CARE USA Report on Gender Policy Implementation and Accountability
Submitted March 22, 2011
Internal report submitted to the CARE International Executive Committee
Fulfilling requirements of the CARE International Gender Policy
By
Doris Bartel, Director, Gender Unit, CARE USA and Allison Burden, Senior Advisor,
Gender Equity and Diversity, CARE USA
with support from Justine Freeman, Stephanie Baric, Leah Berkowitz, Maliha Khan, and
the Gender Equity and Diversity Steering Committee
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary.................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................1
Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Chapter 1: Progress towards Implementing the CI Gender Policy .................................2
Chapter 2: Main challenges ....................................................................................... 10
Chapter 3: Lessons Learned and Key Recommendations ............................................ 12
Chapter 4: Future plans ............................................................................................. 13
i
List of Acronyms
AA
AAP
AOP
CI
CIGN
CO
EEO
EMT
FY
GBV
GED
GWG
HQ
LAC
MDG
PAU
Pi
PLA
PQAT
PQI
PSEA
RMU
SII
SLT
SRH
STAP
TA
USG
WEIMI
Access Africa
Affirmative Action Plan
Annual Operating Plan
CARE International
CARE International Gender Network
Country Office
Equal Employment Opportunity
Executive Management Team
Financial Year
Gender Based Violence
Gender Equity and Diversity
Gender Working Group
Headquarters
Latin America and the Caribbean
Millennium Develop Goal
Policy and Advocacy Unit
Program Impact
Participatory Learning and Action
Program Quality Assessment Tool
Program Quality and Impact
Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
Regional Management Units
Strategic Impact Inquiry
Senior Leadership Team
Sexual and Reproductive Health
Strategic Talent Advisory and Planning
Technical Assistance
United States Government
Women’s Empowerment Impact Measurement Initiative
ii
Executive Summary
This report summarizes successes and challenges to CARE USA’s implementation and
accountability to the CI Gender Policy since its adoption in 2009. As a first report it also serves as
a baseline description for CARE USA’s capacity for implementing CARE’s Gender Policy against
which future reports might be measured.
Some of the efforts that CARE USA has put into place to ensure coherence and accountability for
gender integration include: (1) establishing a gender unit in the Program Quality and Impact
division in 2010 to provide support and leadership for integration of gender considerations into
all components of our programmatic work; (2) establishing a Gender Equity and Diversity (GED)
strategy, with a funded Senior Advisor for GED; (3) funding an initiative to establish coherence in
measures for women’s empowerment. The organization’s efforts to promote the program shift
have shown evidence that CARE Country offices are increasingly focusing on women and girls as
impact groups, but this has not always shown a consistent focus on gender analysis and
integration of strategies to address underlying gender factors contributing to poverty. A review
of activities funded through restricted grants has shown that CARE USA’s support for COs’
initiative’s to address and measure gendered program results is promising, but overall, the
institutionalization of gender into programming practice and impact measurement is still a
challenge for CARE USA. The demand for technical assistance (TA) far exceeds CARE USA’s
current capacity to respond and the prioritization of gender in the budget wavers in the current
uncertain funding environment.
CARE USA has made considerable progress around human resources policies and practices,
including approval of the Gender Policy, creation of a distinct Diversity Policy, a Code of
Conduct, and approval of CI’s Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) Policy.
However, challenges still exist for implementation and monitoring of these policies, including
tracking gender data, recruitment and orientation, and training. CARE USA’s marketing and
branding materials focus on women and girls’ empowerment but do not always fully reflect the
depth or scope of the successes in our gender programming. Our policy and advocacy work
often highlights issues and challenges of women’s empowerment; chapter 1 highlights some of
the recent public documents and online resources developed by CARE USA that report on
CARE’s work.
The information about the feedback mechanisms and public reporting to the public on CARE’s
work in gender at a regional or CO-level are much more difficult to quantify because of CARE’s
decentralized systems; however, the information from an analysis of the Program Quality
Assessment Tool (PQAT) data is encouraging: 66% of 44 long-term programs reporting in 2010
confirmed having specific mechanisms or processes to hold CARE accountable to impact groups
(25% made no mention and 9% had none). When asked who completed the PQAT, 32% of the
long-term programs mentioned partner organizations, but none had included program
participants.
This report shows that, apart from UBORA, CARE USA has little capability to routinely collect,
analyze and report gender-specific data. However, CARE USA anticipates future progress
through the development of systems such as the Program Directory and Pamodzi that can
provide more consistent data from all CARE USA COs, regions and HQ, for analysis and reporting
purposes.
iii
Acknowledgements
Various CARE USA staff contributed the information in this report, including staff in the Program
Quality and Impact (PQI), the Global Support Services, the Global Operations, Global Advocacy
and External Relations, and the Finance Divisions. The process for drafting the report consisted
of data gathering, creating a first draft, circulating the draft among the CARE USA Gender Equity
and Diversity Steering Committee (which includes three members of the Executive Management
Team) and revised based on their input. For questions about the content, please contact Doris
Bartel, Director of the Gender Unit (dbartel@care.org) or Allison Burden, Senior Advisor for
Gender Equity and Diversity (aburden@care.org).
