Since the early 1990s, there have been gender programmes that work with men. Both internationally and in India, the early ‘male engagement’ programmes addressed the issue of violence against women and girls (VAWG).
This is not surprising, given that, as this report states, most perpetrators of violence against women and girls tend to be male. However, the importance of working with men when it comes to issues of gender is far greater than addressing violence alone.
‘Male engagement’ programmes refer specifically to programmes that work with men and boys on gender equality rather than on other issues. (More formal definitions of male engagement and related terms can be found here.)
There is ample evidence that points to the benefits of engaging men and boys on issues of gender. One example is the evidence that shows men are less likely to be depressed, die by suicide, or die a violent death in more gender-equitable societies. Additionally, adolescent boys in these countries have fewer psychosomatic complaints.
In 2019, Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies commissioned a study to understand the benefits of male engagement programmes (from the perspectives of nonprofits who conduct them and the participants) and their unintended consequences.
The study consisted of three years of primary and secondary research on the male engagement programmes that RNP was funding in India—beginning with eight in 2019 and expanding to 10 in 2020. In addition to Theory of Change workshops, other primary research methods included interviews with participants and their female family members or friends and focus group discussions.
The insights in this article draw heavily on both practitioner experience and research evidence and seek to highlight observations and considerations that are important in the field of male engagement programming.
Rather than prescribing solutions, the piece seeks to enrich debates within this space by encouraging more organisations to enter the field of male engagement and do so informed by research and practice.
Look at the evidence, and decide on programming accordingly
Evidence suggests that involving fathers in services relevant to maternal and newborn health can reduce workload and greater emotional support for women during pregnancy and improve birth preparedness and postnatal care attendance.
Therefore, donors and nonprofits who want their programmes to be based on existing evidence should consider these kinds of interventions. Programming and funding should be structured to enable rapid learning and adaptation in other areas where the evidence base is less robust.
When working on male engagement, it’s essential to do so across age groups and tailor programming accordingly.
While the benefits of working with men (fathers in particular) are transparent when it comes to gender, nonprofits highlighted an increasing need to start younger. Concerns, including the negative influences on attitudes and behaviour of gender segregation in schools and the lack of access to sex education (from sources other than pornography), have led to this view.
However, it’s essential to look at the evidence for age-specific programming when designing interventions. How younger boys will react to a specific programme can be quite different from how adolescents in their mid-teens might react, ultimately affecting outcomes.
For instance, one programme in Maharashtra found that efforts to minimise the consumption of pornography and violent entertainment by 13–14-year-old boys by having them think more critically about the content they consume were ineffective.
A plausible reason for this could be related to male cognitive development: When it comes to boys, it is only from the age of 15 to early adulthood that they develop the ability to question, reflect on, and construct their ideas about gender norms and roles.
Given this, it’s worth considering whether a more effective strategy to address the consumption of pornography and violent entertainment by 13–14-year-olds might be to engage parents rather than the boys themselves.
In contrast, research from Australia, Europe, and North America found a decline in the effectiveness of programmes preventing bullying with middle adolescents (typically 14–17-year-olds) than with younger participants. These programmes tend to be more effective when participants are below 14 and need a different approach for middle adolescents.
When designing interventions, consider the role that programme duration plays in achieving outcomes.
Ideally, the outcomes that a programme wants to achieve should be decided first, and its duration should be determined accordingly. In some circumstances, when a donor or nonprofit has limited time to invest, it’s better to choose a programme with achievable outcomes in that period. However, it’s important to note that expecting long-term outcomes within a short programme cycle sets you up for failure.
Let’s take one of the nonprofit organisations in the study. Their programme enables male adolescents to lead by example in breaking gender stereotypes and addressing violence against women and girls to experience more meaningful and healthier relationships. Women and girls to experience greater gender equality. This programme is integrated with the nonprofit’s work with women and girls.
When the research was conducted, the male participants interviewed had been in the programme for an average of two to three years each. During this time, they had stopped child marriages, increased their contribution to housework, and acted against street harassment. In contrast, another organisation that runs a child sexual abuse prevention programme saw results in a short period.
Their programme ranges from two to six hours in length (one hour per day) and is repeated with the same set of children every two to three years. Both an internal and external evaluation found that, despite the short programme duration, a substantial percentage of participants were able to recall its key concepts and messages. In addition, most participants who faced unsafe situations could protect themselves by applying what they had learnt from the programme.
