Equity and empowerment effects: Multiple styles of 'voluntarism' in community-based health projects.

• I study a women's group-based health social and behavior change intervention implemented by CHWs in three unique sites. • I create a typology of volunteer CHW management 'styles' and use them to understand CHW empowerment and equity in each site. • Giving volunteers more responsibility leads to greater empowerment, yet demands more time, and excludes marginalized women from being CHWs. • Though payments are seen as 'solution' in volunteer sites and 'problem' in paying ones, I find they have little impact on CHW efficacy or motivation. • However, I find payments may allow more marginalized women to be CHWs and thereby make the program more effective and equitable. Community health workers (CHW) are individuals with no formal health training who perform various roles to address health disparities. There are long-sustained debates over how different forms of incentives shape CHW programs, which are often staffed with volunteer or minimally remunerated women. These debates are complicated by the diversity of CHW roles and contexts in which they work. Evidence is particularly scant around "change-agent" style CHWs, who shape health knowledge and norms within their community. This paper addresses this gap through an analysis of a change agent-staffed program that provided nutrition participatory education through women's groups in three eastern Indian sites. We examine how contextual factors across sites shaped change-agent management, and analyze the implications of each approach for efficacy, empowerment, and equity. Analyzing 68 interviews and 10 focus groups this study advances a typology of 'varieties' of voluntarism that we name laissez faire, active-cultivation, and honorarium-accountability, and uses comparative analysis to examine the equity and empowerment effects within selection, management, and payment. First, we find tensions in the community-based selection of volunteers because rather than selecting highly motivated women, groups selected women in the most favorable socioeconomic position to volunteer. Second, there is a tension around responsibility and expectations in that greater training and responsibility leads women to see more psychosocial empowerment (e.g., knowledge, confidence), but also may create more 'costs' to participation and leads to wider economic inequities in change-agent ranks. Third, we observe a misplaced focus on payments as central to change-agent motivation. While the two volunteer-only sites see payment as 'the answer' to motivation problems, the honorarium site sees payments as 'the problem' because they attract less intrinsically motivated individuals. We conclude that while payments may not make an unmotivated volunteer into a motivated one, this analysis suggests payments would potentially allow more marginalized women to participate, which may be key to making more equitable and efficacious impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]