Evaluation of UNHCR’s approach to gender-based violence (GBV) prevention, risk mitigation and response

EVO/2025/09

Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is twofold:

1. to ensure accountability by assessing UNHCR's work on Gender-Based Violence (GBV) prevention, risk mitigation, response, and other core GBV policy areas, while analyzing factors affecting progress
2. to facilitate learning by analyzing UNHCR's position in the GBV ecosystem and providing recommendations for future programming, strategy, and policy development.

Approach

The evaluation employed a mixed-methods, theory-based design, guided by the GBV policy as its main analytical framework. The analytical framework assesses two ‘streams’ of GBV Policy implementation:

1. delivery
2. institutional strengthening.

The nine ‘core actions’ of the GBV Policy cut across these two streams. These pathways target a reduction in GBV risk and increased reach of GBV services. The evaluation utilized participatory approaches with key stakeholders including partners, women-led organizations, and affected populations.

The methods included:

• Desk review: A comprehensive review of approximately 450 documents, conducted in two phases, and secondary analysis of UNHCR datasets.
• Case studies: Primary data collection through nine country-level case studies (four in-depth, five light-touch), complemented by visits to three Regional Bureaus and qualitative data collection at global and regional levels.
• Comparative analysis: To explore partnerships with other GBV actors and gather feedback on UNHCR's positioning.
• Most significant change and pathways to impact: Participatory group discussions were used to collect stories of change.

A total of 610 people participated in interviews and group discussions, and 735 UNHCR staff globally participated in the online survey. Ethical considerations included compliance with UNEG and UNHCR policies, drawing from WHO guidelines for research and evaluation on GBV, and avoiding direct participation of survivors receiving GBV services.

The evaluation was guided by seven evaluation questions (EQs) and 14 sub-questions, mapped against six evaluation criteria: relevance, coherence (internal and external), effectiveness, efficiency, progress towards impact, and strategic positioning.

• Relevance (EQ1): To what extent does the UNHCR approach to GBV prevention, risk mitigation, and response respond to the needs of the people with and for whom UNHCR works?
• Coherence (EQ2 & EQ3): To what extent is UNHCR's current approach to GBV prevention, risk mitigation, and response aligned in terms of corporate policy and strategy (EQ2)? To what extent is UNHCR's current approach aligned in terms of the broader UN system, other partners, and countries (EQ3)?
• Effectiveness (EQ4): What progress has been made towards achieving UNHCR commitments to GBV prevention, risk mitigation, and response at all levels and in all contexts where UNHCR works?
• Efficiency (EQ5): How efficient is the delivery of GBV programming under the Policy?
• Progress Towards Impact (EQ6): To what extent has the GBV Policy contributed to progress made in GBV prevention, risk mitigation, and response at all levels and in all contexts where UNHCR works?
• Strategic Positioning (EQ7): Looking forward, what should UNHCR do to ensure that it is strategically positioned and ready to deliver on its objectives to address GBV?

The GBV policy provides clear direction for programming, highlighting GBV as a shared responsibility, and is highly relevant for refugees and asylum seekers, particularly women and girl GBV survivors. However, its relevance has diminished for other populations due to coordination gaps and challenges in implementing guidelines. The policy aligns with other UNHCR interventions and the AGD Policy, though prioritization varies across levels. Effective advocacy, data collection, multi-sectoral response, and coordination are observed, though gaps in single-sector response and AGD programming persist. Efficiency measures have sometimes hindered long-term goals, with staffing reductions affecting leadership and advocacy. Progress towards impact is observed in response and advocacy, though measuring outcomes remains challenging.

UNHCR’s comparative advantage lies in its operational presence and protection mandate, though commitment to risk mitigation and mainstreaming varies. At global and regional levels, UNHCR's implementation of the GBV policy aligns with inter-agency approaches, showcasing strong partnerships and coordination, influencing collaboration at the country level. Despite these efforts, UNHCR is not widely recognized as a significant GBV actor among some donors at the global level. At the operations level, UNHCR and partners' GBV response programming align with survivor-centered approaches and GBV minimum standards but face resourcing constraints, affecting the quality of response and case management. Legal protection gaps persist in countries not signatories to the Refugee Convention, hindering access to justice. Internal questions about UNHCR's role in GBV prevention reflect broader concerns about its long-term prevention efforts, misconceptions about the role of prevention, and perceptions that it is non-lifesaving, negatively impacting prioritization and resourcing decisions.

