Key Social Norms Take-aways This study underscores the complexity of transforming deeply entrenched social norms and masculinities that sustain intimate partner violence in informal peri-urban contexts. While the Sonke CHANGE intervention aimed to shift gender norms through community mobilization and reflective dialogue, it was more effective among men with less violent behavior at baseline. The results suggest that one-size-fits-all approaches may be insufficient and that targeted strategies may be necessary to reach men with more violent, entrenched hypermasculine ideologies.
Objectives The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Sonke CHANGE community mobilization intervention in reducing men’s perpetration of physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence and severe violence over two years in a peri-urban settlement in South Africa.
Methods This was a two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial conducted across 18 non-contiguous clusters. Nine clusters received the intervention and nine served as controls. A cohort of 2,406 men aged 18–40 was followed over two years. Data were collected at baseline and endline using audio-assisted self-administered questionnaires. The primary outcomes were self-reported use of physical, sexual, or severe intimate partner violence. Secondary analyses employed latent class analysis to explore differences in intervention effects among subgroups of men.
Intervention Details The Sonke CHANGE intervention was a multi-level community-based program implemented over 18 months. It combined participatory workshops, peer outreach, door-to-door dialogues, community action teams, and limited local advocacy. The content focused on gender equality, human rights, healthy relationships, and reducing violence. Activities were grounded in a theory of change aimed at shifting individual behaviors and community norms through critical reflection and collective action.
Results While the overall prevalence of intimate partner violence declined from baseline to follow-up across both arms, the intention-to-treat analysis revealed no significant differences between intervention and control clusters for any primary or secondary outcomes. However, subgroup analysis showed that the intervention may have had a greater positive effect among men with lower baseline levels of violence, while it had no measurable impact—or potentially negative effects—on men who exhibited high levels of violent or anti-social behavior at baseline.
Conclusions The Sonke CHANGE intervention did not achieve community-level reductions in men’s use of violence in this peri-urban context. While promising for less violent men, the intervention struggled to engage and shift norms among the most violent subgroup. This highlights the need for more intensive or alternative interventions targeting high-risk men and addressing the structural conditions—such as poverty and social dislocation—that underpin violent masculinities.