Gender Analysis and Policy Development Training Course

Participants can identify intersecting factors that shape different experiences of exclusion and power.

• Sex, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation defined accurately
• Intersectionality applied to age, disability, ethnicity, displacement and income
• Power over, power to, power with and power within examined
• Social norms analysis distinguishes expectations, sanctions and reference groups
• Life-course analysis identifies changing risks and opportunities across ages
• Avoiding essentialism when describing women, men, girls and boys

Participants can frame a gender analysis using focused questions and credible evidence sources.

• Gender analysis questions aligned with programme decisions and policy choices
• Secondary evidence reviewed from assessments, censuses, reports and sector studies
• Key informant interviews planned to surface gendered constraints and agency
• Focus group discussions designed with safe, inclusive participation arrangements
• Triangulation compares quantitative findings, lived experience and institutional evidence
• Evidence gaps documented before drawing conclusions or proposing interventions

Participants can interpret disaggregated data and identify limitations affecting gender analysis.

• SADD tables constructed for access, participation, outcomes and satisfaction
• Disaggregation categories selected without exposing small groups to identification
• Participation rates compared against population composition and eligibility criteria
• Missing data patterns investigated before reporting apparent gender differences
• Cross-tabulation reveals intersecting disparities by sex, age and disability
• Data quality checks address completeness, consistency, timeliness and confidentiality

Participants can apply the Harvard Analytical Framework to map activities, access and control.

• Activity profile maps productive, reproductive and community management work
• Daily activity clocks identify time poverty and seasonal workload peaks
• Access profile records resources, services, information and social networks
• Control profile distinguishes use rights from decision-making authority
• Influencing factors chart identifies norms, laws, markets and institutions
• Harvard findings converted into design implications and evidence statements

Participants can use the Moser Framework to analyse gender roles, needs and planning approaches.

• Triple roles analysis distinguishes productive, reproductive and community responsibilities
• Practical gender needs identified through immediate service and resource gaps
• Strategic gender interests linked to rights, voice and power
• Women in Development and Gender and Development approaches compared
• Moser policy approaches assessed for intended benefits and limitations
• Care economy findings translated into feasible programme adjustments

Participants can map decision-making power and participation barriers among relevant stakeholders.

• Stakeholder mapping identifies rights holders, duty bearers, allies and gatekeepers
• Power mapping traces control over resources, rules, information and mobility
• Venn diagrams reveal institutional influence and community access patterns
• Decision-making pathways mapped from household to local government structures
• Participation barriers assessed for language, safety, time and social norms
• Engagement strategies differentiated for women, men, adolescents and leaders

Participants can identify institutional incentives and political factors affecting gender equality action.

• Political economy analysis identifies incentives, interests, winners and losers
• Formal rules compared with informal practices affecting women’s participation
• Budget authority and procurement processes examined for gender implications
• Service-provider incentives assessed through staffing, targets and accountability mechanisms
• Elite capture risks identified in community representation and resource allocation
• Institutional entry points prioritised for policy influence and implementation

Participants can assess whether programme approaches are harmful, sensitive or transformative.

• Gender Equality Continuum distinguishes harmful, neutral, sensitive and transformative approaches
• Programme assumptions tested against identified gender norms and power relations
• Theory of change pathways specify intended shifts in agency and institutions
• Activity design avoids adding unpaid work or increasing mobility risks
• Targeting criteria reviewed for exclusion, stigma and household-level capture
• Gender-transformative actions linked to realistic implementation capacities

Participants can draft policy provisions that convert analysis findings into accountable action.

• Policy problem statements grounded in gender analysis findings and evidence
• Rights-based policy objectives specify intended changes for defined groups
• Policy options assessed against feasibility, equity, cost and political acceptability
• Roles, responsibilities and decision rights assigned through implementation matrices
• Escalation routes defined for non-compliance, complaints and unresolved risks
• Policy language tested for clarity, inclusion and enforceable commitments

Participants can cost gender actions and integrate them into operational plans and budgets.

