Ensuring rights and choices for all since 1969

Guidance on the Safe andEthical Use of Technology toAddress Gender-based Violenceand Harmful Practices:
Implementation Summary

March 2023

2// Acknowledgements

Creating a pathway along which tech,innovation and GBV/HP practitioners can meetThis is the short version of forthcoming guidance that will be comprehensive and refer towork at the intersection of gender-based violence (GBV) and harmful practices (HP), data
and technology. This summary document is a brief overview of the opportunities, risks andinsights relating to potential steps towards creating safe and ethical technology that supports
existing GBV/HP programming. In recognition of the continuous advance of technology,
the authors encourage use-case feedback that will allow the document to evolve. Both thisdocument and the longer comprehensive guidance will be reviewed on an ongoing basis, inorder that they remain applicable to emerging technologies and their associated risks.

Acknowledgements
This report was jointly produced by the UNFPA Technical Division, Gender and Human Rights Branchand Humanitarian Response Division, under the technical leadership of Alexandra Robinson and Kate
Rougvie. The primary author is Stephanie Mikkelson, with support and review from Nora Piay-Fernandez.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance and inputs provided by UNFPA Information Technology
Solution Office as well as Mar Jubero, Emily Krasnor, Emily Springer and Sarah Katherine Baird.
The comprehensive guidance, which this report summarizes, was also developed with review
and feedback from a number of key experts who volunteered their time in finalizing this important
contribution to keeping women and girls safe in all spaces. Contributing experts and organizations
include: Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, the Gender-based Violence in Emergencies team at theUnited Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the International Rescue Committee (IRC), the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), the MediCapt team at Physicians for Human Rights, Oxfam, Pollicy, theUnited States Department of State Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues, the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Linda Raftree, Liz Dartnall and Revi Sterling.

Special thanks are extended to the editor of this report, Scriptoria, and to the graphic designer, Eneida Déchery at
REC Design.
Cover photo: UNFPA
Copyright © 2023 United Nations Population Fund, all rights reserved. Reproduction is authorized provided thesource is acknowledged. How to cite this publication:
UNFPA, 2023. Guidance on the Safe and Ethical Use of Technology to Address Gender-based Violence and Harmful
Practices: Implementation Summary. New York.

Introduction //I.
Introduction
We are at a turning point in time. The digital revolution is here and getting stronger by the minute. At the sametime, movement restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its associated shadow pandemic, have prevented
access to services and escape from violence. Since these pandemics, there has been an increased appetite
for tech solutions designed to enhance access to information and services for survivors of gender-based
violence (GBV) and harmful practices (HP).1 Yet, this proliferation of technology is largely unregulated froma “do no harm” perspective. Therefore, despite its creators’ good intentions, it can create additional spaces
where women are at risk of harm.
There are enormous benefits in bringing technology to GBV/HP programming, but there can also be significant
harms. Technology has the potential to create participatory interactions and reduce bias in decision-making
processes, but it may also unintentionally do the opposite – by increasing bias and embedding intersectional
forms of discrimination and oppression (e.g. inequality based on gender and/or ethnicity) into decision-making
solutions for generations. Technology also has the potential to provide GBV/HP services to survivors who
would not otherwise have had access, but it may also be a primary risk factor for increased violence within thehome or virtually. Technology can therefore both decrease and increase risks of direct GBV simultaneously,
if not implemented with caution.
Modern technology has been built on the infamous motto “move fast and break things”. The idea of innovation,
iteration, trying and testing, and building prototypes and minimum viable products as quickly as possible inorder to see “what sticks” is viewed as an ideal environment for business, particularly where there is a heavy
reliance on self-regulation. In such an environment, the consideration of ethics, safety and privacy slows things
down, making it much more difficult to “move fast”. It is not commonly understood that “moving fast” often
comes at the cost of compromised ethics and safety.
The tech motto “move fast and break things” is in direct contradiction with the guiding principle of design in
GBV/HP interventions, which is “do no harm”. Despite this, one of today’s leading social media companies,
with about 3 billion users, held the former as their official company motto until 2014. Although the motto hassince changed, this agile “lean startup” mentality lives on, particularly in innovation spaces.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the “move fast and break things” or “lean startup” concepts. But ifthey come at a social cost – such as compromising the safety of women and girls – alternative approaches
must be incorporated. Combining a “move fast and break things” mentality – iterative trial and error – withparticipatory methods or human-centred design provides a useful meeting point. This combination provides
the means for a community, frontline service provider or GBV survivor advocate, to quickly and safely discover
new ideas and fresh approaches to problems.
Tech, innovation, GBV/HP practitioners cannot allow safety to be sidelined, especially when building digitalinterventions for GBV/HP programming. It is essential that ethics, safety and privacy are baked into GBV/HP tech-based interventions from the outset, and are maintained throughout each intervention. The goal ofthis guide is to create a pathway along which tech, innovation, GBV/HP practitioners can safely meet.
1

