October 2014 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Ruth Rosenberg, Zakia Hassan, and Saiful Islam of Social Impact, Inc. August 2014 Final Performance Evaluation of the Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program Cover Photo Credit: Ruth Rosenberg Focus group discussion with students involved in awareness-raising in their communities. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE ACTIONS FOR COMBATING TRAFFICKING-IN￾PERSONS (ACT) PROGRAM TOWARD PREVENTION, PROSECUTION, PROTECTION, AND ADVOCACY IN BANGLADESH October 1, 2014 USAID Contract AID-OAA-I-10-00003 Task Order AID-388-TO-12-00001 DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ii CONTENTS Acronyms..........................................................................................................................................................iv I. Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................v Introduction...................................................................................................................................................v The Development Problem and USAID’s Response ............................................................................v Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions.......................................................................................v Evaluation Methodology and Limitations................................................................................................vi Findings and Conclusions...........................................................................................................................vi Recommendations and Lessons Learned ...............................................................................................ix II. Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1 III. The Development Problem and USAID’s Response........................................................................2 Human Trafficking in Bangladesh ..............................................................................................................2 USAID Response ..........................................................................................................................................3 Evaluation Purpose.......................................................................................................................................3 Evaluation Questions...................................................................................................................................4 IV. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations............................................................................................5 Desktop Review of Key Documents and Initial Analysis.....................................................................5 Key Informant Interviews: National .........................................................................................................5 Field Visits ......................................................................................................................................................6 Key Informant Interviews: Local ...............................................................................................................6 Survivor Interviews......................................................................................................................................6 Focus Group Discussions...........................................................................................................................6 Limitations and Constraints.......................................................................................................................7 V. Findings and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 10 Evaluation Question 1 .............................................................................................................................. 10 Evaluation Question 2 .............................................................................................................................. 17 Evaluation Question 3 .............................................................................................................................. 25 Evaluation Question 4 .............................................................................................................................. 30 Evaluation Question 5 .............................................................................................................................. 32 Evaluation Question 6 .............................................................................................................................. 33 Evaluation Question 7 .............................................................................................................................. 34 Evaluation Question 8 .............................................................................................................................. 35 iii VI. Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................................................... 37 Prevention................................................................................................................................................... 37 Protection ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Prosecution................................................................................................................................................. 37 VII. Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 38 Evaluation Question 1 .............................................................................................................................. 38 Evaluation Question 2 .............................................................................................................................. 38 Evaluation Question 3 .............................................................................................................................. 38 Evaluation Question 8 .............................................................................................................................. 39 Cross-Cutting............................................................................................................................................. 39 Annexes........................................................................................................................................................... 40 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work................................................................................................... 41 Annex II: ACT Project Results Framework............................................................................................. 51 Annex III: Map of ACT Project Evaluation Sites in Bangladesh........................................................... 52 Annex IV: Documents Reviewed ............................................................................................................... 53 Annex V: Bibliographical Documentation ................................................................................................ 59 Annex VI: Data Collection Matrix ............................................................................................................. 61 Annex VII: Evaluation Instruments............................................................................................................. 65 Annex VIII: Data Generated from the Evaluation .................................................................................. 85 Annex IX: Interview Lists............................................................................................................................. 91 Annex X: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest .................................................................................. 97 TABLES Table 1: Field Visit Locations, Project Components, and Local Implementers..................................6 Table 2: FGD and KII Participants.................................................................................................................7 Table 3: Number of People Reached by Awareness-Raising Activities............................................. 11 Table 4: Training and Advocacy Events with Community Leaders and Volunteers....................... 12 Table 5: Anirban Advocacy Activities........................................................................................................ 13 Table 6: Anirban Awareness-Raising Activities....................................................................................... 14 Table 7: Number of Journalists Trained by ACT and the Number of Report/Articles Published by Journalists Trained by the ACT Project.............................................................................................. 15 Table 8: Number of Survivors Receiving Vocational or Entrepreneurship Training or Internships ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 9: Number of Survivors Securing Job Placements ...................................................................... 21 Table 10: Number of Survivors Receiving Support for Opening a Business.................................... 22 Table 11: Trafficking Cases from June 15, 2004 – June 15, 2014 Broken Down by Sex and Age by Year............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Table 12: National Trafficking Conviction Data ..................................................................................... 29 iv ACRONYMS ACT Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons ATC Anti-Trafficking Committee BDGPE Bangladesh Democracy and Governance Program Evaluations BMET Bureau of Manpower, Employment, and Training CBO Community-Based Organization CSO Civil Society Organization CTC Counter Trafficking Committee DAM Dhaka Ahsania Mission DEMO District Education and Manpower Offices FGD Focus Group Discussion GOB Government of Bangladesh HTDSA Human Trafficking Deterrence and Suppression Act IEC Information, Education, and Communication ILO International Labor Organization IR Intermediate Result KII Key Informant Interview M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOEWOE Ministry of Expatriate Welfare and Overseas Employment MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs MOU Memorandum of Understanding MT Migration Training NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPA National Plan of Action PA Public Awareness PIL Public Interest Lawsuit PMP Performance Monitoring Plan RFP Request for Proposal TIP Trafficking-in-Persons TOT Training of Trainers UP Union Parishad USAID United States Agency for International Development WI Winrock International v I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Project is a six year $5.4 million project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Bangladesh. The ACT Project commenced on October 1, 2008 and is scheduled to end on September 30, 2014. ACT is implemented by Winrock International (WI) under a Cooperative Agreement with USAID. The overall objective of the ACT Project is to improve the ability of Bangladeshi institutions to combat trafficking-in-persons (TIP) and unsafe migration. ACT has four intermediate results (IR) designed to achieve the overall objective, as follows:  IR 1: Ensure that the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) is active in prosecuting TIP crimes and preventing fraudulent practices in the migration process.  IR 2: Improve the capacity of institutions to identify traffickers and prevent vulnerability of migrant workers.  IR 3: Increase the capacity of communities to prevent human trafficking and promote safe migration.  IR 4: Improve protection and care for survivors of human trafficking. THE DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM AND USAID’S RESPONSE Bangladesh is primarily a source country for human trafficking. Bangladeshi children and adults are trafficked internally for commercial sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, and forced and bonded labor – including forced begging. Bangladeshi men, women, and children are also trafficked abroad, primarily for labor exploitation and prostitution. Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, lack of awareness, gender discrimination, gender-based violence, natural disasters, and lack of proper implementation of the existing laws penalizing trafficking all contribute to the problem. USAID began an anti-trafficking programming in Bangladesh in 2000 with small grants to local non￾governmental organizations (NGOs), followed by the Counter-Trafficking Interventions in Prevention, Protection, and Prosecution for Victims of Trafficking in Persons project in 2005. Then in 2008, USAID launched the ACT Project, which aims to expand the definition and legal framework to include labor trafficking and engage government entities to reduce exploitation through labor recruitment processes. It also seeks to increase prosecution of trafficking cases, improve services for survivors, and expand awareness raising efforts. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS This external, final performance evaluation was designed to measure the effectiveness of the ACT Project as well as assess the sustainability of project activities and the efficiency of project implementation. In addition, this evaluation aims to draw lessons for the selection, design, and implementation of future TIP projects. The evaluation asks to what extent the ACT Project has been successful in: vi  Strengthening the capacity of communities to prevent TIP and unsafe labor migration within and from Bangladesh;  Enhancing and standardizing the care of victims of trafficking and labor migration abuses; and  Strengthening the GOB’s capacity to prosecute traffickers and trafficking related crime. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS To respond to the questions enumerated above, the evaluation team applied a mixed-method approach – including Key Informant Interviews (KII), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and an extensive literature review. Given the limited time available for field work, the evaluation team, in consultation with USAID and WI, elected to visit ACT Project sites in the Jessore, Satkhira, Sirajgani, Dinajpur (Hilli), Rajshahi, and Dhaka districts. As with all evaluations, there are limitations and constraints imposed upon the evaluation process. To combat recall, response, and selection bias, the evaluation team used multiple sources of data to triangulate information for each evaluation question. Findings from KIIs, FGDs, and the literature review were analyzed by activity component: 1) prevention; 2) prosecution and advocacy; and 3) protection. By combining information found in documents or interviews from multiple sources, any one piece of biased data should not skew the analysis. The evaluation team intended to use data the ACT Project collects through its Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) for the evaluation. However, only annual data could be collected and had to be consolidated by the evaluators to obtain cumulative project data. Also, the PMP and indicators were modified, with some indicators being dropped and new ones added during the course of the project. The data that the evaluators were able to consolidate is included in Annex VIII. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Prevention Question 1: To what extent has the ACT Project been successful in strengthening the capacity of communities to prevent TIP and unsafe labor migration within and from Bangladesh? The ACT Project promoted and raised awareness of legal migration processes, making people more conscious of the exploitation that can take place through migration channels. While ACT’s materials clearly discuss labor trafficking and the trafficking of men, and the project beneficiaries clearly understood that men can be victims of trafficking, the vast majority of examples of trafficking we were told about or we witnessed being presented to communities were about women being trafficked for prostitution. Therefore, messages may be inadvertently discouraging female migration and making it more difficult for returning female migrants. The evaluation team found that ACT partners do not have a clear understanding of trafficking. When asked to define trafficking, one project partner failed to mention any forms of exploitation and referred to trafficking as “harmful situations” and the “loss of control” (KII, June 18, 2014). ACT partners and beneficiaries are conflating human trafficking with irregular migration and safe migration with legal migration. vii The ACT Project engaged primarily in public awareness raising activities to achieve its prevention objective. While the project seems to have been effective at raising awareness, this does not necessarily result in the prevention of trafficking. The project partners and project beneficiaries are of the opinion that behavioral change is taking place and unsafe migration is being reduced. It is beyond the scope of this evaluation to determine if this is true. Protection Question 2: How successful is the ACT Project at enhancing and standardizing the care of victims of trafficking and labor migration abuses? The ACT Project developed a systematic approach to survivor services – instilling this approach in its partners through the case management process and development of service standards. ACT developed measures to encourage partners to take a proactive and individualized approach to assistance planning by incorporating the abilities, interests, and preferences of the survivors. KIIs indicate that through the ACT Project’s efforts there have been significant improvements in survivor services processes and outcomes. However, due to delays in the publication of the project’s survivor services standards, along with the project’s limited reach to service providers who are not ACT sub-grantees, the project has not improved services for survivors assisted by non-ACT partners. Although WI has provided limited counseling training to their project partners, ACT partners still struggle to provide effective counseling services and livelihood support. However, such short-term courses cannot substitute for professional training, and none of the counselors employed by service providers interviewed for the evaluation have counseling degrees. WI has worked to expand livelihood approaches by improving vocational training to include less traditional and more marketable skills, along with building a network of private companies willing to employ or provide internships to survivors. WI did not provide the evaluators with sufficient data to assess the impact of service provision on survivors’ livelihoods and income. Some ACT Project partners have been successful in winning compensation claims for survivors trafficked through official labor migration mechanisms. These awards have had significant impacts on the lives of those survivors. However, the ACT survivor services partners did not have sufficient information for the evaluators to assess as to whether all the partners are equally successful at winning compensation claims or if they encourage survivors to pursue this avenue of redress. Prosecution Question 3: To what extent has the ACT Project been successful in strengthening the GOB’s capacity to prosecute traffickers and trafficking related crime? The ACT Project has been successful in assisting the GOB to establish and implement a National Plan of Action (NPA). It has also successfully advocated for the expansion of the definition of trafficking to include labor trafficking, internal trafficking, and the trafficking of adult men. However, the assessment calls into question the success of activities aimed at achieving IR I, ensuring that the GOB is active in prosecuting TIP crimes. While arrests have increased, prosecutions and convictions have not. The evaluators find that the project activities designed to address this IR are insufficient. Gender and Youth Question 4: How successful is the ACT Project in addressing gender and youth issues? viii WI and its partners have designed survivor services to address different needs of male and female survivors of trafficking. Notably, they expanded services for adult male victims by providing services outside the confines of shelter homes. As a result, they have developed a service model that also better fits the needs of many female survivors. ACT partners also tried to address some of the discrimination inherent in the migration processes and have been especially successful in increasing compensation awards for female migrants. Sustainability Question 5: How sustainable are ACT Project activities, and what measures could have been taken to enhance sustainability? PA raising mechanisms engaged local community members – through courtyard meetings and working with local leaders, students, and teachers – and built their capacity to raise awareness in their own communities. As a result, this element of the project may be sustained into the immediate future, so long as the community remains focused on the issue. Because training for police, prosecutors, and judges is not integrated into the foundation or in-service training mechanisms, but rather conducted by WI and project partners directly, it is not likely to be continued when the project ends. The same is true of pre-decision and pre-departure training for migrant workers. Only one of the three survivor services providers interviewed has sufficient means to remain operational without continued ACT funding. Those partners most involved in assisting male survivors and in supporting compensation claims do not have their own funding and are not currently sustainable. These two partners will temporarily remain open after their ACT contracts end, but substantive services which require input of funds – such as vocational training and seed money for small businesses – will not be continued and other services cannot be sustained indefinitely without additional funding support. Alternative Approaches Question 6: Is there evidence from the implementation of ACT to suggest that alternative project approaches would have been more successful or was ACT’s approach the most efficient? It is not clear that raising awareness prevents trafficking or that it is the most effective approach (Nieuwenhuys & Pécoud, 2007). However, WI did not experiment with any alternative approaches. As we discuss in greater detail in the main body of this report, alternative prevention strategies, such as addressing other vulnerabilities, might have been piloted in the project areas. Alternative approaches to building the capacity of public justice system actors to investigate and prosecute trafficking cases might have yielded better results. For example, USAID might consider programs that provide more intensive long-term, on-the-job training for a small cadre of police, prosecutors, and judges. Enhancing Capacity of Project Partners Question 7: How effective and/or flexible has the ACT management structure (WI, its implementing partners, and USAID) been in enhancing the capacity of ACT NGO partners? WI provided many capacity-building opportunities to partners. Capacity building resulted in consistent delivery of trainings and messages and boosted partners’ confidence in their own training skills. While WI increased their partners’ survivor services delivery skills through integrated case management tools ix and processes, the capacity building they provided in the area of counseling was insufficient to address the shortcomings in their partners’ staff professional training. Addressing Recommendations from Mid-Term Review Question 8: How effectively and efficiently has the ACT Project addressed the recommendations of the Mid-term Evaluation of the project accepted by USAID and WI? ACT was generally able to address the four mid-term evaluation recommendations accepted by USAID and WI, although some of the impact of these recommendations was diminished due to delays in implementation:  Recommendation 1: WI developed materials to reinforce the basic concepts and definition of TIP and how TIP differs from other related but separate concepts. Due to the delay in implementation, which we discuss in the main body of the report, the materials were distributed just prior to the evaluation.  Recommendation 2: Survivor services standards appear to have been finalized and are being implemented by ACT partners. However, they have not been shared with other service providers in Bangladesh.  Recommendation 3: WI and its partners have been raising awareness and conducting training about the new TIP law and implementation of the NPA. Other related laws were never mentioned by ACT partners during the course of the evaluation interviews.  Recommendation 4: There have been many delays in undertaking the survey on the prevalence of TIP in Bangladesh. The research was intended to support evidence-based policy discussion and development in the country. The delay therefore limited the potential impact of the study on future TIP programming. RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED Prevention 1. USAID should consider piloting alternative approaches to prevent trafficking beyond awareness raising – being careful to put in place mechanisms to evaluate impact from project inception so that different pilot strategies can be compared. 2. For future projects, implementers should test awareness-raising strategies to ensure that communities do not misunderstand the messages. Future campaigns should not result in unintended consequences such as restrictions in women’s labor migration or increased difficulties for returning female migrants. Protection 1. Without long-term follow-up with survivors, USAID cannot know if the services provided have achieved their intended results. Any new counter trafficking projects should immediately establish a monitoring system for following up with assisted survivors, including survivors assisted by USAID’s previous projects. x 2. Winning a compensation award can be both empowering and vindicating for survivors. A new project should support additional training for lawyers assisting survivors to improve success rates of compensation claims. 3. A new project should enhance the capacity of staff providing counseling services beginning with a comprehensive needs assessment and providing sufficient resources to substantively increase counseling staff capacity. 4. USAID should ensure that future projects also engage survivors in improving survivor services, awareness raising messages, and advocacy efforts. Prosecution 1. Pilot alternative approaches to building the capacity of public justice system actors to investigate and prosecute trafficking cases. USAID should consider programs that provide more intensive long-term, on-the-job assistance for a small cadre of police, prosecutors, and judges. 2. Integrate training into existing training mechanisms to make it more sustainable and to expand its reach. Some examples of this include training for migrants in official pre-departure mechanisms or integrate training for prosecutors and judges be integrated into the judicial academy. Cross-Cutting 1. Future TIP projects should put a greater emphasis on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data to improve project management, improve capacity of partners to use M&E data, and to contribute to evidence-based policy making. 2. Future projects should maintain the collaborative approach used by WI, which led to partner ownership of the program messages and improved partner ownership over survivor services standards and case management tools. 1 II. INTRODUCTION Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) is a six year $5.4 million project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Bangladesh. The ACT Project commenced on October 1, 2008, and is scheduled to end on September 30, 2014. ACT is implemented by Winrock International (WI) under a cooperative agreement with USAID. Over the project cycle, WI implemented the project with 22 sub-grantees. When the evaluation was conducted, nine sub-grantees were still active. ACT is a national project that connects local and national government representatives, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citizens, and community leaders to spearhead efforts to prevent trafficking-in-persons (TIP), ameliorate damages to survivors, prosecute perpetrators, and engage all layers of society as change agents in combating human trafficking and promoting safe migration. The ACT Project supports the Trafficking-in-Persons and Migrant Smuggling Program Element of the Transnational Crime Program Area under the Peace and Security Objective of the Foreign Assistance Framework. The goals and objectives of the ACT Project also reflect the four pillars of TIP activities as defined by the United States Government: Prevention, Protection, Prosecution, and Partnership. The overall objective of the ACT Project is to improve the ability of Bangladeshi institutions to combat TIP and unsafe migration. ACT has four intermediate results (IR) designed to achieve the overall objective, as follows:  IR 1: Ensure that the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) is active in prosecuting TIP crimes and preventing fraudulent practices in the migration process.  IR 2: Improve the capacity of institutions to identify traffickers and prevent vulnerability of migrant workers.  IR 3: Increase the capacity of communities to prevent human trafficking and promote safe migration.  