June, 2013 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Management Systems International (MSI) under the Monitoring and Evaluation Program (MEP) by Fiona McLachlan, Rabia Khan, and Asma Kiran. GENDER EQUITY PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT GENDER EQUITY PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT June 23, 2013 Contracted under No. GS-23F-8012H and Order No. AID-607700.01-500-03-13 Monitoring and Evaluation Program (MEP) DISCLAIMER This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of Management Systems International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The evaluation team would particularly like to thank the Gender Equity Program (GEP) for its support in conducting this evaluation, particularly Mahpara Shakil Ghori (Training and Capacity Building Specialist) and Raheel Iftikhar Hashmi (Senior Program Officer – Capacity Building) for their assistance in scheduling interviews and focus group discussions during data collection. ii CONTENTS Program Summary..............................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions .................................................................................. 6 Program Background ........................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation Methods and Limitations ................................................................................................12 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations ................................................................................15 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................31 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................35 Annexes ...............................................................................................................................................37 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work .....................................................................................................................37 Annex II: Data Collection Instruments .......................................................................................................................67 FGD Guide for GEP Grantees .............................................................................................................................67 Individual Interview Questions ............................................................................................................................72 Group Interview Questions .................................................................................................................................75 Annex III: Sources of Information ................................................................................................................................77 Annex IV: GEP Program Matrix with Year 3 Targets..............................................................................................79 Objective 1 ...............................................................................................................................................................79 Objective 2 ...............................................................................................................................................................87 Objective 3 ...............................................................................................................................................................98 Objective 4 ............................................................................................................................................................ 109 Annex V: Detailed Narrative Findings for Evaluation Question 2..................................................................... 111 Annex VI: GEP Grants Database as of October 7, 2013 ..................................................................................... 118 Tables and Figures Table 1: Activity Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ iii Table 2: Provincial Government Priorities, GEP Objectives, and GEP Implementation ..........................................17 Figure 1: Map of GEP Outreach Based on Location of Grant Recipients In Grant Cycle 1 – Grant Cycle 6A .. iv iii PROGRAM SUMMARY The five-year, USAID-funded Gender Equity Program (GEP) aims to advance women’s rights and empowerment in Pakistan. GEP supports the Government of Pakistan’s gender policies including the National Plan of Action for Women, National Policy for Empowerment and Development of Women, and Gender Reform Action Plan. Table 1 summarizes key facts about GEP. TABLE 1: ACTIVITY SUMMARY Activity Name/Title Gender Equity Program Cooperative Agreement Number 391-A-00-10-01162-00 Agreement Officer’s Representative Rabia Akhtar (Ms.), Gender Advisor (Stabilization and Governance) Activity Start Date August 18, 2010 Activity Completion Date August 15, 2015 Activity Location Nationwide USAID Objective Addressed DO3: Increasing Stability in Focused Areas Name of Implementing Organization Prime Cooperative Partner: Aurat Publication and Information Service Foundation Sub-contractor: The Asia Foundation Budget $40.0 million iv FIGURE 1: MAP OF GEP OUTREACH BASED ON LOCATION OF GRANT RECIPIENTS IN GRANT CYCLE 1 – GRANT CYCLE 6A1 1 Gender Equity Program, Quarterly Progress Report, January – March 2013, p. 6. v GLOSSARY Jirga A customary practice (including tribal) in which elders make decisions by consensus. Karo-kari Honor killing; the homicide of a member of a family or community by other members, in the belief that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community. The killing is seen as a way of restoring reputation and honor. The term is used in Sindh Province and some of the adjoining districts of Balochistan. Tehsil Sub-district; tehsils are further subdivided into Union Councils, with multiple tehsils forming a district. vi ACRONYMS AF Aurat Publication and Information Service Foundation CAC Citizen Action Committee COP Chief of Party CSO Civil Society Organization CNIC Computerized National Identity Card DCOP Deputy Chief of Party GBV Gender-based Violence GEP Gender Equity Program GOP Government of Pakistan GMC Grants Management Committee KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa MOU Memorandum of Understanding NAF National Advisory Forum NCSW National Commission on the Status of Women NADRA National Database and Registration Authority NGO Non-governmental Organization PGC Pakistan Gender Coalition RFP Request for Proposal TAF The Asia Foundation USAID United States Agency for International Development 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS USAID's Pakistan Mission requested a mid-term evaluation of the Gender Equity Program (GEP) three years into its five-year implementation period to provide insights for improving the activity. The following five questions and sub-questions guided the evaluation. Evaluation Question 1: To what extent are GEP’s goals and objectives (as articulated in its Program Matrix) and implementation (i.e., activities) relevant to the priorities of the National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW) and provincial governments of Pakistan, particularly in light of changes in provincial responsibilities for women’s issues brought about by the 18th Constitutional Amendment and the recent change in government? Question 1.2: To what extent has the activity adapted its approach to maintain relevance in light of the changes in context mentioned in Question 1, and did the adaptations contribute to maintaining relevance? Evaluation Question 2: To what extent do GEP’s components of small grants, research, networking, and capacity building (as a collective approach) contribute to achieving the activity objectives of improving women’s access to justice, expanding knowledge of and opportunities to exercise their rights, combating gender-based violence (GBV), and building the capacity of Pakistani organizations that work on gender issues? Evaluation Question 3: To what extent does the activity’s approach to provide multiple grants enhance provision of coordinated services to the extent they have already been implemented, to achieve seamless service delivery? How could it be improved or what are the alternatives? Evaluation Question 4: To what extent are the existing partnership arrangements between the Aurat Publication and Information Service Foundation (AF) and the Asia Foundation (TAF) and between AF and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) consistent with maximizing performance and prospects for sustainability in terms of AF having the capacity to independently maintain a focus on its GEP objectives, and are changes warranted? If changes are warranted, what specific changes could improve performance and the prospects for sustainability of results? ACTIVITY BACKGROUND USAID awarded the five-year, $40 million2 Gender Equity Program to AF to issue small grants to Pakistani governmental and non-governmental organizations to contribute to the following objectives: 1. Enhancing gender equity by expanding women's access to justice and human rights 2. Increasing women's empowerment by expanding knowledge of and opportunities to exercise their rights in the workplace, community and home 2 A funding lag caused a delay in strengthening the seamless service delivery model (cycle 9 grants) and starting PGC activities. 2 3. Combating GBV 4. Strengthening the capacity of Pakistani organizations that advocate for gender equity, women's empowerment, and the elimination of GBV3 To achieve these objectives, GEP has awarded 152 sub-grants since its inception through September 2013, of which 77 have been completed and closed. These grants supported, among others, the following activities:4  Registering 475,528 women for Computerized National Identity Cards (CNIC) in remote and difficult districts of Pakistan and providing training on voter education in marginalized areas of Pakistan.  Supporting 12 private shelters across Pakistan, in which 954 women have taken refuge.  Training 160 public prosecutors on gender and women’s rights.  Training 1,875 young men and women on women’s rights and gender mainstreaming.  Training 160 women lawyers providing services to women. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Findings and Conclusions: GEP’s responsiveness to changes in context5 The political and institutional landscape in which GEP operates has changed dramatically since the activity began, as the 18th Constitutional Amendment devolved responsibility for women’s affairs to the provincial level. The roles of national and provincial government stakeholders following devolution were not yet clear when GEP was awarded, and the number of stakeholders with whom the activity must engage has increased. Despite this lack of clarity, all four of GEP’s objectives link to NCSW priorities, now the only national level body with a women’s affairs mandate. Following devolution, GEP re-oriented program management responsibilities to the regional offices, expanding their roles to include participating in grant cycle development, improving regional oversight of grants, and empowering regional staff to manage regional office issues. Elections in May 2013 resulted in new federal and provincial governments. While it is taking time for newly￾elected provincial governments to articulate policies, the Balochistan, Punjab, and Sindh Governments’ broadly-written gender priorities directly link to GEP’s objectives, although these objectives have not changed since the Program began. Nonetheless, GEP has supported provincial government and NCSW gender efforts by awarding research grants to NCSW and the Sindh Women's Development Department. GEP’s adaptations to the 18th Amendment allowed the Program to maintain relevance following the devolution of responsibility for women’s affairs and significant changes in governmental and administrative structures. 3 Gender Equity Program, Cooperative Agreement, p. 24. 4 Gender Equity Program Year Three Annual Report. 5 Evaluation Question 1: GEP’s responsiveness to the 18th Amendment and changes in government. 3 Findings and Conclusions: Effectiveness of small grants, research, networking, and capacity building6 GEP has implemented grants and conducted supporting activities that contribute to all four of its objectives: Access to Justice, Women's Empowerment, Combating GBV, and Capacity Building. Although the Program can claim impacts here and there, the greatest impact has been realized under Objective 3, Combating GBV, which received the most funding and the most grants. GEP has built the sustainable capacity of some grantees to provide shelters to GBV victims. However, non-governmental grantees report a range of challenges, primarily insufficient and unrealistic timeframes and budgets that affected the quality of some implementation efforts. GEP has also supported research into a range of issues related to women’s affairs, although there are some indications that some government agencies lack the capacity to implement research recommendations. GEP has not yet acted upon recommendations identified in its research either, though it could use findings from its institutional capacity research to inform its capacity building component. GEP’s two main networking platforms are the National Advisory Forum (NAF) and the Pakistan Gender Coalition (PGC).7 Networking has contributed to all program objectives to some extent, although there is not yet any clarity regarding the structure and role of the PGC, as GEP expects the direction and priorities of the coalition to be developed organically by the members over time. NAF, on the other hand, has successfully engaged in a variety of activities, most notably participating in deliberations surrounding the creation of the Sindh Women's Development Department, and helping the Women's Development Departments understand their responsibilities after devolution. Findings and Conclusions: Seamless service delivery to GBV victims8 GEP’s combating GBV strategy clearly lays out the critical components of combating GBV and a holistic approach. The concept of seamless service delivery was piloted in Cycle 6, which was the last cycle the evaluation considered. Therefore, although the concept had been developed in 2012, at the time of evaluation, there was no clear model for the provision of coordinated services to GBV victims. Moreover, USAID and GEP staff articulated differing views of “seamless service delivery”. GEP refers to seamless service delivery specifically in relation to Grant Cycle 6A, while USAID views it more broadly. GEP discusses seamless service delivery as being achieved through a cluster approach, with numerous grantees each providing a single service. GEP’s program and grant design are not currently optimized to support the provision of coordinated services. The lack of a clear model for seamless service delivery and a clear coordination mechanism has made coordination difficult for grantees, thus limiting the extent to which seamless services could be delivered. Grantees reported that GEP’s grant design did not support the provision of coordinated services. Grants were too short, start and end dates and targets were not always aligned among grantees within a single cluster, and grant design did not always reflect conditions on the ground. 6 Evaluation Question 2: The extent to which GEP’s four components of small grants, research, networking, and capacity building contribute to its objectives. 7 Pakistan Gender Coalition membership is comprised of all GEP grantees. The GEP Cooperative Agreement envisions that the Coalition will bring together organizations to “continue to provide gender empowerment resources beyond the lifecycle of the Program” (Gender Equity Program, Cooperative Agreement, p. 30). Please refer to page 2, footnote 2 of this report for a description of the National Advisory Forum. 8 Evaluation Question 3: To what extent does the project’s approach contribute to seamless service delivery. 4 Findings and Conclusions: Institutional management9 The USAID-AF relationship allows AF to take a lead role in programmatic development, as USAID does not provide directive technical management. This has allowed AF to take ownership in determining the program’s direction, but it is not clear that GEP’s implementation has always operationalized the strategy described in the Cooperative Agreement, which may have contributed to some of the implementation challenges grantees face. It took time for both AF and TAF to understand their roles in a contractual relationship in which the prime contractor is a Pakistani non-governmental organization (NGO) and the subcontractor is an international NGO. TAF facilitated a significant shift in AF’s relationships with civil society organizations (CSOs), moving them from relationships between two implementing organizations to grantor-grantee relationships. TAF has built AF capacity to carry out most aspects of grant-making and grant management. According to USAID and AF senior management, although documents clearly articulating the roles of both organizations had been developed, they had not been finalized and shared with all staff at the time of the evaluation. Staff from both organizations expressed differing understandings about their roles after the transition of the grant-making process to AF. Splitting key project staff members in the original organogram, like the Chief of Party (COP) and the Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP), between AF and TAF has contributed to management problems. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. GEP should review its grant design and management processes to, where possible, address the implementation challenges identified by grantees. Specific recommendations include: a. Appointing a single grant holder for seamless service delivery grantees within a single cluster; b. Ensuring all grantees are provided with branding and marking training in a timely manner; c. Increasing further the role of GEP regional staff in budget and grant development to ensure grant implementation plans and budgets reflect local realities; d. Allowing grantees to play a greater role in grant negotiation and not standardizing budgets across a province, which will ensure grant implementation plans and budgets reflect local realities; and, e. Making it easier for grantees that successfully implemented previous GEP activities to be awarded another grant. 2. GEP should take steps to better support grantees to provide coordinated services in support of seamless service delivery, including developing a clearly articulated model for seamless service delivery, streamlining grant-making and management procedures, and awarding longer grants. 3. Greater USAID involvement in the grant review and approval process could help address some of the implementation challenges noted by grantees. The potential bottleneck this could create could be avoided by issuing grants outside thematic grant cycles, so that grants are awarded throughout the year, rather than at several specific points. 4. Before grant-making transitions to AF, AF should consider improving its capacity in relationship management with grantees and data management. 9 Evaluation Question 4: The extent to which AF-TAF and AF-USAID partnerships maximize performance and prospects for sustainability. 5 5. GEP should respond to the recommendations made in the research it commissions, identifying what actions could be taken through its grants program or through coordination with other stakeholders. 6. As development of the Pakistan Gender Coalition moves forward, it will be important to its effectiveness and sustainability to pay explicit attention to clearly articulating its mandate and establishment timeframe to members. This should be undertaken as soon as possible to maintain member engagement, and also so GEP can play an active role in supporting the Coalition in its formative years to increase the likelihood that it will be sustainable. 6 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE Through the Gender Equity Program (GEP), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) supports gender equity initiatives by awarding small grants to Pakistanis across the country. This chapter explains the challenges the program was established to address and its theory of intervention. It also describes GEP’s design and implementation by the Aurat Publication and Information Service Foundation (AF) and The Asia Foundation (TAF), including its target areas and groups and the current status of the program’s activities. GEP is three years into its five-year implementation period, and sufficient time remains to adapt the activity's approach to improve performance. Based on its knowledge of the activity to date, USAID has specific questions about the effectiveness of the grants approach and the prospects for achieving seamless service delivery (that is, coordinated services across grantees within specific localities). The political and institutional landscape in which the activity is operating has also changed dramatically since the activity began. Pakistan's 18th Constitutional Amendment, established in April 2010, devolved some ministries, including the Ministry of Women's Development, from the national to the provincial level. Devolution of the Ministry of Women’s Development was announced in June 2010, 10 with responsibility for women’s affairs passing to the provincial governments’ Women’s Development Departments. This left the National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW) as the only federal government body with a women’s affairs mandate. Furthermore, elections in May 2013 resulted in changes of government at the federal level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Balochistan and, to some extent, in Sindh. These changes in key stakeholders raise questions about the continued relevance of GEP’s objectives to the current governments’ priorities. Finally, GEP is implemented under a cooperative agreement between USAID and AF, with subcontractor TAF expected to play a declining role over time as AF gains capacity, particularly in grants management. The evaluation will assess these partnerships and their impact on the planning and management of grants and timely oversight of Program activities. For the AF-TAF partnership, the evaluation will examine whether TAF was able to sustainably build AF's capacity for grant-making and management. To address these objectives, the evaluation will:  Assess the relevance of activity goals and objectives to the priorities of the current federal and provincial governments of Pakistan, particularly in light of changes associated with the 18th Amendment;  Examine the effectiveness of the activity's approach, in terms of achieving activity objectives, particularly seamless service delivery, and contributing to USAID's expected results; and  Assess the effectiveness of the activity’s partnership arrangements between USAID and AF and between AF and TAF in terms of management and capacity building. In addition, USAID would like to know whether these partnership arrangements can provide a good model for future activities. 10 http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/politics/29-Jun-2011/Cabinet-okays-seven￾ministries-devolution 7 Results of the evaluation will inform possible decisions about the Program’s management and approach, particularly related to:  Adaptation of the activity’s design to improve relevance in light of changes in the political and institutional landscape;  Revision of the approach and specific activities to improve performance, enhance seamless service delivery, and ensure sustainability; and  Modifications to the partnership arrangements between USAID and AF and between AF and TAF to reflect lessons learned to date about how well these partnerships reflect current realities and the needs and capacities of the partners. The statement of work under which the evaluation was conducted is included with this report as Annex I. EVALUATION QUESTIONS Evaluation Question 1: To what extent are GEP’s goals and objectives (as articulated in its Program Matrix) and implementation (i.e., activities) relevant to the priorities of NCSW and provincial governments of Pakistan, particularly in light of changes in provincial responsibilities for women’s issues brought about by the 18th Constitutional Amendment and the recent change in government? Evaluation Question 1.2: To what extent has the program adapted its approach to maintain relevance in light of the changes in context mentioned in Question 1, and did the adaptations contribute to maintaining relevance? Explanation: The Government of Pakistan (GOP) devolved responsibility for many women’s development issues to the provinces shortly after GEP began. Furthermore, Pakistanis elected new federal and provincial governments in early 2013. This question examines whether the program’s goals, objectives, and activities are still relevant to the priorities and needs of key stakeholders in light of these changes. Evaluation Question 2: To what extent do GEP’s components of small grants, research, networking, and capacity building (as a collective approach) contribute to achieving the program objectives of improving women’s access to justice, expanding knowledge of and opportunities to exercise their rights, combating GBV, and building the capacity of Pakistani organizations that work on gender issues? Explanation: This question focuses on the contribution of each component to all four objectives, including any synergies that might be evident, and whether and to what extent the aggregated effect of the components has facilitated achieving program objectives. Evaluation Question 3: To what extent does the activity’s approach to provide multiple grants enhance provision of coordinated services to the extent they have already been implemented, to achieve seamless service delivery? How could it be improved or what are the alternatives? Explanation: In its examination of the grants mechanism, the evaluation will pay particular attention to whether the current grants mechanism is fostering seamless service delivery11 (i.e., coordinated services across grantees within specific localities). 11 USAID views the entire Gender Equity Program as working toward achieving seamless service delivery. Each grant cycle contributes another piece to the puzzle that will ultimately provide an inter-linked service delivery system for women in Pakistan, particularly victims of gender-based violence, that ensures their awareness of and access to services ranging from the justice system to economic opportunities. Aurat Foundation, in contrast, focuses particularly on those grant cycles that explicitly address seamless service delivery. 8 Evaluation Question 4: To what extent are the existing partnership arrangements between the Aurat Publication and Information Service Foundation (AF) and the Asia Foundation (TAF) and between AF and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) consistent with maximizing performance and prospects for sustainability in terms of AF having the capacity to independently maintain a focus on its GEP objectives, and are changes warranted? If changes are warranted, what specific changes could improve performance and the prospects for sustainability of results? Explanation: This question should examine the effectiveness of partnerships between USAID and AF and between AF and TAF. For the USAID-AF partnership, partnership arrangements between USAID and AF outside of the cooperative agreements (e.g., Terms of Reference of Grants Management Committee, NAF, etc.) and their impact on planning and management of sub-grants and timely oversight of Program activities will be examined. For the AF-TAF partnership, the evaluation will examine whether TAF was able to build the capacity of Aurat Foundation for grant making. 9 PROGRAM BACKGROUND THE PROBLEM STATEMENT According to the 2013 Human Development Report, Pakistan ranks 123 of 148 countries in the Gender Inequality Index,12 which is a measure of the inequality of achievement between men and women.13 Factors contributing to gender inequality in Pakistan include restricted mobility for women, lack of education and awareness of their rights, lower access to and ownership of resources and assets, and limited access to social services.14 To advance women’s rights, the GOP has signed various national and international commitments, 15 and in 2000, established the NCSW to oversee all organizations working on gender issues across the country. Parliament enacted the Protection of Women Act in 2006 and the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act in 2010. While all four provinces passed legislation in 2010 to guarantee women protection against sexual harassment in the workplace, only Sindh Province has established a mechanism for implementing the Act16 and passed the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act.17 Women’s lack of knowledge about both their rights and opportunities to exercise them further entrenches gender inequality and renders women more susceptible to various forms of mistreatment, including gender-based violence (GBV). AF documented 8,539 cases of violence against women in 2012, including 1,575 murders, 827 rapes, 610 incidents of domestic violence, 705 honor killings, and 44 acid attacks.18 The lack of institutions to protect victims, ranging from police untrained in gender rights, to safe shelters, to organizations working on economic rehabilitation, has compounded the problem.19 In recent decades, the number of civil society organizations (CSOs) working to address issues that affect women has proliferated.20 Significant gaps in smaller CSOs’ capacity remain, however, including in their technical knowledge of gender-related issues.21 There is a lack of strategic, long-term planning and managerial skills in small CSOs,22 and a lack of resources constrains their ability to take advantage of capacity building opportunities.23 12 The Gender Inequality Index reflects inequality in three dimensions – reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation. According to the 2013 Human Development Report, the five indicators used in measuring the Gender Inequality Index are: maternal mortality, adolescent fertility, parliamentary representation, educational attainment, and labor force participation. 13 http://hdr.undp.org/hdr4press/press/report/hdr/english/HDR2013_EN_Complete.pdf 14 GEP Cooperative Agreement, pp. 25. 15 These include the Beijing Platform for Action (1995), the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (1996), and the Millennium Development Goals Declaration (2000). At the national level, Article 25 of the 1973 Constitution grants all citizens fundamental rights of equality before the law and outlaws discrimination on the basis of sex. 16 Sindh has appointed an Ombudsman to provide a legal forum enabling women to lodge complaints about harassment (http://beta.dawn.com/news/733087/protection-against-harassment-at-workplace-sindh-appoints-ombudsman) 17 http://www.thenewstribe.com/2013/03/08/domestic-violence-bill-unanimously-passed-in-sindh-assembly/ 18 http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/pakistan/report-2012 19 http://www.irinnews.org/report/77226/pakistan-domestic-violence-endemic-but-awareness-slowly-rising 20 A. Khan and R. Khan, Drivers of Change Pakistan: Civil Society and Social Change in Pakistan, March 2004, p. iv. http://www.researchcollective.org/Documents/Civil_Society_And_Social_Change_In_Pakistan.pdf 21 Interview with Ms. Farzana Bari, Women Rights Activist on October 8th, 2013. 22 http://www.pcp.org.pk/documents/Philanthropy%20in%20Pakistan%20-%20AKDN%202000(3).pdf 23 Gender Equity Program, Scoping Study: “Capacity of Pakistani Organizations to Carry Out Gender Equity Initiatives.” January, 2011 10 THE THEORY OF THE INTERVENTION GEP’s goal is to facilitate behavioral change in society, in particular, citizens’ active participation in the process of social change and governance at all levels, enabling women to access information, resources and institutions, acquire control over their lives, and improve attitudes and behavior towards women and their concerns. 24 In order to achieve this, the activity works on four thematic areas, reflected in its objectives: women’s access to justice and human rights; women’s knowledge of their rights and opportunities to exercise those rights; combating GBV; and, the capacity of Pakistani organizations that advocate for gender equity. GEP’s approach to achieving its goals and objectives is two-fold. First, the program promotes change through an approach that is both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up,’ working with government and non￾governmental entities to support national coherence in addressing gender inequality while responding to local needs.25 Second, GEP takes a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ approach to activity development and implementation, developing thematic grant cycles that are each intended to address an aspect of gender inequality, with multiple grants intended to have a cumulative impact on achieving linked outputs.26 These are consolidated in the activity's Program Matrix (Annex VI), which maps how grants contribute, year on year, to specific interventions that contribute to six identified outputs. THE PROGRAM DESIGN To achieve its overarching goal of facilitating behavioral change, GEP pursues four primary objectives: 1. Enhancing gender equity by expanding women's access to justice and human rights 2. Increasing women's empowerment by expanding knowledge of and opportunities to exercise their rights in the workplace, community, and home 3. Combating GBV 4. Strengthening the capacity of Pakistani organizations that advocate for gender equity, women's empowerment, and the elimination of GBV27 To achieve these objectives, GEP awards grants to government and non-governmental entities across Pakistan that are working towards gender equity. Research that improves understanding of gender issues is also supported, most commonly through a grant mechanism, with research to date including scoping studies to support each objective, research into aspects of GBV in Pakistan, and assessments of the capacity of government and non-government organizations to conduct gender-related activities. To provide the enabling environment required for gender equity reform, networking and capacity building initiatives (the latter also utilizing a grant mechanism) are also financed.28 Capacity building activities under Objective 4 have included support to both grantee and non-grantee entities, and both government and non-government organizations. Since its inception through September 2013, GEP has awarded 152 sub-grants, of which 77 have been completed and closed. These grants supported, among others, the following activities:29  Registering 475,528 women for Computerized National Identity Cards (CNIC) in remote and difficult districts of Pakistan and provided training on voter education in marginalized areas of Pakistan. 24 Gender Equity Program, Cooperative Agreement, p. 26. 25 Gender Equity Program, Cooperative Agreement, p. 29. 26 Gender Equity Program, Second Annual Report, October 2011 – October 2012, pp. 26 – 27. 27 Gender Equity Program, Cooperative Agreement, p. 27. 28 Gender Equity Program, Cooperative Agreement, pp. 28 – 33. 29 Gender Equity Program project documentation. 11  Supporting 12 private shelters across Pakistan, in which 954 women have taken refuge.  Training 160 public prosecutors on gender and women’s rights.  Training 1,875 young men and women on women’s rights and gender mainstreaming.  Training 160 women lawyers providing services to women. The program’s two main networking platforms are the National Advisory Forum (NAF), and the Pakistan Gender Coalition (PGC), a network consisting of all GEP grantees. The NAF provides GEP with non￾binding advice30 to inform its strategic planning and implementation and a platform to discuss the political and socio-cultural context. Its membership includes ministers and secretaries of the provincial Women’s Development Departments, members of the NCSW, and Pakistan’s sole Provincial Commission on the Status of Women, and representatives of the judiciary, the National Police Bureau's Gender Crime Cell, academia, and civil society. The PGC was launched in July 2012 to bring together all GEP grantees to help “establish national coherence” by offering a “permanent platform…to continue to provide gender empowerment resources beyond the lifecycle of the program.”31 GEP is implemented through a Cooperative Agreement between USAID and AF. AF is assisted in program design, implementation, and management by subcontractor TAF, a partnership that represents a new approach, in which the prime implementer is a local non-government organization (NGO) supported by an international NGO. Subcontractor TAF provides AF with capacity building assistance and guidance to improve AF’s capabilities in grant-making, technical, and financial management.32 GEP is implemented through six offices: the AF and TAF Islamabad offices, and AF’s four provincial offices in Quetta, Peshawar, Lahore, and Karachi. The GEP Cooperative Agreement provides for a multi-tier decision-making and advisory structure.33 Day￾to-day programming and program management decisions are made by the Grants Management Committee, which, after initially meeting on a monthly basis, now meets weekly.34 The committee’s six￾person membership includes both AF and TAF staff: the GEP Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, and unit directors. The GEP Objective Management Unit evaluates and short-lists grants for Grants Management Committee review, which then submits them to the Program Steering Committee. The Program Steering Committee provides overall program strategic guidance and reviews grant applications shortlisted by the Grants Management Committee for recommendation to USAID for approval. Four of the Program Steering Committee’s six members represent AF and two represent TAF. USAID has observer status only, although this is not a requirement under the Cooperative Agreement.35 All GEP grants are approved by USAID following Program Steering Committee review. GEP’s Agreement Officer’s Representative is provided with the grant concept, budget ceiling, and grant deliverables to facilitate grant approval. GEP staff report that after USAID approval, grant negotiation takes place between GEP staff and the grantee, within the parameters already accepted by USAID. 