Gender-responsive budgeting (GRB) is often seen as technical or intimidating, but it is essential for addressing gender-based violence (GBV).
At its core, GRB examines how public resources are raised, allocated and spent, and whether these fiscal decisions reduce gender inequalities.
In the GBV context, GRB provides a framework to assess whether government budgets fund prevention, ensure survivor-centred services, and uphold legal obligations.
Rather than confining gender issues to “women’s programmes,” GRB compels governments to examine mainstream sectors, health, justice, policing, social welfare, infrastructure, and governance, since these shape survivor protection.
Underfunded justice systems, health facilities charging survivors upfront or unsafe infrastructure all perpetuate harm.
Budgets must, therefore, finance interventions that prevent violence, support survivors and promote equality as core governance priorities.
Budget tracking insights
FIDA Ghana, in collaboration with Action Aid Ghana and AWDF, has tracked Ghana’s national budget over four years, focusing on allocations to the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection (MoGCSP) and the Domestic Violence (DV) Fund. Findings reveal troubling trends:
Low Allocations: Gender equality and GBV programmes typically receive only 0.1–0.5 per cent of the national budget.
The DV Fund itself has received GH₵1–2 million annually, far below the scale of GBV nationwide.
Minimal Share: In 2024, the DV Fund was just 0.13 per cent of MoGCSP’s goods and services allocation, while broader social protection consumed over 99 per cent.
Delayed and Partial Releases: Funds are often released late or incompletely.
In 2024, only GH₵800,000 (29 per cent of the allocation) was disbursed.
Unspent balances are sometimes returned to the consolidated fund, depriving survivors of support.
These trends show a systemic lack of prioritisation, rendering policy commitments symbolic.
Making the DV Fund work for survivors
A GRB lens requires reforms that centre survivors, especially those poor, rural and marginalised.
Operationalisation: Survivors must receive free, timely, evidence-based clinical and medico-legal care at public and designated private facilities without upfront payment.
Increased funding: The DV Fund should be expanded significantly.
A starting point is allocating at least one per cent of MoGCSP’s goods and services budget, with annual increases of 30 per cent to meet demand.
Ring-fencing: Portions of the fund should be reserved for high-need services—emergency medical care, forensic exams, transportation, shelter and psychosocial support.
Timely release: Allocated funds must be disbursed early in the fiscal year.
Allowing MoGCSP to retain unspent balances for multi-year programming would enhance predictability and enable longer-term investments.
Decentralisation, access, pro-poor targeting
Centralised financing disadvantages rural and low-income survivors.
Decentralisation: Regional or district-level desks, focal persons and referral pathways between DOVVSU, health facilities and social welfare would improve access.
Survivors should obtain care locally without bureaucratic hurdles.
Simplified criteria: Eligibility must be survivor-centred.
Current barriers include delays, lack of privacy, insufficient clinician training, inconsistent availability of post-exposure prophylaxis and contraception and illegal charges.
Communities must be informed about DV Fund coverage and access points.
Pro-poor lens: Allocation criteria should prioritise low-income, rural and vulnerable survivors.
Support must extend beyond medical services to transportation, shelter and temporary accommodation—often the greatest barriers to help-seeking.
Infrastructure, accountability, systems integration
Shelters and safe spaces are central to survivor protection, yet Ghana has made little capital investment.
No new shelters have been built recently, and the 2025 budget contains no capital allocation.
GRB requires deliberate capital expenditures for shelters, safe houses and rehabilitation centres nationwide.
Transparency: Public reporting on the DV Fund is limited.
Regular quarterly or semi-annual reports on allocations, releases, expenditures, survivors served, services provided and regional distribution would strengthen oversight.
National GBV Dashboard: Linking data from MoGCSP, Ministry of Health and DOVVSU could track timeliness of care, medico-legal documentation, fund utilisation and survivor satisfaction, disaggregated by region, income and rural–urban location.
Systems Integration: Weak coordination undermines outcomes. Joint standard operating procedures, unified medico-legal forms, electronic systems and clear NHIS guidance on GBV-related services reimbursable through the DV Fund would strengthen responses.
From symbolic budgets to survivor-centred justice
Ghana’s Domestic Violence Fund, established under Act 732, is intended to support survivors.
In practice, however, it remains under-resourced, unpredictable and inaccessible. GRB exposes the gap between legal intent and fiscal reality.
Transforming the DV Fund requires: Increased and protected allocations, timely releases, decentralised access, pro-poor prioritisation, capital investments in shelters, integrated systems and strong transparency mechanisms.
With these reforms, the DV Fund can become a powerful instrument for reducing the social, economic and human costs of GBV, rather than a symbolic budget line.
This article is by FIDA Ghana.
FIDA Ghana is dedicated to advocating for the rights of women and children in Ghana
Source:
www.graphic.com.gh