Day 3: Mainstreaming and responding

1Protection mainstreaming

Protection mainstreaming means applying protection principles in all programmes, whatever the sector. The Global Protection Cluster identifies four elements:

Prioritise safety and dignity, and avoid causing harm: prevent and minimise the negative effects of the intervention. Examples: sex-segregated latrines, lit and lockable from the inside, less than 50 m from shelters according to Sphere; distributions finished before nightfall.
Meaningful access: access without barriers, in proportion to need and without discrimination, paying attention to people with disabilities, older people, isolated people or those without documents.
Accountability: mechanisms through which people can give feedback, complain and receive a response, including confidential channels for sexual exploitation and abuse.
Participation and empowerment: involve people in design and monitoring, and strengthen their own protection capacities.

The four Sphere Protection Principles point in the same direction: enhance people's safety, dignity and rights and avoid exposing them to further harm; ensure access to assistance according to need; assist people to recover from the effects of violence; help people claim their rights.

2The ICRC Professional Standards

The Professional Standards for Protection Work, published by the ICRC (third edition, 2018) following consultation with United Nations agencies, NGOs and human rights organisations, set common minimum requirements. The most important ones:

Place people and the prevention of harm at the centre: every activity is assessed according to its risks for the people concerned.
Act according to the principles of humanity, impartiality and non-discrimination, and clearly define one's objectives and mode of action.
Base the strategy on regularly updated analysis, and seek complementarity with other actors rather than duplication.
Manage personal data and sensitive information rigorously: purpose, security, limited and protected sharing.
Have the necessary professional capacity: training, supervision, support for staff exposed to traumatic accounts.

3Individual protection assistance and referral

Individual protection assistance responds to a specific situation that exposes a person or household to a risk: a one-off cash transfer to avoid an eviction or a child being taken out of school, an assistive device for a person with a disability, legal support, transport to a service. It is based on an individual assessment, an action plan, follow-up and documented closure, often within the framework of protection case management.

Safe referral requires up-to-date service mapping (who does what, where, with which criteria), the person's consent, sharing the minimum of information and checking that the service has actually been received. For GBV survivors, the survivor-centred approach applies: safety, confidentiality, respect for choices, non-discrimination. All staff must know how to provide psychological first aid and refer, even without being specialists.

4Civil documentation, HLP and mine action

Civil documentation (birth certificate, identity card, marriage or death certificate) determines access to services, freedom of movement, inheritance and durable solutions. Responses: legal information, support with procedures, mobile courts, advocacy for free issuance and late birth registration.

Housing, land and property (HLP) concerns security of tenure, forced evictions, secondary occupation of displaced people's property, women's rights to inherit and own, and land disputes. The Pinheiro Principles (2005) enshrine the right to restitution. In practice: written rental agreements, dispute mediation, land verification before any shelter construction.

Mine action comprises five pillars: humanitarian demining, explosive ordnance risk education, victim assistance, stockpile destruction and advocacy, in particular for the Ottawa Convention (1997). The key awareness messages: do not touch, do not approach, mark if possible without touching, retrace your steps and report to the authorities or demining operators. No non-specialist humanitarian handles or moves a device.

In-depth course

Detailed methods, a complete worked example, tools, common mistakes and interview questions.

5Conducting a protection mainstreaming audit and a safety audit

Protection mainstreaming cannot simply be declared in a proposal: it has to be verified in the field. Two complementary tools are used: the protection mainstreaming audit, which examines a sectoral programme against the four elements, and the safety audit, a site observation method drawn from GBV prevention practice, which identifies physical risk factors in a site or neighbourhood.

Mainstreaming audit: the method

Prepare (1 to 2 days): select the programme, read the proposal, logframe and reports; form a mixed team (a protection specialist and a specialist from the sector concerned, ideally a woman and a man).
Observe (1 to 2 days): visit activity locations (distribution, water point, health centre, school), using a grid for each element.
Consult: 4 to 6 focus group discussions with users, separated by sex and age, including persons with disabilities and older people; interviews with staff and committees.
Analyse the mechanisms: targeting criteria and lists, complaints and feedback mechanism, code of conduct and staff training on protection from sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA).
Report back to the programme team with a prioritised action plan: immediate measures (less than a month, at no cost), measures to be budgeted, measures to be raised with the sector cluster.
Follow up on implementation after three months.

