EVALUATION Performance Evaluation of the Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity in Tanzania April 2018 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Data for Development activity. A FINAL EVALUATION OF RULE OF LAW: ACCESS TO JUSTICE INTEGRATING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE ACTIVITY. Submitted: April 13, 2018 USAID/Tanzania, Data for Development Activity Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-15-00024/AID-621-TO-17-00005 Prepared by: Sue Tatten, Team Lead and Legal & Gender Expert Alexandre Monnard, Evaluation Specialist, NORC at the University of Chicago Jacob Laden, Evaluation Advisor, NORC at the University of Chicago Qualitative research support provided by: Aimtonga Amani Essau Amenye Shakila Mayumana Samantha Downey Survey and quantitative research support provided by: Samantha Downey Cover Photo: Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence training on the strengthening of the child protection team in Mtwara, Tanzania Credit: WiLDAF – Tanzania DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ i Evaluation purpose and evaluation questions .................................................................................. i project background............................................................................................................................ i Evaluation design, methods and limitations..................................................................................... ii MAIN Findings And conclusions ...................................................................................................... ii Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... v 1.0 Evaluation Purpose and Questions .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Evaluation Questions .......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Project Background............................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Tanzania’s Gender and Legal Context ............................................................................... 2 2.2 Tanzania’s Legal Aid Context ............................................................................................. 5 2.3 Program Description ........................................................................................................... 5 3.0 Evaluation Methodology........................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................ 7 3.1.1 Structured Desk Review ........................................................................................ 8 3.1.2 Key Informant Interviews ....................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Focus Group Discussions ...................................................................................... 9 3.1.4 Survey of WiLDAF Network Members .................................................................10 3.2 Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis........................................................................11 3.3 Evaluation Limitations .......................................................................................................11 4. Findings and Conclusions................................................................................................................................13 4.1 EQ 1: How has the provision of legal services affected marginalized communities’ understanding of their rights? ...........................................................................................13 4.1.1 Sub-question 1.a. To what extent did women, in particular, benefit from these services? ..............................................................................................................13 4.2 EQ 2: How did the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity enhance community knowledge and attitude toward women’s rights, gender equality, and empowerment?................................................................................22 4.3 EQ 3: How have the Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity and its network supported an enabling environment THAT promotes gender equality?............................................................................................................................26 4.4 EQ 4: What legal and political improvements did WiLDAF and its network achieve and sustain?.............................................................................................................................29 4.4.1 Sub-question 4.a. What has happened to those improvements to date?............29 4.5 EQ 5: How and to what extent did THE ACTIVITY’s legal actions and sensitization approaches influence occurrences of and legal actions related to gender based violence? ..........................................................................................................................................31 4.6 EQ 6: How are the networks organized and used? ..........................................................36 4.6.1 Sub-question 6.a. How effective is the organizational structure of WiLDAF and its network of partners (including successes, challenges, and lessons learned)?...36 4.7 EQ 7: What challenges, if any, are there affecting project goal attainment?....................41 5. Recommendations............................................................................................................................................48 Annexes .............................................................................................................................................................................56 Annex 1: Evaluation Statement of Work ........................................................................................57 Annex 2: Concept note and evaluation design ..............................................................................71 Annex 3: Data Collection Instruments............................................................................................88 A3.1 Focus Group Discussion Guide – Clients of Legal Services...................................88 A3.2 Focus Group Discussion Guide – Perception of GBV.............................................92 A3.3 Focus Group Discussion Guide – Community Awareness (Women)......................97 A3.4 Focus Group Discussion Guide – Community Awareness (Men).........................102 A3.5 Key Informant Interview Guide – Legal Assistance Providers ..............................107 A3.6 Key Informant Interview Guide – Government Agencies (GoT)............................110 A3.7 Key Informant Interview Guide – WiLDAF Leadership and Board........................113 A3.8 Key Informant Interview Guide – GBV Service Providers .....................................116 A3.9 Key Informant Interview Guide – Community Leaders..........................................119 A3.10 Web-based Survey ..............................................................................................122 Annex 4: Abridged bios of IE team Members ..............................................................................131 Annex 5: Conflict of interest forms for key personnel ..................................................................133 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Breakdown of KIIs Conducted by Project Stakeholder Type and Site................................................8 Figure 2: Breakdown of FGDs by FGD Type and Site.............................................................................................. 9 Figure 3: Web-based survey response status by category.....................................................................................11 Figure 4: Percentage of male and females from low income or marginalized communities who received legal aid or victim assistance with USG support. .....................................................................................................14 Figure 5: Number of legal aid providers trained by WiLDAF versus targets set.............................................19 Figure 6: Sex disaggregation among legal aid providers trained by WiLDAF....................................................19 Figure 7: Number of individuals provided with GBV services by WiLDAF versus targets set.....................31 Figure 8: Individuals who Received WiLDAF-Supported GBV Services by Gender .......................................31 Figure 9: Geographic distribution of WiLDAF network members......................................................................36 Figure 10: WiLDAF Network Members Survey Responses..................................................................................37 Figure 11: WiLDAF Network Members Survey.......................................................................................................37 Figure 12: WiLDAF Network Members Survey.......................................................................................................38 Figure 13: Survey responses to questions about what WiLDAF’s and its network provide to members.39 Figure 14: Survey responses to questions about WiLDAF’s effectiveness in various areas on which it focuses................................................................................................................................................................................40 Figure 15: Simplified diagram of the legal aid and GBV support ecosystem as observed ..............................47 Figure 16: Simplified diagram of the legal aid and GBV support ecosystem reflecting certain key recommendations made in this report.......................................................................................................................55 ACRONYMS Acronym Description ADS Automated Directives System AFNET Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Network CDO Community Development Officer CEDAW United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women CHMT Council Health Management Team CPT Child Protection Team CSO Civil Society Organization CWCA Center for Widows and Children’s Assistance DC District Commissioner DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DED District Executive Director DO Development Objective EQ Evaluation Question ET Evaluation Team FDG Focus Group Discussion FY Fiscal Year GBV Gender-Based Violence GoT Government of Tanzania GRB Gender Responsive Budgeting HQ Headquarters IEC Information, Education, and Communication IP Implementing Partner IPRS Implementation and Procurement Reform System KII Key Informant Interview LIWOPAC Lindi Women’s Paralegal Aid Center M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCA Millennium Challenge Account MCDGC Ministry for Community Development Gender and Children ME&A Mendez England & Associates MoHCDGEC Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, and Children NGO Non-Governmental Organization NORC NORC at the University of Chicago OWE Organization for Wo PE Performance Evaluation PF 3 Police Form 3 PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief RUWOCE Rungwe Women and Orphans Center SADC Southern African Development Community SOW Statement of Work SWO Social Welfare Officer Acronym Description TANLAP Tanzania Network for Legal Aid Providers TGNP Tanzania Gender Networking Program TLS Tanganyika Law Society ToT Training of Trainers UN United Nations U.S. United States USG U.S. Government USAID United States Agency for International Development VAC Violence Against Children VAWC Violence Against Women and Children VEO Village Executive Officer WEO Ward Executive Officer WiLDAF Women in Law and Development in Africa WLAC Women’s Legal Aid Centre i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS This is a report on the summative performance evaluation (PE) of the Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity implemented by Women in Law and Development in Africa (WiLDAF), between 2009-2017. The evaluation was commissioned by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Tanzania, and was independently conducted by an external evaluation team (ET) assembled by the Data for Development Activity, led by ME&A. The evaluation was premised on the following development hypothesis: If targeted communities’ awareness of women’s human rights is increased, the availability of legal aid services for marginalized community members is increased, and key Tanzanian laws and policies addressing gender equality issues are revised or developed, then marginalized community members’ access to justice will be increased. The achievement of this objective is expected to result in a reduction in the incidence of GBV, and empowerment of Tanzanian women. The evaluation questions (EQs) were designed to examine: 1) the results of the provision of legal services and the community awareness activities on marginalized communities’ understanding of their rights, particularly with respect to women’s rights in the community and in the public space1; 2) the results of the legal and political advocacy work done by the Project to promote women’s rights and their enforcement; 3) the mechanisms and extent to which the Project’s interventions influenced the occurrence of and legal actions related to GBV; 4) the structure and operations of the Project’s partner network; and 5) the challenges for project goal attainment. The primary audience for this evaluation is USAID/Tanzania Program Office; the Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) technical team; and Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender - Based Violence staff, board, and sub-grantees who may consider the results of the evaluation and recommendations for decision-making, design and future implementation. Additional stakeholders include the Tanzanian government officials from key collaborating ministry offices; USAID East Africa Regional Office; USAID Bureau for Africa and Office of East African Affairs; and the USAID Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence2 is a $4.1 million activity implemented by the Tanzanian chapter of WiLDAF, established in 1997 and made up of a national network and coalition of associations and individual members. WiLDAF first received funding from the United States (U.S.) Government in 2006 for a two-year rule of law activity to improve access to justice for marginalized communities, with a focus on women. This funding was provided by the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) through USAID to the MCA Threshold Program of the Government of Tanzania (GoT). Based on the successful implementation of that program, USAID entered into a cooperative agreement with WiLDAF in 2009, which further supported the development and strengthening of the interventions funded by the MCA. This cooperative agreement has since been amended 10 times. WiLDAF’s current commitments, as per the most recent cooperative agreement are: 1 Examples of women’s rights on which WiLDAF focus include property rights, freedom from discrimination, and freedom from violence. 2 The name of the activity has changed over time, it was initially referred to as Rule of Law: Access to Justice. ii Legal aid and human rights components GBV-specific components Strengthen the five Model Legal Aid Clinics to expand free legal aid services Conduct stakeholder meetings with community leaders and local government to strengthen the referral system for GBV survivors Support Tanzania Network for Legal Aid Providers (TANLAP) in coordinating legal aid provision in the country Engage in public community dialogue to strengthen the referral network and promote women and youth awareness on GBV Enhance media coverage to sensitize the public on legal and human rights awareness programs and the availability of free legal aid services Plan and coordinate with ministries, the Police and clinical partners to strengthen national capacity for GBV response Disseminate information and education materials to promote the rule of law and access to justice Conduct advocacy to reduce policy barriers within the medical, psycho-social, legal, and police system with councils, the Council Health Management Team (CHMT), and police Create awareness through training to legal aid providers, human rights defenders, and women’s rights organizations on women’s legal and human rights Disseminate SASA!3 communication materials and GBV community engagement and intervention guides for use in community sensitization activities with partners in the districts Strengthen policy dialogue and advocacy on policies and laws that are discriminatory Conduct orientation and media sensitization workshops for media industry in districts - Pursue the 16 Days of Activism against GBV EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation used a participatory approach and relied on primary data collection from key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and a web-based survey. These data were combined with secondary data collected from: a range of project documents (e.g., progress reports) and other reports about the legal and legal aid context in Tanzania; the state of women’s rights and GBV in Tanzania; and analysis of laws and policies in place in the country. In addition, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and Implementing Partners Reporting System (IPRS) data collected by Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence allowed the team to use mutually reinforcing qualitative and quantitative methods to triangulate findings. In total, the ET conducted: 46 KIIs with a range of project-associated staff and other project stakeholders in government and the legal system; and 20 FGDs, including 9 with recipients of legal assistance (both sexes separately), 6 with community members (both sexes separately) in areas targeted for community awareness activities, and 5 with female-only recipients of GBV services. The qualitative fieldwork for the PE was conducted between November 23 and December 13, 2017. Five target districts out of a total of eight were purposively selected to include a mix of rural and urban sites in diverse regions of Tanzania and service providers offering a diverse mix of services. With the help of the Mission and WiLDAF, the ET obtained a full list of stakeholder types and WiLDAF members. Beneficiaries were randomly selected from this list for focus groups, whereas other stakeholders were purposively selected to ensure a balanced coverage of each group at each site. A snowball sampling approach was also used to reach other district authorities and stakeholders involved in activity implementation but not originally included on the list. A web survey sent out to 98 members of the WiLDAF network between December 18, 2017 and January 10, 2018, yielded a final response rate of 40 percent. MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EQ 1: How has the provision of legal services affected marginalized communities’ understanding of their rights? To what extent did women, in particular, benefit from these services? 3 SASA! (“Now!” in Swahili) is a communications/sensitization campaign against GBV implemented by WiLDAF. iii • Legal services providers consistently reported targeting marginalized communities and individuals, and women in particular, for the provision of legal assistance. Clients, especially women, reported high satisfaction with the services received, a better understanding of their rights and of the process to follow for conflict resolution and to obtain assistance, and increased confidence to demand their rights. • The reach of legal assistance and representation did not sufficiently cover the sites where program activities are focused, especially rural areas. Nearly all legal clinics and all paralegals lacked reliable access to advocates while all paralegals lacked access to lawyers. • Mediation is an effective approach for certain types of cases (e.g., land disputes), both as a starting point to avoid recourse to the formal system and as a “band aid” for the problematic mandatory sentencing in cases of consensual sexual relationships between an adult and a teenager. EQ 2: How did the project enhance community knowledge and attitude toward women’s rights, gender equality, and empowerment? • The approaches employed to sensitize and educate communities about women’s rights appear to have reached a variety of groups in urban and peri-urban settings, channeled those in need of assistance to legal clinics or paralegals, and were considered to be both necessary and effective, yielding visible results within the communities in which they are implemented. However, these approaches were unable to effectively reach the rural areas, which are those with the greatest need. • Training of key members of the community, the court system, and the government were consistently considered effective in building capacity and noted to create spillovers to peers. However, the reach, depth, and frequency of training was often considered insufficient and inconsistent • Ward Executive Officers (WEOs), Village Executive Officers (VEOs), and village chairmen were only trained at certain sites, but were found to have the capacity to play an important role in extending the reach of basic legal aid and in referring cases beyond their capabilities or comfort zones to the appropriate resource (e.g., gender desk, legal clinic) if they were provided systematic training at all sites. EQ 3: How have the Project and its network supported an enabling environment that promotes gender equality? • Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence played a central role in establishing Child Protection Teams (CPTs), which were widely praised for their ability to better protect children, and greatly improve coordination among GBV service providers. However, concerns were noted with the operation of some CPTs, and they were nonexistent at several sites. • Local coordination between legal aid providers and governmental authorities varied significantly between sites. For example, some sites reported inadequate reporting of activities and outcomes and limited strategic alignment with local government plans. On the other hand, referral mechanisms within the GBV assistance ecosystem and the legal system were generally well-developed. • Coordination and collaboration among Project-supported legal clinics and paralegals and with other local legal aid providers also varied by site and was sometimes noted as an issue or missed opportunity. EQ 4: What legal and political improvements did the Project and its network achieve and sustain? What has happened to those improvements to date? • Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence has successfully lobbied for several important pieces of legislation, including the Legal Aid Act and the Children’s Act, and successfully advocated for specialized handling of juvenile cases and application of the ‘Best Interest of the Child’ standards. The Project was also instrumental in the design and adoption of a revised Police Form 3 used by health care providers and the police to document cases of GBV and Violence Against Children (VAC), and actively participated in supporting the development of the National Plan of Action on Violence Against Women and Children. The Project also advocated for harsher sentences in rape iv cases, which was successful but unfortunately had some unintended consequences in cases of statutory rape where there is consent. EQ 5: How and to what extent did Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence’s legal actions and sensitization approaches influence occurrences of and legal actions related to gender based violence? • Overall, there was an increase in the reporting and a decrease in the incidence of GBV. Yet there was some variation across sites and little direct evidence to substantiate these changes or attribute them to the Project activities specifically. The perceived decline in GBV incidence was consistently attributed to a combination of greater awareness of what constitutes GBV and increasing knowledge that GBV is taken seriously and prosecuted, leading to convictions. • On average, Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence exceeded its target for the provision of GBV services during the period for which indicator data was available; yet GBV services and sensitization suffer from limited reach in rural areas, as is the case for the other services including legal aid and sensitization about rights. Hardship to GBV victims is worsened by the lack of available shelters and lack of local government resources at all sites. • Mandatory sentences of 30 years for rape convictions, which were strongly advocated by non￾governmental organizations (NGOs), have resulted in unforeseen consequences in statutory rape situations where there was consent to engage in sexual relations. Mediation is typically preferred by both victims and legal aid providers, as going to court or involving the authorities typically means punishing the victim and the unborn child and victims and witnesses frequently will not testify. EQ 6: How are the networks organized and used? How effective is the organizational structure of Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence and its network of partners (including successes, challenges, and lessons learned)? • Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence network members are diverse yet aligned with the Project’s mission and objectives. They generally reported the same challenges as those reported by the Project and, like the Project’s local legal assistance partners, noted the importance and need for further training. Network members reported that Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence and its network provided them with a variety of valuable resources and information (e.g., guidance on activities, coordination, and information on workshops) and that the Project was responsive to their input and requests. • Much of the improved capacity and coordination of Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence since 2009 occurred relatively recently and in areas that were especially underdeveloped and critical to the Project’s sustainability, programs, and future growth. However, the reporting tool and process that local legal assistance partners used to report to the Project on their activities and progress lacks details and robustness and needs to be improved. EQ 7: What challenges, if any, are there affecting project goal attainment? • Corruption occurring in the legal system and at the level of law enforcement and health services providers undermines the confidence of the communities in these institutions. Long and frequent court delays and court fees that are often beyond clients’ means cause them undue financial hardship. Court fee waivers designed to help these clients and the legal aid providers helping them are very difficult to obtain. • Resources provided to legal clinics and paralegals remain very limited; consequently, they often lack adequate office equipment and office space as well as the ability to travel to rural areas or reimburse clients’ travel expenses. On top of volunteering their time, they sometimes use their own resources. • The Project’s resources are insufficient for the programming it is implementing and are provided by too few funders. This lack of diversity in funding sources represents a threat for its programming and the sustainability of the organization. v RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above findings and conclusions, the ET formulated the following recommendations for USAID, WiLDAF, and its partners. Although the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity has ended, these recommendations are formulated to guide the USAID/Tanzania Mission’s future programming as well as the Project’s future development and programming, which is expected to continue in some form, albeit at reduced scale and breadth if the Mission’s support is not renewed nor replaced by other funders. Program reach and coverage • Scale up and systematize training to WEOs, VEOs, and village chairmen, as well as GBV assistance providers (e.g., Social Welfare Officers, Community Development Officers, gender desks), on GBV and human rights. • Train village chiefs and other community leaders who are critically important to change rural mindsets and are gatekeepers to access these communities. • Systematically encourage and assist clients and the broader community to devise and write gender equitable wills and to document marriages. Strengthening of local service providers • Provide legal service providers with access and funds for advocates, and resource all sites in both rural and urban areas with at least one legal clinic and one lawyer. • Better resource local partners, particularly with regard to travel allowances, but also with regard to their office and office equipment. • Implement a Training of Trainers (ToT) approach to increase the number of paralegals and consider the addition of a mentoring/coaching component using lawyers. • Engage academic institutions to encourage students (particularly those studying law) to volunteer as paralegals in communities during their studies. Advocacy • Prioritize advocacy efforts on: a) the need for GoT to quickly establish safe houses; b) the clarification and simplification of the process that grants registered legal aid organizations with blanket waivers for court fees; and c) revising mandatory sentencing to provide prosecutorial discretion for statutory rape cases where there was consent. • Identify, target, and recruit more champions in government and in legal and other professional networks. Coordination and improved enabling environment • Intensify efforts to facilitate the establishment of CPTs and monitor their operations. • Ensure that local partners systematically and regularly communicate and engage with sub-national government authorities. • Encourage better coordination and increased collaboration between Project-supported legal clinics and paralegals and other service providers that exist at each site and that often have overlapping goals and missions. • Encourage and facilitate work by local government and local partners with public schools to change the perception of the youth and encourage them to bring changes to their communities. Operations and organizational processes • Continue to proactively identify and capture new funding sources to allow for programming to be adequately resourced. vi • In coordination with USAID, assess organizational capacity and, if needed, provide capacity-building in areas most important to successful program implementation and management. • Regularly collect information from network members about what aspect of the network they find most valuable and what they find in need of improvement. M&E and data collection procedures • Revise and improve the data collection tool and reporting process local legal assistance partners are asked to use to capture more detailed information about cases and local context and trends. • In coordination with USAID, unpack the sole indicator currently associated with legislative activities and lobbying efforts to adequately track progress in a sometimes slow political and legislative process. • Address definitional issues for indicators in the M&E plan and IPRS related to the number of legal aid providers trained and the types of services counted as part of the term “GBV services.” 1 1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS Since 2006, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided near￾continuous support to the Tanzanian chapter of Women in Law and Development in Africa (WiLDAF) network to improve access to justice for marginalized communities, and especially women, under the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity.4 Over time, the specific interventions and their associated objectives evolved and broadened somewhat, particularly with the addition of a gender-based violence (GBV) component in early 2011, while remaining firmly aligned with WiLDAF’s mission and vision. The project is aligned with the USAID/Tanzania Mission’s Development Objective (DO) 1: Tanzanian Women and Youth Empowered; as well as DO 3: Effective Democratic Governance Improved. Over the course of nearly 10 years of assistance and support from USAID, no external evaluation has been carried out to assess either the performance or the impact of WiLDAF’s engagement. Now that the current Cooperative Agreement in place between USAID and WiLDAF is coming to an end, USAID/Tanzania commissioned ME&A, under the Data for Development activity, to perform a summative performance evaluation (PE) of the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity. The purpose of this evaluation, conducted between September 2017 and January 2018, was to document and assess the effectiveness of the interventions implemented by WiLDAF under the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity between 2009-2017. This evaluation also aimed to inform USAID/Tanzania on program decisions for future rule of law/democratic governance support that can promote the empowerment of Tanzanian women and youth as a means to address Mission DOs. The evaluation questions (EQs) were designed to examine: 1) the results of the provision of legal services and the community awareness activities on marginalized communities’ understanding of their rights, particularly with respect to women’s rights in the community and in the public space; 2) the results of the legal and political advocacy work undertaken by WiLDAF to promote women’s rights and their enforcement; 3) the mechanisms and extent to which WiLDAF’s interventions influenced the occurrence of and legal actions related to GBV; 4) the structure and operations of the WiLDAF partner network; and 5) the challenges to project goal attainment. The evaluation’s results are intended for multiple audiences, including the USAID/Tanzania Program Office; the DRG technical team; and WiLDAF staff, board, and sub-grantees who may consider the results of the evaluation and recommendations for decision-making, design and future implementation. Additional stakeholders include Tanzanian government officials from key collaborating ministry offices; USAID East Africa Regional Office; the USAID Bureau for Africa and Office of East African Affairs; and the USAID Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance. 1.1 EVALUATION QUESTIONS The summative PE provides a substantive analysis of five key topical areas mentioned in the evaluation Statement of Work (SOW) (Annex II). Provision of legal aid to marginalized community members: 1. How has the provision of legal services affected marginalized communities’ understanding of their rights? a. To what extent did women, in particular, benefit from these services? Women’s rights in the community and in the public space: 4 The name of the activity has changed over time, it was initially referred to as Rule of Law: Access to Justice. 2 2. How did Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence enhance community knowledge and attitudes toward women’s rights, gender equality, and empowerment? 3. How have Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence and its network supported an enabling environment that promotes gender equality? 4. What legal and political improvements did Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender￾Based Violence and its networks achieve and sustain? a. What has happened to those improvements to date? Gender-based violence: 5. How and to what extent did Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence’s legal actions and sensitization approaches influence occurrences of and legal actions related to GBV? Organization structure: 6. How are the networks organized and used? a. How effective is the organizational structure of WiLDAF and its network of partners? (including successes, challenges, and lessons learned) Challenges: 7. What challenges, if any, are there affecting project goal attainment? 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 2.1 TANZANIA’S GENDER AND LEGAL CONTEXT Tanzania has ratified many international and regional instruments that call upon member states to protect human rights, including those of women and children5. The Government of Tanzania (GoT) has taken several steps to formulate its treaty obligations into its legal and policy framework, including: the formulation of its National Gender and Development Policy (2000);6 the establishment of Police Gender and Children’s Desks; affirmative action in education in favor of girls; and ensuring equal opportunities in employment and pay. Despite these efforts, the GoT has faced challenges in implementing comprehensive and effective protections through domestic laws, enforcement mechanisms, policies, plans, and budgetary allocation to responsible systems and organs such as the legal system, social welfare, and the police force to eliminate GBV and Violence Against Children (VAC), especially women and girls. This situation led to a call for action from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and donor agencies to work more collaboratively with government and partners in order to achieve their mutual aims for comprehensive implementations in support of women’s and girls’ rights throughout the country. Through the advocacy and engagement of NGOs and donors, the GoT has made some progress on promoting gender equality; however, discriminatory laws, policies, and practices that uphold harmful gender norms persist. In Tanzania, women’s legal and human rights and their empowerment are constrained by the: discriminatory application of statutory laws; inadequate legislative protective mechanisms such as protection orders, barring orders, and safety orders; discriminatory and inequitable enforcement of existing laws and policies; absence of enforcement mechanisms in remote locations; social and cultural norms and attitudes that militate against reforms; and insensitive investigations and prosecution of cases involving GBV and VAC. Laws and practices discriminate against women on issues of property inheritance, particularly for land, and often institutionalize violence against women. Further 5 Tanzania has acceded to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1976); the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ECESCR) (1976), International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) (1972); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (signed 1980, ratified 1985); the Optional Protocol for CEDAW (acceded in 2006); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (signed 1990, ratified 1991); International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ICRPD) (signed 2007, ratified 2009) as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter) (1984); the Protocol on the African Court of Human Rights (2006); the African Children’s Charter (2003); and the Maputo Protocol on the Rights of Women (2007). 6 See http://www.mcdgc.go.tz/data/serayamaendeleoyawanawakenajinsia.pdf 3 progress in the legal domain is hampered by: inadequate legal literacy among women and men; lack of access to the legal system by women, particularly those in remote areas; absence of affordable and accessible legal services; and the dearth of government officials responsive to the demands of citizens and citizen groups. Where there are trained justice sector personnel - in particular, Police Gender and Children’s Desks, magistrates and judges, public prosecutors, and Social Welfare/Community Development officers working in close coordination with NGO partners - the manner in which GBV cases are handled, including prevention, treatment, and response, has been more effective. The Constitution of Tanzania (1977) prohibits discrimination based on sex. Nevertheless, various laws currently in force have not yet been reformed to bring them into compliance with the non-discrimination provision.7 Tanzania still has legal and policy frameworks that contradict each other on women’s and children’s rights. For instance, there is a conflict related to the legal age of marriage between the Law of Marriage Act (1971, RE2002), which allows a female under the age of 18 to marry with the consent of her parents, and the recently enacted Law of the Child Act (2009), which defines a child as under 18 years of age and therefore ineligible for marriage.8 As another example, the Labour Relations Act of 2006 and the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2009 have not been harmonized to address women’s and children’s rights outlined in international agreements that have been ratified or acceded to by the GoT, such as the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, and the Maputo Protocol that provides a legal framework for women’s rights. Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC) is embedded in social norms and practices in many Tanzanian communities. Likewise, the lack of a comprehensive legal and policy framework with sufficient protection and rehabilitation services for VAWC survivors perpetuates the violence. Human trafficking of women and children is also a challenge and the GoT has yet to fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking.9 In general, legal protection for women remains limited, in part because Tanzania’s judicial authorities take into account both customary and Islamic laws,10 although customary law is not recognized under the Constitution.11 While this may be the case, in remote areas of the country in particular, customary laws are used to discriminate against women violating the domestic law of Tanzania and its obligations under the international human rights framework of the UN and the African Union. These gaps in compliance represent a potential opportunity for NGOs to engage with national and international authorities to hold the government accountable for its domestic and international legal obligations either through the reporting frameworks of the various treaties or through direct court challenges. There are numerous examples where this has been successful in other countries in Africa.12 Tanzanian inheritance laws can violate women’s fundamental rights to equality and ownership of property with a multiplicity of legal systems that can apply to the administration of a deceased’s estate (statutory law, customary law, and Islamic law) and how the proceeds of the estate will be allocated to a spouse, children, and other family members. The type of marriage entered into by a couple may also affect how the estate is managed and whether civil law, customary law, or Islamic law is applicable. This may pose an internal conflict of laws, leading to the question of choice of which law to apply in the distribution of the deceased person’s estate and how the choice of law may be sex discriminatory. While Tanzanian statutory 7 Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 in CEDAW (2007), p. 13. 8 Recently, there have been several court decisions which ruled the Law of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional, including the case of Rebeca Z Gyumi v. Attorney General (Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 5 of 2016, decided in July 2016) in which the High Court declared that section 13 and 17 of the Law of Marriage Act are unconstitutional and discriminatory and must be revised to eliminate inequality. However, in Sept 2017 the Attorney General filled an appeal before the Court of Appeal in September 2017, which remains pending as of the writing of this report. 9 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report, U.S. State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Person, https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2016/258875.htm 10 CEDAW (2007). 11 World Bank (2013a). 12 For example, the Dow vs. Republic of Botswana (1995) Court of Appeals case and related advocacy initiatives resulted in constitutional guarantees for equal protection of women in citizenship and marriage resulted in a transformation of laws that discriminated against women. 4 law governs civil marriages, customary law largely depends on the particular ethnic customs and traditions governing a distinct ethnic group, and Islamic law applies to the country’s Muslims. A woman is often not afforded equality of treatment in these systems; and, if she has no legal representation, she is at a further disadvantaged in her ability to obtain the proceeds of her husband’s estate. In-laws and other family members, typically males, may disinherit widows and other female beneficiaries from land or property for their own personal gain. Protection of legal rights is further constrained by: inadequate legal literacy among women (and the citizenry in general); lack of access to the legal system by women in rural areas; the inability to afford legal counsel; the absence of a detailed understanding of legal reforms; inadequate political will and responsiveness to implement such reforms; and local government officials who do not have enough resources to adequately support political changes. Women’s political and economic participation Article 21 of Tanzania’s Constitution emphasizes equal participation of citizens in the governance of the country either directly or indirectly through representative democracy. In addition to ratifying various UN charters, the GoT has adopted other relevant protocols related to gender and development, including the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Gender and Development. However, inequality between men and women in decision-making continues despite the constitutional provision and ratification of above international provisions, largely due to a lack of understanding on how these mechanisms can be used. Female representation in Tanzania’s key public institutions of the Judiciary, Executive, and Legislative branches further demonstrates the lack of gender parity. Recent local studies show only 36.6 percent of seats in the parliament are occupied by women. In the 9th parliament (2015), the number of female Ministers of Parliament (MPs) was 99 (31 percent) out of 320 MPs. The number and percentage increased to 130 (37 percent) in the 10th parliament (2016) but remained steady in the 11th parliament (2017). Also, for the past eight years, there has been no significant increase in the percentage of directly-elected women MPs.13 In the Judiciary, women are underrepresented in the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. Currently, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania has 17 justices, 12 men and five women. There is no statutory or constitutional requirement in Tanzania that mandates gender parity in the appointment of judges to the Court of Appeal, High Court, Special Divisions of the High Court, and Special Tribunals. Since its independence in 1961, the country has been headed by male presidents and vice-presidents, except after the 2015 general elections, which saw the first female vice-president who is currently in office. Political parties are the gatekeepers for electoral politics in Tanzania. However, they are largely male￾dominated in all aspects of their operations. The number of women in party leadership positions is extremely low. For instance, there is no political party in the country that has attained gender parity in the parties’ top national leadership posts. Representation of women in leadership positions is also very low at the local level. This also applies to economic participation, as many women cannot access capital, loans, and economic support to empower themselves economically. Women’s low economic empowerment has made them unable to fairly compete with men in politics or to finance political campaigns. Ongoing efforts and achievements Despite the above constraints, in recent years, Tanzania has witnessed some positive changes in the promotion and protection of women’s and girls’ rights in terms of policies, infrastructures, and services, including: the establishment of a Gender Responsive Budgeting (GRB) Core Team within the Ministry of 13 Tanzania Gender Networking Program (TGNP) research report, October 2017. 5 Finance for overseeing GRB implementation in all sectors and local government; the establishment of the Tanzania Police Female Network (TPFNET) to address cases of GBV and VAWC; the establishment of One Stop Centres (OSC) at police stations and hospitals (e.g., in Ilala); and the formulation of the National Guidelines on Gender Mainstreaming in policies, plans, and programs.14 The GoT has also formulated the National Plan of Action for the Prevention and Eradication of Violence against Women and Children (2016-2021), established Police Gender and Children’s Desks (PGCDs), and developed Juvenile Justice guidelines. The government also recently passed the Legal Aid Act of 2017, which legitimizes and recognizes the contribution that trained and certified paralegals provide to the Tanzanian public and its right to access the justice system. While this represents a significant change, key provisions that would provide for budgetary mandates and requirements were stricken from the bill, thereby weakening its effectiveness. 