Please note: This archive was last updated in 2005.

RHO archives : Topics : Men and Reproductive Health

IGWG Men and Reproductive Health Subcommittee

Meeting Minutes: February 27, 2002

Attendance and logistics

The meeting was held at the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Kenney Auditorium, from 9 am to 5 pm. Attending were: Erin Anastasi (IRH/Georgetown), Mark Austin (USAID), Michal Avni (USAID), Lucretia Brosey (The Hunger Project), Guy Chalk (JHU/PIP), Sam Clark (PATH), Jay Gribble (IRH/Georgetown), Judith Helzner (IPPF/WHR), Victoria Jennings (IRH/Georgetown), Jeff Jordan (Futures Group International), Tabitha Keener (USAID), Steve LaVake (YouthNet—Family Health International (Deloitte and Touche)), Jim McMahan (INTRAH), Sarah Martin (JSI), Manisha Mehta (EngenderHealth), Diana Prieto (USAID), Julie Pulerwitz (Population Council), Karin Ringheim (PATH), Debbie Rogow (Population Council), Diana Santillan (JSI/EWRP), Jeff Spieler (USAID), Kathleen Taylor (PAHO), Alfred Yassa (JHU/CCP).

Victoria Jennings opened the meeting by introducing herself and Sam Clark (Co-Chairs) and asking participants to introduce themselves. Next, Sam led an explanation of the proposals endorsed and submitted to the IGWG for funding. (He referred people to the minutes of the previous meeting, which describe the process.) A total of 7 proposals were endorsed by the M/RH subcommittee, including the following:

  1. Lessons Learned Forum on Men and Reproductive Health
  2. Dissemination Conference for SOTA best practices regarding male involvement and gender-sensitive programming
  3. Involving Men in Family Planning: Learning from the Community of Belejeb Batz (Guatemala), submitted by IRH/Georgetown
  4. The Role of Men in Reproductive Health and Gender- Based Violence: Practical Guidelines for Researching Men and GBV (stemming from Bellagio conference), submitted by Gary Barker, Benno de Kaizer, and colleagues
  5. Conference in Rio de Janeiro to train and disseminate set of M/RH workbooks (for young men), submitted by Instituto ProMundo
  6. Men and GBV in Kenya, submitted by EngenderHealth
  7. Men and RH in Rural Cambodia, submitted by EngenderHealth

Sam noted that the IGWG TAG had reviewed the proposals and short-listed selected ones for funding. However, a final decision regarding funding has not yet been made.

The Lessons Learned Forum (item 1 above) was not short-listed for funding. This proposal was designed to allow for the M/RH subcommittee to continue its work in a different form. The M/RH subcommittee has lost its funding, but may participate in the global dissemination conference (item 2 above), which was short-listed for funding. (Final decision pending.) Sam suggested the initiation of an M/RH task force to be active for the next year to prepare for the dissemination conference.

Diana Prieto (IGWG Coordinator) shared her insights into the process. She offered to make available TAG comments on each proposal, and distributed comments on the Lessons Learned Forum and the global dissemination conference to the group. She informed the SC that a total of 6 proposals (of 139 received), were short-listed for funding, among them the global dissemination conference and EngenderHealths Men and GBV project in Kenya. IGWG submitted their budget and is awaiting a decision regarding funding of the short-listed proposals.

In response to a question from Jay Gribble, Diana explained that all of the short-listed proposals came from CAs and all addressed one or more of the priority areas (Male Involvement, GBV, HIV/AIDS, and Adolescents). They also represented a variety of regions and most entailed evaluation of an intervention.

Karin Ringheim raised the issue of what would become of the planned work of the M/RH SC (orientation guide, dissemination of other SC products), who/how to carry on the work of the SC, etc. Sam Clark replied that the SC exists until June 2002, and that we knew previously that it would compete for funding with other initiatives. As next steps, he identified 2 options: 1) working to help organize the global dissemination conference and 2) extending the SC on an ad hoc basis.

Top of page 

Report of the working teams to the committee

Communications Working Team

Jim McMahan, Chair of this working team reported on the teams meeting.

