Data-Driven Resilience Programming

with Communities:
Program to Enhance Resilience in Somalia
(PROGRESS)

December 2016
Catholic Relief Services, George Washington University’s Initiative for Disaster Resilience
and Humanitarian Affairs, and Benadir University’s Somali Disaster Resilience Institute

Summary
The Program to Enhance Resilience in
Somalia (PROGRESS) is a USAID-funded
effort led by Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
to reach populations within Somalia
to strengthen resilience. This report
discusses activities and findings from
qualitative engagement efforts made
by PROGRESS partners CRS, Benadir
University’s Somali Disaster Resil-
ience Institute (BU/SDRI), and George
Washington University’s Initiative for
Disaster Resilience and Humanitarian
Affairs(GW/IDRHA). These efforts
include ongoing interventions, stake-
holder engagement, and qualitative
and quasi-statistical data collection.
Combined together, the operations
of data and engagement inform and
provide supplemental focus and targeting
for operational programming at the
community level.
In the project thus far, local engage-
ment, program intervention, and data
collection activities were conducted
with community members in Afgooye,
Baidoa, and BeletHawa, with focus on
members of specialty leadership groups
(Women, Youth, and Resilience Commit-
tees - RCs). Findings were analyzed
by district, with community-specific
priorities presented and discussed
within a systems-level model. These
findings informed programming, as
2 well as provided the foundation for
All Photo Credits:
PROGRESS
quantitative pilot study in Baidoa.
This report discusses the analytical and
The quantitative pilot in Baidoa illus- engagement process that supports the
trated significant relationships between generation of data that reflects contextual
training opportunities for women and knowledge and the application of this
improved food security, as well as a data to programming enhancements.
strong indication of group member-
ship to community organizations being
a protective factor against symptoms
of depression and anxiety for women.
Following presentation of findings from
the Baidoa study, PROGRESS staff had an
opportunity to engage with data, which
inspired detailed discussions on commu-
nity needs and informed programming
efforts. Some of these programmatic
enhancements have included the overlap-
ping of training
and group
membership Findings were analyzed by district,
opportunities with community-specific priorities
to strengthen presented and discussed within a
larger networks systems-level model.
and encourage
multi-level inter-
ventions, such
as allowing SILC
programs to support agricultural groups
in needs identification and resource
purchasing. Other programmatic
enhancements include the role of women
as peer counselors and outreach workers
to facilitate broader participation not
only in training, but also in civic and
advocacy roles.
Introduction
The Program to Enhance Resilience
in Somalia (PROGRESS) is a USAID-
funded effort led by CRS to work with
local and international partners to reach
populations within Somalia in order to
strengthen resilience and build capaci-
ties to mitigate and provide prevention
measures for future crises.
Resilience refers to the potential of
individuals and communities to “bounce
back better” from adverse circumstances.
It is defined as the process of harnessing
key resources to sustain wellbeing
(Panter-Brick and Leckman, 2013) and
is a multi-dimensional process, rather
than a specific, solitary outcome (GW/
IDRHA, 2011). Reoccurring drought and
governance uncertainty contribute to
chronic vulnerability among communi-
ties in Somalia that may be addressed
through resilience-building activities
and initiatives.
PROGRESS works to increase resilience
in 16,000 Somali households within the
South/Central communities of BeletHawa,
Baidoa, and Afgooye, which are districts
prone to recurrent shocks. PROGRESS
partners include CRS, GW/IDRHA, and
BU/SDRI, as well as additional local
stakeholders in organizations involved
with the target communities. Collectively,
PROGRESS partners seek to:
Increase the institutional capacity
of target communities to adapt to
shocks and stressors;
Increase the capacity of male and
female members of 16,000 households
to adapt to economic, nutritional,
ecological and social shocks; and
Enhance the resilience learning of
communities, implementers, USAID
and others.
PROGRESS partners prioritize the use of
evidence-based approaches to develop
and implement programs that enhance
resilience. This report is driven by the
PROGRESS operational knowledge
objectives, broadly described as, 1)
providing the PROGRESS partners with
a deeper level of knowledge on resil-
ience in Somali households; 2) building
programmatic capacity in application
of resilience research and community
capacity in leadership; and 3) identifying
areas for knowledge exchange and
sharing of resilience learning across
multiple partners and stakeholders.
These objectives are fulfilled through a
process of community and stakeholder
engagement where local knowledge,
operational knowledge, and context
are combined to inform programs and
operational approaches.
3
 PROGRESS Resilience Analytical Framework
Resilience represents a particular set
of measurable resources and capabili-
ties that individuals, households, and
communities use to prepare for and
respond to shocks and stressors. The
factors that represent these resources
and capabilities are unique to particular
situations and circumstances. There-
fore, to identify the important factors
that reflect resilience within PROGRESS
target communities in Somalia at multiple
levels, the BU/SDRI and GW/IDRHA
team applied GW/IDRHA’s Resilience
Analytical Framework for PROGRESS
and collected qualitative data in fall
2015 and spring 2016 and quantita-
tive data in summer and fall 2016. The
framework incorporates global and local
knowledge on community resilience,
as well as tailored indicator develop-
ment to produce contextually relevant
dimensions of resilience, indexes and
pathways to resilience.
The PROGRESS Resilience Analytical
Framework is a multi-step process of
Figure 1: PROGRESS Resilience Model
4
engagement and application (Figure 2).
The Framework employs an empirically
driven process to create locally relevant
indicators for resilience within specific
contexts of targeted communities. First,
the Qualitative Context establishes the
resilience priorities for the region of
interest. Activities include a range of
qualitative approaches of engagement
including literature reviews, interviews,
focus groups, and quasi-statistics
methods, all of which serve to identify
and validate community priorities.
These priorities are then explored
through contextual study and qualitative
engagement processes that establish
important factors, relationships, and
outcomes. Second, theoretical models
are developed, using the priorities,
factors, relationships, and outcomes
identified through the Contextual
Knowledge processes. The theoretical
model includes data-driven assumptions
regarding the relationships between
contexts, presenting a model that may
be statistically explored and validated.
In the third step of the framework, the
theoretical model is used to create
context-specific indicators and quanti-
tative data is collected and analyzed.
Continuous knowledge exchange,
through stakeholder engagement and
partnership collaboration, informs each
process (as reflected in the Knowledge
Exchange streams in the Resilience
Model in Figure 1). In this manner,
the PROGRESS Resilience Analytical
Framework builds on empirical data
that is informed by multiple knowledge
streams and contexts, allowing for
intervention outcomes and learning
that reflects community investment,
input, and support.
This report reflects preliminary findings
to inform current programmatic activities
along with recommendations to refine
data collection for all three PROGRESS
regions in Year 3.
Figure 2: PROGRESS Resilience Analytical Framework