IR 4: Improve protection and care for survivors of human trafficking. The ACT Project objectives were adjusted mid-way through the project. A mid-term review of the ACT Project was conducted between June and August of 2012. This resulted in a revised Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) approved on August 2012 (see Figure 1 for the results framework). 2 III.THE DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM AND USAID’S RESPONSE HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN BANGLADESH Bangladesh has made great strides in reducing poverty in the country. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of poor households declined by 26 percent, while the number of extremely poor households reduced by 41 percent. Despite this progress, there remains vast numbers of poor people in the country. In 2010, there were 47 million poor people and 26 million living in extreme poverty (World Bank, 2013). Bangladesh has also made progress in reducing illiteracy, reducing its illiterate population from 65 percent in 1990 to 43 percent in 2010. Regardless of this reduction, an estimated 44 million Bangladeshi citizens remain illiterate (UNESCO, 2012). In 2010, over 12 percent of Bangladeshi households reported having a migrant member of the household, with over 8 percent of these migrants identified as domestic and around 4 percent identified as international. The majority of these migrants was between 25 and 44 years of age and predominantly male (BBS, 2011). This large volume of migrants is also reflected in the growing importance of remittances. In 2000 remittances were over four percent of gross domestic product and had more than doubled by 2010 (World Bank, 2013). As a result of Bangladesh’s various development challenges – including extreme poverty, illiteracy, and the lack of proper implementation of existing laws – international as well as internal migration brings with it the increased risk of trafficking. Bangladesh is primarily a source country for human trafficking. Bangladeshi children and adults are trafficked internally for commercial sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, forced and bonded labor, and forced begging (USDOS, 2014). Members of the Rohinga minority from Burma have also been trafficked through Bangladesh (Blanchet, 2009). In Bangladesh, the term “human trafficking” has historically been applied almost exclusively to women and children trafficked for the purpose of forced sexual exploitation. Since 2000, TIP cases were governed under The Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000 (amended 2003). This Act surpassed the prior legislations in penalizing the perpetrators but still excluded male victims of trafficking and labor trafficking. However, men have also been abused and exploited. A significant number of Bangladeshi trafficking victims consist of men recruited for overseas work with fraudulent employment offers, who are subsequently exploited under conditions of forced labor or debt bondage. Bangladeshi men and women migrate willingly to Middle-Eastern Gulf states as well as Malaysia, Singapore, Europe, and other countries for work – often legally via the more than 1,000 recruiting agencies. These agencies are legally permitted to charge workers recruitment fees that are the equivalent of a year’s salary, but agencies often charge additional amounts in contravention of government regulations. These exorbitant fees place migrant workers in a condition of debt bondage in which they are compelled to work out of fear or otherwise incurring serious financial harm. Many Bangladeshi migrant laborers may also experience restrictions on their movements, nonpayment of wages, threats, and physical or sexual abuse (USDOS, 2014). In 2008, the United States Department of State ranked Bangladesh a Tier II Watch List country. This continued for three years in a row until 2011 when the GOB began to make progress on a 3 comprehensive national law against human trafficking. Bangladesh moved to Tier II in 2012 and has remained in Tier II through 2014. In 2012, Bangladesh enacted the Human Trafficking Deterrence and Suppression Act (HTDSA). 1 This new legislation addresses many of the previous shortcomings, including criminalization of trafficking for the purpose of labor exploitation, trafficking of men, and internal trafficking. However, the implementing rules and regulations associated with this law have yet to be promulgated. USAID RESPONSE USAID began anti-trafficking programming in Bangladesh in 2000 with small grants to local NGOs. These grants provided assistance for survivors, legal aid to promote prosecution of perpetrators, and raised awareness amongst local NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs) (Chemonics, 2009). In 2005, USAID funded the Counter-Trafficking Interventions in Prevention, Protection, and Prosecution for Victims of Trafficking in Persons in Bangladesh project. This was a three-year project implemented by the International Organization for Migration. The project had a strong emphasis on awareness raising activities, but also provided assistance for 548 victims of trafficking and trained police. The project also undertook research into a variety of related topics, such as migration legislation, labor migration complaint mechanisms, and exploitation and abuse suffered by labor migrants and trafficked persons (IOM/Dhaka, 2008). The project also engaged the GOB at the national and local level to combat human trafficking. Since its implementation in 2008, the ACT Project has expanded the definition and legal framework to include labor trafficking and engaged government entities in strengthening oversight and regulation of labor recruitment processes. The project also sought to increase prosecution of trafficking cases, improve services for survivors, and expand awareness raising efforts (Chemonics, 2009). The project takes place in selected locations throughout the country. See Figure 2 below for the locations of the field visits for this evaluation. EVALUATION PURPOSE This external, final performance evaluation was designed to measure the effectiveness of the ACT Project as well as assess the sustainability of project activities and the efficiency of project implementation. In addition, this evaluation aims to draw lessons for the selection, design, and implementation of future TIP projects. The audience for this performance evaluation is USAID, the GOB, the United States Department of State, and WI, as well as other international organizations and donors involved in combating human trafficking in Bangladesh. The evaluation asks to what extent the ACT Project has been successful in:  Strengthening the capacity of communities to prevent TIP and unsafe labor migration within and from Bangladesh;  Enhancing and standardizing the care of victims of trafficking and labor migration abuses; and 1 Also known as the Prevention and Suppression of Human Trafficking Act. 4  Strengthening the GOB’s capacity to prosecute traffickers and trafficking related crime. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation questions, in order of priority, are given below: Effectiveness 1. To what extent has the ACT Project been successful in strengthening the capacity of communities to prevent trafficking-in-persons and unsafe labor migration within and from Bangladesh? 2. How successful has the ACT Project been at enhancing and standardizing the protection and care of victims of trafficking and labor migration abuses? 3. To what extent has the ACT Project been successful in strengthening the GOB’s capacity to prosecute traffickers and trafficking related crime? 4. How successful is ACT Project in addressing gender and youth issues? Sustainability 5. How sustainable are ACT Project activities, and what measures could have been taken to enhance sustainability? Efficiency 6. Is there evidence from the implementation of ACT to suggest that alternative project approaches would have been more successful or was ACT’s approach the most efficient? 7. How effective and/or flexible has the ACT management structure (WI, its implementing partners, and USAID) been in enhancing the capacity of ACT NGO partners? 8. How effectively and efficiently has the ACT Project addressed the recommendations of the mid￾term evaluation of the project accepted by USAID and WI? 5 IV.EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation team applied a mixed-method approach, employing standard rapid appraisal methods of literature review, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), and Focus Group Discussions (FGD). A summary of FGDs can be found in Table 2 below. The evaluation was designed to examine both performance and process issues to respond to the evaluation questions on effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency, and cross-cutting issues of gender and youth. Data collection instruments were developed for each of the clusters of ACT Project activities – prevention, prosecution, and protection. The questions address knowledge and perceptions, while also probing for specific examples of how the ACT Project supported prevention, prosecution, and protection activities and examples of project successes and challenges. These data collection instruments helped to ensure that same types of questions were asked to all relevant stakeholders. However, each interview differed depending on the informant’s role in the project and time available for interviewing. The instruments sometimes overlapped as some interviewees were involved in multiple project components. DESKTOP REVIEW OF KEY DOCUMENTS AND INITIAL ANALYSIS The evaluation team reviewed relevant documents from USAID, ACT partners, and external sources, including the cooperative agreement and budget, baseline assessment report, annual work plans and PMPs, periodic project reports, technical reports, training modules, fact sheets, success stories, and other relevant documents and reports. The evaluation team used these documents to develop an initial response to the evaluation questions and to design tools for conducting KIIs and FGDs. Data from interviews were sorted by evaluation topic for analysis. Data from KIIs, FGDs, and the literature review were analyzed and compared. Quantitative data from survivor interviews as well as data extracted from ACT Project reports were analyzed using Excel. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS: NATIONAL In addition to discussions with USAID/Bangladesh and ACT personnel, the team conducted KIIs with representatives from the GOB as well as relevant national and international organizations detailed below. To select informants, the evaluation team requested a list of key ACT partners from USAID and WI and included a selection of international organizations involved in counter trafficking activities in the country:  Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA)  Ministry of Expatriates’ Welfare and Overseas Employment (MOEWOE)  Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs  Directorate of Social Welfare  Bangladesh Police HQ (TIP Monitoring Cell)  Alliance for Cooperation and Legal Aid Bangladesh 6  Director General, Bureau of Manpower, Employment, and Training(BMET)  International Labor Organization (ILO)  International Organization for Migration  United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime FIELD VISITS Given the limited time available for field work, the evaluation team, in consultation with USAID and WI, elected to visit ACT Project sites in Jessore, Satkhira, Sirajgani, Dinajpur (Hilli), Rajshahi, and Dhaka districts. These areas were selected based on their accessibility as well as on the diversity of ACT Project components within each location: public awareness (PA), advocacy, migration training (MT), and survivor services (illustrated in Table 1 below). Table 1: Field Visit Locations, Project Components, and Local Implementers Jessore Satkhira Sirajganj, Dinajpur, and Rajshahi Dhaka City June 16-19 June 21-22 June 23-25 June 28 PA – Rights Jessore Survivor Services – DAM Advocacy – Rights Jessore MT – Change Maker PA – Agrogoti MT – RMMRU PA – Proyash at Hili Survivor Services- Sachetan at Rajshahi MT – Shishuk at Sirajganj Survivor Services – Shishuk KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS: LOCAL During the field visits, the evaluation team held KIIs with the following types of people and organizations:  Staff of ACT Implementing NGO Partners: Rights Jessore, ChangeMaker, Dhaka Ahsania Mission (DAM), Agrogoti, RMMRU, Proyas, Sachetan, and Shishuk  Bangladesh police  District Education and Manpower Offices (DEMO) SURVIVOR INTERVIEWS In addition, structured interviews were held with 21 survivors of trafficking assisted by ACT Project partners to measure their satisfaction with the services they received and the impact those services have had on their lives. Evaluators interviewed 13 female survivors and 8 male survivors. They ranged in age from 14 to 50 years, averaging 27.6 years of age. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS FGDs were held with a sample of the target beneficiaries and other stakeholders involved in implementing the ACT Project. The FGDs were designed to measure clients’ satisfaction as well as project effectiveness. Eleven FGDs were held with the following groups of people: 7  Prosecutors and judges (1)  Journalists (1)  Counter Trafficking Committees (CTCs) – with Union Parishad (UP) Leaders (2)  Courtyard Meeting Participants (1)  Students (1)  Teachers (1)  Anirban members (2)  DEMO (2) Table 2: FGD and KII Participants Categories Male Female Total Judges & Prosecutors Jessore 7 2 9 Sub-grantee staff 22 9 31 Journalist at Jessore 6 0 6 Teachers at Sarsha 9 0 9 Students at Sarsha 4 4 8 Anirban Members (Jessore & Rajshahi) + Peer Leader 6 6 12 ATC & CTC 17 6 23 DEMO 7 0 7 Community leaders 11 0 11 Courtyard meeting participants2 LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS As with all evaluations, there are limitations and constraints imposed upon the evaluation process. Some limitations and constraints are envisioned at the design stage of the project, while others only become known once the evaluation has begun. Limitations and constraints are discussed below. Recall and Response Bias Recall and response bias can be very difficult to mitigate. Recall bias, in which respondents may inaccurately recall events from the past, may be present as the ACT Project has taken place over the course of six years. Project partners and stakeholders may have difficulty remembering things that happened in the past or in comparing their knowledge and abilities today to that of before the project began. 2 The courtyard meeting was held in a location where it was difficult to count each individual. There were well over 30 people present, including many women and many youth. 8 Response bias is a common problem for program evaluations. A stakeholder may give the interviewer positive remarks about an activity, project, or person because s/he expects to benefit from the continuation of the project or due to personal relationships between the interviewee and someone involved in the project being evaluated. The evaluation team realizes that stakeholders and beneficiaries may believe that a negative evaluation could have negative consequences for the future of the project and their involvement in it. Conversely, beneficiaries might underreport results, assuming that by doing so they will be more likely to receive additional support in the future. Selection Bias Selection bias results through the method used to select persons to be interviewed. For example, if the project implementer selects project beneficiaries to be interviewed, they might be more likely to select only those beneficiaries who they know had positive experiences or have been particularly successful. The team had hoped to address selection bias in the selection of project beneficiaries by using a random selection method. The evaluation team would have developed a sampling frame, and based on the number of interviews desired and the number of persons in the population, developed a methodology to randomly select informants (for example, every third person on the list). However, WI was not able to provide the team with sufficient information upon which to develop this sampling frame, such as a complete database or list of survivors assisted by their partners or a list of persons targeted for awareness-raising activities (e.g., communities, CTCs, students and teachers, journalists, and the like). A sampling frame would have had to be requested from each ACT Project partner and time did not allow for this. Instead, ACT’s implementing partners were asked to select beneficiaries for interviews based on criteria provided by the evaluation team. These criteria included selecting to ensure inclusion of beneficiaries of varying ages, inclusion of males and females, and, in the case of survivors, selecting survivors at varying stages of reintegration to ensure that the evaluators met with survivors who had completed their reintegration assistance program. To mitigate recall, response, and selection bias, the evaluation team used multiple sources of data to triangulate information on an evaluation issue. Findings from KIIs, FGDs, and the literature review were analyzed and compared by activity component: 1) prevention, 2) prosecution and advocacy, and 3) protection. By combining information found in documents or interviews from multiple sources, any one piece of biased data should not skew the analysis. For example, if we take survivor services, a majority of the survivors interviewed received seed money to start a business. Interviews with service providers also emphasized the success of those who started businesses. However, data extracted from WI reports indicates that less than 10 percent of survivors received this assistance. Multiple sources of data help to counter such selection bias. Time Constraints Only 14 working days were provided for in-country work for the evaluation. Bangladesh is a large country with limited infrastructure in the rural areas. The project sites were far from Dhaka and each other, and included many rural communities, thus requiring extensive travel time. As a result, the evaluation team had limited time with each organization and for each interview. Also, given that some of the partners had been involved with the project for up to six years, it was not enough time to cover all elements of the evaluation questions in depth. These constraints also severely limited the time available to meet with organizations involved in anti-trafficking work in the project areas who are not ACT Project partners. The evaluation team was able to meet with only a few such organizations. 9 Quantitative Data With regard to performance monitoring data, although the evaluation team intended to use data the ACT Project collects through its PMP for the evaluation, the evaluation team found this data to be of limited use. The ACT data are kept on a reporting basis only and not consolidated across the full project period. Therefore, only annual data could be collected and had to be consolidated by the evaluators to obtain cumulative project data.3 As the project’s PMP and indicators had changed since the beginning of the project, tracking changes across time was not always possible as some indicators were dropped and new ones added. In some cases, data not provided in the PMP could be pulled together by carefully reviewing each of the ACT Project’s annual and quarterly reports. The evaluators cannot be certain that these data are consistently reported over time. The data which the evaluators were able to consolidate and analyze is included in Annex VIII. The evaluation team sought data on the number of victims identified, the number of cases investigated, and the number of cases adjudicated. The police monitoring cell was able to provide national data, although it is not clear if this data is up to date as all police stations in the country may not regularly report their data. At the project level, the evaluation team was provided with only basic information about prosecutions, indicating the number of cases supported by ACT project partners, the number of survivors involved, and the status of legal proceedings. 3 As WI submitted annual reports to USAID, annual data was available for FY 2009–2013. For FY 2014, data was available on a quarterly basis only. 10 V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1 To what extent has the ACT Project been successful in strengthening the capacity of communities to prevent trafficking-in-persons and unsafe labor migration within and from Bangladesh? Program Component: Prevention IR3: Increased capacity of communities to prevent human trafficking and promote safe migration Findings Public Awareness Under the prevention component of the ACT Project, WI focused primarily on PA campaigns, which target the community in general and at-risk individuals in particular. The stated objective of the ACT Project’s PA campaigns is to increase awareness of labor trafficking and internal trafficking, to recognize that men can also be victims of trafficking, to stop linking women and children as one category, and to reduce the stigma on survivors (WI, 2010). The PA activities were implemented through four sub￾grantees selected through a formal competitive process; three of these grantees maintained on-going activities at the time of the evaluation. According to WI, project activities are prioritized in high poverty areas, focusing on economic vulnerability, rural populations, and targeting the trafficking of youth and adults rather than children. WI informed the evaluation team that their sub-grantees conducted assessments to select the target communities, giving priority to communities that are thought to be more vulnerable for trafficking, those in the trafficking corridor, and those with a history of trafficking. However, WI did not make these documents available to the team. Sub-grantees directed their PA activities to groups that are thought to be more prone to trafficking, such as the poor, illiterate and less-educated people, and young girls. They target these individuals through courtyard meetings, school programs, and raising awareness of community leaders who are in positions to advise community members. The PA sub-grantees work at the Union, Upazila, and district levels. At the community level, the PA sub￾grantees organized uthan boithak (courtyard meetings), worked with students and teachers, and engaged CTCs. At the Upazila level, they encouraged the government CTCs to become active. At the district level, the sub-grantees participate in activating the district level CTCs. ACT Project reports indicate that as of the end of FY 2013 over 210,000 people were reached by awareness raising activities implemented by project partners (52 percent male, 48 percent female). 11 Table 3: Number of People Reached by Awareness-Raising Activities4 Fiscal Year Total Male Female Number Percent Number Percent FY 2010 60,412 32,359 53.6% 28,053 46.4% FY 2011 50,353 25,111 49.9% 25,242 50.1% FY 2012 50,611 26,795 52.9% 23,816 47.1% FY 2013 49,192 25,503 51.8% 23,689 48.2% TOTAL 210,568 109,768 52.1% 100,800 47.9% Building Capacity The ACT Project engaged three staff for capacity development of PA sub-grantees. They conducted a needs assessment of the partners through monitoring visits, designed a capacity development plan, and provided Training of Trainers (TOT) for the sub-grantees with a focus on developing staff facilitation skills and an interactive outreach methodology. Three types of training were provided to all ACT sub￾grantee staff: 1) basic training on human trafficking; 2) project management, monitoring, and reporting; and 3) TOT on anti-trafficking awareness raising (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014). The staff of the PA sub-grantees who received TOT from WI then provided training to various groups in the project sites, including volunteers, students, and community leaders. As of the end of FY 2013, a total of 12,980 people participated in some form of training (75 percent male, 25 percent female).5 Subsequently, these groups then delivered the messages in their communities. WI followed up with grantees through regular monitoring visits. They also conducted joint quarterly meetings with PA grantees during which partners shared successes and lessons learned, reviewed the outreach field manual, and the like (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014). Sub-grantees believe that this training was particularly helpful in improving their training skills and improving the effectiveness of community volunteers in promoting awareness-raising messages (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014). 4 Data was extracted from ACT project annual reports. 5 WI did not provide updated figures to calculate training outputs for FY 2014. 12 Table 4: Training and Advocacy Events with Community Leaders and Volunteers6 Fiscal Year Total Male Female Number Percent Number Percent FY 2010 5,585 4,092 73.3% 1,493 26.7% FY 2011 3,985 2,847 71.4% 1,138 28.6% FY 2012 3,410 2,838 83.2% 572 16.8% TOTAL 12,980 9,777 75.3% 3,203 24.7% Awareness-Raising Materials Produced WI’s mid-term evaluation found that there was a lack of partner and grassroots input into Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) materials produced by the project, but that the issue was then in the process of being addressed by WI (Ali, 2011). This is confirmed by the final evaluation. While the majority of IEC materials were produced centrally by WI, partners interviewed for the final evaluation indicated that the process of developing the IEC materials was participatory and that the materials were provided in a timely manner for review (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014). WI also included survivors in FGDs to review IEC materials (WI, 2010). The PA sub-grantees are in general very happy with the IEC materials they use in their project and believe them to be effective (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014). Many anti-trafficking and safe migration related IEC materials were printed by WI and distributed through the sub-grantees. Various types of colorful posters were visible in the project area, particularly in the government offices, educational institutes, tea stalls, and clubs. Large billboards produced by WI were also visible in the Upazila HQ and in the markets. The evaluation team observed various colorful flip charts produced by WI at nearly all of the project offices that are being used by sub-grantee staff and volunteers (peer leaders, local Upazila members, religious leaders, schools, and other sector NGOs). The evaluation team also observed the flip charts in use during a courtyard meeting. Some of the volunteer community leaders who used the flip charts praised the content and usefulness of the flip charts (FGD, community volunteers, June 2014). However, the evaluation team members observed that the flip charts were small and could not be adequately viewed by everyone in attendance at a courtyard meeting. These IEC materials are used by the sub-grantees’ implementation partners to raise awareness in their communities. For example, teachers indicate that the person who came to train the students used posters, leaflets, and handbills to conduct the training (FGD, teachers, June 2014). The students at the school mentioned that they received the booklet produced by ACT in January 2014 and will use the materials to inform the villagers about trafficking (FGD, students, June 2014). Community leaders 6 Data was extracted from ACT project annual reports. The data is presented slightly differently in each report. The evaluation team consolidated data that referred to training and “advocacy activities” at the community level involving CTCs, community leaders, students, teachers, and volunteers. 