Evaluations are a fundamental part of development and humanitarian programming. They provide evidence on effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. Through evaluations, organizations are able to understand what works, what does not work, and why. This enables learning, accountability, and improved decision-making across programmes and interventions.
However, when evaluations are conducted in Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) affected contexts, the process becomes significantly more complex. SGBV is not only a development issue but also a deeply personal, emotional, and sensitive human rights concern. It is shaped by power relations, cultural norms, stigma, fear, and structural inequalities that often silence survivors and limit disclosure (UN Women, 2023).
Because of this, SGBV evaluations require a fundamentally different approach from conventional evaluation practice. They must go beyond technical data collection and integrate strong ethical safeguards, survivor-centered principles, and trauma-informed methodologies that prioritize safety, dignity, and protection at every stage of the process (WHO, 2019).
At the core of SGBV evaluation is a critical tension: the need to generate evidence versus the responsibility to prevent harm. Balancing these two requires careful planning, ethical awareness, and continuous reflection throughout the evaluation process.
One of the most significant challenges in SGBV evaluations is the hidden nature of violence. In many communities, SGBV is underreported due to stigma, fear of retaliation, cultural expectations, and lack of trust in formal institutions. Survivors may choose silence as a form of protection, especially where disclosure could lead to rejection, blame, or further violence (UNFPA, 2022).
This underreporting creates a major gap between reported cases and actual prevalence. Evaluators must therefore recognize that data collected through formal systems represents only a small portion of the reality on the ground.
In addition, cultural norms often influence how violence is perceived and discussed. In some contexts, violence within households is considered a private matter, not to be shared externally. In others, survivors may fear damaging family reputation or losing economic or social support if they disclose abuse.
This means that evaluation findings must always be interpreted with caution and contextual understanding. A low number of reported cases does not necessarily indicate low levels of violence, just as an increase in reporting does not necessarily mean violence has increased. Instead, it may reflect improved trust in services, increased awareness, or better reporting mechanisms (UN Women, 2023).
“Violence against women and girls is one of the most widespread, persistent and devastating human rights violations in our world.
SGBV evaluations differ significantly from other types of programme evaluations because they deal directly with sensitive human experiences. Unlike sectors such as infrastructure or agriculture, SGBV evaluations involve emotional, psychological, and sometimes traumatic narratives that require careful handling.
This creates a heightened ethical responsibility for evaluators. The primary concern is not only data accuracy but also participant safety. In some cases, asking certain questions may pose risks to participants, either emotionally or physically.
For this reason, the principle of “do no harm” becomes central in SGBV evaluations. This principle emphasizes that no evaluation activity should expose participants to additional risk or distress. It is widely recognized in global ethical guidance for violence research and evaluation (WHO, 2019; IASC, 2015).
In practical terms, this means evaluators must continuously assess whether data collection methods are appropriate, whether questions are necessary, and whether participation could have unintended consequences.
Ethics are not optional in SGBV evaluations; they are the foundation of the entire process. Ethical principles include informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw at any time without penalty.
Informed consent is particularly important because participants must fully understand the purpose of the evaluation, the type of questions being asked, and how their information will be used. Consent must never be assumed or coerced (UNICEF, 2021).
Confidentiality is equally critical. If sensitive information is disclosed and not properly protected, it can lead to stigma, discrimination, or even further violence against survivors. Therefore, all data must be anonymized and securely stored.
Ethical frameworks developed by organizations such as UNEG (2016) emphasize that protecting participants is more important than achieving complete datasets. This represents a shift from traditional evaluation thinking, where data completeness is often prioritized.
A survivor-centered approach ensures that evaluations prioritize the rights, safety, and dignity of individuals affected by SGBV. It recognizes survivors not as passive data sources but as active participants with autonomy and agency.
In practice, this means survivors decide what they are comfortable sharing, when they want to stop, and how they want to participate. They are never pressured to disclose experiences they are not ready to discuss.
Survivor-centered approaches also require evaluators to create safe and private environments for interviews. This is essential to ensure that participation does not expose individuals to further harm or risk.
When implemented properly, survivor-centered approaches improve both ethical standards and data quality, as participants are more likely to share honest and meaningful insights when they feel safe and respected.
SGBV-affected individuals often carry experiences of trauma that influence how they perceive and respond to questions. Trauma can affect memory, emotional regulation, trust, and communication.
Without trauma-informed approaches, evaluation processes may unintentionally trigger emotional distress or re-traumatization. This is why trauma-informed evaluation has become a critical standard in SGBV programming (WHO, 2019).
