Unveiling Challenges in the Implementation of Gender Equality in Rwanda: Experiences of Central Actors

Abstract

This article examines the experiences of central actors involved in planning, implementing, and evaluating gender equality programmes in Rwanda. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 38 informants across five districts, the study reveals persistent economic, institutional, and social constraints that limit the translation of Rwanda’s progressive gender policies into transformative outcomes. Theoretically grounded at the nexus of gender equality theory and policy implementation scholarship, the article highlights key challenges including inadequate funding, limited staffing and training, weak policy communication, and insufficient engagement with local cultural contexts. The findings highlight the need for stronger institutional support, sustained resource allocation, clearer mandates, and improved coordination and dissemination mechanisms to enhance the feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability of gender equality initiatives.

Plain Language Summary

Understanding Challenges in the Implementation of Gender Equality Programs in Rwanda

This article focuses on challenges experienced by key people, called Central Actors (CAs), who are working on gender equality programs in Rwanda. Researchers spoke to 38 men and women from different organisations across five districts to understand their experiences from start to finish and during the planning, carrying out, and evaluating the success of these programs. The study found that these Central Actors face quite a few hurdles. Some of the main problems include: not enough money (funding), not enough staff, problems with planning, issues with how policies are designed and shared, poor communication between national and local levels and a lack of attention to local social customs and cultural values. To make these programs more effective, the article suggests that there needs to be more support from institutions, better allocation of resources (money and staff), specific training, and better coordination and communication between all actors involved.

Introduction

There is increasing acknowledgement by the international community that gender equality is crucial for economic growth and poverty reduction (Khanal, 2023). For countries looking to develop, the role of gender must be considered when it comes to achieving economic advancement (Muchiri & Nzisabira, 2020). Both men and women need to be involved in the socio-economic development of society for sustainable change.

Gender equality implies that the perceptions, interests, needs, and priorities of different persons are given equal consideration in planning and decision-making, irrespective of sex (Omoyibo & Ajayi, 2011). Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that ‘everyone is entitled to all rights and freedom without any distinction based on either race, colour, sex, language, religion political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status’ (UN, 2022).

Gender mainstreaming is the globally agreed strategy for achieving gender equality. The UN Economic and Social Council (1997) defines gender mainstreaming as the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies, or programmes in all areas and at all levels, so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. UN Women (2020) emphasises that mainstreaming must permeate the entire policy cycle: formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, rather than being confined to isolated women’s projects.

Scholars highlight that gender mainstreaming is both a technical and political project. Walby (2005) describes it as an essentially contested strategy that simultaneously rebrands feminist politics and reconfigures institutional practice. Moser and Moser (2005) argue that, in many international development institutions, gender mainstreaming has progressed through three stages: adopting the language, formulating policies, and attempting implementation but often stalls at the level of organisational rhetoric and procedures rather than transforming power relations.

Porter and Sweetman (2005) note recurring implementation problems: limited resources, weak accountability, and technocratic approaches. These global debates provide an important conceptual backdrop for analysing the lived experiences of implementers in the global, African and Rwandan contexts.

Efforts to advance gender equality across global, regional, and national governance systems have expanded significantly over the past three decades. However, extensive evidence from multilateral agencies and academic analyses shows that implementers responsible for gender mainstreaming continue to face persistent structural, institutional, and socio-cultural barriers that limit the translation of policy commitments into meaningful practice (Walby, 2005). International studies demonstrate that, even after the Beijing Platform for Action encouraged the establishment of gender units, strategies, and action plans, many organisations continued to engage in superficial or ‘add-on’ gender activities because they lacked adequate funding, institutional authority, and incentives for staff to prioritise gender outcomes (Moser & Moser, 2005; UN Economic and Social Council, 1997; Walby, 2005).

These global challenges are echoed in African regional frameworks such as the African Union Gender Policy and the African Women’s Decade, where assessments reveal ongoing constraints in financing, coordination mechanisms, and enforcement capacity (African Union Commission, 2011).

Across Eastern and Southern Africa, evidence further shows that national gender machineries, gender focal persons (GFPs), and mainstreaming mechanisms frequently operate with weak mandates, limited technical expertise, and heavy dependence on donor funding, all of which restrict their ability to influence planning and budgeting processes (Tadesse & Daniel, 2010; Vyas-Doorgapersad & Kinoti, 2015).

Studies in Kenya, South Africa, Ghana, Malawi, and other contexts highlight additional institutional barriers including unclear job descriptions, insufficient senior-level support, fragmented coordination structures, and weak accountability systems (Madsen et al., 2021). These dynamics illustrate the broader implementation gap that continues to hinder progress in gender equality across the continent.

The government of Rwanda (GoR) is implementing gender policies and gender equality-related programmes to boost its democratic credentials and strengthen collaboration with international partners (Gutiérrez Villaverde, 2023). Following its National Constitution which enshrines principles of gender equality and prohibits discrimination, the GoR integrated gender considerations into major national planning documents, including Vision 2020, the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategies (EDPRS I & II), and the National Strategy for Transformation (NST1) (Arostegui, 2013; Debusscher & Ansoms, 2013; MIGEPROF, 2021; Niyonzima & Bayu, 2023).