30 Gender Equity Cooperative Agreement, p. 29. The Cooperative Agreement refers to the National Advisory Forum as the ‘National Advisory Group’. 31 Ibid, p. 30. 32 Gender Equity Program Cooperative Agreement, p. 21. 33 Gender Equity Program Cooperative Agreement, p. 41. 34 Gender Equity Program, Quarterly Progress Report, January – March 2013, p 48. 35 Gender Equity Program Cooperative Agreement, p. 41. 12 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation questions focus broadly on assessing the relevance and effectiveness of the program design, especially the grants-based approach, in meeting program objectives. They also seek to determine the effectiveness of the USAID-AF and AF-TAF relationships and the extent to which TAF has been able to build AF’s capacity for grant-making and management. As neither of these avenues of inquiry lend themselves well to quantitative analysis, the evaluation relied largely on activity records and primary qualitative data collected through focus group discussions, and group and individual interviews. Annex 1 includes a detailed data sampling plan and an assessment of each evaluation question. The evaluation was conducted by a three-person team, comprised of MSI evaluation staff and consultants with expertise in gender and grant management. Following a change in composition when the original Team Leader, Joanne Wedum, had to depart the evaluation, the team consisted of:  Fiona McLachlan, Evaluation Team Leader and Grants Management Expert;  Rabia Khan, Evaluation Team Member and Gender Expert; and,  Asma Kiran, Evaluation Team Member. MSI's Monitoring and Evaluation Program (MEP) staff members also participated in data collection and analysis to ensure data were appropriately triangulated. Biographies for each evaluation team member can be found in Annex IV. DATA COLLECTION As noted above, primary qualitative data were collected through focus group discussions, and group and individual interviews. Data collection took place over a two-week period in September 2013 in the following locations: Islamabad (September 10 – 27), Lahore (September 13), and Peshawar (September 16). Because the GEP Annual Event took place in Islamabad in September, individual interviews and focus group discussions with Sindh and Balochistan grantees took place in Islamabad.  A total of 29 individual interviews were conducted, focusing on the aftermath of the 18th Amendment, current and previous federal and provincial government priorities with regards to gender issues, and the participants’ experience with and views on GEP. Data gathered from these interviews helped shape the evaluation team’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding Evaluation Question 1, in particular, as well as Evaluation Question 2. Interviewees included former parliamentarians, members of Women’s Development Departments, staff of National and Provincial Commissions on the Status of Women, women’s rights activists, and representatives of donor organizations implementing gender-related activities. Individual interviews were also conducted with 16 GEP grantees, including those working at the national level, university grantees, and grantees from Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.  Fourteen group interviews were conducted with a total of 31 persons. Group interviews were conducted with AF and TAF staff involved in program implementation and grants management, and members of GEP committees including the National Advisory Forum, Grants Management Committee, and Program Steering Committee. A group interview was also conducted with representatives of USAID. Data gathered from these interviews helped inform the evaluation team’s response to Evaluation Question 4 in particular, regarding the AF-TAF relationship, the effectiveness of the program management mechanisms, and the extent to which TAF has built AF capacity. A group interview with representatives from the NCSW helped inform the evaluation team’s response to Evaluation Question 1 in particular, regarding GEP’s relevance to the commission’s priorities. 13  Four focus group discussions were held with a total of 42 grantees from Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab, and KP provinces. Each focus group discussion included 9-12 grantee representatives and focused on GEP’s design, in general, and the grants model, in particular. The discussions captured the grantees’ experiences and lessons learned, and identified emerging development needs. Data gathered from the focus group discussions helped inform the evaluation team’s findings regarding Evaluation Questions 2 and 3 in particular, as they provided insight into the effectiveness of the Program’s design in addressing gender-related issues and supporting the provision of seamless service delivery. Since GEP’s 152 grants to date have been issued to 134 discrete organizations, the evaluation team met with approximately 43 percent of grantee organizations during the data collection process.36 Prior to commencing data collection, the evaluation team had planned to conduct a total of seven group interviews with a total of 21 participants, and 27 individual interviews. During data collection, an additional seven group and two individual interviews were held with grantees and GEP staff, as additional data sources were identified. Data collection tools are included in Annex II. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS The evaluation team employed rigorous analytical methods appropriate to the qualitative data it collected. For group and individual interviews, the team coded responses around themes relevant to the evaluation questions, quantitatively when possible and appropriate. For the focus group discussions, which generated a relatively large quantity of consistent data, the evaluation team employed a more structured approach to analysis by identifying key themes, coding responses according to these themes, and reporting frequencies and other quantitative summaries of responses when possible and appropriate. When possible, the team conducted comparative analysis across various groups of stakeholders to ensure triangulation of data sources. MEP staff also participated in data analysis, adding to the triangulation necessary to ensure the reliability and validity of analytic results. METHODOLOGICAL STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS As the evaluation objectives did not lend themselves well to quantitative inquiry, the evaluation relied extensively on qualitative data as the more appropriate approach for an evaluation focusing on an in￾depth understanding of the Program design. This method allowed the team to document Program evolution and responsiveness to changes in operating context, and to make recommendations regarding activity approach. The main strength of the methodology is the ability to triangulate data across multiple sources, methods, locations, and investigators, increasing the reliability and validity of findings and conclusions. More precisely, the methodology allows for: a. Data Triangulation: Primary data were drawn from GEP management, grantees of different grant cycles, various GOP stakeholders, donor agencies, and technical experts. In addition, project documentation provided a source of secondary data. 36 Eighteen organizations have been issued two grants each. Gender Equity Program Grants Database as of October 7, 2013. 14 b. Methodological Triangulation: Three different data collection methods were used, that is, individual interviews, group interviews, and focus group discussions. c. Regional Triangulation: The sample covered all four provinces of Pakistan, along with Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, through purposive sampling, which took into account grant tiers, cycles, and GEP objectives. d. Investigator Triangulation: Analysis of data on the same theme/issue was assigned to two different team members and MEP staff, allowing their analysis results to be compared and harmonized to ensure the greatest possible reliability and validity. Perhaps the greatest limitation of the evaluation approach is the substantial reliance on data collected from activity participants and partners, which may lead to a biased view of the relevance and performance of the activity. However, focus group discussions and individual interviews with relevant experts, who are external to the activity, help address this limitation. Another limitation is that the sample drawn through a purposive technique may be subject to selection bias. While the approach may lead to richness and depth of data, the results are not generalizable to the entire population of grantees. In addition, while utilizing the GEP Annual Event to collect data from Balochistan and Sindh grantees allowed for an efficient use of time and resources, it meant that in some cases the individual with the most knowledge of the GEP grant and the grantee organization’s experience was not present to participate in the data collection process. An additional limitation was the evaluation team’s limited ability to identify data sources while maintaining informant confidentiality and anonymity. GEP played a key role in helping the evaluation team connect with grantees and other stakeholders for the purpose of data collection, and while this ensured that the evaluation team was able to obtain data from a large proportion of grantees, it made it even more important that the report did not include any features that could potentially allow a grantee to be identified. Therefore, this report provides details regarding data sources to the extent that doing so would not jeopardize the informants’ anonymity. In the cases of some individual and group interview participants, noting their affiliation would allow them to be identified. In these instances, the evaluation team has not provided details regarding the informants’ affiliation or the number of interview participants who expressed a particular sentiment, to ensure informant confidentiality. 15 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS: RESPONSIVENESS TO CHANGES IN CONTEXT Evaluation Question 1: GEP's relevance to priorities of NCSW and provincial governments Findings: Impact of the 18th Amendment on the Gender Equity Program When GEP was awarded in August 2010, it was not yet clear to all stakeholders what future role, if any, the Ministry of Women’s Development would play or what responsibilities the provincial Women’s Development Departments would have. Not all provinces had clear processes for handover of resources to the provincial Women’s Development Departments, reported one individual and participants in a group interview. For example, responsibility for the Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Crisis Centers was devolved, but funding was not. The number of stakeholders with whom the Program must engage has increased since the devolution of responsibility for women’s affairs, as reported by GEP staff from both Islamabad and the regional offices. Women’s Development Departments now play a greater role, and a Provincial Commission on the Status of Women has been established in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The number of stakeholders is likely to increase further with legislation in progress to establish provincial commissions in Balochistan, Punjab, and Sindh. Findings: Impact of Changes in Government on the Gender Equity Program It is taking time for newly-elected provincial governments to establish themselves and articulate provincial policies, said senior GEP staff in one group interview. As a result, GEP has been unable to discuss non￾competitive grant-making with provincial government departments since the elections in May 2013. The 2013 elections resulted in turnover in Forum membership, due to changes in the ministers of the Women’s Development Departments and their secretaries, reported GEP staff in two group interviews and NAF individual interviewees. The Forum’s current arrangement does not provide a role for former members, and there is no coordinated mechanism for orienting new members and passing on institutional memory, noted Forum members and GEP staff. Findings: GEP Response to Devolution and Change in Government AF maintained offices in the provincial capitals of KP, Punjab, Sindh, and Balochistan before GEP was awarded and has many years of experience implementing gender￾related activities across Pakistan. GEP’s senior regional staff members have many years of experience with AF and with interacting with local government and gender-related NGOs. GEP senior staff reported that the role of the regional offices has expanded in response to the devolution of responsibility for gender issues. The regional offices now:  Conduct weekly “mini–Grants Management Committees (GMCs)” to identify and address any challenges.  Participate in developing grant cycle terms of reference to better align program development with regional priorities.  Attend NAF meetings, engaging with provincial ministers and secretaries.  Develop region-specific lobbying and advocacy plans. “The 18th Amendment has already been internalized into GEP.” -Senior AF Representative 16 The introduction of the grant-holder concept, in which all communication between the Program and a grantee is routed through one GEP staff member, has increased the regional offices' ownership and oversight of grant activities because regional staff coordinates regional grants, according to GEP staff in four group interviews and grantees in two focus group discussions. However, this mechanism has also caused some grantee coordination problems (see Findings: Small Grants for Seamless Service delivery to GBV Victims). All regional GEP staff members interviewed reported engaging with Women’s Development Departments and attending numerous forums, including the Women’s Empowerment Committee in Punjab. GEP regional staff members have also lobbied provincial parliamentarians and government officials on legislation related to gender issues, such as the Domestic Violence Bills in Balochistan and Sindh, and advocacy for the rights of home-based workers in Sindh. The number of staff members in the Punjab regional office has increased from six to 10, reported GEP staff in one group interview. A Lahore Deputy Program Manager was appointed following an internal review held at the end of GEP’s first year, according to senior GEP staff. Relevance of GEP to Provincial and NCSW Priorities Gender priorities for the Balochistan, Punjab, and Sindh Governments are combating GBV and women’s economic and political empowerment. These link to GEP’s Objectives 3 (Combating GBV) and 2 (Increasing Women’s Empowerment) and the related project activities. The data collection process could not identify articulated gender priorities for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government. NCSW, established to be a watchdog for women’s rights, is the only national-level body with a women’s affairs mandate following devolution. Its priorities are to formulate recommendations on laws and policies relevant to gender issues, encourage and sponsor research, create awareness regarding women’s rights, address GBV, and support government institutions’ work on gender-related issues. These priorities link to all four of GEP’s objectives and its resultant implementation. Table 2 compares the priorities of each provincial government (Balochistan, Punjab, and Sindh) with GEP objectives, outputs, and implementation activities. As shown, GEP's objectives and activities are consistent with broad provincial government priorities for women's development. The data-collection process could not identify articulated gender priorities for the KP Government. GEP implementation in KP has the same objectives as elsewhere in Pakistan.37 37 GEP Cooperative Agreement, p. 24. 17 TABLE 2: PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES, GEP OBJECTIVES, AND GEP IMPLEMENTATION38 Provincial Government Priorities39 NCSW Priorities Links to GEP Objectives Example GEP Outputs Example GEP Implementation Combating GBV Encourage and sponsor research, particularly regarding trafficking of women and the impact of the Jirga system on women, and engage with government institutions for the implementation of recommendations already identified through research Address GBV by determining how government mechanisms can be improved Combating GBV (Objective 3) Mapping of scale, depth, geographical spread, features and factors of GBV covering honor crimes, trafficking, domestic violence, rape, acid survivors, sexual harassment, and other forms of GBV Improved policies in support of victims of GBV and their rehabilitation Collection of data to get an objective picture Focus on particular kinds of GBV in particular areas Documentation on policy Support to NCSW for initiating policy dialogue Text of policy for discussion Women’s economic and political empowerment (by removing obstacles in participation in political processes – Balochistan; through gender mainstreaming and reform of governance and institutional mechanisms – Punjab; by removing obstacles to participation in political processes, gender mainstreaming and Encourage and sponsor research, particularly regarding trafficking of women and the impact of the Jirga system on women, and engage with government institutions for the implementation of recommendations already identified through research Create awareness at all levels of society regarding women’s rights Review and analyze laws and policies relevant to gender Increasing women's empowerment by expanding knowledge of and opportunities to exercise their rights in the workplace, community, and home (Objective 2) Enhancing gender equity by expanding women's access to justice and human rights (Objective 1) Strengthening the capacity of Pakistani organizations that advocate for gender equity, Increased number of women in targeted entrepreneurial and self-employment sectors in specified areas Enhanced awareness of women's rights among the general population, key groups of women, youth, religious groups Mapping of criminal justice legislation and women’s legal protection Improved research Mechanism of home-based workers and informal sector workers Building in women’s rights in curricula in targeted educational and training institutions that cater to key categories of men, and key categories of women, whose opinions need to be influenced Research review of relevant legislation and identification of gaps in women's legal protection 38 GEP Implementation covers Grant Cycles 1-6B, corresponding to Years 1-3. 39 Priorities for Balochistan, Punjab, and Sindh are from the following sources: Summary for the Honorable Governor of Balochistan on the women’s development policy; http://www.punjab.gov.pk/women_development; Provincial Policy for Women Empowerment, Government of Sindh, Women Development Department. 18 Provincial Government Priorities39 NCSW Priorities Links to GEP Objectives Example GEP Outputs Example GEP Implementation reform of governance and institutional mechanisms – Sindh) issues and formulate recommendations Encourage and sponsor research, particularly regarding trafficking of women and the impact of the Jirga system on women, and engage with government institutions for the implementation of recommendations already identified through research Work with government institutions to support their work on gender-related issues women's empowerment, and the elimination of GBV (Objective 4) capacity of sub grantees Enhanced capabilities and skills of gender coalition network members Protocols for gender research (before and after interventions) on GEP interventions Capacity building of organizations working on women’s rights One participant noted that, in addition to the priorities identified above, the current Balochistan Government, elected in 2013, also prioritizes support to women in emergency situations. GEP’s Grant Cycle 1 activities, implemented before the 2013 elections, supported rapid response to relieve flood victims.40 The cross-cutting nature of the Program means the table above does not fully capture all of the ways in which GEP contributes to provincial and NCSW priorities. As discussed in the next section, GEP grants under one objective often contributed to another objective. For example, GEP grants awarded under Objective 3 (Combating GBV) also support women's empowerment by registering them for Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs). GEP has also awarded grants to both provincial government departments and NCSW to further GEP objectives. For example, GEP awarded NCSW a non-competitive grant under which NCSW commissioned research on police reporting and the Gender Crime Cell, gender mainstreaming and disaster management response, assessing the gaps in Women’s Development Departments, and shelter homes and crisis centers. GEP research on customary practices contributing to gender-based violence is informing NCSW policy and law review. GEP's GBV strategy formed the basis of the Sindh Women's Development Department's own GBV strategy. 40 GEP First Annual Report, August 2010 – September 2011, p. 8. 19 FINDINGS: GEP EFFECTIVENESS This sub-section describes the extent to which the implementation of GEP's design (i.e., four components as a collective approach) has been effective in achieving GEP's four objectives. It responds to Evaluation Question 2: Effectiveness in approach of small grants, research, networking, and capacity building. GEP’s design, as articulated in the Cooperative Agreement, outlines the Program’s use of its four components (i.e., grants, research, networking, and capacity building) in achieving its objectives, but allows for flexibility in their use, resulting in GEP's “jigsaw puzzle” concept, which emphasizes cumulative impacts and “interlocking” interventions. 41 Looking across objectives, GEP's component activities are sometimes funded under one objective, but also contribute to another objective, necessitating an assessment of the components' cumulative contribution to each objective. Nonetheless, to provide a background for the cumulative findings about the Program, we provide here a short description of each component and how it fits with the others to create a cohesive activity. The core activity of GEP is promoting gender equity by providing both competitive and non-competitive grants to NGOs/CSOs, GOP entities, and universities across Pakistan to achieve the Program's four objectives: Expanding Women's Access to Justice and Human Rights, Increasing Women's Empowerment, Combating GBV, and Capacity Building of Pakistani Organizations that work on gender issues. GEP activities are programmed around thematic grant cycles, with approximately three grant cycles awarded each year.42 To date, a total of 152 grants have been awarded under six grant cycles, addressing the following themes: 1. Rapid Response to Flood Victims (26 grants) 2. Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building of Critical Partners and Stakeholders, and GBV￾focused Media Campaigns (16 grants) 3. Supporting Women's CNIC Registration (15 grants) 4. Supporting Four-Month Campaign on GBV (23 grants) 5. Supporting Women's CNIC Registration (20 grants)43 6. Combating GBV (52 grants, divided into Grant Cycle 6A-41 grants to private organizations – and Grant Cycle 6B-11 grants to public institutions)44 Note that number 2 above includes GEP's capacity building component, under which GEP has issued 14 grants to date. Complementing the grants are GEP's two networking platforms: the National Advisory Forum45 (a group of senior government and non-government representatives who advise GEP on strategic matters) and the Pakistan Gender Coalition (a network consisting of all GEP grantees). The National Advisory Forum provides GEP with non-binding advice to inform activity planning and implementation46 and provides a 41 Gender Equity Program, Second Annual Report, October 2011 – September 2012, p. 23. 42 Due to funding constraints, no grant cycles have been awarded in 2013. The GEP Cooperative Agreement does not stipulate how many grant cycles should be issued per year or in total and in one instance references "annual grant cycles" (Gender Equity Program Cooperative Agreement, p. 39). 43 Two grant cycles focused on registering women for their CNIC. 44 Gender Equity Program, First Annual Report, August 2010 -- September 2011, pp. 8-9, Gender Equity Program, Second Annual Report, October 2011-- September 2012, p. 33, Gender Equity Program, Quarterly Progress Report, January -- March 2013, pp. 49-55. 45 While AF sees the National Advisory Forum as primarily filling an advisory function, it also clearly serves as a critical networking platform. 46 Gender Equity Program, Grants Database as of Oct. 7, 2013. Annex 10, p. 29. The Cooperative Agreement refers to the National Advisory Forum as the "national Advisory Group." 20 platform for members to discuss the political and socio-cultural context within which GEP and their own institutions operate. Its members consist of experts and leaders of organizations with gender-related mandates: ministers and secretaries of the provincial Women's Development Departments, members of the National Commission on the Status of Women and Pakistan's sole Provincial Commission on the Status of Women, and representatives of the judiciary, the National Police Bureau's Gender Crime Cell, academia, and civil society. Launched in July 2012, the Pakistan Gender Coalition is to bring together all GEP grantees to help "establish national coherence" by offering a "permanent platform... to continue to provide gender empowerment resources beyond the lifecycle of the Program."47 In addition to the grants and networking, GEP provides funding for research carried out by universities and government organizations. Research conducted to date includes scoping studies on each of the activity's four objectives. The remainder of this section examines each Program objective and the extent to which the Program components have collectively worked to achieve that objective. Findings: Objective 1 (Access to Justice) GEP’s Objective 1 activities include only 6 percent of GEP grants and three pieces of research so far. A small number of grants awarded under other objectives have also contributed to Objective 1, however, such as an Objective 2 grant to provide gender training to judicial officials in Sindh, and Objective 3 grants that funded awareness-raising activities to increase women's knowledge of GBV and of laws designed to protect women. One Objective 2 grantee used knowledge gained through implementing a GEP grant to inform the development of policy papers on police gender reform at the request of the women’s caucus of the National Assembly. GEP’s capacity building component has some impact on Objective 1, as law students, public prosecutors, and judges have been trained on women’s rights issues. While National Advisory Forum membership includes representatives of the judiciary and Gender Crime Cell, it does not appear that the Forum has focused attention on this objective. However, NAF is the only forum in Pakistan in which federal and provincial level politicians, civil servants, representatives of the judiciary and the Police's Gender Crime Cell, and representatives of civil society and academia can meet to discuss gender-related issues. Research funded under this objective produced a scoping study on women's access to justice in Pakistan.48 One interviewee reported that GEP research has been used to inform the development of provincial laws on women's rights issues in KP. Research funded through GEP grants has contributed to this objective even when the funding has come under a different objective. For example, GEP supported research on Objective 1 through an Objective 4 grant awarded to NCSW that produced Police Reporting and Investigation Mechanism and Crisis Centers and Gender Crime Cell. This and other GEP-funded research are reportedly contributing to work NCSW is doing with the National Police Bureau's Gender Crime Cell to determine how laws that support women's rights are invoked in police reporting on GBV. 47 Gender Equity Cooperative Agreement, p. 29. The Cooperative Agreement refers to the National Advisory Forum as the ‘National Advisory Group’, p. 30. 48 Gender Equity--Justice and Governance in Pakistan. 21 Findings: Objective 2 (Women’s Empowerment) While only 11 percent of GEP’s grants to date have been awarded under Objective 2, a number of sub￾grants awarded under Objective 3 have also contributed to this objective, including 35 sub-grants to help women obtain CNICs49 and additional grants that provide access to economic rehabilitation training. GEP’s networking and capacity building components have also contributed to Objective 2, as the Sindh Women's Development Department became an independent department following Forum deliberation on the matter, and women entrepreneurs were provided capacity building support. In fact, participants in one focus group discussion indicated that the training modules developed under a grant to the First Women Bank to train women entrepreneurs have since been adopted by other donors, including UN Women. GEP funded a scoping study on women's empowerment in Pakistan, but reports that it has not yet carried out any additional research in direct support of Objective 2. Findings: Objective 3 (Combating GBV) To date, GEP’s four components have had the greatest aggregated impact on Objective 3, with 74 percent of sub-grants awarded to date, representing 65 percent of obligated programmatic funding, addressing this objective. 50 Participants in three focus groups who implement crisis shelters reported that their capacity to provide shelter services to GBV victims has improved as a result of GEP. One grantee reported that it is confident it has learned enough to be able to replicate its work in other shelters. In addition to a scoping study on GBV in Pakistan, six pieces of research have been conducted on various forms of GBV, including practices leading to GBV, a study on domestic violence, and a Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices study on sexual harassment. NCSW reported that trafficking of women is one of its research priorities for the next three years, to which GEP research has already contributed. The University of Punjab told evaluators that it has used its GEP-funded research on customary practices leading to GBV to inform articles, a student seminar, and to identify topics for future research. GEP used research under this objective to inform the development of the Program's GBV strategy which, in turn, the Sindh Women's Development Department used to develop its own GBV strategy, according to GEP staff members in a group interview. The work of both NAF and the PGC has also contributed to Objective 3. The Forum engaged with the Sindh Women's Development Department to ensure funding for the Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Crisis Centers continued after devolution. With GEP support, Coalition members conducted advocacy events as part of the 16 Days of Activism against GBV. This was the only activity that has been conducted under the aegis of the Pakistan Gender Coalition to date. Findings: Objective 4 (Capacity Building) Nine percent of GEP grants, accounting for 15.2 percent of obligated programmatic funds, address Objective 4.51 Of the 14 grants awarded under Objective 4 to date, four have been in Sindh, four in Punjab (all of which were to universities), two in KP (one of which was to a university), and one in Balochistan (to the University of Balochistan). The remaining three grants were issued to Islamabad-based 49 Gender Equity Program, Grants Database as of Oct. 7, 2013. Annex 10. There is no evidence that beneficiaries used their CNICs to access GBV, as opposed to other, services. 50 Gender Equity Program, Quarterly Progress Report, January – March 2013, p. 49–55. Gender Equity Program, Grants Database as of Oct. 7, 2013 (Annex 10). 51 Gender Equity Program, Quarterly Progress Report, January–March 2013, p. 49 – 55. Gender Equity Program, Grants Database as of Oct. 7, 2013 (Annex 10). 22 sub-grantees; two to strengthen government institutions and one to provide capacity building support to CSOs across Pakistan.52 Grantees report that implementing GEP grants improved their technical and administrative capacities to conduct gender equity activities, whether they were a direct beneficiary of an Objective 4 grant or not. Grantees reported increased capacity in financial management and report writing, in particular, which GEP staff also noted. In two focus groups out of the four conducted, some grantees reported that their organizations had become more gender sensitized as a result of implementing GEP grants. Some grantees reported that since implementing GEP grants, they had increased the number of women working in their organizations, in one case, the number of women working for the organization increased to 60 percent of employees. Some grantees in three focus groups and one grantee in an individual interview reported that implementing GEP grants had enabled them to secure additional donor funding by improving their proposal writing and documentation processes, and providing them with evidence of corporate capability and past experience with regard to gender. Both GEP staff and grantees report that GEP’s quarterly monitoring of grantee programmatic and financial progress provides opportunities to identify areas in which grantees require additional capacity building. In all focus groups a majority of grantees reported that they appreciate the face-to-face interaction that monitoring visits provide and the fact that the visits take place in the grantee offices, particularly grantees implementing in remote areas. Although GEP has conducted studies to assess the capacity of Pakistani organizations to undertake gender equity work, its recommendations have not yet been implemented. For example, the Assessment of the Capacities of Women Development Departments53 made province-specific recommendations for how the departments could be strengthened. GEP's grants database does not indicate that grants have been issued to act upon these recommendations, however. GEP staff working on capacity building and monitoring and evaluation told evaluators that GEP's Capacity Building Unit is developing a training needs assessment form to be completed before grant award to determine grantee's individual capacity building requirements. While group training and orientation sessions have been provided to date, grantee-specific capacity building plans have not been developed. All GEP staff and most of the grantees said that grantees are provided with pre- and post-award orientation sessions to improve their capacity to implement GEP activities. Pre-award sessions provide guidance on the application process, while post-award sessions provide information relevant to implementation, such as financial management and reporting requirements. Most grantees reported that the orientation sessions provided by GEP were very useful in helping them understand what was required of them under the grant. However, all grantees in one focus group, each of whom had implemented more than one GEP grant, indicated that the quality of orientation provided has decreased with successive grant cycles. Grantees who implemented more than one GEP grant in different grant cycles reported that while they were provided with branding and marking training at the beginning of the first grant cycle, they were not provided with similar training when beginning their second grant. Grantees in one focus group reported being offered branding and marking training only if they traveled to the capital of another province at their own cost, while grantees in another discussion reported that they were provided with branding and marking training only after their grant had been completed. Documentation provided by GEP shows that 52 Gender Equity Program Grants Database as of Oct. 7, 2013. 