Accountable to whom? Moving towards a survivor-centred approach to sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment

Sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH) represents a violation, a deep betrayal of the communities we work in, as those in power use their position to exploit and abuse. Like other forms of gender-based violence (GBV), SEAH is rooted in unequal power relations, gender inequality and a lack of a ‘speak-up culture’ that prioritises accountability. Repeated scandals, from the movie industry to politics, have shown that SEAH is an issue everywhere. The humanitarian sector is no exception. Gender inequality and unequal power relations are often dominant, with the risk of SEAH compounded in an operational context characterised by a lack of oversight, conflict, erosion of the rule of law and a constant influx of new employees.

To help tackle SEAH within the aid sector, the United States Agency for International Development and the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs formed an SEAH Community of Practice (COP) in 2020. This brought together a wide array of stakeholders, including donors, academics, aid practitioners, researchers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international governmental organisations (IGOs) and the private sector to share lessons and good practice. The COP offered a space for dialogue on an issue that is often only discussed internally, aiming to enhance transparency, stimulate cross-organisational learning and improve communication and interaction between different aid agencies. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) Reference Group on Ending SEAH, a multi-stakeholder group supporting learning and implementation of the DAC Recommendation on Ending SEAH in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, has continued the work of the COP through its peer learning sessions and further research on how to develop and implement the COP’s main findings and recommendations.

This article shares some of these findings and recommendations with one key question in mind: how do we ensure that the needs and rights of survivors are at the centre of efforts to prevent and respond to SEAH? How do we ensure that it is the survivors to whom we are accountable?

Introduction: a scenario

It could be anywhere in the world. A woman, or a girl, waits for food aid, or cash assistance, or a vaccination. Instead, she encounters an aid worker who demands sex in exchange for the assistance. She refuses and is sexually assaulted. She knows that what occurred was not the norm. She had been told that the aid would be free, and if someone asked for anything in exchange, she could report it.

Step 1: Reporting

She is processing a lot as she considers reporting the incident. She is weighing the need for medical care and other support; she does not know where to report or what will happen once she does. She is worried about retaliation from her attacker and shame from her community, and does not know how the aid organisation will protect her and her family, or if the aid they need to survive will cease. She notices a box that has ‘complaints’ written on it but has no way to submit a complaint, without paper or a phone to access the link, and she does not know who reads the complaints.

This scenario illustrates the myriad barriers that lead to chronic under-reporting of SEAH across the aid sector. The New Humanitarian and the Thomson Reuters Foundation have highlighted the difficulties around reporting during the Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): many survivors opened up about their experiences to journalists instead of using organisational reporting channels. So, what can we do to ensure that we move towards a survivor-centred approach on reporting? How do we make reporting mechanisms safer, more accessible, known and trusted by survivors? 

First, we must do everything to put power and choice back in the hands of the survivor. This means offering multiple mechanisms for reporting, including SMS, hotlines, post boxes and local focal points. Survivors should be able to make both verbal and written reports in their own language. For this purpose, inter-agency community-based complaint mechanisms (CBCM) are being designed and implemented to root reporting systems in community input so that the structure is both culturally and gender-sensitive, and to create one point where complaints from multiple organisations can be received. However, the recent Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) review of PSEAH indicates additional evidence is needed around the effectiveness and operability of these systems.

Second, organisations need to actively raise awareness among communities about the existence of these mechanisms. The focus has often been on the development of multiple mechanisms, without parallel efforts around outreach to ensure communities actually know how to find and use what is available to them.

Third, we need to embed reporting mechanisms into safe and accessible spaces: within health clinics, women’s centres, libraries or focal points.

Lastly, in order to build the trust of communities and survivors, local communities and civil society organisations should be involved in the design of these reporting systems, and these systems in turn should include regular engagement and outreach with specific community groups, such as those for women or people with disabilities. Accountability to the survivor, including proper follow-up by organisations, transparency about and throughout the process, and processes that adapt to survivors’ needs, is a critical factor in determining whether survivors are encouraged or discouraged to report.

Step 2: Survivor support

The survivor decides to report the assault after hearing about a focal point that can provide resources for psychosocial, legal and medical services. The focal point referred her to GBV services and shared the organisation’s policy on survivor support. When she sought out mental and legal support, services were not readily available and not robust enough to meet her needs. She is concerned about accessing these services as her community is small, and she is not sure how her identity and information will be protected. 

Although many organisations have broad guidelines on support, implementation in a survivor-centred manner is often a challenge. Survivor support is a critical component in accountability, for both the organisation and the aid sector. The COP participants highlighted some important steps, including a holistic and well-funded package of appropriate, safe, timely and accessible medical, psychosocial, legal and financial support. This support needs to be systematically offered over longer periods of timeand should be available regardless of a formal report or investigation. As with reporting mechanisms, consultations and feedback with the community, community groups and survivors are needed to develop appropriate and safe support systems, and to avoid assumptions about survivors’ needs in these instances.

Step 3: Investigations and accountability

While the survivor struggles to access support, she knows that the NGO that employs the person who assaulted her is aware of her report. An investigator arrived at her home to interview her while her parents were there. They asked uncomfortable questions and then left without giving her any contact information. She never heard back from the organisation to learn what happened to the perpetrator, and one day, he is gone from the community. She does not know if he was sacked, moved to another role or hired by another organisation.