Introduction
In January 2009, the CI Gender Policy was approved by all CI members. This policy, drafted by
gender advisors and other CI stakeholders, outlines CI’s commitments to promote gender
equality both within our organization and in program quality efforts. According to the policy, CI
lead members together with CARE Member Partners are responsible for the organizational and
programmatic components of the policy and to provide technical and financial resources at
Headquarter (HQ), Regional Management Unit (RMU) and Country Office (CO) level. Reporting
on progress towards the commitments in the policy is mandated every two years to the CI
Executive Committee. The specific measures for quality programming and organizational
commitment in the Gender Policy, as recommended by the CI Gender Network (CIGN) in 2010,
include:
1. Gender and Power Analysis are incorporated in Program Design and as operational
feature
2. Gender sensitive Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation systems in place
3. Ensure sufficient funding to meet the gender policy commitments and formulate staff
work plans and budgets accordingly
4. Human resources policies and practices will adequately address gender equality
5. CARE executive and senior management staff report regularly to beneficiaries, donors
and the public on progress on gender equality in CARE´s work through appropriate
reporting channels
6. CI Members have assessed and enhanced accordingly their organizational capacity for
the implementation of the policy.
By and large, CARE USA has relatively decentralized systems for program coherence, quality and
accountability, and the systems for ensuring coherence with the Gender Policy are no different.
Thus, there are few opportunities in CARE USA for systematic data collection or tracking the six
indicators shown above, whether at HQ, regional or at CO levels. Thus the information in this
first report relies heavily on reporting by HQ staff who are responsible for supporting program
quality or for finance, human resources, compliance, and global operations. Much of the
information in this report was generated by calling key staff and asking them to provide
summary data. One consistent data tracking and management system used for all CARE USA
COs is UBORA, which was helpful in contributing some key data points, as shown in Chapter 1.
1
Chapter 1: Progress towards Implementing the CI Gender Policy
a. Incorporating gender analysis in program design and as an operational feature
CARE’s current capacity to understand and address gender power dynamics, social norms, and
gender bias and discrimination are inherently shaped by CARE USA’s past investment in the
Strategic Impact Inquiry (SII), which from 2004-2008 promoted a wider understanding of
Women’s Empowerment specifically in countries across the globe. While this has shaped staff
understanding and program frameworks, the practical implementation of strategies still lags
behind. One indicator of CARE’s commitment to gender equality, as suggested by the Gender
Policy, is a measure of how frequently CARE programs utilize a gender and power analysis as
part of program design and operation. Unfortunately, this indicator is difficult to measure due to
the decentralized processes currently used for reporting programming quality and results.
Data from the PQAT
One proxy measure of how often CARE
implements a gender and power analysis can by
found by analyzing the information submitted in
July 2010. CARE USA analyzed PQAT responses of
44 long-term programs1 submitted in 2010. The
large number of programs featuring women and
girls as impact groups was encouraging. However,
even though over 70% of CARE programs
analyzed at that time had women, girls and
marginalized people listed as impact groups2, only
46% of these programs cited any gender quality
issues that arose in relation to their impact
groups, analysis or theory of change. Please see
Box A for data points from the PQAT review.
Box A: Data points from the PQAT review of 44 longterm programs reporting in July 2010:
54% of programs did not mention any gender quality
issues that arose in relation to their impact
groups, analysis or theory of change
54.5% did not mention if gender analysis had taken
place
72.7% did not mention if power analysis had taken
place
52.3% did not mention if they work with women’s
movements
40.9% did not mention if they have processes in
place to measure impact on women or
marginalized groups
68.2% did not mention working with men to address
gender norms
63.6% did not mention working on GBV
72.7% did not mention working on sexual
exploitation and abuse
68.2% did not mention gender equity and diversity as
an area for improvement
While the analysis of the PQAT shows mixed
results, CARE USA is making progress on support
systems and measures to help staff in COs
incorporate issues of gender discrimination into
program design and implementation. For example, CARE USA, with extensive input and
participation from the CI Gender Network, will launch the CARE Gender Toolkit in early 2011.
This web-based compendium of tools will help COs and others find gender analysis tools from
across
CARE
and
beyond.
The
toolkit
can
be
found
at
http://pqdl.care.org/gendertoolkit/default.aspx. CARE USA’s aim with developing the website in
1
CARE is currently investing heavily in an evolution towards longer-term program planning and learning
for targeted impact groups. The guidance found on the Program Approach website (http://pshift.care2share.wikispaces.net/Program+Design) currently includes some examples of girls as impact
groups but is gender-neutral in offering specific guidance on program design or analysis.
2
Since the time of the PQAT review in August 2010, a more recent analysis conducted in January 2011
found that 35 out of 38, or 92%, of COs were found to have 61 impact groups that specifically emphasized
women and girls.
2
collaboration with other CI members was to help overcome conflicting or mismatched guidance
on gender tools and approaches from various CI members to a country office.
