Guidance

Safeguarding against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment (SEAH) Due Diligence Guidance for FCDO implementing partners

Updated 7 November 2022

1. Background

FCDO’s due diligence assessments and central assurance assessments assess partners against 5 pillars:

• governance and internal controls
• ability to deliver
• financial stability
• downstream delivery
• safeguarding.

This guide explains the safeguarding pillar which focuses on tackling Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment (SEAH) and its 6 areas as set out in the diagram below.

The 6 areas (each of the columns in the diagram) are explained in more detail later. FCDO aims to improve SEAH safeguarding in all work we fund. This means encouraging partners to improve, even when we consider them to have met a basic standard.

In 2018 FCDO introduced new, enhanced and specific SEAH safeguarding standards for UK Charities and NGOs which supplemented existing due diligence work. Those additional due diligence standards on safeguarding have applied since mid-2018 to new accountable grants or existing accountable grants, Memoranda of Understanding and other non-commercial agreements which involve new funding.

In 2020 the SEAH safeguarding standards were integrated into the overall FCDO due diligence approach.

This guidance (compared to the previous January 2020 version) reflects that integration and other relevant developments. Fundamentally though the SEAH safeguarding standards introduced in 2018 are unchanged. The aim remains to protect from SEAH beneficiaries (those who directly benefit from the programmes we fund), staff, volunteers and other stakeholders who due to structural, hierarchical and situational power imbalances, often linked to gender, may be at risk.

Groups who have less power and so are particularly vulnerable to SEAH include women and children, and individuals most at risk of discrimination due to one or more protected characteristics.

More detailed guidance about child safeguarding.

FCDO recognises that in many parts of the aid sector, at local and international level, there is safeguarding expertise and strong practices. Due diligence assessments aim to highlight positive traits in partner organisations while also identifying gaps and actions needed to address the gaps.

FCDO has a zero-tolerance approach to inaction or mishandling SEAH. This means we expect all partners to take all reasonable and adequate steps to prevent SEAH and to take swift and appropriate action when it does occur.

This guidance is from FCDO. It is aligned with the 2020 UK Government Safeguarding Strategy which covers all government departments which engage in delivering Official Development Assistance. It is up to other government departments to decide whether to use this guidance when carrying out due diligence prior to awarding funding.

FCDO always aims to undertake due diligence assessments in collaboration with a prospective partner. This enables organisations to seek any clarifications needed from the FCDO programme team. A draft of the assessment will be shared with the partner on completion. FCDO reviews all its guidance regularly to reflect current practice.

The full detail of the safeguarding pillar has not been incorporated into FCDO contract management. For commercial contracts, safeguarding requirements for Supply Partners and their delivery chain partners are set out in the Terms and Conditions governing the contract. FCDO’s Supply Chain Ethics & Governance Team [email protected] can provide further guidance and advise ‘live suppliers’ of any updates. Any major amendments to FCDO due diligence guidance will be updated in the main due diligence guidance.

FCDO has undertaken Central Assurance Assessments (CAA) of the SEAH safeguarding capability of major CSO partners. The summary of the findings from those assessments may prove helpful. For more information on the CAA process please refer to the main due diligence guide.

2. Which partners do the SEAH standards apply to?

FCDO must be satisfied that any organisation it decides to fund can meet and apply the SEAH safeguarding standards: the IASC Minimum Operating Standards on PSEA and/or the Core Humanitarian Standard^{[footnote 1]} .

Partners are encouraged to move beyond compliance to these minimum standards (which were designed with more challenging humanitarian and conflict settings in mind, rather than more stable environments) and also commit to adopting a more comprehensive safeguarding practice and culture.

This guidance applies to all humanitarian and development organisations (staff, implementing partners, consultants, suppliers, locally contracted workers, volunteers and community members) delivering our aid while receiving funds through an Accountable Grant or Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

3. Principles of safeguarding against SEAH

Safeguarding means protecting people and the environment from harm. In this guidance FCDO focuses on preventing and responding to harm caused by sexual exploitation, sexual abuse or sexual harassment in the delivery or management of aid.

