How Inclusive are community-driven programs of women?

Gender inequality starts in communities and families and is reinforced by society at large. So how can the very same institutions which perpetuate inequality be at the core of addressing it? Community-driven development (CDD) programs operate on the principles of local participation and decision-making - putting communities in charge of defining and addressing the issues that can improve their lives. How effective are these programs at truly promoting the voice and agency of women, within unequal societies? Within most communities across the world, men vastly outnumber women in positions of leadership, and women disproportionately face social challenges and public exclusion, which leads many practitioners to think that it might be more effective to target women and female-headed households directly.

Spark’s experience, and evidence from across the globe, tell a different and more nuanced story. Firstly, changes in gender dynamics start from within communities, and the success of many CDD programs in promoting female participation and leadership has been proven time and again. Across the board, evidence shows that CDD programs are successful in increasing women’s direct participation in community decision-making, with some reports pointing to positive effects for girls’ school enrollment, and women’s access to medical services. A community-based approach can increase women’s decision-making power in communities, provide a space for them to gather together and voice their ideas, and ensure the unique needs of women are met through village projects. Secondly, programs need to be designed to achieve these impacts, it’s not automatic. Although CDD programs have significant potential to benefit women, programming must be intentional to include them, and measures must be taken to guarantee women’s engagement in the process. Several factors may hold women back from this participation, such as time constraints, heavy domestic workloads, cost of travel to community meetings, low education and literacy levels, and inability to challenge male domination due to lower social status. However, with explicit targets and planning, these programs can ensure the most disadvantaged groups are accounted for and engaged in the process. Finally, efforts to involve women should take a ‘whole of village’ approach, rather than an overly prescriptive or individual targeting approach that could be seen to undermine local authority or divide communities.

Spark’s model - the Facilitated Collective Action Process (FCAP) - has consistently produced significant and sustainable impacts on women’s participation and livelihoods. 59% participation in Spark meetings is from women, and women constitute 44% of FCAP leadership positions. By incorporating gender empowerment activities prior to village leadership elections, the FCAP sees more female leaders elected into local leadership positions. FCAP facilitators are trained to recognize gender dynamics within communities and promote female participation and voice in public gatherings. In Uganda, many elected FCAP leaders have then gone on to run in local government elections, with a 78% success rate in being elected to local office.

Ultimately, when program designs reflect a strong understanding of the potential for change in communities, CDD programming has the ability to not only improve the immediate livelihoods of women but also cultivates more long-lasting change in gender norms and equality.