UNICEF PROCEDURE FOR PREVENTION OF SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE

(PSEA) ASSESSMENTS OF CSO IMPLEMENTING PARTNERSHIPS

Document Number: DAPM/PROCEDURE/2019/001
Effective Date: 01 October 2019
Issue Date: 01 October 2019
Issued by: Director, Division of Analysis, Planning & Monitoring (after 1 August FRG will transition to
DAPM)

RATIONALE
1. This procedure establishes requirements for UNICEF country and regional offices implementing
UNICEF's programme interventions through partnerships with Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to
operationalize the screening of implementing partners as required by the United Nations Protocol On
Allegations Of Sexual Exploitation And Abuse Involving Implementing Partners (hereinafter referred
to the UN Protocol) in respect of CSO partnerships.

2. This procedure and the UN Protocol is aligned with the Secretary General’s Bulletin, 9 October 2003
on Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse SGB/2003/13 .

3. This procedure is consistent and complements UNICEF’s Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment, Policy on Conduct Promoting the Protection and
Safeguarding of Children, Procedure For A Child Safeguarding Framework, Strategic Framework for
Partnerships and Collaborative Relationships and the Guiding Principles of Partnership with CSOs.

4. This procedure is to be read in conjunction with the Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian
Action, UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response , the UNICEF HACT
Procedure, and the UNICEF CSO Procedure.

5. The following principles underpin this procedure to implement the UN Protocol:

a. Risk Management Approach: the PSEA Assessment assesses risks derived from a CSO’s
organisational capacities to protect against and prevent SEA and is aligned with partnership risk
management principles described in the HACT and CSO Procedures, such as the Due Diligence
and Micro assessment processes.
b. Sustained reduction of SEA risks: PSEA Assessment is expected to trigger and facilitate an
improvement in PSEA systems and processes by the IP, through development and
implementation of an Action Plan1 based on the PSEA Assessment findings;
c. Termination for absence of Prevention measures: The failure of implementing partners to take
preventive measures against sexual exploitation or sexual abuse, to investigate allegations
thereof, or to take corrective action when sexual exploitation or sexual abuse has occurred, shall
constitute grounds for termination of any cooperative arrangement with the United Nations 2;

APPLICABILITY / SCOPE
6. This procedure applies to all UNICEF country offices, field/zone offices, and regional offices (offices)
when transferring resources to CSO implementing partners in every country and operational context.

1
The release of this Procedure is accompanied by a PSEA Toolkit which supports CSO organisational capacity
development to strengthen policies, procedures and systems to prevent and protect against SEA. The Toolkit
includes a template for an Action Plan to be developed based on findings from the PSEA Assessment.
2
United Nations Protocol On Allegations Of Sexual Exploitation And Abuse Involving Implementing Partners, para 3.
1
7. This procedure applies to all CSO implementing partners. PSEA Assessment is required regardless
of the dollar value of the partnership, i.e., there is no minimum threshold below which the PSEA
Assessment is not required.

8. PSEA Assessment is valid for five years from date of completion of the Assessment.

PROCEDURE STATEMENTS
9. The PSEA Assessment is required for all CSO implementing partners and is carried out before a
partnership is entered into.

10. The PSEA Assessment rates organisational capacities. The rating of organisational capacity is
converted to SEA risk ratings as shown in ANNEX B PSEA ASSESSMENT.

11. SEA Risk Rating is recorded in VISION in the Vendor Master.

12. Two additional risk ratings are available for partners where the PSEA Assessment has not been
completed. The five available ratings are:

Table 1: Available SEA Risk Ratings

SEA Risk Based on:
rating
High PSEA Assessment of organizational capacities as Low
Medium PSEA Assessment of organizational capacities as Needs improvement
Low PSEA Assessment of organizational capacities as Adequate
High Risk
PSEA Assessment not yet carried out
Assumed
Low Risk CMT consideration and Representative decision that IP is low risk and PSEA Assessment
Assumed is not required

13. Representative may decide on an exceptional basis, following CMT review and recommendation, that
the PSEA Assessment is not required for a CSO IP because there is no risk of SEA. Normally this
would apply when the programme document does not include any activity which involves contact with
beneficiaries, e.g., desk-based research, study tour, etc. Low Risk Assumed rating is recorded in
VISION for the IP.

14. Representative decision that a PSEA Assessment is not required is based on a specific programme
document or SSFA in which there is no risk of SEA. The Low Risk Assumed rating is applied to the IP
in the VISION Vendor Master. If the same IP subsequently undertakes work under another
programme document of a nature which presents risk of SEA the “Low Risk Assumed” rating is no
longer valid and is updated in VISION by the office, with a risk rating derived from a PSEA
Assessment. VISION issues a warning note and requests confirmation of applicability of Low Risk
Assumed rating for all transactions for Low Risk Assumed rated IPs.

2
15. Representative decision is required to proceed with a new partnership which has been assessed as
High SEA risk. Decision is based on written justification for the selection of the High SEA risk partner.
The justification also describes risk mitigating actions.

16. The SEA risk rating has implications for minimum required assurance activities. A high risk rating in
the PSEA Assessment triggers additional programme assurance activities. CSO IPs also have a risk
rating derived from the micro assessment (or high risk may be assumed if no micro assessment is
done). The higher of the two ratings from the micro assessment and the PSEA assessment is used to
determine the minimum required programmatic visits in the year. (e.g., if the Microassessment for an
IP resulted in a Low risk rating, and the PSEA Assessment resulted in a high risk rating, the higher of
the two ratings, which is that from the PSEA Assessment, would be used to determine the minimum
programmatic visits in the year.) The schedule of minimum requirements for programmatic visits is
included in INSTRUCTION 1: Including PSEA In Monitoring, Programme Reviews, Evaluations, and
Reporting.

17. Where PSEA Assessment risk rating is high, the minimum required programmatic visits for those IP’s
include beneficiary level monitoring with specific SEA questions. Guidance on programmatic visits for
IPs rated high risk in the PSEA Assessment is included at INSTRUCTION 1: Including PSEA In
Monitoring, Programme Reviews, Evaluations, and Reporting.

18. PSEA Assessment of national CSO IP is done by the UNICEF office entering partnership with the
national CSO. It is recommended to be completed by the relevant sectoral programme officer
together with the IP. Office may decide to use others to complete the PSEA Assessment such as
third-party service providers (e.g., individual consultants or auditors). The PSEA Toolkit training is
required to be completed by whoever is designated or contracted to do PSEA Assessments before
any PSEA Assessments are undertaken.

19. PSEA Assessment of international NGOs is partially completed centrally at NYHQ 3. Details are
included at INSTRUCTION 2: PSEA Assessment of INGOs and All Other CSOs. Partner is informed
of outcome of PSEA Assessment. Sample Letter to Partner to advise of risk rating is available at
TEMPLATE A.

20. The date of the PSEA Assessment is entered in the VISION Vendor Master. Upon the elapse of five
years and the consequent expiry date of the PSEA Assessment rating recorded in the VISION
Vendor Master, no further transactions with the IP will be possible until the date of assessment is
updated.

21. On completion of the PSEA Assessment, the IP is encouraged to develop an Action Plan to address
gaps in organisational capacity to prevent SEA. As the Action Plan is implemented the partner
provides evidence of missing policies/procedures/systems as specified in the Action Plan.
Acceptance of this evidence by UNICEF as appropriate means of addressing the organisational
capacity gap is the basis for revising the PSEA Assessment specific criteria ratings and the overall
SEA risk rating accordingly. Template to document revision of PSEA Assessment and revision of Risk

3
DAPM (formerly FRG) and ESARO is leading an initiative, in cooperation with UNFPA, to research and establish the
feasibility and optimal methodology for a combined global micro assessment and PSEA assessment of INGOs.
Findings are expected to be available by September 2019, and rollout of methodology is anticipated by January 2020.
3
 Rating is available at TEMPLATE B. If PSEA Assessment is completed in eTools, updates against
each PSEA Assessment Core Standard are recorded in eTools and new supporting documents are
uploaded in eTools. Sample Letter to Partner to advise of revised risk rating is available at
TEMPLATE C.