13 mentioned that the content of the materials is useful, but that there were insufficient quantities to distribute to everyone who attended the training (FGD, CTC, June 2014). Peer-to-Peer Approach The PA sub-grantees used a Peer-to-Peer approach for strengthening PA. With the help of the Upazilas, the sub-grantees selected young volunteers, referred to as peer leaders, based on their responsiveness during community awareness-raising events. A total of 450 peer leaders were trained, 260 of which are currently active (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014). Most of the peer leaders are students, have basic education, and are within the age group of 17 to 45 years (the majority between 17 and 25 years of age). ACT partners provided volunteers with three days training on the concepts of human trafficking and safe migration, the role of peer leaders, how to prevent TIP, how to raise awareness, and how to integrate victims of trafficking in the community. Peer leaders provide information to prospective migrants on how to get a passport, training opportunities through BMET, and compensation benefits a migrant can receive if cheated by an agent, etc. Peer leaders can also help migrants verify the recruitment company and the job offer through the online system of the BMET. If peer leaders are unable to do the verification themselves, they refer migrants to the local DEMO office. While the evaluation team could see that peer leaders are a good and easy source of information for local communities and would be able to make the DEMO office more vibrant and active by referring prospective migrants to them, the evaluation team did not have sufficient time to assess how effective the peer leaders actually are, how often their advice is sought, or how useful that advice is for prospective migrants. Anirban Anirban is a group of young leaders who are survivors of trafficking. The word anirban in Bangla means a flame that will be lit forever. Anirban was formed in 2011 with just a few members but has now spread all over the country and has more than 80 members. Members used to focus exclusively on community awareness, but now are also involved in advocacy efforts to improve opportunities for survivors (FGD, Anirban members, June 2014). Table 5: Anirban Advocacy Activities Fiscal Year Activities Total Male Female Number Percent Number Percent FY 2013 19 319 245 76.8% 74 23.2% FY 2014 Q1 20 358 238 66.5% 120 33.5% FY2014 Q27 TOTAL 39 677 483 71.3% 194 27192.1% 7 Data was extracted from ACT project reports. Data is not available prior to FY 2013. Additionally, data for the second quarter of FY 2014 was identical to the data reported for the first quarter, making the evaluators question its reliability. As a result it is not included here. 14 Table 6: Anirban Awareness-Raising Activities Fiscal Year Activities Total Male Female Number Percent Number Percent FY 2013 28 1,156 685 59.3% 471 40.7% FY 2014 Q1 15 803 313 39.0% 490 61.0% FY 2014 Q2 13 468 291 62.2% 177 37.8% TOTAL 56 2,427 1,289 53.1% 1,138 46.9% ACT provided the Anirban members with funding to cover travel costs and office supplies. ACT also provided the Anirban members training on life skills, human rights, and community mobilization. ACT has also brought Anirban members together from across the country to meet and share lessons learned. Some Anirban members mentioned that they have already established a network among the Anirban groups across the country and they are thankful to the ACT Project for bringing them together at the Dhaka congress (FGD, Anirban members, June 2014). The evaluation team found the Anirban members extremely confident in their effort to stop human trafficking. Anirban members explain that whenever they hear that someone is stranded somewhere because of trafficking, they take action to rescue him/her (FGD, Anirban members, June 2014). Three of the members were appointed to be members of the Anti-Trafficking Committees (ATCs) in their communities. The Anirban members are aware of legal migration procedures, and many of them are active in raising awareness in their communities (FGDs, Anirban members, June 2014). School Program The PA sub-grantees provided training to selected teachers and students to raise awareness on TIP. Teachers have applied the training in their classrooms and talked to parents about the issue. The selected students are from classes eight to ten and tend to be amongst the better students in the class so that they can communicate the TIP issue to other students. In one community, the teachers were present during the sessions held for students and were able to follow-up with participating students after the training (FGD, teachers, July 2014). In another community, only students were trained, and while teachers appreciated the project, they felt that the project would have been more effective if they had engaged teachers directly (FGD, teachers, June 2014). Students trained by ACT grantees believe that they have raised awareness in their community and amongst friends and family. These students believe they have prevented children from talking to, or taking food from, strangers (FGD, students, June 2014). Some teachers mentioned that unsafe migration/trafficking is decreasing to some extent, as in years past, seven to nine students would drop out of school to go to India each year, while now it is reduced to two or three children (FGD, teachers, June 2014). Local Leaders The PA sub-grantees provided training to local leaders and local CTCs to lead campaigns. After the training, the leaders and CTC members were given handouts to use where they considered appropriate. The members held meetings with the community at the schools, bazars, tea stalls, and mosques. They 15 have also helped the PA sub-grantee to organize Ma Somabesh (gathering for the mothers) in three of the schools. These activities helped to raise awareness within the communities and help to protect children against trafficking (FGD, CTC, June 2014). The CTC members interviewed by the evaluation team are aware of legal migration procedures, the anti-trafficking law, and are active in raising awareness in their communities. Community leaders are reporting cases of suspected trafficking (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014) and related incidents to the evaluators that they considered prevention of trafficking, whereby they had prevented someone from migrating though irregular channels (FGDs, CTCs, June 2014). One survivor service organization believes that PA activities in communities have had an impact. It has improved acceptance of the survivors in their villages. They also say that communities are more wary of strangers. One ACT Project partner staff made a follow-up visit to a survivor and the community – fearing that he was a trafficker – corralled him and called the police (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). Media Engagement ACT worked with NGO-supported community radio stations in Cox’s Bazar, Satkhira, and Chapai Nawabganj. ACT provided them with one-minute radio spots with anti-trafficking messages, which are aired by the community radios several times a day free of cost. ACT also provided journalists with training on investigative reporting for human trafficking. Topics discussed include types and dimensions of human trafficking (internal and cross-border). Interviews with ACT Project trained journalists indicate that they have a clear understanding of trafficking and safe migration. WI reports indicate that the project has trained 75 journalists (88 percent male, 12 percent female) who have published a combined total of 21 articles or reports on trafficking since the project began. Local newspapers also regularly report on trafficking. Table 7: Number of Journalists Trained by ACT and the Number of Report/Articles Published by Journalists Trained by the ACT Project Fiscal Year Articles/Reports Total Trained Male Female Number Percent Number Percent FY 2010 0 35 30 85.7% 5 14.3% FY 2011 3 69 52 75.4% 17 24.6% FY 2012 9 64 56 87.5% 8 12.5% FY 2013 7 25 22 88.0% 3 12.0% FY 2014 Q1 2 24 20 83.3% 4 16.7% FY 2014 Q2 12 26 24 92.3% 2 7.7% TOTAL 21 75 66 88.0% 9 12.0% 16 Spill Over Effect The ACT project PMP indicators are output oriented and do not allow us to arrive at definitive conclusions about impacts. The KIIs and FGDs show that some community members took inspiration from the project and the PA activities to launch their own initiatives such as:  In Hilli, the PA sub-grantee holds monthly meetings with other NGOs in the area with which they have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). These NGOs learn about the TIP issues and take the messages to discuss with their beneficiaries (Interview, Proyash, June 24, 2014).  In Satkhira, the leader of the Motor Workers Union began organizing TIP themed Jarigaon (folk-song) sessions in anticipation for the training, which were attended by the community. The union workers, who are mostly public transport workers, are advised to keep a sharp look out for possible signs of human trafficking at the border areas (FGD, Bonadona Village, Satkhira, June 21, 2014). An NGO in Satkhira (Manob Unnayan Sangstha) showed the evaluation team the TIP messages that they had printed in their microcredit passbook to inform group members about human trafficking. The NGO is not directly involved in the ACT Project, but the executive director attended an orientation event conducted by ACT partner Agrogoti (FGD, Banadona Village, Krishnagar Upazila, Kaliganj Upazila, Satkhira, June 21, 2014). Conclusions The collaborative way in which ACT developed its prevention messages helped promote ownership of messaging and worked to ensure dissemination of uniform messages throughout the project areas. Through the PA sub-grantees, the ACT Project has successfully promoted and raised awareness of legal migration processes. People are more conscious of the exploitation that can take place through migration channels. One concern is that the ACT message may be resulting in communities conflating human trafficking with irregular migration and safe migration with legal migration. Program beneficiaries frequently mentioned that they were promoting safe migration. When asked how they can ensure that people migrate safely, they would recite the legal migration processes. On the other hand, the MOEWOE now recognizes that trafficking can happen within the official migration process (KII, MOEWOE, June 29, 2014). It is not clear if ACT partners have a clear understanding of trafficking. When asked to define trafficking, one project partner failed to mention any forms of exploitation and referred to trafficking as “harmful situations” and the ‘‘loss of control” (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014), yet exploitation must be an element for the act to qualify as human trafficking. Misunderstandings, such as this, seemed commonplace amongst the ACT partners interviewed for the evaluation. WI’s mid-term evaluation indicated that while messages were intended to communicate that men can be victims of trafficking and that trafficking can be for the purpose of labor exploitation, this message was not always clearly communicated in awareness-raising interventions (Ali, 2011). More recently produced project materials clearly discuss labor trafficking and the trafficking of men. Though project beneficiaries clearly understood this message, the evaluation team perceives that ACT’s Project partners give greater emphasis to problems faced by female migrants in their community discussions. In this way, ACT’s messages may be inadvertently discouraging female migration and making it difficult for returning female migrants by promoting stories of women trafficked for prostitution. 17 The ACT Project engaged primarily in PA raising activities to achieve its prevention objective. While ACT project activities have raised awareness about trafficking and legal migration channels, it is less clear to what extent this has strengthen the capacity of the communities to prevent trafficking. People may know that irregular migration is risky and may prefer to migrate through legal channels. However legal channels may take longer or may not be a viable option for some people. Therefore, the question remains as to whether raising awareness protects people from becoming victims of trafficking. The ACT project PMP did not include indicators and targets on outcomes and results with respect to behavior change. The project partners and project beneficiaries interviewed by the evaluation team are of the opinion that behavioral change is taking place and unsafe migration is declining. They provided anecdotal examples to support this such as community actions to prevent illegal recruiters from working in their communities and the decline of the number of students who drop out of school to migrate for work to India. By its nature, a performance evaluation cannot give definitive answers about impact, which normally is studied through surveys of target populations, sometimes with control and treatment groups, baseline, and follow up measurements. Indicators used by WI to monitor progress for this IR were predominately output oriented and did not measure impact. WI is in the process of undertaking an impact assessment of their PA activities. EVALUATION QUESTION 2 How successful is the ACT Project in enhancing and standardizing the protection and care of victims of trafficking and labor migration abuses? Program Component: Protection IR 4: Improved protection and care for survivors of human trafficking Findings Case Management Upon the start of the project, WI found that survivors often stayed in shelters for many years. There was no case management and no assistance planning – only the provision of basic needs. To address these issues, WI developed the survivor services component of the project to introduce a victim￾centered approach, develop alternatives to returning home, provide non-shelter based services, and develop case management processes (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014; WI, 2009). Throughout the project, WI has developed case management processes and standards of care with its sub-grantees. These processes include individualized care plans, needs assessments, and exit plans. After two years of the project, WI’s mid-term evaluation assessed that these processes had an important impact but indicated that there was still a need for comprehensive training on case management and the standards guidelines (Ali, 2011). At the time of this final evaluation, WI partners were clearly able to articulate the assistance planning processes and standards guidelines. WI’s survivor services partners indicate that these processes have radically changed service provision. Survivors used to stay in shelters for years receiving little but basic needs. Now, as a result of implementation of the case management process, they have access to more comprehensive support, including vocational training, job placements, support for microenterprises, and 18 legal aid for making compensation claims. As a result, survivors can return to communities in less than a year (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). Interviews with service providers also indicate that they work together with survivors to integrate their needs, desires, and abilities into their assistance planning processes. They view successful integration as the survivor being independent, able to make decision for him/herself, and integrated into the family or community of their choosing (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014). Monitoring and follow-up of survivors are still a weak link in case management. The evaluators could not assess how many of the over 2,600 survivors assisted8 have been contacted or even how frequently monitoring is supposed to be conducted. Follow-up with survivors after returning to their community is difficult. WI itself identified this as a problem in the first year of the project: “Overall, longer term follow-up is weak, and without specific resources, long-term statistics on outcomes will be hard to collect” (WI, 2009, p. 32). To address this, WI provided additional funding to grantees to pay for additional staff to assist with the coordinating and monitoring of livelihoods activities and outcomes. However, service providers note that there is still not enough staff to do proper follow-up with survivors (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). While WI monitors quality of care by randomly selecting survivors to visit, none of the organizations visited could describe a systematic approach to monitoring and follow-up with assisted survivors. Reports from WI partners indicate that they do not systematically report on follow-up with survivors. Counseling Counseling services have been a concern since the beginning of the project. WI’s first annual report states that: “…counseling services were more ‘loving advice’ than clinical interventions” (WI, 2009, p. 25). Numerous sources report on the limitations of counseling services available in Bangladesh (Blanchet, 2009; WI, 2009; Barr et al., 2014). To address this issue, WI provided counseling training in 2009 – a three-day course with an additional two-day follow up. The training was conducted by a professor of Psychology at the University of Dhaka and covered the basic methods and tools for counseling (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014). However, such short-term courses cannot substitute for professional training and none of the counselors employed by service providers interviewed for the evaluation have counseling degrees. Some of the organizations recognized this limitation and referred those displaying signs of trauma to specialized counseling services (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). 8 This number was calculated by the evaluators by adding up the reported number of survivors assisted from WI annual and quarterly reports from the beginning of the project through the second quarter of FY 2014. “Case management ranges from minimal to virtually non-existent” (WI, 2009, p.35) 19 Life Skills Training Life skills training appears to be a complementary element to counseling and is required by the ACT Project to be offered to all survivors assisted through the project. According to WI, it is focused on helping survivors restart their lives (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014). In FY 2010, WI hired a consultant to work with the existing service providers to develop a unified and comprehensive life skills curriculum (WI, 2010). Service providers describe it as boosting survivor’s confidence, enabling survivors to raise their own voice, and reviewing the law and knowledge of how to assert their rights. They state that the life skills course enables survivors to have confidence to raise awareness in their own communities. Some life skills sessions are now conducted by survivors (KII, ACT Project partners, June 2014). WI also distributed the life skills training module materials to national and international organizations that provide services for survivors – including Save the Children, United Nations Children's Fund, Care, Plan International, Concern Universal, Terre des Hommes, Bangladesh National Women Lawyers' Association, and Aparoyjoy Bangla (WI, 2011). Anirban Since the beginning of the project WI has made an effort to include survivors in many elements of the project – such as reviewing IEC materials and attending joint meetings with service providers to establish standards and discuss service provision, etc. The goal was “to improve services, advocate for survivor needs, or create a new voice in the anti-trafficking effort” (WI, 2010, p. 43). This effort was formalized in 2011 with the creation of Anirban, a voluntary organization for survivors of trafficking started by WI. WI has provided Anirban members with a variety of training opportunities, including leadership training; creative performance training (WI, 2011); community mobilization, life skills, and counselling (FGD, Anirban members, June 2014); and networking opportunities through national conferences. Anirban members are active in:  Getting jobs for members by meeting with potential employers (four members were employed this way in Jessore)  Advising members how to access services through the Upazila  Advocating with government agencies to ensure dignity of survivors  Activating their local CTC (three were activated this way in Rajshahi)  Conducting awareness raising in school and with CTCs (FGDs, Anirban members, June 2014; KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). Anirban members say that they have been empowered by their work with Anirban, citing specifically their appreciation for the opportunity to help others in their community and to be role models for other survivors. Some have even helped rescue other survivors by doing outreach in red light areas or “In the past I was sitting; now I am standing.” (FGD, Arniban members, Jessore, June 19, 2014) “I feel proud. People pay attention to us, they give importance to us.” “I learned a lot through trainings and feel proud of the knowledge. It’s why they respect me and give me importance.” (FGD, Arniban members, Rajshahi, June 26, 2014) 20 in notifying police about cases they learn about from the community (FGDs, Anirban members, June 2014). Livelihood Support Services WI developed a livelihood needs assessment form to help service providers work with survivors to assess the best options for each individual. The project also worked with the partners to expand the livelihood options available, working with private companies and NGOs to provide internships and employment, encouraging partners to make use of vocational training opportunities offered by other organizations or the government, and offering seed money for a wider range of businesses (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014; WI, 2009; WI, 2011). Table 8: Number of Survivors Receiving Vocational or Entrepreneurship Training or Internships Fiscal Year Total Achieved Male Female FY 2009 125 39 86 FY 2010 103 49 54 FY 2011 118 93 25 FY 2012 68 45 23 FY 2013 106 59 47 FY 2014 Q1 52 23 29 FY 2014 Q2 44 26 18 Total 616 334 282 Percent by sex 54% 46% Percent of total assisted 23% Twenty three percent of assisted survivors (616) received livelihood skills training in the form of vocational training, entrepreneurship training, or internships. While survivors are provided vocational training on a wider range of skills, in the data provided by WI on vocational training during 2008–2011, there is still a general emphasis on the same vocations identified in the initial project assessment – including animal husbandry (49 survivors; 19 percent), sewing and embroidery (42 survivors; 17 percent), and handicrafts (30 survivors; 12 percent). Industrial garment machine operation (29 survivors; 11 percent) is a popular addition. 9 Some providers indicate that many survivors do not want vocational 9 These data were extracted by the evaluators from WI reports for FY 2009–2011, which included data on vocational training for 254 survivors. Reports in subsequent years did not provide information about the specific types of vocational training provided. 21 training as they are very poor and unable to take time away from other income generating activities, do not want to live away from home to attend courses, or already have vocational skills to fall back on – especially some of the men (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014). WI and its partners have secured job placements for six percent of survivors assisted.10 ACT partners indicate that securing job placements for survivors has been difficult as survivors’ education and skills are not sufficient for the kinds of jobs they want (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014; Interview, WI, June 30, 2014). The livelihood needs assessment form is supposed to address this by helping survivors assess their earnings, expenses, and potential savings from various options (Interview, WI, June 30, 2014). Even so, many survivors have unrealistic expectations. Table 9: Number of Survivors Securing Job Placements Fiscal Year Target Total Achieved Male Female FY 2009 50 25 3 22 FY 2010 40 13 2 11 FY 2011 25 34 20 14 FY 2012 25 27 11 16 FY 2013 25 23 2 21 FY 2014 Q1 11 5 6 FY 2014 Q2 17 13 4 Total 165 150 56 94 Percent by sex 37% 63% Percent of total assisted 6% Data available to the evaluators indicates that approximately 13 percent of survivors assisted by the project received seed money or other support for opening a business. 11 One ACT service provider has had 56 survivors open businesses – 14 by men and the rest by women. The ACT partner believes, however, that the project limit of 20,000 taka (approximately 250 USD) in seed money is not enough (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). 12 This view was also expressed by survivors who appreciated the support in opening a business but felt that they were not able to earn a sufficient living because the 10 Based on data extracted from WI annual and quarterly reports. 11 Based on data extracted from WI reports, 207 survivors received seed money out of 2,684 assisted (7.7 percent). 12 Some survivors are assisted in applying for microcredit programs to augment the support provided by ACT. However, WI and its partners indicate that many of these programs are reluctant to loan money to victims of trafficking. 22 business was too small. Survivors, on average, rated their current income at around 7 on a scale of 1 to 10. However, five survivors chose not to answer the question and four rated their income between two and five. One survivor who gave a high rating to her income (8 out of 10) made statements to the effect that she was less than satisfied: “My income is not very good, not very bad…I’m satisfied, but I want more.” Some partners have piloted creative approaches – supporting survivors who live near each other and have similar skills to open a cooperative business (WI, 2013a). They believe this model is more sustainable than the individual microbusiness model (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). Table 10: Number of Survivors Receiving Support for Opening a Business Fiscal Year Total Achieved Male Female FY 2009 25 FY 2010 95 48 47 FY 2011 78 53 25 FY 2012 39 25 14 FY 2013 56 45 11 FY 2014 Q1 13 3 10 FY 2014 Q2 48 28 20 Total 354 202 127 Percent by sex 57% 36% Percent of total assisted 13% While WI’s FY 2011 report notes that, “…grocery and tailoring shop is [sic] less profitable and least viable for inexperienced people” (WI, 2011, p.49), many of the survivors interviewed are engaged in exactly these types of businesses. The data available from WI’s annual and quarterly reports was not sufficiently detailed to extract the total number of each type of businesses opened with ACT support, nor was data available on the long-term success of the businesses supported through the ACT Project. Compensation and Justice Survivors have three options for redress. First, they can file a case with the police and pursue criminal penalties against the trafficker. The court can also award compensation. Second, they can work through the police to negotiate a settlement with the accused. Lastly, they can file a claim through BMET and work through them for an arbitrated settlement. This third option is only available for people who migrated through legally registered recruitment agencies. ACT hosted a seminar with government actors to discuss redress for survivors. Some issues that resulted from this seminar included allowing survivor’s to have lawyers represent them in the arbitration 23 process and to eliminate the limitations on allowable compensation claims (WI, 2011). The amounts are supposed to cover recruitment expenses – not pain and suffering, lost wages, or other damages. Men and women have different maximums: 84,000 taka [approximately 1,050 USD] for men and 20,000 taka [approximately 250 USD] for women. This is supposedly because women primarily migrate for work as domestic helpers, and for these jobs, the employer is supposed to pay airfare, resulting in lower recruitment fees. Informants indicate that total costs incurred for recruitment are far higher than these official limitations. ACT partners have had success in pursuing compensation claims for survivors (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014). Shishuk alone was able to secure over four million taka in compensation (approximately, 60,000 USD) 13 for survivors. WI did not provide the evaluation team with data about the other grantees. Shishuk has also successfully won compensation claims higher than the usual maximums for women (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). Shishuk notes that it has been important for migrants to be allowed to bring a representative to arbitration, otherwise they can be intimidated by the recruitment agency representative. The BMET arbitrator is also sometimes intimidated as recruitment agencies are owned by powerful people (FGD, ACT Project partner, June 2014). While many survivors are awarded compensation claims through the BMET arbitration process, recruitment companies do not always pay the claims. To address this, Shishuk successfully litigated a public interest lawsuit (PIL) to force BMET to directly compensate migrants who are awarded compensation through this process (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). Despite the fact that recruiting companies have money in escrow that the BMET could access to pay these claims (KII, MOEWOE, June 29, 2014), BMET is appealing the court’s decision (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). While ACT partners state that they encourage survivors to file a report with the police, they also indicate that survivors are reluctant to do so. Survivors prefer to file a case with BMET than with the police. They feel there is a better chance at receiving compensation than winning a conviction. Some refuse as they are afraid their case will be made public, or they drop out because the case is taking too long (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014). Some survivors have also had problems with the police, from ill treatment to refusing to record their complaint. Some informants indicated that survivors are treated very differently by the police when they are accompanied by NGO staff (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). Shelter Recognizing that not all survivors need shelter, the ACT Project intentionally set out to expand service provision beyond the shelter based model. Their grantees, Sachetan and Shishuk, provide a full range of services, but offer only limited accommodation for survivors who need it. Most survivors stay there only a few days upon repatriation or if they are in town for training, court hearings, or arbitration (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014). The evaluators visited only one of the longer-term shelters. The shelter had many children in residence, but no play areas nor books, games, or art supplies. The place appeared institutional and worn out, and 13 Based on calculations derived by evaluators from reports provided by WI. 24 there was no outdoor space. While some survivors stay there for only a few days, others may reside there for many months. Bangladesh also has government-run shelters throughout the country (KII, MOEWOE, June 29, 2014). WI invited staff from