5
 Contextual Knowledge
In Years 1 and 2, PROGRESS partners BU/SDRI, CRS, and GW/ SDRI carried out enumeration exercises with CRS’s technical
IDRHA conducted ongoing interventions, stakeholder engage- teams (nutrition, natural resource management, etc.) followed
ment, and data collection efforts (Figure 3). As illustrated below, by community engagement processes to validate and clarify
continuous knowledge exchange, through community consul- priorities. This work led to the identification of 21 core resilience
tations and partnership collaboration, informs each process. factors for the communities of study. Table 2 illustrates these
21 key factors by Resilience Dimension.
In January 2016, GW/IDRHA and BU/SDRI prepared an analysis
report of findings from qualitative work completed prior to
December 2015 (GW/IDRHA et. al., 2016). In that report, 53
Resilience Factors were presented, organized by nine Resilience
Dimensions (building upon the work of the USAID-funded
ResilientAfrica Network), identified and discussed (Resilien-
tAfrica Network, 2015).

In order to prioritize the most salient factors that reflect the

intersections of PROGRESS program interventions, resilience
dimensions and community priorities, GW/IDRHA and BU/

Figure 3: Qualitative Context Activities, Years 1 and 2vities, Years 1 and 2

6
 Resilience Dimension Resilience Factors

Governance Use of Early Warning Systems

Health/Health Services Access to Clean Water for the Household

Availability, Access, and Quality of Local Health Services

Good Nutrition in Household (Low Malnutrition)

Human Capital Participation in Individual Training (e.g.: Entrepreneurial, Disaster Training,

Livelihoods)

Good Individual Leadership Skills/Qualities

Infrastructure Quality of Local Physical Market Structure

Natural Resources/ Environment Management of Local Land Resources

Management of Local Water Resources

Psychosocial Individual Agency (a person’s ability and belief that they can enact change
in their lives)

