Boston Insight Seminars
Donate

Community Safety Policy

Last Updated: May 04, 2026

A framework for holding every person’s growth while protecting the safety of the community that holds them.

Table of Contents

Part One — Foundations

1. Purpose

Insight Seminars Boston serves to facilitate transformation and build a loving, heart-centered community. Our approach to inviting growth and transformation requires psychological safety. When a participant’s behavior causes discomfort, crosses consent, or violates another person’s boundaries, the whole community is affected. People pull back. Some leave and don’t return. The container that makes growth possible begins to fray.

This policy exists to help us do three things at once:

  • Hold a safe container for every participant, volunteer, facilitator, and board member.
  • Support growth for every community member, including those possibly harmed, and those whose behavior has possibly caused harm, when we are safely able to do so.
  • Act decisively when someone’s presence in the community is causing more harm than our capacity to hold can absorb.

This document is meant to act as a framework for navigating the tension between two commitments we take equally seriously: that every person is worthy of compassion, forgiveness, and growth, and that every person in our community deserves to feel safe. It is not meant to serve as a disciplinary code.

2. Guiding Principles

  • Every person is on a growth journey, and no one’s journey is finished. We assume capacity for change unless evidence says otherwise.
  • Safety creates the conditions for loving transformation. A community that tolerates harm cannot support loving transformation.
  • Consent is foundational. It is not assumed from participation, proximity, past consent, or silence.
  • Boundaries are sacred. Someone saying “no” is information, not rejection.
  • Impact is not the same as intent. Harm happens regardless of intent, and impact is what we must respond to first.
  • Repair is a real path. With willingness, consent, and skill, many ruptures can be healed.
  • Some behavior requires removal, not repair. We will not sacrifice the safety of the community or its members in the hope that someone will change.
  • The burden is never on the person harmed. We do not require anyone to forgive, reconcile, or interact with someone who has caused them harm.

3. Scope

This policy applies to:

  • Behavior inside Insight Boston seminars and programs (Insight I, II, III, Teen Insight, Creating Success, and all related offerings).
  • Behavior at in-person and virtual community workshops and events (Loving Connection Calls, social events, team meetings, assisting teams, candle-lighting teams).
  • Behavior in online community spaces (Heart Hub, official social channels, group chats, and any channel where Insight Boston is named or implied).
  • Behavior by board members, facilitators, and volunteers in their service capacity.
  • Out-of-seminar behavior between community members when the behavior arises from or trades on the seminar context (for example, a volunteer leveraging their role in communication with participants).

Relationship to the Sexual Abuse and Misconduct Prevention Policy

Insight Boston maintains a separate Sexual Abuse and Misconduct Prevention Policy (the “SAMP Policy”) that addresses severe sexual misconduct — including child sexual abuse, sexual activity with persons legally unable to consent, sexual assault, and related conduct — with the specific legal and compliance procedures that category of harm requires (mandated reporting to Massachusetts authorities, use of outside investigators, screening, and youth supervision rules).

The two policies are complementary:

  • This Community Safety Policy covers the full spectrum of consent, boundary, and community-safety matters, with an emphasis on education, graduated response, and repair.
  • The SAMP Policy covers the specific subset of severe sexual misconduct with the compliance procedures that category requires.

Where a report falls within the SAMP Policy’s scope, its procedures apply. This Community Safety Policy defers to the SAMP Policy in those cases. Where a report falls outside the SAMP Policy’s scope — for example, a non-sexual boundary violation, a consent misstep in an exercise, an unwanted persistent contact that does not rise to the SAMP Policy’s definitions — this Community Safety Policy governs.

When it is unclear which policy applies, both are engaged, and the Safety Contact coordinates with the Board President to ensure the correct procedures are followed for each aspect of the situation.

Part Two — Understanding Consent and Boundaries

This Part exists because many people — including many well-intentioned, caring people — have never been taught what consent actually is. Before a policy about violations can make sense, we need a shared language for what we are protecting. This section is the foundation of our training and is required reading for anyone serving on the board, facilitating, assisting, or leading a team.

4. What We Mean by Consent

Consent is not a one-time “yes.” It is an ongoing, informed, freely given agreement between people about what they are doing together.

For consent to be meaningful, it must be:

  • Freely given. Not coerced, pressured, guilted, or extracted through authority or group dynamics.
  • Informed. The person knows what they are agreeing to.
  • Specific. A “yes” to one thing is not a “yes” to the next thing.
  • Reversible. Anyone can withdraw consent at any time, for any reason, without having to explain.
  • Enthusiastic, or at a minimum, genuinely willing. The absence of “no” is not a “yes.”
  • Alert, sober, and unimpaired. A person who is significantly altered or incapacitated cannot meaningfully consent.

In a seminar or community setting, consent applies to more than physical touch. It applies to physical touch of any kind, including hugs, hand-holding, and back rubs — but not to incidental contact (brief, unavoidable physical contact that happens in shared space, such as passing someone in a hallway or brushing shoulders in a group exercise). Consent also applies to:

  • Emotional sharing — whether and to what degree you share vulnerable material with someone.
  • Being photographed or recorded.
  • Being contacted outside the seminar.
  • Being given feedback, advice, or coaching unsolicited.
  • Being approached romantically or sexually.

5. What We Mean by Boundaries

A boundary is a statement of what a person is and is not available for. Boundaries are about the person setting them — not about controlling another person.

Examples of boundaries someone might hold in community:

  • “I am not available for hugs today.”
  • “I don’t want to talk about my divorce.”
  • “Please don’t give me unsolicited advice about my process.”
  • “I am not interested in meeting outside the seminar.”
  • “Please don’t contact me after this weekend.”

A boundary is not a rejection. It is information about what is true for that person, now. The correct response to a boundary is “thank you for letting me know.”

The Somatica Institute frames it this way: sharing boundaries — and eliciting and respecting the boundaries of others — is what creates real emotional independence, intimacy, and sustainability in a community. (Adapted from Somatica Institute, “Setting Boundaries in Relationships,” somaticainstitute.com)

6. The Wheel of Consent

The Wheel of Consent® is a framework developed by Dr. Betty Martin, a bodyworker, educator, and somatic practitioner with over 40 years of experience. It is one of the most useful tools we have found for teaching what consent actually is — and isn’t — in an embodied, practical way.