Trauma-informed practice requires evaluators to adapt their methods to the emotional needs of participants. This includes allowing participants to set the pace of discussions, avoiding intrusive questioning, and being sensitive to emotional cues.
It also requires evaluators to ensure that psychosocial support and referral systems are available in case participants need assistance after participation.
SGBV evaluations face unique methodological challenges that affect data quality and interpretation. One of the most significant challenges is underreporting, which limits the availability of reliable quantitative data.
In addition, survivors often represent a hidden population, making it difficult to apply traditional sampling methods. This requires evaluators to use purposive sampling, snowball sampling, or service-based sampling approaches depending on context.
Bias is another key challenge. Social desirability bias may influence how participants respond to sensitive questions, while recall bias may affect accuracy of past experiences.
Because of these limitations, triangulation becomes essential. Evaluators must combine multiple data sources, including qualitative interviews, service records, and community insights, to build a more complete understanding (OECD DAC, 2021).
Safe data collection is essential to ensure that participants are not exposed to risk during the evaluation process. Interviews must always take place in private, secure, and neutral locations where confidentiality can be guaranteed.
Group discussions are generally discouraged in SGBV evaluations because they may compromise privacy and increase the risk of unintended disclosure.
Data collectors must be carefully trained not only in research methods but also in safeguarding, ethics, and handling sensitive disclosures. They must know how to respond appropriately if a participant discloses violence.
All collected data must be anonymized, encrypted, and securely stored to prevent unauthorized access and protect participant identity.
The composition of evaluation teams plays a critical role in SGBV evaluations. Teams must be gender-sensitive, well-trained, and equipped with the necessary skills to handle sensitive information.
Training should include SGBV concepts, ethical principles, trauma-informed approaches, safeguarding protocols, and referral pathways.
In many contexts, having gender-balanced teams improves participant comfort and trust, especially when discussing sensitive experiences. This directly influences the quality of data collected and the effectiveness of the evaluation process.
Measuring outcomes in SGBV programmes is complex because change often occurs at behavioral, social, and institutional levels rather than easily quantifiable outputs.
Indicators may include improved awareness of rights, increased access to services, strengthened referral systems, and shifts in community attitudes toward gender equality and violence.
However, interpretation must be done carefully. For example, an increase in reported cases may reflect improved trust in services rather than an increase in violence prevalence (UN Women, 2023).
Evaluators must therefore avoid simplistic interpretations and instead consider broader contextual factors.
Referral systems are a non-negotiable component of ethical SGBV evaluations. When survivors disclose violence or require support, evaluators must ensure access to appropriate services such as medical care, psychosocial support, legal aid, or protection services (UNFPA, 2022).
These systems must be established before data collection begins and tested to ensure functionality. Without referral pathways, evaluations risk collecting sensitive data without offering meaningful support, which can lead to ethical violations.
Strong Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) systems are essential for effective SGBV programming. These systems must integrate ethical safeguards, gender-sensitive indicators, and adaptive learning mechanisms that respond to changing contexts.
MEL systems must go beyond accountability and also serve as learning platforms that support programme improvement. They help organizations understand risks, adapt interventions, and strengthen service delivery.
In SGBV contexts, MEL systems must always balance data needs with protection requirements.
At Bodmando Consulting Group, we support organizations working in fragile, humanitarian, and development contexts to design and implement ethical, survivor-centered, and evidence-based evaluation systems.
Through our expertise in Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL), institutional strengthening, and programme design, we help organizations improve data quality while ensuring that evaluation processes do not cause harm.
We emphasize that SGBV evaluations require both technical expertise and strong ethical grounding, aligned with global standards such as UNEG (2016) and WHO (2019).
Conducting evaluations in SGBV-affected contexts requires a fundamentally different approach from conventional evaluation practice. It demands ethical rigor, survivor-centered methodologies, trauma-informed approaches, and strong safeguarding systems.
While complex and sensitive, these evaluations are essential for improving programmes, strengthening protection systems, and ensuring that interventions respond effectively to real needs.
Ultimately, effective SGBV evaluations must balance evidence generation with the responsibility to do no harm, ensuring that safety, dignity, and confidentiality remain central throughout the entire process.
Bodmando Consulting Group is a feminist international consulting firm
+256200903851
info@bodmando.org
First floor, Biira Hilltop Plaza, Kagoma, P.O BOX 112949, Wakiso district, Central Uganda
+256200903851
info@bodmando.org
Neema Drive, Kasarani subcounty, Nairobi, Kenya
© 2025 Bodmando Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Headquartered in Uganda | Regional Office in Kenya