48 Research highlights the links between socio-economic factors and intimate partner violence against women. In many settings, women with high economic and social status appear to be somewhat protected, but the relationship between socio-economic status and violence is not necessarily linear (Jewkes, 2002b). Evidence suggests that violence against women may actually rise as women initially gain greater access to social and economic opportunities and resources; in some settings, women in the poorest households may be somewhat protected from violence. Jewkes argues that social and economic empowerment appears to increase women’s risk of violence in some settings by challenging traditional gender roles and increasing conflict in the household until, she writes, “a high enough level [of empowerment] has been reached for the protective effects to predominate.” The World Health Organization <u>World Report on Violence</u> came to the same conclusion, arguing: _Where women have a very low status, violence is not “needed” to enforce male authority . . . Partner violence is thus usually highest at the point where women begin to assume nontraditional roles or enter the workforce_ (Heise and Garcia Moreno, 2002, page 99).

Clearly, these observations should not be used as an excuse to deny women access to social and economic empowerment, since short-term increases in violence against women do not necessarily mean that a program which generates empowerment will fail to reduce violence in the long run. Under some conditions, however, increases in violence may be a temporary but unavoidable by-product of challenging traditional gender norms. The important lesson is that programs should find ways to mitigate a violent male response—whether via communication strategies such as mass media and edutainment programs or by increasing women’s participation in decision-making bodies at a community, municipal and national level as a way of transforming community norms (and consequently creating a favorable environment for violence prevention).

Improving coordination between sector-specific approaches as well as between civil society initiatives and government institutions has been underscored by numerous experts as a critical component of an effective strategy for addressing GBV. A multi-country study carried out by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) in ten Central American and Andean countries examined the barriers encountered by women and girls suffering violence who attempted to seek help through formal channels. Serious deficiencies were found at an institutional level in all of the countries. These deficiencies effectively denied women access to care and protection. In particular, the lack of a coordinated institutional response was cited as the greatest obstacle to violence prevention and support for survivors. The study documented such problems as:

- **Lack of coordination among government institutions that deal with violence (justice, child welfare, health, etc.)** In many settings there are NGOs or local women’s groups who also provide a variety of support services for survivors of violence, but no formal mechanisms exist to facilitate referrals or coordination with government institutions. As a result women are often forced to negotiate their way through a complex and costly maze of contradictory information and requirements,