22. On completion of the PSEA Assessment, where the SEA risk rating is high, the IP is informed that if
adequate preventive measures sufficient to gain a lower SEA risk rating are not in place within twelve
months from the date of the PSEA Assessment the partnership will be terminated. Follow up letters
are sent at intervals throughout the twelve-month period while the SEA risk rating remains high.
Sample letters to IP are available at TEMPLATE A & TEMPLATE D.

23. If, after twelve months, the IP has not taken necessary measures to address the gaps identified in the
PSEA Assessment and the SEA risk rating remains high, or no PSEA Assessment has been done
and the SEA risk rating is high risk assumed, the partnership agreement is terminated.
Accountabilities for suspension and termination are provided in Instruction 6 of the UNICEF CSO
Procedure.

24. The nature of some programme contexts or some programme interventions present exceptionally
high risks of SEA. In such cases, for SEA high risk rated partners, Representative determines
whether i) the partnership is suspended until the SEA risk rating is reduced; or ii) a shortened period
(i.e., <12 months) is given for an SEA high risk rated partner to put in place adequate SEA preventive
measures to achieve a lower SEA risk rating; or iii) increased programme assurance activities with
focus on PSEA are undertaken; or iv) any other risk mitigation measures are put in place.

25. The initial PSEA Assessment is completed as a standalone exercise. After the initial PSEA
Assessment where the partner SEA risk is rated Moderate or Low, or, if relevant, any subsequent
revision of the partner SEA risk rating to Moderate or Low, future PSEA Assessments should coincide
with the Micro Assessment process. Details are included at Instruction 3. PSEA Assessment and
Micro Assessment.

26. Representative ensures that consolidated findings from all PSEA Assessments are analysed and
used to inform Office Risk Register risks related to SEA.

27. Representative ensures that responsibilities for PSEA Assessments are clearly designated within the
office. Guidance on typical responsibilities are included at Instruction 4 PSEA Responsibilities in a
UNICEF Office.

28. PSEA Assessment is integrated into multiple UNICEF systems including VISION, inSight, Office and
Regional Performance Scorecard, Office and Global Dashboards, and eTools. Details are included at
Instruction 5. PSEA Assessment in UNICEF Systems.

29. Performance Scorecard and Office, Regional and Global Dashboards will track completion of PSEA
Assessments and the number of CSO IPs with High/Medium/Low risk ratings. Details are included at
Instruction 5. PSEA Assessment in UNICEF Systems.

30. Representative requests UNRC and UNCT to advocate with Government coordinating ministry on
Government adoption of appropriate SEA prevention and protection measures. Where other UN
agencies are already doing PSEA assessments of shared partners, a collaborative approach to
assessments and capacity building is taken.4
4
UNICEF is participating in an initiative through the UN SEA Working Group with the aim of obtaining in
the short term a commitment from all UN Agencies, Funds and Programmes (AFPs) to accept each
4
31. Representative determines appropriateness of PSEA Assessment for any other partners contracted
under other modalities such as Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement where
activities include contact with beneficiaries.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS IN EMERGENCY CONTEXTS

32. Offices prone to emergencies develop and sign with selected CSOs contingency programme
documents that can be quickly activated if an emergency occurs as described in of the UNICEF CSO
Procedure. PSEA Assessment is completed prior to signing the contingency programme document.

33. Regional Rapid Response Mechanism rosters include PSEA Focal Points or others such as Child
Protection programme officers who, at onset of humanitarian situation, undertake PSEA Assessments
for new national partners, provide PSEA trainings, and support CSOs to use the PSEA Toolkit to
address PSEA organisational capacity gaps.

TRANSITIONAL MEASURES
34. This procedure is released on 1 October 2019 and takes effect on rolling dates according to the
phased rollout approach. Existing CSO Partners are migrated in VISION on the effective date with an
SEA risk rating of High Risk Assumed, and a PSEA Assessment date of the phased rollout date for
each office.

35. Effective on the date of the phased rollout for each office, new partners are recorded in VISION
Vendor Master with SEA risk rating and PSEA Assessment date derived from PSEA Assessment, or
High Risk Assumed with PSEA Assessment date as date of Vendor Master creation.

36. HACT Assurance Plan takes SEA risk rating into consideration effective from six months after the
date of the phased rollout for each office.

37. Office and Global Dashboards track completion of PSEA Assessments effective from the date of the
phased rollout for each office.

38. Office and Regional Performance Scorecards track partnerships with SEA low/moderate/high risk and
high risk assumed partners effective six months after the date of the phased rollout for each office.

other’s PSEA assessments, so as to ensure that the same IP is not assessed multiple times by different
agencies. Further information about how this will be operationalized will be shared as soon as available.
Options under proposal are to record PSEA Assessment ratings by an UN AFP in the UN Partner Portal,
and an expansion of the existing HACT agencies mapping of partners at country level to include partners
of all UN AFP and include PSEA assessment ratings in that mapping. A medium-term goal is also in place
to develop a full set of harmonized PSEA assessment and training materials for use by all AFP. There is
also an initiative to adapt the UNICEF PSEA Toolkit to become an interagency tool.
5
RISK MANAGEMENT

Document Title: UNICEF Procedure For Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA)
Assessments Of CSO Implementing Partnerships
Corporate risk categories: Funding and external stakeholder relations; Misconduct, Wrongful and Negligent
Behaviour Towards Others; Organisational Strategy
Typical Risks Minimum Expected Mitigation Measures
Potential UNICEF partners may fail to take  Through the PSEA Assessment, the office screens the
adequate measures to prevent and protect partner for organisational capacity to prevent sexual
against sexual exploitation and abuse. exploitation and abuse. The office encourages the
Engagement with such partners could partner to develop an Action Plan to address gaps in
expose beneficiaries to harmful actions and organisational capacity. The office implements
could have a negative impact on UNICEF’s additional programmatic assurance activities in
reputation  response to high risk ratings. The office terminates
partnerships where adequate preventive measures have
not been put in place in twelve months from the date of
the PSEA Assessment.
Inadequate measures by UNICEF to  Organisation implements Procedure for PSEA
screen partners for SEA preventive Assessment and related risk mitigation measures such
measures, and to mitigate risks of SEA as additional assurance activities, partner capacity
may negatively influences donors and building through PSEA Toolkit and Action Plan, and
other external stakeholders informs donors and external stakeholders of actions
taken.
Children and/or other beneficiaries are  Offices follow up to ensure that partners implement
harmed through SEA by partners adequate preventive measures for SEA, as described in
their policies, procedures and systems. Minimum
required programmatic visits for high SEA risk and high
SEA risk assumed partners include beneficiary level
monitoring with specific SEA questions. Partners are
invited to participate in PSEA Toolkit training upon
rollout of the Toolkit, and periodically thereafter.
Time required to complete PSEA  Incorporate simplification and streamlining initiatives into
Assessments and related follow up the Procedure wherever possible. These include:
activities are too burdensome for offices, centralised PSEA Assessments of INGO’s led by DOC
and the procedure is not fully implemented CSP Unit; option to outsource PSEA Assessments to
or inadequately followed up. Third Party Service Providers with the inclusion of PSEA
Toolkit and PSEA Assessment training package
developed and provided in tandem with rollout of this
Procedure; initiate action to achieve UN harmonised
approaches in the short and medium terms; inclusion of
system prompts and system blocks in VISION for low
risk assumed and high risk or high risk assumed
partners; inclusion of PSEA KPI’s in Performance
Scorecard and Office, Regional and Global Dashboards.

