Where, when and what? A national support centre scenario for victims of gender-based violence

Abstract

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a serious issue that remains highly prevalent in South Africa. However, real-time statistics regarding the number, timing, and location of emergency calls made by victims are limited. Therefore, this study aims to examine the spatial and temporal characteristics of GBV-related emergency calls made to the Help-at-Your-Fingertips (HAYFT) helpline, a national online support centre, from 2020 to 2023. The goal is to identify the regions where these incidents are more frequent and how their incidence is changing over time, particularly concerning social and economic factors and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Deidentified data from HAYFT was used and analysed. This study used the time, geographic, and temporal patterns of emergency calls by the GBV victims to the helpline. Descriptive statistics were employed to examine call frequency with respect to region, temporal, and socioeconomic factors, while geographic pattern analysis helped identify the areas with high concentrations of GBV within regions.
Upon examining 53,004 verified calls, it was elucidated that some provinces, such as Limpopo and the North West (104 and 103 calls per 100,000 population), had the highest call rates. Call peaks also occurred in September, November, and December, while call peaks were more likely, though not exclusively associated with public or school holidays, which are thought to be risk periods. Such trends suggest that there are existing limitations in the interpretation of statistics on GBV, which often associate the phenomenon’s incidence and prevalence with certain culture-driven times. Besides, while the number of risk calls in poorer areas was greater, the research also detected significant risk calls coming from higher socio-economic regions, particularly during the pandemic, suggesting wider security risks.
The results illustrate the need for focused and data-informed intervention approaches for victims of gender-based violence. In addition, they suggest that better systems are needed to facilitate monitoring and the timely use of such information for resource and intervention planning. This research serves an important purpose for decision-makers and non-governmental organizations that seek to improve the response to gender-based violence across South Africa.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
Discover Social Science and Health
Research
Where, whenandwhat? Anational support centre scenario forvictims
ofgender‑based violence
CornéDavis‑Buitendag1· SayantanChakraborty2· KoustuvDalal1,3
Received: 12 November 2024 / Accepted: 8 April 2025
© The Author(s) 2025 OPEN
Abstract
Background Gender-based violence (GBV) is a serious issue that remains highly prevalent in South Africa. However, real-
time statistics regarding the number, timing, and location of emergency calls made by victims are limited. Therefore,
this study aims to examine the spatial and temporal characteristics of GBV-related emergency calls made to the Help-at-
Your-Fingertips (HAYFT) helpline, a national online support centre, from 2020 to 2023. The goal is to identify the regions
where these incidents are more frequent and how their incidence is changing over time, particularly concerning social
and economic factors and the eects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods Deidentied data from HAYFT was used and analysed. This study used the time, geographic, and temporal
patterns of emergency calls by the GBV victims to the helpline. Descriptive statistics were employed to examine call
frequency with respect to region, temporal, and socioeconomic factors, while geographic pattern analysis helped identify
the areas with high concentrations of GBV within regions.
Results Upon examining 53,004 veried calls, it was elucidated that some provinces, such as Limpopo and the North West
(104 and 103 calls per 100,000 population), had the highest call rates. Call peaks also occurred in September, November,
and December, while call peaks were more likely, though not exclusively associated with public or school holidays, which
are thought to be risk periods. Such trends suggest that there are existing limitations in the interpretation of statistics
on GBV, which often associate the phenomenon’s incidence and prevalence with certain culture-driven times. Besides,
while the number of risk calls in poorer areas was greater, the research also detected signicant risk calls coming from
higher socio-economic regions, particularly during the pandemic, suggesting wider security risks.
Conclusions The results illustrate the need for focused and data-informed intervention approaches for victims of gender-
based violence. In addition, they suggest that better systems are needed to facilitate monitoring and the timely use of
such information for resource and intervention planning. This research serves an important purpose for decision-makers
and non-governmental organizations that seek to improve the response to gender-based violence across South Africa.
Keywords Gender-based violence (GBV)· Emergency call patterns· Socioeconomic impact· Geographic hotspots·
COVID-19 pandemic· South Africa
* Koustuv Dalal, koustuv.dalal@miun.se; koustuv2010@hotmail.com | 1Strategic Communication, University ofJohannesburg, Auckland
Park Campus, Johannesburg, SouthAfrica. 2Department ofPublic Health Science, Amity Medical School, Amity University Haryana,
Gurugram, India. 3Division ofPublic Health Sciences, School ofHealth Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden.

