The document summarizes lessons learned from evaluating 10 microfinance and livelihood projects from a gender lens over 10 years. Key findings include: 1) Evaluation methodologies, outcomes, and processes are shaped by power dynamics related to gender and social hierarchies. 2) Projects had varying levels of success in addressing gender inequalities, with more impact on issues like access and decision making than deeply entrenched issues. 3) Involving implementing agencies in evaluations can build capacity and acceptance but may introduce politics; clear objectives are important. 4) A shift is needed from short-term projects to long-term programs that explicitly aim to change social institutions through a gender lens.

1. Ranjani.K.Murthy, 2010
Paper commissioned by ISST with IDRC
support
REFLECTIONS ON A DECADE OF EVALUATION
OF MICRO-FINANCE AND LIVELIHOOD
PROJECTS FROM A GENDER LENS

2. Objectives of the paper
To review the following aspects of evaluations that I
have done from a gender and equity lens
 Evaluation methodologies
 Evaluation outcomes
 Evaluation process
To highlight how power based on gender and other
social relations shape each of these evaluation
aspects
To emphasize the need for shifting from sectoral
projects to programs to change social institutions from
a gender and equity lens; and lead to more gender
equitably aware evaluations

3. Profile of 10 projects
 Location: 6 India, 2 Bangladesh, 1 Sudan, 1 Moldova
 Objectives of project: gender and poverty reduction
(10), women’s empowerment (3)
 Focus: micro finance (all 10), other livelihood (4),
money, body, civil, and word literacy of women (1)
 Commissioning agency: UN (7), grass roots NGO (1),
action-research institute (1) and INGO (1)
 Implementing agency: Grass roots NGOs (2), action-
research institution (1), line department (4) and quasi
govt./women’s development corporation (3).
 My role: 7 team leader, 2 team member, 1 team
leader (phase 1) and adviser (phase II)
 Targeting: women exclusive (4), men and women (6)

4. Evaluation methodology and
methods
 By ‘Methodology’ I refer to the conceptual
framework underlying the evaluation
 ‘Methods’ I refer to how I assess direction and
causality of changes in evaluations
(Deshmukh-Ranadive and Murthy, 2005).

5. Evaluation methodology used
 Cross cutting frameworks: Which assess impact on
social relations and institutions that have a bearing on
lives of women/girls (10), men (6), spouses of male
participants (1). Anticipated/unanticipated impact.
 Framework for gender & poverty impact assessment
 Assess equity in access of all participating household
members to generic basic needs, and access of
women/girls to gender intensified basic needs
 Household’s and all participating women’s access to
means to overcome poverty.
 Assess capacity of all participating women to ward-off
poverty in the future if their conjugal contract fails
 Assess impact on reducing gender-adverse coping
strategies adopted by all participating women and men
when faced with poverty

6. Evaluation methodology used contd.
 Framework for assessing women’s empowerment
(Afshar, 1998)
 Individual level empowerment- power to
 Collective empowerment- power with
 Critical awareness on gender and equity– power within
 Variation in questions within above framework
depending on whether the project focuses on micro
finance only or micro finance and women’s
empowerment
 Variation in questions within above framework based
on country context and inputs from team members,
and implementing organization and commissioning
agency.

7. Evaluation methods used
 Comparison with non members who started in a similar situation
(often used, but time consuming)
 Comparison with base line (rarely used-base line often different
parameters)
 Recall of members before joining and now (not always reliable)
 Comparison of women participants with male participants (6) and
spouse of male participant (1).
 Perceptions of other family members
 Perceptions of elders, village leaders, service providers
Tools: intra household semi structured interviews and participatory
tools like gender based access and control, body
mapping, gender and caste discrimination mapping, priorities
mapping, economic mapping, social interaction
mapping, happiness index etc, (adapted -Guijt and Shah, 1998)
cc

