This case study helps duty holders working in emergency management understand how a gender impact assessment (GIA) can be applied in practice. It builds on the Commission’s GIA toolkit(opens in a new window). You can use this as an example when doing your own GIA.
Emergency management involves many organisations. Roles and responsibilities differ. Control agencies lead warnings and response. Other organisations support preparedness, relief and recovery.
This example uses a council context. The same principles can be applied by duty holders across the emergency management sector, including state government and emergency services. The examples are a guide only. Change them to suit your context.
You can download a copy of this factsheet at the bottom of this page.
Overview
This example shows how a council can apply a gender impact assessment (GIA) to its relief and recovery plan. The plan guides how the council supports people after an emergency. This includes Emergency Relief Centres (ERCs), recovery support, and community engagement.
The council is reviewing its relief and recovery plan and uses a GIA to inform updates to how services are designed and delivered.
The plan sits within the broader emergency management system and aligns with the Municipal Emergency Management Plan (MEMP). Many organisations are involved in the MEMP, and roles vary.
This example focuses on what the council can control or influence. This includes how services are designed, delivered and experienced by the community.
The GIA is coordinated by the Municipal Recovery Manager or emergency management staff, with support from the gender equality lead.
This is the council’s first GIA in emergency management. The team uses it to build skills and improve how services are delivered.
The team uses:
- staff knowledge
- input from internal teams
- input from partners where needed.
The GIA runs over 4 months and fits within existing planning timelines.
The team follows the Commission’s GIA Toolkit(opens in a new window) and adapts it to suit their local context.
The GIA process
Step 1: Define the issues
The team starts the GIA as part of a planned review of the council’s relief and recovery plan.
They focus on how well the current plan supports people of all genders during relief and recovery. They also look at whether the plan responds to different needs across the community.
This step sets up the key issues and questions that will be tested in Step 2.
Building understanding
The team reviews the relief and recovery plan in detail.
The plan sets out how the council supports communities after an emergency. This includes:
- Emergency Relief Centres (ERCs)
- local recovery support
- working with partner organisations
- community engagement.
The team works through the plan and identifies:
- what each part of the plan is meant to do
- who each service is designed for
- how services are delivered in practice
- where decisions sit within the plan.
This helps the team understand how the plan is expected to work before testing it.
The team also starts to question how well the plan works for different people. For example:
- Does the plan assume everyone can access services in the same way?
- Does it consider different caring roles and responsibilities?
- Does it consider safety, access, and cultural needs?
- Does it reflect how different people experience emergencies and recovery?
Review key issues
The team identifies issues in how the current relief and recovery plan is designed. These findings are based on reviewing the plan and staff experience. Examples include:
- People may experience emergencies differently based on their gender.
- Gendered experiences can also be affected by age, cultural identity and ability.
- Caring roles may affect how and when people seek help
- Some people may delay evacuation or avoid services due to safety concerns
- Financial stress may affect access to transport, housing or recovery support
- People may not feel safe or comfortable using shared relief spaces
- Some groups may not receive or trust emergency information
- Language and communication barriers may limit access to services
- People with disability may face physical or communication barriers
- Social isolation may increase risk and reduce access to support
- People may not seek help due to stigma, past experiences or lack of trust in services
- There may be limited data on some groups, including gender-diverse people
- Cultural safety is important for First Nations communities and culturally diverse communities. This should be considered across all parts of the plan.
For a summary of the types of issues you might consider in your GIA, see the Understanding gendered issues in emergency management factsheet(opens in a new window).
Output for step 1
The team agrees on:
- a clear understanding of the current plan and services
- key issues in how the plan supports different groups
- assumptions that need to be tested.
These will be explored in Step 2.
Step 2: Understand who is affected
The team builds on Step 1 by gathering and analysing evidence to test the issues identified in the relief and recovery plan. They look at how the plan works in practice, and whether it supports people of all genders.
The aim is to understand:
- how people experience services now
- where the plan is working well
- where it may need to change.
These issues were identified in Step 1 and are now tested using data and evidence.
Review the current plan
The team reviews how the services in the plan have worked during past emergencies. They focus on key parts of the plan, including:
- ERCs
- recovery support services
- community communication
- coordination with partner organisations.
They compare what the plan says with what has happened in practice. This helps identify where practice differs from what is in the plan. For example:
- how ERCs were set up and used
- who accessed recovery services
- how information was shared and received
- how different groups engaged with services.
This helps the team see whether the plan is working as intended.
