Consent and Safeguarding Protocols for One-to-One Theatre

One-to-one theatre can mean a performance built around a single audience participant, often with one performer or facilitator, or a rehearsal in which a director, intimacy practitioner or workshop leader works alone with an actor. Both create a closed relational space where consent, power and confidentiality have to be made explicit. There is no single universal protocol: a robust design is risk-based, written down, understood by everyone in the room, and reviewed as the piece develops.

The direct answer is to treat consent as an ongoing process and safeguarding as a system of roles, spaces, language and records. A useful protocol defines the format, identifies who may be vulnerable, requires a risk assessment before work begins, sets clear check-in and exit mechanisms, and records decisions without exposing participants’ personal material. It should be adapted for legal minors, disabled participants, multilingual work and touring contexts.

Clarify the format and the relationships

Before drafting forms, describe what the encounter actually involves. Is the participant an audience member, a co-creator, a workshop participant or an interviewee? Is there touch, proximity, blindfolding, personal disclosure, recorded material or a locked room? Does the performer also act as facilitator? These distinctions determine the risks and the safeguards. A one-to-one piece in which an audience member listens to a story is different from one in which they are asked to share a memory, remove clothing or be alone in a confined space.

Name the roles. At minimum, a production should identify a designated safeguarding lead, a producer or general manager with responsibility for implementing the protocol, and a first aider or access contact. Where the work involves intimacy or simulated intimacy, an intimacy coordinator or consent practitioner may be appropriate. The QMT safeguarding policy, reviewed in February 2026, illustrates the usual architecture: named designated safeguarding officers, a chaperone policy and sections on one-to-one working, staff/young-person ratios and safe areas. It also states a planned review in February 2028, a reminder that protocols are living documents.

Make consent specific, ongoing and revocable

Consent is not a signature collected once. The guidance on ethics, consent and safeguarding in socially engaged drama describes ethical practice as a set of anticipatory and responsive habits that protect dignity, agency and wellbeing, rather than a list of prohibitions. In practice, that means separating consent to take part, consent to be touched, consent to be filmed or recorded, and consent to use personal material. Each can be withdrawn.

Build three moments into the work. First, a pre-brief that explains what will happen, what is optional, what the participant can stop, who they can speak to and what happens afterwards. Second, in-the-moment check-ins: a spoken question, a hand signal, a coloured card or an agreed phrase that means pause or stop. Third, a debrief and aftercare route. The participant should not have to justify a withdrawal, and the performer should have the same right to stop. For legal minors, the young person’s agreement matters, but it is usually not sufficient on its own; parental or guardian consent and organisational safeguarding procedures also apply.

Put safeguarding into the risk assessment

Safeguarding is not only a response to disclosure; it is the design of conditions that reduce foreseeable harm. In screen production guidance, Paramount’s duty of care and child safeguarding guidance says that casting and filming protocols should be delivered and reviewed by Content & Legal and the Senior Director of Contributor Care after a contributor care risk assessment and before filming begins. The theatre equivalent is not a copy of that structure, but the principle transfers: assess first, assign responsibilities, and make the protocol part of production sign-off.

A one-to-one risk assessment should record the location, sightlines, door and exit arrangements, who else is nearby, the age and vulnerability of participants, the content of the encounter, the level of physical contact, language and communication needs, and the procedure for a concern or emergency. It should state whether a chaperone, support worker, interpreter or second adult is required. Blanket rules are less useful than written reasoning: a closed-door rehearsal with a legal minor needs a different level of protection from a public performance in a visible foyer.

Design the space and the encounter

Physical design is safeguarding. Prefer rooms with a window, an open door or a clear line of sight to a nearby colleague. Avoid isolated corridors and soundproofed rooms with no check-in. Agree a knock-and-enter routine or a timed check-in for long one-to-one sessions. Make the exit obvious and keep it unobstructed. For audience-facing work, explain the geography before the encounter begins: where the participant will sit, how close the performer will come, whether they may leave, and how they can signal discomfort.

