HOW DO COMMUNITY-BASEDLEGAL PROGRAMS WORK?

Understanding the Process and Benefits

of a Pilot Program to Advance Womens

Property Rights in Uganda

Krista JacobsMeredith SaggersSophie Namy

FundersAn Anonymous donor

Evaluation Partnerscentre for Basic Researchdr. Rose namara

Implementing PartnersUganda land Allianceluwero land Rights Activists Association

The International center for Research on women(IcRw) gratefully acknowledges the partnership ofcentre for Basic Research and Uganda land Alliance,especially dr. simon Rutabajuuka, dr. Ronald wesonga,mr. John mwebe, and ms. Hilda Akabwai.

special thanks to the community members who participated in the evaluation research.

several colleagues at IcRw provided tremendous inputduring the design and evaluation of the program: mary ellsberg, gwennan Hollingworth, Rekha mehra,Reshma trasi, ellen weiss, and sandy won. we also thank our editor, margo Young.

2011 International center for Research on women(IcRw). Portions of this report may be reproducedwithout express permission from but with acknowledgment to IcRw.cover photo by david snyderdesign: Barbieri and green

Acknowledgements

HOW DO COMMUNITY-BASED LEGAL PROGRAMS WORK?

Understanding the Process and Benefits

of a Pilot Program to Advance Womens

Property Rights in Uganda

Krista JacobsMeredith SaggersSophie Namy

over a nine-month period in 2009-2010, the International center forResearch on women (IcRw) andthe Uganda land Alliance (UlA)implemented and evaluated a pilotprogram in luwero district tostrengthen womens property rights.The community-based gender andProperty Rights program trained 20community rights workers of theluwero land Rights Activists As-sociation (llRAA) to provide legalcounseling for individual cases andconduct sensitization events to raiseawareness about womens propertyrights. IcRw created a monitoringsystem to document and learn fromrights workers activities. UlA pro-vided technical and organizationalsupport to llRAA rights workersand led program implementation.This evaluation report uses datafrom quantitative surveys; qualita-tive interviews with rights workers,their clients, and local leaders; andthe monitoring system.

while the report pertains specificallyto this pilot effort, the lessons can beapplied to others seeking to start orexpand community legal aid programsin contexts where womens propertyrights are not well understood andwhere access to justice is limited.

Key Findings: LLRAAs Work with Clientsland boundary disputes were themost common case type. domesticviolence, marital problems, and childwelfare cases were also common, par-ticularly among women. As a whole, rights workers success-fully mediated and resolved clientscases. In contrast to the formal legalsystem and local leaders, variouslyperceived as inaccessible, costly, unap-proachable, biased, and inefficient,rights workers saved their clients time

and resources. clients especiallywomen, who face restricted mobilityand have fewer financial resources expressed gratitude that the rightsworkers resolved matters quickly andamicably, came to or accompaniedclients as needed, stayed neutral inland matters, and offered services freeof charge. Also, the rights workers in-terventions often led to women beingable to keep their land and houses.monitoring and qualitative data alsoshow rights workers as an efficientchannel, often resolving cases in amatter of days. when rights workerscould not resolve a case, they referredclients to the most appropriate personor institution.

Key Findings: Sensitization Eventsduring the pilot, llRAA held 129sensitization events across 64 villageswith a total attendance of more than2,500 men and nearly 3,000 women.The most popular topics, in descend-ing order, were childrens rights, land-lord-tenant relations, womens rights,land tenure systems, marriage andproperty rights, and will writing.

some llRAA rights workers organ-ized events dedicated to sensitizingthe community on land issues, as orig-inally envisioned by the program. As awhole, however, topics were driven bydemand from clients and communi-ties, whose requests sometimes wentbeyond the scope of the programsfocus on womens property rights.Rights workers had some difficultymobilizing audiences and contendingwith affiliated costs, such as trans-portation and refreshments at events.

General Program BenefitsRights workers, clients, and commu-nity leaders all appreciated knowl-edge gained as a result of theprogram. Rights workers learned

about gender, law, and womens prop-erty rights, applied this knowledge tocases, mastered use of monitoringforms, and built group cohesion. si-multaneously, communities started tolearn about rights workers as a re-source. They also valued the opportu-nity to learn about the law, especiallyas related to land issues.

A combination of the high stakesaround land and property ownershipand confusion over relevant laws haslikely contributed to a recent spate ofrelated violence and evictions. leaders,rights workers, and clients describedthe gravity of land issues and assertedthat community rights workers inter-ventions have played a vital role in re-solving land disputes that mightotherwise have escalated into violence.

RecommendationsThe following actions will helpllRAA and UlA further strengthen the program: Increase communities awareness of

llRAA. close knowledge gaps among

rights workers and their communi-ties around (1) what constitutes alawful marriage and a lawful di-vorce; (2) womens and mens prop-erty rights in and after marriage; (3)womens and girls right to inheritproperty; and (4) landlords andtenants rights and responsibilities.

create an institutional work planfor llRAA to organize future ac-tivities and build a public identity.

Address rights workers workloadconstraints.

Build on success with the monitor-ing system including continuingfeedback sessions between UlAand llRAA, sharing findingsfrom monitoring data, and ensur-ing clarity and consistency of in-formation collected.

execUtIve sUmmARY

2

womens property rights, especiallyaccess to land, are increasingly recog-nized as critical to achieving povertyreduction and gender equality. de-spite significant progress in legislationpromoting womens rights to ownand inherit property in many coun-tries, there has been little progress forwomen in exercising these rights. Im-portant factors impeding tangibleprogress are low awareness ofwomens legal rights, lack of enforce-ment of womens rights, and negativesocial norms about women owningproperty, especially land.

In Uganda, the constitution andsubsidiary laws enshrine womensrights to own and inherit property.where customs and culture are in-consistent with womens rights instatutory law, statutory law prevailsaccording to the constitution. How-ever, this supportive legal frameworkis thwarted by both mens andwomens general lack of awarenessof Ugandas property rights laws andrelevant government bodies lack ofresources to enforce womens prop-

erty rights. As a result, violations ofwomens property rights persist.

Previous research by the Interna-tional center for Research onwomen (IcRw 2007) and others(dAnIdA 2005; mwedo 2008)shows that community-based legalaid programs are a viable approach toimproving legal knowledge andwomens access to legal resources toaddress property issues. However, inUganda, current community-basedlegal aid programs are implementedin a scattered manner with no clearstandards and limited evaluation ofinfluence on womens property rights.

to address this gap, IcRw, in part-nership with the UlA, implementedand evaluated the nine-month com-munity-based gender and PropertyRights program. The pilot programsprimary goal was to build capacity ofa local legal aid organization to im-prove womens property rightsthrough a combination of legal coun-seling and awareness-raising sensiti-zation events. A second goal was to

increase UlAs capacity in gendertraining and monitoring so it couldserve as a resource for building gen-der and monitoring into other local,community-based programs. The ex-pectation is that both the UlA andmembers of the legal aid organiza-tion, in addition to providing servicesin the program area, will be a re-source for others seeking to under-take similar work, fostering thepotential for replication and scale-up.

This report describes the pilot pro-grams implementation, outcomes,and lessons. It first provides anoverview of the program design, themonitoring and evaluation method-ologies used, and the context inwhich the program was imple-mented. It next describes programfindings, including discussion ofchallenges encountered by the rightsworkers. A look at overall programachievements follows. Finally, it con-cludes with recommendations formoving forward with communityrights work as an approach to pro-moting womens property rights.

IntRodUctIon

3

kris

ta Ja

cobs

commUnItY-BAsed gendeR & PRoPeRtY RIgHts PIlot PRogRAm

4

IcRw and UlA designed the com-munity-based gender and PropertyRights program with three aims: Raise awareness and acceptance

of womens property rights; enhance womens ability to exercise

their rights and access justice; and Build capacity of community

rights workers to provide educa-tion and services that supportwomens property rights.

Program Designto inform the design of the program,IcRw conducted a needs assessmentin 2008 on the operations, challenges,and needs of community-based legalaid organizations in Uganda. The assessment revealed that communitylegal aid services were an invaluableresource for poor and disadvantagedpersons to access legal systems(IcRw 2008). However, trainingcurricula for community rightsworkers did not uniformly discussthe links between gender and prop-erty rights, nor did curricula addressnegative cultural norms towardwomens property ownership. Following the assessment, IcRwheld a stakeholder workshop thatdrew representatives of 17 commu-nity-based organizations from acrossthe country who echoed the assess-ment findings and supported theidea of a greater emphasis onwomens property rights by commu-nity rights workers.

IcRw and UlA developed theProperty Rights & Gender TrainingToolkit as the primary resource totrain community rights workers to bea more effective community resourcein understanding and defendingwomens property rights. The toolkitcovers human rights; womens rights;gender norms around land owner-ship; issues women commonly faceregarding property; relevant Ugandanfamily, marriage, and inheritance laws;and institutions to resolve disputes,including Ugandas court system. ex-ercises, case studies and examples, roleplays, presentations, and other partici-patory activities help participants un-derstand the laws relevance, practiceapplying new legal knowledge andmediation skills to cases, and discussdifferences between the law and cul-tural norms. Accompanying thetoolkit are gender-relevant materialsfor community education.

