šŸ›”ļø Core Framework

Zero Harm Policy & Governance

The non-negotiable ethical framework for all Atlas guidance. Beneficiary dignity, safety, and autonomy take precedence over program efficiency or institutional convenience.

Our Commitment

The Feed Children ASAP Atlas exists to help children, not harm them. Every recommendation, tool, and framework in this resource has been designed with beneficiary protection as the primary consideration.

This Zero Harm Policy establishes the ethical boundaries that govern all Atlas content. These principles are non-negotiable. They apply regardless of context, urgency, funding pressure, or programmatic convenience.

If you find content in this Atlas that violates these principles, or if you encounter situations where these principles conflict with other guidance, the Zero Harm principles always take precedence. No exceptions.

šŸŽÆ Core Zero Harm Principles

Every action must pass through these filters:

1 Dignity Before Efficiency
Beneficiary dignity is more important than program efficiency. We will not humiliate, shame, or degrade people to achieve nutrition outcomes. Programs that require people to sacrifice dignity are unacceptable, even if they "work."
2 Autonomy Over Compliance
People have the right to make their own choices, even choices we disagree with. We provide information and support; we do not coerce, manipulate, or withhold services to force behavior change. Conditionality must be truly voluntary.
3 Privacy as Default
Collect minimum data necessary. Protect what we collect rigorously. Default to anonymity where possible. People's personal informationā€”including their nutrition statusā€”is sensitive and must be treated as such.
4 Informed Consent Always
People must understand what they're agreeing to: what data is collected, how it's used, who sees it, and what happens if they decline. Consent obtained through confusion, pressure, or desperation is not valid consent.
5 Do No Harm Through Exclusion
Targeting criteria must not create stigma, family conflict, or community tension. Programs that help some while harming others through exclusion are not acceptable. Design inclusion criteria carefully.
6 Accountability to Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries must have safe, accessible ways to provide feedback, report problems, and hold programs accountable. Accountability to donors is important; accountability to beneficiaries is essential.

šŸš« Absolute Prohibitions

These practices are never acceptable under any circumstances:

  • Withholding treatment as punishment: Never withhold nutrition treatment (RUTF, food, services) because someone "doesn't comply" with other program requirements. Treatment is a right, not a reward for good behavior.
  • Coercing behavior change through conditionality: Conditional programs must be truly optional. If people lose essential services for non-participation, it's coercion, not choice. "Attend counseling or no food" is coercion.
  • Public identification of malnourished children: Never publicly announce which children are malnourished, display their photos without consent, or create registries that stigmatize. Nutrition status is private health information.
  • Selling, sharing, or monetizing beneficiary data: Beneficiary data cannot be sold, shared with third parties for marketing, or used for purposes beyond program delivery without explicit consent for each new use.
  • Deception about program benefits or risks: Never misrepresent what a program offers, exaggerate benefits, or hide risks to increase enrollment. Honesty is not optional.
  • Targeting based on characteristics that create stigma: Never target based on ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or other characteristics that could endanger beneficiaries or create community conflict.
  • Harassment or abuse by staff: Zero tolerance for sexual harassment, verbal abuse, physical violence, or exploitation by program staff. This includes "gifts" or "favors" demanded in exchange for services.
  • Failing to protect children in programs: Programs serving children must have child safeguarding policies, staff background checks, and reporting mechanisms. Child safety is paramount.

Ethical Decision-Making Framework

When facing difficult decisions where trade-offs are necessary, use this framework:

1 Does this protect beneficiary safety and dignity?
If the answer is no, stop. Find another approach. Safety and dignity are not negotiable for program efficiency, coverage, or cost savings.
2 Would beneficiaries themselves approve if they knew all details?
If you're hiding information because you know beneficiaries would object, that's a red flag. Transparency test: Would you be comfortable explaining this decision directly to beneficiaries in their own language?
3 Are we minimizing burden on beneficiaries?
Every data point collected, every meeting required, every condition imposed is a burden. Can you justify each requirement? Is there a less burdensome way to achieve the goal?
4 Does this approach respect local culture and context?
What works in one culture may be offensive or harmful in another. Have you consulted with local communities? Are you imposing external values inappropriately?
5 Are the most vulnerable protected, not excluded?
Program requirements often inadvertently exclude the most vulnerable: those without ID, without literacy, without mobility, without male household members. Are your systems accessible to everyone who needs help?
6 Can beneficiaries provide feedback and hold us accountable?
Is there a safe, accessible mechanism for complaints? Will you actually act on feedback? Or is accountability theaterā€”a suggestion box no one checks?