6
DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

Document Title UNICEF Procedure for Prevention of Sexual Exploitation And

Abuse (PSEA) Assessments Of CSO Implementing Partnerships
Document Number DAPM/PROCEDURE/2019/001
Effective Date 1 October 2019
Mandatory Review 1 October 2021
Date
Responsible Division Until 31 July: Field Results Group (FRG)/From 1 August: Division of Analysis,
Planning & Monitoring (DAPM)
Responsible Manager Chief Programme Implementation, FRG/DAPM
Document Summary This Procedure outlines requirements for screening of civil society organizations
(CSOs) for organisational capacity to prevent SEA, where there is a transfer of
resources from UNICEF to achieve results for children.
Applicability All UNICEF country and regional offices when transferring resources to CSOs, in
every country and operational context.
Regulatory Content the Not applicable
Document Replaces
Topics Covered Assessment for PSEA organisational capacity
Partnerships with civil society organizations
Corporate Risk Area Funding and external stakeholder relations
Misconduct, Wrongful and Negligent Behaviour Towards Others
Organisational Strategy

Reference / Links to Secretary General’s Bulletin: “Special measures for protection from sexual
Enabling Legislation exploitation and sexual abuse” (ST/SGB/2003/13)
and Background
Links to Relevant UN Protocol on Allegations of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Involving Implementing
Policy Partners
Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual
Harassment
Policy on Conduct Promoting the Protection and Safeguarding of Children
Strategic Framework for Partnerships and Collaborative Relationships
Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action,
UNICEF Policy on HACT (2015)
Links to Relevant Procedure For A Child Safeguarding Framework
Procedure UNICEF HACT Procedure (2018)
UNICEF CSO Procedure (2019)
Links to Relevant Programme Policy and Procedure Manual, Section 4.07 Civil Society Partnerships
Guidance Guiding Principles of Partnership with CSOs.
VISION How to "All about Implementing Partners"
Links to Relevant Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Agora e-course for UN Personnel
Training Materials CSO Procedure e-course for UNICEF staff and partners in Agora (forthcoming)

7
ANNEX A: DEFINITIONS & PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS

DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this procedure, the following definitions apply:

1. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are non-profit, non-governmental entities designed to advance
collective interests and ideas. UNICEF differentiates CSOs based on four broad categories:
a. International NGO (INGO) is an NGO that has offices in more than one country;
b. National NGO is an NGO established in only one country;
c. Community Based Organization (CBO) is a grassroots association;
d. Academic institution is a degree conferring institution.

2. Office is used throughout this document to refer to both country offices and regional offices.

3. Programme Document is the document that operationalizes a PCA. It defines the expected results,
activities and resource requirements, and other key information defining the partnership. The duration of
the programme document is determined by the timeframe required to achieve the jointly planned results.

4. Representative is used throughout this document to refer to both country Representatives and Regional
Directors.

5. Small Scale Funding Agreement (SSFA) is the legal agreement defining the expected result, activities
and resource requirements, as well as rights and obligations of UNICEF and the CSO where the transfer
of UNICEF cash and supply resources to the CSO does not exceed a total of $50,000 in a twelve-month
period. In humanitarian response, the SSFA can also be used with a new CSO partner (that does not
have an active PCA) for the quick transfer of up to three months of programme supplies, regardless of
value, as required to meet UNICEF’s Core Commitments for Children.

PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
PSEA Assessment is subject to two performance benchmarks.

An indicator is included under the Performance Scorecard for Offices and Regions, and Office and Global
Dashboards to track the number of PSEA Assessment “high risk assumed” IP – indicating the number of CSO
Partners for whom the PSEA Assessment has not been completed. The objective of this performance
benchmark is for all offices to complete PSEA Assessments for all IP, which triggers improvement in PSEA
systems and processes by the IP, through development of an Action Plan based on the PSEA Assessment
findings.

A second performance benchmark is included to facilitate monitoring to ensure that the office does not
continue to work with High Risk or High Risk Assumed partners.

a. First Indicator – applicable six months after the date of the phased rollout for each office: percentage of IP
with PSEA Assessment ratings other than “High Risk Assumed”
Grading criteria: Green – 100% Yellow – 90-99% Red - <90%

b. Second Indicator – applicable six months after the date of the phased rollout for each office: percentage
of IP with PSEA Assessment ratings “Low or Medium”
Grading criteria: Green > 80% Yellow – 80-51% Red - <51%

8
NAME OF PARTNER ASSESSMENT DATE

ANNEX B PSEA ASSESSMENT

This assessment is intended to give UNICEF and its partners a baseline for tracking progress of partners’
organizational capacities on PSEA. Partners and UNICEF counterparts (i.e. programme officers) (or
UNICEF’s 3rd party service providers) go through this assessment together before entering into a partnership
to have a shared understanding of the partner’s organizational strengths and areas of improvement on PSEA
moving forward. However, partners can use the self-assessment at any time to improve their organisational
capacities on PSEA.
Partners are encouraged to use the findings to develop an action plan that reflects identified areas for
improvement on PSEA (see PSEA Toolkit Tool 1: Sample Template for Action Plan on PSEA) that UNICEF
and partners can revisit at regular intervals (i.e. every 6 or 12 months). The assessment can also help identify
areas where external support from UNICEF or other partners is needed, such as trainings, technical advice,
funding or increased coordination with inter-agency activities. In addition, UNICEF records the total score of
each partner’s capacity assessment as an “SEA Risk Rating” and uses it to determine the number of
programmatic assurance visits needed by UNICEF staff and other follow-up actions.
To support partners’ efforts in addressing identified capacity gaps, the PSEA Toolkit provides practical
guidance on PSEA as well as an extensive list of additional resources in each section.
Instructions on the rating system for the assessment:
The table below provides (a) core standards on PSEA organizational policies and procedures and (b)
criteria for assigning ratings to each of these standards. Each standard includes a set of three criteria that
the organization should consider for the rating. Organizations should use the “comment” section to document
the organization’s recent progress as well as support needs.
1 – Absent: The organization is not working towards this standard.
Give this score if the organization meets none of the criteria

2 – Progressing: The organization has made some progress towards applying this standard,
but certain aspects need to be improved.
Give this score if the organization meets one or two of the three criteria

3 – Adequate: The organization fully meets this standard.

Give this score if the organization meets all of the three criteria.

After reviewing and scoring the organization’s compliance with these standards, add up the totals for each
standard to obtain a total score. This total score indicates the organization’s current capacities on PSEA and
its related risk rating.

Total score PSEA organizational capacities SEA Risk Rating

11 or less Low High
12 – 19 Needs improvement Moderate
20 – 24 Adequate Low

9
NAME OF PARTNER ASSESSMENT DATE

Table 1: PSEA Assessment and SEA Risk Rating

Standards and Criteria 1 2 3 Proof of evidence

Core Standard 1: Organizational Policy     Code of conduct

An organizational policy exists and is signed by all personnel (see: Section Comments:  PSEA policy
4.2.1. Policies). (Note that the policy may exist as part of a code of conduct
 Documentation of
and/or a comprehensive SEA policy.)
standard
Criteria 1: Organizational policy includes: a) a clear definition of procedures for all
SEA (that is aligned with the UN’s definition); b) a clear description personnel to
of behavior expected of personnel on- and off-duty (reflecting the receive/sign PSEA
IASC’s Six Core Principles Relating to SEA); and c) an explicit policy
statement of zero-tolerance for SEA (i.e. SEA as a ground for
disciplinary actions, which may result in termination of  Other (please
employment). specify):

Criteria 2: The organizational policy is signed by all personnel,

_________________
including employees, volunteers, contractors, and others.

Criteria 3: The organization has a clear standard procedure for all

personnel to receive and sign organizational policies related to PSEA
(e.g. code of conduct).

Standards and Criteria 1 2 3 Proof of evidence

Core Standard 2: Organizational Management and HR Systems     ToR (e.g. PSEA-
related
The organization’s management and HR systems account for PSEA (see
responsibilities)
Section 4.2.2. Procedures).
Criteria 1: The organization clearly defines roles and  Contracts/partnersh
ip agreements
responsibilities of personnel with specific PSEA-related
responsibilities in their contracts and/or ToR.  Recruitment
procedure (e.g.
Criteria 2: The organization’s contracts and partnership
reference check
agreements include a standard clause requiring with questions
contractors, suppliers, consultants and sub-partners to related to SEA/child

10
NAME OF PARTNER ASSESSMENT DATE

commit to a zero-tolerance policy on SEA and to take Comments: safeguarding)

measures to prevent and respond to SEA.  Other (please
Criteria 3: There is a systematic vetting procedure in specify):
place for job candidates (e.g. reference checks, police
_________________
records, Google searches) in accordance with local laws
regarding employment, privacy and data protection,
including checking for prior involvement in SEA or other
safeguarding concerns.