these shelters to participate in trainings, but they were only interested in material support – such as donation of ambulances and the like (Interview, WI, June 30, 2014). Rather than providing all services in-house, the ACT Project has encouraged partners to establish referral networks. Examples include:  DAM and Sachetan refer victims to Smiling Sun clinic at recommendation of ACT (WI, 2009; KII, ACT Project partners, June 2014)  Agreements with NGOs for referrals and to disseminate safe migration messages (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014)  Referrals to BLAST for legal aid (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014)  Referrals to a hospital counseling center (KII, ACT Project partners, June 2014)  Referrals to a variety of organizations for vocational training courses (WI, 2010) While most of the ACT Project partners use referrals for some services and have expanded these referrals through the course of the project, international organizations indicate that there is still a reluctance to refer survivors to other organizations. Partners would rather push survivors to skill areas they know rather than based on their needs and interests if training would then require an external referral (Interview, WI, June 30, 2014; KII, International Organizations, July 2014). Conclusions One IR that this project was designed to achieve is to have “developed and implemented standards for care and support for survivors of human trafficking.” The ACT Project has developed a systematic approach to survivor services and instilled this approach in its partners through the case management process and survivor services standards. ACT has ensured that partners take a proactive and individualized approach to assistance planning, incorporating the abilities, interests, and preferences of the survivors. According to an external assessment conducted during the start-up phase of the ACT Project, victims of trafficking were reluctant to seek assistance from service providers. Perhaps this was owed to the fact that staying in shelter homes was also a prerequisite for obtaining services. Shelter homes were found to be lacking in qualified or experienced counselors, lacked respect for survivors’ privacy and confidentiality, often had rules which deprived survivors of their freedom, and offered a very limited and pre-defined package of services (Blanchet, 2009). While there are still problems with counseling services and the reach and sustainability of the livelihood options cannot be assessed, the introduction of the case management system and survivor services standards has improved the ways in which services are delivered to survivors by the project partners. Due to delays in the publication of the project’s survivor services standards, and the project’s limited reach to service providers who are not ACT sub-grantees (including NGO and GOB service providers), the project has not improved services for survivors assisted by non-ACT partners. Another result to be achieved through the ACT Project was to ensure “increased livelihoods options and successful reintegration of survivors through an integrated approach.” Livelihood options offered to 25 survivors when the ACT Project began were limited to the provision of livestock, a sewing machine, or capital to start a microbusiness (Blanchet, 2009). WI was concerned that vocational training was mostly conducted in-house by shelter service providers and that they were not accessing the best quality training that would lead to recognized certification (WI, 2009) and employment. WI has worked to expand livelihood approaches. They have expanded vocational training to include less traditional and more marketable skills, such as garment machinery operations. They have expanded their network of private companies willing to employ or provide internships to survivors. These approaches appear to be successful. However, evaluators only met with survivors selected by project partners and the selected group may not have included survivors who have been less successful, thus possibly introducing bias. Even with ACT partners in charge of selecting survivors to be interviewed, the evaluators did meet with several survivors who feel that they have not been offered sufficient livelihood assistance. Furthermore, while WI provide the evaluation team with data regarding the services provided to assisted survivors, it did not provide any data on how survivors used these services. The ACT Project partners have been successful in winning compensation claims for survivors trafficked through official labor migration mechanisms. The PIL to ensure that these claims are paid is a success for all exploited migrants. However, as BMET is appealing the verdict, this success could be reversed if efforts are not taken to fight the appeal. The evaluators did not have sufficient information to assess the success of all of ACT’s survivor services partners and they may not all be equally effective at claiming compensation for survivors. Active Anirban members have been empowered by their work with Anirban and support services. WI also made an intentional effort to include survivors in many different aspects of the project to improve the project outcomes, thereby ensuring that services were tailored to the needs of survivors, that awareness-raising messages would speak to the target audience, and the like. While Anirban members are enthusiastic about their efforts and the organization appears to be strictly voluntary based, there is a concern that at some ACT events, media are brought in when survivors are present. ACT states that they only invite media that they know will be respectful and will protect survivors’ identities. However, care should be taken so that survivors are not in a position to have to protect themselves from unwanted media attention at ACT-sponsored activities. EVALUATION QUESTION 3 To what extent has the ACT Project been successful in strengthening the GOB’s capacity to prosecute traffickers and trafficking-related crime? Program Component: Prosecution IR: GOB active and efficient in prosecuting TIP crimes and preventing fraudulent practices in migration process. Findings ACT’s activities toward achievement of this objective include both advocacy interventions at the national and local level as well as training of law enforcement personnel and legal support for victims interested in pursuing justice against those who trafficked them. Advocacy 26 WI’s stated objective for the project’s advocacy and legal reform work was to achieve the following: Implementation of the National Plan of Action (NPA); 1. Review of gender bias in the law and in its implementation; 2. Expansion of the definition of trafficking to include labor trafficking (WI, 2009); and 3. Expansion of the definition of trafficking to include internal trafficking (WI, 2010). ACT Project reports indicate that a national consensus as to whether labor trafficking belonged in the new trafficking legislation or if it should be integrated into migration law has not been reached (WI, 2009). At the time that the reports were completed, the MOEWOE did not think that trafficking was related to labor migration (Interview, WI, June16, 2014). Through its local NGO partners, WI sought to build awareness about labor trafficking and the trafficking of men. One sub-grantee conducted a baseline assessment in FY 2011 and found that “on the topic of who are being trafficked, more than one third of respondents agreed about women and children [sic] trafficking, whereas only one-fifth (21 percent) were aware about labor trafficking…” (WI, 2011, p. 15). In 2009, WI increased the grant award amount and issued a special request for proposal (RFP) for an advocacy grant related to labor trafficking, as none of the original advocacy grant submissions addressed the issue (WI 2009). KIIs indicate that those involved with the ACT Project do recognize labor trafficking and that men can also be victims of trafficking. Indeed, the MOEWOE even recognizes that trafficking can take place through official migration channels (KII, MOEWOE, June 2014). Passage of human trafficking legislation was achieved in 2012 with the passage of the Human Trafficking Deterrence and Suppression Act (HTDSA). This new law addresses some of the key objectives of ACT’s advocacy efforts to expand the definition of trafficking to include labor and internal trafficking and to include adult males as potential victims of the crime. Since the passage of the new anti-trafficking law, the advocacy efforts of the ACT Project have focused on improving enforcement of existing laws, policies, and practices as well as the implementation of the NPA (WI, 2013b). From the review of ACT reports and in conversations with WI management, the evaluation team found that some of ACT’s advocacy efforts were delayed until formal instruments of collaboration could be established between USAID and the GOB’s Economic Relations Division, and between WI and the MOHA (WI, 2009). Part way through the project, with the development of the new trafficking law, USAID and WI realized that the WI cooperative agreement did not include the scope for them to work with the GOB on enactment of the law or development of the NPA. Therefore, to take advantage of the Government’s burgeoning commitment to combating trafficking, the ACT Project scope of work was revised to allow WI to work with the government to enact rules to enforce the new law, finalize the national plan of action, and take the lead role in collaboration with other relevant actors on implementation of the action plan. As result, WI was able to assist the Government in drafting the NPA (2012-14). In FY 2011, MOHA granted WI the authority to lead the effort to develop the updated NPA. This NPA is the basis for the implementation of the HTDSA. MOHA believes that the ACT Project has played a significant role along with other partners (KII, MOHA, June 29, 2014). WI has been supporting the GOB in drafting the implementing rules and regulations for the HDTSA (KII, MOHA, June 29, 2014). ACT Project staff has developed a strong collaborative relationship with key government agencies, especially the lead ministry, MOHA and other relevant ministries, such as the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs. The ACT 27 Project team members are on several important committees related to implementation of the NPA and the HTDSA, including the Vigilance Task Force, the Committee for Developing Survivor Standards, and the NPA Monitoring & Implementation Committee. Informants indicated that the GOB is focused on implementation of the NPA, particularly citing that when they propose new projects to the GOB, these projects are expected to support implementation of the NPA (KII, International Organizations, July 2014). WI developed a multi-level advocacy approach – including advocacy at the national level as well as through the sub-grantee partners at the Upazila, thana, and/or UP level (WI, 2009). Recent advocacy efforts have included a national conference on the implementation of the TIP Law and training and workshops for law enforcement officials, public prosecutors and lawyers, and local CTC members and community leaders. Local CTCs with whom the evaluation team met praised the support they receive from ACT local partners and consider this support responsible for their being active in the fight against trafficking and unsafe migration (FGD, CTC, June 2014). However, it was also notable that participation by CTC members in the FGDs was not vibrant, with only a few members being vocal. Additionally, there was no gender balance, with CTCs being comprised mostly of men. WI was also supposed to undertake a study of the prevalence of TIP in Bangladesh. Owing to delays in implementation of the study, the results are not expected until just before the project closes, thus limiting its use as an advocacy tool for this project. Prosecution Training for police conducted by WI and its sub-grantees has been limited in scope, covering primarily the new law, how to identify human trafficking cases, and how to interview and behave with survivors. While police, prosecutors, and judges trained by ACT sub-grantees stated that the training was useful for increasing their knowledge of the new law (FGDs, police, June 2014; FGD, prosecutors and judges, June 2014), police also stated that the training provided by ACT sub-grantees was not up to the standard of that provided by others (for example, from the UN’s Police Reform Project), especially as no police experts were included as trainers. While police trainers are not necessary to having effective training, the police seemed to be saying that the trainers were not considered to be experts on the topic. Some informants believed that training may not be targeting the right officers, noting that it should target police investigators. For the training of police, judges, and prosecutors, the training is not integrated into professional academies and therefore not institutionalized, thereby calling into question its sustainability. Constraints to Prosecution The baseline assessment report for the ACT Project indicated that police were reluctant to file cases of trafficking. They believed that many cases were fabricated, that there was not enough money or resources available to investigate the cases, that they lacked witnesses, and the like (Blanchet et al, 2009). The present evaluation found that there has been some progress in this regard. Police officers are more informed about the new law and NPA, and they are willing to work with NGOs involved in the issue. However, problems remain, as noted earlier. Victims are not always treated well by police and may still find that the police refuse to file their case. It was clear from meetings with law enforcement, victim advocates, and survivors that the survivors of trafficking are generally not interested in reporting cases to the police and participating in the judicial process. For example, one service provider stated that only 55 out of the 745 victims that they assisted – seven percent – had filed cases with the police (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). 28 Changes in Prosecution Data GOB data for a period of 10 years from June 15, 2004, to June 15, 2014, indicates that a total of 1,838 trafficking cases, involving 4,705 victims, have been filed. 2,665 suspected perpetrators were arrested, 371 perpetrators were convicted (from 216 cases), and 1260 were acquitted (from 430 cases). 14 The breakdown of cases by men, women, and children can be seen in Table 11 below. Table 11: Trafficking Cases from June 15, 2004 – June 15, 2014 Broken Down by Sex and Age by Year15 Year Cases involving adult male victims Number of adult male victims Cases involving adult female victims Number of adult female victims Cases involving minors Number of minors victimized 6/15/2004 – 12/31/2004 4 9 48 86 34 79 2005 0 0 84 103 80 133 2006 4 17 62 112 50 113 2007 1 1 85 106 40 60 2008 2 9 88 175 55 125 2009 0 0 75 96 25 35 2010 0 0 78 96 39 68 2011 0 0 105 116 38 65 2012 33 360 140 126 70 87 2013 93 916 197 319 87 118 1/1/2014 – 6/15/2014 79 998 99 99 43 79 Total 216 2310 1061 1434 561 962 Average 2004-2008 2.2 7.2 73.4 116.4 51.8 102 Average 2009-2011 0.0 0.0 86.0 102.7 34.0 56.0 Average 2012-2014 68.3 758.0 145.3 181.3 66.7 94.7 From Table 11, it is clear that there has been a substantial increase in trafficking cases filed since the new trafficking law came into effect criminalizing the trafficking of adult men in 2012. In fact, in the last three years of the project, there have been far more cases of trafficking of men than of women or children.16 14 Data provided by GOB National Police Monitoring Cell. 15 Data provided by GOB National Police Monitoring Cell. 16 It should be noted that these numbers may not be reliable and the evaluation team was not able to verify the data. WI staff indicated that the data may be underreporting the actual situation as some police units may not report cases to the national police monitoring cell (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014). 29 The evaluation team cannot attribute these changes to the ACT Project, as there are other anti￾trafficking projects and programs, but it does show some progress toward achievement of the project objectives. Moreover, Table 12 shows that the conviction rate is unchanged. While the rate looks like it has declined in the later years, there is no increase in acquittals or dismissals. Therefore, this lower rate is probably due to the increase in number of arrests and the length of time for trials to be completed. Table 12: National Trafficking Conviction Data17 Period No. of cases ended in conviction No. of accused convicted No. of cases ended in acquittal No. of accused acquitted No. of cases disposed 15.06.04 to 31.12.04 34 56 23 85 57 2005 40 65 82 269 122 2006 30 47 48 169 78 2007 13 19 31 120 44 2008 21 45 17 39 38 2009 21 46 46 107 67 2010 29 43 55 109 84 2011 9 17 29 70 38 2012 8 11 39 100 47 2013 7 14 36 119 43 01.01.14 to 15.06.14 4 8 24 73 28 Total 216 371 430 1260 646 Average 2004 - 2008 27.6 46.4 40.2 136.4 67.8 Average 2009 – 2011 19.7 35.3 43.3 95.3 63.0 Average 2012 - 2014 6.3 11.0 33.0 97.3 39.3 Data from the Police Monitoring Cell is provided on a nationwide basis, not broken down by region, thus changes in the ACT Project areas cannot be determined. ChangeMaker’s (an ACT partner) 17 Data provided by GOB National Police Monitoring Cell. 30 monitoring program identified a 10 to 20 percent increase in trafficking cases filed during the period of October 2011 to October 2013 in two ACT Project areas: Jessore and Cox’s Bazaar. They attribute this increase to greater cooperation between all stakeholders leading to the community having higher trust and access to the legal system as well as in NGOs encouraging victims to seek justice through the law (ChangeMaker, 2013). However, the Jessore public prosecutor reported that since the new law was enacted, 167 cases of trafficking are pending, 47 were disposed, and there have been no convictions (FGD, prosecutors and judges, June 2014). Conclusions The ACT Project has been successful in assisting the GOB in establishing and implementing a NPA. They have also successfully advocated for the expansion of the definition of trafficking to include labor trafficking, internal trafficking, and the trafficking of adult men. However, the IR is to increase the capacity of the authorities to successfully prosecute trafficking cases. ACT Project partners work with and put pressure on police to investigate and pursue trafficking cases, possibly accounting for the increases in arrests. However, while arrests have increased, prosecutions and convictions have not. The training provided by ACT for police and public prosecutors covering only the new trafficking legislation and treatment of victims is not sufficient to improve their ability to investigate and prosecute trafficking cases. There are numerous obstacles to effective adjudication of trafficking crimes, not least of which are problems intrinsic to the judicial system more generally and not specifically to counter trafficking, including overburdened courts, lengthy trial processes, a lack of resources for police to investigate cases, and the like. Recognizing these obstacles, the evaluators find that the project activities designed to address this IR are insufficient – increased knowledge of the trafficking law and limited law enforcement training will not necessarily lead to successful prosecutions under such circumstances. EVALUATION QUESTION 4 How successful is the ACT Project in addressing gender and youth issues through the project activities? Findings Public Awareness Youth were included as a specific target group in the awareness-raising efforts of the ACT Project. Youth were provided with training and engaged to raise awareness about trafficking and safe migration in their communities. In the ACT Project, gender was not treated as a stand-alone issue. WI integrated gender into the project designs and implementation. Issues such as dowry, sexual harassment, and child marriage were addressed as related, and leading, to vulnerability to human trafficking in its awareness￾raising programs. Survivor Services According to WI reports, when the project began, services for male survivors were lacking (WI, 2009). The ACT Project has expanded identification of and support services for adult male victims of trafficking. WI indicates that the increase in identification and support of male victims of trafficking is “due to WI’s strategic selection of grantee organizations that have expertise in labor and migration issues” (WI, 2011, p. 16). Advocacy 31 In the first years of the project, WI supported a study of labor trafficking in Bangladesh. The study was designed to:  “Inform the design of WI supported survivor services;  Help service providers locate and identify survivors of labor trafficking;  Increase understanding of the incidence and particulars of labor trafficking in Bangladesh to inform advocacy and policy efforts; and  Provide data to verify the breadth and scope of the labor trafficking problem in Bangladesh to develop more targeted interventions in the future” (WI 2010). WI did make the integration of men and labor trafficking an important part of its advocacy work and has integrated this into all of its project messaging. Discrimination There are issues of societal discrimination that impact the ACT Project directly, which WI and its partners have tried to address. For example, female migrants face more difficulties integrating back into their communities (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June, 2014). ACT survivor services and awareness￾raising partners both try to address this in their community-based activities. Female migrants are discriminated against in BMET arbitration hearings, as there are different limitations on compensation awards for male and female migrants. One ACT partner has successfully fought this issue and won a higher award for a female migrant. Regardless of this emphasis on gender issues throughout its project, a surprisingly large number of ACT Project partner staff and project beneficiaries in the communities are men. Community members, teachers, and others engaged to promote awareness-raising activities with whom the evaluation team met were primarily male. While the ACT Project messages are designed to discuss trafficking of men, women, and children, the evaluators witnessed an emphasis in communities on sexual exploitation and less discussion of labor trafficking problems male migrants face. There is a concern that this may inadvertently restrict female migration as well as add to the difficulties women already face upon their return. Conclusions WI and its partners have tried to design survivor services to address different needs of male and female survivors of trafficking. In doing so, they have developed services that appear to be meeting the needs of both male and female survivors. In fact, by designing services in a way to better fit the needs of male survivors (through, for example, models that do not require shelter stays), WI and its partners developed a service model that also better fit the needs of many female survivors. ACT partners have tried to address some of the discrimination inherent in the migration processes and system. They have been especially successful in increasing compensation awards for female migrants. While ACT has increased awareness of trafficking of men and trafficking for the purpose of labor exploitation, community educators tend to emphasize stories about women trafficked for sexual exploitation or experiencing sexual abuse, which could negatively impact female migration as well as have negative repercussions for the societal acceptance of female survivors of trafficking. 32 ACT partners have tried to engage men, women, and youth on the issue of combating human trafficking but have not fully activated women in the community. EVALUATION QUESTION 5 How sustainable are ACT Project activities, and what measures could have been taken to enhance sustainability? Findings WI’s approach of engaging local community members in awareness-raising activities improves the likelihood of its continued impact. The implementation partners of awareness-raising sub-grantees, peer leaders, CTCs, and other community leaders, as well as Anirban members, are members of their community and will be able to continue transmitting the messages. Of course, it is not possible to know if their interest in the issue will continue without ongoing support. WI’s work on the NPA has given the Government a tool to follow up on counter trafficking initiatives with time frames and expected results. Assuming continued government interest and support to combat trafficking, many initiatives will be sustainable. However, many initiatives will need ongoing international donor support to continue. Most of the training undertaken by WI and its partners was implemented outside of academic or in￾service mechanisms. Only the training for judges was held at the judicial academy. In this case, the training was held during foundation training for new judges, but was not integrated into the curriculum. Informants report that police are also moved frequently, so trained police will not be in their current positions for long. WI has increased the capacity of service provider staff and provided them with tools to expand and improve their services to trafficking survivors, even taking into account staff turnover. ACT has tried to improve the sustainability of victim services by encouraging partners to use referrals to other NGOs and to encourage access to GOB sources of funding and support. Some services for survivors provided by a number of ACT partners will continue, as they have their own, or alternative, funding sources – especially for shelter services. DAM, for example, has its own funding and permanent shelter staff – an indication that the shelter and services will continue. They also have MOUs with other service providers, including legal aid, medical care, vocational training, and microcredit services (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). However, two of the survivor services providers indicated that services requiring additional input of funds – such as vocational training or seed money for starting small businesses – will be discontinued when the ACT project ends. Conclusions PA raising mechanisms engage local community members and build their capacity to raise awareness in their own communities. As a result, this element of the project may be sustained into the immediate future, so long as the community remains focused on the issue. Training for police, prosecutors, and judges is not integrated into foundation/in-service training mechanisms, but rather conducted by WI and project partners directly. Therefore it will not be continued when the project ends. Because police move frequently, it is important to integrate police training into national police training mechanisms. 33 Also, because pre-decision and pre-departure training for migrant workers is provided directly by ACT project partners, and it is not integrated into TTC training or other pre-departure mechanisms for migrant workers, it is unlikely to be continued when the project ends. In some parts of the country, victim services will not continue. In all areas, however, substantive services that require the input of funds, such as vocational training and seed money for small businesses, will not be sustainable. For those organizations with the funding to continue their operations, the tools and training that WI has provided them should help to ensure that the survivor service standards developed during the project continue to be implemented. EVALUATION QUESTION 6 Is there evidence from the implementation of ACT to suggest that alternative project approaches may have been more successful or was ACT’s approach the most efficient? Findings The project’s main prevention strategy was to raise awareness on human trafficking and legal migration. On a more limited scale, the project also provided pre-departure training to potential migrant workers as a prevention strategy. Other than these two approaches, no other prevention strategies were utilized. While project partners believe that these activities have prevented trafficking in their communities, there is insufficient evidence to know if this is true. Research indicates that raising awareness of the dangers of irregular migration may not be an effective strategy to prevent trafficking when migration is seen as a necessary survival strategy (Nieuwenhuys & Pécoud, 2007). The project’s main strategy for increasing prosecution was providing limited training to police, prosecutors, and judges combined with support for implementation of the NPA and IRR for the new TIP law. This does not appear to have been particularly effective in leading to increased prosecutions. WI provided the ACT partners with annual contracts for implementation. In WI’s own words, “partners have difficulties to develop programs with one year grant [sic] and many NGOs are not interested in small grants or do not give enough commitment on small grants” (WI, 2011, p. 62). This point was reiterated in WI’s mid-term evaluation, which found that the short-term nature of the contracts with sub-grantees led to difficulties in retaining ACT partner staff, in staff commitment to the project, and in problems with providing support to survivors (Ali, 2011). In 2012, when WI was given a two-year extension, they issued two-year grants to their partners (Interview, WI, June 30, 2014). However, interviews with many of the partners indicated continued significant staff turnover. Several partners also indicated that the short-term nature of the contracts limited the nature of the services they could provide for survivors. For example, the cooperative business model takes time to set up and establish (KIIs, ACT Project partners, June 2014). Conclusions It is not clear a priori that raising awareness prevents trafficking or that it is the most effective approach. However, WI did not experiment with alternative approaches. Alternative prevention strategies might have been piloted in the project areas. Analysis of the impact study currently underway on ACT’s PA activities should help inform prevention strategies for USAID’s new trafficking projects. 