Family Functionality (how well the family unit communicates, supports

each other)

Security, Protection, and Advocacy Having Family Protection from GBV

Social Protection for Marginalized Groups and Families

Social Capital /Community Networks Sharing local knowledge from generation to generation and between
families

Social Cohesion between communities/clans

Participation in Informal and Formal Organization

Wealth Local Employment Opportunities

Local Entrepreneurial Opportunities (e.g.: to start new businesses)

Having Household Pasture Livestock

Having Tools for Transportation (e.g.: carts, wagons)

Having Tools for Farming (e.g.: generator)

Table 2: Key Resilience Factors by Dimension

7
PROGRESS Quantitative Survey
To build on these qualitative findings from all three PROGRESS regions, and specifically to understand the interaction of
resilience priorities, a quantitative survey was piloted in Baidoa. The qualitative data indicated a deep restructuring of
the role of women in Somali society, where women have taken more visible and formal roles in local economies, even
while maintaining traditional roles within the home. Due to interest by CRS and PROGRESS on the role of women to
better target and shape useful and relevant programming to their needs, it was collaboratively determined that ‘women’s
empowerment’ be an area of focus in this quantitative survey process. To create a contextualized survey, the qualitative
findings informed specific hypotheses on the role of women in Somali targeted communities to guide the data collection
and analysis. These hypotheses were developed conjointly with BU/SDRI and GW/IDRHA.
 Survey Composition

The survey was designed to include all of the information contained in the hypotheses and theoretical models presented
below. The constructs in each model reflect the resilience priorities identified by communities. To illustrate this, and
further clarify the process where qualitative findings and community engagement informed the survey, the theoretical
model below shows where the resilience priorities fit into the hypothesized relationships (Figure 4).

As shown, the survey was designed so that questions were developed from each piece of the theoretical model (Figure
4). In this way, the survey data reflected priorities and hypothetical relationships and could be more measured with
more sensitivity and more specificity to the priorities of communities.

The survey methodology, including sampling, data collection, and data analysis, were designed intentionally to both be
representative of Baidoa community and be responsive to the knowledge of BU/SDRI staff and enumerators.

Figure 4: Theoretical Model with Illustration of Resilience Factors

9
 Survey Methodology

Seven villages (Bonkay, Baadicade, Miidow, Reebay, Misigaale, Sampling

and Awdiindle) from Baidoa district,were preselected for
the survey. These seven villages were purposively selected
because of security concerns and connections in these villages.
The total population of these seven villages is 18,540, with
a total of 3,090 households. The number of households in
these villages range from 240 to 740, and population size
ranges from 1,440 to 4,550 (Table 3).
A total of 600 households were randomly selected to
participate the survey. Proportionate to population stratified
random sampling methodology was applied to select these
600 households, with village serving as the stratum variable.
Among the 600 households, only female household heads
or wives of male household heads were interviewed.

# Region District Village Est. Total Pop Total households Sample Size
(Individuals)

1 Bay Baidoa Bonkay 3300 550 107

2 Bay Baidoa Baadicade 3000 500 97

3 Bay Baidoa Miidow 1920 320 62

4 Bay Baidoa Reebay 1440 240 47

5 Bay Baidoa Misigaale 1500 250 49

6 Bay Baidoa Awdiindle 2880 480 93

7 Bay Baidoa AliyowMumin 4500 750 146

Total 18540 3090 600

Table 3: Selected village, total population, total households, and sample size

The survey was conducted as described above with

women heads of households or wives of heads of house-
holds. A total of 600 were interviewed for this survey in
August 2016.
Data Analysis
The August 2016 survey in Baidoa (n = 600) used the “Women’s empowerment scores.
Empowerment Agricultural Index” (WEAI) to measure how women • Women who listen daily to the radio were more likely to
are involved in households and in agricultural practices. This tool have higher empowerment scores than those who listen to the
was developed and first used in 2012, and since then has been radio less than once a day.
used by USAID and other organizations throughout the world • Women who had a spouse who was employed had higher
to assist with evaluation, programmatic targeting, and research. empowerment scores.
This use of the tool in Baidoa is the first known application of the
tool in Somalia. We also found that the following conditions were related with
lower empowerment scores in respondents:
The questions in the WEAI asked women in Baidoa about their
roles in decision-making and the kinds of activities in which they • When a female respondent was employed, she tended to
participate. There were four main areas of questioning from the have lower empowerment scores.
WEAI used in this analysis: • When a spouse had no education, the respondent had
lower levels of empowerment compared to those whose spouses
1. Decisions about agricultural production (“Production had some education.
decision-making”): Sole or joint decision-making power over food
or cash-crop farming, livestock, and fisheries, as well as autonomy Table 4 illustrates these associations.
in agricultural production.
2. Access to and decision-making power over productive
resources (“Access to productive resources”): Ownership of, access
to, and decision-making power over productive resources such as Demographic b SE p-value
land, livestock, agricultural equipment, consumer durables, and Measure
credit.
3. Control over use of income: Sole or joint control over Age of .03 .01 .01
income and expenditures. respondent
4. Leadership in the community (“Community leadership”):
Membership in economic or social groups and being comfortable Married at 15 .78 .04 .03
speaking in public. or older

