Donors, Not Policies, Drive Gender Integration in Aid Programs

Donor requirements shape how humanitarian organizations plan aid programs for women far more than internal policies do, according to a new study conducted for SID-Israel, the umbrella organization for the humanitarian aid and international development community in Israel. The finding cuts against the common assumption that organizational culture drives gender integration. Instead, the questions and reporting frameworks donors use carry the greater weight.

The study drew on in-depth interviews with 17 entities, including aid organizations, donors, a government body, a social innovation startup, and a professional network. Despite widespread awareness of gender considerations, the research found that integration remains unsystematic across the sector.

Planning Gaps That Undermine Programs

The study identified a recurring problem: small planning decisions with large consequences. A clinic may run during hours when women cannot attend. A digital service may assume access to smartphones that men in the community primarily hold. An agricultural program may distribute equipment without accounting for women’s lack of access to land or credit.

These details are not peripheral. The study concluded that gender thinking is a question of program effectiveness, not merely representation. Organizations interviewed also showed confusion between gender equality within their own structures and gender integration in actual program design.

Gaps in practical tools compounded the problem. Organizations lacked consistent use of gender analysis, gender-disaggregated data collection, impact measurement, and relevant staff training.

Where Donor Leverage Comes In

Interviewed organizations repeatedly named donor requirements and reporting frameworks as the strongest drivers of gender integration. When donors ask specific questions about gender, organizations respond by building those considerations into their planning.

A key finding is that Jewish and Israeli donors currently place less emphasis on gender compared to much of the international humanitarian system. The study frames this as an opportunity. Donors do not need to increase their total contributions. Changing the questions they ask and the requirements they set can improve aid quality on its own.

That leverage matters because the study arrives as gender integration becomes a central component of international development. In 2021-2022, $60.4 billion, representing 42% of bilateral aid from OECD-DAC countries, went to programs that included gender equality goals. Yet only about 28% of global development funding sets gender equality as a primary goal, not just a secondary consideration.

A Practical Path for Philanthropists

The study’s practical implication is direct. Funders who want better outcomes for women in humanitarian programs have a concrete lever: their own requirements. Asking organizations to conduct gender analysis, collect sex-disaggregated data, and measure gender-specific impact puts those practices on the table.

This connects to a broader pattern visible across sectors. As women leaders consolidate influence in business and finance, questions about accountability mechanisms in philanthropy carry growing weight. Research on persistent gender gaps in funding reinforces why structural requirements matter more than goodwill alone.

The gap between the 42% of aid programs that include gender goals and the 28% that treat gender equality as a primary objective suggests that inclusion without prioritization produces inconsistent results. For donors willing to close that gap, the study suggests the mechanism is less complicated than it may appear: ask better questions, set clearer requirements, and the organizations they fund are likely to follow.

SID-Israel’s research also points to one persistent structural flaw. Many organizations still do not clearly distinguish between internal workplace equity and gender-responsive program design. Until donors require that distinction, the two will continue to be conflated, and program planning will suffer for it.