PRISM Community Resource Hub
The PRISM Community Resource Hub is a central place for practical, research-based tools that help marginalized and vulnerable populations protect their digital lives.
This space is designed for real-world use. Here, PRISM will share community-facing resources such as mixed-media toolkits, simple checklists, and clear, accessible flyers that translate complex security research into concrete actions for individuals, families, advocates, and organizations.
All resources are grounded in four core priorities:
- Navigating unequal power dynamics in digital systems
- Supporting autonomy, control, and belonging
- Addressing risks tied to diverse sociodemographic contexts
- Improving interfaces and interactions to reduce exclusion
The Hub will also highlight work from PRISM partners, including advocacy organizations and collaborators who help ensure technology is inclusive by default, not by exception.
Resources and toolkits are currently in development and will be shared soon. As PRISM’s work grows, this page will feature new materials, partner highlights, policy-relevant resources, and updates that support safer and more equitable use of everyday technologies.
Resources
Many of the resources provided below are from a developed repository created during the 2024 CRA Supporting At-Risk Users Through Responsible Computing (SARU) Visioning Workshop. The goal was to create a resource repository where this research community could share best (or more realistically, “good”) practices, exemplar case studies, research gaps, and more. The full workshop report is available online [here].
At-Risk Framework
The At-Risk Framework helps identify risk factors that are known to augment or amplify tech-facilitated abuse/attacks and harms, the practices that at-risk users are known to adopt to attempt to protect themselves from such abuse/attacks and harms, and the barriers they’re known to face that limit their ability or willingness to take effective protective actions.
Citation: N. Warford, et al., “SoK: A Framework for Unifying At-Risk User Research,” In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy: IEEE S&P, (2022), pp.2344-60.
Learn More: https://research.google/pubs/sok-a-framework-for-unifying-at-risk-user-research/
Black Feminist Thought
Citation: Y. Rankin, “Moving from Theory to Application: Black Feminist Thought as an Intersectional Framework for Design,” In Interactions, Volume 31, Issue 5, (September-October 2024), pp. 52.
Contextual Integrity
Privacy theory grounded in key dimensions including that appropriate information flows conform with contextual information norms and that privacy is based on ethical concerns/constraints that naturally evolve over time because these informational norms are based on key parameters (the subject of the data, sender, recipient ,type of information, and the transmission principle).
Citation: Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Wash. L. Rev., 79, 119. Barth, A., Datta, A., Mitchell, J. C., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006, May). Privacy and contextual integrity: Framework and applications. In 2006 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (S&P’06) (pp. 15-pp). IEEE.
Learn More: https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/sp/2023/01/09990902/1J9z9wIXRao
Example of Use: Kumar, P. C., Zimmer, M., & Vitak, J. (2024). A roadmap for applying the contextual integrity framework in qualitative privacy research. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW1), 1-29.
Abaquita, D., Bahirat, P., Badillo-Urquiola, K. A., & Wisniewski, P. (2020, January). Privacy norms within the internet of things using contextual integrity. In Companion Proceedings of the 2020 ACM international Conference on supporting group work (pp. 131-134).
Terpstra, A., De Rooij, A., & Schouten, A. (2023, April). Online proctoring: Privacy invasion or study alleviation? Discovering acceptability using contextual integrity. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-20).
Digital Self Harm
The online communication and activity that leads to, supports, or exacerbates, non-suicidal yet intentional harm or impairment of an individual’s physical wellbeing. Understanding how individuals weaponize technology as a vector of directed emotional harm and pain, including both active and passive activities.
Citation: Pater, J., & Mynatt, E. (2017, February). Defining digital self-harm. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 1501-1513).
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2017, December). Digital self-harm among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(6), 761-766.
Example of Use: Xiao, S., Cheshire, C., & Salehi, N. (2022, April). Sensemaking, support, safety, retribution, transformation: A restorative justice approach to understanding adolescents’ needs for addressing online harm. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-15).
Pater, J., Nova, F. F., Coupe, A., Reining, L. E., Kerrigan, C., Toscos, T., & Mynatt, E. D. (2021, May). Charting the unknown: Challenges in the clinical assessment of patients’ technology use related to eating disorders. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-14).
Recuero, R. (2024). The platformization of violence: Toward a concept of discursive toxicity on social media. Social Media+ Society, 10(1), 20563051231224264.
Everyday Security
Everyday security literature centers the routine, mundane and social practices which shape how people experience security. When applied to information security it can help us to understand the small, everyday practices and actions which people take to secure themselves in digital and non digital ways. This is particularly important to consider when working with at-risk communities.
Citation: Nyman, J., 2021. The everyday life of security: Capturing space, practice, and affect. International Political Sociology, 15(3), pp.313-337.
Crawford, A. and Hutchinson, S., 2016. Mapping the contours of ‘everyday security’: Time, space and emotion. British journal of criminology, 56(6), pp.1184-1202.