8. Evaluation outcomes: non-gender
specific findings
 Coverage of all/majority of the poor is important to reach the poorest-
but coverage ranged from 18% to 81%
 The terms and conditions of participation must suit needs of poorest, not
the case in half of the projects
 A section of poorest-non working- are excluded and need social security
measures from state
 Leakages to non poor less in the case of NGO implemented projects-
provided they are led by committed leaders. Also less in areas where
most are poor (whoever implements)
 The 10 projects had a greater impact on diversifying number of
livelihoods of households, number of days of employment and income,
improving access to movable assets, but less on improving acquisition
of land and house by households
 In the eyes of borrowers (varied from 37% to 95%) their poverty had
reduced by 52% but only 22% had moved out of poverty

9. Evaluation outcomes: non-gender
specific findings
The extent of poverty impact of 10 projects:
 Was better in the case of borrowers, people who had taken
more number and amount of loans and old groups
 Was worse in the case of dalits, adivasis, minorities, single
people, young couples, elderly, and people in new IDP
camps
 Was higher in the case of leaders than members in few
projects.
 Varied with the group/community ethos (Muslim groups
more egalitarian)
 Was higher when MF was combined with an additional
livelihood component
 When the group had embarked on an a successful
collective economic activity
 When the participant owned the enterprise, and
interventions took place along a value chain.

10. Evaluation outcomes: Gender
specific lessons (poverty)
Targeting women translates better into well being of family
members than targeting men, but burdens women more as
reproductive roles have not changed through projects. As a
result work load of girls has also increased (but not pulled out of
school)
Unless gender issues are woven in, micro finance and livelihood
projects have little impact on:
 Gender specific reasons for households slipping into poverty
(e.g. giving of dowry in South Asia, remarriage of husband in
Sudan)
 Improving women’s access to gender intensified basic needs in
South Asia (e.g. toilets)- Mixed picture in Moldova and Sudan.
Women heading households fare better though poorer!
 Gender inequalities in access to generic basic needs like food,
health, education in south Asia. Mixed in Sudan and Moldova

11. Evaluation outcomes: Impact of projects on addressing
gender specific causes of women’s poverty etc.
More amenable to change
Disparities in access to savings,
Disparities in number of livelihoods,
Disparities in access to vulnerbale employment
Moderately amenable to change
Disparities in access to loans
Control of women over their own income
Control over livestock./movable assets created by loans
Less amenable to change
Disparities in access to markets and meso credit
Disparities in wages and ownership of immovable assets
Use of loans for gender adverse coping strategies
Slipping into poverty if conjugal contract fails

12. Findings on women’s individual empowerment (new aspects) and
power within
Aspect More amenable
to change
Moderately
amenable
Less amenable
Individual-
power to
-Self -confidence
-Mobility
-Friendships with
women of the
same community
-Interaction with
govt. officials
-Wife battering
-Friendships
with women
from other
communities
-Independent
decision
making on
voting
-Dowry, FGM (Sudan),
-Reproductive rights
-Sexual rights
-Friendships with men
-Sexual harassment at
work place against dalits
-Unsafe migration
(moldova)
-Contesting elections
Power
within-
- Son -
preference
lower in WHH ,
young women
and 4 literacy
project ; higher
in upper castes)
Understanding
that group is
there not just
for HH poverty
reduction, but
also women’s
empowerment
-Son preference in
bequeathing property
(even Mol.) and life
insurance
-Girls mobility
-Son preference with
regard to sex of child

13. Findings on impact of projects reviewed on women’s collective
empowerment:
Aspect More
amenabl
e to
change
Moderately
amenable to
change
Less amenable to change
Impact on
collective
empowerment –
power to
(varied with ideology
of organization,
attention to federation
building, consensus
amongst women on
issue, community of
women)
Marginali
zed
women’s
access to
leadershi
p in
exclusive
groups
-Women’s
access to
micro-
financial
market
-Marginal-
ized
women’s
access to
leadership in
mixed
women’s
groups
- women’s
access to
leadership in
mixed
-Norms on girls enrolment
-Collective interventions on
domestic violence against women
and girls
-Closing of arrack shops
-Addressing atrocities against
marginalized women
-Access to commodity and labor
markets.
-Contesting local elections and
attending general assembly
-Holding government to account
-Mobilizing govt. programs

14. Findings on evaluation processes
Evaluation processes reflects gender and social
hierarchies (caste, race, age etc)
 Between the evaluation team members.
 Between the evaluation team and agency/agencies that
is/are being assessed.
 Between the different agencies involved in
implementation
 Between donors/agencies commissioning the evaluation
and the implementing agency/evaluation team
Evaluations where I was a team member and not leader
constructed on the assumption of a ‘male team’ with no
family responsibilities.

