December 7, 2018 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Martina Nicolls, Sophea Seng, Sophea Touch, and John McCauley of The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG). Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of USAID/Cambodia’s Countering Trafficking-in￾Persons Activity ABSTRACT The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Cambodia launched its Countering Trafficking-In-Persons Activity in nine provinces in 2015 in response to unsafe migration and exploitation concerns. In 2018, The Mitchell Group, Inc. conducted a mid-term performance evaluation in five provinces on prevention interventions. The evaluation included a desk review and six weeks of mixed￾methods data collection, including a survey to 504 participants. The focus was on four key evaluation questions: (1) whether CTIP prevention activities contribute to increasing safe migration and/or sufficient livelihoods as a measure to reduce migration; (2) identifying unintended consequences that affected performance; (3) providing actionable recommendations; and (4) documenting lessons learned in design and management. Overall, CTIP is contributing to safe migration and improving the livelihoods of low-skilled and low-educated beneficiaries in order to give them alternative options, such as documented migration or domestic migration. This mid-term result is being achieved by deploying effective models based on previous extensive research and experience, such as multiple income sources, integrated farming, and savings groups, which are improving levels of income sufficiency, improving living conditions, and significantly improving the awareness of TIP-related issues. The evaluation team’s recommendations include: • Strengthening livelihood diversification and the use of updated, innovative techniques through international technical assistance, exchange learning programs, and integrated models of support; • Continue its plan for an extensive review of Bong Pheak, its M&E approaches, and its worker satisfaction surveys; • Continue its plan to assess the effects of its 2018 BCC strategy in 2019 to consider upscaling to other provinces. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of USAID/Cambodia’s Countering Trafficking-in-Persons Activity December 7, 2018 Submitted to: Ms. Peoulida Ros, COR, Development Assistance Specialist (M&E), USAID/Cambodia The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG) 1816 11th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-745-1919 Mr. Jenkins Cooper, Vice President/Operations, TMG Email: jenkinsc@the-mitchellgroup.com Ms. Rosa Ayala, Program & Office Manager, TMG Email: rosaa@the-mitchellgroup.com Cooperative Agreement No. AID-442-A-15-00002 Evaluation Mechanism Contract No. AID-OAA-I-15-00028 Task Order No. 72044218F00001 Cover Photo: Martina Nicolls: USAID CTIP Demo Chicken Farm, Kampong Thom, Cambodia 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. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons Task Order No: 72044218R00004 USAID Activity Name: Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Cooperative Agreement No: AID-442-A-15-000002 Total Estimated Amount $ $8.5 million Lead Implementing Partner: Winrock International Sub-Awardees: International Justice Mission (IJM) Open Institute (OI) Development Objective: DO1: Strengthened democracy and government accountability, and enhanced respect for human rights Activity Dates: September 25, 2015 – September 30, 2019 Evaluation Coverage: September 25, 2015 – June 30, 2018 Activity Geographic Regions: 9 provinces: Phnom Penh, Svay Rieng, Prey Veng, Kampong Cham, Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, Uddor Meanchey, Banteay Meanchey, and Koh Kong Evaluation Geographic Coverage: 5 provinces: Phnom Penh, Svay Rieng, Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, and Banteay Meanchey Map: CTIP Activity Locations by Commune Source: Winrock International, 2017 v CONTENTS Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................vii ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................................viii GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................................................... x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS.................................................................................................................... 6 Evaluation Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 6 Evaluation Questions ................................................................................................................................ 6 2. CTIP’s THEORY OF CHANGE ................................................................................................................ 6 Prevention Intermediate Results, Objectives, and Interventions .............................................................. 7 Theory of Change and Results Framework .............................................................................................. 8 Partnerships .............................................................................................................................................. 8 3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 9 Evaluation Team ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation Parameters.............................................................................................................................. 9 Evaluation Phases .................................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation Survey ...................................................................................................................................10 Selection of Evaluation Participants and Data Collection Methods ........................................................10 KII and FGD Data Collection by Province...............................................................................................11 Survey Data Collection by Province........................................................................................................11 Evaluation Limitations and Challenges ...................................................................................................12 4. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................12 Mid-Term Achievements Against Indicators ...........................................................................................12 Indicator: Number of Communes with Reduced Vulnerability to TIP......................................................13 QUESTION 1: CONTRIBUTION OF PREVENTION ACTIVITIES TO SAFE MIGRATION AND/OR SUFFICIENT LIVELIHOOD ....................................................................................................................13 QUESTION 2: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF PREVENTION ACTIVITIES..............................26 QUESTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CTIP PERFORMANCE.....................................29 QUESTION 4: LESSONS LEARNED IN DESIGNING & MANAGING CTIP PROGRAMS....................31 5. Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................34 Annex I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK.................................................................................... - 1 - Annex II: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... - 9 - Annex III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS – KII & FGD...............................................................- 21 - Annex IV: DATA COLLECTION SURVEY INSTRUMENT .....................................................................- 28 - Annex V: SOURCES OF INFORMATION ..............................................................................................- 33 - Annex V1: DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST...................................................................- 36 - Annex VII: CTIP MID-TERM PREVENTION ACHIEVEMENTS .............................................................- 39 - vi Annex VIII: PREVENTION, PROTECTION AND PROSECUTION INTERMEDIATE RESULTS ..........- 40 - Annex IX: POIPET MIGRANT CENTER RETURNEE STATISTICS, 2018............................................- 41 - Annex X: EVALUATION SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................................................- 42 - Annex XI: KEY FGD COMMENTS ON CTIP AND MIGRATION............................................................- 71 - Annex XII: PEOPLE INTERVIEWED AND SITES VISITED...................................................................- 73 - Table 1: USAID CTIP Programming in Cambodia (2003-2021) ............................................................................. 7 Table 2: CTIP Summary of Objectives and Interventions ........................................................................................ 7 Table 3: Summary of Sub-Partners (2015-June 2018)............................................................................................... 8 Table 4: CTIP Mid-Term Evaluation Team.................................................................................................................. 9 Table 5: CTIP MTE Scope and Parameters................................................................................................................. 9 Table 6: Qualitative and Quantitative Data Collection Summary........................................................................ 10 Table 7: Summary of KIIs and FGDs by Province.................................................................................................... 11 Table 8: Summary of FGDs by Province .................................................................................................................... 11 Table 9: Summary of Survey Data Collection by Province.................................................................................... 11 Table 10: CTIP indicators, Life-of-Project Targets and Achievements (to June 30, 2018)............................ 12 Table 11: Savings Groups by Province........................................................................................................................ 13 Table 12: Savings Groups by Sub-Partner.................................................................................................................. 14 Table 13: Agriculture Cooperatives by Province..................................................................................................... 15 Table 14: Small Grants by Province............................................................................................................................. 16 Table 15: Bong Pheak Results by Indicator................................................................................................................ 18 Table 16: Indicators for Partnerships.......................................................................................................................... 20 Table 17: Comparison: Savings Groups Success Factors – Kampong Thom vs. Siem Reap.......................... 33 Figure 1: CTIP Results Framework ............................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2: CTIP Community Advisor Model – Savings Groups.............................................................................. 14 Figure 3: CTIP Community Advisor Model – Livelihoods..................................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Arrival Trends 2013-2018 and Figure 5: Arrivals and Trafficked Persons 2018 ............................. 23 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The evaluators would like to express sincere gratitude to those who provided support and advice throughout the USAID/Cambodia Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons Activity. We are grateful to USAID/Cambodia’s Office of Democracy and Governance, and to the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) Ms. Peoulida Ros. We also would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the Implementing Partner, Winrock International, and all staff for their time and prompt responses to the evaluators’ requests for information and the selection of key informants. We also acknowledge the Sub-Partners for making themselves available to assist with the key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and site visits in Phnom Penh and the provinces. Additionally, field staff and local partners associated with the Sub￾Partners’ interventions are thanked for their willingness to share their experiences and thoughts, and to introduce the Evaluation Team to provincial authorities, district officials, commune chiefs, commune staff, village chiefs, and beneficiaries. We also thank all government and line ministry officials, village chiefs, beneficiaries, and volunteers who provided thoughtful insights. We greatly appreciate the work of our local partner firm, Emerging Markets Consulting for their logistical support, and for conducting the survey as in integral part of the evaluation, under the leadership of the international survey expert, Dr. John McCauley. The evaluators are also grateful for the home office support and quality assurance reviews of The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG) in Washington, D.C. Martina Nicolls Sophea Seng Sophea Touch viii ACRONYMS AC Agriculture Cooperative ACT (Cambodia) Against Child Trafficking ADHOC Cambodian Human Rights & Development Association ARP At-Risk People AYLA ASEAN Youth Leaders Association BCC Behavior Change Communication/Campaign BMC Banteay Meanchey BP Bong Pheak (Big Brother Pheak) CBCLO Capacity Building of Cambodia’s Local Organizations CC Commune Council CCPCR Cambodian Center for the Protection of Children’s Rights CCWC Commune Community in charge of Women and Children CD Calendar Days CEDAC Cambodian Center for the Study of Development in Agriculture CHO Cambodian Hope Organization CWCC Cambodian Women’s Crisis Center CLA Collaboration, Learning and Adapting DCHA Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Disasters DOS Department of State DRG Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance EQ Evaluation Questions EMC Emerging Markets Consulting ETL Evaluation Team Leader FGD Focus Group Discussion GMAC Garment Manufacturers in Cambodia HRM Human Resource Manager ICT Information and Communication Technology IJM International Justice Mission ILO International Labor Organization INGO International Non-Government Organization IOM International Organization for Migration IP Implementing Partner(s) IR Intermediate Result(s) KAP Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice KCM Kampong Cham KII Key Informant Interviews KM Knowledge Management KPT Kampong Thom ix LOP Life-of-Project LSCW Legal Support for Children and Women M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEP Monitoring and Evaluation Plan MOEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport MOJ Ministry of Justice MOLVT Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training MOSAVY Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation MOU Memorandum of Understanding MOWA Ministry of Women’s Affairs MTE Mid-Term Evaluation NCCT National Committee for Counter Trafficking NEA National Employment Agency NGO Non-Government Organization NPA National Plan of Action OI Open Institute PC/PCCT Provincial Committee(s) to Counter Trafficking PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet PP Phnom Penh RGC Royal Government of Cambodia SEZ Special Economic Zone SG Savings Group SOW Statement of Work SRP Siam Reap STL Survey Team Leader STTA Short Term Technical Assistance SVR Svay Rieng TIP Trafficking-In-Persons TLF Trudeau Labor Forum TMG The Mitchell Group TOT Training of Trainers TWG Technical Working Group UNACT United Nations Action for Cooperation Against Trafficking-In-Persons UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime USG United States Government VC Village Chief VOT Victims of Trafficking x GLOSSARY Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries A beneficiary is a recipient of CTIP support and services. A non-beneficiary has not directly received any CTIP support or services. Migration Migration is defined by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) as ‘a process of moving, either across an international border, or within a State. It encompasses any kind of movement of people, whatever its length, composition, or causes; it includes migration of refugees, displaced persons, uprooted people and economic migration.’ It can also refer to ‘labor migration’ which is the movement of persons from their home State to another State for the purpose of employment (IOM, 2004).1 The Mekong Migrant Network (2011) defines two specific forms of migration as: Regular or Documented Migration: ‘the movement of people across an international border with the correct documents and visas required by both countries. This may include exit visas, entry visas, work permits, etc.’; Irregular or Undocumented Migration: ‘the movement of people across an international border without administrative documents required by immigration.’2 CTIP, and this evaluation, uses the IOM definition of migration for both international and domestic/labor migration, and the Mekong Migrant Network definition of documented and undocumented migration across international borders. Partnership In USAID’s 2012 CTIP Policy, a partnership refers to ‘effective and efficient coordination across a broad range of stakeholder, bringing together local, national, regional, and global networks, and representatives of civil society, government, the private sector, labor unions, media, and faith-based organizations.’ Thereby, ‘by increasing coordination, stakeholders are better able to fully leverage a wide range of counter-trafficking interventions.’3 Prevention A prevention intervention aims at raising awareness, and providing activities, including training, mentoring, skills and information on economic options and alternatives to at-risk people/populations (ARP) that have migrated in the past or are inclined to migrate through undocumented means. Safe Migration Safe migration is the movement of persons which is secure, particularly for those who are undocumented, and limits exploitation and any unscrupulous behavior of border officials, traffickers, agents, and others, and which provides information to migrants so that they can make choices and assess risks. Sub-Awardee A Sub-Awardee is a company or organization mentioned in the technical proposal, and cooperative 1 https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms 2 http://www.mekongmigration.org 3 USAID CTIP Policy, 2012, p3 xi agreement, for the award of the CTIP Activity, in addition to the lead Implementing Partner. Sub￾Awardees are Sub-Partners. Sub-Partner A Sub-Partner in the CTIP Activity is a local or international company or organization, receiving payment to undertake specific interventions under a signed agreement. Sufficient Livelihood One element of the Mid-Term Evaluation is to assess whether the CTIP prevention activities contribute to a sufficient livelihood for the targeted population. In this context, ‘sufficient’ is synonymous with acceptable, adequate, enough, and satisfactory, as determined by individual beneficiaries during the course of the evaluation. Systems CTIP’s goal is ‘improved systems to counter trafficking-in-persons in Cambodia.’ In this context, the definition of systems covers a broad range of national and sub-national mechanisms, or a set of principles, that work in an interconnecting way.4 Trafficking-in-Persons Trafficking-in-Persons is defined by the 2000 United Nations (UN) Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, referred to as the Palermo Protocol, to mean ‘the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.’5 4 Oxford Dictionary definitions 5 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ProtocolTraffickingInPersons.aspx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY USAID/Cambodia commissioned The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG) to conduct a mid-term performance evaluation of the Counter-Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) Activity. Winrock International is the lead Implementing Partner (IP) working with nine Sub-Partners. The evaluation objectives are: (1) to assess CTIP prevention activities, (2) to propose key actionable recommendations for USAID and the IP, and (3) to provide lessons-learned to USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs. The audience is the USAID/Cambodia Mission, including the Office of Democracy and Governance; the Program Office; the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Disasters (DCHA) Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG); and the IP. The Evaluation Questions are: 1. Do CTIP prevention activities contribute to increasing safe migration and/or sufficient livelihood for targeted population to choose not to migrate? Why and/or why not? 2. What are the unintended consequences (positive or negative) of those prevention activities? How are those consequences, if any, affecting CTIP? 3. What actionable recommendations, in relation to prevention, could be made to improve activity performance for the remaining period? 4. What lessons learned could be made to USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs in Cambodia? CTIP’s THEORY OF CHANGE The IP implemented the USAID/Cambodia CTIP-II (2011-2015) Activity in 7 provinces across 71 communes and carries forward 12 communes into the Cambodia CTIP (2015-2019) to enhance national and local strategies for prevention, protection, and prosecution of trafficking-in-persons through partnerships which form the 4P paradigm. The Theory of Change is three-fold: If national and local strategies are enhanced to prevent TIP, TIP survivor protection and services are strengthened, and the likelihood of successful prosecution of TIP is increased, then there will be improved systems to counter TIP in Cambodia. For prevention interventions, CTIP aims to: (1) deliver accessible information on safe migration to at-risk populations (ARP) through information and communication technology tools and migration services in Cambodia and destination countries; (2) address root causes of TIP by expanding livelihoods options and skills through locally-relevant, market-driven partnerships; and (3) strengthen the implementation of the National Plan of Action (NPA) through advocacy at national and sub-national levels. CTIP’s cross-cutting interventions include gender, youth, and partnerships. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY This mid-term performance evaluation was conducted between September and December 2018 and involved six weeks of fieldwork in five USAID-selected provinces out of CTIP’s nine targeted provinces. Three evaluators used qualitative data collection methods: 73 key informant interviews (KIIs), four focus group discussions (FGDs) with a total of 56 individuals, site visits, and observations. A survey team conducted a face-to-face survey with 504 respondents: 277 (55%) beneficiaries and 227 (45%) non￾beneficiaries; 300 (60%) women and 204 (40%) men: 150 (30%) in Phnom Penh, 126 (25%) in Siem Reap, 100 (20%) in Kampong Thom, 78 (15%) in Svay Rieng, and 50 (10%) in Banteay Meanchey (BMC). Consistent with USAID Evaluation Policy, the team applied a gender lens throughout the evaluation. FINDINGS Q1: DO CTIP PREVENTION ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTE TO INCREASING SAFE MIGRATION AND/OR SUFFICIENT LIVELIHOOD TO CHOOSE NOT TO MIGRATE? Mid-Term Results • 194 active savings groups (64% of target) with 3,996 ARP and non-ARP members (64% women); • 5 agriculture cooperatives (83% of target) with 212 ARP and non-ARP members; 2 • 28 demo farms for 28 ARP and 35 model ARP farmers; • 327 small grants (38% of target) awarded to 327 ARP (64% women); • 952 companies (635% of target) registered with Bong Pheak; • 1,986 Bong Pheak (497% of target) users gained jobs (estimation); • 280 ARP (19% of target) trained in a soft skills session; • 647 partners (124% of target) providing material and support; and • 4 private sector partners (4% of target) with a TIP monitoring system. CTIP, and the evaluation team (ET), use the International Organization for Migration’s definition of migration to include the process of moving, either across an international border, or for work in another province within Cambodia (referred to as labor, economic, or domestic migration). The evaluation also refers to documented migration (passport, visa, work permit, or pink card) versus undocumented migration. Neither guarantee full safety, but domestic and documented migration are regarded as safer forms of migration. National and sub-national migration statistics have been difficult to obtain, particularly for undocumented migrants. IOM’s 2018 statistics for the returnees entering the Poipet Migrant Center near the Thailand border shows a reduction of undocumented returnees from 2,858 in January to 1,442 in September (50% decrease), with male returnees decreasing by 46%, women by 53%, and children by 54%. The Cambodian and Thailand governments have taken strong action to register undocumented migrants and to urge employers to obtain documents for their workers. CTIP maintains its work at the Poipet Migrant Center, but closed its transit center at Bavet near Vietnam in July 2017 as a consequence of fewer families sending their children to beg in Vietnam, showing that families now have sufficient income, which is a major achievement of the livelihoods intervention. National and sub-national stakeholders involved in the advocacy and messaging of safe migration in partnership or in collaboration with CTIP maintain that CTIP’s approach is a significant contributing factor in the decline of undocumented migration and the rise of documented migration. During FGDs, beneficiaries said that they had either stopped migrating or that migration to the capital Phnom Penh, or another province, was their family or village preference instead of international migration. For example, in the Kampong Thom FGD 33% of women and 75% of men mentioned the preference for domestic migration; 6% of women and 100% of men in the Siem Reap FGD; and 28% of women and 100% of men in the Svay Rieng FGD. Beneficiaries stated that the reasons were due to CTIP’s focus on multiple sources of income, livelihoods, savings, and TIP messaging as a holistic approach, whereby they could not identify the most impactful interventions. Savings group members indicated that, while savings were important for them, it was their perceived rise in their living conditions that had a significant role in their decision to migrate or whether they could afford documented migration. General Findings on Migration Almost 70% of survey respondents are not interested in migrating The Evaluation Survey shows that 33% of all respondents (17% beneficiaries, 16% non-beneficiaries) show interest in migrating within the next two years, with no difference between the two groups. Therefore, 67% were not interested in migrating, but this figure may be high because, culturally, Cambodians tend not to tell people about their interest in migrating. In the survey, 18% of respondents had migrated before, and the link between past migration and their interest in migrating again shows a significant correlation (41% vs. 27%), but with no difference for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Knowing the steps to (safe) documented migration increases with education The Evaluation Survey shows that 57% of respondents had not completed primary school (67% women, 43% men). Knowing the steps to documented migration increases with education (36% with uncompleted primary education vs. 52% with secondary and 65% with post-secondary). Fewer women reported having an understanding of the steps to documented migration than men (36% vs. 50%) with 3 no age differences, but likely to be due to their lower levels of education rather than their lack of interest in migrating (16% women vs. 18% men). By province, 56% of respondents in Phnom Penh and 54% in BMC have an understanding of the steps compared to 27% in Svay Rieng and 29% in Kampong Thom. The survey indicates a high correlation between people who know the steps to documented migration and those who have the documentation (90% vs. 46% who lack documentation). CTIP does not provide literacy programs. Prevention Activities Contributing to Increasing Safe Migration Receiving a small grant significantly reduces a beneficiary’s interest in migrating The Evaluation Survey showed that a CTIP small grant significantly reduced an interest in migrating (2% vs. 12%). During KIIs, beneficiaries indicated that grants were useful for people who had no collateral. A savings account highly significantly reduces a beneficiary’s interest in migrating Having a savings account, of any kind, significantly reduces interest in migrating among beneficiaries than non-beneficiaries (25% vs. 40%). Non-beneficiaries were more inclined to migrate, even with savings (35% vs. 27%). Specifically, members in a CTIP savings group appear slightly less likely to migrate than beneficiaries who are not in a savings group (9% vs. 12%), though it is not statistically significant. More beneficiaries have a savings account of any kind than non-beneficiaries (67% vs. 14%); more women than men (50% vs. 38%), and more older people than 18-25 year-olds (50% vs. 35%). Only 29% in Phnom Penh have a savings account, compared to over 40% in other provinces and over 60% in Kampong Thom, but women in Phnom Penh are significantly more likely to feel empowered to make their own financial decisions if they have a savings account than provincial women (54% vs. 27%). The responsibility of having a demo farm may reduce a beneficiary’s interest in migrating Demo farms and model farmers serve two purposes: (1) to provide the community with healthy affordable produce that contribute to the local economy, and (2) to provide a local resource for best farming practices. Farmers indicated that the demo farm model resulted in sustainable agricultural practices, local economic growth, community solidarity, and a safe environment to learn and experiment with new agricultural techniques: ‘With this responsibility to our communities, we are less likely to migrate, or we migrate for a short time and leave someone in charge of the farm.’ The survey showed that members of an agriculture cooperative (AC) appear modestly less likely to show an interest in migrating compared to those who are not an AC member (8% vs. 11%), though not significant. Bong Pheak is likely to reduce international migration by increasing local jobs or domestic migration The ET found that employer interest is high in Bong Pheak, and those posting job announcements are using the platform regularly as their main form of recruitment because it is free. Employers use the platform to advertise several simultaneous positions to attract higher-volume traffic of low-skilled applicants, which they say is successful. Employers are prepared to provide on-the-job training to its recruited low-skilled workers. From its launch in October 2016 to August 2018, an estimated 1,986 users have gained a job. However, employers find it challenging to contact applicants for interviews because they frequently change telephone numbers, though the Sub-Partner is addressing this. Current monitoring statistics do not provide accurate conversion rates from application to job, nor a breakdown of sex, location, industry, length of job, or whether the employed person has gained a nearby job or has moved to another province for work (and therefore counted as a domestic migrant). The ET found that the soft skills training content was appropriate and well-defined (i.e. money management, how to look for work, interview skills, and work ethics). Its training results (19% of target) are due to the external Impact Evaluator identifying participants who were not found, had migrated, or were not interested, and participants had to be re-identified which was time-consuming. Behavior Change Communication shows success in promoting safe migration but it is too early to assess The Evaluation Survey conducted two experimental questions that varied information on the risks of migration (based on the 2017 UN International Migrant Report) to determine whether BCC influenced 4 the decision to migrate. The control group received no information about risks. The treatment group, who received information about the risks of exploitation, were almost four times less likely to support a family member’s migration (39% vs. 11%), which is statistically significant. Exposure to information about risks to women reduced the proportion of those supporting female migration by more than half (26% vs. 12%). BCC information, such as these examples, is highly likely to influence people’s decision to use safe international migration or domestic migration. CTIP’s BCC launch was in September 2018 and will be assessed in 2019, so it is too early to determine its impact, but specific TIP-related messages on safe migration show signs that they could be impactful. Prevention Activities Contributing to Sufficient Livelihood (‘Sufficient’ is Self-Determined) People with no savings are significantly more likely to migrate The survey shows that beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries with no savings are significantly more likely to show an interest in migrating (but still at low levels) compared to those with modest savings of less than $100 or greater than $100 (14% vs. 9% and 12%). Beneficiaries who reported totally insufficient livelihoods expressed some interest in migrating compared to those who had higher levels of livelihood sufficiency (39% vs 28%), which is not significant. People with sufficient livelihoods are likely to afford documented migration Beneficiaries maintain that they are beginning to generate sufficient income to cover their housing and food costs compared to non-beneficiaries (54% vs 46%). The CTIP models of multiple income sources and integrated farming, according to KIIs, teaches beneficiaries income resilience, contingency-planning, saving and investing, improved agricultural techniques, and to seek local advice. Beneficiaries are requesting more training on income resilience and ways to diversify their farming (from solely chickens, rice, and corn to mushroom farming and aquaculture). With extra money, beneficiaries are more likely to afford cheaper methods of documented migration, as indicated during KIIs, such as passport, seasonal visa, temporary foreign worker visa, border pass, or pink card. Q2: WHAT ARE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF PREVENTION ACTIVITIES? Beneficiary males have significantly more interest in migrating than non-beneficiary males (38% vs 26%). Although this appears to be a negative unintended consequence, given all other factors and responses, it may mask CTIP’s success in promoting safer migration – i.e. temporary and short-term documented migration or an interest in migrating within Cambodia to look for work. During KIIs and FGDs, beneficiaries responded that they could not isolate CTIP interventions in terms of their greatest benefits; they saw them as a holistic, cyclical package of interconnected activities that had to be done together to increase livelihoods and improve living conditions, thereby reducing the inclination to migrate or providing them with money to obtain documentation for temporary migration. While still susceptible to challenges, villagers indicated that family bonds had improved. Men, in particular, commented on family and community solidarity that made them reconsider unsafe migration. The evaluation showed that families receive limited information or advice on how to use remittances. The CTIP baseline reported that 89% of respondents use remittances for daily household consumption, and only 9% using remittances for savings and 3% for business. Comments during KIIs confirmed they are mainly using remittances for debt payments and household consumption. They did not associate remittances with income for investment, even though they invest other income. Q3: WHAT ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATONS COULD BE MADE? Recommendations for the Implementing Partner Livelihoods • CTIP should continue its integrated models of support. 