Poverty is a well-established risk factor for violence against women and children—but how much do we really know about this relationship and how to effectively break the cycle? We round up evidence from the recent biannual Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) Forum held in Cancun to highlight what is new and where we go next.

Poverty is a recognized risk factor for multiple forms of violence against women (VAW) and violence against children (VAC). Programming to reduce economic insecurity is also highlighted as a key strategy globally for prevention of both VAW and VAC (see WHO and partners’ RESPECT and INSPIRE strategies). But rigorous impact evaluations measuring violence tend to focus on a small subset of poverty reduction strategies (including social assistance and cash transfers). Because poverty reduction interventions often operate at scale, there are huge potential benefits to better understanding their relationships with VAW and VAC. However, doing this well may require collaboration across disciplines between public health experts and development economists who often evaluate poverty-focused interventions.

The Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) biannual forum is the premier international conference on VAW and VAC, bringing together researchers, implementers, activists, and funders to discuss the latest evidence and practice. SVRI is a leader in driving the violence prevention agenda and translating evidence into policy, and thus the forum sets the tone for new developments in the field. As members of the multidisciplinary Cash Transfer and Intimate Partner Violence Research Collaborative (hosted by IFPRI), we closely followed the diverse presentations on the role of economic strengthening—including but not limited to cash transfers—for violence prevention (see our roundup of the 2019 SVRI here). Here, we summarize new work from presentations across five categories of poverty, economic strengthening, and costing-related research. For each presentation, we identify research methodology using hashtags and include bonus materials, as available:

Cash transfers and “cash-plus” programming: A continued focus on cash transfers—but with some pivots—including stronger links to violence-specific objectives, cash-plus programs, and the integration of cash into case management

• Mozambique’s Child Grant (Cash + Care) Evaluation: The government’s cash-plus program, which combined unconditional cash transfers and community-based case management targeted at mothers of children under two years of age, reduced both intimate partner violence (IPV) and violent discipline against children (#RDD, Bonilla et al.).
• Cash Transfers and IPV in South Sudan: Providing a short-term cash transfer conditional on community garden work had no impact on levels of IPV, possibly due to the relatively low value in relation to overall household needs, as well as the ongoing unstable and fragile context (#quasi-experimental #qualitative, Robinson et al.).
• Men’s Engagement in Women’s Empowerment via Life Skills in Pakistan: Adding life skills building (women-only arm and couples’ arm) to Pakistan’s national cash transfer program over six months led to no measurable impact on overall domestic violence (#RCT, Karmaliani et al.).
• Cash Assistance in Gender-Based Violence (GBV) Case Management: UNFPA used cash within case management in 14 countries, which helped survivors relocate, access services, and cover basic needs for six months (#casestudy, Di Camilo et al., bonus: programming brief).
• GBV Prevention, Mitigation, and Response in Cash and Voucher Assistance (slide 12): Integrating cash into GBV case management for refugee and survivor populations in Colombia and Syria improved economic security and reduced incidents of GBV (#mixedmethods #quasi-experimental, Manell et al., bonus: technical report).

Gender-transformative livelihoods, agriculture, and skill-building interventions: Studies that aim to make economic interventions “gender transformative” continue to dominate evaluations—including practical guidance on how to integrate violence components into multisectoral interventions. So far, however, quantitative methods do not allow for causal attribution or de-linking economic programming from gender-transformative additions.

• Gender-Transformative Economic and Social Empowerment (EASE) Approach in Kenya: The Ripple Effect’s (formerly Send A Cow) EASE approach to increase farm productivity and nutrition showed qualitative improvements in relationship dynamics and gender attitudes, as well as decreasing trends in IPV after one year (#pre-post #qualitative, Murphy et al., bonus: technical report).

• Gender-Transformative Women’s Economic Empowerment in Guatemala: Journeys of Transformation—a 13-session couples’ curriculum that engages men as allies for women’s economic empowerment and is targeted to women in savings groups—showed qualitative evidence and downward trends in acceptance of IPV, as well as upward trends in joint decision-making and couples’ communication (#pre-post #qualitative, Wong et al., bonus: project outputs).
• Guidance for Integrating GBV into Sector-Specific Development Programming: Integrating GBV into sector programming is critical for violence prevention at scale, and USAID provides new practical guidance on integration (including for agriculture, climate, water, sanitation, and health programming) (#practicalguidance, Lanham et al., bonus: guidance for sector actors).

