UNICEF Guidance On Risk-Informed Programming

Guidance
on Risk-Informed
Programming
© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) April 2018
Permission is required to reproduce any part of this publication. Permission will be freely granted to educational or nonprofit t organizations.
Please contact:
Programme Division, Humanitarian Support and Transition Support (HATIS), UNICEF
3 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA
Note on maps: All maps included in this publication are stylized and not to scale. They do not reflect a position by UNICEF on the legal status
of any country or area or the delimitation of any frontiers. The dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control agreed upon by India
and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the Parties. The final boundary between the Republic
of the Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined. The final status of the Abyei area has not yet been determined.
This guidance, and additional resources are available to UNICEF staff and consultants through the Risk and Resilience, Fragility and
Peacebuilding team site: https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/Communities/RiskResilience- FragilityPeacebuilding/sitePages/Home2.aspx.
Photo credit cover page: © UNICEF/UN012796/Georgiev

2
UNICEF Guidance
on Risk-Informed
Programming
How to integrate an analysis of risk
into child rights-focused planning
and programming
The guidance has been elaborated with technical and financial support from the US Fund for UNICEF, Prudential Foundation,
Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies, the United Kingdom Government Department for International Development (DFID) and
the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).
3
Guidance on Risk Informed Programming
acknowledgements
This report is the result of collaboration among many individuals and institutions. In particular, UNICEF would like
to recognize the technical and financial contributions of the US Fund for UNICEF, Tthe Prudential Foundation1,
Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC) in elaborating this guidance. UNICEF would also like to recognize the technical contributions
of the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and Emory University which influenced the early
direction of the guidance. Although UNICEF has received valuable inputs from a wide range of contributors, any
errors or omissions remain the responsibility of UNICEF and the GRIP editorial team.
PROJECT MANAGERS:
Hamish Young
Christian Salazar
LEAD TECHNICAL ADVISORS:

Antony Spalton
Sharif Baaser
Stephanie Kleschnitzki
MANAGING EDITORS:
Stephanie Kleschnitzki
Sarah Karmin
Shannon Strother
Lisa Kleinhenz
Jane Chun
PROGRAMME CONTRIBUTIONS (in alphabetical order):

Antony Spalton, Carlos Navarro Colorado, Cecilia Sanchez Bodas, Claudia Vivas, Dolores Rio, Emily Bamford,
Friedrich Affolter, Hamish Young, Heather Papowitz, Hellen Nyangoya, Henrik Hartmann, John Lewis, Jose Gesti
Canuto, Kate Alley, Lisa Bender, Luc Chauvin, Maha Muna, Marija Adrianna de Wijn, Maureen L. Gallagher,
Michele Messina, Miriam Abu Hamdan, Naureen Naqvi, Nupur Kukrety, Overtoun Mgemezulu, Patty Alleman,
Rekha Shrethsa, Sharif Baser, Stephanie Kleschnitzki, Sarah Karmin, Tasha Gill.
GRIP ADVISORY GROUP (in alphabetical order):

Yasmin Haque – Chair
Anna Knutzen, Alban Nouvellon, Alex Heikens, Alexandra Yuster, Asim Rehman, Brenda Haiplik, Cecilia Sanchez
Bodas, Carmen van Heese, Etona Ekole, Gilles Chevalier, Hanoch Barlevi, Noel Marie Zagre, Pressia Arifin-Cabo,
Soledad Herrero, Vidhya Ganesh, Yasmin Haque
PILOT COUNTRY OFFICES:

Bosnia and Herzegovina Country Office
Malawi Country Office
India Country Office
DESIGN AND INFOGRAPHICS:

Aurélie Portier
1
For more information about the UNICEF, US Fund and The Prudential Foundation partnership, please see: https://www.unicefusa.org/stories/unicef-prudential-working-togeth-
er-reduce-risk-disaster/32156
4
contents
Glossary
introduction
p.8
p.10
Foreword
Risk Analysis
p.7
p.26
1
Risk Informed
2 Programmes
p.64
3
social
inclusion
Monitoring
11
4 p.88
modules
child Annex
protection 10 of key
A
resources
p.100
9
5
education
8 6 Health
7
WASH HIV
nutrition
5
“Across the world,

crises are becoming more frequent
and complex, and are lasting longer
and affecting more children
than ever before.”
© UNICEF/UNI179592/El Baba
6
Foreword
7
© UNICEF/UNI134401/Sokol
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
Capacity: The combined strengths, attributes and resources available within a community, organization or society.
Capacity may include infrastructure, institutions, human knowledge and skills, and collective attributes such as
social relationships, leadership and management. (UNISDR)
Deprivation: Defined as the non-fulfilment of children’s rights in the main dimensions of survival, development,
protection and participation. (UNICEF)
Disaster: A serious disruption to the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human,
material, economic and/or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected commu-
nity or society to cope using its own resources. (UNISDR)
Emergency: Sometimes used interchangeably with the term disaster, but can also relate to hazardous events and
‘’situations that do not result in serious disruption to the functioning of a community or society.
Exposure: The presence of people, property, livelihoods, systems or other elements in areas that can be affected
by various shocks and stresses.
Gender: Gender is a social and cultural construct, which distinguishes differences in the attributes of women and
men, and girls and boys, and accordingly refers to the roles and responsibilities of women and men. Gender-based
roles and other attributes thus change over time and vary across cultural contexts. The concept of gender includes
the expectations held about the characteristics, aptitudes and likely behaviours of both women and men (feminin-
ity and masculinity). This concept is also useful in analysing how commonly shared practices and norms legitimize
discrepancies between sexes. It also informs the discussion of gender-based vulnerabilities and capacities, which
is necessary for risk analysis within communities.
8
Hazard: A dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health
impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption and/or environmental damage.
Impact: The consequences or effect of an event or situation. GRIP defines impact as the total effect, including negative
and positive effects, of a hazardous event or crisis. The term extends to human, economic and environmental impacts,
and may include death, injury, disease and other negative effects on human physical, mental and social well-being.
Likelihood: The state of being likely or probable. In GRIP, likelihood specifically refers to the probability of a shock
(or the ‘tipping point’ of a stress) occurring in a given time frame.
Mitigation: For environmental scientists, mitigation refers to the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions
that are the one of the sources of climate change. In GRIP, mitigation refers to the lessening or limitation of the
adverse impacts of shocks and stresses. (UNISDR)
Preparedness: The knowledge and capacities developed by governments, professional response and recovery
organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to and recover from the impacts of
likely, imminent or current hazard events or conditions. (UNISDR)
For UNICEF, this means ensuring that appropriate mechanisms and systems are put in place in advance to enable an
effective and timely emergency response to humanitarian crisis. Such planning is based on a strong risk analysis that
takes into account national and regional capacities and the comparative advantages of UNICEF in risk reduction.
Prevention: The outright avoidance of the adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters.
Shock: A sudden and potentially damaging hazard or other phenomenon. A shock can also refer to the moment at
which a slow-onset process (a stress) passes its ‘tipping point’ and becomes an extreme event.
Social cohesion: The quality of the bonds and dynamics that exist between the groups within a society. Groups
can be distinguished in terms of regional, ethnic or sociocultural identity, religious or political belief, social class
or socio-economic status, or on the basis of characteristics such as gender and age. The strengthening of social
cohesion vertically (i.e., relations between the state and citizens) and horizontally (i.e., intra- and inter-group
relations) is one of the key outcomes of effective peacebuilding interventions.
Stress: Similar to a shock, a stress is a longer-term trend that undermines the potential of a given system and
increases the vulnerability of actors within it.
System: A unit of society (e.g., individual, household, group of people with common characteristics, community,
nation), a unit of ecology (e.g., a forest) or a physical entity (e.g., an urban infrastructure network). (OECD)
Recovery: The restoration, and improvement where appropriate, of the facilities, livelihoods and living conditions
of disaster-affected communities, including efforts to reduce disaster risk factors.
Resilience: The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, adapt to and recover
from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of
its essential structures and functions.
Resilient development: Resilient development means providing children and families with what they need to
better prepare for and manage crises, and recover from them more rapidly. (UNICEF)
Response: Emergency services and public assistance provided during or immediately after a disaster to save lives,
reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the basic subsistence needs of the people affected. (IASC)
Risk: UNISDR defines risk as: “The potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which could occur
to a system, society or a community in a specific period of time, determined probabilistically as a function of
hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity”. GRIP defines risk as: the likelihood of shocks or stresses leading to
the erosion of development progress, the deepening of deprivation and/or humanitarian crisis affecting children or
vulnerable households and groups.
Vulnerability: This is defined as the characteristics and circumstances of individual children, households or commu-
nities that make them particularly susceptible to the damaging effects of a shock or stress. (Adapted by UNICEF)
9
GRIP - module 1: introduction
module 1
introduction
© UNICEF/UN0151159/Dejongh
UNICEF/UN074049/Pirozzi
10
MODULE 1: introduction
Contents for Module 1

1. INTRODUCTION 11
11 1.1. A changing world for children, a shift in global commitments 11
1
1.2. Implications for child rights programming 13
10
1.3. The UNICEF commitment to resilient development 16
2
2. RISK-INFORMED PROGRAMMING 17
9 2.1. What is risk-informed programming? 17
3 2.2. What is GRIP? 18
8 2.3. Who is GRIP for? 19
4 2.4. When should GRIP be applied? 20
7 2.5. What is a GRIP workshop? 21
A 3. UNDERSTANDING RISK 24
6 5 3.1. What is risk? 24
3.2. The risk formula 25
All the hyperlinks are active
1. introduction
1.1 A changing world for children, a shift in global commitments
Across the world, crises are becoming more frequent and complex, and are lasting longer and affecting more children
than ever before. More than three times as many people today require international humanitarian assistance as com-
pared to a decade ago – some 91 million persons are in need of assistance in 2018,1 up from 25 million people in 20082
– and all signs suggest that the scale of needs will only continue to grow. In 2015, some 43 per cent of the world’s
population was estimated to live in a ‘fragile situation’.3 By 2030, this proportion is expected to rise to 62 per cent.4
Protracted and intractable conflicts have also become even more drawn out – rising in average duration from 19
years (as measured in 1990) to 37 years (as measured in 2013)512 – thus prolonging human suffering, economic
losses and the large-scale displacement of persons. Meanwhile, climate change – one of the greatest challenges of
our time – threatens to not only erode livelihoods, habitation patterns and development progress, but also to provoke
further crises through extreme weather and changing disease patterns. Rapid urbanization, environmental degrada-
tion, natural resource depletion, pollution and rising inequity (within and among countries) work in concert to accel-
erate and exacerbate the impacts of these changes. It is now better understood that crisis affects women and men,
and girls and boys differently, and the imperative to address specific vulnerabilities and aspects of resilience is clear.
As crises have grown in number and scale, the limitations of current political, development and humanitarian
approaches have become clearer. With less than 0.4 per cent of all official development assistance spent on pre-
paredness for disasters and more than 80 per cent of all humanitarian aid driven by the needs of people affected
by conflict, an urgent call has been made to shift the focus from response to prevention.6 Across the international
community, nations and stakeholders are considering what could be achieved and protected if global investments
were directed towards reducing risks, maintaining and fostering peace, and averting crisis before it manifests.
1
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, ‘Global Humanitarian Appeal Hits Record $22.5 Billion, Aiming to Reach 91 Million People with Assistance in 2018’,
ReliefWeb, Geneva, 1 December 2017, <https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-humanitarian-appeal-hits-record-225-billion-aiming-reach-91-million-people>, accessed 15 February 2018.
2
United Nations, ‘Secretary-General, launching 2008 Consolidated Appeal, invokes shared humanity in urging donors to ensure survival of world’s “bottom billion”’, Statement, SG/
SM/11383-IHA/1258, 23 January 2008, available at <www.un.org/press/en/2008/sgsm11383.doc.htm>, accessed 6 March 2018.
3
Although there is no universally accepted definition of fragility, UNICEF suggests that it is generally considered to refer to contexts with the following three elements: 1) Weak capacity
of the state to carry out basic governance functions; 2) Weak national capacity to prevent or adapt and respond to shocks and stresses; and 3) Lack of ability or willingness of the state to
develop mutually constructive relations with people. See: United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Programme Framework for Fragile Contexts, October 2017, available at <https://unicef.
sharepoint.com/teams/Communities/RiskResilienceFragilityPeacebuilding/Documents/Programme Framework for Fragile Contexts - UNICEF Oct 2017.pdf> accessed, 6 March 2018
4
United Nations, One Humanity, Shared Responsibility, Report of the United Nations Secretary-General for the World Humanitarian Summit, United Nations, 2016, available at
<http://sgreport.worldhumanitariansummit.org>, accessed 15 February 2018.
12
Overseas Development Institute, Time to let go: Remaking humanitarian action for the modern era, ODI, London, April 2016, available at <www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/re-
source-documents/10422.pdf>, accessed 20 February 2018.
6
One Humanity, Shared Responsibility.
11
535
million children – nearly a quarter of the world’s children – were estimated
to live in countries affected by armed conflict, violence, disaster and/or chronic
crisis in 2017.7
50 million children were deemed “uprooted” in 2016, having either migrated

across borders or been forcibly displaced by conflict, climate change or poverty.8
800
million people were living in low-income, informal settlements in 2014,
residing on land exposed to hazards and without adequate protective infra-
structure, decent housing or access to basic services.9
385 million children were living in extremely poor households in 2013, meaning
that they had limited capacity to cope with the impacts of shocks and stresses.10
136
million people across the world are in need of humanitarian aid and protection.
The global humanitarian appeal for 2018 is set at a record US$22.5 billion, to
cover 91 million persons.11
Total economic losses worldwide associated with natural disasters average between US$250
million and US$300 million per year. In future, annual losses are expected to reach
US$314 billion in the built environment alone.12
Between 1980 and 2012, more than 42 million human life years were lost to internationally
reported disasters, representing an enormous setback to economic development and social progress.
More than 80% of this loss was experienced in low- and middle-income countries.13
While the multiple frameworks of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development14 build upon the Millennium
Development Goals, the Hyogo Framework for Action15 and other global efforts, their more holistic and integrated
approach recognizes the mutually reinforcing nature of economic, social and environmental objectives in fostering
peaceful and inclusive societies. For example:
• The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) outcome document Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development recognizes the impacts of various hazards, including earthquakes, violent conflict,
disease outbreaks, climate change and extreme weather.16 The SDGs also focus more directly on reaching
those furthest behind first – recognizing that girls and boys, women, individuals with disabilities, and the most
impoverished are disproportionately vulnerable to, and affected by, the impacts of crisis.
• The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 addresses the prevention of new crises and the
reduction of disaster risk related to various shocks and stresses, with a focus on human vulnerability. It advo-
cates for the integration of “a gender, age, disability and cultural perspective in all policies and practices” and the
promotion of women and youth leadership, recognizing previously untapped strengths and resilience in society.17
7
The figures have been calculated using population data for countries where UNICEF has a humanitarian appeal. See: United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Nearly a quarter of the world’s
children live in conflict or disaster-stricken countries: UNICEF’, Press release, UNICEF, December 2016, <www.unicef.org/media/media_93863.html>, accessed 15 February 2018.
8
United Nations Children’s Fund, Uprooted: The growing crisis for refugee and migrant children, UNICEF, New York, September 2016, available at <www.unicef.org/publications/
index_92710.html>, accessed 15 February 2018.
9
10
This is an estimate based on 89 countries, representing just over 84 per cent of the developing world’s population. See: United Nations Children’s Fund and World Bank Group,
‘Ending Extreme Poverty: A focus on children’, Briefing note, UNICEF, October 2016, available at <https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Ending_Extreme_Poverty_A_
Focus_on_Children_Oct_2016.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
11
‘Global Humanitarian Appeal Hits Record $22.5 Billion’.
12
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015: Full report, UNISDR, 2015, available at <www.preventionweb.net/
english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/gar-pdf/GAR2015_EN.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
13
The concept of human life years is introduced by the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 as an alternative representation of disaster impact, as it provides a metric that de-
scribes the time required to produce economic development and social progress – time that is lost in disasters. Loss of human life years, whether through disease or disaster, is thus a way to measure
setbacks to development that goes beyond conventional metrics such as mortality and economic loss. See: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Global Assessment Report on Disaster
Risk Reduction 2015: GAR at a Glance, UNISDR, 2015, available at <www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/gar-pdf/GAR15_at_a_glance_EN.pdf>, accessed 15 February 2018.
14
United Nations Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, ‘Outcomes and frameworks’, Division for Sustainable Development, United Nations Department of Economics and
Social Affairs, New York, <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/frameworks>, accessed 16 February 2018.
15
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)’, UNISDR, Geneva, <www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa>, accessed 16 February 2018.
16
United Nations, Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations, 2015, available at <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/trans-
formingourworld/publication>, accessed 16 February 2018.
17
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030’, UNISDR, Geneva, <www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291>,
accessed 6 March 2018.
12
• The Paris Agreement, which links both mitigation and adaptation goals in the global climate effort, also seeks
to further understanding of and action and support for risk reduction, by promoting comprehensive risk as-
sessments and more coherent management of multiple threats.18
• The World Humanitarian Summit 2016 galvanized commitments towards a “new way of working”, as first
discussed in the Agenda for Humanity19 and further embedded in the Commitments to Action.20 In promot-
ing its 5 core responsibilities and 24 ‘key transformations’ or changes in direction, the Agenda for Humanity
demands that the success of international interventions is measured by the year-on-year reduction in human
vulnerability and risk – not the proportion of acute and urgent needs met.
Adding to the momentum, the United Nations Secretary-General has called on the United Nations to uphold its
strategic commitment to a ‘culture of prevention’. In his vision statement, shared with all Member States in May
2017,21 António Guterres recognized how the distinctions between different types of crisis have eroded, with natu-
ral phenomena, violent conflict and other man-made or social shocks and stresses working together to compound
vulnerability, inequity and social exclusion. Reinforcing the intergovernmental agreements for sustaining peace,22
he signalled a strong organizational shift from response to helping countries make a concerted effort to avert the
outbreak of crisis in the first place. To succeed, this approach must further strengthen the nexuses between peace
and security, and between sustainable development and human rights policies.
Box 1 - A Business Case for conflict prevention and disaster risk reduction
Violent conflict adversely affects a country’s economic progress. Resources spent fighting wars can
stifle economic growth and diminish allocations to social services. Managing the negative effects of a
crisis through humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping is also costly for the international community.
In the Pathways for Peace study23, the United Nations and World Bank produced a business case to show
that conflict prevention, besides saving millions of lives, is also economically beneficial. The analysis showed
that even in the most pessimistic scenario of the analysis, where preventive action is rarely successful,
preventing the outbreak of violence would create net savings close to US$5 billion per year. In the most
optimistic scenario, the net savings are almost US$70 billion per year.
Economics of Resilience to Drought, a study commissioned by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), assessed the cost savings that could have resulted from an earlier and more proactive
response to drought in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia.24 The study reveals the following:
• Donors could have saved 30 per cent on humanitarian aid spending through earlier and more pro
active responses (equivalent to savings of US$1.6 billion when applied to US Government spending in
the three countries over the last 15 years).
• Countries and donors together could have saved up to US$4.2 billion in the three countries over
the last 15 years, through early responses and also the expansion of programmes to protect the income
and assets of individuals.
• Every US$1 invested in building drought resilience could result in up to US$3 saved in reduced
humanitarian aid and avoided losses.
1.2 Implications for child rights programming
UNICEF recognizes that these changes in the global risk landscape and shifts in international commitments have
implications for child rights programming:
18
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9, Paris, 12 December 2015, available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/
docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf>, accessed 15 February 2018.
19
Agenda for Humanity, ‘Agenda for Humanity’, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2016, <www.agendaforhumanity.org/>, accessed 16 February 2018.
20
World Humanitarian Summit, Commitments to Action, September 2016, available at <https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/system/files/whs_commitment_to_action_8septem-
ber2016.pdf>, accessed 16 February 2018.
21
António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, ‘Vision statement: Challenges and Opportunities for the United Nations’, República Portuguesa, May 2017, <www.antonio-
guterres.gov.pt/vision-statement/>, accessed 6 March 2018.
22
United Nations General Assembly, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 April 2016, Review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, A/RES/70/262, 12 May
2016, available at <www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_262.pdf>, accessed 16 February 2018.
23
United Nations; World Bank. 2018. Pathways for Peace : Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/handle/10986/28337 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
24
United States Agency for International Development, Economics of Resilience to Drought, USAID, January 2018, available at <www.usaid.gov/resilience/economics-resil-
ience-drought>, accessed 16 February 2018.
13
• Children bear the brunt of these crises. Although positive gains have been made in the last decades in the
realization of children’s rights,25 violent conflict, political instability, forced displacement, disasters, climate
change and unprecedented public health emergencies have also eroded some of these positive gains and put
at risk the futures of millions of children. Children are being deprived of their childhoods and the potential to
be active and engaged citizens in their communities due to the impacts of crisis – whether these manifest as
illness, malnutrition, exploitation and/or limited or no access to education.
• Advancing equity means reducing risk for children. Global commitments to Leaving No One Behind rec-
ognize that exposure to shocks and stresses is one of the five key determinants of inequity.26 Crisis not only
compounds existing poverty, deprivations and social exclusion, but also leads to these impacts by eroding
existing progress and stripping households and communities of assets and coping mechanisms. In keeping
with its ‘equity approach’, UNICEF must therefore place a strong focus on targeting households and com-
munities that are both economically deprived or socially marginalized and also disproportionately exposed to
various shocks and stresses. This is also in line with the Agenda for Humanity’s core responsibilities, including
the commitment to “Invest according to risk”.27
• People-centric, vulnerability-focused and multi-hazard risk analysis is critical. Most national risk assess-
ments focus on the impacts of hazards on infrastructure and productive sectors. UNICEF has an important
role to play in promoting a more people-centric, gender-responsive and child-sensitive approach to defining
vulnerability and resilience. UNICEF has contributed greatly to advancing the measurement of multidimen-
sional child poverty and deprivation. When combined with data on the exposure of children and households to
various shocks and stresses, such evidence can deepen the risk analysis and help to shift the focus of invest-
ments towards the most vulnerable households and communities (see Box 2 ).
• Prioritization of prevention and ‘early wins’. Despite the overwhelming evidence that risk reduction and
preparedness is more cost-effective than response, less than 0.4 per cent of all overseas development assis-
tance is allocated to prevention.28 To properly deal with risks, states, donors, development actors and com-
munities must collaborate more closely and at an earlier stage to identify the full range of risks and prioritize
development-oriented actions to reduce them. For UNICEF, this means supporting early wins such as making
critical infrastructure and systems for children more shock-responsive and resilient.
• The measure of success should be the reduction of vulnerability rather than need. The success of
humanitarian responses has traditionally been measured in terms of the reduction of acute and urgent needs,
but the need to support and measure the ability of communities to mitigate the impacts of additional shocks
and stresses is increasingly recognized. This means reinforcing national systems, planning over multi-year
time frames, and building capacities at various levels to reduce risk. It also means measuring success in
terms of vulnerability reduction, and since the negative effects of shocks and stresses are often first seen in
children, tracking their status is critical to forecasting vulnerabilities in larger population groups.
• Programming must be conflict-sensitive and promote social cohesion and peacebuilding. Crises
cause death, displacement, and the destruction of infrastructure critical for child survival and development,
and may also tear the social fabric and undermine the institutions and capacities necessary to promote
equity, gender equality and peace. All child rights programming, in both development and humanitarian
dimensions, should be increasingly conflict-sensitive and promote social inclusion and cohesion, while rec-
ognizing the existing power and wealth dynamics in the political economy. All programmes should adhere
to the Do No Harm principles, by giving due consideration to how the effects of gender inequalities and the
socio-economic disadvantages of women, adolescents and girls contribute to and deepen vulnerabilities
within households and communities.
• The voices of children, adolescents, youth and women must drive programming efforts. The current
generation of children lives in pivotal times, with pressure on the effectiveness of collective global action at its
greatest and the risks of inaction potentially more devastating than ever. UNICEF has a critical responsibility
to promote global citizenship, peacebuilding, and climate change and risk reduction education, and to ensure
that children’s voices are heard in global, national and regional consultative processes. Tapping into formal and
informal women’s groups set up to support families and communities to further child well-being.
25
United Nations, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014, United Nations, New York, 2014.
26
The other four key determinants of inequity are: identity, geography, governance and socio-economic standing. See: Source to be added once you can confirm the updated URL to
replace https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/leaving-no-one-behind
27
Agenda for Humanity, ‘Invest in Humanity’, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2016, <www.agendaforhumanity.org/cr/5>, accessed 16 February 2018.
28
14
“Success will now be defined

by the achievement of measurable
reductions in people’s risk
and vulnerability and their ability
to become more self-reliant rather
than simply attain basic needs
for years on end. This will put people
© UNICEF/UN017049/Khuzaie
and their humanity at the centre

of all our efforts.”
One Humanity, Shared Responsibility,
the United Nations Secretary-General’s report on the World Humanitarian Summit
Box 2 - A child-centred approach makes sense for everyone
A child-centred approach is relevant not only for UNICEF and its partners, but also for a wide range of
stakeholders committed to Leaving No One Behind, for the following reasons:
• Children’s vulnerabilities are good indicators of larger challenges. The negative effects of shocks
and stresses are often first seen in children. Measuring and tracking their health, nutrition, education
and protection status can help to forecast vulnerabilities in larger population groups.
• Children are a significant demographic group with special needs, vulnerabilities and capacities.
As of mid-2017, the global share of children under 18 (2.3 billion) of the total population (7.6 billion) is
30.7%, ranging regionally from 18.9% in Europe to 47.2% in Africa and with 28.8% in Asia29, evidence
shows that they are disproportionately affected by emergencies. Approximately 100 million children and
young people around the world are affected by crises every year.30 If children are not properly considered
before a crisis strikes, their needs will pose one of the most significant and pressing burdens afterwards.
• Children have invaluable contributions to make. The current generation of children lives in pivotal
times, with pressure on the effectiveness of collective global action at its greatest and the risks of
inaction potentially more devastating than ever. Children not only have the right to be considered in
plans that will affect their lives, but they can also be agents of change in their communities – informing,
influencing and participating in decision-making processes.
• Children have the right to participate. Conflict, disaster and crisis affect children’s basic right to
survival and development. Participating in the decisions that affect their lives and those of future
generations is more than just useful for children – it is a right.
29
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2017). World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, DVD Edition
30
United Nations General Assembly, Implementation of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: Report of the Secretary-General, A/67/335, 27 August 2012, p. 9.
15
1.3 The UNICEF commitment to resilient development
UNICEF was a key player in the development of the 2030 Agenda, and the UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2018–202131 has been
designed to accelerate implementation of the SDGs, the Sendai Framework and the Paris Agreement as well as realization
of the concurrent resolutions on peacebuilding adopted by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly.
At the World Humanitarian Summit, UNICEF declared its “commitment to risk-informed programming that promotes
resilient development” and suggested that it is “making risk analysis a core element of its planning processes”.32
In its Technical Note on Resilient Development, UNICEF explains: “Resilient development means providing
children and families with what they need to better prepare for and better manage crises, and recover from them
more rapidly. It requires addressing the underlying drivers of inequity and fragility that cause environmental,
economic and social deprivations and stresses. It means bridging the arbitrary divide between development and
humanitarian assistance, integrating risk factors such as climate change into programming, and strengthening
systems that can anticipate as well as absorb shocks in the event of disasters.”33
The Strategic Plan reflects these commitments, outlining the organization’s efforts to foster resilient development by
addressing climate change, promoting peacebuilding and social cohesion, and extending risk-informed programming,
including through investment in national and sub-national risk assessments and preparedness. For the first time, the
current Strategic Plan has an output related to risk reduction confirming the organization’s commitment to supporting
countries to adopt child-sensitive policies, strategies and programmes that address risks associated with disasters,
conflict and public health emergencies. The monitoring framework for the Strategic Plan34 also reflects the organiza-
tion’s commitments to measure and track progress in risk reduction, in line with Sendai Framework monitoring.35
The UNICEF Gender Action Plan, 2018–2021 similarly recognizes the important role that UNICEF plays in risk
reduction and preparedness as well as in humanitarian response.36 The differential experiences and skills of
women and men, adolescents, and girls and boys are well noted. There is a clear recognition that conflict and
emergency situations increase girls’ and women’s exposure to gender-based violence (GBV) and that prepared-
ness measures must consider both this and menstrual hygiene management to address the heightened vulner-
ability of girls to negative health outcomes and barriers to educational, social and economic opportunities.
To provide a sense of how national, regional and global progress in advancing risk reduction will be made, the Strate-
gic Plan also outlines a specific ‘change strategy’ that focuses on enhancing coherence and connectedness between
at-scale capacity for humanitarian action and longer-term programming, including through “risk-informed programme
design, preparedness, support to common needs assessments and national and local first responders”. Under this
change strategy, UNICEF will track “the percentage of country offices that meet organizational benchmarks on: (a)
preparedness; (b) implementing risk-informed programming; and (c) promoting peaceful and inclusive societies”.
Box 3 - Comparative advantages of UNICEF in risk reduction
UNICEF has several comparative advantages when addressing the risk of humanitarian crisis:
• UNICEF has a mandate that integrates development and humanitarian programming and is thus present
before, during and after a crisis, engaging at every stage of the humanitarian-development continuum.
• UNICEF has extensive experience of operating in fragile, conflict-affected and risk-prone contexts, and
working in close proximity to communities that experience shocks and stresses.
• UNICEF is a technical expert in multidimensional child poverty, inequity and deprivation analysis and can
enrich risk assessments by proposing a more people-centric and vulnerability-focused approach.
• UNICEF responds in a multi-sectoral manner, addressing the interlocking issues that affect a child’s
well-being while maintaining well-established relationships with technical line ministries.
31
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2018–21, E/ICEF/2017/17/Rev.1, 16 August 2017, available at < https://www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/2017-17-Rev1-
Strategic_Plan_2018-2021-ODS-EN.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018
32
United Nations Children’s Fund, Children in Crisis: What children need from the World Humanitarian Summit, April 2016, available at: < http://www.childreninachangingclimate.org/
uploads/6/3/1/1/63116409/whs_children_in_crisis.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2017
33
United Nations Children’s Fund, Data Research and Policy Technical Note, Resilient Development, 18 April 2016, available at: <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/Commu-
nities/RiskResilienceFragilityPeacebuilding/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%7BF2B8C210-F9D5-45A7-83D3-880A44B5B1F8%7D&file=Technical%20note%20on%20resil-
ient%20development.docx&action=default\>, accessed 6 March 2018
34
United Nations Children’s Fund, Final results framework of the UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2018–21, E/ICEF/2017/18, 17 July 2017, available at < https://www.unicef.org/about/exec-
board/files/2017-18-Final_results_framework-ODS-EN.pdf >, accessed 6 March 2018.
35
The UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2018–2021 will track the number of disruptions to educational services and to health services attributed to disasters (Sendai D-6, D-7). See: United Nations Office
for Disaster Reduction, ‘Sendai Framework Monitoring’, UNISDR, Geneva, <www.unisdr.org/conferences/2017/globalplatform/en/programme/plenaries/view/581>, accessed 16 February 2018.
36
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Gender Action Plan, 2018–2021, E/ICEF/2017/16, 13 July 2017, available at <www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/2017-16-Gender_Action_
Plan-2017.07.14-Rev.1.pdf>, accessed 28 February 2018.
16
2. RISK-INFORMED PROGRAMMING
2.1 What is risk-informed programming?
Risk-informed programming aims to strengthen resilience to shocks and stresses by identifying and addressing
the root causes and drivers of risk, including vulnerabilities, lack of capacity, and exposure to various shocks and
stresses. It necessitates a robust risk analysis of the multiple hazards faced by households and communities, and
requires government and other partners to be involved in the design or adjustment of programmes to ensure that
they make a proactive commitment to reducing risk.
For UNICEF, risk-informed programming is child-centred. Using a human rights-based approach to programming,
UNICEF supports national counterparts and a range of duty bearers and stakeholders to consider not only what
changes are necessary to further the realization of child rights, but also how to protect those gains from the negative
impacts of shocks and stresses.
Risk-informed programming at UNICEF therefore
Strives to make building

resilience and peace
a central goal of all child
2 rights-focused programming
3
Is the change strategy

Seeks to not only achieve or means through which
a development or humanitari- the organization will reorient
an-related result, but also to its planning and program-
protect progress for girls ming processes to better
and boys, and women and 4 support national govern- 5
men from the negative ments to realise the 2030
impacts of shocks and Agenda in a sustain-
stresses Is programming that is
Is one part of the new way able manner. based on a sound analysis
of working first set out in the of the risks facing girls
Agenda for Humanity, which and boys, considering their
will strengthen the linkages 6 exposure to various shocks
between humanitarian and and stresses and their
development work vulnerabilities and coping
Is programming that capacities
targets the most ‘at
risk’ populations or which
has adapted strategies that
support national counterparts
7
and other duty bearers
to reduce, mitigate and Includes the interde-
manage risk pendent work of disaster
risk reduction, climate
change adaptation, peace
building, social protection
and emergency prepared-
ness since they share the
common objective of reduc-
ing the risk of crisis
17
2.2 What is GRIP?
The UNICEF Guidance for Risk-informed Programming (GRIP) is a package of general and sector-specific modules
that propose a methodology for conducting child-centred risk analysis and leading a collaborative process with
multiple child rights stakeholders (including children, adolescents and youth) to design or adapt programmes to
further risk reduction, resilience and peace.
What is GRIP?
• GRIP is additional guidance for good programming within the context of the new Strategic Plan, providing
UNICEF country offices with advice on how to ‘risk-inform’ their respective Country Programmes of Cooperation.
The GRIP modules can also be considered essential companions to the UNICEF Results-Based Management
Learning Package,37 since they should help UNICEF country offices to strengthen the ‘risk lens’ in their stand-
ard approach to situation analysis and strategic planning.
• GRIP is a tool to strengthen the interconnectedness of humanitarian, development and peacebuilding

programming. Since GRIP supports child rights stakeholders (including governments, multilateral and bilateral
development partners, members of civil society, and local community groups) to conduct multi-hazard risk
analysis, it can help these same partners to collaborate to identify early wins in development-oriented risk
reduction or shift the focus of humanitarian action towards reducing chronic vulnerabilities.
• GRIP is a basis for more coherent internal risk management . Since GRIP provides a method for ranking
the risks associated with specific shocks and stresses that affect children, it can inform the analysis of risk
to the achievement of programme results and/or risks to the enterprise (in terms of reputation, continuity of
business operations, etc.). Conducting a robust analysis of risks in a particular country can help teams to meet
the requirements of the emergency preparedness procedure and/or the enterprise risk management system,
for example, by instilling a more credible and coherent approach to risk management.
• GRIP is a compendium of good practices . The GRIP package of modules also offers real examples of how
UNICEF country offices have met the challenge of multi-stakeholder risk analysis and made innovations to
traditional approaches to planning, programming and monitoring for children. Also included are examples of
how UNICEF has improved the participation of children and youth in these processes. It is therefore a useful
gateway to further learning and knowledge exchange around risk reduction.
• GRIP is guidance that is aligned to international standards for integrating gender equality and
addressing gender-based violence through risk-informed mitigation and response preparedness strategies.
The GRIP package draws on various Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) preparedness and humanitarian
response resources and the UNICEF Gender-Based Violence in Emergencies (GBViE) Resource Pack.38 It
also reflects gender equality strategies produced by our disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation
programming partners, which include the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women). In addition, GRIP
links to policies, guidance and tools on protection from sexual exploitation and abuse.
It should be stated, however, that GRIP is:
• NOT an institutional procedure . It is guidance on how to strengthen your existing planning and practice,
but it does not require compliance. Although every part of UNICEF has a role and responsibility to further
risk-informed programming, GRIP neither assigns accountabilities nor establishes institutional benchmarks for
performance in this regard.
• NOT specifically designed for independent use by external partners . It does, however, provide clear
guidance for how UNICEF teams can convene and facilitate multi-stakeholder groups to arrive at a common
understanding of the risk landscape and how it affects children’s rights and opportunities.
37
The Results-Based Management Learning Package consists of the RBM Handbook, an e-Learning course and the face-to-face RBM workshop. The e-Learning course is available at
< https://agora.unicef.org/course/info.php?id=3122>, accessed 6 March 2018.
38
United Nations Children’s Fund, Gender-based violence in emergencies resource pack summary available at: < https://www.unicef.org/protection/files/Resource_Pack_Card_Final_
Print.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018. For full GBViE tools and guidance, contact Mendy Marsh or Catherine Poulton.
18
• NOT a tool for collecting primary data . GRIP Module No. 2 does, however, provide a clear methodology
for how to gather secondary data and conduct a risk analysis that puts children – and their special needs,
vulnerabilities and capacities – at its centre.
Each of the general and sector-specific GRIP modules is designed to support a different aspect or phase in risk-
informed programming (see Graphic 1).
Graphic 1 - GRIP structure
6
5 7
4
monitoring
2 sector specific 8
guiding
3
risk analysis
design &
adaptation of risks and 11 9
of programmes risk-informed
1 10
programmes
introduction Modules under development:

• Preparation
• Assessment
• Analysis • Theory of Change (TOC) 5 Health 9 Education
• Validation • Programme results
• Risks to the programme 6 HIV 10 Child
Protection
to risk and risk-informed 7 Nutrition
programming Social
8 WASH 11 Inclusion
2.3 Who is GRIP for?
GRIP is specifically designed to enhance the understanding of UNICEF country office staff, but it should be
applied in a participatory and collaborative manner with national counterparts, development partners, members
of civil society and other child rights stakeholders – including children, adolescents and youth themselves. It can
be applied in any country context, ranging from low- to high-risk countries, stable to fragile situations, and low-
to upper-middle-income economies. GRIP has relevance for development programmes and for humanitarian
action in complex emergencies.
GRIP targets UNICEF senior management and the planning, programme and emergency teams in particular.
It is also very useful for staff working in operations, advocacy and external relations, resource mobilization,
evaluation and other areas of focus at various levels of the organization, including in UNICEF regional offices
and at UNICEF Headquarters.
GRIP can also help UNICEF staff to participate more effectively in risk analysis processes led by government or
other development partners, and to apply a ‘child rights lens’ to ensure that children’s special needs, vulnerabil-
ities and capacities are considered in risk-informed planning and programming. The GRIP method complements
a variety of existing tools and agency-specific guidance introduced recently by the United Nations and develop-
ment partners, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for
Resilience Systems Analysis.39 (For a list of some of these complementary tools and guidance, see the Annex
to the core GRIP Modules).
39
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Guidelines for Resilience Systems Analysis, OECD Publishing, 2014, available at <https://www.oecd.org/dac/Resil-
ience%20Systems%20Analysis%20FINAL.pdf>, accessed 16 February 2018.
19
2.4 When should GRIP be applied?
GRIP recognizes that strategic planning is a dynamic and iterative process that must adapt to local requirements
and opportunities. To be most influential, GRIP is best applied during the design of new UNICEF Country Pro-
grammes of Cooperation and United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks and/or as a means to guide
major programme reviews that may result in the authorization of adjustments to programmes and partnerships.
GRIP can be applied at any stage of the country programming cycle, however (see Graphic 2).
UNICEF may also apply GRIP to influence national planning processes (e.g., the elaboration of a new national develop-
ment plan) and/or significant milestones in the programming of major development partners (e.g., the United Nations
Common Country Assessment and/or the country analysis of major international financing institutions). GRIP can also
be used in the course of review processes, including annual and mid-term reviews or a Gender Programme Review.
Graphic 2 - Application of GRIP at all stages of the UNICEF country programming cycle
An analysis of the risk of humanitarian crisis

(exposure to shocks, stresses with consid-
eration of vulnerabilities capacities) is inte-
grated in the SitAn.
risk informed
situation analysis
evaluation of prioritization
the programme of deprivations
Reviews & evaluations consider Prioritization includes discussions on

the success of programmes the risk of humanitarian crisis and/or
and partnerships in supporting deepening deprivation facing children
resilience and peace.
optional midterm RBM LEARNING

review
RBM applies a strong “Risk-
UNICEF’s lens” to influence planning

and implementation
implementation
& monitoring Country
Agreements with national Programme strategic moment
of refelction (smr)
counterparts include a pro-
active commitment to risk The strategic intent of new
reduction and preparedness. Country Programmes includes
fostering resilience and/or
rolling multi-year peace
workplans
programme strategy
note (Psn)
COUNTRY PROGRAMME
MANAGEMENT PLAN (CPMP) PSNs are based on a risk-informed
causality analysis and include a
country programme risk-informed Theory of Change.
Adequate allocation of technical and
financial resources and accountabilities document (cpd)
of risk reduction aspects of the pro-
gramme in CPMP. Targets, results and strategies of
the new CPD include a commit-
ment to risk reduction commiserate
with the country’s risk profile.
20
Risk-informed programming
strives to make building
resilience and peace a central goal
© UNICEF/UNI134464/Sokol
of all child rights-focused

programming.
2.5 What is a GRIP workshop?