Selection and Training of CommunityRights WorkersUlA and the local communitiesidentified 20 persons to serve as vol-untary community rights workersand organized them into a newcommunity-based organization,luwero land Rights Activists Asso-ciation (llRAA). to be eligible, anindividual had to be literate and be arespected member of his/her com-munity. The llRAA rights workersranged in age from 25 to 54 years,

and approximately half were female.nearly all had completed educationbeyond the primary level. whilemost were farmers or teachers, socialworkers, healthcare providers, andbusinesspeople were also repre-sented. Half were either local coun-cilpersons (lc) or councilors.1others were active in womensgroups, farmers groups, savingsgroups, and other community work.

Although it was not required for se-lection, several rights workers hadsome legal training in 2005-2007 aspart of a program run by the Federa-tion of women lawyers-Uganda(FIdA) and Plan International.Rights workers reported that theFIdA/Plan training covered a broad,and sometimes inconsistent, range oftopics including will writing, chil-drens rights, womens rights, and nu-trition. Rights workers involved inthe FIdA/Plan program simultane-ously expressed a sense of groundingin womens rights issues and a needfor more training, especially on landand recent changes in the law.2

At the time of their selection inJune 2009, the llRAA rightsworkers received preliminary basictraining on land issues, wills, mar-riage, and the courts. Then at thestart of the program two monthslater in August, IcRw and UlAconducted an in-depth gender andproperty rights training using theProperty Rights & Gender TrainingToolkit. At the training, IcRw alsointroduced llRAA to the pro-grams monitoring system and re-lated monitoring forms. Themonitoring system (described inmore detail below) tracked both thecommunity rights workers activitiesand UlAs own capacity-buildingwork with llRAA.

The Community-based Gender and Property Rights program was

designed to build capacity of community rights workers in the LLRAA in

Luwero District, Uganda, to support womens property rights in two

ways: (1) by providing legal aid services to clients; and (2) by conducting

community legal sensitization and education sessions emphasizing

womens property rights. The pilot program was implemented over a nine-

month period, from August 2009 to April 2010.

Throughout the pilot period, all 20original rights workers remainedllRAA members.

Monitoring and Evaluation MethodsIcRw and the centre for BasicResearch (cBR) collected quantita-tive and qualitative data over thecourse of the pilot program to as-sess its reach, outputs, and out-comes. Initially, the team employeda quasi-experimental design withbaseline and endline quantitativesurveys in treatment and controlvillages to look at the effects of theprogram on community members.The monitoring data, however, revealed that the intensity of the in-tervention in the treatment villageswas much lower than anticipated,thereby preventing the attributionof any changes in communityknowledge, attitudes, and practicesover time to the program. As a re-sult, the team decided instead togather and use qualitative data tomeasure program impact. However,the baseline quantitative data werestill useful in providing informationabout the situation on the groundbefore implementing the program.In addition to quantitative surveysand qualitative assessment, the eval-uation uses data on rights workersactivities collected through themonitoring system IcRw devel-oped for UlA and llRAA.

Quantitative Surveys The research team administered aquestionnaire before the pilot pro-gram began (August 2009) and asimilar questionnaire 10 monthslater (may 2010),3 to a cross-sec-tional, random sample of communitymembers living in 19 villages, ofwhich 13 were villages wherellRAA rights workers lived or an-ticipated working regularly and 6were comparison villages. All villageswere located in four of the nine sub-

counties where the pilot programwas conducted: luwero, kikyusa,katikamu, and Zirobwe. The Augustsurvey sample consisted of 149 menand 169 women; the may sample in-cluded 140 men and 150 women.The female and male communitymembers answered questions abouttheir knowledge, attitudes, and per-ceptions of property rights; valuationand holding of different legal docu-ments; help-seeking behaviors; landand asset holdings; interaction withcommunity rights workers; and de-mographic characteristics.

The team also administered a questionnaire at both points in timeto 38 community leaders (one female and one male leader fromeach of the 19 study villages). The re-spondents provided information onconflicts coming to leaders, familiar-ity with womens property rights,leaders engagement with commu-

nity rights workers, village resources,and ngos and community groups.

Qualitative AssessmentThe primary objective of the quali-tative component was to shed lighton program implementation andidentify perceived benefits from theprogram. The following questionsguided the qualitative assessment: why were some rights workers

more/less active than others? what was the process of organiz-

ing and conducting a sensitiza-tion event?

what were clients experienceswith rights workers, and werethey satisfied?

what did clients learn as a resultof their interaction with rightsworkers? e.g., about the law, theirrights, resources, etc.

How did the program impact therights workers?

The research team collected qualita-

5

mer

edith

sag

gers

6

tive data in January 2011 from a pur-posive sample of 7 llRAA rightsworkers, 7 clients, and 7 communityleaders who participated in a total of16 in-depth interviews.4 The rightsworkers were chosen to represent arange of intensities in how they hadcarried out their work in conductingsensitization events and taking onclients cases.5 The clients chosen hadeach seen a selected rights workerduring the period from August 2009to July 2010, and had brought a dis-pute related to property, land, inheri-tance, or marriage. The communityleaders chosen for interview were ac-tive in the communities where theselected rights workers lived. Thesampling design yielded discretesets of informants who interactedwith each other, allowing for the tri-angulation of information.

The limited scope of the qualitativestudy did not allow us to interrogatethe full range of experiences andcharacteristics of individuals affectedby the program. we interviewedonly female clients; therefore thequalitative data cannot provide in-sights on program effects amongmen. All of the leaders interviewedhad collaborated with the rightsworkers and were aware of their pro-gram. Although the rights workersinterviewed indicated that someleaders did not support their work,the data do not include the perspec-tives of these individuals. given therelatively limited range of perspec-tives included and that all inform-ants opted to participate in theprogram to some extent, it is possiblethat the overall assessment of rightsworkers benefits to the communitymay be biased. Another potentiallimitation is that all rights workerswere interviewed by IcRw staffwho also participated in the llRAAtraining. some rights workers mayhave felt that the interviewers were

evaluating their performance or thatundesired answers could jeopardizecontinuation of the program. Inter-view guides were carefully designedto be neutral, in order to elicit anopen and frank description of in-formants experiences and opinions.Finally, the experiences of rightsworkers who are not also local lead-ers may be underrepresented.

Monitoring SystemIcRw led the development of themonitoring system to trackllRAAs and UlAs activities inclose collaboration with UlA andwith llRAAs input on the moni-toring forms. The monitoring sys-tem documented services provided,needs of the communities, and workloads of the rights workers. Thishelped IcRw and UlA to under-stand what was happening on theground and to identify areas for fu-ture program improvement. IcRwcontinued to revise the monitoringsystem throughout the pilot basedon ongoing feedback from UlAand llRAA. The monitoring sys-tem provided data to answer thefollowing questions: what types of people seek rights

workers help in terms of sex, age,or socioeconomic status?

what are the common casesbrought by women? men? spe-cific age groups? People of differ-ent marital statuses?

over time, what trends emerge inthe type of cases that rightsworkers handle?

How long does it take to resolvecases in general? what cases takemore time?

How are rights workers handlingcases of each type?

who does (or does not) attendllRAAs sensitization events?on which topics?

what are rights workers case loads?IcRw provided UlA staff with

technical assistance on data entry,analysis, and reporting; introducedthe rights workers to the idea andvalue of monitoring; and trained therights workers to complete the mon-itoring forms. UlA, in turn, pro-vided ongoing assistance to therights workers on monitoring. UlAhad planned to hold monthly meet-ings with the rights workers to iden-tify common problems with themonitoring and provide technical as-sistance where needed. These meet-ings became less frequent toward theend of the program due to budgetaryconstraints and competing demandson UlA staff time. In may 2010,IcRw and UlA held a daylongfeedback session with the rightsworkers after the pilot program wasover. UlA and IcRw shared theresults from the monitoring data andasked the rights workers to providesome reaction and explanations ofthe findings. Rights workers alsoprovided feedback on the monitor-ing process. The lessons from the de-velopment and implementation ofthe monitoring system are discussedin the Recommendations section.

Context of Program CommunitiesThe quantitative, qualitative, andmonitoring data provide importantinformation about the characteristics,attitudes, and experiences of men andwomen living in communities beingserved by the rights workers.

Sociodemographic CharacteristicsThe men and women interviewed inthe August 2009 quantitative surveyare reflective of rural, centralUganda. As seen in table 1, the ma-jority of respondents (75 percent)are members of the Buganda tribe,predominant in central Uganda.most respondents are literate. manyhave completed at least primary lev-els of education, and about one-fourth have some secondary

7

education. most respondents are ei-ther married or cohabiting (82 per-cent men; 69 percent women).Agriculture is the most commonsource of income, with a minorityof respondents owning a small busi-ness or working in the service sec-tor. nearly all households own anduse agricultural land, the majorityof which is under mailo6 tenure. In-terestingly, the proportion ofwomen in the sample who said theyown land was higher than the na-tional average of land ownershipamong women (29 percent in thesurvey vs. 7 percent nationally). The

relatively high female land owner-ship in the study communities maybe a result of land or tenanciesbeing easier to purchase under themailo system than in the customarysystems that predominate inUganda. women surveyed are lesslikely than men to own more valu-able livestock such as cattle or goatsor to own land by themselves.twenty-one percent of householdsare headed by women, slightlylower than the national average ofthirty percent (Uganda Bureau ofstatistics and macro InternationalInc. 2006).

