EVALUATION REPORT Protecting Human Rights (PHR) Final Performance Evaluation This publication was produced by Social Impact, Inc. for review by the United States Agency for International Development. Cover photo: Courtyard meeting in Tetulia Union, Chirirbandar Photo credit: Plan International Bangladesh. Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Activity, April - June 2016. Protecting Human Rights (PHR) Final Performance Evaluation USAID/Bangladesh IDIQ AID-388-TO-17-00001; Task Order AID-486-I-14-00001 July 19, 2017 Julia Rizvi, Home Office Representative, Social Impact 2300 Clarendon Blvd, Suite 1000, Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: 703.465.1884 x248 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Rachel Wareham, Michele Wehle, ASM Amanullah, Sanzida Akhter, and Tahsina Akhter for Social Impact, Inc. DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Development Problem and USAID’s Response ......................................................... 2 III. Evaluation Purpose, Use, and Questions ............................................................................ 5 IV. Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................................... 6 V. Findings and Conclusions.................................................................................................... 11 Evaluation Question 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Evaluation Question 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 25 Evaluation Question 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 26 Evaluation Question 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Evaluation Question 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 34 VI. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 36 VII. Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................. 38 VIII. Annexes ................................................................................................................................ 39 Annex A: Evaluation Statement of Work ............................................................................................................. 39 Annex B: Evaluation Design Matrix ........................................................................................................................ 49 Annex C: Maps ............................................................................................................................................................ 51 1. Activity Sites ................................................................................................................................................... 51 2. Evaluation Sites .............................................................................................................................................. 52 Annex D: Data Collection Protocols ..................................................................................................................... 53 Informed Consent ................................................................................................................................................. 53 Key Informant Interview Protocols ................................................................................................................... 55 Focus Group Discussion Protocols ................................................................................................................... 60 Survey Protocol ...................................................................................................................................................... 67 Annex E: Documents Received ............................................................................................................................... 69 Annex F: Persons Interviewed ................................................................................................................................. 77 Annex G: Findings on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) .......................................................................... 85 Annex H: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................... 87 Annex I: Mini-survey Results .................................................................................................................................... 91 TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Respondent Statistics by Data Collection Method .................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Mini-Survey, Questions 3-5 ........................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 1: PHR Goal and Results Framework .............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2: PHR Child Marriage Awareness Poster .................................................................................................... 20 ACRONYMS ADR Alternate Dispute Resolution BLAST Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust BNWLA Bangladesh National Women Lawyers’ Association BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women CM Child Marriage CMRA Child Marriage Restraint Act CVE Countering Violent Extremism DFID Department for International Development DG Democracy and Governance DLAC District Legal Aid Committee DV Domestic Violence EQ Evaluation Question ET Evaluation Team FGD Focus Group Discussion GBV Gender-Based Violence GI Group Interview GoB Government of Bangladesh HR Human Rights HRAF Human Rights Advocacy Forum HRLS Human Rights and Legal Aid Services ICRW International Center for Research on Women IEC Information, Education, and Communication IMCC Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Result IRB Institutional Review Board JATI Judicial Administration Training Institute JFA Justice for All KII Key Informant Interview LC Legal Counselor M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MJF Manusher Jonno Foundation MLJPA Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs MOWCA Ministry of Women and Children Affairs NGO Non-Governmental Organizations PHR Protecting Human Rights PIL Public Interest Litigation PMP Performance Management Plan PSC Psychosocial Counseling SDLG Strengthening Democratic Local Governance SH Sexual Harassment SI Social Impact, Inc. SPG Social Protection Group SW Social Worker UN United Nations UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UP Union Parishad (“Union,” government administrative unit within an upazila) USAID United States Agency for International Development UVAWCC Upazila Violence Against Women and Children Committee VAW Violence Against Women VAWG Violence Against Women and Girls i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Violence against women and girls (VAWG) and gender-based violence (GBV) are widespread in Bangladesh. Multiple laws and mechanisms exist at the national and sub-national levels to protect women and girls from violence in their homes and to prosecute perpetrators; however, while the GoB is committed to improving legal protection and reducing violence, progress is uneven and data continues to show increases in VAWG and GBV. To address this development problem and reduce DV and human rights (HR) violations such as CM, sexual harassment (SH), dowry violence, stalking, and physical humiliation, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Bangladesh funded the Protecting Human Rights (PHR) Activity. PHR is a $12.7 million activity, which was implemented by Plan International (hereafter referred to as Plan) from March 2011 through March 2017. Plan sought to accomplish their goal of reducing HR violations through a range of activities designed to encourage legal reform, enhance local NGO and government capacities to combat DV and HR-related abuses, provide direct legal and other services, and change public attitudes and behaviors. PHR was composed of five components: 1) Advocacy, 2) Capacity Building, 3) Access to Justice, 4) Survivor Services, and 5) Mass Awareness and Educational Campaigns. See Annex C for a map of activity implementation sites. PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION USAID/Bangladesh engaged SI to conduct the final performance evaluation of the PHR Activity. The purpose of this evaluation was to provide USAID/Bangladesh with information about the effectiveness and relevance of the Activity; continued relevance of the Activity’s development hypothesis; coordination with democracy and governance (DG) activities implemented in Bangladesh; and stakeholder perceptions about Activity success. This evaluation focused on the five evaluation questions detailed below. The audiences for this evaluation include USAID/Bangladesh, USAID/Washington, leaders of USAID Forward, Plan International, and bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors and NGOs working on gender equality and GBV issues in Bangladesh, such as BRAC and Action Aid. The Evaluation Team (ET) used a mixed methods evaluation design, consisting of document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and a mini-survey. At USAID’s request, the ET conducted data collection in Dhaka and in three of the six districts in which PHR was implemented (Bogra, Jessore and Chittagong). SI also conducted midterm data collection in 2014 in Bogra, Chittagong, and Sylhet, which the ET could not visit during the final evaluation given security concerns. The ET selected districts with higher rates of domestic violence as documented in PHR baseline data that listed DV rates per upazila.1 Phone interviews were also conducted in Barguna given time and resource constraints. The ET conducted 72 KIIs (including one-on-one and group interviews), 18 FGDs, and 49 mini-surveys, totaling 330 respondents. Triangulation enabled the ET to cross-verify and cross-validate findings to identify correlations between findings and determine overall program effectiveness. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Evaluation Question 1 1 PHR Midterm Evaluation Report, Annex II Table 5.1. ii To what extent were the activity objectives achieved, and what were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives? Findings Activity Goal: Numerous respondents reported that DV and CM decreased during PHR due to a variety of factors. The activity’s monitoring data did not track progress against this goal, however. Therefore, the ET cannot confirm if violence did in fact decrease in the implementation sites though national level statistics suggest a slight decrease.2 Component 1 – Advocacy: At the national and local levels, stakeholders identified several PHR achievements related to advancing legislation and discussions around DV issues including PHR’s close work with the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs (MOWCA) to design The National Action Plan on Prevention of Violence against Women and Children 2013-2025, and PHR’s promotion of the DV Act Rules, revision of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (CMRA). Although there were legislative successes, key informants stated that PHR encountered difficulties sustaining advocacy efforts. MOWCA’s lack of capacity and overall institutional structure, which lacks significant presence at the UP level, were offered as reasons for this for lack of sustainability by government officials and development actors. Furthermore, despite training and PHR initiatives to build up the Upazila Violence Against Women and Children Committees (UVAWCC), multiple key informants noted that the committees are dormant or are close to becoming dormant without sustained support and training due the decreasing or complete absence of UVAWCC meetings post-PHR. Component 2 – Capacity Building: In 26 KIIs and three FGDs, key informants described skills they learned or provided examples of how they or someone they know conducted their work differently due to PHR trainings. Multiple key informants identified skills gained in trainings that covered how to conduct salish.3 Although PHR reached a vast number of stakeholders, respondents identified weaknesses with capacity building. Trainings were limited to either a few days total or 2-3 days per training. Shortcomings were also identified in the training provided to SWs, Legal Counselors (LC), and medical practitioners. Although the training materials are adequate on counseling, they do not include practical steps for SWs to respond to common effects of trauma, as one example. Component 3 – Increase Access to Justice: Key informants referenced learning a variety of skills from PHR trainings in this component, including that salish cannot be conducted for all cases (e.g., rape, murder, and acid violence). Furthermore, the activity was considered by survivors to have increased their access to the justice. Until PHR, there were no practicing lawyers outside the upazila level. There are several limitations in the formal and informal justice systems that impact the effectiveness of component 3, however. These include a severe backlog of cases in the formal justice system that can delay outcomes for years, a nationwide shortage of judges to preside over cases,4 police that are frequently transferred to other thanas5 and who are prone to corruption, and a reliance on salish.6 Moreover, now that the PHR period of performance has ended, it is unlikely that poorer survivors will be able to access justice at more formal levels since the cost to file a case can be prohibitive. Component 4 – Provide Survivor Services: PHR provided a suite of survivor services at the local level, including psychosocial counseling, legal support, and referral for shelter support. PHR also attempted 2 National-level statistics report an approximate 7 percent decrease in violence between 2011 and 2015. 3 The local Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism. 4 Key informants estimated that there are between 1,000-1,500 judges and a backlog of 2.4 million cases. 5 Administrative sub-division. 6 Approximately 60 percent of cases are said to be served through salish, although the ET could not confirm this. iii to link survivors to GoB- and NGO-run medical facilities and other legal NGOs, although many direct beneficiaries did not speak to this assistance. Many FGD and KII respondents reported that SWs were particularly integral to the success of component 4 since they canvassed the community and provided counseling and paralegal support to survivors and their families. There were limitations identified during the evaluation in relation to PHR’s survivor services, however. Respondents in eight KIIs and four FGDs noted various challenges often arising from a lack of income generation activities, and multiple key informants said linkages with other programs or resources were unsuccessful. Furthermore, SWs were frustrated, vulnerable, and deeply worried about the PHR activity’s closure. Despite being unemployed now due to PHR’s closure, several SWs mentioned that they still respond to requests for help and still attend courtyard meetings. There is widespread fear that violence will increase, and many noted it already has. Component 5 – Expand Mass Awareness and Education Campaigns: Respondents in the majority of KIIs and FGDs believe that PHR raised awareness on DV and HR issues through component 5 activities (including community courtyard meetings,7 rallies, folk dramas and performances, national day events, public awareness campaigns that featured TV spots, newspaper articles, training in secondary schools and radio messages). Although component 5 succeeded in reaching a tremendous number of people, respondents in 10 KIIs and eight FGDs indicated that awareness was not enhanced or was limited in some cases given minimal changes in people’s mindsets, and that any gains made with awareness-raising will recede without continuing support. Clear linkages to behavioral change were not elucidated. There was some indication that students and teachers continue to disseminate what they learned, but these sessions were not adopted into national-level curricula so some key informants question the sustainability of these efforts. Factors Contributing to Achievement and Non-Achievement: Key informants lauded the effective support of the PHR team with local partners, praised PHR’s strong Regional Managers and the importance of SW and LC. There were also mentions of good collaboration with the government. On the other hand, key informants identified several obstacles that limited PHR achievements including political pressure and poverty. Other challenges included limited livelihood support, a short activity duration and sustainability issues. The capacity of PHR’s local NGO partners presented challenges as well - including due to limited staff, insufficient salaries, limited U.S. Government donor experience, which severely complicated data quality and reporting, and limited to no prior experience with VAWG.8 Conclusions Regarding the activity goal, the ET cannot confirm that DV and HR abuses have reduced in Bangladesh due to the PHR activity given a dearth of PHR M&E gender-disaggregated indicators and data. PHR succeeded in bolstering the SPGs and later the UVAWCCs to combat DV and HR abuses locally, but PHR’s advocacy efforts and successes risk dormancy given the lack of continued oversight of the UVAWCCs (component 1). Capacity building efforts and PHR trainings were not intensive or long enough to lead to behavioral change in communities or to strengthen local NGOs (component 2). PHR greatly expanded access to justice for survivors during the activity period, but access to justice for more vulnerable populations may be limited post-PHR given financial constraints and other challenges (component 3). PHR provided greatly needed services to survivors, although this kind of support does not appear to be sustainable post-PHR. Moreover, PHR’s income generation activities and support were inadequate and impeded this component’s success and sustainability (component 4). Lastly, PHR 7 Court yard meetings were held with a variety of groups including women, men, couples, boys and girls. 8 As noted in the Local Implementing Partners’ Organizational Assessment Consultancy, July 2013, four of the original 17 partner NGOs were found to have no experience in DV/VAW issues. iv succeeded in raising awareness among thousands of people, but sustained behavioral change was not evident (component 5). Evaluation Question 2 What real difference, intended and unintended, has the activity made to the beneficiaries? Findings The majority of key informants believe that PHR reduced DV and HR abuses during the life of the activity, that the activity raised awareness significantly, and that the activity should continue. Although changes in the prevalence of violence cannot be confirmed through M&E data, the perception of this is important to consider since it underscores that beneficiaries valued the activity, believed it was effective, and wish it to continue. PHR also elevated women in the community. This occurred not only by raising awareness on their rights, but by hiring them as SWs, or in one case even as a staff member. One of the main unintended differences is that there is a perception among beneficiaries that violence is increasing now that PHR is over. Several key informants said that the presence of LCs and SWs provided a deterrent to violence and with these individuals now gone or unemployed, men are becoming bolder and resorting to violence. Another unintended difference is that the local government has insufficient resources to actively support and sustain PHR results. This is despite PHR training and advocacy. In a large part this is due to the newly elected council members from the 2016 elections who were only trained once. Conclusions PHR made a positive difference to beneficiaries during the activity period as documented in KIIs, FGDs, and PHR reports, but activity achievements are in jeopardy given inadequate sustainability measures. Without the sustained presence of SWs or LCs on the ground, and support from local government entities, violence may go unchecked by local authorities and unreported by survivors. Despite extensive training efforts bolstering the SPGs and supporting the creation of the UVAWCCs, beneficiaries believe that any gains made will unravel now that PHR has ended. Evaluation Question 3 To what extent are the activity objectives still relevant to the current domestic violence circumstances in Bangladesh? Does the development hypothesis and critical assumptions upon which the PHR activity was designed still hold true? Why or why not? Findings KIIs in all field sites and across multiple key informant categories reported that the activity was relevant, with CM highlighted as an important issue by these respondents. Specifically regarding component 1 and 2, the policy focus of the activity and those targeted for training on legislation were considered relevant by most respondents, with excellent timing just as the legislation was put in place. Regarding component 3, targeting teachers, the use of champions, SWs (non-survivors) and locally based lawyers was a relevant approach to use in the Bangladesh context. Regarding component 4, survivors mentioned that SWs and lawyers were critical for delivery of the activity (relevant) because they could rely on them if they needed help; and that PHR referred clients to other services such as skills’ development trainings which was an area of great need for them. Lastly regarding component 5, clients felt there awareness had been raised through IEC materials and trainings as well as through the courtyard meetings, confirming the relevancy of the communication mediums pursued by the activity. Respondents, however, also noted key areas of the activity lacking relevance to the Bangladesh context. While the use of SWs and local lawyers may be an effective route, without sustainability plans in place and v a more comprehensive approach to support services for survivors, this population will remain underserved. Additionally, national-level advocates pointed out that PHR did not make any attempt to increase access by women with disabilities to services, and the local partners confirmed that no outreach had been done in this regard. Approaching women as a homogenous group threatens the relevance of the approach, particularly for support services. Regarding Part I of the development hypothesis,9 PHR work did lead to a perceived decline in DV according to respondents. However, it is unclear if the activity changed attitudes or behavior long-term among beneficiaries and local government stakeholders, and it is also unclear if the activity led to a decline in DV since monitoring data did not measure behavior change or changes in violence amongst different types of stakeholders. Additionally, it was widely noted there are newly emerging types of violence and some target groups which were not covered by PHR (cyber-violence and male victims, as examples). Regarding Part II of the development hypothesis,10 the activity did not achieve behaviour change, and worked to achieve strengthened relationships among those working to support vulnerable populations suffering from violence. Women were able to access services that were critical for them, however the activity did not conduct activities in a way that would ensure the provision of affordable services including social work and legal support beyond the activity period. For example, PHR did not collaborate with other NGOs working in this space such as BRAC, to leverage PHR resources, such as SWs, upon PHR’s closure. Respondents also reported inadequacy in Part II due to a lack of consideration of men. While the hypothesis mentions women, it fails to mention men. Conclusions The PHR program design and related IRs used to achieve the PHR goal remain relevant to the VAWG context in Bangladesh; however, there are multiple limitations to the approach as it was implemented. Limitations included limited engagement of the government as providers of services, lack of sustainability plans for each Intermediate Result (IR), and lack of strategic inclusion of women with disabilities, men and boys. Additionally, it was widely noted there are newly emerging types of violence and some target groups which were not covered by PHR (cyber-violence and male victims, as examples). The PHR hypothesis (and related assumptions) is logical but leaves out critical nuances that are important to define when working with vulnerable populations on sensitive issues. Most notably, the hypothesis conflates different forms of violence which require different approaches with different stakeholders and does not explicitly consider men and boys. Evaluation Question 4 9 Development Hypothesis Part I: Better implementation of Bangladesh’s DV Act (2010) and its Rules (2013), among other laws, coupled with normative changes in attitudes and behavior among citizens and officials, would bring about a decline in DV against women and other related HR violations such as CM and SH. 10 Development Hypothesis Part II: Increased public knowledge, changes in attitudes about gender, and improved relationships among key players implementing the DV Act would enhance the responsiveness of the justice system, reduce tolerance for DV, and create conditions for women to seek justice. vi How effective has Plan International’s coordination been with implementers of other DG activities and other USAID Bangladesh activities (i.e., Economic Growth; Population, Health, Nutrition and Education; Food, Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance) in achieving PHR objectives? Findings Multiple respondents believed there was limited or no synergy between PHR and USAID, or PHR and other donor programs; 6 KIIs mentioned that there was limited or no synergy with USAID and 19 KIIs mentioned there was limited or no synergy with other donor programs. Respondents believed that coordination with USAID and other donors and development actors was limited to attending meetings or events together on topics of shared interest and focus, activity observations, or referrals to livelihood assistance. It should be noted, however, that coordination with other USAID/Bangladesh activities was not part of the PHR activity design, but according to key stakeholders, PHR tried to leverage other programs to best serve survivors. Examples include USAID’s Strengthening Democratic Local Governance (SDLG) project and the Justice for All (JFA) project. Multiple stakeholders such as the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), the Manusher Jonno Foundation, local women’s groups and other NGOs have been addressing VAW and CM nationally and locally. PHR staff recounted that there were exchanges and sharing of information with these groups, but some national-level NGOs could only recall limited collaboration with PHR stakeholders, and were not fully aware of the PHR’s activities or scope. Conclusions There was limited coordination between PHR and other USAID programs, as well as between PHR and other agencies/IPs working on VAWG initiatives at national and local levels. There was a lack of recognition by international NGOs, local NGOs, academics, and activists working on VAWG of PHR activities, goal, and impact. In some cases, these groups had never heard of PHR, and in others they could not accurately describe PHR’s work. Evaluation Question 5 To what extent do representatives of the media, NGOs, and the GoB perceive PHR as successful in achieving its objectives? Findings The majority of KIIs, FGDs, and mini-survey respondents were satisfied with PHR and believed it achieved many of its objectives. When asked which activity was more successful than others, 43 percent of mini￾survey respondents referenced courtyard meetings, nearly 33 percent referenced access to justice, and approximately 22 percent said a combination of the two. Almost all respondents stated that PHR was important in raising awareness of violence. The report includes additional perceptions of PHR activity successes by media, NGOs, GoB, security forces, community members, and school teachers and students. Conclusions Respondents across categories perceived PHR positively, and women survivors were especially appreciative of having access to justice and support to connect to lawyers or to salish. The main criticisms were directed at length; while the activity was seen to be timely in that it was launched after the DV Act was passed in 2010, it was also too short of a activity to lead to behavior change. vii RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for USAID 1. USAID should consider funding a follow-on activity to cement PHR results and address emerging forms of violence given that behavioral change of this nature can require more than five years to take root. 2. USAID should continue to support national-level activities on VAWG so that PHR results are sustained. 3. USAID should support interventions that advocate for MOWCA to devote additional resources and personnel at the UP and ward levels to broaden its reach and effectiveness. 4. USAID should support work with the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (MLJPA) to institutionalize PHR-type curricula for judges and with the Ministry of Education to amend secondary school curricula. 5. USAID should support future interventions that address the root causes of violence and address newer forms of violence identified by this evaluation, as well as work more intensively with men and boys affected by violence. 6. USAID should ensure that future VAWG activities establish appropriate indicators to track goals and objectives and conduct ongoing M&E to inform continued learning. Recommendations for Implementing Partners 7. Implementers of VAWG activities should consider sustainability mechanisms in activity design. Examples include institutionalizing VAWG curricula in various venues, such as the Bangladesh Administrative Training Center, to orientate administrators, judges, and other professionals; and providing tools that enable survivors to apply vocational skills, supplementary to skills training. 8. Implementers that work with local NGOs with varying levels of capacity and experience should conduct annual Organizational Capacity Assessments. 9. Implementers that aim to change attitudes, behaviors, and cultural norms surrounding sensitive issues should design and implement more intensive and longer trainings. 10. Implementers of future activities related to VAWG and women’s access to justice should employ and reference expertise in gender, psycho-sociology, and trauma. LESSONS LEARNED  Coordination and synergies with other USAID activities and external donors must be incorporated into the activity design if they are to be prioritized and strategically implemented.  Effective M&E requires an evolving strategy and plan for measuring results throughout a activity’s duration to account for programmatic challenges.  Income generation is crucial to empowering VAWG survivors, sustaining activity results, and reducing vulnerability once an activity closes.  Efforts to promote non-violence should be integrated into school culture and should discuss all forms of violence.  Activities intending to increase access to justice for VAWG survivors should incorporate gender￾sensitive training in Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) and mediation.  Work on VAWG requires implementers with a robust track record in that arena.  Donor-funded VAWG activities require an exit strategy and sustainability plan. 1 I. INTRODUCTION Violence against women and girls (VAWG) and gender-based violence (GBV) are widespread in Bangladesh. According to a 2015 survey from the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, “almost two thirds (72.6 percent) of ever married women experienced one or more such forms of violence by their husband at least once in their lifetime, and 54.7 percent experienced violence during last 12 months.” 11 Multiple laws and mechanisms exist at the national and sub-national levels to protect women and girls from violence in their homes and to prosecute perpetrators. To address this development problem, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/ Bangladesh funded the Protecting Human Rights (PHR) Activity. PHR was a $12.7 million activity that commenced on March 15, 2011, and was due to end on March 14, 2016, but received a one-year extension to March 14, 2017. The activity was implemented by Plan International (hereafter referred to as Plan) under a cooperative agreement with USAID. Plan conducted the activity with the Bangladesh National Women Lawyers’ Association (BNWLA) and, to a lesser extent, with the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW).12 At the local level, 11 Bangladeshi non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supported activity implementation in the different program locations through supervision and recruitment of Social Workers, and through education and training.13 The PHR’s purpose was to reduce domestic violence (DV) and human rights (HR) violations such as child marriage (CM), sexual harassment (SH), dowry violence, stalking, and physical humiliation. Plan sought to accomplish this goal through a range of activities designed to encourage legal reform, enhance local NGO and government capacities to combat DV and HR-related abuses, provide direct legal and other services, and change public attitudes and behaviors. This report details the results of a final performance evaluation of PHR, conducted by Social Impact, Inc. (SI) for USAID/Bangladesh. This evaluation follows a mid-term performance evaluation conducted by SI in June 2014, as well as a Human Rights Assessment conducted by SI for USAID/Bangladesh in April 2016. In what follows, the evaluation team (ET) lays out the development problem and USAID’s response; evaluation methodology and limitations; findings and conclusions, organized by evaluation question (EQ); lessons learned; and recommendations for USAID and implementing partners (IPs) involved in related future interventions. 11 Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics and Information Division, Ministry of Planning Report on Violence Against Women (VAW) Survey 2015. 12 The ICRW partnership ended before PHR activities closed in 2016. The ET requested an interview with ICRW, but this did not take place. 13 PHR originally had 17 partner NGOs, and this number was reduced to 12. 