The following is a summary with attribution. Full rights to the model belong to Dr. Betty Martin. See bettymartin.org and her book The Art of Receiving and Giving: The Wheel of Consent (2021). This section is intended as an explanation of the Wheel of Consent; it does not provide specific suggestions or requirements. Any suggestions or requirements are reflected in other parts of this document.

The Core Insight

Most of us think of consent as a single question: “Is this okay with you?” Betty Martin’s contribution is noticing that consent actually requires answering two questions, not one:

  1. Who is doing? (Who is the person performing the action?)
  2. Who is it for? (Whose benefit is the action serving?)

When we clarify both questions, four distinct dynamics emerge. Each feels different. Each teaches something different. And each has a different “shadow” — a way the dynamic goes wrong when consent is unclear.

The Four Quadrants

  • Serve / Give — I am doing, for you. Example: I ask, “Would you like to receive a back rub from me?” The action is mine; the gift is yours. Shadow when consent is unclear: the martyr, the people-pleaser, give-to-get, burnout, resentment.
  • Accept / Receive — You are doing, for me. Example: I ask, “Will you give me a back rub?” You are doing the action; I am the one being served. Shadow when consent is unclear: the doormat, tolerating what you don’t actually want, going along with something to keep the peace.
  • Take — I am doing, for me, with your permission. Example: I ask, “May I hold your hand because it would comfort me?” I am the actor and the beneficiary; you are generously allowing. Shadow when consent is absent: assault, stealing, taking without asking, or using another person.
  • Allow — You are doing, for you, with my permission. Example: When asked “May I lean on your shoulder because it would comfort me?” and I say yes. The one asking is the actor and the beneficiary; I am generously allowing. Shadow when consent is unclear: entitlement, assumption of privilege, freeloading, the “of course you can” that wasn’t actually okay with you.

Why This Matters for Us

Two people can be physically doing the exact same thing — a hug, a hand on a shoulder, eye contact across a circle — and be in completely different quadrants. Without clarity about “who it is for?”, we end up in the shadow quadrants without meaning to.

A hug that looks loving can be:

  • a Give (you need comfort, I am offering mine),
  • a Take (I need comfort, you are allowing me),
  • an Allow (you want the experience of hugging, I am saying yes),
  • or a Receive (I want the experience of being hugged, you are offering).

When we don’t know which one we’re in, we can slide into the shadow: we give when we didn’t want to, we take without asking, we tolerate what we didn’t actually consent to. This is how well-meaning people end up harming each other.

Using the Wheel in Community

In Insight Boston spaces, we invite participants and volunteers to practice asking the two questions: Who is doing? and Who is this for? And to notice which question (“May I?” or “Will you?”) matches the dynamic you are actually in.

Source: The Wheel of Consent® is © Dr. Betty Martin. Shared here with attribution as permitted by Dr. Martin’s terms. Learn more at bettymartin.org and schoolofconsent.org.

7. Consent in Emotional and Spiritual Spaces

Insight seminars are intimate emotional containers. People share grief, history, fear, love, and experiences they have not spoken aloud in years. In these spaces, consent shows up in ways physical-touch frameworks don’t fully cover.

  • Consent to receive emotional material. If someone begins to share deeply vulnerable material with you, especially outside the facilitated process, it is okay — and loving — to say, “I want to honor what you’re bringing. Are we in a space where I have the capacity to receive this well right now?”
  • Consent to be coached or given feedback. Offering unsolicited interpretation or analysis — even positively framed — is a form of crossing. Before offering feedback, ask: “Would you like a reflection from me?”
  • Consent to be included in someone’s processing. Talking about another participant’s shares outside the seminar room, even supportively, is a breach of the container. What is shared inside stays inside. This includes not referencing someone back to something they previously shared without their clear verbal consent.
  • Consent to physical expressions of connection. Seminars can generate strong feelings of warmth and connection. A hug, back rub, or head on a shoulder that feels right to one person may feel intrusive to another. Ask before touching — every time.
  • Consent to romantic or sexual pursuit. The intimacy of the seminar room can generate attraction. Attraction is human. Acting on that attraction by romantically pursuing another participant inside or immediately after the seminar trades on a quality of intimacy and vulnerability essential to the seminar that is not intended as an invitation. The other person has not consented to being the focus of a romantic overture. See Section 11 for specific norms.

8. Discomfort, Boundary Crossing, and Harm

These are not the same thing, and the distinctions matter. Most real situations don’t land cleanly on one end of a binary — they live somewhere on a spectrum. We describe three points on that spectrum so we can respond to each with the right touch.

Discomfort

Discomfort is part of growth. Being challenged, hearing a hard truth about yourself, sitting with a painful memory, being seen in your defenses — these are uncomfortable, and they are also often exactly what people come to a seminar for. A policy that eliminates all discomfort would eliminate the growth.

Discomfort is an internal experience. No one caused it to you in a way that requires a response; the growth is in meeting it.

Examples:

  • Being pushed out of your comfort zone by a facilitator or by the seminar content.
  • Hearing someone share a perspective you strongly disagree with.
  • Realizing something painful about yourself.
  • Noticing your own defensiveness arise.

Boundary Crossing — The Middle Term

Between discomfort and harm is a wide middle where most real incidents actually live: boundary crossing. This is where someone’s behavior has stepped on or across a boundary, but the circumstances matter — intention, awareness, severity, pattern, and repair.

Boundary crossings are typically:

  • Unintentional or unconscious. The person was not aware they were crossing a boundary, often because the boundary was assumed rather than stated.
  • Culturally assumed. What is normal in one culture, family, or dance community may land as a violation in another. Offering an unsolicited hug, commenting on someone’s body, standing close, using a term of endearment — these can all cross boundaries without malice.
  • The result of different communicated expectations. Two people held different understandings of what was okay, and neither named it before the crossing happened.
  • First-time rather than patterned. Behavior that occurs in an isolated moment rather than repeated over time, or after a boundary has been communicated.

Boundary crossing is distinct from harm in that it does not assume bad intent or a pattern of disregard — but it is also distinct from discomfort in that someone’s boundary was actually stepped on. The felt experience of the person crossed is real, and honoring that experience does not require them to decide whether it was “bad enough” to count.

A note on honoring the felt experience. We hold space for both truths at once: that the person who experienced the crossing felt what they felt, and that the person who did the crossing may not have intended it. Neither truth collapses the other. We don’t ask the person who was crossed to minimize their experience because “they didn’t mean it.” And we don’t treat an unintentional crossing as if it were a deliberate attack.

