The Misconduct Disclosure Scheme - governance process

Final version
August 2020

In our implementation meeting in March 2020 it became clear that to ensure the Misconduct Disclosure Scheme can adapt and improve over time it would need a light touch Governance process to enable clear decision-making. Such decisions should incorporate the perspectives of all stakeholders, particularly when the scheme is implemented by perhaps hundreds of diverse organisations. This webpage outlines the agreed approach.

The Scheme’s Governance is designed as a process to review and make decisions on any substantive* changes to the scheme, including changes to the expectations of implementing organisations. Given the substantial flexibility existing within the scheme (for example to incorporate the statement of conduct into other reference checks) this process should not be required for non-substantive changes.


The Governance process consists of the following five stages:

  1. Identification of need for change

  2. Technical recommendation

  3. Formal Review

  4. Decision

  5. Implementation

In the absence of an identified need for change it is assumed that the scheme will continue unchanged on a ‘going concern’ basis.

1. Identification of need for change

This is likely to arise from the experience of Implementing Organisations in the course of implementing the scheme, perhaps through a specific case or a legal change in a certain jurisdiction. It may also arise because of a desire to improve the effectiveness of the scheme in preventing the recruitment of abusive individuals, or through a concern or complaint being raised by any stakeholder. As with previous changes to the scheme, such a need is most likely to be identified or shared at a scheme implementation meeting, which in March 2020 was proposed to be a regular, recurring event.

2. Technical Recommendation by SCHR (Executive Secretary and MDS Administrator)

Having identified a need for change, SCHR as the administrator of the scheme, will consult with relevant professionals and implementing organisations and make a technical recommendation of the change required. This process may be quite rapid if the change is simple, or more involved if it may have wider implications. Our expectation is that most changes will be relatively simple. The Scheme Administrator and Executive Secretary will synthesise the relevant experience and make technical recommendations for the scheme based on that synthesis. As they develop a recommendation, they will consult on those recommendations with Implementing Organisations and other stakeholders as appropriate.

3. Formal review by an Advisory Panel made up of representatives of a Local NGO, an International NGO, a UN Agency, a Donor, a Private Sector Company, a PSEA technical specialist, a HR technical specialist, a legal counsel, and a representative of survivors of abuse

The Advisory Panel will review recommendations from SCHR from the perspective of their stakeholder group and identify any potential issues, and either push recommendations back to SCHR for improvement or pass on to the chair of SCHR for a final decision.

4. Decision made by the SCHR Chair and communicated back to Implementing Organisations

The Chair of the Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response will, on the advice of the advisory board, provide rapid and concise decision making.

As a failsafe, the Chair’s decisions will be communicated along with a four week “silence equals consent” procedure, during which any Implementing Organisation can express a strong objection. When this occurs, the SCHR Executive Secretary will confer with the objecting organisation with a view to finding a mutually acceptable solution, and if a solution is found revise the technical recommendation as appropriate.

Any changes will be documented together in one annual update, which will be sent to all Implementing Organisations. This will usually be sent in March, along with a summary of implementation data.

5. Implementation by Implementing organisations

The Implementing Organisations will implement changes to the scheme as part of their wider PSEA commitments and in line with their own governance and management arrangements. They provide feedback on the scheme both through engagement with support from SCHR, the implementation data they provide, and through sharing with peer Implementing Organisations. Implementing organisations can at any time propose changes to the scheme to SCHR, which will be addressed during an annual review as needed.

The Misconduct Disclosure Scheme is not intended to create any legal commitment or obligation, and is intended to remain entirely voluntary, so if an implementing organisation believes that a change renders them unable to deliver on the moral obligations of the scheme, they will be fully entitled to withdraw explicitly by email notification to SCHR.

Establishment of the Advisory Panel

Members of the Advisory Panel will serve a voluntary, unpaid term of between two and three years, renewable as required, and will be appointed by the SCHR chair.

The role is not expected to be onerous.

They will be nominated by the Implementing Organisations, existing board members and other stakeholders and will be publicly identified on the SCHR website for the duration of their tenure.

They will be consulted as needed, with at least six-monthly contact from the scheme coordinator. They may meet physically or virtually or work over email as needed to make clear recommendations to the chair of SCHR and will be convened by the Scheme Coordinator or SCHR Executive Secretary as needed.

They are expected to make recommendations by consensus, but a 2/3rds majority will be considered sufficient to pass a recommendation to the SCHR chair, who will consider the lack of consensus when making her/his decision.

As noted, the Advisory Panel will consist of nine individuals, with the intention that they can bring a range of perspectives from Local NGOs, INGOs, UN Agencies, Donors, Private Sector Providers, PSEA/HR/Legal technical specialists and Survivors of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. The Advisory Panel will have a clearly documented TOR in line with this document.

Approval process for this Governance Proposal

This governance proposal will be approved over email by consensus or a 2/3rds majority of the 14 initial Implementing Organisations as represented by their Scheme lead in June 2020.

Once approved the Scheme Coordinator and SCHR Executive Secretary will seek nominations and establish the Advisory Panel.

As agreed among implementing Organisations in March 2020, this process will then be used to formally ratify the changes already introduced beyond the initial scheme document, and to make a decision on the admission of private sector actors to the scheme and any parameters around such admission. This will include the following:

  • The introduction of the annual reporting requirement

  • The introduction of the Registry and related information requirements (notably the identification of an approved contact point)

  • The clarification that Statements of Conduct should also be requested from non-Implementing Organisations.

  • Expectations around communication to all staff

  • Any parameters around admission to the scheme of private sector actors.

Due to the time required to identify and mobilise the panel, decisions will be made in the interim as required.

Approval of this v3 Governance Proposal

This document was approved with the following adaptations in August 2020 by consensus:

  • We agreed to include a 2/3rd majority rather than a simple majority. This is also intended to address concerns raised about too much power lying with the SCHR chair.

  • We agreed to extend the ‘silence’ procedure to 4 weeks, up from 2.

  • We reaffirmed that changes significant enough to go to the governance would be introduced together in one annual update as requested (this was included in the original proposal, but had been raised again)

  • We specified that formal notification of withdrawal is required from any organisation.

  • We noted that a proper TOR is needed for the Advisory Panel. This will be finalised by the panel but based on this document.

  • We removed language that underplayed the potential significance of changes.

  • We confirmed that implementation would be via Implementing Organisations own decision making and governance processes

  • We confirmed that at no point does the scheme create a legal obligation, and it remains entirely voluntary.

Future hosting arrangements

Although the Scheme is anticipated to be administered by SCHR for the foreseeable future, and at least to mid-2022, there may come a time when another entity may be identified as a better fit. In such a case, these governance arrangements will apply to any decision to change these governance arrangements – i.e. SCHR will make a recommendation in consultation with Implementing Organisations, the Advisory Panel would review, and the Chair of SCHR would make a decision to transfer the scheme to the new administrator.

*In this context substantive is intended with its standard dictionary definition: Substantial; considerable. This is to ensure that governance processes are not required for minor changes and corrections in wording but are needed where changes might result in a changed commitment on the part of Implementing Organisations.