The GoR has therefore appointed GFPs to play a significant role in mainstreaming gender perspectives across various government and civil society organisations (Gutiérrez Villaverde, 2023; Mangheni et al., 2021). GFPs are established in various line ministries and institutions, tasked with coordinating gender issues and advocating for gender equality within their respective areas of operation (MIGEPROF, 2017).

The GoR also works closely with the private sector, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) to ensure gender equality is mainstreamed in all their activities and plans (MIGEPROF, 2021). NGOs and CBOs have been commended for their role and collaborating with the GoR in the implementation of gender equality programmes (MIGEPROF, 2021; Mwambari, 2017).

All the persons involved in gender equality promotion from these different institutions (government, NGOs, and CBOs) are in this article referred to as central actors (CA), as they play a central role in mainstreaming gender within organisational policies, programmes, and practices (Gutiérrez Villaverde, 2023; Mangheni et al., 2021).

Despite this enabling environment, emerging evidence shows that CA in Rwanda face challenges like those observed globally and regionally. Their responsibilities typically include integrating gender in policy design, legislative development, programme planning, and monitoring and evaluation (Mangheni et al., 2021; UNDP, 2018). However, studies indicate inconsistencies in how these roles are understood and operationalised across institutions, leading to informal practices, unclear expectations, and weak internalization of gender equality principles (Mangheni et al., 2021).

Moreover, limited resources, insufficient technical capacity, institutional constraints, and gaps between national frameworks and local realities continue to hinder effective implementation (Chiche, 2022; Debusscher & Ansoms, 2013; Haguruka, 2021; MIGEPROF, 2021). These findings echo continental patterns where gender units are marginalised within organisational hierarchies and lack authority to drive transformative change.

Social and cultural norms further influence the ability of CA to advance gender equality. In many African contexts, gender implementers must contend with patriarchal expectations, community resistance, and fears of backlash when promoting shifts in power relations (Wendoh & Wallace, 2005).

Rwanda continues to grapple with deeply embedded norms that shape household decision-making, labour participation, and experiences of gender-based violence (UN Women, 2023). Key national policy documents acknowledge these persistent gaps and call for strengthened accountability mechanisms, enhanced engagement of men and boys, and more robust capacities for gender mainstreaming across sectors (MIGEPROF, 2021; UNDP Rwanda, 2013). Nevertheless, CA responsible for implementing gender mainstreaming still face economic, organisational, and socio-cultural constraints that may limit the successful implementation of gender equality programmes (Debusscher & Ansoms, 2013).

A few empirical studies have examined the experiences of CA who translate policy into practice in Rwanda. Limited attention has been given to understanding the day-to-day challenges they encounter, the strategies they use to overcome these barriers, and the implications these experiences hold for improving gender equality outcomes. This gap in empirical evidence limits a nuanced understanding of the practical challenges and adaptive strategies involved in advancing gender equality. Therefore, this article seeks to address this gap for strengthening policy implementation and enhancing the implementation of gender equality initiatives in Rwanda.

Aim and Research Questions

This article aims to examine the experiences of central actors who are designed to contribute to the planning, implementation, and evaluation of gender equality programmes in Rwanda.

The research is guided by two central questions:

1. What challenges do central actors encounter during the implementation of gender equality activities?

2. How do central actors navigate and respond to those challenges in their institutional environments?

Theoretical Framework on Gender Equality Implementation

The present study is grounded at the intersection of gender equality theory and policy implementation scholarship, with particular attention to the economic, institutional, and social constraints that shape CA’s work.

Gender Equality and Feminist Institutionalism

Since the Beijing Platform for Action, gender mainstreaming has become the dominant global strategy to achieve gender equality, understood as the systematic integration of gender perspectives into all stages of policy and programming (Moser & Moser, 2005; Walby, 2005).

Feminist institutionalism conceptualises how gender is embedded in formal rules, informal norms, and organisational practices (Mackay et al., 2010). From this perspective, institutions are not gender-neutral arenas where policies are simply implemented; they are gendered structures that shape what is considered legitimate knowledge, whose voices matter, and how resources are allocated. This lens is particularly relevant for understanding gender equality implementation in Rwanda, where progressive constitutional and policy frameworks coexist with persistent patriarchal norms and unequal power relations (Uvuza, 2014).

Together, gender mainstreaming and feminist institutionalism point to three key dimensions shaping CA’s work: economic constraints that determine how resources reflect gendered priorities; institutional constraints embedded in rules, structures, and accountability systems; and social constraints rooted in norms and everyday power relations that influence how gender policies are received and enacted. These dimensions align closely with implementation theory, which emphasises that successful implementation depends on design, resources, organisational capacity, and context (Hill, 2013; Woolsey & Biebel, 2007).

