Ending Harassment – Evidence into Action is an international, independent Governance project addressing sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, acid violence, institutional abuse and abuse of authority. Its scope encompasses NGOs, educational institutions, public bodies, employers and other institutions globally.
The project brings evidence, institutional responsibilities and proposed improvements into a central framework for governance review and action. It aims to examine how organisations prevent harm, respond to concerns, protect survivors and demonstrate accountability across countries and institutional settings.
Through the PHC Service, the project intends to record concerns, assess the quality and limitations of evidence, distinguish allegations from substantiated findings, identify weaknesses in safeguards and track corrective actions against defined responsibilities and review dates.
The intended operating model is subscription-funded, supporting independent research, structured review, monitoring and reporting. Subscription arrangements will need transparent terms and safeguards for independence and conflicts of interest. Payment will not confer a favourable assessment or influence findings.
Survivor dignity, confidentiality, informed participation, safeguarding and procedural fairness will guide the work. The programme and subscription arrangements are in development; the project makes no claim of existing subscribers or verified outcomes.
📄 The Story of PHCThis proposal sets out a provisional six-month PHC development and initial delivery package for Ending Harassment – Evidence into Action. It translates the revised project information, Governance framing answers, Strategic Plan, Manifesto and Business Case into a costed working scenario.
All figures, hours, subscription prices, uptake assumptions, roles and funding arrangements are planning estimates for discussion, not quotations, appointments, contracts, secured income or verified results. GBP is used consistently. Refresh the model after each material development, supplier agreement or change in capacity.
PHC is intended to organise the Schedule, Concerns, Actions, Locations, People and Deliverables, linking evidence to decisions and corrective action. Access, sensitive evidence handling, financial visibility and reporting functions require suitability checks; public or subscriber access must not expose restricted records.
Develop a manageable, independently governed programme that examines whether institutional safeguards work in practice and records what should improve, who is responsible and what evidence will demonstrate implementation.
Retain fair response opportunities, a defined complaints route and independent challenge. No statutory powers, guaranteed certification, direct emergency response or proven reduction in harm is asserted.
Proposed functions are an authorised operating or hosting body and accountable project lead; unconflicted oversight; PHC strategy and analysis; records and subscription administration; project coordination; safeguarding expertise; and an independent quality reviewer. All appointments and contractual responsibilities require confirmation. Names in the original template have not been treated as evidence of availability or appointment.
Any Order Efficiency or other PHC provider engagement should specify scope, authority, rates, deliverables, expenses and conflicts. The person designing or delivering work must not independently assure that same work. The limited paid-hour allowances do not constitute a staffed full-time service.
Willing NGOs and institutions, affected people and community representatives, relevant specialists and prospective subscribers may contribute through explicitly agreed roles. Participation and partnerships are not confirmed. Public bodies retain their own mandates; P533 does not acquire their authority.
Subscribers fund a defined offer, not favourable findings, privileged control over reporting or access to sensitive testimony. A concern may be considered within the defined complaints scope without a subscription. Specialist medical, legal, emergency or formal investigation services require separate competent providers and arrangements.
Use a six-budget-month package: Month 1 for the seven-day review, approvals and readiness; Months 2-3 for setup; Months 4-6 for initial continuation, renewable only after review. This resolves the template's inconsistent three-month and twelve-month continuation descriptions. No additional nine months of continuation are included in these costs.
| Tier | Monthly price | Proposed scope |
|---|---|---|
| Supporter | £25 | Support pooled research and public-interest reporting; public summaries; no bespoke casework. |
| Institutional | £100 | One seat in planned group orientation or governance briefings and general non-confidential guidance. |
| Enhanced institutional | £250 | Up to two seats in the same group sessions and priority scheduling within published capacity; no preferential assessment or influence. |
Prices and service entitlements are draft and subject to affordability, capacity and tax review. Reviews are separately scoped within the programme: none of these tiers promises a dedicated audit, emergency service or unlimited consultant time. Priority scheduling concerns available sessions only; it must not affect risk-based review priorities, complaints, findings or publication. Discounts, cancellations, refunds and non-payment terms need explicit approval.
Cash scenario: monthly billing, receipts in the service month, no annual prepayments, no assumed refunds or collection fees and no subscriber income in Months 1-2. Actual non-payment, charges, taxes or reduced receipts must be modelled when known. Subscriber counts are monthly active paying targets, not signed members or new additions; renewal and churn are not separately estimated.
Keep most subscriber engagement pooled and reserve separately scoped assessment time for the small initial cohort. The model supports only 215 paid hours across six months, not 60 individual institutional reviews. Cap onboarding or reprice and recost if actual demand exceeds the approved offer. Record conflicts and protect publication decisions from financial pressure.
Timing: a proposed seven-working-day diagnostic within Month 1; remaining Month 1 is reserved for decisions, costing and funding readiness. The cost model uses one budget month for this period, not seven days of full-time staffing.