These four question areas were tailored to the Somali context based Listening 1.8 .76 .02
on input from qualitative data and theoretical models around the to the radio
roles of women in household food security and resilience. daily
The more women reported having a greater role in making decisions
about spending, use of crops, use of animals, and conditions under Female -.66 .23 .00
which to visit relatives, engage in business dealing, and receiving Respondent
health care, the higher her “Women’s Empowerment” score was has employ-
after all of the measures were added and statistically analyzed. ment

For the purposes of this survey, the WEAI was selected to assist Spouse has .51 .25 .04
with diagnostic identification of gender parity within Baidoa, and employment
to explore associations between various gender-related functions
and participations to a range of resilience-related factors known Spouse has -1.0 .54 .06
to be important in Baidoa. no education

Demographic Variables and Women’s Empowerment

Table 4: Demographic variables associated with the Women’s
Demographic variables are the conditions that describe personal Empowerment Agricultural Index
profiles, such as age, income level, geographic location, ethnicity,
religion, and family size. We explored the questions presented
above as predictorsof “Women’s Empowerment” and discovered the
followingpersonal conditions were related with higher empower-
ment scores in respondents:

• The older a woman respondent was, the higher her

empowerment score would be.
• Older age at first marriage was associated with higher
 Mental Health and Women’s Empowerment

We found strong correlation (association) between the measures of the WEAI and symptoms of depression, and the measures
of the WEAI and symptoms of anxiety. To understand these further, the associations were explored with an aggregate of all
four WEAI question groups, and then explored through disaggregated WEAI questions. In that disaggregation, separate
questions within each of the four areas of questioning were identified as drivers of the differences between groups. Both
of the WEAI aggregate measures were highly associated with depression and anxiety. The disaggregated WEAI showed
some differences in which questions were drivers of that finding.

These results are presented in Table 5 and Table 6.

Model 1: With Aggregated WEAI Model 2: With Disaggregated

Scale WEAI Scale

b p<.05* p<.01** b p<.05* p<.01**

Household Wealth -.11 0.006** -.08 .056

Household Size -.03 0.533 -.05 0.035

Age .07 0.206 .07 0.176

Second/Third Wife (vs. First Wife) .02 0.751 .02 0.706

Not married (vs. Married) .08 0.045* .10 0.019*

Widowed (vs. married) -.05 0.295 -.04 0.370

Divorced (vs. married) -.05 0.270 -.04 0.405

Number of children -.02 0.656 -.00 0.937

WEAI (Four Item Scale) Combined -.18 0.000**

WEAI Single factor: Self-Ownership -.16 .000**

WEAI Single factor: Joint Decision about credit -.02 0.58

WEAI Single factor: Decision about income .03 0.43

WEAI Single factor: Group membership -.18 .000**

Table 5: Relationship between Depression and WEAI

In Table 5, focused on depression symptoms, women with more household assets/wealth had lower depression
measures. Single women had higher measures of depression than married women. Those who scored higher on
the WEAI were significantly associated with lower rates of depression. Further, when the WEAI is disaggregated,
self-ownership of assets and group membership were much larger contributors to the significance in lower depres-
sion. This significance was higher than any measure in the WEAI and in the overall model.
 Model 1: With Aggregated WEAI Model 2: With Disaggregated WEAI
Scale Scale

