• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Gender in community-driven development

Gender in community-driven development

Helpdesk Report
  • Evie Browne
February 2014

Question

What is the evidence on gender considerations in community-driven development programmes? Where possible, provide information on the impact of gender on achieving programme objectives, examples of CDD impacting gender relations, good practice and challenges in including gender in programme design, implementation and evaluation.

Summary

  • Elite capture is a significant concern. The evidence is clear that ‘uncontrolled’ CDD will not necessarily benefit women, the poor and other disadvantaged groups.
  • Women’s participation is a central problem as they do not usually have the time and/or confidence to contribute to village planning processes.
  • To reach women and other disadvantaged groups, CDD needs to have explicit targets for them or mandatory participation requirements. Programmes with an explicit gender strategy are more likely to impact on women’s empowerment than programmes without clear gender equality goals.
  • Programmes which allow women-only space appear effective in enabling women’s voice and developing projects that respond to women’s needs.
  • CDD programmes struggle to change attitudes and norms around women’s social position. They are often successful at engaging women in projects, but fail to make significant changes in the long-term.
  • Examples of positive gender outcomes are improved women’s participation in village-level meetings and processes; personal empowerment and voice; women’s access to services; increased skills and independent income.
  • The literature does not present evidence on whether gender inclusion strategies make CDD programmes more effective, as this is not usually included in evaluation outcomes.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • Australian Government (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade)

Related Content

Donor Support for the Human Rights of LGBT+
Helpdesk Report
2021
Interventions to Address Discrimination against LGBTQi Persons
Helpdesk Report
2021
Documentation of survivors of gender-based violence (GBV)
Helpdesk Report
2021
Increasing Birth Registration for Children of Marginalised Groups in Pakistan
Helpdesk Report
2021
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022