Strong Messages, Straightforward Approaches, and (Hopefully) Better Implementation: Thoughts on USAID’s 2023 Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy

USAID’s recently released 2023 gender policy is much more progressive than earlier ones (yes!)—we need to give kudos for this. BUT what is missing or needs more depth? We reached out to several thought leaders across the globe to hear their perspectives on the policy. Our first piece in this series comes from Wade Channel, former senior growth advisor for gender at USAID, who argues that though the new policy’s strong messages and straightforward approaches can lead to better implementation, it glosses over a few crucial pieces, including the business case.

In 2012, USAID issued a foundational document in the Agency’s long effort to promote more effective work. The Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy of that year raised the standards for programmatic and strategic action for the equality of women and girls. By adding the extremely practical ADS 205 a year later, USAID created a solid platform of policy and implementation.

I had the privilege of working in this upgraded context, joining the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (GenDev) in 2013 until my retirement in 2021 as the Senior Economic Growth Advisor for Gender. To be honest, I was pretty underqualified when I started—I may have been solid on economic growth issues, but my grasp of the gender facets of that work was pretty slim. The 2012 Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment policy, ADS 205, a plethora of other resources surfacing in that period, and a gracious and supportive GenDev team brought me up to speed.

As much as I respect and appreciate the 2012 policy, I must admit that the 2023 Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy is even better. In fact, much better.

Key Strengths

The 2023 policy builds solidly on its forbears, maintaining and expanding the depth and breadth of commitment. Several key strengths are evident:

Definitions

Anyone involved in gender work is well aware of the battles over term definitions. Clear definitions are essential to mutual understanding and effective work, even if not all agree on the goals. The policy has done an excellent job of providing clear explanations—not merely dictionary definitions—of “gender” and various elements of gender equality work. These definitions laid are in line with definitions used by the international gender community and go a long way to distinguishing between “gender” and “sex”—terms that are often inappropriately interchanged.

Breadth

The policy is unapologetically inclusive of the LGBTIA+ community. Gender concerns go well beyond binary thinking on masculine and feminine to incorporate a full array of gender and sexual expression and orientation. Even better, the text is replete with attention to other areas of discrimination that overlap and intersect with gender disparities, from ethnicity to disability. As such, this document serves to support often disconnected efforts for greater equity and equality for humanity.

Men and Boys

Sadly, gender is often perceived as an issue of men versus women, especially by those who mistakenly believe that we live in a zero-sum world where gains by one must come through losses by the other. This policy makes no such mistake. The text makes evident that gender equality benefits all people, regardless of sex or gender. It also points out ways in which restrictive gender norms harm men and boys. While many of the most obvious ills of gender equality disproportionately hurt females, the dysfunctional equations of opportunity and well-being must be addressed on all sides. The policy opens that door for deeper consideration.

Behavior

Gender inequality, as the policy makes clear, results from norms that generate inequitable and inappropriate behaviors. The policy sagely targets behaviors without villainizing those perpetrating and perpetuating those behaviors. It also questions the norms behind the behaviors, opening opportunities for individuals and communities to reconsider whether existing norms are producing the kind of world we want for those we love. We know that gender discussions often generate opposition and defensive reactions from those who feel blamed or shamed. The policy avoids the blame game and simply encourages the development of new behaviors that serve us all better.

Evidence

Due to a lack of data, until recently, many of the benefits that gender champions believed would accrue in a more inclusive, gender-equal world were, to some extent, theoretical. That has changed. We now have evidence to prove that gender equality matters for democracy, economic growth, education, peace, health, and other components of human welfare. With 250 endnotes of some of the best and most recent research and findings in academic and popular studies, the policy provides this evidence in abundance—nothing short of a dream for researchers, advocates, and activists.

Comprehensive Principles

Another great strength of this work shines forth in the straightforward, clear, and comprehensive principles. While I will not repeat all of seven of them here, several are particularly poignant for me.

Locally-Led

The past few years have seen a fresh wave of concerns from the Global South (and kindred spirits in “North”) about decolonizing development to ensure attention to priorities of putative “beneficiaries” of development largesse. USAID has fought this battle before (anyone remember the 30% local requirement of the Obama administration?) with varying degrees of success. The Great Expat Savior Syndrome seems to be an occupational hazard, but the 2023 policy reinforces the need for working with our local counterparts to hear and effectuate their desires and needs. Stated as stand-alone principles, they are also woven into discussions throughout the document.

Collaborative

Another pathology often afflicts the international development community: I call the “Lone Ranger Syndrome.” Despite our limited resources (no how much better they have been in recent years), it is not uncommon to portray our individualized efforts as “The Solution.” (I’ve seen this in numerous organizations—not just USAID.) The fact is every problem we seek to address is far larger than the resources of any—and possibly all—who offer assistance. The policy does not make that mistake. In fact, it is explicitly noted that “[t]he Agency is not suggesting that it, or any other entity, can ‘bestow’ empowerment upon others.” No, this is a group effort at which USAID can excel at given its thought leadership and convening power.

