September 2013 This publication was produced at the request of prepared independently by SAHAVAGI Mid-term Performance Evaluation of the USAID|Nepal Combating Trafficking in Person (CTIP) Project at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was SAHAVAGI. term Performance Evaluation of the USAID|Nepal Combating Trafficking in Person (CTIP) Project the United States Agency for International Development. It was Mid-term Performance Evaluation of the USAID|Nepal Combating Trafficking in Person (CTIP) Project September 2013 Project Number: Cooperative Agreement No. AID-367-A-10-00003 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTENTS Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions ........................................................................... 5 Scope of Work and Limitations .................................................................................................. 7 Project Background ..................................................................................................................... 7 Development Problem ................................................................................................................ 8 Evaluation Methodology and Evaluation Tools ........................................................................ 10 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 10 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 23 Lessons Learned .......................................................................................................................... 25 Tables Table 1: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Project ...............................................................................................18 Table 2: Responses from Mini-Survey ....................................................................................................................19 Table 3: Recommendations to the Project ............................................................................................................. 23 Table 4: Lesson Learned .............................................................................................................................................25 Annexes Annex I: Statement of Work Annex II: Evaluation Methodology Annex III: Evaluation Tools Annex IV: Government Structure Responsible for Combatting TIP Annex V: Name List of Respondents 1 ACRONYMS CAG Community Alert Group CelRRd Center for Legal Research and Resource Development Center DAO District Administrative Office DCCHT District Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking DDC District Development Committee DoFE Department of Foreign Employment FEA Foreign Employment Act FEPB Foreign Employment Promotion Board FER Foreign Employment Rules FGD Focus Group Discussion FWLD Forum for Women, Law and Development GoN Government of Nepal GPC Guidelines for Psychosocial Counseling GMSP Gramin Mahila Srijanseel Pariwar GMSS Gramin Mahila Swabalamban Sahakari Sanstha GBV Gender Based Violence HTTCA Human Trafficking and Transportation (Control) Act HTTCR Human Trafficking and Transportation (Control) Rules IACG Inter-Agency Coordination Group LACC Legal Aid and Consultancy Center MANK Mahila Atma Nirvarta Kendra MOE Ministry of Education MoF Ministry of Finance MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MoFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development MoHA Ministry of Home Affairs MoHP Ministry of Health and Population MoLJPA Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs MoLE Ministry of Labor and Employment MoWCSW Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare NIDS National Institute for Development Studies NTWG Nepal Tamang Women Ghedung NCCHT National Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking NGO Non-Governmental Organization NHRC National Human Rights Commission NJA National Judicial Academy NMS National Minimum Standards OAG Office of Attorney General SOP Standard Operating Procedures SOW Statement of Work TAF The Asia Foundation TPO Transcultural Psychosocial Organization USAID United States Agency for International Development VCCHT Village Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking VDC Village Development Committee WCO Women and Children Office WCSC Women and Children Service Center WDO Women Development Officer WEI World Education Inc. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Combating Trafficking in Person (CTIP) is a five-year project financially supported by USAID|Nepal and implemented by The Asia Foundation (TAF) and its twelve partner organizations in six districts of Nepal. The project has come at the most opportune time when trafficking scenario is exhibiting new dimensions in its forms and destinations globally. It is a proven fact that a unilateral approach to combat trafficking is not effective anymore. Thus, the project’s approach of addressing three components (3Ps: protection, prosecution and prevention) under the aegis of one program is both innovative and holistic. An external mid-term evaluation was commissioned on July 2013 to assess the progress, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, immediate results and to explore the possibilities for the sustainability of the actions. Thus, the evaluation team focused on the aforementioned factors and presented below is the summary of the mid-term evaluation: Project Modality: The project’s 3Ps approach is comprehensive and applies at three levels (community, district and central level). There is flexibility in the project implementation modality which has provided avenues to adopt immediate measures to address the changing trafficking scenario. Furthermore, changes have been made in institutional arrangement between grantees and partners, and program activities to overcome organizational difficulties and increase effectiveness and efficiency. However, changes in the project design frequently have created confusion among implementing partners at times. The project’s strategy is to reach the community with formation of community groups; enhance coordination through capacity building of government mechanisms; and mobilization of key stakeholders. Overall, the project modality is relevant to address the situation of TIP in Nepal. Coordination among Stakeholders: The horizontal coordination among CTIP partners is one of the strengths of the project. However, the vertical coordination from central level to the community level needs to be strengthened. In absence of coordination mechanism at the central or district level such as Project Steering Committee or Project Advisory Committee has hindered effective and efficient coordination. At the central level, coordination with other government agencies such as MoLE, DoFE, FEPB and MoFALD is missing, which seems necessary to address the issues of migration. Strengthening of Inter-disciplinary Coordination Mechanism: The support provided by project to the Secretariat of NCCHT enhanced its presence, and helped to discharge committee’s roles and responsibilities. The NCCHT is the central mechanism of the GoN placed in the MoWCSW to deal with TIP issues among other agencies. Please refer to Annex 4.However, the functional linkage with other line-ministries, represented in the committee, has not materialized as expected. Quite often the frequency of presence, of designated members representing in NCCHT from line ministries remained low and not in par with the provisions set by HTTCR. Likewise, the project’s efforts to strengthen DCCHT were limited to organizing a few orientations and training through NCCHT. Moreover, there was a lack of regular guidance, direction, support and monitoring from the NCCHT to DCCHT. Protection: Two-mile stone documents namely National Minimum Standards (NMS) and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) have developed with support from the project and endorsed by the GoN. Currently, it is in process of dissemination among the stakeholders for implementation. The project also conducted activities to develop the capacity of the shelter home staff members on psychosocial care activities. However, the activities were not geared towards instilling quality of care and protection at the shelter homes from a holistic perspective. Prosecution: The project has made appreciable efforts by developing model draft policies and training manuals to enhance the capacities of the duty-bearers and encourage victim-centric approach. Furthermore, the project has tried to reach the victims in need of legal aid through community groups 3 and activities such as mobile legal aid clinic. However, the rate of prosecution hasn’t seen significantly positive changes. There is no increase in the number of new cases filed under trafficking laws. Similarly, some draft policy documents/guidelines developed under the purview of the project remains to be endorsed by the GoN for its adoption and implementation. Prevention: Safe Migration Networks (SMNs) are the community-based networks formed by the project to work as change-makers at the community level by conducting activities to increase awareness on TIP and safe migration issues, and reach out to TIP victims to lend support. However they are not optimally functional because there is no clarity on their roles, responsibilities and authority. Concomitantly, the resources – both financial and human – allocated for the community-level prevention work is minimal. The understanding of the nexus between trafficking and migration is not clear either to the implementing partner organizations or to SMNs. Likewise, one of the challenges for the project has also been identification of TIP victim. Comprehensive referral mechanism: The delineation of roles and responsibilities has fostered strong coordination among the implementing partner organizations, particularly in case referral. A guideline on comprehensive referral mechanism has been developed under the project, but not all partners are well versed on it. The project has contributed towards building referral mechanism at the district level by linking some services but the referral system in Kathmandu was relatively weak. The horizontal coordination in Kanchanpur and Sindhupalchok districts between partners and among other organization not included in the project has helped to realize the referral mechanism. The organizations frequently refer to each other for expertise and assistance in different field. However, one of the focal agency in the district Women and Children Offices (WCOs) for TIP case referral have not been able to maintain their roles because the issues of trafficking receives lesser priority among plethora of issues and tasks that they deal with. Furthermore, they lack skills and resources in handling the issues of trafficking. Sustainability: The project documents do not show a clear and uniform sustainability plan. Each implementing organizations were working on their own to find ways to sustain some of the project activities after the termination of the project. For example all partners deem institutionalization of SMN necessary but there is no uniform plan on measures to do so. Lapse of institutional memory in government organizations has also hampered to sustain program’s achievements. Nevertheless, the trainings provided to the various duty-bearers have helped to gradually mainstream victim-centered approach in law enforcement agencies. Recommendations The following recommendations are proposed by the evaluation team: Protection • Allocate resources (financial, human and technical) to the shelter home(s) for implementation of NMS and SOP; • Develop user friendly version of NMS and SOP for the care-givers at the shelter homes; • Work with the shelter home staff for the implementation of NMS and SOP in their respective shelter homes; • Conduct training to WCO staff and other DCCHT members on NMS and SOP to enhance their capacities to supervise and monitor the shelter homes operating in the districts. • Adopt a holistic approach for the protection component in line with the NMS and SOP; • Install tools and techniques such as case management system, policies, code of conduct etc. to scale up the quality of care and protection to the trafficking survivors at the shelter home; and • Establish at least one shelter home as a model in delivering quality of service and protection and replicate this model. 4 Prosecution • Take a participatory approach while working with the government for the endorsement of documents such as SOP for Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication, Rescue and Raid Guideline, Victim/Witness Protection Policy; • Create a conducive environment to conduct training to law enforcement agencies, judiciaries, immigration officials from a victim-centric perspective; • Conduct a national-level workshop for conceptual clarity to understand the nexus between trafficking and migration, particularly foreign employment led trafficking such that the prosecution rate of the trafficking cases happening on the pretext of foreign labor migration can come under the purview of HTTCA or booked under both HTTCA and FEA; • Reach TIP victims through survivors’ organization and networks in order to increase their access to justice; and • Develop strategy to work more closely with law enforcement officials to build their capacity and change in attitude/behavior. Prevention • Build consensus among implementing partners regarding the future of SMN and prepare guidelines for formation, roles and responsibilities for them in consultation with NCCHT in order to maintain uniformity and institutionalize them by linking them through VCCHT; • Ensure that the composition of all the SMNs adhere to the policy of inclusiveness as aspired by the project and re-form the SMNs where/if necessary. • Develop training and refresher modules for SMN; • Allocate more funds to capacitate the community-level networks; • Provide more resources to SMNs to carry out activities equipped with IEC materials in order to encourage them; • Devise a strategy, such as creating a survivors’ network, to access and identify the TIP victims in the community and establish linkages of SMN with VCCHT and VDC; • Work towards stripping the labels of CTIP partner’s branding attached to the network and motivate them to take ownership of their work; • Establish link with line agencies working on migration such as MoLE, DoFE and FEPB; • Include the messages on internal trafficking as well while creating awareness at the community￾level; and • Establish the monitoring system of SMN activities/performance through DCCHT. Coordination • Strengthen coordination between implementing partners and the government key stakeholders by forming district level project steering committee/project advisory committee and establishing link with DCCHT and WCO for the smooth operation of the project; and • Provide yearly follow-up training to the DCCHT members and WCO staff about the project and the issues of TIP and safe migration. • Train the implementing partner organizations on maintaining database with disaggregated data, record keeping and coding system to maintain the confidentiality of the TIP victims. Sustainability • Initiate dialogue with the respective DCCHTs and DDCs on how the project can support in the initial years of transfer if the project is working towards placing SMNs within the government structure such as merging/converting to VCCHT; and • Strengthen the documentation system to keep records of all minutes and feed-back provided both at the NCCHT and DCCHTs for mainstreaming their decisions in the related ministries. 5 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS This document presents the results of the mid-term performance evaluation of the USAID|Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) project. A SAHAVAGI team led by gender and anti-trafficking expert Ratna Kaji Bajracharya, along with anti-trafficking expert Muna Basnyat, labor migration expert Chandeshwar Acharya, economist and gender expert Dr. Meena Acharya, anthropologist and social researcher Ishan Ghimire, and program manager Bhabani Sapkota carried out the evaluation. The evaluation was conducted from the second week of July to mid-September, 2013. The mid-term evaluation covers the performance of activities of the CTIP project from August 2010 to June 2013. The project is scheduled to end by August 2015. The primary audience of this report is USAID|Nepal mission. The report is also intended for Government of Nepal (GoN), implementing partners of the project, Inter-Agency Coordinating Group (IACG) of Anti-Trafficking, USAID|Washington, other USAID missions, wider anti-trafficking community in Nepal, and researchers. In the following sections, the purpose of the evaluation is stated; approach for the evaluation is explained; the background of development problem is briefly delineated; and USAID’s assistance approach is described. The findings are then presented which is followed by the conclusions, recommendations, and finally the lessons learned. Purpose of the evaluation The principle objective of this mid-term performance evaluation is to assess the project’s operational modality, relevance, effectiveness and efficiency in accomplishing the expected outputs and outcomes stated in the results framework. Furthermore, the prospects of sustainability are examined along with the immediate effect of the development assistance on the beneficiaries of the project. Additionally, the USAID|Nepal had requested the evaluation team to incorporate suggestions for future direction to address the issues of trafficking in persons (TIP) in Nepal. Hence, the strategic possibilities for future assistance, within and beyond the CTIP project period, are also presented under the section of lessons learned. Evaluation Approach In order to achieve the purpose of this evaluation, a study framework was developed using the DAC criteria for evaluating development assistance1. The suggested criteria by DAC were appropriated to meet the needs of this evaluation. The criteria set for the mid-term evaluation were: relevance; program modality; effectiveness; efficiency; effect (immediate results/changes); and sustainability2. The information regarding the relevance of the project was sought to assess the extent of project’s ability to reduce TIP and protect the rights of victim in Nepal, its modality in the changing contexts and relevancy of the activities to achieve the objectives. 1 The DAC evaluation criteria have been appropriated for the study. For further information on the evaluation criteria, see Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance published by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2 Details of the study framework and evaluation methodologies are provided in Annex 2. 6 Information regarding the program modality was acquired by looking into the institutional arrangement and their functional linkages, program components and activities, and strategies adopted to achieve the project’s objectives. The effectiveness of the project was assessed by gathering information regarding the process and progress of the project, program reaching major beneficiaries, and performance of the activities against the project objectives. To evaluate the efficiency of the project, information was sought regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the project activities, use of resources and cost effectiveness, resource mobilization and cooperation of local organizations, and efficiency of the implementing partners in enhancing the capacity of district partners. The effects (results) of the project was considered by taking notes of the immediate effects at the level of beneficiaries, effects on government planning against TIP, and implementation of policy documents. A comprehensive assessment of the impact of this project was not possible at this stage because the project had passed only half way through the program period and this mid-term evaluation has focused on the performance of project activities. Therefore, the ‘effects’ of the project in this regard refer to the immediate effect of the program activities on the stakeholders and beneficiaries. An assessment of sustainability was conducted by gathering and analyzing the information regarding the approaches and measures taken for sustainability, functioning of partner networks and government bodies for sustaining program activities, and institutional capacity of partners and government bodies. Evaluation Questions The evaluation questions for the study were derived from the ‘Evaluation Questions’ stated in the Statement of Work3 (SOW). The evaluation was structured to address the following questions: i. Is the CTIP project effective in fostering coordination with government and non-government stakeholders such that the local level commitment is reflected in coordinated strategies to combat trafficking in person at both central and district levels? ii. How has the CTIP project assisted in functioning of National Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking to discharge its mandatory roles and responsibilities? iii. Has the CTIP project enhanced the capacity of key stakeholders in providing comprehensive care and protection services to the victims of trafficking as envisaged in the standard guidelines such as National Minimum Standards (NMS) for the care and protection of trafficking victims/survivors and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Rehabilitation Center? Are there evidences of improved service delivery in the areas of legal, psychosocial, and livelihood support to survivors of TIP? iv. What are the CTIP project’s contributions to strengthen the prosecution in TIP issues? Are the numbers of TIP cases increasing or have remained the same while giving due attention to victim/witness friendly procedures? Are the investigation, prosecution and adjudication procedures of police government attorney and court progressing towards principles adhered by the Human Trafficking and Transportation Control Act and Rules? 3 The Statement of Work commissioned by USAID|Nepal is provided in Annex 1 7 v. How effective has the prevention activities of CTIP project been in raising awareness amongst community that it has reached? Are there any evidences of decrease in trafficking incidences because of the preventive measures taken? vi. How cohesive is the partnership between different CTIP project’s fund recipient partner organizations and how fluid is the sharing of information between them? vii. How are the strategies for the sustainability of the project being ensured? How have they taken ownership of the project? Is the program producing targeted results? SCOPE OF WORK AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation was conducted in three out of six project districts. In the districts, information were gathered from the district level stakeholders including District Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking (DCCHT), District Court, Office of District Attorney, Women and Children Office, Women and Children Service Centers (WCSC) of District Police Office, District Development Committee (DDC), NGOs working to combat trafficking, Migration Information Center, and the field offices of implementing partners. Within the three districts, sampling strategies4 were used to cover only ten percent of the Village Development Committees (VDCs) and municipality reached by the project. This was due to the limited time commissioned for the work. The three districts covered by the evaluation were: Kanchanpur, Kathmandu and Sindhupalchok. The VDCs and municipality selected for fieldwork from the three districts were: Suda VDC and Bhimdutta Municipality in Kanchanpur; Goldhunga, Bandbhanjyang, Dakshinkali and Bajrayogini VDCs in Kathmandu; Talamarang, Kiul, Tatopani, Batase and Kadambas VDCs in Sindhupalchok. The name list of respondents has been given in Annex 5. The mini-survey was conducted within the vicinity of the monthly meeting place of the community groups formed by the project. It was not possible to reach each ward of the sample VDCs because of the limited time for fieldwork, and topographical constraints which were further worsened by the monsoon season. Due to time limitation, the evaluation team could not meet with the beneficiaries who had received some kind of support through the project for their livelihood. Few SMN members who had taken Family Financial Planning (FFP) training were asked some questions regarding the application of the training but no in depth interviews were conducted. Similarly, it was not possible to meet the survivors at the shelter homes or assess the quality of shelter homes against the national minimum standards as planned in the beginning. During the course of the study it was found that the project did not support the shelter homes directly, thus any grounds for access to such institution was restricted. In absence of baseline data, it was difficult to measure the increase in the level of awareness on the issue of TIP and safe migration amongst the community people as cited in the project reports. Lastly, the study team did not evaluate the financial aspects of the project because it was beyond its mandate. 