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
1 Introduction
Gender-based violence (GBV) is an omnipresent problem disproportionately aecting mainly women and Children. South
Africa is one of the countries aected the most by GBV. In 2023, the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) published two
documents: one public consultation report on the National Council on Gender-based Violence and Femicide Bill, and
the other, the CGE’s assessment of the government’s implementation of the National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based
Violence and Femicide (NSP on GBVF) between 2020 and 2022 [1]. These documents followed a report in the media
by Shoba in Daily Maverick on 30 August 2021, stating that the implementation of the NSP on GBV was moving at a
snail’s pace [2]. To date, the outcomes achieved with the NSP are unclear. Of the R20493154253.00 budget allocated,
R10686221736.00 has been spent, even though there is no concrete evidence of a decrease in GBV of any kind in South
Africa. In fact, reports on the collapse of the GBV command centre suggest that victims of GBV are far worse o at present
[3]. On 24 May 2024, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the National Council on GBV and Femicide Bill as well as the
National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill into law, with a promise to ensure the safety and security of women
in the country against all forms of GBV [4]. However, the enforcement and implementation of this law is likely to take a
considerable amount of time, considering this Council will include six government departments that have not made any
signicant progress since the development of the National Strategic Plan [1]. The CGE also issued a report titled “A Promise
without Commitment” in 2022 with reference to the lack of progress made towards women empowerment that goes
together with GBV victimization, which again underscores a sense of scepticism towards legislation without evidence of
its implementation [1]. Considering these shortcomings, there is a need to address a critical gap in the real-time tracking
of GBV-related emergency calls to oer a data-driven approach to understanding GBV patterns across South Africa.
It should be mentioned that there is frequently the notion that GBV in South Africa occurs mainly in poor black
communities. To place the problem scenario in context, it is crucial to look at the composition of the South African
population as per the latest records accessible online. The South African population consists of approximately 60.6
million people, of whom about 51% are female [5]. The breakdown of race is roughly 81.4% black, 8.2% coloured,
7.3% white, and 2.5% Asian/Indian [5]. It is indicated that more than half of the population lives in poverty, with
one in five living in extreme poverty, indicating that more than 11 million people live on less than R28.00 per day
[6]. South Africa has been described as the most unequal country in the world [7]. It must be reiterated that GBV in
South Africa occurs proportionally, which is the reason for its higher prevalence among the population that is black
and poor [8]. Further, the Centre for Public Mental Health confirms that intimate partners are responsible for half
the number of women murdered in South Africa [9]. The Centre adds that intersectoral work needs to be promoted
and developed to address intimate partner violence (IPV) adequately, although it does not reference the private
sector as a key stakeholder. These numbers are indeed alarming, but a thorough analysis of emergency calls related
to gender-based violence is apparently lacking and this could hinder effective policy and victim support services.
Studies highlight some of the shortcomings of the state’s response to preventing violence against women and
children [10], including the following: (i) Violence against women is still defined as a ‘women’s issue’ or ‘crime issue’,
meaning that too much money is spent on the criminal justice system rather than on services that prevent violence
and help survivors to recover. (ii) There is too much lip service, and violence against women and children is not
prioritized. (iii) Employees working for the state and who respond to violence do not receive adequate support
and suffer vicarious trauma from unmanageable workloads, leading to desensitization and normalization of
violence against women and children. (iv) There is a lack of coordinated effort at the community level, meaning that
government departments and NGOs cannot cooperate successfully to reduce violence [7].
These factors, among others, contribute to the reality that existing policies and legislation are not being
implemented in South Africa. Meyiwa etal. provide a 20-year review of the GBV policy landscape in South Africa. As
they show, “The dilemma with gender-based violence against women is recognized as being the most infiltrating and
least acknowledged as a human rights violation” [11]. Despite a dearth of studies on the socio-economic impact of
IPV, it is reiterated that this most prevalent form of GBV is unlikely to be discussed because it is still seen as a private
matter that needs to be dealt with at home, which severely limits intervention [12–14].
Hence, this research tried to address this deficiency by examining the geographical and socioeconomic trends
of emergency calls by GBV victims in South Africa. The goal is to offer valuable insights that can assist policymakers
and service providers in the support structures for GBV victims.
The target area of this study is, therefore, the identification of GBV emergency call patterns to learn where
policymakers, police, and other support services should be focusing to provide more support and services, not only

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
Research
to victims but also to non-governmental organizations that are currently doing most of the work, as indicated in the
CGE report [1]. NGOs are constantly struggling to pay support staff and to provide services, with few organizations
funding them for more than a few years at a time, for various reasons, including changing donor strategies and
willingness [10]. In 2023, the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) published another policy brief that highlights the
challenges the NGOs who are working to prevent GBV face [15]. The brief states that “many lack the technical ability
to monitor and evaluate their interventions and do not have partnerships with researchers who can play this role.”
The South African Police Service (SAPS) reported a decline in reported cases of women murdered [16]. However,
literature indicated an increasing trend in GBV in South Africa in recent years [5–7]. It is widely recognized that the majority
of cases involving intimate partner violence (IPV) and violence against children (VAC) go unreported to authorities.