All references to gender-based violence (GBV) throughout this guidance include harmful practices (HP) and are together abbreviated as GBV/HP forease of reading.

3

4// Introduction

The three most important things to keep in mind when considering
the intersection of GBV/HP data and technology are:
1. Understand the gaps
Gaps between tech and GBV/HP fields are wide.2 Understanding these gaps is particularly importantwhen considering models of cybersecurity threats utilized by the tech world. These models often do notincorporate intimate partners and oppressive groups or individuals; however, these actors are central tothe principles of survivor-centred GBV/HP programming. In addition, anyone who collects GBV/HP data
has a responsibility to protect it, and this is not understood equally among the fields of tech and GBV/HP response.
2. Data really matters!
Any data associated with GBV/HP is categorically “sensitive” because if an individual or group wereidentified, this could be life-threatening. Not knowing explicitly what data you are collecting, how it isbeing stored, for how long, or who has (intentional or unintentional) access to it puts everyone involved
at risk of harm.
3. Security ≠ safety
No matter how strong the security system, no data is 100 per cent safe. GBV data, in particular, is highly
sensitive and if accessed can be used to name, shame, blame and even harass or re-offend survivors.
Therefore, all of us have a responsibility to understand risks, and to do everything possible to prevent andmitigate these risks – either by choosing not to go forward with a project or by moving forward cautiously.

A.
Objectives

B.
Intended audience

The four main objectives of this summary
guidance are to:This guidance is intended for practitioners whoare considering, building or adapting a techbased intervention for GBV/HP programming.
It was written with a particular focus on GBV
programme practitioners in any setting, be it
development, peace or humanitarian.

●

Increase awareness of the potential benefits
and options that tech-based interventions
could bring to GBV/HP programming.

●

Increase understanding of potential harmand misuse, and reduce risks associated with
GBV/HP tech-based interventions.

●

Provide a shared framework for consistent
standards and oversight.

●

Outline a GBV/HP digital intervention
process with considerations, steps and tools.

2

Additionally, this guidance is applicable for data
science projects, donors or other stakeholders
working at the intersection of gender, data andtechnology.

Women hold only 25 per cent of all computer occupations in the United States, as opposed to 72 per cent of counselling psychologists and 64
per cent of all social scientist occupations (United States 2019 Census). Women also make up less than 35 per cent of all employees in the fivelargest tech companies: Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft – ordered by percentage of female employees (Statista study on women’s
representation in big tech).

Principles //II.
Principles
This guidance has been written around
six core GBV principles, with 10 additional
data-specific principles.3 Special attention
has been given to all of these principles dueto the categorically sensitive nature of dataassociated with GBV programming.

Data-specific principles should not be limited
to personal data, but considered for alldata related to GBV programming. Indeed,
any association with GBV is categoricallysensitive and demands the highest level ofconsideration.

GBV core principles include:●

Do no harm●

Participatory approaches●

Survivor-centred approach4●

Rights-based approach●

Informed consent and transparency●

Advance gender equality

Building upon this foundation, data-specific principles add
another layer of ethical considerations for the collection,
processing, and use of data for GBV/HP programming:

3●

Safety by design●

Informed consent, transparency andownership●

Purpose limitation●

Data minimization●

Accuracy and data quality●

Proper use of data●●

Fairness

Security: integrity, confidentiality andavailability●

Accountability●

Unconditional service

These principles are a combination of best practices and global minimum standards across GBV, gender-based violence in emergencies (GBViE),
violence against women (VAW), health, data, and digital development. In particular, they are derived from United Nations Sustainable Development
Group guidance on data privacy, ethics and protection, General Data Protection Regulation, GBViE minimum standards, VAW essential services
package, Open Data Institute paper on data ethics, World Health Organization report on putting women first, World Medical Association
Declaration of Helsinki, United States Violence Against Women Act, and International Committee of the Red Cross Professional Standards forProtection Work. The full description of each principle can be found in UNFPA’s forthcoming comprehensive guidance on the safe and ethical useof technology to address gender-based violence and harmful practices.