When appropriate, the operational response to boundary crossing is usually Tier 1 — Education and Private Repair (Section 16).

Examples:

  • An unsolicited hug from someone who didn’t know you prefer to be asked first.
  • A comment about your body or appearance meant as a compliment that landed wrong.
  • Offering unsolicited feedback or interpretation during a vulnerable share.
  • Standing closer than someone was comfortable with during a conversation.

Harm

Harm is different in kind, not just in degree. Harm occurs when someone’s behavior violates another person’s consent, boundaries, or dignity in a way that damages their safety, their standing in the community, or their capacity to participate — and the behavior either crosses a clearly communicated or commonly understood boundary, happens with intent or disregard for impact, or repeats after being named.

Harm typically involves one or more of the following:

  • A spoken or commonly understood boundary was violated. The person was told, or should reasonably have known, and acted anyway.
  • Intent or pattern. The behavior was deliberate, or it is part of a pattern that has been raised before and not changed.
  • Significant impact. The behavior damaged safety, community standing, or capacity to participate.

The operational response to harm ranges from Tier 2 (Accountability Agreement) to Tier 4 (Permanent Removal) depending on severity, pattern, and the person’s willingness to take responsibility.

Examples:

  • Being touched sexually without consent.
  • Being targeted, mocked, or publicly shamed by another participant.
  • Being pressured into disclosing more than you chose to.
  • Persisting in unwanted contact after being told to stop.
  • Leveraging a position of trust (facilitator, team lead, board) to pursue romantic or sexual contact with a participant.

When You’re Not Sure Which One Applies

The test is not “did anyone feel bad?” — that is too broad. The test is closer to: “Was someone’s consent, boundary, or dignity crossed — and what do the circumstances (intent, awareness, pattern, severity) tell us about how to respond?”

When the line is unclear, the Safety Review Group makes the call, not the person who was affected. The person affected shares their experience; the group takes the felt experience seriously and decides the response tier. This protects the affected person from being put in the position of judging their own experience against a standard.

Summary

 DiscomfortBoundary CrossingHarm
What happenedInternal growth edgeBoundary stepped on, usually unintentionallyBoundary violated; intent, disregard, or pattern present
Whose responsibilityThe person experiencing itShared; crossing person takes responsibility for impactThe person who caused harm
Typical responseIntegration, reflectionTier 1 — Education and Private RepairTier 2, 3, or 4

Part Three — Community Standards

9. Behavioral Commitments

Everyone present in an Insight Boston space — participants, volunteers, facilitators — agrees to the following commitments:

  • Ask before you touch. Every time, even for hugs. “Can/May I offer you a hug?” is a loving question.
  • Receive a “no” as information, not rejection. Thank the person for telling you what’s true for them. “No” is a complete communication that does not require explanation and is not subject to negotiation.
  • Lack of response does not create consent. No response does not indicate willingness or allowing.
  • Keep what is shared inside the seminar. Confidentiality is the container.
  • Offer coaching, feedback, or interpretation only when asked. If you want to offer, ask first.
  • Notice and name when you’re in an emotionally activated conversation. (See Part Five.)
  • If you have caused harm, take responsibility for the impact, not just intent.
  • If you witness harm, you have a role to play. See Section 14.

10. Norms Specific to Seminars

  • Physical contact during exercises should occur only when explicitly invited by the facilitator, and with individual consent between participants.
  • Romantic or sexual overtures toward other participants are not appropriate inside the seminar or immediately thereafter, while people are still integrating. Acting on attraction inside the container trades on vulnerabilities the other person did not consent to being the basis for a romantic pursuit.
  • Facilitators, assisting team members, and board members hold a position of leadership and trust. They do not initiate romantic or sexual contact with participants during the seminar or for 14 days afterward. (See Section 12.)

Additional Norms for Teen Insight and Youth Programs

Programs involving minors (participants under 18) are held to additional standards, consistent with the Sexual Abuse and Misconduct Prevention Policy:

  • Two-adult rule. At least two adult workers are in attendance during any organization-related activity with minors. One-on-one adult-minor interactions that are not easily observable by others are avoided.
  • Open-door rule. If an individual conversation with a minor must be held in a private space, the door remains open. Closed-door meetings with a minor require a second adult to be on notice and the door to remain unlocked.
  • No private electronic communication. Adult facilitators, volunteers, and board members do not initiate private direct-message, text, email, or social-media contact with a minor participant. Communication with minors runs through official Insight Boston channels and, where appropriate, includes a parent or guardian.
  • Screening. Adults who will have contact with minors complete the screening process described in the Sexual Abuse and Misconduct Prevention Policy before serving.
  • Mandated reporting. Suspected abuse of a minor is reported to the Massachusetts Child-at-Risk Hotline (800-792-5200) as required by law. See Section 14 for more.

11. Norms for Online and Community Spaces

  • Heart Hub and official Insight Boston channels are held by the same container agreements as in-person spaces. What is shared is confidential to the community.
  • Direct-messaging another participant you met through Insight Boston requires consent. If someone hasn’t given you their contact information, reaching out through Heart Hub or social media for anything beyond community-related purposes should first be an ask: “Would you be open to staying in touch?”
  • Unwanted or persistent contact after a “no” or after silence is a boundary violation, full stop.

12. Conduct for Board, Facilitators, and Volunteers

People who serve Insight Boston serve in a leadership role. This creates a power dynamic, whether or not we intend it. With that role comes a higher standard.

  • No romantic or sexual initiation between facilitators or volunteer team members (including assisting team members, candle-lighting team members, creation team members, or board members) and current seminar participants, during the seminar and for 14 days thereafter.
  • Confidentiality is absolute. What a participant shares in a seminar is never discussed outside the appropriate facilitator debrief, except as required to abide by and honor our processes, standards, or the laws of Massachusetts.
  • Board and volunteer-role conflicts of interest in any review process must be disclosed, and the person should be recused from the relevant decision.
  • Volunteers are not counselors. When a participant is in acute crisis, we connect them to professional support where appropriate, rather than taking on the role of therapist.

Part Four — When Something Happens

13. How to Report

Insight Boston offers multiple pathways because different situations call for different levels of privacy and urgency.