b p<.05* p<.01** b p<.05* p<.01**

Household Wealth -.10 0.020* -.09 0.032*

Household Size -.03 0.556 .01 0.790

Age -.02 0.678 -.02 0.736

Second/Third Wife (vs. First Wife) -.01 0.851 .00 0.945

Not married (vs. Married) .00 0.958 .01 0.945

Widowed (vs. married) -.02 0.755 -.02 0.699

Divorced (vs. married) -.02 0.740 -.02 0.691

Table 6: Relationship between Anxiety and WEAI

In Table 6, focused on anxiety symptoms, women with more household assets/wealth had lower depression measures.
Single women had higher measures of anxiety than married women. Those who scored higher on the WEAI was signifi-
cantly associated with lower rates of anxiety. Further, when the WEAI is disaggregated, group membership was a much
larger of contributor to the significance in lower anxiety. This significance was higher that any measure in the WEAI and
in the overall model. This suggests that group membership may actually be a protective factor against women having
symptoms of depression and anxiety.
 Structural Equation
Modeling and Analysis
The associations between women’s empowerment and areas
of relevance for PROGRESS programming (including group
membership, training, and resources) were further explored.
The role of women in Somali communities had been identi-
fied as key in food security within households, and as a result,
food security was used as a dependent variable for regression
and structural equation analysis, in order to better determine
pathway relationships between variables. These pathways
examine how food security is enhanced through a variety of
factors that could be strengthened through programmatic
efforts. Structural equation modeling was used to identify
pathways.
In addition to structural equation modeling on food security,
pathway analysis was also conducted using access to natural
resources as a dependent variable. Qualitative analysis
indicated that use of natural resources was a major factor in
how households acquired food and their level of food manage-
ment in both households and the marketplace. Structural
equation modeling was used to better understand the factors
that enhance this access or limit it. These approaches are
described in the following sections.
Food Security
Figure 5: Resilience Pathways Model for Household Food Security, pathways highlighted
Food Security
The Baidoa survey used questions from a food hunger scale
as a way to measure food security within households. The
questions included reflection on whether the respondent
had enough food in the household over the prior two-week
period, if they had money to purchase enough food, if they
had gone hungry due to lack of food, and related questions
from this validated scale. These measures were used to
create a dependent variable in structural equation modeling.
The structural equation modeling explored the relationships
between the resilience factors. All factors were analyzed,
and those with significance identified. These relationships
are presented in the “pathway” model, where three pathways
stood out in this preliminary survey data. These are illustrated
in Figure 5, below.
In the model in Figure 5, three pathways are highlighted.
In the purple pathway, greater trust in governance is
associated with higher access to basic community services,
which is associated with higher household wealth and
higher food security. Higher access to basic community
services is associated with greater food security; it is also
associated with higher household wealth. In the green
pathway, perceptions of public safety are associated
with greater social cohesion; but having greater social
cohesion is associated with lower household wealth.
This may suggest that households with less wealth have
stronger social networks as an adaptive strategy. In the
red pathway, higher scores on the empowerment scale
are associated with attending trainings, and trainings are
positively associated with higher food security. These
pathways inform programming to the relationship between
resilience factors to better target resources into areas that
may better support long-term food security.
Type of Training Cohen’s D
Savings and Loan 0.58
Community and Disaster Leader- 0.40
ship
Conflict Resolution 0.37
Early Warning 0.35
Natural Resources Management 0.33
Health and Nutrition 0.32
Disaster Risk Management 0.25
Entrepreneurial Training 0.25
Gender-Based Violence 0.21
Water Management Not Significant
Vocational
Table 7: Effect Size of Participation in Training by Types of Training
With this information, PROGRESS programs are able to link
SILC training with programs in nutrition and natural resource
management to enhance food security potential within commu-
nities. Further, they are able to target other programs in ways
that encourage women’s participation – such as identifying
innovation grants for women-led projects. In addition, training
Understanding “Effect Size” of Training on
Food Security
Based on the learning from this data, PROGRESS is able
to tailor training programs to enhance women’s involve-
ment, particularly in areas relevant to food security. To
further inform these training initiatives, the survey data
was analyzed by types of training, to roughly estimate
which training activities were tied most strongly to higher
household food security. Using an effect size estimation
called Cohen’s D, of the 11 types of training assessed,
participation in nine of those trainings was associated
with significant level of improved food security (p<.05).
Further, of those nine that were significant, seven were
highly significant (p<.01). Finally, Savings and Loan (SILC)
Training participants were associated with the highest food
security. These results are presented in Table 7.
Effect Size Level of Significance
Large p< .01
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Small
Small p< .05
Small
Not Significant Not Significant
in areas link natural resource management may be tailored
to the interests and activities of women, in order to facilitate
these strengths more directly.
 Access to Natural Resource Management
The survey in Baidoa (n = 600) asked participants about their
access to community-located natural resources (water and land).
These measures were used to create a dependent variable
“Access to Natural Resources” and apply structural equation
modeling techniques to explore relationships between the
dependent variable and various resilience factors.All factors
were analyzed, and those with significance identified. These
relationships are presented in the “pathway” model in Figure
6, supported by the equation given below. In the model in
Figure 6, access to community resources (grazing land and
Figure 6: Resilience Pathways Model for Access to Natural Resource Management
Wealth is positively associated with quality of community
basic service, but negatively associated with perception of
safety, training, and social capital. This means that people
who have higher household wealth resources also report
higher qualities of community basic services.
water) is negatively associated with positive perception
of government, and positively associated with quality of
community basic services and wealth. This means that the
data show that people who have greater access to community
natural resources, they tend to have less positive percep-
tions about government. People who have greater access to
community natural resources also report higher qualities of
community basic services, and tend to have larger amounts
of household wealth.
Social cohesion is negatively associated with positive
perception of government, but positively associated with
perception of safety. Training is negatively associated with
social cohesion, and the other paths leading to training
are not statistically significant. Quality of community basic
services is positively associated with governance.
 Access to Natural Resources and Access to Community Services

