JUNE 2016 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by Judy Benjamin, Okumba Miruka, Risper Pete, Gloria Mmoji and Management Systems International. EVALUATION Peace Initiative Kenya: Final Performance Evaluation USAID/Kenya and East Africa Office of Democracy, Governance and Conflict PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID/Kenya Office of Democracy, Governance and Conflict June 2016 Contracted under Task Order # AID-615-TO-16-00004 Final Performance Evaluation for USAID/PIK: Award Number: AID-623-A-12-00024 Cover Photo Credit: IRC/USAID A participant at a gender-based violence activation event marches during the International Day of Peace in 2015. DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONTENTS Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................................i Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ii Peace Initiative Kenya (PIK) Map ....................................................................................iv Glossary of Terms ..............................................................................................................v Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 7 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................... 7 Evaluation Methods and Limitations ................................................................................................................. 7 Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 7 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions ............................................................. 12 Evaluation Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Evaluation Questions .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Activity Background ............................................................................................................................................ 12 USAID Activity Strategy and Tasks ................................................................................................................. 15 Evaluation Methods and Limitations ............................................................................. 16 Data Collection Methods and Sources .......................................................................................................... 16 Data Analysis Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Findings and Conclusions................................................................................................ 18 Question 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 Question 2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Question 3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 27 Question 4 ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 Question 5 ............................................................................................................................................................ 34 Lesson Learned .................................................................................................................................................... 36 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 36 Annex 1. Evaluation Statement of Work ..................................................................... 38 Annex 2. Final Workplan................................................................................................ 65 Annex 3. Data Collection Instruments ......................................................................... 66 Annex 4. Data Collection Limitations: .......................................................................... 74 Annex 5. List of Interviewees ......................................................................................... 75 Annex 6. List of Documents Reviewed ......................................................................... 76 Annex 7. Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest ......................................................... 79 Annex 8: Abridged Team Bios ....................................................................................... 83 Team Lead: Judy Benjamin ................................................................................................................................ 83 Senior Sector Expert: Okumba Miruka ......................................................................................................... 83 Junior Sector Expert: Risper Pete ................................................................................................................... 83 Junior Sector Expert: Gloria Mmoji ................................................................................................................ 84 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This evaluation would not have been possible without the support and contribution of many. The team first extends gratitude to its USAID/Kenya Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Betty Mugo. She provided valuable inputs at multiple stages of the evaluation effort and its success would not have been possible without her support. The team also extends sincere gratitude to the International Rescue Committee staff and all of the implementing partners. These individuals approached the evaluation with a clear interest in an honest and objective account of their activities. The team also thanks all of the national and county government officials who met with us over the course of the fieldwork. Finally, the team thanks and expresses its appreciation to all of the beneficiaries who participated in and helped facilitate interviews. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ii ACRONYMS ACORD Agency for Cooperation and Research in Development AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative APHIAplus AIDS, Population and Health Integrated Assistance AWC African Woman and Child Feature Service AWEP African Women Entrepreneurship Program CARE Center for Assault Recovery CBO Community-Based Organization CEC County Executive Committee CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women CEO Chief Executive Officer CIDP County Integrated Development Plans COP Chief of Party COR Contracting Officer’s Representative COVAW Coalition on Violence Against Women CSO Civil Society Organization CUC Court Users Committee DGC Democracy, Governance and Conflict DPP Director of Public Prosecution FCR Findings, Conclusions, Recommendation FGM Female Genital Mutilation FIDA International Federation of Women Lawyers–Kenya GBV Gender-Based Violence GI Group Interview GTWG Gender Technical Working Group GVRC Gender Violence and Recovery Center HAK Healthcare Assistance Kenya ICC International Criminal Court ID National Identification Card IEC Information, Education, Communication IP Implementing Partner IRC International Rescue Committee KDHS Kenya Demographic and Health Survey KEWOPA Kenya Women Parliamentary Association KII Key Informant Interview PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION iii KSP Kenya Support Program KTI Kenya Transitional Initiative LCOE Luo Council of Elders MCA Member of the County Assembly M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MP Member of Parliament MSI Management Systems International NGEC National Gender and Equality Commission NGO Non-Governmental Organization NSC National Steering Committee OMB Office of Management and Budgets PET Participatory Education Theater PEV Post-Election Violence PIK Peace Initiative Kenya RAPADO Rural AIDS Prevention and Development Organization RWPL Rural Women Peace Link SACCO Savings Credit and Cooperative Organization SGBV Sexual Gender-Based Violence SYWP Sauti Ya Wanawake Pwani (“The Voice of Women”) TO Task Order TOT Training of Trainers TPM Team Planning Meeting TV Television UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund WEL Women Empowerment Link WTS Well Told Story PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION iv PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA (PIK) MAP PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION v GLOSSARY OF TERMS Gender-based violence is directed at an individual based on his or her biological sex, gender identity or perceived adherence to socially defined norms of masculinity and femininity. It includes physical, sexual and psychological abuses; threats; coercion; arbitrary deprivation of liberty; and economic deprivation in either public or private life. Gender-based violence takes on many forms and can occur throughout the life cycle. Types of gender￾based violence can include female infanticide; child sexual abuse; sex trafficking and forced labor; sexual coercion and abuse; neglect; domestic violence; elder abuse; and harmful traditional practices such as early and forced marriage, “honor” killings and female genital mutilation/cutting. Women and girls are the most at risk of and affected by gender-based violence. Consequently, the terms “violence against women” and “gender-based violence” are often used interchangeably. However, boys and men can also experience gender-based violence, as can sexual and gender minorities. Regardless of the target, gender-based violence is rooted in structural inequalities between men and women and is characterized by the use and abuse of physical, emotional or financial power and control.1 A performance evaluation focuses on the following descriptive and normative questions:  What a particular activity or program has achieved (either at an intermediate point in execution or at the conclusion of an implementation period);  How an activity or program is being implemented;  How an activity or program is perceived and valued;  Whether expected results are occurring; and  Other questions that are pertinent to program design, management and operational decision￾making. Performance evaluations often incorporate before-and-after comparisons, but generally lack a rigorously defined counterfactual. A theory of change describes the hypotheses through which activities will be transformed into results.2 It is analogous to a USAID development hypothesis or project hypothesis.3 The development hypothesis identifies causal linkages between USAID actions and the intended strategic objective (highest-level result). External validity is the degree to which findings, conclusions and recommendations produced by an evaluation are applicable to other settings and contexts. Findings are empirical facts collected during the evaluation. Conclusions are interpretations and judgments based on the findings. Recommendations are proposed actions for management based on the conclusions. 1 Definition adapted from Gender-Based Violence and HIV: A Program Guide for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Response in PEPFAR Programs; https://aidsfree.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/aidstar-one_gbv_guidance_final_0.pdf 2 USAID Project Starter, http://usaidprojectstarter.org/content/learning-pathway-1-integrating-evaluation-lessons-design. 3 USAID Technical Note: Developing Results Frameworks, July 2013. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION vi Lessons learned are the conclusions extracted from reviewing a development program or activity by participants, managers, customers or evaluators with implications for effectively addressing similar issues/problems in another setting. Bodaboda refers to motorbike operators who transport people and services short distances within a community. With its name derived from “border to border,” the transport service arose to meet the needs of travelers, often carrying goods for cross-border trade, passing border crossings through the zone between the borders where no other form of transport is available. Bodabodas originally used bicycles, but most have shifted to motorbikes. Bodabodas operate like taxis in most Kenyan towns. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions This report documents the final performance evaluation of the Peace Initiative Kenya (PIK) activity that operated from June 2012 to December 2015. Over three and a half years, PIK implemented activities that targeted awareness raising, prevention, protection and capacity building of gender-based violence (GBV) survivor service providers in 18 selected counties over two phases. The evaluation will help the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Washington and USAID/Kenya and East Africa (KEA) understand the extent of PIK’s implementation and will provide useful information for the design of future GBV programming. Evaluation Methods and Limitations This evaluation used qualitative data collection and analysis methods focusing on multiple levels of triangulation across data collection methods and stakeholder perspectives to ensure the reliability and validity of findings. The evaluation team conducted 59 interviews, 43 key informant interviews (KIIs) and 16 group interviews (GIs) in Nairobi, Kisumu, Kwale and Uasin Gishu. Limitations included difficulty reaching some key informants, however, the evaluation team identified appropriate substitute informants with input from USAID, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and its sub-partners. Findings and Conclusions Question 1: To what extent and in what ways were PIK’s distinctive designs relevant to and effective in achieving the activity’s overall goal and objectives? Findings According to 40 of 59 respondents, PIK was effective and unique because it addressed GBV and conflict under one initiative. Five of the nine interviewed implementing partners (IPs) also agreed that identifying and focusing on “hotspots” as potential areas of conflict was a positive approach because it enabled highly focused messages about peace and GBV to be directed to areas of particular concern. They also agreed that PIK was appropriately timed and sequenced in preparation for the 2013 elections. Conclusions The design worked well because each partner brought specific skills and experience to the activity, enabling PIK to address both PIK I and PIK 2 objectives. The evaluation concluded that the sequencing and timing of PIK 1 programming were relevant in terms of the pre- and post-election period of 2012/2013. Likewise, combining GBV prevention with peace messaging in known conflict-prone zones during sensitive times such as election periods was an appropriate and effective approach because it addressed two associated issues within the same initiative. PIK 2 was also well timed to work with county governments since elections were over and devolution was in process. Question 2: How effective was PIK’s implementation at achieving its stated objectives? Findings Partners collaborated in organizing community activities such as joint processions and demonstrations, disseminating peace and GBV prevention messages, and the popularization of the Helpline 1195, which enhanced access to services for GBV survivors and improved networking of actors in the referral pathway. PIK partnerships also contributed to advocacy efforts for the eventual passage of the Protection Against PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 8 Domestic Violence (PADV) bill. Three of nine sub-IPs noted that the linkage of the GBV service providers’ referral network was strengthened through court users’ committees (CUCs).4 All nine sub-IPs agreed that PIK 1 was too brief to accomplish all of its objectives, putting pressure on IPs to reach targets, with too little focus on evaluating results. PIK used a training-of-trainers (TOT) method to maximize the number of people reached with GBV prevention and peace-building messages. However, when the planned training was reduced to one day, seven of the nine sub-IPs voiced concern that the overall quality and content coverage was inadequate. Four sub-IPs agreed that engaging a specialized media partner created visibility for PIK and freed the thematic partners to focus on program delivery. These same sub-IPs endorsed PIK’s investment in training a cadre of journalists to focus on GBV reporting. However, PIK 2 did not continue the Well Told Story (WTS) radio drama series that aired messages of peace and GBV prevention during PIK 1. As one sub-IP said, the series would have had lasting value, particularly for future election periods. PIK 2 sought to strengthen county governments’ responses to GBV in the post-election period. Toward that objective, PIK initiated GBV prevention work at the county level, especially in Kisumu. Two sub-IPs indicated that the county officials trained by PIK had increased their knowledge on gender-responsive budgeting and GBV. The GBV Preparedness Audit and the My Action Counts report that outlined gaps in GBV response in nine counties were released late in the activity’s cycle. IRC staff and seven key informants indicated that these reports provided baseline information, particularly for Kisumu and Uasin Gishu, but the late release limited their use in PIK’s work. Conclusions PIK 1 would have had more opportunity to produce better results with an earlier start-up. Partnerships with community and county-level actors effectively improved services to GBV survivors from the police, local administration, judiciary and medical facilities. The cascaded training approach enabled large numbers of people to receive training, and sub-IPs were able to generally meet their targets. The reduction in training time, however, compromised the training’s content delivery and overall quality of the training. Question 3: To what extent and in what ways was the intended or unintended involvement of men and boys evident in the implementation and/or results of PIK’s GBV approach? Findings Respondents from four of the nine sub-IPs stated that men should always be involved in addressing GBV and conflict resolution. PIK was generally viewed as a “women’s” program, in part, one sub-IP noted, because men were not allocated resources, such as small grants, for their efforts, as women’s groups were. Despite the lack of specific resource allocation, men and boys actively participated in PIK’s activities. PIK involved men and boys in a variety of ways. Bodaboda operators, perceived to be major GBV perpetrators, were recruited to participate in GBV prevention interventions, especially in public processions for observations such as International Women’s Day, based on feedback from two sub-IPs and group interviews with GBV survivors, male champions and youth groups in Kisumu and Uasin Gishu. They also devised a system to hold each other accountable if they displayed GBV behaviors. Male champions, community activists, councils of elders, religious leaders and chiefs made a positive difference in PIK, 4 The court users’ committee (CUC) is a platform that brings together various stakeholders in the criminal justice system to improve delivery of judicial services to the public by addressing bottlenecks in accessing the judicial system and following up on complaints lodged by litigants. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 9 according to 34 of 59 respondents. They reached out to other men with peace messages and mobilized them to prevent and respond to GBV. Conclusions Including men and boys helped PIK achieve its goals and objectives. However, PIK’s failure to reward men’s groups for their contributions in the form of small grants led to resentment and the belief that PIK was a “women’s program.” The evaluation found that targeting bodaboda operators effectively reached a category of men stereotyped as GBV perpetrators, but who were themselves GBV targets and survivors. Likewise, male champions were valuable allies in changing policies and laws that affect GBV prevention. Working with the Nandi Council of Elders illustrates the potential in using such traditional structures to promote peace and prevent and respond to GBV. The evaluation team found no evidence that PIK involved marginalized groups such as persons with disabilities, faith minorities or others. Question 4: To what extent were PIK’s approaches to strengthening local capacities effective? Findings While capacity building was a component of PIK, one prime implementing partner staff member expressed the view that capacity building focused mainly on streamlining grant management. Four of the nine sub-IPs noted that the most effective aspect of PIK’s capacity building was coaching on USAID guidelines and grant management. All nine IPs confirmed that familiarization with USAID guidelines enabled them to apply USAID standards in managing and accounting for PIK funds. Five of nine sub-IPs interviewed cited gaining capacity from the TOTs on peace and GBV prevention. One IRC respondent, however, said partners had weak structures that made it difficult to significantly strengthen their capacities. PIK did not leave smaller, less-experienced partners structurally stronger, noted the director of Healthcare Assistance Kenya (HAK) and one KII respondent. Conclusions The evaluation concluded that coaching on USAID guidelines and grant management were the most effective capacity-building elements and were the focus of capacity-building efforts by the prime IP. Orientation on GBV and peace work through the TOTs and joint forums increased partners’ capacities to work on thematic areas they had not worked on previously. The evaluation concluded that the partners needed varying degrees of capacity building, especially in the case of less-experienced partners, such as HAK, who needed more than grant management to survive beyond PIK. Question 5: What changes (positive and negative) has PIK produced in the communities where the activity took place? Findings PIK raised awareness of GBV issues at the community level through forums, training and mass information campaigns, which contributed to increased GBV service utilization, according to five of the nine sub-IPs interviewed. Based on information in the Quarterly Progress Report (July 2013), PIK reached an estimated 30,000 people with messages about peace and GBV awareness prior to the elections. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 10 The evaluation found that men became increasingly involved in GBV prevention and response in communities where PIK operated. Men’s contribution was apparent in the engagement of male parliamentarians toward passage of the PADV bill. Male activists at the community level added impetus to the GBV prevention and response. One sub-IP and two key informants perceived county governments as being more interested in supporting GBV response activities (rescue centers, free medical services and legal support) than prevention efforts because the latter requires longer investment in attitude and behavior change. One sub-IP noted that transition challenges also constrained engagement with county governments as governments took time to settle after the 2013 elections. The director of the African Women Entrepreneurship Program (AWEP) described how her organization selected and trained 30 women GBV survivors to start and manage their own small businesses, and how their lives changed for the better as a result. They now live in improved housing, have sufficient food and send their children to school. One of the beneficiaries recruited and trained 30 other women to start their small businesses. Two IPs and one USAID staff member indicated that PIK worked with established community networks, along with identifying and working with known women’s groups. This contributed to the activity’s success and was effective because the women’s groups penetrated the grassroots easily, being viewed as part of the communities. Conclusions PIK played a role in influencing county officials to change their views about GBV through training and outreach. However, progress toward addressing GBV prevention by county governments was slow and varied from county to county. PIK contributed to GBV initiatives that had begun in Kisumu and Uasin Gishu, but did not adequately engage in all counties to create significant change. One of PIK 2’s specific objectives was to strengthen county engagement in preventing and responding to GBV, but the evaluation concludes that PIK did not adequately accomplish that objective. The evaluation also concludes that PIK raised awareness of GBV issues at the community level through forums, training and mass information campaigns, which contributed to an increased utilization of GBV services. PIK strengthened networks that contributed to prevention and mitigation of violence in the 2013 general election. Economic empowerment for GBV survivors was an effective strategy that resulted in improvements in the lives of the participants, as the case of AWEP demonstrated. Recommendations Based on the PIK experience, USAID should consider the following recommendations for strengthening future GBV and peace programming. 1. Future USAID peace activities should build on PIK 1’s successes and include GBV prevention. Initiate interventions as early as possible in pre-election periods to maximize potential success. 2. When identifying and selecting implementing partners, USAID should base the key criteria on thematic expertise and established local networks. This approach facilitates smoother entry into communities and effective implementation. 3. Future similar activities should incorporate aspects of strengthening intra-county engagement on GBV issues and responses. Specific areas of weakness that need assistance include: gender budgeting, commitments to establish rescue shelters for GBV survivors and a heightened level of commitment from county representatives — women in particular — for their support on gender issues. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 11 4. USAID should use GBV audit reports developed under PIK as baselines to assess changes required in county-level work on GBV prevention and response. Share their findings with national institutions such as the National Gender Equality Commission (NGEC), the Directorate of Gender and other IPs to inform reporting and policy. 5. Future elections-related programming should consider using the existing WTS radio dramas. To expand coverage, replicate the key messages in forms such as posters, stickers and fliers. Future multi-partner GBV programming using media should again use a specialized media agency to take advantage of journalists trained under PIK for GBV reporting. Develop partnerships for GBV reporting with schools of journalism and umbrella media organizations such as the Media Council and Editors’ Guild. 6. To increase sustainability, USAID should share and anchor the PIK-developed training manual and curriculum with institutions that conduct regular training on peace and GBV, such as the Kenya School of Government, the International Peace Support Training Centre, the Africa Leadership Centre and the Africa Center for Transformative and Inclusive Leadership. Sustenance of Helpline 1195 should be considered. 7. USAID should strengthen and standardize male involvement in GBV programming by training implementing partners on how to work with men to prevent and respond to GBV. Support this involvement with adequate resources and ensure that the activity design mandates identification and inclusion of marginalized groups. 8. GBV activities should identify and work with influential men from different sectors, as they command influential positions that have potential to determine policy and social practice. 9. Future GBV activities should identify and intensively utilize existing men’s organizations that engage in the prevention of and response to GBV. In Kenya, two prime examples are MenEngage and Men for Gender Equality (MEGEN). Also, take advantage of the African Women’s Development and Communication Network (Femnet). 10. USAID should hold implementing partners accountable for their responsibility to conduct and transform their partners through capacity building. 11. USAID should assist and hold its implementing partners responsible to develop and, through effective collaboration and communication measures, execute robust exit strategies as part of their implementation and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 12 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS Evaluation Purpose This evaluation will generate lessons learned from two complementary phases of the Peace Initiative Kenya (PIK) activity, PIK 1 and 2, and help the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Washington and USAID/Kenya and East Africa (KEA) understand how to improve gender-based violence (GBV) programming in the design of future USAID/KEA activities. The evaluation will inform Mission management about how to strategically address GBV through multiple complementary approaches, particularly how to better integrate GBV throughout the Mission’s portfolio. Evaluation Questions 1. To what extent and in what ways were PIK’s distinctive designs relevant to and effective in achieving the activity’s overall goal and objectives? 2. How effective was PIK’s implementation at achieving its stated objectives? 3. To what extent and in what ways was the intended or unintended involvement of men and boys evident in the implementation and/or results of PIK’s GBV approach? 4. To what extent were PIK’s approaches to strengthening local sub-partners’ capacities effective? 5. What changes (positive and negative) has PIK produced in the communities where the activity took place? Activity Background Development Problem Kenya has a history of violence during elections periods. From December 2007 to February 2008, Kenya experienced a surge in gender-based and ethnic violence triggered by a disputed presidential election on December 27, 2007. Widespread violent clashes brought havoc to communities in Kenya. Women suffered brutal victimization, including rape and murder. During elections, women may be attacked either as part of the target communities in ethnic clashes or as survivors of opportunistic attacks. The scope and scale of sexual and gender-based violence during the post-election violence is not fully known, but information collected from some hospitals and by civil society organizations provides some insight. For example, data from Nairobi Women’s Hospital show that more than 600 women received treatment within the first 72 hours of their attack. Rape survivors constituted 80 percent of those treated, and approximately half of those were children. Survivor studies show widespread incidents of rape, gang rape and forced pregnancy.5 GBV is a human rights violation, developmental concern and public health problem. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), GBV is “any harmful act that is perpetrated against a person’s will and that is based on socially ascribed (gender) differences between males and females.’’6 “Gender-based violence includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, the threat of such acts, and coercion and other deprivations of liberty.’’7 GBV’s different forms include physical, sexual, emotional (psychological) and economic violence, and harmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM). Children are particularly vulnerable to violence, especially sexual abuse. According to a United Nations (UN) report 5 http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-kenya 6 National Gender and Equality Commission (2014) National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Toward the Prevention of and Response to Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Kenya, Page 11 7 Ibid. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 13 in 2006, an estimated “150 million girls and 73 million boys experienced sexual abuse before attainment of 15 years of age.”8 In Africa, as in other regions, GBV perpetrated against women is an extremely complex issue resulting from traditional gender norms that support male superiority and entitlement, social norms that tolerate or justify violence against women, weak community sanctions against perpetrators, poverty, high crime levels, conflict, etc. Studies in some African countries indicate significant GBV prevalence rates from intimate partners. Examples include: Ethiopia, 71 percent (WHO 2002); Kenya, 38 percent for women and 20 percent for men (KDHS 2014); Malawi, 28 percent (DHS 2004); Mozambique, 40 percent (IVAWS 2004); Rwanda, 34 percent (DHS 2005); Uganda, 59 percent (DHS 2006); Tanzania, 41 percent in urban areas and 56 percent in rural areas (WHO 2002); Zambia, 50 percent (DHS 2007); and Zimbabwe, 38 percent (DHS 2006). These figures affirm that throughout Africa, GBV is a serious problem that needs concerted mitigation efforts. In Kenya, GBV is a widespread and ongoing phenomenon. It is estimated that every day, women from all social and ethnic groups experience physical and sexual abuse and rape. Survivors are traumatized and their status in their communities is undermined. Studies by various research institutions and organizations attest to the ongoing prevalence of GBV in Kenya. For instance, the 2004 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS) demonstrated that at least half of all Kenyan women have experienced violence beginning at age 15. The 2008–09 KDHS also showed that 45 percent of women aged 15–49 have experienced either physical or sexual violence.9 The related Violence Against Children Study, undertaken in Kenya in 2010, corroborates the KDHS findings.10 The 2014 KDHS revealed similar statistics, establishing that 38 percent of ever-married women aged 15–49 have experienced physical violence committed by their husband/partner.11 While women’s vulnerability to sexual violence is well known, this type of violence against men is a new finding. A study conducted by Violence Against Children (2010), documented by a 2014 NGEC publication,12 established that nearly one in three females and one in five males experience at least one episode of sexual violence before turning 18 years old, an experience that can shape their future in terms of their attitudes toward violence, adoption of risky behaviors and emotional health.13 Likewise, the 2014 KDHS revealed that 9 percent of ever-married men aged 15–49 have experienced physical violence committed by their wife/partner. Another 2015 study by the National Crimes Research Center, referenced by the 2015 Peace Initiative Kenya annual report, indicates that “significant proportions of women (15.2 percent) and men (7.4 percent) have experienced sexual violence.”14 Only a small percentage of GBV cases are reported, giving these percentages even more relevance. Although these studies confirm existing GBV trends in Kenya, reporting to authorities is limited, as survivors often face many challenges in trying to bring the perpetrators to justice. Many victims are intimidated by cultural attitudes and state inaction while seeking redress.15 A 2015 report by the National Crimes Research Center indicated that GBV reporting was low. Only 15.2 percent of female and 16.7 percent of male respondents who had ever been sexually violated said that they or someone else on their behalf had reported the act of sexual violence to the police or provincial administration. Moreover, health facilities do not encourage reporting. This is evident in the same study’s finding that only 10.3 percent of women and 6.8 percent of men said they were ever asked at a health facility if they had experienced 8 United Nations General Assembly (2006). Report of the Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence Against Children. 9 Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (CBS 2004b, Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2008–09). 10 Republic of Kenya (2012), Violence Against Children in Kenya–UNICEF, Nairobi, Kenya. 11 Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (CBS 2004b, Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2013–14). 12 National Gender and Equality Commission (2014) National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Toward the Prevention of and Response to Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Kenya, pg.11. 13 Republic of Kenya (2012). Violence against Children in Kenya–UNICEF, Nairobi, Kenya. 14 Peace Initiative Kenya, 2015 Annual Report, pg.1. 15 Status of Gender Desks in Police Stations (2009), Institute of Economic Affairs. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 14 GBV. Likewise, the report by the Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence (CIPEV) noted in 200816 that approximately 80 percent of GBV survivors treated at the Nairobi Women’s Hospital suffered from rape and defilement, 10 percent from domestic violence and the remaining 10 percent from other types of physical and sexual assault. These figures reflect low reporting because they are from only one center, not countrywide or even from all of the areas that were heavily affected conflict zones during the 2008 post-election violence. Again in comparison with the national KDHS, the cases reported here fall well below the national GBV prevalence rates, which are 38 percent for women and 20.9 percent for men. The Kenya Police Crime Statistics in 2007 revealed reports of only 876 cases of rape, 1,984 cases of defilement, 181 cases of incest, 198 cases of sodomy, 191 cases of indecent assault and 173 cases of abduction. Kenya is a signatory to a wide spectrum of international and regional instruments, conventions and declarations that recognize GBV as a “form of discrimination and violation of human rights.”17 Examples of these instruments and conventions include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979), requiring countries to prevent and respond to GBV; the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990), requiring all state parties to “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)or any other person who has the care of the child”; the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (1993), the first international human rights instrument to deal exclusively with gender-based violence; and the Rome Statute (1998), classifying rape and other forms of sexual violence as crimes against humanity. Its signatory status on these instruments and conventions means the Government of Kenya (GOK) is legally obligated to address GBV. Premised on the national commitment to uphold and protect human rights and gender equality, the GOK has developed a wide range of policies and legal instruments that focus on combatting GBV and mitigating its consequences. Preventive policies include the Kenya Constitution 2010; the Kenya Adolescent Reproductive Health Policy (2003); the National Gender and Development Policy (2000);18 Prevention and Response to School-Related Gender-Based Violence – Education Gender Policy (2007);19 Multi-Sectoral Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Prevention and Response to GBV (2013); and Vision 2030 Second Medium-Term Plan (2013–17), which emphasizes integrated one-stop sexual and gender-based violence response centers in all Kenyan health care facilities.20 Despite the existing data regarding GBV prevalence and reporting, as well as the numerous prevention and mitigation mechanisms the GOK has put in place, challenges remain to fully addressing GBV in Kenya. This is due to underlying infrastructural limitations, local cultural practices and inadequate service delivery systems. Against this background, USAID/KEA provided resources to fight GBV. Through a variety of implementing partners (IPs), such as international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs), GOK has intervened through its programming to create awareness, prevent GBV and provide services to survivors — mainly in identifying risk factors and building service providers’ capacities to support survivors. IPs employed different 16 Republic of Kenya (2008). Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence Final Report. 17 National Gender and Equality Commission (2014). National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Toward the Prevention of and Response to Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Kenya, pg.12 18 Republic of Kenya (2000) National Gender and Development Policy. 19 Republic of Kenya (2007) Education Gender Policy. 20 Republic of Kenya (2013) Vision 2030 Second Medium-Term Plan 2013–17 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 15 approaches to ensure that GBV prevalence in Kenya is reduced and that survivors receive adequate support and needed legal redress. PIK’s implementation began in the second half of 2012 with a plan to reach more than 3 million people in less than a year with messages of protecting women and peace around Kenya’s general elections in March 2013. The elections ushered in the devolved government as enshrined in the new Kenyan Constitution (2010). Intense political and community competition for power characterized the pre-election campaign period as political parties scrambled for votes in densely populated towns, most of which had high potential for electoral violence.21 PIK I dealt with creating awareness, preventing GBV and promoting peace around the election period with a focus on creating community and county networks to serve as both early warning and early response mechanisms and as community advocates on the issue. When PIK 1 ended, USAID allocated additional funds for a second phase. PIK 2 focused on improving national and county-level gender-based violence service delivery systems and promoting gender-sensitive policy implementation. PIK 2 launched after devolution began and new county structures were in the early stages of organization. As noted on the USAID Fact Sheet for PIK, the activity strengthened county engagement in preventing and responding to gender-based violence and increased access to and utilization of GBV services through community outreach and awareness-raising efforts. USAID Activity Strategy and Tasks To support conflict mitigation and GBV prevention, USAID/KEA launched PIK (Award Number: PIK 1 and 2, AID-623-A-12-00024). Target Areas and Groups In its three years of implementation, PIK’s activities targeted awareness raising, prevention, protection and capacity building for GBV survivor service providers in 18 select counties over two phases (PIK 1, June 2012–September 2013; PIK 2, October 2013–December 2015). PIK targeted regions with potential for conflict or electoral violence. PIK 1 covered 18 counties, while PIK 2 reduced the number to nine: Kisumu, Kisi, Migori, Nandi, Uasin Gishu, Tran Nzoia, Taita Taveta Mombasa, Kwale and Nairobi’s informal settlements. These counties can be classified into four regions: Nairobi, Rift Valley, Nyanza and Coast. In each county, PIK targeted a wide range of stakeholders, including GBV CBOs, women’s groups, peace groups, community health volunteers, men’s groups, county governments, journalists, GBV working groups, male champions against GBV, county women representatives, CUCs, police, religious leaders and the national government, among other entities. Transition from PIK 1 to PIK 2 PIK’s prime, the IRC, transitioned from PIK 1 to PIK 2 with the following sub-implementing partners: Sauti Ya Wanawake Pwani (SYWP), Healthcare Assistance Kenya (HAK), African Woman and Child Feature Service (AWC), Rural Women Peace Link (RWPL), Coalition on Violence Against Women (COVAW), Women Empowerment Link (WEL), African Women Entrepreneurship Program (AWEP), Rural AIDS Prevention and Development Organization (RAPADO) and Amjutine. With the sub-IPs in place, PIK 2 formed relationships with several key partners, such as Kenya’s NGEC; the Anti-FGM Board; Nyabende, the Judiciary; county executives, county assemblies, the National Assembly, parliamentary caucuses and the Ministry of Devolution and Planning, Directorate of Gender; and religious 21 Peace Initiative Kenya Annual Report, July 2012–September 2013. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 16 groups and civil society. PIK 2 focused on GBV prevention and improving the response frameworks at the national and local levels. The transition allowed PIK to advocate for the establishment and maintenance of and allocating financial resources for GBV prevention and social service delivery provision. It continued to target women in GBV prevention and added a new focus on men as agents for change. PIK 2 added the element of engaging influential women to take up leadership roles for GBV advocacy groups. Intended Results PIK’s overall focus was to contribute to GBV awareness, prevention and mitigation efforts in Kenya during the pre- and post-election periods while laying the groundwork for more sustained efforts over the coming years. The PIK 1 focus was to expand grassroots networks that have the capacity to create awareness and prevent and mitigate violence in general, but particularly in Kenya’s most conflicted zones. PIK 2 was to leverage the devolution transition process to establish and reinforce structures for social service delivery at the county level and direct specific financial resources toward GBV prevention and service provision. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The PIK final performance evaluation used qualitative methods to assess the relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the activity. The methodology framework described in the PIK evaluation scope of work (SOW) guided the evaluation team during the team planning meeting (TPM) in developing the research tools for the key informant interviews (KIIs) and group interviews (GIs), which USAID reviewed and approved. The TPM took place March 21–29. Data collection took place April 1–April 19 with an extension to April 21 to permit interviews with respondents who were unavailable earlier in the exercise. Data analysis followed from April 22–April 30. The team held a validation meeting with USAID and IRC on May 4. A formal presentation to the Mission occurred May 6. The evaluation report drafting took place May 7–May 13. Data Collection Methods and Sources The evaluation team employed three data collection methods: secondary material review, KIIs and GIs. The evaluation team identified key informants based on the document review and key contacts and recommendations from USAID and PIK. The team reviewed all activity documentation provided by USAID, IRC and MSI. The team also accessed other documentation relevant to the evaluation from online sources (Annex 7 contains the complete list). The findings from the document review helped the team identify gaps that required primary data. The document review also helped the team formulate questions for the interview guides (Annex 3). The team interviewed a variety of respondents based on their interaction with the activity. Some respondents had direct involvement with PIK, while others provided an “outsider” perspective. Hence, the team weighted some responses on the degree of interaction and experience with PIK. The four-person evaluation team divided into two teams. One team went to Uasin Gishu and Kisumu and the other to Coast and Kwale counties and covered Nairobi. The evaluation site selection was based on the need for geographic spread across the activity regions and recommendations from USAID. The team conducted 59 interviews, 43 KIIs and 16 GIs. Annex 6 contains the list of interviewees. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 17 TABLE 1. PIK FINAL EVALUATION INTERVIEW BY TYPE, PLACE AND SEX County Interviews Gender GIIs KIIs Total Male Female Total Nairobi 3 22 25 10 33 43 Uasin Gishu 7 4 11 15 13 28 Kwale 2 10 12 10 22 32 Kisumu 4 7 11 3 17 20 Total 16 43 59 38 85 123 Data Analysis Methods Data analysis focused on content and pattern analysis. During the three weeks of data collection, the team prepared weekly reports. These reports identified emerging themes for each evaluation question. As the data collection progressed, the team further developed these emerging themes. After completing data collection, the team members exchanged interview notes and refined the themes. The team developed tally sheets to facilitate data coding and analysis; these provided a matrix listing the five evaluation questions and sub-themes drawn from the review of interview notes. The team then coded the information in the interview notes based on the presence of each theme and sub-theme on the vertical axis, where the interviews were grouped by county and interviewees. The tally sheet matrix enabled the team to determine the frequency of reference for each theme in the coded interview notes. The team analyzed the interview data as reflected in the tally sheet, comparing respondents’ perspectives across stakeholder groups and integrated findings from the document review as appropriate. This method facilitated triangulating data and identification of common trends and themes relevant to the evaluation. Limitations The evaluation team experienced some data collection limitations. Because of this, the evaluation deviated somewhat from the original design in terms of targeted respondents. Specifically, the evaluation team had to replace several respondents because it was not possible to reach some key informants, especially in Kwale, where access was restricted after heavy rain made some roads impassable. Moreover, some respondents failed to show up for scheduled interviews despite frequent follow-up outreach. Securing interviews with national and county government officials proved challenging because they were reluctant to commit to an interview and some were not reachable in their offices or by telephone. Tradeoffs in terms of KIIs and GIs were necessary in cases where the individuals were no longer available because of PIK’s closure. The evaluation team mitigated the limitations related to the availability of interviewees by substituting, where possible, other respondents based on recommendations from IRC, its sub-partners, and USAID. In Kwale, the chief of police provided contact information for a village elder and the woman who served as the department’s Gender Desk officer. The exception was the National Steering Committee representative, who failed to attend a scheduled interview with the evaluation team and subsequently was unavailable, even for a telephone interview, despite repeated attempts. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 18 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Question 1 To what extent and in what ways were PIK’s distinctive designs relevant to and effective in achieving the activity’s overall goal and objectives? Findings This question specifically examines the consistency, relevance and effectiveness of the activity’s design against its stated objectives and also assesses the extent to which the activity’s design continued to resonate into the post-election period. Answers to this question highlight lessons for USAID/KEA to consider on: (i) sequencing and timing in programming, (ii) the determination of geographic focus and (iii) the efficacy and impact of election-related GBV programming. Sequencing and Timing PIK launched in June 2012, covering 18 counties with 13 sub-partners. The sub-IPs worked with grassroots organizations to spread peace messages and raise awareness about GBV through one-day community training sessions and other events. PIK staff and five of the nine sub-IPs noted that the history of violence associated with elections, in particular during 2007–2008, made it prudent to take a pre-emptive approach in PIK 1. Moreover, the communities welcomed and actively participated in PIK’s events, according to IRC staff. However, all nine sub-partners stated that PIK should have started earlier in the pre￾election period. According to IRC, the brief duration of PIK 1 — only 14 months — put pressure on sub-partners to meet target numbers for training, awareness-raising sessions and events, but did not allow sufficient time for verification that recipients understood and retained the messages. IRC also felt pressure to perform and reach work plan targets. The short implementation period and late start-up relative to the 2013 election were weak points in the activity’s design, according to the nine sub-IPs. Other respondents, the CUC in Uasin Gishu and a representative of a women’s group also in Uasin Gishu, agreed that PIK I’s timing (around the pre- and post-election periods) was appropriate, but the duration was too brief to accomplish all of its objectives. RWPL felt the duration was too short, but the timing before the elections was a good strategy because PIK’s training and public information helped to contribute to free and fair elections as PIK emphasized voting for personal choice rather than coercion by politicians. However, RWPL also noted that the duration of PIK 1 did not allow sufficient time to cover the large three-county area of RWPL’s responsibility. Likewise, PeaceNet felt the timing was beneficial because it enabled the partners to establish relationships with communities. PeaceNet said the early warning approach and emergency preparedness measures — such as providing clothes and sanitary pads for women, cooking oil, dignity kits for men and women, prophylaxis for rape cases and so forth — was unique and showed good planning. Geographic Focus and Sub-Grants PIK 2 immediately followed the closing of PIK 1. In addition, PIK 2 changed the original activity design, including revision to the geographic focus, which involved targeting nine instead of 18 counties and reducing the number of sub-partners from 13 to nine. PIK 2’s implementation period was 26 months, nearly twice “Maybe on project design, we would want to have a longer implementation time than what we had. You want to have a longer period of time to be successful. You want to see a whole change of thinking in the community.” — IRC Staff Member PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 19 that of PIK 1. PIK 2’s nine sub-IPs focused their efforts on increasing access to GBV services and strengthening the intra-county engagement toward preventing and responding to GBV. With the elections over and the government devolution process in full swing, one sub-IP commented, “The timing is right now to work with the county government on GBV issues.” Efficacy and Impact of Election-Related GBV Programming Twenty-five of the 29 respondents agreed that programming for both GBV prevention and conflict resolution was an effective approach because it brought the issue of GBV as a byproduct of conflict to the forefront. Combining the two elements within one activity enabled both to advance because efforts were doubled and mutually supportive. Interviewees (68 percent of the 59) described the combination of GBV prevention and peace building as a “unique and effective” approach. KIIs with members of county and national government, IRC, USAID staff and other key stakeholders confirmed the efficacy of combining GBV prevention and conflict mitigation programming. Kenyans’ experience of the election-related violence in 2008 validated that GBV is a consistent feature of conflict.22 PIK’s Unique and Effective Elements PIK’s approach worked through local organizations and networks, particularly women’s groups, as gateways into communities at the grassroots level. The evaluation team found significant variation among sub￾partners’ capacity levels, in terms of both their ability to carry out PIK’s work and their understanding of PIK as an initiative. Eight of nine sub-IPs provided information about their experiences and perceptions of PIK’s components that were relevant to them or their organization, particularly around PIK 1’s implementation during the pre- and post-election periods. Thirty-eight percent of sub-IP respondents spoke of the advantages of targeting conflict-prone areas with peace and GBV messages to pre-empt potential outbreaks of violence by promoting peaceful approaches and raising awareness about GBV prevention. They noted that based on the history of violent outbreaks in certain areas, peace messaging would have a greater impact and potentially make the difference between a peaceful election period and a violent one. One respondent mentioned that when program activities are ongoing in such areas, it would be more likely that knowledge about underlying discontent would surface and provide opportunities to address issues early on. IRC and two sub-IPs noted that the strategy enabled them to disseminate highly focused messages about peace and GBV in areas where people were concerned about the potential for violent outbreaks. Two other partners noted that PIK’s presence in those areas increased the likelihood of becoming aware of conflictual issues early on and having opportunities to address them before they escalated. Interviews with USAID and IRC staff also emphasized the importance of having implementers with geographic experience and a presence in the implementation area, in addition to having thematic expertise on GBV and/or peace building. In fact, the lack of local presence played a role in one implementing partner being dropped from PIK, although other issues also affected their removal. The importance of a local presence relates to local attitudes about “outsiders.” Two respondents interviewed in Kisumu noted that if local organizations could do the job, there was no need to bring in an organization from Nairobi. For example, RWPL was selected because of its networks and linkages in the Northern Rift Valley. According to RWPL, they “knew how to navigate effectively in that county.” Similarly, SYWP had networks at the Coast that allowed it to penetrate the area without establishing new structures, according to interviews with USAID staff and the IRC. The strategy of selecting sub-partners with existing community networks was particularly important because of the short time frame for launching and implementing PIK I. In a couple of instances, PIK made choices about sub-partner placement that did not consider local presence, such as the International Federation of Women Lawyers – Kenya (FIDA) and COVAW, which experienced negative results when communities at first treated them as “outsiders” because they were not known locally. 22 Rape as a tactic of war has been documented around the world. See U.S. Strategy to Prevent & Respond to GBV Globally, p. 9. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 20 Two IRC staff and all of the sub-partners except one noted the importance of sub-IPs having both thematic expertise and geographic experience in their areas of implementation. The sub-partners agreed that the combination was a unique feature that contributed to PIK’s success. These sub-partners also validated the advantage of using local organizations and networks to make inroads into communities. They noted that the level of trust was higher when organizations were known in the communities. Seven of the nine sub￾partners noted the importance for the partners implementing PIK to have relevant geographic experience and an established presence in the community. Conclusions Combining GBV prevention with peace messaging in known conflict-prone zones during sensitive times such as election periods was an appropriate and effective approach because it addressed two associated issues within the same initiative. Linking messages strengthened both efforts (i.e., maintaining peace reduced incidents of GBV), and working through local communities lent legitimacy to the efforts for the GBV prevention and response component. Attribution to PIK for various events sponsored by sub-partners at the grassroots level was not always possible, however, because so many other peace promotion efforts were taking place around the 2013 election. Nonetheless, the element of combining GBV prevention with peace-building efforts stood out as a unique approach. The evaluation concludes that identifying and focusing on conflict “hotspots” as potential areas of conflict was a successful approach in PIK I. It enabled highly focused messages about peace and GBV to be directed to areas where concern existed about the potential for violent outbreaks. Working in those areas also increased the likelihood of becoming aware of conflictual issues early on and potentially having opportunities to address them before they escalated. One of the unique elements that contributed to PIK’s success was the selection of sub-IPs based on their thematic expertise and geographic focus, because each partner brought specific skills to the activity that enabled PIK to address and facilitate the achievement of both PIK I and 2 objectives. Selecting sub-partners with local presence and established community networks was successful because it brought a degree of community trust and saved time establishing the activity. In a couple of instances, PIK made choices about sub-partner placement that did not consider local presence, such as in the cases of FIDA and COVAW, which yielded negative results when particular communities initially treated them as “outsiders” because they were not known locally. The evaluation found that a major contributor to PIK’s successes was the engagement of women’s groups and the identification of strong partnering organizations. By identifying such organizations, PIK made inroads into the communities quickly because of pre-existing networks. Much of PIK’s success came from the linkages to and knowledge of the communities where they worked. The evaluation concluded that intense, short-term activities such as PIK 1 require robust M&E components. The sequencing and timing in programming for PIK 1 was relevant in terms of the pre- and post-election period of 2012–2013. The evaluation concludes that an earlier start-up and a longer implementation period for PIK 1 could have resulted in greater impact on both peace building and raising awareness about GBV and would have reduced the stress on sub-IPs to meet target numbers. Question 2 How effective was PIK’s implementation at achieving its stated objectives? This question examines the effectiveness of the main implementation approaches (e.g., peace campaign through local groups/leaders and support of GBV awareness and prevention activities) and partnerships developed to achieve the activity’s stated objectives. It identifies GBV programming approaches that worked and did not work and the major factors facilitating or hindering achievement of the activity’s objectives. For PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 21 the approaches that did work well, recommendations related to this question address how those approaches can integrate GBV into USAID programming. Findings Findings on PIK’s main implementation approaches and their effectiveness follow. The approaches used in both PIK 1 and 2 were linkage of GBV survivors to the Helpline 1195, collaboration among implementing partners and with various actors in intervention areas, cascaded training and media work. PIK 2 also included a focus on strengthening county-level engagement in prevention of and response to GBV. IRC noted that an earlier start and a longer implementation period would have resulted in greater impact on both peace building and raising GBV awareness. Linkage of GBV Survivors to the Helpline 1195 IRC indicated that HAK received funds to publicize the Helpline 1195. HAK confirmed using the funds to produce posters, stickers and Jikinge (“protect yourself”) cards, also called J-cards, that all partners and GBV survivors distributed. HAK found this collaboration with other partners and GBV survivors encouraging. “We got to a point where we thought all these partners were working for HAK,” said one respondent. “They loved it because it was a solution to the community.” HAK indicated that African Woman and Child Feature Service (AWC) was particularly instrumental in promoting the helpline by publicizing it in PIK magazines and mass media and that this attracted UN Women, which launched the helpline number in Kitui, Embu and Vihiga counties. GBV survivors used the helpline to get assistance from tele-counselors at HAK. GIs with GBV survivors, male champions, CUCs, women’s groups in Kisumu, youth groups and women’s group leaders in Uasin Gishu reported that Helpline 1195 was widely known in communities and among actors in the referral pathway. As a result, clients received prompt and courteous attention and the referral system enabled survivors to access professional services from the police, health facilities and the judiciary, according to responses from the CUCs in Kisumu, CARE in Uasin Gishu and GBV survivors in Kisumu. HAK staff reported that they did not receive enough funding to hire a sufficient number of counselors. They had 10 counselors instead of the 15 they needed. According to HAK’s director, the shortage overstretched the counselors. She noted that HAK also did not have an adequate number of telephone lines to serve the number of clients who called the Helpline and as a result, tele-counselors trying to attend to all clients had to interrupt counseling sessions when new clients called in. HAK did not provide face-to-face sessions for clients. Instead, clients received referrals to counselors elsewhere, which disrupted the relationship they had already established. A male counselor mentioned that HAK had mostly female counselors, which created the impression for some that the Helpline was a service for female clients only, although that was not the case. Partnerships PIK included many different partnership levels: IRC had sub-partners, who had their own sub-implementing partners and collaborated with community and county-level actors, including other USAID-funded activities. The relationship between IRC and its sub-partners revolved around sub-granting, coaching on USAID guidelines, quarterly coordination meetings and monitoring and supervision. All sub-IPs reported that the relationship with IRC was largely positive and productive. Implementing partners collaborated through quarterly forums, exchange visits and joint advocacy efforts. This level of collaboration included partnership with the NGEC to develop a national online GBV service provider map and database. These were not completed by the time PIK ended. An online GBV forum, the only one in the country, formed through this collaboration using PIK’s geo-referencing and facility mapping. These partnerships mobilized support for the Protection Against Domestic Violence (PADV) bill and helped facilitate its passage in Parliament on March 24, 2015, and enactment on May 13, 2015, according to the program manager for Women Empowerment Link (WEL). She also noted that MenEngage worked closely PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 22 with WEL to rewrite the advocacy messages to make them more gender-neutral and that MenEngage also mobilized male GBV survivors, which helped widen the definition of domestic violence to include men. WEL pointed out that PADV’s passage could be attributed to the coordinated efforts of various actors, including PIK partners pooling resources for joint activities. Partnerships with community and county-level actors were executed through training, consultative forums, GBV survivor referrals and collaboration during commemoration of international days related to gender. In Kisumu, PIK collaborated with the AIDS, Population and Health Integrated Assistance Program (APHIAplus) and boosted gender sensitization activities in places where APHIAplus did not operate (Kisumu West, East and Central sub-counties). APHIAplus used its position as the secretariat for the county Gender Technical Working Group (GTWG) to mobilize participants for county-level PIK activities. This partnership enabled GBV survivors to receive improved services from the police, local administration, judiciary and medical facilities. The linkage was particularly strong through CUCs, a platform that brings together various stakeholders in the criminal justice system to improve delivery of judicial services to the public by addressing bottlenecks in accessing the judicial system and by following up on complaints lodged by litigants. One of the CUCs interviewed brings together 45–60 members from different institutions. The PIK implementing partner trained the CUC on GBV and provided updates on GBV at CUC meetings. This led to the mainstreaming of GBV in the CUC agenda. A member of the CUC said he uses knowledge from PIK to campaign against GBV through his religious platforms and interactions with schools and communities. Three members of the CUC who took part in a GI reported that PIK demystified courts of law and judicial officers, and improved coordination among service providers. Nine members of another CUC confirmed this in a GI. Responses from RWPL, Nyabende Support Program, SYWP and CUCs and GBV survivors in Kisumu and Uasin Gishu indicated that community training, collaboration with police, judiciary and health facilities enabled GBV survivors to access legal and medical services.23 In Kisumu, male champions and women’s group leaders cited two graphic cases of GBV survivors, one male and one female, in which they assisted to apprehend perpetrators who were eventually imprisoned. One of the GBV survivors interviewed in Kisumu confirmed receiving prompt assistance from Nyabende and the male champions to receive medical attention when she was slashed on the face by a perpetrator who is still at large. A GBV survivor in Uasin Gishu also confirmed being linked to the Care and Assault Recovery Center by women’s group leaders and chiefs and having the perpetrator jailed. However, CUCs in Kisumu and Uasin Gishu, as well as male champions and a police officer in Kisumu, reported specific challenges with regard to the police. These related to lack of physical space for police gender desks; stereotyping of gender desk work to female police officers; frequent transfer of police officers trained on GBV leading to loss of skill and momentum without commensurate replacement; and shortage of police officers causing a heavy workload and inefficient service to GBV survivors, especially because gender desk officers are also assigned other routine duties. Respondents also reported that the police treat male GBV survivors insensitively. According to IRC and male champions in Kisumu, the performance of the gender desk officers depended on dedication and knowledge gained from external training. An interview with the gender desk officer in Kisumu confirmed that PIK-organized workshops strengthened her knowledge and increased her motivation for GBV work. PIK also linked her with other actors she calls upon to assist survivors. The selection of counties for PIK 2 was based on the potential for quick gains. For example, Kisumu, Migori and Nandi already had good results in PIK 1 and Kwale, at the Coast, represented a unique challenge because of poverty and a low level of development. During the transition from PIK 1 to 2, the activity’s partnerships faced challenges. IRC made the decision to drop PeaceNet, FIDA, Well Told Story (WTS) and COVAW based on funding reductions and the different thematic expertise required in PIK 2. The manner 23 See also “Best Practices for Implementing Partners Under Peace Initiative Kenya Project,” October 2013, p. 67–70 and p. 84-88 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 23 in which the partners were dropped and the lack of communication about the termination was an issue, according to these partners. In FIDA’s case, they terminated at the end of their PIK 1 contract without incident, but received no reply to their letter asking to be included in PIK 2 and no explanation as to why they were not chosen to continue. IRC staff stated in a KII that FIDA had difficulty realizing numbers and was not well suited for community￾level work, given its niche in high-level policy work. According to FIDA’s director, that message was not communicated to them. In PeaceNet’s case, a staff person said: “The transition was not consultative. It did not end in a good way. The wording was, ‘You’ve been dropped.’ IRC did not offer an explanation.” PeaceNet said they lost face when small-grants beneficiaries with whom they had worked started asking why PeaceNet was no longer with PIK. COVAW staff said they heard they were dropped from members of the communities where they worked, and IRC then came to their office to drop off a termination letter without discussion. COVAW asserts that IRC staff made negative remarks about COVAW in the field and even to another donor. Nyabende Support Program, which succeeded COVAW in Kisumu, faced difficulties from groups that wanted funds, but did not want to be supervised, Nyabende’s manager reported. She further noted that the groups wanted the money to do with as they liked. As a result of the disagreement, some planned activities were not implemented. AWEP reported that it had to refund KES 158,000, which was unspent when PIK ended. It attributed this to late disbursement of funds. However, IRC indicated that AWEP’s predicament arose because it took them six months to develop their proposal and implementation approach that involved the personal development of beneficiaries before they were entitled to disbursement of business grants. Despite the return of funds, the AWEP director said the program was successful because it enabled 30 women to radically improve their lives and economic situation. Cascaded Training PIK 1 developed a curriculum and manual on pre-election peace that was used in trainings of trainers (TOTs), who cascaded training to the regional and community levels. PIK 2 training focused on GBV as opposed to election-related peace. In Kisumu County, sub-county training was supplemented with clinics where doctors, lawyers and the police provided advice about GBV to members of the public. All sub-IPs indicated that they continued to use the manuals in their work after PIK ended. However, the manuals were separate PIK/IRC products, not joint products with governmental agencies for sustained use after PIK. In the view of one significant key informant, this decreases the likelihood that county and national government structures will continue to use them. In the view of male champions, sub-IPs and women’s group leaders in Uasin Gishu and Kisumu, the success of the cascaded training was largely attributed to PIK’s reliance on local resource persons and relevance of the messages to the public’s desire for peace during the elections with the hindsight of the 2007/2008 post-election violence. PIK annual reports indicate that cascaded training was effective in reaching various groups at the community level. These included lawyers, chiefs, gender desk police officers, gender officers and child protection officers. Communities considered the trainers their own resource persons and reported a sense of ownership of PIK activities.24 In the original design, the cascaded training was to be delivered by parent-teacher associations (PTAs), teachers, Yes Youth Can groups, community health workers (CHWs) and youth parliaments (“bunges”). In reality, women’s groups delivered the training. According to two sub-IPs, this resulted because women were the majority members in structures from which trainers were identified. In Kisumu, these were women’s groups allied to Nyabende and group of paralegal workers allied to COVAW. In Uasin Gishu, they were primarily women’s networks allied with RWPL. The predominant use of women’s groups created the impression that that the activity was women-focused. No explanation was given for why CHWs were not 24 PIK Quarterly Progress Report, April 2015. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 24 used, especially in Kisumu County where APHIAplus, a USAID-funded organization, has a network of 2,400 CHWs who are each responsible for 100 households. IRC noted that it reduced the duration of training from three days to one due to the fact that it was not feasible to take three consecutive days of community members’ time, trainers needed to travel to the next venue, and IRC felt pressure to reach the prescribed target of 40,000 people. In two instances, RWPL’s director noted, the prevailing political atmosphere constrained PIK’s entry into communities for training. In Uasin Gishu, she said, it was difficult to start interventions because there was fear and mistrust and people could not open up because of the International Criminal Court issue, and they were not sure who to talk to. The community were fearing because the case was on their side. After some time, religious leaders’, the opinion leaders, chiefs and the Council of Elders came in and talked to the community and then there was a breakthrough for the PIK program.” RWPL’s executive director said. In Kisumu, Nyabende reported that community members misconstrued use of their national identification card numbers to register in PIK 1 as an attempt to buy their votes and manipulate upcoming election outcomes. This suspicion linked to the fact that the Nyabende coordinator comes from an ethnic group assumed to be sympathetic to a political camp different from the area’s dominant one. Nyabende eventually replaced the identification number column with one for telephone numbers. Media Work PIK 1 relied on WTS to use radio dramas as a vehicle for strategic communications, while PIK 2 relied on African Woman and Child Feature Service (AWC) for publicity, reporting on PIK activities and linkage with media houses. WTS worked with seven local FM stations in the South Rift, Central Rift and Coast regions and produced 18 episodes of a 15-minute drama combining peace and GBV messages based on issues identified from a pre-activity assessment. A toll-free line was available for listeners to call in and participate in the discussions. An interview with the former director of projects at WTS and the PIK Annual Progress Performance Report for July 2012–September 2013 (page 180) indicated that communities were interested in a peaceful election. However, PIK did not continue to build on or use these products after WTS was dropped in PIK 2. AWC trained 200 journalists on peace building, conflict-sensitive reporting and how to file GBV stories,25 using its links with media houses to generate support for GBV reporting through the editors. The media houses were supportive, especially during PIK 1, because they had a vested interest in peace after suffering losses during the 2007–2008 post-election violence, the AWC program manager noted. AWC reported that when it came on board as a grantee in PIK 2 to document PIK’s work, other partners were suspicious that AWC was reporting on them on behalf of IRC. This impacted negatively on content generation and AWC’s ability to meet deadlines. The issue was resolved through assurance that AWC was working for the partners’ collective benefit. Support from the media houses was also less forthcoming in PIK 2 because of fatigue with GBV stories and resistance due to media practitioners’ personal attitudes, which AWC attributed to personal backgrounds and socialization of the media personalities. Commercial entities experienced competition for prime time in electronic media, but AWC used personal contacts with senior producers to negotiate for coverage. AWC also indicated that delays in authorization for USAID branding constrained its work and led to the loss of some media opportunities to promote PIK. Such authorization related to use of the USAID logo and its size and placement in publicity documents. AWC had to go through IRC to get this authorization, a process that was time-consuming and complicated. County-Level Engagement PIK 2 purposed to strengthen county governments’ responses to GBV in the post-election period. It carried out a GBV preparedness audit and produced My Action Counts reports for nine counties that outlined gaps in GBV response and the roles of various actors therein. However, they were produced late in the activity and 25 Statistics taken from the Annual Progress Performance Report, July 2012–September 2013. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 25 were only partially used in implementation. IRC and seven key informants (two from Nairobi, two from Uasin Gishu and three from Kisumu) indicated that these reports provided baseline information that has been used in Kisumu and Uasin Gishu. One county assembly member used the My Action Counts report to develop a motion for the establishment of rescue centers and support to the Gender Violence Recovery Center (GVRC). She involved PIK in conducting training on GBV and gender-responsive budgeting for members of the county assembly; she perceived the training to have bridged information and knowledge gaps on GBV and galvanized support for her motion, which passed. A county gender officer also used My Action Counts report to draw budgets for production of the county gender policy and implementation of the county strategic plan, which was developed and launched with PIK’s support. The county government has, as a result, committed to establishing a rescue center in each of the seven sub-counties. Two centers are under construction. It has also allocated resources for establishment of a gender desk. In Uasin Gishu, PIK successfully lobbied for the establishment of a sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) clinic at the District Hospital. The Center for Assault Recovery (CARE) at the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital is using findings of the report to improve confidentiality in service delivery. PIK also trained county government officials in Kisii and supported Migori and Nandi counties to develop strategic plans on gender. However, it did not manage to do this in Uasin Gishu or Trans Nzoia, which sub-IPs said were less responsive to PIK. The sub-IPs in Uasin Gishu and Kisumu reported that the respective county women’s representatives from Kisumu and Nandi indicated their willingness to use the Affirmative Action Social Development Fund that Parliament allocated to them in 2015 for GBV work.26 County governments were, however, perceived by the IP and two key informants from Kisumu to be keener on GBV response (rescue centers, free medical services and legal support) than prevention because the latter requires longer investment in attitude and behavior change. Transition challenges also constrained engagement with county governments, as it took time for the governments to settle after the 2013 elections and for PIK to identify relevant entry points from the multiple structures and actors jostling for space and credit. PIK annual reports confirm that efforts to establish connections with new stakeholders in the different offices proved challenging; the office bearers were also getting a footing in their new jobs and it was unclear which offices were charged with addressing gender-related matters.27 According to Nyabende, county officials — particularly members of county assemblies (MCAs) — had little technical knowledge about GBV. In addition, two key informants and the sub-IP reported that county officials in Kisumu considered the sub-IP to be an activist. In the words of the Nyabende coordinator, Nyabende was regarded in county government circles as “a mere CBO” not worthy of attention. In Uasin Gishu, a chief executive officer was reported to have been sarcastic about advocacy around GBV, calling rape a common occurrence not worth focusing on. Another official was reported to be unreceptive to discussing gender budgeting with PIK activists. PIK’s intention to work with women county representatives did not materialize in Kwale and Uasin Gishu. Work in Kwale was limited by infrastructure, including long distances, only one court of law, high poverty levels, community indifference to education and cultural normalization of early sexual debut and child marriages, according to two sub-partner respondents. Kwale experienced high turnover among police and a lack of safe houses for GBV survivors.28 According to the sub-partner in Kisumu, work with the county peace committees was not effective because the members seemed more interested in personal gain than in pursuing PIK’s goals. In Uasin Gishu, members of the peace committee indicated that it lacked funding for consistent work after the national government withdrew the committee following the 2013 elections. 26 PIK Quarterly Progress Report, January 2015, p. 2. 27 Quarterly Progress Report Period Ending April–June 2013, p. 26, and Annual Progress Performance Report, October 2013–September 2014, p. 14. 28 “Practices for Implementing Partners Under Peace Initiative Kenya Project,” October 2013, p. 84–88. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 26 Monitoring and Evaluation PIK monitoring focused on sub-partners’ interventions, the number of beneficiaries reached and success in working with county structures. Partners reported on their activities during quarterly meetings, while numbers were captured through registration forms, participant headcounts at small group events and estimations during mass events. The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) officer visited the field and attended activities as part of PIK’s monitoring process. PeaceNet staff noted that at the grassroots level, people were not always able to attribute peace promotion events to PIK I because numerous actors had put so many other peace efforts in place. IRC said disbursements from USAID were delayed in PIK 1, which affected the sequencing of interventions. The delay put pressure on IRC and its partners, who had to rush to capture the target numbers for the peace messaging campaign. As a result, IRC staff commented, PIK concentrated on rallying as many people as possible with peace messages in a rushed and pressured manner, which undermined the activity’s overall effectiveness, in the opinion of IRC staff. Conclusions The findings show that PIK effectively established the Helpline 1195, collaboration among implementing partners and with various actors in intervention areas, cascaded training and media work. The Helpline 1195 was widely known and effective in linking GBV survivors with service providers. It was partially effective in strengthening county-level engagement on prevention of and response to GBV. Its effectiveness, however, was constrained by deficiencies at police gender desks, poor management of transition from PIK 1 to 2, erroneous perceptions that it was only women-focused, political factors and poor response from certain county-level actors. The evaluation found that partnerships among sub-IPs were most effective through joint public events such as processions and demonstrations, dissemination of project messages, quarterly meetings, advocacy and popularization of Helpline 1195. They contributed to effective dissemination of activity messages, advocacy for eventual passage of the PADV bill and provision of GBV services. The linkage of GBV service providers was particularly strong through CUCs. Access to services for GBV survivors was significantly enhanced by Helpline 1195 and networking of the police, local administration, judiciary and medical facilities. Cascaded training facilitated realization of numerical targets and was largely successful because it relied on local resource persons. However, reduction in the duration of community training sessions due to pressure to reach target numbers brings into question the adequacy of content coverage, if not overall quality. Engaging specialized media partners effectively created visibility for PIK. This was a good practice that devolved routine media liaisons from the thematic sub-partners and left them to focus on program delivery. Equally fruitful was the investment in training of a cadre of journalists focusing on GBV reporting, which offered scope for sustainability, as the journalists remain linked with AWC and are still active in journalism. It is regrettable that PIK did not build on or continue to use the radio drama series developed by WTS. Resources were spent to produce the series and, considering the residual significance of peace and GBV messages, these could be utilized further — particularly in light of the coming 2017 elections in Kenya. The decision not to continue the radio dramas into PIK 2 represented a lost opportunity to maximize the investment in developing the series. The nature of the episodes lent themselves to repeated airings, which would have extended the value of the series. Moreover, the messages remained timely and appropriate in terms of GBV prevention. Meaningful, albeit limited, work began at the county level, especially in Kisumu. The training that county officials received bridged their knowledge gaps on gender-responsive budgeting and GBV. The GBV preparedness audit reports provided useful baseline information and informed follow-up action, even though they were produced late in the activity cycle. However, interface with county governments was occasionally constrained by negative attitudes toward IPs, low prioritization of GBV and the tendency to PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 27 prefer treatment over prevention approaches. Question 3 To what extent and in what ways was the intended or unintended involvement of men and boys evident in the implementation and/or results of PIK’s GBV approach? This question examines whether and how men and boys were included (deliberately or not) in PIK’s approach relative to the intent of the activity’s design, as well as the effect of their inclusion and how it was measured. It also examines the extent to which PIK took advantage of emerging opportunities for the inclusion of both men and boys and marginalized groups (e.g., persons with disabilities and faith minorities). Findings KIIs with four of the nine interviewed sub-partners noted the importance of engaging men in GBV prevention and peace messaging related to elections because of the general understanding that men are the main perpetrators of both electoral and gender-based violence. The PIK activity description recognizes men’s potential involvement in GBV behaviors and required that they be targeted. Both PIK1 and PIK 2 worked with individual men and men’s groups to campaign against violence and to reach out to other men with messages on GBV. At the