Policy Implementation Theory and Gender Equality

Policy implementation research provides a framework for analysing why well-designed gender equality policies do not always produce anticipated results. Woolsey and Biebel (2007) identify key considerations for successful implementation: policy design, administrative arrangements, staffing, training, and funding. Their work stresses the importance of tracking day-to-day operational issues such as whether implementers have adequate skills, time, and financial support to understand implementation success or failure.

Damschroder et al. (2009) conceptualise the implementation framework as a dynamic social process shaped by characteristics of the intervention; inner setting (organisational culture, implementation climate, leadership); outer setting (policy environment, incentives); characteristics of individuals (knowledge, beliefs, self-efficacy), and implementation processes (planning, engaging, executing, reflecting, and evaluating). This framework explicitly underlines the importance of culture, implementation climate, knowledge, and beliefs about the intervention, and ongoing monitoring of barriers and enablers (Bhattacharya et al., 2009; Damschroder et al., 2009).

Proctor et al. (2011) complement these perspectives by distinguishing between implementation outcomes (e.g. acceptability, fidelity, penetration, sustainability) and service or population outcomes. They argue that implementation outcomes are key intermediate indicators of whether a policy or intervention is being successfully embedded in practice.

Classic implementation studies also inform this analysis. Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) highlight the importance of policy clarity, causal theory, and the allocation of resources and authority, while Lipsky’s (2010) concept of street-level bureaucracy draws attention to the discretionary power of frontline workers, who interpret and reshape policies in everyday interactions with citizens.

When applied to gender equality, these insights suggest that CA operate within multi-layered systems where economic, institutional, and social factors interact to shape their capacity to translate formal commitments into lived change. This study conceptualises gender equality implementation in Rwanda as a multi-level social process shaped by economic, institutional, and social constraints. It builds on Woolsey and Biebel’s (2007) emphasis on design, administration, staffing, training, and funding; on Damschroder et al.’s (2009) and Bhattacharya et al.’s (2009) accounts of context and process; on Proctor et al.’s (2011) focus on implementation outcomes; and Bacchi’s (2009) insight into the cultural underpinnings of problem representations.

The analytical focus on the experiences of CA work, on how they navigate constraints, and exercise agency within gendered institutions allows the study to contribute to both debates on gender equality and policy implementation literature. In doing so, it moves beyond assessments of Rwanda’s formal gender equality architecture to examine the dynamics and challenges CA go through to translate and transform policies in practice.

Methodology

This methodology section describes a qualitative study conducted as part of a PhD project. The study employed interviews with informants from diverse institutions in selected Rwandan districts to examine challenges in the implementation of gender equality.

Research Design and Study Area

This study adopts a qualitative research design to explore how CA in Rwanda navigate economic, institutional, and social constraints in the implementation of gender equality initiatives. Qualitative inquiry is particularly suited to examining processes, interpretations, and lived experiences embedded within gendered institutional environments (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Mackay et al., 2010).

Five districts out of Rwanda’s 30 were purposively selected based on two criteria: (a) spatial context, whether the district was predominantly rural or urban and (b) the presence of diverse gender equality programmes implemented by governmental bodies, NGOs, and CBOs. One district was chosen from each province (North, South, East, and West) and one from the City of Kigali to ensure geographic and contextual diversity. One district in the City of Kigali was included for its concentration of national institutions and its diverse, employment seeking population. A rural district in the Eastern Province was selected for its active gender and family focused CBO and its culturally rooted, community-led gender equality initiatives recognised as potential national models. An urban district in the Northern Province was chosen because it hosts several NGOs working on gender and family issues, has a history of high polygamy rates (Bayisenge, 2015), and has been a site for successful pilot interventions promoting gender equality. A mixed rural-urban district in the Western Province was selected due to its cross-border trade where women are notably active, and the presence of a CBO focused on family strengthening and gender relations. Finally, a rapidly urbanising Southern Province district, one of Rwanda’s three designated satellite cities, was included for its fast population growth and expanding commercial activity involving both men and women.

These criteria enabled exploration of how different socio-spatial environments shape the implementation of gender equality initiatives.

Sampling and Research Informants

Informants were selected using purposive sampling, targeted at individuals engaged in gender equality programming through their professional or voluntary roles. Eligible informants included staff of governmental institutions, employees of NGOs, and volunteers of CBOs working in gender and family protection.

Ethical approval preceded recruitment. District mayors were contacted via email for access approval, after which meetings were held with district officials who appointed gatekeepers to facilitate recruitment. Informants were approached between June and August 2022, informed of the study aims, and provided with an information sheet. Participation was voluntary, and individuals declining participation were replaced in consultation with district gatekeepers.

A total of 38 informants were interviewed following data saturation principles (Creswell, 2023): 18 from government (9 males and 9 females), 13 from NGOs (6 males and 7 females), and 7 from CBOs (2 males and 5 females), with 4 to 20 years of experience. This diverse sample ensured representation across institutional levels and gendered perspectives in implementation practice.

The summarised information about the informants (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Informants by Gender, Educational Attainment, and Institutional Affiliation.