4

Safety, confidentiality, respect and non-discrimination.

56// Potential benefits

III.
Potential benefits
Technology not only has the ability to increase access to and improve the quality
of GBV/HP services and information, but also to facilitate more participatory
decisions with less bias, as well as contribute to closing the “gender digital
divide”. For better or worse, technology and data science solutions can be robust
tools to combat rapidly rising rates of technology-facilitated GBV (TF GBV),
ultimately ensuring better and safer tech for tomorrow. That said, technology
should never be seen as a stand-alone solution. Instead, it is a powerful tool thathas the potential to support a programme intervention already grounded by, or
supporting, a larger programme or GBV/HP prevention or responses initiative.

Technology has the potential tosupport and strengthen GBV/HP
programming through:Increasing access to services. Technology can be a tool
which survivors of GBV/HP can use to access services and information when
they are otherwise unable to physically reach services, or are hesitant about
doing so. Examples include remote-service delivery interventions such as
hotlines or self-help service delivery applications.
Amplifying positive social norms. Digital interventions canbe used to positively influence and transform harmful social and gender norms
to dismantle harmful practices such as female genital mutilation, child marriage
and son preference/daughter aversion. Positive messaging can be shared withstand-alone digital interventions or can potentially be integrated into existing
platforms that do not collect personal data.5
Facilitating service delivery and enhancing
quality. Technology and digital solutions have the potential to improve
remote or in-person service delivery and quality. This includes digital casemanagement that enables rapid responses and real-time data; workflowsthat guide service providers through customer interactions; platforms thatfacilitate support groups; and simplified reporting to management or donors,
among others.

5

Ensure that risks are well understood and mitigated particularly when working with any platform, including
most mainstream social media platforms, which use personal data and user interactions for profit.

Potential benefits //Streamlining research, and increasing robust
evidence, findings and insights. Digital solutions have theability to streamline data collection and research analysis, increase evidence atdesired levels of disaggregation, and collect real-time data about GBV/HP while
decreasing bias and allowing for even more participatory results.
Increasing gender equality and closing thegender digital divide. Creating digital interventions for GBV/HP
programming results in tech products focused on women and girls’ experiences,
cultivating them as key users and closing the gender digital divide.
Increasing our future ability to create better
tech for GBV/HP programming. As more GBV/HP tech-based
solutions are built and deployed, our collective ability to understand how tocreate innovative tech solutions will grow, and we will then create better tech for
GBV/HP programming in the future.
Combating technology-facilitated GBV. Technology will
be a part of the solution to TF GBV. It will require a combination of better andsafer technology from the start, survivor-centred mitigative digital solutions, andan increase in users’ digital safety to combat TF GBV, in addition to supportive
law and policies.
Finally, it is important to note that by creating more inclusive technology solutions
and safe spaces for women, girls and others disproportionately affected by GBV/
HP, we iteratively showcase how to create better and safer tech, even for thoseoutside of GBV/HP programming.

7

8// Risks and harms

IV.
Risks and harms
Technology has the potential to transform the effectiveness of GBV/HP programming, but as with any
intervention, this does not come without risk. Once data is collected (digital or analogue), there is no absolute
safe solution for that data – particularly if it is sensitive and/or GBV-related.
In order to build safe digital interventions, it is crucial to understand the full spectrum of risks for anindividual, community and society, as well as to understand gaps in security and how these are created. In
Figure 1 below, we encourage tech, innovation, and GBV/HP practitioners to consider the potential risks ofdigital interventions with a socio-ecological model.

Society
Gender Inequality Amplified

Organization, Group,
Community
Reputation
decreased confidence insafe service delivery

Individual:

Survivor, Responder, Advocate,
Staff, Affiliate
Death, GBV, including TF GBV

Note: GBV = gender-based violence;
TF GBV = technology-facilitatedgender-based violence

Figure 1.

