHO.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018). Post-traumatic stress disorder (NG116). London: NICE.
Antares Foundation. Managing stress in humanitarian workers: Guidelines for good practice. Amsterdam.
The full list of sources, with verification status for each, is in the self-assessment.

Home · RSF & Tools · Work with THAC · Publications · Contact