Gender education	Government		NGOs		CBOs		Total
	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men
Primary	–	–	–	–	1	2	3
Post-primary	–	–	–	–	3	–	3
Undergraduate	7	6	4	1	1	–	19
Postgraduate	2	3	3	5	–	–	13
Sub-total	9	9	7	6	5	2
Total	18		13		7		38

Table 2.

Rural and Urban Distribution of Informants.

Gender setting	Government		NGOs		CBOs
	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men
Urban	7	3	4		2	0
Rural	2	6	3		3	2
Urban and rural				6

Data Collection

This qualitative study explored the experiences and challenges of CA in implementing gender equality in Rwanda. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews designed to elicit rich descriptions of informants’ experiences and perceptions. Conducting interviews was chosen since this method offers the opportunity to informants to openly share their views, thoughts, and experiences in relation to the research (Braun & Clarke, 2013). The interview guide comprised open-ended questions aligned with the study’s aim, allowing flexibility to probe emerging issues. Although interviews were planned as individual sessions, two organisations opted for paired interviews to support informants’ comfort and expression.

Interviews began with background questions and then moved to substantive topics, with the interviewer ensuring full coverage of the interview guide. Probing questions were used to capture unexpected but relevant insights. Interviews were conducted mainly in Kinyarwanda, with one conducted in English, between August and September 2022. The duration ranged from 40 to 90 minutes. Fieldnotes were recorded to complement interview data.

Analytical Framework

This study used Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis: familiarisation, initial coding, theme searching, reviewing, defining, and producing the analysis, including the interpretation of results and write up by relating back to the research aim, objectives, and theoretical framework. Fieldnotes were integrated into the analysis to strengthen interpretation and contextual understanding.

Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and all the authors participated in familiarisation with the data through reading and re-reading transcriptions and field notes. The transcripts were imported into NVivo 14 for systematic coding and organisation. Only data relevant to the study’s aims were retained. Initial codes were generated and refined across the dataset, then, clustered into potential themes and subthemes reflective of the research questions and theoretical framework. The themes were reviewed and validated to ensure alignment with the data. The themes were merged into a coherent narrative supported by selected quotations, which were translated into English. While the analysis drew on the full dataset, only excerpts that clearly illustrate the core themes emerging across informants’ accounts are presented in the article.

Consistent with qualitative research principles, emphasis was placed on depth and meaning rather than numerical representation (Braun & Clarke, 2013).

The analytical framework guiding this study draws from gender mainstreaming theory, feminist institutionalism, and policy implementation scholarship. These perspectives structure both the design of the interview guide and the coding and interpretation of empirical data.

Gender mainstreaming theory emphasises the systematic integration of gender perspectives in all policy processes (Moser & Moser, 2005; Walby, 2005). Feminist institutionalism highlights how gendered norms and power relations are embedded within organisational structures, shaping both formal and informal practices (Mackay et al., 2010). These theoretical lenses informed questions, probing how CA perceive institutional norms, authority structures, and gender dynamics within their organisations and communities.

Policy implementation theory, including the work of Woolsey and Biebel (2007), Damschroder et al. (2009), and Proctor et al. (2011), foregrounds the importance of resources, organisational climate, capacities, and implementation processes. These insights guided the interviews, focusing on staffing, funding, training, administrative arrangements, and day-to-day operational challenges faced by CA.

During analysis, the coding schema was explicitly structured around the three dimensions derived from the theoretical framework: economic, institutional, and social constraints. Themes were identified by examining how these constraints manifested in CA’s narratives and how CA exercised agency in navigating them. The integration of feminist institutionalism with implementation theory enabled interpretation of not only what barriers existed but also how gendered norms and power relations shaped the processes of implementation.

Overall, the analytical framework ensured that the methodology generated data capable of answering the study’s theoretical questions. By anchoring data collection and analysis in these conceptual traditions, the study provides a nuanced examination of the multi-level processes through which gender equality policies are translated into practice within Rwanda’s institutional landscape.

Ethical Considerations

This research prioritised ethical conduct by obtaining all necessary approvals from the University and relevant district authorities. Potential participants were then contacted, informed about the study and their rights, and provided with an information sheet detailing confidentiality. Challenges encountered included missed appointments, informants declining to be recorded, and potential third-party influence during one interview. Researchers addressed these by sending reminders, conducting another interview without the third party, and taking detailed notes to maintain data accuracy. While most informants were engaged, some responses were not directly relevant to the research aim. Interestingly, informants were often more candid when not being recorded, which was mitigated through meticulous notetaking of the additional information in a field notebook.

Results

The results revealed that CA face various challenges that impact the outcomes of their work and prevent them from achieving intended outcomes, especially fostering change around gender equality norms in the community. The findings were organised around four interrelated themes: (a) funding of the gender equality sector, (b) staffing, (c) gender policy design, communication, and dissemination, and (d) social context and cultural values.

Funding of Gender Equality Sector

Some informants disclosed challenges related to allocation of resources for gender equality-related activities, which are sometimes undervalued compared to other activities.