The aim is to prevent and minimise the impact of SEAH on the people we are trying to help and those working to deliver the programmes we fund. FCDO has a zero-tolerance approach to inaction or mishandling of SEAH in the aid sector and we will do everything we reasonably can to prevent and respond robustly and we expect partners to do the same.

FCDO is committed to applying the following principles in relation to safeguarding against SEAH and we expect our partners to do the same in their work and through their delivery chains:

• everyone has responsibility for safeguarding
• do no harm
• organisations have a safeguarding duty of care to beneficiaries and other stakeholders, staff and volunteers, as well as to children and adults-at-risk who may be directly or indirectly delivering or impacted by the programme and may be vulnerable to abuse
• act with integrity, be transparent and accountable
• all activity is in the best interests of the child/at-risk person
• sexual relations with any person under the age of 18 is considered to be sexual abuse and is prohibited
• in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act 1989, FCDO defines a child as any individual under the age of 18 regardless of the age of majority/consent in a given country
• all children and adults shall be treated equally, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC); religion/or none; race; ethnicity; disability; or any other protected characteristic as listed in the Equality Act (2010)
• organisations that work with children and adults-at-risk should apply a safeguarding lens to their promotional communications and fundraising activities

In mid-2020, FCDO agreed to make it explicit in future funding agreements that all partners must agree to apply the IASC Six Core Principles Relating to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in FCDO-funded work and adhere to one or both international standards mentioned above. These principles have been incorporated into FCDO’s staff code of conduct and dovetail with the FCDO principles above.

4. International standards for safeguarding against SEAH

At the October 2018 International Safeguarding Summit, the UK and 21 other donors agreed to adopt minimum standards, and specifically to demonstrate adherence to one or both of:

• the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Minimum Operating Standards (MOS) on protection from sexual exploitation and abuse (MoS-PSEA)
• the PSEA elements of The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS)

In July 2019 all 30 members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) agreed and are now implementing the DAC Recommendation on Ending Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment.

FCDO’s due diligence requirements are aligned with the DAC Recommendation, the CHS and the IASC Minimum Operating Standards (MoS). The CHS (a due diligence tool covering issues beyond SEAH) features an updated Protection from SEAH (PSEAH) Index funded by the FCDO in 2020.

If organisations are compliant with the IASC MoS-PSEA and/or the SEAH elements of the CHS then they should be able to demonstrate effective policies for managing and addressing SEAH.

The Humanitarian Quality Assurance Initiative (HQAI) provides independent verification of organisations’ compliance with the CHS. Some organisations may have demonstrated adherence with the standards for the purposes of funding from other donors and evidence of that could be used by FCDO in agreement with the organisation.

5. The 6 areas of safeguarding that FCDO assesses

All of the 6 areas (see earlier graphic for a summary) below are essential to managing the risk of SEAH harm that may occur through the delivery of FCDO-funded programmes, in particular to children, adults-at-risk and those who may be discriminated against based on specific characteristics. Our due diligence approach reflects the assumption that all 6 areas are relevant and achievable for all organisations that we fund directly and sets a benchmark of minimum standards that all potential FCDO partners, regardless of size or type, should work towards.

a) Approach to safeguarding against SEAH

Not all organisations may have an overarching/combined safeguarding policy. But if an organisation works with children, adults-at-risk, or young people, then the FCDO would expect them to have a child safeguarding policy and/or an adults-at-risk policy. If a partner doesn’t have those policies, and can’t demonstrate application of the policies, then there will only be limited evidence of meeting the standards we require and we are very unlikely to be able to work with them.

If the organisation does not work with children and/or adults-at-risk and does not have an overarching safeguarding policy which encompasses SEAH then they should have sexual exploitation and abuse and sexual harassment policies. These may be ‘stand-alone’ policies or part of the organisation’s overall HR Manual and policies on tackling all forms of bullying, discrimination and harassment.

Please note, the FCDO takes a proportionate and risk-based approach to due diligence in terms of the evidence required and assurance needed. More information on our risk-based approach and proportionality can be found in our FCDO Due Diligence Guide.