Example of Use: Jensen, R.B., Coles-Kemp, L. and Talhouk, R., 2020, April. When the civic turn turns digital: Designing safe and secure refugee resettlement. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14).
McClearn, J., Talhouk, R. and Jensen, R.B., 2025. The Everyday Security of Living With Conflict. IEEE Security & Privacy, 23(2), pp.95-100.
Explainability Rubric
Citation: Google, “Explainability Rubric.” Accessed August 12, 2025.
Learn More: https://explainability.withgoogle.com/rubric
Framework of Severity for Harmful Content Online
The Framework of Severity for Harmful Content Online helps identify several types of harms that can result from tech-facilitated abuse/attacks, how the harms relate to one another, and the dimensions of severity that can help prioritize harms.
Citation: M.K. Scheuerman, et al., “A Framework of Severity for Harmful Content Online,” In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction: CSCW, Volume 5, Issue CSCW2, Article No. 368, (October 2021), pp. 1 – 33.
Fraud Prevention – participant validation guide
Citation: M. Krawczyk, and K.A. Siek, “When Research Becomes All About the Bots: A Case Study on Fraud Prevention and Participant Validation in the Context of Abortion Storytelling.” In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI EA, Article No. 542, (2024), pp. 1-8.
Learn More: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3637109
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR); Implementation Science
The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) provides a common language to understand and assess factors that influence the success of implementing an evidence-based intervention or practice in a real-world setting. It helps researchers and practitioners identify potential barriers and facilitators by examining five core domains. 1) Innovation: The “thing” being implemented, e.g., a new clinical treatment, educational program, or city service. 2) Outer Setting: The setting in which the Inner Setting exists, e.g., hospital system, school district, state. There may be multiple Outer Settings and/or multiple levels within the Outer Setting (e.g., community, system, state).; 3) Inner Setting: The setting in which the innovation is implemented, e.g., hospital, school, city. There may be multiple Inner Settings and/or multiple levels within the Inner Setting, e.g., unit, classroom, team.4) Individuals: The roles and characteristics of individuals. 5 Implementation Process: The activities and strategies used to implement the innovation.
Citation: Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Widerquist, M. A. O., & Lowery, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation science, 17(1), 75.
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation science, 4(1), 50.
Learn More: https://cfirguide.org/
Example of Use: Daniels, S. I., Cheng, H., Gray, C., Kim, B., Stave, C. D., & Midboe, A. M. (2022). A scoping review of implementation of health-focused interventions in vulnerable populations. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 12(9), 935-944.
Jackson, E. C., Renner, L. M., Flowers, N. I., Logeais, M. E., & Clark, C. J. (2020). Process evaluation of a systemic intervention to identify and support partner violence survivors in a multi-specialty health system. BMC health services research, 20(1), 996.
RE-AIM, Implementation Science
RE-AIM is a framework to guide the planning and evaluation of programs according to the 5 key RE-AIM outcomes: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance.
Citation: RE-AIM, “RE-AIM – Home – Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance.” Accessed August 12, 2025. (2025).
Learn More: https://re-aim.org/
Example of Use: King, D. K., Shoup, J. A., Raebel, M. A., Anderson, C. B., Wagner, N. M., Ritzwoller, D. P., & Bender, B. G. (2020). Planning for implementation success using RE-AIM and CFIR frameworks: a qualitative study. Frontiers in public health, 8, 59.
Interpersonal Boundary Regulation
Citation: P.J. Wisniewski, and X. Page, “Privacy Theories and Frameworks“. Modern Socio-Technical Perspectives on Privacy. Springer, Cham. (2022).
Learn More: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-82786-1_2
Intersectionality
Framework that allows for the assessment of how intersections of gender, race, sexuality, socioecon0mic status or other dimensionality of an individual impact how individuals are viewed differently, priviledged, oppressed, or discriminated against.
Citation: Kimberle Crenshaw. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. U. Chi. Legal F.: 139.
Kimberle Crenshaw. 1991. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review 43, 6: 12411299.
Learn More: UN Women, “Intersectionality Resource Guide and Toolkit.” (2022).
Example of Use: Schlesinger, A., Edwards, W. K., & Grinter, R. E. (2017, May). Intersectional HCI: Engaging identity through gender, race, and class. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 5412-5427).
Harrington, C., Erete, S., & Piper, A. M. (2019). Deconstructing community-based collaborative design: Towards more equitable participatory design engagements. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-25.
Menlo Report on ICT research ethics
Citation: Department of Homeland Security, “The Menlo Report: Ethical Principles Guiding Information and Communication Technology Research.” (2012).
Learn More: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CSD-MenloPrinciplesCORE-20120803_1.pdf
Participatory Foundation Models
Citation: H. Suresh, et al., “Participation in the Age of Foundation Models.” In the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency: FAccT. (2024).
