No Means No

Context:

Expanded Church Response (ECR), a Christian faith-based NGO, works to complement government efforts to address gender-based violence and violence against children. These include Zambia's Ministry of Chiefs’ Gender Divisions that engage faith and traditional leaders to combat harmful norms driving gender-based violence, through information sharing and community dialogues. 

Adaptation:

In 2021, through PEPFAR's Faith and Communities Initiative (FCI), ECR convened faith leaders to expand HIV and violence prevention messaging, building faith community support for the No Means No program as aligned with broader goals of ending violence and oppression.

ECR did not need to make substantial changes to the curriculum itself, but adapted the delivery approach. They leveraged existing FCI relationships to secure venues, build community trust, and expand participant reach into church congregations. ECR worked with churches to support the roll-out of No Means No in the community through messaging such as posters and church announcements, helping build community acceptance and encourage participation. In communities where religious leadership carries significant influence, this approach meaningfully increased reach, and boys and girls from local congregations joined the No Means No sessions as a result. Opening prayers were also incorporated into community sessions, consistent with Zambia’s predominantly Christian context.

As elsewhere, girls learned self-defense skills focused on escaping an attacker, while boys learned to be positive bystanders.

Findings:

Pre- and post-program surveys showed:

• Boys' knowledge of skills to prevent and respond to sexual violence rose from 41% to 77%, and positive attitudes toward gender equality, consent, and violence prevention rose from 56% to 82%. The ability to identify safe, effective bystander intervention rose from 45% to 81%.
• Girls' knowledge of skills to prevent and respond to sexual violence rose from 48% to 76%, and positive attitudes toward self-worth, gender equality, and personal safety rose from 59% to 79%. Understanding that attackers, not victims, are responsible for sexual violence rose from 26% to 68%.

Learnings:

• Substantial modifications may not be needed. The curriculum required no substantive content changes to be effective in this faith community context.
• Invest in faith leader engagement early. ECR's reach depended on pre-existing relationships with faith leaders; implementers without those relationships should budget time to sensitize leaders before rollout, since their endorsement drives participation and acceptance.
• Align with national and community priorities. Engaging faith, community, and government gatekeepers positioned NMNW as complementary to existing violence prevention efforts, facilitating acceptance. Implementers should map the local GBV policy landscape for similar opportunities.
• Use faith infrastructure as a delivery asset. Church venues, announcements, and opening prayers expanded reach and comfort without requiring curriculum changes.

Play video

Context:

To ensure greater accessibility for people living with disabilities, implementing partners requested No Means No curriculum adaptations after identifying participants with mobility, visual, and auditory disabilities who couldn't fully engage with standard materials, recognizing that inclusive skills and delivery were essential for meaningful participation.

Adaptation:

NMNW co-created a disability-inclusive curriculum with Light for the World (LFTW) and Girl Child Rights (GCR), piloting activities and gathering feedback through a two-day workshop with 28 government and NGO representatives.

Using the LFTW Resource Book for Disability Inclusion and a new No Means No Facilitator's Guide to Teaching People with Disabilities, NMNW trained 27 instructors and 5 trainers of trainers to recognize disability-related biases, use inclusive facilitation methods, and deliver the curriculum to participants of diverse abilities.

Adaptations included:

• Large print, simplified visual aids, and facilitator notes with adaptation tips.
• Multi-sensory teaching (visual, verbal, sign language) and simplified language for cognitive accessibility.
• Sessions extended from 60 to 90 minutes for more repetition and practice time.
• Customized scenarios reflecting real-life situations youth with disabilities face.
• Physical defense techniques adapted for sitting positions, limited mobility, or assistive devices, such as using body language and sign language to set boundaries, using mobility aids in place of a kick or strike, and individualized training on target areas, framed around "What I Can Do."

Findings:

Focus groups and key informant interviews conducted in June 2026 in Sofala, Mozambique, found:

• Consent and self-advocacy improved. One facilitator observed "participants were asking for consent from each other; they were respecting each other," and a girls' FGD participant said, "If a classmate touches me or does something I don't like, I will say no."
• Disclosure reporting improved. An education official noted, "girls now know how to report, and they share information with others."
• Peer violence declined. One school director said, "Before this program, it was normal for students to fight during every long break. With time, things changed for the better."
• Peer attitudes toward disability shifted from mockery and occasional assault toward shared participation and advocacy. One director noted, "before, students would mock and discriminate against students with disabilities — sometimes even assault them. But with this program, things changed for the better," and a stakeholder at another school said, "I liked the program because it is inclusive. I would like to become an instructor." One FGD participant with disabilities called the program "breaking barriers between people with and without disabilities — everyone has the opportunity to defend themselves."
• Physical self-defense components, which need adequate space, were sometimes moved to temporary or outdoor settings when classrooms weren't available — flagged by school directors and facilitators as a quality concern.

