The Cause being addressed in this paper is, transformative gender norms in the family, as the transport mechanism for healthy families, communities and society.
It would be easy to glance at this Topic/Cause and think, that’s not new, everyone is working on/concerned about this, without understanding that the Approach to this cause is what is different. This becomes evident as you read through the case study and understand on one hand its simplicity yet, because of its emphasis on locality and culture the complexity of getting it right. Because of this, the first few sections below on Importance, Tractability and Neglectedness are brief and generalized where as the example in Part II is fairly detailed
The worldview needed in order to make this effective, is diverse and inclusive.
Using a Bi-Gender, Bi-cultural, Localized worldview /approach with a Gender Transformative focus, to increase the all-around well-being of the family unit, would also exponentially increase the effectiveness of global aid. If one is to visualize society as the tree, communities as the branches, families as the leaves. Then this cause is the sap that nourishes all of the tree called society, slowly growing and spreading into a healthy society.
Note: This approach, may sound similar to Community-Driven Development, which CAUSE has researched and found wanting, however, this is addressed at the end of Part 1(on p5).
What is the problem?
Harmful Gender norms can be intertwined with cultural norms like bride price within marriage and the family, these can be shown to negatively impact the majority of the SDGs, in the majority of the Least Developed countries.
The challenge experienced with Global Development, is that the priorities and worldview of outsiders determine the dreams, opportunities and solutions of local community insiders.
Who is already working on it?
While many Agencies/CBO’s claim to be addressing harmful norms or introducing “transformative” gender behavior, the majority of the time the change is not long term and it is not contagious. By that we mean, the transformative change is not spreading of its own accord to others in the community. The litmus test of long-term sustainability, comes up short. There are several reasons for this failure. Primarily however it usually comes down to a few basic reasons
When behaviour change is mandated and not based on choice,
When the benefits are seen, or in fact, go to one gender and not the other. (Especially when the gender of power and privilege is bypassed)
When the cultural way of learning and doing is bypassed
When the unique “needs” identified by both genders are not met.
When the Agency/CBO is adding the right verbiage to their proposals/reports but there is no real transformative behaviour being modelled from the implementers right through to the participants
In these conditions, it is rare that the “transformative behaviour” demonstrated during the project will still be practiced even a year later. Additionally, behind the scenes in the community, if it was only women benefitting from the project, there is likely more gender-based violence than before.
One of the significant research initiatives is just wrapping up a seven-year, international study into norm changing around young people and reproductive health.
Without access to these reports, SCORE Against Poverty, (SCORE) https://www.scoreagainstpoverty.org/ has covered all the boxes indicated in the above-mentioned study and added two more elements that are perhaps inferred but not articulated in the study. These are the identification of skills, needed by the participants, each reference groups, in the population in which you are attempting to effect the change, and the particular skills training of each sub reference group in the identified areas i.e., dialogue or cooking. By simultaneously, working with both genders, providing a safe place for dialogue and understanding of how gender norms in the family can be destructive and limiting to the family, while also simultaneously engaging both genders in the skills they were lacking, they have addressed and influenced both 1) descriptive (behavioral) and injunctive (attitudinal) norms.
This Zimbabwe CBO has pioneered the approach of this paper, and are in the last stages of documenting its effectiveness. It is from SCORE that the examples below of a successful gender transformative approach in the family is taken.
What could a new philanthropist do?
In order to make good grant making decisions it is necessary to develop expertise and networks around training grantees and their partners (CBOs), as to the characteristics of effective norm changing programs entails.
Bi-Gender, Bi-cultural,
Localized worldview /approach
Integration of Understanding what underpins harmful norms
with identified skills to build positive norms.
The role of change in the family, to cause the ripple effect of change in the community and beyond.
These are more fully explained in the Section on Gender Strategy below.
In addition to the benefits to the families we have seen the following benefits from participants in the pilot project of this approach paired with conservation agriculture now 5 years later.
Provides a new higher standard to the auditing the global development
Brings economies closer to home,
Restores & expanding self reliance
Cuts through the clutter of globalization, and
Supports locally-led economies & communities
Importance
While it is true that there are elements and degrees of male privilege which are present in every society, this approach is most effective in agrarian societies, which have gender norms which hold back 50% of their population, women. When one considers the number of subsistence farmers globally, the numbers are substantial and significant.
Usually, in addition to the limiting community norms, played out in the family, there are legislative and institutional norms whereby women are held back by various means. Which are beyond the scope of this paper.
There is no easy way to quantify the economic impact of this approach yet although SCORE will be doing some indicative studies based on the economic return/impact of this approach based on a sample from their pilot project.
Sources of Uncertainty
Will the community & local authorities in other cultures, support a move that will bring women into discussions and positions of influence?
Will the CBO’s and the international stakeholders implement and be held accountable for implementing a gender strategy in their own organizations that is equitable and transparent.
Financial Cost
The cost to initiate the approach alone, would be neglectable. Unless the organization is not paying their staff equitably. The Approach combined with the activities in a project country, to change harmful gender norms is estimated below.
Every country is different however the items to be costed are as follows;
The Doner partner cost – home office expense of personnel & material support. (Examples would be World Vision, Action Aid etc.)
Implementing Partner on the ground – CBO, or local NGO—personnel & material support.
Training activities: Aside from the wages & fuel for gender specialist to facilitate the trainings – the average cost in rural Zimbabwe, during Covid, for a 4-hour training of about 50 adults (20 couples and 10 other adults) was about USD $1,200 per session. These cost cover:
Refreshments and light local meal for the 50 people and children
Covid protection protocols, - Masks, handwashing station and monitoring person pay
Professional Child care on site.
Transport for cooking utensils, PPE and personnel
Renumeration (day’s wage) of cooks, ECS professional, Covid Monitor and logistics supervisor.
If this approach and activity is combined with another ongoing project, (agriculture, climate mitigation, etc.) which is an ideal way to use it, the cost would significantly less, likely USD $600 or less per session day of 50 people. The rational for this is that many of the other cost aside from the activity itself would already be paid for by shared cost with the ongoing project.
Neglectedness:
Why are others not taking this approach? It is fortunate for us that CAUSE understands and in fact highlights the concept of “worldview”. The prevailing world view, put very simplistically, until recently in development has been the West knows best. The subtext to that is that the rich in the west know how to use “development” to improve their bottom line while appearing to be humanitarian. Thus, you had extractive colonialism which morphed into Bi-lateral aid for raw resources and tied aid for humanitarian responses. In addition, the current aid industry, has made an art form out of forms and charts, which ostensibly can predict the future and by which Agencies can be held to account. While in the past this may have been possible with certain types of projects that largely deal with material inputs, it is no longer possible. The interconnected world which relied on a generally healthy, predictable global work force/supply chains, currently does not exist and even when/if global events realign, it may not be the same given a global emphasis on “make [my country] great again.”
The other worldview connected to this, is the trickle-down theory of economics, and most everything else. When a “problem” emerges in the rural area of Zimbabwe, the answer is generated by the aid community in the Northern hemisphere, and as long as the new money keeps flowing the problem appears to diminish. The accumulation (compounding impact), of this type of thinking, along with an extractive worldview, is what has contributed to the climate change disasters that are facing us today.
Tractability & Speed
Impact per dollar
Based on the training sessions, the cost per session-per family is approximately, US $60.00 per “couple/family. ($1200/20 families) The optimal working size for groups.
The “program” should include at least ten “on the job family skill development” sessions and ten Forums to discuss norms, challenges & solutions. Therefore, an estimate would be US $1,200.00 per couple per complete course.
Return on investment:
No detailed economic return has been done given that attribution of economic impact caused by a change in gender/cultural norms is difficult. What we can measure
is the social impact of those who have used this approach with their households since the pilot project 3 years ago. Following are a few comments from these participants.
What impact did the pilot project Men can Cook have on you? “Because it taught cooking skills, it really increased the harmony between my wife and I, now when she goes out, I can cook the meal and have it ready when she comes home and she can rest. My children have watched and learned and the men in their family are cooking and dividing labour in the home.”
SCORE Chairman, Saul Mapfacha (older male)
“When discussing the impact of the program he said there were two things he acted on, from the discussions (Gender Forum) on access to resources, that has greatly increased the well being of his family. The first was he bought a phone for his wife, so now both have a phone. The other thing he said has helped is that, now they both pool the money they earn from the farm, fish and cooking and jointly decide what they should do with the money.
Joseph (Fisher/Farmer, middle aged man)
When asked what has changed outside of the family, in the community: “The wives of the McC families are testifying to the neighbours about the improvement in family relations, that there is more harmony, less burden.”
Stanley (A Village head)
“People in the community have been “SHANDUKO’, which literally means “changed by an activity”. “We were like slaves before, now we are showing others that gender roles can be opened up and shared”
Rindai (Window with four grown boys, three married)
“I wish this program could be spread to other communities because it causes a quick “SHANDUKO”. “I now have time to work on poultry and my husband works the field and we combine our money and decide together how to spend it. This never happened before.”
