“Resource mobilisation and budgeting” refers to organizational processes as well as donor parameters that determine how funds are earmarked, budgeted and/or allocated within any programme of work. Funding proposal development (by those requesting funds), funds management as well as criteria for funding allocations (by those distributing funds) are included.
Why is it important?
While many GBV risk mitigation efforts require no additional funding, dedicated human and financial resources can significantly strengthen implementation across all sectors. To support this, sectors should include GBV risk mitigation in proposals and resource mobilization plans. Organizations can also allocate specific funds to meet their obligations under cross-cutting issues like PSEA. Donor interest and funding are equally critical.
It's important to note that GBV risk mitigation is distinct from GBV specialised programming, and funding for risk mitigation should not viewed as a substitute for funding response services for GBV survivor.
When GBV risk mitigation is part of an organizational or sectoral/cluster plan, the organization, sector or cluster is accountable and obliged to mobilise resources and report against progress – an important step to institutionalizing GBV risk mitigation. It also increases visibility of GBV risk mitigation in an organization, for example, by triggering annual reporting against progress implementing GBV risk mitigation. It can also make progress in GBV risk mitigation tangible, as the results of GBV risk mitigation can be presented in a more visible way, e.g., through statistics, dashboards, vignettes pulled from qualitative data, and examples from other offices. This entry point is linked to the strategy and funding entry points. It may form part of a wider strategy or feature as a trigger for mobilising funding within some organizations.
Why are they relevant?: Provides donors with an easily accessible resource to reference when assessing and selecting funding proposals for projects in any programmatic sector. It can also be useful for the programme staff who write or review proposals to donors.
Why are they relevant?: Provides a practical checklist to review a proposal from the GBV risk mitigation point of view.
Example 1
Innovative funding model for advancing gender, GBV risk mitigation and PSEA (the GGP mechanism) in UNICEF DRC
Between 2021 and 2023, UNICEF Democratic Republic of Congo country office set up an integrated mechanism to embed gender equality, GBV risk mitigation and PSEA across all programmes. The internal gender, GBV and PSEA mechanism (GGP) aims to equip programmatic sections and field offices to implement concrete actions to operationalise existing strategies on these three interrelated workstreams, with clearly defined responsibilities, dedicated funding, and a series of tools and trainings to support staff and partners.
The mechanism involves a significant capacity-building component with mandatory training for staff and implementing partners. It institutes a set of mandatory programmatic activities, indicators, and budget targets; sets aside resources for strategic investment in capacity and evidence generation to drive forward policy or institutional-level changes; and requires implementing partners to hire staff with capacity on gender, GBV risk mitigation and PSEA. While the GGP is more than a funding mechanism, the requirement to set aside specific funding amounts for GBV risk mitigation (i.e., for implementing partners to dedicate 5 per cent of their budget and for UNICEF to dedicate 1 per cent of its incoming resources to GBV risk mitigation) has proven critical to the mechanism’s success.
The GGP represents an innovative measure taken by UNICEF DRC to concretely deliver on its institutional commitments on gender, GBV and PSEA. Going beyond “quick wins”, the GGP seeks to address the root causes of and risk factors for gender-based violence, including sexual exploitation and abuse, to improve the quality of programmes for women and girls and to increase their participation and engagement.
The guidance document further details requirements related to GBV risk mitigation. For example, as key actions to integrate PSEA, UNICEF is required to “include standard questions on SEA/GBV risk in needs assessments” and in Programme Documents (PDs), and to “integrate PSEA programmatically in all UNICEF PDs with focus on BV/SEA risk mitigation” among other issues.
Example 2
Including GBV risk mitigation in all CARE funding proposals
As an agency that places gender at the heart of all it does, CARE is committed to mitigating GBV risks in its non-GBV specialized humanitarian programming. The centrality of resource mobilisation processes in the humanitarian program cycle means that resource mobilisation is critical for the successful integration of GBV risk mitigation in project design and programming. The importance of GBV risk mitigation in humanitarian programming is further reflected in strengthened donor requirements around GBV risk mitigation.
CARE resource mobilisation teams and technical staff often seek to integrate GBV risk mitigation into CARE proposals. However, until 2022 there was no comprehensive analysis to examine the extent to which CARE succeeded in integrating GBV risk mitigation into proposal submissions. Therefore, to identify common trends, including strengths and weaknesses, in integrating GBV risk mitigation into proposals at CARE, the CARE USA Humanitarian Gender in Emergencies sub-team embarked on a detailed analysis, with the aim of fomenting a learning process to ensure that future proposals are able to consistently and comprehensively integrate GBV risk mitigation. An analysis framework was designed and used to analyse all reviewed proposals, with the aim of providing a more comprehensive understanding of existing good practice and areas for improvement, as well as to launch a learning and exchange process in partnership with the CARE USA Institutional Funding Strategy team and humanitarian resource mobilisation teams across CARE country offices.
In addition to providing insight into the degree to which CARE funding proposals were integrating GBV risk mitigation across each individual proposal component (i.e., needs overview, project rationale/overview, project description including project activities, and monitoring and evaluation plans), the proposal analysis process culminated with a new checklist for integrating GBV risk mitigation into CARE proposals. The proposal checklist is a practitioner-friendly tool designed to equip CARE staff with a concrete list of recommendations to ensure that GBV risk mitigation is consistently integrated into all CARE emergency proposals. Ensuring that CARE proposal writers and technical teams are equipped with and able to use this checklist will bolster existing good practice and ensure that all CARE emergency projects are designed in as safe a manner as possible.
The guidance document further details requirements related to GBV risk mitigation. For example, as key actions to integrate PSEA, UNICEF is required to “include standard questions on SEA/GBV risk in needs assessments” and in Programme Documents (PDs), and to “integrate PSEA programmatically in all UNICEF PDs with focus on BV/SEA risk mitigation” among other issues.