Mixed Attitudes About WomensProperty RightsAs shown in Figure 1, attitudes aregenerally positive toward womenowning property while single ormarried, giving or bequeathingproperty to children, havingwomens names on land documen-tation, and requiring their consentfor the sale of matrimonial prop-erty. Attitudes about womens landrights are less positive than forrights over livestock or other assets.womens and mens attitudes to-ward womens property rights arenot significantly different.

Variable Female (%) N Male (%) N SigIs literate 72.5 167 81.8 148Owns majority of household land 23.3 169 45.0 149 *Owns any land (self ) 29.2 165 51.2 147 *Owns cattle 24.3 146a 41.4 135 *Owns goat 21.9 146 37.4 135 *

tABle 1: socIodemogRAPHIc cHARActeRIstIcs oF sURveY ResPondents InlUweRo dIstRIct, AUgUst 2009

* Statistically significant at the 5 percent level

Have the same rights as men

Own her own land when single

Own her own land during marriage

Have her name on documents

Be able to give land to childrenInherit land from parents

Inherit land from husband

Inherit land from husband if she has HIV/AIDSKeep rights to her deceased husbands land if she remaries

Have to give consent for her husband to sell matrimonial land

Have rights to her husbands land if she divorces him

Have rights to her husbands land if he divorces her

Strongly Negative Neutral Strongly Positive

FIgURe 1: meAn AttItUdes oF mAle And FemAle ResPondents towARd womensPRoPeRtY RIgHts, lUweRo dIstRIct, AUgUst 2009

maleFemale

Attitudes are less positive, and someeven slightly negative, regardingwomens inheritance rights and prop-erty rights upon dissolution of mar-riage. support for women to inheritfrom husbands or have a claim to landin divorce is lower than for other sce-narios involving womens propertyrights. The pattern reflects the specialeconomic and cultural importance ofland as an asset and indicates that theend of a marital relationship (eitherthrough death or separation) is a pe-riod of insecurity for womens prop-erty rights. In a context where land isconsidered to belong to clans,7 landpasses among male clan members, andwomen marry into their husbandsclan, we would expect to see womensaccess to a clans and familys mostvaluable asset become tenuous whenthe marriage connecting her to theclan and husbands family ends.

Low Levels of Legal Documentationdespite widespread recognition thatlegal documents around marriage,property ownership, and inheritanceare important to have, this does nottranslate into high levels of actuallyholding the documents. two-thirds of women and one-half of men havenever held any of the legal documentslisted in table 2. of married respon-dents in the sample, only 35 percentreported ever having had a marriagecertificate. Unsurprisingly, men aremore likely than women to have ever

made a will, since men have moreproperty to bequeath and typicallymake decisions about property and fi-nances (Uganda Bureau of statisticsand macro International Inc. 2006).However, the prevalence of wills maybe overstated, as interviews with fieldstaff and rights workers indicate thatmost wills are verbal, not written.

Gaps in Knowledge of the LawThe quantitative survey8 and feedbacksessions with the rights workers revealgaps in legal knowledge related towomens property rights in the com-munities. The main gaps are theknowledge of:

what constitutes legal marriage anddivorce: during a feedback session,rights workers reported that manypeople in their villages consider livingtogether or having children togetheras constituting a marriage. Approxi-mately 22 percent of survey respon-dents are cohabiting but not married.sixty-four percent believe that not liv-ing together constitutes a divorce.

marriage certificates in customarymarriage: over half of respondents areunaware that couples in a customarymarriage can have a marriage certifi-cate.9 Between half and two-thirds ofmarriages in the survey area are cus-tomary,10 and of these, three-fourths donot have a marriage certificate. BecauseUgandas current inheritance and fam-

ily laws only recognize legally marriedspouses, women who have a marriagecertificate can more strongly claimtheir right to inherit their husbandsproperty or claim property in divorce.

Property rights in cohabitation: Approximately one-third of respon-dents wrongly believe that underUgandan law, women and men whoare cohabiting but are not marriedhave claims over the other partnersproperty. This view can be especiallyperilous for cohabiting women. com-bined with the cultural norm thatproperty belongs to men, this incor-rect belief places the property rights ofcohabiting women in peril. In theevent that a womans male partnerdies or leaves the partnership, it wouldbe socially acceptable for him or hisfamily to retain her property and anyshared property. The woman wouldhave no legal proof of the relationshipto assert her claim to her own prop-erty or any shared property.

Property rights in a divorce: Across alltypes of property land, livestock, andmaterial assets both women and mentended to disagree that a woman shouldhave any rights to her husbands prop-erty in the event of divorce, regardless ofwho initiated it. For the approximately93 percent of Ugandan women, and 79percent of women in this sample, whodo not have land in their own names,the end of a partnership is likely to

8

Documents Male Female N Mean (%) N Mean (%) Sig

Marriage certificate 148 28 168 24Certificate of occupancy 146 7 161 5Certificate of title 144 14 163 11Lease offer 145 7 160 3Will 141 20 163 9 *Certificate of no objection/Letters of administration 141 5 162 1

tABle 2: PeRcentAge oF men And women wHo Held docUments, AUgUst 2009

* Statistically significant at the 5 percent level

Variable Female (%) Male (%) SigEver received help from religious leader 8 14Ever received help from clan or family meeting 17 25Ever received help from village/subcounty chief 5 9Ever received help from Local Council court 15 32 *Ever received help from Local Council member 26 41 *Ever received help from magistrate court 2 6Ever received help from police 5 15 *Ever reported problem to an Local Council 12 34 *Ever reported problem to police 8 21 *

tABle 3: HelP-seekIng BeHAvIoR, AUgUst 2009

* Statistically significant at the 5 percent level

cause them to lose access to land andother property (Rugadya et al. 2005).

womens and girls right to inherit: Asubstantial proportion of respondentsdo not believe that a woman or girlcan inherit land 55 percent reportedthat they do not believe the law al-lows women to inherit land fromtheir husbands, and 33 percent do notbelieve that the law allows for a girl toinherit land at all. knowledge thatwomen and girls can inherit animalsand other property is also limited.while not as seemingly urgent asother problems in womens propertyrights, this knowledge gap is impor-tant because until women havegreater economic power and auton-omy, inheritance is likely to be a mainpathway through which women andgirls acquire their own land.

land tenure system and rights of ten-ants and landlords: survey responsesand reports from llRAA communityrights workers strongly suggest thatpeople are unclear about the primarytenure system they operate in, theirrights and responsibilities as tenants,and the rights and responsibilities oflandlords. Although most of the landin the program area is under mailotenure, a large portion of the surveypopulation (34 percent) reported theyown land under customary tenure. dis-

cussions with rights workers and pro-gram staff indicated that these respon-dents most likely are unsure of theirtenure status or are mistaken. The rightto occupy land on mailo tenure is ofteninformally passed down through fami-lies with little interaction with thelandlords, which can appear similar topractices around customary tenure.

many survey respondents also do notknow their rights as tenants 28 per-cent are unaware that a court order isrequired to evict lawful and bona fidetenants from land. In november2009, Uganda passed an amendmentto the land Act that outlines therights and responsibilities of landlordsand tenants, especially in the mailoland tenure system. The amendmentalso criminalizes eviction of tenantsunder certain circumstances. duringdebate of the amendment and con-tinuing to the time of the writing ofthis report, there have been frequentnews reports of violence, killings, andevictions, sometimes of entire villages,between tenants and landlords (see,for example, njeri 2008; semakula2009; new vision 2010).

Few Community Members SeekLegal ServicesReceiving help from local leaders andformal justice institutions is rare, andmore so among women (table 3).

About two-thirds of survey respon-dents live more then 10 miles from adistrict land office and approxi-mately 40 percent live more than 10miles from a magistrates court. Forwomen, the costs in terms of time andmoney to obtain documentation orresolve disputes may be particularlyhigh because they have limited mobil-ity outside the home,11 little money oftheir own, and limited financial deci-sion-making power (Uganda Bureauof statistics and macro InternationalInc. 2009). local leaders themselveshave incomplete knowledge of the lawand womens rights. when the pilotbegan, 30 percent of community lead-ers interviewed did not know thatUgandan law gives women the rightto own land or a house.

more than three-quarters of the com-munity leaders from the villages in theAugust 2009 survey indicated thatfewer than half of the cases brought tothem in the past year were brought bywomen. twenty percent indicated thatno women had brought cases in thepast year.

These findings demonstrate the need inthe target communities to increase sup-port for womens property rights and toimprove womens access to and use oflegal services, including resolving dis-putes and obtaining legal documents.