People allowance: £1,450; total Month 1 budget including tooling and contingency: £1,700.
Do not assume a green light. Authorise setup only when responsibilities, controls, initial resources and a safe continuation or closure plan are credible. Actual review duration depends on access and readiness; one week is a target, not a guarantee.
Timing: Months 2-3, subject to the readiness decision. People allowance: £4,280; full setup-period cost: £5,490.
The base scenario starts subscription receipts in Month 3 only if the promised introductory services can be delivered. Delay activation and receipts together if readiness slips. A target of 25 active subscriptions in Month 3 is an unvalidated assumption. Reapprove the cash forecast before commitments if uptake or setup progress differs.
Timing: Months 4-6, an initial three-month continuation period. People allowance: £6,810; full continuation-period cost: £7,785.
Renewal is not automatic. Further work, country expansion, extensive visits, specialist investigations or full-time case support require a revised scope and budget. Rebase later strategic milestones after evaluating the actual start and first delivery cycle.
By the end of the initial package, intended outputs are an approved governance and operating framework; a tested records workflow; transparent subscription terms; a small set of institutional baselines and action plans where participation permits; monthly progress and finance summaries; and sampled independent challenge of assessments and action closure.
Test value through evidence completeness, timeliness, safe participation, fair responses, overdue actions, justified implementation and voluntary stakeholder feedback. The initial cohort is deliberately limited and actual review completion depends on complexity and evidence access.
Subscriber targets, billed amounts and cash receipts are financial indicators, not proof of safer institutions. A completed review or adopted policy does not establish reduced harm; fewer complaints alone do not demonstrate improved protection. Any outcome claim needs supporting evidence, stated limitations and a defensible basis for attribution. No existing subscribers, completed reforms or verified impact are claimed.
| Category | Month 1 | Month 2 | Month 3 | Month 4 | Month 5 | Month 6 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People - 7-Day Review and Readiness Decision | 223 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 223 |
| People - Setup | 0 | 320 | 339 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 659 |
| People - Continuation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 343 | 343 | 362 | 1,048 |
| Hardware | 0 | 560 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 560 |
| PHC, secure storage and communications | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 600 |
| Risk contingency allowance | 150 | 150 | 150 | 150 | 150 | 150 | 900 |
| Accessible engagement and translation | 0 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 375 |
| TOTAL | 473 | 1,205 | 664 | 668 | 668 | 687 | 4,365 |
| PHC Profit | 58 | 83 | 88 | 89 | 89 | 94 | 501 |
| Agency Markup | 20 | 29 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 33 | 175 |
| Category | Description | Total Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Secure coordination device allowance x1 | One suitable protected computer if existing equipment cannot be approved; allowance, not a specification or quote | £500 |
| Authentication hardware allowance x2 | Two compatible security keys where supported; allowance subject to system assessment | £60 |
| £560 |
| Role | People | Hourly Rate | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | M6 | Total (GBP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Quality Reviewer | Unconflicted reviewer to agree | £9.24 | 0 | 0 | 4 £37 (£24) | 2 £18 (£12) | 2 £18 (£12) | 4 £37 (£24) | 12 £111 (£72) |
| PHC Admin | To appoint or confirm | £5.39 | 2 £11 (£7) | 8 £43 (£28) | 8 £43 (£28) | 8 £43 (£28) | 8 £43 (£28) | 8 £43 (£28) | 42 £226 (£147) |
| PHC Analyst | To appoint or confirm | £9.24 | 8 £74 (£48) | 12 £111 (£72) | 12 £111 (£72) | 12 £111 (£72) | 12 £111 (£72) | 12 £111 (£72) | 68 £628 (£408) |
| PHC Strategist | To confirm; proposed appointment | £13.86 | 6 £83 (£54) | 4 £55 (£36) | 4 £55 (£36) | 3 £42 (£27) | 3 £42 (£27) | 3 £42 (£27) | 23 £319 (£207) |
| PHC Trainee - optional, not budgeted | No appointment or funded hours assumed | £1.85 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 £0 (£0) |
| Project Coordination | To appoint or confirm | £9.24 | 4 £37 (£24) | 8 £74 (£48) | 8 £74 (£48) | 12 £111 (£72) | 12 £111 (£72) | 12 £111 (£72) | 56 £517 (£336) |
| Safeguarding Specialist | Independent specialist to agree | £9.24 | 2 £18 (£12) | 4 £37 (£24) | 2 £18 (£12) | 2 £18 (£12) | 2 £18 (£12) | 2 £18 (£12) | 14 £129 (£84) |
| PHC Provider Markup | £58 | £83 | £88 | £89 | £89 | £94 | £502 | ||
| Agent Markup | £20 | £29 | £31 | £31 | £31 | £33 | £176 | ||
| Total | 22 £223 (£145) | 36 £320 (£208) | 38 £339 (£220) | 39 £343 (£223) | 39 £343 (£223) | 41 £362 (£235) |
215 hrs £1,931 (£1,254) |
||