Orientation Guide. The OG is nearly ready for distribution. It now includes interactive activities for each module, as well as facilitator notes. Approximately 150 orders for it have been placed so far. About 3,000 CD-ROMS and hard copy binders (for those whove already ordered) will be printed. They will be ready around the end of March. Diana Prieto requested people to send her an e-mail if they would like to comment on the OG. In addition, The SC is looking for funding to translate the guide into other languages (Spanish, French, etc.) The content of the OG will eventually be downloadable from the website and linked to IGWGs site.

Speaker Series. There is a possibility of having a speaker at the next SC meeting. Gary Barker was suggested, as he will be in town in May.

Dissemination Conference. Members were interested in continued participation as a task force, and need to divide up tasks and responsibilities. The organizing agencies (PATH, PRB, and EngenderHealth) invite others to participate in efforts to plan and organize the conference.

Research and Evaluation Working Team

Julie Pulerwitz, Chair of this team, reported on the results of the teams session.

Case Studies. The 3 case studies are near completion and will be finished by the next meeting. The Salud y Genero case study is the nearest to completion. Karin Ringheim and Diana Santillan will review it before it is passed on to PRB. The SIDH case study is in the process of being edited, which Meg Greene is currently handling. The Stepping Stones case study needs the most work. Julie is working on it and has recruited a consultant/editor to review and finalize it. A first draft will be ready by March 8. The M/RH Co-Chairs, as well as Jay Gribble and Karin Ringheim will review it.

Julie and Meg are soliciting comments to the Introduction to the case studies. Julie will send out the Intro and the Executive Summary to all team members for feedback. The goal is for each case study to be about 25 pages, plus an executive summary.

Dissemination of the case studies is to be discussed in the afternoon session with PRB.

Statement on Adolescent Boys. The statement, entitled "Adolescent Boys: Meeting Their Needs and Addressing Gender Equity" is complete, after input from Julie and Karin Ringheim, who added elements of gender equity. It is set to go up on the RHO website along with the other 2 statements soon. Suggestions were made to ensure that it also goes on the IGWG website and that the RHO and IGWG websites be linked (if they are not already).

Inventory of Organizations Involved in M/RH. Julie has taken inventory of Horizons projects, and Paul Feldblum has done the same for FHI. Julie is requesting information from others. The team discussed how best to disseminate the inventory (Hard copy? By e-mail? Internal circulation within the SC? Searchable database?) as well as how to maintain and update it. The inventory would contain information such as the name and type of project, purpose, activities, host organization, PI, funding, etc.

HIM CD-ROM. Alfred Yassa reported that the CD-ROM is currently being evaluated by its users. Results are expected in June 2002.

Safari of Life game. The game was evaluated by a total of 500 participants in 11 countries, including the United States. The evaluation report (written by Anne Jenkins) has been completed. Regarding the Young Mens Journey, cards have been tested and a qualitative assessment has been conducted in several countries. PATH will next be doing a quantitative assessment.

Dominican Republic study. Tabitha reported that this project is still on hold and that she will send out an update when she receives it.

Global Dissemination Conference. The Communications Team proposed the following potential contributions to the conference: the 3 case studies, inventory/ database of M/RH projects (expanded to include projects not funded by IGWG); and data from JSI task forces review of gender-sensitive programming in RH and its impact on gender equity and RH.

Top of page

Jeff Jordan, Futures Group International, Chair of IGWG TAG: Update and discussion on IGWG TAG and future directions

Jeff began by explaining the structure of the IGWG Steering Committee, which includes 7 CAs and 14 staff. The AID Co-Chair is Michal Avni, the CA Co-Chair is Jeff Jordan, and the Coordinator is Diana Prieto.

Jeff reviewed the 2 primary, ongoing functions of the IGWG: dissemination (through Measure Communication) and training (through the POLICY Project). M/RH work and products are to be incorporated into the dissemination and training functions of the IGWG.

In addition, the IGWG no longer sponsors working groups, but now has task forces. The task forces are technical, topical, and created for a specific purpose, with discreet activities, then dissolved. Topic areas include GBV, HIV/AIDS, Adolescents, and Male Involvement. Current task forces include: Gender and AIDS, Gender and Quality, Evidence-Based Programming, and Implementation Guide. The TAG made recommendations to AID as to which task forces should be funded, and is awaiting reply.