national level, men’s involvement came mainly through MenEngage and men working as tele-counselors at HAK, parliamentarians and AWC journalists. At the county level, they were involved as community activists, religious leaders and members of councils of elders. PIK also fashioned its messages to be inclusive of both sexes, to avoid alienating any group. IRC reported that PIK did not have a predetermined strategy on how to engage men, but left each sub￾partner to select its own method to do so. RWPL indicated that it chose to work with men from Egerton, Moi and Masinde Muliro universities, as well as elders, religious leaders and chiefs. SYWP reported working with male religious leaders and school teachers, and Nyabende reported working with male community activists and a religious leader. WEL reported involving the men’s organizations MenEnage and male parliamentarians in advocacy for the Protection Against Domestic Violence (PADV) bill, while HAK reported working with male tele-counselors and GBV survivors. Male Parliamentarians WEL staff said the advocacy process for the PADV bill involved WEL lobbying male parliamentarians to help pass the bill. The idea was to eliminate the misconception that the bill was meant to protect only women. It was also considered strategic to involve the male legislators who sit on the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. The male members of Parliament (MPs) were tasked with convincing their colleagues who opposed the bill, providing updates and advice on how best to take advantage of parliamentary processes at each stage. Male parliamentarians tabled the bill. In the words of one sub-IP program manager, “If the male MPs were not involved, the bill would not have seen the light of day.” MenEngage Advocacy around the PADV bill also utilized MenEngage, a Kenyan organization that works with men to prevent and respond to GBV. According to its program manager, MenEngage gave a presentation on how to work with men during the national summit and forum; there, the organization also disseminated its policy report on the strengths and gaps in existing GBV laws from men’s perspective. MenEngage distributed more than 200 copies of the report jointly with IRC. During meetings for legislators, MenEngage members spoke on the benefits of the PADV bill, which had been in abeyance for the last 50 years. It mobilized male GBV survivors who demonstrated that the bill was beneficial for everyone. This helped widen the definition of domestic violence to include men. In its capacity as a member of the GBV Technical Working Group, MenEngage recommended revisions to the bill to eliminate controversial provisions that could lead to its PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 28 failure. For instance, marital rape was deleted from the bill because male parliamentarians were expected to oppose the relevant clause, which would result in the bill being defeated.29 MenEngage also contributed information for the online GBV map hosted by NGEC, popularized the Helpline 1195 and worked with PIK to rewrite activity messages to make them less overtly skewed toward the interests of women. MenEngage uses PIK’s GBV audits for its work in counties where it has a presence. However, all sub-IPs and IRC MenEngage itself confirmed that it did not participate in PIK activities at the county level and its expertise on working with men and boys was, therefore, not cascaded from a national focus. Male Tele-Counselors HAK recruited and trained seven male counselors to join the one male counselor employed with HAK prior to PIK. HAK’s director noted that one of the new hires, a reformed GBV perpetrator, became one of HAK’s best counselors. According to HAK staff, the inclusion of male counselors was received well by male clients who preferred to talk to other men. A male GBV survivor confirmed that indeed he would have preferred to talk to a male counselor because he did not feel free divulging certain issues to a woman counselor, although he was satisfied with the services delivered by the female counselor and the nurses at the GRVC where he was referred. The survivor was not aware that HAK had male tele-counselors he could have talked to. Media Work AWC gave male champions visibility in PIK publications, AWC staff explained. It deliberately selected men as resource persons to dispel the notion that violence is about women and to present the male perspective on GBV. AWC selected male journalists who had demonstrated attitudinal change in their writing, but also trained male editors to mobilize their support for GBV stories. “We have seen editors changing,” one AWC staff member said. “It has been a painful process, but it has paid off. I have realized that if you have men on your side on this issue, you will go far.” Male Champions A sub-IP respondent noted that PIK worked with male champions, namely individual community activists, councils of elders, religious leaders and chiefs, principally to reach out to other men with peace messages and mobilize them to prevent and respond to GBV. In Kisumu, PIK particularly worked with 50 individual male activists who were organized in cells of five in different wards, according to a sub-IP staff member. These activists coordinated via cell phone to inform one another of survivors in need of rescuing and the police accompanied them on these rescue missions. They coordinated with women’s groups to trace and apprehend perpetrators. They then followed up with the CUCs once the cases were in court to ensure that they were not compromised. They also worked through a religious leader. Group interviews with two male activists, three GBV survivors and one sub-IP staff revealed that the male champions in Kisumu were instrumental in apprehending GBV perpetrators, linking GBV survivors with the police, courts and medical facilities and sensitizing bodaboda operators and other men on GBV. 29 Respondent interview, MenEngage. ‘Engage Them From Wherever They Are’ “I have a platform — the altar — from where I speak to people every week, every day,” said a religious leader in Kisumu. “There is no way you can change a society unless you talk to them through a consistent process.” This is what s/he calls “leadership by influence, sensitization and education.” S/he builds messages on the family. “Once the family is in chaos, the church will be in chaos. And then the society is in chaos.” S/he considers the pulpit strategic for reaching men about GBV because of the respect they accord to the church and pastors. S/he rallied men through male-only fellowships and talked to other pastors to replicate the messages. Through PIK, s/he was able to link GBV survivors with professional counselors, pro bono lawyers, the police and the judiciary. Some cases s/he handled ended in conviction of perpetrators. S/he also uses his/her position to talk about GBV to teachers. Mobilizing more men, s/he said, requires him/her to “engage them from wherever they are.” S/he proposed saturating communities with male champions equipped with information. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 29 In Uasin Gishu, group interviews with a youth group, female GBV survivors and male champions confirmed that male chiefs whom PIK trained changed their ways of dealing with GBV issues. One chief said their involvement also widened the conversation on GBV from being seen as a women-only issue to a matter that concerned all members of society. Three interviewed chiefs indicated that their colleagues had stopped using traditional dispute resolution systems and started taking wife battery issues to courts instead of dismissing them as petty domestic issues. In the view of a member of North Rift Theater Ambassadors, male involvement also reduced gender tensions and lessened the perception of GBV work as a female domain. “If you involve men, there will be peace at home,” he said. “If only women are involved, they will be accused of promoting Beijing30 ideology.” RWPL’s women’s network leaders in Uasin Gishu confirmed that male elders reported to the police foreign road construction workers who were sodomizing men and boys. They were reporting cases of GBV to the Nandi CUC and following up on pending court cases. However, work with elders was limited to the Nandi, Kisii and Kuria Councils of Elders. An interview with the Luo Council of Elders indicated that no substantive work was carried out with the council in Kisumu, although Nyabende had access to them. Thirty-four of 59 noted that male champions made a positive difference in PIK. Their involvement was attributed to their own recognition that even if they were not personally targets of violence, the suffering of their daughters, wives and mothers affected them too. This came through their physical involvement in rescuing GBV survivors, the apprehension of perpetrators, linking of GBV survivors to service providers, reaching out and sensitizing other men, and providing GBV messages during public events. Bodaboda Operators Two IPs and GIs with GBV survivors, male champions and youth groups in Kisumu and Uasin Gishu identified bodaboda operators as being among the major perpetrators of GBV. The sub-IPs explained that bodaboda operators were reached through their leaders and through savings and credit cooperative organizations (SACCOs), sensitized and involved in PIK interventions, especially public processions on International Women’s Day in both Kisumu and Uasin Gishu. They received T-shirts and reflective jackets emblazoned with anti-GBV messages and Helpline 1195 promotional text. Local communities considered the bodaboda operators to be an effective channel for disseminating public messages because of their numbers, mobility and handiness in apprehending perpetrators. In one town, a male champion mobilized them into a SACCO and had them inscribe their names and phone numbers on their jackets for clients to see in case they needed to report errant operators. They register new members and have established rules 30 “Beijing” refers to the Beijing Platform for Action Fourth World Conference of 1995 and alludes to an idea of radical feminism. Nandi Council of Elders The Nandi Council of Elders (Kaburwo) has 30 members and six branches. A remarkable feature of the Nandi elders is that two of them are women. RWPL realized that no meaningful inroads would be made in addressing GBV without involving them, since they are the custodians of the local culture and a voice of authority. The elders indicated that they accepted working with PIK because the activity’s ideas resonated. “Without peace, there is no development and justice. And without justice, there is no peace,” one elder said. The first activity was to address the many reported male suicides in the county. PIK facilitated the elders to engage young men in discussions that revealed that males were losing face due to their inability to provide for their families; this was one explanation for the increase in domestic strife and suicide. The elders used chiefs’ meetings to advise the youth on the avoidance of violence. They also made a collective decision to stop arbitrating on GBV after being sensitized by PIK that this is a criminal matter best dealt with by the courts. The elders pointed out the following factors that constrained their effectiveness: low recognition by the educated elite; lack of funds to cover the whole county; and loss of the traditional authority they had previously. The elders would have liked more frequent interactions with PIK to build a sustainable partnership, exchange visits with counterparts in other communities and more joint forums to show that men and women can work together. They were not incorporated in the county peace platforms and were not part of the national summit. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 30 of operation. In another community, they have instituted self-regulation, reporting errant colleagues and trying to phase out intractable ones. RWPL held bodaboda riding competitions and showed operators that involvement in GBV behavior hurt the reputation of their business. While working with them in Trans Nzoia was effective, they were not as cooperative in Nandi County. In Kisumu, they developed a roster showing the hours and locations where operators worked. The roster holds those at work responsible if a GBV case involving bodabodas occurs when they are on duty. Involvement of Marginalized Groups The evaluation team found no evidence that PIK involved marginalized groups such as persons with disabilities, faith minorities or others. Challenges of Male Involvement Although men were involved directly as beneficiaries in PIK, multiple sources31 noted that PIK was largely perceived as focused on women because men were not allocated small grants to carry out PIK activities, while women’s groups were. In Kisumu, the Nyabende coordinator reported that it was allocated minimal funds for male mobilization. That was a constraint for the bodaboda operators who did not receive compensation for their efforts or time and frequently had to leave training sessions to attend to clients. Male champions interviewed in Kisumu voiced resentment about the assumption that they were to do PIK’s work using their own resources. When they did not have such resources, the work stalled and GBV survivors ultimately lost out. The male champions in Kisumu also reported that they ended up housing survivors because of a lack of safe houses, a fact that exposed them as well as the survivors to threats and intimidation by perpetrators and their allies. GIs with male champions in both Kisumu and Uasin Gishu and KIIs with the sub-IPs in the same counties revealed that the male champions did not receive any training from PIK to do their work. They also faced attitudinal problems. For example, in Kisumu, male champions reported that men in some communities dismissed the GBV messages and accused them of overprotecting women. The male champions also reported that the police in Kisumu at times accused them of meddling in police work. Conclusions The inclusion of men and boys contributed to achieving PIK goals and objectives, even though PIK was generally perceived as “a women’s program,” especially because men were not allocated any resources to carry out their work, while women’s groups were funded. Targeting bodaboda operators effectively reached a category of men who are stereotyped as GBV perpetrators and who have potential to be meaningful allies in GBV prevention and response. PIK was not inclusive of marginalized groups as the intended activity design, resulting in a shortfall in meeting objectives. Work with the Council of Elders in Nandi illustrates the potential in using such traditional structures to promote peace and prevent and respond to GBV. The Nandi elders took a nontraditional, progressive approach by allowing two women to join the council. Question 4 To what extent were PIK’s approaches to strengthening local sub-partners’ capacities effective? This question focuses specifically on how effective PIK’s approaches were in enabling its partners to better carry out their work and potentially receive USAID/KEA funding directly in the future. The evaluation considered what capacity-building approaches strengthened and increased the possibilities for sustainability, highlighting the GBV-related activities that are continuing after the activity ended. This includes efforts with 31 According to interviews with three IPs, four GIs with a peace committee, CUCs, male champions and youth group and one KII. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 31 other associated local partners (e.g., county officials and local organizations). USAID/KEA will benefit from lessons learned and how these could inform future approaches to capacity building with diverse organizations, including those that engage county governments. Findings PIK carried out a pre-activity assessment to determine partners’ capacity needs. However, the report covered only four partners (SYWP, COVAW, HAK and RWPL). PIK’s capacity-building approaches included coaching on USAID guidelines, grants and financial management; reporting requirements; thematic training on GBV and peace; review of institutional systems; partner exchange information-sharing visits; and joint forums.32 Five of nine interviewed sub-IPs cited gaining capacity from the training of trainers on peace and GBV. RWPL and PeaceNet specifically cited gaining expertise on GBV, although PeaceNet expressed a desire for more training on methods of interfacing peace and GBV. All nine IPs interviewed confirmed that they were familiarized with USAID guidelines and grants management to enable them to apply USAID standards in managing and accounting for PIK funds. In addition, they said that PIK strengthened their ability to apply for direct funding from USAID and other donors.33 Eight sub-IPs indicated that they received training on reporting procedures; six were trained in updating their institutional procedure documents; four hired additional staff; seven were supported on program management; seven received office equipment; all nine had media training; eight cited linkages with county government structures; and seven reported participating in learning exchange visits with other partners. RWPL and SYWP reported being trained on internal controls and Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) Circular A 122: Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations.34 IRC noted in activity reports that RWPL staff received mentoring on recognizing signs of weak internal controls; measures to safeguard fraud; key aspects of cost principles under USAID funding (i.e., allowable, allocable and reasonable costs); and an overview on sampled treatment of some costs.35 The training on grants management was delivered through a three-day workshop, which also covered communication and branding; the project cycle; proposal writing; and project sustainability. Focus on proposal development was a deliberate attempt to strengthen the partners’ capacity and confidence in resource mobilization. 36 Executive Director Arthur Okwemba captured the value of capacity building for AWC: “We strive to implement without stress. Our strategy is to plan right, implement well, and report at the right time.” AWC considers a donor who is interested in systems to be the best donor. According to one IRC respondent, partners had weak structures that made it difficult to strengthen their capacities in a significant way. For example, high staff turnover prevented realization of training and capacity gains. In the view of the IRC respondent, the exercise ended up being “simplistic.” The discussion with the sub-IPs shifted to organizational sustainability, but that effort required time to realize benefits and PIK suffered from a shortage of time, especially during PIK 1. PIK 2, however, provided time to conduct more structured capacity building, but did not take advantage of the time available, according to USAID staff. Capacity building from IRC mainly focused on M&E, report writing and institutional systems, depending on what the pre-activity assessment noted. AWC carried out capacity building for sub-IPs on communication and media skills. All interviewed sub-partners reported gaining increased knowledge in a particular thematic area that they had not previously worked on. For example, PeaceNet learned about GBV prevention, which they had not previously been exposed to. Eight of the nine interviewed sub-IPs reported improved capacity 32 PIK Quarterly Progress Report, July 2013. 33 See also Annual Progress Performance Report, July 2012–September 2013, p. v. 34 Annual Progress Report, October 1, 2013–September 30, 2014, p. 21. 35 Annual Progress Report, October 1, 2014 – September 30, 2015 p. 18–19. 36 Annual Progress Report, January 1, 2015–March 31, 2015, p. 32. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 32 for financial and donor reporting. Five cited improved accounting skills and five indicated increased self￾monitoring and evaluation. The partners considered the exchange visits valuable learning experiences. SYWP visited RWPL and learned about peace building and domestic reconciliation. RWPL learned that GBV work is a long-term process with survivors and requires follow-up for sustainability. AWC, RWPL, SYWP and WEL attended an AWEP activity and appreciated learning about the value of economic empowerment for GBV survivors. Nyabende received a RAPADO delegation from Migori and learned about proper organizational structure. RAPADO learned about grassroots work. Exchange visits for women and men from Mombasa, Taita Taveta and Kwale counties mobilized clergy to take up GBV issues in churches and mosques. Table 2 summarizes the capacity needs assessments before the activity, interventions carried out, results and unmet needs reported by each sub-partner. TABLE 2: PIK IMPLEMENTING SUB-PARTNER CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT TRACKING Sub-Partner Pre-Activity Assessment Capacity Training Reported Improvements Unmet Needs African Women and Child Feature Service Not indicated. Advocacy; resource mobilization; M&E; financial management and reporting. Discipline in Finance Department; improved financial policies; timely and improved donor reporting. Not indicated. African Women’s Empowerment Program Not indicated. Reporting; documentation; accounting. Adopted USAID system as standard practice; developed procurement and financial manuals; improved reporting; streamlined board and other meetings. Not indicated. Coalition on Violence Against Women Procurement manual; M&E; advocacy & communication; resource mobilization strategy. Resource mobilization & utilization. Improved reporting. Not indicated. Federation of Kenya Women Lawyers Not indicated. Not indicated. Not indicated. Not indicated. Healthcare Assistance Kenya Financial accountability; board structure; governance manual; strategic plan; financial, human resources and procurement manuals; M&E; advocacy and communication; resource mobilization strategy. Financial management; communication strategies; roles of the board; training of tele-counselors. Prudent financial management; professional reporting; effective communication; continued linkage with PIK partners; clarity on board roles; strategic plan and communication strategy. Not indicated. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 33 Sub-Partner Pre-Activity Assessment Capacity Training Reported Improvements Unmet Needs Nyabende Support Program Not indicated. Introduction to county government; briefing on financial management; coaching on record keeping; office equipment (printer, copier, camera, computer, filing cabinets). Stronger link with county government; wider geographical coverage; stronger financial oversight; improved recordkeeping; improved reporting; stronger reputation & public profile; greater exposure to GBV work. Established secretariat and staff; administration; safe house for survivors; documentation of its work; motorbike for male champions. PeaceNet Not indicated. Performance evaluation and financial management. Improved financial reporting; updated financial policies. How to better interface peace and GBV; proposal writing. Rural Women’s Peace Link Financial, audit, human resources and procurement manuals; M&E; advocacy and communication; resource mobilization strategy. Proposal writing; financial management; accounting; report writing. Reporting; orderly returns; better proposals; legitimacy with county government; added expertise on GBV; wider geographical coverage. Not indicated. Sauti Ya Wanawake Program Financial, human resources and procurement manuals; M&E; advocacy and communication; board elections. Finance; reporting; board elected and inducted; M&E; communication strategy; interaction with county officials; information on county grants for women in business. Communication strategy; enhanced relationship with communities; efficient reporting, accounting and procurement systems; improved leadership capacity. Not indicated. Women’s Empowerment Link Not indicated. On-the-job support. Updated finance manuals; improved reporting. Support with strategic planning. Four of the sub-IPs interviewed reported having unmet capacity needs. Under PIK, HAK occupied a well￾established office. When PIK ended, it could no longer pay rent and had to relocate to its earlier base of operation in a private residence. HAK was not assisted to strengthen capacity to mobilize resources, even though the assessment report by IRC captured that need. Nyabende reported that it was promised proper institutional training on recordkeeping and financial management, but that did not occur. It also expected assistance in developing a strategic plan and strengthening administration. WEL hoped for assistance with a strategic planning process that was going on during PIK, but did not receive it. Finally, PeaceNet reported that it would have benefited from mentoring on the interface between peace and GBV. Conclusions Coaching on USAID guidelines and grant management were the most effective aspect of capacity building. AWEP adopted them as standard institutional practices and expanded the organization. AWC and RWPL used those skills to apply for other donor funding, with some success. HAK and AWEP have applied the skills learned, but have not received funding.37 37 As of May 2016. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 34 Orientation on GBV and peace work through the training of trainers, joint forums and exchange visits increased partners’ capacities to work on thematic areas they had not worked on previously. The capacity assessment report by IRC was not comprehensive. It captured needs only in generic terms and did not cover all implementing partners. In conclusion, the prime did not prioritize capacity building, as the design intended. The focus of capacity building provided to sub-partners by IRC was primarily related to financial accountability for grants and PIK expenditures by sub-IPs. In the case of sub-partners who were relatively new and less established, they needed more capacity building and follow-up by the prime to ensure their survival. As a result, partners that especially needed capacity enhancement, such as HAK, did not become structurally stronger as a result of PIK’s support. Question 5 What changes (positive and negative) has PIK produced in the communities where the activity took place? Findings The analysis that follows highlights lessons learned that have addressed how PIK was able to bring together GBV prevention and peace actors, and what contribution PIK made toward conflict mitigation and peace￾building practices in Kenya, such as raising the profile of GBV as part of early warning and early response. It examines both the positive and negative elements that surfaced from data gathered for this evaluation. PIK raised awareness of GBV issues and brought about an increased utilization of GBV services. GBV awareness raising had an impact on increased utilization of GBV services, according to six of the nine sub￾implementing partners. Based on their work in the communities, these sub-IPs also noted their opinions that more people are aware of GBV because of PIK. All nine sub-implementing partners agreed that GBV awareness increased in communities where PIK operated. Background documents38 reference the increased GBV awareness across Kenya in communities as a result of special events supported by PIK, such as celebrating 16 Days of Activism against GBV and public awareness forums. Mass media campaigns with radio and print media publicized numerous messages about peace and GBV prevention. PIK reported39 that it reached more than 40,000 people with peace and GBV prevention messages. An element of that effort used a cascaded training approach.40 The objective was to sensitize communities on their role in GBV prevention and identify reporting channels to ensure the appropriate treatment of reported GBV cases. Prior to the elections, those informational sessions focused on conflict early warning signs and information about what the communities could do to forestall conflict. Community volunteers helped facilitate the training.41 PIK worked with existing women’s groups and expanded established stakeholder networks in communities, which became a key component in its success. IRC and USAID respondents noted that PIK’s achievements can be partly attributed to identifying and working with established women’s groups, women-run CBOs and partners, along with the formation of new stakeholder networks. PIK built on the connection that the established networks, particularly the women’s groups, already had in the communities. PIK 1 engaged women’s NGOs such as FIDA, RWPL and SYWP, which were able to expand on existing networks. AWEP 38 Quarterly Progress Report, July 2014, p. 5. 39 Quarterly Progress Report, January 2015, p. 11, 13, 14. 40 Activity Report, July 2012–September 2013. 41 Annual Report, July 2012–September 2013. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 35 and RWPL conducted trainings with grassroots women’s groups in Nandi and Nairobi to highlight challenges in handling GBV cases.42 PIK Target of Opportunity Grants43 to WEL made a difference in the positive outcome of the passage of the PADV44 bill, which will have long-lasting benefits to stem domestic violence. WEL used the grants effectively to lobby male parliamentarians to support passage of the PADV bill, which had been stalled for nearly 50 years. PIK played a role in influencing county officials to change their views about GBV through training and outreach by the sub-IPs. Thirty-nine percent of respondents held the view that PIK had brought a higher level of GBV awareness to county governments, but they noted that county governments’ progress toward addressing GBV was long and slow. County offices took measures to address GBV, but the response was sporadic among the counties where PIK operated. AWEP’s director described how her organization selected and trained 30 GBV survivor women to start and manage their own small businesses. The director noted that the lives of the women have drastically changed for the better. Eight of the beneficiaries explained how they learned to start and manage their businesses. The director remarked that the women have realized success in their businesses and thus are able to live in improved housing, have sufficient food and send their children to school. One of the beneficiaries said she recruited and trained 30 women to start their businesses. Male Involvement in GBV Prevention and Response Men became involved in GBV prevention and response in communities where PIK was implemented. In particular, men’s contributions were apparent in the engagement of male parliamentarians toward passage of the PADV bill. Male activists at the community level added impetus to the GBV prevention and response. However, PIK focused primarily on women and did not direct enough attention to men as GBV survivors or their role in GBV prevention. Men were left out of activities such as qualifying for small grants, causing them to be less willing to work for GBV prevention. Peaceful 2013 Elections Findings from interviews with IRC, USAID and four of nine sub-IPs believed that PIK played a role in maintaining peaceful elections in 2013. Attributing PIK with specific results toward peace in the 2012–2013 election period is not possible; however, the combination of peace messages and GBV prevention was unique and drew attention to the relationship between conflict and GBV, according to PeaceNet, CUCs in Uasin Gishu and IRC. Conclusions PIK raised awareness of GBV issues at the community level through forums, trainings and mass information campaigns, which contributed to an increased utilization of GBV services. Early identification of sub-IPs with specific expertise in gender and peace building, as well as experience in the target areas, was key to the approach’s successful implementation. PIK strengthened networks that contributed to prevention and mitigation of violence in the 2013 general election. 42 Quarterly Progress Report April 2015 43 Targets of opportunity were short-term activities that contributed to the objectives of the project and provided opportunities to work with additional strategic partners and stakeholders in activities and projects that offered quick gains in meeting the objectives of the project. 44 The PADV bill successfully passed the Kenya National Assembly on March 24, 2015, and was assented to on May 13, 2015. IRC, USAID and two of the implementing partners agreed that PIK played a key role in its passage by supporting advocacy efforts by WEL through Targets of Opportunity grants. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 36 The engagement of women’s groups was valuable because they enabled PIK to penetrate the grassroots easily. PIK worked with women who were already known in the communities and had a standing, which proved to be an effective approach, as did working with local sub-IPs. The PADV passed, in part because of PIK advocacy, and is now law. PADV will provide a legal basis for survivors to demand services such as counseling. More work is needed to follow up on the passage, including developing guidelines to teach the public and law enforcement how to interpret and apply PADV. Guidelines would give police the information they need to enforce the provisions and protect women and men. The evaluation concludes that PIK did not meet one of its objectives to adequately strengthen intra-county engagement in preventing and responding to GBV.45 The evaluation team found significant variation in the level of interest and commitment to GBV issues from county to county. Activities across multiple counties need to assess each jurisdiction’s receptivity to GBV prevention. The same level of effort will not yield the same results in all counties. PIK contributed to GBV initiatives that had already started in specific counties (Kisumu and Uasin Gishu), but did not adequately engage in other counties to bring about significant change. Lesson Learned Importance of Economic Empowerment for GBV Survivors. AWEP showed that GBV survivors with no experience or training could be mentored to become entrepreneurs and achieved the economic independence that not only enabled them to support themselves and their families, but also reduced their vulnerability to GBV. PIK supported AWEP to train 30 women to start and manage their own small businesses. The women have realized success in their businesses and therefore were able to acquire improved housing, have sufficient food and send their children to school. One of the beneficiaries recruited and trained 30 other women to start their businesses. Her example demonstrates the beneficial multiplier effect of learning networking skills along with business skills. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the PIK experience, USAID should consider the following recommendations for strengthening future GBV and peace programming. 1. Future USAID peace activities should build on PIK 1’s successes and include GBV prevention. Initiate interventions as early as possible in pre-election periods to maximize potential success. 2. When identifying and selecting implementing partners, USAID should base the key selection criteria on thematic expertise and established local networks. This approach facilitates smoother entry into communities and effective implementation. 3. Future similar activities should incorporate aspects of strengthening intra-county engagement on GBV issues and responses. Specific areas of weakness that need assistance include gender budgeting, commitments to establish rescue shelters for GBV survivors and a heightened level of commitment from county representatives — women in particular — for their support on gender issues. 4. USAID should use GBV audit reports developed under PIK as baselines to assess changes required in county-level work on GBV prevention and response. Their findings should be shared with national institutions such as the National Gender Equality Commission (NGEC), the Directorate of Gender and other IPs to inform reporting and policy. 5. Future election-related programming should consider using the existing WTS radio dramas. To 45 See Modification #3 to AID-623-A-12-00024 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 37 expand coverage, replicate the key messages in forms such as posters, stickers, and fliers. Future multi-partner GBV programming using media should again use a specialized media agency to take advantage of journalists trained under PIK for GBV reporting. Develop partnerships for GBV reporting with schools of journalism and umbrella media organizations such as the Media Council and Editors’ Guild. 6. To increase sustainability, USAID should share and anchor the PIK-developed training manual and curriculum with institutions that conduct regular training on peace and GBV, such as the Kenya School of Government, the International Peace Support Training Centre, the Africa Leadership Centre and the Africa Centre for Transformative and Inclusive Leadership. Sustenance of Helpline 1195 should be considered 7. USAID should strengthen and standardize male involvement in GBV programming by training implementing partners on how to work with men to prevent and respond to GBV. Support this involvement with adequate resources and ensure that the activity design mandates identification and inclusion of marginalized groups. 8. GBV activities should identify and work with influential men from different sectors, as they command influential positions that have potential to determine policy and social practice. 9. Future GBV activities should identify and intensively utilize existing men’s organizations that engage in the prevention of and response to GBV. In Kenya, two prime examples are MenEngage and Men for Gender Equality (MEGEN). Also, take advantage of the African Women’s Development and Communication Network (Femnet). 10. USAID should hold implementing partners accountable for their responsibility to conduct and transform their partners through capacity building. 11. USAID should assist and hold its implementing partners responsible to develop and, through effective collaboration and communication measures, execute robust exit strategies as part of their implementation and M&E. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 38 ANNEX 1. EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK 1. BACKGROUND 1. Background Information 1.1 Identifying Information 1) Program: Democracy, Governance and Conflict Office 2) Project: Peace Initiative Kenya (PIK) 3) Award Number: AID-A-12-00002 4) Award Dates: 2012 to 2015 5) Period to be Evaluated: 2012 to 2015 6) Funding: $5,142,121 7) Implementing Organization: International Rescue Committee (IRC) 8) Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR): Betty Mugo 1.2 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT 1.2.1 Problem or Opportunity Addressed Gender-based Violence (GBV) is a human rights violation, developmental concern and a public health problem. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), GBV is “any harmful act that is perpetrated against a person’s will, and that is based on socially ascribed (gender) differences between males and females.’’46 “Gender-based violence includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, the threat of such acts, and coercion and other deprivations of liberty.’’47 The different forms of GBV include physical, sexual, emotional (psychological), and economic violence, and harmful traditional practices (such as female genital mutilation (FGM)). Children are particularly vulnerable to violence, especially sexual abuse. According to a United Nations (UN) report (2006), an estimated ‘’150 million girls and 73 million boys experienced sexual abuse before attainment of 15 years of age.’’48 In Africa, as in other regions, gender-based violence perpetrated against women is an extremely complex issue resulting from traditional gender norms that support male superiority and entitlement, social norms that tolerate or justify violence against women, weak community sanctions against perpetrators, poverty, high crime levels, conflict, etc. Studies done in some African countries indicate significant GBV prevalence rates from intimate partners. Examples include: Ethiopia 71 percent (WHO 2002); Kenya 38 percent for women and 20 percent men (KDHS 2014); Malawi 28 percent (DHS 2004); Mozambique 40 percent (IVAWS 2004); Rwanda 34 percent (DHS 2005); Uganda 59 percent (DHS 2006); Tanzania 41 percent in urban areas, 56 percent in rural areas (WHO 2002); Zambia 50 percent (DHS 2007); and Zimbabwe 38 percent (DHS 2006). These figures affirm that throughout Africa, GBV is a serious problem that needs concerted mitigation efforts. Mozambique 40 percent (IVAWS 2004); Rwanda 34 percent (DHS 2005); Uganda 59 percent (DHS 2006); Tanzania 41 percent in urban areas, 56 percent in rural areas (WHO 2002); Zambia 50 percent 46 National Gender and Equality Commission (2014) National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework towards the Prevention of and Response to Sexual and Gender Based Violence in Kenya, Page 11. 47 Ibid 48 United Nations General Assembly (2006). Report of the Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence against Children. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 39 (DHS 2007); and Zimbabwe 38 percent (DHS 2006). These figures affirm that throughout Africa, GBV is a serious problem that needs concerted mitigation efforts. In Kenya, GBV is a widespread and on-going phenomenon. It is estimated that every day, women from all social and ethnic groups are physically and sexually abused and raped. Survivors are traumatized and their status is undermined within the community. Studies done by various research institutions and organizations attest to the on-going prevalence of GBV in Kenya. For instance, the 2004 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS) demonstrated that at least half of all Kenyan women have experienced violence beginning at the age of 15. The 2008-09 KDHS also showed that almost half (45 percent) of women ages 15-49 have experienced either physical or sexual violence.49 The related Violence against Children Study, undertaken in Kenya in 2010, corroborates the KDHS findings.50 Similar statistics were also revealed in the 2014 KDHS, which established that 38 percent of ever-married women age 15-49 have experienced physical violence committed by their husband/partner.51 While women‘s vulnerability to sexual violence is well known, that of men is a new finding. According to the study conducted by Violence Against Children (2010) as documented by National Gender Equality Commission (NGEC) publication of 201452 established that nearly one in three females and one in five males experience at least one episode of sexual violence before reaching 18 years of age, an experience that can shape their future in terms of their attitudes towards violence, their adoption of risky behaviors and their emotional health.53 Likewise the 2014 KDHS revealed that nine percent of ever-married men age 15-49 have experienced physical violence committed by their wife/partner. Another 2015 study by The National Crimes Research Center referenced by Peace Initiative Kenya Annual report 2015 indicates that “significant proportions of women (15.2 percent) and men (7.4 percent) have experienced sexual violence.’’54 Although these studies confirm existing GBV trends in Kenya, there is limited reporting to authorities, as survivors often face many challenges in trying to bring the perpetrators to justice. Many victims are intimidated by cultural attitudes and state inaction while seeking redress.55 A 2015 report by the National Crimes Research Center indicated that GBV reporting was low. Only 15.2 percent of female and 16.7 percent of male respondents who had ever been sexually violated said that they had reported or had someone else report to the police or provincial administration the act of sexual violence. Moreover, reporting is not encouraged by health facilities. This is evident in that the same study showed that only 10.3 percent of women and 6.8 percent of men reported to have ever been asked at a health facility whether they had experienced any GBV. Again in comparison with KDHS, a national study, the cases reported here are well below the national GBV prevalence rates, which is 38 percent for women and 20.9 percent for men. Another 2007 report by Kenya Police Crime Statistics revealed that there were only 876 cases of rape, 1,984 cases of defilement, 181 cases of incest, 198 cases of sodomy, 191 cases of indecent assault and 173 cases of abduction reported. Whereas it may be easy to report the number of cases of those suffering from GBV, the psychological impact is undoubtedly indeterminable. Likewise the report by the Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence (CIPEV) (2008)56 noted that approximately 80 percent of GBV survivors treated at the Nairobi Women’s Hospital suffered from rape and defilement, 10 percent from domestic violence with the remaining 10 percent from other types of physical and sexual assault. These figures reflect low reporting because they are only from one center (Nairobi Women’s Hospital), 49 Kenya National bureau of Statistics (CBS 2004b, Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2008-09. 50 Republic of Kenya (2012), Violence against Children in Kenya – UNICEF, Nairobi, Kenya. 51 Kenya National bureau of Statistics (CBS 2004b, Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 20013-14. 52 Republic of Kenya (2012), Violence against Children in Kenya – UNICEF, Nairobi, Kenya. 53 National Gender and Equality Commission (2014) National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework towards the Prevention of and Response to Sexual and Gender Based Violence in Kenya, pg. 11. 54 Republic of Kenya (2012). Violence against Children in Kenya – UNICEF, Nairobi, Kenya. 55 Status of Gender Desks in Police Stations (2009), Institute of Economic Affairs. Peace Initiative Kenya, 2015Annual Report, pg. 1. 56 Republic of Kenya (2008). Commission of Inquiry into Post Election Violence Final Report. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 40 not country-wide or even from all the conflict zones, which were heavily affected during the 2008 post￾election violence. Kenya is a signatory to a wide spectrum of international and regional instruments, conventions and declarations that recognize GBV as a “form of discrimination and violation of human rights.”57 Examples of these instruments and conventions include: the (CEDAW,1979), which requires countries to prevent and respond to GBV; the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990), which requires all state parties to “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child”; the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993), which was the first international human rights instrument to deal exclusively with gender-based violence; The Rome Statute (1998), which classifies rape and other forms of sexual violence as crimes against humanity. As a result of its signatory status on all these instruments and conventions, the Government of Kenya (GOK) is legally obligated to address GBV. To combat GBV, the GOK has established mechanisms to prevent and respond to GBV. Premised on the national commitment to uphold and protect human rights and gender equality the GOK has developed a wide range of policies and legal instruments that focus on reducing the occurrence of GBV and mitigating its consequences. Preventive policies include: the Kenya constitution 2010; Kenya Adolescent Reproductive Health Policy (2003); the National Gender and Development Policy (2000);58 Prevention and Response to school related gender-based violence – Education Gender Policy (2007);59 Multi￾sectoral Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Prevention and Response to GBV (2013); and Vision 2030 Second Medium Term Plan (2013-17), which emphasizes the establishment of integrated one-stop sexual and gender-based violence response centers in all healthcare facilities in Kenya.60 To address this problem the government has put in place response polices including the Policy Framework for the Implementation of Post-rape Care Services (2005). Despite the existing data regarding GBV prevalence and reporting as well as the numerous prevention and mitigation mechanisms the GOK has put in place, there still exist challenges to fully addressing GBV in Kenya. This is due to underlying infrastructural limitations, local cultural practices, and inadequate service delivery systems. It is against this background that USAID/KEA has provided resources to militate against GBV. The USAID/KEA Mission), through a variety of implementing partners (IPs) (GOK, international non￾governmental organizations [INGOs], non-governmental organizations [NGOs] and community based organizations [CBOs]), has intervened through its programming to create awareness, prevent GBV and provide services to survivors – mainly in identifying risk factors and building service providers’ capacities to support survivors. IPs have employed different approaches to ensure that the prevalence of gender￾based violence in Kenya is reduced and the survivors receive adequate support and needed legal redress. Peace Initiative Kenya (PIK) is one of USAID/KEA’s mechanisms for addressing GBV. In the past three years, PIK has implemented activities that targeted awareness raising, prevention, protection, and capacity building of GBV survivor service providers in 18 selected counties over two phases. In each county, PIK employed different designs and approaches and involved diverse stakeholder groups in an effort to combat GBV. 57 National Gender and Equality Commission (2014). National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework towards the Prevention of and Response to Sexual and Gender Based Violence in Kenya, pg. 12. 58 Republic of Kenya (2000) National Gender and Development Policy 59 Republic of Kenya (2007) Education Gender Policy. 60 Republic of Kenya (2013) Vision 2030 Second Medium Plan 2013-17 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 41 1.2.2 Target Areas and Groups PIK was a two-phased activity. Phase I covered 18 counties, while Phase II down-sized to nine counties namely: Kisumu, Kisii, Migori, Nandi, Uasin Gishu, Trans-Nzoia, Taita Taveta, Mombasa, Kwale and Nairobi’s informal settlements. These counties can be classified into the four regions of Nairobi, Rift Valley, Nyanza and Coast. The activity targeted a wide range of stakeholders including GBV CBOs, women’s groups, peace groups, community health volunteers, men’s groups, national and county government gender implementing agencies and commissions, journalists, GBV working groups, male champions, county women’s representatives, court users’ committees, police, religious leaders, etc. 1.3 GOAL USAID/KEA’s objective behind PIK was to contribute to GBV awareness creation, prevention and mitigation efforts in Kenya during the pre- and post-election period while laying the groundwork for more sustained efforts over the coming years. Through implementing partners they were to expand grassroots networks that have the capacity to create awareness, prevent and mitigate violence, in general, particularly in Kenya’s most conflicted zones. PIK was, therefore, to leverage the devolution transition process to establish and reinforce structures for social service delivery at the county level and direct specific financial resources towards GBV prevention and service provision. To achieve this, PIK focused on strengthening national, county and grassroots GBV networks. 1.3.1 Objectives According the PIK project description the activity’s objectives were as follows. Phase I (June 2012 –Sept 2013) had the following objectives and expected outcomes: 1. Develop a Peace Training Campaign targeting community youth, women leaders, teachers and community health volunteers at the village level. 2. Engage women’s groups and networks to help promote peace and GBV awareness and prevention. Achievement of these two objectives met delivery of the four following outcomes: 1. Community members and leaders use the tools they learned from the peace training curriculum to engage in peace dialogues within their daily work. 2. Highly visible mass media campaigns engaging communities about Peace Initiative Kenya. 3. Improved technical and organizational capacity of consortium partners as well as women’s groups and networks focused on GBV prevention and awareness creation. 4. Women’s organizations strengthened and have a shared vision for promoting peace. Building on this, Phase II (Oct 2013-Dec 2015) had two strategic objectives: 5. Increasing access and utilization of GBV service provision through community outreach and publicity. 6. Strengthen intra–county engagement in preventing and responding to GBV. 1.4 APPROACH AND IMPLEMENTATION While much has been accomplished with regards to GBV in Kenya (such as adoption of the 2010 Constitution, which clearly spells out guidelines for how to deal with GBV), there is great need to institutionalize GBV awareness creation, prevention and response approaches within the new government structures both at the national and county-level. Phase I dealt with creating awareness, preventing GBV and promoting peace around the election period with a focus on creating community and county networks to serve as both early-warning and early-response mechanisms and as community advocates on PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 42 the issue. Phase II worked towards improving national and county-level GBV service delivery systems and policy implementation frameworks. 1.5 EXISTING DATA AND MISSING INFORMATION 1.5.1 Existing Data o Activity Award o Activity description document o Activity modifications (1 and 3 modifications) o Annual work plans o Activity M&E Plans o Quarterly reports o Annual reports 1.5.2 Missing Information 1) Training Modules (e.g. peace curriculum, Start, Awareness, Support and Action Phases (SASA) etc.) 2) Summary booklet on legal and policy framework for GBV prevention and response 3) Quarterly report (Oct-Dec 2013) 4) Quarterly report (April-June 2015) 5) 16 Days of Activism report 6) County-level GBV action plans 7) Summary booklet on legal and policy framework 2. EVALUATION RATIONALE 2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE The evaluation will assist USAID Washington and Kenya in understanding how to improve programming on GBV, in general, and in Kenya, specifically. The evaluation will generate lessons learned from the two complementary phases of Peace Initiative Kenya interventions, which will facilitate USAID’s design of future USAID/KEA GBV programming. It will also generate important learning around GBV programming based on the results of the PIK activity that can be used to inform future stand-alone and integrated activities. The evaluation will inform mission management about how to strategically address GBV through multiple complementary approaches, particularly how GBV can be better integrated throughout the Mission’s portfolio. 2.2 AUDIENCE AND INTENDED USE The key audience for this evaluation include: the USAID/Kenya and East Africa office (USAID/KEA), the Strategic Planning and Analysis Office, the Democracy Governance, and Conflict (DGC) Office, and other technical teams. The evaluation will also seek to inform, more broadly, USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) and the Gender Development and Women’s Empowerment (GenDev) Office within the Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (E3). Furthermore, the USAID/Washington Democracy, Rights and Governance office may also be interested in the broader lessons learned from this evaluation. The evaluation will be useful to the PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 43 implementing partner International Rescue Committee (IRC) and their consortium partners. USAID/KEA will share the final report with implementing partners, relevant government agencies and other anti- GBV organizations. They anticipate this audience using the evaluation results to inform their future GBV planning and programs. Dissemination methods may include press releases, tailored reports, or workshops and should be planned in detail through an evaluation dissemination strategy created by USAID. 2.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. To what extent and in what ways were PIK’s distinctive designs relevant to and effective in achieving the activity’s overall goal and objectives? The question will specifically examine the consistency, relevance and effectiveness of the activity’s design against its stated objectives and also assess the extent to which the activity’s design continued to resonate into the post-election period. Answers to this question will highlight lessons for USAID/KEA to consider on; (i) sequencing and timing in programming, (ii) the revision to the geographic focus and the sub-grants under the two distinct phases, (iii) and on the efficacy and impact of election-related GBV programming. 2. How effective was PIK’s implementation at achieving its stated objectives? Overall, this question will examine the effectiveness of the main approaches (for example, Peace campaign through local groups / leaders and Support of GBV awareness and prevention activities) and partnerships developed to achieve the activity’s stated objectives. It will identify GBV programming approaches that work and do not work and the major factors facilitating or hindering the achievement of the activity’s objectives. For the approaches that do work well, recommendations related to this question will address how those approaches can be employed to integrate GBV into USAID programming In so doing, it will inform USAID/KEA which GBV networks (at community, county and national levels) have been strengthened or expanded, and if they have capacity to create awareness, prevent and mitigate GBV. As a result, responses to this question will highlight the most productive approaches for future GBV programming e.g. through networks/partnerships, including opportunities for USAID/KEA to enhance the effectiveness of GBV programming. 3. To what extent and in what ways were men and boys intended or unintended involvement evident in the implementation and/or results of PIK’s GBV approach? This question will examine whether and how men and boys were included (deliberately or not) in PIK’s approach relative to the intent of the activity’s design as well as the effect of their inclusion and how it was measured. It will also examine the extent to which PIK took advantage of emerging opportunities not only the inclusion of men and boys but also of marginalized groups (i.e. persons with disabilities and faith minorities). 4. To what extent were PIK’s approaches to strengthening local sub-partners’ capacities effective? The answer to this question will focus specifically on how effective PIK’s approaches were in enabling its’ partners to better carryout their work and potentially receive USAID/KEA funding directly in the future. The evaluation will consider what capacity building approaches were utilized in strengthening and increasing the possibilities for sustainability highlighting the GBV related activities that will continue after the activity terminates. This will include efforts with other associated local partners e.g. county officials and local organizations. USAID/KEA will benefit from lessons learned and how these could inform future approaches to capacity building with diverse organizations, including those engaging county governments. 