Social Norms and Security and Justice Services for Gender-based Violence in Nepal: Programmatic Implications from a Baseline Mixed-Methods Assessment
Cari Jo Clark,Brian Batayeh,Iris Shao,Irina Bergenfeld,Manoj Pandey,Sudhindra Sharma,Shikha Shrestha,Amritha Gourisankar,Anudeeta Gautam,Tehnyat J. Sohail,Holly Shakya,Grace Morrow,Abbie Shervinskie,Subada Soti,Tehynat J. Solail
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.20.24300968
2024-01-22
MedRxiv
Abstract:Background: Gender-based violence (GBV) is highly prevalent throughout the world. Only a small fraction of survivors seek help from security and justice providers (S&J) such as the police or courts, due in part to social norms that discourage help-seeking. Social norms interventions have proven effective in combatting GBV but have not been tested alongside S&J interventions. The Strengthening Access to Holistic, Gender Responsive, and Accountable Justice in Nepal (SAHAJ) project was designed to fill this gap. We provide a comprehensive mixed-methods situation analysis of GBV-related social norms, help-seeking, S&J service provision. Methods: The SAHAJ evaluation is a 3-armed, mixed-methods evaluation of the impact of social norms programming alone, S&J programming alone, and combined programming in 17 communities in Nepal. Baseline data included a household survey (N=3830), a sub-study of youth (N=143) and married adults (N=464) in one site and qualitative data collection including interviews with S&J service providers, help-seeking GBV survivors and families (N=68), and focus group discussions with police, youth groups, and school management committees (N=20) in four sites. Descriptive analysis of survey data was triangulated with findings from a modified grounded theory analysis of the qualitative data to elucidate the role of social norms and other barriers limiting help-seeking. Results: GBV was perceived to be common, especially child marriage, domestic violence, eve-teasing, and dowry-related violence. Formal help-seeking was low, despite positive attitudes towards S&J providers. Participants described injunctive norms discouraging formal reporting in cases of GBV and sanctions for women violating these norms. Conclusions: Norms favoring family- and community-based mediation remain strong. Sanctions for formal reporting remain a deterrent to help-seeking. Leveraging gender-equitable role models, such as female S&J providers, and connecting S&J providers to women and youth may capitalize on existing shifts.