PSEA assessment of partners, capacity strengthening plan and allegation involving daily workers

Exposure: P3 combines the lowest score with the highest risk: targeting and distributions (power over access to food), 54,000 people per month, 80 unvetted daily workers, no reporting mechanism. P2 has a high risk (intimate care, home visits, 60 community workers) and no vetting or investigative capacity. P4 works with children: its partial score is acceptable with a plan, but background checks (S4 at 1) are a priority for staff in contact with children. P1 is satisfactory, with room for improvement in training and vetting.

P1: continuation; light plan (training, vetting) and annual follow-up.

P4: conditional continuation; 6-month capacity strengthening plan focused on background checks for anyone in contact with children, a child-friendly reporting mechanism and access to investigative capacity.

P2: insufficient score and S7 at 0: plan of mandatory measures before any new agreement. But suspension would cut off access to care in 4 of the 7 sites, which would itself harm the population. Proposed decision: the current agreement is maintained; a new agreement is subject to a written waiver from the representative, with strict, dated conditions: joining the investigators' framework contract within 1 month, background checks on every new recruit immediately, training of 100% of staff and community workers within 3 months, reporting mechanism within 3 months, review at 3 and 6 months; in parallel, identification of an alternative provider in case of failure.

P3: lowest score and two critical standards at 0, plus an ongoing allegation: immediate mandatory plan; no new agreement or extension without measures in place; ongoing distributions continue under reinforced agency supervision (presence of agency or third-party staff at registrations, mixed teams including women, targeting reviewed with committees). Suspension if P3 refuses to deal with the allegation or to implement the plan.

Numbers to train: P1 45; P2 60 + 60 = 120; P3 30 + 80 = 110; P4 25; total 300 people.

Priorities: first close the critical standards at 0 (S7 for P2 and P3, S5 for P3), then the most exposed partners; vetting for P4 is justified by the work with children. Not funded: reporting mechanism for P1 (already at 2) and P4 (at 1: improvement possible with the reserve or the following year, building on existing community mechanisms), policy support for P1, P2 and P4 (already at 2). The plan must be formalised in an action plan signed by each partner, with indicators (rate of staff trained, time taken to handle reports).

Response to P3's director: the argument is unacceptable. The daily workers act on behalf of P3 in implementing the project: the partnership agreement binds P3 for anyone it employs or engages, whatever the type of contract. The IASC Six Core Principles prohibit any exchange of money, employment, goods or services, including assistance, for sexual favours. The alleged exploitation (access to assistance in exchange for sex) is precisely what PSEA targets.

Steps: (1) record the report with a code, without unnecessary data, and pass it within 24 hours to the agency's reporting point (office responsible for allegations concerning partners); (2) assistance: inform the complainant, through the channel she used, of the services available (care, psychosocial support, legal aid) without requiring her identity, and remind her that assistance does not depend on a complaint; (3) notify P3 in writing of its obligation to report and to cooperate with the investigation, in line with the United Nations protocol applicable to implementing partners; (4) investigation by qualified investigators (framework contract or agency capacity), not by the programme team; (5) follow-up of disciplinary and corrective measures; (6) notification to the required bodies within the deadlines.

Immediate protection at the site: presence of agency or third-party staff during registration; registration only in daytime, in a public place, by mixed teams with at least one woman; informing women at the site that assistance is free and unconditional, and about the reporting channels; cross-checking of lists to identify exclusions of women on their own; rotation of the daily workers concerned as a precautionary measure if the investigation recommends it.

What I do not do: I do not try to identify the complainant or the other women, I do not conduct the investigation, I do not question the daily workers, I do not disclose the report beyond those who need to know, I do not leave P3 to handle the case alone.

"I share the objective of not interrupting care in the 4 sites where P2 is the only provider, and I am not proposing to suspend P2. But the internal rules require a written waiver from the representative when a critical standard is at 0, which is the case for S7 for P2. Signing without a waiver would expose the agency in the event of a future allegation and would take all force out of the capacity strengthening plan. I propose to submit a one-page waiver note today, with the dated conditions and the funding for access to investigators already planned: the agreement can be signed within the week." If the request is maintained, I record it and pass it to the representative.