Sithokosile (Mother of six)
As the testing project continues until the end of the year we will continue to try and quantify some of the changes in the families that have gone through the program.
Meanwhile, after five months of training & facilitated discussions, we already see positive movement in the full treatment group of 20 couples out of the 100 couples surveyed for the Baseline.
Outcome data at midterm
Measuring against Indicators of Baseline
Ultimate Outcome
Some what
A lot of change
No change
How many men in Group 5 would say that their definition (idea/attitude) of masculinity and associated norms has changed in a positive/supportive way that benefits the family and the community because of these activities.
55%
40%
5%
Baseline Data:
92% of B/L survey men think it is culturally unacceptable for men to cook meals for the family.
91% think it is inappropriate for women to work outside the home or engage in community decision-making.
UO
as husbands and fathers,
As community leaders
How many men have changed/shifted their behaviours in carrying out their roles
100% (every participant has at least started doing one or more of cooking, fetching water, firewood).
15%
Baseline Data:
Only 27% of the men share household tasks to even a small degree.
UO
1 or 2 new tasks/roles
3 or more?
5 or more
How many women in Group 5 are taking on new tasks and roles that benefit the family and community?
35%
20%
none
Baseline Data:
80% of the women say they never or rarely participate in community development activities.
Intermediate Outcome
Overall – Can cook complete but don’t do it regularly
1 or 2 meals a week
Whenever the wife is away
% of men in Gr. 5 cooking complete meals before and after the project
(40%)
(25)
(20%)
Baseline Data:
82% of the men say that they do not have the knowledge or skills to cook a complete meal.
Intermediate Outcome
Sometimes
1-3 x a week
Whenever the wife is away
% of men in Gr. 5 who share in household duties.
(20%)
(55%)
(25%)
Baseline Data:
73% think it is inappropriate to share household responsibilities.
Intermediate Outcome
Sometimes
Not yet
Degree to which men in Gr 5 advocate on behalf of women and girls in the community
(30%)
(70%)
Baseline Data:
87% think it is a bad/very bad idea for men to advocate on behalf of women.
Intermediate Outcome
Yes
No
% of women in Gr.5 that participated more actively community development activities (e.g., food distribution or water point committee) because of the project
(25%)
(75%)
Baseline Data:
80% say that they rarely or never participate in community development activities or village leadership committees
Current Data from Full Treatment Group
Intermediate Outcome
Baseline
None
More than before project
Full sharing with husband
Degree of agency by women in Gr.5 with agency or control over four key resources
cell phone,
family finances,
land,
cattle
<10% of women have any control over any of these resources
40%
25%
45%
75%
30%
55%
30%
25%
30%
20%
25%
0
Immediate Outcome 1b
Doing this routinely as part of sharing work in HH
When wife away
Not comfortable doing this care.
% of men in Gr 5 who can care for children or elderly family members
6 (30%)
(45%)
(25%)
Baseline Data:
83% of the men say that they do not have the knowledge and skills to look after vulnerable family members.
Immediate Outcome 2a
% of men in Gr 5 who participate actively and regularly in MfG discussions and
are willing to promote new social norms/behaviours in the community/institutions
(95%)
No Baseline
Immediate Outcome 3.1c
% of women in Gr. 5 who now believe it is a good idea for women to have the choice to work outside the home.
80%
Baseline Data:
80% believe it is inappropriate for women to work outside the home or compound alone, freely and on their own initiative.
Given that these norms have been in place for millennia, to bring about this kind of norm/mindset change in a year is considered quite rapid. It will likely take much longer to bring about the legislative changes, for example to deal with issues like and single ownership of bank accounts, animal stock registration and other items which impact the norms and practices like bride price. Meanwhile communities and families are devising solutions that work for their families in the near term.
I realize that this approach, may sound similar to Community-Driven Development, which CAUSE has researched and found wanting, in the context of conflict mitigation. In that context I would tend to agree with the analysis. However, I would suggest that a) this is a different context and b) in this approach we are suggesting that the women be much more of the steering/driving mechanism than the men who typically make community decisions. This approach also changes norms and behaviors at the family level, rather than assets at the community level which can be viewed as “political” by proponents and opponents alike. Lastly, it increases the harmony within the family, to better cope with disharmony or violence outside the family over which they have little control. There is a growing body of research, that is just emerging, out of Harvard and other research centers, sponsored by the Dali Lama and Desmond Tutu, which demonstrate the wellness benefits of inner joy in coping with conflict and anxiety. In addition, there is some strong research coming out of a Canadian organization, Make Music Matter (https://makemusicmatter.org), which is now being documented in partnership with a Stanford University team around the value of healing trauma in civil conflict through the inner healing of making music. Its therapeutic value is transforming communities in the middle of the conflict zone of the DRC. It is not ending the war but it is gradually giving individuals and communities the adaptation tools to cope with the trauma of rape and violence, until enough communities can say, enough is enough. Lastly the research cited by CAUSE, in this connection was looking at good governance not family social cohesion.
Sources of Uncertainty
Family-Level Measures
Although both the pilot and the testing program “Men can Cook, have used this approach successfully in rural Zimbabwe I am uncertain how well this will transfer to other quite different cultures. Perhaps a lot of willingness on the part of the men and women came from the credibility that the community gave to SCORE for making a difference in their farming lives as participants in the Conservation Agriculture program of which the Gender program was part. I am relatively certain that the fact that SCORE was a very local CBO, spoke the (three) local languages, and accepted the underlying culture, and had good relations with the governance structure both village and district level was a significant factor in participants willingness to participate and truthfully engage in Forum discussions. Those deep discussions and the safe ground they provided for disagreement were crucial. The willingness of men to change their normative views of masculinity and of their wives to trade power in the kitchen for greater engagement with their husbands was quicker in the testing program than in the pilot. The reason for this according to them as that they had “seen” or heard of the change in the pilot program even though it happened in a different district and this weakened their hesitancy, about adopting and trying some of the changes. For this reason, I think it is crucial that the implementing organization must be local, well known and have a successful track record with the community and the local governance bodies.
It is also known that a fact that good (enabling resilience) can be “given” to an oppressed population, in this case women, in order to achieve more productivity out of them for a third party. In this case since the “productivity” produced is chosen jointly but includes choices of leisure, participation in community work and/or family enterprise, as well as the fact that the husband is taking on more of the household chores and family care giving, it is hard to make this care. But it should be considered when replicated elsewhere.
Part II
Changing harmful gender norms within the family – a working model
As noted below, SCORE began this gender transformative testing project by laying out very clearly in their initial MOU with the northern partner both their own governance structure and their expectations of structure with any northern partner.
SCORE is a highly democratic institution. Leadership comes from the community and its key decisions are arrived at by a community steering committee comprised of group of seven local volunteers in Mwenezi, whose work is supported by the local elders. SCORE has established strong working relationships with local authorities, agricultural and health representatives, police departments, civil society groups and representatives from different ministries at the local level. The project planning, implementation and evaluation is thus highly participatory, reflecting the rights and equity principles that need to guide both SCORE and SMRUC [northern partner].
This relationship, based on mutual trust, common social justice goals and other shared values is a critical element in managing risk, as both partners are willing to share challenges. The processes of co-creating and co-monitoring mitigate risk and increase the likelihood of project success.
This association would flip the traditional paradigm where a Canadian Agency goes to Zimbabwe and finds an indigenous partner that is capable and willing to implement projects in line with the Canadian Agencies mandate and provides all the project planning and direction. Here, we as SCORE, a Zimbabwean Agency is coming to you a Canadian Charitable partner that has similar values and experience and we are looking to you for resources and supports to carry out a project(s) that has been trialed but not tested for scalability. The recognition of this paradigm switch is part of this MOU.
Next, they worked with the Canadian partner to build and practice a Gender Strategy and gender integration should apply to more than just a project. It was agreed that, if both organizations do not have a progressive gender strategy, which they apply across the board to everything the organization does, then the odds of the organization truly being able to implement a gender transformative project are relatively low. Therefore, our joint strategy starts at an organizational level.
Philosophically
The projects taken on by SCORE must benefit women and lessen their work load, by removing barriers to equity, through culturally based solutions in which the community (M&F) assists in developing and testing.
This takes different forms depending on the challenge being addressed.
The core of this approach is that, the values for anything which SCORE does, from research to regular development activities are based on the following philosophical principles:
Support the community’s ability to solve their own problem with existing resources where possible turn to external sources if necessary.
Communities know what they need, However, they may not know the how, why or when.
They may not initially know what the solution will look like.
The Role of an external [Partner Agency] needs to sequence & maintain structurenot control.
The community generates the content of a project/activity. Therefore, a feedback loop to the stakeholders/community for validating what is done.
Projects/ Activities serve the community not the project.