9

The llRAA rights workers mainactivities during the pilot were (1)providing legal services in handlingclients cases and (2) providing legaleducation through sensitizationevents. during the nine-monthpilot period, which commencedafter the August 2009 training,llRAA rights workers workedmostly in nine subcounties andtown councils throughout luwerodistrict.12 As shown in table 4, the20 community rights workersreached several thousand peoplethrough 129 community sensitiza-tion events and handled 166 uniquecases across 72 villages. men andwomen accessed rights workersservices nearly equally.

casework with clients involves listening to and understanding the clients problem, educating the client about the relevant lawand his/her legal options, and as-sisting the client, usually throughmediation or referral. sensitizationevents were originally envisioned asmeetings rights workers would holdor other community groups meet-ings they would attend for the pur-pose of providing legal educationon the topics covered in theIcRw/UlA Property Rights &Gender Training Toolkit, usingteaching material included in thetoolkit. However, rights workersconsidered a wider range of activi-ties as sensitization events.

LLRAAS Work with ClientsThe qualitative and monitoring datatogether provide a rich descriptionof how rights workers obtainedclients, conducted casework, andnavigated their other roles. The de-scriptions are quite consistent, sug-gesting that despite having arelatively informal role and no well-defined work plan, rights workersused a similar approach.

Introducing Themselves in TheirCommunitiesllRAA rights workers used severalapproaches to make themselves andtheir role known to the community.commonly used methods are hav-ing a local councilperson introducethem at a village meeting, speakingat churches or mosques, and goinghouse to house to introduce them-selves. some rights workers took ad-vantage of existing events to letpeople know about their work orprovide educational sound bites.several spoke at funeral rites andmeetings of local groups likewomens groups or savings groups.Using these meetings as platformsfor introduction requires strong social connections to be aware that they are happening and confi-dence about being well received bythe audience.

Obtaining New ClientsThe qualitative analysis and moni-toring data identified three key

paths through which rights workersobtained new clients. By far, themost frequent path was referral by alocal leader (usually local councils)or a friend. some clients had alreadystarted seeking help and turned to arights worker either because the caseremained unresolved or they lackedthe necessary resources to continuein the courts or other governmentinstitutions. In the second, less com-mon path, clients approached arights worker directly based on aprior interaction, most often afterattending a village meeting or sensi-tization event about a topic that hadpersonal relevance. Finally, in caseswhere the rights worker was also alocal leader, clients sometimes ap-proached him/her for assistance inthe capacity as a local leader whileunaware that s/he was also a trainedrights worker. After hearing thematter, the rights worker/leaderwould either determine whether thecase was better suited to the role ofa rights worker, or would allow theclient to choose after explaininghow s/he would handle the case as arights worker versus as a leader. Anindividual who served this dual roleexplained how he sees the processunfold when approached by a client:

someone can come to you as anlc, report to you a case or thematter. Then you can also advisehim, If you go through the lc, itis already a government organ,and then there are certain caseswhich I, as lc1, am not handling.so I refer you either to lc2 or to

10

This section of the report presents findings from the monitoring and

qualitative data related to implementation of the pilot program.

PRogRAm ImPlementAtIon FIndIngs

Rights worker service Total Males served Females servedCommunity sensitization event 129 2,503 2,969Client cases 166 86 80

tABle 4: Access oF commUnItY RIgHts woRkeRs seRvIces

the police. But if you come to meas a paralegal, then I can handlethat case without other commit-tees. we sit down, we talk, andwe see .The client is the one todecide after giving him more ex-amples ... to open [his] mind....Then he can decide. (Rightsworker, male, 55 years old)

Fortunately so far, the consolidationof roles among a few local leaderswho are also serving as rights work-ers has not had the effect of limitingoptions for accessing justice. The in-terviews demonstrate that llRAArights workers who are also lcsmake distinctions between theirroles as rights workers and as lead-ers. There is no indication thatllRAA rights workers, even thosewho are entitled to do so as lcs, arecollecting fees from clients. clientscorroborated that they did not payany fees to these persons when theyacted as rights workers.

How Rights Workers Handled CasesInterviews across llRAA rightsworkers, clients, and leaders revealedthat the approach used to handleclients cases was surprisingly consis-tent across rights workers.

step 1: meet with the client and otherparty separately, one on one.

step 2: convene a meeting of stake-holders often in conjunctionwith local leaders.

step 3: explain the law at the meet-ing, sometimes called a semi-nar or sensitization.

step 4: If necessary, bring in an out-side authority to increase thelegitimacy of the informationand advice the rights workergives. either invite UlA orthe courts to confirm the lawor show written documentswith relevant information.

step 5: mediate with both parties tocome to an agreement.

step 6: Refer the client to anotherperson/institution if an agree-ment is not reached.

Interviewers probed for a more de-tailed explanation of how these quickand seemingly uncontested resolu-tions were achieved. Responses sug-gest that once people understood therules and their legal responsibilities,rights workers did not face much re-sistance to mediating an agreement.The steps of convening the meeting(step 2), bringing in an outside au-thority (step 4), and referral (step 6)are described in more detail below.

step 2: convene a meeting of stake-holders often in conjunction withlocal leaders.Invitees typically included the partiesin conflict, lcs, neighbors, and otherfamily members. some rights workersmentioned convening elders and reli-gious leaders. The extent to whichlocal leaders were involved in these

11

R is a widow in her early 50s who lives with two of herdeceased husbands other wives and some of theirchildren. She makes and sells mats, a job she has per-formed for 20 years. Upon the death of her husband, Rhad hoped to grow food and build a separate homefor herself and her children on her husbands land.However, her husbands first wife and her adult chil-dren were preventing R from using the land, threaten-ing and abusing her in the process. They claimed thatthe land and home belong to the first wife.

R first asked her sisters and brothers-in-law for help.Dissatisfied with their advice to keep quiet or be pa-tient, R decided to approach a Local Council (LC) chair-man to seek a more proactive solution to her problem. Rwas not aware that the LC chairman, H, was also atrained rights worker. H told R that he and a fellow rightsworker, Z, could help her settle her dispute peacefully.

The following day H convened a meeting of extendedfamily members: the children, R, the other wives,

aunts, and other relatives. During the meeting H and Zread the law on inheritance to the children, answeredfamily members questions, and provided everyonewith copies of the law to read for themselves. Z notedthat having them read through the law helped themrecognize, Oh, what you are talking about really is alaw. Following the family mediation, the first wife andher children have stopped abusing R, and she cannow freely cultivate her husbands land and build herhouse. R felt that the most important thing the para-legal13 did was advise and educate us.

R appears content with the process and outcome, andwas very happy that an issue that had been a prob-lem for a number of years was resolved in just threedays and one meeting. At present, she continues tolive with the other wives, but is aware there is no onenow who can take me for granted or deceive me aboutthe law. She would go back to H and Z for problems inthe future and thinks that as long as a paralegal isthere, I will always go through my problems easily.

Case Study: Rights Workers Resolve a Family Land Dispute

12

sessions appeared to be largely deter-mined by the relationship between thespecific leader and the rights worker.

step 4: If necessary, bring in outsideauthority to increase legitimacy. monitoring data and interviews withrights workers show that on occasion,rights workers invited UlAstaff/members or the courts to con-firm the law or showed written docu-ments to increase their credibility.Rights workers explained that it issometimes helpful to have peoplefrom the top present to provide orreinforce information about the law.Interviews with both clients andrights workers attest to the fact thatthe documentation of knowledge ishighly valued in the community.Rights workers noted that even hand-outs from their IcRw/UlA PropertyRights & Gender Training Toolkit weresufficient to confer legitimacy.

step 6: Refer the client to anotherperson/institution if an agreement isnot reached.

Rights workers explained that they re-ferred clients elsewhere either when acase was too big, too weighty, or be-

yond me, or when conflicting partiesdid not reach an amicable solutionthrough mediation. If the rights workerdecided to refer the client to anotherperson or institution (such as an lc,councilor, Resident district commis-sioner,14 or police), he/she would write aletter introducing the client and his/herissue, might accompany the client onthe referral visit, or if not, might ask theclient to report back about the visit.

clients appreciated when rightsworkers would accompany them toreferral visits. They expressed that therights workers presence gave themthe confidence to go to offices theywould not otherwise go to (for exam-ple, police, probation officer, etc.). sev-eral respondents mentioned thatrights workers bridged language gapsbetween the police15 and clients.

That llRAA rights workers can di-rect people seeking legal help to themost appropriate person/institution isa potentially valuable contribution.Feedback from llRAA in may 2010described a long ongoing practice ofpeople shopping from one institu-tion/office to the next regardless ofwhich person/institution had the au-

thority to handle the matter. Rightsworkers felt that this created confu-sion and wasted time.

Legal Issues Addressed by Rights WorkersThe monitoring data and qualitativeinterviews reveal the main legal issuesclients brought to llRAA rightsworkers during the pilot phase andhow rights workers handled cases.

land boundary disputes were themost common types of cases (17percent) brought to communityrights workers. domestic violence,marital problems, and child abusecases were also common (about 10percent each). women were morelikely to bring cases of domestic vio-lence and child abuse. It was unex-pected that nearly all the landgrabbing cases were brought by men.It is possible that some conflicts be-tween tenants and landlords wererecorded as land grabbing. only fourcases during the pilot period relatedto filing for legal documents.

