Funding pressures block South African NGOs from preventing gender-based violence

South Africa remains one of the countries most severely affected by gender-based violence (GBV). Despite comprehensive policy frameworks and sustained activism, the persistence of high GBV rates highlights the urgency of addressing the institutional conditions undermining the country’s response capacity.

A new peer-reviewed study reveals that a wave of institutional challenges is undermining the operational capacity of GBV NGOs in South Africa. Published in Violence Against Women (2025), the research titled “Unveiling the Challenges of Gender-Based Violence NGOs in South Africa” exposes how funding dependencies, policy constraints, and limited strategic autonomy are weakening the ability of these organizations to respond effectively to one of the country’s most urgent public health crises.

Drawing on qualitative data from interviews with NGO staff, the study reveals that most South African GBV-focused NGOs remain constrained to short-term, reactive service provision. Their ability to pursue long-term, preventive strategies is undermined by external funder demands, uneven resource allocation, and minimal opportunities for collaboration, learning, or evidence-driven planning.

What interventions are GBV NGOs implementing, and where do they fall short?

The study finds that the overwhelming majority of South African GBV NGOs focus their interventions on secondary and tertiary responses. This includes direct care for survivors, such as shelter, counseling, legal aid, and emergency services. Far fewer organizations invest in primary prevention, initiatives designed to reduce the occurrence of GBV by addressing its root causes through education, advocacy, or structural reform.

This imbalance, according to the research, is not driven by strategy but by external constraints. The influence of funders, particularly governmental and international donors, was found to shape both the type and scope of interventions. Funding criteria often emphasize measurable, short-term outcomes that fit within tightly defined timelines. This disincentivizes longer-term, community-based prevention programs which may be more effective but are harder to quantify and slower to yield tangible results.

As a result, GBV NGOs find themselves locked into a cycle of crisis response, addressing the aftermath of violence without the institutional space or resources to prevent it in the first place. The research further notes that this systemic skew toward reactive programming can inadvertently normalize crisis conditions, blunting the transformative ambitions of the GBV sector.

How do funding requirements and external pressures shape NGO decision-making?

Decision-making within GBV NGOs is found to be strongly shaped by funder priorities, often at the expense of local needs and evidence-based design. The study highlights how organizations must constantly tailor their operations to secure funding, resulting in strategic drift and compromised internal coherence.

Funders frequently impose specific program designs, deliverables, and reporting mechanisms that do not always align with the ground realities of GBV service provision. The pressure to demonstrate success in terms of quantifiable outputs, such as number of workshops held or cases processed, can displace deeper, process-driven approaches that build trust, community resilience, or social change.

In addition, many NGOs struggle with the administrative and bureaucratic load associated with donor compliance. Smaller organizations with fewer resources often lack the capacity to meet complex reporting requirements, making them less competitive for funding. This reinforces a divide between larger, urban NGOs that can adapt to donor expectations and smaller, community-based groups that may be more embedded but lack access to formal institutional support.

Moreover, the research found that funders’ priorities rarely evolve based on frontline feedback or emerging data. This disconnect discourages innovation and learning within the sector and leaves NGOs with little room to experiment or shift tactics as conditions change.

What are the implications for collaboration, learning and long-term impact?

The research reveals a fragmented ecosystem in which GBV NGOs operate in silos, with limited collaboration or information sharing. While some organizations engage in partnerships, these are often transactional and shaped by funding mandates rather than organic alliances or shared strategic vision.

This fragmentation stifles sectoral learning and hinders the development of a unified voice capable of influencing national policy. It also weakens the institutional memory of the sector, as organizations have little opportunity to evaluate their work or learn from each other.

The study warns that without a shift in structural conditions, South Africa’s GBV response will remain piecemeal and reactive. To reverse this trend, the authors call for a rethinking of funding models, greater inclusion of evidence-based practices in program design, and systemic efforts to foster collaboration and cross-learning.

In particular, there is a need to redistribute power within the GBV sector, giving grassroots NGOs more autonomy and voice in shaping interventions that reflect the realities of the communities they serve. The study suggests that funders and policymakers adopt a more flexible, trust-based model of engagement, one that allows NGOs to set priorities, experiment with approaches, and pursue sustainable, long-term solutions.