Integrating violence prevention strategies with livelihood and economic programming in humanitarian and displacement settings: A welcome flurry of studies in humanitarian and displacement settings—however, again, limited ability to identify quantitative causal impacts (with the exception of a study in Rwanda) or unbundle economic components from violence prevention components.

• Integrating GBV Prevention into Sustainable Livelihoods and Recovery in Iraq: Integrating an adaptation of Indashyikirwa, a couples-based biweekly program, into diverse livelihoods projects with internally displaced peoples and host communities in Iraq led to positive changes—including improved relationships, equitable parenting, and increased mobility for women—and retention in the livelihoods intervention (#qualitative, Ibadat et al., bonus: learning brief).
• Piloting “Stronger Together” in Southern Lebanon for Syrian Refugees and Host Communities: A couples’ curriculum implemented among women engaged in livelihood activities showed promising trends in economic outcomes and healthy communication, and improved men’s gender attitudes (#pre-post #qualitative, Nourallah and Gevers).
• An Abbreviated Personal Agency Program for Women in Rwandan Refugee Camps: A short training for women on personal agency—including identifying and targeting beliefs and behaviors that limit social and economic empowerment—paired with partner activities (such as clean cooking and positive communication) improved mental health and economic outcomes, but had limited average impacts on GBV (#RCT, Kalra et al., bonus: journal article describing agency training).
• Group-Based Social Enterprises among South Sudanese Refugee Survivors in Northern Uganda: Group-based social enterprises for refugee survivors were linked to emotional and economic wellbeing and resilience within participatory action research—a method that empowered respondents and helped restore dignity (#pre-post #qualitative, Liebling et al., bonus: project brief).
• Addressing Sexual and GBV through Integrated Food Security Programming in South Sudan: Fortifying Equality and Economic Diversification (FEED)—which centers on farmer field schools and GBV prevention campaigns, and training of community and faith leaders on women’s rights and legal entitlements—resulted in positive trends in both agricultural and food security outcomes, as well as reporting and experiences of GBV (#pre-post #qualitative, Isaak et al.).

Costing and cost-effectiveness: New work summarizes and explores the complexities of methodology and evidence on the cost of violence and cost-effectiveness of interventions

• The Economic Cost of Violence Against Women (slide 14): A systematic review of eight studies shows that the out-of-pocket costs to individuals seeking care ranged from US$30 to US$156 and that productivity losses ranged from US$74 to US$2,151. However, variations in methodology and challenges in identifying cost metrics indicate these figures are a fraction of true economic costs (#review, Vyas et al., bonus: journal article).
• Global Estimates of Costs and Effects of IPV Prevention (slide 12): A rapid review and meta-analysis of literature on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of violence prevention and care shows that most evidence is from North America and Africa and evaluates programming related to adolescents, relationship skills, and behavioral change. Further methodological standardization of health and economic effects is needed (#review, Ferrari et al.).
• Cost-Effectiveness of Gender Training in the MAISHA Intervention: The 10-session MAISHA gender training in northern Tanzania cost US$5,033 per IPV-free year and US$17,334 per disability-adjusted life year averted, but improvements are needed in IPV trials to comprehensively consider health and societal costs (#Cost-effectiveness, Ferrari et al., bonus: journal article from MAISHA trial).
• The Economic Burden of IPV in Colombia: An analysis of data from the Violence Against Children Survey shows the single-year health burden of physical IPV was US$90.6 million, of which nearly 40 percent was among conflicted-affected populations (#costing, Brown et al., bonus: journal article).
• The Cost of GBV and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Bolivia: GBV cost 1.8 percent of annual GDP in Bolivia, yet investments to achieve the GBV-related SDGs would only cost 0.6 percent of annual GDP—in addition, for every US$1 the government spends on GBV, survivors spend US$7 (#costing, Camacho et al.).
• Economic Costs of VAW in Vietnam (slide 13): VAW is a drain on the productivity of women (linked to 31 percent lower income and out-of-pocket expenses equal to 25 percent of income) and cost to the economy (productivity costs equal 1.8 percent of GDP) (#costing, Ha et al., bonus: policy brief).