That the most common cases per-tained to property, including land, orfamily is not surprising. Both rights

Case topic Total Male client Female clientLand

Land boundary dispute 28=17% of total cases 16 (19%) 12 (15%)Land grabbing 10=6% of total cases 9 (10%) 1 (1%)Trespass 8=5% of total cases 7 (8%) 1 (1%)

PropertyInheritance (may include land) 9=5% of total cases 5 (6%) 4 (5%)Property damage 11=7% of total cases 5 (6%) 6 (8%)Other property disputes 8=5% of total cases 0 (0%) 8 (10%)

FamilyDomestic violence 14=8% of total cases 3 (3%) 11 (14%)Marital problems 14=8% of total cases 6 (7%) 8 (10%)Child abuse 13=8% of total cases 1 (1%) 12 (15%)

Other topics 51=31% of total cases 34 (40%) 17 (21%)Total # cases 166=100% 86 (100%) 80 (100%)

tABle 5: tYPes oF cAses BRoUgHt to commUnItY RIgHts woRkeRs dURIng tHe PIlot

13

workers and local leaders expressedtheir opinion that either family orproperty is at the root of most con-flicts and that property issues andfamily issues are linked.

Case OutcomesResults from the monitoring andsurvey data are consistent with find-ings from IcRws earlier needs as-sessment that women prefer to usecommunity-based legal aid providersto settle problems because they areless costly and are seen as more im-partial than the formal justice sys-tem, local councils, and traditionalelders. Almost equal numbers ofmen and women sought legal helpfrom the rights workers (80 femalesand 86 males). The equal proportionof male and female clients contrastswith the finding in the context sec-tion that women are less likely thanmen to report problems to or receivehelp from local leaders.

monitoring data and qualitative inter-views highlight that llRAA rightsworkers resolved problems relativelyquickly. nearly 40 percent of cases (66cases) brought to llRAA were re-solved during the pilot period. Three-quarters were resolved on the sameday that the client visited the rightsworker. The remainder took about aweek. none lasted over a month. Theneeds assessment found that casesbrought to the formal legal entities,such as the lc and magistratescourts, can face delays from backlogsand inaccessibility. In UlAs experi-ence, most formal court cases take at least a year. local leaders and rightsworkers agree that the rights workers tend to resolve cases more expeditiously:

You know these people [commu-nity rights workers] are near us.They always advise us quickly. torun to police, you may find the po-

lice is far, or by the time the policecome maybe the conflict has mag-nified. (leader, male, 48 years old)And police it takes time. They tell you, You go back. tomorrowyou come. And for the paralegal,you just come, sit down, and discuss.After that, if there is need of send-ing you somewherethey can tellyou [to] go ahead. (Rights worker,female, 54 years old)

during the pilot period, approxi-mately 17 percent of cases resulted ina memorandum of understanding(moU). According to several inter-viewees, an moU was reached dur-ing the initial meeting itself,particularly for relatively straightfor-ward cases involving clear violationsof the new land law. memorandawere usually verbal, but sometimesparties composed written agreementsas the end result of mediation by therights workers. when an moU waswritten, it typically included the date,names of both parties, what the dis-pute was about, what the agreedupon actions or arrangements were,signatures of the parties, and signa-tures of witnesses. Rights workers be-lieve that because people composedthe moU themselves, they werecontent with the resolution. duringthe pilot, rights workers did not wit-ness any violations of moUs.

nearly one-third of all client visits re-sulted in a referral. more than half ofall referrals were to an lc chairpersonor the lc court. monitoring data in-dicate that rights workers usually didnot follow up with clients after a re-ferral. However, qualitative interviewsand feedback discussions indicate thatsome workers asked the client to re-port what happened or in some casesaccompanied the client to the referral.The most common cases to be re-ferred pertained to drugs/alcohol,property damage, and trespassing.

overwhelmingly, the interviewedclients expressed satisfaction regardinghow their cases were handled, even inthe few instances where a case wasstill pending resolution. clients oftenemphasized that their dispute endedpeacefully or amicably.

most people turned up for themeeting. we discussed the issues.[Family members] also said theirown side of the story. He [arights worker] was counseling us,telling us how we should settle ourproblems as one family. They [ateam of two rights workers] readthe laws on inheritance to them[family members]. They also ex-plained and answered all the ques-tions. They helped us to get allthe information. They really helpedus. we did not quarrel, the problemended in peace. (client, female, 50years old)

LLRAA Sensitization EventsllRAA held 129 sensitization eventsacross 64 villages over the nine-monthperiod of the pilot intervention. totalattendance at all sensitization eventswas more than 2,500 men and nearly3,000 women.16 It is likely that manyof these sensitization events were heldas part of resolving clients disputes orbetween landlords and tenants.

Sensitization Event Topicstable 4 shows the sensitization topicsthat had the highest attendance. Thetopics are consistent with several ofthe problematic issues described in thecontext section womens ability toinherit from their husbands, the infor-mality of marriage and divorce, landtenure systems, and landlords andtenants responsibilities. llRAArights workers ability to explain landrights within the mailo tenure systemis an important contribution, giventhe general confusion around mailotenure. As discussed in the context

section, there was much fear and ten-sion around evictions, and many com-munity members did not understandwhich land tenure system they were inand what their rights and obligations,mostly as mailo tenants, were.

many of the topics at sensitizationevents were demand driven and in-volved local leaders, with rights work-ers allowing either the leaders whoinvited them or the meeting attendeesto determine the topic. one rightsworker likens this approach to provid-ing attendees with a menu of optionsfrom which they can choose their pre-ferred topic:

I go with my menu. I tell them, Ihave this and this and this and thatand that. what do you want me totalk about? so the community it-self decides that we want to talk

about this. You have to ask theaudience. (Rights worker, male, 55years old).

Types of Sensitization EventsThe range of activities that rightsworkers considered sensitizationevents and recorded in monitoringdata as such is broad. monitoring dataand interviews reveal that a sensitiza-tion event could range from a smallmeeting where the rights worker edu-cates attendees on land laws in thecontext of solving a case, to large pub-lic talks where more general informa-tion is provided.

By far, the most common sensitiza-tion event occurred when rightsworkers were invited to talk at a com-munity meeting that was alreadyplanned. In those cases, rights workersgenerally were invited by the lcs.

However, rights workers also de-scribed working with church leadersto talk at church services as well asparticipating in other meetings forcommunity groups (such as savingsand loans groups).

some rights workers who are alsolcs or other leaders leveraged theirmandate either to call meetings or toattend and speak at other events (forexample at village council meetings,weddings, funerals, graduations, orfarmer group meetings). The rightsworkers part in the event was usuallyshort, ranging from 5 to 30 minutes,and served more as an introduction tohis/her role than a means of sensitiz-ing the community about a particularfacet of womens property rights.

on occasion, rights workers described organizing their own com-munity event dedicated entirely tosensitizing the community on land is-sues. Advertising for these events wasoften door to door and through localradios (loud speakers located in town-ships). The lc1s played an importantrole in mobilizing the communityand, according to the rights workersinterviewed, local leaders were alwaysinvited to attend.

Rights workers also considered meet-ings that they organized to help settlea clients case, as described earlier, assensitizations. This may have lead tooverreporting of sensitization eventsin the monitoring data.

14

Women attended Men attended Total attendanceChildrens rights 635 624 1,259Landlord-tenant relations 535 455 990Womens rights 385 213 598Land tenure systems 271 288 559Marriage and property rights 272 192 464Will writing 230 206 436

tABle 6: AttendAnce At sensItIZAtIon events BY most PoPUlAR toPIc

mer

edith

sag

gers

15

Low Community Awareness ofRights WorkersAccording to the data collected atthe end of the pilot in may 2010,llRAA rights workers were rela-tively unknown. only 22 percent ofrespondents in villages where rightsworkers lived knew of a communityrights worker in their village. Anadditional 10 percent of respon-dents had heard of communityrights workers on the radio, but didnot know one in their village; andan additional 3 percent mentionedcommunity rights workers or theUlA as programs that providedlegal help or advanced womensrights but did not know rightsworkers in the village or from theradio. The finding that llRAArights workers are relatively un-known contrasts with the percep-tions of the rights workers whowere interviewed, who speculatedthat they are well known in theircommunities. The discrepancy likely arises because (1) rightsworkers only interact with peoplewho know them, (2) rights workerswho were interviewed tend to belocal leaders or involved in commu-nity volunteer work for severalyears, or (3) rights workers areknown for their other roles in thecommunity but are not known asrights workers. It is also possiblethat llRAA rights workers be-came more well known in themonths after the pilot phase.

despite low awareness of rightsworkers, communities may be re-ceptive to their services. nearly all(92 percent) survey respondents invillages where a rights worker livedor intended to work indicated thatthey would use such a person if theyneeded help or had a questionabout the law.

Lack of Identitylack of a public identity forllRAA meant that its membersoperated and were seen as individu-als acting on their own rather thantrained members of a group with alegitimate contribution to make tothe community. communicationswith clients and connections withleaders, local government, and com-munities tended to be based on per-sonal relationships. Rights workersindicated that their lack of identifi-cation as rights workers and affilia-tion with an organization reducedtheir legitimacy among local leadersand community members.