Learnings:

• The number of children living with disabilities in each class was lower than expected, limiting reach and the data available to assess disability-specific impact of the program.
• Institutional buy-in mattered - schools where principals actively set fixed days/times for sessions saw noticeably better outcomes. The highest drop-out was observed when activities were scheduled outside of school hours among predominantly male groups in the most schedule-constrained schools.
• Longer sessions facilitated accessibility but also contributed to drop-out. 
  Future considerations include reducing the sessions’ duration from 90 to 60 minutes and removing repetitive activities.
• Gaps between facilitator certification and program start (driven by the school calendar) led to some loss of content retention among facilitators before implementation.
• Age-cutoff flexibility was needed, since students with disabilities were often older than same-grade peers and didn't meet original eligibility criteria.

NMNW responded to partner requests for a condensed curriculum due to resource constraints and an inability to deliver full instructor trainings and an 8-12 hour program after the loss of USAID funding. This was built on an internal analysis of 144 girls’ testimonial videos on their use of program skills to prevent and mitigate attacks, which found that 86% of assaults were prevented using verbal skills.

Adaptation:

NMNW developed and piloted an abridged No Means No curriculum in Kwa-Zulu Natal to expand access in resource-constrained settings. The “Worth Defending: No Means No Basics” 90-minute verbal and mental skills-only curriculum can be delivered by social workers or others after completing a short online training, eliminating the full instructor certification requirement.

The “Worth Defending” curriculum, designed for youth ages 9 to 20, focuses exclusively on mental and verbal skills to prevent sexual violence and does not teach physical skills.

Findings:

• Pravisha Dhanapalan, Director at Lifeline Durban shared: “A short, well-facilitated prevention intervention can create immediate, measurable, and meaningful change, especially when paired with strong response systems.” She also said, “Its ability to build self-worth, confidence, and help-seeking behavior in a short time makes it both practical and impactful.”
• Early data analysis of pre- and post- program questionnaires from 12,284 female participants demonstrated effectiveness in equipping participants with mental and verbal skills that can help them recognize, interrupt, and escape violence:
  • Knowledge scores increased by 148%, rising from 33% to 82% after the intervention.
  • Attitude scores shifted from 65% to 84% (+30%). 
  • Self-Efficacy scores rose from 60% to 86% (+43%)
• A cost analysis found that the Worth Defending program costs ~ $1.40 per beneficiary when implemented as an add-on program (likely higher if implemented independently).

Learnings:

• The pilot data suggest that the Worth Defending 90-minute model is feasible and can strengthen participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceived self-efficacy to recognize, interrupt, and escape violent situations. 
• This curriculum significantly lowers the barrier to entry for partner organizations, allowing them to reach more participants more quickly and at lower cost. 
• The implementing partner prefers the full 8-hour program and suggests the 90-minute version expands access rather than replacing the full gold-standard program. 
• NMNW plans to expand implementation and evaluation of this curriculum in additional contexts before scaling more broadly or making the content open source.

Context:

NMNW and partner organizations are actively working to adapt the traditional evidence-based face-to-face program to modern societal norms for how young people seek information and education – from online and media-driven sources, using digitally-driven and media-forward programming to meet adolescents where they are. Increasingly, young people also need digital self-defense skills so they can navigate these channels safely and with confidence, free from the increasing harms of technology-facilitated sexual violence. NMNW partners across East and Southern Africa, West Africa, and Mexico have increasingly requested digital safety content for the No Means No curriculum.

A 2023 RCT on No Means No in Gqeberha, South Africa, found alarming rates of technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV): 43% of girls in secondary school had experienced TFSV in the past year, and those affected had nearly four times higher odds of depression or anxiety [10]. These findings mirror global trends and highlight an urgent, unmet need for digital safety programming.

Adaptation:

To design the module, No Means No South Africa (NMNSA) surveyed 46 high school students (aged 16-18) in Gqeberha, using open-ended questions to explore their experiences with TFSV and their knowledge, attitudes, and learning needs.

Findings:

The formative research found:

• Unsolicited advances: Girls described being contacted online by men with inappropriate comments, requests for nude photos, or money for sexual content.
• Cyberstalking: Persistent, invasive contact from strangers was common; some girls were stalked both digitally and physically, while boys described adults posing as peers.
• Coercion: Several participants described being coerced into uncomfortable conversations, including one account of online sexual pressure and exploitation.
• Gendered differences: Girls reported more frequent and intense TFSV — harassment, stalking, rumors, coercion — while boys more often described exposure to explicit content, peer pressure, or account hacking.
• Perpetration: A few participants admitted to bullying or other harmful online behavior themselves.

It also surfaced opportunities:

• Knowledge gaps: Understanding of digital consent, reporting options, and online boundaries was limited, despite widespread exposure to TFSV.
• Strong interest in learning: Participants wanted to know how to protect themselves, support peers, and report inappropriate behavior.
• Cultural barriers: Stigma and peer dynamics kept TFSV largely undiscussed; many had never talked about it before.

These findings shaped a one-hour digital self-defense module equipping girls to recognize online safety risks, identify types of TFSV, and prevent and respond to it. The module was integrated into the standard 10-hour No Means No curriculum.

NMNW and NMNSA piloted the module with 673 adolescents. Implementation challenges led to inconclusive pre-post results, and further evaluation ended when the NMNSA office closed.