53 http://www.af.org.pk/gep/publications/Assessment%20of%20the%20Capacities%20of%20Women%20Development%20Depa rtments.pdf 23 branding and marking training was provided to Cycle 6A grantees in July 2013, when more than six months of implementation had already been completed.54 The National Advisory Forum provides a platform for its members to learn from each other and played a role in helping Women’s Development Departments understand their responsibilities after devolution, according to GEP Program staff. All NAF member interviewees said that the Forum has provided a very useful engagement mechanism for both its national- and provincial-level members. Its frank conversations provide opportunities for members to learn from one another's work, share information, and develop contacts. The GEP Cooperative Agreement envisions that the Pakistan Gender Coalition will provide a platform for grantees to engage with and learn from one another, but it has not had this outcome to date. FINDINGS: EFFECTIVENESS OF GEP APPROACH TO SEAMLESS SERVICE DELIVERY This section addresses Evaluation Question 3: Effectiveness in approach to provide multiple grants and coordination for seamless service delivery. USAID described GEP’s seamless service delivery to the evaluation team as a broad activity that includes establishing an enabling environment, within which awareness of and opportunities to access GBV victim services exist. GEP, however, discusses seamless service delivery specifically in the context of Grant Cycle 6A (Combating GBV) and provision of services to GBV victims. 55 In addressing this question, the evaluation team focused on GEP’s Objective 3 activities, specifically Grant Cycle 6A and Grant Cycles 3 and 5 activities to help women obtain CNICs, which required significant coordination with the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) that issues the cards. GEP’s GBV strategy identifies five sequential components necessary to address gender-based violence, which can be further categorized into 18 interventions.56 GEP grants have supported 11 of these interventions, across all five components.57 Interventions that GEP grants have not yet addressed include legal aid, access to police and hospitals, counseling and sensitization of GBV perpetrators, and helping GBV victims access microfinance and credit.58 Through its Grant Cycle 6 activities, GEP seeks to provide coordinated services to GBV victims through a cluster approach,59 in which one grantee provides a crisis shelter in a particular area and other grantees in the area provide economic rehabilitation and psychosocial counseling to GBV victims staying at the shelter. Victims are referred to the shelter by a helpline, and another grantee conducts awareness raising in communities about GBV, related laws, and services available. Grantees whom the evaluation team interviewed were confused about the level and type of coordination expected of them. In two focus group discussions, grantees managing shelters for GBV victims saw the shelters as being at the core of the seamless service delivery model, and suggested that they initiate coordination with other grantees and play a lead coordination role during implementation. However, grantees in these focus groups that provided other services, such as helplines and training, saw the service delivery model as a series of bilateral relationships between grantees, rather than a multilateral collaboration. 54 Gender Equity Program email correspondence dated June 19, 2013, provided to MEP Evaluation Team Oct. 15, 2013. 55 GEP First Annual Report, August 2010 – September 2011, p.13, p. 39. GEP Second Annual Report, October 2011 – September 2012, p. 11, p. 62, p. 64. 56 GEP Second Annual Report, October 2011 – September 2012, Annex B. 57 This discussed in detail in Annex VII, using data from the GEP grants database (Annex VIII) as of October 2013. 58 Gender Equity Program, Grants Database as of October 7, 2013. Annex 8. 59 GEP Quarterly Progress Report, January – March 2013, p. 38, p. 43. The approach can be characterized as a cluster or area-based approach in which GEP provides grants to individual CSOs, which render one service each to GBV victims and are also expected to coordinate with each other, so that the victim may receive the multiple services she requires. 24 GEP Letters of Grants, which are the basis for the GEP–grantee relationship, state that grantees are required to deliver on only their individual outputs and targets, not coordinated and seamless service delivery. The cluster approach created an added pressure for some grantees in two focus group discussions to work with organizations with which they had not engaged previously, so that the resulting relationships felt forced rather than organic. This sentiment was expressed mostly by grantees from more-experienced organizations with greater capacity, while grantees from less-experienced organizations were generally more positive about the opportunity to engage with other organizations that the Cycle 6A grants provided. In addition, grant targets and start and end dates were not aligned among grantees providing services in the same location/cluster, according to Cycle 6A grantees in three focus groups and one individual interview. For example, a grantee operating a crisis center had a target to provide services to 90 women, while grantees providing training and counseling at that center each had targets of providing services to 200 women. The rationale for the different targets (that is, that some women would be provided non￾residential services) was not articulated to training and counseling grantees, who struggled to identify non-residential participants. Grant start dates were not always coordinated. For example, a grant to provide shelter center services began approximately four months before the grants to provide training and counseling, and the grantee operating the shelter had to identify alternative interim service providers. Delayed GEP decision-making (for example, action following receipt of progress reports and release of payments by GEP) delayed some grant activities, which made coordination more difficult as grants progressed at different paces. In one instance, a grantee had to lay off staff, as salaries could not be paid. The introduction of the grant-holder role, in which all communication between the Program and a grantee is routed through one GEP staff member, had not improved communication with GEP because it added another layer to communication channels.60 One Cycle 6A grantee explained that coordination and communication with GEP is now more difficult because grantees within the same service delivery “cluster” do not share a common grant holder. The need for grant holders to communicate among themselves, and varying response times, has made coordination within a cluster more difficult. It was difficult for Cycle 6A grantees conducting awareness-raising activities to coordinate with lead grantees responsible for providing services as standardised information, education, and communication materials developed by a national-level grantee were provided some four months late. This delayed implementation of awareness-raising activities until well after the start of the service provision grants. Some grantees also reported that the information, education, and communication materials were not suitable for the context in which they were to be used because they included dense text and complex phrases. A majority of participants in one focus group reported that GEP provided minimal support in helping them make connections with line departments such as NADRA and the Social Welfare Department, which operates government shelters.61 Grantees in all four focus groups who worked with NADRA in implementing Grant Cycles 3 and 5 activities reported that they developed strong working relationships with NADRA over time. This was initially challenging, however, and GEP provided little assistance in developing linkages between grantees and NADRA at the local level. In areas in which more than one GEP grantee was implementing Grant Cycle 3 and 5 activities, NADRA played a coordination role in developing work plans and scheduling registration events. 60 Grantees in two focus group discussions 61 In accordance with common usage in Pakistan, this report uses “shelter” to refer to a location where victims are provided with longer-term support. A “crisis center” provides short-term, immediate support. 25 In all four focus group discussions, some grantees thought that the PGC will help them develop linkages with one another and coordinate better in the future. While it has not had this function to date, and grantees in all four focus groups were not familiar with its purpose and development, the Aurat Foundation reports that further development of the PGC is scheduled for Years 3 and 4, following resolution of the 2013 funding lag. PGC launched in July 2012, received approval of fund allocation from USAID in May 2013. The first PGC meeting took place in September 2013. FINDINGS: GEP DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION This section of the report discusses findings on design and implementation issues that affect GEP's effectiveness in general, across all objectives. Findings: Grants Component All GEP grants are issued through thematic cycles, which are identified in the GEP Program Matrix (Annex VI). GEP's Cooperative Agreement does not stipulate the sole use of thematic grant cycles, but rather encourages replicating previous, successful initiatives. 62 Detailed requests for proposals (RFPs) are then published to solicit applications for competitive grants.63 The RFPs detail how many competitive grants the Program expects to award and provides scopes of work, including target locations, budget caps, and minimum outputs. Applicants submit proposals detailing work plans within the framework provided by GEP. Non-competitive grants may also be issued under a cycle.64 GEP’s Objective Management Unit works with government institutions to develop concepts and negotiate grant awards. All participants in one focus group discussion agreed with the participant who stated that “GEP is not capitalizing on their previous cycles and there is a disconnect between one cycle and another, which is the biggest flaw in sustainability”. While some grantees have implemented more than one grant, there have been time lags between their grants, so that even if a grantee’s second grant builds on what was achieved in the first grant, momentum may be lost. Grantees from one province were not aware that they could apply for a second grant. Another threat to the sustainability of grant activities is lack of resources. The majority of grantees in all four focus groups reported that resource constraints will make it difficult for them to continue to implement activities relevant to GEP’s objectives after the completion of their GEP grants. Grantees in all four focus groups reported that they had limited influence in the grant and budget design process. GEP grants management staff report that this will be addressed in future grant cycles by awarding some grants on innovative topics suggested by grantees. Grantees across all objectives reported a range of challenges to implementation, all stemming from grant timeframes that were too short, insufficient grant budgets, or payment delays.  A majority of grantees in all four focus group discussions reported that grant timeframes were insufficient for achieving the GEP–required outputs. Some grantees reported that short timelines compromised the quality of implementation as activities were either rushed or conducted simultaneously, requiring grantees to spend their own funds to hire additional staff. GEP staff in 62 GEP Cooperative Agreement, page 30. 63 The Request for Proposal for Gender Equity Program Grant Cycle 7 can be found at: http://www.af.org.pk/gep/PDF/GEP%20Grant%20Cycle%207%20RFP%20-%20amendments.pdf. 64 The 21 non-competitive grants awarded to date have been under Grant Cycles 1 (Rapid Response), 2 (Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building, and GBV Media Campaigns), and 6B (Combating GBV). “GEP is not capitalizing on their previous cycles and there is a disconnect between one cycle and another, which is the biggest flaw in sustainability.” -Focus Group Participant 26 six interviews also thought that grants are too short, while a participant in a seventh interview indicated that larger grants should be awarded.  Grantees were reluctant to ask for extensions because the modification process was too long, or they did not understand the modification process, the importance of completing implementation by the end date, or both. Some grantees reported being told that GEP was unlikely to approve an extension request.  Grantees who implemented awareness raising activities in south Punjab and north KP reported that longer timeframes were needed to obtain community buy-in as they had to meet repeatedly with male family members and community leaders to obtain their support for the activity.  A majority of grantees in each focus group reported that the budget provided by GEP was insufficient. They reported that grant budgets were standardized within each province and that ground realities, such as distances and limited transport options, were not taken into consideration. Grantees also reported that they had to use their own funds to achieve grant objectives, although cost sharing was not required.  Grantees in three of four focus groups and three individual interviewees reported that in some cases, GEP’s delay in releasing grant tranche payments subsequently delayed the start of implementation or required them to halt implementation part way through. Grantees in all focus group discussions experienced challenges in relationship management with AF and TAF during both the grant-making and grant management stages, reporting that GEP staff show very little flexibility, particularly in the following three categories:  Grant negotiation (especially regarding targets and budgets)  Modification requests (with some grantees in one focus group discussion reporting rejection of extension requests for reasons outside their control, such as delays in GEP providing outreach materials)  Branding and marking (with grantees, many of whom lack reliable internet access, making communication with GEP more challenging and they also reported spending significant amounts of time revising logo placement in order to obtain branding and marking approval) GBV Grants Organizations implementing grants that address GBV reported additional technical problems with grant designs. Grantees in all four focus groups indicated that the design of CNIC activities did not reflect ground realities and that output targets were overly ambitious considering NADRA’s other commitments in the lead-up to elections. Grantees in three focus groups also felt that grant design did not take into account the preconditions required for women to register for a CNIC, such as proof of identity or, in Sindh and KP, marriage certificates for married women. Grantees reported spending significant time helping women meet these preconditions before they could register for a CNIC. In some parts of Balochistan, separatist sentiment made it difficult for grantees to conduct CNIC activities because the cards are issued by the Government of Pakistan. In some instances, grantees could not carry out activities at the proposed implementation sites due to security concerns, and had to identify alternative sites after implementation commenced. There is no evidence that GEP grants for a given area originate after a situation analysis of the area, in which needs and opportunities are highlighted and services and grantees identified on that basis. Legal 27 aid65 was identified by participants in two focus group discussions as a necessary component of services to GBV victims, which was not provided through Grant Cycle 6A grants. Sindh Cycle 6A grantees reported that they developed linkages with police and legal aid providers on their own initiative, to attempt to provide these services outside the grant activities. In many cases, the grant duration was too short to allow for the provision of sustainable services to GBV victims by grantees. In all four focus groups and in two individual interviews, participants thought sustainability was of limited consideration in grant design. By the time grantees recognized that their approach was providing effective services and that they should consider how to make the activity more sustainable, the grant end date was approaching and there was insufficient time to plan for sustainability. Findings: Research Component While grantees and some of the GEP staff indicated that ministries and departments may not have the capacity to utilize research to inform policy development, NCSW reports that its priorities for the next three years include how to make use of the policy, legal, and advocacy recommendations informed by its past research, including research supported by GEP. Findings: Networking Component NAF members provide non-binding advice on matters informing GEP programming, but two of the three Forum member interviewees reported that they are uncertain whether or how this advice is used. In addition, grantees in two focus groups reported that they have not been kept informed of GEP activities taking place under previous or overlapping cycles. While the Pakistan Gender Coalition was launched in July 2012, GEP staff members report that it does not yet have its own budget line. Since its launch, it has met only one time, in Islamabad in September 2013, and the meeting was arranged and led by GEP. PGC members interviewed prior to and after the first PGC meeting in September 2013 expected the coalition to provide a useful mechanism for coordination and networking, but were not clear about how to use this platform. As per GEP’s approved work plan for FY14, the discussion and planning of PGC network was planned to start in a national level meeting in September 2013 followed by regional and provincial meetings. At the time of the evaluation, only the first meeting had taken place. GEP staff and grantees report that terms of reference have not yet been established for the Coalition to provide clarity on such issues as structure, governance, meeting location and frequency, and whether non-grantees (such as National Advisory Forum members) will play a role in addition to GEP grantees. The invitations to the first PGC meeting issued to Coalition members before the September 2013 meeting required that each organization send one female representative only. Numerous grantees 65 While legal aid would include specific support through a legal process, legal counseling, which was provided by GEP, is understood to only include advice. GEP Approval Process for Competitive Grants  Proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals  GEP’s Objective Management Unit shortlists proposals against the stated criteria  Grants Management Committee reviews shortlisted proposals  Program Steering Committee recommends shortlisted proposals to USAID  USAID approves grant concept, deliverables, outputs, and budget maximum  GEP’s Objectives Management Unit negotiates grant and budget with grantee, within the terms pre-approved by USAID 28 expressed their concern at this, noting that gender issues involve both men and women.66 The evaluation team attended the meeting, where both men and women were present. FINDINGS: INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT The evaluation team examined the extent to which the partnerships that form GEP (USAID–AF and AF– TAF) support performance and sustainability beyond GEP’s period of performance and whether any changes are necessary (Evaluation Question 4: GEP’s partnership of AF and TAF for performance and building sustainability in AF). In analyzing the USAID-AF relationship, the evaluation team focused on the extent to which the partnership fosters good planning and management of sub-grants and timely oversight. Findings: USAID–AF Relationship The senior AF staff interviewed reported that GEP transformed AF by requiring it to make significant organizational improvements as conditions of award, including establishing and filling certain roles, such as Finance Manager and Internal Auditor, strengthening human resource procedures, and improving finance procedures. While AF had already identified that many of these changes were required, GEP provided the necessary impetus to introduce them. Senior AF staff reported in two interviews that implementing GEP has provided AF with experience in managing donor-funded activities, allowing it to attract additional donor support, such as the British Department for International Development–funded AWAAZ Voice and Accountability Program. The Program Steering Committee structure represents both the fact that GEP is a three-party relationship involving USAID, AF, and TAF and that it is Pakistani-led, with AF having four representatives and TAF having two. Both USAID and those GEP staff who commented on the committee noted that USAID has observer status only, and has historically provided guidance on matters of program management and administration rather than policy and direction setting. The GEP Cooperative Agreement allows for Program Steering Committee membership to include an external gender expert from USAID, with the current AOR filling this role. A GEP staff member and all USAID representatives interviewed noted that USAID does not provide technical direction to GEP, as this is outside the scope of the Cooperative Agreement; budget negotiation takes place after USAID has approved a grant concept, deliverables, and total award value; and USAID does not receive the final grant budget and Letter of Grant for approval. Some senior GEP staff in one interview suggested that awarding non-competitive grants to CSOs may allow for more in-depth implementation and impact by allowing the Program to build upon previous activities. The Cooperative Agreement allows non-competitive grants or specific Requests for Applications to expand successful activities.67 USAID is not a member of the National Advisory Forum, although it is invited to attend events and meetings. One of the three NAF members interviewed suggested that USAID may be able to play a role in following up on whether GEP took the National Advisory Forum’s advice into consideration. Two other NAF members felt that the Forum is able to be more effective and openly discuss issues of relevance to Pakistani women without a donor being present. 66 This interpretation is also consistent with USAID's ADS Glossary definition, which defines gender as, "a social construct that refers to relations between and among the sexes, based on their relative roles... Note that 'gender' is not interchangeable with 'women' or 'sex.'" USAID's Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy (March 2012) defines "gender equality" according to the following: ”concerns women and men, and it involves working with men and boys, women and girls to bring about changes in attitudes, behaviors, roles and responsibilities at home, in the workplace, and in the community..." (p. 3). 67 Gender Equity Program Cooperative Agreement, p. 34. 29 Findings: Establishing the AF-TAF Relationship The Cooperative Agreement intended that TAF would transition off the Program after six months, having built AF capacity sufficiently to be able to make and manage grants alone. This timeline was later extended, with TAF continuing to issue grants and manage the financial aspects of grant-making. It is still intended, however, that AF will take responsibility for grant-making at some point in the future. In examining the AF–TAF relationship, therefore, the evaluation team assessed the extent to which TAF has built AF’s capacity to make and manage grants. Before implementing GEP, AF had a long history of experience and expertise in gender-related activism in Pakistan and some grantees in one focus group discussion reported that having a Pakistani NGO as the prime implementing partner allows for better outreach and onsite monitoring, reflecting USAID’s intent that a Pakistani prime implementing partner would allow for greater local ownership. TAF facilitated AF’s transition into a grantor role by taking the lead on grant-making, compliance, and finance matters. Implementation of GEP required a significant, and initially challenging, paradigm shift for AF in its relationships with civil society organizations, moving from relationships of two implementing organizations to grantor–grantee relationships. Senior staff from both organizations report that it took time for both AF and TAF to understand their roles in a contractual relationship in which the prime contractor is a local NGO and the sub-contractor is an international NGO. One national-level grantee picked up on this initial awkwardness, commenting that early in GEP’s implementation, there was confusion over which organization was managing the grant process. GEP staff members in Islamabad work from both the AF and TAF offices. Most staff members reported frequent interaction between the offices, with one AF staff member commenting that he spent half his time at the TAF office in his first six months with the Program. GEP staff members in three group interviews expressed a need for greater clarity regarding the division of roles and responsibilities between AF and TAF units, however, especially in the areas where grant-making and grant management overlap, such as reporting. GEP staff in one group interview reported that their job descriptions did not reflect evolving roles and responsibilities. The Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) is a TAF employee who, like TAF’s other GEP staff, works from the TAF office. As noted earlier, TAF is an AF sub-grantee.68 Senior staff from both AF and TAF reported that this has created uncertainty over whether the DCOP can act for the Chief of Party (COP). Findings: AF Capacity and Prospects for Sustainability Many of AF’s GEP staff members, particularly those working in the regional offices, have been with the organization for a very long time. AF staff in two group interviews reported that AF has played a key role in identifying what capacity building and training it requires, and that much of the capacity building provided by TAF has been at AF’s initiative, having identified the areas in which it required additional support. AF staff in three group interviews stated that AF is already technically capable of taking on responsibility for grant-making, although participants in one interview suggested that additional training in USAID compliance requirements would be required first, or would need to be provided by TAF on an ongoing basis. GEP staff in two group interviews expressed concern over AF’s financial ability to be responsible for the grant-making role in the absence of a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate and Letter of Credit. 68 USAID approved this model in which the project DCOP works for the prime’s sub-grantee. 30 Although there is no articulated process for how and when responsibility for tasks is transitioned from TAF to AF or how these decisions are communicated to staff for implementation, AF has taken on a greater role over time. The role AF plays in grant-making has grown over time. GEP staff members reported in three group interviews that AF staff members are increasingly involved in grant planning and program design, with the participation of AF’s regional staff in workshops to design grant cycle terms of reference, allowing for greater reflection of regional needs. AF staff are also increasingly engaged, jointly with TAF staff, in conducting due diligence of prospective grantees. There are certain aspects of grant-making in which AF has not yet engaged, however, such as setting award criteria and negotiating grants. While AF reports that the Grants Control Unit was established to take on this role, staff in one group interview noted AF does not have a unit preparing to take on this function. AF’s grant management responsibilities have also increased over time, although TAF still plays a role in post-award grant management, particularly with regard to finance and reviewing grantee reports. AF staff from both Islamabad and regional offices report that AF now conducts field financial monitoring of grant activities, in addition to the programmatic monitoring it has engaged in since the start of the Program. With the establishment of the Grants Control Unit in Year 2, AF also took responsibility for tracking and closing out grants.69 GEP’s grant documentation and reporting reflects challenges in data management. The grants database (Annex VI), the latest quarterly progress report, and a presentation provided to the evaluation team provide contradictory data on, for example, the number of grants awarded, distribution of grants among locations, and objectives. The policies and procedures used to implement GEP were developed specifically for the Program. Senior GEP staff in two interviews suggested that while the knowledge and experience gained would be useful in any future USAID-funded grants program, the specific structures and procedures may require refinement to be applicable. While both AF and TAF expect to continue to work together through GEP’s period of performance, some AF and TAF staff were not clear what roles TAF staff will play if grant-making responsibilities are transitioned to AF. There is uncertainty over whether TAF would continue to play a role in financial or compliance matters or whether these would solely be the responsibility of AF. At the time of this mid￾term evaluation, USAID was conducting a separate technical assessment of Aurat Foundation’s capacity to carry out these responsibilities independently. 69 Gender Equity Program, Second Annual Report, October 2011 – September 2012, p. 15. 31 CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSION: GEP’S RELEVANCE TO NCSW AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS70 GEP’s adaptations to the 18th Amendment and its long-established presence in the four provinces have allowed it to maintain relevance following the devolution of responsibility for women’s affairs. GEP’s objectives and its resultant implementation are directly relevant to NCSW’s priorities and many of the articulated gender priorities of the Balochistan, Punjab, and Sindh governments, specifically, regarding combating GBV and women’s economic empowerment. However, its relevance is due to the original Program design, as articulated in the Cooperative Agreement, because the changes GEP made post￾devolution were to its management structure, not its program design. GEP was not, however, well positioned to respond to significant turnover in NAF membership post￾elections, as there was no mechanism for orienting new members and passing on institutional memory. CONCLUSIONS: EFFECTIVENESS IN ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES GEP has had some, limited impact on Objective 1, Access to Justice, through its research component, which has informed NCSW policymaking. GEP's networking component has supported initiatives under this objective, though none has yet amounted to concrete change in this area. Nevertheless, NAF may end up supporting social changes as the only space in Pakistan for government representatives, politicians, representatives of civil society, and academia to discuss gender issues. GEP has had some important impact on Objective 2, Women's Empowerment. Through Objective 3 grants, GEP grantees helped women obtain CNICs, which presumably have opened women's access to economic opportunities and social services. NAF also participated in deliberations surrounding the creation of the Sindh Women's Development Department, and helped the Women's Development Departments understand their responsibilities after devolution. GEP has had the greatest impact to date on Objective 3, Combating GBV, which is not surprising since this objective also received the bulk of GEP's budget spent to date. GEP has increased the sustainability of shelter provision to GBV victims through its grants to organizations providing shelters and ensuring continued funding for the Benazir Bhutto Crisis Centers. Research the Program funded has stimulated further research on trafficking and practices leading to GBV, articles, and a student seminar, which will hopefully increase awareness of the problems. GEP has strengthened the Sindh Women's Development Department's capacity to address GBV, as the Department used GEP's GBV strategy to develop its own. Finally, the PGC conducted its only activities to date in support of this objective, by conducting advocacy events around GBV. Contributing to Objective 4, Capacity Building, GEP has increased grantees' capacity to conduct gender activities simply through grant implementation and monitoring. Most significantly, grantees have become more sensitized to gender because of GEP and they have hired additional female employees, thereby also contributing to Objective 2. Capacity built seems to be sustainable in some cases because grantees used their learning to successfully obtain additional donor funding. Of critical importance to achieving the Program's goal, NAF helped Women's Development Departments understand their responsibilities after devolution, without which the Departments might not be functioning. 70 Evaluation Question 1: GEP’s relevance to NCSW and Provincial Governments in light of the 18th Amendment and 2013 elections. 32 However, GEP has not used its research on the capacity of various Pakistani organizations to inform Program capacity building activities, which is a missed opportunity for synergy among components that could significantly boost contribution to all of GEP's objectives. In addition, critical grant implementation trainings, like branding and marking, were not provided in some cases until grantees were well into implementation, thereby limiting training impact. The remainder of this section is organized by GEP component, since conclusions and resulting recommendations can most usefully be made on a component-by-component basis to improve the cumulative impact on GEP's objectives. CONCLUSIONS: EFFECTIVENESS OF SMALL GRANTS COMPONENT71 GEP’s grant design and management contribute to the implementation challenges noted by grantees, particularly standardization of budgets within provinces and limited timeframes. GEP’s approach to grant￾making makes it difficult to capitalize on successes from previous cycles. The different emphases of successive cycles make it difficult for a successful grantee to apply for a grant to build on their previous work. GEP has not encouraged replication and scaling up of successful grant initiatives, as allowed for in its cooperative agreement. CONCLUSIONS: SEAMLESS SERVICE DELIVERY TO GBV VICTIMS THROUGH SMALL GRANTS72 GEP’s grant and program design is not optimized to support the provision of coordinated services. Specifically:  GEP’s seamless service delivery grants do not support the provision of all services that a GBV victim requires. For example, legal aid is not provided through the service delivery grants.  Grantee targets and start and end dates have not been well-aligned within grant clusters, making it difficult for grantees to efficiently provide coordinated services.  Grant design did not always reflect realities on the ground, and some grantees reported insufficient budgets.  Grants have been too short to allow grantees to develop deep linkages with one another and other service providers, build trust with communities, and identify which aspects of their activities are working well and what actions could increase sustainability beyond the end of the grant. Grantees have found coordination challenging, as GEP did not provide a clear mechanism for how to effectively and efficiently coordinate or directly support grantees to develop coordination mechanisms themselves (for example, through facilitated planning workshops or through support for the development of memorandums of understanding).  The lack of a clear mechanism for coordinating services makes seamless delivery more challenging where grantees do not have any prior connection.  GEP has not shared with grantees a clearly articulated model for seamless service delivery, which has resulted in different stakeholders having different understandings of the level and type of coordination required among grantees. 71 Evaluation Question 2: Effectiveness in approach of small grants, research, networking and capacity building. 72 Evaluation Question 3: The extent to which GEP’s small grants approach provides coordinated services. 