5 • CTIP should continue practical, hands-on demonstration models of agricultural training. • CTIP should strengthen the diversification model of livelihoods. • CTIP should consider Short-Term Technical Assistants for rural and livelihood diversification. • CTIP should continue its planning for exchange learning programs. Soft Skills • CTIP should strengthen its soft skills strategy to include remittances. • CTIP should consider providing functional literacy skills or a referral mechanism for literacy, non￾formal classes, or formal education programs, where possible. • CTIP should explore additional ways to involve youth in CTIP interventions. Bong Pheak • CTIP should continue its plan for an extensive review of Bong Pheak and its M&E approaches. • CTIP should continue its efforts on the workers satisfaction surveys. Partnerships • CTIP should narrow its definition of ‘partnership’ to cover a select few strategic and collaborative models in which there are clear strategies for the prevention of TIP. • CTIP should consider partnering with ILO and UN Women’s Fair and Safe Project. TIP Communication • CTIP should continue its plan to assess the effects of its 2018 BCC strategy in 2019. Gender and Youth • CTIP should develop/revise its GESI and youth policies, incorporating existing USAID policies. Recommendations for USAID/Cambodia • USAID should view the 2018 Behavior Change Communication for TIP strategy as a competitive advantage and upscale where possible to CTIP’s targeted provinces. • USAID should reconsider the social, financial and ethical ramifications of the Impact Evaluation’s recommendations on the implementation of CTIP. Q4: WHAT LESSONS-LEARNED COULD BE MADE TO USAID IN DESIGNING AND MANAGING CTIP PROGRAMS IN CAMBODIA? Lessons learned for USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs in Cambodia include the importance for the Implementing Partner to develop or build upon extensive internal and international research and experience before designing its interventions and components. For example, the integrated and holistic approach designed before implementation can guide the selection of partners to work at the local level more effectively. CTIP’s approach was for the IP to have the essential and critical trafficking￾in-persons expertise and experience, and to select partners that have specific technical expertise, such as livelihoods, income generation, small grants, and information and communication technology (ICT) skills. The IP subsequently trained and mentored partners in TIP philosophy, strategies, and messaging, resulting in consistent TIP messaging. Coordinating interventions with other USAID, government, and donor programming is often challenging when the target groups of beneficiaries are not compatible. However, collaborating and complementing existing programs can provide a means to avoid duplication of resources and offer beneficiaries additional support. Support needs to be continually and consistently visible at both national and sub-national levels with a range of stakeholders and beneficiaries to ensure trust and reputation. 6 1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The United States Agency for International Development in Cambodia (USAID/Cambodia) signed a four￾year (2015-2019) cooperative agreement with the lead Implementing Partner (IP), Winrock International, as well as Open Institute (OI) and International Justice Mission (IJM), to implement the Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Activity to address the root causes of trafficking-in￾persons in communities of at-risk people (ARP). The root causes include factors such as economic drivers of extreme poverty and unemployment. The IP and its nine Sub-Partners work in collaboration with the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) National Committee for Counter Trafficking (NCCT) and Provincial Committees for Counter Trafficking (PC/PCCT) under a 4P paradigm: (1) prevention, (2) protection, (3) prosecution, and (4) partnerships. Evaluation Purpose The purpose of the Mid-Term Performance Evaluation (MTE) of USAID/Cambodia’s Countering Trafficking-In-Persons Activity is threefold: (1) to assess the CTIP prevention activities, (2) to propose key actionable recommendations for USAID and the Implementing Partner, and (3) to provide lessons￾learned to USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs.6 The audience of the evaluation report is the USAID/Cambodia Mission, including the Office of Democracy and Governance; the Program Office; the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Disasters (DCHA) Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG); and the Implementing Partner. The CTIP MTE Statement of Work (SOW) is shown in detail in Annex 1. Evaluation Questions USAID/Cambodia seeks the answer to four Evaluation Questions (EQ):7 1. Do CTIP prevention activities contribute to increasing safe migration and/or sufficient livelihood for targeted population to choose not to migrate? Why and/or why not? 2. What are the unintended consequences (positive or negative) of those prevention activities? How are those consequences, if any, affecting CTIP? 3. What actionable recommendations, in relation to prevention, could be made to improve activity performance for the remaining period? 4. What lessons learned could be made to USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs in Cambodia? 2. CTIP’S THEORY OF CHANGE The United States Government (USG) has a comprehensive and long-term strategy (to 2030) to counter trafficking-in-persons, which includes USAID’s regional efforts in Asia, including Cambodia. Recognizing that Cambodia is a source, transit and destination country for trafficked persons, USAID has implemented country-specific countering human trafficking programs in Cambodia since 2002 (Table 1). 6 USAID, CTIP Mid-Term Evaluation Statement of Work, p3 7 USAID, CTIP MTE SOW, p4-5 7 Table 1: USAID CTIP Programming in Cambodia (2003-2021) USAID ACTIVITY PERIOD OBJECTIVES Cambodia Community Empowerment Against TIP IP: Asia Foundation 2002-2005 Mobilize communities to prevent trafficking and protect victims' rights; promote better life options to reduce vulnerability to trafficking & assist trafficking victims. Cambodia CTIP IP: Asia Foundation 2006-2011 Support policymakers, practitioners, & vulnerable communities to execute local, national, bilateral, & regional initiatives. Cambodia CTIP-II IP: Winrock International 2011-2015 Improve institutional capacity to combat TIP through strengthening prevention, survivor protection, & law enforcement. Cambodia CTIP IP: Winrock International 2015-2019 Enhance national & local strategies for prevention, survivor protection, & the likelihood of successful prosecutions. Asia CTIP IP: Winrock International 2016-2021 Address transnational & regional challenges through cross-border cooperation, private-sector leadership, & TIP data quality. Sources: https://www.usaid.gov/CTIPannualreview/ctip-programs-asia, 2013; https://www.winrock.org/usaid-announces-news￾project-to-counter-trafficking-in-persons-in-asia/ 2017; Child Labor Cambodia Mapping, 2011, p57; US Embassy Press Release, September 13, 2006; https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/tip/rls/rpt/34182.htm#sa The IP implemented CTIP-II (2011-2015) Activity in 7 provinces across 71 communes and carries forward 12 communes into the current CTIP (2015-2019) in 9 provinces across an initial target of 100 communes to enhance national and local strategies for prevention, protection, and prosecution of trafficking-in-persons through a wide range of partnerships using a 4P paradigm, shown below:8 Prevention interventions that: (1) deliver accessible information on safe migration to vulnerable populations through information and communication technology (ICT) tools and migration services in Cambodia and destination countries; (2) address root causes of TIP by expanding livelihoods options and skills through locally-relevant, market-driven partnerships; and (3) strengthen the implementation of the government’s National Plan of Action (NPA) through advocacy at national and sub-national levels. Protection interventions that: (1) standardize victim identification and facilitate victim-driven, trauma￾informed case management; (2) increase access to, and the quality of, victim services; and (3) build community safety networks to empower victims and vulnerable people. Prosecution interventions that: (1) enable TIP victims to access legal services to pursue justice; and (2) increase TIP reporting and improve the outcomes of TIP investigation and prosecution through training of criminal justice actors and inter-agency collaboration. Partnerships is a cross-cutting intervention including gender and youth. Prevention Intermediate Results, Objectives, and Interventions CTIP’s three Intermediate Results (IR) for prevention are shown in Table 2. Table 2: CTIP Summary of Objectives and Interventions IR1 – PREVENTION - Enhanced national and local strategies to prevent TIP OBJECTIVE INTERVENTIONS 1.1 Awareness-raising and behavior change communications for safer migration Savings Groups, Small Grants, Agriculture Cooperatives (AC), Bong Pheak (‘Big Brother’ job seeking platform) 1.2 Addressing economic root causes of trafficking by expanding educational, vocational, and livelihood opportunities for at-risk populations Access to services, Labor market analysis, Vocational training, Job placement; Entrepreneurship development 1.3 Supporting national & sub-national strategies to prevent TIP Technical assistance to NCCT & PCCTs 8 CTIP Year One Annual Report, p1. 8 Theory of Change and Results Framework The Theory of Change is three-fold: If national and local strategies are enhanced to prevent TIP, TIP survivor protection and services are strengthened, and the likelihood of successful prosecution of TIP is increased, then there will be improved systems to counter TIP in Cambodia (Figure 1). Figure 1: CTIP Results Framework Partnerships The Implementing Partner collaborates with government ministries at the national and sub-national levels, including the NCCT and provincial counterparts. The IP uses Sub-Partners to work at the sub￾national and grassroots level, each of whom form partnerships with the private sector, commune-level structures, INGOs and NGOs, to advance prevention, protection and prosecution (Table 3). Table 3: Summary of Sub-Partners (2015-June 2018) WINROCK INTERNATIONAL Management, M&E, Lead, Capacity Building, Compliance, Cross-Cutting Issues SUB-AWARDEES PREVENTION PROTECTION PROSECUTION OPEN INSTITUTE (OI) Bong Pheak (Big Brother) online job-seeking platform INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE MISSION (IJM) Legal Aid, Police Training National Curriculum LOCAL SUB-PARTNERS: PROVINCIAL / VILLAGE LEVEL AYLA Soft Skills, Migrant Facebook ADHOC Repatriation ADHOC Protection CEDAC Livelihoods – KPT, SRP, BMC LSCW Labour Conditions LSCW Legal Issues SOVANN PHOUM Livelihoods – Phnom Penh CCPCR Livelihoods – Svay Rieng CCPCR Survivor Protection SAMARITAN’S PURSE Livelihoods – Banteay Meanchey SAMARITAN’S PURSE Deportee Support PARTNERS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PROTECTION & LEGAL SERVICES Such as: IOM, National Employment Agency, BBC Media Action, UNACT, Coca Cola, etc. Sources: Winrock documents, including CTIP Year 2 Work Plan (December 2016) 9 3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY Evaluation Team The CTIP MTE consisted of two integrated teams as shown in Table 4 – a core Evaluation Team and a Survey Team – in addition to home office quality assurance and contract management support. Table 4: CTIP Mid-Term Evaluation Team CORE EVALUATION TEAM – QUALITATIVE DATA – KIIs/FGs & Report Writing Ms. Martina Nicolls International Team Leader & Evaluator; Anti-Trafficking & Livelihoods Advisor Ms. Sophea Seng Local Technical Advisor; Anti-Trafficking Expert; Translator; M&E Ms. Sophea Touch Local Technical Advisor; M&E; Gender Expert; Child Protection Expert SURVEY TEAM – QUANTITATIVE DATA – Survey, Analysis & Logistics Dr. John McCauley International Survey Team Leader; Survey Design, Questionnaire Expert Emerging Markets Consulting (EMC) Local Resource Partner Firm (for Survey Team & Evaluation Team); Survey Experts; Logistics Expertise; Local Recruitment Experts; Phnom Penh Office 7 EMC Enumerators Survey Implementers Evaluation Parameters USAID set the parameters9 of the CTIP MTE, shown in Table 5. Table 5: CTIP MTE Scope and Parameters CTIP ACTIVITY COVERAGE CTIP MTE COVERAGE Duration Sep 25, 2015 – Sep 30, 2019 Sep 25, 2015 – June 30, 2018 Geographic Locations 9 provinces: Banteay Meanchey, Kampong Cham, Kampong Thom, Koh Kong, Prey Veng, Siem Reap, Svay Rieng, Oddar Meanchey + Phnom Penh10 5 provinces: Banteay Meanchey, Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, Svay Rieng + Phnom Penh 4P Paradigm 4Ps; Cross-cutting (partnerships, gender, youth) Prevention; Cross-cutting; Project design, coordination, management Indicators 24 (11 prevention, 9 protection & 4 prosecution) 11 (7 prevention & 4 protection) Evaluation Phases The MTE was conducted from August 27 to mid-December 2018 in three phases: (1) Desk Review and Work Plan, (2) Fieldwork (data collection in Cambodia), and (3) Analysis and Report Writing. Desk Review USAID provided the Evaluation Team with relevant CTIP documentation (Annex V) such as the cooperative agreement, baseline report, savings group study, vulnerability assessment, worker satisfaction survey, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans, work plans, quarterly reports, and annual reports. The Desk Review enabled the ET to formulate the CTIP MTE Work Plan (including qualitative and quantitative data collection plans), which USAID approved on September 21, 2018. Fieldwork The fieldwork involved two simultaneous activities: (1) Qualitative data collection in five provinces through site visits, observations, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGD), using KII/FGD Guides (Annex III); and the collection of additional information, such as statistics and CTIP Sub-Partner information; 9 USAID, CTIP Mid-Term Evaluation Statement of Work 10 Phnom Penh, the capital, is not a province, but it is often counted in the list of provinces throughout CTIP documentation 10 (2) Quantitative data collection in five provinces using a Survey Questionnaire (Annex IV). Evaluation Survey The survey questionnaire (translated into Khmer) included basic sociodemographic measures, a replication of some baseline indicator questions, and three experimental questions that altered key pieces of information to randomly assigned respondents to gauge attitudes regarding safe migration:11 • A question that varied earnings abroad to offset home earnings: o Version A: Which of the following two options would you prefer? A job here in your province that pays $100 per month or a job in Thailand that pays $200 per month? o Version B: Which of the following two options would you prefer? A job here in your province that pays $100 per month or a job in Thailand that pays $300 per month? • A question that varied the information respondents hear about migration risk: o Version A: In general, do you think it is good to have a family member migrate? Yes, No? o Version B: Research suggests that approx. 700,000 migrants are illegally exploited every year. Do you think it is generally good to have a family member migrate? Yes, No? • A question that varied information about the risk of women migrating; o Version A: Approximately half of all migrants are women. Do you believe it is safe and appropriate for women to migrate in search of employment? Yes, No, Unsure/Don’t Know? o Version B: Approximately half of all migrants are women, but women migrants are 3 times more likely to suffer violence. Do you believe it is safe and appropriate for women to migrate in search of employment? Yes, No, Unsure/Don’t Know? Selection of Evaluation Participants and Data Collection Methods The CTIP MTE involved interviews with a range of target groups: (1) USG, (2) Implementing Partner; (3) Sub-Partners conducting prevention interventions; (4) Government – national ministries, line ministries, national and provincial agencies, national and provincial committees, and commune officials; (5) external actors – i.e. IOM, ILO, UNACT; (6) CTIP beneficiaries; and (7) non-beneficiaries (survey only). Table 6: Qualitative and Quantitative Data Collection Summary QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PLAN QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION PLAN Sample Size – purposive selection of KIIs according to availability, hence sample size is variable. 4 FGDs with separate male and female FGDs. Sample Size – 50-150 participants in each targeted province, with 55% beneficiaries (Treatment Group) and 45% non-beneficiaries (Control Group). Village Selection – villages were selected based on the location of interventions, in conjunction with the Implementing Partner and Sub-Partners, and the ability of Sub-Partners to arrange KIIs and FGDs with beneficiaries at short notice. Commune Selection – 3 criteria: 1. 2-4 communes per province; 25-38 surveys per commune, with 2-3 days in each province. 2. Chosen based on largest number of beneficiaries. 3. Commune selections from different districts. FGD Individual Selection – Sub-Partner M&E and field office staff selected FGD participants randomly and/or purposively, depending on the intervention. Sub-Partners selected other participants by interest and availability on a volunteer basis. Individual Beneficiary Selection–target 55%: • Random number generator from beneficiary list. • Relative balance of females and males. Individual Non-Beneficiary Selection–target 45%: • Random walk with sampling gaps of 3 HH. • Alternate females & males every 2 HH. Version A & B questions–50% of respondents receive Version A; 50% receive Version B. 11 The information was based on the United Nations International Migrant Report 2017. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2017_Highligh ts.pdf. 11 KII and FGD Data Collection by Province Table 7: Summary of KIIs and FGDs by Province PROVINCE # MALE # FEMALE TOTAL KII FGD KII FGD Phnom Penh (PP) 25 1 16 3 45 Siem Reap (SRP) 4 3 4 17 28 Kampong Thom (KPT) 8 8 1 12 29 Svay Rieng (SVR) 7 5 1 7 20 Banteay Meanchey (BMC) 3 0 4 0 7 TOTAL 47 17 26 39 129 Table 8: Summary of FGDs by Province Focus Group 1 FOCUS: KAMPONG THOM SAVINGS GROUP CEDAC: Savings Groups, Livelihoods, Chicken Farming, Vegetables 12 Female Beneficiaries (FGD A), 34-66 years, Average age = 48 years 8 Male Beneficiaries (FGD B), 28-39 years, Average age = 36 years Focus Group 2 FOCUS: SIEM REAP SAVINGS GROUP CEDAC: Savings Groups, Livelihoods, Chicken Farming, Vegetables 17 Female Beneficiaries (FGD A), 11-68 years, Average age = 46 years12 3 Male Beneficiaries (FGD B), 43-60 years, Average age = 50 years Focus Group 3 FOCUS: PHNOM PENH YOUTH AMBASSADORS AYLA: Soft Skills 1 Male & 3 Female Beneficiaries, 21-22 years, Average age = 21 years Focus Group 4 FOCUS: SVAY RIENG SAVINGS GROUP CCPCR: Savings Group, Livelihoods, Cow Bank, Rice Bank, Bat House 7 Female Beneficiaries, 27-55 years, Average age = 37 years 5 Male Beneficiaries, 25-63 years, Average age = 43 years Survey Data Collection by Province Table 9: Summary of Survey Data Collection by Province DESCRIPTION NUMBER % Respondent Type Beneficiary 277 55% Non-Beneficiary 227 45% Sex Female 300 60% Male 204 40% Questionnaire Version Version A 259 51% Version B 245 49% Location PROVINCE PLANNED ACTUAL % Phnom Penh (PP) 150 150 30% Siem Reap (SRP) 125 126 25% Kampong Thom (KPT) 100 100 20% Svay Rieng (SVR) 75 78 15% Banteay Meanchey (BMC) 50 50 10% TOTAL 500 504 100% The Evaluation Team also observed prevention (awareness-raising and Bong Pheak job platform advice) and protection (medical care and support) interventions for undocumented returnees at the Poipet Border Crossing in Banteay Meanchey (Cambodia-Thailand) and at the Bavet Border Crossing in Svay Rieng (Cambodia-Vietnam). The evaluation methodology is documented in detail in Annex II. 12 The mother and 11-year-old daughter in the FGD were members of the Savings Group, and both had their own small business (the daughter had a handicraft business while continuing her education) 12 Evaluation Limitations and Challenges Selection of Individuals for KIIs, FGDs, and Surveys USAID selected five out of the nine CTIP provinces for the mid-term evaluation. The Implementing Partner and Sub-Partners assisted the Evaluation Team with the selection of participants for the KIIs and FGDs. This approach was effective in targeting evaluation participants quickly and at short notice. The ET was mindful of response bias, and therefore asked general questions relating to human trafficking, migration, and economic perceptions in Cambodia in addition to specific questions on the CTIP Activity. In addition, multiple sources of information enabled the Evaluation Team to triangulate findings. However, one Sub-Partner had closed activities and was not available to assist with convening beneficiaries for an FGD in Banteay Meanchey Province. In BMC, the Evaluation Team conducted KIIs and observed the Migrant Center in Poipet near the Thailand border. Therefore, the Evaluation Team conducted four of the five planned FGDs. Public Holidays There were five public holidays during the fieldwork phase in Cambodia: September 24 (Constitutional Day); October 8-10 (Pchum Ben – Ancestors Day); and October 15 (Commemoration Day of the King’s Father). The Evaluation Team and the Survey Team were able to conduct interviews and surveys on September 24 in Kampong Thom province. Many Cambodians took an extended vacation on the week of the 3-day Pchum Ben, departing for holidays from Saturday, October 6 and continuing their vacation until Friday, October 12. Consequently, some stakeholders were not available and not all stakeholder and beneficiary groups were represented in each of the five provinces. For example, the department of agriculture was not represented (the government official cancelled the appointment with short notice). Nevertheless, a broad range of stakeholders provided insights for triangulation and analysis. Survey: Control and Treatment Groups The survey was conducted in the same five provinces as the qualitative data collection due to time and budget. The Sub-Partners were able to assist with the random sampling of beneficiaries through their beneficiary list (the Treatment Group). In the same communes, the enumerators also conducted surveys with non-beneficiaries (the Control Group). This meant that there is some likelihood of the non￾beneficiaries being exposed to interventions from the previous CTIP, CTIP-II, which was conducted in the same provinces, but different communes (12 communes from CTIP-II continue to receive support in the current CTIP). Therefore, it is not a ‘pure’ (uncontaminated) Control Group. A purer Control Group would be non-beneficiaries in the provinces where CTIP has never been conducted, although this generates the issue that these non-beneficiaries are unlikely to be at-risk people (ARP) undertaking undocumented migration. 4. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Mid-Term Achievements Against Indicators USAID provided 11 indicators (7 prevention indicators and 4 protection indicators) in the SOW. Table 10 and Annex VII show the mid-term achievements against the indicators. Table 10: CTIP indicators, Life-of-Project Targets and Achievements (to June 30, 2018) PREVENTION INDICATORS LOP TARGET MTE RESULTS IR1. # partners (private, NGOs) providing material, in-kind technical & financial support 520 647 IR1. # assisted provincial committees accessing & spending allocated government TIP budget 8 8 Sub-IR 1.1: % knowledge change in population exposed to BCC 53% 36%^ Sub-IR 1.1: % behavioral change in the migration process for those exposed to BCC 29% 23%^ Sub-IR 1.2: % participating households at risk of TIP reporting improved livelihoods 70% 4%^* 13 Sub-IR 1.2: # communes with reduced vulnerability to TIP 109 49** Sub-IR 1.3: # assisted communes allocating & accessing funds for TIP prevention activities 50 22 PROTECTION INDICATORS LOP TARGET MTE RESULTS IR2. % assisted survivors of TIP accessing multiple services 75% 87% IR2. # TIP victims referred to services for reintegration 105 62 Sub-IR 2.1: % of TIP victims who are served in USG programs 70% 64% Sub-IR 2.2: % of service providers showing an increase of knowledge in technical TIP issues 80% 79% Source: USAID SOW p3-4; Winrock, Program Description; MEP Year 3, Q3; Progress Results from CIP, September 2018 Note ^ These are baseline results. Note * The indicator Sub-IR 1.2 ‘% participating households at risk of TIP reporting improved livelihoods’ – currently at 4% of its target of 70% - will be reported in Year 4 through an end-of-project assessment. Note ** See below – Number of Communes with Reduced Vulnerability to TIP. Indicator: Number of Communes with Reduced Vulnerability to TIP The Commune Vulnerability Index Report, a baseline assessment of indicator Sub-IR 1.2 ‘# of communes with reduced vulnerability to TIP’, assessed 65 communes, resulting in 17 communes identified as high vulnerability to TIP, 39 communes as medium vulnerability, and 9 communes as low vulnerability.13 CTIP’s LOP target was 100 communes: 12 communes from the previous CTIP-II Activity with a phased￾in approach to reach 100 communes by Year 3. At mid-term, CTIP was supporting 49 communes, selected based on the Commune Vulnerability Index Report, and had selected the remaining communes to commence support in Year 3. USAID asked the IP to delay supporting the communes in order to accommodate recommendations from the CTIP independent external Impact Evaluation (IE)14 (baseline 2016), because the Impact Evaluators wanted to select the communes and evaluate them at mid-term. CTIP continued to support 49 communes and the Impact Evaluators randomly selected 28+32=60 communes to receive support in Year 3 (not using the CTIP Commune Vulnerability Index, but using the government’s list of poor communes) under the following conditions: (1) 49 communes with only livelihood support; (2) 28 new communes with only soft skills training; and (3) 32 new communes with livelihoods and soft skills support. Therefore, the revised life-of-project target is 109 communes. QUESTION 1: CONTRIBUTION OF PREVENTION ACTIVITIES TO SAFE MIGRATION AND/OR SUFFICIENT LIVELIHOOD Do CTIP prevention activities contribute to increasing safe migration and/or sufficient livelihood for the targeted population to choose not to migrate? Why and/or why not? Savings Groups Through its Sub-Partners, CTIP has 194 active savings groups (including 12 from CTIP-II) in 9 provinces, with both ARP and non-ARP members, reaching 64% of its target of 302, shown in Table 11 and Table 12. There are currently 2,564 female members (64%). Table 11: Savings Groups by Province PROVINCE # SG # ARP # NON-ARP TOTAL % # M # F # M #F Siem Reap (SRP) 56 219 303 208 172 902 23% Svay Rieng (SVR) 23 195 480 49 65 789 20% 13 Winrock, January 2017, Commune Vulnerability Index Report, p10 14 Baseline Impact Evaluation conducted by NORC, University of Chicago 14 Kampong Thom (KPT) 33 168 441 97 51 757 19% Banteay Meanchey (BMC) 37 25 103 88 347 563 14% Prey Veng (PRV) 12 43 124 58 193 418 10% Oddar Meanchey (OMC) 19 134 106 40 14 294 7% Kampong Cham (KPC) 8 5 52 26 28 111 3% Koh Kong (KOK) 4 34 59 6 5 104 3% Phnom Penh (PP) 2 35 21 2 0 58 1% TOTAL 194* 858 1689 574 875 3996 100% LOP TARGET 302 64.2% Source: Winrock, September 11, 2018; figures to August 22, 2018 Note: An additional 38 SGs were establish, but dissolved (38 out of 232 = 16%) due to ‘migration, lack of support from local authorities, bad loans, and irregular savings’15 which the ET independently confirmed against CTIP’s database. Table 12: Savings Groups by Sub-Partner SUB-PARTNER # SG # ARP # NON-ARP TOTAL % # M # F # M #F CEDAC 122 603 1043 421 465 2532 63% Samaritan’s Purse 36 20 93 76 315 504 13% CCPCR 26 195 480 49 65 789 20% Sovann Phoum 10 40 73 28 30 171 4% TOTAL 194 858 1689 574 875 3996 100% LOP TARGET 302 64.2% Source: Winrock, September 11, 2018; figures to August 22, 2018 The Evaluation Survey indicates that 67% of CTIP beneficiaries have a savings account (of any kind) compared to 14% of non-beneficiaries, which is highly statistically significant.16 Women are significantly more likely than men to have a savings account (50% vs. 38%) and older respondents are more likely than people aged 18-25 years to have a savings account (50% vs. 35%). Only 29% of respondents in Phnom Penh have a savings account, compared to over 40% in other provinces and over 60% in Kampong Thom in particular. This is likely due to CTIP’s interventions that prioritized savings accounts for low-skilled and low-educated populations.17 Savings groups are seen as the ‘glue’ that binds communities for cohesion and solidarity. During FGDs and KIIs, members reported regular savings resulting in better life conditions: ‘from 2014 to 2106, people borrowed micro-finance money and couldn’t pay back and their farms were sold so they ran away [migrated]; now we borrow from savings groups.’ They indicated that they can pay back loans due to the low interest rate and payment flexibility. To assist saving groups as their capital grows, CTIP uses a Community Advisor Model: a local person assists with book-keeping on a monthly basis (Figure 2). Figure 2: CTIP Community Advisor Model – Savings Groups SAVINGS GROUP  COMMUNITY ADVISOR  FINANCIAL CONFIDENCE The Evaluation Survey shows that people with no savings at all are significantly more likely to show an interest in migrating (though still at fairly low levels) compared to those with modest savings of less than $100 or greater than $100 (14% vs. 9% and 12%).18 The correlation between having a savings account 15 Winrock, CTIP Savings Group Study Report, May 2018, p27 16 Question 6.1; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Table 23 17 Question 6.1; results in Annex X, Tables 10-12 18 Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Table 34 15 (of any kind) or not having one, and expressing interest in migrating within the next two years, showed no statistical significance (18% vs. 15%)19 except when disaggregating by beneficiaries and non￾beneficiaries. Having a savings account significantly reduces interest in migrating among beneficiaries than non-beneficiaries (25% vs. 40%), but non-beneficiaries were more inclined to migrate, even with savings (35% vs. 27%). Specifically, members in a CTIP savings group (established by a CTIP Sub-Partner20) appear slightly less likely to express an interest in migrating than beneficiaries who are not in a savings group (9% vs. 12%), though it is not statistically significant due to the relatively small sample size.21Members of CTIP savings groups who also report having sufficient income to somewhat, mostly, or fully cover household expenses are neither more nor less likely to want to migrate than those not in a CTIP savings group (10% vs. 11%).22 Agriculture Cooperatives An Agriculture Cooperative (AC) is designed to promote income generation through the establishment of capacity building and cooperation between members to avoid traders exploiting poor farmers. CTIP uses a ‘Community Advisor Model’ whereby a local well-educated youth or community member, living in the community, assists with livelihoods advice on an on-call basis (Figure 3). Figure 3: CTIP Community Advisor Model – Livelihoods FARMER  TRADER (large fee)  MARKET (old model) FARMER  COMMUNITY ADVISOR (small fee)  MARKET (new model) There are 212 beneficiaries across five ACs established as part of CTIP in Banteay Meanchey and Svay Rieng (Table 13). Table 13: Agriculture Cooperatives by Province PROVINCE # AC # ARP # NON-ARP TOTAL % # M # F # M #F Banteay Meanchey (BMC) 4 0 3 69 96 168 79% Svay Rieng (SVR) 1 19 19 5 1 44 21% TOTAL 5 19 22 74 97 212 100% LOP TARGET 6 83.3% Source: Winrock, September 11, 2018; figures to August 20, 2018 The Evaluation Survey indicates that AC members appear modestly less likely to show an interest in migrating compared to those who are not an AC member (8% vs. 11%), though the relationship is not statistically significant, likely due to the relatively small sample size.23 However, during KIIs and FGDs, AC members indicated that they have gained ‘bargaining power’ and self-confidence within the cooperative. At the provincial level, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries authorities recognize AC members as leaders in their communities, which may be a contributing factor in being less likely to want to migrate. 19 Annex X, Table 13 – note that 70% said they were not at all interested in migrating 20 Savings groups were established by Sub-Partners CEDAC, CCPCR, and Samaritan’s Purse according to the Provinces in which the Sub-Partners implemented CTIP interventions 21 Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Table 35 22 Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Table 36 23 Evaluation Survey Results, Annex X, Table 37 16 Demo Farms and Model Farmers CTIP has financially supported 28 demonstration (demo) farms for 28 ARP beneficiaries. Demo farmers receive project capital and the principal is expected to be returned over time to saving groups to encourage others to start small businesses. Two demo chicken farms in Kampong Cham, established in 2016, are selling chicks, making a profit, and expanding. Their combined 2017 income was $2,74824 and their combined income for one quarter in 2018 was $1,44325, potentially doubling their annual income from 2017 to 2018. CTIP also supported 35 model farmers (ARPs), who receive agricultural training and materials, such as feeding troughs and incubators. Farmers told the evaluators that they learned ‘a lot of techniques’ from the Sub-Partner’s practical, hands-on demonstrations and mentoring. They had one information-sharing exchange program with farmers from another province, and want more. During KIIs and FGDs, farmers said that farms with only one main product, such as chickens, were more susceptible to changeable weather and diseases. However, they learned that diversification of livelihoods, as shown in the demo farms, increased their resilience to change. The model of multiple income sources to improve economic resilience, and the demo farm model, showed them how to integrate cyclical farming methods: growing crops for animal feed, using their animal manure for crop fertilizer, which in turn feeds the animals. Farmers are now seeking innovative approaches to farming, such as mushroom-growing, aquaculture, and other farm and non-farm livelihood options. Overall, demo farms and model farmers serve two purposes: (1) to provide the community with healthy affordable chicks and products that contribute to the local economy, and (2) to provide a local resource for best farming practices. Therefore, farmers indicated that the demo farm model resulted in sustainable agricultural practices, local economic growth, community solidarity, and a safe environment to learn and experiment with new agricultural techniques: ‘With this responsibility to our communities, we are less likely to migrate, or we migrate for a short time and leave someone in charge of the farm.’ Small Grants Through its Sub-Partners, CTIP has awarded 327 small grants (in-kind start-up support for small businesses, farming, and animal raising) on a rolling basis to 327 ARP beneficiaries in 80 villages from 41 communes in 9 provinces, reaching 37% of its target of 873 and 64% of women, shown in Table 14.26 Table 14: Small Grants by Province PROVINCE # ARP MALE # ARP FEMALE TOTAL % Banteay Meanchey (BMC) 34 53 87 27% Siem Reap (SRP) 16 53 69 21% Kampong Cham (KPC) 28 25 53 16% Kampong Thom (KPT) 14 30 44 14% Oddar Meanchey (OMC) 7 21 28 8% Prey Veng (PRV) 12 11 23 7% Phnom Penh (PP) 3 12 15 5% Svay Rieng (SVR) 2 5 7 2% Koh Kong (KOK) 1 0 1 0% TOTAL 117 210 327 100% LIFE-OF-PROJECT TARGET 873 37.5% Source: Winrock, September 11, 2018; figures to August 22, 2018 24 CTIP Annual Report, Year 2, October 2017, p34 25 CTIP Progress Report Year 3, Q3, p28 26 Small grants are awarded to beneficiaries by Sub-Partners CEDAC, CCPCR, and Samaritan’s Purse 17 During evaluation interviews, beneficiaries indicated that small grants were useful for people who had no collateral. It enabled them to replace or supplement savings group, bank, or microfinance institution loans with a small grant. Beneficiaries mentioned that the grant was ‘the beginning’ of improved livelihoods and that it ‘set them in the right direction.’ The Evaluation Survey showed that a CTIP small grant significantly reduced interest in migrating (2% vs. 12%). Bong Pheak Following the Sub-Partner’s household survey of job-seekers and companies in 2016, Bong Pheak, a job￾seeking platform, was launched in October 2016 as an easy-to-use, online-based employment service to enable low-skilled workers to access information on job opportunities in Cambodia, particularly in the construction, manufacturing, hospitality, and security sectors.27 Bong Pheak (big brother Pheak) works on a referral-based system or directly through registration. For example, employed friends and relatives, human resource staff, local authorities, and others who learn about a job opportunity, enter a potential applicant’s telephone number into the Bong Pheak system. The potential applicant receives an automatic telephone call describing the job, and subsequently presses a number to signify ‘yes’ if interested or ‘no’ if not. If interested, the employer contacts the potential applicant to discuss the job opportunity and to arrange an interview. The Sub-Partner launched Version 2.5 on April 9, 2018, that enables job seekers to create a simple curriculum vitae (CV). Bong Pheak is promoted, in addition to Behavior Change Communication (BCC) campaigns and events, through a partnership with the government National Employment Agency (NEA) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). IOM promoted Bong Pheak from April 2017 through its regional project, and in collaboration with other NGOs at the Poipet Migrant Center, near the Thailand border, where employment information is provided to undocumented returnees and deportees. The evaluation team found that employer interest is high and those posting job announcements are using the platform regularly as their main form of recruitment because it is free to post (unlike competitors who charge a fee). Employers, through their Human Resource Manager, use the platform to advertise several simultaneous positions to attract higher-volume traffic of low-skilled applicants, which they say is successful. Employers are prepared to provide on-the-job training to its recruited low-skilled workers. However, employers find it challenging to contact applicants for interviews because they frequently change telephone sim cards/telephone numbers, or are only contactable through relatives and third￾parties.28 The evaluators noted this at the Poipet Migrant Center where the Sub-Partner promotes Bong Pheak to undocumented returnees from Thailand who frequently use free temporary sim cards. Since April 2018, five undocumented returnees in one family have gained jobs through Bong Pheak. For Bong Pheak to work effectively, job-seekers must have access to a phone, preferably a smartphone. The Evaluation Survey shows 85% of respondents with a mobile phone and 59% with a smartphone. Smartphone ownership increases steadily and significantly with education, from 48% among those who did not complete primary school to 90% ownership for those who completed post-secondary. Males are somewhat more likely than females to own a smartphone (65% vs. 56%), and youth are significantly more likely to own a smartphone than older people (77% aged 18-25, vs. 64% aged 26-40 and 50% over 40 years). Phnom Penh respondents (83%) own a smartphone, with only 36% in Kampong Thom.29 27 CTIP Annual Report, Year 1, p24 28 Open Institute is currently developing a Bong Pheak video, which will launch soon; one of the messages will be ‘do not change phone number after you applied.’ 29 Question 2.6; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Tables 5-8 18 Although the count of Bong Pheak web users and web views are high (Table 15), the Sub-Partner’s monitoring system does not adequately track the conversion rate from application to job offer/acceptance, nor does it adequately disaggregate and/or report by sex, age, location, province, type of job, industry, or whether the job is local or in another province. Currently, the proxy (estimated) figures for conversion rates are: • 995 hired (Nov 2016 to Dec 2017) from 10,291 applications (10% conversion rate); • 1,986 hired (to date, August 31, 2018) from 26,030 applications (8% conversion rate); • 192 hired (July 2018) from 2,392 applications and 1,236 applicants (15.5% conversion rate).30 CTIP aims to conduct an extensive review of Bong Pheak in 2019 to determine its potential for regional expansion, particularly to employers in Thailand, and its ability to become an independent, sustainable service to employers and low-skilled workers. Table 15: Bong Pheak Results by Indicator INDICATOR TARGET TOTAL % TARGET # of partners disseminating Bong Pheak promotional materials 360 355 99% # of job openings announced by employers on Bong Pheak 750 43,456 5,794% # of private companies advertising or supporting CTIP 3 1 33% # of nationals living in Cambodia referred to jobs by phone call 2,000 5,446 272% # of Bong Pheak Facebook Page followers 200,000 207,881 104% # of webpage users No target 222,234 # of webpage views (visits) No target 3,303,020 # of flyers & brochures printed & disseminated 7,500 21,430 286% # of registered companies 150 952 635% # of registered companies posting jobs No target 453 # of registered people 900 9,840 1,093% # of people hired (estimation) 400 1,986 497% # of private partners applying tools to assess worker satisfaction 3 4 133% # of actions from partners to promote gender & social inclusion 3 1 33% Source: Open Institute, September 21, 2018; figures to August 31, 2018 Soft Skills for Employment Options and Money Management Soft skills is an intervention whereby youth volunteers (ambassadors) receive Sub-Partner TIP training and subsequently work in their communes, in collaboration with the commune council and village chiefs, to recruit villagers for soft skills training. There are 37 volunteer youth ambassadors in 9 provinces: 23 males (63%) and 14 females (37%) aged in their early 20s. They select and refer ARPs to soft skills training conducted by the Sub-Partner, IP, and local authorities. Soft skills include money management, how to make better lifestyle decisions, communication skills, self-confidence, how to look for work, interview skills, and work ethics. It also includes the provision of Bong Pheak information to help ARPs look for local work. CTIP also signed a MOU with the government’s National Employment Agency (NEA) to disseminate Bong Pheak information. The Sub-Partner also manages CTIP’s Migrant Facebook page, with 1,375 individuals currently following the page.31 30 Figures provided by Open Institute, Progress Report, Y3Q3, p2-3, interview, September 21, 2018, and follow-up email on October 25, 2018; to determine the July 2018 conversion rate, OI telephoned each of the employers – of the 2392 applications, 1236 people applied (some people applied for more than one job), and 176 jobs were confirmed hires from 4 companies (the remaining companies could not confirm figures) and therefore the figure of 192 is an extrapolated calculation by OI 31 CTIP Progress Report, Y3Q3, p26 19 The Sub-Partner’s target is 1,463 ARPs attending soft skills training and 100 ARPs hired (gained a job).32 Between April and September 2018, a total of 28033 ARPs (19% of the target) from 25 communes have received one-day trainings in one of the 12 provincial trainings conducted to date.34 The IP reported that the achievement is low due to the External Impact Evaluator (IE) providing a list of training participants which the Sub-Partners could not contact, because they could not be found, had migrated, or were not interested, and the Sub-Partners had to re-identify participants, which was time-consuming. The IE set a revised target of 2,500 ARPs from 28 communes to be trained in soft skills (selected and evaluated by the IE).35 The IP expects to achieve 50% of the revised target by the end of 2018.36 The Evaluation Team found that the soft skills training content was appropriate and well-defined. The challenge for the Sub-Partner is to target the right people; people at-risk of migrating. The Sub-Partner modified the CTIP toolkit’s37 12-point selection criteria to 7-points to suit its objectives and indicators, and participants require a mandatory minimum of 4 points for selection. However, selected participants often only had 2-3 points because their education was higher than required or they failed to meet other criteria.38 A village receives one-day soft skills training, and although in KIIs and FGDs villagers indicated that it was useful, there is no assessment of whether it led to ongoing skills in seeking employment or reducing their interest in migrating. Villagers indicated that soft skills training should be imparted over the course of several regular trainings. Youth The IP stated that it is unaware of the 2012 USAID Youth Policy.39 Nevertheless, the CTIP’s Sub￾Partners, with a 7-month40 contract from April 2018 to conduct soft skills training is a local youth group, ASEAN Youth Leaders Association (AYLA). Although there are youth associations in Cambodia, many aligned with the government in the lead-up to the 2018 general election. After CTIP built its capacity, AYLA registered as a local NGO with the Ministry of Interior in 2018. It has ten staff with three working full-time on CTIP activities. For CTIP, the Sub-Partner has 37 volunteer youth ambassadors (high school and International Foreign Language school students) disseminating information on the Bong Pheak job-seeking platform and safe migration materials. It also launched a radio program called ‘Radio Voice of Cambodia Counter Trafficking-in-Persons’ with eight talk shows involving 14 volunteer youth to raise awareness on safe migration and TIP prevention.41 The Sub-Partner also supported a mobile photography exhibition, called ‘High Expectations; Hard Realities’ with audio testimonies from TIP victims. Hence, the youth NGO is increasing its capacities across a range of activities within CTIP and shows the potential to involve more youth in CTIP interventions. 32 AYLA Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP), March 2018 33 Information provided by Winrock International, and CTIP Progress Report, Y3Q3, p9 34 The results are not reported separately; they are consolidated with other data under Sub-IR 1.2 # vulnerable people to TIP receiving assistance; the indicator’s LOP target is 32,000 and the Yr 2 results are 77,210; CTIP MEP, Year 2, p3 35 CTIP Annual Report, Year 1, 2016, p52 36 KII with IP, September 18, 2018, and follow-up emails; CTIP Progress Report, Y3Q3, p12 37 Winrock an BBC Action Media developed the toolkit for Soft Skills training 38 7-point criteria: (1) aged 15-39 years, (2) interested in training, (3) low-skilled, (4) family is on the Village Chief’s list of ARPs, (5) affected by or at risk of discrimination, (6) female head of household, and (7) person reported family violence 39 USAID, October 2012, Youth in Development: Realizing the Demographic Opportunity, USAID Policy – Youth 40 During the evaluation, CTIP extended AYLA’s contract for one month 41 KII with AYLA on October 1, 2018 and CTIP Annual Report, Year 1, p19 20 Behavior Change Communication Messages Before February 2018, CTIP used Behavior Change Communication (BCC) Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) training tools to focus on safe migration, TIP prevention, and protection for TIP survivors. CTIP also disseminated a canvass bag printed with contact telephone numbers, and a pocket￾sized, laminated brochure of contact information (which males, farmers, and youth ambassadors regard as highly successful). Anti-TIP Day is also celebrated annually on December 12 with NCCT/PCCT and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MOEYS) at the national, sub-national and school levels. BCC is not new with regard to vulnerable communities, but BCC specifically for TIP is a relatively new approach. UNACT conducted the first BCC for TIP in Cambodia in February 2018. UNACT no longer undertakes BCC for TIP, because the Swiss government ceased funding. CTIP’s Implementing Partner trained its Sub-Partners in its BCC in March 2018, and launched it in September in Kampong Cham42 for local authorities and school principals. The CTIP 2018 BCC strategy encompasses standardized prevention messages on unsafe migration and human trafficking through: (1) developing opportunities for livelihood options, (2) increased access to local jobs, (3) increased soft skills, and (4) advocacy for an improved legal, safe and accessible system for labor migration.43 Subsequently, all of CTIP’s Sub-Partners are using consistent TIP messaging, and unanimously, stakeholders interviewed agreed that CTIP’s messages were compatible with government agencies, NGOs, civil society groups, and other donors. Partnerships The objective of CTIP’s fourth paradigm is to prevent human trafficking through partnerships. CTIP has three levels of partnerships: (1) two Sub-Awardees as part of the cooperative agreement, (2) seven Sub￾Partners who take a major role implementing interventions, primarily at the grassroots level, and (3) partners that work with the lead Implementing Partner, Sub-Awardees, and Sub-Partners for specific tasks. While Sub-Partners receive TIP training, there is no current provision for international expertise through short-term technical assistants to ensure that methodologies are up-dated and remain relevant. There are two indicators related to partnerships, one significantly over-achieving (647 with a target of 520), and one significantly under-achieving (4 with a target of 100). Table 16: Indicators for Partnerships INDICATOR TARGET RESULT IR1.1 # partners (private, NGOs) providing material, in-kind technical and financial support 520 647 IR1.2 # private partners establishing monitoring or updating existing systems to combat TIP 100 4 CTIP’s current achievement of 647 partners includes companies registered with the Bong Pheak job placement program disseminating promotional material on local jobs and how to use Bong Pheak (the partners are not funding the printing or producing their own material). A partnership is planned with the East-West Management Institute (EWMI) on an exchange program for livelihood improvement strategies. However, the count of partnerships includes private institutions, NGOs, and INGOs that provide materials, in-kind, technical and financial support locally, provincially, nationally and/or internationally.44 The IP is seeking a change to the indicator to insert the condition that covers all partners ‘with signed agreements (formal) or no signed agreements (informal)’ to add partners that provide contributions informally. 42 Interest and attendance in CTIP’s BCC for TIP workshop was high; the MOE invited 600 people and 704 attended 43 Winrock, CTIP BCC Strategy – 2018 44 Winrock, MEP CTIP Y3Q3, USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS), p16 21 Bong Pheak uses its partners in a constructive manner to measure the indicator IR 1.2 # private sector partners establishing monitoring or updating existing systems to combat TIP, which has a LOP target of 100, and a MTE result of 4 (Table 16). Although the result is below target, the concept is sound. The four private sector partners who have established a monitoring system for TIP are three factories and one textile association. They have introduced a worker satisfaction survey to (indirectly) monitor labor conditions that may indicate the potential for exploitation. This is a pilot of an online app through the Bong Pheak intervention. The Sub-Partner indicated the difficulty in approaching partners using the goal of ‘improving systems to combat TIP (and abuses).’ Instead, it deploys a less explicit approach, such as the goal to ‘improve labor conditions to retain staff.’ ILO also covers labor exploitation and worker conditions, though it has confirmed that there is no duplication, but collaboration and complementarity. Private Sector Partnerships CTIP’s involvement with the private sector is nascent because it takes time to develop an alignment of philosophies with actions. CTIP has one major private sector partner, Coca-Cola, through USAID’s MOU for an Ekocenter aimed at supporting vulnerable women to access local potable water.45 CTIP is currently in early discussions with the private sector in the technology industry and garment industry. Discussions with a sugar cane company did not proceed upon the advice of an internal risk assessment. Gender Women are significantly more likely than men to have a savings account (50% vs. 38%),46 but less than 30% of females feel that they have total professional and financial independence,47 except women in Phnom Penh who are significantly more likely to feel empowered to make their own financial decisions if they have a savings account than women from other provinces (54% vs. 27%). The Evaluation Survey indicates that 28% of female CTIP beneficiaries and 32% of female non-beneficiaries believe that they are able to make their own financial decisions, showing no significant difference between the two groups. The Evaluation Survey found that fewer females than males reported knowing the steps to safe migration (37% vs. 50%),48 which may be related to education levels – 67% of female beneficiaries have not completed primary school compared to 43% of men. There are differences with age, nor their interest in migrating (16% women vs. 18% men). Men are three times more likely than women to work in the public sector and twice as likely to receive a salary/wage in the private sector, though women are slightly more likely to own a business (22% vs. 19%). The Evaluation Team found that the issue of men and migration was challenging across all levels of stakeholders, from national government (NCCT) to provincial authorities, to agencies and NGOs, in terms of prevention, protection, and prosecution. None could articulate clear policies and strategies for addressing the migration of men and boys in the future. During KIIs and FGDs with CTIP beneficiaries, males acknowledged that CTIP did address their issues through the provision of livelihoods and income generation interventions, as well as information on seeking local jobs. They expressed no gender-specific measures, because they viewed CTIP as a holistic family-centered approach to safe migration and TIP. 45 KII with Ekocenter staff on September 21, 2018 46 Question 6.1; results in Annex X, Tables 10-12 47 Question 5.7; results in Annex X, Table 25 – Note that men were not asked this question 48 Evaluation Survey Results, Annex X, Table 15 22 Migration Statistics National and sub-national migration statistics have been difficult to obtain, particularly for undocumented migrants. A government census is conducted annually whereby village chiefs collect household data, which is submitted to the commune council (CC). The CC consolidates the village data and submits it to provincial authorities. Migrant numbers, therefore, depend on the diligence of village chiefs, some of whom follow-up with villagers on undocumented migrants, whereas others don’t. In Kampong Thom, the San Kor commune council (CC) is responsible for 14 villages with 18,522 people (9,481 – 51% women).49 The CC had not yet consolidated its June 2018 annual census figures, but indicated to the ET that ‘previously, whole families migrated and they locked the house, and now only one or two people per village migrate, mainly to Thailand.’ CC members noticed improvements in people’s living conditions, through savings groups and livelihoods, especially crop production that ‘led to improved nutrition and health.’ Migrant documentation costs money; the CC said ‘if people are asking for documents, which they are doing, it means they have sufficient money to choose safe migration.’ In Kampong Thom, the Balang village chief is responsible for 170 families, or 786 people (of which 402, or 51%, are women).50 He stated that a few years ago ‘people migrated’ and now a ‘small number’ of people migrate. Since 2009, two or three individuals migrated to Malaysia, and 20 families migrated to Thailand. He estimated that ‘since CTIP, there has been about a 50% reduction in migration’ with people tending to go to Phnom Penh for factory work now. He indicated that it was due to a number of factors, such as CTIP’s support for demo farms and model farmers, savings groups, and information from returnees who recounted negative migration experiences, such as not receiving the promised salary. In Siem Reap, the Svay Chek CC is responsible for 6 villages with 7,019 people (3,651 – 52% women).51 Its June 2018 census figures showed that 137 people migrated to Thailand or Phnom Penh in the previous 12 months, and 69 (50%) of them were women (documented and undocumented figures were not disaggregated). The CC first deputy chief said 137 was ‘much less’ than the 2017 figure, but his ledger was not available for comparison and verification. In Svay Rieng, the Thnoat CC is responsible for 11 villages with 8,705 people (4,444, or 51%, are women).52 The CC stated that, according to census figures, 322 individuals (documented and undocumented combined) had migrated in the previous 12 months to Vietnam or Phnom Penh (census figures are not disaggregated by destination). The CC did not count people who travelled to factories in the border city Bavet, because they returned in the evening. With a significant reduction in returnees of ‘about 50% in the past two years’ due to fewer families sending their children to Vietnam to beg, the rise of nearby casinos and factories,53 safe migration information, and livelihood support, the Sub-Partner closed its transit center for in July 201754 representing a positive trend. NCCT’s 2017 report states that in 2014 there were an estimated 1,060,000 Khmer workers in Thailand, 360,000 of which were undocumented. In April 2017, the Thailand census revealed 1,056,358 Khmer workers in Thailand, and the Cambodian MOL statistics show 310,000 undocumented workers. Although there was no reduction of Khmer workers in Thailand from 2014-2107, there was a reduction 49 KIIs with San Kor CC on September 25, 2018 50 KII with the village chief on September 25, 2018 51 KIIs with Svay Chek CC on September 26, 2018 52 KIIs with Thnoat CC on October 5, 2018 53 The number of factories in Bavet was currently about 30, including shoes, clothes, bicycles, and Korean cars 54 KIIs with CCPCR staff members and the Department of Social Affairs representative on October 4, 2018 23 in undocumented workers of 50,000 (13.8%). This is primarily due to the Thai government issuing pink cards beginning in 2014 to Khmer migrants to enable them to work on a limited basis. From 2014-2017, the Cambodian Ministry of Interior provided passports to 1,082,916 people and travel documents for 397,838 people to work overseas.55 IOM’s 2018 statistics, for returnees at the Poipet Migrant Center near the Thailand border, shows a reduction of undocumented returnees from 2,858 in January to 1,442 in September (50% decrease), with male returnees decreasing by 46%, women by 53%, and children by 54% (Annex IX). Samaritan’s Purse confirms the reduction in undocumented migration from 2013 to 2018 from Thailand to Cambodia in Figure 4. Figure 4: Arrival Trends 2013-2018 and Figure 5: Arrivals and Trafficked Persons 2018 The 2018 figures show that the Thailand-Cambodia arrivals are still exploited/trafficked at an average rate of 10% (22% for Battambang and 19% for BMC returnees), with 46% from the construction sector, 34% from the agriculture sector, 10% of other/unskilled workers, 4% from the fishing sector, 4% in factories, 1% in hospitality, and 1% of domestic help. The most exploited age range is from 18-35 years – no disaggregated figures are shown (Figure 5). The Evaluation Survey showed that 28% of respondents knew someone who had been exploited in the course of migration. The CTIP January 2017 baseline survey revealed that 44% of respondents had migrated before (they were returned migrants).56 The Evaluation Survey shows that 18% of respondents had migrated before,57 and that 33% (17% beneficiaries, 16% non-beneficiaries) expressed an interest in migrating within the next two years.58 The link between past migration and a respondent’s interest in migrating again shows a significant correlation (41% vs. 27%), a reduction from 55% in the CTIP baseline study, with no significant difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.59 The survey shows that knowing the steps to documented migration increases with education (36% with uncompleted primary education vs. 52% with secondary and 65% with post-secondary). More men reported having an understanding of the steps to documented migration than women (50% vs. 36%), 55 NCCT 2017 Annual Report on Anti-Human-Trafficking, p15-16 56 Winrock, KAP Survey, January 2017, p11 57 Question 3.1; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Demographics; note that respondents may have a stigma about responding positively – i.e. that they had migrated before and/or that they are interested in migrating within the next two years 58 Question 3.7; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Figure 7 59 Question 3.7; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Table 20 24 with no significant difference by age. By province, 56% of respondents in Phnom Penh and 54% in BMC have an understanding of the steps compared to 27% in Svay Rieng and 29% in Kampong Thom.60 This compares to the CTIP baseline figure of 42% (not disaggregated by province) who knew the types of documents required to migrate.61 The Evaluation Survey indicates a high correlation between people who know the steps to documented migration and those who have the documentation (90% vs. 46%).62 Literacy The Evaluation Survey shows that 57% of respondents had not completed primary school (16% reported no education and 41% said that they did not complete primary school).63 CTIP does not provide literacy programs. Given that the survey also shows that knowing the steps to documented migration increases with education, literacy programs may address two issues: a basic knowledge of the steps to documented migration and longer-term structural factors pushing people to migrate. Sufficient Livelihoods Neither CTIP, nor the Evaluation Team, have conducted an Economic Rates of Return (ERR) assessment to determine levels on income and household expenditure to ascertain the levels of ‘sufficient’ livelihoods. For the CTIP evaluation, ‘sufficient’ livelihoods is self-determined. The Evaluation Survey indicates that 54% of respondents believe that their livelihood is somewhat or mostly sufficient to cover housing and food costs, compared to 46% who stated that it was mostly or totally insufficient to cover housing and food costs.64 There was no statistically significant correlation between people who reported insufficient livelihood and their interest in migrating (39% vs. 28%).65 The Evaluation Survey conducted an experimental question that varied the level of earnings abroad to determine any financial offsets to home earnings. Half of respondents were given Version A – the option of earning $200 per month in Thailand or remaining in Cambodia, and half were given Version B – the option of earning $300 per month in Thailand or remaining in Cambodia. The results suggest that, for $100 more per month, the proportion of respondents willing to migrate for more money more than doubled from 10% to 22%.66 While the percentage of people willing to migrate was still low at 22%, it showed that potential earnings were still a consideration in migrating. The Evaluation Survey indicates that 48% of respondents expect to be better off socio-economically within two years, 41% about the same, and 11% worse off. Men are more likely to expect to be better off compared to women (53% vs. 45%) and youth are more likely to feel optimistic about their socio￾economic prospects compared to older people (59% aged 18-25 vs. 41% over 40). People in Phnom Penh and Svay Rieng are far more likely to expect to be better off, with people in BMC relatively pessimistic (58% vs 38%). Beneficiaries appear to be slightly more optimistic about their socio-economic future than non-beneficiaries (50% vs. 46%), but it is not statistically significant.67 60 Question 3.8; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Tables 14-17 61 Winrock, KAP Survey, January 2017, p33 62 Questions 3.5 and 3.8; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Table 18 63 Demographics; results in Annex X, Figure 2 64 Question 2.3; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Table 19 65 Question 2.3; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Figure 4 and Table 19 66 Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Figure 8 and Table 27 67 Question 2.5; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Tables 30-33; a larger sample size may have statistical significance 25 Q1 CONCLUSION – SAFE MIGRATION AND/OR SUFFICIENT LIVELIHOOD National and sub-national stakeholders involved in the advocacy and messaging of safe migration in partnership or in collaboration maintain that CTIP’s approach is a significant contributing factor in the decline of undocumented migration and the rise of documented migration. CTIP launched its BCC strategy in September 2018 in one province in conjunction with the Ministry of Education, with great success, although it is due for assessment in 2019. BCC for TIP is a competitive advantage for USAID because it directly targets TIP messaging, unlike other donor approaches, which cover vulnerability in general. MOEYS, in particular, is keen to expand it to other provinces, but has no funds to do so. Partnerships for TIP prevention is occurring at the national level mainly through the Ministry of Education with a stronger emphasis at the sub-national level. The disadvantage is that CTIP lacks its previous high-visibility at the national level. The advantage is that sub-national stakeholders are beginning to understand the links between sufficient livelihoods and the prevention of TIP through income generation and documented migration. However, partnerships is a broad term and most partners are involved in the dissemination of TIP, job opportunities, and documented migration information. With the mid-term total of 647 partnerships, it appears to be a counting exercise with limited strategic direction. Private sector partnerships in CTIP are minimal due to the time it takes to build a meaningful relationship that is sensitive to the needs of low-skilled ARPs – the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. Private sector partnerships generally have a commercial focus, despite their intention for corporate social responsibility (CSR), that makes philosophical, financial, and social harmonization and alignment between the private sector and CTIP difficult to determine. The Bong Pheak job-seeking platform is increasingly attracting registered employers (CTIP also refers to these as local partners) and registered low-skilled job-seekers as a simple and effective means to connect the two: i.e. connecting people at-risk of migrating to local job opportunities. Increasingly, beneficiaries told the Evaluation Team that they want ongoing local jobs, but will consider migrating for work that pays higher wages. While the Bong Pheak conversion rate from applications, to applicants,68 to job hires is estimated at 10%-16% (no definitive figures are yet available), the platform has significant potential for success. The main issues involve user awareness-raising about the service, and for employers to follow-up applications by transient populations who change their contact telephone number frequently, making use of short-term free sim cards and relatives/friends with telephones. The aim is also for employers to conduct a monitoring system for worker satisfaction to indirectly determine worker exploitation, and so far only four partners have conducted the survey. Youth empowerment has been an enabling environment for youth participation in CTIP, particularly through the Community Advisor model (in which educated youth, or other local leaders, provide book￾keeping advice, for a fee, to savings groups or livelihoods, agricultural, and market advice to link farmers to markets) and through the youth ambassador model in the soft skills program (in which young people disseminate information on Bong Pheak, local jobs, and information on documented migration). The volunteer youth ambassador model is a low-cost intervention, using local high school youth. When they graduate from high school, the sustainability of this approach is uncertain. Beneficiaries involved in livelihood interventions and savings groups maintain that the integrated family￾sized farming approach is slowly beginning to generate sufficient income to cover their housing and food 68 The number of applications has been measured (automatically counted through the online platform) since the beginning of the intervention, but because a person can apply to several jobs, the actual number of applicants has only been tracked (manually by asking employers) since July 2018 26 costs compared to those who don’t (54% vs 46%).69 Animal raising and crop production are susceptible to weather conditions and diseases, which could impact their income, but the CTIP model of multiple income sources is addressing such income challenges. Almost full saturation of the people interviewed said that the integrated cyclical approach to farming teaches them economic resilience, contingency￾planning, saving and investing, improved agricultural techniques, and techniques such as using crops to feed animals that then produce crop fertilizer, in addition to proactive networking to seek local advice. Beneficiaries are requesting more training on income resilience and on ways to diversify their farming (from solely chickens, rice, and corn to other methods of agriculture, such as mushroom farming and aquaculture). In order to reduce international migration and remain in Cambodia, ARPs need multiple sources of income to counter seasonal conditions, such as flooding, drought, lower market prices, and personal conditions, such as illness and injury, family bereavement, late payment of goods, and unexpected expenses. Having a farm and raising animals or producing crops, gives people a sense of commitment to the property, greater responsibility, and increased solidarity amongst villagers. The survey results do not show statistically significant benefits of having a CTIP savings account. On the contrary, it shows the disadvantages of not having savings, because people with no savings are significantly more likely to show an interest in migrating (though still at fairly low levels) compared to those with savings than $100 or savings greater than $100 (14% vs. 9% and 12%).70 CTIP beneficiaries, during KIIs and FGDs maintained that ‘improved living conditions’ was more likely to be a factor in their choice whether to migrate temporarily to look for work, and not necessary having a savings account, because they viewed CTIP as a holistic programme of support, from savings to enhanced agricultural skills to business options to improved ways to look for work. During FGDs, beneficiaries said that migration to the capital Phnom Penh, or another province,71 was their family or village preference instead of international migration. For example, in the Kampong Thom FGD 33% of women and 75% of men mentioned the preference for domestic (economic or labor) migration instead of international migration; 6% of women and 100% of men in the Siem Reap FGD; and 28% of women and 100% of men in the Svay Rieng FGD.72 While domestic migration can also involve exploitation of workers, it is regarded as a cheaper and safer form of migration because local authorities and agencies, such as the Ministry of Labor and ILO, have more capacities to monitor and act upon workplace regulation, protection, and prosecution. Overall, beneficiaries are expressing a decreased interest in migrating, but with extra income from livelihoods, beneficiaries (particularly male – see Section 2 on Unintended Consequences) are more likely to afford cheaper methods of documented migration, as indicated during KIIs and FGDs, such as a passport and seasonal visa, temporary foreign worker visa, border pass, or pink card, thereby increasing their interest in documented migration. QUESTION 2: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF PREVENTION ACTIVITIES What are the unintended consequences (positive or negative) of those prevention activities? How are those consequences, if any, affecting CTIP? 69 Question 2.3; Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Table 19 70 Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Table 34 71 IOM defines migration as a process of moving across international borders or within a State – which is referred to as economic, labor, or domestic migration – see Glossary, pxi 72 See Annex XI, FGD Quotes on Migration 27 POSITIVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Gender - Males Having a savings account significantly reduces interest in migrating among beneficiaries than non￾beneficiaries (25% vs. 40%), and specifically, members in a CTIP savings group appear slightly less likely to express an interest in migrating than beneficiaries who are not in a savings group (9% vs. 12%), though it is not statistically significant.73 When disaggregated by sex, having a savings account significantly reduces interest in migrating among men compared to those without a savings account (23% vs. 37%), whereas there is no effect on women with or without a savings account. However, regardless of whether they have a savings account or not, beneficiary males are significantly (though not highly) likely to having an interest in migrating than non-beneficiary males (38% vs. 26%). The ET speculates that this interest coincides with the general trend, expressed in KIIs and FGDs by beneficiaries and stakeholders, for temporary and short-term documented migration internationally, such as to Thailand and Vietnam, or an interest in migrating to Phnom Penh or another province for domestic/labor migration. Hence, although this appears superficially to be a negative consequence of CTIP, it may mask its success in promoting safer migration. Community Solidarity: Integrated Livelihoods and Savings Model During KIIs and FGDs, beneficiaries responded that they could not isolate interventions in terms of their greatest benefits; they saw them as a holistic, cyclical package of interconnected activities that had to be done together to increase livelihoods and improve living conditions, thereby reducing the inclination to migrate. Savings groups enable members to save and take loans with low-interest rates (2%) and fewer conditions and restrictions, helping to reduce debts that were the root cause of their migration. FGDs with savings groups revealed that they are not concerned about failure, but about success (large amount of money in the fund) and have seen a need for a Community Advisor to assist with book-keeping. Some beneficiaries join together to rent land for farming, and communities support each other with information-sharing on ‘good and bad’ migration experiences, practical hands-on agricultural advice through demo farms, and job advice. The agricultural activities have helped to keep people closer to home, seeking supplementary employment locally. Men and women said that they work together on the farm while one migrates temporarily for work, rather than migrating as a family as they previously did. This approach has led to regular school attendance for their children. Demo farms need a large family force, as well as land, water sources, fertile soil, resilience from flooding and drought, local markets, and other factors for greater potential success. While still susceptible to challenges, in KIIs and FGDs, villagers indicated that family bonds had improved. Men, in particular, commented on family and community solidarity that made them reconsider unsafe migration. Their livelihood income also provided them with some or all of the money needed for documented migration. Community Leaders: Building Capacity Commune councils told the evaluators that they recognize the model farmers as local leaders within their communities. This has been a positive unintended consequence of CTIP because initially the model farmers went to village chiefs, commune chiefs, and commune council members for leadership advice. 