This underreporting is often attributed to factors such as panic of the perpetrators, nancial dependency on the same
perpetrators, mistrust in juridic and social authorities, limited access to resources like medical care, transportation,
or communication technologies, and the social stigma surrounding these issues [17]. For these purposes, there is a
compelling argument for leveraging non-personal data to provide a more reliable and comprehensive understanding
of the prevalence of gender-based violence (GBV) [15]. This can be achieved by publishing data such as the volume of
GBV-related distress calls received by a national online support center’s Help-at-Your-Fingertips (HAYFT) helpline. At
present, there are no records indicating where in South Africa the GBV emergency calls are coming from, what times of
year, month, weeks, and days these calls are made, or how these call patterns have changed since the previous report
published by Davis and Meerkotter [18].
This study provides valuable insights into when and where these calls are made, contributing to a more nuanced
understanding of GBV in South Africa and oering critical data that can inform targeted interventions and resource
allocation.
2 Methodology
The study used data from a national online support centre for GBV, the TEARS Foundation. TEARS Foundation’s (HAYFT)
helpline for GBV victims is a USSD (Unstructured Supplementary Service Data) service that sends information via mobile
phone using simple prompt-based technology, including the following options. The data for this study were obtained
directly from the TEARS Foundation’s helpline database. The records were provided in CSV-le format and included call
details such as geographic location, time of call, and the option selected by the caller.
Option one is for callers who need information on the nearest help centres available, using TEARS Foundation’s free
USSD service and geolocation technology to locate the nearest resources, for which the data collected from 1 January
2020 until 31 December 2023 could be veried and analyzed. This study employed a quantitative research approach to
analyze call data from the TEARS Foundation’s helpline over a four-year period (2020–2023).
Option two is for callers who require emergency assistance, also using the USSD service, for which data from 7 March
2021 until 31 December 2023 could be veried and analyzed. The third option is called “Speak Up,” which also uses the
USSD service to give callers access to age-appropriate educational videos, for which the data from 11 December 2022
until 31 December 2023 could be analyzed. A total of 53,004 completed calls were included in the analysis. The calls
were excluded, if they were incomplete (e.g., disconnected before recording key information) or duplicates (multiple
calls from the same number reporting the same incident, even from dierent locations).
This study analyzed the time, geographic, and temporal patterns (how these call patterns have changed since the
previous report) of emergency calls made to the helpline. As shown in Fig.1, the result provides an overview of the
options available to callers and the process ow of the helpline calls. When callers dial the helpline1,347,355#, they are
greeted with a welcome screen oering three options, as stated above. They are then prompted to select their province
and nearest town to indicate their location. Beginning on 21 January 2021, callers were given the option to share their
location directly; however, this functionality was later discontinued to ensure compliance with the Protection of Personal
Information (POPI) Act.
Once the caller has entered the location, irrespective of the chosen option, the rst question is, “Are you in a life-
threatening situation? Can we call you?” If the answer is “YES,” then an immediate call from the rst responder is made
to the caller, mentioned above as Option 2. If the answer is “NO”, a follow-up can be requested via SMS or WhatsApp. In
the case of Option 1, the three closest support entities will be sent via SMS. Where a follow-up call is requested, a TEARS
intervention specialist will contact the caller within 24h. When Option 3 is selected, the caller can choose a topic, and a
link to the topic will be sent to them.

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
The following criteria were used for inclusion in the analysis:
o Only “completed” calls were used.
o Caller identities that indicated more than two locations were excluded (i.e. If multiple calls are made from the same
number to report the same incident, even from dierent locations too, we count it as a single reported call and
exclude any subsequent calls from that number.)
o Location-based services were reported on for the dates that the functionality was available on the service.
Fig. 1 Illustration of prompts presented on the Help-at-your-ngertips service line

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
Research
o Regarding geo-location, “municipality” is the most accurate level, except for where the location selection was
available. However, for this analysis, the breakdown was done at the country level, with aggregated results for
provinces and districts.
For the purposes of this study, only geographic information was accessible. The data was analyzed in MS Excel.
Descriptive statistics were employed to examine call frequency with respect to region, temporal, and socioeconomic
factors, while geographic pattern analysis (i.e. Choropleth map) helped identify the areas with high concentrations of
GBV within regions.
