Review a safeguarding policy for gaps

A structured method and AI prompt to identify missing elements in your safeguarding or PSEAH policy against sector standards.

What This Prompt Does

Paste in a safeguarding or PSEAH (protection from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment) policy and this prompt returns a gap table, one row per criterion. Each row must quote the policy clause it relies on, or say that no clause exists. The checks come from published sector standards such as the CHS and IASC, not from any one funder's rules.

Paste the policy text and nothing else. Strip names, contact details, case files and survivor details, since none of that is needed for a gap review. Follow your organization's rules on which AI tools may be used with internal documents.
You are reviewing a safeguarding and PSEAH (protection from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment) policy for a [ORGANIZATION TYPE] working in [COUNTRY CONTEXT]. The organization works with [CHILDREN / ADULTS / BOTH]. Check the policy below against published sector standards only. Check these criteria, in this order: 1. Approval and scope: approved by the organization's management body; applies to all staff, volunteers and associates. 2. Code of conduct, included or specifically referenced: bans sexual activity with anyone under 18 whatever the local age of consent, and bans exchanging money, employment, goods or services for sex. 3. Risk: how risks are identified and managed, and whether a risk register is reviewed. 4. Responsibility: managers with specific responsibility for overseeing implementation. 5. Safer recruitment, including references from previous employers that ask about conduct. 6. Induction and refresher training for staff, volunteers and associates. 7. Duty to report, and protection from retaliation. 8. Partners, suppliers and contractors: PSEA (protection from sexual exploitation and abuse) clauses in agreements, and assessment of their contact with the people you serve and their capacity. 9. Communities: how they learn what behavior to expect and how to complain. 10. Written complaint and investigation procedures, trained investigators, fair process for the person accused, and disciplinary or contractual consequences. 11. Survivor-led approach and support for survivors. 12. Where staff-on-staff harassment is handled. 13. An implementation plan with responsibilities, timeframe and budget. 14. A review date, sign-off by the senior management team and the board, and an external review cycle. Return one Markdown table with exactly these columns: Criterion | Status (Met, Partly met, Missing) | Policy clause quoted verbatim (or 'No clause found') | Gap or risk | Suggested fix Rules: - Quote only text that appears in the pasted policy. - Never paraphrase inside the quote column. - Do not invent or assume clauses. If a topic is absent, write 'No clause found'. - After the table, list the three highest-priority gaps. Policy text: [PASTE POLICY HERE]
Open it, with the prompt already in:ChatGPTClaudeGemini(opens empty)

How to Use It

  1. Fill in the brackets, and replace the [CHILDREN / ADULTS / BOTH] placeholder with CHILDREN, ADULTS or BOTH.
  2. Clean the policy text as described under Privacy Reminder.
  3. Paste the cleaned policy in place of [PASTE POLICY HERE] and run the prompt.
  4. Read the table with the full policy open beside it, row by row.
  5. If a row says Missing, look in linked documents such as a separate code of conduct or HR manual before you accept it.
  6. Ask your safeguarding lead to confirm each Partly met row, and record who will draft each fix and by when.

Check the Output

The assistant may misquote a clause or miss one. Test every row.

  • Search the policy for every quoted clause. If the search finds nothing, the quote is not verbatim.
  • Confirm partner clauses and reporting routes are written down, not merely implied.
  • Do not accept Met where a topic is only implied. And if the organization reports zero complaints, that does not mean there are no cases, so ask whether reporting channels are working.
  • Confirm that reporting routes suit your context, whether that is face-to-face, a hotline, a complaints box, phone, SMS, email or community groups, and check what your policy says about referring criminal reports involving a child.
  • Check the review cycle criterion against one child safeguarding standard, which calls for a formal external evaluation every three years.
  • Treat suggested fixes as drafts for the safeguarding lead. The standards behind them date from different years (the IASC minimum operating standards were endorsed in April 2012), so confirm the current versions.

Related Prompts

Back to Prompt Library