15. Findings on power relations between
the evaluation team members
Where I was team
member headed by
White men (2
evaluations )
Prove till I know your
expertise (1)
support from another
white woman team
member good (1)
I assume you know
your subject till proved
otherwise (1)
Where I was team
leader/adviser (8
evaluations)
Power of international
qualification of self
Power of middle/class
caste knowledge of
English of self
Power of team leader
to determine timings
and accept
unprofessionalism of
implementing agency
Where I was team
leader- but part of global
evaluation headed by a
white woman
Global team leader
open to rework entire
global paper based on
my suggestion
Tended to generalize
from her country
review experience- but
accepted my position
when I explained

16. Findings on power dynamics between the evaluation
team and agency/agencies being assessed
Involving implementing agencies in evaluation is effective and reduces power
hierarchies between evaluation team and implementing agencies.
 It reduces fear of ‘evaluation’ in general and gender/equity oriented
evaluations
 It adds value to the evaluation (and even methods/methodology) by
incorporating insights of implementing agencies.
 It fosters capacity building of agency on gender/equity and methodologies
 It ensures acceptance of findings and recommendations,
 In 7 out of 10 evaluations, the implementing agency staff were involved in
evaluation after training on gender, methodology and tools. In 5-6 of the 7
evaluations most of the above benefits were realized, and there was a
follow up evaluation after six years.
However, this method can backfire when several implementing agencies are
involved -wherein in-fighting between agencies can occur over findings. In 1
of the 7 such evaluations this happened
In 1 out of 3 other projects there was a feeling that they were being assessed on
parameters which were not their objectives, Hence there was a little bit of resistance
.

17. Findings on issues of power between donors/agencies (UN/INGO)
commissioning the evaluation and the implementing agency
Pre-decided
attitudes of
donors
2 out of 8 agencies
who commissioned
Either resistance to
positive findings
(already decided to
stop funding) or to
negative findings
(publicity gimmick)
I decided not to
take up such pre-
decided
evaluations
Learning
attitude of
donor
6 out 8 donors who
commissioned
Evaluation used for
supporting directions
suggested for
strengthening
gender/social equity
I decided to take
up only such
learning
evaluations

18. Conclusions
1. Centrality of ‘power relations’ between men and
women (and amongst different groups of women
and men) in shaping evaluation methodology,
outcomes and processes
 Need for methodologies that unpack impact on power
relations based on gender/other identities in different
institutions and not just assessing targeting, access to
project activities and immediate outputs
 Pre-existing gender and social relations and institutions
mediate impact of micro finance and livelihood projects.
None of the 10 projects have been strong to change all the
hierarchical norms/structures. The projects with an
empowerment objective, beyond just micro finance and led
by gender/socially aware leaders performed better

19. Conclusions
 Breaking power relations based on gender and other identities within
evaluation team, between the evaluation team and implementing agency
and donor agency and evaluation team/implementing agency is
important. Further, evaluation time frame and logistics should be
premised on the model of adults with parenting/social responsibilities
2. On the whole, there is a need for a shift from ‘projects’ focusing on
particular sector like micro finance and livelihoods to long term ‘programs’
which seek to bring about changes in societal institutions be it household,
community, market, state and even supra state ones from a gender and
social relations lens.
 Evaluations methodologies will then hopefully be more gender and equity
aware
 Changes in gender/social relations and institutions can be more easily
assessed as there will then hopefully be base lines and indicators
evolved.
 Findings will be more acceptable as one is assessing programs against
their objectives.