Implementing Multiple Gender Strategies to Improve HIV and ... - ICRW

IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS
Start-up and
Implementation
Process
RADAR and SEF staff first held joint knowledge-sharing and planning
workshops. They then conducted formative research to gauge how to
integrate a gender and HIV approach into an existing microfinance
program. RADAR, drawing on experience designing and implementing
training curricula on gender, gender-based violence, and HIV/AIDS, created
the SFL curriculum in consultation with ADAPT, a South African genderbased
violence NGO. Facilitators—RADAR staff—were first trained in the
curriculum as participants. RADAR then pilot tested the curriculum with a
group of people living with HIV, a women’s agricultural group, a women’s
church project and a local youth group.
Local Involvement/
Ownership
The communities contribute facilities (such as community buildings, the
chief’s house, local shops, etc.) for the fortnightly microfinance and HIV
training meetings. The Small Enterprise Foundation’s microfinance
component recovers all operational costs and is therefore financially
sustainable (Pronyk et al., 2005). However, the gender and HIV component
requires inputs from an organization with expertise in gender and HIV. An
economic evaluation estimated the additional cost of the gender and HIV
component at $43/client in the pilot phase and $13/client in the initial scaleup
phase (Jan et al., 2008).
Evaluation
Methodology
• Cluster randomized trial: Eight villages were pair-matched and one
village in each pair was randomly selected to receive the intervention.
Within each intervention or control village, three cohorts of participants
were recruited: 1) direct participants—women participating in the
IMAGE program (or matched controls); 2) household youth—young
men and women (age 14–35) residing in the households of loan
recipients (or those of controls); and 3) community youth—young men
and women (age 14–35) residing in randomly selected households
within the intervention or control site. Participants in the first two groups
were followed for a two-year period, while those in the third group were
followed for three years. The cohort of direct participants included 430
loan recipients and an equal number of age- and income-level matched
controls ranging in age from 18 to 96 years (mean age was 42 years).
Outcome measures among this group included past-year experience of
physical or sexual intimate partner violence, household economic wellbeing,
and nine indicators on gender equity/empowerment (including
self-confidence, financial confidence, challenging gender norms,
autonomy in decision making, perceived contribution to the household,
communication within the household, relationship with partner, social
group membership and participation in collective action). In addition,
sexual risk behavior was compared among young (