3 Results
Table1 summarizes all completed calls for the analysis period by option and shows the year-on-year percentage change
for the three HAYFT options. Over the four-year period, atotal of 53,004 veried callswere included. FromJanuary
2020 to March 2021, the HAYFT helpline provided only the “Find your nearest centre” option. During this time, the total
number of calls declined by44% (2020:15,521 to2021:8,683). Call volumes increased by33% in 2022, but they dropped
by37%to7,292 in 2023, marking an overall53% decrease over the four years. Incorporating the “Emergency” functionality
inMarch 2021led to an annual calls upsurge for this option. However, since the “Speak Up” functionality has been
operational for onlyone year (2023), the observed call increase for this feature has not been included in the trend analysis.
During COVID-19, the helpline calls numbers decreased from 2020 to 2021. However, call volumesenhanced following
this decline, eventually reverting to a similar level recorded inMarch 2020 at the onset of the pandemic. A more detailed
analysis of call patterns during the COVID-19 period is presented in Fig.2. The helpline averaged1,104 calls per calendar
monthover the study period. Monthly averages varied as follows: During 2020:1,293 calls per month, 2021:804 calls per
month (a38% decrease), 2022:1,153 calls per month (a43% increase) and 2023:1,167 calls per month.
Table2 shows the population size, total calls received, and call rates per 100,000 people across South African provinces.
The data reveal that provinces in thenorthern regiontend to have thehighest call rates. Limpopo, thefth most populous
province, recorded thehighest call rateat104 calls per 100,000 people. TheNorth West, which ranks as thethird-smallest
province by population, followed closely with a call rate of103 per 100,000. This analysis highlights regional disparities
in call rates, with higher rates concentrated in specic districts of northern provinces, potentially reecting dierences
in population awareness, access to resources, or reporting tendencies.
Figure3 provides further granularity through a heatmap displaying call rates for all districts nationwide, accompanied
by a bar chart of theTop 10 districts by call rate. Lejweleputswa (Free State)emerged as thedistrict with the highest call
rate, recording215 calls per 100,000 people. Sedibeng (Gauteng)followed, with a call rate of191 per 100,000 people.
Capricorn (Limpopo)andBojanala (North West), both with call rates exceeding100 per 100,000 people. TheTop 10
districtsinclude: Gauteng, represented bythree districts. LimpopoandMpumalanga, are each represented bytwo
districts. North Westand theNorthern Cape, each represented byone district.
Figure4 provides a heatmap and bar chart detailing call rates by municipality, with theTop 10 municipalitiesfor
call rates highlighted. Matjhabeng (Free State)has thehighest call ratein the country at304 calls per 100,000 people,
indicating thehighest prevalence of GBV. Rustenburg (North West)follows with a call rate of262, andEmfuleni
(Gauteng)ranks third with223 calls per 100,000 people. Polokwane (Limpopo)also surpasses the 200 mark, indicating
signicant reporting activity in this municipality. Concerning the metropolitan municipalities, the City of Johannesburg
Table 1 Number of calls and
year-on-year variance by
option and year
2020 2021 2022 2023
Find your nearest
centre # Calls 15,521 8683 11,581 7292
YoY Dierence −44.06% 33.38% −37.03%
Emergency # Calls 965 2219 3636
YoY Dierence 129.95% 63.86%
Speak Up # Calls 30 3077
YoY Dierence 10,156.67%
Grand Total # Calls 15,521 9648 13,830 14,005
YoY Dierence −37.84% 43.35% 1.27%

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
has the highest call rate (94), followed closely by the City of Tshwane (90). Nelson Mandela Bay has the lowest rate of 52,
as shown in Fig.4.
4 Discussions
In many African countries, including South Africa, the absence of credible reporting systems for gender-based violence
presents signicant challenges in handling the phenomenon. Setting no infrastructure and lack of systematic collection
of data negatively aect eorts to understand the scope of GBV and targeted interventions. This study aims to ll an
important gap that will allow insights derived from emergency call data, providing an alternative means of monitoring
Fig. 2 Number of calls during Covid-19
Table 2 Population, number
of calls, and call rate per
province in South Africa
Province Population Total calls Call rate (#
Calls/100,000
Pop)
Gauteng 15,099,421 14,072 93
KwaZulu Natal 12,423,908 8403 68
Western cape 7,433,022 3759 51
Eastern cape 7,126,720 3710 52
Limpopo 6,572,720 6804 104
Mpumalanga 4,837,677 4701 97
North West 3,804,546 3934 103
Free State 2,964,411 2920 99
Northern Cape 1,344,987 794 59

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
Research
and responding to GBV in contexts where traditional reporting mechanisms may be inadequate or unavailable. The
current study deriving from calls data set from the Teras Foundation is unique as it is the rst of its kind from South Africa.
