Risk Recognition

Elements expected for all roles

Examples of statements or behaviours which indicate the need for further development

• A range of potential risks involved from activities, including risks to survivors’ rights and priorities, heightened and intersectional risks for individual survivors or groups, including risks of revictimisation, reprisals, stigmatisation, re-interviewing, multiple statements or records of interview, physical, online, information and communications safety risks, legal risks, repercussions within communities [MC 1.4-1.6, 4.8, 6.9]

• How gender, age and other intersectional factors create different risks for different individuals with different impacts/harms

• A range of potential risks to information gatherers and users (including gendered risks and repercussions and risk of GBV against gatherers and users), and risks to the information collected

• A range of risk mitigation and protection measures related to range of potential risks

• Specific risks and additional mitigation measures needed for remote interactions with survivors [MC 5.4] (see also Safe Communications and Interviews)

• A range of risks and mitigation measures for indirectly sourced (including open-source) information about survivors or SCRSV [MC 8.2 – 8.4] (see also Responsible Information Use)

• Cannot identify significant risks

• Considers only physical security /threats to physical life as a risk

• Doesn’t identify themselves as a potential risk to survivors and their community

• Doesn’t consider risks to information gatherers, or does not take into account potential gender-based risks and harms

• Doesn’t think they can be harmful because they have good intentions or a laudable objective

Expected for all roles

Specific to programming (designing and delivering SCRSV programming)

Specific to survivor interaction roles (direct interaction with survivor to gather information)

Examples of behaviour which indicate a need for further development

• Effectively identify, assess and mitigate potential risks for those involved, such as individual survivors, their family and communities, themselves, their team and others involved in the process  [MC 5.3]

• Identify the risks of and minimise any negative repercussions from work within a community [MC 6.9]

• Consider gender, age and other specific or heightened risks of SCRSV survivors and others in risk assessment and mitigations [MC 1.5]

• Avoid approaching survivors out of the blue, through creating safe pathways for survivors to engage with them, working through existing access and referral points [MC 2.1]

• Communicate risks and mitigation measures effectively to others (team, partners and survivors) [MC 2.2 and 5.10] 

• Keep risk assessments and mitigation measures under review, seek to update, adapt or respond during implementation

• Seek and integrate security advice to inform programme design, resourcing and monitoring

• Design and resource risk assessments (and reviews) as fundamental part of planning process, including unintended consequences and disaggregated risks for gender, age and other relevant intersectional factors

• Integrate output of risk assessments into programming design, resourcing implementation and monitoring through mitigation measures

• Design flexible methodologies which minimise risk [MC 4.6]

• Design and resource effective avenues/communication pathways to allow follow-up as a risk reduction measure [MC 5.9]

• Design and resource programme measures for continuity and consistency of personnel and interaction with survivors [MC 7.9]

• Integrate and monitor PSEA/ safeguarding measures into programming [MC 3.5]

• Operate safely in that context (with assistance/support as necessary)

• Manage own personal safety and security (with assistance/support as necessary)

• Conduct individualised risk assessments for and with individual survivors to ensure safe interactions and communications

• Implement do no harm/mitigation measures to minimise risks for survivors, communities, partners and team

• Create safe engagement points with survivors, without an unexpected and unprepared approach [MC 2.1]

• Engage a survivor in preparation and discussion of their own personal risk, perception of threats, and mitigation measures [MC 1.3, 5.3]

• Understand a survivor’s own priorities and needs and deconflict with activities [MC 1.6]

• Minimise risks of re-interviewing through interview preparation and methodology [MC 4.8] 

• Discuss with a survivor their priorities and needs and deconflicts with activities [MC 1.6]

• Fails to get security advice

• Fails to adequately resource risk management

• Does not integrate security into design, resourcing or planning

• Approaches or seeks out survivors at home, school or work without assessing risks, privacy and perception/understanding of those looking on

• Does an initial risk assessment for the overall work, and then does not review it or consider it for individual survivors or tasks

• Does not monitor the security and risk situation during implementation

• Consistently makes decisions or promotes ideas which put others at risk

• Does not ask a survivor about their concerns or perceptions of threat or safety

Associated Values

Examples of attitudes or approaches which indicate need for further development

Core Values: Commitment and Responsibility; Humanity, Dignity and Empathy

Approaches:

• Makes responsible decisions about safety and well-being based on careful assessments [MC 3.1, 4.1]

• Does not proceed with activities if cannot be safe and realistically achieve its objectives [MC 4.4]

• Prioritises safety and wellbeing of individual survivors they work with. [MC 1.4] regardless of ‘justifications’ such as ‘urgency’, ‘justice’, ‘prevention’, ‘greater good’, ‘helping other people’ [MC 4.6]

• Prioritise safety and quality over numbers and quantity [MC 9.6]

• Doesn’t do any risk assessment as part of preparation before implementation

• Consistently makes decisions which put others at risk 

• Demonstrates a casual attitude towards security risks, safeguarding or well-being

• Actively disregards or fails to consider security protocols or procedures

• Won’t ask a donor to resource risk management

• Posts their current location for work on social media

• Believes that human rights actors do not need security advice

• Doesn’t believe a survivor can make sensible decisions about risks – paternalistic/infantilises survivor in relation to survivor’s assessment of risk

• Considers risk-taking by self or by team part of the sacrifice of working in conflict or crisis settings

• Dismisses survivor concerns, perceptions or fears regarding safety or risks