Having strong beneficiary and other stakeholder feedback loops and engagement throughout the stages of a programme is important. Recipients of FCDO funding should make beneficiaries and other local stakeholders aware of their policies and procedures on preventing and managing SEAH. This should include culturally-sensitive communications which allow for discussion and cover:

• defining SEAH
• codes of conduct and behavioural expectations for those managing and delivering aid
• that aid is non-conditional and never given in return for any kind of sexual act or favour
• procedures for how and where to raise a concern about SEAH and what to expect
• what advice and services exist for SEAH survivors
• that communities and individuals have a right to protection from SEAH

Tools and materials to raise awareness and improve practice in these areas are available from, for example, the CHS, the IASC and the Safeguarding Resource and Support Hub.

Beneficiaries should also be included in the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of safeguarding systems. Organisations with good relationships with their downstream partners and/or local communities may be best placed to achieve beneficiary engagement and effective safeguarding. Locally-led organisations are likely to be particularly well placed in this regard and engagement with them to use their expertise is strongly encouraged.

A survivor-centred approach is one that puts the rights, needs, safety, security, and well-being of survivors of SEAH first. Many organisations won’t be able to provide services to address immediate needs (e.g. medical, psychosocial, legal), but all should be able to explain how they would safely refer survivors to appropriate services and further assist as far as possible while ensuring confidentiality, safety, respect and non-discrimination. In many contexts there will be local NGOs who can help, and in humanitarian contexts often a UN-led PSEA (Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse) network and/or Gender-Based Violence and Child Protection cluster to engage with.

Reporting to law enforcement or other agencies should never be automatic. It should be risk assessed to avoid doing unintended harm. Factors to be included in the risk assessment include;

• whether the victim is a child or not
• the local human rights situation and the protected characteristics of the survivor
• the gender equality context
• the wishes of the survivor, or best interests in the case of a child

The organisation is expected to pursue its own disciplinary processes related to allegations against its own staff or implementing partners. For more information see Safeguarding Resource and Support Hub and related resources.

b) Complaints and Whistleblowing

Organisations need to demonstrate that they have effective mechanisms for handling internal and external complaints. They should have clear written policies and a case register. Staff leading on handling complaints should have appropriate training. All staff should have at least a basic understanding of what to do and what not to do if a complaint or concern is reported to them.

Whistleblowing allows concerns to be raised and resolved at the appropriate level. Organisations should have a clear process that is widely understood and accessible to all staff and volunteers with identified owners of each step.

The policy (which may not be referred to as whistleblowing, but might be a complaints and/or concerns policy) should be explicit that there can be no reprisals for whistleblowers. The policy should all be clear that Settlement or Confidentiality Agreements (also known as non-disclosure agreements or NDAs) cannot be used to prevent staff or downstream partners from raising allegations of wrong doing, including SEAH, bullying, general harassment or discrimination. There should be a process to follow if the concern is being raised against an individual in the organisation who manages internal complaints or concerns. Related resources include CHS Alliance guidance on whistleblowing and on NDAs.

Beneficiaries and other stakeholders outside of the organisation should also be able to complain and raise concerns. This requires accessible external communications about a mechanism through which to input confidentially, as well as to access more detailed written guidance and procedures about the mechanism and what happens when a complaint or concern is logged. Making community level complaints mechanisms appropriate to the context requires particular thought.

Where possible, organisations should offer beneficiaries and other stakeholders multiple methods and channels to report to. Organisations should be able to demonstrate whether they rely on their own complaints mechanisms, or engage through local mechanisms to provide safe, confidential, and accessible means of reporting SEAH complaints and concerns.

Reporting mechanisms should be survivor-centred and based on the principles of safety, confidentiality, respect and non-discrimination. Survivors should not have to give multiple accounts of what happened which can be re-traumatising.

c) Recruitment and Training

Organisations should have an awareness of the level of safeguarding risk in each role. SEAH risks should be reflected in job adverts, candidate selection processes and induction and training processes.

If the organisation uses interviews that are competency-based, and if a job role is to work with children and or adults-at-risk, then the interview should address the requisite competencies needed. Interviews may also explore attitudes and values relevant to safeguarding.

As part of the use of references and vetting, FCDO strongly encourages all implementing partners to join up to the Interagency Misconduct Disclosure Scheme, which aims to reduce the likelihood of perpetrators of SEAH working in the aid sector undetected.

Even staff that do not work directly with children, young people and adults-at-risk should undergo mandatory training on safeguarding and whistleblowing/how to raise concerns during induction with periodic refresher training. Use of probationary periods for new staff can help quickly identify risks that may not have surfaced during the recruitment process.

d) Risk Management

This area considers the risk management framework of the partner organisation. Areas we consider include:

• the overall approach to risk
• use of risk appetite to guide risk identification and the assessment of safeguarding risks
• the use of written risk registers for each programme to help with the active management of risk

Risk management at the project level by the FCDO-funded partner should include a risk register with clear mitigating actions and identifiable owners. Risks should be reviewed regularly and on an ongoing basis in the context of specific activities and operational contexts and result in adjustments to programmes when required. Partners should have regular quality conversations on SEAH risks to inform proportionate decisions. The risk register is a tool to identify, assess and report on changes in the context and the evolution of risks. Safeguarding should be a separate risk category on the organisation’s register or framework.

Fundraising activities may pose particular risks especially if they could expose vulnerable individuals to SEAH harm. Organisations also need to assess the online risks that their staff could face or pose and mitigate accordingly.

There should also be clarity for escalation of safeguarding risks, including to FCDO through the relevant programme team. The expectations of risk management for downstream partners should be made explicit in the risk policy or approach.

e) Code of Conduct

An organisation’s Code of Conduct (the document may have a different name in some organisations) should describe the ethics and behaviours required of all parties to ensure a robust safeguarding environment. It should help to create a culture of best practice which all partners should adhere to. We expect our partners to have their own internal robust code of conduct that clarifies the values, principles and the acceptable behaviours within that organisation and which should influence and drive the organisation’s culture.

The code sets the tone from the top which is vital to address safeguarding risks. We would expect it to be consistent with prioritising the wellbeing and care of all people including beneficiaries. We would usually expect staff to formally sign up to the Code of Conduct as part of the process of working for the organisation. Training about the code should be provided to staff and volunteers as part of their induction. The organisation should also have HR procedures which set out the process for handling breaches of the code and be able to demonstrate how it ensures employees are aware of it.

The UN IASC Six Core Principles Relating to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse are the bedrock of international efforts on preventing sexual exploitation and abuse and adopted as central to codes of conduct by many organisations in the aid sector (UN, donors, NGOs).

This is a minimum standard for FCDO staff, and we expect all implementing partners and their stakeholders who manage and deliver our programmes to uphold the same standard regarding conduct. FCDO interprets the principles as applying to all humanitarian and development workers (staff, implementing partners, consultants, suppliers, locally contracted workers, and community members) delivering our aid.

f) Governance and Accountability

Governance and accountability standards create, foster and help ensure safeguarding through requisite controls and oversight. They identify the responsibility of those who are custodians of the organisation’s values. We want to see people, rather than organisational reputation, put first. Corporate governance is the system designed to increase the accountability of an organisation; it is the way that the organisation polices itself.

The organisation’s board (be they trustees appointed or elected or shareholders) has ultimate responsibility for safeguarding and should always act in the best interests of the beneficiaries, staff and volunteers. The Board should not be unduly influenced by those who may have special interests and should always place the interests of the organisation before any personal interest. It is vital that it is independent in its safeguarding decision making.

There should be a designated safeguarding officer at board level who engages with the organisation’s senior leadership teams and management. This engagement should include regular reporting directly to the senior leaders and the Board through a standing agenda item or through the risk register update. Larger organisations operating in multiple locations are unlikely to be able to rely on a single central safeguarding lead and are likely to need a network of safeguarding leads at appropriate levels across the organisation.

Organisations should be seeking the same assurances on safeguarding governance and accountability from potential project partners, factoring in the proportionality guidance below.

6. Proportionality and how it will be applied

Not all of the sub-headings in each policy area will need to be met as this will depend on the size of the organisation, its role and mandate and the programme it is setting out to deliver. However, it is not sufficient for an organisation to provide assurance in one or 2 areas. They must provide assurance in all 6 standard areas, on a risk-based approach (i.e FCDO may decide that some aren’t directly relevant to managing the risk of SEAH for a specific programme). This means our assessment will be proportionate, based on the level of safeguarding risks presented in each context in order to gain adequate assurance to progress with the funding.