These principals lead us to developing our Gender Equality Strategy/Approach.
Which, in its most succinct form is,
“Involve both Genders in any project, in meaningful, culturally relevant, beneficial ways.”
Gender Equity Approach
Administratively, for the whole organization this strategy involves:
When selecting projects, choose ones that include gender equality focus areas.
Recruiting predominantly female leadership which is committed to accountability.
Gender pay equity.
Female leaning composition of the workplace.
Support for child care in order to recruit the right staff.
Mainstreaming flexible working hours/conditions.
Preventing gender-based/sexual harassment and discrimination, and bullying.
Provide professional development, networking, mentoring opportunities which can accommodate other family commitments as needed.
Structuring consideration for women’s workload into all projects, in terms of childcare & timing, when the community is asked to participate in
It is also essential to remember that all the activities in this project at their core revolve around 3 basic things.
New ways of knowing, (Knowledge to both genders)
Skills to use the knowledge in healthy, helpful and productive ways. (Skills to both genders)
Bridging—a safe place and support from local champions to assist processing /aligning new information. (A way to connect the knowledge and skills in a culturally acceptable, gender transformative way for both genders.)
gain organizational and constructive/respectful dialogue skills
Using these principles and values, four years ago, SCORE tried a small pilot program, as part of a larger Conservation Agriculture (CA) program. It was the vision of the farmers, mostly women, to address two questions. The first was “How do we cook some of the new crops you are teaching us about. Crops that are more suited to our changing climate, like Lab-lab. The second question was even more interesting, some of the men farmers were asking questions like, “How do we work together as a family to be more productive as a family farm?”
SCORE decided to go back to the women to answer both questions. The result was an ad hoc program, that combined the skill of cooking with a discussion group on gender roles. This idea was so successful that it was selected by the Fund for Innovation and Transformation (FIT), a program under Global Affairs Canada, to test how the idea might change the way men interact with their families.
It was designed by SCORE in partnership with St. Marys Road United Church in Winnipeg Manitoba to document the changes in the norms and attitudes of men towards their wives and the family unit.
Unlike most projects related to addressing Gender equity, it involved both skills and serious discussions, by both the husbands and the wives. For the discussion groups (Men’s Forum on Gender) the women outlined the topics they wanted the men to discuss, areas where they as wives would like to work together with their husbands. And so, they devised a fairly unique and innovative way of recycling a topic from the women to the men back to the women and adding more layers of discussion.
These discussions were moderate and facilitated by Gender Specialist to help avoid any arguments but instead, try to stimulate thinking about how the household could do things together. The men’s discussion was led by a man and the women by a woman.
These are places where hard questions are wrestled with for weeks, bride price, sale of cattle, who controls the cell phone. How can we change from viewing the wife as an asset, like a plow or a cow to be used at the whim of the husband, to a partner who can help a couple build a better relationship and family and economic future together?
For the cooking component SCORE utilized the local Home Economics teacher to start training and then invited wives and daughters to come and teach their husbands how to cook and to continue teaching in the home.
These are times of laughter as men begin to understand how much hard work and skill it takes to cook the traditional sadza, (thick corn porridge) and make the vegetable or meat sauce that goes with it.
Although the testing project will not be finished until the end of 2022 there are already positive results happening. More and more of the men are seeing the family as a partnership, where they can take on chores like collecting water, firewood and basic cooking and spending more time with their children and wife. The wives are reporting that the men are now involving them in discussions and decisions on a variety of topics, which never happened before at all.
The goal of thisapproach and their gender interventions/activities was to contribute to three basic outcomes for the Men can Cook Project.
Intermediate Outcome 1 - More equitable participationby menin household (HH) and family tasks.
New ways of Knowing,
The approach of using 1) drawing as a research tool and 2) turning learning to cook into a fun, family-oriented time, encourages men to participate in the testing. This is known from the pilot project. During the recruitment process, when men realized they would be full participants in a positive way, the spaces for involvement filled immediately and there is a waiting list if there are any more openings. The Men’s forum on Gender (MfG), is managed by trained male facilitators, who encourage collaborative meaning-making. Culturally, this allows men to see and add to each others comments, allowing men to give voice to what the drawing was intended to convey. The technique works well in a non literate society and allows for a quick visual summary at the end and in the next meeting. By verbalizing and visualizing together it encourages the men to hold each other accountable for the new understandings they gain. This approach is now grounded in a cultural foundation that will change how men see their role, but more importantly this subsequent behaviour is based on mindset/attitude change not fear or mandate. This is validated by community visits,(p18) where the Gender Specialist validate this change by checking with the family. This accountability leads to more participation in family tasks such as sharing in cooking and HH family task
Safety & Childcare—One of the goals of our Gender Equity Strategy, (GES) is to ensure that the practical needs and strategic interests of both women and men are considered at all stages of the project implementation. The approach/opportunity of providing ECL type childcare[1], along with covid safety protocols at all meetings (especially men’s) has had a significant uptake in participation. To see men walking home from meetings with their children has ready provided a jolt to a system where men would NEVER take a child to any activity. Therefore, this is not seen just as an activity, although obviously on one hand it is, but we see this intervention as an essential part of our strategy of removing barriers, and reducing the work load on women and helping men to understand in a practical, mentoring way what that looks like. This addressing a piece of our baseline gender norm survey, where approximately three-quarters of the men in this culture think it is inappropriate to share household responsibilities, which includes child care.
Intermediate Outcome 2Increased supportive behaviours (advocacy and leadership) related to womenby menin the community and in institutions.
The approach requires a culturally appropriate safe place, with supports, for men to discuss feelings. This has been shown to be essential. Traditionally, in this geographic area and likely in general, men have been shamed and blamed for voicing cultural gender norms. Therefore, the first part of increasing supportive behaviours, is to develop a meaningful understanding and acknowledgement of what the current situation is and then work through meaningful ways of communicating to others how it can be changed for the better. A safe place, the MfG, is especially critical in dealing with the sensitive and at times volatile values, contained in our ultimate outcome of masculinity and femininityas it occurs in the unequal distribution of labor in the home. The Beliefs /Norms portion component of activities takes place the Men’s Forum on Gender (MFG). In order to do this, men need a supportive place to describe their thoughts and react to information. This is where men can, through guided discussion, talk about the shortcomings of their cultural normative beliefs, Examples would be, that it is not acceptable to be involved in cooking & housework or share control of assets etc. During the length of the program this is also a safe place to share what they are learning at home from their wife/daughter and a place where they start to see women as people, not just workers/cooks. Male champions from the pilot project or staff are on hand to share how their lives and family changed when they started seeing women as equal partners, not objects to do their bidding. Eventually the men start to identify a variety of situations identified in which they as men can advocate on behalf of women.
Originally in the pilot project, the wives met informally at a different location and discussed the ideas with which they wanted the men (husbands) to discuss and understand. In the test project iteration, the wives wanted to be at the same meeting. engaging in a process to shift cultural norms in the family around, viewing the family as a unit with a co-managed team, not a dictatorship.
A typical Forum session in the early part of the testing project, involved 20 men sitting under a tree and in wrestling with the question of who controls what assets in the family. After listing about 10 assets, including chickens, cattle, cellphones and sex, all of which they agreed was under control of the men (except maybe, if there were just a few chickens, those could be controlled by their wives). Finally, they narrowed the list down to about 5 topics they were willing to engage on over the next few months. A big topic intertwined in the discussion was the “bride price” which they saw as a lose-lose proposition. Part 2 of the discussion was then to say, OK how can we begin to think and talk about this with our wives. It was an earnest conversation ranging from fears to anger to a partial resolution of first steps.
Meanwhile 75 meters away the wives sat with another SCORE female Gender Specialist, who was facilitating a discussion with the wives about the thoughts of their husbands from a week earlier. This is how it works, there is a continuous feedback loop between the men and women (hopefully) building towards a more equitable and harmonious understanding of gender roles and partnership in the home.
The second part of increasing supportive behaviours is for men to learn skills that can actually allow space & time for women to participate in events in the community with out the rest of the family suffering. In this instance part of the Baseline/Gender survey high lighted that men do not have any cooking skills beyond boiling water and throwing in tea leaves or grain for porridge. The part for men comes as a SCORE facilitator works with both the wives and the men in what essentially is a breakdown of skills needed to cook a complete meal. Starting with starting a fire, using a knife to prep vegetables and working through the steps necessary to prepare a balanced meal. These steps are identified and then are practiced in the home using wives or daughters as teachers to teach cooking and domestic skills.
Eventually at the end of the project, a Men can Cook (McC) contest is held where the men compete in public by teams to demonstrate and discuss what they have learned by being involved in sharing the work in the HH. This is a public way of opening up some of the gender norms for discussion and advocating for changes in what have been considered traditional gender norms in the community. The contest was what the community saw and others heard about, which really motivated new couples to sign up for the testing project of McC in the new testing communities.
Intermediate Outcome 3 Expanded behaviours related to gender rolesby women
The approach of a culturally appropriate safe place, with supports, for women to discuss feelings, is also essential. This was demonstrated by the findings in the BL and Gender survey, showing the large gaps between what women aspire to be the norms around HH activities and family decision making and what is culturally acceptable at the moment. One cause of this gap is that women don’t have the skills/tools to engage in discussions with men without provoking anger or violence. The other, for a smaller number of women is they want to protect the little autonomy they have by keeping men out of the kitchen area.
The skills,
Similar to the men, there are local/community women champions who can assist women struggling with changes in the home, especially giving up sole control of the [very small] domain, the kitchen that has been theirs. Discussions with the older women can show the benefits of trading some control of the kitchen for enlarged participation by husbands. More spare time for one and likely more discussions of mutual interest.
Secondly, for the women participate in discussions with the staff women to discuss curriculum items that they would like their husbands to discuss in the MFG and also get a chance to provide feedback on information their husbands produce out of the Forum.
The Women gain (or have opportunity to gain) skills in various areas.
the of skill of understanding the role of action learning in the home/family
the art of negotiating space
understanding long term gain from short term actions
It is quite likely that they will also learn from the discussion forums, the skills of defining and articulating discussion topics in the home and in community in a peaceful manner.
Note: The GBA showed that women have little or no say in the areas of sharing HH/family care duties, control of assets or participation in decision making either in the family or the community. With regard to influence /participation in the community, because the testing period is so short, we do not expect to see changes in long term institutional situations, for example, women being elected into key community positions, as there may not even be opportunity for this.
However, IF men start to take up more of the burden of HH chores and women have more choice of what to do in general and with spare time and we can document what choices they make. The “development” activities are one area that should be easy to follow. Our purpose during the testing project, for having Outcome Three, was to be able to document what this means and how the women themselves will define this.
This leads to an observation with regard to typical logframes & Project Management Forms. The shortcoming of having predefined indicators in situations of normative behaviour change as opposed to a skill or outcome, is that it can take away from allowing the people involved, to demonstrate or define, what that looks like. This approach of letting the participants define indicators of change, is uncharacteristic of typical development. Development Agencies have decided, what is best (from a Northern perspective) for a given situation and then “gifted” that solution to the community. That is precisely what happened in some of these McC communities, where food aid was used as an incentive to accomplish the desired “outcomes” of a project. (As documented in our BL/G surveys and verification exercises.)
In this case, the general outcome of, expanded positive behaviours related to gender roles by women was agreed to at the onset by the participants in the community, however the indicators of what this would look like evolved through the period of testing and likely continue to evolve for each woman afterwards if the program is successful. The relationship between husband and wife continues to evolve closer to, mutually agreed upon, and family defined gender equity over time. (It likely will not look identical in the particulars for every family)
There is another population of women, that will benefit from the skills component, in a project which is the CBO women on the project team. More technical skills will provide more options. By design, much of the SCORE staff is already women, however due to family obligations, women staff often do not choose to leave the area for training. This approach to project management a small amount of equity to this by hiring a role model(s) professional woman to guide and advise on project testing tools and curriculum design. The first one has already been involved virtually by WhatsApp and Zoom in continuous, one on one training, as well as larger discussions groups once the project activities start. This (champion) professional woman runs training sessions held with various women on project staff who will then, collect, enter, analyze and validate data. Also, intentional work is done collaboratively with CBO staff on developing evaluation and curriculum tools. One of the very few benefits of Global Covid has been the whole rapid and enlargement of what is possible in virtual training.
Learnings and Notes for the northern partner, from a Localization Approach to International Development.
An important part of the upside-down process which occurs when the northern donor/implementer believe and practice the idea that their role involves resources and sequencing rather than imposing and interpreting is that when they come to the project it is more than a flying visit with a check list. It is a time of sharing and learning. They spend weeks not days on site, living in the culture. This can contribute to both sides the northerners learn a lot about the “whys” of the project which results in new tools being co -designed to make reporting easier. This can range from the finances to the narrative of story telling. The CBO learns techniques and tips to make the reporting easier. Some of the benefits to the northern partner, of this approach are noted below.
# Privilege
– It is easy to enjoy, and not even know it is happening. Watch what is happening to different groups around you, color, gender, age, financial status, are they all being treated the same?
# Integrating Gender approach
- By coming and spending a month at a time with the local partner, it allows and facilitates deep sharing with the team, not only the project team, but the entire host agency team. This sharing opened up gender discussions with both men & women, showing how our gender project could have a very important beneficial impact on the other Agency projects. Within the project, it is leading slowly and with much discussion to understanding and engaging men in a process/approach to shift cultural norms in the family around viewing the family as a unit with a co-managed team, not a dictatorship.
# Localization – Notes from a northern partner
- Our project area is about 8 hours from the capital, 3 hours from the nearest Hotel. I was graciously invited to stay at the homestead farm of the Directors mother, a widow, within walking distance of the office. Nothing could be better for me to get a picture of what can happen when you open yourself to this kind of hospitality.
- Most of the staff at SCORE are from this district, I think only one is from an outside district. That has allowed the staff to feel like they are really improving their own district and when needed are willing to sacrifice time and energy to solve a challenge.
- The officials from the District Officer to local representatives of, Ministry of Women, Ministry of Health even the Office of the [National] President have been called upon, and it is obvious that because SCORE is concentrating on this District, they have and continue to give, it supports and privileges of access and support that larger international groups are not given.
- Solving challenges from a local culturally acceptable approach, has allowed SCORE to bridge gaps that have been around for decades. Not solve, but at least make in-roads to facilitate discussions which are the precursor to generating culturally acceptable solutions. The fact that Traditional healers and prophets have been able to assist and get some resources from Ministry of Health for Covid 19 is an unheard-of break through, and exponentially impactful, as on the same day 20 people might come for Covid treatment and testing to the hospital, 2 – 400 rural people were coming to the traditional healers that same day.
Validating results
When working with norms and beliefs it is vitally important to know whether what you are told (data) is correct or is a version of information given out to outsiders.
SCORE and SMRUC work from the premise that data from a community belongs to the community and so whenever SCORE does a community survey of any kind, especially a baseline, gender norms, way of life survey. The results are immediately taken back to the local community stakeholders and the community to verify the results. If one or the other cannot agree with the results, then a two-step process, first the community stakeholders and then with participants is conducted which addresses why they are not reflective and what caused the error and what the true situation is.
Who are these community stakeholders, in our case it engages the local/village town representatives that are living there including as relevant:
Ministry of Women Affairs, Youth and Gender
Mwenezi Rural District Council—Councillors
Traditional leaders—for example village heads, chiefs
Ministry of Health/Environmental Health Technicians
Ministry of Social Welfare
Zimbabwe Republic Police (as they deal with domestic violence and ensure security)
Working Process
First there was a Focus Group Discussion with the stakeholders which reviews the preliminary findings. They identified questions and areas, if any, that do not seem to reflect lived experience and their reasons for each. If the community stakeholders identify areas of concern, incongruence with their experience and knowledge, then Stage two is initiated, where in each community of impact, the team, randomly contacts participants from the initial survey, by a text phone blast, to please come at a designated time to a designated location
At the gathering, the community leaders and stakeholders first hold a discussion as to why they had questions about the data and give assurances as to the acceptance of all answers with no recrimination regardless of answers. Next, there are one on one interviews/discussions for data collection based on clarifications given in the general meeting. This data is then re examined by the local stakeholders/leaders for verification.
The second level of verification is ongoing, and follows up on information and statements given during the bi monthly group discussion/training sessions. The Gender specialist leading the training go out to the various villages of the participants in the training sessions on alternate weeks for community visits.
On the day of visit, about five or six participants from the training sessions are randomly selected. Open ended questions are asked in a family setting, with the aim of determining the impact of the project.
This gives participants opportunities to talk about their experiences to date, or show how they are changing the way they are doing things based on their learnings in the project. At times we see projects the couple have jointly started, or activities initiated by men to help their spouses. Some outline new plans that they have jointly made as spouses. Visits give participants more time and space to open up on matters that they would normally do within groups. Children have opportunities to speak on many matters that parents talk about, they can confirm if their parents now plan things together or if they have seen their father helping to cook or take care of children.
The program is continually updated/ adjusted based on these visits. These visits are very important to this test the impact and veracity of the program. These community visits further validate information given in training sessions.
A couple of example grants that could be made to address this problem.
“I’d want to fund the following if I could find a grantee to carry it out.”
The testing project just finishing up in November had 4 groups
1.No treatment
2. Skills only
3. Forum only
4. Full treatment, Forum and Skills in cooking
I would like to go back and fill in the missing component in Group 2 &3 and give the full program to group 1.
Time: One year
Cost: Approximately 200,000 USD.
Provide a list of questions that you think need to be investigated, but which you haven’t had the time or space to discuss in your submission.
What kind of economic impact can occur, when couples work in an equitable partnership, (described above)
in “normal” times
what happens in HH when there is a severe climate disruption (drought)
as opposed to the traditional male “boss” scenario. (GBV, male migration, children pulled out of school, early marriage of girls.
Right now, in Zimbabwe, would be a perfect “lab” to research this question.
Time:
Cost: +/- US$ 75,000
[1] This is contracted out to a sister Agency, where professional women from ECL and Family Services background are present at each meeting to a) demonstrate and support,through action learning, and if needed enforce, the Covid protocols (Safety), and b) provide educational child activities and nourishment so that whether the activity is for men or women, they can bring their children with confidence.
[Cause Exploration Prizes] Transformative Gender Norms
This essay was submitted to Open Philanthropy’s Cause Exploration Prizes contest.
Part I
Summary
The Cause being addressed in this paper is, transformative gender norms in the family, as the transport mechanism for healthy families, communities and society.
It would be easy to glance at this Topic/Cause and think, that’s not new, everyone is working on/concerned about this, without understanding that the Approach to this cause is what is different. This becomes evident as you read through the case study and understand on one hand its simplicity yet, because of its emphasis on locality and culture the complexity of getting it right. Because of this, the first few sections below on Importance, Tractability and Neglectedness are brief and generalized where as the example in Part II is fairly detailed
The worldview needed in order to make this effective, is diverse and inclusive.
Using a Bi-Gender, Bi-cultural, Localized worldview /approach with a Gender Transformative focus, to increase the all-around well-being of the family unit, would also exponentially increase the effectiveness of global aid. If one is to visualize society as the tree, communities as the branches, families as the leaves. Then this cause is the sap that nourishes all of the tree called society, slowly growing and spreading into a healthy society.
Note: This approach, may sound similar to Community-Driven Development, which CAUSE has researched and found wanting, however, this is addressed at the end of Part 1(on p5).
What is the problem?
Harmful Gender norms can be intertwined with cultural norms like bride price within marriage and the family, these can be shown to negatively impact the majority of the SDGs, in the majority of the Least Developed countries.
The challenge experienced with Global Development, is that the priorities and worldview of outsiders determine the dreams, opportunities and solutions of local community insiders.
Who is already working on it?
While many Agencies/CBO’s claim to be addressing harmful norms or introducing “transformative” gender behavior, the majority of the time the change is not long term and it is not contagious. By that we mean, the transformative change is not spreading of its own accord to others in the community. The litmus test of long-term sustainability, comes up short. There are several reasons for this failure. Primarily however it usually comes down to a few basic reasons
When behaviour change is mandated and not based on choice,
When the benefits are seen, or in fact, go to one gender and not the other. (Especially when the gender of power and privilege is bypassed)
When the cultural way of learning and doing is bypassed
When the unique “needs” identified by both genders are not met.
When the Agency/CBO is adding the right verbiage to their proposals/reports but there is no real transformative behaviour being modelled from the implementers right through to the participants
In these conditions, it is rare that the “transformative behaviour” demonstrated during the project will still be practiced even a year later. Additionally, behind the scenes in the community, if it was only women benefitting from the project, there is likely more gender-based violence than before.
One of the significant research initiatives is just wrapping up a seven-year, international study into norm changing around young people and reproductive health.
https://www.irh.org/projects/passages/. It has engaged several Universities as well as large NGO’s and funded by USAID. There various findings as to defining norms and how to design norm change projects and the attributes that are needed to be successful are now published. https://gehweb.ucsd.edu/briefs-reports/
Without access to these reports, SCORE Against Poverty, (SCORE) https://www.scoreagainstpoverty.org/ has covered all the boxes indicated in the above-mentioned study and added two more elements that are perhaps inferred but not articulated in the study. These are the identification of skills, needed by the participants, each reference groups, in the population in which you are attempting to effect the change, and the particular skills training of each sub reference group in the identified areas i.e., dialogue or cooking. By simultaneously, working with both genders, providing a safe place for dialogue and understanding of how gender norms in the family can be destructive and limiting to the family, while also simultaneously engaging both genders in the skills they were lacking, they have addressed and influenced both 1) descriptive (behavioral) and injunctive (attitudinal) norms.
This Zimbabwe CBO has pioneered the approach of this paper, and are in the last stages of documenting its effectiveness. It is from SCORE that the examples below of a successful gender transformative approach in the family is taken.
What could a new philanthropist do?
In order to make good grant making decisions it is necessary to develop expertise and networks around training grantees and their partners (CBOs), as to the characteristics of effective norm changing programs entails.
Bi-Gender, Bi-cultural,
Localized worldview /approach
Integration of Understanding what underpins harmful norms
with identified skills to build positive norms.
The role of change in the family, to cause the ripple effect of change in the community and beyond.
These are more fully explained in the Section on Gender Strategy below.
In addition to the benefits to the families we have seen the following benefits from participants in the pilot project of this approach paired with conservation agriculture now 5 years later.
Provides a new higher standard to the auditing the global development
Brings economies closer to home,
Restores & expanding self reliance
Cuts through the clutter of globalization, and
Supports locally-led economies & communities
Importance
While it is true that there are elements and degrees of male privilege which are present in every society, this approach is most effective in agrarian societies, which have gender norms which hold back 50% of their population, women. When one considers the number of subsistence farmers globally, the numbers are substantial and significant.
Usually, in addition to the limiting community norms, played out in the family, there are legislative and institutional norms whereby women are held back by various means. Which are beyond the scope of this paper.
There is no easy way to quantify the economic impact of this approach yet although SCORE will be doing some indicative studies based on the economic return/impact of this approach based on a sample from their pilot project.
Sources of Uncertainty
Will the community & local authorities in other cultures, support a move that will bring women into discussions and positions of influence?
Will the CBO’s and the international stakeholders implement and be held accountable for implementing a gender strategy in their own organizations that is equitable and transparent.
Financial Cost
The cost to initiate the approach alone, would be neglectable. Unless the organization is not paying their staff equitably. The Approach combined with the activities in a project country, to change harmful gender norms is estimated below.
Every country is different however the items to be costed are as follows;
The Doner partner cost – home office expense of personnel & material support. (Examples would be World Vision, Action Aid etc.)
Implementing Partner on the ground – CBO, or local NGO—personnel & material support.
Training activities: Aside from the wages & fuel for gender specialist to facilitate the trainings – the average cost in rural Zimbabwe, during Covid, for a 4-hour training of about 50 adults (20 couples and 10 other adults) was about USD $1,200 per session. These cost cover:
Refreshments and light local meal for the 50 people and children
Covid protection protocols, - Masks, handwashing station and monitoring person pay
Professional Child care on site.
Transport for cooking utensils, PPE and personnel
Renumeration (day’s wage) of cooks, ECS professional, Covid Monitor and logistics supervisor.
If this approach and activity is combined with another ongoing project, (agriculture, climate mitigation, etc.) which is an ideal way to use it, the cost would significantly less, likely USD $600 or less per session day of 50 people. The rational for this is that many of the other cost aside from the activity itself would already be paid for by shared cost with the ongoing project.
Neglectedness:
Why are others not taking this approach? It is fortunate for us that CAUSE understands and in fact highlights the concept of “worldview”. The prevailing world view, put very simplistically, until recently in development has been the West knows best. The subtext to that is that the rich in the west know how to use “development” to improve their bottom line while appearing to be humanitarian. Thus, you had extractive colonialism which morphed into Bi-lateral aid for raw resources and tied aid for humanitarian responses. In addition, the current aid industry, has made an art form out of forms and charts, which ostensibly can predict the future and by which Agencies can be held to account. While in the past this may have been possible with certain types of projects that largely deal with material inputs, it is no longer possible. The interconnected world which relied on a generally healthy, predictable global work force/supply chains, currently does not exist and even when/if global events realign, it may not be the same given a global emphasis on “make [my country] great again.”
The other worldview connected to this, is the trickle-down theory of economics, and most everything else. When a “problem” emerges in the rural area of Zimbabwe, the answer is generated by the aid community in the Northern hemisphere, and as long as the new money keeps flowing the problem appears to diminish. The accumulation (compounding impact), of this type of thinking, along with an extractive worldview, is what has contributed to the climate change disasters that are facing us today.
Tractability & Speed
Impact per dollar
Based on the training sessions, the cost per session-per family is approximately, US $60.00 per “couple/family. ($1200/20 families) The optimal working size for groups.
The “program” should include at least ten “on the job family skill development” sessions and ten Forums to discuss norms, challenges & solutions. Therefore, an estimate would be US $1,200.00 per couple per complete course.
Return on investment:
No detailed economic return has been done given that attribution of economic impact caused by a change in gender/cultural norms is difficult. What we can measure
is the social impact of those who have used this approach with their households since the pilot project 3 years ago. Following are a few comments from these participants.
What impact did the pilot project Men can Cook have on you? “Because it taught cooking skills, it really increased the harmony between my wife and I, now when she goes out, I can cook the meal and have it ready when she comes home and she can rest. My children have watched and learned and the men in their family are cooking and dividing labour in the home.”
SCORE Chairman, Saul Mapfacha (older male)
“When discussing the impact of the program he said there were two things he acted on, from the discussions (Gender Forum) on access to resources, that has greatly increased the well being of his family. The first was he bought a phone for his wife, so now both have a phone. The other thing he said has helped is that, now they both pool the money they earn from the farm, fish and cooking and jointly decide what they should do with the money.
Joseph (Fisher/Farmer, middle aged man)
When asked what has changed outside of the family, in the community: “The wives of the McC families are testifying to the neighbours about the improvement in family relations, that there is more harmony, less burden.”
Stanley (A Village head)
“People in the community have been “SHANDUKO’, which literally means “changed by an activity”. “We were like slaves before, now we are showing others that gender roles can be opened up and shared”
Rindai (Window with four grown boys, three married)
“I wish this program could be spread to other communities because it causes a quick “SHANDUKO”. “I now have time to work on poultry and my husband works the field and we combine our money and decide together how to spend it. This never happened before.”
Sithokosile (Mother of six)
As the testing project continues until the end of the year we will continue to try and quantify some of the changes in the families that have gone through the program.
Meanwhile, after five months of training & facilitated discussions, we already see positive movement in the full treatment group of 20 couples out of the 100 couples surveyed for the Baseline.
Outcome data at midterm
Measuring against Indicators of Baseline
Ultimate Outcome
55%
40%
5%
Baseline Data:
92% of B/L survey men think it is culturally unacceptable for men to cook meals for the family.
91% think it is inappropriate for women to work outside the home or engage in community decision-making.
15%
Baseline Data:
Only 27% of the men share household tasks to even a small degree.
35%
20%
none
Baseline Data:
80% of the women say they never or rarely participate in community development activities.
% of men in Gr. 5 cooking complete meals before and after the project
(40%)
(25)
(20%)
Baseline Data:
82% of the men say that they do not have the knowledge or skills to cook a complete meal.
Baseline Data:
73% think it is inappropriate to share household responsibilities.
Baseline Data:
87% think it is a bad/very bad idea for men to advocate on behalf of women.
Baseline Data:
80% say that they rarely or never participate in community development activities or village leadership committees
Current Data from Full Treatment Group
Degree of agency by women in Gr.5 with agency or control over four key resources
cell phone,
family finances,
land,
cattle
40%
25%
45%
75%
30%
55%
30%
25%
30%
20%
25%
0
Baseline Data:
83% of the men say that they do not have the knowledge and skills to look after vulnerable family members.
% of men in Gr 5 who participate actively and regularly in MfG discussions and
are willing to promote new social norms/behaviours in the community/institutions
(95%)
No Baseline
Baseline Data:
80% believe it is inappropriate for women to work outside the home or compound alone, freely and on their own initiative.
Given that these norms have been in place for millennia, to bring about this kind of norm/mindset change in a year is considered quite rapid. It will likely take much longer to bring about the legislative changes, for example to deal with issues like and single ownership of bank accounts, animal stock registration and other items which impact the norms and practices like bride price. Meanwhile communities and families are devising solutions that work for their families in the near term.
I realize that this approach, may sound similar to Community-Driven Development, which CAUSE has researched and found wanting, in the context of conflict mitigation. In that context I would tend to agree with the analysis. However, I would suggest that a) this is a different context and b) in this approach we are suggesting that the women be much more of the steering/driving mechanism than the men who typically make community decisions. This approach also changes norms and behaviors at the family level, rather than assets at the community level which can be viewed as “political” by proponents and opponents alike. Lastly, it increases the harmony within the family, to better cope with disharmony or violence outside the family over which they have little control. There is a growing body of research, that is just emerging, out of Harvard and other research centers, sponsored by the Dali Lama and Desmond Tutu, which demonstrate the wellness benefits of inner joy in coping with conflict and anxiety. In addition, there is some strong research coming out of a Canadian organization, Make Music Matter (https://makemusicmatter.org), which is now being documented in partnership with a Stanford University team around the value of healing trauma in civil conflict through the inner healing of making music. Its therapeutic value is transforming communities in the middle of the conflict zone of the DRC. It is not ending the war but it is gradually giving individuals and communities the adaptation tools to cope with the trauma of rape and violence, until enough communities can say, enough is enough. Lastly the research cited by CAUSE, in this connection was looking at good governance not family social cohesion.
Sources of Uncertainty
Family-Level Measures
Although both the pilot and the testing program “Men can Cook, have used this approach successfully in rural Zimbabwe I am uncertain how well this will transfer to other quite different cultures. Perhaps a lot of willingness on the part of the men and women came from the credibility that the community gave to SCORE for making a difference in their farming lives as participants in the Conservation Agriculture program of which the Gender program was part. I am relatively certain that the fact that SCORE was a very local CBO, spoke the (three) local languages, and accepted the underlying culture, and had good relations with the governance structure both village and district level was a significant factor in participants willingness to participate and truthfully engage in Forum discussions. Those deep discussions and the safe ground they provided for disagreement were crucial. The willingness of men to change their normative views of masculinity and of their wives to trade power in the kitchen for greater engagement with their husbands was quicker in the testing program than in the pilot. The reason for this according to them as that they had “seen” or heard of the change in the pilot program even though it happened in a different district and this weakened their hesitancy, about adopting and trying some of the changes. For this reason, I think it is crucial that the implementing organization must be local, well known and have a successful track record with the community and the local governance bodies.
It is also known that a fact that good (enabling resilience) can be “given” to an oppressed population, in this case women, in order to achieve more productivity out of them for a third party. In this case since the “productivity” produced is chosen jointly but includes choices of leisure, participation in community work and/or family enterprise, as well as the fact that the husband is taking on more of the household chores and family care giving, it is hard to make this care. But it should be considered when replicated elsewhere.
Part II
Changing harmful gender norms within the family – a working model
As noted below, SCORE began this gender transformative testing project by laying out very clearly in their initial MOU with the northern partner both their own governance structure and their expectations of structure with any northern partner.
SCORE is a highly democratic institution. Leadership comes from the community and its key decisions are arrived at by a community steering committee comprised of group of seven local volunteers in Mwenezi, whose work is supported by the local elders. SCORE has established strong working relationships with local authorities, agricultural and health representatives, police departments, civil society groups and representatives from different ministries at the local level. The project planning, implementation and evaluation is thus highly participatory, reflecting the rights and equity principles that need to guide both SCORE and SMRUC [northern partner].
This relationship, based on mutual trust, common social justice goals and other shared values is a critical element in managing risk, as both partners are willing to share challenges. The processes of co-creating and co-monitoring mitigate risk and increase the likelihood of project success.
This association would flip the traditional paradigm where a Canadian Agency goes to Zimbabwe and finds an indigenous partner that is capable and willing to implement projects in line with the Canadian Agencies mandate and provides all the project planning and direction. Here, we as SCORE, a Zimbabwean Agency is coming to you a Canadian Charitable partner that has similar values and experience and we are looking to you for resources and supports to carry out a project(s) that has been trialed but not tested for scalability. The recognition of this paradigm switch is part of this MOU.
Next, they worked with the Canadian partner to build and practice a Gender Strategy and gender integration should apply to more than just a project. It was agreed that, if both organizations do not have a progressive gender strategy, which they apply across the board to everything the organization does, then the odds of the organization truly being able to implement a gender transformative project are relatively low. Therefore, our joint strategy starts at an organizational level.
Philosophically
The projects taken on by SCORE must benefit women and lessen their work load, by removing barriers to equity, through culturally based solutions in which the community (M&F) assists in developing and testing.
This takes different forms depending on the challenge being addressed.
The core of this approach is that, the values for anything which SCORE does, from research to regular development activities are based on the following philosophical principles:
Support the community’s ability to solve their own problem with existing resources where possible turn to external sources if necessary.
Communities know what they need, However, they may not know the how, why or when.
They may not initially know what the solution will look like.
The Role of an external [Partner Agency] needs to sequence & maintain structure not control.
The community generates the content of a project/activity. Therefore, a feedback loop to the stakeholders/community for validating what is done.
Projects/ Activities serve the community not the project.
These principals lead us to developing our Gender Equality Strategy/Approach.
Which, in its most succinct form is,
“Involve both Genders in any project, in meaningful, culturally relevant, beneficial ways.”
Gender Equity Approach
Administratively, for the whole organization this strategy involves:
When selecting projects, choose ones that include gender equality focus areas.
Recruiting predominantly female leadership which is committed to accountability.
Gender pay equity.
Female leaning composition of the workplace.
Support for child care in order to recruit the right staff.
Mainstreaming flexible working hours/conditions.
Preventing gender-based/sexual harassment and discrimination, and bullying.
Provide professional development, networking, mentoring opportunities which can accommodate other family commitments as needed.
Structuring consideration for women’s workload into all projects, in terms of childcare & timing, when the community is asked to participate in
It is also essential to remember that all the activities in this project at their core revolve around 3 basic things.
New ways of knowing, (Knowledge to both genders)
Skills to use the knowledge in healthy, helpful and productive ways. (Skills to both genders)
gain organizational and constructive/respectful dialogue skills
Using these principles and values, four years ago, SCORE tried a small pilot program, as part of a larger Conservation Agriculture (CA) program. It was the vision of the farmers, mostly women, to address two questions. The first was “How do we cook some of the new crops you are teaching us about. Crops that are more suited to our changing climate, like Lab-lab. The second question was even more interesting, some of the men farmers were asking questions like, “How do we work together as a family to be more productive as a family farm?”
SCORE decided to go back to the women to answer both questions. The result was an ad hoc program, that combined the skill of cooking with a discussion group on gender roles. This idea was so successful that it was selected by the Fund for Innovation and Transformation (FIT), a program under Global Affairs Canada, to test how the idea might change the way men interact with their families.
It was designed by SCORE in partnership with St. Marys Road United Church in Winnipeg Manitoba to document the changes in the norms and attitudes of men towards their wives and the family unit.
Unlike most projects related to addressing Gender equity, it involved both skills and serious discussions, by both the husbands and the wives. For the discussion groups (Men’s Forum on Gender) the women outlined the topics they wanted the men to discuss, areas where they as wives would like to work together with their husbands. And so, they devised a fairly unique and innovative way of recycling a topic from the women to the men back to the women and adding more layers of discussion.
These discussions were moderate and facilitated by Gender Specialist to help avoid any arguments but instead, try to stimulate thinking about how the household could do things together. The men’s discussion was led by a man and the women by a woman.
These are places where hard questions are wrestled with for weeks, bride price, sale of cattle, who controls the cell phone. How can we change from viewing the wife as an asset, like a plow or a cow to be used at the whim of the husband, to a partner who can help a couple build a better relationship and family and economic future together?
For the cooking component SCORE utilized the local Home Economics teacher to start training and then invited wives and daughters to come and teach their husbands how to cook and to continue teaching in the home.
These are times of laughter as men begin to understand how much hard work and skill it takes to cook the traditional sadza, (thick corn porridge) and make the vegetable or meat sauce that goes with it.
Although the testing project will not be finished until the end of 2022 there are already positive results happening. More and more of the men are seeing the family as a partnership, where they can take on chores like collecting water, firewood and basic cooking and spending more time with their children and wife. The wives are reporting that the men are now involving them in discussions and decisions on a variety of topics, which never happened before at all.
The goal of this approach and their gender interventions/activities was to contribute to three basic outcomes for the Men can Cook Project.
Intermediate Outcome 1 - More equitable participation by men in household (HH) and family tasks.
New ways of Knowing,
The approach of using 1) drawing as a research tool and 2) turning learning to cook into a fun, family-oriented time, encourages men to participate in the testing. This is known from the pilot project. During the recruitment process, when men realized they would be full participants in a positive way, the spaces for involvement filled immediately and there is a waiting list if there are any more openings. The Men’s forum on Gender (MfG), is managed by trained male facilitators, who encourage collaborative meaning-making. Culturally, this allows men to see and add to each others comments, allowing men to give voice to what the drawing was intended to convey. The technique works well in a non literate society and allows for a quick visual summary at the end and in the next meeting. By verbalizing and visualizing together it encourages the men to hold each other accountable for the new understandings they gain. This approach is now grounded in a cultural foundation that will change how men see their role, but more importantly this subsequent behaviour is based on mindset/attitude change not fear or mandate. This is validated by community visits,(p18) where the Gender Specialist validate this change by checking with the family. This accountability leads to more participation in family tasks such as sharing in cooking and HH family task
Safety & Childcare—One of the goals of our Gender Equity Strategy, (GES) is to ensure that the practical needs and strategic interests of both women and men are considered at all stages of the project implementation. The approach/opportunity of providing ECL type childcare[1], along with covid safety protocols at all meetings (especially men’s) has had a significant uptake in participation. To see men walking home from meetings with their children has ready provided a jolt to a system where men would NEVER take a child to any activity. Therefore, this is not seen just as an activity, although obviously on one hand it is, but we see this intervention as an essential part of our strategy of removing barriers, and reducing the work load on women and helping men to understand in a practical, mentoring way what that looks like. This addressing a piece of our baseline gender norm survey, where approximately three-quarters of the men in this culture think it is inappropriate to share household responsibilities, which includes child care.
Intermediate Outcome 2 Increased supportive behaviours (advocacy and leadership) related to women by men in the community and in institutions.
The approach requires a culturally appropriate safe place, with supports, for men to discuss feelings. This has been shown to be essential. Traditionally, in this geographic area and likely in general, men have been shamed and blamed for voicing cultural gender norms. Therefore, the first part of increasing supportive behaviours, is to develop a meaningful understanding and acknowledgement of what the current situation is and then work through meaningful ways of communicating to others how it can be changed for the better. A safe place, the MfG, is especially critical in dealing with the sensitive and at times volatile values, contained in our ultimate outcome of masculinity and femininityas it occurs in the unequal distribution of labor in the home. The Beliefs /Norms portion component of activities takes place the Men’s Forum on Gender (MFG). In order to do this, men need a supportive place to describe their thoughts and react to information. This is where men can, through guided discussion, talk about the shortcomings of their cultural normative beliefs, Examples would be, that it is not acceptable to be involved in cooking & housework or share control of assets etc. During the length of the program this is also a safe place to share what they are learning at home from their wife/daughter and a place where they start to see women as people, not just workers/cooks. Male champions from the pilot project or staff are on hand to share how their lives and family changed when they started seeing women as equal partners, not objects to do their bidding. Eventually the men start to identify a variety of situations identified in which they as men can advocate on behalf of women.
Originally in the pilot project, the wives met informally at a different location and discussed the ideas with which they wanted the men (husbands) to discuss and understand. In the test project iteration, the wives wanted to be at the same meeting. engaging in a process to shift cultural norms in the family around, viewing the family as a unit with a co-managed team, not a dictatorship.
A typical Forum session in the early part of the testing project, involved 20 men sitting under a tree and in wrestling with the question of who controls what assets in the family. After listing about 10 assets, including chickens, cattle, cellphones and sex, all of which they agreed was under control of the men (except maybe, if there were just a few chickens, those could be controlled by their wives). Finally, they narrowed the list down to about 5 topics they were willing to engage on over the next few months. A big topic intertwined in the discussion was the “bride price” which they saw as a lose-lose proposition. Part 2 of the discussion was then to say, OK how can we begin to think and talk about this with our wives. It was an earnest conversation ranging from fears to anger to a partial resolution of first steps.
Meanwhile 75 meters away the wives sat with another SCORE female Gender Specialist, who was facilitating a discussion with the wives about the thoughts of their husbands from a week earlier. This is how it works, there is a continuous feedback loop between the men and women (hopefully) building towards a more equitable and harmonious understanding of gender roles and partnership in the home.
The second part of increasing supportive behaviours is for men to learn skills that can actually allow space & time for women to participate in events in the community with out the rest of the family suffering. In this instance part of the Baseline/Gender survey high lighted that men do not have any cooking skills beyond boiling water and throwing in tea leaves or grain for porridge. The part for men comes as a SCORE facilitator works with both the wives and the men in what essentially is a breakdown of skills needed to cook a complete meal. Starting with starting a fire, using a knife to prep vegetables and working through the steps necessary to prepare a balanced meal. These steps are identified and then are practiced in the home using wives or daughters as teachers to teach cooking and domestic skills.
Eventually at the end of the project, a Men can Cook (McC) contest is held where the men compete in public by teams to demonstrate and discuss what they have learned by being involved in sharing the work in the HH. This is a public way of opening up some of the gender norms for discussion and advocating for changes in what have been considered traditional gender norms in the community. The contest was what the community saw and others heard about, which really motivated new couples to sign up for the testing project of McC in the new testing communities.
Intermediate Outcome 3 Expanded behaviours related to gender roles by women
The approach of a culturally appropriate safe place, with supports, for women to discuss feelings, is also essential. This was demonstrated by the findings in the BL and Gender survey, showing the large gaps between what women aspire to be the norms around HH activities and family decision making and what is culturally acceptable at the moment. One cause of this gap is that women don’t have the skills/tools to engage in discussions with men without provoking anger or violence. The other, for a smaller number of women is they want to protect the little autonomy they have by keeping men out of the kitchen area.
The skills,
Similar to the men, there are local/community women champions who can assist women struggling with changes in the home, especially giving up sole control of the [very small] domain, the kitchen that has been theirs. Discussions with the older women can show the benefits of trading some control of the kitchen for enlarged participation by husbands. More spare time for one and likely more discussions of mutual interest.
Secondly, for the women participate in discussions with the staff women to discuss curriculum items that they would like their husbands to discuss in the MFG and also get a chance to provide feedback on information their husbands produce out of the Forum.
The Women gain (or have opportunity to gain) skills in various areas.
the of skill of understanding the role of action learning in the home/family
the art of negotiating space
understanding long term gain from short term actions
It is quite likely that they will also learn from the discussion forums, the skills of defining and articulating discussion topics in the home and in community in a peaceful manner.
Note: The GBA showed that women have little or no say in the areas of sharing HH/family care duties, control of assets or participation in decision making either in the family or the community. With regard to influence /participation in the community, because the testing period is so short, we do not expect to see changes in long term institutional situations, for example, women being elected into key community positions, as there may not even be opportunity for this.
However, IF men start to take up more of the burden of HH chores and women have more choice of what to do in general and with spare time and we can document what choices they make. The “development” activities are one area that should be easy to follow. Our purpose during the testing project, for having Outcome Three, was to be able to document what this means and how the women themselves will define this.
This leads to an observation with regard to typical logframes & Project Management Forms. The shortcoming of having predefined indicators in situations of normative behaviour change as opposed to a skill or outcome, is that it can take away from allowing the people involved, to demonstrate or define, what that looks like. This approach of letting the participants define indicators of change, is uncharacteristic of typical development. Development Agencies have decided, what is best (from a Northern perspective) for a given situation and then “gifted” that solution to the community. That is precisely what happened in some of these McC communities, where food aid was used as an incentive to accomplish the desired “outcomes” of a project. (As documented in our BL/G surveys and verification exercises.)
In this case, the general outcome of, expanded positive behaviours related to gender roles by women was agreed to at the onset by the participants in the community, however the indicators of what this would look like evolved through the period of testing and likely continue to evolve for each woman afterwards if the program is successful. The relationship between husband and wife continues to evolve closer to, mutually agreed upon, and family defined gender equity over time. (It likely will not look identical in the particulars for every family)
There is another population of women, that will benefit from the skills component, in a project which is the CBO women on the project team. More technical skills will provide more options. By design, much of the SCORE staff is already women, however due to family obligations, women staff often do not choose to leave the area for training. This approach to project management a small amount of equity to this by hiring a role model(s) professional woman to guide and advise on project testing tools and curriculum design. The first one has already been involved virtually by WhatsApp and Zoom in continuous, one on one training, as well as larger discussions groups once the project activities start. This (champion) professional woman runs training sessions held with various women on project staff who will then, collect, enter, analyze and validate data. Also, intentional work is done collaboratively with CBO staff on developing evaluation and curriculum tools. One of the very few benefits of Global Covid has been the whole rapid and enlargement of what is possible in virtual training.
Learnings and Notes for the northern partner, from a Localization Approach to International Development.
An important part of the upside-down process which occurs when the northern donor/implementer believe and practice the idea that their role involves resources and sequencing rather than imposing and interpreting is that when they come to the project it is more than a flying visit with a check list. It is a time of sharing and learning. They spend weeks not days on site, living in the culture. This can contribute to both sides the northerners learn a lot about the “whys” of the project which results in new tools being co -designed to make reporting easier. This can range from the finances to the narrative of story telling. The CBO learns techniques and tips to make the reporting easier. Some of the benefits to the northern partner, of this approach are noted below.
# Privilege
– It is easy to enjoy, and not even know it is happening. Watch what is happening to different groups around you, color, gender, age, financial status, are they all being treated the same?
# Integrating Gender approach
- By coming and spending a month at a time with the local partner, it allows and facilitates deep sharing with the team, not only the project team, but the entire host agency team. This sharing opened up gender discussions with both men & women, showing how our gender project could have a very important beneficial impact on the other Agency projects. Within the project, it is leading slowly and with much discussion to understanding and engaging men in a process/approach to shift cultural norms in the family around viewing the family as a unit with a co-managed team, not a dictatorship.
# Localization – Notes from a northern partner
- Our project area is about 8 hours from the capital, 3 hours from the nearest Hotel. I was graciously invited to stay at the homestead farm of the Directors mother, a widow, within walking distance of the office. Nothing could be better for me to get a picture of what can happen when you open yourself to this kind of hospitality.
- Most of the staff at SCORE are from this district, I think only one is from an outside district. That has allowed the staff to feel like they are really improving their own district and when needed are willing to sacrifice time and energy to solve a challenge.
- The officials from the District Officer to local representatives of, Ministry of Women, Ministry of Health even the Office of the [National] President have been called upon, and it is obvious that because SCORE is concentrating on this District, they have and continue to give, it supports and privileges of access and support that larger international groups are not given.
- Solving challenges from a local culturally acceptable approach, has allowed SCORE to bridge gaps that have been around for decades. Not solve, but at least make in-roads to facilitate discussions which are the precursor to generating culturally acceptable solutions. The fact that Traditional healers and prophets have been able to assist and get some resources from Ministry of Health for Covid 19 is an unheard-of break through, and exponentially impactful, as on the same day 20 people might come for Covid treatment and testing to the hospital, 2 – 400 rural people were coming to the traditional healers that same day.
Validating results
When working with norms and beliefs it is vitally important to know whether what you are told (data) is correct or is a version of information given out to outsiders.
SCORE and SMRUC work from the premise that data from a community belongs to the community and so whenever SCORE does a community survey of any kind, especially a baseline, gender norms, way of life survey. The results are immediately taken back to the local community stakeholders and the community to verify the results. If one or the other cannot agree with the results, then a two-step process, first the community stakeholders and then with participants is conducted which addresses why they are not reflective and what caused the error and what the true situation is.
Who are these community stakeholders, in our case it engages the local/village town representatives that are living there including as relevant:
Ministry of Women Affairs, Youth and Gender
Mwenezi Rural District Council—Councillors
Traditional leaders—for example village heads, chiefs
Ministry of Health/Environmental Health Technicians
Ministry of Social Welfare
Zimbabwe Republic Police (as they deal with domestic violence and ensure security)
Working Process
First there was a Focus Group Discussion with the stakeholders which reviews the preliminary findings. They identified questions and areas, if any, that do not seem to reflect lived experience and their reasons for each. If the community stakeholders identify areas of concern, incongruence with their experience and knowledge, then Stage two is initiated, where in each community of impact, the team, randomly contacts participants from the initial survey, by a text phone blast, to please come at a designated time to a designated location
At the gathering, the community leaders and stakeholders first hold a discussion as to why they had questions about the data and give assurances as to the acceptance of all answers with no recrimination regardless of answers. Next, there are one on one interviews/discussions for data collection based on clarifications given in the general meeting. This data is then re examined by the local stakeholders/leaders for verification.
The second level of verification is ongoing, and follows up on information and statements given during the bi monthly group discussion/training sessions. The Gender specialist leading the training go out to the various villages of the participants in the training sessions on alternate weeks for community visits.
On the day of visit, about five or six participants from the training sessions are randomly selected. Open ended questions are asked in a family setting, with the aim of determining the impact of the project.
This gives participants opportunities to talk about their experiences to date, or show how they are changing the way they are doing things based on their learnings in the project. At times we see projects the couple have jointly started, or activities initiated by men to help their spouses. Some outline new plans that they have jointly made as spouses. Visits give participants more time and space to open up on matters that they would normally do within groups. Children have opportunities to speak on many matters that parents talk about, they can confirm if their parents now plan things together or if they have seen their father helping to cook or take care of children.
The program is continually updated/ adjusted based on these visits. These visits are very important to this test the impact and veracity of the program. These community visits further validate information given in training sessions.
A couple of example grants that could be made to address this problem.
“I’d want to fund the following if I could find a grantee to carry it out.”
The testing project just finishing up in November had 4 groups
1.No treatment
2. Skills only
3. Forum only
4. Full treatment, Forum and Skills in cooking
I would like to go back and fill in the missing component in Group 2 &3 and give the full program to group 1.
Time: One year
Cost: Approximately 200,000 USD.
Provide a list of questions that you think need to be investigated, but which you haven’t had the time or space to discuss in your submission.
What kind of economic impact can occur, when couples work in an equitable partnership, (described above)
in “normal” times
what happens in HH when there is a severe climate disruption (drought)
as opposed to the traditional male “boss” scenario. (GBV, male migration, children pulled out of school, early marriage of girls.
Right now, in Zimbabwe, would be a perfect “lab” to research this question.
Time:
Cost: +/- US$ 75,000
[1] This is contracted out to a sister Agency, where professional women from ECL and Family Services background are present at each meeting to a) demonstrate and support, through action learning, and if needed enforce, the Covid protocols (Safety), and b) provide educational child activities and nourishment so that whether the activity is for men or women, they can bring their children with confidence.