Gender-Based Violence: Why Care Policy Matters
Gender-based violence (GBV) is a global human rights and public health crisis with devastating social and economic costs. Yet the systems designed to prevent violence and support survivors often overlook one of the conditions that shapes women’s vulnerability: care.
Unpaid care work, including childcare, eldercare, household work, collecting water and firewood, and providing emotional support, is essential to households and communities. But it is predominantly performed by women and remains largely invisible in economic policy.
The unequal distribution of care can limit women’s access to paid employment and income, increasing their financial dependence on partners. For women experiencing violence, this dependence can make it harder to leave abusive relationships or access support.
This policy brief examines the relationship between GBV and care systems and argues that investment in care infrastructure must form part of a long-term strategy to prevent violence, support survivors and address the structural inequalities that make women more vulnerable to abuse.
Understanding gender-based violence
GBV encompasses physical, sexual, psychological and economic harm and is rooted in unequal power relations and social norms. While anyone can experience gender-based violence, women and girls are disproportionately affected.
The causes of GBV are structural. Patriarchal systems, discriminatory social norms and economic inequality can reinforce women’s vulnerability to violence. Financial dependence on abusive partners can restrict women’s ability to leave violent situations, while poverty and insecure employment can compound these risks.
The brief therefore argues that addressing GBV requires more than responding to violence after it occurs. Prevention must also address the economic and social conditions that allow violence and inequality to persist.
The care–GBV connection
Unpaid care work is essential to the functioning of households and communities, but it is predominantly performed by women and remains marginalised in economic policy.
The unequal distribution of care can restrict women’s participation in paid employment and leave them financially dependent on male partners, including abusive partners. This dependency can make it more difficult to leave violent relationships or seek help.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed these vulnerabilities. Across several G20 countries, lockdowns coincided with increases in reported GBV while women also faced greater care responsibilities and reduced access to support services and income-generating opportunities.
The relationship works in both directions. Inadequate public services, including healthcare, childcare, water and energy, shift responsibility for meeting basic needs onto households, disproportionately increasing women’s unpaid care burden. At the same time, the aftermath of violence can leave women responsible for caring for children, older people and other household members while they themselves require support and recovery.
A global crisis with local consequences
GBV affects countries across the G20 and Global South, although its forms and prevalence vary across contexts.
In South Africa, Statistics South Africa reported that one in five women over the age of 18 has experienced physical violence by a partner. More than 50,000 sexual offences are reported annually, the majority of which are rape cases. The brief also notes that many incidents go unreported because of fear, stigma and a lack of trust in the police and legal system.
South Africa’s National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide recognises economic power, care, support and healing among its six pillars. However, implementation remains under-resourced, while community-based care centres and informal caregiving systems are often overstretched and insufficiently connected to GBV response services.
Experiences elsewhere point to the importance of integrated care systems. In France, childcare and paid parental leave policies can reduce women’s economic dependence and support labour-market participation, while in Brazil, Casa da Mulher Brasileira centres bring legal aid, psychological support and childcare together in a single service. These examples illustrate how care infrastructure can form part of both prevention and survivor support, although access remains uneven.
Gaps in GBV policy
GBV responses are often divided between justice, health and social services, resulting in fragmented interventions that do not adequately address the role of care.
One important gap is the limited ability of survivor services to accommodate caregiving responsibilities. In South Africa, many shelters lack the capacity to accommodate women with children. This can force survivors to choose between seeking safety and remaining with their dependants.
The problem extends beyond shelters. Unpaid care work remains largely invisible in national budgeting and policy frameworks, while women working in care-intensive sectors such as domestic work, community health work and long-term care often face low wages, insecure employment and inadequate labour protections.
Public investment in childcare, eldercare, water, energy and safe transport is also insufficient in many contexts. When these systems fail, households absorb the additional burden, increasing women’s financial dependence and potentially limiting their ability to leave abusive situations.
The economic cost of GBV
GBV carries significant direct and indirect economic costs.
Direct costs include healthcare, legal services, counselling, policing and shelter provision, as well as expenses incurred by survivors for transport, medical treatment and relocation. Indirect costs include lost productivity, reduced workplace performance and impacts on children’s education and wellbeing.
In South Africa, the economic cost of GBV was estimated at more than R36 billion in 2019. Across the European Union, the annual cost has been estimated at €366 billion, with more than half attributed to health and care services.
These costs also reveal what the brief describes as a “care-cost trade-off”. Resources spent responding to violence after it occurs can come at the expense of investments in preventive care infrastructure, including childcare, eldercare and other support services.
Strengthening care systems can therefore serve both social and economic purposes. Investment in affordable childcare, eldercare, protections for care-sector workers, basic income support for survivors and community-based care can reduce vulnerability while providing immediate and longer-term support.
Building care-centred GBV responses
The brief argues that preventing GBV requires a shift from short-term crisis interventions towards structural reforms that place care at the centre of prevention and recovery.
This means ensuring that shelters, health clinics and referral systems can accommodate childcare, eldercare and trauma-informed support. National care strategies should also recognise GBV prevention and survivor recovery as core objectives, with stronger coordination across gender, social development, health and finance institutions.
Economic independence is another critical part of prevention. Public investment in affordable childcare, eldercare, early childhood development and community health services can reduce unpaid care burdens and create greater opportunities for women to participate in paid work.
Labour protections must also be strengthened for women in care-intensive and informal sectors, including domestic work, home-based caregiving and community health work.
Prevention through a feminist care agenda
Prevention also requires sustained public education. Comprehensive sexuality and relationship education can promote consent and gender equality, while public campaigns can challenge harmful gender norms and engage men and boys in preventing violence.
At the same time, policies must recognise the structural relationship between care, economic inequality and GBV. A feminist care agenda can reduce women’s vulnerability to violence while strengthening the systems that support survivors and their dependants.
The brief argues that investing in care is therefore not simply a social protection measure. It is a GBV prevention strategy, a recovery mechanism and a long-term economic strategy.
Key policy recommendations
The brief calls for:
- expanding and investing in care-centred GBV infrastructure, including shelters, health clinics and referral systems that integrate childcare, eldercare and trauma-informed services;
- developing national care strategies that explicitly recognise GBV prevention and survivor recovery as objectives;
- increasing public investment in affordable childcare, eldercare, early childhood development and community health services, particularly in low-income and rural areas;
- providing basic income grants and other forms of financial support for survivors to strengthen their economic independence;
- strengthening labour protections for women in care-intensive and informal sectors, including domestic work, home-based caregiving and community health work;
- improving access to grievance mechanisms and enforcing minimum wage and GBV protections in vulnerable employment sectors; and
- investing in public education, comprehensive sexuality and relationship education, and programmes that challenge harmful gender norms.
Investing in care, investing in safety
Gender-based violence cannot be meaningfully addressed without confronting the structural inequalities that sustain women’s vulnerability.
Care is one of the places where these inequalities are reproduced. When unpaid care is left to households, public services are under-resourced and women lack independent income, the conditions for economic dependence and vulnerability to violence can persist.
Building strong care systems offers an opportunity to shift this approach. Investment in care can support survivors, reduce unpaid care burdens, strengthen women’s economic independence and address some of the conditions that contribute to vulnerability.
Ending GBV requires more than responding to violence once it occurs. It requires sustained investment in social services, care work and gender-responsive economic policy. As the brief argues, a feminist care agenda can be part of a broader strategy for prevention, recovery, safety and dignity.