Pathway A — Anonymous Reporting Form. A form accessible from the Insight Boston website, Heart Hub, and all seminar welcome materials. Submissions go to the Safety Review Group (see Section 18). Anonymous by default; the reporter may provide contact information if they wish. Full question list in Appendix A.

Pathway B — Named Report to the Safety Contact. A designated board-level Safety Contact with a published email address. Any community member may email directly with a concern. The Safety Contact acknowledges receipt within 48 hours.

Pathway C — In-the-Moment Report to a Facilitator or Team Lead. During a seminar or event, anyone may bring a concern to the facilitator, a team lead, or the on-site board member. The receiving person follows the In-the-Moment Response guide (Section 14).

Alternative — Speaking with another Community Member. Sometimes the first person a person is ready to tell is a friend or peer. Any community member who receives such a communication and has capacity to act has a role (see Section 14). Clarify the next steps and if desired use one of the above reporting pathways.

What happens after a report:

  1. Acknowledgment within 48 hours. Unless reported anonymously, the reporter hears that their report has been received and what the next step is.
  2. Initial assessment within 7 days by the Safety Review Group (or, if urgent, immediately).
  3. A path forward is proposed — this may be education and repair, an accountability agreement, restrictions, or removal (Section 16).
  4. Follow up with all involved parties. (Section 15.)

Confidentiality standard: information about reports is shared on a need-to-know basis only. The reporter’s identity is never disclosed without their explicit consent, except where legally required or where ongoing safety demands it (and in those cases, the reporter is informed first when safely possible).

14. In-the-Moment Response (Volunteer Guide)

You do not need to be a trained mediator to respond well in the moment. You need to know three things: how to keep people safe, how not to make it worse, and when to get help. This section is the core of the Volunteer Quick-Reference Card in Appendix B.

If you directly witness concerning behavior:

  1. Ensure immediate safety first. If anyone is in physical danger, address that first — move the person harmed to a safe location, get a facilitator, call for help.
  2. Interrupt the dynamic without escalating it. A simple, non-accusatory intervention: “Hey — let’s pause for a moment. Can I check in with each of you separately?”
  3. Do not attempt to mediate on the spot. The immediate goal is to separate and stabilize, not to resolve.
  4. Check in privately with the person who may have been harmed first. “I noticed what just happened. How are you doing right now? What would be helpful?”
  5. Document what you saw as soon as possible while the memory is fresh (Section 17). Use the Incident Report section of Appendix A.
  6. Escalate to a facilitator, team lead, or the Safety Contact. You are not expected to hold this alone.

If someone discloses to you that they were harmed:

  1. Believe them. Your first job is not to evaluate, investigate, or ask for proof. It is to receive.
  2. Thank them for trusting you. “Thank you for telling me. I’m glad you felt safe enough to share this.”
  3. Ask what they need. “What would be most helpful right now — do you want to talk, do you want space, do you want me to help you report?”
  4. Do not promise confidentiality you can’t keep. Be honest: “If you share something that involves ongoing safety, I will need to bring it to the Safety Contact. I’ll let you know before I do.”
  5. Do not investigate or interview. Don’t ask probing questions or pressure for details. Leave that to the formal process.
  6. Document the conversation with the person’s awareness: what was shared, when, and the next steps that were agreed on.
  7. Connect them to the reporting pathway of their choice (Section 13).

What to avoid:

  • Do not say “are you sure?” or “maybe they didn’t mean it that way.”
  • Do not try to resolve it by having the two people “just talk it out.”
  • Do not make promises on behalf of the organization (“we’ll make sure they’re banned”).
  • Do not discuss the situation with anyone not directly involved in the response.

Mandated Reporting

Some situations require reporting to external authorities regardless of what the reporter wants or what the Safety Review Group decides internally. These are legal obligations, not judgment calls.

Report immediately if:

  • You have reasonable cause to believe a minor (under 18) has been subjected to abuse or neglect → Massachusetts Child-at-Risk Hotline: 800-792-5200 (available 24/7).
  • You have reasonable cause to believe an adult with disabilities has been subjected to abuse → Massachusetts Disabled Persons Protection Commission: 1-800-426-9009.
  • There is a credible threat of imminent serious harm to any person → call 911.

How this interacts with this policy:

  • Mandated reporting is not a substitute for this policy’s internal process. Both happen.
  • Mandated reporting is not delayed for internal investigation. It happens promptly, as required by law.
  • Confidentiality yields to mandated reporting. When possible, the reporter is informed before an external report is made, but their consent is not required for a mandated report to proceed.
  • Consistent with the Sexual Abuse and Misconduct Prevention Policy, Insight Boston does not attempt to assess the validity of an allegation of sexual or physical abuse before reporting it to the appropriate authorities.
  • After making a mandated report, contact the Safety Contact and the Board President as soon as practical.

15. Follow-Up Protocol

Within 48 hours of a report:

  • The reporter receives acknowledgment, if not reporting anonymously.
  • If there is an imminent safety concern, interim protective measures are put in place (separation of parties at remaining events, removal from a specific group, etc.) while the review proceeds.

Within 7 days:

  • The Safety Review Group completes initial assessment and proposes a path forward (see Section 16).
  • The reporter, if identified, is informed of the proposed path and invited to share concerns or preferences.
  • The person whose behavior is being reviewed is notified (unless doing so would compromise safety) and invited to share their perspective.

Within 30 days:

  • A path is chosen and communicated to all parties.
  • If the path includes repair, the 9-Step Repair Framework (Part Five) is offered.
  • If the path includes an accountability agreement, that agreement is drafted and signed (Appendix D).
  • If the path includes restrictions or removal, the person is informed in writing.

30, 60, 90-day check-ins:

  • The reporter is checked in with to assess whether the agreed-upon path is actually meeting their needs.
  • The person(s) under the agreement is checked in with about how they are holding it.
  • Adjustments are made as needed.

16. Tiered Response Framework — Teach vs. Ban

Not every incident calls for the same response. The framework below helps us, as consistently as possible, discern which response fits which situation. Judgment is always required; this is a guide, not a formula.

Tier 1 — Education and Private Repair

Typical triggers: A first-time, apparently unintentional crossing. Clumsiness rather than violation. Ignorance of consent norms. Someone who, when the behavior is named, is immediately open to hearing it.