Utilizing Transformative Gender Approaches with Men and Boys
The lessons from the SII reminded us3 that we cannot oversimplify gender as simply
“empowering women and girls” or engaging men as “the authority” or “the partner” or even
“the oppressor.” Such oversimplifications undermine the possibility of lasting change. Since the
end of the SII, we have seen slow but increasing attention to strategically incorporating gender
transformative approaches to men’s and boys’ attitudes and behavior, as well as the systems,
policies and structures that inhibit change, in accordance with one of the key lessons from the
SII. Some examples of this include programming to proactively promote attitude, behavior and
normative changes of men and boys in CARE Burundi and in Northwest Balkans and in the ARSHI
project in Bangladesh. Other CARE country offices are taking steps to learn from these and
other examples. Nevertheless, as seen from the PQAT analysis above, this remains a gap for
most CARE USA country offices and long-term programs. Through the Men and Boys’ working
group, CARE has begun documenting these program examples to help disseminate lessons (see
website http://gender.care2share.wikispaces.net/Engaging+Men+Boys). CARE USA has also
formally joined the MenEngage Alliance that promotes greater contributions of men and boys to
gender equality, and shares membership responsibilities with CARE Norge.
Integrating Gender across COs, Sectors and in Signature Programs
The program quality division in CARE USA is supporting action research focusing on overcoming
underlying gender factors in their implementation and evaluation of poverty alleviation
programs, such as those highlighted below in at least 34 out of 47, or 72% of CARE USA’s COs.
For example, CARE USA’s Policy and Advocacy Unit (PAU) supported research and advocacy
through an initiative funded by Gates Foundation called “LIFT UP” where women's
empowerment and/or gender were cross-cutting elements in most of the eight LIFT UP research
projects. In 2009, CARE USA’s HIV/AIDS unit published Standing Together, Reducing Risks: The
Power of Groups, a key report of the results of a study funded by a $500,000 Ford Foundation
grant examining the relationship between women’s empowerment and women’s vulnerabilities
to HIV and AIDS. Additionally, CARE USA’s new Pathways program is supporting a five-year
initiative that explores the empowerment of women smallholder farmers and their
contributions to achieving secure and resilient livelihoods, sustainable futures for their
households, communities and beyond in six countries.
CARE’s Signature Programs also incorporate gender. CARE USA’s Mothers Matter program –
found in 17 CARE USA COs and 6 non-CARE USA COs - is informed by research on linkages of
gender factors such as women’s mobility, son preference, early marriage, domestic violence and
household power dynamics with healthy self-care behaviors and health outcomes. Examples
include the Inner Spaces, Outer Faces Initiative in India ($450,000); the Results Initiative in three
countries ($1.8 million), a new initiative beginning in Mali supported by the Google Foundation
($1.4 million); and a Nike Foundation grant ($1.7 million) to study the gender factors affecting
success of savings and loans programs for adolescent girls. At the same time, Access Africa’s
(AA) Financial Sector Policy aims to increase women’s access to financial services and address
gender exclusion, social protection, and food security. Access Africa currently supports
Please see the SII Brief entitled “Women’s Empowerment and Engaging Men” at
http://gender.care2share.wikispaces.net/Engaging+Men+%26+Boys
3
3
programming in 38 countries across Africa. 21 out of 38 of these (55%) are CARE USA-led
countries. CARE’s Power Within program also supports research and program initiatives in 18
countries including exploration of daily time and sexual division of labor in the home, leadership
and self-efficacy for girls, and gender-equitable behaviors of boys.
Integrating Components that Address GBV
CARE USA has invested in a Gender Based Violence (GBV) mapping exercise to show where COs
are prioritizing implementation of strategies to address GBV in 2010. There is some evidence
that COs are increasingly incorporating components that address GBV into their planning and
implementation of projects and programs. The report from August 2010 shows that CARE
International has 77 projects in 33 countries that address GBV. Of these, 27 countries are CARE
USA-led (81%). CARE’s GBV projects are often integrated with other programmatic sectors,
most commonly with health (47%), economic development (39%), and education (18%).
b. Gender sensitive monitoring and evaluation
One critical indicator of success for an organization that is committed to women’s
empowerment is the degree to which the organization is incorporating gender into its measures
for results and success. The CARE International Gender Policy calls for CARE’s programs to:
“include relevant and feasible gender sensitive indicators for every stage of planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation, for results to explicitly state gender equality
results, and to based on data disaggregated by sex, age and other relevant diversity factors such
as ethnicity, religion, or caste.” CARE USA has made some progress in the past two years in its
ability to routinely measure the results of its work on women’s empowerment and gender
equality, but lags behind in simple metrics such as consistent disaggregation of data by sex. In
the past year CARE USA (Pi, PAU and Communications) has produced a document for external
audiences which states CARE’s position and experience with programming in women’s
empowerment, called “Strong Women, Strong Communities: CARE’s holistic approach to
empowering women and girls in the fight against poverty.” CARE’s Program Impact (Pi) Team,
with input from throughout CARE USA and CARE International, has developed a new CARE-wide
Program and Project Directory (“the Directory”) that began collecting data in 2010. The
directory contains basic information about all of CARE’s programs and projects (disaggregated
by sex where available) that can be filtered by women, men, girls and/or boys as a primary
impact group or where gender issues are specifically noted.