33  GEP’s grant management practices do not best support the provision of coordinated services. Grantees within a cluster may report to multiple grant holders, which creates delays in communication and makes coordination more difficult. CONCLUSIONS: EFFECTIVENESS OF RESEARCH COMPONENT73 GEP’s research has helped inform discussion on all four objectives to varying extents. It is not clear whether GEP has utilized its own policy research beyond the initial scoping studies, however, to inform its own programming. For instance, the Assessment of the Capacity of Women Development Departments makes specific recommendations for strengthening each department. GEP has not issued grants to address the gaps identified and it has not worked with the NCSW or other government institutions to develop plans for addressing those outside GEP’s mandate (such as drafting legislation). CONCLUSIONS: EFFECTIVENESS OF NETWORKING COMPONENT74 The National Advisory Forum has contributed directly or indirectly to all GEP objectives, most often indirectly through the engagement mechanism it provides. It has also contributed to national- and provincial-level government decision-making on gender-related issues. The extent to which the Forum’s advice contributed directly to GEP programming decisions, however, is not clear. Fifteen months after it was launched, the Pakistan Gender Coalition has not yet evolved into a network capable of achieving the objectives outlined for it in the GEP Cooperative Agreement, due in large part to delays in funding. While grantees expect the coalition to provide a useful coordination mechanism, continued uncertainty over the coalition’s role, structure, and membership indicates that further planning and discussion is required. CONCLUSIONS: EFFECTIVENESS OF CAPACITY BUILDING COMPONENT75 Implementing GEP grants improves the capacity of grantees operating at the district level, even when capacity building is not the grant’s intended outcome. GEP’s monitoring and evaluation processes provide capacity building support throughout the grants’ duration. While GEP’s pre- and post-award orientation sessions provide a useful introduction to grant requirements and regulations, grantee-specific capacity building plans, such as those envisioned by the Capacity Building Unit, would allow for the provision of more detailed, relevant training opportunities. While implementing grants helps improve the capacity of local-level grantees, offering capacity building support to non-grantees as well as grantees dilutes the capacity building impacts GEP is able to have. 73 Evaluation Question 2: Effectiveness in approach of small grants, research, networking, and capacity building. 74 Evaluation Question 2: Effectiveness in approach of small grants, research, networking, and capacity building. 75 Evaluation Question 2: Effectiveness in approach of small grants, research, networking, and capacity building. 34 CONCLUSIONS: INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT 76 The USAID–AF relationship allows AF to take a lead role in programmatic development. This has allowed AF to take ownership in determining the Program’s direction, but it is not clear that GEP’s implementation has always operationalized the strategy described in the Cooperative Agreement. USAID’s approval of grant applications before grant negotiation, rather than afterwards, may have contributed to the implementation challenges grantees face, particularly with regard to the lack of flexibility in grant negotiation and some of the challenges with achieving seamless service delivery, such as targets and start and end dates not being aligned within clusters. While USAID’s limited direct engagement with the National Advisory Forum helps ensure that the Forum retains its independence and is able to openly discuss sensitive issues, this lack of direct engagement may have contributed to Forum members’ uncertainty as to whether GEP uses the Forum’s advice to inform programming decisions. TAF has built AF capacity to conduct most aspects of grant-making and grant management. Additional work remains to be done, however, in building capacity to manage relationships with grantees and with regard to data management and reporting. As AF has many long-serving staff, those who have benefited from capacity building under GEP are likely to continue to be involved with AF in the future. The lack of a clear vision for what grant-making responsibilities AF will be expected to take on, or when, is reflected in the lack of a clear process for deciding when and how responsibilities for tasks should be transitioned from TAF to AF. In addition, managing Islamabad-based staff from both AF and TAF offices has created program management challenges with regard to the DCOP role, as it has limited the extent to which the DCOP can provide day-to-day management support to the COP and act on the COP’s behalf. The fact that GEP has not used its own research on institutional capacities to inform its capacity building activities, that grantee training has lost some effectiveness over time, and that GEP has failed to capitalize on previous grant cycles and manage inter-linked grant activities well, suggest that perhaps GEP has been taking on more than it can handle under the existing management structure. 76 Evaluation Question 4: GEP’s partnership of AF and TAF for performance and building sustainability in AF 35 RECOMMENDATIONS GEP should review its grant design and management processes against the Program Matrix to, where possible, address the implementation challenges identified by grantees. Specific recommendations include:  Appointing a single grant holder for seamless service delivery grantees within a single cluster;  Ensuring all grantees are provided with branding and marking training in a timely manner;  Increasing further the role of GEP regional staff in budget and grant development to ensure grant implementation plans and budgets reflect local realities;  Allowing grantees to play a greater role in grant negotiation and not standardizing budgets across a province, which will ensure grant implementation plans and budgets reflect local realities; and,  Making it easier for grantees that successfully implemented previous GEP activities to be awarded another grant. USAID should consider reviewing and approving detailed Letters of Grant and budgets following grant negotiation, rather than concept papers and budget ceilings prior to negotiation. Greater USAID involvement in the review and approval process could help address some of the implementation challenges noted by grantees. The potential bottleneck this could create could be avoided by issuing grants outside thematic grant cycles, so that grants were awarded throughout the year, rather than at several specific points. GEP should consider how to increase the likelihood that its policy research will be used. This could take the form of supporting workshops or other facilitation activities with relevant ministries and line departments to familiarize them with GEP’s research or providing technical assistance to increase their capacity to use research to inform policy development. GEP should respond to the recommendations made in the research it commissions, identifying what actions could be taken through its grants program or through coordination with other stakeholders. GEP should develop a work plan with timeframes for the effective establishment of the Pakistan Gender Coalition. This should be undertaken as soon as possible to maintain grantee engagement, and so GEP can play an active role in supporting the Coalition in its formative years to increase the likelihood that it will be sustainable. GEP should develop and implement a strategy to support the timely and continuous in-depth orientation and follow-up of new NAF members and the handover of information about the Forum and its work. GEP should examine whether it would be appropriate to articulate a role for former Forum members, either in the Forum or supporting the Forum, at the national and/or provincial level to ensure seamless transition so projects continue as planned. Evaluation Question 3 sought to determine how the Program’s approach to provide coordinated services to achieve seamless service delivery could be improved, or what alternatives could be explored. Two main approaches, which are not mutually exclusive, are possible for ensuring GBV victims receive all the services they need and that service providers are collectively and individually accountable for providing multiple services, particularly for victims of GBV. Approach 1: GEP continues to award individual grants providing one service each, but issues Letters of Grant that provide a framework for joint accountability among grantees and to GEP. These could require grantees within a cluster to meet with each other and GEP’s grant holder(s) at the start of the grant period to develop a joint work plan for delivering multiple services as well as a set of standard operating procedures for coordination, which will clarify who will do what, and ensure that all their reports to GEP include a section on their common achievements in seamless service delivery. 36 Approach 2: GEP decides that service delivery grants will be awarded only to consortia of applicants demonstrating the willingness and ability to cooperate with each other in providing multiple services. In this case, too, GEP could require grant applicants to fulfill the same requirements for joint accountability and coordination mentioned above. The main advantages of this approach include evidence of the willingness among grantees to work with each other and the efficiency of management for GEP by virtue of having to deal formally with only one (lead) grantee, which will assume the role of coordinator among multiple grantees. Regardless of which approach is used, GEP should consider giving more room and flexibility to grantees in setting grant budget ceiling and duration. In addition, GEP should develop a communications strategy that includes fostering a sense of partnership and ownership with all stakeholders, including government and nongovernment sub-grantees. To achieve this GEP should:  Develop, and share with grantees, a clear model for seamless service delivery to GBV victims. This model should clearly articulate the ‘cluster’ approach, the model’s relationship to GEP’s GBV strategy, what services are to be provided within a cluster, and how grantees are expected to work together on the basis of joint work plans and reporting. The model should be capable of being tailored to reflect the needs of a specific location (for example, one grantee might provide more than one service in a specific location).  Consult with government and civil society stakeholders to determine what services should be provided within a ‘cluster’ to ensure comprehensive coordination of services is supported.  Consider how to ensure shelter and access to police and legal aid for GBV victims through GEP grants.  Award longer grants to allow grantees sufficient time to develop deep linkages with each other and other service providers, build trust with communities, and identify which aspects of their activities are working well and what actions could increase sustainability beyond the end of the grant. GEP staff and USAID should continue to work together to clarify expectations regarding TAF’s involvement in GEP following the transition of grant-making responsibilities to AF, and when this might be expected to take place. GEP should develop a clear process for determining how decisions are made regarding transitioning responsibilities for specific tasks from TAF to AF, and how this is communicated to staff. This should include clear guidelines for what decisions will be made by the Grants Management Committee, and what decisions will be made by the Program Steering Committee. Before grant-making transitions to AF, TAF should further build AF’s capacities in relationship management with grantees and data management. USAID may also wish to review the current splitting of staffing between the prime and sub-grantee, particularly as it relates to the DCOP position. 37 ANNEXES ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK GENDER EQUITY PROGRAM EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK GENDER EQUITY PROGRAM (GEP) EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK 38 ACRONYMS AF Aurat Foundation AJK Azad Jammu and Kashmir CAOs Civic Advocacy Organizations CBOs Community-Based Organizations COP Chief of Party CSCs Civil Society Coalitions GBV Gender-Based Violence GEP Gender Equity Program GMC Grants Management Committee GOP Government of Pakistan KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa MEP Monitoring and Evaluation Program MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSI Management Systems International NAF National Advisory Forum NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations PGC Pakistan Gender Coalition PSC Program Steering Committee SOW Statement of Work TAF The Asia Foundation TORs Terms of Reference USAID United States Agency for International Development 39 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Identifying Information about the Project The five-year, United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded Gender Equity Program (GEP) aims to advance women’s rights and empowerment. GEP supports the Government of Pakistan’s (GOP) gender policies including the National Plan of Action for Women, National Policy for Empowerment and Development of Women, and Gender Reform Action Plans. The table below summarizes key facts about GEP. TABLE 1: PROJECT SUMMARY Project Name/ Title Gender Equity Program Cooperative Agreement Number 391-A-00-10-01162-00 Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) Rabia Akhtar(Ms.), Gender Advisor (Civil Society) Project Start Date August 18, 2010 Project Completion Date August 15, 2015 Project Location Nationwide USAID Objective Addressed Cross-cutting Objective – IR2: Increased gender equity Name of Implementing Organization  Prime Cooperative Partner: Aurat Publication and Information Service Foundation (AF)  Sub-contractor: The Asia Foundation (TAF) Budget $ 40.0 million B. Development Context 1. Problem or Opportunity Addressed Women’s empowerment is a cornerstone of a country’s social and economic growth and development. With Pakistan’s history of largely patriarchal gender relations coupled with regressive attitudes towards women, Pakistani women have faced an uphill battle in their pursuit of empowerment and equal rights. This struggle gained new momentum during the 1980s, when Women Action Forums were formed in various parts of the country to protest against discriminatory laws including the Hudood Ordinance77 and Law of Evidence78 , 79 . 77 The GOP issued the Hudood Ordinance in 1979 under Zia-ul-Haq’s regime to implement Islamic laws in Pakistan. The ordinance requires women to prove they are victims of rape, and not adulterers. It is considered to be one of the most discriminatory laws against women as it confuses the victim of a rape with an adulterer. 78 In 1984 Zia-ul-Haq issued the Law of Evidence which states that the value of the women's testimony should be considered only half of a man's. The Law of Evidence also affected women in rape cases in that they were unable to prove the crime had been committed against them. 79 Women Living Under Muslim Laws: Dossier 3 – Women’s Movement in Pakistan: State, Class, Gender. http://www.wluml.org/node/241. 40 Since then, many civil society organizations have emerged that work specifically for women in various spheres.80 The Women’s Protection Act and recent laws against sexual harassment at work have provided some relief for women. However, the overlapping systems of laws, practices, and customs (i.e., feudal and tribal practices, Indo-British laws, Shariah law, Islamic practices, and regional codified and un-codified norms and traditions) create a contradictory environment for women’s rights. One set of practices or laws may appear to offset another. For example, while women can inherit under Islamic law, feudal and tribal practices often oblige women to “waive” these rights in favor of their brothers.81 Another important dimension of discrimination against women is Gender Based Violence (GBV), which also contributes to low indicators of women’s development in Pakistan. The issue is widespread and includes domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment, trafficking, honor killing and forced marriages. GBV reflects gender based inequalities and poses threats to women’s rights to live with freedom and agency.82 In response to these problems, GEP awards sub-grants to public and private sector entities to improve attitudes and behavior towards women and their concerns, to expand women’s access to justice, to increase women’s awareness of and opportunities to exercise their rights, to strengthen the capacity of women rights organizations, and to contribute to a productive discourse on gender equity within Pakistan. The project objectives, therefore, contribute to USAID’s cross-cutting objectives related to Gender and Democracy and Governance in the Mission Strategic Framework. 2. Target Areas and Groups GEP provides grants ranging from US$25,000 to US$500,00083 to Pakistani public and private sector institutions throughout the country and expects to award approximately 400 grants over a period of 5 years. To date, grant recipients have included:  Government departments and institutions;  Policy think tanks;  Academic research and training institutions;  Professional and business associations;  Media;  Civic Advocacy Organizations (CAOs);  Civil Society Coalitions (CSCs);  Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs); and  Community-Based Organizations (CBOs). 80 Gender Equity Program, Annual Report: August 2010 – September 2011 81 Gender Equity Program, Annual Report: August 2010 – September 2011 82 www.af.org.pk, www. nidapakistan.org 83 Generally the maximum size of GEP grants is $200,000. Grants amounting $500,000 are applicable only to the GOP on an exceptional basis. 41 C. Project Description The overarching goals of GEP are to facilitate behavioral change to increase citizens’ active participation in the process of social change and governance; enable women to access information, resources and institutions and gain greater control over their lives; and improve peoples’ attitudes and behavior towards women and their concerns. To achieve this, GEP pursues four primary objectives:84 5. Enhancing gender equity by expanding women's access to justice and human rights. 6. Increasing women's empowerment by expanding knowledge of and opportunities to exercise their rights in the workplace, community and home. 7. Combating gender-based violence (GBV). 8. Strengthening the capacity of Pakistani organizations that advocate for gender equity, women's empowerment and the elimination of GBV. The outputs that contribute to each of these objectives are articulated in a Program Matrix (see Annex 1), which, in the absence of a results framework, organizes aims, requirements, activities and actions for each objective in a grid. It outlines the expected outputs against each objective, lists activities, and provides program targets for three years. The design of the Program Matrix clearly identifies a list of activities, which is updated annually. The matrix helps GEP in setting its direction for implementing planned activities. D. Approach and Implementation The Aurat Foundation (AF) functions in a project management role for GEP by providing grants to a variety of civil society actors working in the areas of gender equity and human rights. GEP awards that improve coalition building efforts, facilitate the formation of strategic alliances and partnerships, enable cost sharing among partners and support and complement other USAID/Pakistan activities are especially encouraged. In order to support GEP, AF:  receives and logs proposals,  vets potential sub-grant recipients,  ensures that proper administrative and financial controls are in place to administer funds and that applicable regulations are complied with,  coordinates a review and approval process with USAID’s representative for this program,  monitors and reports upon grant implementation, and  provides limited capacity building support to GEP grantees, where necessary and appropriate.85 GEP’s primary activities are awarding sub-grants and capacity building. In addition, supporting activities will ensure the program’s visibility, map the current state of gender empowerment in Pakistan, and facilitate the measurement and evaluation of behavioral change vis a vis the program’s objectives.86 Particularly regarding Objective 3, GEP has developed a comprehensive strategy of providing “seamless service” grants aimed at providing the whole range of GBV-related services to victims from helpline, through police and courts, to empowerment and rehabilitation in society. The over-arching objective is to establish a 84 GEP Brochure provided by the AF. 85 GEP Cooperative Agreement. 86 Ibid, p. 26. 42 system which leads to the full rehabilitation and self-fulfillment of female victims and survivors in society. The implementation of the strategy requires a chain of institutions and processes at all levels which fit into a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ to help GBV survivors to move easily through the components in a sequential manner. The services need trained personnel at each stage, coordinated services and an enabling environment which fosters action and results.87 GEP conducts three or more grant cycles each year and expects to award approximately 400 sub-grants over a five-year period. Each grant cycle has a specific theme designed to fit in the broader context of GEP’s overarching goals and objectives. The themes associated with each grant cycle during the project’s first two years of operations are:  Cycle 1: Rapid Response  Cycle 2: Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building of Critical Partners and Stakeholders, and GBV-Focused Media Campaigns  Cycle 3: Supporting Women’s CNIC Registration  Cycle 4: Supporting 4-Month Campaign on Gender-based Violence  Cycle 5: Supporting Women’s CNIC Registration  Cycle 6: Combating Gender-Based Violence The proposed grant cycles for year three are:  Cycle 7: Enhance Women’s Empowerment  Cycle 8: Access to Justice  Cycle 9: Combating Gender-based Violence In cycle 6 GEP began to implement Objective 3, combating GBV through a seamless service delivery approach. By doing so, GEP does not intend to create parallel structures and institutions, but instead strengthen the systems and services already in place and link them together to increase their outreach, efficiency and effectiveness. This includes providing trained personnel at each stage of the rehabilitation process, and coordinated mechanisms to achieve an enabling environment that allows GEP to track survivors and support their needs from identification to rehabilitation.88 In order to implement this approach, two study tours to Nepal and Kenya were organized by GEP and included representatives from the judiciary, public and private shelter homes, medical-legal unit of a government hospital, non-profit organizations, lawyers and GEP staff members. The purpose was to understand and amalgamate best practices from around the world to support victims and survivors of GBV in Pakistan.89 The program also helps women’s rights organizations enhance their effectiveness by building their capacities in areas such as institutional, infrastructure, and leadership development, coalition building, advocacy, and public outreach. GEP classifies sub-grants into two distinct categories: 1. Non-competitive grants: GEP makes these sub-grants to government ministries, departments and institutions related to women’s advancement and empowerment on a cooperative basis. 87 GEP Workplan for Year 2 88 GEP Workplan for Year 2 89 GEP Annual Report for Year 2, October ,2011 – September, 2012 43 GEP has been working with the GOP to bring about behavioral change at all levels, from federal involvement in legislative reform to provincial and district initiatives to support its implementation. The project is also building the capacity of GOP’s gender related departments in order to develop policies and mainstream gender. GEP seeks to target interactions and partnerships with federal, provincial and district governments, down to the union council level where appropriate.90 2. Competitive grants: GEP awards competitive sub-grants to NGOs, CBOs, public sector universities, academic institutions, etc. on a biannual basis. All GEP grants fall into four distinct tiers: Tier 1: Below $ 25,000 Tier 2: up to $75,000 Tier 3: up to $200,000 Tier 4: up to $500,00091 The majority of GEP sub-grants have been competitive.92 GEP solicits competitive grant proposals quarterly by placing requests for proposals along with detailed Terms of Reference (TORs) in leading national and regional newspapers and on the AF website. GEP then conducts information and orientation sessions at specified locations throughout Pakistan where it provides a detailed overview of the TORs and application procedures to prospective grantees in both national and local languages. Depending on the nature of the activities, the duration of each grant is stated in the TORs of each grant cycle and finalized during the selection process. So far, GEP has not awarded any grant for less than nine months or more than two years. Non-competitive grants are designed to facilitate public participation in public-private partnerships; engaging public institutions at the federal, provincial and district levels. In the spirit of ensuring inclusion and ownership of the program within the governments, GEP provides non-competitive grants to many of the key government departments and institutions associated with women’s rights, providing services to women, and/or undertaking policy research on women’s issues. GEP collaborates with interested government units to develop concept papers and proposals that form the basis for the sub-grants. GEP has also created a Gender Fund, which provides grants to a range of organizations in order to carry out research, advocacy and implementation initiatives for projects promoting women’s empowerment. It provides funds to carry out research on gender issues within Pakistan, which informs and guides the program strategy and approach to achieving the objectives. Research is being carried out by a range of institutions and individuals, including universities, think tanks and policy research institutions. Research initiatives also include the collation of data, analysis of current levels of empowerment, obstacles to empowerment, the roles of culture and religion and other areas relevant to gender issues.93 GEP operates its outreach program functions through the head office in Islamabad, a regional office in each province, and a liaison office in Gilgit Baltistan. The map below shows GEP’s outreach based on the location of grant recipients. 90 GEP Cooperative Agreement. 91 This tier of GEP grants will be applicable to non-competitive grants on an exceptional basis. 92 Aurat Foundation Funds Control Sheet Cycle1, Cycle II, Cycle III, Cycle IV and Cycle V Consolidate as on September 30, 2012. 93 GEP Cooperative Agreement. 44 FIGURE 1: GEP OUTREACH 1. Management Structure The GEP management structure consists of a National Advisory Forum (NAF), a Program Steering Committee (PSC), a Grants Management Committee (GMC), and GEP staff. These bodies play the roles described below: The NAF acts as a national-level advisory body to spearhead GEP. It provides consultation regarding broader gender equity strategies, issues guidelines for on-going cooperation with USAID, and ensures that GEP aligns with federal and provincial governments’ gender priorities. The PSC designs the GEP strategy, reviews and approves TORs for all sub-grants before they are advertised, reviews and recommends all grant proposals from the GMC before they go to USAID for final approval, identifies emerging concerns and issues related to women’s equality and gender mainstreaming, and maintains the project’s focus on results. The AF Chief Operating Officer (COO) chairs the PSC, which is convened by the GEP Chief of Party (COP). Representatives of The Asia Foundation (TAF) and AF attend the PSC as active participants, while USAID officials participate as observers. The GMC implements the GEP work plan, sets periodic guidelines and targets for the project, controls all activities related to sub-grants, develops GEP grant cycles , proposes sub-grants to the PSC, develops TORs 45 for grant cycles and sub-grants, and works with the government to develop non-competitive sub-grants. It is chaired by the AF’s COP and attended by members from both AF and TAF. 2. Current Status of Activities In its first two years of operation, GEP awarded 14594 sub-grants in six grant cycles, with 38 sub-grants in Tier 1, 89 in Tier 2, and 18 in Tier 3. Tables 3 and 4 show sub-grants awarded by GEP objectives and location, respectively.95 TABLE 2: GEP SUB-GRANTS BY OBJECTIVE96 Objectives Year 1 (N=57) Year 2 (N=94) Gender equity 14% 1% Women’s empowerment 28% 2% Gender-based violence 44% 90% Capacity building 14% 7% Total 100% 100% * Sub-grants for Year 3 are planned and have not been awarded yet. TABLE 3: GEP SUB-GRANTS BY LOCATION Location Year 1 (N=57) Year 2 (N=94) National 24% 5% Punjab 21% 25% Sindh 16% 24% Balochistan 25% 19% KP 12% 15% Gilgit Baltistan 2% 3% Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) 0 7% Total 100% 100% 2. RATIONALE FOR EVALUATION The Gender Equity Program (GEP) is about half-way into its five-year period of implementation. Sufficient time remains to adapt the program approach to improve performance. Based on its knowledge of the project to date, USAID has some specific questions about performance. These questions involve the effectiveness of the grants approach and the prospects for achieving seamless service delivery (i.e., coordinated services across grantees within specific localities). The political and institutional landscape in which the project is operating has also changed dramatically since the project began. The 18th Constitutional Amendment in Pakistan devolved some ministries, including the Ministry of Women Development, from the national to the provincial level. Furthermore, Pakistan elected new federal and provincial governments in early 2013. These changes in key stakeholders raise questions about the continued relevance of GEP’s objectives to the current governments’ priorities. 94 This total does not include awards to six sub-grantees that USAID has approved but GEP has not yet disbursed. 95 PowerPoint presentation about project background by the AF. 96 It should be noted that the distribution of funds across the four project objectives shifts from year to year. 46 Finally, GEP is implemented under a cooperative agreement between USAID and the Aurat Publication and Information Service Foundation (AF), a local NGO. The Asia Foundation (TAF), an international NGO, is a subcontractor to AF and is expected to play a declining role over time as AF gains capacity, particularly in grants management. The evaluation will assess these partnerships - for the USAID-AF partnership, arrangements between USAID and AF outside of the cooperative agreements (e.g. TORs of Grants Management Committee, NAF, etc.) and their impact on planning and management of sub-grants and timely oversight of project activities will be examined; Secondly, for the AF-TAF partnership, the evaluation will examine whether TAF was able to build capacity of Aurat Foundation for grant making and management. To address these objectives, the evaluation will:  assess the relevance of project goals and objectives to the priorities of the current federal and provincial governments of Pakistan particularly in light of changes associated with the 18th Amendment;  examine the effectiveness of the project approach, in terms of achieving project objectives, particularly seamless service delivery, and contributing to USAID expected results; and  assess the effectiveness of the project’s partnership arrangements between USAID and AF and between AF and TAF in terms of project management and capacity building. In addition, USAID would like to know whether these partnership arrangements can provide a good model for future projects. Results of the evaluation will inform possible decisions about the project’s management and approach, particularly related to:  adaptation of the project’s design to improve relevance in light of changes in the political and institutional landscape;  revision of the approach and specific activities to improve performance, enhance seamless service delivery and ensure sustainability; and  modifications to the partnership arrangements between USAID and AF and between AF and TAF to reflect lessons learned to date about how well these partnerships reflect current realities and the needs and capacities of the partners. A. Evaluation Questions The following five questions will guide the evaluation: 1. Evaluation Question 1: To what extent are GEP’s goals and objectives (as articulated in its Program Matrix) and implementation (i.e., activities) relevant to the priorities of NCSW and provincial governments of Pakistan, particularly in light of changes in provincial responsibilities for women’s issues brought about by the 18th Constitutional Amendment and the recent change in government? a. Question 1.2: To what extent has the project adapted its approach to maintain relevance in light of the changes in context mentioned in question 1, and did the adaptations contribute to maintaining relevance? Explanation: The GOP devolved responsibility for many women’s development issues to the provinces shortly after GEP began. Furthermore, Pakistanis elected new federal and provincial governments in early 2013. This question examines whether the project’s goals, objectives, and activities are still relevant to the priorities and needs of key stakeholders in light of these changes. 2. Evaluation Question 2: To what extent do GEP’s components of small grants, research, networking, and capacity building (as a collective approach) contribute to achieving the project objectives of improving women’s access to justice, expanding knowledge of and opportunities to exercise their 47 rights, combating gender-based violence (GBV), and building the capacity of Pakistani organizations that work on gender issues? Explanation: This question focuses on the contribution of each component to all four objectives, including any synergies that might be evident, and whether and to what extent the aggregated effect of the components has facilitated achieving project objectives. 3. Evaluation Question 3: To what extent does the project’s approach to provide multiple grants enhance provision of coordinated services to the extent they have already been implemented, to achieve seamless service delivery? How could it be improved or what are the alternatives? Explanation: In its examination of the grants mechanism, the evaluation will pay particular attention to whether the current grants mechanism is fostering seamless service delivery97 (i.e., coordinated services across grantees within specific localities.) 4. Evaluation Question 4: To what extent are the existing partnership arrangements between AF and TAF and between AF and USAID consistent with maximizing performance and prospects for sustainability in terms of AF having the capacity to independently maintain a focus on its GEP objectives, and are changes warranted? If changes are warranted, what specific changes could improve performance and the prospects for sustainability of results? Explanation: This question should examine the effectiveness of partnerships between USAID and AF and between AF and TAF. For the USAID-AF partnership, partnership arrangements between USAID and AF outside of the cooperative agreements (e.g. TORs of Grants Management Committee, NAF etc.) and their impact on planning and management of sub-grants and timely oversight of project activities will be examined. For the AF-TAF partnership, the evaluation will examine whether TAF was able to build capacity of Aurat Foundation for grant making. 3. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A. Evaluation Process The evaluation process will entail:  A review of documents, including those listed in section 3.B.;  Finalizing a focus group discussion guide and individual interview and group interview instruments;  collecting and analyzing data; and  Preparing an evaluation report. Team members will review background documents before assembling in Islamabad and ensure that they are familiar with all aspects of the project and to extract information relevant to answering the evaluation questions. They will incorporate any relevant information into the Getting to Answers (G2A) matrix, which outlines the anticipated evaluation approach by evaluation question and identifies gaps in the information 97 USAID views the entire Gender Equity Project as working toward achieving seamless service delivery. Each grant cycle contributes another piece to the puzzle that will ultimately provide an inter-linked service delivery system for women in Pakistan, particularly victims of gender-based violent, that ensures their awareness of and access to services ranging from the justice system to economic opportunities. Aurat Foundation, in contrast, focuses particularly on those grant cycles that explicitly address seamless service delivery. 