2.2 TANZANIA’S LEGAL AID CONTEXT On the Tanzanian mainland, there had not been a national policy or bill on legal aid until last year’s passage of the Legal Aid Act. The state is involved only to a limited extent in providing legal aid, focusing solely on the criminal justice sphere where judges appoint private lawyers paid modestly by the state to assist and represent the accused. In practice, this form of legal aid is only provided free of charge in capital offences.15 Besides this scheme, there are also institutions whose main objective is legal aid, including legal aid clinics that are often tied to universities and rely on lawyers working at the school to offer pro bono services. Some are also operated by NGOs and civil society organizations (CSOs). There are also organizations such as the Bar Association of Tanzania and the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) that offer various services, among them legal aid, by relying on in-house lawyers and paralegals, as well as private lawyers recruited for specific tasks or offering pro bono services on an ad hoc basis. The TLS’ internal rules require that private lawyers accept legal aid briefs assigned to them, but do not specify the work hours that must be dedicated to this type of assistance. Legal aid services offered by lawyers tend to be concentrated in urban centers, whereas paralegals operate in rural areas to a greater extent. The government has provided modest funding to support certain non-state organizations providing legal aid under the Legal Sector Reform Program, which is heavily donor-funded and seems to have ended in the mid-2010s. Besides this mechanism, legal aid funding for NGOs and CSOs is nearly totally dependent on local donors, such as the Legal Services Facility (LSF) and international donors, including state development partners (such as USAID, the Swedish International Development Agency [SIDA], the Canadian International Development Agency [CIDA], the Department for International Development [DFID], etc.) and international organizations (such as Terre des Hommes, the Open Society Foundation, etc.).16 The issue of long-term sustainability remains a pervasive challenge for legal services providers in Tanzania. 2.3 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The $4.1 million Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity was implemented by the Tanzanian chapter of WiLDAF, an organization established in Zimbabwe in 1990 that has since developed into a pan-African network which, in sub-Saharan Africa, has chapters in Ghana, Mali, Kenya, and other countries. Established in 1997, the Tanzanian chapter of WiLDAF (referenced henceforth as WiLDAF) is itself made up of a national network and coalition of associations and individual members, 14 URT, Country Report on the Review and Progress Made and Challenges Encountered in Implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and Outcomes of the Twenty Third Special Session of the General Assembly – Beijing +20. Ministry of Community Development, Gender, and Children - MCDGC (Tanzania Mainland) and Ministry of Empowerment, Social Welfare, Youth, Women, and Children - MESWYWCD (Zanzibar), May 2014. Page 17. 15 Access to Justice and Legal Aid in East Africa - A comparison of the legal aid schemes used in the region and the level of cooperation and coordination between the various actors, The Danish Institute for Human Rights and The East Africa Law Society, 2011, available at https://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/billeder/udgivelser/legal_aid_east_africa_dec_2011_dihr_study_final.pdf 16 Tanzania Legal Aid Report 2017, TANZANIA NETWORK OF LEGAL AID PROVIDERS, 2017, available at http://internationallegalaidgroup.org/images/miscdocs/ILAG_2017_National_Report_-_Tanzania_-_Ms_Christina_Kamili.pdf 6 including: the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC), the Women’s Legal Aid Centre (WLAC), the Tanzania Women Lawyers Association (TAWLA), the Tanzania Gender Networking Program (TGNP), the Tanzania Home Economic Association (TAHEA), the Morogoro Paralegal, Tanga Paralegal, Shinyanga Paralegal and Koshika Women’s Group. WiLDAF is a member of The National Consortium on Civic Education in Tanzania (NACOCET), the Southern Africa Human Rights NGOs Network (SAHRINGON), and the Feminist Activist Coalition (FemAct). WiLDAF first received funding from the United States (U.S.) Government in 2006 for a two-year rule of law activity to improve access to justice for marginalized communities, with a focus on women. This funding was provided by the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) through USAID as part of the GoT’s MCA Threshold Program and supported: 1) the establishment of a legal aid secretariat (Tanzania Network for Legal Aid Providers or TANLAP); 2) launching 16 Days of Activism against GBV; 3) familiarizing legal aid workers with legislation on corruption and human rights; 4) establishing five model aid clinics and strengthening existing paralegal units; and 5) developing a mass media program. Based on the successful implementation of that program, USAID entered into a cooperative agreement with WiLDAF in 2009, which supported further the development and strengthening of the interventions funded by the MCA. WiLDAF was to: further build the capacity of TANLAP; provide various training to all legal aid providers, including its members paralegal units, and other local NGOs; strengthen five model legal aid clinics; and continue to organize the yearly 16 Days of Activism against GBV campaign and radio programs to inform communities about legal rights and the availability of legal aid. This cooperative agreement has since been amended ten times, and while many of these amendments consisted of no-cost or cost extensions and the update of standard provisions, some amendments meaningfully changed the geographic coverage and scope of the intervention implemented by WiLDAF. For example, an amendment in early 2011 added a GBV activity with funding from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The USAID PEPFAR team sought to use the existing mechanism because of WiLDAF’s demonstrated and predominant capability in the GBV sector and its linkages with existing interventions. As another example, a two-year extension in 2014 added three more districts— Bahi and Kongwa (iDodoma) and Mtwara (Mtwara)—to those already covered—Kinondoni and Temeke (Dar es Salaam), Rungwe (Mbeya), Musoma-Urban (Mara), and Lindi–urban (Lindi). The final modifications to the cooperative agreement in December 2016 and June 2017 provided six￾month no-cost extensions through June 2017 and December 2017, respectively, in order to for WiLDAF to complete activities that were delayed by the election period in late 2015 and early 2016; take advantage of emerging opportunities; and allow time to conduct this evaluation while the project was still in operation. No further changes to the scope of activities were made. As per the most recent cooperative agreement, WiLDAF’s current commitments included legal aid provision alongside community awareness interventions, stakeholders’ coordination, and targeted advocacy, all focused on legal and human rights and GBV prevention and victim assistance. The final summative evaluation of WiLDAF-Tanzania examined the period of its activity, Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence, from 2009-2017, which is premised on the following development hypothesis: If targeted communities’ awareness of women’s human rights is increased, the availability of legal aid services for marginalized community members is increased, and key Tanzanian laws and policies addressing gender equality issues are revised or developed, then marginalized community members’ access to justice will be increased. The achievement of this objective is expected to result in a reduction in the incidence of GBV, and empowerment of Tanzanian women. 7 3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The summative performance evaluation of WiLDAF’s Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender￾Based Violence activity utilized a mix of mutually reinforcing qualitative and quantitative methods, allowing the team to triangulate findings. With the help of the Mission and WiLDAF staff, a full list of stakeholder types and WiLDAF members was obtained. Beneficiaries were randomly selected from these lists for interviews and focus groups, whereas other stakeholders were purposively selected to ensure a balanced coverage of each group at each site. A snowball sampling approach was also used to reach other district authorities and stakeholders involved in activity implementation but that were not originally included on the list. The evaluation drew on data collected via a review of existing project documents and a web-based survey sent to WiLDAF network members, as well as focus groups with clients and community members and interviews with implementers (e.g., WilDAF staff, legal aid clinics, paralegal units) and other stakeholders (e.g., various local government officials and USAID staff) at WiLDAF project sites. The Data for Development activity conducted the PE using a participatory approach, engaging the USAID Mission, the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence implementers, project clients/beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, throughout the evaluation. At the same time, the evaluation team (ET) remained independent and took steps to maximize the quality of the information and minimize the impact of various potential sources of bias on the evaluation. Accordingly, implementing partner (IP) staff were not involved directly in data collection activities for the purpose of maintaining objectivity and for insuring respondent/beneficiary confidentiality as they provided feedback.17 The evaluation also took into consideration the local context and project implementation results by analyzing the achievements of targeted results, verifying implementer annual and quarterly reports, considering the opinions and recommendations elicited during the key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs), and undertaking quantitative analysis of the results from data collected from the web-based survey and secondary data provided by WiLDAF-Tanzania. The qualitative fieldwork for the PE was conducted between November 23 and December 13, 2017, while the web-based survey was sent out on December 18, 2017 and closed on January 10, 2018. Five target districts councils/municipalities out of a total of eight activity sites were purposively selected for the fieldwork to include a mix of: 1) rural and urban sites located within diverse regions of Tanzania; and 2) service providers offering a diverse mix of services and that became involved with Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence at different times within the evaluation period of 2009-2017. The five target districts selected were two urban municipalities: Kinondoni, Dar Salaam [implementing partner (IP): TANLAP] and Musoma, Mara (IP: Center of Widows and Children); and three rural district councils, including: Kongwa, Dodoma (IP: Kongwa Helping Each Other Paralegals), Lindi, Lindi (IP: Organization for Women’s Empowerment), and Rungwe, Mbeya [IP: Rungwe Women and Orphans Center (RUWOCE)]. Ilala in Dar Salaam served as a pilot location for all instruments, including the FGD protocols. Upon reviewing the results and lessons of the pilot testing, it was decided that the pilot data should be included in the analysis, as only very slight adjustments were made to the instruments, and the additional data derived from an urban area were considered valuable. 3.1 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The qualitative component of the PE drew on four data collection methods: • Structured desk review of Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence’s available quarterly and annual reports, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data, and other implementation documentation, as well as relevant secondary information; 17 While IP staff were involved in arrangement of meetings and introductions to district government authorities, they were not in the meetings and interviews with stakeholders. 8 • KIIs conducted with Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence staff, its sub-grantees, certain types of project beneficiaries, and other project stakeholders including local and national government officials; • FGDs conducted with project participants and community members at five project sites; and • Web-based survey, which included some open-ended questions and was disseminated among a list of more than 80 WiLDAF network members. 3.1.1 Structured Desk Review The ET obtained project documents from Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence and USAID/Tanzania and reviewed and coded them in a structured manner to: provide a shared understanding of the project; guide the development of the instruments and survey; and enrich this report. Documents reviewed include: quarterly and annual progress reports from Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity, the Activity’s original SOW and multiple modifications, its Performance Management Plan (PMP) and M&E plans, Data Quality Assessments (DQAs) performed by USAID, two capacity building assessments, a baseline survey implemented by the Activity, and two strategic plans for the organization covering 2011-2016 and 2016-2021. In addition, the team also reviewed various documents and reports about the legal and legal aid context in Tanzania, the state of women’s rights and GBV in Tanzania, and analysis of certain laws and policies in place in the country’s mainland related to women’s rights and protections against GBV. These documents served to provide the context for the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity and to better understand how the project filled the gaps identified by various experts. 3.1.2 Key Informant Interviews The ET conducted a total of 39 KIIs across five of the project sites (Ilala, Rungwe, Kongwa, Musoma, and Lindi) with a range of project-associated staff, government stakeholders, legal system stakeholders, and others that have some relationship or affinity with the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity, plus another 7 KIIs in Kinondoni with Activity staff, a WiLDAF board of director member, USAID staff, and GoT agencies staff, for a total of 46 KIIs (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Breakdown of KIIs Conducted by Project Stakeholder Type and Site KII Type District and Region Total Ilala, Dar es Salaam Kinandoni, Dar es Salaam Rungwe, Mbeya Kongwa, Dodoma Musoma, Mara Lindi, Lindi WiLDAF and partners Legal clinic staff 1 0 1 N/A 2 2 6 Paralegals* 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 Activity staff 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 WiLDAF board of directors 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Government stakeholders GoT ministries 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 District Commissioners (DCs), District Executive Directors (DEDs), etc. 0 0 2 1 2 1 6 Social Welfare Officers (SWOs) 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Community Development Officers (CDOs) 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 9 KII Type District and Region Total Ilala, Dar es Salaam Kinandoni, Dar es Salaam Rungwe, Mbeya Kongwa, Dodoma Musoma, Mara Lindi, Lindi Village Executive Officers (VEOs), Ward Executive Officers (WEOs), etc. 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 Police gender desk staff 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Legal system stakeholders Public prosecutors 0 0 1 1 1 3 District magistrates 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 Regional States Attorneys 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Regional legal officers 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Other stakeholders Medical doctors 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Other legal aid services 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Disability center staff 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 USAID staff 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Total 1 7 9 8 12 9 46 *Interviews with paralegal units were done in a group interview format following the original KII discussion guide designed for legal services providers. One KII was conducted with the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity’s Contracting Officer at USAID/Tanzania, while KIIs were held with a point of contact (POC) at the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children, Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of Labor and Employment. The KIIs included a focus on how the Activity strengthened its partners and network, and how it affected coordination between GoT ministries, police departments, and clinic partners for GBV response. All KIIs used semi-structured open-ended interview guides tailored to the type of project stakeholder interviewed, with the exception of that with USAID, which used a series of ad hoc questions crafted by the team upon completion of the fieldwork. 3.1.3 Focus Group Discussions The ET conducted a total of 20 FGDs across five of the project sites (Ilala, Rungwe, Kongwa, Musoma, and Lindi). Three types of FGDs were held: the legal assistance and community awareness FGDs targeted both genders; and the GBV services FGD targeted female participants only. As shown in Figure 2 below, certain types of FGDs were not held at every site visited. Namely, only certain sites had community awareness activities that justified organizing community awareness FGDs, and a legal assistance FGD was not held in Ilala, the site selected for pilot testing of the instruments, because the team was not yet aware that a significant portion of legal aid recipients were men. Figure 2: Breakdown of FGDs by FGD Type and Site FGD Type Gender District and Region Total Ilala, Dar es Salaam Rungwe, Mbeya Kongwa, Dodoma Musoma, Mara Lindi, Lindi Recipients of legal assistance Women 1 1 1 1 1 5 Men 0 1 1 1 1 4 10 FGD Type Gender District and Region Total Ilala, Dar es Salaam Rungwe, Mbeya Kongwa, Dodoma Musoma, Mara Lindi, Lindi Community awareness Women 1 1 1 0 0 3 Men 1 1 1 0 0 3 Recipients of GBV services Women 1 1 1 1 1 5 Total 4 5 5 3 3 20 FGDs were organized with the assistance of Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity staff using lists provided by the Activity sub-grantees operating in a given district. The ET team randomly selected from these lists and invited up to 15 participants for each FGD, keeping in mind refusals and no-shows. The FGDs were conducted by Swahili-speaking facilitators who were knowledgeable of the program content and Tanzanian context around gender; facilitators were well trained in conducting FGDs to solicit responses from the participants by asking neutral probes and without introducing their own biases. The ET provided facilitators with training (e.g., role playing) and materials to ensure that they understood the project and FGD guide and could moderate the discussion to obtain maximum response and discussion. 3.1.4 Survey of WiLDAF Network Members A survey of the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity network members was used to complement the data collected via the methods already discussed. This survey allowed the team to obtain information that could not be collected during the fieldwork period due to time restrictions. It was comprised of 23 questions, although the skip logic built into the instrument means that most respondents were presented with slightly fewer than 20 questions based on their answers to a series of questions about the range of services these organizations provide and whether they received funding from the Activity. The survey included a mix of different questions types. Some questions were open-ended and focused on specific topics, such as the greatest challenge each member faced with regard to providing legal aid, GBV services, or raising awareness about women’s rights in the community or the elements of the Activity’s network that they found most useful. Others were focused on better understanding the specific services these members provide and their role within the network. Finally, some questions used a Likert scale to provide a quantitative understanding of each member’s perception of changes in their area(s) of operation and assistance they received from the Activity, as well as the results achieved by the Activity in a range of areas aligned with the EQs. More information about this latter type of questions is provided below in the Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis subsection. To design the survey, the ET relied on NORC’s survey methodologists and design staff with experience in operationalizing research questions into specialized, deliberately crafted survey instruments. The survey was designed to elicit information from respondents in a way that reduces observational errors, specifically instrumentation error, due to ambiguous question wording or illogical questionnaire flow. The survey was offered in both English and Swahili to accommodate all network members. It was sent out to the Activity’s network members who were identified as able to provide meaningful answers to the questions it contained, based on a list of members provided by the Activity and discussions with Activity staff about each entry’s role and services provided. Due to its web-based nature, the survey was only sent to those organizations that had access to the Internet and email addresses. However, this was the case for nearly the entirety of the list, and the team also obtained at least two email addresses per member as a precaution. The ET took steps to ensure confidentiality and boost response rates. Unique survey links were generated for each respondent. Each unique link was secure and was only shared with the intended recipient. To launch the survey, e-mail prompts were sent to each organization introducing the survey 11 and containing the unique URL. In addition, the team composed a survey introduction email that was sent by WiLDAF a few days ahead of the deployment of the unique links to ensure the survey was perceived as legitimate and to test if there were email addresses on the list that were no longer in operation. To ensure a high response rate, the surveys was pre-tested for functionality, usability, and clarity. The survey instrument was also targeted, focusing on only a few topics that lent themselves to this mode of data collection and took no more than 20 minutes to administer to each respondent. Additionally, the ET downloaded weekly data exports and performed interval data quality review to monitor response rates and respondent metadata in real time. This allowed for the team to diagnose any potential “pain points” or other issues in the survey that may have prevented respondents from completing the survey. In addition, it allowed the identification of any segments of the sample that were struggling in terms of response rate, in case it was possible to find alternative contact information or reach out to those respondents directly by phone or email to encourage response. The web-based survey was open for completion between December 18, 2017 and January 10, 2018. Figure 3 below provides an overview of the survey response status. The response rate was 41 percent, including a partially completed survey. Figure 3: Web-based survey response status by category Survey Status Count Percentage of total Completed surveys 32 40% Partial completions 1 1% Bounces and undeliverables 18 18%* Opt-outs 0 0% Unopened surveys 47 59% Total 98 - *Bounces and undeliverables are not included in the calculation of the response rate. 3.2 QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The quantitative component of the PE drew on two data collection methods: • The web-based survey previously described; and • M&E and IPRS data collected by the Activity. The web-based survey platform supplied quantitative data based on the multiple selection questions and those based on a Likert scale, which were analyzed using descriptive statistics with disaggregation by partner affiliation, type of site, services provided, district/region, etc. The ET also used existing secondary data such as the project’s annual and quarterly reports to understand project results and indicators over its life span. Existing data, including IPRS and M&E indicator data and other data contained in some quarterly and annual reports, were used to develop a longitudinal view of outputs and outcomes. Data were disaggregated by appropriate demographics, including age and gender/sex, as well as by region, whenever possible. Thus, while this was a mixed method evaluation, it did primarily rely on qualitative data and used the quantitative data available as part of triangulation of findings and results. 3.3 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS There are several important limitations inherent to the design selected for this evaluation: • Time and location constraints: Time in the field and accessibility of each site limited the ET to only 2-3 days in each location (except for Dar es Salaam where the team had slightly more time), preventing the ET from visiting rural villages, and limiting the number of Activity stakeholders that could be interviewed, in particular certain other donors. 12 • Data availability and data quality: Some project performance data collected by the implementer, such as a baseline and detailed monitoring data spanning the duration of the cooperative agreement, that the team hoped to use to inform the evaluation were unavailable or difficult to obtain and of questionable quality. In addition, certain quarterly and annual reports could not be produced by the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity and could therefore not be reviewed; the team was able to locate limited secondary data on GBV incidence to provide greater local context in districts visited. • Selection bias: As some key informants declined to be interviewed, there was a possibility of selection bias, i.e., those respondents who accepted to be interviewed may differ in some important dimensions from those who did not, for example in terms of their attitudes and perceptions, affiliation with government/non-government structures, socio-demographic characteristics, and experience. In addition, the purposive nature of the site selection process introduces additional selection bias. • Recall bias: KIIs and FGDs relied on self-reports about events and perceptions that may date back to several years, which could be incomplete due to lapses in memory and inaccurate or incomplete recall. • Response bias: KIIs and FGDs relied on self-reports about events and perceptions that may be biased due to social desirability or to respondents wanting to provide the answers they thought interviewers ‘want to hear’. To mitigate this limitation, the ET outlined confidentiality and anonymity guarantees to all who participated in KIIs, FGDs, and the web-based survey to Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity network members. The ET also conducted the interviews in as neutral and private a setting as possible where respondents felt comfortable in providing their opinions on sensitive topics. The community awareness and legal services FGDs that targeted both men and women clients were also conducted separately for each gender to ensure that men and women were free to talk in a more permissive environment that removed cultural expectations that often hinder women’s free discussion. Given that issues related to sexual violence and GBV have gendered cultural implications and sensitivities, it was even more critical that these groups be separated by sex. • Incomplete beneficiary rosters: The ET could not obtain complete rosters of all beneficiaries of the various types of services that the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity and its local partners provide, and they had to rely on shorter lists that did not represent the universe of these beneficiaries. In some cases, beneficiaries also reported receiving a call from the Activity’s local partners to make sure they were available. To alleviate these issues, the team randomly selected FGD participants from these shorter lists, but this nonetheless represents an important limitation as the lists could be comprised of beneficiaries who were systematically more satisfied with the services they received. That said, the team did not identify any instance in which answers provided were suspicious (e.g., coached or rehearsed answers, excessive agreement among FGD participants). • Project staff attendance: A representative from WiLDAF traveled to the field alongside the ET to help with logistics and make local introductions. While these representatives were not allowed to be present during KIIs and FGDs, they were nonetheless seen by both beneficiaries and project stakeholders, which could have biased their answers. Again, the team did not notice any obvious sign of such bias. 13 4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 EQ 1: HOW HAS THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES AFFECTED MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES’ UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR RIGHTS? 4.1.1 Sub-question 1.a. To what extent did women, in particular, benefit from these services? The Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity and the five legal aid clinics and several paralegal groups it supports have implemented a range of legal aid interventions in the communities in which they operate. These legal aid interventions can be broadly classified into three types: 1) community-level events and fora targeting the general population; 2) training of specific community members about women’s rights, human rights, and the Tanzanian law as it applies to these topics; and 3) the provision of legal advice, assistance, and representation to individuals who face a specific challenge to their rights. This EQ and sub-question will focus on the provision of legal advice and assistance to individuals, while the other two types of legal aid interventions will be discussed in more detail under EQ 2. Legal assistance providers consistently reported targeting and serving women, as well as other marginalized groups. During discussions with the Activity’s staff and the legal aid clinics and paralegal units they support, the ET asked about the groups targeted for the provision of legal assistance, and which groups were typically helped. Staff consistently indicated targeting and providing a majority of their services to groups considered marginalized, which is typically understood to include children, and especially orphans, women, widows, the elderly, people with disabilities, those with HIV/AIDS, and the poor. However, there were some variations in terms of the specific sub-categories identified as most commonly assisted. In Lindi, the legal aid clinic reported that most of its clients were “young women and children through teenagers.” In Musoma, both the legal aid clinic and the paralegal unit reported women and children, but the paralegals also noted providing assistance on occasion to the elderly and people with disabilities (especially those incapable of speech), and the clinic noted assistance to child workers, including in the sex trade. The paralegal unit in Kongwa reported assisting primarily children and women, whereas the paralegal unit in Rungwe reported a more comprehensive list that includes “widows, women, and the elderly, as well as children, especially orphans.” The Rungwe legal aid clinic, which has been operating for 10 years now, noted that the groups assisted have evolved somewhat over time: “Initially, the targeted groups were women and children, but more recently, widows have been increasingly receiving help as they often don’t know the process after their husband pass away and might be cheated of their inheritance. In addition, land rights for both men and women have become a more significant portion of the work they do after receiving WiLDAF training on the subject.” Overall, women and children form the core sub-groups assisted, with other sub-groups (which sometimes overlap with this core group, such as widows and orphans) being more or less common. It was also noted, while sub-groups like the elderly and the disabled were not always directly mentioned by legal aid providers, they came up in examples of cases later in the discussion, indicating that they can and do receive assistance even if they were not considered common-enough to be mentioned as specifically targeted and frequently helped. Additionally, it was commonly reported by both paralegal units and legal clinics that new clients were asked about their income and financial situation during initial interactions in order to determine their eligibility for free services. However, it appeared that no formal checks were performed to verify this information. A staff working for the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender￾Based Violence Activity’s emergency response unit in Kinondoni also noted that a screening was performed before a client was assisted, but did not provide details about the nature of this screening. In some cases, it was noted that the person was known within the community or to the legal aid provider as somebody with little means. Thus, free legal aid services were generally provided to those with few means, which were also considered to be marginalized. 14 While women and children represented the bulk of clients assisted, legal assistance was also provided to men in increasing numbers from Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 to FY 2017. As one paralegal in Rungwe noted “We give advice to men and do not discriminate in our services.” The Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity tracked and reported on the number of individuals and groups from low income or marginalized communities who received legal aid or victim assistance with USAID’s support. Indicator data reported to the IPRS from the legal aid clinics the Activity supports covering the period of FY 2013 through FY 2017 disaggregated by gender shows the increasing number of men served over time.18 One explanation might be that men were both seeking services on behalf of themselves or other female recipients of services. Figure 4 shows the percentage of female and male recipients over time. Although the trend was an increasing number of males receiving assistance since FY 2015, females remained the majority of clients served overall. The ET did not interact with children or teenagers as part of this study, but legal services providers provided some examples of cases that they had helped resolve. For example, the paralegals in Rungwe reported the following case: “A father left inheritance to his sons who also died and left the inheritance to his girls. Then there was a woman who lives in Mbeya who was the aunt and started oppressing the younger women. They went to Wakiru and we started helping them with legal aid at the ward level which discovered the girls had the right to inherit. The aunt then appealed and beat the girls who reported the violence to police. The land was given to the young girls upon appeal.” In addition, Social Welfare Officers (SWOs) also frequently reported working with children, teenagers, and orphans who were referred to them by Activity-supported legal services providers, and also referring these same groups to Activity-supported legal services providers. Figure 4: Percentage of males and females from low income or marginalized communities who received legal aid or victim assistance with USG support. 28% 28% 34% 38% 48% 72% 72% 66% 62% 52% FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 Male Female Source: Project M&E data exported from Implementing Partners Reporting System (IPRS), Indicator Reference Number 2.1.3-16 Free legal advice and representation was widely considered beneficial and necessary by all project stakeholders. The provision of free legal advice and representation provided by the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity and the five legal aid clinics and several paralegal groups supported by the Activity were noted as highly beneficial and necessary by nearly all project stakeholders interviewed, including beneficiaries, community leaders and those in the local and national government and in the legal system. The specific value of this service depended somewhat on the vantage point of the respondent. Local government leaders, such as District Commissioners (DCs) and District Executive Officers (DEOs), and lower-level government officials such as Village Executive Officers (VEOs) and Ward Executive 18 These data may also include the legal assistance provided by paralegal units, as the evaluation team were told that the unit in Musoma reports regularly to CWCA. In addition, the Kongwa paralegal unit also indicated reporting regularly to WiLDAF. 15 Officers (WEOs) reported that local government resources are largely insufficient to deal with the volume of both civil and criminal cases that reach them. For example, there was broad agreement that disputes about land and inheritance were all too common among their constituents and caused significant discord within the community. Mentions of a “land crisis,” often tied to disputes about the inheritance of land and housing or unauthorized grazing, were frequent among these stakeholders in Rungwe, Kongwa, Musoma, and Lindi. However, they also acknowledged to a varying degree that there was also a large volume of cases tied to disputes among married couples, neglect of children, and GBV. In addition, officers of the court also dealt with cases such as child abduction (particularly in Mara region) and armed robberies. Local government has several resources that can provide some assistance in these cases, including: SWOs who focus on children, the elderly, women, and persons with disabilities; Community Development Officers (CDOs) who focus more broadly on community well-being; and the Police Gender Desk or Women’s and Children’s Desks that mainly handle GBV cases. In addition, some cases are raised to the DC or the DEO during sessions open to the public, and others are raised with VEOs and WEOs during visits to their offices or during regular interactions with constituents. The provision of legal assistance fills several critical gaps in the “justice services” ecosystem. First, it is not uncommon for SWOs and CDOs to lack access to a legal advisor due to government office resource constraints, limiting their ability to provide reliable advice and guidance. While they may refer cases of GBV and other criminal offenses to the law enforcement authorities, they may not fully understand how to address cases that are civil in nature. Furthermore, SWOs and CDOs may not have received adequate training on women’s rights and children’s rights, further limiting their ability to help. Both of these issues were raised in Musoma. Secondly, the volume of cases is too high for Social Welfare Offices and Community Development Offices to effectively and systematically deal with them, even if they have the capabilities to do so. Third, VEOs and WEOs are political appointments and often do not have a strong or even elementary knowledge of women’s rights and human rights. They also reported having limited or somewhat outdated knowledge of the specific procedures that are involved in dealing with a specific case. Lastly, cases raised to the DCs and District Executive Directors (DEDs) are often cases that were already decided in court, and there is little that they can do to help at this stage of the process. Thus, it was broadly acknowledged by interviewees working in these different local government offices that they made frequent referrals to their legal aid clinic or even to the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity in order to ensure their constituents were adequately assisted. With a few exceptions, namely one particular person in Rungwe, the majority of interviewees working in local government reported that the constituents they have referred to legal aid clinics were satisfied and obtained results. Within the legal system, there was also broad recognition that the legal aid provided by the Activity and the legal aid clinics and paralegal units it supports was valuable both to those working in the legal system and to members of the community more broadly. The principal issue, as noted by different officers of the court, is a lack of awareness and understanding of the various stages of the legal process, including the pre-trial, trial, and post-trial stage. A magistrate in Kongwa noted this problem and noted that victims who lost a case often come to ask the way forward, which may be an appeal, and indicated that this is where legal clinics and paralegals can help. A public prosecutor in Lindi diagnosed a similar problem, underscoring the critical role legal assistance plays in the community: “OWE (Organization for Women’s Empowerment) is granting legal aid for those who cannot afford it... If I found someone who could not afford legal advice or court fees, I refer them to OWE,” which “…has helped make my job easier.” This lack of understanding of the legal process was also echoed by the Regional States Attorney in Lindi. Confirming this, a magistrate in Musoma noted that probate cases were particularly difficult because women do not know their rights and neither do most people who believe the assumption that women have no rights regarding inheritance. He noted that his office refers clients, often women, to the legal aid clinic or paralegals when their cases are more complicated. Thus, it is common for referrals to legal aid clinics to stem from law enforcement, prosecutors, legal officers, or court officials, especially for civil cases. The Regional States Attorney in Lindi also mentioned that the Activity and its local partners helped with reconciliation for victims. This represents another gap that was noted also by WEOs and VEOs, as 16 well as certain SWOs and CDOs. Mediation is important and while these individuals helped in that process, they reported not being fully confident to perform this task in more complex cases due to limited understanding and knowledge of rights. The providers of legal assistance at four of the five sites visited confirmed receiving frequent referrals from local government, the court system, as well as from police. For example, the Musoma paralegal unit staff reported that they received referrals from ward-level (presumably WEOs) and the SWO and CDO. They also noted that despite their efforts to inform the community about their rights, clients remained relatively uninformed about them overall, and are even more uninformed about the options they may have at any given juncture. Most clients, especially women, reported satisfaction with the legal services received and what they learned in the process. Recipients of legal services such as legal advice and representation who participated in the FGDs held at each site visited by the team reported that they were pleased with the assistance they received and what they learned in the process. They noted that the legal clinics helped them understand their rights and the process to follow to enforce them. Clients provided examples of the effect this had on their lives and families. Some shared examples of successful cases resolved through informal processes (mediation and dispute resolution) in matrimonial, property, and inheritance cases. Among the smaller subset who reported using the formal judicial system—either because the informal process was not successful or when they were required by law to resort to formal judicial processes—most reported successful outcomes or that the process was still ongoing at the court, or being appealed to a higher court. For example, a female legal services client in Rungwe said: “I really appreciate the existence of legal aid services. After our father passed away, my brothers took the plantation we inherited from our parents. Since I am a woman, I was told I am not entitled to inherit land. The legal center helped me and advised me on my rights. They also wrote a letter to my brothers to call them for mediation and education. They came, and were informed of my legal rights. I am glad we reached consensus and I got my rights.” A female legal service client in Musoma also said: “For me, they [the legal clinic] help me by giving me the courage to stand up and demand my rights. Before I was very shy, I was in utter cowardice to speak in court. I was in utter cowardice even to claim my right; I could not. But now I have the courage to stand up and demand my rights, and also can speak with confidence. They have really helped me so much and they have strengthened my understanding and confidence levels.” This second quote also provides an illustration of the confidence and courage that was instilled in at least some of the legal services recipients. Women were particularly vocal about their satisfaction with the services, outcomes, learning, and even newly gained confidence. Or, at least, they were more inclined to express their satisfaction. However, some male legal assistance recipients participating in the FGDs also noted similar satisfaction and learning, as well as confidence in their knowledge and ability to enforce their rights. For example, a male legal services client in Rungwe said, “Thanks to RUWECO support and initiative, I’m confident and I know my legal rights and I can use the legal system to fight for my rights.” Legal assistance recipients felt more empowered and knowledgeable about their rights and no longer fear asking for help, going to the court, and defending themselves. This was also confirmed by the various legal aid providers with which the team interacted. For example, the paralegal coordinator in Rungwe reported, “There is hesitation in exercising rights so it is hard to tell if they [clients] understand their rights. Yesterday the woman I took to court was nervous about opening up but she spoke and told the judge what happened and her confidence was lifted. This was a case of violence. After she gave her testimony the person was put in jail and the case was continued.” Had the client not testified, it is likely the case would have been dismissed. Several female participants in the legal services FGD held in Musoma even noted that the legal services providers strengthened the protection and security of women in the area, due to the increasing awareness among men that women now have a powerful ally. It was also noted several times that the outcome of 17 cases, particularly criminal cases, would quickly spread within the community, leading to an improvement in women’s security as men became more fearful of the repercussions that could result from engaging in violence. One female participant in Musoma said “I agree that legal support services have strengthened the protection and security of Musoma women. For example, the women who came to the legal aid center with matrimonial cases now are more enlightened of their rights, and even those with land issue now know better their rights. It means now men in Musoma understand that facing this legal facility is like putting your hand on the fire.” From her perspective, it is not just cases of violence that are deterred, but also matrimonial issues more broadly and even land-related disputes. For certain types of cases, a resolution outside of the court system was considered preferable, at least initially. There was significant agreement among the legal service providers visited that certain types of cases are better addressed informally via mediation and alternative dispute resolution than by going to court. In particular, this approach was reported as desirable for divorces, family disputes, and certain types of GBV cases. There was some disagreement among legal service providers about whether land cases were also better handled informally, but this appeared to stem primarily from different experiences and having dealt with land cases of various degrees of complexity. The legal clinic in Lindi noted that in some cases, an explanation of the rights of the two parties and the steps and documents needed can make a big difference and avoid resort to court proceedings. Mediation was primarily viewed as a first step in cases that do not involve violence and are not overly complex. When mediation fails, or the settlement agreed upon by the two parties is not respected by one of them, going through the formal justice system is often necessary. Most land cases according to legal service providers were being handled through the formal court system and through the land tribunal system, which was set up in the wake of the land crises. Cases first go through the ward level tribunal and then are escalated to the formal court in the case that they are not resolved in the tribunal. Looking at the data from legal assistance clients, it