Allegation of sexual exploitation: response, complaints mechanism and accountability

• Three-day delay: delays access to care for the cousin, who may have been abused; PEP is only effective within 72 hours.
• Circulation to 9 people with names, ages and block: breach of confidentiality, risk of retaliation, stigmatisation and leaks to the volunteer. The principle is "need to know": PSEA focal point only.
• Confronting the volunteer in front of the team: the alleged perpetrator is alerted and may put pressure on the girls or destroy evidence; the investigation is compromised.
• Judgement on credibility ("family matter"): it is not the team's role to judge; every allegation is passed on, and the investigation establishes the facts.
• Volunteer kept in contact with beneficiaries: risk of new victims; he must be removed as a precautionary measure, without prejudging guilt.
• Mobiliser sent to the cousin's home: investigative interview conducted by an untrained person, risk of re-traumatisation and contamination of the testimony.
• No referral: no care, no case management, no child protection.

In the first 2 hours: (1) safety and care: arrange, with the child protection actor or the GBV NGO, a safe and discreet contact with the two girls and their trusted adult, taking their best interests into account; for the cousin (last contact on Saturday, more than 72 hours ago according to the dates), offer an examination at the district hospital without delay: PEP may no longer be possible, but emergency contraception remains possible up to 120 hours, and care, testing and support are still needed. Transport covered and accompaniment by a trained woman. (2) Ask the partner to remove the volunteer from all activities involving contact with beneficiaries as a precautionary measure. (3) Ask the 9 recipients to delete the email and not to forward it; remind them of the duty of confidentiality.

Within 24 hours: confidential incident report to headquarters (investigation unit), with minimal information and codes; inform the country director; ask the mobiliser to stop intervening and offer her support; record the known facts, without any further interview.

Up to 72 hours: notification to the donor as per the contract, without identifying data; coordination with the PSEA network if the policy provides for it; headquarters decision on the investigation (internal or by the partner, under supervision); checking that no other girl is affected, through the complaints mechanism and specialised actors, without improvised field investigation; protection plan against retaliation.

Share of women: hotline 47 / 214 = 22.0%; boxes 31 / 96 = 32.3%; help desk 152 / 380 = 40.0%; committees 18 / 150 = 12.0%; total 248 / 840 = 29.5%, whereas women and girls make up 52% of the population. Sensitive complaints: 4 / 840 = 0.5%.

Interpretation: the low number of sensitive complaints does not mean there is no abuse; it signals an unsafe and barely accessible mechanism: male operators, limited access to phones (31%), boxes opened by the distribution team leader (conflict of interest: he may be implicated), help desk without confidentiality, committees almost exclusively male. Children have no suitable channel.

Improvements: (1) boxes opened by two people from outside distribution (MEAL and protection), with a register; (2) at least one female operator on the hotline and adapted hours; (3) help desk set apart, staffed by a woman and with a confidential space; (4) consultation of women, girls and persons with disabilities in separate groups on the channels they prefer, and child-friendly channels; (5) written procedure for handling sensitive complaints that goes directly to the PSEA focal point, bypassing the site management line; (6) community information: aid is free, nothing is asked in return, how to report; (7) gender parity in committees.

"Subject: Notification of an allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse, project [reference]. In accordance with the PSEA article of our agreement, we inform you that on [date], our organisation received an allegation of sexual exploitation involving a volunteer of an implementing partner and two minors, at a project site in the Far North Region. The persons concerned have been referred to care and case management services. The alleged perpetrator has been removed from his duties as a precautionary measure. The case has been passed to our investigation unit. We will keep you informed of the outcome, while respecting confidentiality. Contact: country PSEA focal point."

I refuse both proposals. The IASC Six Core Principles on SEA, included in our partnership agreement, prohibit any exchange of assistance for sexual favours and any sexual activity with a person under 18, regardless of the local age of majority; they also make it mandatory to report any concern. A discreet dismissal leaves the alleged perpetrator free to work for another organisation and deprives the girls of justice and redress. Compensation to the family amounts to buying silence, against the interests of the child, and may expose her to other risks.

I explain to the partner that the best protection for its reputation is exemplary handling: we support it with the investigation, strengthening its procedures and training its volunteers. I remind it of the clauses of the agreement (duty to report, possible suspension of funding). With the neighbourhood chief, I remain respectful but firm, without revealing any details. I record the exchange and inform the country director and the investigation unit.