Response:

  • Private conversation with the person, naming what happened and its impact.
  • Education on the specific area (consent, boundaries, confidentiality).
  • Optional 9-step repair conversation with the person harmed, only if both parties choose this and only with skilled facilitation.
  • Light documentation in the internal record.
  • No formal restriction.

Tier 2 — Formal Accountability Agreement

Typical triggers: A pattern is visible (the second incident or first serious one). Moderate harm. The person is willing to engage but needs more than a conversation. Or: the harmed party requires more formal assurance to remain in the community.

Response:

  • Written Accountability Agreement (Appendix D) specifying behavior changes, restrictions, and check-in cadence.
  • Required education (reading, workshop, coaching).
  • Temporary restrictions on leadership or assisting roles.
  • Documented in the internal record.
  • Agreement reviewed at 30, 90, and 180 days.

Tier 3 — Extended Pause or Conditional Return

Typical triggers: Serious harm, repeated incidents, or an accountability agreement that wasn’t honored. The person may be capable of change, but not in this community at this time.

Response:

  • Removal from the community for a defined period (typically 6–24 months).
  • Clear written conditions for any possible return (demonstrated growth work, outside therapy or coaching, supervised re-entry).
  • Documented in the internal record.

Tier 4 — Permanent Removal

Typical triggers: Severe harm (assault, predation, grooming, exploitation of position, etc.). Repeated Tier 3 patterns. Any behavior that would expose the community to ongoing danger if the person were to return.

For cases within the scope of the Sexual Abuse and Misconduct Prevention Policy — including sexual assault, sexual activity with persons legally unable to consent, child sexual abuse, and the other conduct defined in that policy — the SAMP Policy’s procedures are controlling: mandated reporting to Massachusetts authorities (see Section 14), use of an outside investigator at the organization’s discretion, and full cooperation with any law-enforcement or protective-services investigation. The Safety Review Group does not conduct internal investigations of such cases; it supports the SAMP Policy process and handles community-facing communication and care.

Response:

  • Permanent removal from all Insight Boston spaces, events, and online communities.
  • Written notice. No negotiation of return.
  • Where legally warranted, referral to civil or criminal authorities (or, for cases under the SAMP Policy, coordination with those referrals).
  • Communication to Insight Seminars headquarters as appropriate.
  • Documented in the internal record.

Principles Across All Tiers

  • We start with the least restrictive response that adequately addresses the harm. We escalate when needed.
  • We do not skip straight to removal to avoid the harder work of repair — unless the harm warrants it.
  • We do not stay in repair mode when someone is not engaging with it. The person’s willingness to do the work is itself evidence of which tier fits.
  • The harmed party is consulted, but not required to make the decision. The burden of choosing the response should not fall on them.
  • Removal decisions stick by default. Ending a Tier 3 removal is an affirmative board decision, not an automatic expiration.

Reconsideration and Return

The default for any Tier 3 removal is that the removal stays in place. Return is not assumed; it must be affirmatively decided by the Board after review of the written conditions for return.

The burden of reconsideration rests with the Board, not with the harmed party. We do not put the harmed party in the position of gatekeeping another person’s return to the community. That is the Board’s job.

When the Board is considering whether to end a Tier 3 removal:

  1. The Board develops its recommendation first — based on the written conditions, the person’s demonstrated work, input from anyone supervising their re-entry, and the Board’s own judgment about community readiness.
  2. The harmed party may opt out of future consultations. If they have shared their perspective and do not wish to be contacted again, the Board documents that preference and does not re-engage them.
  3. The Board then informs the harmed party of the proposed recommendation before any wider communication or final decision. The framing is: “We’ve received a request for return. We’re considering all materials. Do you have anything you wish us to consider as part of our process?”
  4. The harmed party is never asked to justify a “no” and is never put in the position of being responsible for blocking the person’s return. Their role is to share what is true for them. The weight of the decision stays with the Board.
  5. If the harmed party wishes to continue being consulted, the Board informs them at each reconsideration point.

Reconsideration requires the same level of process as the original decision. A Tier 3 removal cannot be ended by a subcommittee, a single sympathetic Board member, a facilitator, or informal consensus. It requires full-Board action, documented in the internal record.

Continuity across Board transitions. Removal decisions carry forward across Board changes. Incoming Board members do not have the authority to undo prior removals without following the full reconsideration process above. The internal record (Section 17) is the source of truth on prior decisions.

17. Documentation

Every report, incident, and decision is documented in a secure, access-controlled internal record.

What is documented:

  • Date and time of the incident or report.
  • Date of the report (if different).
  • Reporter’s name (or “anonymous”).
  • Name(s) of people involved.
  • Factual description of what occurred, including direct quotes where available.
  • Witnesses, if any.
  • Actions taken, by whom, and when.
  • Follow-up dates and outcomes.
  • Current status (open, resolved, under agreement, closed).

Who has access:

  • Safety Contact (primary record keeper).
  • Safety Review Group members (for cases they are reviewing).
  • Board President (for governance oversight).
  • No other person without explicit authorization.

Retention:

  • Open cases: retained indefinitely until resolution.
  • Resolved Tier 1 cases: retained for 3 years, then reviewed.
  • Resolved Tier 2, 3, 4 cases: retained indefinitely.
  • Documentation is stored in encrypted, access-controlled storage (not in personal email or in shared Google Drive without permissions).

18. Review and Decision-Making Authority

The Safety Review Group is the body responsible for reviewing reports and proposing responses.

Composition:

  • The Safety Contact (standing role).
  • One board member, appointed annually.
  • One non-board community member, appointed annually (to bring a non-governance perspective).
  • The Board President is ex-officio and may participate as needed.

Recusal: Any member with a close relationship to any party involved in a report recuses themselves from that specific review.

Decisions on Tier 1 and Tier 2 responses are made by the Safety Review Group. Decisions on Tier 3 and Tier 4 responses require full Board approval, with the Safety Review Group making the recommendation. Reconsideration of any Tier 3 removal requires the same full Board approval as the original decision. A removal does not end automatically; ending it is an affirmative Board decision.

For urgent safety decisions during an active seminar, the facilitator has standing authority to remove any participant, volunteer, or assistant from the seminar at their discretion. This authority does not require prior consultation with the Safety Contact or the board. The facilitator notifies the Safety Contact as soon as is practical, and the decision is reviewed by the full Safety Review Group within 7 days.

