This evaluation looks at what that work has achieved, and where it can go further.
What we did
The evaluation centred on the voices of the people closest to Protection from Violence (PfV) programming: those delivering it and those receiving it. Five country case studies- South Sudan, Syria, Palestine, Colombia, and Myanmar- were covered, combining participatory methods, outcome harvesting, focus groups, and structured interviews.
In total, 219 members of civilian self-protection groups across four countries, alongside 58 NRC staff, partners, and service recipients, shared their experiences.
What we found
PfV is making a real and valued difference. Communities credit civilian self-protection groups with reducing risk, building social cohesion, and strengthening trust with the NRC. Individual protection services are helping people recover from violence and avoid destitution after displacement.
The evaluation also identified clear limits and opportunities for growth:
PfV reduces harm but rarely addresses the structural and political drivers of violence, which often lie beyond the reach of community-level work. Individual Protection Assistance varies widely in how it's applied across contexts and works best when closely linked to community self-protection and to complementary programming like Information, Counselling and Legal Assistance (ICLA). And while the impact is real, it remains difficult to measure and communicate in systems built around counting material distributions rather than trust, dignity, and community resilience.
Key conclusions
PfV reduces harm through two pathways: prevention, i.e. early warning and protective measures, and response, i.e. first aid, search and rescue, and referral networks. The evidence supports the program's underlying theory of change, and communities consistently report strong, growing trust in NRC as a result of this work. At the same time, lasting solutions to the root causes of violence require actors and influence beyond NRC's reach.
Looking ahead, the evaluation points to investment in measurement and learning, particularly community-based monitoring, alongside closer, better-coordinated integration between PfV and ICLA, without merging distinct programs that serve different needs.
Read the full evaluation report for detailed country findings, methodology, and recommendations:
