Not seen and not heard?

Gender, Community Engagement and Representation A ReGender Briefing Paper

Local people have a right to participate effectively in decisions that affect their lives. They are the most important stakeholders when it comes to improving neighbourhoods. But as a result of our different gender roles, men and women experience our communities differently, and may also have different aspirations and mobilise around different issues. Gender difference needs to be taken into account in order to avoid underrepresentation of either sex in decision-making and to guarantee social inclusion in regeneration and local governance. Based on the findings of the Gender and Community Engagement in Manchester (GEM) Project and other recent studies, this paper argues that a gender approach is essential if community engagement is to harness everyones views and achieve the best outcomes for all. It links gender equality responsibilities to policy areas and outlines key steps for the integration of gender into decision-making processes.

A new political will to create inclusive communities

Recent policy initiatives aim to improve local access to decision-making processes and institutions, and to promote citizen involvement in the improvement of local services. Strong and Prosperous Communities The Local Government White Paper aspires to give people greater influence over local issues that affect their lives. The Gender Equality Duty makes gender equality central to the functions of public bodies, including policymaking, service provision and decisionmaking. These two opportunities can open up wide and balanced participation, responsive services and decision-making that reflects the needs and concerns of men and women equally, for the well-being of the whole community.

A central requirement for democracy: more women in decision-making

Women are under-represented at most levels of government and formal decision-making. Although they demonstrate considerable leadership in community and informal organisations, political decision-making remains largely the domain of men. Only 20% of Only 20% of UK Westminster MPs, 29.3% of local councillors and 13% MPs, 29.3% of local of council leaders are councillors and 13% women.1 In 2004, the of council leaders GEM study found significant are women gender inequalities in formal partnership decision-making structures. For example, in Manchesters Local Strategic Partnership Steering Group meetings, just under one in three of those attending were female, and this pattern is common across the UK.
continued overleaf

Not seen and not heard?

Under-representation in higher level engagement forums is often starkest with regard to BME (and other minority) women: within Manchesters Community Empowerment Network, for example, nearly half of white British people attending were female, compared to only just over a quarter of those from ethnic minorities. As men and women do not always share the same needs and perspectives, a gender balance in representation is essential to ensure that the interests of both sexes are adequately addressed. Women in GEM focus groups expressed their frustration with the status quo We make up 51% of the population of Manchester! The Gender Equality Duty calls on public authorities to set strategic targets for increasing the representation of women in decision-making bodies. However, other policy frameworks so far lack explicit guidelines for ensuring genderbalanced representation. This needs to be addressed. Womens full and equal rep resentation is both a question of social justice and a requirement of democracy. 2

Gender, Community Engagement and Representation

Seen but not heard? Lessons from the Gender Empowerment in Manchester (GEM) Project
Between 2003 and 2005, Manchester Womens Network (MWN) conducted a gender analysis of the ways in which local people engage with decision-making about neighbourhood-renewal schemes. GEM analysed the gender dynamics of 16 community engagement structures, from small area forums to strategic city-wide decision-making bodies. It found fewer women at the top levels of decision-making and fewer men at community level. It found that even when women were present, they did not always use their voices. It investigated the reasons why, and gathered community indicator information by gender, race and age. Focus groups with men and women of different ages, classes and ethnicities and with people from the LGBT community, assessed how gender inter-related with other factors. The results challenged the assumption of equal participation, and demonstrated significant barriers to the involvement of the whole community.

Community engagement: is it working for everyone?

The Local Government White Paper sees At the household level, womens engaged citizens as key advocates and, role as primary carers in the family even when sometimes, deliverers of improved and responsibility for domestic work public services. This makes it even present in equal reduces their flexibility for participation. more important to understand how numbers at Meetings are often arranged with services are used by and impact on meetings, women little consideration of the practical men and women differently, through speak less often needs of parents and other carers, gender impact assessments required or of those who lack confidence and and for less time by the Gender Equality Duty, and have little experience of formal meeting than men taking measures to ensure equality of procedures. opportunity in engagement. From Local When gender auditing a regeneration meeting Strategic Partnership Thematic Forums, and she was attending, a member of the Tea in the Citizen Panels to Tenant Management Schemes, Pot Womens Group in Glasgow said I felt there are few systematic mechanisms to ensure invisible. It felt very much like being at a that women are engaged, equally represented, play. Discriminatory attitudes and practices, and using their voice in local governance, or stereotyping and a male-dominated style of service design and delivery. politics can also marginalise the female voice.

separate subgroups of men and women; meetings with groups or individuals with There are too particular needs or risks; engaging few systematic There may be more women existing community organisations; involved at a local level, but mechanisms to structured and semi-structured their perception of influence ensure that women focus groups, forums, citizen over local decision-making are engaged, panels, and open surgeries. is very different. During the GEM equally represented project 82% of women asked felt The simultaneous use of a variety of and using their that they had no or very little methods is important, as different groups voice influence over decisions regarding will respond to different activities and their communities. Womens sense of engagement approaches. influence was overall more negative than mens.4 The Black Country Womens Development Network Numerical attendance isnt the only issue, as the has established four Womens Forums across the GEM Project discovered. Its findings clearly show area, offering women a chance to identify common that even when present in equal numbers at areas of concern and work for positive change meetings, women speak, on the whole, less within their communities. They ensure that often and for less time than men. the views of women are represented on local Gender and age can interact to give a complex regeneration agendas, through the Community pattern of participation. Among under 18s, more Empowerment Networks and Local Strategic young men said they belonged to a community Partnerships.6 group than the women (23% compared with 9%). Some young women felt intimidated participating Practical steps to ensure with males in discussions and activities. Not being inclusive community experienced in debating and giving their opinions, engagement they lacked confidence to do so in mixed groups.5 The Local Government White Paper aims to secure Women from ethnic minority groups face citizen participation through information provision, the same obstacles as other women, and consultation, involvement and devolution of in addition may have other barriers related services. All such mechanisms need to consider to their position as women within their culture. gender issues. First generation Pakistani women who attended > Work towards equal attendance, by a GEM focus group regretted their isolation targeting the sex less likely to participate. from civic processes. A solution was offered by their Ward Forum, which set up a women> Publicise events using both men and only sub-group linked to the main meeting women to promote them. via a bilingual representative who felt at > Women may require different information ease with speaking in front of men. from men; girls from boys; adolescents

well-being promotion activities: 86% of participants were female.3

What being inclusive means in practice

P romoting equality of opportunity between men and women (GED 2.5) should not be interpreted as a need for equal treatment. Where one sex has been under-rep resented or disadvantaged in a policy area, service or employment issue, public authorities may need to make special effo rts to encourage participation (GED 3.31). Equal opportunities in this context means different methods of engaging with men and women within the community to express their views and articulate their realities on their own terms. Examples are:

from the elderly (etc). > Provide childcare so that those with young children can participate, and provide information about childcare provision in advance. > Plan events for times of day when all can attend people with family and work commitments, as well those working outside the area. > Try having female and male Co-Chairs or rotating Chairs. > Avoid very formal meetings, which can intimidate those not initiated into relevant procedures.

What stops women and men participating?

Women and men face different barriers to participation at different levels of decisionmaking. These can be amplified by their ethnicity, age, religion or belief, disability and sexual orientation.

At the community level, particularly in areas like health and caring services, more women tend to participate. This can lead to the needs and perspectives of local men being overlooked. An audit conducted by the South Manchester Healthy Living Network found that women were much more likely to be involved in health and

continued overleaf

> Consider whether the issues on the table will motivate both men and women to attend. > Choose a venue with safety and security in mind, as well as transport accessibility. Women are less likely to have access to a private car and are more likely to be fearful of going out at night. > Consider holding single sex meetings, or creating single sex subgroups for certain activities. > Use inclusive language so that neither sex feels alienated. Avoid jargon, which is off-putting for women and minority groups in particular. > If a meeting appears dominated by one sex, the chair could actively invite people from the opposite sex to participate and express their views. > When conducting surveys and interviews, ensure equal numbers of male and female respondents, or at least that the ratio does not exceed 60:40.7

people on how gender inequality impacts on their area of work. > Community empowerment practitioners and community organisers require training in participatory and gender-sensitive methodologies. > Local women can benefit greatly from programmes aimed at building their confidence and skills to take up decision-making positions.

Conclusions
Combining gender and participatory approaches is essential to enable mens and womens voices to be heard and included in programme planning and policy-making processes. The complexity of womens and mens social roles needs to be recognised and the systematic barriers that keep women out of decision-making addressed. The process of devolving power to local people must incorporate a gender approach if it is to guarantee community empowerment and social inclusion.

Training for all

> Training is needed for councillors, public servants, voluntary organisations and local

Resources
The Gender Equality Duty Code of Practice for England and Wales [2007] (www.eoc.org.uk/PDF/GED_CoP_Draft.pdf) Strong and Prosperous Communities The Local Government White Paper [2006] (www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1503999) Into The Lions Den, Oxfam UK Poverty Programme [2004] (www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/resources/intothelionsden.htm) GEM reports Gender and Community Engagement in Manchester, Asian Women and Community Engagement and Community engagement indicators GEM snapshot [2004] are available at caec@mmu.ac.uk

References
1 Councillor Census, IDeA/LGA, 2006 2 Resolution on women in international politics, European Parliament, 2006 3 South Manchester Healthy Living Network Audit phase 2, 2005 4 The GEM Project, 2003-2005 5 The GEM Project 2003-2005 6 www.togetherwecan.info/action/black_country_womens _development_network.html 7 Some of these recommendations, developed by the GEM Project team, are now part of the Gender Equality Duty Guidance to Local Authorities. See www.eoc.org.uk

Authors
Hannah Berry is a researcher and journalist. Carolina de Oteyza is associate lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University and a consultant on gender, participatory research and training.

Oxfam This briefing was commissioned by Oxfam as part of the ReGender project which trains regeneration practitioners, and influences decision makers to include womens voices, and use a systematic gender analysis in regeneration programmes. Email: ukpoverty@oxfam.org.uk for more information. www.oxfam.org.uk/uk

Oxfam GB is a registered charity, no 202918