HSRC’s Report Analysis On GBV National Report

My thoughts and analysis of the Report.

The following questions were asked by Marchelle Abrahams, an award-winning writer, freelance content producer for various publications, and former digital editor. This is the full interview, and parts of it were published in the Sunday Times and Human Rights Magazine on March 23, 2025.

What are your overall impressions of the HSRC’s GBVF 2024 report findings?

After 31 years of the democratic dispensation in South Africa, the pervasive nature of gender-based violence within our society is concerning. I had assumed that the establishment of government institutions tasked with addressing gender equality would lead to a significant decline in GBV cases. However, the alarming statistics reveal the opposite. What a myopic assumption!

The South African National Gender-Based Violence Study report appears very expensive, prima facie to be ethical and thoroughly researched, adhering to all the protocols; however, it financially exploited the vulnerable participants by unconsciously coercing them to participate using incentives of R50 store voucher and R30 referral airtime voucher. These vouchers may have led them to overly exaggerate their responses in order to appease the research question. 

This practice is a tactic often employed by several political parties in an effort to garner the voters’ support by offering food parcels to the communities. 

The HSRC Report’s findings offer no new insights, largely paraphrasing the conclusions of previous scholars’ in the field of Social Science and Gender studies.

The HSRC’s Report findings heavily borrow from existing frameworks such as 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDG3) established by the United Nations in the year of 2000, which were recently updated and replaced by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG5) in 2015. Additionally, it bears similarities to the National Strategic Plan 2020-2030 particularly in regards to the five pillars of Gender Based Violence and Femicide. While alignment with existing strategies is crucial, the lack of originality and innovative solutions raises questions about the HSRC’s South African National Gender-Based Violence Study overall value-added contribution to the prevention and understanding of the drivers of the GBVF scourge. 

The findings purportedly claimed to decolonise the discourse on GBVF, but the methodology and approach to achieving this goal remain unclear!  

The findings failed address the impact of Macroeconomic policies and the influence of capitalism in a country’s policies, and highlighting the need for a different approach to address GBV. 

The HSRC’s Report findings appear to perpetuate a stereotypical approach by solely emphasising the provision of Shelters for women and children, rather than establishing holding facilities for perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). This is particularly concerning, as IPV cases are often underreported due to the economic inequalities. 

Gender Equality education has already been incorporated to the RSA curriculum through Life Orientation subject, therefore, developing additional educational materials specifically for girls and boys in schools, may not be the most effective use of resources. Instead, efforts could be focused on enhancing the delivery method of existing Life Orientation subject in schools. 

Do you think the report adequately captures the lived experiences of survivors across different demographics?

The Report demographics appear to be biased and pre-assumed that the prevalence of GBVF affects Blacks, with Blacks being disproportionately featured in the statistical tables, while ‘Other Races’ are not explicitly defined. Therefore, the demographics on the statistical table are distorted and lack transparency regarding ‘Other Races’.   My question, (a) Who compromises the ‘Other Races’ category? Is it Jewish, Chinness, English-speaking, or white Afrikaans Individuals, among others?  (b) What is the socio-economic profile of unemployed participants? were they all exclusively from impoverished backgrounds? and (c) For employed participants, what are their respective tax brackets? Are they blue-collar, middle-management, or executive positions? 

We can infer from their sample population that domestic workers were among the participants. Moreover, the Report highlighted the social grants recipients as severely suffering from IPV, so it is evident that Black Women were used as Guinea pigs for GBV study in the HSRC Report. This Premise perpetuates negative narratives that GBVF is predominately Black! The Research specifically references Diepsloot Informal settlement and Northern cape, which may perceive perpetuating biases against Black and Coloured communities.  In addition, the Report appears to present a biased view by revealing that oppressive cultural practices are exclusive to rural areas and traditional communities. 

We at AbafaziPhambili take issue with the labelling of this report as the South African National Gender-Based Violence Study. In fact, it should simply be referred to as the HSRC Report on GBV! If the report is aimed at representing the entire South African population of approximately 67 Million people, across all ages and demographics, it must provide comprehensive inclusive data.

The demographics focused on individuals aged 18-49 years; the HSRC Report falls short in this regard, particularly with regards to disability representation. What proportion of the disability demographic was sampled? It appears limited to wheelchair users, as it excluded individuals with visual or hearing impairments.  Furthermore, we note that the report omitted critical demographics, such as children in Early Childhood Development. This omission raises concerns about the report’s claim to be a “South African National Gender-Based Violence Study”

Again, my question, the Report Demographics, particularly with regards to the LGBTQ+identities participants. Of the 71 respondents, what criteria were used to select participants? Were lesbians, non-binary, and transgender individuals sampled separately, or were they grouped into a single basket? 

