Protection Strategies: What We Know So Far Monday, May 18 th, :30am-10:30am (Washington) Supporting results-based approaches to protection

Today’s Webinar Due to the large number of participants, we have muted the microphones Please introduce yourself to others using the “chat box” function Feel free to comment and ask questions throughout the webinar via the chat box

Welcome Jessica Lenz, Senior Program Manager-Protection InterAction

Results-Based Protection* Background and Shaping the Discussion * The Results-Based Protection Program is supported by ECHO and USAID

Results Based Protection Results-Based Protection 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) of the response. Outcome is measured in terms of reduced risk.

Call for Examples Stakeholder Consultations Practitioners’ Roundtable Creation of Learning and Steering Group In-country practitioner roundtables –Myanmar –Lebanon Webinars and On-Line Discussion Forums Exploring Results though each Stage of the Program Cycle:

Protection Strategies

Objectives: To review whether current approaches to protection strategies support a results-based approach to protection To identify the critical components within a protection strategy that support a results-based approach to protection Expected Output: Summary and Analysis Paper Findings to inform in-country roundtable in August

Methodology Desk Review Interviews Four-week on-line discussion Series of guest-speaker webinars throughout discussion forum In-country practitioners’ roundtable

Background: What we have done so far 1.Interviews to date: 15 interviews with 8 INGOs; 2 country-specific NGO Coordination bodies; ProCap officers Coverage: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Central African Republic (CAR), Lebanon, Nigeria, South Sudan 2.Initial desk review of existing HCT protection strategies: South Sudan Nigeria Central African Republic

Scope of Review 1.Process 2.Content/Coverage 3.Analysis 4.Causal logic behind the strategy 5.Contribution by relevant actors 6.Accountability 7. Role of Humanitarians to Address Threat

What is a protection strategy? …refers to a combination of efforts, often involving multiple actors and sectors, to bring about a desired protection outcome. A strategy is larger than a program. It should inform – and be informed by – a comprehensive set of efforts working towards a common desired outcome.

What is strategic planning for protection? … the process of articulating the desired protection outcome (or outcomes), articulating the pathway or causal logic to achieve it, setting out clearly defined corresponding objectives and indicators, and describing the complementary roles of the actors contributing to the desired outcome.

Four Levels of Protection Strategy Development 1.Organizational 2.Collaboration of two or more organizations 3.Protection Cluster or Working Group 4.Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) Protection Strategy

Findings So Far

1. Process

Finding: Differing views and understanding on what a protection strategy is - or should be - creates confusion and an inability to effectively engage in strategic planning processes. For local organizations the barriers to participation are even higher. Finding: Effective coordination is fundamental for developing a protection strategy. Finding: A limited consultative process undermines the credibility and uptake of a protection strategy. Finding: Strategy develop is often driven from the top rather than building from the ground up, limiting the involvement and sense of ownership at the field level and among those implementing programs.

Finding: Ad hoc methodological approaches and facilitation at the start of a planning process contribute to an unsuccessful protection strategy. Finding: Strong leadership helps to mobilize a diverse set of actors to prioritize protection as an overarching goal of the humanitarian response. Finding: There are examples of effective processes at an organizational level which may offer some lessons for interagency strategy development.

2. Content and Coverage

Finding: It is unclear from recent protection strategies what prioritization is based on. Finding: Protection strategies have become a laundry list of activities driven by agency mandates, organizational models, and services that donors fund. These activities may have little to do with the reality on the ground. Finding: Protection strategies encompass everything without achieving anything. Finding: Service delivery and setting up systems (e.g. referral pathways) dominate most protection strategies, with safe programming becoming the default approach to addressing risk. Little attention to prevention, with advocacy often cited as the main activity for stopping violations and abuse.

Finding: Differing views about what a protection strategy is and should be creates a tangled output of plans, processes, and activities with little to no substance on the desired change and what results will lead to protection outcomes. Question: Should a protection strategy be an open or confidential document? Does this determine who is brought into the discussion and what issues are addressed?

3. Analysis

Finding: Strategies are not based on a comprehensive protection analysis. Little attention is given to understanding the context-specific threats, vulnerabilities, and capacities. Finding: Historical and contextual analysis is lacking. Finding: Limited investment in identifying existing individual and community level protection mechanisms. Finding: There are efforts at an organizational level to strengthen analysis.

4. Causal Logic or Theory of Change

Finding: Developing a context-specific theory of change may be useful in articulating assumptions and causal pathways to achieve protection outcomes. In addition, it may help to identify the contributions of actors outside the humanitarian system necessary to reduce risk. This process is a necessary, but often neglected, step in the development of a protection strategy. Finding: The development of a theory of change can be influenced by several factors (e.g. donor priorities, agency mandates, organizational focus/capacity, political agendas). These factors may drive the formulation of a misguided pathway for change.

5. Contribution by Relevant Actors

Finding: Protection strategies do not go far enough in articulating who and what is needed to bring about a protection outcome. The contribution of stakeholders to respond to protection issues is often limited to who participates in a protection cluster/working group and how the discussion is facilitated.

6. Accountability

Finding: Opposing views on whether or not a protection strategy should be used as a means to hold actors expected to implement the strategy accountable.

7. The Role of Humanitarians to Address Threat

Finding: How humanitarians perceive their role to reduce risk influences the analysis that drives the protection strategy. Finding: There was huge variation across those interviewed; from no role, to having an indirect role, to having a direct role to address threats.

Comments and Questions?

Shaping the Discussion: How you can get involved

Register online at: And RSVP to Eileen McCarthy to be added to the group: Join the online discussion forum Sign-up to Get Updates Sign up at to receive updates and event invitations straight to your inbox!

Wednesday, May 20 th, 9:30am EDT Lea Krivchenia Program Manager, Nonviolent Peaceforce South Sudan Tune in for the next webinar on protection strategies:

Thank You