2 II. THE DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM AND USAID’S RESPONSE THE DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM DV affects many women in Bangladesh in both rural and urban areas. The World Health Organization found that in Bangladesh, 62 percent of women in rural sites and 53 percent of those in the capital experienced VAWG by their intimate partners. The GoB found that 72.6 percent of ever-married women have suffered DV at least once in their lifetime, with controlling behavior most prevalent followed by physical, emotional, sexual and economic violence.14 Bangladesh has the fourth-highest rate of CM in the world, with 29 percent of girls in Bangladesh married before the age of 15 years, and 65 percent married before the age of 18 years. Studies show the practice is more common in rural than urban areas, with poor and marginalized populations the worst affected. While global literature tends to see a direct correlation between girls’ education and reduction in CM, this has not been the case in Bangladesh. Recently, the Bangladesh Parliament revised the Child Marriage Restraint Act (CMRA) with a special clause that allows girl children to marry at 16 years with their parents’ permission. This runs afoul of international standards defining a child as any person under 18 years, such as the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other elements of Bangladeshi national legislation, such as the 2013 Children's Act. It is also in contravention of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, Article 16-2). Multiple pieces of legislation and policy do exist in Bangladesh to address violence against women (VAW), including the Domestic Violence Prevention and Protection Act (2010) and its Rules (2013). The actual impact of laws and policies in Bangladesh has, however, been less than optimal. Legal solutions alone have had limited success in preventing VAW, with ineffective implementation of existing laws, a lack of responsiveness within the criminal justice system, and impunity for acts of violence being seen by many as the rule rather than the exception. Additional hurdles of traditional practices harmful to women and girl children including dowry are encountered in both DV dynamics as well as those found in CM. The activity was designed in response to these problems, to reduce high levels of HR violations against women with particular emphasis on DV, CM, and dowry exploitation. USAID’S RESPONSE The PHR Theory of Change was that better implementation of Bangladesh’s DV Act (2010) and its Rules (2013), among other laws, coupled with normative changes in attitudes and behavior among citizens and officials would bring about a decline in DV and human rights violations (development hypothesis part I). Increased public knowledge, changes in attitudes about gender, and improved relationships among key players implementing the DV Act would enhance the justice system’s responsiveness, reduce tolerance for DV, and create conditions for women to seek justice (development hypothesis part II). Progress on PHR’s expected results assumed that: 1) Relations with GoB would remain strong and positive around DV and related issues; and 2) Other donors’ assistance and support for countering DV would be maintained. 14 Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics and Information Division, Ministry of Planning Report on Violence Against Women (VAW) Survey 2015. 3 PHR intended to a) contribute to change in state duty bearers’ practices of and b) foster a comprehensive DV response model with the participation of multi-level stakeholders and institutions to expedite the implementation of the DV Act. Plan addressed the overall goal through four intermediate results (IRs) outlined in Figure 1. Figure 1: PHR Goal and Results Framework To achieve progress toward these IRs, PHR was composed of five components: 1) Advocacy, 2) Capacity Building, 3) Access to Justice, 4) Survivor Services, and 5) Mass Awareness and Educational Campaigns. Plan and its partners implemented these components in 102 union parishads (UPs or Unions, i.e., government administrative units within upazilas) within eight upazilas (local government units) located in six districts: Barguna, Bogra, Chittagong, Dinajpur, Jessore, and Sylhet. See Annex C for a map of activity implementation sites. It should be noted that while Betagi Upazila in Barguna was PHR’s control site where no PHR activities took place, PHR was unable to collate data on Betagi Upazila to compare with PHR’s programmatic effects in other locations. IR 1: DV and HR Legislation and Policies Enforced (Components 1 and 2: Advocacy and Capacity Building). Under IR 1, PHR worked to advance advocacy efforts for the enactment of rules and enforcement of the DV Act. PHR was part of the national alliances against VAWG and also worked to form a functional national gender forum in partnership with NGOs active on GBV issues to provide technical support to the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs (MOWCA). PHR and its partners worked with the government at the national and local levels to facilitate meetings, dialogues, and sharing of ideas and experiences to strengthen support services for implementation of the DV Act. PHR lobbied MOWCA to re-activate the Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee (IMCC) and incorporate DV issues in its agenda. It supported the convening of five meetings of the Human Rights Advocacy Forum (HRAF) at national level with cross-ministerial involvement. IR 2: Increased Access to Formal and Informal Justice Systems by HR Survivors (Component 3: Access to Justice). PHR’s interventions under IR 2 were led by BNWLA, with 51 legal counselors Sub-IR1.1: Enhanced Advocacy Efforts of NGOs and Coalitions. Sub-IR 1.2: Capacity of HR Stakeholders to Monitor and Investigate Abuse Strengthened. Sub-IR 2.1: Increased Access to Formal and Informal Justice Systems for HR Survivors. Sub-IR 3.1: Strengthened Network of Support Service NGOs. Goal: To reduce the high prevalence of DV and other related human rights abuses in targeted areas of Bangladesh IR 3: Increased Support Services to HR Abuse Survivors. IR 2: Increased use of Formal and Informal Justice Systems by HR Survivors. IR 4: Public Awareness on HR Issues Improved. IR 1: Key DV and HR Legislation and Policies Enforced. Sub-IR 2.2: Legal Counselling for Women Strengthened. Sub-IR 3.2: Increased Access of Victims of HR and DV to Support Services. 4 (LCs) at the union level providing direct legal support to survivors. To strengthen salish, the local Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism, PHR provided basic training to salish members and partners on DV and other human rights issues. PHR LCs, Social Workers (SWs) and local NGO partners then monitored salish for illegal verdicts and gender bias. PHR also provided paralegal training to members of NGOs and women serving as upazila members, vice-chairpersons, and UP members to enable them to disseminate legal information, monitor cases, and provide information to victims about available services. IR 3: Increased Support Services to HR Abuse Survivors (Component 4: Survivor Services). PHR’s support services for survivors of DV and other abuses included outreach to women through union￾level SWs who were managed by PHR partner NGOs. SWs provided psychosocial back-up and referrals for legal advice, shelter and vocational/livelihood trainings (where possible). PHR supported local partners to develop a referral system for the upazilas; provide information to the LCs, Social Protection Groups (SPGs), NGOs, and others to inform survivors about available services. Plan provided training on psychosocial counseling to 102 SPG members from 102 unions, with a psychologist in Dhaka providing psychosocial supervision and further advice to the SWs. Through the upazila referral system, survivors and their children received emergency shelter, protection, and medical support at the upazila level, and were linked with microfinance service providers, government, and NGOs. IR 4: Public Awareness on HR Improved (Component 5: Mass Awareness and Educational Campaigns). Through public information campaigns and trainings for specialist providers such as the police and judiciary, PHR raised awareness on laws related to DV, CM, dowry, and other abuses as well as informed survivors about support mechanisms. These campaigns included four clusters of activities: 1) community events organized by SPGs, 2) courtyard meetings conducted by SWs, 3) media campaigns and information, education, and communication (IEC) materials such as television spots, newspaper articles, and radio, and 4) activities focusing on high schools and colleges. 5 III. EVALUATION PURPOSE, USE, AND QUESTIONS Through the Democracy and Governance Programs’ Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Support Activity task order, USAID/Bangladesh engaged SI to conduct the final performance evaluation of the PHR Activity. The purpose of this final performance evaluation, as stated in the Statement of Work (Annex A) was to provide USAID/Bangladesh with information about: the effectiveness of various aspects of the PHR Activity—and factors contributing to effectiveness; continued relevance of the PHR Activity’s development hypothesis and critical assumptions; coordination with democracy and governance (DG) and other activities implemented in Bangladesh; and stakeholder perceptions about the success of the PHR Activity.15 The audiences for this evaluation include USAID/Bangladesh, USAID/Washington, leaders of USAID Forward, Plan, and bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors working on gender equality and GBV issues in Bangladesh. During the client kick-off meeting on March 23, 2017, SI learned that USAID/Bangladesh does not intend to support immediate follow-on programming focused on GBV or DV. However, the recommendations and lessons learned offered by the ET could be relevant for future interventions to address this development problem. This final performance evaluation focused on the questions below offered by USAID. Effectiveness: 1. To what extent were the activity objectives achieved, and what were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives? 2. What real difference, intended and unintended, has the activity made to the beneficiaries? Relevance: 3. To what extent are the activity objectives still relevant to the current DV circumstances in Bangladesh? Does the development hypothesis and critical assumptions upon which the PHR activity was designed still hold true? Why or why not? Synergy with other USAID and Donor-Funded Programs: 4. How effective has Plan International’s coordination been with implementers of other DG activities and other USAID Bangladesh activities (i.e., Economic Growth; Population, Health, Nutrition and Education; Food, Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance) in achieving PHR objectives? Client Satisfaction (GoB, beneficiaries, other stakeholders): 5. To what extent do representatives of the media, NGOs, and the GoB perceive PHR as successful in achieving its objectives? Additionally, to inform the USAID/Bangladesh Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for Fiscal Years 2017-2021, the Mission requested that the ET consider how programming to combat GBV and DV may relate to countering violent extremism (CVE) and preventing radicalization of youth and other groups. Please see Annex G for the ET’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations on this topic. 15 Complete Statement of Work for the assignment can be found in Annex A. 6 IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The ET used a mixed methods evaluation design, consisting of document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and a mini-survey. The Evaluation Design Matrix in Annex B illustrates the relationship between the EQs, data sources, and methods used for data collection and analysis. SAMPLING The ET conducted data collection during April 2017 in Dhaka and directly in three of the six districts in which PHR was implemented, as well as in one district by phone. With input from USAID/Bangladesh and Plan, the ET selected the districts of Bogra (Upazila of Shariakandi, and UP of Kutubpur), Chittagong (city, Upazila of Patiya, and UPs of Kachuai and Haidgaon), and Jessore (Upazila and UP of Manirampur) for site visits to engage relevant stakeholders and PHR partners at the national and local levels. The mid-term ET visited PHR sites in Bogra and Chittagong, allowing this ET to compare PHR achievements in those districts over time. Please see Annex C: Map of Sites Evaluated. The site visit locations reflect diverse social tendencies (ranging from conservative to more urbane attitudes toward gender), as well as geographic and economic diversity. The ET chose the districts in consideration of PHR baseline data on rates of DV per Upazila, implementation of various PHR activities in different locations, PHR’s categorization of the effectiveness of UP SPGs, and the proximity of the Upazilas to the district center. At USAID’s request, the ET also conducted KIIs and surveys in Betagi Upazila in Barguna, the activity control site where no PHR activities took place (and also where no comparison data was collected by the activity). The ET conducted these KIIs to understand how violence affects this area, whether there have been any notable changes in violence levels in recent years, and what contributed to any increases or decreases. Due to the absence of a follow-on survey from the baseline in this area, the ET’s findings cannot speak to PHR’s effectiveness or impact. However, these findings provide some lessons learned for the evaluation overall. DATA COLLECTION METHODS Document Review The ET conducted a review of documents produced by and relevant to PHR and used this literature to refine the data collection protocols. For a list of documents received for this evaluation, see Annex E. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) The ET used a purposeful sampling approach to identify candidates for KIIs. While the selection of key informants was guided by recommendations from Plan and USAID, the ET applied several additional criteria in the selection process, including the degree to which key informants were beneficiaries of PHR support. The ET conducted 72 KIIs with a total of 13816 individuals (65 female, 73 male). KIIs were conducted one-on-one or in small groups as appropriate, at locations selected by the interviewees, NGO staff, and former Plan Regional Managers. Table 1 below shows the number of respondents per district 16 This includes 58 KIIs and 14 Group Interviews (GIs), for a total of 72. GIs included three or more respondents but followed the KII protocols. 7 for each data collection method. A complete list of respondents can be found in Annex F (organized by data collection method). The ET developed data collection protocols (Annex D) to guide its fieldwork, and SI’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed and approved relevant protocols to ensure that they were designed according to ethical good practice with issues of privacy, informed consent, and sensitivity to GBV survivors at the fore. These protocols guided KIIs with the following target groups: 1. GoB officials 2. Donors and development partners including USAID 3. Implementing Partner (Plan) and Plan partners (BNWLA and local NGOs) 4. Gender and human rights experts and advocates 5. Social Workers 6. LCs, lawyers, and judges involved in DV Act cases; lawmakers and police officials 7. Educators 8. Female beneficiaries (including women survivors) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) The ET conducted a total of 17 FGDs in Bogra, Chittagong, and Jessore with a total of 143 participants (75 female, 68 male) from each of the following target groups: 1. Female beneficiaries (“survivors”) who received social services, counseling, or support from PHR 2. Male family members or community members such as religious leaders, community leaders, UP members, chairmen 3. Upazila Violence Against Women and Children Committee (UVAWCC) members 4. Secondary school students Each FGD included 5-10 participants selected through consultation with Plan and partner NGOs. The ET worked with Plan and its partners to select locations that were considered convenient and safe for FGD participants, and the ET accounted for time, logistics, childcare, and safety when scheduling FGDs with women. Moderators were briefed in advance on sensitivity to women survivors, including knowing how to identify and refer for counseling or support any participants who required those services. The ET obtained oral informed consent from participants to ensure that they understood the purpose and voluntary nature of the FGDs. FGDs were held with men and women together when that was determined appropriate (e.g., with UP committees), while other FGDs were held with men and women separately. The FGDs with UP committees were mixed according to the gender representation on these committees. Mini-Survey The ET conducted a mini-survey of UVAWCC members and PHR service providers located in PHR implementation districts where the ET did not conduct in-person data collection. Local ET members conducted the mini-survey by telephone in Bengali with a total of 49 respondents: 45 respondents were former or current UVAWCC members (15 respondents per district in Barguna, Dinajpur, Sylhet), and four were service providers (total of 24 female, 25 male). Respondents were selected at random from lists provided by Plan, controlled to ensure geographic and gender representation (a stratified random sample). The mini-survey protocol (Annex D) consisted of 11 questions and prompts for respondents to provide illustrative examples. While the mini-survey results are not statistically significant, the data was used to triangulate the qualitative data obtained through the ET’s KIIs and FGDs. See Annex I for complete mini-survey results. 8 Table 1: Respondent Statistics by Data Collection Method District Sex KII GI FGD Survey District Subtotal District Total Barguna Male 5 - - 8 13 22 Female 1 - - 8 9 Bogra Male 6 14 23 N/A 43 74 Female 2 10 19 31 Chittagong Male 11 9 19 N/A 39 92 Female 7 15 31 53 Dhaka Male 10 2 - N/A 12 34 Female 18 4 - 22 Dinajpur Male N/A N/A N/A 9 9 17 Female 8 8 Jessore Male 7 8 26 N/A 41 68 Female 3 5 19 27 Remote Male 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 1 Female - - Sylhet Male N/A N/A N/A 8 8 16 Female 8 8 Subtotal by Method Male Female 40 33 68 25 31 34 69 24 324 Total by Method 71 67 137 49 DATA ANALYSIS ET members conducted multiple internal debriefs during fieldwork to discuss evidence collected and preliminary findings and conclusions. Triangulation across sources enabled the ET to cross-verify and cross-validate the findings that emerged from using the above methods and data sources to identify correlations between findings and determine PHR’s overall effectiveness. It also allowed for comparison of perspectives across groups by sex and age. The ET utilized methodological triangulation to develop parallel protocols with the same or similar questions across its KIIs, FGDs, and mini-survey. This enabled greater data triangulation because each method addressed sub-sets of the same EQs, and findings were validated or refuted by the other techniques. Methodological triangulation also enabled the ET to strengthen the potential linkages and accuracy of its data if the results obtained through one method are less conclusive than another method. Data Analysis Methods The ET employed several data analysis methods to identify key findings from the collected data, as well as to draw conclusions and make recommendations. The ET conducted pattern analysis by using tally sheets to analyze trends across responses and identify gaps in findings, while conducting content analysis of KIIs and FGDs. Lastly, gender analysis included disaggregation of data by gender and analyzing the effects of the activity on men, women, and children. LIMITATIONS 9 During fieldwork and data analysis, the ET was aware of several limitations and risks for bias. The ET took every effort to mitigate the below risks over the course of the evaluation. Sampling: The ET conducted site visits in only three of the six districts in which PHR was implemented, largely due to resource constraints and the selected method of evaluation (qualitative). The ET also conducted remote data collection in the three other districts via the mini-survey and remote KIIs in the activity’s control site in Barguna. Due to the absence of a follow-on survey to the baseline, the ET’s findings from data collected in the control site cannot speak to PHR’s effectiveness or impact. Activity Data Limitations: The ET’s ability to measure PHR’s effectiveness was compromised by a lack of activity monitoring data. According to Plan representatives, data was not collected to measure changes in DV according to PHR’s Performance Management Plan (PMP). Nor did the PMP include outcome-level indicators, which are critical for assessing behavioral change. Some PHR representatives considered the baseline survey inadequate, which limited its use, but no steps were taken to remedy this shortcoming. An end-line study was never conducted, and measurement of program effectiveness relied on observation and case studies rather than on the use of any specific quantitative tool. Gender Bias: Gender bias is a risk because most individuals have a subconscious sense of appropriate roles and behavior for women and men. When dealing with issues of violence and discrimination against women and girls, as well as gender equality, there is a risk that team members will unwittingly import their own value judgements. The ET examined its own preconceptions and reviewed gender-sensitive approaches, especially when asking questions around inter-personal violence. Additionally, each team member completed USAID’s Gender 101 Training. Sensitivity of Issues: Issues of DV and HR abuses are inherently sensitive. In rural Bangladesh, sensitivities relate to religious beliefs, women’s disempowerment, and people’s disinclinations to discuss family matters of any kind with outsiders. To mitigate these concerns, to the extent possible, the ET held some FGDs with women only. The ET emphasized confidentiality in all meetings, especially with PHR beneficiaries (survivors). The ET members were cognizant of the reality that some respondents might be survivors, perpetrators, or both survivors and perpetrators. Selection Bias: Selection bias is an inherent risk when implementers help to facilitate contact with activity beneficiaries. In consultation with local NGOs, Plan Regional Managers selected beneficiaries to participate based on who responded to outreach requests, lived within a reasonable distance to data collection sites, and experienced varied types of violence. Beneficiaries were forthcoming about PHR challenges and limitations, however. In some cases, they were not intimately aware of PHR (but knew the name of local NGOs instead). To guard against selection bias, the ET also interviewed persons contacted independently of Plan and former PHR staff. These factors suggest bias did not prevent the collection of necessary data. Recall Bias: Recall bias is a common evaluation problem, particularly when working with traumatized individuals or groups, including female survivors of DV. PHR beneficiaries may have responded to the ET’s questions with answers that blended their experiences into a composite memory. Recall could also prove challenging given the timing of this evaluation because some activities were conducted several years ago. The ET mitigated this risk by conducting as many KIIs and FGDs as necessary within the fieldwork period with a variety of stakeholders to triangulate responses and increase the validity of the evaluation findings. Response Bias: Response bias is the risk that key informants may be motivated to provide responses that would be considered socially desirable or influential in obtaining donor support. For example, a training participant may provide positive remarks about an activity because s/he would like to attend such trainings in the future or because s/he wants to please the interviewer or other participants in a group. 10 Response bias is connected to cultural and social norms and impacted by gender or social ranking. If the first person who speaks in a FGD is the most senior in the group, other participants might take their cues from this person and only echo his/her responses. While the majority of key informants praised PHR’s success and requested a follow-on activity, the ET was able to effectively probe on programmatic challenges and limitations, thus minimizing this bias. 11 V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1 To what extent were the activity objectives achieved, and what were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives? Findings Goal: To reduce the high prevalence of DV and other HR abuses in targeted areas of Bangladesh Numerous respondents reported that DV and CM decreased during PHR due to a variety of factors (in 37 out of 69 KII, respondents reported that DV decreased whereas 40 out of 69 KIIs reported that CM decreased). The majority of FGDs supported this belief as well (12 out of 18 FGDs believed DV decreased and 13 FGDs believed that CM decreased). Sexual harassment (SH) was not discussed as prevalently in KIIs, but respondents in 17 KIIs and 5 FGDs believe SH recently decreased as well. As displayed in Table 2, 86 percent of mini-survey respondents either strongly agree or agree that DV decreased, 92 percent either strongly agree or agree that CM decreased, and more than 85 percent either strongly agree or agree that SH decreased. For complete mini-survey results, see Annex I. While the majority of stakeholders, including men and women, either interviewed or surveyed believe that violence decreased during PHR, the activity did not track progress against this goal. Therefore, the ET cannot confirm if violence did in fact decrease in the implementation sites though national level statistics suggest a slight decrease.17 Several stakeholders noted that while they believe violence decreased, there was no aggregated evidence to support their claims, just an overall sense. They pointed to Child Marriage Free Zones as evidence in some cases. Plan key informants cited CM free zones as well and noted that national statistics show a slight decrease in violence over the PHR period. Some male and female local government officials, police and teachers recalled the number of complaints received as evidence to support their responses. Four key informants in the PHR control site in Barguna also reported that DV decreased, whereas two key informants stated violence has been comparatively low or remained the same, and six key informants reported that CM decreased; government and local NGO initiatives were said to contribute to decreases.18 These findings need to be qualified by the fact that many survivors may not have the resources or confidence to seek help at the district, Upazila and in some cases, UP levels when there are no female intermediaries (such as the PHR SWs) to provide support given PHR’s closure. Multiple stakeholders stated that CM was routinely taking place in non-PHR areas, which made it difficult to track success, and that political pressure can lead to fraudulent documents attesting to fake age or threats on people trying to stop CM, including Kazis (Marriage Registrars), SWs and LCs. This was also supported in three FGDs with male community members, UVAWCC members and female survivors where participants commented that violence was not necessarily reduced by the activity, but that it was “suppressed.” 17 National-level statistics report an approximate 7 percent decrease in violence between 2011 and 2015. 18 Those respondents in the control site attributed these decreases to an overall rise in awareness due to government and NGO efforts, and to the effects of the law. 12 Table 2: Mini-Survey, Questions 3-5 Intermediate Result 1: DV and HR Legislation and Policies Enforced Component 1 – Advocacy Performance Monitoring Data This IR is measured by four indicators, two of which do not have target and achievement data so indicator performance could not be analyzed. One of these indicators measured the number of laws, policies, or procedures drafted, proposed, or adopted. According to a Plan KI, PHR contributed to drafting the Sexual Harassment Law, The National Plan of Action, and the CMRA (including its Amendment). With respect to the indicator for Level of Enactment of the DV Act 2010, monitoring data shows that this was achieved midway through the activity, with a Gazette notification confirming the rules for public circulation. According to the PMP, PHR also prevented 1,534 child marriages, which far exceeded its target of 216. 19 One male respondent (PHR Service Provider) from Dinajpur selected 1 – ‘Strongly Disagree.’ DV has decreased over the past 5 years Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree M F M F M F  Dinajpur 3 1 4 7 2 --  Barguna 3 1 3 6 2 1  Sylhet 1 2 7 4 -- 2 TOTAL across districts (% of responses by gender) 7 (28%) 4 (16.7%) 14 (56%) 17 (70.8%) 4 (16%) 3 (12.5%) Overall Total, both M/F (% of total) 11 (22.4%) 31 (63.3%) 7 (14.3%) CM has decreased over the past 5 years Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree M F M F M F  Dinajpur 4 4 3 4 2 --  Barguna 3 4 5 3 -- 1  Sylhet 1 4 7 3 -- 1 TOTAL across districts (% of responses by gender) 8 (32%) 12 (50%) 15 (60%) 10 (41.7%) 2 (8%) 2 (8.3%) Overall Total, both M/F (% of total) 20 (40.8%) 25 (51%) 4 (8.2%) SH has decreased over the past 5 years Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree M F M F M F  Dinajpur19 2 2 4 6 2 --  Barguna 3 1 5 7 -- --  Sylhet 3 2 4 2 1 4 TOTAL across districts (% of responses by gender) 8 (32%) 5 (20.8%) 13 (52%) 15 (62.5%) 3 (12%) 4 (16.7%) Overall Total, both M/F (% of total) 13 (26.5%) 28 (57.1%) 7 (14.3%) 13 However, participants in several KIIs and FGDs in Chittagong, Jessore and Bogra mentioned that these marriages were now likely to take place due to the absence of PHR. Sub-IR 1.1 was to Enhance NGO and Coalition Advocacy Efforts of measured by three indicators, all of which were met or achieved. PHR implemented more public advocacy campaigns than originally planned, and recognized 77 champions (target: 64) who demonstrated a commitment to combatting DV. According to PHR’s cooperative agreement, these champions “will identify DV as a priority with their colleagues, driving a cultural shift to recognize the importance of addressing DV and gender equity.”20 The functional status of the HRAF was also achieved, according to monitoring data. The Forum, which gathered more than 30 stakeholders on a quarterly basis in Dhaka advocated for DV and HR issues, conducted an advocacy workshop, and published an annual report. Interviews and Focus Group Discussions At the national and local levels, stakeholders identified several PHR achievements related to advancing legislation and discussions around DV issues. These included PHR’s close work with MOWCA to design The National Action Plan on Prevention of Violence against Women and Children 2013-2025, PHR’s promotion of the DV Act Rules, revision of the CMRA, and PHR’s organization of national events. Several stakeholders believed PHR advocacy efforts were more successful at the local level given reported increases in awareness among target communities/beneficiaries (further discussed in Component 5). The ET interviewed two PHR Champions in Jessore and Chittagong who helped spread awareness during the activity and who continue to do so as possible through their individual efforts and organizations. One champion said that PHR provided a platform that gave her greater visibility and motivation. A second Champion noted that PHR trained her on legal topics and how to conduct salish, which she still does today. According to a former Champion in Jessore, there were five Champions in this district, but only one Champion is continuing related work after the period of performance ended. The ET was unable to confirm this with other Champions in Jessore, but the Champion in Chittagong does continue these efforts through her organization. Although there were key legislative successes at the national level, key informants stated that PHR encountered difficulties sustaining advocacy efforts. For example, the HRAF was not sustained, partly because it was challenging to hold action-oriented discussions with a large group of stakeholders with diverse mandates. Moreover, the PHR Advocacy and Communications Manager position was vacant for the last 1.5 years of the activity, which might have stalled efforts. Government officials and development actors noted that despite advocacy wins, the effect of PHR’s advocacy efforts is not sustainable. MOWCA’s lack of capacity and overall institutional structure, which lacks significant presence at the UP level, were offered as reasons for this for lack of sustainability. Stakeholders during the midterm and final evaluations also questioned the effectiveness of advocacy efforts. The MTE noted that Ministry representatives did not attend the HRAF regularly, and pointed out that similar coalitions already existed. The MTE questioned whether establishing a parallel forum might have detracted from these earlier efforts and duplicated resources. Additionally, at least two senior, national-level stakeholders during the final evaluation who were closely involved with PHR, considered 20 USAID/Bangladesh, Cooperative Agreement No. AID-388-A-11-00002, 2011. 