4 See Annex 2 8 PROJECT BACKGROUND CTIP project is a five-year anti-trafficking project implemented in six districts (Banke, Kanchanpur, Kathmandu, Kavrepalanchowk, Makwanpur and Sindupalchowk) of Nepal. The total budget is USD 6.8 M. The project is implemented by The Asia Foundation (TAF) with twelve other partner organizations. The project takes a holistic approach to address issues of protection, prosecution, and prevention of trafficking in persons related to labor migration, sex trafficking, and organ trafficking. The project works with both men and women who are vulnerable to trafficking. The overall goal of the CTIP project is to reduce and prevent the incidence of TIP. The key objectives of the program are to: 1) strengthen protection services for TIP survivors; 2) build capacity of the judiciary and law enforcement agencies to effectively enforce legal measures and increase prosecution; and 3) prevent trafficking by building awareness among groups that are vulnerable to sex and labor trafficking. DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM TIP is an organized crime fundamentally violating the human rights of individuals. It has been widely recognized as a grave socio-economic problem in Nepal. The country has been strategically battling against this problem for more than two decades now. However, the scope of combating TIP has been limited due to the clandestine nature of the crime, lack of reliable statistical information, and open and highly congested border with India5. The Global Report6 and US TIP Report7 have also highlighted the difficulties faced globally in ascertaining the actual number of TIP incidences. Moreover, the forms and destinations of trafficking have evolved over the years globally. The changing dynamics of TIP vis-à-vis changing socio-economic and polity in Nepal has increased the magnitude of the challenges in combating TIP. Initially, cross-border trafficking took precedence on all the TIP related issues and debates. Subsequently, the policies, laws and programs formulated were limited to only sex trafficking of women and girls. The data (without any authentic source) of 5,000-7,000 women and girls being trafficked annually to India for sexual exploitation was used redundantly without validation or update. A point came wherein the development practitioners and NGOs termed the data obsolete. After popular democratic movement in 1990, Nepal adopted open market policy which increased foreign employment migration to the Gulf Cooperation Council and countries like Malaysia. The start of the new millennia saw various studies, articles, and media drawing attention to bigger challenges of the issue at hand. It was shown that the issues of TIP had proliferated to other destinations beyond India, Gulf Cooperation Council and Malaysia on the pretext of labor migration to many countries.8 Furthermore, trafficking of young girls and women in the domestic sex industry operating under the ambit of entertainment sector and children trafficked to the Indian cities for circus and other labor exploitation was revealed. Additionally, recent incidents of people being cajoled to sell their organs (kidney)9 have opened new dimensions for discussions and interventions. With these new revelations, the need for an integrated approach to address the current trafficking trend in Nepal was realized among the government agencies, civil societies, development practitioners and researchers. 5 ABA Rule of Law Initiative and CeLLRd (2011) Human Trafficking Assessment Tool Report for Nepal. Kathmandu: American Bar Association. 6 UNODC (2012), Global Report on Trafficking in Persons.(United Nations publications, Sales No. E.13.IV.1) 7 US Department of State (2013), Trafficking in Persons Report 8 Nepal has opened 109 countries for foreign employment, http://www.dofe.gov.np/ 9 http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=56925 9 The GoN’s assurance to address the issue has mostly been reflected in terms of formulating laws, national plans of action, and establishment of an institutional framework10. The GoN promulgated “Human Trafficking and Transportation Control Act (HTTCA) 2064” in 2007 and “Human Trafficking and Transportation Control Rules (HTTCR) 2065” in 2008. The Act proved to be more progressive than the previous laws. While the previous laws had restricted the definition of trafficking to women and girls being transported across border for sexual exploitation, the current Act broadened the concept by including internal commercial sexual exploitation and organ trafficking. Furthermore, it attempted to include frauds and deception leading to labor exploitation as a form of human trafficking. Moreover, it provided legal grounds to penalize the perpetrators by shifting the burden of proof to them; and to compensate, rehabilitate and reintegrate the victims. Following the law, the National Committee on Controlling Human Trafficking (NCCHT) and District Committee on Controlling Human Trafficking (DCCHT) were formed at the central and district levels respectively in 2009 to make coordinated efforts among line ministries and agencies to fight against human trafficking. The NCCHT and DCCHT comprise of senior level government officials from different ministries and line agencies, representatives of NGOs working against human trafficking, and the survivors. Despite these efforts, TIP remains a grave problem in Nepal. It has been observed that more commitment is required to step up law enforcement actions against all forms of trafficking, to investigate, prosecute and convict traffickers, and to increase awareness about child sex tourism11. Moreover, the rapid change in forms of trafficking has brought more challenges. One major trend observed in recent years is TIP by deception and fraud in foreign labor migration. It is estimated that around 1500 Nepalese are migrating every day for foreign employment to countries other than India12 and over three million Nepalese living abroad comprise around one third of the male population of working age13. Like most nations struggling in post-conflict situation under unstable political economy, remittance from labor migrants has helped to uphold the fragile economy of Nepal. In the Fiscal Year 2009, the remittance received through official channels amounted to 22 percent of the country’s GDP14 . It is very important to note that the same people who are contributing to the country’s economy, including women are likely to be exploited, abused, duped, stranded and even at the risk of physical impairment and death under the circumstances of unsafe migration and trafficking. Various reports, complaints and anecdotes have revealed that unsafe migration has led the aspirant labor migrants, especially women, to trafficking often requiring immediate rescue15 and repatriation. Thus, the nexus between trafficking and unsafe migration needs to be clearly understood and addressed simultaneously. However, the cases of fraud and deception involved in foreign employment have been dealt mostly under Foreign Employment Act, 2007 (FEA) and Foreign Employment Rules, 2007 (FER). The Department of Foreign Employment and Foreign Employment Tribunal are the mandated authorities to deal the cases. Very few cases of TIP involved in foreign employment are brought under HTTCA. 10 See Annex 4 for illustrated regulatory framework of the GoN 11 Chemonics International (2009) USAID Anti-trafficking in persons programs in Asia: A Synthesis. Washington D.C.: USAID 12 Department of Foreign Labor, Nepal 13 NIDS (2009) Nepal Migration Survey, Kathmandu: The World Bank 14Migration and Development (2012).http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934- 1110315015165/MigrationAndDevelopmentBrief13.pdf?cid=ISG_E_WBWeeklyUpdate_NL 15 Record from the Embassy of Nepal in Riyadh shows that a total of 340 recues were made in Saudi Arabia alone in 2011. 10 USAID’s assistance approach On a global scale, USAID has invested on average $16.3 million annually since 2001 to combat trafficking16. Nepal has also been receiving development assistance from USAID|Nepal since 2001 to combat trafficking. The development assistance provided by USAID is aimed at garnering attention from all levels of society. The assistance is provided to raise awareness, and help governments, communities and local NGOs to take action against the traffickers as well as assist individual trafficking victims. Since its support in anti-trafficking interventions in Nepal, USAID has pioneered efforts to address some of the root causes of trafficking, helped vulnerable girls, and returned victims find gainful employment. In its efforts to counter TIP, USAID takes a holistic approach focusing on Prevention, Protection, Prosecution and Partnership. These components are collectively known as the 4Ps: Prevention, Protection for victims and Prosecution of traffickers, and Partnership across the broad range of stakeholders. US State Department also classifies countries into tiers based on government’s efforts to comply with “minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking” found in Section 108 of the US Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Nepal’s commitment in combating TIP has been acknowledged in annual TIP Reports where it has maintained Tier 2 position over the years. Tier 2 represents countries that do not fully comply with the TVPA minimum standards but are making significant efforts to do so. A five year CTIP project was introduced in Nepal in 2010 focusing on 3Ps: Prevention, Protection and Prosecution. Financial assistance of $6.8 million was provided with a goal to reduce TIP and protect the rights of the victims. The project is implemented in six districts of Nepal that are prone to TIP incidents and targets to strengthen stakeholders from the central level to the community level in the fight against TIP. The SOW states the key developmental hypothesis of the project as: "if USAID raises awareness of TIP among the vulnerable population through creation of local groups and providing information, supports the GoN in strengthening the policy framework and implementation of existing guidelines and policies, and builds the capacities of the law enforcing entities to support TIP victims to pursue their cases in courts and other judicial bodies, the incidence of TIP will be reduced and the services to TIP victims will improve." It is believed that CTIP project, implemented with financial and technical assistance from USAID, has come at the most appropriate time especially considering the holistic and comprehensive approach which has also been adopted by GoN through National Plan of Action. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION TOOLS The evaluation methodology and evaluation tools are in annexes 2 and 3 respectively. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This section presents the findings of the study under the criteria set for the mid-term evaluation. Program modality Institutional arrangement, implementing partners and their functional linkages: 16 USAID (2012) Counter Trafficking in Persons Policy. Washington DC: USAID 11 The CTIP project, with financial support from USAID, is implemented by The Asia Foundation (TAF) and World Education Inc. (WEI) as prime and sub-grantee respectively. Besides having the lead role in the project, TAF is responsible for the protection and prosecution components. Likewise, WEI is responsible for the prevention component. TAF has partnered with NJA, a state mechanism; and five national NGOs: CeLRRd, FWLD, LACC, PPR with specialized expertise to work on prosecution, and TPO on protection. Similarly, WEI has partnership with six NGOs working on the prevention component: Change Nepal, GMSS, NIDS, NTWG, Pourakhi, and SAATHI. The project structure and the responsibilities are presented in Figure 1 There is no mechanism such as project steering committee or project advisory committee of the implementing partners under CTIP project. However, the entire implementing partners meet together to discuss on activities and progress made under the project as and when necessary, and TAF plays the leadership role for coordination among all the partner organizations. Figure 1: Project Structure Prosecution Protection Prevention USAID/CTIP The Asia Foundation World Education National Judicial Academy Center for Legal Research and Resource Development Forum for Protection of People's Rights Legal Aid Consultancy Center Forum for Women, Law and Development Transcultural Psychosocial Organization Change Nepal Gramin Mahila Swabalamban Sahakari Sanstha Nepal Tamang Women Ghedung Pourakhi SAATHI National Institute of Development Studies 12 The project has formal linkages with Ministry of Women, Children, and Social Welfare (MoWCSW), through NCCHT. The nodal ministry to coordinate anti-trafficking policies, programs and other activities is MoWCSW. The NCCHT is a national level coordinating mechanism chaired by the Secretary of MoWCSW. The Joint Secretary of the same ministry is the Member Secretary of NCCHT. Joint Secretaries from MoLE, MoHA and MoFA; Joint Attorney from OAG; DIG from Nepal Police; three women members from NGOs engaged in anti-trafficking activities and two women survivors are the permanent members of NCCHT. The project support to NCCHT has extended to include invitees from other ministries such as MoE, MoF, MoFALD, MoHP and MoLJPA. Therefore, it is seen as a platform to create linkages with other concerned ministries and Civil Society Organizations being sensitive towards ensuring the rights of trafficking victims. The project has been providing one Technical Advisor to the MoWCSW, for strengthening the capacity of NCCHT Secretariat. The project has also provided equipment (computers, laptop, LCD, and photocopier) to the Secretariat. Additionally, the project supports NCCHT to enhance the capacity of DCCHTs in districts covered by the project and beyond the project area. Therefore the project has direct and indirect linkages with the NCCHT and DCCHT. Both, TAF and WEI are members of Inter Agency Coordination Group (IACG) which is group represented by around twenty anti-trafficking organizations (international organizations, UN Agencies, and diplomatic missions in Nepal). TAF is co-chairing the group since June 2011 along with Planète Enfants, a French NGO working on children’s issues. Program components and activities: The project has three components: Prevention; Protection; and Prosecution. TAF and its six partner organizations are working towards providing improved legal services to the trafficking victims, and supporting judiciary and law enforcement agencies to enhance their victim-centered expertise along with improving quality of care and protection provided to the victims. Similarly, WEI is building capacity of major stakeholders and, conducting awareness campaigns and safe migration activities with the partner organizations. The activities and arrangements under each project component are as follows: Protection: Based on the field observation it has been found that except TPO other implementing partners have minimal activities under protection component. TPO is working to enhance the capacity of staff members running the shelter homes, both government and NGO managed, in delivering quality of care and protection to trafficking victims. Furthermore, TPO’s role was instrumental in supporting MoWCSW in the development of key policy documents such as NMS and SOP and Psychosocial Counseling Guideline. Prosecution: Three organizations, CeLRRd, LACC and PPR are each working in three districts with at least two organizations working together in one district. These organizations are responsible to provide: i) legal orientation through mobile clinics at the community level and ii) legal counseling to victims residing in community as well as at the shelter homes. While the number of reported TIP cases is very low at the community level, the services provided through implementing partners are being used by GBV victims too. Likewise, FWLD drafted and submitted Guideline for victim/witness protection, SOP for investigation, rescue and raid policy. It also developed training manuals for the key government officials on victim-centric approach to justice for trafficking survivors. These drafts of policy documents and training manual have not been endorsed by the GoN yet. Similarly NJA developed the SOP on prosecution and adjudication and finalized it through high level committee under the Supreme Court. It also prepared training manual on continuous hearing for members of judiciary, law enforcement agencies and government officials. Training programs are being conducted accordingly. Furthermore, a PIL was filed on continuous hearing on which the Supreme Court has issued directives for its application. Prevention: SAATHI has been conducting prevention activities in two project districts, Kanchanpur and Banke since the onset of the project. Change Nepal, Pourakhi, NTWG and GMSS are working under 13 this component in Kathmandu, Sindhupalchok, Kavrepalanchok and Makwanpur districts respectively. One of the major prevention activities under this component is the formation of Safe Migration Network (SMN) at the community level. SMNs are community based groups formed to conduct preventive activities. Another partner NIDS was responsible in developing training manuals such as Family Financial Planning (FFP), IEC materials, and linking community based SMNs with the national SMN. However, the evaluation team was informed that NIDS no longer has any programs under the project. Strategies adopted to achieve project objectives: The project has adopted 3Ps approach which is a new move towards addressing the issues of TIP in Nepal. The project provides protection for the victims, access to justice and psychosocial well-being, rehabilitation and reintegration under the aegis of one project. The project’s strategy is to reach the community extensively with the formation of SMNs at the VDC level. SMNs are expected to raise awareness for safe migration, so that TIP incidences will be reduced. Concomitantly, this approach is expected help in identification of TIP victims and support for their rights. The project has two coordination strategies17: 1) enhance coordination of anti-trafficking efforts through building the capacity of NCCHT and DCCHT, and 2) mobilize key stakeholders. Relevance Program’s ability to reduce TIP and protect the rights of victim in Nepal: The ultimate goal of the project is to reduce incidence of TIP and protect the rights of the victim. However, in the absence of reliable statistical data18 specifying the number of persons trafficked each year within the country and outside, it was difficult to assess the project’s ability in this regard. It is important to note that the GoN had identified twenty six districts as trafficking prone in previous years. But this decision was also not based on any study or research. In recent years, the problem of TIP has spread to almost all districts but the project is implemented in only six out of seventy five districts. Furthermore, not all trafficking cases that have happened under the pretext of foreign labor migration have been filed under HTTCA. The data received from the District Attorney’s Office in Kathmandu shows that cases filed under FFA outnumber the cases filed under HTTCA. For example in the fiscal year 2067-68 (2010-11) and 2068-69 (2011-12) the number of cases registered under FEA was 316 and 289, whereas the number of cases registered under HTTCA was 81 and 50 respectively. During the meetings with SMN members and implementing partners, it was noted that Gender Based Violence (GBV) cases outnumbered TIP cases frequently. For example, out of the 112 cases who received psychosocial support from TPO in the second year of the project, only 39 were TIP cases and the remaining were related to GBV and other vulnerabilities. Similarly, as per TAF’s second annual report, out of 362 cases referred by SMNs formed in six districts only 52 were TIP cases and 222 were GBV cases. There is a fine line between GBV and TIP, and the former is one of the factors leading to latter. In these contexts where other social problems have overlapped with TIP issues, the project faces a major challenge in accessing and identifying TIP victims. 17 CTIP project document 18 Almost all the data encountered are based on estimation and with no references to any study. It is not reliable to depend on such data. 14 Relevance of the project in changing context: The project is comprehensive in terms of conceptualization, but suffers from ambivalence in the distinction of TIP victims. The project has touched upon the issue of migration without a clear link between it and trafficking. In most cases, TIP victims through foreign employment refrain from identifying themselves as such. During the meetings with stakeholders, it was remarked that in most cases the victims preferred to file their cases at the DoFE and Foreign Employment Tribunal for quick compensation and elusion from stigma attached to trafficking. It is noted that even after the promulgation of HTTCA seven years back, not a single TIP victim has received compensation till date. Although the project document speaks about internal trafficking there are no programmatic interventions geared towards addressing the issue. Nevertheless, the project is conducting a case-study research of fifty cases – which was not planned in the project document – to understand the recent emergence of organ trafficking in Kavrepalanchok district. The research is one prime example of how the project is appropriating new activities in the project to address the changing context. The study is expected to assess situation and see how it can be brought under the current legislation. Relevancy of the project activities to achieve the objectives: Majority of the activities implemented under each of the 3Ps are relevant to achieve the objectives set by the project and tries to find synergies between the three components. Protection: The project has supported to develop NMS and SOP, which can be seen as landmark documents to guarantee the quality care and protection services to trafficking victims in Nepal. They have also created a basis to monitor shelter homes. Equally, the project is working towards enhancing the care-giving capacities of the shelter home staff to ensure the psychosocial well-being of the trafficking survivors in their care. However, the protection component lacks a holistic approach with integrated services such as education, skill training, entrepreneurship training, seed money which are required for the successful reintegration of the trafficking survivors. The project has not worked towards scaling up the quality of services at the shelter home. Prosecution: The project has supported to prepare draft guidelines on investigation and adjudication of TIP cases (via FWLD), as well as a training manual on continuous hearing process (via NJA) for the use of police officers, government attorneys and judges. These efforts to instill victim-centric approach to the duty bearers are appreciable. The approach is very relevant in today’s context wherein many of the TIP victims refrain from filing cases because of the attitude and behavior of the law enforcement officials and judiciaries towards trafficking survivors. Raising awareness about HTTCA is also one of the activities of the project to sensitize the government officials and keep them informed about the provisions laid in the law to ensure the rights of the TIP victims. Prevention: In order to prevent trafficking and unsafe migration, it is vital to raise awareness in the communities. The project has visualized mobilization of community groups to bring out TIP cases, identify vulnerable individuals/groups, and raise awareness for safe migration. This structure has potential to advocate for safe migration and be a monitoring mechanism to keep sharp eyes towards possibilities of TIP incidences in the community. The concept is relevant in reaching deep into the communities. It is very difficult for any organization to access the grassroots-level without such groups, especially to deal with clandestine issue such as TIP. Activities are also being conducted to include issues of TIP and safe migration in the school curriculum, which is also relevant to sensitize and aware the exponentially increasing number of youths plying for foreign employment. It can be expected that with this education the youth will have the access of informed choice for their safe migrations. 