This paper investigates how to incorporate trauma-informed principles into organizational and coordination processesin a high-stakes context: computer security clinics for survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV). IPV survivors often face complex technology-facilitated abuse and computer security clinics aim to assist by connecting survivors with trained experts who help them work toward digital safety. We analyze how clinics' referral processes constitute key sites for trauma-informed, inter-organizational coordination work, especially in light of stakeholders' asymmetrical knowledge of technology. Via semi-structured interviews, we uncover the potential for misalignment between survivors' needs and clinics' services, leading to potentially negative consequences for both survivors and clinic staff. We then design new referral and assessment tools that enable trauma-informed care and improve coordination by functioning as a guide for people seeking services and enabling clinic staff to determine if a survivor is a good fit for the services available. Finally, we show how the new tools improve coordination and outcomes by analyzing 97 referrals received by a clinic over a six month period. We close by discussing the role of structured communication mechanisms in trauma-informed inter-organizational coordination in high-stakes contexts.

Research involving at-risk users—that is, users who are more likely to experience a digital attack or to be disproportionately affected when harm from such an attack occurs—can pose significant safety challenges to both users and researchers. Nevertheless, pursuing research in computer security & privacy (S&P) is crucial to understanding how to meet the digital-safety needs of at-risk users and to design safer technology for all. To standardize and bolster safer research involving such users, we offer an analysis of 196 academic works to elicit 14 research risks and 36 safety practices used by a growing community of researchers. We pair this inconsistent set of reported safety practices with oral histories from 12 domain experts to contribute scaffolded and consolidated pragmatic guidance that researchers can use to plan, execute, and share safer digital-safety research involving at-risk users. We conclude by suggesting areas for future research regarding the reporting, study, and funding of at-risk user research.