Respectful research requires flexible, participant‑centred methods
We learned that if research is to be respectful to participants, the process and methodology cannot be rigid. Instead, it must be able to adapt to the realities of women’s lives, recognise their time and emotional labour, and make space for their own definitions of progress. Hence, there have been a couple of instances where we paused data collection without pausing intervention, so as not to place additional stress on the clients. Also, participatory, self‑assessment tools like the Family Stoplight allowed women to frame their own priorities and experiences, deepening both the quality of the data and the dignity of the process. This dual role—supporting women’s agency while generating robust evidence—directly advances DOT’s mission and offers a useful model for other organisations seeking to embed measurement without disempowering participants.

Coaching as agenda‑free accompaniment
The programme confirmed that coaching is incredibly valuable for women who usually do not have someone to journey with them. Coaches provided a consistent, non‑judgemental space where women could reflect, plan, and troubleshoot in ways that centred their own goals rather than institutional or family expectations. This strengthened internal capacities such as planning, problem‑solving, and self‑advocacy. For DOT, this reinforces our commitment to agency‑driven support; for peer organisations, it highlights the importance of building in relational, reflective components rather than offering only transactional services.

Unconditional support can rebuild trust
A surprising finding was that women in the income support group showed improvement in their ability to trust—both in themselves and in institutions as we see an increase in help-seeking behaviour. Our reflection is that many women have internalised the belief that they only “deserve” support if they have earned it, whether in the form of money, services, or even respect. A rights‑based approach to income support flips this logic: support is provided unconditionally because human beings inherently deserve a basic level of security and dignity. This helped to reduce shame, created psychological safety, and open up space for women to focus on longer‑term decisions. It has encouraged DOT to deepen our rights‑based framing, and may be instructive for other organisations considering unconditional or low‑conditionality support models.

Individual interventions have limits without structural change
Despite the benefits of coaching and income support, women’s stability remained vulnerable to systemic factors—especially caregiving responsibilities, health shocks, and rigid or unsupportive workplace practices. These pressures often outweighed individual efforts, leading to disruptions in employment or income even when women were motivated and engaged. This has clarified that DOT’s mission cannot be fulfilled through individual‑level interventions alone. We now see more clearly the need to pair direct services with advocacy and partnerships focused on caregiving support, healthcare access, and fairer workplace norms. For other organisations, this underscores the importance of designing programmes that are realistic about structural constraints and, where possible, contributing to system-level change.

Investing in frontline capacities and longitudinal learning
The mixed‑methods, longitudinal design showed that social mobility is non‑linear and fragile, rather than a simple “before and after” story. Following women over a year, and investing in coaches’ capacities for documentation and ethical, trauma‑sensitive practice, gave us a more accurate picture of how gains, setbacks, and shocks interact. This has led DOT to refine how we define and track “success”, moving towards indicators of stability, resilience, and agency over time. It also highlighted the importance for DOT—and other organisations—of resourcing staff development and longer‑term learning, even within modest budgets.