Call for Examples:


Call for Examples: Tools, Methods, and Approaches to Promote Continuous Context-Specific Protection Analysis

InterAction is seeking examples of tools, methods, and approaches to collect and analyze data and measure changes in protection risks and protection outcomes. Of particular interest are participatory methods and tools which engage the affected population in the response design, data collection, and analysis of protection issues. This call for examples is part of an InterAction-led initiative to develop and promote results-based protection.

There is growing interest in using results-based approaches to achieve protection outcomes and a need to continually gather and document good practice in this regard.  Monitoring violence, coercion and deliberate deprivation – and the threats, vulnerabilities and capacities that underlie these risk patterns — throughout the program cycle is the basis for continuous context-specific protection analysis.

Continuous analysis, along with program monitoring, helps to determine whether the response measurably reduces risk and allows for continual adaptation of efforts to this end.  In addition, ensuring protection information management (PIM) processes and systems are in place which support continuous analysis allows for evidence-informed decision-making and adaptive responses to contribute to protection outcomes.  As described in the IASC Policy on Protection in Humanitarian Action, “Insofar as mandates, expertise and confidentiality protocols permit, humanitarian actors must endeavour to collect and share data and information that is relevant to the protection of affected persons. In doing so, humanitarian actors provide the necessary evidence-base for analysis, programming and advocacy […] in support of protection outcomes.”

Useful methods and approaches to continuously analyze and measure change in people’s lives may come from a range of actors and disciplines addressing the causes, effects, and dynamics of armed conflict and other situations of violence – including humanitarian, development, security, and peacebuilding specialists. These actors may also use approaches which engage affected people to be drivers in identifying risks patterns and informing prioritization, as well as to develop a nuanced and appropriate response. For example, an organization may utilize tools for conducting community mapping exercises, adapting participatory appraisal tools [i]to identify specific threats and vulnerabilities to be addressed, and relevant capacities to do so.

Other examples of the types of materials sought include:

  • M&E plans or M&E frameworks;
  • Data collection tools (at process, output, and outcome/ impact levels; e.g. focus group discussion guides, interview guides, field checklists, listening, observation and mapping tools, survey questionnaires – especially for mobile phones or other electronic technologies, etc.);
  • Guidebooks, handouts, tip sheets for field practitioners;
  • Assessment, diagnostic and analytical tools;
  • Outcome mapping or outcome harvesting tools;
  • Reports, reviews, summaries of protection programming changes and lessons learned, informed by evidence generated from the relevant tools, methods, or approaches.

Examples will be analyzed to understand what tools are being used, by whom and how, and to identify trends, key elements, and gaps related to results-based approaches for protection outcomes. Upon review, InterAction will share findings from the exercise with an aim to support practitioners in continuous protection analysis to facilitate adaptive management and ultimately contribute to protection outcomes.

The deadline for the first round of submissions is August 11th. To submit examples, send materials and accompanying template to Katie Grant, Project Coordinator – Protection, at


[i] For example, FAO’s PRA toolbox or Save the Children’s Guidance

RBP Program Header


Field Mission Report:
Findings and Recommendations from InterAction Protection Mission to Myanmar (Feb/ Mar 2017)

InterAction staff visited Myanmar in February/March 2017, to explore NGO roles in relation to overall protection leadership, coordination, and strategies. Details about the purpose, objectives, and methodology for the mission are available in the Terms of Reference

Key recommendations from the mission, intending to catalyze a shift in gears to accommodate longer-term thinking and ways of working to achieve protection outcomes, include:

  • Build a common sense of purpose, using a whole-of-system approach to position protection within the humanitarian response, as a comprehensive reduction in risk typically requires engaging stakeholders across multiple sectors and disciplines (i.e. development, human rights, peacebuilding, and diplomatic actors, alongside the humanitarian community);
  • Establish dynamic mechanisms for information flow and analysis, complementing regular incident monitoring with continuous, disaggregated threat analysis (including participatory methods to learn from the affected population), as a basis for problem-solving and adaptive programming;
  • Clarify what protection information and analysis the HCT needs and expects to send a clear demand signal throughout the humanitarian community;
  • Develop more strategic relationships with local/national actors to strengthen protection analysis and designation of priorities and approaches considering spheres of influence and entry points;
  • Diversify ways of working in pursuit of protection outcomes, including intentional and coordinated advocacy messaging as well as leveraging resources, services, and activities of other sectors and the affected population;
  • Move away from binary success/failure thinking and adopt an iterative approach, for example by using ongoing protection monitoring and analysis as a basis for regular adaptation for approach and activities;
  • Approach the development of an HCT Protection Strategy by focusing on a limited number of most severe and prevalent protection concerns which exceed the capacity of the protection sector to address alone and in a way which does not duplicate work of the protection sector or cluster but maximizes strategic role, vantage point, and added value of the HCT.

The full report is available, here.

Blue divider


Article: Rethinking support for communities’ self-protection strategies: a case study from Uganda – Jessica Lenz in Forced Migration Review Issue 53

fmr-articleThis edition of Forced Migration Review features an article by Jessica Lenz, Senior Protection Manager for Protection, “Rethinking support for communities’ self-protection strategies: a case study from Uganda,” which outlines how the international community can better enhance communities’ own solutions to protection issues. By using a case study from Uganda, in which humanitarian actors engaged formerly abducted children in the design and use of communications strategies to send messages to children in captivity as a way to assist with their escape. The article and case study explores how a problem-solving approach to protection which starts with the affected population to identify threats, and vulnerabilities and capacities vis-à-vis these threats, and employs methods to promote listening, analysis, and meaningful engagement can enable us to rethink our approach and design programs to more effectively support community-based protection.

The full article is available in html, pdf, and audio recording here: 

Blue divider



 Supporting the Field – Results-Based Protection in Colombia

  Recording Available NOW

In April 2016, InterAction visited Colombia to identify and document the key elements of results-based protection in practice. The visit led to key recommendations for actors in Colombia to strengthen the prevention and response to the use and recruitment of children by armed groups. This is the third country visit by InterAction to support and strengthen results-based approaches to protection in the field.  Additional visits include: Lebanon, to explore outcome-oriented methods for program design, and Myanmar, to strengthen protection analysis.

Jessica Lenz, Senior Program Manager for Protection at InterAction provided insights on the work of the Results-Based Protection Program in the field, highlighting findings, recommendations, and opportunities across contexts.

David Garcia, Advocacy and Communications Advisor at NRC Colombia and Protection Cluster co-lead, joined us to reflect on InterAction’s visit to Colombia and how actors there are now prioritizing and taking forward the recommendations. He also spoke about the current peace process as it relates to protection and how using a results-based approach can support their work going forward.

Read the full report on InterAction’s trip to Colombia in English or Spanish.

Blue divider


what do we mean by results



We refer to the widely accepted OECD definitions.

Results-Based Protection, therefore, refers to “results” as the measureable components of an intervention that contribute to and include the outcome or impact (intended or unintended, positive or negative). (more)

In the Spotlight



See our new update on Results-Based Protection available here. Sign up to “Get Updates” and receive it straight in your inbox!

Related Events Header




Photo by: Oxfam

COMMUNITY BASED PROTECTION. Rachel Hastie, Oxfam’s Protection Adviser and member of the Results-Based Protection Learning and Steering Group, looks at how community-based protection can contribute to a results-based approach to protection work. (more)



Results-Based Protection Steering Group

The members of this Steering Group as well as those who participate in the Learning Group of Practitioners are uniquely positioned as agencies that seek to use a results-based approach to achieve protection outcomes. Together they collaborate to develop and promote results-based approaches to protection programming by sharing examples and advising on the direction of the Results-Based Protection Program. (more)

WV2_Vtagline_color               NRC



[/ezcol_3quarter] [ezcol_1quarter_end]