A GRIP workshop is a flexible, participatory-style workshop tailor-made to support UNICEF country offices and their
national counterparts and partners to consider how the risk of humanitarian crisis affects children, their caregivers and their
communities. Although a GRIP workshop is not mandatory, it is recommended for country offices that have a medium
to high risk rating and which are entering the analysis or strategic planning phase of the country programming cycle.
A GRIP workshop can be particularly useful in helping multi-stakeholder groups to:

• develop or validate a risk analysis that considers the exposure of households and communities to various
shocks and stresses as well as household and community vulnerabilities and existing national capacities
• develop sector-wide or multi-sectoral causality analysis and risk-informed theories of change
• embark on strategic planning for the elaboration of new UNICEF Country Programmes of Cooperation or
United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks
• integrate equity and gender considerations into the risk analysis, and identify specific barriers, bottlenecks
and opportunities that can inform programming
• consider the adaptation of work plans and partnerships with national counterparts and other stakeholders
to reinforce resilient development and peace.
Usually, a GRIP workshop takes place over two to three days and includes the validation of a country- or area-spe-
cific risk analysis (developed prior to the workshop) as well as several collaborative exercises to either design new
programmes with national counterparts (through a risk-informed theory of change) or adapt existing programmes
(focusing on work plans and partnership agreements).
UNICEF regional office planning and emergency advisers, in cooperation with UNICEF Headquarters through the
Humanitarian Action and Transition Section (HATIS) in Programme Division, can support country offices to consid-
er if, how and when a GRIP workshop may be useful in the analysis, strategic planning or implementation phase
of the country programming cycle. Many country offices have already completed a GRIP workshop or strength-
ened risk analysis via other training (see Map 1 ).
Whether or not a country office decides to hold a ‘stand-alone’ GRIP workshop, certain aspects of GRIP should be
integrated into existing UNICEF training sessions and consultative processes, including:
• consultation for, and validation of, situation analyses on the status of women and children, to ensure that the
situational analysis integrates a strong analysis of the risk of humanitarian crisis in country
• results-based management (RBM) training sessions that have a strong focus on the application of the risk lens
• theory of change workshops or ‘write-shops’ held with national counterparts and regional advisers
• strategic moments of reflection, to provide a means to reaffirm the institutional commitment to resilient
development in the programme’s strategic intent
• optional mid-term reviews, to provide a means to adjust programme results and strategies, and thus create
work plans and partnerships that are more risk-informed
• other reviews such as the Gender Programme Review, which is usually carried out once per country programming cycle.
21
Global In February 2018, UNICEF Pakistan held a 2-day internal
Map 1
GRIP workshop for programme staff. Participants validated

a risk analysis for the country, conducted a risk-informed
Experience
causality analysis and then reviewed existing programme
strategy notes to reorient them to be more risk-informed.
GRIP Workshops
pakistan
around the world
Bosnia
Herzego-
vina
RBM with a
In February 2017, UNICEF Bosnia
strong Risk Lens
and Herzegovina piloted the GRIP
process through a 3-day workshop
Joint GRIP-EPP designed to increase understanding
of the components of risk-informed
GRIP Pilot at programming, validate the existing
sub-national level risk analysis, and apply the analysis
to support the adaptation, adjust-
ment and development of sector
programmes. The workshop was
attended by UNICEF country office
staff and representatives of the
Office of the United Nations Res-
ident Coordinator, UNHCR, UNDP,
ecuador IOM, UNFPA, Ministry of Security,
Federal Civil Protection Adminis-
tration, Faculty of Social Work of
Banja Luka, Caritas Internationalis
and Save the Children.
In June 2017, UNICEF Ecuador in-
tegrated a stronger ‘risk lens’ into
its 3.5-day RBM training session,
ensuring that all groups considered
risk in the development of causality
analyses, theories of change and
results chains to inform the new
country programme.
Uganda
Kenya
In October 2017, UNICEF Uganda held a 3-day joint

workshop on GRIP and the Emergency Prepared- In June 2017, UNICEF Kenya piloted a one-week joint workshop on
ness Platform (EPP) to ensure a common knowl- results-based management (RBM) and Guidance for Risk-informed
edge base among UNICEF staff on risk-informed Programming (GRIP). In total, 30% of the training was devoted to
programming and the Core Commitments for GRIP. Participants spent a full day validating a risk analysis in order to
Children. The workshop also supported the roll-out integrate considerations of risk into their causality analysis, theory
of new UNICEF preparedness guidance. of change and results chain to inform the new country programme.
22
In June 2017, the UNICEF Bihar State Office piloted In December 2017, UNICEF Viet Nam held a 2-day internal
the GRIP process through a 3-day workshop. Partici- GRIP workshop for programme staff. Participants validated a
pants validated a risk assessment, considered specific risk analysis for the country, conducted a risk-informed cau-
risks and priority actions for each sector, and made sality analysis and then reviewed existing work plans with na-
a commitment to adjust programme strategy notes, tional counterparts to reorient them to be more risk-informed.
rolling work plans and strategies with counterparts
and partners. UNICEF programme staff, 15 members
of the Government of Bihar and 9 members of civil
society organizations participated.
viet nam In September 2017, UNICEF
Cambodia conducted a 5-day
Bihar, RBM training with a strong risk
India lens, ensuring that all groups
considered risk in the devel-
opment of causality analyses,
theories of change and results
chains to inform the new country
programme.
cambodia
Timor
malawi Leste
In April 2018, UNICEF Timor-Leste held a joint

In May 2017, UNICEF Malawi piloted the GRIP process through a GRIP-EPP workshop for internal programme
3-day workshop. Participants validated a risk assessment, considered staff. Participants validated their risk analysis,
specific risks and priority actions for each sector, and made a com- developed a causality analysis and considered
mitment to adjust programme strategy notes, rolling work plans how to adapt their existing work plans and part-
and strategies with counterparts and partners. Participants included nerships. They also carried forward their scenario
representatives of the government, Office of the United Nations planning and identification of preparedness meas-
Resident Coordinator and Malawi Red Cross Society. ures to meet the requirements of the EPP.
23
© UNICEF/UNI153196/Maitem
3. understanding RISK
3.1 What is risk?
There is no universally agreed definition of risk. It is a term used generally in all aspects of life and is related to the
concept of future harm or the likelihood of a negative impact occurring.
UNISDR, for example, defines risk as: “The potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which could oc-
cur to a system, society or a community in a specific period of time, determined probabilistically as a function of hazard,
exposure, vulnerability and capacity.”40 The European Union refers to risk as “the combination of the probability of an
event and its negative consequences”.41 The Overseas Development Institute’s Humanitarian Policy Group suggests risk
is “the probability of a harmful event or hazard occurring and the likely severity of the impact of that event or hazard”.42
To clarify the concept of risk, it can be helpful to identify the ‘object’ that is potentially under threat and the
‘subject’ that is acting on the object to cause the threat. An illustrative example of this is presented to better
explain the concept of risk in practice and why different definitions often arise among risk managers or among risk
management approaches (see Graphic 3). In this example, the definition of risk differs across the GRIP, RBM and
enterprise risk management approaches applied by UNICEF, as each considers a different object. The GRIP ap-
proach focuses primarily on ‘contextual risks’ affecting children; the RBM approach considers both risks to children
and to the programme; and the enterprise risk management approach focuses primarily on risks to UNICEF as an
organization. Although the concepts are interrelated, and the hazards or threats might be the same, different risks
can be identified depending on the specific object in focus.
Since GRIP advances a people-centric approach that is concerned with identifying and reducing the negative
impacts of shocks and stresses on children, it defines risk as: the likelihood of shocks or stresses leading to the
erosion of development progress, the deepening of deprivation and/or humanitarian crisis affecting children, vul-
nerable households or groups. GRIP Module No. 2 provides a method for developing a risk analysis to determine
the likelihood and potential impact of humanitarian crisis – in part to help UNICEF country offices meet the require-
ments of the emergency preparedness procedure. The sector-specific GRIP Module Nos. 5–11 can help teams to
better identify risks that might deepen deprivation and/or lead to an erosion of positive progress in each sector.
According to GRIP, a shock or stress can come from almost anywhere: a natural phenomenon such as an earth-
quake; a climate change-related event such as sea level rise; a technological hazard such as a nuclear power
accident; or civil unrest, armed conflict and/or serious challenges to social cohesion. GRIP Module No. 2 provides
additional clarification in this regard as well as a list of indicative shocks and stresses that can negatively affect the
lives of children. Every analysis – just like every country – is unique, however.
40
See the complete list of disaster risk terminology recommended by an open-ended intergovernmental expert working group and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Terminology on disaster risk reduction’, UNISDR, <www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology>, accessed 6 March 2018.
41
European Commission, ‘Disaster Risk Reduction: Increasing resilience by reducing disaster risk in humanitarian action’, DG ECHO Thematic Policy Paper No. 5, European Commission,
September 2013, available at <http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/prevention_preparedness/DRR_thematic_policy_doc.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
42
Metcalfe, Victoria, Ellen Martin and Sara Pantuliano, ‘Risk in humanitarian action: towards a common approach?’, Humanitarian Policy Group Commissioned Paper, Overseas Devel-
opment Institute, January 2011, available at <www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6764.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
24
Graphic 3 - Three ways of thinking about risk: Risks to children, to the programme or to the enterprise
children the programme the enterprise

(and vulnerable groups) (and its results) (UNICEF)
1 2 3
Subject:
Subject: Subject: Any potential threat to strategic, program-
A significant “contextual” shock or stress Any potential threat to achievement of matic, financial or operational effective-
programme results mess of the enterprise
RISK is defined as:
The likelihood of shocks and stresses RISK is defined as: RISK is defined as:
leading to an erosion of development pro- The likelihood of a potential event or oc- Threats to the achievement of results, man-
gress, deepening deprivation or humani- currence beyond the control of the pro- agement objectives reputation, resource mo-
tarian crisis affecting children, vulnerable gramme adversely affecting the achieve- bilization, protection of resources, staff safety
households or groups. ment of a desired result. and security or continuity of operations.
3.2 The risk formula
GRIP adopts the standard UNISDR risk formula as the main conceptual framework for risk analysis (see Graphic 4).
It also provides a variation of this formula that can help to simplify the concepts for the purpose of multi-stakeholder
discussions. In either case, the formula suggests that risk is actually a product of the interaction between several
different variables. As one variable changes, so does the overall risk.
To understand risk, it is therefore necessary to systematically analyse each of the variables involved. To do this, the
following questions can be posed:
• What are the shocks and stresses, and what is the type, likelihood and severity of each?
• Who and what are exposed to each specific shocks or stress and where are they located?
• Who is especially vulnerable? What characteristics make these individuals or groups particularly susceptible
to the negative impacts of a specific shock or stress?
• What capacities do communities, authorities, institutions or systems have (or need) to prevent, mitigate, prepare
for, respond to and recover from a specific shock or stress?
Graphic 4 - The risk formula
Shock: a sudden and potentially dam-

aging phenomenon Vulnerability: the characteristics
Exposure: the presence of people,
Stress: similar to a shock, but is chronic and circumstances of a child, house-
property, livelihoods, systems or oth-
in nature and can occur over a longer hold or community that make it sus-
er elements in areas that can be im-
period of time. ceptible to the damaging effects of a
pacted by various shocks and stresses.
Analysis considers type, likelihood and shock or stress.
severity or potential tipping point.
Hazard, shock or stress × Exposure × Vulnerability

RISK =
capacity
Capacity: the combination of all the strengths, attributes and

resources available within a community, society or organization.
25
GRIP - module 2: risk analysis
module 2
Risk analysis
© UNICEF/UNI116414/Page
26
MODULE 2: Risk analysis

1 1. INTRODUCTION 28
2 1.1. Why do we need a risk analysis? What is different about the UNICEF approach? 28
11 1.2. When is the best time to conduct a risk analysis? 28
1.3. What is the process? 30
3
1.4. Other complementary methods 31
10
1.5. How can a GRIP workshop support the process? 35
4 2. PREPARATION PHASE 38
9 2.1. Setting the strategic purpose 38
A 2.2. Confirming risk rating and scope 38
8 2.3. Accountabilities and management structures 39
5 2.4. Participation of child rights stakeholders 40
7 6 2.5. Estimation of resources required 42
3. ASSESSMENT PHASE 43
3.1. Step 1: Likelihood 45
3.2. Step 2: Impact 48
3.3. Step 3: Risk 54
4. ANALYSIS PHASE 56
4.1. Causality analysis 56
4.2. Optional analyses 60
5. validation PHASE 61
5.1. Review and validation 61
5.2. Dissemination and use 61
5.3. Assessing performance with quality criteria 61
Overview of GRIP ModuleS 1 and 2

GRIP Module No. 1 explains the:
• importance of risk in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the increasing frequency and
severity of shocks and stresses
• UNICEF approach to resilient development, which puts children at the centre of analysis, planning and
programming
• purpose of the UNICEF Guidance for Risk-informed Programming (GRIP)
• risk formula.
GRIP Module No. 2 is designed to help UNICEF country offices and key child rights stakeholders to:
• conduct an assessment of the risk of humanitarian crisis in country (ranking each shock/stress and/or geo-
graphical area by the risk associated with it) using child-centred indicators and approaches (sector-specific
modules consider the wider risks of the deepening of deprivation and the erosion of development progress)
• work with partners to identify the causes of various impacts and losses, and their effects on existing
deprivations facing children
• analyse the roles and capacities of duty bearers, including those that might increase the potential for a
more resilient and peaceful society
• validate the analysis and consider opportunities to maximize its dissemination and use.
27
1. introduction
1.1 Why do we need a risk analysis?
What is different about the UNICEF approach?
UNICEF recognizes that although humanitarian crisis cannot always be prevented, the suffering associated with
the impacts of various shocks and stresses on children can be greatly reduced through strong, proactive and
collaborative risk-informed programming. Understanding the probability of various hazards occurring, their patterns
of exposure and the most likely impacts on children, women and vulnerable groups is essential. It is also critical
to consider why these risks occur with such frequency and severity, who is responsible for addressing them, and
what capacities these actors need to fulfil their duties so that evidence and knowledge can be turned into pro-
gramming practice.
Working together so that key child rights stakeholders share a better understanding of risk can:
• leverage national and international resources for those programmes that make the greatest difference in
reducing the risk of humanitarian crisis and/or better equipping the geographical areas that need it most
• enable the adaptation of stakeholder strategies to local contexts, to better protect development gains and
outcomes for children, women and vulnerable groups
• close the arbitrary gap between humanitarian and development work by providing a common basis for
targeting vulnerable children and communities, so that development programmes focus on risks as well as in-
equities, and humanitarian programmes focus on reducing risks and vulnerabilities over the long term
• avoid doing harm in situations where inequity and gender inequality already heighten vulnerability for many people.
Many national risk analyses conducted by national counterparts and partners focus on risks to the adult population,
to socio-economic assets or to specific productive sectors such as agriculture or industry. The UNICEF Guidance
for Risk-informed Programming (GRIP) approach is inspired by these standard approaches, but is child-centred:
it puts the special needs, vulnerabilities and capacities of children at the centre of the analysis. It also considers
vulnerabilities specific to women, including in relation to gender-based violence prevention, gender-sensitive pre-
paredness for response and the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse.1
For example, the GRIP approach:

• focuses on the exposure of children to various shocks and stresses, giving special consideration to the infra-
structure and systems that are critical to children’s development
• captures the vulnerability of children and their households in terms of their socio-economic status, health
and well-being
• considers the existing capacities required to reduce risks, manage crisis and ensure the continuity of servic-
es for children and their caregivers
• uses a human rights-based approach to consider the capacity gaps of the primary duty bearers that play a
critical role in reducing risk for children and protecting and upholding their rights.
1.2 When is the best time to conduct a risk analysis?
All UNICEF country offices irrespective of the country’s risk rating should develop a child-centred risk analysis
once per planning cycle. When to conduct the risk analysis will depend on a variety of factors, including the:
• current position of the UNICEF country office in the planning cycle for the UNICEF Country Programme of
Cooperation and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework
• opportunities that exist to contribute to national risk analysis and planning processes
• availability of quality data and information (e.g., the availability of new data from census, survey and/or admin-
istrative data sources)
• internal and external capacities and resources available to see the analysis through to completion.
1
Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) by our own staff, <www.pseataskforce.org>, accessed 10 March 2018.
28
For UNICEF, one of the most influential times to conduct a child-centred risk analysis is while elaborating a situation
analysis (SitAn) of children’s and women’s rights, since the SitAn will contribute to national research, inform national
planning and development processes, and influence the shape of both UNICEF country programmes and United
Nations Development Assistance Frameworks.
If possible, the SitAn itself should include a robust risk analysis. To maximize the potential to integrate risk
into the SitAn, the GRIP risk analysis is aligned to the UNICEF Guidance on Conducting a Situation Analysis of
Children’s and Women’s Rights2 and the Technical Note: Emergency Risk Informed Situation Analysis.3 It is also
designed to help UNICEF country offices meet the requirements for risk analysis outlined in the UNICEF
Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response.4
Since ‘classic’ SitAns are typically conducted once every five years (once per country programming cycle), not all
UNICEF country offices can immediately integrate risk analyses.5 When integration into the SitAn is not possible,
an independent risk analysis can instead be linked to either:
• another critical milestone in the UNICEF country programming cycle such as the strategic moment of reflection
or the development of programme strategy notes
• a joint implementation or review process with partners such as the optional mid-term review or the Gender
Programme Review
• a major national or inter-agency planning milestone or significant opportunity to contribute to national or inter-
agency research that aims to expand the evidence base related to risks to children, their families and their communities
• the update of the risk analysis held on the Emergency Preparedness Platform, which should align with the
development of the country office annual work plan (or, in the case of rolling and multi-year country work
plans, with scheduled reviews of the work plan).
Risk analysis may be most influential at specific stages of the UNICEF country programming cycle, in line with the
organization’s planning milestones (see Graphic 1).
Graphic 1 - Timing of child-centred risk analysis in relation to UNICEF country programming milestones
risk informed
situation analysis
Discussions on
prioritization
evaluation of
the programme
Most influencial time to
conduct a Child-Centred rbm
Risk Analysis if it should workshop
inform planning
optional midterm
Consider
review opportunities for
a risk analysis strategic moment
to inform external of refelction (smr)
review and external Consider opportunities
evaluations for the risk analysis
to inform other major elaboration of strategy
planning milestones
note(s)
implementation
& monitoring
elaboration of country
programme document
rolling multi-year
workplans
country programme
management plan
2
United Nations Children’s Fund, Guidance on Conducting a Situation Analysis of Children’s and Women’s Rights, UNICEF Division of Policy and Strategy, March 2012, available at
<www.unicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs/Rights based equity focused Situation Analysis guidance.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
3
United Nations Children’s Fund, Technical Note: Emergency Risk Informed Situation Analysis, UNICEF, Geneva, August 2012, available at <www.unicefinemergencies.com/down-
loads/eresource/docs/KRR/Guidance Risk Informed SitAn FINAL.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
4
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response, EMOPS/PROCEDURE/2016/001, Effective date 30 March 2018, accessible to
UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/sites/portals/RF/Regulatory%20Framework%20Library/UNICEF%20Preparedness%20Procedure%2029%20Dec%20
2016.pdf>, accessed 8 March 2018.
5
There are three main categories of SitAn: (1) ‘Shared’ or joint analysis – conducted in full partnership with government or other development actors; (2) the ‘classic’ SitAn – which is
usually a single, comprehensive document; and (3) the ‘SitAn space’ – which is a series of issue-based, group-based, sector-based, region-specific and/or life cycle-focused analyses.
29
Global good practice in elaborating risk-Informed SitAns
For good examples of UNICEF SitAns that integrate risk analysis, see the national SitAn for
the Philippines and the sub-national SitAn for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao in
the Philippines, which are available on the Risk and Resilience, Fragility and Peacebuilding
team site.6 Both reports were commissioned by UNICEF Philippines and written by Coram
Children’s Legal Centre, part of the Coram group of charities.
1.3 What is the process?
The GRIP child-centred risk analysis process has four phases, which align with the phases of the UNICEF SitAn (see
Graphic 2). The assessment phase is designed specifically to help UNICEF country offices also meet the require-
ments of the Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response and therefore focuses on ascertaining the risk of
humanitarian crisis associated with different shocks and stresses. The analysis phase provides an opportunity to con-
sider the risk of deepening deprivation facing children and/or an erosion in development progress in a particular sector.
The four phases of the GRIP child-centred risk analysis are:

1. Preparation Establishing the strategic purpose and scope of the analysis as well as its timing, participants,
governance structures and budget.
2. Assessment Updating relevant data and information to assess both the exposure of children (and important
systems that support children) to various shocks and stresses, and the existing vulnerabilities and capacities
that combine to increase the risk of crisis.
3. Analysis Consideration of why the identified risks are occurring, who is responsible for addressing them,
and what capacities these actors have or lack in this regard.
4. Validation Approval of the analysis in conjunction with partners, involving the consideration of the dissemina-
tion and use of the analysis, of data management, and of the overall quality of the work.
Graphic 2 - Summary of the GRIP risk analysis process
1. preparation 2. assessment 3. analysis 4. validation
1.1 Determine purpose 2.1 Likelihood of shock 3.1 Perform a participa- 4.1 Review and validate
and stresses tory causality analysis Analysis
1.2 Confirm risk rating
and scope 2.2 Consider and rate 3.2 Consider a role 4.2 Disseminate and use
potential impacts pattern analysis and
1.3 Establish accounta- • Exposure capacity gap analysis
• Impacts and losses
4.3 Assess performance
bilities and manage- • Vulnerabilities and
ment structures capacities
1.4 Determine participants 2.3 Rank the risks

Consider
associated with each a GRIP
1.5 Estimate resources shock/stress workshop
UNICEF is experienced in conducting child-centred risk analyses: for a variety of purposes; at different depths
(from in-depth studies to light-touch reports); using multiple dimensions (temporal and spatial); and at various
scales (at the national, sub-national and city level). UNICEF also has examples that take gender equality consid-
erations into account. (For just a few examples, see Map 2 ).
6
The Risk and Resilience, Fragility and Peacebuilding team site is accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/Communities/RiskResilience-
FragilityPeacebuilding/SitePages/Home2.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
30
1.4 Other complementary methods
There are benefits and drawbacks to following the GRIP approach to risk analysis.
Benefits of the GRIP approach Drawbacks of the GRIP approach

• It is ideal for facilitating discussion among diverse • It focuses at the national level and may therefore
multi-stakeholder groups, using a participatory obscure great variation at the sub-national level in
approach. terms of exposure to various shocks and stresses
• It simplifies the risk formula and applies an easy, and vulnerabilities of households and communities.
step-by-step method that can be understood by • It focuses primarily on ascertaining the risk of
a wide range of technical professionals. humanitarian crisis, to align with the risk analysis
• It produces a narrative that is well structured required under the Procedure on Preparedness for
to meet the requirements of the Procedure on emergency Response, therefore a special effort or
Preparedness for Emergency Response and to additional analysis may be necessary to consider
be integrated into the UNICEF SitAn. properly the risk of the deepening of deprivation and/
or the erosion of development progress for children.
Given these limitations, some UNICEF country offices will clearly wish to conduct additional specialized assess-
ments or analysis to complement the GRIP risk analysis. There are many options, three of which are summarized
below (for examples of these optional approaches in action, see Box 2 ). UNICEF also has experience of building
databases and systems to monitor changes in risk over time. This can help decision-makers to make more rapid
adjustments to programme strategies and to better support long-term planning with national authorities (for more
on the monitoring of risks, see GRIP Module No. 4).
Spatial risk assessment (or ‘child-centred risk mapping’)
According to the Technical Note: Emergency Risk Informed Situation Analysis, countries, states and territories
with a higher risk rating should perform a quantitative assessment of the spatial distribution of risk across
distinct geographical areas. This assessment method can help multi-stakeholder teams (including, in particular,
national and local government) to sharpen targets for resource allocation and programming – and can inform
how strategies may be adapted to local contexts and risks. Since location and exposure to shocks and stresses
are recognized as factors that drive inequity, a spatial risk assessment greatly supports UNICEF efforts to further
the equity approach, leaving no one behind.
Method
The process involves quantifying each variable in the risk formula using relevant child-sensitive indicators
and then assigning a relative score to each of the various administrative areas. Using a geographic infor-
mation system, data related to each variable can be converted into layers of information that can be laid
on top of each other to enable the estimation of the sub-national distribution of risk.
considerations
Although spatial risk assessment has many benefits, it calls for more detailed data that are disaggregated
at the sub-national level. Generally, the higher the resolution (or smaller the scale) of the analysis, the more
challenging it can be to source quality data. This approach also requires a geographic information system
and the technical skills required to handle data, to develop methodologies for spatial analysis and to
manage databases. Since database development should be carried out in support of efforts by national
authorities to strengthen national monitoring systems, this method also implies the need for stronger,
longer-term partnerships with government (which may be challenging in situations of fragility or low
capacity). For UNICEF, strong management is also required to ensure that the products of the assessment
(e.g., thematic maps) are reviewed and their implications for programming properly considered. For all of
these reasons, this option is recommended only for higher-risk countries and those with adequate tech-
nical and financial resources to support it.
31
Resources
• UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia (ROSA) and UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office
(EAPRO) collaborated to produce Child-centred Risk Assessment: Regional Synthesis of UNICEF
Assessments in Asia.7 This provides early examples of spatial risk assessment and remains a useful
guide to methodology.
• UNICEF has experience of supporting or conducting spatial risk assessments in East Asia and the
Pacific, South Asia, West Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, contributing to the roll-out
of the Index for Risk Management (INFORM) model at regional and sub-national levels. For a list of
assessments, best practice examples and lessons learned on management and methods, consult
the Risk and Resilience, Fragility and Peacebuilding team site.
• Recognizing the need for specialist services, UNICEF EAPRO developed a Long-term Arrangement
for Services with two institutions skilled in spatial risk assessment, while the Data, Research and
Policy division maintains agreements with several geographic information systems firms. Before
embarking on a spatial risk assessment, consult the relevant UNICEF regional office and the Hu-
manitarian Action and Transition Section (HATIS) in Programme Division (UNICEF Headquarters) for
a list of qualified service providers who can support the process.
Conflict analysis
High-risk countries or areas experiencing armed conflict, civil unrest and/or major threats to social cohesion
may consider developing a specific conflict analysis. Given that many conflicts, particularly within states,
emerge in response to a belief that a specific group or area is being marginalized, a conflict analysis can
improve conflict sensitivity in existing programming and also support the design of programmes to proactively
build social cohesion and peace.
Method
Many conflict analysis frameworks and methodologies exist, but the UNICEF model consists of five key
elements, the first two of which are ideally completed during the early assessment phase of a larger risk
analysis, and the rest during the analysis phase. A conflict analysis can be integrated into the GRIP risk
analysis or it may be conducted separately (to better understand the relationship between these comple-
mentary approaches, see Box 1 ).
considerations
Conflict dynamics is likely to be a sensitive topic for many participants. Deciding how to frame issues,
what language to use, whom to involve, what scope to fix, and how to manage individual and group
biases can be challenging. As such, it is recommended that UNICEF country offices planning a conflict
analysis consult institutional guidance and consider engaging the support of a qualified facilitator to run
consultation workshops.
Resources
UNICEF Guide to Conflict Analysis8

UNICEF Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding Programming Guide9
Risk and Resilience, Fragility and Peacebuilding team site, which contains case studies and good practices.
7
United Nations Children’s Fund, Child-centred Risk Assessment: Regional Synthesis of UNICEF Assessments in Asia, UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia, Kathmandu, January
2014, available at <www.preventionweb.net/files/36688_36688rosaccriskassessmentfeb2014.pdf>, accessed 18 February 2018.
8
United Nations Children’s Fund, Guide to Conflict Analysis, UNICEF, November 2016, available at: <http://s3.amazonaws.com/ineeassets/resources/Guide_to_Conflict_Analysis_-_
UNICEF_Nov_2016.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
9
United Nations Children’s Fund, Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding Programming Guide, UNICEF, November 2016, available at <http://s3.amazonaws.com/inee-assets/resources/
Programming_Guide_-_Conflict_Sensitivity_and_Peacebuilding__UNICEF_Nov_2016.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
32
Box 1 - Understanding the relationship between the GRIP risk analysis

and elements of conflict analysis
This box describes how the main elements of a conflict analysis can also be considered within the frame-
work of the GRIP risk analysis.
1. Stakeholder analysis provides an understanding of key actors and their perspectives, needs and inter-
actions with one another in the conflict context. A stakeholder analysis may also be included under
the ‘capacities’ element of the broader risk analysis.
2. Conflict dynamics is about understanding the ‘pulse’ of a conflict context. It looks at patterns and forces
that divide or connect social groups – with consideration of gender, identity, geography, age, etc. ‘Dividers
and connectors’ could be groups, processes, mechanisms, practices, policies and institutions with the
capacity to divide or connect people. Conflict dynamics may also be looked at as an aspect of the
‘capacities’ and ‘vulnerabilities’ elements of the broader risk analysis.
3. Root and proximate causes require careful consideration. Root causes are the underlying socio-economic,
cultural and institutional factors (e.g., poor governance, systematic discrimination, lack of political partic-
ipation, unequal economic opportunity) that create the conditions for destructive conflict and violence.
Proximate causes contribute to the escalation of tensions and help to create an enabling environment
for violence (e.g., human rights abuses, worsening economic conditions, divisive rhetoric, drought ag-
gravating competition over pasture and water). Root and proximate causes may also be looked at as
aspects of the ‘capacities’ and ‘vulnerabilities’ elements of the broader risk analysis.
4. Triggers are sudden or acute events that ‘trigger’ destructive conflict and violence. When working in a
conflict context, it is critical to be aware of the potential triggers (e.g., an election, a sudden rise in food
prices, a military coup, the assassination of a leader) that can contribute to the outbreak or further escalation
of tensions and violent conflict. Triggers are closely linked to the ‘likelihood’ and ‘exposure’ elements
of the broader risk analysis and may be looked at as part of these elements.
4. Peace capacities are institutions, groups, traditions, events, rituals, processes and people that are well
positioned and equipped to address conflict constructively and build peace (e.g., a reform programme, a
civil society commitment to peace, ritualized and traditional dispute resolution). Peace capacities may
be looked as an aspect of the ‘capacities’ element of the broader risk analysis.
climate landscape analysis for children
Countries or areas facing major risks associated with climate change should consider the methodology of the
climate landscape analysis for children (CLAC).10 This approach is not a risk analysis, but it can help multi-stake-
holder teams to consider the overall climate, environment and energy (CEE) landscape (in terms of data, policy,
programming, gaps, actors, etc.) and how it relates to children and UNICEF results so that priority areas for
further analysis and integration may be identified.
Method
There are five basic steps to CLAC: a review of the CEE situation in country; an analysis of government
responses to the CEE situation; an analysis of the impacts of CEE issues on children; an analysis of
child-inclusive CEE policies, strategies and programming; and a discussion of how UNICEF country pro-
grammes can strengthen the CEE programming environment for children.
considerations
Although climate-related shocks and stresses pose risks to children, CLAC takes a wider perspective
than a risk analysis to consider opportunities for programming beyond the frame of risk reduction. It is
therefore complementary to, but not a substitute for, GRIP risk analysis, which considers climate-related
phenomena alongside other shocks and stresses in the environment.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Guidance Note: How to undertake a Climate Landscape Analysis for Children (CLAC), UNICEF, (n.d.), accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at
10
<https://unicef.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/Communities/ESC/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%7b3EFA2F61-58F3-4147-8ADB-5DFECA6BAB22%7d&file=Climate Landscape
Analysis for Children_Guidance.docx&action=default>, accessed 8 March 2018.
33
Resources
CLAC was piloted in 2017 in Timor-Leste, Malawi, the Philippines, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan. For guid-
ance and links to these examples, visit the Climate Landscape Analysis Sharepoint Site.11
Box 2 - Examples of complementary approaches in action
Spatial risk In 2016, UNICEF Pacific worked with a

assessment private sector firm to develop child-centred
Pacific, spatial risk assessments for nine Pacific
multi-country, Island countries. The findings of the assess-
2015–2017 ments were integrated into the country-
specific situation analyses and contributed
to discussions at the strategic moment of
reflection, informing the new multi-country
programme. The spatial risk assessments
also supported the water, sanitation and
hygiene (WASH) sector to better target its
investments to reach those islands and areas
that were not only deprived of adequate
WASH facilities, but are also highly exposed
to a variety of climate change and disaster-
related hazards.
Conflict analysis UNICEF conducted an analysis of conflict

Afghanistan, dynamics for Afghanistan to inform pro-
2017 gramme strategies, the mid-term review
and the development of the new country
programme for 2020–2024. The report
presented a range of recommendations to
improve conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding
in programming as well as to support a shift
from a mainly development approach to a
humanitarian approach focused on reaching
the most in need and vulnerable children living
in areas not controlled by the government.
The analysis considered key stakeholders
and conflict drivers as well as current and
projected conflict trends.
Climate landscape UNICEF Timor-Leste together with UNICEF

analysis for children Headquarters (Data, Research and Policy
Timor-Leste, 2017 division) commissioned a climate landscape
analysis for children in 2017. It provided the
essential baseline information on climate,
environment and energy issues affecting
children and offers recommendations to the
country office on how to incorporate the
most important issues and opportunities
in the new country programme.
11
The Climate Landscape Analysis SharePoint site is available to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/Communities/ESC/SitePages/Climate Landscape
Analysis for Children.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
34
1.5 How can a GRIP workshop support the process?
A GRIP workshop is a flexible, participatory-style workshop tailor-made to support UNICEF country offices and their
national counterparts and partners to consider how risk can affect children, their caregivers and their communities.
(For examples of GRIP workshops hosted by UNICEF country offices, see GRIP Module No. 1, Map 1).
It can be particularly useful to hold a GRIP workshop during the process of developing a risk analysis as it can help
a multi-stakeholder group to:
• understand the importance of risk analysis and the role it can play in advancing risk-informed programming
and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• validate the findings of a risk assessment by determining collectively whether the statistics and methods
used were accurate and credible given the context
• apply the conceptual frameworks of a human rights-based approach to programming and gender equality
strategies, thus improving the collective understanding of why risks are occurring, how they exacerbate existing
inequities, who is responsible for addressing them, and what capacities these actors have or lack in this regard
• identify implications for collective child rights programming (see GRIP Module No. 3)
• rank the risks related to various shocks and stresses, thus providing a basis for the consideration of hazard-
specific preparedness measures and the requirements of the UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency
Response and the Emergency Preparedness Platform.
UNICEF regional office planning and emergency advisers, in cooperation with HATIS in Programme Division,
can support country offices to consider if, how and when a GRIP workshop may be useful.
© UNICEF/UN09111/Lynch
“In Timor Leste, it has been a long time since we had a major shock
but the vulnerability of the population is so high that even heavy rain
can lead to acute and urgent needs. It is impossible to be everywhere
at once. We have to discuss in this workshop how to sharpen
our targets to reach the communities that are both deeply deprived
and highly exposed to various natural hazards.”
Scott Whoolery, Deputy Representative
UNICEF Timor Leste
35
Global Various methods, with innovative time
Map 2
series analysis
UNICEF India has introduced several child-centred spa-
Experience tial risk assessments in selected states and regions.