73 Evaluation Survey Results in Annex X, Table 35 28 Impactful Behavior Change Communication The Ministry of Education was so impressed with the CTIP instructional video and training used in Kampong Cham that it wants to scale up Behavior Change Communication for TIP messages in other provinces, in addition to continuing their inclusion in the school curriculum. The IP plans an assessment of the BCC strategy for 2019 to determine the uptake of the messages, and any positive and/or negative behavioral and attitudinal changes. The Evaluation Survey conducted two experimental questions that varied information on the risks of migration74 to determine whether BCC impacted the decision to migrate. The control group received no information about risks. The treatment group that received information about the risks of exploitation were almost four times less likely to support a family member’s migration (39% vs. 11%), which is statistically significant.75 Exposure to information about risks to women reduced the proportion of those supporting female migration by more than half (26% vs. 12%).76 BCC information, such as these examples, is highly likely to influence people’s decision to migrate safely or to limit movement to other provinces in Cambodia. NEGATIVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Private Sector Partnerships Coca-Cola signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), under its corporate social responsibility (CSR) program, with USAID/Cambodia, commune authorities, and several local companies, to work in partnership with CTIP to support vulnerable women through the establishment of an Ekocenter – a combination of a community center, free water supply (aquatower), and kiosk selling solely Coca-Cola products. The Ekocenter in Por Sen Chey District in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) established in 2006, was launched on October 25, 2017. The MOU provided land, an aquatower, 90 push-carts to transport water to people’s homes, and an adjacent commune-managed community center, which has a library, computer laboratory with 15 computers, and football/volleyball court. Without salary, but with start-up funds, a woman manages the Ekocenter. CTIP reported an estimated 30 families/households from 16 villages received access to 7,000 liters of basic drinking water between April and July, 2018.77 The first CTIP-appointed manager provided some basic business skills (jewelry/beading) to 15 women in the community center, but she resigned in April 2018 because her income was lower than she expected; there was an initial solar pump problem, and she noted a lack of community support because she was not from the local area. In June 2018, CTIP appointed a manager from the village. She earns about $20 per day gross, which supplements the income from her husband’s farm and from her five children, all of whom work in local factories. She does not know where the key to the community center is; the commune has not opened the center to the public; and no further training has occurred.78 Only 3-4 people collect the purified water per day because the community uses rainwater or lake water. Due to the factories nearby, the commune reported ‘only about 4-5 migrating families’ in 2018, so it does not meet CTIP’s selection criteria for high-risk communes. 74 See United Nations International Migrant Report 2017. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2017_Highligh ts.pdf. 75 Evaluation Survey Results in Annex 10, Figure 9 and Table 28 76 Evaluation Survey Results in Annex 10, Figure 10 and Table 29 77 CTIP Progress Report Y3Q3, p13 78 The IP reports that the recruitment of a business trainer has been difficult because local trainers lack adequate expertise, and outside trainers are too expensive and think that the pay offered is minimal 29 Remittances CTIP and NGOs currently provide limited or no information to families on how to use remittances from a migrating member who is sending money home. The CTIP KAP baseline study showed that 89% of respondents used remittances for household needs, 30% for payment of debts, 27% for education, 22% for health care, 8% for household equipment, and 7% for house renovation, and only 9% used remittances for savings, 3% for business, and 9% for other purposes such as home rent, family events (e.g. weddings), farming, or buying land.79 Comments during KIIs and FGDs confirmed that they are using remittances to pay debts and buy food and household goods. CTIP beneficiaries did not connect the remittances with income that could be invested by depositing a proportion into their savings accounts or into their farm or small business, even though they invest other income. Q2 CONCLUSION – UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES The Coca-Cola Ekocenter is located in Phnom Penh SEZ where the local population has access to factory employment, and few families are migrating or are at-risk of migrating. The commune has not taken ownership of the community center, leaving it non-functioning since April 2018. Although Coca￾Cola has launched Ekocenters in other developing countries, its philosophy is incompatible with CTIP. The location of Ekocenters are in close proximity to populations with income, but the location of CTIP interventions serve at-risk people of low income and low-education. Svay Rieng, a targeted CTIP province, for example, has periods of drought and flooding annually, with populations in need of clean drinking water for improved living conditions, but is outside Coca-Cola’s sphere of viability because it is an extremely poor area that is not close to factories or tourist locations. In stark contrast to the non-functioning private sector intervention is CTIP’s localized integrated community support that is building local capacity, providing practical demonstrations of farming techniques, promoting multiple sources of income, and strengthening community solidarity. Another marker of success is that while beneficiary males are expressing interest in migrating, it is likely to be for temporary short-term, such as seasonal work, internationally or in another province within Cambodia, showing a preference for safer migration than undocumented migration. QUESTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CTIP PERFORMANCE What actionable recommendations, in relation to prevention, could be made to improve activity performance for the remaining period? Recommendations for the Implementing Partner Livelihoods • CTIP should continue its integrated models of support, as follows: o Integrated Livelihoods and Savings Model o Integrated (Cyclical) Farming o Multiple Income Sources o Demo Farms and Model Farmers o Community Advisor Model • CTIP should continue practical, hands-on demonstration models for the training of agricultural techniques for low-skilled and low-education ARPs. • CTIP should emphasize the impact of environmental and extenuating circumstances on agriculture-based households that have shown to be a predictor of the inclination to migrate 79 CTIP Knowledge Attitudes & Practices (KAP) on Safe Migration in Cambodia, Baseline Study, 2017, p27-29, 34, 46 30 (such as drought), and agriculture interventions should focus on income resilience in overcoming livelihood challenges. • CTIP should strengthen the diversification model of farming and livelihoods and review the types of livelihood interventions to ensure updated methods. • CTIP should consider the use of Short-Term Technical Assistants (STTAs) to inject international-level expertise in select areas, such as rural development, livelihood diversification, and other agricultural and livelihood topics to ensure activities remain relevant, modern, and take into account innovations in technology and techniques. • CTIP should continue its planning for exchange learning programs and partnerships that focus on livelihood improvement strategies. Soft Skills • CTIP should strengthen its soft skills strategy to include remittances. • CTIP should consider providing functional literacy skills or an effective referral mechanism for literacy skills, non-formal classes or formal education programs, where possible, to enhance beneficiaries’ level of basic education, and to help improve beneficiaries’ awareness and knowledge of safe migration, particularly for women. • CTIP should explore additional ways to involve youth in CTIP interventions, such as its previous activities in radio programming and mobile photography exhibition. • CTIP should ensure that soft skills training includes gender issues in raising the level of perception of financial independence for women, particularly for women outside Phnom Penh. • CTIP should revise and/or develop its GESI and youth policies, incorporating existing USAID policies, particularly regarding information for women on the steps to documented migration. Bong Pheak • CTIP should continue its plan to undertake an extensive review of Bong Pheak and its monitoring and evaluation approaches to ensure effective, relevant, and unambiguous results, particularly showing (1) sociodemographics, (2) industries, (3) monthly conversion rates from applications, applicants, and job hire, and a (4) study on job-related statistics, such as the time between application and hire, the type of employment (casual, temporary, permanent, on-call, etc.), whether the employment is away from the person’s home province (i.e. domestic migration), period of employment, training on the job for low-skilled workers, etc.80 • CTIP should consider a strategy for improving the effectiveness of employers and job-seekers connecting with each other, such as collecting an alternative telephone number, because transient populations change their telephone number frequently. • CTIP should extend Bong Pheak’s outreach to users via their planned video (currently in production). Expanded current linkages with the National Employment Agency to collaborate in a more strategic way to disseminate Bong Pheak information and to provide soft skills should also be considered. • CTIP should continue its efforts on the workers satisfaction surveys. 80 The Bong Pheak monthly statistics shows the number of applications (easily measured when applicants press ‘yes’ when interested in the job – this is automatically built into the system), but the accurate number of applicants is unknown because a person can apply to several jobs; to determine the number of applicants for the month of July 2018, Open Institute conducted a telephone poll in July (manually); an effective method of measuring the conversion rate to job hire is yet to be developed 31 Partnerships • CTIP should clarify expectations for partnerships and narrow its definition of ‘partnership’ to cover a select few strategic and collaborative models in which there are clear strategies for the prevention of TIP, rather than solely for dissemination of material, with limited information – such as numbers and/or locations – or to use the indicator as a counting exercise. • CTIP should strengthen its communications with NCCT to enhance the partnership and keep NCCT informed of its activities, such as through the dissemination of a brief annual report, to remain highly visible in the national sphere. • CTIP should consider partnering with the International Labor Organization and UN Women, who are implementing the EU-funded ‘Fair and Safe Project’ which works with destination countries (mainly Thailand) on TIP-related issues, such as women migrant workers’ rights.81 TIP Communication • CTIP should continue its plan to assess the effects of its 2018 Behavior Change Communication strategy in 2019. • CTIP should consider scaling up the BCC strategy into other provinces, if possible, based on findings and recommendations in the BCC assessment planned for 2019. Recommendations for USAID/Cambodia • USAID should view the 2018 Behavior Change Communication for TIP strategy as a competitive advantage and upscale where possible to CTIP’s targeted provinces. • USAID should reconsider the social, financial and ethical ramifications of the Impact Evaluation’s (IE) recommendations and implementation of selecting (randomly from the government’s list of ID poor 1 and 2 people) and separating communes by interventions so that the impact can be evaluated – i.e. (1) 49 communes with only livelihood support; (2) 28 new communes with only soft skills training; and (3) 32 new communes with livelihoods and soft skills support – especially for the 28 new communes that receive soft skills alone. The IE method disregards the theory of change (development hypothesis) for the holistic approach to TIP prevention, and CTIP’s Commune Vulnerability Index for the selection criteria of communes and ARP support. QUESTION 4: LESSONS LEARNED IN DESIGNING & MANAGING CTIP PROGRAMS What lessons learned could be made to USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs in Cambodia? Transition from CTIP-II and National-Level Void CTIP-II provided high-level support to several ministries and government agencies, such as the Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport; Ministry of Women’s Affairs; Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation; Ministry of Interior; Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training; and the NCCT for the development of the National Plan of Action – with the goal to strengthen institutional capacity to combat TIP. KIIs conducted during this evaluation revealed that CTIP-II’s staff were highly visible, sought-after, and well-respected as international experts, not only for their work in Cambodia, but also in the Asia region due to their substantial regional TIP activity. At the national level, the current CTIP shifted its support focus from several government ministries to predominantly the Prevention Working Group, led by MOEYS, to organize trainings on ID guidelines 81 http://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/news-and-events/events/2017/11/project-launch-at-spotlight-initiative-event 32 and database system development, and the Migration Working Group, led by MOLVT, to review the Labor Migration Policy. CTIP also supported NCCT’s General Secretariat to conduct a mid-term review of the NPA 2014-2018 and TIP events. CTIP has a greater focus on support at the sub-national level through the PCCTs, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Rural Development. These line ministries regard the IP and USAID as high-level experts. However, national-level ministries that no longer receive the depth of support that they experienced with CTIP-II perceive an abrupt end to the provision of national-level support and advice. They feel that it left a void, resulting in the perception by national stakeholders of a lack of IP and USAID visibility, and their diminishing reputation as the foremost international partner for TIP advice and expertise. CTIP’s Implementing Partner’s and Sub￾Partner’s focus on sub-national support is viewed as the IP “acting like a local NGO.” Hence, as a lesson learned, visibility is key to trust and reputation, at both national and sub-national levels. TIP Research and Effective Models The Implementing Partner conducted extensive research in TIP in Cambodia, Southeast Asia, and globally before designing its CTIP interventions and models for livelihoods, income generation, and safe migration. The link between research and the successful implementation of interventions is demonstrated by the IP’s effective models, such as: 1. Choice of Sub-Awardees and Sub-Partners (with specific skills and expertise) 2. Provision of Support to Communities and Families to Strengthen Social Cohesion (rather than primarily supporting individual beneficiaries) 3. Integrated Livelihoods and Savings Model (cycle of income from livelihoods, saving a proportion of the income, and re-investing it back into livelihoods) 4. Multiple Income Sources (resilience at the village level) 5. Demo Farms and Model Farmers (for local economic growth, village solidarity, learning and experimenting in agricultural techniques) 6. Integrated Farming (cycle: crops for animal food, animal manure for crop fertilizer) 7. Community Advisor Model (to bridge farmers with markets and business advice, and to provide book-keeping expertise to savings groups). Transient Populations The interconnection of CTIP’s models also serve to address many issues related to transient populations, such as personal and travel documentation, safe mobility, land ownership and use, income generation options, child safety and education, family linkages, and community solidarity. Supporting these models are Sub-Partners committed to the economic and social development of families. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion In 2016, the IP conducted an assessment on social discrimination and TIP, which informed its initial BCC IEC approach, and incorporated a Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) staff member in the Phnom Penh office for 18 months. CTIP’s 2018 BCC strategy also incorporates GESI.82 However, there is no specific CTIP GESI strategy, although there is a new cross-cutting indicator to count activities that promote GESI from Year 3: IR 4.1 # actions from partners to promote gender and social inclusion (LOP target 32, with a MTE result of 126).83 In addition, the database was adapted to monitor the indicator.84 82 CTIP Progress Report, Y3Q3, p25 83 CTIP Progress Report, Y3Q3, p18 84 CTIP Annual Report, Year 2, p19 33 Sub-Partners The choice of Sub-Partners is critical to the implementation of the 4P paradigm. In CTIP, the Sub￾Partners, chosen through a competitive process, had expertise, experience, and country-wide reputation in their core activities. They received training on TIP, based on the IP’s extensive research, with regular capacity development and annual Sub-Partner workshops. However, there is no current provision for international expertise through short-term technical assistants to ensure that methodologies remain relevant and are updated to consider innovations in technology and techniques. Savings Groups Success Factors The Evaluation Team compared the effectiveness of savings groups across provinces and between the previous CTIP-II and the current CTIP. In all situations, the savings groups were supported by the same Sub-Partner – i.e. the constant factor. The results are shown in Table 17. Table 17: Comparison: Savings Groups Success Factors – Kampong Thom vs. Siem Reap Savings Groups in Siem Reap are working better than in Kampong Thom, under the same Sub-Partner, because: SAVINGS GROUPS IN KAMPONG THOM SAVINGS GROUPS IN SIEM REAP Not near a tourist village (for sales and seasonal work) Near a tourist village (for seasonal work) Further from a major town Closer to a major town Most members do not own their land & debate the advantages of renting land Most members own their land Few to no NGOs and/or USAID Activity in the region for linkages Several NGOs and USAID Activity in the region for linkages New PCCT is still building networks and knowledge More established PCCT is familiar with region, communes and villagers Less diversity for income & less reinforcement of safe migration messages leads to more migration With more diversity for income generation, there is less inclination to migrate PREVIOUS CTIP CURRENT CTIP Savings Groups were not provided with TIP information Savings Groups have direct knowledge of TIP & links to a range of contacts & information Savings Groups were small with 8-15 members Savings Groups have no limit to membership Savings Groups were not linked to income generation Savings Groups are linked to income generation Savings Groups were not linked to demo farms Savings Groups are linked to demo farms Source: Interviews during the MTE, September & October 2018, with CEDAC, beneficiaries, PCCT, village chiefs, etc. Small Grants A Sub-Partner in Banteay Meanchey provided 80 small grants without expecting the grantee to give back a portion of initial profits to the community via savings groups, whereas other Sub-Partners determined that ‘give back’ was mandatory. The learning experience was that ‘giving back’ was a means of poverty reduction in a meaningful, local way through a conscious cycle of community support. Giving back can be a sustainable method of strengthening community development and cohesion. Coordination with USAID and Donor Programs CTIP found it difficult to work collaboratively with, or refer beneficiaries to, other USAID and donor programs due to different beneficiary selection criteria. While donors work with vulnerable groups, CTIP selects ARPs, according to its 12 criteria,85 in communes that are often isolated from donor support. USAID’s Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II, implemented from September 2017 in Siem Reap is close to CTIP’s target communes, but with different target groups. CTIP attempted to collaborate with IOM’s Trudeau Labor Forum (TLF) on development cooperation training, but the TLF’s 85 CTIP has a 12-point selection criteria for the inclusion of at-risk people; for its soft skills training this was modified to a 7- point criteria 34 selection criteria included a higher level of education than CTIP’s beneficiaries have. However, CTIP is complementing ILO’s EU-funded strategies to improve working conditions for local workers and to address exploitation and potential trafficking-in-persons, which is continuing. CTIP could also focus its partnership efforts with ILO’s Fair and Safe Project in Thailand.86 Q4 CONCLUSION – LESSONS LEARNED Lessons learned for USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs in Cambodia include the importance for the Implementing Partner to develop or build upon extensive internal and international research and experience before designing its interventions and components. For example, the integrated and holistic approach designed before implementation can guide the selection of Sub-Partners to work at the local level (sub-national level) more effectively. CTIP’s approach was for the IP to have the essential and critical trafficking-in-persons knowledge, expertise and experience, and to select Sub￾Partners that have specific technical expertise – such as livelihoods, income generation, small grants, and ICT skills. The IP subsequently trained and mentored Sub-Partner members in TIP philosophy, strategies, and messaging. Support needs to be continually and consistently visible at both national and sub-national levels with a range of stakeholders and beneficiaries to ensure trust and reputation 5. CONCLUSIONS USAID/Cambodia has made progress in addressing TIP-related issues from 2002 to 2018, with the general trend downwards in undocumented migration and an increase in documented migration. Exploitation of migrant workers still exists, but at a lower rate of 10% on average, mainly because documented migration does not guarantee safe migration. It facilitates safer migration. Beneficiaries are stating that they prefer domestic migration to international migration, and shorter-term temporary migration to longer term: previous terms of 10 years overseas is being shortened to months of intermittent travel. This is also in concert with the government of Cambodia’s efforts in promoting documented migration, disseminating the contact details of approved registered agencies to process documentation, and agreements with destination countries on border passes, pink cards, seasonal work requirements, and work visas. CTIP has endeavored to include cross-cutting programming, such as GESI, youth, and partnerships. All of these cross-cutting issues require some level of improvement, to include USAID’s existing youth and gender policies, and the development of a more strategic approach to partnerships for safer migration and/or improved livelihoods. There is an important opportunity, and need, for USAID to expand the BCC strategy specifically for TIP, and to disseminate messages to a wider audience by upscaling to other CTIP targeted provinces (beyond its first successful launch in Kampong Cham in September 2018). 86 http://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/news-and-events/events/2017/11/project-launch-at-spotlight-initiative-event - 1 - ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of the evaluation is to (1) assess the prevention activities of Cambodia Countering Trafficking-in-Persons (CTIP), (2) propose key actionable recommendations for USAID and the implementing partner (Winrock International) to improve the performance of CTIP in the remaining period, and (3) provide lessons learned to USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs. The audience of the evaluation report will be the USAID/Cambodia Mission, including the Office of Democracy and Governance, the Program Office, DCHA/DRG’s Center of Excellence, and the implementing partner. The evaluation is to cover the period from the beginning of the CTIP Activity on September 25, 2015 until June 30, 2018. BACKGROUND Mechanism information Activity Name Cambodia Countering Trafficking-in-Persons (CTIP) Activity Implementer Winrock International Cooperative Agreement Number AID-442-A-15-00002 Total Estimated Amount $8,500,000 Life of Activity 09/25/2015 - 09/30/2019 Geographic Region Cambodia: Nine target provinces (Phnom Penh, Svay Rieng, Prey Veng, Kampong Cham, Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, Uddor Meanchey, Banteay Meanchey, and Koh Kong) Development Objective(s) (DOs) DO1: Strengthened democracy and government accountability, and enhanced respect for human rights Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR)/USAID Managing Office Makara Ou, Governance and Rule of Law Team Leader, Office of Democracy and Governance Description of the Problem and Development Hypothesis The CTIP Activity has three main objectives: • Prevention: Enhanced national and local strategies to prevent TIP by focusing on root causes of trafficking; • Protection: Strengthened survivor protection and services for all forms of TIP through victim identification strategies and reintegration options for men, women, and children; • Prosecution: Increased likelihood of successful prosecutions of TIP and reduced impunity for offenders. - 2 - CTIP Results Framework: Summary of the Activity to be Evaluated The CTIP activity directly supports USAID’s goal to strengthen democracy and accountability. The activity addresses root causes to prevent trafficking, offering diversified, climate-resilient livelihood pathways that reduce dependence on seasonal agriculture, and educating vulnerable individuals on safe migration, with emphasis on youth engagement and activism. The activity employs a locally guided and oriented approach tailored solutions that respond to communities’ unique needs and build community safety nets to protect survivors and underserved populations and increase access to and quality of available services. In addition, the activity strengthens Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) efforts to counter TIP at the national and sub-national levels, providing technical assistance to address TIP Report recommendations such as increasing victim identification and resources, enforcing and monitoring policies, and enhancing prosecution. As of March 2018, CTIP accomplished the following in relation to prevention activities: Saving groups: • 153 saving groups created out of 302 targeted for the life of the project (LOP) • 3,161 beneficiaries of created saving groups • created in 153 villages in nine provinces Small grants: • 161 small grants granted out of 873 targeted for LOP • 161 beneficiaries of existing small grants • in 80 villages, 41 communes, nine provinces Agriculture cooperative (AC): • Five ACs established out of six targeted for LOP • 251 beneficiaries of established AC • established in 6 villages, 5 communes, 3 provinces (Svay Rieng, Banteay Meanchey, Koh Kong) - 3 - Bong Pheak, new job seeking platform for low-skilled and unskilled workers (as of December 2017): • 3,803 registered job seekers • 2,301 open job positions • 86,258 webpage users • 2,108 jobs referred via phone • 10,291 job applications • 995 successful job placements As stated above, the CTIP Activity mainly focuses on addressing root causes of trafficking and improving livelihood development through various activities under prevention component. This has made prevention the most important component under the CTIP Activity. The CTIP Activity collects the following key indicators: IR 1: # of partners (private sector partners, NGOs, IOs) providing material, in- kind, technical and financial support towards TIP prevention (baseline value and targets/actual results available by year). # of assisted provincial committees accessing and spending allocated government budget for TIP (baseline value and targets/ actualresults available by year). Sub-IR 1.1: % knowledge change in target population, who are exposed to Behavior Change Communication (BCC) campaigns on protective behaviors to prevent TIP (baseline value available, final statistics will be collected in FY 2019). % behavioral change to prevent TIP in the migration processing target population who are exposed to BCC campaigns (baseline value available, final statistics will be collected in FY 2019). Sub-IR 1.2: % of participating households at risk of TIP with improved livelihoods (baseline value available, final statistics will be collected in FY 2019). # of communes with reduced vulnerability to TIP (baseline value available, final statistics will be collected in FY 2019). Sub-IR 1.3: # of assisted communes allocating and accessing funds for TIP prevention activities (baseline value and targets/actual results available by year). IR 2: % of assisted victims of TIP accessing multiple services (baseline value and targets/actual results available by year). # of TIP victims referred to services for reintegration by commune councils’ trained members (baseline value and targets/actual results available by year). Sub-IR 2.1: % of TIP victims who are served in programs created, run, and/or assisted by USG funding (baseline value and targets/actual results available by year). Sub-IR 2.2: % of service providers showing an increase of knowledge in technical TIP related issues with USG assistance (baseline value and targets/actual results available by year). - 4 - EVALUATION QUESTIONS The Contractor must answer all evaluation questions below: 1. Do CTIP prevention activities contribute to increasing safe migration and/or sufficient livelihood for targeted population to choose not to migrate? Why and/or why not? 2. What are the unintended consequences (positive or negative) of those prevention activities? How are those consequences, if any, affecting CTIP? 3. What actionable recommendations, in relation to prevention, could be made to improve activity performance for the remaining period? 