Although there was concern at thestart of the pilot that more formalidentification (for example throughbusiness cards or an organizational t-shirt) might diminish the informalityand accessibility that are unique ad-vantages of community rights work-ers, the need to build awareness ofllRAA and its services as legitimatecontributors may override this con-cern. now that llRAA is formallyregistered in luwero district as acommunity-based organization andacquired an office in september 2010,the process of building an identitymay have a stronger foundation.

Rights Workers Are One of Many InstitutionsThe addition of rights workers toUgandas multiple legal institutionshas the potential to cause confusion,especially in land cases, if they donot have positive relationships andclearly delineated roles with respectto these institutions. one localleader cautioned:

centers for handling land issuesare so many. Yet there seems to belimited coordination of those ac-

tors involved in land issues.Rdcs are involved, police are in-volved, etc. what arrangementshave you made to get the parale-galsknown by offices dealingwith land issues? These peoples[rights workers] authority can bequestioned in case they refer orapproach a certain office, unlessthey are well introduced and con-nected to those offices. (leader,male, 42 years old)

Mixed Relationships with Local LeadersRights workers are well aware thatlocal leaders are crucial to theirability to work in their communi-ties. lc1s especially are the gate-keepers and owners of the people.Rights workers commented thatwithout local leaders involvement,resolutions that came from media-tion sessions might not be held toand that they might not be able toaccess audiences for education oreven clients requesting assistance.

Rights workers described mixed re-lations with local and traditionalleaders during feedback sessionsand interviews. A small number of rights workers reported that theirlocal leaders had been supportive in introducing them to the commu-nity and helping to organize sensitization events, and more thanone enjoyed a long-standing colle-gial relationship. In line withIcRws initial needs assessment,many llRAA rights workers ex-pressed that community leaderswere often unaware of their pres-ence and their efforts as communityrights workers. other rights work-ers said that local leaders were un-cooperative or gave examples ofspecific leaders who posed barriersto their work.

cHAllenges FoR llRAA RIgHts woRkeRs

16

where leaders and rights workerspartnered well together, leadersconsidered the rights workers astechnical experts in the law withknowledge beyond their own andcalled on them for advice on com-plicated cases:

we work with [community rightsworkers] ms. x and mr. Y on aregular basis. when I have landproblems in my community, I callher to come....when she also getsa case, she calls and says, one ofyour people has a problem. Thenshe comes and we sit and resolvethose issues. (leader, male, ageunknown)

Reasons for lack of leader support aresimilar across rights workers inter-viewed: leaders perceived rightsworkers as a threat because they pro-vided free services whereas leaderscharge a fee; leaders may have vestedinterests in land issues or transactionsthat could be undermined by knowl-edge of the law; leaders saw rightsworkers as meddling in their com-munities. A rights worker explains:

we solve the problem [free ofcharge]. so in that way, we areoverriding [leaders] responsibil-ity and authority. Because for[leaders], they know, wheneverthey talk to somebody, after giv-ing any service, he has to pay you.But because we are givingfreeservices, then some of the localleaders became somehow enviousof us. (Rights worker, male, 55years old)

when leaders were unsupportive,rights workers appeared to either de-crease or stop efforts to work in thatleaders community. Rights workerswho are themselves lcs or coun-cilors or who had been involved incommunity work for several years ap-

peared to enjoy stronger relationshipswith local leaders and be more adeptat navigating any resistance.

Although rights workers spoke abouttension around their authority andmandate to address disputes and edu-cate communities about the law onmultiple occasions, fairly clearly dis-tinguished roles of leaders and ofrights workers emerged from thequalitative work. leaders make andenforce judgments while rights work-ers explain the relevant law, provideoptions, and mediate. Rights workersare informed and helpful neighbors.They often described themselves asmediators, counselors, and advi-sors when discussing their casework.

Talking About Land Is Regardedwith Suspicion and Sometimes FearIn qualitative interviews respon-dents said that some villagers areafraid to discuss land because landissues are highly contested and caneasily escalate into violence. This fear appears to be especiallyacute for women, who may facegreater risks, particularly if theirdispute involves a male partner orfamily member.

The sensitivity of land issues in thecommunity can directly interferewith rights workers effectivenessbecause they may encounter suspi-cion or apprehension. The followingexcerpt from a female client illus-trates this initial feeling of mistrusttoward rights workers:

J first taught about land and land issues and procedures for dis-pute handling. I did not take thesession seriously. I again attendedanother training to see whethershe was preaching the same mes-sage and whether these paralegalsare not out there to steal peoplesland. (client, female, 48 years old)

Logistical Barriersdistance, transportation expenses,and other logistical challenges lim-ited rights workers ability to holdsensitization sessions and serveclients. These barriers not only af-fected how many cases a rightsworker could manage, but also theirability to follow up on cases they re-ferred, especially when the clients didnot live in the same village as therights worker.

many llRAA rights workers indi-cated that the cost of transportationprohibited them from covering theentire program area. coordinatingwith other llRAA rights workersto cohost sensitization events orconsult on client cases is costly anddifficult. only four sensitizationevents during the pilot involvedmore than one llRAA rightsworker. However, qualitative inter-views indicate that about four to fiverights workers have recently begunnetworking among themselves,mainly to refer clients.

Qualitative interviews and feedbackmeetings with the rights workersindicate that many rights workersfelt overloaded by their volunteerwork. High numbers of cases andtravel time were two main con-tributing factors.

Difficulties Mobilizing an Audience for Sensitization EventsRights workers, especially those whoare not lcs, relied on their own ad-vertising efforts (mainly word ofmouth, advertising inchurches/mosques, or house visits, orin a few cases radio spots) and the au-thority and efforts of local leaders tocall people to a meeting. where lead-ers were not sufficiently interested orsupportive, rights workers felt theyhad fewer opportunities and smalleraudiences than they would have liked.

17

Unclear Mandate and InsufficientTraining for Sensitization EventsThe monitoring data on sensitiza-tion events reveals that the per-formance of the individual rightsworkers was less intense than antic-ipated. This likely can be attributedto two main causes. First, therewere no clear expectations or workplans in terms of how many sensiti-zation events each rights workerwould conduct, where to hold them,what to teach, and how eventsshould be conducted. second, therights workers training did notbuild skills around community mo-bilization. A flawed assumption in

the program design was that therights workers would already haveaccess to the community at largeand an understanding of how tomobilize audiences because com-munities had helped to choose therights workers, and some of therights workers had previouslyworked in the community.

Competing Demands of ProgramFocus and Community Needscasework and sensitization eventswere driven by demand from clientsand communities, whose needswent beyond the scope of the pro-grams parameters. As a result,

womens property rights competedwith other topics also in need of at-tention and relevant to the commu-nity in general and women inparticular. It is worthwhile to notethat many rights workers viewedtheir legal education and disputeresolution activities as two of manydifferent aspects of the services pro-vided to communities, which alsoincluded advocating for childrensright to schooling, womens rights,orphan welfare, etc. The holistic ap-proach to community work thatsome rights workers described likelyreflects the broad range of problemsbrought to their attention.

kris

ta Ja

cobs

18

Benefits for Rights Workers Rights workers frequently describedan experience of empowerment fromtheir work. This empowerment wasexpressed at multiple levels rangingfrom psychological empowerment(increased confidence and knowledge)to descriptions of empowered action,for example developing the ability toenter new communities or negotiatewith high-ranking officials. Rightsworkers often emphasized the acqui-sition of knowledge and linked legalknowledge to their ability to helpcommunity members resolve disputes.As one rights worker explained:

There have been so many changesespecially in the land law[dur-ing our training] we receivedmore information and knowledge,which has helped us to help ourcommunity memberswhen wetalk to those people in the com-munity, we talk to them asknowledgeable people because wecan tell them this is what the lawsays. (Rights worker, male, 55years old)

The testimony of another rightsworker shows the empowering im-pact of her work:

Im now very determined. I cantalk well. I can go door to door, toany big offices. I can lead mycommunityI can handle cases,

all cases, about boundaries, aboutdomestic violence, about thoseproperty rights. And now I canhandle those cases and solve themwell [and] thoroughly. (Rightsworker, female, 45 years old)

This knowledge and confidence alsoimproves rights workers effective-ness, thus benefiting not only theindividual, but also the program.

several of the rights workers also in-dicated that they have gained visibil-ity from their work. For some, thereputation of being knowledgeableabout the law and adept at mediat-ing disputes has translated into in-creased status within the community.