Framework of risk
It is critical to understand threats from various actors – from high-risk malicious actors to mission-driven
and “neutral” actors. When assessing risk, especially with sensitive GBV-related data, we must consider
how malicious, negligent and accidental actors may behave and also understand that no matter theirintention, the same harmful outcome could result. All actors in Figure 2 below, whether consciously deciding
to act inappropriately or not, motivated by harm or not, is irrelevant once privacy is breached and personal
information is forever on the dark web, for example.

Risks and harms //Conscious decision
to act inappropriately

MALICIOUS

Motive to harm

No conscious decision
to act inappropriately!?

ACCIDENTAL

No motive to harm

Figure 2.

Types of actors
There will always be a risk that if someone is determined enough, they will find a way to access
data; remember security ≠ safety. It’s our job to minimize this risk by safeguarding GBV/HP data, or
eliminating risk by not collecting data at all. We need to work to understand the gaps between GBV/HP
and tech fields so that we are better able to work collaboratively. For example, GBV/HP practitioners
may want to focus on user consent and data privacy, while tech professionals may want to focus on
criminal and justice system uses of data, if accessed in ways that may be extremely harmful, emotionallyand physically, to survivors. In reference to Figure 3, the threat actor mapping, GBV/HP practitioners will
likely be most comfortable focusing on intimate partners, whereas cybersecurity experts may be moreaccustomed to designing solutions that prevent hacking from financially motivated malicious actors.

Misogynistic Individuals or Groups
Perpetrators:
Intimate Partners,
Family Members,
Strangers, Friends,
Acquaintances

Financially MotivatedHackers or Opportunists
Governments orPolitically Motivated Groups(targeting empowered women)

Figure 3.

Threat actor mapping: malicious actors

910// Steps for practitioners working on GBV/HP and techV.
Steps for practitioners
working on GBV/HP and tech
The framework shown in Figure 4 was developed to outline how GBV/HP and techprofessionals can collaborate. It divides the GBV/HP digital intervention process into fourphases (Scoping/Feasibility, Design, Implementation, Lifetime) consisting of 17 steps withsuggested actions, outputs, reminders and key things to consider along the way.6
Scoping/Feasibility (Steps 1 and 2) ensures that a project has a solid and realistic foundation
for successful impact. Design (Steps 3–16) consists of collecting user needs, and functional
and technical specifications, and building the solution to spec. Implementation (Step 17)
launches the solution, and Lifetime (the final phase) works through how to achieve long-termsustainability and ongoing maintenance.
In addition to the 17 steps outlined in Figure 4, there are six underlying considerations thatmust be integrated throughout the entire process in order to meet global ethical and safety
standards. These considerations include:
Do no harm
User integration/participatory approaches
Use and accessibility
Safeguarding/ managing risk
Data analysis
Consent
For more details on each of the four phases and 17 steps, please see annex A: Checklist:
essential considerations (Scoping/Design/Launch/Lifetime).

6

A detailed description of every step is included in the forthcoming comprehensive guidance.

Steps for practitioners working on GBV/HP and tech //Secondary
Lead

GBV/HP+ IT

Primary
Lead

IT

GBV/HP + Consultant

GBV/HP + IT

STEP 1:

Risk-Benefit Analysis

STEP 2:Lifetime Cost

STEP 3:

Needs, Purpose, Outcome

STEP 4:

Research

STEP 5:User Integration

STEP 6:

Confirm Data Privacy
Principles

STEP 7:

Ideation

STEP 8:

Prototype OR Select/
Adapt Solution

STEP 9:Systematic User andProduct Testing

Scoping/
Feasibility

DesignSTEP 10: Budget Creation/Adjustment
STEP 11: Review Consent
STEP 12: Review Content Alignment
with Global Standards
STEP 13: Build

IT

GBV/HP

STEP 14: Safety, Security
and Privacy Check
STEP 15: Live Pilot Test
STEP 16: Adjust/Fix
STEP 17: Implementation
GBV/HP + IT

Implementation

Lifetime
Note: GBV = gender-based violence;
IT = information technology

Figure 4.