Gather and analyse information
The team collects information linked to the services in the plan. This includes:
- ERC attendance and usage data
- recovery service data
- council service records
- feedback, complaints and enquiries
- community engagement findings
- population and demographic data
- research on gender and emergencies
- input from local services and community organisations.
Where possible, the team breaks data down by gender.
They also look at how gender interacts with:
- age
- disability
- culture and language
- location
- income.
The team notes where data is missing, especially for some groups.
Understand how people experience the plan
The team looks at how people experience the services set out in the plan. They focus on:
- who is using services
- who may not be using services
- what barriers people face
- whether services feel safe and accessible
- whether people are aware of and trust the services.
They draw on feedback, engagement and staff experience.
Test the issues identified in Step 1
The team tests whether the issues identified in Step 1 are supported by evidence.
They look at questions such as:
- Do people of different genders access services in the same way?
- Do caring roles affect when people seek help?
- Do safety concerns affect how people use ERCs?
- Are some groups less likely to access recovery support?
- Does communication reach all parts of the community?
- Do access barriers affect some groups more than others?
This step confirms which issues are supported by data and experience.
Example findings
The team identifies patterns that relate to the issues from Step 1. For example:
- around 60% of ERC users were women, which may reflect caring roles
- men were less likely to access recovery support services
- people with caring responsibilities delayed seeking help
- some people reported feeling unsafe or uncomfortable in shared spaces
- people in rural areas had difficulty accessing services due to distance
- some groups were less likely to receive or trust information
- people with disability faced barriers to access and communication
- there is limited local data on gender-diverse people.
These findings show how the plan is working in practice.
What this means for the plan
The team uses these findings to assess the current plan. They identify:
- where services are working well
- where some groups are not well supported
- where services may not be accessible or inclusive
- where communication may not reach everyone
- where the plan may need to change to better meet community needs.
Output of Step 2
The team documents:
- evidence of how the plan affects different groups
- confirmed issues and gaps
- areas where the plan can be improved.
These findings are used in Step 3 to develop options to improve the plan.
Step 3: Options analysis
The team uses the findings from Step 2 to develop and assess options to improve the relief and recovery plan.
They focus on areas where the plan is not working well for all groups. For each option, they:
- describe how the plan would change
- assess the gendered benefits and costs
- determine the overall gender impact.
The aim is to identify options that improve access, safety and outcomes for people of all genders.
Option 1: Improve access to relief and recovery services
Proposed change to the plan
The plan is updated to include:
- flexible access to ERCs, such as extended hours
- outreach or mobile recovery support for people who cannot attend
- clearer pathways for accessing support outside standard hours.
This responds to findings that people with caring roles and people in rural areas had difficulty accessing services.
Gendered benefits
This option is likely to:
- improve access for people with caring responsibilities, who are more often women
- support people who cannot attend at fixed times due to work or care
- improve access for people in rural or remote areas
- increase early access to support, which can improve recovery outcomes.
Gendered costs and risks
- Increased staffing and coordination may be required.
- Outreach services may not reach all communities equally.
- If not well targeted, some groups (e.g. people with caring roles) may still miss out.
Overall gender impact
Positive: This option improves access to services and reduces barriers linked to caring roles, location and time. It supports a more equal distribution of support.
Option 2: Strengthen safety and privacy in ERCs
Proposed change to the plan
The plan is updated to include:
- clear guidance on safe and inclusive ERC layouts
- provision of private, quiet or separate spaces where possible
- guidance for staff on responding to safety and privacy needs.
This responds to findings that some people felt unsafe or uncomfortable in shared spaces.
Gendered benefits
This option is likely to:
- improve safety for women and gender-diverse people
- support people experiencing trauma or family violence
- improve dignity and comfort for a wide range of users
- increase willingness to access ERCs.
Gendered costs and risks
- Staff may need training to respond to safety concerns.
- Some facilities may not be able to meet all design expectations.
- Additional guidance may require staff training.
- Safety needs of different groups me compete in shared spaces.
Overall gender impact
Positive: This option addresses safety and inclusion. It recognises that people experience shared spaces differently and improves access to services.
Option 3: Improve communication and information pathways
Proposed change to the plan
The plan is updated to include:
- use of multiple communication channels and formats
- partnerships with local organisations to share information
- clearer and more targeted messaging about available services
This responds to findings that some groups did not receive or trust information.
Gendered benefits
This option is likely to:
- give women and carers information in time to act
- increase likelihood of men engaging with services
- reach people who don’t trust information through better channels
- improve service use by ensuring more equal access to information
Gendered costs and risks
- Requires coordination with external organisations.
