Last updated: 27 January 2026

Trauma-informed care (TIC) is a relationship-based approach that organisations can adopt to better understand trauma and its impact. TIC helps ensure services provide effective support and, most importantly, avoid re-traumatising the people who use or work in them.

In supported housing services, we know there are high levels of evictions and abandonments. However, adapting practice by applying TIC can help individuals feel physically and psychologically safe in their home.

To show the difference TIC can make in supported housing services, we have created a new animation. It highlights how small, intentional changes in practice—especially on someone’s first day in their accommodation—can have a significant impact.

We encourage you to watch the animation below and share it with colleagues. Consider how you personally, and your organisation, might adapt your own practice to be more trauma-informed.

Further down the page, you’ll also find examples of ‘typical’ hostel scenarios, showing how simple changes in responses can help prevent re-traumatisation.

Scenario 1: Jamie is not engaging with support

Jamie is a care leaver with a history of rough sleeping. He has lived at multiple hostels over recent years and feels frustrated. In his current hostel, he is missing support sessions and avoids interacting with staff. Jamie is withdrawn, keeps to himself, and expresses to staff that there’s no point in engaging with support because nothing ever changes.

Non–trauma-informed response:

  • Staff become frustrated and confront Jamie directly, telling him he must attend sessions or risk losing his bed space.
  • Non-engagement with support leads to a first warning, which could end in an eviction if nothing changes.
  • Jamie feels blamed, pressured, and shamed, increasing disengagement and his distrust of staff.

Trauma-informed response:

  • Staff approach the situation calmly, observing Jamie’s body language and mood and giving him time and space before offering to talk if needed.
  • Staff offer flexible options for engagement, such as informal conversations, choice of time/location.
  • They explore barriers to participation collaboratively (e.g., anxiety, past experiences, lack of trust in services).
  • The focus of staff is on building trust, supporting empowerment and validating feelings rather than on enforcing rules and expectations.

Actions to consider:

  • Review individuals' support regularly – is it still working for them, what do they need, would they like to be supported in a different way?
  • Ensure hostel rules are co-produced with residents, including defining what it means to ‘engage’, and the requirements surrounding this.

Scenario 2: Altercation between Amara and Sarah

Amara has lived at the hostel for around a year, having fled an abusive relationship. Sarah arrived more recently after rough sleeping and is finding it difficult to stick to the rules, including keeping the shared spaces clean and tidy. Amara and Sarah have a disagreement in the communal lounge, which escalates into shouting and aggression. Other residents are becoming distressed, and it seems the situation could continue escalating if not managed.

Non–trauma-informed response:

  • Staff intervene immediately with authoritative commands, telling Amara and Sarah to stop or threatening consequences.
  • Focus is on control and punishment rather than understanding what triggered the conflict.
  • Amara and Sarah may feel embarrassed, threatened, or unfairly treated, which could increase tension or future conflict.

Trauma-informed response:

  • Staff first ensure the safety of all individuals, maintaining calm body language and tone.
  • They separate Amara and Sarah calmly if needed, without shaming or escalating the situation.
  • Staff listen to each person individually to understand the trigger and their emotional experience.
  • They may offer to facilitate a conversation between Amara and Sarah to resolve the conflict.
  • The focus of staff is on restoring safety, supporting emotional regulation, and promoting respect for others rather than on punishment.

Actions to consider:

  • Ensure that any staff involved in the incident attend a debrief to discuss what happened and encourage them to take part in reflective practice sessions.
  • If any staff are affected by the incident, give them a chance to decompress, and offer follow up support where needed to ensure their wellbeing.

Scenario 3: Steve is not paying his service charge

Steve moved into the hostel a few months ago. After losing his job, he was unable to pay his rent which led to him having to sleep rough. Since moving in, Steve has missed his service charge payment multiple times, and his arrears are increasing, putting his tenancy at risk. Steve refuses to address the debt.

Non–trauma-informed response:

  • Staff confront Steve aggressively, threatening eviction.
  • The approach focuses solely on rules and consequences, without exploring the reasons behind non-payment.
  • Steve may feel stressed, shamed, or anxious, which could worsen engagement.

Trauma-informed response:

  • Staff approach Steve calmly and respectfully, focusing on collaboration rather than punishment.
  • They explore the reasons for missed payments, such as financial difficulty, confusion about the welfare system, or past negative experiences with paying rent.
  • Staff work with Steve to develop a practical plan for payment, offering flexible options or connecting him with financial support services.
  • Communication is clear, non-judgmental, and empathetic, prioritising Steve’s stability and sense of control.

Actions to consider:

  • Ensure that details surrounding rent and service charge payments are communicated in a clear way, with options for different formats for people with learning needs.
  • Be transparent about what the service charge covers so that individuals understand exactly what they are paying for.

Scenario 4: Ashley is using substances in the hostel

Ashley moved into the hostel recently and did not disclose to staff that she was using any substances, fearing that this would lead to her losing her bed space. Staff conduct a health and safety check in Ashley’s room and find her using substances, with drug paraphernalia scattered amongst her belongings.

Non–trauma-informed response:

  • Staff immediately confront Ashley aggressively and threaten eviction.
  • Focus is on punishment and enforcing rules without exploring underlying reasons for use.
  • Ashley may feel shamed, targeted, or unsafe, leading to avoidance of staff and secretive substance use, increasing the risk of overdose.

Trauma-informed response:

  • Staff approach Ashley calmly and avoid using judgemental language.
  • Staff explore underlying triggers or needs, such as coping with stress, trauma, or mental health challenges.
  • They collaboratively discuss harm reduction strategies, support options, and referral to substance use services.
  • The emphasis is on trust, safety, and supporting positive choices rather than punishment.

Actions to consider:

  • Building a trusting relationship with individuals can take time, and people won’t always open up immediately. Be patient, consistent, and reliable.
  • Use motivational interviewing techniques (e.g. open questions, reflective listening)
  • Consider co-creating a drug-safety plan with individuals to reduce risks.

Scenario 5: Rowan has a conflict with staff

Rowan moved into the hostel after a relationship breakdown with his mother, where he was asked to leave his family home. Rowan becomes frustrated with a staff member, causing him to raise his voice and become aggressive. Other residents notice what is happening and the tension and situation escalates, with Rowan making personal remarks about the staff member.

Non–trauma-informed response:

  • Staff respond defensively, escalating the confrontation, and threaten warnings/eviction.
  • The interaction focuses on asserting authority and control rather than resolving the issue.
  • Rowan may feel powerless, angry, or unsafe, further straining the relationship.

Trauma-informed response:

  • Staff stay calm, maintain open body language, and avoid raising their voices.
  • They acknowledge Rowan’s frustration and invite a private conversation to discuss and address concerns.
  • Staff focus on understanding Rowan’s perspective, validating emotions, and collaboratively finding solutions that will avoid similar situations in future.
  • The approach emphasises collaboration, choice, and maintaining a safe and respectful environment.

Actions to consider: 

  • If you, as a staff member, are involved in conflict, take a moment to regulate yourself before you respond – use grounding techniques, such as deep breathing to calm yourself.
  • Ensure you maintain consistent, clear boundaries about what is acceptable, and what isn’t in terms of behaviour. Discuss these boundaries with individuals and make sure they understand the reasons behind them.