Specialised GBV programmes, complex cases and ethical data management

1The Inter-Agency Minimum Standards (2019)

The Inter-Agency Minimum Standards for Gender-Based Violence in Emergencies Programming, published by UNFPA and the GBV AoR, set sixteen standards grouped into three sets: the foundational standards (guiding principles, women's and girls' participation and empowerment, staff care and support), the programming standards (healthcare, mental health and psychosocial support, case management, referral systems, safety and risk mitigation, justice and legal aid, dignity kits and cash assistance, economic empowerment and livelihoods, transforming systems and social norms, women and girls safe spaces) and the coordination and management standards (preparedness, assessment, monitoring and evaluation, GBV data collection and use).

Each standard includes key actions and indicators. Examples: female staff for services to women, regular supervision of caseworkers, dignity kits designed with women and distributed as an entry point to services, a GBV risk analysis in all cash programming.

2Supporting complex cases

Some cases require careful analysis and close supervision:

• Child survivors: application of the Caring for Child Survivors (CCS) guidelines, the child's consent according to age and maturity, agreement of the parent or guardian unless that person is the perpetrator or puts the child at risk, coordination with child protection.
• Close or powerful perpetrator (husband, leader, humanitarian worker): reinforced safety plan, absolute discretion in movements, temporary accommodation solutions.
• Sexual exploitation and abuse by humanitarian personnel: reporting through the dedicated PSEA channel, immediate assistance without waiting for the investigation, the victim is never confronted with the perpetrator.
• Mandatory reporting obligation: know it, explain it before the interview, assess its risks with the supervisor and apply it while minimising the risks for the survivor.

The rule remains the same: the survivor, or the child according to their maturity, takes part in every decision, and every action is preceded by a safety assessment.

3GBVIMS, Primero and the sharing protocol

The GBVIMS includes a standard incident classification, an intake form and a consent form, a recording tool (or its electronic version GBVIMS+ on Primero) and an information sharing protocol that specifies who receives which statistics, how often and for what purpose.

Good practices: specific consent for sharing non-identifying data, codes instead of names, grouping of small areas to avoid identification, trend analysis (types of incidents, time to access care, locations) to adapt programmes. A key indicator is the proportion of rape survivors who received PEP within 72 hours: a low rate signals access barriers to be removed.

4Quality, accountability and staff care

Quality is managed through supervision of caseworkers (case file reviews, observation, case studies), confidentially conducted client satisfaction surveys, focus group discussions with women on the accessibility of services and an adapted complaints mechanism. Feedback is used to adjust opening hours, locations and staff profiles.

GBV work exposes staff to vicarious trauma: a manageable caseload, supervision, recovery time and psychological support are part of the programme and the budget. An exhausted team makes confidentiality and safety errors.

5Designing a specialised GBV programme: from analysis to logical framework

A specialised GBV programme combines response services (health, case management, psychosocial support, safety, access to justice), support for risk mitigation in other sectors and, as soon as the context allows, prevention. The Inter-Agency Minimum Standards (2019) serve as a design framework: each component must be linked to a standard, its key actions and its indicators.

Phasing

A typical logical framework

Indicators to avoid

• "X% reduction in GBV cases": cannot be measured ethically and is counterproductive, because a good programme generally increases reporting.
• "Number of people reached by awareness-raising" with no measure of knowledge and no link to services.
• Targets for the number of survivors assisted presented as performance objectives: they encourage case-finding. Service capacity and quality are used instead.

Human resources

A programme covering 60,000 to 80,000 people across three sites and a host area typically includes: a GBV programme manager, one case management supervisor for every four to six caseworkers, a coordinator per safe space with two to three facilitators, a training and mitigation officer, an information management officer trained in the GBVIMS and a part-time clinical psychologist or technical mental health support. Field positions are mostly national; international management, where it exists, includes a skills transfer plan.

The quality of a GBV programme depends more on supervision and team stability than on the number of activities. A budget that funds six caseworkers without a supervisor produces a dangerous service.