Steps for practitioners working on GBV/HP and tech

11

12

// Annex A: Checklist: essential considerations (Scoping/Design/Launch/Lifetime)

Annex A:
Checklist:
essential considerations(Scoping/Design/Launch/Lifetime)

CONSIDERATIONS
incorporated throughout the process:y

Do no harm – actively assess and decreaserisk of harm.

yUser integration and participatory approaches.

y

y

y

Solution idea originates from intended user.

y

Safety and security consultations carriedout with users and community – community
mapping, digital safety mapping, including
technology-facilitated gender-based
violence (TF GBV).
Use and accessibility – consider differencesin use and access based on: gender (social
disapproval, fear of harassment etc.), literacy level(reading and writing), digital literacy (comfort andability to use digital), connectivity (broadband
access, cost of device and data), socioeconomic
status, disability status, race and ethnicity, age.
Safeguarding/managing risk – consider risks andways of mitigating risks throughout the process(strongly consider intimate partner and oppressive
group threats).

yData analysis – create a data analysis plan basedon sound methodology, with data storage and use
planned from a project’s onset and throughout its
lifetime (including data destruction).

yConsent – consider the challenges involved
in gaining informed and affirmative consent,
and how an intervention can integrate consent
throughout its design.

SCOPING/FEASIBILITY
1.

Risk–benefit assessment – consider risks,
mitigative strategies, harms and benefits.

2.

Lifetime cost – consider the needs of a realistic
timeline, budget and capacity.

DESIGN
3.

Clearly identify needs, purpose and outcome.

4.

Complete research with participatory andhuman-centred mixed methods (possible
outputs: risk assessment, ICT assessment,
digital ecosystem mapping, GBV/HP mapping,notes on possible user profiles/ personas, desk
review report).

5.

User integration and participatory approaches– create research-based user experience
profiles including diverse digital preferences andbehaviours (possible outputs: user profiles, user
personas and experience profiles).

y

Use and accessibility – design strategies,
features and solutions to overcome contextand user-specific barriers to use and access(low literacy, poor connectivity, cost of data,
cost of device, social disapproval of ICT, limited
device functionality, non-email users etc.).

y

Safeguarding/managing risk – create
strategies and features to overcome andmitigate risks (e.g. multi-user login, discrete
app icons, establish communication codeswith users) .

Annex A: Checklist: essential considerations (Scoping/Design/Launch/Lifetime) //

6.

y

7.

8.

9.

Data privacy principles – review UNFPA/
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
Data Protection Policy, United Nations Data
Privacy Principles and country or regional dataprotection laws, and extend to meet contextor user-specific protections. Do not overrideconsent (possible outputs: privacy principles
that are specific to the intervention).

integrated throughout the digital development
process, and reassess before piloting if not.
15. Live pilot/test launch – safely test anintervention with a limited number of real end
users over an extended period of time.
16. Adjust/fix – make adjustments to anintervention based on pilot findings.

Data analysis - Ensure that a data plan foranalysis and use is in place.
Ideation – identify research-backed ideas withthe collaboration of women and girls (possible
outputs: draft user journey, workflow map, logic
model, notes on functional requirements).
Prototype OR select/adapt product/platform– build a basic model of the idea and checkagainst researched user profiles7 (possible
outputs: prototypes, user journeys, mock-up(s),wireframe, sketches/ drawings).

IMPLEMENTATION
17. Implementation – at this time, the productis ready for deployment and can go live. This
is when end users begin using the productin real time, with many steps involved for a
successful launch.

Systematic user and product testing – safely
test an intervention early and often to ensure
feedback is incorporated into the solution
including safety feedback (possible outputs:
user and product testing results and reports).

10. Budget creation/adjustment – create a fulldetailed budget based on an intervention, andadjust the initial lifetime cost as necessary.
11. Consent – check how the intervention has
designed informed and affirmative consent:
what is being shared, with whom and how?
12. Content alignment with global standards –check if content and process are aligned with
globally endorsed standards for GBV/HP.
13. Build – build interventions based on user
profiles, user journeys, workflow maps, mockups or interface designs, safeguarding featuresand consent specifications.
14. Safety, security and privacy – check thatsafety, security and privacy have been
7

13

y

Create implementation team – identify roles
and responsibilities.

yAssess and create new or adjusted policies andprocedures, if necessary.

yConduct trainings – for staff and users(including on security, data privacy
and TF GBV).

y

Sensitize the community, if necessary.

yLaunch a product and conduct phased roll out.

yConduct ongoing safeguarding (especiallyagainst TF GBV).

