Gender-Sensitive Indicators
for Early Warning of Conflict and Violence
“Elevating the status of women and girls globally is the right thing to do—it is a matter of justice, fairness and decency, and it will lead to a better, more secure and more prosperous world for us all.” - U.S. President Joe Biden
The Challenge
More than two decades of empirical and peer-reviewed research establishes evidence that demonstrates:
- links between gender inequality and risks of conflict and instability;
- links between the status of women and a country’s propensity for violence;
- the importance of women’s participation in conflict prevention and resolution efforts; and
- the necessity of integrating gender in such efforts.
However, efforts to date to develop and integrate gender-sensitive indicators into early warning systems have been ad hoc and inconsistent.
There are three key challenges related to the integration of gender-sensitive indicators in early warning systems:
1) Connecting gender-sensitive indicators to existing public datasets;
2) Developing global indicators that also reflect context-specific dynamics and can be adapted to national or subnational early warning systems; and
3) Using gender-sensitive data collection approaches, such as ensuring diverse women’s participation in developing and monitoring local indicators.
In addition, the vast majority of gender-sensitive indicators are structural
- measuring gender equality over a longer-term horizon and often only at a national level
which is important as part of longer-term conflict prevention and stabilization efforts.
However, these structural indicators are often only collected and reported annually and thus do not provide sufficient data over the course of a year to
detect any rapid changes in risk
which could signal new levels of community insecurity, tensions, or the outbreak or escalation of violence in the shorter term.
Where data on the different behaviors and experiences of women and men are included in early warning systems,
they are primarily focused on gender-based violence incidents –
an approach which leads to considering harmful or shifting gender norms only as an outcome (dependent variable) of violence rather than a predictor of violence (independent variable).
Monitoring increases in gender-based violence (including conflict-related sexual violence) is important to measure and is included in the framework’s list;
however, omitting other gender indicators creates a blind spot –
understanding how gender norms are driving behavior could enhance the prediction of violence and conflict.
01 / 06
Gender-Sensitive Indicators
Gender refers to the socially constructed set of roles, responsibilities, entitlements, and behaviors associated with "masculinity" and "femininity" as defined in different contexts. These social definitions - and negative consequences for not adhering to them - vary among cultures, change over time, and often intersect with other factors including age, class, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, religion, and gender identity or expression.
“The status of women is the status of democracy.” - U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris
Therefore, it is important to monitor changes in the environment that reflect an increase in exclusionary or discriminatory practices – which can be potential precursors to violence and conflict.
For example:
- attempts to restrict or rescind women’s political, social, economic, and legal rights ; or
- increased public messaging that reflects narrowly defined or traditional gender roles.
It is equally important that gender-sensitive indicators capture changes in behavior among or incidents involving men and boys – gender norms are also driving their behavior.
For example, societal definitions of masculinity could increase:
- the likelihood of young men joining armed groups, or
- persecution of men and boys for defiance of traditionally prescribed gender roles.
Different Types of Indicators
It is important to distinguish between the dynamic indicators (that we focus on in this framework) and structural indicators (that are important but might not measure risks of violence or conflict in the shorter term).
Dynamic Indicators: focus on changes in behaviors and incidents that might indicate impending violence or conflict.
Structural Indicators: focus on long-term changes in gender equality such as women’s political and workforce participation.
There are also indicators that measure changing attitudes on gender equality and gender norms, or perception indicators.
For example, measuring:
- changing norms;
- growing hostilities and volatility; or
- increased community radicalization or support for armed groups.
Perception indicators can serve as a bridge between dynamic and structural indicators.
Choose, Tailor, Adapt
When considering the indicators, keep in mind the following advice.
- Not all indicators need to be integrated – implementers should choose the most relevant indicators for their context.
- Implementers should consider additional indicators useful for their context that may not be included in the framework.
- Indicators should be tailored to the context and early warning system or violence monitoring effort prior to integration.
- Indicator definitions and data collection strategies should be adapted to reflect the local context.
- Baseline data should be recorded for each indicator at the beginning of the monitoring period.
- Implementers should ensure context-specific adaptation of indicators by holding consultations with local women and civil society groups , to identify how gender behaviors and incidents can be safely and accurately monitored.
List of New and Modified Gender-Sensitive Early Warning Indicators
The indicators are grouped in five categories:
- Security and Justice
- Social Norms and Gender Equality
- Politics and Governance
- Economic Factors
- Other
Security and Justice Indicators
- Percentage of individuals who are women present in designated common places
- Number of male gatherings and presence of non-local men
- Number of violent arrests by police or security force personnel
- Number of reported incidents of gender-based violence, including sexual violence
- Number of threats, incidents of intimidation, or attacks against women in public roles
Social Norms and Gender Equality Indicators
- Number of misogynistic, homophobic, or sexist references or propaganda in the media, social media, and at campaign rallies or public events
- Changes in expectations and practice around dress codes for women and girls
- Number of electoral violent events
- Restrictions on NGOs in particular women's organizations
Politics and Governance Indicators
- Number of electoral violence events
- Restrictions on NGOs, in particular women's organizations
Economic Factor Indicators
- Rapid attempts by women to acquire cash, such as selling jewelry
- Unemployment rates
Other Indicators
- Number of female-headed households
- Increase in demand for contraception
- Increase in trafficking of women and girls
Nigeria Pilot
From September – December 2020, IFES worked with Kimpact Development Initiative (KDI) to adapt and test five gender-sensitive indicators, as part of the Nigeria Election Violence Report (NEVR) initiative.