14 local advocacy efforts, and the Upazila HRAF21, to be more operational and successful than its national￾level counterpart. Despite training and PHR initiatives to build up the UVAWCCs, multiple key informants noted that the committees are dormant—not having met since PHR—or are close to becoming dormant without sustained support and training. Several local government officials stated they do not have the sufficient resources to adequately focus on these issues given numerous committees, competing priorities and limited staff. Component 2 – Capacity Building Performance Monitoring Data Sub-IR 1.2, Capacity of HR Stakeholders to Monitor and Investigate Abuse Strengthened, included five indicators. These measured a variety of areas, including the number of HR defenders trained and supported and the increased stakeholders’ level of knowledge on DV. PHR surpassed its training target by more than 15,000 people and trained over 42,000 individuals across six categories of stakeholders.22 Monitoring data shows that PHR surpassed its target with respect to increasing stakeholder knowledge as well. Another indicator - the percent of target population that views GBV as less acceptable after participating in or being exposed to U.S. Government programming - does not have target or achievement data. Interviews and Focus Group Discussions In 26 KIIs and three FGDs, key informants described skills they learned or provided examples of how they or someone they know conducted their work differently due to PHR trainings. Examples include that journalists no longer include the names of victims in reporting DV and that SWs learned basic paralegal concepts pertaining to DV punishments. SWs and LCs also mentioned learning from PHR that the payment made by the groom or his family to the bride's parents had to be paid even if a marriage resulted in divorce. Multiple key informants identified skills gained in trainings that covered how to conduct salish (discussed in more detail in Component 3). Partner NGOs reported learning more about DV legislation and laws through PHR, and remarked that the training and technical support was very good. The training materials provided were reported to be useful in raising awareness on the nature of VAWG and related law. Key informants interviewed during the midterm evaluation appreciated the PHR trainings as well but agreed that additional training was required. For example, SPG members requested mediation training so that they could conduct salish post PHR, and training on how to conduct outreach to communities. While training was provided on the first point, it is not clear if outreach training was provided. Although PHR reached a vast number of stakeholders, 14 KIIs and one FGD with male community members identified weaknesses with capacity building. Given the large number of stakeholders trained, trainings were limited to either a few days total or 2-3 days per training, in addition to refresher trainings due to timing and resourcing constraints.23 The exception is PHR NGO partners who were trained for 21 These mechanisms were later merged into the UVAWCCs, which were adopted as a nationwide model by MOWCA in 2015. According to PHR Quarterly Reports, PHR also built the capacity of the GoB SPGs so members could combat DV and HR abuses. The SPGs were later merged with the UHRAF to form the UVAWCC. 22 Categories include 1. Law making agencies 2. Law enforcement agencies 3. NGO/HR defenders and prosecutors 4. Journalists 5. Religious leaders and 6. Community police/SPG. More than 20 types of modules were created. 23 Police training was three days; lawyers’ training was three days; medical practitioners’ training was for three days; SPG Training of Trainers was four days; SWs (‘PSC’) training entailed 13 x one hour sessions. 15 five days. Key informants during the midterm and final evaluations noted that following the Leahy vetting process for police officers was very challenging, and delayed training. The majority of key informants interviewed said the trainings were too short in duration and should have been at least 1-2 weeks long, if not longer. Three key informants, at the beneficiary level and at Plan, noted that more extensive training would not be possible given stakeholders’ professional commitments or due to institutional constraints that prevented one institution from incorporating more extensive training for judges into its training calendars. Shortcomings were identified in the training provided to SWs. Although the training materials are adequate on counseling, they do not include practical steps so that anyone can respond to common effects of trauma including panic attacks, flash-backs, and hyperventilation. There is also no discussion in any training material of risks of re-traumatization for those who are survivors working with survivors, and very little on self￾care.24 The MTE stated that although SW received training on psychosocial counseling, SW tended to provide general emotional support and consolation. The Report concluded that it was unlikely that SW could provide meaningful support in this area despite the provided training. Respondents provided feedback regarding the training content and participants. These included that there should have been more issue-based trainings for police, and coverage of counseling techniques in the DV module for the SW training. One PHR partner noted that the journalist trainings were ineffective because editors are not interested in sensitive pieces but preferred drama. A PHR January 2017 Quarterly Report25 also spoke to the importance of involving editors in training and stated that “editors are not interested in publishing news from NGOs.” PHR pre- and post-test questionnaires were disseminated to training participants, with the exception of judges who did not feel comfortable completing them. The tests took 30 minutes to complete, and included perception-based statements that respondents marked true or false. An example includes, “the condition and situation of men and women is equal in our society,” and “hard laws need to be enacted and ensure punishment in order to prevent domestic violence.” Knowledge-based multiple-choice questions were also asked about relevant acts and laws; for example, one question asked respondents to choose the correct punishment for CM. Ex-post tests were not conducted after the training to measure ongoing skill application and knowledge retention, so behavioral change was not measured of the training activities. Intermediate Result 2: Increased Access to Formal and Informal Justice Systems by HR Survivors Component 3 – Increase Access to Justice Performance Monitoring Data 24 Although there was a session on burn-out and stress, there is nothing else on self-care for SWs. 25 Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, October - December 2016. 16 PHR achieved and in many cases strongly outperformed indicator targets for this IR and its two sub-IRs, Increase Access to Formal and Informal Justice Systems for HR Survivors and Legal Counseling for Women Strengthened. PHR achieved double its target for the number of survivors who received legal services (Target: 7,140 vs. Achievement: 14,313); more than 12,000 cases were settled through salish (Target: 6,533), 93 percent of which came from women; and nearly 7,900 survivors received door-step legal counseling (Target: 3,393). PHR also filed 565 legal cases as of December 2016.26 The indicator for the number of Public Interest Litigations (PIL) conducted that addressed violations of human rights narrowly missed its target by one PIL. Interviews and Focus Group Discussions In 23 KIIs and nine FGDs with UVAWCC members, male community members and female survivors, respondents discussed PHR training or support on salish and the formal legal system, although salish was much more commonly referenced. PHR provided basic legal training to salish members and paralegal training to Upazila and Union Council members. PHR monitored salish to ensure that it was gender sensitive, that women were given the right to participate, and that women’s preferences were of equal importance to men. Some key informants believe that salish is still biased towards males however. Key informants referenced learning a variety of skills, including that salish cannot be conducted for all cases (e.g., rape, murder, and acid throwing) and that women’s opinions need to be listened to, even if they do not conform to cultural standards (e.g., seeking divorce). PHR documentation and several key informants note that one major achievement under this component was that “trained salish members obtained dower27 and maintenance of more than 7.2 crores (equivalent to US$922,500) for survivors through salish at the village-level over the life of the activity.”28 Other achievements under this component include PHR referrals and legal support. Some key informants noted that PHR referrals to the District Legal Aid Committees (DLAC) for cases that could not be resolved due to their severity (e.g. rape or murder) were a activity achievement since survivors can now receive justice for cases that could not be resolved during PHR. The Committee also continues to provide support post-PHR, although at the district level. Perhaps most noteworthy about Component 3 is that legal services were provided at no cost and were made accessible through the use of LCs and SWs. The activity was considered by survivors in particular to have increased their access to justice. This arose in four out of five FGDs with female survivors but was also supported in FGDs with male community members (three out of three FGDs) and UVAWCC members (two out of four FGDs). In particular, until PHR, there were no practicing lawyers outside urban centers resulting in very limited access to the formal justice system for the poor, victimized women, and youth. Initially the activity struggled with this, but once PHR-BNWLA lawyers adapted to working at the UP level and on the PHR cases, they reported that they found the work satisfying and effective. Lawyers felt they had managed to change the culture and reduce violence as well as create a demand, and were proud of the three PILs filed under the activity. Plan and 26 Data provided by Plan International Bangladesh Office, April 2017. 27 Dower is the price a widow receives from her husband’s estate in the event of his death. 28 Plan International Bangladesh. Final PHR Lessons Learned Report, pp 14. 2017. “The legal service providers listened to the women's problem very carefully and with emotion. That is why women were also able to share their problem with SW and legal providers. But the program should have run longer. It seems like the seeds have just been sown...now the seeds can grow or can be destroyed. Similarly, the violence situation has improved a bit. But it can go back to the previous level.” F, Dinajpur, UVWACC 17 the (BNWLA), the partner implementer for this component, believe that PHR largely achieved its objectives. There are several limitations in the formal and informal justice systems that were outside of the program’s control, but that impact the effectiveness of Component 3. These include a severe backlog of cases in the formal justice system that can delay outcomes for years, and a nationwide shortage of judges to preside over cases.29 Plan notes that PHR panel lawyers were able to reduce case delays however through regular follow-up. Other limitations include that police are frequently transferred to other thanas30 and are prone to corruption, and a reliance on salish.31 While salish was the common form of justice referenced in the PHR areas during evaluation fieldwork, some key informants questioned the quality of salish and suggested there are pressures to ensure signed agreements are successful, implying that decisions may have been reached that were not in the best interest of the woman. This tracks with findings from the MTE which stated that “the majority (92 percent) of PHR client cases handled by LCs are mediated for the purpose of enabling women to return to their husbands.” Although success cannot be expected in all cases, some female survivors who sought PHR legal assistance due to dowry problems did not yet receive justice through salish and are still living with their parents. It was also reported that some UP members did not allow PHR representatives to be present in salish to monitor proceedings for gender sensitivity. With respect to the formal justice system, one key informant noted that most formal cases were acquitted although the ET did not see data to support this claim. Moreover, now that the PHR period of performance has ended, it is unlikely that poorer survivors will be able to access justice at more formal levels since the cost to file a case can be prohibitive (around 10,000 BDT or approximately $120, according to at least one LC). According to key informants, some legal cases could not be resolved during PHR because of the length of time it takes to process them through the formal justice system, and because the nature of some cases required referrals to the district level. BNWLA has committed to following up with several cases post-PHR through their panel lawyers however. Stakeholders also noted several weaknesses of the DV Act. For example, there is indication according to lawyers, some outside experts and the BNWLA that cases are not filed under the Act because it does not provide sufficient punishment to deter further abuse —and that relevant cases, such as those pertaining to domestic violence stemming from child marriage, are instead filed under other acts such as the CMRA, which has harsher penalties. One expert from a Dhaka-based NGO supported this claim and noted that the “purpose of this law was to change the mindset, not about punishment.” There are also challenges with respect to the sustainability of Component 3. The ET interviewed several judges, one of whom received training from BNWLA on the DV Act and gender sensitization, although due to other training demands these sessions were limited to several hours. One institution that trains judges on children’s rights, violations against women, and the Dowry Provision Act noticed that judges require more sensitization than the maximum three days offered by the PHR-BNWLA curricula. It was recommended that future initiatives come through the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (MLJPA) in order for sessions to be formally adopted into the curriculum. The MTE report recommended that PHR “advocate with the MLJPA and JATI to include a component on the DV Act and all related laws in foundation and refresher trainings for judges.” Although this recommendation was accepted by USAID it does not appear to have been implemented later on in the activity according to KIIs. The MTE also 29 Key informants estimated that there are between 1,000-1,500 judges and a backlog of 2.4 million cases. 30 Administrative sub-division. 31 Approximately 60 percent of cases are said to be served through salish, although the ET could not confirm this. 18 questioned the sustainability of this component given the LC role could not be sustained by BNWLA or MOWCA post PHR. Other challenges include that a key informant noted that it is “very difficult [for the DLAC] to provide support to everyone” given 300-400 people per day seek help, and that many people cannot access the DLAC given the long distance from the union and ward levels. It was recommended that the government should provide more logistical support and more staff at the Upazila and sub-district levels. A second key informant contrasts this viewpoint however, and notes that the DLAC has remaining budget every year and that the real issue does not concern resourcing but that survivors do not want to seek justice at the District level. Intermediate Result 3: Increased Support Services to HR Abuse Survivors Component 4 – Provide Survivor Services Performance Monitoring Data32 Similar to the above IRs, PHR achieved or strongly outperformed its indicators for this IR and its two sub￾IRs, Strengthened network of support service NGOs and Increase Access of Victims of HR and DV to Support Service. Over 200 SWs were trained on DV and HR (Target: 102), almost 75,000 psychosocial counseling services were received (Target: 16,020), and almost 5,000 survivors were referred for services (Target: 1,900). Eight upazila network referral systems were put in place by the end of the activity period. Interviews and Focus Group Discussions PHR provided a suite of survivor services at the local level, including psychosocial counseling, legal support, and referrals for shelter support. PHR also attempted to link survivors to GoB- and NGO-run medical facilities and other legal NGOs33, although many direct beneficiaries did not speak to this assistance. Many FGD and KII respondents reported that SWs were particularly integral to the success of Component 4 since they canvassed the community, and provided counseling and paralegal support, to survivors and their families. In some districts, according to Plan, the majority of SWs were survivors which empowered these women and presumably helped them to relate to other survivors. Through FGDs with female survivors and interviews with SWs, the ET found that SWs are still relied upon for support by community members, further emphasizing their importance to reaching this vulnerable population. Approximately 150 survivors received livelihoods training, but there were limitations identified during the evaluation in relation to PHR’s survivor services. Respondents in eight KIIs and four FGDs noted various challenges often arising from a lack of income generation activities, and multiple key informants said linkages with other programs or resources were unsuccessful. Plan staff, NGOs in Dhaka and districts, the police and beneficiaries all identified a resourcing gap in terms of practical livelihoods support which was felt vital. Furthermore, multiple stakeholders at the national and local levels confirmed how critical income generation support was to survivors, emphasizing in some cases that survivors could not be empowered without it. The MTE noted that links to other USAID programs, such as the Horticulture Project, and other microfinance providers, increased in year 3 of the program but were still very small 32 There are problems with interpreting the meaning and sense of this indicator: number of people reached by U.S. Government funded intervention providing GBV services – 68,000 people. There was no target and no activity implementation reviews; therefore, it cannot be ascertained who was reached and via what means. 33 The list of referrals is only found in the LC training manual, and includes a majority of legal NGOs for referrals – including BLAST, AoS Kendra, MLAA, BRAC, RDRS, BMP, NU, BMBS. There are no other non-legal NGOs mentioned. 19 according to SW reports. During the final evaluation, Plan and USAID staff mentioned that other USAID programs provided support to PHR survivors, and again referenced the Horticulture Program in Jessore. Another issue that arose in FGDs was that survivors stated they received training but did not receive tools to apply their new skills; for example, those who attended sewing training did not receive sewing machines—even though some survivors said the machines were promised to them (in some cases). Plan notes that survivors were not promised machines and that the referral mechanism provided additional support to survivors. In some instances, the GoB provided tools to survivors. Other survivors said they needed literacy training. The ET interviewed 16 SWs. Overwhelmingly, SWs were frustrated, vulnerable, and deeply worried about the PHR activity’s closure. Despite being unemployed now due to PHR’s closure, several SWs mentioned that they still respond to requests for help, which are often relayed by phone since entire communities have access to their phone numbers, and still attend courtyard meetings. There is widespread fear that violence will increase, and many noted it already has. Some survivors have even told community members who inquire about the presence of PHR staff that lawyers are sick—rather than relieved of their local duties due to the activity’s end—to prevent a possible rise in violence. This information contributed to the picture that community￾level sustainability was not addressed by PHR for survivor services. The ET visited two police stations in Bogra and Jessore as well. The thana in Bogra was described as “female friendly” given there is a women and children’s rights protection desk where women and children can speak with women police. One key informant noted however that PHR did not have the capacity to create survivor-friendly environments in police stations, although this indicator target was achieved. This comment might have been based on delays due to Leahy vetting or due to inadequate staffing. Both KIIs in Jessore and Bogra noted that their thanas are understaffed. Intermediate Result 4: Public Awareness on HR Improved Component 5 – Expand Mass Awareness and Education Campaigns Performance Monitoring Data This component consisted of a public awareness campaign and secondary school outreach. The result was measured by two indicators which tracked the number of mass awareness events held and the number of students sensitized on gender, DV, and other HR right issues. PHR exceeded targets for both indicators, nearly doubling the number of events held at 28,414 (Target: 14,737) and tripling the number of students sensitized at 82,000 (Target: 28,800). In total, PHR reached 2.5 million people out of a target population of 3.2 million in 102 Unions.34 Interviews and Focus Group Discussions 34 Plan International Bangladesh. Lessons Learned Workshop Report. 2016. “Our boat is down in the middle of the river.” Former-PHR SW, Bogra, discussing trends in violence post-PHR 20 Component 5 involved numerous events and communication mediums to raise awareness. Examples include community courtyard meetings,35 rallies, folk dramas and performances, national day events, public awareness campaigns that featured TV spots, newspaper articles, and radio messages. PHR also trained secondary school teachers in its activity implementation districts to teach seven one-hour long educational sessions in schools to raise awareness among students. In common with other PHR trainings, topics focused on self-protection, awareness-raising around key laws, the rights and role of boys and girls and men and women in society, and gender discrimination. Likewise, respondents in 42 KIIs and 15 FGDs believe that PHR raised awareness on DV and HR issues. UVAWCC members surveyed by phone believed overwhelmingly that there was an increase in awareness particularly around CM. Moreover, UVAWCC members, including those surveyed by phone, noted that PHR increased the awareness of women to use salish, which led to a positive change. UVAWCC members stated that there are less problems now because they see fewer cases. The increase in awareness was cited by many respondents as a crucial and key result of PHR work. Overwhelmingly, key informants mentioned PHR courtyard meetings when discussing their involvement in the activity and when providing examples of awareness raising activities, and they requested that future activities include such meetings. Stakeholders identified multiple examples of information they learned through courtyard meetings and educational outreach. Female survivors learned where to receive help, and that the payment made by the groom or his family to the bride's parents needs to be paid even if a marriage results in divorce. Women and girl’s rights and positions in society were also discussed and debated as a group during the sessions at schools. PHR-trained teachers and students were enthusiastic about the activity and wished it would continue. Although the sessions were relatively short, students identified a multitude of examples of what they learned, including the legal marriageable age for boys and girls. Children in schools who were taught the PHR curricula noted that due to PHR, they now know that they have a trained teacher to contact in case of violence/abuse-related problems. Although component 5 succeeded in reaching a tremendous number of people, respondents in 10 KIIs and eight FGDs indicated that awareness was not enhanced or was limited in some cases given minimal changes in people’s mindsets, and that any gains made with awareness-raising will recede without continuing support. Clear linkages to behavioral change were not elucidated. There were also several 35 Court yard meetings were held with a variety of groups including women, men, couples, boys and girls. Figure 2: PHR Child Marriage Awareness Poster 21 mentions by Plan Regional Managers, SWs, and NGO staff, that people are still not aware of the DV Act, which is a key step towards changing perceptions and potentially behavior around violence. Additional limitations at secondary schools include that some students also believe that their junior classmates need PHR training, both because PHR sessions were provided more than three years ago in some schools, and because the sessions could only reach a fraction of students in others. There was some indication that students and teachers continue to disseminate what they learned, but these sessions were not adopted into national-level curricula so some key informants question the sustainability of these efforts. Some teachers mentioned that they no longer teach these classes since they have ‘fulfilled’ their quota, and some say that impact is limited as this tranche of students has now left school. In some cases, girls still go to their mothers if they are sexually harassed, do not use complaints boxes, and some report that there is no longer a serious response from their teachers or families. With respect to PHR’s awareness campaigns, many key informants could not recall whether they saw or heard TV or radio spots, nor could they distinguish between government and PHR communications. A former Plan staff member said that messages were developed in consultation with local partners but were not contextualized to fit local circumstances or culture. For example, the UVAWCC FGD in Bogra noted that violence tends to increase when there is flooding in char areas, especially related to “…mental, physical and financial harassment.” Messaging did not take this into account, however. Posters included messages that spoke out against CM or DV, promoted relevant laws, or provided phone numbers where people could seek help. For example, one poster stated, “we will not marry our daughters before 18 and sons before 21,” whereas another included a picture of a school girl with the caption “I do not understand what marriage is, I want to go to school.” The ET saw several PHR posters in police stations and Union council offices; however, one PHR partner noted that people in the community either cannot read or do not want to read brochures and posters, and recommended that other communication mediums would be more effective in future programming. Major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of PHR objectives Achievement: Key informants lauded the effective support and coordination of the PHR team with local partners, praised PHR’s strong Regional Managers and the importance of SW and LC. Several partners noted that PHR’s technical support and training better equipped their organizations and their beneficiaries. At the community level, union council and UVAWCC members noted that PHR’s work increased their capacity. Multiple key informants noted that the SWs were critical to PHR’s success, as were the presence of the LCs and the provision of free legal services. SWs and LCs were also said to provide a deterrent to violence. For example, GoB officials, UVAWCC members and PHR staff including those surveyed by phone and in person emphasized that the knowledge of the law, and then the presence of lawyers in activity areas led to a reduction in violence, particularly in CM, and to some extent to reductions in SH. There were mentions of good collaboration with the government. One Plan key informant stated that all types of activities were completed alongside government stakeholders. It was also said by women at FGDs that awareness-raising activities through drama, folk media, and school interventions were integral to PHR’s success. When discussing the factors that supported PHR achievements, Plan key informants also noted that PHR “[We] Need more time to improve the situation. It felt like we were in the middle of the project [when it ended]. Creating awareness, changing attitudes is not so easy.” Former Plan Regional Manager 22 was awarded the Best Project Design in 2015.36 Plan also cited breaking the silence on VAWG in villages, training SWs and supporting them to deliver justice, and mass awareness raising as significant achievements. Non-Achievement: Key informants identified several obstacles that prevented or limited PHR achievements including political pressure and poverty. For the first point, political or religious leaders and powerful families resisted PHR efforts and in some cases threatened LC and SW for encroaching on their livelihoods or intervening in issues that were previously private family matters. Threats often arose when individuals attempted to prevent CM, which is often a cultural and financial issue. Financial constraints and poverty were also said to be major contributors to violence—and were strongly linked to incidences of dowry-related violence and CM. Several key informants also said that families used CM to protect their daughters from SH or other violent abuses, thus making it even more difficult to prevent. Other challenges included limited livelihood support, a short activity duration and sustainability issues. Eight KIIs and four FGDs including the local NGOs believed that PHR should have provided more income generation support, and that without this, women remain vulnerable and disempowered. As stated above, the majority of stakeholders believed the activity was too short in duration and therefore did not allow adequate time for more intensive trainings and sustained behavior change, particularly given the amount of time it took for PHR to start up and get underway. Respondents in many KIIs and FGDs noted that activity interventions like PHR could easily require a minimum of 10 years to make a lasting impact and to foster behavior change in communities. One Plan Regional Manager said it took nearly three years for PHR to gain momentum since the activity required time to establish LC offices and SPG. Other key informants noted that PHR’s start-up phase was slow and focused on orienting communities to the activity and getting them familiar with working with SWs and lawyers. Other challenges included frequent turnover by police, which limited training successes. Additionally, government-run UVAWCCs have little support and oversight from the GoB now that PHR is over, and meet less frequently, if at all, given the activity’s closure. Moreover, according to key informants, GoB capacity to combat these issues is constrained by competing governmental priorities and limited staff and resources. The capacity of PHR’s local NGO partners presented challenges as well - including due to limited staff, insufficient salaries, limited U.S. Government donor experience, which severely complicated data quality and reporting, and limited to no prior experience with VAWG.37 Several key informants noted that the structure of the fixed obligation grants in the first years of the partnerships prevented some partners from hiring additional staff due to funding constraints. In at least one case, the Executive Director and other NGO staff led courtyard meetings and other activities since they did not have the resources to hire staff. In another case, it was observed that a local partner was not documenting any data. Some local IPs were not provided with the proper logistics and staff required to implement PHR, and ended up using their own resources and taking staff from other activities, which impacted the sustainability of the organizations and also led to some dissatisfaction. For example, one partner noted that they were provided 500 BDT for courtyard meetings but usually spent 1,200 BDT from their own pockets to cover expenses. Plan justified not paying this as they said it was over the communicated budget, and suggested that too many people 36 Plan International USA, Inc., Protecting Human Rights: Sensitizing Students on Gender-based Violence in Bangladesh, Blog, May 11, 2016, Retrieved from https://www.planusa.org/sensitizing-students-in-bangladesh. 37 As noted in the Local Implementing Partners’ Organizational Assessment Consultancy by the Center for Social and Market Research, July 2013, four of the original 17 partner NGOs were found to have no experience in DV or VAW issues. 23 may have been invited to attend. Conclusions Goal – To reduce DV and other HR abuses in Bangladesh The ET cannot confirm that DV and HR abuses have reduced in Bangladesh due to the PHR activity given a dearth of PHR M&E gender-disaggregated indicators and data, and the lack of a follow-on survey after the baseline. Moreover, it is unlikely that VAWG declined as much as key informants perceive it has in PHR implementation districts, since these reported decreases on DV, CM, and SH do not conform to national-level statistics which indicate a 7 percent decrease in DV.38 The same statement applies for perceptions around trends in violence post-PHR, and that some key informants have noted an increase in violence but this cannot be confirmed. Additionally, key informants referenced fewer numbers of complaints to support their claims that violence decreased, however this could also be tied to underreporting or other factors. In addition, the pre- and post-test questionnaires had several weaknesses that would make it difficult to effectively measure training knowledge. For example, some statements were leading in nature, such as “hard laws need to be enacted and ensure punishment in order to prevent domestic violence,” whereas others had unclear answer choices (asking respondents to mark whether women or children of survivors were most affected due to DV). Skill application was not systematically measured given the lack of ex-post monitoring questionnaires, and behavioral change was not monitored. Intermediate Result 1 - DV and HR Legislation and Policies Enforced This IR involved two PHR components, (1) advancing advocacy at the national and local levels to prevent and combat DV abuses, and (2) building the capacity of HR defenders and organizations. Both components had notable successes, but the sustainability and therefore the success of both is in question, which is highlighted in the paragraphs that follow. Component 1 – Advocacy: PHR succeeded in bolstering the SPGs and later the UVAWCCs to combat DV and HR abuses locally, but PHR’s advocacy efforts and successes risk dormancy given the lack of continued oversight of the UVAWCCs. Local advocacy efforts require GoB commitment and oversight of the UVAWCC now that PHR is not monitoring these mechanisms. If the government (i.e. MOWCA) does not devote more resources and staff at local levels (ideally at the UP and ward levels), DV advocacy and ultimately enforcement will continue to be a challenge. Component 2 – Capacity Building: Capacity building efforts and PHR trainings were not intensive or long enough to lead to behavioral change in communities or to strengthen local NGOs. Although respondents could identify skills learned in PHR trainings and agreed that people are generally more aware of DV issues and laws, PHR took several years to build momentum. Ultimately, the activity did not provide adequate time for implementation and extensive training, although the prolonged activity startup and resourcing constraints were a factor. The activity also envisioned that results would be sustainable given the number of stakeholders who were trained nationwide, in addition to the NGO capacity building efforts. However, sustainability was not achieved, and individuals and local organizations require continued financial support and technical assistance. Furthermore, sustainability is unlikely unless 38 Statistics show that violence decreased approximately 7% decrease (from 87.1% to 80.2%) from 2011 to 2015 respectively, among currently-married women. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Bureau of Statistics Surveys, Violence Against Women Survey, 2015 http://203.112.218.65/WebTestApplication/userfiles/Image/LatestReports/VAWSurvey2015.pdf 24 the PHR curriculum is adopted at the national level, (e.g. DV training for judges and secondary school curricula for teachers and students). Intermediate Result 2 – Increased Access to Formal and Informal Justice Systems by HR Survivors Component 3 – Increase Access to Justice: PHR greatly expanded access to justice for survivors during the activity period, but access to justice for more vulnerable populations may be limited post-PHR given financial constraints and other challenges. PHR legal services were provided free of cost during the activity period. It will likely be difficult for poorer survivors to afford justice through more formal and in some cases informal means given the cost to file a case can be more than what some survivors make in a few weeks or months. Moreover, it does not appear, at least in some cases, that the DLAC has sufficient resources to adequately provide justice for all victims who seek redress. These factors indicate that this component did not adequately incorporate sustainability measures to ensure that the most vulnerable survivors will be able to access justice post-PHR, although BNWLA will follow-up with some cases. This reality, in addition to the “softer” stance of the DV Act, may prevent vulnerable populations from seeking justice through the formal legal system. The absence of adequate outcome-level indicators makes it difficult to evaluate whether this component was effective. For example, while more than 12,000 cases were settled through salish, it is unclear if those settlements were appropriate or in the best interests of the survivor. Especially since there are prevailing beliefs with some key informants that salish is biased toward males. This does not indicate that salish or this component was insignificant, but that the quality of activities such as salish are not possible to evaluate given the quantitative focus of this indicator. Intermediate Result 3 - Increased Support Services to HR Abuse Survivors Component 4 – Provide Survivor Services: PHR provided greatly needed services to survivors, although this kind of support does not appear to be sustainable post-PHR. Moreover, PHR’s income generation activities and support were inadequate and impeded this component’s success and sustainability. Vocational trainings should only be provided if the proper resources (e.g. sewing machines) are in place for trainees to use their skills. The latter was not available/provided to survivors, and some experts and key informants stated that women will not be empowered if they do not have livelihoods and financial resources. Local government is unable to provide the scale of services and support that PHR provided, and despite best intentions, cannot act as a replacement on its own to help survivors. The psychosocial training provided to SWs covered a lot of issues and was a good start to basic counseling, but did not incorporate standard elements that would enable women to provide practical help to survivors.39 Moreover, SWs, particularly those who are survivors themselves, risk becoming more vulnerable now that they no longer have elevated status in their communities and are still relied upon to help survivors. Intermediate Result 4 - Public Awareness on HR Improved Component 5 – Expand Mass Awareness and Education: PHR succeeded in raising awareness among thousands of people, but sustained behavioral change was not evident. Awareness￾raising alone is not adequate to enact sustained behavioral change and requires ongoing funding and support past the activity period. For example, sensitizing students on DV-related issues needs to be a consistent effort to impact awareness and eventually behavior around these issues. Additionally, survivors might have more awareness about their rights and relevant laws due to PHR, but they stand to face serious 39 Practical responses to signs of trauma; weekly supervision; continual updates; using non-traumatized caregivers. 25 challenges accessing justice (formal and informal) due to financial constraints and limited counseling services now that PHR has ended. Moreover, messaging did not take community’s local context into account to ensure it was directly relevant to the most prevalent crises and root causes of violence in a given location. For example, messaging condemned violence and provided phone numbers and resources detailing where to receive help, but did not directly speak to how a natural disaster, such as a flood, could contribute to different types of violence, including domestic violence and harassment stemming from displacement. Major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of PHR objectives It is commendable that Plan funded and utilized an Organizational Capacity Assessment Report in 2013 that evaluated its 17 partner NGOs at that time. While Plan eventually reduced its partner NGOs from 17 to 12 on account of a variety of capacity constraints, Plan would have benefited from annual OCAs that compared progress across partners on a variety of financial, organizational and technical metrics. EVALUATION QUESTION 2 What real difference, intended and unintended, has the activity made to the beneficiaries? Findings Intended differences As described in EQ1, the majority of key informants believe that PHR reduced DV and HR abuses during the life of the activity, that the activity raised awareness significantly, and that the activity should continue. Although changes in the prevalence of violence cannot be confirmed through M&E data, the perception of this is important to consider since it underscores that beneficiaries valued the activity, believed it was effective, and wish it to continue. PHR also documented success stories40 that highlight how the activity helped survivors. In one story, a survivor in Dinajpur received the first verdict under the DV Act in that district.41 PHR also elevated women in the community. This occurred not only by raising awareness on their rights, but by hiring women as SWs, several of whom were former survivors themselves; in one case a woman was hired as a staff member. A survivor in one district came to the attention of the Plan Regional team given her story; she was a victim of CM and was already divorced. This individual received PHR training and support and became a “tremendous trainer and facilitator.” She was eventually hired by PHR and is continuing her education. Other beneficiaries noted that PHR gave them confidence to seek help and to raise their voice during the activity period. Interviewed SW were satisfied because they were able to help women find solutions to their problems, and gained status and recognition. One former Plan Regional Manager mentioned that he was most proud of the role SWs played in the activity, and how they developed new skills, increased their confidence and became effective. 40 Plan International Bangladesh. PHR Success Stories. [Date Unknown] 41 Ibid. 26 Unintended differences One of the main unintended differences is that there is a perception among beneficiaries that violence is increasing now that PHR is over; this arose in six FGDs with female survivors, male community members, students and UVAWCC members. Several key informants said that the presence of LCs and SWs provided a deterrent to violence and with these individuals now gone or unemployed, men are becoming bolder and resorting to violence. It should be noted that this point is more likely to be disputed by police officials and the government who generally believe the situation has improved. Another unintended difference is that the local government has insufficient resources to actively support and sustain PHR results. This is despite PHR training and advocacy. In a large part this is due to the newly elected council members from the 2016 elections who were only trained once. There is some evidence that survivors might not reach out to UP members given a lack of confidence or that council member’s busier schedules or lack of interest may make it difficult to secure appointments. Conclusions PHR made a positive difference to beneficiaries during the activity period as documented in KIIs, FGDs, and PHR reports, but activity achievements may be in jeopardy given inadequate sustainability measures. Without the sustained presence of SWs or LCs on the ground, and support from local government entities, violence may go unchecked by local authorities and unreported by survivors. Despite extensive training efforts bolstering the SPGs and supporting the creation of the UVAWCCs, beneficiaries believe that any gains made will unravel now that PHR has ended. Utilizing survivors as SWs to provide psychosocial counseling positively benefitted several women the ET spoke with during the activity period, but is not without its risks and goes against good practice. Although Plan felt this was a positive result, former survivors who provide counseling services are at risk of re￾traumatization, especially if the community still seeks their assistance which they can no longer provide given PHR’s closure. At minimum, SWs would require more extensive guidance and support by someone trained in this field to take on a responsibility of this nature. In this case, good practice would require careful ongoing assessment particularly of SW who were also survivors to ascertain any potential negative impacts on their mental health of involvement with the program. EVALUATION QUESTION 3 To what extent are the activity objectives still relevant to the current DV circumstances in Bangladesh? Does the development hypothesis and critical assumptions upon which the PHR activity was designed still hold true? Why or why not? Findings This section first addresses the question related to objectives and their relevance under the headings of “Interviews and Focus Group Discussions” and “IRs 1 – 4”. The section then takes a step back to explore the relevance of the broader development hypothesis given the findings presented in the first sections. Interviews and Focus Group Discussions KIIs in all field sites and across multiple key informant categories (including USAID, PHR partners, GoB officials such as members of UPs, UVAWCC committee members, and police) reported that the activity was relevant, with CM highlighted as an important issue by these respondents. The survey results also support this, with 73.4 percent of survey respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that PHR activities “My husband says to me, PHR is not here... when PHR was there they had someone to talk on their behalf... now [her husband asks], where is your power? Husbands are now teasing them, where is your brother, where is your help?” Female Survivor, Bogra 27 were relevant to VAWG issues in Bangladesh. The MTE also stated that key informants and experts believed that PHR was highly relevant, particularly since DV abuses were ongoing despite the passage of the DV Act and its Rules. Gender and development experts raised questions related to the design and implementation of the activity. One concern was that PHR addressed too many different types of violence, and neglected root-causes and long-term solutions. While respondents noted that CM, DV and dowry-related abuses42 continue to be problematic, the type, intensity, and forms of violence have morphed since activity start up: there are new areas of abuse which grew substantially during the activity period and which now require intervention - namely cyber violence, the use of social media and smart phones, bullying, and pornography. Economic violence and workplace harassment - in offices, government, universities, garment factories - were also identified by gender experts as areas that require future intervention. It was stressed by activists, however, that DV and CM still need attention and resources. For example, Parliament recently passed the Child Marriage Restraint Bill 2017 which allows CM in special cases, dealing a blow to activists and HR defenders around the country. A second concern was that the gender staff employed by PHR left mid-term and was not replaced, leaving a potential gap in this expertise among staff. 43 Relevance of PHR Intermediate Results Intermediate Result 1: DV and HR Legislation and Policies Enforced The policy focus of the activity and those targeted for training on legislation were considered relevant by most respondents (exceptions noted below in the hypothesis section), with excellent timing just as the legislation was put in place. Many respondents noted that the DV legislation lacks strength, but that the Rules are particularly essential. Targeting lawyers, police, and judges for training in these laws, and their roles in applying them, was therefore considered to be appropriate and crucial. The legislation and rules are relatively new tools and it was noted that although PHR made enormous effort to publicize them, education, enforcement and advocacy have to be continuous and ongoing to ensure effectiveness of enforcement and to prevent back-sliding as has been seen in the recent case of changes to the Child Marriage Law.44 A group that was missed for targeting to ensure relevance post-activity was new union council members given the 2016 elections. Other respondents, both from government and from NGOs, noted that it is the government’s mandate and role to ensure that state institutions protect women and girls and promote human rights. In this way, they have a larger role to play in enforcement relative to any outside actor. Effective enforcement would require that national institutions including the police college and the Judicial Administration Training Institute (JATI) increase their own educational efforts in these areas, and an activity like PHR would be expected to advocate for and support such efforts to ensure relevance in the Bangladesh context. Intermediate Result 2: Increased Access to Formal and Informal Justice Systems by HR Survivors Targeting teachers, the use of champions, SWs (non-survivors) and locally based lawyers was a relevant approach to use in the Bangladesh context. This approach provided help to victims of abuse in places who did not have help previously (outside urban centers, in particular). A weakness in the approach is that 42 Social Impact’s June 2014 MTE stated that, “one-third to one-fourth of clients report that dowry extortion is the root cause of the violence they face, but PHR is not particularly focused on this issue.” 43 Additionally, Plan staff were not able to speak to issues of risk assessment and ‘Do No harm’, as well as elementary trauma-specific interventions with women. 44 As reported above, respondents noted that the effectiveness of this enforcement in activity areas was largely a result of the presence and actions of PHR lawyers, rather than the presence or actions of police and others. 28 these “helpers” are not available post-activity, and some new UP council and other committee members no longer have motivation to provide salish support to women. Additionally, the ET identified risks associated with employing under-educated survivors (SWs) to provide support to other vulnerable women when limited human resources were allocated for expert support and supervision. As previously noted in EQI, the use of SWs to help achieve results in this IR was considered effective and relevant due to their location in target areas and the ease with which they were able to identify women in need and connect them to formal or informal legal support. SWs also engaged with police and set up courtyard meetings to increase awareness about DV and CM. Members of IPs and senior management at Plan all mentioned how SWs provided effective para-legal support. Intermediate Result 3: Increased Support Services to HR Abuse Survivors Survivors mentioned that SWs and lawyers (as mentioned above) were critical for delivery of the activity (relevant) because they could rely on the them if they needed help; and that PHR including in Bogra and Chittagong referred clients to other services such as skills’ development trainings which was an area of great need for them. Although champions identified and nurtured by the activity as well as some SWs stated that they continue to be availed by survivors, and they still provide help for free beyond the life of the activity, there is no evidence that PHR contributed to permanent increases in support services. The need for such services has not been reduced as a result of the activity, and there is no lasting increase in provision of such services. While the use of SWs and local lawyers may be a relevant route in the Bangladesh context, without sustainability plans in place and a more comprehensive approach to support services for survivors, this population will remain underserved. National-level advocates pointed out that PHR did not make any attempt to increase access by women with disabilities to services, and the local partners confirmed that no outreach had been done in this regard. PHR treated women as a homogenous group without accounting for differential realities and needs. Plan staff acknowledged this and mentioned that there was no coverage of marginalized groups such as “women with disabilities, sex workers, lesbians, or hill (i.e. Chittagong groups) tribes. But we do cover Hindus and Dalits. Women were treated generically, but we do look at differences with children.” Approaching women as a homogenous group threatens the relevance of the approach, particularly for support services. Intermediate Result 4: Public Awareness on HR Improved In some of the local government offices visited during the course of the evaluation, books, posters and large charts from PHR were seen. Clients felt there awareness had been raised through these and other IEC materials and trainings as well as through the courtyard meetings, confirming the relevancy of the communication mediums pursued by the activity. Respondents were satisfied with these mechanisms, but felt there was scope for improvement, especially for a greater number of IEC materials. Additionally, respondents mentioned that materials did not take adequate account of different levels of literacy. Virtually no one surveyed had seen any television spot or heard any radio broadcast they could attribute to PHR. Additionally, as noted in EQ1, the ET could not identify changes in behavior resulting from awareness activities. Some schoolboys interviewed did not feel the awareness activities were completely relevant to their experiences –as they also suffer various kinds of GBV including bullying, harassment and violence. The issue of abuse within the family (such as by uncles) was raised by some children in FGDs. This was not addressed under PHR, which focused on women as victims and on violence in families related to CM or dowry. Respondents in schools mentioned that to see behavior change in youth, other critical actors need to be involved, including parents, and parent-teacher associations/school committees; furthermore, street 29 boys (who were considered by some girls to now be the main perpetrators of SH) need to be targeted in order to ensure effectiveness of awareness raising work. PHR’s design also did not target men, but the activity did work with men in the community to some extent through committees, courtyard meetings and the trainings. After the mid-term evaluation, the activity started to respond to male victims as well. In this sense the activity focused on structural inequalities and largely side-stepped the complex dynamics of violence that mean that both men and boys and women and girls can be perpetrators, victims or both. Development Hypothesis and Assumptions Development Hypothesis Part I: Better implementation of Bangladesh’s DV Act (2010) and its Rules (2013), among other laws, coupled with normative changes in attitudes and behavior among citizens and officials, would bring about a decline in DV against women and other related HR violations such as CM and SH. Development Hypothesis Part II: Increased public knowledge, changes in attitudes about gender, and improved relationships among the key players implementing the DV Act would enhance the responsiveness of the justice system, reduce tolerance for DV, and create conditions for women to seek justice. Work particularly under IR 2 but also to some extent in IR 1 and IR 3 did lead to a perceived decline in DV according to respondents (as hypothesized in Part I). However, it is not clear that the activity changed attitudes or behavior long-term (IR 4 and others), and also unclear if the activity in reality led to a decline in DV. As noted in EQ1, PHR neglected important areas including institutional change, increased survivor resourcing and skills, sustainability and long-term behavioral change. The activity excelled at providing people with knowledge about the DV Act, and – particularly at the local level – strengthened relationships between actors addressing these critical issues. Informants in Barguna and Dhaka, as well as UP members in Chittagong and Jessore, believed that during the PHR activity period, there was a decline particularly in CM. This was largely attributed to the work of the PHR lawyers and SWs. Respondents who noted rises in violence recently believed the activity hypothesis to be flawed (lacking in appropriate nuances): the hypothesis conflates different forms of violence which require different approaches with different stakeholders. As an activist noted - ‘work on child marriage, sexual harassment and domestic violence have subtle differences’. The activity was able to work with DV survivors, but was unable to work with rape survivors who face more insecurity and threats when they remain in the community. The focus on law was identified as un-strategic by these respondents because the DV law and Acts do not cover all forms of violence adequately. One key informant contrasted this viewpoint however, and stated that part of PHR’s intent was to “break the culture of condoning DV,” which was a “major step in the Bangladesh context.” Part II of the hypothesis largely assumes that changes in knowledge and attitudes, combined with improved relationships between relevant stakeholders, leads to the enhanced responsiveness of the justice system, and enables women to seek justice. As noted in previous sections, the activity did not achieve behaviour change, and worked to achieve strengthened relationships among those working to support vulnerable populations suffering from violence (at the national and local level). Women were able to access services that were critical for them, however the activity did not conduct activities in a way that would ensure provision of affordable services and social work and legal support beyond the activity period. For example, PHR did not collaborate with other NGOs working in this space such as BRAC, to leverage PHR resources, such as SWs, upon PHR’s closure. In general, the hypothesis was found to be logical, but a lack of measurable progress in these areas made it difficult to test. 30 Similar to the findings under Part I, respondents reported inadequacy in Part II due to a lack of consideration of men. While the hypothesis mentions women, it fails to mention men. Plan realized mid￾activity that there was a need to work with men to holistically address DV. PHR managed to get participation, including from men wanting action for abuses against themselves; however, as Plan reported, when men at the UP level became more active in PHR activities, they tended to keep power rather than facilitate women’s involvement. Critical Assumptions Assumption 1: Relations with GoB remain strong and positive around DV and related issues Assumption II: Other donors’ assistance and support for DV will be maintained During an activity lifecycle, changes in key assumptions can reveal threats to the activity logic (and overall hypothesis). In general, relations between the activity and the GoB remained strong and positive, though as noted in previous EQs, the GoB was not sufficiently engaged in provision of services for survivors and has recently undergone changes that threaten sustainability of approaches used to strengthen their commitment to DV during PHR. More specifically, MOWCA maintained a positive relationship with PHR and vice-versa - Plan, USAID, local IPs, UPs and the GoB reported that the activity had positive relations with the GoB. Stakeholders did confirm, however, that the GoB does not have capacity to maintain momentum on GBV without external support. Gender experts noted that there is a need for more capacity building of the government on gender and more resourcing e.g. they have only one gender focal point in most ministries, and the gender directorates and cells are not fully active. MOWCA in Dhaka remarked on the high level of coordination between PHR and the government, which included field level visits by some MOWCA staff to UPs, and they gave positive feedback on the way PHR related to ministries; five HRAF meetings were held under PHR, at least twelve ministries participated. BNWLA noted that MOWCA allocated space in UP offices for the lawyers - which showed commitment to the activity and its goal, and they believe they now have the possibility to be a resource on VAWG for the government as a result of the activity. Partners at the local level commented favorably about governmental stakeholders’ ownership of the activity and the inclusion by SPGs of local government actors including Women’s Affairs Officers. Respondents felt donor support had been maintained for DV nationally during PHR. Multiple donors work in the VAWG space in Bangladesh, and during the life of the activity, their support was maintained. Other donors’ assistance, therefore, did not pose a threat to the development hypothesis (and resulting activity design). Despite multiple donors, key informants (including in Dhaka working on VAWG and gender equality issues) noted that there is a limited amount of funding for VAWG and gender work in the country and they sense it is decreasing – and for this reason, PHR was particularly welcome in Bangladesh (further discussed in EQ4). International funding in this area has come from Oxfam and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID), CARE, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, embassies, and the UN. Lastly, an unstated assumption is that PHR’s extensive training efforts and capacity building work with NGOs would help sustain PHR results once the activity period ended, but this has not occurred as evidenced through respondents’ feedback provided during FGDs and KIIs (behavior change was not noted, for example – explored in EQ1). Conclusions 31 Relevance of PHR Intermediate Results The PHR program design and related IRs used to achieve the PHR goal remain relevant to the VAWG context in Bangladesh; however, there are multiple limitations to the approach as it was implemented. The types of violence addressed by PHR are prevalent and priority areas for stakeholders working on VAWG. Limitations were identified by the ET, however, in regards to how the approach was actually implemented to achieve the activity goal. Challenges included, limited engagement of the government as providers of services, lack of sustainability plans for each IR, and lack of strategic inclusion of women with disabilities, men and boys. Additionally, it was widely noted there are newly emerging types of violence and some target groups which were not covered by PHR (cyber-violence and male victims, as examples). By focusing its work on women, and also neglecting when men and boys are victims of violence, PHR may not have gained a full understanding of the family and community dynamics contributing to violence. Relevance of PHR Development Hypothesis and Critical Assumptions The PHR hypothesis (and related assumptions) are logical but leave out critical nuances that are important to define when working with vulnerable populations on sensitive issues. Most notably, the hypothesis conflates different forms of violence which require different approaches with different stakeholders and does not explicitly consider men and boys. Underlying assumptions were not found to have changed significantly during the life of the activity; however, changes in the GoB is now considered a possible threat to lasting results of PHR (for reasons explored above). While the activity hypothesis may, in part, be correct and relevant to the context in Bangladesh today, its effective application is extremely challenging. There are multiple issues, stakeholders, venues, and relationships to manage both horizontally and vertically to implement an approach outlined in the hypothesis. To implement this effectively and over a short time period, the implementer would require experience in addressing VAWG in a multi-disciplinary way, including mainstreaming at governmental levels, attitudinal and behavioural change, work with victims, perpetrators, institutions etc. As a result of such a broad and wide-reaching hypothesis, the activity was stretched and so ended up focusing on the areas where Plan and BNWLA had the most experience – CM, community based change and legal representation. The ET acknowledges that the implementation of such a far-reaching hypothesis is subject to constraints however, including administrative and procurement-related challenges. EVALUATION QUESTION 4 How effective has Plan International’s coordination been with implementers of other DG activities and other USAID Bangladesh activities (i.e., Economic Growth; Population, Health, Nutrition and Education; Food, Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance) in achieving PHR objectives? Findings Multiple KIIs believed there was limited or no synergy between PHR and USAID, or PHR and other donor programs; six KIIs mentioned that there was limited or no synergy with USAID and 19 KIIs mentioned there was limited or no synergy with other donor programs. Respondents believed that coordination with USAID and other donors and development actors was limited to attending meetings or events together on topics of shared interest and focus, activity observations, or referrals to livelihood assistance. The MTE also noted that coordination was lacking with some stakeholders and that PHR advocacy efforts were conducted independently rather than collaboratively. It is not clear how many referrals were made to other USAID Bangladesh activities. PHR provided livelihood referrals during the program, but the provided data totals the number of referrals by location, 32 and does not indicate if referrals were made to other USAID, donor, or GoB programs. According to data provided by Plan, 3,796 referrals were made for livelihood services between October 2012 and December 2016. PHR Coordination with other USAID Bangladesh activities Coordination with other USAID/Bangladesh activities was not part of the PHR activity design, but according to key stakeholders, PHR tried to leverage other programs to best serve survivors. USAID’s Strengthening Democratic Local Governance (SDLG) project was mentioned in this regard, and there was mention that PHR supported SDLG through assistance to form local groups. The ET was unable to confirm this coordination in Bogra, however. Several former PHR staff noted that PHR collaborated with SDLG by attending standing committee or coordination meetings, but that not much resulted from this engagement. A respondent from USAID’s Justice for All (JFA) project mentioned that there was a PHR representative on JFA’s Upazila Legal Aid committees, and that JFA met with the PHR Chief of Party every quarter to discuss coordination activities, such as National Legal Aid Day celebrations. USAID’s Horticulture program, which ran from 2011-2015, worked in Jessore. Former PHR staff noted that some survivors were referred for horticulture training which intended to help them tend homestead gardens, but the ET was unable to confirm this. One positive change from the MTE is that PHR did coordinate with JFA to some extent, whereas at midterm the Report noted that PHR was not linked to the JFA program but should be to build a relationship with the judiciary. It is unclear if this coordination bolstered relationships with the judiciary however. There was no mention of other USAID programs besides these that PHR coordinated with related to Population, Health, Nutrition and Education or Food, Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance. PHR Coordination with other development actors Few other organizations have been working on SH and DV at the grassroots level, as PHR has done; however, multiple stakeholders such as the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), the Manusher Jonno Foundation, local women’s groups and other NGOs have been addressing VAW and CM nationally and locally. PHR staff recounted that there were exchanges and sharing of information with these groups, including at coordination meetings and in PHR events, as well as some referrals from NGOs. At the national level, there was limited coordination among actors working on these issues, which resulted in other implementers and even activity participants (NGOs) not being clear about the PHR activity (regarding its focus, sites, objectives, achievements, and activities). For example, key informants from JATI said they had not heard of ‘PHR’, although it should be noted the ET was only able to speak with two individuals from the organization. One key informant acknowledged that someone from BNWLA visited several times and discussed the DV Act, but that the quality of the trainer could have been improved. In other cases, women active in the same networks as PHR misidentified PHR activities with Plan’s other work (outside of PHR). Plan’s senior management mentioned that due to the multitude of stakeholders, they chose to focus on relationship building with UPs, and with local level committees, as well as police. The ET found that there were few if any formal synergies between PHR and several major NGOs in Bangladesh working on similar issues. For example, BRAC has run a nationwide program since 1989 called Human Rights and Legal Aid Services (HRLS), which PHR echoed. HRLS covers 64 districts and addresses the same types of violence that PHR addressed - with an access to justice program, leadership training, referral systems, and work with local committees. Although the HRLS and PHR activities are similar, there were no formal synergies between the two organizations according to key informants at BRAC and PHR. 33 This was echoed by ActionAid,45 Bangladesh Mahila Parishad,46 academics, and other development workers interviewed. There was, in fact, some evidence of negative feelings at the local level between PHR staff and BRAC, when one former-PHR staff member attempted to shield evidence of BRAC’s work in the area. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), which provides legal services and awareness raising to the vulnerable, noted that there was limited information sharing and coordination between themselves and PHR, apart from attendance at early PHR planning meetings. Manusher Jonno Foundation (MJF) has been doing PHR-type work in 40 districts for more than 10 years. No respondents mentioned collaboration between PHR and MJF, but they reported that PHR formed a coalition on DV which was duplicative of existing efforts by civil society. It was also noted that development actors need to be committed to coordinating and sharing information with one another, and that it cannot be one-sided. For example, MJF did not explicitly invite PHR to events given the Foundation’s involvement in existing national-level coalitions. Lastly, a list of agencies for referrals is found only in the PHR training manual47 for Legal Counselors, and includes a majority of NGOs who are categorized as ‘legal’ for referrals – including BLAST, AoS Kendra, MLAA, BRAC, RDRS, BMP, NU, BMBS. There are no other non-legal NGOs mentioned. The Public Service Commission (PSC) Training manual refers briefly to the idea of referrals but provides no supporting list. Conclusions There was limited coordination between PHR and other USAID programs, as well as between PHR and other agencies/IPs working on VAWG initiatives at national and local levels. Although PHR did invite NGOs to events or to participate in networks, this did not necessarily result in meaningful coordination or collaboration. The activity’s approach to coordination appeared to be ad hoc and informal. Plan did, however, put strategic emphasis on government relations at the national level, especially with the MOWCA. Attending meetings and events together can indicate networking and communication between actors, but more extensive coordination could mean cooperation in the design and execution of activities. There was a lack of recognition by international NGOs, local NGOs, academics, and activists working on VAWG of PHR activities, goal, and impact. In some cases, these groups had never heard of PHR, and in others they could not accurately describe PHR’s work. When the stakeholder could identify PHR, they tended to be most familiar with PHR’s CM work. Because Plan did not work strategically with other NGOs and projects, the local PHR NGOs interviewed had not been adequately exposed to other significant nationwide programs and best practices to ensure sustainability of their work. PHR lacked effective communication with other development actors, including those working on similar VAWG and community-based development projects. Furthermore, PHR did not build synergies among other service providers, which might have led to greater reach, referrals, and sustainability of PHR work in communities. 45 ActionAid is based in Dhaka and works on identical issues to PHR, with a Stop-VAWG network of 30 NGOs in 28 districts. 46 This organization has branches in 61 districts in Bangladesh, including fourteen committees consisting of local citizens, NGO representatives, teachers etc. In cases of violence, they provide service oriented (medico-legal), movement oriented (drafting laws and pressurizing the government), law reform and dissemination services. 47 The training manuals reviewed were: for the LCs; for PSCs; for lawyers; for police; for medical professionals. 34 EVALUATION QUESTION 5 To what extent do representatives of the media, NGOs, and the GoB perceive PHR as successful in achieving its objectives? Findings The majority of KIIs, FGDs, and mini-survey respondents were satisfied with PHR and believed it achieved many of its objectives. Nearly 90 percent of mini-survey respondents strongly agree or agree that PHR was effective at achieving its goals. No one from the three surveyed districts slightly or strongly disagreed with this statement. Some respondents including one UVAWCC member from Barguna neither agreed nor disagreed but noted that there are still some unaware people, and others including UVAWCC members from Sylhet and Dinajpur noted that it should have lasted longer. Overall one of the most frequent criticisms stakeholders had of PHR was that it was not long enough in duration. Similarly, the MTE said that stakeholders were very satisfied with PHR, but some UHRAF and SPG members asked for additional training and time to implement its activities. At midterm, District GoB officials and NGOs questioned why PHR was working in a limited number of upazilas, which was also raised by various stakeholders during the final performance evaluation. Criticism was also raised at midterm about BNWLA’s limited role in PHR advocacy efforts, but this was not conveyed during the final evaluation. When asked which activity was more successful than others, 43 percent of mini-survey respondents referenced courtyard meetings, nearly 33 percent referenced access to justice, and approximately 22 percent said a combination of the two. One male PHR Service Provider from Dinajpur and another from Sylhet each responded that advocacy efforts were as successful or more successful than other activities. Almost all respondents stated that PHR was important in raising awareness of violence. They believed that the activity had fulfilled the goals of providing legal and social work support at community level and in educating large numbers of people about the DV Law and Rules, and about the dangers of CM. Additional perceptions of PHR activity successes are described below by respondent category. Media: Only one or two respondents were familiar with the media training, but it was noted that the media training helped raise awareness about VAWG; for example, the participants learned that they should not name victims. One journalist noted that training is still greatly needed for journalists, however, both locally and in Dhaka and that the trainings were too short. Former Plan staff mentioned that the journalism training was the least effective of PHR activities - it did not result in changes in media representations of violence as evidenced in continued reporting of lurid stories, and editors continued lack or interest in treating violence issues sensitively or in-depth. NGOs: NGOs external to PHR reported positive perceptions of PHR. When activists talked about PHR, they also spoke positively about its role at the local level, its legal work, as well as about its local partners— who they acknowledged as experts in areas such as DV and rape. Local-level NGOs who had received training in VAWG and salish from PHR felt it was relevant to their work, and they were particularly positive regarding the courtyard meetings that targeted community members. NGOs working on similar issues to PHR, however, were not familiar with a lot of PHR work, reflecting a lack of coordination as noted in EQ4. GoB: Male and female UP members were satisfied with PHR for dealing with cases of violence, but after the 2016 elections, a new tranche of UP members entered office and have not been sensitized. As they no longer have PHR involvement in salish, they are less likely to get involved in issues related to women and in certain cases turn victims away. In other cases, women were not going to the UP directly, given a lack of confidence or the council members’ busier schedules made it difficult to secure appointments. 35 MOWCA noted satisfaction with the activity relating to positive working relations with Ministries through the national level HRAF, but also some frustrations including over the inconvenience caused by USAID vetting procedures for police trainees (which they reported had limited the ability of this part of PHR to be effective). Security Forces: Police received training in DV and CM from PHR and felt that community-level activities (particularly the courtyard meetings) were useful as they targeted community members who may be illiterate and less able to access other modes of awareness-raising. Police at the national level did not know about PHR and stated that they deal with VAWG issues anyways including through their own training curricula and institutional structures. Community members: There were some objections to PHR from politically powerful community leaders and religious leaders, particularly early in the activity. Some community members were more resistant to PHR messaging, for example religious or political leaders who posed problems, or men or perpetrators who did not take the courtyard meetings seriously and failed to attend or would leave early. Local NGOs considered it an achievement that they managed to conduct activities despite these objections. Community men consulted as part of the evaluation were positive about PHR. Plan staff, however, mentioned that some marriage registrars were disgruntled because they lose income when there are fewer marriages. They also pointed out that communities felt that the activity should have had more staff and should have lasted longer. There was some evidence that communities were not given advance warning of the closure of PHR, which led to some dissatisfaction, although USAID noted that stakeholders and beneficiaries were informed of PHR’s closeout. School teachers and children: Teachers interviewed felt the training provided them with important approaches and mobilized them to work on CM and other issues with children. However, after meeting initial targets set by the activity, they did not continue this educational work given a lack of resources and funding. Teachers also felt that girls now know how to protest against unfair treatment. School girls were satisfied with the activity, as they said it increased their awareness about resources available to them to address violence. According to some schoolchildren and other stakeholders, there is a need for clear and appropriate penalties against perpetrators because schools, families, and sometimes Union Council members are lenient toward them. This lenient approach gives some children the sense that violence is not taken seriously, even though they have been told otherwise in sessions by PHR-trained teachers. Conclusions Respondents across categories perceived PHR positively, and women survivors were especially appreciative of having access to justice and support to connect to lawyers or to salish. The main criticisms were directed at length; while the activity was seen to be timely in that it was launched after the DV Act was passed in 2010, it was also too short of a activity to lead to behavior change (as noted in EQ1). These overwhelmingly positive perceptions of the program align with the relevance of the approach as detailed in EQ4. 36 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID 1. USAID should consider funding a follow-on activity to cement PHR results and address emerging forms of violence given that behavioral change of this nature can require more than five years to take root. A follow-on activity would enhance the sustainability of PHR’s results. If funding for these efforts is limited, USAID could work in partnership with other donors (e.g., DFID) and fund discrete components of an activity (e.g., service provision or advocacy) or fund all activity components but in a limited number of locations. 2. USAID should continue to support national-level activities on VAWG so that PHR results are sustained. Significant national-level advocacy is required to ensure continued attention by the GoB to the implementation of the DV Act and Rules. This advocacy could be accomplished through a flexible institutional mechanism, such as an existing coalition (We Can, ActionAid’s local groups, etc.) or an ad hoc coalition led by local women’s groups and activists. These efforts should incorporate extensive consultations with stakeholders on strategies to institutionalize change. 3. USAID should support interventions that advocate for MOWCA to devote additional resources and personnel at the UP and ward levels to broaden its reach and effectiveness. A larger MOWCA presence could provide more extensive oversight at the UP and possibly the ward levels to help ensure that the UVAWCCs continue to function and that Union Councils are responsive to ongoing DV threats and incidents. Additional training on DV monitoring and prevention could assist MOWCA to carry out its mandate more effectively. 4. USAID should support work with the MLJPA to institutionalize PHR-type curricula for judges and with the Ministry of Education to amend secondary school curricula. VAWG issues and related laws and acts should be incorporated as a permanent part of JATI’s Judges and Prosecutors’ curricula. Work could also take place with NGOs to advocate for the Ministry of Education to incorporate PHR-type educational materials into the national secondary school curricula to raise awareness and promote a culture of non-violence. 5. USAID should support future interventions that address the root causes of violence and address newer forms of violence identified by this evaluation, as well as work more intensively with men and boys affected by violence. Namely, future interventions could address cyber violence, bullying, and pornography, as well as economic violence and workplace harassment. Interventions should also consider that both men and boys and women and girls can be perpetrators, victims, or both. 6. USAID should ensure that future VAWG activities establish appropriate indicators to track goals and objectives and conduct ongoing M&E to inform continued learning. M&E Plans for related programs should include a mix of output- and outcome-level indicators to sufficiently measure activity effectiveness and behavioral change. USAID should consider conducting a gender assessment and political economy analysis at baseline, to be revisited on an annual basis to understand how power dynamics influence activity design and intended results, including how socioeconomic constraints contribute to VAWG. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS 7. Implementers of VAWG activities should consider sustainability mechanisms in activity design. For example: 37 a. Establishment of trust funds for VAWG victims to ensure that vulnerable populations have the means to access justice mechanisms and income generating trainings and resources b. Institutionalization of VAWG curricula in various venues, such as the Bangladesh Administrative Training Center, to orientate administrators, judges, and other professionals c. Provision of tools that enable survivors to apply vocational skills, supplementary to skills training d. Involvement of SWs and LCs in future efforts, either through the work of NGOs such as BRAC, or through MOWCA to extend the government’s reach at the grassroots level 8. Implementers that work with local NGOs with varying levels of capacity and experience should conduct annual Organizational Capacity Assessments. Assessments can contain a set number of managerial, financial and technical metrics that measure progress across partners and within each partnership over time. Assessments do not have to take the form of comprehensive or costly reports, and can be conducted by Regional Managers with training and oversight from an M&E advisor. Results should be discussed with partners on an annual basis to gauge progress, highlight achievements and discuss ongoing challenges, and recommend remedial actions as appropriate. 9. Implementers that aim to change attitudes, behaviors, and cultural norms surrounding sensitive issues should design and implement more intensive and longer trainings. Pilot trainings with a limited number of stakeholders would enable IPs to first understand the trainings’ effectiveness, then scale up depending on results and Mission resources. Future activities should allocate more resources for livelihood training and provide links to resources so that beneficiaries can utilize the skills from these trainings. 10. Implementers of future activities related to VAWG and women’s access to justice should employ and reference expertise in gender, psycho-sociology, and trauma. According to Plan, there are low levels of expertise on psycho-social and trauma work in Bangladesh. However, there are women’s groups with expertise in similar country contexts who could be consulted.48 Furthermore, PHR worked closely with hundreds of SWs and LCs who could be called upon to work in this sector through future activities. PHR SWs should be reemployed and more extensively trained to broaden MOWCA’s reach at the grassroots level. 48 Namely, Medica Mondiale in Germany, and various women’s groups in the Balkans. 38 VII. LESSONS LEARNED  Coordination and synergies with other USAID activities and external donors must be incorporated into the activity design if they are to be prioritized and strategically implemented. PHR did not excel at coordination at the national level with preexisting donor￾funded VAWG interventions, and there was limited information sharing at the local levels. Coordination requires a clear action plan with roles and responsibilities for each entity.  Effective M&E requires an evolving strategy and plan for measuring results throughout an activity’s duration to account for programmatic challenges. PHR did not measure changes in violence over the activity period, although the inclusion of a control group and baseline survey were good starting points. Any activity’s staff and partners should communicate challenges regarding data collection and monitoring on a consistent basis, and employ new methods for collecting and analyzing data to account for contextual or programmatic issues. If new or planned for methods cannot be realized, the activity’s Results Framework and PMP will need to be adjusted accordingly.  Income generation is crucial to empowering VAWG survivors, sustaining activity results, and reducing vulnerability once an activity closes. For livelihoods interventions to be successful, activities must provide beneficiaries not only with training but also with tools to apply new skills.  Efforts to promote non-violence should be integrated into school culture and should discuss all forms of violence. In the PHR activity, there were no indications that violence against boys and men was addressed. This oversight could lead to backlash by males, some of whom face violence by family members as well as threats to their bodily integrity and right to life.  Activities intending to increase access to justice for VAWG survivors should incorporate gender-sensitive training in salish and mediation. Mediation needs to address power imbalances in a gender-sensitive manner; otherwise, the less powerful party in the mediation (usually the woman) will accommodate.  Work on VAWG requires implementers with a robust track record in that arena. Activities with any kind of psycho-social component should involve consistent supervision of SWs or LCs by a qualified professional with expertise in case management to reduce the risk of doing harm and to track gender issues as they arise.  Donor-funded VAWG activities require an exit strategy and sustainability plan. When grassroots support is provided to survivors and then withdrawn, there is a need for a clear exit strategy and sustainability plan, as well as clear guidelines on whom victims should approach to receive critical support after the activity period. 39 VIII. ANNEXES ANNEX A: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK Scope of Work for the Protecting Human Rights (PHR) Activity Final Performance Evaluation USAID/Bangladesh Office of Democracy and Governance Program Identification Data Activity/Project Name: Protecting Human Rights (PHR) Contractor: Plan International Agreement Officer Technical Representative (AOR): Sumana Binte Masud Cooperative Agreement/contract number: AID-388-A-11-00002 Total Estimated Cost (TEC): $ 12,700,000 Life of Project/Activity: Start Date: 3/15/2011 End Date: 3/14/2017 Activity Geographic Regions: National coverage (for advocacy); Chittagong, Jessore, Bogra, Dinajpur, Sylhet, and Barguna (targeted areas) Mission Development Objective (DO): MO-Bangladesh, a knowledge-based, healthy, food secured and climate resilient middle income democracy; DO-Citizen confidence in governance institutions increase I. Background Gender-based abuse and discrimination in Bangladesh encompasses a wide range of human rights violations, including, but not limited to, domestic violence (DV), sexual abuse and harassment, rape, discrimination in the work place, and other harmful traditional practices. A 2009 USAID/ Bangladesh Democracy and Governance Assessment identified endemic human rights violations related to women and children, and DV as key issues that continue to plague the social fabric and rule of law in Bangladesh. The Protecting Human Rights (PHR) activity intends to a) contribute to change in the practices of state duty bearers and also b) foster a comprehensive DV response model with participation of multi-level stakeholders and institutions that will expedite to implement the DV Act. The overall hypothesis of the PHR activity is better implementation of the DV (Prevention and Protection) Act 2010 coupled with normative changes in attitudes, behavior, mindset and bringing social solidity on gender will bring about decline in DV against women and other related human rights violations such as CM and SH. Furthermore, an increase in knowledge, attitude and relationships among the key players implementing laws related to DV will enhance responsiveness of the justice system and deconstruction of gender norms, reinforcing positive attitude and reducing tolerance for human rights abuses among communities enhancing safer and more favorable space for women to seek justice around DV issues. Main components of the PHR activity are:  Advocacy for legislative reform and enforcement to reduce DV;  Capacity building for key actors involved in the protection and promotion of human rights;  Increasing access to justice;  Providing survivor services; and  Advancing public education and outreach. The goal of the PHR activity is to reduce high prevalence of DV and other related HR violations in predetermined targeted areas of Bangladesh. “Other related human rights violations” are inclusive of, but not limited to CM, anti-stalking [this term is defined by the Honorable High Court of Bangladesh], dowry, and physical humiliation. 40 To achieve this goal, PHR pursues achievement of the four major intermediate results, as indicated in the following: Intermediate Result 1: DV and Human Rights (HR) Legislation and Policies Enforced The PHR activity will work with the Government of Bangladesh, other donors, and in coordination with existing DV networks of projects and services to further the advocacy efforts to support enactment of rules and enforcement of the DV Act 2010. As part of advocacy efforts, the PHR activity will identify the strongest networks and coalitions of organizations working to prevent DV and work through them. Selected networks and coalitions will jointly bring the issues to the attention of policy makers. They will also lobby with relevant ministries for approval and enactment of the rules of procedures as well as enforcement of provisions of the DV Act. The networks and coalitions’ members will meet regularly with the relevant government ministries to review that the DV law is being properly enforced. PHR will form a functional national gender forum in partnership with Dhaka University and others civil society organizations (those assessed to be working on gender based violence (GBV) issues). The forum will provide technical support to the Ministry of Women & Child Affairs (MOWCA), the lead ministry, to prepare gender sensitive budgets and reports. PHR and its partners will make use of existing relationships with the government at national and local levels facilitate meetings, dialogues and sharing of ideas and experiences to strengthen support services (at national and local level) for implementation of the DV law. PHR will lobby with MOWCA to activate the Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee (IMCC) and incorporate DV issues in their agendas. Intermediate Result 2: Increased access to Formal and Informal Justice Systems by HR Survivors PHR will hire 51 legal counselors (LC) at the union level to provide direct legal support to the Human Rights (HR) Survivors. Each LC will cover 2 unions and provide legal counseling including preparing witnesses and victims. As part of increasing access to the formal justice system, and following a set of criteria, PHR will identify local NGOs who will act as a resource for the LCs in the upazila. PHR will file the first incident report on behalf of the victim at the police station, conduct fact finding and ensure police officials file and submit a Domestic Incident Report to the District Court in a timely manner. After submission of the cases to the District Court, a panel lawyer of the respective partner NGO will be responsible for following the case and granting legal support to the victim through the legal process. To strengthen shalish, the local Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism, PHR will provide basic legal training to shalish members on DV and other HR issues. As a follow-up, PHR LCs and local NGO partners will monitor shalish for illegal verdicts, gender bias and discuss their findings through regular dialogue with Union Parishads (UP), community leaders, and shalish members. It is expected that trainings, coupled with appropriate monitoring, will increase cases settled through ADR and increase victims’ willingness to report abuses and seek recourse through shalish. PHR will also provide paralegal training to Upazila women Vice-Chairperson and UP women members. This training will enable the women to disseminate legal information, monitor cases, and provide information to victims about available services. 41 Intermediate Result 3: Increased Support Services to HR Abuse Survivors PHR will provide support to local partners to develop a referral system for the upazilas based on the mapping exercise and through Plan’s current network of local NGOs. Information kits will be provided to the LCs, Social Protection Groups (SPGs), NGOs, medical staff, police, prosecutors, and HR Defenders to make the victims well-informed about options on locally available services, and how to get support through a hotline and mobile text message. These NGOs will provide information regarding referral processes with data collected within the established monitoring and evaluation (M&E) process and procedures that have been developed for this activity. The activity will provide training on psychosocial counseling to the 102 SPG members from 102 unions, and the trained counselor will provide psychosocial counseling to the survivors. Through the upazila referral system, survivors, their children and witnesses will receive emergency shelter, protection and medical support at the upazila level. With regard to economic empowerment, the activity will build a link with microfinance service providers. It will also link with government and non￾governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) youth training centers that provide life skill training. Given the substantial differences in types of activities required for a systems level tracking and baseline data, the PHR activity will not focus on data collection within an existing structured organization system or the use of services from referrals within the upazilas. Intermediate Result 4: Public Awareness on HR Improved PHR will develop a public awareness campaign in collaboration with stakeholders including MOWCA (and its existing awareness campaign), partner NGOs, religious and community leaders, media, private sector, SPGs, and other donors. The partners will ensure that the messaging is evidence-based and culturally appropriate. The campaigns will then be linked with the advocacy strategy. PHR will design TV spots, newspaper articles and radio messages to address the myths, social norms and key barriers to public response (taking into account similar experiences of the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) in India) and will then post the communication venues on the activity website. These communication/public awareness messages will reinforce the activity’s advocacy efforts in support of enforcement and implementation of the DV Law. PHR will reach out to secondary schools to organize educational activities through trained SPG teacher members. Trained teachers will organize monthly debates, discussion forums and other events at schools that are designed to raise girls’ and boys’ awareness about their rights, encourage reflection on gender roles, and reduce tolerance levels of all forms of violence. II. Objectives of the Evaluation Objective of this final performance evaluation is to assess PHR’s overall performance; assess the effectiveness of PHR implementation approach; assess PHR’s overall success in coordinating with other DG activities and USAID activities; and make recommendations to USAID/Bangladesh concerning future programming considerations. The audience for this evaluation is USAID/Bangladesh, USAID/Washington, leaders of USAID Forward, Plan International, and bi-laterals and multi-lateral donors to Bangladesh. III. Evaluation Questions This Scope of Work is for a final evaluation of PHR program implementation, to evaluation implementation from March 2011 to March 2017. Considering the objective of the performance evaluation, the evaluators 42 will review, analyze, and evaluate the PHR activity using the following prioritized questions. Evaluation questions may be refined during the work-plan development process for this particular evaluation. Effectiveness:  To what extent were the activity objectives achieved, and what were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?  