Not all partners will be involved in programmes that engage with or deliver to children, young people or adults-at-risk. However, most will be engaged with groups of people who are disadvantaged economically and/or socially which makes them vulnerable to abuses of power, such as SEAH, through the delivery and management of aid.

We recognise that the standards may go beyond the policies and processes in place in smaller organisations. In those situations, teams will take a proportionate approach which is in accordance with the level of risk associated with the programme, in order to gain a level of assurance commensurate with those risks. They will also confirm whether adequate controls are in place to mitigate identified risks.

Annex A lists indicative questions that may be asked by FCDO teams as they review and assess each area. The assessment will consider both the quality of documentation, and also how policies and procedures are implemented in practice.

7. What will happen if partners do not meet the SEAH standards?

In the case of prospective partners, FCDO may decide to postpone issuing funds while the organisation works to meet the minimum standards. FCDO can provide support to these organisations to achieve this within an agreed timeline. Competitive contract tendering regulations make it very unlikely that this will happen in a contracting situation where the contract award will have been made following an assessment of the tenderer’s ability to deliver the full service required over the life of the contract. Organisations should consider including safeguarding against SEAH budget lines in proposals when needed.

In the case of partners with existing agreements who are no longer considered to meet the standards, FCDO will decide whether to immediately suspend/end funding, or to put in place an improvement plan, with protection measures where needed, to allow time for the organisation to meet the standards. This decision is likely to depend on how strong existing arrangements are and whether the organisation is working with children and/or at-risk people. There may be cases where organisations cannot meet the standards and funding arrangements will need to end.

FCDO recognises that the aid sector is on a continuous journey in building expertise and capabilities in safeguarding. As such, FCDO seeks to continually improve its own approach to safeguarding and expects its partners to do the same. Therefore, even where partners are meeting standards, FCDO encourages them to continue to learn and improve measures during programmes and to share learning with others. Guidance and tools from the Resource and Support Hub can help organisations continually improve. FCDO teams will discuss the effectiveness of safeguarding measures and potential improvements during programme implementation.

As noted earlier, safeguarding compliance requirements for contracted Supply Partners and their delivery chain partners will be in accordance with their specific contractual terms and conditions. A failure to comply with the FCDO terms and conditions of contract may result in appropriate action being taken in accordance with the contract’s relevant Default Clauses and ultimately this can result in the termination of a contract.

8. What is expected of downstream partners?

First tier partners are responsible for ensuring appropriate SEAH safeguarding standards are cascaded down the delivery chain. We may ask for evidence that the standards have been shared and that partners are clear about those expectations. Partners should similarly apply a proportionate and risk-based approach in working with their downstream partners. If in doubt, please ask the FCDO programme team you are working with.

9. Reporting a safeguarding concern

If there is a report of sexual abuse, exploitation or harassment, our expectation is that the organisation takes it seriously by taking a robust and survivor-centred response. A response is also expected to involve ensuring relevant support is given to those affected, notification of the incident to FCDO and learning from the incident by identifying what enabled the incident to take place. It is also important to take account of local context where reporting to authorities would cause further harm to the beneficiary/survivor. Consideration should also be given by the organisation to the support needed by staff and volunteers aiding victims of sexual abuse, exploitation and harassment. Our assessment of how well an organisation handles SEAH cases will have an impact on our willingness to provide funding.

Concerns regarding a breach in safeguarding policy should be reported promptly to FCDO’s Reporting Concerns inbox at [email protected] or through the confidential reporting hot line +44 (0)1355 843 747.

If you are unsure whether to report a concern, then please contact us for advice. It is possible to report concerns anonymously and FCDO will treat all reported concerns in confidence. We will consider whether onward referral is appropriate. In some cases this could be to the National Crime Agency (NCA), Charity Commission, police or other relevant authority.

Annex A – Standard indicative questions on each of the 6 SEAH safeguarding due diligence areas

Below are the SEAH safeguarding areas to be covered by FCDO teams carrying out a due diligence assessment. A risk-based assessment will be made as to whether some, or all, of these areas are required by the organisation in the context of the programme to be delivered. The risks are much higher for organisations working with children and adults-at-risk.