Data Collection and Management
The data collection strategy included:
a) Filling out an incident reporting form
b) Weekly monitoring of candidates’ social media accounts
c) Weekly monitoring of common places visited by women
d) Reporting incidents during political events and campaign rallies
Data management was conducted in an Excel spreadsheet, with weekly feedback on the quality of data to identify potential collection improvements and make adjustments.
A corresponding dashboard on data quality was developed (scored from 1-5, with lower numbers reflecting weaker quality).
The weekly feedback system and data quality scoring process enabled consistent improvements in quality of data being reported.
The average data quality score improved from 1.5 to 4.3 during the pilot.
Challenges included:
1) COVID-19-related mobility restrictions for local monitors;
2) delayed elections;
3) protests, insecurity, and curfews; and
4) small-scale by-elections in six of the nine states.
Results
Indicator 1: Number of incidents of targeted violence and intimidation against voters, electoral officials, and party representatives (disaggregated by sex).
A total of 130 violent incidents were reported during the pilot, of which 49 percent were directed towards women.
While data collection was challenging, local monitors listed this indicator as the second most relevant to their context –
and noted that violence, intimidation, and sexual harassment of women during elections is very common, and used deliberately to intimidate women voters and candidates.
Indicator 1: Number of Incidents of Targeted Violence and Intimidation Against Voters, Electoral Officials, and Party Representatives
Results
Indicator 2: Number of arrests of individuals active in political and electoral processes (disaggregated by sex).
This indicator produced the least amount of data with only three reported incidents of violent arrests.
The low level of data was likely due to:
1) widespread protests and resulting curfews;
2) suspension of elections; and
3) local police stations unwilling to share arrest data.
Results
Indicator 3: Number of campaign communications which utilize or refer to misogynistic, homophobic, or sexist references or propaganda.
Monitors reviewed local media outlets and the Twitter or Facebook accounts of 35 candidates on a weekly basis. Due to small-scale and localized elections in each state, candidates were less active on social media and there were no identified incidents.
However, when monitors were able to attend campaign rallies in-person, they reported sexist and misogynistic comments directed towards women candidates on four separate occasions.
Post-pilot, it was identified that establishing social media monitoring strategies at the national level, and providing more guidance on derogatory terms commonly used in the local context is critical.
Results
Indicator 4: Percentage of individuals that are women present in designated common places.
This indicator produced the most consistent data on a weekly basis. Monitors collected data for 82 common places, including markets, religious establishments, and bus stops.
In the post-pilot survey:
- 98 percent of local field monitors noted this was the most relevant indicator to monitor in their context; and
- 90 percent noted it was the easiest indicator to monitor.
Monitors observed 21 separate occurrences where changes to women’s presence in a particular common place was directly attributed to changing perceptions of security.
Example data for Indicator 4 from Abia State
Results
Indicator 5: Rate of gender-based violence (GBV), including sexual violence, leading up to and after the election.
During the pilot, monitors reported 22 instances of GBV, all based on media reports. Local authorities would not provide data on reported GBV cases, and a culture of stigma tends to lead to underreporting.
These data collection challenges point to the need to identify and triangulate between several different data sources when tracking GBV, potentially in partnership with local service providers or hotlines.
Summary of Key Lessons Learned
While the pilot highlighted the significant challenges in collecting data on gender-sensitive indicators,
it also provided key lessons learned that can inform and improve future similar efforts.
Planning:
- Allocate sufficient time at the start of the monitoring period to develop and adapt indicators and data collection strategies.
- Integrate indicators into existing reporting tools used by local monitors.
- Craft specific definitions for each indicator.
- Issue identification to local monitors.
Training:
- Provide sufficient security training to local monitors.
- Allow for at least two-days of in-person training.
- Develop an accompanying toolkit for monitors to reference after training.
Data Collection:
- Establish a community toll-free phone line for incident reporting.
- Provide weekly feedback to implementers on data.
- Establish relationships with women’s organizations and humanitarian actors.
- Seek eyewitness accounts in addition to media monitoring.
- Develop hate speech lexicon guidance.
Integration: Five-Step Guide
01 / 06
Recommendations
The lessons learned from this pilot project point to two principal needs:
1) Continue evidence-based interventions that further establish the importance of integrating gender in early warning systems.
2) Strengthen collection of primary sex-disaggregated data (and develop associated datasets) at the sub-national level, which can track changes in gender-specific behavior and incidents.
For Early Warning System Implementers:
- Link gender-sensitive indicators to broader peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and deradicalization efforts;
- Invest in pilots focused on localized context-relevant primary data collection;
- Institutionalize collection of sex-disaggregated data and gender analysis in early warning efforts;
- Ensure gender parity within local monitoring teams, including participation of women’s organizations and other groups that are often overlooked;
- Track gender-based violence; and
- Set up tailored and accessible data management and analysis tools.
For International Donors:
- Fund initiatives for integration of context-specific gender-sensitive indicators in early warning data collection and response;
- Invest in further research on masculinity as a driver of violence and conflict;
- Encourage integration of gender-sensitive indicators in national conflict prevention efforts, including National Action Plans on Women Peace and Security (WPS) and Countering Violent Extremism (CVE); and
- Encourage multilateral and regional peacekeeping and monitoring missions to integrate gender-sensitive indicators.
“When we design our foreign policy with the rights and needs of women and girls in mind, our policy is more effective, more humane, and more likely to make a lasting difference in people’s lives...
“...And when we support women, we can help foster change on a much broader scale. Because it’s often women doing the hard work to make that change happen.” - Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken
