Gender
A review and reporting space for tracking safety, dignity, privacy, accessibility and accountability findings from gender safety audits.
Last updated: May 2026
The current round includes 52 gender safety audits covering 8,091 people across assessed sites. Overall compliance is stronger than non-compliance, but several recurring protection-sensitive gaps require systematic follow-up, especially around locks, privacy, WASH dignity, accessible information, PSEA and GBV visibility.
This section summarizes where audits were conducted, who was covered, and the types of spaces assessed.
The strongest red flags are not random. They cluster around the basics that decide whether women, girls and other at-risk groups can move, wash, sleep, report concerns and access aid safely. That is where follow-up should be sharp, not decorative.
Shelter, WASH and distribution findings should be read together. A site can appear functional on one sector while still creating risk through poor lighting, weak complaints information, inaccessible WASH facilities or lack of visible PSEA and GBV messages.
| Sector | Question | Yes | No | Not observed | No % | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shelter | There are lights in all temporary/collective shelter areas, including in toilet/bathroom facilities and to access the shelter | 40 | 11 | 1 | 21.2% | Identification of irregular shortage of electricity, with near-total reliance on solar power, which suffers from malfunctions, weak coverage, and limited operating hours. This is compounded by severe rationing of state electricity and generators, or their complete absence in some cases. There is also significant lighting deficiency, particularly in essential facilities such as restrooms, corridors, and outdoor areas, forcing residents to resort to unsafe alternatives like candles and necessitating urgent maintenance of the electrical infrastructure. |
| Shelter | There is adequate space in the shelter for the number of individuals housed there | 37 | 15 | 0 | 28.8% | The data indicates severe overcrowding in the shelter, with occupancy exceeding capacity and multiple families sharing single rooms, corridors, and even open spaces such as playgrounds, often without adequate privacy or safety. This situation is further compounded by limited space management and underutilized areas (e.g., closed floors), resulting in compromised living conditions, including lack of dignity, protection risks, and strain on available facilities. |
| Shelter | When assigning shelter, if combining families is necessary, only related families are assigned together | 45 | 6 | 1 | 11.5% | The findings show that while not universal, there are some cases of non-related individuals and families sharing the same living spaces, including vulnerable situations such as a woman living with an unrelated family. These mixed arrangements raise concerns around privacy, safety, and protection, particularly for individuals without familial support. |
| Shelter | Single women and FHH are not assigned to sleeping in the same spaces with men | 39 | 11 | 1 | 21.2% | In some shelters, there are no separate sleeping arrangements for men and women due to insufficient space, with families sharing rooms regardless of gender composition and relying on makeshift partitions such as curtains to create minimal privacy. While most arrangements follow family units, there are cases where unrelated or mixed groups are accommodated together, raising significant concerns around privacy, dignity, and protection risks. |
| Shelter | Shelters are secured with internal locks on doors | 21 | 30 | 1 | 57.7% | The data indicates a widespread lack of functional internal locks for both rooms and sanitation facilities in the majority of shelters, with most doors either unlockable or relying on improvised solutions, while keys (when available) are often controlled by administration rather than residents. This significantly undermines privacy, safety, and autonomy, particularly for vulnerable individuals, and highlights an urgent need for repair, installation, and equitable distribution of locking mechanisms. |
| Shelter | Shelter materials and design ensure that people from outside cannot look inside - both day and night. | 39 | 13 | 0 | 25.0% | In 13 shelters (25%) there's a lack of adequate shelter materials and infrastructure to ensure visual privacy, with windows and openings, especially in doors, corridors, and external-facing areas are left exposed. As a result, residents resort to improvised measures such as covering windows with cloth, paper, or towels, while those in open spaces like playgrounds lack any form of partition, increasing risks to privacy and dignity. |
| Shelter | Shelters have partitioning walls, which are not lower than the external walls, including doors, inside the shelter. (Between families or between male and female residents) | 24 | 26 | 2 | 50.0% | The data shows a clear absence of proper partitions or separation materials within somehow half of the shelters, with most spaces lacking any structured division despite shared occupancy. As a result, families rely on improvised solutions such as blankets, cloth, or furniture to create minimal separation, which remains insufficient to ensure privacy, dignity, and safe gender-sensitive arrangements. |
| Shelter | Walkways allow for movement within the shelter | 46 | 6 | 0 | 11.5% | The findings indicate that in few of the shelters (6 shelters), the available spaces are limited, poorly lit, and often constrained by narrow corridors, shared pathways, and structural barriers such as stairs, restricting safe and free movement inside the shelter. As a result, residents tend to rely on external areas like courtyards and playgrounds for mobility, highlighting inadequate internal spatial planning and accessibility. |