4. What lessons learned could be made to USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs in Cambodia? EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The Contractor must address the evaluation questions presented above for this mid- term performance evaluation. USAID requires that a mixed methods approach, comprising both quantitative and qualitative methods, will be used for the evaluation methodology. Data requirements, collection methods, and required analyses must be determined collaboratively with USAID/Cambodia under the direction of an independent, external Team Leader. Details on final datasets, collection methods and instruments, and analytical framework(s) must be approved by the TOCOR as part of the work plan approval. Data must be disaggregated by sex, where relevant. The Contractor must conduct a document review to develop an analytical framework to guide this evaluation. Based on the desk review of CTIP documentation, the Contractor must develop a comprehensive evaluation work plan that clearly shows how each evaluation question will be answered with a specific data collection and analysis methods. Tools and methodologies to collect data from program participants must be clear. USAID/Cambodia will share the documents below with the Contractor upon award of the contract. The Contractor may request additional documents from USAID/Cambodia. CTIP Cooperative Agreement and Modifications CTIP Work Plans CTIP M&E Plan CTIP Progress Reports Emerging Markets Consulting’s Research Paper on Migration Internal Migration Patterns and Practices of Low-Skilled and Unskilled Workers in Cambodia Besides data collection in Phnom Penh, the Contractor will need to travel to Svay Rieng, Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, and Banteay Meanchey for data collection. The Contractor is responsible for arranging all meetings and appointments needed to complete the required work outlined in this statement of work. USAID requests that the evaluator complete the following table as part of its detailed design and evaluation plan. Please note that another format may be used if the table is not preferred, but any chosen format should contain all the information specified for each question. - 5 - Evaluation question Data source Data collection method (including sampling methodology, where applicable) Data analysis method DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS All deliverables are internal to USAID/Cambodia and the Contractor unless otherwise instructed by USAID/Cambodia. Evaluation Work Plan: Within 14 calendar days of the effective date of the contract, the Contractor must submit a work plan for the evaluation to the TOCOR. The work plan must include the following: The anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements; Proposed submission dates of each deliverable; A list of the members of the Evaluation Team, delineated by roles and responsibilities; and An evaluation design. The evaluation design must include: • a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the evaluation questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the analysis plan; • all data collection instruments or their main features; • the list of potential interviewees and organizations; and • known limitations to the evaluation design. USAID/Cambodia will take four (4) calendar days to review and consolidate comments through the TOCOR. Once the Contractor receives the consolidated comments from USAID on the evaluation work plan, the team must address the comments in the final work plan and submit it to the TOCOR for approval within two (2) calendar days. In-briefing: Within 21 calendar days of the effective date of the contract, the Contractor is required to have an in￾briefing with USAID/Cambodia in-person for introductions and to discuss the team’s understanding of the evaluation, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and to answer any pending questions. This must occur before the finalization of the work plan. Regular Updates: The Evaluation Team Leader must brief the TOCOR on progress made with the evaluation on at least a weekly basis, in person or by electronic communication in an informal report to be sent via email. Any delays or complications must be communicated to the TOCOR as early as possible to allow for quick resolution and to minimize any disruptions to the evaluation. Final Exit Briefings: Within 56 calendar days of the effective date of the contract, the Contractor must hold two final exit briefings prior to leaving the country. One briefing is with USAID/Cambodia and another with the implementing partners (as appropriate and as defined by USAID/Cambodia). The debriefings should include initial findings from the evaluation through a PowerPoint presentation, including a discussion of key evaluation findings only, with no recommendations for possible modifications to program approaches, results, or activities. The Contractor must consider USAID/Cambodia and partner - 6 - comments received during the exit briefings and incorporate them appropriately in drafting the evaluation report. First Draft Evaluation Report: The first draft evaluation report must be consistent with the guidance provided in Section C.7: Final Report Format. The report must 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. Within 70 calendar days of the effective date of the contract, the Contractor must submit the first draft report to the TOCOR. Once the first draft evaluation report is submitted, the TOCOR will disseminate the first draft report to USAID/Cambodia and to the CTIP implementing partner to review and comment. USAID/Cambodia and the implementing partner will provide comments on the evaluation report within 14 calendar days after the receipt of the draft evaluation report (one set of comments from USAID/Cambodia and another from the IP). Second Draft Evaluation Report: The Contractor will have seven calendar days to revise the first draft report based on comments received and submit the second draft report to the TOCOR. The second draft evaluation report will incorporate comments made on the first draft report as deemed appropriate by the Contractor. USAID/Cambodia and the CTIP implementing partner will have seven days to review the second draft. The Contractor must provide justifications for any comments which are not addressed in the second draft report. Final Evaluation Report: The Contractor must address/incorporate any final comments/revisions and submit the Final Report to the TOCOR within seven calendar days after receipt of USAID comments on the second draft of the report. All data and records must be submitted in full and in electronic form in easily readable format, organized and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the CTIP evaluation. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION The Contractor will provide a team of three key personnel and an enumeration team. The team must have the following expertise: countering trafficking-in-persons experience, experience conducting evaluations for USAID or other major donors, and experience managing or evaluating programs in Cambodia or South-East Asia. Evaluation Advisor (Team Leader), International A senior-level evaluation advisor with appropriate educational level and work experience in line with the Labor Categories set forth in the IDIQ in managing and conducting evaluations. The team leader must have at least 10 years of experience in evaluating or managing countering trafficking-in-persons programs. The team leader must also be an excellent English writer. Familiarity with USAID evaluation policy and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) Chapter 201 is required. This team member must have a general understanding of development issues in Cambodia or South-East Asia countries. The team leader will be responsible for development of the evaluation and overall team coordination, including ensuring that team members adequately understand their roles and responsibilities, and for assigning individual data/information collection, and reporting responsibilities. Two Technical Advisors (Team Members), Local Two mid-level technical advisors with at least a Master’s degree and 5 years of work experience, or Bachelor’s degree and 8 years of work experience. Both team members must have experience in countering trafficking-in-persons and possess knowledge of the Cambodian context. The team members must possess a general understanding of development issues in developing countries. The candidates - 7 - must possess experience in conducting evaluation or research studies. Both team members must have strong English language skills in both written and verbal communications. Given the sensitivity of topics to be discussed with the respondents, one of the team members must be female. Enumeration Team The Enumeration Team will help collect and analyze quantitative data. The Enumeration Team will at a minimum include a Survey Team Leader, a Database Specialist, Fieldwork Manager(s) and a sufficient number of Enumerators. The Enumeration Team member must have experience in successfully conducting similar quantitative data collection and analysis. A member of the USAID/Cambodia’s Program Office staff may accompany the Contractor during data collection and/or data analysis, in both Phnom Penh and in the field. The staff will not directly participate in the data collection, responsible for writing the report findings or arranging logistics. The TOCOR of this evaluation contract may join the Contractor to observe some data collection efforts. EVALUATION SCHEDULE This evaluation must be completed within a 15-week period, starting on the effective date of the contract. This period includes preparatory work before arrival in-country and finalization of deliverables after the trip. A six-day work week is authorized for this activity while in Cambodia. Activity Schedule Desk review Week 1-2 Submit draft evaluation work plan Week 2 In country fieldwork (in-briefing, data collection, data analysis, out-briefing) Week 3-8 First draft evaluation report preparation and submission Week 9-10 USAID/Cambodia review of the first draft report (14 days) Week 11-12 Second draft evaluation report preparation and submission Week 13 USAID/Cambodia review of the second draft report (7 days) Week 14 Final evaluation report preparation and submission Week 15 FINAL REPORT FORMAT The final evaluation report must include -Abstract; -Executive Summary; -Background Section--of the local context and the activity being evaluated; -Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions; -Evaluation Methodology and Limitations; and -Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” (https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/How-to-Note_Preparing- Evaluation￾Reports.pdf) and A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 201 (https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201mah). An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit (https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/evaluation-report-template). - 8 - The executive summary must be 2–5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned. The evaluation methodology must be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation must be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology. The annexes to the report must include at a minimum: • The Evaluation SOW; • Any statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the Evaluation Team, if any; • 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; • 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 interest relative to CTIP; and • 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 90 days of the evaluation’s conclusion (approval of the final report by USAID). CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT USAID will evaluate the quality of evaluation report based on the Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 201, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report (https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201maa). See the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit (https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/evaluation-report-checklist-and-review-template) for additional guidance. - 9 - ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY EVALUATION ETHICS and QUALITY STANDARDS In accordance with the SOW, USAID’s quality standards ADS 201 will apply to this evaluation, including guidance on preparing evaluation reports and document, A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 201. Data will be disaggregated by sex at the outcome and output levels and for all people-level indicators; and geographic location (province vs. county and urban vs. rural) where appropriate. Limitations to the evaluation will be disclosed in the evaluation report, including limitations associated with the evaluation methodology, such as selection bias, recall bias, and unobservable differences between comparison groups. All members of the Evaluation Team will uphold ethical standards. The Evaluation Team will obtain informed consent from all participants, where relevant, such as during the population-based survey. Confidentiality and privacy rights are guaranteed under TMG’s policies and procedures, in conjunction with gender-sensitivity and cultural-sensitivity. EVALUATION TEAM The MTE will have three teams working as a holistic Evaluation Team. CTIP MTE Team EVALUATION TEAM – KIIs and FGDs – QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION Core team to conduct the MTE, design the methodology, collect data (through KIIs and FGDs), contribute to analysis, write the draft report, and finalize the report. Ms. Martina Nicolls MSc, BEd, DipT. International Team Leader & Evaluator; Youth Programming Expert; Gender Expert; Anti-Trafficking Advisor; Livelihoods & Income Generation Expert Ms. Sophea Seng Local Technical Advisor; Anti-Trafficking Expert; Translator & Interpreter; Researcher; M&E Ms. Sophea Touch Local Technical Advisor; M&E; Gender Expert; Child Protection Expert SURVEY TEAM – Survey – QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION Emerging Markets Consulting (EMC) and the Survey TL will design, manage, and implement the survey, conducted in parallel with KIIs/FGDs; conduct the survey analysis, and prepare relevant graphs and tables. EMC’s office in Phnom Penh will provide logistical support (transport, accommodation, equipment and supplies). Dr. John McCauley International Survey Team Leader EMC Local Resource Partner Firm 7 EMC enumerators Survey Implementers TMG HQ TEAM Mr. Jenkins Cooper TMG Vice President of Operations Mr. Abi Fasosin TMG Senior Strategic Advisor/Financial Management & Budgeting Mr. Jeremy Chevrier TMG Senior Strategic & Technical Advisor/Monitoring and Evaluation Ms. Rosa Ayala TMG Program & Office Manager Team Leader: Ms. Nicolls is a proven evaluation expert, with 32 years of monitoring and evaluation, research and development experience with the U.S. Department of Labor, USAID, AusAID, Asian USAID defines a performance evaluation as: Performance evaluations encompass a broad range of evaluation methods. They often incorporate before-after comparisons but generally lack a rigorously defined counterfactual. Performance evaluations may focus on what a particular project or program has achieved (at any point during or after implementation); how it was implemented; how it was perceived and valued; and other questions that are pertinent to design, management, and operational decision making. Source: USAID ADS 201, p147 - 10 - Development Bank, and the World bank among others. She possesses strong management and technical skills, having led several trafficking-in-persons evaluation and assessment teams in the field, including Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and Laos. Ms. Nicolls also has experience in livelihoods, income generation and rural development that will be critically relevant to an evaluation of CTIP prevention activities. As Team Leader, Ms. Nicolls will liaise with the Mission, supervise the team, and ensure timely team production of high-quality deliverables, per the RFTOP. Technical Advisors: Ms. Sophea Seng brings over 14 years of experience in anti-trafficking activities as a translator, interpreter and researcher. Ms. Sophea Touch brings over 15 years of experience in monitoring and evaluation, capacity building, gender issues, child protection, good governance, and research. The Technical Advisors will support the Team Leader to produce the evaluation methodology and work plan; assist in the design of the data collection instruments; and co-conduct KIIs and FGDs. They will participate in briefings and contribute their analysis along with key sections of the report pertaining to gender and advocacy. Survey Team Leader: The Enumeration Team will be working under the technical direction of Dr. John McCauley. Dr. McCauley is a development and conflict specialist with over 15 years of research and field experience. He is a practitioner of evidence-based social science with training in survey, experimental, quantitative, and qualitative research methodologies. The Survey Team Leader will supervise surveys including data gathering, handling, coding, and cleaning. The Evaluation Team Leader (ETL) will be responsible for development of the evaluation and overall team coordination, their roles and responsibilities, assigning individual data and information collection, regular updates to USAID, and writing the report. The Survey Team Leader (STL) will supervise the survey, including the survey questionnaire design and formulation, pilot testing of the questionnaire, data collection, analysis, and the preparation of supporting graphs and tables, working with a local partner firm EMC. EMC will also assist with logistical support to the team. STATEMENT OF THE EVALUATION In the Statement of Work (SOW) USAID/Cambodia provides guidance on the scope of the evaluation. CTIP undertakes interventions in 9 provinces in Cambodia. The MTE will cover 5 provinces, as indicated in the SOW: Phnom Penh, Svay Rieng, Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, and Banteay Meanchey (BMC). USAID/Cambodia lists 7 prevention indicators and 4 protection indicators in the SOW which will be assessed in the MTE in relation to their mid-term progress towards their Life-of-Project targets (see Table below).87 CTIP Summary of Indicators and Life-of-Project Targets included in the MTE PREVENTION INDICATORS TARGET IR1. # of partners (private sector, NGOs, IOs) providing material, in-kind, technical and financial support towards TIP prevention 520 IR1. # assisted provincial committees accessing & spending allocated government budget for TIP 8 Sub-IR 1.1: % knowledge change in target population who are exposed to Behavior Change 53% 87 USAID, CTIP MTE SOW, p3-4 - 11 - Communication (BCC) campaigns on protective behaviors to prevent TIP Sub-IR 1.1: % behavioral change to prevent TIP in the migration process in target population who are exposed to BCC campaigns 29% Sub-IR 1.2: % participating households at risk of TIP reporting improved livelihoods 70% Sub-IR 1.2: # of communes with reduced vulnerability to TIP Baseline Sub-IR 1.3: # of assisted communes allocating and accessing funds for TIP prevention activities 50 PROTECTION INDICATORS TARGET IR2. % of assisted survivors of TIP accessing multiple services 75% IR2. # of TIP victims referred to services for reintegration by trained local authorities and trained community key informants 105 Sub-IR 2.1: % of TIP victims who are served in programs created, run, and/or assisted by USG funding 70% Sub-IR 2.2: % of service providers showing an increase of knowledge in technical TIP related issues with USG assistance 80% Source: USAID SOW p3-4; Winrock, Program Description; MEP Year 3, Q3 USAID/Cambodia provides four Evaluation Questions, with three of them focusing on prevention interventions, which will form the basis of the MTE. The four evaluation questions are:88 1. Do CTIP prevention activities contribute to increasing safe migration and/or sufficient livelihood for targeted population to choose not to migrate? Why and/or why not?89 2. What are the unintended consequences (positive or negative) of those prevention activities? How are those consequences, if any, affecting CTIP? 3. What actionable recommendations, in relation to prevention, could be made to improve activity performance for the remaining period? 4. What lessons learned could be made to USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs in Cambodia? USAID/Cambodia notes that the CTIP Activity mainly focuses on addressing root causes of trafficking and improving livelihood development through various activities under the prevention component. Therefore, the purpose of the MTE is to assess the prevention interventions.90 However, the MTE will also assess the design, coordination and management of the three components (in order to answer Evaluation Question #4), and assess the cross-cutting gender, youth, and partnerships interventions and strategies. EVALUATION APPROACH The MTE will be conducted in three phases: (1) Desk Review and Evaluation Work Plan, (2) Field Phase, and (3) Analysis and Report Writing. Phase 1: Desk Review 88 USAID, CTIP MTE SOW, p4-5 89 Prevention activities, such as saving groups, small grants, agriculture cooperatives, and Bong Pheak – Big Brother job seeking platform 90 USAID, CTIP MTE SOW, p3 & p5 - 12 - Phase 1 of the evaluation includes a desk review of key project documents, provided by USAID/Cambodia, which include: CTIP Cooperative Agreement and Modifications; CTIP Work Plans; CTIP Monitoring and Evaluation Plan; CTIP Annual and Quarterly Progress Reports; the CTIP Baseline surveys (Savings Group Study, Commune Vulnerability Index Study, and a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice - KAP study); internal studies and success stories; Emerging Markets Consulting’s Research Paper on Migration; and the Internal Migration Patterns and Practices of Low-Skilled and Unskilled Workers in Cambodia. A livelihood survey was integrated into KAP survey, which targeted three groups of populations: (1) potential migrants, (2) existing migrants and (3) returned migrants. Potential migrants were asked about their knowledge related to safe migration, while current migrants were interviewed to reveal their behavior towards safe migration, and returned migrants were surveyed to find out their attitude and migration experience. Child care issues were also integrated into the KAP survey, following a suggestion from USAID. The Commune Vulnerability Index Study (survey) focused on 3 components: (1) sensitivity to trafficking￾in-persons, (2) government and non-government organization (NGO) interventions to reduce TIP, and (3) push and pull vulnerability factors of risky migration and TIP. The vulnerability factors included: (i) undocumented migration, (ii) TIP cases, (iii) missing migrants, (iv) discrimination, (v) unemployment, and (vi) domestic violence. The sensitivity factors included: (i) social capital, (ii) access to natural resources, (iii) land ownership, and (iv) access to market and economic activities. The intervention factors included in the study were: (i) access to migration information including safe migration, (ii) regular school attendance, (iii) access to local employment, (iv) access to community-based loans, (v) practice of protective behavior in safe migration, (vi) existence of commune investment plans to prevent TIP, (vii) commune budget allocation to implement TIP prevention activities, (viii) services provided by commune councils relating to migration and TIP prevention, and (ix) livelihood programs to address economic root causes of TIP. Evaluation Questions Design Matrix From the Desk Review, the Evaluation Team formulated an Evaluation Questions Design Matrix, outlining the four key Evaluation Questions (EQ), the background to each question, indicators related to answering each question, source of information, data collection tool, and any preliminary findings; and a Summary Table of the EQs with their corresponding evaluation criteria. Phase 2: Field Phase The field phase will commence after USAID approval of the Evaluation Work Plan, and will supplement secondary data sources with detailed information, as well as to gather information that can contribute to the validation and triangulation of the analysis. The field visit will involve two simultaneous working teams: (1) the Evaluation Team (ET)—which includes two local experts already in Cambodia, and (2) the Survey Team (ST)—which includes an international Survey Team Leader (STL) working with a local partner firm, EMC, with its enumerators. A mixed methods approach will provide geographic, gender, and age analyses, shown in the Evaluation Questions Design Matrix, including data collection tools. However, the itinerary will maximize opportunities and therefore remains flexible in the purposive selection and timing of individual interviews. Qualitative Methods: the KII and FGD will include data collection tools as follows: KII semi￾structured question guide; and FGD guides. The qualitative methods will include KIIs and FGDs with direct beneficiaries, key stakeholders and informants, central and local governments, implementing - 13 - partners, and other relevant organizations in the field. The Evaluation Team will conduct the qualitative data collection. Quantitative Methods: a population-based survey of 500 respondents in 5 provinces will include basic sociodemographic data measures, a replication of key indicator questions from existing CTIP baseline surveys, and a series of 3-5 survey experimental questions for randomly assigned treatment and control groups. The experimental questions will be designed to provide information to some respondents (the treatment group) about trafficking risks and about hypothetical income changes from local project￾supported sources, which the other respondents (the control group) will not receive the questions to measure preferred migration strategies among the two groups, and any systematic differences in preferences will be attributable to the information they received. The data collection tool for the survey is a Survey Questionnaire. The Survey Team will conduct the quantitative data collection. The Survey Team, led by an international Survey Team Leader, will conduct the surveys in the same locations (5 provinces) in which the qualitative data collection (KIIs and FGDs) takes place, randomly selecting participants from beneficiary-heavy communities. Phase 3: Analysis and Report Writing The analysis of data for the evaluation report will include the analysis of the survey, triangulated with the analysis from the KIIs and FGDs and the information from the desk review. The KIIs and FGDs will involve qualitative data analysis, whereas the survey questionnaire will involve quantitative data analysis. For the qualitative data analysis, for example, the Evaluation Team will organize the data by relevant emergent themes and sub-themes from the KII and FGD notes. A comparison of notes, with the results of the survey, will elicit deeper insights and findings. Triangulation of all data and evidence will determine the robustness, validity, and reliability of the findings. After the Field Phase, the Evaluation Team will draft the evaluation report. There will be two iterations of the draft report (first draft and second draft) submitted to USAID/Cambodia before submission of the Final MTE Report that includes USAID’s feedback. The evaluation report format will be consistent with USAID/Cambodia’s advice in the SOW91 and will ensure that all issues are recorded appropriately. EVALUATION QUESTION MATRIX Evaluation Questions Design Matrix KEY QUESTION 1: Do CTIP prevention activities contribute to increasing safe migration and/or sufficient livelihood for the targeted population to choose not to migrate? Why and/or why not? SUB-QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION SAMPLING OR SELECTION APPROACH SOURCE METHOD 1.1 Demonstrate statistically at mid-point level the progress of indicators towards their targets. What is the rationale/challenges for not meeting performance levels at mid-term? Discuss selection criteria (communes, villages, at-risk HH) IP, Sub-Partners & NGOs, IP M&E staff CTIP Database; Progress Reports 91 USAID, CTIP MTE SOW, pp10-11 - 14 - 1.2 Describe CTIP prevention interventions that have been integrated with, or built upon, other USG interventions at village level or government level? Rationale for, and extent of, their inclusion? IP, Sub-Partners & NGOs, USAID KIIs Purposive As appropriate 1.3 How do individual prevention interventions integrate within CTIP – i.e. work together for the achievement of CTIP’s goal? IP, Sub-Partners & NGOs KIIs Desk Review Purposive As appropriate 1.4 How have prevention interventions been adopted at village-level practice (implementation) to date? How are the interventions contributing to safe migration and/or improved income generation/livelihoods? IP, Sub-Partners & NGOs, PCCT, Private, INGOs, Beneficiaries KIIs; FGDs Desk Review Survey Purposive As appropriate FGD Plan 1.5 How have prevention interventions been adopted at government-level (central & provincial) to date? Which ones have been completely or partially institutionalized at the government level? What policies, guidelines, etc. have been developed or amended, to date, to improve systems to counter TIP that were due to CTIP’s contribution efforts? IP, Sub-Partners & NGOs, NCCT, PCCT, RGC, Private Sector, INGOs KIIs Desk Review Purposive As appropriate 1.6 To what extent have prevention interventions succeeded in creating demand for safer migration? Describe the interventions that are the biggest drivers of increased demand? IP, Sub-Ps & NGOs, NCCT, PCCT, INGOs, Private Sector KIIs; FGDs; Triangulate with Survey Results Desk Review Purposive As appropriate FGD Plan 1.7 To what extent have cross-cutting issues (gender, youth, partnerships) been strategized and implemented to lead to the success of CTIP’s prevention interventions and Activity’s goal? IP, Sub-Partners & NGOs, NCCT, PCCT, RGC, Private, INGOs KIIs; FGDs; Triangulate with Survey Results Desk Review Purposive As appropriate FGD Plan Data Analysis: Content analysis; analysis of achievements towards targets; identification of bottlenecks; identification of ‘model’ factors/drivers; analysis of management mechanism; stakeholder analysis KEY QUESTION 2: What are the unintended consequences (positive or negative) of those prevention activities? How are those consequences, if any, affecting CTIP? SUB-QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION SAMPLING OR SELECTION APPROACH SOURCE METHOD 2.1 What results—attitudes, behaviors, practices—are emerging that are exceeding your expectations or differ from your expectations—i.e. the expected Theory of Change and/or outcomes? IP, Sub-Ps, NGOs, NCCT, PCCT, Beneficiaries, Private, INGOs KIIs; FGDs; Survey Desk Review Purposive As appropriate FGD Plan, Survey Plan 2.2 How does the effect of the prevention interventions differ for different individuals or groups (i.e. by gender, youth, urban-rural, etc.)? IP, Sub-Ps, NGOs, NCCT, PCCT, RGC, Beneficiaries KIIs; FGDs; Survey Purposive As appropriate FGD Plan, Survey Plan 2.3 Describe any emerging outcomes of the prevention interventions which might discourage safe migration, if any? Or appear to give messages that promote migration? IP, Sub-Ps, NGOs, NCCT, INGOs, PCCT, Private, Beneficiaries KIIs; FGDs; Survey Purposive As appropriate FGD Plan, Survey Plan Note: The use of open-ended questions will enable unexpected consequence to emerge. Data Analysis: Content analysis; success stories; KAP analysis; survey analysis; comparative analysis KEY QUESTION 3: What actionable recommendations, in relation to prevention, could be made to improve activity performance for the remaining period? SUB-QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION SAMPLING OR SELECTION APPROACH SOURCE METHOD 3.1 What recommendations do you have to improve CTIP’s performance in enhancing national and local strategies to prevent TIP and encourage safe migration – in relation to CTIP’s interventions on education, employment opportunities, and livelihoods? IP, Sub-Ps & NGOs, NCCT, INGOs, PCCT, RGC, Private, Beneficiaries KIIs; FGDs; Survey Purposive As appropriate - 15 - Data Analysis: Content analysis; analysis of achievements towards targets; identification of ‘model’ factors/drivers KEY QUESTION 4: What lessons learned could be made to USAID in designing and managing CTIP programs in Cambodia? SUB-QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION SAMPLING OR SELECTION APPROACH SOURCE METHOD 4.1 To what extent did the Activity design build upon learnings from other sources – USAID, past work in Cambodia/elsewhere, etc.? What was adopted/adapted for CTIP and what was omitted and why? IP, Sub-Partners & NGOs, USAID KII Purposive As appropriate 4.2 To what extent has the Activity design facilitated the mid-term milestones towards the development of improved systems to counter TIP in Cambodia? How strong are the influencing Theory of Change links and the TOC rationale? IP, Sub-Partners & NGOs, NCCT, PCCTs KII & FGD; Triangulate with Survey results Purposive As appropriate 4.3 What are the main opportunities and strengths in the Activity design that gives optimistic potential for achieving the Activity’s goal and impact/sustainability? Define the factors and drivers within these identified strengths that lead to potential success. IP, Sub-Partners & NGOs, NCCT, PCCTs, Private, Beneficiaries, INGOs KII & FGD; Purposive As appropriate 4.4 What are the main constraints/weaknesses in the Activity design that may prevent the Activity from achieving its goal and/or impact/sustainability? Define the inhibiting factors. IP, Sub-Ps, NGOs, NCCT, PCCTs, Beneficiaries, INGOs, Private KII & FGD; Purposive As appropriate 4.5 To what extent is the current coordination, collaboration and management mechanism among key stakeholders (IPs, ministries) effective in achieving the Activity’s goal? What needs to be improved? IP, Sub-Ps, NGOs, NCCT, PCCTs, Beneficiaries, INGOs, Private KII & FGD; Purposive As appropriate 4.6 To what extent are CTIP interventions currently perceived as relevant, responsive, useful, and timely (at all levels, from village to ministry) in addressing TIP? IP, Sub-Ps, NGOs, N/PCCT, Beneficiaries, KII & FGD; Purposive As appropriate Data Analysis: Content analysis; analysis of achievements towards targets; gap analysis; trend analysis; comparative analysis KII PLAN Key informant interviews will be held with a range of stakeholders and beneficiaries. The KIIs will generally be one-on-one or small group interviews, with the implementing partner, sub-partners, direct and indirect beneficiaries, community leaders, farmers, donors, the private sector, and government officials. The Evaluation Team will use purposive sampling using a maximum variation sampling approach to select a wide range of the most appropriate individuals, experts, and groups to include in the qualitative data collection. Summary of Key Informant Interviews by Province PROVINCE # MALE # FEMALE TOTAL Phnom Penh (PP) 26 19 45 Siem Reap (SRP) 7 21 28 Kampong Thom (KPT) 16 13 29 Svay Rieng (SVR) 12 8 20 Banteay Meanchey (BMC) 3 4 7 TOTAL 64 65 129 FGD PLAN - 16 - The Evaluation Team will conduct 4 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). In each province, the FGD will be scheduled for half a day, and three will include two separated groups: 6-12 randomly-selected male beneficiaries only and 6-12 randomly-selected female beneficiaries only. The FGD will include structured open-ended questions. There will be one general introductory question, followed by about 7 specific core questions for an in-depth discussion, and end with a concluding question. The questions will explore people’s attitudes and experiences in CTIP’s prevention interventions to elicit responses primarily to Evaluation Question 1: Do CTIP prevention activities contribute to increasing safe migration and/or sufficient livelihood for the targeted population to choose not to migrate? Why and/or why not? Focus Group 1 FOCUS: KAMPONG THOM SAVINGS GROUP CEDAC: Savings Groups, Livelihoods, Chicken Farming, Vegetables 12 Female Beneficiaries (FGD A), 34-66 years, Average age = 48 years 8 Male Beneficiaries (FGD B), 28-39 years, Average age = 36 years Focus Group 2 FOCUS: SIEM REAP SAVINGS GROUP CEDAC: Savings Groups, Livelihoods, Chicken Farming, Vegetables 17 Female Beneficiaries (FGD A), 11-68 years, Average age = 46 years 3 Male Beneficiaries (FGD B), 43-60 years, Average age = 50 years Focus Group 3 FOCUS: PHNOM PENH YOUTH AMBASSADORS AYLA: Soft Skills 3 Female & Male Beneficiaries, 21-22 years, Average age = 21 years Focus Group 4 FOCUS: SVAY RIENG SAVINGS GROUP CCPCR: Savings Group, Livelihoods, Cow Bank, Rice Bank, Bat House 7 Female Beneficiaries, 27-55 