In 2013, the UNICEF Rajasthan State Office decided
to innovate by monitoring changes in risks over time
in child-sensitive risk so that the impact of slower-onset stresses could be

better understood. The team collected monthly data to
trace the correlation between school attendance and rain-
assessment and analysis fall deficit, to identify whether the ongoing drought had
an effect on children’s behaviour during specific sea-
sons of the year. This time series analysis confirmed
devastating seasonal effects and helped to reshape
the country programme in the worst affected districts.
india
guatemala
somalia
Adaptation of
INFORM model
In 2017, UNICEF worked with
national counterparts and part- Conflict and peace situation
ners in the national coordination
analysis
body for disaster risk reduction
and the Index for Risk Man- Somalia was one of 14 countries
agement (INFORM) network participating in the Peacebuilding
to roll out a sub-national risk Education and Advocacy [PBEA] Pro-
assessment. UNICEF ensured gramme, funded by the Government
the inclusion of child-sensitive of the Netherlands, which ended in
indicators to measure vulner- 2016. UNICEF Somalia conducted a
ability and also participated in situation analysis which considered
the analysis to consider the risk conflict dynamics and explored the
implications for children and for relationship between education and
the systems that support them. conflict, and identify opportunities
for education programming to miti-
gate conflict drivers.
Colombia
sierra
leone
Adaptation of INFORM model
Since 2012, various actors in the international
humanitarian community have been developing
and making use of INFORM as a way to meas- Adolescents participation in Conflict Analysis
ure the risk of humanitarian crisis. In 2016 and Girls and boys aged 12–19 years were mobilized through schools,
2017, UNICEF and the Colombian Family Welfare youth clubs, mother’s clubs and local NGOs to participate in work-
Institute jointly carried out the process of adapt- shops; focus group discussions and brainstorming sessions sep-
ing the global and regional INFORM models to arate from adults. Issues identified as conflict drivers included lack
the specific context in Colombia, placing an em- of employment opportunities for youth; lack of inclusion in political
phasis on children and adolescents. This process processes; the inequalities in access to tertiary education; unjust
resulted in the first sub-national risk assessment distribution of land and concerns related to corporal punishment
with municipal disaggregation to consider haz- and poor parenting. Young participants highlighted their desire to
ards, vulnerabilities, capacities and relative levels realize their potential and feel a sense of belonging to the nation.
of risk of humanitarian crisis. This has become a UNICEF is now working with adolescents to engage parents, teach-
model for other countries in the region. ers and community members through drama and media advocacy.
36
Sub-national spatial risk National-level analysis, informing national development plans
assessment In 2015, UNICEF Myanmar developed a proof-of-concept child-centred risk assess-
In 2014, UNICEF Nepal completed ment that inspired the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement to recon-
a sub-national, child-centred spatial sider its national risk assessment methodology. Throughout the process, UNICEF and
risk assessment, showing the the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) emerged as the key partners to help
relative distribution of the risk of the government deliver on Outcome 2.2 of the Myanmar Action Plan on Disaster Risk
humanitarian crisis by district. The Reduction – the production of a hazard and vulnerability atlas. This atlas then informed
work considered seven different the development of the country’s first ever child-centred disaster risk reduction plan.
hazards and used the national Child
Deprivation Index (2011) to consider
the socio-economic vulnerabilities of
City-level analysis, informing
households. In relation to capacities,
myanmar local development plans
the presence/absence of prepared-
ness and response and contingency In 2015, UNICEF Indonesia, the Ministry
plans for each district was considered. of Women’s Empowerment and Child Pro-
tection, and World Vision Indonesia tested
the methodology for a participatory ap-
proach to a ‘child-centred climate risk as-
sessment’ at the community level in the
nepal city of Surabaya. Based on the availability
of biophysical, social and economic data,
the assessment used 20 child-centred
indicators to estimate capacities, vulner-
abilities and the exposure of children to
a variety of hazards in the city. Since the
risk assessment was conducted within
the network of the Child Friendly Cities
initiative, mayors and city officials were
also supported to conduct a further anal-
ysis and to develop community-level risk
reduction plans informed by children’s own
validation of this analysis.
indonesia
pacific
sri lanka
Peacebuilding Context Assessment Multi-country risk assessments

In 2016, the United Nations commissioned a In 2016, UNICEF Pacific worked with a private sector firm to develop
Peacebuilding Context Assessment to inform child-centred spatial risk assessments for seven Pacific Island coun-
the development of a peacebuilding programme tries. The findings of the assessments were integrated into the
in Sri Lanka. The report analyses the contempo- country-specific situation analyses and contributed to discus-
rary challenges and opportunities with respect sions at the strategic moment of reflection, informing the new multi-
to peacebuilding in Sri Lanka in terms of four country programme. The spatial risk assessments also supported
broad areas: politics and governance, economy, the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector to better target
security and reconciliation. The report was in- its investments to reach those islands and areas that were not only
tended to inform the development of the national deprived of adequate WASH facilities, but are also highly exposed
Peacebuilding Priority Plan. to a variety of climate- and disaster-related hazards.
37
2. PREPARATION PHASE
Preparation and design constitute the most important phase of any project. In the case of child-centred risk anal-
ysis, failure to correctly identify its strategic purpose and participants at the outset can cause the analysis to lack
credibility and diminish its potential influence and use. This section outlines the main considerations for UNICEF
country offices to bear in mind when designing a child-centred risk analysis.
2.1. Setting the strategic purpose
The first step in any analysis is to determine its strategic purpose. Deciding why to elaborate a study helps to
define its scope, secure the right participants, select the appropriate methodology, source and manage the data,
and correctly estimate the technical and financial resources required for its completion. The terms of reference for
a risk analysis should ideally include a clear statement of purpose.
The main reasons to conduct a risk analysis include:
• Increasing the national evidence base on risks facing children. A child-centred risk analysis, particularly
when integrated into a SitAn, can help stakeholders to identify not only the areas where children are most
deprived, but also those in which they are disproportionately exposed to various shocks and stresses. This can
help to advance national research on children and to inform the development of national policies and plans.
• To further national understanding of equity, gender and age considerations, by ensuring the disaggregation
of data and that equity and gender equality analysis of the impacts of specific risks on women and men, and
girls and boys is conducted. This involves going beyond the gender binary (female/male) to examine the inter-
secting considerations of age, disability, rural/urban location, socio-economic status and ethnicity, to understand
the core drivers of vulnerability and the characteristics of resilience within communities.
• Influencing national or inter-agency risk assessment methodologies. UNICEF may develop a child-centred
risk analysis as a proof-of-concept study to help major stakeholders understand the importance of integrating
children’s special needs, vulnerabilities and capacities into national assessment methodologies.
• Informing the UNICEF country programming cycle. UNICEF typically develops a new Country Programme
of Cooperation with each national counterpart every five years. A child-centred risk analysis can complement
the traditional analysis of inequities and help to sharpen the ‘risk lens’ in discussions around geographical
prioritization, formulation of results, and selection of appropriate strategies.
• Informing emergency preparedness planning. UNICEF country offices complete a four-step preparedness
planning process annually to prepare responses to the priority risks in the programming environment. Com-
pleting a GRIP risk analysis will help a country office to better rank the risks associated with specific hazards
and to develop its risk analysis for the Emergency Preparedness Platform.
• Informing humanitarian action. Many countries are characterized by extreme fragility and chronic vulnerability
to the impacts of shocks and stresses. Humanitarian action often focuses, however, on those places where
there are acute and immediate needs rather than where there are vulnerabilities and risks. Conducting a risk
analysis can help humanitarian actors to proactively strengthen the resilience of communities at risk, which
is critical in complex and protracted crises.
2.2. Confirming risk rating and scope
How much to invest in a child-centred risk analysis depends on many factors, including its strategic purpose and the
available capacities and resources. The greater the risks faced by a country, the higher the stakes for risk-informed pro-
gramming. Generally, the depth of risk analysis should be commensurate with the level of risk that a country manages.
Senior management in the UNICEF country office should confirm the country’s risk rating using internationally
credible indices and allow the rating to inform decisions on the use of optional ‘deeper’ methods for assessment
and analysis (such as those described in section 1.4). For example, the Technical Note: Emergency Risk Informed
Situation Analysis suggests that high-risk countries should conduct a spatial risk assessment or ‘child-centred risk
mapping’ to estimate the spatial distribution of risk.
38
The Index for Risk Management (INFORM), the Global Peace Index and the World Bank Group’s Harmonized List of
Fragile Situations are three very different models, each with its own distinct methodology – but all three are useful
in determining how countries rank relative to one another in terms of risk, peace and fragility (see Table 1). Together,
they provide a holistic look at the risk of humanitarian crisis triggered by natural, climate-related and human hazards
(including conflict). (For a full list of complementary models that provide country risk ratings, see Annex 1).
Table 1 - Determining a country’s risk rating and the depth of risk analysis required
Risk index Description of risk index Recommendation for depth
INFORM is a global tool for understanding the risk Teams working in countries, states
Index for Risk of humanitarian crises, which has been produced and territories ranked as high risk on
Management by the members of the Inter-Agency Standing the INFORM global or regional mod-
(INFORM)12 Committee’s Task Team on Preparedness and Re- els may consider conducting a spatial
silience, including UNICEF. Regional and country risk assessment or ‘child-centred risk
models are also available. mapping’.
The Global Peace Index ranks 163 independent It is recommended that teams work-
states and territories according to their level of ing in countries, states and territories
peacefulness. Produced by the Institute for Eco- that score 2 or more in the Ongoing
Global Peace
nomics and Peace, the index uses 23 indicators to Domestic and International Conflict
Index13
measure peace in three domains: Societal Safety domain conduct a more in-depth
and Security; Ongoing Domestic and International analysis using the UNICEF Guide to
Conflict; and degree of Militarization. Conflict Analysis.
The World Bank Group’s Fragile, Conflict and Vio- Teams working in countries, states
World Bank lence Group annually releases a Harmonized List and territories on the list may consider
Group’s of Fragile Situations. This recognizes that violence, more in-depth conflict analysis, having
Harmonized humanitarian crisis and other challenges cannot be first consulted the UNICEF Program-
List of Fragile resolved with short-term or partial solutions in the ming Framework for Fragile Contexts15
Situations14 absence of institutions that provide people with and the UNICEF Conflict Sensitivity and
security, justice, and economic opportunities. Peacebuilding Programming Guide.
2.3. Accountabilities and management structures
UNICEF country representatives, regional directors and divisional directors are accountable for the overall quality
of research in the offices/divisions that they oversee. Depending on its depth and duration, a ‘risk-informed SitAn’
can be classified as either ‘major research’ or ‘research’ according the UNICEF Procedure for Quality Assurance in
Research16 and should therefore be managed by senior management (or a designated manager of research) and
have an internal steering committee and an external advisory board (ideally co-chaired by the UNICEF Representative
and a counterpart from a national ministry).17
A child-centred risk analysis that is de-linked from the UNICEF SitAn may be considered ‘research’ or a ‘study’
depending on its purpose, scope and depth, and can be developed in line with the Procedure for Quality Assurance
in Research18 Senior management should consider classifying the research, integrating it into the country office
integrated monitoring, evaluation and research plan or database (IMERP or PRIME) and adapting management and
12
Inter-Agency Standing Committee/European Commission, Index for Risk Management (INFORM), <www.inform-index.org>, accessed 8 March 2017.
13
Vision of Humanity, ‘Global Peace Index 2017’, Institute for Economics and Peace, 2017, <http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/>, accessed 8 March 2018.
14
World Bank, ‘Harmonized List of Fragile Situations’, World Bank Group, 2018, <www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/harmonized-list-of-fragile-situations>, accessed 8 March 2018.
15
United Nations Children’s Fund, Division of Data Research and Policy, UNICEF Procedure for Quality Assurance in Research, CF/PD/DRP/2015-002, Effective date 1 April 2015, accessible to UNICEF
staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OoR/SiteAssets/SitePages/Procedures/UNICEF Procedure for Quality Assurance in Research.pdf>, accessed 8 March 2018.
16
The UNICEF Procedure for Quality Assurance in Research suggests that this steering committee should be chaired by the UNICEF Deputy Representative or an individual with
sound research experience (e.g., a social policy or monitoring and evaluation specialist at the P4/L4 or P3/L3 level) and include two programme staff with research experience and a
programme assistant responsible for administration. For the suggested qualifications and competencies of a manager of research, see Annex D of the Guidelines.
17
The UNICEF Procedure for Quality Assurance in Research suggests that this steering committee should be chaired by the UNICEF Deputy Representative or an individual with
sound research experience (e.g., a social policy or monitoring and evaluation specialist at the P4/L4 or P3/L3 level) and include two programme staff with research experience and a
programme assistant responsible for administration. For the suggested qualifications and competencies of a manager of research, see Annex D of the Guidelines.
18
For a more elaborate definition of what constitutes ‘studies’ or ‘research’, see: United Nations Children’s Fund, Taxonomy for Defining and Classifying UNICEF Research, Evaluation and Studies, UNICEF,
accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://icon.unicef.org/apps02/cop/edb/SiteAssets/SitePages/Home/Taxonomy%20Version%202_%20September%202014.pdf>, accessed 8 March 2018.
39
coordination mechanisms as required. According to the UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response,
country representatives ensure that their offices complete a four-step preparedness planning process every year,
with the first step a risk analysis. The GRIP risk analysis – which is more robust than other analyses and is prepared
once per country programming cycle – therefore provides an ideal basis for this annual review and update.
2.4. Participation of child rights stakeholders
To maximize its credibility, influence and use, the child-centred risk analysis should be conducted with the participation
of national counterparts and all relevant child rights stakeholders. Lessons learned from previous risk analyses suggest
that UNICEF can be most effective when partnering with a national ministry that acts as an internal ‘champion’ or ‘convener’
for the effort, contributing to the design of the analysis, the mobilization of partners and the launch of the analysis. This
convener may be the ministry of planning, the national statistics office and/or the national disaster management agency,
depending on existing relationships and the strategic purpose of the risk analysis. It is understood that it may be
challenging to adopt this approach in situations of extreme fragility or against a backdrop of contested governance.
National counterparts and other major partners and stakeholders in the process may occupy a range of potential
roles (see Table 2). Engaging with women, children, adolescents and youth in communities at risk may require
consideration of Communication for Development (C4D) (see Box 3 ).
Table 2 - Participants in risk analysis and their roles

Stakeholder 1. preparation 2. assessment 3. analysis 4. validation
Invite various ministries Convene validation workshops

National Convene
Co-chair or member and institutions to con- and invite national counterparts
convening consultation
of steering committee tribute relevant data, Approve, launch and disseminate
agency workshops
information and analysis the analysis with UNICEF
Other national Contribute to the

Share relevant survey Participate in validation workshops
counterparts design of the analysis,
or administrative data Potentially maintain databases and
(line ministries, depending on the stra-
for assessment products
local authorities) tegic purpose
Major Contribute to defining Review terms of refer- Participate Participate in validation workshops
development the strategic purpose ence and first drafts of in consulta- Support dissemination of the analy-
partners and methodology assessment products tion work- sis to the assistance community
shops
Develop methodolo- Contribute Participate in validation workshops
Contribute to prepara-
Academic gy with UNICEF, gather to causality Support dissemination of the
tion, depending on the
institutions data, conduct assess- analysis and analysis in journals and its use in
nature of the partnership
ment capacity gap academic settings
analysis
Civil society Contribute to prepara- Participate in as-
Support dissemination of the
and other tion, depending on the sessment, depending
analysis and its application in the
child rights nature of the partner- on the nature of the
delivery of programmes for children
stakeholders ship partnership
Flexible: Potential en- Flexible: Consider use

Flexible: Validation of the analysis
Children and gagement with youth of innovations such
and main findings (using child-
adolescents groups and organiza- as U-Report for data
friendly communication methods)
tions collection
Review national re- Flexible:

search, including Con- Potential
vention on the Elimi- Participate in both focus group
Formal Participate in validation workshops
nation of All Forms of identifying specific discussion
and informal Contribute to advocacy with
Discrimination Against risks and ensuring
women’s national partners and for the reform
Women (CEDAW) gender balance in
organizations of policies and programmes
reporting and shadow assessment teams
reports of women’s
rights organizations
40
© UNICEF/UN074040/Pirozzi
Box 3 - Participation of communities at risk: The role of Communication

for Development
Communication for Development (C4D) – a systematic, planned and evidence-based process to promote pos-
itive and measurable individual behaviour and social change – is an integral part of development programmes
and humanitarian work. C4D approaches are also important during risk analysis, to communicate effectively
with vulnerable or marginalized communities and groups, to ensure their meaningful participation in risk as-
sessments and analysis, and to encourage their investment in the outcomes for planning and programming.
Communities are, after all, the drivers of their own preparedness, response and recovery efforts.
But C4D is more than simply a method for encouraging the participation of at-risk communities, and it
is important that the risk assessment and analysis include consideration of the social and behavioural
dimensions of risk. This means considering: the existing levels of knowledge on important life skills in the
community, applying a ‘gender lens’; the behaviours that are increasing risks; and the existing social norms
that affect such behaviours. It also means considering how at-risk and affected populations are sharing and
receiving information and if certain vulnerable groups are excluded. Paying attention to such C4D con-
siderations will support the identification of priorities for behaviour change and improved communication
measures that can support preparedness, crisis management and recovery.
41
2.5. Estimation of resources required
Without an accurate estimation of the time, technical expertise and financial resources needed to conduct a risk
analysis, the process is likely to remain internal, unfinished and/or unused. UNICEF country offices should define
the strategic purpose and methodology of the analysis before estimating the financial and technical resources
required. The main considerations when budgeting for a risk analysis are highlighted below (see Table 3).
Table 3 - Considerations for the estimation of time and technical and financial resources required
Phase Internal staff requirements Specialist expertise Estimated time required
Dedicated specialist to
develop and adapt terms of
reference
Senior management invest- No specific services or appli-
1. preparation 1 week
ment to set strategic purpose, cations necessary
approve terms of reference
and establish governance
mechanisms
Desk review of available

Potential contracting of ex-
2. assessment secondary data sources by
ternal experts to develop the
specialists 1–4 weeks to elaborate the
Child-centred narrative
Technical sections to review narrative report
narrative risk Standard software for desktop
methods and contribute data
assessment publishing
and information
Specialist to identify data

Potential contracting of external
sources and manage spatial 1–2 months to complete a sub-
Higher-risk technical experts to conduct
assessments and/or manage national spatial risk assessment
countries: spatial risk assessment
service provider depending on data quality and
Child-centred Geographic information
Technical sections to review availability and existing capacities
risk mapping system and/or other database
methods and contribute data in information management
required
and information
Facilitators for consultation

workshops 1–2 weeks to prepare consul-
Senior management invest- Cost of two-day GRIP tation workshops with partners
3. analysis ment to ensure that the design workshop and/or one-day 1–2 days for consultation or
of the analysis is appropriate consultation workshop (venue, GRIP workshop
conference services, accom-
modation, per diems, etc.)
3 weeks for external peer

Senior management to Facilitators for validation
review and final validation of
convene partners and peer workshops
analysis with partners
review as well as approve the Validation workshop and/or
4. validation final draft 2 weeks to prepare launch
launch with national counterparts
materials/final report
Technical sections to validate Graphic design, copy-editing
the final product 1–2 days for validation work-
and printing costs
shop and/or launch
UNICEF has experience of working with external consultants skilled in developing risk analyses and has developed
Long-term Arrangements for Services with institutions skilled in vulnerability and risk mapping. To find out about the
resources available at the time of a risk analysis, view the Risk and Resilience, Fragility and Peacebuilding team site.19
19
The Risk and Resilience, Fragility and Peacebuilding team site is accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/Communities/RiskResilience-
FragilityPeacebuilding/SitePages/Home2.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
42
© UNICEF/UN0144593/Brown
3. ASSESSMENT PHASE
The GRIP narrative risk assessment uses the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) risk
formula described in Module No. 1 and a simplified variation to develop a national-level overview of the risks asso-
ciated with various shocks and stresses, their likelihood and potential severity, and how they might interact with
existing vulnerabilities and capacities to increase the risk of humanitarian crisis affecting children (see Box 4 ).
A good assessment will consider the patterns, severity and trends associated with these risks. Later in the
process, during the analysis phase stakeholders will analyse why shocks and stresses lead to crisis, deepening
deprivations or an erosion of development progress, who is responsible for reducing risks and what capacities
these actors need to enable them to do so.
The GRIP methodology for risk assessment has been developed to facilitate discussion among government and
social service providers, key child rights stakeholders and UNICEF country offices. It is therefore national in scope
and qualitative in nature, and provides a simple method for analysing risk. The methodology was also developed
to ensure alignment with the risk analysis requirements outlined in the UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for
Emergency Response and its associated Guidance Note on Preparedness for Emergency Response in UNICEF.20
GRIP focuses, however, on risks that might manifest at any time in the country programming cycle rather than just
in the following year, providing a planning horizon more appropriate for longer-term development planning.
The narrative risk assessment has three basic steps:
1 Step 1 - Likelihood Identifying shocks and stresses and considering their historical frequency and future
trends to estimate the likelihood of their occurrence within the next four to five years.
2 •
Step 2 - Impact Determining the potential impacts of shocks and stresses, considering:
Patterns of exposure: Review where shocks and stresses manifest geographically – and who and
what can be affected within this catchment area.
• Historical impacts and losses: Record the impacts and losses associated with past events.
• Vulnerabilities and capacities: Review the characteristics that make children, women and households
particularly susceptible to the negative impacts of a shock or stress, and the national capacities that
can play a role in reducing, mitigating or managing these impacts.
3 Step 3 - Risk A method for prioritizing the risks associated with each shock and stress.
20
United Nations Children’s Fund, Preparedness for Emergency Response in UNICEF: Guidance Note 2016, UNICEF, December 2016, available at <www.unicef.org/emergencies/
files/UNICEF_Preparedness_Guidance_Note_29_Dec__2016_.pdf>, accessed 13 March 2018.
43
Box 4 - Refresher: The risk formula
Various methods are used to estimate risk. Two distinct but complementary versions of the risk formula are
presented here. To align with the UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response, the GRIP risk
assessment uses Version 2 but is informed by Version 1, as described below.
Version 1: The classic United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) risk formula suggests
that risk is a product or result of the interaction between four separate variables.

RISK =
capacity
Version 2: The most simplified version of the risk formula requires consideration of the likelihood and
probable impact of various shocks and stresses. This method is ideal for participatory assessments con-
ducted with multi-stakeholder groups since it reduces complexity.
RISK = Likelihood × Probable impact
Relationship between the formulae: The ‘impact’ variable of Version 2 implicitly includes an analysis of
historical patterns of exposure, impacts and losses and of the current status of vulnerabilities and capac-
ities. The graphic below shows how exposure, vulnerability and capacity can be considered together as
factors that contribute to the estimation of probable impact.

RISK =
capacity
RISK = Likelihood × impact
44
3.1. Step 1: Likelihood 1

The first step of the narrative risk assessment is to identify the relevant shocks and stresses in the programming
environment and then consider how likely each of these is to occur again within the next four to five years (i.e.,
during the country programming cycle) and, if relevant to planning, beyond this time frame (i.e., considering national
planning frameworks). UNICEF country offices and child rights stakeholders then conclude this first step of the
assessment by assigning a score to each shock or stress using the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) likeli-
hood scale,21 adjusted for use with this longer time frame (see Table 4).
Risk identification
The first task is to identify and list the shocks and stresses that can interact with vulnerabilities and capacities to
trigger a humanitarian crisis (for clarification of the concepts, see Box 5 ; for an indicative list, see Graphic 3).
UNICEF country offices and child rights stakeholders should use secondary sources to gather data and information
on the historical frequency of the three to five most significant shocks and/or stresses recorded over the last 15 to
20 years, noting any significant trends. Data and information can be obtained from a variety of national databases
and reports, including national climate and disaster risk analyses and plans. International databases and reports
provide data for multiple countries (see Annex 1, Table 1).
Assessing likelihood
Data gathered on the historical frequency of the three to five shocks and/or stresses should be used to estimate the
likelihood of each occurring again within the next four to five years (or other agreed time frame). Use the likelihood scale
to assign a score to each shock or stress (see Table 4). For risks related to conflict and fragility or other socio-economic
dynamics, draw from the available third party analysis. An example of how to estimate the likelihood of various significant
shocks and stresses is provided (see Table 5). UNICEF country offices and stakeholders can elaborate a similar table.
All stakeholders should consider the following:

• The method used to estimate likelihood may be sophisticated (e.g., requiring statistical analysis) or simple (e.g., the
outcome of group discussions that note the frequency of events over a given number of years). It can also draw upon
national and inter-agency ranking exercises conducted for the purpose of preparedness and contingency planning.
• It may be challenging or impossible to estimate the frequency of slower-onset stresses (e.g., civil unrest/
conflict or sea level rise). In such cases, teams should assign a likelihood score having considered whether or
not the cumulative effects of the stress are likely to reach a ‘tipping point’ that could lead to a rise in acute and
urgent needs within the next four to five years (or other agreed time frame).
• In the case of civil unrest or conflict, existing root or proximate causes can lead to escalation following a
‘trigger’ event. The UNICEF Guide to Conflict Analysis defines triggers as sudden or acute events (e.g., an
election, a sudden rise in food prices, a military coup, the assassination of a leader) that can contribute to the
outbreak or further escalation of tensions and violent conflict. In such cases, teams should note the likelihood
of potential triggers occurring within the agreed time frame.
Table 4 - Likelihood scale (adapted from the IASC Emergency Response Preparedness guidance)
LIKELIHOOD SCORES
Very unlikely (1) Unlikely (2) Moderately likely (3) Likely (4) Very likely (5)
A remote chance The event has a low The event has a viable The event has a The event has a good
(less than 5%) of an chance (5–15%) of chance (15–30%) significant chance chance (more than
event occurring in the occurring in the cur- of occurring in the (30–50%) of occur- 50%) of occurring
current programming rent programming current programming ring in the current E.g., Hazards that
cycle (4–5 years) cycle (4–5 years) cycle (4–5 years) programming cycle have happened three
E.g., Hazards that E.g., Hazards that E.g., Hazards that have (4–5 years) or more times in the
have happened once or have happened one happened two or three E.g., Hazards that last 5 years, or five
less in the last 20 years to three times in times in the last 10 have happened or more times in the
the last 20 years years, or once or twice every second or third last 10 years
in the last 5 years year, e.g., twice in
the last 5 years
21
Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Emergency Response Preparedness (ERP), Risk analysis and monitoring, minimum preparedness, advanced preparedness and contingency planning, Draft for field testing,
IASC, July 2015, available at <www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/emergency_response_preparedness_2015_final_2.pdf>, accessed 13 March 2018.
45
Box 5 - Concepts of shocks and stresses
Before beginning Step 1, it may be useful to clarify certain aspects of what is meant by ‘shocks’ and ‘stresses’:
• Many events and phenomena can cause harm to or negative impacts on the lives of children and
women. What the risk assessment of GRIP Module No. 2 is particularly concerned with, however,
is the risk of humanitarian crisis, given its important role in informing national capacity building for
emergency preparedness. The analysis phase and the sector-specific GRIP Module Nos. 5–11 provide
supplementary information on how to consider the risks that might lead to the deepening of depri-
vation or an erosion of development progress in each sector.
Since the GRIP module no. 2 risk assessment is primarily concerned with assessing the likelihood
of humanitarian crisis, it focuses on identifying larger external shocks and stresses (sometimes
referred to as ‘contextual risks’), which are both: beyond the control of households and have the
potential to overwhelm them and local or national response capacities; and trigger a declaration
of crisis and/or lead to the rise of acute and urgent needs. As such, the narrative risk assessment
usually excludes smaller shocks and stresses to children that originate at the household level (e.g.,
poor parenting, domestic abuse, substance abuse) or at the facility level (e.g., gender-based vio-
lence in schools), although these can clearly lead to the deepening of deprivation for children and
an erosion of development progress in the community. (However the GRIP sector-specific modules
consider a wider range of shocks and stresses and multi-stakeholder teams should feel free to
adapt the methods to incorporate those hazards that they perceive as most significant.)
• These larger external shocks and stresses may emerge from multiple and often overlapping sources,
which are generally classified as natural phenomena, climate-related phenomena, and ‘man-made’ or
technological shocks and stresses. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)
has also defined a terminology and classification system for hazards, which UNICEF country offices
may find useful.22 An overview is presented of some of the more relevant categories, including those
stresses that accelerate climate-related hazards such as deforestation and soil erosion (see Graphic 3).
They are listed here not only as factors that contribute to larger events and phenomena, but also as
stresses that can themselves lead to increased deprivation and inequity for children. UNICEF coun-
try offices and stakeholders can use these categories as inspiration, but as the situation in every
country will be different, teams are free to innovate by considering the events and trends most
significant to their own risk analysis.
• When considering the likelihood of a major shock or stress, it is often useful to consider the likeli-
hood of a severe event or trend versus a less severe phenomenon.23 This is done in scenario plan-
ning, but it can also be considered by looking at the historical patterns of the severity or strength of
a particular hazard. For example, some shocks and stresses have a specific scale of measurement
used to capture the intensity or magnitude of the hazard itself – e.g., the Modified Mercalli Intensi-
ty Scale for earthquakes,24 and the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale for cyclone wind.25 These
scales are not directly related to the concepts of exposure or impact, as they do not measure the
size of the hazard zone or the impacts of the hazard, which can vary depending on vulnerabilities
and capacities. The severity of the impact of other hazards such as drought is measured directly,
however, using damage or impact scales in which direct counts provide a sense of severity (e.g.,
number of people affected).
22
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Terminology on disaster risk reduction’, UNISDR, Geneva, 2 February 2017, <www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology>, accessed
18 February 2018.
23
Terminology for this concept differs by approach, with the terms ‘severity’, ‘magnitude’, ‘intensity’ or even ‘seriousness’ being employed (and with ‘risk seriousness’ noted in the
UNICEF enterprise risk management approach to risk analysis).
24
USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, ‘The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale’, USGS, <https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mercalli.php>, accessed 18 February 2018.
25
National Hurricane Center, ‘Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale’, NHC, Miami, <www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php>, accessed 18 February 2018.
46
Graphic 3 - Potential shocks and stresses, listed by category
sea level rise natural

Earthquake
Major storms hazards
Tropical
(thunderstorm, gale, cyclone, drought
hail storm, tornado, hurricane
ice storm, blizzard,
volcano dust storm, etc.)
heavy rainfall/
Snowfall
Tsunami
Heatwave/
cold wave,
or dzud
floods Economic shock, (severe winter)
Large-scale, especially sharp rises
significant migration in food and fuel prices
processes (such as rapid
urbanization) Market instability
for specific commodities that directly
Forced displacement affect household income/expenditures
or refugee movement
Violence, Economic
social unrest, shocks &
instability market
& migration instability
Technological
Armed and/or industrial
conflict hazards
Riots and/or other Unexploded

forms of significant ordOnance
social unrest and landmines
Significant/systematic
human rights abuses Severe
Biological
pollutants
shocks &
& hazardous Severe air pollution
stresses
materials
Significant
political
instability
Insect Chemical
infestation and oil spills
Significant water
Infectious contamination
WILD FIRE
disease (arsenic, fluoride, nitrates)
avalanche
Riverbank erosion desertification

storm surge
natural Subsidence
hazards
Salinization (dry land)

or saline intrusion Landslide, mudslide SOIL erosion River siltation
47
Table 5 - Example: Likelihood of three shocks/stresses occurring in Chad
Shock/stress Historical data on frequency and future trends Likelihood score
According to EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database, there have been five
major drought incidents in Chad since 1995. Based on this limited data, drought ap-
pears moderately likely, with a more than 20% chance of occurring in the next year.
Evidence suggests that there may be an upward trend in drought incidents
due to rising temperatures and increasing aridity caused by climate change.26
Drought Since the mid-1900s, temperatures in Chad have been increasing while 3 - Moderately
rainfall is decreasing.27 For example, Lake Chad’s “surface area in the past 50 likely
years has been reduced from its initial 25,000 km2 to less than 2,500 km2”. 28
Chad was ranked as the country most vulnerable to the effects of global warming
in a 2016 index compiled by risk consultancy Verisk Maplecroft.29 The annual
ranking considers both exposure and a state’s capacity to respond.
According to EM-DAT, there have been 10 major riverine floods in Chad since
1995 and 2 flash floods. Localized flooding occurs every year during the rainy
Flood season but varies in magnitude. Increasing deforestation, urbanization and aridi-
4 - Likely
ty all have an effect on drainage/absorption capacities. This may contribute to the
increasing severity of flood events (the worst incident in 40 years occurred in
2016), but there are insufficient data to suggest an increase in their frequency.
The Global Peace Index ranks Chad in the ‘low’ category for global peace,
showing that it faces persistent challenges to fostering a peaceful society.30
The country has experienced some form of conflict or civil war during 35 of
the 57 years since it gained independence from France.
According to the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research Conflict
Armed
Barometer,31 the war between Boko Haram and the governments of Nigeria, 5 - Very Likely
conflict
Cameroon, Chad and the Niger continues. Since 2015, the Multinational Joint
Task Force has been tasked with confining Boko Haram using military force.
According to the Conflict Barometer, Chad has also wrestled since 1990 with a
violent crisis over the national power struggle between the government led by
President Idriss Déby and the Patriotic Salvation Movement and the opposition.
3.2. Step 2: Impact 2

