The MDS Advisory Panel recommended that these changes be ratified and made in the call on the 11th November 2020. These changes were confirmed by Abby Maxman, Chair of SCHR, on December 4th 2020

During the Implementation meetings in 2019 and 2020 several changes to the Scheme were agreed by the Implementing Organisations and SCHR. As the Advisory Panel had not yet been established at that time, the agreed changes were presented to be formally ratified, and one additional change be made. The Advisory Panel recommended that they be ratified/made with one amendment, noted below, and Abby Maxman, the Chair of SCHR agreed with the Recommendation, affirming the changes from December 4th 2020.

List of agreed changes:

1) Implementing Organisation to monitor and submit Implementation Data on annual basis

Implications: Implementing Organisations to monitor and submit the Implementation Data by January each year. SCHR to publish the disaggregated data on the SCHR website and delist Implementing Organisations who don’t share it. This highlights that the active annual submission of data provides evidence of active implementation of the scheme, while the data itself allows the drawing of conclusions around how systematically any Implementing Organisation is implementing the scheme.

Implementation data:

• The number of recruitments conducted by the implementing organisation since implementation of the scheme commenced,

• The number of requests for misconduct data made by the implementing organisation,

• The number of responses to those misconduct data requests received by the implementing organisation,

• The number of misconduct data responses provided by the implementing organisation to other organisations requesting such data,

• The number of applicants rejected by the implementing organisation based upon negative or absent misconduct data.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified, but recommended that data be published in an aggregated form at least for 2020 data, to prevent unhelpful criticism of those Implementing organisations whose implementation was only partial.

2) Introduction of a detailed scheme registry, with publicly visible element on the SCHR website listing which parts of organisations are currently implementing the Scheme

Implications: formalised the need for Implementing Organisations to identify and authorise specific individuals to share misconduct data and establish publicly available contact emails, which will be listed on the scheme registry.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified

3) Implementing Organisations to agree their own implementation milestones to which they can commit

Implications: although not monitored, this sets an expectation that Implementing Organisations would internally establish clear implementation plans towards systematic implementation of the Scheme to ensure strong ownership of commitments.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified

4) Implementing Organisations to disseminate communications materials related to the Scheme

Implications: this sets an expectation to have strong and regular internal communication on the scheme to staff, stakeholders and applicants. Implementing Organisations will share model communications with peers via the SCHR MDS Coordinator.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified

5) Implementing Organisations to adopt future-forward best practice, based on existing HR practices (e.g. have robust investigation policy and procedure, commit to always completing investigation even where staff resign) and share policy/procedure documents with peers via SCHR MDS Coordinator

Implications: this sets an expectation that the Implementing Organisations have a comprehensive Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse approach practices in place.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified

6) SCHR to provide contact list and support networking groups

Implications: this enables peer-to-peer learning and facilitates information exchange between Implementing Organisations to make better informed decisions and avoid duplicating processes related to the Scheme’s implementation.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified

7) SCHR to finalize the 1-year review of the Scheme

Implications: the Scheme has been designed with a 1-year review provision to allow for any necessary changes to be made. The recommendations have been reviewed at the Implementation Meeting in 2020 and it has been agreed that no changes to the Scheme should be made at this point.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified

8) SCHR to establish governance structure

Implications: increased clarity on the decision-making process required to implement changes, particularly as participation in the Scheme grows, and regularised decision making for future reviews and changes.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified

9) SCHR to standardise the use of the term ‘hires’ and ‘Implementing Organisation’ on the website and in scheme documents

Implications: standardised language used across all materials related to the Scheme. Helped clarify intended application to employees in the first instance, though there remains scope and interest to extend to consultants and volunteers at some point in future if/when appropriate. Also addresses a concern that language around ‘signing up’ and ‘signatories’ might be read to imply a legally binding commitment in terms of a contract – the term ‘Implementing Organisation’ was felt to be clearer in communicating the voluntary nature of the scheme. Note that should donors make implementation of the scheme a requirement of their funding, it may in future become legally binding through contract law relating to those funding agreements.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified

10) SCHR to extend support to the Implementing Organisations

Implications: considering the rapidly growing number of organisations interested in the Scheme, SCHR has agreed that it’s necessary to allow for a full-time role of Scheme’s coordinator, serving as a resource to assist interested organisations to fully and systematically implement the scheme, support the governance processes, coordinate the sign up of new Implementing Organisations and promote the Scheme.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified

11) SCHR to conduct basic due diligence checks on new Implementing Organisations

Implications: A basic check on all new Implementing Organisations, based on the minimal process IFRC completes for signatories to the Code of Conduct for International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief, will be done to mitigate any risks. The new process is light touch but aims to ensure the integrity of the scheme by helping ensure only genuine organisations are listed in the registry.

The panel recommended that this change be ratified

12) SCHR to secure agreement for the new types of Implementing Organisations (e.g. private sector) once the Scheme governance is confirmed

Implications: From the outset the intention has been that the scheme should cover all organisations placing hired people in positions of power over staff and communities (in particular those that are vulnerable) to prevent the movement of abusers from organisations implementing checks to those that don’t. However, there was some concern that the scheme may be negatively impacted if an overarching governance mechanism for all types of organisation was not put in place. Implementing Organisations were reassured that a governance mechanism will be adopted that will allow us to further strengthen recruiting and referencing practices for all organisations involved in the scheme and the broader sector. Many employees are pursuing job opportunities across a diverse range of organisations so securing one scheme that is accessible to all types of relevant organisations will minimise the possibility of competing schemes being established and maximise the efficiency of this one.

The panel recommended that this change be made