For urgent safety decisions outside an active seminar (for example, removing someone from an upcoming event, Heart Hub, or an online community space), the Safety Contact plus one board member may act immediately; the decision is then reviewed by the full Safety Review Group within 7 days.

19. Appeals

A person who is subject to a Tier 2, 3, or 4 decision may appeal once, in writing, within 30 days.

The appeal is reviewed by the full Board (excluding any members who were on the Safety Review Group for the original decision).

Grounds for appeal are limited to:

  • New information not available at the time of the original decision.
  • Procedural error in how the decision was made.

Disagreement with the outcome alone is not grounds for appeal.

The appeal decision will be made by the Board and is final.

Part Five — Repair

20. The 9-Step Repair Framework (Somatica Method)

The following framework is adapted from the 9 Steps of Relationship Repair developed by the Somatica Institute (Celeste Hirschman, M.A., and Danielle Harel, Ph.D.). It was originally designed for couples; we use it here in community contexts where both parties are willing and able to engage. Full attribution and original article: somaticainstitute.com.

This framework is appropriate for Tier 1 and sometimes Tier 2 situations. It is not a substitute for removal when removal is warranted, and it is never required of the person who was harmed.

The 9 Steps

  1. Recognize you’re in an emotional conversation. Name it: “I’m noticing this has become an emotional conversation for me.” Bringing awareness is the first move.
  2. Gauge your activation level (0–10). Zero is neutral; ten is overwhelm. If you or the other person is above a 3, it’s usually not the right moment for repair. Pause. Breathe. Come back when you can.
  3. Give each other the benefit of the doubt. Both people are doing their best. Defensiveness and accusation do not serve repair.
  4. Decide who goes first. Both people need to be heard; both can’t be heard simultaneously. Often, the person with the higher activation goes first. The other commits to listening fully before sharing their own side.
  5. Share vulnerably. Speak about your own feelings, not about the other person’s character. “When [specific thing happened], I felt [feeling].” Not: “You always…” or “You are…”
  6. Listen and respond empathetically. Step into the other person’s experience. “That sounds like it felt [feeling]. I can imagine that was [impact].” Don’t parrot. Don’t say “I feel the same way.” Each person’s experience is their own.
  7. Acknowledge your patterns. Somatica calls this “copping” — acknowledging a real pattern in yourself that may have contributed. Not apologizing for things you didn’t do. Just honestly naming a pattern: “One thing that’s true about me is that I sometimes [X], and I can see how that landed on you here.”
  8. Provide reassurance — but only if it’s true. “I want you to know that [X] is true, even though my behavior didn’t show it.” Do not offer false reassurance to de-escalate.
  9. Reconnect. A gesture of reconnection — a hug if both want one, a walk, a shared meal, simply sitting together for a moment. If reconnection doesn’t land, there may still be unspoken material. Return to step 1.

Full framework and examples: Hirschman, C., “9 Steps to Successful Relationship Repair,” Somatica Institute, somaticainstitute.com.

21. When Repair Is and Isn’t Appropriate

Repair is appropriate when:

  • Both parties freely choose to engage. (Consent, again.)
  • The harm is at a Tier 1 or moderate Tier 2 level.
  • The person who caused harm has a genuine willingness to listen and seek to understand.
  • A skilled facilitator is present and available.
  • The person who was harmed has expressed readiness — not pressure to engage.

Repair is not appropriate when:

  • The person who was harmed does not want it. Their “no” is final.
  • The harm is severe (Tier 3 or 4).
  • There is an ongoing risk from the person who caused harm.
  • The person who caused harm is defensive, unwilling, or using repair language instrumentally.
  • A skilled facilitator is not available.

Repair is a gift that both parties offer each other. It cannot be demanded, assigned, or required.

Part Six — Training and Ongoing Education

22. Training Requirements

This section is provisional and will not be implemented until the training requirements have been refined and the training resources are available.

Pre-Service Screening

Before serving, every board member, facilitator, facilitator-in-training, team leader, and assisting team member completes the screening process described in the Sexual Abuse and Misconduct Prevention Policy, which may include:

  • A written application.
  • A personal interview.
  • Criminal background check.
  • Sex offender registry check.
  • Personal and professional references.

Screening is more rigorous for roles with direct contact with minors or with participants in one-on-one settings. Screening results are held confidentially by the Board President and the Safety Contact.

Training

All board members, facilitators, facilitators-in-training, team leaders, and assisting team members complete the following before serving in their role, and annually after:

  • Reading of this full policy (Parts One through Five, and Appendices A, B, E).
  • Reading of the Sexual Abuse and Misconduct Prevention Policy.
  • An introduction to consent that covers Part Two, including a walk-through of the Wheel of Consent.
  • A scenario-based session on the In-the-Moment Response (Section 14), including role-play of disclosure-receiving and de-escalation.
  • Signed acknowledgment that they have read and understood both policies (see Appendix G).

Candle-lighting team members complete the same, scaled to their role.

Participants receive a 1-page summary of consent norms and reporting pathways as part of the seminar registration process.

Note: We envision neurodivergency training as an aspect of our Community Safety training.

23. Recommended Resources

  • Dr. Betty Martin. The Art of Receiving and Giving: The Wheel of Consent (2021). bettymartin.org and schoolofconsent.org.
  • Somatica Institute. “9 Steps to Successful Relationship Repair” and the broader Somatica blog library on consent, boundaries, and communication. somaticainstitute.com.
  • Celeste & Danielle. “Sexual Consent as Foreplay” and “Boundaries: The Key to Magical, Healing Relationships.” celesteanddanielle.com.

Appendix A — Reporting Form Questions

These questions are designed to be copied into a Form. Questions marked [Optional] should be set to non-required. All others are required.