Accountable

There is no accounting without counting, and that requires qualitative indicators. The full USAID gender architecture has been committed for years to the endless task of developing and refining meaningful indicators. The policy has both embraced and expanded this commitment.

Strategic Objectives

The policy’s strategic objectives are likewise clear and straightforward. They are also familiar, yet not the same as earlier iterations. Of particular importance to me is that the emphasis on addressing gender-based violence is much stronger than in any earlier work of this sort—as it should be. As gender expert Linda Scott has noted, violence is the means by which gender inequality is enforced. Few gender equality goals can be achieved without addressing violence, and not just against women. The policy makes very clear that men are also subject to violent enforcement of dysfunctional norms, and in doing so widens the potential pool of advocates to eliminate such violence. Gender-based violence is a human issue that affects all genders –the policy treats this with the gravity it merits.

Moreover, structural change is clearly identified as the necessary road to equitable gender norms. Although I would prefer a more specific discussion of a systems approach to structural change, the policy allows for users to address this objective through any appropriate means without limitation. Tactics aside, recognition that gender dynamics have been incorporated into institutional structures is essential to achieving transformative changes in organizations and societies. Attention to this issue echoes and builds upon the important work of Engendering Industries, USAID’s groundbreaking work in reforming the underlying structures that constrain or promote gender progress.

“Deliberate action to close gender gaps is . . . both a moral and strategic imperative of development assistance.”

It is not enough to have fine statements of objectives, evidence of benefits, and poignant appeals to human rights for an institution such as USAID to achieve a significant impact. If the policy had stopped here, it would be little more than yet another laudable thought piece. For me, the most exciting segment of the document is “Policy into Practice.” This is where USAID takes responsibility and commits to accountability for actually changing the status quo.

Many readers may lose interest as the discussion turns to potentially yawn-inducing discussions of mission orders and hiring gender advisors. Yet these few pages are the true heart of the policy. The policy describes in simple terms the process for ensuring that USAID adopts both the internal operations and the external programs to accomplish the vision of an equitable world so clearly enunciated throughout.

Thanks to the Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018, doing a gender analysis to guide strategy, programs, and activities is not just a good idea, it’s the law. This section of the policy translates that legal mandate into practical actions, especially when combined with ADS 205. USAID further commits itself to training its entire workforce in fundamental tenets of gender equality, which, obviously, is a necessary pre-requisite to thoughtful gender analysis and gender-aware program design. In keeping with the principle that policies without funding are merely platitudes, this policy mandates that funding be specifically attributed to achieving gender goals and objectives. And to ensure meaningful data, the policy returns once again to a mandate that all people-level activities collect sex-disaggregated data, a long-standing policy observed as much in the breach—until now—as in compliance.

Additional programmatic guidance and food for thought is presented toward the end of the document by addressing—with practical recommendations for action—“Why Gender Matters to USAID Programs” across 14 sectors of development practice, such as economic growth, global health, and education. Although necessarily brief, these vignettes repeat and reinforce the core tenets of the policy and help the reader to understand what gender equality looks like in action.

Wade’s Wish List

So far, I have been quite clear about how much I admire and appreciate this document. It solidifies years of hard-fought efforts to advance gender equality. I was part of that fight, and I am still awed by the grit, commitment, and efforts of my friends and colleagues throughout my time at USAID. This policy is something we can all be proud of.

That said, there are some additions I would like to see, and some weaknesses that are not fully addressed. This is less a criticism than a wish list; I know that such documents must be brief if anyone other than a paid researcher is going to read them. I also note that my suggestions derive from my own specialized personal and professional interests. These are not universal by any means but hopefully will be useful to my colleagues who fashion strategies and design programs. With that proviso in mind, I offer the following observations and suggestions.

Who are the Gatekeepers?

The 2012 policy and the accompanying ADS 205 generated a great deal of appropriate excitement among the numerous gender specialists and champions at implementing organizations, such as contractors and grantees. Throughout my time at GenDev, I heard from colleagues outside of USAID that procurements were hitting the streets with little to no gender requirements. Somehow, those responsible for ensuring compliance with policies and mandates evidently were not getting the message, and gender-blind or deeply diminished work continued to be procured. The 2023 policy indicates that contract and award officers (essentially, the Office of Acquisition and Assistance) will be responsible for stopping any gender-bereft acquisitions until corrected. But this was at least theoretically true in previous years.

What is being done now to ensure effective accountability for USAID’s own compliance with law and policy? I would note that implementing partners can play an important role here (as they have in the past) by alerting appropriate USAID officials if a procurement is issued without proper compliance.

What’s the Business Case?

I should start by admitting my bias—I am an economic growth specialist who has spent his entire career arguing the economic benefits of changes I promoted (including the economic benefits of the rule of law and democracy). The policy makes a very strong case that gender equality is a basic human right, and I agree. It also mentions economic benefits, but these could be much stronger. With Wall Street scions demanding greater diversity and fund managers creating specialized funds for inclusive corporations because they are more profitable, there are well-established grounds for promoting gender equality as an investment as well. For some, this means the difference between simply agreeing with the ideals of equality versus investing their funds and reforming their organizations to achieve it.