One informant said:

There is a funding challenge, and some local government leaders do not understand our gender equality work. They often question why we focus on this instead of issues like health insurance for the poor or building toilets and kitchens (…). As a result, they continue to wonder why gender equality is a priority and do not place importance on it. ¹

The informants highlight a challenge encountered by CA within NGOs: certain local leaders tend to prioritise activities with more tangible outcomes over ‘soft’ interventions such as education on gender equality, despite the latter serving as a foundational basis for other initiatives. The informants also disclosed that NGOs face challenges when local government staff want NGOs to fund government gender-related activities, despite the NGOs having already planned and budgeted for their own activities.

Informants identified inadequate funding and weak planning, particularly in the prioritisation of gender equality as key constraints. They noted that when resources are scarce, gender-related concerns are often deprioritised, thereby hindering the effective implementation of gender-focused initiatives. This underscores persistent challenges in agenda-setting processes.

One informant explained:

The government needs to ensure proper funding. This is not just a problem for the gender unit but a broader issue: ministries create plans for districts without allocating sufficient resources while districts are the ones to execute gender related activities. Although gender equality is a core pillar of development, it remains underfunded. Even large investments in sectors like agriculture risk being wasted when beneficiaries [spouses] are in conflict. (…) We keep reminding high level authorities that successful gender equality work requires adequate funding and strong monitoring and evaluation strategies. ²

The informants expressed concern that insufficient funding substantially limits the effective implementation of gender-related activities. In particular, the lack of dedicated financial resources undermines CA’s capacity to plan and execute meaningful programmes and initiatives aimed at advancing gender equality.

Informants further disclosed the challenge of decentralisation of funding encountered at the local government level where implementation work is done directly within the community:

Budgeting at the local government level is problematic. We claim to conduct mobilisation activities, but limited budgets reduce them to very short sessions. You cannot expect meaningful learning from a two-hour training because you have not budgeted for lunch or transport fees for participants and expect that participants have gained enough knowledge and skills to change their attitudes and behaviours. So, due to financial constraints, trainings are poorly planned, yet real change requires proper investment. ³

Informants highlight a critical challenge faced by CA, namely budget constraints that adversely affect the implementation of their work.

While several informants emphasised insufficient funding, another drew attention to the problem of overfunding and stated: ‘Although large budgets are allocated to gender equality and women’s empowerment, the outcomes remain limited because the approaches used are not gender transformative’. ⁴

Informants underlined the importance of comprehensive planning and budgeting to ensure that activities yield tangible outcomes, noting that implementation without these elements is likely to be ineffective. They emphasised that effective planning extends beyond policy articulation to include a detailed roadmap outlining how implementation of gender equality should be carried.

Staffing

Another critical dimension of implementation gender equality stressed by informants concerns staffing, including competence, recruitment, motivation, and retention. Informants indicated that some personnel responsible for implementing gender equality initiatives lack the necessary knowhow and would benefit from additional guidance and capacity-building support:

Eehh … Most misunderstanding occurs in rural areas, where people have not fully grasped the concept [of gender equality] partly because staff training on gender equality may lack the proper understanding to convey the government’s intended message and objectives. ⁵

Informants underline a significant challenge stemming from the limited knowledge of staff responsible for educating communities about gender equality, noting the need for further training to adequately equip them for this role.

Furthermore, informants reported challenges related to staff turnover caused by constant changes in local government institutions, resulting in a lack of/poor continuity in gender equality implementation work and the insufficient training provided to newly recruited personnel:

Constant turnover of local leaders creates challenges: those familiar with the programme are replaced by new staff who may lack information, training, or interest in gender equality. They often bring their own priorities, causing previous efforts to stall. Heavy workloads and lack of incentives further reduce their motivation to engage [with gender equality initiatives]. ⁶

Informants underscored how frequent turnover, lack of motivation and incentives disrupt continuity in gender equality initiatives by creating gaps in knowledge and commitment. In some cases, CA are tasked with implementing gender equality as an additional responsibility alongside their primary organisational roles, a practice that can reduce motivation and impede sustained engagement.

Another challenge concerns the personnel recruited to carry out the work and the conditions under which they operate. One of the informants described her work within the CBO:

I have limited time for community mobilisation because the work is unpaid and I must provide for my family. I reserve one day a week for volunteer activities. Some of the collaborators provide a small amount of compensation for the time spent and commitment, which is helpful for my family. (…) But without a salary, I cannot commit to visiting over two hundred families while I also need to work to earn a living. ⁷

Informants describe similar situations of those who volunteer for CBOs in the local government. Although they are committed to their work, they cannot put in the necessary time without a salary. They are asked to work for free, yet they need to earn money.

Gender Policy Design, Communication, and Dissemination

Informants also shared their concerns about gender policy design and the channels of information sharing among the different sections of the population. According to some, the concept of gender equality, as well as the provisions and concepts within policy, were poorly explained, leading to misinterpretation by citizens.

