Draft Safeguarding Procedures
Draft safeguarding procedures including training, reporting channels, escalation chain, response protocols, and audit trail.
Draft: Draft Safeguarding Procedures
Fill In Your Details (4 Blanks)
Add your information to get a tailored prompt. You can also use it as is.
Sector and Donor Context (Optional)
Your Prompt (With Your Details)
This is the complete prompt, ready to copy and paste.
You are an expert in safeguarding, PSEA (Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse), child protection, and research ethics. Draft safeguarding procedures for a research or evaluation activity. Tailor the procedures to the population, data collection methods, and the operating context, including any context sensitivities that affect risk profile and referral options.
Draft Requirements:
- Training requirements. Specify safeguarding, PSEA, and child protection training requirements for all personnel involved in data collection, analysis, and supervision, including content, frequency, and verification.
- Reporting channels. Specify confidential reporting channels, including named focal persons, hotline numbers, anonymous options, and channels accessible to participants regardless of literacy, language, or power position.
- Escalation chain. Specify the escalation chain from incident report to investigation to action, with timeframes, decision-makers, and oversight roles at each step.
- Response protocol. Specify response protocols (referral to services, suspension of personnel, prosecution support, participant support) per incident type, not as a generic catch-all clause.
- Audit trail. Specify documentation requirements for each incident: what is recorded, by whom, where it is stored, who has access, and retention period.
Output Format:
Produce:
- A 1-paragraph scope statement covering the activity, populations, and applicable safeguarding standards (organizational, donor, and any relevant inter-agency standards such as IASC PSEA).
- A training matrix table: role, required training, content, frequency, verification method, responsible party.
- A reporting channels register: channel name, modality, accessibility considerations, focal person, contact details, anonymous option (yes/no).
- An escalation chain diagram or table: step, action, decision-maker, timeframe, oversight role.
- A response protocol matrix: incident type (PSEA, child protection, GBV disclosure, staff misconduct, other), immediate action, referral pathway, participant support, personnel action.
- An audit trail specification: incident record fields, storage location, access controls, retention period, destruction procedure.
- A 1-paragraph note on how participants will be informed of safeguarding procedures and reporting channels during consent and throughout data collection.
This prompt involves designing protections for sensitive populations or sensitive data. Do not include identifying details of real respondents in your AI inputs.
Check: Score It with the Safeguarding Procedures Rubric
The Review Prompt
Paste the draft at the bottom of this prompt and run it. It scores each criterion from 1 to 5 and says why.
You are an expert in safeguarding, PSEA (Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse), child protection, and research ethics. Score the safeguarding procedures in the document I will provide using the rubric below. The document may be a safeguarding section, ethics protocol, methodology chapter, or operations manual.
SCORING RUBRIC - Safeguarding Procedures Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:
DIMENSION 1: Training Requirements
- Score 5: All four elements present. Training requirements for all personnel involved in data collection, analysis, and supervision are specified. The content of required training is named (safeguarding fundamentals, PSEA, child protection where applicable, organizational code of conduct). The frequency is specified (pre-deployment, refresher intervals). Verification of training completion is required and documented (sign-off, certificates, organizational records).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Training required and content named; frequency or verification partial.
- Score 3: Training required as a general statement. Content, frequency, or verification not specified.
- Score 2: Training mentioned in passing. No content, frequency, or verification specifics.
- Score 1: No training requirements.
DIMENSION 2: Reporting Channels
- Score 5: All four elements present. Confidential reporting channels are specified by name (named focal persons with contact details, hotline numbers, organizational reporting platforms). Anonymous reporting options are available. Channels are accessible to participants regardless of literacy (verbal options, local-language options), language, or power position (channels that bypass local supervisors). Channels are communicated to participants at the point of consent and posted in field locations.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Reporting channels named and accessible; anonymous options or communication partial.
- Score 3: Reporting channels named but accessibility for low-literacy or non-dominant-language participants unclear. Anonymous option absent.
- Score 2: Generic mention of reporting (for example, "report to the team leader"). No anonymous option. No accessibility considerations.
- Score 1: No reporting channels specified.
DIMENSION 3: Escalation Chain
- Score 5: All four elements present. The escalation chain from incident report to investigation to action is specified step by step. Timeframes are stated at each step (for example, initial response within 24 hours, investigation initiated within 5 working days). Decision-makers at each step are named by role. Oversight roles (independent reviewer, safeguarding committee, donor notification) are specified for serious incidents.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Escalation chain specified and decision-makers named; timeframes or oversight roles partial.
- Score 3: Escalation chain described in general terms. Some timeframes or decision-makers named but not consistently. Oversight unclear.
- Score 2: Escalation mentioned but not specified. Decision-makers and timeframes absent.
- Score 1: No escalation chain.
DIMENSION 4: Response Protocol
- Score 5: All four elements present. Response protocols are specified per incident type (PSEA, child protection, participant distress, fraud, data breach). Referral to external services (medical, psychological, legal, child welfare) is specified with named providers or referral pathway. Personnel response (suspension, removal, investigation) is specified per incident severity. Participant support (follow-up, additional referrals, withdrawal options) is specified.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Response protocols specified per incident type; one of referral, personnel response, or participant support partial.
- Score 3: Generic response protocol covering all incident types. Some specifics for the most severe incidents but not differentiated.
- Score 2: Response language is a catch-all clause. No incident-type differentiation. No named referrals.
- Score 1: No response protocol.
DIMENSION 5: Audit Trail
- Score 5: All four elements present. Documentation requirements for each incident are specified (incident form, investigation notes, decision record, action log). The role responsible for documentation is named. Storage location and access controls are specified (who can read, who can edit, encryption requirements). Retention period and final disposal are specified.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Documentation and responsible role specified; storage controls or retention partial.
- Score 3: Documentation required but specifics on what is recorded, by whom, where, and for how long are thin.
- Score 2: Documentation mentioned as a general expectation. No specifics.
- Score 1: No audit trail requirements.
OUTPUT FORMAT: Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Document | Priority Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Training Requirements | |||
| Reporting Channels | |||
| Escalation Chain | |||
| Response Protocol | |||
| Audit Trail |
Total: X/25 Band: Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10) Single Most Important Revision: [One specific sentence]
For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.
DOCUMENT TO SCORE: [Paste your safeguarding procedures section here]
Fix: Revise What Scored Low
The Revise Prompt
Paste the draft and its scores at the bottom of this prompt. It revises the parts that scored below 4.
You are an expert in safeguarding, PSEA, and child protection in research and evaluation. Review the safeguarding procedures I will provide and fix every problem that falls below the Good (4) threshold on the Safeguarding Procedures rubric.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR AND FIX:
Training problems: No training content named. No frequency specified. No verification of completion.
Reporting channel problems: Channels mentioned generically ("report to team leader"). No named focal persons. No anonymous option. No accessibility considerations for low-literacy or non-dominant-language participants.
Escalation problems: No step-by-step escalation chain. No timeframes. Decision-makers unnamed. Oversight roles missing for serious incidents.
Response protocol problems: Generic catch-all response clause. No incident-type differentiation. No named referral pathways. No participant support specified.
Audit trail problems: Documentation mentioned without specifics. Storage location, access controls, or retention period unstated.
OUTPUT FORMAT: For each problem found:
- Dimension: [which dimension]
- Location: [which section of the document]
- Problem: [one sentence describing what is wrong]
- Revised version: [the corrected text]
Then provide the complete revised safeguarding procedures section incorporating all corrections.
DRAFT TO REVISE: [Paste your safeguarding procedures section here]