years, Average age = 37 years 5 Male Beneficiaries, 25-63 years, Average age = 43 years The Evaluation Team will also observe prevention (awareness-raising and Bong Pheak job platform advice) and protection (medical care and support) interventions for undocumented returnees at the Poipet Border Crossing in Banteay Meanchey (Cambodia-Thailand) and the Bavet Border Crossing in Svay Rieng (Cambodia-Vietnam). SURVEY PLAN The Survey Team (ST) will conduct a population-based survey in the 5 targeted provinces for the evaluation: Phnom Penh, Svay Rieng, Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, and Banteay Meanchey (BMC). The purpose of the survey is to generate systematic, quantitative data in order to track patterns in attitudes and behaviors related to trafficking risks and consequences. In collaboration with our local survey partner EMC, the Survey Team will collect the data through face-to-face surveys with a total of about 500 respondents; between 50 and 150 per province (depending on the relative number of beneficiaries). Preparation A Survey Team of seven enumerators and a survey coordinator will take part in training for 4-5 days that includes sampling strategies, survey delivery, questionnaire content, translations, tablet use for administration of the surveys, and piloting of the survey. TMG’s international Survey Team Leader (STL) will oversee the training and piloting, and the locally-based survey coordinator will oversee the data collection in the field. The Survey Team will work separately from the Evaluation Team’s qualitative data collection, but will coordinate wherever possible. Sampling Sample Size - 17 - A sample size of 500 is the most efficient sample size that enables the ST to achieve that degree of precision. This relatively small sample size will not have consequences for the representativeness of the survey, given that respondents will be selected randomly. That is true for the non-beneficiaries; as we note below, the beneficiary respondents must be identified for inclusion via a different set of protocols. The sample size for each province varies between 50 and 150, as a function of the number of beneficiaries in each province (listed in the table below). The number of beneficiaries in Phnom Penh is skewed upward by the large number participating in the online jobs app, so rather than assigning sample sizes in direct proportion to the number of beneficiaries, the ST employs a range from 50 in provinces with fewer beneficiaries to 150 in provinces with more beneficiaries, also taking into consideration variation in the communes (i.e. the ST will draw slightly more respondents from provinces in which the selected communes lie further apart or in more districts). Selection Procedures for Communes Within each province, the ST identified communes according to three criteria: • Between 2 and 4 communes per province, based on the number of surveys to be conducted in each province. This means that the enumerators will conduct 25-38 surveys in each commune, and spend 1-3 days in each province. • Communes were chosen based on the largest number of beneficiaries, in order to ensure an adequate number of beneficiaries in the evaluation (see details below). • Commune selections were altered, if necessary, to ensure that the included communes do not all lie in the same district within each province. Summary of Survey Data Collection by Province and Commune Province # Beneficiaries Planned Sample Size Actual Sample Size Communes PP 10,625 150 150 4: Russei Keo, Chamkardoung, Tuek Laak Ti Mouy (PP Royal University), Boueng Keng Kang SRP 1,386 125 126 3: Tram Sasar (Srey Snom), Knat (Pouk), Svay Chek (Angkor Thom) KPT 852 100 100 3: Chey (Kompong Svay), Kakah & Prasat (Sontuk) SVR 823 75 78 2: Andoung Pou, Thlok BMC 983 50 50 2: Kob (Ou Chrov), Nimit TOTAL 14,669 500 504 14 Sampling Procedures for Individual Beneficiaries Given the small numbers of program beneficiaries relative to the population sizes in the included communes, typically far less than 5 percent, the ST will diverge from the population-based sampling strategy and employ a random sampling methodology strictly among beneficiaries. This will enable the ST to include an adequate number of beneficiaries, targeted at 50 percent of the sample in each province. The ST will start with the list of beneficiaries provided by the IP and will identify survey respondents using a random number generator, sampling with replacement. The ST will reach out to them directly via the contact information provided by the IP or indirectly through their activity leaders, taking care not to reference the USAID-funded activities as the reason for their inclusion. The ST will aim for a balance across genders, but cannot pre-determine the gender stratification given uncertainties about which beneficiaries we will be able to reach when. Summary of Sampling Strategy: • Target 50 percent beneficiaries in each commune. - 18 - • Identify beneficiary respondents using a random number generator from the list of beneficiaries. • Contact individuals to set up interviews. • Alternate Version A and Version B for every other respondent (A, B, A, B). Note that each enumerator must alternate versions A and B among the respondents that she/he interviews. • Seek a relative balance of females and males to the extent possible. Sampling Procedures for Individual Non-Beneficiaries Non-beneficiary respondents will be selected using a population-based random sampling methodology. In each commune, the enumerators will pursue a target of 50 percent non-beneficiaries, distributed equally across the communes identified for inclusion in the survey. Selection of Households Beginning from a pre-determined departure point, enumerators will employ a random walk methodology with sampling gaps of three households. In cases of no one present, enumerators will continue with the sampling interval. Selection of Individuals within Households Enumerators will alternate females and males every two households (so HH 1 = Female, HH 2 = Female, HH 3 = Male, HH 4 = Male, etc.). Just as they do for the beneficiaries, they will alternate Version A and Version B for every other respondent (so Respondent 1 = Version A, Respondent 2 = Version B, Respondent 3 = Version A, Respondent 4 = Version B, etc.). If more than one female/male lives at the household, the enumerators will use a Kish grid to randomly identify the individual (aged 17 or older) selected for inclusion in the survey. If that person is not present, the enumerator will obtain contact information to set up a time for the survey or will return to the household up to three times. In the event that the enumerators randomly select a respondent who happens to be a program beneficiary, determined by a final survey question regarding program activities, data from that respondent will be treated as beneficiary data. Summary of Sampling Strategy: • Target 50 percent non-beneficiaries in each commune. • Alternate females and males every two respondents (F, F, M, M). • Alternate Version A and Version B for every other respondent (A, B, A, B). • To identify households for inclusion, use a random walk sampling gap of every third household starting from a pre-determined departure point in each commune. • In cases where more than one female/male resides at the household, use a Kish grid to identify the specific individual to be surveyed. Kish Grid Instructions • List household members (aged 17+) from oldest to youngest on the left side of the Kish grid. • Find the intersection between the day of work and the last individual listed. • The number found at the intersection corresponds to the place of the individual listed in that position among the names on the left of the form. That is the individual to be interviewed. • Ensure that the individual is at least 17-years-old. • Make repeated attempts to include that individual in the survey. Content The survey questionnaire includes basic sociodemographic measures, a replication of key indicator questions from the existing survey, and a series of three survey experimental questions that alter key - 19 - pieces of information to randomly assigned treatment and control groups. It will be translated into Khmer for the enumerators to facilitate data collection. The Survey Team has also included questions to gauge attitudes regarding the safe migration for men and boys, and for women and girls. The three survey experimental questions are color-coded in the survey questionnaire—yellow is Version A and green is Version B. The two different versions are used to make comparisons. The three experimental questions include the following: • A question that varies how much respondents would need to earn abroad to offset higher earnings at home. • A question that varies the information respondents hear about migration risk, and then asks their views about the benefits of a migrating member to families. • A question that asks about the appropriateness of women migrating; the Treatment group receives information about the human trafficking risks that women face, while the Control group does not receive this information. The experimental questions are designed to provide information to some respondents (the Treatment group) about trafficking risks and about hypothetical income changes from local project-supported sources, which the other respondents (the Control group) will not receive any information. Analysis The data will be collected via tablet, and EMC will manage the compilation of cleaned, coded data sets. TMG’s team of analysts will conduct multivariate analyses that control for key demographic features and determine the principal determinants of immigration choices and preferences. Logistic and OLS regressions will be conducted using a standard software package (R, STATA, SPSS, etc.). Analysis will also be disaggregated by sex to determine and differences between male responses and female responses. Summary of Evaluation Plan Tools – semi-structured KII & structured FGD guide Tool – Survey Questionnaire Preparation – desk review and the development of a Work Plan Preparation – 4-day enumerator training, pilot testing of survey questionnaire, and logistics Sample Size – purposive selection of KIIs within each target group according to availability, hence sample size is variable. 4 FGDs with separate male FGDs and female FGDs, where possible). Sample Size – between 50-150 survey participants in each targeted province, with 50% beneficiaries (Treatment Group) and 50% non-beneficiaries (Control Group). Village Selection – villages were selected based on the location of interventions, in conjunction with the Implementing Partner and Sub-Partners, and the ability of Sub-Partners to arrange KIIs and FGDs with beneficiaries at short notice. Commune Selection – 3 criteria: 4. 2-4 communes per province; 25-38 surveys per commune, with 2-3 days in each province. 5. Chosen based on largest number of beneficiaries. 6. Commune selections from different districts. FGD Individual Selection – Sub-Partner management, M&E, and field office staff selected FGD participants randomly and/or purposively, depending on the intervention. For example, for savings group FGDs, the committee (executive, finance, and secretarial) and demo farm owners were purposively selected; Sub-Partners selected other member of the savings groups by interest and availability on a volunteer basis. Individual Beneficiary Selection – target 50%: • Beneficiary respondents selected using a random number generator from the list of beneficiaries. • Relative balance of females and males. Individual Non-Beneficiary Selection – target 50%: • Enumerators selected households (HH) using random walk with sampling gaps of 3 HH. • Alternate females & males every 2 HH. • Where more than one female/male resides at the HH, a Kish grid is used to identify individuals. - 20 - Selection of Version A & B questions – half of respondents received Version A and half received Version B for each of the three experimental questions. - 21 - ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS – KII & FGD Key Informant Interview Guide for Implementing Partner & Sub￾Partners/NGOs • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants and generally the province is identified General Questions Organization/Consortium/Working Relationships Roles and responsibilities of each partner in the consortium? (differentiated by intervention, province, etc.). Management and communication structure – decision making structure? CTIP CTIP Design & Objectives Outline the CTIP objectives with regards to each of the major interventions – first for prevention, then briefly for protection, prosecution. Outline the CTIP objectives for the last P – partnerships. How did the project arrive at these objectives? (i.e. what was the basis of the design of the Activity? What previous lessons learned did the design build upon? To date, has any intervention strategy changed significantly, and can you provide documentation of approval for changes? How did you take into consideration the different provinces, rural and urban strategies, gender differences, youth strategies, and any other cross-cutting strategies into the design of CTIP? How are you strategizing for the transient people – people are always on the move? What models are working? What challenges still exist? Implementation Demonstrate statistically at mid-point level the progress of indicators towards their targets. Describe the key strategies and their current progress towards their mid-term targets? What are the specific problems identified with any of the interventions and your strategy for dealing with challenges? What issues, challenges, success are emerging? What interventions are you currently seeing above expected results to date? What are the differences to date, if any, are there of the same intervention in a different province – if the strategies are the same, why is there a difference in outcomes and results? Are there pockets of resistance or low uptake/acceptance of CTIP strategies? To what extent have prevention interventions succeeded in creating demand for safer migration and for income generation? Describe the interventions that are the biggest drivers of increased demand? Are the indicators the only measures of ‘success’? What does success mean at the village level and at the government level? Have there been any unintended consequences of CTIP’s strategies to date? Which ones have the greatest focus in terms of staffing, time & budget? What’s your view of the spread of interventions – appropriate, too many etc.? For the time, effort, and money, where are the biggest gains/results? What interventions/strategies are most effective and efficient? What are your over-arching strategies to address the prevention of TIP in a holistic way – i.e. the integration of interventions? To what extent are CTIP interventions currently perceived as relevant, responsive, useful, and timely (at all levels, from village to ministry) in addressing TIP? How big an impact/outcome/results do you expect these interventions to have in the period of CTIP? Why? How are you ensuring the eventual potential sustainability of these interventions after the end of the project? Collaboration with partners & government Which implementing partners are you working with, in which way? Apart from the Activity partners, are you working with any other partners? What is the core area of - 22 - collaboration? How are you differentiating your strategies at the local level against the national level? What are the core areas you are addressing through these links? Where is the greatest acceptance of strategies? Are there strong and concrete linkages at the top-down and bottom-up levels? Recommendations - Continuous improvement What recommendations do you have to improve CTIP’s performance in enhancing national and local strategies to prevent TIP and encourage safe migration – in relation to CTIP’s interventions on education, employment opportunities, and livelihoods? Key Informant Interview Guide for Local & National Government Ministries and Departments • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants and generally the province is identified General Questions Ministry/Provincial Units/Working Relationships What is the core mandate of your ministry/department? Are you aware of any national or provincial government policies and guidelines with regards to TIP? (Probe for each of the issues mentioned above) Do these guidelines align with national/regional/global guidelines? What are the gaps in these guidelines? How is CTIP addressing the gaps? How are you strategizing for the transient people – people are always on the move? What models are working? What challenges still exist? CTIP CTIP Design & Objectives What is your view of the design of CTIP in terms of the interventions it focuses on to reach the goal of ‘improved systems to prevent TIP’ in relation to safe migration and increased livelihoods? How is CTIP relevant, timely, current, responsive, etc.? Implementation What are the main issues for your department in relation to CTIP? What is your strategy, and specific interventions, to address these issues? How is CTIP supporting your department? Does CTIP build upon existing or previous government strategies? Does CTIP offer anything new or innovative to prevent TIP? What is working and what is not? Are there pockets of resistance or low uptake/acceptance of CTIP strategies? How big an impact/outcome/result do you expect these interventions to have in the next five years? Why? For the time, effort, and money, where are the biggest gains/results? What interventions/strategies are most effective and efficient? How do you ensure the sustainability of these interventions? Which ones will your department wholly or partially adopt/adapt? Collaboration with partners & government Does your department/ministry address any aspects of CTIP? Which ones? How do you work with the CTIP team? Are there any issues in the working relationship that is hindering progress? What factors are encouraging progress of strategies? Is there collaboration within ministries and departments to prevent TIP or do you feel as if you are working in isolation? How are you differentiating your strategies at the local level against the national level? What are the core areas you are addressing through these links? Where is the greatest acceptance of strategies? Are there strong and concrete linkages at the top-down and bottom-up levels? - 23 - How does your department work to address issues at the village level? Recommendations - Continuous improvement What recommendations do you have to improve CTIP’s performance in enhancing national and local strategies to prevent TIP and encourage safe migration – in relation to CTIP’s interventions on education, employment opportunities, and livelihoods? Key Informant Interview Guide for Beneficiaries • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants and generally the province is identified CTIP Implementation What is your involvement in CTIP? Do you know how you were selected? What are the main issues for you in relation to CTIP? How is CTIP supporting you? Does CTIP offer anything new or innovative to prevent TIP? What is working and what is not? How big an impact/outcome/result do you expect these interventions to have in the next five years? Why? Do you think there are different drivers for men and women, and for young and old, and for urban and rural people? Is CTIP addressing the factors that lead to risky migration in an effective way – expand on your response? How confident are you that CTIP can address drivers of risky migration or introduce strategies to increase livelihoods? How does the government – local and national – assist you? What does ‘success’ mean for you? When will you regard yourself to have succeeded in your involvement with CTIP interventions? How are you going to progress in the future without CTIP, and are you confident in your hopes and desires? Do you know where and how to get support in the future if CTIP is not here? How do you network for support? Recommendations - Continuous improvement Of all the things we’ve discussed today, what would you say are the most important issues, in terms of preventing trafficking-in-persons in Cambodia? What recommendations do you have to improve CTIP’s performance in enhancing national and local strategies to prevent TIP and encourage safe migration – in relation to CTIP’s interventions on education, employment opportunities, and livelihoods? Key Informant Interview Guide for INGOs & Bilateral Agencies • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants and generally the province is identified CTIP CTIP Design & Objectives What is your view of the design of CTIP in terms of the interventions it focuses on to reach the goal of ‘improved systems to prevent TIP’ in relation to safe migration and increased livelihoods? How is CTIP relevant, timely, current, responsive, etc.? How are you strategizing for the transient people – people are always on the move? What models are working? What challenges still exist? Collaboration - 24 - Does your agency address any aspects of CTIP? Which ones? How do you work with the CTIP team? Are there any issues in the working relationship that is hindering progress? What factors are encouraging progress of strategies? Is there collaboration within agencies and donors to prevent TIP or do you feel as if you are working in isolation? How are you differentiating your strategies at the local level against the national level? What are the core areas you are addressing through these links? Where is the greatest acceptance of strategies? Are there strong and concrete linkages at the top-down and bottom-up levels? How does your department work to address issues at the village level? Implementation What are the main issues for your agency in relation to CTIP? What is your strategy, and specific interventions, to address these issues? How is CTIP supporting your agency or how is your agency supporting CTIP? Does CTIP build upon existing or previous donor strategies? Does CTIP offer anything new or innovative to prevent TIP? What is working and what is not? Are there pockets of resistance or low uptake/acceptance of CTIP strategies? How big an impact/outcome/result do you expect these interventions to have in the next five years? Why? For the time, effort, and money, where are the biggest gains/results? What interventions/strategies are most effective and efficient? Which ones will your agency wholly or partially adopt/adapt into your future anti-human trafficking programs? Recommendations - Continuous improvement What recommendations do you have to improve CTIP’s performance in enhancing national and local strategies to prevent TIP and encourage safe migration – in relation to CTIP’s interventions on education, employment opportunities, and livelihoods? Key Informant Interview Guide for the Private Sector • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants and generally the province is identified CTIP CTIP Objectives What is your general view of CTIP in terms of the interventions it focuses on to reach the goal of ‘improved systems to prevent TIP’ in relation to safe migration and increased livelihoods? How is CTIP relevant, timely, current, responsive, etc.? Are you supportive or is CTIP over ambitious? Collaboration How do you work with the CTIP team? Does your organization address any aspects of CTIP? Which ones? Are there any issues in the working relationship that is hindering progress? What factors are encouraging progress of strategies? Where is the greatest acceptance of strategies? Are there strong and concrete linkages at the top-down and bottom-up levels? How does your organization address issues at the village level? What are the benefits for your organization to work/invest in preventing human trafficking or ensuring safe migration? For the time, effort, and money, where are the biggest gains/results? What interventions/strategies are most effective and efficient? Implementation What are the main issues for your organization in relation to CTIP? What is working and what is not? Are there pockets of resistance or low uptake/acceptance of CTIP - 25 - strategies? How big an impact/outcome/result do you expect these interventions to have in the next five years? Why? How do you ensure the sustainability of these interventions? Which ones will your organization wholly or partially adopt/adapt into your future work? Recommendations - Continuous improvement What recommendations do you have to improve CTIP’s performance in enhancing national and local strategies to prevent TIP and encourage safe migration – in relation to CTIP’s interventions on education, employment opportunities, and livelihoods? Key Informant Interview Guide for USAID • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants and generally the province is identified CTIP CTIP Performance Evaluation Describe the background to the evaluation SOW, and the focus on prevention interventions. CTIP Design & Objectives What was the basis of the design of the Activity? What previous lessons learned did the design build upon? With the focus on livelihoods and employment, how does the Activity fit within the Democracy, Human Rights & Governance sector, rather than the Economic Growth & Trade sector? How did the CTIP design consider the activities of other donors in countering TIP in Cambodia? How were the different provinces, rural and urban strategies, gender differences, youth strategies, and any other cross-cutting strategies taken into consideration during the design of CTIP? What were the strategies for transient people – i.e. people are always on the move? What models were envisioned? To date, has any intervention strategy changed significantly? Detail any changes/amendments to indicators, and rationale, to date? Implementation What were the agency’s expectations at the national level in focusing on the root causes of trafficking? How has the Cambodian government responded to CTIP to date? How have other donors responded to CTIP to date? What were the agency’s expectations at the local level in focusing on the root causes of trafficking? Describe any results to date that are exceeding/falling short of your expectations – in terms of unintended consequences (positive/negative) that the Evaluation Team can explore further. Describe any issues related to IP and/or Sub-Partners that the Evaluation Team needs to be aware of – particularly in terms of interventions we should visit. - 26 - FGD GUIDE CTIP INTERVENTIONS BENEFICIARIES Welcome and thank you for taking part in this focus group. You have been asked to be involved because your point of view is important. Introduction My name is .... and I am conducting a mid-term evaluation of the CTIP prevention interventions on behalf of USAID. The purpose of this discussion is to determine your experiences and opinions on whether the CTIP Activity is on the right track in relation to their goal of improving systems to counter trafficking-in￾persons in Cambodia, specifically around safe migration and livelihoods strategies. Anonymity Despite having notes taken, I would like to assure you that the discussion will be anonymous. The notes/tapes will be kept safely within the USAID/Cambodia Mission and will be kept in accordance with their privacy and confidentiality policies. The anonymized data will go to USAID. FGD Rules Please turn your cell phone to silent and take calls outside this room. The most important rule is that only one person speaks at a time, so please wait until the person has finished. I will guide the dynamics of the group so that everyone has an opportunity to be heard. There are no right or wrong answers. You do not have to speak in any particular order. When you do have something to say, please do so. You do not have to agree with the views of other people in the group. You may leave the discussion at any time. It is expected to last 1.5 hours. Finally, because of limited time, I may need to re-direct our discussion with a few questions. Does anyone have any questions? OK, let’s begin. Warm up First, I’d like everyone to introduce themselves. Key questions: General As a reminder, some of the CTIP interventions include Savings Groups, Income Generation & Livelihoods, a Job Seeking platform called Bong Pheak, Skills to Enhance Employment Opportunities, and safe migration strategies. We will begin with a general, over-arching question. What is your overall impression of the CTIP activity in terms of its first and main objective to prevent trafficking-in-persons through prevention interventions, such as safe migration, livelihoods, income generation, and job seeking/employment strategies? Content Questions: - 27 - How have prevention interventions been adopted at village-level practice (implementation) to date? How are the interventions contributing to safe migration and/or improved income generation/livelihoods? What do you think are the biggest drivers for the desire for people to undertake risky migration? To what extent have prevention interventions ‘succeeded’ or are on track to ‘succeed’ in creating demand for safer migration? Has there been evidence of CTIP (or other donor program) strategies that have actually discouraged safe migration? Do you think there are different drivers for men and women, and for young and old, and for urban and rural people? Is CTIP addressing the factors that lead to risky migration in an effective way – expand on your response? Income generation and livelihood strategies are a key focus of CTIP. Which CTIP strategies are working and which are not, and why? Is this strategy worth expending so much of CTIP’s time and funds? How would you define ‘success’ in terms of livelihood strategies and is CTIP on track to achieve success for its beneficiaries and overall improved systems regarding employment? Of all of the specific CTIP prevention interventions that you have been involved in, or are knowledgeable about, which ones have met your expectations? How have they differed from your expectations (exceeded or have not met expectations)? How does the government – local and national – assist or lead with strategies to prevent trafficking-in￾persons? How are CTIP strategies tailored at the local level? Are the strategies relevant, responsive, and appropriate? How would you change anything to improve the delivery of CTIP or their strategies? Concluding Question: Of all the things we’ve discussed today, what would you say are the most important issues, in terms of preventing trafficking-in-persons in Cambodia? Closing the FGD Thank you for participating. This has been a very successful discussion and your opinions will be a valuable asset to our mid-term evaluation of the CTIP. We hope you have found the discussion interesting too. I would like to remind you that any comments featuring in this report will be anonymous and confidential. Thankyou. - 28 - ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION SURVEY INSTRUMENT Date of interview: / / 2018 Region: Commune/Village: GPS (UTM Reading): Enumerator Code: Supervisor Code: Interview Status: 1st visit 2nd visit 3rd visit Interview time: From: To: Hello. My name is ____________. I am from EMC, an independent research organization. I do not represent the government or any political party. We are conducting a survey on the status of citizens and families in Cambodia, especially related to livelihood and migration patterns. We would like to discuss these issues with you. Your answers will be confidential. They will be put together with the responses from 500 other people we are interviewing, to get an overall picture. It will be impossible to identify you from what you say, so please feel free to tell us what you think; there is no right or wrong answer. This interview will take about 15-20 minutes. There is no penalty for refusing to participate, and you may stop at any time if you do not wish to continue. Do you wish to proceed? [Proceed with interview only if answer is positive]. Questions Response Skip Rule Section I: Demographic Information 1.1. Sex 0 = Female 1 = Male Observe, do not ask. If 1, skip Questions 5.6 and 5.7 1.2. Age of respondent …………………… (Do not interview if younger than 17 years old) 1.3. Marital status 1 = Single (never married) 2 = Married 3 = living with a partner 4 = Widowed 5 = Divorced/separated 77 Other (specify)…………………… 1.4. How many children do you have? …………………… 1.5. Level of education 1 = No formal schooling 2 = Incomplete primary school 3 = Complete primary school 4 = Incomplete lower secondary school 5 = Complete lower secondary school 6 = Incomplete upper secondary school 7 = Complete upper secondary school 8 = Higher than upper secondary school 77 = Other (specify)…………………… 99 = Don’t know - 29 - Section II. Livelihood Status 2.1. What is your primary employment status? (Single Answer) 0= No employment 1= Salary employment (public) 2= Salary employment (private) 3= Own business 4= Farming 5= Other (Specify…..) If 2.1 = 0, skip 2.4 If 2.1 = 0, skip 2.7 2.2. Do you have other forms of paid work? 0 = No 1 = Yes, occasional 2 = Yes, regular Sector/Job type …………… 2.3. Is your family income sufficient to cover your housing and food costs? 1. Not at all 2. Not usually 3. Some what 4. Mostly 5. Yes, definitel y If 2.1 = 0, skip 2.4 and go to 2.5. 2.4. How satisfied are you in your current job? 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Some what 4. Mostly 5. Very 2.5. How do you envision your socioeconomic status (ជីវ�ព) two years from now, compared to the present? 1. Worse off 2. About the same 3. Better off 2.6. Which of the following items do you or your household members own? Radio Television Smart phone Computer Refrigerator Bicycle Motorcycle/moped Car Check all that apply If 2.1= 0, skip 2.7 and go to 2.8 2.7. Are you the primary income earner in your household? 0 = No 1 = Yes 2.8. What are the average monthly expenses for your household? …………. 2.9. What is your household’s average monthly savings? …………. 2.10. Version A Which of the following two options would you prefer? a. A job here in your province that pays 100 dollars per month. b. A job in Thailand that pays 200 dollars per month. Half receive version A; half receive version B 2.9 Version B Which of the following two options would you prefer? a. A job here in your province that pays 100 dollars per month. b. A job in Thailand that pays 300 dollars per month. Half receive version A; half receive version B Section III. Migration 3.1. Have you ever migrated to another country for employment? 0 = No 1 = Yes If 0, skip to 3.6. 3.2. If so, in what year? Year ………. 3.3. For how long were you gone? Duration in years ………… Convert responses in months to years (i.e. 6 months = 0.5) - 30 - 3.4. To what country? ………… 3.5. Did you pay someone to help you migrate (broker or agency)? 0 = No 1 = Yes 3.5. Did you have the proper documents to migrate (passport, visa, etc.)? 0 = No 1 = Yes 3.6. Do you have any household member who has migrated in the past or is currently working outside the country? 0 = No 1 = Yes 3.7. How interested are you in leaving Cambodia to seek employment in other country within the next two years? 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Some what 4. Quite 5. Very 3.8. Would you know what steps to take if you wanted to migrate? (Probe: what to do first, second…) 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Some what 4. Quite well 5. Very well 3.9. Which of the following statements do you most agree with? 1. Cambodians often migrate because they have no choice. 2. Cambodians often migrate because they can earn more and have better lifestyles. 3.10. Version A In general, do you think it is good to have a family member migrate? 0 = No 1 = Yes Half receive Version A; Half receive Version B 3.10. Version B Research suggests that approximately 700,000 migrants are illegally exploited every year. Knowing this, do you think it is generally good to have a family member migrate? 0 = No 1 = Yes Half receive Version A; Half receive Version B 3.11. Do you personally know anyone who migrated and faced exploitation? 0 = No 1 = Yes, one or two people 2 = Yes, several people Section IV. CTIP 4.1. Have you heard about any jobs training programs provided by an NGO available for people in your community? 