Useful quantitative benchmarks (Sphere Handbook 2018 and recognised practice)

Area	Benchmark	Link with protection
Water	A minimum of 15 litres per person per day; water point less than 500 m from any household; queuing time of less than 30 minutes	Long journeys and queues expose people to assault and take children out of school
Sanitation	One toilet per 20 people in the medium term (one per 50 in the initial phase); less than 50 m from shelters; sex-segregated, lit, lockable from the inside; recommended ratio of 3 female toilets to 1 male toilet in public places	Safety and dignity, especially at night
Shelter	3.5 m² of covered living space per person in warm climates; 45 m² per person of total site area including gardens (30 m² without)	Overcrowding, privacy, risks of domestic violence
Distributions	Completed during the day with enough time to return home before dark; priority queues; reasonable distance from where people live	Theft and assault on the way home, exclusion of people with reduced mobility
Health	Clinical management of rape available; post-exposure prophylaxis within 72 hours and emergency contraception within 120 hours (Minimum Initial Service Package for Sexual and Reproductive Health)	Confidential access to care for survivors

Mainstreaming audit grid (extract)

Element	Verification questions	Yes / No / Partial
Safety and dignity	Were activity locations chosen after consulting women and at-risk groups? Do the timings allow people to return home in daylight? Does a programme risk analysis exist and is it kept up to date?
Meaningful access	Are the targeting criteria public and understood? Do persons with disabilities, older people, people without documents or from a minority actually gain access (disaggregated data)? Are there arrangements for people who cannot travel?
Accountability	At least two complaint channels, one of them confidential and one accessible to people who cannot read? Response time defined and respected? Are complaints relating to sexual exploitation and abuse handled through a separate procedure?
Participation and empowerment	Are committees representative (at least 50% women, presence of persons with disabilities and young people)? Have people influenced programme decisions, with examples?

Site safety audit: points to observe

Lighting of the routes to toilets, showers and water points; dark areas.
Location of shelters of female-headed households, unaccompanied children, isolated older people.
Presence of armed men, drinking venues, night-time gathering places.
Walking distances to services and fuel collection areas.
Physical accessibility (ramps, pathways, adapted toilets).
Presence and visibility of female staff in services.

The audit is conducted during the day and in the evening, involving women and adolescent girls from the site, and its findings are shared with site management and the sectors concerned in the form of recommendations, never as a list of incidents.

The IASC Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action (2015) provide risk-reduction actions sector by sector: they are the most operational reference for auditing non-specialised programmes.

The accountability commitment: the Core Humanitarian Standard

The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS), revised in 2024, sets out nine commitments to people and communities, including safety and respect for rights, access to safe and responsive complaints mechanisms, and participation in decisions. Organisations certified or verified against the CHS must demonstrate that their programmes apply these commitments: the protection mainstreaming audit provides part of the expected evidence.

6Case management and individual protection assistance in detail

Protection case management is a structured method of individual support for a person or family exposed to a protection risk, provided by a trained social worker or caseworker, who assesses the situation, develops a plan with the person, coordinates services and follows up until closure. It differs from simple referral in its continuity and its responsibility for the case. For children and for GBV survivors, specific frameworks apply (Inter-Agency Guidelines for Case Management and Child Protection, Interagency Gender-Based Violence Case Management Guidelines), implemented by specialised actors.

The steps of case management

Step	Content	Indicative timeframes
1. Identification and registration	Identification through monitoring, a referral or a self-referral; checking criteria; consent	Initial contact within 24 hours for a high risk
2. Assessment	Safety situation, needs, resources, the person's wishes; risk level (high, medium, low)	High risk: assessment and action within 24 hours; medium: within 3 days; low: within the week
3. Case action plan	Agreed objectives, actions, responsible persons, deadlines; possible inclusion of individual assistance	Within two weeks of the assessment
4. Implementation	Direct services, referrals, accompaniment, cash or in-kind assistance	According to the plan
5. Follow-up and review	Visits or calls, checking that services were received, review of the plan	High risk: at least weekly; medium: every two weeks; low: monthly
6. Closure	Objectives achieved, risk reduced, transfer, documented loss of contact or at the person's request; closure interview	After stabilisation, often 3 to 6 months

These timeframes reflect the practices disseminated by the inter-agency guidelines; each operation sets them in its standard operating procedures.