Having identified the shocks and stresses most likely to occur, Step 2 of the narrative risk assessment involves
estimating their probable impact. UNICEF country offices and child rights stakeholders should first consider
the historical patterns of exposure followed by the historical impacts and losses associated with past events to
provide an evidence base for the assessment. Multi-stakeholder teams should then review the vulnerabilities and
capacities of individuals, households and communities that are likely to be affected by the shocks and stresses.
Finally, teams should assign a score to the impact variable, referring to the adapted likelihood scale (see Table 4).
3.2.1. Patterns of exposure
UNICEF country offices and stakeholders should list the geographical areas most exposed to the three to five
shocks and/or stresses identified in Step 1, choosing the level of disaggregation which works best for their analysis,
26
Terminology for this concept differs by approach, with the terms ‘severity’, ‘magnitude’, ‘intensity’ or even ‘seriousness’ being employed (and with ‘risk seriousness’ noted in the
UNICEF enterprise risk management approach to risk analysis).
27
Climate Hazards Group, ‘Gallery: Chad’, <http://chg.ucsb.edu/gallery/chad/images/index.html>, accessed 18 February 2018.
28
African Development Bank Group, ‘Lake Chad, a living example of the devastation climate change is wreaking on Africa’, 3 December 2015, <www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/
lake-chad-a-living-example-of-the-devastation-climate-change-is-wreaking-on-africa-15129/>, accessed 18 February 2018.
29
Verisk Maplecroft, ‘Climate Change Vulnerability Index 2016’, Infographic, ReliefWeb, 13 November 2015, available at < https://reliefweb.int/report/chad/climate-change-vulnerabili-
ty-index-2016>, accessed 12 March 2018.
30
Vision of Humanity, ‘Global Peace Index 2017’, Institute for Economics and Peace, 2017, <http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/>, accessed 8 March 2018.
31
Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, Conflict Barometer 2017, HIIK, Heidelberg, 2018, available at <https://hiik.de/konfliktbarometer/aktuelle-ausgabe/>, accessed 7 March 2018.
48
understanding that analysis depth and scope will vary between countries. Not all country offices will add a spatial
dimension to the risk assessment, but information on where shocks and stresses have occurred historically is usually
available in the form of hazard maps produced by national authorities and partners (see Annex 1, Table 1).
Although past patterns are a good indicator of future trends, many shocks and stresses are experiencing unprec-
edented variability due to factors such as population growth, environmental degradation and climate change.
Multi-stakeholder teams should consider relevant trend analyses and note the potential for different (or additional)
geographical areas to be affected in the future.
3.2.2. Historical impacts and losses
Multi-stakeholder teams should gather data and information on the direct and indirect historical impacts and loss-
es of the three to five shocks and/or stresses in focus, noting in particular any records of deaths, displacement,
persons affected and/or economic losses associated with past events. The time frame under consideration should
ideally be the same as for likelihood – i.e., the last 15 to 20 years.
To the greatest extent possible, teams should try to obtain disaggregated data on the impacts, so that the equity
and gender dimensions of past crises can be better understood. Disaggregation of losses by gender, age, wealth
quintile, location, ethnicity and health status or disability is critical to advancing our understanding of the real im-
pact of crises on various groups in society.
Given that some impacts and losses are broader and further reaching than others that can be measured and
recorded, teams may also wish to brainstorm and briefly record the potential impacts of each shock or stress on
individuals and households, communities and/or systems (see Box 6 ). A simple illustration of this exercise, which
is best considered sector by sector, is presented (see Graphic 4; see also GRIP Module No. 9).
Graphic 4 - An example of brainstorming the potential impacts (application of ‘gender lens’ in blue)
Potential impacts of an epidemic outbreak or biological hazard on education
SCHOOL education system

children facilities and
and households communities
• Children get sick • Increased teacher absence (due to • Illness education officials leads to
• Children with illness are unable to illness, care for sick or fear) results administrativedelays and challenges
attend school in class or school interruptions. • Management of crisis and applica-
Female teachers more prone to ab- tion of emergency response delays
• Parents proactively withdraw chil- sence due to gender roles as family
dren from school to protect against education advancement
caregivers
disease • Disruption of Government capacity
• Stigmatization and exclusion of to manage payment, oversight,
• Girl children face greater pressures to children with illness deteriorates
care for ill parents and siblings, thus support and supervision results in
supportive environment decreased sector performance
more likely to interrupt their studies
• Challenge of meeting hygiene and • Decreased performance in monitor-
• Absences from school lead to de- health requirements strains facility
creased learning outcomes ing and reporting by schools leads
budget and deteriorates quality of to lack of data, information and
• Stress of illness on household education analysis for systemn management
finances leads to pressure for early • Schools used as clinics or morgues
marriage. Girl children more prone • Decreased sector performance
and thus contaminated or stigmatized overall
to drop-out.
• Schools that are not contaminated
• Women-headed households respon- become overcrowded, compromising
sible for care and maintenance of quality
facilities • Increased risk of gender-based violence
49
Box 6 - Concepts of exposure and impact
It may be important to clarify certain aspects of the concepts of ‘exposure’ and ‘impact’ before starting Step 2:
• Impact, for the purpose of the GRIP risk assessment can be defined as the effect of a crisis on
people, infrastructure, systems, institutions and society. Losses are a measure of the damage or
destruction caused. Direct losses due to conflict and natural disasters are often quantifiable meas-
ures expressed in either monetary terms (e.g., the market value or replacement value of lost or
damaged physical assets) or as direct counts (e.g., the number of fatalities, injuries and/or people
displaced and/or affected).
• GRIP also recognizes that some shocks and stresses can have destabilizing effects on national sys-
tems, supply chains and markets, creating indirect losses that may have a delayed onset and which
may extend beyond the zone of physical exposure. Indirect impacts can also be psychological or
psychosocial in nature, since trauma can affect the capacity of children and their caregivers to cope
with additional stress in their environment. By their nature, indirect losses are harder to measure
than losses stemming directly from physical damage. It is thus challenging to include indirect loss-
es in quantitative or spatial risk assessments, but they can be explored freely in the qualitative risk
assessment set out here.
• Since indirect losses are not always easily quantified and reported, it can be useful to brainstorm the
potential impacts of shocks and stresses with the multi-stakeholder team – which is often best done
according to sector. For instance, GRIP Module No. 9, for the education sector, provides examples
of how each shock or stress may affect individual children and households, particularly those that are
vulnerable; the school facility and community; and the education system. A simple illustration of this
exercise presents the potential impacts of an epidemic or biological hazard on the education sector
(see Graphic 4). This kind of brainstorming can be particularly useful when disaggregated data are
unavailable, since an ‘equity and gender lens’ is easily applied.
• Exposure has been defined as the presence of people, property, livelihoods, service delivery sys-
tems or other elements in areas that can be affected by various shocks and stresses. The GRIP risk
assessment is a narrative and it therefore uses a simplified concept of exposure, requesting a list
of locations that may be affected, and in some cases a list of the key infrastructure and systems
that support the survival and development of children within the area. UNICEF country offices that
choose to conduct a spatial risk assessment or ‘child-centred risk mapping’ limit their analysis of
exposure to a specific hazard zone: on this basis, where there is no exposure, there is no risk. The
narrative risk assessment, however, enables teams to record indirect as well as direct impacts,
both within and beyond the zone of immediate physical exposure. Teams will therefore be chal-
lenged to consider which areas are most exposed and how the impacts in these areas might be felt
throughout the country.
• Several UNICEF country offices that have conducted a spatial risk assessment have focused direct-
ly on the child population, using a measure of population density per administrative area to repre-
sent exposure. This method has its benefits and drawbacks, the latter of which include associating
high population density with higher risk. Country offices embarking on a spatial risk assessment
should consider lessons learned from previous assessments such as the need to produce maps
that both include and omit the exposure variable to enable the consideration of risk to individuals
irrespective of whether they live in an urban or rural area.
50
Table 6 - Impact scale (aligned to IASC Emergency Response Preparedness and Emergency Preparedness Platform guidance)
IMPACT SCORES
Negligible (1) Minor (2) Moderate (3) Severe (4) Critical (5)
Minor additional Minor additional Moderate additional Substantial additional Massive additional
humanitarian humanitarian impact. humanitarian impact. humanitarian impact. humanitarian impact.
impact. Govern- Current country- Additional UNICEF and/ Additional UNICEF Additional UNICEF and/
ment capacity level UNICEF and/ or inter-agency resources and/or inter-agency re- or inter-agency resources
is sufficient to or inter-agency comprise up to 30% of the sources comprise up comprise more than
deal with the resources are current operations required to 50% of the current 80% of the current
situation sufficient to cover to cover needs beyond operations required to operations required to
needs beyond gov- government capacity cover needs beyond cover needs beyond
ernment capacity Regional support not government capacity government capacity
required Regional support L3-scale emergency
required
An indicative review of how a team may consider the exposure, historical impacts and potential impacts for a single
stress is presented below (see Table 7). UNICEF country offices can elaborate a similar table.
Table 7 - An indicative review of drought stress for Bosnia and Herzegovina using the impact scale32
Stress Exposure Historical and potential impacts and losses Score
Drought stress is Historical impacts: The worst drought in 120 years occurred
concentrated in the in 2002, generating a 60% decline in agricultural production,
north-eastern and which resulted in a food crisis. A subsequent heatwave 3–4 = Medium
south-western parts and drought in 2003 destroyed 40% of the annual crop and to heavy.
of the country, and is affected 200,000 people. While not
less pronounced in Potential wider impacts: Drought is a complex phenomenon causing deaths
the central moun- that reflects an accumulation of stresses over a longer in country,
tainous regions. In time period. Droughts do not cause structural damages but drought has
descending order, the undermine livelihoods, in particular those of rural agricultural significant and
Drought
areas most affected communities. Drought losses incurred by individual families, destructive im-
by 10-year droughts especially farmers with smallholdings (still the predominant pacts on rural
are: Mostar, Bijeljina, type of farming in country) who have limited alternative and agricultural
Brod, Sarajevo, Livno, income sources, may result in a number of negative communities
Banja Luka and Bihac. consequences for children, including: spikes in food prices, and can be
Climate change may affecting poorer households and possibly leading to child widespread.
alter the geographical malnutrition; cutting back on expenses such as education,
distribution of the health care and clothing for children; children leaving school
hazard, however. early to enter labour market; and migration (to urban areas).
3.2.3. Vulnerabilities and capacities
UNICEF country offices and stakeholders can use the following method to review both the characteristics that
make children and families particularly susceptible to the negative impacts of a shock or stress, and the national
capacities that can play a role in reducing, mitigating or managing these impacts.
Consider the vulnerabilities of children and households
For each shock or stress, multi-stakeholder teams should use secondary sources to gather national-level data and
information on the current vulnerabilities of children and households. Data and information can be obtained from a
variety of national and international sources (see Annex 1, Table 2). Note all groups that are extremely vulnerable.
32
This example is adapted from the UNICEF Bosnia and Herzegovina ‘pre-analysis’ report for the 2017 GRIP workshop, produced 23 January 2017. For the original data sources, see
the report, which is available at the Risk and Resilience, Fragility and Peacebuilding team site, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/
Communities/RiskResilienceFragilityPeacebuilding/SitePages/Home2.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
51
Also note any significant geographical patterns of vulnerability, considering especially those geographical areas
that have been identified as being particularly exposed.
Consider the capacities of communities, institutions and authorities
Multi-stakeholder teams should also use secondary sources to gather national-level data and information on the cur-
rent capacities of communities, institutions and local or national authorities. It may be useful to consider separating
out general capacities (e.g., governance, delivery of social services) from specific capacities related to the management
of contextual risks (e.g., the management of climate change, disasters and national crises) (see Box 7 ). Data and
information can be obtained from a variety of national and international sources (see Annex 1, Table 2). Note any
significant geographical variations in capacity at the sub-national level, considering especially those geographical
areas that have been identified as being particularly exposed. An indicative example of the estimation of vulnera-
bilities and capacities for Cambodia in relation to floods is presented below (see Table 8). UNICEF country offices
can elaborate a similar table.
Table 8 - An indicative review of vulnerabilities and capacities for Cambodia, considering floods33
Vulnerabilities Capacities
Disaster risk reduction, preparedness and disaster risk

Socio-economic vulnerabilities: management capacities:
Most vulnerable are those children living in impov- Law on Disaster Management (2015) in place covering prevention/
erished and often indebted households with limited mitigation, response and recovery.
or no contingencies; limited access to land/natural Committees for disaster management operate at national, city
resources; limited or no access to improved sourc- and province, town, district and commune levels.
es of water and sanitation, and health, education National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction 2014–2018 and
and social services; and fair/low interest-credit. Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan 2014–2023.
Around 40% of Cambodia’s 14.7 million people Disaster management system has traditionally focused on flood
live just above the poverty line – most of them prevention (dykes, embankments) and flood response.
belong to marginalized groups living in rural areas.
Non-governmental organizations have conducted a number of
79% of children are fully immunized, but there flood risk assessments at the local level with inundation maps.
are concerning gaps in coverage in rural areas,
Flood monitoring, forecasting and warning capacities within the
leaving children living here particularly vulnerable
Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology.
during a crisis.
Cambodian Red Cross has 24 branches and 5,300 youth volunteers.
32% of children under 5 years of age are stunted,
Coordination mechanisms for response are in place including the
indicating multiple and overlapping deprivations.
United Nations Disaster Management Team and national Humani-
73.3% of children under 5 have had their birth tarian Response Forum.
registered (84.4% in urban areas; 71.6% in rural).
Lack of capacity:
Indigenous communities (such as Khmer Loeu)
National capacities for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) emer-
are spread out over 15 provinces and represent
gency response are limited. Only one in two Cambodians has access
2.86% of the population. They share restricted
to safe drinking water, and fewer than one in four has access to a toilet.
access to land and natural resources, are often
impoverished and face barriers to participation. Only half of Cambodian primary school teachers are qualified,
meaning that proper risk reduction education is unlikely.
Children, including adolescents, exposed to gender-
based violence, sexual exploitation and abuse System of social protection is insufficiently prepared to help
are particularly vulnerable, as are: children with affected families recover from disaster/flooding impacts (e.g.,
disabilities; the estimated 49,000 children in res- through emergency procedures, cash transfers).
idential care facilities or institutions; and children Lack of a nationwide and systematic flood/multi-hazard risk
aged 14–17 years in the juvenile justice system. assessment, lack of standardization for local assessments.
Children living with elderly caregivers or left in the Flood early warning messages do not reach the most at-risk
care of other family members (e.g., children of communes due to unclear standard operating procedures and a
migrant workers) or living with parents with dis- lack of communications equipment.
abilities or chronic illness may face challenges in
Lack of updated emergency and evacuation plans; lack of public
terms of accessing adequate care and protection.
awareness, simulations and drills in flood-prone communities;
limited local-level response capacity.
33
This table is adapted from the UNICEF Cambodia ‘pre-analysis’ report prepared in advance of the Results-based Management-GRIP workshop of September 2017. For the original
data sources, see the report, which is available at the Risk and Resilience, Fragility and Peacebuilding team site, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.share-
point.com/teams/Communities/RiskResilienceFragilityPeacebuilding/SitePages/Home2.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
52
Box 7 - Concepts of vulnerability and capacity
Before progressing, it may be useful to clarify certain aspects of what is meant by ‘vulnerability’ and ‘capacity’:
• In GRIP, vulnerability is defined as: the characteristics and circumstances of an individual or household
that make them susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard. Capacity is defined as: the combined
strengths, attributes and resources available within a community or society to manage and reduce
risks and strengthen resilience. Although GRIP recognizes that vulnerability and capacity are interrelat-
ed concepts, for the purpose of this risk assessment vulnerability here refers to the characteristics of
individuals and households that make them particularly susceptible to a shock or stress, while capacity
considers factors related to community, national or institutional abilities (strengths, performance) to
manage the impacts of shocks and stresses.34
• Capacity is a very broad concept. To stay relevant, the risk assessment should focus on capacity in terms
of those strengths that may help to reduce, mitigate or manage the impacts of shocks and stresses.
Capacities may include: infrastructure such as communications and transportation networks; physical
infrastructure such as water and sanitation facilities and health care systems; coverage and functionality of
systems such as social safety nets; evidence of functional institutions and leadership; and/or clear man-
agement or formal investment by the government in preparedness and disaster management.
• For those UNICEF country offices that have identified armed conflict or major threats to social cohesion
as a shock or stress, it will be important to specifically consider the presence of ‘peace capacities’. The
UNICEF Guide to Conflict Analysis suggests that peace capacities are institutions, groups, traditions,
events, rituals, processes and people that are well positioned and equipped to address conflict con-
structively and build peace (e.g., a reform programme, a civil society commitment to peace, ritualized
and traditional dispute resolution).
• Vulnerability is also a broad concept. UNICEF has developed various methodologies and indices for
analysing the inequities and deprivations facing children and women within and among countries. These
include indices for child well-being or child deprivation,35 and the Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis
for Children36 (for other examples, see Annex 1, Table 2). All of these models have applicability to the
measurement of vulnerability for the risk assessment, however, the concepts of poverty and deprivation
differ from the concept of vulnerability. While multidimensional poverty describes the status of a child
or household at a certain point in time, vulnerability is somewhat predictive in nature since it implies the
presence of a threat (a shock or stress) that creates a risk for the child, household or community. The
characteristics of vulnerability can also change, depending on which shock or stress is considered.
• When reviewing the various dimensions of vulnerability, consider the relevance of each indicator in relation
to whether or not the characteristic in question makes the individual or household more or less susceptible
to the impacts of a specific shock or stress. For example, many indices related to child well-being capture
the prevalence of violence in the home, but the link between the experience of violence and the resil-
ience of children to the impacts of external shocks and stresses is not yet clear. For example, the child
may be vulnerable to the threat of violence, but not to the impacts of a financial crisis.
• When identifying vulnerable groups, it is important to note any evidence of the specific deprivations
facing each group, recognizing that it is these deprivations – rather than membership of the group – that
characterize vulnerability. For example, a large number of risk assessments have noted the vulnerability
of ethnic minorities, but many ethnic minorities are highly empowered.
• GRIP uses a ‘people-centric’ approach. It therefore considers socio-economic vulnerability rather than
physical vulnerability or the ‘sensitivity’ of key infrastructure and systems. Teams may nevertheless
wish to list under the exposure variable all of the critical infrastructure and facilities for children, as this
can help to place a focus on networks and systems.
34
De Groeve, Tom, Karmen Poljanšek and Luca Vernaccini, Index for Risk Management – INFORM, Concept and Methodology Version 2016, Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg, 2015, available at <http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC98090/lbna27521enn (2).pdf>, accessed 18 February 2018.
35
United Nations Children’s Fund, Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti,
Florence, 2012, available at <www.unicef-irc.org/publications/660-measuring-child-poverty-new-league-tables-of-child-poverty-in-the-worlds-rich-countries.html>, accessed 18 February 2018.
36
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘About Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis (MODA) for Children’, UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti, <www.unicef-irc.org/MODA/>,
accessed 18 February 2018.
53
Box 8 - Gender in risk assessments
Risk is a gendered concept. More men than women are killed in armed conflict,37 and more women than
men die in natural disasters.38 Fatality rates in natural disasters are so much higher for women in large part
due to gendered differences in capacity to cope with shocks and stresses.39 For example, women accounted
for 61 per cent of fatalities caused by Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008, and 70–80 per cent of fatalities
resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.40
To be complete, an assessment of vulnerabilities and capacities must consider social networks, power re-
lationships and gender roles. When women fail to participate in risk reduction, preparedness and response
efforts, it can also signal the marginalization of others, including the elderly, people with disabilities and
other vulnerable groups. Women and men, and girls and boys all have crucial roles to play, yet women’s
contribution to mitigating and preparing for disasters and managing crises is frequently overlooked.
To be adequately gender-sensitive, risk assessments must:

• include women and men in the identification of shocks and stresses in their environment, on the basis
that their knowledge and experience of the factors that cause risk differs
• use disaggregated data, as the impacts of a crisis are usually differentiated by gender
• consider the different vulnerabilities of women and men, and girls and boys, since health, nutrition,
education and overall socio-economic status often differ significantly between the sexes
• consider the different capacities of women and men, and girls and boys, paying attention to their relative
social networks, sectors of employment and levels of influence.
• draw on GRIP Module No. 3, which emphasizes the importance of conducting a Gender Programmatic
Review,41 making reference to the Gender Action Plan and the Gender Equality team site.42
3.2.4. Assigning a score to impact
UNICEF country offices and stakeholders should now assign a score to the shock or stress, based on the severity
of its probable impact, using the adapted impact scale (see Table 6). The method used to estimate the most likely
impact level may be sophisticated (e.g., requiring statistical analysis or drawing on external expertise) or simple
(e.g., the outcome of group discussions that note the average cumulative losses associated with different events).
It can also draw upon national and inter-agency ranking exercises conducted for the purpose of preparedness and
contingency planning.
3.3. Step 3: RISK

3
Step 3 of the risk assessment involves multiplying the likelihood and probable impact scores to produce a
combined score, which provides the basis for ranking each shock or stress according to the relative risk that it
poses. Multi-stakeholder teams should provide a justification for the ranking of the various shocks and stresses,
and suggest which three hazards to prioritize for discussion alongside GRIP Module No. 3, which focuses on
the design or adaptation of programmes.
An ideal model for a risk summary table, featuring two examples, is presented for Viet Nam (see Table 9). UNICEF
country offices and stakeholders can elaborate a similar table.
37
Plümper, Thomas, and Eric Neumayer, ‘The Unequal Burden of War: The Effect of Armed Conflict on the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy’, International Organization, vol. 60, no. 3, July 2006, pp. 723–754.
38
Multiple sources including: Nishikiori, Nobuyuki, et al., ‘Who died as a result of the tsunami? – Risk factors of mortality among internally displaced persons in Sri Lanka: A retro-
spective cohort analysis’, BMC Public Health, vol. 6, 2006, p. 73; Oxfam, ‘The Tsunami’s Impact on Women’, Oxfam Briefing Note, Oxfam International, March 2005; and Neumayer,
Eric, and Thomas Plümper, ‘The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002’, Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, vol. 97, no. 3, 2007, pp. 551–566.
39
Ikeda, K., ‘Gender Differences in Human Loss and Vulnerability in Natural Disasters: A Case Study from Bangladesh’, Indian Journal of Gender Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, 1995, pp. 171–
93; Neumayer, Eric, and Thomas Plümper, ‘The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002’, Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, vol. 97, no. 3, 2007, pp. 551–566; and Oxfam, ‘The Tsunami’s Impact on Women’, Oxfam Briefing Note, Oxfam International, March 2005;
as cited in Habtezion, Senay, ‘Gender and disaster risk reduction’, Gender and Climate Change Asia and the Pacific Policy Brief No. 3, United Nations Development Programme, New
York, 2013, available at <www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/gender/Gender and Environment/PB3-AP-Gender-and-disaster-risk-reduction.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
40
Castañeda, I., and S. Gammage, ‘Gender, Global Crises, and Climate Change’, in Jain, D., and D. Elson (eds.), Harvesting Feminist Knowledge for Public Policy, SAGE Publications
India, New Delhi, 2011; as cited in Habtezion, Senay, ‘Gender and disaster risk reduction’.
41
United Nations Children’s Fund, Gender Programmatic Review Toolkit, UNICEF, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePag-
es/Gender Programmatic Review.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
42
The Gender Equality team site is accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePages/Home.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
54
Table 9 - Example risk summary table for Viet Nam

Shock/ Likelihood Impact Combined Rank and reasons for prioritization
stress score score score
The risks associated with typhoons are a priority for risk reduction
programming, preparedness and contingency planning. There is a
100% chance of one or more destructive typhoons making landfall
annually in Viet Nam, leading to strong wind, storm surge and flash
floods. On average, the country experiences six to seven typhoons
every year along its long coastline (3,270 km). Some 43 of the 85
Typhoon 5 4 20
typhoons in EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database, have
occurred since 2000, which seems to signal an upward trend.
Although mortality is declining due to disaster risk reduction,
typhoons remain the deadliest shock in Viet Nam: since 1960,
typhoons have caused more than 18,677 fatalities, affected 48
million persons and led to economic losses totalling US$6.7 million.
The risks associated with drought are a priority for risk reduction
programming, preparedness and contingency planning. EM-DAT lists
three major droughts from 2000 to 2017, which affected about 3.5
million people and caused damages worth more than US$7 million.
Drought 5 4 20
In-country assessments suggest that drought events and their im-
pacts are under-reported, however. Climate change analysis also sug-
gests that in future droughts will be more frequent and severe, which
may have crippling effects on livelihoods and on vulnerable families.
Box 9 - Concepts of risk
Certain concepts surrounding the process of ranking ‘risks’ should be clarified at the outset:
• As mentioned previously, the risk assessment of GRIP Module No. 2 is primarily concerned with as-
certaining the risk of humanitarian crisis affecting children, households and communities. Therefore the
risks associated with each shock or stress should be ranked in order of their likelihood of leading to a
crisis that might overwhelm national capacities and result in acute and urgent needs. If considering the
risk of an erosion of development progress in a specific sector, or the risk of the deepening of a specific
deprivation facing children, refer to the methods presented in the analysis phase (section 4) and the
supplementary information in GRIP Module Nos. 5–11.
• Since the GRIP risk assessment should be conducted in a participatory manner with national counter-
parts and partners, the ranking of shocks and stresses will be the result of discussions based largely on
perceptions of relative risk. Rankings are neither fully evidence-based nor comparable between coun-
tries. Given the subjective nature of the assessment, discussion groups should consider biases in their
perceptions of risk, which may include the following:
• The emotional state of the perceiver.43 Groups that have recently experienced a traumatic event or crisis
may rank the shocks and/or stresses that triggered it as more likely or impactful than other hazards.
• A tendency to have a greater acceptance of risks that are considered voluntary rather than involun-
tary.44 This could encourage groups to rank stresses related to civil unrest and/or migration as lower
risk than those shocks perceived to be beyond human influence such as an earthquake or tsunami.
• A tendency to focus on shocks that appear to pose an immediate threat rather than on long-term
stresses that may irreversibly affect future generations.45 Facilitators should challenge groups to
retain a focus on significant slower-onset stresses in their planning.
• A tendency to tolerate or accept risk if a benefit is perceived.46 This may also influence the acceptance
of certain shocks or stresses considered to have benefits such as seasonal floods that irrigate flood
plains or political violence driven by an aspiration for social justice.
43
This concept of the emotional state of the perceiver influencing risk perception is described in: Bodenhausen, Galen V., ‘Emotions, arousal, and stereotypic judgments: A heuristic model of affect
and stereotyping’, in Affect, Cognition, and Stereotyping: Interactive Processes in Group Perception, edited by Diane M. Mackie and David L. Hamilton, Academic Press, San Diego, 1993, pp. 13–37.
44
This concept of voluntary versus involuntary risks is described in: ‘Social Benefit versus Technological Risk’, Science, vol. 165, no. 3899, 1969, pp. 1232–1238, available at <http://
science.sciencemag.org/content/165/3899/1232>, accessed 18 February 2018.
45
This concept of having more concern for immediate problems is explained in: Slimak and Dietz, 2006, cited in The Psychology of Environmental Problems: Psychology for Sustaina-
bility, 3rd ed., edited by Susan M. Koger and Deborah DuNann Winter, Psychology Press, New York, 2010, pp. 216–217.
46
This concept of having greater tolerance for risks that are perceived to have benefits is explained in: Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff and Sarah Lichtenstein, ‘Why Study Risk Percep-
tion?’, Risk Analysis, vol. 2, no. 2, 1982, pp. 83–93, available at <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x/full>, accessed 18 February 2018.
55
© UNICEF/UN012729/Georgiev
4. ANALYSIS PHASE
The analysis phase of the GRIP child-centred risk analysis is distinct from the assessment phase and uses the con-
ceptual framework of the human rights-based approach to programming to ‘dig deeper’ and analyse why risks are
occurring, who is responsible for addressing them and what capacities these actors need to enable them to do
so. The best approach to analysis is a participatory one, involving national counterparts and partners. The analysis
phase therefore involves some primary data collection, as these stakeholders can contribute to the process via
interviews, focus group discussions and/or consultation workshops such as GRIP workshops.
GRIP recommends that all UNICEF country offices use the child-centred risk assessment (either in narrative or
spatial form) as the basis to conduct a causality analysis, which is considered the starting point for establishing re-
lationships between outcomes observed among women and children and their likely causes. However, while the risk
assessment focused primarily on ascertaining the risk of humanitarian crisis triggered by a shock or stress affecting
all sectors, the causality analysis can ascertain the risk of deepening deprivation facing children in a particular sector.
Country offices may also consider conducting at the same time additional analyses such as role pattern analysis,
capacity gap analysis and/or a more comprehensive conflict analysis or climate landscape analysis for children.
4.1. Causality analysis
Causality analysis is often used to examine the causes of shortfalls and inequities in the realization of child rights
and is a critical tool for the risk-informed SitAn and the development of new country programmes. The UNICEF
Guidance on Conducting a Situation Analysis of Children’s and Women’s Rights provides an overview of the meth-
odology for causality analysis.47
United Nations Children’s Fund, Guidance on Conducting a Situation Analysis of Children’s and Women’s Rights, UNICEF Division of Policy and Strategy, March 2012, available at
47
<www.unicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs/Rights based equity focused Situation Analysis guidance.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
56
To complete a risk-focused causality analysis, GRIP recommends that teams conduct the following steps:
1. Develop a statement related to child deprivation

Consult existing causality analyses developed for the SitAn or country programme and use the same point
of departure. In most cases, this will be an impact-level deprivation or inequity (i.e., a gap in the realization
of child rights). Use this ‘problem statement’ as the top of the problem tree and list four or five immediate
causes of this deprivation (for an example, see Graphic 5).
2. Consider the impacts of a particular shock or stress on the deprivation and its immediate causes
Use the highest-ranking shock or stress from the assessment phase and consider how the manifestation of
this risk could lead to a worsening, deepening or acceleration of the deprivation and its immediate causes.
Then ask why this would occur, to identify further structural and underlying causes.
3. Apply the MoRES 10-determinant framework

The 10-determinant framework48 of the UNICEF Monitoring Results for Equity System (MoRES)49 has been
developed to guide the analysis of barriers and bottlenecks faced by children in realizing their rights, but it
can also be very useful to consult the framework to ensure the completeness of a causality analysis. Use
the framework to confirm that all of the causes related to barriers in the supply of, demand for and quality
of services, and within the enabling environment have been identified.
4. Check the analysis

Ensure that the analysis is holistic and complete (see Table 10).
Tips for the development of a causality analysis:
• Keep it simple. Although it is tempting to create a problem tree for all of the risks associated with multiple
shocks and stresses, the cause-and-effect relationships between various hazards and existing deprivations
can be very pronounced. Consider, for example, the difference between armed conflict and severe storms.
Causes are often not linear, but rather a complex interaction of multiple causes that reinforce one another.
Developing a specific problem tree for a single shock or stress minimizes the complexity.
• Apply an ‘equity and gender lens’. The most at-risk populations face particular bottlenecks and barriers,
which often differ in nature and severity from those faced by other population groups. Similarly, women
and men, and girls and boys experience the impacts of shocks and stresses differently, and have different
capacities and responses, all of which affects causality. Consider adapting the causality analysis to look at
different groups (grouped by geographical location, language/ethnicity, gender, disability, etc.) to help identi-
fy constraints to the critical conditions or determinants specific to each group.
• Consider inter-sectoral, cross-cutting or emerging interest areas. Causality analysis can also be extreme-
ly useful when considering the impacts of shocks and stresses on particular groups such as adolescents or
youth, or on the outcomes of a package of integrated services such as early childhood development.
• Always do a separate causality analysis for conflict. For UNICEF country offices that identify conflict as a
shock or stress, it is critical that a separate causality analysis is carried out for this hazard. The UNICEF Guide
to Conflict Analysis helps teams to consider the root and proximate causes of conflict. Root causes are the
underlying socio-economic, cultural and institutional factors (e.g., poor governance, systematic discrimination,
lack of political participation, unequal economic opportunity) that create the conditions for destructive conflict
and violence. Proximate causes contribute to the escalation of tensions and help to create an enabling envi-
ronment for violence (e.g., human rights abuses, worsening economic conditions, divisive rhetoric, drought
aggravating competition over pasture and water).
• Avoid generalities. Causality analysis should always be context-specific, as an underlying cause of a problem
in one country may be regarded as a more deep-rooted structural determinant in another. Try to avoid generic
cause-and-effect relationships and focus instead on describing what is actually happening on the ground.
Where possible, cite data from the child-centred risk assessment.
48
United Nations Children’s Fund, The Determinant Analysis for Equity Programming, August 2014, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.
com/:w:/r/teams/PD/MoRES/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B042c3397-e095-4f04-82af-ae1b794d26bf%7D&action=view&Source=https%3A%2F%2Fteams%2Eunicef%
2Eorg%2Fsites%2FNYHQ01%2FOED%2FMoRES%2FDocument%20Library%2FForms%>, accessed 8 March 2018.
49
The Monitoring Results for Equity System (MoRES) team site is accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/MoRES/SitePages/Mo-
RESCollab.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
57
Table 10 - Key questions: Using the 10-determinant framework to support causality analysis
IMMEDIATE CAUSES: How are shocks and stresses immediate causes of deprivations and inequities?
What are the immediate impacts and losses associated with shocks and stresses? How do these exacerbate
the deprivation or inequity? For example: Is there loss of life; injury; possible damage to and loss of assets,
property or livelihoods; and/or the displacement of children and their families? How does this lead to greater
inequities between those groups that are exposed and those that are not?
Which households, groups, communities or geographical areas are particularly at risk? Does each need a separate
problem tree?
UNDERLYING CAUSES: Supply, demand and quality dimensions
Supply: Adequately staffed services, facilities and information, and availability of commodities and inputs
Are there shortfalls in the availability or integrity of infrastructure, facilities and systems that have made the impacts
of the shock or stress particularly devastating? What are these shortfalls?
Are there gaps in the availability of qualified/trained staff, whose absence contributed to the severity of the impacts
and losses? Is capacity development for human resources required to help reduce and manage risk?
Is adequate information available in advance of shocks and stresses? Do stakeholders have the information they
need during emergencies? How can information and monitoring systems be strengthened to reduce risk?
Are there breaks in the continuity of the supply chain for essential commodities that will make it difficult to respond ef-
fectively in emergencies? How must supply chains be strengthened to improve preparedness and crisis management?
Quality: Adherence to required standards and norms
Are there shortfalls in service providers’ adherence to minimum standards (for infrastructure and services) that
have contributed to the impacts and losses associated with the shock or stress? Do standards, norms, codes and
procedures need to be updated or better enforced?
Demand: Financial access, social and cultural practices and beliefs, continuity of use
Are there mechanisms such as insurance or social protection to support vulnerable families before, during and after
a crisis? Would such mechanisms improve access to services for vulnerable families, by limiting financial burdens?
Are households blocked from accessing services either physically or due to social norms (e.g., those which restrict
women’s access to public spaces and family/community resources) or does reaching services raise security con-
cerns? How did this exacerbate the impacts of the shock or stress?
Do families know how and where to access services if the shock or stress occurs? Do they have the knowledge
they need to employ proper health and hygiene seeking behaviours during a crisis? Are they likely to employ negative
coping mechanisms that could exacerbate the deprivation and/or provoke new concerns?
Which channels of communication with communities and among community members are functioning? How did
members of the affected population share and receive information? Are vulnerable groups able to access information
as well, or are they excluded?
DEEPER UNDERLYING AND STRUCTURAL CAUSES: Enabling environment dimension
Are national requirements and standards to reduce the risk of the shock or stress (e.g., standards and codes for
the construction and management of facilities) adequate and enforced? How does the wider governance in country
affect capacities for the management of public services in general?
Do national and local government have contingency plans in place? Do these plans consider the special needs, vulner-
abilities and capacities of children? Is the resource allocation for flexible contingency funding adequate and sufficient to
manage relief and recovery and ensure the continuation and quality of service delivery in the event of a shock or stress?
Are there any gaps in the national or local policies or plans that must be addressed to ensure the continuity and
quality of services after a shock or stress? Do they take into account the special needs, vulnerabilities and capacities
of children and youth? Is the resource allocation for risk reduction adequate in relevant sectors?
Are there in certain sectors or geographical areas deeper structural causes or social norms (e.g., structural dis-
crimination, which is often compounded by interactions between gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status and
disability) that heighten risks?
58
Graphic 5 - Example of a causality analysis for education, looking at the impacts of conflict
on primary school completion
Deprivation
Less than 85% of children complete a full course of primary education.
Existing
This means over 1.2 million primary school-aged children (56% girsl) are estimated to be “out-of-school”
Children never access primary education Children fail to achieve minimum learning Children drop out early for
due to physical and financial barriers outcomes to complete primary cycle various reasons
Causes of Deprivation
Indicative Immediate
Can’t access Curriculum Caregivers & Migration,
Can’t afford Poor quality
a school & learning Communities movement
school fees & learning
facility in methods undervalue of children
other costs environment
their area not relevant education out of zone
Schools not acces-

Lack of qualified Children unsafe or Individual Pressures
sible for children
& motivated teachers managing trauma to work, marry
with disabilities
Example: Why does the conflict contribute to a worsening of primary school completion rates?
Students
Causes with shock and stresses

Exacerbation of the Immediate
Injury of Conflict- are
students Schools
Schools Increased related displaced
& teachers closed Damages Increased
were teacher trauma
created due to to com- pressure to
used as absences & harm
special insecu- ponents Over- generate
shelters in conflict Language
needs rity of CFS crowding income due
of edu- Death of
& new (Class- of to shock-re-
cation students
barriers to room surviving lated losses.
exacerbates
access WASH schools Increased
regional
facilities, - hosting No GBV
conflict pressure for
recreation IDPs prevention,
Schools Damage/ girls to marry
spaces, psycho-
were damaged destruction earlier due
etc.) social
destroyed by of teacher to percieved No
Conflict support
conflict housing insecurity catch-up
disrupted or referral
of girls classes
livelihoods, mechanism
increased in schools
pressure on
Underlying Causes
household Interrup- Learning materials lost,

finances Schools
tions to damaged in conflict
don’t meet
already No policy
minimum
No low on lan-
standards No
policy to for safety teacher guage of
national Late
protect salaries education -
policy on enrolment No policy
conti- insufficient
counseling of girls on tem-
Insufficient nuity of materials
& psycho- due to porary
social safety access in Insufficient in minotiry
social perceived learning or
nets for emer- budget to support language
Low support insecurity accelerated
vulnerable, gencies Limited replacement in school ”catch-up”
incentives
conflict enforce- recovery & for OOSC
work in
affected ment of reconstruction
conflict-
families minimum
affected
Structural Causes
standards
area
Social
Gender
Social norms do
norms
margi- not yet
continue
Nascent Social lalisation recognize
to disadvan-
protection systems Insufficient prioritization of school safety of ethnic importance
tage girls
+ structural poverty in in Education policies, plans and budgets minority of mental
education
conflict-affected areas health
59
4.2. Optional analyses
Optional analyses which may be considered by the UNICEF country office include the following, all of which are de-
scribed in more detail in the UNICEF Guidance on Conducting a Situation Analysis of Children’s and Women’s Rights.
Role pattern analysis
If the intention of the risk analysis is to inform potential partnership strategies, a role pattern analysis may be con-
ducted to appreciate the roles that relevant stakeholders play in addressing the causes cited in the problem tree.
This involves understanding who is responsible for the various rights not being respected, protected or fulfilled. As
a first step, multi-stakeholder teams should confirm the relationship between the rights-holders and duty bearers
in relation to risk reduction at various levels, including community, sub-national and national levels.
This analysis therefore answers the question:

Which individuals and/or institutions have the duty to reduce these risks?
Capacity gap analysis
If the intention of the risk analysis is to influence sector-specific planning, including the development of work
plans with a technical line ministry, institution or partner, a capacity gap analysis conducted with this specific duty
bearer can be very useful. In contrast to the review of capacities conducted at the assessment phase, this capac-
ity gap analysis focuses on what a specific duty bearer needs to fulfil its responsibilities in reducing vulnerabilities,
strengthening capacities and reducing the risk of humanitarian crisis. It considers the information, knowledge,
skills, will/motivation, authority and financial/material resources that exist and/or are lacking in the institution or
partner. In some cases, a capacity gap analysis may also focus on a rights-holder such as the child or household.
This analysis therefore answers the question:

What capacities are needed to address the most critical risks, for both those who are being denied
their rights and those who have a duty to address these challenges?
© UNICEF/UN074994/Amin
60
5. VALIDATION PHASE
5.1. Review and validation
Any ‘research’ or ‘study’ at UNICEF should be reviewed and validated – both by the stakeholders who contributed to
its design and elaboration, and by others external to the process. If an advisory board guided the process of elabora-
tion, this board should approve the final draft. The internal steering committee should manage review processes.
Depending on its depth and scope, a child-centred risk analysis could be reviewed by any or all of the following:
• internal UNICEF technical experts – at country, regional and Headquarters levels
• external peers – at least two independent, non-UNICEF reviewers who are recognized as experts in their
relevant fields and can provide independent, impartial and high quality comments
• women’s groups and groups of children, adolescents or youth, where possible – through the use of focus
group discussions and/or child-friendly communication methods.
In any analysis, it is a good idea to note any limitations of the methodology and analysis, and explain what influ-
ence these may have on the findings and outcomes of the process. This can include reflections on why certain
choices were made, with guidance for others who may try to replicate the steps to produce similar analyses.
Limitations are often best identified in collaboration with stakeholders during the validation phase.
5.2. Dissemination and use
If the child-centred risk analysis is not used, its strategic purpose cannot be fulfilled. From the start, UNICEF coun-
try offices should think strategically about how to maximize use of the analysis by key national counterparts and
partners, and about what formats best meet the needs of major users.
Some options to consider for dissemination:

• Adapt the presentation of the analysis to suit different users. If the analysis is to be used externally,
consider publication (with reference to the UNICEF Publication Policy)50 and presentation in the form of
communications products targeted at non-specialists, including children, adolescents and youth.
• Launch the analysis with partners. UNICEF may ask the leading national counterpart to convene partners
to be involved in the launch in recognition of the contributions of multiple stakeholders.
• Work with partners to integrate findings into other analyses. This may include analyses led by national
or international partners including the United Nations Country Team.
• Arrange for the handover of databases. Ideally, databases should be owned and maintained by national
authorities. If a database was developed to support risk analysis, this phase could include its handover and
the strengthening of national capacities to ensure its maintenance.
5.3. Assessing performance with quality criteria
The following table can be used to evaluate team performance and the quality of the child-centred risk analysis at
each stage of elaboration. The recommended scale for the evaluation is immediately below.
1 No, not at all

2 Not very much
3 Yes, moderately
4 Yes, to a great extent
5 Yes, to an exemplary level
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Publication Policy, revised 15 November 2016, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://icon.unicef.org/iconhome/ICON
50
Document Library/UNICEF Publication Policy - 15 Nov 2016.pdf>, accessed 8 March 2018.