34 Alternative approaches to prevention could address other factors that lead to vulnerability to trafficking. Awareness raising addresses a perceived lack of information or understanding. Prevention strategies can also be designed to address vulnerability due to poverty or family crisis or to address social or cultural norms that may lead to risk of trafficking. Such strategies should be carefully designed based on a proper assessment of each community’s needs. For example, at a school where children frequently drop out to migrate for work, a project could support vocational training in schools linked with internships to support youth in finding gainful employment. In communities where women’s economic options are extremely limited, programs could address social and cultural norms while offering expanded economic opportunities for women and girls. Projects could support community-based social services to support vulnerable families so that a crisis does not lead to increased vulnerability to trafficking. There are a wide range of potential prevention strategies which could be utilized, depending on the issue which it is designed to address. Alternative approaches to building the capacity of public justice system actors to investigate and prosecute trafficking cases might have yielded better results. Alternative strategies for improving the investigation and adjudication of trafficking cases could be employed. Using the same strategy, USAID projects could provide more in-depth training to police on investigative techniques (although this is being undertaken by other donors). Alternatively, there have been successes with projects that provide mentoring for police and prosecutors with experts who have experience in successfully investigating and prosecuting trafficking crimes (Jones et al., 2010). These experts would work hand in hand with a small cadre of local police and prosecutors. If they succeed in these prosecutions, this cadre can work with others to expand the impact of the project. EVALUATION QUESTION 7 How effective and/or flexible has the ACT management structure (WI, their implementing partners, and USAID) been in enhancing the capacity of ACT NGO partners by WI? Findings All of ACT’s partners with whom the evaluation team met with speak very highly of both the expertise and the support of ACT staff. ACT provided numerous and varied capacity-building activities for partners that partners report finding very beneficial. They especially praised the opportunities to learn and share with one another through formal training courses, quarterly joint partner meetings, annual coordination meetings, peer visits, and monitoring visits. ACT partners were able to provide specific examples of how ACT has helped to build their capacity. For example, WI advised a partner to engage the community to support a survivor’s businesses. This led the community to help the survivor to purchase a water pipe for her business (KII, ACT Project partner, June 2014). The sub-grantees have also started discussions with other NGOs and existing government services available at their sites to develop a comprehensive referral mechanism so that all three services (prevention, prosecution, and protection) can be delivered from each of the project locations. TOT not only ensured consistent and uniform delivery of trainings and messages, but also gave partners confidence and boosted their own training skills. ACT partners collaborated with ACT on development of awareness-raising messages and materials, standards for survivor services, and many other integral components of the project. Development of a unified case management process also increased partners’ survivor services delivery skills. While WI provided some capacity building for partners in the area of 35 counseling, it appears that it was insufficient to address the shortcomings in their partners’ staff professional training. Some partners were stipulated by USAID when the ACT Project began, as they had been partners of USAID’s previous anti-trafficking project. WI believed that this was detrimental as these partners felt entitled and that they had nothing to learn. They were also reluctant to follow administrative and finance rules (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014). Conclusions The ACT Project was very effective at building the capacity of their sub-grantees in many areas. However, sub-grantees’ skills in measuring the impact of their programs is still weak and their capacity to provide counselling services is limited. EVALUATION QUESTION 8 How effectively and efficiently has the ACT Project addressed the recommendations of the Mid-term Evaluation of the project accepted by USAID and WI? (Note: only the four recommendations discussed below were accepted by USAID and WI.) Recommendation 1: Expend prevention/PA resources on reinforcing/clarifying the basic concepts and definition of TIP under the Palermo Protocol and/or the new legislation and how TIP differs from other related but separate concepts. Findings WI has reinforced its PA activities after the mid-term evaluation. New IEC materials were produced, particularly the booklet that defines TIP under the Palermo Protocol – describing Bangladesh law on human trafficking, how to protect against trafficking, safe migration processes, etc., and effectively combining trafficking and safe migration messages in one. In January 2014, 20,000 copies were printed and 16,000 handed over to partners for distribution. They also produced a common message and a common PowerPoint presentation to complement it (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014). While communities are fairly well informed about human trafficking, they do tend to conflate trafficking, smuggling, and safe migration with legal migration. The evaluation team noticed that dissemination of information related to safe migration and trafficking is clearer among literate people – like school teachers, students, and among certain groups of community leaders – but remains unclear among less educated people. Conclusions ACT addressed the evaluation recommendation. However, the evaluation was scheduled very late in the project cycle, leaving little time for ACT to develop and produce new materials for distribution. Recommendation 2: Finalize the survivor services standards and, if possible, roll them out in the remaining time left to see how they function and where there may be challenges in applying them in the field. Findings ACT developed victim service standards in collaboration with their sub-grantee partners. Discussions of service standards also included survivors (WI, 2011). One ACT Project service provider started implementing these guidelines in 2010 (KII, ACT project partner, June 2014). The final published 36 document is not yet finalized and has not been shared with the GOB or non-partner service providers. WI is developing a toolkit/manual for provision of services (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014). The Ministry of Social Welfare is developing (shelter) standards that will become obligatory for the country. Conclusions ACT has partially addressed the evaluation recommendation. Survivor service standards appear to have been finalized and they are being implemented by ACT partners. However, they have not yet been shared with other service providers in Bangladesh. Recommendation 3: Solidify law reform efforts around information dissemination and addressing challenges found in the new TIP legislation and the NPA leaving other legislation (such as the emerging emigration legislation) for future programs. Findings ACT and its partners have been raising awareness and conducting training about the new TIP law. Other related laws were never mentioned by ACT partners during the course of the evaluation interviews. Informants indicate that the GOB is focused on implementation of the NPA and new projects proposed by organizations are expected to support NPA implementation (Interview, international organizations, July 1, 2014). Conclusions ACT addressed the evaluation recommendation. They spent the remaining year of their advocacy efforts promoting implementation of the new TIP law and NPA. Recommendation 4: Prioritize the pending research project on prevalence of TIP in Bangladesh and finalize and disseminate it, preferably in accredited journals that would share the information among a wide audience. Findings There have been many delays in undertaking the survey on the prevalence of TIP in Bangladesh. The RFP for the research was first issued in the first quarter of FY 2013. Only one organization submitted a proposal that was deemed to be insufficient (WI, 2013a). A second RFP was issued in the fourth quarter of FY 2013 and an organization was selected to undertake the survey (WI, 2014b). However, problems arose with this organization with regard to delays as well as quality of research instruments, thereby causing WI to cancel their agreement (WI, 2014a). As result, the research was just beginning while this evaluation fieldwork was undertaken and is not expected to be completed until just before the project has ended. Conclusions The research was intended to support evidence-based policy discussion and development in the country. The delay has therefore limited the potential impact of the study to future TIP programming. 37 VI. LESSONS LEARNED PREVENTION WI utilized a collaborative approach in many areas of programming. In its PA component, developing messages in a collaborative manner led to partner ownership of the messages and to a unified message and approach. WI and its partners also effectively engaged local communities by incorporating community members as active volunteers in the project. These community members live and work in their communities and will be an on-going source of information. PROTECTION WI and its partners found innovative ways to engage survivors in all aspects of the ACT Project. Survivors not only contributed to issues related to survivor services, but were also engaged to improve awareness-raising messages and have recently taken on advocacy efforts as well. PROSECUTION Police and lawyers may need more support than basic training on the new trafficking law to assist them in successfully investigating and prosecuting trafficking cases. USAID should consider the kinds of support needed and whether or not it is within their mandate to provide such support. 38 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1 1. USAID should consider alternatives to the awareness-raising strategy for prevention of trafficking as well as consider addressing elements that lead to vulnerability to trafficking – poverty, lack of employable skills and education, family crisis, and the like. The agency should utilize findings from the impact assessment currently underway to design potential approaches and pilot these alternative approaches under the new TIP project, being careful to put in place mechanisms to evaluate impact from project inception so that different pilot strategies can be compared. 2. For future projects, USAID should ensure that the implementers test the implementation of awareness-raising activities to ensure that communities do not misunderstand the messages. Future campaigns should not result in unintended consequences, such as restrictions in women’s labor migration or increased difficulties for returning female migrants. EVALUATION QUESTION 2 1. Without long-term follow-up with survivors, USAID cannot know if the services provided have achieved their intended results. Any new trafficking projects should immediately establish a monitoring system for following up with assisted survivors, including survivors assisted by USAID’s previous projects. Such a system will provide information about the effectiveness of interventions, allow the project implementers to improve service delivery to make it more effective, and will set￾up a mechanism for providing additional assistance to survivors who are still struggling toward full integration or have encountered set-backs along the way. Over the course of the project, there have been on average 500 survivors identified every year. This is, on average, 100 survivors per partner organization. By the end of five years, each organization would have 500 survivors with whom to follow-up. Most of the organizations have only one or two staff involved in both livelihood support and follow-up. Given that survivors are spread out over vast distances in a country with bad roads and limited infrastructure, it would not be feasible for them to individually visit each survivor on a regular basis. Therefore, appropriate strategies need to be utilized and sufficient resources allocated to ensure that systematic and effective monitoring and follow up will take place. 2. Winning a compensation claim can be both empowering and vindicating for survivors. USAID should consider supporting additional training for lawyers assisting survivors to encourage them to pursue this avenue of redress and improve success rates for compensation claims. 3. USAID should include a focus in the new project on enhancing the capacity of staff providing counseling services. A comprehensive needs assessment conducted by a relevant expert should be conducted in the beginning of the project and sufficient resources provided to substantively increase counseling staff capacity. EVALUATION QUESTION 3 1. USAID should consider piloting alternative approaches to building the capacity of public justice system actors to investigate and prosecute trafficking cases. Given the restrictions that USAID faces with police training, training initiatives might better be handled by other donors. USAID should 39 consider programs that provide more intensive long-term, on-the-job assistance for a small cadre of police, prosecutors, and judges. 2. USAID should consider how training can be integrated into existing training mechanisms to make it more sustainable and to expand the reach of the training. For example, can training for migrants be integrated into official pre-departure mechanisms? Can training for prosecutors and judges be integrated into the judicial academy for new judges but also for in service training? EVALUATION QUESTION 8 1. USAID should ensure that, for future projects, the mid-term evaluation is conducted closer to the mid-point of the project so there is sufficient time remaining to correct course and implement evaluation recommendations. CROSS-CUTTING 1. The evaluation team found it difficult to use the ACT Project data. The ACT data are kept on a reporting basis only and are not consolidated across the full project period. Therefore, only annual data could be collected and had to be consolidated by the evaluators to obtain cumulative project data. WI’s own mid-term evaluation noted that the monitoring data being collected needed to be put to use beyond project reporting (Ali, 2011). The same could be said today at the end of the project – ACT is using PMP data for reporting purposes only. WI agreed with this assessment, stating that the results framework did not drive programming as much as it could have (Interview, WI, June 16, 2014). For future TIP projects, USAID’s implementing partner should put a greater emphasis on monitoring and evaluation data to: ‐ Enable its application to improve project management and implementation; ‐ Improve capacity of partners to collect and use monitoring and evaluation data; and ‐ Contribute to evidence-based policy development in the area of counter trafficking. 2. USAID should ensure that future projects integrate survivor input into all aspects of programming. In the ACT Project, survivors contributed to improving survivor services and developing service standards. The provided inputs into the awareness-raising messages and materials have contributed to advocacy efforts. 3. USAID should ensure that future projects maintain the collaborative approach used by WI in many areas of programming. In ACT’s PA component, developing messages in a collaborative manner led to partner ownership of the messages and to a unified approach. Collaboration also improved partner ownership over survivor services standards and case management tools. 40 ANNEXES 41 ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK Program Identification Data Program Title : Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program Program Number : Cooperative Agreement No. 388-A-00-08-00111-00 Program Dates : October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2014 Program Funding : $5,499,477 Implementing Organization: Winrock International Agreement Officer Representative (AOR): Habiba Akter I. Background Bangladesh continues to face the domestic challenge of trafficking-in-persons (TIP) and its related effects. As the demand for cheap labor and an expanding sex trade continue in developing countries, so does human trafficking. Bangladesh is a primary TIP source and transit country with most victims trafficked abroad for commercial sexual exploitation, involuntary domestic servitude, and other forms of forced labor. The situation is exacerbated by the large number of Bangladeshi migrant workers traveling to other countries where they face endemic violations of human rights and often become victims of labor trafficking. In 2010, Bangladesh was ranked as a Tier II Watch List country for the second year in a row by the Department of State. The absence of a comprehensive national law against human trafficking and a failure to make significant inroads in addressing labor trafficking prosecution have been identified as the primary reasons for the consistently low ranking. USAID/Bangladesh is funding a six-year (2008-2014) $5.4 million initiative entitled “Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT)”. USAID/Bangladesh’s ACT Project is implemented by Winrock International (WI). The specific project objectives are as follows: I. To reduce the rate of trafficking-in-persons and unsafe labor migration within and from Bangladesh; II. To enhance and standardize the protection and care of victims of trafficking and labor migration abuses; and III. To strengthen the GOB’s capacity to prosecute traffickers and trafficking-related crimes while improving overall rule of law and human security. ACT is a national project that connects local and national government representatives, non￾governmental organizations, and citizens and community leaders to spearhead an effort to prevent TIP protect and reverse damages to survivors, prosecute crimes of perpetrators, and engage all layers of society as change agents in curbing human trafficking in Bangladesh. The ACT Program clusters anti-trafficking efforts under three categories: Prevention, Protection, and Prosecution. Prevention activities focus on working with local non-government groups on public awareness initiatives in rural and semi-urban areas. ACT strives to expand the role of teachers, students, and community and local leaders as activists and role models for disseminating messages focused on equality 42 and human rights, safe migration and employment practices, and stigmatizing perpetrators instead of victims. ACT outreach and public education efforts also expand the focus of anti-trafficking to include not only sexual exploitation of women and children but also labor migration abuses and victimization of men. Protection activities feature comprehensive services to assist survivors using a victim-centered approach to:  identify trafficking victims whether in shelters or in communities;  individually assess needs and provide an array of services in shelters and integrated into village or city life;  provide life skills and livelihood vocational programs and help in securing employment or creating a business; and  create models and opportunities for reintegration in communities or for leading an independent new life without the risk of re-trafficking. Prosecution activities involve coordinated advocacy work among activists and with media, coupled with specific training for key government officials and law enforcement agents. Advocacy efforts focus on expanding government oversight, improving arrest and prosecution, and building government capacity to monitor labor recruitment agencies and prosecute malpractices. Working in collaboration with local anti￾trafficking and migrant rights organizations, ACT helps to:  develop and implement an advocacy agenda to improve enforcement of existing laws, policies and practices;  pursue policy dialogue and legal reform to better address human trafficking at the national and local government levels;  enhance prosecutorial capacity of law enforcement agents and lawyers; and  expand the legal framework to encompass the emerging issue of labor migration abuses. Through the above-mentioned activities under the ACT Project, USAID/Bangladesh seeks to combat human trafficking in Bangladesh, enhance the protection of the victims and improve victim care, while strengthening the Government of Bangladesh’s (GOB) capacity to prosecute traffickers and trafficking related crimes. In the long term, USAID TIP project will contribute to reducing transnational crime, benefit victims through legal and support services, and strengthen Bangladesh’s ability to enforce relevant national laws and international treaties. Achievements under this initiative will also help create conditions for improved national and regional security. Half-way through the project, the prospect of an improvement in the legal environment related to TIP emerged. The GOB, through the Ministry of Home Affairs initiated the process to adopt a new comprehensive law against human trafficking (2012). At the time the Cooperative Agreement was awarded, USAID had no knowledge of GOB’s plan to draft this law. As a result, WI participated in the steering committee of human trafficking law led by the Home Ministry, but could not directly assist in drafting the law. To work more closely with Government, the project’s scope of work was revised to include assistance to the GOB in the drafting of any TIP related laws or framework. As result WI was able to assist Government to draft the National Plan of Action (2011-14). The result framework of this project was developed later when Winrock developed their M&E plan. The overall objective and intermediate results are as follows: Overall Objective: Improve ability of Bangladeshi institutions to combat TIP and unsafe migration  IR 1. GOB active and efficient in prosecuting TIP crimes and preventing fraudulent practices in migration process 43  IR 2. Improved capacity of institutions to identify traffickers and prevent migrant workers’ vulnerability  IR 3. Increased capacity of communities to prevent human trafficking and promote safe migration  IR 4. Improved protection and care for survivors of human trafficking II. Purpose of the Evaluation The purpose of the performance evaluation is to measure the effectiveness of project, assess the sustainability of project activities and efficiency of project with a view to drawing lessons learned for the selection, design, and implementation of future projects. The audience for this performance evaluation is USAID/Bangladesh, the Government of Bangladesh, USAID/ Washington’s Office of Democracy and Governance, the Asia Bureau, and the Department of State’s G/TIP office, UNICEF Bangladesh, Winrock International, International Organization for Migration, World Vision and Netherland Embassy and other concern development partners. III. Evaluation Questions The evaluation should review, analyze, and assess the performance ACT Project by answering the following questions. In answering these questions, the Evaluation Team should assess both the performance of USAID and that of the implementing partner(s). The evaluation questions, in order of priority are: Effectiveness: 1. To what extent has the ACT Project been successful in strengthening capacity of community to prevent trafficking-in-persons and unsafe labor migration within and from Bangladesh? 2. How successful is ACT Project to enhance and standardize the protection and care of victims of trafficking and labor migration abuses? 3. To what extent has the ACT Project been successful in strengthening the GOB’s capacity to prosecute traffickers and trafficking-related crime? 4. How successful the ACT Project is to address gender and youth issues through the project activities? Sustainability 5. How sustainable are ACT Project activities, and what measures could have been taken to enhance sustainability? Efficiency: 6. Is there evidence from the implementation of ACT to suggest that alternative project approaches may have been more successful or was ACT’s approach the most efficient? 7. How effective and/or flexible has the ACT management structure (WI and their implementing partners, and USAID) been in enhancing capacity of ACT NGO partners by WI? 8. How effectively and efficiently ACT Project has addressed the recommendations of Mid-term Evaluation of the project accepted by USAID and Winrock International? IV. Proposed Evaluation Methodology Efforts to determine the outcomes of the ACT Program will rely on a desk review; selected key informant interviews with stakeholders, including USAID personnel, implementer staff, media personnel, 44 local government officials and civil society organizations (CSOs) who were involved in the implementation of ACT; and focus group discussions (FGDs). The evaluation team is encouraged to suggest alternative methodological approaches during the planning stage. For example, given the sensitive nature of trafficking issues, the evaluation team could suggest alternative or additional approaches that can maximize data collection and analysis. The study should investigate the impact of ACT activities on the levels and nature of TIP in Bangladesh. Trafficking figures will be sourced from project and publicly available data, such as data from Police monitoring cell. Bangladesh-based interviews of field staff and stakeholders such as trafficking survivors, service providers, etc. under this study should be reasonably spread across the geographic locations where the ACT Project was implemented. The evaluation methodology will be a three-pronged approach: 1. Desktop Review of Key Documents and Initial Analysis The Evaluation Team shall review relevant USAID documents, as well as key documents from USAID’s implementing partners and outside sources. The Evaluation Team will use this literature to develop an initial response to the questions listed in Section III above, and to set forth hypothesized cause-effect relationships that can be tested through field research and interviews. The Evaluation Team will also use the information from the desk review to design tools for conducting key informant interviews and focus group discussions. 2. Conduct Interviews and Field Research The Evaluation Team will conduct interviews with USAID/Bangladesh and USAID/Washington staff, project participants, implementing partners, sub-contractors and sub-grantees, relevant GOB representatives, civil society representatives, the media, donors, stakeholders, and other relevant beneficiaries. The Team should create sampling frame to conduct interviews of stakeholders and field visits with 1-2 sub-grantees under each type of sub-grant. The Evaluation Team’s work plan should include an interview list and proposed field visits. Personnel to be interviewed in Washington will include, but are not limited to the following:  USAID Bangladesh desk officer;  USAID TIP point of contact;  State Department Bangladesh desk officer;  State Department G/TIP point of contact;  WI Head Quarters personnel. 