Consent, sharing, and role visibility policy
Visibility, sharing, restrictions, and emergency exceptions across the response workflow.
Who can view what at each case stage
Visibility changes with case stage, assignment, and safeguarding need.
Submission and intake
The reporting user should see their own status and emergency tools. Intake review should be limited to the initial coordinator pathway, admin governance where necessary, and roles directly assigned by the workflow.
Active coordination
The primary coordinator should see the full operational picture needed to route the case. Specialists should see assignment-specific detail, timeline context, and the information necessary for their lane.
Closure review
Closure should be visible to the coordinator and, where required, admin review. Specialists should not need unrestricted access beyond the part of the case relevant to unresolved work or follow-up.
Public-facing layers
Public users and civic viewers should never see operational case detail. Only governed aggregate insight belongs on Mwananchi or public exports.
Survivor consent across handoffs
Consent across specialist handoffs and coordinated support.
- Routine specialist handoffs should follow informed sharing expectations wherever doing so does not increase danger or delay urgent care.
- The platform should make it legible when a case is being handed from coordinator to counselor, legal aid, medical provider, or shelter workflow.
- Consent reasoning should be captured where the workflow involves explicit consent, best-interest basis, public-safety basis, deceased-case handling, or emergency exception.
- Third-party reports should make the distinction clear between the reporter, the harmed person, and the basis on which coordination is proceeding.
Revocation and restriction rules
How sharing narrows when a survivor limits access.
- A survivor should be able to request reduced sharing or ask for certain preferences to change where this does not block mandatory safeguarding or lawful obligations.
- Restriction requests should be documented so coordinators and admin understand why visibility has narrowed or why a referral cannot proceed in the ordinary way.
- Where full revocation is not possible because a case is already in a safeguarded, legal, or emergency workflow, the system should record the reason and limit additional spread of the information.
- Future pilot operation should make these restrictions visible to relevant responders without disclosing unnecessary rationale to unrelated roles.
Emergency, third-party, and deceased-case exceptions
Exception paths for urgent danger, third-party reports, and deceased cases.
- Critical danger, life-threatening harm, or immediate public-safety risk can justify restricted emergency sharing to the roles necessary to respond.
- Third-party reports may proceed on a best-interest, public-safety, or unknown-consent basis where the harmed person cannot safely submit the report directly.
- Deceased and suspected or confirmed femicide cases should follow a stricter governance path with coordinator rules, admin review requirements, and fatality protocol handling.
- Even in exception paths, access should remain bounded to roles with an operational reason to act rather than widening to all responders by default.