Standards and Criteria 1 2 3 Proof of evidence

Core Standard 3: Mandatory Training     Annual training plan

The organization holds mandatory trainings for personnel on the Comments:  Training agenda
organization’s SEA policy and procedures (see Section 4.3.1. Training). (Note
 Attendance sheets
this training can be delivered online or in-person.) 5
 Other (please
Criteria 1: The organization has a plan for training all
specify):
personnel on PSEA.
Criteria 2: The training includes 1) a clear definition of SEA (that is _________________
aligned with the UN’s definition); 2) a clear prohibition of SEA; and
3) actions that personnel are required to take (i.e. prompt
reporting of allegations and referral of survivors).

Criteria 3: The organization requires all personnel to

participate in its PSEA training and retains an internal
record of attendance (i.e. name of trainees, date of
training, type of training, training provider).

5
Note that IASC’s MOS-PSEA and CHS require members to hold annual PSEA refresher trainings.
11
NAME OF PARTNER ASSESSMENT DATE

Standards and Criteria 1 2 3 Proof of evidence

Core Standard 4: Designing Safe Programmes     Needs assessments

The organization systematically identifies and addresses SEA-related risks
Comments:  Risk assessments
(see Section 4.4. Risk Mitigation and Safe Programming).
 Programming
Criteria 1: The organization conducts thorough and guidelines
inclusive risk assessments on SEA before designing  Programme plan
projects, if possible as part of the initial needs assessment.
 Other (please
Criteria 2: The organization conducts consultations with specify):
beneficiaries and local communities, including women,
children and other relevant stakeholders, on PSEA as part _________________

of needs assessment and routine monitoring.

Criteria 3: The organization has incorporated general
prevention and safety measures for SEA in the
organization’s standard programme design (e.g. providing
assistance in safely accessible and well-lit areas; limiting
one-on-one interactions between personnel and
beneficiaries wherever possible; including female
personnel in programme implementation teams where
possible).6

6
For additional suggested measures, see: general prevention and safety measures for SEA
12
NAME OF PARTNER ASSESSMENT DATE

Standards and Criteria 1 2 3 Proof of evidence

Core Standard 5: Awareness-Raising of Beneficiaries     Communication
Comments: materials
The organization ensures that beneficiaries are aware of the organization’s
zero-tolerance policy on SEA and how to report allegations (see Section  PSEA awareness-
4.3.2. Awareness-raising). raising plan
Criteria 1: The organization has communication materials  Other (please
on PSEA available in locally relevant languages and specify):
presented in a way that all groups, including children, ____________________
understand.
Criteria 2 The organization displays information on PSEA,
including the code of conduct and reporting channel
details, in its own offices and at project sites.
Criteria 3: The organization has a plan for conducting
awareness-raising on PSEA with beneficiaries.

Standards and Criteria 1 2 3 Proof of evidence

Core Standard 6: Reporting     Description of
reporting
The organization has clear mechanisms and procedures for personnel, Comments:
mechanism(s)
beneficiaries and communities, including children, to report SEA allegations
that comply with core standards for reporting (i.e. safety, confidentiality,  Whistleblower
transparency, accessibility) (see Section 5.2. Reporting Mechanisms). policy
Criteria 1: The organization has a clear description of how  Other (please
personnel and beneficiaries can report SEA allegations and specify):
the organization’s procedures for handling these allegations,
_________________
including those involving personnel of other entities.
Criteria 2: The organization has measures in place to protect
those reporting violations (e.g. whistleblower policy,
possible anonymous reporting).
Criteria 3: The organization limits the number of people with
access to reported information and removes identifying
information of those involved when sharing information.

13
 NAME OF PARTNER ASSESSMENT DATE

Standards and Criteria 1 2 3 Proof of evidence

Core Standard 7: Assistance and Referrals     List of service
Comments: providers
The organization has a functioning system to ensure survivors of SEA,
including children, receive immediate professional assistance, referring them  Description of
to relevant service providers (see Section 6.2. Assistance and Referrals). referral process
Criteria 1: The organization has an updated list of local service providers for survivors of
and/or contact with local GBV coordination mechanisms (i.e. GBV sub- GBV/SEA
cluster) for all programme sites/areas.  Referral form for
Criteria 2: The organization has a set procedure to guide the referral survivors of
process, outlining the steps that personnel, particularly those receiving GBV/SEA
complaints, need to take, including follow-up to referrals.
 Other (please
Criteria 3: The organization has a referral form for survivors of GBV/SEA. specify):
_________________

Standards and Criteria 1 2 3 Proof of evidence

Core Standard 8: Investigations     Written process

for review of SEA
The organization has an established process and plan for ensuring Comments:
investigation into SEA allegations involving its personnel (see Section 7.2.
allegations
Investigation Procedures).  Dedicated
Criteria 1: The organization has a set process for reviewing allegations of resources for
SEA and deciding on the need for investigation and other next steps (e.g. investigation(s)
assistance for adult/child survivors and/or others, need for investigation); and/or
this involves a system for recording all SEA allegations involving its commitment of
personnel and its response measures. partner for
support
Criteria 2: The organization has access to an experienced, impartial and
trained investigator to conduct an investigation on SEA; this may involve  PSEA
using in-house capacity, hiring an external investigator, or getting a investigation
commitment of partner(s) for support. policy/procedures
Criteria 3: The organization has an established system for providing  Other (please
organizational oversight of an investigation (e.g. information- specify):
sharing/communications, risk assessments), including disciplinary
measures in case of substantiated allegations. _________________

TOTAL PER RATING (i.e. count all 1s, 2s and 3s)

GRAND TOTAL (i.e. 1s + 2s + 3s)

PSEA organizational capacities

SEA Risk Rating

14
NAME OF PARTNER ASSESSMENT DATE

PSEA Assessment of [Name of the IP]:

Assessment completed by:

Signature Date of Assessment

15
INSTRUCTION 1: Including PSEA In Monitoring, Programme Reviews, Evaluations, and Reporting
MONITORING
Country Programme Monitoring frameworks include one or more indicators to assess implementation of
strategies to prevent and respond to SEA.
Some sample outputs and indicators are:
 Output: SEA risk assessments carried out for Implementing Partners; Indicator: Number of SEA risk
assessments completed and % of partners for whom SEA risk assessment is completed
 Output: UNICEF partners with CSO’s with adequate PSEA organisational capacity (or SEA risk moderate
or low); Indicators: Number and percentage of Implementing Partners for whom PSEA organisational
capacity is Adequate/Needs Improvement/Low (or SEA risk Low/Moderate/High);
 Output: Community mobilisation and awareness raising on PSEA in each community receiving assistance
through the CP; Indicators: i) Number of beneficiaries reached through awareness activities and UN
supported community mobilisation interventions on PSEA; ii) percentage of communities supported with
PSEA communications materials out of total number of UNICEF-supported communities
 Output: Safe, accessible, and child-sensitive reporting mechanisms are in place for PSEA; Indicator:
Number of beneficiaries who have access to a UNICEF-supported SEA reporting channel.

Monitoring of programme implementation: the SEA risk rating has implications for minimum required
assurance activities. Refer paragraph 16 and 17 of the Procedure.

Table 2: Schedule of Minimum requirements for programmatic visits

Cash transfer Minimum

amount in the Risk rating programmatic visits in
year the year
Up to $2,500 All risk levels Not required7
$2,501 - $100,000 All risk levels 1
Low 1
$100,001-
$500,000 Medium 2
Significant or High 3
Low 2
More than
Medium 3
$500,001
Significant or High 4

Monitoring of programme implementation (including programmatic visits) must include regular opportunities to
monitor implementation of programmes and awareness raising on PSEA at beneficiary level. Community level
discussions must include women, girls, boys and other at-risk members of the community. During community
level monitoring, specific questions should be asked about PSEA systems and experiences. Some sample
questions are:

7
For simplification reasons programmatic visit for CSO IP receiving up to $2,500 is not included in minimum required.
However, Representative may decide, based on CMT consideration, to plan and undertake programmatic visit/s for CSO
IP with High risk rating from PSEA Assessment, where SEA risks are present due to the nature of programmatic activities,
e.g., if there is direct contact with beneficiaries.
16
  Has the partner explained the difference between SEA and GBV/violence against children and the
UN zero tolerance of SEA?
 Has the partner distributed and explained SEA awareness-raising communication materials with
beneficiaries? Are those materials relevant to age, language and capacity?
 Do beneficiaries know how to complain if SEA incidents are experienced or observed?
 Do beneficiaries have any experience using the community complaint mechanism? What was the
experience?
 Do the beneficiaries have any experience or observation of SEA behaviours during the programme
implementation? Was the experience or observation reported? How was it dealt with?
 Important: if any beneficiary reports about an experience or observation of SEA during the UNICEF
programmatic visit, the UNICEF SM should confidentially take relevant details and report immediately
to the UNICEF head of office. Further guidance on this is provided in the UNICEF SEA SIR. and
UNICEF Notification Alert To Senior Management

Programme managers regularly visit the field and include beneficiary level monitoring in their visits.