Learn More: https://emtseng.me/assets/Suresh-Tseng-Young-2024-FAccT_Participation-Foundation-Models.pdf
Representation in Research Design
The Heilmeier Catechism consists of questions that researchers and practitioners can consider when formulating research and applied engineering projects. An additional question is suggested: who is included and who is left out of consideration.
Citation: K. Butler et al., “Extending the Heilmeier Catechism to Evaluate Security and Privacy Systems: Who is Left Out?“, In IEEE Security & Privacy, May/June (2025), pp. 91-95.
SAMHSAs 4 dimensions of recovery
Recovery is a non-linear process that is not only defined by strict abstianance, but also a more holistic understanding of positive impacts on one’s ability to live, work, and meaningfully engage with their communities. The four dimensions include: health (living in an emotionally, physically, and spiritually healthy way), home (having a stable and safe place to live), community (maintaining healthy relationships/networks that provide support), and purpose (finding meaningful daily activities).
Citation: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Recovery and Recovery Support.” (2024). Whitley, R., & Drake, R. E. (2010). Recovery: a dimensional approach. Psychiatric services, 61(12), 1248-1250.
Learn More: https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/recovery
Example of Use: Chiu, M. Y., Ho, W. W., Lo, W. T., & Yiu, M. G. (2010). Operationalization of the SAMHSA model of recovery: A quality of life perspective. Quality of Life Research, 19(1), 1-13.
Zemore, S. E., Ziemer, K. L., Gilbert, P. A., Karno, M. P., & Kaskutas, L. A. (2023). Understanding the Shared meaning of Recovery from Substance Use disorders: New findings from the what is Recovery? Study. Substance abuse: research and treatment, 17, 11782218231199372.
Six Strategies for Safer At-Risk Research
Six Strategies for Safer At-Risk Research provides practical guidance for how to conduct safer research that involves at-risk users based on current best (or more realistically, “good”) practices.
Citation: R. Bellini, et al., “SoK: Safer Digital-Safety Research Involving At-Risk Users,” In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy: IEEE S&P, (2024), pp. 635-54.
Sociotechnical Stack
Citation: Q. Li, et al., “The Sociotechnical Stack: Opportunities for Social Computing Research in Non-consensual Intimate Media.” In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing: CSCW. (2024).
Learn More: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.03585
Taxonomy of Online Hate and Harassment Attacks
The Taxonomy of Online Hate and Harassment Attacks helps identify the criteria that differentiate attacks, the harms known to be incurred, and the scale of abuse.
Citation: K. Thomas, et al., “SoK: Hate, Harassment, and the Changing Landscape of Online Abuse,” In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy: IEEE S&P, (2021).
Taxonomy of Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems
The Taxonomy of Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems helps identify potential sociotechnical harms that can result from algorithmic systems.
Citation: R. Shelby, et al., “Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction,” In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society: AIES ’23, (August 2023), pp. 723-41.
Example of Use: Thomas, K., Kelley, P. G., Consolvo, S., Samermit, P., & Bursztein, E. (2022, April). “It’s common and a part of being a content creator”: Understanding How Creators Experience and Cope with Hate and Harassment Online. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-15).
User States Framework
The User States Framework helps anticipate and address users’ likely emotional reactions & needs before, during, & after digital-safety events such as being scammed, having an account hacked, being doxed, having real or synthetic nudes leaked, and more. It’s intended to be used to inform the design and development of technology and technology policies, as well as to analyze data.
Citation: T. Matthews, et al., “Supporting the Digital Safety of At-Risk Users: Lessons Learned from 9+ Years of Research and Training,” In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction: ToCHI, Volume 32, Issue 3, Article No. 22, (June 2025), pp. 1 – 39.
Example of Use: M. Wei, et al., “Understanding Help-Seeking and Help-Giving on Social Media for Image-Based Sexual Abuse,” In Proceedings of the 33rd USENIX Security Symposium: USENIX Security, (August 2024).
Grounded theory
Research methodology applied to qualitative data. Using inductive reasoning with respect to data collection and analysis to construct hypotheses/theories. The focus is not on “truth” but more on the abiity to conceptualize what is going on with research participants themselves.
Citation: Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1998). Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Bern: Huber, 4. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Learn More: https://www.qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/grounded-theory-research/
Example of Use: McDonald, N., Schoenebeck, S., & Forte, A. (2019). Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-23.
Liao, Q. V., Gruen, D., & Miller, S. (2020, April). Questioning the AI: informing design practices for explainable AI user experiences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-15).
Technoference
The use of digital and mobile technologies fundamentally disruputs (through interruption and interference) the interpersonal relationships between parent and child or romantic partners leading to negative impacts on child development, adverse behavioral outcomes and decreated parental responsiveness.
Citation: McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychology of popular media culture, 5(1), 85.
Stay connected
Subscribe below to receive updates when new resources becomes available.