What are the biggest challenges that survivors of gender-based violence face?

The studies we reviewed reflected the fact that women don’t experience violence as only a legal problem, or only an economic one, or only a psychological one. They experience it across all dimensions of their lives.

Survivors need more than emergency shelters or a legal case. They need safety, income, belonging, dignity and opportunities to lead.

The most important lessons from our study were that survivors are not passive beneficiaries waiting for rescue. They are innovators, organisers and leaders.

Secondly, our findings show that fragmented, single-sector responses to gender-based violence survivors are not enough.

Our research identified four recurring themes that any serious response must address together:

• psychological care through peer-led healing

• economic collectives such as savings groups and cooperatives

• integrated digital and mobile services

• community anchoring through culturally adapted, participatory approaches.

What did you find has worked?

The reviewed studies assessed women’s empowerment by examining which services enabled them to gain greater agency, self-efficacy, economic independence, decision-making power, psychosocial wellbeing and social belonging.

“What works” was measured through outcomes such as reduced dependence on abusive partners, increased participation in income-generating activities and leadership in cooperatives and savings groups. Other indicators included stronger peer support, reduced trauma symptoms, and greater recognition within households and communities.

Women described stokvels (savings groups) as lifelines helping them care for their children, repair homes and build confidence through shared responsibility. Others described their roles leading cooperatives as transforming how they saw themselves, and how their children saw them.

Our review also highlighted what is too often treated as a separate issue: the intersection of gender-based violence and energy poverty.

What role does access to energy systems play?

Dark paths, uncharged phones and unlit homes are not incidental details. They are conditions that increase vulnerability and reduce access to help.

Any serious gender-based violence response framework must, therefore, include energy access as a structural intervention, not an add-on.

We found that solar initiatives met multiple needs, providing a useful template for supporting survivors’ recovery. When homes, paths and community spaces are dark, insecurity increases. When women cannot charge their phones, they lose access to help, coordination and income-generating opportunities.

Our review suggests that small, community-owned solar systems deliver multiple benefits. They provide safer lighting and create income opportunities. We found that solar cooperatives offered women more than access to electricity. They also:

• created safer, well-lit communal spaces

• improved household security

• provided emergency phone charging

• supported income-generating opportunities

• reduced dependence on neighbours for basic energy needs

• gave women visible leadership roles.

This access means women can feed their families, build businesses and lead in their communities. Solar power turns survival into entrepreneurship, poverty into possibility.

What needs to change in the response to gender-based violence?

Our study shows that fragmented, single-sector responses to gender-based violence are not enough. Survivors experience violence across every aspect of their lives. Effective responses must, therefore, address multiple needs at the same time.

We identified four themes that work best together: psychological care, economic collectives, digital and mobile services, and participatory approaches. When these are delivered in isolation, their impact is limited. When they are integrated, survivors are more likely to move from crisis to leadership.

Across the 10 studies we reviewed, we consistently found that the most durable outcomes came when survivors were involved in designing solutions rather than simply receiving support.

The family-community-state model that emerged from our research reflects what survivors themselves told us they needed: partnership, not charity.

For example, women who joined stokvels gained more than an income. They also gained a stronger sense of identity and the capacity to support others. Additionally, women in solar cooperatives were able to create safer communal spaces, run charging businesses, mentor peers and become visible community leaders.

Survivors also identified what undermines this model. First, top-down government programmes that bypass local knowledge. Second, funding structures that reward large infrastructure projects over small, community-owned ones.

Written by Azwihangwisi Judith Mphidi, Adjunct Academic, University of South Africa

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.