Experts call for gender-responsive social protection systems
Recent research shows that only about 3% of Uganda’s population is covered by social protection schemes, with social protection spending (excluding healthcare) standing at just 0.7% of GDP.
Norbert Kamugisha the district senior community development officer receives an ID from one of the Social Assistance Grant for Empowerment (SAGE) beneficiaries at Bufunda Division offices. Cabinet abolishes TIN requirement on funds for vulnerable including SAGE. (Courtesy photos)
By Raziah Athman
Journalists @New Vision
________________
In Uganda, thousands of women wake up each day balancing caregiving, informal work, and household survival, but they are not considered by systems designed to protect them.
Despite decades of policy promises, social protection remains fragmented, underfunded, and gender-blind.
Recent research shows that only about 3% of Uganda’s population is covered by social protection schemes, with social protection spending (excluding healthcare) standing at just 0.7% of GDP.
For women, who are more likely to be poor, work in the informal sector, shoulder the burden of unpaid care, and live in hard-to-reach areas, the gaps are even more severe.
It’s against this backdrop that we recently hosted a Vision Podcast on X Spaces titled “Advancing gender-responsive social protection in Uganda.” The conversation brought together voices from research, policy, and advocacy to examine what’s not working, and what must change, to ensure that Uganda’s social protection systems work for the women who need them most.
Older persons in line to receive the SAGE money.
David Lambert Tumwesigye, social protection policy & financing expert, Kirabo Suubi, gender economist at ICRW and Chryspin Afifu, gender research specialist at ICRW, were on the panel.
The conversation was timely and urgent. It coincided with a major research dissemination event held on August 27th by the International Center for Research on Women, Africa (ICRW-Africa), where findings from studies conducted in Uganda and Kenya were presented. The research offers a look at how women interact with social protection programs, and how far we still have to go.
In the discussion, social protection expert Tumwesigye was frank about the structural and financial bottlenecks holding Uganda back. While the country has made progress in developing frameworks, like the National Social Protection Policy of 2015 and the recent 2024 SP Strategy, implementation remains weak.
Funding is not just low; it’s unreliable. Programs are fragmented, accountability is limited, and political will, he said, is often short-lived or reactive rather than sustained, “the main solution to this kind of problem is the design of the programmes, because the design of aprogramme determines whether this programme will be universal or targeted at a specific group of people or demographic, and by implication the aspect of whether it will enjoy political support.”
Tumwesigye urged policymakers to learn from other African countries that have managed to make gender considerations central to their SP systems.
“If you want to be more gender-responsive, basically cover family, you need to be aiming for universal programmes,” but even more critically, he emphasised the need for Uganda to treat social protection as a long-term investment in equity, dignity, and national resilience.
He shared examples of programmes like NSSF, which covers women with formal employment, and SAGE, which covers older persons above the age of 80, in turn leaving out a majority of women.
Suubi was asked about the research and the economic disparities that have been most overlooked in traditional SP systems, especially those affecting women in informal or care work.
She brought forward the economic argument explaining that the very design of traditional SP programs tends to ignore the economic realities of women, especially those working informally or providing unpaid care at home.
Women rely on their limited savings to pay for healthcare, school fees and food, and services often come with hidden fees, forcing “marginalised women have to dig into limited savings or reach out to their informal networks to be able to raise fees as little as sh35,000 for them to contribute for their children to be able to study in school.”
She argued that compensating unpaid care work, expanding inclusive pension coverage, and ensuring that cash transfers are designed with gender in mind could be transformative. If Uganda were to adopt even one gender-transformative intervention, she said, it should be one that recognises and supports the hidden labour women do every day.
Afifu, a gender research specialist at ICRW, shared findings from fieldwork involving focus groups and interviews with women across Uganda.
Many women expressed a high level of awareness about government programs like SAGE, the Parish Development Model (PDM), and universal education. Some spoke of benefits they had received: free maternal care, educational opportunities for their children, or skills training. But for many, these benefits came at a cost, both financial and emotional.
Afifu explained that, “affordability and accessibility of social protection services and programmes, they appreciate, but they are not always available, but even their design of them in terms of equipment, onboarding, there are gaps.”
Some women described being asked to pay facilitation fees or bribes in order to access what are supposed to be free services. One woman said she had to pay nearly half of a one-million-shilling loan from the Parish Development Model just to receive it.
Others spoke of being excluded due to confusing eligibility requirements or a lack of official documentation. Rural women, women with disabilities, and women with caregiving responsibilities faced added barriers—from long travel distances to inaccessible service points.
More troubling still were reports of neglect and abuse in health facilities, or being turned away from public schools that were officially free but still demanded money. These experiences reveal that access is not just about inclusion on paper, it’s about dignity in practice.
Stakeholders interviewed in the research acknowledged these realities. They pointed to poor targeting, weak coordination between agencies, and a lack of data on who the most vulnerable actually are. They also admitted that gender is often an afterthought in policy design and resource allocation.
And yet, both the women interviewed and the policy experts involved shared a common vision: a more equitable, inclusive, and transparent system. A system where eligibility criteria are simplified, where beneficiaries are selected fairly, where communities participate in designing the programs meant to serve them, and where resources are consistently and sustainably funded.
The research calls for a legal framework to bring coherence to Uganda’s SP sector, as well as improved data systems that can track the needs of different populations, especially women. It also recommends scaling up the National Single Registry, improving infrastructure, and adopting multi-sectoral approaches that respond to the complex realities of poverty.
As Uganda looks toward future reforms, one message comes out clearly, women should be central to social protection design and delivery.
As Tumwesigye explained, fragmentation wears thin resources and “it is by design that you cover everybody and you don’t have to worry about gender.”