The results highlight the fact that the problem of GBV is just as severe in higher socioeconomic areas as it is in
others; the very idea of socioeconomic context underlines the pervasiveness of GBV across the board. In other
words, the effect tends to be more pronounced in the rural and underserved communities where better resources
Fig. 3 Call rate by district in South Africa
Fig. 4 Call rates by municipalities in South Africa

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
and support services happen to be lacking. The data-driven approach in this study does point to the need for full
reporting systems that can better inform policy and resource allocation, thus bettering the position of the victims and
resultant prevention of GBV occurrences. In addition, given the socioeconomic landscape of this continent alongside
systemic barriers, alternative reporting mechanisms for understanding GBV are relatively crucial in the combat on
of GBV throughout the continent.
It is apparent from the data that emergency calls occur across all provinces and districts in South Africa. The
high call volume from Gauteng seems obvious as it has the largest population, although the similarly high call
volumes from Limpopo and the North West are concerning, as is the high number of calls from the Free State and
Mpumalanga. The district with the highest number of calls is in the Free State, namely Lejeleputswa, followed by
Sedibeng in Gauteng. The socioeconomic status (SES) of these two areas is different, in so far as Gauteng consists
of more urban areas.
This could imply that these regions, although having a small population, may have limited access to means of
prevention of GBV, hence worse cases of GBV. This is consistent with the studies that indicate that rural and hard-to-
reach resource centres are at a higher risk of experiencing more cases of GBV that never get reported[19].
It is interesting to note here that the traditional inverse relation of SES and GBV incidences has not been shown
here in the study areas [20, 21]. The current study, at the macro level, contradicts the linear inverse relationships. For
example, Gauteng is one of the areas in South Africa with the highest SES, where, in general, rich, highly educated,
and affluent persons live. However, the GBV victims’ calls show a drastically higher incidence of seeking support from
Gauteng, especially during COVID-19.
In the conventional model of SES, it is presumed that levels of violence are likely to be higher in lower SES regions,
while higher SES regions are likely to have lower GBV [22]. However, more recent social science studies have proven
that in some situations, whether due to war, civil violence, or even a societal crisis, such as the prowling COVID-19
pandemic, how high SES is does not preclude chances of GBV even in the high SES areas. It can be argued that this
is due to the increased levels of psychological distress, lost jobs, and rising conflicts within households during the
period of confinement [23].
Therefore, the current study might have opened a ‘Pandora’s box’ and warrants further empirical mixed-method studies
to further explore the actual reasons why the high SES areas also have very high levels of GBV incidences.
Literature, including a WHO multi-country study, indicates that women in rural areas experience more violence
than their peers in urban areas [20, 21, 24, 25]. Several underlying reasons could exist in rural areas, including higher
joblessness, lower education, and socioeconomic status.
Past studies have shown that structural inequalities, such as lack of healthcare facilities and weak legal enforcement,
are the reasons rural areas report more cases of GBV [26]. This can be said of most countries in Africa, especially South
Africa, where women in rural settings experience more challenges when seeking services after violence and abuse [27].
A study by Mtotywa etal. shows approximately 18.2 million people in South Africa live in extreme poverty with poor
access to health and other resources, with obvious consequences for GBV victimization [28]. The census data indicating
that access to piped water in the provinces where GBV is most prevalent is low, suggests that most calls are made from
within poor communities [1].
The lack of key provisions like access to basic services such as piped water has led to an upsurge in domestic violence
and GBV in general as families experience additional stressors in resource-challenging environments [29]. This is even
worsened by the current water crisis, which has cut across both rural and urban dwellers [30]. However, it should be
mentioned that South Africa is currently experiencing water crises that aect even auent urban areas.
Female Population and Dependency Rates The provinces with thehighest call ratesalso tend to havehigher female
populations and elevated dependency rates, which could inuence the prevalence and reporting of GBV [1]. These
demographic factors warrant further exploration to understand their correlation with GBV patterns.
Exclusion of Incomplete Calls The report’s veried total of53,004 callsover four years does not account for calls that
werenot completedoruncaptured, indicating that the actual volume of distress signals might be higher. This exclusion
highlights a potential gap in fully quantifying the scope of GBV reporting in resource-poor settings. However, considering
the severe lack of infrastructural support and resources for GBV victims and their shelters, the data has focused on
unexplored gloomy areas of the GBV survivors.
Temporal Patterns of Calls Thepeak call monthsofSeptember, November, and Decemberare notable, as they deviate
from previously assumedrisk periodstied to school and public holidays. This discrepancy underscores the need for
further investigation into the underlying causes of heightened reporting during these months, which might include
seasonal trends or campaign eects.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
Research
Days of the Week Thehighest number of callswere received onSundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays, potentially reecting
aweekend eectin which GBV incidents might spike during weekends and result in increased reporting at the start of
the workweek.
These ndings suggest the need for more detailed research intodemographic,temporal, andbehavioural factorsto
rene intervention strategies and more eectively address GBV.