Karin Ringheim made the suggestion that the minutes of the TAG be posted to the listserv, and Michal encouraged SC members to add themselves to the IGWG listserv. Sam and/or Victoria will send a message advising members to do so.

Jeff suggested the inventory/database of gender projects be included in the funded proposal. Michal will talk with PRB so that they include it in their work plan for next year. It should include past and current projects, and could be linked to AID CA work plans. It could also be posted to the IGWG website. Jeff will raise the issue at the next TAG meeting.

Jim McMahan raised the concern about points of entry and opportunities for participation for those not involved in the TAG. Judith Helzner echoed his concern of not marginalizing interested, new, and even continuing participants of the M/RH SC. She raised the question of how to salvage the energy, work, and commitment of participants under the new structure. Jeff Jordan replied that the same exchange of the M/RH SC may continue and is encouraged to do so, but that funding for its operations would not continue. In response to a comment by Judith, a discussion ensued regarding whether the gender focus is being "shelved" because it is still not viewed as integral to health and development programs (in contrast to the MAQ subcommittee, which continues to be funded. However, Maws funding is also apparently under scrutiny).

Returning to the issue of the IGWG TAG structure, Jeff Jordan named the 7 non-CA members of the TAG: Lori Ashford (PRB), Belies Giorgio (Advance Africa), Meg Greene (PAI), Jodi Jacobsen (CHANGE), Jeff Jordan (TFGI), John Townsend (Population Council), and Ellen Weiss (ICRW). In addition, there are representatives for each of the regional bureaus of USAID.

Diana Santillan inquired as to how the organizations on the TAG are selected and whether or not they rotate. They are selected according to area of expertise, representation of non-CAs, previous involvement in the SC, and regional focus.

Julie Pulerwitz encouraged the SC to continue the Speaker Series, with in-depth discussions following speakers presentations. Jeff Spieler noted that the TAG views the speaker series as its domain (and, therefore, no need for the SC to do it), and that the TAG should be held accountable for this. In addition, Michal announced that the TAG will host a day-long seminar on GBV and RH on April 29 or 30 (TBD). It will focus on field perspectives, with speakers from developing countries.

Top of page

Pat McCann, Director of Outreach, Men Can Stop Rape: Update on MCSR dating violence prevention effort for young men in DC public high schools

Pat McCann began by reviewing the goals of the "Strength Campaign", which included: to educate young men about their role as allies with women in preventing dating violence; to promote positive, nonviolent models of male strength; and to empower youth to take action to end dating violence, promote healthy relationships based on equity and respect, and create safer school communities.

Next, McGann described the components of the campaign: Metro bus and bus shelter ads throughout DC; posters in all DC public high schools (7 different posters); "REP" magazine for students created around Campaign themes ("My Strength is Not for Hurting"); guidebooks for school faculty and staff; and "Safe and Strong" workshops with students in selected schools.

In order to assess the impact of the Campaign on students and school "influencers", MCSR adopted a pre-posttest with control group model. The original questionnaire measured the impact of the workshops (conducted in 3 high schools) specifically, and the campaign as a whole more generally.

Dimensions of the evaluation included campaign exposure and recall; change in attitudes; and behavior change.

Summarizing the key findings, McGann noted that there was significant exposure to and recall of the campaign. Results were mixed in terms of attitude and behavior change, and workshops were shown to have a positive impact on student awareness and self-efficacy.

MCSR works to address the root causes of sexual violence, defined as the attitudes, norms, and behaviors that cause individuals to see someone as less than human. Their view is that violence prevention and risk reduction often puts women in a defensive position, leaving it up to them to prevent such attacks. In contrast, the basic assumption on which they operate is that men can influence other men and speak out against dehumanization.

MCSR contact info is: (202) 265-6530; [email protected];

Top of page

Lori Ashford, Population Reference Bureau: Discussion of planned IGWG dissemination activities

Lori passed out a sheet of "PRB Dissemination Work: IGWG Projects" to all participants. She emphasized three major issues: the website; how to expand the IGWG audience; and how to better strategize for enhanced dissemination.

