SAS 400

SAS 400 covers projects on gender equality. This includes women's empowerment and LGBTQIA+ communities.

The workbook's case study for this standard follows NGO Sakhi. Sakhi ran a Women Healthcare Programme in rural India. The goal was to close gaps in maternal and reproductive healthcare.

Sakhi ran mobile health clinics offering prenatal care, vaccinations and family-planning counselling. It distributed sanitary pads to fight menstrual hygiene problems. It partnered with hospitals for safe deliveries. It added mental-health support for new mothers under stress.

The case study treats this as a gender-equality project, not just a health one. The workbook links better women's health to economic empowerment, education, and reduced stigma.

The workbook's quantitative evaluation criteria for the Sakhi case (Chapter 8, section 8.3) give these figures:

1. Over 20,000 women directly benefitted from the programme
2. 50,000+ indirect beneficiaries, including family members and the wider community
3. 75% increase in healthcare access among women in remote areas
4. 80% improvement in maternal health knowledge among participants
5. 65% of participants received prenatal care, up from baseline
6. 60% reduction in maternal mortality in high-risk areas
7. 90% attendance at health workshops and mobile clinic visits

The programme's own introductory narrative separately states that "over 25,000 women benefited from mobile health clinics, and more than 2,000 received mental health support" — a different headline figure from the 20,000-direct-beneficiary count in the formal evaluation-criteria table. Both figures appear in the same workbook case study.

Named limitations, per the workbook: overlapping stakeholder roles (health workers, community leaders and beneficiaries wearing multiple hats), difficulty quantifying behavioural and perception change through surveys alone, and inconsistent healthcare infrastructure across regions.

Figures are the workbook's own SAS 400 case study numbers.

Sakhi's evaluation reports 80% improvement in maternal health knowledge and 65% of participants receiving prenatal care, up from a lower baseline. Combined with a claimed 60% reduction in maternal mortality in high-risk areas, an assessor applying SAS 400 would still want to check the denominator behind each percentage, and whether the same base population underlies all seven quantitative indicators.

The workbook's own two different beneficiary counts — "over 25,000 women" in the narrative versus "over 20,000 women directly benefitted" in the formal criteria table — is exactly the kind of figure an assessor applying SAS 400's guidance would need to reconcile, or report as a limitation, rather than quote whichever number looks better.

Chapter 8 (Social Impact Assessment - Case Studies), section 8.3, builds its case study around SAS 400 and NGO Sakhi's Women Healthcare Programme, with its own quantitative criteria, health outcomes and named limitations. Social Impact Assessment Standards (Chapter 5, Table 5.5) lists SAS 400 as covering gender equality, women's empowerment and LGBTQIA+ communities. Expect a question matching Sakhi's programme, or its beneficiary figures, to SAS 400.

• SAS 400 covers gender equality, women's empowerment and LGBTQIA+ communities — not health care generally, which is SAS 200's separate theme.
• The workbook gives two different beneficiary figures for the same Sakhi case — "over 25,000" in the narrative and "over 20,000" in the formal quantitative criteria — state both if asked.
• 50,000+ is the indirect-beneficiary figure, not a second direct-beneficiary count.
• For the full sixteen-standard list, see Social Impact Assessment Standards — this page covers only SAS 400's own case study.