Integrating GBV Risk Mitigation Across the Humanitarian Program Cycle

Integrating GBV Risk Mitigation into Monitoring and Evaluation

Click Here to Return to Integrating GBV Risk Mitigation Across HPC

Monitoring and evaluation for GBV risk mitigation focuses on: 1) monitoring known and unknown GBV risks relevant to the sector/intervention and 2) evaluating and/or assessing the outcomes and effectiveness of GBV risk mitigation strategies.

This information is critical to understanding any changes or course corrections we might need to make, as well as to documenting the outcomes and impact of GBV risk mitigation activities, continuing to build the global evidence base for this work.

IMPORTANT NOTE ON GBV DATA COLLECTION

CAUTION: Direct monitoring and data collection about GBV incidents can pose serious risks to program participants and enumerators and is not necessary for GBV risk mitigation. Specifically, collecting data on GBV incidents can pose risks including: 

  • Stigma and reprisals against affected populations
  • Retraumatizing survivors
  • Safety risks to the enumerators

In addition, it’s important to understand that GBV incidents are typically underreported, making incident data unreliable for programming decisions. Instead, focus on monitoring GBV risks and evaluating the GBV risk mitigation strategies that you’ve put in place

Individual incidents or prevalence of GBV is not measured as a part of GBV risk mitigation interventions because…

Individual incidents or prevalence of GBV is not measured as a part of GBV risk mitigation interventions because…

Individual incidents or prevalence of GBV is not measured as a part of GBV risk mitigation interventions because…

It can inadvertently pose risks of stigma and reprisal to affected populations and/or enumerators.

Underreporting of GBV incidents is chronic due to a number of factors resulting in prevalence data that is of poor quality and not comprehensive.

WHY Integrate GBV risk mitigation into monitoring and evaluation

It is important to ensure that GBV risks and the outcomes of the GBV risk mitigation strategies in place are consistently monitored and evaluated.

Integrating GBV risk mitigation into monitoring and evaluation serves two critical purposes:

  • Monitoring known and unknown GBV risks relevant to sector/intervention: This allows program teams to track the existence and evolution of GBV risks and take action where needed. GBV risks identified during initial assessments may change, or new risks may emerge during program implementation. Regular monitoring helps to identify these changes early and ensure that programming stays safe and accessible to all. 
  • Assessing the outcomes and effectiveness of GBV risk mitigation strategies: This allows program teams to evaluate and assess whether the GBV risk mitigation measures put in place are working as intended and protecting affected populations, particularly women, girls, and other vulnerable groups. M&E can and should be done throughout the program cycle, including to make course corrections where needed

M&E should be used to gather information that can:

HOW to integrate GBV risk mitigation into monitoring and evaluation

An effective M&E framework focuses on understanding the degree to which our programming is:  

  1. mitigating GBV risks;
  2. enhancing perceptions of safety and well-being;
  3. improving access to our services; and/or
  4. improving sector outcomes.

You can measure one or more of these four categories by adapting the suggested methodology below for your context.

1. MITIGATING GBV RISKS

There are multiple ways to measure reduction in GBV risks without asking direct questions about GBV incidents or prevalence. For example, we can measure:

  • Changes in safety and security risks for particular groups within the affected population around service delivery points 
    • # or % of community members reporting improved feelings of safety accessing humanitarian services/facilities (specific to your sector/intervention)
    • # or % of community members reporting reduced barriers to accessing services
  • Community feedback on perceived GBV risks (particularly from women, girls, and other vulnerable groups) 
    • Safety audit and/or FGD findings
  • Implementation of preferred design in facilities/services 
    • # or % of facilities established in consultation with women and girls
  • Participation rates of different gender, age and vulnerability groups 
    • Collect and disaggregate service delivery /programmatic reach data

2. ENHANCING PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY & WELL-BEING

Understanding safety perceptions is crucial to GBV risk mitigation because program participants who don’t feel safe accessing services simply won’t use them.
If safety concerns remain unmonitored and unaddressed, humanitarian programming will fail to reach the most vulnerable populations, potentially cause more harm than good, and likely fall short of meeting targets.

“Safe” programming:

  • Does not cause GBV or increase the likelihood that it will happen
  • Proactively facilitates safe access to services by vulnerable groups
  • Is responsive to GBV risks in the environment
  • # or % of community members reporting improved feelings of safety accessing humanitarian services/facilities (specific to your sector/intervention)
  • # or % of community members reporting reduced barriers to accessing services
  • # or % of facilities established in consultation with women and girls
  • % of camps with feedback mechanisms.

These indicators and perceptions can be verified through ongoing focus group discussions with women and girls and safety audits.

3. IMPROVING ACCESS TO SERVICES

Access barriers for women, girls, and other vulnerable groups can be measured by integrating indicators into baseline, midline, and endline surveys on user satisfaction in accessing services. For example: 

  • How satisfied are you in your ability to access this service safely? 

4. IMPROVING SECTOR OUTCOMES

Improving the safety and accessibility of programming for all participants - including the most vulnerable/hardest to reach - should also help to ensure that programming targets are fully reached, and therefore also improve sector-specific outcomes.

Specific measurement tools for sector-specific outcomes will depend on sector and context, but examples include:

Reduction in sector-related risky coping mechanisms with women and girls and safety audits.

  • Increase in use of latrines/WASH facilities by women, girls and other vulnerable groups
  • Reduction in time spent/distance to X collection (i.e.: water, firewood, food/NFI distributions)
  • Increase in participation in X programming intervention by women, girls and other vulnerable groups

In cases where direct measurement poses risks, use indirect measures, i.e. proxy indicators, that serve as stand-ins for information too difficult or unsafe to gather directly.

In cases where direct measurement poses risks, use indirect measures, i.e. proxy indicators, that serve as stand-ins for information too difficult or unsafe to gather directly.

TIP: Each sector-specific GBV Guidelines Thematic Area Guide (TAG) includes a monitoring and evaluation section with indicators that can help track results, chart outcomes, and measure progress while considering diverse perspectives. You can adapt these indicators to your program/context where needed. 

WHEN & WHERE to integrate GBV risk mitigation across the Humanitarian Program Cycle

There are multiple entry points for GBV risk mitigation monitoring and evaluation across the humanitarian program cycle. The graphic below presents a number of common entry points from planning and resource mobilization, throughout implementation, and at the end of the program. Throughout the program cycle, it is important to ensure that project monitoring plans regularly identify sector-specific GBV risks and monitor GBV risk mitigation strategies. 

M&E Entry Points in the Program Cycle

Best Practices for Implementation

Do’s and Dont’s for gbv risk mitigation monitoring

DO

Monitor:

  • Reported safety perceptions of women and girls
  • Social norms associated with services/interventions being planned/implemented
  • Barriers to access to services of particular groups
  • Level of participation of different groups
  • Structural discrimination in policies
  • Dignity

DON'T

  • Attempt to actively identify/ document GBV cases in the community
  • Convene a group of GBV survivors to participate in consultations
  • Document detailed information about individual survivors or perpetrators
  • Attempt to determine how many incidents have occurred

By integrating GBV risk mitigation into your M&E framework, you can ensure that your programming remains safe, accessible, and accountable to affected populations throughout the program cycle.

This site is always being updated, so please check back often for new additions, tools, and resources!

Copyright © 2025 • GBV Guidelines

menu