15 Effectiveness of the program Process and progress of the project: The evaluation team was informed that the pace of activities was slow in the first year of project due to the turnover of staff at the office of prime-grantee. In the first year of the project, three Chiefs of Party (COP) officiated one after another. In the first year the, the appointed COP had to leave for Medical reasons and thereafter there was an interim COP till the new designated COP took over in Oct 2011'.Furthermore, there were some delay in signing cooperative agreement which impacted the timely implementation of project activities. Several delays were also caused due to the requirement of 'Leahy vetting' of training nominees. In some instances the nominated officials were found to be already transferred by the time clearance was given. This was a special case with regard to training planned for Nepal Police. The progress reports of activities were submitted by the partner organizations to the prime and sub￾grantee directly as per the agreement. The reports were submitted in a given format, and they clearly highlighted the progress made which match the work plan developed during the onset of the project year. As per the Performance Management Plan (PMP) indicators set for the first three years, the project was observed to have made progress in completing its activities and reaching the target. However, it was difficult to assess how the targets were set annually in absence of detailed log-frame for complete five years of the project. Program reaching major beneficiaries: Identification of victims has been observed as a major difficulty in issues of TIP. A study19on the applicability of anti-trafficking law through case monitoring shows that victims do not want to identify themselves and turn hostile to the extent of changing their initial statement. The study reports that only four out of thirteen victims accepted their first statement. During the evaluation, it was learnt that the legal mobile clinics were set to provide services to TIP victims on the spot. But the services were also used by GBV victims and many TIP victims preferred to secure complete anonymity and would not reveal themselves in such clinics. It was also learnt that the mobile clinics would not continue from the third year. It was also observed that the link between protection services and prosecution of case is somehow missing. The TIP victims do not feel encouraged to file the cases under HTTCA due to combination of causes such as lack of awareness, sense of insecurity from the traffickers, delay in justice, ambiguity in compensation, and social stigma. The evaluation team found that due attention hadn’t been given while forming SMNs. The groups formed haven’t accommodated members from disadvantaged and socially excluded groups. Majority of the members have family background of socially privileged groups, and reside in the same wards and communities. For example, only two people from the Dalit community were found as members out of the seventy met from eleven SMN during the evaluation. Performance of activities against the project activities: Overall, the CTIP project is designed to meet seven objectives and the performance till the date of evaluation is measured against each of the objectives as follows: 19 FWLD (2012) Report on Anti-trafficking Law through Court Case Monitoring. Kathmandu: Forum for Women, Law and Development 16 a) Strengthening policy framework for victim care: Under the purview of the CTIP project, support was provided to GoN to develop two policy documents namely NMS and SOP. These documents have been officially adopted by the government and are now widely disseminated through regional workshops. Other policy documents on victim/witness protection, rescue and raid policy, SOP for investigation have also been developed and forwarded to NCCHT. However, they have not been endorsed yet. It was informed that the concerned ministries and authorities are hesitant to own these procedural guidelines because they were prepared solely by NGOs. Evaluation team was informed that this was due to the lack of consultative process in their formulation which led to limited participation from the government sector. Nevertheless, these topics have been incorporated in the training modules developed by NJA which are used in trainings for law enforcement agencies, judiciaries and government officials. b) Increasing respect for the rights of victims among law enforcement and judicial officials: Interviews with key stakeholders and recent landmark decisions made in CTIP implemented district (Sindhupalchok and Makwanpur) in favor of TIP victims leads us to imply that victim-centric approach has increased than before and changed duty-bearers’ perception towards the victims.20 The contributions from the project activities can be deemed influential in encouraging this change in attitude of the duty bearers. c) Expanding and improving shelter and community-based services available to victims: The project has not given any direct support to the shelter homes for expanding or improving care￾giving services. There is no assistance to instill a holistic approach with integrated services at the shelter home. Nevertheless, efforts have been made to enhance the capacity of staff members in providing psychosocial counseling for the well-being of TIP victims through trainings. The trainings were not limited to the members of partner organizations but also included participants from other organizations running shelter homes. A total of 47 staff from 12 shelter homes, both government and NGO managed, received capacity building training from TPO in the last quarter and six months of second and third year of the project respectively. Additionally, it was observed that SMN members were sensitized enough to accept and empathize with the victims, and take initiative to arrange funds for the reintegration of TIP victims in the community. d) Increasing and improving prosecution of traffickers: There hasn’t been significant increase in the rate of prosecution of TIP cases in the visited districts (Kanchanpur, Sindhupalchowk and Kathmandu). The data received from the Offices of District Attorney in those three districts show that, there were in total 49 cases in the court in Fiscal Year 2010/11.21 It was found that 25 and 15 new cases were filled in 2011/12 and 2012/13 respectively. The data also revealed that there are significant numbers of cases carried over to next year indicating the long duration taken to conclude the trial. Nonetheless, out of total 89 cases filed in last three years 60 convictions were made and 29 cases are remaining. e) Increase community engagement in efforts to prevent trafficking and reintegrate victims in six targeted districts: The SMNs focused on counseling potential migrants informally, 20The Sindhupalchowk District Court made a decision sentencing 170 years of imprisonment to a trafficker with multiple charges of crime committed in trafficking 6 minors to India. For details see Bajir Sing Tamang v. Government of Nepal (Date of Decision: 11/07/2012). The Makwanpur District Court gave a verdict requiring the state to compensate the victim as opposed to the perpetrator paying the compensation. The latter had also started the practice of continuous hearing by adjudicating the trafficking case within 3 days. 21 This number includes the carried over cases from the previous fiscal year. 17 especially for foreign labor employment, for safe migration rather than conducting substantive prevention activities. The nexus of trafficking and migration was not clear to them. Furthermore, it was realized that there is the need for clarity on their roles and responsibilities. Consequently, they were struggling to perform in their own capacity without any clear mandate and guideline. SMNs’ members expressed that only half-day training on the issue of TIP and safe migration was not enough for them to understand and advocate on the matter. Likewise, the project’s support to conduct one sensitization program per year was not enough to keep them motivated or engaged. f) Improving pre-departure migrant orientation systems and other safe migration strategies: Under the leadership of CeLRRd, a counseling desk has been established at the District Administrative Office (DAO) in Kanchanpur. The counseling desk is equipped with IEC materials and maintains record of service recipients. This model was replicated from other districts where such counseling desks have done effective work at providing information to potential migrants. As per CeLRRd’s report from April-June 2013, a total of 523 individuals, out of which 24 were potential female migrants, received information on migrants’ rights and requirements for safe migration from the desk which was also verified through data provided at the information desk in Kanchanpur. Similarly, GMSS is providing information on safe migration along with twenty one organizations at DAO in Makwanpur. The project is now in the process of linking safe migration with career counseling for secondary and higher secondary schools in Nepal, and is working in collaboration with Curriculum Development Center (CDC). This can be expected to reduce the vulnerability of trafficking as well as preparing young people for safe migration with better skills. g) Expanding coordination capacity of the MoWCSW and the NCCHT to be an effective policy and resource advocate on TIP within the GoN: It was observed that NCCHT has become more visible and functional from the support of the project. However, NCCHT has not been able to garner adequate representation, in terms of attendance and presence of designated officials, in its meetings. This was also observed during the meeting with NCCHT where the designated members of the committee from different ministries sent their subordinates to represent in the meetings. As a result, NCCHT has not been able to function in its full capacity. Effective implementation of National Plan of Action requires coordination from other line ministries along with MoWCSW. However, this has not happened and as the Chairperson and Member Secretary of NCCHT remarked that TIP issues have not gained priority in other ministries and has been limited to MoWCSW. The members of the NCCHT informed that efforts are being made to establish an anti-trafficking unit at MoWCSW with permanent positions which will also serve as the Secretariat to NCCHT. h) Coordination among stakeholders: A strong coordination among CTIP partners was observed in Kanchanpur and Sindhupalchowk district. The organizations met more frequently than as planned to meet once a month for effective cooperation. Mutual support was seen among partners and cases have been referred from one organization to another. In these districts, the SMNs were also aware of all CTIP partners and their area of expertise. Similarly, a strong coordination was seen to exist between CTIP partner organizations and the DCCHTs in the respective districts. LACC and SAATHI are members of DCCHT in Kanchanpur and, Pourakhi and CelRRd are invited members of the DCCHT in Sindhupalchowk. As per the mandate, the DCCHT members monitored Pourakhi’s work in Sangachowk and Tatopani VDCs in Sindhupalchowk and interacted with the SMNs. However, the coordination between the CTIP partner organizations was found comparatively weak in Kathmandu. One representative from the partner organization opined that the coordination between organizations working on different components of 3Ps is largely missing in Kathmandu. None of the CTIP partners are members of DCCHT in Kathmandu. Hence, the committee members do not have significant information regarding the project. 18 The vertical coordination between prime-grantee and sub-grantee and the implementing partner organizations is not fluid. This is said in the context of decision-making, consultation and information flow. Likewise, the coordination between the NCCHT and the DCCHTs is not strong in relation to giving direction, guidance and information flow. Since TAF is the focal organization to work with NCCHT and used to organize partners' meeting to share annual work plan and progress with all of them the respondents from partners organizations were not found fully aware on how CTIP project is supporting NCCHT and what has been achieved so far. Likewise, it is only recently that WEI, with initial support from TAF, is coordinating with NCCHT to acquaint them about the prevention activities of the project and has shared the roles and responsibilities drafted for SMNs. The networks established in the past by the implementing partners with organizations not involved in CTIP project have helped in gathering mutual support. For example SAATHI, LACC, CeLRRd and TPO were seen to refer cases to other organizations like Tiny Hands, Kingdom International and Maiti Nepal for rehabilitation. Similarly, these organizations, not involved in the project, sought support in legal and psychosocial counseling from the CTIP partners in Kanchanpur district. Likewise, Pourakhi, LACC and CelRRd work closely with other like-minded organizations such as MANK, GMSP and Shakti Samuha in Sindupalchowk district. i) Conducting result-driven and rigorously tested strategies across prevention, protection and prosecution activities that can be scaled up for nationwide expansion: Since this is a mid-term evaluation, it is not possible to pin-point strategies across prevention and prosecution that can be scaled up at the national level. Nevertheless, some recommendations are placed towards the end of the report to strengthen the initiations and strategies adopted. Use of resources and cost effectiveness: Compared to the overall budget carried by the project, the amount that trickled down to the community is minimal. On average a SMN receives only Rs 5,000 per year to conduct one sensitization program per year, which is very small amount in regard to the expectation placed on them. The implementing partners that are working under the prevention component expressed that the resources allocated for the project is limited, both for prevention activities as well as human resource. On an average, one Social Mobilizer looks after 6-9 SMN and not all project VDCs can be frequently visited due to the remote geography especially during the monsoon season. Since the project does not cover accommodation costs for the Social Mobilizers, it is very difficult for them to visit far flung VDCs. Consequently, the VDCs which are infamous as trafficking prone but remote geographically such as Bhotang in Sindhupalchok and Nanglebhare in Kathmandu have not been covered by the project. The motivation of staff members, as expressed by them, was low due to low salaries and has caused frequent turnover. Efficiency of partners to enhance the capacity of district partners: The implementing partners with extensive experience on the issue were able to carry out their activities without any capacity building training through the project. However, some of the organizations without prior knowledge on the issue (TIP and safe migration) had difficulties in conducting orientation to the SMNs. Nevertheless, trainings have been provided in the third year to the staff of implementing partners and they have been conducting refresher trainings to the SMN members. 19 Strengths and weaknesses of project activities: Table 1 summarizes the strength and weaknesses of the project. Table 1: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Project Strengths Weaknesses • Holistic approach: It has fostered environment for strong coordination, positive spirit to work together, and establish referral mechanism. • Strategy to access communities through community group: It has helped to increase access to the communities. • Mobilization of key stakeholders such as NCCHT: It has significantly contributed to developing and endorsing policy documents • Lack of clear link between CTIP project and MoLE, and MoWCSW and MoLE. • Lack of diligence in forming community groups: In the visited districts the formation of SMNs were found not adhered to the principle of ensuring inclusiveness; no clear guidelines given on roles, responsibility and authority • Allocation of very small amount of resources for community activities and staff members. • Top-down approach in planning project activities: the implementing partners complained that planning process is not participatory. Comprehensive referral mechanism: A comprehensive referral mechanism guideline has been developed under the project, but not all implementing partners are well versed on this. In two districts (Kanchanpur and Sindhupalchowk) the referral of cases are swift and efficient with regular follow-up. The cases are referred by particular organization to another organization such as in case of TIP victim suspected to have Post Traumatic Syndrome will be immediately referred to TPO for psychosocial counseling. Similarly cases requiring legal aid are referred to CeLRRd and LACC. However, in Kathmandu the referrals made required constant follow-up from the referring organization. A majority of the SMNs named the CTIP organizations (Change Nepal in Kathmandu, Pourakhi in Sindhupalchowk and SAATHI in Kanchanpur) supporting them as the first contact for case referral. Next in line were the police and then other CTIP partners working in the same district. Although they could not recall at that moment, the SMNs in Kathmandu said that they had received a sheet with organization’s list which they could refer before figuring out which organization to contact. It was also noted that the CTIP organizations refer cases needing protection and care to the organization with shelter homes, both supported and not supported by CTIP project. Effects of the project The overall impact of the project can be evaluated only towards the end of the project. However, immediate effects observed and noted within the period of 33 months of the project are presented below: Effects at level of beneficiaries: The level of enthusiasm at the community amongst the SMN members is very encouraging. They seem to have taken the role of vigilant watchdog in the community on the issue of TIP and safe migration seriously, and none of the SMN members expressed their involvement in the network as an extra burden. But, the evaluation shows that they lack clarity on the issues, roles, responsibilities and 20 authority. If adequately supported, they have the potential of discharging their roles and responsibilities in the communities effectively. To further get insight into the immediate effects at the level of beneficiary, a mini-survey22 was conducted to know about the presence of SMN and the effects of their activities. A total of 348 participants were randomly selected in 10 VDCs and 1 municipality. There were 152 male and 196 female respondents with mean age of 36 years. Table 2 presents the summary of immediate results of prevention activities carried out by SMNs to raise awareness on safe migration in their respective communities. Table 2: Responses from Mini-Survey S.N. Information/knowledge Responses (%) 1. Knowledge about SMN in the Community 12 2. Understanding of comprehensive definition of human trafficking 58 3. Information of where to file TIP cases 75 4. Knowledge of minimum age for women to go for foreign labor employment 26 5. Knowledge of government agency issuing permit for foreign labor 32 6. Concerned government agency to file cases for compensation 31 From the responses received from the mini-survey it can be inferred that a vast majority (88%) of the community members are still unaware about the formation of SMN in their community. The broader definition of human trafficking was known to a significant percentage (58) of the respondents. Three quarters of the respondents aptly knew that the cases have to be filed to the police first when one is duped or cheated in the pretext of foreign labor. Only one fourth of the respondents are aware of the minimum age designated by the GoN for women to be eligible for domestic work in Gulf Cooperation Council. The respondents had different responses such as DAO, MoLE and MoFA as the agencies issuing labor permit and only around 32 percent rightly said that it was DoFE. It was found that around 17 percent of the respondents had no knowledge on this. Similar percentage (31) also acknowledged DoFE as the government agency where cases have to be filed for compensation in case of fraud. Interestingly, ‘Maiti Nepal’ was named by five respondents as the agency to approach for TIP cases and two respondents said for compensation. Based on the above responses it can be concluded that SMN need to be capacitated more intensively on the issue of TIP and safe migration so that they can transfer their knowledge to the community to raise awareness on the same. Furthermore, the SMN need to be encouraged and provided more resources to conduct activities in the community to increase their presence known. Effects on government planning on issues related to TIP: The project has impressively created an impact on MoWCSW through NCCHT such that the formulation of policies related to TIP has been taken seriously. With the support from the project, MoWCSW via NCCHT is conducting regional workshops in the four region of the country to orient about the TIP issues and safe migration as well as disseminate NMS and SOP. The majority of the participants of those workshops are DCCHT members. 22 This is a stand-alone survey carried out in the visited ten VDCs and one Municipality of the three project districts. Since the survey was not measured against a base-line survey or with a control group, the effectiveness, success and failure of the project cannot be measured by the results of this survey alone. 21 However, the initiative taken alone by MoWCSW to combat trafficking is not sufficient, considering the scale of foreign employment led trafficking in recent time. The intra and inter link among those agencies working underneath MoWSCW and NCCHT, and the agencies overseeing foreign labour migration such as MoLE, DoFE and FEPB and local development (MoFALD) over the TIP issue is missing. The frequent transfer and turn-over of government officials within the ministry and outside has posed another problem to the implementation of the project. During a focus group discussion conducted with the DCCHT in one of the project districts, it was observed that only one member was aware of the training that CTIP has provided to the DCCHT members on TIP and safe migration. All new officials had replaced the ones who had participated in the training earlier. Implementation of NMS and SOP: The implementation of NMS and SOP was unanimously termed as either “weak in implementation” or “not implemented”. The district level respondents remarked that the copies of the documents were not sufficiently distributed. Many of the stakeholders have not seen them though they have heard about it. During the evaluation, it was also noted that a simpler version of the documents would be more effective for regular reference by the care-givers and others. Lack of resources (financial, human and technical) to comply with the standards and unattractive presentation of content sans pictures were cited as the reasons for non-compliance. Although the project aims to build the capacity of the shelter homes, it has not happened yet. It can be expected that the project will give due consideration in this regard. Sustainability of the project The project documents made available does not have a clearly stated strategy for sustainability of the project activities. Hence, the approaches and measures taken for sustainability are drawn from interviews conducted with stakeholders. Approaches and measure taken for sustainability: Although no clear approaches were conveyed by the prime and sub-grantee of the project regarding the prevention component of the project, four out of five implementing partners expressed the need to merge or convert SMNs into VCCHT for sustainability. One organization opined that SMN should not be transformed into VCCHT because the composition of VCCHT does not accommodate the concept of SMN. But, it is necessary to create a strong link SMN with VCCHT to make them sustainable. At the central level, all the policies and documents developed through the project, if and when implemented, will ensure sustainable victim-centric approach in TIP victims’ protection and care. Similarly, the investments made on imparting training to the law enforcement officials, judiciaries, immigration officials, journalists and others is not only building capacity of the individual officials but institutionalizing victim-centric approach in the respective government agencies. Functioning of partner networks and government bodies for sustaining program activities: The network created between organizations working on different components will sustain by supporting each other. The link created with the local government bodies will also sustain provided that the initiative taken will remain alive in the community. Institutional capacity of partner and government bodies: The investment made by the project so far on capacity building of the partner organization and government bodies is not adequate. More investment is required for enhancing their knowledge and making them proficient in skills to deal with the issue of TIP and safe migration. During the course of evaluation it was recognized that the DCCHT is prone to lapse of institutional memory and need to be 22 refreshed on the issues every year. Similarly, the trainings provided to journalist in the first two years haven’t been followed up. Training of such nature had helped the journalist to write with sensitivity, and maintain confidentiality of TIP victims. 23 Conclusions The conclusions presented below are based on the findings presented above and answers the evaluation questions derived for the study. Project modality The project is comprehensive as it addresses 3Ps under one umbrella. The project activities are geared towards attaining its goal but it is hard to assess as there is no clear-cut logical framework with indicators/targets that it aspires to achieve by the end of five-year. The project is flexible and has space to address new emerging TIP issues. Given this flexibility, paying due attention to the problem of internal trafficking including trafficking in children would have resulted in more comprehensive outcomes. Although the project document speaks internal trafficking, no programmatic interventions are geared towards addressing the issue. Similarly, the change in program activities every year from the original design is seen to affect the links that project design entails. For example, cutting down the prevention activities will affect the prosecution rate as the partner organizations opine that community access is very important to identify TIP cases as well as to increase the prosecution rate. Coordination among Stakeholders The project has both vertical and horizontal functional linkages from the central level to the community, and between CTIP project implementing partners and other like-minded organizations. The horizontal linkages are seen to be stronger than the vertical linkages. The implementing partners are seen to coordinate with organizations outside of CTIP project as well. However, the lack of central level coordination has been felt. Better coordination at the central level would have promoted more collaborative efforts among other government bodies such as MoLE, DoFE, FEBP and MoFALD and helped the project in enhancing its safe migration activities at the community-level helped to sustain those initiatives. Strengthening of Inter-disciplinary Coordination Mechanism With support from CTIP project, NCCHT has become more visible and active in discharging its roles and responsibilities. The meetings are more regular but since the designated officials from different ministries representing the committee fail to attend the meetings, the link with other line-ministries has not yet been developed fully. The presence of designated officials in the NCCHT is very thin. It indicates the priority that TIP issues receive in other ministries' programming. Furthermore, the link between NCCHT and DCCHT is still in the developing stage and the latter are looking for more direction, guidance, information and resources to function well. Protection Two mile-stone policy documents for victim care and protection have been developed with support from the project and endorsed by the government, and now are in the process of dissemination and implementation. The project has taken some positive initiatives in enhancing the capacity of the shelter home staff members, particularly in psychosocial care. However, the protection component lacks holistic approach in ensuring quality of care and protection of trafficking survivors, residing at the shelter homes as well as in the community. Prosecution Prosecution is one of the major thrusts of the project and significant efforts have been made to instill victim-centric approach among the duty-bearers through training. The project, through its prevention component, has access to community people who are vulnerable to trafficking or TIP victim needing legal support. Although it cannot be fully claimed that due to the project the prosecution rate has been increased, sensitivity towards trafficking victims among law enforcement officials, judiciaries, journalists 24 and community people has definitely increased. Two landmark judgments in favor of trafficking victims were made in the two project districts namely Makwanpur and Sindhupalchowk. It can be expected that these decisions can inspire other decisions in similar spirit in the future as well. Some model draft policy documents such as victim/witness protection guideline, SOP for investigation, rescue and raid policy have been drafted but the challenge remains in getting them endorsed by the government. Prevention At the community level, the project has come up with the concept of SMNs which have potential to work as catalysts and change-makers, provided they are well capacitated and supported. The project focuses more on quantity than quality by expanding its prevention activities in a wide geographic area without ensuring enough knowledge and capacity of the groups formed at this level. Although the project has a wider definition of TIP, the nexus between trafficking and unsafe migration is not clear. The resources allocated for this component both in terms of finances and human resource is inadequate to be effective. Comprehensive referral mechanism The delineation of roles and responsibilities has fostered strong coordination among the implementing partner organizations, particularly in case referrals. The project has developed a comprehensive referral mechanism guideline but not all implementing partners and key stakeholders are well versed on it. The project has contributed towards building referral mechanism at the district level by linking some services. However, the referral system is not smooth in Kathmandu. The horizontal coordination in Kanchanput and Sinchupalchok districts between partners and among other organizations, not supported by CTIP project has helped to realize the referral mechanism. The organizations frequently refer cases to one another for expertise and assistance in different field. However, one of the focal agency in the district Women and Children Offices (WCOs) for TIP case referral have not been able to maintain their roles because the issues of trafficking receives lesser priority among plethora of issues and tasks that they deal with. Furthermore, they lacked skills and resources in handling the issues of trafficking. Sustainability The project document does not comprise of any sustainable plan as such. There is an urgent need to address the issues of sustainability. Without a clear and uniform sustainability plan, the achievements of the project cannot be institutionalized. Currently, the initiatives to sustain activities are taken at organizational level. The organizations working under the prevention component are working towards converting/merging SMNs to VCCHTs to sustain the on-going activities. The policy documents developed under the project will sustain, if and when implemented fully. There are also indications of increasing sensitivity among duty-bearers about victim-centric approach. If the project continues its current advocacy for victim-centric approach, it is likely they will be mainstreamed soon. 25 RECOMMENDATIONS As per the purpose of the mid-term evaluation, succinct and practical recommendations are proposed for the remaining period of the project. The recommendations for the project are placed under the themes of protection, prosecution, prevention, coordination and sustainability in the following Table: Table 3: Recommendations to the Project Theme 1: Protection Issue at hand What can be done? “Weak Implementation” of NMS and SOP • Allocate resources (financial, human and technical) to the shelter home(s) for its implementation; • Develop user friendly version of NMS and SOP for the care-givers at the shelter homes; • Work with the shelter home staff for the implementation of NMS and SOP in their respective shelter homes; and • Conduct training to WCO Staff and other DCCHT members on NMS and SOP to enhance their capacities to supervise and monitor the shelter homes operating in the districts. Protection component lacks holistic approach • Adopt a holistic approach for the protection component in line with the NMS and SOP; • Install tools and techniques such as case management system, policies, code of conduct etc. to scale up the quality of care and protection to the trafficking survivors at the shelter home; and • Establish at least one shelter home as a model in delivering quality of service and protection and replicate this model. Theme 2: Prosecution Issue at hand What can be done? Victim-centric document yet to be endorsed by the government • Take a participatory approach while working with the government for the endorsement of documents such as SOP for Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication, Rescue and Raid Guideline, Victim/Witness Protection Policy; and • Create conducive environment to conduct training to law enforcement agencies, judiciaries, immigration officials from a victim￾centric perspective, such as relaxation of Leahy Vetting. Need to increase the rate of prosecution • Conduct a national-level workshop for conceptual clarity on the nexus between trafficking and migration, particularly foreign employment led trafficking such that the prosecution rate of the trafficking cases happening on the pretext of foreign labor migration can come under the purview of HTTCA or booked under both HTTCA and FEA; • Reach TIP victims through survivors’ organization and networks; and • Develop strategy to work more closely with law enforcement officials to build their capacity and change in attitude/behavior. 26 Theme 3: Prevention Issue at hand What can be done? Effective mobilization of SMN • Build consensus among implementing partners regarding the future of SMN and prepare guidelines for formation, roles and responsibilities for them in consultation with NCCHT in order to maintain uniformity and institutionalize them by linking them through VCCHT; • Ensure that the composition of all the SMNs adhere to the policy of inclusiveness as aspired by the project and re-form the SMNs where/if necessary. • Develop training and refresher modules for SMN; • Allocate more funds to capacitate the community-level networks; • Provide more resources to SMNs to carry out activities equipped with IEC materials and encourage; and • Devise a strategy to access and identify the TIP victims in the community such as creating a survivors’ network. Establish linkages of SMN with VCCHT and VDC; • Work towards stripping the labels of CTIP partner’s branding attached to the network and motivate them to take ownership of their work; Establish link with line agencies working on migration such as MoLE, DoFE and FEPB; • Include the messages on internal trafficking as well while creating awareness at the community-level; and • Establish the monitoring system of SMN activities/performance through DCCHT. Theme 4: Coordination Issue at hand What can be done? Need to strengthen coordination among key stakeholders and maintain data • Strengthen coordination between implementing partners and the government key stakeholders by forming district level project steering committee/project advisory committee and establishing link with DCCHT and WCO; • Yearly follow-up training of the DCCHT members and WCO staff about the project and the issue of TIP and safe migration; and • Train the implementing partner organizations on maintaining database with disaggregated data, record keeping and coding system to maintain the confidentiality of the TIP victims. Theme 5: Sustainability Issue at hand What can be done? Issue of sustainability • Initiate a dialogue with the respective DCCHT and DDC on how the project can support in the initial years of transfer if the project is working towards placing SMNs within the government structure such as merging/converting to VCCHT; and • Strengthen the minutes keeping system and feed-back mechanism both at NCCHT and DCCHT as it will help in mainstreaming their decisions in the related ministries. 27 LESSONS LEARNED This section presents suggestions for broader implications for similar programs in different settings or for future activities. These are the long-term recommendations set forth by the evaluation team based on their extensive experience of working on the issue and also drawn from the evaluation. The details are given in Table 4. Table 4: Lesson Learned Issue at Hand What can be done? Expected Scenario Preliminary ground-work before starting a project • A rigorous exercise is highly desired while designing community level anti-trafficking programs entailing a thorough research, base￾line survey, identification of vulnerable groups/people and local resources, need assessment and assessment of the models from previous similar interventions (such as women’s paralegal groups, CAG etc.) • Engagement with the government at all levels, from the point of project design to implementation and monitoring, to ensure ownership and sustainability • Since TIP is no longer limited to only cross￾border trafficking, it is very important to consult/involve all concerned ministries such as MoLE, MoFA, MoHA, MoFALD and not just limit to one ministry (MoWCSW). Effective program design and ownership from the government bodies TIP issue not a priority of other line-ministries • At the central level a longer term policy intervention through NPC and MOF is required to mainstream TIP issues in the planning of other line ministries as planned in NPA; • The NCCHT must be elevated to be chaired at least by the Deputy Prime Minister with Minister of Home Affairs and MoWCSW as Vice chairs and Secretary/MoWCSW as Member Secretary to make it a more powerful mechanism; and • At least a Department level permanent structure is necessary to back up NCCHT Secretariat where a pool of technical experts and competent staff serve as think tank and specialists on 3 P themes and day to day management. Effective implementation of NPA and strong mechanism in place to oversee and manage TIP issues Palermo Protocol and CRMW have yet to be ratified • Advocacy and lobby for ratifying Palermo Protocol and CRMW since GoN has already ratified UNCTOC; • Cooperation with MoHA, Nepal Police, MoLE HTTCA and FEA will incorporate definitions and provisions as per the international 28 and DoFE for ratifying the instruments and for effective implementation/regulation of anti-trafficking laws and foreign employment laws in line with international instrument to ensure justice for victims and punitive actions to traffickers/perpetrators. The HTTCA needs revision for effective immediate support and compensation to the victims/survivors, and continuous hearing instrument and law enforcement will be more effective Lacking effective investigation process and sensitivity towards TIP victims • The capacity of police to investigate TIP cases must be enhanced with more focus and attitude and behavior change - WCSD at the Police Headquarter and WCSC at the District Police Offices should be elevated as the main Investigating Units with more female police officers and Personnel. Effective investigations leading to more prosecution and victim’s access to justice Sustainability • Appointment of Women Protection Officers in WCOs as provisioned in Domestic Violence (Crime and Punishment) Rules, 2067 as a Focal Officer to handle the TIP issues in the district so as to liaise with other service providers for comprehensive care. • RFAs should essentially have a section on sustainability such that the proposals submitted include a vision on how the activities initiated with the project will sustain after the termination of the project. The resources and efforts made will be retained to some extent in the future No scientific research on the current trafficking scenario • A research on emerging trends of trafficking, destinations and dimensions. Effective programmatic interventions can be designed and implemented ANNEX I: STATEMENT OF WORK Statement of Work (SOW) for Mid-term Evaluation of Combating Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) Project April 2013 Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 30 Table of Contents Acronyms Introduction Project Information • Project Background • Project Approach • Target Areas and Groups • Project Objectives Implementation Partners Evaluation Purpose Audience and Intended Uses Evaluation Questions Evaluation Design and Methodology Reference Documents and Stakeholder Evaluation Products • Deliverables • Reporting Guidelines Team Composition Technical Instructions to Offerers Evaluation Management • Logistics • USAID Participation • Scheduling • Payment Schedule and Reporting Requirements • Budget Evaluation Criteria Terms and Conditions of the Consultancy Annexes Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 31 Acronyms: CBOs Community based organizations CDO Chief District Officer CeLRRd Center for Legal Research and Resource Development CSO Civil society organizations CTIP Combating Trafficking in Persons DCCHT District Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking FFP Family Financial Planning FWLD Forum for Women, Law and Development GMSS Gramin Mahila Swabhalambhan Sahakari Sansthan GON Government of Nepal IACG Inter Agency Coordination Group IEC Information, education, and communication KSL Kathmandu School of Law LACC Legal Aid Consultancy Center M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOWCSW Ministry of Women, Children, and Social Welfare NCCHT National Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking NGOs Non-governmental organizations NIDS Nepal Institute for Development Studies NJA National Judicial Academy NMS National Minimum Standards NTWG Nepal Tamang Women Ghedung PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PPR Forum for Protection of People's Rights TIP Trafficking in persons TPO Transcultural Psychosocial Organization SMN Safe Migration Networks SOP Standard Operating Procedures USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government VDC Village Development Committee WEI World Education Inc. Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 32 I. Introduction USAID/Nepal seeks to contract professional services to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the Combating Trafficking in Person (CTIP) Project. As authorized under Section 7077 of Public Law 112- 74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74), “Local Competition Authority,” USAID/Nepal limits this competition to local entities. Local entity means an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit organization, or another body of persons that – (1) is legally organized under the laws of Nepal; (2) has as its principal place of business or operations in Nepal; and (3) either is— (A) majority owned by individuals who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of Nepal; or (B) managed by a governing body the majority of whom are citizens or lawful permanent residents of Nepal. CTIP is a $6.8 million, five year project, implemented by The Asia Foundation (TAF) from August 2010 to July 2015.The mid-term evaluation will be used to validate effectiveness of project approaches and make adjustments as needed in the final years of project implementation. Evaluation findings will have different audiences as discussed below, and will include USAID staff and implementing partners, Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) networks, and relevant Government of Nepal (GON) personnel. Trafficking in persons is a serious and widespread problem in Nepal; characterized by high rates of cross-border, international and internal trafficking of women, men, and children for a range of purposes. NGOs in Nepal estimate that as many as 15,000 Nepali women and girls are trafficked annually to India. Domestically, an estimated 7,500 women are trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation and approximately 20,000 to 25,000 Nepali women become involuntary domestic workers each year. Meanwhile, foreign labor migration from Nepal has also been on the rise since 2000 with predominately male laborers. In 2008, an estimated 2.2 million Nepalis (90% of whom were male) were living outside of the country,23 and at the time remittances from foreign labor employment accounted for 17.4% of Nepal's GDP.24 According to the World Bank’s Migration and Remittances Fact book 2011, the official rate for remittances as part of GDP is now 23%, which is among the top 5 in the world. While migrants willingly travel to find work, many are met with wages and conditions considerably below that which was promised and as a result become victims of debt bondage or worse. In response to this reality, the Nepali parliament drafted and passed the Human Trafficking and Transportation Control Act in 2007 (HTTCA).This legislation allowed the GON to take an important step towards addressing the issue of trafficking in persons by establishing a comprehensive legal framework. Despite this effort, the implementation of the TIP Act has been limited and fractured. 23Nepal Institute of Development Studies.(2008). Nepal Migration Yearbook 2008. 24 Asian Development Bank. Asian Development Outlook. http://www.adb.org/documents/books/ado/2009/NEP.pdf Project Number: Cooperative Agreement No. AID-367-A-10- 00003 Project Funding: $6.8 million Goal: Reduce Trafficking in Persons and protect the rights of victims Life of Project: August 2010 – August 2015 Implementing Partner: The Asia Foundation Geographic Focus: Six Districts of Nepal Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 33 Government agencies along with civil society organizations have been active in combating trafficking in persons. However, challenges such as limited funding, lack of coordination, lack of minimum standards of operations, and poor governance limit the effective enactment of the HTTCA. II. Project Information A. Project Background CTIP takes a holistic approach to address issues of protection, prosecution, and prevention of trafficking in persons related to labor migration, sex trafficking, and organ trafficking. The project works with both men and women who are vulnerable to trafficking. The overall goal of the CTIP program is to reduce and prevent the incidence of TIP. The key objectives of the programs are to: 1) strengthen protection services for TIP survivors; 2) build capacity of the judiciary and law enforcement agencies to effectively enforce legal measures and increase prosecution; and 3) prevent trafficking by building awareness among groups that are vulnerable to sex and labor trafficking. B. Project Approach The program is leading a comprehensive and integrated counter trafficking initiative that strengthens coordination, collaboration, and technical skills across a diverse group of government and civil society stakeholders. The program utilizes a strategy to work at the national and local level simultaneously on national policy, institutional capacity building, and community-based service delivery. This strategy seeks to close critical gaps between legal and policy frameworks as well as effectively link victims to critical services, and prosecute traffickers. Protection - Protection is an important part of the process of rehabilitation and reintegration of TIP survivors. Under this component, the program protects survivors’ human rights and provides measures for the physical, psychological, and social recovery of survivors of trafficking. Protecting the identity of survivors and providing for their safety are crucial to effective prosecution of traffickers. Legal frameworks and mechanisms adopted through the CTIP program that protect survivors will encourage them to come forward and testify against traffickers and their organizations leading to effective prosecution. Prosecution - Despite the HTTCA, the current persistent low rate of prosecution reflects inadequate understanding and coordination on the part of law enforcement and judicial officials regarding their responsibilities under the law, and how these responsibilities can and should be carried out through a systematic victim-centered approach. The prosecution component under the program addresses the policy and operational needs to encourage civil participation and cooperation with TIP survivors in the prosecution of traffickers. In addition, trainings are also being conducted to ensure that insensitive investigations and prosecution processes do not further traumatize TIP survivors. Prevention - Using the prevention approach to combating human trafficking involves raising awareness at the community level to reach vulnerable populations who would be susceptible to traffickers. Poverty and lack of economic opportunities are major factors that increase vulnerability to traffickers. Comprehensive preventive strategies include increasing economic options through the provision of vocational skills and alternative livelihood opportunities. Preventive strategies also mobilize and strengthen both local government and civil society to combat trafficking. C. Target Areas and Groups Districts - The program is being implemented in six target districts in three of the five regionsidentified by the GON as high risk districts for TIP. The project covers Kavrepalanchowk, Sindhupalchok, and Makwanpur as major source districts for internal, cross-border, and international trafficking victims, where disadvantaged groups represent the majority of the districts’ population. Banke and Kanchanpur are cross-border transit districts, and Kathmandu is a source, Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 34 destination, and transit district. Each year over 77,000 teens from these six districts seek work and educational opportunities outside their districts, placing them at prime risk for trafficking. Beneficiaries - The ultimate beneficiaries of this program are the people of Nepal. Nepal’s decade of conflict has played a significant role in changing the demographic profile of those who are vulnerable to TIP. High levels of conflict and fragility, coupled with economic insecurity, generates pressure for family members to seek economic opportunities they might otherwise avoid. Traffickers and their middlemen leverage this insecurity to exploit families and individuals. Immediate beneficiaries of this activity include those vulnerable to trafficking, trafficking survivors, their families and the communities where those families live. Other beneficiaries include trafficking survivors (men, women, and children), particularly those in shelters and involved in rehabilitation programs. Additional Beneficiaries/Other Target Groups - The project aims to reduce trafficking through improving the capacity and effectiveness of civil society and government in their efforts to address TIP issues. Therefore, other beneficiaries include GON, NGOs, and their networks that are involved in anti-trafficking activities. Examples of the GON staff who will benefit from better skills and knowledge include local task forces, security forces, teachers, court staff (clerical and section officers), judges, and prosecutors. Training with security forces will focus on police assigned with Women and Children Service Centers, district level offices, and Indo-Nepal border areas. The project will also strengthen the capacity of government officials mainly from MWCSW and the partner local organizations in combating TIP. D. Project Objectives The overall goal of the project is to reduce trafficking in person in Nepal. The key development hypothesis of the project is: If USAID raises awareness of TIP among the vulnerable population through creation of local groups and providing information, supports the Government of Nepal in strengthening the policy framework and implementation of the existing guidelines and policies, and builds the capacities of the law enforcing entities to support TIP victims to pursue their cases in courts and other judicial bodies, the incidence of TIP will be reduced and the services to TIP victims will improve. Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 35 The results framework of the project is presented below: CTIP Results framework Goal: Reduce Trafficking in person in Nepal and protect the rights of TIP victims IR 1: Protection of TIP victims and people at risk of trafficking is more effective IR 2: Prosecution of Trafficking is more effective IR 3: Trafficking prevention services is expanded Sub IR 1.1: Strengthened policy framework and procedures for victim care and protection Sub IR 1.2: More TIP victims receive improved services Sub IR 1.2: Better informed local programmatic practices and policy making procedures Sub IR 2.1: Strengthened implementation of the Human Trafficking and Transport Control Act 2007 Sub IR 2.1: Increased protection of TIP victims by the judicial and law enforcement sector Sub IR 2.3: Functional national level case tracking system software within Nepal Police Sub IR 3.1: Local government and civil society effectively prevent TIP Sub IR 3.2: Potential migrants are more aware about safe migration decreasing their vulnerability to trafficking Sub IR 3.3: Increase in economic options resulting in reductions of vulnerability within the disadvantaged communities Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 36 III. Implementation Partners The Asia Foundation (TAF) is the primary grantee on the project and is working in partnership with thirteen local civil society partners. Protection: TAF as the primary grantee takes responsibility for all prevention, protection and prosecution components of the project. Under the protection umbrella, TAF is working in close cooperation with World Education (WE) and Transcultural Psychosocial Organization (TPO) to enhance and expand shelters, strengthen rehabilitation outreach efforts, and improve return and reintegration mechanisms with SAATHI, Change Nepal, and POURAKHI. Prosecution: Under prosecution, the project has been supporting legal aid service provisions and has developed victim-centered counter-trafficking expertise with the police, prosecutors, and judiciary through the following partners: Kathmandu School of Law (KSL)/Center for Legal Research and Resource Development (CeLRRd), Forum for Protection of People’s Rights, Nepal (PPR), Forum for Women, Law and Development (FWLD); Legal Aid Consultancy Center (LACC); National Judicial Academy (NJA) and Transcultural Psychosocial Organization-Nepal (TPO). Prevention: As a sub-grantee, World Education has taken the lead role on the Prevention Component by building capacity of major stakeholders and conducting awareness campaigns and safe migration activities with the following six local partners: Nepal Institute of Development Studies (NIDS);GMSS; SAATHI; Change Nepal; Nepal Tamang Women’s Ghedung; and POURAKHI. CTIP also works in close collaboration with the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare (MWCSW)to strengthen their capacity to address issues of TIP. As part of this process, the project has worked with relevant committees within the Ministry as well as affiliated networks to strengthen legal frameworks in preventing trafficking. In addition, the project is developing Standard Operational Procedures (SOP) in the following areas: Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication; Continuous Hearing, Victim Witness Protection Policy; National Minimum Standards (NMS) on victim care and protection, and SOP on rehabilitation. IV. Evaluation Purpose This is a mid-term external evaluation that will measure how the project is progressing in fulfillment of the results framework as well as help determine what activities are working well or not, and why. Based on these findings, the evaluation will provide recommendations on what modifications and mid-course corrections may be necessary, to help guide the CTIP project over its second half. The evaluation must provide pertinent information, both quantitative and qualitative, and judgments that assist TAF, its implementing partners, GON, and USAID/Nepal, to learn what is being accomplished programmatically and what relevant management, financial, and cost efficiency findings present themselves. The evaluation will help all involved to better understand the initial results and contributions of the project, and help re-focus and strengthen it. As USAID/Nepal is developing its Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for the next five years, the learning from this evaluation will also help improve the future programming directions in the CDCS.As the CDCS emphasizes local capacity building, this evaluation will help generate lessons learned with respect to working with local Nepali organizations as implementing partners and thus provide some lessons on how best to pursue this path. In addition, the GON has not yet done any analysis on the investments or efforts they have put in combating human trafficking, the recommendation from this report will help in implementing the National Plan of Action that the GON has recently endorsed. Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 37 The learning from this evaluation will also help the GON identify what should be the focus of their efforts in reducing trafficking in persons. Focus of the evaluation is defined by the evaluation questions in the next section. V. Audience and Intended Uses • USAID/Nepal–USAID Nepal will use the evaluation to shape any follow-on activities. • Implementing Partners –Implementing partners will learn about their strengths and weaknesses, adjusting their programs accordingly. • Government of Nepal – Government of Nepal (MOWSC and NCCHT) can utilize lessons learned in how to best focus their efforts in reducing trafficking in persons and designing services to TIP survivors. • IACG –Inter-Agency Coordinating Group of Antihuman Trafficking that is comprised of different actors involved in antihuman trafficking issues is expected to use the document in coordinating the programs, avoiding duplication and incorporating lessons learned into other initiatives. • USAID/Washington – USAID Washington will use lessons learned to share with other USAID Missions around the world. • Other USAID Missions – Other USAID Missions will use the evaluation to design similar projects or activities. • Wider anti-trafficking community in Nepal – NGOs, networks/alliances, media and human/women’s rights groups are expected use the findings to shape their programs, lobby and advocacy strategies. • Researchers – researchers and academics are expected to use evaluation findings to enrich their analysis. VI. Evaluation Questions The evaluation should be framed in order to answer the key evaluation questions listed below. • How effectively has the CTIP project mobilized key governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in gaining local level commitment and ensuring coordinated strategies at the central and district levels to combat TIP? How has CTIP project contributed to the NCCHT in combating trafficking? • How effective has the CTIP project been in building the capacity of key stakeholders in areas of protection, prosecution and prevention (in line with the NMS for Victim Care and Protection and the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)? As a result, how has increased capacity manifested itself (i.e.: improved service delivery in areas of legal, psychosocial, and livelihood improvement services and outreach to target groups vulnerable to trafficking)? • What are the prospects of sustainability of the results achieved by the project and what further measures should the project adopt to increase the sustainability of the results including collaboration between actors involved in the project? VII. Evaluation Design and Methodology The evaluation team will propose a detailed methodology for gathering the information on answering the evaluation questions in the preceding section. The sensitive and hidden nature of TIP necessitates that any proposals will use a mixed methodology approach to answer all evaluation questions proposed.25 25While considering methodology, the evaluator should first consider participatory approaches in true sense so that the act of evaluation itself empowers the beneficiaries, implementing partners, and other stakeholders. Language and tools necessary to communicate shall be given due consideration to make sure the communication is made clear, and is understood by all participants. The evaluator may have to play a facilitators role to inspire and transmit the ideas and gain from them. The evaluator should summarize key points from the findings and communicate to the persons involved right on the spot. The different issues Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 38 Any method(s) proposed must be presented and justified in non-technical language. Any method(s) proposed should demonstrate a clear understanding of TIP and the sensitive nature necessary for collection of primary and secondary data in this field. Evaluators should select the sites and activities independently. Triangulation of findings will be required to address inherent bias. See Annex 1 for additional guidance. A desk review must include design and project documents (e.g. Work Plan, Project Performance and Monitoring Plan, Performance Reports). The core indicators, targets and achievements identified in the Project Monitoring Plan will provide limited information on project outputs and progress. Evaluators should therefore anticipate the need for additional results-oriented information during the initial desk review. Data collection methodologies and instruments are subject to approval by the USAID/Nepal Contracting Officer’s representative (COR).The team must make a presentation to USAID/Nepal prior to commencing the actual evaluation work. VIII. Reference Documents and Stakeholders Following documents will be available upon the award for desk review: • Performance Monitoring Plan • Program Description • Statement of Work, Project PMP, and Work plan • Annual report, quarterly reports, monthly reports, accrual reports • Baseline Studies • Success stories Stakeholders including implementers as well as direct and indirect beneficiaries • Beneficiaries • Participants of training activities Safe Migration Networks • VDC Secretaries of selected VDCs • Local Development Office (LDO), LDO planning officer • Women’s Development Officer in all six districts • Implementing Sub-grantees - both field/front line staff and organization managers. Other Stakeholders • Other donor staff (Terre Des homes, IOM) • IACG • GON, specifically MOWCSW and office of the special rapporteur/NHRC. IX. Evaluation Products A. Deliverables The evaluation team must provide USAID/Nepal with at least two original hard copies in good quality spiral-bound documents and one electronic version of the presentation and the final report. The electronic version of the final report should be provided in MS Word and PDF format. The final, approved report must be entered in the Development Experience Clearinghouse database (DEC). relevant at various levels be they for beneficiaries, field or implementing partner, or other stakeholders should be communicated during the evaluation process itself. While doing so, the evaluator shall consider due descent communication norms considering the sensitiveness – of donor, partners, government, and beneficiaries including the privacy of victims and other individuals. Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 39 The evaluation team leader is responsible for submitting the final, branded, and approved report into the DEC. See website for instructions on how to submit reports into the DEC database. Deliverables include a presentation and a mid-term evaluation report with recommendations, as outlined below. 1. Presentation of evaluation methodology to USAID before beginning the evaluation. 2. Detailed work plan for the entire period of the evaluation for approval by the COR. 3. Two PowerPoint Presentations on important findings and recommendations to an audience of USAID/Nepal Mission, partners, donors, and GON. 4. Two hard copies of evaluation report, 30 pages (excluding graphs, diagrams, tables, annexes, cover pages, and table of contents) with good quality spiral binding. 5. A separate executive summary in Nepali. 6. An electronic copy of evaluation report, in MS Word and PDF format. 7. Raw data and records both quantitative and qualitative (e.g. interview transcripts, survey responses etc.) in electronic form collected by the evaluation team separately from the report. All quantitative data collected should be in an easily readable format; organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation; owned by USAID and made available to the public barring rare exceptions. 8. All instruments used for collecting data during the evaluation included as annexes in the report. B. Reporting Guidelines The evaluation report should demonstrate a clear line of analysis between findings, conclusions and recommendations. The report must be in concise and clear English with visual summaries such as graphics, charts and summary data tables. All the population data needs to be disaggregated by sex, or other parameters as applicable. The evaluation report should meet the criteria outlined in the Evaluation Report Review Sheet in Annex 4. The Team Leader has the final responsibility for prioritizing which conclusions and recommendations are highlighted in the report. Any statement of differences regarding findings, conclusions, or recommendations from this evaluation that remain unresolved among funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team can be included as an annex to the report. The evaluation report must have the following sections at a minimum: 1. Executive Summary—concisely state the most salient findings and recommendations 2. Table of Contents 3. Introduction—purpose, audience, and synopsis of task 4. Background—brief overview of project and strategy 5. Purpose of the evaluation 6. Methodology—evaluation methods, constraints and gaps 7. Findings 8. Conclusions 9. Recommendations 10. Annexes—annexes that document the evaluation methods, schedules, interview lists and tables, raw data collected during the course of evaluation both quantitative and qualitative, the evaluation scope of work, and any “statement of differences” regarding significant unresolved difference of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team. X. Team Composition The evaluation team will be composed of three non-USAID development professionals. The team will include one team leader with at least ten years of and experience in designing and conducting project evaluations in related areas such as trafficking, labor migration and gender. One member must be a Trafficking expert with experiences of gender issues in Nepal; one member must be a Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 40 Labor Migration expert with experience in issues related to traffickingin labor migration and including emerging trends in trafficking. The evaluation team must be composed of both male and female members. The evaluation team members must not be employees of any of the organizations that are receiving funds from USAID/Nepal nor have worked for implementing organizations under the CTIP project in the past. The name of the implementing partners and sub partners of CTIP project are discussed in section III of this Statement of Work. XI. Technical Instructions to Offerers Potential offerers are required to submit proposals to USAID/Nepal either: a) By emailing atKathmanduSAP@usaid.gov with attachments in Microsoft Word, Excel format with the subject line “Mid Term Evaluation of CTIP Project ” or b) Via regular mail or hand delivery that includes one original and one paper copy of the technical and cost proposal marking the envelope with “Mid Term Evaluation of CTIP Project” to: Ms. Srijana Rana Office of Acquisition and Assistance U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) U.S. Embassy Building GPO Box 295 Maharajgunj Kathmandu, Nepal The length of the proposal will not exceed ten pages. The sections on budget, curriculum vitae of key personnel and references from previous work will not be counted for the page limit. Offerers are encouraged to avoid copying sections from this SOW in their proposals. At a minimum, the proposal must include: • A brief overview/background about the proposal, and the organization • Methods of quantitative and qualitative data collection that will be used to answer each evaluation question, the type of data that will be collected to answer each evaluation question including how the data will be analyzed and what kind of information will be generated. The methods must correspond to each evaluation question and include the sources of data. • Strategy for choosing sample population for data collection and how the biases will be minimized. • Plan for analysis of the data – quantitative and qualitative, explaining how these analyses will help answer each evaluation question. • Detailed work plan that includes all the activities that will be carried out during the evaluation and their timelines including the management of logistics for the evaluation • Budget (in Excel sheet) as per the format in section D VII below (this will not be counted toward the page limit) • CVs of team leader, other team members and organization profile as applicable and contact details of two recent referees for each team member (CVs must not be more than two pages per team member – this will not be counted toward the page limit) • Draft tools for data collection (this will not be counted toward the page limit) Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 41 XII. Evaluation Management A. Logistics To make the field time as efficient as possible, preparation must include completing a majority of the documentation review, establishing interview guides, developing team protocol and responsibilities, and establishing the evaluation schedule. The evaluation team is responsible for managing all logistics required for completing the evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, arranging for transportation, meeting venues, and appointments for meetings. The Asia Foundation or its sub￾contractor staff may assist in organizing meetings. USAID/Nepal will provide the reference materials as required. B. USAID Participation USAID staff may join the evaluation team as and when necessary. USAID staff may participate as an additional member of the team during primary data collection, interviews with focus groups, key informants, implementing partners. The USAID team participant will manage his/her own logistics through close coordination with the Team Leader. To ensure against bias or conflict of interest, the USAID team member’s role will be limited to participating in the fact-finding phase and contributing to the analysis. The final responsibility for analysis, conclusions and recommendations will rest with the Team Leader together with the other members. C. Scheduling The timeline for this SOW is between July 1, 2013 to August 15, 2013 with actual level of efforts as presented in the table below: Estimated No. of Work Days Estimated No. of Actual Work Days Activities Day 1- Day 5 5 Documentation review, planning, and initial Kathmandu￾based interviews Day 6 - Day 20 15 Field work (including travel to and from field sites) Day 21– Day 25 5 Internal team review of findings and an initial debriefing to USAID team Day 26– Day 32 7 draft evaluation report Day 33-39 0 USAID provides feedback to the draft report Day 40-43 4 Finalize evaluation report and submit to USAID 1 Prepare and deliver a separate presentation, as scheduled by USAID/Nepal, to outline major findings, recommendations and lessons learned Total number of estimated work days = 37work days The evaluation timeline provided above is a guide that can be refined. Submission of the final draft report will be made no later than 30 days after field work is completed. USAID/Nepal will provide comments within 7 working days of the submission of the draft report. A revised final draft will be submitted within 7 working days after receipt of comments from USAID/Nepal. The evaluation report will be final only after it is cleared in writing by USAID/Nepal. Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 42 D. Payment Schedule and Reporting Requirements USAID intends to offer a Fixed Price Purchase Order for this contract. USAID will provide incremental payments upon completion and acceptance of the following benchmarks/deliverables by the designated Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). • 30 percent upon approval of work plan as a mobilization advance • 40 percent upon submission of first draft report • 30 percent upon the completion of final report and all other deliverables specified in section IX (A) E. Budget The Team Leader is expected to submit a proposed budget along with proposed team members. The items in the proposed budget should include daily rate, per diem, in-country airfare, vehicle rental, and other direct cost such as stationery, photocopy, utilities/venue rental, IT, etc. The group accident insurance is compulsory for the members and is the responsibility of the contractor. Total estimated cost of the award is between $45,000 to $52,000. Cost proposal should be submitted in both US$ and local currency using $1:Rs. 80 exchange rate. Offorers are expected to submit a cost estimate as per the template below. S.N. Cost Element No. of Unit Unit Rate Amount 1 Consultancy Fees Team Leader Days Local Consultant Days Local Consultant Days 2 Per diem (In-country) Days 3 Airfare (In-country) trips 4 Other Direct Costs* Total Direct Costs Fixed Fee Grand Total * stationary, photocopy, utilities, venue, IT, vehicle rental in field (days), group accident insurance cost (person) etc. XIII. Evaluation Criteria The technical proposal will be more important than cost in the best value decision. However, the cost proposal submitted by the Offerors will also be an important factor in determining the best value. Offerors should note that these criteria: (1) serve as the standard against which all proposals will be evaluated, and (2) serve to identify the significant matters which Offerors should address in their proposals. The evaluation criteria are as follows: 1. Evaluation Methodology/approach: (35%) • Appropriateness of data collection methods to answer the evaluation questions • Use of quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection • Plan for data analysis Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 43 • Sampling strategies – including strategies to ensure men and women from affected communities and from all levels of the GON and NGOs are included in the evaluation • Consideration for sensitivity of the issue for project • Use of participatory methods for data collection 2. Technical Competence: (30%) • Qualification and experience of evaluation team members • Composition of the team with expertise in trafficking, labor migration and gender • Expertise in evaluation of similar programs and projects • Organizational strengths of the firm or individual 3. Experience: (30%) • Past experience on evaluation of projects and programs including experience of evaluating trafficking and labor migration, gender-based violence, and community awareness and development projects • Experience managing logistics for conducting such evaluations • Number of evaluations conducted with USAID or other donor implemented programs and projects within the last two years 4. Mobilization Potential: (5%) • Ability and readiness to take-over the assignment effective from July 1, 2013; and • Ability to make timely payments for Travel and Daily Allowance and manage logistics support to the evaluation team members XIV. Terms and Conditions of the Consultancy Each member of the evaluation team will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (Annex 2) and Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluations (Annex 3) and include them in the proposal as annex. Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Persons Program (CTIP) 44 Annex 1: Resources and approaches for data collection Implementing organizations: The Asia Foundation (TAF) is the prime implementing organization for USAID-CTIP. TAF’s sub-contractors include The World Education Inc. (WEI) and six local NGOs including Center for Legal Research and Resource Development Center (CeLRRd), Forum for Women, Law, and Development (FWLD); Legal Aid Consultancy Center (LACC); National Judicial Academy (NJA); Forum for the Protection of People’s Rights (PPR), Transcultural Psychosocial Organization (TPO). The WEI work with additional six local implementing partners namely SAATHI, Change Nepal, Gramin Mahila SwabhalambhanSahakari Sansthan (GMSS); Pourakhi; Nepal Tamang Women Ghedung (NTWG), and Nepal Institute of Development Studies (NIDS). Implementing Organizations: The Contractor will hold the meetings with the implementing partners and sub-partners who are engaged in implementing and/or monitoring activities. If possible, some work should be observed in action. Any capacity building trainings, community meetings or workshops will provide an opportunity to compare perception of informants with reality of implementation. Beneficiaries and Affiliated Implementing Partners: The Contractor will hold the meetings in the field with direct beneficiaries that include trained security personnel, judicial officials, local communities, youth, men and women from CBOs, local leaders, TIP survivors ‘when possible’, and people who have been affiliated with the implementation process. Meetings can be a combination of individual and focus group interviews, group discussions. Interviews with the other implementers: To gain a different perspective of implementation approaches and issues, the evaluation team will need to meet with other USAID/Nepal partners or other donors who are implementing similar programs or cross cutting programs. The team should also try to meet some members of the Inter-Agency Coordination Group on Human Trafficking those are not part of implementing organizations of the project . Government Representatives: Representatives from Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare (MOWCSW) and NCCHT within the ministry to gauge the ties between the CTIP and the GON. In addition, the team should also meet with the local GON representatives such as Chief District Officers (CDO), Local Development Officers (LDO), and Village Development Committee (VDC) Secretaries, women development officers and national rapporteur. Annex 2: Non-Disclosure Agreement PRECLUSION FROM FURNISHING CERTAIN SERVICES AND RESTRICTION ON USE OF INFORMATION With respect to proposal submitted dated ---- in response to solicitation of USAID/Nepal’s evaluation of CTIP dated -----, the undersigned hereby agrees and certifies to the followings: (a) This SOW calls for the contractor to furnish important services in support of the evaluation of the USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Person (CTIP). In accordance with the principles of FAR Subpart 9.5 and USAID policy, the contractor shall be ineligible to furnish, as a prime or subcontractor or otherwise, implementation services under any contract or task order that results in response to findings, proposals, or recommendations in the evaluation report within 18 months of USAID accepting the report, unless the head of the contracting activity, in consultation with USAID’s competition advocate, authorizes a waiver (in accordance FAR 9.503) determining that preclusion of the contractor from the implementation work would not be in the government's interest. (b) In addition, by accepting this contract, the contractor agrees that it will not use or make available any information obtained about another organization under the contract in the preparation of proposals or other documents in response to any solicitation for a contract or task order. (c) If the contractor gains access to proprietary information of any other company in performing this evaluation, the contractor must agree with the other company to protect the information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary, and must refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Contractor must provide a properly executed copy of all such agreements to the contracting officer. Signature: ________________________ Name Typed or Printed: ________________________ Date: ________________________ Annex 3: Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluations Instructions: Evaluations of USAID projects will be undertaken so that they are not subject to the perception or reality of biased measurement or reporting due to conflict of interest. 26For external evaluations, all evaluation team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the project being evaluated.27 Evaluators of USAID projects have a responsibility to maintain independence so that opinions, conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will be viewed as impartial by third parties. Evaluators and evaluation team members are to disclose all relevant facts regarding real or potential conflicts of interest that could lead reasonable third parties with knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances to conclude that the evaluator or evaluation team member is not able to maintain independence and, thus, is not capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all issues associated with conducting and reporting the work. Operating Unit leadership, in close consultation with the Contracting Officer, will determine whether the real or potential conflict of interest is one that should disqualify an individual from the evaluation team or require recusal by that individual from evaluating certain aspects of the project(s). In addition, if evaluation team members gain access to proprietary information of other companies in the process of conducting the evaluation, then they must agree with the other companies to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.28 Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Immediate family or close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant/material though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant/material though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members Name Title 26 USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 8); USAID Contract Information Bulletin 99-17; and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 9.5, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and Subpart 3.10, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct. 27 USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 11) 28FAR 9.505-4(b) Organization Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number(contract or other instrument) USAID Project(s) Evaluated(Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date Annex 4: Checklist for Evaluation Report Review Title of study being reviewed: __________________________________ GOOD PRACTICE ELEMENTS OF AN EVALUATION REPORT29 Keyed to USAID’s 2011 Evaluation Policy EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 1. Does the evaluation report have a cover sheet attached indicating the type of evaluation conducted (e.g. performance evaluation or impact evaluation) and general design? 2. If a performance evaluation, does the evaluation report focus on descriptive and normative evaluation questions? 3. If the evaluation report uses the term “impact evaluation,” is it defined as measuring the change in a development outcome that is attributable to a defined intervention (i.e. impact evaluations are based on models of cause and effect and require a credible and rigorously defined counterfactual)? 4. Regardless of the type of evaluation, does the evaluation report reflect use of sound social science methods? 5. Does the report have a Table of Contents (TOC)? 6. Do Lists of Figures and Tables follow the TOC? 7. Does the report have a Glossary of Terms? 7.1.1 Are abbreviations limited to the essential? 8. Is the date of the report given? 9. Does the body of the report adhere to the 20 page guide? 10. Is the report well-organized (each topic is clearly delineated, subheadings used for easy reading)? 11. Does the report’s presentation highlight important information in 29In addition to the USAID 2011 Evaluation Policy, good practices in evaluation reporting have also been drawn from:MorraImas, Linda and Ray C. Rist. 2009. The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting Effective Development Evaluations. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Scriven, Michael. 2005. Key Evaluation Checklist. Stufflebeam, Daniel L. 1999. Program Evaluations Metaevaluation Checklist. EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments ways that capture the reader’s attention? 12. Is the report well written (clear sentences, reasonable length paragraphs, no typos, acceptable for dissemination to potential users)? 13. Does the evaluation report focus on the essential issues concerning the key questions, and eliminate the “nice to know”, but not essential information? 14. Does the evaluation report disclose either lack of a conflict of interest by all evaluation team members and/or describe any conflict of interest that existed relative to the project being evaluated? 15. As applicable, does the evaluation report include statements regarding any significant unresolved differences of opinion on the part of funders, implementers and/or members of the evaluation team? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 16. Does the evaluation report begin with a 3- to 5-page stand-alone summary of the purpose, background of the project, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable) of the evaluation? 17. Does the Executive Summary concisely state the main points of the evaluation? 18. Does the Executive Summary follow the rule of only saying what the evaluation itself says and not introducing new material? INTRODUCTION 19. Does the report introduction adequately describe the project? 20. Does the introduction explain the problem/opportunity the project was trying to address? 21. Does the introduction show where the project was implemented (physical location) through a map? 22. Does the introduction explain when the project was implemented? 23. Are the “theory of change” or development hypotheses that underlie the project explained? (Does the report specify the project’s inputs, direct results (outputs), and higher level outcomes and impacts, so that the reader understands the logical structure of the project and what it was supposed to accomplish?) 24. Does the report identify assumptions underlying the project? 25. Does the report include sufficient local and global contextual information so that the external validity and relevance of the evaluation can be assessed? EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments 26. Does the evaluation report identify and describe any critical competitors to the project that functioned at the same time and in the project’s environment? 27. Is USAID’s level of investment in the project stated? 27.1. Does the evaluation report describe the project components funded by implementing partners and the amount of funding? 28. Is the purpose of the evaluation clearly stated? 29. Is the amount of USAID funding for the evaluation indicated? 30. Are all other sources of funding for the evaluation indicated as well as the amounts? 31. Does the report identify the evaluation team members and any partners in the evaluation? 32. Is there a clear statement of how the evaluation will be used and who the intended users are? 33. Are the priority evaluation questions presented in the introduction? 34. Does the evaluation address all evaluation questions included in the Statement of Work (SOW)? 34.1. Are any modifications to the SOW, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline indicated in the report? 34.2. Is the SOW presented as an annex? 34.3. If so, does the annex include the rationale for any change with the written sign-offs on the changes by the technical officer? SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 35. Does the report provide a clear description of the evaluation’s design? 35.1. Is a design matrix or similar written tool presented in an annex that shows for each question/subquestion the measure(s) or indicator(s) used to address it, the source(s) of the information, the type of evaluation design, type of sampling if used, data collection instrument(s) used, and the data analysis plan? 36. Does the report state the period over which the evaluation was conducted? 37. Does the report state the project time span covered by the evaluation? 38. Does the evaluation report indicate the nature and extent of consultation on the evaluation design with in-country partners and beneficiaries? EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments 39. Does the evaluation report indicate the nature and extent of participation by national counterparts and evaluators in the design and conduct of the evaluation? 40. Does the report address each key question around which the evaluation was designed? 41. Is at least one of the evaluation questions directly related to gender analysis of outcomes and impacts? 42. Are data sex-disaggregated? By age? By ethnic and religious group? Geographical location ? 43. In answering the questions, does the report appropriately use comparisons made against baseline data? 44. If the evaluation is expected to influence resource allocation, does it include information on the cost structure and scalability of the intervention, as well as its effectiveness? 45. As appropriate, does the report include financial data that permits computation of unit costs and analysis of cost structure? 46. Is there a clear description of the evaluation’s data collection methods (summarized in the text with the full description presented in an annex)? 46.1. Are all tools (questionnaires, checklists, discussion guides, and other data collection instruments) used in the evaluation provided in an annex? 46.2. Does the evaluation report include information, as appropriate, on the pilot testing of data collection instruments? 46.3. Does the evaluation report include information, as appropriate, on the training of data collectors? 47. Are all sources of information properly identified and listed in an annex? 48. Does the evaluation report contain an section describing the “strengths” and “limitations” associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g. selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, small samples, only went to villages near the road, implementer insisted on picking who the team met with, etc.)? 49. Does the evaluation report indicate the evaluation methodology took into account the time, budget, and other practical considerations for the evaluation such as minimizing disruption and data burden? 50. Does the report have sufficient information to determine if the evaluation team had the appropriate methodological and subject matter expertise to conduct the evaluation as designed? 51. If an impact evaluation was designed and conducted, does the evaluation report indicate that experimental methods were used to generate the strongest evidence? Or does the report indicate that alternative methods for assessing impact were utilized and EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments present the reasons why random assignment strategies were not feasible? 52. Does the evaluation report reflect the application and use to the maximum extent possible of social science methods and tools that reduce the need for evaluator-specific judgments? 53. Does the evaluation scope and methodology section address generalizability of the findings? ANALYSIS 54. Are percentages, ratios, cross-tabulations, rather than raw data presented, as appropriate? 55. When percentages are given, does the report always indicate the number of cases used to calculate the percentage? 56. Is use of percentages avoided when the number of cases is small (<10)? 57. Are whole numbers used or rounding-off numbers to 1 or 2 digits? 58. Are pictures used to good effect? 58.1. Relevant to the content 58.2. Called out in the text and placed near the call-out 59. Are charts and graphs used to present or summarize data, where relevant? 59.1. Are the graphics easy to read and simple enough to communicate the message without much text? 59.2. Are they consistently numbered and titled? 59.3. Are they clearly labeled (axis, legend, etc.) 59.4. Is the source of the data identified? 59.5. Are they called out in the text and correctly placed near the call-out? 59.6. Are the scales honest (proportional and not misleading by virtue of being “blown-up”)? FINDINGS 60. Are FINDINGS specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative and qualitative evidence? 60.1. As appropriate, does the report indicate confirmatory evidence for FINDINGS from multiple sources, data collection methods, and analytic procedures? 61. Are adequate data provided to address the validity of the “theory of change” or development hypothesis underlying the project, i.e., cause and effect relationships? EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments 62. Are alternative explanations of any observed results discussed, if found? 63. Are unplanned results the team discovered adequately described? 64. Are opinions, conclusions, and recommendations kept out of the description of FINDINGS? CONCLUSIONS 65. Is there a clear distinction between CONCLUSIONS and FINDINGS? 66. Is every CONCLUSION in the report supported by a specific or clearly defined set of FINDINGS? 67. Are the CONCLUSIONS credible, given the FINDINGS the report presents? 68. Can the reader tell what CONCLUSIONS the evaluation team reached on each evaluation question? RECOMMENDATIONS 69. Are RECOMMENDATIONS separated from CONCLUSIONS? (Are they highlighted, presented in a separate section or otherwise marked so that the reader sees them as being distinct?) 70. Are all RECOMMENDATIONS supported by a specific or clearly defined set of FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS? (Clearly derived from what the evaluation team learned?) 71. Are the RECOMMENDATIONS practical and specific? 72. Are the RECOMMENDATIONS responsive to the purpose of the evaluation? 73. Are the RECOMMENDATIONS action-oriented? 74. Is it clear who is responsible for each action? 75. Are the RECOMMENDATIONS limited/grouped into a reasonable number? LESSONS LEARNED 76. Did this evaluation include lessons that would be useful for future projects or programs, on the same thematic or in the same country, etc.? 77. Are the LESSONS LEARNED highlighted and presented in a clear way? 78. Does the report indicate who the lessons are for? (e.g., project implementation team, future project, USAID and implementing partners, etc.) BOTTOM LINE EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments 79. Does the evaluation report give the appearance of a thoughtful, evidence-based, and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why? 80. As applicable, does the evaluation report include statements regarding any significant unresolved differences of opinion on the part of funders, implementers and/or members of the evaluation team? 81. Is the evaluation report structured in a way that will promote its utilization? 82. Does the evaluation report explicitly link the evaluation questions to specific future decisions to be made by USAID leadership, partner governments and/or other key stakeholders? 83. Does the evaluation report convey the sense that the evaluation was undertaken in a manner to ensure credibility, objectivity, transparency, and the generation of high quality information and knowledge? ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 1. Introduction This document details the methodologies used for the purpose of mid-term evaluation. In the following sections, the evaluation approach, sampling strategies, and data collection techniques are presented. 2. Evaluation approach In order to achieve the purpose of this evaluation, a study framework was developed using the DAC Criteria for evaluating development assistance. The suggested criteria by DAC were appropriated to meet the needs of this evaluation. The criteria set for this evaluation are: relevance; program modality; effectiveness; efficiency; effect; and sustainability. The information regarding the relevance of the project was sought to assess the extent of program’s ability to reduce TIP and protect the rights of victim in Nepal, its modality in the changing contexts and relevancy of the activities to achieve the objectives. Information regarding the program modality was sought regarding the institutional arrangement and their functional linkages, program components and activities, and strategies adopted to achieve the project objectives. The effectiveness of the project has been assessed by gathering information regarding the process and progress of the project, program reaching at major beneficiaries, and performance of the activities against the project objective. To evaluate the efficiency of the project information was sought regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the project activities, problems and constraints in implementation, use of resources and cost effectiveness, resource mobilization and cooperation of local organizations, and efficiency of the implementing partners in enhancing the capacity of district partners. The effects of the project was assessed regarding the immediate effects at the level of beneficiaries, effects on government planning on issues related to TIP, and implementation of policy documents. The reader of the report need to aware that a comprehensive assessment of the impact of this project is not possible at this stage because the project has been implemented only for two and half years and this mid-term evaluation has focused on the performance of project activities. Therefore, the ‘effects’ of the project in this regard refer to the immediate effect on the program activities among the stakeholders and beneficiaries. The assessment of sustainability was conducted by gathering and analyzing the information regarding the approaches and measures taken for sustainability, functioning of partner networks and government bodies for sustaining program activities and institutional capacity of partners and government bodies. 3. Evaluation questions: The evaluation questions for the study were derived from the ‘evaluation question’ stated in the Statement of Work provided by USAID/Nepal. The evaluation was structured to address the following questions: i. Is the CTIP project effective in fostering coordination with government, non-government stakeholders such that the local level commitment is reflected in coordinated strategies to combat trafficking in person at both district and central levels? ii. How has the CTIP project assisted in functioning of National Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking (NCCHT) to discharge its mandatory roles and responsibilities? iii. Has the CTIP project enhanced the capacity of key stakeholders in providing comprehensive care and protection services to the victims of trafficking as envisaged in the standard guidelines such as National Minimum Standard (NMS) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)? Are there evidences of improved service delivery in areas of legal, psychosocial, and livelihood support to survivors of TIP? iv. What are CTIP project’s contributions to strengthen the prosecution of TIP? Are the numbers of TIP cases increasing or have remained the same while giving due attention to victim/witness friendly procedures? Are the investigation, prosecution and adjudication procedures of police, government attorney and court progressing towards principles adhered by the HTTCA and HTTCR? v. How effective has the prevention activities of CTIP project been in raising awareness amongst community that it has reached? Are there any evidences of decrease in trafficking incidences because of the preventive measures taken? vi. How cohesive is the partnership between different CTIP project’s fund recipient partner organizations and how fluid is the sharing of information between them? vii. How are the strategies for the sustainability of the project being ensured? How have they taken ownership of the project? Is the project producing targeted results? 4. Data collection techniques A participatory evaluation method was used, in a sense that target groups, program implementing partners, and key government and non-government stakeholders were treated as active partners in the evaluation. Participatory evaluation methods were used to incorporate the views of broad range of stakeholders associated with the project, to focus on learning for improved performance of activities, and rapid appraisal methods due to constraints of time. The data for the study were generated at three levels namely central level (Kathmandu), district level, and community level. Both the qualitative and quantitative data were used to collect the data. However, primacy was given to qualitative data considering the target group of the evaluation which are institutions rather than large number of individuals. Various techniques used to collect data were: a) Key Informant Interviews b) Semi-structured Interview c) Unstructured Interviews d) Focus Group Discussions e) Mini-survey The key informant interviews were conducted with the sub-grantees of the project whereas information from the implementing partners was gathered using semi-structured interviews. Since the time available for meeting the government officials was limited because of their heavy workload, unstructured interviews were used to gather information with them. This allowed flexibility in gathering data from the government officials in an informal setting. Focus group discussions were conducted with relevant committees at the central and district level, and with the community level groups created by the project. A Mini-survey was conducted among the residents of the village where the community level groups created by project claimed to be most active. Sampling strategies Selection of sample districts: A purposive sampling strategy was adopted for the selection of sample districts. This strategy was adopted considering the geographic expansiveness of the project coverage and limited time allowed for the fieldwork. Thus, three districts out of the six project implementation areas were selected as a sample for the study. The districts and reasons for selection are: District Reasons for selection Sindhupalchok This district has been identified as a source (also mentioned in SOW) for cross-border trafficking, internal trafficking, and foreign labor migration. Also, topographically, the district represents hilly region. Kanchanpur This district has been identified as a transit (also mentioned in SOW) for cross-border trafficking, foreign labor migration and route for repatriation from India. Furthermore, the district represents the plain (Terai) region topographically. Kathmandu This district has been identified as source, transit and destination for TIP and foreign labor migration. Furthermore, the district is the hub for all the national and central level administration. Moreover, majority of the implementing partners have their offices located in this district. Selection of sample municipality and VDC within the sample districts: A consultation with the sub￾grantees of the project revealed that community based awareness groups had been formed in different VDCs of the district. This information was used to select the sample VDCs and municipality where such groups were created. A sample of ten percent out of the total number of VDCs where such community groups were formed in the district was ascertained considering the limited time for fieldwork. Hence, one VDC and municipality were selected from Kanchanpur, four VDCs from Kathmandu, and five VDCs from Sindhupalchok. The sampling strategy for selection of VDCs and municipality was purposive. The selection was based on the strength of the community groups formed. The strength of the community groups were found after the literature review of the evaluation report by the sub-grantees which had categorized the community groups as strong, intermediate or weak. Thus, out of the eleven sample areas selected three had been labeled strong, four were intermediate and four were weak. Participants of interviews: The relevant stakeholders of the project were selected for the interviews conducted. Participants for focus group discussions: The participants for the focus group discussions were the members of the community group formed by the project. Participants for mini-survey:The respondents for mini-survey were the community people who were randomly selected in each of the visited sample VDCs. Approximately thirty responses from each VDCs or municipality were collected. However, it must be considered that the survey was conducted in the vicinity where the community groups formed by the project conduct meetings and activities. Wide coverage (i.e. each Wards within the VDC) was not possible due to the time constraint and difficult topography that restricted access. The following table presents the list of sample VDCs and municipality in each district: District Sample VDCs and municipality Kanchanpur i. Bhimdutta Municipality ii. Suda VDC Kathmandu iii. Goldhunga VDC iv. Bandbhanjyang VDC v. Bajrayogini VDC vi. Dakshinkali VDC Sindhupalchok vii. Kiul VDC viii. Kadambas VDC ix. Talamarang VDC x. Tatopani VDC xi. Batase VDC ANNEX III: EVALUATION TOOLS Consent Form Study description:“A mid-term evaluation for USAID/Nepal Combating Trafficking in Person Program” is a study being conducted by SAHAVAGI for USAID/Nepal. The mid-term evaluation is being conducted from July 1, 2013 to August 29, 2013. This is a mid-term external evaluation that will measure how the project is progressing in fulfillment of the results framework as well as help determine what activities are working well or not, and why. Based on the findings, the mid-term evaluation will provide recommendations on what modifications and mid-course corrections may be necessary, to help guide the CTIP project over its second half. Various data collection techniques are being used to collect/generate the necessary data for the mid-term evaluation. The mid-term evaluation team is approaching you to collect the data required for the study and would appreciate your cooperation. Any questions regarding the study will be duly responded by the mid-term evaluation team. Disclaimer:The respondents of this interview have been clarified on the objectives of the evaluation and understand that their views expressed during the course of data collection will be used as a part of analysis for the study. The respondents also understand that their identity will not be revealed in any form until and unless consent is granted by them to do so. The respondents also understand that the interview is being recorded by a sound recorder appliance with their consent. If consent for recording the interview is not granted then the interview will proceed without using the sound recorder appliance. By participating and responding to the questions asked here within, the respondents agree and approve of their views being incorporated in the study and its results. The respondents of the study are the one stated below in the ‘Respondent’ table. Respondent Organization Designation Signature 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Questions for Key Informant Interview with The Asia Foundation and World Education 1. What is/are the role(s) of your organization in the CTIP project? 2. How is the CTIP project addressing the issues of TIP in Nepal? (Probe: Is it better at addressing the issues than previously implemented programs or projects?) 3. What are the strategies adopted to achieve the project’s goals? 4. What are the major activities being carried out by your organization under the CTIP project? 5. How were the implementing partners selected for the project? (Probe: Are the partners performing as per the expectations to meet the goal of the project?) 6. What kinds of support are provided to the government mechanisms/organizations such as NCCHT, DCCHT, Police, Court, Government attorney and implementing partners by your organization under the CTIP project? (Probe: in terms of Financial, Technical and Physical Resources) 7. What is the mechanism devised under the CTIP project to foster coordination/relation with key government organizations, community based organizations and local NGOs both at the central and district level? (Probe considering the vertical and horizontal coordination between government stakeholders) 8. How is the information and results of the program shared between the implementers of the project? (Probe: if there is a central information or data management system?) 9. What are the major achievements of the CTIP project since its implementation? (Probe: what government policy has been endorsed, implementation of NMS and SOP, establishment of shelter home, level of awareness among community members, strengthening of right-based measures, harmonizing the trafficking definitions, offences and penalties as per the international instruments, rate ofprosecution etc.) 10. The project was initiated without baseline data. What were the foundations to set the targets and design activities? 11. Has the institutional capacity of the key stakeholders increased after the support provided by the CTIP project? (Relate to question 5 and probe how) 12. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or under-achievement of the objectives? 13. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the project? 14. What is the strategy adopted by your organization to ensure the sustainability of the achievements made by the project? 15. Could you provide us suggestions for the remaining period of the CTIP project? 16. What have been the lessons learnt? Are there any emerging trends in TIP? 17. What kinds of interventions are required to address the TIP problem in Nepal? Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Questions for Key Informant Interview with NCCHT Secretariat 1. When was the NCCHT formed? (Probe: Why was it formed?) 2. What are the major activities carried out by the NCCHT? (Probe: number of coordination meetings, total number of NCCHT meetings in the past two years, monitoring of safe house) 3. Does the NCCHT have updated information on the activities of CTIP project in six districts? 4. What kinds of support has the CTIP project provided to the NCCHT? (Probe: in terms of financial, physical, and technical resources) 5. Are the resources adequate? 6. How has the CTIP support increased the capacities of stakeholders providing care and protection services to TIP survivors/victims? 7. How frequently is the NCCHT conducting monitoring visits after the adoption of NMS and SOP for rehabilitation centers? (Probe: What were the outcomes?) 8. Has the rate of prosecution of traffickers increased since the implementation of the CTIP project? 9. How has the CTIP project contributed to increase the level of awareness among groups vulnerable to trafficking? (Probe: in terms of activities of Safe Migration groups and their effectiveness) 10. What is the nature of coordination between the NCCHT and DCCHT? (Probe: kinds of policy related issues raised by the DCCHT and resolved by the NCCHT) 11. What are the major achievements of the NCCHT since its formation? (Probe: What is the contribution of CTIP in those achievements?) 12. Are the activities of the CTIP project in alignment with the NPA? 13. Are there any gaps/loopholes in the implementation of HTTCA particularly in the prosecution of traffickers? (Probe: how the HTTCA has responded to trafficking happening under the pretext of foreign labor migration) 14. Has the NCCHT become more functional and effective in discharging its role and responsibilities since the implementation of CTIP project? 15. What are the future goals for the NCCHT?(Probe: how is the NCCHT going to respond to the changing dynamics of trafficking in person?) Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Questions for interview with the implementing partners 1. What is/are the role(s) of your organization in the CTIP project? 2. How is the CTIP project addressing the issues of TIP in Nepal? (Probe: Is it better at addressing the issues than previously implemented programs or projects?) 3. What is the implementation strategy adopted to achieve the project’s goals? (Probe: whether new groups are being formed or existing groups are being mobilized; is the CTIP’s program aligned with organization’s other activities) 4. What are the major activities performed by your organization under the CTIP project? 5. What kinds of support are being provided by the CTIP project to implement the activities of the project? (Probe: in terms of financial, technical and physical support) 6. Are the resources adequate to carry out the project’s activities? 7. What is the mechanism devised under the CTIP project to foster coordination/relation with key government organization, community based organizations and local NGOs both at the central and district level? (Probe: considering the vertical and horizontal coordination between government stakeholders) 8. Is there any coordination mechanism such as Steering Committee or Project Management Committee among the implementing partners and the donor agency? (Probe: How frequently do you meet with the donor agency regarding this project?) 9. How is the information and results of the program shared between the implementers of the project? (Probe: if there is a central information or data management system) 10. What is the referral mechanism in the district to address the problem of TIP victims/survivors? 11. What kinds of support has your organization provided under the CTIP project to: a. NCCHT: b. DCCHT: c. VCCHT: d. Safe Migration Networks: e. Shelter Homes: 12. How is the project addressing the foreign employment led trafficking? 13. What are the major achievements of your organization under the CTIP project since its implementation? (Probe:what government policy has been endorsed, implementation of NMS and SOP, establishment of shelter home, level of awareness among community members, strengthening of right-based measures, harmonizing the trafficking definitions, offences and penalties as per the international instruments, rate ofprosecution, etc.) 14. Has the institutional capacity of the key stakeholders increased after the support provided by the CTIP project? (Relate to question 5 and probe how) 15. What changes have you felt in the community since the implementation of the CTIP project? (Probe: in regard to awareness on TIP and safe migration, financial management in the migrants' family, reintegration, case filing, rate of traffickers arrested) 16. How has your organization perceived the role of Safe Migration Networks in combating TIP? (Probe: in regard to efficiency: resource mobilization, increased service delivery; and effectiveness of SMN) 17. What effects have been observed since the formulation and endorsement of National Minimum Standard and Standard Operating Procedure? (Probe: how practical are the standards set?; care option, victim protection, rate of prosecution, level of awareness) 18. What were the major factors influencing the achievement and under-achievement of the objectives? 19. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the project? 20. What are the measures taken by your organization to ensure the sustainability of the achievements made by the project? 21. Could you provide us suggestions for the remaining period of the CTIP project? 22. What have been the lessons learnt? Are there any emerging trends in TIP? 23. What kinds of interventions are required to address the TIP problem in Nepal? Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Questions for interview with DIG, Directorate of Women and Children Service, Police Headquarter 1. What are the major activities performed by the Nepal Police in combating against TIP? 2. Do you have information on CTIP project? (Probe: whether the WCSC has information on the activities of CTIP in six districts) 3. What kinds of support has the CTIP project provided to the Nepal Police? 4. List of trainings received by Nepal Police under the CTIP project Topic of training Targeted Participants Total number of police receiving training Year 5. Is there any data/information management system with the Police Offices for tracking the TIP cases? (Probe: on the status of software for data management system and training on the software?) 6. Do you participate in the meetings held by the NCCHT? 7. How is the Nepal Police addressing the issues of foreign employment led trafficking? 8. What is the rate of prosecution of perpetrators since the implementation of CTIP project? Type of case No. of perpetrators prosecuted Result of the prosecution Year 9. What are major preventive activities conducted by Nepal Police in combating TIP? 10. How does Nepal Police provide protection to the victims/survivors of TIP? 11. What are the major challenges in combating TIP? 12. What have been the lessons learnt? Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with Executive Director, Central Child Welfare Board 1. Major policy and activities on controlling the problem of trafficking in children 2. Information regarding CTIP Program 3. Linking of 'Child Help Line' and Missing Child Information Center' as prevention and protection of victim children 4. What are the provisions for children who are victims/survivors of TIP? (Probe: in terms of care and protection) 5. General perspectives on: • CCWB and NCCHT • DCWB and DCCHT • VCCHT, VCPC and SMN 6. Central data on missing children in general and trafficking in children in particular 7. What should be done to establish a data base system at all levels Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with Chairperson,Foreign Employment Tribunal 1. Information about CTIP Program 2. Recent trend of cases on foreign employment registered in Tribunal 3. Link of foreign employment with TIP 4. Case referrals under HTTCA and FEA 5. Harmonizing two laws: HTTCA and FEA 6. Strengthening of Tribunal Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with Deputy Attorney General, OAG 1. Information about CTIP Program 2. Problem of trafficking in the foreign employment 3. Effectiveness in the enforcement of HTTCA and FEA 4. Sufficiency of government attorneys' involvement in the investigation and prosecution of TIP and FE led fraud cases 5. Accumulated data on TIP (year wise) 6. Harmonizing two laws: HTTCA and FEA 7. Linking CTIP Program activities to enhance the capacity of Government Attorneys 8. Need for investigation and prosecution guideline to expedite TIP cases 9. Coordination with MoWCSW and MoLE Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with Ex-Director General, Department of Foreign Employment and Act Executive DirectorForeign Employment Promotion Board Welfare Board 10. Do you know about CTIP Project? If yes, what is the mechanism under CTIP project to foster coordination/relation with key government organization both at the central and district levels? 11. Do you see the problem of trafficking in the foreign employment? If yes, what policy documents have been endorsed by the government for the protection of trafficking victims under and people at risk of trafficking? 12. How effectively are those policy documents being implemented? Are the victims/survivors of foreign employment related trafficking receiving the treatment/services as specified in the NMS/SOP? 13. Do you have any information about the formation of SMNs in the community level? If yes, how effective are they in the prevention of foreign employment led trafficking? 14. Where does the SMN fit into the government structure/mechanism? Is there need for recognizing the important roles of SMN in safe migration? 15. How can be fraud and deception in foreign labour migration brought under HTTCA? What arrangements shall be made if the foreign employment involving fraud within the jurisdiction of FE Tribunal can also be referred to court of justice - if they have to be substantiated under TIP and vice versa? 16. What assistance do you expect from CTIP for safer migration and controlling Trafficking in person in foreign employment? What shall be the future direction to control the trafficking in foreign employment? Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with NHRC, Anti-Trafficking Section 1. Information regarding CTIP Program 2. Recent trend of TIP and sufficiency of National policy framework to address the issue 3. Effectiveness of state mechanisms/institutions in responding the TIP problem with regard to prosecution, protection and prevention 4. Promoting Victims' Rights Perspective in responding to TIP survivors 5. Linking CTIP program outcomes with the National Report on TIP 6. NHRC perspectives on future direction for controlling TIP in Nepal Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment 1. Do you know about CTIP Project? If yes, what is the mechanism under CTIP project to foster coordination/relation with key government organization both at the central and district levels? 2. Do you see the problem of trafficking in the foreign employment? If yes, what policy documents have been endorsed by the government for the protection of trafficking victims under and people at risk of trafficking? 3. How effectively are those policy documents being implemented? Are the victims/survivors of foreign employment related trafficking receiving the treatment/services as specified in the NMS/SOP? 4. Do you have any information about the formation of SMNs in the community level? If yes, how effective are they in the prevention of foreign employment led trafficking? 5. Where does the SMN fit into the government structure/mechanism? Is there need for recognizing the important roles of SMN in safe migration? 6. How can be fraud and deception in foreign labour migration brought under HTTCA? What arrangements shall be made if the foreign employment involving fraud within the jurisdiction of FE Tribunal can also be referred to court of justice - if they have to be substantiated under TIP and vice versa? 7. What assistance do you expect from CTIP for safer migration and controlling Trafficking in person in foreign employment? What shall be the future direction to control the trafficking in foreign employment? Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with Secretary, Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare 1. Do you know about CTIP Project? If yes, what is the mechanism under CTIP project to foster coordination/relation with key government organization both at the central and district levels? 2. In what ways has CTIP strengthened the capacity of MOWCSW, NCCHT and DCCHT? 3. Do you see the problem of trafficking in the foreign employment? If yes, what policy documents have been endorsed by the government for the protection of trafficking victims under and people at risk of trafficking? 4. How effectively are those policy documents being implemented? Are the victims/survivors of foreign employment related trafficking receiving the treatment/services as specified in the NMS/SOP? 5. Do you have any information about the formation of SMNs in the community level? If yes, how effective are they in the prevention of foreign employment led trafficking? 6. Where does the SMN fit into the government structure/mechanism? Is there need for recognizing the important roles of SMN in safe migration? 7. How can be fraud and deception in foreign labour migration brought under HTTCA? What arrangements shall be made if the foreign employment involving fraud within the jurisdiction of FE Tribunal can also be referred to court of justice - if they have to be substantiated under TIP and vice versa? 8. What assistance do you expect from CTIP for safer migration and controlling Trafficking in person in foreign employment? What shall be the future direction to control the TIP? 9. Any other suggestion Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Questions for interview with the implementing partners in districts 1. What are the major activities conducted by your organization in the district? (Probe: overall activities of the organization, not only under CTIP?) 2. What are the different forms of trafficking prevalent in the district? 3. What are the major activities performed by your organization under the CTIP project? (Probe: initiation year of CTIP, coverage, types of activities) 4. What is the implementation strategy adopted to achieve the project’s goals? (Probe: whether new groups are being formed or existing groups are being mobilized; is the CTIP’s program aligned with organization’s other activities) 5. What kinds of support are being provided by the CTIP project to implement the activities of the project? (Probe: in terms of financial, technical and physical support) 6. Are the resources adequate to carry out the project’s activities? (Probe: in which areas are the resources inadequate) 7. How do you coordinate with the DCCHT and other key government organizations, community based organization, and local NGOs not supported by CTIP to address TIP issues in the district? 8. How do you coordinate with other CTIP implementing partners in the district? (Probe: is the information and results of the program shared with each other?) 9. What is the referral mechanism in the district to address the problem of TIP victims/survivors? 10. What kinds of support has your organization provided under the CTIP project to: a. DCCHT: b. VCCHT: c. Safe Migration Networks: d. Shelter Homes: 11. How is the project addressing the foreign employment led trafficking in the district? 