| Shelter | There is a dedicated safe space for women and girls available within the shelter? | 25 | 27 | 0 | 51.9% | The data indicates a clear absence of dedicated safe spaces for women and girls, primarily due to severe overcrowding and full occupancy of all available rooms. While some temporary or informal arrangements (e.g., using shared rooms or outdoor spaces) are occasionally made, these lack privacy, safety, and consistency, especially given past protection incidents and the open, unsecured nature of available areas like playgrounds. |
| Shelter | Controlled access is in place at the site, including a reception check-in/check-out register at the entrance to monitor all entries and exits | 39 | 11 | 2 | 21.2% | The findings highlight inadequate lighting and maintenance, particularly beyond daytime hours, reducing visibility and overall safety within the shelter. In addition, monitoring and access control are weak or inconsistent, mostly relying on limited daytime presence, informal volunteers, and partial curfews while entry/exit points remain insufficiently supervised, increasing protection risks. |
| Shelter | Women | 46 | 6 | 0 | 11.5% | In 12% of the shelters, sanitation facilities are shared between men and women, with limited availability (often only one bathroom per floor, located in the basement), creating significant access constraints and privacy concerns, particularly during bathing. |
| Shelter | Girls | 46 | 6 | 0 | 11.5% | Same as above |
| Shelter | Boys | 48 | 3 | 1 | 5.8% | Lack of lighting |
| Shelter | Old Women | 40 | 9 | 3 | 17.3% | The data highlights major accessibility and safety barriers within some of the shelters, including shared and poorly lit sanitation facilities located in the basement that require accompaniment due to lack of privacy and locks. The multi-storey design, unsafe stairs (including water leakage), and overall layout significantly limit mobility for elderly persons and persons with disabilities, making independent movement between floors and in/out of the facility difficult and often requiring assistance from relatives or caregivers. |
| Shelter | Persons with Disabilities | 30 | 21 | 1 | 40.4% | Facilities are largely inaccessible for persons with disabilities and older individuals, due to the absence of ramps or elevators, a multi-floor layout, and poorly designed spaces. Essential services such as toilets are located on lower floors, are shared, and lack proper lighting, creating serious safety and dignity concerns. Movement within and outside the building is further hindered by unsafe stairs, water leakage, and unpaved surroundings, resulting in high dependence on others for basic mobility and access. |
| Shelter | Other | 43 | 4 | 5 | 7.7% | While both shared and separate toilets are available across floors and in outdoor areas, access remains challenging due to the large size of the facility and the presence of stairs. Movement within the center and exiting the building is difficult, especially for older individuals, limiting their ability to safely and independently reach essential services. |
| Shelter | Implementing team (including contractors and local service providers) respect a physical distance with children | 48 | 1 | 3 | 1.9% | In one of the shelters, there was a disrespect of privacy incident with the GSO |
| Shelter | Implementing team (including contractors and local service providers) (especially males) respect a physical distance with teenager (especially female) beneficiaries | 47 | 0 | 5 | 0.0% | Nothing worth mentioning |
| Shelter | Respectful and inclusive behaviors toward all beneficiaries, regardless of age, gender, disability, nationality, legal and socioeconomic status, or any other characteristics, is used by all implementing team members | 51 | 0 | 1 | 0.0% | Nothing worth mentioning |
| Shelter | As needed, the agency distributes additional plastic sheeting and other construction materials for privacy and safety needs for free | 35 | 13 | 4 | 25.0% | Lack of plastic sheets and few are distributing plastic sheets |
| Shelter | Shelter activities that involve direct contact with beneficiaries are closely supervised | 48 | 1 | 3 | 1.9% | In one shelter, only civil defense activities were supervised |
| Shelter | Shelter activities that involve direct contact with female beneficiaries (and especially high-risk activities such as off-site shelter repair projects) are carried out by a team with a female staff member | 48 | 2 | 2 | 3.8% | Only in 2 shelters there was lack of female staff leading the activities |
| Shelter | Full lighting is provided on key access routes and at key facilities and there are signs about the facilities at the shelter | 41 | 9 | 2 | 17.3% | Depends on the electricity status of the shelter |
| Shelter | Emergency exits are clearly marked, accessible, and safe to use during both day and night? | 22 | 23 | 6 | 44.2% | The majority have only one exit door which is the same as the entering door |
| Shelter | Clear information on how shelter space is allocated | 46 | 5 | 1 | 9.6% | |
| Shelter | Information that aid is free | 45 | 7 | 0 | 13.5% | |
| Shelter | Information on available complaint mechanisms (general) | 27 | 19 | 6 | 36.5% | |
| Shelter | PSEA awareness materials (such as posters and pamphlets) and reporting hotlines are visible to beneficiaries at the distribution site and/or are included in distribution kits. | 9 | 38 | 4 | 73.1% | The vast majority have no PSEA materials |
| Shelter | GBV awareness materials (such as posters and pamphlets) are visible to beneficiaries at the distribution site and/or are included in distribution kits | 4 | 40 | 6 | 76.9% | The vast majority have no GBV materials |
| Shelter | Inclusion/disability awareness materials (such as posters and pamphlets) are visible to beneficiaries at the distribution site | 2 | 42 | 6 | 80.8% | The vast majority have no inclusion/disability awareness materials |
This section shows how safety and dignity concerns appear across individual assessed sites. It helps identify where risks are more concentrated and where coordinated corrective action may be most needed.