One informant stated: ‘Gender equality policy was not clearly explained to those teaching it, leading to a misconception that it focuses only on women. Some CA cannot properly explain the concept’. ⁸

The informants reflect on that some CA lacked sufficient understanding of gender equality, which constrained their capacity to effectively inform and educate the community. Inadequate knowledge limited their ability to clearly explain the focus on women and the objectives of gender equality initiatives.

Confronted with insufficient knowledge, some CA disseminated misleading information, which in turn shaped how men, and subsequently women interpreted the concept. One informant stated:

Some CA lacked enough understanding of women’s empowerment and how to explain it. Their messages were misinterpreted by some women, whose behaviour such as staying out late and leaving childcare to husbands led men to feel excluded and view gender equality negatively, even believing the government was turning women against them [men], which is not the case. ⁹

Informants’ accounts demonstrate that in some communities, CA’s messages on gender equality were misunderstood and misinterpreted, leading to men’s frustration. Informants disclose that such misinterpretations hinder implementation efforts and represent a discouraging outcome for CA who work diligently to promote change within their communities.

Another informant shared a statement related to how change is perceived in the community:

Challenges arose because people adapt to change differently. Emphasis on empowering women, who had long faced discrimination, made some men feel left behind or threatened, leading to resistance and low participation. However, gradual change is being observed. ¹⁰

The informants describe that the low participation of men in community meetings and gender equality educational activities affects the implementation efforts of gender equality. Gender equality is described and perceived as ‘a women’s thing’, and this has posed a significant challenge to implementation efforts. This also suggests shortcomings in how information about the intended change was communicated.

Another challenge that hinders proper monitoring and evaluation of gender equality outcomes is quantification of outcomes. One informant stated:

Are numbers enough? No. Even during CHOGM [Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meeting in Rwanda] there was a theme entitled ‘Beyond numbers’, There is a need to go beyond numbers and ask what else? What does it mean to have a certain percentage of women in parliament? Does that mean that gender equality is achieved? Having a high percentage of women in parliament does not guarantee gender equality if they lack a real understanding of it. The focus must be on the quality of outcomes. Both men and women, not only women must be educated to promote gender equality beyond numerical representation, even though numbers remain a useful indicator. ¹¹

The informants disclose that progress with gender equality is better assessed through the quality of social change, specifically how men and women understand and interpret gender equality, rather than by counting women in decision making roles. Gender equality concerns both sexes, education and sensitisation should continue to target men, women, boys, and girls.

Another informant’s reflection corroborated the challenge outlined above: ‘In Rwanda, many gender-related policies exist across sectors in agriculture, in health, in education, but tangible outcomes are lacking. Too often the focus is on numbers rather than transformative actions that create equal rights, opportunities, and chances’. ¹²

Informants indicated that assessing achievement solely through numerical indicators or legal documents does not accurately reflect gender equality transformative outcomes.

Informants further disclosed a poor uptake and, in some cases, a lack of information on gender-related programmes and activities by staff running gender equality-related activities. The information shortage and lack of dissemination mechanisms point to a lack of/poor structure and guidance from the administration in charge of overseeing the implementation work.

One informant disclosed: ‘I don’t know if I have the right information, I heard that there is a new gender policy. I don’t know if it’s true or not! A policy of 2020 maybe! I am not aware of that!’ ¹³

Another informant disclosed almost the same problem of not being familiar with the policy: ‘I have not yet had time to read the policy, but I saved it on my laptop. I downloaded it once when I needed to reference some of the provisions in a concept note I was working on. But to tell you the truth, I have not read it’. ¹⁴

The informants describe that there is limited familiarity with or updates on the new gender policy, despite its role as a guiding framework. This suggests that some CA operate without reference to the policy, pointing to shortcomings in information dissemination from central government or limited capacity at the local level to access updated policy information.

To corroborate the above statement, another informant revealed:

The new National Gender Policy is available on the MIGEPROF website, but implementation is limited because it has not been fully disseminated. (…) Mobilisation is still ongoing. (…) The new policy differs significantly from the old one, including its emphasis on working with men. ¹⁵

Informants noted that inadequate communication of the policy, along with a slow dissemination process, poses a significant challenge to its implementation.

Social Context and Cultural Values

Informants expressed additional concerns regarding perceived tensions between traditional cultural values and emerging social constructions of gender roles. They suggested that these new values may negatively affect social dynamics in Rwanda.

One informant revealed: ‘Some people have drifted from traditional Rwandan values without fully adopting Western ones, creating challenges for implementing gender equality, as certain provisions may not align with local cultural norms’. ¹⁶

The informants describe that contemporary gender equality provisions may conflict with Rwandan cultural and family values. Thus, the policy is unlikely to achieve its intended goals if its acceptability remains low or if communities do not fully understand or support it.

