Applying a gender impact assessment to a Community Grants Policy

The team agrees that the volunteer Community Assessment Panel who review grant applications are key decision-makers. They decide they could have included members of the Community Assessment Panel in this GIA process, as well as previous grant recipients. The team agrees they will need to consult with these stakeholders to better understand their experience of Community Grants Policy and procedures.

The team agrees that different community members might ‘access’ the community grants program differently. As a team, they work to connect with potential grant applicants by distributing promotional material, running public information sessions, and providing individual pre-application briefings.

The team agrees the grants program responds to identified needs in the community, in line with the council plan. They don't believe that 'access' to community grants has ever been considered through a gender lens. They do not currently collect gender or demographic data on community inquiries, attendance at information sessions, or grant submissions.

In the application process, they also do not ask questions about the gender of target communities or if applicants have considered gender in the design of projects. Some team members worry that adding more questions to the application process could also disadvantage some applicants or turn some applicants away.

The team agrees that all grant applicants want to deliver projects which benefit the community. They agree that some applicants need targeted support to submit applications and write funding reports. Others might need targeted promotion and support to see themselves as potential grant applicants.

The GIA champion also raised the idea that there might be some gender stereotypes associated with different funding streams. These might inform how the Assessment Panel reviews funding applications. The team will need to gather more information to understand how gender bias might influence the grant-making process.

The team finds this question one of the most difficult to answer. They agree that literacy skills, socio-economic status, culture or IT skills might influence whether community members apply for the grants program.

Their GIA champion discusses how other social roles and responsibilities might influence people’s access to Community Grants. For example, people with caring responsibilities, those experiencing financial difficulties, people with low literacy, or people experiencing social isolation might experience particular barriers.

The team might need to think about things like representation in promotional materials, scheduling of information sessions, appropriate and accessible facilities, childcare options, transport options to program events, or translated materials if they want to support different women, men and gender diverse community members to feel welcome and included.

The team agrees that the 'default' audience for the community grants program is a community member who would feel comfortable and confident to apply in English, have the time and resources to attend information sessions, have the literacy and IT skills to access online application forms, feel represented in promotional materials and information sessions.

They brainstorm some initial ideas about how they could engage all community members beyond this ‘default’ audience. Suggestions include:

• reviewing the language and accessibility of the grant application process
• reviewing the promotional collateral to ensure imagery and project examples are representative of intersectional gender diversity in the community
• engaging existing grants recipients in delivering information sessions or pre-application briefings
• offering different audio, visual and written options for the submission of grant applications
• providing training and resources that address IT and English literacy needs.

• Women are more likely to lead single-parent households, care for dependents, and earn below minimum wage (Women’s Health Victoria 2022), potentially limiting or shaping their opportunity to engage in community grants application or review processes unless specifically targeted and supported.
• Women’s experience of issues such as violence and economic insecurity put those who experience them well behind the starting line in terms of accessing opportunity, meaning that mainstream or 'gender neutral' funding does not always result in equality of outcomes (Broderick 2013).
• Women are generally under-served by funding of mainstream programs, particularly those that do not consider gender difference, and a ‘gender-neutral’ approach can result in women missing out (Australian Women Donors Network 2019).
• Gender bias in grants review processes can lead to women being less likely to be scored highly in funding reviews than men (Daniels 2019).
• Individuals with caring responsibilities, often women, can be inadvertently excluded when sessions are held at certain times, in specific settings, without childcare support (stakeholder consultation).
• When gender is not considered, there is a risk that gender assumptions may slip into programming, influencing the participation of women (Australian’s Investing in Women 2021).
• Language and illustrations used in promotions, marketing and communications may encourage or discourage women from engaging (City of Melbourne 2022).

• Expectations around masculinity can limit men's potential to participate more broadly (Flood 2020), potentially shaping how men's groups apply for specific grant streams or how men's applications for different grant streams are reviewed.
• The language used in promotions, advertisements and other published material may encourage or discourage men from engaging (City of Melbourne 2022).

• LGBTIQ+ people face greater social, health, wellbeing and economic challenges than the general population (State of Victoria 2022). This infers a potential barrier likely limiting or shaping opportunities for gender diverse people to engage in community grants application or grants review processes unless specifically targeted and supported.
• The language used in promotions, advertisements and other published material may encourage or discourage LGBTIQ+ individuals, including gender diverse people, and organisations from engaging in council grants processes (City of Melbourne 2022).

• Culturally and linguistically diverse women experience additional intersecting barriers to participation, including racism, sexism, tokenism, devaluation of skills and experiences, lack of support networks, lack of confidence and language barriers (Mindtribes 2020).
• Language bias in grant-making can lead to an inclination to favour grant proposals and applications written well in a particular language. Applications written well in the chosen language of communication tend to have an unconscious effect on grant reviewers (Ewuru 2022).
• Older women are more likely to be perceived as having outdated skills, being too slow to learn new things, or as someone who would deliver an unsatisfactory job (Patterson 2021).
• Women with disabilities experience more significant disadvantage on all measures of social and economic participation (housing security, income, employment, education) compared to women and men without disabilities (Women with Disabilities Victoria 2019).
• The language used in promotions, advertisements and other published material may encourage or discourage individuals of diverse identities and experiences from engaging in Council grants processes (City of Melbourne 2022).