Regarding the website, Lori reiterated that the IGWG site is housed on Measure Communications site, and emphasized that all IGWG documents should be on this site. There is also a need for better coordination for more consistency between the M/RH and IGWG websites. (This will be discussed with the PRB staff who maintain the IGWG website, and Sam will facilitate the effort.) Jeff Spieler suggested the IGWG website should be the predominate site. Julie suggested the possibility of putting the searchable database of gender projects on the IGWG site. A question was raised as to who would update and maintain the database. This will be discussed at the next TAG meeting. Sarah Martin volunteered to assist in the effort.

In terms of expanding the mailing list audience (which is currently at about 200), Lori proposed reflecting on whom we want to reach, what we want to get to them, and how (through what and how many types of media). She noted that 200 is not a cost-effective number. Jeff Spieler requested to see the list of 200 current names. He and others will review the list. Sam will send out a message to encourage people to join the IGWG listserv. Michal sent around a list requesting suggestions of individuals and organizations to receive IGWG products (to be added to the mailing list). In addition, Jeff suggested including a small "ad" in journals such as PIP, Studies in FP, Network, etc.

Victoria underscored the need to identify who and how to coordinate with PRB to ensure future dissemination. Lori called for a few key contact persons for dissemination and the website. Sarah Martin volunteered.

Lori also pointed out that there needs to be better strategizing for dissemination of IGWG products. She noted that PRB needs to be involved earlier in the process, and that planning for dissemination should begin as early as possible in the life of a project. The issue of how to disseminate the OG and other SC products (by CD-ROM, e-mail, etc.) was also raised.

Top of page

Brainstorming/plans for SOTA M/RH dissemination conference

Sam began the session by distributing the proposal for the conference to those who did not have a copy. He explained that the conference would be a collaborative effort among PATH, EngenderHealth, and PRB. As for funding, the SC could use all unobligated funds ($35,000) for this conference, and $100,000+ additional would need to be raised (in addition to the $40,000 requested from the IGWG).

Victoria noted that, while the proposal focuses on the conference, it actually entails 3 distinct products: the conference itself, an implementation guide ("how to"; where to get resources; and best-practices compendium); and a summary conference document.

Next, the session was opened up for comments. Karin voiced the opinion that the budget was insufficient. Sam replied that the idea is that each participating organization would submit their presentations with notes ahead of time, which would result in less work to develop the implementation guide.

Jeff S. underscored the importance of involving those "not yet converted" (from 6-7 priority countries, for example). AID, World Bank, and UNFPA priority countries could be considered as possible countries to focus on. This would also raise the possibility of field support. However, Judith stated that she thinks it is also important to have some "converts" there, as they can still benefit from the discussions and products (IG and conference paper).

Jay Gribble mentioned the need for presenters to specify how to apply lessons learned in various contexts, and to make the conference and the IG practical, useful, tools adaptable in diverse settings.

Jim McMahan suggested considering Bangladesh as a priority country, as they have a national gender equity strategy. He also suggested the possibility of having country strategies to be rolled out as an end result of the conference.

Michal questioned to what extent the conference might incorporate health issues beyond RH. Judith Helzner referred people to the 6 priority topics listed on page 7 of the proposal: Gender and Adolescent Male Socialization and RH; Gender and Men and FP and RH; Gender and Men and STI/HIV/AIDS and Dual Protection; Gender and Men and Maternal and Child Health; Men and GBV; and Gender and National and Multinational Uniformed Services.

Manisha cautioned against creating roll-out strategies that die due to lack of funding. She mentioned that participant selection is also important. Victoria added the importance of identifying donors who would follow through with participant teams. Alfred Yassa recommended holding follow-up meetings in each participating country to assess progress after one year. Victoria emphasized the need for specific, concrete, and implementable strategies.

Judith suggested the proposed timeline for the conference may be overambitious. Sam and Manisha and the organizing agencies need to meet to discuss how to involve others without holding back the progress of the planning. Participants agreed they will try to negotiate with the TAG for more time to plan the conference.

Diana Santillan mentioned JSI/EWRPs ongoing review of gender-sensitive programming and its links with RH. One component of this is male involvement. It includes a summary of projects, description of the evaluation of each, and impact on gender equity and RH. Karin suggested using this data as a starting point.

Manisha asked for volunteers to be involved in planning the conference. Karin, Jay, Judith, Alfred, Julie, and Jim all agreed to assist. In addition, a message will be sent out to the larger group to give others the opportunity to participate.