Research indicates that when it comes to seeking help, victims would prefer to do this in more secluded spaces relative
to other people, which could explain why calls are more frequent within working hours and during nighttime when
the oender is out of sight [31]. In addition, weekends are characterized by an increase in the number of calls, which is
likely due to the many hours spent in the house, thus leading to more domestic abuse and gender-based violence [32].
The times of day that calls are most frequently made suggest that victims call during oce hours more frequently,
but a high volume of calls are also made between 19.00 and 22.00.
Without analyzing the anonymous personal records obtained from TEARS’s database, victim proling cannot indicate
the callers’ demographic and psychographic information. TEARS has received no funding for this research, and the
publication of this relevant and important data is still underway.
Considering the results of this research, interventions are needed in both high and low-SES areas. Future studies should
widen the scope of the research on patterns of GBV to include small areas and develop strategies for prevention in such
areas. This is in line with previous studies that have also recommended the need for improvement in the data collection
systems and monitoring of gender-based violence [33].
South Africa does not have a government-funded national support centre for GBV victims. The NGOs, like the TEARS
Foundation, provide most of the required telephone support to GBV victims. The results of this investigation highlight
the importance of non-governmental organizations, such as the TEARS Foundation, in providing near-instant help to
victims of gender-based violence in circumstances where the government does not have even a basic structure for
intervention. The current study indicates that during COVID-19, the TEARS Foundation received an alarmingly high
number of help-seeking calls from areas with high socioeconomic status. On the other hand, this understanding goes
against the common belief of the prevalence of gender-based violence that typically overemphasizes the prevalence
of the same in the low economic regions only. The women victims from auent families and societies called for help
or support, but in the end, they were compelled to be with the same perpetrator under the same roof. Data of this kind
illustrates the contemporary situation when the conditions of lockdown posed particular problems for victims, preventing
them from seeking refuge from their abusers.
This presents a dire situation for GBV victims in South Africa, as there are insucient shelters for GBV victims who are
predominantly women and children. The geographic and temporal analysis utilized in this paper provides information
on regions and times with a high prevalence of gender-based violence and suggests where resources, such as shelter
as well as support services, should be focused. In conclusion, the study mentions that GBV is a universal phenomenon,
with South Africa being one of the worst countries in the world for GBV issues. The results support this by showing that
the call rates are high among all the regions, thus calling for a need for a unied response in all the parts of the country.
While the president of South Africa has recently published the new GBVF law, including the establishment of a GBVF
Council to address GBV more proactively, GBV victims still have little or no support while the establishment of the council
and the implementation of the new laws are still underway [34]. Therefore, with the new parliament established after the
recent elections in South Africa, it is more imperative than ever that the policymakers tighten the law, develop awareness
from the high school level, and fund shelters for rescuing and rehabilitating GBV victims. The ndings of the study can
also act as a starting point in determining areas with high levels of GBV and also assist in coming up with appropriate
policies. This way the government and NGOs will know the areas that require more resources, like shelters, legal help,
and so on, and will concentrate those eorts in the best regions.
5 Limitations
While this study provides valuable insights into gender-based violence (GBV) patterns, there are a few limitations to
acknowledge. First, the analysis relied on secondary data from the TEARS Foundation’s helpline, which meant we could
only work with the information available—geographic location, call time, and call type. Unfortunately, we didn’t have
access to detailed demographic or socioeconomic data, which limits our ability to explore deeper connections between
call patterns and contextual factors. Second, incomplete calls and duplicates were excluded from the analysis, but we
didn’t keep a record of the exact number of excluded calls. This might mean the total call volume was underestimated,

Vol:.(1234567890)
Research
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
and the results could be slightly skewed. We recognize this as an area for improvement in future studies. Third, the study
assumes that those calling the helpline represent GBV victims overall. However, we know that barriers like access to
technology or stigma around seeking help may have prevented some individuals from making calls, so this might not
entirely reect the accurate picture of GBV in South Africa. We also worked at the provincial and district levels because
municipal-level data wasn’t available due to limitations in South Africa’s reporting system. As a result, more localized
trends may not be fully captured, and how areas were grouped could have inuenced the ndings. Finally, while we
highlighted geographic and temporal trends, we didn’t perform a detailed analysis of socioeconomic factors because
the data simply wasn’t available. Future research should focus on addressing the sociodemographic and psychographic
characteristics of GBV victims, in particular, how these factors relate to auent areas where ‘conventional’ notions of
gender-based violence may not hold. Other studies could also evaluate how existing programs have worked and what
parts of the support systems are lacking in order to put measures against gender-based violence both on policies and
out in communities more eectively.
Acknowledgements Not applicable.