Caseloads and supervision

A caseworker generally follows between 15 and 25 active cases, fewer if the cases are complex or distances are long.
A supervisor oversees 5 to 6 caseworkers, with individual supervision at least monthly and a weekly review of high-risk cases.
Case files are coded; the key linking code and identity is kept separately, with restricted access.

Individual protection assistance (IPA)

IPA is assistance provided in kind, in cash or in the form of services, within a case management plan, to reduce a specific risk. Cash for protection is guided by the GPC Task Team on Cash for Protection and the Cash Learning Partnership (CALP). Basic rules:

Link with the risk: each form of assistance responds to a risk identified in the assessment (example: paying two months of rent arrears to prevent the imminent eviction of a single woman with children).
Justified amount: based on the actual cost of the need (quotation, rent, procedural fees), within a scale approved by the organisation and harmonised as far as possible at cluster level.
Limited duration: one-off or over a few months, with a handover strategy (livelihoods, regular transfer programme, social protection).
Risk analysis of the assistance itself: a payment may expose the person (theft, family pressure, jealousy); the delivery modality is chosen with them.
Control: dual approval (caseworker and supervisor); non-intrusive verification of use; financial traceability in line with donor rules, without exposing people's identities in shared accounting documents.

Safe referral: standard operating procedures

The referral procedures for an area specify for each type of need: the competent service, the focal point, the eligibility criteria, the contact arrangements, the form, the consent required and the expected feedback time. They are validated by the cluster and its AoRs, updated at least every three months and disseminated to all sectors. A good system tracks the rate of referrals that received a response (a target often set at more than 80%) and the average time to service.

Referral is not a transfer of responsibility: the referring organisation checks, with the person's agreement, that the service was actually received. Referral without follow-up is one of the main causes of loss of community trust.

7Full example: an individual protection assistance programme in Selbara

This fictional case presents the design and the first six months of a case management programme with individual assistance in a medium-sized town hosting IDPs.

Context and design

The town of Selbara hosts 31,000 IDPs, mostly renting or staying with relatives. Monitoring highlighted three priority risks: evictions of displaced tenants, hazardous child labour to compensate for lost income, and lack of documents exposing people to arrest. The NGO Arcadis Solidarité (fictional) obtains 12 months of funding for a team of 6 caseworkers, 1 supervisor, 1 lawyer and 1 information management assistant. Objective: 300 cases opened during the year, 70% of them closed with risk reduction.

Individual assistance scale (validated with the cluster's cash working group)

Type of assistance	Trigger criterion	Amount or ceiling	Duration
Eviction prevention	Eviction notice or rent arrears and no alternative	Up to 3 months' rent, ceiling of 240 reference currency units	One-off, with mediation and a written lease
Support to remove a child from hazardous work	Child under 15 in hazardous work, in conjunction with child protection	60 per month	3 months, with school re-enrolment and referral to a livelihoods programme
Civil documentation	Lack of a document exposing the person to an identified risk	Actual costs (registry fees, photographs, transport) up to 35 per person	One-off
Transport to a service	Essential service inaccessible	Actual cost	According to the plan
Emergency in-kind assistance	Immediate high risk (temporary relocation, essential items)	Ceiling of 150	One-off

The path of a case (anonymised and fictional)

Case SEL-0147. A 34-year-old woman, displaced for 14 months, with three children aged 4, 9 and 12, is referred by a shelter team after receiving an ultimatum to leave within 10 days for four months of unpaid rent (200 units). Her 12-year-old son has been working on a construction site for two months.

Day 1: contact by the caseworker, consent, assessment. Risk assessed as high (imminent eviction, child in hazardous work).
Day 3: action plan agreed: mediation with the landlord; payment of 3 months' arrears (180) in exchange for a written 6-month lease; referral of the child to child protection and school re-enrolment; referral to an income-generating activities programme; application for birth certificates for the two youngest children.
Day 6: successful mediation, lease signed; payment by mobile transfer to the landlord with the tenant's agreement.
Week 3: the child is enrolled in school; support of 60 per month for 3 months, paid to the mother.
Month 2: enrolment in the livelihoods programme; birth certificates obtained during a mobile court hearing.
Month 4: follow-up visit: rent paid two months in a row, child in school, modest regular income. Risk assessed as low.
Month 5: closure with an interview, information on the possibility of coming back.

Direct cost of assistance for this case: 180 + 180 + 22 (documents) = 382 units, plus staff time and mediation.