Safeguarding Approach

Is there a safeguarding policy and does it specifically cover sexual exploitation and abuse and sexual harassment? If not, and there is work with children, young people or adults-at-risk then there must be specific policies covering those groups and these must address SEAH risks. If there is neither a safeguarding policy nor work with those groups, there must be sexual exploitation and harassment and abuse policies which are either stand-alone or part of an overall HR handbook.

Does the policy include a statement of your commitment to safeguarding, such as a zero tolerance statement on tackling sexual harassment and sexual exploitation and abuse and to inaction to reports?

Are staff and programme beneficiaries being informed about the organisation’s commitment to safeguarding and how they can raise any complaints or concerns? Are beneficiary views informing the design and operation of reporting mechanisms?

Is the organisation clear how it will provide support to a survivor or victim of SEAH perpetrated by one its staff members or an implementing partner? Has it thought through who it may have to report a case to and what it may need to consider to ensure a survivor-centred approach?

Is the organisation clear about which authorities it may need to report SEAH incidents to in a country where it operates? And has it considered circumstances in which such reporting may not be safe for those involved?

Is there any independent verification of adherence to the SEAH elements of the Core Humanitarian Standard, for example through HQAI, or the IASC Minimum Operating Standards on PSEA?

Complaints and Whistleblowing

Does the organisation have a clear process which allows complaints or concerns to be raised from both outside and within the organisation, and are staff trained in how to operate it?

Is there a whistle-blowing policy which protects whistle blowers from reprisals and includes clear processes for dealing with concerns raised and by whom and the timelines involved?

Does the organisation keep a detailed register of safeguarding allegations raised and how they were dealt with?

Are complaint mechanisms survivor-centred and designed to ensure confidentiality and avoid re-traumatisation?

Recruitment and Training

Are SEAH risks factored into job adverts and related interview processes including the requirement for references, the type of questions asked and the level of safeguarding expertise of the interviewers?

Do you provide mandatory training on safeguarding, including on complaints and whistle-blowing, to new trustees/staff/volunteers within a suitable and appropriate timeframe of them joining your organisation?

Do you provide regular refresher training on safeguarding to staff/volunteers?

Do you have different levels of security and reference checks commensurate with safeguarding requirements of the role?

Are you using the Misconduct Disclosure Scheme and if not do you plan to sign up?

Do you make use of probationary periods of employment to ensure suitability once in post?

Risk Management

Do you have a risk management policy or framework capturing risk appetite and risk categories including safeguarding?

Do you share your risk management policy where it relates to safeguarding risks with your downstream partners i.e. are downstream partners advised on escalation procedures around safeguarding issues?

Do you have risk registers for all programmes that feed into an overall organisational risk framework?

Is there regular senior oversight of your risk register?

If applicable - are fundraising ideas and external communications risk assessed to ensure no harm is done by the activity? E.g. Fundraising is delivered in the context of safeguarding e.g. ‘sponsorship’

Code of Conduct

Does the organisation have in place a Code of Conduct for staff and volunteers that explicitly prohibits SEAH and sets out clear expectations of behaviours – inside and outside the work place – and what will happen in the event of non-compliance or breach of these standards?

Does the code of conduct prioritise the wellbeing and care of all people including beneficiaries?

Are all staff and volunteers provided with training on the code of conduct as part of their induction?

Are there policies and practices for the management of downstream partners and affiliates aligned to the Code of Conduct?

Are the expected behaviours set out in the Code of Conduct influencing and reflected in the organisation’s culture?

Governance & Accountability

Do you have a designated senior safeguarding officer who reports regularly to the senior leadership and Board?

Does the governance structure reflect regular review of management of safeguarding issues internally and externally?

For larger organisations operating in multiple locations are there local SEAH focal points and is there a good network for linking them with the designated organisation safeguarding lead?

Do you share your safeguarding policy with your downstream partners and do they have in place procedures to ensure safeguarding issues are escalated and shared with you?

1. These standards are not yet specifically referred to in FCDO’s contractual terms and conditions and Supply Partner Code of Conduct, although equivalent requirements are set out there. ↩