In the interests of accountability, organisations strive to move quickly and decisively – to act to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable and to prevent additional harm. But mechanisms for employment accountability often lack survivor-centred principles. While organisations consider legal definitions and compliance structures, survivors are left disconnected from the system.

Local communities, organisations and survivors should be involved in defining survivor-centred mechanisms. Engagement and transparency with the survivor throughout the process should enable survivors to determine when, if and how to engage. Training for investigators and regular information checkpoints should be integrated into policies around investigations, and organisations should look to independent or third-party investigation mechanisms. Independent ombuds functions and human rights organisations are potential initial resources for the aid sector to increase accountability to survivors.

Accountability must extend beyond investigations and beyond individual organisations, to ensure that perpetrators are not able to circulate through the aid sector. Organisations should develop multi-layered frameworks for screening employees, including self-certifications, interview questions and reference checks to determine any history of misconduct. Initiatives such as the Misconduct Disclosure Scheme and UN Clear Check address barriers to a holistic referencing system at the sector level and provide further opportunity for collaboration and research.

Investigations often focus on the individual incident and accountability of the perpetrator, and not on the broader enabling environment, such as what factors enabled the incident to take place or failed to prevent it. Investigations should consider the systems and structures in place for prevention and response, how these policies and processes worked in practice, and where broader failures may have occurred. For example, were proper reference and background checks done? Were prevention measures implemented? Were policies for survivor-centred approaches followed? Reframing accountability to centre the survivor also means asking questions about who is being held accountable, and ensuring that organisations are also accountable to survivors, even where investigations cannot be concluded or substantiated; organisations are transparent with survivors; systems are safe, accessible, confidential and survivor–centred; and organisations assess and address any systemic issues.

Complementary mechanisms for response and support should take survivors’ needs into account and evaluate environmental and contextual factors beyond the individual incident, including the legal framework, social and cultural norms and barriers to access. As organisations focus on administrative investigations, access to justice can be especially challenging for survivors of SEAH. In order to facilitate access to legal support, coordination with local human rights institutions and legal services organisations can connect survivors with additional options through local legal systems. 

Step 4: Putting prevention first

Once organisations have concluded investigations and the aid sector has pivoted to another humanitarian disaster, survivors remain. This is why prevention is critical to SEAH work. Mechanisms for response – reporting, survivor support, investigations and accountability – are important, but organisations should ensure that the strengthening of accountability measures and the reframing of risk are continually viewed through a prevention lens. The Community of Practice identified two key aspects to embedding prevention.

First, we need to move away from risk management approaches that only focus on legal, financial and reputational risk to include duty of care and an equal, if not greater, consideration of risks that may impact the health and well-being of people and communities, not just the organisations themselves. COP members emphasised the need for a strong risk management culture with risk assessments that are proactive and focused on prevention and encouraging learning. SEAH needs to be seen as an inherent risk within our work, regardless of the place and context. SEAH risks therefore need to be taken into account at all stages of programming. More collaboration, transparency and sharing of data is needed to prevent the circulation of perpetrators.

Second, preventing and combating SEAH requires organisational and sector-wide cultural change. Rooted in power and gender inequality, addressing SEAH goes beyond strengthening procedures and processes; it requires strong and ethical leadership to create safe spaces for addressing SEAH, accountability in human resource processes and an organisational culture based on respect, integrity, empowerment and accountability. Diverse leadership – including women, LGBTQI+, people of colour, people from different ethnic backgrounds, and those with disabilities, and a commitment to strong diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility – can support organisational cultures rooted in respect and inclusion, which in turn support strong SEAH approaches. Developing organisational culture takes conscious effort and consistent and repeated training – both formal and informal – for all staff, that is comprehensive, detailed and tailored to varying needs. Combating SEAH needs to be a responsibility carried by everyone in the organisation – and everyone within the organisation must feel empowered to take action to prevent and address it. In addition, the sector would do well to learn from and amplify the learning gained from years of GBV prevention work, and increase funding and support for community-level GBV awareness and support services.

Conclusion

Much more needs to be done on survivor-centred approaches to SEAH. Implementation of such approaches is still uneven across organisations and contexts, and it will take a major shift for the aid sector to move away from self-protective ways of framing risk to truly centre our work on the safety, well-being and dignity of the people we serve.

The COP has sought to create space for the aid community to reflect on what we have learnt and to identify areas for further research and action. The work of the COP built upon previous efforts to address SEAH through increased coordination and communication, driven by commitments to strengthen accountability. The OECD-DAC is now taking this work forward.

Tackling SEAH in a more survivor-centred manner will require a more humble approach where we truly listen to survivors and communities. It also does not come free, and survivor-centred approaches may be more expensive than those that simply check the box. Organisations and donors should be prepared for these costs – as they are for issues of fraud and security – particularly where prevention efforts are concerned. Success will ultimately be judged by the people we serve: individuals and communities, especially women and girls, who are safer because we acted promptly to reduce the risks of SEAH, as well as the survivors who receive the care they need, when they need it.

Laurens Kymmell is a Policy Officer in the Humanitarian Aid Division with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands.

Taryn Kurtanich is a Senior Program Analyst with a US Agency for International Development contractor, PM Consulting. They co-wrote this article in a personal capacity.