LIFETIMEy

Ensure end user support (feedback, complaints,
system errors, 24/7 technical support, ongoingtraining, support for editing or deleting
personal data).

yEnsure product owner responsibilities areplanned (oversight and security, technicalmaintenance, ongoing content alignment).

yEnsure monitoring and follow up procedures
are in place“User profiles” are examples of different types of users, based on research conducted in the Scoping and Design phases. User profiles are outputs of Step 5 in
the forthcoming comprehensive guidance.

14// Annex B: Digital intervention essentials to tackle GBV/HP: dos and don’ts

Annex B:
Digital intervention
essentials to tackle GBV/
HP: dos and don’ts
HARMS AND RISKS
Do understand the full range of harms
and risks before beginning to develop a
digital intervention in partnership with
programme partners and stakeholders(to determine whether tech is the rightsolution).
Do consider and integrate user safety
throughout the development of a digitalintervention.
Don’t assume that other people, including
the tech designer, will consider user
safety (user data in particular). The issue
is complex and requires that everyone
apply the considerations described here inorder for safety to be maximized.

UNDERSTANDING USERS/PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES
Do understand various user needs on
the basis of gender and other forms ofintersectional discrimination.
Do consider different user profiles
including preferences, accessibility
challenges and backgrounds.
Do use participatory and human-centred
methods for collecting information andco-designing with the user throughout
implementation.

Do keep an intervention survivor-centred,
whether or not the intended user isa survivor.
Do base an intervention on actual userneeds, research and evidence.
Don’t design for one user profile;instead map many profiles for different
potential users.
Don’t assume that you know best –listen to survivors and users in order tounderstand their needs.

CONSENTDo create “opt-in” consent and creative
ways of communicating data policies
and terms.
Don’t gain consent via bulk text withcheck boxes, or assume that consent is
automatically given when informationis accessed.
Don’t override consent.

SAFETY
Do consult with potential users about
their shared or monitored technology use.
Do add safeguarding features andprocesses that address data safety andsecurity risks.

Annex B: Digital intervention essentials to tackle GBV/HP: dos and don’ts //Do monitor safety throughout the lifetimeof an intervention.
Don’t assume that the use of technology isprivate and confidential.
Don’t assume that an intervention is safe
and skip mitigative strategies.
Don’t assume that safety remains thesame throughout the lifetime of anintervention.

SECURITY
Do try to avoid collecting any personallyidentifiable information (name, location,
ID, IP address etc.).
Do set up security systems following thehighest level of rigour and based on global
security standards.
Do ensure that everyone involved in,or responsible for, the outcomes of anintervention is aware of security risks
from intimate partners and oppressive
groups, now and in the future.8
Don’t assume that current security threat
models address risks from intimate
partners and oppressive groups.
Don’t collect any identifying information
without informed consent, safeguarding
strategies, and mitigative security
measures regularly practised andassessed.

DIGITAL ECOSYSTEM
Do research the current digital ecosystem,
including infrastructure and other digitalinterventions, before beginning to develop
a digital intervention.

8

Do explore whether a previously
developed digital intervention can beadapted for your context and users.
Don’t build a digital intervention that will
not work with current infrastructure, oroverlaps or replicates other interventions
that can be adapted.

COLLABORATION
Do bring together diverse teams withvarious technical skill sets and expertise(ICT, digital, GBV, HP etc.).
Do build in processes for ongoingparticipation and monitoring oftechnology in partnership with cybersecurity, technologists, GBV/HP
practitioners, and end users.

LIFETIME
Do plan for the lifetime of an intervention.
Do build in processes for closing out techwhen and if needed, and for protecting
data and privacy during the lifetime of anintervention.
Do consider how an intervention will
integrate or work with existing structuresand systems.
Do consider that any data connected toa user belongs to that user and not to anorganization or tech company.
Don’t sell or share any data about
users to external parties without
informed consent.
Don’t consider a product launch as the endof a project.

Unstable environments, particularly those that are susceptible to a rapid deterioration in governance, must consider all possible future risks.

15

16

// Annex C: Risk–benefit analysis tool

Annex C:
Risk–benefit analysis tool
RISK FACTORSyLegal risk – what is the likelihood of yourcollection, analysis or other use of thedata being non-compliant with the law(including privacy laws) or with contractual
obligations?

yData quality – what is the likelihood ofyour data being inaccurate, not up to dateor irrelevant to the project’s purpose?

yCreation of new data – what is thelikelihood that your project will create
new data sets which may be potentiallysensitive?

y

Loss of control – what is the risk that anorganization will lose control over raw dataor the information/knowledge resulting
from your analysis based on legal/ policy
rights asserted by governments, ministries
or other government officials?