Where the work involves intimacy, use choreographed and agreed sequences rather than improvisation, and separate the fictional relationship from the real one. A 2024 UK case study on intimacy guidelines for legal minors notes that youth and student theatre has often been excluded from professional intimacy discussions, despite engaging young people with intimate exchanges in training and academic settings. The implication for protocol design is that age-appropriate intimacy practice, chaperoning and clear consent processes need to be planned, not imported casually from adult professional practice.

Protect the practitioner as well as the participant

One-to-one work can place a performer or facilitator under intense relational pressure. The protocol should include a right to pause, a named person to call, a debrief after each session, and limits on what personal information the practitioner is expected to hold. Avoid making the same person responsible for artistic direction, pastoral care, safeguarding decisions and emergency response without support. Where work is autobiographical or trauma-adjacent, supervision or a confidential reflective space may be appropriate. These are general professional safeguards, not a substitute for clinical or legal advice.

Language, culture and touring

Cross-border and multilingual one-to-one work adds predictable risks. Consent materials should be available in the languages participants actually use, with interpreting or bilingual support where needed. Comprehension checks are better than assuming that a signed English form proves understanding. Cultural norms around touch, eye contact, gender, disability, personal space and speaking to strangers vary, but culture should not be treated as a single script. Ask participants what they need, explain the production’s own boundaries, and avoid using cultural difference as a reason to lower safeguarding standards.

When touring, verify the local legal and regulatory context, venue policy and insurance requirements rather than assuming the home-country protocol travels unchanged. Child protection, data protection, licensing, chaperoning and employment rules can differ by jurisdiction. Keep a written record of what was checked and by whom, and identify a local safeguarding contact where possible. This is especially important when the work involves minors, vulnerable adults or audience participation in private spaces.

Document, review and stop

Documentation should be proportionate and secure. Keep the risk assessment, consent records, incident logs, debrief notes and a record of who was responsible for what. Consent records should state what was agreed, when, by whom and how it could be withdrawn. Do not collect personal disclosures that the production does not need. Store sensitive material separately from marketing assets, restrict access, and follow the applicable data protection rules. The protocol should say what happens if a concern is raised: who receives it, how it is recorded, what confidentiality applies and how the participant is supported afterwards.

Finally, review the protocol after previews, after each performance block and after any incident or near-miss. One-to-one work changes under audience conditions. A check-in that felt natural in rehearsal may become intrusive in performance; a space that felt safe in one venue may not transfer to a festival. Treat review as part of the artistic process, not as an admission of failure.

A practical checklist

• Define the one-to-one format and the participant’s role in plain language.
• Name a safeguarding lead, a production lead and an access or first-aid contact.
• Complete a risk assessment before rehearsals or performances begin.
• Separate consent for participation, touch, recording and use of personal material.
• Agree a stop signal and a check-in routine that work for the participant and performer.
• Design the room for visibility, exit and nearby support.
• Plan chaperoning, interpreting and access support according to need.
• Provide a pre-brief, an in-the-moment check-in and a debrief or aftercare route.
• Record decisions and incidents securely and minimally.
• Review the protocol when the format, venue, cast or participant group changes.

Common problems

The most common mistake is treating consent as a contract: one form, signed once, filed away. A second is relying on a single good-hearted practitioner to manage everything without support. A third is designing for the performer’s comfort while forgetting the audience participant, or vice versa. Others include collecting unnecessary personal disclosures, failing to plan aftercare, treating legal minors as small adults, and assuming that a multilingual participant has understood a form because they signed it. None of these failures requires bad intent; they usually come from under-planning. A written protocol, a named lead and a habit of review reduce the risk.

Good one-to-one protocols do not eliminate intimacy or risk. They make the conditions of the encounter clear enough for participants and practitioners to choose, pause and leave with dignity. That is the practical standard: not a promise that nothing will go wrong, but a visible, accountable system for reducing foreseeable harm and responding when something does.