3. Conduct Focus Group Discussions The evaluation should include focus group discussions with a sample of the target beneficiaries and other stakeholders involved in the implementing of the ACT Project. To measure clients’ satisfaction as well as project effectiveness the team should conduct focus group discussions and/or opinion polls for media, civil society, elected officials and local and regional government officials in targeted regions. Alternative data collection techniques can be pursued given the sensitive nature of trafficking issues. The Team will build on the proposed methodology and provide more specific details on the evaluation methodology in the Evaluation Work Plan (see Deliverables below). The evaluation will be participatory in its design and implementation and the evaluation methodology will be finalized through further review and discussion between USAID/Bangladesh and the Evaluation Team. The methodology narrative should discuss the merits and limitations of the final evaluation methodology. In the final evaluation report, the 45 evaluator should also detail limitations and how these limitations were addressed or how limitations were taken to account in proposing recommendations. The Evaluation Team will design appropriate tools for collecting data from various units of analysis. The tools will be shared with USAID during the evaluation and as part of the evaluation report. The information collected will be analyzed by the Evaluation Team to establish credible answers to the questions and provide major trends and issues. V. Existing Sources of Information USAID/Bangladesh DG Office will provide documents for the desk review that are not available from other sources and contact information for relevant interviewees. The list of documents is presented in Annex-2. The list is not exhaustive and the Evaluation Team will be responsible for identifying and reviewing additional materials relevant to the evaluation. VI. Deliverables All deliverables are internal to USAID and the evaluation team unless otherwise instructed by USAID. Evaluation deliverables include: Evaluation Team Planning Meeting (s) – essential in organizing the team’s efforts. During the meeting (s), the team will review and discuss the Scope of Work in its entirety, clarify team members’ roles and responsibilities, work plan, develop data collection methods and instruments, review and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment and prepare for the in-brief with USAID/Bangladesh; Work Plan – Complete a detailed draft work plan (including task timeline, methodology outlining approach to be used to answer each evaluation question, and describe in detail the team responsibilities, and the data analysis plan): Within 5 working days after commencement of the evaluation; In-brief Meeting – An in-brief meeting with USAID/Bangladesh will be held within 2 working days of international team members’ arrival in Bangladesh; Evaluation Design Matrix – A table will be prepared that lists each evaluation question and the corresponding information sought, information sources, data collection sources, data analysis methods, and limitations. The matrix should be finalized and shared with USAID/Bangladesh before evaluation field work starts. It should also be included as an annex in the evaluation report. Data Collection Instruments – Data collection instruments will be developed and submitted to USAID/Bangladesh during the evaluation design phase prior to the commencement of the evaluation field work. The completed evaluation report should also include the data collection tools, instruments and list of people interviewed as an annex in the evaluation report. Weekly Updates - The Evaluation Team Leader (or his/her delegate) will brief the Bangladesh Democracy and Governance Program Evaluations (BDGPE) COR on progress with the evaluation on a weekly basis, in person or by electronic communication. Any delays or complications must be quickly communicated to USAID/Bangladesh as early as possible to allow quick resolution and to minimize any disruptions to the evaluation. Emerging opportunities for the evaluation should also be discussed with USAID/Bangladesh. 46 Debriefing with USAID – A PowerPoint presentation of initial findings, conclusions and preliminary recommendations will be made to USAID/Bangladesh before the international team members depart from Bangladesh. Debriefing with Partners - The team will present the major findings from the evaluation to USAID partners (as appropriate and as defined by USAID) through a PowerPoint presentation prior to the team’s departure from the country. The debriefing will include a discussion of achievements and activities only, with no recommendations for possible modifications to project approaches, results, or activities. The team will consider partner comments and incorporate them appropriately in drafting the final evaluation report. Draft Evaluation Report - – The Evaluation team will analyze all data collected during the evaluation to prepare a draft Performance Evaluation Report and submit the report within 10 working days on after the departure of international team members from Bangladesh. The draft report must be of a high quality with well-constructed sentences, and no grammatical errors or typos. The report should answer ALL the evaluation questions and the structure of the report should make it clear how the evaluation questions were answered. The draft report must meet the criteria set forth under the final report section below. USAID will provide comments on the draft report within ten working days of submission. The Evaluation Team will in turn revise the draft report into a final Performance Evaluation Report, fully reflecting USAID comments and suggestions. Final Report: The Evaluation Team will submit a final Performance Evaluation Report that incorporates Mission comments and suggestions no later than five working days after USAID/Bangladesh provides written comments on the draft Performance Evaluation Report. The format of the final report is provided below. The final report must meet the following criteria to ensure the quality of the report:  The evaluation report must represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why.  Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work.  The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope 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.  Evaluation methodology shall 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.  Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females.  Limitations to the evaluation shall 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.).  Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence.  Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex.  Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings.  Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. 47 The format of the final performance evaluation report should strike a balance between depth and length. The report will include a cover sheet, table of contents, table of figures and tables (as appropriate), glossary of terms (acronyms), executive summary, introduction, purpose of the evaluation, scope and methodology, findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations. Where appropriate, the evaluation should utilize tables and graphs to link with data and other relevant information. The report should include, in the annex, any “Statement of Differences” by any team member or by USAID on any of the findings or recommendations. The report should not exceed 30 pages, excluding annexes. The report will be submitted in English, electronically in both word and PDF forms. The report will be disseminated within USAID. Upon instruction from USAID, Social Impact (SI) will submit (also electronically, in English) this report excluding any potentially procurement-sensitive information to Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) for dissemination among implementing partners, stakeholders, and the general public. The DEC submission must be within three months of USAID’s approval of the final report. All quantitative data, if gathered, must be (1) provided in an electronic file in easily readable format; (2) organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation; (3) owned by USAID and made available to the public barring rare exceptions. A CD with all the data could be provided to the COR. The final report will be edited/formatted by Social Impact and provided to USAID/Bangladesh 10 working days after the Mission has reviewed the content and approved the final revised version of the report. VII. Team Composition/ Technical Qualifications and Experience Requirements for the Evaluation Team The Contractor will provide a team of specialists for the evaluation composed of experts in conducting assessments and evaluations of this nature. The team will include and balance several types of knowledge and experience related to program evaluation. Individual team members should have the technical qualifications as described below. The proposed team composition will include one team leader and two team members. USAID will select/approve the proposed candidates for each position based on the proposed methodology and the strength of the candidate(s). The specialists must all have significant developing country program experience. The team should include experience in a relevant South-Asian context, along with comparative experience with other countries or regions in the democracy and governance sector, civil society and citizen participation. At least one member of the team will have experience implementing or managing anti-trafficking in persons initiatives or significant familiarity with the subject. At least one member of the team must have overall understanding of the political, human rights and trafficking in person situation in Bangladesh or in the region. It is preferred that the team leader be an expatriate. Additionally, the team should include experience in designing and facilitating group discussion. Team Leader (International): A mid-level social scientist/political scientist with an advanced degree in a relevant discipline and at least ten (10) years of experience. Human rights experience is required; TIP experience is preferred. Asian/regional experience is desired. Prior experience and ability to conduct evaluations, in particular on human rights issues and to write well in English is required. Knowledge of USAID policy guidance and program design is preferred. The team leader will be responsible for development of the final evaluation and overall team coordination, including ensuring that team members adequately understand their roles and responsibilities, and for assigning individual data/information collection, and reporting responsibilities. 48 Team Members (National): Team experience should include post-graduate level social science, law, economics, and/or political science experience. In-depth knowledge of issues relating to trafficking in person, gender and human rights is required. Familiarity with social science “best practices” methods and programming is essential. Substantial experience in conducting evaluations or assessments is expected of all members. Ability to conduct interviews and discussions and write well in English is essential. The persons should be resident Bangladeshi nationals, who is fluent in Bangla; are exceptionally knowledgeable about Bangladesh’s political, social, and economic situation; have TIP expertise with knowledge of human rights more generally; has preferably some understanding of USAID’s programs; and has no political or other affiliations that would negatively influence (or could reasonably be perceived as influencing) their recommendations. Bangladesh Democracy and Governance Programs’ Evaluation (BDGPE) will include Dhaka office based staff as third team member for this Evaluation. The Team will be supported by interpreter/translators (as needed) through the auspices of the Bangladesh Democracy and Governance Program Evaluations (BDGPE) project. VIII. Conflict of Interest All evaluation Team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest, or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the program being evaluated. USAID/Bangladesh will provide the conflict of interest forms. IX. Scheduling and Logistics/Logistical Support and Government Furnished Property The proposed evaluation will be funded and implemented through the BDGPE project implemented by Social Impact. Social Impact will be responsible for all offshore and in-country administrative and logistical support, including identification and fielding appropriate consultants. Social Impact support includes arranging and scheduling meetings, international and local travel, hotel bookings, working/office spaces, computers, printing, photocopying, arranging field visits, local travel, hotel and appointments with stakeholders. The Evaluation Team will be required to perform tasks in Dhaka, Bangladesh and also will travel to activity sites within the country. The evaluation Team should be able to make all logistic arrangements including the vehicle arrangements for travel within and outside Dhaka and should not expect any logistic support from the Mission. The Team should also make their own arrangement on space for Team meetings, and equipment support for producing the report. Schedule Task/ Deliverable Proposed Dates Business Calendar Days* Projected LOE Expat Team Leader National Evaluation Specialist Review background documents & preparation work (offshore): Draft work plan submitted to SI by 6/17 6/1 – 6/13 9 – 10 (U.S. vs. Dhaka) 4 3 Travel to Bangladesh by expat team members 6/14 1 1 - 49 Task/ Deliverable Proposed Dates Business Calendar Days* Projected LOE Expat Team Leader National Evaluation Specialist Team Planning Meeting hosted by BDGPE 6/15 0.5 0.5 0.5 In-Brief with USAID/Bangladesh 6/16 0.5 0.5 0.5 Data collection 6/17 – 7/2 14 14 14 Analysis and product drafting in-country Final work plan due to USAID 6/19 Counted above Counted above Counted above Evaluation Team submits draft presentation to USAID/Bangladesh 6/30 Counted above Counted above Counted above USAID provides comments (as needed) on report outline and draft presentation 7/1 Counted above Counted above Counted above Presentation and debrief with DG Team and USAID/Bangladesh 7/2 Counted above Counted above Counted above Debrief meetings with key stakeholders, including GOB 7/2 Counted above Counted above Counted above Expat Team member departs Bangladesh 7/3 – 7/4 1 2 - Produce draft report. Team leader delivers draft report to SI/BDGPE on 7/24 7/7- 7/24 25 6 4 Evaluation Team Leader delivers presentation to USAID/W (date to be coordinated with USAID/Washington) 8/15 1 1 USAID and partners review draft and provide comments by 8/24 8/10 – 8/24 10 - - Team revises the report and submits final 8/25 – 9/14 15 3 - TOTAL 80 32 22 X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The total pages of the final report, excluding references and annexes, should not be more than 30 pages. The following content (and suggested length) should be included in the report: Table of Contents Acronyms Executive Summary - concisely state the program purpose and background, key evaluation questions, methods, most salient findings and recommendations (2-3 pp.); 1. Introduction – country context, including a summary of any relevant history, demography, socio-economic status etc. (1 pp.); 2. The Development Problem and USAID’s Response - brief overview of the development problem and USAID’s strategic response, including design and implementation of the ACT Project and any previous USAID activities implemented in response to the problem, (2-3 pp.); 50 3. Purpose of the Evaluation - purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1 pp.); 4. Evaluation Methodology - describe evaluation methods, including strengths, constraints and limitations (1 pp.); 5. Findings/Conclusions - describe and analyze findings for each objective area using graphs, figures and tables, as applicable, and also include data quality and reporting system that should reflect verification of spot checks, issues, and outcomes(12-15 pp.); 6. Lessons Learned - provide a brief of key technical and/or administrative lessons on what has worked, not worked, and why for future program implementation or relevant program designs (2-3 pp.); 7. Recommendations – prioritized for each key question; should be separate from conclusions and be supported by clearly defined set of findings and conclusions. Include recommendations for future program implementation or relevant program designs and synergies with other USAID program and other donor interventions as appropriate (3-4 pp.); Annexes – to include statement of work, documents reviewed, bibliographical documentation, evaluation methods, data generated from the evaluation, tools used, interview lists, meetings, focus group discussions, surveys, and tables. Annexes should be succinct, pertinent and readable. Annexes should also include if necessary, a statement of significant unresolved difference of opinion by funders, implementers, or members of the evaluation Team on any of the findings or recommendations. The report format should be restricted to Microsoft products and 12-point type font should be used throughout the body of the report, with page margins one-inch top/bottom and left/right. Documents for review will include, but are not limited to the following:  Bangladesh Democracy and Governance Assessment, ARD report, August 2009  USAID/Bangladesh Strategy, Annual Reports, Operational Plan, Performance Monitoring Plan, DQA report 2010, CDCS relevant sections on Democracy and Governance and Results Framework  ACT agreement, amendments, sub-grants and sub-contracts, work plans (year 1,2 and 3), semi￾annual reports, and program performance reports for year 1 and 2  ACT initial TIP assessment report, 2010  GOB Poverty Reduction Strategy and other relevant GOB documents  ACT Internal Mid-Term Evaluation Report, 2011  ACT Labor Trafficking Study, 2011  ACT Recruiting Agency Study, 2011  ACT annual PMPs (year 1,2 and 3)  Department of State’s Annual Trafficking in Persons Reports (2009, 2010, 2011) Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 51 ANNEX II: ACT PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK Overall Objective: Improve ability of Bangladeshi institutions to combat TIP and unsafe migration Sub IR 3.1 Community volunteers, CBOs and Counter Trafficking Committees (CTC) trained and strengthened to prevent TIP and promote safe migration. Sub IR 3.2 Standardized anti￾TIP and safe migration messages and approaches in line with Palermo definition and national TIP law developed and disseminated by media, NGOs, CSOs, and GOB. Sub IR 2.2Increased access to resources for potential migrants to reduce vulnerability to human trafficking and labor abuses. Sub IR 1.3Enhanced ability of GOB to develop and implement laws and policies to combat all forms of human trafficking. IR 1GOB active and efficient in prosecuting TIP crimes and preventing fraudulent practices in migration process. Sub IR 1.1Increased application of research on current trends in TIP to policy discussion and creation. IR2Improved capacity of institutions to identify traffickers and prevent migrant workers’ vulnerability. IR3Increased capacity of communities to prevent human trafficking and promote safe migration. IR4 Improved protection and care for survivors of human trafficking. Sub IR 4.1 Developed and implemented standards for care and support for survivors of human trafficking. Sub IR 4.2 Increased livelihood options and successful reintegration of survivors through an integrated approach. Sub IR 2.1Government officials, recruiting agencies, NGOs, CBOs, lawyers, judges, and local leaders trained to use victim/ trafficker identification guidelines. Sub IR 1.2 NPA implemented and monitored. Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 52 ANNEX III: MAP OF ACT PROJECT EVALUATION SITES IN BANGLADESH Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 53 ANNEX IV: DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Cooperative Agreement 1. ACT Award Document with USAID; Cooperative Agreement No. 388-A-00-08-00111-00; September 29, 2008 2. ACT Award Modification Number 3; Cooperative Agreement No. 388-A-00-08-00111-00; Effective date October 1, 2008 3. ACT Award Modification Number 7; Cooperative Agreement No. 388-A-00-08-00111-00; Effective date October 1, 2008 Grant Contract 4. Cost Reimbursable SUBGRANT between WINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT and ChangeMaker-Society for Social and Economic Development under the BANGLADESH ACTIONS FOR COMBATING TRAFFICKING-IN￾PERSONS (ACT) PROGRAM; OCTOBER 1, 2010–AUGUST 31, 2012 5. ACT Sub-grantee Contact Details and Working Areas of the Program 6. List of Winrock ACT Program Sub-Grantee NGOs 2008 to 2014 Work Plans and PMPs 7. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Performance Monitoring Plan; Indicators for Year-1, 2009 8. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program Work Plan – Year One (October 2008–September 2009)submitted Winrock International, Bangladesh; February 23, 2009 9. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Performance Monitoring Plan; Indicators for Year 2, 2010 10. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan; Quantitative Indicators; October 1, 2009 to September 31, 2010 11. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program Work Plan – Year Two (October 2009–September 2010) submitted Winrock International, Bangladesh; October 27, 2009 12. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Performance Monitoring Plan; Indicators for Year-3, 2011 13. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Plan and Quantitative Indicators Report (October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2013) Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 54 14. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program Work Plan – Year Three (October 2010–September 2011) submitted Winrock International, Bangladesh 15. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Performance Monitoring Plan; Indicators for Year-4, 2012 16. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Performance Monitoring Evaluation Plan and Quantitative Indicators, Year-4 17. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program Work Plan – Year Four (October 2011–September 2012) submitted Winrock International, Bangladesh 18. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program Work Plan – Year Four (October 2012–September 2013) submitted Winrock International, Bangladesh 19. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Work Plan – Years Five and Six; October 2012–September 2014; Submitted April 23, 2013 20. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program Bangladesh; PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP); Submitted by: Winrock International; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh; November 2012; Revised 13 March 2013; USAID approved 3 April 2013 21. Bangladesh Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Work Plan – Year Six, October 2013 - September 2014; Revised 12 Oct 2013; Submitted August 31, 2013; Winrock International, Bangladesh Annual Project Reports 22. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Annual Progress Report and PMEP; October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010 23. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Annual Progress Report; October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011; Award Number: 388-A-00-08-00111-00-01; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh, October 2011 24. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Annual Progress Report; October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012; Award Number: 388-A-00-08-00111-00-01; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh, October 2012 25. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program, Annual Progress Report; October 1, 2012–September 30, 2013 26. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Annual Progress Report; October 1, 2012–September 30, 2013; Award Number: 388-A-00-08-00111-00-01; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh; January 31, 2014 27. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Annual Progress Report and PMEP; October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010 Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 55 Semi-annual Project Report 28. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Program Semi-Annual Progress Report and PMEP on Cumulative Activities for the Period October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009; Award Number: 388-A-00-08-00111-00-01; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh, October 2009 29. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Annual Progress Report and PMEP; Semi-annual report; October 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011; Award Number: 388-A￾00-08-00111-00-01; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh 30. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Annual Progress Report and PMEP; Semi-annual report; October 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012; Award Number: 388-A￾00-08-00111-00-01; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh 31. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Annual Progress Report and PMEP; Semi-annual report; October 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013; Award Number: 388-A￾00-08-00111-00-01; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh; April 30, 2013 Quarterly Reports 32. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Quarterly Progress Report; January 1 – March 31, 2014; Award Number: 388-A-00-08-00111-00-01; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh April 30, 2014 33. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Quarterly Progress Report; April 1– June 30, 2013; Award Number: 388-A-00-08-00111-00-01; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh July 31, 2013; Revised, September 10, 2013 34. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Quarterly Progress Report, January 1 – March 31, 2014; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh April 30, 2014 35. Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program; Quarterly Progress Report, October1 – December 31, 2014; Submitted to: USAID/Bangladesh January 31, 2014 Sub-grantee Reports 36. Agrogoti Sangstha, Satkhira; Quarterly Narrative Report of Combined initiative for trafficking prevention in persons project. Supported by: Winrock International/USAID. January March 2014 37. Change Makers; LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE AND MONITORING; PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT submitted to Winrock International, OCTOBER 2011 THROUGH OCTOBER 2013 38. Proyas Manobik Ynnayan Society (PROYAS); Quarterly Narrative Report for Community Mobilization Project to Prevent Human Trafficking (CMPPHT); Submitted to Winrock International/USAID; January–March 2014 39. Bangladesh Manabadhikar Bastabayan Sangstha {BSEHR)); Quarterly Narrative Report for Promoting Community Empowerment to Prevent Trafficking); Submitted to Winrock International/USAID; January–March 2014 Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 56 40. Rights Jessore; Quarterly Narrative Report for Empower Community through Public Awareness and Training to Prevent Human Trafficking and Promote Safe Migration; Submitted to Winrock International/USAID; January–March 2014 41. Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU); Project Completion Report for Safe Labor Migration: Ensuring Access to Information and services; Submitted to Winrock International/USAID; May 2010–February 2014 42. Shikkha Shastha Unnyan Karzakram; Project Completion Report for Actions for Combating Trafficking in Persons (ACT) Migrants and Migrant Agency Training Program; Submitted to Winrock International/USAID; May 2010 to February, 2014 TIP Reports 43. US Trafficking in Person Report, 2009; Country narrative Bangladesh, Tire 2 Watch list 44. US Trafficking in Person Report, 2010; Country narrative Bangladesh, Tire 2 Watch list 45. US Trafficking in Person Report, 2011; Country narrative Bangladesh, Tire 2 Watch list 46. US Trafficking in Person Report, 2012; Country narrative Bangladesh, Tire 2 Watch list 47. US Trafficking in Person Report, 2013; Country narrative Bangladesh, Tire 2 Watch list Winrock - ACT Documents 48. Thérèse Blanchet of Drishti Research Centre; Efforts and Needs to Combat Trafficking-in￾Persons (TIP): Report prepared for Winrock International’s Actions for Combating Trafficking‐ in‐Persons (ACT) Program Bangladesh, and USAID; Dhaka; February 15, 2009 49. Ishrat Shamin, Centre for Women and Children Studies (CWCS); Role of Recruiting Agencies in the Recruitment Process to Ensure Safe Migration in Order to Prevent Human Trafficking; Report prepared for Winrock International’s Actions for Combating Trafficking‐in‐Persons (ACT) Program Bangladesh, and USAID; Dhaka; May 2012 50. A.K.M. Masud Ali, INCIDIN Bangladesh; Mid-Term Evaluation of Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT); Submitted to: Winrock International; August 2011 Dhaka 51. Bangladesh Laws in relation to Human Trafficking (in English) 52. Winrock International’s Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program and USAID Bangladesh; Review of Laws against Human Trafficking in Bangladesh 53. Bangladesh National Women Lawyers’ Association Study on Prosecuting Human Trafficking Cases: Practice, Lessons Learned & Remedies, Final Report; Supported by ACR Program, Winrock International/USA, July 2011 National Conference on NPA 54. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh; NATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION FOR COMBATING HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012–2014; January 2012 Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 57 55. SHARING EXPERIENCES ON CHALLENGES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION FOR COMBATING HUMAN TRAFFICKING (NPA) 2012–2014; PowerPoint Presentation. 