This HSRC further acknowledges the limitations and inability to cover other demographics and population samples. Nevertheless, the report’s title and presentation is misleading, potentially influencing future scholars who may rely on this report as a foundation for their research. Given these exclusions, it is questionable whether the report should be labelled as the South African National Gender-Based Violence Study, as it does not represent the experiences of all. 

Were there any findings you felt were surprising or overlooked?

The recent HSRC Report findings on Gender-Based Violence (GBV) are concerning, as they lack depth and clarity. While substance abuse is acknowledged as a contributor to pervasive GBV and a coping mechanism for survivors/victims, the report neglects to address the indiscriminate issuing of liquor licenses in townships and suburbs.

At AbafaziPhambili, we advocate for community education and believe that libraries should outnumber shebeens. In suburbs, we propose that libraries be prioritised over shopping malls. This approach would foster a more informed and empowered community.

The report’s demographic limitations have resulted in the omission of Early Childhood Development (ECD) healing education. This critical aspect of education can help young children develop healthy anger management and emotional intelligence skills. AbafaziPhambili has collaborated with ECD expert Gill Naeser, who developed yoga healing exercises for children, but securing funding  has been a significant challenge.

In the same breath, the Report identifies capitalism as a contributor to GBV but fails to provide solutions to address wage disparities, job segregation, and economic oppression faced by underprivileged women working at several retailers and restaurants. These issues lead to prolonged working hours, depriving children of parental attachment and consequently children are raised by being exposed to violence through the media, in particular Television.

The report also overlooks the impact of macroeconomic policies on GBV. Interest rate hikes disproportionately affect vulnerable communities reliant on social grants. Retailers pass on short-term debt to consumers, making basic necessities unaffordable and increasing the likelihood of intimate partner violence (IPV). Austerity measures exacerbate economic and health exclusion for the unemployed. Consequently, women may end up seeking financial support from men.

Do you believe the policy recommendations in the report are actionable and sufficient to combat GBV effectively?

The HSRC’s Report findings align with the National Strategic Plan 2020-2030’s five pillars addressing Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (GBVF). Although the research claimed its aimed was to fulfil the sixth pillar of the NSP, its findings bore limited new insights into understanding and preventing GBVF. Moreover, the report did not significantly contribute to existing knowledge on gender studies, particularly GBVF.

Instead of duplicating efforts by developing exhaustive and expensive policies, South Africa should focus on raising awareness about existing policies. Besides, Women need jobs and justice!

At times, developing duplicate policies can be redundant and ineffective. At AbafaziPhambili, we discovered that policies are often only familiar to their developers, not the broader community. HSRC Report corroborates this finding, highlighting that most participants were unaware of the policy and its impact on their lives in preventing GBV. Therefore, recommending policy development while existing policies remain ineffective seems counterproductive and potentially wasteful. These funds could be better allocated to support vulnerable communities and mitigate societal evils.

How well does the report address the intersection of GBV with other issues, such as poverty, race, or LGBTQ+ identities?

In my view, the Report effectively highlights the intersection of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) with systemic patriarchal gender norms, which perpetuate gender inequalities. These inequalities often manifested within the society, where women are subjugated to subordinate and submissive roles. This subjugation is particularly pronounced among economically disadvantaged women, who tend to experience various forms of abuse. Moreover, racial based inequalities perpetuate poverty intercepting with GBV exacerbate women oppression. 

In a similar vein, LGBTQI+ identities may face prejudice rooted in deeply ingrained cultural and religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the Report’s findings do not provide adequate strategies for promoting tolerance and understanding of individual differences, particularly regarding LGBTQI+identities. Instead, it references the National Strategic Plan (NSP).

Can you explain the work AbafaziPhambili has been doing to bring about change concerning gender equality?

AbafaziPhambili is a non-profit organisation advocating for gender equality at the grassroots level. Our focus areas include economic empowerment, social orientation, and political education.

To address gender equity, we drive socio-economic change by equipping women with the necessary skills to boost their entrepreneurial anchor. This enables them to escape toxic, abusive environments, ultimately enhancing their lives and the well-being of their children.

Social Orientation:

We educate young girls and boys about the importance of abstinence and gender equality aimed at eliminating patriarchal norms and we strive to create a more equitable society. Additionally, our in-house psychologist provides workshops on positive, healthy parenting for women. One area for improvement is engaging older men in our programmes, which remains an ongoing challenge.

Political Education:

We empower women with knowledge of their rights and how to exercise them peacefully. We also provide education on South Africa’s economic systems to enhance their voting knowledge.