The Effect of Gender Equality Programming on Humanitarian Outcomes

"Despite a number of developments in policy and practice aimed at integrating gender equality and women's empowerment into humanitarian action, what remains missing is a strong evidence base that demonstrates just how gender equality programming is essential to ensuring an effective, inclusive, rights-based humanitarian response."

In response to this need, this report presents a prototype Gender Intensity Measure that assesses the degree to which gender equality and women's empowerment have been integrated into humanitarian programmes, using inputs from the beneficiaries themselves. The intention is that, by showing where and how gender equality programming (GEP) is working, the report can serve as an advocacy tool to give women a greater voice, both as providers and as beneficiaries of humanitarian action. It is based on research conducted in 2013 by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, at the request of UN [United Nations] Women on behalf of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Reference Group on Gender in Humanitarian Action and with co-funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada.

The report presents the findings of this research, which was based on interviews with more than 2,000 crisis-affected households gathered for 4 case studies conducted in Kenya (the Dadaab refugee camps and the county of Turkana), Nepal, and The Philippines. It presents overall findings, draws comparative conclusions across the case studies, and discusses practical recommendations for integrating GEP in future humanitarian interventions in ways that strengthen effectiveness and inclusiveness.

As explained here, most humanitarian agencies have devised policies and guidelines, either standalone or in conjunction with other organisations, that prescribe GEP components in their humanitarian interventions. GEP recognises that the needs and vulnerabilities of women, men, girls, and boys in any given crisis-affected population will be specific and different. Key to being able to identify and address these disparate needs is a contextual gender analysis that examines gender relationships in the beneficiary population, including roles, access to and control of resources, and the constraints different groups face relative to each other. It is also essential that men and women have equal opportunities to actively participate in humanitarian action, including at the strategic planning and decision-making level.

To understand the impact of GEP on the effectiveness and inclusiveness of humanitarian outcomes, as well as the elements of GEP that have proven more (or less) effective in improving humanitarian outcomes, researchers analysed the effect of GEP on 4 elements of humanitarian interventions: access to and use of services by different beneficiaries, the effectiveness of outcomes across different population groups, the ability to address the needs and capacities of beneficiaries, and levels of gender equality in access to and outcomes of humanitarian intervention. The study employed a mix of methods: a desk-based literature review; key informant interviews; focus group discussions (FGDs) held with men and women separately in 5 villages in Nepal, 3 villages in Turkana, 2 camps in Dadaab, and 3 villages in the Philippines; and quantitative methods (2 large surveys in Turkana (Kenya) and Mindanao (the Philippines).

To assess the importance of GEP for humanitarian outcomes - and in the absence of baseline data for any of the interventions surveyed - a measure of the magnitude of the GEP component of each intervention had to be created. The tool builds on, and takes forward, the work of the IASC Gender Marker, which is applied only in programme design and has no input from beneficiaries. Four indices were developed and analysed: (i) the Satisfaction Index, which measures women's overall satisfaction with humanitarian aid; (ii) the Influence Index, which measures women's perceived ability to influence programmes; (iii) the Sensitivity Index, which measures women's perception of the level of gender equality in the programmes; and (iv) the GEP Index, which measures the proportion of programmes accessed by women that they perceived met their needs. There are 5 ratios correlating to female respondents who answered questions using the following scale: "fully agree", "somewhat agree", "somewhat disagree", "fully disagree", and the ratio of female-headed households among the participants of each programme. In the GEP Intensity Measure, programme A is more GEP intensive than programme B if programme A has higher values on the ratios. (The assumption was made that there was a direct link between actual GEP implementation and the 5 ratios.)

The study showed that, overall, GEP contributes to improving access to and use of services, increasing the effectiveness of humanitarian outcomes, and reducing gender inequalities. Summary of specific findings regarding the impact of GEP on access to and use of humanitarian services and the effectiveness of humanitarian outcomes include:

• The study suggested that GEP was strongly associated with improvements in access to education, and with positive education outcomes for boys and girls. For example, in the older Dadaab camps where refugees have been exposed to girls education awareness raising for longer, girls made up to 47% of all pupils aged 6-13, compared to 37% in the newer Ifo 2 camp.
• The results indicated a causal effect of GEP on improved access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), particularly among women and girls. For example, inclusion of women in water and infrastructure committees in Turkana resulted in women being able to influence the location, maintenance and design of water points more suitable to their needs. Women who benefited from programmes with high levels of GEP intensity were 44% less likely to walk more than 60 minutes each way to access drinking water.
• The study uncovered GEP’s strong impact on health outcomes, particularly for women and girls, but extending to all household members. For example, in Nepal, GEP in the provision of health-related infrastructure, awareness raising campaigns about health and hygiene, and encouragement to access health facilities greatly improved maternal and child health and decreased prenatal and natal mortality.
• The evidence suggested that greater GEP intensity improved food access and food security, particularly among women and children. For example, in Turkana, food-for-assets programmes that prioritised women as the main household member registered for working and collecting food. Researchers found that this policy has had long-lasting effects on food security; increasing the GEP Index from low to high would improve the Food Diversity Index (a measure of how many food groups the household has access to during the relevant reference period) by 15%.
• There was evidence that GEP influences the probability of women experiencing gender-based violence (GBV). For example, in Mindanao, creation of women- and child-friendly spaces in evacuation centres, psycho-social support for women and children, awareness raising around GBV, child protection measures, provision of lighting and lock kits, and the separation of latrines and washing spaces have increased security among women and girls, reduced GBV, and cut the prevalence of verbal abuse of women. Increasing the GEP Index by one standard deviation would halve the extent of verbal abuse, whereas an increase from low to high intensity of GEP would be associated with reductions of verbal abuse by 75% and 44% when measured by the Satisfaction and Sensitivity indices, respectively.