Six-month review

Indicator	Value	Comment
Cases opened	163	58% referred by other sectors, evidence of effective mainstreaming
High-risk cases contacted within 24 hours	91% (49 out of 54)	Five delays due to access constraints
Cases closed	88	Of which 71 with objectives achieved (81%), 9 transfers, 6 losses of contact, 2 at the person's request
Evictions prevented among threatened households	47 out of 52	Verified by a visit at 3 months
Children removed from hazardous work and in school at 3 months	23 out of 29	Six went back to work: reflection on the duration of support
Referrals that received a response	84%	Low response from mental health (only one facility)
Satisfaction expressed at closure	92% satisfied or very satisfied	Recurring complaint: delay for documentation
Average caseload per caseworker	22 active cases	Close to the ceiling; recruitment of a seventh caseworker requested

Lessons learned by the team

Paying arrears is only effective with a written lease and mediation; without these, evictions resume after two to three months.
Three months of support for child labour is too short when the handover to livelihoods is delayed: provide for a possible extension on the supervisor's decision.
The lack of mental health services is a gap to be raised with the cluster and the health sector, not to be filled by improvisation at caseworker level.

An individual assistance programme is judged on documented risk reduction at closure and a few months afterwards, not on the amount distributed. The traceability of each decision (risk, plan, amount, approval) is also what the donor's auditor will check.

8Civil documentation, HLP and mine action: operational methods

Organising mobile court hearings for late birth registration

Legal analysis: legal deadlines for registration, procedure for a supplementary judgment or late registration, fees, required documents, territorial jurisdiction of the courts.
Agreement with the judicial authorities: president of the court, prosecutor, civil registry; written protocol setting dates, locations, costs covered (transport and allowances for judges and clerks according to official scales, supplies) and number of cases per session.
Pre-identification and preparation of case files: information sessions, collection of supporting documents (witness statements, vaccination cards, attestations), pre-checking by paralegals. Allow 3 to 6 weeks.
Hearing: a two- to three-day session can process 300 to 600 cases depending on the jurisdiction.
Transcription and handover: transcription into the civil registers, then handover of certificates to families, often the longest and most neglected phase.
Follow-up: check that the certificates are recognised by schools, services and authorities.

The cost per certificate obtained varies greatly between countries; tracking the unit cost makes it possible to compare approaches and to negotiate fee waivers or reductions with the authorities.

HLP: land tenure verification before any shelter construction

Step	Verification	Evidence to keep
1. Identify the rights holder	Title, register, customary attestation, statements from neighbours and local authorities	Copies of documents, verification report
2. Identify other rights holders	Heirs, co-owners, wives and daughters, seasonal users	List and consent of each
3. Check that there is no dispute	Consultation of neighbours, the chief, the town hall, the register	Certificate of no dispute
4. Formalise the agreement	Duration of occupancy (often 3 to 5 years for a transitional shelter), conditions, free of charge or rent, what happens to the structures at the end	Written agreement signed by the parties and countersigned by the local authority
5. Inform beneficiaries	Explanation of rights and obligations in a language they understand	Signed form or recorded consent
6. Follow up	Annual verification of security of tenure	Monitoring report

Guidance from the Shelter Cluster and the HLP AoR on due diligence regarding security of tenure sets out these steps. The requirement is not always a formal title, which may be out of reach: it is sufficient security of tenure for the duration of the intervention, demonstrated by reasonable evidence.

Mine action: what a non-specialised actor does

Integrate explosive ordnance risk education (EORE) into its programmes, relying on accredited operators and messages validated by the national authority or the AoR, in line with the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS 12.10 on risk education).
Train its staff: explosive ordnance risk awareness for humanitarian staff is a prerequisite in contaminated areas; routes and activity sites are checked with the clearance operator.
Report any ordnance observed, with approximate location and description, to the AoR focal point or the national authority, without approaching it.
Refer victims to victim assistance (emergency care, rehabilitation, prosthetics and orthotics, psychosocial support, economic inclusion), which also falls under the rights of persons with disabilities.
Coordinate before any return: no promotion of return to an area that has not been surveyed; request a non-technical survey of return areas, farmland and water points.

All three areas (documentation, HLP, mine action) directly determine durable solutions: a return plan that does not include property verification, documentation and decontamination is not a protection plan.