appears that both approaches are fairly common, but that there has been an increase in cases going to court. Overall, many female and male clients said their cases were settled out of court via mediation with the support of legal services providers. Similarly, male clients in Rungwe noted that previously, most cases and disputes were resolved out of court with unfair and compromised decisions. However, now, thanks to RUWOCE’s efforts to raise awareness, most cases are being resolved in court in a fair manner. Clients did mention that the downside is that this requires more time and effort, and it is not uncommon for cases to take more than a year to be resolved, sometimes even many years. Male clients in Lindi also reported that the majority of GBV, land, and family conflict issues are nowadays resolved through the court system. Legal services providers reported several reasons for their preference for mediation in certain types of cases. One was the preservation of family and community relationships. For example, the paralegals in Rungwe noted that, “Solving these [land] disputes without going to the formal court systems is much better. People start forming grudges if you go to court. Most land disputes involve families and neighbors. Some could retaliate if you go to court, but if you solve them outside the court level, you can make peace.” Another view was that the legal system is flawed and sometimes does more harm by being overly punitive, without considering the economic and social implications of incarceration in criminal matters. This latter reason is especially true in cases of consensual sexual relationships between an adult and a teenager close to legal majority age. These cases often emerge when an out-of-wedlock pregnancy occurs. Due to the Special Provisions for Sexual Offenses, there is no discretion in the sentencing for an adult who is convicted of “statutory rape” which is sex with a minor under the age of 18 whether or not there is consent. The person is subject to 30 years of incarceration with no possibility for a reduced sentence. However, as noted by staff at one legal clinic, this is not a desirable outcome for the victim or the child: “If we take the matter to court, he [the adult responsible for the girl’s pregnancy] will be sentenced to jail. Instead, he agreed to pay her school fees in private school and to care for the child. We did not take this matter to court because nothing good would have come from doing so. We entered into an agreement and the family can come back to us if it is not upheld.” Consequently, communities are often handling these cases through unofficial channels. In most 18 cases, witnesses and victims fail to testify due to the severity of the punishment and the impact on the victim and the community if the alleged offender is charged and convicted of statutory rape. It was reported that there are other instances where going to court may not yield the desired outcome, especially in cases of marital violence. The reason is that the victim or witnesses often refuse to come to court, sometimes conveniently “disappearing” for a few weeks around the court date, which undermines the ability of a court to obtain a conviction. Typically, when witnesses do not appear, the case is either dismissed or there is an acquittal. Often, the parties may reconcile and the victim may become reluctant to testify against the abuser, often a family member or spouse. The economic hardship and potential family breakdown that could result if a spouse is sentenced to incarceration could also impact the decision not to testify. VEOs and WEOs at multiple sites also noted that many cases can be successfully addressed, and even sometimes de-escalated or prevented, via mediation. They reported being often able to resolve a range of issues on their own via mediation, largely thanks to training received from the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity. Among the issues often noted were land and inheritance issues, as well as family disputes. They also reported being aware that some cases are beyond their capabilities. Clients are then either referred to police, directed to legal services providers, or directed to go to court. For example, a trained VEO in Rungwe noted that women will often come to talk to village officers when they think their rights are being violated or not enforced. This VEO reported that he can often solve the issue via village committee hearings, negotiating an agreement, and then following up to ensure compliance. Sometimes men are resistant and the VEO reported involving the gender desk or other resources. The Kongwa DC summed up the situation well, observing that most issues can be resolved at the family level through the involvement of committees before things get “out of control.” However, he noted that sometimes no agreement is found and the police must be involved, and there might also be fines. He indicated that more serious cases like rape and physical violence need to go to the police and the court. He also hinted at a limitation of this approach: local resolution via mediation can be corrupted (presumably when someone pays a bribe to keep the matter out of the formal mechanisms). The Kongwa gender desk, a magistrate in Musoma, and the Kongwa district legal officer also indicated relying on mediation. Training provided by the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity to paralegals and legal aid clinics was viewed as highly valuable, but some gaps and limitations remain. Both the paralegals and the legal aid clinics at all sites visited reported receiving some degree of training from the Activity, although paralegals in Musoma received their training through the local legal aid clinic instead of directly from the Activity. The duration of the training provided was reported to range from 5 to 25 days and included provision of materials and certification. Training topics varied somewhat by site (and possibly based on when the training was provided) but were reported to cover: GBV, providing legal aid (including ethics, steps, etc.), rights of women, rights of children, and marriage, inheritance among other topics. It was mentioned that the training provided was interactive and included case scenarios to allow participants to practice in a simulated environment. Most legal services staff, especially paralegals, said that they had little to no initial legal training prior to the Activity’s training. As part of its M&E approach, the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity reported on the number of legal aid providers trained versus targets it had set. These data are available between FY 2013 and FY 2017 and are illustrated in Figure 5 below. A key concern with these data is which trained groups constitute “legal aid providers.” As noted in this report, the Activity provided legal training to a wide range of groups within various regions. The question is whether only paralegals and legal clinic staff counted or whether WiLDAF headquarters (HQ) staff and even VEOs, WEOs, 19 magistrates SWOs, and so forth were also counted. A review of the Activity’s M&E plans does not provide a definitive answer, but suggests that the metric only captures paralegals and legal clinic staff.19 Figure 5: Number of legal aid providers trained by the Activity versus targets set 296 240 65 50 100 FY 13 ACTUAL FY 14 ACTUAL FY 15 ACTUAL FY 16 ACTUAL FY 17 ACTUAL TARGET Source: Project M&E data exported from IPRS, Indicator Reference Number 2.1.3-5 The overall pattern shown in Figure 5 is rather puzzling. The Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity significantly exceeded its target the first two years, before adjusting them significantly upwards. Yet, the organization only reached a fraction of these new, higher targets, and did not even meet the target of 150 legal aid providers trained, originally used in the two previous years. In FY 2017, the target was adjusted dramatically downwards to its lowest level and was far exceeded. This suggests that the Activity’s targets were either set in a somewhat arbitrary fashion, or that the Activity did not take its targets adequately into account as part of its planning and program implementation, leading to the misses in FY15 and FY16. The Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity also reported on the sex breakdown of legal aid providers trained, which is shown in Figure 6 below. After the first two years for which data is available, during which vastly more female providers were trained, WiLDAF seems to have deliberately aimed for a 55 percent/45 percent female-male split and maintained it. Figure 6: Sex disaggregation among legal aid providers trained by the Activity 30% 13% 43% 42% 45% 70% 87% 57% 58% 55% FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 Male Female Source: Project M&E data exported from IPRS, Indicator Reference Number 2.1.3-5 19 The definition of this indicator is “Legal aid service providers means identified people with a legal knowledge who volunteer to offer legal services for free on legal drafting, legal representation and legal advice, etc. to the marginalized communities in the targeted areas.” A strict interpretation based on the use of the term “volunteer” may exclude legal clinic staff, whom sometimes reported that part of the funds WiLDAF provides is meant to be a small remuneration (even if, as discussed later, these funds are generally required for other uses), but the evaluation team does not believe that was the intent of WiLDAF. On the other hand, it probably does exclude VEOs, WEOs, magistrates, SWOs, etc. who are trained in order to better do the job they are remunerated to do by the government. 20 The training the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity gave to legal aid providers accomplished several important aims. First, it equipped paralegals and legal assistance providers across sites with knowledge and confidence to help clients with their cases on land rights, matrimonial issues, GBV, and other areas. It also helped the paralegals decide whether a case could be resolved via discussions and mediation and which cases should be reported to the police or filed with the court. Thus, legal services staff in Rungwe and Lindi (and three groups of paralegals in Kongwa, Musoma, and Rungwe) provided multiple testimonials of—since having participated in the training—applying skills to assist clients and, in some cases, reported favorable outcomes through the formal court system or the informal justice systems (e.g., alternative dispute resolution and mediation). Second, along with the Activity’s encouragement, training enabled the paralegals at several sites (and one of the legal aid clinics) to coordinate and form, organize, and register their entities as a non-profit organization. This was also facilitated by the provision of identity cards, training certificates, t-shirts, and, in some cases, letters from the relevant authorities indicating they were allowed to operate. These are all important factors that enable paralegals to prove their legitimacy to the authorities and the community. Paralegals in Rungwe noted they initially faced problems with the government, lack of recognition by the police, and questions from the community about what qualified them to dispense advice. These issues were largely resolved by the provision of the equipment and assistance discussed above, along with the Activity organizing a coordination meeting to link paralegals with police, leading the police commander to even offer a space at the police station for them to offer free services. Finally, one paralegal in Kongwa reported that, thanks to the training received from the Activity and the work it enabled her to do, she has obtained a job to help children with malnutrition and to represent women in regional meetings in Dodoma. Despite the value of training, legal service providers reported insufficient refresher training to keep up with changing legal topics and to reaffirm and enhance what they previously learned, as well as gaps in the curriculum that they felt undermined their confidence in being properly prepared to adequately assist their clients. Paralegals in Kongwa, for example, noted encountering cases of corruption and challenges associated with disabilities with some regularity. They suggested that training on these topics, along with drug abuse, which was frequently mentioned alongside alcoholism as a factor in physical abuse, would help them provide better services. Other topics suggested by other paralegals and legal aid clinics, included: The Marriage Act, GBV issues, and inheritance. Variations across sites in the topics covered during training suggest that improvements made to the curriculum over time led to some training coverage gaps that need to be addressed, although a subset of these variations are likely intentional and associated with effort to tailor the curriculum to each site’s needs. The diversity of topics and overlap with topics that were reported by some but not others show that needs differ somewhat by site and that the training coverage provided at different sites varied. In some cases, legal aid providers reported receiving training several years ago, and that a refresher course with updates on new legislation would have been highly desirable. In other cases, such as the paralegal unit in Rungwe, which had been formed in 2015, the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity did provide follow-on training based on the challenges they reported facing, which was welcomed. Finally, several paralegal units and at least one legal clinic also noted that training on organizational management for NGOs, including financial management, accounting, and office management, would be useful and promote sustainability. They were already doing this type of work due to necessity; however, they noted that formal education on these topics would increase their confidence and capacity. Paralegals and many of the legal aid clinics have limited to no access to lawyers and advocates. This was particularly true in the case of advocates, who are the only legal aid providers allowed to provide direct representation in court on behalf of their clients. Advocates are particularly needed in inheritance and land cases where the adversary has retained his/her own legal counsel. Center for Widows and Children’s Assistance (CWCA) in Musoma was the only legal clinic with an advocate on staff. That one advocate faces numerous challenges given case preparation time, travel time required to go to higher courts, and the fact that court tends to be in the morning, which means traveling the day before and the necessity of hotel costs. The other legal clinics did not have regular access to an advocate or, in special cases, requested one from WiLDAF HQ. In the case of Lindi, Lindi Women’s Paralegal Aid Center (LIWOPAC) requested 21 assistance from the TLS who could provide pro bono services of an advocate for complicated cases. Legal assistance clients who went to court reported difficulties in understanding the legal proceedings, and even more so if their cases were in higher courts where English is the language used for filings and during the proceedings. They expressed the need for advocates to support them. For example, one female legal services client in Musoma noted, “We need lawyers and or advocates to oversee our cases because most communities, especially people of Musoma and most notably women, have no understanding.” The legal clinics in Lindi, Musoma, and Rungwe, have one lawyer on staff each, but that proved insufficient to meet demand. Paralegals units are fully dependent on the lawyers and advocates who may be available at the nearby legal clinic, if they are available and if the paralegals are aware of this option.20 If not, or in the case of Kongwa paralegals who operate without a legal clinic nearby, their access to lawyers was often limited to WiLDAF HQ advisory support via phone. For example, the Kongwa paralegals reported that there is only one lawyer in town, who charges for his services and is not able to provide any pro bono assistance. The reach of legal services provided by the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity and its local legal aid partners was insufficient. There was general concern that coverage to villages and rural areas was inadequate in Rungwe, Lindi, and Kongwa. For example, in Kongwa, only half of the 22 wards have active paralegals, according to interviews and a tally sheet on the office wall. Getting the legal aid services closer to the populace was repeatedly requested by legal services clients at all four sites visited. While a majority of legal aid clients said it had been easy to access legal aid services, most of them lived in urban or peri-urban areas near the paralegal offices and the legal clinics. The situation is dramatically different for those living in rural areas where there are no paralegal offices and outreach services are limited due to many factors, including lack of transport resources and means of communication. This was also evident in the kind of beneficiaries who attended the FGDs, as most of them were from urban settings. The issue of reach is primarily due to too few paralegals at the ward and village level, as well as a lack of travel resources for the existing paralegals and a lack of sustained training of village-level paralegals. Paralegals and legal clinics at all four sites acknowledged experiencing difficulty reaching rural areas due to funding constraints for transportation. Some legal aid providers interact with clients by phone (with both ends incurring communication costs) to try to mitigate the lack of locally available resources, but they indicated that often cases reach a point where in-person interactions are necessary (e.g., to help negotiations in land cases, or to provide and sign documents). As noted by the director of RUWOCE, “For clients that call in, out of 10, only 5 can be helped physically or referred to additional resources, the rest [don’t] have the money to travel.” In some cases, more local paralegals with specialized language skills are needed in areas where there are different dialects. Conclusions: • Legal services providers consistently reported targeting marginalized communities and individuals (especially the poor, women, widows, and children and teenagers, which were a core focus across all sites visited) for the provision of legal assistance. Legal services providers have adapted to their local context by also assisting other marginalized groups present in their communities, including persons with disabilities, the elderly, and men who are also considered marginalized due to a lack of resources. • While each community had somewhat different priority issues (e.g., land crisis, elevated GBV level, and inheritance), various groups within the communities the team visited considered legal advice and representation to those who cannot afford necessary and greatly beneficial. Existing government structures were found to be under-resourced and not sufficiently capable of 20 As is discussed later under Question 5, the paralegals in Rungwe have limited to no awareness about the local legal clinic and the resources that may be available to them there. 22 addressing many of these issues when they were even considered to be within the prevue of these organizations. • Clients of both sexes (and especially women) who received legal advice and representation generally reported high satisfaction with the services they received regardless of whether their cases went to court or were resolved through mediation. They often mentioned a better understanding of their rights and of the process to follow to resolve their situations as a result of these services, as well as gaining confidence in their knowledge and courage to ask for help and demand their rights. • Mediation is an effective approach for certain types of cases, both as a starting point to avoid recourse to the formal system and as a “band aid” for the problematic mandatory sentencing and the conflict between the Children’s Act and the Marriage Act in cases of consensual sexual relationships between an adult and a teenager. While not providing an adequate resolution to this latter type of case, mediation preserves the already scarce resources of the police, SWOs, and courts. Legal services providers and others providing mediation services (e.g., SWOs and CDOs) were clear that, if mediation appears ineffective or if follow-ups indicate continued problems, they recommend further options, such as going to court or involving the gender desk. • The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity reported providing training to more than 750 legal aid providers since FY 2013, which captures only a portion of the total trained during the evaluation period. Trainings provided to legal clinic staff and paralegals helped establishing these organizations by providing important knowledge and skills, especially for paralegals who had little to no legal knowledge prior to being trained by the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity. Trained staff reported being better and more confidently able to provide assistance across a range of case types and to determine how cases should be handled and referred. While there was generally high satisfaction with the training received among legal assistance providers, they reported insufficient refresher trainings and gaps in the curriculum or lack of tailoring to address issues they face in their respective communities and contexts. • The reach of legal assistance and representation at the sites visited were insufficient to adequately cover a significant portion of the region on which each site focuses. Rural areas were poorly covered or not covered at all and clients had to travel to obtain guidance and assistance, which is not always possible for financial reasons. Assistance via telephone was helpful at times, but too limited for many cases and telephone calls can be costly to both the client and the service providers. • Nearly all legal clinics and all paralegals noted a lack of access to advocates, with the exception of some isolated instances where WiLDAF sent one from HQ. In addition, all paralegals reported a lack of access to a lawyer, and legal clinics typically only had one lawyer on staff. 4.2 EQ 2: HOW DID THE RULE OF LAW AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE: INTEGRATING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE ACTIVITY ENHANCE COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE TOWARD WOMEN’S RIGHTS, GENDER EQUALITY, AND EMPOWERMENT? The benefits of legal assistance and representation on the knowledge and attitude of the recipients of these services were previously discussed under EQ 1, although it should be noted that there are spillovers to the broader community from this type of assistance. Here the focus will be primarily on the community￾level events and fora targeting the general population and the training of specific community members about women’s rights, human rights, and the Tanzanian law as it applies to these topics, which the Activity and the five legal aid clinics and several paralegal groups provided. 23 The Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity and its local legal aid partners used a range of approaches to inform the community about women’s rights, gender equality, and empowerment. Legal clinics and paralegals generally reported relying on a combination of public events and fora, as well as targeted education to certain groups in order to enhance community knowledge and change attitudes towards women’s rights, gender equality, and empowerment.21 Public meetings and fora are often held at the ward or village level in areas of high traffic (e.g., markets), tend to focus on a specific topic (e.g., GBV, inheritance, gender equality when it comes to the law and in leadership), and often include a question and answer session about rights and legal challenges. Community events also allow the legal aid providers to promote their services and identify vulnerable individuals who may need assistance. This approach was noted as an effective means of attracting new clients and publicizing legal assistance services. Besides these events, legal aid providers also held targeted training and education sessions in various settings, including schools (sometimes in combination with the gender desk and SWO), religious congregations, women’s saving and loans groups, and meetings of elders or leaders (e.g., the 10-House leadership of elders). These targeted sessions involved a theme or topic selected as being particularly relevant to the group addressed, and were sometimes particularly interactive (e.g., roleplay about engaging with the police, school debates.) In addition to the events organized by the legal clinics, WiLDAF HQ staff also traveled to various regions (especially those where it does not have local resources such as clinics and paralegals) on a regular basis to hold dialogues with targeted groups, including religious leaders, local government and traditional leaders, CDOs, teachers, gender desk officers, etc. The Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity reported using a tool it developed to foster a participatory approach to these events, which often focus on women’s rights and how to prevent and respond to violation of these rights. These events often involve both male and female participants to foster greater discussion. In addition, a key output of these dialogues is the development of an action plan to address GBV and VAC within the community. The Activity supports the implementation of that plan by providing educational material, and monitoring progress. The Activity also organizes community mobilization events such as in Rungwe, where the event involved singing, dancing, and acrobats. Some legal clinics reported working with the local media, including newspapers and especially radio stations, to increase their reach. This approach was taken especially during national or international events about women’s rights and children’s rights, such as during the 16 Days of Activism campaign, when the media is most receptive. In addition, WiLDAF HQ conducts its own mass media campaigns, for example by producing and airing TV spots on GBV response and prevention. At least one legal clinic, in Lindi, also reported activity on social media to raise awareness about various topics and spread the word about its services. Community awareness FGD participants of both sexes noted that they had heard and seen campaigns on women’s and children’s rights on the radio, TV, and to a lesser degree in newspapers, but were unable to remember if they were from the Activity or one of its local partners, or from another NGO or international donor. Thus, the ET could not assess the reach and effectiveness of the Activity￾specific media messages nor attribute the improved knowledge and sensibility reported to the Activity’s activities. These sensitization activities were broadly—but not always—perceived to be effective and to yield visible results within the communities. Many community awareness FGD participants, government officials, and legal aid providers confirmed that these sensitization activities have increased the awareness of both men and women of rights, equality, and empowerment. For example, a staff member from the legal clinic in Musoma reported that, “Previously, when a husband passed away, the relative of the husbands would often kick the wife out and take his assets. Traditionally, women also had no rights to land. But through our efforts in public education and legal aid, people know better now, even men. Previously, women were also not allowed to do work or do business, but that has changed progressively.” In another example, a Lindi regional legal officer noted that, “Capacity building has improved people’s knowledge and they are aware but direct legal changes need the 21 Based on documentation from WiLDAF, community interventions and community mobilization through media was planned to take place only in Rungwe and Kongwa. But the team found that community interventions were implemented to various degrees at each site visited by either the paralegals or legal clinic. 24 push of the whole community. There are changes in the process—advocacy of OWE using social media, legal framework, legal aid. People know their rights and are moving.” In some cases, men themselves were unaware that some of their behaviors violated women’s and children’s rights and they indicated that they had changed their mindset on how they would treat women and children. An increased awareness of land and property rights (particularly for women) was the most significant change according to paralegals in Rungwe and Musoma. Community members and legal aid providers also noted that sensitization activities have led to an increased understanding of the process to follow for certain types of common cases. For example, the Musoma paralegals indicated that, “People understand the process better, for example for matrimonial issues, they start by trying to solve things on their own, then go to SWO or CDO, and then to court. They know where to go when for what type of help.” Paralegals in Rungwe also noted that community awareness activities helped build trust in government institutions, saying, “The community is friendlier with the police and in the past gave bribes to avoid going to police. Now they understand the police are there to help them to resolve some of the violence.” Findings from both male and female participants in the community awareness FGDs in Kongwa and Rungwe showed some levels of understanding of women’s rights. However, understanding and appreciation of the main causes of inequality between sexes varies between the two groups. A majority of women exposed to community awareness activities in Rungwe stated they are more aware of their rights as a result of Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity activities and have been empowered to reach out for legal assistance. Likewise, men in Rungwe reported that the awareness events in the community were useful to understanding women’s rights, and that the media campaigns helped them in learning about women’s rights and where to seek help, such as the: police gender desk, court, legal aid clinic, and social welfare office at the district/municipal offices. This improvement in awareness was not reported as frequently in Kongwa where these activities also took place. Furthermore, some men and women in the community awareness FGDs reported that male mindsets in the community had not changed much. For example, a female FGD participant in Kongwa said, “To be honest, a high percent of women care, but for men, there is still a long way to go. There are changes but very minor, still there is looking down on women.” One male FGD participant in Rungwe admitted that, “No. I have not changed.” Some women and men still feel the need to have more skills and knowledge that will make them more confident and empowered enough to report on GBV incidences in their community. It was also acknowledged by both men and women participating in FGDs in Rungwe and Kongwa that in remote areas, the knowledge about women’s rights has not been broadly disseminated, leading to violation of women’s rights with little recourse. For example, a female FGD participant in Rungwe stated, “My request is that they reach out and educate people in the villages because they are the ones who suffer the most unlike most of us here in town who have a gender desk, but in the village they do not know.” Training for key members of the community and government was consistently considered as effective and valuable but reach and depth was often considered insufficient. Besides these community-level education events, the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity and the legal clinics and paralegals it supported also provided training to specific groups of government and court employees. This type of intervention was reported to have taken place to varying degrees in Musoma, Rungwe, and Kongwa, but not in Lindi. In Rungwe, all of the district’s WEOs, VEOs, village chairmen, and 75 members of women’s savings and loans groups were trained on topics including GBV, human rights, the Marriage Act, inheritance, and the Land Act. Not every group, however, received training on each topic. In addition, the public prosecutor reported participating in a week-long seminar covering VAC, GBV, and women’s rights, as well as in an Activity-sponsored multi-day meeting about discrimination and violence within the family. One SWO the team interviewed also noted receiving training. In Kongwa, the public prosecutor reported participating in a training about how to help child victims more effectively when they go to court, after which she led her office to handle children’s cases better because they are now considered different than other cases. The district legal officer also reported attending trainings offered by the Activity on gender issues and child abuse, and a medical doctor reported that she and one of her colleagues had also been trained on GBV. In Musoma, the Activity provided training to police officers and the team noted that the gender desk had training material on hand. the Activity also held a 25 seminar on GBV and public education for Mara region public prosecutors. CWCA also provided training to magistrates, and training on women’s and children’s rights to a subset of ward- and district-level CDO staff and at least some SWO staff. In addition, CWCA provided training on GBV and VAC to some WEOs. Training recipients interviewed expressed satisfaction with the training they received and reported making use of this knowledge regularly. For example, a public prosecutor in Rungwe noted that the seminar helped him greatly to do his job and improved his skills in the topic areas covered; and a VEO in Rungwe reported he was very satisfied with the training he received. The medical doctor in Kongwa noted that the training was very valuable and helped highlight the importance of completing the new Police Form (PF) 3 accurately and in a timely manner, and increased awareness about the seriousness of GBV. In another example, a WEO in Musoma noted that he can now prevent and resolve more conflict situations than before thanks to CWCA and the Activity training—and, therefore, he can better help his community. A staff member from RUWOCE, the clinic in Rungwe attended the trainings offered by the Activity to WEOs, VEOs, and village chairmen and reported that, “The immediate impact was increased awareness in terms of human rights, especially women’s rights and the topic of marriage, that resulted from training. Government workers trained by WiLDAF are providing better services now, specifically they are more willing to handle issues on their own instead of referring issues to the next administrative level. WEOs in particular are handling family disputes instead of going to court.” This was confirmed by training recipients, who also noted that they were able to pass on their knowledge to others. For example, the medical doctor in Kongwa noted that she used a hospital-organized workshop to discuss what she learned with other staff; a VEO in Rungwe noted using the training received to organize group meetings for children, women, and the elderly in underserved communities to discuss GBV and women’s rights; and a Kongwa public prosecutor reported that her office is using this training to educate people about their rights. The RUWOCE staff tied training received to government officials’ increased awareness and discussion of rights and GBV, reporting that, “In recent speeches, the DC or his deputies do emphasize GBV and women and children’s rights. This seems to have started more strongly since 2011. And he knows that these topics are discussed among government leaders as well, not just during speeches. Awareness is definitely increasing. Counselors are also discussing these changes.” Together, these findings provide an important insight about the expanded role that WEOs and especially VEOs and village chairmen can play in both extending the reach of basic legal aid and serving as a conduit to refer cases that are beyond their capabilities or comfort zones to the appropriate resource (e.g., gender desk, legal clinic). They also reinforce the possibility of a ToT approach whereby a subset of VEOs, WEOs, and others receive special training and training materials, so they can train others in nearby areas. These approaches are particularly important because some legal service providers and community leaders felt there was insufficient follow-up as well as gaps in curriculum preventing them from being properly prepared to apply knowledge to their clients’ cases. Additionally, training of WEOs, VEOs, council members, and officers of the court was only reported to have taken place at some of the sites and did not always cover the entire district or region, leaving coverage gaps. Training was also suggested for groups that have not yet been targeted, but who play an important role in the community. This includes village chiefs (in regions and districts where they exist), who are generally seen as resistant to broader awareness of rights because they perceive it to undermine their power. Indeed, one DC described them as sometimes considering themselves above the law and constitution, and several community and government stakeholders report they view an increased awareness of human rights as a threat to their power. It also includes bartenders and guesthouse attendants, who, due to their professions, may be particularly likely to be denied their rights and be victims of GBV, and who are also in a position to report cases and spread knowledge. The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity produced educational materials to inform the community about various topics related to gender and women’s rights. Besides producing and disseminating educational materials to guide and support the provision of training, the Activity also produced educational materials targeting the community more broadly. For example, it 26 produced a booklet about human trafficking that serves as a prevention and awareness tool. The booklet has been distributed to government institutions, local government authorities, and communities. The Activity also produced a booklet on women’s economic rights and opportunities, which highlights regional and national laws, regulations, and policies that provide for women’s opportunities in the economic sphere, and information about the financial institutions and procedures involved in registering a business. Another example of this type of activity is the production and distribution of a guide on employment and labor relations in Tanzania, which covers topics such as rights and standards in employment, trade unions and federations, and strikes and dispute resolutions. While this guide does not focus specifically on women’s rights and gender equality, these elements are encapsulated within various topics, including rights and standards, as well as termination. As the team discovered, this guide had been much anticipated. Based on an interview with staff at the Ministry of Labor and Employment, while the law mandates certain protections and the implementation of certain policies at work (e.g., breastfeeding breaks, nondiscrimination of gender), there remains widespread noncompliance and little interest by many employers in their implementation. Informants indicated that common excuses employers gave for this noncompliance is ignorance about specific guidelines and know how to implement these policies. Thus, the Activity is directly addressing these common excuses by producing booklets and disseminating them to employees, employers, trade unions, etc. This effort should therefore promote and enforce the application of existing laws. Conclusions: • The range of approaches deployed by the Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity and its legal services providers to sensitize and educate the communities about women’s rights and specific legal topics appear to be well-suited to reach a variety of groups in urban and peri-urban settings. Certain activities also helped inform the communities about the existence of legal aid, and directed those who need assistance to legal clinics or paralegals. Broadly speaking, these activities are considered both necessary and effective, yielding visible results within the communities in which they are implemented. However, a variety of project and community stakeholders noted that these sensitization and education approaches were unable to effectively reach the rural areas, which are those with the most need for such sensitization for a variety of reasons, including stronger hold of traditional beliefs, strong male dominance, parallel governance by chiefs (in certain regions), and reduced ability for victims to report problems and receive help. • Training of key members of the community, court system, and government were consistently reported to be effective and valuable. The training translated into increased capacity of executive officers to make decisions about how to handle problems they encounter in their communities and for medical staff to better understand their role in intervening in GBV incidents and how to use the new PF 3. In addition, it also translated into the transfer of knowledge from those trained to their peers and to community members as part of regular or purposeful interactions. But the reach and depth of that training was often considered insufficient. The frequency at which the Activity and the legal clinic staff provided training to specific groups also varied across the districts visited. • WEOs, VEOs, and village chairmen could play a greater role in extending the reach of basic legal aid and in serving to refer cases that are beyond their capabilities or comfort zone to the appropriate resource (e.g., gender desk, legal clinic). 4.3 EQ 3: HOW HAVE THE RULE OF LAW: ACCESS TO JUSTICE INTEGRATING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE ACTIVITY AND ITS NETWORK SUPPORTED AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT THAT PROMOTES GENDER EQUALITY? The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity supported the establishment of several child protection teams (CPTs) in various regions. The Activity established the Kongwa district CPT that is operating well, according to KIIs. In addition to Kongwa, the organization also 27 reportedly established CPTs in Bahi and Mtwara districts. The typical process the Activity used to establish these CPTs is the organization of one-or-two-day meeting with various relevant local stakeholders, such as local government officials and GBV/VAC providers (CDOs, paralegals, SWOs, gender desk officers, etc.) to establish contact and communication, discuss how to strengthen the referral system for GBV survivors, and build a sense of joint mission. This meeting also includes the provision of a specific training regimen covering topics such as communicating with children, initial assessment and investigation of the case, assessing a child’s needs, and the developmental needs of children. The meeting uses a participatory approach, encouraging participants to share their experience and local challenges. Among the goals of the meeting are the selection of a coordinator for the team, and the development of a local directory. This effort is carried out following guidelines from the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, and Children (MoHCDGEC). Local coordination between legal aid providers and legal and governmental authorities varied between sites. In Musoma, a law enforcement officer reported that the gender desk, CWCA, and the child protection team worked as a team and WiLDAF was a member. In Lindi, coordination between the legal clinic and other non- Activity funded legal aid providers was limited to interaction on special occasions. In Kongwa, it was reported that there is strong collaboration and coordination between SWO, health center, doctors, police, prosecutors, etc. The District legal officer noted that “…collaboration has made the teams’ job easier because before being united they were all busy in their own field - they now have mutual cooperation including with the community, religious leaders, executive officers, etc.” While the Activity’s communication and collaboration with government entities varied by site and office, there was generally good communication among government officers and the district and regional gender desks. In addition, some legal clinics and paralegals reported teaming up with gender desk officers and SWOs and CDOs on occasion to hold joint events, for example in schools. Where they exist, CPTs at various levels (e.g., district, village) were often credited as a source of improvement in the collaboration and flow of information between legal aid providers, police, social welfare and community development offices, and medical staff. It seems these benefits spilled over significantly beyond the realm of children to adult victims of GBV. However, these teams were not reported in every community visited (only in Lindi, Musoma, and Kongwa), and did not always include all of the legal aid providers. For example, in Lindi, the team was only operating and meeting intermittently, and had left out the local legal aid clinic supported by the Activity. In Musoma, while CWCA was a member of the CPT, the paralegals reported never having been invited to participate in the district CPT or lower￾lever CPTs (e.g., ward-level). They reported having much to contribute and benefit from such involvement. Interviews indicated that at some sites there is a strong referral mechanism between SWOs, CDOs, gender desks, district and even regional courts, and the local legal clinics supported by the Activity. Such a system was present in Lindi and, in even stronger form, in Musoma, where the legal clinic had the greatest capacity of those visited. This referral mechanism was generally reported to be bi-directional between SWOs, CDOs, gender desks, and the legal clinics, but often uni-directional between the court system and the legal clinics. For example, the Lindi district court magistrate refers people who cannot afford legal advice or court fees to OWE, while the regional legal officer noted referring probate and divorce cases to them. Even at the regional level, the Mara region public prosecutor reported referring cases to CWCA. While there was general satisfaction with this system, at least one legal clinic mentioned concerns about obtaining feedback on what happened once clients are referred to other resources. Furthermore, referrals to paralegals were more rarely reported by SWOs, CDOs, gender desks, and courts. The two extremes exemplifying this situation are Kongwa, where referrals of this nature were never reported, although the paralegals reported referring clients to the gender desk, SWO, etc., and Rungwe, where the paralegals reported being offered space at the police station to offer their services. The referral mechanism among district, ward, and village executive government and the legal clinics and paralegals was more common. All of the WEOs and VEOs, and a couple of the DCs and other high-level district executive positions the team interacted with, noted they refer community members to legal clinics and paralegals. The referral system in that case is unidirectional, and paralegals were referral targets much 28 more commonly than discussed above. The DCs and other high-level district executives who did not report making such referrals said it was primarily because they were not sufficiently aware of the services available through legal aid providers. Relatedly, district authorities in three out of four districts noted inadequate reporting of the activities and outcomes of the Activity and its local partners; and some were unaware of any activity being done by local partners in their community, for example in Rungwe. Others did not think they were sufficiently informed about the progress made and emphasized the need for alignment with government strategic priorities and plans, as well as the need to properly monitor organizational activity and to coordinate to avoid duplication of efforts in their districts. There is room for improvement with regard to coordination and collaboration among Activity-supported legal clinic and paralegals at each site and their coordination with other local legal aid providers that are not Activity-supported. Of the four sites visited, two had both a legal clinic and a paralegal unit supported by the Activity. In Rungwe, members of a recently established paralegal unit, which received Activity support, reported knowing little about the Activity -supported legal aid clinic in the same district. This situation was even more surprising given that the clinic reported holding regular meetings with some of the paralegals to coordinate services and provide mentorship to the newly created organization. In Musoma, the situation was significantly better, but the paralegal unit nonetheless reported that one of their challenges is dealing with clients who need services they cannot perform as paralegals. While they have strong relationships with the legal clinic (which played a critical role in establishing their unit), they noted that help from the legal clinic was not always sufficiently timely, which is problematic because some cases such as GBV are truly urgent. The legal clinic also noted that, while TANLAP has a directory of legal aid providers, there is no directory for the region that lists other GBV services that may be needed in certain cases. During fieldwork, the team also became aware of other legal aid providers that are located in the same regions as the sites visited. To the extent possible the ET visited these legal aid providers. Coordination and collaboration between the legal clinics and paralegals and these other service providers varied greatly by site. In Kongwa, the team met with the Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Network (AFNET), a Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity network member, a recipient of USAID funding, and a recipient of training from the Activity. Both AFNET and the paralegal team are part of the CPT, and they coordinate effectively. AFNET also reported connecting with the paralegal team when they identify GBV cases. This reinforces the point made earlier about the value of the CPT in fostering greater collaboration among elements of the GBV assistance ecosystem. However, in Musoma, the team met with staff at the St. Justine Center for Children with Disabilities, who noted were not aware of the Activity or the local legal aid clinic but would like to work more closely with these organizations because some of the children in the center have experienced GBV, including rape and an attempt by a father to coerce his deaf daughter to marry. In Lindi, the team met with a large group of paralegals that was aware of the Activity and had received some resources for the 16 Days Activity but was not a member of the network. They expressed interest in joining but were not aware of the process to do so. Furthermore, they and the local legal clinic reported nearly no collaboration or coordination with each other, with the exception of inviting each other to special occasions. the Activity does not currently support a paralegal unit in Lindi, which seems like a missed opportunity for the legal clinic to improve its effectiveness and gain a valuable source of referrals, and for the Activity to support an already well-developed paralegal unit complement the legal clinic. Conclusions: • WiLDAF has played a central role in establishing CPTs at several sites, including one the ET visited. These CPTs are typically comprised of SWO, CDO, the gender desk, and NGOs offering legal aid. The CPTs were widely praised and credited for their ability not only to better protect children from GBV and poor treatment, but also to greatly improve the coordination among GBV service providers in the greater ecosystem around related issues, such as cases of violence against children and instances 29 of GBV affecting adults. However, at one site, a legal clinic had reportedly attempted to join the CPT but its request was never adequately addressed. • There was significant variation between sites with regard to local coordination between legal aid providers and governmental authorities. Issues related to inadequate reporting of activities and outcomes by legal service providers were unfortunately more common and consistent, as district authorities at three of the four sites visited noted. In researching best practice cases within the WiLDAF-Tanzania network, Morogoro paralegals were found to have particularly effective and regular coordination and engagement with local schools, authorities, and law enforcement. They partner with the district councils of the areas they operate, conduct women’s fora at the ward level, and have established and strengthened school gender clubs. This could be a model to replicate broadly. On the other hand, referral mechanisms between key organizations that comprise the GBV assistance ecosystem, and to a lesser extent also the legal system, were generally stronger and relatively well￾developed. Yet, in that area, some relatively minor variations also appeared between sites. • Coordination and collaboration among the Activity -supported legal clinics and paralegals at each site and their coordination with other local legal aid providers that are not the Activity -supported also varied somewhat by site. The ET identified concerns relating to collaboration between the Activity - supported legal clinics and paralegals, some more concerning than others. In addition, the team identified several missed opportunities to coordinate and collaborate with other service providers that have overlapping goals and missions and are located in the same district as the Activity -supported legal clinic and paralegals. 