Application Step by Step

Status of Women Canada developed GBA+ as a tool to be used in all policy fields;

however, GBA+ can be adapted at the discretion and need of the practitioners and can enter any stage of the analysis process. In this way the tool is similar to its European counter-part GIA: It is an ex-ante, parallel and ex-post policy analysis tool that is also suitable for monitoring and evaluation. The quality of the process stems from the tool’s systematic, consistent and documented application. Seven steps are suggested, some of which should be completed in parallel, as the following table 9 illustrates:

Table 9: GBA+ Step by Step, Status of Women Canada (2012)¹⁹⁸

196 | SWC 2012f. The words “Challenge your assumptions“ were in italics in original.

197 | Not yet exposed to post-structural critique by e.g. (Finlayson/Martin 2006;

Dobuzinskis 2006; Riccucci 2008).

198 | SWC 2012e.

Details of the steps are as follows:

1. Check values and assumptions: In this step, policy makers are encouraged to reflect upon their general assumptions pertaining to the “diversity of women and men in your client or target group,”¹⁹⁹ in order to avoid stereotyping. This initial reflexive step is to be repeated at every stage of the process.

2. Look at information sources, consider stakeholder perspectives: Status of Wom-en Canada sees gathering information as the seminal step. The request for data sampling before a relevance check is the crucial difference between this and other gendered-analysis guides. Status of Women Canada advocates the use of sex-disaggregated quantitative data, at best additionally broken down by “e.g.

age, language, education, geography, culture, ethnicity, income.”²⁰⁰ A diversi-fication of data and a broad outlook are encouraged. In contrast to the EU, the Canadian GBA+ warrants the re-introduction of the social category of “class” by way of groupings such as education or income into policy analysis. A weakness in the tool layout is that there is no detailed information on how to consult stake-holders, what constitutes a stakeholder or how to map all relevant stakestake-holders, etc.—even though participation is a core element of GBA+ analysis.

3. Define GBA+ issues(s): In this step, the Status of Women Canada wants prac-titioners to analyse the information collected and the results of the stakeholder consultation in accordance with the following three questions: 1) “Who are my clients or target group? Think about gender, age, ability, socio-economic status and other factors.” 2) “Do the issues affect diverse women and men in different ways? If so, how?” 3) “Does the initiative improve the situation for all? Or does it have uninten-ded differential impacts and create barriers for some groups of women and men?”²⁰¹ Differential impacts even within seemingly coherent groups are addressed in this set of questions. Attention is drawn here to systemic inequalities rather than groupist assumptions. Moreover analysts are advised to collect more infor-mation if they are not able to fully answer these questions.

4. Develop options: For developing policy options, Status of Women Canada guides analysts through another block of three questions:1) “How do the options reflect the information gathered and the stakeholder perspectives in relation to GBA+?” 2)

“How have GBA+ impacts and outcomes been given weight in the analysis of opti-ons?” 3) “What are the consequences of adopting or not adopting GBA+ optiopti-ons?”²⁰² These questions address the concern about the add-on character of the tool, which is used on top of other assessment instruments. It is still mainly left to the discretion of the policy analysts and those who determine the departmental implementation environment for GBA+ to integrate the individual steps as well as the findings into the overall assessment framework and recommendations.

At present there still is no integrated policy analysis tool in place in Canada that prescribes detailed modes and procedures for integration. In particular, asking about the consequences of not including gender consideration in policy options seems very valuable at this point, since it establishes the need to explain why

199 | SWC 2012e.

200 | SWC 2012e.

201 | SWC 2012e.

202 | SWC 2012e.

gender was irrelevant and to demonstrate this irrelevance in an evidence-based fashion. Structured as such, GBA+ and its intersectional gender analysis can no longer be dismissed, and concrete thoughts have to be invested in the “if” and

“how” to incorporate those steps into the final analysis and policy options.

5. Make recommendations: This step refers to the possibility that analysts might find their GBA+ considerations useful in prioritising recommendations. The guide does not give detailed advice on how to mainstream relevant gender+

findings into policy recommendations, nor does it provide ideas on how to pri-oritise in terms of scale and significance, quantity and quality (e.g., are negative gender consequences more important than negative consequences concerning a disability status, because “gender” involves more people? Or is the severity of impact the incremental point? Or both? Or none?).²⁰³

6. Document your process and findings: At this stage GBA+ as an evidence-driven tool demands full access to its empirical base to render the interpretation of the data transparent and accountable. Certain information will guide particular recommendations. This step offers another reflexive moment in this tool and enables policy makers to see the full (or at least a fuller) picture so that they can come their own conclusions on whether to follow the data interpretation or not.

At this point the following question is posed: “if gender considerations do not apply, why not?”²⁰⁴ By asking this question, the tool makes it clear that apparent irrelevance needs to be substantiated with data, explained, and documented.

7. Communicate your initiative: For the Status of Women Canada, communicating the GBA+ findings to either internal or external stakeholders is an important ele-ment. In general the communication of GBA+ results is expected to demonstrate

“due diligence, foster buy-in with a particular stakeholder, or help inform decision making.”²⁰⁵ No reference was made however to gender inclusive, accessible or con-cise language, length or format of the policy analysis report, or issues of gender balance and diversity in symbols and figurative representations.²⁰⁶ As discussed in previous chapters, accessibility is more precisely regulated in the Canadian Ac-cess to Information Act,²⁰⁷ and awareness of the need for gender neutral, non-dis-criminatory representation is high in the Canadian public administration.

203 | A question mostly untouched by current intersectional, multi-strand analysis tools too. To date there exist tool suggestions for determining significance and ranking social impacts in terms of scale and significance of impacts, i.e. in the UK’s equality IA (de Vet et al. 2010, 184). In social IA research also different sorts of impact such as direct or indirect impacts, impacts of first or second order, are to be identified, ranked and mitigated (Barrow 2000; Becker/Vanclay 2003a; Burdge 2004; Esteves/Vanclay 2012).

204 | SWC 2012a.

205 | SWC 2012e.

206 | With regard to language, Gemma Carney also emphasised the data and metaphor fit and the importance only to refer to gender mainstreaming if it actually also mirrored in data in order not to endanger the political equality project (Carney 2008).

207 | R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1.