Summary of supporting findings by policy areas and programmatic enablers:

• Policy relevance and implementation gaps: The GBV Policy provides clear direction but lacks visibility and ownership beyond GBV specialists. It is highly relevant in refugee settings under UNHCR-led coordination but less applicable in IDP/mixed contexts due to unclear guidance and weak accountability.
• GBV response including case management: UNHCR effectively strengthens GBV response through integrated, survivor-centered services and is recognized for its leadership in case management; improving access to and satisfaction with GBV services, especially in refugee settings. However, progress is hampered by staff burnout, turnover, funding constraints, and challenges in monitoring quality, data systems, and adapting protocols.
• GBV risk mitigation and mainstreaming: UNHCR operations demonstrate commitment to GBV risk mitigation, especially via multifunctional teams, but ownership varies significantly across contexts due to operational factors, leadership communication, capacity and resource constraints, as well as weak accountability mechanisms. While GBV mainstreaming has been effective in enhancing protection for at risk populations in some sectors like shelter and water/sanitation, inconsistencies and gaps persist in uneven implementation in safety audits, a lack of prioritization in risk mitigation where resources are scarce, and poor documentation of risk mitigation results.
• GBV prevention: Due to funding shortfalls, UNHCR and partners have increasingly shifted GBV prevention interventions to a narrower set of awareness-raising activities. Primary prevention efforts were found to be most effective when implemented comprehensively over time and carefully tailored to local realities. this holds true even in contexts where initiatives aimed at long-term social norms and behaviour change are challenging to implement. While UNHCR is increasingly supporting prevention efforts through Women-Led Organizations, GBV prevention is frequently deprioritized due to perceptions that it is less immediately lifesaving than GBV response.
• Planning, prioritization, and resource allocation: Globally, GBV needs remain underfunded – with high levels of expenditure/execution against budgetary allocations. While trends vary across regions and contexts, operations have shown an overall increase in GBV prioritization i.e. compared to other programmatic area, through their resource allocation, however, this is not necessarily linked to the GBV policy, but rather to individuals who were already supportive of GBV programming prior to the policy.
• Monitoring and use of data: Some strong examples of data utilization to strengthen GBV programming were observed, including safety audits (where they occur), participatory assessments, and survivor satisfaction data. However, gaps in measuring broader impact persist, particularly in risk mitigation and prevention due to inconsistencies in data collection, human capacity, and limited availability of baseline and endline data.
• Partnerships: UNHCR continues to increase its commitment to localization and partnerships with Women-Led Organizations, though administrative and bureaucratic hurdles persist. At the same time a shift to generalist protection partners has reduced GBV expertise, impacting service quality.
• Coordination: While UNHCR demonstrates strength and added-value in sub-national coordination, national-level coordination gaps require strategic engagement to maintain UNHCR's credibility and influence in inter-agency settings.
• Knowledge and capacity building: UNHCR is building stronger e-learning platforms for internal capacity-building, but staff access is uneven due to resourcing gaps. These include lack of translated materials and insufficient time for staff (particularly those multi-hatting) to engage in online courses. UNHCR’s technical capacity to support protection outcomes (and GBV) is widely recognized, with partners increasingly taking on capacity-building responsibilities in resource-constrained settings. Strong examples have been observed in relation to UNHCR’s focus on building government’s GBV capacity and in peer-peer learning and capacity building, both within UNHCR and between partners.
• Staffing: The GBV workforce has increased over time, however, recent reductions in senior GBV positions have affected leadership and resource mobilization capacity. Strong results are associated with specialization, though views on generalist vs. specialist positions are divided. Irrespective, the evaluation found that excessive multi-hatting of protection staff, including those with GBV roles, negatively impacts the quality of GBV programming.
• Age, gender and diversity: UNHCR is largely complying with minimum standards of the Age, Gender and Diversity (AGD) policy. However, the evaluation identified gaps in policy content and implementation in certain areas including engagement with LGBTQI+ individuals, men and boys, and people with disabilities.
• GBV advocacy: UNHCR has achieved strong progress in relation to advocacy with government actors on GBV, with tangible impacts observed. However, the strength and success of advocacy efforts vary substantially according to contextual factors on the ground. The evaluation findings suggest that across different contexts, sub-national advocacy efforts are most effective, including in highly challenging settings.
• Strategic positioning: Rooted in its protection mandate, the greatest comparative advantage of UNHCR is its operational presence, which facilitates several strengths in access, partnership, and coordination. This operational footprint can also be a disadvantage given that UNHCR is often the one left when others are absent from or leave the field. While UNHCR has advocated for GBV prevention and response in high-level forums, it could do more to leverage its protection mandate to ensure that GBV is consistently central to discussions and participate more actively in a broader range of platforms where GBV is discussed.