4.4 EQ 4: WHAT LEGAL AND POLITICAL IMPROVEMENTS DID WILDAF AND ITS NETWORK ACHIEVE AND SUSTAIN? 4.4.1 Sub-question 4.a. What has happened to those improvements to date? WiLDAF has been involved in advocacy efforts on a range of issues, primarily at the national level, but also at the regional and district levels. Several of these efforts yielded legal and political improvements, while others remain works in progress as of the writing of this report. Below are the most prominent instances of advocacy: • The Legal Aid Act: The Activity was instrumental in lobbying for the act, which passed in 2017. Unfortunately, it did not meet the ideal specifications, especially for an anticipated budgetary allocation that would have funded paralegal compensation. TANLAP also advocated for the enactment of the Legal Aid Act, with funding for legal aid among the major issues for which it advocated. While advocating for the legal aid law, TANLAP discovered that the funding aspect of the law for legal aid and paralegals constituted the major issue that was delaying the process of enacting the legislation. Thus, TANLAP decided to withdraw the provision so that the law would be enacted and resolved to continue with the advocacy and consultative meetings after the enactment of the law. Currently, TANLAP has begun consultative meetings with the Ministry for Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which has agreed to work together to develop a joint action plan and to mobilize resources to fund paralegals. • The need for Gender/Children’s Police Desks throughout the country: This effort, started prior to but continuing throughout the period of evaluation, has been critical and succeeded, as the team noted a gender desk at every site visited. It created transformational change in the way that law enforcement handles GBV issues, and legal aid providers, SWOs, and CDOs interviewed perceived it to be an important resource. • Juvenile regulations: These regulations dictate how the Children’s Act provisions will be implemented, including the promotion of separate procedures for juvenile cases, Best Interest of the Child standards, and “in camera” hearings before judges. As of the writing of this report, there has been demonstrated progress in addressing juvenile cases, but much remains to be done. 30 • Rape sentencing, which aimed to promote harsher sentences in these cases: This advocacy effort was successful but—as discussed in Section 4.5—harsher sentences for these cases has had mixed effect. The mandatory sentencing has created a situation where there is no judicial discretion, resulting in sentences with broader and unexpected implications for families of victims and for those who may have engaged in consensual affairs with minors near the age of majority. • The Five-Year National Plan of Action on Violence Against Women and Children: The Activity also participated in a series of technical meetings with high-level stakeholders to influence and support the development of this plan. Both representatives of two ministries the team interviewed, as well as government personnel the team interviewed at the district level, consider the plan important in driving and coordinating future progress in this area. Additionally, WiLDAF reported regularly organizing round tables to review existing laws and identify key areas that need revisions and improvement. For example, it engaged policymakers and other NGOs around the potential improvements to the Customary Law of Inheritance and the Law of Marriage of 1971, as well as the enactment of a Domestic Violence Act. These efforts have not yet resulted in legislative changes. Some of the Activity’s advocacy and technical assistance efforts yielded important procedural improvements that support the effective functioning of the court system. For example, the Activity was instrumental in the design and adoption of a revised PF 3, which is used by health care providers, the police, and SWOs to document cases of GBV and VAC. Once completed, this form supports the court system in prosecuting perpetrators by providing critical forensic and medical evidence by health providers who examine sexual assault victims. The Activity worked extensively with the Tanzanian police force as well as the Ministry of Health to revise the previous form and adjust the process and guidelines (PF 3 circular). The Activity also raised awareness about the procedures with key stakeholders by training doctors and hospital staff on how to fill out the form in a timely manner after providing care, linking the victim to the SWO, and ensuring that the victim is not charged fees for the hospital stamp. The medical doctor the team met in Kongwa reported the new form is a significant improvement. However, she had not received training on performing physical examinations of victims and collecting evidence to use at trial. As part of its M&E, the Activity tracks the number of legal instruments drafted, proposed, or adopted with USAID assistance to improve the prevention of or response to sexual and gender-based violence at the national or sub-national level. However, this tracking only began in FY 2017, providing only a narrow snapshot of the progress made by the organization and its network members over the period of evaluation. For FY 2017, the Activity reported a total of four such legal instruments, versus a target of seven. Of these four, one was a law, one was a code of conduct, and two were official papers. Upon reviewing these data, the ET found that the indicator used by the Activity to track and report progress associated with legal instruments lacks specificity because it combines the steps and milestones that pave the way to the end goal of adoption with adoption itself. As a result, it is difficult for USAID and other stakeholders to meaningfully track the progress of these legal instruments and obtain an accurate picture of where each legal instrument stands. Conclusions: • Despite slow legislative or policy change, as reported by the M&E indicators, the Activity has participated in lobbying for several important pieces of legislation, including the Legal Aid Act and the Children’s Act, and has had success in advocating for specialized handling of juvenile cases and application of the ‘Best Interest of the Child’ standards. The Activity also advocated for harsher sentences in rape cases, which was successful but unfortunately had some unintended consequences. Furthermore, the Activity was instrumental to the design and adoption of a revised PF 3, which has improved hospitals’ and health providers’ documentation of evidence while they assist and care for victims of violence. The Activity also participated actively in shaping and supporting the development of the Five-Year National Plan of Action on Violence Against Women and Children. Despite these 31 achievements, brought about in part because of their visibility in national campaigns, the Activity could do more to produce national-level policy and legislative change. 4.5 EQ 5: HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE ACTIVITY’S LEGAL ACTIONS AND SENSITIZATION APPROACHES INFLUENCE OCCURRENCES OF AND LEGAL ACTIONS RELATED TO GENDER BASED VIOLENCE? As part of its M&E plan, the Activity reported on the number of people that received GBV services versus targets it had set. These data are available between FY 2013 and FY 2017, and they are displayed in Figure 7 below. On average, the Activity has exceeded its targets in this program area, even if it fell slightly short in two of the five years. the Activity does not provide an exhaustive or definitive list, in either its M&E plan or IPRS tracking, of the GBV services that are counted in this indicator but provides some examples. These examples differ somewhat between the M&E plan and the IPRS tracking. In the latter, examples include health services, legal services, psychosocial counseling, shelter, and the GBV hotline, whereas in the former, only legal services are mentioned. Figure 7: Number of individuals provided with GBV services by the Activity versus targets set 605 548 682 628 777 FY 13 ACTUAL FY 14 ACTUAL FY 15 ACTUAL FY 16 ACTUAL FY 17 ACTUAL Target Source: Project M&E data exported from Implementing Partners Reporting System (IPRS), Indicator Reference Number: GNDR-6 The Activity also provided the gender breakdown of beneficiaries provided with GBV services, which is shown in Figure 8, below. The percentage of men receiving these services climbed slowly until FY 2017, when it more than doubled. This trend is particularly interesting because the Activity ceased to set targets for the provision of GBV services to males after FY 2015. Prior to that, the target for males was around 30 per fiscal year. Figure 8: Individuals who Received Activity-Supported GBV Services by Gender 6% 10% 12% 11% 24% 94% 90% 88% 89% 76% FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 Male Female Source: Project M&E data exported from IPRS, Indicator Reference Number: GNDR-6 There is anecdotal but consistent evidence of an improvement in reporting of GBV cases at two sites, although some fears remain, and no consensus about an improvement at the other two sites. In Kongwa, there was broad agreement that reporting of GBV cases had improved. The DC indicated that people report more to police station due to better awareness, unlike in the past, when some women were worried about what would happen to them if they reported. As a result, he said that police are now able 32 to obtain the information needed to assist victims. The public prosecutor also noted that more people are reporting, that they are more comfortable doing so, and they know where to go to do so. The district legal officer reported a big change as a result of the Activity’s work; before, people used to keep everything secret, but now they come to get legal advice and assistance from the prosecutor’s office. The paralegals also concurred, stating, “Before WiLDAF came, people were really scared of reporting human rights violations. But after some community outreach, this has improved a lot.” However, some GBV services recipients mentioned that concerns about confidentiality remain, especially related to the police force, which hinders the reporting of GBV cases. Similarly, in Lindi, there seems to be broad agreement that reporting is improving. The State Attorney said there has been a lot of change and people are not afraid to report; they are speaking with a loud voice and are cooperating in terms of coming and testifying in court much more than before. He also noted that his office saw a number of cases reported by other people in the community, as opposed to the victims or their families. OWE staff concurred, saying that there is more openness about GBV cases and people know where to go for assistance. Female GBV services recipients did not express a strong opinion on the subject, but male legal services recipients were upbeat, saying that the number of GBV incidents and cases reported at community level has been declining significantly. They attributed this to raising awareness in the community, the referral network operating well, and severe punishment for committing these acts. In Rungwe, there was a fair amount of disagreement about whether reporting of GBV cases has been improving. While government officials and male focus group participants seem to indicate an improvement, the paralegals and female GBV services recipients did not report such an improvement. A VEO noted that reporting of GBV and abuse cases to him and to the police has increased. This was echoed by the public prosecutor, who noted that raising awareness about reporting makes a difference, and that Tanzanian criminal law considers non-reporting of a criminal offense an offense in itself, carrying a jail sentence of one-to-two years. Male legal assistance recipients seem to agree, stating that there has been tremendous change in the number of reported cases submitted to court, and a decline in the incidence of GBV cases. The legal clinic did not know about a change in reporting, but it did report that many of the cases it deals with are about other issues than GBV, especially land and inheritance. Paralegals mentioned at least one recent example of a grave case of GBV where the female victim, met at the hospital, refused categorically to report. The issue was also confirmed by female GBV services recipients, who noted that most women do not want to expose violence perpetrated on them, making it challenging for people who wish to help them. They said that those who wish to get help for GBV do come forth, but others will hide, possibly due to fear of revenge or retaliation. In Musoma, the picture on reporting is also unclear, and serious concerns about reporting remain. A WEO noted that more people are reporting land, inheritance, and VAC cases, which is the case despite many cases that used to come his way now going straight to CWCA. On the other hand, at least one female GBV services recipient reported that fear of revenge is a hurdle: “When an incident of GBV happens, people become hesitant to help or even to report because they fear that once they are known, the perpetrator will obviously exact revenge.” A gender desk officer agreed, pointing out that adult women still do not report rape out of fear of further abuse or lack of support from their families. The Mara region public prosecutor reported that she had received two cases of GBV in 2015 and another early in 2017 from women who ultimately did not want to report to the police because they were scared their husbands would beat them even worse. There is consistent perception of a decline in the incidence of GBV across the four sites. While information about successful convictions is not always available convictions seem to be on the rise. In Musoma, there seem to be indications that the incidence of GBV is declining. The DC thought GBV is decreasing overall, especially assaults, but not child pregnancies. A gender desk officer reported that GBV has decreased due to increasing awareness. He reported 20 convictions for GBV, including rape, occurred in 2017. A WEO reported that GBV cases were reported daily, but now are rarer. At the same time, he warned that the CWCA indicated that more GBV cases are reported to them. The CWCA did not provide a clear answer, 33 but the paralegals reported that women are less frequently victims of GBV now, based on how often this is reported to them and to other bodies (one of them is a ten-house elder, a traditional mechanism). In Kongwa, there was broad agreement that GBV is on the decline, largely due to increased awareness and successful convictions. The DAC felt that violence was reduced to a large extent because of the Activity. He also reported three convictions for rape (of 30 years in jail each) recently because it is easier to get evidence thanks to the project involving so many people. In his view, convictions are deterring offenses because potential perpetrators know their victims will report and the case will be prosecuted. The public prosecutor largely agreed, reporting a reduction in incidence due to education of the community about their rights, better reporting, and also people hearing about legal actions taken against other perpetrators and fear being in the same situation. The district legal officer also reported a decrease in violence due to awareness and fear of repercussions. In addition, a gender desk officer reported that two recent convictions for the rape of adult women, which is having an impact on the incidence of GBV. Police noted that two wards experience most of the rape cases, and that education there is probably lacking. The DEO thought that GBV-related court cases are increasing but did not elaborate on whether this is due to better reporting or higher incidence. In Rungwe, there was some agreement that the number of GBV cases brought to court were increasing, but this increase was not explicitly tied to an underlying change in the incidence rate, except from the perspective of a VEO, who reported a decline in incidences. Paralegals did not know whether the incidence of GBV had changed, but they believed that it remained high in the area. The public prosecutor reported an overall increase in reported GBV cases from his perspective, which was attributed to the positive impact of the Activity on raising the attention of the government and the community about GBV. A magistrate largely agreed, reporting a lot of cases of rape and GBV, including two cases of rape that he heard a day prior to the interview. On the other hand, a VEO quoted an 80 percent decrease in GBV and stood by the figure. He explained the decline is rooted in a change in mentality and made possible by leaders like himself who are changing for the better as a result of training. In Lindi, there was broad agreement that GBV is on the decline. A ward councilman thought GBV cases were declining in part due to awareness of consequences and of what constitutes GBV, giving the example of not taking care of one’s children or wife. The Lindi State Attorney reported a massive number of GBV cases, including rapes, coming to the court in 2011 when he arrived, but that the number of these cases has declined since then. A magistrate agreed, reporting between 20-30 cases in 2017. He emphasized that evidence must prove the case, and that there were cases brought to court with weak evidence, resulting in acquittal. A gender desk officer also concurred, saying that potential perpetrators are more aware and therefore afraid to commit rape. Finally, OWE staff also reported a decline in GBV cases, which she thinks is tied to increased convictions and punishment, not to a lack of reporting because of the education provided in terms of going to the police. She did note that GBV cases, particularly conjugal disputes involving violence, tend to increase during harvest season because of conflict over the funds generated from the sale of cash crops. As was the case for legal aid, awareness and access to GBV services are a challenge for those in rural areas. Beneficiaries of GBV services in Kongwa, Musoma, and Lindi reported that people who are close to the Activity and its network of partners can easily access services, but those who are far cannot. For example, in Rungwe, these beneficiaries noted that access to the legal clinic, “is a problem because you will find that another woman is fearful and cannot even think of how to locate the office, so we really need people in the villages who can direct them, as some do not even know Tukuyu [the town where the legal clinic is in Rungwe].” Beneficiaries of GBV service in Lindi also noted that a lack of sensitization in rural areas of the district means that GBV victims do not benefit as much from services. There is a dire need for safe houses and financial resources to help women and children who are victims of GBV. At all four sites visited, there was broad and vocal agreement that virtually no resources are available to assist women and children victims of GBV. One notable exception is the Disabled Center for Children in Musoma, which protects children with disabilities who have been subject to or threatened 34 with GBV. Safe houses would provide a secure place to stay for women and children who are victims of rape or GBV and who cannot realistically be expected to return to their homes while their cases are pending in court. Informants reported that no such safe houses are operational at any of the four sites, although some had reportedly existed in the past in Musoma but ceased operations when funding from international donors ended. This trend was echoed by one director of the MoHCDGEC. Even in Kinondoni, which contains an important portion of Dar es Salaam, safe house resources are scarce. A staff member working for the Activity noted that, “Most of us face the same challenge, we might have a client who we transfer to the hospital, but thereafter they would want to go back to where they have been victimized, and so the main challenge is shelter. Helping them financially is also a challenge.” Paralegals and legal service providers reported that clients experiencing economic hardship have—at times—returned to dangerous home environments due to having few alternatives to support themselves and/or their children. In some cases, paralegals mentioned opening their own homes to clients in need of shelter during the legal process. WEOs and VEOs, as well CDOs, also reported that requests to accommodate victims, including women alone or with their children, were common, but that it was often not possible. Sometimes, family or friends would help, but in other cases, they returned to an unsafe home after executive officers or the CDO issued a warning was to the accused to stop their mistreatment. One WEO even noted that women and children thrown out by their husband/father had slept outside his office until they found a place to stay. A majority of legal services recipients who participated in FGDs in Lindi, Rungwe, and Musoma also raised the lack of safe houses as a concern. Gender desk officers noted that children who have been victimized need a place to care for them, and that a victim support fund could be helpful. Going hand-in-hand with safe houses is the need for financial assistance to GBV victims, who may be cut off from any household funds during the duration of the legal process and who meanwhile still need to obtain food and other basic items. This financial assistance would be especially valuable for victims who find friends or family to take them in, but it may also be needed for those who are placed in a safe house, which may provide food but no other basic items, such as those for personal hygiene. In the zeal to address sexual violence through legislative and policy means, mandatory sentences of 30 years in jail for rape convictions have resulted in unforeseen consequences. While virtually all respondents agreed that violent and non-consensual sexual assault should receive the maximum penalty by the courts, the impact and widespread imposition of the maximum sentence for all rape cases has resulted in lack of convictions because witnesses are not willing to testify because they are aware that the perpetrator will receive the maximum sentence of 30 years. This is particularly true in statutory rape situations, where a minor near the age of majority is involved and there was consent to engage in sexual relations. Respondents both in government and in the legal services community expressed concern that the 30-year maximum mandatory sentence for rape has been problematic and provides for no judicial discretion in sentencing depending on the severity of the offense. Thus, an offender who violently rapes a victim leaving her near death would receive the same sentence as an 18-year-old boyfriend of a girl age 17 who had been involved in a consensual sexual relationship. The latter case typically arises when the young girl becomes pregnant and the boyfriend is identified and then charged with rape of a minor under the age of 18. Rather than subject the boyfriend to 30 years in prison for rape, the girl refuses to testify against him in court and the matter is resolved within the family. In cases where both parties to an out-of-wedlock pregnancy are minors, the girl is permanently removed from school with no option to return (although she can attend private school if she has the resources) and the boy is also removed from school and receives corporal punishment (caning-typically 12 strokes). In another case, an adult man was identified as having impregnated a girl under the age of majority, and government authorities were considering a charge of rape against him, which would have resulted in him serving a 30-year sentence. Both his family and the girl and her unborn child would have all suffered in this instance. Negotiations were made to keep the matter out of court and effect an agreement with the man to cover the private schooling of the young girl (who would be permanently removed from public school, under current GoT policy) and all costs related to the birth and raising of her child. In this manner, the man, despite his negative actions, would remain liable for the economic sustenance of the pregnant girl, 35 her child, and his existing family, and he would continue to work and remain a productive member of society. If he violated the agreement in any form, he could be subject to prosecution to the full extent of the law. While such an agreement may not be supported under the current legal framework, the practical realities of resolving this situation may ultimately benefit all parties and society as a whole by not adding another burden to the state prison system, bankrupting the man’s family, and leaving a young girl and her child without any economic or educational means to have a hopeful future. Conclusions: • On average, the Activity exceeded its target for the provision of GBV services during the period for which indicator data is available, even if it fell slightly short two years. However, there is some uncertainty about what specific services are being counted by the Activity and its local service providers as part of GBV services in order to generate the data underlying this indicator. • Reporting of GBV cases, a major concern to adequately provide assistance to victims, appears to be improving overall. Yet, there was little direct evidence to substantiate these changes or attribute them to the Activity activities specifically. Nonetheless, most project beneficiaries and stakeholders who reported an improvement tied it to greater awareness of rights in the community and where to go to report. There was also variation across sites with regard to the level of consensus about such an improvement. Consensus was strong at two sites, whereas at two others there was some disagreement about the existence and degree of such an improvement. Furthermore, major inhibitions to reporting GBV remain at all sites, according to GBV services clients and other project stakeholders. • The incidences of GBV were broadly perceived as decreasing at all four sites, but again, there was little direct evidence to substantiate these changes or attribute them to the Activity activities specifically. The perceived decline in the incidence of GBV was consistently attributed to a combination of greater awareness of what constitutes GBV, as well as increasing knowledge that cases of GBV are taken seriously and prosecuted, leading to convictions. However, it is important to note that many legal aid, government, and legal sources relied on the number of GBV cases they were aware of as a proxy or basis for their perception. When discussed, successful convictions were generally reported to have increased. • GBV services and sensitization suffer from the same limitation as the other services discussed in terms of reach in rural areas. People in these areas are generally considered less aware of the services available to them, face greater challenges to report what happened to authorities or legal aid providers, and face greater challenges to pursuing a case in court. • Hardship to GBV victims is often worsened by the lack of available shelters at all sites. Lack of housing resources is a primary impediment to women and children seeking GBV support who require relocation or removal from dangerous home environments. Paralegals mentioned opening their own homes to clients in need of shelter during the legal process. Ward/village and district governments also lack resources to properly protect women and children after they face GBV or mistreatment. This includes resources to properly provide immediate assistance, collect evidence, house victims, and perform follow-up visits. • Mandatory sentences of 30 years for rape convictions, which NGOs strongly advocated and celebrated have resulted in unforeseen consequences, particularly in statutory rape situations where a minor close to legal age is involved and there is consent to engage in sexual relations. These cases often emerge when a pregnancy is discovered and going to court or involving the authorities typically means punishing the victim and the unborn child. Even if these cases make it to court, victims and witnesses frequently will not testify, leading to a waste of precious resources in terms of investigation and court time. Therefore, mediation is typically preferred by both victims and legal aid providers. They often manage to negotiate financial or in-kind compensation, which helps the mother and the child. 36 4.6 EQ 6: HOW ARE THE NETWORKS ORGANIZED AND USED? 4.6.1 Sub-question 6.a. How effective is the organizational structure of WiLDAF and its network of partners (including successes, challenges, and lessons learned)? WiLDAF network members were diverse in the services they provided and the geographic areas they serve, but they were generally aligned with the Activity’s mission and objectives. Based on the list provided by the Activity, its network comprised approximately 80 organizations and individuals.22 The vast majority of network participants were categorized as NGOs by the Activity, while the remainder were research institutions and academicians (4), microfinance and women’s loans groups (4), newspapers (1), and faith￾based organizations (1). The location of the members is represented in Figure 9.23 Figure 9: Geographic distribution of the Activity network members Source: Roster of network members and stakeholders provided by WiLDAF The majority of members (57) are located in Dar es Salaam, while 6 are in Kilimanjaro, 4 in Dodoma, 3 in Mbeya, 2 in Mara and Matwara each, and 1 in Lindi and Morogoro each. Nearly all of the Activity network members that responded to the survey indicated providing services to increase community awareness of women’s rights (96 percent) and community awareness about GBV (85 percent). Training and community mobilization through media were also widely reported (81 percent and 78 percent, respectively) (see Figure 10). 22 WiLDAF provided a spreadsheet containing its network members and stakeholders. The IE team worked with WiLDAF to identify which entry fell into which category in order to create the survey sample frame, but in some cases the distinction between network member and stakeholder was not clear. 23 A location was not provided for a small number of member organizations. 37 Figure 10: The Activity Network Members Survey Responses 96% 85% 81% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Community Awareness for Women's Rights Community Awareness for GBV Training Source: ET’s survey Slightly over half of the survey respondents reported providing direct assistance to GBV victims or direct provision of legal aid to clients (63 percent and 56 percent respectively), and slightly under 60 percent of these indicated providing both types of services. Poor women, widows, and victims of GBV are the focus of nearly all (92 percent) organizations providing direct assistance to the community (i.e., GBV, legal aid, or child protection services). Eighty-five percent also reported focusing on youth and children, and 77 percent on people living with HIV/AIDS (see Figure 11). Figure 11: Activity Network Members Survey 92% 85% 77% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% Poor Women, Widows, and Victims of GBV Youth and Children People Living with HIV/AIDS Source: ET’s survey Most organizations providing direct assistance to the community also reported making referrals to other service providers. A small percentage of the Activity network members reported offering services related to entrepreneurship and economic empowerment, research, or environmental and natural resource management. Community leaders and district, ward, and village executive officers were the two groups most commonly trained by organizations offering such a service. Religious leaders and SWOs were also fairly common, along with advocacy groups. GBV was by far the most commonly identified topic of training, reported by 68 percent of organizations that offer training. Good governance and women’s rights were also common and reported by 41 percent and 36 percent of these organizations, respectively. Slightly fewer than half of the Activity network members that responded to the survey reported receiving some amount of funding from the Activity. Slightly less than 80 percent of these reported providing direct 38 assistance in terms of GBV services, protection and assistance to children and orphans, or legal aid. In terms of geographic reach and area of operations, Dar es Salaam was the region most served by the Activity network members, followed by Mara, Morogoro, Kilimanjaro, Dodoma, and Manyara. More than 30 percent of the Activity network members reported operating country-wide. WiLDAF network members reported facing many of the same challenges as those reported by the Activity and the legal clinics and paralegals it supports. The survey asked about the most significant challenges encountered by network members during the provision of several types of services, including: 1) legal aid; 2) direct assistance to GBV victims; 3) sensitization of communities to women’s rights; and 4) increasing coordination within the GBV response ecosystem. These questions were presented only to those organizations that reported engaging in each of these activities. Lack of resources, especially financial but also material and human, was the most commonly-cited challenge for both the provision of legal aid and GBV services, followed by the prevalent mindset and low education level in the community about rights. . The prevalent mindset and low education level in the community about rights was the most commonly cited challenge to the sensitization of communities about women’s rights, followed by institutional resistance and lack of funds. With regard to efforts to increase coordination within the GBV response ecosystem, a lack of resources was again the most commonly-cited challenge, followed by bureaucratic obstacles, a lack of shared vision among the elements of the ecosystem, and a lack of information sharing. WiLDAF network members reported drawing on the network in several ways, but consider communication with each other and the Activity, along with capacity building, the most useful benefits of the network. The Activity network members reported primarily drawing on the network for guidance on implementing activities, to participate in meetings and network with each other, to participate in training and workshops, and to obtain publications. It is therefore unsurprising, then, that they identified communication with other Activity partners, communication with WiLDAF HQ, and training and capacity building as the most useful benefits of the network. Coordination and communication among members was most commonly reported to take place face-to-face (74 percent). Communication via email was the next most common method (59 percent), followed by phone conversations and social media (37 percent each). Figure 12: Activity Network Members Survey 74% 59% 37% 37% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Face-to-Face Email Phone Conversations Social Media Source: ET’s survey However, when asked about how they share information with others on the network, respondents identified publications as especially common along with meetings. Social media and websites were not commonly identified as methods of sharing information. Advocacy and research were—surprisingly—rarely cited as areas of particular use for the network by respondents, and access to research was even more rarely cited as one of the most useful benefits of participating in the network. It is also interesting that, while guidance on implementing activities was most 39 commonly cited by members as the way they drew on the network, only a few organizations cited it as the most useful aspect or benefit of the network. Funding and material resources were also rarely cited by network members as among the most useful aspects of the network, despite indications that resources are a recurring challenge across several activities and nearly half of the respondents reported benefiting from it. One explanation is that the funding provided to many of these network participants is small and dedicated to a specific end, for example to organize and hold annual 16 days activities. This is reflected in part by the suggestions provided by respondents about how to improve the network to further support their work. Increased funding was the most commonly made suggestion, followed by increased coordination, and capacity building and training. There is broad agreement among survey respondents that WiLDAF and its network provided valuable resources and information, and that the Activity was effective in improving the legal environment, increasing coordination within the GBV support ecosystem, and working with parliament to change laws. Figure 13 below provides the results of several survey questions about what the Activity and its network provided to members. There is broad agreement among survey respondents that the Activity provided a forum to exchange best practices and learning, information and assistance, up-to-date legal and legislative developments at the national and sub-national level, and in-kind resources. In addition, a significant percentage of respondents noted that the Activity and its network also provided them with technical assistance and training, and a framework to organize activities. However, these three benefits do not seem to be as widely applicable to network members as the first set discussed above. Figure 13: Survey responses to questions about what the Activity’s and its network provide to members The Activity provides my organization with: Agree or strongly agree Disagree or strongly disagree Neutral Not applicable A network to exchange best practices and learning 83% 7% 7% 3% A network to obtain information and assistance 79% 7% 10% 7% Up-to-date legal and legislative developments at the national level 79% 7% 10% 3% In-kind resources (e.g., flyers) 76% 10% 10% 3% Up-to-date legal and legislative developments at the sub-national level 72% 10% 17% 0% Technical assistance 66% 7% 14% 14% Training 64% 11% 11% 14% A framework to organization activities 61% 18% 11% 11% Legal advisory support 54% 11% 18% 18% Financial support 46% 29% 14% 11% Source: Survey of WiLDAF network members Nearly 70 percent of survey respondents also reported the Activity was responsive to their requests, and took seriously suggestions their organization made, incorporating them into its program when possible. In addition, 80 percent noted they knew whom to reach at the Activity to obtain specific information or support. Figure 14 provides the results of several questions about the areas in which the Activity was effective. Nearly all respondents noted the Activity’s effectiveness in improving the legal environment to reduce the incidence of GBV and promote women’s equality, while most members also agreed or strongly agreed that the Activity was effective in improving coordination within the GBV support ecosystem and in working with parliament to change laws in support of GBV victims and to promote women’s equality. 40 Figure 14: Survey responses to questions about the Activity’s effectiveness in various areas on which it focuses The Activity has been effective in: Agree or strongly agree Disagree or strongly disagree Neutral Improving the legal environment to reduce the incidence of GBV 90% 10% 0% Improving the legal environment to promote women's equality 90% 10% 0% Increasing the coordination among health, police, and local government around GBV 80% 13% 7% Working with parliament to change laws in support of GBV victims 73% 10% 17% Working with parliament to change laws that promote women's equality 73% 10% 17% Source: Survey of WiLDAF network members Slightly more than 60 percent of respondents indicated they think that the legislative changes and law enforcement changes (e.g., PF 3, gender desk) that the Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender￾Based Violence activity promoted or achieved directly affect their clients. Slightly more than 20 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, which is a significant proportion. The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity has made advances as an association and an implementing organization in terms of coordination and holding regular meetings, but areas for growth and improvement in managing a broad set of activities remain. WiLDAF board members and others noted significant change in the maturity of the Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity network and of the organization as a whole. Evidence of this change and maturity includes an annual general meeting that was used for decision-making and communication about the bylines, accounting, and other aspects of the organization’s operational capacity. Such meetings were not held on a regular basis until recent years but were recommended by one board member after noticing that attendance at other board meetings was minimal and asking why so few board members were attending regularly. Chemonics International, Inc., which was hired by USAID/Tanzania to perform a series of organizational capacity assessments of the Assessment over a three-year period, also documented this progress in governance capacity Its latest assessment, which took place in mid-2016, indicated particular growth in the succession planning component, as well as some progress in the board development component. These assessments also identified other areas of organizational capacity growth, including a marked improvement in the administration area (particularly operational policies and fixed assets control), human resources management (particularly performance management), and financial management (particularly cost share). These assessments further identified an improvement with regard to organization management, particularly stakeholder involvement, fundraising, and decision-making. Program management may have been the area in which the Activity made the most progress, especially in important areas such as sub-grantee management and cultural sensitivity and gender. At the local level, the board and HQ staff empowered paralegal groups to organize themselves and select and work with only those who are the most engaged and responsible. In addition, the Activity improved markedly with regard to supervision of project performance. These improvements are all in areas that are of particular importance, especially as WiLDAF looks to grow and raise additional funds. Another growth point that is not captured in the capacity assessments has been working in coordination with other organizations, such as TGNP, with which the WiLDAF board noted there has been marked progress. 