2 July 2013 56. Actions for Combating Trafficking in Persons (ACT) Program; Partner Recommendations for Improved Implementation of the National Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons (NPA) 2012-14; National Conference on Bangladesh’s 2012 Trafficking in Persons Law and National Plan of Action 2012-14: From Adoption to Implementation July 2, 2013 BICC￾Bangabandhu International Conference Center Sher-E Bangla Nogor, Dhaka 57. NATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION FOR COMBATING HUMAN TRAFFICKING 2012 – 2014; MATRIX ON ACHIEVEMENT OF THE PLAN OF ACTION FOR COMBATING HUMAN TRAFFICKING Lead Ministry: Ministry of Home Affairs Timeline: Three Years (2012–2014) Achievement Report by: Winrock International/ACT Program 58. Winrock International/ACT Program; Working Paper on Actions for Combating Trafficking-in￾Persons (ACT) Program: Good Practices Identified by ACT Partners in Implementing Areas; Implementation Period: 2008 – 2014 (with USAID support) 59. Voice of a Survivor; Stories presented by three Survivors at the NPA Conference. July 2, 2013 BICC-Bangabandhu International Conference Center Sher-E Bangla Nogor, Dhaka Newspaper Clippings 60. The New Nation, 2 June 2011; laxity of police, absence of law; BMET fails to stop human trafficking. Reported by Mamunur Rashid (rained by ACT in Jan 2011) 61. Bangladesh News 24x7.com; 19 May 2013; Destination Malaysia through illegal channel dreams die in sea. Reported by Ahsan Sumon (rained by ACT in Jan 2012) 62. Amar Desh, 25 April 2011; Difficulty of Providing Compensation to families of for the deceased migrants. Reported by Emrana Ahmed (trained by ACT in Jan 2011) 63. Bangladesh Protideen, 30 June 2012, New Techniques of Women Trafficking; Reported by Alamgir Hossain (Trained by ACT in Jan 2011) Published News Analysis on TIP 64. Bangladesh Protideen, 20 May 2012; Terror of Women Trafficking Syndicate; Reported by Alamgir Hossain (Trained by ACT in Jan 2011) 65. Bangla News 24, 5 January 2013; Trafficking to Malaysia keeps continuing – 6 people captured including broker; reported by Nupa Alam (Trained by ACT in Jan 2012) 66. Dainik Janata, 28 December 2012; Women trafficking in the name of Labor Migration; Reported by Mostafizur (Trained by ACT in July 2011) 67. Amar Desh, 18 October 2011; Women Trafficking in the Name of Migration; Reported by Emrana Ahmed (Trained by ACT in Jan 2011) Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 58 USAID Documents 68. USAID; Mid-term Performance Evaluation of the Actions for Combating Trafficking in Person (ACT Project; Conducted by BDGPE/Social Impact, July 2013) 69. USAID; Bangladesh Country Development Cooperation Strategy, FY2011- FY2016 70. USAID Counter Trafficking in Person Policy, Washington DC, February 2012 71. USAID, Bangladesh Democracy and Governance Assessment, August 2009 Other Documents 72. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna; Anti-human trafficking manual for criminal justice practitioners; New York 2009 73. See also Annex IV - Bibliography Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 59 ANNEX V: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL DOCUMENTATION Ali, M. (2011). Mid-Term Evaluation: Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT). Dhaka: INCIDIN Bangladesh for Winrock International. Barr, A., Hassan, Z., & Islam, S. (2014). Midterm Performance Evaluation of the Protecting Human Rights (PHR) Project. Dhaka: Social Impact. BBS. (2011). Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) 2010: Key Findings and Results. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Blanchet, T. (2009). Efforts and Needs to Combat Trafficking in Persons (TIP): An Assessment. Dhaka: Drishti Research Centre for Winrock International. ChangeMaker. (2013). Law Enforcement Assistance and Monitoring: Project Completion Report (October 2011–October 2013). Dhaka: ChangeMaker. Chemonics. (2009). USAID Anti-Trafficking in Persons Programs in Asia: A Synthesis. Washington D.C.: Chemonics International, Inc. IOM/Dhaka. (2008). Counter-Trafficking Interventions in Prevention, Protection and Prosecution for Victims of Trafficking in Persons in Bangladesh: End of Project Evaluation. Dhaka: International Organization for Migration. Jones, A., Schlangen, R., & Bucoy, R. (2010). An Evaluation of the International Justice Mission’s “Project Lantern”: Assessment of Five-year Impact and Change in the Public Justice System. International Justice Mission. Nieuwenhuys, C., & Pécoud, A. (2007). Human Trafficking, Information Campaigns, and Strategies of Migration Control. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(12), 1674–1695. UNESCO. (2012). Adult and Youth Literacy, 1990-2015. Analysis of data for 41 selected countries. Montreal: UNESCO. USDOS. (2014). Trafficking in Persons Report, 2013. Washington D.C.: United States Department of State. WI. (2009). Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program Semi-Annual Progress Report and PMEP on Cumulative Activities for the Period October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. Dhaka: Winrock International. WI. (2010). Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program. Annual Progress Report and PMEP: October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010. Dhaka: Winrock International. WI. (2011). Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program. Annual Progress Report and PMEP: October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011. Dhaka: Winrock International. WI. (2013a). Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program Annual Progress Report October 1, 2012–September 30, 2013. Dhaka: Winrock International. Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 60 WI. (2013b). Partner Recommendations for Improved Implementation of the National Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons (NPA) 2012–14. National Conference on Bangladesh’s 2012 Trafficking in Persons Law and National Plan of Action 2012-14: From Adoption to Implementation. Dhaka: Winrock International. WI. (2014a). Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program. Annual Progress Report: January 1, 2014–March 31, 2013. Dhaka: Winrock International. WI. (2014b). Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (ACT) Program. Annual Progress Report: October 1, 2013–December 31, 2013. Dhaka: Winrock International. World Bank. (2013). Poverty Assessment: Assessing a Decade of Progress in Reducing Poverty, 2000- 2010. Bangladesh Development Series, Paper No. 31. Dhaka: World Bank. Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 61 ANNEX VI: DATA COLLECTION MATRIX Question Method/Technique(s) Data Source(s) 1. To what extent has the ACT Project been successful in strengthening capacity of community to prevent trafficking-in-persons and unsafe labor migration within and from Bangladesh? Is the project on track to achieve its planned targets under this IR (IR 3)? Analysis of ACT reports ACT Results Framework reporting Has there been an increase the capacity of ACT partners to effectively develop and implement AR campaigns and programs? Analysis of ACT training materials and reports; Impressions of local anti-trafficking actors ACT Project training reports and documents; key informant interviews Has there been an impact of these interventions on the local target communities? Review of ACT and ACT partner reports; Impressions of local anti￾trafficking actors ACT and ACT partner reports and documents; FGDs with communities targeted for the campaigns 2. How successful is ACT Project to enhance and standardize the protection and care of victims of trafficking and labor migration abuses? Is the project on track to achieve its planned targets under this IR (IR 4)? Analysis of ACT reports ACT Results Framework reporting What changes in the service provision to victims has taken place as a result of the ACT Project Analysis of assisted victim data; impressions of those who provide assistance, as well as other key actors ACT victim assistance data; KII Are victims being provided high quality comprehensive services? Analysis of assisted victim data (if available); review of victim assistance procedures and services; review of ACT Project standards for victim services; impressions of victims assisted and those who provide assistance, as well as other key actors ACT records and service standards guidelines; service provider records and case management procedures; interviews with assisted victims; key informant interviews 3. To what extent has the ACT Project been successful in strengthening the GOB’s capacity to prosecute traffickers and trafficking-related crime? Is the project on track to achieve its planned targets under this IR (IR 1 and IR 2)? Analysis of ACT reports ACT Results Framework reporting Has there been an increase in the quantity and quality trafficking investigations, prosecutions and convictions in the projects target areas? Analysis of cases against traffickers in the target area and in the country: Number of investigations arrests, prosecutions and convictions; sanctions imposed; length of trials – if data is available. GOB records (police, prosecutors, courts?); ACT records and reports Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 62 What has been the impact of the new law and the NPA on the prosecution of trafficking cases? Impressions of key actors Key informant interviews 4. How successful the ACT Project is to address gender and youth issues through the project activities? What is the breakdown by gender and age of victims assisted? Data analysis of victims assisted – if data is available ACT and other service provider victim records In what ways are services tailored to the potential differing needs of men and women? Boys and girls? Gender analysis of services, delivery methods and accommodation options Key informant interviews; review of case management procedures and services What is the gender breakdown of service provider staff? Gender analysis of service provider staff Key informant interviews; training records In what ways are prevention messages adapted to the differing needs of men and women? Boys and girls? Gender analysis of messages and delivery methods Key informant interviews; review of awareness raising materials 5. How sustainable are ACT Project activities, and what measures could have been taken to enhance sustainability? Are the training courses provided by ACT likely to continue after the program ends? Are they embedded into local training mechanisms – professional training academies, university, etc. Analysis of training implementation mechanisms; opinions of key informants ACT Project records; Key informant interviews Is the current pace of investigations, arrests prosecutions and convictions likely to continue after the program ends? Is there local support - financial, political, etc.? Are the ACT trained personnel still in their positions? Analysis of sustainability measures inherent in project design; analysis of local stakeholder support for activities; analysis of local financial and resource contributions to activities; analysis of staff turnover. Key informant interviews; ACT Project records and reports Is the victim assistance model currently supported by ACT likely to continue after the program ends? Is there local support - financial, political, etc.? Are service provider staff members trained by ACT still in their positions? Are the service standards realistic and implementable? Analysis of sustainability measures inherent in project design; analysis of local stakeholder support for activities; analysis of local financial and resource contributions to activities; impressions of service providers on the service standards Key informant interviews; project records and reports Are the awareness raising activities currently supported by ACT likely to continue after the program ends? Is there local support - financial, political, etc.? Analysis of sustainability measures inherent in project design; analysis of local stakeholder support for activities; analysis of local financial and resource contributions to activities; impressions ACT Project implementers, journalists, and other informants Key informant interviews; project records and reports Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 63 6. Is there evidence from the implementation of ACT to suggest that alternative program approaches may have been more successful or was ACT’s approach the most efficient? What other approaches were considered? Analysis of project implementation decision – making processes Key informant interviews; project records and reports What resources or tools were employed to determine what approaches should be utilized? Analysis of project implementation decision – making processes Key informant interviews; project records and reports 7. How effective and/or flexible has the ACT management structure (WI and their implementing partners, and USAID) been in enhancing capacity of ACT NGO partners by WI? What program management and implementation factors have influenced project outcomes – both positive and negative? Analysis of key informant interviews and project implementation and impact Key informant interviews; project reports What has been the impact of USAID support for ACT? Analysis of interviews with ACT and USAID Key informant interviews What has been the impact of ACT staff support for ACT’s NGO partners? Analysis of interviews with ACT Project partners and other stakeholders Key informant interviews 8. How effectively and efficiently ACT Project has addressed the recommendations of Mid-term Evaluation of the program accepted by USAID and Winrock International? Have prevention/public-awareness resources been targeted to reinforcing/clarifying the basic concepts and definition of TIP under the Palermo Protocol and/or the new legislation, and how TIP differs from other related but separate concepts? Analysis of interviews with ACT staff, ACT Project partners, and other stakeholders Key informant interviews Are the trainings provided under the prosecution pillar duplicative of other training programs? Are they sufficiently in-depth? Analysis of interviews with ACT staff, ACT Project partners, training recipients, and other stakeholders Key informant interviews; FGDs with training participants Has the survivor services standards been finalized and rolled out? How has this impacted on ensuring effective services for victims? Analysis of interviews with ACT staff, service providers, survivors, and other stakeholders Key informant interviews; ACT Project reports Have legal reform and policy dialogue activities focused on the new TIP legislation and the National Plan of Action – leaving other legislation (such as the emerging emigration legislation) for future programs? Analysis of interviews with ACT staff, ACT Project partners, GOB partners, training recipients, and other stakeholders Key informant interviews; FGDs with training participants Status of pending research on prevalence of TIP in Bangladesh. Analysis of ACT reports; analysis of interviews with ACT, USAID, and ACT implementing partner Key informant interviews; ACT Project reports Has ACT been able to develop synergies with other USAID projects? Analysis of ACT reports; analysis of interviews with ACT, USAID, and Key Informant Interviews; ACT Project Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 64 other stakeholders reports Has ACT developed a protocol to respond to disabled victims of trafficking? Analysis of interviews with ACT staff, service providers, survivors, and other stakeholders Key Informant Interviews; ACT Project reports Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 65 ANNEX VII: EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS Interview Guide for ACT Project Prevention Sub-grantees  Training ‐ What training courses have you participated in?  What topics were covered?  Which were provided by ACT? By others? ‐ What other learning opportunities did you receive from ACT? ‐ In what ways have the trainings/capacity-building opportunities provided improved your ability to manage trafficking prevention campaigns? Can you give a specific example? ‐ Has the training on trafficking helped you in your work in other ways? Can you give a recent example? ‐ How would new staff learn these skills? ‐ Have the trainings improved the allied criminal justice community's performance in effectively responding to trafficking cases? Can you give an example? ‐ What handouts were provided and in what ways have you utilized them in your work?  Prevention Programming ‐ What activities do you implement for prevention of trafficking?  Awareness raising? Poverty reduction? Safe migration? Other? ‐ Do you target your programs at “at-risk” communities?  If so, how?  How do you define “at-risk”?  Who do you consider to be “at-risk”? ‐ About your AT campaign with ACT:  How many individuals do you believe you have reached with your campaign? ‐ Male/female? ‐ Adult/minors?  What is the campaign about/what is the objective of your campaign?  What is the message of your campaign? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 66  What activities were carried out as part of this campaign? ‐ In what ways, if any, do you measure the impact of the campaign/your work? ‐ In your opinion, what were the main outcomes? ‐ Have there been any changes in the community as a result of the campaign? ‐ What role does the media play in your campaigns? Is there any particular type of media that you use more than others? What commitment, if any, has the media made to long-term coverage/focus of human trafficking? ‐ Does your program have any component for engaging those made aware of trafficking to continue to spread the message themselves? If so, how does this work? ‐ What difficulties, if any, have you encountered in running your campaigns? ‐ Do you feel there is adequate cooperation between the education sector, local government, and NGOs on this initiative? Give examples either way.  Coordination ‐ Has WI-ACT been flexible/supportive to work with? ‐ What are the most effective elements of your relationship with WI? ‐ What aspects of the relationship could be improved? ‐ Have you had any contact with USAID directly? In what ways have they contributed to your activities? ‐ How do you incorporate lessons learned into new/future/on-going programs/activities? ‐ Are your results shared with others (WI/GOB)?  How often, with whom?  How are they used by the GOB?  Sustainability ‐ What elements of your program have continued since/when ACT support has ended (ends)? ‐ What elements have ended or will end when ACT support is discontinued? ‐ What actions, if any, have been taken to ensure that the impact of the project continues after WI support ends? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 67 Interview Guide for ACT Project Prosecution Sub-grantees  Training provided by ACT for ACT partners: ‐ What training courses have you participated in?  What topics were covered?  Which were provided by ACT? By others (ACT Partners)? ‐ What other learning opportunities did you receive from ACT? ‐ Quality of Training:  Competence of instructors?  Relevance of content?  Usefulness for your work?  Did you receive handouts? If yes, in what ways have you utilized them in your work?  Training conducted by ACT implementing partners for training they sponsored:  Prosecution Programming ‐ What activities have you conducted? ‐ For training courses: Number of training courses? Length of training? Number of participants in the training? Where and when was the training held? Who were the trainers/speakers? What handouts were distributed?  Training recipients: Male/female  How are trainees selected? ‐ In what ways, if any, do you measure the impact of your work? ‐ In your opinion what were the main outcomes? ‐ Have there been any changes as a result of your project? ‐ What are the main constraints to ensuring effective prosecution of trafficking cases? ‐ See questions below for law enforcers – these could be asked of prosecution programming partners as well.  Coordination ‐ Has WI-ACT been flexible/supportive to work with? ‐ What are the most effective elements of your relationship with WI? ‐ What aspects of the relationship could be improved? ‐ Have you had any contact with USAID directly? In what ways have they contributed to your activities? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 68 ‐ How do you incorporate lessons learned into new/future/on-going programs/activities? ‐ Are your results shared with others (WI/GOB)?  How often, with whom?  How are they used by the GOB?  Sustainability ‐ What elements of your program have continued since/when ACT support has ended (ends)? ‐ What elements have ended or will end when ACT support is discontinued? ‐ What actions, if any, have been taken to ensure that the impact of the project continues after WI support ends? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 69 Interview Guide for ACT Project Prosecution Partners and Training Recipients (police, prosecutors, judges, etc.)  Training ‐ In what ways have the trainings/capacity-building opportunities provided improved your ability (your colleagues’ ability) to investigate/adjudicate trafficking prosecutions? Can you give a specific example? ‐ Has the training on trafficking helped you or your colleagues in other ways? Can you give a recent example? ‐ For police: Describe specifically the changes in your investigative strategies and implementation since attending trainings? Have you seen any changes in the work of prosecutors or judges? ‐ For prosecutors: Describe specifically the changes in your prosecution strategies and processes since attending trainings? Have you seen any changes in the work of police or judges? ‐ For judges: Describe specifically the changes in your adjudication of trafficking cases since attending trainings? Do you see any changes in the work of police or prosecutors? ‐ Would you recommend the training course for your colleagues? Why or why not?  Training Conducted by your Agency ‐ Are officials (police, prosecutors, judges) provided with specific foundation training when they join? In what ways is trafficking incorporated into this training? ‐ How are training needs assessed? ‐ Have any training plans been developed by any of the agencies involved in enforcing anti trafficking measures? ‐ Is there a measure of accreditation applied to ensure the quality and standardization of training? ‐ Is there a cross-agency training program? Does the training involve participants from multiple agencies? ‐ Are members of the prosecution service and judiciary involved in the training of law￾enforcement personnel (as participants and/or trainers or guest presenters)? ‐ Are officials of general police agencies, immigration, labor departments, and other agencies trained in issues related to the law and trafficking issues?  Staff ‐ Please describe staff turnover – how long do police/prosecutors/judges stay in their positions? ‐ How would new staff who did not attend these trainings learn these skills? ‐ Ration of men and women in these positions? ‐ How are trafficking cases assigned? Are their dedicated anti-trafficking units in the police? Specialized trafficking prosecutors? Specialized trafficking courts? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 70  Adjudication/Settlement/Resolution ‐ How many trafficking cases have been brought in your region/district/etc.?  What has been the outcome of these cases?  How are trafficking cases monitored/tracked? ‐ How long does a case generally take from rescue to completion of court proceedings? ‐ How many trafficking cases have you worked on in the last 12 months? Ever? ‐ What is the status of the case(s)? ‐ Considering other front-line professionals (police, prosecutors, judges, social service providers)  Do you see changes in their performance / competence over the past couple of years? ‐ Please give specific examples ‐ To what do you credit these changes?  What skills do you feel they still need?  Legislation ‐ Do you see any problems in the existing/revised human trafficking legislation? If so, give specific examples and how it has impacted on a specific case. ‐ Are you aware of the NPA on human trafficking? Please describe your understanding of the NPA. ‐ Are you aware of an SOP for investigating cases of trafficking? Please describe your understanding of the SOP. ‐ Are you aware of any database on crimes, prosecutions, criminals and victims? ‐ (Which law is most frequently used? Why? Why not others?)  Cooperation ‐ Do you feel there is sufficient multi-disciplinary cooperation between police, prosecution and social services/victim support? ‐ What kind of coordination exists among law-enforcement agencies to combat the trafficking? ‐ What kind of cooperation exists between law enforcement and other government agencies and non-government service providers, including community organizations? ‐ Is there sufficient cooperation with government agencies of neighboring countries? ‐ If a national coordinating body or committee exists, which agencies are represented on it? ‐ Who chairs the body or committee? What are the tasks and duties of the body or committee? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 71 ‐ Are mechanisms in place to enable and facilitate cooperation between law-enforcement officers, the prosecution service and judicial entities in relation to the human trafficking, where the legal system allows?  Victim Rights/Assistance ‐ How are victims’ rights and preferences protected during raids? During case preparation? During trial? ‐ Describe any special protections or procedures used when victims or witnesses are minors. ‐ How often do victims choose not to cooperate/collaborate with law enforcement? What are their reasons? What does your agency do when this occurs? ‐ What are the avenues available to victims to receive compensation? Is this handled through the criminal prosecution or through civil action? ‐ Are there non-judicial avenues for seeking compensation/justice such as mediation or arbitration? ‐ Can you provide details of any cases in which victims received compensation? ‐ Describe the methods used to protect victim/witnesses. Is there a formal witness protection program? What are its requirements and has it been used in human trafficking cases? What are its limitations? ‐ What protections for minor/adult victims/witnesses may be provided during a trial, such as giving testimony? Can evidence be given from another room by video ‘camera,’ behind a screen, or in a closed courtroom trial? ‐ How satisfied are victims with the legal process and the outcomes of the legal decisions? How do you know? ‐ Are victims receiving sufficient support and services?  Sustainability ‐ What directives have you been given, if any, regarding investigation or adjudication of trafficking cases? ‐ What support does your agency provide for investigation/adjudication of trafficking cases? ‐ What support do you receive from other organizations or agencies? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 72 Interview Guide for ACT Project Protection Partners – Service Providers  Training ‐ What training courses have you participated in?  What topics were covered  Which were provided by ACT? By others?  Duration of the training? Who provided the training? Number of participants? ‐ What other learning opportunities did you receive from ACT? ‐ In what ways have the trainings/capacity-building opportunities provided improved your ability to:  Identify victims of trafficking? Can you give a specific example?  Provide services to victims of trafficking? Can you give a specific example? ‐ Has the training on trafficking helped you in other ways? Can you give a recent example? ‐ How would new staff learn these skills? ‐ Have the trainings improved the allied criminal justice community's performance in effectively responding to trafficking cases? Can you give an example of a particular staff member? ‐ In-House Training  Are officials provided with specific foundation training when they join? In what ways is trafficking incorporated into this training?  How are training needs assessed?  Have any training plans been developed by any of the agencies involved in enforcing anti trafficking measures?  Is there a measure of accreditation applied to ensure the quality and standardization of training?  Is there a cross-agency training program? Does the training involve participants from multiple agencies?  Are members of the prosecution service and judiciary involved in the training of law￾enforcement personnel (as participants and/or trainers or guest presenters)?  Are officials of general police agencies, immigration, and labor departments and other agencies trained in issues related to the law and trafficking issues?  Staff ‐ Please describe staff turnover ‐ How would new staff who did not attend these trainings learn these skills? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 73 ‐ Ration of men and women in service provider positions? Is gender taken into consideration when assigning staff to work with particular groups of victims?  Victim Identification/Referral ‐ How do you identify victims (i.e., self-reporting/at-risk evaluation/referral from criminal justice professionals)? ‐ How many victims of trafficking have you identified since ACT began?  Male vs. female  Adults vs. minors  How many of the identified victims have disabilities? What kind of disabilities?  Are there databases/systems for tracking identified victims of trafficking?  Victim Services ‐ What services do you provide to victims of trafficking? ‐ Are there different services for adults/minors? Male vs female? Abled vs. disabled? ‐ Which other agencies/organizations do you work with to provide needed services for victims? ‐ Do you feel the services provided adequately meet the needs of survivors? ‐ What other service would you most like to see added? ‐ Describe the process for planning and delivery of services. At what points do victims have input into the process? ‐ How do you define successful reintegration? ‐ Can you give examples of survivors who have secured employment or become self-employed through skills learned through your organization? ‐ How do you measure the impact of your program? What indicators do you track? ‐ How do you follow-up on victims after they depart/complete services?  Are you aware of any survivors you've worked with having been re-trafficked?  