48 available for answering the evaluation questions. In addition, team members will draft initial sections of the report. As soon as the evaluation team comes together in Islamabad, MEP will facilitate a Team Planning Meeting, which will include the following main tasks:  Review the evaluation SOW including the methodology and G2A matrix;  Review available information and gaps identified by team member in the G2A matrix and refine data collection plans and design and finalize data collection instruments;  Identify any changes that may be required in the SOW with the approval of MEP and USAID;  Discuss USAID and MSI evaluation standards and requirements, including, in particular, the evaluation logic that links findings, conclusions and recommendations;  Assemble and review the initial sections of the report, various sections of which will be written by different team members;  Determine roles and responsibilities within the team and between the team and MEP staff, including for report writing;  Plan field work with inputs from MEP staff responsible for security and travel; and  Meet with USAID and the implementing partners. Following the Team Planning Meeting, the team will begin fieldwork. To the extent possible, the team will also begin initial data analysis and report writing while in the field. At the conclusion of the fieldwork, team members will transition into data analysis and report writing under the direction of the team leader and with continuing guidance from MEP staff. During the data analysis and report writing process, the team will discuss initial findings and tentative conclusions with USAID and the implementing partners in a debriefing session. Implementers may provide additional information, help correct factual errors in the evaluation findings and provide feedback on conclusions. The team will incorporate feedback from USAID and the implementing partners in preparing the draft report. USAID, at its discretion, can share the report with the implementing partners for additional feedback. The team leader, with inputs from MEP, will then prepare a final report that incorporates comments from USAID and the implementing partners. B. Existing Data GEP maintains a comprehensive database, which includes key project documents, baseline and monitoring data, and a number of background articles. Documents on project operations include, but are not limited to: Program Documents:  Gender Equity Program (GEP) Brochures  GEP Newsletters a. August 2010 – July 2011, b. July – December 2011, c. January – March 2012, d. April – June 2012, e. July – September 2012  Annual Work Plan (August, 2010 – September, 2011) 49  Annual Work Plan (October, 2011 – September, 2012)  Annual Report Year 1 (August 2010 – September 2011)  Draft Annual Report Year 2 (October 2011 – September 2012)  Program Matrices (Year 1, 2, 3)  List of Sub-Grantees  Gender Equity Program Presentation  Annex 4: Program Monitoring and Evaluation Plan  Quarterly Progress Reports a. October – December 2010, b. January – March 2011, c. July – September 2011, d. October – December 2011, e. January – March 2012  GEP Annual Events 2011  Community Engagements and Annual Events 2012 Administrative Documents:  Cooperative Agreement between USAID and Aurat Foundation, Aug 2010  List of National Advisory Forum Members  List of Consultants of GEP  Gender Equity Program SOW  Action Memorandum for the Director USAID/Pakistan  GEP Engagement with community under grant cycle 4  GEP Give-aways  Program Steering Committee Meetings: Nov, Dec 2010, Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May 2011 Grants Management Documents:  Solicitation Manual Oct 2010  Pre-Grant Orientation Workshops  Post Award Implementation Protocols: GEP, 2012 Selected Grants Files of Sub-Grantees  Women Social Organization  Grass Root Organization for Human Development  Four Corner Groups Pvt. Ltd, Vol.1  Four Corner Groups Pvt. Ltd, Vol.2 50  Community Support Concern (Grant Cycle 4)  Creative village  University of Punjab (Grant Cycle 2)  External Evaluations  Legal Rights Forum (Grant Cycle 2)  Centre of Excellence – University of Karachi  Interflow Communication Private Limited (Grant Cycle 2)  Financial Documents  Health and Nutrition Development Society (HANDS), (Grant Cycle 4)  Government Institutes Network International (Grant cycle 1)  Society of Uplifting Community  Women Welfare Organization Poonch (Grant Cycle 4)  Devolution Trust for Community Empowerment (Grant Cycle 4), Vol.1  Devolution Trust for Community Empowerment (Grant Cycle 4), Vol.2  Devolution Trust for Community Empowerment (Grant Cycle 5) Reference Material/Reports:  Combating GBV Strategy: GEP  Findings of Baseline Survey: GEP  National Commission on the Status of Women Vol.1 Jan-Apr 2012 (Newsletter)  National Commission on the Status of Women Vol.2, 2012  United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, Aug 2012  Implementation of the United States National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, Aug 2012  Counter-Trafficking in Persons: Policy – USAID, 2013  Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy – USAID, Jan 2012  United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally- USAID, 2012  Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Coordination of Policies and Programs to Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women and Girls Globally  Women’s Manifesto 2013 by Blue Veins  Other relevant project documents. This SOW is not actionable unless MEP is provided with all background material. C. Data Collection Methods The evaluation questions focus broadly on assessing the relevance and effectiveness of the program design, especially the grants-based approach, in meeting the program objectives. Neither of these avenues of inquiry lend themselves well to quantitative analysis nor is much relevant quantitative data available. Therefore, the 51 evaluation will rely largely on project records (including baseline results, if applicable) and primary qualitative data collected through focus group discussions, group interviews, and individual interviews described below. After the Team Planning Meeting, the evaluation team will conduct:  Individual interviews (one-on-one) with members of Ministries of Women Development, staff of National and Provincial Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW), activists and universities in all provinces and Gilgit Baltistan. Other individuals will be interviewed in Islamabad, including current and previous members of the parliament, Ministry of Human Rights, Devolution Trust for Community Empowerment (DTCE), National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW), other international donors (e.g. Oxfam, DFID, U.N. Women), and expert(s) on the 18th Constitutional Amendment. The individual interviews, along with capturing the project experience from the perspective of various stakeholders, will also focus on the aftermath of the 18th Amendment as well as priorities of the past and current governments.  Group interviews of 2-4 participants with AF and TAF staff involved in program implementation and grants management and members of GEP committees including the National Advisory Forum (NAF), Grants Management Committee (GMC) and Program Steering Committee (PSC). These will be conducted in Islamabad and will focus on the ongoing adaptations in project design and the relevance and effectiveness of the grants model and GEP activities in contributing to the overall project goal.  Focus Group Discussions will draw sub-grantees from all provinces and focus on GEP’s design, in general, and the grants model, in particular. The discussions will capture issues such as sub-grantees’ experience and emerging development needs in national and provincial contexts especially after the 18th Amendment. The aim is to gain an in-depth understanding of the effectiveness of the design in addressing the gender related issues in Pakistan. Each focus group discussion is expected to involve 8-12 representatives from sub-grantees. The evaluation team will select sub-grantees to participate in the discussions purposively to represent the diversity of sub￾grant awards over regions, objectives, grant cycles and tiers with the following exceptions:  For sub-grantees operating at the national level, data will be collected through individual interviews, instead of focus group discussions.  For sub-grantees with projects aligned with GEP’s Objective 4, data will be collected through individual interviews.  Considering that 9 sub-grantees are currently operating in AJK and Gilgit Baltistan, data will be collected from a sample of these through individual interviews. The detailed sampling plan is reflected in Table 4. D. Data Analysis Methods The evaluation team will employ rigorous analytical methods appropriate to the various types of qualitative data it collects. For group interviews and semi-structured individual interviews with individuals, the team will summarize responses around themes relevant to the evaluation questions – quantitatively when possible and appropriate. For the focus group discussions, which generate a relatively large quantity of consistent data, the evaluation team will employ a more structured approach to analysis – identifying key themes, coding responses according to these themes, and reporting frequencies and other quantitative summaries of responses when possible and appropriate. When possible, the team will conduct comparative analysis across various groups of stakeholders to ensure triangulation of data sources. Initial G2A in Annex 2 shows a detail of methods for data collection and analysis. 52 E. Methodological Strengths and Limitations The evaluation will rely exclusively on qualitative data because the evaluation objectives do not lend themselves well to quantitative inquiry. Furthermore, a qualitative approach is more appropriate for an evaluation that focuses on in-depth understanding of the program design to document program experience and evolution and to make recommendations regarding project structure. The main strength of the methodology is the ability to triangulate data across multiple levels, that is, triangulation in sources, methods, locations and investigators, which increase the reliability and validity of findings and conclusions. More precisely, the methodology allows for: e. Data Triangulation: Primary data will be drawn from GEP management, sub-grantees of different grant cycles and tiers, various GOP stakeholders, donor agencies, and technical experts. f. Methodological Triangulation: Three different data collection methods will be used, that is, individual interviews, group interviews, and focus group discussions. g. Regional Triangulation: The sample will cover all four provinces of Pakistan along with AJK and Gilgit Baltistan through purposive sampling which also takes into account grant tiers, cycles and GEP objectives. h. Investigator Triangulation: Analysis of data on the same theme/issue will be assigned to two different team members so that their analysis results can be compared and harmonized to ensure the greatest possible reliability and validity. Perhaps the greatest limitation of the evaluation approach is the substantial reliance on data collected from project participants and partners that may lead to a biased view of relevance and performance of the project design. However, focus group discussions and individual interviews with relevant experts, who are external to the project, will help address this limitation. Another limitation is that the sample drawn through a purposive technique may be subject to self-selection bias, particularly if some proposed participants are not available. While the approach may lead to richness and depth of data, the results will not be generalizable to the entire population of sub-grantees. 53 TABLE 4: SAMPLING PLAN FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS, INDIVIDUAL Method of Collecting Data from Project Participants Focus Group Total Discussions Group Interviews Individual Interviews Participants GEP sub-grantees Include 8-12 participants in each discussion. Average 10, to be included: 40 AF and TAF staff involved in program implementation and grants management. Include 2-4 in each interview. Average 3, to be included: 12 Members of Ministries and National and Provincial Commissions on the Status of Women Include 1 in each interview. To be included: 9 GEP committees: NAF, GMC, PSC Include 2-4 in each interview. Average 3, to be included: 9 Activists and Universities Include 1 in each interview. To be included: 9 Sub-grantees in AJK/Gilgit Baltistan Include 1 in each interview. To be included: 3 Stakeholders in Balochistan; Location: Islamabad 1 focus group discussion with sub-grantees Women Rights Activist(s) Balochistan University 12 Stakeholders in Sindh; Location: Islamabad 1 focus group discussion with sub-grantees Department of Women Development Women Rights Activist(s) Shah Abdul University 13 Stakeholders in Punjab; Location: Lahore 1 focus group discussion with sub-grantees Women Rights Activist(s) Punjab University 12 Stakeholders at the National Level; Location: Islamabad 2 GIs with AF staff 2 GIs with TAF staff 3 GIs with GEP committees: NAF, GMC, PSC Ministry of Human Rights Ex-Parliamentarians (2) Devolution Trust for Community Empowerment (DTCE) NCSW Donor agencies: Oxfam, DFID, UN Women 34 54 INTERVIEWS AND GROUP INTERVIEWS 4. EVALUATION PRODUCTS A. Deliverables The deliverables for this evaluation are: 1. A draft Statement of Work (SOW) for review and comments by USAID. 2. Final SOW, including final evaluation questions, clear methodology and approach for each component of the evaluation linked to the evaluation questions, and sampling methods approved by USAID following the Team Planning Meeting. 3. Proposed instruments for focus group discussions, group interviews and individual interviews approved by USAID/PMU. 4. A briefing for USAID during fieldwork. 5. A debriefing of initial findings with USAID and the implementing partners. 6. A draft evaluation report. 7. A final evaluation report (of no more than 35 pages, not including Annexes) consistent with USAID standards. Note that fieldwork will not commence until deliverables 1 through 2 are completed. Expert(s) on 18th Amendment AF Chief of Party TAF Deputy Chief of Party National GEP Sub-grantees: SPO, Individual and Stakeholders in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; Location: Peshawar 1 focus group discussion with sub-grantees PCSW Women Rights Activist(s) Gomal University 13 Stakeholders in AJK and GB; Location: Islamabad Women Rights Activist(s) Sub-Grantees (3) 4 Total: 4 Focus Group Discussions 4 locations 40 participants Total: 7 GIs 1 location 21 participants Total: 27 individual interviews 3 locations 27 participants 88 55 B. Reporting Guidelines The final report will be delivered by MEP to USAID in printed and electronic forms along with the annexes presented in this SOW. The report will follow standard guidelines as laid out in Appendix 1 of USAID’s Evaluation Policy and operationalized in ADS 203.3.2.8 (Documenting Evaluations), reproduced in Annex 3. The evaluation report will follow the structure given below (the section titles and order are illustrative):  Title page  Table of Contents  Tables of tables and figures  Acknowledgements or preface (optional)  Executive Summary: the executive summary will be 3-4 pages in length that summarizes key points (project purpose and background, key evaluation questions, methods, findings etc.)  Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions (2-3 pages)  Project Background (1-3 pages): This section provides important context or understanding the evaluation. It includes: o an outline of the project ; o the original problem or challenge the project is designed to address; o underlying development hypothesis and causal logic; o the results framework (if available); and, o a description of the approach and current status of the project  Evaluation Methods and Limitations (1-3 pages): Purpose of the Evaluation: this section will include the purpose of evaluation and state all evaluation questions;  Research Design and Evaluation Methodology: a written design which includes key questions, methods, main features of data collection instruments, and data analysis plan;  Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations: This section is the main body of the report, synthesizing what was learned during the evaluation and presenting it in an easy to understand and logical fashion. Whenever possible, data will be presented visually in easy to understand charts, tables, and maps to provide evidence that supports conclusions and recommendations o Findings: this section will present empirical facts based on data collected during the evaluation o Conclusions: this section will present judgments supported by specific findings. This will include synthesis and interpreting of findings o Recommendations: this section will include specific actions the evaluation team proposes be taken program management that are based on findings and conclusions. It will identify adjustments/corrections that need to be made; and recommend ways and actions to solve problems the project faced;  References; and  Annexes 56 o The Evaluation Statement of Work o Evaluation Methods and Limitations o Data Collection Instruments o Sources of Information:  List of Persons Interviews  Bibliography of Documents Reviewed o Disclosure of Any Conflict of Interest o Statement of Differences 5. TEAM COMPOSITION A Team Leader (internationally recruited) will lead a four-person team to conduct this mid-term evaluation in accordance with USAID Evaluation Policy and directives. S/he is expected to have experience in program evaluation, gender and familiarity with Pakistan’s development context. S/he will guide all tasks listed under section 4 of the SOW and will be responsible for guiding the evaluation team members listed below. The team leader will be responsible for all deliverables and most importantly, will author and present the draft and final reports; A Gender Expert (locally recruited) is expected to have at least 10-15 years of experience in the development sector in Pakistan, specifically GBV and implementation of gender related programs. S/he should also have knowledge of local CSOs, expertise on women rights movements and situation analysis for gender related programs and demonstrated report-writing abilities. S/he will provide advice and assistance in developing data collection instruments, interpreting results, and writing specific sections of the evaluation report. A Grant Management Expert (internationally recruited) is expected to have at least 7-10 years of experience in design, management, or monitoring of grants. S/he will provide advice and assistance in developing data collection instruments, interpreting results, and writing specific sections of the evaluation report. All evaluation team members will provide a written disclosure of conflict of interest statement or attest to a lack of conflict of interest. 6. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT A. Logistics The evaluation will proceed in three main phases – planning, fieldwork and reporting. This section describes the general tasks in each of these phases. 1. Evaluation Planning – During the planning phase, MEP will provide substantial input in developing a detailed SOW based on guidelines provided by the USAID. The detailed SOW will serve as work plan for the evaluation. Once USAID approves the detailed SOW, MEP will request background documents and data from USAID and the implementing partners. For this evaluation, it will be critical that MEP receives contact and detailed information for all the sub-grantees, project logical framework and program matrix. 2. Fieldwork – Fieldwork consists of the document review, site visits, individual interviews, focus group discussions and secondary data collection described in the methodology section of this SOW. At the 57 beginning of the fieldwork the evaluation team will conduct a team planning meeting to plan the evaluation field work, refine field data collection methods and develop interview guides and other field protocols. Before starting data collection, the evaluation team will meet with USAID to clarify evaluation objectives, review evaluation questions, discuss details of the field work, and obtain approval for the field work plan. The evaluation team will also meet with the implementing partners (e.g., Aurat Foundation and The Asia Foundation) early in the fieldwork phase to gain a deeper understanding of the program prior to beginning data collection. Fieldwork will require approximately five weeks. USAID may request a briefing during fieldwork. 3. Reporting – At the conclusion of the field work, the evaluation team will prepare and deliver a debriefing on initial findings to USAID and implementing partners or other parties with USAID approval. The evaluation team will incorporate comments from the debriefing(s) into the draft report. After a thorough technical review, MEP will deliver the draft report to USAID – and implementing partners if appropriate - for review and comment. Once MEP receives comments on the draft report, it will ask the evaluation team to make any necessary revisions, and return the report to MEP for a final technical review, editing and branding. MEP will then deliver the final report to USAID. B. Scheduling The tentative evaluation schedule is shown in the form of a Gantt chart below. MEP will start the evaluation process with the document review on or about August 26, 2013. MEP will submit draft report to USAID on or about November 18, 2013 and the final report on or about December 18, 2014. A tentative schedule for the evaluation is shown in the form of a Gantt chart in Table 5. The schedule can be affected by circumstances beyond the control of USAID and MEP, such as delays in obtaining visas, unforeseen loss of time due to security factors, general elections and public holidays. TABLE 5: TENTATIVE EVALUATION SCHEDULE Activity August September October November W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 Pre-arrival team work (document review) Team Planning Meeting Field work – focus group discussions, group interviews, individual interviews Analysis and report writing Internal review, revision Branding and editing Final internal review Submission of draft report x 58 C. Budgeting The following table highlights Level of Effort (LOE) of each evaluation team member: TABLE 6: LEVEL OF EFFORT OF EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS Tasks Level of Effort (days) Team Leader (STTA) Gender Specialist (STTA) Grants Management Expert (STTA) Evaluation Manager (LTTA) Evaluation Co￾Manager/Team Member (LTTA) Senior Evaluation Advisor (LTTA) Pre-arrival document review and writing initial report sections 5 5 5 - 5 - Initial Chapters Drafting 3 - - - - - Team Planning Meeting 7 7 7 7 7 6 Field work 15 15 15 9 15 - Analysis and report writing 21 16 16 16 15 5 Internal review and revision 3 3 2 3 Finalize report 2 2 2 2 Preparation for initial findings debriefing 1 1 1 1 Presentation to USAID and implementers 1 1 1 Travel 2 2 Total 59 43 46 39 48 17 59 SOW Annex 1: Gender Equity Program - Objectives and Outputs Objectives Outputs Objective 1: Enhancing gender equity by expanding women’s access to justice and women’s human rights.  Mapping of performance of justice institutions  Mapping of criminal justice legislation and women’s legal protection  Capacity assessment of justice institutions  Capacity assessment of institutions offering CB to judicial institutions  Capacity assessment of support institutions (help lines, bar associations, legal literacy institutions)  Enhanced public awareness about justice and governance  Enhanced legal literacy  Enhanced Access to justice  Positive change in police attitudes and environment of police stations  Positive change in court environment for women  Improved legal services to women  Supporting women to join law enforcement and judicial systems  Women receive land titles from government  Women receive flood compensation and revive livelihoods  Women re-establish home-based economic activities  Women friendly post-floods reconstruction  Women friendly drinking water systems Objective 2: Increasing women’s empowerment by expanding knowledge of their rights and opportunities to exercise their rights in the workplace, community, and home.  Enhanced awareness of women’s rights among general population (both men and women)  Enhanced awareness of women’s rights among key groups of women  Enhanced awareness of women’s rights among youth  Enhanced awareness of women’s rights among men’s religious groups  Enhanced awareness of women’s rights among women’s religious groups  Enhanced awareness of women’s rights and labor laws among women workers in private sector  Law reforms in support of women (relating to employment, income, property, education, health and transport)  Increased number of women in targeted educational institutions(in less developed areas of Pakistan)  Increased number of women inheriting and owning property in targeted areas (in less developed areas of Pakistan)  Increased number of women in targeted entrepreneurial and self-employment sectors in specified areas 60  Increased number and proportion of women in targeted professional groups in specified areas  Increased number of women using public transport in specified areas Objective 3: Combating gender based violence.  Mapping of scale, depth, geographical spread, features and factors of GBV covering honor crimes, trafficking, domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment and other forms of GBV.  Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress among the general population (both men and women)(linked to and sequential to relevant interventions in objectives 1 and 2).  Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress among key women’s groups  Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress among youth  Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress among judicial officers, police officers, shelters and health facilities (both men and women)  Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress among religious groups (both men and women)  Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress among political groups (both men and women  Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress in academia (both men and women)  Increased engagement with cultural and traditional arts  Improved shelters for GBV victims  Increased and improved counseling of victims  Improved health services to GBV victims  Improved services through women’s crisis centers  Liaison with Gender Crisis Cell of Police  Improved rehabilitation services for GBV victims  Improved policies in support of victims of GBV and their rehabilitation  Reduction in GBV in its various forms Objective 4: Strengthening the capacity of Pakistani organizations that advocate for gender equity, women’s empowerment and the elimination of gender-based violence.  Establishment of Gender Coalition  Improved physical infrastructure in offices of sub￾grantees  Improved planning and management systems of potential sub grantees and grantees  Improved research capacity of sub grantees  Strengthening women’s rights organizations 61 SOW Annex 2: Initial Getting to Answers Table Data Collection Evaluation Question Type of Answer/ Evidence Methods Source Sampling/ Selection Data Analysis Methods 1. To what extent are GEP’s goals and objectives (as articulated in its Program Matrix) and implementation (i.e., activities) relevant to the priorities of NCSW and provincial governments of Pakistan, particularly in light of changes in provincial responsibilities for women’s issues brought about by the 18th Constitutional Amendment and the recent change in government? Descriptive/ Qualitative Document review KIIs Group Interviews (GIs) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) Review of project documents and relevant policies of NCSW and provincial Departments of Women Development. KIIs with GOP, other international donors, gender activists, and GEP sub-grantee universities. GIs with relevant staff of AF, TAF and GEP sub￾committees. FGDs with sub￾grantees Purposive sampling for KIIs, FGDs and GIs. Document the planned design and approach from document review. Summarize responses of KIIs and GIs around themes to learn details of actual implementation and opinions about the relevance of the approach. Conduct content analysis of FGD transcripts. 62 Data Collection Evaluation Question Type of Answer/ Evidence Methods Source Sampling/ Selection Data Analysis Methods a. To what extent has the project adapted its approach to maintain relevance in light of the changes in context mentioned in question 1, and did the adaptations contribute to maintaining relevance? Qualitative/ Comparative Document review KIIs GIs FGDs Review of project documents. KIIs with GOP and expert(s) on 18th Amendment GIs with AF, TAF, and GEP committees. FGDs with sub￾grantees. Purposive sampling for KIIs, FGDs and GIs Document deviations from the planned activities from document review and critically analyze evolution of work plan. Conduct content analysis of FGD, KII and GI transcripts. 63 Data Collection Evaluation Question Type of Answer/ Evidence Methods Source Sampling/ Selection Data Analysis Methods 2. To what extent do GEP’s existing components of small grants, research, networking, and capacity building (as a collective approach) contribute to achieving the project objectives of improving women’s access to justice, expanding knowledge of and opportunities to exercise their rights, combating gender-based violence (GBV), and building the capacity of Pakistani organizations that work on gender issues? Descriptive/Q ualitative Document review KIIs GIs FGDs Review of project documents (e.g., Cooperative Agreement, Annual Reports, Program Matrix, etc.) KIIs with GOP, NCSW, international donors, and GEP sub-grantee universities. GIs with AF, TAF, and GEP committees. FGDs with sub￾grantees Purposive sampling for KIIs, FGDs and GIs Review activities as mentioned in project documents. Conduct content analysis of FGD, KII and GI transcripts. 64 Data Collection Evaluation Question Type of Answer/ Evidence Methods Source Sampling/ Selection Data Analysis Methods 3. Is the project’s current grants mechanism consistent with achieving seamless service delivery, and how could it be improved or what are the alternatives? Qualitative/Co mparative Document review GIs KIIs FGDs Review of project documents. KIIs with GOP, donors and gender activists. GIs with AF, TAF, and GEP sub-committees FGDs with sub￾grantees. Purposive sampling for KIIs, FGDs and GIs Critically analyze features of the grants mechanism and the seamless service delivery model as laid out in project documents. Conduct content analysis of FGDs Question 18: To what extent and in what ways is your organization working with other CSOs who are implementing different GEP-related activities?  How do you find out what other GEP sub￾grantees are implementing in your area and what they are working on?  How do sub-grantees coordinate their activities with one another, in your area?  How do sub-grantees support one another’s activities to ensure coordinated service delivery?  In your view, what is the usefulness of coordinating service delivery across different CSOs?  What are the 65 Data Collection Evaluation Question Type of Answer/ Evidence Methods Source Sampling/ Selection Data Analysis Methods Content analysis and triangulation of KIIs with: Universities, sub-grantees (AJK/KB), national NGOS Question 10. COP and DCOP Questions 3 and 4. Women activists and national NGOs Questions 5, 6, 7, 8. Content analysis and triangulation of GIs with NAF, PSC, GMC, Aurat Foundation and TAF staff: Questions 32 and 33. 4. To what extent are the existing partnership arrangements between AF and TAF and between AF and USAID consistent with maximizing performance and prospects for sustainability and are changes warranted? If changes are warranted, what specific changes could improve performance and prospects for sustainability of results? Qualitative/ Descriptive Document review GIs KIIs Review of project documents. KIIs with USAID and AF and TAF Chiefs of Party GIs with AF, TAF and GEP sub-committees Purposive sampling for KIIs and GIs Review existing partnership arrangements as mentioned in project documents. Conduct content analysis and triangulation of all pertinent question in KII and GI transcripts. 66 SOW Annex 3: Reporting Guidelines 1. The evaluation report must represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not work, and why. 2. Evaluation reports must address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work. The evaluation report should include the evaluation statement of work as an annex. All modifications to the statement of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the technical officer. 3. Evaluation methodology must be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides will be included in an annex in the final report. 4. When evaluation findings address outcomes and impact, they must be assessed on males and females. 5. Limitations to the evaluation must be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). 6. Evaluation findings must be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. 7. Sources of information must be properly identified and listed in an annex. 8. Recommendations must be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. Note: These guidelines are taken from ADS 203.3.2.8 (Documenting Evaluations) - http://transition.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/203.pdf - which is based on Appendix 1 of USAID Evaluation Policy: Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report. 67 ANNEX II: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS FGD Guide for GEP Grantees Questions Prompts General Questions/Ice Breakers 1. In your opinion, what is the single biggest change you would like to see for women in Pakistan?  To be asked of each individual participating in FGD.  At same time, introduce themselves, their organization, where in Pakistan they are from. 2. How did your organization decide to work on gender?  In what ways is your organization working on:  women’s access to justice and human rights,  women’s empowerment through advocacy,  awareness raising, and  combating GBV? 3. In what ways is your organization working with Aurat Foundation?  How long has your organization worked with Aurat Foundation?  Did your organization have any involvement with Aurat Foundation prior to GEP?  Has your organization had any experience with other donors? Moderator should now tell grantees that they will only be referring to Aurat Foundation’s GEP project, not Aurat Foundation as a whole. Specific Questions 4. How did your organization hear about the Gender Equity Program (GEP)?  Did you hear about it:  By word of mouth?  In the national newspaper?  In the regional newspaper?  On the GEP website?  Through other sources?  What factors prompted your organization to apply for the grant?  The status of women in your area?  The alignment of goals and objectives of your organization with those of GEP?  The demands of your organization’s work plan or financial needs at the time of application? 5. How did your organization apply for the GEP grant?  How did you find out about the application procedure for the grant?  By word of mouth?  By attending GEP’s orientation session in your area?  By reading it on GEP’s website? 68 Questions Prompts  Through other sources?  What steps did you have to follow during the application process?  What kind of support, if any, did you require with the application process?  What kind of support, if any, did you receive with the application process?  What did you like the most about the application process?  What did you like least about the application process? 6. How was your organization selected for the GEP grant?  What did you like most about the selection process?  What did you like least about the selection process?  What information about your organization did GEP require from you prior to awarding you the grant? 7. What has your experience been as a GEP grantee? .  How do you manage working on GEP activities along with other activities, if any, within your organization?  To what extent and in what ways has GEP helped your organization achieve your organization’s objectives?  What specific GEP objective(s) is your organization contributing to?  To what extent and in what ways do you think your organization is meeting or contributing to GEP objectives? 8. What has your experience been with the Pakistan Gender Coalition?  To what extent and in what ways do you participate in the PGC?  Why do you participate in the PGC, or why not?  What do you understand the objectives of the PGC to be?  What do you like most about participating in the PGC?  