Before completing this tool, your consent will be required for the collection of your organisation’s data for the purposes of generating your institutional feedback report. Personal data (e.g. names and emails) are used solely for administrative coordination and are not included in any analysis. You have the right to: 

• Request access to your data,
• Correct or delete your data,
• Or withdraw your organisation’s participation at any time by contacting gender@yellowwindow.com. 

 More information related to the terms of use and data protection can be found here. 

1. What is the purpose of the tool?

The tool helps research performing organisations (RPOs) assess their institutional capacity to prevent and respond to gender-based violence. It provides structured self-assessment, generating a feedback report that can guide internal planning and dialogue. 

2. What is the best approach to complete the self-assessment? 

We recommend completing the tool with a small team (e.g., with someone from the gender equality/EDI committee, HR, gender-based violence focal points or ombuds team). Organise a dedicated session (either online or in-person) to review the Impact Drivers and indicators together. We recommend that the team first reviews the preview file which outlines the progression toward institutionalisation and gives an overview of the indicators that are assessed. In this manner, the team gains an understanding what is the end goal toward which institutions can aspire (the preview file is available here).  

When completing the assessment in the platform, document your justifications in the optional follow-up questions for each indicator. You can save your responses at any time using the button in the top-right corner and return later if needed. Providing these justifications is recommended to allow understanding scoring decisions once the assessment is repeated at a later stage (by yourself or new team members). 

3. Does each member of the core team have to fill out the self-assessment? 

No, only one core team member needs to fill the tool. However, all core team members are recommended to be involved in the process to ensure a comprehensive and accurate assessment. 

4. What if we’re not sure whether we have sufficient knowledge of all parts of our institution to complete the assessment? 

The tool is designed as a learning exercise as much as an assessment. We encourage you to be as comprehensive as possible in your consideration of your institution’s status, while recognising that information may vary across units (e.g. faculties, departments, institutes, schools). Central units may not have all the details about the situation at decentral level, and that is normal. The process itself can reveal where information is missing or uneven, which is valuable for institutional learning. 

Focus on what is relevant within your remit and document it clearly. If some units are more advanced or have practices that differ, this can highlight strengths, gaps, and opportunities for cross-learning within the institution. Completing the tool should not be seen as producing a “perfect” score but as creating a shared, realistic picture of where your institution currently stands and how it can move forward.

5. How much time is required to complete the self-assessment? 

On average, the self-assessment takes between 2 and 3 hours to complete, ideally with a small group of people who are familiar with the institution’s policies, processes, and structures. In instances where multiple departments need to be consulted or a larger group is involved in implementing institutional policies, the duration may increase. Depending on the level of investment and the extent of team deliberations, completing the assessment may take up to 6 or 7 hours. 

6. Who owns the data we submit? 

Your institution retains ownership of all submitted data. Yellow Window (YW) and the Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences (ISAS) act as data processors and dataset stewards, with your institution’s consent. For more information, Terms of Use (under Data Processing). 

7. What is the difference between self-assessment and comparative assessment? 

The tool is first and foremost a self-assessment resource. However, if you opt in, your institution’s anonymised data will be included in an aggregated dataset including data from multiple institutions, which may be used for comparative benchmarking, for example by size, type, or region. This will allow your institution to see how it compares to others, but no institution is ever identified. For more information, read the Terms of use (under Consent to Aggregate Data Use (Opt-In)). 

8. Will other organisations see my institution’s data? 

No. All outputs shared outside your institution are anonymised and aggregated. No individual institutional data will ever be published or disclosed. For more information, read the Terms of Use. 

9. What is the purpose of adding an e-mail address on the first page of the online tool 

The e-mail address serves the following purposes: 

1. To receive the welcome message to the platform and access the link of the assessment so you can continue where you left off.
2. To send you reminders in case the assessment is partially completed.
3. To deliver the final report once the assessment is complete.
4. To invite you to repeat the assessment at a later stage. 

 10. Can I pause the assessment and continue later? Will my progress be saved? 

Yes, you can save your progress by clicking the “Save Progress” button in the top right corner of the assessment. To continue from where you left, use the link that was included in your welcome email. Make sure to enter a valid email address on the first page to ensure you receive this link. 

11. What should I do if I encounter technical issues while using the tool? 

If you experience any technical difficulties, please reach out to our support team at gender@yellowwindow.com. We are happy to assist you! 

12. How often should the assessment be repeated? 

Repeating the assessment every 12 to 18 months will help to track progress over time and provides continuous insights for driving change. You are however free to repeat (or not to repeat) the assessment as frequently as you want. 

13. Where can I preview the tool? 

Click here to preview the tool. 

7P Framework   

GenderSAFE uses a holistic framework for the analysis, assessment and development of comprehensive policies aimed at ending and addressing gender-based violence, called the 7P model. The seven Ps refer to:  

• Prevalence – estimating the extent of gender-based violence 
• Prevention – ensuring material (e.g. infrastructure) and immaterial conditions (e.g. behaviours and culture) are conducive to safe environments   
• Protection – avoiding (further) harm to be inflicted on those affected 
• Prosecution – handling cases of gender-based violence   
• Partnerships – involving internal and external actors   
• Provision of Services – offering support and assistance 
• Policy – setting measures and procedures  

For more information, visit the UniSAFE Toolkit 7P Framework page. 

Address 

In this tool, the verb ‘to address’ gender-based violence refers to preventing and counter-acting gender-based violence. It is a conscious choice not to use verbs that refer to violence themselves, such as ‘combating’, ‘fighting’, ‘tackling’, … gender-based violence. 

