Number of cases of SGBV reported to health services
“Service visits” are counted as the number of occasions on which a woman, man, or child seeks sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) assistance from a given center. The total number of visits may include repeat visits and thus may be larger than the total number of individuals using the center or program in a given year.
Note: An individual may receive more than one service on a given visit (counseling plus referral for other health problems). Program managers and evaluators may find it useful to track the different types of services (e.g., counseling, screening, referrals, treatment for injuries from violence) to better understand the needs of the clientele. For example, this tracking would yield data on the number of referrals made from SGBV centers to related services in the course of a reference period (e.g., one year).
Number of visits per center, aggregated across multiple centers (if such exist)
Service statistics from the center or program
This indicator measures the volume of services the program provides to its clientele. During the early years of the program, evaluators should monitor details regarding the visits to better understand the problems and potential needs of the clientele (e.g., reason for the visit, type[s] of services provided).
Several related indicators (for reproductive health (RH) facilities) include the following:
- Number of clients reporting violence as a percentage of all women seeking RH services;
- Active screening for SGBV: percent of the total SGBV reports that were identified through active screening; and
- Timely and appropriate post-rape care: percent of survivors who access service within three days of assault.
Clients coming to the facility for other services are more likely to divulge an episode of violence if they sense providers will be sensitive to their problem.
Evaluators should recognize that the number of SGBV incidents reported to health facilities represents just a fraction what the actual SGBV problem is in a community. For many valid reasons, survivors of SGBV are very reluctant to report their experiences. This is especially so with men and child victims of SGBV.
The interpretation of this indicator is somewhat ambiguous. The number of visits could increase over time, not because sexual violence is mounting, but rather because more people are more willing to come forward and disclose this problem, especially if the word-of-mouth information about the center is favorable. In fact, an increase in service delivery should reflect favorably upon the program.
This information is useful to demonstrate to donor agencies that the organization is providing a service within the community. But the indicator gives little sense of whether the individuals who receive the service perceive it to be helpful, although an increase in numbers may reflect favorable word-of-mouth publicity. Also, the number should rise as a result of mass media publicity or other behavior change communication interventions on SGBV. Ideally, the statistics on number of visits will also rise, especially during the early years of the program, as more people in need learn that services are available and helpful to those who experience violence.
Although the program may not be able to demonstrate effects at the population level, data on service utilization will help justify the continued existence of the services to donors interested in assisting women, men, and children with the problem of SGBV.
access, female genital cutting (FGC), violence