6Full example: a twelve-month programme in Haute-Séno province

Fictional context. Haute-Séno province is hosting 72,000 internally displaced persons spread across three sites (Toumbel, 28,000; Garo, 21,000; Nawa, 9,000) and with host families in the provincial capital (14,000). A national women's rights NGO, the association Femmes Debout de Séno (fictional name), is the partner of an international NGO. The funding available for twelve months is USD 1,150,000, split between a humanitarian donor and the country-based pooled fund.

Components and budget

Service capacity and targets

Twelve caseworkers, each with 15 to 20 active cases and an average accompaniment period of three months, can support about 720 to 960 survivors over the year (12 caseworkers × 15 to 20 cases × 4 rotations). The target adopted is 800, presented to the donor as a service capacity and not as a number of cases to be reached. The safe spaces plan for 3,600 regular participants (at least four visits per month).

Results at six months and critical reading

Decisions taken

• Targeted information campaign on the message "after a rape, come within 72 hours", disseminated through community health workers, safe spaces and women's committees, without encouraging disclosure.
• Redeployment of two caseworkers from the mobile team to the host area, with a weekly presence at the health centre in the provincial capital.
• Two-day refresher training on safety planning, with targeted case file reviews by supervisors.
• Review of opening hours in Garo with participants: opening on Saturday mornings.

At twelve months, the proportion of rape survivors presenting within 72 hours reaches 57%, which can still be improved but reflects the effect of community information. The national partner now provides supervision for two of the three sites.

7Complex cases: analysis and decision-making frameworks

Complex cases are those in which several principles come into tension: the survivor's choice and a legal obligation, consent and the best interests of the child, safety and access to justice. No caseworker should handle them alone. The rule is immediate supervision, a documented decision and, if necessary, a case conference bringing together, with the survivor's consent, only the actors involved, using codes and without unnecessary detail.

Five-question analysis framework

1. What is the immediate risk to the life or physical integrity of the survivor, her children or staff?
2. What does the survivor want, and has she received all the information she needs to decide?
3. Which legal or institutional obligations apply (reporting concerning minors, PSEA policy)?
4. Which options actually exist (shelter, relocation, care, protection) and what risks does each one carry?
5. Which option best respects the guiding principles, and how can the risks of the chosen option be reduced?

Typical situations

In a complex case, the most common mistake is not a bad decision but a decision taken too quickly, alone and without documentation. A careful decision, supervised and explained to the survivor, protects both her and the organisation.

8GBVIMS in practice: from the intake form to the quarterly report

The Gender-Based Violence Information Management System (GBVIMS), developed by UNFPA, UNICEF, UNHCR, IRC and IMC, has four components: the incident classification, the intake and initial assessment form, the incident recorder (Excel database) or its electronic version GBVIMS+ on the Primero platform, and the information-sharing protocol.

The data flow

1. Intake: the caseworker fills in the paper or electronic form using a code; consent to sharing non-identifying data is requested separately.
2. Classification: the incident is classified according to the six GBVIMS types by following the decision tree (for example, a rape accompanied by beating is classified as rape, the most serious type according to the order of the classification).
3. Data entry: within 72 hours, by an authorised person, on a computer protected by password and encryption; monthly quality control by the GBVIMS officer.
4. Extraction: only data from survivors who have consented are included in the shared statistics.
5. Consolidation: the agency designated in the protocol consolidates data from the signatory organisations and produces a quarterly report.
6. Use: analysis at sub-cluster meetings, programming and advocacy decisions.

Worked example: quarterly report for the fictional district of Liboka

The percentages for incident types are rounded; their total may differ slightly from 100%. The correct reading of this table is not "intimate partner violence is the main form of violence in the district", but "among incidents reported to participating services, the majority involve an intimate partner; services must be adapted to this reality (safety plans, shelter, economic empowerment)".