[Being a] paralegal, it has helpedme so much. Because even tospeak in a meeting, it is not easy.But now I can address anythingto the people without fear. As Itold you, I am now proper. Andeven my community is recogniz-ing me. If I stand up to speak [or]talk about something, all the peo-ple they listen to meit hashelped me so much, and I thinkthat is a very big change in mylife. (Rights worker, male, 31years old)

Benefits to Clientsoverwhelmingly, the interviewedclients expressed satisfaction re-

garding how their cases were han-dled, even in the few instanceswhere a case was pending resolu-tion, and they were grateful that therights workers could resolve dis-putes amicably and quickly:

most people turned up for themeeting. we discussed the is-sues[Family members] also saidtheir own side of the story. He[a rights worker] was counselingus, telling us how we should settleour problems as one family. They[a team of two rights workers]read the laws on inheritance tothem [family members]. They alsoexplained and answered all thequestions. They helped us to getall the information. They reallyhelped us. we did not quarrel, theproblem ended in peace. (client,female, 50 years old)

Furthermore, the rights workers in-terventions often led to women beingable to keep their land and houses:

I am really satisfied, J has helpedme. when I look back, supposeI had left this house, where wouldI have gone? I am happy, no one isforcing me to get out of this house.(client, female, 48 years old)

I am very satisfied with As ap-proach to my problem. Yes, I hadtalked to [an] lc who told methe landlord had no authority, buthad not brought us together withthe landlord to understand our re-sponsibilities. now I am comfort-able on that land because Aorganized that seminar where weunderstood our responsibilities onland. (client, female, 60 years old)

Beyond the immediate benefit ofresolving their cases, clients valued

The in-depth interviews with rights workers, clients, and community lead-

ers and the feedback provided by rights workers and ULA at the January

2011 workshop provided key information about how the program affected

rights workers, the clients, and their communities. The major program

achievements related to individual-level benefits for rights workers and

clients are discussed below. A strong valuation of knowledge emerges as a

general theme.

PRogRAm AcHIevements

the opportunity to learn about thelaw, especially as related to land issues. However, they rarely de-scribed specific, concrete knowl-edge of the law they learned, butspoke more broadly, for examplelearning the law kept widows frombeing thrown off the deceased hus-bands land, or learning they hadrights as mailo tenants. The clientswho were interviewed were a rela-tively vulnerable group of women(largely widowed) from 40 to 65years of age. Perhaps because ofthis vulnerability, these womenwere keenly aware of the knowl-edge (or sensitization) that theygained from their rights workers:

I did not know that a widow isentitled to the house once thehusband is dead. But now IknowI did not know that whenI lose my husband I am entitledto his property and land. now Iknow all those things. wheneverthey would be sharing land, I willask for my own shareThere isno one now who can take me forgranted or deceive me about thelaw. even, I am entitled tohousehold utensils. (client, fe-male, 50 years old)

I listened carefully. I learnt thatus widows we should not acceptto lose our property, that the lawprotects us, that the landlord andthe tenant have different rightsover land. They told us that if weneed a land title we should go toBukalasa we can secure one.(client, female, 60 years old)

client testimonials also suggest asense of empowerment arising fromprogram participation. with thesupport of rights workers, womenwere able to gain access to commu-nity leaders and government offi-cials. Also, when a case was

successfully mediated, some womenexperienced the inherent power that comes from resolving a disputein their favor, which emerges as especially salient when that possibility was unexpected or previously unknown.

J [rights worker] also guides us tosome offices that we did not eventhink we may ever reach. For in-stance she took me to luwerocourt. I did not know I could sitwith the magistrate and share myproblem freely, but J made thathappen. looking at what shehas done, the experience I havegone through, if I get someonewho has a problem with land, Ican also guide him/her. I knownow the process. And I can alsoforward such person to J too.now I can be listened to. I canraise my voice and someone lis-tens. That is great. (client, female,48 years old)

I have also learnt about landpoliciesI even know where torun to, if I need help. like this

plot of mine, suppose someonewants to grab it. I cannot sit andwatch, I raise up and approachrelevant offices. (client, female,60 years old)

I know I am the winner. Iknow nobody will harass me. Iknow wherever I go I will winbecause the law protects me.(client, female, 50 years old)

Benefits to the CommunityRights Workers Can Serve as LocalLegal Expertsclients and community leaders frequently described in interviewsthat right workers have accurateknowledge of the land laws andserve as legal experts in the com-munity. For example, several leadersdescribed calling upon rights work-ers to help with particularly chal-lenging cases or when technicalguidance was required. moreover,in addition to holding sensitizationsessions for villagers, rights workerstrained local councilpersons andother government officials on other occasions:

19

kris

ta Ja

cobs

[Rights workers] educate us onland issues. we did not knowmuch. They call meetings, theyteach on issues of sharing prop-ertyThey also advise the lc1committee; sometime the lcsmay be handling something andthey get stuck. The paralegalscome in and advise about whatthe law says. (leader, female, 52years old)

Rights Workers Fill an ImportantGap in Accessing Services, Especiallyfor WomenThe discussion of help-seeking be-havior in the context section re-veals that justice is difficult to accessbecause of long distances to formallegal offices and institutions, feesand transportation costs, andamong women, limited mobility, financial resources, and status intheir communities. clients, leaders,and rights workers consistentlyelaborated on a similar range ofpositive attributes of rights workersthat mitigate these barriers. They

emphasized that rights workers re-solve matters quickly, are free ofcharge, can come to or move withclients as needed, are neutral in landmatters, and are approachable, espe-cially for women.

Anyone in the community canget help from paralegals. They are open to everyone. It can be a man, a woman, disabled;so long as one is able to explainhis or her problem and they[paralegals] understand it, theywill be willing to help. (leader,male, age unknown)

llRAAs free services, mediationapproach, and accessibility are especially important for providingwomen an alternative path to accessjustice. In light of restrictions onwomens mobility, that rights work-ers come to you make them easierfor women to access. Rights work-ers emphasis on amicable andpeaceful resolutions may helplower the inherent risks involved in

reporting problems, particularly ifthe charge is against husbands orother male family members. The 50percent female membership ofllRAA also serves to make com-munity rights workers a potentiallymore approachable and accessibleresource for women.

Rights Workers Intervention CouldReduce Land-Related Violenceleaders, rights workers, and clientsexpressed that community rightsworkers interventions are particu-larly vital in land disputes, whichoften quickly escalate into violence.

If these two paralegals were not avail-able possibly some people could hurtthemselves. some would kill them-selves...but when these people [rightsworkers] come they settle issues at locallevels. (leader, male, age unknown)

Indeed many things have been de-stroyed because of land wrangles,people have been killed, familieshave separated because of land. so itis worthwhile to talk about it daily.(client, female, 48 years old)

several clients related more per-sonal accounts of harassment andintimidation. For example, oneclient feared that her neighborwould pour acid on her childrenand another admitted to consider-ing taking her own life because of aconflict over land. given the highstakes involved in land disputes andwomens limited access to formalinstitutions, the commonly heldperception across the sample thatrights workers are an expedient andeffective means of resolving landdisputes emerges as an especiallysalient and encouraging finding. In-terviewees described the gravity ofland issues and the role that rightsworkers play in preventing the out-break of violence.

20d

avid

sny

der

21

Build Positive Relationships withLocal Leaders and InstitutionsllRAA rights workers, with helpfrom UlA, can achieve greater im-pact for the community by strength-ening their engagement with localleaders and institutions. Involve-ment of local leaders helps rightsworkers achieve more effective andlasting resolutions of client cases.working well with leaders and insti-tutions can expand rights workersreferral networks, increase their ownvisibility and legitimacy, and createmore opportunities to hold sensiti-zation events. In turn, local and tra-ditional leaders, who are the currentauthorities on managing land andproperty disputes and resolvingmarital disputes, will be able to putthe weight of law behind their deci-sions if rights workers enhance lead-ers legal knowledge.

with help from UlA, llRAA canincrease their contact with formalinstitutions such as local coun-cilpersons, lc courts and magis-trates courts, subcounty and districtofficials, police stations, and possi-bly religious institutions. It will beimperative for rights workers, localleaders, and institutions, with guid-ance from UlA, to clearly define

their respective roles to ensure thatall work together in an integratedway. to this end, the following rec-ommendations emerged, based ondiscussions with rights workers,leaders, UlA, and IcRw: UlA and llRAA should hold

parish-level introductory meet-ings with leaders to introducerights workers to local leaders.leaders and clients who have al-ready worked effectively withllRAA rights workers may pro-vide examples to open a discus-sion on building workingrelationships between leaders andrights workers.

llRAA rights workers should befamiliar with all government of-fices related to land.

Rights workers should hold legaleducation sessions for local leaders.

llRAA rights workers should in-vite government officials to offici-ate at the capacity buildingtrainings, workshops, and seminarsfor community rights workers.

Increase Awareness of Community Rights WorkersIn the program communities, thestudy found low awareness ofllRAA rights workers and theirservices, a substantial number of

women and men in need of legalhelp and conflict resolution, and en-couraging data about rights workersability to provide legal help. A com-munity mobilization strategy willbe essential for ensuring that peopleknow about llRAA and thatllRAA reaches an audience.llRAA can leverage sensitizationand legal education events to publi-cize its presence and services. Addi-tional awareness-raising strategiesinclude introductory and demon-stration meetings with local leadersand government offices, provision ofmarketing materials (for example,cards, t-shirts, or tote bags), mediacampaigns including radio adver-tisements and announcements atmarkets and trading centers, andadvertising the existence of the re-cently opened office.

