🫂Protecting People at Risk and Safe Referral

Risk Indicators: How to Recognise Them

An indicator is not proof that harm has occurred — it is a signal that calls for attention, follow-up and reporting.

Vulnerable groups are not defined by a single characteristic — they include any person who finds it difficult to refuse what is asked of them, to disclose what they are experiencing, or to access the support they need. This may be due to age, disability, gender, legal status, economic dependence on a specific person, or a combination of these factors together. A volunteer does not diagnose or investigate — but they observe, record, and report. These three functions are precisely the core of what protection requires in any humanitarian context. An indicator is anything you notice that stands out in someone's behaviour, circumstances, the way they speak about their situation, or their reaction to particular events. Not every indicator means something bad has already happened — but its presence means you should be more alert, document what you see, and report to someone with the training and authority to handle the situation. Stopping at observation without documentation or reporting empties your role of meaning, while jumping directly to action before reporting exceeds your authority and may expose the person to additional risk.

Good documentation has specific characteristics: it includes the date, time and place; uses the person's exact words when quoting what they said; describes behaviour rather than interpreting it; and contains no conclusions about intention or cause. "Fatima said at three-thirty: I don't want to go home" — that is documentation. "Fatima said she is afraid of her husband" — that is an interpretation she did not state in those words. The difference between the two may be the difference between information that helps a later inquiry and information that distorts it. Keep your documentation in the place the organisation designates for this purpose, and do not leave it on your personal phone or share it with anyone outside the formal reporting chain. Confidentiality begins from the first moment of writing.

Who Is Most at Risk?

Risk is not distributed equally — some people find themselves in situations where saying no is very difficult, and that is precisely what makes them need protection.

Talking about "vulnerable groups" or those "most at risk" does not mean these people are inherently weak or lack capability — it means that the circumstances surrounding them create real obstacles that make it hard for them to advocate for themselves or access available support in the way others can. An older person wholly dependent on their child for transport, medical care and daily needs; a woman with no independent legal documents whose husband controls her income; a person with a disability who needs assistance with movement and communication — all are capable of expressing their views and refusals, but they face structural obstacles and unequal power dynamics that prevent this in many situations. A volunteer working with these groups needs to reduce the power gap in interactions: speaking with the person alone when it is safe and possible to do so; not pressing with questions that make them feel pressured; and remembering that what is said in the companion's absence may be fundamentally different from what is said in their presence. Creating a safe space for the person to speak without surveillance is not a luxury — it is often the first condition for any genuine disclosure.

• Older people: may minimise what they experience for fear of family shame or separation from their children; may not be believed when they speak; and changes in their mood are often attributed to "age" without investigation
• People with disabilities: may depend on the very person causing harm for basic care such as bathing, eating and medication — making disclosure an extremely dangerous decision, since its immediate consequences may include losing the care they need
• Survivors of sexual violence: often speak indirectly at first or disclose partially then withdraw, due to fear, shame, family pressure, or fear of not being believed
• Child labourers, displaced and unaccompanied children: doubly exposed to exploitation and trafficking networks, and often do not know that what is happening to them is unlawful or even unacceptable because it is familiar in their environment
• People without legal status or in irregular situations: fear of deportation or prosecution leads them to avoid reporting anything and to accept blatantly abusive conditions because they see no alternative but silence
• Women in conflict and displacement contexts: face compounded risks in crowded or unsafe environments, and their freedom of movement is often restricted in ways that prevent them accessing support services even when they know these exist

Safe Referral: Consent and Confidentiality

A referral is not just giving someone a phone number or an organisation name — it is a complete process that begins with the person's genuine consent and considers their safety at every step until the referral organisation actually makes contact.

A safe referral means connecting a person to the service or organisation that can help them, in a way that does not expose them to further risk or violate their trust in you and the organisation. It always begins with a single question: does this person want to be referred? Their consent is not a formality — it is the foundation of the entire process and the guarantee of its legitimacy. Someone referred without their consent may be exposed to risk if their information reaches organisations they do not trust or know, and may lose faith in the organisation entirely so that they never seek help again when they need it. Consent does not mean simply saying "yes" when directly asked. It requires the person to understand where they are being referred to, what that organisation specifically does, what information will be shared about them, who will have access to it, and whether they can withdraw their consent later. Only after this clear understanding does consent become genuine. Consent based on incomplete information is not real consent — it is acceptance arising from the absence of clear alternatives.

