Browse by sub-sector
Open all 261 in the libraryCommunity-Based Protection
Community-led identification of risks, self-protection capacities, protection networks and committees, and participation of affected people in protection responses.
Output
Goal
GBV Prevention & Response
Prevention programming and survivor-centered response services, including case management, health, psychosocial support, and safety, governed by GBV ethics and information-management protocols.
Output
Goal
Child Protection
Prevention and response for children at risk, including case management, family-based care, prevention of separation, and child-friendly services aligned to humanitarian child protection standards.
Output
Goal
Legal Aid & Justice Access
Legal information, counseling, and representation, civil documentation, housing, land and property rights, and access to formal and customary justice mechanisms.
Output
Goal
Protection for Special Populations
Tailored protection for groups facing heightened risk, including persons with disabilities, older persons, unaccompanied and separated children, and other at-risk individuals.
Output
Goal
Other Protection sub-sectors
Smaller measurement areas in Protection, with a sample indicator from each.
Methods by outcome type
Match the method to the outcome, not to what is easiest to collect.
| Outcome type | Primary method | Observation | Key instruments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service access & utilization | Program monitoring data plus access and barrier assessment | Not required (service records and reported access) | Service-mapping and referral-pathway records, Global Protection Cluster monitoring tools |
| Case management outcomes | Case management information system, governed by information-sharing protocols | Not directly observable; recorded by trained caseworkers | GBVIMS and Primero/GBVIMS+ for GBV; child protection case management systems aligned to CPMS |
| Safety & perceived safety | Structured questionnaire or participatory assessment with affected people | Self-reported; triangulated with protection monitoring | Protection monitoring and participatory assessment tools, perception modules administered with informed consent |
| Knowledge of rights & services | Structured questionnaire with the target population | Not required | Knowledge and awareness modules administered to a defined population |
| System & referral functioning | Referral-pathway mapping and service-availability assessment | Service inventory and pathway review required | Referral-pathway mapping, service-availability assessments against CPMS and GBViE minimum standards |
| Social norms change | Mixed-method assessment of attitudes and reported practices over time | Self-reported attitudes and practices; behavior observed where feasible | Validated attitude and norms scales, qualitative methods, administered with ethics safeguards |
Common evaluation questions
The questions that anchor design and data-collection decisions, grouped by cluster.
Community-Based Protection
Did community-based mechanisms increase the identification and referral of people at risk?
Evidence: Protection monitoring and referral records over time, triangulated with participatory assessment. Design: Implementation evaluation, before-and-after.
Do affected people report meaningful participation in protection decisions?
Evidence: Participatory assessment and perception data collected with informed consent. Design: Outcome evaluation.
GBV Prevention & Response
Did survivors who reached services receive timely, quality, survivor-centered case management?
Evidence: Service-quality review against GBViE minimum standards, using aggregate case data shared only under GBVIMS protocols. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Did prevention programming shift attitudes that condone violence among the target population?
Evidence: Validated attitude and norms measures at baseline and endline, collected under WHO ethics and safety guidance. Design: Outcome evaluation.
Child Protection
Did the program deliver case management for children at risk in line with humanitarian standards?
Evidence: Case management review against CPMS, using aggregate data under data-protection protocols. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Did family-based care and prevention of separation reach the intended caseload?
Evidence: Case management information system data triangulated with service-availability assessment. Design: Outcome evaluation.
Legal Aid & Justice Access
Did legal aid increase access to civil documentation or remedies for the target population?
Evidence: Program records of documentation and case outcomes, triangulated with client follow-up where consent allows. Design: Outcome evaluation.
Are legal information and referral pathways functioning as designed across sites?
Evidence: Referral-pathway mapping and service-availability assessment over time. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Protection for Special Populations
Did services reach persons with disabilities and other at-risk groups in proportion to need?
Evidence: Service data disaggregated using the Washington Group questions, triangulated with population profiling. Design: Implementation evaluation.
Were tailored protection responses adequate for the specific risks these groups face?
Evidence: Participatory assessment with the affected groups and service-quality review against minimum standards. Design: Outcome evaluation.
The standards that matter
Protection has a standards ecosystem built as much around ethics and information management as around indicators. Start with the IASC Protection Policy and the Global Protection Cluster for what protection outcomes mean and how to monitor them, use the CPMS and the GBViE minimum standards for sector-specific quality and indicators, and treat the WHO ethics and safety recommendations and GBVIMS information-sharing protocols as non-negotiable prerequisites for any GBV or child protection data. Use the Washington Group questions for disability disaggregation and Sphere Protection Principles as the do-no-harm backbone across the whole response.
