Comprehensive Solutions to Gender-Based Violence

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/25

 Dr. Manuel Contreras-Urbina discusses the complexities of gender-based violence (GBV), drawing on over 25 years of experience. He emphasizes a comprehensive approach that addresses root causes like patriarchal norms, economic inequality, and institutional gaps. Contreras-Urbina critiques short-term or superficial interventions and advocates for integrating GBV prevention into education, social protection, and peacebuilding, among others. He highlights data collection challenges in conflict zones and the ethical responsibilities involved. Notable country examples include Australia, Brazil, and Mozambique. The conversation explores what truly works to reduce GBV and stresses multi-sectoral, community-driven, and long-term strategies for lasting impact.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Dr. Manuel Contreras-Urbina is a Senior Social Development Specialist focusing on gender-based violence (GBV) in the World Bank. Contreras-Urbina is a gender specialist with over 25 years of experience in gender and GBV research and programming. Before joining the World Bank, he served as the Director of Research at the Global Women’s Institute at George Washington University, as a Programme Officer at UN Women in Mexico and Central America, and as Coordinator of the Gender, Violence, and Rights portfolio at the International Center for Research on Women.

He earned a Ph.D. in Population and Gender Studies from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a Master’s in Demography from El Colegio de México, and a Bachelor’s in Mathematics and Actuarial Science from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. His work focuses on violence against women and girls, social norms, men and masculinities, and sexual and reproductive health. He has contributed to evidence-based strategies and research on GBV prevention and response worldwide. He’s been everywhere.

So, my first question would be this: From an official standpoint, when people think of gender-based violence, they might only be thinking about physical violence. However, international institutions tend to take a broader view, which includes psychological or emotional violence as well. How do you define gender-based violence?

Manuel Contreras-Urbina: We usually follow the United Nations’ definitions, which result from many years of expert dialogue. We define gender-based violence as encompassing various types of violence rooted primarily in gender inequality—where there is a power imbalance between men and women.

Typically, the majority of those affected are women and girls. That does not mean other populations are unaffected, but the prevalence among women and girls is particularly high. There are different types of GBV. The most common is intimate partner violence. Others include early marriage, female genital mutilation, and sexual violence perpetrated by a non-partner.

Within intimate partner violence, there are several forms: physical, sexual, psychological, and economic violence. So, there are many dimensions to GBV.

And yes, you’re right. The most recognized or visible form of GBV tends to be physical violence. People are more aware of that. But the other forms—psychological, economic, sexual—exist and are deeply impactful.

Sometimes, the forms of violence are not even recognized by the perpetrators themselves, but they exist—and there are clear definitions for all of them. They are also quite common. For example, sexual violence is still not legally recognized in some countries. However, we are now seeing more and more progressive legal frameworks that recognize all these types and forms of violence that I mentioned.

Jacobsen: What are the key lessons from global data on gender-based violence and, particularly, from funding institutions that have worked to reduce its prevalence? There must be findings showing what kinds of programs and investments are effective—and, on the other hand, interventions that might sound good on paper but do not yield real-world results. So the question is: what works, and what do you think is commonly believed to work but does not?

Contreras-Urbina: Yes, that’s a critical question. There are different models for what works, and we do have evidence about effective efforts.

Ultimately, we want to see a reduction in violence, and that takes a comprehensive approach. That includes action at the policy level—such as establishing legal frameworks, national action plans, and protocols—which leads to stronger systems that can address GBV. This is especially important across sectors like health, education, and justice, where institutions need the capacity to prevent and respond to various forms of violence.

Those frameworks should then translate into programmatic actions—services and programs that provide support to survivors and work on prevention. That might include comprehensive survivor services in health and education or legal support. Beyond services, institutions—often in collaboration with civil society—need to implement prevention interventions. So, what kinds of interventions prevent violence?

They usually address the root causes, namely, the transformation of patriarchal gender norms. These long-term efforts create a more gender-equal environment at the community level. They involve work on women’s economic empowerment, leadership development, and the redistribution of unpaid care work. They also include community awareness and education on gender equality and rights. That works—but it takes time. These interventions are long-term by nature.

And what does not work? Short-term, isolated efforts generally do not work. Running a campaign without linking it to broader systemic change is ineffective. Likewise, programs that involve brief or one-time sessions—talking to people two or three times and expecting long-term impact—do not work.

Also, interventions that only focus on perpetrators without addressing the broader social and structural context have limited or no impact. Prevention has to be holistic, sustained, and rooted in transforming power dynamics and social norms.

So, it is not that these interventions are completely ineffective—it is that isolated or superficial efforts tend not to work. What does work is a comprehensive approach. At the programmatic level, the focus must be on addressing the root causes of violence, particularly harmful gender norms. Equally important is fostering a community culture that does not view violence as an acceptable way to resolve conflict.

One key area is violence against children, especially the use of violence as a method of discipline. That normalizes violence and creates a culture where it becomes an acceptable tool for control or punishment. We have seen that positive parenting programs—which discourage the use of violence against children—can have a meaningful impact, including reductions in intimate partner violence later on.