What real difference, intended and unintended, has the activity made to the beneficiaries? Relevance:  To what extent are the activity objectives still relevant to the current domestic violence circumstances in Bangladesh? Does the development hypothesis and critical assumptions upon which the PHR activity was designed still hold true? Why or why not? Synergy with other USAID and Donor-Funded Programs:  How effective has Plan International’s coordination been with implementers of other DG activities and other USAID Bangladesh activities (i.e., Economic Growth; Population, Health, Nutrition and Education; Food, Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance) in achieving PHR objectives? Client Satisfaction (GoB, beneficiaries, other stakeholders):  To what extent do representatives of the media, non-governmental organizations, and the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) perceive PHR as successful in achieving its objectives? IV. Proposed Evaluation Methodology The detailed methodology of this evaluation will be described by the ET in the Work Plan; this will include presentation of an evaluation matrix that will explicitly link evaluation questions to particular data collection approaches and data sources. In general, the evaluation might apply a mixed-methods approach (using quantitative and qualitative tools), with an emphasis on comparative field-based case studies related to DV. Some quantitative analyses may be featured, for example, in the review of PHR’s performance monitoring data or in the analysis of the program’s effectiveness. In addition, field data collection will involve intensive case study visits, organized around a set of semi-structured individual interviews and group discussions. Individual interviewees will include: women groups in the community, relevant government officials, local government elected members, staff members of local-level partner organizations and service providers, staff of donor organizations working with DV, local opinion leaders, the general community, school management committees, madrasah representatives, young students, youths, etc. The team will independently select the respondents; however, they will also welcome suggestions from USAID as well as Plan International and other evaluation stakeholders, for additional data sources at the community level. Discussion groups should include balanced numbers of men and women; in addition, as appropriate to local circumstances sex- or age-segregated discussion groups will be used to promote free discussion by women, men, and youth. The evaluation team will analyze the information collected to establish credible answers to the questions and provide major trends and issues. Methodological limitations and challenges for this evaluation are expected to include:  Ensuring adequate representation of interview sources vis-à-vis the full scope of PHR activities and outcomes, especially given that fieldwork will occur after the PHR activity period; 43  Taking systematic actions to counter any biases in (a) reporting by data collection sources and (b) interpretations of collected data by the evaluation team; and,  PHR ends on March 14, 2017, at approximately a week before the evaluation begins; therefore, many of the field implementers, service providers and other key stakeholders and informants may not be easily accessible to the evaluation team. The methodology narrative in the Work Plan will discuss both merits and limitations of the final evaluation methodology. The evaluation team will design appropriate tools for collecting data from various units of analysis. The tools will be shared with USAID during the evaluation and as part of the evaluation report. The evaluation team will be required to perform evaluation tasks in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and also will travel to activity sites within the country. Existing Sources of Information USAID/Bangladesh DG Office will provide documents for the desk review that are not available outside. The list of available documents is presented in Annex A. The list is not exhaustive and the Evaluation Team will be responsible for identifying and reviewing additional materials relevant to the evaluation. The USAID/DG office will also help the evaluation team with contact information for relevant interviewees. V. Deliverables All deliverables are internal to USAID and the evaluation team unless otherwise instructed by USAID. Evaluation deliverables include: Evaluation Team Planning Meeting (s) – essential in organizing the team’s efforts. During the meeting (s), the team will review and discuss the scope of work in its entirety, clarify team members’ roles and responsibilities, work plan, develop data collection methods and instruments, review and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment and prepare for the in-brief with USAID/Bangladesh. Evaluation Design and Work Plan – Complete a detailed work plan (including task timeline, methodology outlining approach to be used to answer each evaluation question, and describe in detail the team responsibilities, and the data analysis plan): the draft work plan will be submitted within 10 working days after commencement of the evaluation; the final work plan will be submitted within 3 days after the international team members’ arrival in Bangladesh. Evaluation Design Matrix – A table will be prepared that lists each evaluation question and the corresponding information sought, information sources, data collection sources, data analysis methods, and limitations. The matrix should be finalized and shared with USAID/Bangladesh before evaluation fieldwork starts. It should also be included as an annex in the evaluation report. Data Collection Instruments – Data collection instruments will be developed and submitted to USAID/Bangladesh during the evaluation design phase prior to the commencement of the evaluation fieldwork. The completed evaluation report should also include the data collection tools, instruments and list of people interviewed as an annex in the evaluation report. In-brief Meeting – An in-brief meeting with USAID/Bangladesh will be held within 2 working days of international team members’ arrival in Bangladesh. 44 Mid-term briefing and interim meetings – The Evaluation Team Leader (or his/her delegate) will brief the DG M&E program COR on progress with the evaluation on a weekly basis, in person or by electronic communication. Any delays or complications must be quickly communicated to USAID/Bangladesh as early as possible to allow quick resolution and to minimize any disruptions to the evaluation. Emerging opportunities for the evaluation should also be discussed with USAID/Bangladesh. Debriefing with USAID -A PowerPoint presentation of initial findings, conclusions and preliminary recommendations will be made to USAID/Bangladesh (DG, PRO, PHNE, FDHA other teams who has worked on DV) before the international team members depart from Bangladesh. Debriefing with Partners – The team will present the major findings from the evaluation to USAID partners (as appropriate and as defined by USAID) through a PowerPoint presentation prior to the team’s departure from the country. The debriefing will include a discussion of achievements and activities only, with no recommendations for possible modifications to activity approaches, results, or activities. The team will consider partner comments and incorporate them appropriately in drafting the final evaluation report. Draft Evaluation Report – The Evaluation Team will analyze all data collected during the evaluation to prepare a draft Performance Evaluation Report and submit the report within 15 working days after the departure of international team members from Bangladesh. The draft report must be of high quality with well-constructed sentences, and no grammatical errors or typos. The report should answer ALL the evaluation questions and the structure of the report should make it clear how the evaluation questions were answered. The draft report must meet the criteria set forth under the final report section below. USAID will provide comments on the draft report within 10 working days of submission. Final Report – The Evaluation Team will submit a final Performance Evaluation Report that incorporates Mission comments and suggestions no later than 10 working days after USAID/Bangladesh provides written comments on the draft Performance Evaluation Report. The report will be submitted in English, electronically. The format of the final report is provided below The final report must meet the following criteria to ensure the quality of the report:  The evaluation report must represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the activity, what did not and why.  Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work.  The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the technical officer.  Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report.  Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females.  Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).  Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence.  Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex. 45  Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings.  Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. The format of the final performance evaluation report should strike a balance between depth and length. The report will include a cover sheet, table of contents, table of figures and tables (as appropriate), glossary of terms (acronyms), executive summary, introduction, purpose of the evaluation, scope and methodology, findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations. Where appropriate, the evaluation should utilize tables and graphs to link with data and other relevant information. The report should include, in the annex, any “Statement of Differences” by any team member or by USAID on any of the findings or recommendations. The report should not exceed 30 pages, excluding annexes. The report will be submitted in English, electronically in both Word and PDF formats. The report will be disseminated within USAID. Upon instruction from USAID, DG M&E activity contractor will submit (also electronically, in English) this report excluding any potentially procurement-sensitive information to Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) for dissemination among implementing partners, stakeholders, and the general public. The DEC submission must be within three months of USAID’s approval of the final report. All quantitative data, if gathered, must be (1) provided in an electronic file in easily readable format; (2) organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the activity or the evaluation; (3) owned by USAID and made available to the public barring rare exceptions. A CD with all the data could be provided to the COR. The final report will be edited/formatted by DG M&E activity implementing partner and provided to USAID/Bangladesh 15 working days after the Mission has reviewed the content and approved the final revised version of the report. VI. Team Composition/ Technical Qualifications and Experience Requirements for the Evaluation Team The evaluation team will include and balance several types of knowledge and experience related to program evaluation. Individual team members should have the technical qualifications as described below: 1. Team Leader: An international Senior Evaluation Specialist with experience in evaluating Human Rights and DV programs in developing countries. The Team Leader will provide leadership for the team, finalize the evaluation design, coordinate activities, arrange meetings, consolidate individual input from Team members, and coordinate the process of assembling the final findings and recommendations. S/he will also lead preparation and presentation of the key evaluation findings and recommendations to USAID/Bangladesh. The evaluation team leader is required to have background in working with Gender issues and good knowledge about human rights. At least ten (10) years of experience in conducting evaluation and evaluation management is required. Experience in conducting assessments and designing strategic responses to gender violence, human rights in developing countries is required. Ability to produce high quality evaluation report in English is essential. 2. International Team Member: A mid-level evaluation specialist with an advanced degree in a relevant discipline and at least five (5) years of experience. Experience in design, management monitoring and evaluation of programs related to Human Rights, DV and Child Rights issues in developing countries is required. Prior experience and ability to conduct evaluation and to write well in English is required. S/he will work with the national team member to manage focus group 46 discussions (FGD) and other data collection methods, analyze findings and draft the evaluation report. 3. National Team Member (1): A national senior or mid-level evaluation specialist should have at least 7 years of experience in designing and conducting field-based evaluations and assessments of programs related to Human Rights, DV and Child Rights issues. 4. National Team Member (1): A national senior or mid-level evaluation specialist should have at least 5 years of experience in designing and conducting field-based evaluations and assessments in the Human Rights sector. Relevant experience in Bangladesh preferred. Overall the team will need expertise in USAID practices and expectations in program evaluation; program design and analysis; quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis; survey design and analysis; program issues, innovations and challenges in promotion of public sector transparency and accountability; and USAID practices and requirements in program performance measurement. VII. Illustrative Budgeted Level of Effort (LOE) Below is the illustrative budgeted LOE per position for this activity. Illustrative LOE may be modified based on the complexity of the activity and in accordance with the approved work plan. The Contractor will monitor labor costs across all task order activities to ensure that the approved budget for Labor costs is not exceeded. Illustrative Budgeted LOE Team Leader Team Member Local Sectoral Specialist (1) Local Sectoral Specialist (2) Document Review and Work Plan 6 3 3 3 Fieldwork, Data Analysis, and Presentation 20 20 17 17 Draft Evaluation Report 12 10 4 4 Final Evaluation Report 6 5 1 1 Total LOE 44 38 25 25 VIII. Conflict of Interest All evaluation team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest, or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the activity being evaluated. USAID/Bangladesh will provide the conflict of interest forms. IX. SCHEDULING AND LOGISTICS Work is to be carried out over a period beginning from March 2017, with fieldwork completed in April 2017 and final report and close out concluding o/a May/June 2017. 47 Schedule Task / Deliverable Proposed Dates (2017) Review background documents and preparation work 3/20-4/7 Draft work plan submitted to USAID/Bangladesh 3/31 Travel to Bangladesh by expat team members 4/9-4/10 Team Planning Meeting 4/11 Meet with Plan International staff 4/12 In-brief with USAID/Bangladesh 4/13 Submit Final Work Plan to USAID 4/17 Data collection 4/14-4/28 Data analysis in-country Evaluation Team submits draft presentation for USAID/Bangladesh DG Team review; data analysis continues after submission 4/27 USAID provides comments (as needed) on draft presentation; team continues fieldwork 4/27 Presentation and debrief with DG Team and USAID/Bangladesh 4/30 Debrief meetings with key stakeholders 4/30 Expat team members depart Bangladesh 5/1-5/2 Produce draft report 5/3-5/23 Submit Draft Evaluation Report to USAID/Bangladesh 5/23 USAID and partners review draft and provide comments 5/24-6/6 Review draft comments, edit, finalize report 6/7-6/20 Submit Final Evaluation Report to USAID/Bangladesh 6/20 X. Funding and Logistical Support The proposed evaluation will be funded and implemented through the DG PROGRAMS’ M&E SUPPORT ACTIVITY project. Social Impact will be responsible for all off-shore and in-country administrative and logistical support, including identification and fielding appropriate consultants. Social Impact support includes arranging and scheduling meetings, translation services, international and local travel, hotel 48 bookings, working/office spaces, computers, printing, photocopying, arranging field visits, local travel, hotel, and appointments with stakeholders. The evaluation team should be able to make all logistical arrangements including the vehicle arrangements for travel within and outside Dhaka and should not expect any logistical support from the Mission. The team should also make their own arrangements regarding space for team meetings and equipment support for producing the report. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The total pages, excluding references and annexes, should not be more than 30 pages. The following content (and suggested length) should be included in the report: Table of Contents Acronyms Executive Summary - concisely state the activity purpose and background, key evaluation questions, methods, most salient findings and recommendations (2-3 pp.) Introduction – country context, including a summary of any relevant history, demography, socio-economic status, etc. (1 pp.); The Development Problem and USAID’s Response - brief overview of the development problem and USAID’s strategic response, including design and implementation of the program and any previous USAID activities implemented in response to the problem (2-3 pp.); Purpose of the Evaluation - purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1 pp.); Evaluation Methodology - describe evaluation methods, including strengths, constraints and gaps (1 pp.); Findings and Conclusions - describe and analyze findings for each evaluation question using graphs, figures and tables, as applicable, and also include data quality and reporting system that should present verification of spot checks, issues, and outcomes (12-15 pp.); Lessons Learned - provide a brief of key technical and/or administrative lessons on what has worked, what has not worked, and why for future activity or relevant program designs (2-3 pp.); Recommendations – prioritized and numbered for each key question; should be separate from conclusions and be supported by clearly defined set of findings and conclusions. Include recommendations for future activity implementation or relevant program designs and synergies with other USAID activities and other donor interventions as appropriate (3-4 pp). Annexes – to include statement of work, documents reviewed, bibliographical documentation, evaluation methods, data generated from the evaluation, tools used, interview lists, meetings, focus group discussions, surveys, and tables. Annexes should be succinct, pertinent and readable. Should also include, if necessary, a statement of differences regarding significant unresolved difference of opinion by funders, implementers, or members of the evaluation team on any of the findings or recommendations. The report format should be restricted to Microsoft products and 12-point type font should be used throughout the body of the report, with page margins one inch top/bottom and left/right. ANNEX B: EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX Evaluation Question Data Sources Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods EQ 1. To what extent were the activity objectives achieved, and what were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives? EQ 2. What real difference, intended and unintended, has the activity made to the beneficiaries? - PHR QRs, PMPs, midterm evaluation - Plan and partner staff, local NGOs, USAID and other donors - Gender and HR experts - Gov't officials (national and local levels) - PHR beneficiaries, including women survivors, male community members, youth groups and trainees - HR advocacy and SPGs (and fora) - Journalists, police inspectors and judges - SWs and LCs - Document review - KIIs - FGDs - Mini-surveys - Content Analysis – For identifying PHR program successes (or lack of successes) - Trend Analysis – For assessing progress against program indicators - Gap Analysis – For assessing anticipated PHR program performance and where, if at all, it fell short - Comparative Analysis – The ET will also undertake comparisons of PHR Program results across stakeholder groups to assess either convergence or divergence in perspectives. - Gender Analysis – All data collected through its KIIs, FGDs and observations will be disaggregated by gender and analyzed for its effects on women beneficiaries of the program. Efforts will be made to capture men’s experiences of the program. EQ 3. To what extent are the activity objectives still relevant to the current domestic violence circumstances in Bangladesh? Does the development hypothesis and critical assumptions upon which the PHR activity was designed still hold true? Why or why not? - Program design documents, PHR QRs and Lessons Learned Report, midterm evaluation, 2016 Human Rights Assessment - Plan and partner staff, local NGOs, USAID and other donors - Gender and HR experts - Gov't officials (national and local levels) - HR advocacy and SPGs (and fora) - Journalists, police inspectors and judges - SWs and LCs - PHR beneficiaries, including women survivors and youth groups - Document review - KIIs - FGDs - Content Analysis – For identifying PHR program successes (or lack of successes) - Gap Analysis – For assessing anticipated PHR program performance and where, if at all, it fell short - Comparative Analysis – The ET will also undertake comparisons of PHR Program results across stakeholder groups to assess either convergence or divergence in perspectives. - Gender Analysis – All data collected through its KIIs, FGDs and observations will be disaggregated by gender and analyzed for its effects on women beneficiaries of the program. Efforts will be made to capture men’s experiences of the program. EQ 4. How effective has Plan International’s coordination been with implementers of other DG activities and other USAID Bangladesh activities (i.e., Economic Growth; Population, Health, Nutrition and Education; Food, Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance) in achieving PHR objectives? - USAID CDCS, PHR QRs and Lessons Learned Report, midterm evaluation - Plan and partner staff, local NGOs, USAID (including functional bureaus) and other donors - Document review - KIIs - Content Analysis – For identifying PHR program successes (or lack of successes) - Gap Analysis – For assessing anticipated PHR program performance and where, if at all, it fell short Comparative Analysis – The ET will also undertake comparisons of PHR Program results across stakeholder groups to assess either convergence or divergence in perspectives. EQ 5: To what extent do representatives of the media, NGOs, and the GoB perceive PHR as successful in achieving its objectives? - PHR QRs and Lessons Learned Report, midterm evaluation - PI and partner staff, local NGOs - Gov't officials Journalists and media organizations - Document review - KIIs - Mini-surveys - Content Analysis – To identify program’s successes (or lack of successes) in sustainability; to compare these results across the program’s supported political parties and geographic areas - Gap Analysis – For assessing anticipated PHR program performance and where, if at all, it fell short - Comparative Analysis – The ET will also undertake comparisons of PHR Program results across stakeholder groups to assess either convergence or divergence in perspectives. Gender Analysis – All data collected through its KIIs, FGDs and observations will be disaggregated by gender and analyzed for its effects on women beneficiaries of the program. Efforts will be made to capture men’s experiences of the program. ANNEX C: MAPS 1. Activity Sites PHR activity implementation sites are shown in the figure below; those in bold boxes will be visited as part of this evaluation (also see map below for evaluation sites below). 2. Evaluation Sites Locations visited by the evaluation team are indicated with a blue circle. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews were conducted in these locations.49 49 Map from http://www.mapsofworld.com/bangladesh/bangladesh-political-map.html ANNEX D: DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS Informed Consent Assalamualaikum/Adab. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. My name is [NAME] and we are researchers from an organization called Social Impact, a company that is based in the United States. Our team is in Bangladesh to conduct a study about the work of Plan International. Plan International provides assistance and training to local organizations around Bangladesh who work with individuals who have experienced violence at home or in their communities. [Local NGO name] and SI invited you here today to learn more about your experiences and work around these issues. Our study seeks to understand if the type of services, materials or support you received helped you, your family, your organization/school or your community work through difficult issues related to domestic violence. Examples of domestic violence include topics such as sexual harassment, child marriage, or dowry-related abuse. Ultimately this study will produce a report that will help the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) understand what worked well and what could have been improved with the program. This report will not include anyone’s name or identity however. In addition to your community, our team will be speaking with approximately 100 people around Bangladesh to understand their experiences as well. It is important to understand that while we would like your help in this study, you do not have to take part if you do not want to, and you do not have to answer any questions if you do not feel comfortable doing so. There are no negative consequences if you do not wish to participate or decide to stop participation once we begin, and are free to leave the discussion at any time. (For UVAWCC members and male community members): If you decide to take part, your responses will be kept strictly confidential, and we will only collect your first name, sex, profession and Union Parishad name on paper that will be transferred to a secure computer file. Additionally, your name will not be mentioned anywhere in the report, and will not be provided to anyone, including Plan International or anyone in your community. (For female survivors and students): If you decide to take part, your responses will be kept strictly confidential, and we will only collect your sex and district name on paper that will be transferred to a secure computer file. Additionally, your name will not be mentioned anywhere in the report, and will not be provided to anyone, including Plan International or anyone in your community or school. (For other KIs): If you decide to take part, your responses will be kept strictly confidential. Additionally, your name will not be mentioned anywhere in the report, and will not be provided to anyone, including Plan International or anyone in your community or school. Benefits (female survivors): You will not receive any direct benefits from participating in this research, but will receive compensation of [X Taka] for you travel. Your participation will also not determine if [insert name of local NGO] receives funding now or in the future. The information may be used by other organizations as well. Benefits (students): You will not receive any direct benefits from participating in this research. Your participation will also not determine if your school will receive additional funding now or in the future. Rather, this study will help understand if PHR assistance improved students’ knowledge of domestic violence issues. The information may be used by other organizations as well. Benefits (other KIs): You will not receive any direct benefits from this research, and this study will not determine if the NGO will receive any additional funding or services now or in the future. Rather, this study will help understand if PHR assistance improved the committee’s ability to better serve the surrounding community and prevent domestic violence. The information may be used by other organizations as well. Potential risks: We will be discussing topics related to domestic violence and violence against women, which we understand are highly sensitive and may cause some discomfort. (For female survivors) We encourage anyone experiencing any discomfort to contact [name of local NGO] for counseling services. We ask that participants do not directly name anyone who has committed or is suspected of committing violent acts against women or girls, or provide their own personal experiences in this respect. Doing so may leave you or the relevant individual(s) open to legal or personal retaliation. You may ask questions at any time. If you have questions or concerns about the research after we leave today, you can contact [name of national or international ET member]; the contact information is on the card I gave you. If you have any concerns or complaints about this evaluation or the focus group discussion, please contact Mr. Richard Columbia: irb@socialimpact.com. If you prefer to contact a member of the evaluation team, please contact [name of local evaluation team member] at [insert phone number]. Do you have any questions? Today’s discussion is expected to take approximately two hours. By saying “yes,” and participating in this study, you are indicating that you have heard this consent script, had an opportunity to ask any questions about your participation and voluntarily consent to participate. Will you participate in this research study? You may answer yes or no. [Note: consent will be obtained orally]  Yes, I am willing to participate  No, I am not willing to participate Key Informant Interview Protocols USAID, PHR, PHR Partners NGOs, Gov’t of Bangladesh KII/GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSES 1. Please describe your role and current position in your organization or community. For Partners - please tell us about the work of your organization and how you were involved with PHR? Probe - How long were you involved with PHR? 2. To what extent has PHR achieved its objectives across its five component areas? (note: they include advocacy, capacity building, access to justice, survivor services and public education and outreach) Probe: Does any area in particular stand out? 1. The majority of objectives were achieved 2. Some objectives were achieved (approximately half) 3. Most objectives were not achieved 3 What were the main factors that supported the achievements? 4. What do you think PHR's biggest success is? Probe: To what extent do key stakeholders have more knowledge about domestic violence and related abuses? Probe: To what extent are stakeholders altering their attitudes and behavior on the basis of increased knowledge? How? 5. What about its biggest weakness or challenge? Why? [Probe - can you answer this from the beneficiary perspective?] 6. Were any of PHR’s results surprising, or unexpected? Probe: Did the program affect men and women differently? Why or why not? 7. To what extent have the following types of violence decreased over the past 5 years?  Domestic violence  Child marriage  Sexual harassment 7b. To what extent can this be attributed to PHR? To what extent did other factors or programs that played a role? How? RELEVANCE 10. To what extent have the issues and threats facing women and girls changed over the past 5 years in Bangladesh? How? Please provide an example(s). Probe: Are there any types of violence that were more common before the program – what were they? What types of violence are most common now, if any? 11. To what extent has PHR adapted to those changes? How? [Has it changed any partners and/or activities?] What other adaptations are recommended? 12. What, if any, barriers in the legal or social environment hindered PHR’s work from having the full impact it might? 12a. To what extent was PHR able to address these barriers? Why or why not (and how)? KII/GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSES 13. If you had the option to do so, would you support a PHR follow-on program? 13a. For local organizations: To what extent will your organizations be able to continue this programming now that PHR has ended? Why/Why not? Synergy with other USAID and Donor-Funded Programs 14. For USAID: To what extent did the PHR design and activities require coordination with other USAID functional bureaus in order to achieve its objectives? 14. For USAID: To what extent did PHR coordinate with other stakeholders, including other DG implementing partners? 14a. For USAID: What worked well here, and what could have been improved? 15. For other stakeholders: To what extent did the PHR program coordinate its effort with other organizations [or your organization]? Were there opportunities for coordination that went unrealized? Client Satisfaction 16. To what extent are [you, or are stakeholders] satisfied or dissatisfied with the PHR program? Why? 17. What groups would you say are most and least satisfied with the program, and why? 18. How did PHR receive feedback and recommendations about program management? What more could be done to gather this information? 18. Partners/Local NGOs: To what extent did Plan Int'l adopt any recommendations or changes that your organization made? 19. Do you recommend that the Government replicate any of PHR’s interventions? Which ones and why? Countering Violent Extremism 20. Are you aware of ongoing/future programming efforts to counter violent extremism and prevent radicalization in Bangladesh? 21. If yes, do you believe that there could be synergies with future programming to address GBV/child marriage?” Other beneficiaries who were involved/trained by PHR – example: a. Social Workers, b. Judges, c. Legal Counselors, d. Police, e. Religious leaders f. PHR champions or change makers g. Journalists h. Upazila officers KII/GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSES 1. Please tell us about the work of your organization/commitee and how you were involved with PHR? How long were you involved with PHR? What was your professional background before PHR? Probe – Did you receive training from PHR? If so get details on training (how long, how many, when etc) Probe – Did you attend any other PHR activities? (get examples, such as courtyard meetings etc.) KII/GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSES Probe – Did you hear or see any PHR outreach, such as television, radio ads, posters? What did you think of these materials? (Note: be sure to distinguish from gov’t outreach). 2. For trainees: To what extent did the PHR training help you perform your job better? Why or why not? How? 2a. If not, how could the training have been improved? [see options] 2b. Can you provide an example of how you approach your work differently due to the training? What did you learn? 2c. Can you identify 1-2 key skills the training taught you? 3. What do you think PHR's biggest success is? What key factors (and people) contributed to this success? (Ask this first then probe below as needed) Probe: To what extent do key stakeholders have more knowledge about domestic violence and related abuses? Probe: To what extent are stakeholders altering their attitudes and behavior on the basis of increased knowledge? How? Probe: To what extent are legislation and policies related to DV, child marriage prevention and gender based violence being better enforced? Journalists: What methods could encourage more effective media investigation and coverage of DV and related abuses? 4. What about PHR (or local NGO) biggest weakness or challenge? Why? Probe: Are there any particular challenges in your role when working on these issues during the program? How about now that the program is ended. Probe: Are there any challenges now that women or children face that the program has ended? Where can they go for support or safety? 5. Were any of PHR’s results surprising, or unexpected? Probe: Did the program affect men and women differently? Why or why not? How did men react to this program? 6. To what extent have the following types of violence decreased over the past 5 years? Is there any data that monitored this?  Domestic violence  Child marriage  Sexual harassment 6b. Have the levels of violence changed now that the program has ended? 6c. To what extent can this be attributed to PHR? To what extent did other factors or programs that played a role? How? 6d. To what extent, if any, has your capacity to monitor and investigate abuses been strengthened? Why or why not? How? RELEVANCE 7. Are there any types of violence that were more common before the program? What were they? What types of violence are most common now, if any? 8. If you had the option to do so, would you support a PHR follow-on program? 