Implementation Safeguards

These safeguards should be embedded in every nutrition program:

Before Program Launch

  • Community consultation completed with diverse stakeholder groups
  • Child safeguarding policy in place with reporting mechanism
  • Staff code of conduct signed by all personnel
  • Data protection plan documented and approved
  • Feedback mechanism established and tested
  • Informed consent materials prepared in local languages
  • Targeting criteria reviewed for potential to cause harm through exclusion
  • Alternative options identified for those who don't meet criteria

During Implementation

  • Regular beneficiary feedback collected and acted upon
  • Staff supervision includes observation of beneficiary interactions
  • Complaints logged, investigated, and resolved with documentation
  • Data access restricted to authorized personnel only
  • Privacy protections audited regularly
  • Beneficiary dignity monitored (not just program outputs)
  • Unintended harms assessed and addressed promptly
  • Exclusion errors investigated and corrected

Continuous Accountability

  • Beneficiary representatives involved in program review
  • Quarterly ethics review of program practices
  • Staff training refreshers on dignity and safeguarding
  • Zero tolerance enforcement for abuse or exploitation
  • Data protection compliance verified by independent party
  • Community perception of program monitored
  • Harm reduction measures adjusted based on learning

Data Protection Requirements

Nutrition programs collect sensitive health information. Specific data protection requirements:

Data Minimization

  • Collect only data essential for service delivery or required reporting
  • Use aggregate data when individual-level data is not necessary
  • Use anonymous identifiers instead of names when possible
  • Avoid collecting sensitive attributes (ethnicity, religion, HIV status) unless absolutely necessary for targeting

Secure Storage

  • Physical records stored in locked cabinets in secure rooms
  • Digital data encrypted and password-protected
  • Access limited to staff with legitimate need
  • Backup data protected with same security as primary data
  • No data stored on personal devices or shared via insecure channels

Limited Sharing

  • Share individual-level data only with explicit consent for each recipient
  • Data sharing agreements document purpose, security, and retention
  • No sharing with parties that could misuse data (political groups, marketers, etc.)
  • Anonymize data before sharing for research or reporting when possible

Retention & Deletion

  • Define retention period before collecting data (e.g., "program duration + 1 year")
  • Delete data securely when retention period expires
  • Destroy paper records by shredding; digitally wipe electronic files
  • Honor beneficiary requests for data deletion unless legally required to retain

When Things Go Wrong

Even well-designed programs can cause harm. When problems occur:

āš ļø Responding to Harm

  1. Stop the harmful practice immediately. Don't wait for approvals or consensus. If something is causing harm, stop it now.
  2. Acknowledge harm to those affected. Apologize sincerely. Don't make excuses or blame beneficiaries.
  3. Investigate what went wrong. Why did this happen? What systems failed? Be honest, not defensive.
  4. Make it right. What can you do to address the harm? Compensation? Changed policies? Public commitment?
  5. Prevent recurrence. Change systems, not just individual behavior. Build safeguards so it can't happen again.
  6. Report honestly to stakeholders. Donors, partners, and communities deserve transparency about failures.

Common Failure Modes to Watch For

  • Drift toward coercion: What started as optional gradually becomes required through social pressure or staff attitude
  • Data creep: Collecting "just one more data point" that seems harmless but increases privacy risk
  • Ignoring feedback: Complaints dismissed as "unreasonable" rather than signals of problems
  • Targeting rigidity: Rules applied inflexibly, excluding deserving cases or including inappropriate ones
  • Staff burnout leading to mistreatment: Overworked staff becoming impatient or harsh with beneficiaries
  • Normalization of shortcuts: Skipping consent, rushing assessments, fabricating data becoming "how we do things"

Our Ongoing Commitment

This is not a static document. As we learn about new harms, unintended consequences, and better practices, we will update this policy.

If you identify content in the Feed Children ASAP Atlas that violates these principles, or if you see gaps in our safeguards, we want to know. The Atlas should model the accountability we ask of programs.

āœ… We Commit To:

  • Reviewing this policy annually and updating based on learning
  • Removing or revising any Atlas content found to violate Zero Harm principles
  • Being transparent about limitations and uncertainties in our guidance
  • Prioritizing beneficiary welfare over institutional interests
  • Learning from failures and near-misses to improve safeguards
  • Centering the voices and experiences of those affected by nutrition programs

Child nutrition work is sacred trust. Families experiencing malnutrition are often in their most vulnerable moments. We have enormous power to help or harm. This Zero Harm Policy exists to ensure we use that power responsibly.