Another new initiative by Pi, funded through Net Assets, focuses on Program Impact indicators
for women’s empowerment. The Women’s Empowerment Impact Measurement Initiative
(WEIMI) will be implemented in 6 pilot COs across all the regions and builds on the Strategic
Impact Inquiry on Women’s Empowerment and work undertaken by CARE USA, CARE Norway,
CARE Austria and several COs to consolidate key impact and outcome indicators which emerged
from the SII process. WEIMI will support the development and use of impact measurement
guidance for systems and processes (including data collection and analysis) which will result in
improving CARE’s ability to report on our results with respect to women’s empowerment, and
the contributions that this makes toward poverty eradication. The Gender Toolkit (see section
1a) will include guidance on monitoring, evaluation and impact measurement, increasing the
availability of standard approaches to CARE COs and HQ Units.
c. Funding to meet commitments and formulate staff work plans and budgets
4
In CARE US - Headquarters
It is widely recognized that the investment in gender capacity fell in CARE USA headquarters in
2008; this was due to the financial crisis as well as prioritization of other critical areas of work
such as compliance and the reinforcement of the RMUs. Capacity for gender equity and diversity
(GED) work in the organization was also inconsistent with high turnover of staff between 2007
and 2010. However, in 2010 investment increased again. As follows:
Description
Budget Amount Comments
Gender Director: The role of the Director of Gender Unit is to provide
Staffing
for $462,000
strategic leadership on issues relating to gender in CARE USA’s
Gender Unit Source:
programming. The role of the Gender Advisor in Africa is to provide direct
and activities, Unrestricted
technical support to strategic long-term programming in COs in Africa. The
FY11
Funds and Net role of the Program Officer is to support the administrative and knowledge
Assets
management systems for the organization including the wiki, the
Senior Advisor
Gender Equity
and Diversity;
Consultants &
part-time staff
and activities
Other
staff
with gender
responsibilities
$322,000
Source:
Unrestricted
funds
Not able
estimate
to
websites, the gender working group, etc., and the GBV Program Officer
position (temporary) is to support TA for CO GBV programming as
integrated into sectoral or stand-alone programming
The role of the Senior Advisor is to support the development and
implementation of a GED strategy for CARE USA institutionally. There are
two additional staff focusing on the gender and Diversity work from HQ. A
consultant who provides support on training and investigations; as well as
a 6 month position that is supporting gender and diversity in policy (both
programmatically and organizationally), plus some flexible funds to
support of gender and diversity related (institutional) activities
Other staff in CARE USA HQ, including program and GAER have
responsibilities to support gender-related activities but these are a portion
of positions and as such are almost impossible to calculate; additionally
there are staff in COs that are focusing on gender (see paragraph below)
In late 2010, CARE USA finalized a GED Strategy and is resourcing key activities as a part of this,
including the setting up of a Steering Committee to the Executive Management Team (EMT) and
the training of EMT and Senior Leadership Team (SLT). CARE USA also funded a CI Gender
Meeting in Egypt in May 2010 and the development of a CI Gender Toolkit (as above).
In CARE USA COs and Regions
Box B: Both the Asia and West Africa regions
are investing specifically in the development
It is almost impossible to accurately report on the
of female staff. West Africa has 28% females
total investment of funds in gender across CARE
and Asia 26%, Asia carried out analysis of
USA. To date, no gender budgeting process exists.
the data in 2010 and the Regional
However, there are some very interesting data
Leadership Team are implementing changes
that indicate an increasing alignment of
to promote women’s development into
investment with programmatic commitment to
leadership positions. The West Africa GED
women’s empowerment. First, a recent call for
team is carrying out a thorough analysis of
participation in a Gender Working Group (GWG)
the obstacles that impede female staff from
across CARE resulted in a membership of over
growing individually, within the organization
250 and many of these staff have gender roles as
and in their broader societal context. The
part of their job description and a good number
team will then report into the Regional
have 100% responsibility for furthering gender
Advisory Committee with recommendations
and diversity aims. Examples include gender (or
to address these obstacles.
women’s empowerment) positions in Jordan,
Balkans, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Mozambique, Mali, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, Burundi, Somalia, Ivory Coast, Benin, Mali,
Latin America and the Caribbean Region, Central America, Peru, Somalia.
5
Through both unrestricted and targeted restricted fundraising, CARE USA has invested in the
development of three signature programs (Mother’s Matter, Power Within and Access Africa);
this includes in many cases support for gender and power analysis; the development of gender
strategies by teams within programs and COs; and the subsequent funding of proposals that
target women and girls as impact groups. In fact, 70% of CARE USA’s programs identify women
and girls as impact groups. In a review of Annual Operating Plans (AOPS) for FY10, 65% had
objectives relating to organizational change and GED.
CARE USA led the setting up of the broader Gender Working Group and five thematic groups
and have now expanded participation and leadership of these group (following demand from
the CI Gender Network) to include all CI members. The groups are as follows:
Name
Gender and Impact Measurement
Engaging Men and Boys
Gender Based Violence
Gender
in
Policy,
Advocacy
and
Communications
Gender Equity and Diversity in the Institution
Members
22
42
102
26
TOTAL
258
66
CARE members and regions represented
4 regions, 5 CI members
5 regions, 5 CI members
6 regions, 5 CI members
6 regions, 4 CI members
6 regions, 6 CI members
d. Human resources
Specific Institutional Strategies
CARE USA’s EMT approved a GED strategy in 2010 following wide consultation. The strategy
identifies four priority areas: leadership, information, communication and coherence. It is felt
without improvements in these areas there will be little progress made in the four areas of the
GED framework: representation, trust, learning and accountability. Since approval, some
progress is being made: the EMT has approved the setting up of a Steering Committee on
Gender, Women’s Empowerment and Diversity. EMT and SLT received GED training in 2011.