What do you like least about participating in the PGC?  What role do you think the PGC has in addressing women’s issues in Pakistan?  To what extent and in what ways has participating in the PGC affected your organization?  Who sets the agenda for PGC? 9. What, if any, interaction have you had with The Asia Foundation or its staff in the design and implementation of your organization’s grant?  What is your understanding of the relationship between Aurat Foundation and TAF in the implementation of GEP?  What was the nature of your interaction with 69 Questions Prompts Aurat Foundation and TAF in designing and implementing your grant?  How was your experience in interacting with Aurat Foundation and TAF?  What did you like the most about interacting with Aurat Foundation and TAF?  What did you like the least about interacting with Aurat Foundation and TAF? 10. How has GEP affected your organization’s capacity for working on gender issues?  To what extent are women involved in the management of your organization?  To what extent were women involved in the design and management of your GEP grant?  What kind of training/guidance on gender issues have you received from GEP?  How are you using the skills learned during the training to achieve GEP objectives? To achieve your organization’s broader objectives?  In which areas and to what extent has your organization’s capacity for working on gender issues improved as a result of GEP? 11. How has GEP affected your organization’s capacity to design and implement grants?  What grant type did you implement? (Simplified, FOG, standard, in-kind).  What kind of training/guidance did GEP provide on USAID grant and procurement regulations and procedures?  How has your experience with GEP improved your organization’s project capacity:  Financial  Budgeting  Management  Administrative  In what additional areas does your organization still need to build its capacity?  To what extent and in what ways have you been able to leverage your GEP experience to obtain additional funds from other sources?  What else would you need to learn in order to leverage other funding sources? 12. What are your views about GEP’s grant approach?  What was the most useful aspect/feature of the grants approach?  What was the least useful aspect/feature?  What do you think about the grant duration? What do you think about the amount of the grant award?  What, if any, improvements would you like to see 70 Questions Prompts in the approach? 13. How has the community responded to your activity?  To what extent and in what ways did you change your approach due to the community response?  How did GEP respond to any need for changes to your activity as a result of community response? To what extent, if any, did community response to your activity change over time? 14. How has the 18th Constitutional Amendment affected your organization?  What has been the effect on the operation of your organization?  How has the Amendment affected your interaction with provincial government and line departments?  What has been the effect on the implementation of your GEP grant?  In your view, is there any feature of GEP that still needs revision, in order to make it more in line with the Amendment? 15. How has/will the recent change in government affected/affect your GEP organization?  To what extent, if any, did you have to make any changes in your GEP grant’s strategy? Why?  What were the changes required?  To your implementation plan?  To your budget?  To your objectives?  To your timeline?  To your strategy?  To the locations in which you were implementing your grant? 16. In what ways, if any, has GEP enhanced the status of women in your area?  In your area, has GEP brought about improvements in:  Women’s access to justice and human rights?  Opportunities to exercise those rights?  Combating gender-based violence (GBV)?  Economic opportunities for victims of GBV?  Access to services for victims of GBV?  Any other issues?  While working on GEP, what have been your organization’s major achievements?  What would you change in your organization’s approach to its work on GEP?  In your view, what additional features, beside financial support, could GEP provide to further enhance the status of women in your area? 17. To what extent and in what ways is your organization working with other CSOs who are implementing different GEP-related activities?  How do you find out what other GEP grantees are implementing in your area and what they are working on? 71 Questions Prompts  How do grantees coordinate their activities with one another, in your area?  How do grantees support one another’s activities to ensure coordinated service delivery?  In your view, what is the usefulness of coordinating service delivery across different CSOs?  What are the constraints to coordinating activities with other CSOs?  How could these obstacles be removed? 72 Individual Interview Questions Category 1: Ministries, government departments, NCSW, PCSW, DTCE, and ex-parliamentarians 1. How familiar are you with GEP? 2. In what ways have you been involved with GEP? 3. To what extent and in what ways does the project align with the current priorities and strategic objectives on the status of women of the new government (and NCSW, where applicable)? 4. In what ways are project priorities aligned with gender objectives of the past government? 5. In what ways, if any, do project activities complement the government’s efforts towards enhancing women’s status? 6. What are the emerging issues for the new government with respect to its priorities on the status of women? 7. What, if any, changes/adjustments did you have to make in GEP related activities after the 18th Amendment? 8. How has your role evolved since the implementation of the 18th Amendment? Do you expect it to further evolve as a result of the 18th Amendment? 9. How do you plan to continue engaging with the government (for NCSW, PCSW and DTCE) and other government departments (for ministries and government departments) to continue program activities? Category 2: Universities, sub-grantees (AJK/GB), national NGOs 1. How did you hear about GEP? 2. What prompted you to apply for a grant? / Propose a grant? (Depending on whether grantee is competitive or non-competitive.) 3. What are your views on the application process for GEP? / Propose a grant? (Depending on whether grantee is competitive or non-competitive.) 4. What kind of assistance did you receive? 5. What do you know about GEP grant approach and how has your experience been as a grantee? 6. To what extent are the goals and objectives of your organizations aligned with those of GEP? 7. Do you think that GEP has enhanced the status of women in your areas? If yes, how? 8. How do you coordinate with project stakeholders (government, other grantees in the area etc.)? 9. What are the most and least useful aspects of GEP? 10. In your view, what changes are needed to improve the effectiveness of GEP? 11. What has the effect been on your organizational capacity after implementing GEP? 12. In your opinion, how has the 18th Constitutional Amendment affected the program? What changes, if any, did you have to make to your grant implementation strategy in order to adapt? 13. If you conducted research with GEP support, how have you used the research results or seen them used (if at all)? 73 14. If you conducted research with GEP support, are there any other ways in which you plan to use the research results or suggest they could be used? Category 3: Donors 1. Please tell us about your organization and specifically about any gender related programs? 2. How familiar are you with GEP? 3. How familiar are you with Aurat Foundation? Have you observed any changes in its functional effectiveness since GEP was awarded? 4. What changes, if any, have programs like GEP brought to the status of women in Pakistan? 5. In your opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses of GEP in terms of approach, providing small grants to CSOs, and its effectiveness? 6. How effective has GEP been in achieving its objectives? 7. Would you suggest any steps to improve its effectiveness? 8. In case you are aware of any similar programs, how would you compare those to GEP? 9. How has your experience been with CSOs? Do you think programs like GEP have increased their organizational capacity? 10. How has the 18th Amendment affected the Government of Pakistan’s policy of development and empowerment of women? 11. What affect has the 18th Amendment had on the Gender Reform Action Plan? Category 4: COP, DCOP of GEP, and COO of AF 1. How has your experience been working on GEP? What are the strengths and weaknesses of GEP in terms of design and implementation? What changes/additions, if any, would you recommend, especially in program design? 2. How is GEP ensuring the provision of seamless service delivery to victims of GBV? What could be changed to make this more effective? 3. What are the constraints to ensuring the provision of seamless service delivery to victims of GBV? How could these be overcome? 4. What have you learned from the program? 5. To what extent and in what ways has GEP enhanced the status of women in Pakistan? 6. How is this program different from other gender related programs and what features are unique? 7. In your opinion, to what extent has the capacity of CSOs been enhanced through implementing GEP? 8. What are the emerging issues on gender that should be addressed in GEP? 9. How would you evaluate the partnership between AF, TAF and USAID? 10. What is TAF’s current role, if any, in the implementation of GEP? How has this evolved over time? How do you see this evolving in the future? 11. In your view how effectively have the roles and responsibilities been delegated to the three partners in the project (USAID, Aurat Foundation and TAF)? 74 12. What changes, if any, would you recommend for improved delegation? 13. What has worked well or is working well in your partnerships? 14. What challenges have you faced in your partnerships? 15. What improvements, if any, would you recommend to these partnerships? 16. What changes have you and/or will you be making to the project, after 18th amendment? 17. In what ways do you engage and interact with representatives of the Government of Pakistan? 18. What is the Gender Fund used for? 19. What non-grant program activities does GEP conduct? 20. How did the Pakistan Gender Coalition come into being and what is your current engagement with it? Category 5: Women activists, national NGOs (non-GEP grantees) 1. How familiar are you with GEP? 2. How familiar are you with Aurat Foundation? Have you observed any changes in its functional effectiveness in the last two years? 3. Have you had any involvement with GEP? 4. In what ways, if any, has the status of women in your province been enhanced in the last two years? 5. In what ways, if any, has the availability and quality of services supporting victims of GBV improved in your province in the last two years? 6. How could the structure and coordination of services supporting victims of GBV in your province be improved? 7. How have government priorities regarding gender issues (federal and provincial) changed in the last two years? 8. What are your views about GEP’s grants approach, whereby the project awards short-term grants to NGOs and other grantees working for women’s empowerment? 9. How has the 18th Amendment affected the Government of Pakistan’s policy of development and empowerment of women? 10. What effect has the 18th Amendment had on the Gender Reform Action Plan? Category 6: Experts on 18th Amendment 1. What is your role with respect to the implementation of the 18th Amendment? 2. How has the devolution of authority for addressing gender issues to the provincial levels of government been implemented so far, and what further developments do you expect to see? 3. How do you expect the 18th Amendment to affect the allocation of resources for women’s development at the provincial level? 4. How do you expect the principles of policy and the constitutional provisions for equality and non￾discrimination with respect to women, will be applied at the provincial level? 5. How has the 18th Amendment affected the Government of Pakistan’s policy of development and empowerment of women? 75 6. What effect has the 18th Amendment had on the Gender Reform Action Plan? 7. What steps were taken following the 18th Amendment to enhance the capacity of provincial governments in regards to gender issues? Group Interview Questions Questions to be asked of participants in all group interviews: 1. What are your roles with GEP? 2. In what ways have you been involved with GEP? 3. How has your role evolved since you joined the project? 4. In what ways are project priorities aligned with gender objectives of the past government? 5. In what ways, if any, do project activities complement the government’s efforts towards enhancing women’s status? 6. What are the emerging issues for the new government with respect to its priorities on the status of women? 7. How do you think that GEP has enhanced the status of women in Pakistan? 8. What are the most and least useful aspects of GEP? 9. In your view, what changes are needed to improve the effectiveness of GEP? 10. In your opinion, how has the 18th Constitutional Amendment affected the program? What changes, if any, did you have to make to your grant implementation strategy in order to adapt? 11. Have you observed any changes in Aurat Foundation’s functional effectiveness since GEP was awarded? 12. In your opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses of GEP in terms of approach, providing small grants to CSOs, and its effectiveness? 13. How effective has GEP been in achieving its objectives? 14. Would you suggest any steps to improve its effectiveness? 15. In case you are aware of any similar programs, how would you compare those to GEP? 16. How has the 18th Amendment affected the Government of Pakistan’s policy of development and empowerment of women? 17. What affect has the 18th Amendment had on the Gender Reform Action Plan? 18. What have you learned from your involvement with GEP? 19. What are the emerging issues on gender that should be addressed in GEP? 20. In what ways do you engage and interact with representatives of the Government of Pakistan? 21. How have government priorities regarding gender issues (federal and provincial) changed in the last two years? 22. How has the devolution of authority for addressing gender issues to the provincial levels of government been implemented so far, and what further developments do you expect to see? 76 23. What steps were taken following the 18th Amendment to enhance the capacity of provincial governments in regards to gender issues? Additional questions to be asked of members of NAF, PSC and GMC, and the Aurat Foundation and TAF staff: 24. What, if any, changes/adjustments did you have to make in GEP related activities after the 18th Amendment? 25. How do you plan to continue engaging with the government (for NCSW, PCSW and DTCE) and other government departments (for ministries and government departments) to continue program activities? 26. How do you coordinate with project stakeholders (government, other grantees in the area etc.)? 27. How would you evaluate the partnership between AF, TAF and USAID? 28. What is TAF’s current role, if any, in the implementation of GEP? How do you see this evolving? 29. In your view how effectively have the roles and responsibilities been delegated to all the stakeholders? 30. What changes, if any, would you recommend for improved delegation? 31. What changes, if any, would you recommend to these partnerships, especially, in terms and conditions of the partnerships? 32. How is GEP ensuring the provision of seamless service delivery to women in Pakistan? What could be changed to make this more effective? 33. What are the constraints to ensuring the provision of seamless service delivery to women in Pakistan? How could these be overcome? 34. What changes have you observed in grantees’ institutional and organizational capacity during GEP implementation? (To be asked of Aurat Foundation, TAF and GMC participants only.) 35. What is the nature and frequency of your interaction with Aurat Foundation/TAF staff? (Questions 35 onwards are to be asked of AF and TAF staff only.) 36. What things have worked well in your partnership with AF/TAF? 37. What challenges have you faced in your partnership with AF/TAF? 38. What improvements could be made in your partnership with AF/TAF? 39. What work is left to be accomplished under your partnership with AF/TAF? Additional questions to be asked of members of the Pakistan Gender Coalition: 40. To what extent and in what ways do you participate in the PGC? 41. Why do you participate in the PGC, or why not? 42. What do you like most about participating in the PGC? 43. What do you like least about participating in the PGC? 44. What role do you think the PGC has in addressing women’s issues in Pakistan? 45. To what extent and in what ways has participating in the PGC affected your organization? 46. Who sets the agenda for PGC? 77 ANNEX III: SOURCES OF INFORMATION GEP Documentation  Gender Equity Program, Second Annual Report, October 2011 – October 2012.  Gender Equity Program, Cooperative Agreement.  Gender Equity Program, First Annual Report, August 2010 – September 2011.  Gender Equity Program Grants Database as of October 7, 2013.  Gender Equity Program Quarterly Progress Report, January – March 2013.  Gender Equity Program, Scoping Study: Capacity of Pakistani Organizations to Carry Out Gender Equity Initiatives, January, 2011.  Gender Equity Program, Combating Gender-Based Violence Strategy.  Gender Equity Program, Grants Database as of October 7, 2013. Government of Pakistan Policy Documents  Summary for the Honorable Governor of Balochistan on the women’s development policy  Provincial Policy for Women Empowerment, Government of Sindh, Women Development Department. Internet-based Research  http://hdr.undp.org/hdr4press/press/report/hdr/english/HDR2013_EN_Complete.pdf  http://www.pndpunjab.gov.pk/page.asp?id=453  http://beta.dawn.com/news/733087/protection-against-harassment-at-workplace-sindh-appoints￾ombudsman  http://www.thenewstribe.com/2013/03/08/domestic-violence-bill-unanimously-passed-in-sindh-assembly/  http://www.pdhre.org/rights/women_and_education.html  http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/know_sharing/grassroots_stories/pakistan_2.shtml  http://un.org.pk/ngoreport.htm  http://www.akdn.org/publications/civil_society_pakistan_edu_civic.pdf  http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/know_sharing/grassroots_stories/pakistan_2.shtml  http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/pakistan/report-2012  http://www.irinnews.org/report/77226/pakistan-domestic-violence-endemic-but-awareness-slowly-rising  http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/pakistan/Pakhtml-06.htm#P585_137197  http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2010/142761.htm 78  http://acidsurvivorspakistan.org/tag/gender-violence  http://www.pcp.org.pk/documents/Philanthropy%20in%20Pakistan%20-%20AKDN%202000(3).pdf  http://www.af.org.pk/gep/PDF/GEP%20Grant%20Cycle%207%20RFP%20-%20amendments.pdf.  http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/politics/29-Jun-2011/Cabinet￾okays-seven-ministries-devolution  http://www.punjab.gov.pk/women_development  http://www.ncsw.gov.pk/  http://www.ncsw.gov.pk/news-chairperson.php  http://www.researchcollective.org/Documents/Civil_Society_And_Social_Change_In_Pakistan.pdf Other  Khan and R. Khan, Drivers of Change Pakistan: Civil Society and Social Change in Pakistan, March 2004.  Interview with Mr. Qadeer Baig, Country Representative, Pakistan at World Population Foundation on October 8th, 2013.  Interview with Ms. Farzana Bari, Women Rights Activist on October 8th, 2013. List of Persons Interviewed In the interest of confidentiality, this list is to be provided to USAID separate from the report. 79 ANNEX IV: GEP PROGRAM MATRIX WITH YEAR 3 TARGETS Objective 1 Gender Equity (Justice and Human Rights) Sub-Sub-grants awarded in first year: 10 Sub-Sub-grants awarded in the second year: 2 Sub-Sub-grants awarded in third year: 51 Sub-grants S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments 1 Mapping of performance of justice institutions Collection of data across justice institutions: police, courts, FIA, civil service Scoping desk study based on secondary data Initiated desk study - Gender Equity: Justice and Governance Scoping studies NCSW studies (Sub-grant 29) Baseline survey based on primary data completed Completed under sub-grant 1 Scoping studies NCSW studies (sub-grant 29) Needs assessment to map the performance of justice sector institutions in the model districts Needs assessment in identified districts 4 provincial sub￾grants Will be taken up after identification of the districts early in Year 3 2 Mapping of criminal justice legislation and women’s legal protection Research review of relevant legislation In-depth study Initiated desk study - Gender Equity: Justice and Governance Completed desk study - Gender Equity: Justice and Governance 3 Identification of gaps in women’s legal protection Recommendations for closing the gaps Initiated desk study - Gender Equity: Justice and Governance Completed desk study - Gender Equity: Justice and Governance Other actions from the recommendations of desk study - Gender Equity: Justice Designed under grant cycle 9 Printed and launched 80 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments and Governance 4 Capacity assessment of justice institutions Identification of capacity building needs of justice institutions Scoping desk study Initiated desk study - Gender Equity: Justice and Governance Completed desk study - Gender Equity: Justice and Governance Desk study to define programming in Year 2 and subsequent years Addressed in GBV strategy Justice institutions identified and focused on in selected districts under grant cycles 7 and 9 (4 provincial sub￾grants) 5 Capacity assessment of institutions offering capacity building to judicial institutions Identification of courses and materials Matrix of Pakistani organizations offering capacity building related to access to justice prepared Completed desk study - Capacity Building of Pakistani Organizations Desk study to define programming in Year 2 and subsequent years Designed and initiated grant cycles 7 and 9 Sub-grants to judicial academies under grant cycles 7 and 9 (4 sub￾grants) 6 Capacity assessment of support institutions (help lines, bar associations, legal literacy institutions) Identification of activities and interventions Scoping desk study Matrix of Pakistani support organizations prepared Completed desk study - Capacity Building of Pakistani Organizations Desk study to define programming in Year 2 and subsequent years Designed and Initiated grant cycle 6-A and 6-B Capacity assessment carried out (4 sub-grants) 7 Enhanced public awareness about Identification of current levels of awareness Baseline survey based on primary data Addressed through the baseline survey initiated Baseline survey printed and launched 81 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments justice and governance (to be measured against changes as a result of project interventions) (sub-grant 1) (sub-grant 1) Identification of current interventions on portrayal of women in the media Empirical study covering TV, radio, and print media Partially covered; other activities to follow, some aspects covered in the media sensitization grant (Sub-grant 7) Pre- and post￾campaign studies (focus group discussions); Interflow and Creative Village (pre campaign survey) Individual and, Black Box Sounds (pre- and post-campaign study) (Sub-grants 7, 8, 47, 48) Printed and launched Establishment of media campaign Media campaign designed and two cycles completed (radio and TV) Completed through Public Service Message campaigns; radio campaigns under grant cycle 4 (23 sub-sub-grants 73- 95) GBV talk shows (sub-grant 47) Campaign re-runs on Pakistan TV and Radio Pakistan New campaigns with PTV and Radio Pakistan (1 grant) Media sub-sub-grants will also target policy-makers Addressed through GBV talk shows (sub-grant 47) Consolidated through National Advisory Forum of GEP Establishment of educational campaigns Education campaign designed and implemented in a pilot area Partially covered under sub-grant 47 Designed and initiated under grant cycle 6-A Continuation and implementation of grant cycle 6-A 82 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments Model district 8 Enhanced legal literacy Identification of current levels of legal literacy (to be measured against changes as a result of project interventions) Baseline survey based on primary data completed Completed: sub￾grant 1 Pre-training data obtained Completed: sub￾grant 1 Covered under grant cycles 7, 8 and 9 Pre- and post￾surveys in model districts (10 sub-grants) Legal literacy sub-sub-grants to be identified based on results of the baseline survey (links with GEP model districts/hotlines/shelters) Partially covered under linked sub￾grants with law colleges (sub-sub-grants 30, 32, 33-A, 34) Consolidated in GEP model districts 9 Enhanced access to justice Establishment and strengthening of help lines Districts and partners identified for establishment of help lines Designed and initiated under Grant cycle 6-A Continuation and implementation of Grant cycle 6-A 4 existing help lines strengthened in collaboration Designed and initiated under Grant cycle 6-A Continuation and implementation of Grant cycle 6-A Strengthening of bar associations Bar associations trained and strengthened (Planned under the Ministry of Human Rights sub-grant 28) By sequence it will better tackled in Year 4 Establishment of kiosks Kiosks established in court premises/office of public prosecutors in GEP model districts Covered under cycle 9 (4 sub-grants) Strengthening of counseling services Counselors trained for different phases of seamless service Designed and launched under grant cycle 6-A Continuation and implementation of grant cycle 6-A 83 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments (include the trainees of sub￾grant 30-34) - to include GEP model districts Model districts developed under grant cycle 7 Establishment of ‘seamless service’ from help line through police and courts to empowerment and rehabilitation in society Pilot program developed and started in one area Awareness raised regarding help lines through a media campaign 5 awareness programs Radio campaigns at local level Advocacy with relevant government entities Strategy for combatting gender-based violence finalized Seamless service designed and processes defined Grant cycle 6-A designed and initiated Implementation through grant cycles 6-A, 6-B and 7 (10 sub-grants) Sub-sub-grants to be identified to cover gaps in services in GEP model districts The sub-component above is covered with this component under the same number of grants (10) Justice in terms of marriage, divorce, and annulment issues Increased registration of births and marriages Nationwide radio campaign under grant cycle 8 (1 sub-grant) Increased advocacy on rights relating to marriage Process initiated Cover under above mentioned sub-grant Policy advocacy with relevance to Muslim Family Laws Ordinance Policy advocacy with relevance to minorities Policy research and campaign initiated under grant cycle 8 (1 sub-grant) 10 Positive change in police attitudes and environment of police stations Identification of current attitudes and behavior (to be measured against changes as a result of project interventions) Baseline study based on primary data completed Completed baseline study (sub-grant 1) Completed, printed, and launched NCSW policy studies (sub-grant 29) 84 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments Strengthening of women police stations 4 women’s police stations improved (physical and human resources) Staff trained in all 4 women police stations Covered under grant cycles 7 and 9 in GEP model districts. (4 sub-grants) All sub-components are covered 5 women’s police stations improved (physical and human resources) Staff trained in all 5 women police stations Creation of women facilitation cell in police stations in case women police station is not present in GB Covered under grant cycle 7 and 9 in GEP model districts Gender orientation and training Staff trained at identified police stations Covered under grant cycle 7 and 9 in GEP model districts Staff trained at identified police stations Training videos to be used as a process-driven tool for trainings and capacity building Covered under grant cycle 7 and 9 in GEP model districts Existing training videos to be sourced and used 11 Positive change in court environment for women Establishment of women-friendly facilities 4 waiting rooms (including washrooms) established Covered under grant cycle 7 and 9 in GEP model districts 4 nurseries established Covered under grant cycle 7 and 9 in GEP model districts 85 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments Gender orientation and training of court officials 80 men and women staff members trained Process initiated MoHR grant: public prosecutor (sub-grant 36) Covered under grant cycle 7 and 9 in GEP model districts 12 Improved legal services to women Establishment and strengthening of legal aid to women 400 women served through help lines and legal aid centers, clinics, etc. 100 women counseled 25 court cases processed Case books developed for decided cases (to be addressed MoHR sub-grant) Designed and initiated sub-grants 30, 32, 33-A and 34 Continuation and implementation of sub-grants 30, 32, 33-A and 34 Covered under grant cycles 7 and 9 in GEP model districts Awareness campaigns regarding legal aid integrated into GEP model districts Designed and initiated, grant cycles 6-A and 6-B Continuation and implementation of cycles 6-A, 6-B Addressed in grant cycle 7 and 9 in GEP model districts 13 Supporting women to join law enforcement and judicial systems Establishment and strengthening of relevant educational and training programs to encourage women graduates to take up relevant careers Clinics and sessions for women in 4 law colleges Law forum in final years of 4 law schools (pro bono work) 40 internships with law firms that deal with cases pertaining to women’s issues 6 focused training programs designed and implemented for women law students Covered under Sub-grants 30, 32, 33-A, 34 Continuation and implementation under sub-grants 30, 32, 33-A, 34 Trainees linked to grant cycles 7 and 9 in GEP model districts 14 Women receive Establishment of 10 relevant organizations Completed 86 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments land titles from government package of support trained 120 women-headed households reclaim land titles Sub-grants 2, 4, 5 and 6 87 Objective 2 Increasing Women’s Empowerment Increasing women’s empowerment by expanding knowledge of their rights and opportunities to exercise their legal rights in the workplace, community and home. Focus: establishing sustainable and acceptable shifts in opportunities for women Sub-Sub-grants awarded in first year: 17 Sub-Sub-grants awarded in second year: 06 Sub-Sub-grants to be awarded in third year: 50 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments 1 Enhanced awareness of women’s rights among general population (both men and women) Building in women’s rights in curricula in targeted educational and training institutions that cater to key categories of men whose opinions need to be influenced:  Key identified civil service, judicial and other government training academies  Key identified universities, colleges  Text book boards  Key identified private sector management training institutions Review study of existing curricula, gaps identified and recommendations made Carried out by 5 grantees from women studies centers and gender study centers in public sector universities in cycle 6-B. Similar carried out by Judicial Academy in cycle 6-B. Similar carried out by private sector management institutions in Grant cycle 8 (4 Sub-grants) Text book boards and civil services academy will be addressed in Year 4 Engagement workshops with key personnel in identified institutions Addressed in 3 sub-grants to women studies and gender studies in public Activities linked to above Activities linked to above in Year 4 88 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments sector universities 6 sets of curricula developed and tested Addressed in 3 sub-grants to women studies and gender studies in public sector universities Activities linked to above Activities linked to above in Year 4 Curricula and courses institutionalized in 2 institutions Addressed in 3 Sub-grants to women studies and gender studies in public sector universities Courses to be institutionalized in Year 4 Developing targeted media campaign 2 media campaigns designed and delivered Designed and initiated one media campaign under Sub-grant 7 and one under consultancy arrangements Completed Airing is complete, post￾campaign survey underway Training of TV and radio anchors and program producers 10 training workshops delivered Designed and initiated under Sub-grant 8 Completed Training of print media 10 training workshops delivered Completed 2 Enhanced awareness of women’s rights among key groups of women Building in women’s rights in curricula in targeted educational and training institutions that cater to key categories of women whose Engagement workshops with key personnel in identified institutions Designed and launched cycle 6-B Continuation and implementation under cycle 6-B Establish day care center at the identified institution Designed and launched cycle 6-B Continuation and implementation 89 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments opinions need to be influenced:  Women public servants in key identified divisions and departments at various levels  Key identified centers of excellence for women’s studies in universities  Key identified women’s universities and colleges under cycle 6-B by women and gender studies departments, 8 more departments supported under grant cycle 8 (8 Sub-grants) 6 sets of curricula developed and tested Designed and launched cycle 6-B Continuation and implementation under cycle 6-B Curricula and courses institutionalized in 2 institutions Designed and launched cycle 6-B Continuation and implementation under cycle 6-B 3 Enhanced awareness of women’s rights among youth Building in women’s right and gender mainstreaming in targeted youth development and youth leadership programs in educational institutions, and those run by government, civil society and private sectors 2 sets of curricula developed and tested Deigned and initiated sub￾Sub-grants 39-A and 39-B Completed 30 workshops for leaders delivered Deigned and initiated sub￾Sub-grants 39-A and 39-B Completed 4 Enhanced awareness of women’s rights among men’s religious groups Training on women’s rights for religious leaders, including minorities (based on recommendations of the NCSW) Sets of modules developed and tested Will be done in Year 4 25 training sessions for workshop leaders delivered Will be done in Year 4 90 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments 5 Enhanced awareness of women’s rights among women’s religious groups Training on women’s rights for religious leaders, including minorities (based on recommendations of the NCSW) Sets of modules developed and tested Will be done in Year 4 25 training sessions for workshop leaders delivered Will be done in Year 4 6 Enhanced awareness of women’s rights and labor laws among women workers in private sector Developing and implementing special training courses Review of existing materials and modules, identification of gaps and recommendations Covered under grant cycle 8 (5 linked sub￾grants) Based on review, sets of modules developed and tested Covered under grant cycle 8 25 training workshops delivered Covered under grant cycle 8 7 Enhanced facilitation of women to access resources and services Issue of Computerized National Identity Cards for Women in Select Districts 1.5 million women facilitated in obtaining CNIC cards Designed and initiated under grant cycle 3 Sub-grant 58 - 72 Continuation and implementation of grant cycle 3 Designed, launched and implementation of grant cycle 5 Sub-grants 96 - 115 Completion of Grant cycle 3 and 5 Implementation of Grant cycle 3 was delayed because political education component was added and grant letters amended in the light of forthcoming general elections. 