Author contributions All authors wrote, reviewed and approved the nal manuscript. Conceptualisation and design: CD & KD Data analysis:
CD & KD Draft manuscript preparation: CD, SC, KD Review and editing: KD Critical review: KD.
Funding This study did not receive any funds from the public or any donor agency.
Data availability The data is not shareable as the authors received special permission from the TEARS Foundation to use the de-identied data.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate The study has received ethical permission from the University of Johannesburg, Faculty of Humanities
Research Ethics Committee, with clearance number REC -01–348-2023. The study has received and used de-identied information from
the TEARS Foundation Help-at-Your-Fingertips (HAYFT) helpline for GBV victims. The authors strictly followed the ethical guidelines of the
Research Ethics Committee based on the Helsinki Declarations. The Helsinki Declaration delineates moral guidelines for human subjects’
medical research. Following these guidelines in this study guaranteed the protection of participants’ rights by ensuring data anonymization
and securing ethical approval from the University of Johannesburg.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which
permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to
the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modied the licensed material. You
do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If
material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// crea t iveco
mmons. org/ licen ses/ by- nc- nd/4. 0/.
References
1. Commission for Gender Equality (2023). Missing pieces of the puzzle. CGE’s assessment of the government’s implementation of the NSP
on GBVF between 2020 and 2022. Available at: cge-gvb-project-report.pdf - Google Search. https:// www. google. com/ search? q= Commi
ssion+ for+ Gender+ Equal ity+ (2023).+ Missi ng+ pieces+ of+ the+ puzzl e.+ CGE’s+ asses sment+ of+ the+ gover nment ’s+ imple menta tion+ of+
the+ NSP+ on+ GBVF+ betwe en+ 2020+ and+ 2022.+ Avail able+ at% 3A+ cge- gvb- proje ct- report. pdf& oq= Commi ssion+ for. Accessed 27 Aug
2024
2. Shoba S. Implementation of National Strategic Plan on GBV moves at snail’s pace. Daily Maverick. 2021.
3. Probe into the status of the GBV Command Centre: Lisa Vetten. SABC News. Retrieved from: 4672 (youtube.com). https:// www. google.
com/ search? q= Probe+ into+ the+ status+ of+ the+ GBV+ Comma nd+ C en tr e% 3A+ Lisa+ Vette n.+ SABC+ News.+ Retri eved+ from% 3A+ 4672+%
28you tube. com% 29& sca_ esv= e0005 8e5af 3a4be c& sxsrf= ADL YW IICph m6BmW fyH9oO_ RZO UGfN8 HA% 3A172 47772 51646 & ei= IwPOZ
uuVJ_ O6vr0 PsbzV kA. Accessed 27 Aug 2024.
4. President Cyril Ramaphosa signs into law National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide Bill and National Prosecuting Authority
Amendment Bill, 24 May. https:// www. go v. za/ news/ media- advis ories/ gover nment- activ ities/ presi dent- cyril- ramap hosa- signs- law- natio
nal- counc il.
5. People of South Africa. https:// www. gov. za/ about- sa/ people- south- africa-0.

Vol.:(0123456789)
Discover Social Science and Health (2025) 5:53 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00203-7
Research
6. 1 in 5 South Africans Are Living in Extreme Poverty: UN Report. https:// www. globa lciti zen. org/ en/ conte nt/1- in-5- south- afric ans- living-
extre me- pover ty- un/.
7. Justice Truth Dignity. South Africa Most Unequal Country in the World: Report | International Center for Transitional Justice. 2022. https://
www. ictj. org/ node/ 35024. Accessed 25 Sep 2024
8. Govender I. Gender-based violence – an increasing epidemic in South Africa. South Afr Fam Pract. 2023. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4102/ safp.
v65i1. 5729.
9. Joyner K, Rees K, Honikman S. Intimate partner violence (IPV ) in South Africa: how to break the vicious cycle. CPMH Policy Brief. 2015;1:6.
10. Gould C, Mufamadi D, Celia H, Amisi M. Reducing violence in South Africa: from policing to prevention. Inst Seurity Stud Policy bri.
2017;6:1–15.
11. Meyiwa T, Williamson C, Maseti T, Ntabanyane G-M. A 20-year review of policy landscape for gender-based violence in South Africa.
Gender Behav. 2017;15(2):8607–17.
12. Davis, C., Kuhudzai, A., & Dalal K. The Costly Impact of GBV – Private Sector Perceptions - Shared Value Africa. 2022. https:// svai. africa/
resea rch/ gender- equal ity- gbv- resea rch/ the- costly- impact- of- gbv- priva te- sector- perce ptions/. Accessed 27 Aug 2024.
13. White SJ, Sin J, Sweeney A, etal. Global prevalence and mental health outcomes of intimate partner violence among women: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Trauma Viol Abuse. 2024;25(1):494–511. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15248 38023 11555 29.