Affected groups 

In the context of the GenderSAFE Institutional Assessment Tool, affected groups refers to all individuals who are directly or indirectly impacted by an incident or situation of gender-based violence. This includes victims/survivors, as well as those in their immediate environment, such as colleagues, peers, supervisors, witnesses, or bystanders, who may experience secondary effects of the incident (e.g. distress, conflict, or disruption in the work or study environment). 

Anonymisation / Aggregation  

Anonymisation means removing any information that could identify your institution. Aggregation means combining responses from many institutions so that results can only be viewed as overall patterns or averages.  

Anonymous reporting  

Anonymous reporting (where the complainant is unknown) are made by those who want to keep their identity unknown to the organisation and not disclosed to anyone.  

Comparative assessment / Benchmarking  

Comparative assessment or benchmarking refers to when anonymised results from an institution are compared with aggregated averages from other institutions (e.g., of similar size, type, or region). Benchmarking is always optional and does not reveal any institution’s identity.  

Considered, Addressed, and Integrated 

These terms describe different levels of engagement with an issue (e.g. intersectionality or gender-based violence) within institutional policies, practices, or activities: 

• Considered – The issue is acknowledged or mentioned, showing awareness, but without any concrete response or follow-up action. 

• Addressed – There is a specific response or targeted action to the issue, demonstrating an effort to deal with it in practice. 

• Integrated – The issue is systematically embedded in institutional structures, procedures, and actions, ensuring that it is consistently taken into account and reflected across all relevant processes. 

Gender-based violence  

Gender-based violence (GBV) is considered “any type of harm that is perpetrated against a person or group of people because of their factual or perceived sex, gender, sexual orientation and/or gender identity” according to the Council of Europe. GenderSAFE adopts a broad understanding of gender-based violence, encompassing all forms: physical violence, sexual violence, psychological violence, economic violence, sexual harassment, harassment on the grounds of gender, and organisational harassment – in both online and offline contexts. For more information, please refer to the UniSAFE Toolkit Glossary.  

Initiatives / Activities / Measures / Policies  

An initiative is intended to mean an agenda-setting action that can be initiated by students or other members of the academic community, to address the action. There is no institutional ownership.  

An activity is intended to mean a one-off action or event taken by the institution.  

A measure is intended to mean a plan or course of action taken by the institution to address GBV, which is not necessarily based on an assessment of the situation or defined against a clear set of objectives.  

A policy is intended to mean the basis of the approach and refers to both a coherent set of measures with a clear vision and strategy, and specific policy documents detailing such measures. 

Institutional Framework   

The institutional framework refers to the set of formal structures, policies, and procedures that an institution establishes to address gender-based violence. This includes governance bodies, clearly assigned roles and responsibilities, written policies, codes of conduct, complaint and reporting mechanisms, and integration of gender-based violence measures into wider institutional strategies. A strong institutional framework ensures that gender-based violence is not handled ad hoc but through consistent, coherent, and accountable systems.  

Internal vs. External Transparency   

• Internal Transparency: The extent to which the institution communicates openly with its staff, students, and members about gender-based violence policies, procedures, data, and outcomes. This includes sharing information on reporting channels, support services, or institutional commitments within the organisation. 
• External Transparency: The extent to which the institution communicates with stakeholders outside the organisation (e.g., public, partners, funders, regulators, media) about its stance, actions, and data related to gender-based violence. External transparency demonstrates accountability and builds trust with the wider community.  

Intersectionality  

The concept intersectionality serves as an analytical lens to study, understand, and respond to the ways in which different axes of inequalities, such as those based on gender, race, class, sexual orientation or other personal characteristics, intersect and contribute to unique experiences of disadvantage and discrimination. In the context of studying gender-based violence, the intersectional perspective helps us recognise the variability of forms of violence experienced by people with different characteristics and address gender-based violence in a more nuanced way.  

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) A systematic process for tracking progress and assessing the effectiveness of an institution’s gender-based violence policies and measures.  

• Monitoring involves regularly collecting and reviewing data (e.g., number of cases reported, participation in training, implementation of policies) to see if planned actions are being carried out. 
• Evaluation is a deeper analysis of whether these actions are effective in achieving their goals, identifying strengths, gaps, and areas for improvement.  

Together, M&E provide evidence for decision-making, ensure accountability, and support continuous improvement in addressing gender-based violence.  

Priority groups 

Priority groups refers to individuals or communities who are at heightened risk of experiencing gender-based violence or facing additional barriers in reporting, accessing support, or receiving fair treatment due to their intersectional and/or precarious status. This may include, for example, international students and researchers, individuals on temporary or precarious contracts, LGBTQIA+ persons, people with disabilities, racialised or ethnic minority groups, and others whose social position or legal status affects their ability to exercise their rights. 

Victim-centred / Survivor-centred approach  

Adopting a victim-centred or survivor-centred approach means placing the needs and priorities of victims/survivors of violence at the forefront of any response. This entails prioritising listening to the victim(s), avoiding re-traumatisation, and systematically focusing on their safety, rights, well-being, expressed needs and choices, thereby giving back as much control to victim(s) as feasible and ensuring the empathetic and sensitive delivery of services and accompaniment in a non-judgmental manner.  

Zero-tolerance approach  

Adopting a zero-tolerance approach to gender-based violence means that all forms of gender-based violence, including harassment and subtle misconduct, are deemed unacceptable. It ensures every incident is addressed with clear procedures, sanctions, and support for victims, sending a strong message of safety and accountability.