Women’s Empowerment in Uganda: Impact evaluation of the project ‘Piloting gender sensitive livelihoods in Karamoja’

Abstract

The project intended to achieve two main objectives through the implementation of two distinct interventions. The first objective was to improve the livelihoods of poor women through the support of enterprises. The project implemented a Gender Action Learning System approach (GALS), a community-led empowerment methodology that aims to promote economic, social and political transformation to gender justice. The approach works with women and men jointly to develop achievable visions for change. The project also provided training on running small enterprises and businesses and supported women's groups to start them. The activities contributing to this objective are referred to as the project's WEE activities. The second objective was to reduce violence against women by promoting awareness and influencing attitude and behavioural change. Activities included training and supporting duty bearers and community leaders to implement positive actions to address violence against women within their communities, and holding awareness-raising sessions in schools through drama clubs on violence against women. The project also implemented a 'change makers' strategy, recruiting participants within project communities, talking to them about gender equality and the problems associated with domestic violence against women, and supporting them to reflect on and change their own attitudes and behaviours, and encourage others to do the same. The activities contributing to this objective are referred to as the project's VAW activities.

Strengthening women's empowerment and gender equality in fragile contexts towards peaceful and inclusive societies: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Seven of our SHG and VSLA studies used a QED. This included Alemu et al (2018), De Hoop et al (2010), Kundu and Mukherjee (2011), Lombardini and Yoshikawa (2015), Vigneri and Lombardini (2017), Yaron et al (2018). We assessed half of the QED studies evaluation SHG and VSLA as having high risk of bias and the other lf as having some concerns, none was assessed as having low risk or bias.…”

“…According to the Cook's distances, none of the studies could be considered to be overly influential. Sensitivity analyses leaving each study out indicated that removing Lombardini and Yoshikawa (2015) would reduce the average effect ($$\hat{\mu }=0.0187$$ [95% CI: $$-0.01$$ to 0.05]), but the effect would still be insignificant ( z = $$1.12$$, $$p=0.26$$).…”

“…Effect of SHGs on women's access to rights, services and opportunities Lombardini and Yoshikawa's (2015) quasi-experimental study in Uganda was the only study evaluating the impact of self-help groups and VSLA on women have access to rights, services and opportunities. There was a small, and statistically significant, effect (g = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.32]), however we assessed the study as having high risk of bias.…”

Transforming Care After Conflict: How gendered care relations are being redefined in northern Uganda

“…12 They provided compelling evidence that the GALS component of the project was successful in enhancing women's empowerment and boosting their business activities and material wealth. In particular, women's participation in these activities was associated with higher levels of self-confidence in their economic role, more positive perceptions around their gender and property rights, as well as higher levels of access to savings and credit, more group participation, and increased involvement in group decision-making.…”

The impact of export processing zones on employment, wages and labour conditions in developing countries

“…Quantitative findings Effect of SHGs on women's access to rights, services and opportunities Lombardini and Yoshikawa's (2015) quasi-experimental study in Uganda was the only study evaluating the impact of self-help groups and VSLA on women have access to rights, services and opportunities. There was a small, and statistically significant, effect (g = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.32]), however we assessed the study as having high risk of bias.…”