Reception, referral and data protection in a community space

To write: the person's code (no name if local procedure allows; otherwise first name only, on a form handed over in person), age, sex, language; service requested ("urgent medical care" and "case management"); level of urgency; the note "informed consent obtained orally on [date]"; safe means of contact chosen by the person (and what not to do: do not call in the evening, do not leave a message); name and position of the person making the referral, date and time.

Not to write: the detailed account of the facts, the identity of the alleged perpetrator, ethnicity, judgements ("she seems to be lying"). The person does not have to repeat her story: the NGO A case manager will carry out the assessment. The form is transmitted through a safe channel (in person or by a call to the contact point), never through a messaging group.

If possible, the woman is accompanied to the CSRéf the same day, with her agreement.

• File with ethnicity and accounts of violence: unnecessary and highly sensitive data. Measure: collect only the minimum, code individuals, never record the account; password-protected file, restricted access.
• Sharing in a WhatsApp group of 14 people, including outsiders: breach of confidentiality. Measure: stop immediately, delete the file from the group, report the incident to the supervisor; transmit referrals individually through an agreed channel.
• Photographs: unnecessary and without informed consent; risk of identification. Measure: do not photograph the people received; delete existing photos according to the procedure.
• Interviews in the hall: lack of privacy. Measure: use a closed or separate space.
• "I have to send everything to the partners": false and contrary to informed consent; assistance does not depend on sharing information. Measure: explain the options and the limits of confidentiality, and ask for agreement for each referral.

I do: thank the man and explain to him that the information will be passed on confidentially; write down the facts as he reports them; report the same day to the PSEA focal point through the dedicated channel; inform my supervisor only if the procedure provides for it, without spreading the information.

I do not: investigate, question the girl or her family, try to identify the driver, confront him, or talk about it with colleagues. I do not wait for evidence.

Information passed on: date and place of the report; what was said (relationship with a 16-year-old girl, money and phone credit); description of the alleged perpetrator as given (NGO driver, organisation if known); the girl's area of residence if it was given; the fact that the witness wishes to remain anonymous; my name and contact details.

Service receipt confirmed: health 9 / 12 = 75%; GBV 7 / 9 = 77.8%; child protection 2 / 6 = 33.3%; legal clinic 8 / 15 = 53.3%; social assistance 1 / 8 = 12.5%; total 27 / 50 = 54%. Feedback: 34 / 50 = 68%.

Weighted average time = (12 × 1 + 9 × 2 + 6 × 9 + 15 × 12 + 8 × 20) / 50 = 424 / 50 = 8.5 days.

Weak points: (1) child protection: only 2 feedback replies out of 6 and 9 days' delay, whereas unaccompanied children must be taken into care the same day; to be followed up as a priority with NGO B; (2) social assistance: 1 service received out of 8 and 20 days' delay; it must be checked whether this service is actually available before continuing to refer to it.