41 Legal services providers only provide basic reports about their clients and activities using outdated tools. Interviews with legal assistance providers and paralegal groups in Kongwa, Musoma, and Rungwe revealed limited disaggregation of client data and the use of outdated reporting tools and modes of communication. Monthly and quarterly reporting to WiLDAF HQ was nearly always limited to manual tally sheets in hard copy, with rows indicating the number of new and continuing clients and their sex. Thus, most legal services providers report just enough data to answer the IPRS indicators, with little focus on case types and outcomes, although some provide an indication of the general case type, ward, and village. Furthermore, collecting data in hard copy increases the risk of data loss, which can lead to incorrect reporting on indicators. One notable exception was the legal aid clinic in Musoma, which collected more detailed data, but also had relatively more resources and capacity than the other clinics visited. Even with these additional resources, the organization reported being stretched thin because of the volume of cases they handle. Conclusions: • The Activity’s network members are diverse in their specific areas of focus, the geographic area(s) they cover, and the types of services they provide. Yet, they are aligned with the Activity’s mission and objectives, even if their focus may be only on a subset of groups and issues that the Activity’s objectives comprise. • Network members generally reported the same challenges as those reported by the Activity and its local legal assistance partners, including a lack of resources, the challenging mindset and level of awareness about rights within the communities they work in, and institutional resistance. • Members noted drawing on a variety of support from the network, including guidance on implementing activities, interacting and networking with each other, and learning about training and workshop opportunities. Much of their interactions takes place face-to-face, but also via email, telephone, and social media. They reported sharing information via publications most often, as well as via meetings. Communication with other Activity partners, communication with WiLDAF HQ, and training and capacity building were identified as the most useful benefits of the network. • Members reported that the Activity and its network provide them with valuable resources and information, particularly with regard to exchanging information, staying up-to-date on legislative changes, and obtaining in-kind resources. They generally reported that WiLDAF was responsive to their input and requests and noted that the Activity has been effective in improving the legal environment to reduce the incidence of GBV and promote women’s equality, as well as coordinating among stakeholders of the GBV support ecosystem. However, only 60 percent reported that the legislative changes and law enforcement changes (e.g., PF 3, gender desk) promoted or achieved by WiLDAF directly affect their clients. This might be explained by the diversity of activities and causes on which they focus. • The Activity has made progress as an association and an implementing organization since 2009. Much of the improved capacity and coordination has occurred relatively recently, however, and in areas of the organization that were especially underdeveloped and which are critical to the Activity’s sustainability, programs, and future growth. • While organizational capacity assessments found that the Activity has a strong M&E system in place, a key challenge remains in the effectiveness, robustness, and level of detail captured by the reporting tool that local legal assistance partners use. The paper-based records kept by most local legal assistance providers also creates a risk of data loss. 4.7 EQ 7: WHAT CHALLENGES, IF ANY, ARE THERE AFFECTING PROJECT GOAL ATTAINMENT? Court delays often cause undue hardship on clients and can decrease the likelihood they will continue their case, while court fees often prevent clients from open civil cases in the first place. Paralegals, legal 42 clinics, and WiLDAF HQ staff said that court delays were often a challenge in probate, land, and domestic violence cases, which caused undue hardship on clients and courts. For example, a WiLDAF board member noted that, “Court cases are delayed for long periods. If there were women’s courts cases could go quickly and be fast-tracked. The other challenge is that witnesses are not reporting.” Clients of legal aid services in Musoma with cases pending or unresolved for a long time in the high court or referral courts are the most dissatisfied with the outcome of their cases. Some of the cases have been going on for 3-9 years or more. Both men and women with incomplete cases reported their frustration about these situations. In addition, court delays can be caused by corruption. A WiLDAF HQ staff noted that, “There’s a lot of cases and magistrate can’t handle a lot of cases due to lack of enough staff. Sometimes even corruption arises that causes postponing.” Court fees were also a recurring issue mentioned by legal aid providers. They reported that it may cost more than 50,000 shillings (roughly $22.00 USD) to open a civil case, which is beyond the means of most of their clients. Some legal clinics expressed frustration that they do all the work (briefs, etc.), but then when they go to court with the client, the clients cannot pay the court fees. They mentioned a mechanism in place that would allow them to get a blanket waiver for court fees, but the process is both cumbersome and long. As a result, none of the legal clinics had it, and they reported being aware of only a few larger legal aid organizations that managed to obtain that waiver. Individual clients could also have their court fees waived, but the process is also cumbersome and requires input from the DC or DED, who has to certify (likely with input from other local government agencies like the CDO) that a client does not have the means to pay. As a result, legal aid providers reported this process was rarely used. They also noted that the national government requested that this individual court fee waiver never be used for land cases. Instead, the evaluation team heard several instances of legal aid providers paying the court fees of some of their clients out of their limited funds or out of their own pocket. In another instance, the paralegal unit in Musoma reported that some clients who could not pay the court fees had complained to the DC after the paralegal unit could not help them pay the fees. In combination, these challenges help explain why mediation is sometimes preferred both by clients and legal aid providers. Resources provided to paralegals and legal clinics by the Activity are too limited to even cover the geographical area in which they operate, to say nothing about effectively reaching rural areas. The Activity provides funds to its local legal aid providers for various purposes, and the funding and purposes vary by site. Across all sites visited, paralegals and legal clinics expressed immense gratitude to WiLDAF for its financial, in-kind, and training support. However, they also reported and provided a number of examples showing how limited their resources are and how this hinders their ability to perform optimally and requires them to use their own funds. This lack of resource affects everything from retention of staff and volunteers to effective coordination and communication to the inability to help some clients without staff and paralegals paying out-of-pocket to pursue their cases and serve clients. The two most critical areas affected by a lack of finances are office rent and equipment and travel reimbursement. Offices and office equipment are consistently modest and limited. In Rungwe, the legal clinic’s office, a single room with several chairs and a filing cabinet, did not have a computer and the printer was not functional. Legal clinic staff reports to the Activity on its progress and outcomes by sending emails from an Internet café. Paralegals also could not afford to rent an office, although they reported the Activity was in the process of providing help on that front. In Lindi, at the other end of the spectrum, the situation looked comparatively better. The Activity subsidizes the rent for the comparatively large office that is well-equipped office with computers and printers, but the legal clinic staff reported the office space they have is too small to guarantee confidentiality while also ensuring efficient use of available staff. The main room may be occupied for an hour or more while one staff helps a client with personal issues, and the rest of the staff needs to leave, which hinders their ability to assist more than one client at the time. Paralegals in Kongwa mentioned that having a camera or camera phones would allow them to document GBV incidences better, and that their current office is not accessible to potential clients with disabilities, a group the paralegals indicated is in need of assistance. Their office was not equipped with computers or printers. In Musoma, the legal clinic noted receiving supplies (tables and computers) from the Activity and 43 rent support. They also receive funding from other sources, but nonetheless reported that they have had to scale back activities due to a decline in their overall funding. For example, they cannot print a sufficient volume of brochures and material needed for their activities. The clinic also reported implementing a small income-generating activity supporting ten groups of women and youth who are out of school, but funding was insufficient. Travel reimbursement for legal aid staff and needy clients was also consistently reported as insufficient to deal with the existing caseload, to say nothing of sensitization activities, effective legal aid in rural regions, and crisis response. For example, in Lindi, informants reported that the Activity provides funds to each of the staff to cover travel reimbursement for themselves and their clients and office supplies, meaning there is little to nothing left for them to take home. Thus, they are largely working on a voluntary basis. Worse, because criminal cases are forwarded to the high court in Mtwara, staff and clients must travel there, a situation they reported occurs monthly, and it is not uncommon for staff to pay for this travel out of their own pockets at time of travel. Even the Musoma legal clinic, which is better resourced and receives funding from multiple sources, noted a lack of funding for transportation to respond to cases and for witnesses and victims to go to court. They also reported that, in the recent past, they have had five cases that required staff to pay out of their own pocket to help. Some legal aid providers interact with clients by telephone (with both ends incurring communication costs) to try to mitigate the lack of locally-available resources, but they indicated that often cases reach a point where in-person interactions are necessary (e.g., to help negotiations in land cases, to provide and sign documents). Paralegals in Rungwe, Musoma, and Kongwa also mentioned the financial hardship they incur as volunteers, which makes it difficult to commit time to paralegal work or retain other paralegals that have been trained. They have to explain to their families that they are working and helping the community but are not getting paid. They all mentioned a high drop-out rate among the volunteers initially trained. This not only reduces coverage and availability of assistance, but also incurs a cost for training replacements, as well as the loss associated with the experience and relationships acquired by those who drop out. For example, paralegals in Kongwa said that they were reaching half (11 out of 22 wards) due to these constraints, but they could reach more with additional funds. Several individuals, both at the government and legal aid provision levels, mentioned the idea of developing ancillary income-generating activities to support the costs of paralegals and legal aid providers. When the ET asked whether a small payment could be made by some clients, paralegals responded that requesting payment was illegal both before and after the passing of the Legal Aid Act. In addition, most service providers do not think it is realistic due to the clients’ financial situation and the perception it creates. The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity needs to identify and obtain additional funding and diversify its funding sources to better support local activities. The Activity’s ambitions and programming is hindered by limited funds provided by too few funders. This insufficient and lack of diversity in funding sources threatens its programming and the sustainability of the organization. National government sources that have worked with WiLDAF for some years reported they are aware the organization has little funding, which can get in the way of providing services. WiLDAF’s board is aware of these challenges, and one of them noted: “Fundraising – this is a primary function of the board and we need to diversify sources of revenue. USAID found a contractor, Tuaweza, to build the capacity of WiLDAF’s board on fundraising and management. This helped us to understand the gap and to develop an action plan to address this professionally. About 50 percent of the budget comes from USAID, with 30-40 percent from the Irish government. The remainder is funded by smaller donors. In our Annual Work Plan for this year we have approached a number of different stakeholders to contribute to some elements of our strategic plan. Overall, donations from funders are decreasing, so we must find alternatives. The trends indicate a need to diversify our funding and address issues related to human resource management.” Corruption (and sometimes negligence) affects various parts of the GBV victim assistance ecosystem and undermines access to justice. A wide range of government and legal aid stakeholders across sites 44 expressed concerns about corruption, which they say affects various organizations within the GBV assistance ecosystem, as well as access to justice in a variety of case types. Paralegals and legal clinic staff in Kongwa and Musoma reported corruption in the court system, including bribery and forging documents. Two similar examples were provided. In Musoma, an abusive husband served his wife with forged divorce papers. The wife took them to the police, which confirmed the forgery; the husband had bribed a court clerk to produce them. This helped her win the case and receive a portion of the husband’s assets. The police said the case of the court clerk should be left to them, but it is unclear that anything happened. In Kongwa, a man forged and endorsed a divorce certificate, leaving his wife and five children without support. The wife had nowhere to go and could not feed her children, to the point that one of them started suffering from malnutrition. The paralegals paid for food out of their own pocket and recommended she file a case in court. However, she did not have money to file a case, so she was told to go to the DC and explain her problem to get help or be granted a court fee waiver. The DC was not in the office, but another official saw the filing and told her he would look into it. In Rungwe, legal clinic staff noted that court staff and other lawyers do not like that RUWOCE intervenes in court decisions via appeals and does so for free. They do not want to see decisions overturned, and there is pushback. When clients bring documents prepared by the legal clinic as part of the appeal process, court staff ask who wrote the documents and have told clients that the legal clinic is not competent. Legal clinic staff suspect that court officers refer clients to local lawyers and advocates, who may be paying them kickbacks in exchange, or that lawyers and court staff may be in the same social circles and want to help and protect each other. In Musoma, even the DC noted that corruption in the court system represents a problem; while, in Lindi, the State Attorney reported cases of sentencing that are not respected, giving an example of a sentence of death by hanging being replaced with a life sentence instead. The recent pardon by the President of the GoT of thousands of criminals, including two high-profile child rapists, also came up during discussions with various project stakeholders, as it happened while the ET was in the field, and it was widely seen as sending the wrong message. Corruption at the level of health professionals was also reported. In Musoma, the legal clinic noted that some doctors are bribed to prevent reports of GBV. An example the clinic provided was that of a girl who had been raped and went to the hospital. It was quite clear what happened to her, and she was even leaking fluid from her body, but the doctor did not report it, so the case could not be prosecuted. In another case that involved the mining industry, which has a strong presence in Mara, doctors who treated patient harmed by chemicals refused to report it. Instead, they reported the victims had normal bodily changes that were not caused by chemical injury. Legal aid providers also noted that doctors generally do not testify against each other, making it difficult to question a corrupt doctor’s assessment or prosecute malpractice. A SWO noted that bribes are paid to doctors to write phony reports, undermining the criminal cases.. He also reported cases that may stem from either negligence or corruption. For example, he suspects that some GBV cases are not going to the gender desk officers who are best qualified to handle them, either due to corruption or negligence. A medical doctor also reported that negligence and laziness were concerns among medical professionals, as medical staff at times avoid filling out the PF 3 form because it requires extra work on their part, both to fill it out and to go to court as witness. A patriarchal social and belief system condones GBV and inhibits women’s rights in many communities of Tanzania. Some of the behaviors associated with this patriarchal system include silence about what may have been witnessed by or done to a person, as a sign of respect and keeping incidents hidden within the family. These two themes were common in the narrative of legal services providers and recipients of GBV services across sites visited. In some cases, this patriarchy also inhibits a woman’s control over her body or rights to decisions within the household. For example, staff at the Lindi legal clinic noted that, “Tribes have a custom where children around 8-10 years old get training about being a husband or wife. But many of these trainings are lies and even promote tolerance for GBV. Later on, women discover that what they were told is a violation of their basic rights (e.g., they might have been forced to have sex with their husband).” A WiLDAF board member similarly noted that, “Also different ethnic groups may have customs and traditions that are violating human rights, e.g., Mara still experiences high levels of female genital mutilation.” As is common in 45 patriarchal social systems, inheritance of property heavily favors males, which causes many of the inheritance issues that legal aid providers handle. In Musoma, the DC and one GBV service staff both mentioned that there is also a generational dimension at play. Older men are more resistant to changing their mindset, but younger members of the community have a different mindset and have even started to speak out against some of these traditional and religious beliefs. Beyond the challenge of a patriarchal social and belief system, there were also anecdotal but recurring mentions of cases that stem from witchcraft beliefs, including gruesome instance of VAC and GBV. This is a separate issue and the team could not establish to what degree witchcraft was a meaningful causal factor of GBV and VAC. Patriarchy and the associated mentality create important challenge for paralegals and legal clinics, both in terms of sensitization and bringing cases to court. There is resistance to accept and respect services that focus on women or women’s rights. For example, Musoma legal clinic staff noted that, “Men don’t like that we’re raising awareness on human/women’s rights. They think we’re only serving women, but now we’re serving a balanced number of men and women. There are as many men in trainings.” Similarly, staff at the legal clinic in Rungwe noted that, “The human rights education provided is not appreciated by men and husbands because it changes the women’s attitude and leads to them to challenge their husbands and men. This is the feedback he’s been getting after trainings and seminars. But now, we are serving a balanced number of men and women; there are as many men in training as women.” This was confirmed by the paralegals, who noted that “We are getting a challenge from the men thinking the women are becoming stubborn. Male supremacy is still an issue and we are accused of turning wives against their husbands. Yet, we give advice to men and do not discriminate in our services.” In terms of bringing cases to court, the challenge stems from the culture of silence and keeping incidents hidden within the family. Wives are very hesitant to report violence they suffered at their husband’s hands, and are even more reticent to testify, meaning they often do not go to court, even if they were persuaded to pursue their case. Conclusions: • Long and frequent court delays cause undue hardship on clients and courts, while court fees often beyond the means of clients cause them undue financial hardship. In combination, court delays and court fees decrease the likelihood that legal aid clients will continue their cases. The complexity and duration of the process for legal aid providers to get a blanket waiver, even when they are formally registered and recognized in the community, means they do not view this as an option. Meanwhile, the process to waive court fees for individual clients is also overly complex and long, and therefore rarely undertaken. • While legal clinic staff and paralegals are grateful for the financial resources that The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence Activity provides them, these resources remain very limited. They often lack office equipment and adequate office space, leading to limitations in their ability to deliver services and coordinate efficiently. Lack of resources also hinders their ability to reach rural areas and more distant districts, villages, and wards and to pay for transportation costs of clients who need help and are willing to come to them. As result, they reported using their own resources to mitigate these issues in addition to volunteering their time. • WiLDAF’s financial resources are insufficient to match its ambitions and programming, and they are provided by too few funders. This lack of diversity in funding sources represents a threat for its programming and the sustainability of the organization. • Corruption in the legal system and at the level of law enforcement and health services providers undermines the communities’ confidence in these institutions, thereby reducing the willingness to report crimes and violations of rights and to pursue cases in court. Even if victims do pursue cases in court, corruption and negligence may undermine their chances of obtaining justice. • A patriarchal social and belief system condones GBV and inhibits women’s rights in many communities of Tanzania. This renders the work of legal aid providers more difficult, while reducing the effectiveness of their sensitization efforts. 46 4.8 VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE LEGAL AID AND GBV SUPPORT ECOSYSTEM AND THE RULE OF LAW: ACCESS TO JUSTICE INTEGRATING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE ACTIVITY’S INVOLVEMENT As illustrated throughout this report, WiLDAF operates within a complex legal aid and GBV support ecosystem comprised of diverse service providers and stakeholders with different roles and priorities. Figure 15 below provides a somewhat simplified visual representation of this ecosystem, as observed by the ET, to better convey its complex structure and linkages and more clearly highlight WiLDAF’s involvement and activities during the evaluation period. The backdrop of this diagram is the different levels of administrative divisions of Tanzania. Service providers and stakeholders are categorized on the basis of their box color: WiLDAF and its partners are assigned the color orange, health services are marked in red, government entities are marked in blue, the legal system and various levels and types of courts are represented in purple,24 and chiefs and traditional leaders are marked in dark gray. The yellow outline of certain ecosystem service providers and stakeholders indicates WiLDAF-provided training and capacity building. Arrows are color-coded and labeled on the diagram directly. Dashed arrows and box outlines indicate that the type of relationship or flow represent what the ET observed is inconsistently implementation across sites, whereas solid arrows were found to be systematically present. The dotted arrows between WiLDAF HQ and its network represents purposeful and selective flow of funds to a subset of network members. Finally, the white cross-cutting box representing CPTs is purposefully semi-transparent to indicate that these teams had not been set up at every site and did not always include all relevant actors. 24 The legal system in particular is heavily simplified in this diagram due to space constraints. Included within the courts box in purple are, from its highest to lower tiers: the Court of Appeal, the High Court of Tanzania (incl. Land Division), the Resident Magistrates Courts, the District Courts (incl. the District Land and Housing Tribunal), the Primary Courts, and Ward Tribunals. 47 Figure 15: Simplified diagram of the legal aid and GBV support ecosystem as observed 48 5. RECOMMENDATIONS A synthesis of the evaluation team’s findings and key conclusions leads to the following recommendations, centered on 1) overall program design and 2) WiLDAF’s operations and internal processes. Although the Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity has ended, these recommendations are formulated both to guide the USAID/Tanzania Mission’s future programming and to guide WiLDAF’s future development and programming, which is expected to continue in some form, albeit at reduced scale and breadth if the Mission’s support is not renewed nor replaced by other funders. 5.1 PROGRAM DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Program reach and coverage WiLDAF and especially its local partners need to expand their reach and coverage in rural communities. Knowledge on women's rights is still very low in rural areas and the systems to address violations are limited, requiring victims to travel to more centralized locations in districts to seek help. It is especially important that these communities are adequately provided with legal aid services; sensitized about GBV, VAC, and women and children’s rights; and informed about the process to follow and resources available for victims. To accomplish this, several strategies are recommended: • WEOs, VEOs, and village chairmen offer a tremendous opportunity for the project to extend its reach in rural areas and to better utilize the existing legal assistance providers. WiLDAF and its local partners should provide them with more systematic and extensive training, or advocate and work with the government to ensure these local leaders are provided such training. They have expressed an interest in learning more about GBV, women’s and children’s rights, etc., and are in a position to apply this knowledge as part of their duty, via mediation or explanations of the process to follow in some relatively simple cases. They can also serve as valuable referral mechanisms to paralegal and legal clinics. A cost-effective approach to leveraging this opportunity would be a ToT approach whereby a subset of VEOs, WEOs, and others receive special training and training material so they can train others in nearby areas. There may also be valuable interplay between VEOs, WEOs, and village chairmen and paralegals, especially if and when paralegals are trained in rural communities. The two groups could then join force to provide basic legal education and mediation, and paralegals could take on cases that are more challenging to executive officers and village chairmen, referring them to the legal clinic if necessary. • Training is also recommended for village chiefs and other community leaders who are critically important to changing rural mindsets and who can be gatekeepers to access these communities. Prior to crafting and delivering training to these traditional chiefs and leaders, it would be advisable to research how this group makes decisions that are not in the best interest of women and the gender implications of these decisions. Additionally, bartenders and guesthouse attendants, who, due to their profession may be particularly likely to be victims of GBV and who are also in a position to report cases and spread knowledge, may also represent a good target for sensitization and basic training about GBV and rights. • Training to other groups within the GBV assistance ecosystem, such as SWOs, CDOs, and gender desk officers also represent an opportunity to enhance the overall resources and quality of assistance provided to victims. These individuals are already remunerated to provide valuable and related services to the community and are therefore in an ideal position to use additional knowledge. In addition, the cost would be relatively low and limited to the provision of training. While it seems logical that they were already trained relatively extensively on topics such as GBV and children’s and women’s rights in order to do their job, they were nonetheless generally positive about the value of any follow-on training they received. • Systematically encourage and assist clients and the broader communities in which WiLDAF and its local partners operate to devise and write wills. Wills play an important role in ensuring that land and 49 other assets are divided as intended by the deceased and that a trusted person is selected as the executor. Wills, therefore, limit disputes between surviving members of the family and provide a tool for women and children to defend themselves before the legal system. This is especially true in Tanzania, given the multiplicity of legal systems that can apply to the administration of a deceased’s estate (statutory law, customary law, and Islamic law), generating uncertainty and greater room for disputes. Campaigning around the need for community members to create wills not only protects them and their family, but also should help reduce the caseload of legal clinic staff and paralegals, as inheritance disputes were reported as among the most common type of case. • Accessible media modalities should be used more extensively to reach a broader population, including rural areas with sensitization campaigns on gender equality and GBV. Community radio advertisements to spread messages, raise awareness, and share available resources and support were effective in reaching community members. This should be replicated in more communities where broadcast have not yet reached and there should be more frequent broadcasts in areas previously covered. This type of programming is not new to Tanzanian gender organizations. In 2015, during the general elections, TGNP trained radio hosts/animators to sensitize community members about gender issues at stake during the election. Strengthening of local service providers To address the principal challenges that legal aid clinics and paralegal units supported by the Activity reported as limiting their ability to help clients, WiLDAF should: • Ensure that legal service providers have access to and funds for advocates, and that all sites in both rural and urban areas have at least one legal clinic with at least one lawyer on staff. To complement this, a strong network of private lawyers and advocates willing to consistently assist legal clinics, especially paralegals, for free or for modest remuneration need to be identified. Such a network (or combination of networks) would need to cover each site and may already exist. For example, legal networks such as the Tanganyika Law Society could be asked to request support from lawyers and advocates for cases that have been elevated to a higher court. This would be especially useful for those cases that could have an impact on customary law or a higher court determination, often referred to as ‘impact litigation’ or ‘public interest’ litigation that could change the precedent with a high probability of a positive outcome for the public. WiLDAF could facilitate this by building a partnership with the society and by providing regular communications through its newsletter or social media to express clients’ needs and pair them with willing lawyers or advocates. To complement these other approaches, a fund for legal support from a lawyer or advocate could be established to help fund representation of indigent clients in instances of ‘impact litigation’ or ‘public interest’ litigation or in especially challenging cases. WiLDAF, as a legal services network, is in an ideal position to be a focal point for the identification and pursuit of strategic litigation and can partner with its network members to collaborate on such an approach. WiLDAF can also encourage communities to do the same via its contacts and connections. Legal aid providers often noted that the community was not particularly grateful for their hard work and that clients often did not even come back to thank them when their cases were resolved. • Regularly conduct a systematic and formal needs assessment of all the legal clinics and paralegal units supported to better allocate resources between them based on their respective needs and ongoing goals and challenge, and to ensure fortified and improved communication with HQ. • Implement a Training of Trainers (ToT) approach to increase the number of paralegals, thereby improving the reach and sustainability of the program while keeping costs under control and reducing the necessity for WiLDAF staff to engage in extensive training. This is especially important given the high turnover of trained paralegals reported by all paralegal units visited. As it stands, paralegals need additional training and funds to train additional paralegals to adequately address the needs of clients and to reach remote areas. When the team asked existing staff and volunteers about their ability, 50 confidence, and willingness to implement a ToT approach based on their current level of knowledge, most felt eager to do so, but recognized that they were underprepared to deliver training sessions. Targeting staff at legal clinics and experienced paralegals from paralegal groups with a ToT curriculum, a cadre of trainers could be cultivated to reach the ward and village levels. Those trained could train paralegals in underserved wards and villages, provided they are given travel funds and other resources. Trainers from the legal clinics could also provide follow-up training, supervision, and technical advice for paralegals working with clients in wards and villages. • Consider the addition of a mentoring/coaching component in which lawyers in legal clinics, public institutions, and associations of experienced professionals (e.g., TLS) formally serve as mentors/coaches to support the work of paralegals. At the local level, legal clinics should be set up alongside paralegal groups in each site to ensure qualified advisory support and resources can be drawn upon for cases that require the submission of legal documents or a legal representative in the courtroom. WiLDAF and USAID, in collaboration with local government authorities, could call upon mentors to volunteer and pair them with paralegals and others opting in as mentees/advisees. • Engage academic institutions to encourage students (particularly those studying law) to volunteers as paralegals in communities during their studies. Volunteer work with local organizations could be rewarded with education credits, providing additional incentive to serve in the community. These students could also benefit as mentees in the above activity. This type of program, whether internships or externships, are widespread.25, 26 In addition, opportunities to place student from academic disciplines other than law could also be explored through university partnerships to allow students to gain experience and provide support to social workers, therapists, law enforcement, and other disciplines. WiLDAF may be an ideal body to coordinate such an approach through university partnerships with its network partners that may need additional assistance to meet their organizational needs. Advocacy At both the national and local level, government officials said they take GBV seriously. Yet, the ET observed some important deficiencies with regard to funding and monitoring and recommends that WiLDAF place greater emphasis on its national- and local-level advocacy efforts. These include: • The need for local government to better resource SWOs and CDOs so they are able to consistently respond to urgent or dangerous situations and perform follow-up visits to check situations that were mediated. This includes advocating for adequate national funding to support these improvements at the local level. • The need for the Government of Tanzania (possibly with funding assistance from international donors) to design and implement systematic and rigorously-designed data collection methods to track the incidences of GBV. Perceptions of changes or improvement need to be grounded in more than anecdotes and the number of cases in the system, which in turn depends on the willingness to report. Beyond advocating for this, WiLDAF can also play a role in identifying suitable researchers in universities or at government ministries who could carry out this type of research. • The need for the GoT to quickly establish safe houses and for other resources required to address the needs of victims of GBV and those pursuing other cases through the formal legal process. An 25 Some examples include The University of the Witwatersrand Law Clinic in South Africa which has a family and gender unit staffed in large part by law students (Study of Law School Based Legal Services Clinics, UNDP), the University of Somaliland Law School that operates a legal aid clinic where professors teach practical skills to law students so they can in turn provide legal services to clients, Akungba University law clinic in Nigeria which engages in community awareness and public education activities in religious institutions, schools and village gatherings (Open Society Justice Initiative Legal Clinics), and the Georgetown Law Center which has a clinic on Street Law that provides extensive training to paralegals around the world. 26 For detailed information on legal aid clinics around the world, see: International Human Rights Internship Program Institute of International Education, tel: (202) 326 7725, E-mail: ihrip@iie.org 51 important increase in the number of safe houses (from four to 26) is already part of the GoT’s 2017- 2021 National Plan of Action to End Violence Against Women and Children (under the name “One Stop Centers”), but WiLDAF should monitor progress closely and advocate for faster establishment. WiLDAF can also advocate for the establishment of safe houses funded by international donors as a complement. The difficulty in obtaining waivers for court fees by both legal aid providers and indigent clients, along with court delays, directly undermine the ability of clients to access and obtain justice. To address these issues, WiLDAF should: • Advocate for a revision to the process that grants registered legal aid organizations with blanket waivers for court fees. Finding champions at the national and local level and further organizing and uniting legal aid providers around this issue would be a good place to initiate this effort. WiLDAF could also work with local legal aid providers and local government to establish a streamlined, fair, and efficient process for indigent clients to obtain a waiver for court fees. Each approach has its own set of challenges and benefits and each ultimately may be necessary, but WiLDAF should perform a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) to identify which should be pursued as a priority. • Advocate, alongside its network partners, for the establishment of a special fund for legal fees and other incidentals to help clients going through financial hardship or unable to pay court fees, for cases that have clear merit. • Lobby the judicial system to request closer and systematic monitoring of court delays and the establishment of realistic goals against which the court system should measure its progress. In addition, WiLDAF HQ and local legal aid providers should also more systematically monitor and track court delays in the cases they are supporting and, when serious court delays arise, follow up with courts and those with influence in the judicial system. WiLDAF and its network members should continue to lobby the national government about revisions to existing legislations and the development and passing of various new legislations relevant to its clients and goals. One item, in particular, that should be of particular focus is: • Revisiting and revising mandatory sentencing for cases of rape to provide prosecutorial discretion for situations where a minor is involved and there was consent to engage in sexual relations. WiLDAF can play an important role in advocating for this change, even if that may mean recognizing unforeseen consequences of past advocacy efforts. This effort could be undertaken using the 16 Days of Activism as a platform. WiLDAF could start a lobbying day to galvanize its members and others in the legal community around needed legislative changes in this area, as well as the Law of Marriage Act and its lack of protection for girls and marriage under 18 years of age. Although national-level change is often a slow and ongoing process dependent on political will for reform, WiLDAF could look to enhance the effectiveness of its advocacy efforts by: • Identifying and recruiting more champions in legal and other professional networks. Building more student groups and networks would be a good idea for national campaigns and could be a useful source of volunteers for other efforts, as public demand or popular pressure could more easily push for policy change at the national level than WiLDAF and other NGOs on their own. • Targeting and recruiting more champions among those in government. Using these individuals as champions who can influence change from within the government and among their constituencies can go a long way toward national change. WiLDAF could use committed champions in all influential government institutions, such as the National Assembly, ministries and the president’s office, as agenda movers as well as ask them to provide relevant information on how to pursue advocacy at the national level. Policy or legislative proposals, strategic papers, and public speeches on proposed changes would be useful to capture and disseminate publicly the extent of effort on policy engagement/ 52 • Further engaging and developing stronger coordination with associations and think tanks (such as TGNP and TANLAP) and others that are actively engaged in this work so as to strengthen the national level advocacy. Coordination and improved enabling environment Strong coordination and collaboration with local authorities and among organizations active within the GBV and legal aid support ecosystem are important to minimize friction, facilitate referrals, and enhance the sustainability and cost-effectiveness of services provided by WiLDAF’s local partners. To enhance this coordination and collaboration, WiLDAF should: • Ensure that its local partner organizations systematically and regularly communicate and engage with sub-national government authorities (e.g., District Commissioners and District Executive Directors) and share reporting on the results of their activities. Information sharing alongside engaging in joint planning for greater strategic alignment with regional and district level plans would improve coordination and minimize frictions, help improve the sustainability of WiLDAF efforts, and better position local service providers for any potential district- or region-level funding or grant that may be available. In addition, WiLDAF staff should also regularly engage with these same district and regional government authorities to develop buy-in and ensure continued awareness of its activities despite staff and leadership changes. • Continue and ideally intensify its efforts to facilitate the establishment of CPTs, at least at the district level in target districts, and ideally also at the ward/village level where possible. CPTs are considered valuable to enhance coordination on GBV, but also more broadly in areas such as legal aid referrals and joint sensitization. WiLDAF should also, with the help of its local service providers, monitor the operations of established CPTs to ensure they operate as expected and that appropriate stakeholders are regularly involved. • Encourage better coordination and increased collaboration between WiLDAF-supported legal clinics and paralegals and other local service providers that exist at each site and that often have overlapping goals and missions. In addition, WiLDAF should look to bring these other local service providers into its member network, or at least explain to them the value they might derive from joining and the process involved. • Encourage network members in target districts to work with public schools to change the perceptions of young men and women, who can help to bring changes to their communities. School clubs could be established to help students, especially girls, become more aware of their rights, GBV, and where to report incidents. WiLDAF and local service providers should invite participation and foster collaboration from trained law enforcement officers, gender and children’s desk officers at the district level, and SWOs at the ward level. Age-appropriate aids, such as cartoons by HakiElimu (education is right), can form awareness materials to present information about the Child Act and convey important messages. New programmatic elements Corruption is a significant barrier to accessing justice and to the fair resolution of disputes and court cases. In the current political environment there is a meaningful opportunity for WiLDAF to focus more on combatting corruption which undermines its programming and the efforts of its local service providers. Accordingly, WiLDAF should: • Develop partnerships with the governmental agencies and NGOs focused on fighting corruption (e.g., Tanzania Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau) and coordinate advocacy efforts on anti￾corruption, particularly in the court system but also in law enforcement. • Develop a training module on how to identify, document, report, and confront corruption, and use it to train paralegals and legal aid clinics’ staff. Training using this module could later also be provided to 53 community members, so they develop effective skills on how to report and gather evidence on corruption. 5.2 WILDAF STRATEGIC OPERATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Operations and organizational processes As noted in organizational capacity assessments conducted during the grant period, WiLDAF has made important progress in terms of strengthening its internal processes and building its capacity. Nonetheless, some steps are recommended to leverage and sustain these gains: • WiLDAF HQ and its board need to be more proactive to identify and capture new sources of funding to better match their ambitions and adequately resource their programming. USAID funding allowed WiLDAF to accomplish much, and these accomplishments can and should be leveraged to woo other funders. One approach may be to employ one or more individuals with experience in grants and proposal writing, particularly for international and national donors. These individuals could be brought in as board members or may be willing to provide services pro bono. Most importantly, WiLDAF should make these services and the connections that board members may already have available to local service providers, so they too can identify and capture their own sources of funding. Alternatively, WiLDAF could look to hire someone with that skill set and share it with WiLDAF network members or look for assistance from other legal aid organizations not part of the network. • USAID should continue to regularly assess WiLDAF’s organizational capacity and, if needed, look to provide capacity-building in specific areas that are most important to WiLDAF’s growth and successful program implementation and management. • WiLDAF needs to continue to develop its board and overall governance, and better leverage them to improve the organization and access to funding from diverse sources. It may also want to place greater focus on certain core activities, such as legal and GBV assistance, advocacy, and sensitization, and select the activities that should be supported as a priority in these areas. • The Tanzanian chapter of WiLDAF may want to inform its GBV programming and implementation by engaging similarly situated programs in the region and on the continent through its membership in the larger WiLDAF network. The use of well-targeted and strategic visits to other WiLDAF network countries with relevant and successful experience (that may also have been funded by USAID) could be useful and allow for cross-fertilization with regional partners and further strengthen WiLDAF’s programming in Tanzania. • WiLDAF should regularly collect information from network members about what aspect of the network they find most valuable and what they find in need of improvement. Based on the diversity of network participants, it might be worth creating subgroups and focusing on some of them more than others, and possibly alternating between subgroups as needs and conditions evolve. M&E and data collection procedures Several areas of improvement were identified in the definition and selection of performance indicators that make up WiLDAF’s M&E plan, and the tool and process local service providers use to collect and report data to WiLDAF would benefit from improvements. Accordingly, WiLDAF should: • Revise, maybe jointly with USAID, the description provided in its M&E plan and IPRS tracking worksheet with regard to the number of “legal aid providers” trained. The description should state explicitly who (e.g., paralegals and legal clinic staff) is included in the data, in order to provide a clearer and more meaningful picture of WiLDAF’s training efforts. • Clarify and specify the services that are counted as part of the term “GBV services,” which underpins one of its key IPRS and M&E indicators. That definition should be stated consistently, propagated among local partners to ensure accurate reporting to WiLDAF HQ, and then used to provide more accurate data to USAID. 