61
SCALE
QUALITY CRITERIA
1 2 3 4 5
Preparation
Do the terms of reference for the risk analysis clearly identify the strategic purpose of
the risk analysis, and its potential users and uses?
Has a single research manager been assigned to manage the process?
Is she or he empowered to encourage cross-sectoral collaboration?
Has the analysis been classified as a ‘study’ or ‘research’ and entered into the integrated
monitoring, evaluation and research plan or database (IMERP or PRIME)?
Did national counterparts participate in the design of the analysis?
For more in-depth analysis: Has a steering committee been established to guide the
process, and does it include participation by national authorities?
assessment
Does the depth of the risk assessment correspond with the country’s relative risk
rating? For high-risk countries: Is there a plan to conduct a sub-national spatial risk
assessment or ‘child-centred risk mapping’?
Is there a historical review of the frequency of various shocks and stresses over the
last 15 to 20 years?
Is there a historical review of the impacts and losses associated with shocks and
stresses over the last 15 to 20 years?
Is relevant information included that captures the socio-economic vulnerabilities of
children and households and the capacities of institutions and authorities?
Is there a clear ranking of risks associated with specific shocks and/or stresses – or,
in the case of a spatial risk assessment, the geographical areas that are most likely to
experience humanitarian crisis?
ANALYSIS
Does the causality analysis identify immediate, underlying and structural causes that
explain why the impacts and losses are so frequent and severe?
Does the causality analysis consider underlying causes related to the supply of, demand
for and quality of services, and the enabling environment?
Have national counterparts and key child rights stakeholders participated in the elabo-
ration of the causality analysis?
For countries experiencing violent conflict, civil unrest or serious challenges to social
cohesion: Has the UNICEF country office consulted the UNICEF Guide to Conflict
Analysis?
Validation, dissemination and use
Was the draft risk analysis reviewed by external peers nominated by national authorities
and key child rights stakeholders?
Has the risk analysis been disseminated externally, in a format ideal for use by key
child rights stakeholders?
Has the analysis been integrated into other major analyses such as the UNICEF risk-
informed situation analysis and/or the United Nations Common Country Assessment?
Has the risk analysis been discussed at the strategic moment of reflection and/or
another major milestone in the elaboration of a new country programme?
62
“Children are especially vulnerable to disasters

as they can be adversely affected in so many ways...
We need to take meaningful steps
to reduce the risk of disaster to children,
while also building up their resilience.
This includes implementing comprehensive
risk assessments based on disaggregated data...” 51
Ted Chaiban, Director of Programmes

2015 statement welcoming the Sendai Framework
© UNICEF/UN032884/Mukwazhi
United Nations Children’s Fund, News note: UNICEF welcomes new Sendai Framework securing children’s role in shaping disaster risk reduction, 20 March 2015, accessed at
51
<https://www.unicef.org/media/media_81343.html>, accessed 4 April 2018.

63
GRIP - module 3: Design and Adaptation of Programmes
module 3
Design and Adaptation

of Programmes
64
MODULE 3: Design & Adaptation of Programmes

1
2 1. INTRODUCTION 66
3 1.1. GRIP within a results-based management approach 66
1.2. Best times to use GRIP Module no. 3 66
1.3. The role of a GRIP workshop 67
4
2. RISK-INFORMED THEORIES OF CHANGE 68
11
2.1. What is a risk-informed theory of change? 68
A 2.2. How to elaborate a risk-informed theory of change? 69
10 3. RISK-INFORMED programme 73
5 3.1. Identifying opportunities for risk-informed programming 73
9 3.2. Formulating risk-informed results and selecting appropriate indicators 76
8 6 4. risks in programme implementation 78
7 4.1. Forging partnerships (and work plans) 78
4.2. Identifying risks to the programme 78
4.3. Adressing risks to the programme 82
5. ASSESSING PERFORMANCE 86
Overview of GRIP Modules 2 AND 3

GRIP Module No. 2 helps UNICEF country offices and key child rights stakeholders to:
• conduct an assessment of the risk to children and vulnerable groups in country (ranking risks by shock/
stress or, in the case of a spatial risk assessment, by geographical area)
• work with partners to develop a causality analysis that asks why the impacts of crisis can be so devastating
for children and vulnerable families
• analyse the roles and capacities of duty bearers, including those that may support more resilient systems
and a more peaceful society
• validate the analysis and consider opportunities to maximize its dissemination and use.
GRIP Module No. 3 is designed to help UNICEF country offices and the same stakeholders to apply the
body of evidence gleaned through the risk analysis (and also the risk-informed situation analysis) to design
and adjust programmes. This module uses the results-based management approach to help teams to:
• develop or adjust theories of change that focus directly on the changes necessary to make children,
families and systems more resilient to the impacts of shocks and stresses
• identify the comparative advantage that UNICEF has in peace and resilience programming, and develop
child rights-focused, risk-informed programmes
• consider how to ensure that these programmes are risk-responsive themselves, so that they are effec-
tive even in a dynamic, risk-prone environment.
65
© UNICEF/UN032913/Mukwazhi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GRIP within a results-based management approach
UNICEF plans, implements, monitors and evaluates programmes with national counterparts and partners using
a results-based management (RBM) approach. RBM promotes the more efficient use of resources, greater
accountability and more effective programming. It also stresses the importance of identifying, reducing and
managing risks in the environment – risks that may affect children and vulnerable families, and also risks that
may affect the ability of UNICEF and its partners to achieve the results as planned.
All programmes can be risk-informed, irrespective of whether they apply to a high-, medium- or low-risk country,
or to a UNICEF Country Programme of Cooperation that is development-oriented or focused on humanitarian
action. Working together, UNICEF country offices and child rights stakeholders can:
• consider what changes are necessary to further the realization of child rights and specifically how to protect
those gains from the negative impacts of shocks and stresses
• design or adapt risk-informed programmes to more clearly foster resilience and peace
• integrate guidance that helps teams to adjust existing programmes to mitigate the impacts of shocks and
stresses on their effectiveness.
In other words, the UNICEF Guidance for Risk-informed Programming (GRIP) is the essential companion to the
UNICEF Results-based Management (RBM) Learning Package, as it provides additional guidance on how to apply
the ‘risk lens’ and identify specific means to further risk reduction and resilient development for children.1
1.2 Best times to use GRIP Module No. 3
To maximize its influence on the design of child rights programming, GRIP Module No. 3 is best applied during the
design of a new UNICEF Country Programme of Cooperation, United Nations Development Assistance Framework
or humanitarian action plan and/or in time to inform major national planning, budget allocation or programming
milestones (see Graphic 1).
GRIP recognizes that strategic planning is a dynamic and iterative process and must adapt to local requirements
and opportunities. As a part of the United Nations System, supporting national governments to uphold their
commitments to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, UNICEF is just one important actor in a complex and interconnected multi-stakeholder
environment. Risk analysis and strategic planning should therefore always be a joint process that brings together
major development partners and stakeholders.
1
The Results-based Management (RBM) Learning Package includes an e-course, resources for face-to-face training sessions and workshops, and the Results-based Management
Handbook. All of these resources, plus news and highlights, are accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants on the RBM Learning Package SharePoint site at <https://unicef.share-
point.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/SitePages/RBM_Materials.aspx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
66
Graphic 1 - Best times to use GRIP Module No. 3, considering the UNICEF country programming cycle2
risk informed
situation analysis
Discussions on
prioritization
evaluation of
the programme
rbm
workshop
optional midterm
review
strategic moment
of refelction (smr)
GRIP Module 3 GRIP Module 3
can inform internal can inform the CPD
reviews or support strategic planning
the development process with elaboration of strategy
and adaptation counterparts and note(s)
implementation of workplans partners workplans
& monitoring
elaboration of country
programme document
rolling multi-year
workplans
country programme
management plan
1.3 The role of a GRIP workshop
A GRIP workshop is a flexible, participatory-style workshop tailor-made to support UNICEF country offices and
their national counterparts and partners to consider how the risks associated with various shocks and stresses can
affect children, their caregivers and their communities.
At the strategic planning phase, or at the time of programme adjustment, a ‘stand-alone’ GRIP workshop can be
particularly useful in helping multi-stakeholder groups to:
• develop sector-wide, or multi-sectoral, risk-informed theories of change (TOCs)
• embark on strategic planning for the elaboration of a new UNICEF Country Programme of Cooperation,
United Nations Development Assistance Framework or humanitarian action plan
• consider the adaptation of joint work plans and partnerships to reinforce resilient development.
Aspects of a GRIP workshop can also be integrated into existing UNICEF training sessions and consultative pro-
cesses, including:
• RBM training sessions, thereby strengthening the application of the ‘risk lens’
• TOC workshops or ‘write-shops’ held with counterparts and regional advisers
• strategic moments of reflection, thereby providing a means to reaffirm the organizational commitment to
resilient development
• optional mid-term reviews, thus providing a means to adjust programme results and strategies
• a Gender Programme Review, which is usually carried out once during the programme cycle, either to inform
the situation analysis, programme strategy notes, mid-term review or Country Programme Document.3
UNICEF regional office planning and emergency advisers, in cooperation with UNICEF Headquarters through the
Humanitarian Action and Transition Section (HATIS) in Programme Division, can support country offices to consider
if, how and when a GRIP workshop may be useful in the strategic planning process.
2
A Gender Programme Review can include risk analysis and feed into the situation analysis, mid-term review and/or Country Programme Document, depending on the timing of the
review in relation to the country programming cycle.
3
United Nations Children’s Fund, Gender Programmatic Review Toolkit, UNICEF, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/
SitePages/Gender Programmatic Review.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
67
© UNICEF/UN0149463/Sokhin
2. RISK-INFORMED THEORIES
OF CHANGE
2.1 What is a risk-informed theory of change?
A most critical aspect of the strategic planning process is the development of a TOC that articulates a collec-
tive vision for reaching a desired impact and makes explicit how one level of change leads to another. UNICEF
country offices are required to develop a TOC for each outcome area of a new country programme during the
elaboration of programme strategy notes.4 A TOC can be developed at any time, however, to enrich the collabo-
rative process and strengthen programming logic. For detailed guidance on how to develop a TOC, consult the
RBM Learning Package.
More information is also provided below on how programme strategy notes are assessed in relation to ‘risk
responsiveness’, reaffirming the fact that all TOCs can be risk-informed, irrespective of a country’s risk rating
(see Box 1 ). TOCs developed during the strategic planning process for a new UNICEF Country Programme
of Cooperation, for example, should display a clear understanding not only of what changes are necessary to
achieve the broader, impact-level goals, but also of how to protect those gains from the negative impacts of
shocks and stresses, to ensure that all children benefit from development progress.
4
For guidance, good practices and the global quality assessments of programme strategy notes, see the Programme Strategy Notes SharePoint site, accessible to UNICEF staff
and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/SitePages/Programme_Strategy_Notes.asp>, accessed 10 March 2018.
68
Box 1 - Risk responsiveness: A quality criterion for the development

of programme strategy notes
The UNICEF Quality Review of Country Programme Documents and Review of a Sample of Programme
Strategy Notes provides a means for assessing on an annual basis how well UNICEF country offices have
met the quality criteria for the development of new country programme documentation.5
The Quality Review for 2017, commissioned by the UNICEF Field Results Group, assessed 30 programme
strategy notes from 10 different country offices that had elaborated a Country Programme Document that
year.6 The review includes an evaluation of key programme design indicators (equity focus of programme,
results-based management, gender responsiveness and risk responsiveness) to consider how well the
documentation reflects the core mission and programming principles of UNICEF.
The evaluation of risk responsiveness considers the following questions:

• Does the Prioritized Issues and Areas section of the programme strategy note articulate a situation
analysis that clearly references risks related to disaster, conflict and other shocks?
• Do the outcomes, outputs and interventions articulate any objectives to address or mitigate risks?
• Does the Monitoring and Evaluation section explain how monitoring approaches and processes will be
adjusted to changing risks?
• How well does the programme strategy note present management initiatives to address the most
critical identified risks?
Overall, the risk responsiveness quality criterion was the second lowest scoring criterion in 2017, scoring
70.9 per cent, just barely above the satisfactory threshold. This indicates a need to reflect more clearly in
the programming logic a commitment to the practice of risk reduction.
Since the TOC describes aspects of the larger, complex programming environment, all relevant stakeholders
should be involved in the elaboration process, so that they may share their experience and insights on how change
occurs. Participation by partners will help to ensure that the TOC is ‘jargon-free’ and broad enough to capture the
contributions and roles of various stakeholders, without specific bias to UNICEF. As illustrated in the RBM Learning
Package, if a problem is caused by three conditions, all three conditions must be addressed. UNICEF may address
just one of them, while other actors consider the rest.
2.2 How to elaborate a risk-informed theory of change
There is no TOC template or standard approach. To elaborate a risk-informed TOC, UNICEF country offices and key
child rights stakeholders should start at the end and work backwards, to identify the:
• long-term change that all stakeholders wish to see in the lives of children and families (impact-level change/result)
• several ‘preconditions’ (long- and medium-term results) that are necessary to not only achieve this change,
but also to protect this gain from the negative impacts of future shocks and stresses, thus enhancing the
resilience of children, families, communities, systems and institutions (outcome-level changes/results related
to a change in the performance of institutions or the behaviour of individuals)
• specific short-term results that reflect a change in the capacities of duty bearers, including their capacity to
reduce, mitigate or manage risk (output-level changes/results)
• key programme strategies that will move all partners in the direction of the long-term goal of resilient development
(or specific inputs to the change process).
Key questions can help multi-stakeholder teams to determine the extent to which the TOC considers aspects
of risk reduction in each of the four categories of the 10-determinant framework7 of the UNICEF Monitoring for
Results Equity System (MoRES)8 (see Table 1). Often overlooked during the development of TOCs is the impor-
tance of considering individual behaviour change and larger changes in society, to ensure an enabling environment
for resilience (see Box 2 ).
5
The latest annual Quality Review is accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/SitePages/Programme_Strategy_Notes.asp>,
6
Fox, Leslie M., Quality Review of UNICEF’s 2017 Country Programme Documents, Review of a Sample of Programme Strategy Notes, and Analysis of Selected SN and CPD
Cross-cutting Issues, Final Report, United Nations Children’s Fund, 8 January 2018
7
United Nations Children’s Fund, The Determinant Analysis for Equity Programming, August 2014, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/
teams/PD/MoRES/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B042c3397-e095-4f04-82af-ae1b794d26bf%7D&action=view&Source=https%3A%2F%2Fteams%2Eunicef%2Eo
rg%2Fsites%2FNYHQ01%2FOED%2FMoRES%2FDocument%20Library%2FForms%>, accessed 8 March 2018.
8
The MoRES team site is accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/MoRES/SitePages/MoRESCollab.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
69
Although all TOCs should be risk-informed, it may be necessary to develop separate but complementary TOCs
that focus specifically on risk reduction and on resilience to better illustrate the desired changes. In such cases,
GRIP advises that complementary risk-informed TOCs should use the same starting point as TOCs developed
for programme strategy notes. In the example of this presented below, the challenge is to ensure that the edu-
cation sector better manages the impacts of armed conflict in country (see Graphic 2).
Table 1 - Key questions: Using the 10-determinant framework to elaborate a risk-informed theory of change
IMPACT-LEVEL CHANGE: Making a difference in the lives of children and women
Does the starting point or top result statement consider not only the achievement of the impact-level change,
but also how to protect this gain from the negative impacts of future shocks and stresses? Or do the top three
preconditions consider how shocks and stresses can deteriorate the impact-level change (through loss of life,
injury, illness, damage to and loss of assets and/or livelihoods, and/or the displacement of children and families)?
Does the impact-level starting point and/or the trio of preconditions consider the groups that are both vulnerable
and highly exposed to shocks and stresses? Are they specifically targeted?
OUTCOME-LEVEL CHANGES: Supply and quality dimensions
How must institutional performance change to ensure the continuous supply and quality of services during a
crisis? For example: Has a means to ensure that critical infrastructure, facilities and systems remain available
and intact in the event of shocks and stresses been identified?
Has the TOC considered what changes must happen to ensure the availability of qualified/trained staff during a
crisis? What changes in institutional performance are necessary to protect human resources?
Does the TOC consider the availability of information in the specific sector before, during and after a crisis?
OUTCOME-LEVEL CHANGES: Demand dimension
Does the TOC consider the changes necessary to ensure that households continue to access and demand
services during a crisis? Does the TOC consider how to limit/reduce the financial burdens of vulnerable and
affected households during a crisis, thus ensuring their access to services?
Does the TOC consider the need for behaviour change (in terms of employing more environmentally friendly
practices, methods for the peaceful resolution of conflict, health and hygiene seeking behaviours, etc.) that can
reduce risks and vulnerabilities?
OUTCOME LEVEL: Enabling environment dimension
Do national policies, strategies and plans for disaster risk reduction, climate change and peacebuilding ade-
quately consider the special needs, vulnerabilities and capacities of children? Does the TOC recognize that
some adaptation at the policy level may be necessary to protect the desired impact-level change?
Does the TOC recognize that it may be necessary to move towards more child-friendly budgeting to protect
children and families from the impacts of shocks and stresses? Or do current budgetary allocation processes
fuel conflict and social unrest? What change must happen to address this issue?
Are there adequate national requirements and standards to reduce risk? (For example, are there standards for
the construction of facilities and the disaster-proofing of public infrastructure, systems or schemes for children?)
Are changes in institutional performance in enforcement necessary?
Does the TOC recognize the importance of decentralized planning and budgeting? Must there be a change in
the performance of local government in terms of risk reduction, preparedness and contingency planning, in
consideration of the special needs and vulnerabilities of children and other vulnerable groups?
How are social norms affecting peace capacities or the commitment to reduce the vulnerability of specific
groups? Is there a civil society commitment to peace and are dispute resolution mechanisms present?
OUTPUT LEVEL: All dimensions
Does the TOC recognize what changes are necessary to ensure that institutions and local authorities have
increased capacities (authority, motivation, resources) to change their performance? Does the TOC consider the
capacities (knowledge, skills, tools and other resources) of children, parents or vulnerable groups?
70
© UNICEF/UN0156160/
Box 2 - Communication for Development in risk-informed theories of change
Communication for Development (C4D) – a systematic, planned and evidence-based process to promote
positive and measurable individual behaviour and social change – is an integral part of development
programmes and humanitarian work. C4D uses research, evidence and consultative processes to pro-
mote human rights and equity, mobilize leadership and societies, enable community participation, build
resilience, influence norms and attitudes, and change the behaviours of those who have an impact on
children’s well-being.
While behaviour change relates to the knowledge, attitudes and practices of individuals, social change
takes into account the social norms and cultural systems that influence individual thoughts and actions.
Even when positive change is realized among individuals, families and communities, higher-level power
structures and policies can present barriers to social change. Ensuring effective and sustained change
therefore calls for individuals to be supported to develop their knowledge, skills and opportunities, and for
duty bearers at a range of levels to be supported to develop an enabling environment for change (including
through the implementation of required laws, policies, systems and services).
C4D recognizes that any change in any society is affected by interdependent levels of influence on human
behaviour within homes, in the community, at the organizational level and within the wider society. Every
theory of change should consider the potential for C4D to bring people together as equals for positive
change by:
• allowing meaningful participation and enabling individuals to have their own perspectives adequately
reflected in decisions that affect their lives
• enabling access to the information, skills, technologies and processes required to solve problems
• empowering individuals to make informed choices, realize their human rights and reach their full potential.
C4D is critical to risk reduction and resilience. C4D can support participatory risk assessment and analysis
and ensure that processes and programmes enhance individual coping behaviours, strengthen social
support networks (including for emotional and psychological support) and ensure preparedness for crisis,
thereby diminishing risks. In crisis, C4D ensures that relevant, culturally appropriate and action-oriented
information is shared with people in affected communities and that they are able to provide feedback
through mechanisms that enhance their influence and ownership, including for the most vulnerable groups.
71
Graphic 2 - Example of a risk-informed theory of change for the education sector
GOAL
All primary-school-aged children are in school and learning
• Children’s Learning outcomes improve
Impacts
• Out-of-school children return to school through targeted sup-
port Enrollment rates increase from XX to XX in conflict areas • Completion rates rise from XX to XX in conflict affected areas
• Attendance increase from XX to XX in conflict affected area • Literacy and numeracy test scores rise from XX to XX
respectively
Schools
Continuity of Education
Poor or Number of recognized
At-risk is maintained through
conflict- Children functional & serve as Well Parents
children are adapted delivery strategies.
affected with schools zones of qualified, drive
better Education interruptions
families disabilities in rural, peace motivated education
supported decrease by half in 5 years
receive attend conflict teachers in their
in school
targeted school areas on site community
setting
support increases National
curriculum Education
is adapted School System
to further infrastruc- implements
ture meets long-term
Outcomes
Accessibility peace-
Social building Functional minimum preparedness
& adapted standards for plan with
protection goals referral
learning safety & child provisions for
system School mechanism
programs Parent friendliness temporary
links recon- to social
for children Teacher learning
to Edu- struction Code of services
with Associations
cation & programme conduct for at-risk
disabilities Incentive strengthened
enables launched to protect children in
in 3 conflict pro- - community 80% of Policy &
access to schools schools
affected gramme members Schools SOP on
services from attack
districts for help monitor have temporary
teachers attacks on emergency learning
in conflict National education preparedness clarified
affected- policy & Plans by MoE
New areas -
National Peace & plan for
Common conflict- including
Recovery Plan allocates expanding
registry of sensitive closer
adequate resources for counselling
vulnerable Policy on support National Assessment
school reconstruction, & psycho-
families is language of supervi- of schools to determine
recovery & development as social
created education sion extent to which they
a peace-building strategy support
released meet minimum standards
in schools
Local
Education
Outputs
Authorities
Education have
National MoE launches capacity MoE has to analyse,
Service Providers
budget back-to-School to engage prepare for & respond
have the knowl-
allocations Campaign & train to conflict & other
edge & tools to
to social nation-wide, PTA Groups shock-related disruptions
integrate
services focus on conflict that affect education
psychosocial
increase affected areas continuity
support
Investment
Technical Technical
Inputs or strategies
case/cost Targeted
South-Sudan Context- Assistance: Assistance
benefit Partnership: Advocacy with
learning exchange specific Development or Pro-
analysis for Post-conflict Prime Minis-
to provide manual on of Manual, curement:
expanding assessment ter’s Office & Partnerships:
Education Officials psycho- SOP & training Supplies
social conducted Ministry Local civil
with examples social programme to ensure
protection to determine of Interior society
of peace- support for Education temporary
prepared requirements for to prioritize groups
building drafted for Inspectors learning
with accessibility & Education
education service developed - (temporary
Ministry learning for CWD in Peace &
programmes providers on safe/child classrooms,
of Social Recovery Plan
friendly schools kits)
Welfare
Legend
Quality Dimension Demand Dimension Supply Dimension Enabling Environment Relationship
72
3. RISK-INFORMED PROGRAMMES
3.1 Identifying opportunities for risk-informed programming
Once the broader programming logic has been mapped out through the TOC, it becomes easier for UNICEF
teams to identify specific change pathways in which they have a comparative advantage as a catalyst and
source of support. The UNICEF Results-based Management (RBM) Handbook provides guidance on this prior-
itization process, suggesting that teams consider five ‘filters’ or factors – criticality, mandate, strategic position-
ing, capacities, and lessons learned – when making a decision about programmatic focus.9 UNICEF is uniquely
positioned to support risk-informed programming – something that is critical to consider in this process that
focuses on comparative advantage (see Box 3 ).
Box 3 - Comparative advantages of UNICEF in risk reduction
UNICEF has several comparative advantages that make it essential that the organization plays an active
role in joint, ‘whole-of-government’ approaches to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation:
• UNICEF has strong relationships with technical line ministries that support children’s survival and
development and can therefore be a critical catalyst in supporting national authorities to mainstream
risk reduction programmes through the technical sectors, including health, nutrition, education, water
and sanitation, and child protection, and the wider enabling environment for social inclusion.
• UNICEF responds in a multi-sectoral manner, addressing the interlocking issues that affect a child’s
well-being. The organization can consider holistically how to inform risk reduction programmes that
affect multiple sectors and dimensions, to influence development outcomes and impacts.
• UNICEF has a mandate that integrates development and humanitarian programming and is
thus present before, during and after a crisis, engaging at every stage of the humanitarian-develop-
ment continuum. The organization is therefore well placed to promote risk reduction measures and
to monitor their effects on resilience and peace.
• UNICEF works upstream and downstream. UNICEF not only influences national policy and
budgetary frameworks, but also works in close proximity to communities that experience shocks
and stresses, with many of its offices supporting actors to deliver community-based programmes.
UNICEF is therefore an essential contributor to the evidence base that can further risk-informed
programming and influence national decisions regarding the replication or scaling up of successful
interventions.
• UNICEF knows and talks to children. UNICEF understands the potential for children to drive
development processes and catalyse change. The organization also understands the risks involved
in social exclusion and sees the danger of adolescents engaging in conflict and violence when their
needs are not met and when their voices are ignored. UNICEF can support national authorities to
recognize children as critical ‘connectors’ who can enable divided or ‘at-risk’ communities to work
together towards a shared goal of peace and resilience.
Although all programmes should be risk-informed, every country and context is different. Opportunities for
engagement will vary depending on the status of children, the risk landscape, the nature of the programming
environment, and the strategic position and capacities of UNICEF. Generally, GRIP recommends that a commit-
ment to fostering resilience and peace is commensurate with the country’s risk profile. UNICEF country offices in
nations rated as high-risk should therefore demonstrate a stronger, clearer and more proactive commitment to risk
reduction in their programming and results structures.
9
United Nations Children’s Fund, Results-based Management Handbook: Working together for children, UNICEF, 2017, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.
sharepoint.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/Shared Documents/RBM_Handbook_Working_Together_for_Children_July_2017.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
73
In general, UNICEF risk-informed programming will either:
• aim to ensure that national risk reduction, • support technical line ministries and key
climate change adaptation and peacebuilding stakeholders to ensure that child-sensitive
efforts are more child-sensitive programmes are more risk-informed
The first route may involve: The latter route may involve:
• enhancing national capacities for child-centred risk • ensuring that national ministries or institutions
analysis that integrates measures of socio-eco- perform risk analysis specific to their sector, to
nomic vulnerability and helps to better target the consider how to better target those households
households, groups and communities most at risk or communities most at risk
• supporting key national institutions and national • helping national authorities in health, nutrition,
authorities responsible for risk reduction, climate education, water and sanitation, child protection,
change adaptation and/or disaster management and social inclusion and protection to adapt their
to consider the special needs, vulnerabilities and policies, plans and budgets to consider the meas-
capacities of children in their international com- ures and resources necessary to ensure that
mitments and national policies, plans, budgets, systems can absorb or adapt to various shocks
protocols and procedures and stresses
• strengthening the capacities of local authorities that • developing protocols, procedures, micro-plans and
manage and regulate preparedness and first re- programmes to enhance shock-responsiveness and
sponders, to ensure more child-sensitive planning, adaptation in the above sectors, so as to ensure
preparedness and programming at the local level the continuity and quality of services for children
• ensuring that disaster risk reduction, climate change • supporting children, adolescents and youth to
and peacebuilding programmes are developed and engage in these processes and influence the
implemented with the participation and engage- analysis, design and implementation phases as
ment of children, adolescents and youth, making appropriate.
sure that their voices are heard and respected.
Risk-informed programming naturally includes efforts to strengthen national capacities for preparedness, crisis man-
agement and response. The Guidance Note on Preparedness for Emergency Response in UNICEF provides additional
guidance on identifying appropriate long- and short-term preparedness interventions, including contingency planning.10
Risk-informed programming is also not limited to development-oriented planning and programming that occurs
before a crisis strikes. By applying the same principles within humanitarian action, risk analysis and risk-in-
formed programmes help to broaden the focus from acute and urgent needs to chronic vulnerabilities and likely
exposure to future shocks and stresses. This helps to integrate elements of capacity development and the
reduction of extreme vulnerability into humanitarian action, thus ensuring more meaningful recovery for those
affected by crisis and decreasing the risk of future crisis for all.
In conflict-affected countries, or countries facing serious challenges to social cohesion, the UNICEF Conflict Sen-
sitivity and Peacebuilding Programming Guide11 and the Technical Note on Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding in
UNICEF12 suggest that UNICEF strategies and programmes should take a more explicit and systematic approach
to peacebuilding. In such countries, it is critical for stakeholders to consider ways that UNICEF can support:
• ‘vertical social cohesion’ by enhancing state and society relations
• ‘horizontal social cohesion’ by building bridges within and among divided groups at the community level,
paying attention to the nature of social exclusion and marginalization
• individual capacity building by helping individuals (including children, adolescents and youth) to anticipate,
manage, mitigate, resolve and transform violent conflict, be resilient and engage in social change processes.
The UNICEF commitment to equity and reaching the furthest behind first is a key element of risk-informed
programming in all countries and at every phase. Since exposure to shocks and stresses is clearly recognized as
one of the primary determinants of inequity, focusing on the most ‘at-risk’ households and communities – and
thus moving beyond deprivation to consider risk – is a way to sharpen the ‘equity lens’.
10
United Nations Children’s Fund, Preparedness for Emergency Response in UNICEF: Guidance Note 2016, UNICEF, December 2016, available at <www.unicef.org/emergencies/
files/UNICEF_Preparedness_Guidance_Note_29_Dec__2016_.pdf>, accessed 13 March 2018.
11
12
United Nations Children’s Fund, Technical Note on Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding in UNICEF, UNICEF, June 2012, available at <www.unicefinemergencies.com/downloads/
eresource/docs/KRR/UNICEF Technical Note on Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding.pdf>, accessed 19 February 2018.
74
© UNICEF/UN0139549/Gilbertson VII Photo
It is also important when designing risk-informed programmes to consider the different needs, vulnerabilities and
capacities of children, adolescents and youth (and their caregivers) at each stage of their life course, from incep-
tion, through infancy and early childhood, to adolescence and youth (for an example, see Box 4 ).
Box 4 - Adolescent participation in risk-informed programming
The principle of participation is enshrined in several international instruments. These include the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has five articles (arts. 12–15, 17) that make explicit
reference to the right of children to participate.13 Also, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
requires governments and development stakeholders to produce better quality age-disaggregated data and
to engage adolescents in implementing and monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals.
Recognizing this, UNICEF applies a positive development approach that sees adolescents and youth as
assets and not ‘problems’ or ‘threats’, and the organization builds on strengths such as their potential for
innovation, creativity and energy. In fact, adolescents and youth are rightly recognized as potential ‘acceler-
ators’, with the capacity to influence and change development trajectories for societies and nations.
Involving adolescents at all stages of programming, including the analysis of the situation and risk landscape,
is a strategic priority.14 The UNICEF Programme Policy and Procedure Manual notes that: “Children and
adolescents are often much better placed than external duty-bearers to assess their own situation, and
coming up with possible solutions.”15
The participation of adolescents and youth in situation analysis, in policy advocacy and in programming
processes can lead to improved intergenerational communication and empathy; more relevant, effective
and sustainable programming and policies; and improved conditions for adolescents, thanks to the input,
viewpoints and experiences of the participants.
13
14
A large body of policy materials for engaging adolescents in programming already exists. Examples include: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Three billion reasons:
Norway’s development strategy for children and young people in the south, NORAD, 2005; Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Youth Policy, SDC, 2007; United Nations
Population Fund, The Case for Investing in Young People as part of a National Poverty Reduction Strategy, UNFPA, 2005; Commonwealth Youth Programme, The Commonwealth Plan
of Action for Youth Empowerment 2007–2015, Commonwealth Secretariat, London, 2007; Danida, Children and Young People in Danish Development Cooperation, Danida, Copenha-
gen, 2007; United Nations, World Youth Report 2007. Young People’s Transition to Adulthood: Progress and Challenges, United Nations, 2007; United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA
Framework for Action on Adolescents and Youth. Opening doors with young people: 4 keys, UNFPA, 2007; World Bank, World Development Report 2007: Development and the next
generation, World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2006; and Africa Commission, Realising the Potential of Africa’s Youth, Africa Commission, Copenhagen, 2009; all cited in SPW/DFID–CSO
Youth Working Group, Youth Participation in Development: A Guide for Development Agencies and Policy Makers, DFID–CSO Youth Working Group, London, 2010, p. 14.
15
United Nations Children’s Fund, Programme Policy and Procedure Manual, UNICEF, (n.d.), is accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/
OED/PPPManual/SiteAssets/Welcome%20to%20the%20Programme,%20Policy%20and%20Procedure%20Manual.aspx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
75
GRIP Module Nos. 5–11 contain sector-specific guidance and examples of successful country and regional pro-
gramming around the world (for a few highlights, see map inset on page 80 ).
3.2 Formulating risk-informed results and selecting

appropriate indicators
Once the general areas for collaborative programming have been identified, and the comparative advantages for
UNICEF considered, multi-stakeholder teams should work together to apply the RBM approach and develop a
results chain, with accompanying monitoring framework. A results chain should ideally have at least three levels
to clarify the influence of UNICEF at the impact level, the organization’s contribution at the outcome level and
its accountabilities at the output level. Risk-informed results should be SMARTER – that is, strategic, measurable,
aligned, realistic, transformative, empowering and reportable. For additional guidance on this process, consult
the RBM Handbook (or see Graphic 3).
Graphic 3 - RBM refresher: Levels of results and SMARTER results statements
RBM Refresher: Levels of Results RBM Refresher: SMARTER Results Statements
presents an area of comparative

IMPACT S Strategic advantage & relevant to context
• Long term changes in the situation of children & women
• Nationally owned the means for measuring change,
M Measurable improvement, transformation exist
OUTCOME with government & partner priorities -

