Intake and risk screening

An intake is not an attempt to obtain a family's entire story. It collects the minimum facts needed to decide whether an educational task is appropriate and safe now. Begin with four practical questions: who is seeking help and for whom; which situation they want to change; what they have tried and how they describe the result; and whether any signal makes delay or a joint meeting unsafe. The last question should not become an unqualified investigation of violence or mental health. Gather enough to choose a pathway, then connect to an appropriate service when needed. Record important risk statements in the speaker's words and keep them separate from your interpretation.

Prepare the triage pathway before anyone arrives, not during a crisis. Know the responsible lead in your organization, how to reach a qualified local service, what to do if danger is immediate, and how to contact a person without increasing risk. Legal rules differ. A phone number valid in one country may be wrong in another. This program therefore teaches the referral decision and its verification, not a universal emergency number. If an immediate threat to life or others or a medical emergency appears, activate the approved local emergency pathway without delay. A breathing exercise or a promise to follow up next week cannot replace urgent help.

Use a three-column decision table, on paper or in your thinking: the observed or reported fact, what it implies for safety and free participation, and the next action. If a family describes allocating household tasks and participants confirm that they can safely choose to learn, a small educational goal may fit. If someone fears consequences of speaking in front of another participant, “everyone wants to attend” is insufficient: pause the joint meeting and consult the safety lead or a qualified service through a safe channel. If someone states an imminent intention to harm themselves, or violence appears imminent, urgent response takes precedence over communication goals. These are boundaries for a non-clinical family guidance role, not permission to perform an independent clinical risk assessment.

Evidence has levels. A person's statement that they are afraid is evidence of fear that deserves attention, but it does not by itself establish details of an assault they have not described. Silence does not prove safety, particularly without a free chance to speak. Record “she said she did not want a joint meeting because she feared the reaction,” rather than “partner violence confirmed,” and do not infer “no risk” from silence. Ask gently what the person needs now and which contact channel is safe, without pressuring disclosure or placing the burden of proving a case on them. WHO psychological first aid starts by looking for safety and urgent needs, then listening and linking to support. WHO's LIVES approach to violence is primarily health-provider training. We draw on its principles of listening without blame and connecting to help, while leaving clinical assessment and care to those qualified to provide them.

Where a child is concerned, do not promise absolute secrecy and then surprise them with a report. In age-appropriate terms, explain what can stay private and who may need to be told to protect them under applicable local rules. Do not investigate an allegation yourself or promise a family confrontation that might increase danger. Preserve what was said and identify the correct protection service and internal procedure. UNICEF safeguarding material emphasizes a child's immediate safety and a clear reporting mechanism. It describes UNICEF's practice, not one reporting law for every country or employer. Verify the organization's pathway and local requirements before practising.

Close intake with one identified output: a bounded educational follow-up, qualified consultation or referral, or urgent response. Record why that pathway was chosen, what remains unknown and who will check connection to care if referred. If someone declines a non-urgent service, record the offer and refusal and follow organizational policy; refusal is not implicit agreement to a family meeting. When referral is accepted, a generic provider name is insufficient. Verify the service, safe contact route and which facts may be shared. For immediate danger, act through the local safety pathway before routine documentation; write the necessary record after taking the safety step, not instead of it.

The useful tool here is not a generic number claiming to diagnose danger. It is a short decision checklist linking each signal to the right action in your organization. Beside each signal, name a responsible person reachable outside ordinary hours, an alternative if contact fails, and a brief way to document after responding. Test the checklist with a fictional case before use. Does it reach a qualified human? Does it require someone to disclose information through a channel visible to the person they fear? Does it work when the first contact is by telephone? If not, repair the service pathway, not merely the intake question. An inaccessible referral is not a completed step.