54 • Unpack the sole indicator currently associated with legislative activities and lobbying efforts to adequately track progress in an often slow political and legislative process. For example, an indicator could track the number of laws and policies being drafted, the number that has been proposed in the National Assembly, etc. Several more indicators could also be created based on smaller milestones towards adoption, such as the number of laws and policies under active discussion between WiLDAF and high-level government ministries and members of parliament. • Revise and improve the data collection tool used by local legal assistance partners. Additional data beyond those needed for the IPRS indicators should be gathered, such as more detailed information about each case and its outcome, and the village or ward in which each client lives. It might also be good for local groups to collect and report data about evolving trends in their respective areas. WiLDAF gathers some information on an ad hoc basis but may want to systematize this process. WiLDAF should also ensure that all local legal aid partners have access to a computer to better safeguard and transfer data, and to facilitate and further standardize data collection. 5.3 VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE LEGAL AID AND GBV SUPPORT ECOSYSTEM AND WILDAF’S INVOLVEMENT AFTER RECOMMENDATIONS The ‘status quo’ ecosystem represented in Figure 15 at the end of the Findings and Conclusions section is to be contrasted with the one depicted in Figure 16, below, which is a simplified blueprint of how the ecosystem could operate if some of the key recommendations to enhance WiLDAF’s programmatic approach and operations were successfully enacted. The same legend used in Figure 12 also applies to Figure 13.27 Among the recommendations represented visually are: • The creation of safe houses by the Government of Tanzania, NGOs, or international donors (represented with the color green); • The systematic creation of CPTs operating as expected; • The systematic training and capacity building to a range of stakeholders (note that many of the yellow box outlines that were dashed in Figure 12 are now solid) and the addition of chiefs and traditional leaders to training plans; • The increase in resources provided by WiLDAF to paralegal units and legal aid clinics (note the thicker red arrow); • The systematic reporting of progress and goals to local government by WiLDAF and its local partners; and • The strengthening of advocacy at the regional and district government levels on topics such as court fees waivers for indigent clients and better resourcing of SWOs and CDOs. 27 The backdrop of both diagrams is the different levels of administrative divisions of Tanzania. Service providers and stakeholders are categorized on the basis of their box color: WiLDAF and its partners are assigned the color orange, health services are marked in red, safe houses are marked in green, government entities are marked in blue, the legal system and various levels and types of courts are represented in purple,27 and chiefs and traditional leaders are marked in dark gray. CPTs are represented as a white cross-cutting box. The yellow outline of certain ecosystem service providers and stakeholders indicates WiLDAF-provided training and capacity building. Arrows are color-coded and labeled on the diagram directly. Solid arrows and box outlines indicate that the type of relationship or flow is systematically present across sites, whereas the dotted arrows between WiLDAF HQ and its network represents purposeful and selective flow of funds to a subset of network members. 55 Figure 16: Simplified diagram of the legal aid and GBV support ecosystem reflecting certain key recommendations made in this report 56 ANNEXES 57 ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK STATEMENT OF WORK Performance Evaluation OF USAID/Tanzania’s Support to Women in Law and Development in Africa I. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The work implemented by Women in Law and Development in Africa-Tanzania (WiLDAF) with near￾continuous support from USAID since 2006 forms a critical part of the Mission’s interventions to Increase Gender Equality and empower women and youth under the Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) approved in 2014. However, over the course of almost 10 years of assistance, no external evaluation has been carried out to assess either the performance or the impact of WiLDAF’s engagement. Accordingly, while it is expected that work to increase access to justice and combat gender-based violence will continue in some form in the future, USAID/Tanzania has determined it would be beneficial to assess the cumulative results achieved by WiLDAF to date and to document the lessons learned and remaining obstacles in order to assess the adequacy of USAID’s approach in contributing to achievement of the development objective (DO). Findings and recommendations will inform the design and award of new programming and may identify approaches that could be integrated into other programming in the DO. II. SUMMARY INFORMATION Strategy/Project/Activity Name Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender-Based Violence Implementer Women in Law and Development I Africa (WiLDAF) Cooperative Agreement 2009-2016: 621-A-00-10-00004-00 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project/Activity(TEC) 2009-2016 Modification 11: $4,177,531.07 Life of Strategy, Project, or Activity 10-16-2009 to 06-30-2017 Active Geographic Regions Targeted zones: In the original agreement the 5 districts were: Kinondoni and Temeke (Dar es Salaam), Rungwe (Mbeya), Musoma-Urban (Mara), Lindi–urban (Lindi). The two-year extension (2014-16) added Bahi, Kongwa and Mtwara urban. Development Objective(s) (DOs) Primary: Development Objective 1: Tanzanian Women and Youth Empowered Secondary: Development Objective 3: Effective Democratic Governance Improved. USAID Office Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) III. BACKGROUND Created in advance of the World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, the WiLDAF network has spread in sub-Saharan Africa with branches in Tanzania, Ghana, Mali, Kenya, and a number of other countries. 58 WiLDAF-Tanzania's core organizational objectives include: • establishing and facilitating communication among network members in the areas of legal services; • clarifying and providing effective ways of using law and other strategies as an organizing and educational tool at the local, national and international levels; • providing training in legal programs and strategies; • coordinating the compilation and exchange of case studies and legal research; • monitoring, documenting and publicizing violations of human rights of women in Africa; • advocating for greater protection of the rights of women; • facilitating networking among women’s rights advocacy organizations and individuals within each country, sub-region and at pan-African level; and • facilitating linkages with advocacy groups in other parts of the world. WiLDAF-Tanzania also created a nationally based network and coalition of associations and individual members. Prominent among them are: Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC), Women’s Legal Aid Centre (WLAC), Tanzania Women Lawyers Association (TAWLA), Tanzania Gender Networking Program (TGNP), Tanzania Home Economic Association (TAHEA), Morogoro Paralegal, Tanga Paralegal, Shinyanga Paralegal and Koshika Women Group. WiLDAF is a member of The National Consortium on Civic Education in Tanzania (NACOCET), The Southern Africa Human Rights NGOs Network (SAHRINGON) and Feminist Activist Coalition (FemAct). WiLDAF envisions a society that observes women’s human rights. Its mission is to equip women with the necessary knowledge and skills to make them equal competitors, active participants, and agents of change. WiLDAF’s overarching goal is to use the legal system to improve the status of women and encourage their participation in the development process. IV. HISTORY OF USG SUPPORT TO WiLDAF WiLDAF received its first U.S. Government (USG) funding for a two-year rule of law activity from 2006 to 2008 to improve access to justice for marginalized communities, with a focus on women. Funded by the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) through USAID, that program supported the Government of Tanzania’s MCA Threshold Program. Based on the successful implementation of that program, USAID entered into a new Cooperative Agreement (the agreement) with WiLDAF in 2009 that has been amended several times and will come to an end in June 2017. Among WiLDAF’s notable achievements under this activity has been the establishment of five model legal aid clinics28. These clinics opened access to free legal aid services in regions where no such access existed, and they have served more than 12,000 new clients over the life of the program. As a result of the training for legal aides and the creation of legal clinics, WiLDAF also successfully pioneered the establishment of a legal aid network, the Tanzanian Network of Legal Aid Providers (TANLAP). In early 2011, the agreement was amended to include a Gender Based Violence (GBV) activity with funding from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The USAID PEPFAR team sought to use the existing mechanism as a result of WiLDAF’s demonstrated and predominant capability in the GBV sector and its linkages with the continuing Rule of Law-Access to Justice activity. The rule of 28. Legal aid clinics in Dar es Salaam, Mara, Lindi. and Rungwe are: Tanzania Women and Children Welfare Centre (TWCWC), Mwananyamala Legal aid Centre in Dar Es Salaam, Centre for Widows and Children Assistance (CWCA) Mara, Rungwe Women and Orphans Centre (RUWOCE) Mbeya and Organization for Women Empowerment (OWE) in Lindi) 59 law activity included establishing a legal aid secretariat; strengthening existing legal aid clinics and paralegal units and familiarizing legal aid workers with legislation on corruption and human rights; establishing five model legal aid clinics; and launching the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Based Violence. The agreement was modified once again in late 2014 to provide funding for two additional years of work, through December 2016. WiLDAF’s current commitments are: • Strengthening the 5 Model Legal Aid Clinics to expand free legal aid services; • Supporting the Tanzania Network for Legal Aid Providers (TANLAP) in order to improve the performance of coordinating legal aid provision in the country; • Enhancing media coverage to sensitize the public on the legal and human rights awareness programs and the availability of free legal aid services; • Publicizing Information, Education, and Communication (IEC materials) with messages to promote the rule of law and access to justice and disseminating the materials to communities to sensitize them about being pro-active, utilizing the services available and acting as change agents; • Continuing conducting awareness creation through training to legal aid providers, human rights defenders and women’s rights organizations on women’s legal and human rights; • Strengthening policy dialogue and advocacy on policies and laws that are discriminatory; • Pursuing the 16 Days of Activism against GBV. Furthermore, this cost extension included a significant set of planned interventions on gender-based violence, among them: • Conduct Stakeholders meeting with community leaders and local government to strengthening referral system for GBV survivors; • Conduct public community engagement dialogues to strengthen referral network and promote women and youth awareness on GBV; • Plan and conduct round table meetings with partners such as Ministry for Community Development Gender and Children (MCDGC), Police and Clinical partners to strengthening national capacity for GBV response; • Conduct Advocacy work for the creation of an enabling environment that reduces policy barriers within the medical, psycho-social, legal and police system with Councils, Council Health Management Team (CHMT), and Police; • Adopt, print and disseminate SASA! (Kiswahili word for "now" ) Communication materials and GBV community engagement and intervention guides for use in community activities with partners in the districts; • Conduct orientations and media sensitization workshops for media industry in districts. The agreement was modified a final time in December 2016 to provide a six-month, no-cost extension through June 2017 in order to complete activities that were delayed by the election period in late 2015 and early 2016. No further changes to the scope of activities were made. V. LINKS TO USAID/TANZANIA’S COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION STRATEGY (CDCS) While USAID’s support to WiLDAF precedes the development of the current CDCS by several years, the activity is a critical component of the Mission’s approach to achieving Development Objective (DO) 1: Tanzanian Women and Youth Empowered, Intermediate Result (IR) 1.1 Gender Equality and Youth Inclusion Increased, with the sub-intermediate results (sub-IR) 1.1.1 Enabling environment promoting gender equality strengthened; and 1.1.2 Leadership and community platforms strengthened. 60 The WiLDAF activity is also secondary contributor to results under DO 3: Effective Democratic Governance Improved, specifically IR 3.1 Citizen engagement made more effective, as part of sub-IR 3.1.3 CSOs successful oversight at national and sub-national levels advocated and conducted. WiLDAF is a beneficiary of capacity building support through the Pamoja Twajenga activity “Capacity Building for Partners in Accountability” under sub-IR 3.1.2 Institutional Capacity of CSOs increased. A. Description of the Problem, Development Hypothesis, and Theory of Change Though Tanzania has policy and legal frameworks in support of Women Equality and Gender empowerment, there still exist a number of policies and legislation that uphold harmful gender norms, such as the Law of Marriage Act 1971. In Tanzania, women’s legal and human rights and women’s empowerment are also constrained by such factors as: discriminatory application of statutory laws; inadequate legislative protective mechanisms such as protection orders, barring orders and safety orders; and insensitive investigations and prosecution of cases involving violence against women and children. Laws and practices discriminate against women on issues of property inheritance, particularly for land, and often institutionalize violence against women. Positive action and progress in the legal domain are constrained by: inadequate legal literacy among women; lack of access to the legal system by rural women; and the dearth and poor preparation of female elected government officials who may not be responsive to citizens and citizen groups. At the time of the 2009 agreement, WiLDAF objectives included the establishment and facilitation of communications among network members in the areas of legal services as well as clarification and provision of effective ways of using law and other strategies as an organizing and educational tool at the local, national and international levels. Specifically, WiLDAF was to provide: • training in legal programs and strategies; • coordination of the compilation and exchange of case studies and legal research; • monitoring, documenting and publicizing violations of human rights of women in Africa • advocating for greater protection of the rights of women • facilitating networking among women’s rights advocacy organizations and individuals within each country, sub-region and at Pan African level; and • facilitating linkages with advocacy groups in other parts of the world. In early 2011, the Cooperative Agreement was amended to include a Gender Based Violence (GBV) activity with funding from PEPFAR. The PEPFAR team sought to use the existing Cooperative Agreement given the predominant capability of WiLDAF in the GBV sector and linkages with the rule of law activity. The rule of law activity included establishing a legal aid secretariat; strengthening existing legal aid clinics and paralegal units and familiarizing legal aid workers with legislation on corruption and human rights; establishing five model legal aid clinics; and launching the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Based Violence. Theory of change: As depicted in the M&E plan approved in December 2015 and excerpted below, the WiLDAF activity theory of change may currently be summarized as follows: If targeted communities’ awareness of women’s human rights are increased, the availability of legal aid services for marginalized community members is increased, and key Tanzanian laws and policies addressing gender equality issues are revised or developed, then marginalized community members’ access to justice will be increased. The achievement of this objective is expected to result in a reduction 61 in the incidence of gender-based violence, and empowerment of Tanzanian women. B. Summary Strategy/Project/Activity/Intervention to be Evaluated USAID’s has been supporting WiLDAF since 2006. The current Cooperative Agreement No. 621-A-00- 10-00004-00 however, was awarded in 2009 to support WiLDAF’s “Rule of Law: Access to Justice” activity. The goal of this activity was to increase access to justice to the poor marginalized communities, especially women in Tanzania. The award was modified in 2011 to incorporate Gender Based Violence (GBV) with additional funding from Presidential Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This aimed at improving the enabling policy environment for GBV response to support the wider national response to GBV in Tanzania. December 2016 a six months extension with no additional funding for the award was issued until June 30, 2017. In general terms the objectives include: • Informing communities on matters related to women’s human rights at the national, regional, districts and community level. • Improving policies and laws in relation to women’s rights. • Increasing services such as legal aid and prevention of gender-based violence. Area of operation: In the original agreement five (5) districts were covered: Kinondoni and Temeke (Dar es Salaam), Rungwe (Mbeya), Musoma-Urban (Mara), Lindi–urban (Lindi). The two-year extension (2014-16) added Bahi, Kongwa (Dodoma) and Mtwara urban (Mtwara). WiLDAF’s implementation approach has been in collaboration with partners as subgrantees. These 62 includes: the Tanzania Women and Children Welfare Centre in Temeke, Dar es Salaam; Rungwe Women and Orphans Centre in Rungwe, Mbeya; Centre for Widows and Children Assistance in Musoma-urban, Mara; Organization for Women Empowerment in Lindi-urban, Lindi. Also, WiLDAF collaborates with the Tanzania Network for Legal Aid Providers (TANLAP) whose establishment was spearheaded and facilitated by WiLDAF. WiLDAF employs a number of approaches, particularly the following: • Community mobilization through public dialogues. • Training on legal aid provision (para-legals), gender-based violence referrals, and monitoring and evaluation. • Participation in the annual 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Campaign. • Advocacy for improved policies and laws, particularly those that are discriminatory toward women and marginalized populations. • Provision of legal aid services. C. Summary of the Project/Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan WiLDAF has produced and maintained M&E Operational plans for the purposes of management and good practice in the program implementation. The plan helps keep track of the progress being made, and monitors the indicators being used as well as their results. It guides tools for planning, communicating, managing and documenting the M&E process. It also reports progress toward results achievement for WiLDAF’s activity. The goal set out in the 2015 M&E plan is to ensure achievement of project objectives and results through course corrections and lessons learned of general applicability towards achieving project objectives and results. The objective of the M&E Plan focused on significantly improving organizational M&E system. Among the areas which were expected to improve included; roles of M&E to all staff, M&E knowledge and skills to staff, data collection tools, data collection processes, data management, data use and dissemination. The M&E operational plans will be made available for review by the evaluators. Resources and documents are available to the evaluators: See annex for resources/documents. VI. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The intended scope of WiLDAF’s engagement with USAID over the years has been twofold - both to increase the provision of legal aid services to marginalized community members, including women, and to combat gender-based violence, both intended to advance gender equality in Tanzania. Provision of legal aid to marginalized community members: 1. How has the provision of legal services affected marginalized communities’ understanding of their rights? a. To what extent did women, in particular, benefit from these services? Woman’s rights in the community and in the public space 2. How did WiLDAF enhance community knowledge and attitudes toward women’s rights, gender equality, and empowerment? 3. How have WiLDAF and its network supported an enabling environment which promotes gender equality? 4. What legal and political improvements did WiLDAF and its networks achieve and sustain? a. What has happened to those improvements to date? 63 Gender based violence 5. How and to what extent did WiLDAF’s legal actions and sensitization approaches influence occurrences of and legal actions related to gender based violence? Organization Structure 6. How are the networks organized and used? a. How effective is the organizational structure of WiLDAF and its network of partners?? VII. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This Performance Evaluation is the only external evaluation being conducted for about 10 years of USAID support to WiLDAF. Findings and recommendations of this performance evaluation will therefore be vital in informing future design and programming. The evaluation team will design and use appropriate methods of data collection to gather qualitative and quantitative data. The evaluation team must ensure that data collection methodology and the corresponding data sources will generate the highest-quality and most credible evidence corresponding to the evaluation purpose and questions. As part of capacity building, the team will design and conduct an evaluation that maximizes participation by WiLDAF staff and its sub grantees. However, efforts should be made to ensure objectivity and validity of inputs and outputs. USAID Mission staff may be included as participants while assuring maximum objectivity and neutrality. Data Collection Methods The evaluation team is required to consider a range of data collection methods and approaches for collecting information that is required to achieve the evaluation purpose. Proposed data collection methodologies will be discussed with, and approved by USAID/Tanzania prior to the start of the evaluation. USAID proposes the following as some of the methods: Desk review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, direct observation, and if possible surveys. Data Analysis Methods The report should include both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the achievements and shortcomings. All information and data shall be disaggregated, as much as possible, by age and gender/sex. This suggested evaluation design identifies potential sources and approaches to collecting and analyzing. It is offered as a basis for future discussion by the evaluation team in the deliverables listed in Section V. Questions Suggested Data Sources (*) Suggested Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods 1. How has the provision of legal services affected marginalized communities’ understanding of their rights? a. To what extent did women, in particular, benefit from these services? Documents (including: performance monitoring data, progress reports, previous evaluations, etc.), national statistics, and third party surveys, project staff, stakeholders, expert knowledge, beneficiaries etc. Desk review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions. Statistical analysis of performance monitoring data, third party surveys, and national statistics, gender-sensitive focus Recurrence analysis of themes in collected qualitative information Requested level of disaggregation - gender, age, location (district, region), etc.… 64 Questions Suggested Data Sources (*) Suggested Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods 2. How did WiLDAF enhance community knowledge and attitudes toward women’s rights, gender equality, and empowerment? Community leaders (religious or political), community members, project staff Key informant interviews, focus group discussions. Recurrence analysis of themes in collected qualitative information Requested level of disaggregation—gender, age, location (district, region), etc.… 3. How have WiLDAF and its network supported an enabling environment which promotes gender equality? Documents (including: performance monitoring data, progress reports, previous evaluations, etc.) Key network decision￾makers Desk review Key informant interviews Thematic analysis Gender and equity focused analysis 4. What legal and political improvements did WiLDAF and its network achieve and sustain? What has happened to those improvements to date? Documents (including: reform proposal drafts by WiLDAF and partners, bills, policies and legislations etc.) Key network decision￾makers Desk review Key informant interviews Focus group discussions Ditto 5. How and to what extent did WiLDAF’s legal actions and sensitization approaches influence occurrences of and legal actions related to gender based violence? Ditto Ditto Ditto 6. How are the networks organized and used? a. How effective is the organizational structure of WiLDAF and its network of partners? (including successes, challenges, and lessons learned) Ditto Ditto Ditto 7. What challenges, if any, are there affecting project goal attainment? Ditto Ditto Ditto Notes: (*) It is acceptable to include data sources that do not need to be collected but may be analyzed by the evaluation team. In planning for and preparing the Evaluation SOW it is a good practice to examine available data sources especially performance monitoring data. VIII. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. Evaluation Work plan: Within 1 week of the award of the contract, a draft work plan for the evaluation shall be completed by the lead evaluator and presented to the Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR). The work plan will include: (1) the anticipated schedule for design and implementation of the evaluation and logistical arrangements; and (2) a list of the members of the 65 evaluation team, delineated by roles and responsibilities. 2. Evaluation Design: Within 2 weeks after approval of the work plan, the evaluation team must submit to the Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) an evaluation design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation report). The evaluation design will include: (1) a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; (2) draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features; (3) the list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include calculations and a justification of sample size, plans as to how the sampling frame will be developed, and the sampling methodology); (4) known limitations to the evaluation design; and (5) a dissemination plan. USAID offices and relevant stakeholders are asked to take up to 5 business days to review this submission and consolidate comments through the AOR. Once the evaluation team receives the consolidated comments on the initial evaluation design and work plan, they are expected to return with a revised evaluation design and work plan within 5 business days. 3. In-briefing / inception report: Within three days of arrival in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the evaluation team will have an in-briefing with the DRG, Tumaini and Program Office for introductions and to discuss the team’s understanding of the assignment, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and/or to adjust the Statement of Work (SOW), if necessary. The in￾briefing should take place after the evaluation team has conducted a desk review or examined secondary data and before commencement of in country data collection/interviews. 4. Final Exit Briefing: The evaluation team is expected to hold a final exit briefing prior to leaving the country to discuss the status of data collection and preliminary findings. This presentation will be scheduled as agreed upon during the in-briefing 5. Draft Evaluation Report: The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Sections VIII and IX below. The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with USAID. The submission date for the draft evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, the DRG and Program Offices, and Tumaini Project team members will have 10 business days in which to review and comment on the initial draft, after which point the AOR/COR will submit the consolidated comments to the evaluation team. The evaluation team will then be asked to submit a revised final draft report 10 business days after receipt of Mission commitments, and again the DRG, Tumaini, and Program Office teams will review and send comments on this final draft report within 5 business days of its submission. 6. Final Evaluation Report: The evaluation team will be asked to take no more than 5 business days to respond/incorporate the final comments from the DRG Office and Tumaini project team. The evaluation team leader will then submit the final report to the AOR/COR. All project data and records will be submitted in full and should be in electronic form in easily readable format, organized and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation, and owned by USAID. IX. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION The evaluation team should be constituted by three members, with a combination of Tanzanian/East African and international consultants. It is expected that the team will include no fewer than one member with significant evaluation experience with USAID. 66 The team leader should be an expatriate and have five to ten years working in international development programs in the justice and governance sector, and work experience with NGOs, preferably those focused on law, community mobilization, human rights and justice issues. He/she should also be expert on gender and development. Tanzania and/or East Africa experience and Kiswahili speaking ability are preferred. The second team member should be an expatriate and have five to ten years of experience in international development evaluation methodology and practice. The candidate would have a clear understanding of USAID's ADS 200 and 201, especially the sections on evaluation as he/she would also ensure evaluation team adherence to USAID’s evaluation policies and best practices. Tanzania and/or East Africa experience and Kiswahili speaking ability are preferred. The third team member should be a Tanzanian/East African expert with five to ten years of experience with gender-based violence, and knowledge of legal aspects, human rights, community mobilization, and data sources. The expert would contribute to the team's better understanding of the context of GBV, preferably in Tanzania, and be fluent in Kiswahili. All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing any existing conflict of interest. The evaluation team shall demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s evaluation policies and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in Chapter 200. X. EVALUATION SCHEDULE Factoring in that the current WiLDAF’s award expires June 30, 2017 and in order to facilitate maximum access to WiLDAF staff and documentation while they are still receiving U.S. funding, it is recommended that that the evaluations commences latest by Mid-April, 2017. However, it is understood that some of the evaluation activities will substantially be ex-post. Below are samples of illustrative schedule and estimated LOE in days by activity for a team of four. Sample Format: Illustrative Schedule Timing (Anticipated Months or Duration) Proposed Activities Important Considerations/Constraints April 10- 21, 2017 Preparation of the work plan and evaluation design April 24- 28, 2017 USAID review of the work plan and evaluation design Take into account availability in the Mission or Washington OU May 01-05, 2017 Travel, evaluation design and preparations for data collection Take into account visa requirements (if an expatriate team is being mobilized) May 05, 2017 In-Briefing May 8-19, 2017 Data Collection Take into account the number of sites, methods, sectors, etc. May 22-26, 2017 Data Analysis Take into account the number of sites, methods, sectors, etc. May 29- June 02, 2017 Out-Brief and Report writing Take into account the number of sites, methods, sectors, etc. June 05- 14, 2017 USAID review of Draft Report Take into account availability in the Mission or Washington OU June 15- 23, 2017 Incorporate USAID comments and prepare Final Report 67 Sample Table: Estimated LOE in days by activity for a team of four (to be modified by contractor as necessary) Task LOE for Expat Team Lead LOE for Expat M&E Specialist LOE for Local TZ/East African Women’s human Rights/Women empowerment Specialist LOE for Local Gender Based Violence Specialist Total LOE in days Document review/desk review/work planning (evaluation design remote or in-country) 4 days 4 days 4 days 4 days 16 Preparations for travel and organizing data collection (contracting translators, vehicles, etc.). 2 days 2 days 2 days 2 days 8 In-brief, Evaluation Design (including meetings with USAID) 3 days 3 days 3 days 3 days 12 Preparations for data collection (scheduling) 2 days 2 days 2 days 2 days 8 Data collection days by method by site 10 days 10 days 10 days 10 days 40 Data analysis 6 days 6 days 6 days 6 days 24 Briefing 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 4 Draft final report and debrief to USAID 5 days 5 days 5 days 5 days 20 Final report after USAID comments 4 days 4 days 4 days 4 days 16 Totals 37 37 37 37 148 XI. FINAL REPORT FORMAT The evaluation final report should include an abstract; executive summary; background of the local context and the strategies/projects/activities being evaluated; the evaluation purpose and main evaluation questions; the methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; findings, conclusions, and recommendations. For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” and ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit. The executive summary should be 2–5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable). The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.) The annexes to the report shall include: • The Evaluation SOW; 68 • Any statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team; • All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides; • All sources of information, properly identified and listed; and • Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts of. • Any “statements of difference” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team. • Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team. In accordance with ADS 201, the contractor will make the final evaluation reports publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within three months of the evaluation’s conclusion. XII. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report.29 • Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. • Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. • The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. • Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. • Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. • Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately 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 simply the compilation of people’s opinions. • Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. • If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. • If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. 29 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance. 69 XIII. OTHER REQUIREMENTS All quantitative data collected by the evaluation team must be provided in machine-readable, non￾proprietary formats as required by USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579). The data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all datasets developed. All modifications to the required elements of the SOW of the contract/agreement, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology, or timeline, need to be agreed upon in writing by the COR. Any revisions should be updated in the SOW that is included as an annex to the Evaluation Report. XIV. LIST OF ANNEXES A. List of Resources/documents 1. USAID Evaluation Policy https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf 2. USAID ADS 201 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/201.pdf 3. USAID Evaluation Report Requirements https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/201mah.pdf 4. How-to Note. Preparing Evaluation Reports https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/How-to-Note_Preparing-Evaluation￾Reports.pdf 5. USAID Learning Lab Evaluation Toolkit https://usaidlearninglab.org/evaluation 6. USAID/Tanzania CDCS 2014-2019 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/CDCS%20Tanzania%20FINAL.pdf 7. USAID/Tanzania Gender Analysis for Project Planning and Activity Design, June 2013 http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00k747.pdf 8. WiLDAF activity documents (to be provided by USAID) 9. Agreement and 10 modifications, including modifications to the program description 10. Annual Workplans 11. M&E Plans, including PMP 12. Quarterly Reports 13. Annual Reports 14. Success Stories 15. WiLDAF internal evaluation, 2016 16. WiLDAF Organizational Capacity Assessment Results (OCA and Re- OCA) by Pamoja Twajenga 17. WiLDAF Advocacy Assessments by Pamoja Twajenga. Other potentially relevant USAID documents available online: 1. Simmons, Kelsey, Zuki Mihyo, and Lyn Messner. 2016. Lessons from the Gender-Based Violence Initiative in Tanzania. Arlington, VA: Strengthening High Impact Interventions for an AIDS-free Generation (AIDSFree) Project. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m477.pdf 2. Casto, Jennifer, and Lyn A. Messner. 2016. Gender-based Violence Initiative Synthesis Report. Arlington, VA: Strengthening High Impact Interventions for an AIDS-free Generation (AIDSFree) Project. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m476.pdf 70 3. Cornman, Helen and Kai Spratt. 2011. Scaling Up the Response to Gender-based Violence in PEPFAR: PEPFAR Consultation on Gender-based Violence, Washington, DC, May 6-7, 2010. Arlington, Va.: USAID’s AIDS Support and Technical Assistance Resources, AIDSTAR-One, Task Order 1. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pbaae623.pdf 4. Gender-Based Violence In Tanzania: An Assessment of Policies, Services, and Promising Interventions, 2008 http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnadn851.pdf 71 ANNEX 2: CONCEPT NOTE AND EVALUATION DESIGN USAID/Tanzania Data for Development Activity EVALUATION PLAN AND WORK PLAN FINALPERFORMANCE EVALUATION The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity in TANZANIA 72 USAID/Tanzania Data for Development Activity Submission Date: 11/1/2017 Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-15-00024/AID-621-TO-17-00005 Activity Start Date and End Date: 08/03/2017 to 01/01/2022 COR Name: Angela Mwaikambo Prepared by: Jacob Laden, Evaluation Advisor D4D, NORC at the University of Chicago Alexandre Monnard, Evaluation Specialist, NORC at the University of Chicago Submitted by: Carlos Torres, Chief of Party ME&A (Mendez England & Associates) 4300 Montgomery Ave. Suite 103 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301-652-4334 Email: ctorres@engl.com DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................................................74 OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................75 EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................77 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................................................84 EVALUATION TIMELINE AND DELIVERABLES ...................................................................................................85 PROPOSED STAFFING.................................................................................................................................................85 74 LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Description D4D Data for Development DO Development Objective DQA Data Quality Assessment FGD Focus Group Discussions GBV Gender Based Violence GOT Government of Tanzania IPRS Implementing Partners Reporting System KII Key Informant Interviews MOU Memorandum of Understanding NGO Non-governmental Organization NORC National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago PMP Performance Management Plan PPR Performance Plan and Report SOW Statement of Work TANLAP Tanzania Network for Legal Aid Providers USAID United States Agency for International Development WiLDAF Women in Law in Africa-Tanzania 75 CONCEPT NOTE FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR THE RULE OF LAW: ACCESS TO JUSTICE INTEGRATING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE ACTIVITY IN TANZANIA OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES As part of the Contract/Task Order Number: AID-OAA-1-15-00024/AID-621-TO-17-00005 Data for Development Activity, USAID has asked Data for Development (D4D) to design and budget for a summative performance evaluation of the Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence project implemented by the Women in Law in Africa and Development in Africa (WiLDAF) with funding from USAID. The objective of the activity is to improve gender equity, increase access to justice and combat gender-based violence. The activity is aligned with the Mission’s Development Objective (DO) 1: Tanzanian Women and Youth Empowered as well as DO3: Effective Democratic Governance Improved. WiLDAF-Tanzania's core organizational aims include: • Establishing and facilitating communication among network members in the area of legal services; • Clarifying and providing effective ways of using law and other strategies as an organizing and educational tool at the local, national and international levels; • Providing training in legal programs and strategies; • Coordinating the compilation and exchange of case studies and legal research; • Monitoring, documenting and publicizing violations of human rights of women in Africa; • Advocating for greater protection of the rights of women; • Facilitating networking among women’s rights advocacy organizations and individuals within each country, sub-region and at pan-African level; and • Facilitating linkages with advocacy groups in other parts of the world. The $4.1 million project is being implemented by WiLDAF-Tanzania which is made up of a national network and coalition of associations and individual members including: Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC), Women’s Legal Aid Centre (WLAC), Tanzania Women Lawyers Association (TAWLA), Tanzania Gender Networking Program (TGNP), Tanzania Home Economic Association (TAHEA), Morogoro Paralegal, Tanga Paralegal, Shinyanga Paralegal and Koshika Women Group. WiLDAF is a member of The National Consortium on Civic Education in Tanzania (NACOCET), The Southern Africa Human Rights NGOs Network (SAHRINGON) and Feminist Activist Coalition (FemAct). It is part of the worldwide WiLDAF network which in sub-Saharan Africa has networks in Ghana, Mali, Kenya, and a number of other countries. In the original Cooperative Agreement established in 2009 between USAID and WiLDAF, 5 districts were targeted: Kinondoni and Temeke (Dar es Salaam), Rungwe (Mbeya), Musoma-urban (Mara), and Lindi–urban (Lindi). In 2014 a two year extension (2014-16) added Bahi, Kongwa and Mtwara urban. In early 2011, the agreement was amended to include a Gender Based Violence (GBV) activity with funding from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The USAID PEPFAR team sought to use the existing mechanism as a result of WiLDAF’s demonstrated and predominant capability in the GBV sector and its linkages with the continuing Rule of Law-Access to Justice activity. The rule of law activity included establishing a legal aid secretariat; strengthening existing legal aid clinics and paralegal units and familiarizing legal aid workers with legislation on corruption and human rights; establishing five model legal aid clinics; and launching the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Based Violence. The agreement was modified once again in late 2014 to provide funding for two additional years of work, through December 2016. WiLDAF’s current commitments are: • Strengthening the 5 Model Legal Aid Clinics to expand free legal aid services; • Supporting the Tanzania Network for Legal Aid Providers (TANLAP) in order to improve the 76 performance of coordinating legal aid provision in the country; • Enhancing media coverage to sensitize the public on the legal and human rights awareness programs and the availability of free legal aid services; • Publicizing Information, Education, and Communication (IEC materials) with messages to promote the rule of law and access to justice and disseminating the materials to communities to sensitize them about being pro-active, utilizing the services available and acting as change agents; • Creating awareness through training to legal aid providers, human rights defenders and women’s rights organizations on women’s legal and human rights; • Strengthening policy dialogue and advocacy on policies and laws that are discriminatory; • Pursuing the 16 Days of Activism against GBV. Furthermore, this cost extension included a significant set of planned interventions on gender-based violence, among them: • Conduct Stakeholders meeting with community leaders and local government to strengthening referral system for GBV survivors; • Conduct public community engagement dialogues to strengthen referral network and promote women and youth awareness on GBV; • Plan and conduct round table meetings with partners such as Ministry for Community Development Gender and Children (MCDGC), Police and Clinical partners to strengthening national capacity for GBV response; • Conduct Advocacy work for the creation of an enabling environment that reduces policy barriers within the medical, psycho-social, legal and police system with Councils, Council Health Management Team (CHMT), and Police; • Adopt, print and disseminate SASA! (Kiswahili word for "now") communication materials and GBV community engagement and intervention guides for use in community activities with partners in the districts; • Conduct orientations and media sensitization workshops for media industry in districts. The agreement was modified in December 2016 and June 2017 to provide six-month no-cost extensions through June 2017 and December 2017 respectively in order to complete activities that were delayed by the election period in late 2015 and early 2016, take advantage of emerging opportunities and allow time for this evaluation to happen while the project is still in operation. No further changes to the scope of activities were made. The evaluation team will conduct the final summative evaluation of The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity in Tanzania over the period of its activity from 2009-2017 (present) which is premised on the following development hypothesis: Development Hypothesis: If targeted communities’ awareness of women’s human rights are increased, the availability of legal aid services for marginalized community members is increased, and key Tanzanian laws and policies addressing gender equality issues are revised or developed, then marginalized community members’ access to justice will be increased. The achievement of this objective is expected to result in a reduction in the incidence of gender-based violence, and empowerment of Tanzanian women. The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity in Tanzania objectives: • Informing communities on matters related to women’s human rights at the national, regional, district and community levels. • Improving policies and laws in relation to women’s rights. • Increasing services such as legal aid and prevention of gender-based violence 77 The extent to which The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity in Tanzania achieved its objectives is a key focus for the evaluation and is reflected in the evaluation design and research questions below. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The following is the evaluation team’s performance evaluation methodology and design. This final evaluation provides an important opportunity to assess the cumulative results achieved by WiLDAF to date and to document the lessons learned and remaining obstacles in order to assess the adequacy of USAID’s approach in contributing to the achievement of the development objective (DO). Findings and recommendations on WiLDAF development approaches will inform learning and adaptation in the PPR process and among the Mission and implementing partners to support the design of future programming in the DO. The team’s approach to performance evaluation entails a mix of mutually reinforcing qualitative and quantitative methods that reflect the program logic, research questions being addressed, and the indicators selected by the project as part of its M&E plan. The qualitative analysis based on existing project documents, focus groups and interviews at five of the local project sites and interviews with key project stakeholders will establish what happened over the relevant period, and provide local context and concrete examples that illustrate in greater detail and reinforce the quantitative findings. The D4D approach to selecting the appropriate mixed methods approach is based on the USAID guidance for mixed methods as well as our expertise in conducting summative performance evaluations in the region, and in gender issues. D4D proposes to conduct The Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender-Based Violence activity in Tanzania evaluation using a participatory approach, engaging the USAID Mission, the WiLDAF network implementers, project beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, through various phases of the evaluation. This includes working collaboratively to: 1. Identify appropriate questions keeping in mind users and uses of the evaluation for Mission and WiLDAF decision making; 2. Identify pertinent documentation for desk review including provision of existing data from quarterly and annual reports; 3. Plan field work and review sample frame for data collection; this includes assisting the team in identifying participants for key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and a targeted web-based survey; 4. Review questions for KIIs, FGDs, and survey that solicit responses that address target research objectives; 5. Select appropriate data collection methods and analysis to answer evaluation questions and to best meet the decision-making needs of the users of the evaluation; 6. Participate in a participatory workshop to review findings, conclusions and recommendations to ensure feasibility and utilization. 7. Serve as feedback providers for reports and other deliverables. At the same time, the evaluation team will remain independent and will take steps to maximize the quality of the information and minimize the impact of various potential sources of bias on the evaluation. Accordingly, IP staff will not be involved directly in data collection activities for the purpose of maintaining objectivity and for insuring respondent/beneficiary confidentiality as they provide feedback. The evaluation will take into consideration the local context and project implementation results by analyzing the achievements of targeted results, verifying implementer annual and quarterly reports, considering the opinions and recommendations elicited during the KIIs and FGDs, and undertaking quantitative analysis of the results from data collected from electronic survey and secondary data provided by WiLDAF-Tanzania. The evaluation team will collect both quantitative and qualitative data and use these different sources of data to triangulate findings and answer the main research questions outlined in the scope of work (SOW) document provided by USAID. Existing data including IPRS indicator data, quarterly and annual reports will be used to develop a longitudinal view of outputs and outcomes. Data will be disaggregated by appropriate demographics including age and gender/sex, as well as by region whenever possible. 78 The team expects the evaluation to take 12 weeks starting in late October 2017. The 2-week data collection period would begin November 27 and close with a workshop session in Dar Salaam with USAID staff and WiLDAF partners on December 11 to review preliminary findings and discuss conclusions and recommendations. Final submission of the report is planned by January 26, 2018 after USAID draft review. More details are provided below under Evaluation Timeline and Deliverables. Evaluation Questions Provision of legal aid to marginalized community members: 1. How has the provision of legal services affected marginalized communities’ understanding of their rights? a. To what extent did women, in particular, benefit from these services? Woman’s rights in the community and in the public space: 2. How did WiLDAF enhance community knowledge and attitudes toward women’s rights, gender equality, and empowerment? 3. How have WiLDAF and its network supported an enabling environment which promotes gender equality? 4. What legal and political improvements did WiLDAF and its networks achieve and sustain? a. What has happened to those improvements to date? Gender based violence: 5. How and to what extent did WiLDAF’s legal actions and sensitization approaches influence occurrences of and legal actions related to gender based violence? Organization Structure: 6. How are the networks organized and used? a. How effective is the organizational structure of WiLDAF and its network of partners? (including successes, challenges, and lessons learned) 7. What challenges, if any, are there affecting project goal attainment? Evaluation Approach The final evaluation of WiLDAF will be primarily undertaken through qualitative data collection including focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews (KII), and document review supported by some quantitative data through a web-based survey administered to all project sites, both currently in operation and previously supported by WiLDAF. The semi-structured open-ended interviews will be conducted with WiLDAF partners, community leaders, relevant Government of Tanzania (GOT) Ministries, and USAID staff. A series of Focus Groups (FGDs) will be conducted in 5 of the 8 project sites purposively selected to include a broad range of project activities and to balance the rural and urban districts councils/municipalities and the regions in which WiLDAF interventions/activities are implemented. Qualitative approaches enrich analyses by addressing aspects of research questions that are not well suited to quantitative analysis and in many cases investigate the reasons behind quantitative findings. Qualitative data collection will include the following: • Structured desk review of materials related to WiLDAF, such as the SOW, Performance Management Plan (PMP), quarterly and annual reports, Data Quality Assessments (DQA), capacity building assessments, agreement modifications, and other materials produced by WiLDAF; • Review and consideration of GOT laws and policies related to women’s rights and protections against gender-based violence GBV, including their evaluation during the project period; • KIIs will be conducted with USAID (democracy and governance and DO1 technical team leads) and WiLDAF Board of Directors and WiLDAF contacts at relevant GOT agencies (e.g., Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children and Ministry of Home Affairs) in Dar Salaam. KIIs will also be held with WiLDAF leadership/service providers, and community leaders in the 5 selected project sites where FGDs with community members and beneficiaries will be held. The KIIs will include a focus on 79 how WiLDAF strengthened its partners and network, and how WiLDAF affected coordination between GOT ministries, police departments, and clinical partners for GBV response. • FGDs will be conducted with targeted program participants and community members. Three FGD protocols will be developed including those focused on: 1. Legal assistance to women: Strengthening of model legal clinics, training to legal aid providers and womens rights defenders, and support for legal action against GBV. This protocol will be used for groups of female recipients of legal assistance. 2. Community awareness activities: Publicizing information and public communication to promote the rule of law and access to justice for women. Community engagement dialogues to strengthen referral network. Media sensitization workshops to promote awareness and prevention of GBV. Pursuing the 16 days of activism against GBV etc. This protocol will target both male and female community members in separate groups and using different versions of the instrument for each gender. 3. GBV services (direct): Health services, psychosocial support, provision of shelters and GBV hotlines. This protocol will be used with groups of female recipients of GBV services. The evaluation team will invite up to 15 participants for each FGD, keeping in mind refusals and no-shows. D4D will aim at having 10 per FGD and will require a minimum of 4 participants to conduct the FGD; if fewer than 4 participants participate we will change to having a group interview instead, following the same discussion guide as the FGD. The FGD will be conducted by Swahili-speaking facilitators who are knowledgeable of the program content and Tanzanian context around gender; facilitators will be well trained in conducting FGDs to solicit responses from the participants by asking neutral probes and without introducing their own biases. The evaluation team will provide facilitators with training (e.g., role playing) and materials to ensure that they understand the project, FGD guide and can moderate the discussion to obtain maximum response and discussion. The methodology used by the team in conducting the FGD/KII is outlined in the figure below. Figure 1: Methodology for Conducting FGDs • Each FGD will include a maximum of 15 participants who will engage in an open discussion structured around predetermined questions (included in a discussion guide) led by a moderator. • The moderator will be assisted by a note taker, and all FGDs will be recorded with informed consent obtained from all participants prior to the start of the discussion. • The discussion guide will include 9-12 questions for a 90-minute focus group, starting with broad questions and moving into narrower or key questions. The following types of questions will be used: opening, introductory, transition, key, and ending. The questions will be neutrally worded and neutral probes will be used. • Each FGD will be recorded for ease in analysis. In addition, the note-taker will record key words, expressions, silences and non-verbal language of the participants. • Reports of the FGD will include a general summary of participant’s response to each question – highlighting the range of responses and experiences. This will be supported by quotes from the participants. Survey of WiLDAF Network Members A survey of WiLDAF Network members, both presently active and previously supported by the project, will be used to quantitatively capture perceptions on the effectiveness of the network in providing legal assistance, combatting gender-based violence and raising awareness of women’s rights. The survey will be designed to cover all relevant research questions and will include roughly 15-20 questions per respondent30. A subsection or set of skip logic questions in the survey will target legal service providers at clinics and paralegals who received WiLDAF training 30 The survey will include significantly more questions in total, but skip patterns will be used to offer respondents only the questions that are relevant to them (e.g., type of services provided, present versus previous support from WiLDAF, etc.) Thus the total number of questions presented to any given respondent should be around 15-20. 80 package. These questions will cover learning components and the extent to which providers applied knowledge and skills gained in the training in the provision of legal services; it will also include questions on outcomes achieved in the course of providing legal services. The web-based survey platform will supply quantitative data that will be analyzed using descriptive statistics with disaggregation by partner affiliation, type of site and services provided, district/region, etc. The evaluation team will also use existing secondary data such as the project’s past evaluations and annual and quarterly reports to depict project results and indicators over the span of the project. The evaluation team will rely on NORC’s highly skilled survey methodologists and survey design staff with experience in operationalizing research questions into specialized, deliberately crafted survey instruments and data collection plans. NORC’s survey staff understands the critical need for a well-designed survey that elicits information from respondents in a way that reduces observational errors, specifically instrumentation error, due to ambiguous question wording or illogical questionnaire flow. Web-based survey will be used where respondents have access to the internet and email addresses are known (WiLDAF Network Members). D4D will take special steps to ensure confidentiality and boost response rates. For web surveys, unique survey links are generated for each respondent31. Each unique link is secure and will only be shared with the intended recipient. To launch the survey, NORC will deliver e-mail prompts introducing the survey and containing the unique link to all potential survey respondents for whom we receive a valid email address. Throughout the launch period, NORC research team regularly monitors the designated project email inbox and follows up with respondents in order to answer all questions and troubleshoot any technical issues that may arise. NORC will also deliver weekly reminder messages to all respondents who have yet to complete the survey. Throughout this correspondence, NORC will monitor all bounce backs and otherwise invalid email addresses and determine if it is possible to obtain an alternate email address or assign a replacement respondent. The survey system’s functionality enables the respondent to return to the survey and pick up where they left off in the case they do not finish in one sitting; this will ensure that if service challenges are encountered, such as low bandwidth or interruption of internet, the effect on response rate and instrumentation effects will be minimized. To ensure a high response rate, surveys will be pre-tested for functionality, usability, and clarity. The survey instrument will also be targeted, focusing on only a few topics that lend themselves to this mode of data collection and will take no more than twenty (20) minutes to administer to each respondent. Additionally, the NORC research team will download weekly data exports and perform interval data quality review to monitor response rates and respondent metadata in real time. This allows for NORC to diagnose any potential “pain points” or other issues in the survey that may prevent respondents from completing the survey. In addition, this allows for NORC to identify any segments of the sample that are struggling in terms of response rate, in case it is possible to find alternative contact information or reach out to those respondents directly by phone or email to encourage response. Target Areas and Sampling A total of 12 FGDs and 26-30 KIIs are proposed in the following five target districts councils/municipalities including two urban municipalities: Kinondoni, Dar Salaam (IP: TANLAP) and Musoma, Mara (Center of Widows and Children); and three rural district councils including: Kongwa Dodoma, Lindi (Organization for Womens Empowerment), and Rungwe, Mbeya (Rungwe Women and Orphans Center-RUWOCE). In addition, KIIs with 3 USAID staff will take place in Dar Salaam. Ilana in Dar Salaam will serve as a pilot location for all instruments, including FGD protocols, and pilot data will be included in the analysis unless there are data quality issue or significant changes to instruments. Fieldwork in Kinondoni, Dar Salaam will include KIIs with coordinating bodies such as TANLAP, WiLDAF board and WiLDAF headquarters, but will not include FGDs. All sites other than Kinondoni include FGDs with legal aid services and GBV clients. Furthermore, community awareness FGDs will only be held at the three sites that have community awareness interventions: Ilala (pilot), Rungwe Mbeya and Kongwa, Dodoma. Figure 2 below summarizes the instruments that will be used in the five target areas and the pilot site. 31 Ideally, 2 respondents will be selected per site. One should be directing or managing the implementation of activities and the other should be in charge of designing and implementing technical programming. 81 Figure 2: Data Collection Methods and Sample Frame Dar Salaam (Ilala) Dar Salaam (Kinandoni) Kongwa (Dodoma) Musoma (Mara) Lindi (Lindi) Rungwe (Mbeya) Total Comments Focus Group Discussions FGD1- Recipients of legal assistance 1 - 1 1 1 1 5 Excl. pilot: 12 FGDs total (10 with F and 2 with M); ~120 participants (F=120, M=20), assuming: ~10 per FGD Incl. pilot: 16 FGDs total (13 with F and 3 with M); ~160 participants (F=130, M=30) FGD2a-Community awareness - Men 1 - 1 - - 1 3 FGD2b-Community awareness - Women 1 - 1 - - 1 3 FGD3- Recipients of GBV services 1 - 1 1 1 1 5 Key Informant Interviews GBV services staff 1 - 2 2 2 2 9 Excl. pilot: 29-33 KIIs total; 20 in catchment areas Incl. pilot: 32-36 KIIs total; 23 in catchment areas Legal Clinic staff (trained) 1 - 2 2 2 2 9 Community leader 1 - 1 1 1 1 5 Government agency leaders - 3-5 - - - - 3-5 WiLDAF Board of Directors - 3-5 - - - - 3-5 USAID staff in Dar Salaam - - - - - - 3 Web-based survey Web-based survey for all WiLDAF￾Tanzania members Census of current and previously supported members (including the 6 sites above) Population is roughly 150 members across years Includes skip logic to tailor questions for each service provider (e.g., sub-section for training of legal assistance providers) Note: The site in red font, Ilala in Dar Salaam, is the location selected to pilot the instruments. Pilot data will be included in the analysis unless there are data quality issue or significant changes need to be made to instruments 82 The team plans to select FGD participants at random to avoid introducing bias. Participants of FGDs targeting beneficiaries of GBV or legal aid activities will be randomly selected from lists provided by each project site. Similarly, participants of FGDs targeting community members will ideally be selected randomly from lists of participants in sensitization workshops and 16 Days of Activism against Gender Based Violence provided by each project site. However, if this option is found to be infeasible, a broad invite will be sent with assistance from community leaders/IP staff for community participation. Upon FGD participants arrival, the team will randomize the selection of 10-15 participants for each male/female community awareness FGD. If turn out is greater than the 20-30 people required per site, the remaining prospective participants not selected will be thanked for their participation and a brown bag lunch will still be provided to them. If this approach is also found to be impractical or infeasible, the team will rely on random walk to select participants for the community awareness FGDs. Figure 3: Evaluation Design Evaluation Questions Data Sources (*) Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods 1. How has the provision of legal services affected marginalized communities’ understanding of their rights? a. To what extent did women, in particular, benefit from these services? Documents (including: performance monitoring data, progress reports, previous evaluations, etc.), national statistics, and third party surveys, project staff, stakeholders, expert knowledge, beneficiaries etc. - Desk review - Review of monitoring data - Key informant interviews with legal aid providers and clinic staff/program staff/local government leaders - Focus group discussions in 4 sites with recipients of legal assistance(FGD1) -Email survey￾network members -Systematic review and analysis of performance monitoring data, third party surveys, and national statistics, gender-sensitive focus -Analysis of targeted project outcomes -Verification of project reporting -Grounded coding and recurrence analysis of themes in FGDs and KIIs -Perceptions and feedback from KII and FGDs -Tabular analysis of survey with disaggregation by gender, age, site, location (district, region), etc.… -Synthesis and triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data 2. How did WiLDAF enhance community knowledge and attitudes toward women’s rights, gender equality, and empowerment? Community leaders (religious or political), community members, project staff/beneficiaries & documented success stories - Key informant interviews with community leaders - Focus group discussions on gender awareness with male and female community members (FGD2) -Grounded coding and recurrence analysis of themes in FGDs and KIIs -Perceptions and feedback from KII and FGDs -Synthesis and triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data 3. How have WiLDAF and its network supported an enabling environment which promotes gender equality? Documents (including: performance monitoring data, progress reports, previous evaluations, etc.) Key network decision￾makers - Desk review - Key informant interviews - FGDs 1 and 2 -Email survey￾network members -Grounded coding and recurrence analysis of themes in FGDs and KIIs -Tabular analysis of survey with disaggregation by gender, age, site, location (district, region), etc.… -Synthesis and triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data 83 Evaluation Questions Data Sources (*) Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods 4. What legal and political improvements did WiLDAF and its network achieve and sustain? What has happened to those improvements to date? Documents (including: reform proposal drafts by WiLDAF and partners, bills, policies and legislations etc.) Key network decision￾makers/members - Desk review-project legal and policy documents - Key informant interviews with WiLDAF partners and secondary beneficiaries such as government agency leaders -Email survey￾network members -Systematic review and analysis of performance monitoring data, third party surveys, and national statistics, gender-sensitive focus -Grounded coding and recurrence analysis of themes in KIIs -Tabular analysis of survey with disaggregation by gender, age, site, location (district, region), etc.… -Synthesis and triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data 5. How and to what extent did WiLDAF’s legal actions and sensitization approaches influence occurrences of and legal actions related to gender-based violence? Documents (including: reform proposal drafts by WiLDAF and partners, bills, policies and legislations etc.) Key network decision￾makers/members - Desk review - Key informant interviews with WiLDAF decisionmakers/legal clinic staff - Focus group discussions 1 and 2 -Systematic review of program documents and past reporting -Grounded coding and recurrence analysis of themes in FGDs and KIIs -Tabular analysis of survey with disaggregation by gender, age, site, location (district, region), etc.… -Synthesis and triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data 6. How are the networks organized and used? a. How effective is the organizational structure of WiLDAF and its network of partners? Documents (including: reform proposal drafts by WiLDAF and partners, bills, policies and legislations etc.) Key network decision￾makers/members - Desk review - Key informant interviews with WiLDAF decision makers -Email survey￾network members -Systematic review and analysis of documents -Grounded coding and recurrence analysis of themes in KIIs -Tabular analysis of survey with disaggregation by gender, age, site, location (district, region), etc.… -Synthesis and triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data 7. What chellenges, if any, are there affecting project goal attainment? Documents (including: reform proposal drafts by WiLDAF and partners, bills, policies and legislations etc.) Key network decision￾makers/members - Desk review - Key informant interviews with WiLDAF decision makers -Email survey￾network members -Systematic review and analysis of documents -Grounded coding and recurrence analysis of themes in KIIs - Tabular analysis of survey 84 Required Mission and IP Inputs The evaluation team will need an accurate list with contact information (name, title, institutional affiliation, telephone number, e-mail, physical address, and gender) for technical and leadership staff within WiLDAF and partner organizations. This list will be used to develop a contact list for the survey and to identify whom the team should organize KIIs with. In addition, each site in which a site visit will be held will also need to provide a list of community leaders and beneficiaries of legal aid and GBV services within the last 5 years. These lists will be used to develop a final sampling frame from which the focus group participants and community leader KII participants will be randomly picked. The evaluation team will also need USAID and WiLDAF assistance to encourage participation in data collection efforts, to help increase response rates so that the evaluation team has as complete information as possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the project. This includes outreach efforts for participation in FGDs, KIIs and the WiLDAF member survey. An introduction letter from USAID will be needed to encourage participation with these logistics for FGDs and to ensure IP participation in KIIs. Furthermore, additional documentation will be requested by the team to complete the checklist of documents for review mentioned in the scope of work. A working Microsoft Excel checklist of all documents received to date has been compiled with notation on missing or partial documentation. The team will continuously update this checklist based on documents received. Mission and IP will be regularly asked to participate in meeting with the team, meeting weekly in the design and scoping phase and updated on key deliverables. Quick review and turn around in providing feedback on intermediate deliverables will help the team meet its tight timeline for completion by January 26. Questions for the Mission and IP on approach The team will need verification on all interventions in the 8 project sites to make a final determination on the sites selected for qualitative data collection from communities and project stakeholders from the awareness and legal assistance activities. Based on this information and buy-in from partners and USAID, a final determination of the sites selected for FGDs and KIIs data collection will be conducted. In addition, any suggestions on project stakeholders with knowledge about policy and legal development shaped by WiLDAF that may be relevant for inclusion in KIIs would be welcome. The project team may seek additional detail on WiLDAF activities. What are the specific legal assistance services/activities provided at clinics or otherwise? What are the specific types of awareness activities, communications campaigns and trainings conducted in communities? What stakeholders are involved? Identification of additional project documents that provide further details would be useful. The team would also like further elaboration on how USAID and WiLDAF plan to use the evaluation, its findings, and its lessons learned. Identifying key users and uses will help the team formulate findings and recommendations that are most relevant to these groups and purposes and devise a stronger dissemination plan. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS It’s important to identify here some limitations inherent to the design of this evaluation:  Data availability and data quality: While the implementer and evaluation team will collect and generate primary data, some administrative data that will inform the evaluation may be difficult to obtain or be of questionable quality.  Selection bias: As some key informants may decline to be interviewed, there is a possibility of selection bias, i.e. those respondents who choose to be interviewed might differ from those who do not in terms of their attitudes and perceptions, affiliation with government/non-government structures, and socio-demographic characteristics and experience. In addition, the purposive nature of the site selection process introduces additional selection bias.  Recall bias: Since a number of questions raised during the interviews will address issues that took place in the past, recall bias may affect the responses provided.  Halo bias: There is a known tendency among respondents to under-report socially undesirable answers and alter their responses to approximate what they perceive as the social norm (halo bias). The extent to which 85 respondents will be prepared to reveal their true opinions may also vary for some questions that call upon the respondents to assess the attitudes and perceptions of their colleagues or people on whom they depend upon for the provision of services. To mitigate this limitation, the Evaluation Team will outline confidentiality and anonymity guarantees to all who participate in KII, FGD, and email survey to WiLDAF members. The Evaluation Team will also conduct the interviews in as neutral a setting as possible where respondents feel comfortable. The community awareness FGDs that target both men and women will also be conducted separately for each gender. EVALUATION TIMELINE AND DELIVERABLES The Evaluation Team’s anticipated work schedule for the evaluation of WiLDAF is provided below. D4D will have weekly meetings with the evaluation team for the duration of the work, supervising and managing the process and ensuring smooth progress of the evaluation. The schedule is designed to provide USAID with preliminary findings at the end of fieldwork in mid-December, and a first draft of the evaluation in early January. The evaluation is anticipated to be complete by the end of January. Figure 4: Timeline and Deliverables Timing (Anticipated Dates) Proposed Activities (SOW) Oct.1 – Oct.19, 2017 Preparation of the work plan and evaluation design Oct.12 – Oct.26, 2017 USAID review of the work plan and evaluation design Oct.26 – Nov 2, 2017 Preparation and submission of final work plan and evaluation design By Oct. 31, 2017 COR and CO approval of all members of the team Oct.27 – Nov. 22, 2017 IRB approvals, piloting, Kiswahili translation and finalization of instruments, and preparations for data collection Nov. 26 – Nov. 27, 2017 STTA travel and in-brief preparation Nov. 28, 2017 Team mobilization/in-briefing Nov. 28 – Dec. 10, 2017 Data collection Dec. 11, 2017 Participatory findings, conclusions and recommendations workshop and STTA travel Nov. 28 – Dec. 20, 2017 Data analysis (with concurrent work on analysis during the collection period) Dec. 20, 2017 – Jan. 8, 2018 Report writing Jan. 8 – Jan. 15, 2018 USAID review of draft report Jan. 15 – Jan. 26, 2018 Incorporate USAID comments and submit final report Note: Given the short overall timeline, this schedule is predicated on timely approval of USAID/Tanzania for the evaluation team proposed in this document, as well as the timely feedback by USAID/Tanzania of deliverables including the instruments and the draft evaluation report. PROPOSED STAFFING D4D has selected an exceptionally qualified team to conduct the final performance evaluation of WiLDAF-Tanzania. The team is composed of 4 expat team members (including 2 researchers and 2 support staff) as well as 3 D4D local staff who will expedite and support the evaluation during all phases of instrument development, data collection and analysis and report writing. The team includes a Team Leader (Sue Totten), Evaluation Specialist (Alexandre Monnard) and a Research Assistant (Samantha Downy- HQs based) who will assist with programing the web-based survey, the qualitative analysis and document review. D4D staff, including Shakila Maymana (Gender Specialist), Aimtonga Amani Gender Specialist, and Essau Amenye M&E Specialist, will also provide technical support in evaluation, gender expertise, and will conduct the majority of the data collection. Evaluation Advisor, Jacob Laden will serve as a technical lead, providing the evaluation design, and providing coordination and management support. D4D staff will support all logistics and data-collection efforts in the 5 project sites and support the team in overall design, facilitating client and IP communication, designing the quantitative survey, sampling, and conducting the data analysis to be used in the team’s evaluation report. D4D will also facilitate review of interim findings, draft and final reports. 86 Team members include: STTA • Team Lead-Expat STTA: Legal/Gender Expert, Susan Tatten • Evaluation Specialist STTA, Alexandre Monnard D4D/LTTA • Local D4D Gender Specialist/FGD facilitator (women), Shakila Mayumana • Local D4D Gender Specialist/FGD facilitator (women), Aimtonga Amani • D4D Local Evaluation Specialist/FGD facilitator (men), Essau Amenye • Evaluation Advisor/Senior Research Scientist LTTA, Jacob Laden In addition, NORC HQ will provide operational and technical support, as well as editing and branding on final deliverables. • Data analyst and web-based survey programming, Samantha Downey The following is a detail of the level of effort (LOE) for the expanded 7 member team including 2 designated expat STTAs and 4 D4D core staff. Total LOE comes to 148 total days, matching the estimated LOE in the SOW. Figure 5: Detail of Estimated LOE per Team Member Task Team Lead & Legal & Gender Expert (Sue Tatten) Evaluation Specialist (Alex Monnard) Evaluation Advisor & Senior Research Scientist (Jacob Laden) RA/Survey support (Samantha Downey) Local Gender & M&E Specialist (Aimtonga Amani) Local Gender & GBV Specialist (Shakila Mayumana) M&E Specialist (Essau Amenye) Total LOE (days) Document review/desk review/work planning (evaluation design remote or in-country) 2 days 2 days 1 day 1 days 2 days 2 days 2 days 14 Preparations for travel and organizing data collection (contracting translators, vehicles, etc.). 1 day 1 day 0 days 0 days 1 day 1 day 1 day 7 In-brief, Evaluation Design (including meetings with USAID) 1 day 1 day 1 days 0 days 1 day 1 day 1 day 6 Preparations for data collection (scheduling) 1 day 1 day 1 day 0 days 1 day 1 day 1 day 6 Data collection days by method by site 9 days 9 days 2 days 2 days 12 days 12 days 12 days 52 Data analysis 5 days 5 days 0 days 4 days 4 days 4 days 4 days 28 Briefing 1 day 1 day 1 day 0 days 1 day 1 day 1 day 6 87 Task Team Lead & Legal & Gender Expert (Sue Tatten) Evaluation Specialist (Alex Monnard) Evaluation Advisor & Senior Research Scientist (Jacob Laden) RA/Survey support (Samantha Downey) Local Gender & M&E Specialist (Aimtonga Amani) Local Gender & GBV Specialist (Shakila Mayumana) M&E Specialist (Essau Amenye) Total LOE (days) Draft report and debrief to USAID 6 days 6 days 2 days 2 days 1 day 1 day 1 day 19 Final report after USAID comments 4 days 4 days 2 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 10 Totals 30 days 30 days 10 days 9 days 23 days 23 days 23 days 148 88 ANNEX 3: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS A3.1 Focus Group Discussion Guide – Clients of Legal Services Introduction and Consent To start the interview, please read the following script: Hello and thank you for agreeing to speak with us. My name is (interviewer name) and this is my colleague . We work with the Data for Development activity, a USAID funded platform that seeks to improve the quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania. We are undertaking an evaluation to assess the results achieved by the project Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence. This project aims to increase access to justice and to combat gender-based violence by increasing awareness of legal and human rights, supporting model legal aid clinics and paralegal units, and advocating for greater protection of the rights of women. The project and the evaluation are funded by USAID. In the context of this evaluation, we would like to discuss your various experiences with the legal aid provided by WiLDAF or one of its partner organizations operating in your community. This discussion will last approximately an hour and a half. Your participation in this focus group is entirely voluntary and you can choose not to answer a question or leave the focus group interview at any moment without providing a reason. Doing so will not affect the services that you or your community receive from USAID, WiLDAF, or its partners. Your perspective is very important to help USAID improve its programs to support legal and human rights in Tanzania and better address your community’s needs. The information we will be collecting through this focus group discussion will be kept safe by our team. Your responses will be kept anonymous and your identity will be kept confidential, and will not be shared outside of the evaluation team. Other information that could identify you (e.g., community, district) will be excluded from reports and other documents produced by our team and shared with USAID. If you have any questions you may ask them now or later, even after the survey has started. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact Essau Amenye, e-mail: eamenye@engl.com, phone: 075-5979598. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), which is a committee whose task it is to make sure that research participants are protected from harm. If you wish to find about more about NIMR, contact MRCC Chair Person, phone: 022-2121400, e-mail: hq@nimr.or.tz. Do you agree to participate in this discussion today? Yes No Interview Datasheet Site name Region and district Ward and village # of participants: Facilitator Note taker Date FGD start time FGD end time Recording file name Instructions: This page should be printed and focus group participants should be asked to make a mark (a horizontal line) next to the entry that applies to them in each category below when they enter the room or space where the focus group is held. No names should be requested or written. 89 Participant Characteristics # of participants by age: <15 16-25 26-50 51+ # of participants by education level completed: None Primary Secondary Tertiary # of participants by employment status: Employed Self-employed Home-maker Unemployed # of participants by marital status: Single Married Widowed Divorced 90 Introductory questions 1) What is the name of the legal clinic or paralegal unit that offers services in your community? 2) How did you find out about the legal clinic or paralegal unit? 3) What kind of legal support or other services and benefits do people in your community receive from the legal clinic or paralegal unit? 4) What services did you personally receive from the legal clinic or paralegal unit? a) Was it easy (e.g., travel time/distance, cost, wait time and ability to make appointments) to access their services? Legal Services and Understanding of Rights Now we’re going to ask about any assistance you may have received from the legal clinic. 5) In what ways did the legal clinic or paralegal unit help you understand your rights and options with respect to your situation/case? 6) How did the legal clinic or paralegal unit address your situation or case? a) Was your case resolved or settled outside of court, or did it go to court? 7) Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the outcome of your case? Please explain. a) How long did it take for your case to be resolved? 8) How do you think the legal clinic or paralegal unit could better assist you and your community? Legal and Political Improvements 9) Overall, has the legal clinic or paralegal unit contributed to any significant changes for you and/or your family? a) [F] Why or why not? 10) Over the last 3 years have there been any political or legal change(s) that have affected women in your community? If so, what are they? a) [F-YES] Were these changes specific to your community, your district, or the entire country? 91 b) [F-YES] What has contributed to these changes? To your knowledge has the legal clinic or paralegal unit played a role in bringing these changes? If yes, what have they done? Influences on Occurrences of & Legal Actions Related to Gender-based Violence 11) Have legal actions taken by the WiLDAF legal clinics or paralegal units in your area improved the safety and security of women in the community? a) [F-YES] Can you share some examples without disclosing any names or personal details? b) [F-NO] Why do you think safety and security of women in the community hasn’t improved? What still needs to change? Closing question 12) Is there any additional comment you would like to make? 92 A3.2 Focus Group Discussion Guide – Perception of GBV Introduction and Consent To start the interview, please read the following script: Hello and thank you for agreeing to speak with us. My name is (interviewer name) and this is my colleague . We work with the Data for Development activity, a USAID funded platform that seeks to improve the quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania. We are undertaking an evaluation to assess the results achieved by the project Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence. Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender - Based Violence aims to increase access to justice and to combat gender-based violence by increasing awareness of legal and human rights, supporting model legal aid clinics and paralegal units, and advocating for greater protection of the rights of women. The project and the evaluation are funded by USAID. In the context of this evaluation, we would like to discuss how you perceive gender-based violence and how it affects your community. This discussion will last approximately an hour and a half. Your participation in this focus group is entirely voluntary and you can choose not to answer a question or leave the focus group interview at any moment without providing a reason. Doing so will not affect the services that you or your community receive from USAID, WiLDAF, or its partners. Your perspective is very important to help USAID improve its programs to support legal and human rights in Tanzania and better address your community’s needs. The information we will be collecting through this focus group discussion will be kept safe by our team. Your responses will be kept anonymous and your identity will be kept confidential, and will not be shared outside of the evaluation team. Other information that could identify you (e.g., community, district) will be excluded from reports and other documents produced by our team and shared with USAID. If you have any questions you may ask them now or later, even after the survey has started. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact Essau Amenye, e-mail: eamenye@engl.com, phone: 075-5979598. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), which is a committee whose task it is to make sure that research participants are protected from harm. If you wish to find about more about NIMR, contact MRCC Chair Person, phone: 022-2121400, e-mail: hq@nimr.or.tz. Do you agree to participate in this discussion today? Yes No Interview Datasheet Site name Region and district Ward and village # of participants: Female ( ); Male ( ) Facilitator Note taker Date FGD start time FGD end time Recording file name Instructions: This page should be printed and focus group participants should be asked to make a mark (a horizontal line) next to the entry that applies to them in each category below when they enter the room or space where the focus group is held. No names should be requested or written. 93 Participant Characteristics # of participants by age: <15 16-25 26-50 51+ # of participants by education level completed: None Primary Secondary Tertiary # of participants by employment status: Employed Self-employed Home-maker Unemployed # of participants by marital status: Single Married Widowed Divorced 94 Introductory question 1) What is gender-based violence and how did you learn about it? a) [F] Has your understanding of gender-based violence changed since your engagement with WiLDAF? 2) Are you aware of any gender-based violence services offered in your community? a) [F-YES] What types of services are available? b) [F-YES] Who is offering these services? c) [F-YES] Are women able to easily access their services (e.g., travel time/distance, cost, wait time and ability to make appointments, privacy)? d) [F-YES] Have you witnessed any challenges in accessing gender-based violence services? If so, which ones? GBV prevalence 3) How common are instances of gender-based violence in your community? (scale=not common, somewhat common, common, very common, unknown) a) [F] What type(s) of gender-based violence incidents are prevalent in your community? b) [F] Have you had conversations with members of your community about gender-based violence? What did you discuss? c) [F] How has gender-based violence affected your community? Perception of GBV services 4) Has your community benefitted from awareness campaigns about gender-based violence? a) [F-YES] In what ways? b) [F-YES] Who or what organization(s) led these campaigns? 5) How has your community benefitted from the availability of legal services and support for GBV? 6) To what extent do you think the legal and incident reporting services administered by WiLDAF or its partner organizations are accessible to all members of your community? 95 a) [F] Are members of your community confident or not confident about these services? b) [F] Do members of your community believe that they are better protected because of the engagement of WiLDAF in their community? c) [F] Do members of your community trust that their information will be kept private if they do report incidents of GBV? If no, why not? Challenges and areas for improvement 7) What challenges or barriers have community members faced in reporting gender-based violence incidents? a) [F] Have these challenges or barriers changed over time? b) [F] How can WiLDAF or its partner organizations operating in your community better support or inform those who choose to report GBV? 8) What challenges or barriers exist in your community for people who want to support those who have experienced GBV? a) [F] Have these challenges or barriers changed over time? b) [F] How can WiLDAF or its partner organizations operating in your community better support or inform those who wish to provide support for individuals who have experienced GBV? Closing question 9) Is there any additional comment you would like to make? Perception activity Now we are going to transition to an activity that is going to be completely silent and we will have our eyes closed. I am going to read a statement out loud, then I will read three responses: agree, disagree, and I don’t know with a pause between them. Raise your hand when you hear the response that reflects your view. There is no right or wrong answer. Please do not comment on any of the statements. 1. “Women and girls can prevent sexual assault by watching where they go.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 2. “A woman should not report GBV if it will shame her family or a prominent member of the community.” Count of “agree”: 96 Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 3. “It is okay to hit a woman when she is being stubborn.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 4. “It is safe for women and girls to walk alone in my neighborhood.