A Aligned clear that we are in it with others
• Changes in behaviour or performance of targeted individuals
or institutions achievements must be possible, & even
• Quality & coverage of services R Realistic probable given the efforts planned
• UNICEF contribute to these changes
important, relevant, change - beyond
T Transformative
the results themselves
OUTPUT
• New products, skills, abilities & services aspirational with clear idea of what
E Empowering
“good” will result. Moves people
• Changes in capacities of individuals or institutions
• Attributable to programme funds & management - actions taken & results show contri-
therefore high degree of accountability R Reportable
bution toward higher level result
There are several ways in which results can represent a proactive commitment to reducing risks for children and
vulnerable households and communities (see Table 2).
Table 2 - Results that represent a proactive commitment to reducing risks for children
Change to result
Example
statement
UNICEF can contribute to strengthening the resilience of children and households, institutions and
systems. It can also have the intention of building peace and fostering social cohesion. Ideally, the
Reflect the impact-level result should reflect this intention – through the result statement or indicators chosen.
desired impact EXAMPLES:
in terms of Impact result statement: Teams may choose a result statement that includes a commitment to
resilience resilience or peace, or select indicators that can, over time, demonstrate the increased resilience of
and peace vulnerable households, groups or systems.
EXAMPLE FROM UNICEF STRATEGIC PLAN:
The UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2018–202116 contains indicators aligned to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015–203017 – e.g., tracking the number of children affected by disasters (related to Sendai B-1).
16
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2018–2021, E/ICEF/2017/17/Rev.1, 16 August 2017, available at <www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/2017-17-Rev1-Strate-
gic_Plan_2018-2021-ODS-EN.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
17
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030’, UNISDR, Geneva, <www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291>,
76
UNICEF results often target the most deprived populations. A ‘risk-informed’ result may, however, refer
to the most at-risk populations (those that are both extremely deprived or vulnerable and disproportion-
ately exposed to specific shocks and stresses). For conflict-affected countries, or those managing ongoing
humanitarian action, this may involve focusing not only on affected populations that have urgent and
acute needs, but also on those that are vulnerable and exposed but not yet experiencing crisis.
Focus targets on
the most at-risk country EXAMPLE:
populations, • Output result statement: By 2022, government has enhanced the technical and institutional capac-
rather than on ity to expand climate-resilient water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) infrastructure and services in
the general popu- three of the states at greatest risk of flooding.
lation or the most • Output indicator: Proportion of district development plans in the three high-risk states that include
deprived a commitment to and budget allocation for ‘disaster-proofing’ WASH facilities.
• Output indicator: Proportion of WASH facilities improved with UNICEF support that address vul-
nerabilities related to gender, gender-based violence and children with disabilities.
UNICEF can also support governments and a range of duty bearers to reduce risks by either changing
their performance or their behaviour (outcome-level changes) or by enhancing their capacity to do so
(output-level changes). These contributions can be reflected in the wording of the result statement
or in the selection of indicators.
COUNTRY EXAMPLE:
Outcome result statement: Children in Indonesia’s most at-risk provinces benefit from more
child-sensitive national and local disaster risk reduction (DRR), emergency preparedness and
response (EPR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) efforts.
• Output indicator: Increased child sensitivity of national-level policies, strategies and guidelines
Ensure outcomes related to DRR, EPR and CCA.
and outputs • Output indicator: Strengthened commitment and capacity of sub-national authorities in two
reflect a specific target provinces to plan and implement child-sensitive DRR, EPR and CCA efforts.
commitment to • Output indicator: Young people in selected communities participate to a larger degree in initia-
strengthening tives related to DRR and CCA.
national perfor- • Output indicator: Women’s informal and formal groups, including parent-teacher associations,
mance in risk are trained and engaged in supporting DRR and/or CCA processes.
reduction
EXAMPLE FROM UNICEF STRATEGIC PLAN:
Outcome indicator: Number of disruptions to: (a) educational services, and (b) health services attributed
to disasters (Sendai D-6, D-7).
• Output result: Countries adopt policies, strategies and programmes that address risks related to
disasters, conflict and public health emergencies.
• Output indicator: Number of countries with a child-sensitive national or local risk management plan
addressing risks related to disasters, climate change, conflict, public health emergencies or other crises.
UNICEF programmes reduce risks by reducing vulnerabilities and enhancing capacities. Sometimes,
however, the organization’s specific commitment to risk reduction gets ‘buried’ within a larger frame-
work. For example, UNICEF may support the implementation or scaling up of programming approaches
such as the child-friendly school, general health systems strengthening and/or a child protection system.
Many other programmes focus on capacity building to help national authorities to meet minimum
standards and established protocols and/or codes. Definitions for these approaches and standards are
often neither context-specific nor do they check for conflict sensitivity or risk relevance. Aspects of risk
reduction may therefore need to be added, clarified or ‘unpacked’ within the larger approach.
A risk-informed result may contain a definition within the monitoring framework of the programming
approach that includes a benchmark related to risk reduction. For example, does the larger child-friendly
Expand definitions
school approach involve ‘disaster-proofing’ infrastructure? Does it emphasize the importance of contin-
to note the com-
gency and preparedness plans developed by school management? Has climate change education been
mitment to risk
integrated into the school curriculum? Clearly highlighting the benchmarks and standards that relate to
reduction embed-
safety and risk reduction is an important means of mainstreaming the risk reduction approach.
ded within larger
programming COUNTRY EXAMPLE:
approaches and • Output result statement: Education officials in six target districts have improved capacity to
standards meet, by 2021, the minimum standards outlined in the Child Friendly Schools Infrastructure
Standards and Guidelines (CFSISG).
• Output indicator: Proportion of primary schools in six target districts that meet the minimum
CFSISG standards.*
*
Indicator definition: CFSISG requires schools to meet four criteria: (1) Appropriate, sufficient and secure buildings that are
sufficiently protected against a range of hazards, meeting minimum standards for disaster risk reduction; (2) A healthy,
clean, secure and learner protecting environment; (3) A barrier-free environment that promotes inclusive access and the equal
rights of every child; (4) Adequate and appropriate equipment to support the level of education.
77
The selection of indicators and targets will be influenced by many factors, including the specific result, the availa-
bility of existing data from national monitoring mechanisms, and the resources available for data collection. Ideally,
indicators should be directly relevant, nationally owned, aligned to larger planning frameworks (such as national
plans, the United Nations Development Assistance Framework, the UNICEF Strategic Plan and the Sustainable
Development Goals) and feature in the results assessment module list of standard indicators. For general guid-
ance on indicator selection, see the RBM Handbook. Valuable indicator menus are also included in sector-specific
guidance such as the UNICEF Risk-informed Education Programming for Resilience Guidance Note.18
4. RISKS IN PROGRAMME
IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Forging partnerships (and work plans)
UNICEF may implement some activities directly but partnership is always essential. UNICEF usually partners with
government departments or other entities, international or national civil society organizations, academic institutions
and other United Nations agencies. For those programmes that aim to make risk reduction efforts more child-sensi-
tive, UNICEF may reach beyond its traditional partnerships and consider collaborating with national disaster manage-
ment agencies and ministries of environment, agriculture and interior – each of which may have independent risk
analysis and risk reduction strategies that consider different shocks and stresses. UNICEF should engage in national
risk reduction and climate change adaptation coordination forums and working groups to advocate for children.
As a multi-sectoral agency, UNICEF is well placed to promote cross-sectoral linkages in-house and between
diverse areas such as food security, environmental resource management, climate change adaptation and social
protection. A good example of such a partnership is the joint programme between UNICEF, the World Food Pro-
gramme (WFP), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Develop-
ment Programme (UNDP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to address poverty, livelihoods, food security
and the provision of basic social services in the Niger. Various multi-sectoral partnerships promote resilience and
peace (for examples, see map inset on page 80 ).
When UNICEF partners with government, a work plan is developed to summarize the collaboration, steer the imple-
mentation process and authorize the exchange of resources. Programme Cooperation Agreements are used when
partnering with civil society organizations. Memoranda of understanding may be employed when working with other
institutions. All such agreements contain detailed and specific results frameworks that describe action on a project,
annual, multi-year or rolling basis. They should thus serve as a means to operationalize the risk-informed programme
and to ensure that partners make a proactive commitment to employ strategies for risk reduction. The development,
implementation and monitoring of all types of work plans is undertaken with existing policies, procedures and guid-
ance in mind. UNICEF offers templates for work plans as well as annual management plans.19
4.2 Identifying risks to the programme
As described in GRIP Module No. 1, the nature of risk changes depending on the type of risk considered and the
object of analysis. GRIP focuses primarily on risks posed to children and vulnerable households and com-
munities (with children the object). Particularly when programmes are operationalized through work plans, it is
also critical to consider how various shocks, stresses and larger threats can affect the capacity of actors to work
effectively and achieve their results as planned. In this case, the programme itself is the object.
18
United Nations Children’s Fund, Risk-informed Education Programming for Resilience Guidance Note, UNICEF, forthcoming in 2018. For more information, see: United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) Education in Crisis and Conflict Network, ‘Guidance Notes and Manuals on Peacebuilding Programming’, ECCN, <https://eccnetwork.
net/resources/learning-for-peace/guidance-notes/>, accessed 14 March 2018.
19
United Nations Children’s Fund, Programme Policy and Procedure Manual, UNICEF, (n.d.), section 4.1, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/
teams/OED/PPPManual/SiteAssets/Welcome%20to%20the%20Programme,%20Policy%20and%20Procedure%20Manual.aspx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
78
Risks to children and risks to the programme are defined and analysed differently (see Table 3). Considerations
of how shocks, stresses and various threats in the programming environment affect the strategic, programmatic,
financial and/or operational effectiveness of UNICEF as an enterprise are covered in the UNICEF Enterprise Risk
Management in UNICEF policy and accompanying guidance.20
Table 3 - Risks to children versus risks to the programme
children RISKS TO CHILDREN

(& vulnerable
• Risk definition: The likelihood of shocks and stresses leading to an erosion of development
households)
progress, the deepening of deprivation and/or humanitarian crisis affecting girls and boys
and/or vulnerable households or groups.
1 • Purpose: To determine WHAT to work on

• The risk analysis helps to shape and design programmes that make a proactive commitment
Subject: to resilience and peace – by reducing vulnerabilities, increasing capacities and reducing
A significant “contextual” shock or stress exposure to shocks and stresses. This is the process of ‘risk-informing the programme’.
- like a cyclone
the programme RISKS TO THE PROGRAMME

(and its results)
• Risk definition: The likelihood of a potential event or occurrence beyond the control of the
programme adversely affecting the achievement of a desired result.
2 • Purpose: To determine HOW best to work to be most effective

• The risk analysis should help to design feasible programmes that Do No Harm and identify
Subject: appropriate mitigation measures that enable actors to stay on track and continue to achieve
Any potential threat to achievement of their goals, despite the threats in the programming environment. This is ‘programme risk
programme results - like a Cyclone management’, which is explained in the Results-based Management Handbook.21
As a part of the RBM process of elaborating TOCs and results chains, teams must identify the risks and assumptions
that underpin the logic between different levels of results (impact, outcome and output level). This is the process
of identifying risks to the programme (for a visualization of this, see Graphic 4). It is important to note that a single
shock (such as a cyclone) can affect both children and the achievement of programme results. Some threats to the
achievement of results may not pose a direct risk to children and vulnerable families, however. For example, an
election may lead to a ministerial reshuffle, changing the focal points for engagement with UNICEF and potentially
leading to delays in programme implementation – but it may not threaten the overall status of children and women.
Graphic 4 - Identifying risks and assumptions in a results chain
Risks & Assumptions Identify Identify

Risks & Assumptions Risks & Assumptions
More influence less influence limited influence
inputs, activities OUTPUTS OUTCOMES IMPACT
Improved performance
Implementation Adressing capacity Change in realisation
of national institution
partners gaps of rights for children
or behaviour change
Attribution Contribution Influence
Decreasing Management Control, Increasing external influences, Increasing difficulty in demonstrating attribution
20
United Nations Children’s Fund, Enterprise Risk Management in UNICEF, CF/EXD/2009-006, 14 May 2009, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.
com/sites/portals/RF/Regulatory%20Framework%20Library/DFAM%20Policy%2010%20Enterprise%20Risk%20Management%20in%20UNICEF.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
21
79
Global Cash transfers for vulnerability reduction
Map 3
Across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, internally
displaced persons and Syrian refugees face economic insecurity.
Experience During winter, families face daily struggles to meet food needs
and other basic requirements. UNICEF originally addressed one
basic need by providing winter clothing kits, but the programme sub-
in risk-informed sequently evolved to monetize this seasonal assistance. Instead of

in-kind assistance, a humanitarian cash transfer programme was
developed, allowing households to address a range of vulnerabilities
programming and make their own choices about how to meet priority needs. Cash
assistance also reduced procurement and logistics costs for UNICEF
while stimulating local economies. The experiences (in Egypt, Iraq,
Jordan, Lebanon, State of Palestine, the Syrian Arab Republic and
Turkey) offer valuable lessons on the implementation of humanitarian
cash transfers (with consideration of various options, including un-
conditional cash grants, vouchers and other forms of assistance).
Mena
UNICEF
WCARO
sierra
Joint UN Analysis leone
and Planning
The Resilience Common Anal- Adolescent programming
ysis and Prioritization (R-CAP) U-Report is a social messaging tool designed to address issues affecting children
approach is a joint effort by the and young people by either collecting information directly from them (or their
United Nations and the Organi- parents) to improve policy and programmes or by directly providing them with
sation for Economic Co-operation life-saving information. In humanitarian contexts, the tool can be used to support
and Development (OECD) to emergency response and collect real-time data from citizens and front-line work-
support United Nations Country ers. Following the 2017 floods in Sierra Leone, the UNICEF country office worked
Teams and governments to closely with water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) line ministries to reveal that of
operationalize the 2030 Agenda the country’s 75,000 U-Reporters, 51% could not identify the signs of cholera, 67%
for Sustainable Development did not know how to treat it and 62% did not know how to prevent it. The country
recommendations, placing the office then used U-Report to provide critical, life-saving information to these same
understanding of risk and vul- 75,000 individuals. Six months later, in January 2018, a new poll found that the
nerability at the centre. The number of U-Reporters who now knew how to identify the symptoms of acute
UNICEF West and Central Af- watery diarrhoea/cholera had increased by 19.6%.
rica Regional Office (WCARO)
has played a leading role in the
development of the R-CAP Op-
erational Resource, which is a Lake Chad
tool for analysis, prioritization and Basin
strategic planning during United
Nations Development Assis-
tance Framework processes. The Multi-country, risk-informed programming
multi-stakeholder process pro- Since the 1990s, large, recurrent, trans-border epidemics of cholera have regularly
vides a method for reaching a occurred in the Lake Chad Basin, affecting Cameroon, Chad, the Niger and Nigeria.
common agreement on the Migration between the countries makes it impossible for actions taken within the
structural drivers of risk and borders of a single country to be effective in preventing outbreaks in the region.
vulnerability; the priority long-, Informed by a cross-border study and broad stakeholder consultation, UNICEF and
medium- and short-term actions partners identified the highest risk populations with consideration to insecurity, dis-
to strengthen resilient systems; placement and increasing water scarcity. To strengthen cross-border cooperation,
and the comparative advantages UNICEF developed a database of actors across the four countries and supported
of humanitarian, development the establishment of the West and Central Africa Cholera Platform for coordination
and governmental agencies in and knowledge sharing. UNICEF also produces a regular regional ‘Cholera Epidemi-
addressing priority actions in ological Bulletin’ and supports multi-country studies, exchange visits and informal
country. R-CAP emerges from workshops to interpret epidemiological surveillance data. UNICEF has also sup-
the work of the United Nations ported the development of national elimination plans that employ a ‘sword and
Regional Resilience Working shield’ approach to ensure both early and targeted emergency responses (sword)
Group for the Sahel. and prevention activities and health and behaviour change communication (shield).
80
Shock-adaptive social protection Resilient cold chains
UNICEF Yemen is reinforcing and strengthening national social Typhoon Haiyan, also known as Super Typhoon
protection systems to improve access to education and health Yolanda, hit the Philippines in November 2013, af-
care services, a protective environment and clean water dur- fecting more than 18 million people and causing
ing the complex emergency. UNICEF Yemen leveraged the some 6,000 deaths. Damage to health facilities
findings of a National Social Protection Monitoring Survey to and the cold chain system; loss of health care
expand the current Social Welfare Fund (SWF) to reach 1.5 providers due to death, displacement or person-
million of Yemen’s poorest people and to increase the value al tragedy; and the loss of electricity for several
of the grants by 50% in light of the deteriorating situation. weeks, or even months, resulted in an abrupt
UNICEF and partners, including the Ministry of Social Affairs halt to immunization services, leaving 2.5 million
and Labor (MoSAL), used an existing network of communi- affected children at risk of disease and death. The
ty-based SWF workers to reach the most vulnerable. SWF Philippines experiences up to 20 typhoons every
staff were trained to identify and link vulnerable persons year, so building resilience is a national priority. In
and households to existing referral systems and a range of the post-Haiyan recovery phase, the Department
support services. MoSAL, UNICEF and partners are also of Health, UNICEF Philippines, UNICEF Supply
carrying out vulnerability assessments to better understand Division and the World Health Organization under-
the situation of families and children, and consider options took a systematic, step-by-step approach towards
for cash transfer programmes. re-establishing the cold chain system, adding
specialized equipment and standards to enhance
resilience. Not only does the new equipment en-
sure optimum vaccine temperature for at least 10
Yemen
days in the absence of power, but it is also built
to withstand earthquakes measuring up to 7.5 on
the Richter scale and 300km/h typhoons. Some
500 health care workers were trained as trainers
to improve vaccine and cold chain management
in the context of future crises and disasters, with
training disseminated to several thousand health
care workers in total.
The
Philippines
DRC
indonesia
Community-based, multi-
sectoral programming for risk reduction
UNICEF Democratic Republic of the Congo, supported
by the Swedish International Development Coopera-
tion Agency, implemented a Programme of Expanded Adolescent participation in risk identification
Assistance to Returnees (PEAR) between 2012 and Since 2014, UNICEF and its partner organizations have been
2016. PEAR targeted the most vulnerable commu- implementing the Adolescents in Emergency Project in In-
nities in South Kivu province, through multi-sectoral donesia, using the Adolescent Kit for Expression and Inno-
interventions to: improve access to basic social ser- vation (Adolescent Kit) developed by UNICEF Headquarters.
vices; foster social cohesion; and increase the resil- The Adolescent Kit is a package of resources to support
ience and capacities of communities to manage risk in adolescent girls and boys to develop key competencies that
their environment. Community members were trained can help them to cope with stressful circumstances, build
in conflict resolution and supported to identify some healthy relationships, learn new skills and engage positively
712 potential conflicts in 20 villages. Collective efforts with their communities. UNICEF used the Adolescent Kit
enabled the prevention or resolution of about 446 of Module to strengthen adolescents’ resilience to disaster
these conflicts. Community members also enhanced risks, build their skills and empower them to resolve the
their capacities to identify risks in their environment, issues they face before, during and after a crisis. Using ac-
develop mitigation plans and strengthen resilience (20 tivity cards, adolescents mapped out the risks in their com-
risk reduction plans were developed implemented, munity and then identified the specific issues they face as
monitored and validated by 20 school communities). a result of these risks. They came up with ideas to resolve
Building on lessons learned in South Kivu, PEAR+ is such issues and then presented these ideas to leaders and
now expanding to Ituri province. members of the community for their further realization.
81
4.3 Addressing risks to the programme
When risks to the achievement of programme results are identified, either the programme can be adjusted or
mitigation measures can be put in place at the implementation phase. Adjusting programmes to ensure their
effectiveness is not impossible – even in a hazardous, risk-prone environment. In fact, UNICEF does it all the time,
and as a result has well-developed risk management approaches (for a few examples, see Table 4).
Table 4 - Examples of how to protect the programme from the impacts of shocks and stresses
Suggestion for
reducing risks to Links to guidance, resources and tools
the programme
• Revisit the UNICEF Results-based Management Learning Package to understand the process of
Identify risks identifying and managing risks to the programme.22
and prioritize • Include key partners in risk analysis and planning, ensuring that work plans and Programme
mitigation Cooperation Agreements have a section that identifies risks and mitigation measures. Integrate
measures in pro- mitigation measures into annual management plans and priorities and ensure the periodic
gramme design review of cross-sectoral and office-wide priorities for risk management, including through Country
Management Team meetings and, potentially, Regional Management Team meetings.
• Revisit the overarching Enterprise Risk Management in UNICEF policy,23 which summarizes the
accountabilities, across different levels of the organization, in incorporating a systematic and con-
sistent approach to identifying, assessing and managing risks and opportunities for the enterprise.
Meet all insti- In 2017, there was an update to the 12 UNICEF risk categories and key risk areas,24 providing new
tutional require- opportunities to better articulate risks within the mandatory annual risk assessment process.25 Ide-
ments for risk ally, there should be coherence between the assessment of the likelihood of shocks and stresses
management in the GRIP child-centred risk assessment and the estimation of the likelihood of the same hazards
(focused on the in the annual enterprise risk assessment (although impacts will differ since the enterprise risk man-
Emergency agement approach focuses primarily on risks to UNICEF as an enterprise).
Preparedness • Consult the Guidance Note on Preparedness for Emergency Response in UNICEF26 and the Emer-
Platform and gency Preparedness SharePoint site27 to ensure a full understanding of the Minimum Prepared-
Enterprise Risk ness Actions and Minimum Preparedness Standards for UNICEF country offices, regional offices
Management in and Headquarters. These mandatory actions and standards are designed to increase the organiza-
UNICEF policy) tion’s preparedness for emergency response. Being prepared will both reduce the risks to children
and to the programme. The GRIP child-centred risk assessment methodology is designed to align
with the requirements of the Emergency Preparedness Platform risk assessment.
• Review milestones and chronograms in light of seasonal hazards and potential ‘triggers’ for civil
unrest or conflict, taking into account the impacts of shocks and stresses on the feasibility of
activities, events and work processes. Adapt work plans and partnerships to accommodate these
Build flexibility threats to programme effectiveness (e.g., by moving locations, adjusting time frames or building in
and ‘agility’ mechanisms for remote collaboration from the start).
into partnership • Build in more flexible implementation modalities that clarify expectations for partnership in both
agreements stable development phases and more dynamic or insecure humanitarian settings. Ensure that all
staff have completed the Core Commitments for Children e-course28 and have considered the
requirements for humanitarian performance monitoring.29
22
The Results-based Management (RBM) Learning Package includes an e-course, resources for face-to-face training sessions and workshops, and the Results-based Management
Handbook. All of these resources, plus news and highlights, are accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants on the RBM Learning Package SharePoint site at <https://unicef.share-
point.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/SitePages/RBM_Materials.aspx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
23
United Nations Children’s Fund, Enterprise Risk Management in UNICEF, CF/EXD/2009-006, 14 May 2009, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.
com/sites/portals/RF/Regulatory%20Framework%20Library/DFAM%20Policy%2010%20Enterprise%20Risk%20Management%20in%20UNICEF.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
24
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Attachment A – Description of UNICEF risk categories and key risk areas, 2017’, UNICEF, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://
intranet.unicef.org/Dfam%5CDFAMSite.nsf/0/4DE18A546BD6059E85257F4200691501/$FILE/12 Risk Areas 2017.docx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
25
United Nations Children’s Fund, Instruction for 2018 Annual Risk Assessment (ARA) Reporting Requirements, Effective date 26 December 2017, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants
at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/sites/portals/RF/Regulatory%20Framework%20Library/Instruction%20Annual%20Risk%20Assessment%20Requirments.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
26
United Nations Children’s Fund, Preparedness for Emergency Response in UNICEF: Guidance Note 2016, UNICEF, December 2016, available at: <https://www.unicef.org/emergen-
cies/files/UNICEF_Preparedness_Guidance_Note_29_Dec__2016_.pdf>, accessed 13 March 2018.
27
The UNICEF Office of Emergency Programmes uses a single repository for all emergency preparedness and Emergency Preparedness Platform resources. The Emergency Preparedness
SharePoint site includes developed/updated guidelines based on analysis of regional office and country office needs, lessons learned from emergencies, and good practices from external
sources, agencies and research, and is accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/EMOPS/EPP/Pages/Home.aspx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
28
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Core Commitments for Children (CCCs)’, Agora e-course, UNICEF, <https://agora.unicef.org/course/info.php?id=30>, accessed 10 March 2018.
29
A full list of humanitarian performance monitoring webinars and training resources is accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants on the UNICEF Emergencies Humanitarian Action and
Post-crisis Recovery team site at <https://intranet.unicef.org/emops/emopssite.nsf/root/PageCCCPM4>, accessed 10 March 2018.
82
• Ensure that you are not exacerbating risks to women or men, or girls or boys through programming
that is not fully gender-sensitive. Conduct a Gender Programmatic Review with the support of the
toolkit,30 and with reference to the Gender Action Plan31 and the Gender Equality team site,32 to
consider how to be accountable for and further the organization’s commitments to gender equality.
Consider risks This involves learning how to: ensure the use of high quality gender-sensitive data and evidence;
for women and forge strategic partnerships that further gender equality; invest resources to achieve results at
men, and girls scale for women and men, and girls and boys; build the capacity of gender specialists around the
and boys in world; and increase diversity and gender parity in the organization.
programme
design and • UNICEF takes a ‘twin-track’ approach to gender programming, which applies to both development
implementation and humanitarian contexts – but it is critical that gender equality and gender-sensitive approaches
are integrated into all humanitarian programmes. Complete the Gender in Humanitarian Action
e-course to learn how gender-sensitive programming can translate into greater impact and en-
hanced protection for the people affected by crises, thus decreasing the risks for women and men,
and girls and boys, and the risks to overall programme effectiveness.33
• Sexual exploitation and abuse of community members by anyone associated with the provision of
aid constitutes one of the most serious breaches of accountability. It is also a serious protection
concern and it erodes the trust and confidence of affected communities and the host country in all
those providing assistance. Accountability to populations affected by crises and various shocks and
stresses is an active commitment to use power responsibly by taking account of, giving account to
and being held to account by the people whom UNICEF seeks to assist.
• Ensure that your programmes are not inadvertently contributing to the risk of sexual exploitation
and abuse, establish mechanisms for reporting, and participate in the PSEA Network in your country.
The Global Standard Operating Procedures on inter-agency cooperation in community-based com-
plaint mechanisms are practical tools for reporting.34
Assess and • The United Nations Secretary-General report on Special measures for protection from sexual
address the exploitation and abuse35 and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Task Force on Protection from
risk of sexual Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) are available on our own staff website36 and offer a range of
exploitation guidance, resources and good practices for meeting obligations as an individual staff member, as a
and abuse, PSEA focal point or as a senior manager.
and ensure • All UN personnel have the obligation to report all reasonable suspicion of SEA by UN staff members
accountability as well as non-staff personnel immediately37. Please report to your Head of Office, to the Director of
to affected the UNICEF Office of Internal Audit and Investigations at integrity1@unicef.org, or PSEA Network in
populations your country, without delay and by whatever means appropriate under the circumstances.
• Take the Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse e-course38 – it is mandatory for all United
Nations personnel, including volunteers and contractors, whether based at Headquarters or other
duty stations. Please also encourage partners to complete the training. The course provides a
range of measures for combating sexual exploitation and abuse and explains their impact on vic-
tims and the consequences for United Nations personnel. Managers (heads of office/department)
will learn about their additional responsibilities to enforce the United Nations standards of conduct,
thereby reducing risks for children and the programme.
• Be aware of UNICEF’s own Policy on Conduct Promoting the Protection and Safeguarding of
Children.39 Visit the UNICEF intranet site that provides information on UNICEF’s response to SEA.40
A UNICEF PSEA SharePoint site is currently under development.41
30
United Nations Children’s Fund, Gender Programmatic Review Toolkit, UNICEF, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePag-
es/Gender Programmatic Review.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
31
Resources related to the UNICEF Gender Action Plan (plan, indicator framework, presentations and infographics) are accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.
sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePages/The GAP.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
32
The Gender Equality team site is accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePages/Home.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
33
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Different Needs, Equal Opportunities: Increasing Effectiveness of Humanitarian Action for Women, Girls, Boys and Men’, Agora Gender in Humani-
tarian Action e-course, UNICEF, <https://agora.unicef.org/course/info.php?id=113>, accessed 10 March 2018.
34
Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Protection against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA): Inter-agency cooperation in community-based complaint mechanisms. Global
Standard Operating Procedures, IASC, May 2016, available at <https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/accountability-affected-populations-including-protection-sexual-exploita-
tion-and-abuse/documents-51>, accessed 10 March 2018.
35
United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Secretary-General on Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse: a new approach, A/71/818, 28 February
2017, available at: <https://undocs.org/A/71/818>, accessed 15 March 2018.
36
Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) by our own staff, available at: <www.pseataskforce.org>, accessed 10 March 2018.
37
Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) in this context pertains to acts perpetrated by UN personnel (staff members, consultants, individual contractors, United Nations Volunteers,
experts on mission and contingent members) as well as related personnel of UN implementing partners, including government.
38
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA)’, Agora e-course, UNICEF, <https://agora.unicef.org/course/info.php?id=7380>, accessed 10 March 2018.
39
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Policy on Conduct Promoting the Protection and Safeguarding of Children’, Executive Directive, July 2016, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at
https://intranet.unicef.org/pd/pdc.nsf/0/B91A2CD30AA64B2685257FE9007254A4/$FILE/CF%20EXD%202016%20006%20Child%20Safeguarding%20Policy.pdf, accessed 20 March 2018.
tion-and-abuse/documents-51>, accessed 10 March 2018.
40
United Nations Children’s Fund, Icon (UNICEF intranet) ‘UNICEF response to sexual exploitation and abuse’, accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at https://icon.unicef.org/
iconhome/Pages/ED-Messages-Page.aspx, accessed 20 March 2018
41
The UNICEF PSEA team site will be accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/AAP_PSEA/SitePages/Home.aspx
83
Mitigate the risk

• Be aware of the organization’s own Executive Directive on the Prohibition of harassment, sexual
of harassment,
harassment and abuse of authority.42 Visit the UNICEF intranet site that supports staff members
sexual harass-
to report misconduct and to access a range of policies, guidance and training related to the
ment and abuse
organization’s commitment to integrity, ethical behaviour and the prevention of harassment,
of authority in
your own office sexual harassment and abuse of authority.43
• Working in complex and high-threat environments is not business as usual. Managing risks to
children, the programme and the enterprise (including staff) is a daily, if not hourly, process.
A workshop facilitated by the UNICEF Office of Emergency Programmes may help teams to
consider the policies, guidelines, tools and practices available to support, for example: protection
of children and civilians; negotiation of access; working with non-state actors; and working in the
context of United Nations integrated missions. Such a workshop can also support the use of the
Manage risks monitoring and reporting mechanism for grave violations of children’s rights.
in complex and • At the very start, conduct an assessment of programme criticality, with reference to the United
high-threat Nations System Programme Criticality Framework44 and the Programme criticality e-course.45 It
environments will be absolutely vital to implement some aspects of the programme, even given the security
risks, and the assessment will help to identify those critical aspects. This helps to ensure that
United Nations personnel do not take unnecessary risks and that they work only on those activi-
ties that are likely to make the greatest contribution to existing United Nations strategic results.
• Take the United Nations Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination e-course,46 based on the United
Nations Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination Field Handbook, and apply its principles and
approaches for working and coordinating with military actors in an emergency.
• Consider the risks associated with a changing climate – not only for children, but also for UNICEF
Meet require- programmes and operations. Revisit the Executive Directive on Addressing the impact of climate
ments for change on children,47 and identify opportunities for: advocacy and accountability (using the influ-
addressing ence, reach and expertise UNICEF has to support governments to fulfil their commitments to
the impacts of protect children from the impacts of climate change); climate change adaptation through resilient
climate change development; climate change mitigation (including support for communities to transition to a
on children and low-carbon development pathway); and the ‘greening’ of UNICEF. Making smart choices to re-
for the ‘greening’ duce the organization’s environmental footprint in programmes and operations not only increases
of UNICEF the likelihood of programme effectiveness, but also reduces risks to the enterprise.
• Work with staff and stakeholders to foster greater recognition that, if not carefully calibrated,
the targeting of beneficiaries, procurement of supplies, delivery of services, resettlement of
Ensure the displaced people and even the publication of research findings can have negative impacts on
programme is conflict dynamics. Integrate the Do No Harm principle into work plans and partnership agree-
‘conflict-sensitive’ ments that entail conflict analysis. Consult the UNICEF Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding
and can ‘do Programming Guide48 and use its proposed method for considering conflict dynamics and reduc-
no harm’ ing the risk of violence by examining: the composition, characteristics and capacities of UNICEF
personnel; UNICEF operations (supply, finance and human resources); and partnerships and
communications practices.
42
United Nations Children’s Fund, Executive Directive on the Prohibition of harassment, sexual harassment and abuse of authority, CF/EXD/2012-007, 30 November 2012, accessible
to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OED/EO/Document Library/10. Prohibition of Discrimination Harassment Sexual Harassment and Abuse
of Authority.pdf>, accessed 11 March 2018.
43
The UNICEF one-stop site for accessing policies, guidance, training and other resources related to integrity, ethics and the reporting of misconduct is accessible to UNICEF staff
and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/sites/portals/reportingmisconduct/?wa=wsignin1.0>, accessed 10 March 2018.
44
United Nations System High-Level Committee on Management, United Nations System Programme Criticality Framework, Document prepared by the Programme Criticality
Working Group, CEB/2013/HLCM/7, 25 February 2013, available at <www.unicefinemergencies.com/programmecriticality/story_content/external_files/Programme Criticality
Framework 2013.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
45
United Nations, ‘Programme criticality’, e-course, <www.unicefinemergencies.com/programmecriticality/course.html>, accessed 10 March 2018.
46
United States Institute of Peace, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and United States Agency for International Development, ‘United Nations
Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination’, e-course, USIP, <www.usipglobalcampus.org/training-overview/uncmcoord/>, accessed 10 March 2018.
47
United Nations Children’s Fund, Executive Directive on Addressing the impact of climate change on children, CF/EXD/2016-002, 10 March 2016, accessible to UNICEF staff and
consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/Communities/ESC/Lists/global UNICEF resources/Attachments/5/03.10.2016 Executive Directive Climate Change CF EXD 2016
2.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
48
United Nations Children’s Fund, Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding Programming Guide, UNICEF, November 2016, available at <http://s3.amazonaws.com/inee-assets/resourc-
es/Programming_Guide_-_Conflict_Sensitivity_and_Peacebuilding__UNICEF_Nov_2016.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
84
© UNICEF/UN024081/Rich
Box 5 - UNICEF principles in risk management

(from the UNICEF Programme Policy and Procedure Manual)
• Risk management is everyone’s business. All staff members are expected to identify, assess and
manage risks related to their area of work.
• Accept no unnecessary risk. There is no benefit in accepting any risk if it does not help to advance
towards UNICEF objectives.
• Accept risk when benefits outweigh costs. The aim is not always to eliminate risk: total risk elimination
would involve extensive controls and is costly, and walking away from risky situations would often be
impractical and may not serve the UNICEF strategy and objectives.
• Anticipate and manage risk by planning. When developing strategies and office work plans, designing
or reviewing programmes, or preparing for emergencies, consider risks to the achievement of the ex-
pected results. Risks are more easily mitigated when they are identified during planning.
• Recognize opportunities. Explore opportunities that may arise in support of the expected results and
assess the risks related to such new interventions.
• Take decisions promptly. Avoiding or delaying decisions may exacerbate the problem or cause an
opportunity to be missed, and in humanitarian situations may even lead to the loss of lives. Taking no de-
cisions is a decision to default to the status quo; affirmative management of risks is critical to success.
• Consider risks individually and in the aggregate. Each risk should be evaluated on its own and in com-
bination with other risks related to the same overall objective. The best strategy for the achievement of a
major objective may involve a combination of different responses to risks related to contributing objectives.
• Make risk management decisions at the right level. Decisions on risks should be taken at the level of
delegated authority; risks should not be assumed for which authority has not been received.
• Embed risk management. Risk management is a discipline that should be embedded into existing
business processes.
85
5. ASSESSING PERFORMANCE
The following table can be used to evaluate team performance on developing risk-informed theories of change,
results and programmes. The recommended scale for the evaluation is immediately below.
1 No, not at all

2 Not very much
3 Yes, moderately
4 Yes, to a great extent
5 Yes, to an exemplary level
SCALE
QUALITY CRITERIA
1 2 3 4 5
Theory of change (TOC)
Does the TOC display a clear understanding not only of what changes are necessary
to achieve broader, impact-level goals, but also of how to protect those gains from the
negative impacts of shocks and stresses?
Does the TOC contain specific references to how elements of systems (supply,
demand and quality dimensions, and enabling environment) can protect against the
negative impacts of shocks and stresses, thus supporting the resilience of individuals,
households and communities?
Has the TOC been developed with national counterparts and partners? Are their contri-
butions to reducing risks and reinforcing resilience also noted in the TOC?
Results (as reflected in the Country Programme Document and programme strategy notes)
Does the extent to which the Country Programme Document results integrate a com-
mitment to risk reduction correspond with the country’s relative risk rating (see GRIP
Module No.2)? For high-risk countries: Is a commitment to risk reduction integrated
into programme results and strategies?
Do results (in the Country Programme Document or programme strategy notes) clearly
identify any population subgroups that are most affected by key child deprivations and/
or most at risk of disasters and other hazards?
Have larger programme strategies been ‘unpacked’ to highlight the elements that
support risk reduction?
Partnerships and work plans
Do partnership agreements and work plans consider the potential impacts of major
shocks and stresses on the achievement of programme results?
Do partnership agreements and work plans consider flexible implementation modalities
that clarify expectations for partnership in both development and humanitarian settings?
Is UNICEF participating meaningfully in relevant risk reduction coordination forums and
advocating for consideration of the special needs, vulnerabilities and capacities of children?
Has the programme been reviewed to consider conflict sensitivity and means to
prevent sexual exploitation and abuse?
86
“Having a risk-informed Situation Analysis

will help you build theories of change,
craft correct assumptions,
sharpen geographic priorities
and design programmes and strategies
that adequately address or respond
to various climate and disaster related-risks.” 49
© UNICEF/UN074034/Pirozi
Karin Hulshof, Regional Director for East Asia and the Pacific
49
United Nations Children’s Fund, Transcript from video recording of Karin Hulshof, prepared for the Results-based management (RBM) learning Package - accessible to UNICEF staff
and consultants on the RBM learning Package SharePoint site at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/oed/PPPmanual/sitePages/RBm_materials.aspx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
87
GRIP - module 4: Monitoring of Risks & Risk-informed Programmes
module 4
Monitoring of Risks &

Risk-informed Programmes
© UNICEF/UN0161148/Rfaat
88
MODULE 4: Monitoring of Risks & Risk-informed

Programmes

2
1 3 1. INTRODUCTION 90
1.1. What is monitoring 90
4
1.2. What is monitoring of risks and risk-informed programmes? 91
2. RISK-INFORMED situation monitoring 91
A
2.1. Monitoring changes in contextual risks 91
2.2. Strenghtening national capacities for monitoring risks and risk-informed
5 programmes 93
11 3. RISK-INFORMED programme monitoring 98
3.1. Results monitoring 98
6
10 3.2. Agile monitoring 98
9 7
8
Overview of GRIP Modules 3 AND 4

GRIP Module No. 3 uses the results-based management approach to help UNICEF and key child rights
stakeholders to:
• develop or adjust theories of change that focus directly on the changes necessary to make children,
families and systems more resilient to the impacts of shocks and stresses
• identify the comparative advantages that UNICEF has in peace and resilience programming, and develop
child rights-focused, risk-informed programmes
• consider how to ensure that these programmes are risk-responsive themselves, so that they are effective
even in a dynamic, risk-prone environment.
GRIP Module No. 4 is designed to:

• consider how to monitor changes in ‘contextual risks’ over time, recognizing the role of UNICEF in
strengthening national monitoring systems
• clarify how UNICEF monitors performance in risk-informed programming
• link to UNICEF Office of Emergency Programmes guidance that can help teams to adapt their monitoring
in medium- and high-risk contexts and to be more agile, thus supporting more rapid programme adjust-
ments to shocks and stresses.
89
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 What is monitoring?
Monitoring is the process of gathering information for systematic and purposeful observation. For UNICEF, there
are two different types of monitoring: situation monitoring, which measures the change or lack of change in the
condition of children, women and the wider environment; and programme monitoring, which can provide valua-
ble information about the extent to which progress is being made against programme results (results monitoring)
and how that progress is being achieved (implementation monitoring).
Since both situation and programme monitoring are absolutely critical to programme effectiveness, efficiency and
accountability (to national counterparts, donors, partners and beneficiaries), they are a core responsibility of all
staff – from the UNICEF Representative to programme and operations specialists.
As a part of the regular work of the UNICEF Country Programme of Cooperation, all UNICEF country offices are
expected to:
• undertake a range of monitoring activities across the spectrum of situation monitoring, results monitoring
and implementation monitoring – to identify if inputs and activities are proceeding according to plan and
contributing to the expected results, and if these are in turn contributing to improved outcomes and
• impacts for children and women
• design monitoring approaches and systems that are agile and can shift focus and operational modalities
as needed – so that they may continue to provide information to guide programme management as the
context changes
• play a role in strengthening national monitoring systems – by supporting national authorities to collect, man-
age, analyse and use relevant data and information relating to the status of children and women.
90
1.2 What is monitoring of risks and risk-informed programmes?
When programming is risk-informed, a different lens is applied to each of the two levels of monitoring:
• monitoring the situation of children and women entails identifying and tracking changes in contextual risks to
their situation
• programme monitoring involves defining and tracking indicators that reflect a theory of change where results
contribute to reducing these contextual risks to children and women (by reducing vulnerabilities and/or by
strengthening capacities to absorb or adapt to various shocks and stresses).
Monitoring for risk-informed programming must therefore consider slightly different management questions to
those traditionally considered in situation and programme monitoring. These include:
• How is the situation of children and women changing, including in terms of shifts in the wider context of risks
that can lead to a deepening of deprivation, an erosion of development progress or humanitarian crisis?
• Are we achieving results as planned, including for those elements of programming that build resilience and
social cohesion by reducing risk?
• An example of the key management questions for child rights stakeholders to ask, adapted from the UNICEF
Results-based Management Handbook, is presented below (see Graphic 1).1
Graphic 1 - Key management questions for monitoring of the situation and programme
Key Management Questions monitoring type Monitoring focus
Programme Monitoring
Are we implementing as planned? Implementation Monitoring INPUTS
ACTIVITIES
• Are we achieving results?
• Are we building capacity to reduce risk?
Results Monitoring
• Do we see increased performance in risk OUTPUTS
reduction & absorption of shocks/stress?
OUTCOMES
• How is the situationof children changing?

