Table 2

Summary of key safeguarding concerns/risks identified across ARISE

LSTM safeguarding risk mapping tool
LSTM department:International Public HealthProgramme 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 FebEnd date:24 FebCountries: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?YesDoes the programme use volunteers? (if yes, detail role)No
List all collaborating partners organisations working on this programmeBangladesh: 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 identificationRisksHow 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)
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