0 = No 1 = Yes 4.2. What is the name of the program or sponsor? Name ………………. Don’t know 4.3. Have you taken part in any jobs training programs provided by an NGOs in the past two years? 0 = No 1 = Yes 4.4. What is the name of the program or sponsor? Name ………………. Don’t know 4.5 Which of the following two statements do you agree with most? a. Anyone who is interested can take part in a NGO training program. b. Only certain people have the chance to take part in a NGO training program. Section V. Gender Norms 5.1. Do you agree or disagree with 1. 2. Dis- 3. Not 4. 5. - 31 - the following statement? “Women in Cambodia have the same access to economic opportunities as men.” strong dis￾agree agree sure Agree strong agree 5.2. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “Women in Cambodia should have the same access to economic opportunities as men.” 1. strong dis￾agree 2. dis￾agree 3. Not sure 4. Agree 5. strong agree 5.3. Do you personally know any women in professional leadership positions (manager, boss, etc.) in your community? 0 = No, none 1 = Just one or two 2 = Yes, several 5.4. When do you think it is justifiable for a man to beat a woman? 1 = Never 2 = If she is out of line or behaves poorly 3 = If she doesn’t respect the husband 4 = It is the husband’s choice. (Multiple answer) 5.5. Version A Approximately half of all migrants are women. Do you believe it is safe and appropriate for women to migrate in search of employment? 0 = No 1 = Yes 99 = Unsure/Don’t know Half receive version A; half receive version B. Record responses of “unsure” but do not offer as a response option 5.5. Version B Approximately half of all migrants are women, but women migrants are 3 times more likely to suffer violence. Do you believe it is appropriate for women to migrate in search of employment? 0 = No 1 = Yes 99 = Unsure/Don’t know Half receive version A; half receive version B Record responses of “unsure” but do not offer as a response option Women Only: 5.6. To what degree are you able to make decisions regarding your own professional choices? 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Some what 4. A lot 5. Comple te control For Women Only Women Only: 5.7. To what degree are you able to make decisions regarding the use of your own financial earnings? 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Some what 4. A lot 5. Comple te control For Women Only Section VI. Savings 6.1. Do you have a savings account or savings plan with a formal institution or group (bank, NGOs…)? 0 = No 1 = Yes 6.2. Do you currently have any savings? 0 = No 1 = Yes 6.3. How important is it to you to save money for the future? 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Some what 4. Quite 5. Very 6.4. Are you familiar with a NGOs program or network in your community that helps individuals to establish savings accounts? 0 = No 1 = Yes 6.5. Can you name or describe it? Name ……………. - 32 - 6.6. Are you participating in any of the following programs? 0. None 1. Samaritan’s Purse Saving Group, 2. Samaritan's Purse Agriculture Cooperative 3. Samaritan's Purse Small Grants 4. CEDAC Saving Groups 5. CEDAC Saving Groups 6. CCPCR's Agriculture Coop That completes the survey. Thank you very much for taking part! - 33 - ANNEX V: SOURCES OF INFORMATION Banyan Global. (September 2016). Cambodia Gender Assessment, USAID/Cambodia. BBC Media Action. (April 2018). Summary Completion Report, Winrock Project: “Dream to Goal” Toolkit. Open Institute. (2017). Pilot Testing Report of ‘An Assessment Tool of Job Satisfaction of Garment Workers’ for USAID/Cambodia. NCCT. (2017). Total Report of Anti-Human-Trafficking of 2017 and the Direction for 2018 (2017 Annual Report). NCCT. (February 2017). National Plan of Action 2014-2018, National Committee for Counter Trafficking in Persons Mid-Term Review Report, Robin Mauney, Nga Prom, Sophan Ngon. NCCT. (February 2015). National Plan of Action of the National Committee for Counter Trafficking 2014-2018. Samaritan’s Purse. (November 2018). Migration Situation: Cambodia/Thailand Border. PowerPoint presentation. USAID. (February 2012). USAID Counter-Trafficking in Persons Policy. USAID. (October 2012). Youth in Development: Realizing the Demographic Opportunity, USAID Policy – Youth. Winrock International. (July 2018). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Quarterly Progress Report: April 1 – June 30, 2018 [Yr 3, Q3], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. Winrock International. (April 2018). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Quarterly Progress Report: January 1 – March 31, 2018 [Yr 3, Q2], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. Winrock International. (January 2018). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Quarterly Progress Report: October 1 – December 31, 2017 [Yr 3, Q1], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. Winrock International. (2018). CTIP BCC Strategy – 2018. Winrock International. (2018). Performance Indicator Tracking Table – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) Year 3, Quarter 3, Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons Program (CTIP). - 34 - Winrock International. (2018). Performance Indicator Tracking Table – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) Yr 3, Quarter 2, Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons Program (CTIP). Winrock International. (2018). Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP), Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons Program (CTIP). Winrock International. (May 2018). Savings Group Study Report, CTIP. Winrock International. (January 2017). Commune Vulnerability Index Study. Winrock International. (January 2017). Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices on Safe Migration in Cambodia, Baseline Study Report, CTIP. Winrock International. (January 11, 2017). Winrock to Implement Landmark Asia Counter Trafficking Effort, https://www.winrock.org/usaid-announces-news-project-to￾counter-trafficking-in-persons-in-asia/. Winrock International. (2017). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Annual Report: October 2016 – September 2017 [Yr 2], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. Winrock International. (2017). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Quarterly Progress Report: April – June, 2017 [Yr 2, Q3], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. Winrock International. (2017). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Quarterly Progress Report: January – March, 2017 [Yr 2, Q2], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. Winrock International. (2017). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Quarterly Progress Report: October – December 30, 2016 [Yr 2, Q1], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. Winrock International. (2017). Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP), Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons Program (CTIP). Winrock International. (2016). AID-442-A-15-00002-CTIP, Attachment B – Program Description. Winrock International. (2016). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Annual Report: October 2015-September 2016 [Yr 1], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. - 35 - Winrock International. (2016). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Quarterly Progress Report: April 1 – June 30, 2016 [Yr 1, Q3], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. Winrock International. (April 2016). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Quarterly Progress Report: January 1 – March 31, 2016 [Yr 1, Q2], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. Winrock International. (March 2016). Performance Indicator Tracking Table – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) Year 2, Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In￾Persons Program (CTIP). Winrock International. (January 2016). Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons (CTIP) Program, Quarterly Progress Report: October 1 – December 31, 2015 [Yr 1, Q1], Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-442-A-15-00002. Winrock International. (October 2016). Findings and Recommendations from The Assessment of Gender- and Socially- Discriminated Groups for The USAID CTIP Program. Winrock International. (2016). Project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP), Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons Program (CTIP). - 36 - ANNEX V1: DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Name MARTINA NICOLLS Title TEAM LEADER/EVALUATION EXPERT Organization The Mitchell Group, Inc. Evaluation Position? X Team Leader Team Member Evaluation Award Number AID-OAA-I-15-00028 / 72044218F00001 USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Cambodia Countering Trafficking-In-Persons, implemented by Winrock International, Inc. Cooperative Agreement No: AID-442-A-15-00002 I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes X No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 12 SEPTEMBER 2018 - 37 - - 38 - - 39 - ANNEX VII: CTIP MID-TERM PREVENTION ACHIEVEMENTS IR1 – PREVENTION - Enhanced national and local strategies to prevent TIP INTERVENTIONS TARGETS ACHIEVEMENTS (to September 2018) SAVINGS GROUPS 302 savings groups 9 provinces 194 savings groups 3,996 beneficiaries (2,547 ARP & 1,449 non-ARP) in 9 provinces SMALL GRANTS 873 small grants 9 provinces 327 small grants 327 ARP beneficiaries in 9 provinces AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES (AC) 6 AC 9 provinces 5 AC 212 beneficiaries (41 ARP & 171 non-ARP) in 2 provinces; 6 villages in 5 communes 35 model farms for 35 ARP beneficiaries 28 demo farms for 28 ARP beneficiaries 4 chick farms for 4 ARP beneficiaries 2 rice banks for 96 ARP & 4 non-ARP beneficiaries 3 cow banks for 49 ARP & 2 non-ARP beneficiaries 164 farmer promoters for 127 ARP & 37 non-ARP beneficiaries 23 producer groups for 140 ARP & 45 non-ARP beneficiaries 207 chicken-raising ARP trained 7 fish-raising ARP trained; 5 pig-raising ARP trained 23 vegetable-growing ARP trained 36 small business people trained BONG PHEAK (job seeking platform) 150 registered companies 900 registered job seekers 750 open job positions 400 people hired 952 registered companies; 453 companies posted jobs; 222,234 webpage users; 9,840 registered job seekers; 43,456 open job positions; 5,446 jobs referred via phone; 26,030 job applications 995 hired (November 2016 to December 2017) 200 hired (one month, July 2018) SOFT SKILLS No target set 280 ARP beneficiaries trained Source: USAID MTE SOW, p3; Open Institute statistics collected on September 21, 2018, CTIP Year 3, Q3 Progress Report, p12; CTIP MEP Year 3, Q3; CTIP PowerPoint presented to the Evaluation Team on September 11, 2018 - 40 - ANNEX VIII: PREVENTION, PROTECTION AND PROSECUTION INTERMEDIATE RESULTS CTIP’s three Intermediate Results (IR) for prevention, protection, and prosecution, and their associated interventions, are shown in the table below: IR1 – PREVENTION - Enhanced national and local strategies to prevent TIP OBJECTIVE INTERVENTIONS 1.1 Awareness-raising and behavior change communications for safer migration Savings Groups, Small Grants, Agriculture Cooperatives (AC), Bong Pheak (‘Big Brother’ job seeking platform) 1.2 Addressing economic root causes of trafficking by expanding educational, vocational, and livelihood opportunities for at-risk populations Access to services, Labor market analysis, Vocational training, Job placement; Entrepreneurship development 1.3 Supporting national & sub-national strategies to prevent TIP Technical assistance to NCCT & PCCTs IR2 – PROTECTION - Strengthened survivor protection and services for all forms of TIP OBJECTIVE INTERVENTIONS 2.1 Developing and modeling best practices in victim identification and support Victim identification, Case management, Reintegration support 2.2 Supporting national and sub-national safety networks for protection Referral mechanisms 2.3 Increasing cross-border and regional coordination in response to TIP Support victim repatriation IR3 – PROSECUTION - Increased likelihood of successful prosecution of TIP OBJECTIVE INTERVENTIONS 3.1 Increasing access to legal services Training lawyers & paralegal professionals 3.2. Capacity building for criminal justice actors Training justice system staff, police, & TIP investigators - 41 - ANNEX IX: POIPET MIGRANT CENTER RETURNEE STATISTICS, 2018 The number of undocumented returnees through the Poipet Migrant Center (PMC) in 2018, near the Thailand border, are currently reported by IOM as follows: Month No. of Trucks No. of Migrants Male Female Children under18 January 77 2,858 1,594 975 289 February 71 2,929 1,572 817 240 March 80 3,060 1,766 994 300 April 97 4,054* 2,288 1,378 388 May 59 1,711 995 557 159 June 66 2,098 1,210 715 173 July 86 2,945 1,556 1,095 294 August 72 2,259 1,278 755 226 September 51 1,442 856 455 133 To October 22 47 1,204 703 374 127 Note: * Khmer New Year (families returned home to celebrate) The Evaluation Team collected the information from IOM on October 22, 2018 - 42 - ANNEX X: EVALUATION SURVEY RESULTS 1. Descriptive Statistics Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of the sampled population. The survey included 504 respondents distributed across five provinces as follows: 50 in Banteay Meanchey, 126 in Siem Reap, 100 in Kampong Thom, 78 in Svay Rieng, and 150 in Phnom Penh. More respondents were drawn from provinces with a greater concentration of program activities, within the bounds of 50 and 150 per province. Among the sampled population, 58.7 percent of respondents took part in at least one of the program activities as a beneficiary. Of note, over one-quarter of respondents know someone who has been exploited in the course of migration, and about 17 percent of respondents have a moderate to strong interest in migrating within the next two years (67 percent express no interest in migrating) – Figure 7. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Respondents Mean Std. Dev. Percent Beneficiaries 58.7 0.5 Percent Female 49.7 0.5 Average Age 40.9 13.9 Average Number of Children 2.5 2.3 Percent Completing High School 17.7 0.7 Percent Married 71.2 0.5 Percent with Salaried Job/Business Owner 47.4 0.4 Percent who Own a Smartphone 59.7 0.4 Percent who have Migrated in the Past 18.1 0.4 Percent who Know Someone Exploited in Migration 27.6 0.7 Percent with Moderate to Strong Interest in Migrating 16.9 0.4 As illustrated in Figure 1, 40 percent of respondents work as farmers on in livestock. Approximately 48 percent either own a business or receive a wage/salary through public or private employment. Figure 1. Tables 2-4 provide additional descriptive information regarding the occupation of respondents in the sample, disaggregated by gender, province, and age, respectively. Men are three times more likely than women to work in the public sector and 50 percent more likely to receive a salary/wage in the private sector, though women are slightly more likely to own a business. Over 60 percent of respondents in both Siem Reap and Svay Rieng work in agriculture/livestock. Only about 12 percent of respondents over 40 receive a wage/salary from either the public or private sectors, compared to approximately 50 percent of those aged 18-25 and about 34 percent of those aged 26-40. 8.73 4.17 22.22 21.03 40.28 3.57 0 10 20 30 40 50 None Salary, public Salary/wage, private Own business Farming/livestock Student Respondent Occupation Types - 43 - Table 2. Occupation Type Female Male Total None N 38 6 44 % 12.62 2.96 8.73 Salary, Public N 8 13 21 % 2.66 6.40 4.17 Salary/Wage, Private N 55 57 112 % 18.27 28.08 22.22 Own Business N 67 39 106 % 22.26 19.21 21.03 Farming/Livestock N 125 78 203 % 41.53 38.42 40.28 Student N 8 10 18 % 2.66 4.93 3.57 Total N 301 203 504 % 59.72 40.28 100.00 Table 3. Occupation Type BMC Siem Reap Kampong Thom Svay Rieng Phnom Penh Total None N 8 11 11 2 12 44 % 16.00 8.73 11.00 2.56 8.00 8.73 Salary, Pubic N 2 3 2 4 10 21 % 4.00 2.38 2.00 5.13 6.67 4.17 Salary/Wage, Private N 7 16 19 6 64 112 % 14.00 12.70 19.00 7.69 42.67 22.22 Own Business N 9 15 18 16 48 106 % 18.00 11.90 18.00 20.51 32.00 21.03 Farmer/Livestock N 24 79 48 49 3 203 % 48.00 62.70 48.00 62.82 2.00 40.28 Student N 0 2 2 1 13 18 % 0.00 1.59 2.00 1.28 8.67 3.57 Total N 50 126 100 78 150 504 % 9.92 25.00 19.84 15.48 29.76 100.00 Table 4. Occupation Type Age 18-25 Age 26-40 Over 40 Total None N 11 14 19 44 % 14.10 7.29 8.12 8.73 Salary, Public N 2 11 8 21 % 2.56 5.73 3.42 4.17 Salary/Wage, Private N 37 54 21 112 % 47.44 28.13 8.97 22.22 Own Business N 2 57 47 106 % 2.56 29.69 20.09 21.03 Farmer/Livestock N 8 56 139 203 % 10.26 29.17 59.40 40.28 Student N 18 0 0 18 % 23.08 0.00 0.00 3.57 Total N 78 192 234 504 % 15.48 38.10 46.43 100.00 - 44 - More than half of respondents did not complete primary school. About six percent completed secondary school, and 12 percent continued their educations beyond high school. See Figure 2. Figure 2. Overall, 85 percent of respondents have a mobile phone of any sort, and about 59 percent have a Smartphone. The ability to connect regularly to the internet can pay important dividends in job seeking, building professional networks, and gauging prices for those in the private sector, making Smartphones an important tool for improving livelihoods. Tables 5-8 provided additional information regarding Smartphone ownership, disaggregated by education, gender, age, and province. Smartphone ownership increases steadily with education, from about 48 percent ownership among those who did not complete primary school to 90 percent ownership for those who achieved post-secondary school status. Males are somewhat more likely than females to own a Smartphone (65 percent vs. 56 percent), and younger adults are significantly more likely than their older counterparts to have Smartphones: 77 percent of those aged 18-25, versus 64 percent of those aged 26-40 and half of those over 40, do so. The vast majority (83 percent) of respondents in Phnom Penh own a Smartphone; only 36 percent of those in Kampong Thom do. Table 5. Have a Smartphone None Primary Secondary Post-Secondary Total No N 151 39 6 6 202 % 52.07 31.71 20.69 10.00 40.24 Yes N 139 84 23 54 300 % 47.93 68.29 79.31 90.00 59.76 Total N 290 123 29 60 502 % 57.77 24.50 5.78 11.95 100.00 Table 6. Have a Smartphone Female Male Total No N 132 71 203 % 43.85 34.98 40.28 Yes N 169 132 301 16.27 41.27 4.17 9.72 4.96 5.56 5.75 11.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 None Incomplete Primary Complete Primary Incomplete Lower SS Complete Lower SS Incomplete Senior SS Complete Senior SS University Education of Respondents - 45 - % 56.15 65.02 59.72 Total N 301 203 504 % 59.72 40.28 100.00 Table 7. Have a Smart Phone Age 18-25 Age 26-40 Over 40 Total No N 18 69 116 203 % 23.08 35.94 49.57 40.28 Yes N 60 123 118 301 % 76.92 64.06 50.43 59.72 Total N 78 192 234 504 % 15.48 38.10 46.43 100.00 Table 8. Have a Smartphone BMC Siem Reap Kampong Thom Svay Rieng Phnom Penh Total No N 25 56 64 33 25 203 % 50.00 44.44 64.00 42.31 16.67 40.28 Yes N 25 70 36 45 125 301 % 50.00 55.56 36.00 57.69 83.33 59.72 Total N 50 126 100 78 150 504 % 9.92 25.00 19.84 15.48 29.76 100.00 2. The Importance of Savings: Data and Correlations One important component of program activities is enhancing efforts of program beneficiaries to establish savings, which can mitigate threats to subsistence and the perceived need to migrate. Here, we describe the data and some correlations related to individual savings accounts. As the data in Table 9 indicate, there is surprisingly little variation in the share of respondents with savings accounts by education level, and in fact, those who did not complete primary school are more likely than those with post-secondary education to have a savings account. We view this as suggestive evidence that program activities have successfully targeted lower income individuals, thus encouraging those individuals to open savings accounts at a higher rate than their more educated counterparts (we detail program effects for beneficiaries in a separate section below). Table 9. Have a Savings Account None Primary Secondary Post-Secondary Total No N 153 73 14 36 276 % 52.76 59.35 48.28 60.00 54.98 Yes N 137 50 15 24 226 % 47.24 40.65 51.72 40.00 45.02 Total N 290 123 29 60 502 % 57.77 24.50 5.78 11.95 100.00 Tables 10-12 provide information on savings accounts by gender, age, and province, respectively. Women are significantly more likely than men to have a savings account (49.5 percent vs. 38 percent), and older respondents are more likely than those aged 18-25 to have a savings account by about the same proportions (49.6 percent vs. 34.6 percent). Somewhat surprisingly, only 28.8 percent of respondents in Phnom Penh have a savings account, compared to over 40 percent in all other provinces and over 60 percent in Kampong Thom in particular. This is likely a function of the program activities that prioritized savings accounts to a greater extent in other provinces. - 46 - Table 10. Have a Savings Account Female Male Total No N 152 126 278 % 50.50 62.07 55.16 Yes N 149 77 226 % 49.50 37.93 44.84 Total N 301 203 504 % 59.72 40.28 100.00 Table 11. Have a Savings Account Age 18-25 Age 26-40 Over 40 Total No N 51 109 118 278 % 65.38 56.77 50.43 55.16 Yes N 27 83 116 226 % 34.62 43.23 49.57 44.84 Total N 78 192 234 504 % 15.48 38.10 46.43 100.00 Table 12. Have a Savings Account BMC Siem Reap Kampong Thom Svay Rieng Phnom Penh Total No N 26 70 38 37 107 278 % 52.00 55.56 38.00 47.44 71.33 55.16 Yes N 24 56 62 41 43 226 % 48.00 44.44 62.00 52.56 28.67 44.84 Total N 50 126 100 78 150 504 % 9.92 25.00 19.84 15.48 29.76 100.00 Beneficiary effects on having a savings account, by gender The results indicate that being a program beneficiary has very strong effects on having a savings account among both men (61.9% vs. 12.24% of non-beneficiaries, p=.000) and women (69.1% vs. 15.5%, p=.000). Table 12A Men. havesaving | Beneficiary saccount | NO Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 86 40 | 126 | 87.76 38.10 | 62.07 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 12 65 | 77 | 12.24 61.90 | 37.93 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 98 105 | 203 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =53.0959 Pr =0.000 Table 12A Women. havesaving | Beneficiary saccount | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 93 59 | 152 | 84.55 30.89 | 50.50 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 17 132 | 149 | 15.45 69.11 | 49.50 - 47 - -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 110 191 | 301 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =80.3877 Pr =0.000 Effects of beneficiary status on viewing savings as important, by gender Men who participate as program beneficiaries appear to view savings as more important than those who are not beneficiaries. For example, 68.6% of the former vs. just 55.1% of the latter call savings very important (p=.081). However, while the data for women trend in the same direction, the results are not statistically significant for women (p=.534) or men. Table 12A Men-Importance of Savings. importance | Beneficiary saving | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 2 | 0 2 | 2 | 0.00 1.90 | 0.99 -----------+----------------------+---------- 3 | 7 6 | 13 | 7.14 5.71 | 6.40 -----------+----------------------+---------- 4 | 37 25 | 62 | 37.76 23.81 | 30.54 -----------+----------------------+---------- 5 | 54 72 | 126 | 55.10 68.57 | 62.07 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 98 105 | 203 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(3) =6.7376 Pr =0.081 Table 12A Women-Importance of Savings. importance | Beneficiary saving | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 0 1 | 1 | 0.00 0.52 | 0.33 -----------+----------------------+---------- 2 | 0 2 | 2 | 0.00 1.05 | 0.66 -----------+----------------------+---------- 3 | 6 10 | 16 | 5.45 5.24 | 5.32 -----------+----------------------+---------- 4 | 28 37 | 65 | 25.45 19.37 | 21.59 -----------+----------------------+---------- 5 | 76 141 | 217 | 69.09 73.82 | 72.09 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 110 191 | 301 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(4) =3.1467 Pr =0.534 - 48 - We evaluated the correlation between having a savings account and expressing interest in migrating from Cambodia within the next two years. Reported above, 67 percent (Figure 7) of respondents expressed no interest at all in migrating, whereas 16 percent express a somewhat strong or very strong interest in migrating. The question is whether having a savings account might serve as a mediating factor. The findings are modest and do not reach conventional levels of statistical significance, but the correlation points in the desired direction: 18.4 percent of those with no savings account express a moderate to strong interest in migrating, whereas 15.0 percent of those who do have savings accounts express a similarly strong interest in migrating. A bivariate t-test reveals a p-value of 0.32. See Table 13. Table 13. Interest in Migrating No Savings Account Have Savings Account Total Little to No Interest N 227 192 419 % 81.65 84.96 83.13 Moderate to Strong Interest N 51 34 85 % 18.35 15.04 16.87 Total N 278 226 504 % 55.16 44.84 100.00 Note: Bivariate p=0.32. Interest in migrating coded 1 for those expressing moderate, strong, or very strong interest in migrating, on a scale from 1-5. Effects of having a savings account on interest in migrating, by beneficiary status Having a savings account significantly reduces interest in migrating among beneficiaries (24.9% vs. 40.4%, p=.006). Conversely, having a savings account has no statistically significant impact on interest in migrating among non-beneficiaries, and in that group, those with savings accounts are actually more inclined to migrate rather than less (34.5% vs. 26.8%, p=.393). Table 13A Beneficiaries. anyinteres |havesavingsaccount tmigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 59 148 | 207 | 59.60 75.13 | 69.93 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 40 49 | 89 | 40.40 24.87 | 30.07 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 99 197 | 296 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =7.5584 Pr =0.006 Table 13A Non-Beneficiaries. anyinteres |havesavingsaccount tmigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 131 19 | 150 | 73.18 65.52 | 72.12 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 48 10 | 58 | 26.82 34.48 | 27.88 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 179 29 | 208 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.7296 Pr =0.393 - 49 - Effects of having a savings account on interest in migrating, by gender Having a savings account significantly reduces interest in migrating among men (23.4% vs. 37.3%, p=.039), but there is no such effect among women: women with a savings account (27.5%) and women without a savings account (27.0%) are almost equally likely to have any interest in migrating (p=.916). Table 13A Men. anyinteres |havesavingsaccount tmigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 79 59 | 138 | 62.70 76.62 | 67.98 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 47 18 | 65 | 37.30 23.38 | 32.02 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 126 77 | 203 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =4.2575 Pr =0.039 Table 13A Women. anyinteres |havesavingsaccount tmigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 111 108 | 219 | 73.03 72.48 | 72.76 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 41 41 | 82 | 26.97 27.52 | 27.24 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 152 149 | 301 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.0112 Pr =0.916 Effects of having a savings account on interest in migrating, by location Having a savings account is not a significant predictor of wishing to migrate in any of the five provinces under study. Only in Svay Rieng do the results approach statistical significance: 14.6% of those with a savings account vs. 27% of those without, have any interest in migrating (p=.176). Table 13A Banteay Meanchey. Wantmigrat |havesavingsaccount ecat | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 13 13 | 26 | 50.00 54.17 | 52.00 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 13 11 | 24 | 50.00 45.83 | 48.00 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 26 24 | 50 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.0868 Pr =0.768 - 50 - Table 13A Siem Reap. Wantmigrat |havesavingsaccount ecat | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 51 42 | 93 | 72.86 75.00 | 73.81 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 19 14 | 33 | 27.14 25.00 | 26.19 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 70 56 | 126 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.0739 Pr =0.786 Table 13A Kampong Thom. Wantmigrat |havesavingsaccount ecat | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 26 46 | 72 | 68.42 74.19 | 72.00 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 12 16 | 28 | 31.58 25.81 | 28.00 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 38 62 | 100 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.3894 Pr =0.533 Table 13A Svay Rieng. Wantmigrat |havesavingsaccount ecat | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 27 35 | 62 | 72.97 85.37 | 79.49 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 10 6 | 16 | 27.03 14.63 | 20.51 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 37 41 | 78 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =1.8319 Pr =0.176 Table 13A Phnom Penh. Wantmigrat |havesavingsaccount ecat | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 73 31 | 104 | 68.22 72.09 | 69.33 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 34 12 | 46 | 31.78 27.91 | 30.67 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 107 43 | 150 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.2159 Pr =0.642 - 51 - 3. Views about Migration: Data and Correlations We are interested in understanding more about respondents’ views and knowledge regarding migration. We begin this section by considering how well respondents know the steps one must take to migrate properly. This we measured by asking respondents if they would know what to do first, second, and so forth as steps to take if they wanted to migrate. One key finding is that knowledge about proper migration protocols increases systematically with education: whereas only about one-third of respondents with less than primary school education knew the proper steps, nearly two-thirds of those with post-secondary education do so. See Figure 3. Figure 3. Note: Outcomes are self-reported perceptions of process. Positive Responses indicate those who report knowing the process somewhat well, well, or very well. No education includes those who did not complete primary school. Those results are also reported in Table 14. In addition, we present data on knowledge about safe migration disaggregated by gender, age, and province, in Tables 15, 16, and 17, respectively. Men report having a better understanding of the process than women, as 50 percent of men vs. 36 percent of women say that they are somewhat to very knowledgeable about the steps. Younger respondents are modestly better informed than their older counterparts, and more than half of respondents in both Banteay Meanchey and Phnom Penh are somewhat to very informed about the steps; only 29 percent of those in Kampong Thom are. Table 14. Know Safe Migration Steps None Primary Secondary Post-Secondary Total No N 187 69 14 21 291 % 64.48 56.10 48.28 35.00 57.97 Yes N 103 54 15 39 211 (somewhat, well, very well) % 35.52 43.90 51.72 65.00 42.03 Total N 290 123 29 60 502 % 57.77 24.50 5.78 11.95 100.00 Table 15. Know Steps for Safe Migration Female Male Total No N 191 101 292 % 63.46 49.75 57.94 Yes N 110 102 212 (somewhat, well, very well) % 36.54 50.25 42.06 35.5 43.9 51.7 65 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 None Primary Secondary Post-Secondary Know Steps for Safe Migration - 52 - Total N 301 203 504 % 59.72 40.28 100.00 Beneficiary effects on knowing steps to proper migration, by gender Beneficiary status has no effect on knowing the steps to proper migration either among men (p=.606) or among women (p=.662). We noted previously that males are significantly more likely than females to know the steps for proper migration, but this is not a function of program participation. We suspect that males may be less risk averse in pursuing migration opportunities and thus more interested in acquiring information but his is speculation. Table 15A Men. knowstepst | Beneficiary omigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 26 21 | 47 | 26.53 20.00 | 23.15 -----------+----------------------+---------- 2 | 27 27 | 54 | 27.55 25.71 | 26.60 -----------+----------------------+---------- 3 | 28 33 | 61 | 28.57 31.43 | 30.05 -----------+----------------------+---------- 4 | 15 23 | 38 | 15.31 21.90 | 18.72 -----------+----------------------+---------- 5 | 2 1 | 3 | 2.04 0.95 | 1.48 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 98 105 | 203 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(4) =2.7212 Pr =0.606 Table 15A Women. knowstepst | Beneficiary omigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 40 61 | 101 | 36.36 31.94 | 33.55 -----------+----------------------+---------- 2 | 34 56 | 90 | 30.91 29.32 | 29.90 -----------+----------------------+---------- 3 | 25 51 | 76 | 22.73 26.70 | 25.25 -----------+----------------------+---------- 4 | 10 17 | 27 | 9.09 8.90 | 8.97 -----------+----------------------+---------- 5 | 1 6 | 7 | 0.91 3.14 | 2.33 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 110 191 | 301 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(4) =2.4017 Pr =0.662 - 53 - Effects of having proper documentation on knowing steps for proper migration, by gender Having had the proper documents upon previous migration is a significant predictor of knowing the steps to proper migration today among men (p=.009) and also among women (p=.047). Table 15A Men-Proper Documentation knowstepst | properdocs omigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 8 1 | 9 | 27.59 5.56 | 19.15 -----------+----------------------+---------- 2 | 10 1 | 11 | 34.48 5.56 | 23.40 -----------+----------------------+---------- 3 | 4 8 | 12 | 13.79 44.44 | 25.53 -----------+----------------------+---------- 4 | 6 8 | 14 | 20.69 44.44 | 29.79 -----------+----------------------+---------- 5 | 1 0 | 1 | 3.45 0.00 | 2.13 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 29 18 | 47 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(4) =13.5975 Pr =0.009 Table 15A Women-Proper Documentation knowstepst | properdocs omigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 2 1 | 3 | 6.25 8.33 | 6.82 -----------+----------------------+---------- 2 | 13 0 | 13 | 40.63 0.00 | 29.55 -----------+----------------------+---------- 3 | 9 3 | 12 | 28.13 25.00 | 27.27 -----------+----------------------+---------- 4 | 6 7 | 13 | 18.75 58.33 | 29.55 -----------+----------------------+---------- 5 | 2 1 | 3 | 6.25 8.33 | 6.82 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 32 12 | 44 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(4) =9.6456 Pr =0.047 Table 16. Know Steps for Safe Migration Age 18-25 Age 26-40 Over 40 Total No N 41 108 143 292 % 52.56 56.25 61.11 57.94 Yes N 37 84 91 212 (somewhat, well, very well) % 47.44 43.75 38.89 42.06 - 54 - Total N 78 192 234 504 % 15.48 38.10 46.43 100.00 Table 17. Know Safe Migration Steps BMC Siem Reap Kampong Thom Svay Rieng Phnom Penh Total No N 23 81 71 51 66 292 % 46.00 64.29 71.00 65.38 44.00 57.94 Yes N 27 45 29 27 84 212 % 54.00 35.71 29.00 34.62 56.00 42.06 Total N 50 126 100 78 150 504 % 9.92 25.00 19.84 15.48 29.76 100.00 We also evaluated how knowing the steps for safe migration correlated with having proper migration documents. The question about having proper documents was asked only of those respondents who had migrated in the past, so the sample is smaller (n=91) and the responses are retrospective. Nevertheless, the data indicate a very strong correlation: whereas 46 percent of those who lacked proper documentation when they migrated report knowing the proper steps for migration, 90 percent of those who did possess the proper documents when they migrated report knowing those protocols. In a bivariate t-test, the difference is significant at p=0.000. See Table 18. Table 18. Know Steps for Safe Migration Did Not Have Proper Documents Did Have Proper Documents Total No N 33 3 36 % 54.10 10.00 39.56 Yes N 28 27 55 (some, well, very well) % 45.90 90.00 60.44 Total N 61 30 91 % 67.03 32.97 100.00 p = 0.000. Additionally, we considered the correlation between one’s self-reported income status and her/his interest in migrating within the next two years, on the logic that those with insufficient income would feel greater pressure to migrate in search of better pay. We measured self-reported income status by asking respondents the extent to which their family income is sufficient to cover food and housing costs, on a five-point scale from totally insufficient to totally sufficient. Interestingly, no respondent provided an answer of “totally sufficient.” We code interest in migrating as those who express any interest at all in doing so (on a five-point scale), since 67 percent express no interest in migrating (Figure 7). The results do not reach conventional levels of statistical significance, but the pattern is as expected: as Figure 4 shows, 38.6 percent of those who report that their income is totally insufficient express some interest in migrating, whereas among those who report higher levels of income sufficiency, less than 30 percent on average express any interest in migrating. - 55 - Figure 4. A t-test of the bivariate relationship between reporting totally insufficient income (compared to other levels of income sufficiency) and expressing some interest in migrating has a p-value of 0.14. See Table 19 for details disaggregated by self-reported income sufficiency. Table 19. Interest in Migrating within Next 2 Years Totally insufficient income Mostly insufficient income Somewhat sufficient income Mostly sufficient income Total No N 27 130 162 38 357 % 61.36 69.52 73.64 71.70 70.83 Yes N 17 57 58 15 147 % 38.64 30.48 26.36 28.30 29.17 Total N 44 187 220 53 504 % 8.73 37.10 43.65 10.52 100.00 p = 0.14. We explore the correlation between past experience with migration and the respondent’s interest in migrating again within the next two years. As Table 20 indicates, those who migrated in the past are indeed more likely to express an interest in doing so again: 40.7 percent of those respondents, versus just 26.6 percent of those who have not migrated in the past, noted that they have some interest in against leaving Cambodia. In a bivariate comparison, that difference is statistically significant at p=0.008. Effects of income sufficiency on interest in migrating, by beneficiary status Having sufficient income for household expenses appears to slightly reduce interest in migrating among men (27.3% vs. 32.9%), though the results do not attain conventional levels of statistical significance (p=.298). Among women, the pattern is similar (26.0% vs. 30.6%, p=.470). 