Effective community mobilisation requires a range of strategies that work across the socio-ecological model including at individual, interpersonal, community and institutional levels – to bring about changes in the attitudes, behaviours and norms that enable violence. This included community activism, but also other strategies such as policy advocacy with governments, capacity development work with local service providers (schools, police, health, etc), and engagement with local faith traditional and community leaders and influencers.   

 A key element in the success of the SASA! Approach has been its carefully phased approach which is based on theories of behaviour change. It trains and supports community activists through four stages of change: pre-contemplation in Start, contemplation in Awareness, preparation for action in Support, and action and maintenance in Action, with different objectives and content that evolve for every phase. Further learnings from many years of implementing the SASA! Approach across multiple contexts has confirmed that it is important not to do too much too soon and to ensure adequate intensity, consistency and frequency of messages to progress and sustain change. Read more on the Raising Voices website on SASA and the updated SASA! Together 

Community mobilisation takes time and intense programming to have an impact. The Prevention Collaborative recommends funding for a minimum of 3-5 years in order to maximise the impact of this programming. Their research found that, while some community mobilisation efforts have been effective in reducing VAWG, others with shorter timeframes and less flexibility to adapt their approach have not. The factors that influence the success of a community mobilisation initiative have not been widely documented. Therefore, long-term, flexible funding that allows programmes to adapt to their context and be responsive to their communities is key to maximising impact.  

Activists living within communities are best placed to lead community mobilisation efforts. Unlike activists from outside of communities, community activists are likely to have a deep understanding of the context and be tapped into existing community networks. This puts them in a strong position to develop context-appropriate initiatives and to galvanise support from community members. Programmes should select teams of community activists from diverse backgrounds with diverse networks to maximise the reach of their activities. Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and Women’s Rights Organisations (WROs) can provide a strong starting point for identifying potential activists from the community and can provide vital support with implementing community mobilisation approaches. It is important to recognise that community mobilisation requires specific skills and that some activists may benefit from training and ongoing mentoring to support the development and implementation of these initiatives. 

Learn more about how to support CSOs and WROs with capacity building 

Experience from VAWG practitioners across the field demonstrates that the success of community mobilisation efforts relies heavily on the contextual relevance of those initiatives. What works in one context will not necessarily work in another, and in some cases efforts to duplicate initiatives in other contexts may result in backlash and resistance. Working in partnership with diverse local community activists, WROs and CSOs who have a strong understanding of the local context, social norms, and what is likely to work effectively in transforming these norms is key to maximising the impact of community mobilisation efforts.

Learn more about how to work to transform social norms

Initiatives aiming to mobilise communities to create an enabling environment to end VAWG should engage a range of stakeholders. Communities are not homogenous groups and community mobilisation efforts should reflect this. Stakeholders from different religious backgrounds, political affiliation, ages, disability status, sexual orientation and gender identity, ethnicity etc. may be more likely to connect with different approaches to shift norms on VAWG. In addition, different groups within a community may hold different norms themselves, which may require different approaches to addressing them. When developing activities targeting different stakeholders, it often more effective to promote positive social norms rather than being overtly negative about existing ones.  

Learn more about how to engage diverse stakeholders and build effective partnerships 

Efforts to galvanise community support to end VAWG require creating opportunities for dialogue. Social norms, attitudes and beliefs about VAWG are often deeply held and associated with complex social understandings of morality, shame and honour. Efforts to shift these norms, attitudes and beliefs often benefit from safe spaces where individuals can discuss them and have them challenged without fear of humiliation or backlash. When developing a safe space for critical dialogue, consider the make-up of the group and potential power dynamics that may prevent certain individuals from sharing their views. Consider whether it may be more appropriate to have a group of people with a shared characteristic such as gender, sexual orientation or disability. Might this improve the likelihood that all members of the group will feel comfortable sharing their views? Alternatively, might having a mixed group support conversations and understanding between individuals who might not ordinarily meet? In either context, safe spaces for critical dialogue require well-trained facilitators that can manage the power dynamics in the room and ensure that everyone feels safe and heard.  

Learn more about how to address resistance and backlash