• Gender action plans sequence activities, owners, deadlines and dependencies
• Costed actions include participation support, accessibility and safeguarding measures
• Budget lines reviewed for hidden barriers to equitable participation
• Gender-responsive budgeting links resource allocations to planned equality outcomes
• Partner capacity costs included within implementation and quality assurance plans
• Budget narratives explain how expenditure addresses documented gender gaps

Participants can develop gender-sensitive results chains, indicators and measurement plans.

• Results chains connect activities, outputs, outcomes and gender equality impacts
• Outcome statements specify change in access, agency, norms or institutions
• Gender-sensitive indicators measure quality, safety, control and decision-making
• Indicator reference sheets define numerators, denominators, sources and frequency
• Baselines capture differences before interventions begin and targets are set
• Qualitative monitoring questions examine unintended effects and changing norms

Participants can design gender-sensitive MEAL arrangements that support adaptation and accountability.

• MEAL plans assign gender data collection, analysis and reporting responsibilities
• Outcome harvesting captures unexpected changes in relationships, norms and influence
• Most Significant Change stories gathered with consent and safeguarding controls
• Feedback mechanisms assessed for accessibility, confidentiality and survivor-centred response
• Learning reviews compare implementation evidence against gender action plan commitments
• Adaptive management decisions documented with rationale, owners and follow-up dates

Participants can identify and mitigate gender-based violence and safeguarding risks in interventions.

• GBV risk analysis examines programme locations, timing, transport and staffing
• Survivor-centred principles guide confidentiality, consent, safety and referral decisions
• Do no harm measures integrated into registration, distributions and consultations
• Safeguarding risk registers record controls, owners, triggers and review dates
• Referral pathways mapped without collecting unnecessary survivor-identifying information
• PSEA responsibilities clarified for staff, volunteers, partners and contractors

Participants can integrate gender analysis into rapid assessment, response design and coordination.

• Rapid gender analysis prioritises urgent information for response decisions
• Humanitarian needs assessments identify differentiated access, protection and health risks
• Sphere Handbook commitments applied to participation, protection and accountability
• Cash, shelter and WASH interventions reviewed for gendered access barriers
• Camp governance arrangements assessed for representation, safety and complaint access
• Response adaptations documented as conditions, needs and risks evolve

Participants can design livelihoods and economic inclusion actions that address structural constraints.

• Market systems analysis identifies gendered roles, barriers and benefit distribution
• Asset ownership patterns examined for land, livestock, savings and technology
• Financial inclusion design considers documentation, mobility, literacy and control
• Unpaid care work assessed before introducing training or income activities
• Household dialogue approaches address joint decision-making and resource allocation
• Economic outcomes measured beyond income through agency, safety and control

Participants can plan engagement approaches that support equality without shifting responsibility onto women.

• Men and boys engagement objectives linked to defined norm changes
• Positive masculinity approaches distinguish reflection, accountability and behaviour change
• Community leader engagement plans address authority, resistance and public commitments
• Backlash analysis identifies likely opposition, triggers and protective responses
• Dialogue formats selected according to participant safety and power dynamics
• Accountability measures prevent male engagement from displacing women’s leadership

Participants can establish partnership and accountability arrangements for gender equality commitments.

• Partner assessments review gender capacity, policies, staffing and reporting systems
• Local women’s rights organisations mapped as partners, advisers and accountability actors
• Participation standards define influence, feedback, representation and informed consent
• Memoranda of understanding assign gender actions, reporting duties and escalation routes
• Organisational scorecards track policy implementation, workforce practice and programme quality
• Management reviews use evidence to address stalled commitments and resource gaps

Participants can build, review and present a complete gender-responsive policy or programme design package.

• Case evidence synthesised into a concise gender analysis problem statement
• Harvard and Moser findings prioritised using significance, feasibility and risk criteria
• Policy or programme objectives drafted with measurable gender equality outcomes
• Costed action plan assigns responsibilities, milestones, resources and dependencies
• Results framework includes indicators, baselines, targets and data sources
• Safeguarding and backlash controls incorporated into implementation arrangements
• Peer review tests coherence between analysis, actions, budget and accountability
• Final presentation defends recommendations using evidence, assumptions and implementation logic