Summary of key safeguarding concerns/risks identified across ARISE
| LSTM safeguarding risk mapping tool | ||||||
| LSTM department: | International Public Health | Programme title: | ARISE | |||
| Summary: | An international research consortium aiming to enhance accountability and improve the health and well-being of marginalised people living and working in informal urban spaces | |||||
| Start date: | 19 Feb | End date: | 24 Feb | Countries: | Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Sierra Leone | |
| Principal investigator: | Professor Sally Theobald (LSTM) | Programme manager: | Beth Hollihead (LSTM) | Donor: | GCRF | |
| Has LSTM signed up to a donor safeguarding policy or code of conduct under this grant? | Yes | Does the programme use volunteers? (if yes, detail role) | No | |||
| List all collaborating partners organisations working on this programme | Bangladesh: James P Grant School of Public Health/BRAC India: George Institute, Slum Dwellers International (SDI) Kenya: APHRC, LVCT Sierra Leone: COMAHS, SLURC UK: LSTM, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Glasgow University, York University (SDI also work in Kenya and Sierra Leone) | |||||
| Safeguarding risk identification | Risks | How will the risks be mitigated/managed? | ||||
| 1. Potential safeguarding/protection risks for beneficiaries that may occur within/as a result of undertaking the research? | Potential risk of SEAH to participants from people of trust such as researchers, co-researchers, security staff etc Potential risk of financial exploitation of participants from people of trust such as researchers, volunteers, partners, consultants, security staff etc Demands for accountability may make people vulnerable if powerholders interests are compromised Renewed trauma to participants by them reliving their experience by talking to you Lack of referral pathways leading to protection needs being unmet | Staff training Encouragement of reporting incidents/concerns Identification of appropriate organisations to refer to and appropriate referral pathways Strong institutional policies for child protection and anti-sexual harassment Sensitise staff on policies and signpost to them Sensitise communities and staff (on what to do and what not to do) Male/female pairs | ||||
| 2. Potential safeguarding risks for staff, students, volunteers, contractors, consultants or visitors? | Potential risk of SEAH to researchers, volunteers, partners, consultants, security staff etc Risk of psychological harm from listening to trauma survivors Harassment of researchers, volunteers, partners, consultants, security staff when carrying out their work as part of this research programme Potential risk of burnout/distress of researchers researchers, co-researchers, security staff open to manipulation and corruption | Debrief, support and supervision available for the field research team Counselling services for the research team dealing with sensitive topics Boundary setting Male/female pairs Data collection and project activities conducted in groups/dyads, preferably mixed gender | ||||
| 3. Safeguarding issues that could arise unrelated to the research activity? | Child abuse (eg, physical abuse, neglect etc) Sexual exploitation abuse or harassment (SEAH) unrelated to research Child, early or forced marriage (CEFM), gender-based violence (GBV) or intimate partner violence (IPV) Female genital mutilation (FGM) Eviction/homelessness Drug/alcohol/substance abuse/crime Violent crime Community tensions cultural norms, stigma against certain groups Religious or cultural practices Natural/sudden-onset disasters leading to safeguarding issues (homelessness, unaccompanied children etc) | Establish report and referral mechanism/procedure Orientate researchers on relevant national laws and policies in relation to protection of children and vulnerable adults | ||||
| 4. Other risks identified (including moral and ethical risks of the research, health, safety and security risks) | Data protection and security of data Opportunity costs to participants of taking part in research Stigma of taking part in the research False hope on perceived benefits shapes participation in the study Unintended negative consequences because of participation in the study (ie, violence, social isolation, bullying etc) Perceived as being an agent for someone else, eg, city councils, which may lead to eviction Physical and psychological health risks to researchers and other staff, partners and volunteers from working in the community/within the political context Health, safety and security risks to researchers and other staff, partners and co-researchers while working in the community/within the political context Corruption/organised cartels Researchers/volunteers other staff and partners not being aware of cultural or religious norms while working in the area | Orientation for staff on research methods, ethics and cultural sensitivity Understand power dynamics of the community/study population before starting the research Inclusive and participatory methodology Adequate briefing and preparation for research team Provide safety guidelines and sensitise research team Inform local authorities about the research (ie, city corporation, police, NGOs etc) Support of federation networks is advantageous since the ground realities are mainly known beforehand and therefore the opportunity to orient all those involved mitigates the distress and there are lesser situational unknowns. Much more local support is available if the ground situation gets tenuous Engage clearly with gatekeepers, chiefs and others | ||||