Protection rules in reports

• Suppress or group cells below the threshold set by the protocol (often 5) when they could allow a person to be identified, particularly for small sites, male survivors, persons with disabilities or certain nationalities.
• Never cross-tabulate several fine-grained variables (exact age, site, incident type, month) in the same disseminated table.
• Aggregate at the minimum geographical level set by the protocol (for example the district, not the site).
• Accompany each report with the statement that the data do not reflect prevalence.

Day-to-day data security

9Quality, accountability to survivors and staff care

The quality of a GBV service is not measured by the number of case files opened but by the safety, respect and effectiveness of the support provided. The Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) and the Inter-Agency Minimum Standards converge on three requirements: structured supervision, regular feedback from the people served and well-supported staff.

Case file review checklist (monthly supervision)

Each month, the supervisor reviews a sample of at least 10% of each caseworker's active case files, and all high-risk case files. The results are discussed individually and feed into the training plan.

Accountability to survivors

• Satisfaction survey at case closure, administered by someone other than the caseworker, anonymous, with a few closed questions (reception, respect for choices, confidentiality, usefulness) and one open question.
• Quarterly focus group discussions with safe space participants on the accessibility of services, without discussing individual cases.
• Complaints mechanism that allows inappropriate behaviour by GBV staff themselves to be reported, through a channel independent of the team.
• Feedback to communities on the changes made as a result of their input.

Staff care

Repeated exposure to accounts of violence produces vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue and burnout. The Minimum Standards standard on staff care and support requires organisations to address these as an institutional rather than individual responsibility:

• manageable caseloads and respected working hours;
• regular clinical supervision, separate from line management where possible;
• monthly group debriefings facilitated by a qualified person;
• confidential access to external psychological support;
• recovery days after particularly difficult cases;
• security measures for staff exposed to threats from perpetrators;
• attention to national staff, who are often themselves affected by the crisis and subject to community pressure.

Staff care appears in the budget. A programme with no "clinical supervision and psychological support for staff" line is not compliant with the Minimum Standards.

10Common mistakes, contextual variations, interview questions and references

Common mistakes

What donors, evaluators and auditors check

• Compliance with the Minimum Standards, with quality indicators and not only volume indicators.
• The caseload per caseworker and the actual frequency of supervision.
• Signature of the SOPs and the information-sharing protocol, and the absence of any identifying data in reports.
• The share of the budget allocated to the national partner and its institutional strengthening.
• Staff care and data security measures.
• The PSEA and safeguarding policies of the organisation and its partners.

Variations by context

• Sudden-onset emergency: deployment of GBV experts through surge mechanisms (for example GBV AoR deployments), simplified procedures, clinical priority.
• Protracted crisis: integration into national social protection systems, support to public services, legislative advocacy (age of marriage, marital rape, free health care).
• Camp: concentrated services, risk that survivors are visible when going to the service; multiply discreet entry points.
• Urban settings: case management linked to municipal social services, helplines, housing assistance.
• Remote management: phone-based case management under strict criteria, remote supervision, adapted consent, strengthening of partners on the ground.
• Local partners with low capacity: gradual support (information and referral, then psychosocial support, then case management), co-supervision, funding of core costs.

Interview questions

Key references

• UNFPA and GBV AoR, Inter-Agency Minimum Standards for Gender-Based Violence in Emergencies Programming (2019).
• Interagency GBV Case Management Working Group, Interagency Gender-Based Violence Case Management Guidelines (2017).
• GBVIMS Steering Committee, GBVIMS User Guide, Incident Recorder and Information Sharing Protocol Template; GBVIMS+ and Primero documentation.
• IRC and UNICEF, Caring for Child Survivors of Sexual Abuse (2012).
• IASC, Six Core Principles relating to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (revised in 2019); Secretary-General's Bulletin ST/SGB/2003/13.
• WHO and UNHCR, mhGAP Humanitarian Intervention Guide (2015).
• IRC, Guidelines for Mobile and Remote Gender-Based Violence Service Delivery (2018).
• CHS Alliance, Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability.
• GBV AoR, Handbook for Coordinating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Emergencies (2019).