More Harm Than Help? Rwanda’s Gender Program Fuels Intimate Partner Attacks

A recent study led by the World Bank’s Africa Gender Innovation Lab (GIL), in collaboration with Rwanda’s Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion (MIGEPROF) and local NGOs, has revealed unsettling results from an intervention intended to curb intimate partner violence (IPV) in rural Rwanda. The program, part of the World Bank-funded Great Lakes Sexual and Gender-Based Violence and Women’s Health initiative, was a 22-week couples’ training curriculum designed to foster equitable gender dynamics and reduce violence within households. Despite its progressive intent, the intervention paradoxically led to a measurable increase in both physical and sexual violence among women, not only among those who received the training but also among those indirectly exposed through community proximity.

Shifting Norms, Rising Tensions

The intervention was embedded in Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs), a popular community-based financial model, and used a curriculum modeled on the previously implemented Indashyikirwa program. Couples engaged in weekly facilitated discussions that addressed gender roles, relationship dynamics, non-violent conflict resolution, and mutual household responsibilities. The program aimed to shift conservative gender attitudes and promote healthier interpersonal interactions.

To rigorously evaluate the program’s effectiveness, researchers from the Africa Gender Innovation Lab employed a cluster-randomized controlled trial across 98 villages, targeting over 2,000 couples. Villages were randomly assigned into treatment, spillover, and control groups. Data was collected through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) to ensure privacy and reliability when reporting sensitive issues like IPV. Follow-up surveys were conducted six months after the intervention concluded. Yet, the results defied expectations: women in the treatment group reported 5 percentage points more physical IPV and 10 percentage points more sexual IPV compared to the control group, statistically significant increases of 15% and 24%, respectively. Even more distressingly, women in the spillover group, who lived in the same intervention villages but did not participate in the training, reported 11 percentage points more physical IPV and 17 percentage points more sexual IPV.

The Gender Attitude Divide

A key insight from the study was the growing divergence in attitudes between men and women within couples. Women who participated in or were exposed to the training began to adopt more progressive views on gender equality and shared household responsibilities. However, many men, particularly those in the spillover group, responded by doubling down on traditional patriarchal beliefs, becoming more likely to justify IPV and more resistant to shifting power dynamics. This growing ideological gap appeared to cause friction within households, with some men resorting to violence as a means of reasserting their authority.

Interestingly, even among men who participated in the program and showed some positive behavioral changes, the broader community sentiment and peer resistance likely undermined those gains. The study concluded that violence was not simply a reaction to new ideas but a backlash against a perceived threat to male dominance and identity. These dynamics illustrate the high risk involved in interventions that confront entrenched gender roles without simultaneously engaging men in a way that reduces defensiveness and fosters mutual understanding.

Unintended Consequences Beyond IPV

The program’s adverse effects extended well beyond increases in reported IPV. Couples in both treatment and spillover groups experienced a deterioration in relationship quality. Men were more likely to spend money on themselves, signaling a breakdown in financial cooperation. Alcohol use increased across groups, and depression was more frequently reported by both spouses. Infidelity by husbands was also noted at higher rates, further compounding household instability and emotional distress.

These ripple effects underscore the need for extreme care in designing interventions that challenge normative gender roles. The researchers emphasized that resistance is not only possible but likely, and can manifest in ways that worsen the very outcomes programs aim to address. They advocate for real-time monitoring systems, adaptive program delivery, and robust supervision structures to detect early signs of strain and modify approaches accordingly. The report warns that unless adequate resources, timelines, and support mechanisms are built into the design, such initiatives risk exacerbating women’s vulnerability.

Toward Safer, Smarter Interventions

The sobering findings of this study highlight the importance of rethinking IPV prevention strategies. The authors suggest alternative approaches that frame equitable gender dynamics in terms that are less confrontational or threatening to male identity. For instance, interventions that emphasize the shared economic and emotional benefits of healthy relationships may gain broader acceptance. Promising directions include adolescent-targeted programs, community-wide conversations involving respected leaders, and media-based “edutainment” campaigns that use fictional narratives to encourage reflection and behavioral change without direct confrontation.

Furthermore, some economic empowerment interventions, such as cash transfers and inclusive livelihood initiatives, have demonstrated success in improving household dynamics and reducing violence, often without triggering the kind of backlash observed in this study. These alternatives, particularly when coupled with long-term community engagement, may offer a more stable foundation for achieving gender equity.

Finally, the study’s ability to detect severe spillover effects makes a compelling case for including such assessments in future research. Even non-participating individuals can be negatively affected by behavior change campaigns in their communities. A deeper understanding of how attitudes and reactions spread, both positively and negatively, could inform the design of safer, more effective programs in similar contexts.

The case from Rwanda serves as a powerful reminder that social change is rarely linear or predictable. Well-intentioned efforts to reduce IPV can, if improperly executed, increase risk and harm. The findings underscore the need for humility, vigilance, and innovation in the pursuit of gender equality. Only through sensitive design, adaptive execution, and comprehensive monitoring can we ensure that the solutions we deploy do not inadvertently deepen the problems we seek to solve.