Address Workload ConstraintsQualitative interviews and feedbackmeetings with the rights workersindicate that many feel overloadedby their volunteer work. High num-bers of cases and travel time weretwo main contributing factors. Po-tential solutions to address high anduneven workloads include improvednetworking among llRAA rightsworkers to enable sharing of work-loads, facilitating transport, and in-creasing the number of rightsworkers. The monitoring data willbe an invaluable resource for UlAand llRAA to track geographicalareas and individual rights workerswith current high case loads to de-termine where to allocate resources.

Tailor Legal Education to CloseKnowledge GapsFindings from both the survey andmonitoring data point to future areasof capacity building for communityrights workers that will best deepen

To be more effective in future efforts, LLRAA and ULA can use the find-

ings of this study to build on the programs successes and, where necessary,

modify procedures. In particular, community rights workers should more de-

liberately increase their presence in the community, build strong connections

with local leaders and institutions, and continually assess their own commu-

nities needs and rights workers knowledge, skills, manpower, and other re-

sources to meet communities needs. While the recommendations that follow

are specific to this program, many of these lessons can guide efforts to start or

expand similar programs in Uganda and other countries where womens

property rights are not well understood and where access to justice is limited.

RecommendAtIons

their own knowledge and buildknowledge in their communities.These areas include: (1) clarifyingwhat constitutes a lawful marriageand a lawful divorce; (2) womensand mens property rights in andafter marriage; (3) womens and girlsright to inherit property; and (4)landlords and tenants rights and re-sponsibilities in mailo tenure.within each topic, describing whatpersons and offices are authorized tohandle matters and how to obtainrelevant documentation would behelpful. sensitizations about inheri-tance or wills should emphasizegirls rights to inherit. Additionally,more in-depth training on howrights workers can address the mostcommon cases boundary disputes,marital disputes and domestic vio-

lence, and other property disputes could help llRAA more expedi-ently solve cases.

Create an Institutional work Planfor LLRAAA short-term (1-3 year) work plan,grounded in llRAAs existing con-stitution and mission statement,would help the group build its iden-tity and public face as well as or-ganize future expansion of activitieswith leaders and communities. Thework plan need not be detailed butshould describe main activities withtimelines and audiences for each.

Build on Success With MonitoringUlA and llRAA should continueand expand on their good monitor-ing practices, especially feedbacksessions and regular reporting andanalysis of monitoring data thatidentify communities needs, barri-ers to womens property rights, andareas for strengthening rights work-ers capacity. Best practices in moni-toring during the pilot include: Frequent feedback sessions with

rights workers. creating a spacefor the rights workers to givefeedback on the monitoringprocess and for UlA and IcRwto report on monitoring findingsstrengthened the monitoring sys-tem and motivated the rightsworkers to continue collectingdata. Rights workers provideunique insight into the practicalside of data collection, such aswhat information is difficult tocollect from clients. Rights work-ers spent a considerable amountof time recording monitoringdata each month and appreciatedlearning that the data are bothseen and used.

Clear definition of all terms used inthe monitoring forms. defining allthe terms used in the monitoringforms during the llRAA rights

workers training improved theconsistency of data collectedacross the rights workers. moni-toring forms often require spe-cific interpretations of key terms.The training included an interac-tive session to review each moni-toring form line by line. Therights workers were asked to de-fine each question on the moni-toring form and explain how theywould answer the question. Thisgave IcRw and UlA the oppor-tunity to correct misinterpreta-tions or adjust the monitoringforms to improve clarity. Feed-back sessions offered an addi-tional opportunity to reinforcethe common understanding oradjust the monitoring forms orprocedures.

Translation of monitoring docu-ments into the local language.The accuracy of monitoring forms improved when UlAtranslated some of the compli-cated portions of the forms intothe local language. Rights work-ers had difficulty differentiatingbetween the different case typesin english, but understood thesubtle distinctions once it wastranslated into luganda.

Future monitoring work needs tobuild UlAs and llRAAs analyti-cal capacity and identification ofpriority questions to answerthrough monitoring. Program mon-itoring is not only feasible for com-munity rights workers, whentailored to their needs and con-straints, but will be critical to orga-nizational learning. A monitoringsystem is an investment that re-quires intensive planning and train-ing, logistical support, andopportunities for exchange betweenpersons performing the rights workon the ground and persons analyz-ing the monitoring data.

22

dav

id s

nyde

r

community rights workers havemade promising achievements inimproving womens property rightsin their role as accessible providersof legal services and education.knowledge of the law and a safeand accessible space to discuss con-flicts are invaluable in an environ-ment of high stakes andinterconnected issues of land andloss of land, land-related violence inthe community, violence within thefamily, and womens lower social sta-tus. Rights workers are viewed asteachers, mediators, and expertswho create that space and help peo-ple to understand their legal rights.They resolve clients problems, oftenmore quickly than formal justice in-stitutions, may be more accessible towomen, and are perceived as moreapproachable and neutral than localleaders or justice institutions. lead-

ers, clients, and rights workers allgreatly appreciated the legal knowl-edge and understanding of theirrights, however limited the knowl-edge might be, they had gainedthrough the program.

Important barriers, especially re-garding knowledge and attitudesaround womens land rights and in-

heritance, remain. overcomingthem will require prolonged andcommunity-centric efforts both tochange knowledge and attitudesaround gender and the law and toincrease access to legal services. Thisevaluation shows that llRAAscommunity rights workers arebuilding themselves to be in a posi-tion to meet the challenge.

conclUsIon

23

mer

edith

sag

gers

24

dAnIdA (2005). Human Rights and good gover-nance Programs, Access to Justice Program legalAid Basket Fund. Paralegal Baseline and Needs Assess-ment Survey, May-June 2005. Prepared by Associatesfor change, ltd.

IcRw (2007). Womens Property Rights as an AIDS Re-sponse: Lessons from Community Interventions in Africa,International center for Research on women: wash-ington, d.c.

IcRw (2008). A Report on the Critical Review/Needs As-sessment of Paralegal Programs in Uganda: Strategies forStrengthening Gender and Womens Property Rights, In-ternational center for Research on women: washing-ton, d.c.

IcRw and Associates Research Uganda ltd. gender,land, and Asset survey in Uganda. Forthcoming.

maasai women development organization(mwedo) (2008). mapping Process Project forwomens land link Africa Initiative. narrative FinalReport, longido and simanjiro districts.

new vision (2010). editorial: Investigate obbo overmutungo eviction. may 25.http://www.newvision.co.ug/d/8/14/720685/evict

njeri, Juliet (2008). land battle looms in Uganda.BBc news, nairobi. october 9.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7646374.stm

Rugadya, margaret, esther obaikol, and kamusiimeHerbert (2005). critical Pastoral. kampala,

Uganda: Associates for development.

semakula, John (2009). mukono Rdc saves landlord.new vision. August 16.http://www.newvision.co.ug/d/8/19/691504/landlord

Uganda Bureau of statistics and macro InternationalInc. (2006). Uganda: demographic and Health survey2006. calverton, maryland: UBos and macro Inter-national, Inc.

ReFeRence lIst

shan

a Pe

reira

notes1 each village is governed by a local

council I whose members are calledlc1s. each local council has achairperson. each parish has alocal council II committee (lc2),which is made up of the lc1 chair-persons. lc3 corresponds to sub-county level officials; lc4 to thecounty level and lc5 to districtlevel. The subcounty and district alsohave directly elected councilors,who need not hold an lc office,who represent the parishes and sub-counties, respectively. These coun-cilors are akin to localParliamentarians and deal withbudgets, by-laws, and policy.

2 Recent changes affecting womensrights that would not have been cov-ered during their prior trainings in-clude the 2007 declaration of thesuccession Act as unconstitutionalon the grounds that it discriminatedagainst women and girls; increasingimplementation of the consentclause (2004 amendment to theland Act) that requires spouseswritten consent to conduct transac-tions of family land; the 2009amendment to the land Act, largelyconcerning landlord and tenant rela-tions on mailo tenure; changes in of-fices and institutions responsible formanaging land disputes; and the2010 domestic violence Act.

3 As mentioned earlier, the originalplan to conduct a baseline-endlineevaluation to measure program ef-fects was discarded due to uncer-tainty in attributing changes inprogram communities to the inter-vention. The report uses data fromthe quantitative surveys to describeattitudes, documentation, the pro-gram area and population, and re-maining knowledge gaps.

4 two clients who brought a case together were interviewed together.where more than one communityleader was present, they preferred to be interviewed together ratherthan separately.

5 Rights workers were divided intothree categories based on their totalnumber of clients and the number ofsensitization events they conductedfrom August 2009 to July 2010: highintensity (>20), medium intensity(11-20), and low intensity (2-10).

6 Under mailo land tenure, the ownersof the land, called landlords, havelegally recognized ownership rightsover the land. The tenants who liveon the land have legally recognizedoccupancy rights.

7 even though mailo land may techni-cally be owned by landlords, de factoland management is usually accord-ing to custom and customary leaders.The land Act and its amendmentsalso require custom to be recognizedon mailo lands.

8 knowledge questions were not askedat the baseline interviews in August2009 due to a questio