IASC Policy on Protection in Humanitarian Action (2016) ↗
Inter-Agency Standing Committee policy framing protection as a collective outcome and the centrality of protection in humanitarian action.
Global Protection Cluster ↗
Coordination body providing protection monitoring, analysis, and information-management tools and guidance for protection response.
GBVIMS (Gender-Based Violence Information Management System) ↗
Standardized system and information-sharing protocols for safely collecting, storing, analyzing, and sharing GBV case data.
Inter-Agency Minimum Standards for GBV in Emergencies Programming (UNFPA) ↗
16 minimum standards with key actions and indicators for GBV prevention and response programming in emergencies.
Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action (CPMS) ↗
The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action standards with indicators for child protection programming.
WHO Ethical and Safety Recommendations for Researching, Documenting and Monitoring Sexual Violence in Emergencies ↗
Eight ethics and safety recommendations that must be met before any data on sexual violence is collected in emergencies.
Sphere Handbook: Protection Principles ↗
Four protection principles and the do-no-harm foundation for humanitarian response, with the Core Humanitarian Standard.
Washington Group on Disability Statistics ↗
Validated question sets for identifying functional difficulty, used for disability disaggregation in surveys and service data.
Common mistakes to avoid
Collecting prevalence of violence through program M&E
Prevalence estimation requires specialized population-based methods and ethics review and is not a program M&E task. The WHO ethics and safety recommendations and GBViE minimum standards are clear that programs should measure service access, quality, and outcomes, not prevalence.
Collecting or sharing GBV case data outside information-sharing protocols
GBV case data is governed by GBVIMS information-sharing protocols and survivor consent. Sharing identifiable data, or sharing without an agreed protocol, departs from GBVIMS guidance and can put survivors at risk.
Gathering sensitive data without the required ethics and safety safeguards
The WHO ethics and safety recommendations require that benefits outweigh risks, that only trained staff collect the data, and that referral pathways exist before collection begins. Treating these as optional is a compliance failure, not a methodological preference.
Using non-standard indicators instead of sector minimum standards
Custom protection indicators break comparability and coverage. Use the indicators in the CPMS and the GBViE minimum standards, and align monitoring to Global Protection Cluster guidance.
Reporting service contacts as protection outcomes
Counting people reached is an output. The CPMS and GBViE minimum standards assess quality and survivor-centered or child-centered practice, which contact counts do not capture.
Omitting disability and at-risk-group disaggregation
Without disaggregation, services cannot show they reach those most at risk. Use the Washington Group questions for disability and define at-risk groups up front, consistent with protection minimum standards.
Frequently asked questions
How do I handle ethics and safety for GBV or child protection data?
Treat ethics and safety as prerequisites, not an afterthought. For data on sexual and gender-based violence, follow the WHO ethical and safety recommendations: ensure benefits outweigh risks, use only trained staff, secure informed consent, and have referral pathways in place before collection. For case data, follow GBVIMS information-sharing protocols and keep identifiers separate. For child protection, align to the CPMS and apply data-protection protocols. If the safeguards cannot be met, do not collect the data.
Can I measure the prevalence of violence as a program indicator?
No. Prevalence requires specialized population-based research, ethics review, and methods that program M&E is not designed to deliver, and attempting it can cause harm. The WHO guidance and the GBViE minimum standards direct programs to measure service access, service quality, and survivor outcomes instead. Use indicators about whether services exist, are accessible, and meet standards, not how much violence occurred.
What protection indicators should I use for a donor proposal?
Use the indicators in the sector minimum standards rather than custom phrasing. For GBV, draw on the Inter-Agency Minimum Standards for GBV in Emergencies Programming. For child protection, use the CPMS. For overall protection monitoring, align to Global Protection Cluster guidance and the IASC Protection Policy. State your definition, data source, and how you protect sensitive data so reviewers can see the measurement is safe and standard.
How do I measure safety without simply asking people whether they feel safe?
Perceived safety is one input, collected with informed consent through participatory assessment or perception modules. Triangulate it with protection monitoring, service-access and barrier data, and referral-pathway functioning. Safety is best understood as a picture built from several sources rather than a single self-reported question, and the framing of any safety question should follow protection and ethics guidance.
How should I disaggregate protection data for at-risk groups?
Define your at-risk groups at design and disaggregate consistently. Use the Washington Group questions to identify functional difficulty for disability disaggregation, and disaggregate by sex and age throughout. Plan how identifying at-risk individuals interacts with confidentiality, so that disaggregation improves targeting without exposing people to additional risk.