Another similar reflection was shared:

The promotion of gender equality has brought in external values tied to aid with conditionality, democracy, and human rights. Because these have not been adapted to fit the Rwandan context, they have sometimes conflicted with and negatively affected local cultural norms. Clear mechanisms to harmonise Western and Rwandan cultural values are lacking. ¹⁷

Informants further observed that emerging values, lifestyles, and behavioural norms often influenced by external contexts are not always compatible with Rwandan realities or cultural values.

The cultural differences across Rwanda’s various regions must be recognised, as rural and urban areas experience distinct realities that influence implementation efforts.

One informant revealed: ‘… However, there is a slight difference between women in rural and urban areas. Some women in rural areas adopt new, unsafe behaviours, especially copying men’s harmful behaviours, such as going to bars, as a sign of equality’. ¹⁸

Informants’ statements indicate that gender equality provisions were unclear from the outset, particularly regarding expected behaviours for women. The informants describe that in rural contexts, lower levels of education and limited access to information necessitate more context-specific explanations, as these factors may slow changes in understanding, attitudes, and behaviour.

Discussion

This study examined the experiences of implementers, here referred to as central actors (CA) in translating Rwanda’s gender equality framework into practice. The discussion is organised around four interrelated themes from the results: (a) funding of the gender equality sector, (b) staffing, (c) gender policy design, communication, and dissemination, and (d) social context and cultural values. Together, these themes map onto the analytical dimensions of economic, institutional, and social constraints identified in the literature review and theoretical framework, and they illustrate how gender equality implementation is shaped by both gendered institutions and broader implementation dynamics (Bacchi, 2009; Damschroder et al., 2009; Mackay et al., 2010; Walby, 2005; Woolsey & Biebel, 2007).

Economic Constraints: Funding of the Gender Equality Sector

Research consistently shows that gender policies are often not matched with adequate resources, resulting in underfunded gender units, symbolic interventions, and reliance on external donors (Moser & Moser, 2005; Tadesse & Daniel, 2010). Implementation scholarship similarly emphasises that without sufficient funding for staffing, training, and monitoring, policies remain largely aspirational (Proctor et al., 2011; Woolsey & Biebel, 2007).

In Rwanda, although gender-responsive budgeting frameworks are in place, gaps persist between policy commitments and actual allocations, particularly at decentralised levels. The experiences of CA reflect these constraints, including competing priorities, limited dedicated budget lines, and short-term project cycles. These challenges mirror feminist critiques of unequal resource distribution and implementation theories that stress the importance of financial feasibility and planning (Damschroder et al., 2009; Hill, 2013). Gender equality work is frequently underfunded or deprioritised, with some local authorities expecting NGOs to finance government-led gender activities, consistent with evidence that gender initiatives are often the first to be cut under budget pressure (Mangheni et al., 2021; Sikhosana & Nzewi, 2019; Wendoh & Wallace, 2005).

From an implementation perspective, the lack of integration of gender activities into routine budget cycles limits CA’s capacity to carry out essential tasks such as community mobilisation, training, and monitoring. Logistical challenges, including transport and operational costs, echo findings from other studies on local-level barriers to gender policy implementation (Debusscher & Ansoms, 2013; Mangheni et al., 2021). These constraints also reveal tensions between donor-supported and domestically funded initiatives: while donor financing has advanced gender equality efforts, reliance on external funding raises concerns about sustainability and long-term institutionalisation (Moser & Moser, 2005; Tadesse & Daniel, 2010). From a gender-budgeting perspective, limited sustained domestic investment suggests that gender equality has yet to be fully embedded as a core state priority (Elson, 1998).

Overall, the findings indicate that economic constraints remain a central barrier to effective gender policy implementation. Inadequate and unstable resources undermine the fidelity, reach, and sustainability of gender equality interventions, constraining CA’s ability to advance the transformative goals of Rwanda’s gender policies (Proctor et al., 2011).

Institutional Constraints: Staffing, Gender Policy Design, Communication, and Dissemination

Feminist institutionalism emphasises that organisational structures and informal practices are often gendered, positioning gender units at the margins of decision-making and limiting their influence over planning and budgeting (Lombardo & Meier, 2006; Mackay et al., 2010; Tadesse & Daniel, 2010). Implementation scholarship similarly highlights the importance of organisational design, administrative capacity, clear authority structures, and leadership engagement for effective policy delivery (Damschroder et al., 2009; Hill, 2013; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1983; Proctor et al., 2011).

In Rwanda, national gender institutions coexist with decentralised bodies that display uneven capacity and commitment, requiring CA to navigate hierarchical systems, coordination demands, and ambiguous mandates. Staffing constraints emerged as a central institutional challenge. This reflects broader findings that gender focal persons frequently undertake gender responsibilities as secondary tasks within weak accountability structures (Mangheni et al., 2021; Tadesse & Daniel, 2010). Consistent with implementation theory, limited staffing, expertise, and training hinder effective policy delivery, while gaps in conceptual understanding reduce CA’s ability to communicate gender policies and engage communities (Damschroder et al., 2009; Wendoh & Wallace, 2005; Woolsey & Biebel, 2007).