8 Law reforms in support of women (relating to employment, income, property, education, health and transport) Review of labor policy Developing policy, strategy and action papers for women parliamentarians to move bills Desk study of labor laws and policy, identification of gaps and recommendations Relevant Sub￾grants designed and initiated under Grant cycle 8 (1 National sub￾grant) Policy/strategy papers produced Relevant Sub￾grants designed and initiated 91 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments under Grant cycle 8 Advocacy for consolidation, reform and enforcement of Labor Laws (minimum wage, equal pay for equal work) Advocacy for consolidation, reform and enforcement of Labor Laws (minimum wage, equal pay for equal work) Relevant Sub￾grants designed and initiated under Grant cycle 8 (4 provincial Sub-grants) Advocacy for consolidation, reform and enforcement of Labor Laws (minimum wage, equal pay for equal work) Advocacy for facilities and entitlements under labor laws Advocacy for facilities and entitlements under labor laws Relevant Sub￾grants designed and launched under Grant cycle 8 Advocacy for improved work conditions for women Advocacy for improved work conditions for women Relevant Sub￾grants designed and launched under Grant cycle 8 Advocacy for registration Advocacy for registration Relevant Sub￾grants designed and launched under Grant cycle 8 Mechanism of home￾based workers and informal sector workers mechanism of home-based workers and informal sector workers Relevant Sub￾grants designed and launched under Grant cycle 8 Engagement with the women’s caucus and women parliamentarians 50 meetings held with government, chambers of commerce, trade bodies, labor bodies, industrialists, etc. Relevant Sub￾grants designed and initiated under Grant cycle 8 (I National sub￾grant) 92 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments Engagement with women CEOs 10 meetings Relevant Sub￾grants designed and initiated under Grant cycle 8 (I National sub￾grant) 5 training workshops Relevant Sub￾grants designed and initiated under Grant cycle 8 9 Increased number of women in targeted educational institutions (in less developed areas of Pakistan) Identification of educational institutions for increased enrolment of girls (Linked to GEP model districts) Scoping studies in targeted areas to identify gender gaps and factors with recommendations. Actions will depend of recommendations Innovative ideas will be considered New strategy in light of the 18th amendment by middle of GEP third year Linked with GEP model districts 10 Increased number of women inheriting and owning property in targeted areas (in less developed areas of Pakistan under GEP model districts) Identification of suitable areas Scoping study to understand local systems, gender gaps and recommendations Scoping study initiated 4 sub-grants in identified model districts Development of strategy for these programmatic areas Strategy paper based on study Strategy paper prepared Advocate reform of discriminatory laws: access to and ownership of land and resources (through individual titles, joint ownership and/or Covered under Grant cycle 8 93 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments group rights; inheritance laws) Advocate land ownership rights for minority women -GEP model district Covered under Grant cycle 8 Linked to GEP model districts 11 Increased number of women in targeted entrepreneurial and self￾employment sectors in specified areas Identification of sectors and areas Scoping study to assess what other programs are underway in this sector (including other initiatives of USAID) Covered under Grant cycle 8 Strategy papers produced for identified sectors Covered under Grant cycle 8 Skills training, numeracy and business management training Agreed sets of modules developed and tested Designed and initiated Sub￾grant 41 Continuation and implementation under Grant cycle 2 Final stages of completion Agreed number of workshops for trainers delivered Designed and initiated Sub￾grant 41 Continuation and implementation under Grant cycle 2 Final stages of completion Harnessing of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for education/knowledge enhancement  Support widespread women-friendly communication hubs;  overcome gender digital divide Women-friendly communication hubs facilitated in identified areas Designed and initiated under Grant cycle 8 (1 national Sub￾grant) Linked to GEP model districts Supporting enhancement of women’s IT abilities Designed and initiated under Grant cycle 8 Linked to GEP model districts Training module on basic IT skills developed and tested Designed and initiated under Grant cycle 8 Linked to GEP model districts 10 training workshops held Designed and initiated under Linked to GEP model districts 94 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments Grant cycle 8 (4 provincial Sub-grants) Business development centers to support small entrepreneurs Business development centers facilitated in identified districts to support small entrepreneurs -GEP Model Districts Designed and initiated under Grant cycle 8 (10 Sub-grants) Linked to GEP model districts 12 Increased number and proportion of women in targeted professional groups in specified areas Identification of professional groups Scoping study in selected areas (sectors and geographical), groups identified and recommendations for actions Scoping study carried out under Grant cycle 8 Actions will include work with private sector in Year 4 Promotion of lifelong learning opportunities: Continuing education Actions designed later, based on recommendations Covered under Grant cycle 8 Training modules developed and tested Covered under Grant cycle 8 25 workshops delivered with CSO partners Covered under Grant cycle 8 (1 National Sub￾grant) Advocate women friendly workplaces with employers: childcare facilities and gender-sensitive HR/tax policies Guidelines for employers produced This work will be largely with private sector. To be covered in Year 4 20 workshops with employers to orient them to women-friendly workplaces To be covered in Year 4 Child care services established in 10 workplaces To be covered in Year 4 10 workplaces gender-sensitize their HR policies To be covered in Year 4 Strengthened education￾employment linkages through Training modules on career counseling developed and tested Designed under cycle 6-B Linked with grant cycle 6-B with women studies and 95 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments  Career counseling  Counseling to balance family and work responsibilities  Job fairs gender study centers Career counseling staff identified and oriented in 20 educational institutes Continuation and implementation in year 4 and 5 as additional gender studies and women studies departments and universities are identified Career counseling centers facilitated in 20 educational institutes As above 20 educational institutes facilitated to organize job fairs As above Support women’s participation in the sectors of accounting/auditing/ finance/; IT; telecommunication; civil engineering Facilitate access to 50 training opportunities for women in target professions Covered under Grant cycle 8 (1 National Sub￾grant) 50 internships and work study programs facilitated in target professions Covered under Grant cycle 8 7 job fairs conducted to encourage job placements for women in target professions Covered under Grant cycle 8 13 Increased number of women using public transport in specified areas Development of strategy and incentives for making public transport more amenable to women Review and assess existing work on women friendly transport systems to identify gaps and make recommendations Covered under Grant cycle 8 (1 national Sub￾grant) Strategy paper produced Covered under Grant cycle 8 Pilot scheme initiated in two areas: women exclusive and women friendly transport systems Sets of training materials developed and tested To be covered in Year 4 Incentives developed To be covered in Year 4 5 training workshops delivered in To be covered in Year 96 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments pilot area 4 14 Empowerment through sports Identification of suitable areas Mapping and need assessment of selected areas (sports sectors and geographical), groups identified and recommendations made Covered under Grant cycle 8 Actions based on recommendations Covered under Grant cycle 8 Promotion and facilitation of women’s participation in sports Proactive inclusion of sportswomen as icons across GEP media campaigns Completed under Sub-grant 7 Facilitate sportswomen through increased access to improved training facilities and equipment Initiation of Sub￾grants with national and provincial sports boards (4 Provincial Sub-grants) Support development of women￾friendly sports arenas As above Increase opportunities for women to participate in sports activities As above 15 Women receive flood compensation and revive livelihoods Development of packages of support for women-headed households in maintenance, rehabilitation and return to normalcy phases Training and support package developed for life support, subsistence, livelihood skills and value-added outputs Designed and initiated sub￾grants 9-13 Completed Establish lines of communication and documentation with government for women headed households 225 women receive training and inputs Completed Linking with existing flood compensation, 225 women headed households receive compensation Completed 97 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments BISP, NCHD, and other initiatives 16 Women re￾establish home￾based economic activities Development of package of support Package including assets, credit and supplies Designed and initiated under Sub-grant 9-13 Completed 225 women provided inputs to re-establish their economic activities and linked to markets again Completed 17 Women friendly post-floods reconstruction Development of guidelines for living space, kitchen areas and sanitation facilities 10 training programs for groups involved in reconstruction Dropped from GEP as NCSW is taking this forward 18 Women friendly drinking water systems Packages for rehabilitation and/or establishment of safe drinking water facilities and practices (with view to reducing time spent in obtaining and managing water) 50 drinking water systems established/rehabilitated/facilitated Designed and initiated under sub-grant 15, 17-A, 18, 18-A Completed 120 safe water and hygiene education workshops completed Completed 98 Objective 3 Combating Gender-Based Violence To sustainably reduce gender based violence and to provide redress to victims. Focus will be on awareness raising, institutional improvements and legislative and policy reform and implementation. Sub-Sub-grants awarded in first year: 26 Sub-Sub-grants awarded in the second year: 91 Sub-Sub-grants to be awarded in third year: 13 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments 1 Mapping of scale, depth, geographical spread, features and factors of GBV covering honor crimes, trafficking, domestic violence, rape, acid survivors, sexual harassment, and other forms of GBV Collection of data to get an objective picture Scoping desk study based on secondary data Completed Scoping study on Gender Based Violence Focus on particular kinds of GBV in particular areas In-depth primary-data baseline survey completed Initiated under Sub-grant 1 completed Focused baseline surveys completed in specific areas of GBV Initiated under Sub-grants 20, 22 and 24 Completed Linked to Grant cycle 7 as needed in GEP model districts 2 Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress among the general population (both men and women) Awareness campaigns around 16 Days of Activism, Pakistani Women’s Day and International Women’s Day Events, such as rallies, debates, mushairas, competitions, melas, interactive and street theater, etc., organized at regional and national level. Completed as part of cycle 4 under Sub-grants 73-95 Media campaign launched during Pakistani Women’s day and International Women’s day (Feb 12 – Mar 8) 16 days of activism (3 events), Pakistani Women’s Day (3 events), International Women’s Day (5 events) 6 messages produced for TV, radio, and newspapers. Completed as part of cycle 4 Song audio produced under Grant cycle 2 sub-grant 48 as title song of GEP talk shows Incorporated in Song video produced, launched and aired on terrestrial and satellite TV channels and FM stations Radio talk shows and TV serials will be aired till the end of the program 99 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments the ongoing media campaign under sub-grant 7 16 radio talk shows, 4 branded produced TV talk shows broadcast on 3 mainstream and 4 regional. 15 branded TV talk shows completed under sub-grant 48 16 episode radio talk shows on empowerment and access to justice 2 cycles of media campaigns designed and run 5 PSAs developed and run 9 messages produced for TV and 9 for Radio under sub-grant 8 2 TV serials conceived and delivered on PTV and private channel TV drama series (15 episodes) on topics of Grant cycle 7 and 9.  Combatting GBV  Access to  justice Drama series of 7 episodes with PTV on women’s empowerment (1 national Sub￾grant) Establishment of media campaigns 1 cartoon serial conceived Designed under cycle 2, sub￾grant 47 Continuation and implementation Cartoon Serial launched and aired 20 public dialogues carried out on PTV and 30 on Radio Pakistan and FM Designed as part of Sub-grants with Radio Continuation and implementation 100 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments stations. Pakistan of Radio Pakistan sub￾grant PTV brought on board (1 National Sub￾grant) Inputs into print media 64 editorials, articles and features placed in newspapers and magazines 37 articles and features placed under sub-grant 7 Continued 3 District-based systematic approach and coordinated services spread across objectives Identify at least 5 model district for coordinated strengthening of services and institutions Approximately 15 potential districts identified 8 -10 districts to be finalized based on activities of Grant cycle 6-A and 6-B ‘GBV Seamless Services’ will continue till end of the project 4 Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress among key women’s groups Identification of key groups (women NGOs, professional bodies, Micro credit groups, RSPs, community and village groups, etc.) in the model districts Sharing of data from baseline surveys and focused surveys (summary copied and circulated) Results of studies shared widely across Pakistan 6- A Sharing will continue Translation and dissemination in model districts through Grant cycle 6-A Provision of information Material repackaged for different groups Sets of modules developed 20 workshops completed Key messages extracted and factored into the GEP media campaigns Grant designed and initiated as part of Grant cycle 7 (1 National Sub￾grant) 5 Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and Provision of information repackaged for youth (boys and girls) Sharing of data from baseline surveys and focused surveys (parts copied circulated) Grant designed and initiated as part of Grant cycle 7 101 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments redress among youth Orientation and training Inputs into curricula Sets of modules developed and tested 20 workshops completed 6 Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress among judicial officers, media representatives, police officers, shelters and health facilities (both men and women) Targeted areas (identified districts) Provision of information Sharing of data from baseline surveys and focused surveys (parts copied and circulated) Through all partners in 6-A and 6-B Orientation and training on improved medico-legal investigation and forensic techniques Sets of modules developed and tested 20 workshops held Designed and implementation under Grant cycle 7 (1 National Sub￾grant) The sub-grantee will have to be able to work in all the selected GBV districts and have capacity to interact with hospitals Training of emergency response units in police stations, women shelters and targeted government medical facilities Sets of module developed 20 workshops held Will be covered in Year 4 Provision of rape kits to women police stations and women shelters and targeted government women facilities Forensic kits for examination of rape survivors Will be covered in Year 4 Preparing a code of conduct vis-à-vis GBV sensitivities for media professionals and advocate for its endorsement by stakeholders (media heads, civil society, etc.) 4 provincial consultation meetings with media representatives for preparation of code of conduct At least 10 meetings with media heads and key civil society partners for endorsement of code of conduct Advocacy with Ministry of Information and Designed and initiated as part of Grant cycle 7 (1 National Sub￾grant) 102 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments Broadcasting through develop appropriate codes 7 Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress among religious groups (both men and women) Provision of information repackaged for religious groups (men and women) Sharing of data from baseline surveys and focused surveys (parts copied circulated) Merge with objective 2 and Covered under Sub-grants spelled out under 4 and 5 of objective 2 Orientation and training Set modules developed and tested 20 workshops held Sensitization workshops with progressive religious scholars Develop modules for sensitization of progressive religious scholars 8 Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting, and redress among political groups (both men and women) Provision of information repackaged for parliamentarians, political parties (both men and women) and party worker Sharing of data from baseline surveys and focused surveys for parliamentarians, political party representatives and party workers at grass￾roots levels in the model districts Parked in Year 4. Year 3 of GEP coincides with elections Orientation and training Set of modules developed and tested To be done during Year 4 8 Workshops held 9 Increased awareness of GBV, its incidence, reporting and redress in academia (both men and women) Provision of information repackaged for academia Sharing of data from baseline surveys and focused surveys (entire study circulated and placed in research centers) GEP data set used for degrees, research papers Partially completed To be continued Research initiatives on GBV using baseline data of GEP GEP data set used for degrees, research papers Covered under gender studies, women studies 103 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments departments Universities Sub￾grants 1 conference held (by a university) GEP presenting findings from scoping and baseline studies in 10 academic conferences and seminars across Pakistan Covered under Universities sub￾Sub-grants 6-B and 7 10 Increased engagement with cultural and traditional arts GBV- related messages incorporated in :  Puppetry  Street theater  Mainstream theater  Poetry events (mushaira)  Mela (festivals)  Story writing competition (nationwide)  Painting/poster/art competition  Art Exhibitions  Story telling through classical dance Messages on GBV developed and tested Completed under grant cycle 4 831events held across Pakistan Inputs into 25 events Completed Continued with a range of Sub￾grants and in GEP events 5 orientation workshops Completed Continued with a range of Sub￾grants and in GEP events 11 Enhanced facilitation of women to access resources and services Issue of Computerized National Identity Cards for Women in Select Districts Over 1.5 million women facilitated in obtaining CNIC cards Grant cycle 3 initiated Continuation and Implementation of Grant cycle 3 Grant cycle 5 initiated Cycle 3 and 5 completed 12 Improved shelters for GBV victims Modeling of a well-managed shelter for women 1 model women’s shelter developed (to be established in Karachi) Covered under grant cycle 6-A 104 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments Strengthening of existing shelter and security services available at government and civil society-run shelters and centers 4 shelters strengthened (rehabilitation and management systems) Rehabilitation of 4 Benazir Bhutto crisis centers initiated (Sub￾Sub-grants 25, 26, 27-A and 27-B) 2 completed (Islamabad and Sahiwal) 2 underway (Jacobabad and Quetta) Jacobabad and Quetta) 13 Increased and improved counseling of victims Strengthening of existing counseling services available at government and civil society￾run shelters, and centers 7 services/shelters to be strengthened (infrastructure and management systems) Initiated under cycle 6-A Covered under grant 6-A 2 sets of training modules (for girls and women) developed and tested Initiated under cycle 6-A Covered under grant 6-A 5 training workshops for counselors delivered Initiated under cycle 6-A Establishing help lines in the model districts 5 help lines established Initiated under cycle 6-A Covered under grant 6-A Management systems of 5 help lines strengthened Initiated under cycle 6-A Covered under grant 6-A At least 5 training workshops for councilors to manage each helpline Initiated under cycle 6-A Covered under grant 6-A MoU signed to link help lines with Gender Crime Cell E-Portal Study of Gender Crime cell initiated under NCSW grant Study Completed Parked in Year 4 Gender sensitization of authorities and at women jails Advocacy with Ministry of Interior and/or Provincial departments for sensitization of authorities at women jails/cell, Advocacy with Social Welfare departments for Dar ul Aman, Initiated cycle 6-B in Multan and Larkana jails Continuing engagement with provincial WDDs through NAF and directly Continuation and implementation under cycle 6-B 105 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments Women Development Departments for Crisis Centers At least 20 Gender sensitization trainings of women jail or cell staff 50 counseling sessions with women prisoners in jails 14 Improved health services to GBV victims Strengthening of existing health services available at government and civil society￾run shelters, jails and centers 5 services strengthened (infrastructure and management systems) 2 sets of training modules (for girls and women) developed and tested 5 training workshops for counselors in model districts Initiated under Grant cycle 6-A and 6-B Continuation and implementation under 6-A and 6- B 15 Improved services through women’s crisis centers Strengthening of existing services available at government run crisis centers Improvement of security and supportive environment at all existing crisis centers (infrastructure, supplies and management) Initiated under sub-Sub-grants 25, 26, 27-A and 27-B Completed in 2 government-run crisis centers (Islamabad and Sahiwal) 2 completed in (Jacobabad and Quetta) 3 more covered in model districts as part of Grant cycle 7 (3 Sub-grants) 4 sets of training modules developed and tested 20 training workshops for crisis centers delivered 5 orientation meetings and Designed and launched under Grant cycle 7 in model districts 106 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments obtaining commitments for actively helping GBV victims 16 Liaison with Gender Crisis Cell of Police Development of follow-up actions to help victims (based on data already with this Cell) Improvements in mechanism for obtaining data Analysis and sharing of data collected by Cell Assessment of current system and recommendations for changes and additions Establish and house an electronic portal with Gender Crime cell Involve at least one civil society partner to undertake monitoring Sub-Grant initiated under grant cycle 7 (1 Sub-grant) Using GEP NCSW study on gender crime cell as a basis 17 Improved rehabilitation services for GBV victims Establishment and strengthening of existing rehabilitation services available at government and civil society￾run shelters, women jails and centers Developing linkages across objectives to provide economic empowerment opportunities to GBV survivors in shelters in the model districts Designed and initiated under 6- A Continuation and implementation 6-A 6 local NGOs and CBOs supported to develop rehabilitation services (infrastructure and management systems) Designed and initiated under 6- A Continuation and implementation 6-A Sets of training modules developed and tested 6 training workshops delivered Designed and initiated under 6- A Continuation and implementation 6-A Designing a ‘space’ for women where survivor women can live, learn, work and earn Designed and initiated under 6- A and 6-B Continuation and implementation 6-A and 6-B 18 Improved policies in support of Documentation on policy Policy research carried out Scoping study completed Completed 107 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments victims of GBV and their rehabilitation Policy paper prepared GBV strategy completed Support to NCSW for initiating policy dialogue Text of policy for discussion Policy discussions held: 2 at federal level 10 at provincial level 22 at local levels Policy dialogue completed with NCSW and UNW Strategy on combatting GBV widely circulated for discussion and puts at national and provincial level Strategy components disseminated as part of 6-a, 6-b and 7 (1 sub-grant) 19 Reduction in GBV in its various forms Tracking of disposal of GBV cases by courts Tracking of reduction in gender-based violence as result of improvements in justice system and access to justice in earmarked geographical areas Tracking system designed and tested in one earmarked geographical area Tracking system finalized and linked to GEP data center Designed and initiated under Grant cycle 7 (1 Sub-grant) 20 Improved services for addressing harassment of boys Collection of data to get an objective picture Designed and initiated under Grant cycle 7, study conducted Raising awareness around sexual harassment of boys, incidence and influencing factors Drama serial on private TV channels and radio stations with 7 episodes Study conducted (1 national Sub￾grant) Improved services for addressing the human rights of Collection of data to get an objective picture Designed and initiated under cycle 8 108 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments trans genders Raising awareness around sexual harassment of boys, incidence and influencing factors Drama serial on Private TV channels and Radio stations (1 National Sub￾grant) 109 Objective 4 Capacity Building Sub Sub-grants awarded in the first year: 6 Sub Sub-grants awarded in the second year: 0 Sub Sub-grants to be awarded in the third year: 8 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments 1 Improved planning and management systems of potential sub grantees and grantees Protocols for planning programs, implementation, financial, M&E, reporting improvement of sub￾grantees (compulsory for all) Sets of presentations on pre-award orientation developed and tested Completed Potential applicants for GEP Sub-grants oriented in pre-award engagement Part of regular process Part of regular process Part of regular process Sets of modules for post￾award training developed and tested Designed and initiated under Grant cycle 2 through IMS Completed New grant for training of Grant cycle 6, 7, 8 and 9 (4 provincial sub￾grants) Members of Pakistan Gender Coalition trained on specifics of USAID compliance for GEP Pakistan Gender Coalition Launched 2 consultative meetings 2 Improved research capacity of sub grantees Protocols for gender research (before and after interventions) on GEP interventions Sets of modules developed and tested Designed and initiated under cycle 2, sub-grant 51 Completed New grant for cycle 6, 7, 8, and 9 (4 provincial sub￾grants) 3 Strengthening women’s rights organizations Capacity building of organizations working on women’s rights Criteria developed for inclusion in capacity building program Women’s rights NGOs that do not obtain GEP Sub-grants will still receive capacity building training Designed and initiated under cycle 2 Continued continued 110 S.NO Outputs Interventions Program Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments Sets of modules developed 10 training workshops carried out 4 Planning and Formation of Gender Coalition Network (GRANT CYCLEN) Secretariat for national and provincial gender coalitions Formation of secretariat for provincial gender coalition Initiated Listing of gender-based organizations completed Covered under scoping studies Development of protocols Leadership identified Protocols accepted by coalition Initiated 5 Enhanced capabilities and skills of gender coalition network members Initiated Strategy to be designed 6 Linkages with academic institutions Designed and developed Interventions to be designed and finalized after consultation with Gender Coalition 111 ANNEX V: DETAILED NARRATIVE FINDINGS FOR EVALUATION QUESTION 2 Combating GBV Strategy Background Violence against women (and against some men) is rampant in Pakistan, as reported by media, observed in society, and explored through research. The plethora of laws, religious beliefs, traditions, norms, and cultures have produced an environment where advantage or justice embedded in one kind of law is often cancelled out by another law or by beliefs, traditions, and practices. Deep-seated beliefs, misogynistic behavior, and social institutions legitimize and therefore perpetuate violence against women. Within social development interventions, gender-based violence is often defined in vague terms, as part of larger gender development or women’s development contexts. There are few long-term and systematic initiatives in this area. A lack of understanding of the problem, or a fear of reprisal in local feudal or tribal environments are primary reasons for this gap. It is important to understand that GBV is the result of a number of inter-related behaviors and practices: women are often used as scapegoats to settle disputes or killed in the name of honor to settle scores. Amongst the various and complex factors, ‘economic violence’ should also be included under the rubric of GBV. The lack of access to opportunities increases economic dependence on parents, brothers, and husbands, such that many women are inhibited from escaping violent relationships. Therefore, it is not possible to focus on and address violence in isolation, without also addressing the underlying causes and factors. It is germane to deconstruct the usual approaches to address gender-based violence in the particular context of Pakistan. This will help to construct and sustain a survivor-centered approach consisting of well-thought out, comprehensive, and locally relevant mechanisms for the long-term rehabilitation and independence of survivors. Such a response to gender-based violence will need to be cross-cutting and holistic, spreading across initiatives to have long-term impact and effectiveness. Purpose The over-arching purpose of this GBV strategy is to create an enabling environment, raise awareness of GBV, and develop and demonstrate a system which leads to the full rehabilitation in society and self-fulfillment of survivors of GBV. GEP’s vision is to build a “seamless service” which would be a chain of institutions and processes at different levels to help GBV survivors to move easily through the components in a sequential manner. GEP does not intend to create parallel structures and institutions, but instead strengthen the systems and services already in place to link them together, increase their outreach, and increase their efficiency and effectiveness. This would include provide trained personnel at each stage, and coordinated mechanisms to achieve an enabling environment. GEP is, therefore, set to approach gender-based violence in a systematic and holistic manner, track GBV survivors, and support their needs from identification to rehabilitation. Key Features of the Strategy Scope of GBV This strategy encompasses combating all types of gender-based violence, including honor killing, trafficking (both internal and external), rape, sexual abuse and harassment, domestic violence, exchange of women in settling disputes, dishonoring women in public, Jirga punishments, acid throwing, and dowry deaths. Sexual violence against boys will also be covered. 112 Holistic Approach The interventions will be linked comprehensively, as shown in the program matrix, and will have a district-based systematic approach. The idea is to identify 5-8 districts across Pakistan where GBV is high, enabling grants from the first year are in place, there is a presence of relevant government institutions and vibrant NGOs, and where Aurat Foundation’s previous advocacy work has created inroads. Involving Youth A typical population pyramid of any developing nation is comprised of a large majority of youth. The situation is true in the case of Pakistan, where a large majority of the population falls in the younger age group. There is a need to tap this resource by proactively engaging with youth through different initiatives to combat GBV. As learned from the experiences of other countries, innovative initiatives involving youth in different activities will form the key approach towards changing attitudes and addressing GBV. Involving Parents/Families As established through different studies and research, parents/family members of the GBV victims are the least involved in reporting GBV incidents and accessing justice for the survivor. This is considered bringing dishonor and shame to the family, and the survivor would also be stigmatized by the family and the community if anything was disclosed. The GBV strategy will work with the families of GBV survivors (mainly parents) by creating a demand for justice and building pressure on the judiciary and other law enforcement agencies for prompt follow-up and disposal of GBV cases. Parents and family members of the GBV victims will be sensitized and involved throughout the process of accessing justice (from filing the case to the final conclusion of the case in the judiciary). This involvement of parents and family members will bring great moral support to the victims and survivors of GBV, which is essential for their rehabilitation and mainstreaming into society. Linked Series of Grants In these selected districts, GEP will build a linked series of grants (both competitive and non-competitive), as per the details shared in Section 4 below and identified in the Program Matrix. These intervention districts would then serve as models to demonstrate what is possible and how GBV can be addressed, minimized, and eventually eliminated. The types of grants that will be considered include the following:  Rapid Response (competitive and non-competitive)  Research (competitive)  Advocacy (competitive)  Capacity Building (competitive)  Pilot (competitive and non-competitive)  Service Delivery (competitive and non-competitive) 113 Measurable Results As per the practice of GEP, the Terms of Reference for each grant will also include the statement of measurable results that the grantee is expected to achieve. Tracking Tracking, ‘capturing,’ and monitoring will be facilitated by reports by grantees, the GEP database, standard grant monitoring, special monitoring (where needed), GEP studies, case studies, and case books. Media Radio Pakistan, PTV, private TV channels, and FM radio stations will be used both locally and nationally for more in depth sensitization in districts and more outreach across Pakistan. A code of conduct will be prepared for media professionals vis-à-vis GBV sensitivities to protect victims and survivors and avoid sensationalism. Particular attention will be placed on the local print media in the selected districts. Engagement with media heads of both electronic and print media will be undertaken, to guide them and ensure more sensitive and holistic coverage of GBV issues on their channels and in their newspapers. Key Components of the GBV Strategy The strategy is based on five main components: Prevention, Identification and Reporting, Protection and Counseling, Provision of Justice, and Rehabilitation; developed and implemented in this sequence. The details are given below. Component 1 - Prevention Statistics from different research and secondary sources show that the GBV cases are escalating over recent years. This indicates the need for creating an enabling environment where prospective GBV victims can be protected before they are subjected to violence. Building partnerships for knowledge and action will be the main strategy for GBV prevention. It is expected that key stakeholders will play their role in developing this enabling environment at different levels: Relevant Legislation The entities that work on legislation and policy (including Parliament, National Commission on the Status of Women, Ministry of Human Rights, provincial Ministries of Women Development, and Women’s Caucus) will be co-opted to help create the enabling environment. These entities will be supported during the implementation of legislation, especially for laws passed recently, and while addressing the gaps in other existing legislation. Rapid Response by Institutions This involves key public institutions like helplines, police, judiciary, as well as private institutions to help prevent GBV, by enabling them to act rapidly when needed. For example, if there is a call to a helpline from a girl or woman in distress, the helplines need to be able to inform police immediately, so swift action can be taken. Similarly, in cases where a girl or woman goes missing, or gets abducted or kidnapped, the police should act rapidly to find her before a crime is committed. This requires functioning helplines and procedures for reporting crime, swift issuance of search warrants and action by police (or citizen-police liaison bodies), and efficient referral systems for victims to shelters or hospitals. 