If so, please describe the particulars of that case? ‐ What are the greatest risks to victims in your community? How do you respond to that threat/challenge? ‐ Shelters  Number of staff in shelter home – male/female  Number of victims currently in residence vs. capacity of shelter  Describe the process for admission into the shelter Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 74  Are there different rules for adults and minors? Males and Females?  Under what circumstances can victims go out of the shelter?  What happens if a victim wishes to leave?  What are the procedures for departing from the shelter?  See shelter checklist. ‐ Are there standards for victim services?  What are they?  How are they monitored and/or enforced?  Legislation/Prosecution ‐ Are the front-line professionals (police, prosecutors, judges, social service providers) competent to work on trafficking cases?  What skills do you feel they still need?  How is their treatment of victims? ‐ Do you see any problems in the existing/revised human trafficking legislation? If so, give specific examples and how it has impacted on a specific case. ‐ Are there elements of gender bias in the legislation? Are there provisions related specifically to male or female persons? ‐ Are the TIP laws in Bangladesh compatible with the constitution of Bangladesh, Penal Code 1860, and other relevant laws effective in this regard? ‐ How are victims’ rights and preferences protected during raids/investigations? During case preparation? During trial? ‐ Protection Measures:  Describe the methods used to protect victim/witnesses. Is there a formal witness protection program? What are its requirements and has it been used in human trafficking cases? What are its limitations?  What protections for minor/adult victims/witnesses may be provided during a trial, such as giving testimony? Can evidence be given from another room by video ‘camera,’ behind a screen, or in a closed courtroom trial?  Describe any special protections or procedures used when victims or witnesses are minors? ‐ How often do victims choose not to cooperate/collaborate with law enforcement? What are their reasons? What does your agency do when this occurs? ‐ Compensation: Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 75  What are the avenues available to victims to receive compensation? Is this handled through the criminal prosecution or through civil action?  Are there non-judicial avenues for seeking compensation/justice such as mediation or arbitration?  Can you provide details of any cases in which victims received compensation? ‐ How satisfied are victims with the legal process and the outcomes of the legal decisions? How do you know?  Cooperation: ‐ Do you feel there is sufficient multi-disciplinary cooperation between police, prosecution, and social services/victim support? ‐ What kind of coordination exists among law-enforcement agencies to combat the trafficking? ‐ What kind of cooperation exists between law enforcement and other government agencies and non-government service providers, including community organizations? ‐ If a national coordinating body or committee exists, which agencies are represented on it? ‐ Who chairs the body or committee? What are the tasks and duties of the body or committee? ‐ Are mechanisms in place to enable and facilitate cooperation between law-enforcement officers, the prosecution service, and judicial entities in relation to the human trafficking, where the legal system allows?  Sustainability ‐ What elements of your program have continued since/when ACT support has ended (ends)? ‐ What elements have ended or will end when ACT support is discontinued? ‐ What actions, if any, have been taken to ensure that the impact of the project continues after WI support ends? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 76 Interview Guide for Awareness Raising Targets (adapt questions to the message/purpose of the campaign) 1) Description of audience – gender/age/other demographic factors 2) Questions  Can you describe the anti-trafficking campaign or activities you saw/were involved in?  What was the main message of the program?  How do you explain TIP? What's your understanding of it?  What did you learn from the program?  What did you like about it?  What would you have liked better (better ideas for future audience appeal)?  Have you talked about TIP since the program with anyone (ex: family, friends, neighbors, etc.)?  What do you tell them?  What steps can you take to protect yourself or your friend/family member from becoming a victim of trafficking or labor exploitation?  Do you know anyone who has been a victim of trafficking? What happened to them? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 77 Visual Review and Checklist for Shelter Visits Postings  Mission statement including purpose of organization, services provided, and qualifications of organization and staff are posted  Beneficiary rules and duties are posted  Rights of beneficiaries are posted  Staff rules and duties are posted  Security rules and regulations are posted  Roster of chores/cleaning duties, etc. Security Provisions  Security measures – alarms, locks, bars, etc.  Security measures – posted emergency numbers General Space  Is shelter space inviting and comfortable?  Is there space for recreation?  Is there outdoor space?  Counseling rooms and offices are relatively private and sound proof to ensure confidentiality  Staff office has desk, computer, chair, shelf, phone, safe, etc.  Is the space appropriate for the age group of beneficiaries?  If children are in residence – shelter has children’s beds, games, play area, children-centered activities, books, pencils, etc. Personal Space  Is there space for privacy? Number of people per room? Per bathroom?  Bedrooms have one bed per person, night tables, good lighting, etc.?  Do beneficiaries have a locked space for their belongings?  Are the bedrooms and bathrooms clean and hygienic? Review of Beneficiary File  Signed documents regarding acceptance of the rules and duties  Completed interview/case background  Evaluation report / needs assessment Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 78  Assistance plan is in file and signed by beneficiary  Updates of assistance plan  Confidentiality statement  Communications with other organizations regarding the case  Custody document (in case of minors)  Security system for case files is noted (protected electronic files or locked safe) Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 79 Interview Guide for Survivor Interviews Info on Organizations Providing Services 1. Did you receive information on the mission of the organization providing services? Can you describe it? 2. Did you receive information about the services available to you? What are they? 3. Are you aware of services available from other organizations? Can you describe them? Rules, Regulations, and Rights 4. Did you receive information on the rules and duties of residents? What are they? 5. Did you receive information on the security rules and regulations? What are they? 6. Did you receive information on the emergency procedures in case of fire or need for evacuation? Can you give some examples? 7. Did you receive information on your rights? What are they? 8. Did you receive information on the rules and duties of staff? Can you give some examples? Assistance Planning 9. Did you sign a document regarding services to be provided to you? 10. Did you participate in developing your assistance plan? Can you describe the process? 11. Have you seen a copy of your assistance plan? 12. Who is your primary contact person at the organization? General Treatment 13. Do staff members treat beneficiaries with dignity and respect and in a non-discriminatory manner? 14. What is the complaints procedure in case you do not feel well treated? 15. In what ways are you involved in daily maintenance of the shelter? 16. In what ways are you consulted about issues at the shelter (e.g., menu planning, cleaning schedules, activities, rules, etc.)? Other 17. How safe do you feel at the shelter, going to and from the shelter, or when not at the shelter? 18. What was the procedure for admission to the shelter? Were you offered any alternatives before entering the shelter? 19. What is/was the procedure for departing from the shelter? Were you offered referral to services available after leaving the shelter? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 80 20. Describe and rate your satisfaction with the following services if provided at the shelter or since departing the shelter: Rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being the best and 1 being the worst (enter rating in the box).  Bed/personal space  Clothing  Meals  Legal assistance  General activities  Vocational training (subject, length of training, certification received)  Education assistance  Medical care  Physical protection  Translation/ interpretation (if applicable)  Communication with family members  Transportation to other services, meetings, work, etc.  Counseling/ psychological assistance  Participation in decisions regarding services in the shelter and in the community  Referrals for further reintegration services 21. How would you describe and rate your treatment by the following persons:  Shelter staff  Health care professionals  Lawyer/Advocate  Police  Prosecutor  Judge  Others 22. Describe your current life situation and rate your satisfaction with the following:  Accommodation: Where do you live and with whom?  Education: In what way, if any, have you furthered your education since being assisted?  Income: Do you earn income? Doing what? Are you satisfied with the work/income? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 81  Security: Do you feel safe? Have there been any threats to your personal safety since leaving the shelter? How have these been dealt with?  Personal Relationships: Do you have people in your daily life who are close to you?  Outcome of Legal Proceedings: Did you participate in legal proceedings or filing a complaint against those who exploited you?  If yes, in what ways were you satisfied with the proceedings? With the outcome?  In what ways were you not satisfied?  Did you receive any compensation?  If no, why did you choose not to participate? Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 82 Human Subject Protocol – for Survivor Interviews Core Principals 1. Do no harm. 2. Ensure safety and security of participants. 3. Respect rights of participants. 4. Ensure confidentiality. 5. Ensure participation is offered willingly and without pressure or influence. Rights of Research Participants 1. People have the right to refuse to participate in the interview. 2. People have the right to withdraw from the interview at any time. 3. Participants must be informed about the general purpose of the interview. 4. Participants must be informed about what they will be asked to discuss if they agree to participate. 5. Participants must be informed of the potential risks associated with participation. 6. Participants must be informed of potential benefits associated with participation. 7. Interviews must ensure that all information shared by the participants will be kept confidential. Responsibilities of the Interviewers 1. Agree to the rules of confidentiality and sign confidentiality agreement. 2. Limit discussions to the topics outlined in the questionnaire. Interviewers will not ask participants about anything related to their trafficking experience itself, but will confine the discussion to the participant’s experience of rescue, legal proceedings, and after care services. 3. Make every effort to protect the welfare of the participants at all times.  Ensure privacy for the interview.  Ensure participants are comfortable.  Do not force anyone to answer questions they are not comfortable answering.  Do not be critical or judgmental – nor approving or disapproving of anything that is said.  Be prepared with a list of locally available support services to offer participants if appropriate.  Follow established interview procedures.  Record answers clearly.  If answers are unclear, request clarification from the participant – do not try to guess or assume the correct answer. Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 83 Confidentiality Agreement (Evaluators/Interpreters) As an interpreter or evaluator for this project I understand the importance of maintaining confidentiality in order to protect the safety of the study participants, shelters, shelter residents, and service provider staff. I will keep information about study participants as well as shelter residents confidential. I will not disclose names or any personal information I learn in the context of this assignment to anyone. I will not discuss any information that I learn during a discussion with anyone except for other members of the evaluation team. I will not discuss the interview participants, shelter residents, staff, or shelter operation matters with the media, personal acquaintances, or family, whether in public or private areas. I will not show research materials to people outside of the evaluation team. I will keep all my notes in a private, secure place. I will direct any questions or concerns regarding confidentiality to those to whom I report for this assignment. Name: _______________________________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________________________ Signature: _______________________________________________________________ Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 84 Informed Consent Agreement (Participants) The organization that recently provided assistance to you received support from a U.S. Government funded project. The U.S. Government has requested an evaluation of the project which provided the support. Your assistance is kindly requested to help us with the evaluation. All of your answers will be kept confidential. Nothing you tell us will be attributed to any individual person. Rather the report will include only a composite of all of the answers received by all of the individuals we interview. None of the individuals interviewed will be named in the report. Only the following topics will be discussed during the interview:  The extent to which you were informed about your rights and the services available to you.  The types of assistance you received either at the shelter or since departing from the shelter.  The extent to which you are satisfied or not satisfied with the assistance you received.  The extent to which you were satisfied with any legal proceedings in which you participated.  How you feel about the way in which you were treated by police, social workers, prosecutors, and judges.  The extent to which you are currently satisfied with your life – where you live and work, your social contacts, etc., and, in particular, in the ways in which the assistance you received – or did not receive – has impacted on your current situation. Your honest opinions on these topics will be most helpful to ensuring an accurate evaluation of the project and, ideally, in ensuring improved services for others in future. You are free to end the interview at any time or to decline to answer any question which you do not wish to answer. If you would like to have someone present in the interview with you, you are welcome to bring someone for support. Interviews will be conducted by independent consultants who have no affiliation with those who provided you with assistance. I understand the purpose of the interview as outlined above and understand that I can withdraw from the interview at any time and for any reason. I agree to participate in the interview. Name or ID number: _____________________________________________ ________________________________ ____________________________ Verbal Consent Received By: Date Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 85 ANNEX VIII: DATA GENERATED FROM THE EVALUATION The data which follows was pulled together by the evaluators from ACT project reports. The reliability and validity of the data could not be verified. It is provided here for illustrative purposes only. Public Awareness PMP Indicators PA Indicator Yr-2 Target Yr-2 Actual Yr-4 Target Yr-4 Actual Yr-5 Target Yr-5 Actual Yr-6 Target Yr-6 Actual 3. a. % change in awareness of trafficking in persons (TIP) in targeted populations, including vulnerable populations, law enforcement, health care providers, educators, and others. (IR-3) x X x x 80% 95.58% 80% 3.1.a. # of local initiatives & trainings (individual episodes) on TIP and safe migration conducted with ACT support (IR-3, Sub IR- 3 .1) 500 1299 1000 1224 1200 1825 900 3.2.a. # transactions of developed PA campaigns/ episodes about TIP and safe on TV and Radio channels (IR-3, Sub IR- 3 .2) 300 844 800 468 2000 6231 1500 3.2. b. # of IEC materials on TIP and safe migration 125,000 114,900 125,000 386,168 110,610 24,103 43,850 Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 86 distributed. (IR￾3, Sub IR-3.2) 3.2.c. # private sector partners engaged in mass media campaigns (IR-3, Sub IR- 3 .2) 1 6 2 1 5 4 2 3.2.d. # of published articles or programs on trafficking by journalists trained under the program (IR￾3, Sub IR- 3 .2) 15 0 5 9 5 7 4 Public Awareness Data Drawn from ACT Project Reports Public Awareness Activities Total Male Female Number Percent Number Percent FY 2010 60,412 32,359 53.6% 28,053 46.4% FY 2011 50,353 25,111 49.9% 25,242 50.1% FY 2012 50,611 26,795 52.9% 23,816 47.1% FY 2013 49,192 25,503 51.8% 23,689 48.2% TOTAL 210,568 109,768 52.1% 100,800 47.9% Advocacy Events Fiscal Year Total Male Female Number Percent Number Percent FY 2010 5,585 4,092 73.3% 1,493 26.7% FY 2011 3,985 2,847 71.4% 1,138 28.6% FY 2012 3,410 2,838 83.2% 572 16.8% TOTAL 12,980 9,777 75.3% 3,203 24.7% Anirban Advocacy Activities Fiscal Year Activities Total Male Female Number Percent Number Percent FY 2013 19 319 245 76.8% 74 23.2% Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 87 FY 2014 Q1 20 358 238 66.5% 120 33.5% TOTAL 39 677 483 71.3% 194 27192.1% Anirban Awareness Raising Activities Fiscal Year Activities Total Male Female Number Percent Number Percent FY 2013 28 1,156 685 59.3% 471 40.7% FY 2014 Q1 15 803 313 39.0% 490 61.0% FY 2014 Q2 13 468 291 62.2% 177 37.8% TOTAL 56 2,427 1,289 53.1% 1,138 46.9% Journalist Training and Published Articles/Reports Fiscal Year Articles/Reports Total Trained Male Female Number Percent Number Percent FY 2010 0 35 30 85.7% 5 14.3% FY 2011 3 69 52 75.4% 17 24.6% FY 2012 9 64 56 87.5% 8 12.5% FY 2013 7 25 22 88.0% 3 12.0% FY 2014 Q1 2 24 20 83.3% 4 16.7% FY 2014 Q2 12 26 24 92.3% 2 7.7% TOTAL 21 75 66 88.0% 9 12.0% Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 88 Protection / Survivor Services Data Drawn from ACT Project Reports # TIP survivors assisted by USG programs Target Total Achieved Male Female FY 2009 500 303 103 200 FY 2010 550 450 302 148 FY 2011 500 431 274 157 FY 2012 550 462 323 139 FY 2013 500 702 426 276 FY 2014 Q1 252 209 43 FY 2014 Q2 82 51 31 Total 3000 2682 1688 994 Percentage 63% 37% Number of survivors receiving vocational or entrepreneurship training or internships Fiscal Year Target Total Achieved Male Female FY 2009 250 125 39 86 FY 2010 215 103 49 54 FY 2011 148 118 93 25 FY 2012 100 68 45 23 FY 2013 106 59 47 FY 2014 Q1 52 23 29 FY 2014 Q2 44 26 18 Total 713 616 334 282 Percent by sex 54% 46% Percent of total assisted 23% Number of survivors securing employment Fiscal Year Target Total Achieved Male Female FY 2009 50 25 3 22 FY 2010 40 13 2 11 FY 2011 25 34 20 14 FY 2012 25 27 11 16 FY 2013 25 23 2 21 FY 2014 Q1 11 5 6 FY 2014 Q2 17 13 4 Total 165 150 56 94 Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 89 Percent by sex 37% 63% Percent of total assisted 6% Number of survivors receiving support to start a business Fiscal Year Total Achieved Male Female FY 2009 25 FY 2010 95 48 47 FY 2011 78 53 25 FY 2012 39 25 14 FY 2013 56 45 11 FY 2014 Q1 13 3 10 FY 2014 Q2 48 28 20 Total 354 202 127 Percent by sex 57% 36% Percent of total assisted 13% Survivor Interviews – Response to Ratings on a Scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best) Ratings Average Response Age 27.6 Sex 13 F / 8 Male Rate your satisfaction with: Bed/personal space: 9.1 Clothing: 5.8 Meals: 9.2 Legal assistance: 7.0 general activities court proceedings Vocational training (subject, length of training, certification received): 8.5 Education Assistance: 7.0 Medical care 7.3 Physical protection 6.2 Communication with family members 7.3 Transportation to other services, meetings, work, etc. 8.8 Counseling/Psychological Assistance 8.1 Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 90 Participation in decisions regarding care in the shelter 7.9 Participation in decisions regarding reintegration in your community 7.2 Referrals for further reintegration services: 8.4 Rate treatment by the following people: Shelter staff 9.7 house parents 10.0 Other service providers, if any Health care professionals 7.8 Police/Border Guards 8.5 Prosecutor 7.0 Lawyer/Advocate 7.8 Judge 7.0 Others: Rate your Satisfaction with Elements of Current Life Situation Accommodation – where do you live and with whom? 8.5 Education – in what way, if any, have you furthered your education since being assisted? 3.4 Employment / Earnings – Do you earn income? Doing what? Are you satisfied with the work? With the income? 7.1 Security: Do you feel safe? Have there been any threats to your personal safety since leaving the shelter? How have these been dealt with? 7.2 Personal Relationships – Do you have people in your daily life who are close to you? Family? Friends? 6.6 Outcome of Legal Proceedings: Did you participate in the legal proceedings against those who exploited you? 1.0 Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 91 ANNEX IX: INTERVIEW LISTS Government Officials 1. Dr. Khondaker Showkat Hossain, Secretary, Ministry of Expatriates, Welfare and Overseas Employment 2. Begum Shamsun Nahar, (Additional Secretary), Director General, Bureau of Manpower, Employment & Training (BMET) 3. Mohammad Saidur Rahman, (Additional Secretary), Director General, Department of Social Services 4. Md. Akram Hossain, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Expatriates, Welfare and Overseas Employment 5. Md. Jahirul Islam Bhuiyan, Additional Deputy Inspector General, Police Monitoring Cell 6. Me. Likat Ali Rokon, Special Crime and Prosecution, Police Monitoring Cell 7. Ms. Nasreen Begum, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice & Parliamentary Affairs 8. Dr. Kamal Uddin Ahmed, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Judges 9. Dr. Golam Majumdar, District Judge, Judge Court, Jessore 10. Mafizur Rahman, Judicial Magistrate, Judge Court, Jessore 11. Mizanur Rahman, Additional Judge, Judge Court, Jessore 12. Noor Md. Ali Reza, Judge Court, Jessore 13. Almat Hossain, Judge Court, Jessore 14. Mahmuda Khatun, Judge Court, Jessore 15. Salima Begum, Judge Court, Jessore 16. Mr. Azad, DPP, Judge Court, Jessore 17. Humayun Kabir, Judge Court, Jessore Police 18. Reshma Sharmeen, Jessore Police 19. Anisur Rahman, Jessore Police 20. K.M. Arif, Jessore Police 21. Rezaul Hossain, Jessore Police 22. Ziaur Rahman, Jessore Police 23. Masud Parvez, Jessore Police Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 92 Demo 24. Mustafizur Rahman, Assistant Director in Charge 25. Md. Joinul Abedin, Executive Magistrate 26. Md. Abdul Mannan, Survey Officer 27. Md. Alauddin, Demo officer 28. Shapan Kumar, District Youth Officer 29. Sk. Mustafizur Rahman, Assistant Director, DEMO, Satkhira 30. Md. Mojibur Rahman, Assistant Joint Secretary, DEMO, Satkhira USAID Staff 31. Habiba Akhter, Human Rights and Rule of Law Advisor 32. Sumana Binte Masud, Project Management Specialist-Civil Society Advisor 33. Rumana Amin, COR, BDGPE WI Staff 34. Sarah Stephens, Chief of Party, Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons (TIP) Program 35. Md. Mahabubul Alam, Senior Program Manager, Legal & Advocacy 36. Md. Shahadat Hossain, Program Manager, Capacity Building 37. Md. Nadim Rahman, Program Manager, Public Awareness Sub-grantee Staff 38. Binoy Krishna Mallick, Executive Director, Rights Jessore 39. S. M. Azharul Islam, Program Coordinator, Rights Jessore 40. Sudip Mondal, Project Coordinator, ACT Program, Rights Jessore 41. Mahfuz, Rights Jessore 42. Momtaz Ali, Rights Jessore 43. Sk. Biswas, Rights Jessore 44. Sultana, Rights Jessore 45. Shahida, Rights Jessore 46. Bazlul, Rights Jessore 47. Sarwar Hossain, Rights Jessore 48. Sahana Khandoher, DAM Shelter Home Manager, Jessore Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 93 49. Zinnat Ara, Shelter Manager, DAM Shelter Home Manager, Jessore 50. Sahanaz, Counselor, DAM Shelter Home Manager, Jessore 51. Rabina, Office Assistant, DAM Shelter Home Manager, Jessore 52. Mizanur Islam, Field Coordinator, DAM Shelter Home Manager, Jessore 53. Md. Abdul Hamid, Interrogation Officer, DAM Shelter Home Manager, Jessore 54. Abdus Sabur Biswas, Executive Director, Agrogoti Sangstha, Satkhira 55. Asit Banarjee, Agrogoti Sangstha, Satkhira 56. Nasim Md. Tofayel Hossain, Program Facilitator, Proyash, Hilli, Dinajpur 57. Mahmud-un-Nabi, Project Coordinator, ACT Program, Sachetan, Rajshahi 58. Roksana, Counselor, ACT Program, Sachetan, Rajshahi 59. Parveen, Interrogation Officer and Part-time Accountant, ACT Program, Sachetan, Rajshahi 60. Syed Tamjidur Rahman, ED, ChangeMaker, Lalmatia, Dhaka 61. Shaikh Arif Saify, Assistant Program Officer, ChangeMaker, Jessore 62. Milon, Youth Group Member, ChangeMaker, Jessore 63. Saheed, Yputh Group Member, ChangeMaker, Jessore 64. Sukumar Ghosh, Executive Director, BIVA, Jessore 65. Maniruzzaman Moni, Executive Director, Jhikargacha Development Organization (sub-contract with BIVA) 66. Tawfiq Nawaz, RMMRU, Faridpur 67. Kazi Rabiul Islam, Orjon Foundation, Satkhira (RMMRU’s partner) 68. Khadabatul Nesa, Jagorani Mohila samity (RMMRU’s partner) Other Donor and NGO Staff 69. ABM Kamrul Ahsan, Programme Coordinator, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 70. Mohammad Shakil Mansoor, Senior Program Coordinator, International Organization for Migration (IOM) 71. Angela Gomes, Founder & Executive Director, Banchte Shekha, Jessore 72. Tarikul Islam, Executive Director, Alliance for Cooperation & Legal Aid Bangladesh (ACLAB) 73. Md. Anisur Rahman, Executive Director, Manob Unnyan Sangstha (MUS), Shyamnagar, Satkhira 74. Md. Azharul Islam, Executive Director, Manobadhikar Janokallyan Foundation (MJF), Nalta, Satkhira Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 94 75. Kazi Sohel Rana, ED, Development of Disadvantaged People (work with DEMO), Sirajganj Journalists Jessore Press Club (18 June 2014) 76. Saifur Islam 77. Akhtaruzzaman 78. Shikder Khaleq 79. Kazi Ashrafuzzaman 80. Murshid Hiru 81. Ahsan Kabir Teachers Laxmipur Collegiate School, Sarsha (17 June 2014) 82. Shajahan Kabir (Principal) 83. Md. Kawser Ali 84. Deen Mohammad 85. Osman Gani 86. Torikuzzaman 87. Mohammad Akhter 88. Mahfuzur Rahman 89. Mohidul Islam 90. Hanif Molla Students Laxmipur Collegiate School, Sarsha (17 June 2014) 91. Rima (14) 92. Amina (14) 93. Tanzida (14) 94. Shyamoli (14) 95. Imran Pervez (14) 96. Kamrul Islam (14) 97. Saim Ahmed (14) Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 95 98. Redoy Ahmed (14) Anirban Members Anirban Survivors Voice Group at Jessore (19 June 2014) 99. Rafiq 100. Morium Yasmin 101. Rabina Ruma 102. Reshma 103. Tania Anirban Survivors Voice Group at Rajshahi (26 June 2014) 104. Md. Atiqur Rahman, Student, Chapai Nawanganj 105. Abdul Hannan, Naogaon 106. Samol Chandra, Leader of the group, Nachal, Chapai Nawanganj 107. Josthana, Rajshahi City area 108. Nadira, Bagmara, Rajshahi 109. Ataul Hossain, Bagmara, Rajshahi 110. Md. Aminul Islam, Peer Leader, Sirajganj Community Leaders Members of Anti-trafficking Committee, Laxmipur UP, Sarsha (17 June 2014) 111. Mohammad Sahabuddin, UP Chairman 112. Sahanur Rahman, Primary School Teacher 113. Sahida Khatun, UP member 114. Sahinur Rahman, Volunteer Secretary (Medical Representative) 115. Noor Rahman, Ex-Principal of local College 116. Abdus Samad, Madrasa Teacher 117. Mikail Hossain, Community Volunteer 118. Mohammad Rashid, Community Volunteer and member of Rights Jessore 119. Ayub Hossain, Imam and teacher of Collegiate School. Members of Anti-trafficking Committee, Nalta UP, Kaliganj, Satkhira (21 June 2014) 120. Shahadat Hossai, UP Secretary Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 96 121. Nazrul Islam, UP Member 122. Shahidul Islam, Teacher 123. Azharul Islam, NGO representative 124. Habibur Rahman 125. Nasiruzzaman, FP Inspector 126. Sk. Ashraf, VDP member 127. Momtaz 128. Sarasati Deb 129. Suria Khatun 130. Nilam Roy 131. Azizur Rahman, Student 132. Habibullah 133. Dulal Das Community Leaders, Banadona Village, Krishnanagar UP, Kaliganj Upzaila, Satkhira (21 June) 134. Sree Uday, Teacher of the Girl’s College 135. Sankar Kumar, Teacher 136. Md. Anisur Rahman, ED of NGO (MUS), Shyamnagar, Satkhira 137. Md. Alamgir Hossain, NGO Representative (ED, Bandhon) 138. J.M. Abdul Majeed, Motorcycle Samity 139. Md. Ayed Hossain, Teacher, Kajla School 140. Md. Abdus Sultan, Head Master, Kajla School 141. Md. G.M. Shajahan Seraj, Polli Unnayan Board 142. Md. Sirajul Islam, Motor Drivers Samity 143. Mohiuddin Moral, (agriculturist), Agrogoti Samity 144. Horidash Gosh, Teacher Girl’s School Survivors Survivors of DAM Shelter at Jessore (Female = 9; Male = 0) Survivors of Sachetan Shelter at Rajshahi (Female = 3; Male = 3) Survivors of Shishuk Shelter at Dhaka (Female =1; Male = 5) Final Performance Evaluation – Actions for Combating Trafficking-in-Persons Program 97 ANNEX X: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523