As discussed in the SEM model for Access to Natural Resources, there was an association between Access to Natural
Resources and Access to Community Services. To better understand this relationship, t-tests were performed with
each type of Community Service. The Community Services that were significantly related to having Access to Natural
Resource Management are presented in Table 8.

Type of Community Yes, have Access No Access Description Level of Significance

Service between the groups
*p<.05 **p<.01

School Quality 1.7 1.6 Those who reported .021*

better quality of schools
were more likely to have
access to community
resources

Safe and Clean Play Areas 1.9 1.6 Those who reported safer .02*
and cleaner play areas
were more likely to have
access to community
resources

Safe Roads and Paths 1.9 1.6 Those who reported safe .00**
roads and paths were
more likely to have access
to community resources

Telecommunications 1.9 1.6 Those who reported .00**

better quality of telecom-
munications were more
likely to have access to
community resources

Table 8: Access to Natural Resource Management and Access to specific Community Services
Operational Integration of Data Findings
Review of this data by PROGRESS staff allowed detailed
thinking and conversations about the experiences of team
members within communities. These conversations involved
reflecting on personal and professional knowledge of
programs, communities, and people, and considering data
findings within that framework.
A range of topics were highlighted from the data in the
discussions, showcasing deeper thinking about areas for
programming potential, advocacy, or networking to better
support community resilience. These included:
• The connection between education and social develop-
ment. While obvious at the outset (women with more educa-
tion tend to have more opportunities) those opportunities
are limited primarily to tea shops and similar snack-oriented
sales. PROGRESS team members questioned the focus of
training programs and wondered if more effort could be
made to make more economic training (basic math, finance,
supply of goods, market concepts) more widely available to
support women with low education with the skills needed to
participate more in these activities even when they do not
have access or ability to have basic education.
• The connections between use of health care services,
knowledge of services in the community, and well-being of
women resonated with PROGRESS staff. They felt that this
connection was clear, and that it went beyond “knowledge”
of the service to knowledge of others who used the service.
The building of social capital may be important across groups
where there are differences in participation. For example,
a more targeted outreach campaign could include having
women who already participate in community services share
information with others. Diversification among groups has
in the past not been an area of focus that could potentially
change to better integrate communities.
• Decision-making among women, even when practiced
outside of the home, are not common within homes. As a
result, PROGRESS staff felt that the only true measure of women
as decision-makers had to be focused on entities or projects
that only the women participate in (like nutrition programs
or maternal health programs). Any program that involves
a mix of men and women is likely to involve a surrender of
decision making as a point of practice, regardless of the
“empowerment” of the women – in fact, the surrendering of
the decision may be viewed locally as an empowerment, to
be able to trust in a male figure.
• PROGRESS team members view radio programming as
critically important and the relationship between consistent
use of radio and women’s empowerment scores highlighted
this for the teams. They are considering the potential of using
radio programming to promote social issues of PROGRESS
interest and priority including family planning and early
marriage, and to promote programs in vocational and
basic education for girls. In particular, they considered
whether emphasis on keeping girls in schools could be
more effective through radio programming.
• Women are identified within Baidoa as agents of change,
and perhaps could be better utilized to share learning,
services, and ideas as peer-educators. In this way, leaders
within established groups (such as leaders within SILC
groups) could participate in other programs (for example,
in mother to mother groups) to share information and
encourage additional involvement.
• Wealth and social cohesion among families plays out in
interesting ways in Somali societies. Having more assets is
associated with less social cohesion: families that are better
off financially or in terms of their assets rarely reach out
to other families. Families that have more need, however,