UNICEF programme officers undertaking beneficiary level monitoring of implementation by SEA high risk
partners undergo PSEA Toolkit training which includes guidance on beneficiary level monitoring.

PROGRAMME REVIEWS
Programme reviews of the effectiveness and efficiency of assistance (distribution of commodities, health
services, education) include review of effectiveness of PSEA measures in the programme. The following key
questions are suggested as standard questions to be addressed in programme reviews where programmes
include direct interventions with beneficiaries:
 How often has community level monitoring taken place, where beneficiaries have been asked about
their awareness, experiences or observations related to SEA behaviours and use of reporting
mechanisms?
 Have opportunities been taken to review and learn from actual SEA incidents, and to document, and
share progress, opportunities and challenges?
 What initiatives have been taken during the review period to improve policies, procedures or systems
for prevention of and protection against SEA?

PROGRAMME EVALUATIONS
Ensure that PSEA questions are part of all evaluations that are conducted of the programme, and that the
beneficiary perspective is specifically addressed. This could be accomplished through focus group
discussions and other relevant research methods with programme participants including groups at heightened
risk of SEA (e.g. people with disabilities, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI)
communities), and other stakeholders (including women, girls, boys, local authorities/communities, etc.).

Suggested questions to consider are:

 Did programme design and programme monitoring consider and address locally relevant risks and
protection measures (that are in line with international laws and standards)?
 Did programme implementation incorporate general prevention and safety measures for SEA, such
as:
o Avoidance of interventions in isolated/non-public locations or in locations that require
programme participants to commute through isolated areas.

17
 o Including female personnel in programme implementation teams, specifically if their roles
require direct interactions with programme participants (e.g. food distributions, community
outreach, feeding centres, health clinics, child-friendly spaces, schools/temporary learning
spaces).
o Employment of women to manage service delivery where risks of SEA are particularly high
(e.g. distribution of food and non-food items).
o Programme designed in a manner that minimizes, and preferably eliminates, scenarios in
which a personnel is alone with one or more children or beneficiaries for extended periods of
time.
o Proactive communication of information about aid distribution procedures to the community
(“aid is free”; beneficiary criteria; administrative requirements; etc.).
o Prominent display in project offices and on work sites SEA-related information and the
organization’s policies and procedures, including how to report inappropriate behaviour by
the organization’s personnel.
o Ensuring that reporting and response procedures are set up before the start of the
programme.
 Did beneficiaries know how to complain if SEA incidents were experienced or observed? Did the
programme implementor distribute and explain SEA awareness-raising communication materials with
beneficiaries? Were those materials relevant to age, language and capacity?
 Did the beneficiaries have any experience or observation of SEA behaviours during the programme
implementation? Was the experience or observation reported? How was it dealt with?
 Did beneficiaries have any experience using the community complaint mechanism? What was the
experience?
 Did beneficiaries regularly have the opportunity to meet programme managers during the period of
programme implementation, and did the programme managers ask beneficiaries about any the
above-described SEA prevention measures?

REPORTING
Partner organisations include in reports progress with implementing PSEA measures in projects or services
(where appropriate).

Three key questions included above under Programme Reviews may be included as standard questions to be
responded to in partner quarterly reporting.

18
INSTRUCTION 2: PSEA Assessment of INGOs and all other CSOs
PSEA Assessment of International NGOs
1. PSEA Assessment of International NGOs is conducted prior to formalising partnerships, every five years,
and when new policies, procedures or systems are put in place by the partner to address gaps in
organisation capacity to prevent SEA. The PSEA Assessment process for International NGOs is
completed through the following steps:
a. Five of the eight core standards are relevant for assessment at the HQ of the partner 8. NYHQ CSP
Unit in Division of Communication liaises with the HQ of the INGO to obtain the self-completed
response to those core standards, and relevant supporting documentation as proof of evidence
supporting the self-assessment of each core standard.
b. CSP Unit in Division of Communication reviews the completed PSEA Assessment and confirms the
rating of those five HQ-relevant core standards for the International NGO, or requests clarification,
additional evidence, or indicates alternative risk rating;
c. When new policies, procedures or systems are put in place by the international NGO to address gaps
in organisation capacity to prevent SEA, the relevant documents are shared with UNICEF CSP Unit in
Division of Communication (csp@unicef.org) and UNICEF updates the rating.
d. CSP Unit in Division of Communication reviews the updated PSEA Assessment and supporting
documentation and confirms the updated SEA risk rating of the International NGO for those five core
standards, or requests clarification, additional evidence, or indicates alternative risk rating.
e. CSP Unit in Division of Communication records or updates the PSEA Assessment date and SEA risk
rating against each of the five core standards in eTools.
2. The list of international NGOs assessed by UNICEF HQ is available on the Civil Society Partnerships
(CSP) intranet.

3. If an international NGO identified for potential partnership is not included in the above list, the office
planning the partnership requests the headquarters of the prospective international NGO partner to self-
complete the five core standards in the PSEA Assessment, and provide relevant supporting
documentation as proof of evidence supporting the self-assessment of each core standard. Thereafter the
Division of Communication (csp@unicef.org) will verify the assessment against the five core standards
and record them in eTools and inform the office accordingly.
4. Office which uses eTools, when establishing a partnership with a local branch of an international NGO,
selects the eTools parent partner record and imports that record as a local partner.
5. Office establishing a partnership with a local branch of an international NGO completes the assessment
of the remaining three core standards, in consultation with the local branch of the INGO and records the
rating against each core standard in eTools, uploading relevant supporting documentation as proof of
evidence against each of the three core standards. The office calculates the overall SEA risk rating and
liaises with GSSC to create a child organisation linked to the parent organisation through the Vendor
Master PRG2 record in VISION using Vendor Master Registration Template. Additional guidance on the
process is provided in the VISION How-To Manual, chapter 1.

8
Feedback from INGO’s during consultation on the PSEA Toolkit and this Procedure indicates that some core standards
in the PSEA Assessment are relevant for response by HQ of the INGO, while other core standards are subject to local
practice, and therefore are only relevant for response by the local branch of the INGO. DAPM (formerly FRG) and ESARO
are leading an initiative, in cooperation with UNFPA, to research and establish the feasibility and optimal methodology for
a combined global micro assessment and PSEA assessment of INGOs. One of the aims of the research is to clarify which
elements can be assessed centrally. Findings are expected to be available by September 2019, and rollout of
methodology is anticipated by January 2020.
19
6. Office not using eTools downloads the partially completed PSEA Assessment from Civil Society
Partnerships (CSP) intranet and manually completes the remaining three core standards of the PSEA
Assessment. The office calculates the overall SEA risk rating and liaises with GSSC to create a child
organisation linked to the parent organisation through the Vendor Master PRG2 record in VISION using
Vendor Master Registration Template. Additional guidance on the process is provided in the VISION
How-To Manual, chapter 1. Office retains the completed PSEA Assessment, together with all supporting
documents as proof of evidence against each core standard, in a centrally managed document repository.

PSEA Assessment of all other CSOs

7. PSEA Assessment of all other CSOs (national NGOs, community based organizations and academic
institutions) is undertaken by the office seeking to establish the partnership using the PSEA Assessment
or through the PSEA Assessment tab in eTools where applicable.

8. PSEA Assessment of all other CSOs is conducted prior to formalising partnerships, every five years, and
when new policies, procedures or systems are put in place by the partner to address gaps in organisation
capacity to prevent SEA.

9. PSEA Assessment is led by the UNICEF Programme officer or other person or organisation designated
by UNICEF, after having completed the PSEA Toolkit training. The PSEA Assessment is completed
together with the senior management of the CSO before entering into a partnership to have a shared
understanding of the partner’s organizational strengths and areas of improvement on PSEA.

10. Upon completion of the PSEA Assessment for all other CSOs, the office liaises with GSSC to update the
Vendor Master PRG2 record in VISION using Vendor Master Registration Template. Additional guidance
on the process is provided in the VISION How-To Manual, chapter 1.

11. Office retains the completed PSEA Assessment, together with all supporting documents as proof of
evidence against each core standard, in a centrally managed document repository.

20
INSTRUCTION 3. PSEA Assessment and Micro Assessment for National CSO’s.

1. The initial PSEA Assessment is completed as a standalone exercise following the process described in
INSTRUCTION 2: PSEA Assessment of INGOs and all other CSOs. The SEA Risk Rating and PSEA
Assessment date is recorded in VISION in the Vendor Master record for the partner.
2. After the initial PSEA Assessment for all partners other than International NGOs, and where the partner
SEA risk is rated Moderate or Low, future PSEA Assessments are undertaken simultaneously with the
Micro Assessment in the interests of a streamlined process.

3. For all partners other than International NGOs, where the partner SEA risk is rated High from the initial
PSEA Assessment, future PSEA Assessments are undertaken simultaneously with the Micro Assessment
only after the SEA risk rating has been revised to Moderate or Low in response to policy, procedure or
system developments by the partner to fill organisational PSEA capacity gaps identified during the PSEA
Assessment.

4. The combined Micro Assessment and PSEA Assessment process is completed before the earlier of the
two Assessments expires.

5. The service provider contracted to complete both Assessments completes the PSEA Toolkit and PSEA
Assessment Training before undertaking the Assessments.

6. The template for combined Micro Assessment and PSEA Assessment is used.

7. The ratings for the Micro Assessment and the PSEA Assessment are calculated separately and recorded
separately in VISION Vendor Master. The same date of Assessment is entered in VISION Vendor Master.

8. PSEA Assessment for INGOs, which is done at HQ level, will be combined with the Micro Assessment
process for INGOs9.

9
DAPM (formerly FRG) and ESARO is leading an initiative, in cooperation with UNFPA, to research and establish the
feasibility and optimal methodology for a combined global micro assessment and PSEA assessment of INGOs. Findings
are expected to be available by September 2019, and rollout of methodology is anticipated by January 2020.
21
INSTRUCTION 4: PSEA Responsibilities in a UNICEF Office

Activity Responsible
Representative Decides on Low Risk Assumed SEA risk rating for specified IPs, after consideration and
recommendation by CMT
Ensures that responsibilities for PSEA Assessments are clearly designated within the office.
Ensures that high risk assumed rated partnerships are appropriately assessed within the 12-
month time frame.
Based on written justification, determines whether new partnerships with High SEA risk
rated partners should be entered into with appropriate risk mitigating actions.
Ensures that SEA high risk or high risk assumed rated partnerships are terminated when the
partner has failed to put in place adequate SEA preventive measures after twelve months.
Determines whether the nature of interventions or contexts warrant increased programme
assurance activities with focus on PSEA and/or a shortened period for an SEA high risk
partner to put in place adequate SEA preventive measures to achieve a lower SEA risk
rating.
Ensures that SEA KPI’s in the Performance Scorecard and Office, Regional and Global
Dashboard are met.
Ensures that consolidated findings from all PSEA Assessments are analysed and used to
inform Office Risk Register risks related to SEA.

Requests UNRC and UNCT to advocate with Government coordinating ministry on

Government adoption of appropriate SEA prevention and protection measures.
Determines appropriateness of PSEA Assessment for any other partners contracted under
other modalities such as Institutional Contracts, Memorandum of Understanding or Letter
of Agreement, where activities include contact with beneficiaries

Deputy Ensures that Country Programme monitoring frameworks include one or more
Representatives indicators to assess implementation and effectiveness of strategies to prevent and
respond to SEA. Refer to Instruction 1: Including PSEA In Monitoring, Evaluation,
Reporting

Ensures that SEA risk assessments and mitigation measures are included in programme
planning, design and review stages of the country programme and sectoral programmes.
Guidance is available here and here.

PME Chiefs or Ensures that programmatic visit reporting templates include questions that
Specialists
facilitate community level discussions which should include women, girls and other
at-risk members of the community. Sample questions are included in Instruction 1
Including PSEA In Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting

Programme Ensures that the PSEA Assessment is initiated during development of a new PD or SSFA,
Managers including for any partners currently rated Low Risk Assumed for a PD or SSFA comprising

22
Activity Responsible
other types of activities.

Considers justification for entering into new partnership with an SEA High risk rated
partner, and, if considered justified, documents justification and appropriate risk mitigating
actions for Representative decision.
Ensures that the minimum required programmatic visits for IP’s rated high risk
from the PSEA Assessment, include beneficiary level monitoring with specific SEA
questions about any experience or observation of SEA behaviours during the
programme implementation, and about awareness and experience using the
community complaint mechanism. Refer to Instruction 1 Including PSEA In
Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting.
Prepares recommendation to CMT with justification for application of Low Risk Assumed
rating where programme document or SSFA does not risk of SEA.

Programme After participating in training on PSEA Assessment and PSEA Toolkit, receives from
officers
partners, reviews, and accepts updates or new policies/procedures/systems to
address gaps in PSEA organisational capacity identified during PSEA Assessment.
Template to document Revision of PSEA Assessment and SEA risk rating is available
at Template B.
When updates or new policies/procedures/systems received from partners do not
adequately address gaps in PSEA organisational capacity identified during PSEA Assessment,
gives feedback to partners on required improvements.
Initiates update to SEA risk rating recorded in VISION for national CSO IP where
policies/procedures/systems to address gaps in PSEA organisational capacity identified
during PSEA Assessment are accepted.
Ensures that programmatic visits with beneficiaries include opportunities to learn about the
effectiveness of SEA prevention and reporting measures, including through discussions with
at-risk members among the beneficiary community. Questions are asked about awareness,
experiences or observations related to SEA behaviours and use of reporting mechanisms.

Office PSEA Focal Trains all relevant sectoral programme officers, third party service providers, and other
Point relevant staff in use of PSEA Assessment and PSEA Toolkit.
Ensures that lessons learnt about strategies to prevent and respond to SEA are documented
and reported. Lessons learnt about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of specific
strategies is shared with other actors in the sector or cluster, and during programme
reviews and evaluations.
Ensures that analysis is done on reported cases to gather lessons learnt which are then
applied to improve systems or procedures. Determines whether PSEA Assessment should
be redone if system or procedures are not being applied in practice.

PRC Secretary Maintains a complete set of all PSEA Assessments (both initial and subsequent amendments
in a central location accessible to staff, or eTools if applicable.

Monitors and presents to CMT the key performance indicators on PSEA Assessment
23
Activity Responsible
completion and #/% of Partnerships with high/medium/low SEA risk ratings on a quarterly
basis.

Sends letters to IP to inform of outcome of PSEA Assessment. Sample letter is

available at Template A.

Sends letters to IP to inform of outcome of PSEA Assessment revision. Sample letter

is available at Template C.

Sends follow up letters to IP with high SEA risk rating at intervals throughout the
twelve-month period while the SEA risk rating remains high. Sample letter to IP is
available at Template D.

Sends letters to IP to provide notice of termination of partnership due to high SEA

risk rating for twelve months. Sample letter is available at Template E.

Tracks Low Risk Assumed IPs and flags requirement for PSEA Assessment for new
programme document or SSFA as appropriate.