What about Business?

One of the most important advances in women’s economic empowerment thinking from 2016 to 2020 was the redefinition of “business enabling environment” to move beyond mere laws and regulations (which are important but require massive governmental efforts) to recognize employer practices and their role in retarding or enervating positive change. Unlike laws, company policies can be revised without having to launch years-long legislative programs. There is power and funding in the private sector to drive the equality agenda. The policy does mention employer practices very briefly, but this theme gets no serious discussion. In fairness, the policy does not delve into the roles of government, business, and civil society as it is focused on the role of USAID itself. Perhaps that should be reconsidered.

What About Trade?

Okay, I know this is yet another economic growth issue and the policy is not just an economic growth document, but the gender impact of trade is far from trivial. Whether trade policy’s effect on products (virtually all of which have various gender imbalances) or the use of sextortion by border agents, women are most often at a disadvantage in the world of trade. Perhaps a separate section would be worthwhile.

Emotional Education

One of the under-recognized gender differences is the disparate levels of emotional awareness and health (let alone intelligence) between genders. Overall, men are not effectively trained to recognize or manage emotions but instead tend to be encouraged to deny, dismiss, or repress them. From my perspective, attaining a greater level of healthy masculinity in our world will require helping men and boys to develop deeper emotional awareness and capacity. Is it truly surprising that male rage in America has been producing almost two mass shootings a day for the past several years? Intimate partner violence is not simply a physical behavior, it is an emotional behavior. Incorporating a separate focus on emotional health—not simply mental health—could be translated into primary and secondary educational programs on emotion and its role in our lives, including how to manage unpleasant emotions without hurting others.

Moving Beyond Encouragement

The 2023 policy requires a basic level of gender training, but only encourages training beyond that. USAID staff are not actually required to use that knowledge by being involved in production of a gender analysis (which can be shunted off to the Gender Advisor or an implementer) or other gender-aware effort. Requiring more than this minimum is problematic as a practical matter, and yet cannot be achieved through other means. Unless career advancement includes a requirement to promote gender equality, as examined in annual reviews or other promotion-related assessments, the likelihood of individual behavior change will be diminished. This is not new: USAID’s Engendering Utilities and its counterpart Engendering Industry has for years been helping businesses recognize the importance of changing promotion criteria to achieve gender goals.

Keeping the Love Alive

GenDev has been tasked with substantial responsibility for the implementation of the policy, which is appropriate. Other units that do not necessarily have sufficient gender expertise to integrate gender goals throughout program cycles rely on GenDev. The policy continues this role.

This raises two concerns:

  • For many, promoting or measuring compliance is not so different from enforcing compliance. For much of the Agency’s existence, the various iterations of gender offices were frequently perceived as the “gender police”—often to be avoided. GenDev has a very different and much more positive reputation but should stay vigilant to ensure its hard-won respect is maintained.
  • GenDev has been perpetually underfunded and understaffed (and thus overworked) for much of its existence, especially as demands have grown. It is essential that USAID ensure sufficient human and other support resources for GenDev to effectively carry out its expanding responsibilities. This includes investing in a larger cadre of gender experts and greater levels of gender expertise across the Agency.

USAID as a Leader in Gender

The 2023 policy continues and expands USAID’s thought leadership in the U.S. Government and among international development organizations. This provides a tremendous opportunity to support the advancement of both skills and achievements through collaboration and cooperation.

For example, USAID has numerous interagency agreements on a wide range of subjects. These can be used to advance our own gender equality agenda by ensuring deep integration of the policy into those agreements, including the requirement for a gender analysis prior to entering such agreements. USAID also trains other agencies or participates in joint trainings. The policy requires that all trainings incorporate gender components. In the past, this was too often done through a single presentation on gender, sometimes given as a highly distracted lunch talk, rather than ensuring the integration of gender into each module. The policy provides both opportunity and mandate to up the level of training, not just to USAID’s own, but to its colleagues.

Where are the Resources?

While reading through the policy, I frequently thought of excellent resources that USAID has produced, from studies of gender issues in specialized topics to how-to guides to one-pagers filled with evidence and arguments for gender equality. Of course, the policy itself could not possibly hold or refer to all of these products. That said, it would be nice to see some central point for finding USAID’s resources. During my tenure at USAID, my friends and I relied more on Google to find internal documents than any of the disparate and disconnected pages on the USAID web. It was even worse for the general public. Now is the time to change that, and I hope USAID will invest more heavily and consistently in a user-friendly catalog of the many outstanding resources that have already been developed.

A Summary

At this point, I’ve gone on long enough. I assume most of you have given up already. Nor do I blame you. So, let me summarize:

I love this policy.

There can always be improvements and enhancements, but the Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy of 2023 goes a very long way in leading the Agency and its many partners toward accomplishing the vision of a gender-equal world.

Insert Wade bio