Section 1 — About this report

  1. What is the nature of your concern? (Multiple choice)
    • Something I witnessed happening to someone else
    • Something that happened to me
    • Something I was told about by someone else
    • A pattern of behavior I’ve noticed over time
    • Concern about a specific person’s fitness to serve in a role
    • Other (please describe)
  2. How urgent is this? (Multiple choice)
    • Immediate safety concern — someone is in danger right now
    • Needs attention in the next few days
    • Needs attention but not time-sensitive
    • Historical — I want it on the record
  3. When did this occur? (Date or date range)
  4. Where did this occur? (Multiple choice, multi-select)
    • In a seminar
    • At a community event
    • In Heart Hub or online
    • Outside Insight Boston but involving Insight Boston volunteers
    • Outside Insight Boston but involving Insight Boston community members
    • Other

Section 2 — What happened

  1. Please describe, in as much or as little detail as you are comfortable with, what happened. (Long text)
  2. Who was involved? If you are comfortable naming people, please do. If not, you can describe roles (e.g., “a team leader,” “a participant”). (Long text) [Optional]
  3. Were there witnesses? If so, please describe or name them. (Long text) [Optional]
  4. Has this happened more than once, to your knowledge? (Multiple choice)
    • Yes, I’ve witnessed or experienced a pattern
    • I’ve heard of other instances
    • To my knowledge, this is the first time
    • I don’t know

Section 3 — Impact

  1. How has this affected you or the person harmed? (Long text) [Optional]
  2. Are you still in contact with the person whose behavior is the subject of this report? (Multiple choice) [Optional]
    • Yes, regularly
    • Yes, occasionally
    • No, I’m avoiding them
    • Not applicable
    • Other

Section 4 — What you’d like

  1. What outcome would feel right to you? (Multiple choice, multi-select)
    • I want the person to be educated and supported to behave/act differently
    • I want a formal accountability agreement in place
    • I want the person to take a break from the community and all Insight events
    • I want the person permanently removed from the community and all Insight events
    • I want to be supported, but I am not asking for action against anyone
    • I’m not sure; I want to talk with someone first
    • Other
  2. Would you like to be contacted by the Safety Review Group? (Pick one)
    • Yes, and here is how to reach me: [contact field]
    • No, I am submitting for the record only, and I would be willing to be contacted.
    • No, I am submitting for the record only, and I would prefer not to be contacted.
    • No, I am submitting the form anonymously, and understand it will be used only to support other documented information.

Section 5 — About you (all optional)

  1. Your name. [Optional]
  2. Your email. [Optional]
  3. Your role in the community (participant, volunteer, team lead, board, etc.). [Optional]
  4. Is there anything else you want the Safety Review Group to know? (Long text) [Optional]

Appendix B — Volunteer Quick-Reference Card

Designed to be printed on a single page, double-sided, and carried by team leaders and on-site board members during seminars and events.

If you witness something concerning:

  1. Is anyone in immediate physical danger? Address that first.
  2. Interrupt without escalating: “Let’s pause. Can I check in with each of you separately?”
  3. Separate the parties. Do not mediate in the moment.
  4. Check in with the person who may have been harmed first. Ask what they need.
  5. Notify the facilitator or on-site board member.
  6. Document what you saw as soon as you can.
  7. Offer the affected person both kinds of pathways: Support (Support Angel, trusted person) and reporting (form, Safety Contact, facilitator). They choose what they need; you don’t decide for them.

If someone tells you they were harmed:

  1. Believe them. First move is always receiving, never evaluating.
  2. Thank them for trusting you.
  3. Ask what they need right now.
  4. Don’t promise confidentiality you can’t keep. Say so.
  5. Don’t investigate. Don’t ask probing questions.
  6. Offer the reporting pathways (form, Safety Contact, facilitator).
  7. Document, with their awareness, what was shared.
  8. Offer the affected person both kinds of pathways. Support (Support Angel, trusted person) and reporting (form, Safety Contact, facilitator). They choose what they need; you don’t decide for them.

Do not:

  • Ask “are you sure?”
  • Say “maybe they didn’t mean it that way”
  • Try to get the two people to “just talk it out”
  • Make promises on behalf of the organization
  • Discuss with anyone not involved in the response

You are not alone:

  • Safety Contact: [email protected]
  • On-call Board Member: [seminar phone — posted at each event]

If you need to make a mandated report:

  • Imminent danger to anyone — call 911
  • Suspected abuse or neglect of a minor — Massachusetts Child-at-Risk Hotline: 800-792-5200
  • Suspected abuse of an adult with disabilities — Disabled Persons Protection Commission: 1-800-426-9009
  • Notify the Safety Contact and Board President after making the report.

Appendix C — Follow-Up Conversation Examples

C.1 — Acknowledging Receipt of a Report (within 48 hours)

Thank you for bringing this to us. We have received your report, and it is being reviewed by the Safety Review Group. A member of the group will be in touch with you within the next [X] days to discuss next steps. If at any point you have additional concerns or need immediate support, please reach out to [Safety Contact name] at [email protected].

C.2 — Checking In With the Person Harmed (7-day mark)

I wanted to check in with you about how you’re doing since you made your report. We’re [at this stage] in the review process, and I want to make sure that the path we’re proposing actually feels like it’s serving you. Is there anything that feels off, anything we’ve missed, or anything you want us to factor in?

C.3 — Opening a Conversation With the Person Whose Behavior Was Reported

I’m reaching out because a concern has been raised regarding an interaction that involved you. Before anything else, I want you to know that this conversation is meant to be supportive, not punitive — we want to understand what happened and hear your perspective. I’d like to set up a time to talk. Would [time/date] work?

C.4 — Offering a Repair Conversation

Both you and [the other person] have said you’d be open to a facilitated repair conversation. Before we go further, I want to make sure this is something you’re freely choosing, not something you’re feeling pressured into. Repair is a gift both people offer each other, and it only works when it’s genuinely what you want. Take time to decide, and let me know.

C.5 — Communicating a Decision

After careful review, the Safety Review Group has decided on the following path: [specific decision]. I want to walk you through how we got here, what this means practically, and what support is available. I know this may be difficult to hear. I’m available to answer any questions.

Appendix D — Accountability Agreement Template

Parties: [Name of person entering the agreement] and Insight Boston, represented by [Safety Review Group member(s)].

Date: [Date].

Context of this agreement: [A factual summary of what occurred, without characterization.]

Acknowledgment: I, [name], acknowledge that my behavior on [date/context] impacted [person(s)] in the following ways: [impact summary]. I understand that regardless of my intent, the impact of my behavior was [impact], and I accept responsibility for that impact.

Commitments: I agree to the following, for a period of [duration]:

  1. [Specific behavioral commitment — e.g., I will not initiate contact with X.]
  2. [Specific behavioral commitment — e.g., I will not serve on candle-lighting teams during this period.]
  3. [Educational commitment — e.g., I will complete [specific reading / workshop / coaching] by [date].]
  4. [Check-in commitment — I will meet with [named person] on [cadence] to discuss progress.]
  5. [Other as applicable.]

