Select Gender-Based Violence Literature Reviews: Effectiveness of One-Stop GBV Resource Centers

These centers are organized around the fundamental principle that multi-disciplinary approaches are the most effective strategies to reduce the prevalence of GBV and provide wrap-around intervention services to address the medical, psychosocial, and legal impact of GBV on individual survivors. One-Stop Centers are designed to simultaneously address a shared set of goals while being individually tailored to address context-specific factors. Research on One-Stop Centers in 20 countries and meta-analyses of OSCs in more than 80 studies revealed widespread agreement that OSCs make a difference in the communities where they are located. In hospital or medical clinic settings, victim/survivors of GBV are able to receive much-needed medical attention to address acute injury and exposure to diseases, most notably STIs and HIV. OSCs located in women's justice centers are quite successful in creating access to legal pathways for victim/survivors to pursue justice. The effectiveness of One-Stop Centers varies depending on the country and the specific model implemented. Hospital-based OSCs were far more effective at delivering medical care and behavioral and mental health services, while police-based or justice centers were more effective at addressing legal issues. However, these centers often struggled to connect victims to healthcare or mental health providers. Funding models for OSCs also vary, with some countries relying on a combination of federal grants, state and local government grants, and private funding. Despite the challenges, One-Stop Centers have shown successes in serving a variety of needs and reducing violence. At hospital and medical sites in Africa and South Asia, the presence of OSCs meant that women and girls received medical care they needed for various kinds of injury and illness related to GBV. In Thailand and Kenya, the OSC model embedded in hospital settings offered the possibility of delivering much-needed mental health services to victim/survivors. However, the majority of the time, the OSCs were understaffed to provide these services. Patients who were surveyed or interviewed about their experiences reported high levels of satisfaction with the staff and their treatment at the OSC. However, several challenges were identified, including limited access to OSCs in rural communities, infrastructure and access issues, and the need for clear processes for confidentiality. To improve the overall impact of OSCs, recommendations include increasing funding for all OSC-related services, addressing infrastructure and access, developing clear processes for confidentiality, addressing GBV as a "gender issue," and direct funding toward a multi-sector approach.