Collaborating with Survivor Networks
March 2026 GLC Monthly Learning Call Brief
Collaboration with Survivor Networks: Partnerships, Power and the Principles That Make Them Work
Introduction
Our March calls brought together ten survivors actively engaged in leading networks, organisations and communities across three continents — from the Philippines, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Uganda, Mexico, the Caribbean and the USA.
The Eastern call featured:
Cheryl Salinas, photovoice researcher at Eleison Foundation, Philippines;
Carmina (Ynah) Domingo, Program Director at Eleison Foundation, Philippines;
Wubendene Embiale, founder and Executive Director of Biruh Addis Charitable Organisation (BACO) in Ethiopia;
Doreen Nakimuli, Chairperson of Reclaim Hope Africa in Uganda; and,
Endang Supriyati, a survivor leader from Indonesia.
The Western call featured:
Guadalupe Carrasco, President of Comisión Unidos Vs Trata in Mexico;
Shamere McKenzie, Founder of the Caribbean Survivor Network and CEO of Sun Gate Foundation;
Agnes Shemerirwe, Executive Director of Africa Queer Network and Aqnet Health Initiatives in Uganda;
Alicia Ley, Co-Executive Director, Survivor Alliance USA; and,
Kathy Givens, Academy Program Manager, Survivor Alliance USA
The calls were guided by four questions inviting contributors to reflect on the kinds of support and collaboration they look for, how they build partnerships, what defines a healthy partnership, and what the signs are when one is not.
These calls were receptive spaces of shared community learning, and the conversation that emerged was strikingly consistent across very different global contexts — pointing to shared principles, common challenges, and why getting it right matters so much.
What We Learned and Discussed
Across both calls, a strong and consistent message emerged: that collaboration with survivor networks must move beyond inclusion towards genuine shared leadership. Despite the very different contexts contributors were speaking from, the themes that surfaced were strikingly aligned. Three threads ran through both conversations.
From inclusion to shared leadership
Contributors spoke about the importance of being recognised not simply as storytellers or beneficiaries, but as experts — individuals whose lived experience alongside their skills and leadership meaningfully shapes programmes, research, and policy. Survivors know the processes of recruitment, coercion and control from the inside, and critically, they know the road to recovery. This knowledge is not supplementary to the sector’s work; it is essential to it.
Cheryl Salinas described Eleison Foundation’s Survivor Leadership Council as one structural expression of this: survivors reviewing and co-designing all new programmes before launch, guided by the principle that nothing about survivors should be designed without survivors. Shamere McKenzie pushed the sector further, raising the question of whether survivors are being paid fairly as professionals for their expertise — noting that organisations which adjust their budgets to pay survivor leaders properly are demonstrating genuine allyship, not simply goodwill.
At the same time, there was an important and honest reminder that participation is not always straightforward. Endang Supriyati offered one of the most quietly powerful contributions of the Eastern call, speaking with honesty and courage about the barriers survivors face in these spaces — limited formal education, language constraints, and nervousness about being judged or labelled:
“Sometimes I feel maybe I am needed, but I really need time to understand what is being talked about … sometimes people say ‘oh you’re a victim, you’re a survivor, right’ and even questions like this make us feel very not confident. I think we don’t deserve to be here. We are labelled.”
Endang was speaking not only for herself but on behalf of peers — many with limited formal education, many whose language is not the language of the meeting — who want to speak and contribute but face barriers that a formal invitation alone cannot resolve. Creating genuinely inclusive environments requires time, patience and intentional design, not simply representation.
Healthy partnerships are built, not signed
The process of building partnerships was consistently described as relational and grown over time. Trust, transparency and shared values were central. Many contributors spoke about relationships beginning through networking spaces, joint advocacy or shared work, and deepening through consistent communication and follow-through. In some cases, working alongside one another in the same physical space — through community-based programmes or survivor-led initiatives such as the Seeds project that Guadalupe Carrasco shared about, which supports recovery and reintegration through self-care, mental health and entrepreneurship — helped to build trust that opened pathways for broader collaboration. As Alicia Ley put it, the priority should always be relationships before deliverables.
Contributors were clear about what healthy partnerships look and feel like in practice: mutual respect expressed in decisions, not just in language; clearly defined roles and shared goals; equitable contribution of resources; transparency about objectives, constraints and limitations; and long-term commitment. Survivor recovery takes time, and partnerships premised on short funding cycles or project timelines do not reflect the reality of what this work requires.
There was also strong emphasis on care for the emotional and physical wellbeing of survivors within the partnership itself. Many survivors working in the sector are still in their own processes of healing. Partnerships that require repeated story-sharing without genuine regard for its cost, or that use survivor experiences for visibility or funding purposes without meaningful inclusion or long-term commitment, cause harm — however unintentionally. Survivors don’t want to be used just as an image or a testimony, but to participate actively in building programmes.
For newer or smaller organisations — those still building infrastructure, without shelters, counselling or legal capacity of their own — partnerships carry a particular weight. As Doreen Nakimuli put it plainly: there is no way to do this work of fighting trafficking alone. Partnerships provide access to expertise, services and advocacy reach that smaller organisations cannot yet offer or take on independently. She additionally stressed the desire to not simply receive but to reciprocate what as a survivor community they can offer. This honest acknowledgement of need, and the openness to both learn and contribute, reflects something worth holding: partnership does not require equality of scale or resource. It requires equality of respect.
Power, accountability and the signs of an unhealthy partnership
Contributors spoke candidly about what makes partnerships unhealthy, and the patterns described across both calls were consistent. Breakdowns in communication, lack of trust, unclear expectations and imbalances of power were common threads.
More subtle but equally significant harms were also named: partnerships drifting away from shared values to serve only one party’s interests; survivors being drawn in for visibility, media or funding purposes without meaningful inclusion in decision-making; and hierarchical (“vertical”) relationships where survivor-led organisations are positioned as beneficiaries rather than partners. Shamere McKenzie pointed to ego-driven leadership and performative allyship, and to the particular harm caused when organisations avoid accountability for harm done, sweeping problems aside rather than addressing them.
Call attendee Faith Wanjiku (Azadi, Kenya) emphasised the responsibility of those with more power to openly name and address power imbalances. She explained that trust is built gradually through repeated, honest interaction — not assumed at the start of a relationship. Accountability in partnership, she noted, means not only having feedback mechanisms, but having the willingness and structures in place to repair relationships when things go wrong.
Ynah Domingo named a structural pressure that compounds all of this: donor timelines and rushed project deadlines consistently compress the space needed for genuine survivor-led dialogue. This is not simply a relational challenge — it is a systems issue, and one that calls on the sector to reflect on whether current ways of working are compatible with survivor leadership.
Cultural context also emerged as an important consideration. Contributors shared examples of approaches grounded in community and lived experience — including informal, peer-based methods of support and healing that may look different from more formalised models but are often more accessible and meaningful.
Finally, there was reflection on survivor leadership as something that develops over time and needs to be actively nurtured. Survivors bring deep knowledge and insight, but may also need opportunities to build confidence, skills and experience. This requires investment in mentorship, professional development, and creating accessible pathways into leadership roles — with more established organisations playing an active role in supporting that development.
Implications for the Anti-Trafficking Sector
What was shared across these two calls carries implications for the anti-trafficking sector as a whole.
The clearest challenge is to move from the language of survivor inclusion to the practice of shared leadership. This means examining whether survivor-led organisations are genuinely at decision-making tables, ensuring survivors are recognised and compensated as professionals, and asking whether organisational and donor structures support the relational work this requires.
Endang’s contribution asks the sector to go further still. The experience she described — of attending spaces not designed for her — is not exceptional. Designing for genuine participation across diverse educational backgrounds, languages and capacities is an active responsibility; an open invitation is not the same as an accessible one.
The calls also pointed to the importance of survivor-to-survivor connection, mentorship and mutual support. This kind of peer investment is how leadership in the movement grows, and it deserves to be intentionally resourced.
Most fundamentally, survivor-led organisations are not simply a constituency to be supported — they are a source of knowledge, strategy and insight that the sector genuinely needs. As Guadalupe put it, when survivor-led organisations participate in shaping solutions, responses become more human and more real.
What’s Next for the GLC
We are deeply grateful to all the contributors who gave their time, expertise and trust to these conversations, and to everyone who joined, participated in discussions, and brought their own knowledge and questions to the calls.
The Secretariat welcomes further reflection on these calls and what members would most appreciate within the community in order to carry the learning from these calls into their practice. If you have thoughts on what further conversations, tools, connections or resources would be valuable, please reach out to us.
In the meantime, we encourage members to connect directly with the contributors and organisations featured on these calls. If you would like to connect with any of our contributors, be in touch with us and we can connect you. The knowledge and experience shared across both sessions points to a great deal that this community can offer one another.
Sign in to the Members Area to watch the March call recordings. If you are not yet a member of the GLC and are interested in the calls or in joining, email the Secretariat Team at team@globallearning.community, or read more about membership at globallearningcommunity.org/joinus.
