Attachments
Executive Summary
Beginning in 2016, International Rescue Committee (IRC), with the support of the U.S. State Department, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), and European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), developed and piloted mobile and remote-based models of service delivery to address challenges typically faced by service providers attempting to reach GBV-affected populations in humanitarian settings that are hard to access because of insecurity or that have populations displaced outside of a structure refugee or internally displaced persons (IDP) camp.
Within IRC, Women’s Protection and Empowerment (WPE) teams provide a range of programming to women and girls, including group activities designed both to increase psychosocial support and life skills, as well as provide confidential entry points for case management services for survivors of gender-based violence (GBV). More recently, IRC has also utilized GBV hotlines as an alternative confidential entry point for case management services. IRC’s mobile and remote programming aims to increase access to GBV-related services in insecure and out-of-camp humanitarian settings while adhering to best-practice principles for survivor-centered service delivery.
In 2017-2018, research advisors, Leah James and Courtney Welton-Mitchell, collaborated with IRC to assess the feasibility and acceptability of mobile and remote GBV response models by evaluating current IRC services being piloted in Myanmar, Burundi, and Iraq. This cross-sectional mixed-methods evaluation, together with ongoing monitoring data collected by the WPE teams in each country, aimed to answer the following research questions, specific to the three humanitarian settings:
-
How feasible and acceptable are mobile and remote technology-based models of GBV service delivery for women and girls?
-
What are the infrastructure, staffing, and supervision requirements for effective delivery of mobile and remote models of GBV services?
-
What potential program modifications would likely improve/enhance the feasibility and acceptability of mobile and remote technology-based models of GBV service delivery?
-
Based on the findings with regard to the above research questions, what is the potential for scale up/implementation of such programs in other environments where IRC works?
These questions were considered with the goal of developing guidance for the broader humanitarian community regarding how to respond to GBV in humanitarian settings that are particularly insecure or have populations displaced out of a structured refugee camp.
Methods consisted of structured and open-ended individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders in each country, as detailed below.
• In each country, trained local interviewers conducted structured individual interviews with adult women (age 18+) and adolescent girl (age 15-17) beneficiaries who had participated in IRC’s mobile and remote programming in recent months. Interviewees were randomly selected from existing WPE group psychosocial support (PSS) activity participants. A total of 151 adults and 30 adolescents were interviewed across the three countries. In addition, some monitoring data from program beneficiaries was utilized for this report (case management, hotline, and client satisfaction feedback).
• All IRC staff members and community focal points who met study criteria (current or former IRC WPE team members or focal points working on the project) were invited to participate in either a focus group discussion or an individual in-depth interview, depending on their role in the project (in Myanmar, a few participated in both). Following FGDs or individual interviews, all staff and focal points were invited to complete a written survey to provide supplemental information. A total of 45 staff members and 33 focal points were included across the three countries.
• Local non-IRC service providers in the established referral pathway, community leaders (women and men) recruited from local leadership groups, and male community members (in Myanmar and Burundi) recruited from other IRC activities, were invited to participate in FGDs. Additionally, beneficiary community groups participated in FGDs in Iraq. A total of 150 persons participated across the three countries.
Findings are presented regarding: A) Beneficiary demographics; B) Awareness of services; C) Beneficiary access to services; D) Outreach/community engagement; E) Temporary safe spaces; F) Transportation; G) Group activities (PSS activities / Information sessions); H) Case management; I) Help-seeking for case management related needs; J) Referral pathways; K) Hotline; L) Staffing in mobile teams (including training/supports); M) Technology; N) Safety/security; O) Participatory opportunities; P) Services for male survivors of sexual violence; Q) Transitioning to local partners and program sustainability; and R) Beneficiary feedback about the interview process. Overall, the findings highlight that mobile and remote programming is challenging but both feasible and acceptable to local communities when appropriate and well supervised.
The findings section is followed by Discussion: A Response from IRC. In this section, key findings identified by IRC as particularly important for informing outward-facing recommendations are interpreted and contextualized. Attention is given to addressing constraints, including elaborating on considerations unique to remote and mobile programming. A summary of specific key findings are outlined below.
• Overall, beneficiaries are satisfied with mobile and remote services, given restraints, and desire more services. Beneficiaries of group activities across all settings reported general satisfaction with staff warmth and relatability, staff trustworthiness, safety and privacy of the space for group activities and privacy of the space for case management.
• Group activities and individual interactions with staff that are not about GBV are key for discreet case management. Staff and beneficiaries emphasized the role of psychosocial activities in decreasing stigma about help-seeking from IRC and increasing confidentiality and safety for those seeking and providing GBV-focused services.
• Community focal points are essential for facilitating access to services. Most beneficiaries who participated in the study identified community focal points as their entry point to activities and services.
• More supervision and support for all staff and focal points is required. Staff in all contexts requested additional supervision and both staff and focal points requested additional training and staff support services. Moreover, safety issues reported in the study demonstrated the urgent need for a higher level of remote technical supervision and training regarding boundaries and safety.
• Misconceptions about service delivery are a barrier to access. Findings highlighted confusion from staff and beneficiaries about the accessibility of services (e.g., beneficiaries believing there are age caps, that services cost money, etc.) which need to be addressed.
• Facilitating access to referral services for mobile and remote service delivery requires increased resources. Many respondents reported need for additional referral options, especially for shelter, legal, and economic empowerment services. While service mapping is always important for GBV response, it requires additional staff time and effort for mobile and remote programming due to implementation of services in multiple sites, frequently lacking clear borders.
• There is interest in technology-based services, though there are some barriers to access. Staff, focal points, and other stakeholders were generally enthusiastic about the value of hotline services and requests for more active hotline hours suggest that beneficiaries are interested and able to access services remotely. Participant responses also highlight generally positive reactions to use of tablets. However, challenges remain with limited access to phones, poor internet/phone service, and negative or mixed cultural reactions to women and girls’ phone/internet use.
Finally, in the Recommendations and Conclusions section, research advisors and IRC staff outline evidence-based recommendations for practitioners, researchers, policy-makers and donors. Information in this section is complimented by IRC’s Guidelines for Mobile and Remote Gender-Based Violence Service Delivery which were developed as part of the pilot project.