Staff turnover or change in positions and reliance on volunteers further undermine continuity, leaving gender initiatives dependent on individual commitment rather than embedded institutional arrangements. From a feminist institutionalist perspective, this underscores the precarious positioning of gender work within organisations, despite Rwanda’s policy framework (Lombardo & Meier, 2006; Mackay et al., 2010). As a result, CA face constraints in performing their roles effectively as street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 2010).

Challenges were also evident in policy conceptualisation and communication, reflecting critiques that gender policy implementation often prioritises numerical targets over deeper transformations of norms and power relations (Debusscher & Ansoms, 2013; Mangheni et al., 2021). As Bacchi (2009) and Proctor et al. (2011) argue, framing gender inequality primarily as a numerical problem risk reinforcing technocratic approaches and limiting the acceptability and appropriateness of interventions. Quantitative indicators inadequately capture changes in gender relations, which calls for more qualitative, gender-sensitive monitoring (Gender Equity Unit, 2023; Moser & Moser, 2005).

Finally, limited awareness of the revised National Gender Policy points to gaps in dissemination and access. Implementation research shows that weak communication and unclear guidelines undermine policy fidelity and feasibility, a challenge observed across African contexts (Damschroder et al., 2009; Proctor et al., 2011; UNFCCC, 2023). Overall, the findings highlight that conceptual clarity, effective dissemination, and stronger institutional capacity are critical for translating gender policy commitments into meaningful change on the ground (GMO, 2011; MIGEPROF, 2017, 2021).

Social Constraints: Social Context and Cultural Values

Social and cultural norms play a central role in shaping gender policy implementation. Feminist policy analysis highlights that gender policies are embedded problem representations that reflect broader beliefs about gender roles, family, and authority (Bacchi, 2009); while implementation theory emphasises that personal values, social identities, and contextual norms influence how frontline actors interpret and apply policy (Damschroder et al., 2009; Lipsky, 2010).

In Rwanda, these norms help explain the limits of transformative change. Cultural beliefs, misunderstandings of gender equality, and community resistance, especially in rural areas complicated implementation. Furthermore, translating core gender concepts into locally meaningful terms is essential for enhancing community understanding and acceptance. These findings align with prior research showing that traditional norms are more entrenched in rural settings and that acceptance of gender initiatives varies by education and access to resources (Wendoh & Wallace, 2005). They also reflect implementation frameworks that identify culturally incongruent policies as prone to low acceptability and resistance (Damschroder et al., 2009; Proctor et al., 2011).

Tensions linked to donor-driven gender agendas are highlighted. Donor conditions sometimes required the inclusion of gender components without sufficient contextual analysis or capacity support, leading to symbolic compliance rather than substantive change. This supports feminist institutionalist critiques that technocratic approaches to gender mainstreaming can overlook local norms and power relations (Mackay et al., 2010; Tadesse & Daniel, 2010).

Overall, the findings reaffirm that gender equality implementation is a deeply social process. Its effectiveness depends not only on institutional and economic resources but also on the extent to which policies engage constructively with local beliefs and everyday practices, balancing challenges to inequality with sensitivity to cultural context (Bacchi, 2009; Damschroder et al., 2009).

Conclusion

This study explored the experiences of central actors implementing gender equality programmes across five Rwandan districts.

Guided by gender mainstreaming theory, feminist institutionalism, and implementation scholarship, the study demonstrates how gender work is shaped by gendered institutional structures, resource limitations, and local norms. Translating formal commitments into sustained, transformative change remains difficult. The economic, institutional, and social constraints described by CA reflect broader critiques that numerical gains, legal reforms, and women’s representation do not necessarily shift underlying gender relations (Chiche, 2022; Debusscher & Ansoms, 2013; Niyonzima & Bayu, 2023). Meaningful progress depends on tangible changes in everyday practices and power dynamics (Debusscher & Ansoms, 2013).

Gender responsibilities often remain marginal within organisations (Lombardo & Meier, 2006; Mackay et al., 2010) and successful implementation requires adequate planning, staffing, funding, communication, and contextual adaptation (Damschroder et al., 2009; Hill, 2013; Proctor et al., 2011; Woolsey & Biebel, 2007). The emphasis on acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability further underscores the need to consider implementation outcomes alongside policy design (Proctor et al., 2011).

Methodologically, the qualitative design and multi-district sampling provide valuable insight into the daily realities of CA, addressing a gap in research that has tended to focus on Rwanda’s national gender architecture rather than practical implementation.

Study limitations relate to sample size, purposive recruitment, and reliance on self-reported data, suggesting the need for future work incorporating observations, document analysis, and community perspectives. Further research should examine institutional variation, track implementation over time, assess gender-transformative approaches, and explore how donor priorities intersect with domestic agendas. It is suggested that strengthening gender equality outcomes in Rwanda will require increased domestic funding, clearer mandates and training for CA, improved policy communication and monitoring, and more deliberate engagement with cultural contexts. Addressing these multi-level constraints is essential for bridging the gap between Rwanda’s policy and the realities of CA’s work.