12. What changes have you felt in the community since the implementation of the CTIP project? (Probe: in regard to awareness on TIP and safe migration, financial management in the migrant’s family, reintegration, case filing, rate of traffickers arrested) 13. How has your organization perceived the role of Safe Migration Networks in combating TIP? (Probe: in regard to efficiency: resource mobilization, increased service delivery; effectiveness of SMN; its existence after the termination of the project) 14. What effects have been observed since the formulation and endorsement of National Minimum Standard and Standard Operating Procedure? (Probe: how practical are the standards set?; care option, victim protection, rate of prosecution, level of awareness) 15. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the CTIP Program? 16. Could you provide us suggestions for the remaining period of the CTIP program? 17. What have been the lessons learnt? Are there any new emerging trends in TIP in the district not covered by CTIP project? Date: Location: Start time: End time: Facilitators: Guidelines for Focus Group Discussions with Safe Migration Networks 1. Information regarding the Safe Migration Network a. Formation date b. Total members and gender composition c. Involvement in other organizations d. Lead organization forming the group e. Process of formation 2. Roles and responsibilities of the SMN a. Prevention b. Early intervention c. Case management d. Reintegration 3. Activities conducted by SMN a. Orientations (Probe: the topic of orientation and number of participants) b. Trainings (Probe: the topic of orientation and number of participants) c. Awareness campaigns(Probe: marking of national/international days, street drama, community/school visits, distribution of IEC materials etc.) 4. Types of support received from CTIP program 5. Knowledge about the issue in hand: a. Foreign Employment (Probe: policy, law, organizations) b. Trafficking in Persons(Probe: law, policy documents) 6. Mobilization of local resources a. Local NGOs b. DDC, Municipality/VDC 7. Coordinate with a. CBOs b. VCCHT c. VDC/Municipality d. DDC e. DCCHT f. Local NGOs 8. Total number of cases resolved by the SMN in case of: a. Foreign Employment b. Trafficking in Persons 9. Referral system 10. Other networks/committees working on Safe Migration and against TIP issues in the VDC 11. Involvement of SMN in the planning and budgeting process at the VDC/Municipality level 12. Additional support required to make SMN more functional and effective in discharging its duties 13. Plan for sustainability of SMN even after the termination of the project: a. Presence in the community, b. Branding c. Bringing into legal framework, d. Continuity Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Questions for interview with Shelter Home Staff Members 1. Information about the Shelter Home: a. Establishment date: b. Capacity: c. Total number of staff:(Breakdown with Post and Responsibilities) i. ........................................................................................................................... ii. .......................................................................................................................... iii. ........................................................................................................................... iv. .......................................................................................................................... v. .......................................................................................................................... vi. .......................................................................................................................... vii. .......................................................................................................................... d. Information on residents: S.N Category of Violence 2011 2012 2013 2. Types support provided to the shelter home by: a. Government: ...................................................................................................................... b. UN Agencies: ..................................................................................................................... c. INGOs: ................................................................................................................................. d. Private Foundations: .................................................................................................... e. Corporate Houses: ......................................................................................................... f. Others: ............................................................................................................................... 3. What kinds of support have been provided by the CTIP project for the shelter home? (Probe: in terms of financial, physical and technical resources; types of capacity building support and its effectiveness) 4. Are the provided resources adequate? 5. What services are provided by the shelter home to the survivors/victims? (Probe: psychosocial counseling services; legal aid and counseling; health services; vocation training and education; recreation) 6. Have the shelter home staff members received training on National Minimum Standard and Standard Operating Procedure on giving care and protection support to survivors of TIP? (Probe: who conducted the training; duration; effectiveness; and its application) 7. Does the shelter home maintain individual case files? (Probe: case management system) 8. What are the criteria set by the shelter home to identify TIP survivors/victims? 9. How do you prepare the trafficking survivors for community-based integration? (Probe: if there is any risk assessment, family counseling, family support, follow-up) 10. What the special provisions for children survivors/victims of TIP? 11. Has there been increase in the rate of prosecution after the support from CTIP project? (Probe: case filing, victim/witness protection, conviction) 12. How frequently is the shelter home monitored by the DCCHT and WCO? 13. What is the referral mechanism in place to avail specialized services to the TIP survivors/victims? (Probe: in terms of legal aid, health services, psychosocial counseling) 14. How do you coordinate with: a. DCCHT: WCO: b. District Police/Women and Children Service Center: 15. Local NGOs: 16. Safe Migration Networks: 17. What are the challenges in providing services to the TIP survivors/victims? Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Semi-structured interview with Women Development Officer and Child Rights Officer 1. Are you aware on the activities conducted by CTIP project in the district? (Probe if the project has adopted gender and child rights perspective) 2. What kind of support has the project provided to WCO? (Probe: in terms of financial, technical and physical support; sufficiency of the support provided if any) 3. What are the major issues of TIP prevalent in the district? (Probe: any emerging trends in TIP) 4. How is the WCO addressing the issues of TIP in the district? (Probe: if there are any budget allocated specifically to combat TIP; interventions and response in the issue at hand) 5. What support has CTIP provided to the DCCHT and WCO to discharge its roles and responsibility? (Probe: frequency of meeting; substantial decisions made and follow up by the committee) DCCHT￾WCO 6. Does the WCO monitor the activities of the shelter homes in the district? (Probe: frequency of monitoring visits; observations of WCO towards shelter homes in terms of implementation of NMS and SOP; distinction between TIP victims and others in the shelter homes) 7. What are the provisions for children who are victims/survivors of TIP? (Probe: in terms of care and protection) 8. What should be done to establish a data base system on TIP in the district? Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with Social Development Officer, DDC 1. CTIPsfo{s|daf/] hfgsf/L 2. TIP sf] ;d:ofaf/] lhNnfsf] ;du| l:ylt 3. DCCHT / lhNnfljsf; ;ldltsf] ;DaGw / ;dGjo 4. lhNNffdfdfgj a]rlavg lgoGq0fdf nflu sfo{/t ;+:yfx?sf] lqmofsnfk / tL sfo{qmdx?sf] k|efjsfl/tf 5. :yfgLo :t/df u7g ePsf SMN sf lqmofsnfkaf/] hfgsf/L / :yfgLo lgsfox?;+usf] ;DaGw 6. ;d:of ;Daf]wgsf nflu :yfgLo lgsfox?sf] of]hgf tyf ah]6 th'{df k|s[ofdf lbOPsf] k|fyldstf 7. :yfgLo :t/df ;~rfng x'g] ljleGg k|sf/sf tflnd, cled"vLs/0f k'g/tfhuLdf a]rlavg lgoGq0fsf] ljifonfO{ lbOPsf] dxTj 8. lhNnfdf dfgj a]rlavgsf] ;d:of tyf lgoGq0f ug]{ ;DaGwdf eO/x]sf k|of;x? af/] ;"rgf ;Dk|]if0fdf ldnfOPsf] Aoj:yf 9. yk ;'emfjx? Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with District Attorney 1. CTIPsfo{s|daf/] hfgsf/L 2. CTIPsfo{s|daf6 ;/sf/L jlsnsf] sfof{nonfO{ k|fKt ;xof]u -cfly{s, ef}ltstyfk|fljlws_ 3. CTIPsfo{s|d cGtu{t ;/sf/L jsLnn] k|fKt u/]sf k|lzIf0fx? • cleof]hg tyf cbfnlt sf/jfxL ;DaGwL sfo{ljlwaf/] • kLl8t÷k|efljtx?sf] ;+/If0f k|s[of af/] TOT 4. lhNnfdfdfgj a]rlavgtyfcf];f/k;f/sf] l:ylt 5. dfgj a]rlavgtyfcf];f/k;f/ d'2fx?sf] cg';Gwfgtyfcleof]hg k|lsofdf ;/sf/L jsLn sfof{nosf] ;+nUgtf / kLl8t tyfk|efljtx?nfO{ k'¥ofpFb} cfPsf] sfg'gL ;xof]u 6. dfgj a]rlavgtyfcf];f/k;f/sf d'2fx? af/] ljj/0f -ljut # jif{sf] jflif{s ?kdf_ s= lhNnf k|x/L sfof{noaf6 k|fKt ePsf] d'2fsf] ;+Vof v= lhNnf ;/sf/L jsLn sfof{noaf6 lkmtf{ ePsf d'2fsf] ;+Vof u= lhNnf cbfntdf bfo/ ePsf] d'2fsf] ;+Vof 3= cbfntaf6 km};nfePsf] d'2fsf] ;+Vof ª= cbfntaf6 k}m;nf x'g afFsL d'2fsf] ;+Vof 7. cbfntaf6 k}m;nf ePsf d'2fx? af/] ;+lIfKt ljj/0f s= 7x/ ePsf] d'2fsf] ;+Vof v= 7x/ gePsf] d'2fsf] ;+Vof u= 7x/ ePsf d'2fx?df kL8snfO{ tf]lsPsf] ;hfo+ 3= kLl8tn] kfPsf] Ifltk"lt{ ª= ;fIfL tyf kLl8tnfO{ lbOPsf] ;+/If0f r= d'2fsf] ;'g'jfO{df ckgfOPsf k|s[ofx? o aGb Ohnfz o lg/Gt/ ;'g'jfO{ o kLl8tsf] uf]kgLotf nufotsf] clwsf/ 8. cbfntaf6 7x/ ePsf d'2fx?sf] sfof{Gjogsf] l:ylt 9. j}b]lZfs /f]huf/sf] l;nl;nfdf a]rlavgdf k/]sf kLl8tx? af/] dfgj a]rlavg tyf cf];f/k;f/ -lgoGq0f_ P]g cGtu{t bfo/ ePsf d'2fx? 10. CTIPsfo{s|d nfu" ePkl5 lhNnfdf dfgj a]rlavg tyf cf];f/k;f/ ;DaGwL 36gfdf ph'/L btf{, d'2fx?sf] cg';Gwfg, cleof]hg tyf cbfntL sf/jfxLaf/] t'ngfTds cj:yf 11. dfgj a]rlavg tyf cf];f/k;f/ lgoGq0f lhNnf ;ldltnfO{ CTIP n] k'¥ofPsf] ;xof]u 12. dfgj a]rlavg tyf cf];f/k;f/ lgoGq0fsf nflu ;ldltn] v]n]sf] e"ldsf / o;sf] k|efjsfl/tf 13. yk ;'emfj tyf k|lts[of Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with District Court 1. CTIPsfo{s|daf/] hfgsf/L 2. CTIPsfo{s|daf6 ;/sf/L cbfntnfO{ k|fKt ;xof]u -cfly{s, ef}ltstyfk|fljlws_ 3. CTIPsfo{s|d cGtu{t lhNnf cbfntsf df=GofofwLz tyf cGo sd{rf/Lx?n] k|fKt u/]sf k|lzIf0fx? a. cleof]hg tyf cbfnlt sf/jfxL ;DaGwL sfo{ljlw af/] k'g/tfhuL TOT b. kLl8t÷k|efljtx?sf] ;+/If0f k|s[of af/] TOT c. cleof]hg tyfcbfnltsf/jfxLaf/] k|lzIf0f 4. cbfntdf k/]sfdfgj a]rlavgtyfcf];f/k;f/sf d'2fx? af/] ljj/0f -ljut # jif{sf] jflif{s ?kdf_ a. cbfntdf bfo/ ePsf] d'2fsf] ;+Vof b. cbfntaf6 km};nf ePsf d'2fsf] ;+Vof c. cbfntaf6 k}m;nf x'g afFsL d'2fsf] ;+Vof 5. k}m;nfePsf d'2fx? af/] ;+lIfKt ljj/0f a. 7x/ ePsf] d'2fsf] ;+Vof b. 7x/ gePsf] d'2fsf] ;+Vof c. 7x/ ePsf d'2fx?df kL8snfO{ tf]lsPsf] ;hfo+ d. kLl8tn] kfPsf] Ifltk"lt{ e. ;fIfLtyf kLl8tnfO{ lbOPsf] ;+/If0f f. d'2fsf] ;'g'jfO{df ckgfOPsf k|s[ofx? g. aGb Ohnfz h. lg/Gt/ ;'g'jfO{ i. kLl8tsf] uf]kgLotf nufotsf] clwsf/ j. 7x/ ePsf d'2fx?sf] sfof{Gjogsf] l:ylt 6. j}b]lZfs /f]huf/sf] l;nl;nfdf a]rlavgdf k/]sfkLl8tx? af/] dfgj a]rlavg tyf cf];f/k;f/ -lgoGq0f_ P]g cGtu{t bfo/ ePsfd'2fx? 7. CTIPsfo{s|d nfu" ePkl5 lhNnfdf dfgj a]rlavg tyf cf];f/k;f/ ;DaGwL 36gfdf ph'/L btf{, d'2fx?sf] cg';Gwfg, cleof]hg tyf cbfntL sf/jfxL af/\] t'ngfTds cj:yf 8. cbfntdf btf{ x'g cfPsf dfgj a]rlavg tyf cf];f/k;f/sf d'2fx?sf] cfwf/df a]rljvgsf] abln+bf] :j?k 9. cbfnt tyf dfgj a]rlavg tyf cf];f/k;f/ lgoGq0f lhNnf ;ldlt aLrsf] ;dGjo / ;xof]u 10. yk ;'emfj tyf k|lts[of Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with Information Booth 1. s]Gb|n] ul//x]sf d'Vo d'Vo sfo{x? 2. s]Gb|af6 p4f/ ul/Psf kLl8t÷k|efljtx?sf] ljj/0f 3. CTIPsfo{s|daf/] hfgsf/L 4. CTIPsfo{s|daf6 s]Gb|nfO{ k|fKt ;xof]u -cfly{s, ef}ltstyfk|fljlws_ 5. NMS / SOPaf/] hfgsf/L 6. DCCHT ;+u s]Gb|sf] ;DaGw / ;Dks{ 7. lhNNffdfdfgj a]rlavg lgoGq0fdf b]lvPsf] r'gf}tL / ;dfwfgsfnflu ;'emfjx? Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Checklist for unstructured interview with Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Kanchanpur 1. CTIPsfo{s|daf/] hfgsf/L 2. CTIPsfo{s|daf6 lhNnf k|x/L sfof{nonfO{ k|fKt ;xof]u -cfly{s, ef}ltstyfk|fljlws_ 3. DCCHT sf] k|efjsfl/tf 4. TIP ;DaGwL gLlt sfg"g tyf sfo{ljlw sfof{Gjogsf] l:ylt 5. j}b]lZfs /f]huf/sf] l;nl;nfdf k|x/Laf6 eO/x]sf] sf/jfxL tyf a}b]lzs /f]huf/sf gfddf x'g] a]rlavgsf] cj:yf 6. TIP lgoGq0fsf nflu ef/lto ;dsIfL;+u ePsf] sfo{ut ;DaGw, ;Dks{ tyf ;"rgf cfbfgk|bfg 7. ef/taf6 x'g] :jb]z lkmlt{sf] k|s[of, lhNnf k|x/L sfof{nosf] e"ldsf / o;df ;fdgf ug'{ k/]sf cK7\of/fx? 8. lhNNffdf dfgj a]rlavg lgoGq0fdf b]lvPsf] r'gf}tL / ;dfwfgsf nflu ;'emfjx? Date: Location: Interview start time: Interview end time: Interviewer: Unstructured interview checklist for Women and Children Service Centre 1. CTIPsfo{s|daf/]dfhfgsf/L 2. CTIPsfo{s|daf6 lhNnfk|x/L sfof{nosf]dlxnftyfafnaflnsf ;]jf s]Gb«nfO{ k|fKt ;xof]u • cfly{s • ef}lts • k|fljlws 3. lhNnfdf dfgj a]rlavgsf] 36gfsf] l:ylt • btf{ ePsf d'2fdf af6 b]lvPsf dfgj a]rlavgsf 36gfsf k|sf/x? • ljut # jif{dfph'/Lsf] ;+Vof -jflif{s ?kdf_ • yk cg';Gwfg eO{ cbfntdf bfo/ ePsf d'2fsf] ;+Vof 4. lhNnfdfdfgj a]rlavg lj?4 sfdug]{ lgsfotyf ;+:yfx? ;Fusf] ;xsfo{ • cbfnt, ;/sf/L jsLn, lhNnf ;ldlt nufot ;/sf/L sfof{nox? • CTIPcGtu{tsf] ;fem]bf/ ;+:yfx? • cGo u}/ ;/sf/L ;+3;+:yfx? 5. g]kfn ;/sf/n] tof/ kf/]sf] dfgj a]rlavgtyfcf];f/k;f/ af6 kLl8t/k|efljtx?sf] x]/rfxtyf :f+/If0fsf nflu /fli6«o Go"gtd dfkb08 / k'g:yf{kgf s]Gb« ;+rfng lgb]{lzsfsf] sfof{Gjog l:ylt 6. dfgj a]rlavg lgoGq0fsf nflu s]Gb|sf] Ifdtf clea[l4 tyf cg';Gwfg sfo{ljlwsf] dxTj 7. dlxnftyfafnaflnsf ;]jf s]Gb«n] kLl8tnfO{ lbg] ;]jfx? 8. lhNnf ;ldltaf/] hfgsf/L 9. yk ;'emfj tyf k|lts[of ANNEX IV:GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMBATING TIP National Human Rights Commission (National Rapporteur on Human National Planning Commiss Commission (Social ion (Social Policy Division) Office of the prime Minister and council of minister (GBV Desk)Protection National Women CommissionPrevention National Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking Ministry of Women Children and USAID/CTIP Women and Children Office Department of Women and ChildrenThe Asia Foundation Line Ministries Line Ministries District Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking Local Committee for Controlling Human Trafficking (VCCHT)World District Line Agencies District Line Agencies ANNEX V:NAME LIST OF RESPONDENTS 1. Prime –grantee and Sub grantee and Sub grantee and Sub-grantee grantee grantee grantee S.N. Name Designation Designation Organization Organization 1. Ms. Nandita Baruah CoP TAF 2. Mr. Sagar Prasai DCR TAF 3. Ms. Rachana Shrestha Program Manager TAF 4. Ms. Niyama Rai CTIP M&E Officer TAF 5. Ms. Srijana Chhetri Program Officer TAF 6. Ms. Kriti Thapa Program Officer TAF 7. Dr. Govind Prasad Thapa Chief Technical Advisor TAF 8. Ms. Helen Sherpa Country Representative World Education 9. Mr. Pashupati Bhandari Finance Officer World Education 10. Ms. Punam Thapaliya Program Officer World Education 11. Ms. Sabina Pradhan Project Coordinator World Education 12. Mr. Shankar Bimali Program Officer World Education 13. Ms. Sangita Bista M&E Officer World Education 2. Implementing Partner Organizations Implementing Partner Organizations Implementing Partner Organizations –Central Level Central Level Central Level S.N. Name Designation Organization 1. Ms. Manju Gurung Chairperson Pourakhi 2. Mr. Ran Subba Gurung Supervisor Pourakhi 3. Dr. Ganesh Gurung Executive Director NIDS 4. Mr. Pukar Shah Program Coordinator SAATHI 5. Mr. Satish Raj Sharma Program Coordinator PPR 6. Mr. Tika Ram Pokharel Legal Aid Lawyer PPR 7. Ms. Deepashika Pahadi Program Coordinator Change Nepal 8. Mr. Satya Raj Bajracharya President Change Nepal 9. Mr. Ujwal Khatiwada Finance Officer Change Nepal 10. Mr. Rammani Gautam Executive Director CeLRRd 11. Ms. Sandhya Sitoula Program Coordinator CeLRRd 12. Ms. Shashi Adhikari Chairperson LACC 13. Ms. Nira Kandel Program Coordinator LACC 14. Mr. Suraj Koirala Director TPO 15. Mr. Pitambar Koirala Program Coordinator TPO 16 Ms. Meena Dhungana Vice President FWLD 17 Mr. Sabin Shrestha Executive Director FWLD 18 Ms. Astha Pokharel Program Coordinator FWLD 19 Ms. Pabita Thapa Program Officer FWLD 3. Implementing Partner Organizations Implementing Partner Organizations Implementing Partner Organizations –District Level District Level S.N. Name Designation Organization Kanchanpur 1. Mr. Bhagirath Joshi District Coordinator LACC 2. Ms. Kamala Pant Program Coordinator SAATHI 3. Ms. Binod Upadhaya District Supervisor SAATHI 4. Mr. Prem Bhadur Shahi District Legal Aid CeLRRd 5. Mr. Rudramani B.K Legal Aid Lawyer CeLRRd 6. Mr. Purna Bhadur Singh Kshetri Psychosocial Counselor TPO Nepal Kavrepalanchowk 7. Ms. Mayalu Lama Program Coordinator NTWG 8. Ms. Shanti Lama Supervisor NTWG Sindupalchowk 9. Mr. Chandra Kumar Basnet District Coordinator LACC 10. Mr. Deepak Aryal Program Coordinator Pourakhi 11. Ms. Rasmita Shresta Psychosocial Counselor TPO 12. Mr. Bhesh Ram Dhakal District Legal Aid Lawyer CeLLRd Makwanpur 13. Mr. Dil Bhadur Gole Program Coordinator GMSS 14. Mr. Nar Bhadur Syangtan Social Mobilizer GMSS 15. Mr. Bibek Pakhrin Social Mobilizer GMSS 16. Mr. Kumar Rumba Supervisor GMSS 17. Ms. Tej Kumari Humagain Social Mobilizer GMSS 18. Ms. Rina Sapkota Social Mobilizer GMSS 19. Mr. Surya Lama Social Mobilizer GMSS 20. Mr. Yanendra Kumar Thing Social Mobilizer GMSS 4. Government Agencies Government Agencies Government Agencies -Central Level Central Level Central Level S.N. Name Designation Organization 1. Mr. Kiran Rupakheti Under Secretary MoWCSW 2. Mr. Kamal Thapa Chhetri Program Officer NHRC 3. Ms. Girija Sharma Director FEBP 4. Mr. Divas Acharya Director DoFE 5. Ms. Bimala Thapa Sharma DIG DoWCSC 6. Mr. Narayan Prasad Regmi District Court Registrar District Court, Kathmandu 7. Mr. Tarak Dhital Executive Director CCWB 8. Mr. Suresh man Shrestha Secretary MoLE 9. Mr. Purna Chandra Bhattarai Joint Secretary (Former DG/DoFE) MoCTCA 4. Government Agencies Government Agencies Government Agencies -District Level District Level District Level S.N. Name Designation Organization 1. Mr. Ramesh Sharma Poudel District Attorney District Attorney Office, Kathmandu 2. Ms. Sharada Basyal WDO W &CO Kathmandu 3. Mr. Raj Bhai Shrestha SDO DDC, Sindhupalchowk 4. Ms. ASI WCSC, Kanchanpur 5. Ms. Radhika Pant Supervisor WCO, Kanchanpur 6. Mr. Bhuwan Raj Chataut CRO DCWB, Kanchanpur 7. Mr. Binod Ghimire SP District Police Office, Kanchanpur 8. Mr. Bhan Dev Bhatta Social Development Officer DDC, Kanchanpur 9. Ms. Tapasya Bhatta Coordinator of Shree Vijya Akta Coopertive Safe Home, Kanchanpur 10. Ms. Puja Bohara Coordinator of Shree Vijya Akta Coopertive Safe Home, Kanchanpur 11. Mr. Daman Singh Bista District Attorney District Attorney Office, Kanchanpur 12. Mr. Thakur Prasad Poudel Registrar District Court, Kanchanpur 13. Ms. Shanta Poudel Asst. WDO WDO, Sindhupalchowk 14. Mr. Bal Krishna Basnet CRO DCWB, Sindhupalchowk 15. Mr. Krishna Jung Shah DA DAO, Sindhupalchowk 16. Mr. Ananta Dumre District Judge District Court, Sindhupalchowk 17. Mr. Tek Narayan Kunwar District Judge District Court, Makwanpur 18 Mr. Kausal Gyawali Registrar District Court, Makwanpur 5. Other Organizations Other Organizations Other Organizations S.N. Name Designation Organization 1. Archana Choudhary District Coordinator KI International 2. Representative KI International 3. Representative Tiny Hands 4. Ms. Krishna Romba Maiti Nepal 5. Ms. Kopila Chhumi Maiti Nepal 6. Mr. Som Luitel Chairperson Peoples Forum I. Focus group discussion with Safe Migration network Focus group discussion with Safe Migration network 1. Kanchanpur District Kanchanpur District S.N. Name Organization 1. Ms. Kamala Bhatta sharma SMN, Suda, Kanchanpur 2. Ms. Anu Bhatta " 3. Ms. Parbati Joshi " 4. Ms. Bina Chaudhary " 5 Mr. Pashupati Bhatta " 6. Ms. Shanti Bhatta " 7. Ms. Bandana Joshi " 8. Ms. Sushila Singh " 9. Ms. Basanti Bhatta " 1. MS. Radha devi Bhatta SMN, Bhim Datta Municipality, 2. Ms. Saraswati Bohara " 3. Ms. Nanda Devi Joshi " 4. Mr. Nim Bhatta Joshi " 5. Mr. Krishna Dev Joshi " 6. Mr. Thaneshwor Joshi " 2. Kathmandu District Kathmandu District S.N. Name Organization 1. Ms. Radha Shrestha SMN, Banbhyanj 2. Ms. Indira Timalsina " 3. Ms. Anju Shrestha " 4. Ms. Bina Pokharel " 5 Ms. Buddha Laxmi Shrestha " 6. Ms. Durga Timalsina " 7. Ms. Mina B.K " 8. Ms. Shanti Shrestha " 1. Ms. Srijana Shrestha SMN, Dakshinkali 2. Ms. Sarmila Khatri " 3. Ms. Ramkala Sapkota " 4. Ms. Shova Balami " 5. Ms. Maiya Maharjan " 6. Ms. Manju K.C " 7. Ms. Mohini Maharjan " 8. Ms. Tara Mahnadhar " 9. Ms. Puja Poudel " 1. Ms. Debaki Phuyal SMN, Goldhunga 2. Ms. Sita Phuyal " 3. Ms. Dhana Phuyal " 4. Ms. Laxmi Phuyal " 5. Ms. Kalpana Phuyal " 6. Ms. Nirmala Phuyal " 7. Ms. Amrita Phuyal " 8. Ms. Gyanu Phuyal " 9. Ms. Bhagabati Phuyal " 10. Ms. Kanchi Lama " 1. Ms. Manjana Singh SMN, Bajarayogini 2. Ms. Tej Laxmi Dangol " 3. Ms. Samita Shrestha " 4. Ms. Sanmaya Tamang " 5. Ms. Gita Ranjit " 6. Ms. Anjana Kutuwal " 7. Ms. Ishwori Shrestha " 8. Ms. Sabita Shrestha " 3. Sindhupalchowk District Sindhupalchowk District S.N. Name Organization 1. Ms. Kritika Deuja SMN, Talamarang 2. Ms. Manisha Sunar " 3. Ms. Sanumaya Tamang " 1. Mr. Dhanapati Bhandari SMN, Kiul 2. Mr. Krishna Prasad Rimal " 3. Mr. Bhupendra Kumari Bhandari " 4. Mr. Nima Jangbu Lama " 5. Ms. Shanti Rimal " 6. Mr. Hari Prasad Bhandari " 7. Mr. Surya Prasad Bhandari " 8. Ms. Kamala Bhandari " 1. Ms. Kopila Dhungana SMN, Batase 2. Ms. Sabitri Dhungana " 3. Ms. Ichha Devi Dhungana " 4. Ms. Pipala Dhungana " 5. Ms. Kamsika Dhungana " 6. Ms. Parbati Dhungana " 7. Ms. Gauri Dhungana " 1. Ms. Pabitra Bharati SMN, Kadambas 2. Ms. Mithi Bhujel " 3. Ms. Shanti Tamang " 4. Ms. Ganga Kumari Shrestha " 5. Ms. Devi Bharati " 6. Ms. Kusum Tamang " 7. Ms. Pramila Giri " 8. Ms. Rita Giri " 1. Ms. Mausami Gurung SMN, Tatopani 2. Ms. Lalita Tamang " II. FGD with DCCHT FGD with DCCHT 1. District : Kanchanpur S.N. Name Designation Organization 1. Mr. Parsuram Aryal CDO DAO 2. Mr. Daman Sing Bista District Attorney District Attorney Office 3. Ms. Radika Pant Supervisor W & CO, 4. Ms. Archana Chaudhary District coordinator KI-Nepal 5. Ms. Punam Sing Chand Advocate LACC- Kanchanpur 6. Mr. Rudra Mand B.K D.L.A Lawyer SeLARD 7 Mr. Binod Updhya DS SAATHI 8. Ms. Kamala Pant Program Coordinator SAATHI 9. Mr. Bhuwan Raj Chautat CRO DCWB 2. District : Sindhupalchowk District : Sindhupalchowk S.N. Name Designation Organization 1. Mr. Dilli Raj Pokharel CDO DAO 2. Mr. Krishna Jang Shah Member District Attorney Office 3. Mr. Nawaraj Khadka Member DAO 4. Mr. Tika Dahal Member District Federation of Journalist 5. Ms. Shanta Poudel Member Secretary W & CO 6. Ms. Panmaya Tamang Adibasi Janajati Mahila Mahasang 7. Mr. Hari Panthi District Controller District Treasury Controller Office 8. Mr. Mohan Kafle Section Officer District Education Office 9. Mr. Bal Krishna Basnyat DCWB 10. Ms. Balmaya B.K Save the Children 11. Ms. Nanimaiya Basnyat WCO 12. Mr. Narendra Man Sing Katuwal DDC 13. Ms. Chatra Kumari Khadka WCO, Sindhupalchwok 14. Ms. Bhawani Mishra WCO, Sindhupalchwok 15. Ms. Rakesh Rana WCO, Sindhupalchwok 16. Ms. Radha Karki WCO, Sindhupalchwok 17. Ms. Nirmaya Tamang Office assistance WCO, Sindhupalchwok 3. District : Kathmandu District : Kathmandu S.N. Name Designation Organization 1. Mr. Basanta Raj Gautam CDO DAO 2. Mr. Ramesh Sharma Poudel District Government Attorney District Attorney Office, Kathmandu 3. Mr. Prem Raj Joshi LDO DDC, Kathmandu 4. Ms. Nirmala Baral Program Coordinator ABC Nepal 5. Ms. Sharada Basyal WDO W &CO Kathmandu 6. Mr. Yagyaraj Koirala ACDO DAO Kathmandu 7. Mr. Dipak Kumar K.C S.D Officer DDC, Kathmandu 8. Ms. Sunita Shah CRO DCWB Kathmandu 9. Ms. Roshani Shrestha Supervisor WCO Kathmandu 10. Mr. Sabin Gurung SPO Maiti Nepal 11. Mr. Hasta Khadka FAO Maiti Nepal 12. Mr. Nara Bhadur Bhandari 13. Mr. Sambhu Chalise DEO Election Commission 14. Mr. Bhadra Aryal Na.Su. Election Commission 15. Mr. Baikuntha Prasad Aryal DEO DEO Kathmandu III. FGD with NCCHT FGD with NCCHT S.N. Name Designation Organization 1. Dinesh Hari adhikari Secretary MoWCSW 2. Ms. Sirjana Pun WoFOUON 3. Mr. Khadga Bhadur Rana Under Secretary MoWCSW 4. Upendra Prasad Adhikari Joint Secretary MoWCSW 5. Ms. Ambika Devi Luintel Joint Secretary MoFA 6. Ms. Charimaya Tamang Program Coordinator Shakti Samuha 7. Ms. Bimala Gyawali Chairperson AATWIN 8. Ms. Anjana Shrestha Inspector Nepal Police 9. Mr. Madhu Bilas Pandit Under Secretary MoLE 10. Mr. Krishna Prasad Neupane Section Officer MoF 11. Mr. Bhupal Baral Under Secretary MoHA 12. Ms. Sunita Nepal Under Secretary MoWCSW 13. Mr. Krishna Prasad Jaisi Under Secretary MoWCSW 14. Mr. Rajan Poudel Section Officer MoWCSW 15. Mr. Hum Bahadur K.C Under Secretary MoLJPA 16. Mr. Gopal Bhattarai Driver MoWCSW 17. Mr. Bishnu " MoWCSW 18. Mr. Sonam Tamang " MoWCSW 19. Mr. Mahendra K.C " MoHA 20. Mr. Damodar " MoLE U.S. Agency for International Development, GPO Box # 295 Brahma Cottage, Maharajgunj Kathmandu, Nepal