Restrictions: During this period, I will not:

  • [Specific restrictions as applicable.]

Review schedule: This agreement will be reviewed at 30, 90, and 180 days. At the 180-day review, the Safety Review Group will decide whether to continue, modify, or close the agreement.

Consequences of breach: If I do not hold these commitments, the Safety Review Group may escalate to a Tier 3 or Tier 4 response without further warning.

Signatures:

____________________ (Person entering agreement)    Date: ____

____________________ (Safety Review Group member)    Date: ____

Appendix E — Glossary

  • Activation — A Somatica term for the level of emotional charge someone is carrying in a conversation, rated 0 to 10. Above a 3, most people cannot engage in repair effectively.
  • Boundary — A statement of what a person is and is not available for. A boundary is about the person setting it.
  • Consent — A freely given, informed, specific, reversible, and enthusiastic agreement between people about what they are doing together.
  • Container — The agreed-upon psychological and emotional space of a seminar or community event, held by confidentiality, consent, and presence.
  • Copping — A Somatica term for honestly acknowledging a pattern of your own behavior, without over-apologizing or taking on what isn’t yours.
  • Harm — Behavior that violates another person’s consent, boundaries, or dignity in a way that damages their safety, standing, or participation.
  • Incidental contact — Brief, unavoidable physical contact that happens in shared space — passing someone in a hallway, sitting next to someone in a circle, brushing shoulders in a group exercise. Does not require prior consent. Anything beyond brief and unavoidable contact requires consent.
  • Repair Conversation — A structured conversation between people affected by a rupture, aimed at mutual understanding, responsibility-taking, and reconnection.
  • Reporter — The person who brings a concern or report to the Safety Review Group.
  • Respondent — The person whose behavior is the subject of a report.
  • Safety Contact — The designated individual responsible for receiving and triaging reports.
  • Safety Review Group — The body responsible for reviewing reports and proposing a course of action. This includes the Safety Contact, one board member, and one non-board community member.
  • Shadow quadrant — In the Wheel of Consent, the distorted version of each quadrant that appears when consent is unclear (martyr, doormat, stealing, entitlement).
  • Wheel of Consent — A framework by Dr. Betty Martin for understanding consent as the clarification of two questions: who is doing, and who is it for.

Appendix F — Sources and Attribution

This policy draws on the work of multiple practitioners, scholars, and institutions. Insight Boston acknowledges and thanks the following sources.

The Wheel of Consent®

  • Dr. Betty Martin. The Art of Receiving and Giving: The Wheel of Consent. 2021.
  • The Wheel of Consent® is the original work of Dr. Betty Martin. Our use of the framework in Section 6 is a summary shared under Dr. Martin’s attribution terms. The full model, practices (including the May I / Will You Game and the Three Minute Game originally by Harry Faddis), and training are available at bettymartin.org and schoolofconsent.org.

The 9 Steps of Relationship Repair

  • Somatica Institute (Celeste Hirschman, M.A., and Danielle Harel, Ph.D., co-founders).
  • Hirschman, C. “9 Steps to Successful Relationship Repair.” somaticainstitute.com.
  • The 9-step framework used in Section 20 is adapted from the Somatica Method with attribution. For the full methodology, training, and resources, see somaticainstitute.com.

Consent, Boundaries, and Somatic Practice

  • Somatica Institute. “Sexual Consent – and How to Ask for It.” “Setting Boundaries in Relationships – Learn to Say NO.” “How to Teach Your Clients to Have a Consent Conversation.” somaticainstitute.com.
  • Celeste Hirschman and Danielle Harel. “Sexual Consent as Foreplay: Building Tension Through Clear Communication.” “Boundaries: The Key to Magical, Healing Relationships.” celesteanddanielle.com.

Insight Seminars Framework

  • Insight Seminars Worldwide. Founding work of John-Roger and Russell Bishop. insightseminars.org.
  • The spiritual and community principles underlying this policy are consistent with the Insight Seminars heart-centered approach to transformation.

Policy Contributor Credit

  • This policy was drafted with contribution from Jason Courtemanche, Certified Somatica Sex & Relationship Coach and Insight Boston Board Member.
  • Drafted in collaboration with Claude (Anthropic) as a starting draft for Board review.

License and Use

  • This policy is an internal document of Insight Boston.
  • The Wheel of Consent® remains © Dr. Betty Martin; the 9-Step Repair Framework remains the intellectual property of the Somatica Institute. Our adaptation is for internal community use, with attribution, and is not for commercial distribution.

Appendix G — Acknowledgment Form (Combined)

This form is signed by every board member, facilitator, facilitator-in-training, team leader, and team member before serving, and annually thereafter. It covers both this Community Safety Policy and the Sexual Abuse and Misconduct Prevention Policy.

INSIGHT BOSTON — POLICY ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I, __________________________________ (printed name), acknowledge the following:

  1. I have received and read the Insight Boston Community Safety and Personal Growth Support Policy, or have had it explained to me in a way I understood. I understand my responsibilities under the policy, including the community standards in Part Three, the reporting pathways in Section 13, and the in-the-moment response expectations in Section 14.

    Note: Shorter versions of this policy will be created for participants, volunteers, and leadership. The shorter versions will reference this full document.

  2. I have received and read the Insight Boston Sexual Abuse and Misconduct Prevention Policy, or have had it explained to me in a way I understood. I understand my responsibilities under that policy, including the reporting procedure, the mandated-reporting obligations to Massachusetts authorities, and the prohibitions on retaliation and false allegations.
  3. I understand how to report incidents, including through the anonymous reporting form, the Safety Contact, a facilitator, or an on-site board member.
  4. I understand that retaliation is prohibited against anyone who lodges a good-faith complaint or participates in any investigation.
  5. I understand that I will be alerted when changes and updates are made to either policy, and I will be responsible for reading and complying with those updates.
  6. I understand that the completion of screening (where applicable to my role) is a prerequisite for my service, and that information gathered during CORI/SORI screening is held confidentially by the Board President and the Safety Contact.

Role: _______________________________________________

Signature: __________________________________________    Date: ______________

Witness Signature (Board member or Safety Contact): _______________________________________    Date: ______________

Date of Next Annual Review: ______________

End of policy. Version 0.1 — April 2026. For questions or suggested edits, contact [Safety Contact — to be assigned].