Top of page

Updates re: selected M/RH and related CA activities/other business

  1. EngenderHealth (Manisha)—Draft versions of Part 2 (couple counseling and involving men) and 3 (diagnosis and treatment of male RH problems) of the Men & RH manual are available for review. Final, printed versions should be available in 2-3 months (and in about one month electronically).
  2. Steve LaVake (YouthNet)—The new YouthNet project, directed by Nancy Williamson, focuses on RH promotion and HIV prevention among 10-24 year olds. It is a five-year project that will identify 5 focus countries and will work in a total of about 32 countries. Partners include DTT, CARE, FHI, and MSI.
  3. Jill Gay (Consultant)—Jill and Karen Hardee are working on the "What Works: A Program Managers Guide to Effective Evidence-Based RH Interventions" manual, which is a review of published literature. Jill is currently working on the HIV/AIDS chapter and called for additional resources. Sarah Hawkes, who is conducting a meta-analysis of HIV (to be published soon) was suggested as an important contact person.
  4. Jay Gribble (IRH/Georgetown)—Introduction of the Standard Days Method of FP is underway with PCI/El Salvadors water and sanitation program. Jay presented quantitative data and mentioned that qualitative data will be analyzed next. In his presentation, Jay examined the question "Machismo Attitudes in El Salvador: Myth or Reality"?
  5. Mark Austin (Gender and HIV task force)—the G/HIV task force met on February 26. They have completed a series of interviews with AID personnel and CAs working in gender and HIV to get an idea of key issues and programs. The initial analysis has been written. Next steps include workshops to present findings on how to integrate gender in HIV/AIDS. Mens roles and male involvement were consistently brought up. Missions are very aware, but male involvement and gender equity are less understood, though male involvement is on the minds of field programmers. Issues examined included prevention, testing and counseling, and care and support. The conclusion was that the message is getting to the field and to programs. Data analysis continues and a draft for circulation will be ready in a few months.
  6. Diana Santillan (JSI/EWRP)—A project is underway in Vietnam, which involves a peer education intervention to develop life skills among youth. JSI is examining gender attitudes and RH intentions. They recently completed the baseline, and questionnaires are available for review.
  7. Kathleen Taylor (PAHO)—Male Involvement and RH project is beginning. On March 19-21, the first meeting will take place in Nicaragua, in order to train researchers. The research phase will last 6 months, and results are expected in 8 months. Gary Barker developed the research protocol and will train the researchers. Kathy invited volunteers interested in reviewing the Spanish protocol to contact her.
  8. Alfred Yassa (JHU/CCP)—"Together for a Happy Family" campaign in Jordan was evaluated in 2000 and the report is being finalized. It will be ready in about 4 months. Dr. Yassa presented summary results of the evaluation. The Jordan program is now working on a peri-marital and newly married guide to be reviewed, pre-tested, and tested.
  9. Sam Clark (PATH)—Sam shared several useful resources with the group, including the following: Working with Young Men to Promote SRH: Safe Passages to Adulthood (Kim Rivers and Peter Aggleton); AGIs Chartbook, "In Their Own Right" Addressing the SRH Needs of American Men"; the Japanese development societys newsletter; PASHA—"Wise Guys" curriculum, and Santa Cruz County male involvement project; Gary Barkers 5 workbooks for young men (addressing the topics of Mental Health; Violence; HIV/AIDS; Paternity/Fatherhood: and SRH) to be translated to English. They will eventually be downloadable from the Promundo website.

In addition, Sam discussed 3 PATH projects in China; one involving migrant workers and RTI prevention; another, a male-oriented condom hotline; and a third, a couples survey, in which the outcome variable was reduced abortion. Sam also mentioned that the RHO website content has been translated to Chinese and is posted on a website in China!

Top of page

Next meeting/Plus-delta exercise/Adjourn

The next meeting is planned for the week of May 13 or May 20. An e-mail will be sent to people soon to inform them.

Plus (to do again next meeting)

  • Sams "positivity"!
  • Timely/timekeeping
  • Speaker/presentation
  • Location
  • CA updates
  • Delta (to change)

  • Alarm system
  • Would like to see more emphasis on how to move field ahead
  • Too much time spent on "process" issues
  • Top of page 

    For more information

    For more information, please review the minutes of other past Subcommittee meetings.

    Top of page