Related Tools

Monitoring and evaluation actors

Last edited: December 29, 2011

This content is available in


Depending on the initiative and country context, a variety of actors can be involved in the monitoring and evaluation of security initiatives, and the process should encourage the greatest participation to garner opinions/ experiences from the broadest array of stakeholders. Actors to consider include (Rynn, S. and D. Hiscock, 2009):

Security institutions, who may have internal mechanisms in place for monitoring initiatives or performance.

  • Crime statistics which track the number of incidents of domestic, sexual and physical violence reported to the police/ military and can be measured over time (e.g. South African Police Service Crime Statistics Report, 2010; Botswana Police Service weekly crime report which records incidents of rape and number of people arrested; and New York City’s CompStat (United States) on weekly incidents of crimes, including rape, with annual and monthly comparisons).

  • Data collection systems which measure public satisfaction with police responses. A complaints/ complements form can be made available online or in hard copy for collecting public feedback (e.g. Rwandan National Police citizen complaints/ complements form). Collection and analysis of this data can be used to measure the change in police response over time to specific forms of violence against women.

  • Internal monitoring of implementation of specific protocols on responding to cases of violence.

  • Internal monitoring of complaints of abuse against female security personnel by other personnel, ensuring that complaints are disaggregated into different categories of abuse.

  • Internal monitoring and evaluation systems may be improved by identifying and engaging gender or “violence against women” champions within sector’s management and encouraging them to advance institutional mechanisms. For example, this may include a monitoring and evaluation framework with clearly defined indicators, targets, responsibilities and timeframe for implementation.


Assessment Tool Example: Philippines Performance Standards and Assessment Tool for Police Services Addressing Cases of Violence against Women

A partnership between the Philippine National Police, UNFPA and the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women led to the development of a performance standards and assessment tool for police services addressing cases of violence against women. The self-administered assessment tool can be used for internal monitoring and covers seven key areas: i) Policy, ii) Physical Facilities, iii) Personnel, iv) Services, v) Monitoring and Evaluation (shown below), vi) Advocacy and Information, and vii) Resources. The standards are complemented by a baseline report.








Monitoring Evaluation and Research

The unit/station has a database of VAW and trafficking cases





It has an integrated and coordinated data system for a ‘nationwide Women and Child Protection Desk computer network’





It has a mechanism for getting feedback from clients and other partners





It makes use of a multi-disciplinary system of management, assessment and monitoring of cases.





It conducts regular monitoring of cases pending in the courts.





It conducts regular monitoring of established mechanisms to determine compliance of police personnel with laws on women and children and their commitment to the implementation of these laws





Adapted from: UNFPA, Philippine National Police, National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women, 2008, Performance Standards and Assessment Tool for police services addressing cases of violence against women.


Oversight Bodies

  • Parliament: Cross-party parliamentary committees or groups (e.g. the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Groups on Domestic and Sexual Violence or Women, Peace and Security) can monitor and evaluate security initiatives as part of their mandate, establish parliamentary inquiries or hearings, call for budgetary audits and request an evaluation of the implementation of initiatives that are government funded or implemented.

  • Government ministries: Specific ministries (e.g. defense, internal affairs and women’s machinery) may be mandated to monitor and evaluate programmes, particularly when the institutions are part of wider security sector reforms, and can be engaged to strengthen the development of monitoring and evaluation plans, indicators, monitoring activities and coordination with independent evaluation teams. For example, the “Observatorio” group for the Chilean National Action Plan on Security Council Resolution 1325 brings together government officials from an inter-ministerial committee, civil society organizations and experts to monitor implementation of the plan, exchange information and collaborate.  

  • Independent oversight bodies: Specific monitoring activities may be developed as part of the overall oversight role (such as the United Kingdom’s Independent Police Complaints Commission annual survey on public confidence in the police complaints service (IPCC, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2004). 

Regional organizations and mechanisms:  

  • Inter-governmental organizations (e.g. the African Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) can establish joint frameworks for monitoring and evaluation across member countries, based on governmental obligations to report on their compliance with regional instruments and agreements. For example, annual progress reports required by countries that have ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against women, can help states monitor security efforts on the issue as identified by the convention, such as training and education for police and other law enforcement officials, legal protective measures, ensuring commitment by institutions and officials to prevent and address all acts of violence against women, among other actions related to the sector’s role in upholding women’s rights.

Development partners and donors:  

  • United Nations agencies, bilateral agencies, among other development partners and donors are often involved in monitoring and evaluating the initiatives that they support. It is usually most effective if donors establish a monitoring and evaluation framework in partnership with their security partners, with regular progress reports submitted by institutions against the jointly-agreed objectives and indicators. In addition, development partners or donors may commission independent mid-term and end of programme evaluations. For example, see the 2008 Haiti annual report developed for the United Kingdom Department of International Development’s support to the first phase of a UN Women programme on women, peace and security between 2007-2009 across six countries.