Indicators specific to responses addressing intimate partner violence or sexual violence are not explicitly identified, but the indicators below that were developed to evaluate efforts to address trafficking in persons are instructive. Each area (prevention, protection and prosecution) includes specific indicators relating to coordination. The majority of indicators are broadly relevant and/or adaptable to all forms of violence against women.
Indicators measuring coordination in counter-trafficking work from the International Organisation for Migration
|
Prevention |
Means of Verification
|
|||
|
Objective
|
Performance Indicators |
Target |
Data Collection |
Data Source
|
|
To establish or improve cooperation mechanisms among key stakeholders to prevent trafficking |
Formal cooperation mechanisms in place for coordinated prevention efforts |
Yes/True |
Document review, interviews |
Relevant stakeholders |
|
|
Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined within the cooperation mechanism1 |
Yes/True |
Document review, interviews |
Relevant stakeholders |
|
Results
|
Performance Indicators
|
Target |
Data Collection
|
Data Source
|
|
Cooperation mechanisms are established/ enhanced between government and civil society |
Joint planning and implementation of prevention activities in place |
Yes/True |
Document review, interviews |
Relevant stakeholders |
|
|
Funding for civil society prevention efforts allocated in State budgets |
X% increase in budget allocation for civil society prevention efforts |
Budget review |
State budget |
|
Intra-governmental cooperation mechanisms are established/ enhanced
|
Inter-ministerial council on trafficking is established to coordinate prevention efforts |
Yes/True |
Direct observation |
Government |
|
|
Level/number of duplicated efforts |
X% decrease in level or number of duplicated efforts3 |
Reports review |
Government documents |
|
Protection |
Means of Verification
|
|||
|
Objective
|
Performance Indicators |
Target |
Data Collection |
Data Source
|
|
To strengthen cooperation at the local/national/ transnational level to identify victims and provide them with appropriate and comprehensive direct assistance |
Nationwide monitoring and referral systems established and functioning |
Yes/True |
Document review, observation, interviews |
Direct assistance providers |
|
|
Number of victims identified and assisted through the referral and assistance network |
X% increase in the number of victims identified and assisted through the referral and assistance network |
Stats/records review |
Direct assistance providers |
|
Results
|
Performance Indicators |
Target |
Data Collection |
Data Source
|
|
Taskforce/coalitions/ coordinating bodies on counter-trafficking methods established or strengthened |
Regular taskforce meetings are held |
Yes/True |
Reports review, observation |
Relevant stakeholders |
|
|
Endorsed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for each member |
Yes/True |
Document review |
Coordinating body |
|
Coordinated efforts to mobilize resources for counter-trafficking from all stakeholders |
Appropriate inputs of resources from all stakeholders (financial, in-kind, human, etc.) |
Yes/True |
Document and budget review |
Relevant stakeholders |
|
Prosecution |
Means of Verification
|
|||
|
Objective
|
Performance Indicators |
Target |
Data Collection |
Data Source
|
|
To establish cooperative mechanisms among criminal justice agencies and with key stakeholders to convict traffickers and protect victims |
Number of criminal complaints filed by victims |
X% increase in the number of criminal complaints filed by victims |
Stats/records review |
Direct assistance providers |
|
|
Number of convictions of traffickers |
X% increase in number of convictions of traffickers |
Stats/records review |
Government |
|
Results
|
Performance Indicators
|
Target |
Data Collection
|
Data Source
|
|
Cooperative mechanisms within and among criminal justice agencies to convict traffickers and protect victims are put in place or enhanced |
SOPs and/or guidelines on joint investigations, identification and treatment of victims are established |
Yes/True |
Document review, interviews |
Criminal justice agencies |
|
|
Regular meetings are held among criminal justice agencies |
Yes/True |
Observation, interviews |
Criminal justice agencies |
|
Cooperative mechanisms between criminal justice agencies and other direct assistance providers to protect and assist victims are put in place or enhanced
|
Number of referrals from other direct assistance providers to law enforcement |
X% increase in the number of referrals from other direct assistance providers to law enforcement |
Stats/records review |
Government, direct assistance providers |
|
|
Number of referrals from law enforcement agencies to other direct assistance providers |
X% increase in the number of referrals from law enforcement agencies to other direct assistance providers |
Stats/records review |
Government, direct assistance providers |
|
|
SOPs and/or guidelines on victim protection and assistance established |
Yes/True |
Document review, interviews |
Relevant stakeholders |
|
|
Regular joint meetings/trainings on victim protection and assistance are held |
Yes/True |
Observation, interviews |
Government, direct assistance provider |
1. In some cases, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) could be formalized.
2. For example, a Plan of Action.
3. An example of this includes running one joint hotline as opposed to multiple hotlines.
Source: International Organisation for Migration (2008) Handbook on Performance Indicators for Counter-Trafficking Projects, Geneva: IOM. Available in English.