Protection cases in active conflict
Introduction
GOMA — What our protection teams handle when courts and police are no longer functioning. What began as a local difficulty is now a structural one, and it shapes daily life for every household here. This brief sets out the evidence, the cost of inaction, and what should follow.
The problem, before the work started
Protection work in an active conflict cannot wait for the conflict to end. Households absorbed the difference themselves — in time, in money, and in risks they would not otherwise take. Those costs rarely appear in a budget line, but they decide whether a family recovers or slips further.
The case does not pause because the road does. Neither can we.
Josephine Mwamba, protection officer
How the work was delivered
Caseworkers stay reachable, and referrals are built to work when movement is restricted. The approach was chosen because it survives the conditions here: staff turnover, seasonal access, and a population that may move at short notice.
- Caseworkers recruited from the communities they serve
- Referral partners confirmed weekly, because availability changes
- Case files encrypted and mirrored outside the area
- Support continued remotely when access closes
What changed beyond the immediate goal
The direct objective was met, but the effects that matter most were the ones we did not set out to produce.
1. Continuity through closures
Cases stayed open during access interruptions instead of restarting afterwards.
2. Local trust
Caseworkers from the community reached people who would not approach an outside agency.
3. Records that survive
Mirrored files meant a destroyed office did not mean destroyed cases.
What comes next
The next phase adds two caseworkers per site and formalises the remote-support protocol. The measure of success is not how long we stay, but whether the work continues once we have gone.