The recommendations prioritize practical actions, systemic accountability, and strategic adaptation, considering current humanitarian funding constraints and anticipated trends. They are categorized by priority and timeframe.

1. Align planning and resource allocation with GBV needs and prioritization (High priority: 2025-2026):

• Establish an annual global GBV risk register using operations' risk registers and GBV policy self-assessments.
• Implement a budget red-flag mechanism for disproportionate de-prioritization of GBV interventions.
• Diversify funding streams by developing multi-year GBV flagship proposals with diverse donors, including private sector and foundations.

2. Promote sustainable GBV expertise and localization (High priority: 2025-2026):

• Consistently implement criteria in partner selection to assess GBV-funded partners' institutional capacities, minimum standards, and expertise.
• Maintain partnerships with WLOs, ensuring swift and efficient resource allocation while easing administrative burdens.
• Consider a GBV localization mentoring pilot for transitioning partnerships from INGOs to local WLOs.
• Map local WLOs for potential GBV coordination and programming roles in contingency plans

3. Define UNHCR's comparative advantage in GBV coordination and leverage its potential to empower local action (High priority: 2025-2026):

• Clarify UNHCR's comparative advantage in GBV coordination across diverse settings and prioritize areas of strongest results, maintaining visibility in national coordination platforms.
• Mandate co-leadership roles for WLOs and government actors in coordination platforms where feasible.

4. Ensure GBV risk mitigation is mainstreamed across all operational contexts (High priority: 2025-2027):

• Mandate GBV risk mitigation as a core responsibility across all sectors and response phases.
• Provide technical tools to support the rollout of the GBV risk mitigation indicator, monitor uptake, and document good practices

5. Streamline policy guidance and accountability (Medium priority: 2026-2027):

• Develop concise, adaptable operational guidance prioritizing essential principles, minimum requirements, and alignment with inter-agency frameworks, focusing on exit strategies and local capacity building.
• Enhance accountability by integrating GBV policy implementation responsibilities and measurable targets into senior managers' and leaders' performance appraisals
• Prioritize UNHCR participation and leadership in global strategic advocacy spaces, strengthening advocacy on protection from GBV in key forums like the Global Refugee Forum and ExCom meetings.

6. Prioritize GBV response and case management in refugee contexts, develop clear exit strategies, and pivot towards more sustainable partnership models particularly for GBV prevention (Medium priority: 2026-2027):

• Prioritize and focus program delivery on GBV programming in refugee operations while strategically transitioning out of direct service delivery where feasible through local capacity building.
• Enhance program effectiveness through investment in scalable, evidence-based primary prevention models delivered through local partnerships, advocating for dedicated, multi-year funding.

7. Invest in GBV staffing, learning and talent development (Medium priority: 2026-2028):

• Provide clear guidance and benchmarks for when GBV expertise is required versus generalist staff, integrating GBV expertise requirements into job descriptions and performance evaluations.
• Strengthen platforms for peer learning opportunities and build linkages across protection areas to integrate learning and avoid burdening staff.

8. Streamline data/monitoring systems for reporting and planning (Medium priority: 2026-2027):

• Strengthen consistent implementation of safety audits, integrating AGD tools, and ensuring multifunctional teams use data for GBV risk mitigation strategies and multi-year planning.
• Conduct a comprehensive review and revision of current GBV results indicators to address gaps in measuring outcomes and impact, especially for prevention programming and localizing responses with WLOs.

Read the management response

A podcast to accompany the report is available on YouTube in English.

Disclaimer: The voice synthesis for this podcast was generated using AI technology and the script was touched up using AI technology.