Qualitative feedback from returning participants highlighted broader impacts of No Means No overall:

• Girls described gains in confidence, self-worth, and boundary-setting, using physical and verbal skills to protect themselves and others: "I realized that it's very important to love yourself and take care of yourself and know how confident you are—and no one can touch your body." Others said, "Now I know I am worth defending," and "I feel more confident because I know I can protect myself."
• Boys reported de-escalation skills and personal growth: "When other kids are fighting, I de-escalate because they will end up injuring each other." "I used to beat people up, but now I no longer do those things because of No Means No." "I am able to trust myself because of No Means No and I am able to be confident in other things as well."
• A ripple effect emerged, with students teaching peers and siblings: "I taught my younger sister how to do the fighting stance," and "Scream, kick, scratch, pinch—because our body is a weapon."

Learnings:

• The pilot surfaced challenges in the way outcomes were measured. Program staff found that when they sat down and talked with participants directly, they clearly remembered the content, even when it didn't show up in test results. Because the pre-posts were anonymous, staff observed participants answering questions randomly or without much investment, raising questions about whether the pre-post tool was capturing real learning.
• Collaborating with additional implementing partners is needed to more accurately assess the module's impact.
• Qualitative feedback captured described perceived changes in confidence, boundary-setting, and agency that quantitative surveys missed.
• The module shows strong potential to help young people stay safe online. Next steps include expanding it with more partners, developing a standalone digital-safety curriculum, and building a fully digitized version of No Means No for direct-to-youth delivery without requiring a trained instructor.

[1] Fang, X., Ren, J., Kang, J., Ligiéro, D., Fry, D., Annor, F. B., Burrows, S., Butchart, R. A., Diaz, K. J., Fang, Z., Fernandez, B., Finkelhor, D., Ginestra, C., Gong, X., Howard, A., Jin, W., Krzeczkowska, A., Kurdi, Z., Liu, J., ... Vermeulen, I. (2026). A systematic review of the global and regional estimates of the prevalence of sexual violence against children. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02436-1   

[2] World Health Organization. (2016). INSPIRE: Seven strategies for ending violence against children. World Health Organization.  https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565356

[3] Rutman S., Park A., Castor M., Taualii M., & Forquera R. (2008). Urban American Indian and Alaska Native youth: Youth Risk Behavior Survey 1997–2003. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 12(1), 76. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1007/s10995-008-0351-3 

[4] Edwards K. M., Banyard V. L., Charge L. L., Kollar L. M. M., & Fortson B. (2021). Experiences and correlates of violence Among American Indian and Alaska Native youth: a brief report. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23–24), 11808–11821. 

[5] Edwards, K. M., Siller, L., Wheeler, L. A., Charge, L. L., Charge, D. P. L., Bordeaux, S., Herrington, R., Hopfauf, S. L., & Simon, B. (2022). Effectiveness of a Sexual Assault Self-defense Program for American Indian Girls. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15–16), NP13245–NP13267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521997942

[6] Decker, M.R., Wood, S.N., Ndinda, E. et al. (2018). Sexual violence among adolescent girls and young women in Malawi: A cluster-randomized controlled implementation trial of empowerment self-defense training. BMC Public Health, 18 (1-12). DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-6220-0

[7] Sinclair J., Sinclair L., Otieno E., Mulinge M., Kapphahn C., & Golden N.H. (2013). A self-defense program reduces the incidence of sexual assault in Kenyan adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Health. 53(3):37480.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.04.008

[8] Sarnquist, C., Friedberg, R., Rosenman, E. T., Amuyunzu Nyamongo, M., Nyairo, G., & Baiocchi, M. (2024). Sexual assault among young adolescents in informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya: Findings from the IMPower and SOS cluster-randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science, 25(4), 578-589. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11121-023-01595-1 

[9] Hartmann M., Mutangabende S., Nash S., Browne E.N., Hatcher A., Kågesten A.E., & Roberts S.T.. Effectiveness of an empowerment-based self-defense program among South African girls: results from a cluster-randomized control trial in schools. BMC Womens Health. 2025 Mar 14;25(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12905-025-03647-w. 

[10] Hartmann, M. A., Browne, E. N., Hatcher, A., Mutangabende, S, Wallengren., Goba, M., Mungwari, P., Kagesten, A. & Roberts, S. T. (2024). Effectiveness of an empowerment-based self-defense program among South African girls. Presentation at Sexual Violence Research Initiative Forum 2024, Cape Town, South Africa. 

[11] Hartmann M.A., Browne E., Mutangabende S., Mungwari P., Stotesbury D., Woollett N., Kågesten A., Roberts S.T., Hatcher A. (2025). Prevalence of technology facilitated and other gender-based violence among adolescent girls in Gqeberha, South Africa and its association with probable common mental disorders. Frontiers in Global Women’s Health. 9;6:1546901. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2025.1546901. 

Special thanks to Danielle Stotesbury, Senior Data to Action Specialist at No Means No Worldwide, for co-developing this case study.

Additional gratitude goes to Pravisha Dhanapalan, Director at Lifeline Durban, and the team at Girl Child Rights (GCR).

For more information on this case study, you can reach out to Danielle at [email protected] or Kirk Friedrich, Executive Director, at [email protected].