Safeguarding mechanisms in the aid sector aim to prevent and respond to sexual violence, yet survivors’ experiences of reporting remain under-documented. This thesis examines how aid-sector workers decide whether to report, how they perceive organizational processes and outcomes, and the extent to which their needs are met. Using a mixed qualitative design, I conducted an anonymous online survey (n = 26) and three semi-structured interviews with staff who experienced workplace sexual violence. Reflexive thematic analysis, informed by feminist standpoint theory, intersectionality, and institutional betrayal/moral injury frameworks, guided interpretation. Findings show that decisions not to report were shaped by cumulative deterrents, anticipation of retaliation and disbelief, low trust in channels, power asymmetries, and emotional load. Among the 13 participants who reported, most described poor communication, limited or opaque investigations, minimal support, and persistent safety concerns; several experienced secondary harm from the handling itself. Positive experiences were rare but pointed to actionable practices: independent and confidential processes, regular communication, an immediate support bundle (psychosocial, legal, and safety planning), and active monitoring for retaliation. The study contributes survivor-centered, auditable benchmarks to evaluate safeguarding quality and argues for organizational “moral repair” when harm occurs.