8a. To what extent will you or your organization be able to continue this programming now that PHR has ended? Why/Why not? Client Satisfaction KII/GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSES 9. To what extent are [you, or are stakeholders] satisfied or dissatisfied with the PHR program? Why? 10. What groups would you say are most and least satisfied with the program, and why? 11. Do you recommend that the Government replicate any of PHR’s interventions? Which ones and why? Countering Violent Extremism 12. Do you think there are any links between violence against women and children, and violent extremism? Can you provide any examples? Interviews with individuals who do not have in-depth PHR experience – Experts, other donors or organizations etc. KII/GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSES 1. Please describe your role and current position in your organization or community. Please explain your work related to countering VAW and children in Bangladesh. 1a. Please describe any programs that you are familiar with that work issues concerning VAWG in Bangladesh, and this area. Probe: What is the program called (donor and program name), what does it focus on, are they effective etc. 2. Are you familiar with the PHR program? If so, how? Probe below if they are familiar with PHR. Probe: Did you ever attend any PHR activities? Did you hear or see any of the media outreach? (tv campaigns, radio, posters etc.) What did you think of these materials? (Note: be sure to distinguish from gov’t outreach). (if they knowabout PHR) How effective, if at all, was the program? What makes you believe this? What, if any, opportunities existed for knowledge sharing or coordination between your program/work and PHR? 3. To what extent have the following types of violence decreased over the past 5 years?  Domestic violence  Child marriage  Sexual harassment 3a. What are some of the key factors behind these trends? Is there available data or evidence that track these trends? 3b. Are there any other problematic kinds of violence that need attention? 4. What are some notable successes, if any, across these areas? Probe: To what extent do key stakeholders have more knowledge about domestic violence and related abuses? Probe: To what extent are stakeholders altering their attitudes and behavior on the basis of increased knowledge? How? KII/GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSES Probe: To what extent are legislation and policies related to DV, child marriage prevention and gender based violence being better enforced? 5. What about challenges? In enforcement, local government priorities, changing mindsets etc. 6. What can the government do to take on these issues? 7. Do you think there are any links between violence against women and children, and violent extremism? Why or why not? any examples? 8. Are there any other individuals you recommend we speak with? Interviews with individuals who do not have in-depth PHR experience – Experts, other donors or organizations etc. KII/GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSES 9. Please describe your role and current position in your organization or community. Please explain your work related to countering VAW and children in Bangladesh. 1a. Please describe any programs that you are familiar with that work issues concerning VAWG in Bangladesh, and this area. Probe: What is the program called (donor and program name), what does it focus on, are they effective etc. 10. Are you familiar with the PHR program? If so, how? Probe below if they are familiar with PHR. Probe: Did you ever attend any PHR activities? Did you hear or see any of the media outreach? (tv campaigns, radio, posters etc.) What did you think of these materials? (Note: be sure to distinguish from gov’t outreach). (if they knowabout PHR) How effective, if at all, was the program? What makes you believe this? What, if any, opportunities existed for knowledge sharing or coordination between your program/work and PHR? 11. To what extent have the following types of violence decreased over the past 5 years?  Domestic violence  Child marriage  Sexual harassment 3a. What are some of the key factors behind these trends? Is there available data or evidence that track these trends? 3b. Are there any other problematic kinds of violence that need attention? 12. What are some notable successes, if any, across these areas? Probe: To what extent do key stakeholders have more knowledge about domestic violence and related abuses? Probe: To what extent are stakeholders altering their attitudes and behavior on the basis of increased knowledge? How? Probe: To what extent are legislation and policies related to DV, child marriage prevention and gender based violence being better enforced? 13. What about challenges? In enforcement, local government priorities, changing mindsets etc. KII/GROUP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RESPONSES 14. What can the government do to take on these issues? 15. Do you think there are any links between violence against women and children, and violent extremism? Why or why not? any examples? 16. Are there any other individuals you recommend we speak with? Focus Group Discussion Protocols Instructions for Moderator 1. Consent Before starting the group, talk each member through the consent form and get their clear understanding of what participation means and agreement to participate. Confidentiality: The moderator should clearly describe how the data collected will be used, including with whom it will be shared, and crucially, whether names or other personal or identifying information will be included with the data. The moderator must be honest about how the data will be used, but should also reassure the participants that the data will be treated sensitively and that their privacy will be respected to the greatest degree possible given the needs and purposes of the evaluation. For the purposes of this evaluation, data obtained through FGDs will be kept private and anonymous. Quantitative data results will be aggregated to demonstrate overall numbers. The ET will use collected qualitative data to help identify and support evidence of program successes (or failures), and may use non-attributed – i.e., anonymous – quotes from its FGDs as part of this process. After providing this information, and to ensure the data collected are reliable, the moderator will explain that participation in the FGD is entirely voluntary and that there are no consequences for declining to participate. After informing participants of this information, the moderator should ask each member to confirm that they consent to participate. I. Introduction - to the whole group The moderator should first introduce herself or himself, then welcome and thank all participants for being there. The moderator should then explain the purpose of the FGD, how participants were selected, any potential benefits or risks to participating in the FGD, and how long it will take. Participants should introduce themselves. Participants who are survivors can be asked just to share their first names. Any other people in the room should introduce themselves including (if they are present) translators and representatives of USAID. The role of these other people should be explained. The moderator should introduce the topic that we are talking about and explain different kinds of violence against women and girls – domestic violence, dowry, child marriage, forced marriage, rape, emotional abuse, harassment, stalking. II. Difficult issues: To acknowledge the sensitivity of the issues and the fact that they impact personally on the participants the moderator will talk about the nature of domestic violence and abuses against women and girls. We note that anyone might be a survivor, perpetrators or both, and therefore it is not appropriate to judge anyone’s contributions or lack of contributions. We stress that anything shared is voluntary so you do not have to talk about any issues you are not happy talking about. If you wish to leave the group at any time you can. Everything that you say is confidential. If any participant wishes to talk more privately or after the FGD, they can feel free to contact us later. If ever the moderator feels that the discussions are becoming insensitive she will then step in and redirect the conversation. III. Warm-up: To diffuse tension and introduce a relaxed atmosphere, at the beginning of the discussion, the moderator may make some small talk that will help break the ice. The notetaker might also share their information with participant as well to create friendly environment. IV. Ground Rules: While the ground rules will vary depending on the FGD, they will generally include the following:  Everyone is encouraged to share their ideas and the FGD is stronger if everyone participates.  There are no wrong answers and everyone’s perspective is equally valued.  The ideas shared during the FGD will not be shared outside the FGD with non-participants in order to respect participants’ privacy.  Disagreements about ideas can be valuable and productive, but personal attacks will not be tolerated. However, we ask that everyone is considerate particularly if talking about difficult experiences and respectful of their contributions.  Judgements about another’s contribution or lack of contributions should not be made. After establishing these ground rules, the moderator should ask if there are any questions or concerns participants have, and these issues should be addressed and consensus reached before moving on. FGDS WITH FEMALE SURVIVORS – ADDITIONAL PREAMBLE AND APPROACH Preamble to the Moderator Please try and make sure in advance of the FGD that: (a) a counsellor or women’s support worker is on call in cases of women being disturbed or re-traumatized (b) participants have numbers allocated to them and notes refer to them by number rather than name (c) translators, moderators and any other participant aside from the respondents, are briefed about discussions with survivors, and aware of mitigation effects if they or others become disturbed by the topics (d) minors are not present (e) questions are depersonalized (f) the moderator stresses that personal questions will only be asked in one-to-one settings, but for this group they should think about typical experiences for women and girls in their community.  Then follow steps I to V above, then come back and follow steps VI to X I. PHR Effectiveness Opening – the Biography of Ms. X Get participants to draw on a large flip chart piece of paper a typical woman in their community. They should give her an identity – name, age, marital status, number of children, etc. (anything that is important in their community). Tell the women that all questions can be about that ‘typical’ woman as opposed to the FGD participants themselves. In this way, information can be depersonalized. For example, instead of asking about women’s personal experiences, you could ask instead what kinds of difficult family situations does Ms. X (the woman they have designed) experience? How would Ms. X get help to deal with that situation? If she got that help how effective was it? Discussion 1. Ms. X faced a difficult situation of violence in her family (domestic violence, child marriage, sexual harassment or dowry violence). She decided she needed to get psycho-social and legal help for it. Please describe such a situation. How common and likely are other women in the community to face the same problem as Ms X? Where might the significant differences be? 2. How did Ms X. find help? Who did she think to go to for help first before PHR? How did she know to go to PHR/PLAN? What might make it harder for her to seek help? What might make it easier? 1. What kind of legal help did Ms X ask for from PHR? How did it help her? How did it improve her legal situation? Was there anything more that could have been done for her? 2. What kind of psycho-social help did Ms X ask for? How did it help her? How did it improve her psycho-social situation? Was there anything more that could have been done for her? 3. After seeking help do you believe that Ms X was safer now from violence? Why or why not? How long do you think she will be safe as PHR/PLAN is no longer present? II. Relevance: evolving norms 4. To what extent do you believe that women in your community believe that violence against women is a serious issue? 5. Can you describe why you think most women feel this way? a. Follow-up: To what extent did you think like this before you received support from this program? What, if any part of this program altered your beliefs? (wait for response, then provide possible examples if needed - (PHR advocacy work or messaging, legal support) 6. To what extent are these issues discussed more openly now. To what extent are these issues mainly discussed within the family? How about with children? 7. Why do you think some women do not believe violence against women is a serious issue? How could this change? 8. How would you have answered this question 5 years ago? Do you think your response would have changed? [Or are participants able to estimate when they saw a change occur in their or their community's beliefs systems?] 9. To what extent do religious leaders believe that DV is a problem? a. To what extent have they adapted their attitudes or messages about some of these harmful practices? What is behind this change? b. To what extent do police take these issues seriously? i. Can they be trusted to follow-up on incidents? To what extent do most men in this community believe that violence against women is a serious issue? 10. [If there are declines in DV] – what has been most effective in changing people’s perceptions around this issue? a. To what extent is it due to PHR counseling services or support? b. To what extent were the program materials (brochures, posters, radio and tv programs) helpful in getting people to understand why DV is harmful? c. To what extent were there any other programs that were helpful as well [probe for names if participants can remember] 11. What are some of the biggest issues with DV in Bangladesh today? a. Dowry b. family violence c. child marriage d. Other III. PHR relevance - evolving behaviors 12. Can you tell me if violence against women has decreased in this community? Which kinds of violence have decreased? Which kinds of violence have increased? Why? Or is this too difficult to know given the sensitivities around this issue? 13. What are some reasons that prevent women from seeking help? i. Shame ii. fear iii. lack of trust in providers iv. lack of confidence in providers v. lack of information and knowledge vi. other Make sure you thank the women for their contributions and explain that now we would like to ask women some additional questions individually and privately Questions to be asked individually, as appropriate Client satisfaction I. Participant overview (each participant will answer these questions individually) in a private setting after the group has finished their discussions together 14. What type of assistance did you receive from the PHR program (name the specific PNGOs/local partner that provide service to them). Mention all types of help you received. Possible Options a. Legal counseling and support b. Psychosocial counseling c. Information kits that explained the available services available d. Emergency shelter, protection or medical support e. None/don’t remember 15. When did you receive this assistance and for what period of time? 16. Overall, how, if at all, did the service you received from (local NGO/SW/LC) help you? 17. Do you need more support after this? If so what? 18. How do you feel now about the support your received? FGDs with male community members Male community members can include friends or family members of DV survivors, in addition to religious leaders, educators or other community members. I. Introductions and Overview 1. (Each participant) To begin, please introduce yourself and tell us a little about your family and life (probe for number of children, if they are married, what their occupation is etc.) 2. Who is familiar with the work of [insert NGO name]? (ask for a show of hands). 3. Who would like to describe how they are familiar with the work of [insert NGO]? 4. What do you know about VAW? What kind of violence does this include? a. What kinds of kinds of violence are not covered? b. What arguments are used in the community to justify VAWG? Why might some people justify or want to justify violence? II. Evolving norms: To what extent do men in your community believe that violence against women is a serious issue? Why or why not? 5. What changed people’s beliefs about this issue? (probing may be needed to point out whether any personal, social or involvement in PHR program has contributed in changing his perception) 6. What are the major types of violence in your area? [probe for below examples]. Which are more common than others? a. Dowry b. Child marriage c. Emotional abuse d. Physical abuse e. Economic deprivation III. Evolving behaviors 7. How would someone help stop VAW or help someone suffering from these issues? 8. To what extent do you think that men in your community are doing enough to prevent VAW? Can you give some examples? Are there any particular factors behind this? 9. To what extent has VAW decreased in the last five years in your locality? How? 10. What are the most important factors that supported this change? a. To what extent have the services of this NGO, or perhaps another NGO or program? b. What, if any brochures, posters, radio and tv programs has anyone seen about this issue? What did you think of them? How effective were they in explaining the issue? 11. Which violence has been decreased most? a. Dowry b. Child marriage c. Physical abuse d. Emotional abuse 12. To what extent do you think this type of program can help prevent violence in a family or community? How? IV. Other 13. To what extent do you think this type of program should continue running? 14. How could this program improve the VAW situation of your Community? FGDs with Upazila Violence against Women and Children Committee (UVAWCC) I. Introductions and Overview 1. Can everyone please introduce themselves and explain your (1) role and responsibilities in this group, (2) when you joined this SPG and (3) what your professional background is? 2. What is the purpose and goal of this UVAWCC? a. How many women and girls are served by this UVAWCC? b. What are the biggest successes this group has had? c. What about some of the largest challenges? d. How do you evaluate and track the effectiveness of this group’s work? 3. How often does this group meet? Can anyone explain what is typically discussed at these meetings, and what the outcomes of these meetings are? 4. What types of violence do women and girls in this area experience most frequently? 5. To what extent has domestic violence decreased in the last five years in your locality? (probe: which violence?) a. What other changes concerning DV have observed that are important to note? b. What are the main factors behind changes in violence? c. How has PHR advocacy, educational materials and campaigns etc. contributed to this? 6. Who are the biggest champions of preventing VAW in this community (apart from this group’s members?) Who or what are some of the biggest deterrents? a. To what extent do the police, religious leaders, educators etc. support this work? 7. What training did this group receive from PHR? (note - ask which individuals received training one-on-one at the beginning and/or the end of the discussion if needed) a. Let us here more about the type of training you received – please describe when it was, what the training was on, and how many trainings you received in total. b. How effective was the training in helping you perform your job better? What skills did you gain? c. Is any additional training or support needed? 8. What other PHR assistance or guidance did you receive? Please provide examples, and discuss whether it was effective. a. How effective was the PHR program in decreasing DV? Why or why not? 9. Were there any programmatic challenges that you experienced in your work with PHR or their partners? 10. How does this group work or coordinate efforts with other stakeholders? [Examples can include UP members, OCC, Upazila HRAF, BNWLA/LCs, PNGO/SWs] a. How effective is your collaboration with LCs and SWs in preventing DV and supporting survivors? b. Are there any challenges you experience in this collaboration? e.g., in communicating with people, other stakeholders etc.? 11. Have you found your community more aware and positive about preventing VAW than they were before? Why or why not? a. To what extent has this kind of program help prevent violent behavior in a family or in a community? 12. To what extent is there still a need for this type of programming in Bangladesh? a. What changes would you would make to future programs? b. What other donors or programs are doing effective work in this area? I appreciate your time spent here today. We are at the end of this discussion. If you have anything to add to this discussion, you are free to do so now. Thank you for your participation Secondary School Students 1. Please provide an overview of the PHR sessions and curricula (also asked of teachers) a. How long did the sessions last, and what was covered in each session? b. How do you determine which students take each session? (asked of teachers separately) c. Is there a PHR youth advisory group here? If yes, what activities does this group conduct? 2. What did you learn during the PHR sessions? What stands out the most? 3. Can you provide examples of anything that you would have liked to learn that PHR did not cover? 4. Who would students go to if they were harassed (in or outside of school)? a. Was harassment (or child marriage) an issue in this school or community before PHR? Has this changed at all given PHR? How has this changed, if at all, now that PHR is over? 5. Does this school have a complaint box? Do you think people feel comfortable using it? Why or why not? (ask permission of teachers to see complaint box) 6. Are there any groups within this school that talk about these issues, especially now that PHR is over? 7. To what extent is there a link, if at all, between violent extremism and issues facing women and girls? Survey Protocol INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT Consent Statement: Assalamualaikum/Adab. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. My name is [NAME] and we are researchers from an organization called Social Impact, a company that is based in the United States. Our team is in Bangladesh to conduct a study about the work of Plan International [insert name of Local NGO for UVAWCC members] and the Protecting Human Rights program. We would like to conduct a brief survey today to learn about the assistance and support you or your organization received from PHR and Plan International. Our study seeks to understand if the type of services and support improved your ability to conduct your work. In addition to this survey, our team will be speaking with many people around Bangladesh to understand their experiences as well. It is important to understand that while we would like your help in this study, you do not have to take part if you do not want to, and you do not have to answer any questions if you do not feel comfortable doing so. If you decide to take part, your responses will be kept strictly confidential. This means that your name will not be mentioned anywhere in the report, and will not be provided to anyone, including Plan International or anyone in your community. Any personal information we collect today will be stored in a secure computer file. The benefit of this research is to improve your ability to better serve your community. The information may be used by other organizations as well. It is very important for you to know that this study will NOT determine if you will receive any services now or in the future. The way you answer our questions will NOT determine if you will receive any kind of government or NGO assistance. There is no direct benefit to you or your organization for your participation in this study, but only as I said, to help us improve the services of the PNGO or of the donors. The survey is expected to take 20 minutes. Do you have any questions? You may ask questions at any time. If you have questions or concerns about the research after we leave today, you can contact [insert ET name and contact information]. By saying “yes,” and participating in this study, you are indicating that you have heard this consent script, had an opportunity to ask any questions about your participation and voluntarily consent to participate. Will you participate in this survey? You may answer yes or no.  Yes, I will participate in this survey  No, I will not participate in this survey III.RECORD Survey Respondent Information (In Survey ID Code Excel File) a. Date: b. Sex (M/F): c. District: d. Upazila: e. Union Parishad: f. UVAWCC committee member or PHR service provider: g. Profession (if UVAWCC member) OR Organization Name (if PHR service provider) STEP 4: CONDUCT SURVEY Read Instructions for Survey Respondent: Please choose a number on a scale of 1-5 that corresponds with how you feel about the following statements (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4= agree5 = Strongly Agree). You are welcome to elaborate on your response after choosing the number. Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 1. The PHR program activities were effective in achieving their goals 1 2 3 4 5 2. Were any of PHR’s activities more effective than others? (ex. advocacy, survivor services, capacity building by Plan International, education and outreach, access to justice) 3. DV has decreased over the past 5 years 1 2 3 4 5 4. Child marriage has decreased over the past 5 years 1 2 3 4 5 5. Sexual harassment has decreased over the past 5 years 1 2 3 4 5 6. Can you provide any examples that support your responses to questions 3-5? (related to any changes in violence) 7. PHR activities were relevant to violence against women and children issues in Bangladesh (EQ 3) 1 2 3 4 5 8. Please provide a brief example to support your response (open-ended) 9. Overall, beneficiaries (women or girl survivors) were satisfied with PHR services and support (EQ 5) 1 2 3 4 5 10. Overall, I am satisfied with the level of support and guidance PHR provided to my organization. (EQ 5) 1 2 3 4 5 11. Please provide a brief example to support your responses to beneficiary (and local NGO) satisfaction Use the space below to record any comments by survey respondents regarding their responses to questions 1- 11 ANNEX E: DOCUMENTS RECEIVED Donor Documents: 1. USAID. Ending Child marriage & Meeting the Needs of Married Children: The USAID Vision for Action. Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2012. Print. 2. USAID. Human Rights in Bangladesh Assessment. Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2016. Print. 3. USAID. Understanding the Monetary Cost of Domestic Violence. Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2012. Print. 4. USAID/Bangladesh. Five Years After Bangladesh’s Domestic Violence (Prevention & Protection) Act 2010, Is It Helping Survivors? Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2016. Print. 5. USAID/Bangladesh. Gender Assessment 2. Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2010. Print. PHR Activity Documents: 1. Bangladesh Police. National Crime Prevention and Community Safety Strategy of Bangladesh. 2009. 2. BNWLA and Plan Bangladesh. Training manual, Role of NGOs and human Rights Defenders to Combat Domestic Violence and Protecting Human Rights. 2011. 3. Plan International Bangladesh. Child Marriage – Free Zone. [Date Unknown] 4. Plan International Bangladesh. Course Guideline for CL (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 5. Plan International Bangladesh. Lessons Learned Workshop Report. 2016. 6. Plan International Bangladesh. Module for Prevention of Gender Based Violence at School Level. 2015. 7. Plan International Bangladesh. PHR Module for Medical Staff. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 8. Plan International Bangladesh. PHR Performance Indicator Reference Sheet. Revised February 2016. 9. Plan International Bangladesh. PHR Work Plan Timeline Year 6, April 2016 – March 2017. 2016. 10. Plan International Bangladesh. Procurement Guideline. April 2016. 11. Plan International Bangladesh. Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, March - June 2011. 12. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, July - September 2011. 13. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, October - December 2011. 14. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, January- March 2012. 15. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, April - June 2012. 16. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, July - September 2012. 17. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, October - December 2012. 18. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, January- March 2013. 19. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, April - June 2013. 20. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, July - September 2013. 21. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, October - December 2013. 22. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, January- March 2015. 23. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, April - June 2015. 24. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, July - September 2015. 25. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, October - December 2015. 26. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, January- March 2016. 27. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, April - June 2016. 28. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, July - September 2016. 29. Plan International Bangladesh, Quarterly Performance Management Report, Protecting Human Rights Project, October - December 2016. 30. Plan International Bangladesh. PHR Success Stories. [Date Unknown] 31. Plan International Bangladesh. TOT – Youth Group Module. (Bangla). 2014. 32. Plan International Bangladesh. Ward Level SPG Guideline. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 33. Plan International Bangladesh. Ward Level Youth Orientation Module. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 34. Plan International USA, Inc. Protecting Human Rights: Sensitizing Students on Gender-based Violence in Bangladesh, Blog, May 11, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.planusa.org/sensitizing-students-in￾bangladesh 35. Plan International USA, Inc. and USAID/Bangladesh. Performance Management Plan (PMP). 2013. 36. Plan International USA, Inc. and USAID/Bangladesh, Protecting Human Rights Project (PHR) Annual Work Plan Report – Year One. 2011. 37. Plan International USA, Inc. and USAID/Bangladesh, Protecting Human Rights Project (PHR) Annual Work Plan Report – Year Two. 2012. 38. Plan International USA, Inc. and USAID/Bangladesh, Protecting Human Rights Project (PHR) Annual Work Plan Report – Year Three. 2013. 39. Social Impact, Inc. and USAID, Protecting Human Rights (PHR) Program Midterm Performance Evaluation Final Work Plan. 2014. 40. United Nations Development Program. UN-GoB Joint Programme on Violence against Women (VAW) in Bangladesh, 2009 41. USAID/Bangladesh and Plan International Bangladesh. Psycho-Social Module for Sub-SPG. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 42. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. Gender Module for Social Worker. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 43. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. Guideline for Madrasa Teachers. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 44. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. Journalist 2-Day New Module. (Bangla). 2015. 45. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. Paralegal Training for PHR. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 46. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. PHR Bangla Drama – De Chut. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 47. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. PHR SPG Final Module. (Bangla). 2011. 48. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. PHR SPG Refresher Module 20-22. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 49. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. PHR Y-4 SPG, UVAWCC Members Module. (Bangla). 2014. 50. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. PHR Y-4 SPG-MCP Refresher Module. (Bangla). 2014. 51. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. PSC Module. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 52. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. Training Manual. (Bangla). 2011. 53. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. UP Secretary Module. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 54. USAID/Bangladesh, BNWLA, and Plan International Bangladesh. Youth Refresher Module. (Bangla). 2014. 55. USAID/Bangladesh and Plan International Bangladesh. Salish Training for UWA Officer. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 56. USAID/Bangladesh and Plan International Bangladesh. Salish Member LL Training. (Bangla). [Date Unknown] 57. USAID/Bangladesh. Cooperative Agreement No. AID-388-A-11-00002. 2011. 58. USAID/Bangladesh. Work Plan Year 6 Approval. March 24, 2016. PHR Surveys, Assessments and Research: 1. Afroz, F., Nahar, Nazmun. & Zamen, Tania. “Using Social Protection Groups to Reduce Domestic Violence: Lessons from the Protecting Human Rights Program.” Bangladesh. 2. Afsana, K., Rashid, S. F., Thurston, W., & BRAC, B. “Challenges and gaps in addressing domestic violence in Health Policy of Bangladesh.” Bangladesh: BRAC. 2005. 3. Ahmed, N., & Kashem, A. “Exploring the socio-cultural context of dowry practice in Bangladesh.” Sociology and Anthropology, vol. 3, no. 3, 2015, pp. 171-178. 4. Ahmed, S., Khan, A. K. S., & Noushad, S. “Early marriage; A root of current physiological and psychosocial health burdens.” International Journal of Endorsing Health Science Research, vol. 2, no. 1, 2014. 5. Aktaruzzaman, K. & Guha-Khasnobis, B. “Does Control over Microfinance Matter in Reducing Domestic Violence? Evidence form Rural Bangladesh.” Finland: HECER. 2010. 6. Alston, M., Whittenbury, K., Haynes, A., & Godden, N. “Are climate challenges reinforcing child and forced marriage and dowry as adaptation strategies in the context of Bangladesh?” Women's Studies International Forum, vol. 47, 2014, pp. 137-144. Pergamon. 