• Australian Women’s Donor Network (2019) ‘Inquiry into Gender Responsive Budgeting: supplementary submission 19b‘, accessed 21 May 2023.
• Australian’s Investing in Women (2021) Guide to Gender-wise Philanthropy: Strengthening society by investing in women and girls.
• Broderick E (2013) ’Bringing Equality into Focus – Applying the Gender Lens to Philanthropy‘, accessed 21 May 2023.
• City of Melbourne (2022) Gender Equality in Advertising and Communications: Guidelines for Local Government, accessed 21 May 2023.
• Daniels A (2019) ’How Gender Bias Creeps into Grant Making‘ in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, accessed 21 May 2023.
• Ewuru B (2022) ‘7 ways to reduce bias in grant funding’, Good Grants, accessed 21 May 2023.
• Flood M (2020) ‘Masculinities and Health: Attitudes towards men and masculinities in Australia’, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), Melbourne, accessed 21 May 2023.
• Patterson K (2021) ‘Introduction - National Summit on Women’s Safety: Safety and Security for Older Women‘, accessed 21 May 2023.
• Pillay et al. (2022), ‘How defined entities can achieve gender equality for Culturally Diverse Women in the Victorian Public Sector’, Victorian Multicultural Commission and Mindtribes.
• State of Victoria, 2022, Pride in our Future: Victoria’s LGBTIQ+ Strategy 2022-32., accessed 21 May 2023.
• Women’s Health Victoria (2022) Victorian Women’s Health Atlas, Gender Equality Fact sheets accessed 21 May 2023.
• Women with Disabilities Victoria (2019) ‘Issues facing women with disabilities’, accessed 21 May 2023.

Asha and the team discuss the following:

Gendered benefits of continuing with existing programming

• the existing policy and program are open to people of all genders in the community (although it does not take steps to ensure people of all genders can access and engage with different aspects of programming).

Gendered risks of continuing with existing programming

• the existing policy and program are not adequately designed to address the perspectives and priorities of diverse people of different genders – intersectional gender equality is not an established policy priority or principle that guides grants promotion, applications and assessments
• without targeted changes, the ‘voice’ of the program (i.e., program promotions and engagement of decision-makers) may not be representative of the diversity of the community
• there may be limited engagement from community members, especially women, who are outside the program’s existing ‘default’ audience (i.e., those with IT skills, literacy skills, socio-economic status, language skills, time and resources to attend sessions)
• without targeted changes, program ‘access’ and ‘benefits’ (i.e., applicant groups and target groups for communities) may continue to perpetuate intersectional gender inequality, reinforcing unbalanced norms, roles and relations.

The overall impact of continuing with existing programming

The team agree that continuing with option one would see a negative gender impact.

Based on research completed, Asha believes there are several actions the team can take to ensure the Community Grants Policy better supports community members of all genders and also promotes gender equality. She presents these to the group:

• amend policy wording to establish intersectional gender equality as a guiding principle in the Community Grants Policy and across Community Grants Policy Guiding Documents, including application guidelines, assessment panel terms of reference, application and assessment forms and reporting forms
• amend the Community Grant Policy to include a commitment to training for staff and assessment panel members to address the effects of unconscious bias in grants review processes
• integrate a commitment to improved data collection to support gender-disaggregated monitoring and evaluation of grant applications and delivery
• review program promotion materials and community engagement processes to include statements of commitment on the grants, website, in promotional collateral, information sessions and pre-application briefings.

Asha and the team discuss the following concerning this option:

Gendered risks of this option

• community backlash around ‘gender’ as a priority. For example, some members of the community believing that women and gender diverse people may be receiving unfair treatment
• concerns from current grants recipients around the burden of application and reporting processes to include gender lens.

The team agrees that while these risks are genuine, there are things they can put in place to address these risks.

Gendered benefits of this option

• having a statement of commitment in the policy creates an ‘authorising environment’ for building intersectional gender equality in the distribution of community grants funding
• process changes ‘operationalise’ this commitment, ensuring grants program practices welcome and include voices of diverse groups of women, men, and gender diverse at all stages
• increases the chances of funding going to projects and programs that significantly contribute to positively transforming gender norms
• challenges existing unconscious gender bias
• encourages discussion amongst the grant community around gender issues
• improves the selection of Community Assessment Panel members that are representative of the community demographics gender split
• improves data collection over time to inform future review processes and decisions around changing funding streams over time.

The overall impact of this option

The team rate the overall gender impact of this option as positive.