Exploring the Gender Donor & Financing Ecosystem

The Why….

The Chroma Collective held its first in-person gathering in March of 2023! Until recently, COVID and travel/scheduling logistics made it too difficult to congregate in one physical space. Needless to say, we were all thrilled to be together (for three days, no less) and dive deep into important discussions about the state of gender mainstreaming and current efforts toward gender equality in the development space.

Before members focused on the approaches and priorities of their individual institutions, we (Iris Group and Ideo.org) began our time together by zooming out and exploring the broader gender donor/financing ecosystem. We conducted and shared a rapid landscape review with three goals in mind:

1. Understand the current trends and priorities in the gender donor/financing ecosystem, including where efforts are complementary and where there are potential gaps or tensions.

2. Clarify member institutions’ roles in the ecosystem, so as to identify ways to better collaborate with one another.

3. Identify potential for interaction and coalition building with entities outside Chroma. 

The How….

To prepare for the landscape review, we (Iris Group) interviewed ten gender experts from philanthropies, feminist alliances, academic institutions, donor networks, etc., and conducted a rapid review of the literature. After compiling and analyzing the information, we did a thematic analysis and identified seven major categories (or as we refer to them: “nodes”) of the gender donor and financing landscape. These nodes overlap and interact in dynamic and complementary ways. Indeed, the work of one node often reinforces the work of another so that efforts toward gender equality are expedited. They can also balance one another out, and in some cases, even obstruct gender equality gains. That’s to say, it’s complicated…. and a great discussion for another blog post! For now, we’d like to define each node and talk about some major trends that emerged across them.

The What….

In no particular order, we present the seven nodes of the gender donor/financing ecosystem: 

1. Bilateral Funders: Bilateral donors provide aid from official (government) sources and give directly to recipient countries.

2. Multilateral Mechanisms and Financing: Institutions and initiatives that use funds from multiple governments to create platforms to work toward gender equality.

3. Philanthropies and the Private Sector: Funding institutions and initiatives established by individuals and companies, rather than government entities.

4. Intermediary Donors: Organizations whose roles include raising funds and regranting to smaller – often grassroots – groups.

5. Adjacent Networks: Funding networks that, while not explicitly focused on gender equality, do work that significantly impacts or is impacted by gender norms and gender inequality.

6. Alliances of Gender Equality Funders: Feminist or gender equality-focused funding alliances.

7. “Other Influencers”: Through their leadership and advocacy, these players help drive global investments and priorities related to gender equality.

Each of these nodes has different priorities and approaches to achieve gender equality. Overall,  a number of key themes emerged about the current state of this gender ecosystem:

First, institutional approaches to gender mainstreaming reflect diversity in commitment:

• Gender is being made to fit with whatever else is going on in the institution, and it’s often done as an afterthought. 

• “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” is an important new area of work; in some institutions, it’s being merged with gender mainstreaming efforts.

• The range of commitments to gender mainstreaming has implications for human resources. For example, the share of work done by consultants has increasingly grown, and this has come at a cost to institutions. Though cheaper, the work is often fragmented and less sustainable, and in some institutions, it means that more is demanded of gender advisors/focal points. 

Second, there are various priorities competing with gender, and it doesn’t have to be that way:

• There is a lot of money and urgency going toward the “green agenda”; and gender equality seems like an “extra.” There’s also a sense that political will and resources are moving away from gender in favor of climate change. As one of our informants said, “The green agenda may not have time to bring gender equality with it.”

• Intersectionality is another area of increased attention. Organizations with a more intentional focus on intersectionality are unsure of how to integrate it into gender mainstreaming.

Third, there has been a move towards investing in “movements” rather than programs:

• A lot of networks are doing movement building: intentionally aligning and being in solidarity with already existing movements.

• There has also been some shifting away from thematic investments toward platforms for convening, strategic communications, measurement, building mid-level policymakers, and long-term capacity-building efforts. Though these efforts aren’t very sexy, many in the field see them as “scaffolding for the gender equality movement.”

• There has also been a big proliferation of communities of practice, which one interviewee noted, “can be a lot of churn for little output.” 

Fourth, there continues to be a lack of conceptual consistency and clarity in the gender donor/financing ecosystem:

• The feminist (movement) and gender equality (programmatic) agendas can be at odds.

• Some talk about “gender equity” and others focus on “gender equality.”

• There isn’t alignment on “gender mainstreaming” versus “gender integration”; and there is confusion over what we mean by “gender transformative programming” – with varying definitions and approaches to programming.

• Where some institutions focus primarily on women’s empowerment, others take a more integrated approach by focusing on gender norms and gender equality. This approach also targets men and boys.

Fifth, localization is emerging as a positive force for gender mainstreaming:

• At the local level, everything is integrated and contextualized. Geographic groups are often fighting the same fight and can reinforce each other and share experiences from related settings.

Sixth, there’s a trend in many countries to merge foreign ministries and develop cooperation work: 

• In the past, many governments separated diplomacy and development. Now, feminist foreign policy has become closely linked with foreign assistance.

• While “feminist foreign policy” is evolving conceptually, it still gives feminists within their respective institutions legitimacy and power.

And last but not least, there is the ongoing problem of dedicating limited attention to data and research on gender:

• Data about women and girls (and gender minorities) continues to be inadequate.

• There exists a tension between demonstrating programmatic results and committing to feminist measurement (using more qualitative measures to capture gender norms and lived experiences; allowing more flexibility in time for change to occur; etc.).

• We are still working on a gender marker!

• Gender indicators are well developed in the family planning/reproductive health and gender-based violence spheres, but not in other sectors.

• Academic researchers still need support to make the case for gender equality.

The “What Now?”…

These thematic findings led us to additional provocations that face the gender ecosystem more broadly:

• Our review indicated that being in solidarity with existing movements is important. What is the difference between working toward gender equality and taking a feminist approach? Is it a distinction that makes a difference? 

• Many argue that gender mainstreaming may not be sufficiently ambitious. It’s not as big and transformative as Feminist Foreign Policy. As one informant said, “Simply seeking to integrate gender is a pretty low bar.” So we have to ask ourselves: Is the feminist foreign policy approach potentially more transformative than gender mainstreaming’s focus on the nuts and bolts of programming?

• The green agenda came up again and again in our conversations and in the review of the literature. Given the urgency and intense interest in climate change, we need to be asking: How can we ensure a continued focus on gender equality within the green agenda and more broadly? 

• Similarly, “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” is an emerging priority for institutions – but how does it fit with Gender?  Is DEI work parallel to, merging with, or a distraction from work toward gender equality? 

• There’s a lot of discussion around feminist measurement approaches that would support the collection of gender-related results. So, What is “feminist measurement,” and how can diverse approaches to evaluation, from storytelling to impact evaluation, contribute to advancing gender equality?

• So many in our field focus primarily (or even exclusively) on “women’s and girls’ empowerment” as their approach to gender equality. Can we achieve gender equality by only focusing on women’s and girls’ empowerment, or is the engagement of men and boys essential? 

With these important questions in mind, Chroma members spent the rest of our in-person gathering identifying a number of key strategic priorities that could be used as levers to advance gender mainstreaming. Since our time together, members have organized themselves into three different working groups and are currently focusing on the design and development of technical products and strategic areas of engagement related to:

1. The intersection of gender and the green agenda.

2. Multi-directional institutional accountability.

3. Mapping effective approaches to gender mainstreaming.

Applying design innovation and members’ strong track record in gender mainstreaming, these products and actions will both inspire and contribute to gender equality goals. Stay tuned for updates!