The STAP committee recently approved the inclusion of the Senior Advisor for GED as an
observer. The Human Resources (HR) Unit has also set up a join Strategic Talent Initiative that
brings together talent management, GED and staff development strategies, enabling a focus on
groups who are underrepresented in leadership.
There are also some excellent strategies at regional and CO level. West Africa, Latin America and
the Caribbean and Asia lead the way among the regions and CARE Somalia, Burundi, Ethiopia,
Sierra Leone, and Peru are just a few of the COs with specific strategies to address gender and
other inequalities in the organization.
Communication has also improved. Helene Gayle’s monthly communication, “Did You Know?”
contains a regular GED ‘spot’; coherence between program and programs support is a priority
and the Director of the Gender Unit in the Program Division and the Senior Advisor for GED in
Global Support Services Division work very closely as a team and with the CI Gender Network
(CIGN). They jointly edit a quarterly gender newsletter, “Making it Real.” As mentioned above, a
global GWG is active and there is a specific thematic group supporting the institutional GED
work with members across a wide spectrum of regions and divisions.
6
All Staff by location
% Females
USA HQ
67%
MERMU
45%
LACRMU
44%
SARMU
33%
ECARMU
33%
CO Avg
33%
WARMU
28%
ARMU
26%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
While many efforts have been
made, it is also recognized that
there is a long way to go.
Ubora data indicates high
levels of gender imbalance as
far as representation of men
and women in CARE staff is
concerned.
The recent
Employee Engagement Survey
showed that CARE USA is not
faring well when compared
with
other
organizations
(featuring
in
the
20th
percentile) and that women
are less happy than men across
all of the domains surveyed.
Institutional Policies
CARE USA has a number of policies and practices that demonstrate a commitment to promoting
GED amongst staff including a Gender Policy, a Diversity Policy, a code of conduct, and a
Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse policy. CARE reports annually on its commitment to
an Affirmative Action Program (AAP) and Equality Employment Opportunity (EEO). In 2010,
CARE USA developed a breastfeeding policy along with a policy for travel during pregnancy and
maternity and paternity leave. At the time of writing, work is being done to develop policy
compensation time for those positions that require very high levels of travel, as well as a travel
with infants. CARE also has special provisions for staff affected by chronic or catastrophic illness.
Once again, while some progress is being made, the Employee Engagement survey highlighted
HR policy as an area where we need to focus and women felt particularly strongly about this.
CARE USA still does not have clear policy on compensation for travel days or intense work
periods; it does not provide coverage to staff with infants or small children who are required to
travel; and the work culture is one that tends to implicitly and explicitly reward hours worked.
Policies are inconsistently implemented and there is a need for greater accountability.
Tracking Gender Data
CARE USA tracks gender data twice a year as a part of the Ubora system, by region and division
and by management level. Southern Africa and Asia have also done more in-depth data tracking
in FY10 and the regional leadership teams have used this data to inform action. At a global level
over the past two years however, the EMT has reviewed Gender and Diversity data once as part
of their business agenda and the production and analysis of good data is still a challenge. In
FY10, there has been an effort to use various data to inform strategy such as the review of AOPS
and PQATs with a gender lens. GED data is also available to the Strategic Talent Advisory and
Planning (STAP) Committee who manage the identification, placement and development of
qualified candidates in Senior Management and key strategic roles. Data also informed the
development of the CARE USA GED Strategy and the identification of the following AOP
expected results globally (which is reported against as a part of the Ubora system): “Nonwestern and female staff are better prepared for leadership positions and better represented in
the talent pool for 2011 rotational placements over 2010.”
7
Recruitment and Orientation
Small changes have taken place in recruitment practices. CARE USA now systematically reaches
out to diverse candidates and particularly women for international positions. Job descriptions
and interview processes for international positions commonly include specific reference to
gender expertise for new positions. Changes are planned in recruitment with a focus on
becoming systematic and reaching core standards across the organization and particularly for
US-based and International Positions. This will include GED in all job descriptions and
recruitment processes, advertising job opportunities in diverse places and tracking recruitment
data. Gender is integrated into orientation in multiple ways for all staff. A mandatory on-line
course is available to all new staff but take up is low at only 113 staff. The CI gender policy is
referenced in CARE USA orientations and the orientation toolkit released to all COs. For those
that participate in work week, there is a one-day GED session.