The researchers also found significant evidence across all 4 case studies that GEP is critical to improving gender equality in humanitarian settings, mostly through changes in women's social and economic empowerment. For example, in Mindanao, higher levels of GEP were very strongly associated with women's greater decision-making power related to attending trainings or the activities of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and spending on consumer durables, health care, education, livestock, and farming. One standard deviation increase in the GEP index led to a 44% reduction in the likelihood of a man making that decision for a woman. GEP intensity was also associated with heightened feelings of agency and optimism.

The case studies revealed 4 main GEP components critical to improving the inclusiveness and effectiveness of humanitarian aid:

1. Provision of work opportunities for women - In patriarchal societies, the welfare of children depends upon their mother's welfare, and as such, reductions in gender inequalities within the household benefit other household members. For instance, in Nepal, women's earned income had direct positive effects on household outcomes such as: increased school attendance for children (particularly for girls); better hygiene and health for women, boys, and girls; and greater food security and access to a more varied diet for all members of the household. Financially empowered women also gained confidence and ability to take on more substantial roles in the management of community affairs.
2. Deliberate "targeting" of women and girls - In Nepal, for instance, facilities built as part of cash/food-for work programmes specifically addressed the needs of women and girls. For instance, easier access to water saved numerous hours of daily chores for women and girls, while the ongoing construction of a women's centre will provide a social space for women to meet. The centre will have a water tap for washing and private latrines, facilities considered central to improving women's standard of living. However: "The stronger involvement of men and boys in GEP humanitarian interventions - including those that specifically target women and girls - greatly increases their likelihood of success and improved outcomes for the wider community. Inclusion of men as agents of change - such as the religious leaders in Dadaab, who voiced their support for a number of interventions, including the prevention of GBV - leads to less resistance to GEP."
3. Including women in committees and leadership positions - This is an important tool to ensure that women's voices are heard and that the design of programmes suits their needs. In Turkana, for example, women's participation in decision-making bodies and the cultivation of leadership skills were responsible for raising aspirations among women and girls, as well as reducing disadvantages women face in accessing power. In Nepal, women reported an increase in self-confidence, self-esteem and pride when working to build their communities, and when taking leadership positions in their villages. They demonstrated self-confidence and a new capacity to collectively organise by implementing campaigns to ban alcohol, which was associated with GBV and poverty. However, the researchers found that there are a number of barriers to widening women's participation in decision-making processes and leadership positions. First, programme managers reported that, in contexts of acute gender inequalities, it was difficult to find women with the required skills and self-confidence to participate in committees. Second, the presence of women in committees did not automatically lead to women voicing their opinions. Changes in social attitudes are long-term processes that require immediate action, as well as interventions that raise aspirations among women and girls and encourage wider acceptance of gender equality in society. Third, in rapid-onset crisis contexts, the immediate relief phase does not last long, so it is important that continuity exists between immediate humanitarian interventions and recovery programmes. Fourth, GEP requires further inclusion of men in the design and implementation of interventions in order to ensure acceptance.
4. Training activities and awareness raising campaigns - These activities were found to be particularly useful in extremely patriarchal settings. Much of their value came from the interaction with the other GEP components mentioned above.

The recommendations portion of the report offers suggestions based on the research, such as: Collect and analyse sex- and age-disaggregated data (SADD) as key to adequately identifying and addressing the gender-specific needs of a beneficiary population. "In particular, for countries prone to natural disasters, advance baseline SADD collection and the establishment of monitoring and evaluation systems should be an essential facet of all disaster preparedness strategies....In the long run, more effective programme monitoring during crises, using disaggregated data, will lead to even greater improvements in the effectiveness and inclusiveness of GEP by contributing to a comprehensive body of evidence-based best practices." It is also noted that, for the Gender Marker to be a really useful tool, it needs to be adapted so that it can monitor ongoing progress beyond programme design and keep humanitarian interventions on track with GEP commitments throughout implementation.

One conclusion to emerge is that GEP can improve the quality of life for all community members and decrease gender inequalities in even extremely patriarchal societies, under certain conditions - namely, if the programming is implemented over time, encourages women to become decision makers, and works with community and religious leaders to promote its value. "It is up to the global humanitarian system to hold itself accountable to its own commitments and make gender equality a core, systematic element of humanitarian action, rather than an afterthought or 'optional extra'."