114 Awareness at the Local Level For developing an enabling environment at local-level community-based organizations and NGOs, women’s groups, local groups, and advocacy institutions have to be brought on board. Village elders (both men and women), teachers, mosque imams, and families will be engaged for promoting the enabling environment to prevent GBV. They will act as catalysts for raising awareness at the community level to make communities more vigilant and responsible for protecting vulnerable people. Efforts will be made to achieve the desired sensitization and awareness level – though it will be a real challenge to maintain the delicate balance between observing the need for privacy of the victim and stopping GBV. Aurat Foundation has long standing recognition across Pakistan for its community-based presence in the form of an established network of district-level Citizen Action Committees (CACs) across 73 districts in Pakistan. CACs have already been working on women’s issues for several years, but will be explored for a more focused role in the prevention of GBV. Media campaigns will be especially developed focusing on GBV prevention and reducing violence against women. Component 2 - Identification and Reporting Identification and reporting of GBV victims and survivors is a major impediment in addressing GBV and planning for services. Families succumb to feelings of shame or are bound by traditions of honor to hide the events or blame the survivor. Cases are therefore, rarely reported to anyone or ‘dealt with’ inside the larger family or clan. The inability of the victims to speak out or seek redress, and the lack of channels through which survivors may seek protective environments, means repeated cycles of violence. Since it is very difficult for the victims to break out of the repetitive cycles without any support mechanisms, it is imperative to identify agents within the social fabric who can act as conduits of change, support the survivors, or assist with their identification and reporting. For example, if the family is hiding the truth or the perpetrators are from within the family or among local powerful people, friends and local organizations may be encouraged to step forward. It is important to recognize that government institutions alone cannot track cases of violence without continued reporting, support from, and participation of community partners. It is, therefore, necessary to involve family, friends, peers, neighbors, and the community to assist in reporting GBV cases. For this purpose, interventions, and awareness and advocacy campaigns need to be planned at multiple levels from national campaigns to grassroots efforts. Given the GEP strategy of concentrating on a few selected districts, potential supporting actors in each district would need to be identified and included. A lack of data and documentation on gender-based crimes is an impediment in combating GBV. Gender Crime Cell is an important initiative of the government to gather data around gender-based crimes. However, there is a strong need to further strengthen this mechanism and establish Gender Crime Cells at the provincial levels. An effective referral system will be set up, which will include help lines, crisis centers, Dar ul Amans,98 private shelters, and the Gender Crime Cell. Helpline operators will be provided with training to help them facilitate the connection of survivors with safe havens that can help provide them with access to justice. Filing First Information Reports with police and obtaining timely help from medical and legal professionals will also be addressed. Helplines will be supported across regions to provide critical services free to the survivors of GBV. The services that will be supported include counseling, information provision, and referrals to shelters and medical centers for immediate relief and help. 98 These are orphanages. 115 Component 3 – Protection and Counseling The role of family, friends, and peers extends to involvement in protection and counseling. Sometimes, however, these people become the actual perpetrators of violence against women. In such situations, safe transitional services like shelters and safe houses with trained counselors become the only option for escape and immediate protection. However, these institutions, which play a critical role in the rehabilitation process, require a lot of strengthening. The different roles that police, lawyers, and courts have in protection and counseling will be established. Work will also be undertaken to develop and adapt, or adopt where present, standard operating procedures within the GEP model districts. Psychological, legal, and practical counseling will be provided, for which cadres of professionals will need to be developed, trained, and placed in the model districts. Engaging with youth through innovative initiatives like supporting youth-friendly spaces and providing critical information to youth on GBV and related issues in a youth friendly package will also be a focus of the strategy to combat GBV. In other developing countries where GBV and violence against women is rampant, there are many successful models of “One-Stop Centers” based in health institutions, which provide essential services to GBV survivors under one roof. Lessons should be taken from these models and successes, and interventions need to be planned to establish One-Stop Centers that provide free, quality services to the survivors of GBV in Pakistan. This involves exploring working with both private- and public-sector hospitals to establish gender-based violence recovery centers. These One-Stop Centers will offer free, comprehensive medical care and psychosocial support for survivors of rape and gender violence by offering emergency medical care, collecting and preserving forensic evidence, providing legal aid, and creating awareness of and advocacy efforts surrounding GBV in the public sphere. Component 4 – Accessing Justice The state of gender equity in overarching justice sectors as well as the institutional responses in the form of legal provisions and mechanisms for women to access justice will be examined. Police, family courts, civil and criminal courts, lawyers, and other public sector institutions will be sensitized. Policy advocacy against discriminatory laws like the Hudood laws and other family laws will also be carried out through the National Commission on the Status of Women. Parliamentarians and other groups will be engaged to end legislative discrimination and discriminatory behavior directed towards women by justice sector agencies. Part of the process is to enable fair and just attitudes, practices, and procedures for victims and survivors in the courts at various levels and ensure that precedents are set. GEP will employ a two-pronged strategy to achieve this: at one level, bar councils and law colleges will be capacitated to acquire requisite knowledge and expertise to handle women’s rights cases. Resource pools at the local level will play a critical role as future women’s rights defenders. On another level, this resource pool will be linked with law firms, shelters, and hot lines - especially in the GEP model districts. In these districts, the possibility of making Dar ul Amans part of the system will also be examined. Watchdog organizations and media will be used to build focus and raise awareness. Perpetrators of violence are also integrated members of society, and it is important to help them evolve their attitudes towards women and become more responsible members of society. Working with perpetrators is one innovative approach towards a GBV-free society, and initiatives will be taken to provide offenders with psychosocial counseling and sensitization sessions to teach new attitudes and behaviors. 116 Component 5 – Rehabilitation and Self-fulfillment Victims and survivors of violence are often shunned by their families and the community. The situation becomes worse for those who seek protection and help from police, shelters, or crisis centers. For many victims of violence, the concept of full rehabilitation means acceptance back into family units and the community. To address this, GEP will instill interventions that provide immediate redress as well as sustainable long-term solutions. For example, this may include providing economic opportunities for survivors that will help them rejoin the community. Specifically, GEP will work in the following areas:  Government programs including housing and working women’s hostels  Opportunities for employment with NGOs and other community-based organizations in the private and public sectors  Access to micro- and medium-finance and lines of credit Status of Implementation of GEP’s GBV Strategy Main Components of GEP’s GBV Strategy GEP Implementation Prevention Legislation and government strategies against GBV Women Development Department Sindh has used GEP’s GBV strategy to inform its provincial policy on women’s development. Rapid response by service providers such as help lines, police, judiciary, shelters and hospitals. Twelve help lines supported in four provinces and one in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Eight private shelters strengthened. Four government crisis centers supported. Judges provided with training on women’s rights. Raising local awareness through community-based organizations, NGOs, women groups, and local groups. Twelve advocacy and information dissemination campaigns. Twenty-three four-month campaigns on GBV. Engaging local elders, teachers, mosque imams, and families. Conducting media campaigns on GBV prevention and reduction. Two media campaigns to raise awareness of GBV through cartoons and talk shows. Identification and Reporting Strengthening data and documentation mechanisms. Research conducted on Police Reporting and Investigation Mechanism, and Crisis Centers and Gender Crime Cell. Strengthening referral systems and help lines. Twelve help lines supported in four provinces and one in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. 117 Protection and Counseling Standard operating procedures to document the role of service providers and the legal system. 99 Psychological, legal, and practical counseling. Three activities for psychosocial and legal counseling for GBV victims. Support for “One-Stop Centers” for GBV victims, including medical, psychosocial, and legal aid. Accessing Justice Gender sensitization of the legal sector. Gender sensitization of judicial officials in Sindh. Women’s rights training for bar counsels and law colleges. Four grants supporting women to join law enforcement and judicial systems. Linking counsels and law students with law firms, shelters, and help lines. 152 internships for female law students. Psychosocial counseling and sensitization for GBV perpetrators. Mobilizing watchdog organizations. Rehabilitation and Self-fulfillment Opportunities for employment. Five activities for economic rehabilitation of GBV victims. Access to finance and credit lines. Support government programs for housing and women’s hostels. 99 While GEP has not developed standard operating procedures, Pakistani-NGO ROZAN has worked with the Sindh Women’s Development Department to develop procedures for the Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Centers for Women. 118 ANNEX VI: GEP GRANTS DATABASE AS OF OCTOBER 7, 2013 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle 1 Competitive Reclaiming/obtaining land titles in Balochistan Youth Organization Quetta 1 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 29-Feb-12 1 2 Competitive Reclaiming/obtaining land titles in KP Governance Institutes Network International Islamabad 1 2 Closed 1-Feb-11 29-Feb-12 1 3 Competitive Reclaiming/obtaining land titles in Punjab Sanjh Development Foundation Mianwali 1 2 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Oct-11 1 4 Competitive Reclaiming/obtaining land titles in Sindh Sewa Development Trust Sindh Khairpur 1 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Oct-11 1 5 Competitive Water systems rehabilitation in Punjab Young Man Society Mailsi 2 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Jul-11 1 6 Competitive Re-establishing women's economic activities in Punjab Karwan Community Development Organization Mianwali 2 2 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Oct-11 1 7 Competitive Re-establishing women's economic activities in Sindh Kainaat Development Association Kandkot 2 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 30-Nov￾11 1 8 Competitive Water systems rehabilitation in Balochistan Al-Mahboob Welfare Society Barkhan 2 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Jul-11 1 9 Competitive Re-establishing women's economic activities in Balochistan Masoom Rights Development Society Quetta 2 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Oct-11 1 10 Competitive Re-establishing women's economic activities in Balochistan The National Educational and Environmental Development Society Naseerabad 2 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 29-Feb-12 1 11 Competitive Water systems rehabilitation in KP Rural Development Organization Buner 2 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Jul-11 1 119 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle 12 Competitive Water systems rehabilitation in KP Blue Veins Peshawar 2 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 15-Feb-12 1 13 Competitive Re-establishing women's economic activities in KP Women Association Struggle for Development Mardan 2 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 15-Feb-12 1 14 Competitive Water systems rehabilitation in Punjab Friends Foundation Islamabad 2 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Jul-11 1 15 Competitive Water systems rehabilitation in Sindh Goth Sudhar Sangat Sindh Dadu 2 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 29-Feb-12 1 16 Competitive Media Training Individual and (FOG) Islamabad 2 3 Closed 1-Feb-11 30-Apr-12 1 17 Non￾Competitive Improving women's crises center Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Centre for Women-Islamabad (EBOG) Islamabad 3 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Jan-13 1 18 Non￾Competitive Improving women's crises center Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Centre for Women-Quetta (EOBG) Quetta 3 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Dec-11 1 19 Non￾Competitive Improving women's crises center Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Centre for Women-Sahiwal (EOBG) Sahiwal 3 1 Closed 1-Feb-11 31-Jan-13 1 20 Non￾Competitive Improving women's crises center Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Centre for Women (Jacobabad) (EOBG) Jacobabad 3 2 Closed 16-Dec-11 31-Jul-13 1 21 Non￾Competitive Institutional strengthening of NCSW National Commission on the Status of Women, Islamabad (EOBG) Islamabad 4 4 Closed 1-Feb-11 15-Jun-12 1 22 Competitive Media campaign Black Box Sounds Islamabad 2 3 Closed 25-May-11 15-May-12 1 120 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle (FOG) 23 Competitive Focused GBV study on customary practices Department of Gender Studies, University of the Punjab Lahore 3 1 Closed 1-Jun-11 29-Feb-12 1 24 Competitive Focused GBV Study on Domestic violence SEBCON (PVT) LTD Lahore 3 1 Closed 1-Jun-11 30-Sep-11 1 25 Competitive Focused GBV Study on Sexual harassment Semiotics Consultants (Pvt) Ltd Islamabad 3 1 Closed 1-Jun-11 29-Feb-12 1 26 Competitive Baseline study of GEP Applied Economic Research Centre (AERC) Karachi 3 3 Closed 27-Jun-11 30-Jun-12 1 27 Competitive Supporting Women to Join Law Enforcement and Judicial Systems￾Balochistan Change Thru Empowerment Quetta 1 2 Closed 1-Aug-11 31-Dec-12 2 28 Non￾Competitive Institutional strengthening of Centers of Excellence for Women in Balochistan Gender Development Studies Department￾Quetta Quetta 4 1 Closeout in Process 15-Dec-11 28-Feb-13 2 29 Competitive Enhancing awareness of women’s rights and gender mainstreaming in the youth Publishing Extension Network (PEN) Gilgit 2 1 Closed 1-Sep-11 15-Apr-13 2 30 Competitive Supporting Women to Join Law Enforcement and Judicial Systems- KP Youth Resource Centre Peshawar 1 2 Closed 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 2 31 Competitive Enhancing awareness of women’s rights and gender mainstreaming in the youth Bargad Youth Organization Gujranwala 2 2 Closed 1-Aug-11 15-Apr-13 2 32 Competitive Cartoon serial to raise Creative Village- Lahore 3 3 Closed 1-Sep-11 30-Apr-13 2 121 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle awareness on GBV issues University of Lahore 33 Non￾Competitive Enhancing women’s economic participation and employment opportunities through development of their skills and capacity First Women Bank Limited Karachi 2 3 Ongoing 1-Sep-11 31-Mar-14 2 34 Competitive Pretesting and KAP surveys for GBV media campaign Training of grantees on conducting baseline and endline surveys Four Corners Groups (Pvt) Ltd Karachi 4 3 Closed 1-Aug-11 30-Sep-12 2 35 Competitive Training of sub-grantees on project cycle management and financial management Human Resource Development Centre, IMS Peshawar 4 3 Closed 1-Aug-11 30-Sep-12 2 36 Competitive Enhanced awareness of GBV through talk shows on private channels Interflow Communications (Pvt) Ltd Islamabad 3 3 Closed 1-Sep-11 30-Sep-12 2 37 Non￾Competitive Responding to human rights challenges in Pakistan Ministry of Human Rights Islamabad 4 3 Ongoing 2-Jul-12 30-Nov￾13 2 38 Competitive Strengthening/Capacity building of women organizations Strengthening Participatory Organization (SPO) Islamabad 4 4 Ongoing 2-Jul-12 28-Feb-15 2 39 Non￾Competitive Institutional strengthening of Centers of Excellence for Women in Punjab Department of Gender Studies, University of the Punjab Lahore 4 1 Closeout in Process 1-Nov-11 31-Dec-12 2 40 Competitive Supporting Women to Women Social Muzaffargarh 1 3 Closed 1-Aug-11 31-Aug-13 2 122 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle Join Law Enforcement and Judicial Systems￾Punjab Organization 41 Non￾Competitive Institutional strengthening of Centers of Excellence for Women in Sindh Centre for Excellence for women's Studies. University of the Karachi Karachi 4 1 Closed 1-Nov-11 31-Dec-12 2 42 Competitive Join Law Enforcement and Judicial Systems￾Sindh Legal Rights Forum Karachi 1 2 Closed 1-Oct-11 31-Jul-13 2 43 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Today’s Women Organization Quetta 3 2 Terminate d 16-Jan-12 15-Mar-13 3 44 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Society for Human Assistance and Development (SHAD) Quetta 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Jan-12 15-Mar-13 3 45 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts The Needs Nareerabad 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Jan-12 15-Mar-13 3 46 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Gul Welfare Organization Loralai 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Jan-12 15-Mar-13 3 47 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Oasis Development Foundation Sibbi 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Jan-12 31-Mar-13 3 48 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Society for Human Interest and Neglected Environs (SHINE) Nasirabad 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Jan-12 31-Mar-13 3 49 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Drugs and Narcotics Educational Quetta 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Mar-12 31-Mar-13 3 123 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle Services for Humanity (DANESH) 50 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Step Towards Empowering Pupils (STEP) Mardan 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Jan-12 31-Mar-13 3 51 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Dir Area Development Organization Dir (Upper) 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Jan-12 31-Mar-13 3 52 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Al Asar Development Organization Dera Ghazi Khan 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Jan-12 31-Mar-13 3 53 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Pakistan Youth League (FOG) Rahimyar Khan 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Mar-12 31-Mar-13 3 54 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Saiban Bahawalnagar 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Jan-12 31-Mar-13 3 55 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Sindh Development Society (SDS) Hyderabad 3 2 Ongoing 1-Sep-12 30-Nov￾13 3 56 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Devcon -An Association for Rural Development Sanghar 3 2 Closeout in Process 16-Jan-12 31-Mar-13 3 57 Competitive Women’s CNIC Registration in Selected Districts Shah Sachal Sami Foundation, Sindh Nawabshah 3 2 Terminate d 16-Jan-12 31-Mar-13 3 58 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Women Welfare Organization Poonch Islamabad 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 30-Jun-12 4 59 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Aurat Association Mansehra 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 11-May-12 4 60 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Anjuman Falah-o￾bahbood Aids Kech (Turbat) 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 15-Jun-12 4 124 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle Council 61 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Awareness on Human Rights, Social Development and Action Society (AHSAS-Pk) Quetta 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 11-May-12 4 62 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Azat Foundation Naushki 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 11-May-12 4 63 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Society For Awareness, Advocacy and Development (SAAD) Quetta 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 11-May-12 4 64 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Society for Empowering Human Resource (SEHR) Quetta 3 2 Closed 15-Dec-11 31-Aug-12 4 65 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Association of Global Humanists and Ethics Islamabad 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 15-Apr-13 4 66 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Association Behavior for Knowledge Transformation (ABKT) Peshawar 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 11-May-12 4 67 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Aware Girls Peshawar 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 15-Jul-12 4 68 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Dehi Ijtamai Taraqati Social Welfare Council Dir (Upper) 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 15-Jul-12 4 69 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Foundation for Integrated Development Islamabad 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 15-Jul-12 4 125 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle Action(FIDA) 70 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Devolution Trust for Community Empowerment (DTCE) Islamabad 3 3 Closed 1-Dec-11 15-Oct-12 4 71 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Grass-root Organization for Human Development Lahore 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 11-May-12 4 72 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Society for Advancement of Community Health, Education and Training Islamabad 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 11-May-12 4 73 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV South Punjab NGO, Forum Multan 3 2 Closed 12-Dec-11 30-Jun-12 4 74 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Community Support Concern Lahore 3 2 Closed 15-Dec-11 14-Jun-12 4 75 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Society for Uplifting Community (FOG) Multan 3 2 Closed 16-Dec-11 15-May-12 4 76 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Sindh Development Society Hyderabad 3 2 Closed 15-Dec-11 31-Aug-12 4 77 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Participatory Education and Community Empowerment (PEACE) Quetta 3 2 Closed 15-Dec-11 14-Jun-12 4 78 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV HWA Foundation Ghotki 3 2 Closed 15-Dec-11 31-Aug-12 4 79 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV HANDS Karachi 3 2 Closed 15-Dec-11 15-Sep-12 4 80 Competitive Supporting four-month campaign on GBV Kainaat Development Kandhkot 3 2 Closed 11-Jan-12 15-Sep-12 4 126 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle Association 81 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Devolution Trust for Community Empowerment (DTCE) Islamabad 3 4 Closeout in Process 21-May-12 20-Sep-13 5 82 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Dehi Samaji Taraqiati Council (DSTC) RajanPur 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 83 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Association for Gender Awareness and Human Empowerment (AGAHE) Vehari 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 84 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Soofi Sachal Sarmast Welfare Association Kandkot, Kashmore, Sindh 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 85 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Management and Development Foundation Hyderabad 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 86 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Sami Foundation UmerKot Sindh 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 87 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Bhittai Social Welfare Association KhairPur 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 88 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Chagi Development Organization Quetta 3 1 Terminate d 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 89 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Masoom Rights Development Society Quetta 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 90 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Balochistan Social Development Program Quetta 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 127 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle 91 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Aid Balochistan Quetta 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 92 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Marken Resource Center (MRC) Trust Turbat 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 93 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Agosh Welfare Society and Development Association Quetta 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 94 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Awareness on Human Rights - Social Development and Action Society (AHSAS-PAK) Quetta 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 95 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Almehboob Welfare Society (AWMS) Barkhan 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 96 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Youth Organization Quetta 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 97 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Youth Association for Development (YAD) Quetta 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 98 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Pak Women Mardan 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Jun-13 5 99 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Community Support Foundation (CSF) Muzaffarabad 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 100 Competitive Supporting women's CNIC registration in selected districts Roshan Youth Welfare Organization Hattian Bala, Azad Jammu and Kashmir 3 1 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 5 128 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle (RYWO) 101 Competitive Facilitating Economic rehabilitation of GBV Survivors Basic Education for Awareness Reforms and Empowerment (BEFARE) Peshawar 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 102 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors Khwendo Kor (KK) in consortium with StepNex Services (Pvt.) Ltd Peshawar 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 103 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors Sawera Development Organization (SDO) Dera Ismail Khan 3 2 Terminate d 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 104 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors Community Development Organization (CDO) Swabi 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Aug-12 30-Sep-13 6 A 105 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors Labour Resource Center Lahore 3 2 Ongoing 1-Jan-13 28-Feb-14 6 A 106 Competitive Facilitating Economic rehabilitation of GBV Survivors FACES Pakistan Lahore 3 2 Ongoing 16-Mar-13 30-May-14 6 A 107 Competitive Facilitating Economic rehabilitation of GBV Survivors Sudhaar Society Lahore 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 108 Competitive Facilitating Economic rehabilitation of GBV Survivors Farmers Friends Organization Sheikhupura 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 109 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors Initiative for Change (IFC) Multan 3 2 Terminate d 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 110 Competitive Facilitating help lines Health Muzaffargarh 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 129 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle responses to GBV Survivors Environment Literacy Organization (HELO) 111 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors DAMAAN￾Development through Awareness and Motivation Islamabad 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 112 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors Human Dignity Society in consortium with Rahnuma FPA (HDS) Quetta 3 2 Ongoing 16-Nov￾12 31-Dec-13 6 A 113 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors AZAT foundation Noshki 3 2 Ongoing 12-Dec-11 11-May-12 6 A 114 Competitive Facilitating Economic rehabilitation of GBV Survivors Health and Nutrition Development Society (HANDS) Karachi 3 2 Ongoing 15-Dec-11 15-Sep-12 6 A 115 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors Roshni Research and Development Welfare Organization (RRDWO) Karachi 3 2 Ongoing 1-Dec-12 31-Jan-14 6 A 116 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors Kainaat Development Association (KDA) Kashmore 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 117 Competitive Facilitating help lines responses to GBV Survivors Fundamental Human Rights and Rural Development Association (FHRRDA) Badin 3 2 Ongoing 1-Dec-12 31-Jan-14 6 A 118 Competitive Facilitating help lines Goth Sudhaar Dadu 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 130 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle responses to GBV Survivors Sanget Sindh (GSSS) 119 Competitive Advocacy and information dissemination campaign Association for Global Humanities and Ethics Islamabad 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Nov-12 30-Sep-13 6 A 120 Competitive Advocacy and information dissemination campaign Women Welfare Organization Islamabad 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Nov-12 30-Sep-13 6 A 121 Competitive Strengthening private shelters Noor Educational Trust (NET) Peshawar 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 122 Competitive Establishment of psycho-Social and Legal Counseling units in private shelters Youth Resource Centre Peshawar 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 123 Competitive Advocacy and Information dissemination campaign Foundation For Integrated Development Action Islamabad 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Oct-13 6 A 124 Competitive Advocacy and Information dissemination campaign Blue Viens Peshawar 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 15-Nov￾13 6 A 125 Competitive Advocacy and Information dissemination campaign Pakistan Rural Development Program Peshawar 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 30-Nov￾13 6 A 126 Competitive Advocacy and Information dissemination campaign Interactive Resource Centre Lahore 3 3 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Mar-13 6 A 127 Competitive Strengthening private shelters Dastak Charitable Trust Lahore 3 3 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 128 Competitive Strengthening private shelters Bali Memorial Trust (BMT) Lahore 3 3 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 129 Competitive Strengthening private shelters Star Welfare Organization (SWO) Sargodha 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 131 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle 130 Competitive Strengthening private shelters Mukhtara Mai Women Organization Muzaffargarh 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 131 Competitive Strengthening private shelters Acid Survivor Foundation (ASF) Islamabad 3 3 Ongoing 15-Jan-13 14-Mar-14 6 A 132 Competitive Advocacy and Information dissemination campaign SACHET Islamabad 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Nov-12 30-Sep-13 6 A 133 Competitive Advocacy and Information dissemination campaign Youth Front Pakistan D.I Khan 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 134 Competitive Establishment of psycho-Social and Legal Counseling units in private shelters Insaan Foundation Trust District Lahore, Sargodha, Muzaffargarh 3 2 Ongoing 1-Apr-13 31-Dec-13 6 A 135 Competitive Strengthening private shelters Panah Shelter Home Karachi 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 136 Competitive Strengthening private shelters Bint-e-Fatima Old Homes Trust Karachi 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 137 Competitive Establishment of psycho-Social and Legal Counseling units in private shelters War Against Rape Karachi 3 2 Ongoing 1-Nov-12 31-Dec-13 6 A 138 Competitive Advocacy and information dissemination campaign Sindh Community Foundation Hyderabad 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Nov-12 30-Sep-13 6 A 139 Competitive Advocacy and information dissemination campaign Al-Mehran Rural development Organization Hyderabad 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Nov-12 30-Sep-13 6 A 140 Competitive Advocacy and information dissemination campaign Himalayan Rural Support Program (HRSP) Muzaffarabad 3 2 Terminated 1-Apr-13 28-Feb-14 6 A 141 Competitive Advocacy and information Center of Peace and Development Quetta 3 2 Closeout in Process 1-Nov-12 30-Sep-13 6 A 132 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle dissemination campaign 142 Non￾Competitive Development of Linkages with E-Portal among Public sector Universities Bahauddin Zakariya University (BZU), Multan (Punjab) Multan 4 2 Ongoing 17-Dec-12 16-Feb-14 6 B 143 Non￾Competitive Development of Linkages with E-Portal among Public sector Universities The Islamia University (IU), Bahawalpur (Punjab) Bahawalpur 4 1 Ongoing 17-Dec-12 16-Feb-14 6 B 144 Non￾Competitive Development of Linkages with E-Portal among Public sector Universities University of Sargodha Sargodha 4 2 Ongoing 17-Dec-12 16-Feb-14 6 B 145 Non￾Competitive Supporting Pakistan Radio Broadcasting Corporation for Gender Sensitization Campaign Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC)/Radio Pakistan Lahore 3 4 Ongoing 1-Jan-13 28-Feb-14 6 B 146 Non￾Competitive Development of Linkages with E-Portal among Public sector Universities. Shah Abdul Latif University Khairpur 4 2 Ongoing 17-Dec-12 16-Feb-14 6 B 147 Non￾Competitive Development of Linkages with E-Portal among Public sector Universities. University of Sindh Jamshoro 4 2 Ongoing 17-Dec-12 16-Feb-14 6 B 148 Non￾Competitive Aimed to gender sensitization and training of judicial officials. Sindh Judicial Academy Karachi 2 4 Ongoing 15-Mar-13 14-Jul-14 6 B 149 Non￾Competitive Development of Linkages with E-Portal among Public sector Universities. Gomal University Dera Ismail Khan 4 2 Ongoing 17-Dec-12 16-Feb-14 6 B 133 Sr.# Type of Grant Grant Title Grantee Name Grant Location (Office) Objective Grant Tier Status Grant Start Date Grant End Date Grant Cycle 150 Non￾Competitive Strengthening Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women Centers and Women Complaint Centers in Sindh. Women Development Department, Government of Sindh (WDD, Sindh) Karachi 3 2 Ongoing 11-Mar-13 31-May-14 6 B 151 Non￾Competitive Advocacy and Communication Provincial Commission on the Status of Women Peshawar 1 2 Ongoing 11-Mar-13 31-May-14 6 B 152 Non￾Competitive Establishment of Help Line, Mass Awareness, and Capacity Building Social Welfare and Women Development Department (SWWDD) Muzaffarabad 3 2 Ongoing N/A 6 B * Note: Two Non-Competitive Sub-grants, the National Vocational and Technical Training Commission NAVTTC (Multan Jail), and the National Vocational and Technical Training Commission NAVTTC (Larkana Jail): although summaries were initially approved by the USAID, they withdrew before the signing the Letter of Grant. 134 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523