9Applying the ICRC Professional Standards: self-assessment of a programme

The Professional Standards lend themselves to an annual self-assessment of a protection programme. The exercise takes one day in a workshop with the team, and feeds into the improvement plan and responses to donors. The grid below covers its main areas.

Area	Self-assessment question	Expected evidence
Overarching principles	Has each activity been examined in terms of the harm it may cause, and is the result documented?	Programme risk analysis, dated update
Managing protection strategies	Are the objectives based on a recent analysis, and is the mode of action (persuasion, support, substitution...) explicit?	Written strategy, analysis less than 6 months old
Legal framework	Do staff know the applicable norms and do they use them in dialogue with the authorities?	Dialogue notes, training delivered
Promoting complementarity	Does the organisation take part in coordination and avoid duplication (monitoring, case management)?	5W, cluster minutes, agreements with other actors
Managing information	Is there an impact assessment, data-sharing protocols, a retention period?	Signed documents, access log
Professional capacity	Are staff trained, supervised and supported (including psychologically)?	Training plan, supervision log, support arrangements
Accountability	Have people given their views on the programme and has this changed anything?	Feedback data, decisions resulting from it

The scale: 0 = absent, 1 = exists but not applied, 2 = partially applied, 3 = applied and verified. Any score of 0 or 1 in the “overarching principles” and “managing information” areas calls for corrective action within the month.

Common mistakes and donor expectations for the response

Mistake	Correction
Individual assistance distributed by category (all widows, all female-headed households)	Individual risk assessment and plan
Case management without supervision or caseload ceiling	Budgeted ratios and supervision
Service mapping more than six months old	Mandatory quarterly update
“Protection mainstreaming” training without follow-up	Audit at 3 months, action plan per sector
Shelter construction without land tenure verification	HLP due diligence before any commitment

Donors (DG ECHO, BHA, pooled funds) check in particular: the Gender-Age Marker, the existence of a programme risk analysis, the complaints mechanism and PSEA arrangements, consistency of individual assistance amounts with cluster scales, and traceability of decisions without exposing personal data in financial reports.

Contextual variations

Sudden-onset emergency: priority to referral and emergency assistance; simplified case management; identification of separated children from the very first days.
Protracted crisis: full case management, links with national social protection, civil documentation and HLP at the heart of solutions.
Camp: close coordination with site management; regular safety audits; concentrated services.
Urban: identification through municipal services, schools and associations; cash transfers more relevant; rental risks predominant.
Remote management: case management limited to partners with qualified supervisors; structured remote supervision; named case files never sent by messaging apps.
Partners with limited capacity: start with referral and protection mainstreaming before case management; accompany them towards case management with mentoring.

Interview questions

Question	Elements of a strong answer
How would you audit a distribution from a protection mainstreaming perspective?	The four elements; observation, separate consultations, analysis of lists and complaints; Sphere benchmarks; prioritised action plan with responsible persons.
What is the difference between referral and case management?	Continuity and responsibility for the case; assessment, plan, coordination, follow-up, closure; timeframes according to risk level.
How do you set the amount of individual assistance?	Link with the risk; actual cost; scale harmonised at cluster level; duration and handover; analysis of the risk linked to the payment; dual approval.
What do you check before building a shelter on borrowed land?	Due diligence steps; rights holders, including women; written agreement with a duration; countersignature by the authorities; follow-up.
Your team finds an explosive device near a distribution site. What do you do?	Stop, do not approach, retrace your steps, report; suspend use of the route; inform communities; coordinate with the operator; revise the risk analysis.

Key references

Global Protection Cluster, Protection Mainstreaming Toolkit.
Sphere Project, The Sphere Handbook, 2018 edition (Protection Principles, WASH, shelter and health standards).
CHS Alliance, Groupe URD and Sphere, Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability, 2024 edition.
IASC, Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action, 2015.
ICRC, Professional Standards for Protection Work, third edition, 2018.
Inter-agency case management working groups, Inter-Agency Guidelines for Case Management and Child Protection; Interagency Gender-Based Violence Case Management Guidelines.
Global Protection Cluster, guidance on protection case management and on cash for protection; CALP resources.
Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crises, Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) for Sexual and Reproductive Health.
United Nations, Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons (Pinheiro Principles), 2005.
United Nations Mine Action Service, International Mine Action Standards (IMAS), including IMAS 12.10.
IASC, Guidelines on the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action, 2019.

Mainstreaming and responding