Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:57 am
Time: 1:57 am
Results for sex exploitation (haiti) (kenya) (thailand)
1 results foundAuthor: Davey, Corinne Title: Change starts with us, talk to us! Beneficiary perceptions regarding the effectiveness of measures to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse by humanitarian aid workers: a HAP commissioned study Summary: This research, conducted in Haiti, Kenya and Thailand, was commissioned by the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), and sought to capture the views of beneficiaries of humanitarian assistance on the effectiveness of measures put in place to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA) by humanitarian workers. This study is a follow up to similar research, also on behalf of HAP, conducted by Lattu in 20081. It examines whether organisations have worked effectively on PSEA measures in the intervening three years, such that beneficiaries now feel safer, more confident to report exploitation and abuse, and more assured that reports will be addressed appropriately. The review analyses the findings and recommendations of existing research, and examines humanitarian organisational policies, guidelines and standards for PSEA. It includes the views of UN and NGO personnel working in the three countries on how these policies and procedures are being implemented, what support they are receiving to set up appropriate mechanisms to protect vulnerable people from SEA and, most importantly, the views of beneficiaries on the effectiveness of these measures. The choice of the focus countries was made in part to provide some comparison over time, since Kenya and Thailand were featured in the previous study. In addition, the three countries cover different regions of the world, and represent different contexts and scenarios in relation to PSEA implementation. In Kenya, a PSEA initiative ended shortly before Lattu’s 2008 research. Two years on, there was now the opportunity to track the sustainability of previous PSEA efforts. Research in Kenya was also conducted in Kibera, one of the largest urban slums in Africa, which allowed for a comparison of measures adopted in an urban development context with those in the camps. In Thailand, a three-year initiative on PSEA was ending, which offered useful learning on the impact of a consistent and concerted effort. The recent earthquake in Haiti provided an example of how PSEA measures are being implemented in the context of a large-scale, rapid onset disaster. Consultation with groups of women, men, girls and boys inform the main findings of the research. A total of 732 beneficiaries participated in the study across the three countries, of which 411 were female and 321 male. The researchers elicited community opinions on exploitation and abuse by humanitarian workers but set this in the context of the exploitation and abuse that camp and host communities experience at the hands of other perpetrators, including members of their own communities. In doing so, the researchers were able to explore the impact of initiatives, such as those on gender-based violence (GBV) and child protection, to understand how these have been coordinated with organisational policies to ensure protection from exploitation and abuse by humanitarian workers. Beneficiaries in all locations, to a greater or lesser extent, reported that they still feel at risk of exploitation and abuse by humanitarian workers. In addition to sexual abuse and exploitation by humanitarian workers, the report describes high levels of violations occurring in the beneficiary populations at the hands of others. Organisational efforts to discuss issues of SEA with beneficiaries appear variable from location to location. Some organisations have put in place effective awareness-raising mechanisms, such as hiring a protection officer, holding regular group meetings, or the use of theatre and drama. These are proving effective in Thailand and in some camps in Haiti. However, the most common feedback from beneficiaries is that organisations have not discussed SEA with them, and that little has been agreed between organisations and beneficiaries to prevent SEA taking place. Under-reporting is still a major issue. Most beneficiaries say they would report SEA by humanitarian workers, but the actual number of reported cases does not appear to bear this out. Reporting depends on a number of factors, principally whether beneficiaries are clear on how to make the report, and the extent to which the reporting mechanism is considered confidential. Providing information to beneficiaries is a major challenge. The use of complaints boxes has not been well received by beneficiaries in Kenya because they are not perceived as being confidential. The lack of clear reporting mechanisms, including identified people to report to, is also a significant barrier to complaining. This reflects an opinion in all three countries. Most beneficiaries who were able to describe the reporting process, articulated a route they had devised themselves rather than a formal reporting mechanism designed by the organisations. In asking beneficiaries what formal process might help them in reporting, women generally wanted organisations to establish a specific place where reports could be made. Reporting also depends on whether or not beneficiaries see the incident as exploitative (consensual sex between humanitarian workers and beneficiaries may not necessarily by considered exploitative) and whether beneficiaries feel they have enough evidence to make a report. At times, it appears simply to be a matter of staff attitude. It is clear from the research, however, that the risk of exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries by humanitarian workers decreases when PSEA initiatives are consistently implemented. In Haiti, the risk was seen as highest in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake before PSEA initiatives were introduced. In Kenya, the 2004 – 2007 PSEA project was perceived to have made improvements in the situation for beneficiaries. However, since the three-year project ended and PSEA was incorporated into GBV work, some declines were noted. In Thailand, a concerted and coordinated effort has seen the cases of SEA by humanitarian aid workers reduce significantly. The recommendations in this report aimed at improving the effectiveness of agencies’ PSEA efforts are drawn from both beneficiaries’ suggestions and the researchers’ analysis. The report has been structured as follows: the introduction provides a background on PSEA efforts since 2002, other research that has been conducted, and the contexts in which research for this report was carried out. The main body of the report is designed to give the reader a sense of the beneficiaries’ voices - the section titles are formed as beneficiaries’ questions, and populated with actual quotes obtained during the country visits. Following the section on conclusions and recommendations, the report provides individual chapters focused on each country visited, giving more detail on the circumstances there, and the issues and perceptions of particular relevance to beneficiaries located in those countries. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International, 2010. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2012 at http://www.hapinternational.org/pool/files/change-starts-with-us.pdf Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.hapinternational.org/pool/files/change-starts-with-us.pdf Shelf Number: 124158 Keywords: Human RightsSex Exploitation (Haiti) (Kenya) (Thailand)Sexual AbuseVoluntary and Community Organizations |