5. What have been the changes (positive and negative) produced by PIK in the communities where the activity took place? The answers to this question will consider all relevant contexts including, but not limited to the local, national, social, economic, political, and environmental influences. In addition, it will examine what difference PIK has made to its diverse stakeholders and beneficiaries. In PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 44 doing so, it will identify what has happened as a result of PIK, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended Consequently, the evaluation will highlight lessons learned that have addressed (i) how PIK was able to bring together GBV and peace actors, (ii) what contribution PIK made towards conflict mitigation and peace-building practice in Kenya, such as raising the profile of GBV as part of early warning and early response. 3. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 EVALUATION DESIGN This will be an end-line performance evaluation aimed at understanding lessons learned from the two complementary phases that will inform future USAID/KEA GBV programming. 3.1.1 Selection of Counties PIK was a two-phased Activity. Phase I covered 18 counties, while Phase II narrowed to nine counties. In total 13 sub-partners were given sub-grants to implement PIK interventions. In Phase II five partners from Phase I continued their involvement in the activity and four new partners were added. County selection was guided by the following four criteria: i. Selection focused on counties that were involved in both Phases I and II. ii. Geographical coverage was considered so that the selected counties reflect, to the extent possible, the diversity of locales where PIK operated. iii. Counties were classified into three categories based on the PIK team’s assessment of their relative performance. Category one includes counties that the PIK team felt had done well, category two includes those counties perceived to be in the “middle” and those that picked up towards the end of project, and category three includes those that faced various implementation challenges. Counties were selected for each of these categories. iv. Counties were selected to reflect the different numbers of implementing partners involved – one, two or three. Given the selection criteria which was guided by those involved in both phases (i), the need for geographic spread across the four regions (ii), the implementing partner own categorization (iii) and endeavoring to maximize partner synergy (iv), four counties were selected, namely, Kisumu, Nairobi, Kwale and Uasin Gishu. The evaluation will be further enriched as two counties of the counties selected faced various implementation challenges. TABLE 1: COUNTY SELECTION County Partners Total Phases Category Migori Coalition of Violence against Women (COVAW),PEACENET, Rural Aids Prevention and Development Organization (RAPADO) 3 I&II 1 Kisumu Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA)-K,COVAW, Nyabende 3 I&II 1 Nandi Rural Women Peace Link (RWPL) 1 I&II 1 Taita Taveta Sauti Ya Wanawake Pwani (SYW) 1 I&II 1 Kisii COVAW,PEACENET, Amjutine 3 I&II 2 Trans Nzoia RWPL 1 I&II 2 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 45 County Partners Total Phases Category Nairobi FIDA, The African Women’s Entrepreneurship Program (AWEP), Well Told Stories, Women Empowerment Link, PEACENET and Anti-FGM Board 2 I&II 2 Mombasa SYW, FIDA 2 I&II 2 Uasin Gishu RWPL 1 I&II 3 Kwale SYW 1 I&II 3 Nakuru PEACENET 1 I Narok PEACENET 1 I Kajiado PEACENET, COVAW 1 I Bomet PEACENET 1 I Lamu SYW 1 I Tana River SYW 1 I Kilifi SYW 1 I Bungoma RWPL 1 I 3.1.2 Sample Selection of Stakeholders Stakeholder sampling for key informant (KI) and group interviews (GI) will purposefully target relevant respondents, beneficiaries and survivors who have valuable information on the activity or who played a key role in design and/or implementation. 3.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS 3.2.1 Data Collection Methods Evaluation data will be gathered from both primary and secondary sources. The evaluation team is expected to review and refine the methodology as part of the work plan development. The evaluation design will use a mix of data collection and analysis methods to generate answers. Following a summary of each of the data collection and analysis methods to be used, Table 2, below, summarizes how each of the five evaluation questions will be answered (also see the Getting to Answers Table in Annex III) Desk Review The evaluation team will review documentation provided by USAID/KEA and PIK on the activity. They will use online resources and other reports relevant to activity efforts. Secondary data sources will be mainly from activity implementation documents such as the activity award, activity description, work plans, monitoring and evaluation (M & E) plans, periodic progress reports and training modules. Other secondary sources will include activity output products such as county-level GBV action plans, baseline mapping of GBV services in activity areas, the report on the 16 days of activism, peace summit reports at the regional and national level, summary booklet on the legal and policy framework for GBV prevention and response, and helpline (1195) report. The product of the team’s document review will be an organized presentation of information found in relation to each of the evaluation questions. The evaluation team will present initial findings to Kenya Support Project (KSP) internally as part of the Team Planning Meeting (TPM) (Section 4) at the beginning of the evaluation. Key secondary documents are summarized here: o Activity Award and Modifications o Activity description document o Annual work plans (Phase I and II) o Activity M&E Plans (Phase I and II) o Quarterly reports PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 46 o Annual reports o Training Modules o 16 Days of Activism report o County-level GBV action plans Key Informant Interviews Key informants, in this case, are people who are knowledgeable about the PIK activity in their specific areas of involvement. The sampled participants will provide information on their experiences with and perceptions of the various activity components addressed in the evaluation. These stakeholders are, therefore, relevant to providing information that will guide the evaluation in term of PIK’s processes and outcomes. The evaluation team will identify key informants based on the document review, key contacts provided by USAID/KEA and information received from PIK. These will include, but not be limited to: Ministry of Devolution & Planning (MoDP) Gender Directorate, National Gender Equality Commission, National Steering Committee, USAID/KEA staff, PIK and sub-partner staff, Police, Gender and Youth Officer, National Gender Working Group, and GBV service providers. Key informant interviews (KIIs) with the implementing partners’ staff will target the activity senior management teams, including the Chief of Parties and/or managers and the staff responsible for key activity components. KIIs will be conducted using a semi-structured interview tool that will be developed as part of the TPM. Group Interviews Group interviews are planned with the following stakeholder groups: GBV survivors (both men and women), Kenya Women Parliamentarian Association (KEWOPA), Anti-FGM Board, women’s groups’ representatives, male champions, County Peace Committees and County Executives in each of the five selected counties. Sampling for the group interviews will also be purposive, only targeting the institutions and individuals who have valuable information on the activity or who played a key role in activity design and/or implementation. Table 2, below, provides an illustrative list of likely KII and GI respondents. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 47 TABLE 2: ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF KIIS AND GIS KIIs Group Interviews PIK Staff  Country Director PIK Staff  Chief of Party  M&E specialist  Project officer Group Interviews will be held with key staff or members of the following:  KEWOPA  GBV Survivors (men and women)  Anti-FGM board Key members of PIK GBV NGOs and CBOS  FIDA-K Chief Executive Officer  AWEP Manager  PEACENET- Manager  Well Told Stories (WTS)- Manager  The African Woman and Child Features (AWC)-Manager  HealthCare Assistance Kenya (HAK)- Manager  RWPL- Manager  Amjutine –Manager  COVAW-Manager  Women Empowerment Link – Manager  Anti FGM Board – Representative  PEACE-NET  County Executives  Male Champions  County Peace Committees  District Peace Committees Each interview will have between 5-7 participants. Other key stakeholder who provide services to survivors:  Police gender desk officer  County Director of Health  County Women Reps  Local GBV Women Groups Rep  Religious Leaders Key Members of National and County governments  Gender Directorate  Gender and Youth Officer..  National Steering Committee  Gender working Group  NGEC USAID relevant staff  Gender Specialist  DO1 team lead PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 48 3.2.2 Data Analysis Methods Some key aspects of the data analysis that the evaluation will use include the following. Content Analysis The team will document narrative responses at a sufficient level of detail to permit a systematic content analysis of these qualitative data. Narrative reviews of interviews and discussion responses are expected to provide an in-depth understanding of beneficiary and stakeholder experiences and perceptions. Qualitative data analysis begins with note writing. Each interview will be written up so that it can be shared among team members so that everyone has as complete a picture as possible of all the information obtained. In addition to note writing, the team will hold debriefings (in person and/or remotely) at the end of each data collection week during which they will begin to identify common themes that will be used later for coding the collected data during the formal data analysis process. The team will also use this coding process for the content analysis of all qualitative secondary sources with a focus on the issues most salient to the evaluation questions. This will be done first as part of the document review prior to the fieldwork to help identify missing information that can only come from primary data collection. Pattern Analysis From the content analysis, the team will examine interview and discussion notes for patterns to determine whether some responses received appear to be correlated with other factors, such as geography, respondent group, age, gender, etc. Preliminary primary data analysis will begin during the fieldwork so the team can be sure of capturing the information necessary to fully address the evaluation questions. Near the end of the data collection process, the team will conduct an open coding process to identify key themes that emerged in the interviews, beginning with the list of preliminary themes identified during the fieldwork. The evaluation team will then work in two sub-teams to analyze the data from a sub-set of all the interview notes, preferably those that they did not collect. Once the list of themes has been generated and the entire set of notes divided amongst the sub-teams, working independently to enhance researcher triangulation, each team member will then code the interview data collected by the other team. Once the sub-team members have completed their individual coding, they will compare their coding and agree on how to deal with any differences in perspective. Through this process, the entire team will develop a solid common understanding of the various perspectives that emerged among different stakeholders, which will help ensure that the evaluation findings do not rest on the perspectives of one or two people. Comparative Analysis Results from the pattern analysis based on the document review, interview and discussion notes that have emerged will be compared across data type or sources. This approach facilitates both within case (each stakeholder group and secondary data source) and between case comparisons. In this way key pieces of evidence from the various interviews and documents are compared and triangulated to identify the main evaluation findings that respond to the evaluation questions. TABLE 3: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FOR THE FIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONS Evaluation Question 1. To what extent and in what ways were PIK’s distinctive designs relevant to and effective in achieving the activity’s overall goal and objectives? Data Collectio Secondary Data Group Interviews (GI) Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 49 n Methods X X X Secondary data from activity routine data collection and reports will yield information on whether PIK’s two-phased design remained significant and supportive in achieving stated goals and objectives. This data was selected as a source because it is available, relevant, and representative of the activity and provides key information on the activity’s accomplishments. These secondary data sources documenting the interventions and results achieved in support of GBV awareness creation, prevention and response will demonstrate the extent to which the designs continued to be relevant and effective within and beyond the election period. The documented data will also guide development of interview tools aimed at evaluating the processes through which the activity outputs and outcomes were achieved as an indicator of maintaining relevance and effectiveness. To the extent possible within the limits of time and availability, the team will also review other reports about GBV relevant to PIK’s work. This will provide an additional window on the extent to which PIK has maintained its relevance from an “outsider” perspective, which will balance PIK’s own reporting and others’ perspectives. KIIs will be conducted with key stakeholders including USAID/KEA staff, PIK staff, GBV NGO and CBO staff, Gender Directorate, GBV service providers, NGEC, National Steering Committee leadership, Gender and Youth Officers, etc. All these stakeholders will have relevant information and insights on how PIK’s designs enabled achievement of the activity’s overall goal and objectives over the course of its two phases. KIIs with the key members of the Gender Directorate, NGEC, Gender and Youth Officers, and National Steering Committee leadership will provide valuable information on how the designs enhanced the government gender framework, policies, guidelines, systems and resource allocation so as to assess PIK’s relevance and contribution to the wider issue of GBV in Kenya. KIIs with GBV service providers (police, County Director of Health, etc.) and religious leaders will provide information as to how PIK’s activity designs benefited the GBV survivors who interacted or sought assistance from them. They will be asked about how PIK supported their work during the pre- and post-elections periods. Both USAID/KEA and PIK had the initial concept of what the activity intended to achieve through awareness creation, prevention and response to GBV. Both, but especially PIK and its sub-partners, were also involved in implementation and regularly monitoring the activity’s performance. They are, therefore, critical informants about the activity’s accomplishments including any deviations in the designs that supported or hindered achievement of overall goals and objectives. GI with county peace committee will reveal deeper insight into their knowledge and perceptions of how PIK’s distinctive design supported conflicting communities prepare for non-violent environment in 2013 general elections, and how those former conflicting communities responded to PIK’s interventions of creating a peaceful electioneering atmosphere. Data Analysis Methods Content Analysis Pattern Analysis X X PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 50 Qualitative data analysis begins with note writing. Each interview will be written up so that it can be shared among team members so that everyone has as complete a picture as possible of all the information obtained by the team. This is important as the evaluation team will work in two separate sub-teams while collecting data. In other words, two team members will be present at each interview so that two interviews can be conducted concurrently. In addition, to note writing, the sub- teams will hold debriefings at the end of each data collection day during which they will begin to identify common themes that will be used later for coding the collected data during the formal data analysis process. The entire team will meet to debrief in person or remotely on a weekly basis. After the data collection is completed, beginning with the list of themes compiled during the fieldwork, the team will conduct an open coding process to identify key themes and issues that emerged in the interviews. Once the list of themes has been generated, working independently to enhance researcher triangulation, each sub-team will then code the interviews collected by the other sub-team. This process entails identifying what themes and issues emerged in each interview. Once both sub-team members have completed their independent coding, they will compare coding and come to consensus about how to deal with any differences in perspective. Through this processthe entire team will develop a solid understanding of the various perspectives that emerged among different stakeholder groups with respect to the extent to which PIK’s design maintained relevance throughout the life of the activity. Of particular importance is identifying the key themes and issues that emerged so as to ensure that the evaluation findings do not rest on the perspectives of one or two people. Nonetheless, divergent and unique perspectives will be investigated to assess whether or not they merit consideration in the analysis. If so, the team will specify why. Once the key themes and issues that emerged in the various sets of interviews and documents are identified, the team will then conduct a pattern analysis, where the perspectives both within and among the various stakeholder groups are compared, and used to map out the patterns that emerge. These data will also be compared with data from the content analysis based on the documents. In this analytical approach, each type of data is analyzed in parallel, and then across data types. Put another way, this approach facilitates both within case (each stakeholder group and secondary data source) and between case comparisons. In this way key pieces of evidence from the various interviews and documents are compared and triangulated to identify the main evaluation findings that respond to the question. Evaluation Question 2. How effective was PIK’s implementation at achieving its stated objectives? Data Collection Methods Secondary Data Group Interviews (GI) Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) X X X PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 51 Work, monitoring and evaluation plans and quarterly and annual reports will provide insight into the various approaches and partnerships PIK developed to achieve its results. Any changes in the approach and partnerships will be particularly important to understand, especially, why they were made and at what stage in the activity implementation period. This information is critical to understanding how PIK set out to achieve its results, which is fundamental to assessing which of the approaches facilitated PIK and which ones may not have been so helpful. These secondary data sources documenting how PIK reached out to peace-building initiatives and worked with partners to prevent and respond to GBV will also be helpful in guiding the development of interview tools aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of PIK’s implementation strategies. KIIs will be conducted with key stakeholders including USAID/KEA staff, PIK staff, GBV NGO and CBO staff, GBV service providers such as police, County Director of Health, Gender and Youth Officers, county women reps, etc. Sub-partner staffs working directly with PIK have had critical experiences as primary targets of its interventions. They will, therefore, also have relevant information and insights on the approaches used and the extent to which they worked and delivered results. These KIIs are also critical to understanding the extent to which survivors and other beneficiaries such as court users’ committees, religious leaders, etc. are satisfied with the PIK approaches and partnership model. Moreover, they can provide insight on the factors that may have contributed to the activity’s role in reducing election related GBV violence in 2013. These participants will also be asked about the strengths and weaknesses in PIK’s approaches and partnership model. Of particular interest will be the methods used in delivering activity interventions (e.g. design of training modules, choice of sub-partners, delivery mode, etc.). Likewise, these KIIs will be asked about how well PIK coordinated and interacted with sub-partners, national and county governments. Both USAID/KEA and PIK had the initial concept of what the activity intended to achieve as well as ideas about how best to accomplish its results. They also are, therefore, critical informants about the activity’s implementation process including any modifications to the initial design, challenges, achievements, successes, etc. KIIs with GBV service providers such as (police, County Director of Health), and county women’s representatives will provide first-hand information and experiences on how PIK’s interventions, such creating awareness and enhancing service delivery systems, made tangible changes in the way they did their work and/or interacted with GBV survivors. KIIs with Gender and Youth Officers will provide insights on how PIK’s approaches enhanced utilization of county GBV polices and frameworks. They will also be asked about the changes experienced within the county as relates to the functionality of the GBV sub-department, resource allocation and awareness creation, etc. that can be attributed to PIK. GIs with county executives will reveal deeper insight into their knowledge and perceptions about PIK and its choice of partnerships. As part of the beneficiaries, they will be asked about strengths and weaknesses of each approach and partnership model, and what lessons have emerged. County governments as a key stakeholders are also well positioned to provide insights on how PIK’s approaches and its sub-partners contributed to the reduction of election related GBV incidences in 2013 and how those approaches have helped county governments advance their commitment to reduce gender-based violence in general. Of importance also, they will be asked what factors facilitated the attainment of PIK results. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 52 GI with county peace committee will provide valuable insights into their knowledge and understanding of how PIK’s approaches were effective in achieving stated Activity objectives and results. They will also be asked of their opinion on the changes experienced among the conflicting communities that can be attributed to PIK and it is consortium partners. Of importance also will be which of the approaches facilitated sustainable results and outcomes. This information will be further triangulated against other interviews from survivors and county executives. GIs with survivors who regularly interact with sub-partners and service providers, including PIK staff will provide another set of perspectives on how PIK achieved its results. They will also be asked their opinion on the changes they have experienced in terms of knowledge about and access to GBV services and when changes in information and service availability occurred. These discussions will be triangulated against those of county executives and other KIIs. These “outsider” perspectives are critical for off-setting any bias. As with the KIIs, the GIs will yield rich textual data through which key trends and themes can be identified. This information will be triangulated with other sources, particularly the KII data to assess key points of convergence and divergence in perspective among the various participants. Data Analysis Methods Content Analysis Pattern Analysis Comparative Analysis X X X These KIIs and GIs will yield narrative content, which will provide in-depth insight to identify key trends and themes. The information generated through these interview data will be triangulated with other sources to arrive at the conclusions and recommendations addressing this evaluation question. Data analysis for this question will follow the same procedures of content and pattern analyses detailed above. In addition, using comparative analysis (for data source triangulation), data from the content analysis based on the document review and interviews patterns that emerge will be compared across data type or source. This approach will facilitate both within case (each stakeholder group and secondary data source) and between case comparisons. In this way key pieces of evidence from the various interviews and documents will be compared and triangulated to identify the main evaluation findings that respond to the question. Evaluation Question 3. To what extent and in what ways were men and boys intended or unintended involvement evident in the implementation and/or results of PIK’s GBV approach? Data Collectio n Methods Secondary Data Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) Group Interviews (GIs) X X X Work, M & E plans and quarterly and annual reports from the two phases will also provide insight into how PIK intended to include men and boys into its GBV approach and how apparent that involvement was. Of particular importance to answering this question, are the two activity design documents and modifications that outline the approaches PIK intended to use to achieve intended results. This information is critical to understanding how PIK evolved over the two phases and how effectively it involved men and boys and addressed their plight as regards GBV. The documents will also be critical to examining whether the development hypothesis was clearly defined to include men and boys as active participants. The team will also review these secondary data sources as a PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 53 guide to development of interview tools aimed at evaluating the extent to which not only men and boys, but also marginalized groups (persons with disabilities and faith minorities) were actively involved in PIK’s GBV approach and the demonstration of their involvement. KIIs will be conducted with key stakeholders including USAID/KEA staff, PIK staff, GBV NGO and CBO staff, Gender and Youth Officers, county women’s representatives, etc. USAID/KEA, PIK and sub- partner staffs who were involved in the activity are especially critical to answering this question because they can speak to how PIK’s development hypothesis, design and implementation included men and boys. In addition, these KIIs will provide information about any studies and analysesthat may have shaped the development hypothesis and ultimate activity designs. Finally, USAID/KEA, PIK and sub-partners will also provide insight about the extent to which and in what ways men and boys championed PIK’s GBV agenda and the effects of that under the changing political environments. KIIs with county women’s representatives and GIs with local GBV women’s group’s representatives and male champions will provide information about the extent which and in what ways men and boys were actually included in PIK. They will draw from their practical experiences and recall whether and how men and boys were involved and whether the inclusion was of sufficient level to cause change and/or effect. They will also be asked about their specific involvement, which will demonstrate their levels of participation in activity interventions. KIIs with the Gender and Youth Officers will provide insights on the new county GBV policies and how PIK leveraged that information. They will also be asked whether the involvement of men and boys was significant relative to the results PIK achieved. They will also be asked about emerging lessons on how best to involve men, boys and marginalized groups in future GBV programming. The KIIs will yield narrative content, which will provide in-depth insight to identify key trends and themes. The information generated through these KIIs will be triangulated with other sourcesto arrive at the conclusions and recommendations addressing this evaluation question. A GI with the Anti-FGM board will provide valuable insights into their knowledge and understanding of how PIK and its sub-partners engaged men and boys in the fight against GBV. The will also provide critical insights into the changes, if any, they saw or experience in selected counties where PIK implemented interventions, particularly in regards to men and boys’ involvement. GI with the county peace committee will also provide deep context into how PIK involved men, boys and marginalized groups, and what the results were. They will also be asked whether the interventions supported by PIK continued beyond the exit of the implementing partners. Of importance will also be the relationships and networks established by PIK to ensure inclusion of men, boys and marginalized entities in the fight of community conflicts and GBV. This “outsider” perspective is critical for off-setting any bias. Both the KIIs and the GIs will yield rich textual data through which key trends and themes can be identified. This information will be triangulated with other sources to assess key points of convergence and divergence regarding the involvement of men and boys in PIK. Data Analysis Methods Content Analysis Pattern Analysis Comparative Analysis PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 54 X X X Data analysis for this question will follow the same procedures detailed above. Analysis will particularly aim to identify the extent to which and how men and boys were included and involved in PIKs approach of rolling out peace initiatives, prevention and response to GBV and whether there exists sufficient evidence to demonstrate their active involvement as well asits effects. Evaluation Question 4. To what extent were PIK’s approaches to strengthening local sub-partners’ capacities effective? Data Collectio n Methods Secondary Data Key Informant Interviews Group Interviews (GIs) X X X Routinely collected monitoring data will yield critical information on the extent to which PIK’s approaches to strengthening local sub-partners’ capacities were effective. The evaluation team will assess the performance indicators used to measure activity delivery and actual results reported by sub-partners as a measure of improved GBV awareness creation, service delivery systems and policy implementation frameworks, particularly at the county level. The team will also asses the quality of products produced (e.g. booklet on legal and policy framework on GBV, training modules, GBV county action plans developed, etc.) and GBV structures established (e.g. active court users’ committee at the county level, procedures at the national and county level to support GBV prevention and response through NGEC, GBV data management systems, etc.) among other structures. In addition, quarterly and annual reports will be examined comparatively against relevant sub￾partners reports (e.g. training report, web records, radio listenership reports, etc.) to assess the extent to which capacities impacted by PIK were utilized to achieve activity goals and objectives and enabled PIK’s sub-partners to be more prepared for direct funding from USAID/KEA in future. The evaluation team will also assess, through documented literature, levels of sustainability beyond 2015. All these secondary source documents will be reviewed to guide development of interview tools aimed at evaluating PIKs’ approaches to strengthening local sub-partners’ capacities. KIIs and GIs (as appropriate) will be conducted with key stakeholders including USAID/KEA staff, PIK staff, GBV NGO and CBO staff, NGEC, National Steering Committee (NSC), GBV service providers, religious leaders, the Gender Working Group, Gender and Youth Officer, local GBV women’s group’s representatives, etc. USAID/KEA, PIK and sub-partners’ staff who were involved in the activity are also critical to answering this question because they can attest to how their capacities have been strengthened as a result of participating in the activity. They will be asked to demonstrate how the set-up of service delivery systems at the national and county level has changed as a result of PIK activity. They will also be asked to speak about sustainable transformation they have experienced, thus far. They will be asked to speak about whether they have new institutionalized practices, functions and/or roles acquired, which can be attributed to new capacities learned through PIK. Finally, they will be asked whether they are scaling up the trainings they received while working with PIK. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 55 KIIs with NGEC, NSC and the Gender and Youth Officer will provide valuable knowledge and perceptions about how PIK was able to support sub-partners to know and access government GBV polices and frameworks to facilitate awareness creation and publicize government services available to survivors. They will also be asked about the support they received and how it has helped improve their GBV service delivery. KIIs and GIs (as appropriate) with service providers, religious leaders and local GBV women groups’ representatives will provide first hand exposure to the effects of new learned knowledge, and how it may have reenergized and revitalized the way they handle and deal with GBV survivors. They will also be asked about changes experienced, thus far, especially regarding the GBV grassroots networks created through PIK. KIIs with the Gender Working Group leadership will equally provide another set of perspectives of how the skills imparted by PIK to sub-partners and government agencies have advanced the fight against GBV. They will be asked about their perspectives on how the PIK approaches facilitated outreach to the Kenyan population at large about GBV and impact of that on the sub-sector. Of importance will be the sustainability of those approaches beyond 2015. GIs with county peace committee will provide critical insights into how the capacity building approaches impacted by PIK and its sub partners contributed to a conflict free environment in Activity counties in the run-up to 2013 general elections. The will also be asked they changes they have seen and experienced within the earlier conflicting communities. Of interest will also be the activeness of the peace networks supported by PIK and it is consortium partners. GIs with the Anti-FGM Board will facilitate deeper insight into their knowledge and understanding of how PIK’s approaches to strengthening local sub-partners’ capacities have been effective. They will provide critical insights into how sub-partners have used these capacities to demonstrate change in GBV service delivery. They will also be asked about the strengths and weakness of each the applied and tested approaches. GIs with KEWOPA will provide critical insight into how the sub-partners have used their newly acquired skills to expand and create networks as well as collaborate with other GBV service providers. They will also be asked how they are making use of the grassroots networks created through PIK and what they think of the approaches the activity used to deliver results as well as the sustainability of these approaches. They will also be asked about the strengths and weakness of each of these applied and tested approaches. Finally GIs with survivors will provide critical insights on the awareness levels about GBV at the national, county and community levels. They will be asked about their new knowledge on prevention of and response to GBV. They will also be asked to demonstrate the benefits they have enjoyed during their interaction with sub-partners and PIK staff between 2013 and 2015. This information will be triangulated with other sources to assess key points of convergence and divergence in demonstrating strengthened capacities. These interviews will yield another set of narrative content, which will provide in-depth insight to identify key trends and themes. The information generated through these interviews will be triangulated with other sources to arrive at the conclusions and recommendations addressing this evaluation question. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 56 Data Analysis Methods Content Analysis Pattern Analysis Comparative Analysis (for data source triangulation) X X X Data analysis for this question will follow the same procedures detailed above. Analysis will particularly aim to establish the extent to which PIK’s implementation approaches strengthened the capacities of local sub-partners to intervene and promote peace initiatives, prevent and respond to GBV and the sustainability of these approaches beyond 2015. The analysis will also ascertain sub-partners’ preparedness to be eligible for direct funding from USAID/KEA. Evaluation Question 5. What have been the changes (positive and negative) produced by PIK in the communitieswhere the activity took place? Data Collectio n Methods Secondary Data Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) Group Interviews (GIs) X X X Data extracted from the activity work, M & E plans and quarterly and annual reports will be used to determine how PIK has been an agent of change within the communities where they worked. Of importance will be the success stories, quotes and narratives from survivors and service providers detailing their experiences and interactions with PIK. This data collection approach has been selected since it is mainly through the activity databases and reports that changes are documented. It is also the activity documents that provide details on how the activity accomplishments have been preserved. This data was selected as a source because it is available, relevant, and representative of the activity and provides valuable information. KIIs will be conducted with key stakeholders including USAID/KEA staff, PIK staff, GBV NGO and CBO staff, NGEC, NSC, GBV service providers, the Gender and Youth Officer, etc. KIIs with the IP and its sub-partners’ staff will provide important information on the PIK activity’s strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats. These respondent groups were directly responsible for the activity’s day to day implementation as well as performance reviews. They also are, therefore, critical informants about the activity’s implementation progress including gains made and challenges experienced. KIIs with NGEC, NSC and the Gender and Youth Officer will tap into their experiences and insights of what worked well and what did not go well. As technical people, they will be asked about areasfor improvement and what should have been disregarded or avoided. KIIs with service providers (Police and County Director of Health) will particularly provide information on what pieces of activity implementation processes reenergized their work and made it easier. They will be asked if there are particular interventions they can recommend for scale-up and why. GIs with county peace committee will provide critical insights into how the capacity building approaches impacted by PIK and its sub partners contributed to a conflict free environment in Activity counties in the run-up to 2013 general elections. The will also be asked they changesthey have seen and experienced within the earlier conflicting communities. Of interest will also be the PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 57 activeness of the peace networks supported by PIK and it is consortium partners. GIs with county executives will provide important information on how the PIK activity supported change within the operations of the county as relates to GBV. They will be asked of their experiences as regards GBV during and after the PIK implementation period. Of importance will the changesin service delivery to survivors and and/or grassroots networks developed. These interviews will yield narrative content, which will provide in-depth insight to identify key trends and themes. The information generated through these KIIs will be triangulated with other sources to arrive at the conclusions and recommendations addressing this evaluation question. Data Analysis Methods Content Analysis Pattern Analysis Comparative Analysis (for data source triangulation) X X X Data analysis for this question will follow the same procedures detailed above. Analysis will aim to clearly identify specific positives and negatives that emerged from all the information gathered for this evaluation and the analyses done for the other four questions as well as this particular question. The data will be triangulated with analysis of other questionsspecifically addressing the stakeholder’s views of what worked well, and what did not go well as suggestions for future GBV programming. Only those positives and negatives that recur most frequently and that provide a clear direction for future programming will be reported. 3.3 GENDER As per Automated Directive System (ADS) 205.3.6.2, all Missions must identify all evaluation questions for which sex-disaggregated data are needed. All people-level indicators must be disaggregated by sex and collected before activities with beneficiaries (or clients) begin (i.e., at baseline) and when activities with beneficiaries end or at the end of the project, whichever comes first (i.e., end line). Missions should also consider whether key evaluation questions examine the extent to which closing gender gaps has improved project outcomes and whether the project has transformed gender norms and reduced gender gaps. Finally, evaluations should identify whether any particular sub-groups (e.g., different ages, persons with disabilities, etc.) are losing out. Good evaluation practice involves:  Establishing interview teams comprised of both males and females appropriate for the cultural context and data being collected, and  Ensuring that samples consist of both men and women as appropriate to the evaluation questions. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 58 TABLE 4: EVALUATION QUESTIONS, GENDER DATA AND DIFFERENTIALS Evaluation Questions Sex￾Disaggregated Data Gender Specific/ Differential Effects: Access and Participation Gender Specific/ Differential Effects: Results and Benefits 1. To what extent and in what ways were PIK’s distinctive designs relevant to and effective in achieving the activity’s overall goal and objectives? N/A o PIK specific support to GBV CBOs, women groups to enable them form a strong network o Percentage of men and women who participated in trainings 2. How effective was PIK’s implementation at achieving its stated objectives?  Yes training and monitoring data o PIK’s specific support to GBV NGOs, CBOs, women groups, o NGEC, NSC KEWOPA, etc. o Percentage of men and women who participated in trainings 3. To what extent and in what ways were men and boys intended or unintended involvement evident in the implementation and/or results of PIK’s GBV approach?  Yes training and monitoring data o Extent to which PIK involved men and boys to create effect in GBV issues o Percentage of men who participated in trainings 4. To what extent were PIK’s approaches to strengthening local sub￾partners’ capacities effective?  Yes training and monitoring data o PIK’s specific support to GBV NGOs, CBOs, women groups, o NGEC, NSC KEWOP etc. o Percentage of men and women who participated in trainings 5. What have been the changes (positive and negative) produced by PIK in the communities where the activity took place?  Yes respondents data o Respondents’ experiences and perceptions on PIK o Percentage of men and women who participated in the evaluation PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 59 3.4 METHODOLOGICAL STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS 3.4.1 Strengths Qualitative methods used provide an important platform through which feedback from the various stakeholders can be collected. Combining both primary and secondary data sources through interviews and desk reviews provides an opportunity for inclusion of the various perspectives and perceptions into the design and therefore enhancing participatory approaches to the design of PIK evaluation. The use of different data sources further enables the assessment team to triangulate them before making conclusions and recommendation. The selection of data analysis methods allows triangulation between researchers which further enriches the finding with firm evidence- based findings. 3.4.2 Potential Limitations and their Mitigation As with any assessment or evaluation, there are biases and other limitations that must be addressed through methodological or analytical methods. First selection bias in the form of contacts provided by the implementers can mean that the team only hears from people with positive experiences. A wide and diverse respondent pool including managers of GBV NGOs and CBOs, service providers, government, gender working interest groups etc. will offset this. In addition, the team will obtain information from non-project sources, particularly USAID, about key individuals to include e.g. KEWOPA. Secondly, the availability of desired participants may vary and KSP will have to work with those available at the specified times, which may mean that some gaps in data are unavoidable. KSP will try to secure interviews in advance to ensure listed respondents are reached. Thirdly, since there is no control group for impact assessment, the evaluation cannot determine with certainty, whether any changes in GBV can be attributed to the PIK activity. The effect of the activity on GBV can only be measured in nominal terms, considering that there were other players supporting GBV during pre and post elections in the same conflictive zones where PIK implemented interventions. A survey on the target population would provide important quantitative information on the effect of the PIK activity on the population and would be triangulated with the information from the qualitative interviews to validate findings and conclusions on PIK’s attribution on changes experienced. The survey was not warranted, however, considering the level of resources required for such a survey against its value addition to the evaluation. Finally, the most effective approach to combating any and all of these biases is to use data multiple sources to triangulate on an assessment question. By combining information found in documents or interviews from multiple sources, any one piece of biased data would not skew the analysis. 4. EVALUATION PRODUCTS – SEE SECTION F.3. FOR REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 60 A detailed breakdown of the process is listed below: Note: If conflicts exist between the following deliverables and dates and those included in Section F.3, deliverables table, the latter controls. Week 1 Desk Review To initiate data collection, the evaluation team will review all the documents remotely. These initial findings will be presented to KSP during the Team Planning Meeting and will be used to inform tool development. Week 2 Team Planning Meeting (TPM) The TPM will be held in KSP offices once the evaluation team is in country. It is expected that the team will have the initial meeting with USAID (Day 2 of Week 2) to discuss expectations, and answer any specific questions. The outcomes of the team planning include:  Presentation of the initial findings of the document review by evaluation question (KSP-only);  Clear understanding of the Theory of Change model for the evaluation;  Clarification of team members' roles and responsibilities;  Establishment a team atmosphere, share individual working styles, and agree on procedures for resolving differences of opinion;  Review of the final evaluation questions;  Review and finalization of the assignment timeline and share with USAID;  Development of data collection and analysis methods, instruments, and guidelines;  Review and clarification of any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment;  Development of a preliminary draft outline of the team's report; and  Assignment of drafting responsibilities for the final report. Week 3 Work plan and Methodology During the TPM, the team will prepare a detailed work plan, which will include the methodologies (evaluation design, tools) and operational work plan to be used in the evaluation. This will be submitted to USAID on Day 5 of Week 2 (COB). The team will meet with USAID on Day 1 of Week 3 for the Work Plan Review Meeting, to discuss the methodology and get approval prior to implementation. Weeks 3 through 5 Data Collection and Updates on Progress: KSP will present weekly reports by email to USAID starting at the end of the first week of data collection and continuing through the middle of week5. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 61 Week 6-8 Data Analysis, Validation Meeting, Presentation Prep and Presentation: Data analysis begins toward the end of week 5 and continues through the end of week 8. This includes a half-day meeting (morning) with all partners and USAID/DGC to validate and discuss findings, answer/clarify any data gaps and discuss feasibility of potential recommendations, which leads to preparation for the USAID Front Office presentation. The evaluation team will present the major findings of the evaluation to USAID in a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation will follow a similar structure to the final report and present major findings, conclusions, and recommendations. USAID will have an opportunity to comment and provide input/feedback as part of the presentation. Week 9-11 Report writing, Reviews and Editing: USAID comments from the presentation will be incorporated into the draft report, as appropriate. In addition the draft report submitted by the team to KSP will undergo a thorough technical review after which the team will revise the report. When the report is finalized it will undergo editing and formatting prior to submission to USAID. Week 12-13 Review of Draft Evaluation Report and USAID comments: The written report with clearly description of findings, conclusions, and recommendations, fully supported by triangulated evidence will be reviewed by USAID. USAID will provide comments on the draft report within 14 days of submission. Week 14-17 Responding to USAID comments and submission of Final Report: The team will submit a final report that incorporates responses to USAID comments and suggestions. The format will adhere to the standard reporting guidelines listed in 4.2. USAID has two weeks thereafter for approval. If there are some outstanding questions, KSP will attempt to answer/incorporate them into the report as appropriate. Otherwise, USAID can consider a Statement of Differences. 4.1 REPORTING GUIDELINES The evaluation report will adhere to USAID Evaluation Policy (including Appendix 1). The format for the evaluation report shall be as follows. The report should be a maximum of 30 pages not including the cover page, table of contents, executive summary, acronyms list, and glossary of terms or annexes. The report format should be in English and restricted to Microsoft products. In accordance with USAID's Evaluation Report Template, it should use USAID fonts: Gill Sans or Gill Sans MT (bold for headlines, subheads and highlighted text; regular or light for body text; italic for captions), or Garamond or Ariel if Gill Sans is not available. An electronic copy in MS Word shall be submitted. If the report contains any potentially procurement sensitive information, a second version of the report excluding this information shall be submitted (also electronically, in English). Below represents a guideline for the report structure: a. Table of Contents (1 pg.); b. Executive Summary—concisely state the most salient findings and recommendations (3-4 pg.); c. Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions—purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1 pg.); d. Project Background—brief overview of development problem, USAID project strategy and PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 62 activities implemented to address the problem, and purpose of the evaluation (1-3 pg.); e. Evaluation Design, Methods, Limitations—describe evaluation methods, including constraints and gaps (1-3 pg.); f. Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations—for each evaluation question (15-25 pp); g. Annexes that document the evaluation methods, schedules, interview lists and tables should be succinct, pertinent and readable. These include references to bibliographical documentation, meetings, interviews and group discussions. 5. TEAM COMPOSITION The evaluation team will be composed of four evaluators, three local and one expatriate. This team will do all the data collection themselves working in two teams of two (1 expat and 1 local; and 2 local experts). This will facilitate conducting two interviews simultaneously so that more data can be collected. CVs for personnel can be found in Annex VI. The roles and responsibilities as well as each team members’ specific qualifications are outlined below. International Evaluation Team Leader – Judy Benjamin The team lead is an evaluator who will have ultimate responsibility for the report and will guide the team throughout the evaluation process. Research demonstrates that the quality of evaluation reports is significantly enhanced if an evaluation team lead is primarily an evaluator and secondarily possesses sector expertise. Nonetheless, the team lead also possesses critical gender expertise, generally, and on gender-based violence, specifically. Dr. Benjamin, who will serve as the team leader and evaluation expert for the PIK evaluation, has previously conducted USAID evaluations in the gender and GBV sectors, including in Kenya. She, therefore, fully understands USAID’s approach to evaluation and has a deep appreciation of the quality standards required. She will ensure that the final report not only fully addresses the questions with a strong evidentiary base, but also meets all quality standards. Dr. Judy Benjamin has over 20 years of experience working with various governmental and non￾governmental organizations such as USAID, UN, WB, and the Louis Berger Group. Dr. Benjamin has applied social science methodologies in the areas of gender, education, and economic development in over 30 countries; with a special focus on regions of conflict and natural disasters. She conducted a gender evaluation of the WFP in DRC and Rwanda and provided input on cross-cutting gender issues for program design and evaluation of eight USAID-funded programs in Pakistan. Dr. Benjamin provides expertise in the areas of gender, education, and economic development and is an expert in strategic planning and program design. Dr. Benjamin graduated from Binghamton University with a Doctorate of Philosophy in Social Anthropology. Local Sector Experts – Simon Okumba Miruka, Risper Akinyi Pete, and Alice Wakarura Kimani The team will also include three local sector experts who have experience in Kenya’s gender and peace￾building sectors, particularly with addressing gender-based violence and conflict mitigation. They will provide critical local knowledge on how gender has been addressed generally and about the GBV and peace-building sectors, specifically. They have worked over a number of years in this sector on a variety of projects and, therefore, have a deep understanding of the context, particularly, change process over time in the sector, as well as knowledge of key actors and legal landscape. These expertise and experience will compliment Dr. Benjamin’s evaluation skills. They will support her through their role in PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 63 the evaluation data collection and analysis. They will also contribute to the report, particularly the background section. Mr. Simon Miruka is a development consultant and established international development researcher with over 20 years of experience in monitoring and evaluation. He has extensive experience in participatory facilitation of group events including: education for conflict resolution, gender-based violence, gender mainstreaming for programs, training of trainers, communication skills, strategic planning, country programming, project planning, monitoring and evaluation, para-legal training, nutritional surveys, cultural orientation, team building and staff retreats. Furthermore, he has experience in conflict management and peace building both in teaching university courses and practicing through workshop facilitation for community mobilization on the role of leaders, women and youth. Mr. Miruka has served as a consultant for a number of international organizations including the UNDP, the World Food Program, and UNICEF. He holds a master’s degree in Gender and Development Studies from Kenyatta University. Ms. Pete is a peace-building expert with over five years of experience in conflict resolution and GBV issues. Ms. Pete has performed research, community engagement activities, and trainings throughout East Africa aimed at conflict transformation and decentralized local governance systems. Ms. Pete served as a peace-building and conflict transformation consultant for SNV Netherlands in South Sudan where she trained local officials on conflict transformation and decentralization. Most recently she worked with Tullow Oil Company, Kenya as a Community Stakeholder Engagement Supervisor where she supported the company in implementing social development projects that would mitigate conflict within the community, including drilling boreholes, distributing scholarships and opening rural access roads. Previously, she was a Researcher for East Central and Southern Africa – Health Community where she developed and streamlined GBV policy creation. Ms. Pete graduated with master of science degree in International Development/Conflict Resolution from Marquette University. She will support the evaluation team in tool development, data collection and analysis that will allow for nuanced dimensions of the project’s work, particularly related to conflict mitigation and peace building to be assessed. Ms. Alice Kimani is a gender specialist with experience working with local Kenyan communities focused on gender equality and justice. She has promoted the implementation of policies and local economic programs to increase retention of female students in schools and encourage female entrepreneurship. She has expertise in project design, planning and management, public policy, and community development as well as human rights based skill programming, conflict sensitivity, and gender mainstreaming in program development. Ms. Kimani graduated from Kenya Methodist University with a Master of Business Administration. Technical Advisor – Michelle Adams-Matson The Technical Advisor will provide quality control for this task order from the home office, including provision of basic technical support. This is a proven evaluation team structure that provides quality assurance and control from an experienced Technical Advisor that has worked on or led multiple MSI evaluations. Specifically, the Technical Advisor will participate in the team-planning meeting by phone, review the methodology and work plan, check-in with and review the team’s progress regularly throughout the data collection and analysis and will review the USAID presentation and draft report ensuring that USAID’s comments are addressed in the final product. Please note that this support is necessary and allowable under the contract as KSP will be have more than two on-going monitoring and evaluation tasks at the same time. KSP feels that the Technical Advisor’s input is of vital importance. Ms. Michelle Adams-Matson will serve in this position. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 64 Ms. Adams-Matson is a senior performance management facilitator and trainer and USAID advisor for Management Systems International. She offers M&E expertise in anti-corruption, public-private sector alliances, Managing for Results and Results Frameworks, Country Development Cooperation Strategies, Project Design and Management, and Strategic Planning. During her USAID tenure as Senior Systems Analyst for the Africa and Asia/Near East Bureaus, she played a lead role in strengthening the Agency’s performance management systems by chairing an inter-bureau team tasked with improving the Agency’s strategic planning systems and authoring associated Agency policies. She was considered an Agency wide “subject matter expert”, serving as a resource to senior management in numerous regional bureaus and at conferences in Washington and overseas. Ms. Adams-Matson has designed and delivered training for several USAID M&E and results frameworks courses, and developed capacity building tools including a web-based performance monitoring system. She has also worked with numerous other government organizations to institute effective, common sense, and results oriented management systems. In addition, she has designed and taught numerous courses on these topics. 6 EVALUATION MANAGEMENT 6.1 LOGISTICS USAID/KEA will provide input through an initial in-briefing to the evaluation team, identify key documents, and assist in introducing the evaluation team to the implementing partner. It will also be available for consultations with the evaluation team during the evaluation process regarding information sources and technical issues. KSP will assist in arranging meetings with key stakeholders identified prior to the initiation of field work. The evaluation team will be responsible for arranging other meetings as identified during the course of the evaluation. USAID/KEA is requested to advise KSP if they would like to participate in any of meetings. KSP is responsible for arranging vehicle rental and drivers as needed for site visits around Nairobi and in the field. KSP will also provide hotel arrangements, office space, internet access, printing, and photocopying. It will also make all payments to vendors directly after team members arrive in country. 6.2 SCHEDULING The period of performance for this evaluation is five months from the effective date of the award. Following a one week desk review, which the team will conduct remotely, the team will gather in Nairobi. They will spend one week preparing for the fieldwork, which will take three weeks. This will be followed by two weeks of data analysis and week of report writing. Once the team has submitted the draft report to KSP, it will undergo technical review and revision, followed by editing and formatting, prior to being submitted to USAID/KEA. These final steps prior to submission will take two weeks. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 65 ANNEX 2. FINAL WORKPLAN Day Date Location Activity March Mon – Sat 14th – 18th Home locations Desk review Mon – Thur 21st – 24th, 29th Nairobi Team planning meeting Tuesday 22nd Nairobi USAID In-brief Tuesday 29th Nairobi Submission of draft tools to USAID Wednesday 30th Nairobi Workshop to review tools Thursday 31st Nairobi USAID approval of work plan and tools April Fri – Thur 1 st – 7 th Nairobi Data collection Friday 8 th Eldoret Two team members travel to Eldoret Fri – Tue 8 th – 12th Nairobi and Eldoret Data collection Wednesday 13th Kwale Two team members travel to Kwale Thursday 14th Kisumu Two team members travel to Kisumu Thur – Tue 14th – 19th Kwale and Kisumu Data collection Tuesday 19th Nairobi Four team members return to Nairobi Wed – Wed 20th – 30th Nairobi  Data analysis  Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations May Mon & Tue 2 nd & 3rd Nairobi Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Wednesday 4 th Nairobi Validation meeting with partners Thursday 5 th Nairobi Preparation for USAID presentation Friday 6 th Nairobi Presentation to USAID Sat – Fri 7 th – 12th Nairobi Report writing Friday 13th Nairobi  Submission of Draft Report to KSP  Team leader departs Kenya Mon – Wed 16th – 18th Nairobi/Home Office KSP technical review Thur – Tue 19th – 24th Home locations Team revises reports Wed – Fri 25th – 27th Home Office KSP editing and formatting Monday 30th Home Office Submission of Draft Report to USAID June One-page fact sheet about the evaluation Monday 13th Nairobi USAID comments due to KSP Tue – Fri 14th – 17th Home locations Team revises report Monday 20th Home locations Submission of Final Report to USAID July One-page fact sheet about the evaluation Tuesday 5 th Nairobi USAID approval of Final Report Friday 8 th Nairobi KSP to incorporate statement of diff and data Monday 11th Nairobi USAID approval of Final Report and uploading on DEC PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 66 ANNEX 3. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS Key Informant Interview (KII) Tool – USAID Staff Interviews Begin with Introductions & explanation of purpose. # EVALUATION QUESTIONS Q1 PIK’s design 1.1 To what extent and in what ways did PIK’s two-phased design remain significant and supportive in achieving the project’s stated goals and objectives? Please explain. 1.2 To what extent and how, if at all, did PIK in phase I deviate from the original design why? 1.3 Did the PIK Phase I design support the achievement of the overall goals & objectives? How? Q2 PIK’s implementation approaches 2.1 In your opinion, how effective were PIK approaches? What worked and what didn’t? 2.2 a) Regarding conflict mitigation activities, particularly in Phase I, what were the most successful approaches? b) What were the least successful approaches and why? 2.3 To what extent did PIK implementing partner identify and effectively report success stories to personalize the successes? 2.4 To what extent and how did the various reporting mechanisms—activity databases, activity reports, etc.—provide adequate information about PIK’s implementation progress including the challenges? a) What improvements could be made in this respect for future USAID funded Activities? Q3 Inclusion of men, boys and marginalized groups 3.1 How were men and boys, and marginalized groups, included in PIK’s development hypothesis, design and implementation? 3.2 Comment on the involvement of men, boys and marginalized groups in PIK Phase I and Phase II 3.3 What difference did it make to involve men, boys and marginalized groups in peace and GBV activities? a) What lessons were learned by working with men and boys in peace and GBV activities? (What works and what doesn’t work)? Q4 Capacity strengthening of local sub partners 4.1 To what extent and how did PIK achieve its objectives to build sufficient sub partners capacity to qualify for direct USG funding at a future date? 4.2 Which additional capacity development would have made a difference? How? 4.3 What were the most effective capacity building activities? Why? 4.4 Which capacity building efforts were the least successful? Why? Q5 Changes produced by PIK 5.1 Which were the most significant changes in GBV prevention and response that can be attributed to PIK? (locally and nationally) How so? 5.2 What would you consider to be undesirable outcomes of PIK? 5.3 Which particular community (ies)/county(ies) stand out as examples where PIK was an “agent of change”? What were some of the elements that brought about those positive results? PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 67 Key Informant Interview (KII) Tool- IRC and IPs Staff Begin with introduction and explanation of purpose. # EVALUATION QUESTION Q1. PIK’s design: IRC ONLY 1.1 How relevant and effective was PIK’s design in relation to achieving its objectives, and why? 1.2 What did you find unique about the design? 1.3 What would you have changed in the design of PIK, and why? 1.4 What lessons did PIK learn under P I & II about: a) The sequencing and timing of the programming? b) Revision of geographic focus c) Sub-grants (and how did they contribute to your program)? d) Election related GBV programming e) Shift from PI to PII (Peace to GBV) Q2. PIK’s implementation approaches (election related GBV programming) 2.1 Which were the most relevant interventions in achieving objectives of PIK? (Examples/why?) [peace training campaign; partnerships, engaging women’s groups & networks 2.2 Which were the least relevant interventions you used in implementing PIK? (Examples/why?) [peace training campaign; partnerships; engaging women’s groups & networks] 2.3 What factors facilitated your implementation of PIK? How? 2.4 What factors hindered your implementation of PIK? How? 2.5 How effective did PII strengthen county engagement in preventing and responding to GBV? 2.6 How well did the PIK partners coordinate and interact? 2.7 What lessons are to be learned from PIK’s approaches to GBV programming? Q3 Inclusion of men, boys and marginalized groups 3.1 What methods (intended and unintended) were used by PIK to involve men and boys in preventing and responding to GBV? 3.2 How effective were these methods? (results) 3.3 How did PIK measure the results of the involvement of men and boys? 3.4 Comment on the inclusion of marginalized groups in GBV approaches? (evidence of their inclusion?) (persons with disabilities, faith minorities) 3.5 What lessons are to be learnt from engaging men and boys, and marginalized groups in GBV programming? (Challenges, best practices, stories, case studies?) Q4 Capacity strengthening of local sub partners 4.1 How effective were PIK’s interventions in contributing to the partners’ capacities and their ability to: a) carry out their work; b) access USAID and/or other funding (and improve accountability); and c) continue interventions after funding terminates. 4.2 What are IPs doing differently as a result of capacity building by PIK? (staffing, reporting, financial accountability, developing networks and linkages) 4.3 4.1 To what extent and how has your organization used capacity gained from PIK to: a) Establish and strengthen GBV structures at National and County levels? (Court￾users committees, data management systems?) Which structures specifically have PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 68 changed as a result? b) Respond to or prevent GBV? (awareness raising, economic empowerment) 4.4 IPs ONLY: To what extent did PIK meet your organization’s expectations regarding capacity strengthening 4.5 What were the lessons learned in building capacities for sub-partners future programming? Q5 Changes produced by PIK in the community 5.1  What difference did PIK make a) In the communities? What were these changes and in what ways did they affect your work (making it easier or more challenging)? Explain. b) At the national and county governmental levels 5.2 What negative changes may be attributed to the Activity and why? 5.3 What lessons were learned from PIK on: a) bringing together GBV and peace actors; b) conflict mitigation and c) peace-building practices? 5.4 How did PIK raise the profile of GBV as part of early warning and early response? 5.5 What could have been done differently to improve the outcome of the PIK? 5.6 What are your recommendations for scaling up projects such as PIK and why? PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 69 Key Informant Interview (KII) Tool – County and National Government Begin with Introductions & explanation of purpose # EVALUATION QUESTIONS Q1 PIK’s design 1.1 What is your understanding of PIK? 1.2 How has the partnership with PIK/IRC enhanced the government’s gender framework, policies, and guidelines? (National level) 1.3 In what ways did partnership with PIK/IRC guide county governments in adopting and allocating resources for GBV programming? (County) Q2 PIK’s implementation approaches 2.1 How were the findings of the County GBV prevention and response preparedness audit used? 2.3 What difference did the training you received on GBV programming make to your work (progress towards allocating resources for GBV programming; adopting national and international GBV instruments/policies)? 2.4 How did the relationship between you and IRC/local partner work? a) What worked well and b) What did not work well 2.5 What lessons can be learned from the partnerships? Q3 Inclusion of men, boys and marginalized groups 3.1 How has the government involved men and boys in GBV programming? (sustainability) 3.2 What insights were gained from PIK’s involving men and boys in GBV programming? Q4 Capacity building of local sub partners 4.1 How well did the capacity building through PIK enable you to exercise your mandate? a) National government b) County/local government 4.2 In what ways did PIK contribute to building capacity to prevent and respond to GBV? a) National government (Anti-FGM) b) County/local government 4.3 In what ways did PIK contribute to building capacity to mitigate conflict? a) National government (National steering committee) b) County/local government (County peace committee) 4.4 What support would be necessary to strengthen to prevent and respond to GBV? c) National government d) County/local government 4.5 What support would be necessary to strengthen to mitigate conflict? a) National government b) County/local government Q5 Changes produced by PIK 5.1 How did PIK’s intervention make tangible changes in the way your office prevents and PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 70 # EVALUATION QUESTIONS responds to GBV (and GBV survivors)? 5.2 Which elements of PIKs interventions were most useful and which were less useful in terms of a) Advancing peace initiatives and preventing and b) Preventing and responding to GBV? (County and National) PIK Tool – Key Informant Interviews (KII) – Religious Leaders Begin with introductions & explanation of purpose. # EVALUATION QUESTIONS Q1 PIK’s design 1.1 What is your understanding of the PIK project? If none, skip question. 1.2 What role did you play in PIK? Q2 PIK’s implementation approaches 2.1 What were some of the ways that PIK’s approaches contributed to conflict mitigation during 2013 pre-election period? (training, media campaign, IEC and network creation) 2.2 What do you consider to be your greatest contribution to the PIK project? Q3 Inclusion of men, boys and marginalized groups 3.1 In what areas did you find your position effectively utilized? 3.2 In what areas could such projects utilize your position most effectively? 3.3 How were men and boys mobilized to participate in peace initiatives and GBV prevention and response activities? 3.4 How have you used your position to mobilize more men and boys in conflict mitigation and GBV prevention and response activities 3.5 How else can men and boys be involved in GBV related projects? Q4 Capacity strengthening of local sub partners Q5 Changes produced by PIK 5.1 What were the significant contributions of PIK to the community in conflict mitigation and peace-building practices? 5.2 What were the significant contributions of PIK to the community in raising profile of GBV prevention and response? Tool – Group Interviews (GI) –Peace Committee, Elders, and Male champions Begin with Introductions & explanation of purpose. # EVALUATION QUESTIONS Q1 PIK’s design [FOR PEACE COMMITTEE ONLY] 1.1 What were the strengths and weaknesses in your interaction with PIK? (partnership, coordination?) 1.2 What improvements would you suggest? Q2 PIK’s implementation approaches 2.1 How did you participate in PIK’s activities? 2.2 Concerning conflict mitigation and GBV during the 2013 election period, which PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 71 approaches were: a) Most effective b) Least effective  (training, media campaign, IEC and network creation) 2.3 What do you consider to be your greatest contribution to PIK? 2.4 In what ways are the actors continuing to use PIK’s approaches in peace building and prevention and response to GBV? Q3 Inclusion of men, boys and marginalized groups 3.1 How were men and boys mobilized to participate in peace initiatives and GBV prevention activities? 3.2 In your opinion what difference did the inclusion of men and boys create in conflict mitigation and GBV prevention and response? 3.3 How can the involvement of men and boys be sustained? 3.4 How else can men and boys be involved in GBV related projects? Q4 Capacity strengthening of local sub partners Q5 Changes produced by PIK 5.1 What were the significant contributions of PIK to the community in conflict mitigation and peace-building practices? 5.2 What were the significant contributions of PIK to the community in raising profile of GBV prevention and response? 5.3 What were, if any, unintended/undesirable changes brought about by PIK? PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 72 PIK Group Interview (GI) Tool – Gender Based Violence Survivors Begin with Introductions & explanation of purpose. Separate GBV Survivor Groups for Women and for Men. # EVALUATION QUESTIONS Q1 PIK design Q2 PIK Implementation approaches 2.1 What, if anything, do you know about the Peace Initiative Kenya (PIK) project implemented by (Name of appropriate local partner) 2.2 Please tell us about GBV prevention and response support provided by local partner in this area (as pertaining to PIK). 2.3 How have you benefitted from support provided by local partners? (Give examples) 2.4 What was your level of satisfaction with the support? (why it was beneficial or not) 2.5 a. What, if any, trainings have you participated in? b. What was your experience with those trainings? (PIK/sub partner trainings) c. What kind of training would be the most beneficial to you? 2.6 a. What do you know about the 1195 Helpline? b. Have you or anyone you know ever used it? If so, how helpful was it? c. Can you suggest ways to improve 1195 Helpline? Q3 Inclusion of men, boys and marginalized groups 3.1 What are your thoughts about the involvement of men and boys in preventing and responding to GBV? 3.2 a. How have men and boys been involved in PIK? b. How has the involvement of men and boys changed responses to GBV? Q4 Capacity strengthening of local sub partners Q5 Changes produced by PIK 5.1 To what extent and in what ways has this project made changes in how your community responds to the needs of GBV survivors? 5.2 What is your experience, if any, interacting with the Police Gender Desk Officer? (any changes in attitudes and behavior) 5.3 In your opinion, what could be done differently to improve support to GBV survivors? 5.4 What are the most critically necessary services required by GBV survivors? 5.5 Would you like to add anything else? The following questions pertain to male GBV survivors 1. What are the main challenges faced by male GBV survivors? 2. What has been your experience interacting with a. Implementing partners PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 73 b. Local service providers (police, hospitals, courts) 3. What needs to be done to encourage men and boys to seek support as male GBV survivors? PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 74 ANNEX 4. DATA COLLECTION LIMITATIONS: The team did not meet county executives as the activity had not worked with them. This was also the case with KEWOPA and County Directors of health in the counties visited. Others that the project did not work with and were eventually dropped include: the Police Gender Desk in Nairobi; KII with Gender working Group in Nairobi and, the Women Group Representatives in Nairobi. The team was unable to conduct GIs with Male GBV survivors in the four counties visited as the implementing partners were unable to secure appointments with them. Only one male GBV survivor was interviewed in Nairobi through the facilitation of HAK. Kisumu Women Representatives: The implementing partner in Kisumu contacted the Kisumu county women representative. However, by the time the evaluation team was leaving Kisumu, the woman representative was yet to arrive in Kisumu. Uasin Gishu and Kwale Counties: These women representatives were not receptive of the activity and were not available for interviews with the evaluation team. Kisumu County Peace Committee: The evaluation team set up a GI with the County Peace Committee. However, the Committee did not make it to the scheduled venue and so the evaluation team had to leave. Male Champions in Kwale: The implementing partner (SYWP) was unable to secure a GI with male champions they had worked with. Below is an exhaustive list of the respondents whom the evaluation team did not meet. 1. County Director of Health – Nairobi, Kwale and Kisumu 2. Religious Leader in Nairobi—project didn’t work with them 3. Local GBV Women Groups in Nairobi 4. Gender working Group in Nairobi 5. County Executives in Kwale, Kisumu and Uasin Gishu 6. National Steering Committee 7. KEWOPA 8. Gender Desk Police officer in Uasin Gishu and Nairobi 9. Women Representative in Uasin Gishu, Kisumu and Kwale 10. GBV Survivors (men) in all the target evaluation counties 11. County Peace Committee in Kisumu 12. Male Champions PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 75 ANNEX 5. LIST OF INTERVIEWEES The full list of interviewees and their contact information has been removed to maintain their confidentiality. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 76 ANNEX 6. LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Training Documents 1. GBV and Development Revised 2. PIK-GBV Peace Swahili Manual 3. Training Handbook GBV Annual Reports 4. IRC Kenya Oct 2014-Sept 2015 Annual Report 5. IRC Kenya Jul 2012-Sept 2013 Annual Report 6. IRC Kenya PIK Oct 2013-Sept 2014 Annual Report 7. GBV Preparedness Report for 9 counties Other Reports 8. IRC Kenya AID -623-A-12-00024 Q5 9. IRC Kenya AID -623-A-12-00024 Q6 10. IRC Kenya AID -623-A-12-00024 Q7 11. IRC Kenya PIK AID A 12 00024 12. IRC PIK II Capacity Partnership Plan 2014 13. PIK Fact Sheet June 2014 14. PIK National Summit Report Quarterly Reports 15. IRC Kenya-PIK 2014 Q3 (April-June) 16. IRC Kenya-PIK 2015 Q2 (Jan-Mar) 17. IRC Kenya-PIK 2014 Q2 (Jan-Mar) 18. IRC Kenya-PIK 2014 Q 1 (Oct-Dec) 19. IRC Kenya-PIK 2013 Q 4 (April-June) 20. IRC Kenya-PIK 2012 Q 2 (Oct-Dec) 21. IRC Kenya-PIK 2013 Q 3 (Jan-Mar) 22. IRC Kenya-PIK 2012 Q 1 (Jul-Sep) Award 23. AID-623-A-12-00024 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 77 24. IRC Kenya AID-623-A-12-00024 Modification 25. IRC Kenya PIK Mod 3 26. PIK Phase II Program Description 27. PIK Phase I Program Description M&E Plans 28. PIK-Performance Monitoring Plan 2012 29. PIK- M&E October 2014 30. PIK Performance Monitoring Plan 2012 31. PIK Implementation Work plan 2013 32. PIK Implementation Work Plan 2015 33. USAID Forward for PIK Activity 2015 Other Documents 34. USAID Project Starter, http://usaidprojectstarter.org/content/learning-pathway-1-integrating￾evaluation-lessons-design. 35. USAID Technical Note: Developing Results Frameworks, July 2013. 36. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crisisinkenya 37. National Gender and Equality Commission (2014) National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework towards the Prevention of and Response to Sexual and Gender Based Violence in Kenya, Page 11 38. United Nations General Assembly (2006). Report of the Independent Expert for the United Nations, Study on Violence Against Children 39. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics CBS 2004b, Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2008-09. 40. Republic of Kenya (2012), Violence against Children in Kenya–UNICEF, Nairobi, Kenya. 41. Kenya National bureau of Statistics CBS 2004b, Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2013-14 42. National Gender and Equality Commission (2014) National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework towards the Prevention of and Response to Sexual and Gender Based Violence in Kenya, pg.11. 43. Republic of Kenya (2012). Violence against Children in Kenya–UNICEF, Nairobi, Kenya 44. Peace Initiative Kenya, 2015 Annual Report, pg.1. 45. Status of Gender Desks in Police Stations (2009), Institute of Economic Affairs. 46. Republic of Kenya (2008). Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence Final Report 47. National Gender and Equality Commission (2014). National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework towards the Prevention of and Response to Sexual and Gender Based Violence in PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 78 Kenya, pg.12 48. Republic of Kenya (2000) National Gender and Development Policy 49. Republic of Kenya (2007) Education Gender Policy. 50. Republic of Kenya (2013) Vision 2030 Second Medium Plan 2013-17 51. Best Practices for Implementing Partners Under Peace Initiative Kenya Project, October 2013 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 79 ANNEX 7. DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 80 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 81 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 82 PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 83 ANNEX 8: ABRIDGEDTEAM BIOS Team Lead: Judy Benjamin Professional experience summary: Dr. Judy Benjamin has over 20 years of experience working with various governmental and non￾governmental organizations such as USAID, UN, WB, and the Louis Berger Group. Dr. Benjamin has applied social science methodologies in the areas of gender, education, and economic development in over 30 countries; with a special focus on regions of conflict and natural disasters. She conducted a gender evaluation of the WFP in DRC and Rwanda and provided input on cross-cutting gender issues for program design and evaluation of eight USAID-funded programs in Pakistan. Dr. Benjamin provides expertise in the areas of gender, education, and economic development and is an expert in strategic planning and program design. Dr. Benjamin graduated from Binghamton University with a Doctorate of Philosophy in Social Anthropology. Senior Sector Expert: Okumba Miruka Professional experience summary Mr. Simon Miruka is a development consultant and established international development researcher with over 20 years of experience in monitoring and evaluation. He has extensive experience in participatory facilitation of group events including: education for conflict resolution, gender-based violence, gender mainstreaming for programs, training of trainers, communication skills, strategic planning, country programming, project planning, monitoring and evaluation, para-legal training, nutritional surveys, cultural orientation, team building and staff retreats. Furthermore, he has experience in conflict management and peace building both in teaching University courses and practicing through workshop facilitation for community mobilization on the role of leaders, women and youth. Mr. Miruka has served as a consultant for a number of international organizations including the UNDP, the World Food Program, and UNICEF. He holds a Master’s degree in Gender and Development Studies from Kenyatta University. Junior Sector Expert: Risper Pete Professional experience summary Ms. Pete is a peace-building expert with over five years of experience in conflict resolution and GBV issues. Ms. Pete has performed research, community engagement activities, and trainings throughout East Africa aimed at conflict transformation and decentralized local governance systems. Ms. Pete served as a peace-building and conflict transformation consultant for SNV Netherlands in South Sudan where she trained local officials on conflict transformation and decentralization. Most recently she worked with Tullow Oil Company, Kenya as a Community Stakeholder Engagement Supervisor where she supported the company in implementing social development projects that would mitigate conflict within the community, including drilling boreholes, distributing scholarships and opening rural access roads. Previously, she was a Researcher for East Central and Southern Africa – Health Community where she developed and streamlined GBV policy creation. Ms. Pete graduated with Masters of Science in International Development/Conflict Resolution from Marquette University. She will support the evaluation team in tool development, data collection and analysis that will allow for nuanced dimensions of the project’s work, particularly related to conflict mitigation and peace building to be assessed. PEACE INITIATIVE KENYA: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 84 Junior Sector Expert: Gloria Mmoji Professional experience summary Ms. Mmoji is a professional with more than five years’ experience in research and project management; excellent analytical and problem solving skills. She able to handle multiple projects while producing high quality work. Previously, she has undertaken and coordinated research projects and numerous field surveys with firms both at the national and county level. Most recently, she has completed assignments with UNDP’s/MoDP Civic Education Project, KHRC’s Model County Project, KHRC’s Horticulture Policy Project, UNESCO/FORD Foundation’s Elimika Project, CDKN’s Climate Change and FORD Foundation’s Social Movements, besides evaluations and research projects with the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution, the Institute for Social Accountability, the National Campaign against Drug Abuse Authority, Society for International Development, among others. Ms. Mmoji graduated with Masters of Arts in Political Science and Public Administration from the University of Nairobi. She will support the evaluation team in tool development, data collection and analysis. Ms. Mmoji replaced Ms. Alice Kimani on this evaluation. U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523