Financial abuse, violence in the workplace, and more: An important recognition of financial abuse and workplace abuse as a gap in global understanding of violence faced by women and youth

• Financial Abuse as an Invisible Form of IPV: (slide 17): A review of 46 articles shows growing clarity and consistency in terminologies and measures in the economic abuse literature, including economic control, exploitation, and sabotage (#review, Postmus et al., bonus: journal article).
• Sexual Exploitation, Abuse, and Harassment in the Private Sector: Harassment is common in the private sector workplace, but new ways of working can assist survivors and transform social norms in and beyond the workplace (#practicalguidance, Cullinan, bonus: additional materials).
• Workplace Violence against Adolescents in Tanzania (slide 4): Using panel data gathered on adolescents from 2014 to 2019 (ages 17–19 at endline), researchers find high levels of past-year workplace violence (40 percent) among those in paid work—with higher risk among females and those from lower socioeconomic status, among others (#correlational, Knight et al., bonus: journal article).
• Empowered Aid: Participatory pilots of aid distribution (such as fuel and food) in Lebanon and Uganda show how to center local actors in building scalable models to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse in delivery (#participatory, Potts et al., bonus: additional materials).

What can we conclude from this new evidence? First, while there is a welcome expansion in the study of gender-transformative livelihood models and integrated programming (such as violence or gender training plus economic components), we still have an insufficient understanding of the causal impacts of economic programming alone on VAW. Why is this important? While gender-transformative models may be a goal for some, most large-scale programming is not implemented this way. The additional gender-transformative components often are hard to scale and require dedicated, highly trained facilitators to carry them out. Thus, “making the case” for sector-specific changes necessitates an understanding of the independent and synergistic effects of the different program components. While it is encouraging to see examples where these bundled programs led to promising effects, many studies relied on qualitative work to show this linkage (as many studies used pre-post quantitative designs, which cannot contribute to evidence on effectiveness). The next generation of research should include the ability to unbundle causal impacts of program components and investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of each additional component. This will allow us to understand if and where additional gender-transformative components are needed—or even required—to mitigate against possible increases in violence, and alternatively, where it might be more cost-effective to scale up economic programming alone.

Second, we need to invest in more evaluations of diverse economic interventions, including broad-based social protection (such as social insurance or housing support), asset transfers and property rights, and employment–programing that is increasingly implemented at scale. As a side note, we have two mixed-method reviews underway on two of these areas (see employment and IPV and assets, property rights, and VAW). While there is recent research on diverse economic interventions, studies tend to be undertaken by development economists who are rarely represented at the SVRI Forum. For example, a recent paper shows that paid employment opportunities from Rwandan coffee mills results in 26 percent lower reports of domestic violence, with promising evidence supporting this relationship also shown in India. We also see a strong need to explore programming that can mitigate and prevent sexual harassment and abuse, exploitation, and violence in the workplace, which is a hugely under-researched area in violence prevention.

Third, nearly all the evidence summarized above focuses on VAW—only in a few exceptional cases do studies consider the intersection with VAC (including child marriage, see exception: Mozambique’s cash and care program). Yet, economic programming has clear linkages to both types of violence, with a recently released Global Research Agenda highlighting the importance of better understanding this intersection. Focusing exclusively on VAW misses a more holistic understanding of family dynamics and potential spillover effects on children. We hope to see more studies taking this approach to examining program impact synergies across multiple types of violence in the future.

Fourth, we still have gaps in methodology around how to best measure diverse forms of violence (such as sexual harassment, workplace violence, or economic abuse) with greater accuracy, and how to understand the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent violence. Cost-effectiveness measures are needed to justify investment in violence prevention, but must consider broader health and social effects within communities. A six-country analysis showed that investing in community-based violence prevention interventions can have broader health and social benefits and represent value for money—in particular when targeted at female beneficiaries. However, there is a need for more comparative and complete evidence from different types of interventions and different delivery modalities to further establish societal benefits. In addition, methodological advances are needed to account for full benefits across health and development outcomes in a common metric to make the case for co-financing across sectors (such as education or development).

To act on the potential of poverty as a driver of violence, we need to fill evidence gaps. We hope future funding will focus on this intersection, and look forward to more innovative and rigorous research on economic programming, VAW, and VAC at future SVRI Forums to help guide future programming efforts and drive policy change.

The authors are members of the Cash Transfer and Intimate Partner Violence Research Collaborative, an interdisciplinary research consortium hosted by IFPRI, and they thank Shalini Roy for helpful comments on an earlier version of this blog. The collaborative aims to understand and leverage the potential of cash transfers for IPV reduction. More information and resources can be found on the collaborative’s webpage.