Pay attention to unintended consequences.
Many programmes face unintended consequences from time to time. These tend to be adverse outcomes that emerge as a side effect of the programme.
During our study, organisations working with children or adolescents stated backlash as a frequent unintended consequence of their programmes. Here, the negative outcome refers to backlash against boys and male adolescents who try to challenge gender equality. (This is distinct from backlash by men when women challenge patriarchal gender norms.)
Given the potential for adverse outcomes, programmes engaging adolescents should consider a more pre-emptive approach to mitigating backlash. One way of doing this in the context of gender programming is through ongoing stakeholder engagement.
Respondents in the study mentioned that conducting periodic meetings with parents, teachers, school principals, and village leaders to secure their support is an effective way of pre-empting such backlash.
Additionally, it’s crucial to train field teams to be more attentive to potentially harmful outcomes. Once they can identify unintended consequences, it’s easier to carry out periodic evaluations to learn more and take action towards mitigating them.
Understand what will motivate male adolescents to remain engaged in your programme
A recent global review of gender programmes found that a lack of interest in such programmes was one of the main reasons male adolescents either did not join or dropped out. To address this issue, some of the organisations in our study hypothesised that male adolescents would be motivated by the opportunity to challenge rigid gender norms around masculinity.
This would allow them to make choices and behave in ways they aspire to. In addition, other organisations hypothesised that male adolescents would be motivated by the opportunity to gain transferable skills through programme participation.
Our research found that male adolescents placed more value on the latter approach of gaining transferable skills. However, given that challenging rigid gender norms is central to male engagement, our recommendation is to focus on enabling participants to gain transferable skills initially and later identify and work towards aspirations constrained by masculinity.
For example, one programme that we studied started with building communication and leadership skills in participants, and was later successful in having them stop child marriages, do more housework and act against street sexual harassment.
There are unique benefits to working with both single-sex and mixed-sex groups.
The practitioners in the study were equally divided between those who worked with single-sex and mixed-sex groups. This is not surprising, given that the evidence is not conclusive on whether it is more effective to work with single- or mixed-sex groups.
On the one hand, working with single-sex groups is that they enable male participants to discuss sensitive subjects freely. On the other hand, working with mixed-sex groups gives males and females the opportunity to understand each other’s views, opinions, and needs and communicate with one another on sensitive issues.
In the study, those who work with mixed-sex groups said that these spaces begin to normalise interactions between young men and women or boys and girls. At the same time, those who work with single-sex groups stated that one reason for doing so is that male and female participants can require different content even on the same subject, such as consent.
Donors and practitioners designing a male engagement programme for the first time should consider the advantages of both options and then make an informed choice about which to pursue.
There are many approaches to scaling.
In our study, we found that organisations have attempted to scale using one or more of the approaches below:
1. Schools: ‘Originators’ expand their reach to more schools, and integrate their programme into the curriculum.
2. Peer groups: The lessons from the programme are transferred by current or past participants to groups of their peers, and they have considerable autonomy over programme design and delivery.
3. Training trainers: Professionals (such as teachers, nonprofit staff, and counsellors) are trained by the originators to deliver their programmes. Originators can maintain a moderate degree of control over programme delivery.
4. Nonprofits: Other nonprofits adapt the programme to their organisational and community context. They enjoy considerable autonomy over programme design and delivery.
5. The public: Patriarchal beliefs widely held by the public are challenged by circulating evidence or ideas to the contrary, often using online channels.
Initial observations indicate that scaling programmes through schools has been the most effective in reaching large numbers in the shortest time. One hypothesis for this is that schools provide a captive audience instead of needing to recruit children individually. And it’s possible to aggregate students across schools, too, if they are under the same management or share a standard curriculum.
Another model that came to light in the study was an organisation that runs a leadership development programme that focuses on gender and other social norms. Nonprofits working in diverse sectors nominate their staff for the programme, during which they are mentored both by the originator and by their nominator.
And participants’ peer groups and the nonprofits that nominated them are involved from the beginning. Once participants complete the programme, they are expected to integrate a focus on gender and other social norms into their work, which is facilitated by having a pre-existing support system of peers and mentors with the same priorities.
These examples indicate that it is crucial to consider how a programme should scale even when it is early. However, having said that, programmes should not begin scaling until they can produce evidence of their effectiveness and unintended negative consequences are either mitigated or ruled out.
This article was originally published in India Development Review.