| Priority | Site | Governorate | District | People | Women/girls | NO flags | Risk score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Barja Al-Dimas Mixed Intermediate Public School | Mount Lebanon | Chouf | 358 | 2 | 44 | 75.9% |
| High | May second Public School For Girls | North | Tripoli | 57 | 1 | 37 | 63.8% |
| High | First Public School for Girls | North | Tripoli | 89 | 0 | 33 | 56.9% |
| High | Barja Secondary Public School | Mount Lebanon | Chouf | 382 | 0 | 31 | 53.4% |
| High | Tripoli Secondary Public School For Girls | North | Tripoli | 143 | 0 | 31 | 53.4% |
| High | Barja Intermediate Public School for Girls | Mount Lebanon | Chouf | 112 | 0 | 31 | 53.4% |
| High | Marzouka Al Mozakzak Intermediate for girls (Previously Bebnine Int.) | Akkar | Akkar | 90 | 2 | 29 | 50.0% |
| High | Al Kafour Mixed Secondary Public School | Mount Lebanon | Kesrwane | 21 | 1 | 29 | 50.0% |
| High | Al Jadida Public School for Boys | North | Tripoli | 105 | 1 | 27 | 46.6% |
| High | Hosh Al Harima Intermediate Public School | Bekaa | West Bekaa | 53 | 1 | 26 | 44.8% |
| High | Al Nejjariyeh Intermediate Public School | South | Saida | 150 | 3 | 25 | 43.1% |
| High | Akkar Al Aatika Mixed Public School | Akkar | Akkar | 0 | 1 | 22 | 37.9% |
| High | Barja First Intermediate Public School | Mount Lebanon | Chouf | 55 | 0 | 21 | 36.2% |
| Medium | Aarsal fourth public school | Baalbek-El Hermel | Baalbek | 82 | 0 | 20 | 34.5% |
| Medium | Saida mixed school elkanayeh | South | Saida | 250 | 2 | 19 | 32.8% |
| Medium | Sidon Second Secondary Public School for Girls | South | Saida | 362 | 1 | 18 | 31.0% |
| Medium | El Dora Mixed Public School | Akkar | Akkar | 70 | 2 | 18 | 31.0% |
| Medium | El fakiha secondary public school | Baalbek-El Hermel | Baalbek | 60 | 0 | 18 | 31.0% |
| Medium | El Zeitoun Public School | Baalbek-El Hermel | Baalbek | 60 | 0 | 18 | 31.0% |
| Medium | Buwarj Clinic | Bekaa | Zahle | 30 | 0 | 18 | 31.0% |
The recommendations are organized by urgency and timeline, translating the audit findings into practical protection priorities for follow-up by partners, site management authorities and coordination structures.
| Priority | Sector | Recommended action | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate | Shelter / WASH | Prioritize locks, internal privacy, partitions and lighting in sites with the highest number of NO flags. | Field, Shelter/WASH focal points | To assign |
| Immediate | Accountability / PSEA | Install and refresh visible PSEA, GBV, inclusion and complaints materials in all assessed sites, using accessible language and visual formats. | PSEA, MEAL, field teams | To assign |
| High | WASH | Address menstrual hygiene gaps, including regular materials, safe disposal options, privacy and locks. | WASH partners and site management | To assign |
| High | Protection | Create or identify women and girls safe spaces or private rooms for activities and consultations where no dedicated space exists. | Protection and GBV teams | To assign |
| High | Inclusion | Track disability access and movement barriers site by site, then link them to small corrective actions and referral follow-up. | Inclusion focal point | To assign |
| Follow-up | Coordination | Use the site-level findings to coordinate corrective measures with relevant protection, shelter, WASH, accountability and site management actors, especially where the same risk appears across several locations. | ABAAD and relevant sector partners | For coordination |
Enter the edit password to update text, KPIs, charts, colors, tables and recommendations.