Training
While demand for training outstrips capacity to deliver, there are courses available. On-line
courses are available to all staff through the CARE Academy including: “Workplace harassment
Employee/Manager” which is mandatory for all employees in the US (1057 staff have completed
the course since 2009); “Managing Inclusiveness: GED 101,” an instructor-led course (343 have
completed this since 2009); and “Different Needs Equal Opportunities” (InterAction) - an
optional course. Since it was launched in 2010 through the CARE Academy, 10 staff have taken it
(but others have accessed it through InterAction). In addition to these specific courses, the
“Managing at CARE” course also communicates CARE USA’s management standards that include
“Model GED,” a collection of case studies that present GED issues. Other specific courses are
available which are tailored to felt needs and priorities. For example, West Africa focused on
leadership, Asia is doing a female leadership course and many COs use creative approaches to
meetings and training to reflect on and explore GED. In early 2011, the EMT and SLT participated
in a one-day gender training and all members will participate in a one-day instructor led course
by the end of the calendar year.
e. Reporting to beneficiaries, donors, and the public on progress on gender equality
Recent Research and Reporting
CARE USA can show three public reports on its work to promote gender equality in the past two
years. “Strong Women, Strong Communities: CARE’s holistic approach to empowering women
and girls in the fight against poverty,” published in 2010, is the first in a planned series of CARE
USA publications documenting progress for gender equality. This report presents examples of
programs that helped women and girls empower themselves through a wide range of
approaches and in contexts as different as El Salvador, Burundi and Nepal. These examples
illustrate “what empowerment looks like” when carefully designed initiatives achieve their
goals. This body of evidence – gathered from CARE’s research and recent analysis of ongoing
programs – forms the basis for recommendations about funding models, program structures
and programming approaches that can maximize success if heeded by governments, donors,
multilateral institutions, global development experts – and, of course, CARE itself and peer
organizations committed to the cause.
The “2005 to 2010 Impact Report: Latin America and the Caribbean” report analyzes the extent
to which the projects and programs implemented in the region achieved an impact on poverty
and inequality. CARE’s contributions were researched using a Millennium Development Goals
8
(MGD) framework. The report includes programs and projects targeting MDG 3, which seeks to
promote gender equality, as well as other MDGs viewed with a gender perspective.
The 2010 GBV report provides an overview of CARE's GBV work worldwide, focusing on the
strategies projects are using to address GBV. The report also includes analysis of funding,
settings of GBV projects, how GBV work is integrated into other programmatic sectors, types of
GBV addressed, and challenges.
Online Resources
The Gender Wiki website4 promotes knowledge sharing and learning around gender in CARE.
The wiki helps connect CARE staff who wish to find or share key resources to help advance
CARE's work to overcome gender barriers to poverty reduction. CARE USA also supports the new
Gender Analysis toolkit.5
f. Assessment and enhancement of organizational capacity to implement the policy
CARE USA’s current capacity regarding the specific measures for quality programming and
organizational commitment in the Gender Policy is summarized below.
Measures
Summary Comments
1
2
Gender and Power
Analysis
are
incorporated
in
Program Design and
as
operational
feature in program
implementation

Gender
sensitive
Planning, Monitoring
and
Evaluation
systems in place





3
Ensure
sufficient
funding to meet the
gender
policy
commitments
and
formulate staff work
plans and budgets
accordingly



4
4
5
Human
resources
policies and practices
will
adequately


Definitive progress made in coherence of gender analysis tools and
frameworks.
As low as 46% of long term programs reporting incorporation of
gender analysis in program design in 2010
As low as 27% of long-term programs reporting incorporation of
“power analysis” into their program design in 2010
Direct TA support for gender and power analysis is fragmented,
inconsistent and not enough to meet demand
WEIMI initiative put into place in FY11; Over the next two years,
CARE USA’s Program Impact Unit will work with 6 COs, technical
units, other CI members and national and international partners to
support in-country and regional initiatives to operationalize these
indicators.
CARE USA still lacks systematic disaggregation of data by sex
although this will be increasingly addressed through the
expectations of the Directory.
CARE USA’s budget to fund a Senior Advisor for Africa was cut in the
budget reforecast process in January 2011; the position was moved
to Net Assets funding. CUSA is currently able to fund two technical
advisors for 3 regions in Africa; recommendation is to fund STAs for
each region.
While most of the GED strategy is being implemented, the training
and capacity building budget requires an additional $250K for FY12
Building an implementation plan for the PSEA policy will require an
additional $500,000/year for the next 2 years
CUSA GED strategy approved and currently being implemented;
however still need to make progress in data tracking;
CI has a PSEA Policy but implementation plan not in place and
Website: http://gender.care2share.wikispaces.net
Website: http://pqdl.care.org/gendertoolkit
9
address
equality.
5
gender
CARE executive and
senior management
staff report regularly
to
beneficiaries,
donors
and
the
public on progress on
gender equality in
CARE´s work through
appropriate
reporting channels.
CI Members have
assessed and
enhanced
accordingly their
organizational
capacity for the
implementation of
the policy.
6
currently we are not able to provide support or investigations on
condition of allegations of abuse, nor do we have coherent systems
in place to systematically prevent abuse
Three reports were produced in the last three years:
1. Strong Women, Strong Communities: CARE’s holistic approach to
empowering women and girls in the fight against poverty;
produced in 2010;
2. 2005 to 2010 Impact Report: Latin America and the Caribbean;
produced in 2010;
3. GBV Mapping Report, in process to be produced in 2011.
Online resources that document and share CARE’s tools, resources, etc.
are publicly available but not widely shared or publicized through
CARE’s outward facing websites (www.care.org)
As noted in the introductory section, this is the first report by CARE USA
on the progress made in the past two years as required by the Gender
Policy. The effort to produce this report shows how few systems CARE
USA currently has to routinely collect, analyze and report genderspecific data for programmatic or organizational measures. We are
grateful for Ubora and have great hopes that the Directory and Pamodzi
will be useful in this regard for the next report. We also feel that the
recent step of setting up a Steering Committee for GED concerns that
incorporates staff from around the globe and EMT members, with a plan
to meet quarterly to review progress, successes, and strategies for
forward momentum will be an excellent opportunity for routine support
for gender issues in the future.
