Promising practices for the monitoring and evaluation of gender-based violence risk mitigation interventions in humanitarian response: a multi-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Risks of gender-based violence (GBV) are exacerbated in humanitarian crises. GBV risk mitigation interventions aim to reduce exposure to GBV and ensure that humanitarian response actions and services themselves do not cause harm or increase the risk of violence. The 2015 IASC Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action ('GBV Guidelines') are a globally endorsed resource that provides comprehensive guidance for all humanitarian actors and sectors on GBV risk mitigation. While uptake of GBV risk mitigation approaches across multiple humanitarian sectors has occurred, there is limited understanding of how to monitor and evaluate GBV risk mitigation interventions. METHODS: A multi-methods study was conducted in 2019 to identify promising practices for the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of GBV risk mitigation interventions in non-GBV sectors and to develop a set of illustrative case examples. The study included a comprehensive desk review of 145 articles, documents and resources from the published and grey literature, as well as 11 in-depth interviews and five focus group discussions with humanitarian practitioners. Using Dedoose software and a codebook developed a priori, qualitative data were transcribed and coded and a content analysis was conducted. Excerpts focusing on promising practices from the qualitative data and the desk review were analyzed together and grouped by thematic area. Similar promising practices were combined and consolidated to create a final list, and case examples were identified. RESULTS: Current promising practices for M&E of GBV risk mitigation activities in the following categories are described: (1) Coordination and collaboration, (2) Designing M&E approaches and tools for GBV risk mitigation activities, (3) Contextualization, (4) Developing and selecting indicators, (5) Data collection, (6) Data analysis and use of findings, (7) Potential safety concerns for affected populations and staff, and (8) Staff capacity and engagement. These are supplemented with seven diverse case examples to illustrate application of the promising practices using real-world examples. CONCLUSION: This paper highlights current promising practices for M&E of GBV risk mitigation interventions in humanitarian response. Further application of these practices-alongside ongoing documentation of emerging approaches-will be critical to ensuring that GBV risk mitigation interventions are more rigorously tested with the aim of building the evidence base on the effectiveness of different GBV risk mitigation interventions within specific humanitarian sectors.

Measuring gender-based violence risk mitigation in humanitarian settings: results from a comprehensive desk review and systematic mapping.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically document measurement approaches used in the monitoring and evaluation of gender-based violence (GBV) risk mitigation activities, categorise the types of available literature produced by sector, identify existing tools and measures and identify knowledge gaps within the humanitarian sector. DESIGN: Systematic mapping and in-depth review. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, Global Health, PsychInfo, ReliefWeb, OpenGrey (grey literature), Google Scholar, Web of Science (Social Science Index)Eligibility criteria: a structured search strategy was systematically applied to 17 databases as well as registers, websites and other resources to identify materials published between 1 January 2005 and 15 May 2019. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Those resources that met the inclusion criteria underwent a comprehensive full-text review. A detailed matrix was developed and key data from each resource were extracted to allow for the assessment of patterns in thematic areas. RESULTS: A total of 2108 documents were screened. Overall, 145 documents and 112 tools were reviewed, representing 10 different humanitarian sectors. While numerous resources exist, many lack sufficient information on how to monitor outputs or outcomes of GBV risk mitigation activities. There is also limited guidance on how to integrate the measurement of GBV risk mitigation into existing monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Those reports that aimed to measure GBV risk mitigation activities mostly employed qualitative methods and few measured the impact of a GBV risk mitigation with robust research designs. CONCLUSIONS: Recent efforts to adapt humanitarian response to COVID-19 have highlighted new and existing challenges for GBV risk mitigation. There is a significant gap in the evidence base around the effectiveness of GBV risk mitigation across all sectors. Understanding and strengthening measurement approaches in GBV risk mitigation remains a critical task for humanitarian response.

Tracking humanitarian funding for reproductive health: a systematic analysis of health and protection proposals from 2002-2013.

BACKGROUND: The Inter-agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crises conducted a ten-year global evaluation of reproductive health in humanitarian settings. This paper examines proposals for reproductive health activities under humanitarian health and protection funding mechanisms for 2002-2013, and the level at which these reproductive health proposals were funded. METHODS: The study used English and French health and protection proposal data for 2002-2013, extracted from the Financial Tracking Service (FTS) database managed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Every project was reviewed for relevance against pre-determined reproductive health definitions for 2002-2008. An in-depth analysis was additionally conducted for 2009-2013 through systematically reviewing proposals via a key word search and subsequently classifying them under designated reproductive health categories. Among the relevant reproductive health proposals, counts and proportions were calculated in Excel based on their reproductive health components, primarily by year. Contributions, requests, and unfunded requests were calculated based on the data provided by FTS. RESULTS: Among the 11,347 health and protection proposals issued from 345 emergencies between 2002 and 2013, 3,912 were relevant to reproductive health (34.5%). The number of proposals containing reproductive health activities increased by an average of 21.9% per year, while the proportion of health and protection sector appeals containing reproductive health activities increased by an average of 10.1% per year. The total funding request over the 12 years amounted to $4.720 billion USD, of which $2.031 billion USD was received. Among reproductive health components for 2009-2013 proposals, maternal newborn health comprised the largest proportion (56.4%), followed by reproductive health-related gender-based violence (45.9%), HIV/sexually transmitted infections (37.5%), general reproductive health (26.2%), and lastly, family planning (14.9%). CONCLUSION: Findings show that more agencies are responding to humanitarian appeals by proposing to implement reproductive health programs and receiving increased aid over the twelve year period. While such developments are welcome, project descriptions show comparatively limited attention and programming for family planning and abortion care in particular.

Understanding the promise: considering the experiences of women living with HIV to maximize effectiveness of HIV prevention technologies.

BACKGROUND: The United States' response to HIV was designed primarily to meet the needs of single men without dependent children and its prevention strategies focused primarily on individual behavior change with little attention to the social, cultural, and economic factors fueling HIV risk, especially among indigent and marginalized women. In 2012, the President's Advisory Council called for an updating of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy's Implementation Plan to "achieve specific, targeted and measurable goals for reducing HIV incidence and … improving health care access and health outcomes for women living with HIV." OUTCOME MEASURES: Women living with HIV and those at greatest risk of HIV generally live side by side in the same communities and under the same conditions, separated in status only by a positive HIV test and its consequences. Thus, women openly living with HIV constitute an identifiable and accessible source of first-hand information regarding the barriers that keep women out of HIV prevention and care. Their insights, rooted in lived experience, can vitally inform the development of realistic HIV prevention goals and strategies for the successful integration of HIV prevention into the services already accessed by high-risk women. Their expertise, however, is largely untapped. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, women living with HIV summarize the substantial deficits that exist with regard to woman-focused HIV prevention efforts nationally and the policy and practice changes needed to reduce the domestic impact of the HIV epidemic on women and girls. They also outline opportunities for movement in this direction as implementation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy proceeds.