24
REGIONAL OFFICE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Roles Responsibilities
Regional The Regional Director is responsible for a result-focused and risk-based approach to
Director oversight and quality assurance of offices in implementation of this procedure in the
region. Specifically, the Regional Director
a. Reviews CO and RO performance on PSEA indicators in the regional and country
Performance Scorecards with a view to ensuring that KPIs are met
b. Encourages processes of peer review and exchange among offices within the region on
application of this procedure; and
c. Reports issues requiring management attention to the Director, DAPM
Regional a. Ensures that Regional Rapid Response Mechanism rosters include PSEA Focal Points or
Emergency others such as Child Protection programme officers who, at onset of humanitarian
Advisor situation, are included in ERT’s to undertake PSEA Assessments for new national
partners, provide PSEA trainings, and support CSOs to use the PSEA Toolkit to address
PSEA organisational capacity gaps.
Regional a. Provides guidance, technical assistance and ongoing oversight to country offices on the
Implementing efficient and effective application of this procedure and working with CSOs;
Partnership b. Leads the use of eTools and other UNICEF systems to strengthen PSEA with CSOs
Management c. Escalates cases of termination of in-country CSO partnerships to the Field Results Group
Specialists

HEADQUARTERS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Roles Responsibilities
Associate Responsible for mainstreaming management for results principles and processes in
Director, Field UNICEF policies, procedures and guidance and providing technical assistance,
Results Group quality assurance and oversight on their implementation. S/he:
a. Coordinates organizational efforts to strengthen management for results in CSO
implementing partnerships, in consultation with relevant headquarter divisions and
regional offices
b. Leads the development of eTools, inSight, Performance Scorecard and other
systems and processes to strengthen PSEA in all aspects of implementing
partnerships with CSOs
c. Liaises with other UN agencies for harmonisation of business processes and systems
supporting management for results in partnerships with CSOs
d. Reports issues requiring management attention to the Deputy Executive Director, Field
Results and the Office of the Executive Director as applicable
e. In consultation with the Legal Office, reviews office requests for modifications to
standard legal agreements (PCAs, SSFAs, UNDAF Legal Annex), directing the office
accordingly
Director, Responsible for the coordination and strengthening of UNICEF’s engagement with
Division of civil society organizations at the global level. S/he:
Communicatio a. Undertakes PSEA Assessment of international NGOs, including updates the SEA risk
n rating upon receipt of proof of action to address organisational capacity gaps noted in
the PSEA Assessments.
b. Reviews and updates SEA risk rating information in the Civil Society Partnerships
(CSP) intranet.
c. Advises offices on partnerships with international NGOs flagged for reputational risks, in
25
Roles Responsibilities
consultation with the respective regional office and Field Results Group
d. Reports issues requiring management attention to the Director, DAPM and the Office of
the Executive Director, as applicable

26
INSTRUCTION 5 PSEA Assessment in UNICEF Systems
VISION:
1. Date of Assessment and Risk Rating will be recorded on the Partner Assessment tab. The office
liaises with GSSC to update the Vendor Master PRG2 record in VISION using Vendor Master
Registration Template. Additional guidance on the process is provided in the VISION How-To
Manual.

2. PSEA Assessment is valid for five years. Further transactions will be blocked upon expiry date of
PSEA Assessment until date of assessment and risk rating is updated.

3. Date of assessment and risk rating for new partners is recorded during Vendor Master Registration.

4. Low Risk Assumed rating triggers a warning message when a transaction is initiated for the partner.
User confirms that Low Risk Assumed rating is still valid or updates the date of assessment and risk
rating.

5. High Risk or High Risk Assumed with a Date of Assessment > 12 months triggers a block of all
transactions with the partner. PSEA Assessment is completed and a lower risk rating achieved and
recorded in VISION, or partnership is terminated.

InSight:
6. The HACT Assurance Plan, automatically generated in InSight, will be updated to take into account
the SEA risk rating from the PSEA Assessment.

7. Other relevant reports which show the HACT Partner Assessment rating will be modified to also show
the PSEA Assessment rating.

8. Partnership Cube updated to include PSEA Assessment SEA Risk Rating and Assessment Date.

9. PSEA Assessment Report created.

10. Office and Global Dashboards include PSEA Assessment SEA Risk Rating performance
benchmarks.

Performance Scorecard:
An indicator is included under the Performance Scorecard and Office and Global Dashboards to track the
number of PSEA Assessment “high risk assumed” IP – indicating the number of CSO Partners for whom
the PSEA Assessment has not been completed. The objective of this performance benchmark is for all
offices to complete PSEA Assessments for all IP, which triggers improvement in PSEA systems and
processes by the IP, through development of an Action Plan based on the PSEA Assessment findings.

A second indicator is included under the Performance Scorecard and Office and Global Dashboards to
track the number of PSEA Assessment high/medium/low SEA Risk IP to ensure that the office does not
continue to work with High Risk or High Risk Assumed partners.

a. First Indicator: percentage of IP with PSEA Assessment ratings other than “High Risk Assumed”
Grading criteria: Green – 100% Yellow – 90-99% Red - <90%

b. Second Indicator: percentage of IP with PSEA Assessment ratings “Low or Medium”

Grading criteria: Green > 80% Yellow – 80-51% Red - <51%

27
eTools:
a. In PMP, Partnership tab, Overview, Assurance tab: new field for PSEA Assessment Risk Rating.
Data taken from VISION Vendor Master.
b. In FAM, PSEA Assessment fields created to enable Programme officer to enter responses
(capacity assessment ratings) to eight indicator questions from PSEA Assessment. PSEA
Assessment Data entered here will flow to InSight to enable analysis on responses to eight
questions.
c. once a PSEA engagement is complete on FAM for a national NGO/IP an e-mail notification will
be sent to the GSSC focal point to update the vendor master data for the implementing partner
d. In PRP: SEA risk rating will be displayed to partner
e. HACT Dashboard will:
a. Display PSEA risk assessment completed.
b. HACT Assurance Plan will be modified to base calculation of minimum required
Programmatic Visits on higher of two risk ratings (micro or PSEA Assessment) in VISION
Vendor Master.
c. Calculation of PVs based on risk will be enabled in line with phased adoption of this
Procedure with six-month lag between date of adoption and date of calculation revision.

UN Partner Portal (UNPP): Office will upload the SEA risk rating from PSEA Assessment as an
Observation in the UNPP for partners with a profile.

28
TEMPLATE A Sample Letter to Partner Informing of Outcome of PSEA Assessment

[UNICEF Country Office Letterhead]

[insert date]
Re: Outcome of PSEA Assessment and SEA Risk Rating

Dear [Civil Society Implementing Partner],

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance during the recent PSEA Assessment conducted on [insert
date]. UNICEF appreciates your time and sharing of your organisation’s policies/procedures/systems to
prevent and protect against sexual exploitation and abuse.

I am writing to inform you that, as a result of the Assessment, your organisation’s SEA risk rating has
been assessed as follows:

[Copy and paste completed Table 1: PSEA Assessment and SEA Risk Rating from Annex B here.]

[choose one of the two following paragraphs:]

Considering that your SEA risk rating has been assessed as [Medium Low (delete one)] effective [insert
date of PSEA Assessment] the PSEA Assessment of your organisation will remain valid for five years
from this date. For streamlined process, the PSEA Assessment may be combined with the next Micro
Assessment of your organisation, which may take place before the expiry date of the PSEA Assessment.

Or

Considering that your SEA risk rating has been assessed as High effective [insert date of PSEA
Assessment] the PSEA Assessment of your organisation will remain valid for twelve months from that
date. If your organisation is not able to put in place sufficient SEA prevention measures to reduce the
SEA risk rating within twelve months, UNICEF will regrettably have no choice other than to terminate the
partnership. I do strongly encourage your organisation to develop an Action Plan to address gaps in
organisational capacity on PSEA, as identified during the PSEA Assessment, and to implement the Action
Plan timely. Please share relevant updates to your organisations’ PSEA policies, procedures and systems
at minimum on a quarterly basis, in order to facilitate revision to the PSEA Assessment and SEA risk
rating. The UNICEF PSEA Toolkit provides multiple resources to assist your organisation in this process,
and has been provided in soft copy by email to [insert name of partner contact to whom a soft copy of the
PSEA Toolkit has been provided. Ensure that the PSEA Toolkit is sent to that contact person, along with
this letter.]

UNICEF looks forward to continuing to work with your organization to jointly strengthen prevention of and
response to sexual exploitation and abuse as well as to address child safeguarding violations. Together,
we can create a safer and more protective environment for every child.

For any questions or clarification, please feel free to contact [First Last], the UNICEF [relevant
Programme Manager title] or [First Last], the UNICEF [Country] Representative.