- May increase time needed to prepare and deliver communications.
- Inconsistent delivery may reduce effectiveness.
- Reliance on partners may lead to uneven reach.
Overall gender impact
Positive: This option improves access to information and helps ensure services are used more equally across different groups.
Option 4: Improve how recovery services are designed and delivered
These recommendations are based on the preferred options identified in Step 3.
Proposed change to the plan
The plan is updated to:
- review how recovery services are offered and accessed
- adjust delivery methods to better meet different needs
- include more flexible and tailored support pathways.
This responds to findings that some groups, including men, were less likely to access recovery services.
Gendered benefits
This option is likely to:
- increase access for groups who are currently underrepresented
- improve outcomes by matching services to different needs
- support more equal participation in recovery support.
Gendered costs and risks
- Changes to service delivery may take time to implement.
- Some approaches may not work equally well for all groups.
- Requires ongoing monitoring and adjustment.
Overall gender impact
Positive: This option improves how services respond to different needs and supports more equal access to recovery support.
Option 5: Strengthen data collection and understanding of community needs
Proposed change to the plan
The plan is updated to:
- improve data collection across services
- include gender and diversity questions where appropriate
- use feedback processes to better understand community needs.
This responds to findings that there are gaps in data, including for gender-diverse people.
Gendered benefits
This option is likely to:
- improve understanding of how different groups are affected
- support better decision-making in future emergencies
- help identify gaps in service access and outcomes.
Gendered costs and risks
- Data collection changes may take time to implement.
- Some people may not feel comfortable sharing information.
- Data quality may vary across services.
Overall gender impact
Positive: This option strengthens the evidence base and supports more equitable planning and service delivery over time.
Preferred direction
The team finds that all options have a positive gender impact, and each addresses a different issue in the plan.
Rather than selecting a single option, the team proposes a combined approach, where these changes are built into the updated relief and recovery plan.
Output of Step 3
The team documents:
- the proposed changes to the plan
- the gendered benefits and costs of each option
- the overall gender impact.
These are used to develop clear recommendations in Step 4.
Step 4: Making recommendations
The team develops practical actions to improve the relief and recovery plan. These focus on improving access, safety and inclusion, while building on existing roles, services and processes. These changes will guide how services are delivered in practice during emergencies and recovery.
1. Improve flexible access to services
What this involves
Update the plan to support more flexible access to services. This includes using extended or staggered ERC hours where possible within existing arrangements, offering support outside standard hours, and using phone or outreach support where needed.
Who and when
Emergency Management Lead, with service teams. Include in plan update by 31 March 2027 and apply in activations from May 2027.
Why this matters
This improves access for people with caring roles, who are more often women, and for people who cannot attend at set times.
2. Strengthen safety and privacy in ERCs
What this involves
Update the plan to include clear guidance on safety and privacy in ERCs. This includes setting up quiet or private spaces where possible, considering layout during setup, and supporting staff to respond to safety concerns using existing facilities.
Who and when
Emergency Management Team. Include in plan update by 31 March 2027 and apply during ERC setup from May 2027.
Why this matters
This supports safer access for women, gender-diverse people and others who may feel unsafe in shared spaces. In practice, this means staff consider layout and privacy when setting up ERCs.
3. Improve communication approaches
What this involves
Update the plan to strengthen how information is shared. This includes using a mix of communication channels, working with local organisations, and providing clear messaging about available services, building on existing communication channels and partnerships.
Who and when
Communications Team, with Emergency Management. Include in plan update by 31 March 2027 and implement from June 2027.
Why this matters
This improves reach and trust, especially for groups less likely to receive or act on information.
4. Improve access to recovery services
What this involves
Update the plan to make recovery services easier to access and more flexible. This includes making small adjustments to how services are delivered and ensuring they are clearly explained to the community.
Who and when
Recovery Lead, with service teams. Include in plan update by 31 March 2027 and review delivery by September 2027.
Why this matters
This supports groups who are less likely to access services and improves uptake.
5. Improve data and feedback
What this involves
Update the plan to strengthen how data and feedback are collected and used. This includes making small improvements to existing data collection and using feedback to better understand who is accessing services.
Who and when
Emergency Management Team. Include in plan update by 31 March 2027 and begin implementation from July 2027.
Why this matters
This improves understanding of community needs and supports better planning over time.
Download a copy of this factsheet:
Updated