38.64 30.48 26.36 28.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Totally Insufficient Income Mostly Insufficient Income Somewhat Sufficient Income Mostly Sufficient Income Any Interest at All in Migrating within Next 2 Years - 56 - Table 19A Beneficiaries. anyinteres |sufficientincome tmigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 98 109 | 207 | 67.12 72.67 | 69.93 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 48 41 | 89 | 32.88 27.33 | 30.07 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 146 150 | 296 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =1.0812 Pr =0.298 Table 19A Non-Beneficiaries. anyinteres |sufficientincome tmigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 59 91 | 150 | 69.41 73.98 | 72.12 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 26 32 | 58 | 30.59 26.02 | 27.88 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 85 123 | 208 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.5225 Pr =0.470 Effects of income sufficiency on interest in migrating, by gender Having sufficient income is not statistically correlated with an interest in migrating among men (30.8% vs. 33.7%, p=.663). Among women, there is a more pronounced effect: those with sufficient income are less likely to express an interest in migrating compared to those with insufficient income (23.5% vs. 31.1%), though the results do not quite attain conventional levels of statistical significance (p=.141). Table 19A Men. anyinteres |sufficientincomecat tmigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 55 83 | 138 | 66.27 69.17 | 67.98 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 28 37 | 65 | 33.73 30.83 | 32.02 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 83 120 | 203 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.1898 Pr =0.663 Table 19A Women. anyinteres |sufficientincomecat tmigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 102 117 | 219 | 68.92 76.47 | 72.76 -----------+----------------------+---------- - 57 - 1 | 46 36 | 82 | 31.08 23.53 | 27.24 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 148 153 | 301 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =2.1645 Pr =0.141 Table 20. Interest in Migrating in Next 2 Years Female Male Total None N 303 54 357 % 73.37 59.34 70.83 Some Interest (little  a lot) N 110 37 147 % 26.63 40.66 29.17 Total N 413 91 504 % 581.94 18.06 100.00 p = 0.008 4. Women’s Empowerment: Data and Correlations Before considering program effects on beneficiaries versus non-beneficiaries, we outline a third category of findings, related to women’s empowerment. We analyze data from questions asked only of women to determine the correlation between women having a savings account and their feeling empowered over financial and professional decisions. The outcome variables are coded 1 if the (woman) respondent answered “a lot of control” or “total control” when asked the extent of her control over financial decisions and professional decisions (e.g., 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale). Analyses for financial decisions is presented are Table 21. The findings suggest that having a savings account has not had an impact on women’s control over financial decisions: 66.5 percent of women with no savings account, and a similar 67.8 percent of women with savings accounts, report having a lot or total control over their financial decisions (p=0.806 in a bivariate t-test). Likewise, having a savings account has not affected women respondents’ likelihood of reporting a lot or total control over their professional decisions, as 58.6 percent of those without savings accounts, and 57.7 percent who do have savings accounts, report having a lot or total control over professional decisions (p=0.884 in a bivariate t-test). See Table 22. Table 21. Have a Lot of Control or Total Control Over Financial Decisions No Savings Account Have Savings Account Total No N 51 48 99 % 33.55 32.21 32.89 Yes N 101 101 202 % 66.45 67.79 67.11 Total N 152 149 301 % 50.50 49.50 100.00 Effects of women having a savings account on control over financial decisions, by age group Among younger and middle-aged women, having a savings account appears to make women slightly more empowered in terms of making their own financial decisions (26.7% vs. 14.8% among the youngest and 23.2% vs. 16.4% among the middle aged), though neither difference is statistically significant. Among older women, those with a savings account are actually slightly less empowered over financial decisions, though again the results are not statistically significant. - 58 - Table 21A Younger Women. strongfind |havesavingsaccount ec | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 23 11 | 34 | 85.19 73.33 | 80.95 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 4 4 | 8 | 14.81 26.67 | 19.05 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 27 15 | 42 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.8784 Pr =0.349 Table 21A Middle-Aged Women. strongfind |havesavingsaccount ec | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 51 43 | 94 | 83.61 76.79 | 80.34 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 10 13 | 23 | 16.39 23.21 | 19.66 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 61 56 | 117 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.8601 Pr =0.354 Table 21A Older Women. strongfind |havesavingsaccount ec | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 36 50 | 86 | 56.25 64.10 | 60.56 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 28 28 | 56 | 43.75 35.90 | 39.44 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 64 78 | 142 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.9076 Pr =0.341 Effects of women having a savings account on control over financial decisions, by location Women in Phnom Penh are significantly more likely to feel empowered to make their own financial decisions if they have a savings account (54.2% vs. 26.7%, p=.017). In no other province is the effect of having a savings account on women’s financial empowerment significant. Table 21A Banteay Meanchey. strongfind |havesavingsaccount ec | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 10 14 | 24 | 76.92 77.78 | 77.42 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 3 4 | 7 | 23.08 22.22 | 22.58 - 59 - -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 13 18 | 31 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.0032 Pr =0.955 Table 21A Siem Reap. strongfind |havesavingsaccount ec | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 25 28 | 53 | 69.44 77.78 | 73.61 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 11 8 | 19 | 30.56 22.22 | 26.39 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 36 36 | 72 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.6435 Pr =0.422 Table 21A Kampong Thom. strongfind |havesavingsaccount ec | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 18 33 | 51 | 78.26 76.74 | 77.27 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 5 10 | 15 | 21.74 23.26 | 22.73 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 23 43 | 66 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.0196 Pr =0.889 Table 21A Svay Rieng. strongfind |havesavingsaccount ec | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 13 18 | 31 | 65.00 64.29 | 64.58 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 7 10 | 17 | 35.00 35.71 | 35.42 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 20 28 | 48 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.0026 Pr =0.959 Table 21A Phnom Penh. strongfind |havesavingsaccount ec | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 44 11 | 55 | 73.33 45.83 | 65.48 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 16 13 | 29 | 26.67 54.17 | 34.52 - 60 - -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 60 24 | 84 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =5.7352 Pr =0.017 Table 22. Have a Lot of Control or Total Control Over Professional Decisions No Savings Account Have Savings Account Total No N 563 63 126 % 41.45 42.28 41.86 Yes N 89 86 175 % 58.55 57.72 58.14 Total N 152 149 301 % 50.50 49.50 100.00 To summarize, we find no evidence of a correlation between women having savings accounts and their sense of control over financial or professional decisions. This is not to suggest that the program activities have not benefited women. We noted above that women are more likely than men to have savings accounts, and while this has not resulted in greater empowerment to this point, it has other important benefits. Furthermore, we note some findings below that bear importantly on the livelihoods and opportunities of women. 5. Program Effects: Non-Beneficiaries vs. Beneficiaries We turn now to the principal objective of the survey, which is to determine whether program activities are having any systematic, observable effects on beneficiaries at this stage in the program. We explored a number of possible outcomes and find evidence that, at this fairly early stage, some behavior change is occurring. Most notably, two-thirds of program beneficiaries have a savings account, compared to only 14 percent of non-beneficiaries. See Figure 5. The difference is highly statistically significant (p<0.000 in a bivariate t-test) and indicates a clear benefit of participation in the program. Those analyses are presented in table form in Table 23 below. Figure 5. Table 23. Have a Savings Account Non-Beneficiary Beneficiary Total No N 179 99 278 % 86.06 33.45 55.16 Yes N 29 197 226 13.9 62.5 66.5 71.9 0 20 40 60 80 Percent with a Savings Account Percent who View Saving as Very Important Program Effects on Savings Non-Beneficiaries Beneficiaries - 61 - % 13.94 66.55 44.84 Total N 208 296 504 % 41.27 58.73 100.00 p = 0.000. We also illustrate in Figure 5 above that beneficiaries of the program activities are significantly more likely than their non-beneficiary counterparts to view saving as very important (72 percent vs. 62.5 percent, p=0.025). Details are provided in Table 24. Table 24. Views Saving as Very Important Non-Beneficiary Beneficiary Total No N 78 83 161 % 37.50 28.04 31.94 Yes N 29 197 226 % 62.50 71.96 68.06 Total N 208 296 504 % 41.27 58.73 100.00 p = 0.025. Beneficiary status on interest in migrating, by gender Regardless of having savings or not, being a beneficiary of program activities is significantly correlated with having an interest in migrating among men, though the results are in an unexpected direction: beneficiaries are more likely to wish to migrate (38.1% vs. 25.5%, p=.055). Among women, there is no statistically significant relationship between being a program beneficiary and wishing to migrate. Table 24A Men. anyinteres | Beneficiary tmigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 73 65 | 138 | 74.49 61.90 | 67.98 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 25 40 | 65 | 25.51 38.10 | 32.02 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 98 105 | 203 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =3.6883 Pr =0.055 Table 24A Women anyinteres | Beneficiary tmigrate | No Yes | Total -----------+----------------------+---------- 0 | 77 142 | 219 | 70.00 74.35 | 72.76 -----------+----------------------+---------- 1 | 33 49 | 82 | 30.00 25.65 | 27.24 -----------+----------------------+---------- Total | 110 191 | 301 | 100.00 100.00 | 100.00 Pearson chi2(1) =0.6650 Pr =0.415 - 62 - We also evaluated program effects on views of women’s empowerment; see Figure 6 and Table 25. First, comparing beneficiaries to non-beneficiaries, the findings indicate a modest uptick in support for the view that women should have equal economic opportunities. However, the difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries is not statistically significant at conventional levels (51 percent vs. 46.6 percent, p=0.334). A larger sample size would likely be enough to statistically confirm the difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. We should note that we find no notable differences in the share of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries who believe that women currently do have the same opportunities, though there is no a priori expectation regarding program effects on this outcome. We find no significant differences between women beneficiaries and women non-beneficiaries in terms of having total professional and financial independence. Figure 6. Table 25. Non-Beneficiary Beneficiary Total Women have Same Opportunities No  Modestly agree N 135 185 320 % 64.90 62.50 63.49 Strongly agree N 73 111 184 % 35.10 37.50 36.51 Total N 208 296 504 % 41.27 58.73 100.00 p = 0.582 Women Should have Same Opportunities No  Modestly agree N 111 145 256 % 53.37 48.99 50.79 Strongly agree N 97 151 248 % 46.63 51.01 49.21 Total N 208 296 504 % 41.27 58.73 100.00 p = 0.334 (Women Only) Report Total Control Over Professional Decisions No  Modestly Agree N 78 132 210 % 70.91 69.11 69.77 35.1 46.6 29.1 31.8 37.5 51 30.8 28 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Strongly Believe Women have Same Opportunities Strongly Believe Women SHOULD have Same Opportunities Women Only: Can Make Own Professional Decisions Women Only: Can Make Own Financial Decisions Program Effects on Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Non-Beneficiaries Beneficiaries - 63 - Non-Beneficiary Beneficiary Total Strongly Agree N 32 59 91 % 29.09 30.89 30.23 Total N 110 191 301 % 36.54 63.46 100.00 p = 0.745 (Women Only) Report Total Control Over Financial Decisions No  Modestly Agree N 75 139 214 % 68.18 72.77 71.10 Strongly Agree N 35 52 87 % 31.82 27.23 28.90 Total N 110 191 301 % 36.54 63.46 100.00 p = 0.339 We also explored respondents’ attitudes about migrating and their knowledge of the process. As the results below suggest, the impact on beneficiaries so far has been minimal. However, a positive aspect worth underscoring is that program beneficiaries appear to be somewhat more knowledgeable about the steps required to officially migrate (44.3 percent vs. 38.9 percent, p = 0.19). Those details are also presented in Table 26; a larger sample size would likely result in a statistically significant finding. This constitutes a positive development in the sense that, if Cambodians do choose to migrate, avoiding irregular, informal, and unsafe paths to migration will cut down on the likelihood of exploitation. We do not find significant differences to this point in the share of beneficiaries versus non-beneficiaries who want to migrate (17.2 percent vs. 16.3 percent, p=0.596) or who view migration as a lifestyle choice rather than an obligation (77.4 percent vs. 74.5 percent, p=0.461). Figure 7. Table 26. Know Steps for Safe Migration Non-Beneficiary Beneficiary Total No N 127 165 292 % 61.06 55.74 57.94 Yes N 81 131 212 (somewhat, well, very well) % 38.94 44.26 42.06 Total N 208 296 504 % 41.27 58.73 100.00 p = 0.23 16.3 38.9 74.5 17.2 44.3 77.4 0 20 40 60 80 100 Somewhat to Very Interested in Migrating in Next Two Years Know the Steps to Properly Migrate View Migration as Lifestyle Improvement Rather than Obligation Program Effects on Views of Migration Non-Beneficiary Beneficiary - 64 - 6. Experimental Findings In addition to generating descriptive statistics and testing correlations both with respect to beneficiary status and other key factors, we included three survey experimental questions. These questions included two versions, randomly assigning participants to receive different information that informed their responses. The results, which are pooled across all beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in the sample, provide some key insights that may be useful for programming. First, we randomly assigned different salaries in Thailand as an alternative to making $100 per month in Cambodia: version A was given the option of earning $200 per month in Thailand, and version B was given the option of earning $300 per month in Thailand. The results suggest that, for $100 more per month, the share of respondents willing to move to Thailand more than doubled, from 9.7% to 21.9% (p=.0002). See Figure 8 and Table 27 for details. Figure 8. Table 27. Prefer to Leave for Thailand? Earn $200/month in Thailand (vs. $100 in Cambodia) Earn $300/month in Thailand (vs. $100 in Cambodia) Total No N 232 193 425 % 90.27 78.14 84.33 Yes N 25 54 79 % 9.73 21.86 15.67 Total N 257 247 504 % 50.99 49.01 100.00 p = 0.0002. Second, we randomly assigned respondents to receive different information about migration risks, and then asked whether they believe having a household member migrate for work is generally good. The control group received no information about risks. The treatment group was informed that 700,000 migrant workers are exploited every year.92 Those who received the additional information about the 92 See United Nations International Migrant Report 2017. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2017_Highligh ts.pdf. 9.7 21.9 0 10 20 30 40 Make $200/month in Thailand Make $300/month inThailand "If you made $100/month in Cambodia, would you move to Thailand if you could..." - 65 - risks of exploitation were almost four times less likely to support a household member’s migration (38.5 percent vs. 10.9 percent, p=.000). See Figure 9 and Table 28 for details. Figure 9. Table 28. Think It Good for Member to Migrate Control Added Info about Risk Total No N 158 220 378 % 61.48 89.07 75.00 Yes N 99 27 126 % 38.52 10.93 25.00 Total N 257 247 504 % 50.99 49.01 100.00 p = 0.0000. Third and finally, we randomly assigned respondents to receive different levels of information regarding the risk of migration to women in particular. The control group was told only that approximately half of migrants are women. The treatment group received the additional information that women are three times more likely than men to face violence and exploitation during migration.93 Exposure to additional information about risks to women reduced the share of those supporting female migration by more than half (26 percent vs. 12.3 percent, p=.0001), as illustrated in Figure 10 and detailed in Table 29. 93 United Nations International Migrant Report 2017. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2017_Highligh ts.pdf. 38.5 10.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Basic question With additional info: "Research shows that 700,000 migrant workers are exploited every year." "Do you think it's good for households to have a member migrate for work?" - 66 - Figure 10. Table 29. Think It Is Safe for Women to Migrate Control Added Info Risk to Women Total No N 188 215 403 % 74.02 87.76 80.76 Yes N 66 30 96 % 25.98 12.25 19.24 Total N 254 246 499 % 50.90 49.10 100.00 p = 0.0001. The results shed light on the effects that increased information may have on Cambodians’ incentives to migrate. Coupled with program objectives to provide improved alternatives at home and to avoid the economic incentive to migrate, these findings suggest that potential migrants may reconsider their options when armed with more information about the risks as well as the potential rewards. Table 30. Expected Socioeconomic Status In 2 Years Female Male Total Worse Off N 33 20 53 % 10.96 9.85 10.52 About the Same N 132 75 207 % 43.85 36.95 41.07 Better Off N 136 108 244 % 45.18 53.20 48.41 Total N 301 203 504 & 59.72 40.28 100.00 Men are more likely to expect to be better off in two years compared to women, 53.2 percent versus 45.2 percent. Table 31. Expected Socioeconomic Status In 2 Years Age 18-25 Age 26-40 Over 40 Total Worse Off N 6 13 34 53 % 7.69 6.77 14.53 10.52 About the Same N 26 76 105 207 % 33.33 39.58 44.87 41.07 26 12.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 Basic Question With additional info: "Women are 3 times more likely than men to face violence and exploitation during migration." "Approximately half of all migrants are women. Do you believe it is safe and appropriate for women to migrate for work?" - 67 - Better Off N 46 103 95 244 % 58.97 53.65 40.60 48.41 Total N 78 192 234 504 % 15.48 38.10 46.43 100.00 Younger people are more likely to feel optimistic about their socioeconomic prospects compared to older people: 59 percent of those 18-25, compared to just 40.6 percent of those over 40, expect to be better off in two years. Part of this may be explained by the student population, but this only accounts for about four percent of respondents. Table 32. Socioeconomic Status in Two Years BMC Siem Reap Kampong Thom Svay Rieng Phnom Penh Total Worse Off N 11 17 15 7 3 53 % 22.00 13.49 15.00 8.97 2.00 10.52 About the Same N 20 64 38 25 60 207 % 40.00 50.79 38.00 32.05 40.00 41.07 Better Off N 19 45 47 46 87 244 % 38.00 35.71 47.00 58.97 58.00 48.41 Total N 50 126 100 78 150 504 % 9.92 25.00 19.84 15.48 29.76 100.00 People in Phnom Penh are far less likely to expect to be worse off, and, along with those in Svay Rieng, are more likely to expect to be better off. Those in BMC are relatively pessimistic. Table 33. Expected Socioeconomic Status In 2 Years Non-Beneficiary Beneficiary Total Worse Off N 23 30 53 % 11.06 10.14 10.52 About the Same N 89 118 207 % 42.79 39.86 41.07 Better Off N 96 148 244 % 46.15 50.00 48.41 Total N 208 296 504 % 41.27 58.73 100.00 The difference is modest and not statistically significant (p=.44), but beneficiaries appear to be slightly more optimistic about their socioeconomic futures. Savings and Interest in Migrating The data indicates no statistical relationship between monthly savings and interest in migrating, in a general sense. However, the linear analysis masks a pattern in which those who have no savings are significantly more likely to show interest in migrating (though still at fairly low levels) compared to those with modest savings of $1-100 (13.6% vs. 8.9%). Interest in migrating increases again amongst those with monthly savings of $100 or more, likely because this category includes the entrepreneurial class and those with more international ambitions. - 68 - Table 34. Interest in Migrating No Monthly Savings Monthly Savings $1-99 Monthly Savings $100+ Total Little to No Interest N 146 245 58 449 % 86.39 91.08 87.88 89.09 Moderate to Strong Interest N 23 24 8 55 % 13.61 8.92 12.12 10.91 Total N 169 269 66 504 % 33.53 53.37 13.10 100.00 P = 0.410 Member of a Savings Group (SG) and Interest in Migrating Membership in a savings group includes those who are beneficiaries of either the Samaritan’s Purse savings group, the CEDAC savings group, or the CCPCR savings group. The data indicate that those who take part in the savings groups appear slightly less likely to express an interest in migrating (9% vs. 11.9%), though the outcome does not reach conventional levels of statistical significance due to the relatively small sample size. Table 35. Interest in Migrating Not Member of SG Member of SG Total Little to No Interest N 288 161 449 % 88.07 90.96 89.09 Moderate to Strong Interest N 39 16 55 % 11.93 9.04 10.91 Total N 327 177 504 % 64.88 35.12 100.00 P =0.332 In addition, we explored the relationship between those who are members of savings groups and who also report having sufficient income to somewhat, mostly, or fully covering household expenses and the likelihood of expressing an interest in migrating. Here, the data do not provide support for the prospect that those who are in savings groups and have sufficient income are either more or less likely to want to migrate (10.1% vs. 11.0%, p=0.807). Table 36. Interest in Migrating Not SG Member with Sufficient Income SG Member with Sufficient Income Total Little to No Interest N 378 71 449 % 88.94 89.87 89.09 Moderate to Strong Interest N 47 8 55 % 11.06 10.13 10.91 Total N 425 79 504 % 84.33 15.67 100.00 P =0.807 Member of an Agricultural Cooperative (AC) and Interest in Migrating Similarly, we evaluated the relationship between participation in one of the agricultural programs— Samaritan’s Purse, CEDAC, or CCPCR—and interest in migrating. Members of agricultural cooperatives appear modestly less likely to show an interest in migrating compared to those who are not beneficiaries of the agricultural cooperatives (8.0% vs. 11.2%), though the relationship is not statistically significant, again likely as a result of the relatively small sample size. - 69 - Table 37. Interest in Migrating Not AC Member AC Member Total Little to No Interest N 403 46 449 % 88.77 92.00 89.09 Moderate to Strong Interest N 51 4 55 % 11.23 8.00 10.91 Total N 454 50 504 % 90.08 9.92 100.00 P =0.487 Among those who are members of an agricultural cooperative and who also report being somewhat, mostly, or fully capable of covering household expenses, we find no particular pattern in migration interest compared to their counterparts (12.5% vs. 10.9%, p=0.798). Table 38. Interest in Migrating Not AC Member with Sufficient Income AC Member with Sufficient Income Total Little to No Interest N 428 21 449 % 89.17 87.50 89.09 Moderate to Strong Interest N 52 3 55 % 10.83 12.50 10.91 Total N 480 24 504 % 95.24 4.76 100.00 P =0.798 Small Grant Access and Interest in Migrating Finally, we explored the relationship between those who are beneficiaries of one of the small grant activities—from either Samaritan’s Purse, CEDAC, or CCPRC—and interest in migrating. Here, we find rather strong evidence that having access to the small grants significantly reduces interest in migrating: just 2.4% of these beneficiaries, compared to 11.7% of those who do not receive the small grants, show a moderate to strong interest in migrating. The results are in the conventional range of statistical significance for a sample of the size analyzed for this study (p=0.064). Table 39. Interest in Migrating Not Member of a Small Grants Group Member of a Small Grants Group Total Little to No Interest N 408 41 449 % 88.31 97.62 89.09 Moderate to Strong Interest N 54 1 55 % 11.69 2.38 10.91 Total N 462 42 504 % 91.67 8.33 100.00 P =0.064 Concerning the correlation between those who both participate in the small grants activities and also have sufficient income to cover household expenses and their interest in migrating, none of the beneficiaries with sufficient income expressed a moderate to strong interest in migrating. We can say little about this group beyond the above results regarding participation in the small grants, because the number of respondents in this category is too small (n = 10). - 70 - Table 40. Interest in Migrating Not Member Small Grants Group with Sufficient Income Member of a Small Grants Group with Sufficient Income Total Little to No Interest N 439 10 449 % 88.87 100.00 89.09 Moderate to Strong Interest N 55 0 55 % 11.13 0.00 10.91 Total N 494 10 504 % 98.02 1.98 100.00 P =0.264 - 71 - ANNEX XI: KEY FGD COMMENTS ON CTIP AND MIGRATION FGD 1: KAMPONG THOM: 12 WOMEN Woman C Before, my children migrate to work very far away from home for longer period of time, 5 years, now they still migrate, but in a closer distance with a shorter period of time, few months, ... in Phnom Penh. Woman D My other daughter is working in Phnom Penh as a factory worker. Woman E Before, I used to migrate to Phnom Penh to work as a garment worker for more than 10 years. Now … I stop thinking about migration. Woman F I stopped. FGD 1: KAMPONG THOM: 8 MEN Man A They returned a lot. But almost all people who migrate have passport. So, they go on a safe migration procedure. They mostly go to Thailand while not many people are going to Malaysia. Man B I used to migrate to work as a construction worker in Thailand as well as other provinces in Cambodia … I stopped migrating because it is very hard. I had to leave my home to work so I cannot look after my children. So, we did not have a good relationship among my wife and children. Man D Before, they would go to Phnom Penh to find jobs. They never stayed in the village for the last two years. But I never go far away like them. Man E [His wife worked in Malaysia for 10 years] Now, she comes back and works in Phnom Penh in the factory. Man F Well, for the last few years, there is not much migration. I worked in Phnom Penh. Now, I stopped … I am raising chickens and farming. Man I I have quitted [migrating] for two years already. Now, I borrow money to rent the farm land every year. FGD 2: SIEM REAP: 17 WOMEN Woman F My son is working in Thailand as a construction worker … He has proper passport and documents to migrate. Men mostly go to work in Siem Reap city and come back in the evening. All They go to Phnom Penh, Battambang, Thailand. FGD 2: SIEM REAP: 3 MEN Man A They mostly go to the city, Phnom Penh and Battambang. Few people go to Thailand … only two families … My son used to go there as well … then, he came back and stopped going there. Man B If they migrate, we only help Thai to prosper. So, if we stay here, they can have a proper job and help our country prosper. Man C We have to discuss among our family. If we don’t agree, then they are not allowed to go. All They all go to the city to do construction work. They will come back in the evening. FGD 4: SVAY RIENG: 7 WOMEN Woman A There are less … migrants because there are nearby factories. Some people return from Thailand to work there [in the factories]. Woman B Among 100 people, there are only 10 who still migrate now … Most of them migrate in the country [Cambodia] only. - 72 - FGD 4: SVAY RIENG: 5 MEN Man A No, we haven’t [migrated before]. Man C I just went to Sihanouk and Koh Kong [in Cambodia] to grow cassava … Since I joined the program, I have stopped migrating. Man D I used to go to Vietnam … Later on, I swear forever not to go there again. Man E I went to Phnom Penh to do construction work … now I work at [X} Casino next to the border. Man M Now there are many factories [near our village] - 73 - ANNEX XII: PEOPLE INTERVIEWED AND SITES VISITED ORGANIZATION PHNOM PENH USG Office of Democracy & Governance USAID/Cambodia USG Governance & Rule of Law USAID/Cambodia USG Civil Society/Human Rights Team USAID/Cambodia 10 Staff Implementing Partner Winrock International 2 Staff Sub-Partner Sovann Phoum 2 Staff Sub-Partner CCPCR 2 Staff Sub-Partner Open Institute (OI) 2 Staff Sub-Partner AYLA 1 Staff Sub-Partner CEDAC 1 Staff Royal Government of Cambodia NCCT 3 Staff Royal Government of Cambodia Ministry of Education, Youth & Sport (MOEYS) 1 Staff Royal Government of Cambodia Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MOSAVY) 2 Staff Royal Government of Cambodia Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MOWA) 1 Staff Partner (in connection with Migrant Resource Center, Poipet) IOM 1 Staff Partner ILO 1 Staff Partner UNACT 1 Staff In connection with TIP prevention Chab Dai Coalition 1 Staff Partner (in connection with SMART (Open Institute – Bong Pheak) Mekong Strategic Partners 1 Staff In connection with TIP prevention and protection Cambodian Women’s Crisis Center (CWCC) 1 Staff Beneficiary Coca Cola Ekocenter, Por Sen Chey District 1 Staff Partner (in connection with Bong Pheak) - Hospitality Sector Tipsy Seafood 1 Staff Partner (in connection with Bong Pheak) - Construction Sector Sunrise Construction Mr. Thonn Dane Partner (in connection with Bong Pheak) - Manufacturing Sector Sumi Wiring Systems Mr. Seng Rasmey Partner (in connection with Bong Pheak) - Service Sector Amret Microfinance 3 (1M, 2W) 21-22 years (Average age: 21 years) FGD: Beneficiaries AYLA – Soft Skills KAMPONG THOM 4 Members Commune Council San Kor Commune Council (CC) 1 Member Village Balang Village, San Kor Commune 2 Staff Sub-Partner, Kampong Thom & Siem Reap CEDAC 12 Women 34-66 years (Average age: 48 years) FGD: Beneficiaries Balang Village, San Kor Commune (CEDAC) - 74 - ORGANIZATION 8 Men 28-39 years (Average age: 36 years) FGD: Beneficiaries Balang Village, San Kor Commune (CEDAC) 2 Members Beneficiaries Balang Village, San Kor Commune (CEDAC) SIEM REAP 3 Staff Commune Council Svay Chek Commune Council 1 Member Village Kondaon Village, Svay Chek Commune 1 Staff Sub-Partner CEDAC 17 Women 11-68 years (Average age: 46 years) FGD: Beneficiaries Kondaon Village, Svay Chek (CEDAC) 3 Men 43-60 years (Average age: 50 years) FGD: Beneficiaries Kondaon Village, Svay Chek (CEDAC) 1 Member Beneficiary Kondaon Village, Svay Chek (CEDAC) 1 Member Beneficiary Ploung Village, Leangdai Commune (AYLA) 1 Staff PCCT Law Enforcement Working Group Provincial Police HQ, Anti￾Trafficking Office BANTEAY MEANCHEY 1 Staff PCCT BMC Provincial Govt., Anti￾Trafficking Office 1 Staff BMC Provincial Government Poipet Transit Center Observation IOM Migrant Resource Center, Thai Border IOM, Poipet 2 Staff Migrant Resource Center IOM, Poipet 1 Staff Migrant Resource Center Open Institute, Poipet 2 Staff NGO Cambodian Hope Organization (CHO) SVAY RIENG 2 Staff Sub-Partner CCPCR 1 Staff PCCT Protection & Integration Working Group Provincial Department of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation 1 Staff Royal Government of Cambodia Provincial Department of Rural Development 7 Women 27-55 years (Average age: 37 years) FGD: Beneficiaries Tang Moa Village, Chantrea Commune, (CCPCR) 5 Men 25-63 years (Average age: 43 years) FGD: Beneficiaries Tang Moa Village, Chantrea Commune, (CCPCR) 1 Member Commune Council Thnoat Commune, Kampong Ro District 1 Member Village Kondol Village, Thnoat Commune, KR District 2 Staff Royal Government of Cambodia National Employment Agency (NEA) - 75 - U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523