Data security
Are you planning on collecting or asking for any
identifiable information? (Name, date of birth,
ID number, address or location, email, phone
number, IP address etc.) This includes any
information that could be potentially tied back to
an individual (either on its own or if triangulatedwith other data). If yes, then you are using data at
the highest level of sensitivity and must consider
additional security and mitigation measures.
Assessing the likelihood of risks:yLeakage – what is the likelihood of
unintentional leakage or disclosure ofeither the raw data or the information/knowledge resulting from yourdata analysis?

yIntentional unauthorized disclosure– what is the likelihood of intentional
unauthorized disclosure by a member ofyour project?

yDestruction – what is the likelihoodthat data is physically destroyed, due todifferent technical/mechanical problems?

yMisuse risk – what is the likelihood of
the raw data or information/knowledge
resulting from your data analysis
being misused or reused for a purpose
notdauthorized by yournorganization?

y

Re-identification risk – what is thelikelihood that any non-personal, deidentified, aggregated or pseudonymized
data will be used to identify an individual?

Mitigative measures – systemic(in place and regularly practised):y

Clear policies and procedures thatoutline privacy practices for handling data(including but not limited to informationsharing protocols).

yData minimization (collection of only
minimum required, time-limited storage,
proper disposal).

yRegular data privacy impact
assessments or other data risk
assessments.

yLimited access levels with regularassessment (“need to know” restrictions).

Annex C: Risk–benefit analysis tool //yRegular security audits to test security.

ASSESSING HARMyFirewalls, up-to-date anti-virus software,strong passwords changed frequently.

yy

Use of encryption (data stored andin transit).

Physical – are there any potential physicalharms (e.g. death, serious bodily injury, forced
movement)?

yInfringement of rights – are there any
potential legal harms (e.g. loss of privacy orother fundamental rights, profiling, active
persecution, violence, forced movement,
repression)?

y

Economic – are there any potential economic
harms (e.g. loss of livelihood, loss of home,loss of other property, financial loss)?

yPsychological and emotional – are there
any potential psychological or emotionalyData breach management policies andprocedures.

yStaff training on IT security, data privacy,
what/who/how to notify in case of adata breach.

yMonitoring of access and identification ofpotential threats.

yStrong application security that follows
the highest level of rigour in global
standards.

y

ICT governance structure to manage,
monitor and advise on security.

harms (e.g. distress, depression, emotional
instability)?
ySocial – are there any potential social harms
to known or identifiable individuals (e.g.
reputational damage)?

Indicators of heightened risk
(affecting data security, but also general safety):yIndividual or group coming from, or
currently within, a context where there
is a history of human rights violations,oppressive behaviour, known surveillance,
no data protection or privacy laws
properly enforced, patriarchal laws, or anotherwise risky political or legal setting.

y

A humanitarian context or otherwise
unstable setting.

yConcerning or unequal power dynamics
within relationships.

yCommonly practised device sharing ormonitoring.

BENEFITSyWhat is the intended positive impact on
the lives of women and girls? What is thelikelihood of this impact occurring? Whatis the magnitude of the expected positive
impact? What is the relative significance ofthe positive impact?

y

Are there direct positive outcomes forsurvivors (e.g. access to services, livelihood
advancement, financial support)? Is thisaddressing a gap in access to services?

yIs there a problem or unexplored issue that
this project serves to address or explore?

17

18

// Annex C: Risk–benefit analysis tool

FACTORING IN
PROMISING TRAITSyParticipatory approaches – was the solution
or idea identified by the community in which
it is intended to support? Will the project be
actively driven by women and girls from thatsame community?

y

Valid methodology – is the project
methodologically sound? Has analysis anddata use been planned from the onset with aclear data architecture?

yRealistic mission – is the project grounded ina solid achievable mission?

Adapted from: National Network to End Domestic Violence: Data Security Checklist; United Nations
Global Pulse: Risks, Harms and Benefits Assessment Tool; Girl Effect: Digital Safeguarding Tips
and Guidance.

Ensuring rights and choices for all since 1969

Photo credit for previous page and on the right: UNFPA