Chapter 2: Main challenges
a. Incorporating gender analysis in program design and as an operational feature



As mentioned in Chapter 1a, the institutionalization of knowledge in practice is a
challenge for CARE USA. More must be done to systematically integrate gender
concepts into program assessment, design, implementation and evaluation processes.
The demand for technical assistance far outstrips capacity of CARE USA to respond, and
the systems for ensuring maximum program quality, including attention to gender,
remain somewhat decentralized and ad-hoc. Gender-focused TA is currently provided
through regionally-based management staff, by HQ-based CI member gender advisors,
and via individually contracted consultants, making it nearly impossible to track the
consistency, scope or usefulness of the TA.
There exists a need to centralize gender documents, tools, and data for assessment - the
current CIGN initiative and the potential for the PQAT tool to more systematically track
gender data (as mandated in FY11) are steps in the right direction.
b. Gender Sensitive Monitoring and Evaluation

As mentioned in Chapter 1b, the WEIMI initiative will work with 6 COs over the next 18
months. However, currently, in-country support for impact measurement is limited to
CO resources, which, especially for learning partners, may be insufficient for deepening
collaborative and institutional learning. Pi is therefore working with other CI Members,
RMUs, COs and technical units to creatively support the development and dissemination
of lessons as they emerge.
10

Although there is creative energy and a commitment to joint learning, resources and
capacity at CO and regional levels remain limited, and the TA needs are great. A recent
Impact Measurement Readiness Assessment exercise in ECARMU and, more limitedly in
WARMU and SARMU, highlighted the capacity building and TA needs of different COs
and regions – from basic information and knowledge management needs to more
complex analysis and impact measurement ones.
c. Funding to Meet Commitments and Formulate Staff Work Plans and Budgets




As mentioned in Chapter 1c, CARE USA is leading the introduction of a new financial
system and it is hoped that the system will enable gender budgeting capacity.
Greater investment is needed at all levels. In a recent estimate, a further $250,000
would be required to meet even a minimum standard of support from HQ.
COs and Regions report the need for investment in gender capacity building for staff and
partners as well as measuring such social change as women’s empowerment and
increased gender equality.
Women’s empowerment and gender work often gets de-prioritized as various priorities
jostle for their place in an uncertain funding environment.
d. Human Resources





As shown in Chapter 1d, competing priorities in a time of financial constraint has meant
that gender is seen as an area that can be easily cut; staff report decreasing satisfaction
with training and development opportunities in CARE USA; and there has been a
reduction in the delivery of gender training since the mid 2000s. By far the greatest
demand for support is around staff development in gender and women’s
empowerment.
The work ethic in CARE USA is repeatedly cited by many staff as impeding them from
playing roles outside work, particularly affecting female staff because of prevailing
gender norms.
Internal policies are inconsistently implemented across CARE, in part due to the wide
diversity of contexts within which we operate (with diverse legal requirements), as well
as the very high level of decentralization and managers making decisions independently.
CI’s policy on the PSEA and Abuse was approved without adequate investment for
implementation. There is no centralized system of collecting data on the incident or
resolution of such cases across CARE USA. COs report challenges in monitoring,
investigating and dealing with actual cases. CO policies are also not all updated and
aligned with the CI policy.
The financial system cannot ‘speak’ to the HR systems and in fact, there are three
separate and incompatible systems within HR: one for performance and time entries;
one for recruitment; and one for talent management. There is very little capability for
central tracking of CO and regional data. There is also limited capacity, as cut backs in
staff have reduced time available to input, produce and analyze data.
e. Reporting to beneficiaries, donors, and the public on progress on gender equality

As noted throughout Chapter 1, CARE USA’s systems are not designed for systematic
data analysis or reporting against the requirements of the Gender Policy. We sincerely
hope that systems being developed in FY11 (such as Pamodzi, The Directory, etc.) will
contribute to the opportunity for CARE’s senior leadership to report publicly on progress
11
towards gender equality, but it will require systematic support and resources for such
reports to be generated and disseminated.
Chapter 3: Lessons Learned and Key Recommendations
a. Systems to help ensure information sharing, knowledge generation, and learning
across COs and across CI members
In order to maximize learning and sharing across the diversity of experiences and lessons in
CARE’s programs and institutional systems, and build coherence across CI, CARE USA has in the
last year: (1) revitalized the Gender Working Group, an open-invitation membership to any CARE
employee (CI wide) to participate in a list serve and / or smaller working groups to move a
gender agenda forward. This now has over 250 members and functions as a key information
sharing mechanism; (2) revamped the gender wiki; (3) led the CI-wide initiative to launch a
common web site with key gender tools and guidance for staff across the globe
(http://pqdl.care.org/gendertoolkit/default.aspx); (4) set up a Steering Committee for GED
concerns that incorporates staff from around the globe and EMT members, with a plan to meet
quarterly to review progress, successes, and strategies for forward momentum. In FY10, CARE
USA co-chaired the CI Gender Network, made up of CI members with gender focal points, to
coordinate a more consistent approach to gender technical assistance and GED policies. In order
to remain dynamic and evolve positively, these mechanisms for learning and documentation
must remain high priorities for resources in the coming fiscal years.
b. Holistic and coherent support for gender TA across CI
As the PQAT results demonstrate, more must be done to ensure that gender concepts are more
systematically integrated into program assessment, design, implementation and evaluation
processes. The current CIGN initiative to centralize gender documents and tools for assessment,
evaluation and implantation is a step in the right direction to ensure more coherence in tools
across CI members, but more is needed. As CARE continues to move ahead with the program
approach, the staff in COs will be moving from a focus on analysis and design of long-term
programming to strategies for implementation and evaluation. This will require support from all
CI members in order to meet demand. Since savvy donors are asking hard questions about
CARE’s gender capacity in relation to its “women’s empowerment” marketing and branding, it
will be prudent to build the core cost of support and TA into restricted funding budgets to
improve the sustainability and responsiveness of such activities. CARE USA recommends the
establishment of gender technical advisors responsible for each region, with sponsorship and
funding shared by CI members and coordinated support by CIGN.
c. Systematic data analysis and reporting against the requirements of the Gender
Policy
The effort to produce this report shows how few systems CARE USA currently has to routinely
collect, analyze and report gender-specific data for programmatic or organizational measures.
We are grateful for Ubora (yet feel some improvements might be made even so) and hope that
the Directory and Pamodzi will contribute to the opportunity for CARE’s senior leadership to
report publicly on progress towards gender equality. It will require systematic support and
resources for such reports to be generated and disseminated. For example, CARE USA is leading
the introduction of a new financial system and it is hoped that the system will enable gender
budgeting capacity which in turn will enable us to report on financial investment more
accurately in future. But it is not yet clear whether Pamodzi will be formulated in a way that will
12
allow for CARE to analyze and generate a gender budget audit, which is a common industry
standard.
d. Research and Impact Measurement capacity
CARE USA’s capacity to support high-quality research initiatives to document persuasive data
and analysis about gender impact is promising, yet the systems for support to Cos remain
decentralized, with support to Country Offices coming from any of several PQI units or through
regional initiatives. In FY 11 and 12, 6 COs (and additional regional learning partners) will be
supported through the Women’s Empowerment Impact Measurement Initiative. The Signature
Programs and other technical units in CARE USA’s PQI division are in the process of identifying
potential resources and research partners to strengthen rigorous analysis and learning that link
gender factors with improved programmatic outcomes but CARE USA does not currently have
systems in place to coordinate these disparate efforts. The advance in reporting through the
nascent Program Directory is welcome, but to date it remains to be seen whether this will
support reporting of CARE’s impact on gender barriers to poverty.
e. HR Policy and work culture
There is still much to do to engender CARE US’s HR policies and practice. Lessons from inside
CARE and from other organizations highlight the importance of leadership, coherence,
information and communication in this work. There is also strong evidence from the business
world that improved results can be achieved though a diverse workforce that is included in the
processes of the organization and therefore fully engaged. In order to flourish in a competitive
environment, CARE US needs to make greater effort in recruiting and retaining talented women,
particularly outside of the US.
f. Capacity building at all levels
Greater investment is needed at all levels to support CO, regional and HQ staff in how to
incorporate and integrate gender into the priorities and activities of all divisions. One key
example is the unfunded mandate for CARE’s systems to identify, prevent and address sexual
exploitation and abuse, leaving CARE open to the real possibility of unethical treatment of
employees and beneficiaries, and possible lawsuits, bad press and loss of donor confidence. We
recommend that CARE USA provide adequate funding to support PSEA and that CIGN
incorporate support for and coordination of CI PSEA policy in addition to the gender policy.
Chapter 4: Future plans
CARE USA’s plans for further progress on implementing the Gender Policy in 2011-2012
(pending appropriate allocation of resources) include:
1. Continued support for documentation, knowledge sharing and learning across COs through
Gender working group, wiki, PQDL resource page;
2. Strengthened coordination, sharing and accountability through CARE USA GED Steering
Committee, the CIGN and gender working group;
3. Continued support for coherent impact measures for women’s empowerment and the
development of clear operational guidance and capacity requirements for this work;
4. Progress on coherent systems for data tracking and analysis including financial (Pamodzi)
and HR data (Ubora and other systems) as well as programmatic data (Program Directory);
13
5. With luck, we hope to more fully fund an initiative to bring CARE USA into compliance with
current industry standards and CI policy on PSEA;
6. Strengthening of resource development processes that support incorporation of gender
mainstreaming content and appropriate budgeting for costs, including costs of capacity
building and TA through restricted funds;
7. Strengthening our ability to recruit, retain and develop female staff including adjusting
relevant policies and practices.
8. Improving the levels of engagement of all staff and particularly female staff by improving
organizational culture in line with our GED framework for action (representation, trust,
learning and accountability)
9. Enhancing the capacity and understanding of all staff in Gender Equity and Diversity
10. Improved capacity to oversee greater rigor in ethical and methodologically sound research
initiatives that focus on gender factors including women’s empowerment.
14