reach out more regularly among their networks to combine
resources or seek support. PROGRESS confirms these
findings, and notes that illness are the only circumstances
where more asset-rich families reach out to others in their
network. Facilitating more opportunities for interaction
among families of various levels of assets may be a poten-
tial way to build more local capacities.
• Shocks to the environment and to local stability are
approached cohesively by communities, who are familiar
with coming together to survive difficult situations. As
a result, families are open to integration and working
together. These strengths should be better utilized by
programs and group activities.
• Somali people tend to trust more in what is seen publically
than in external structures. As a result, trust in governance
and involvement in governance is not viewed as relevant
in daily life. Building capacity for local populations to
advocate and involving local and regional government
in programs – inviting them to see programs, sharing
with them data and outcomes of programs – could better
create pathways for local populations to be involved with
government and decision making on a more macro scale.
Specifically, involvement is needed in areas of natural
resources, where government mechanisms of use and
protection have great implications for communities. Linking
local populations to these governance resources and
being involved in these processes is an important part of
communities’ use and sustainability in natural resources.
Further, advocating for road building and maintenance
at regional levels would facilitate better relationships
between regions.
• PROGRESS staff felt that the data around training impact
was particularly critical to their programs. As a result, they
advocated for more integration of saving group principles,
basic arithmetic, marketing skills, and co-operative farming
techniques into all programs (including the mother to
mother and nutrition trainings) to better build local skills
in areas of high relevance to food security. Further, they
feel that these programs could be expanded and targeted
to specific populations. For example, SILC groups could
be integrated into farmer programs to focus on develop-
ment and acquisition of tools and equipment. In short,
PROGRESS is integrating trainings more specifically so
that the learning and resources may be better targeted
holistically.
• Use of mobile phones was highlighted by PROGRESS
staff as a key area for future programming as well, and
the use of this technology for programming considered
within the context of expanding services and diversifying
participation.
• Further program integration was discussed within the
context of using all training and workshops as opportu-
nities to build local mental health capacities. Knowing
that women who participate in programs and groups are
significantly less likely to experience poor mental health
outcomes, this signals the PROGRESS training efforts as
having qualities that protect families from negative mental
health outcomes. As a result, programs could work to
target those perceived to be psychosocially struggling,
and working to make all training programs self-sustaining
to allow for continued engagement among participants
is a health-related goal just as it is related to training and
skills goals.
These points reflect ongoing integration of data results
to programs, where PROGRESS staff engages within
operational research partners to facilitate discussion of
community needs and priorities and applies it to the
thinking and generation of ideas for operational programs.
Next steps in this process include refinement of the survey
tool and application of this tool across all PROGRESS
communities in Gedo, Bay and Lower Shabelle districts
to provide more programmatic insight and support.
Works Cited
Panter-Brick, C., and Leckman, J. (2013). Resilience in Child
Development: Interconnected Pathways to Wellbeing.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54:4, 333-336.
PROGRESS. (January 2016). Responding to and Preparing
for Climate Variability: Analysis of qualitative data and
literature related to resilience in the three Somali districts.
Internal PROGRESS report.
PROGRESS. (June 2016). Programming Resilience with
Communities: The case of Somalia PROGRESS communities.
CRS, TU/DRLA, and BU/SDRI. Internal PROGRESS report.
ResilientAfrica Network. (2015). The State of African
Resilience: Understanding Dimensions of Vulnerability and
Adaptation. Jennifer G. Cooke, Ed., Center for Strategic and
International Studies. Rowman and Littlefield, New York.
Initiative for Disaster Resilience and Humanitarian Affairs
Elliott School of International Affairs
The George Washington University
1957 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052
Phone: 202-994-6240