14. Gunarathne L, Bhowmik J, Apputhurai P, Nedeljkovic M. Factors and consequences associated with intimate partner violence against
women in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2023. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02932 95.
15. Amisi MM, Dereymaeker G, Heyde J Van Der, Roman N. Scaling violence prevention in South Africa.https:// issaf rica. org/ resea rch/ policy-
brief/ scali ng- viole nce- preve ntion- in- south- africa. Accessed 27 Aug 2024.
16. South African Police Services. Police Recorded Crime Statistics Republic of South Africa. 2022.
17. Pearson I, Page S, Zimmerman C, etal. The co-occurrence of intimate partner violence and violence against children: a systematic review
on associated factors in low- and middle-income countries. Trauma Viol Abuse. 2023;24(4):2097–114.
18. Davis C, Meerkotter DN. Exploring the heuristic value of nonpersonal data for sexual- and genderbased violence research and prevention
in South Africa. Afr Saf Promot. 2017;15(1):16–37.
19. Palermo T, Bleck J, Peterman A. Tip of the iceberg: reporting and gender-based violence in developing countries. Am J Epidemiol.
2014;179(5):602–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ aje/ kwt295.
20. Krug EG, Mercy JA, Dahlberg LL, Zwi AB. World report on violence and health. Biomédica. 2002;22(2):327–36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7705/
biome dica. v22is upp2. 1182.
21. Dalal K, Yasmin M, Dahlqvist H, Klein GO. Do electronic and economic empowerment protect women from intimate partner violence
(IPV) in India? BMC Women’s Health. 2022;22(1):1–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12905- 022- 02110-4.
22. Dabaghi N, Amini-Rarani M, Nosratabadi M. Investigating the relationship between socioeconomic status and domestic violence against
women in Isfahan, Iran in 2021: a cross-sectional study. Health Sci Rep. 2023. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ hsr2. 1277.
23. Sánchez OR, Vale DB, Rodrigues L, Surita FG. Violence against women during the COVID-19 pandemic: an integrative review. Int J Gynecol
Obstet. 2020;151(2):180–7.
24. Kishor S, Johnson K. Proling violence: A multi-country study. 2004.
25. Pallitto CC, García-Moreno C, Jansen HAFM, Heise L, Ellsberg M, Watts C. Intimate partner violence, abortion, and unintended pregnancy:
results from the WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;120(1):3–9. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. ijgo. 2012. 07. 003.
26. Muluneh MD, Francis L, Agho K, Stulz V. A systematic review and meta-analysis of associated factors of gender-based violence against
women in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(9):4407.
27. Peek-Asa C, Wallis A, Harland K, Beyer K, Dickey P, Saftlas A. Rural disparity in domestic violence prevalence and access to resources. J
Women’s Health. 2011;20(11):1743–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/ jwh. 2011. 2891.
28. Mtotywa M, Ledwaba M, Mambo B, Nkonzo Z, Ntshagovhe R, Negota A. A conceptual framework of gender-based violence and femicide
drivers in South Africa. Int J Res Bus Soc Sci. 2023;12(5):315–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2052/ ijrbs. v12i5. 2633.
29. Pommells M, Schuster-Wallace C, Watt S, Mulawa Z. Gender violence as a water, sanitation, and hygiene risk: uncovering violence against
women and girls as it pertains to poor WaSH access. Viol Against Women. 2018;24(15):1851–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10778 01218
754410.
30. Omarova A, Tussupova K, Hjorth P, Kalishev M, Dosmagambetova R. Water supply challenges in rural areas: a case study from central
Kazakhstan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1605 0688.
31. Trauma-Informed Care: A Sociocultural Perspective - Trauma-Informed Care in Behavioral Health Services - NCBI Bookshelf. In: Trauma-
Informed Care in Behavioral Health Services.
32. WHO. | Levels of domestic violence increase globally, including in the Region, as COVID-19 pandemic escalates | Violence-news | Violence,
injuries and disabilities. WHO EMRO 2020. https:// www. emro. who. int/ viole nce- injur ies- disab iliti es/ viole nce- news/ levels- of- domes tic-
viole nce- incre ase- as- covid- 19- pande mic- escal ates. html. Accessed 6 Oct 6 2024.
33. Sabri B, Sellke R, Smudde M, Bourey C, Murray SMI. Gender-based violence interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic
review of interventions at structural, community, interpersonal, individual, and multiple levels. Trauma Viol Abuse. 2023;24(5):3170–86.
34. GBV & Femicide in SA: Research & National Strategy; Teenage Pregnancy; with Deputy Minister | PMG. https:// pmg. org. za/ commi ttee-
meeti ng/ 39909/.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional aliations.