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 97 A3.3 Focus Group Discussion Guide – Community Awareness (Women) Introduction and Consent To start the interview, please read the following script: Hello and thank you for agreeing to speak with us. My name is (interviewer name) and this is my colleague . We work with the Data for Development activity, a USAID funded platform that seeks to improve the quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania and is undertaking an evaluation to assess the results achieved by the project Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence. This project aims to increase access to justice and to combat gender-based violence by increasing awareness of legal and human rights, supporting model legal aid clinics and paralegal units, and advocating for greater protection of the rights of women. The project and the evaluation are funded by USAID. In the context of this evaluation, we would like to discuss women’s rights and how they have evolved and are understood in your community. This discussion will last approximately an hour and a half. Your participation in this focus group is entirely voluntary and you can choose not to answer a question, or leave the focus group interview at any moment without providing a reason. Doing so will not affect the services that you or your community receive from USAID, WiLDAF, or its partners. Your perspective is very important to help USAID improve its programs to support legal and human rights in Tanzania and better address your community’s needs. The information we will be collecting through this focus group discussion will be kept safe by our team. Your responses will be kept anonymous and your identity will be kept confidential, and will not be shared outside of the evaluation team. Other information that could identify you (e.g., community, district) will be excluded from reports and other documents produced by our team and shared with USAID. If you have any questions you may ask them now or later, even after the survey has started. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact Essau Amenye, e-mail: eamenye@engl.com, phone: 075-5979598. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), which is a committee whose task it is to make sure that research participants are protected from harm. If you wish to find about more about NIMR, contact MRCC Chair Person, phone: 022-2121400, e-mail: hq@nimr.or.tz. Do you agree to participate in this discussion today? Yes No Interview Datasheet Site name Region and district Ward and village # of participants: Facilitator Note taker Date FGD start time FGD end time Recording file name Instructions: This page should be printed and focus group participants should be asked to make a mark (a horizontal line) next to the entry that applies to them in each category below when they enter the room or space where the focus group is held. No names should be requested or written. 98 Participant Characteristics # of participants by age: <15 16-25 26-50 51+ # of participants by education level completed: None Primary Secondary Tertiary # of participants by employment status: Employed Self-employed Home-maker Unemployed # of participants by marital status: Single Married Widowed Divorced 99 Introductory question 1) What does ‘women’s rights’ mean to you? a) [F] Can you list some of these rights? Public Dialogues on Women’s Rights Issues 2) For years, WiLDAF and its partners have been organizing a variety of community dialogues, discussion forums, and community awareness campaigns on women’s rights such as the 16 days of activism (typically held in November and December). Do you recall participating in any of these activities? a) [F-YES] Do you remember which organization held these activities? b) [F-YES] How did you become aware of the community dialogues and community awareness campaigns? Why did you choose to participate? Did anyone encourage or discourage you from participating? c) [F-YES] Did you feel that these events were well-attended by members of your community? Which groups of your community were present? (probe: range of ages, presence/absence of men, presence/absence of community leaders) d) [F-YES] What aspects of women’s rights were discussed? How were the discussions received by the various groups in attendance? e) [F-YES] Did you feel that those who wanted to speak had a fair opportunity to do so? f) [F-YES] To what extent did the community dialogues and community awareness campaigns enhance your knowledge of women’s rights? Can you give some examples? g) [F-YES] What was your overall impression of the community dialogues and community awareness campaigns? Did you feel it was a productive conversation? What did you learn? Did you attend another dialogue, or encourage others to attend? h) [F-NO] Why did you choose not to participate? i) [F-NO] Did you hear about the community dialogues and community awareness campaigns from other members of the community? Mass Media Campaigns on Women’s Rights and GBV Prevention 3) For years, WiLDAF and its partners have been organizing a variety of media campaigns about women’s rights on TV, radio or social media. Do you recall seeing or hearing any ads or messages like these? 100 a) [F-YES] Do you remember which organization sponsored these messages? b) [F-YES] What were the messages about? Are there any messages that were more memorable for you than others? c) [F-YES] What was your reaction the first time you heard one of these messages? How about the reaction of others around you? d) [F-YES] To what extent have the messages enhanced your knowledge of women’s rights? Do you feel more equipped to act on this knowledge, if needed? Have you acted on any of your new knowledge? (Reporting, legal services, etc.) e) [F-YES] To what extent have the messages made you more willing to speak in support of women’s rights? Are some issues more acceptable to speak about than others? f) [F-NO] Have you heard anything about the media campaigns about women’s rights from other members of the community? If so, what? General perception and awareness 4) Is there sufficient knowledge about women’s rights in your community? 5) If needed, would you be comfortable seeking legal assistance? Please explain. If no, why not? 6) Would you be willing to report cases of violation against women and children you might witness in your community? Please explain. If no, why not? 7) After the awareness initiatives, has the way you advocate for yourself within your home and your community changed? If so, how? 8) To what extent are the men in your community more sensitive to women’s rights? Have you seen any changes in the way they treat women and girls? 9) Do you feel comfortable discussing women’s rights with people who have not been exposed to awareness initiatives? Why or why not? Are there certain concepts that are easier for you to discuss than others? 10) What are your views regarding gender-based violence in your community? Are your views today different from what they use to be before? Please explain. 11) Are you aware of gender-based violence in your community? Do you think gender-based violence incidents have been increasing or decreasing over time? What is the reason for this change? 101 Closing question 12) Is there any additional comment you would like to make? Perception activity Now we are going to transition to an activity that is going to be completely silent and we will have our eyes closed. I am going to read a statement out loud, then I will read three responses: agree, disagree, and I don’t know with a pause between them. Raise your hand when you hear the response that reflects your view. There is no right or wrong answer. Please do not comment on any of the statements. 1. “It is better for a woman not to report GBV so that she can keep the family together.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 2. “Men should make the final decisions about family matters like health, education, and money because traditionally, men are leaders of the family.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 3. “It is safe for women and girls to walk alone in my neighborhood during the day.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 4. “It is safe for women and girls to walk alone in my neighborhood at night.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 102 A3.4 Focus Group Discussion Guide – Community Awareness (Men) Introduction and Consent To start the interview, please read the following script: Hello and thank you for agreeing to speak with us. My name is (interviewer name) and this is my colleague . We work with the Data for Development Activity, a USAID funded platform that seeks to improve the quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania and is undertaking an evaluation to assess the results achieved by the project Rule of Law and Access to Justice: Integrating Gender Based Violence, implemented by Women in Law and Development in Africa-Tanzania (WiLDAF). This project aims to increase access to justice and to combat gender-based violence by increasing awareness of legal and human rights, supporting model legal aid clinics and paralegal units, and advocating for greater protection of the rights of women. The project and the evaluation are funded by USAID. In the context of this evaluation, we would like to discuss women’s rights and how they have evolved and are understood in your community. This discussion will last approximately an hour and a half. Your participation in this focus group is entirely voluntary and you can choose not to answer a question, or leave the focus group interview at any moment without providing a reason. Doing so will not affect the services that you or your community receive from USAID, WiLDAF, or its partners. Your perspective is very important to help USAID improve its programs to support legal and human rights in Tanzania and better address your community’s needs. The information we will be collecting through this focus group discussion will be kept safe by our team. Your responses will be kept anonymous and your identity will be kept confidential, and will not be shared outside of the evaluation team. Other information that could identify you (e.g., community, district) will be excluded from reports and other documents produced by our team and shared with USAID. If you have any questions you may ask them now or later, even after the survey has started. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact Essau Amenye, e-mail: eamenye@engl.com, phone: 075-5979598. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), which is a committee whose task it is to make sure that research participants are protected from harm. If you wish to find about more about NIMR, contact MRCC Chair Person, phone: 022-2121400, e-mail: hq@nimr.or.tz. Do you agree to participate in this discussion today? Yes No Interview Datasheet Site name Region and district Ward and village # of participants: Facilitator Note taker Date FGD start time FGD end time Recording file name Instructions: This page should be printed and focus group participants should be asked to make a mark (a horizontal line) next to the entry that applies to them in each category below when they enter the room or space where the focus group is held. No names should be requested or written. 103 Participant Characteristics # of participants by age: <15 16-25 26-50 51+ # of participants by education level completed: None Primary Secondary Tertiary # of participants by employment status: Employed Self-employed Home-maker Unemployed # of participants by marital status: Single Married Widowed Divorced 104 Introductory question 1) What does ‘women’s rights’ mean to you? a) [F] Can you list some of these rights? Public Dialogues on Women’s Rights Issues 2) For years, WiLDAF and its members have been organizing a variety of community dialogues, discussion forums, and community awareness campaigns on women’s rights such as the 16 days of activism (typically held in November and December). Do you recall participating in any of these activities? a) [F-YES] Do you remember which organization held these activities? b) [F-YES] How did you become aware of these community dialogues and community awareness campaigns? Why did you choose to participate? Did anyone encourage or discourage you from participating? c) [F-YES] Did you feel that these events were well-attended by members of your community? Which groups of your community were present? (probe: range of ages, presence/absence of men, presence/absence of community leaders) d) [F-YES] What aspects of women’s rights were discussed? How were the discussions received by the various groups in attendance? e) [F-YES] Did you feel that those who wanted to speak had a fair opportunity to do so? f) [F-YES] To what extent did the community dialogues and community awareness campaigns enhance your knowledge of women’s rights? Can you give some examples? g) [F-YES] What was your overall impression of the community dialogues and community awareness campaigns? Did you feel it was a productive conversation? What did you learn? Did you attend another dialogue, or encourage others to attend? h) [F-NO] Why did you choose not to participate? i) [F-NO] Did you hear about the community dialogues and community awareness campaigns from other members of the community? 105 Mass Media Campaigns on Women’s Rights and GBV Prevention 3) For years, WiLDAF and its partners have been organizing a variety of media campaigns about women’s rights on TV, radio or social media. Do you recall seeing or hearing any ads or messages like these? a) [F-YES] Do you know which organization sponsored these messages? b) [F-YES] What were the messages about? Are there any messages that were more memorable for you than others? c) [F-YES] What was your reaction the first time you heard one of these messages? How about the reaction of others around you? d) [F-YES] To what extent have these messages enhanced your knowledge of women’s rights? Do you feel more equipped to act on this knowledge, if needed? Have you acted on any of your new knowledge? (Reporting, legal services, etc.) e) [F-YES] To what extent have the messages made you more willing to speak in support of women’s rights? Are some issues more acceptable to speak about than others? f) [F-NO] Have you heard anything about the media campaigns about women’s rights from other members of the community? If so, what? General perception and awareness 4) Is there sufficient knowledge about women’s rights in your community? 5) If needed, would you be you comfortable seeking legal assistance for you or your family? Please explain. If no, why not? 6) Would you be willing to report cases of violation against women and children you might witness in your community? Please explain. If no, why not? 7) After the awareness initiatives, has your understanding of women’s rights changed? Has your understanding changed the way you treat women and children? If so, how? 8) Do you feel comfortable discussing women’s rights with people who have not been exposed to awareness initiatives? Why or why not? Are there certain concepts that are easier for you to discuss than others? 9) What are your views regarding GBV in your community? Are your views today different from what they use to be before? Please explain. 106 10) Are you aware of GBV incidents in your community? Do you think GBV incidents have been increasing or decreasing over time? What is the reason for this change? Closing question 11) Is there any additional comment you would like to make? Perception activity Now we are going to transition to an activity that is going to be completely silent and we will have our eyes closed. I am going to read a statement out loud, then I will read three responses: agree, disagree, and I don’t know with a pause between them. Raise your hand when you hear the response that reflects your view. There is no right or wrong answer. Please do not comment on any of the statements. 1. “It is better for a woman not to report GBV so that she can keep the family together.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 2. “Men should make the final decisions about family matters like health, education, and money because traditionally, men are leaders of the family.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 3. “It is safe for women and girls to walk alone in my neighborhood during the day.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 4. “It is safe for women and girls to walk alone in my neighborhood at night.” Count of “agree”: Count of “disagree”: Count of “I don’t know”: 107 A3.5 Key Informant Interview Guide – Legal Assistance Providers Introduction and Consent To start the interview, please read the following script: Hello and thank you for agreeing to speak with us. My name is (interviewer name) and this is my colleague . We work with the Data for Development activity, a USAID funded platform that seeks to improve the quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania. We are undertaking an evaluation to assess the results achieved by the project Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence. WiLDAF aims to increase access to justice and to combat gender-based violence by increasing awareness of legal and human rights, supporting model legal aid clinics and paralegal units, and advocating for greater protection of the rights of women. The project and the evaluation are funded by USAID. In the context of this evaluation, we would like to interview you about the implementation and the results of WiLDAF’s work in your community. This discussion will last approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and you can choose not to answer a question and skip it, or stop the interview at any moment without providing a reason. Doing so will not affect the services that you, your organization, or your community receives from USAID or WiLDAF. Your perspective is very important to help USAID improve its programs to support legal and humans rights in Tanzania and better address your community’s needs. The information we will be collecting through this interview will be kept safe by our team. Your responses will be kept anonymous and not linked to your name – each person interviewed will be given a unique identification number. Your identity will be kept confidential and will not be shared outside of the evaluation team. Other information that could identify you (e.g., position, community, district) will be excluded from reports and other documents produced by our team and shared with USAID. If you have any questions you may ask them now or later, even after the survey has started. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact Essau Amenye, e-mail: eamenye@engl.com, phone: 075-5979598. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), which is a committee whose task it is to make sure that research participants are protected from harm. If you wish to find about more about NIMR, contact MRCC Chair Person, phone: 022-2121400, e-mail: hq@nimr.or.tz. Do you agree to participate in this interview today? Yes No Signature: Interview Datasheet Interviewee full name Title Site name Region and district Ward and village Legal aid clinic: Y N GBV services: Y N Community awareness: Y N Interviewer Note taker Date Interview start time Interview end time 108 Introductory questions 1. Please describe briefly how your organization first became involved with WiLDAF. 2. Please describe briefly the WiLDAF-supported activities that you have implemented in your community. 3. Which marginalized groups does your clinic primarily target? 4. How do you assist marginalized community members who seek your services? 5. How do you convey to marginalized community members their legal options and knowledge about their rights? Perceived impact 6. As a result of WiLDAF-supported activities, have you observed any change in the knowledge or awareness of marginalized individuals with respect to their rights? o [F] If so, can you give a few examples? 7. Have you observed any change in understanding of the legal process among marginalized individuals you've worked with? o [F] If so, can you give a few examples? 8. In what ways have you seen your clients exercise their rights through the judicial system? o [F] What other ways do you assist clients in exercising their rights? 9. What favorable outcomes have you seen through the formal judicial system for cases your organization was involved in? What about alternative dispute resolutions or settlements outside of court? 10. What role has the legal clinic played in affecting change in the community on gender equality? Can you provide some examples? 11. Are you aware of political or legal changes that were promoted or affected by WiLDAF? o [F-YES] If so, can you name a few examples? 12. In what ways, if any, have these political or legal changes affected your clients? 109 13. In what ways, if any, have legal actions taken contributed to the reduction of gender based violence in the community? Without mentioning any names or personal information please share any examples. 14. What type of impact has the public awareness campaigning or educational programming had in decreasing occurrence or increasing reporting on GBV? Challenges 15. What challenges have you encountered in the provision of legal services? Can you provide some examples? 16. What types of cases have been most challenging? o [F] What do you think the reasons for this may be? 17. What types of cases have been most challenging in the court system with respect to gender based violence? o [F] Why do you think these types of cases were so challenging? Network structure and operations 18. In what ways has WiLDAF and its network supported your efforts to affect change in the community with regard to gender equality? 19. How do you communicate with other network members and with what frequency? In what ways and how often do you draw on the WiLDAF network for information or support? 20. Looking at the network and the way it's organized, what is most useful to you? How could WiLDAF and its network more effectively support your efforts to promote gender equality in your community? Closing question 21. Is there any additional comment you would like to make? 110 A3.6 Key Informant Interview Guide – Government Agencies (GoT) Introduction and Consent To start the interview, please read the following script: Hello and thank you for taking the time to speak with us. My name is (interviewer name) and this is my colleague . We work with the Data for Development activity, a USAID funded platform that seeks to improve the quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania. We are undertaking an evaluation to assess the results achieved by the project Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence. WiLDAF aims to increase access to justice and to combat gender-based violence by increasing awareness of legal and human rights, supporting model legal aid clinics and paralegal units, and advocating for greater protection of the rights of women. The project and the evaluation are funded by USAID. In the context of this evaluation, we would like to interview you about the implementation and the results of WiLDAF, and how the organization worked with your Ministry. This discussion will last approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and you can choose not to answer a question and skip it, or stop the interview at any moment without providing a reason. Your perspective is very important to help USAID improve its programs to support legal and human rights in Tanzania and better collaborate with your Ministry in this area in the future. The information we will be collecting through this interview will be kept safe by our team. Your identity will be kept confidential and will not be shared outside of the evaluation team or included in reports and other documents produced by our team and shared with USAID. If you have any questions you may ask them now or later, even after the survey has started. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact Essau Amenye, e-mail: eamenye@engl.com, phone: 075-5979598. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), which is a committee whose task it is to make sure that research participants are protected from harm. If you wish to find about more about NIMR, contact MRCC Chair Person, phone: 022-2121400, e-mail: hq@nimr.or.tz. Do you agree to participate in this interview today? Yes No Signature: Interview Datasheet Interviewee full name GoT Agency Title Interviewer Note taker Date Interview start time Interview end time 111 Introductory questions 1. Around which goals and activities does your Ministry and WiLDAF typically collaborate? 2. When and in what circumstances did your Ministry first become aware of WiLDAF? 3. How are WiLDAF activities aligned with your Ministry’s mission and ongoing projects and initiatives? 4. Does your Ministry provide any support (financial or in-kind) to WiLDAF or certain activites? o [F-YES] If so, what type of support and for what purposes? Perceived impact 5. What does your Ministry consider to be the most significant challenges to reduce GBV and improve the protection and resources, or services available to victims? o Do you think that WiLDAF’s approach and activities are relevant to mitigating these challenges? Why or why not? 6. What does your Ministry consider to be the most significant challenges to increasing awareness of women’s rights and promoting gender equality in Tanzania? o Do you think that WiLDAF’s approach and activities are relevant to mitigating these challenges? Why or why not? 7. Do you think that WiLDAF has been effective in enhancing community knowledge and attitudes towards women’s rights and gender equality? o [F-YES] If so, can you provide a few examples of activities implemented by WiLDAF that you thought were especially successful in this area? o [F-NO], Why not? 8. Do you think that WiLDAF has been effective in promoting legal and political improvements related to women’s rights and gender equality? o [F-YES] If so, can you provide a few examples of laws and policies promoted or shaped by WiLDAF that you thought were especially successful in this area? o [F-NO], Why not? 112 9. Do you think WiLDAF’s activities and work has translated in a change in the number of GBV occurrences? Why or why not? 10. Do you think WiLDAF’s work has translated into increased awareness and understanding of individual rights by community members of targeted regions? (matrimonial rights, property ownership, inheritance etc.) 11. Do you think WiLDAF’s activities and work has translated in greater legal protection and resources for those affected by GBV? Why or why not? Possible improvement areas 12. In general, how would you characterize the relations between your Ministry and WiLDAF? 13. How can WiLDAF work with your Ministry more effectively? 14. How can WiLDAF more effectively promote women’s rights, awareness of these rights, and gender equality? 15. What are some lessons learned or unintended consequences associated with activities undertaken by WiLDAF? If so, what are they? 16. Are WiLDAF’s objectives and strategic priorities organized in a way that enables your Ministry to easily understand the perspective and priorities of its members? 17. Is WiLDAF organized in a way that enables your Ministry to easily interact and collaborate with its members? Closing question 18. Are there any additional comments or suggestions you would like to make? 113 A3.7 Key Informant Interview Guide – WiLDAF Leadership and Board Introduction and Consent To start the interview, please read the following script: Hello and thank you for agreeing to speak with us. My name is (interviewer name) and this is my colleague . We work with the Data for Development activity, a USAID funded platform that seeks to improve the quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania. We are undertaking an evaluation to assess the results achieved by the project Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence. In the context of this evaluation, we would like to interview you about the implementation, operations and strategic choices of WiLDAF, as well as lessons learned and challenges encountered in the process. This discussion will last approximately 1 hour. If you have any questions you may ask them now or later, even after the survey has started. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact Essau Amenye, e-mail: eamenye@engl.com, phone: 075-5979598. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), which is a committee whose task it is to make sure that research participants are protected from harm. If you wish to find about more about NIMR, contact MRCC Chair Person, phone: 022-2121400, e-mail: hq@nimr.or.tz. Do you agree to participate in this interview today? Yes No Interview Datasheet Full name Title Signature Full name Title Signature Interviewer Note taker Date Interview start time Interview end time 114 Introductory questions [Determined on an ad hoc basis by the team] Network growth 1. What is the typical process used by WiLDAF to identify possibly new partner organizations to add to its network? 2. What is the typical process used by WiLDAF to identify and recruit new paralegals and lawyers? Successes and Challenges 3. In your view, what have been the most successful areas of the WiLDAF program? 4. What about the areas you believe are most in need of improvement? 5. What are the most important organizational challenges faced by WiLDAF in reaching its strategic goals? 6. What are the most important challenges associated with the Tanzanian legal, political, and institutional environment faced by WiLDAF in reaching its strategic goals? 7. What barriers to ongoing implementation have you faced in managing partner organization activities? What have you done to overcome those barriers and with what success have you done so? 8. Are you aware of any lessons learned associated with activities undertaken by WiLDAF? If so, what are they? o [F] Were there any positive unintended outcomes associated with WiLDAF activities? o [F] Were there any negative unintended consequences associated with WiLDAF activities? Possible improvement areas 9. Does your organization benchmark (compare against) itself against the WiLDAF network at large or any other gender-focused networks in the region? 10. Are there other regional legal assistance and GBV programs implemented by governmental or nongovernmental organizations that have comparable objectives? o [F-YES] How do they compare with WiLDAF’s approach and activities? 115 Future plans 11. Do you have any advice or suggestions for a future design to inform the way the WiLDAF program will be implemented in the coming years? 12. How is WiLDAF currently resourced? o What is most important for the sustainability of WiLDAF in the coming years? o What funding needs do you foresee in the coming years? What about sources of potential risk for this funding in the coming years? 13. What do you see as the next steps in the evolution of the WiLDAF program (e.g., greater geographic coverage, new activities, increased intensity in program activities in current geographic areas, etc.)? Closing question 14. Is there any additional comment you would like to make? 116 A3.8 Key Informant Interview Guide – GBV Service Providers Introduction and Consent To start the interview, please read the following script: Hello and thank you for agreeing to speak with us. My name is (interviewer name) and this is my colleague . We work with the Data for Development activity, a USAID funded platform that seeks to improve the quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania. We are undertaking an evaluation to assess the results achieved by the project Women in Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence. The project aims to increase access to justice and to combat gender-based violence by increasing awareness of legal and human rights, supporting model legal aid clinics and paralegal units, and advocating for greater protection of the rights of women. The project and the evaluation are funded by USAID. We would like to interview you about the implementation and the results of WiLDAF in your community. This discussion will last approximately 1 hour. Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and you can choose not to answer a question and skip it, or stop the interview at any moment without providing a reason. Doing so will not affect the services that you, your organization, or your community receives from USAID or WiLDAF. Your perspective is very important to help USAID improve its programs to support legal and human rights in Tanzania and better address your community’s needs. The information we will be collecting through this interview will be kept safe by our team. Your responses will be kept anonymous and not linked to your name – each person interviewed will be given a unique identification number. Your identity will be kept confidential and will not be shared outside of the evaluation team. Other information that could identify you (e.g., position, community, district) will be excluded from reports and other documents produced by our team and shared with USAID. If you have any questions you may ask them now or later, even after the survey has started. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact Essau Amenye, e-mail: eamenye@engl.com, phone: 075-5979598. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), which is a committee whose task it is to make sure that research participants are protected from harm. If you wish to find about more about NIMR, contact MRCC Chair Person, phone: 022-2121400, e-mail: hq@nimr.or.tz. Do you agree to participate in this interview today? Yes No Signature: Interview Datasheet Interviewee full name Title Site name Region and district Ward and village Sex M F Interviewer Note taker Date Interview start time Interview end time 117 Introductory questions 1. Please describe briefly the WiLDAF-supported activities that your organization has implemented in your community. 2. What marginalized groups does your clinic target? 3. How do you assist marginalized community members who seek your services? 4. How do you convey to marginalized community members their legal options and knowledge about their rights? o [F] What action have they taken based on the information you’ve conveyed? Women’s Rights 5. What types of gender-based violence issues do you commonly provide services for? (probe: sexual assault, sexual abuse, domestic violence, sexual harassment, stalking, etc.) 6. Are there referral mechanisms in place in your community? How are cases referred to you? What is the initial point of contact for a survivor? How do you follow up with those who contact you? 7. How do community members become aware of the services that are available, and how to get in touch with you? 8. What segments of the population (age, marital status, sex, income, education level) most often access your services? 9. How do you conduct education within the community about gender-based violence? What challenges have you had about sensitizing the community about gender-based violence? What gender-based violence issues are more challenging to discuss? o Who do you target for your public awareness campaigns? 10. What mechanisms do you have in place to ensure confidentiality? Have you been able to preserve confidentiality? 11. What changes have you observed in the community in the way men perceive or discuss gender-based violence? Do you see differences between men of different age, religion, ethnicity, education level, income? 12. What changes have you observed in the community in the way women perceive or discuss gender-based violence? Are there differences between older women and younger women? 118 13. What changes have you observed in the community's willingness to seek support for instances of gender-based violence? 14. What is your organization (and WiLDAF more broadly) doing to link psycho-social, medical, legal, and other services? 15. What changes have you observed in the community's willingness to support friends or family members who may be seeking support for gender-based violence? Are some family members more likely to support than others? 16. How have political and legal changes brought about by WiLDAF’s activities affected your ability to provide legal advocacy for survivors seeking legal action? How are you better equipped to walk survivors through the legal process? 17. How have political and legal changes brought about by WiLDAF's activities affected your outreach activities? 18. In what ways, if any, has the legal and reporting process changed as a result of WiLDAF's activities? o [F-YES] How has that improved organizational practices or broadened your organizational reach? 19. How have political and legal changes brought about by WiLDAF’s activities affected the frequency with which survivors pursue legal action? 20. How have political and legal changes brought about by WiLDAF’s activities affected the types of cases which survivors are willing to pursue, including legal action? 21. What types of cases have been most challenging in the court system with respect to gender based violence? What are the reasons for this? 22. What challenges has your organization had in acting on the political and legal changes brought about by WiLDAF's activities? How has your organization responded to these challenges? Organizational Structure 23. What resources do you draw upon within the WiLDAF network to support service provision? Have you been able to collaborate with other organizations within the network? How? 24. Moving forward, what types of support would you like from the WiLDAF network in making your support for survivors of gender-based violence more accessible? Closing question 25. Is there any additional comment you would like to make? 119 A3.9 Key Informant Interview Guide – Community Leaders Introduction and Consent To start the interview, please read the following script: Hello and thank you for agreeing to speak with us. My name is (interviewer name) and this is my colleague . We work with the Data for Development activity, a USAID funded platform that seeks to improve the quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania. We are undertaking an evaluation to assess the results achieved by the project Rule of Law: Access to Justice Integrating Gender -Based Violence. The project aims to increase access to justice and to combat gender-based violence by increasing awareness of legal and human rights, supporting model legal aid clinics and paralegal units, and advocating for greater protection of the rights of women. The project and the evaluation are funded by USAID. In the context of this evaluation, we would like to interview you about the implementation and the results of WiLDAF in your community. This discussion will last approximately an hour. Your participation in this interview is entirely voluntary and you can choose not to answer a question and skip it, or stop the interview at any moment without providing a reason. Doing so will not affect the services that your community receives from USAID, WiLDAF, or its partners. Your perspective is very important to help USAID improve its programs to support legal and human rights in Tanzania and better address your community’s needs. The information we will be collecting through this interview will be kept safe by our team. Your responses will be kept anonymous and not linked to your name – each person interviewed will be given a unique identification number. Your identity will be kept confidential and will not be shared outside of the evaluation team. Other information that could identify you (e.g., position, community, district) will be excluded from reports and other documents produced by our team and shared with USAID. If you have any questions you may ask them now or later, even after the survey has started. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact Essau Amenye, e-mail: eamenye@engl.com, phone: 075-5979598. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR), which is a committee whose task it is to make sure that research participants are protected from harm. If you wish to find about more about NIMR, contact MRCC Chair Person, phone: 022-2121400, e-mail: hq@nimr.or.tz. Do you agree to participate in this interview today? Yes No Signature: Interview Datasheet Interviewee full name Title Site name Region and district Ward and village Sex M F Interviewer Note taker Date Interview start time Interview end time 120 Introductory questions 1. How and when did you first become aware of WiLDAF and its activities? 2. Please describe briefly the activities that WiLDAF has implemented in your community. 3. Were you involved in organizing or providing some of the WiLDAF activities in your community? o [F-YES] If so, what role(s) did you play? Perceived impact 4. In what ways, if any, did WiLDAF activities help members of your community to become more aware and knowledgeable about their rights in areas such as inheritance, land ownership, and gender-based violence? o [F] What happened in your community as a result of increased awareness? 5. In what ways, if any, did WiLDAF activities help members of your community to become more aware and knowledgeable about women’s rights? o [F] Have they changed the way women and children are treated in your community? o [F] Which groups or populations in your community have shown the most improvement in this regard?  Why do you think that is? o [F] What about groups or populations that have shown the least improvement in this regard?  Why do you think that is? 6. Do you think that WiLDAF has been effective in promoting legal and political improvements related to women’s rights and gender equality at the national or district level? o [F-YES] If so, can you provide a few examples of laws and policies promoted or shaped by WiLDAF that affected your community in this area? o [F-YES] Are these legal and political improvements being enforced in your community? 7. Do you think WiLDAF’s activities and work has translated in a change in the number of gender-based violence incidents in your community? Why or why not? 121 8. Do you think that WiLDAF’s efforts have affected the legal protection and justice for those impacted by gender￾based violence in your community? o [F-YES] In what ways? o [F-No] Why not? 9. Do you think that WiLDAF’s efforts have affected how health workers, law enforcement, and local government coordinate in instances of gender-based violence? o [F-YES] In what ways? In what ways is the prosecution involved in these cases? o [F-YES] Can you give a few examples of how coordination has improved? How has this has been beneficial for your community? 10. What efforts, if any, has WiLDAF put in place to ensure that improvements in law and practice will last over the long term? o [F] What more could WiLDAF do to ensure that its efforts are sustained? Possible improvement areas 11. What suggestions do you have on how WiLDAF can more effectively promote women’s rights, awareness of these rights, and gender equality in your community? 12. What are the lessons learned or unintended consequences associated with activities undertaken by WiLDAF in your community? Closing question 13. Is there any additional comment you would like to make? 122 A3.10 Web-based Survey 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 ANNEX 4: ABRIDGED BIOS OF IE TEAM MEMBERS Susan Tatten, Team Lead & Legal & Gender Expert Susan Tatten is a subject matter expert in women’s rights and empowerment with more than 25 years of experience working for USAID’s Office of Democracy/Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs, the United Nations Development Programme, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the American Bar Association, and a range of USAID contractors. She served as Team Lead and Legal and Gender Expert for this evaluation. She has extensive regional experience in East Africa, including Botswana, South Sudan, Sudan, Somalia, and Kenya, and holds a JD from the University of Cincinnati, an LLM in International Law and Human Rights from American University, and a MA in International Affairs￾African Studies (with Highest Honors) from Ohio University. Alex Monnard, Evaluation Specialist Mr. Monnard is a Research Scientist with NORC and served as Evaluation Specialist for this evaluation. He has eight e of experience in the design, management, and implementation of performance and impact evaluations. Mr. Monnard has designed and managed several performance evaluations of small business, innovation, and manufacturing support services; export promotion and value-chain development; and youth entrepreneurship development projects. He is specialized in mixed methods research using quasi￾experimental approaches and possesses solid grounding in experimental methods, data collection and analysis, economic analysis, and the use of large datasets. Mr. Monnard holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from Virginia Tech and a Master in Public Policy from the College of William & Mary and Mary. Jacob Laden, Evaluation Advisor & Senior Research Scientist Mr. Laden is an evaluator and organizational development professional with over ten years of experience in supporting international agencies, private firms, non-profits and multinational organizations. He currently serves as Evaluation Advisor for USAID’s Data for Development activity in Tanzania. He is well versed in the full range of M&E tools and approaches, include quasi-experimental designs, quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, complexity aware monitoring, political economy analysis, and CLA practices. Mr. Laden has broad regional experience, having worked in East Africa and the Great Lakes Region (Tanzania, Uganda, Angola), Latin America (Colombia, Honduras), and South Asia (Pakistan and India). He holds an MA International Affairs from American University. Samantha Downey, Research Assistant/Survey Support Samantha Downey is a Research Assistant at NORC at the University of Chicago. She supports senior technical staff in implementing evaluation projects and data collection and analysis activities. Her responsibilities include conducting literature reviews, assistance in the design of survey instruments and training materials, coordination of and assistance to interviewer training activities, data quality reviews of survey data, and statistical analysis of primary and secondary data including preparation of reports, memos, and tables/graphs of findings and supporting business development. Ms. Downey has experience with impact and performance evaluations, entrepreneurship, and qualitative and quantitative data analysis. Ms. Downey holds a BA in Cultural Anthropology from the University of Pennsylvania. Aimtonga Amani, Local Gender & M&E Specialist Aimtonga Amani Makawia is the Capacity Building Manager for the Data for Development activity and served as the Local Gender and M&E Specialist in this evaluation. She has more than 17 years of experience as a social scientist in international development and specializes in program performance evaluation, gender and human rights and capacity building. Aimtonga has undertaken numerous evaluations and baseline assessments of gender and human rights programs supported by national governments and international donors in Tanzania and various African countries. Aimtonga holds a Masters of Arts in Geography and Environmental Management and Bachelor degree in Education. 132 Shakila Mayumana, Local Gender & GBV Specialist Shakila Mayumana is the Gender Specialist for the Data for Development activity and served as Local Gender and GBV Specialist for this evaluation. Ms. Mayumana has expertise in project implementation and monitoring and evaluation in the areas of gender, human rights and education for local and national government as well the private sector in East Africa. She has over 5 years of experience in international development coordinating, implementing, and conducting internal monitoring and evaluation for various donor funded projects. She is experienced in conducting qualitative data collection, including interviews and focus groups discussions and conducting training on qualitative methods. Ms. Mayumana holds a BA in Education and a Master of Public Administration. Essau Amenye, M&E Specialist Mr. Amenye has over 14 years of technical experience in performance monitoring, capacity development, project management, training and facilitation, advocacy, and gender analysis. Mr. Amenye is the Performance Monitoring Advisor for the Data for Development activity and served as M&E Specialist for this evaluation. Mr. Amenye’s has provided leadership and guidance for the development and implementation of performance monitoring systems for a variety of programs and projects. He has managed numerous large Strategic Information teams and provided technical assistance on data management for HIV/AIDS Care and Treatment programs among others. Mr. Amenye holds an MBA in Marketing from the Eastern and Southern African Management Institute. 133 ANNEX 5: CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORMS FOR KEY PERSONNEL 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523