In a society that declaratively protects victims of gender-based violence, it is striking how little attention we pay to those who are on the front line of this fight every day. Employees in the non-governmental sector who provide support to victims are, as a rule, overlooked.
While institutions that are crucial for protection should function as a coordinated and efficient system, the reality is different. Their work is often slow, fragmented and insufficiently coordinated. Instead of a coordinated and sensitised approach, we often witness a lack of communication, understanding and consistent standards in working with victims. In such an environment, the burden of responsibility is tacitly shifted to civil society organisations, and within them to individuals who try to “hold the system together” when it fails.
Such a model is not sustainable.
I analysed this issue in more detail through my master’s thesis, researching burnout syndrome among employees in the non-governmental sector working in the field of gender-based violence. The motivation for the research was precisely this “invisible layer” of the system – the fact that the focus is almost always placed on victims, while the condition of those who provide them with daily support is neglected.
Through focus groups and semi-structured interviews with employees from various organisations in Montenegro that provide direct support to victims – from SOS hotlines, through legal and psychological assistance, to advocacy organisations – I gained insight into a reality that rarely reaches the public.
The findings clearly indicate that burnout is not an individual problem, but a structural phenomenon. It was further deepened during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, and its dominant dimension is emotional exhaustion – a state of chronic fatigue resulting from prolonged exposure to stress.
Employees in the non-governmental sector are often the first, and not infrequently the only, line of support for victims. This means daily exposure to traumatic stories, a high level of responsibility, and a constant feeling that they must compensate for what the system fails to provide. The boundary between professional and private life almost does not exist – stress does not remain at work, but spills over into personal space and family life.
One of the most difficult aspects of the work, as highlighted by participants, is the moment when a victim returns to the abuser despite the effort invested. In public discourse, such situations are often interpreted superficially, but for those working with victims they represent a strong emotional blow, accompanied by a sense of helplessness and questioning of one’s own work. However, the research also shows an important nuance: such outcomes do not mean that the support was in vain. On the contrary, women do not return the same, they return with more information, a higher level of awareness and empowerment, which in the long term can be a crucial step towards leaving violence.
An additional challenge is long-term work on cases, which involves monitoring a beneficiary for months or even years through different phases – from the initial report, through proceedings before institutions, to attempts to leave the abusive situation. Such continuity requires not only professional engagement, but also deep emotional investment, which over time leads to the accumulation of stress and exhaustion.
This is further compounded by numerous organisational problems: lack of resources, heavy workload, insecure funding and dependence on projects. Training is not systematically regulated, but depends on project cycles, while supervision and psychological support are mostly absent. In such conditions, employees are left to rely on their own survival mechanisms.
Moreover, employees in this sector are exposed not only to professional stress, but also to personal risks. Due to the nature of their work, they are often targets of pressure, harassment and even public attacks.
In such circumstances, family support and personal coping mechanisms play an important role. Participants emphasised family as a key source of support and a space for emotional relief, while various relaxation strategies help maintain a minimum balance between private and professional life. However, relying solely on personal resources cannot be a long-term solution.
Caring for those who care for others must become an institutional priority. This implies better working conditions, stable funding, continuous training, regular supervision, accessible psychological support and genuine inter-institutional cooperation.
Because the question is no longer whether these people are exhausted. The question is: how long can the system survive relying on their exhaustion?
Alma Hećo, Programme Assistant at the Centre for Civic Education (CCE)