We also recognize that in many contexts—though not exclusively—poverty can exacerbate violence. While poverty does not cause GBV directly, it can intensify existing stresses and risk factors, particularly where families face displacement, migration, overcrowded housing, or prolonged unemployment.

Another effective strategy is integrating gender-sensitive approaches into social protection programs. For example, cash transfers directed at women can empower them economically and help create more stable and equitable household environments.

Lastly, one of the main approaches we are now emphasizing is integrating all these effective models into the education system. Schools should be safe spaces for children and environments where they learn about gender equality—where teachers, students, and the broader school community receive education about equality between men and women and about nonviolence.

We are working toward embedding these values into curricula and education policies, not as optional content but as a core part of delivering education. I believe this is one of the most promising long-term strategies to reduce violence and shape a different, more equal society.

Jacobsen: We are also living in a time of numerous ongoing conflicts—Russia-Ukraine, Sudan, Ethiopia, Israel-Palestine, and others. How do you approach the analysis of GBV in the context of conflict zones? And what are some of the ethical challenges that arise in that work?

Contreras-Urbina: That is a very important question. We already know from global evidence that violence increases significantly in conflict and humanitarian settings—across all forms of GBV.

The most immediate example that comes to mind is sexual violence perpetrated by combatants or armed actors. But it is not limited to that. All types of GBV tend to increase in conflict—intimate partner violence, for example, often worsens during periods of displacement or prolonged instability.

Collecting data in these contexts is incredibly challenging. Conflicts tend to unfold in phases, and each phase presents different risks and ethical considerations. Conducting research ethically means always ensuring confidentiality, informed consent, and do-no-harm principles. The safety of respondents and researchers is paramount.

There is also the challenge of underreporting due to stigma, fear, and the collapse of formal support systems. So, even where we do have data, we must interpret it cautiously and always prioritize survivors’ needs and agency.

There is typically an acute phase of conflict, followed by a medium phase and then a peacebuilding or state-building phase. In the first two phases, data collection is very difficult due to security risks and instability.

However, organizations like UNHCR and others are often present in the field and collect information through incident reporting mechanisms. These are based on cases reported by individuals to service providers or field teams, and while they do not provide prevalence data, they help us understand the types of violence occurring and where support is most needed.

More accurate and ethically collected data is sometimes possible in refugee or displacement camps, where conditions are more stable. Standardized methodologies can be applied to gather information responsibly in those settings.

There is now a well-developed field of methodology focused on collecting GBV data in conflict and humanitarian settings. Guidelines like those from the World Health Organization and UNFPA provide ethical frameworks emphasizing confidentiality, informed consent, and survivor safety. When these protocols are followed, meaningful data can be gathered, even in very challenging contexts.

Then, in the post-conflict or peacebuilding phase, researchers often conduct retrospective surveys with communities in more stable areas. These surveys ask individuals to reflect on their experiences during the conflict, its immediate aftermath, and the recovery period. From this, we can trace trajectories and trends—how violence changed over time and how interventions might have affected outcomes.

What we know for certain is that GBV increases during conflict. And just as critically, failing to address GBV during peacebuilding and state-building creates a cycle that allows violence—not just gender-based violence but broader forms of violence—to persist. So, it is essential to address GBV as an integral part of peace processes if we are serious about ending cycles of violence.

Jacobsen: Speaking from the UN context, Which member states have been truly remarkable in their ability to combat gender-based violence comprehensively? Specifically, which have applied the programs and strategies you recommend—realistically, at scale—and shown progress over the medium to long term?

Contreras-Urbina: Several countries have made strong efforts. Of course, this is a complex issue, and progress can be challenging and uneven.

If we begin with high-income countries, the Nordic countries—like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark—have been leaders in advancing this agenda. Canada has also been proactive in integrating GBV into its national policies. But I would say Australia is a particularly good example. Australia has taken a comprehensive approach, with strong government awareness, investment, and efforts to involve a wide range of actors—across sectors and communities. It stands out as a model in this regard.

When we look at middle—and low-income countries, many have made important efforts. These may not always result in an immediate reduction in violence, but that does not mean they are ineffective. Many of these countries have developed solid legal frameworks and national action plans and have made substantial investments in prevention and response infrastructure.

Brazil is a good example in Latin America. It has taken major steps through legislation and programming to address GBV.

In Africa, one example—based on work we have supported through the World Bank and in coordination with other organizations—is Mozambique. The country has invested significantly in GBV response systems.

India has taken important steps in Asia, though the country’s scale and complexity can make national coordination a challenge. Civil society is also driving much of the progress there.

In Eastern Europe, Uzbekistan stands out for having developed robust policies to combat gender-based violence in recent years.

That said, it is not that other countries are doing nothing. Most countries are taking action in some form. The reality is that this requires a multi-stakeholder effort. It is not only the government—it must involve civil society, local leaders, institutions, and communities working together.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts based on today’s conversation?

Contreras-Urbina: No, just to say thank you. These were excellent questions.

Jacobsen: Manuel, thank you very much for your time today and for sharing your expertise. I truly appreciate it.

Contreras-Urbina: Thank you. Very good questions—that’s what we’re here for.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.