• How are the risks they face changing? situation Monitoring IMPACT
• Do we see evidence of peace or resilience?
2. RISK-INFORMED SITUATION
MONITORING
2.1 Monitoring changes in contextual risks
GRIP Module No. 2 describes a process of risk analysis and suggests various methods for pulling together data
on each variable of the risk formula, including the likelihood and severity of potential shocks and/or stresses; the
exposure of children, and key infrastructure and systems that support their survival and development, to these
shocks and stresses; the vulnerabilities of children and households; and the capacities that might aid absorption of
or adaptation to shocks and stresses. As one dimension shifts, the overall risk analysis shifts. It is thus important
to consider any change in the risk formula variables and also the pace of that change (see Table 1).
1
91
© UNICEF/UN0148747/Volpe
When monitoring risk, it is essential to start with a strong monitoring framework that anticipates the frequency
with which methods of verification will be updated. To track changes over time, data and information must be
comparable at each interval, which requires the standardization of data collection methods. Monitoring strategies
should anticipate the availability of data and information for either faster-paced monitoring (for dynamic, high-risk
environments) or slower-paced monitoring. They should also anticipate the pace of change on the ground – for ex-
ample, there may be sharp changes in impact and outcome indicators between years, between seasons or even
between months, depending on the context.
It is also important to clarify the expectations placed on UNICEF country offices:
• UNICEF country offices are not expected to undertake, or lead in supporting national governments to
carry out, detailed specialist data collection in relation to specific shocks and/or stresses. As outlined in
GRIP Module No. 2 and the annex, a wide range of global, regional and national specialist bodies is involved in
generating such data, whether seismological data, climate and weather pattern data, or data on conflict trends.
• As per the UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response, it is expected that “Country Offices
monitor the risks regularly, at least every six months, to identify changes in the risk profile – a light pro-
cess using external information sources and collaborating with interagency and government as feasible. The
timing of the risk monitoring is aligned with the CO Work Plan review schedule.”2
• UNICEF country offices in medium- to high-risk countries are expected to develop and maintain awareness
and understanding of the most up-to-date specialist data sources on likely shocks, stresses and threats
relevant to the country’s risk profile. Since specialist knowledge is often required to convert data from such
sources (usually those related to hazards and exposure) into a usable form for child-centred risk analysis,
country offices are encouraged to seek external support or forge appropriate partnerships to access usable
data and information in a timely manner.
2
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response, EMOPS/PROCEDURE/2016/001, Effective date 30 March 2018, accessible to UNICEF staff and con-
sultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/sites/portals/RF/Regulatory%20Framework%20Library/UNICEF%20Preparedness%20Procedure%2029%20Dec%202016.pdf>, accessed 8 March 2018.
92
Table 1 - Tracking changes to each variable in the risk formula
1.1. • Although shocks and stresses change in likelihood and severity at different speeds, they generally
have the potential to be the fastest-changing dimension in the risk formula.
• Early warning monitoring systems can play a role in hazard monitoring, but the most sensitive systems are
usually the most specialized, and so focus on only one specific hazard. Of the data sources listed in the GRIP
annex, the most sensitive include those focused on weather patterns, seismological risks and conflict.
Shocks &
stresses • Specialist knowledge is often required to interpret and convert into a usable form data taken from
national data sources (e.g., seismological and climate-related data sources) for use in the risk analysis.
UNICEF country offices are therefore encouraged to seek external support and/or work with partners to
access, in a timely manner, usable information on changes in shocks and stresses, as required.
• Monitoring of stresses can be slower and should consider the accumulation of negative impacts and
the potential to reach a ‘tipping point’, potentially following a trigger event.
• This variable is most closely linked to population size and location, and generally changes more
slowly than other variables, except where there are mass population movements.
• Monitoring exposure may entail updating population estimates using census data and/or adapted stud-
ies that take into account migration, seasonal migration, etc. It may also involve tracking changes in
Exposure the location of key infrastructure and services for children.
• UNICEF can play a role in drawing attention to deprived or socially marginalized groups that are
often ‘hidden’ or overlooked in sampling frameworks, by ensuring that the analysis of exposure con-
siders the risks faced by individuals and groups irrespective of whether they live in urban centres,
rural areas or a combination of both (recognizing populations on the move).
• UNICEF staff are most familiar with vulnerability monitoring. The pace of change in vulnerabilities is
generally slower than in other variables, except in the event of a major shock or population shift, when
vulnerabilities are usually exacerbated.
• Generally, monitoring data for vulnerabilities and capacities are updated at intervals related to the
Vulnerabilities production of credible sector performance reports (usually on an annual basis, drawing on administra-
& capacities tive data sources) or in line with the implementation of national household surveys (every three to five
years). There have been efforts to make surveys such as the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)
available more frequently, and following major crises and disasters, to provide a rapid means of verifying
the impacts of shocks and stresses on multiple deprivations facing girls and boys, and women and men
while ensuring comparability with data from previous surveys (see section 2.2.1).
2.2 Strengthening national capacities for monitoring risks

and risk-informed programmes
UNICEF can play a role in strengthening national capacities for monitoring risks and risk-informed programmes by:
• strengthening the capacity for monitoring and reporting progress towards the goals and targets of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, with consideration of the potential impacts of crisis
• advocating for the increased availability of disaggregated data and increased use of child-sensitive indicators in
national risk assessments and analyses.
2.2.1. Strengthening monitoring and reporting on the 2030 Agenda

for Sustainable Development
The 2030 Agenda includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that address the social, economic and
environmental dimensions of sustainable, resilient development. Attached to the SDGs are 169 concrete targets,
measurable against 230 specific indicators. Some 50 of these indicators are directly related to children and more
than 25 are related to disaster risk reduction. Goal 16 is also directly related to peace and justice. The Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 also includes a set of indicators for seven global targets, which
align to the disaster-related targets of the SDGs, thus ensuring harmonization.3
3
PreventionWeb, ‘Sendai Framework Indicators’, United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, <www.preventionweb.net/drr-framework/sendai-framework-monitor/
indicators>, accessed 17 February 2018.
93
Monitoring of both the SDG targets and the Sendai Framework global targets is subject to national capacity and data
quality and accessibility. Recognizing this, UNICEF plays a key role in strengthening national monitoring systems to
make reporting on the 2030 Agenda possible. As the custodian or co-custodian of 17 SDG indicators, UNICEF supports
countries to: develop international standards and methodologies for measurement and data collection; establish mecha-
nisms for the compilation and verification of national data; maintain global databases; and generate, analyse and use the
data related to the 17 indicators.
By improving national capacities to monitor impact- and outcome-level SDG targets, UNICEF is also increasing the
likelihood of having accurate, standardized and comparable data for tracking changes in vulnerabilities and capacities
over time and between countries. This can, in turn, strengthen the monitoring of risks.
Since their inception in 1995, the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) have become the largest source of
statistically sound and internationally comparable data on women and children worldwide, and they are therefore
a critical tool for national governments to ensure sound monitoring and reporting on the 2030 Agenda. In recent
years, there have been promising efforts to develop a ‘post-emergency MICS’ to measure the impacts of human-
itarian crisis on child deprivations. The adapted MICS modules, piloted in Indonesia, Malawi, Nepal and Pakistan,
do this by comparing ‘affected’ and ‘not-affected’ households within the same administrative area and linking
‘emergency affectedness’ to the concept of ‘current well-being’, as measured in the standard MICS. This work can
help all child rights stakeholders to better understand how shocks and stresses affect existing vulnerabilities and
deprivations, and what household characteristics act as absorptive and adaptive capacities in practice.
2.2.2. Advocating for a child-sensitive lens and disaggregated data
Although UNICEF is the custodian or co-custodian of 17 SDG indicators, the organization has no designated role in sup-
porting the collection of data for indicators related to disasters, conflict or crisis. The potential for SDG monitoring to drive
change for children and vulnerable groups, however, depends on countries fulfilling their commitment that “SDG indica-
tors be disaggregated, where relevant, by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability and geographic
location, or other characteristics.”4 Therefore, UNICEF country offices should play an active role in advocating for disaster-
and risk-related data to be adequately disaggregated according to the main determinants of inequity, thus making it pos-
sible for situation and programme monitoring to focus on the most vulnerable groups. Country offices should advocate
for such disaggregation among the national statistics offices and major development partners who hold such data.
Box 1 - Sendai Framework: The need for disaggregated data
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, introduced in 2015 by the participants of
the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, is the global agreement that guides efforts to
reduce the loss of lives and assets related to disasters.5 Its monitoring framework provides a set of indica-
tors for disaster-related mortality and morbidity and missing persons due to shocks and stresses – as well
as for damage to critical infrastructure (schools and hospitals) and disruptions to services (education and
health).6 All indicators are aligned to Sustainable Development Goal indicators.
Paragraph 19(g) of the Sendai Framework calls for specific attention to be paid to factors such as income,
sex, age and disability in disaster risk reduction. The Sendai Framework Data Readiness Review 2017:
Global Summary Report,7 however, suggests that for the number of:
• disaster-related deaths and missing, injured or ill persons attributed to disasters, less than 66 per cent of
countries disaggregate data by age and sex; less than 31 per cent disaggregate data by disability; and less
than 15 per cent disaggregate data by income group
• people affected by disaster-related damage and disruptions (including dwellings damaged, livelihoods dis-
rupted, health and education facilities damaged or destroyed, or education services disrupted), less than
60 per cent of countries disaggregate data by age and sex; less than 34 per cent disaggregate data by
disability; and less than 17 per cent disaggregate data by income group.
4
United Nations Economic and Social Council, Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators, E/CN.3/2016/2, 17 December 2015,
available at <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/47th-session/documents/2016-2-IAEG-SDGs-E.pdf>, accessed 14 March 2018.
5
PreventionWeb, ‘Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030’, United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, <www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291>,
6
PreventionWeb, ‘Sendai Framework Indicators’, United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, <www.preventionweb.net/drr-framework/sendai-framework-monitor/indicators>,
7
United Nations, Disaster-related Data for Sustainable Development, Sendai Framework Data Readiness Review 2017: Global Summary Report, United Nations Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction, available at <www.unisdr.org/files/53080_entrybgpaperglobalsummaryreportdisa.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
94
© UNICEF/UN076157/Shrestha
Box 2 - The power of disaggregated data: Gender and natural disaster
As described in GRIP Module No. 2, it is clear that fatality rates for women in natural disasters are much
higher than for men, due in large part to gendered differences in capacity to cope with shocks and stresses.8
For example, women accounted for 61 per cent of fatalities caused by Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008
and 70–80 per cent of fatalities in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.9
The 1991 cyclone and flood in Bangladesh, where the death rate for women was almost five times that of
men, provides a pertinent example. It was found that one of the most critical factors related to the high
mortality of women was that early warning information was transmitted by men to men in public spaces
– and it was rarely communicated to the rest of the family. As many women in Bangladesh are often only
permitted to leave the home in the company of a male relative, many perished waiting for their menfolk to
return home and take them to a safe place.10
To avoid such catastrophes in future, it is critical that risk analysis focuses on the most vulnerable and that pro-
grammes are designed with the aim of reaching these groups. UNICEF can play a critical role in working with
national authorities (e.g., national statistics offices and technical line ministries) and development partners (such
as the United Nations Development Programme) to ensure that sampling frameworks, data collection process-
es and risk analysis are designed with an understanding of social networks, power relationships and gender
roles in order that they may answer the most pertinent questions concerning the most vulnerable groups.
As mentioned in GRIP Module No. 2, UNICEF can also play a strong role in supporting national authorities to
consider the special needs and vulnerabilities of children within national risk assessment methodologies, and also
the capacities set out in their risk reduction plans to ensure the survival and development of children. UNICEF can
also work with less traditional partners such as national disaster management agencies and ministries of environ-
ment, agriculture and interior to advocate for the inclusion of more child-sensitive indicators in their existing risk
assessment and analysis methodologies. (For good examples of innovations in supporting national authorities to
strengthen the monitoring of risks and risk-informed programmes, see map inset on page 96 ).
8
Ikeda, K., ‘Gender Differences in Human Loss and Vulnerability in Natural Disasters: A Case Study from Bangladesh’, Indian Journal of Gender Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, 1995, pp. 171–
93; Neumayer, Eric, and Thomas Plümper, ‘The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002’, Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, vol. 97, no. 3, 2007, pp. 551–566; and Oxfam, ‘The Tsunami’s Impact on Women’, Oxfam Briefing Note, Oxfam International, March 2005;
as cited in Habtezion, Senay, ‘Gender and disaster risk reduction’, Gender and Climate Change Asia and the Pacific Policy Brief No. 3, United Nations Development Programme, New
York, 2013, available at <www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/gender/Gender and Environment/PB3-AP-Gender-and-disaster-risk-reduction.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
9
Castañeda, I., and S. Gammage, ‘Gender, Global Crises, and Climate Change’, in Jain, D., and D. Elson (eds.), Harvesting Feminist Knowledge for Public Policy, SAGE Publications
India, New Delhi, 2011; as cited in Habtezion, Senay, ‘Gender and disaster risk reduction’.
10
Röhr, U., ‘Gender and Climate Change’, Tiempo, issue 59, 2006, as cited in Habtezion, Senay, ‘Gender and disaster risk reduction’.
95
Global Social cohesion index
Map 4
UNICEF has participated in the development of the Social

Cohesion and Reconciliation (SCORE) Index in several countries
Experience including the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. The SCORE

index was designed to track changes in social cohesion and
reconciliation in multi-ethnic societies. The United Nations
Global experience Development Programme (UNDP) Action for Co-operation

and Trust in Cyprus and the Centre for Sustainable Peace and
Democratic Development developed the tool, with financial
and good practice support from the United States Agency for International De-
velopment (USAID) and technical inputs from a range of part-
ners including UNICEF.
Republic
of Moldova
& Ukraine
lebanon
suriname
Monitoring in WASH
UNICEF Lebanon WASH programme
R-CAP approach and the national water sector coordi-
UNICEF Suriname engaged in a nation group developed a tool for as-
triangular partnership with the sessing the vulnerability of all infor-
Caribbean Disaster Emergency mal settlements in Lebanon in terms
Management Agency (CDEMA) of WASH coverage and a live, online
and the Nationaal Coördinatie platform to monitor changes over
Centrum voor Rampenbeheersing time. The assessment has collected
(NCCR), Suriname’s emergency numerous indicators on WASH and
coordination agency, to promote the characteristics of residents (not-
more child-sensitive approaches ing children with disabilities or peo-
to the Caribbean Community ple with special needs, for example),
Risk Information Tool (CCRIT). allowing the definition, comparison
This community- or district-lev- and ranking of sites according to dif-
el assessment tool can help to ferent vulnerabilities. The real-time
identify those areas that require monitoring of changes allows allows
more attention for disaster man- UNICEF to adapt quickly its response
agement planning. To estimate to changing needs, vulnerabilities ad
the likelihood of potential crisis capacities at each site, thus facilitat-
or disaster, CCRIT considers ing emergency preparedness and
both hazards and their exposure risk reduction efforts.
and the vulnerability and lack Guyana
of coping capacity in any given
community or district. UNICEF
supported NCCR to complete
the CCRIT tool, with consider-
ation of child-centred vulnera- Regional risk profiles, and pre- and post-shock monitoring
bility indicators (factoring them UNICEF supported the development of risk-informed, child-friendly regional pro-
into the calculation of the risk in- files in Guyana, which allow spatial data on socio-economic deprivations (from
dex), and to conduct a child-cen- MICS) to be overlaid with data on the exposure of communities to a variety of
tred CCRIT in all 10 sub-national natural hazards. The resulting maps provide confirmation of the distribution of
districts. These efforts enhance risks within each region. By updating these profiles before and after seasonal
the capacity of NCCR to consid- shocks, partners and child rights stakeholders have an opportunity to consider
er the special needs, vulnerabili- how natural disaster and crisis may deepen certain vulnerabilities. Ideally, this
ties and capacities of children in initiative should support the capacity strengthening initiatives of regional disaster
disaster management planning management bodies, by informing strategies that are adapted to the local context
and to track progress over time. and risk landscape.
96
Post-crisis MICS Making national risk assessments more
A special post-crisis Multiple Indicator Cluster child-sensitive
Survey (MICS) was conducted in Nepal in 2016 UNICEF Indonesia supported the Ministry of Women’s
following the massive earthquake that hit Kath- Empowerment and Child Protection (MoWECP) to
mandu and surrounding regions. The MICS helped champion – inside government itself – the disaster
to show how households and their members were risk reduction and climate change adaptation agenda
affected by the emergency and compared charac- for children. With the support of UNICEF and Bogor
teristics of affected and non-affected households. Agricultural University, the Deputy Minister of the
The work helped to inform response and recovery MoWECP challenged her ministerial counterparts in
programming and continues to strengthen risk BNPB, the National Disaster Management Agency,
reduction and preparedness priorities. and in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry
(MoEF) to revise their disaster risk reduction and cli-
mate change adaptation methods to better consider
children’s special needs, vulnerabilities and capaci-
ties. The programme was successful and resulted in
nepal
the inclusion of child-sensitive indicators in the BNPB
hazard information database and in the MoEF climate
vulnerability assessment system.
indonesia
india
Fiji
Strengthening of the
national monitoring system
UNICEF India, in collaboration with DevInfo India and Agile, real-time monitoring
the National Disaster Management Authority, piloted a Before, during and after Tropical Cyclone Winston (the most
multi-hazard vulnerability mapping system for regular powerful storm to ever make landfall in the South Pacific),
data collection in the states of Bihar and Rajasthan. In the Fijian Ministry of Education and its network of emergen-
2013, the UNICEF Rajasthan State Office decided to in- cy operation centres, the National Disaster Management
novate by monitoring changes in risks over time so that Office, and UNICEF, Save the Children and other education
the impact of slower-onset stresses could be better cluster members worked together to ensure rapid access
understood. The team collected monthly data to trace to real-time assessment data. Using Akvo Flow (an inno-
the correlation between school attendance and rainfall vative online platform for multi-stakeholder data sharing),
deficit, to identify whether the ongoing drought had an up-to-date information on the location and status of prima-
effect on children’s behaviour during specific seasons ry and secondary education facilities was shared, enabling
of the year. This time series analysis confirmed dev- swift communication between stakeholders, rapid adjust-
astating seasonal effects and helped to reshape the ments to recovery efforts, and a means to track collective
country programme in the worst affected districts. programme progress over time.
97
3. RISK-INFORMED PROGRAMME
MONITORING
3.1 Results monitoring
GRIP Module No. 3 explains how multiple stakeholders should collaborate to develop a risk-informed theory of
change. UNICEF can then identify a clear results chain that includes a commitment to risk reduction, the strength
of which depends upon the country’s risk profile.
As explained in Module No. 3, results may be risk-informed by:

• reflecting the desired impact-level goal statement in terms of resilience and peace
• ensuring that outcomes and outputs reflect a specific commitment to strengthening national performance in
risk reduction (through the result statement or indicators chosen)
• focusing targets on the most ‘at-risk’ populations (rather than on either the general population or those who are socio-
economically deprived or marginalized but not necessarily also disproportionately exposed to shocks and stresses)
• expanding definitions to note the commitment to risk reduction embedded within larger programming
approaches and standards.
Monitoring of risk-informed programming therefore entails bringing together data to answer the question:
Are we achieving results as planned, including for those elements of programming that reduce risk
and build social cohesion and resilience?
3.2 Agile monitoring
In high-risk, emergency and fragile situations, UNICEF programming with partners must be more agile. This means
addressing current key deprivations and bottlenecks as well as the prevention and mitigation of the negative
impacts of likely future crisis scenarios, balancing longer-term capacity development objectives while also ensuring
external capacity to scale up support for service delivery as needed. It also means being ready to make rapid
shifts in programme delivery strategies, partnerships and risk management strategies.
When monitoring in dynamic, high-risk environments, the stakes are higher. Agile monitoring is critical in such
environments due to the need to consider:
• humanitarian imperatives, as more rapid and accurate information can actually very often save lives and
alleviate suffering for those affected by crisis
• access to more frequent updates or real-time data since dynamic environments need rapid programme
adjustments, which means there is a high demand for systematic updates on needs, programme delivery, re-
sponses and changes in contextual risks. The availability of technologies that facilitate information sharing also
creates a demand for real-time data to enable immediate updates to be circulated as the situation changes
• greater social accountability, given the growing emphasis on ensuring accountability to affected popula-
tions. There is a call for more participatory monitoring mechanisms that can strengthen citizen engagement
and amplify the voices of affected communities, ensuring feedback on the quality of emergency responses
• access to ‘open data’ and greater transparency, due to increasing demands from development partners and
humanitarian technical donors for information that can be freely used and for more transparency in terms of how
activities are implemented and resources spent (reinforced through the International Aid Transparency Initiative).11
Therefore, when considering monitoring in high-risk contexts, it will also be critical to: set clear time limits for
implementation; identify those results that are most critical to reducing risk most quickly; and make note of the
update frequency for indicators associated with these critical results. A simple management prioritization exercise,
most likely conducted during annual or multi-year work planning, can highlight the critical results. Or this may oc-
11
The International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) is a voluntary, multi-stakeholder initiative that seeks to improve the transparency of aid, development and humanitarian resourc-
es. See: International Aid Transparency Initiative, <www.aidtransparency.net>, accessed 16 March 2018.
98
cur through the process of prioritizing certain critical interventions. For example, within a wider effort to strength-
en cholera prevention and outbreak response, specific targets should be established prior to the flood season for
the most vulnerable geographic regions.
These considerations suggest that rather than establish parallel monitoring systems, UNICEF and child rights
stakeholders should ensure that existing systems are sufficiently agile to keep up with both the changing
context and programming. This may necessitate making changes to:
• the priority deprivations/programme results – with a stronger focus on immediate life-saving and protection-re-
lated needs in the context of crisis
• target populations – to address acute and immediate needs
• geographic focus – to adapt to rapidly changing risks and manifestation of needs
• designated partners – considering disaster impacts and losses, and capacities in meeting humanitarian imperatives.
Where UNICEF is investing in strengthening national and decentralized results-based planning and mon-
itoring, this added consideration of agility is critical. Where national monitoring systems are very weak and may
fail in likely crisis scenarios, UNICEF country offices and child rights stakeholders should expect to supplement
capacity or support substitute monitoring systems with the help of other external partners, focusing on the ‘core
elements’ of effective monitoring in emergencies. In both cases, the process of identifying these core ele-
ments should draw on UNICEF minimum programming monitoring requirements in humanitarian situations (i.e.,
high-frequency partner reporting against two or three key priority output indicators per sector to enable coverage
estimates agreed with sector/cluster partners; and systematic, scaled-up field monitoring systems to provide a
cross-check on the high frequency of these programme coverage estimates).
In planning monitoring, the focus should therefore be on identifying the core elements of monitoring systems (in-
dicators and data collection systems) that are in place or can be put in place to allow the UNICEF country office
and its partners to adapt when and where the situation deteriorates or improves.
The critical characteristics required of any monitoring system are:

• human capacities (front-line data collection staff) and partnerships that can be easily shifted geographically
and which receive ongoing training such that they understand the range of possible programmatic focuses
• technological platforms and partnerships that are not locked down to a specific geographic focus or which are
actively set up to cover a range of locations
• methods/tools that can be easily shifted in terms of results focus – i.e., open methods, or easily adapted software
• scalable monitoring systems – i.e., systems that allow for a higher frequency of data collection or the addition
of more data collection points or more people dedicated to data collection – since the scale and speed of
programme delivery will increase during any emergency response.
99
Guidance on Risk Informed Programming annexes
GRIP ANNEXES
2
1 3
4
Contents for GRIP ANNEXES
A
1. Annexe 1: Potential data sources for risk analysis 101
2. Annexe 2: Caveats and limitations 104
5 Acronyms, abbreviations and initialisms 105
References by Module 106
11
6 photo credits 114
10
7
9 8
100
ANNEX 1:
Potential data sources for risk analysis
Table 1 - Potential sources of data related to risk ratings and shocks and stresses
Type of shock or stress Potential data source
• National analyses and plans: National disaster management plans, climate change adap-
tation plans, contingency plans and/or national risk analyses provide valuable information
for use in risk assessments and analysis.
• National disaster impacts databases: The Sendai Framework Data Readiness Review
2017 found that 60% of reporting countries have a national database in which to collect
Shocks and stresses
disaster loss data, and 26 of these 87 countries reported that they use DesInventar for
(national sources of
this purpose.1 Database use is increasing due to the technical assistance provided by the
information) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and United Nations Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Most reporting countries cited the ministry of interior or the
civil protection or disaster management agency as being responsible for the collection
of disaster loss data at the national level. Many other institutions were cited, however,
including national statistics offices.
• EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database:2 Contains essential core data on the
occurrence and effects of more than 18,000 mass disasters globally from 1900 to date.
Provides information related to specific disasters, including losses, deaths and associated
costs. Data are largely not disaggregated by age and sex.
• DesInventar database:3 A conceptual and methodological tool to help generate national
disaster inventories and build databases of damage, losses and other disaster impacts.
Supported by the European Commission, UNDP and UNISDR.
• World Bank Climate Risk and Adaptation Country Profiles:4 The World Bank Group has
compiled 94 climate risk and adaptation profiles that provide a quick reference to climate-
related vulnerabilities and risks using data at multiple levels of detail.
Various hazards – • PREVIEW Global Risk Data Platform:5 A multi-agency collaboration to share spatial data
natural, environmental on global risks from natural hazards, enabling the visualization or downloading of data on
and climate change- past events.
related, biological and/ • World Risk Report:6 Indicates the risk of disaster linked to extreme natural events for 171
or economic (interna- countries. Also contains a country risk index.
tionally supported • Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR):7 GAR is a biennial global
databases and reports) assessment of disaster risk reduction and a comprehensive review and analysis of the
natural hazards that are affecting humanity. UNISDR coordinates and supervises GAR,
which also offers an interactive Risk Data Viewer.
• PreventionWeb Disaster Data and Risk Profiles:8 Contains a wealth of primary data on
disaster losses, presented in an easily accessible manner with breakdowns by region and
country.
• World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2018:9 Features perspectives from nearly
750 experts on the perceived impacts and likelihood of 29 prevalent global risks over a
10-year time frame. The risks are divided into five categories: economic, environmental,
geopolitical, societal and technological.
• Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) country profiles:10 Hazard profiles com-
piled by ADPC for certain Asian countries.
1
United Nations, Disaster-related Data for Sustainable Development, Sendai Framework Data Readiness Review 2017: Global Summary Report, United Nations Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction, available at <www.preventionweb.net/files/53080_entrybgpaperglobalsummaryreportdisa.pdf>, accessed 14 March 2018.
2
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), ‘EM-DAT, The International Disaster Database’, <www.emdat.be/>, accessed 14 March 2018.
3
Corporación OSSO, ‘DesInventar, Inventory system of the effects of disasters’, <www.desinventar.org/en/database>, accessed 14 March 2018.
4
World Bank Group, ‘Climate Risk and Adaptation Country Profiles’, <http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportalb/home.cfm?page=country_profile>, accessed 14 March 2018.
5
United Nations Environment Programme/GRID-Geneva and United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Global Risk Data Platform’, <http://preview.grid.unep.ch/>,
6
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, ‘The WorldRiskReport’, <http://weltrisikobericht.de/english/>, accessed 15 March 2018.
7
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Global Assessment Report’, <www.unisdr.org/we/inform/gar>, accessed 15 March 2018.
8
PreventionWeb, ‘Disaster Data & Statistics, Disaster Data and Risk Profiles’, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, <https://www.preventionweb.net/english/profes-
sional/statistics/>, accessed 15 March 2018.
9
World Economic Forum, ‘The Global Risks Report 2018’, <https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2018 >, accessed 15 March 2018.
10
Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, ‘Country Profiles’, <www.adpc.net/v2007/IKM/Country%20Profiles/Default-Country.asp>, accessed 15 March 2018.
101
• Harmonized List of Fragile Situations:11 Released on an annual basis by the World Bank
Group’s Fragile, Conflict and Violence Group.
• States of Fragility Report:12 Produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, this report provides an index of fragility against five dimensions, suggesting
Fragility that fragility is “the combination of exposure to risk and insufficient coping capacity of the
state, system and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks”.
• Fragile States Index:13 The Fund for Peace collects thousands of reports and other
information from around the world that details the existing social, economic and political
pressures faced by 178 countries, to create an index of fragility.
• ACLED Data:14 Comprehensive database on incidents of political violence and protest in