7. Ameen, N., Law and the State’s Response towards Violence against Women 8. Amin, S., Chong, E., & Haberland, N. Programs to Address Child Marriage: Framing the Problem. Transitions to Adulthood. 2008. 9. Arbulu, A. & Ali, M. Final Evaluation of Joint Programme to Address Violence against Women in Bangladesh. MDG Achievement Fund. 2013. 10. Arunachalam, R., & Naidu, S. “The price of fertility: marriage markets and family planning in Bangladesh.” University of California, Berkeley. 2008. 11. Azad, E., Hasan, M., & Hassan, M. M. A Rights-Based Assessment (RBA) of Bangladesh's National Budget 2014-15. 2015. 12. Bangladesh Institute of Theatre Association, Marriage in Bangladesh: When It Is Too Early 13. Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, Towards Deepening Women’s Human Rights Making Justice System Gender Sensitive Annual Report. 2013. 14. Begum, A. “Dowry in Bangladesh: a search from an international perspective for an effective legal approach to mitigate women's experiences.” Journal of International Women's Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2014, pp. 249. 15. Begum, A., & Shiplu, K. D. Domestic Violence against Women in Bangladesh: A Critical Overview. The Chittagong University Journal of Law7, 2013, pp. 105-129. 16. Begum, F. S. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment: Suggested Strategies for the 7th Five Year Plan. 2014. 17. Bhattacharyya, M. Research on Early and Forced Marriage in Poor Urban areas of Bangladesh. 2015. 18. Bhuiya, A., Sharmin, T., & Hanifi, S. M. A. Nature of domestic violence against women in a rural area of Bangladesh: implication for preventive interventions. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 2003, pp. 48-54. 19. Blomgren, L.. Memorandum, Child Marriage in Bangladesh: Causes, Consequences, and Legal Framework. 2013. Retrieved from http://ww3.lawschool.cornell.edu/AvonResources/Child_Marriage_Judicial_Request_FINAL.pdf 20. BRAC. BRAC’s response to the OHCHR Call for submissions to inform its report on “preventing and eliminating child, early and forced marriage, with a particular focus on challenges, achievements, best practices and implementation gaps’, Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Women/WRGS/ForcedMarriage/NGO/BRAC.pdf 21. Care, “Tipping Point, Child Marriage: Digging Up the Roots to Replant the Future, Child Marriage Fact Sheet”, Retrieved from http://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/Child%20Marriage%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf 22. Center for Policy Dialogue. Bangladesh Vision 2021, Dhaka: CPD, 2007. 23. Center for Policy Dialogue, Domestic Violence in Bangladesh Cost Estimates and measures to Address the Attendant Problems, Report No. 97, 2009. 24. Center for Social and Market Research. Local Implementing Partners’ Organizational Assessment Consultancy. 2013. 25. Chars Livelihoods Programme, CLP’s Influence on Dowry and Violence against Women on the Chars, 2014. 26. Children on the Edge. “Steps in Reducing Child Marriage through Our Work Bangladesh Case Study.” Retrieved from http://www.childrenontheedge.org/uploads/8/2/9/7/8297605/reducingchildmarriage_- _bangladesh.pdf 27. Chowdhuri, A. S. M. M. B., & Islam, N. “Factors Related to Socioeconomic Status of Readymade Garments Workers in Bangladesh.” 2013. 28. Chowdhury, J. S. “Domestic Violence.” Retrieved from http://www.hrpb.org.bd/images/PDF_File_%20RPB/Justice%20Salma%20Masud%20choudhury.pdf 29. Coram Children’s Legal Center. Research Report, Getting the Evidence: Asia Child Marriage Initiative. 2015. 30. Delneuville, A. Reaching the Tipping Point: Child marriage in Bangladesh. 2012. 31. Dhaka Ahsania Mission. Annual Report 2012-2013, Dhanmondi R/A, Dhaka, 2013. 32. Efroymson, D., FitzGerald, S., & Jones, L. Promoting Male Responsibility for Gender Equality: Summary Report of Research from Bangladesh, India and Vietnam. Dhaka: HealthBridge. 2006. 33. Elson, D. Budgeting for Women’s Rights: Monitoring Government Budgets for Compliance with CEDAW, New York: UNIFEM. 2006. 34. Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Multi-annual Strategic Plan 2014-2017. 35. Equality Now, Protecting the Girl Child, Using the Law to End Child, Early and Forced marriage and Related Human Rights Violations. 2014. 36. Esteve-Volart, B. “Dowry in rural Bangladesh: participation as insurance against divorce.” Unpublished paper. 2004. Retrieved from http://neumann.hec.ca/neudc2004/fp/esteve_volart_berta_juin_30.pdf 37. Farouk, S. “Violence against Women: A Statistical Overview, Challenges and Gaps in Data Collection and Methodology and Approaches for Overcoming Them.” 2005. 38. Ferdousi, N. “Children silent victims in child marriage in Bangladesh: significance of legal protection for their wellbeing.” Children, vol. 3, no. 14, 2013. 39. Ferdousi, N. “Child marriage in Bangladesh: Socio-legal analysis.” International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, vol. 6, no. 1, 2014, pp. 1-7. 40. Field, E., & Ambrus, A. “Early Marriage and female schooling in Bangladesh.” Harvard Papers. 2006. 41. Field, E., & Ambrus, A. “Early marriage, age of menarche, and female schooling attainment in Bangladesh.” Journal of political Economy, vol. 116, no. 5, 2008, pp. 881-930. 42. Gierbo, H. C., & Imam, N. The motivations behind giving and taking dowry. Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC. 2006. 43. Girls Not Brides. Lessons Learned from Selected National Initiatives to End Child Marriage. 2015. 44. Girls Not Brides. The Role of Parliamentarians in Ending Child Marriage. 2016. 45. Girls Not Brides. “Understanding the Scale of Child marriage, A User Guide by Girls Not Brides.” Retrieved from http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/GNB￾factsheet-on-child-marriage-numbers-Oct-2014.pdf 46. Giving What We Can. “Child Marriage Causes, Effects and Interventions.” Retrieved from https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/sites/givingwhatwecan.org/files/attachments/childmarriage￾causeseffectsandinterventions.pdf 47. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Finance, Women’s Advancements and Rights in Four Ministries’ Activities. 48. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Planning, Gender Statistics of Bangladesh 2012. 2013. 49. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Planning, Impact Evaluation Study of Multi-sectoral Programme on Violence against Women (2nd Phase). 2014. 50. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Planning, Report on Violence against Women Survey 2011. 2013. 51. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Planning, Report on Violence against Women Survey 2015. 2016. 52. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Planning Commission, Perspective Plan of Bangladesh 2010-2021. 2012. 53. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, Department of Women Affairs, Eradication of Violence against Women (Bangladesh Perspective), PowerPoint. 54. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Rules. 2013. 55. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, English Version of the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act. 2010. 56. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, Grant No. 26, Medium Term Expenditure, pp. 331 – 342. 57. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, National Action Plan to Prevent Violence against Women and Children 2013-2025. 58. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, National Children Policy, 2011. 59. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, National Women Development Policy, 2011. 60. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Office of the Law Commission, A Final Report on the Proposed Law of Domestic Violence along with a Draft Bill Namely, the Domestic Violence Act. 2005. 61. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Bureau of Statistics Surveys. Violence Against Women Survey. 2015. 62. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Bureau of Statistics Surveys. Violence Against Women Survey. 2011. 63. Greene, M. Ending child marriage in a generation. What research is needed?. Ford Foundation/GreeneWorks. 2014. 64. Hadi, A. “Women’s productive role and marital violence in Bangladesh.” Journal of family violence, vol. 20, no. 3, 2005, pp. 181-189. 65. Hamid, S. S. “Dowry a Massive Disaster and Brutal against Women in Bangladesh.” Retrieved from http://sajms.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Dowry.pdf 66. Hammann, L. “Effects of Child Marriages in Bangladesh.” 2014. 67. Hasan, M., Rose, J., & Khair, S. Background Paper for the 7th Five Year Plan of the Government of Bangladesh: Governance and Justice. 2015. 68. Health Finance & Governance, Piloting L3M for Child Marriage: Experience in Monitoring Results in Equity Systems (MoRES) in Bangladesh. Bethesda, MD. 2014. 69. Heath, R. “Women's access to labor market opportunities, control of household resources, and domestic violence.” 2012. 70. Human Development Research Center. External Review of ActionAid Bangladesh’s Country Strategy Paper – III. 2010. 71. Human Rights Watch, Marry Before Your House is Swept Away, Child Marriage in Bangladesh, United States, 2015. Print. 72. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, “Responses to Information Requests”, Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/11/07/BGD103807.E.pdf 73. International Center for Diarrhoeal Disease Research. “Pathways of Change to Reduce Spousal Violence against Women and Girls.” 2014. 74. International Center for Research on Women, New Insights on Preventing Child Marriage, A Global Analysis of Factors and Programs. 2007. 75. Islam, M. T., Taher, M. J. I., Uddin, B., & Forid, S. “Socio-economic values and child marriage: A case study on selected villages in Kurigram district.” International Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, vol. 2, no. 5, 2015, pp. 18-23. 76. Janet, R. & Kate, W. “The Girls’ Stipend Program in Bangladesh.” Journal of Education for International Development, vol. 2, no. 2, 2006. 77. Joly, N. A. “Presentation on Bangladesh national Girl Child Advocacy Forum (NGCAF).” PowerPoint. 78. Kalam, A. “Social Norms and Impediments of Women Development in Bangladesh.” International Journal of Social Science Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, 2014, pp. 100-109. 79. Khan, A. A. “Violence against women in Bangladesh-laws and reality." 2014. 80. Khan, A. R. “Domestic Violence against Women in Bangladesh: A Review of the Literature and the Gaps to fill-in by Future Intervention.” Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 18, 2015, pp. 57-80. 81. Khan, F. C. “Gender violence and development discourse in Bangladesh.” International Social Science Journal, vol. 57, no. 184, 2005, pp. 219-230. 82. Khandker, M. A Study Report on Situation of Violence against Women in Six Selected Districts under Dhaka Division, Dhaka: PRIP Trust. 2009. 83. Khanom, A. “Domestic Violence Induced Vulnerability to Women in Bangladesh: A Sociological Study.” Bangladesh Research Publications Journal. 2014. 84. Khatun, M. T., & Rahman, K. F. “Domestic violence against women in Bangladesh: Analysis from a socio-legal perspective.” Bangladesh e-journal of Sociology, vol. 9, no. 2, 2012, pp. 19. 85. Koenig, M., Ahmed, S., & Haaga, J. Individual and community-level determinants of domestic violence in rural Bangladesh. 1999. 86. Manabik Shahajya Sangstha. “A Brief Profile of Manabik Shahajya Sangstha (MSS).” Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwinqP_M qt7SAhUJlJAKHZSUCswQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmssbd.org%2Fwp￾content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2FProfile-of￾MSS.doc&usg=AFQjCNFeNz_L8FBYLrdbQIE6ijq5QJ3Yvg&sig2=8DmUJGcRp5bjdQw2NNhFgQ &bvm=bv.150120842,d.Y2I 87. Mathur, S., Greene, M., & Malhotra, A. Too young to wed. The lives, rights, and health of young married girls. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women. 2003. 88. Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh. The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. 89. Moslem, S. State of Violence against Women in Bangladesh Research Report. 2012. 90. Muhith, A.M.A. Bangladesh Marches towards Prosperity Paving the Way for Higher Growth Budget Speech 2015-16. 2015. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiu35nD kOXSAhUJSCYKHdjGAPgQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fficci.org.bd%2Fwp￾content%2Fplugins%2Fdownload￾attachments%2Fincludes%2Fdownload.php%3Fid%3D27682&usg=AFQjCNGvW7Zf866YNuTMp MVKydMdTHcFXw&sig2=wdd0WKyDEZSatpEUh9L2bA&bvm=bv.149760088,d.eWE 91. Mukti, I. J., & Lutfunnahar, B. “Knowledge, approach and status of early marriage in Bangladesh.” Science, vol. 2, no. 3, 2014, pp. 165-68. 92. Myers, J. Untying the Knot. Exploring Early Marriage in Fragile States. 2015. 93. Myers, J., & Harvey, R. Breaking vows: early and forced marriage and girls’ education. London: DFID. 2011. 94. Nasreen, M. Violence against women during flood and post-flood situations in Bangladesh. ActionAid Bangladesh. 2009. 95. National Human Rights Commission, Strategic Plan of the National Human Rights Commission 2010-2015. 2011. 96. Nazneen, S., Hossain, N., & Sultan, M. IDS Working Paper 368, UK: Institute of Development Studies. 2011. 97. Oxfam. Ending Violence Against Women, An Oxfam Guide, 2012. 98. Oxfam. “We Can” Campaign Strategy Paper. Retrieved from http://policy￾practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/gender-justice/ending-violence-against-women/we-can 99. Paribarik, A.P., & Jot, N.P. “We Can Campaign” Annual Report 2012. 2012. 100. Parveen, B. Gender Responsive Budgeting in Bangladesh: An Assessment of Challenges and Opportunities in Health Sector. 2010. 101. Pereira, F. “Draft Towards Pro-Women Policing in Bangladesh.” 2005. Retrieved from http://www.justiceandhrbd.org/uploads/files/Article_Towards%20pro-women.pdf 102. Plan International Bangladesh. Formative Research for Preventing Gender-based Violence and Other Human Rights Abuses in Secondary Schools. 2013. 103. Plan International USA, Inc. and USAID/Bangladesh. Protecting Human Rights Project (PHR) Baseline Survey. 2012. 104. Plan International USA, Inc. “Because I am a Girl: A Year of Action and Innovation.” 2015. 105. Pradhan, M. “Memorandum, Child Marriage in Bangladesh: Occurrence and Links to Sexual Harassment.” Avon Global Center for Women and Justice. 2013. 106. Qatar Tribune. “Bangladesh PM Hasina vows to end child marriage by 2041.” 2015. Retrieved from http://archive.qatar-tribune.com/viewnews.aspx?n=A4F6EEBC-EB7F-4962-9BF7- 66F8D9F53292&d=20150927 107. Qudder, F. “Dowry System in Bangladesh: A Socio-Legal Perspective.” International Journal of Innovative Research and Development. ISSN 2278–0211, vol. 3, no. 7, 2014. 108. Rabbi, A. F. “Mass media exposure and its impact on fertility: Current scenario of Bangladesh.” Journal of Scientific Research, vol. 4, no. 2, 2012, pp. 383. 109. Rashid, S. F. “Child Marriage: Choice Versus Contextual Realities for the Poor in Bangladesh.” 2015. View Point. 110. Rohwerder, B. “Social Protection Programmes Supporting Women Survivors of Domestic Violence.” 2014. Retrieved from http://www.gsdrc.org/publications/social-protection￾programmes-supporting-women-survivors-of-domestic-violence/ 111. Royal Commonwealth Society and Plan International UK. “Preventing Child Marriage in the Commonwealth: The Role of Education.” 2015. 112. Safiullah, M. “Legal Safeguards for Victimized Women in Bangladesh: An Empirical Study.” 2015. 113. Schurmann, AT. “Review of the Bangladesh Female Secondary School Stipend Project Using a Social Exclusion Framework.” Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition, vol. 27, no. 4, 2009, pp. 505-517. 114. Shahidul, S. M. “Marriage Market and an Effect on Girls’ School Dropout in Bangladesh.” Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, 2012, pp. 552-564. 115. Shamim, I. Towards Pro-Women and Child-Friendly Policing in Bangladesh: Our Experiences. Dhaka: Center for Women and Children Studies 116. Sheikh, M. M. R., & Islam, (2015). M. Domestic Violence against Women in Dhaka City. 117. Singh, M. M. “Dowry as a factor of violence in Marriage: A study of Women seeking help in Family Counseling Centers in Chandigarh.” International Journal of Advancements in Research and Technology, vol. 2, no. 6, 2013. 118. Social Impact, Inc. and USAID, Midterm Performance Evaluation of the Protecting Human Rights (PHR) Project, Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2014. 119. Solotaroff, J. L. & Pande, R. P. “Violence against Women and Girls: Lessons from South Asia.” South Asia Development Forum. 2014. 120. South Asia Initiative to End Violence against Children. Regional Action Plan to End Child marriage in South Asia 2015-2018. 121. Statement by H.E. Dr. A.K. Abdul Momen, Empowering Girls: A Pathway to Elimination of Violence against Women and Child Marriage. 122. TANGO International. Five Years After: An Impact Assessment of the Manusher Jonno Foundation (MJF). 2009. 123. The Daily Star. Text of Finance Minister’s Speech. 2014. Retrieved from http://www.thedailystar.net/sites/default/files/upload-2014/ads/Budget-2014-2015.pdf 124. The Parliament of Bangladesh. The Prevention of Oppression against Women and Children Act 2000, Dhaka: The Parliament of Bangladesh. 2000. 125. UNICEF. Ending child marriage: progress and prospects. New York: UNICEF, 2014. 126. UNICEF. Situation assessment and analysis of children and women in Bangladesh. Dhaka: UNICEF, 2009. 127. UNDP. “Project Document, Accelerating Efforts to Prevent and Respond to Sexual and Gender Based Violence.” 2014. Retrieved from http://www.bd.undp.org/content/dam/bangladesh/docs/Projects/sgbv/201407030341.pdf 128. Unnayan Shahojogy Team. Action Research on Dowry and Extreme Poverty: Khutamara Union, Nilphamari District Bangladesh. 2009. Print. 129. UPR Info. Bangladesh Mid-term Implementation Assessment (updated). 2012. 130. Verma, R., Sinha, T., & Khanna, T. Asia Child Marriage Initiative: Summary of research in Bangladesh India and Nepal. 2013. 131. Victim Support Center. A Joint Initiative of Bangladesh Police and 10 NGOs. 132. Wahhaj, Z. A Theory of Child Marriage. 2014. Retrieved from http://zwahhaj.nfshost.com/Child%20Marriage%20Draft.pdf 133. Women, U. N., Handbook for National Action Plans on Violence against Women, 2012 134. Women, U. N. Strategic Plan 2014-17. New York NY: UN Women. 135. Women, U. N. UN Women Annual Report, 2013–2014. New York NY: UN Women, 2014. 136. Yusuf, B. R. Massive Capacity Building at the Management Level for Effective Police Action on Violence against Women. Institute of Hazrat Mohammad. 137. Zaman, I., Ferdousi, N., & Tasmeen. A. Why Bangladeshi Women Would Benefit from a VAW Convention. ANNEX F: PERSONS INTERVIEWED Note: Respondent names have been omitted for all interview methods to adhere to IRB requirements. BARGUNA DIVISION Interview Method Sex Position Affiliation KII M Range Officer Forest Department KII M Headmaster Betagi Pailot High School KII M ISWA KII M Principal Betagi Girls School and College KII M Principal and Imam Uttor Ghotoker Andua Fazil Madrasha KII F Headmaster Betagi Model Primary School Mini-Survey M PHR Service Provider Nazrul Smriti Sangsad (NSS) Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Community Police UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey F Social Worker UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Community Police UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UWAO Representative UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Marriage Registrar UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Teacher UVAWCC Mini-Survey F Community Police UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Marriage Registrar UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UWAO Representative UVAWCC Mini-Survey M UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey M UP member UVAWCC Total: 6 KIIs, 16 Mini-Survey Total: 13 M, 9 F BOGRA DIVISION Interview Method Sex Position Affiliation KII M Chief Executive Gram Bikash Sangstha (GBS) KII M PHR Project Coordinator Gram Bikash Sangstha (GBS) KII M Former Regional Project Manager Plan International KII M Journalist Independent24.tv KII F Women and Children Affairs Officer (MOWCA) Government of Bangladesh KII M UP Chairmen Government of Bangladesh KII M Officer in Charge Government of Bangladesh, Police KII F Female constable Government of Bangladesh, Police GI F Administrative Secretary YMCA GI M M&E Secretary YMCA GI M Deputy Project Officer YMCA GI M Deputy Project Officer YMCA GI M Human Resources Secretary YMCA GI M Secretary YMCA GI M Finance Secretary YMCA GI M Program Secretary YMCA GI M Executive Director YMCA GI F Legal Counselor BWNLA GI F Legal Counselor BWNLA GI F Legal Counselor BWNLA GI M Legal Counselor BWNLA GI M Legal Counselor BWNLA GI F Former PHR Social Worker GI F Former PHR Social Worker GI F Former PHR Social Worker GI F Former PHR Social Worker GI F Former PHR Social Worker GI F Islamic Studies Teacher Kutubpur High School GI M Physical Education Teacher Kutubpur High School GI M ICT Teacher Kutubpur High School GI M Head Teacher Kutubpur High School GI M Assistant Head Teacher Kutubpur High School FGD 5M, 5 F Student Kutubpur High School FGD 9M, 4 F UVAWCC FGD 10 F Female Survivors FGD 9 M Male community members Total: 8 KIIs, 4 GIs, 4 FGDs Total: 43 M, 31 F CHITTAGONG DIVISION Interview Method Sex Position Affiliation KII M Accounts and Admin Officer Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) KII F Staff Lawyer Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) KII M Former Regional Project Manager Plan International KII M Journalist KII F Executive Director Women’s Social Development Organization KII F Former Patiya UNO Government of Bangladesh KII F District Legal Aid Office Government of Bangladesh KII M Kazi KII M Kazi KII M Deputy Director Ghashful KII M Program Officer Ghashful KII M Case Officer UP KII M Deputy Head of UP/Religious Mullah UP KII F WAO of Upazila UP KII M Upazila Chairman UP KII F UP member/Change Maker UVWACC KII M UP member Union 12 KII F Social Worker PHR Social Worker GI F Legal Counselor BWNLA GI F Legal Counselor BWNLA GI M Legal Counselor BWNLA GI M Legal Counselor BWNLA GI M Legal Counselor BWNLA GI F Chief Executive Ellma GI M Ellma GI M Ellma GI F Former PHR Social Worker GI F Former PHR Social Worker GI F Former PHR Social Worker GI F Former PHR Social Worker GI M Headmaster Karnafully Model School GI M Teacher Karnafully Model School GI F Teacher Karnafully Model School GI F Social Worker GI F Social Worker GI F Social Worker GI F Social Worker GI F Social Worker GI F Teacher Patiya Girls’ School GI F Teacher Patiya Girls’ School GI M Teacher Patiya Girls’ School GI M Teacher Patiya Girls’ School FGD 6 F Female Survivors FGD 10M, 3 F UVAWCC FGD 12 F Female Survivors FGD 5 F Students Patiya Girls’ School FGD 4M Community Members FGD 2M, 3F Students Karnafully Model School FDG 3M, 2F UVAWCC Total: 18 KIIs, 6 GIs, 7 FGDs Total: 39 M, 53 F DHAKA DIVISION Interview Method Sex Position Affiliation KII F Former Project Manager Plan International KII M Director and Additional District and Sessions Judge JATI KII M Assistant Director and Judge JATI KII F Additional Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs KII F Former PHR AOR USAID KII F Deputy COP USAID Justice for All KII M Senior Communications and Awareness Manager USAID Justice for All KII F Director (Rights) Manusher Jonno Foundation KII F Manusher Jonno Foundation KII M Former PHR Advocacy and Communication Manager Plan International KII M Former PHR M&E Specialist Plan International KII F Former PHR Capacity Development Specialist Plan International KII M Director PIACT Bangladesh KII M Project Management Specialist, Economic Growth USAID KII F Director BNWLA KII F Project Coordinator BNWLA KII F Manager Women with Disabilities Development Foundation (WWDF) KII F Manager Women with Disabilities Development Foundation (WWDF) KII F Program Manager UNICEF KII F National Coordinator We Can Alliance to End Domestic Violence KII F Professor Dhaka University KII F Program Manager BRAC KII F BRAC KII F Assistant Police Commissioner Police Headquarters KII M Additional Superintendent of Police Police Headquarters KII M Senior Additional Superintendent of Police Police Headquarters KII M Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime Section) Police Headquarters KII F Bangladesh Mahila Parishad GI M Project Director MOWCA GI F MOWCA GI F MOWCA GI F Manager Action Aid GI M Manager Action Aid GI F Program Officer Action Aid Total: 28 KII, 2 GI Total: 12 M, 22 F DINAIPUR DIVISION Interview Method Sex Position Affiliation Mini-Survey M PHR Service Provider Bohubrihi Mini-Survey M PHR Service Provider Samaj Unnayan Proshikkhon kendra (SUPK) Mini-Survey M Imam UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Community Police UVAWCC Mini-Survey M UP Secretary UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Student UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Clun Representative UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Community Police UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Marriage Registrar UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey F Student UVAWCC Mini-Survey F Clun Representative UVAWCC Total: 17 Mini￾Survey Total: 9 M, 8 F JESSORE DIVISION Interview Method Sex Position Affiliation KII F Legal Advocate PHR Manirampur KII F Social Worker PHR Social Worker KII M Program Officer (TBC) BRAC KII M Marriage Registrar KII F PHR Changemaker BSS KII M Sub-Inspector District Police KII M Officer in Charge District Police KII M Teacher Razgang Girls’ Schol KII M Social Services Officer Upazila sub-district KII M Upazila Education Officer (Secondary) Upazila GI F IP Banchte Sekha GI F IP Banchte Sekha GI F IP Banchte Sekha GI M IP Banchte Sekha GI M IP Banchte Sekha GI M IP Banchte Sekha GI F Pattriatran GI F Pattriatran GI M Pattriatran GI M Pattriatran GI M Pattriatran GI M Pattriatran GI M Pattriatran FGD 4 M Student Bakoshpole Model School FGD 4 F Student Bakoshpole Model School FGD 10 M Male Community Members FGD 12M, 5 F UVAWCC FGD 3 F Female Survivors FGD 7 F Female Survivors Total: 10 KII, 2 GI, 6 FGDs Total: 41 M, 27 F REMOTE Interview Method Sex Position Affiliation KII M Former PHR Chief of Party Plan International Total: 1 KII Total: 1 M SYLHET DIVISION Interview Method Sex Position Affiliation Mini-Survey M PHR Service Provider Sylhet Jubo Academy Mini-Survey F Social Worker UVAWCC Mini-Survey M UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey F Social Service Worker UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Community Police UVAWCC Mini-Survey F Social Worker UVAWCC Mini-Survey F Community Police UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Community Police UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey M UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Club member UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Women’s Affairs Assistant UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Mini-Survey M Social Service Worker UVAWCC Mini-Survey F UP member UVAWCC Total: 16 Mini￾Survey Total: 8 M, 8 F ANNEX G: FINDINGS ON COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM (CVE) At USAID’s request, the ET considered how programming to combat GBV and DV may relate to CVE and preventing radicalization of youth and other groups. The ET included select questions on this topic in its data collection protocols (Annex D) and posed these questions to all groups of stakeholders. This annex summarizes relevant data collected by the ET. Findings Violent Extremism in Bangladesh Only a few respondents interviewed by the ET felt that violent extremism is a visible or serious risk in Bangladesh; most believe there is a very low risk of radicalization. One man in a FGD described a decline in religious fervor, noting that religious gatherings might attract 100 participants while cultural gatherings attract 2,000 participants; 15 years ago, he noted it was the opposite. One respondent in Dhaka was concerned that wealthy and/or educated males are diverted to radicalism, and the respondent felt that Jamaat-e-Islami’s student wing—Islami Chhatra Shibir (ICS)—plays a role in recruitment and encouragement by offering scholarships. Some legal experts felt that if someone (male or female) is deprived of justice, they can become easier recruitment targets for extremists. These experts had seen some cases and studies on this topic, but also felt there are levels of media exaggeration, and that the risk is not significant. VAWG and Violent Extremism Most respondents did not see a direct link between CVE and VAWG issues. They consider violent extremism to be a political nation-state issue that needs to be resolved at that level, whereas they consider VAWG to be a personal issue that needs to be resolved by the family or community. Almost all grassroots respondents including schoolchildren were adamant that there is no link between CVE and DV/GBV. A few respondents saw a possible link in that violence breeds violence. Men addicted to power are a common theme across violent extremism, terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, and violence in the home. There was acknowledgement by some respondents that fundamentalism leads to increases in VAWG and decreases in women’s rights, but statements were qualified. Educated respondents voiced a limited amount of concern that restrictions on women by groups, including religious groups, can be an early warning indicator of extremist tendencies. These theoreticall links were articulated by the most educated respondents, and only in one case was such an observation made by someone located outside Dhaka. A Dhaka-based NGO described VAWG as a “gateway crime” in some ways; while DV is considered private and tolerable, most crimes come out of DV in reality. What was meant by this was that men who are violent to women are more likely to exhibit violence generally, as it means they already believe it is acceptable behavior. These respondents stated that extremists target some youth, and believe that students should be taught about the negative effects of extremism and how it destroys relationships between parents and their children. Boys in a FGD at one school mentioned that if they lack activities (e.g., sports) or computers to play with, they might be at risk. One local NGO mentioned that they saw how all violence originates in how families function (or not); if relationships deteriorate between parents and sons, sons become vulnerable to being engaged in criminal activities. Quotes from Key Informants ‘Fundamentalism is a rising issue including discussion and pressure on women to wear hijab, and the [association] of scarves with ‘good women’. Immunity and also the religious ideology are big factors in limiting change, with increasing pressure by fundamentalist groups’. NGO worker, Dhaka ‘No – men who are violent in the homes (and many are) are not violent in the same ways as extremists - there are not necessarily similar drivers. For example, poverty does not drive most terrorists, terror is financed by wealthy countries. It’s not an individual problem, it’s a political problem. The government is bowing to pressure from Islamic groups – for example they mainstreamed Islam throughout the school curricula in last year’s text books and recognized (quietly) madrassa degrees. The way violence can be tackled and the mechanism is different but the mindset behind the violence is similar. Both devalue and undermine women. The sexism and bigotry are similar. Yes, there can be synergies in building a human rights perspectives and more equitable norms. In terms of prevention though - activities are different.’ Academic, Dhaka. ‘We cannot influence the government as women’s activists. Global politics are regressive and are becoming more conservative and more fundamentalist – there is a link between VAWG and fundamentalism, including for Christianity. [Fundamentalists] basically have old-fashioned views of gender and power and do not support women’s rights. The new global agendas and the national politics are hugely promoting violence and male negative behavior and extremism. Violence against women is a personal and family and social reality. Whereas terrorism is a political reality and it comes from power but is not the same and needs to be addressed (differently). The Bangladesh context is that the government responds to the religious pressure at the moment. That’s why they changed the curricula; this is an indicator – it’s the high-level authorities who are making the changes. The attacks on bloggers are planned, they are not random. It’s not isolated. It’s not from Bangladesh but connected up to global movements. Through the mosques and other places we now hear negative messages about women and women’s roles. We see the opposition to child marriage as coming from above following pressure, and bombing and military attacks including by the U.S. alienates people and also undermines human rights. VAWG activist, Dhaka Conclusions Evidence is limited on this topic since it was not a primary focus of the evaluation, but the ET offers one conclusion, below. Please note that some of the statements above are contradictory, which the ET was unable to probe further given limited time. Given limited evidence, the ET could not determine if there are linkages between VE and VAWG or determine if this kind of programming would prevent violent extremism or associated behaviors. To determine this, a detailed gender and power analysis would be needed to understand potential linkages with VAWG, and possible programmatic responses. Analysis should focus on how the complexity of different forces (social, gender, economic, religious, personal) impact individual’s lives, and detail how perceived or realized injustice and alienation contribute to extremism (along with a variety of other factors discussed in relevant literature). Addressing masculinities and deprivation of power in male populations is pertinent here. ANNEX H: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ANNEX I: MINI-SURVEY RESULTS UVAWCC: 45 Respondents (21M/24F) from 3 districts: Dinajpur, Barguna, and Sylhet - 15 total respondents from each district (7M/8F) PHR: 4 Respondents (4M) from 3 districts: 2 Dinajpur, 1 Barguna, 1 Sylhet U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523