Author : Jaime Menor Jr.
Disclaimer:
The information on Tacit Risk Blog is meant merely as a general reference and is not meant to take the place of expert counsel or services. Even though we try to provide insightful information on risk management, every case is different and sometimes calls for the knowledge of a trained specialist.
You understand that using this website entails using the information at your own risk. To address your unique risk concerns, we strongly advise you to speak with a specialist. This website's writers and creators disclaim all responsibility for any choices or actions made in response to the information on the site.
Introduction
Effective GAD programs must address a wide range of gender issues, not just LGBTQ+ advocacy, to uphold gender equality as mandated by Republic Act No. 9710. Quantitative risks include resource allocation imbalances, such as a 40% deviation when LGBTQ+ services receive 60% of the budget while maternal health receives only 20%. Qualitatively, neglecting broader gender issues can erode stakeholder trust. Inclusivity, as required by RA 10973, must engage diverse groups, with risks measured by participation shortfalls. Engaging stakeholders under Executive Order No. 273 and balancing resources per RA 7192 are critical to ensure equitable, effective GAD implementation.
Maintain Focus on Core Objectives
Mitigation Strategy: Ensure that GAD programs address a broad range of gender issues, including but not limited to LGBTQ+ advocacy, to uphold the comprehensive goals of gender equality.
Relevant Law: Republic Act No. 9710 (Magna Carta of Women) mandates that gender development programs address a wide range of gender-related issues to promote comprehensive gender equality.
Quantitative Risk Assessment:
- Risk: The risk of not addressing all gender-related issues can be quantified by measuring the percentage of program resources allocated to various issues. For example, if LGBTQ+ advocacy receives 60% of the budget while maternal health only receives 20%, this imbalance represents a 40% deviation from the intended resource distribution.
- Example: If a program budget of Php 500,000 allocates Php 300,000 to LGBTQ+ services and Php 100,000 to maternal health, the quantitative risk is a 40% disproportion in resource allocation.
Qualitative Risk Assessment:
- Risk: The risk of failing to address broader gender issues may lead to perceptions of favoritism or neglect, impacting stakeholder trust and program effectiveness.
- Example: If maternal health needs are perceived as neglected, it may lead to community dissatisfaction and reduced participation, undermining the program’s overall success.
Promote Inclusivity
Mitigation Strategy: Foster an inclusive approach that respects diverse perspectives while addressing the needs of all genders.
Relevant Law: Republic Act No. 10973 (An Act Providing for the Gender and Development (GAD) Budget) requires GAD programs to include diverse gender perspectives and needs.
Quantitative Risk Assessment:
- Risk: The risk of inadequate inclusivity can be quantified by the number of diverse groups actively participating in program activities. For instance, if only 20% of local community groups are engaged compared to a target of 50%, this represents a 30% shortfall in inclusivity.
- Example: If a community gender inclusivity program aims to include 15 diverse groups but only 10 are actively involved, the quantitative risk is a 33% shortfall in engagement.
Qualitative Risk Assessment:
- Risk: Lack of inclusivity may result in a limited range of perspectives, leading to potential biases in program implementation and reduced community buy-in.
- Example: A program that excludes traditional community perspectives might face resistance and criticism, resulting in less effective community integration and support.
Engage Stakeholders
Mitigation Strategy: Engage with various stakeholders, including those with traditional views, to build broad support and understanding for GAD initiatives.
Relevant Law: Executive Order No. 273 (Institutionalizing Gender and Development (GAD) Focal Point System) emphasizes the need for engaging various stakeholders to ensure effective GAD implementation.
Quantitative Risk Assessment:
- Risk: The effectiveness of stakeholder engagement can be measured by the number of stakeholder meetings held and feedback received. If the target is 20 meetings but only 10 are conducted, this represents a 50% shortfall in engagement activities.
- Example: Conducting only 10 out of 20 planned town hall meetings represents a 50% risk in stakeholder engagement effectiveness.
Qualitative Risk Assessment:
- Risk: Insufficient engagement with key stakeholders may result in misunderstandings and lack of support for GAD initiatives, potentially leading to conflicts and resistance.
- Example: Not involving religious groups in discussions might lead to their opposition, making it difficult to implement GAD programs effectively within those communities.
Balance Resource Allocation
Mitigation Strategy: Allocate resources equitably to address various gender-specific needs and ensure that all critical issues receive appropriate attention.
Relevant Law: Republic Act No. 7192 (Women in Development and Nation Building Act) calls for equitable resource allocation in gender development programs to address various needs effectively.
Quantitative Risk Assessment:
- Risk: Resource allocation risks can be quantified by analyzing the percentage of funds dedicated to different issues. If Php 200,000 is allocated to education and only Php 50,000 to economic empowerment, there’s a 75% disparity in resource allocation.
- Example: Allocating Php 50,000 to economic empowerment versus Php 200,000 to education results in a 75% disparity, representing a risk of inequitable resource distribution.
Qualitative Risk Assessment:
- Risk: Imbalanced resource allocation may lead to perceived or real inequities, resulting in diminished program effectiveness and stakeholder trust.
- Example: If economic empowerment projects are underfunded, it might be perceived that women’s economic needs are undervalued, leading to dissatisfaction and reduced participation in the program.
Conclusion
By integrating relevant laws into the risk assessment process, GAD programs can effectively manage risks associated with maintaining focus on core objectives, promoting inclusivity, engaging stakeholders, and balancing resource allocation. This approach ensures that gender equality initiatives are comprehensive, equitable, and aligned with both legal requirements and fundamental values of fairness and respect for all individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment