Evaluation: ISF’s VAWG prevention projects in Somaliland

The evaluation conducted by Academic for Social and Environmental Research (ASER) assesses the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the International Solidarity Foundation’s (ISF) violence against women and girls (EVAWG) prevention programme and integrated EVAWG–livelihood interventions implemented in Somaliland between 2022 and 2025.

The operating context is marked by entrenched gender inequality, persistent harmful practices particularly female genital mutilation (FGM), early and child marriage (ECM), and intimate partner violence (IPV) and structural constraints linked to poverty, displacement, fragility, and limited access to protection and justice services.

ISF’s 2022–2025 programme aims to strengthen the bodily integrity and livelihood resilience of women and girls, with this evaluation focusing primarily on Programme Outcomes 1–3: (i) judicial and moral duty bearers take action to mitigate violence againstwomen and girls; (ii) women and girls collectively claim their rights; and (iii) women’s sphere of influence has expanded.

The evaluation provides ISF, its implementing partners, and donors with an independent, evidence-based assessment of what the EVAWG interventions have achieved, how change has occurred across multiple projects and contexts, the factors that have facilitated or constrained progress, and the strategic adjustments required to inform the 2026–2029 programme phase.

Key Findings as per DAC Criteria

i.Relevance

The evaluation finds ISF’s EVAWG interventions to be highly relevant to the priorities and lived realities of women, girls, and the respective communities. Across KIIs and FGDs, FGM and early marriage were consistently identified as practices shaping household decision-making, girls’ life trajectories, and social status.

Relevance was strengthened by interventions that targeted decision-making spaces— households, elders’ forums, religious settings, and community structures—rather than focusing solely on individual awareness. Engagement with religious and traditional leaders was particularly critical, as their moral authority enabled the programme to address contested interpretations of religion and culture underpinning FGM and other harmful practices.

ii.Coherence

At the community level, the programme demonstrates strong internal coherence. Women’s self-help groups, community committees, school clubs, and religious platforms reinforced consistent messages and mutually supported norm change processes.

Horizontal coherence among civil society actors contributed to collective momentum and diffusion beyond direct participants. However, vertical coherence between community-based prevention mechanisms and formal service and justice systems remained uneven.

While awareness and willingness to refer cases increased, access to GBV services, legal aid, and judicial pathways was inconsistent—particularly in rural and displacement-affected areas—weakening the credibility of prevention efforts where survivors could not access timely, confidential, and effective support.

iii.Effectiveness

The strongest evidence of effectiveness relates to social norm change around FGM, particularly Type III, with increased community awareness of its severe health complications and associated risks.

Across stakeholder groups, respondents described a clear shift in public discourse, with increased willingness among leaders and community members to openly oppose the practice of type III.

Religious clarification, repeated dialogue, peer reinforcement, and visible leadership were identified as key mechanisms of change. Effectiveness was more limited for early and child marriage and IPV.

Although awareness of harms increased, early marriage continued to be driven by structural factors, particularly poverty, livelihood insecurity, and displacement. IPV, commonly and interchangeably referred to as domestic violence in the local context, remained widely underreported and normalized within marriage. This reflects persistent gendered power relations that are not easily shifted through awareness and dialogue alone.

Interventions were most effective where they strengthened women’s collective agency through self-help groups, committees, and peer networks—rather than relying on individual-level empowerment in isolation.

iv.Efficiency

Efficiency gains were achieved by leveraging existing community structures, such as mosques, schools, committees, and women’s groups, rather than establishing parallel systems. This approach reduced transaction costs and enhanced reach.

However, efficiency was constrained by security-related access challenges, transport costs, and limited frequency of engagement in remote and fragile areas. These constraints affected continuity and “dose” of interventions, with implications for the depth and sustainability of norm change.

v.Impact

Increased public discussion of VAWG issues; and strengthened collective voice and confidence among women at the community level. At the same time, impact remains uneven and emergent, rather than consolidated.

Behavioral change is partial, and persistent IPV, economic dependency, and fear of retaliation limit the extent to which normative shifts translate into sustained reductions in violence.

vi.Sustainability

Prospects for social sustainability are strong. Community ownership of VAWG prevention—especially among religious leaders, women’s groups, and committees—suggests that norm change discourse is likely to continue beyond the project cycle.

In contrast, institutional sustainability is weaker. Without sustained investment in service provision, referral systems, and enforcement mechanisms, prevention gains risk losing credibility over time, particularly in contexts of renewed economic or security shocks.

vii.Conclusions

The evaluation concludes that ISF’s EVAWG programme has made a credible and meaningful contribution to social norm change, most notably around FGM particularly the type III, and has strengthened women’s collective agency, confidence and public opposition to harmful practices.

However, progress on early marriage, and IPV remains constrained by structural and economic drivers that require deeper integration of livelihood resilience, protection, and gender-transformative approaches through male engagement at different ages (i.e., boys at schools and male at community).

Overall, the programme is strongest at the community and normative level, and weakest at the institutional response level, creating a sustainability gap that must be addressed in the next phase.

Priority Recommendations:

To strengthen impact and sustainability, the evaluation recommends that ISF:

1. Consolidate norm change around FGM: through sustained, repeated engagement with religious and traditional leaders, peer learning, and public reaffirmation mechanisms. Move from episodic sensitization to longer-term accompaniment of religious and traditional leaders (peer learning, mentoring, public reaffirmation) to consolidate behavioral change and prevent regression.
   
   
2. Strengthen context-specific framing beyond FGM Type III: Invest in stronger context analysis and messaging design to ensure interventions address all forms of FGM, not only Type III. Programming should develop tailored strategies for a zero-tolerance approach.
   
   
3. Harmonize terminology and guidance for IPV communication: Context-appropriate terminology for IPV, given that it is often used interchangeably with “family conflict” or “domestic violence” for sensitivity reasons.
   
   
4. Address early marriage as a structurally driven practice: Treat ECM as primarily driven by economic vulnerability and insecurity by linking prevention efforts more systematically to household livelihood resilience, social protection mechanisms, and education pathways, particularly in IDP and fragile settings where economic coping strategies continue to override normative change.
   
   
5. Systematically integrate backlash-risk mitigation: into women’s economic empowerment interventions, including household dialogue and engagement of men and elders. While the programme appropriately engaged male norm carriers and elders, yielding positive shifts in discourse. Yet FGDs indicate that decision-making authority remains concentrated among male elders.
   
   Deeper transformation of household power relations requires sustained, structured engagement with men linked to livelihoods, parenting, and joint decision-making.
   
   
6. Strengthen functional referral and response systems: Map existing GBV service and legal aid pathways and selectively strengthen those with the greatest potential for confidentiality, responsiveness, and survivor confidence; where state systems are weak, pilot hybrid referral models that formalize collaboration between trusted CSOs and relevant authorities.
   
   
7. Invest in intergenerational and gender-transformative approaches: Design and implement structured interventions that bring together elders, parents, adolescents, and couples to explicitly address decision-making norms and authority within households, moving beyond awareness-raising to influence how decisions affecting girls and women are actually made.
   
   
8. Pursue adaptive, context-sensitive scale-up: Consolidate interventions in locations where gains are strongest, tailor approaches for IDP and high-insecurity contexts, and strengthen monitoring systems to track norm diffusion, resistance, and unintended effects as programming expands.
   
   
9. Strengthen advocacy for functional GBV referral and response systems: Map existing service and legal aid pathways and advocate for strengthening those with the highest levels of confidentiality and survivor trust across target districts/villages. Where state systems are weak, pilot and advocate for hybrid referral models formalizing collaboration between trusted CSOs and relevant authorities.