Virtual Gender Training for Internal Staff

“We have a numbers problem,” said one of our Chroma members. “We have a tiny number of dedicated gender experts against a bold and ambitious gender mandate. We need more equipped staff on the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of gender, so that programs are more impactful.” Indeed, for most of our Chroma member institutions, the ratio of gender experts to the number of people in each organization is very high. UNICEF, for example, employs approximately 21000 people and they have only 44 gender experts. At Gavi, there are approximately 600 staff and only one gender expert. Given these ratios, donor organizations invest a significant portion of their gender mainstreaming budget on internal gender trainings. These trainings have historically often been in-person; however, virtual trainings are becoming increasingly popular. Not only do virtual platforms have the potential to reach more people and do so efficiently, but also, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated and normalized the use of software like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like, to hold virtual meetings, provide trainings, and to share resources. In this “Thought Leadership” session, Chroma members explored the benefits and risks of offering virtual gender trainings for internal staff. Below is a summary of the key points from our discussion, where Chroma members from the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF shared their experiences with other members of the Collective.

Models of Virtual Training and Key Lessons Learned

Both the WHO and UNICEF offer various virtual gender capacity building opportunities for their staff. Some trainings are designed with synchronous activities (i.e., activities done together as a group at the same time), while others are taken asynchronously (materials are provided online and participants complete the trainings in their own time). Some are offered to all staff, while others are directed towards their organizations’ gender experts. Some are incentivized, while others are mandated. Some provide a general overview of gender mainstreaming, while some go deeper into specific gender tools, a gender-related topic, and so on. To share their experiences and lessons learned, both organizations showcased a couple of their key virtual gender training models.

World Health Organization:

The WHO presented a virtual training that they developed for the African region during the COVID-19 pandemic. The WHO found that gender and human rights were not being systematically integrated into the organization’s response to COVID. In an attempt to address this gap – and with the need to keep their staff at a physical distance in mind - they promptly organized virtual training sessions for field staff who were supporting the COVID response and continuity of social services, including government counterparts and partners specifically working in reproductive health, maternal and child health, primary care, health emergencies and program management. The training was featured on the Zoom platform and used additional online tools to optimize learning and participation.

The regional trainings were based on the WHO’s Gender Mainstreaming Manual and the Barrier’s Assessment Handbook. The training employed mixed methodologies including plenary presentations, followed by interactive components with some demonstration of the use of tools, participatory group work, practice sessions, and feedback to the plenary. Overall, four cohorts of approximately 200 people in total went through three-day training, lasting three hours per day. Using a pre- and post- knowledge and skills assessment, WHO found that at the end of the training there was an increased understanding of the importance and meaning of gender analysis as well as an increased understanding of the entry points for gender integration in their COVID response; however, with the exception of those who had been exposed to gender work in the past, many of the participants did not get to a point of being able to do the work on their own.

Implementing this training taught the gender team a number of important lessons about virtual capacity building: The gender team at the WHO concluded that virtual trainings were good for improving knowledge, but less effective in improving gender integration skills. They also learned the importance of preparing for technical issues that may interrupt the training, such as internet connectivity issues and participants’ limited baseline knowledge about how to use the online platform. Though there was technical support for the sessions (i.e., for sending out links, putting people into groups, etc.), it was difficult to assist people at the individual level. In addition to technical challenges, trainers found that participants were often distracted with other tasks while connecting virtually and did not always participate for the full sessions. Given the propensity to drop offline prematurely, the trainers also learned the importance of communicating goals early in each training session, as well as a plan to follow up with participants once the virtual training was over. Furthermore, the gender team discovered that follow up was more successful when participants themselves were able to determine the best ways for staying in touch and the corresponding timeline for doing so.

Where the above training was geared toward WHO field staff and partners supporting the COVID response across the African region, the organization created another virtual training with a specific WHO department in mind. As background, each team within the WHO is asked to complete a yearly Output Scorecard to assess how they are addressing different dimensions, including the ‘impactful integration of gender, equity, human rights and disability’ (GEHRD) dimension. Senior staff and management of the Global Malaria Programme (GMP) Department at headquarters wished to improve their GEHRD dimension scores and asked for technical assistance. In close collaboration with leadership from the GMP Department, GEHRD experts held virtual meetings with all personnel across the Department’s team and units who intimately knew the work that was being done and who could identify areas that needed more attention. Participation was high because Department leadership set the meeting times and invited their colleagues personally to also present on the work that they were doing in this area.

With input from these meetings, the gender team created a specific training for the Department. The design and implementation of this training was unique because it used a team-led, mentorship approach to facilitate self-reflection and learning. After hearing a brief introduction to the concepts and definitions related to gender, colleagues from within the Department – with input from the gender focal points - would present ways in which their malaria counterparts were addressing GEHRD topics already and the ways in which they could do a better job. Through this process, the GMP Department realized work that they were doing counted towards gender, equity and human rights integration which could help them improve their GEHRD dimension scores. The next year, their scores significantly improved and they moved into planning for regional and country level integration of these concepts into their work.

UNICEF:

One of UNICEF’s key investments into building gender capacity is the Gender Pro training. This includes two components: an internal, online, training for all Gender Focal Points (almost 300 staff in UNICEF) and an external credential. This credential was jointly developed by the Global Women’s Institute (GWI), UNICEF, the BMGF, and other partners; it offers a free and accessible option for anyone who would like to take it. As such, it represents a significant global public good to formally certify and recognise gender focal points, by the Gender Pro Alliance of organisations. GWI also offers the Gender Pro Capacity Building Programme, which is an in-depth training on gender equality, with a focus on skills such as gender analysis and gender transformative programming guidance. These partnerships have since inspired several other gender trainings such as GAVI-supported bespoke training that is focused on gender and immunization. Given the organisation’s focus on adolescent girls as part of the overall Gender Policy and Action Plan, UNICEF offers staff and partners a virtual Adolescent Girls Wellbeing, Safety, and Agency Playlist. This training, which is free and available to anyone who is interested, is a series of four modules that are meant to be completed and taken together. The goal of the series is to help participants develop strategies and approaches for gender transformative programming. The modules cover foundations of gender transformative programming, gender transformative approaches for adolescent girls programming to end child marriage and FGM. The playlist is funded through the support of the UNFPA/UNICEF Global Programme to End Child Marriage. According to enrollment rates, this Playlist is one of UNICEF’s more popular online courses, but time to complete the training is cited as a common challenge by participants.

To further support its network of gender focal points, UNICEF is exploring further learning opportunities tailored to specific sectors and thematic priorities. In addition, UNICEF is also exploring gender and broader intersectional training and learning opportunities for senior leaders, including heads of offices and teams. A persistent gap, however, is a lack of career advancement options for gender focal points, given the lack of dedicated specialist positions in the organisation.

Questions to consider

A lot of work and money go into donor organization gender training, and a lot is weighing on their success. Yet, we still do not know for sure whether these capacity building efforts equate to better gender mainstreaming. In theory, virtual trainings offer an opportunity to follow-up with participants more efficiently and for longer periods of time through online surveys, virtual focus groups discussions, etc. However, we are still finding that engagement can be subpar and completion rates are low. It’s one thing to enroll members in a training, but how do we ensure quality engagement and completion? Do the benefits of increasing access through virtual trainings outweigh the benefits of in-person participation?