developing states, compiled by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) Project.
Provides data on date and location, the type of event, the groups involved, fatalities and
conflict dynamics.
• Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) Conflict Encyclopedia:15 A global database
of armed conflicts and consequences since the 1970s. Provides information on losses,
deaths and associated costs related to specific conflicts.
• Global Peace Index:16 A measure of peace that draws on 22 qualitative and quantitative
indicators.
• UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset:17 Historical database of internal and external conflicts
throughout the world since 1946, with indications of intensity and type.
• Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research Conflict Barometer:18 Describes
all recent trends in conflict development, escalations, settlements, etc., sorted by country.
• Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Multilateral Peace Operations
Database:19 A comprehensive database of all multilateral peace operations conducted
by the United Nations and other organizations, including number of personnel deployed,
Potential violence, budget of missions and casualties. Currently includes details of nearly 600 peace opera-
social unrest, instability tions for the period 2000–2010.
or migration • Conflict Analysis Resource Center (CERAC):20 A research platform focused on armed
violence, conflict analysis and the impacts of conflict on development, which provides re-
sources for conflict analysis and methodologies for the measurement of internal conflicts.
It also includes a database.
• International Crisis Group reports and briefings:21 Country and regional reports.
• Technical Note on Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding in UNICEF:22 See the sources
of data referenced in Annex 5.
Table 2 - Potential sources of data related to vulnerability and some aspects of capacity
General type of source Specific data source
• National census
• National household surveys to determine household income and expenditure, living
National data sources
standards and/or the socio-economic status of the household (see below for several such
(census, survey,
surveys supported by development partners).
administrative sources)
• National administrative databases (e.g., health management information system) and/
or sector performance reports.
11
The World Bank, ‘Harmonized List of Fragile Situations’, World Bank Group, <www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/harmonized-list-of-fragile-situations>,
12
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘States of Fragility Reports’, <www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/listofstateoffragilityreports.htm>,
13
Fund for Peace, ‘Fragile States Index’, <http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/>, accessed 15 March 2018.
14
Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) Project, ‘ACLED Data’, <www.acleddata.com/>, accessed 15 March 2018.
15
Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), ‘UCDP Conflict Encyclopedia’, Uppsala University, <www.ucdp.uu.se>, accessed 15 March 2018.
16
Vision of Humanity, ‘Global Peace Index 2017’, Institute for Economics and Peace, <http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/>, accessed 15 March 2018.
17
Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) and Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), ‘UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset’, <www.prio.org/Data/Armed-Conflict/UCDP-PRIO/>,
18
Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, Conflict Barometer, available at <https://hiik.de/conflict-barometer/current-version/?lang=en>, accessed 15 March 2018.
19
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), ‘SIPRI Multilateral Peace Operations Database’, <www.sipri.org/databases/pko>, accessed 15 March 2018.
20
Conflict Analysis Resource Center (CERAC), <www.cerac.org.co/en/>, accessed 15 March 2018.
21
International Crisis Group, ‘Reports & Briefings’, <www.crisisgroup.org/latest-updates/reports-and-briefings>, accessed 15 March 2018.
22
United Nations Children’s Fund, Technical Note on Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding in UNICEF, UNICEF, June 2012, available at <www.unicefinemergencies.com/down-
loads/eresource/docs/KRR/UNICEF Technical Note on Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding.pdf>, accessed 19 February 2018.
102
• Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS):23 Over two decades, close to 300 MICS
have been carried out in more than 100 countries, generating data on key indicators on the
well-being of children and women. MICS represent technical and financial cooperation be-
tween national statistics offices (NSOs), UNICEF country offices and the Global MICS Team.
• Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS):24 Each DHS collects, analyses and disseminates
data on population, health, HIV and nutrition. The more than 300 surveys from over 90 coun-
tries are the product of cooperation between an NSO or ministry of health and the DHS
Program supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
• Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transitions (SMART):25 An
inter-agency initiative that aims to provide consistent and reliable survey data in emer-
National survey gencies, using a single standardized methodology based on two public health indicators
data supported by used to assess the magnitude and severity of a humanitarian crisis: nutritional status of
development partners children under 5 years of age, and overall mortality rate.
• Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (HIES): The World Bank and other development
partners have worked for over three decades to strengthen national capacities for data collection and
management and poverty estimation. HIES are available for a range of countries, through their NSOs.
• Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) Datasets:26 A household survey programme
housed within the Survey Unit of the World Bank’s Development Data Group provides
technical assistance to NSOs in the design and implementation of household surveys
used to develop poverty diagnostics.
• Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice (KAP) surveys:27 KAP surveys use a quantitative
method (predefined questions formatted in standardized questionnaires) that provides
access to quantitative and qualitative information on misconceptions or misunderstandings
that may represent obstacles or barriers to behaviour change.
• Multiple and Overlapping Deprivation Analysis (MODA):28 MODA was developed by the
UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti, with support from the Division of Policy and Strategy, to
create a framework to facilitate child-focused poverty and multidimensional deprivation analyses
using MICS, DHS and other data sources. When MODA is applied to a particular country, it is
referred to as N-MODA (National MODA); CC-MODA provides cross-country comparability.
• UNICEF approach to measuring multidimensional child poverty:29 This considers child
deprivations in eight critical dimensions (education, health, nutrition, water, sanitation, shelter,
information and income/consumption) using MICS/DHS data.
Models, approaches • Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI) Global Multidimensional
and indices that draw Poverty Index:30 To estimate poor people’s experience of deprivation, this multidimensional
on existing national measure incorporates a range of indicators: poor health, lack of education, inadequate living
data sources standards, lack of income, disempowerment, poor quality of work and threat of violence.
• Gender Inequality Index (GII):31 This index measures gender inequality in terms of reproductive
health, empowerment and economic status. The GII exposes differences in the distribution of
achievements between women and men, and the human development costs of gender inequality.
• Gender Development Index (GDI):32 The GDI measures gender gaps in human develop-
ment achievements across three dimensions – health, knowledge and living standards.
• Global Gender Gap Report: 33The Global Gender Gap Report quantifies gender disparities in
four key areas – health, education, economy and politics – and tracks how they change over time.
23
Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) are managed by the United Nations Children’s Fund Global MICS Team. See: UNICEF MICS, <http://mics.unicef.org/>, accessed 15
March 2018.
24
Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) are managed by the DHS Program. See: DHS Program, <https://dhsprogram.com/>, accessed 15 March 2018.
25
Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transitions (SMART) resources are available at: SMART, ‘About SMART’, <http://smartmethodology.org/about-smart/>,
26
The World Bank, ‘Living Standards Measurement Study, LSMS Datasets’, <http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTLSMS/0,,contentMD-
K:23617057~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:3358997,00.html>, accessed 15 March 2018.
27
Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice surveys are supported by a range of actors in numerous countries. For one methodology, see: Médecins du Monde, The KAP Survey Model
(Knowledge, Attitude & Practices), Médecins du Monde, 2011, available at <www.medecinsdumonde.org/en/actualites/publications/2012/02/20/kap-survey-model-knowledge-atti-
tude-and-practices>, accessed 15 March 2018.
28
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘About Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis (MODA) for Children’, UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti, <www.unicef-irc.org/MODA/>,
29
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘A Multidimensional Approach to Measuring Child Poverty’, Social and Economic Policy Working Briefs, UNICEF, February 2011, available at
<www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/A_Multidimensional_Approach_to_Measuring_Child_Poverty%282%29.pdf>, accessed 15 March 2018.
30
Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, ‘Global Multidimensional Poverty Index’, <http://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/>, accessed 15 March 2018.
31
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Reports, ‘Gender Inequality Index (GII)’, <http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii>, accessed
15 March 2018.
32
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Reports, ‘Gender Development Index (GDI)’, <http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-development-index-gdi>,
33
World Economic Forum, ‘The Global Gender Gap Report 2016’, <http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/>, accessed 15 March 2018.
103
ANNEX 2:
Caveats & limitations
The following limitations to the GRIP risk analysis methodology should be noted:
• Although the GRIP risk analysis methodology has applicability for many child rights stakeholders, it has been
developed primarily to inform UNICEF staff in their programming with government and other national coun-
terparts. It is therefore structured to complement institutional requirements – potentially at the expense of
meeting the needs of a wider group.
• Marrying the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction risk formula and the simplified Risk = Likeli-
hood x Impact formula necessitates a reinterpretation of the variables, which in some ways compromises the
original formula. For example, the concept of ‘impact’ is, in fact, associated with ‘risk’ – the product of the risk
formula – rather than with the combination of exposure, capacity and vulnerability. By linking the two formulae
and using inspiration from both, however, UNICEF teams can conduct a robust analysis and also meet the risk
assessment requirements of the Emergency Preparedness Platform.
• The GRIP risk assessment methodology is meant to provide a means to facilitate discussion among stakeholders
and inform the process of joint planning and programming. It is not a quantitative assessment, however, and
it relies on stakeholder perceptions of risk – it is therefore subjective and can potentially be influenced by
individual and group bias.
• The standard GRIP assessment methodology is not spatial in scope (aside from listing locations) and therefore
considers patterns and trends at the national level. This can hide great variance at the sub-national level across
the variables of exposure, vulnerability and capacity. For this reason, higher-risk countries are strongly recom-
mended to complete a spatial analysis, which will require a more quantitative and evidence-based approach.
• Although conducting risk analysis with national counterparts is considered critical, it is understood that in some
situations of extreme fragility, conflict or contested governance, this approach may be challenging or impossible.
104
Acronyms, abbreviations & initialisms

C4D Communication for Development
CCA Climate change adaptation
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
CEE Climate, environment and energy
CFSISG Child Friendly Schools Infrastructure Standards and Guidelines
CLAC Climate landscape analysis for children
DRR Disaster risk reduction
EAPRO East Asia and Pacific Regional Office (UNICEF)
EPR Emergency preparedness and response
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GBV Gender-based violence
GRIP Guidance for Risk-informed Programming
HATIS Humanitarian Action and Transition Section (UNICEF)
IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IMERP/PRIME Integrated monitoring, evaluation and research plan or database
INFORM Index for Risk Management
MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey(s)
MoRES Monitoring Results for Equity System
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PSEA Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
RBM Results-based management
ROSA Regional Office for South Asia (UNICEF)
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SitAn Situation analysis
TOCs Theories of change
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
UN Women United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene
WFP World Food Programme
WHO World Health Organization

105
References by Module
References: Module No. 1
Agenda for Humanity, ‘Agenda for Humanity’, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs,
2016, <www.agendaforhumanity.org/>, accessed 16 February 2018.
Agenda for Humanity, ‘Invest in Humanity’, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs,
2016, <www.agendaforhumanity.org/cr/5>, accessed 16 February 2018.
António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, ‘Vision statement: Challenges and Opportunities
for the United Nations’, República Portuguesa, May 2017, <www.antonioguterres.gov.pt/vision-statement/>, ac-
cessed 6 March 2018.
European Commission, ‘Disaster Risk Reduction: Increasing resilience by reducing disaster risk in humanitarian
action’, DG ECHO Thematic Policy Paper No. 5, European Commission, September 2013. Available at <http://ec.eu-
ropa.eu/echo/files/policies/prevention_preparedness/DRR_thematic_policy_doc.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
Metcalfe, Victoria, Ellen Martin and Sara Pantuliano, ‘Risk in humanitarian action: towards a common approach?’,
Humanitarian Policy Group Commissioned Paper, Overseas Development Institute, January 2011. Available at
<www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6764.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Guidelines for Resilience Systems Analysis, OECD Pub-
lishing, 2014. Available at <www.oecd.org/dac/Resilience Systems Analysis FINAL.pdf>, accessed 16 February 2018.
Overseas Development Institute, Time to let go: Remaking humanitarian action for the modern era, ODI, London, April
2016. Available at <www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/10422.pdf>, accessed 20 February 2018.
United Nations, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014, United Nations, New York, 2014.
United Nations, One Humanity, Shared Responsibility, Report of the United Nations Secretary-General for the
World Humanitarian Summit, United Nations, 2016. Available at <http://sgreport.worldhumanitariansummit.org>,
United Nations, ‘Secretary-General, launching 2008 Consolidated Appeal, invokes shared humanity in urging do-
nors to ensure survival of world’s “bottom billion”’, Statement, SG/SM/11383-IHA/1258, 23 January 2008. Available
at <www.un.org/press/en/2008/sgsm11383.doc.htm>, accessed 6 March 2018.
United Nations, Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations, 2015. Available
at <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication>, accessed 16 February 2018.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Population Prospects: The
2017 Revision, DVD edition, 2017.
United Nations and World Bank, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict, World
Bank, Washington, D. C., 2018. Available at <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28337>, accessed
16 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Children in Crisis: What children need from the World Humanitarian Summit,
UNICEF, April 2016. Available at: <www.childreninachangingclimate.org/uploads/6/3/1/1/63116409/whs_children_
in_crisis.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Data Research and Policy Technical Note: Resilient Development, UNICEF, 18 April 2016.
Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/Communities/RiskResil-
ienceFragilityPeacebuilding/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%7BF2B8C210-F9D5-45A7-83D3-880A44B-
5B1F8%7D&file=Technical note on resilient development.docx&action=default%5C>, accessed 6 March 2018.
106
United Nations Children’s Fund, Final results framework of the UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2018–21, E/ICEF/2017/18,
17 July 2017. Available at <www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/2017-18-Final_results_framework-ODS-EN.pdf>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Nearly a quarter of the world’s children live in conflict or disaster-stricken countries:
UNICEF’, Press release, UNICEF, December 2016, <www.unicef.org/media/media_93863.html>, accessed 15
February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Results-Based Management (RBM) e-Course’, Agora e-course, UNICEF,
<https://agora.unicef.org/course/info.php?id=3122>, accessed 21 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Gender Action Plan, 2018–2021, E/ICEF/2017/16, 13 July 2017. Availa-
ble at <www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/2017-16-Gender_Action_Plan-2017.07.14-Rev.1.pdf>, accessed 28
February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘UNICEF Gender-Based Violence in Emergencies Resource Pack’, Summary
document, UNICEF, (n.d.). Available at <www.unicef.org/protection/files/Resource_Pack_Card_Final_Print.pdf>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Programme Framework for Fragile Contexts, October 2017. Available at
<https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/Communities/RiskResilienceFragilityPeacebuilding/Documents/Pro-
gramme Framework for Fragile Contexts - UNICEF Oct 2017.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Programme Policy and Procedure Manual, UNICEF, (n.d.). Accessible to UNICEF
staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/SiteAssets/Welcome%20to%20
the%20Programme,%20Policy%20and%20Procedure%20Manual.aspx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2018–21, E/ICEF/2017/17/Rev.1, 16 August 2017. Available
at <www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/2017-17-Rev1-Strategic_Plan_2018-2021-ODS-EN.pdf>, accessed 6
March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Uprooted: The growing crisis for refugee and migrant children, UNICEF, New York,
September 2016. Available at <www.unicef.org/publications/index_92710.html>, accessed 15 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund and World Bank Group, ‘Ending Extreme Poverty: A focus on children’, Briefing
note, UNICEF, October 2016. Available at <https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Ending_Extreme_
Poverty_A_Focus_on_Children_Oct_2016.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
United Nations Development Group, UNDAF Companion Guidance: Programming Principles, available at
<https://undg.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/UNDG-UNDAF-Companion-Pieces-1-Programming-Principles.pdf>,
accessed 4 April 2018. (Noting that separate UNDG Guidance on Leaving No One Behind is underdeveloped -
for release mid-2018).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, FCCC/
CP/2015/L.9, Paris, 12 December 2015. Available at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf>,
United Nations General Assembly, Implementation of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: Report
of the Secretary-General, A/67/335, 27 August 2012.
United Nations General Assembly, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 April 2016, Review of
the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, A/RES/70/262, 12 May 2016. Available at <www.un.org/en/de-
velopment/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_262.pdf>, accessed 16
February 2018.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, ‘Global Humanitarian Appeal Hits Record
$22.5 Billion, Aiming to Reach 91 Million People with Assistance in 2018’, ReliefWeb, Geneva, 1 December 2017,
<https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-humanitarian-appeal-hits-record-225-billion-aiming-reach-91-million-peo-
ple>, accessed 15 February 2018.
107
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015:
Full report, UNISDR, 2015. Available at <www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/gar-pdf/GAR2015_
EN.pdf>, accessed 6 March 2018.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015: GAR
at a Glance, UNISDR, 2015. Available at <www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/gar-pdf/GAR15_at_a_
glance_EN.pdf>, accessed 15 February 2018.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)’, UNISDR, Geneva,
<www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa>, accessed 16 February 2018.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030’,
UNISDR, Geneva, <http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291>, accessed 6 March 2018.
United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction, ‘Sendai Framework Monitoring’, UNISDR, Geneva, <www.unisdr.
org/conferences/2017/globalplatform/en/programme/plenaries/view/581>, accessed 16 February 2018.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Terminology on disaster risk reduction’, UNISDR, <www.unis-
dr.org/we/inform/terminology>, accessed 6 March 2018.
United Nations Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, ‘Outcomes and frameworks’, Division for Sustain-
able Development, United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs, New York, <https://sustainablede-
velopment.un.org/frameworks>, accessed 16 February 2018.
United States Agency for International Development, Economics of Resilience to Drought, USAID, January 2018.
Available at <www.usaid.gov/resilience/economics-resilience-drought>, accessed 16 February 2018.
World Humanitarian Summit, Commitments to Action, September 2016. Available at <https://interagencystanding-

committee.org/system/files/whs_commitment_to_action_8september2016.pdf>, accessed 16 February 2018.
African Development Bank Group, ‘Lake Chad, a living example of the devastation climate change is wreaking on
Africa’, 3 December 2015, <www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/lake-chad-a-living-example-of-the-devastation-cli-
mate-change-is-wreaking-on-africa-15129/>, accessed 18 February 2018.
Bodenhausen, Galen V., ‘Emotions, arousal, and stereotypic judgments: A heuristic model of affect and stereotyp-
ing’, in Affect, Cognition, and Stereotyping: Interactive Processes in Group Perception, edited by Diane M. Mackie
and David L. Hamilton, Academic Press, San Diego, 1993, pp. 13–37.
Climate Hazards Group, ‘Gallery: Chad’, <http://chg.ucsb.edu/gallery/chad/images/index.html>, CHG, accessed 18

February 2018.
De Groeve, Tom, Karmen Poljanšek and Luca Vernaccini, Index for Risk Management – INFORM, Concept and
Methodology Version 2016, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2015. Available at <http://pub-
lications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC98090/lbna27521enn (2).pdf>, accessed 18 February 2018.
Habtezion, Senay, ‘Gender and disaster risk reduction’, Gender and Climate Change Asia and the Pacific Policy
Brief No. 3, United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2013. Available at <www.undp.org/content/
dam/undp/library/gender/Gender and Environment/PB3-AP-Gender-and-disaster-risk-reduction.pdf>, accessed
17 February 2018.
Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, Conflict Barometer 2017, HIIK, Heidelberg, 2018. Available
at <https://hiik.de/konfliktbarometer/aktuelle-ausgabe/>, accessed 7 March 2018.
Index for Risk Management (INFORM), ‘Home’, Inter-Agency Standing Committee/European Commission, <www.
inform-index.org>, accessed 8 March 2017.
108
Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Emergency Response Preparedness (ERP), Risk analysis and monitoring,
minimum preparedness, advanced preparedness and contingency planning, Draft for field testing, IASC, July 2015.
Available at <www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/emer-
gency_response_preparedness_2015_final_2.pdf>, accessed 13 March 2018.
Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) by our own staff,
<www.pseataskforce.org>, accessed 10 March 2018.
Koger, Susan M., and Deborah DuNann Winter (eds.), The Psychology of Environmental Problems: Psychology for
Sustainability, 3rd ed., Psychology Press, New York, 2010, pp. 216–217.
National Hurricane Center, ‘Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale’, NHC, Miami, <www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.
php>, accessed 18 February 2018.
Plümper, Thomas, and Eric Neumayer, ‘The Unequal Burden of War: The Effect of Armed Conflict on the Gender
Gap in Life Expectancy’, International Organization, vol. 60, no. 3, July 2006, pp. 723–754.
Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff and Sarah Lichtenstein, ‘Why Study Risk Perception?’, Risk Analysis, vol. 2, no. 2, 1982, pp.
83–93. Available at <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x/full>, accessed 18 February 2018.
Starr, Chauncey, ‘Social Benefit versus Technological Risk’, Science, vol. 165, no. 3899, 1969, pp. 1232–1238. Avail-
able at <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/165/3899/1232>, accessed 18 February 2018.
Sylla, Mouhamadou Bamba, et al., ‘Projected robust shift of climate zones over West Africa in response to anthro-
pogenic climate change for the late 21st century’, Climatic Change, vol. 134, nos. 1–2, pp. 241–253.
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘About Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis (MODA) for Children’, UNICEF
Office of Research - Innocenti, <www.unicef-irc.org/MODA/>, accessed 18 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Child-centred Risk Assessment: Regional Synthesis of UNICEF Assessments in
Asia, UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia, Kathmandu, January 2014. Available at <www.preventionweb.net/
files/36688_36688rosaccriskassessmentfeb2014.pdf>, accessed 18 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Climate Landscape Analysis SharePoint site (accessible to UNICEF staff and
consultants), <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/Communities/ESC/SitePages/Climate Landscape Analysis for
Children.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding Programming Guide, UNICEF, November
2016. Available at <http://s3.amazonaws.com/inee-assets/resources/Programming_Guide_-_Conflict_Sensitivi-
ty_and_Peacebuilding__UNICEF_Nov_2016.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, The Determinant Analysis for Equity Programming, August 2014. Accessible to
UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/PD/MoRES/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.
aspx?sourcedoc=%7B042c3397-e095-4f04-82af-ae1b794d26bf%7D&action=view&Source=https%3A%2F%2F
teams%2Eunicef%2Eorg%2Fsites%2FNYHQ01%2FOED%2FMoRES%2FDocument%20Library%2FForms%>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, Gender Equality team site (accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants), <https://
unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePages/Home.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Gender Programmatic Review Toolkit, UNICEF. Accessible to UNICEF staff and
consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePages/Gender Programmatic Review.aspx>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, Guidance Note: How to undertake a Climate Landscape Analysis for Children
(CLAC), UNICEF, (n.d.). Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/
teams/Communities/ESC/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=%7b3EFA2F61-58F3-4147-8ADB-5DFE-
CA6BAB22%7d&file=Climate Landscape Analysis for Children_Guidance.docx&action=default>, accessed 8
March 2018.
109
United Nations Children’s Fund, Guidance on Conducting a Situation Analysis of Children’s and Women’s Rights,
UNICEF Division of Policy and Strategy, March 2012. Available at <www.unicefinemergencies.com/downloads/
eresource/docs/Rights based equity focused Situation Analysis guidance.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Guide to Conflict Analysis, UNICEF, November 2016. Available at <http://
s3.amazonaws.com/ineeassets/resources/Guide_to_Conflict_Analysis_-_UNICEF_Nov_2016.pdf>, accessed
17 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich
countries, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti, Florence, 2012. Available at <www.
unicef-irc.org/publications/660-measuring-child-poverty-new-league-tables-of-child-poverty-in-the-worlds-rich-
countries.html>, accessed 18 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Monitoring Results for Equity System (MoRES) team site (accessible to UNICEF
staff and consultants), <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/MoRES/SitePages/MoRESCollab.aspx>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, Pre-analysis report for the 2017 GRIP workshop, Internal document, UNICEF
Bosnia and Herzegovina Country Office, produced 23 January 2017. Available from the Risk and Resilience,
Fragility and Peacebuilding team site (accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants), <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/
teams/Communities/RiskResilienceFragilityPeacebuilding/SitePages/Home2.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Pre-analysis report for the Results-based Management-GRIP workshop in Sep-
tember 2017, Internal document, UNICEF Cambodia Country Office. Available from the Risk and Resilience, Fra-
gility and Peacebuilding team site (accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants), <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/
teams/Communities/RiskResilienceFragilityPeacebuilding/SitePages/Home2.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Preparedness for Emergency Response in UNICEF: Guidance Note 2016,
UNICEF, December 2016. Available at <www.unicef.org/emergencies/files/UNICEF_Preparedness_Guidance_
Note_29_Dec__2016_.pdf>, accessed 13 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Programming Framework for Fragile Contexts, UNICEF, October 2017. Accessi-
ble to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/Communities/RiskResilienceFra-
gilityPeacebuilding/Documents/Programme Framework for Fragile Contexts - UNICEF Oct 2017.pdf?slrid=bed-
52d9e-208a-4000-d141-716fae227e37>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Risk and Resilience, Fragility and Peacebuilding team site (accessible to UNICEF
staff and consultants), <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/Communities/RiskResilienceFragilityPeacebuilding/
SitePages/Home2.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Taxonomy for Defining and Classifying UNICEF Research, Evaluation and Stud-
ies, UNICEF. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://icon.unicef.org/apps02/cop/edb/SiteAssets/
SitePages/Home/Taxonomy%20Version%202_%20September%202014.pdf>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Technical Note: Emergency Risk Informed Situation Analysis, UNICEF, Geneva,
August 2012. Available at <www.unicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs/KRR/Guidance Risk
Informed SitAn FINAL.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Gender Action Plan site (accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants),
<https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePages/The GAP.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response, EMOPS/PRO-
CEDURE/2016/001, Effective date 30 March 2018. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.
sharepoint.com/sites/portals/RF/Regulatory%20Framework%20Library/UNICEF%20Preparedness%20Proce-
dure%2029%20Dec%202016.pdf>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Publication Policy, revised 15 November 2016. Accessible to UNICEF
staff and consultants at <https://icon.unicef.org/iconhome/ICON Document Library/UNICEF Publication Policy -
15 Nov 2016.pdf>, accessed 8 March 2018.
110
United Nations Children’s Fund, Division of Data Research and Policy, UNICEF Procedure for Quality Assurance
in Research, CF/PD/DRP/2015-002, Effective date 1 April 2015. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at
<https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OoR/SiteAssets/SitePages/Procedures/UNICEF Procedure for Quality Assur-
ance in Research.pdf>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Terminology on disaster risk reduction’, UNISDR, Geneva, 2
February 2017, <www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology>, accessed 18 February 2018.
USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, ‘The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale’, USGS, <https://earthquake.usgs.gov/
learn/topics/mercalli.php>, accessed 18 February 2018.
Verisk Maplecroft, ‘Climate Change Vulnerability Index 2016’, Infographic, ReliefWeb, 13 November 2015. Available
at <https://reliefweb.int/report/chad/climate-change-vulnerability-index-2016>, accessed 12 March 2018.
Vision of Humanity, ‘Global Peace Index 2017’, Institute for Economics and Peace, 2017, <http://visionofhumanity.
org/indexes/global-peace-index/>, accessed 8 March 2018.
World Bank, ‘Harmonized List of Fragile Situations’, World Bank Group, 2018, <www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragili-
tyconflictviolence/brief/harmonized-list-of-fragile-situations>, accessed 8 March 2018.
Please note: The following (footnote 40) looks like it is actually a list of secondary sources, cited in: Habtezion,
Senay, ‘Gender and disaster risk reduction’, Gender and Climate Change Asia and the Pacific Policy Brief No. 3,
United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2013. Available at <www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/
gender/Gender and Environment/PB3-AP-Gender-and-disaster-risk-reduction.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
Fox, Leslie M., Quality Review of UNICEF's 2017 Country Programme Documents, Review of a Sample of Pro-
gramme Strategy Notes, and Analysis of Selected SN and CPD Cross-cutting Issues, Final Report, United Nations
Children’s Fund, 8 January 2018. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/
teams/OED/PPPManual/SitePages/Programme_Strategy_Notes.asp>, accessed 10 March 2018.
Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Protection against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA): Inter-agency cooper-
ation in community-based complaint mechanisms. Global Standard Operating Procedures, IASC, May 2016. Availa-
ble at <https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/accountability-affected-populations-including-protection-sexu-
al-exploitation-and-abuse/documents-51>, accessed 10 March 2018.
Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) by our own staff,
<www.pseataskforce.org>, accessed 10 March 2018.
Seymour, Claudia, Engaging Adolescents in Conflict Analysis: A guidance note, UNICEF, New York, May 2013.
Available at <http://s3.amazonaws.com/inee-assets/resources/Engaging_Adolescents_in_Conflict_Analysis-_Guid-
ance_Note.pdf>, accessed 15 February 2018.
SPW/DFID–CSO Youth Working Group, Youth Participation in Development: A Guide for Development Agencies
and Policy Makers, DFID–CSO Youth Working Group, London, 2010.
United Nations, ‘Programme criticality’, e-course, <www.unicefinemergencies.com/programmecriticality/course.

html>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Attachment A – Description of UNICEF risk categories and key risk areas, 2017’,
UNICEF. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://intranet.unicef.org/Dfam%5CDFAMSite.nsf/0/4DE-
18A546BD6059E85257F4200691501/$FILE/12 Risk Areas 2017.docx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding Programming Guide, UNICEF, November
2016. Available at <http://s3.amazonaws.com/inee-assets/resources/Programming_Guide_-_Conflict_Sensitivi-
ty_and_Peacebuilding__UNICEF_Nov_2016.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
111
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Core Commitments for Children (CCCs)’, Agora e-course, UNICEF, <https://agora.
unicef.org/course/info.php?id=30>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, The Determinant Analysis for Equity Programming, August 2014. Accessible to
UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/PD/MoRES/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.
aspx?sourcedoc=%7B042c3397-e095-4f04-82af-ae1b794d26bf%7D&action=view&Source=https%3A%2F%2F
teams%2Eunicef%2Eorg%2Fsites%2FNYHQ01%2FOED%2FMoRES%2FDocument%20Library%2FForms%>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Different Needs, Equal Opportunities: Increasing Effectiveness of Humanitarian
Action for Women, Girls, Boys and Men’, Agora Gender in Humanitarian Action e-course, UNICEF, <https://agora.
unicef.org/course/info.php?id=113>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Emergency Preparedness SharePoint site (accessible to UNICEF staff and consult-
ants), <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/EMOPS/EPP/EPP Resources/Forms/AllItems.aspx?View=%7B67CE1
529-C325-4CC6-9648-F34370128BB9%7D&InitialTabId=Ribbon%2ERead&VisibilityContext=WSSTabPersistence>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, Enterprise Risk Management in UNICEF, CF/EXD/2009-006, 14 May 2009. Ac-
cessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/sites/portals/RF/Regulatory%20
Framework%20Library/DFAM%20Policy%2010%20Enterprise%20Risk%20Management%20in%20UNICEF.pdf>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, Executive Directive on Addressing the impact of climate change on children, CF/
EXD/2016-002, 10 March 2016. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/
teams/Communities/ESC/Lists/global UNICEF resources/Attachments/5/03.10.2016 Executive Directive Climate
Change CF EXD 2016 2.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Executive Directive on the Prohibition of harassment, sexual harassment and
abuse of authority, CF/EXD/2012-007, 30 November 2012. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://
unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OED/EO/Document Library/10. Prohibition of Discrimination Harassment Sexual
Harassment and Abuse of Authority.pdf>, accessed 11 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Gender Equality team site (accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants), <https://
unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePages/Home.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Gender Programmatic Review Toolkit, UNICEF. Accessible to UNICEF staff and
consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePages/Gender Programmatic Review.aspx>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, Instruction for 2018 Annual Risk Assessment (ARA) Reporting Requirements,
Effective date 26 December 2017. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/
sites/portals/RF/Regulatory%20Framework%20Library/Instruction%20Annual%20Risk%20Assessment%20Re-
quirments.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Monitoring Results for Equity System (MoRES) team site (accessible to UNICEF
staff and consultants), <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/MoRES/SitePages/MoRESCollab.aspx>, ac-
cessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Preparedness for Emergency Response in UNICEF: Guidance Note 2016, UNICEF,
December 2016. Available at <www.unicef.org/emergencies/files/UNICEF_Preparedness_Guidance_Note_29_
Dec__2016_.pdf>, accessed 13 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA)’, Agora e-course, UNICEF,
<https://agora.unicef.org/course/info.php?id=7380>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Programme Policy and Procedure Manual, UNICEF, (n.d.). Accessible to UNICEF
staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/SiteAssets/Welcome%20to%20
the%20Programme,%20Policy%20and%20Procedure%20Manual.aspx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
112
United Nations Children’s Fund, Programme Strategy Notes SharePoint site (accessible to UNICEF staff and con-
sultants), <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/SitePages/Programme_Strategy_Notes.asp>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, Reporting Misconduct site (accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants), <https://
unicef.sharepoint.com/sites/portals/reportingmisconduct/?wa=wsignin1.0>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Results-based Management Handbook: Working together for children, UNICEF,
2017. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/
Shared Documents/RBM_Handbook_Working_Together_for_Children_July_2017.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Results-based Management Learning Package SharePoint site (accessible to
UNICEF staff and consultants), <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/SitePages/RBM_Materials.
aspx>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Risk-informed Education Programming for Resilience Guidance Note, UNICEF,
forthcoming in 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Technical Note on Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding in UNICEF, UNICEF, June
2012. Available at <www.unicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs/KRR/UNICEF Technical Note on
Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding.pdf>, accessed 19 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Emergencies Humanitarian Action and Post-crisis Recovery team site (ac-
cessible to UNICEF staff and consultants), <https://intranet.unicef.org/emops/emopssite.nsf/root/PageCCCPM4>,
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Gender Action Plan site (accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants),
<https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/PD/GAP/SitePages/The GAP.aspx>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2018–2021, E/ICEF/2017/17/Rev.1, 16 August 2017. Avail-
able at <https://www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/2017-17-Rev1-Strategic_Plan_2018-2021-ODS-EN.pdf>,
United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Secretary-General on Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation
and abuse: a new approach, A/71/818, 28 February 2017. Available at <https://undocs.org/A/71/818>, accessed 15 March 2018.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, ‘Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030’,
UNISDR, Geneva, <www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291>, accessed 28 February 2018.
United Nations System High-Level Committee on Management, United Nations System Programme Criticality
Framework, Document prepared by the Programme Criticality Working Group, CEB/2013/HLCM/7, 25 February
2013. Available at <www.unicefinemergencies.com/programmecriticality/story_content/external_files/Programme
Criticality Framework 2013.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Education in Crisis and Conflict Network, ‘Guidance
Notes and Manuals on Peacebuilding Programming’, ECCN, <https://eccnetwork.net/resources/learning-for-peace/
guidance-notes/>, accessed 14 March 2018.
United States Institute of Peace, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and United
States Agency for International Development, ‘United Nations Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination’, e-course,
USIP, <www.usipglobalcampus.org/training-overview/uncmcoord/>, accessed 10 March 2018.
Habtezion, Senay, ‘Gender and disaster risk reduction’, Gender and Climate Change Asia and the Pacific Policy Brief
No. 3, United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2013. Available at <www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/li-
brary/gender/Gender and Environment/PB3-AP-Gender-and-disaster-risk-reduction.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
113
International Aid Transparency Initiative, <www.aidtransparency.net>, accessed 16 March 2018.
PreventionWeb, ‘Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030’, United Nations Office for Disaster
Reduction, Geneva, <www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291>, accessed 28 February 2018.
PreventionWeb, ‘Sendai Framework Indicators’, United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, <www.
preventionweb.net/drr-framework/sendai-framework-monitor/indicators>, accessed 17 February 2018.
United Nations, Disaster-related Data for Sustainable Development, Sendai Framework Data Readiness Review
2017: Global Summary Report, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Available at <www.unisdr.org/
files/53080_entrybgpaperglobalsummaryreportdisa.pdf>, accessed 17 February 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, Results-based Management Handbook: Working together for children, UNICEF,
2017. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.sharepoint.com/teams/OED/PPPManual/
Shared Documents/RBM_Handbook_Working_Together_for_Children_July_2017.pdf>, accessed 10 March 2018.
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response, EMOPS/PRO-
CEDURE/2016/001, Effective date 30 March 2018. Accessible to UNICEF staff and consultants at <https://unicef.
sharepoint.com/sites/portals/RF/Regulatory%20Framework%20Library/UNICEF%20Preparedness%20Proce-
dure%2029%20Dec%202016.pdf>, accessed 8 March 2018.
United Nations Economic and Social Council, Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable De-
velopment Goal Indicators, E/CN.3/2016/2, 17 December 2015. Available at <https://unstats.un.org/unsd/stat-
com/47th-session/documents/2016-2-IAEG-SDGs-E.pdf>, accessed 14 March 2018.
© Photo Credits
Front cover page: © UNICEF/UN0161148/Rfaat GRIP Module 3:
Page 6: © UNICEF/UNI179592/El Baba Page 64: © UNICEF/UNI116414/Page
Page 8: © UNICEF/UNI134401/Sokol Page 66: © UNICEF/UN032913/Mukwazhi
Page 68: © UNICEF/UN0149463/Sokhin
GRIP Module 1: Page 71: © UNICEF/UN0156160/
Page 10: © UNICEF/UN0151159/Dejongh Page 75: © UNICEF/UN0139549/Gilbertson VII Photo
Page 15: © UNICEF/UN017049/Khuzaie Page 85: © UNICEF/UN024081/Rich
Page 21: © UNICEF/UNI134464/Sokol Page 87: © UNICEF/UN074034/Pirozi
Page 24: © UNICEF/UNI153196/Maitem
GRIP Module 4:
GRIP Module 2: Page 88: © UNICEF/UN012796/Georgiev
Page 26: © UNICEF/UNI116414/Page Page 90: © UNICEF/UN074990/Amin
Page 35: © UNICEF/UN09111/Lynch Page 92: © UNICEF/UN0148747/Volpe
Page 41: © UNICEF/UN074040/Pirozzi Page 95: © UNICEF/UN076157/Shrestha
Page 43: © UNICEF/UN0144593/Brown Page 99: © UNICEF/UN075005/Amin
Page 44: © UNICEF/UNI116374/Page
Page 56: © UNICEF/UN012729/Georgiev Back cover page: © UNICEF/UN043101/Rich
Page 60: © UNICEF/UN074994/Amin
Page 63: © UNICEF/UN032884/Mukwazhi
114
115
© UNICEF/UN018798/Philippov
The guidance has been elaborated with technical and financial support from the US Fund for UNICEF, Prudential Foundation,
Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies, the United Kingdom Government Department for International Development (DFID) and
the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).
https://unicef.sharepoint.com/ teams/Communities/RiskResilience- FragilityPeacebuilding/sitePages/Home2.aspx

UNICEF Guidance On Risk-Informed Programming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNICEF Guidance On Risk-Informed Programming

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNICEF Guidance On Risk-Informed Programming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidance

Photo credit cover page: © UNICEF/UN012796/Georgiev

LEAD TECHNICAL ADVISORS:

PROGRAMME CONTRIBUTIONS (in alphabetical order):

GRIP ADVISORY GROUP (in alphabetical order):

PILOT COUNTRY OFFICES:

DESIGN AND INFOGRAPHICS:

“Across the world,

Contents for Module 1

All the hyperlinks are active

50 million children were deemed “uprooted” in 2016, having either migrated

1.2 Implications for child rights programming

“Success will now be defined

and their humanity at the centre

Box 2 - A child-centred approach makes sense for everyone

1.3 The UNICEF commitment to resilient development

Box 3 - Comparative advantages of UNICEF in risk reduction

Risk-informed programming at UNICEF therefore

Strives to make building

Is the change strategy

2.2 What is GRIP?

• GRIP is a tool to strengthen the interconnectedness of humanitarian, development and peacebuilding

It should be stated, however, that GRIP is:

Graphic 1 - GRIP structure

introduction Modules under development:

2.3 Who is GRIP for?

2.4 When should GRIP be applied?

An analysis of the risk of humanitarian crisis

Reviews & evaluations consider Prioritization includes discussions on

optional midterm RBM LEARNING

UNICEF’s lens” to influence planning

of all child rights-focused

2.5 What is a GRIP workshop?

A GRIP workshop can be particularly useful in helping multi-stakeholder groups to:

GRIP workshop for programme staff. Participants validated

In October 2017, UNICEF Uganda held a 3-day joint

In April 2018, UNICEF Timor-Leste held a joint

children the programme the enterprise

3.2 The risk formula

Graphic 4 - The risk formula

Shock: a sudden and potentially dam-

Hazard, shock or stress × Exposure × Vulnerability

Capacity: the combination of all the strengths, attributes and

MODULE 2: Risk analysis

Contents for Module 2

All the hyperlinks are active

Overview of GRIP ModuleS 1 and 2

For example, the GRIP approach:

1.2 When is the best time to conduct a risk analysis?

Global good practice in elaborating risk-Informed SitAns

1.3 What is the process?

The four phases of the GRIP child-centred risk analysis are:

Graphic 2 - Summary of the GRIP risk analysis process

1. preparation 2. assessment 3. analysis 4. validation

1.4 Determine participants 2.3 Rank the risks

1.4 Other complementary methods

Benefits of the GRIP approach Drawbacks of the GRIP approach

Spatial risk assessment (or ‘child-centred risk mapping’)