Sincerely,
XX

29
 TEMPLATE B Revision of PSEA Assessment and SEA Risk Rating
This form is used to document the revision of the PSEA Assessment and SEA Risk Rating

Partner Name: Vendor number:

Previous PSEA Assessments Assessment Overall SEA

Assessment completed by
Date Risk Rating
First PSEA Assessment
PSEA Assessment revision #1
PSEA Assessment revision #2
PSEA Assessment revision #3
PSEA Assessment revision #4

This PSEA Assessment revision # Assessment Date Assessment completed by

Table 1: PSEA Assessment and SEA Risk Rating Revision

Y/NThis revision
Core Standard Most recent Full List of Documentation Revised

Y/NPreviously
Organisational Provided Organisational
Capacity rating Capacity rating

Core Standard 1 2 3 Code of conduct  1 2 3

1:
Organizational   
PSEA policy 
  
Policy 
Documentation of standard
procedures for all personnel
to receive/sign 
PSEA policy 
Other (please specify): 
_________________
Core Standard 1 2 3 ToR (e.g. PSEA-related 1 2 3
2: responsibilities) 
Organizational   
Contracts/partnership
  
Management agreements 
and HR Recruitment procedure
Systems  (e.g. reference check with
questions related to
SEA/child safeguarding) 
Other (please specify): 
_________________
Core Standard Annual training plan 
30
 Y/NThis revision
Core Standard Most recent Full List of Documentation Revised

Y/NPreviously
Organisational Provided Organisational
Capacity rating Capacity rating

3: Mandatory 1 2 3 Training agenda  1 2 3

Training  Attendance sheets 
     
Other (please specify): 
_________________
Core Standard 1 2 3 Needs assessments  1 2 3
4: Designing Risk assessments 
     
Safe Programming guidelines 
Programmes  Programme plan 
Other (please specify): 
_________________
Core Standard 1 2 3 Communication materials  1 2 3
5: Awareness- PSEA awareness-raising plan  
     
Raising of Other (please specify): 
Beneficiaries ____________________ 
Core 1 2 3 Description of reporting 1 2 3
Standard 6: mechanism(s) 
     
Reporting  Whistleblower policy 
Other (please specify): 
_________________ 
Core Standard 1 2 3 List of service providers  1 2 3
7: Assistance Description of referral
and Referrals    
process for survivors of   
GBV/SEA 
Referral form for survivors of
GBV/SEA 
Other (please specify): 
_________________ 
Core Standard 1 2 3 Written process for review of 1 2 3
8: SEA allegations 
Investigations    
Dedicated resources for   
investigation(s) and/or
commitment of partner for
support 
PSEA investigation
policy/procedures  
Other (please specify): 
 _______________________ 

TOTAL PER RATING (i.e. count all 1s, 2s and 3s)       

GRAND TOTAL (i.e. 1s + 2s + 3s)   
31
PSEA organizational capacities   
SEA Risk Rating   

Total score   PSEA organizational capacities  SEA Risk Rating 

11 or less  Low  High 
12 – 19  Needs improvement  Moderate 
20 – 24  Adequate  Low 

PSEA Assessment of [Name of the IP]:

Revision of Assessment completed by:

Signature Date of Reassessment

32
TEMPLATE C Sample Letter to Partner to Advise of Revised Risk Rating

[UNICEF Country Office Letterhead]

[insert date]
Re: Amendment to PSEA Assessment SEA Risk Rating

Dear [Civil Society Implementing Partner],

Thank you for providing an update on your organisation’s policies/procedures/systems to prevent and
protect against sexual exploitation and abuse on [insert date].

I am writing to inform you that, as a result of the update which you provided, your organisation’s SEA risk
rating has been revised as follows:

[Copy and paste completedTable 1: PSEA Assessment and SEA Risk Rating Revision from TEMPLATE
B Revision of PSEA Assessment and SEA risk rating here.]

[choose one of the two following paragraphs:]

Considering that your SEA risk rating has now been revised to [Medium Low (delete one)] effective [insert
date of PSEA Assessment revision] the PSEA Assessment of your organisation will remain valid for five
years from this date. For streamlined process, the PSEA Assessment may be combined with the next
Micro Assessment of your organisation, which may take place before the expiry date of the PSEA
Assessment.

Or

Considering that your SEA risk rating remains at High and has been at this level since the initial PSEA
Assessment completed on [insert date of initial PSEA Assessment] the PSEA Assessment of your
organisation will remain valid for twelve months from that date. If your organisation is not able to put in
place sufficient SEA prevention measures to reduce the SEA risk rating, as identified during the initial
PSEA Assessment, UNICEF will regrettably have no choice other than to terminate the partnership on or
before [insert date twelve months from date of initial PSEA Assessment].

UNICEF looks forward to continuing to work with your organization to jointly strengthen prevention of and
response to sexual exploitation and abuse as well as to address child safeguarding violations. Together,
we can create a safer and more protective environment for every child.

For any questions or clarification, please feel free to contact [First Last], the UNICEF [Country]
Representative, or [First Last], the UNICEF [Country] Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse focal
point.

Sincerely,
XX

33
TEMPLATE D Sample Letter to Partner 3/6/9 Months After High Risk Rating

[UNICEF Country Office Letterhead]

[insert date]

Re: PSEA Assessment and High SEA Risk Rating

Dear [Civil Society Implementing Partner],

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance during the PSEA Assessment conducted on [insert date].

Further to my letters on [insert date of previous letter] and [insert date of previous letter], I am writing to
remind you that, because your organisation’s SEA risk rating was assessed as high, if adequate
preventive measures sufficient to gain a lower SEA risk rating are not in place within twelve months from
the date of the PSEA Assessment the partnership will be terminated.

I do once again strongly encourage your organisation to develop an Action Plan to address gaps in
organisational capacity on PSEA, as identified during the PSEA Assessment, and to implement the Action
Plan timely. Please share relevant updates to your organisations’ PSEA policies, procedures and systems
at minimum on a quarterly basis, in order to facilitate revision to the PSEA Assessment and SEA risk
rating. The UNICEF PSEA Toolkit provides multiple resources to assist your organisation in this process,
and has been provided in soft copy by email to [insert name of partner contact to whom a soft copy of the
PSEA Toolkit has been provided. Ensure that the PSEA Toolkit is sent to that contact person, along with
this letter.]

UNICEF sincerely hopes that your organisation is able to demonstrate improved SEA prevention
measures and looks forward to continuing to work with your organization to jointly strengthen prevention
of and response to sexual exploitation and abuse as well as to address child safeguarding violations.
Together, we can create a safer and more protective environment for every child.

For any questions or clarification, please feel free to contact [First Last], the UNICEF [relevant
Programme Manager title] or [First Last], the UNICEF [Country] Representative.

Sincerely,
XX

34
TEMPLATE E Sample Letter to Partner One Month Before Termination of Partnership

[UNICEF Country Office Letterhead]

[insert date]

Re: Notice of Termination of Partnership Due to High SEA Risk Rating for Twelve Months

Dear [Civil Society Implementing Partner],

This letter refers to the PSEA Assessment conducted on [insert date] and my subsequent letters on
[insert date of previous letter] and [insert date of previous letter] and serves to provide written notice of
termination of the partnership between your organisation and UNICEF.

Because your organisation’s SEA risk rating was assessed as high, and because adequate preventive
measures sufficient to gain a lower SEA risk rating have not been put in place over the past eleven
months from the date of the PSEA Assessment, UNICEF hereby gives 30 days notice of our intention to
terminate the partnership effective [insert date twelve months from the date of PSEA Assessment].

During this final month of the partnership your organisation is advised:

1. That no requests for further cash transfers will be processed and that your organisation should not
incur any further liabilities regarding the [programme document/SSFA - delete one] after the
termination date.

2. Liabilities incurred prior to the date of termination will be honoured by making outstanding direct
payments or reimbursements and accepting reported expenditure of cash transfers following regular
completion of assurance requirements.

3. Your organisation is required to return unspent funds from advances, submit final reports and return
any supplies or UNICEF assets in the possession of your organisation within one month from the
termination date.

UNICEF regrets having to terminate the partnership. However, noting the PSEA clauses in the [PCA /
SSFA - delete one], UNICEF considers that through your organisation’s failure to put in place adequate
SEA preventive measures, your organisation has breached its obligations under the [[PCA / SSFA -
delete one].

For any questions or clarification, please feel free to contact [First Last], the UNICEF [relevant
Programme Manager title] or [First Last], the UNICEF [Country] Representative.

Sincerely,
XX

35