1. Listen to what the person says without interrupting or rushing, to understand what they actually need
2. Explain clearly what services are available and what each does in two comprehensible sentences
3. Ask whether they would like your help reaching one of these services — do not assume the answer
4. If they agree, ask specifically what information they authorise you to share with the referral organisation
5. Check that the method of contact with the organisation is safe in their environment: can they receive calls on their phone? do they want to use a pseudonym? is there a safe place they could receive a visit?
6. Follow up after the referral: did the organisation contact them? did they reach the service? do they feel safe right now?

Confidentiality in a protection context has a specific and practical meaning: you do not disclose a person's information to any party they have not authorised, including close family members, team colleagues outside the reporting chain, and the surrounding community. This applies even when your intention is entirely good and even when you believe disclosure would benefit the person. The only exception is when the person's life or the lives of others is in immediate and present danger — and even then, you inform your supervisor first and do not act alone without guidance. Confidentiality is not a constraint preventing you from helping — it is precisely what makes a person trust you enough to ask for help in the first place. An organisation where it becomes known that volunteers tell families what is said to them is an organisation where nobody discloses anything real.

Do Not Investigate, Do Not Promise

What most harms a beneficiary in a vulnerable position is a well-intentioned volunteer taking steps they were not trained for and that fall outside their authority.

When someone discloses something painful, the first natural response is to want to understand more, ask about the details that seem missing, and reassure them that you will resolve the matter or ensure whoever is responsible is held accountable. These two responses — investigation and promises — are among the most repeated errors in volunteer work with at-risk groups, and both are capable of harming the person rather than protecting them, even when they spring from the most sincere of intentions. Investigation here means asking detailed questions about the incident, the people involved or the timeline of events, intending to build a clearer picture. The problem is that your questions may remind the person of painful details they were not ready to return to at that moment; their answers may be influenced by what your questions imply, blending their memory with your expectations; and the person you are asking about may learn of this and take protective action against whoever told you or change their account. Most dangerously, an unsystematic investigation by a volunteer may later undermine formal investigative procedures conducted by professionals.

A promise you cannot keep causes double harm: it gives the person false hope at a time when their need for truth and realism is no less than their need for hope; and it undermines their trust in you and the organisation when what you promised does not come about. The most dangerous promises in this context are: "I will make sure this never happens again" — nobody can guarantee that without an investigation and formal procedures that have not yet begun. "The person who did this will be punished" — you do not have this authority and have heard only one account. "No one will know what you told me" — absolute confidentiality is not possible within an institutional framework, and life may be at risk requiring exceptional breach of confidentiality. "This will be resolved quickly" — protection processes take time you cannot control and cannot predict. What you can truthfully say without making false promises: "I believe you. I will record what you have told me and bring it to those who have the training and authority to help. I will keep you informed of what I am able to share." That sentence is far more valuable than a large promise you cannot deliver.

When to Escalate to a Supervisor Immediately

Immediate escalation is not failure or an admission of incapacity — it is the correct action in situations that exceed the limits of a volunteer's role and call for someone with sufficient authority and training.

Immediate escalation does not mean you are incapable or falling short — it means you acted correctly at the right moment. Some situations exceed what any volunteer can handle, however experienced or well-intentioned, and these are precisely the situations that escalation procedures were designed for. The supervisor or protection officer is not informed only once the problem is completely clear — but when you sense something is not right and have been unable to confirm it yourself. Immediate escalation means contacting the supervisor or protection officer as soon as possible — not at the end of the week, not after prolonged reflection, and not when you "find the right time." The difference between one hour and three hours in some cases is the difference between a person's safety and their being exposed to additional harm that cannot later be undone. Every minute you delay referring to the specialist is a minute the person remains without the support they need.

• The person indicates in any way — directly or implicitly — thoughts of self-harm or suicide, even if presented as a joke or immediately withdrawn
• A child is in immediate danger or has been found in an unsafe situation, with an untrustworthy person, or after an unexplained absence
• Disclosure of sexual assault that occurred within the last twenty-four hours, because there are time-sensitive medical and legal procedures involved
• Imminent risk of physical violence: a direct or explicit threat, or a situation suggesting violence is about to occur
• The person states they will not be safe when they return to their place of residence or to a specific person
• Any situation where you feel internally that something is not right, even if you cannot specify it — genuine doubt alone is sufficient reason to report

What you say to the supervisor when escalating must be a description of facts, not an interpretation of them or a judgement upon them. "At three o'clock Sarah said she would not go home because she was afraid — those were her exact words" — that sentence gives the supervisor the information they need to decide. "I think Sarah is in danger and her husband is beating her" is analysis and judgement that may lead you and the supervisor in the wrong direction if the truth differs from what you imagine. A precise description of exact words, observed actions, and their timing is the most valuable thing you can offer at that moment.